the new york state

July 15, 2008

District

This District’s Report Card

The New York State District Report Card is an important part of

the Board of Regents effort to raise learning standards for all students.

It provides information to the public on the district’s status and

the status of schools within the district under the State and federal

accountability systems, on student performance, and on other

measures of school and district performance. Knowledge gained

from the report card on a school district’s strengths and weaknesses

can be used to improve instruction and services to students.

State assessments are designed to help ensure that all

students reach high learning standards. They show whether

students are getting the knowledge and skills they need

to succeed at the elementary, middle, and commencement

levels and beyond. The State requires that students who are not

making appropriate progress toward the standards receive

academic intervention services.

Use this report to: 1 Get District

Profile information. This section shows comprehensive

data relevant to this district’s learning environment.

2 Review District Accountability Status.

This section indicates whether a district made adequate yearly progress (AYP) and identifies districts in need of improvement and subject to interventions under the federal No Child Left Behind Act as well as districts requiring academic progress and subject to interventions under Commissioner’s Regulations.

3 View School Accountability Status.

This section lists all schools in your district by 2007–08 accountability status.

4 Review an Overview of District Performance.

This section has information about the district’s performance on state assessments in English, mathematics, and science, and on high school graduation rate.

For more information:Office of Information and Reporting Services New York State Education Department Room 863 EBA Albany, NY 12234 Email: [email protected]

The New York State District Report CardAccountability and Overview Report 2006 – 07

BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTDistrict ID 14-06-00-01-0000Superintendent JAMES WILLIAMSTelephone (716) 816-3575Grades PK-12, UE, US

July 15, 2008

District Profile1

Average Class Size InformationAverage Class Size is the total registration in specified classes divided by the number of those classes with registration. Common Branch refers to self-contained classes in Grades 1–6.

Enrollment InformationEnrollment counts are as of Basic Educational Data System (BEDS) day, which is typically the first Wednesday of October of the school year. Students who attend BOCES programs on a part-time basis are included in a district’s enrollment. Students who attend BOCES on a full-time basis or who are placed full time by the district in an out-of-district placement are not included in a district’s enrollment. Students classified by districts as “pre-first” are included in first grade counts.

District Profile

This section shows comprehensive data relevant to this school district’s learning environment, including information about enrollment, average class size, and teacher qualifications.

Enrollment

Pre-K

Kindergarten

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Ungraded Elementary

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

Ungraded Secondary

Total K–12

Average Class Size

Common Branch

Grade 8

English

Mathematics

Science

Social Studies

Grade 10

English

Mathematics

Science

Social Studies

District BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT District ID 14-06-00-01-0000

2004–05 2005–06 2006–07

1913

2609

2666

2516

2482

2481

2751

2867

476

3184

3031

3924

3048

2423

2239

109

36806

1807

2516

2621

2473

2344

2371

2415

2619

410

2971

4379

1870

3067

2560

2164

119

34899

1951

2621

2674

2563

2331

2307

2450

2440

471

3172

2582

3339

2544

2641

2284

170

34589

2004–05 2005–06 2006–07

23

23

21

22

23

25

23

27

27

22

22

22

23

22

26

25

26

26

23

22

21

22

22

24

25

25

26

July 15, 2008

District Profile1

Attendance and Suspensions InformationAnnual Attendance Rate is determined by dividing the school district’s total actual attendance by the total possible attendance for a school year. A district’s actual attendance is the sum of the number of students in attendance on each day the district’s schools were open during the school year. Possible attendance is the sum of the number of enrolled students who should have been in attendance on each day schools were open during the school year. Student Suspension rate is determined by dividing the number of students who were suspended from school (not including in-school suspensions) for one full day or longer anytime during the school year by the Basic Educational Data System (BEDS) day enrollments for that school year. A student is counted only once, regardless of whether the student was suspended one or more times during the school year.

Demographic Factors InformationEligible for Free Lunch and Reduced-Price Lunch percentages are determined by dividing the number of approved lunch applicants by the Basic Educational Data System (BEDS) enrollment in full-day Kindergarten through Grade 12. Eligible for Free Lunch and Limited English Proficient counts are used to determine Similar Schools groupings within a Need/Resource Capacity category.

Demographic Factors

# % # % # %

Eligible for Free Lunch

Reduced-Price Lunch

Student Stability*

Limited English Proficient

Racial/Ethnic Origin

American Indian or Alaska Native

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Asian or Native

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

White

Multiracial**

* Not available at the district level.** Multiracial enrollment data were not collected statewide in the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years.

Attendance and Suspensions

# % # % # %

Annual Attendance Rate

Student Suspensions


2004–05 2005–06 2006–07

24703

3579

2635

558

21206

5017

465

9560

N/A

67%

10%

N/A

7%

2%

58%

14%

1%

26%

N/A

23399

3347

2494

514

20044

4913

482

8946

N/A

67%

10%

N/A

7%

1%

57%

14%

1%

26%

N/A

24218

2805

2398

532

19860

4933

506

8721

37

70%

8%

N/A

7%

2%

57%

14%

1%

25%

0%

2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

5482

91%

14% 5832

90%

16% 9511

89%

27%

July 15, 2008

Teacher Qualifications

Total Number of Teachers

Percent with No Valid Teaching Certificate

Percent Teaching Out of Certification

Percent with Fewer Than Three Years of Experience

Percentage with Master’s Degree Plus 30 Hours or Doctorate

Total Number of Core Classes*

Percent Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

Total Number of Classes

Percent Taught by Teachers Without Appropriate Certification

* Data for 2004–05 were not weighted, so are not shown.

Teacher Turnover Rate

Turnover Rate of Teachers with Fewer than Five Years of Experience

Turnover Rate of All Teachers

Staff Counts

Total Other Professional Staff

Total Paraprofessionals*

Assistant Principals

Principals

* Not available at the school level.

Staff Counts InformationOther Professionals includes administrators, guidance counselors, school nurses, psychologists, and other professionals who devote more than half of their time to non-teaching duties. Teachers who are shared between buildings within a district are reported on the district report only.

Teacher Qualifications InformationThe Percent Teaching Out of Certification is the percent doing so more than on an incidental basis; that is, the percent teaching for more than five periods per week outside certification.

Core Classes are primarily K-6 common branch, English, mathematics, science, social studies, art, music, and foreign languages. The number of K-6 common branch core classes is multiplied by five so that these core class counts are weighted the same as counts for middle- and secondary-level teachers who report five classes per day. To be Highly Qualified, a teacher must have at least a Bachelor’s degree, be certified to teach in the subject area, and show subject matter competency.

Teacher Turnover Rate InformationTeacher Turnover Rate for a specified school year is the number of teachers in that school year that were not teaching in the following school year divided by the number of teachers in the specified school year, expressed as a percentage.

