Evaluation of Massachusetts Reading First Year 2 Evaluator’s Report A Review of Program Activity through June 30, 2004 Presented to the Massachusetts Department of Education April 2005 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Contents UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group I Contents Year 2 Activity and Accomplishments..................................................3 Timeline of Year 2 Accomplishments ..........................................3 Reading Leadership Team Activity. .............................................4 District Subgrants.........................................................................4 Evaluation Overview...............................................................................7 Research Design .........................................................................7 Areas Addressed in This Report..................................................8 Data Sources and Collection Strategies......................................9 Comprehensive Reading Program......................................................15 Reading Programs In Use .........................................................15 Reading Program Implementation .............................................17 Perceived Quality and Effectiveness .........................................19 Alignment with Reading First .....................................................20 Instructional Leadership ......................................................................21 Responsibility and Commitment ................................................21 District Processes, Policies and Structures ...............................22 Professional Development and Support Activities ...........................23 Assessment Training .................................................................23 Teacher Reading Academies ....................................................23 Regional Providers.....................................................................25 Local Professional Development ...............................................26 Use of Student Assessment to Inform Instruction............................27 Assessments in Use ..................................................................27 Administration of Required Assessments..................................29 Data Analysis and Application ...................................................30 Correlations Among Required Assessments.............................32 Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices.....................................37 Changes in Teacher Knowledge................................................37 Demonstrated Teaching Practices.............................................44 Student Reading Skills and Proficiency.............................................52 Student Outcomes: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency .................52 Student Outcomes: GRADE .....................................................84 Overall Student Outcomes: MCAS .........................................118 Top performing schools – spring 2004 ....................................131 Summary and Conclusion..................................................................132 References...........................................................................................135 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Contents UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group II Appendix A: District and School Survey Response Rates............136 Appendix B: MRFP Assessment Framework..................................138 Appendix C: School DIBELS scores by grade-level ......................142 Appendix D: School GRADE scores by grade-level.......................152 Appendix E: School MCAS Scores ..................................................164 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Year 2 Activity and Accomplishments UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 3 Year 2 Activity and Accomplishments Timeline of Year 2 Accomplishments The following is a brief summary of Massachusetts Reading First accomplishments during the reporting period. Many of the activities will be addressed in more detail later in this report. July 2003 Initial week-long training for Regional Providers (RPs) Teacher Reading Academies (TRAs) for Round 1 districts August 2003 Teacher Reading Academies (TRAs) for Round 1 districts Orientation for eligible non-public schools September 2003 Orientation and student assessment overview for Round 2 districts Fall screening and diagnostic assessment begins – Round 1 and Round 2 districts (approximately 11,500 students tested) October 2003 Reading Leadership Team meeting November 2003 School and district leadership meeting January 2004 Proposal workshop for those districts eligible to receive Round 3 funding Mid-year progress monitoring assessment – Round 1 and Round 2 districts February 2004 Teacher Reading Academies (TRAs) for Round 2 districts (2-day format) March 2004 Teacher Reading Academies (TRAs) for Round 2 districts (2-day format) Reading Leadership Team meeting April 2004 Advanced Seminar: Vocabulary Instruction featuring Dr. Isabel Beck Round 3 awards approved by Massachusetts Board of Education May 2004 TRA (3-day format) held at Title I Annual Conference Orientation and student assessment overview for Round 3 districts Spring outcomes assessment – Round 1 and Round 2 districts (approximately 11,500 students tested) June 2004 First annual Massachusetts Reading First conference. Dr. Sharon Vaughn as keynote speaker: 3-Tier Reading Model Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Year 2 Activity and Accomplishments UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 4 Reading Leadership Team Activity. The Reading Leadership Team met twice during the reporting period. In October fourteen members attended. They received an update on Reading First activities and began the process of forming three working subgroups to support implementation of Reading First. There are three subgroups – community outreach, outreach to non- Reading First districts and schools, and higher education. About twenty members were in attendance at the March Reading Leadership Team meeting. In addition to a basic update on Reading First activities, there was a presentation on the first annual performance report, and an overview of baseline student assessment data. As a follow up to activities begun at the October meeting, the outreach subgroup made a presentation on its progress. They are developing two letters and a brochure that will go out to parents and community literacy groups to encourage their involvement in Reading First activities. It did not appear that other subgroups had been engaged in much activity between meetings. They were given time to meet at the end of the meeting. Coming out of the March meeting, the outreach committee continued its work through the balance of the reporting period. District Subgrants As detailed in the Year 1 Evaluator’s Report, Massachusetts awarded grants through two rounds of funding during its first year of Reading First funding. However, those awards did not yet fulfill the requirement that at least 80% of the available funds be distributed as subgrants to eligible districts. As a result, Massachusetts held a third round of competition during its second year of Reading First. In all, six districts were eligible to apply for Round 3 funding. They were: Boston, Everett, Holyoke, Leominster, Lynn and New Bedford. Representatives from each of those districts were invited to attend two-day proposal development workshop in January 2004. All eligible districts attended. The agenda for this session included presentations on the following: an overview of the Massachusetts Reading First Plan and its various components including professional development, assessment, and evaluation; scientifically based research, and technical assistance available for proposal preparation. There was also an exhibit session where publishers shared their available programs. Districts wishing to submit proposals for Reading First funding were provided with technical assistance through two outside contractors. One was Dr. Linda Rath, Curriculum Director for PBS/WGBH Boston and a member of the Reading Leadership Team. The other was Dr. Francesca Pomerantz, a professor of education at Salem State College. These contractors visited each of their assigned districts for initial on-site meetings. After those initial meetings they offered support through phone calls and email communication to answer questions. They also reviewed and responded to drafts with respect to the established review criteria. Each of the six eligible districts took advantage of the available technical assistance. District proposals were due on March 12, 2004. Each of the six eligible districts submitted proposals, which were reviewed by expert teams using a common scoring rubric. Each of the ten rubric sections were required to attain ratings in the “Meets Standard” or “Exemplary Plan” range for the application to be funded – failure to meet those criteria in even one of the rubric sections automatically disqualified the proposal. Proposal elements evaluated using the rubric were: • Schools to be Served (6 points maximum) • Instructional Leadership (9 points maximum) • Core Instructional Programs, Strategies, and Materials (9 points maximum) • Supplemental and Intervention Instructional Approaches and Materials (7 points maximum) • Access to Print Materials (4 points maximum) Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Year 2 Activity and Accomplishments UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 5 • Instructional Assessments (9 points maximum) • District and School-Based Professional Development (10 points maximum) • District Based Technical Assistance (3 points maximum) • Evaluation Strategies (6 points maximum) • Additional Criteria (3 points maximum) Five of the six proposals were selected for funding and officially approved by the Massachusetts Board of Education on April 27, 2004. The following is a brief summary profile of the characteristics of Round 3 Reading First districts: • The median percentage of students scoring below the proficient level in reading is 71%, with individual district figures ranging from 48% in Leominster to 85% in Holyoke. • The median percentage of students scoring at the warning level in reading is 25%, with individual district figures ranging from 10% in Leominster to 32% in Holyoke. • Poverty rates range from 15% in Leominster to 46% in Holyoke. Table 1: Round 3 Reading First Awards: Academic and Demographic Profile 2004 Grade 3 MCAS Reading Test NOT Proficient (minimum 40%) Warning 2004 Title I Poverty (minimum 15%) District # % # % % Boston 585 74.0% 205 25.9% 30.6% Holyoke 203 84.6% 76 31.7% 46.1% Leominster 82 47.7% 17 9.9% 15.1% Lynn 155 70.8% 55 25.1% 30.2% New Bedford 156 61.4% 44 17.3% 33.9% Massachusetts Reading First districts are required to select and implement a core reading program as well as appropriate supplemental and intervention materials. Among the Round 3 districts, three selected Harcourt Trophies, one selected Scott Foresman, and one selected Open Court. Table 2 shows the core reading program choices for each Round 3 district. Table 2: Round 3 Reading First Awards -- Annual Budget Profile District Core Program Boston Harcourt Trophies Holyoke Scott Foresman Leominster Harcourt Trophies Lynn Harcourt Trophies New Bedford Open Court Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Year 2 Activity and Accomplishments UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 6 Initial subgrant awards to Round 3 districts totaled nearly $4.2 million. The following is a brief summary profile of the awards to Round 3 Reading First districts. • Individual district awards range from $175,000 for Leominster to more than $2.5 million for Boston. Minimum grant awards were based on each district’s percentage share of the state’s Title I funding. • In total these awards provide support to 21 participating schools. The number of participating schools per district ranges from 2 to 12. • Based on 2003-2004 enrollment figures, this funding will support about 6,300 students in kindergarten through third grade. Round 3 K-3 enrollments ranging from about 670 students in Leominster to more than 2,900 in Boston. • The average award per pupil is about $547, ranging from approximately $260 per pupil in Leominster to about $870 per pupil in Boston. Table 3: Round 3 Reading First Awards: Annual Budget Profile District Award Amount Participating Schools K-3 Enrollment (2003-2004) Award per Student Boston $2,539,049 12 2,917 $870 Holyoke $513,000 3 940 $546 Leominster $175,000 2 672 $260 Lynn $445,262 2 840 $530 New Bedford $506,433 2 907 $558 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Evaluation Overview UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 7 Evaluation Overview Research Design The evaluation plan for the Massachusetts Reading First Plan is organized according to a basic logic model, which describes the program and its anticipated outcomes. Presented in simplistic terms, the model associates several key inputs (implementation of comprehensive reading programs, participation in professional development and support activities, and utilization of student assessment data) with intermediate outcomes (changes in teachers’ knowledge and skills and changes in teaching practice). The model also relates those intermediate outcomes to changes in students’ acquisition of reading skills and overall reading proficiency. The Massachusetts Reading First logic model can be represented as follows: The evaluation is designed to serve both formative and summative functions. As a formative activity, the evaluation provides timely, ongoing feedback to support the Massachusetts Department of Education’s management of the initiative. This includes documenting the nature, extent, and effectiveness of district and state-level program activities. In its summative role, the evaluation is designed to measure progress toward, and overall attainment of, the programs’ fundamental objectives with regard to teacher knowledge, skill levels and teaching practices (intermediate outcomes) as well as changes in students’ reading skills and proficiency. Consistent with federal expectations for the first Annual Performance Review, this Year 2 Evaluator’s Report documents program activity from July 2003 through June 2004. Professional Development & Support Students’ Reading Skills and Proficiency Educator Knowledge & Skills Desired Teaching Practices Comprehensive Reading Program Student Assessment Results Strong Instructional Leadership Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Evaluation Overview UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 8 Areas Addressed in This Report This report presents findings on many of the research questions outlined in the detailed evaluation plan presented to the Massachusetts Department of Education in August 2003. The specific questions that will be addressed in the body of this report are: Comprehensive Reading Program · What reading programs are being used for core, supplemental and intervention instruction? Have any schools changed their programs? · In what manner and to what extent are the programs being used? Have they been fully implemented as prescribed by their publishers? · What problems do schools encounter as they attempt to implement these programs? What additional assistance is needed to address them? · How do school personnel perceive the quality and effectiveness of curricula and materials related to each of their programs? · To what extent do the reading programs align with the content and practices recommended through the reading academies? Instructional Leadership · Do the instructional leaders – district reading coordinators, principals, and reading specialists – have the responsibility and qualifications to align the district’s reading program with the findings of scientifically based reading research (SBRR) and the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for ELA? Are they committed to the successful implementation of Reading First? · Has the district established processes to provide ongoing professional development to its instructional leaders? · Has the district instituted policies that ensure continuity of leadership in Reading First schools? · Does the district have structures in place for continuous improvement of the Reading First implementation? Professional Development and Support Activities · How effective is the training and support provided to the local assessment teams? · To what extent did school personnel participate in the Teacher Reading Academies (TRAs)? How do they perceive the quality and effectiveness of the training they received? · How did school personnel interact with the Partnership for Achievement in Reading (PAR) Regional Providers (RPs)? How do they perceive the quality of the support they received from their RP? Use of Student Assessment to Inform Instruction · How are the Reading First assessments being administered in schools? What other assessments are being used? · How do school personnel perceive the Reading First assessments? Are they easy to administer? Do they provide useful information? · What tools are schools using to analyze their student assessment data? Who uses them and how? How do they perceive the quality and effectiveness of those tools? Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Evaluation Overview UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 9 · How and to what extent are the results being used to: screen students; diagnose specific learning needs; guide individual and group instruction; monitor student progress. · To what extent are there correlations between results of the two predominant Reading First assessments used in Massachusetts, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Success (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) subtest and the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) assessment? To what extent do DIBELS ORF and GRADE scores correlate with Grade 3 Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) results? Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices · To what extent do the Teacher Reading Academies improve educators’ knowledge and skills with regard to specific concepts and practices consistent with the findings of SBRR? · To what extent do educators maintain or improve their knowledge and skills levels during the course of the academic year? · To what extent do participating teachers demonstrate teaching practices consistent with the findings of SBRR? Student Reading Skills and Proficiency · To what extent are students in Reading First schools realizing improved reading outcomes? · Does the proportion of students performing below grade-level decrease over time? Does the performance of certain demographic groups (special eduacation, low-income, racial/ethnic minority, and limited English proficient (LEP) students) improve over time? Is there evidence that the reading proficiency gap between more and less advantaged students is closing in these schools? Data Sources and Collection Strategies The information presented in this report is drawn from both primary and secondary data sources. The following are very brief descriptions of the data sources and how they were employed. Additional details and copies of the actual instruments are available upon request. District proposals MADOE provided the Donahue Institute with copies of each funded proposal. These proposals are one source of the basic descriptive data included in this report. School personnel rosters and updates In the spring of 2004, each Reading First school submitted a school personnel roster using a template developed by the Donahue Institute. The information requested were the names, positions, education levels, certifications and length of teaching experience of all staff members involved in Reading First. In future reports, analysis of these data over time will provide information on the level of staff retention and turnover in Reading First schools, which may have an impact on the level of Reading First implementation and student reading outcomes. The return rate for these rosters was 100%. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Evaluation Overview UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 10 District Implementation Reports The District Implementation Report (DIR) is a standard annual report designed to be completed by District Reading Coordinators each spring. The questions and format of the report template were developed by the Donahue Institute specifically for the purpose of gathering information about Reading First implementation at the district and school level. As such, the DIR covers several broad topics including participation in professional development activities, implementation of comprehensive reading programs, use of student assessment data, and actual use of funding. A shorter version of the DIR was also developed for non-public schools receiving Reading First funds. The non-public DIR focused on the selection and use of a comprehensive reading program, use of student assessments, and the use of Reading First funds. The DIRs were distributed in early May with a return deadline of June 30, 2004. After follow-up emails and phone calls during the summer and early fall, the Donahue Institute received completed DIRs from all but two public Reading First districts (Taunton and Webster) – a 94% response rate. The response from non-public schools was not as good with only 81% returning DIRs1. All DIR analysis presented in this report is based on the 28 public and 25 non-public DIRs received by the Donahue Institute. MADOE Monitoring Tools Staff from the MADOE’s Office of Reading made monitoring visits to each Round 1 school during the winter of 2003-3004. While at the schools, MADOE staff members completed a Monitoring Tool, which was developed by Cheryl Liebling (MADOE Director of Reading and Language Arts) based upon Kame’enui and Simmons’ Planning and Evaluation Tool for Effective Schoolwide Reading Programs (2000). The tool guided them through rating the implementation of Reading First in the following four areas: · Instructional Leadership · Instructional Materials, Approaches and Programs · Assessments · Professional Development Within each of the above categories schools were rated on several specific critical elements. MADOE staff members rated each element as: in place (2 points), partially in place (1 point) or not in place (0 points). It is important to understand that the monitoring tool was not specifically intended for use as an evaluation data source. It is principally a program management tool, the data from which is also being captured to further inform the evaluation. MADOE initially trained its staff with joint visits followed by debriefing on ratings. Thereafter, each school was rated by only one MADOE staff member, and different MADOE staff members rated different schools. As such, the ratings reflect the perspectives of individual monitors. Event-specific participant feedback Written surveys were used to gather participant feedback at each professional development event held by MADOE. Although there was some event-specific customization, the surveys were based upon a common template, which asked participants to provide their impressions on the content of the sessions, training process, quality of the trainers, and suggestions for future improvements. When in attendance, Donahue Institute staff collected the completed surveys at the end of the event. Otherwise, they were collected by either PAR or MADOE staff and returned to the Donahue Institute for analysis. The analysis was presented to MADOE in the 1 The following non-public schools did not return DIRs: Lawrence/Sacred Heart (closed), Lowell/Sacred Heart, Lowell/St. Stanislaus, Springfield/Holy Name, Springfield/Our Lady of Sacred Heart, Taunton/Our Lady of Lourdes, and Westfield/Holy Trinity (closed). Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Evaluation Overview UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 11 form of a technical report for each activity. As appropriate, highlights of those technical reports are provided in this annual summary, but the individual reports remain the best source for detailed feedback about specific activities. District and school personnel surveys The district and school personnel survey is used to gather feedback from those most closely involved with the grant in the field. The instrument was developed by the Donahue Institute and addresses the following topics: comprehensive reading programs, instructional leadership, teacher reading academies, regional providers, student assessments, TestWiz, and educator outcomes. The first survey was administered in May 2004 and will be repeated annually. For this initial administration, the Donahue Institute sent a packet of surveys to the Reading Specialist at each school and requested that they be distributed to all faculty and staff members participating in Reading First. A pre-addressed return envelope that individuals could use to anonymously submit their responses to the Donahue Institute accompanied each individual survey. The number of surveys that each school received was based upon the number of staff listed in their spring school personnel roster. Although the survey was anonymous, minimal survey coding allowed response rates to be tracked by school. After follow-up phone calls and emails to the Reading Specialists in June and July, the majority of schools still had response rates that were lower than 80% and some schools had not returned any surveys. Since compliance with the evaluation is a requirement of Reading First, this was the cause of some concern for both the Donahue Institute and the Massachusetts Department of Education. Thus, once school was back in session Cheryl Liebling emailed all of the Reading Specialists asking that they take steps to increase their response rates to at least 80%. In many cases it turned out that the low response rate was due to the fact that schools listed individuals on their rosters (such as art and music teachers) who did not need to complete a survey. For those schools, the total number of surveys was adjusted, bringing the response rate above 80%. In other cases, where the number of teachers returning surveys was simply unacceptably low, the Donahue Institute sent out additional surveys and asked the Reading Specialist to encourage those who had not completed a survey in the spring to do so and return it. This was admittedly a difficult task, as the anonymity of the process prevented Reading Specialists from knowing who had or had not completed a survey in the spring. Clearly, a better process will have to be established for surveys administered in the spring of 2005. Despite the apparent difficulties, the overall response rate for the survey reached 76% by November 2004. However, that does not mean that all schools had acceptable returns. Sixteen of them had response rates lower than the 80% target. More troubling were the seven schools where fewer than half of the staff returned surveys. By far the worst returns were from Burnham Elementary in Haverhill (19%), the Davis School in Brockton (14%) and the Lowell Community Charter School (4%). A table with survey response rates by school is available in Appendix A. A total of 1,003 surveys were returned. Nearly three-quarters of respondents reported that they are Reading First teachers. Table 4 shows the percentage of respondents from various Reading First roles. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Evaluation Overview UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 12 Table 4: Reading First Roles (N = 1,003) Role Percentage: Teacher 74.2% Reading Specialist 8.8% Building Administrator 3.8% Classroom Assistant 1.9% District Coordinator 1.7% Other or Blank 9.7% Regional Provider focus groups The Donahue Institute conducted a focus group with the twelve Regional Providers (RPs). The objective of this activity was to gain some insight into their experiences after their initial months in the role. Topics covered during the focus group were: RP roles and responsibilities, support from the Partnership for Achievement in Reading, support from the Massachusetts Department of Education, support within the RP network, and experiences working with the schools. In March 2004, findings from the focus group were presented to the Massachusetts Department of Education in a technical report. Some findings that are relevant to the larger research questions are also presented in this report. Teacher Professional Development Assessment Measurement of the extent and nature of changes in participating teachers’ knowledge and skills is addressed through the use of a professional development assessment instrument administered in a time series model. The instrument consists of 25 multiple-choice items, with four response options including “not sure.” Although TRA participants were divided into grade-level groups and presented with somewhat tailored curriculum, the evaluation did not include sufficient resources to develop grade-level specific assessments. Thus, all teachers took the same assessment regardless of grade-level. The questions themselves have been developed over the course of several years, but it is important to note that they were not generated by test development experts or through a scientific test development process. The process began when staff of the Massachusetts Department of Education designed a 20 item multiple-choice assessment to be administered as both pre-test and post-test for the 2001 (cohort 1) BayState Readers (BSR) Summer Academies. After reviewing the data collected with that instrument, the Department changed four problematic items for use at the 2002 (cohort 2) BayState Readers Summer Academies. The BSR cohort 2 instrument served as the starting point for development of as a professional development assessment for Massachusetts Reading First. As a first step, Dr. Michael Coyne of the University of Connecticut reviewed both the BSR instrument and the TRA materials. The objective was to cover each of the five key components of reading – phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Based upon Dr. Coyne’s suggestions, the Donahue Institute made some changes to the assessment – including the addition of five more items. Next, each question on the draft instrument was reviewed with Cheryl Liebling leading to the replacement of several items. Finally, the three lead trainers conducted a review but did not suggest any substantive changes. There was no opportunity to pilot test the instrument prior to its administration at the Summer 2003 (Round 1) TRAs. After gathering the Round 1 data, the Donahue Institute replaced or modified nine of the items using the TRA materials as a source of new questions. The revised instrument was approved by the Massachusetts Department of Education before it was administered at the Winter 2004 (Round 2) TRAs. No further changes were deemed necessary for the Summer 2004 (Round 3) TRAs. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Evaluation Overview UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 13 The evaluation design calls for the professional development assessment to be administered in a time series model with a pre-test at the beginning of each TRA, a post-test at the end of each TRA, and a follow-up assessment at the end of the academic year to measure the impact of continued professional development. During this reporting period, the Round 1 teachers took both the pre/post and the follow-up. However, Round 2 teachers have taken only the pre/post. Given the short timeframe between the Winter TRAs and the end of the school year, the Donahue Institute and the Massachusetts Department of Education decided to postpone the Round 2 follow-up assessment to the following school year. Plans are currently being made to administer that assessment. Longitudinal analysis of the assessment data is facilitated by the use of a prescribed anonymous coding system that allows the Donahue Institute to link individual teacher pre-test, post-test, and follow-up assessments. The code consists of five characters. The first three are the following letters: participant’s middle initial, first initial of mother’s first name, and first initial of father’s first name. The last two are the participant’s two-digit birth date (day of the month). The Donahue Institute has found that this code is highly reliable for linking, results in minimal duplication among participants, and causes little anxiety among test takers. Detailed findings of the professional development assessment can be found in several technical reports provided to the Massachusetts Department of Education. Analysis and findings that inform the larger research questions are presented in this report. Classroom observations Classroom observations in a sample of participating schools provide data for descriptive longitudinal profiles of changes in classroom environment and teaching practices. Observations were conducted in eight schools during the 2003-2004 school year. Selection of the schools was based on a review of the funded proposals and input from key informants. Schools were selected to provide a sample with various levels of “readiness to implement” Reading First as assessed by their Regional Providers. The sample included three schools deemed most ready, three schools deemed least ready, and two schools deemed moderately ready. Within those categories, attempts were made to select schools that would provide a sample with some diversity with regard to school/population characteristics such as geographic location, size of school, and kind of community (urban, suburban, rural) as well as the core reading program selected. Some priority was given to schools that had participated in spring 2003 baseline observations; however, those observations were conducted with a different instrument so that continuity was not deemed to be critical. Observations at the selected schools took place twice during the winter and spring of the 2003-2004 school year. Two classrooms at each grade-level (K-3) were observed. If a site had more than two classrooms at any gradelevel, the Donahue Institute randomly selected the classrooms for observation. In two cases, fewer than two classes per grade-level were observed. Such cases involved situations with a long-term substitute teacher and a situation in which classes were not available to be observed. The classroom observations were conducted using an adaptation of the Instructional Content Emphasis Instrument – Revised Version (ICE-R) developed at the University of Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts. The ICE-R is designed to record the instructional content emphasized during an early elementary reading and language arts class. The data that the ICE-R yields is a multi-dimensional description of reading and language arts activities, the amount of time spent on each activity during the observed literacy block, student grouping patterns, description of materials, and amount of time spent on non-instructional activities. The focus is on the components of reading instruction – phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary – and is independent of topic. Instrument developers report that content validity was determined through literature review, reviews of national and state reading standards, and consultation with experts in the field . Inter-rater reliability was reported to be 91% (Edmonds & Briggs, 2003). Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Evaluation Overview UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 14 A trained observer visited each classroom for a period of 90-minutes during the school’s literacy block. In most cases, these observations required a team of four to visit the school twice during each observation period (winter and spring). The Donahue Institute requested that teachers be notified in advance of the observation and that they prepare a lesson plan or short description of the activities planned for that period. Otherwise, teachers were asked not to prepare any special activities. Rather, daily classroom routines and practices were to be followed. More details on the schools selected, ICE-R instrument and adaptations, observation procedures, and analytical approach can be found in a separate technical report on the classroom observations, which also provides an analysis of the observation data collected. Analysis and findings that inform the larger research questions are included in this report. Student Assessments and Related Data As an evaluation tool, student assessment results over time provide the basis for measuring student improvement, for providing comparisons among groups of students, and for linking student outcomes to teacher outcomes, thereby testing the validity of the program’s logic model. Each district electronically submits its DIBELS and GRADE assessment data to the Donahue Institute twice a year using a common export routine facilitated by TestWiz software. Each student record contains the individual’s State-Assigned Student Identification (SASID) number. Use of the SASID enables the evaluators to link individual student results over time. In addition to the assessment data submitted by districts, the Donahue Institute receive two important data files from the Massachusetts Department of Education. The first of these files contains individual student results on the Grade 3 MCAS. The other contains individual student demographic data from the Student Information Management System (SIMS). Individual records in each of those files contain each student’s SASID, thereby enabling the evaluators to link MCAS and student demographic data to individual DIBELS and GRADE results. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Comprehensive Reading Program UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 15 Comprehensive Reading Program This section of the report will address the following questions related to comprehensive reading programs: · What reading programs are being used for core instruction, supplemental and intensive intervention? Have any schools changed their programs? · In what manner and to what extent are the programs being used? Have they been fully implemented as prescribed by their publishers? · What problems do schools encounter as they attempt to implement these programs? What additional assistance is needed to address them? · How do school personnel perceive the quality and effectiveness of curricula and materials related to each of their programs? · To what extent do the reading programs align with the content and practices recommended through the reading academies? Reading Programs In Use Participating districts are required to implement a comprehensive reading program consisting of core, supplemental and intensive intervention curricula. Districts were allowed to choose their program as long as there was sufficient evidence that the curriculum was consistent with the findings of scientifically based reading research (SBRR). Participating non-public schools were also encouraged to use part of their Reading First funding to purchase a core program that was aligned with SBRR. Most of the participating schools (both public and non-public) selected one of five popular core reading programs. Harcourt Trophies was the most prevalent among public schools and Scott Foresman was the most prevalent among the non-public schools. Table 5 shows the number of public districts, public schools, and non-public schools using each program. Non-public school figures include only the 25 schools that returned their District Implementation Reports Table 5: Core Reading Program Use: Round 1 and 2 districts (2003-2004 Academic Year) Public Non-Public Core Reading Program Districts (n=32) Schools (n=57) Schools (n=25) Harcourt Trophies 14 23 3 Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice 5 11 4 Scott Foresman 4 8 8 Success for All 3 5 --- Open Court 3 5 3 *Literacy Collaborative Model 1 3 --- MacMillan/McGraw Hill 1 1 2 *Wright Literacy 1 1 --- Silver Burdett and Ginn --- --- 3 Houghton-Mifflin Literacy 2001 --- --- 1 * see the following paragraph for more information on the districts using these programs. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Comprehensive Reading Program UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 16 One district , Gill-Montague, reported that it had switched from Rigby to Houghton-Mifflin. Westfield indicated its intention to move from the Literacy Collaborative model to Houghton-Mifflin. Fitchburg, which was using Wright Literacy was unresponsive to the Massachusetts Department of Education’s requests to select a new program and their funding has been discontinued for the 2004-2005 school year. Most public districts adopted a new core reading program concurrent with beginning classroom implementation of Reading First. However, about one-third were continuing with a program that was already in use. As indicated in the submitted District Implementation Reports, eight of the public districts had adopted their core reading program one to three years prior to implementation of Reading First. One district, a charter school, began using its program (Success for All) when the school opened in 1996. Slightly more than half of the non-public schools also adopted new core reading programs in the 2003-2004 school year. In addition to a core reading program that reaches all students, each Reading First school is required to choose supplemental and intensive intervention programs to use with students having the most difficulty learning to read. The major emphasis for year 1 was getting core reading programs in place. Many schools did not begin to select and purchase intervention materials until year 2. Those that did typically used a combination of supplemental and intensive intervention programs to address their students’ specific learning needs. There is wide variation in the programs used. The most common – ELL interventions3, Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention, Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kits, and Project Read are each used by about one-third of the participating public schools. Table 6 shows the number of districts and schools using each of the more common supplemental and intensive intervention programs. Although Massachusetts Reading First is not funding Reading Recovery programs, 15 districts and 20 participating non-public schools do report having Reading Recovery programs. Table 6: Supplemental and Intensive Intervention Program Use Public Non-Public Supplemental and Intensive Intervention Programs Districts Schools Schools ELL Interventions4 18 18 1 Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention 18 18 9 Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kits 16 16 4 Lexia Phonics 13 13 --- Project Read 11 7 --- Houghton Mifflin Soar to Success 10 10 20 Road to the Code 10 10 --- Houghton Mifflin Early Success 9 9 4 Waterford 8 8 --- Phonemic Awareness in Young Children 6 6 6 Educator's Publishing Service - Primary Phonics 5 5 1 Great Leaps 5 5 --- Quick Reads 5 5 --- Success for All Tutorial Intervention 5 5 --- Wilson 5 5 1 Fundations 3 3 --- Phono-graphix 3 3 --- Read Naturally 3 3 1 3 The 2003-2004 DIR did not ask respondents to identify the specific ELL interventions in use. This will be added to the 2004-2005 DIR. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Comprehensive Reading Program UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 17 Reading Program Implementation Core Program As reported in their district implementation reports, about 54% of the public schools implemented their core program exactly as prescribed by the publisher, while nearly 29% reported making modifications to their core program. Those who made modifications often reported supplementing their core curriculum to make up for perceived gaps or weaknesses in a particular area (writing, phonics, etc). Others adjusted their core program to be more useful for at-risk students. Among schools using the three most common core reading programs (Harcourt, Houghton-Mifflin, and Scott Foresman) the most prevalent complaint was that it is difficult (or impossible) to fit all the elements of the core program into a 90 minute literacy block. Indeed many schools are scheduling literacy blocks that are substantially longer than the required 90 minute minimum. Suggestions for additional training or support were very specific to each school’s needs. There was a general theme related to learning more about implementing differentiated instruction. Some specific comments included: …How to use the core program for those students who are not on grade level. Additional workshops, training, and in-class modeling that will address writing, pacing, and flexible grouping. Additional training in literacy instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students… The Massachusetts Department of Education has noted its commitment to organizing future professional development sessions to address these stated concerns. Supplemental and Intensive Intervention Survey respondents were asked to identify which school personnel provide supplemental and intensive intervention to students in their schools. In terms of supplemental intervention, the largest number of respondents (73%) indicated that classroom teachers provide this instruction, followed by Reading Recovery6/Title I teachers (65%), paraprofessionals/aides (52%), and then reading specialists (44%). In terms of intensive intervention, the largest number of respondents (59%) reported that Reading Recovery4/Title I teachers provide this instruction, followed by classroom teachers (43%), and reading specialists (39%). 4 As stated earlier in this report, Massachusetts has not approved Reading Recovery for supplemental or intensive intervention in Reading First schools and Reading Recovery programs in these schools are not supported by Reading First funds. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Comprehensive Reading Program UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 18 Table 7: Providers of Supplemental & Intensive Intervention (N = 1,003) Percentage Responding: Role Provide supplemental instruction to students Provide intensive intervention to students Reading Recovery6 / Title I Teachers 64.8% 59.1% ELL Teachers 34.9% 22.5% Paraprofessionals / Aides 52.2% 25.6% Volunteer Tutors 12.1% 5.4% Reading Specialists 44.3% 39.3% Classroom Teachers 72.9% 42.5% Other 15.1% 21.9% In addition, respondents were asked to report on the general frequency with which supplemental and intervention instruction is provided. The vast majority of respondents indicate that both are provided daily. The next most common response was 2-3 times per week. Table 8: Frequency of Supplemental & Intensive Intervention (N = 1,003) Percentage Responding: How often are students given: Supplemental Instruction Intensive Intervention Monthly 0.2% 0.1% 2 times per Month --- 0.2% Weekly 6.7% 4.8% 2-3 times per Week 20.7% 16.1% Daily 69.4% 72.3% Other 3.1% 6.5% They were also asked about the duration of each supplemental and intervention instruction session. About 70% of respondents reported that both types of sessions last 30-45 minutes. The next most common response was less than 30 minutes. Only 6% indicated that supplemental instruction sessions lasted more than 45 minutes and 8% indicated that intensive intervention sessions last more than 45 minutes. Table 9: Duration of Supplemental & Intensive Intervention (N = 1,003) Percentage Responding: How long do sessions typically last? Supplemental Instruction Intensive Intervention Less than 30 Minutes 25.6% 21.7% 30-45 Minutes 68.6% 70.4% 46-60 Minutes 3.7% 4.2% More than 60 Minutes 2.0% 3.8% Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Comprehensive Reading Program UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 19 Beginning in the 2004-2005 school year, districts are expected to develop and implement three-tier models of instruction. Their starting point is the three-tier model introduced by Dr. Sharon Vaughn at the first Annual Massachusetts Reading First Conference in June 2004. Based on research conducted at the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading & Language Arts at the University of Texas at Austin, the 3-Tier Reading Model5 focuses on early identification of at-risk students based on student assessment results. Consistent with the expectations of Reading First, all students receive at least 90 minutes of reading instruction each day. Students who are identified as needing additional instruction are provided with an additional 30 minutes of instruction every day for ten weeks. At the end of this intervention they are reassessed. Those who continue to require additional instruction continue with an additional 30 minutes every day for another ten weeks and are again reassessed. At this point those who are still at-risk receive an additional 60 minutes of instruction (two 30-minute sessions) every day. Districts are not required to implement the University of Texas model exactly as described. Rather, they are encouraged to develop models that will work in their district context. These models will be submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Education, which will review them to determine whether they are sufficiently robust and provide appropriate feedback to the districts. Perceived Quality and Effectiveness In general, respondents to the district and school personnel survey gave positive ratings to their school’s core reading program. Over 78% positively rated6 their overall satisfaction; nearly 75% positively rated the ease of use, and close to 78% positively rated their core program’s effectiveness. Table 10: Core Program Ratings (N = 1,003) Percentage Responding Poor Fair Good Excellent No Response Satisfaction 3.0% 14.2% 51.0% 27.5% 4.3% Ease of use 2.8% 16.9% 50.8% 24.1% 5.3% Effectiveness 2.6% 14.5% 52.8% 24.9% 5.2% Ratings for the three most common core programs were even higher. In terms of overall satisfaction, Scott Foresman received the most positive ratings, followed by Houghton Mifflin and then Harcourt. Scott Foresman also received the most positive ratings for ease of use and effectiveness followed by Harcourt and then Houghton Mifflin. The following table presents the positive ratings for the three most common core programs. Table 11: Positive Core Program Ratings – by program Percentage Responding “Good” or “Excellent” Program N Overall Satisfaction Ease of Use Effectiveness Scott Foresman 168 88.7% 84.5% 85.7% Houghton Mifflin 180 84.4% 75.6% 80.0% Harcourt 362 82.6% 82.6% 83.4% 5 Principal investigator Sharon Vaughn with Co-Principal Investigators Sylvia Linan-Thompson and Batya Elbaum 6 Ratings of Good or Excellent are considered positive. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Comprehensive Reading Program UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 20 Somewhat smaller numbers of respondents gave positive ratings to their supplemental intervention programs. About 70% gave positive responses in each of the three aspects – satisfaction, ease of use, and effectiveness. Table 12: Supplemental Intervention Program Ratings (N = 1,003) Percentage Responding: Poor Fair Good Excellent No Response Satisfaction 4.6% 18.8% 48.8% 20.5% 7.3% Ease of use 3.9% 17.6% 52.1% 17.1% 9.2% Effectiveness 4.4% 17.9% 50.1% 18.7% 8.8% Still fewer respondents gave positive ratings to their intensive intervention programs. About 65% gave positive responses in each of the three aspects – satisfaction, ease of use and effectiveness. Table 13: Intensive Intervention Program Ratings (N = 1,003) Percentage Responding: Poor Fair Good Excellent No Response Satisfaction 6.1% 18.4% 45.5% 19.5% 10.5% Ease of use 5.5% 17.7% 47.9% 16.1% 12.9% Effectiveness 6.0% 17.9% 44.4% 19.4% 12.3% Finally, survey respondents were asked to rate the alignment of their core, supplemental and intensive intervention programs. Just over 4% rated the alignment as poor, 19% rated it as fair, 50% rated it was good, and 20% rated it as excellent7. Alignment with Reading First One item on the Massachusetts Department of Education’s monitoring tool asked for a rating of whether “the school’s K-3 core reading program, materials, and strategies are consistent with SBRR and the Massachusetts English Language Framework, K-3.” Ratings for the Round 1 schools visited during the 2003-2004 school year indicate that more than 70% have such a program in place, 18% have such a program partially in place, and 11% do not have such a program in place. Table 14: Core Program Alignment with Reading First (N=45) Instructional Materials Element In Place Partially in Place Not in Place Core program is consistent with SBRR and Massachusetts ELA Frameworks 70.5% 18.2% 11.4% 7 About 8% of respondents failed to rate the alignment of their programs. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Instructional Leadership UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 21 Instructional Leadership This section of the report will address the following questions related to instructional leadership: · Do the instructional leaders – district reading coordinators, principals, and reading specialists – have the responsibility and qualifications to align the district’s reading program with the findings of SBRR and the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for ELA? Are they committed to the successful implementation of Reading First? · Has the district established processes to provide ongoing professional development to its instructional leaders? · Has the district instituted policies that ensure continuity of leadership in Reading First schools? · Does the district have structures in place for continuous improvement of the Reading First implementation? Responsibility and Commitment The instructional leadership section of the Massachusetts Department of Education’s monitoring tool included three items relating to responsibility, qualifications, and commitment to Reading First. Specifically, those items were: 1. The district’s reading coordinator is committed to the successful implementation of Reading First. The district’s reading coordinator is knowledgeable about SBRR and best practice in teaching reading. 2. The Reading First school principal is committed to the successful implementation of Reading First. The school principal is knowledgeable about SBRR and best practice in teaching reading. 3. The Reading First reading specialist is committed to the successful implementation of Reading First. The Reading Specialist is certified as a reading specialist in MA. Most of the Round 1 schools visited fully meet the above criteria for all three of the key instructional leadership positions. None of the schools completely failed to meet the criteria. Table 15: Instructional Leadership Responsibility, Qualification and Commitment (N=45) Instructional Leadership In Place Partially in Place Not in Place District staff is committed to RF 81.0% 19.0% --- Principal is committed to RF 70.5% 29.5% --- Reading Specialist is committed to RF 77.3% 22.7% --- In addition to the data available through the monitoring tools, respondents to the school and district personnel survey were asked to rate the knowledge and commitment of their instructional leaders, specifically their district coordinators, principals and reading specialists. At least 85% of respondents gave their district coordinators and reading specialists positive ratings for both knowledge of SBRR and commitment to Reading First. Principals also received positive ratings for commitment from more than 85% of respondents. However, only 80% of Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Instructional Leadership UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 22 respondents gave their principals positive ratings for knowledge of the findings of scientifically based reading research. Table 16: Instructional Leadership: Knowledge of Scientifically Based Reading Research (N = 1,003) Percentage Responding: Poor Fair Good Excellent No Response District Coordinator 1.3% 7.2% 36.0% 48.8% 6.8% Principal 3.1% 14.2% 40.2% 39.4% 3.2% Reading Specialist 1.9% 6.2% 32.4% 55.1% 4.4% Table 17: Instructional Leadership – Commitment to Reading First (N = 1,003) Percentage Responding: Poor Fair Good Excellent No Response District Coordinator 1.9% 6.0% 29.4% 56.4% 6.3% Principal 2.3% 6.5% 29.0% 59.9% 2.3% Reading Specialist 1.8% 4.7% 22.2% 67.0% 4.3% District Processes, Policies and Structures The instructional leadership section of the monitoring tool also included items related to district processes, policies and structures that allow for strong program implementation. Specifically, those items were: 5. The District has processes in place to provide SBRR professional development for Reading First leaders. 6. To the extent possible, the District has implemented policies that ensure continuity of leadership in Reading First schools. 7. The district has structures in place for continuous improvement of the Reading First implementation (e.g. district-wide Reading First literacy team, school-wide Reading First literacy teams, ongoing grade level meetings within Reading First schools). About 80% of the Round 1 schools visited had policies to ensure continuity of leadership. All had at least partially established structures for continuous improvement with about 64% fully in place. Similarly, 64% had fully implemented processes for professional development on scientifically based reading research and scientifically based reading instruction. However, more than 27% did not have those processes. Table 18: District Processes, Policies and Structures (N=45) Instructional Leadership In Place Partially in Place Not in Place SBRR PD in Place 63.6 9.1 27.3 Continuity of Leadership 79.5 13.6 6.8 Structures for improvement of RF 63.6 36.4 --- Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Professional Development and Support Activities UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 23 Professional Development and Support Activities This section of the report will address the following questions related to professional development and support activities: · How effective is the training and support provided to the local assessment teams? · To what extent did school personnel participate in the Teacher Reading Academies? How do they perceive the quality and effectiveness of the training they received? · How did school personnel interact with their Regional Providers? How do they perceive the quality of the support they received from their Regional Provider? Assessment Training Local assessment teams received training in each of the required Reading First assessments. Teams from Round 1 schools were trained at a two-day session in June 2003. Teams from Round 2 received an abbreviated one-day assessment overview during their orientation in September 2003. Round 3 schools received two full days of assessment training, including the in-depth diagnostic assessments (CTOPP and PPVT-III). The Regional Providers also provided considerable support to Round 1 and Round 2 schools throughout the assessment period. The Donahue Institute solicited feedback from training participants through a written survey collected at the end of each training session. Overall, Round 1 participants were the most satisfied with the training they received. About 80% of them rated their entire training as good or excellent. Round 3 participants expressed somewhat lower levels of satisfaction with 67% giving the training positive ratings. Round 2 participants were by far the least satisfied with only 40% positively rating the training. The key factor in the lower ratings appears to have been that the GRADE presentation at the Round 2 training was very poorly received, with only 38% rating it positively compared to 75% at the Round 1 training. It is important to note that the DIBELS training was very well received at all three sessions with positive ratings by 87% of Round 1 participants and 91% of Round 2 and Round 3 participants8. Teacher Reading Academies There were a total of thirteen 4-day academies held in the summer of 2003 with more than 1300 participants and fourteen two-day academies in the winter of 2004 with more than 330 participants. In addition about 80 individuals participated in a 3-day TRA for non-Reading First schools held at the Annual Title I Conference. The following paragraphs and tables present information gathered through the district and school personnel survey. The timing of this survey allowed participants to reflect back after having some opportunity to implement what they had learned in the classroom. Information about their more immediate impressions, gathered on the last day of each academy, is available in three technical reports provided to the Massachusetts Department of Education. About 85% of respondents to the district and school personnel survey indicated that they had attended a TRA. Most of them attended a full four-day TRA in the summer of 2003. Only 16% attended a two-day TRA in the 8 More detail on assessment training survey results are available in technical reports MRFP-001 and MRFP-006. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Professional Development and Support Activities UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 24 winter of 2004. A closer examination of the data shows that more than 90% of responding building administrators, district coordinators, and reading specialists attended a TRA, as did about 87% of teachers. Table 19: TRA Attendance Rate by Reading First Role (N = 984*) Reading First Role N % Attending TRA % not Attending TRA Building Administrator 38 97.3% 2.7% District Coordinator 17 94.1% 5.9% Reading Specialist 88 92.9% 7.1% Teacher 744 87.1% 12.9% * Does not include 19 paraprofessionals who responded to the survey, but were not actively encouraged to attend TRAs. Those survey respondents who had attended a TRA were asked to reflect back on the training they received through the TRAs after having some time to use what they had learned. Three-quarters of those who attended a TRA gave it an overall rating of good or excellent. There were no significant differences in overall ratings between those attending summer and winter sessions. Table 20: Overall Rating of TRA (N = 851) Rating Percentage: Poor 3.5% Fair 20.0% Good 53.8% Excellent 21.2% No Response 1.5% About 56% of teachers and reading specialists gave the TRAs positive ratings for overall relevance to their daily work. They found the TRAs to be most relevant in the areas of Phonemic Awareness and Phonics. More than two-thirds of reading specialists and teachers also gave positive relevance ratings for fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Ratings for each of the five dimensions of reading were much higher than ratings for the overall TRA, which also included sessions on other related topics such as English Language Learners and differentiated instruction. Thus, it appears that participants were generally pleased with the training on the five dimensions, but less so with the ancillary topics covered. Table 21: Relevance of TRAs – Teachers and Reading Specialists Only (N = 836) Percentage Responding: Relevance of: Poor Fair Good Excellent No Response Entire TRA 6.6% 28.3% 48.0% 7.6% 9.6% Phonemic Awareness 2.4% 16.9% 47.7% 27.8% 5.2% Phonics 1.7% 16.6% 54.7% 22.2% 4.8% Fluency 3.1% 22.6% 51.6% 17.3% 5.3% Vocabulary 3.4% 23.6% 51.6% 16.2% 5.2% Comprehension 3.8% 24.8% 51.1% 15.2% 5.2% Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Professional Development and Support Activities UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 25 Regional Providers During the reporting period the Office of Reading’s main professional development contractor, the Partnership for Achievement in Reading, was responsible for managing a network of twelve regional providers (RPs) whose role was to facilitate implementation of Reading First by providing ongoing professional development and support to Reading First schools throughout the school year. Each of the RPs worked with about six elementary schools reinforcing the lessons taught through the TRA curricula, providing follow-up training and sharing relevant professional expertise and experience. The ten9 original Regional Providers participated in an initial week-long training in July 2003. On the last day of that training, the Donahue Institute gathered feedback through a written survey. Their responses were overwhelmingly positive. All ten respondents rated the training as excellent and very useful. Most indicated that they were moderately or very confident that they could be successful in their role as an RP10. A few weeks after the initial training, the RPs also spent several days learning about each of the more commonly selected core reading programs, including analyzing their relative strengths and weaknesses. RP training and support continued in monthly sessions throughout the school year. The Donahue Institute did not gather feedback at each of these sessions, but did conduct a focus group with all twelve regional providers in February 2004. Focus group findings related to training and support included: · Overall, the RPs indicated that the support they received from PAR was of high quality, but sometimes difficult to access because everyone was so busy. · Often the most effective support came from their colleagues. · They expressed the need for additional training on the specific reading programs being used by their schools – including core, supplemental and intensive intervention programs. Respondents to the district and school personnel survey were asked about their experiences working with their RP. More than 60% of the respondents reported that they worked with their RP to interpret assessment results. The next most common responses were receiving supplemental training, identifying additional instructional materials, and planning differentiated instruction. Just under 30% of respondents indicated that they worked with their RP to address issues related to administering the student assessments. About 16% of respondents received coaching or modeling from the RP, including 21% of responding administrators, about 17% of reading specialists and teachers, and 12% of district coordinators. Table 22: Interactions with RP (N = 1,003) In which ways have you interacted with your school's RP? Percentage Responding: Interpreting assessments 60.5% Receiving supplemental training 42.9% Identifying additional instructional materials 37.6% Planning differentiated instruction 37.4% Administering assessments 29.1% Receiving individual coaching or modeling 16.3% Other 5.4% 9 Ten individuals were hired as RPs in June of 2003. Later, PAR also took on responsibility for providing support to schools funded under the BayState Readers Development Grant program and hired two additional RPs to handle the increased workload. 10 More detailed findings from the survey are available in Technical Report MRFP- 005. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Professional Development and Support Activities UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 26 Overall, a majority of the school staff was satisfied with the support they received from their RP. In particular, about 76% positively rated their RP’s expertise in reading content, 63% positively rated their RP’s expertise in coaching and modeling, and 65% positively rated their RP’s expertise in providing structured professional development. Table 23: RP Quality (N = 838) Percentage Responding: Survey Item: Poor Fair Good Excellent Overall satisfaction with RP 6.2% 19.1% 40.3% 28.3% RP's contribution to the effectiveness of Reading First 7.6% 20.8% 38.5% 25.9% RP's contribution to increasing your knowledge and skills 9.4% 23.5% 34.1% 26.5% RP's responsiveness to the needs of your school 8.7% 19.0% 37.9% 26.7% RP's expertise in reading content 2.7% 11.0% 34.5% 41.6% RP's expertise in coaching and modeling 7.9% 15.3% 31.7% 30.8% RP's expertise in providing structured PD 8.2% 16.1% 32.1% 33.1% Local Professional Development Some local districts are using Reading First materials to provide professional development at the local level – both the reinforce lessons learned in Reading First schools and extend the available training to non-Reading First schools. Future reports will provide information on the extent to which Reading First professional development is being disseminated at the local level, and how that dissemination is being carried out. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Use of Student Assessment to Inform Instruction UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 27 Use of Student Assessment to Inform Instruction This section of the report will address the following questions related to the use of student assessment to inform instruction: · How are the Reading First assessments being administered in schools? What other assessments are being used? · How do school personnel perceive the Reading First assessments? Are they easy to administer? Do they provide useful information? · What tools are schools using to analyze their student assessment data? Who uses them and how? How do they perceive the quality and effectiveness of those tools? · How and to what extent are the results being used to: screen students; diagnose specific learning needs; guide individual and group instruction; monitor student progress. · To what extent are there correlations between results of the DIBELS ORF subtest and the GRADE assessment? To what extent do DIBELS ORF and GRADE scores correlate with Grade 3 MCAS results? PLEASE NOTE: This section of the report is about the process of using the assessments and the data they provide. Information on student reading ability as measured by these assessments will be presented in a later section of the report. Assessments in Use Massachusetts Reading First schools are required to administer certain assessments to their students in first, second, and third grades11. Consistent with federal guidelines, those assessments are used for screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring, and outcomes evaluation. Screening assessments are administered in the fall and serve to identify those students who may need supplemental or intensive intervention in reading. The assessments used for screening are the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) and the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)12. Diagnostic assessments are administered as needed to students who have been identified as needing additional instruction. Their purpose is to more specifically identify the student’s areas of weakness so as to implement an appropriate intervention strategy. Massachusetts Reading First diagnostic assessments are the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – 3rd edition (PPVT-III), the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP), Roswell-Chall, as well as the GRADE administered off-level. The required progress monitoring assessment is DIBELS. Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) is an optional comprehension progress monitoring assessment. Finally, student outcome assessments are administered in the spring. They include DIBELS, GRADE, and the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) third grade reading test. The Massachusetts Reading First Assessment Framework details the assessments by grade-level and specifies which subtests are used. A copy of that framework can be found in Appendix B. 11 There are also recommended assessments for Kindergarten, but they are not required. 12 DIBELS is a benchmark assessment administered to all students three times each year – fall and winter administrations screening assessments and spring outcomes assessment. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Use of Student Assessment to Inform Instruction UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 28 Respondents to the district and school personnel survey were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with DIBELS and GRADE, the two main MRFP screening and outcome assessments. More than two-thirds of respondents rated DIBELS as good or excellent. In comparison, fewer than 45% rated GRADE and good or excellent. Although the survey data do not provide specific reasons for these lower ratings, they may well be related to initial problems with test administration and scoring, which have since been addressed. In addition, few schools were ready to begin using GRADE data for instructional planning. The Massachusetts Department of Education is working to provide additional professional development and support so that schools will see the advantages of the data provided by the GRADE assessment. Table 24: Overall Satisfaction with DIBELS and GRADE (N = 1003) Percentage Responding: Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with: Poor Fair Good Excellent No Response DIBELS 4.8% 21.9% 47.5% 19.6% 6.2% GRADE 9.5% 29.2% 38.5% 6.2% 16.7% Data gathered through the District Implementation Reports indicate that relatively few schools utilized the available diagnostic assessments. Five to ten schools used PPVT-III at each grade-level for a total of 206 students. Three to five schools used the off-level administration of the GRADE at each grade-level for a total of 242 students. Twelve schools used CTOPP at grade 2 and 11 schools used CTOPP at grade 3 for a total of 143 students. Finally, four schools used the Roswell-Chall at grade 2 and five schools used this assessment at grade 3 for total of 124 students. This limited use of diagnostic assessments is consistent with the recommendations of the Eastern Region Reading First Technical Assistance Center (ERRFTAC) that use of in-depth measures be limited to cases where intensive interventions or possible placement in special education are being considered. Table 25: Use of Diagnostic Assessments (N=47) Diagnostic Assessment Number of Schools Number of Students PPVT-III - Kindergarten 10 85 PPVT-III – First grade 5 41 PPVT-III - Second grade 5 44 PPVT-III – Third grade 6 36 First grade GRADE (off-level) 5 94 Second grade GRADE (off-level) 3 69 Third grade GRADE (off-level) 4 79 Second Grade CTOPP 12 83 Third grade CTOPP 11 60 Second Grade Roswell-Chall 4 53 Third grade Roswell-Chall 5 71 A total of 44 additional assessments are in use among the districts returning implementation reports. The most commonly used is the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), which is used by 16 schools in eight districts. It is followed by Clay’s Observation Survey, which is used by nine schools in seven districts. Both of these assessments were part of the required battery for Massachusetts’ Reading Excellence program and were also previously used in the state-funded BayState Readers program. Four of the schools using the DRA and two of the Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Use of Student Assessment to Inform Instruction UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 29 schools using Clay’s were Reading Excellence schools. The table below shows all of the other assessments being used by two or more districts. Table 26: Other Assessments Used Assessment Name: Districts Schools DRA 8 16 Clay's Observation Survey 7 9 IOWA 4 7 Terra Nova 4 5 SRI 3 4 MELA-O 3 3 LAS 3 3 CAT 2 4 Slossen Oral Reading 2 3 Scott Foresman End of Unit and Benchmark Assessments 2 3 Harcourt Theme Assessments 2 2 MEPA 2 2 SFA 2 2 Administration of Required Assessments Massachusetts intended the required school-based assessment process to be implemented along a gradual release of responsibility model. Initially each school was to identify a seven-member assessment team that would be trained and take responsibility for administering the first round of assessments in the fall of 2003. This assessment team would then take responsibility for training other staff, particularly classroom teachers, who would take over responsibility for administering assessments over the course of the year. Survey data reveal that, for the most part, this transition did take place. Nearly 53% of those who took part in the fall 2003 DIBELS administration were members of the assessment team. In the winter, however, over 60% of those administering DIBELS were not on the assessment team. This pattern continued into the spring, with 62% of those administering the assessment not on the assessment team. For GRADE, the pattern differed somewhat. In fall 2003, 59% of those administering GRADE were not members of the assessment team. This increased to 70% in the spring. In each case, classroom teachers made up at least 85% of the group of individuals who were administering assessments, but not part of the assessment team. These data align with evidence from the District Implementation Reports that classroom teachers took on the responsibility for administering GRADE more often (and earlier in the school year) than DIBELS. Data gathered through the District Implementation Reports reveal a few different models for accomplishing this transition. Nearly 25% of public Reading First schools reported that the classroom teachers administered the GRADE assessment, but assessment team members administered the DIBELS. About 40% indicated that they transitioned the administration of both GRADE and DIBELS to classroom teachers during the winter progress monitoring and spring outcomes assessment periods. One school reported that, beginning in the fall, classroom teachers administered all assessments with strong support from the assessment team. Nearly 36% of the schools enlisted the help of other school staff during assessment periods. Those most commonly called upon to help out included Title I, ELL and SPED teachers as well as support staff and reading specialists. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Use of Student Assessment to Inform Instruction UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 30 Among those who participated in administration of the DIBELS assessment, 82% rated the ease of administration as good or excellent compared to 75% of those who participated in administration of the GRADE assessment. Table 27: Reading First Assessments – Ease of Administration Percentage Responding: N Poor Fair Good Excellent No Response DIBELS 660 1.4% 9.7% 50.6% 31.8% 6.5% GRADE 745 6.4% 14.1% 52.6% 22.3% 4.6% Responses to the district and school personnel survey reveal the need for additional training and follow-up in regard to allowable IEP accommodations for DIBELS. More than 46% of respondents rated their familiarity with those accommodations as poor or fair. Only 35% positively rated the appropriateness of those accommodations, 23% rated them negatively, and 26% indicated that they were not sure whether the accommodations were appropriate. On a related note, the Massachusetts Department of Education met with Wireless Generation to discuss the potential for broad adoption of their software which allows schools to administer the DIBELS using handheld personal digital assistants. The Department’s interest was based on early experience in Pittsfield which had chosen to invest in the Wireless Generation system. Wireless Generation was invited to make presentations at the Round 2 and Round 3 assessment trainings. However, the expense of the product and required hardware appears to preclude widespread adoption beyond large districts with high levels of Reading First grant funding. Future reports will examine the extent to which other districts are using the Wireless Generation technology and present feedback on their experiences doing so. Data Analysis and Application Consistent with program requirements, all districts and schools report using TestWiz to analyze their data. In addition, 14 districts indicate that they use GRADE software, four use the DIBELS data system and three use DRP reports. The table below shows each of the analysis tools identified in the District Implementation Reports. Table 28: Tools Used to Analyze Data Analysis Tool Districts Schools TestWiz* 28 49 GRADE software 14 21 DIBELS data system (University of Oregon) 4 4 EdFormation/Aimsweb/Ideal Consulting 3 5 DRP reports 3 3 Excel Charts 1 2 * These figures are based on returned DIRs. However, the Donahue Institute is confident that TestWiz is being used in all 32 districts and schools. These tools are most commonly used by reading specialists and classroom teachers followed by principals and regional providers. The table below shows each of the staff positions reported to use these tools. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Use of Student Assessment to Inform Instruction UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 31 Table 29: Staff Using Assessment Tools Staff Role: Districts Schools Reading Specialist 21 34 Classroom Teacher 20 31 Principal 14 17 Regional Provider 9 11 Support Staff 7 9 District Reading Coordinator 7 8 SPED Teachers 5 8 Title 1 Teacher 5 6 Leadership Team 2 5 Literacy Team 1 3 IST 3 3 District Data Specialists 3 3 SFA Facilitator 1 2 Reading Coach 1 2 Superintendent 1 1 Grants Coordinator 1 1 Interventionists 1 1 Central Administration 1 1 Curriculum Accommodation Team 1 1 School Literacy Coordinator 1 1 Assessment Team 1 1 While a strong majority (83%) of respondents indicated that they used DIBELS results to plan instruction, less than half (43%) reported using GRADE results in this way. Among those who used DIBELS to plan instruction, about three-quarters felt that the assessment results were effective for the purpose. Although fewer respondents used GRADE to plan instruction, about two-thirds of those who did felt that the results were effective for the purpose. Table 30: Reading First Assessments – Effectiveness for Planning Instruction Percentage Responding: N Poor Fair Good Excellent No Response Quality of the information DIBELS 829 2.5% 19.3% 53.4% 23.3% 1.4% GRADE 428 5.6% 26.2% 53.3% 13.3% 1.6% Usefulness of results for addressing individual student needs DIBELS 829 3.4% 20.0% 50.2% 25.7% 0.7% GRADE 428 7.0% 25.9% 52.1% 13.3% 1.6% Usefulness of results for planning group instruction DIBELS 829 3.5% 21.1% 50.4% 24.1% 0.8% GRADE 428 6.5% 27.6% 51.2% 13.3% 1.4% Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Use of Student Assessment to Inform Instruction UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 32 Correlations Among Required Assessments Correlations to MCAS The Massachusetts Department of Education deliberately selected screening assessments that were believed to serve as good predictors of third grade reading proficiency. As such, the department has a strong interest in understanding the extent to which DIBELS [specifically the Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) subtest] and GRADE performance can predict whether or not a student will attain proficiency on the third grade Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) reading test. In this first year of the grant it is possible to examine the correlation between DIBELS ORF and GRADE scores in the fall of third grade and the MCAS exam given in the spring. Next year it should be possible to conduct similar analysis looking from the fall of second grade to the third grade MCAS and the following year from the fall of first grade to the third grade MCAS13. A note about statistical significance, strength of relationship and generalizability: Correlations that are statistically significant represent a greater relationship between scores than would happen randomly by chance. Statistical significance indicates that there is indeed a relationship between the assessments, but does not necessarily indicate that that relationship is strong. This report uses the term moderately strong to describe relationships where there is 60-79% agreement between measures and the term very strong to describe relationships where there is at least 80% agreement between measures. Finally, it is important to recognize that the analysis presented here was conducted using only data from students participating in Massachusetts Reading First. The findings cannot necessarily be generalized to other students in Massachusetts or elsewhere. Fall DIBELS ORF and MCAS Massachusetts Reading First is using the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency subtest as a measure of intermediate outcome – fluid and accurate decoding of text. It is held by many that fluency is the bridge between simple decoding and comprehension. Thus, as a measure of fluency, DIBELS ORF is touted as a reasonable predictor of proficiency on standards-based assessments. This section explores whether DIBELS ORF is indeed a good predictor of student outcomes on the third grade MCAS reading test. As established by researchers at the University of Oregon, students are grouped into three risk categories based on their DIBELS ORF raw scores. In the fall of third grade students with raw scores below 53 are considered to be “at risk”, students with scores between 53 and 76 are considered to be “some risk”, and students with scores at or above the grade-level benchmark of 77 are considered to be “low risk.” Risk relates to the likelihood that a student will have problems reading grade-level text with comprehension. Data for students participating in Massachusetts Reading First reveal that there is a statistically significant correlation between fall DIBELS ORF and MCAS raw scores. (r=0.57). Looking more closely at the data, comparing whether students attain the DIBELS ORF low risk benchmark and achieve MCAS proficiency, reveals that the two assessments agree for 72% of students – a moderately strong correlation. Only 11% of students met the fall low risk benchmark for DIBELS, but were not proficient on the MCAS. However, 17% failed to meet the fall low risk benchmark for DIBELS and still managed to attain proficiency on the MCAS. 13 One concern is whether high rates of student mobility will leave a sufficient sample for valid and credible analysis. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Use of Student Assessment to Inform Instruction UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 33 Table 31: Agreement Between Fall DIBELS ORF and MCAS (N = 3,339) DIBELS and MCAS agree DIBELS below benchmark* and MCAS not proficient 43.6% DIBELS at benchmark* and MCAS proficient 28.2% Total Agree 71.8% DIBELS and MCAS disagree DIBELS at benchmark* and MCAS not proficient 10.8% DIBELS below benchmark* and MCAS proficient 17.4% Total Disagree 28.2% * DIBELS ORF benchmark for third grade fall is 77 words read correctly per minute. Students meeting this benchmark are considered to be at “low risk” for future reading difficulties. Table 32 presents cross-tabulations of the DIBELS ORF risk categories with the three MCAS performance levels – warning, needs improvement and proficient. Table 32: Cross-tabulations of DIBELS ORF Risk Level and MCAS Performance Level ORF Risk MCAS Level At Risk (0-52) Some Risk (53-76) Low Risk (77+) Total Warning 25.3% 6.7% 2.2% 10.9% Needs Improvement 55.9% 53.6% 25.5% 43.4% Proficient 18.8% 39.7% 72.4% 45.7% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% The data in the table above reveal that only 19% of the students considered “at risk” on the fall DIBELS ORF scored at the proficient level on the MCAS. About 40% of the students in the “some risk” category on DIBELS were in the proficient category on the MCAS. And 72% of those at “low risk” on the DIBELS were proficient on the MCAS. This means that fall DIBELS ORF scores are a very strong predictor of MCAS scores for Reading First students at the “at risk” level and a moderately strong predictor for students at the “low risk” levels, but not a good predictor for students at the “some risk” level – a finding consistent with other research on DIBELS correlations with performance on state assessment tests. (Buck & Torgesen, 2003) As might be expected, students with lower scores in the “some risk” range are less likely to attain proficiency on the MCAS. About one-third of those with DIBELS ORF scores between 53 and 58 had proficient scores on the MCAS. About 40% of those in the middle of the “some risk” range (59-70) had proficient scores on the MCAS. And nearly half of those at the top end of the “some risk” range (71-76) scored proficient on the MCAS. As such, DIBELS might be considered a moderately strong predictor of MCAS performance for students with DIBELS scores lower than 59. However, DIBELS is still not a good predictor of MCAS performance for students with scores ranging from 59 to 76. Thus, teachers may need to conduct additional screening to determine which of these students are most likely to score below proficient on the MCAS examination. The Massachusetts Department of Education could provide valuable technical assistance by working to identify better screening measures for those students. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Use of Student Assessment to Inform Instruction UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 34 It is possible to use regression modeling to predict what fall DIBELS ORF raw score is suggestive of MCAS proficiency among students participating in Massachusetts Reading First14. We defined a simple bivariate regression model with ORF raw score as the independent variable and MCAS raw score as the dependent variable resulting in the following equation: MCAS = 17.649 + (0.138 * ORF) The cut score for proficiency on the spring 2004 third grade MCAS was 30. Thus, we used basic algebra to solve for the ORF score that would yield an MCAS score of 30. The result was 89.5. Therefore it is likely that a student scoring 90 on DIBELS ORF in the fall of third grade will attain proficiency on the MCAS. Indeed, 80% of MRFP students with ORF scores of 90 or higher were proficient on the MCAS and only 33% of those with ORF scores lower than 90 were proficient on the MCAS. Thus, teachers should feel reasonably comfortable assuming that students with scores of 90 or better on ORF are on track to meet MCAS proficiency standards. Fall GRADE and MCAS Although an outcome measure in its own right, the GRADE assessment is also being used as a screening tool. The hope is that early GRADE assessment results will provide information about which students are unlikely to attain proficiency on the third grade MCAS and thus identify them for early intervention to improve their chances. Therefore, in order to judge GRADE’s utility as a screening tool, it is important to understand the relationship between GRADE and MCAS results for students who are participating in Massachusetts Reading First. There is a statistically significant correlation between fall GRADE and MCAS raw scores (r=0.693). The developers of GRADE have indicated that students scoring at or above the fourth stanine can be considered to be performing at grade-level. Looking at performance versus the grade-level benchmark, the two assessments agree for 75% of students indicating a moderately strong correlation. However, about 20% of students scored at or above the fourth stanine on GRADE, but were not proficient on the MCAS. Table 33: Agreement Between Fall GRADE and MCAS (N = 3,339) GRADE and MCAS agree GRADE below stanine 4 and MCAS not proficient 35.3% GRADE at or above stanine 4 and MCAS proficient 39.4% Total Agree 74.7% GRADE and MCAS disagree GRADE at or above stanine 4 and MCAS not proficient 19.8% GRADE below stanine 4 and MCAS proficient 5.6% Total Disagree 25.4% As defined by the test developers, students are grouped into three performance categories based on their GRADE scores. Students with scores in stanines 1-3 are grouped in “weak”, those with scores in stanines 4-6 are grouped in “average”, and those with scores in stanines 7-9 are grouped in “strength”. The following table presents crosstabulations of these categories with the three MCAS performance levels – warning, needs improvement and proficient. 14 It is not necessarily true that the same predictive score would apply to students in other Massachusetts schools. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Use of Student Assessment to Inform Instruction UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 35 Table 34: Cross-tabulations of GRADE Descriptors and MCAS Performance Level GRADE MCAS Level Weak (Stanines 1-3) Average (Stanines 4-6) Strength (Stanines 7-9) Total Warning 25.4% 2.2% 0.6% 11.4% Needs Improvement 60.9% 37.9% 2.5% 43.5% Proficient 13.7% 59.9% 96.9% 45.1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% The data in the table above reveal that only 14% of the students in the weak category on the fall GRADE scored at the proficient level on the MCAS. About 60% of the students in the average category were in the proficient category on the MCAS. Finally, 97% of those in the strength category were proficient on the MCAS. Thus fall GRADE appears to be a very strong predictor of MCAS proficiency for students in the weak and strength category and a moderately strong predictor for students in the average category. GRADE is a better predictor of MCAS proficiency if you look at the average category by stanine. Only about 36% of those in the fourth stanine attained proficiency on MCAS. In the fifth stanine 65% attained proficiency on MCAS and at the sixth stanine 89% attained proficiency. It seems reasonable to conclude that students scoring in stanines 1-4 are very unlikely to attain proficiency on MCAS, that students scoring in stanine 5 are reasonably likely to attain proficiency on MCAS and that students scoring in stanines 6-9 are very likely to attain proficiency on MCAS. Thus, when examined by stanine, GRADE does appear to be a reasonable predictor for students in the middle range of performance. These results have raised questions about whether GRADE sets a low standard for grade-level performance and/or the MCAS proficient level is a high standard for grade-level performance. Some analyses have indicated that scores in the upper end of the MCAS Needs Improvement range are better correlated with the average range on established norm-referenced assessments. The Massachusetts Department of Education and the Donahue Institute will be working together to better understand the relationship between other assessments and the third grade MCAS in an effort to establish the appropriate indicators of grade-level performance. As with DIBELS we defined a simple bivariate regression model with GRADE growth scale value15 as the independent variable and MCAS raw score as the dependent variable resulting in the following equation: MCAS = -21.730 + (0.121 * GSV) The cut score for proficiency on the spring 2004 third grade MCAS was 30. Thus, we used basic algebra to solve for the GSV that would yield an MCAS score of 30. The result was 427.52. Therefore it is likely that a student with a GSV of 429 in the fall of third grade will attain proficiency on the MCAS. Indeed, 91% of Massachusetts Reading First students with GSVs of 429 or higher were proficient on the MCAS and only 28% of those with GSVs lower than 429 were proficient on the MCAS. Thus, teachers should feel reasonably comfortable assuming that students with fall GSVs of 429 or better are on track to meet MCAS proficiency standards. 15 The Growth Scale Value (GSV) is a standard score that provides a means for tracking growth across test levels. The GSVs for Level 1 and higher represent a continuous growth scale that reflects reading progress from early primary grades through secondary grades. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Use of Student Assessment to Inform Instruction UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 36 Correlation Between DIBELS ORF and GRADE Given that schools have more than one assessment available for screening students, it is important to understand the extent to which those measures provide consistent information about a student’s reading ability. This section of the report examines the relationship between students’ performance on DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency and the GRADE assessment. Table 35: Correlations Between DIBELS ORF and GRADE Scores Grade Timing Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient N 1 Spring 0.778 ** 3856 Fall 0.825 ** 3765 2 Spring 0.770 ** 3718 Fall 0.797 ** 3774 3 Spring 0.752 ** 3671 ** statistically significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) There are statistically significant correlations between DIBELS ORF and GRADE scores at all grade levels (1-3) and testing periods (spring and fall). As evidenced in the previous table, correlation coefficients for raw scores range from 0.752 to 0.825. Looking more closely at the data categorizing students based on performance levels, reveals that results of the two assessments agree for between 58% and 85% of students depending on grade-level and testing period. However, they also disagreed for between 15% and 42% of those students who were tested. Table 36 provides more detail on how the two assessments agree and disagree. Across all grade-levels and testing periods, very few students met the DIBELS low risk benchmark and scored in the weak category on GRADE. However, between 11% and 41% scored in average or strength on GRADE and failed to achieve the DIBELS low risk benchmark. Thus, attaining the DIBELS low risk benchmark may be a good indicator that a student will perform at average or above on GRADE during the same testing period, but the opposite may not be true. Table 36: Agreement Between DIBELS and GRADE DIBELS and GRADE agree DIBELS and GRADE disagree DIBELS at risk or some risk DIBELS low risk DIBELS low risk DIBELS at risk or some risk Grade Timing GRADE weak GRADE average or strength Total Agree GRADE weak GRADE average or strength Total Disagree N 1 Spring 24.4% 49.6% 74.0% 0.6% 25.4% 26.0% 3790 Fall 45.3% 39.6% 84.9% 4.4% 10.8% 15.2% 3765 2 Spring 24.3% 40.3% 64.6% 0.7% 34.8% 35.5% 3713 Fall 39.0% 35.4% 74.4% 2.9% 22.6% 25.5% 3774 3 Spring 22.0% 36.0% 58.0% 0.8% 41.3% 42.1% 3671 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 37 Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices This section of the report will address the following questions related to teacher knowledge and teaching practices: · To what extent do the Teacher Reading Academies improve educators’ knowledge and skills with regard to specific concepts and practices consistent with the findings of SBRR? · To what extent do educators maintain or improve their knowledge and skills levels during the course of the academic year? · To what extent do participating teachers demonstrate teaching practices consistent with the findings of SBRR? Changes in Teacher Knowledge Short-Term Gains in Knowledge The most intensive professional development offered as part of Reading First takes the form of multi-day Teacher Reading Academies (TRAs). The academies are highly structured professional development sessions provided to all Reading First school staff. They focus largely on the following five components of reading: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness; Phonics and Word Study; Fluency; Vocabulary; and Comprehension. Our measure of changes in teacher knowledge takes the form of a pre-and post-training knowledge assessment. The assessment tool was designed to gauge knowledge of the concepts covered at the academies. More specifically, it aimed to cover each of the five components of reading. The assessment was administered on both the first and last day of each TRA and participants created their own unique “teacher code” to facilitate the matching of pre- and post- data. Two distinct sets of academies took place – one for staff of schools funded in Round 1 of Reading First and one for those funded in Round 2. As stated earlier in this report, staff from Round 1 schools received four full days of training on the five components of reading during the summer of 2003. Those funded in the second round attended abbreviated two-day TRAs during the winter of 2004. The Donahue Institute received 1,347 completed pre-training assessments and 1,298 post-training assessments from the Round 1 TRAs. Automatic matching, based on the teacher code, yielded 1,145 matched pre-post pairs. A total of 334 completed pre-training assessments and 290 post-training assessments were gathered from the Round 2 TRAs. Matching on teacher code yielded 262 matched pre-post pairs. It is important to note that the analyses presented here were conducted using only the matched pair data. Statistically, this assured us that we had a comparable population of participants on the pre- and post-tests and thus, could truly track change. Programmatically, it excluded those participants who did not attend a TRA in its entirety. Including them may have lessened the perceived impacts of the academies. Summarizing the performance of TRA participants on both the pre- and post-training assessment gives an overall picture of short-term knowledge gains. The table below provides the mean and median scores for the Round 1 pre- and post-tests. The mean and the median are provided for both the raw score (the number correct out of 25 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 38 items) and the percent correct. Also provided are the change scores, calculated by subtracting the pre-scores from the post-scores. Please note that medians cannot be tested for statistical significance. Table 37: Round 1 Summary Statistics (N =1,145) Pre-Training Post-Training Change16 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Mean 15.9 63.8% 19.4 76.6% 3.5* 12.8* Median 16.0 64.0% 20.0 80.0% 4.0 16.0 The mean number correct was 15.9 on the pre-test and 19.4 on the post-test. This is equivalent to an increase from 63.8% correct to 76.6% correct. In addition, this increase proved to be statistically significant and is therefore not likely due to chance. This means that participants in the Round 1 TRAs genuinely increased their overall performance on the assessment after having received four days of training. Table 38 shows that the mean number correct for Round 2 participants was 14.9 on the pre-test and 18.1 on the post-test. This increase from 59.4% correct to 72.4% correct is also statistically significant. Table 38: Round 2 Summary Statistics (N = 262) Pre-Training Post-Training Change Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Mean 14.9 59.4% 18.1 72.4% 3.2* 13.0* Median 15.0 60.0% 18.5 74.0% 3.5 14.0 Both groups made significant gains in their overall scores from pre- to post-test. This is an indication that both sets of academies resulted in increased teacher knowledge. Because of the changes made to the assessment tool between Rounds 1 and 2 of the academies, it is not appropriate to compare the overall performance of the two groups to one another. After the percent correct was calculated for each respondent, they were divided into Performance Categories. The categories were defined as follows: Category 1 00% to 25% correct Category 2 26% to 50% correct Category 3 51% to 75% correct Category 4 76% to 100% correct One indication of overall improvement is change in Performance Category membership between the pre- and post-assessments. For example, a respondent who scored 65% correct on the pre-test and 80% correct on the post-test would be in category 3 for the pre-test and category 4 for the post-test. 16 Statistical significance was detected using a paired samples t-test and a p value of <.05. Please note that only the means, not the medians, were tested for significance. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 39 Table 39 provides the percentages of Round 1 participants within each Performance Category for both the preand post-assessments. The change score is also included in the table and is calculated as the pre-test percentage subtracted from the post-test percentage for each of the four Performance Categories. The data show that 57% of Round 1 TRA participants performed at the category 3 level on the pre- test and that 62% were in category 4 after taking the post-test. This indicates general improvement from pre- to post-test. The negative percentage point changes for categories 1, 2, and 3 indicate movement out of each of those categories from pre-test to post-test. The positive percentage point change for category 4 indicates movement into that category (category 4 membership increased by 35.4 percentage points). Overall, there was improvement from pre-test to post-test. Table 39: Round 1 Performance Category Membership (N = 1,145) Pre-Training Post-Training Score Membership Score Membership Percentage Point Category N (percent) Category N (percent) Change 1 9 0.8% 1 --- --- -0.8 2 188 16.4% 2 39 3.4% -13.0 3 648 56.6% 3 401 35.0% -21.6 4 300 26.2% 4 705 61.6% 35.4 Table 40 provides Performance Category information for Round 2, which presents a similar pattern. The majority of Round 2 TRA participants performed at the category 3 level on the pre-test and 50% were in category 4 after taking the post-test. Once again, we see general improvement from pre-test to post-test. Table 40: Round 2 Performance Category Membership (N = 262) Pre-Training Post-Training Score Membership Score Membership Percentage Point Category N (percent) Category N (percent) Change 1 1 4.0% 1 --- --- -4.0 2 71 27.1% 2 19 7.3% -19.8 3 149 56.9% 3 112 42.7% -14.2 4 41 15.6% 4 131 50.0% 34.4 While category membership information is useful, it provides only aggregate information and does not track individual movement from one category to another. Tables 41 and 42 provide a better indication of movement in and out of Performance Categories because they show how many individuals are changing categories and in which direction they are moving. The left side of the tables show the pre-training Performance Categories and their corresponding N’s. The rest of the tables illustrate the percentage of respondents in each post-training category. Few respondents decreased their scores enough from pre- to post-test to cause a drop in Performance Category; most maintained the same category or improved their scores enough to move up in Performance Category. For example, of the 1,145 Round 1 respondents, 648 achieved pre-training scores that placed them into Performance Category 3. Of those, 2% decreased their scores on the post-test enough to drop into category 2, while 39% kept their scores approximately the same and post-tested into category 3, and 59% improved their scores enough to move into category 4. In general, participants in both rounds of TRAs either maintained or improved their Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 40 performance Category from the pre- to the post-test enough. This reinforces the evidence that the TRAs were effective in increasing teacher knowledge. Table 41: Round 1 Performance Category Movement (N = 1,145) Pre-Training Post-Training Category Category N 1 2 3 4 (0% - 25% correct) (26% - 50% correct) (51% - 75% correct) (76% - 100% correct) 1 9 --- --- 100.0% --- 2 188 --- 14.4% 56.9% 28.7% 3 648 --- 1.7% 39.2% 59.1% 4 300 --- 0.3% 10.3% 89.3% Table 42: Round 2 Performance Category Movement (N = 262) Pre-Training Category Post-Training Category N 1 2 3 4 (0% - 25% correct) (26% - 50% correct) (51% - 75% correct) (76% - 100% correct) 1 1 --- --- 100.0% --- 2 71 --- 18.3% 59.2% 22.5% 3 149 --- 4.0% 43.0% 53.0% 4 41 --- --- 12.2% 87.8% Another way to examine the professional development assessment data is to look at individual mastery of each of the major components of reading. To do so we defined mastery of a component of reading as correctly answering all of the related questions and defined a variable for each of the five components. Participants who correctly answered all items related to that component were coded as “1” and those who incorrectly answered one or more of the related items were coded as “0.” Table 43 shows the percentage of Round 1 participants who mastered each component on the pre-test, the posttest, and the change. Among Round 1 participants, the level of mastery on any given component ranged from 6% to 28% on the pre-test and from 21% to 57% on the post-test. While this demonstrates growth in the level of mastery, it also indicates that there remained considerable room for improvement among those tested. For Round 1 participants there was statistically significant, though not always large, growth on each of the components. Notably, mastery in the area of Phonics and Word Study grew by over 28 percentage points, and Comprehension by more than 23 points. Fewer than 12% of Round 1 TRA participants had mastered the Vocabulary component on the pre-test, leaving ample room for growth. However, mastery on this component increased by only 9.5 percentage points. This indicated the need for additional training in the area of vocabulary – a need that DOE has addressed by offering a focused vocabulary workshop and follow-up. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 41 Table 43: Round 1 Component Mastery (N = 1,145) Pre-Training Post-Training Component of Reading % Demonstrating Mastery % Demonstrating Mastery Change17 Phonological and Phonemic Awareness 9.3% 25.5% 16.2* Phonics and Word Study 28.2% 56.6% 28.4* Fluency 6.2% 22.1% 15.9* Vocabulary 11.7% 21.2% 9.5* Comprehension 13.7% 36.9% 23.2* Table 44 presents the component mastery data for Round 2 participants. This group also achieved significant growth on each of the five components. In this case, mastery in the area of Phonics and Word Study grew by over 25 percentage points. On the other hand, growth in the area of Fluency was smaller than might be expected, given the ample room left for improvement. In general the Round 2 TRA participants made smaller gains in mastery of the five components than those who attended the Round 1 TRAs. This is likely due to the fact that the Round 2 TRAs were half as long and were not able to cover the material as thoroughly. Table 44: Round 2 Component Mastery (N = 262) Pre-Training Percent Post-Training Percent Component of Reading Demonstrating Mastery Demonstrating Mastery Change Phonological and Phonemic Awareness 10.7% 18.3% 7.6* Phonics and Word Study 11.8% 37.6% 25.8* Fluency 6.1% 14.5% 8.4* Vocabulary 11.8% 20.2% 8.4* Comprehension 15.6% 31.3% 15.7* The preceding tables provide insight into the Round 1 and Round 2 TRAs as separate entities, but it is also useful to compare the Round 1 and 2 data. The modifications made to the assessment tool, however, limit the extent of such a comparative analysis. As noted earlier, it is not possible to compare the overall performance of the two groups. However, it is possible to conduct an item analysis using only those items that remained the same for both rounds. Table 45 displays the percentage of respondents answering each item18 correctly on both the pre- and post-tests for Rounds 1 and 2. For each Round, there is also a post - pre change column, which indicates the direction, size, and statistical significance of the change in the percentage answering each item correctly. 17 Although the data are presented as percentages, the statistical significance is based on the difference between means. A percentage point change of 16.2 is equivalent to a .162 change in the mean. 18 Questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 15, 17, and 22 are omitted from this table as they were modified between rounds. All other items on the assessment were the same for both sets of TRAs. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 42 Round 1 participants made statistically significant pre- to post- gains on all seventeen items listed, while Round 2 participants did so on only twelve of the items. Looking at items 14, 19, 20, and 21, similar percentages of participants in each Round answered correctly on the pre-test, but Round 2 participants simply did not gain as much from pre- to post- as the Round 1 participants. This could be a result of the abbreviated 2-day format of the Round 2 TRAs. There may have been some information omitted that prevented Round 2 participants from gaining knowledge on the topics address by those four items. A very large percentage of Round 2 participants (78%, as compared with 55% of Round 1 participants) was able to correctly answer item 16 on the pre-test, leaving little room to show improvement on the post-test. This may be the reason for the lack of significant growth on this item. Table 45: Item Analysis by Round Round 1 Round 2 (N = 1,145) (N = 262) % Answering % Answering % Answering % Answering Correctly Correctly Post - Pre Correctly Correctly Post - Pre Item (pre-test) (post-test) Change (pre-test) (post-test) Change 1 56.3% 68.6% 12.3* 56.9% 66.0% 9.1* 2 64.9% 77.3% 12.4* 71.4% 79.4% 8.0* 7 54.3% 74.3% 20.0* 51.5% 65.7% 14.2* 8 36.4% 57.6% 21.2* 42.0% 51.9% 9.9* 9 30.6% 55.4% 24.8* 35.1% 53.8% 18.7* 10 66.9% 80.9% 14.0* 83.2% 88.9% 5.7* 12 47.5% 65.6% 18.1* 48.1% 59.5% 11.4* 13 55.7% 70.0% 14.3* 53.4% 75.6% 22.2* 14 35.4% 50.7% 15.3* 35.1% 42.0% 6.9 16 54.6% 63.8% 9.2* 77.5% 80.9% 3.4 18 39.7% 74.6% 34.9* 43.5% 70.2% 26.7* 19 48.9% 66.2% 17.3* 53.4% 57.3% 3.9 20 74.9% 86.0% 11.1* 75.6% 81.3% 5.7 21 57.2% 64.1% 6.9* 59.5% 61.8% 2.3 23 79.7% 91.9% 12.2* 82.1% 90.8% 8.7* 24 60.3% 81.6% 21.3* 59.9% 85.9% 26.0* 25 58.7% 83.4% 24.7* 58.4% 79.8% 21.4* Long-Term Retention of Knowledge As a measure of the long-term retention of the knowledge gained at the TRAs, participants were asked to complete the very same assessment tool after spending the academic year in their Reading First school. Therefore, Round 1 TRA participants were asked to take the same test again in May 2004. Round 2 staff were not asked to take their follow-up test until January 2005 and are therefore not included in this analysis. Because the purpose of the follow-up administration was to gauge how much of the knowledge gained at the TRAs individuals retained over time, analyses in this section of the report compare the post-training data to the follow-up data. The post-training data provide a measure of knowledge immediately after receiving the training and the follow-up data reveal what they know after many months of implementation. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 43 After the May 2004 mailing of the instrument to all Reading First district and school personnel, the Donahue Institute received 655 completed follow-up assessments. After merging these data with the 1,145 Round 1 prepost pairs, and matching records based on the teacher code, we were left with 248 records. It is important to note that the analyses presented here were conducted using only the 248 records for which we have pre- post- and follow-up data. This ensures that we are including only those who attended the entire TRA and then completed the follow-up assessment. Table 46 summarizes how the Round 1 TRA participants performed as a whole on both the post-test and followup. Mean and median scores for both the raw score and the percent correct, as well as change scores, are provided. Please note that medians cannot be tested for statistical significance. Table 46: Summary Statistics – Post-Training vs. Follow-Up (N = 248) Round 1 Post-Training May 2004 Follow Up Change Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Mean 18.9 75.6% 19.6 78.6% 0.7* 3.0* Median 19.0 76.0% 20.0 80.0% 1.0 4.0 The mean number correct was 18.9 on the post-test and 19.6 on the follow-up. This is equivalent to an increase from 76% correct to 79% correct. Though small, this increase proved to be statistically significant and is therefore not likely due to chance. This increase in performance on the assessment from post-test to follow-up may indicate that putting knowledge into practice, as well as receiving additional professional development, over the course of the year served to increase teachers’ knowledge of the topics addresses at the summer 2003 TRAs. Table 47 shows the percentages of respondents within each Performance Category for both the post-test and follow-up. The change score is also included. About 60% of these participants performed at the category 4 level on the post-test, and that this increased to 67% on the follow-up. The negative percentage point change for category 3 indicates movement out of that category, while the positive change for category 4 indicates that many individuals moved into that category on the follow-up. Table 47: Performance Category Membership – Post-Training vs Follow-Up (N = 248) Round 1 Post-Training May 2004 Follow Up Score Membership Score Membership Category N (percent) Category N (percent) Change 1 --- --- 1 --- --- --- 2 2 0.8% 2 5 2.0% 1.2 3 98 39.5% 3 77 31.0% -8.5 4 148 59.7% 4 166 66.9% 7.2 Table 48 compares the percentage of Round 1 TRA participants mastering each component on the post-training assessment and the follow-up test. The data show that two of the components of reading have statistically significant changes. Unfortunately, they are both negative changes. Most concerning is the area of Comprehension, for which mastery dropped by 18 percentage points. Comprehension is clearly an area in which Reading First teachers could use more ongoing professional development. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 44 Table 48: Component Mastery - Post-Training vs. Follow-Up (N = 248) Round 1 Post-Training Percent May 2004 Follow Up Percent Component of Reading Demonstrating Mastery Demonstrating Mastery Change Phonological and Phonemic Awareness 24.6% 31.0% 6.4 Phonics and Word Study 64.9% 68.5% 3.6 Fluency 25.0% 16.9% -8.1* Vocabulary 24.6% 24.2% -0.4 Comprehension 45.2% 27.0% -18.2* Overall, the data gathered via the professional development assessment tool indicate that participants at both the Round 1 and 2 TRAs significantly increased their knowledge during the course of the training. Participants in both sets of TRAs made their greatest gains in the area of Phonics and Word Study. Round 1 participants made the least gains in Vocabulary and Round 2 participants had the smallest gains in Phonological and Phonemic Awareness. Finally, the Round 1 follow-up assessment reveals that, overall, knowledge was gained during the course of the first year in Reading First. However, mastery of Fluency and Comprehension both show significant decreases. Demonstrated Teaching Practices Although we cannot definitively measure the teaching practices of all Reading First teachers, semi-annual classroom observations in a sample of schools provide descriptive data on the teaching practices taking place in Reading First classrooms. Observations were conducted in a sample of eight Reading First schools during the 2003-2004 school year. Winter 2004 observations took place during January and February; Spring 2004 observations took place during April and May. Spring observations in these schools will continue annually. As noted earlier, there were some revisions to the instrument between observation periods. Therefore, analysis of data was performed separately for each data collection period – Winter 2004 and Spring 2004. The addition of a category for instructional focus area (Miscellaneous) does not allow a statistical comparison between the data points. Instructional focus area Analysis of instructional focus, was performed using percentage of time in each of the instructional focus areas as a percentage of total coded time. The instructional focus area “Fluency” has been sub-divided into two parts for analysis purposes: “Actual Fluency” and “Other Fluency”. This distinction is based on the codes used to describe the specific activity. If those codes included any of the following five descriptors: (1) Letter or sound naming fluency, (2) Word fluency, (3) Repeated reading of text, (4) Supported oral reading, and (5) Choral reading, the instructional focus area was classified as “Actual Fluency.” The following descriptors were considered to be “Other Fluency”: (6) Independent silent reading, (7) Independent oral reading, (8) Teacher reads aloud, (9) Teacher reads aloud while students read along, (10) Students reading silently with teacher present, (11) Round Robin, and (12) Other. While the graphs present the data by Actual Fluency and Other Fluency, the two are often collapsed for discussion purposes. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 45 Figures 1 and 2 show that the winter and spring results for all classrooms together were quite similar, however it can be noted that Comprehension dropped somewhat (from 28% to 18%) and Fluency increased somewhat (from 18% to 29%). In addition, Concepts of Print decreased from 4% in winter to 1% in spring, as would be expected as children in kindergarten and the lower grades learn the basic print concepts. Figures 1 and 2: Instructional Focus Area – All Classrooms The above graphs provide a broad picture of what is taking place in Reading First schools. The data suggest that Reading First teachers are addressing each of the five components of reading in their classrooms. This is an initial indication that the knowledge gained at the TRAs is being translated into classroom practice. Table 49 shows the percentage of time spent in each instructional focus area by grade-level and observation point. It is important to remember that, due to the addition of a miscellaneous category, winter and spring percentages are not directly comparable. However, general trends in emphasis can still be observed. Table 49: Instructional Focus Area – by Grade Level Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade Instructional Focus Area Winter Spring Winter Spring Winter Spring Winter Spring Concepts of Print 14% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Phonological Awareness 12% 7% 4% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% Phonics/ Word Study 24% 29% 25% 23% 22% 29% 14% 10% Fluency 17% 22% 19% 34% 17% 31% 23% 25% Comprehension 18% 8% 30% 17% 24% 14% 23% 30% Vocabulary/ Language Development 9% 13% 9% 5% 16% 7% 21% 20% Writing/ Language Arts 6% 8% 12% 14% 18% 20% 18% 12% Miscellaneous -- 12% -- 4% -- 7% -- 2% Phonological Awareness 4% Concepts of Print 4% Writing/ Language Arts 13% Vocabulary/ Language Development 13% Comprehension 26% Fluency-Other 8% Fluency-Actual 10% Phonics/Word Study 22% Dimension A – All Classrooms [w04] Comprehension 18% Fluency-Other 17% Fluency-Actual 12% Phonics/Word Study 19% Concepts of Print 1% Miscellaneous 6% Vocabulary/ Language Development 11% Writing/ Language Arts 13% Phonological Awareness 3% Dimension A – All Classrooms [s04] Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 46 Not surprisingly, by spring of kindergarten classes spent relatively little time working on concepts of print – a prereading skill area generally targeted to beginners. Similarly, the focus on phonological awareness decreased over time and was only minimally addressed by the spring of first grade. Again, it is expected that most students will master this skill by the end of first grade. The focus on phonics and word study remained fairly strong throughout the grades with only a small drop beginning in the third grade. Interestingly, at all grades with the exception of third, fluency appears to have received more attention during the spring visits than during the winter visits. Although the opposite appears to be true for comprehension, this may be the result of adding the miscellaneous category, which would most likely decrease spring percentages. There is less of a clear trend for vocabulary and language development, but it does appear to have received more emphasis in the third grade classrooms observed. Finally, the emphasis on writing and language arts generally increased across grade-levels with a small unexplained drop-off in the spring of third grade. In general, the focus of the lower grades was on phonics and phonemic awareness, while the upper grades concentrated on comprehension, fluency, and writing. This aligns with the training provided at the TRAs and provides further evidence that teachers are putting their new knowledge into practice. More detail is available by examining the amount of time spent on specific skills and concepts within each instructional focus area. For instance, within the instructional focus area of Concepts of Print, there was a shift from awareness of letters, words, and sentences to recognizing features of books and awareness of environmental print. Table 50: Concepts of Print – Skill areas # Skill Area Winter 2004 Spring 2004 1 Awareness of letters, words, & sentences 60% 13% 2 Recognize features of books (author, illustrator, and title) 10% 61% 3 Follow left-to-right and top-to-bottom when reading English 10% 13% 4 Awareness of environmental print (child’s name, traffic signs, etc) 0% 13% 5 Other 20% 0% Within Phonological Awareness, there was somewhat of an increase in rhyming and isolation tasks and a decrease in blending or segmenting syllables, sentences, and phonemes. Table 51: Phonological Awareness – Skill areas # Skill Area Winter 2004 Spring 2004 1 Rhyming 20% 30% 2 Blending or segmenting sentences/syllables 28% 12% 3 Onset rime 7% 10% 4 Blending or segmenting phonemes 31% 25% 5 Isolation tasks 7% 20% 6 Other 7% 3% Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 47 Within Phonics and Word Study, there was a decrease in letter identification and letter/sound relationships from winter to spring and a moderate increase in word reading and spelling. Table 52: Phonics / Word Study – Skill areas # Skill Area Winter 2004 Spring 2004 1 Letter Identification 12% 5% 2 Letter/sound relationships 27% 19% 3 Provides opportunities for application of letter/sound knowledge to reading/writing/ spelling 26% 27% 4 Irregular words 1% 1% 5 Word reading 10% 16% 6 Integration of Word Study 10% 9% 7 Spelling 12% 20% 8 Other 2% 3% Within Fluency, there was a decrease in word fluency and repeated reading of text (Actual Fluency) and a moderate increase in independent silent reading and students reading silently with the teacher present (Other Fluency). Table 53: Fluency – Skill areas # Skill Area Winter 2004 Spring 2004 Actual Fluency: 1 Letter or sound naming fluency 4% 2% 2 Word fluency 13% 6% 3 Repeated reading of text 14% 7% 4 Supported oral reading 21% 21% 5 Choral reading 9% 9% Other Fluency: 6 Independent silent reading 12% 16% 7 Independent oral reading 8% 4% 8 Teacher reads aloud 9% 10% 9 Teacher reads aloud as students read along 6% 6% 10 Students reading silently w/teacher present 3% 7% 11 Round Robin (Spring 2004 only) -- 7% 12 Other 1% 5% Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 48 Within Comprehension there was a small increase in strategy instruction and comprehension use. Table 54: Comprehension – Skill areas # Skill Area Winter 2004 Spring 2004 1 Reading comprehension monitoring 29% 30% 2 Listening comprehension monitoring 18% 17% 3 Strategy instruction, comprehension use 12% 17% 4 Prior knowledge / predicting / confirming 26% 23% 5 Building background / Relating to prior experience 11% 10% 6 Other 4% 3% Within Vocabulary / Language Development there was a slight increase in building reading through discussion. Time spent on other skill areas remained fairly consistent. Table 55: Vocabulary / Language Development – Skill areas # Skill Area Winter 2004 Spring 2004 1 Oral vocabulary development 23% 21% 2 Building reading vocabulary through discussion 21% 30% 3 Building reading vocabulary through direct teaching 23% 21% 4 Infer word meaning when reading connected text 8% 8% 5 Word structures (as roots/suffixes) 11% 10% 6 Other 14% 10% Within Writing or Language Arts there was an increase in the amount of time spent in shared writing and less time in “other” activities such as illustrating their story. Table 56: Writing or Language Arts – Skill areas # Skill Area Winter 2004 Spring 2004 1 Shared Writing 7% 15% 2 Writing composition 26% 25% 3 Independent writing / publishing 28% 29% 4 Grammar and punctuation 15% 15% 5 Handwriting instruction 5% 5% 6 Copying 0% 4% 7 Other (i.e. illustrating their story) 20% 7% Instructional grouping Looking at instructional grouping for all classrooms, Figures 3 and 4 show that the most common grouping during the winter was small group-homogeneous (30%) followed by independent (23%), and whole class (20%). In the spring, the most common grouping was whole class (28%), followed by small group-homogeneous (20%) and independent (19%). The latter is certainly more consistent with the Reading First approach and may serve as additional evidence that teachers adapted their instructional approaches to more closely align with the lessons they learned at the TRAs. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 49 Figures 3 and 4: Instructional Grouping – All Classrooms Instructional Materials The observation tool also provided an opportunity to gather information on the materials used for instruction. Up to five different materials could be entered for each instructional activity. The data were combined and percentages calculated based on the total number of instructional material codes that were entered. The most commonly used materials were basals and trade book texts. The materials that were most commonly used (10%- 17% of the time) appear in bold and italics in the table below. The use of materials was fairly consistent across the two data points. The one notable change is the increase in use of oral language (4%-winter / 10%-spring). Table 57: Instructional Materials Used # Winter 2004 Spring 2004 1 Games & Puzzles 1% 1% 2 Manipulatives 6% 4% 3 Word Wall 1% 1% 4 Text – basal 13% 12% 5 Text – trade book 17% 17% 6 Text – decodable 8% 10% 7 Text – pattern 1% <1% 8 Text – unknown <1% 2% 9 Text – student or teacher made 2% 1% 10 Big Book or similar 1% 3% 11 Pencil and Paper 9% 7% 12 Words out of Context 2% 3% 13 Computers 1% 1% 14 Audio tapes 2% 2% 15 Workbooks / Worksheets 7% 6% 16 Oral Language 4% 10% 17 Chalk board or equivalent 11% 10% 18 Visuals – with print 6% 4% 19 Visuals – without print 2% 1% 20 Progress Assessment 1% 1% 21 Other 4% 3% Small Group- Homogeneous 30% Individualized 9% Independent 23% Pairing 4% Small Group 14% Whole Class 20% Classroom Grouping – All Classrooms [w04] Small Group 19% Pairing 5% Independent 19% Individualized 9% Whole Class 28% Small Group- Homogeneous 20% Classroom Grouping – All Classrooms [s04] Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 50 Quality of Instructional Practices and Student Engagement Quality of instructional practice and student engagement ratings, were analyzed by percentages of the total number coded. Spearman Rho correlation analyses (for categorical variables) were performed to determine whether there was a relationship between the two. A statistically significant difference indicates that the relationship indicated is not by chance and is most likely a real relationship. Indicators for overall classroom quality were completed once for each classroom visit. The areas rated were: Classroom Management, Classroom Environment, Instructional Balance, Instructional Scaffolding, Self- Regulation, Academic Expectations, Skills Taught in Context, and Assessment. Each indicator was rated on the scale: (1) Weak, (2) Low Average, (3) High Average, and (4) Excellent. Each graph compares Winter 2004 and Spring 2004 ratings for all classrooms combined. Table 58: Overall Quality Indicators19 -- % Rated High Average or Excellent Quality Indicator Winter 2004 Spring 2004 Classroom Management 85% 77% Classroom Environment 83% 80% Instructional Balance 59% 71% Instructional Scaffolding 43% 66% Student Self-Regulation 48% 52% Academic Expectations 61% 76% Skills Taught in Context 59% 68% With only a couple of exceptions, more than half of the observed classrooms received high quality indicators in each area. The weakest areas were instructional scaffolding and student self-regulation. This suggests that Massachusetts Reading First teachers may need more professional development and support in these areas. The highest rated areas for both observation periods were classroom management and classroom environment. In the spring academic expectations also received strong ratings, which may indicate the teachers are getting the message that, with the appropriate supports, all students can learn to be effective readers. Student engagement was rated for each coded instructional activity. These ratings were (1) Low, (2) Medium, and (3) High. The majority of students appear to be engaged in the observed activities. As shown in figure 5, more than half of the ratings indicate that students were highly engaged in the activities and this increased from winter to spring (58%-winter / 70%-spring). 19 There is also an overall quality indicator for Assessment. However, more than 40% of the visits provided no opportunity to observe assessment. Because they are drawn from so few classrooms the ratings for Assessment are not presented here. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Teacher Knowledge and Teaching Practices UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 51 Figure 5: Student Engagement Ratings In addition to the above indicators, observers were asked to provide general quality rating for each of their classrooms. This indicator was rated as (1) Weak, (2) Low Average, (3) High Average, and (4) Excellent, for each coded instructional activity. As shown in figure 6, more than half of classrooms were rated as having High Average or Excellent quality. This increased from winter to spring (59%-winter / 70%-spring). This quality indicator looks very similar to the eight Overall Classroom Indicators shown above. Figure 6 : General Quality Indicators A Spearman Rho correlation analysis (for categorical variables) was performed on the student engagement and general quality variables to determine if there was a relationship between them. A positive correlation exists for both Winter 2004 (r=.471, p=.01) and Spring 2004 (r=.440, p=.01), indicating that there is a relationship between these two variables that is most likely not due to chance. As might be expected, this relationship indicates that when the quality indicator is higher, so is student engagement. 5% 70% 4% 38% 58% 25% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Winter 04 4% 38% 58% Spring 04 5% 25% 70% Low Medium High Student Engagement – All Classrooms [w/s04] 6% 53% 17% 7% 34% 50% 9% 24% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Winter 04 7% 34% 50% 9% Spring 04 6% 24% 53% 17% Weak Low Average High Average Excellent Quality Indicator for Each Coded Activity [w/s04] Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 52 Student Reading Skills and Proficiency This section of the report will address the following questions related to student reading skills and proficiency: · To what extent are students in Reading First schools realizing improved reading outcomes? · Does the proportion of students performing below grade-level decrease over time? Does the performance of certain demographic groups (i.e., low-income, racial/ethnic minority, and LEP students) improve over time? Is there evidence that the reading proficiency gap between more and less advantaged students is closing in these schools? Student Outcomes: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Overview of program-wide results The DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency subtest is a measure of intermediate outcome – fluid and accurate decoding of text. As shown earlier in this report, results of this assessment are correlated with students’ ability to achieve Reading First’s ultimate goal – reading with comprehension of age-appropriate text as measured by the MCAS third grade reading test. As established by the test developers at the University of Oregon, students are grouped into three categories based on their ORF scores. Without intervention, students in the “at risk” category are very unlikely to become proficient readers by the end of third grade, while most of the students in the “low risk” category are well on their way to this goal. Students in the “at risk” and “some risk” categories are provided with supplemental or intensive interventions in addition to the core reading program. The score range for each of the three categories depends on the grade-level and testing period as shown in the following table. Table 59: DIBELS ORF Benchmark Goals and Indicators of Risk Grade Timing Benchmark At Risk Scores Some Risk Scores Low Risk Scores 1 Spring 40 0-19 20-39 40+ Fall 44 0-26 26-43 44+ 2 Spring 90 0-69 70-89 90+ Fall 77 0-52 53-76 77+ 3 Spring 110 0-79 80-109 110+ As evidenced in the table below, program-wide mean scores met the low risk benchmarks for first grade spring and second grade fall assessments. Thus, on average, MRFP students in those grades at those time periods could be considered “low risk” for reading problems. However, simply looking at the mean score does not provide a complete picture of fluency skills for the assessed students. For instance, about half of the spring first graders tested below their low risk benchmark score of 40, with nearly 22% scoring below 20 putting them at considerable risk for later reading problems. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 53 Table 60: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) At Risk Some Risk Low Risk Grade Timing Benchmark Mean Score Std Dev # % # % # % N 1 Spring 40 46.3 32.0 853 21.9 1100 28.2 1940 49.8 3894 Fall 44 45.1 29.8 1061 28.0 1059 27.9 1672 44.1 3792 2 Spring 90 80.8 36.2 1400 36.5 868 22.7 1564 40.8 3832 Fall 77 68.7 32.6 1266 33.0 1095 28.5 1481 38.5 3842 3 Spring 110 96.9 35.1 1081 28.4 1328 34.9 1393 36.6 3802 Similarly, in the fall more than half of the second graders tested scored lower than their low risk benchmark score of 44, with 28% scoring below 26 placing them in the highest risk category. By spring, second grade performance appears to have declined in relationship to grade-level expectations defined by the established low risk benchmarks. The proportion of students scoring below the low risk benchmark (now 90) increased to 59%, with nearly 37% in the highest risk category and the proportion of students considered low risk declining from 44% in the fall to 41% in the spring – a small but statistically significant change. Despite the efforts of Reading First, it appears that second graders failed to make progress in fluency as gauged by established DIBELS benchmarks. However, it is also important to note that the second grade low risk benchmark increased from 44 words per minute in the fall to 90 words per minute in the spring – a fairly large increase compared to the increase at third grade. At third grade the program-wide mean scores were below the low risk benchmark for both the fall and spring. Thus, on average, MRFP third graders could be considered to perform below grade-level expectations for fluency. While there was a decline in the proportion of students in the highest risk category, the change was not statistically significant. Therefore, there appears to be neither improvement nor decline in third grade performance compared to established benchmarks. The lack of improvement at second and third grades is not a particularly surprising result. Students at these grade levels have the most challenging benchmarks to meet. Furthermore, in earlier grades they may not have been instructed using the scientifically-based curricula and approaches that are now in place. Thus, they lack much of the foundation necessary to achieve such challenging benchmarks. Accordingly, in this first year of implementation, the expectation is that the strongest results will be observed in kindergarten and first grade. Performance of selected demographic groups – program-wide results Federal Reading First regulations require that all states report outcomes data for the following demographic subgroups: students with disabilities, student with limited English proficiency, economically disadvantaged students, and students belonging to racial and ethnic minority groups. One goal of Reading First is to close the achievement gap for these students over time. Tables 61 and 62 show how Massachusetts Reading First students in these subgroups performed on the DIBELS ORF assessment when compared to other students in the program. Individual student demographic data were obtained from the Massachusetts Department of Education’s Student Information Management System (SIMS). Students for whom we were unable to merge DIBELS and SIMS data are excluded from the analysis20. 20 Numbers of students excluded from the analysis: G1 spring = 62; G2 fall = 58; G2 spring = 78; G3 fall = 63; G3 spring = 62 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 54 Table 61: Fall DIBELS ORF – Performance of Selected Demographic Groups Students Achieving Low Risk Benchmark Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Group # % N # % N # % N Students with disabilities 78 17.1 456 60 11.9 506 Other students * Not tested 1568 47.8 3278 1398 42.7 3273 Students with limited English proficiency 197 29.6 666 156 25.7 606 Other students * Not tested 1449 47.2 3068 1302 41.0 3173 Economically disadvantaged students 934 38.9 2403 762 32.1 2377 Other students * Not tested 712 53.5 1331 696 49.6 1402 Race/ethnicity Asian/Pacific Islander 151 55.9^ 270 113 46.3 244 African American 230 44.9 512 233 40.7 573 Hispanic 398 33.6^ 1186 310 27.4^ 1130 Native American/Alaskan Native 7 43.8 16 5 33.3 15 White Not tested 860 49.1 1750 797 43.9 1817 Table 62: Spring DIBELS ORF – Performance of Selected Demographic Groups Students Achieving Low Risk Benchmark Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Group # % N # % N # % N Students with disabilities 98 22.5 435 77 13.8 560 54 9.2 585 Other students * 1827 53.8 3397 1457 45.6 3194 1313 41.6 3155 Students with limited English proficiency 214 32.8 652 185 26.9 687 138 23.2 596 Other students * 1711 53.8 3180 1349 44.0 3067 1229 39.1 3144 Economically disadvantaged students 1035 41.6 2487 843 34.3 2455 712 29.5 2410 Other students * 890 66.2 1345 691 53.2 1299 655 49.2 1330 Race/ethnicity Asian/Pacific Islander 131 51.8^ 253 134 49.3 272 93 39.1 238 African American 264 49.3^ 535 187 36.2^ 517 179 32.4^ 552 Hispanic 520 39.6^ 1313 357 30.0^ 1190 301 26.9^ 1117 Native American/Alaskan Native 10 52.6 19 5 38.5 13 5 33.3 15 White 1000 58.4 1712 851 48.3 1762 789 43.4 1818 Notes apply to both tables 61 and 62: * Differences between the groups at all tested grade levels are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. ^ Differences between the specified racial subgroup and white students are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The size of the Native American population is too small to yield statistically significant results. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 55 In both the fall and the spring the percentage of students meeting their low risk benchmark was significantly lower among students with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and economic disadvantage than for other students. The gap for students with disabilities was between 30 percentage points; for students with limited English proficiency it was about 15 percentage points; and for economically disadvantaged students it ranged between 15 and 20 percentage points. It is also important to note that students with disabilities were slightly underrepresented among students tested with the DIBELS ORF assessment. Thus, it appears that small numbers of students with disabilities were not assessed using DIBELS ORF (or at least their scores were not reported). In terms of race, when compared to white students significantly fewer Hispanics met the low risk benchmarks for all grade levels and both testing periods. Gaps for Hispanic students ranged from 16 to 19 percentage points. Also compared to white students, significantly fewer African American students met the low risk benchmarks in the spring, but there were no differences in the fall. This suggests that comparable proportions of African American and white students met the fall low risk benchmarks, but that the African American students fell behind during the school year. For most groups there has not yet been a measurable impact on the gap in program-wide DIBELS ORF scores, which is not a particularly surprising result in this early stage of implementation. The one group with a measurable change was African American students (compared to white students). It is of some concern that the change resulted in a spring performance gap when such a gap had not existed in the fall, particularly since the gap appeared at all grade levels for all testing periods. Yet, one year of data does not necessarily present a trend that should be the cause of alarm. School-level performance DIBELS ORF results vary considerably by school. The tables on the following pages show the percentage of students at each school achieving their DIBELS ORF low risk benchmark. Table 63 contains data from the fall assessments and Table 64 contains data from the spring assessments. For those seeking more detail, appendix C includes school level DIBELS ORF data – including mean raw score and percentage of students in each performance level (at risk, some risk, low risk) – by grade-level. The Massachusetts Department of Education has established that 60% or more of students meeting the low risk benchmark is an indication of good performance on the DIBELS assessments. This criterion was established to align with the original Massachusetts Reading First eligibility criteria that required fewer than 60% of the district’s students be proficient on the 3rd grade MCAS. Given the strong correlation between low risk performance on DIBELS ORF and MCAS proficiency, schools with 60% of their students in the low risk category would not likely be eligible for Reading First if the funding competition were held today. In addition., the Department has established that schools with fewer than 40% of their students meeting the low risk benchmark present some cause for concern. Among the 55 schools enrolling students at the first grade level, 15 had 60% or more of their students attaining the spring DIBELS ORF low risk benchmark and 12 schools had fewer than 40% attaining the spring low risk benchmark. The strong performers were: Sanders Street (Athol-Royalston), Boston Renaissance Charter, Haggerty (Cambridge), Shurtleff (Chelsea), Doran (Fall River), Walnut Square (Haverhill), Tenney Grammar (Methuen), Neighborhood House Charter, Brayton (North Adams), South Elementary (Plymouth), West Elementary (Plymouth), Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter, Bates (Salem), Bentley (Salem), and Park Avenue (Webster). The schools of concern were: Downey and Davis (Brockton), Bowe (Chicopee), Hillcrest (Gill- Montague), Arlington (Lawrence), Murkland (Lowell), Seven Hills Charter, Gerena (Springfield), Franklin Avenue and Moseley (Westfield), as well as Accelerated Learning Lab and City View (Worcester). Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 56 Of the 54 schools enrolling second grade students, five were good performers on the spring assessment. They were: Walnut Square (Haverhill), Ferryway (Malden), Tenney (Methuen), West Elementary (Plymouth) and Moseley (Westfield). However, 26 schools had fewer than 40% of their second graders meeting the low risk benchmark on the spring assessment. They were: Boston Renaissance Charter; Downey and Davis (Brockton); Kelly (Cheslea); Stefanik (Chicopee); Doran, N.B. Borden, and Healy and Laurel Lake (Fall River); McKay (Fitchburg); Burnham (Haverhill); Lawrence Family Development Charter; Frost and Wetherbee (Lawrence); Lowell Community Charter; Bailey and Murkland (Lowell), Greenhalge (Lowell); Seven Hills Charter; Powderhouse (Somerville); Gerena, Milton Bradley, and White Street (Springfield); Franklin Avenue (Westfield); as well as Accelerated Learning Lab and Goddard (Worcester). Of the 52 schools enrolling students at the third grade level, three were good performers on the spring assessment. They were: Ferryway (Malden), Neighborhood House Charter School, and Lincoln-Hancock (Quincy). However, 29 schools had fewer than 40% of their third graders meeting the low risk benchmark on the spring assessment. They were: Downey and Davis (Brockton); Doran and Borden (Fall River); McKay Campus School (Fitchburg); Sheffield (Gill-Montague); Lawrence Family Development Charter; Arlington, Frost, and Wetherbee (Lawrence); Lowell Community Charter; Bailey, Murkland, and Greenhalge (Lowell); Brayton and Sullivan (North Adams); Morningside (Pittsfield); Garfield (Revere); Seven Hills Charter; Boland, Gerena, Milton Bradley and White Street (Springfield); Sitkowski (Webster); Franklin Avenue (Westfield); as well as Accelerated Learning Lab, City View, Goddard, and Lincoln Street (Worcester.) Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 57 Table 63: DIBELS ORF results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 2 Grade 3 District School # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 17 41.5 41 20 44.4 45 Boston Renaissance Charter 72 50.7 142 85 44.7 190 Brockton Downey 41 45.6 90 46 52.9 87 Brockton Davis 66 54.5 121 52 44.8 116 Cambridge Haggerty 16 64.0 25 17 63.0 27 Chelsea Kelly 46 41.1 112 43 41.3 104 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** Chicopee Bowe 31 50.0 62 25 40.3 62 Chicopee Stefanik 14 25.0 56 20 29.9 67 Fall River Healy 10 26.3 38 12 32.4 37 Fall River Doran 26 44.8 58 19 29.7 64 Fall River Laurel Lake 13 44.8 29 12 29.3 41 Fall River N.B. Borden 5 21.7 23 4 14.8 27 Fitchburg McKay 38 46.3 82 38 44.7 85 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 23 46.0 50 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** 11 22.4 49 Haverhill Burnham 18 37.5 48 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 36 46.8 77 56 47.5 118 Haverhill Walnut Squre 35 76.1 46 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 21 34.4 61 31 51.7 60 Lawrence Arlington 37 32.7 113 25 20.8 120 Lawrence Frost 31 32.0 97 24 27.9 86 Lawrence Wetherbee 29 38.2 76 25 30.1 83 Lowell Community Charter School 35 36.8 95 28 27.5 102 Lowell Murkland 35 39.3 89 45 42.9 105 Lowell Bailey 46 51.7 89 41 47.1 87 Lowell Greenhalge 43 51.2 84 29 38.7 75 Malden Ferryway 65 69.9 93 57 62.0 92 Methuen Tenney 67 57.3 117 56 40.3 139 Neighborhood House Charter School 11 50.0 22 11 64.7 17 North Adams Brayton 29 46.8 62 17 31.5 54 ** School does not include this grade-level Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 58 Table 63 (continued): DIBELS ORF results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 2 Grade 3 District School # % # Tested # % # Tested North Adams Sullivan 22 48.9 45 16 34.0 47 Pittsfield Morningside 31 44.9 69 25 30.1 83 Plymouth South Elementary 77 53.5 144 77 50.3 153 Plymouth West Elementary 31 60.8 51 36 52.2 69 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 32 37.2 86 51 60.0 85 Revere Garfield 52 52.5 99 40 43.5 92 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter Sch 12 54.5 22 8 40.0 20 Salem Bates 19 38.8 49 31 43.1 72 Salem Bentley 24 47.1 51 23 44.2 52 Seven Hills Charter School 28 36.8 76 33 42.9 77 Somerville Powderhouse 23 37.7 61 19 44.2 43 Springfield Boland 25 40.3 62 22 32.4 68 Springfield Gerena 30 30.3 99 21 20.4 103 Springfield Milton Bradley 37 40.2 92 23 24.7 93 Springfield White Street 29 55.8 52 9 12.9 70 Taunton Walker 25 64.1 39 Data are incomplete Ware Koziol 42 43.3 97 36 39.1 92 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** 46 38.0 121 Webster Park Avenue 59 40.7 145 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 11 30.6 36 12 32.4 37 Westfield Highland 18 28.1 64 27 39.7 68 Westfield Moseley 6 24.0 25 11 42.3 26 Worcester A.L.L. 23 34.8 66 12 17.4 69 Worcester City View 19 32.8 58 14 25.5 55 Worcester Goddard 27 38.6 70 27 39.7 68 Worcester Lincoln Street 14 38.9 36 6 18.2 33 ** School does not include this grade-level Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 59 Table 64: DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 25 65.8 38 16 41.0 39 22 46.8 47 Boston Renaissance Charter 86 61.9 139 54 38.8 139 61 39.6 154 Brockton Downey 20 31.3 64 29 31.5 92 29 33.3 87 Brockton Davis 38 37.6 101 42 35.3 119 37 32.7 113 Cambridge Haggerty 27 61.4 44 15 53.6 28 14 48.3 29 Chelsea Kelly 48 57.1 84 39 37.1 105 49 49.0 100 Chelsea Shurtleff 66 71.7 92 ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 15 23.8 63 27 50.0 54 30 50.0 60 Chicopee Stefanik 29 42.0 69 18 30.0 60 30 46.2 65 Fall River Healy 17 40.5 42 8 20.0 40 15 41.7 36 Fall River Doran 39 61.9 63 20 31.7 63 18 27.3 66 Fall River Laurel Lake 21 46.7 45 8 26.7 30 18 47.4 38 Fall River N.B. Borden 11 50.0 22 10 38.5 26 4 18.2 22 Fitchburg McKay 36 45.6 79 26 33.3 78 20 25.3 79 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 17 34.0 50 25 48.1 52 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** 10 19.6 51 Haverhill Burnham 27 54.0 50 17 36.2 47 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 40 57.1 70 36 51.4 70 58 53.7 108 Haverhill Walnut Squre 34 68.0 50 37 77.1 48 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 30 55.6 54 21 35.6 59 17 34.7 49 Lawrence Arlington 40 35.7 112 32 28.3 113 19 17.0 112 Lawrence Frost 45 51.1 88 39 38.2 102 26 31.0 84 Lawrence Wetherbee 19 27.1 70 27 33.8 80 19 22.4 85 Lowell Community Charter School 46 51.1 90 25 26.9 93 30 31.3 96 Lowell Murkland 17 20.7 82 28 27.5 102 23 22.5 102 Lowell Bailey 38 43.2 88 34 39.1 87 28 31.8 88 Lowell Greenhalge 34 41.5 82 22 28.9 76 19 25.0 76 Malden Ferryway 58 57.4 101 68 69.4 98 59 67.0 88 Methuen Tenney 93 71.0 131 75 62.0 121 63 43.4 145 Neighborhood House Charter School 18 81.8 22 12 54.5 22 14 63.6 22 ** School does not include this grade-level Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 60 Table 64 continued: DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested North Adams Brayton 35 68.6 51 24 40.7 59 16 28.6 56 North Adams Sullivan 22 53.7 41 21 43.8 48 10 21.3 47 Pittsfield Morningside 36 51.4 70 27 39.7 68 26 35.6 73 Plymouth South Elementary 92 65.2 141 78 54.2 144 86 54.8 157 Plymouth West Elementary 36 73.5 49 38 73.1 52 41 58.6 70 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 35 51.5 68 45 50.6 89 51 61.4 83 Revere Garfield 63 56.3 112 41 45.6 90 29 34.1 85 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter Sch 15 65.2 23 11 50.0 22 9 45.0 20 Salem Bates 48 61.5 78 25 50.0 50 29 40.3 72 Salem Bentley 35 61.4 57 26 52.0 50 32 59.3 54 Seven Hills Charter School 26 33.8 77 20 25.3 79 23 30.3 76 Somerville Powderhouse 29 54.7 53 21 36.2 58 20 50.0 40 Springfield Boland 29 42.0 69 26 41.3 63 24 34.3 70 Springfield Gerena 32 26.2 122 26 26.0 100 22 19.8 111 Springfield Milton Bradley 44 45.4 97 32 34.4 93 27 27.6 98 Springfield White Street 31 44.3 70 24 38.1 63 8 11.3 71 Taunton Walker 22 51.2 43 17 41.5 41 17 40.5 42 Ware Koziol 40 48.2 83 41 44.1 93 38 40.4 94 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** 40 33.3 120 Webster Park Avenue 94 73.4 128 68 43.6 156 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 14 36.8 38 11 32.4 34 12 33.3 36 Westfield Highland 33 51.6 64 29 42.6 68 32 42.7 75 Westfield Moseley 11 37.9 29 14 63.6 22 15 55.6 27 Worcester A.L.L. 10 16.1 62 26 37.7 69 18 25.7 70 Worcester City View 23 37.7 61 26 44.1 59 13 24.1 54 Worcester Goddard 27 39.7 68 22 26.5 83 19 26.8 71 Worcester Lincoln Street 23 43.4 53 15 41.7 36 4 14.3 28 ** School does not include this grade-level Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 61 Since there are two data points (fall and spring) for both second and third grade, it is also possible to examine those data for changes in the percentage of students meeting the low risk benchmark from the beginning to the end of the school year. Because it takes each school’s starting point into account, this is a better measure of program impact than simply looking at spring outcomes. At the second grade level, few schools realized any statistically significant change (increase or decrease) in the percentage of students meeting the low risk benchmark between the fall and the spring. Only one school, the Moseley school in Westfield, showed improvement that was statistically significant at the 0.05 level, moving from 24% low risk in the fall to 64% low risk in the spring – a dramatic increase of 40 percentage points. Two additional schools, Lincoln-Hancock (Quincy) and Highland (Westfield) showed improvement that was statistically significant at the 0.10 level. Four schools showed statistically significant (0.05 level) decreases in the percentage of students achieving the second grade low risk benchmark. They were: Walker (Taunton), Greenhalge (Lowell), Davis (Brockton), and Boston Renaissance Charter School. At the third grade level, no school realized improvement that was statistically significant at the 0.05 level and only two schools had increases that were statistically significant at the 0.10 level – Stefanik (Chicopee) and Laurel Lake (Fall River). Four schools showed significant (0.05 level) decreases in the percentage of students meeting the low risk benchmark. They were: Downey (Brockton), McKay (Fitchburg), Murkland (Lowell), and Bailey (Lowell). Interestingly none of the schools had decreases at both grade levels. The tables that follow provide demographic subgroup results by school. Consistent with Massachusetts Department of Education policies data are not reported for any subgroup consisting of fewer than ten students. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 62 Table 65: Students with Disabilities -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street ^^ ^^ 4 17 45.9 37 ^^ ^^ 7 19 50.0 38 Boston Renaissance Charter 2 12.5 16 68 54.8 124 4 16.7 24 81 48.8 166 Brockton Downey 1 7.7 13 40 51.9 77 1 9.1 11 45 59.2 76 Brockton Davis ^^ ^^ 6 65 56.5 115 ^^ ^^ 9 50 46.7 107 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 6 11 57.9 19 ^^ ^^ 9 10 55.6 18 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 8 42 40.4 104 1 9.1 11 42 45.2 93 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe ^^ ^^ 7 31 56.4 55 3 30.0 10 22 42.3 52 Chicopee Stefanik ^^ ^^ 5 14 27.5 51 ^^ ^^ 6 20 32.8 61 Fall River Healy ^^ ^^ 2 10 27.8 36 ^^ ^^ 3 12 35.3 34 Fall River Doran ^^ ^^ 5 25 47.2 53 ^^ ^^ 7 17 29.8 57 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 3 12 46.2 26 ^^ ^^ 5 12 33.3 36 Fall River N.B. Borden ^^ ^^ 2 5 23.8 21 ^^ ^^ 7 3 15.0 20 Fitchburg McKay 2 9.5 21 36 59.0 61 3 15.0 20 35 53.8 65 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ^^ ^^ 7 23 53.5 43 ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** 0 0.0 13 11 30.6 36 Haverhill Burnham ^^ ^^ 3 18 40.0 45 ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake ^^ ^^ 9 33 48.5 68 5 22.7 22 51 53.1 96 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 6 32 80.0 40 ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 2 13.3 15 19 41.3 46 4 21.1 19 27 65.9 41 Lawrence Arlington 0 0.0 12 37 36.6 101 0 0.0 19 25 24.8 101 Lawrence Frost ^^ ^^ 9 29 33.3 87 0 0.0 18 24 35.3 68 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 3 28 38.4 73 ^^ ^^ 9 24 32.4 74 Lowell Community Charter School ^^ ^^ 9 32 37.2 86 ^^ ^^ 5 27 27.8 97 Lowell Murkland ^^ ^^ 9 33 41.3 80 3 21.4 14 42 46.2 91 Lowell Bailey ^^ ^^ 9 44 55.0 80 ^^ ^^ 9 39 50.0 78 Lowell Greenhalge 5 35.7 14 38 54.3 70 1 8.3 12 28 44.4 63 Malden Ferryway 6 54.5 11 59 72.0 82 5 41.7 12 52 65.0 80 Methuen Tenney ^^ ^^ 7 66 60.0 110 1 6.3 16 55 44.7 123 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 63 Table 65 (continued): Students with Disabilities -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 3 11 57.9 19 2 40.0 5 9 75.0 12 North Adams Brayton 2 15.4 13 27 55.1 49 1 14.3 7 16 34.0 47 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 4 22 53.7 41 1 14.3 7 15 37.5 40 Pittsfield Morningside 3 27.3 11 28 46.7 60 5 27.8 18 20 30.8 65 Plymouth South 8 25.8 31 69 61.1 113 3 15.0 20 74 55.6 133 Plymouth West ^^ ^^ 7 28 63.6 44 2 16.7 12 34 59.6 57 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 2 13.3 15 30 42.3 71 5 35.7 14 46 64.8 71 Revere Garfield ^^ ^^ 9 50 55.6 90 0 0.0 8 40 47.6 84 Robert M. Hughes Academy Ch ^^ ^^ 4 9 50.0 18 ^^ ^^ 4 7 43.8 16 Salem Bates 2 18.2 11 17 44.7 38 3 17.6 17 28 50.9 55 Salem Bentley 2 13.3 15 22 61.1 36 1 20.0 5 22 46.8 47 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 8 27 39.7 68 ^^ ^^ 4 33 45.2 73 Somerville Powderhouse 5 25.0 20 18 43.9 41 2 13.3 15 17 60.7 28 Springfield Boland 5 41.7 12 20 40.0 50 1 7.1 14 21 38.9 54 Springfield Gerena 2 16.7 12 28 32.2 87 ^^ ^^ 8 21 22.1 95 Springfield Milton Bradley 1 7.1 14 36 46.2 78 1 5.3 19 22 29.7 74 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 4 29 60.4 48 1 9.1 11 8 13.6 59 Taunton Walker ^^ ^^ 8 24 77.4 31 Data are incomplete Ware Koziol 1 6.7 15 41 50.0 82 ^^ ^^ 8 36 42.9 84 Webster Sitkowski ** ** 1 7.1 14 45 42.1 107 Webster Park Avenue 11 37.9 29 48 41.4 116 ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave ^^ ^^ 6 11 36.7 30 ^^ ^^ 9 11 39.3 28 Westfield Highland ^^ ^^ 9 17 30.9 55 0 0.0 11 27 47.4 57 Westfield Moseley ^^ ^^ 4 6 27.3 22 ^^ ^^ 3 11 47.8 23 Worcester A.L.L. ^^ ^^ 9 23 40.4 57 ^^ ^^ 7 12 19.4 62 Worcester City View ^^ ^^ 5 19 35.8 53 ^^ ^^ 9 13 28.3 46 Worcester Goddard 0 0.0 11 27 45.8 59 3 15.8 19 24 49.0 49 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 4 14 43.8 32 ^^ ^^ 4 6 20.7 29 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 64 Table 66: Students with Disabilities -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street ^^ ^^ 5 22 68.8 32 ^^ ^^ 7 14 43.8 32 ^^ ^^ 5 19 50.0 38 Boston Renaissance Charter 4 20.0 20 82 68.9 119 0 0.0 21 54 45.8 118 1 6.3 16 60 43.5 138 Brockton Downey ^^ ^^ 9 19 35.2 54 3 21.4 14 26 34.2 76 0 0.0 10 28 36.8 76 Brockton Davis ^^ ^^ 5 36 37.5 96 ^^ ^^ 8 42 38.2 110 2 20.0 10 35 34.3 102 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 9 22 66.7 33 ^^ ^^ 8 10 52.6 19 ^^ ^^ 8 8 44.4 18 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 2 48 58.5 82 0 0.0 11 39 41.5 94 2 11.8 17 46 56.1 82 Chelsea Shurtleff ^^ ^^ 8 63 75.0 84 ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 1 7.1 14 14 28.6 49 ^^ ^^ 3 26 53.1 49 ^^ ^^ 7 28 53.8 52 Chicopee Stefanik ^^ ^^ 8 29 47.5 61 ^^ ^^ 8 18 34.6 52 ^^ ^^ 7 29 50.9 57 Fall River Healy ^^ ^^ 2 17 42.5 40 ^^ ^^ 2 8 21.1 38 ^^ ^^ 4 14 46.7 30 Fall River Doran ^^ ^^ 4 37 62.7 59 ^^ ^^ 7 19 33.9 56 0 0.0 13 18 34.0 53 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 1 21 47.7 44 ^^ ^^ 4 8 32.0 25 ^^ ^^ 4 18 52.9 34 Fall River N.B. Borden 0 11 52.4 21 ^^ ^^ 3 10 43.5 23 ^^ ^^ 3 4 21.1 19 Fitchburg McKay 6 31.6 19 30 50.8 59 1 4.3 23 25 45.5 55 0 0.0 18 19 32.8 58 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 0 0.0 12 17 48.6 35 ^^ ^^ 7 24 53.3 45 ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** 0 0.0 16 10 28.6 35 Haverhill Burnham ^^ ^^ 4 27 58.7 46 ^^ ^^ 7 17 43.6 39 ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake ^^ ^^ 4 40 60.6 66 ^^ ^^ 6 36 56.3 64 0 0.0 16 58 63.0 92 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 2 34 70.8 48 ^^ ^^ 6 36 85.7 42 ** ** Lawrence Family Development ^^ ^^ 5 29 60.4 48 1 8.3 12 19 41.3 46 0 0.0 10 17 43.6 39 Lawrence Arlington 2 11.1 18 37 39.8 93 2 11.8 17 30 31.9 94 0 0.0 18 19 20.2 94 Lawrence Frost 2 20.0 10 43 55.8 77 ^^ ^^ 8 37 39.8 93 1 6.3 16 24 35.8 67 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 6 18 28.1 64 ^^ ^^ 5 26 35.1 74 ^^ ^^ 9 19 25.0 76 Lowell Community Charter School ^^ ^^ 5 44 53.0 83 ^^ ^^ 9 24 29.3 82 ^^ ^^ 7 28 31.5 89 Lowell Murkland 1 7.7 13 16 23.2 69 2 16.7 12 23 28.8 80 1 8.3 12 22 25.3 87 Lowell Bailey ^^ ^^ 4 36 43.4 83 2 18.2 11 27 39.1 69 1 7.7 13 24 34.8 69 Lowell Greenhalge 3 30.0 10 31 43.1 72 1 7.7 13 21 33.3 63 0 0.0 15 19 32.2 59 Malden Ferryway 5 38.5 13 53 60.9 87 6 50.0 12 62 72.1 86 4 36.4 11 55 71.4 77 Methuen Tenney 1 9.1 11 92 76.7 120 ^^ ^^ 8 75 66.4 113 1 5.6 18 62 48.8 127 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 65 Table 66 (continued): Students with Disabilities -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter 0 18 81.8 22 ^^ ^^ 3 12 63.2 19 1 25.0 4 13 72.2 18 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 7 34 77.3 44 3 20.0 15 21 47.7 44 1 10.0 10 15 32.6 46 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 2 22 56.4 39 ^^ ^^ 9 20 51.3 39 0 0.0 10 10 27.0 37 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 4 33 52.4 63 ^^ ^^ 9 25 43.1 58 2 14.3 14 23 41.1 56 Plymouth South 7 41.2 17 85 68.5 124 6 24.0 25 72 60.5 119 ** 81 60.0 135 Plymouth West ^^ ^^ 3 35 79.5 44 ^^ ^^ 5 35 76.1 46 2 18.2 11 38 66.7 57 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock ^^ ^^ 4 33 55.9 59 1 7.7 13 40 58.8 68 2 18.2 11 46 67.6 68 Revere Garfield 7 50.0 14 56 58.9 95 ^^ ^^ 8 39 48.8 80 1 12.5 8 28 36.8 76 Robert M. Hughes Academy Ch ** 14 63.6 22 ^^ ^^ 1 8 44.4 18 1 14.3 7 7 41.2 17 Salem Bates ^^ ^^ 9 46 68.7 67 ^^ ^^ 8 24 58.5 41 1 6.7 15 28 50.0 56 Salem Bentley ^^ ^^ 9 30 69.8 43 2 13.3 15 24 68.6 35 1 11.1 9 31 68.9 45 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 8 25 37.9 66 ^^ ^^ 9 18 26.5 68 5 22.7 22 22 31.4 70 Somerville Powderhouse 3 25.0 12 27 64.3 42 4 22.2 18 17 44.7 38 3 18.8 16 17 73.9 23 Springfield Boland 5 31.3 16 24 46.2 52 4 40.0 10 22 44.0 50 4 30.8 13 19 34.5 55 Springfield Gerena 3 20.0 15 29 28.2 103 0 0.0 14 25 29.8 84 0 0.0 14 22 22.9 96 Springfield Milton Bradley 4 28.6 14 39 49.4 79 1 6.7 15 30 39.0 77 1 5.6 18 26 34.2 76 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 9 31 50.8 61 ^^ ^^ 7 23 43.4 53 0 0.0 10 8 13.1 61 Taunton Walker ^^ ^^ 6 21 56.8 37 ^^ ^^ 8 16 50.0 32 1 7.1 14 16 57.1 28 Ware Koziol 2 20.0 10 37 51.4 72 1 5.6 18 40 53.3 75 1 9.1 11 37 44.6 83 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** 1 6.7 15 39 37.1 105 Webster Park Avenue 5 41.7 12 88 76.5 115 13 36.1 36 55 46.2 119 ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave ^^ ^^ 2 14 41.2 34 ^^ ^^ 6 11 40.7 27 0 0.0 9 12 46.2 26 Westfield Highland ^^ ^^ 3 30 54.5 55 2 20.0 10 26 46.4 56 0 0.0 13 31 53.4 58 Westfield Moseley ^^ ^^ 2 10 38.5 26 ^^ ^^ 4 13 76.5 17 0 0.0 3 13 59.1 22 Worcester A.L.L. ^^ ^^ 6 9 16.1 56 1 10.0 10 25 46.3 54 0 0.0 8 18 29.5 61 Worcester City View 3 25.0 12 20 40.8 49 ^^ ^^ 7 25 49.0 51 3 17.6 17 10 27.0 37 Worcester Goddard ^^ ^^ 5 27 43.5 62 0 0.0 18 21 35.0 60 0 0.0 17 17 34.0 50 Worcester Lincoln Street 1 9.1 11 22 52.4 42 ^^ ^^ 7 14 48.3 29 1 33.3 3 3 12.0 25 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 66 Table 67: Students with Limited English Proficiency -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with LEP Students without LEP Students with LEP Students without LEP Students with LEP Students without LEP District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 0 17 41.5 41 ^^ ^^ 1 20 45.5 44 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 1 69 49.6 139 ^^ ^^ 4 83 45.4 183 Brockton Downey 0 41 45.6 90 0 46 52.9 87 Brockton Davis 6 35.3 17 60 57.7 104 3 17.6 17 49 49.5 99 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 3 14 63.6 22 0 15 60.0 25 Chelsea Kelly 16 35.6 45 29 43.9 66 17 51.5 33 26 36.6 71 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 5 35.7 14 26 55.3 47 ^^ ^^ 9 23 43.4 53 Chicopee Stefanik 1 10.0 10 13 28.3 46 2 14.3 14 18 34.0 53 Fall River Healy 3 17.6 17 7 33.3 21 1 6.7 15 11 50.0 22 Fall River Doran 5 38.5 13 21 47.7 44 1 7.1 14 18 36.0 50 Fall River Laurel Lake 0 12 42.9 28 0 12 29.3 41 Fall River N.B. Borden 0 5 21.7 23 0 3 13.0 23 Fitchburg McKay 8 38.1 21 29 49.2 59 6 37.5 16 30 47.6 63 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ^^ ^^ 3 23 48.9 47 ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ^^ ^^ 1 11 22.9 48 Haverhill Burnham 4 23.5 17 14 45.2 31 ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 0 34 45.3 75 0 53 46.9 113 Haverhill Walnut Square 0 35 76.1 46 ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 17 37.8 45 ^^ ^^ 8 21 53.8 39 ^^ ^^ 9 Lawrence Arlington 5 15.6 32 32 39.5 81 1 3.6 28 24 26.1 92 Lawrence Frost ^^ ^^ 6 29 32.2 90 ^^ ^^ 5 24 30.4 79 Lawrence Wetherbee 1 10.0 10 28 42.4 66 ^^ ^^ 8 25 33.3 75 Lowell Community Charter School 15 28.8 52 19 46.3 41 16 27.6 58 11 25.6 43 Lowell Murkland 15 32.6 46 20 47.6 42 28 43.1 65 16 41.0 39 Lowell Bailey 5 31.3 16 41 56.2 73 6 30.0 20 35 52.2 67 Lowell Greenhalge 7 43.8 16 35 52.2 67 7 33.3 21 22 40.7 54 Malden Ferryway 8 50.0 16 57 74.0 77 5 45.5 11 51 63.8 80 Methuen Tenney 3 30.0 10 63 59.4 106 ^^ ^^ 6 56 42.1 133 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 67 Table 67 (continued): Students with Limited English Proficiency -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with LEP Students without LEP Students with LEP Students without LEP Students with LEP Students without LEP District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter 0 11 50.0 22 0 10 62.5 16 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 1 27 45.0 60 ^^ ^^ 3 16 31.4 51 North Adams Sullivan 0 22 48.9 45 ^^ ^^ 1 16 34.8 46 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 3 27 45.0 60 ^^ ^^ 4 24 31.2 77 Plymouth South 0 76 53.9 141 0 77 50.3 153 Plymouth West 0 29 59.2 49 0 35 52.2 67 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 11 36.7 30 20 37.7 53 10 52.6 19 40 62.5 64 Revere Garfield ^^ ^^ 7 50 54.3 92 0 0.0 12 40 50.0 80 Robert M. Hughes Academy Ch 0 9 47.4 19 0 7 43.8 16 Salem Bates 0 17 36.2 47 0 31 43.7 71 Salem Bentley ^^ ^^ 1 24 48.0 50 0 23 44.2 52 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 3 26 37.7 69 ^^ ^^ 7 32 45.7 70 Somerville Powderhouse 6 22.2 27 16 50.0 32 9 45.0 20 10 45.5 22 Springfield Boland 4 33.3 12 21 42.0 50 ^^ ^^ 4 21 33.3 63 Springfield Gerena 1 6.7 15 29 34.9 83 1 5.6 18 20 23.8 84 Springfield Milton Bradley 4 21.1 19 33 45.8 72 1 5.3 19 22 30.1 73 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 5 28 60.9 46 0 0.0 14 8 15.1 53 Taunton Walker ^^ ^^ 1 23 62.2 37 Data are incomplete Ware Koziol 0 42 43.3 97 ^^ ^^ 1 36 39.6 91 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ^^ ^^ 5 44 38.6 114 Webster Park Avenue ^^ ^^ 5 58 41.4 140 ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave ^^ ^^ 3 10 31.3 32 ^^ ^^ 3 12 35.3 34 Westfield Highland 1 3.6 28 17 48.6 35 1 4.0 25 26 60.5 43 Westfield Moseley 0 6 24.0 25 0 11 42.3 26 Worcester A.L.L. 9 33.3 27 14 36.8 38 2 10.5 19 10 20.4 49 Worcester City View 5 38.5 13 14 31.1 45 ^^ ^^ 9 13 28.3 46 Worcester Goddard 12 33.3 36 15 45.5 33 6 22.2 27 19 51.4 37 Worcester Lincoln Street 5 25.0 20 9 56.3 16 ^^ ^^ 9 5 20.8 24 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 68 Table 68: Students with Limited English Proficiency -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with LEP Students w/o LEP Students with LEP Students w/o LEP Students with LEP Students w/o LEP District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 0 25 67.6 37 0 16 41.0 39 ^^ ^^ 1 19 43.2 44 Boston Renaissance Charter 0 86 61.9 139 0 54 38.8 139 ^^ ^^ 5 58 38.9 149 Brockton Downey 0 19 30.2 63 0 29 32.2 90 0 28 32.6 86 Brockton Davis ^^ ^^ 9 35 38.0 92 2 14.3 14 40 38.5 104 3 17.6 17 34 35.8 95 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 2 26 65.0 40 ^^ ^^ 3 13 54.2 24 0 12 46.2 26 Chelsea Kelly 13 44.8 29 35 63.6 55 16 37.2 43 23 37.1 62 17 48.6 35 31 48.4 64 Chelsea Shurtleff ^^ ^^ 2 65 72.2 90 ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 4 22.2 18 11 24.4 45 3 27.3 11 23 56.1 41 ^^ ^^ 8 27 52.9 51 Chicopee Stefanik 7 33.3 21 22 45.8 48 1 10.0 10 17 34.0 50 3 27.3 11 27 50.9 53 Fall River Healy 9 42.9 21 8 38.1 21 2 10.0 20 6 30.0 20 3 21.4 14 11 55.0 20 Fall River Doran 13 59.1 22 26 63.4 41 6 35.3 17 14 30.4 46 1 7.1 14 17 32.7 52 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 4 18 43.9 41 0 8 27.6 29 0 18 47.4 38 Fall River N.B. Borden ^^ ^^ 1 11 55.0 20 ^^ ^^ 1 10 40.0 25 ^^ ^^ 3 4 21.1 19 Fitchburg McKay 4 18.2 22 32 57.1 56 6 28.6 21 20 35.1 57 2 13.3 15 17 27.9 61 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ^^ ^^ 2 17 37.8 45 ^^ ^^ 3 25 51.0 49 ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 1 10 20.0 50 Haverhill Burnham 8 33.3 24 19 73.1 26 5 27.8 18 12 42.9 28 ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake ^^ ^^ 3 40 59.7 67 ^^ ^^ 1 36 52.2 69 ^^ ^^ 1 58 54.2 107 Haverhill Walnut Square 0 34 68.0 50 0 37 77.1 48 0 0 Lawrence Family Devel Charter 7 38.9 18 22 62.9 35 19 38.0 50 ^^ ^^ 8 12 31.6 38 5 45.5 11 Lawrence Arlington 5 25.0 20 34 37.4 91 5 18.5 27 27 32.1 84 2 7.1 28 17 20.2 84 Lawrence Frost ^^ ^^ 7 42 52.5 80 ^^ ^^ 7 36 38.3 94 ^^ ^^ 5 25 32.1 78 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 6 19 29.7 64 2 15.4 13 25 37.9 66 0 0.0 10 19 25.3 75 Lowell Community Charter School 18 46.2 39 27 55.1 49 9 20.0 45 16 34.8 46 16 29.6 54 14 33.3 42 Lowell Murkland 8 19.5 41 9 22.0 41 13 25.5 51 12 29.3 41 16 25.4 63 7 19.4 36 Lowell Bailey ^^ ^^ 3 36 42.9 84 3 20.0 15 26 40.0 65 3 15.0 20 22 35.5 62 Lowell Greenhalge 5 23.8 21 29 47.5 61 5 29.4 17 17 28.8 59 6 25.0 24 13 26.0 50 Malden Ferryway 4 28.6 14 54 62.8 86 9 47.4 19 59 74.7 79 6 60.0 10 53 67.9 78 Methuen Tenney 8 42.1 19 85 75.9 112 3 23.1 13 72 66.7 108 ^^ ^^ 9 62 45.6 136 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 69 Table 68 (continued): Students with Limited English Proficiency -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with LEP Students w/o LEP Students with LEP Students w/o LEP Students with LEP Students w/o LEP District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter 0 18 81.8 22 0 12 54.5 22 ** 14 63.6 22 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 2 33 67.3 49 ^^ ^^ 1 23 39.7 58 ^^ ^^ 2 15 27.8 54 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 1 22 55.0 40 0 21 43.8 48 ^^ ^^ 1 10 21.7 46 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 2 35 53.8 65 ^^ ^^ 4 25 39.7 63 ^^ ^^ 3 23 34.3 67 Plymouth South 0 92 65.2 141 ^^ ^^ 1 78 54.5 143 0 86 54.8 157 Plymouth West 0 36 76.6 47 0 37 72.5 51 0 40 58.8 68 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 11 52.4 21 23 54.8 42 11 55.0 20 30 49.2 61 ^^ ^^ 7 45 62.5 72 Revere Garfield 4 25.0 16 59 63.4 93 ^^ ^^ 4 40 47.6 84 ^^ ^^ 3 29 35.8 81 Robert M. Hughes Academy Ch 0 14 63.6 22 0 8 42.1 19 0 7 41.2 17 Salem Bates 0 48 63.2 76 0 24 49.0 49 0 29 40.8 71 Salem Bentley 2 20.0 10 32 76.2 42 2 18.2 11 24 61.5 39 ^^ ^^ 9 29 64.4 45 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 8 25 37.9 66 ^^ ^^ 3 18 24.3 74 ^^ ^^ 7 21 30.9 68 Somerville Powderhouse 7 36.8 19 23 65.7 35 5 22.7 22 16 47.1 34 4 33.3 12 16 59.3 27 Springfield Boland 2 20.0 10 27 46.6 58 ^^ ^^ 9 22 43.1 51 ^^ ^^ 3 22 33.8 65 Springfield Gerena 3 15.8 19 29 29.3 99 3 15.0 20 22 28.2 78 3 16.7 18 19 20.7 92 Springfield Milton Bradley 5 31.3 16 38 49.4 77 5 19.2 26 26 39.4 66 1 4.0 25 26 37.7 69 Springfield White Street 6 46.2 13 25 43.9 57 ^^ ^^ 6 21 38.9 54 0 0.0 13 8 13.8 58 Taunton Walker 0 22 51.2 43 ^^ ^^ 1 16 41.0 39 ^^ ^^ 3 16 41.0 39 Ware Koziol 0 39 47.6 82 0 41 44.1 93 ^^ ^^ 1 38 40.9 93 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 6 38 33.3 114 Webster Park Avenue 6 54.5 11 87 75.0 116 ^^ ^^ 6 66 44.3 149 ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave ^^ ^^ 9 11 40.7 27 ^^ ^^ 5 10 35.7 28 ^^ ^^ 5 10 33.3 30 Westfield Highland 9 34.6 26 22 68.8 32 6 21.4 28 22 57.9 38 4 16.0 25 27 58.7 46 Westfield Moseley 0 10 35.7 28 0 13 61.9 21 ^^ ^^ 2 11 47.8 23 Worcester A.L.L. 5 20.0 25 5 13.5 37 10 37.0 27 16 43.2 37 4 21.1 19 14 28.0 50 Worcester City View 2 11.1 18 21 48.8 43 6 46.2 13 19 42.2 45 ^^ ^^ 8 12 26.1 46 Worcester Goddard 14 40.0 35 13 40.6 32 6 14.3 42 15 41.7 36 4 13.8 29 13 34.2 38 Worcester Lincoln Street 7 30.4 23 16 53.3 30 5 26.3 19 10 58.8 17 ^^ ^^ 9 3 15.8 19 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 70 Table 69: Economically Disadvantaged Students -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 4 28.6 14 11 52.4 21 6 35.3 17 11 45.8 24 Boston Renaissance Charter 32 50.0 64 38 50.0 76 41 48.2 85 43 42.2 102 Brockton Downey 16 38.1 42 21 52.5 40 21 51.2 41 21 63.6 33 Brockton Davis 3951.3 76 19 61.3 31 33 42.9 77 16 57.1 28 Cambridge Haggerty 4 40.0 10 12 85.7 14 ^^ ^^ 3 13 61.9 21 Chelsea Kelly 3336.3 91 12 60.0 20 31 38.8 80 12 50.0 24 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 2046.5 43 ^^ ^^ 7 19 41.3 46 5 50.0 10 Chicopee Stefanik 7 16.3 43 5 50.0 10 13 24.5 53 5 50.0 10 Fall River Healy 824.2 33 ^^ ^^ 2 8 26.7 30 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Doran 13 38.2 34 7 58.3 12 10 31.3 32 6 35.3 17 Fall River Laurel Lake 847.1 17 ^^ ^^ 8 7 25.0 28 4 33.3 12 Fall River N.B. Borden 5 22.7 22 ** 3 13.6 22 ^^ ^^ 1 Fitchburg McKay 1231.6 38 19 59.4 32 14 42.4 33 18 46.2 39 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 10 38.5 26 13 56.5 23 ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** 6 24.0 25 5 26.3 19 Haverhill Burnham 9 29.0 31 7 58.3 12 ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 417.4 23 21 55.3 38 6 31.6 19 42 53.8 78 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 2 31 73.8 42 ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 1534.9 43 5 50.0 10 22 59.5 37 5 50.0 10 Lawrence Arlington 29 31.5 92 5 38.5 13 22 21.8 101 ^^ ^^ 7 Lawrence Frost 1629.6 54 10 37.0 27 8 16.3 49 10 45.5 22 Lawrence Wetherbee 20 35.7 56 3 25.0 12 17 27.4 62 ^^ ^^ 7 Lowell Community Charter School 2138.9 54 8 34.8 23 13 22.4 58 11 32.4 34 Lowell Murkland 26 35.6 73 ^^ ^^ 6 35 43.2 81 6 54.5 11 Lowell Bailey 1643.2 37 24 68.6 35 16 41.0 39 18 52.9 34 Lowell Greenhalge 22 45.8 48 11 52.4 21 12 35.3 34 9 45.0 20 Malden Ferryway 2363.9 36 31 70.5 44 19 61.3 31 31 64.6 48 Methuen Tenney 12 42.9 28 50 65.8 76 9 23.7 38 42 48.8 86 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 71 Table 69 (continued): Economically Disadvantaged Students -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 7 6 50.0 12 ^^ ^^ 2 8 72.7 11 North Adams Brayton 11 39.3 28 15 53.6 28 7 26.9 26 9 34.6 26 North Adams Sullivan 735.0 20 11 55.0 20 5 22.7 22 7 35.0 20 Pittsfield Morningside 13 39.4 33 10 52.6 19 10 29.4 34 14 41.2 34 Plymouth South 5 31.3 16 67 56.8 118 7 53.8 13 68 50.4 135 Plymouth West ^^ ^^ 3 24 55.8 43 ^^ ^^ 2 33 51.6 64 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 7 25.9 27 20 43.5 46 16 45.7 35 31 72.1 43 Revere Garfield 40 57.1 70 6 33.3 18 27 41.5 65 6 40.0 15 Robert M. Hughes Academy Ch ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 9 5 45.5 11 ^^ ^^ 3 Salem Bates ^^ ^^ 9 14 41.2 34 3 21.4 14 28 53.8 52 Salem Bentley 533.3 15 18 54.5 33 3 18.8 16 19 61.3 31 Seven Hills Charter School 13 34.2 38 12 44.4 27 11 31.4 35 19 63.3 30 Somerville Powderhouse 1131.4 35 4 40.0 10 13 46.4 28 ^^ ^^ 6 Springfield Boland 19 38.8 49 ^^ ^^ 5 14 28.0 50 ^^ ^^ 9 Springfield Gerena 1924.7 77 6 50.0 12 12 14.3 84 5 50.0 10 Springfield Milton Bradley 28 36.8 76 ^^ ^^ 9 15 21.4 70 ^^ ^^ 6 Springfield White Street 1947.5 40 ^^ ^^ 8 5 8.9 56 ^^ ^^ 7 Taunton Walker 7 53.8 13 13 68.4 19 Data are incomplete Ware Koziol 9 29.0 31 27 54.0 50 7 26.9 26 25 44.6 56 Webster Sitkowski ** ** 12 25.0 48 29 50.0 58 Webster Park Avenue 17 37.8 45 33 40.2 82 ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave 6 24.0 25 ^^ ^^ 7 9 39.1 23 ^^ ^^ 8 Westfield Highland 414.3 28 11 42.3 26 8 25.8 31 14 51.9 27 Westfield Moseley 2 20.0 10 3 30.0 10 ^^ ^^ 6 8 50.0 16 Worcester A.L.L. 1734.7 49 ^^ ^^ 5 8 15.1 53 ^^ ^^ 4 Worcester City View 11 28.9 38 5 45.5 11 7 18.4 38 5 35.7 14 Worcester Goddard 1834.6 52 ^^ ^^ 6 17 32.7 52 ^^ ^^ 8 Worcester Lincoln Street 7 28.0 25 ^^ ^^ 9 5 17.9 28 ^^ ^^ 4 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 72 Table 70: Economically Disadvantaged Students -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 6 60.0 10 17 77.3 22 5 35.7 14 10 45.5 22 5 33.3 15 12 46.2 26 Boston Renaissance Charter 46 65.7 70 26 57.8 45 23 38.3 60 24 41.4 58 34 45.9 74 20 37.7 53 Brockton Downey 8 21.1 38 10 55.6 18 20 35.7 56 8 29.6 27 14 25.5 55 11 45.8 24 Brockton Davis 16 29.1 55 19 51.4 37 27 32.9 82 12 48.0 25 24 29.3 82 9 45.0 20 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 7 21 61.8 34 6 46.2 13 9 69.2 13 ^^ ^^ 2 11 47.8 23 Chelsea Kelly 32 50.8 63 16 76.2 21 30 34.9 86 9 47.4 19 37 48.7 76 11 47.8 23 Chelsea Shurtleff 43 66.2 65 23 85.2 27 ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 11 24.4 45 ^^ ^^ 9 17 50.0 34 ^^ ^^ 6 20 48.8 41 9 75.0 12 Chicopee Stefanik 20 36.4 55 8 72.7 11 11 24.4 45 6 50.0 12 21 42.0 50 5 50.0 10 Fall River Healy 14 37.8 37 ^^ ^^ 2 7 18.9 37 ^^ ^^ 1 9 33.3 27 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Doran 22 61.1 36 10 62.5 16 10 26.3 38 6 46.2 13 8 23.5 34 6 31.6 19 Fall River Laurel Lake 11 42.3 26 8 66.7 12 4 26.7 15 3 27.3 11 11 44.0 25 6 50.0 12 Fall River N.B. Borden 6 42.9 14 ^^ ^^ 4 8 34.8 23 ^^ ^^ 2 4 19.0 21 ^^ ^^ 1 Fitchburg McKay 12 28.6 42 19 70.4 27 6 16.2 37 17 53.1 32 9 30.0 30 9 24.3 37 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 11 39.3 28 6 35.3 17 9 33.3 27 16 66.7 24 ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** 5 16.7 30 4 26.7 15 Haverhill Burnham 9 40.9 22 12 66.7 18 10 33.3 30 6 60.0 10 ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 5 22.7 22 28 82.4 34 5 26.3 19 23 62.2 37 6 37.5 16 44 60.3 73 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 4 32 69.6 46 ^^ ^^ 3 32 74.4 43 ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 22 55.0 40 ^^ ^^ 4 15 31.3 48 ^^ ^^ 2 13 36.1 36 ^^ ^^ 3 Lawrence Arlington 26 28.3 92 7 63.6 11 26 28.9 90 6 40.0 15 17 20.0 85 2 13.3 15 Lawrence Frost 23 46.9 49 13 48.1 27 19 34.5 55 12 40.0 30 12 22.6 53 7 38.9 18 Lawrence Wetherbee 13 24.5 53 ^^ ^^ 8 19 31.7 60 3 27.3 11 10 16.1 62 ^^ ^^ 7 Lowell Community Charter School 31 46.3 67 8 80.0 10 16 25.4 63 4 33.3 12 20 28.2 71 6 37.5 16 Lowell Murkland 7 12.1 58 4 40.0 10 18 25.7 70 2 15.4 13 16 20.8 77 5 50.0 10 Lowell Bailey 6 17.6 34 27 58.7 46 7 21.9 32 22 61.1 36 7 20.6 34 13 37.1 35 Lowell Greenhalge 19 41.3 46 9 47.4 19 13 31.0 42 7 30.4 23 8 22.9 35 6 30.0 20 Malden Ferryway 20 54.1 37 26 61.9 42 27 64.3 42 29 74.4 39 22 66.7 33 29 67.4 43 Methuen Tenney 10 47.6 21 73 75.3 97 9 36.0 25 59 70.2 84 10 28.6 35 46 49.5 93 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 73 Table 70 (continued): Economically Disadvantaged Students -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 6 10 100 10 ^^ ^^ 7 8 66.7 12 ^^ ^^ 7 9 75.0 12 North Adams Brayton 18 62.1 29 16 84.2 19 9 33.3 27 14 51.9 27 5 20.0 25 9 32.1 28 North Adams Sullivan 5 33.3 15 15 62.5 24 5 26.3 19 12 54.5 22 1 4.5 22 7 33.3 21 Pittsfield Morningside 18 54.5 33 13 54.2 24 13 34.2 38 8 44.4 18 9 33.3 27 13 46.4 28 Plymouth South 5 50.0 10 85 68.0 125 4 25.0 16 70 57.4 122 7 53.8 13 77 55.4 139 Plymouth West ^^ ^^ 6 34 87.2 39 ^^ ^^ 3 33 75.0 44 ^^ ^^ 2 39 60.0 65 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 5 25.0 20 26 70.3 37 13 52.0 25 25 54.3 46 14 45.2 31 31 70.5 44 Revere Garfield 40 49.4 81 14 93.3 15 30 46.2 65 5 38.5 13 20 33.3 60 5 35.7 14 Robert M. Hughes Academy Ch 10 66.7 15 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 9 3 27.3 11 ^^ ^^ 4 Salem Bates 8 40.0 20 38 71.7 53 5 41.7 12 17 51.5 33 5 31.3 16 24 48.0 50 Salem Bentley 5 31.3 16 27 81.8 33 4 26.7 15 20 62.5 32 9 52.9 17 21 65.6 32 Seven Hills Charter School 13 36.1 36 8 36.4 22 8 20.5 39 9 32.1 28 5 14.7 34 13 44.8 29 Somerville Powderhouse 16 53.3 30 8 53.3 15 11 33.3 33 5 45.5 11 11 50.0 22 ^^ ^^ 8 Springfield Boland 16 34.8 46 9 60.0 15 20 42.6 47 ^^ ^^ 6 16 28.6 56 ^^ ^^ 8 Springfield Gerena 27 24.8 109 ^^ ^^ 6 18 21.7 83 ^^ ^^ 9 13 13.5 96 ^^ ^^ 7 Springfield Milton Bradley 29 39.2 74 ^^ ^^ 9 26 32.1 81 ^^ ^^ 9 17 22.4 76 ^^ ^^ 5 Springfield White Street 27 48.2 56 ^^ ^^ 6 19 36.5 52 ^^ ^^ 6 6 9.5 63 ^^ ^^ 4 Taunton Walker 4 23.5 17 13 72.2 18 3 23.1 13 12 60.0 20 4 18.2 22 11 68.8 16 Ware Koziol 12 37.5 32 24 54.5 44 9 28.1 32 27 56.3 48 9 32.1 28 27 50.0 54 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** 9 20.9 43 29 43.9 66 Webster Park Avenue 28 68.3 41 61 79.2 77 19 34.5 55 36 43.9 82 ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave 5 22.7 22 ^^ ^^ 9 5 23.8 21 ^^ ^^ 8 7 35.0 20 2 20.0 10 Westfield Highland 10 40.0 25 16 76.2 21 6 21.4 28 16 57.1 28 10 29.4 34 16 59.3 27 Westfield Moseley 2 20.0 10 7 41.2 17 5 50.0 10 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 7 9 64.3 14 Worcester A.L.L. 10 18.9 53 ^^ ^^ 2 19 39.6 48 ^^ ^^ 6 11 20.0 55 ^^ ^^ 5 Worcester City View 15 38.5 39 4 23.5 17 13 37.1 35 7 46.7 15 6 18.8 32 6 33.3 18 Worcester Goddard 20 37.0 54 ^^ ^^ 3 11 18.6 59 ^^ ^^ 6 12 23.1 52 ^^ ^^ 8 Worcester Lincoln Street 19 40.4 47 ^^ ^^ 4 8 33.3 24 5 50.0 10 3 12.0 25 ^^ ^^ 2 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 74 Table 71: Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 16 42.1 38 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 0 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 0 57 48.7 117 10 71.4 14 Brockton Downey 18 58.1 31 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 17 44.7 38 4 23.5 17 Brockton Davis 23 60.5 38 0 ^^ ^^ 1 33 55.9 59 9 39.1 23 Cambridge Haggerty 8 61.5 13 ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 9 0 Chelsea Kelly 5 41.7 12 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 5 34 37.0 92 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 22 64.7 34 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 8 32.0 25 Chicopee Stefanik 8 38.1 21 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 6 18.2 33 Fall River Healy 5 31.3 16 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 4 21.1 19 Fall River Doran 21 45.7 46 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 3 Fall River Laurel Lake 7 43.8 16 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 8 Fall River N.B. Borden 4 28.6 14 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 Fitchburg McKay 17 48.6 35 6 54.5 11 0 ^^ ^^ 4 12 40.0 30 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 21 48.8 43 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 7 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 7 50.0 14 ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 3 8 28.6 28 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 32 50.8 63 0 0 0 2 16.7 12 Haverhill Walnut Square 33 75.0 44 ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Lawrence Family Development Ch 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 0 20 39.2 51 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 7 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 35 34.0 103 Lawrence Frost 12 46.2 26 ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 4 14 23.0 61 Lawrence Wetherbee 4 36.4 11 ^^ ^^ 9 0 ^^ ^^ 2 22 40.7 54 Lowell Community Charter School 6 40.0 15 11 39.3 28 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 9 12 30.0 40 Lowell Murkland 10 45.5 22 17 37.8 45 0 ^^ ^^ 4 6 35.3 17 Lowell Bailey 27 57.4 47 10 47.6 21 0 ^^ ^^ 5 7 43.8 16 Lowell Greenhalge 25 50.0 50 9 69.2 13 0 ^^ ^^ 6 4 28.6 14 Malden Ferryway 31 75.6 41 22 81.5 27 ^^ ^^ 1 7 46.7 15 ^^ ^^ 9 Methuen Tenney 50 60.2 83 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 10 43.5 23 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 75 Table 71 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter 6 46.2 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 0 North Adams Brayton 25 45.5 55 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 North Adams Sullivan 22 53.7 41 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Pittsfield Morningside 24 48.0 50 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 3 Plymouth South 76 54.3 140 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Plymouth West 29 59.2 49 0 0 0 0 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 18 34.6 52 13 61.9 21 0 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 2 Revere Garfield 11 39.3 28 16 72.7 22 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 9 21 53.8 39 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr 0 0 0 7 41.2 17 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 17 39.5 43 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 Salem Bentley 17 54.8 31 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 6 33.3 18 Seven Hills Charter School 10 55.6 18 0 0 11 36.7 30 6 25.0 24 Somerville Powderhouse ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 9 12 33.3 36 Springfield Boland 5 50.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 9 14 33.3 42 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 8 0 0 6 28.6 21 19 27.5 69 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 7 0 0 13 43.3 30 18 33.3 54 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 3 0 7 43.8 16 13 54.2 24 Taunton Walker 22 68.8 32 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 Ware Koziol 38 43.2 88 ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 47 39.2 120 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 9 47.4 19 Westfield Franklin Ave 8 36.4 22 0 0 0 3 23.1 13 Westfield Highland 15 26.8 56 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 5 22.7 22 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 2 Worcester A.L.L. 8 47.1 17 6 60.0 10 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 5 17.2 29 Worcester City View 9 39.1 23 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 5 8 27.6 29 Worcester Goddard 7 46.7 15 8 57.1 14 0 ^^ ^^ 4 11 30.6 36 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 4 5 25.0 20 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 76 Table 71 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 18 43.9 41 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 1 61 40.9 149 15 55.6 27 Brockton Downey 22 57.9 38 0 ^^ ^^ 3 15 45.5 33 8 61.5 13 Brockton Davis 19 52.8 36 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 27 42.2 64 3 25.0 12 Cambridge Haggerty 7 58.3 12 0 0 8 66.7 12 ^^ ^^ 1 Chelsea Kelly 12 57.1 21 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 30 36.6 82 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 14 41.2 34 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 8 33.3 24 Chicopee Stefanik 9 33.3 27 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 9 23.7 38 Fall River Healy 9 56.3 16 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 1 3 16.7 18 Fall River Doran 17 30.4 56 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 7 28.0 25 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 6 Fall River N.B. Borden 1 5.9 17 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 Fitchburg McKay 19 43.2 44 4 36.4 11 0 ^^ ^^ 8 8 50.0 16 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 11 25.6 43 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 48 51.1 94 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 1 7.7 13 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 0 0 0 0 28 58.3 48 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 4 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 22 19.1 115 Lawrence Frost 5 21.7 23 ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 1 16 28.1 57 Lawrence Wetherbee 5 45.5 11 ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 2 17 26.2 65 Lowell Community Charter School 4 28.6 14 10 30.3 33 ^^ ^^ 1 4 30.8 13 8 20.0 40 Lowell Murkland 8 34.8 23 24 43.6 55 0 ^^ ^^ 6 9 45.0 20 Lowell Bailey 21 52.5 40 10 50.0 20 0 5 50.0 10 5 29.4 17 Lowell Greenhalge 18 38.3 47 7 46.7 15 0 ^^ ^^ 2 3 27.3 11 Malden Ferryway 36 66.7 54 12 75.0 16 ^^ ^^ 1 5 38.5 13 ^^ ^^ 7 Methuen Tenney 48 48.5 99 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 5 16.1 31 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 77 Table 71 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 6 0 0 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 1 North Adams Brayton 14 31.1 45 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 North Adams Sullivan 14 33.3 42 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Pittsfield Morningside 18 29.5 61 0 0 5 41.7 12 ^^ ^^ 8 Plymouth South 74 49.7 149 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Plymouth West 33 50.8 65 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 0 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 34 57.6 59 9 75.0 12 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 Revere Garfield 11 55.0 20 10 45.5 22 0 7 53.8 13 12 32.4 37 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 4 Salem Bates 29 51.8 56 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 3 2 18.2 11 Salem Bentley 20 60.6 33 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 2 3 18.8 16 Seven Hills Charter School 14 56.0 25 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 9 37.5 24 9 34.6 26 Somerville Powderhouse ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 8 9 34.6 26 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 1 0 4 22.2 18 14 35.0 40 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 1 0 7 20.6 34 10 16.4 61 Springfield Milton Bradley 4 36.4 11 ^^ ^^ 2 0 10 32.3 31 9 18.8 48 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 0 5 26.3 19 0 0.0 36 Taunton Walker Data are incomplete Ware Koziol 34 37.8 90 ^^ ^^ 2 0 0 0 Webster Sitkowski 44 41.5 106 0 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 8 Webster Park Avenue ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave 5 21.7 23 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 5 41.7 12 Westfield Highland 27 40.3 67 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Westfield Moseley 11 44.0 25 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Worcester A.L.L. 3 13.0 23 3 30.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 3 5 15.6 32 Worcester City View 10 32.3 31 0 0 ^^ ^^ 5 4 21.1 19 Worcester Goddard 11 55.0 20 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 5 11 31.4 35 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 5 1 5.3 19 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 78 Table 72: Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 23 69.7 33 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 0 75 64.0 117 8 47.1 17 Brockton Downey 8 30.8 26 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 7 25.0 28 ^^ ^^ 2 Brockton Davis 17 41.5 41 0 ^^ ^^ 4 16 37.0 43 4 30.8 13 Cambridge Haggerty 14 63.6 22 ^^ ^^ 5 0 8 73.0 11 ^^ ^^ 4 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 2 41 56.9 72 Chelsea Shurtleff 15 83.3 18 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 42 65.6 64 Chicopee Bowe 9 29.0 31 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 6 4 16.7 24 Chicopee Stefanik 13 52.0 25 0 0 ^^ ^^ 5 11 28.2 39 Fall River Healy 6 50.0 12 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 10 38.5 26 Fall River Doran 31 58.5 53 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 6 Fall River Laurel Lake 13 52.0 25 ^^ ^^ 9 0 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 3 Fall River N.B. Borden 10 71.4 14 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 Fitchburg McKay 23 65.7 35 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 7 25.0 28 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 16 38.1 42 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 14 73.7 19 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 10 35.7 28 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 31 66.0 47 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 8 38.1 21 Haverhill Walnut Square 34 68.0 50 0 0 0 0 Lawrence Family Development Ch 0 0 0 0 29 54.7 53 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 3 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 36 34.0 106 Lawrence Frost 11 47.8 23 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 5 28 50.9 55 Lawrence Wetherbee 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 4 11 20.4 54 Lowell Community Charter School 5 45.5 11 16 64.0 25 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 8 17 40.5 42 Lowell Murkland 4 25.0 16 10 23.0 44 0 ^^ ^^ 2 3 15.0 20 Lowell Bailey 18 45.0 40 11 55.0 22 0 ^^ ^^ 7 4 20.0 20 Lowell Greenhalge 22 50.0 44 3 23.0 13 0 ^^ ^^ 6 8 42.1 19 Malden Ferryway 24 58.5 41 18 75.0 24 ^^ ^^ 1 6 40.0 15 9 47.4 19 Methuen Tenney 76 79.2 96 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 12 46.2 26 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 79 Table 72 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 0 10 91.0 11 ^^ ^^ 6 North Adams Brayton 31 67.4 46 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan 20 54.1 37 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 28 50.9 55 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 4 Plymouth South 92 65.2 141 0 0 0 0 Plymouth West 34 81.0 42 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 20 55.6 36 10 63.0 16 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 Revere Garfield 17 65.4 26 20 71.0 28 0 ^^ ^^ 7 22 45.8 48 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 12 63.0 19 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 35 64.8 54 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 5 9 56.3 16 Salem Bentley 26 83.9 31 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 3 18.8 16 Seven Hills Charter School 6 33.3 18 ^^ ^^ 3 0 8 47.0 17 10 27.8 36 Somerville Powderhouse ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 19 59.4 32 Springfield Boland 8 47.1 17 0 0 9 43.0 21 12 40.0 30 Springfield Gerena 3 30.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 1 5 17.0 30 24 31.2 77 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 14 50.0 28 22 39.3 56 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 8 0 8 53.0 15 16 41.0 39 Taunton Walker 15 45.5 33 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 Ware Koziol 35 47.3 74 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 79 73.8 107 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 8 72.7 11 Westfield Franklin Ave 7 38.9 18 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 7 41.2 17 Westfield Highland 30 57.7 52 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 9 34.6 26 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Worcester A.L.L. 1 7.7 13 ^^ ^^ 5 0 3 25.0 12 4 12.5 32 Worcester City View 11 45.8 24 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 8 7 25.0 28 Worcester Goddard 7 35.0 20 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 6 17 45.9 37 Worcester Lincoln Street 10 66.7 15 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 6 10 32.3 31 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 80 Table 72 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 15 41.7 36 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 0 46 39.7 116 5 35.7 14 Brockton Downey 9 28.1 32 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 12 33.3 36 6 35.3 17 Brockton Davis 15 39.5 38 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 20 35.7 56 6 27.3 22 Cambridge Haggerty 7 53.8 13 ^^ ^^ 4 0 4 40.0 10 0 Chelsea Kelly 3 27.3 11 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 5 34 39.1 87 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 18 62.1 29 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 7 33.3 21 Chicopee Stefanik 11 45.8 24 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 7 20.6 34 Fall River Healy 5 31.3 16 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 3 14.3 21 Fall River Doran 18 34.6 52 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 6 31.6 19 ^^ ^^ 2 0 0 ^^ ^^ 8 Fall River N.B. Borden 8 47.1 17 0 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 Fitchburg McKay 13 36.1 36 3 27.3 11 0 ^^ ^^ 4 9 33.3 27 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 24 53.3 45 0 0 0 1 14.3 7 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 6 42.9 14 ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 2 9 33.3 27 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 32 54.2 59 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 3 30.0 10 Haverhill Walnut Square 35 76.1 46 ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Lawrence Family Development Ch 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 0 20 35.7 56 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 8 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 29 29.0 100 Lawrence Frost 12 48.0 25 ^^ ^^ 6 0 ^^ ^^ 4 20 30.3 66 Lawrence Wetherbee 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 8 0 ^^ ^^ 2 17 29.3 58 Lowell Community Charter School 7 41.2 17 8 28.6 28 0 ^^ ^^ 9 7 18.9 37 Lowell Murkland 8 33.3 24 14 29.8 47 0 ^^ ^^ 5 3 18.8 16 Lowell Bailey 21 47.7 44 5 25.0 20 0 ^^ ^^ 4 2 16.7 12 Lowell Greenhalge 12 26.1 46 5 41.7 12 0 ^^ ^^ 7 2 18.2 11 Malden Ferryway 33 80.5 41 21 77.8 27 0 8 42.1 19 6 54.5 11 Methuen Tenney 57 67.9 84 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 11 40.7 27 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 81 Table 72 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter 8 61.5 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 0 North Adams Brayton 22 41.5 53 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 North Adams Sullivan 20 45.5 44 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Pittsfield Morningside 22 41.5 53 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 5 Plymouth South 76 54.7 139 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West 37 72.5 51 0 0 0 0 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 25 50.0 50 14 66.7 21 0 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 Revere Garfield 8 33.3 24 14 70.0 20 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 15 41.7 36 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr 0 0 0 7 41.2 17 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 23 53.5 43 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 Salem Bentley 19 63.3 30 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 6 33.3 18 Seven Hills Charter School 5 27.8 18 ^^ ^^ 1 0 10 30.3 33 4 16.0 25 Somerville Powderhouse ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 5 0 5 50.0 10 10 30.3 33 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 9 0 ^^ ^^ 1 5 41.7 12 14 36.8 38 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 6 0 0 6 31.6 19 15 20.5 73 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 7 0 0 9 31.0 29 16 28.6 56 Springfield White Street 5 45.5 11 ^^ ^^ 3 0 4 23.5 17 12 41.4 29 Taunton Walker 15 44.1 34 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 Ware Koziol 38 44.2 86 ^^ ^^ 3 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 50 39.7 126 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 13 59.1 22 Westfield Franklin Ave 8 40.0 20 0 0 0 3 23.1 13 Westfield Highland 25 42.4 59 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 11 64.7 17 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 3 Worcester A.L.L. 7 41.2 17 ^^ ^^ 9 0 5 50.0 10 6 21.4 28 Worcester City View 12 48.0 25 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 10 37.0 27 Worcester Goddard 7 41.2 17 6 42.9 14 0 ^^ ^^ 5 6 14.3 42 Worcester Lincoln Street 6 60.0 10 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 4 6 33.3 18 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 82 Table 72 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 17 41.5 41 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 1 42 34.1 123 10 50.0 20 Brockton Downey 15 41.7 36 0 ^^ ^^ 3 9 26.5 34 3 23.1 13 Brockton Davis 13 37.1 35 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 18 30.5 59 4 26.7 15 Cambridge Haggerty 5 41.7 12 0 0 7 53.8 13 ^^ ^^ 1 Chelsea Kelly 11 57.9 19 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 36 45.6 79 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 19 55.9 34 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 8 38.1 21 Chicopee Stefanik 16 57.1 28 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 11 33.3 33 Fall River Healy 9 60.0 15 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 5 29.4 17 Fall River Doran 16 28.1 57 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 10 43.5 23 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 Fall River N.B. Borden 1 7.1 14 0 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 3 Fitchburg McKay 11 25.0 44 2 20.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 7 3 20.0 15 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 10 22.7 44 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 53 57.6 92 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 2 16.7 12 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 17 35.4 48 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 4 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 17 16.0 106 Lawrence Frost 7 33.3 21 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 1 15 26.3 57 Lawrence Wetherbee 3 30.0 10 ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 2 13 19.1 68 Lowell Community Charter School 4 30.8 13 10 31.3 32 ^^ ^^ 1 4 33.3 12 11 28.9 38 Lowell Murkland 2 10.0 20 13 24.5 53 0 ^^ ^^ 5 6 28.6 21 Lowell Bailey 14 35.0 40 4 21.1 19 0 ^^ ^^ 9 5 35.7 14 Lowell Greenhalge 13 27.7 47 4 26.7 15 0 ^^ ^^ 2 1 10.0 10 Malden Ferryway 36 70.6 51 13 76.5 17 ^^ ^^ 1 6 46.2 13 ^^ ^^ 6 Methuen Tenney 51 51.0 100 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 10 28.6 35 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 83 Table 72 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- DIBELS ORF results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 8 0 0 6 50.0 12 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Brayton 13 28.3 46 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 North Adams Sullivan 9 22.5 40 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 19 34.5 55 0 0 4 40.0 10 ^^ ^^ 5 Plymouth South 82 54.3 151 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West 39 59.1 66 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 0 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 32 59.3 54 10 76.9 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 Revere Garfield 8 36.4 22 8 44.4 18 0 4 36.4 11 9 27.3 33 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 4 36.4 11 ^^ ^^ 5 Salem Bates 25 45.5 55 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 3 4 33.3 12 Salem Bentley 25 71.4 35 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 2 6 37.5 16 Seven Hills Charter School 11 45.8 24 ^^ ^^ 2 0 4 16.7 24 7 28.0 25 Somerville Powderhouse ^^ ^^ 7 0 0 ^^ ^^ 8 11 45.8 24 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 1 0 4 21.1 19 14 35.9 39 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 8 0 0 6 16.7 36 11 16.7 66 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 3 0 11 37.9 29 8 15.1 53 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 0 4 21.1 19 2 5.0 40 Taunton Walker 14 46.7 30 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 9 Ware Koziol 36 40.0 90 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Webster Sitkowski 37 34.6 107 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 2 22.2 9 Webster Park Avenue ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave 6 27.3 22 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 4 36.4 11 Westfield Highland 31 44.3 70 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Westfield Moseley 12 50.0 24 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Worcester A.L.L. 4 21.1 19 2 20.