Tribeca Learning Center
PS 150
334 Greenwich St
New York NY 10013
ph: 212-732-4392
fx: 212-766-5895
contact us
Parent Log On
Major Events
|
ASSESSMENT
PS 150 is assessed by the City and State Departments of Education every year. They use a variety of tools including:
- New York City Qualitative Assessment of PS 150’s: (click on name to see full report)
- Capacity to track the needs of each student.
- Plan and set rigorous goals for students’ learning.
- Focus the school’s academic practices and leadership development around the achievement of those goals.
- Build and align capacity to achieve goals.
- Monitor and revise goals based on assessments.
Click to see a short summary of the NYC Qualitative Assessment (below), a detailed summary of the NYC Qualitative Assessment , or the full report of the NYC Qualitative Assessment.
- New York State Report Card that reviews PS 150 for 2005 - 2006 includes three sections:
- Demographic information. This section shows comprehensive data relevant to this school’s learning environment.
- Accountability. This section shows how well students meet the State and Federal standard in English, math, and science. Additional information on the English Language Arts test , inlcuding examples of the actural ELA test for grades 3-6, can be found on the State ELA testing website. Additional information on the Mathamatics Test can be found on the State Mathamatics Testing website.
- Overview of performance. This section has information about the school’s performance on state assessments in English, mathematics, and science. This emphasizes the students' ability and compares it with other peer schools.
Click to see a short summary of the NYS 05-06 Report Card (below), a detailed summary of the NYS 05-06 Report Card, or the full NYS 05-06 Report Card. There is also some additional informaiton in the Annual School Report Supplement.
Details of the standardized mathamatics and English tests can be found in the Guide to the Grades 3 – 8 Testing Program
in English Language Arts
and Mathematics.
- New York City Department of Education Progress Report 2006 - 2007 that includes an overall score based on how PS150 compares to other city schools on three criteria:
- School Environment counts for 15% of the overall score. 10% is based on four items derived from the May and June 2007 Parent/Teacher Survey: Safety and Respect, Academic Expectation, Engagement, and Communication. The methodology of the survey is found in the Educators Guide to Survey Reports. Attendance is a fifth item and accounts for 5% of the overall score.
- Student Performance counts for 30% of the overall score. It measures the performance of students in grades 3, 4, and 5. Performance, like the State Report Card, is based on standardized English and Math tests. The score is an average of two items for Math and English: 1) The percentage of students at proficiency and 2) the median student proficiency for English and math. The final exam period was in March 2007 and the scores do not reflect any initiative after that time.
- Student Progress counts for 55% of the overall score. Progress is measured by 3 items for English and 3 items for math: 1) the percentage of students improving their score from last year, 2) the average change in student proficiency, and 3) the average change in proficiency in the schools lowest 1/3 of students. Change scores are calculated for grades 4, 5, and 6. For 6th graders, 60% of the credit for outcomes on the English exam and 40% of the credit for the outcomes on the math exam is attributed to PS 150 based on proportion of time they attended PS150 before the exam.
Schools can earn additional credit for gains among 20 or more students in special education, English Language Learners, Blacks, Latinos, and low performing students. PS150 did not have sufficient students in these categories to qualify for additional credit.
The "grade" given by the city does not reflect the raw score on any of the items measured. Rather, it reflects where PS 150 stands relative to 40 peers schools, selected for similar demographics, and all NYC schools. The relative rank among PS150 peer schools counts twice as much as the relative rank among all city schools. NYC assigned a letter grade for school based on their overall score. Grades fall on a "curve" with 22% receiving an "A", 38% receiving a "B", 27% a "C", 9% a "D", and 4% receiving a "F".
There a several complicated metrics used to calculate indivdiual item scores and the overall score. The methodology has been summarized in a letter to parents from the principal, Maggie Siena. A more detailed description of these metrics can be found in the Educators Guide.
Click to see a short summary of the NYC 2006-2007 Progress Report (below), a detailed summary of the NYC 2006-2007 Progress Report, or the full NYC 2006-2007 Progress Report.
There has been considerable debate about the validity of these scores.
The following links reflect opinions on the controvery.
1. NYT, Bard President to Meet With City Over C Grade by Elissa Gootman, Nov 9, 2007.
2. NYT, New York Schools Brace to Be Scored A to F By Jennifer Medina and Elissa Gootman, Nov 4, 2007.
3.
NYT Editorial: Grading the Grade. Nov 11, 2007.
4. NYT, Shaping the System That Grades City Schools, by James Liberman, Nov 16, 2007
5. NYT, OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS; The System Flunked, We Didn't By Tovak Klein, Marcia Sells, Peter Rubie, and Amy Monegro, Nov 11, 2007.