District Profile1District BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT District ID 14-06-00-01-0000

2004–05 2005–06 2006–07

2998

1%

5%

7%

28%

N/A

N/A

8669

7%

2882

1%

3%

5%

30%

9091

3%

8288

5%

2811

2%

4%

6%

30%

6520

5%

8648

6%

2003–04 2004–05 2005–0627%

27%

28%

21%

34%

22%

2004–05 2005–06 2006–07

406

910

103

63

374

912

57

58

326

887

59

60

July 15, 2008

District Accountability2

Understanding How Accountability Works in New York StateThe federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires that states develop and report on measures of student proficiency in 1) English language arts (ELA), in 2) mathematics, and on 3) a third indicator. In New York State in 2006–07, the third indicator is science at the elementary/middle level and graduation rate at the secondary level. Schools or districts that meet predefined goals on these measures are making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

For more information about accountability in New York State, visit: www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/accountability/home.shtml.

1 English Language Arts (ELA)

To make AYP in ELA, every accountability group must make AYP. For a group to make AYP, it must meet the participation and the performance criteria.

englishlanguage arts

mathematics third indicator

Secondary-Level Graduation Rate: For a school to make AYP in graduation rate, the percent of students in the 2002 graduation-rate cohort in the All Students group earning a high school diploma by August 31, 2006 must equal or exceed the Graduation-Rate Standard (55%) or the Graduation-Rate Progress Target.

Qualifying for Safe Harbor in Secondary-Level ELA and Math: To qualify, the percent of the 2002 graduation-rate cohort earning a local diploma by August 31, 2006 must equal or exceed the Graduation-Rate Standard (55%) or the Graduation-Rate Progress Target for that group.

A Participation Criterion At the elementary/middle level, 95 percent of Grades 3–8 students enrolled during the test administration period in each group with 40 or more students must be tested on the New York State Testing Program (NYSTP) in ELA or, if appropriate, the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT), or the New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA) in ELA. At the secondary level, 95 percent of seniors in 2006–07 in each accountability group with 40 or more students must have taken an English examination that meets the students’ graduation requirement.

B Performance Criterion

At the elementary/middle level, the Performance Index (PI) of each group with 30 or more continuously enrolled tested students must equal or exceed its Effective Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) or the group must make Safe Harbor. (NYSESLAT is used only for participation.) At the secondary level, the PI of each group in the 2003 cohort with 30 or more members must equal or exceed its Effective AMO or the group must make Safe Harbor. To make Safe Harbor, the PI of the group must equal or exceed its Safe Harbor Target and the group must qualify for Safe Harbor using the third indicator, science or graduation rate.

2 Mathematics

The same criteria for making AYP in ELA apply to mathematics. At the elementary/middle level, the measures used to determine AYP are the NYSTP and the NYSAA in mathematics. At the secondary level, the measures are mathematics examinations that meet the students’ graduation requirement.

3 Third Indicator

In addition to English language arts and mathematics, the school must also make AYP in a third area of achievement. This means meeting the criteria in science at the elementary/middle level and the criteria in graduation rate at the secondary level.

Elementary/Middle-Level Science: To make AYP, the All Students group must meet the participation criterion and the performance criterion.

A Participation Criterion Eighty percent of students in Grades 4 and/or 8 enrolled during the test administration period in the All Students group, if it has 40 or more students, must be tested on an accountability measure. In Grade 4, the measures are the Grade 4 elementary-level science test and the Grade 4 NYSAA in science. In Grade 8 science, the measures are the Grade 8 middle-level science test, Regents science examinations, and the Grade 8 NYSAA in science.

B Performance Criterion The PI of the All Students group must equal or exceed the State Science Standard (100) or the Science Progress Target.

Qualifying for Safe Harbor in Elementary/Middle-Level ELA and Math: To qualify, the PI must equal or exceed the State Science Standard or the Science Progress Target in elementary/middle-level science for that group.


July 15, 2008


Useful Terms for Understanding AccountabilityAccountability Cohort for English and Mathematics The 2003 school accountability cohort consists of all students who first entered Grade 9 anywhere in the 2003–04 school year, and all ungraded students with disabilities who reached their seventeenth birthday in the 2003–04 school year, who were enrolled on October 4, 2006 and did not transfer to a diploma granting program. Students who earned a high school equivalency diploma or were enrolled in an approved high school equivalency preparation program on June 30, 2007, are not included in the 2003 school accountability cohort. The 2003 district accountability cohort consists of all students in each school accountability cohort plus students who transferred within the district after BEDS day plus students who were placed outside the district by the Committee on Special Education or district administrators and who met the other requirements for cohort membership. Cohort is defined in Section 100.2 (p) (16) of the Commissioner’s Regulations.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) indicates satisfactory progress by a district or a school toward the goal of proficiency for all students.

Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) The Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) is the Performance Index (PI) value that signifies that an accountability group is making satisfactory progress toward the goal that 100 percent of students will be proficient in the State’s learning standards for English language arts and mathematics by 2013–14. The AMO’s for each grade level will be increased as specified in CR100.2(p)(14) and will reach 200 in 2013–14. (See Effective AMO for further information.)

Continuously Enrolled Students At the elementary/middle level, continuously enrolled students are those enrolled in the school or district on BEDS day (usually the first Wednesday in October) of the school year until the test administration period. At the secondary level, all students who meet the criteria for inclusion in the accountability cohort are considered to be continuously enrolled.

Effective Annual Measurable Objective (Effective AMO) The Effective Annual Measurable Objective (Effective AMO) is the Performance Index (PI) value that each accountability group within a school or district is expected to achieve to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The Effective AMO is the lowest PI that an accountability group of a given size can achieve in a subject for the group’s PI not to be considered significantly different from the AMO for that subject. If an accountability group’s PI equals or exceeds the Effective AMO, it is considered to have made AYP. A more complete definition of Effective AMO and a table showing the PI values that each group size must equal or exceed to make AYP are available at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts.

Graduation-Rate Cohort This term is defined on the graduation-rate accountability page.

Performance Index (PI) Performance Index is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that group performed on a required State test (or approved alternative) in English language arts, mathematics, or science. Student scores on the tests are converted to four performance levels, from Level 1 to Level 4. (See performance level definitions on the Overview Summary page.) At the elementary/middle level, the PI is calculated using the following equation: 100 × [(Count of Continuously Enrolled Tested Students Performing at Levels 2, 3, and 4 + the Count at Levels 3 and 4) ÷ Count of All Continuously Enrolled Tested Students]

At the secondary level, the PI is calculated using the following equation: 100 × [(Count of Cohort Members Performing at Levels 2, 3, and 4 + the Count at Levels 3 and 4) ÷ Count of All Cohort Members]

A list of tests used to measure student performance for accountability is available at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts.

Progress Target For accountability groups below the State Standard in science or graduation rate, the Progress Target is an alternate method for making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) or qualifying for Safe Harbor in English language arts and mathematics based on improvement over the previous year’s performance.

Safe Harbor Safe Harbor provides an alternate means to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for accountability groups that do not achieve their Effective Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) in English or mathematics.

Safe Harbor Targets The 2006–07 safe harbor targets were calculated using the following equation: 2005–06 PI + (200 – the 2005–06 PI) × 0.10

Science Progress Target The elementary/middle-level 2006–07 Science Progress Target is calculated by adding one point to the 2005–06 PI. The 2007–08 Science Progress Target is calculated by adding one point to the 2006–07 PI. The 2006–07 target is provided for groups whose PI was below the State Science Standard in 2006–07.

Science Standard The criterion value that represents a minimally satisfactory performance in science. In 2006–07, the State Science Standard at the elementary/middle level is a Performance Index (PI) of 100. The Commissioner may raise the State Science Standard at his discretion in future years.


July 15, 2008


Understanding Your District Accountability StatusThe list below defines the district status categories applied to each accountability measure under New York State’s district accountability system, which is divided into a Federal Title I component and a State component. Accountability measures for districts are English language arts (ELA), mathematics, elementary/middle-level science, and graduation rate. A district may be assigned a different status for different accountability measures. The overall status of a district is the status assigned to the district for the accountability measure with the most advanced designation in the hierarchy. If the district receives Title I funds, it is the most advanced designation in the Title I hierarchy, unless the district is in good standing under Title I but identified as DRAP under the State hierarchy. A district that does not receive Title I funding in a school year does not have a federal status in that year; however, all districts receive a state status even if they do not receive Title I funding. Consequences for districts not in good standing can be found at: www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/school-accountability/about.shtml.

Federal Title I Status (Applies to all New York State districts receiving Title I funds)

New York State Status (Applies to New York State districts)

District in Good Standing A district is considered to be in good standing if it has not been identified as a District in Need of Improvement or a District Requiring Academic Progress.

District in Need of Improvement (Year 1) A district that has not made AYP for two consecutive years on the same accountability measure is considered a District in Need of Improvement (Year 1) for the following year, if it continues to receive Title I funds.

District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1) A district that has not made AYP on the same accountability measure for two consecutive years is considered a District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1) for the following year.

District in Need of Improvement (Year 2) A District in Need of Improvement (Year 1) that does not make AYP on the accountability measure for which it was identified is considered a District in Need of Improvement (Year 2) for the following year, if it continues to receive Title I funds.

District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2) A District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1) that does not make AYP on the accountability measure for which it was identified is considered a District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2) for the following year.





District in Need of Improvement (Year 5 and above) A District in Need of Improvement (Year 4 and above) that does not make AYP on the accountability measure for which it was identified is considered a District in Need of Improvement (Year 5 and above) for the following year, if it continues to receive Title I funds.

District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 5 and above) A District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 4 and above) that does not make AYP on the accountability measure for which it was identified is considered a District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 5 and above) for the following year.

Pending – A district’s status is “Pending” if the district requires special evaluation procedures and they have not yet been completed.


July 15, 2008


AYP Status

4 MadeAYP

✔SH MadeAYPUsingSafeHarborTarget

✘ DidNotMakeAYP

— InsufficientNumberofStudents toDetermineAYPStatus

Accountability Status Levels Federal State GoodStanding GoodStanding

Improvement(Year1) RequiringAcademicProgress(Year1)




Improvement(Year5&Above) RequiringAcademicProgress(Year5 &Above)

Pending–RequiresSpecialEvaluation

Title I Part A Funding Years the District Received Title I Part A Funding

Summary

Overall Accountability Status

ELA Science

Math GraduationRate

On which accountability measures did this district make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and which groups made AYP on each measure?

Elementary/Middle Level Secondary Level

Student GroupsEnglish

LanguageArts Mathematics Science

English

LanguageArts Mathematics GraduationRate

All Students

Ethnicity

AmericanIndianorAlaskaNative

BlackorAfricanAmerican

HispanicorLatino

AsianorNativeHawaiian/OtherPacificIslander

White

Multiracial Other Groups

StudentswithDisabilities

LimitedEnglishProficient

EconomicallyDisadvantaged

Student groups making AYP in each subject


(2007–08)Improvement (Year 6)

Improvement (Year 6) Good Standing

Improvement (Year 1) Good Standing

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08

YES YES YES

✔SH

✔✔SH

✖

✖

✔

✖

✖✔SH

✖

✔

✔✔

✔

✔

✔

✖

✖✔

✖

✔

✔

✖

✖✖

✖

✔

✖

✖

✖✖

✖

✖

✔✖

✖

✔

✖

✖

✖✖

✖

✔

✔5 of 9 7 of 9 1 of 1 1 of 9 2 of 9 1 of 1

July 15, 2008


notes1 These data show the count of students enrolled during the test administration period (used for Participation)

followed by the count of continuously enrolled tested students (used for Performance). For accountability calculations, students who were excused from testing for medical reasons are not included in the enrollment count.

2 Groups with fewer than 40 students enrolled during the test administration period are not required to meet the participation criterion. If the participation rate of a group fell below 95 percent in 2006–07, the enrollment shown is the sum of 2005–06 and 2006–07 enrollments and the percent tested is the weighted average of the participation rates over those two years.

3 For districts with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students in the All Students group in 2006–07, data for 2005–06 and 2006–07 were combined to determine counts and PIs. For districts with 30 or more continuously enrolled students in the All Students group in 2006–07, student groups with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students are not required to meet the performance criterion.

4 If the district failed to make AYP solely because of the performance of students with disabilities, met the 95% participation requirement for this group, and would meet or exceed the AMO for this subject if 34 points were added to the PI, then the district is considered to have made AYP for students with disabilities.

5 If the count of LEP students is equal to or greater than 30, former LEP students are also included in the performance calculations.

‡ This student group did not make AYP in science; therefore, it did not qualify for Safe Harbor.

AYP Status

4 Made AYP

✔SH Made AYP Using Safe Harbor Target

✘ Did Not Make AYP

— Insufficient Number of Students to Determine AYP Status

Accountability Status for This Subject

Accountability Measures

Prospective Status

How did students in each accountability group perform on

Student Group (Total: Continuous Enrollment)1

AYP Participation2 Test Performance3 Performance Objectives

StatusMet Criterion

Percentage Tested

Met Criterion

Performance Index

Effective AMO

Safe Harbor Target2006–07 2007–08

All Students

Ethnicity



Hispanic or Latino

Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

White

Multiracial

Other GroupsStudents with Disabilities4

Limited English Proficient5

Economically Disadvantaged

Final AYP Determination


Elementary/Middle-Level English Language Arts

(2007–08)

Improvement (Year 6)

5 of 9 Student groups making AYP in English Language Arts

✖ Did not make AYP

To be removed from improvement status in English Language Arts, this district must make AYP inthis measure at the elementary/middle or secondary level for two consecutive years. If this districtfails to make AYP at both the elementary/middle and secondary levels in 2007-08, the district willbe In Need of Improvement (Year 7) in 2008-09. If this district makes AYP at either theelementary/middle or secondary level in 2007-08, the district will remain In Need of Improvement(Year 6) in 2008-09. [210]

elementary/middle-level English Language Arts accountability measures?