REPORT SUMMARIES
NYC Qualitative Assessment: Brief Summary
In 2007 PS 150 was reviewed by an experienced educator, Deidre Farmbry. She gave PA 150 the highest score in all five criteria. To see more summarized results click here. For the full report click here.
|
CRITERIA |
SCORE* |
COMMENT |
1 |
Gather Data |
Well Developed |
School leaders and faculty consistently gather data and use it to understand what each student knows and is able to do and to monitor student progress over time. |
2 |
Plan and Set Goals |
Well Developed |
School leaders and faculty consistently use available data to understand each student’s next learning step. Through collaborative planning and student and parent engagement, they set high goals for improving teaching practice and accelerating each student’s learning. |
3 |
Align Instruction |
Well Developed |
The school aligns its instructional activity, resources, and student engagement around its focused plans for accelerating learning for each student. |
4 |
Build and Align Capacity |
Well Developed |
The development of instructional leadership, staff, and capacity are aligned around the school’s collaboratively established goals for accelerating the learning of each student. |
5 |
Monitor and Revise |
Well Developed |
The school has built-in structures for evaluating each student’s progress throughout the year, recognizing weaknesses in its improvement plans and teaching practices, and flexibly adapting plans and practices to meet its goals for accelerating learning. |
The Quality Review Score is evaluated on a three point scale: Well Developed, Proficient, and Undeveloped. |
Back to top
NYS Report Card 2005-2006: Brief Summary
- Good standing in English,Math and Science.
- Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)in English, Math, and Science
- Exceeded Performance Index (PI) and Effective Annual Measurement Objective (EAMO)
A school is considered to be in good standing if it has not been identified as a School in Need of Improvement, in Corrective Action, Planning for Restructuring, Restructuring, Requiring Academic Progress, or as a School Under Registration Review. back
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) indicates satisfactory progress by a district or a school toward the goal of proficiency for all students.back
A Performance Index (PI) is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that group performed on a required State test in English language arts, mathematics, or science. Student scores on the tests are converted to four performance levels, from Level 1 (indicating no proficiency) to Level 4 (indicating advanced proficiency).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}. back
(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). back
Back to top
NYC Progress Report 2006-07: Brief Summary
Overall Score: 44.1 out of 100
Overall Grade C
1. School Environment Survey Summary: 10.3 out of 15 possible points
Survey Topic
Max score = 10 |
PS 150 |
Citywide Average |
Safety and Respect |
8.7 |
7.4 |
Academic Expectations |
7.9 |
7.3 |
Engagement |
7.1 |
6.3 |
Communication |
7.2 |
6.8 |
Response Rate |
PS 150 |
City Wide |
Parents |
100 (61%) |
35% |
Teachers |
7 (58%) |
48% |
2. Student Performance: 22.2 out of a possible 30 points
|
PS 150 |
RELATIVE TO PEERS |
RELATIVE TO CITY |
ITEM SCORE
Max=1 |
|
|
% |
% |
city+( 2*peer)/3 |
English Language Arts |
|
|
|
|
% of Students at level 3 or 4 |
91.1% |
72.7% |
97.1% |
0.81 |
Median Student (1–4.5) |
3.5 |
59.5% |
94.5% |
0.71 |
Mathematics |
|
|
|
|
% of Students at level 3 or 4 |
97.5% |
83.2% |
95.2% |
0.87 |
Median Student (1–4.5) |
3.87 |
44.5% |
82.1% |
0.57 |
Relative Performance in English and Math Performance to City and Peer Schools
3. Student Progress: 11.5 out of a possible 55 points
|
PS 150 |
RELATIVE TO PEERS |
RELATIVE TO CITY |
ITEM SCORE
Max=1 |
|
|
% |
% |
city+( 2*peer)/3 |
English Language Arts |
|
|
|
|
% making > 1 Yr Progress |
49.2% |
33.7% |
37.6% |
0.35 |
Average Change in Proficiency |
-0.05 |
15.5% |
14.9% |
0.15 |
Average Change in lowest 1/3 |
0.11 |
16.4% |
12.7% |
0.15 |
Mathematics |
|
|
|
|
% making > 1 Yr Progress |
39.1% |
12.6% |
14.4% |
0.22 |
Average Change in Proficiency |
-0.05 |
26.3% |
26.0% |
0.26 |
Average Change in lowest 1/3 |
NA (<20 Students) |
NA |
- |
|
Relative Performance in English and Math Performance to City and Peer Schools 
Back to top
|