✔SH

✔

✔SH

✖

✖

✔

✖

✖✔SH

✔

✔

✔

✖

✖

✔

✖

✖✔

95%

97%

96%

94%

94%

96%

93%

89%

96%

✔SH

✔

✔SH

✖

✔

✔

✔SH

✖✔SH

119

125

111

109

145

144

75

64

115

121

115

121

120

114

120

120

119

121

116

108

112

73

94

113

127

120

118

88

78

124

✖ 5 of 9

(16147:15047)

(266:247)

(9393:8820)

(5160:2224)

(494:215)

(3745:3541)

(0:0)

(9127:3862)

(2818:1085)

(13920:13043)

July 15, 2008





3 For districts with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students in the All Students group in 2006–07, data for 2005–06 and 2006–07 were combined to determine counts and PIs. For districts with 30 or more continuously enrolled students in the All Students group in 2006–07, student groups with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students are not required to meet the performance criterion.

4 If the district failed to make AYP solely because of the performance of students with disabilities, met the 95% participation requirement for this group, and would meet or exceed the AMO for this subject if 34 points were added to the PI, then the district is considered to have made AYP for students with disabilities.


‡ This student group did not make AYP in science; therefore, it did not qualify for Safe Harbor.

AYP Status

4 Made AYP






Prospective Status




StatusMet Criterion

Percentage Tested

Met Criterion

Performance Index

Effective AMO


All Students

Ethnicity



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Other GroupsStudents with Disabilities4





Elementary/Middle-Level Mathematics

(2007–08)


7 of 9 Student groups making AYP in Mathematics


To be removed from improvement status in Mathematics, this district must make AYP in thismeasure at the elementary/middle or secondary level for two consecutive years. If this district failsto make AYP at both the elementary/middle and secondary levels in 2007-08, the district will be InNeed of Improvement (Year 2) in 2008-09. If this district makes AYP at either theelementary/middle or secondary level in 2007-08, the district will remain In Need of Improvement(Year 1) in 2008-09. [206]

elementary/middle-level Mathematics accountability measures?

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✖

✖✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✖

✔✔

97%

98%

97%

96%

98%

97%

94%

97%

98%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔SH

✖✔

113

116

101

108

152

144

75

75

109

85

79

85

84

78

84

84

83

85

73

77

88

88

✖ 7 of 9

(16161:15042)

(265:245)

(9407:8789)

(2496:2270)

(254:214)

(3739:3524)

(0:0)

(9096:3832)

(1381:1212)

(13934:13047)

July 15, 2008


Elementary/Middle-Level ScienceAccountability Status for This Subject


Prospective Status

How did students in each accountability group perform on elementary/middle-level science accountability measures?



StatusSafe Harbor Qualification

Met Criterion

Percentage Tested

Met Criterion

Performance Index

State Standard

Progress Target

2006–07 2007–08

All Students

Ethnicity



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Other Groups

Students with Disabilities




AYP Status

4 Made AYP







3 Groups with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students are not required to meet the performance criterion. For districts with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students in 2006–07, data for 2005–06 and 2006–07 were combined to determine counts and performance indices.



(2007–08)

Good Standing

1 of 1 Student groups making AYP in Science

✔ Made AYP

This district will be in good standing in 2008-09. [201]

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

94%

95%

94%

94%

99%

94%

90%

94%

95%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

143

151

132

141

164

170

114

107

140

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Qualified

Qualified

Qualified

Qualified

Qualified

Qualified

Qualified

Qualified

Qualified

✔ 1 of 1

(5253:4735)

(79:71)

(3104:2803)

(755:663)

(79:67)

(1236:1131)

(0:0)

(1320:1132)

(390:313)

(4474:4036)

July 15, 2008




Prospective Status


Student Group (12th Graders: 2003 Cohort)1


StatusMet Criterion

Percentage Tested

Met Criterion

Performance Index

Effective AMO


All Students

Ethnicity



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Other GroupsStudents with Disabilities




AYP Status

4 Made AYP




notes1 These data show the count of 12th graders in 2006–07 (used for Participation) followed by the count of students

in the 2003 cohort (used for Performance).2 Groups with fewer than 40 students in the 12th grade are not required to meet the participation criterion.

If the participation rate of a group fell below 95 percent in 2006–07, the enrollment shown is the sum of 2005–06 and 2006–07 Grade 12 enrollments and the percent tested is the weighted average of the participation rates over those two years.

3 For districts with fewer than 30 students in the 2003 cohort, data for 2002 and 2003 cohort members were combined to determine counts and PIs. For districts with 30 or more students in the 2003 cohort in the All Students group, groups with fewer than 30 students in the 2003 cohort are not required to meet the performance criterion.


‡ This student group did not make AYP in graduation rate; therefore, it did not qualify for Safe Harbor.


Secondary-Level English Language Arts

(2007–08)


1 of 9 Student groups making AYP in English Language Arts


To be removed from improvement status in English Language Arts, this district must make AYP inthis measure at the elementary/middle or secondary level for two consecutive years. If this districtfails to make AYP at both the elementary/middle and secondary levels in 2007-08, the district willbe In Need of Improvement (Year 7) in 2008-09. If this district makes AYP at either theelementary/middle or secondary level in 2007-08, the district will remain In Need of Improvement(Year 6) in 2008-09. [210]

secondary-level English Language Arts accountability measures?

✖

✖

✖

✖

✔

✖

✖

✖✖

✖

–

✖

✖

–

✖

✖

–

✔

91%

–

92%

90%

–

89%

66%

–

97%

✖

✖

✖

✖

✔

✔

✖

✖✖

143

131

135

127

169

163

61

74

141

157

144

156

152

143

155

153

149

156

148

140

142

145

84

90‡

147

149

138

142

134

75

87

147

✖ 1 of 9

(3746:2374)

(26:42)

(1940:1322)

(375:245)

(28:35)

(1332:730)

(0:0)

(545:343)

(33:90)

(930:1580)

July 15, 2008




Prospective Status


Student Group (12th Graders: 2003 Cohort)1


StatusMet Criterion

Percentage Tested

Met Criterion

Performance Index

Effective AMO


All Students

Ethnicity



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Other GroupsStudents with Disabilities




AYP Status

4 Made AYP




notes1 These data show the count of 12th graders in 2006–07 (used for Participation) followed by the count of students

in the 2003 cohort (used for Performance).2 Groups with fewer than 40 students in the 12th grade are not required to meet the participation criterion.

If the participation rate of a group fell below 95 percent in 2006–07, the enrollment shown is the sum of 2005–06 and 2006–07 Grade 12 enrollments and the percent tested is the weighted average of the participation rates over those two years.

3 For districts with fewer than 30 students in the 2003 cohort, data for 2002 and 2003 cohort members were combined to determine counts and PIs. For districts with 30 or more students in the 2003 cohort in the All Students group, groups with fewer than 30 students in the 2003 cohort are not required to meet the performance criterion.


‡ This student group did not make AYP in graduation rate; therefore, it did not qualify for Safe Harbor.


Secondary-Level Mathematics

(2007–08)


2 of 9 Student groups making AYP in Mathematics


To be removed from improvement status in Mathematics, this district must make AYP in thismeasure at the elementary/middle or secondary level for two consecutive years. If this district failsto make AYP at both the elementary/middle and secondary levels in 2007-08, the district will be InNeed of Improvement (Year 2) in 2008-09. If this district makes AYP at either theelementary/middle or secondary level in 2007-08, the district will remain In Need of Improvement(Year 1) in 2008-09. [206]

secondary-level Mathematics accountability measures?

✖

✔

✖

✖

✔

✖

✖

✖✖

✖

–

✖

✖

–

✖

✖

–

✔

93%

–

94%

90%

–

92%

69%

–

97%

✖

✔

✖

✖

✔

✔

✖

✖✖

134

148

125

122

171

154

62

80

129

150

137

149

145

136

148

146

142

149

146

138

142

81

113‡

144

141

133

130

76

92

136

✖ 2 of 9

(3746:2374)

(26:42)

(1940:1322)

(375:245)

(28:35)

(1332:730)

(0:0)

(545:343)

(33:90)

(930:1580)

July 15, 2008

Graduation Rate InformationFor a school or a district to make AYP in graduation rate, the percentage of 2002 graduation-rate cohort members earning a local or Regents diploma by August 31, 2006 for the “All Students” group must equal or exceed the Graduation-Rate Standard or the Graduation-Rate Progress Target for 2006–07.

The Graduation Rate Standard is the criterion value that represents a minimally satisfactory percentage of cohort members earning a local diploma. The State Graduation-Rate Standard for the 2002 cohort is 55 percent. The Commissioner may raise the Graduation-Rate Standard at his discretion in future years.

The 2006–07 Graduation-Rate Progress Target is calculated by adding one point to the percentage of the 2001 cohort earning a local or Regents diploma by August 31, 2005. The 2007–08 Graduation-Rate Progress Target is calculated by adding one point to the percentage of the 2002 cohort earning a local or Regents diploma by August 31, 2006. This target is provided for each group whose percentage earning a local or Regents diploma by August 31, 2006 is below the Graduation-Rate Standard in 2006–07 (55%). Groups with fewer than 30 cohort members are not subject to this criterion.


How did students in each accountability group perform on graduation rate accountability measures?

Student Group (Cohort Count)1

Graduation Objectives

AYPMet Criterion

Graduation Rate2

State Standard

Progress Target

2006–07 2007–08

All Students

Ethnicity



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Other Groups





notes1 Graduation-rate cohort for each year includes all students in the accountability cohort

in the previous year plus all students excluded from that accountability cohort solely because they transferred to a high school equivalency preparation program, approved under Commissioner’s Regulations 100.7.

2 Percentage of the 2002 cohort that earned a local or Regents diploma by August 31, 2006.3 If the count of LEP students is equal to or greater than 30, former LEP students are also included

in the performance calculations.

Graduation RateAccountability Status for This Indicator


Prospective Status


(2007–08)

Good Standing

1 of 1 Student groups making AYP in Graduation Rate

✔ Made AYP

This district will be in good standing in 2008-09. [201]

✔ ✔

–

✔

✔

–

✔

✔

✖

✔

65%

–

61%

57%

–

73%

29%

38%

63%

55%

–

55%

55%

–

55%

55%

55%

55%

25%

45%

30%

39%

(2273)

(29)

(1233)

(238)

(18)

(755)

(0)

(456)

(65)

(1704)

✔ 1 of 1

July 15, 2008

School Accountability Status3

2007–08 Accountability Status of Schools in Your DistrictThis section lists all schools in your district by 2007–08 accountability status.


Federal Title I Status New York State Status

Good Standing

15 schools identified 25% of total

BILINGUAL EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER

D'YOUVILLE-PORTER CAMPUS

DR GEORGE BLACKMAN ECC

DR LYDIA T WRIGHT SCH OF EXCELLENCE

FREDERICK OLMSTEAD #56

FREDERICK OLMSTEAD #64

HARVEY AUSTIN SCHOOL #97

HIGHGATE HEIGHTS

MONTESSORI AT #78

PS 27 HILLERY PARK ACADEMY

PS 65 ROOSEVELT ACADEMY

PS 66 NORTH PARK ACADEMY

PS 69 HOUGHTON ACADEMY

PS 81

THE MATH SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY PREPARATORY SCHOOL AT

SENECA

Good Standing


CITY HONORS SCHOOL AT FOSDICK MASTEN PARK

DISCOVERY SCHOOL

EMERSON SCHOOL OF HOSPITALITY

HUTCHINSON CENTRAL TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL

LEONARDO DA VINCI HIGH SCHOOL

PS 42 OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING CENTER

THE ACADEMY SCHOOL #131



MONTESSORI SCHOOL

PS 17

PS 82

Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1)


EAST HIGH SCHOOL

MCKINLEY VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

PS 84



DR ANTONIA PANTOJA COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF ACADEMIC

EXCELLENCE

WATERFRONT SCHOOL

Corrective Action


BILINGUAL CENTER

BUFFALO ACADEMY FOR THE VISUAL & PERFORMING ARTS

BUILD ACADEMY

DR MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR MULTICULTURAL INSTITUTE

LORRAINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL


1 school identified 2% of total

RIVERSIDE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Planning for Restructuring


CAMPUS WEST SCHOOL

COMMUNITY SCHOOL #53

HARRIET ROSS TUBMAN ACADEMY

PS 59 DR CHARLES DREW SCIENCE MAGNET

PS 61



SENECA VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

Restructuring (Year 1)




(continued)

July 15, 2008

School Accountability Status3

2007–08 Accountability Status of Schools in Your District Continued


Federal Title I Status New York State Status

Restructuring (Year 1) (continued)

GRABIARZ SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE

HERMAN BADILLO COMMUNITY SCHOOL

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL

NATIVE AMERICAN MAGNET

PS 43

STANLEY MAKOWSKI EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER

Requiring Academic Progress (Year 5) (continued)

BENNETT HIGH SCHOOL

LAFAYETTE HIGH SCHOOL



BUFFALO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY

GROVER CLEVELAND HIGH SCHOOL

PS 37 FUTURES ACADEMY

SOUTHSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL



SOUTH PARK HIGH SCHOOL



BURGARD VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

MAYOR FRANK A SEDITA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

PS 11 POPLAR STREET ACADEMY

PS 74 HAMLIN PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

WEST HERTEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

July 15, 2008

About the Performance Level DescriptorsLevel 1: Not Meeting Learning Standards. Student performance does not demonstrate an understanding of the content expected in the subject and grade level.

Level 2: Partially Meeting Learning Standards. Student performance demonstrates a partial understanding of the content expected in the subject and grade level.

Level 3: Meeting Learning Standards. Student performance demonstrates an understanding of the content expected in the subject and grade level.

Level 4: Meeting Learning Standards with Distinction. Student performance demonstrates a thorough understanding of the content expected in the subject and grade level.

How are Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC) categories determined?Districts are divided into high, average, and low need categories based on their ability to meet the special needs of their students with local resources. Districts in the high need category are subdivided into four categories based on enrollment size and, in some cases, number of students per square mile. More information about the categories can be found in the Report to the Governor and the Legislature on the Educational Status of the State’s Schools at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts.

In this section, this district’s performance is compared with that of public schools statewide.

This District’s N/RC Category:

Summary of

Performance on the State assessments in English language arts, mathematics, and science at the elementary and middle levels is reported in terms of mean scores and the percentage of tested students scoring at or above Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4. Performance on the State assessments in ELA and mathematics at the secondary level is reported in terms of the percentage of students in a cohort scoring at these levels.

Overview of District Performance4

District Performance


2006–07

Percentage of students that Totalscored at or above Level 3 Tested

0% 50% 100%English Language Arts

Grade 3 35% 2396

Grade 4 40% 2327

Grade 5 39% 2454

Grade 6 35% 2417

Grade 7 27% 3098

Grade 8 34% 2516

Mathematics

Grade 3 43% 2436

Grade 4 44% 2378

Grade 5 38% 2475

Grade 6 38% 2465

Grade 7 29% 3119

Grade 8 26% 2532

Science

Grade 4 65% 2337

Grade 8 41% 2340

Percentage of students that 2003 Totalscored at or above Level 3 Cohort

0% 50% 100%Secondary Level

English 50% 3181

Mathematics 42% 3181

Large Cities

This is one of the large city school districts; Buffalo,Rochester, Syracuse, or Yonkers. All these districts havehigh student needs relative to district resource capacity.

July 15, 2008


100%100%

Results by Student Group

Percentage scoring at level(s): Percentage scoring at level(s):

2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals

General-Education Students


English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments

Number scoring at level(s): Number scoring at level(s):

2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

This District NY State Public


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4


This District's Results in Grade 3 English Language Arts

2007 Mean Score: 636


Range: 616–780 650–780 730–780

74% 75%

35% 37%

2% 2%

91% 92%

67% 69%

10% 7%

Number of Tested Students: 1768 844 391652 818 37

2006–07

2005–06

2006–07 School Year 2005–06 School YearTotalTested

TotalTested

2396 74% 35% 2% 2191 75% 37% 2%1165

1231

38

1407

382

31

538

1766

630

2193

2032170

226

2396

78%

70%

84%

71%

69%

97%

82%

83%

49%

76%

49%73%

84%

74%

39%

31%

37%

32%

25%

71%

50%

43%

14%

38%

10%33%

61%

35%

1%

2%

0%

1%

2%

0%

3%

2%

0%

2%

0%1%

6%

2%

1079

1112

24

1366

239

18

544

1584

607

2183

81981

210

2191

80%

71%

92%

70%

77%

94%

86%

86%

47%

75%

63%74%

91%

75%

42%

33%

42%

30%

38%

61%

55%

47%

13%

37%

38%34%

67%

37%

2%

1%

0%

1%

1%

11%

4%

2%

0%

2%

0%1%

7%

2%

The – symbol indicates that data for a group of students have been suppressed. If a group has fewer than five students,data for that group and the next smallest group(s) are suppressed to protect the privacy of individual students.

2006–07 School Year 2005–06 School Year

TotalTested

TotalTested

New York State Alternate Assessment

(NYSAA): Grade 3 Equivalent23 22 22 18

New NYSAA were developed in 2007, so2006 and 2007 results cannot be compared.

New York State English as a Second

Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT)†:

Grade 3

0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

† These counts represent recently arrived LEP students who used the NYSESLAT to fulfill the English language arts participation requirement.

July 15, 2008


100%100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4


This District's Results in Grade 3 Mathematics



Range: 624–770 650–770 703–770

76% 71%

43% 40%

3% 3%

96% 94%85% 81%

29% 25%


2006–07

2005–06


TotalTested

2436 76% 43% 3% 2393 71% 40% 3%1187

1249

38

1425

398

33

542

1800

636

2196

2402207

229

2436

76%

76%

79%

72%

75%

94%

84%

82%

60%

77%

61%75%

84%

76%

43%

43%

45%

38%

38%

67%

59%

49%

25%

45%

23%41%

60%

43%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

3%

7%

4%

0%

3%

1%2%

11%

3%

1192

1201

25

1401

371

28

568

1744

649

2190

2032184

209

2393

72%

71%

80%

65%

73%

93%

85%

78%

53%

72%

61%70%

90%

71%

39%

41%

56%

32%

40%

75%

59%

46%

23%

41%

29%37%

74%

40%

3%

3%

0%

2%

2%

18%

8%

4%

1%

3%

1%3%

11%

3%



TotalTested

TotalTested




July 15, 2008


100%100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4





Range: 612–775 650–775 716–775

79% 73%

40% 38%

2% 3%

92% 91%

68% 69%

8% 9%


2006–07

2005–06


TotalTested

2327 79% 40% 2% 2235 73% 38% 3%1186

1141

24

1380

352

24

547

1766

561

2157

1702041

286

2327

81%

76%

79%

76%

74%

83%

88%

87%

50%

80%

54%78%

83%

79%

43%

37%

50%

33%

35%

58%

60%

49%

12%

42%

17%37%

61%

40%

2%

1%

0%

1%

1%

8%

4%

2%

0%

2%

0%1%

5%

2%

1094

1141

47

1307

311

21

549

1652

583

2190

452006

229

2235

79%

68%

79%

70%

72%

86%

81%

84%

42%

74%

38%72%

87%

73%

42%

34%

49%

29%

40%

62%

55%

46%

14%

38%

11%35%

65%

38%

4%

2%

2%

1%

1%

14%

8%

4%

1%

3%

0%2%

13%

3%



TotalTested

TotalTested






Grade 4



July 15, 2008


100%100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4





Range: 622–800 650–800 702–800

77% 77%

44% 47%

6% 6%

94% 93%80% 78%

28% 26%


2006–07

2005–06


TotalTested

2378 77% 44% 6% 2429 77% 47% 6%1206

1172

24

1389

382

28

555

1816

562

2165

2132091

287

2378

78%

76%

96%

72%

77%

89%

88%

83%

57%

78%

65%76%

83%

77%

44%

45%

67%

36%

43%

71%

65%

51%

23%

46%

29%42%

62%

44%

6%

6%

0%

3%

5%

18%

13%

7%

1%

6%

2%5%

16%

6%

1199

1230

46

1345

435

35

568

1810

619

2194

2352193

236

2429

78%

77%

72%

72%

79%

91%

89%

85%

56%

78%

66%76%

89%

77%

46%

49%

50%

39%

44%

69%

68%

55%

26%

49%

29%45%

75%

47%

5%

6%

13%

2%

3%

9%

15%

7%

1%

6%

1%4%

19%

6%



TotalTested

TotalTested




July 15, 2008


100%100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4


This District's Results in Grade 4 Science

2007 Mean Score: 69

2006 Mean Score: 71

Range: 45–100 65–100 85–100

92% 93%

65% 68%

20% 22%

97% 97%85% 86%

49% 49%


2006–07

2005–06


TotalTested

2337 92% 65% 20% 2434 93% 68% 22%1189

1148

26

1363

369

30

549

1797

540

2129

2082052

285

2337

91%

93%

96%

90%

91%

87%

98%

93%

87%

93%

81%92%

92%

92%

63%

68%

69%

58%

65%

70%

84%

70%

50%

67%

42%64%

75%

65%

18%

22%

19%

13%

15%

37%

42%

24%

9%

22%

5%17%

44%

20%

1206

1228

44

1358

430

35

567

1813

621

2196

2382197

237

2434

94%

92%

93%

91%

91%

94%

97%

95%

88%

94%

81%92%

98%

93%

69%

68%

73%

61%

68%

74%

86%

73%

56%

71%

47%67%

86%

68%

20%

24%

30%

14%

19%

31%

43%

25%

13%

23%

9%19%

50%

22%



TotalTested

TotalTested




July 15, 2008


100%100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4





Range: 608–795 650–795 711–795

84% 78%

39% 35%

2% 3%

95% 94%

68% 67%

7% 12%


2006–07

2005–06


TotalTested

2454 84% 39% 2% 2343 78% 35% 3%1195

1259

42

1381

410

36

585

1862

592

2274

1802135

319

2454

88%

81%

86%

82%

82%

75%

93%

92%

61%

87%

55%83%

91%

84%

40%

37%

43%

31%

35%

50%

59%

47%

13%

41%

9%35%

62%

39%

2%

1%

0%

1%

0%

6%

5%

2%

0%

2%

0%1%

5%

2%

1131

1212

38

1390

315

39

561

1713

630

2232

1112135

208

2343

82%

74%

87%

75%

75%

90%

86%

88%

52%

79%

50%76%

95%

78%

39%

31%

24%

27%

32%

62%

54%

44%

11%

36%

9%31%

71%

35%

5%

2%

3%

1%

2%

3%

10%

5%

0%

4%

0%2%

19%

3%



TotalTested

TotalTested






Grade 5



July 15, 2008


100%100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4





Range: 619–780 650–780 699–780

75%60%

38%27%

4% 3%

94% 90%76%

68%

22% 19%


2006–07

2005–06


TotalTested

2475 75% 38% 4% 2455 60% 27% 3%1212

1263

40

1381

428

41

585

1891

584

2255

2202152

323

2475

76%

75%

85%

70%

72%

73%

88%

82%

51%

78%

46%74%

82%

75%

37%

39%

50%

29%

35%

56%

59%

44%

18%

40%

14%34%

63%

38%

4%

5%

3%

1%

3%

7%

12%

5%

1%

5%

0%3%

15%

4%

1196

1259

37

1428

369

48

573

1815

640

2229

2262242

213

2455

62%

58%

70%

54%

53%

88%

74%

69%

34%

63%

32%57%

87%

60%

27%

27%

19%

21%

21%

52%

45%

33%

10%

29%

8%24%

63%

27%

3%

3%

0%

1%

1%

10%

7%

4%

0%

3%

1%2%

16%

3%



TotalTested

TotalTested




July 15, 2008


100%100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4





Range: 598–785 650–785 705–785

93%79%

35% 31%

2% 2%

98% 93%

63% 60%

9% 12%


2006–07

2005–06


TotalTested

2417 93% 35% 2% 2544 79% 31% 2%1194

1223

42

1433

356

45

541

1817

600

2244

1732122

295

2417

95%

91%

95%

93%

90%

93%

96%

98%

79%

94%

75%92%

97%

93%

39%

31%

21%

28%

31%

62%

56%

43%

11%

37%

6%32%

58%

35%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

0%

7%

3%

0%

3%

0%1%

10%

2%

1179

1365

51

1503

339

31

620

1860

684

2414

1302278

266

2544

83%

75%

80%

76%

73%

94%

88%

91%

47%

80%

55%78%

91%

79%

34%

28%

31%

25%

28%

52%

46%

40%

7%

32%

5%28%

61%

31%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

16%

5%

3%

0%

2%

0%1%

11%

2%



TotalTested

TotalTested






Grade 6



July 15, 2008


100%100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4





Range: 616–780 650–780 696–780

73%62%

38%27%

4% 3%

91% 87%71%

60%

20% 13%


2006–07

2005–06


TotalTested

2465 73% 38% 4% 2664 62% 27% 3%1215

1250

43

1452

377

46

547

1854

611

2256

2092169

296

2465

73%

73%

79%

67%

75%

89%

84%

81%

49%

75%

55%71%

85%

73%

39%

36%

35%

31%

36%

52%

57%

45%

16%

40%

18%35%

61%

38%

3%

4%

5%

2%

2%

13%

9%

5%

1%

4%

1%3%

13%

4%

1237

1427

51

1549

382

38

644

1949

715

2429

2352385

279

2664

62%

62%

53%

57%

56%

79%

78%

71%

36%

64%

39%59%

85%

62%

26%

29%

24%

20%

22%

53%

46%

34%

10%

29%

9%24%

59%

27%

2%

3%

2%

1%

2%

5%

7%

3%

0%

3%

0%2%

9%

3%



TotalTested

TotalTested




July 15, 2008


100%100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4





Range: 600–790 650–790 712–790

82% 77%

27% 27%

1% 2%

94% 92%

58% 56%

6% 8%


2006–07

2005–06


TotalTested

3098 82% 27% 1% 2905 77% 27% 2%1378

1720

61

1826

449

41

721

2325

773

2844

2542707

391

3098

86%

79%

87%

81%

73%

83%

90%

92%

55%

86%

44%82%

87%

82%

31%

24%

34%

20%

24%

46%

44%

34%

5%

29%

3%23%

52%

27%

2%

1%

2%

0%

1%

7%

3%

2%

0%

1%

0%1%

5%

1%

1371

1534

54

1766

370

43

672

2127

778

2761

1442637

268

2905

81%

72%

78%

74%

71%

88%

85%

87%

47%

78%

49%75%

91%

77%

31%

23%

26%

22%

25%

42%

39%

34%

7%

28%

2%24%

57%

27%

3%

1%

0%

1%

1%

0%

3%

2%

0%

2%

0%1%

8%

2%



TotalTested

TotalTested






Grade 7



July 15, 2008


100%100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4





Range: 611–800 650–800 693–800

78%66%

29% 22%

3% 2%

93% 87%

67%56%

18% 12%


2006–07

2005–06


TotalTested

3119 78% 29% 3% 2980 66% 22% 2%1392

1727

63

1823

470

53

710

2346

773

2818

3012730

389

3119

81%

76%

75%

75%

72%

72%

91%

86%

54%

81%

52%77%

86%

78%

30%

29%

29%

21%

24%

49%

53%

35%

10%

31%

9%26%

52%

29%

3%

3%

3%

1%

1%

15%

8%

4%

0%

3%

0%2%

12%

3%

1415

1565

53

1779

421

47

680

2216

764

2738

2422711

269

2980

67%

64%

72%

62%

57%

81%

80%

74%

41%

68%

38%64%

85%

66%

24%

21%

25%

17%

20%

47%

37%

28%

8%

24%

8%20%

52%

22%

2%

2%

2%

1%

2%

2%

5%

3%

0%

2%

0%1%

13%

2%



TotalTested

TotalTested




July 15, 2008


100%100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4





Range: 602–790 650–790 715–790

88%77%

34%21%

2% 1%

94% 91%

57%49%

6% 5%


2006–07

2005–06


TotalTested

2516 88% 34% 2% 3956 77% 21% 1%1241

1275

50

1498

322

43

603

1937

579

2387

1292138

378

2516

92%

85%

96%

87%

84%

95%

93%

96%

61%

90%

62%88%

88%

88%

39%

28%

40%

28%

30%

60%

47%

41%

8%

35%

6%30%

51%

34%

2%

1%

4%

1%

1%

0%

3%

2%

0%

2%

0%1%

6%

2%

1992

1964

77

2408

502

41

928

2953

1003

3811

1453611

345

3956

82%

72%

77%

73%

77%

95%

84%

88%

43%

77%

58%76%

88%

77%

25%

17%

22%

15%

18%

34%

37%

27%

3%

22%

3%18%

48%

21%

1%

1%

0%

0%

1%

2%

3%

1%

0%

1%

0%0%

7%

1%



TotalTested

TotalTested






Grade 8



July 15, 2008


100%100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4





Range: 616–775 650–775 701–775

73%65%

26%17%

1% 1%

88% 85%

59% 54%

12% 10%


2006–07

2005–06


TotalTested

2532 73% 26% 1% 4084 65% 17% 1%1252

1280

51

1501

330

46

604

1965

567

2374

1582162

370

2532

73%

73%

75%

70%

64%

91%

85%

82%

44%

75%

52%72%

79%

73%

28%

24%

20%

19%

21%

50%

43%

31%

8%

27%

9%22%

49%

26%

2%

1%

0%

1%

1%

4%

3%

2%

0%

1%

1%1%

6%

1%

2066

2018

75

2463

543

44

959

3063

1021

3855

2293729

355

4084

67%

63%

67%

60%

62%

91%

78%

75%

36%

66%

49%64%

79%

65%

18%

16%

16%

12%

13%

34%

31%

21%

3%

18%

6%15%

41%

17%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

1%

0%

1%

0%0%

6%

1%



TotalTested

TotalTested




July 15, 2008


100%100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes ,

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4


This District's Results in Grade 8 Science

83% 84%

43% 36%

8% 3%

91% 91%

68% 66%

28% 23%


2006–07

2005–06


TotalTested

2340 83% 41% 7% 3518 84% 36% 3%1145

1195

49

1397

321

43

530

1788

552

2185

1552049

291

2340

84%

83%

88%

80%

79%

91%

92%

90%

62%

85%

60%84%

81%

83%

39%

43%

55%

34%

37%

60%

61%

49%

17%

43%

12%39%

58%

41%

7%

8%

12%

4%

7%

12%

15%

9%

1%

8%

1%6%

17%

7%

1753

1765

66

2153

486

33

780

2595

923

3286

2323265

253

3518

86%

82%

92%

82%

79%

100%

92%

89%

69%

86%

60%84%

89%

84%

33%

38%

50%

29%

30%

70%

57%

43%

16%

38%

10%34%

53%

36%

3%

4%

5%

1%

2%

15%

10%

4%

1%

4%

0%3%

9%

3%



TotalTested

TotalTested




Regents Science 195 161 129 23 0

July 15, 2008


This District NY State PublicPercentage scoring at level(s): Percentage scoring at level(s):

2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes

Other Assessments Number scoring at level(s): Number scoring at level(s):

2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

* A total cohort consists of all students who first entered Grade 9 in a particular year, and all ungraded students with disabilities who reached their seventeenth birthday in that year, and were enrolled in the school/district for five months. Students are excluded from the cohort if they transferred to another school district, nonpublic school, or criminal justice facility, or left the U.S. and its territories or died before the report date. Statewide total cohort also includes students who were enrolled for fewer than five months.

** 2002 cohort data are those reported in the 2005-06 Accountability and Overview Report.

*** The majority of cohort members took an older version of the NYSAA, developed before 2007.


This District's Total Cohort* Results in Secondary-LevelEnglish after Four Years of Instruction

60% 62%50% 49%

15% 13%

79% 76% 73% 69%

30% 28%2003 Cohort

2002 Cohort

2003 Cohort 2002 Cohort**Numberof Students

Numberof Students

3181 60% 50% 15% 2896 62% 49% 13%1549

1632

55

1790

362

44

930

2641

540

3040

1412114

1067

66%

53%

55%

58%

48%

70%

67%

67%

23%

61%

29%59%

60%

55%

45%

45%

45%

40%

68%

63%

57%

14%

51%

19%48%

53%

18%

12%

9%

9%

10%

45%

27%

18%

1%

16%

4%11%

23%

1410

1486

36

1586

351

24

899

2265

631

2786

1102078

818

3

2893

69%

55%

58%

60%

52%

58%

69%

71%

26%

63%

27%65%

52%

–

–

56%

43%

53%

44%

41%

54%

62%

59%

14%

51%

18%50%

48%

–

–

15%

12%

17%

9%

9%

29%

23%

17%

1%

14%

1%10%

22%

–

–


2003 Cohort 2002 Cohort

Numberof Students

Numberof Students


(NYSAA): High School Equivalent ***0 27 27 26 22

July 15, 2008


This District NY State PublicPercentage scoring at level(s): Percentage scoring at level(s):

2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All StudentsFemale

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient



Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

notes

Other Assessments Number scoring at level(s): Number scoring at level(s):

2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

* A total cohort consists of all students who first entered Grade 9 in a particular year, and all ungraded students with disabilities who reached their seventeenth birthday in that year, and were enrolled in the school/district for five months. Students are excluded from the cohort if they transferred to another school district, nonpublic school, or criminal justice facility, or left the U.S. and its territories or died before the report date. Statewide total cohort also includes students who were enrolled for fewer than five months.

** 2002 cohort data are those reported in the 2005-06 Accountability and Overview Report.

*** The majority of cohort members took an older version of the NYSAA, developed before 2007.


This District's Total Cohort* Results in Secondary-LevelMathematics after Four Years of Instruction

63% 67%

42% 45%

6% 5%

81% 78% 74% 71%

26% 23%2003 Cohort

2002 Cohort

2003 Cohort 2002 Cohort**Numberof Students

Numberof Students

3181 63% 42% 6% 2896 67% 45% 5%1549

1632

55

1790

362

44

930

2641

540

3040

1412114

1067

68%

58%

67%

61%

51%

82%

70%

71%

23%

64%

36%62%

64%

46%

39%

44%

36%

34%

70%

56%

49%

10%

44%

18%39%

49%

7%

6%

4%

2%

2%

36%

15%

8%

1%

7%

1%4%

12%

1410

1486

36

1586

351

24

899

2265

631

2786

1102078

818

3

2893

73%

61%

67%

64%

58%

79%

75%

78%

26%

68%

41%70%

59%

–

–

47%

42%

56%

38%

35%

75%

58%

54%

11%

45%

24%44%

46%

–

–

4%

5%

6%

2%

2%

25%

9%

6%

0%

5%

1%3%

10%

–

–


2003 Cohort 2002 Cohort

Numberof Students

Numberof Students


(NYSAA): High School Equivalent ***0 27 27 25 23

the new york state

Documents