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 6 11 32.4 34 Worcester City View 10 32.3 31 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 5 2 11.8 17 Worcester Goddard 4 21.1 19 ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 5 10 26.3 38 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 5 1 6.7 15 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 84 Student Outcomes: GRADE The GRADE assessment is a norm-referenced reading assessment developed and marketed by American Guidance Service (AGS). The GRADE offers multiple level tests for use across many grade levels. Each level test contains subtests with items designed to measure specific developmentally-appropriate pre-reading or readings skills. Massachusetts Reading First schools are required to administer the GRADE as both a screening and outcome measure for participating students. Off-level administration of the GRADE is also an option for indepth diagnostic testing of certain students. The developers of GRADE have established three categories of reading achievement based on students’ scores. Using their standards, students scoring in the first through third stanine are placed in the weak category, students scoring in the fourth through sixth stanine are placed in the average category and those scoring in the seventh through ninth category are placed in the strength category. According to AGS, students in the average and strength category (stanine 4 or above) are considered to be performing at or above grade-level. Overview of program-wide results Compared to other grade-levels, student performance descriptors for fall first graders taking the Level 1 test show a substantially larger proportion of students with scores described as weak and accordingly a substantially lower proportion of students with scores described as average or strength. After the fall administration, the Massachusetts Department of Education received overwhelming feedback that the Level 1 test was too difficult for the first graders in the fall. It is likely that these large differences are the result of these testing problems, not underlying differences in the abilities of these first graders. Adjustments were made to allow some of the Round 2 schools to administer the Level K assessment in the fall of first grade (a change encouraged by the test’s publisher). Although the number of students tested using Level K was much smaller, we do see a much better distribution of scores among the three performance categories. Beginning in the fall of 2004, all first graders were tested with the Level K assessment. More information on the impact of this change in testing policy will be available once those data have been processed. Table 73: GRADE Weak (stanines 1-3) Average (stanines 4-6) Strength (stanines 7-9) At Grade-Level* (stanines 4-9) Grade Timing # % # % # % # % N Fall level K 111 38.4 132 45.7 46 15.9 178 61.1 289 Fall level 1 2627 72.4 789 21.7 214 5.9 1003 27.6 3630 1 Spring 997 25.7 1669 43.1 1208 31.2 2877 74.3 3874 Fall 1186 49.6 1524 40.1 391 10.3 1915 50.4 3801 2 Spring 899 23.8 2086 55.2 796 21.1 2882 76.3 3781 Fall 1628 42.2 1831 47.5 395 10.2 2226 57.7 3854 3 Spring 885 23.4 1991 52.7 903 23.9 2894 76.6 3779 * Students in the average and strength categories are performing at grade-level. Setting aside the problematic first grade assessments, program-wide GRADE results show increases in the proportion of students performing at grade level (stanine 4 or higher). At second grade the percentage of students performing at grade-level increased from half to about three-quarters. At third grade the percentage increased Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 85 from about 58% to 77%. Furthermore, the data show decreases in the proportion of students in the lowest performance category (weak) and increases in the proportion in each of the middle and top performance categories (average and strength). In second grade the “weak” category decreased from 50% in the fall to 24% in the spring, the “average” category increased from 40% to 55% and the “strength” category increased from 10% to 21%. In third grade the “weak” category decreased from 42% to 24%, the “average” category increased from 48% to 53% and the “strength” category increased from 10% to 24%. All of the described changes are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Thus, as measured by GRADE, second and third grade student performance appears to have improved during the first year of Reading First classroom implementation. Performance of selected demographic groups – program-wide results Tables 74 and 75 show how Massachusetts Reading First students in the specified demographic subgroups performed on the GRADE assessment when compared to other students in the program. Individual student demographic data were obtained from the Massachusetts Department of Education’s Student Information Management System (SIMS). Students for whom we were unable to merge GRADE and SIMS data are excluded from the analysis21. In both the fall and the spring the percentage of students meeting the average benchmark was significantly lower among students with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and economic disadvantage than for other students. Again, excluding the problematic fall first grade results, the gap for students with disabilities ranged from 38 to 47 percentage points, for students with limited English proficiency it ranged from 24 to 32 percentage points; and for economically disadvantaged students it ranged from 19 to 28 percentage points. There is evidence that the gap for third grade low income students declined from 28 percentage points in the fall to 18 percentage points in the spring. In terms of race, compared to white students significantly fewer African American and Hispanic students met the average benchmark for all grade levels and testing periods. For African American students the gap ranged from five to ten percentage points. For Hispanic students the gap ranged from 17 to 31 percentage points. There were small decreases in the gaps for African American second graders and Hispanic second and third graders. As with the DIBELS data, it is important to note that students with disabilities were slightly underrepresented among the students tested with the GRADE assessment. Thus, it appears that small numbers of students with disabilities were not assessed using GRADE (or at least their scores were not reported). 21 Numbers of students excluded from the analysis: G1 fall (level 1 only) = 65; G1 spring = 67; G2 fall = 63; G2 spring = 65; G3 fall = 64; G3 spring = 66 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 86 Table 74: Fall GRADE – Performance of Selected Demographic Groups Students Achieving Average Benchmark (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 (level 1) Grade 2 Grade 3 Group # % N # % N # % N Students with disabilities 41 13.7 300 80 17.4 460 93 17.5 531 Other students * 948 29.0 3265 1805 55.1 3278 2101 64.5 3259 Students with limited English proficiency 73 13.3 550 186 27.9 667 204 33.9 602 Other students * 916 30.4 3015 1699 55.3 3071 1190 62.4 3188 Economically disadvantaged students 487 21.4 2279 1049 43.7 2402 1135 47.5 2390 Other students * 502 39.0 1286 836 62.6 1336 1059 75.6 1400 Race/ethnicity Asian/Pacific Islander 65 35.3 184 153 56.5 271 145 59.4^ 244 African American 140 28.1^ 498 266 51.6^ 516 342 59.5^ 575 Hispanic 232 18.8^ 1237 424 35.7^ 1187 431 38.1^ 1130 Native American/Alaskan Native 6 30.0 20 8 50.0 16 13 81.3 16 White 546 33.6 1626 1034 59.2 1748 1263 69.2 1825 Table 75: Spring GRADE – Performance of Selected Demographic Groups Students Achieving Grade-level Benchmark (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Group # % N # % N # % N Students with disabilities 161 37.8 426 216 39.1 553 225 38.0 592 Other students * 2679 79.2 3381 2626 83.0 3163 2630 84.3 3121 Students with limited English proficiency 367 55.2 665 370 54.0 685 300 50.3 597 Other students * 2473 78.7 3142 2472 81.6 3031 2555 82.0 3116 Economically disadvantaged students 1677 68.1 2464 1705 70.5 2418 1669 70.3 2373 Other students * 1163 86.6 1343 1137 87.6 1298 1186 88.5 1340 Race/ethnicity Asian/Pacific Islander 200 78.1 256 210 76.1^ 276 185 76.8^ 241 African American 398 76.7^ 519 386 78.3^ 493 414 75.7^ 547 Hispanic 830 63.8^ 1301 767 65.7^ 1168 680 62.8^ 1083 Native American/Alaskan Native 15 78.9 19 12 92.3 13 16 100.0 16 White 1397 81.6 1712 1467 83.1 1766 1560 85.4 1826 Notes apply to both tables 74 and 75: * Differences between the groups at all tested grade levels are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. ^ Differences between the specified racial subgroup and white students are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The size of the Native American population is too small to yield statistically significant results. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 87 School-level performance The tables on the following pages show the percentage of students at each school achieving their average performance benchmark for the GRADE assessment. Table 77 contains data from the fall assessments and Table 78 contains data from the spring assessments. For those seeking more detail, appendix D includes school level GRADE data – including mean growth scale value and percentage of students in each performance level (weak, average, strength) – by grade-level. The Massachusetts Department of Education has established that 80% or more of students scoring in stanine 4 or above (average benchmark) is an indication of good performance on the GRADE assessment. The indicator for GRADE is 80% compared to 60% for DIBELS and MCAS because we are using average performance as the benchmark for GRADE, which is a lower standard than DIBELS low risk and MCAS proficiency. At each gradelevel 22 schools met this indicator of good performance22. With one exception23, each of the remaining schools had between 46% and 79% of its students scoring at stanine 4 and above. Table 76 shows the good performers by grade-level. Ten schools were good performers at all three grade-levels. They were: Sanders Street (Athol-Royalston), Ferryway (Malden), Tenney (Methuen), Neighborhood House Charter, Sullivan (North Adams), South and West (Plymouth), Lincoln-Hancock (Quincy), Bentley (Salem), and Koziol (Ware). Four others were good performers at all grade-levels in which they enrolled students. They were: Shurtleff (Chelsea –first grade), Walnut Square (Haverhill – first and second grades), Park Avenue (Webster – first and second grades), and Sitkowski (Webster – third grade). 22 There were 55 schools enrolling first graders, 54 schools enrolling second graders and 52 schools enrolling third graders. 23 The ALL school in Worcester had only 25% of its first grade students meeting the average benchmark for spring assessment. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 88 Table 76: GRADE Strong Performers – by grade-level 80% or more meeting average benchmark (stanine 4 and above) LEA School First Grade Second Grade Third Grade Athol-Royalston Sanders Street X X X Boston Renaissance Charter School X Brockton Downey X X Cambridge Haggerty X Chelsea Kelly X Chelsea Shurtleff X ** ** Chicopee Bowe X Chicopee Stefanik X Fall River Doran X Fall River N.B. Borden X Fall River Laurel Lake X Fitchburg McKay X Gill-Montague Hillcrest X ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake X X Haverhill Walnut Square X X ** Lawrence Family Development Charter X Lowell Bailey X Malden Ferryway X X X Methuen Tenney X X X Neighborhood House Charter School X X X North Adams Brayton X X North Adams Sullivan X X X Pittsfield Morningside X X Plymouth South X X X Plymouth West X X X Quincy Lincoln-Hancock X X X Revere Garfield X Robert M Hughes Academy Charter X X Salem Bates X X Salem Bentley X X X Springfield White Street X Taunton Walker X X Ware Koziol X X X Webster Park Avenue X X ** Webster Sitkowski ** ** X Westfield Moseley X X ** School does not include this grade level. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 89 Table 77: GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 District School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 20 54.1 37 28 68.3 41 32 71.1 45 Boston Renaissance Charter 46 33.6 137 85 59.4 143 103 55.4 186 Brockton Downey 16 25.8 62 50 54.3 92 61 70.1 87 Brockton Davis 30 27.9 111 74 62.2 119 75 64.7 116 Cambridge Haggerty* 28 62.2 45 18 72.0 25 25 89.3 28 Chelsea Kelly 22 26.2 84 50 44.6 112 59 56.2 105 Chelsea Shurtleff 29 29.3 99 ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 4 6.3 63 29 47.5 61 30 50.0 60 Chicopee Stefanik 7 10.0 70 23 41.1 56 33 49.3 67 Fall River Healy 9 20.9 43 10 25.0 40 14 37.8 37 Fall River Doran 31 50.8 61 26 44.1 59 33 51.6 64 Fall River Laurel Lake 17 39.5 43 20 64.5 31 27 62.8 43 Fall River N.B. Borden 3 15.0 20 9 39.1 23 9 36.0 25 Fitchburg McKay* 46 61.3 75 43 53.1 81 37 63.8 58 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 6 12.8 47 26 52.0 50 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** 15 30.6 49 Haverhill Burnham 8 15.1 53 22 44.9 49 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 10 13.7 73 36 46.8 77 81 68.1 119 Haverhill Walnut Square 15 35.7 42 27 73.0 37 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 32 53.3 60 26 41.9 62 39 65.0 60 Lawrence Arlington 21 19.1 110 23 20.4 113 26 21.5 121 Lawrence Frost 13 14.1 92 43 44.3 97 35 40.7 86 Lawrence Wetherbee 8 11.3 71 31 40.8 76 33 39.8 83 Lowell Community Charter School 25 27.5 91 36 37.9 95 46 45.1 102 Lowell Murkland* 35 41.7 84 45 50.0 90 65 63.1 103 Lowell Bailey* 69 81.2 85 52 58.4 89 63 73.3 86 Lowell Greenhalge 39 50.6 77 48 57.1 84 48 65.8 73 Malden Ferryway 36 37.5 96 58 62.4 93 70 76.1 92 Methuen Tenney 63 50.4 125 86 73.5 117 119 89.5 133 Neighborhood House Charter School 15 68.2 22 13 56.5 23 14 66.7 21 *School administered Level K test to first graders ** School does not include this grade-level Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 90 Table 77 (continued): GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 District School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested North Adams Brayton 27 50.9 53 33 53.2 62 35 64.8 54 North Adams Sullivan 6 13.3 45 26 56.5 46 33 70.2 47 Pittsfield Morningside 9 12.3 73 38 55.9 68 47 57.3 82 Plymouth South Elementary 46 32.4 142 89 61.8 144 128 83.7 153 Plymouth West Elementary 23 48.9 47 39 75.0 52 62 89.9 69 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 15 23.1 65 30 34.9 86 60 70.6 85 Revere Garfield 16 14.0 114 60 60.6 99 45 48.9 92 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter Sch 9 52.9 17 14 63.6 22 17 85.0 20 Salem Bates 22 28.6 77 22 44.9 49 47 65.3 72 Salem Bentley 20 35.1 57 29 55.8 52 31 59.6 52 Seven Hills Charter School 18 23.7 76 37 47.4 78 53 67.9 78 Somerville Powderhouse 15 26.3 57 21 34.4 61 19 44.2 43 Springfield Boland 12 16.2 74 25 52.1 48 24 35.8 67 Springfield Gerena 20 16.7 120 33 32.0 103 40 33.9 118 Springfield Milton Bradley 21 20.2 104 42 44.7 94 43 46.2 93 Springfield White Street 15 21.1 71 29 56.9 51 19 28.8 66 Taunton Walker 9 30.0 30 28 65.1 43 27 61.4 44 Ware Koziol 25 28.1 89 51 52.6 97 65 71.4 91 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** 94 77.7 121 Webster Park Avenue 59 43.1 137 95 65.5 145 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 11 32.4 34 12 31.6 38 17 47.2 36 Westfield Highland 23 34.3 67 23 35.9 64 31 46.3 67 Westfield Moseley 9 28.1 32 11 42.3 26 17 65.4 26 Worcester A.L.L. 11 15.7 70 25 34.2 73 21 27.3 77 Worcester City View 13 21.0 62 29 50.0 58 27 47.4 57 Worcester Goddard 13 16.9 77 21 29.6 71 23 36.5 63 Worcester Lincoln Street 10 19.6 51 16 44.4 36 9 27.3 33 ** School does not include this grade-level Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 91 Table 78: GRADE results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 35 92.1 38 37 92.5 40 45 95.7 47 Boston Renaissance Charter 119 83.8 142 113 79.0 143 136 73.5 185 Brockton Downey 35 55.6 63 73 80.2 91 73 84.9 86 Brockton Davis 75 75.8 99 81 73.0 111 75 77.3 97 Cambridge Haggerty 31 67.4 46 20 76.9 26 24 82.8 29 Chelsea Kelly 68 80.0 85 86 77.5 111 74 74.7 99 Chelsea Shurtleff 80 87.0 92 ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 38 58.5 65 44 75.9 58 56 83.6 67 Chicopee Stefanik 44 62.9 70 42 68.9 61 54 83.1 65 Fall River Healy 31 73.8 42 19 47.5 40 24 68.6 35 Fall River Doran 54 85.7 63 46 73.0 63 43 64.2 67 Fall River Laurel Lake 36 78.3 46 24 77.4 31 38 84.4 45 Fall River N.B. Borden 21 91.3 23 19 73.1 26 11 50.0 22 Fitchburg McKay 56 70.9 79 46 58.2 79 68 85.0 80 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 30 60.0 50 43 82.7 52 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** 38 74.5 51 Haverhill Burnham 34 66.7 51 33 70.2 47 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 55 78.6 70 65 92.9 70 90 83.3 108 Haverhill Walnut Square 47 94.0 50 48 100.0 48 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 46 82.1 56 45 76.3 59 42 79.2 53 Lawrence Arlington 76 67.9 112 68 60.7 112 52 46.4 112 Lawrence Frost 65 72.2 90 77 75.5 102 65 76.5 85 Lawrence Wetherbee 45 64.3 70 55 68.8 80 56 65.9 85 Lowell Community Charter School 69 76.7 90 64 68.8 93 63 65.6 96 Lowell Murkland 39 46.4 84 57 60.6 94 64 64.0 100 Lowell Bailey 66 72.5 91 60 65.2 92 77 85.6 90 Lowell Greenhalge 62 74.7 83 55 72.4 76 53 68.8 77 Malden Ferryway 89 89.0 100 93 94.9 98 82 91.1 90 Methuen Tenney 118 90.1 131 112 91.8 122 132 89.8 147 Neighborhood House Charter School 22 100.0 22 18 81.8 22 19 86.4 22 ** School does not include this grade-level Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 92 Table 78 continued: GRADE results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested North Adams Brayton 47 92.2 51 48 78.7 61 45 80.4 56 North Adams Sullivan 36 85.7 42 39 81.3 48 41 87.2 47 Pittsfield Morningside 56 77.8 72 60 88.2 68 71 89.9 79 Plymouth South Elementary 128 88.9 144 127 88.2 144 148 93.7 158 Plymouth West Elementary 45 91.8 49 51 96.2 53 67 95.7 70 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 55 82.1 67 71 80.7 88 73 89.0 82 Revere Garfield 86 76.1 113 77 83.7 92 67 77.0 87 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter Sch 19 82.6 23 17 85.0 20 15 75.0 20 Salem Bates 66 84.6 78 42 84.0 50 55 76.4 72 Salem Bentley 47 83.9 56 40 80.0 50 46 85.2 54 Seven Hills Charter School 45 60.8 74 56 72.7 77 58 77.3 75 Somerville Powderhouse 37 61.7 60 27 46.4 58 22 55.0 40 Springfield Boland Data are incomplete 42 64.6 65 Data are incomplete Springfield Gerena 67 56.3 119 64 75.3 85 66 62.3 106 Springfield Milton Bradley 59 62.1 95 48 67.6 71 67 66.3 101 Springfield White Street 47 70.1 67 37 97.4 38 37 53.6 69 Taunton Walker 35 81.4 43 34 81.0 42 29 69.0 42 Ware Koziol 70 84.3 83 75 79.8 94 81 86.2 94 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** 108 88.5 122 Webster Park Avenue 118 92.2 128 132 84.6 156 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 26 70.3 37 24 68.6 35 26 72.2 36 Westfield Highland 47 71.2 66 47 68.1 69 47 61.0 77 Westfield Moseley 24 75.0 32 21 87.5 24 23 85.2 27 Worcester A.L.L. 17 24.6 69 52 72.2 72 42 57.5 73 Worcester City View 32 54.2 59 45 76.3 59 42 77.8 54 Worcester Goddard 42 47.7 88 40 51.3 78 40 58.8 68 Worcester Lincoln Street 40 71.4 56 23 63.9 36 22 78.6 28 ** School does not include this grade-level Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 93 Since there are two reliable data points for both second and third grade, it is also possible to examine those data for changes in the percentage of students scoring at or above the fourth stanine from the beginning to the end of the school year. Because it takes each school’s starting point into account, this is a better measure of program impact than simply looking at spring outcomes. No schools showed statistically significant fall to spring decreases in the percentage of students scoring at or above the fourth stanine on the GRADE assessment. At the second grade level 42 schools realized a statistically significant improvement as did 32 schools at the third grade level. Table 79 shows the schools with statistically significant improvement on the GRADE. Table 79: GRADE - Schools with statistically significant improvement (Fall 2003 vs. Spring 2004) Change in % meeting average benchmark (stanine 4 and above) Change in % meeting average benchmark (stanine 4 and above) LEA School Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School Grade 2 Grade 3 Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 24.2 24.6 Methuen Tenney 18.3 ## Boston Renaissance Charter 19.6 18.1 North Adams Brayton 25.5 ## Brockton Downey 25.9 14.8 North Adams Sullivan 24.8 17.0 Brockton Davis ## 12.6 Pittsfield Morningside 32.3 32.6 Chelsea Kelly 32.9 18.5 Plymouth South Elem 26.4 10.0 Chicopee Bowe 28.4 33.6 Plymouth West Elem 21.2 ## Chicopee Stefanik 27.8 33.8 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 45.8 18.4 Fall River Healy 22.5 30.8 Revere Garfield 23.1 28.1 Fall River Doran 28.9 ## Salem Bates 39.1 ## Fall River Laurel Lake ## 21.6 Salem Bentley 24.2 25.6 Fall River N.B. Borden 34.0 ## Seven Hills Charter School 25.3 ## Fitchburg McKay ## 21.2 Springfield Gerena 43.3 28.4 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 30.7 ** Springfield Milton Bradley 22.9 20.1 Haverhill Burnham 25.3 ** Springfield White Street 40.5 24.8 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 46.1 15.2 Ware Koziol 27.2 14.8 Haverhill Walnut Square 27.0 ** Webster Sitkowski ** 10.8 Lawrence Family Dev. Charter 34.4 ## Webster Park Avenue 19.1 ** Lawrence Arlington 40.3 24.7 Westfield Franklin Ave 37.0 25.0 Lawrence Frost 31.2 35.8 Westfield Highland 32.2 ## Lawrence Wetherbee 28.0 26.1 Westfield Moseley 45.2 ## Lowell Community Charter School 30.9 20.5 Worcester A.L.L. 38.0 30.2 Lowell Bailey ## 12.3 Worcester City View 26.3 30.4 Lowell Greenhalge 15.3 ## Worcester Goddard 21.7 22.3 Malden Ferryway 32.5 15.0 Worcester Lincoln Street ## 51.3 ** school does not include this grade level ## not statistically significant The tables that follow provide demographic subgroup results by school. Consistent with Massachusetts Department of Education policies data are not reported for any subgroup consisting of fewer than ten students. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 94 Table 80: Students with Disabilities -- GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street ^^ ^^ 3 19 55.9 34 ^^ ^^ 4 28 75.7 37 ^^ ^^ 7 31 81.6 38 Boston Renaissance Charter 2 18.2 11 44 35.2 125 2 11.8 17 83 65.9 126 1 4.3 23 102 62.6 163 Brockton Downey ^^ ^^ 7 15 27.3 55 3 21.4 14 47 60.3 78 2 16.7 12 59 78.7 75 Brockton Davis ^^ ^^ 3 29 27.1 107 ^^ ^^ 8 70 63.1 111 ^^ ^^ 9 74 69.2 107 Cambridge Haggerty* ^^ ^^ 8 27 73.0 37 ^^ ^^ 5 17 85.0 20 ^^ ^^ 7 20 95.2 21 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 2 22 26.8 82 ^^ ^^ 8 49 47.1 104 3 25.0 12 56 60.2 93 Chelsea Shurtleff ^^ ^^ 8 29 31.9 91 ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 0 0.0 11 4 7.7 52 ^^ ^^ 5 29 51.8 56 3 25.0 12 27 56.3 48 Chicopee Stefanik ^^ ^^ 5 7 10.8 65 ^^ ^^ 5 22 43.1 51 ^^ ^^ 6 33 54.1 61 Fall River Healy ^^ ^^ 4 8 20.5 39 ^^ ^^ 3 10 27.0 37 ^^ ^^ 3 14 41.2 34 Fall River Doran ^^ ^^ 5 29 51.8 56 ^^ ^^ 6 26 49.1 53 ^^ ^^ 7 32 56.1 57 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 1 17 40.5 42 ^^ ^^ 3 19 67.9 28 ^^ ^^ 5 27 71.1 38 Fall River N.B. Borden 0 3 15.0 20 ^^ ^^ 2 9 42.9 21 ^^ ^^ 5 8 40.0 20 Fitchburg McKay* 9 45.0 20 37 67.3 55 2 10.5 19 41 66.1 62 4 40.0 10 33 68.8 48 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 1 9.1 11 5 13.9 36 ^^ ^^ 7 25 58.1 43 ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** 1 7.7 13 14 38.9 36 Haverhill Burnham ^^ ^^ 5 8 16.7 48 ^^ ^^ 3 22 47.8 46 ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake ^^ ^^ 4 10 14.5 69 ^^ ^^ 9 36 52.9 68 8 34.8 23 73 76.0 96 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 3 15 38.5 39 ^^ ^^ 6 26 83.9 31 ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 3 21.4 14 29 63.0 46 4 26.7 15 22 46.8 47 5 26.3 19 34 82.9 41 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 8 21 20.6 102 0 0.0 12 23 22.8 101 1 5.0 20 25 24.8 101 Lawrence Frost ^^ ^^ 8 13 15.5 84 ^^ ^^ 9 41 46.6 88 2 11.1 18 33 48.5 68 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 5 7 10.6 66 ^^ ^^ 3 31 42.5 73 ^^ ^^ 9 33 44.6 74 Lowell Community Charter School ^^ ^^ 2 25 28.1 89 ^^ ^^ 9 32 37.2 86 ^^ ^^ 5 45 46.4 97 Lowell Murkland* 2 14.3 14 33 47.1 70 2 20.0 10 43 53.8 80 5 33.3 15 60 68.2 88 Lowell Bailey* ^^ ^^ 4 67 82.7 81 ^^ ^^ 9 49 61.3 80 ^^ ^^ 8 60 80.0 75 Lowell Greenhalge ^^ ^^ 7 37 52.9 70 3 21.4 14 45 64.3 70 3 27.3 11 45 72.6 62 Malden Ferryway ^^ ^^ 8 34 38.6 88 7 58.3 12 51 63.0 81 5 41.7 12 65 81.3 80 Methuen Tenney ^^ ^^ 6 62 52.1 119 ^^ ^^ 6 85 76.6 111 10 62.5 16 109 93.2 117 * First graders took Level K test ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 95 Table 80 (continued): Students with Disabilities -- GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter 0 15 68.2 22 ^^ ^^ 4 12 63.2 19 ^^ ^^ 5 11 68.8 16 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 5 26 54.2 48 2 15.4 13 31 63.3 49 ^^ ^^ 7 35 74.5 47 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 4 6 14.6 41 ^^ ^^ 4 26 61.9 42 ^^ ^^ 7 32 80.0 40 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 5 7 10.3 68 ^^ ^^ 9 33 55.9 59 9 50.0 18 38 59.4 64 Plymouth South 4 23.5 17 42 33.6 125 10 33.3 30 79 69.3 114 8 40.0 20 120 90.2 133 Plymouth West ^^ ^^ 3 22 50.0 44 ^^ ^^ 7 34 75.6 45 8 61.5 13 54 96.4 56 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock ^^ ^^ 2 15 23.8 63 2 14.3 14 28 38.9 72 6 40.0 15 54 77.1 70 Revere Garfield 4 26.7 15 12 12.1 99 ^^ ^^ 9 56 62.2 90 ^^ ^^ 8 44 52.4 84 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr ^^ ^^ 1 9 56.3 16 ^^ ^^ 4 11 61.1 18 ^^ ^^ 4 14 87.5 16 Salem Bates 2 15.4 13 20 31.3 64 3 27.3 11 19 50.0 38 3 17.6 17 44 80.0 55 Salem Bentley 0 0.0 17 20 50.0 40 2 13.3 15 27 73.0 37 ^^ ^^ 5 30 63.8 47 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 9 15 22.4 67 3 30.0 10 34 50.0 68 ^^ ^^ 4 53 71.6 74 Somerville Powderhouse 1 9.1 11 14 30.4 46 4 21.1 19 17 40.5 42 1 6.7 15 18 64.3 28 Springfield Boland 3 15.8 19 9 16.4 55 ^^ ^^ 9 21 53.8 39 2 14.3 14 22 41.5 53 Springfield Gerena 2 11.8 17 18 17.5 103 1 7.1 14 32 36.0 89 1 4.3 23 39 41.1 95 Springfield Milton Bradley 1 6.7 15 20 22.5 89 2 13.3 15 40 50.6 79 2 10.5 19 41 55.4 74 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 4 15 22.4 67 ^^ ^^ 3 29 60.4 48 2 18.2 11 17 30.9 55 Taunton Walker ^^ ^^ 9 9 42.9 21 2 18.2 11 26 81.3 32 0 0.0 14 27 90.0 30 Ware Koziol ^^ ^^ 7 23 28.0 82 1 6.7 15 50 61.0 82 ^^ ^^ 8 64 77.1 83 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** 0 0.0 14 94 87.9 107 Webster Park Avenue 3 27.3 11 56 44.4 126 11 37.9 29 84 72.4 116 ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave ^^ ^^ 2 11 34.4 32 ^^ ^^ 8 12 40.0 30 2 20.0 10 15 57.7 26 Westfield Highland ^^ ^^ 6 23 37.7 61 ^^ ^^ 9 22 40.0 55 1 9.1 11 30 53.6 56 Westfield Moseley ^^ ^^ 3 8 27.6 29 ^^ ^^ 4 10 45.5 22 ^^ ^^ 3 16 69.6 23 Worcester A.L.L. ^^ ^^ 4 9 13.6 66 0 0.0 14 25 42.4 59 1 8.3 12 20 30.8 65 Worcester City View ^^ ^^ 8 12 22.2 54 ^^ ^^ 5 29 54.7 53 ^^ ^^ 9 25 52.1 48 Worcester Goddard ^^ ^^ 6 12 16.9 71 0 0.0 11 21 35.0 60 0 0.0 16 23 48.9 47 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 9 8 19.0 42 ^^ ^^ 4 16 50.0 32 ^^ ^^ 4 9 31.0 29 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 96 Table 81: Students with Disabilities -- GRADE results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street ^^ ^^ 5 30 90.9 33 ^^ ^^ 8 31 96.9 32 ^^ ^^ 9 31 81.6 38 Boston Renaissance Charter 9 40.9 22 110 91.7 120 7 29.2 24 106 89.1 119 5 20.0 25 102 62.6 163 Brockton Downey ^^ ^^ 9 33 61.1 54 8 53.3 15 65 85.5 76 5 45.5 11 59 78.7 75 Brockton Davis ^^ ^^ 4 72 75.8 95 ^^ ^^ 8 80 77.7 103 5 50.0 10 74 69.2 107 Cambridge Haggerty 1 10.0 10 30 83.3 36 ^^ ^^ 6 18 90.0 20 7 70.0 10 20 95.2 21 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 3 66 80.5 82 6 50.0 12 80 80.8 99 5 29.4 17 56 60.2 93 Chelsea Shurtleff ^^ ^^ 8 75 89.3 84 ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 3 20.0 15 35 70.0 50 ^^ ^^ 4 43 79.6 54 7 58.3 12 27 56.3 48 Chicopee Stefanik ^^ ^^ 9 42 68.9 61 ^^ ^^ 9 40 76.9 52 ^^ ^^ 7 33 54.1 61 Fall River Healy ^^ ^^ 2 30 75.0 40 ^^ ^^ 2 19 50.0 38 ^^ ^^ 5 14 41.2 34 Fall River Doran ^^ ^^ 4 52 88.1 59 ^^ ^^ 7 44 78.6 56 2 15.4 13 32 56.1 57 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 1 36 80.0 45 ^^ ^^ 5 23 88.5 26 ^^ ^^ 6 27 71.1 38 Fall River N.B. Borden ^^ ^^ 2 19 90.5 21 ^^ ^^ 6 17 85.0 20 ^^ ^^ 6 8 40.0 20 Fitchburg McKay 8 40.0 20 48 81.4 59 3 12.5 24 43 78.2 55 14 63.6 22 3 68.8 48 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 3 20.0 15 27 77.1 35 ^^ ^^ 7 40 88.9 45 ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** 8 50.0 16 14 38.9 36 Haverhill Burnham ^^ ^^ 4 33 70.2 47 ^^ ^^ 8 29 74.4 39 ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake ^^ ^^ 4 55 83.3 66 ^^ ^^ 6 59 92.2 64 2 12.5 16 73 76.0 96 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 2 45 93.8 48 ^^ ^^ 6 42 100 42 ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch ^^ ^^ 7 42 85.7 49 7 53.8 13 38 82.6 46 6 54.5 11 34 82.9 41 Lawrence Arlington 6 31.6 19 70 75.3 93 4 21.1 19 64 68.8 93 4 22.2 18 25 24.8 101 Lawrence Frost 5 45.5 11 60 75.9 79 ^^ ^^ 9 71 76.3 93 13 68.4 19 33 48.5 68 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 6 43 67.2 64 ^^ ^^ 6 54 73.0 74 ^^ ^^ 9 33 44.6 74 Lowell Community Charter School ^^ ^^ 7 67 80.7 83 3 27.3 11 61 74.4 82 ^^ ^^ 7 45 46.4 97 Lowell Murkland 4 26.7 15 35 50.7 69 3 23.1 13 54 66.7 81 2 16.7 12 60 68.2 88 Lowell Bailey ^^ ^^ 5 64 74.4 86 8 38.1 21 52 73.2 71 11 55.0 20 60 80.0 75 Lowell Greenhalge 5 45.5 11 57 79.2 72 1 7.1 14 54 87.1 62 5 27.8 18 45 72.6 62 Malden Ferryway 9 69.2 13 80 92.0 87 9 75.0 12 84 97.7 86 6 54.5 11 65 81.3 80 Methuen Tenney 6 54.5 11 112 93.3 120 ^^ ^^ 8 109 95.6 114 9 50.0 18 109 93.2 117 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 97 Table 81 (continued): Students with Disabilities -- GRADE results by school (Spring 2004 and above) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter 0 22 100 22 ^^ ^^ 3 17 89.5 19 ^^ ^^ 4 11 68.8 16 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 7 43 97.7 44 8 50.0 16 40 88.9 45 3 30.0 10 35 74.5 47 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 3 36 92.3 39 ^^ ^^ 9 36 92.3 39 4 40.0 10 32 80.0 40 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 7 53 81.5 65 6 60.0 10 54 93.1 58 17 73.9 23 38 59.4 64 Plymouth South 8 44.4 18 120 95.2 126 13 52.0 25 114 95.8 119 15 68.2 22 120 90.2 133 Plymouth West ^^ ^^ 5 43 97.7 44 ^^ ^^ 6 46 97.9 47 10 76.9 13 54 96.4 56 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock ^^ ^^ 9 47 81.0 58 9 45.0 20 62 91.2 68 10 66.7 15 54 77.1 70 Revere Garfield 9 56.3 16 77 79.4 97 5 50.0 10 72 87.8 82 ^^ ^^ 8 44 52.4 84 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr ^^ ^^ 1 18 81.8 22 ^^ ^^ 4 13 81.3 16 ^^ ^^ 3 14 87.5 16 Salem Bates 3 27.3 11 63 94.0 67 ^^ ^^ 9 36 87.8 41 3 18.8 16 44 80.0 55 Salem Bentley 9 69.2 13 38 88.4 43 8 53.3 15 32 91.4 35 ^^ ^^ 9 30 63.8 47 Seven Hills Charter School 4 40.0 10 41 64.1 64 ^^ ^^ 9 53 77.9 68 ^^ ^^ 6 53 71.6 74 Somerville Powderhouse 3 21.4 14 34 73.9 46 5 27.8 18 22 53.7 41 3 18.8 16 18 64.3 28 Springfield Boland Data are incomplete 7 53.8 13 35 67.3 52 Data are incomplete Springfield Gerena 5 27.8 18 62 61.4 101 6 54.5 11 58 78.4 74 5 27.8 18 39 41.1 95 Springfield Milton Bradley 4 23.5 17 55 70.5 78 5 31.3 16 43 78.2 55 7 28.0 25 41 55.4 74 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 8 45 76.3 59 ^^ ^^ 2 35 97.2 36 ^^ ^^ 9 17 30.9 55 Taunton Walker ^^ ^^ 6 33 89.2 37 ^^ ^^ 9 30 90.9 33 2 14.3 14 27 90.0 30 Ware Koziol 5 45.5 11 65 90.3 72 8 44.4 18 67 88.2 76 4 36.4 11 64 77.1 83 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** 5 33.3 15 94 87.9 107 Webster Park Avenue 7 53.8 13 111 96.5 115 22 59.5 37 110 92.4 119 ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave ^^ ^^ 3 25 73.5 34 ^^ ^^ 8 22 81.5 27 3 30.0 10 15 57.7 26 Westfield Highland 7 70.0 10 40 71.4 56 4 33.3 12 43 75.4 57 6 33.3 18 30 53.6 56 Westfield Moseley ^^ ^^ 6 20 76.9 26 ^^ ^^ 5 18 94.7 19 ^^ ^^ 5 16 69.6 23 Worcester A.L.L. 1 10.0 10 16 27.1 59 6 35.3 17 46 83.6 55 1 8.3 12 20 30.8 65 Worcester City View 3 25.0 12 29 61.7 47 ^^ ^^ 8 42 82.4 51 10 58.8 17 25 52.1 48 Worcester Goddard ^^ ^^ 9 39 49.4 79 2 11.1 18 38 63.3 60 4 22.2 18 23 48.9 47 Worcester Lincoln Street 4 33.3 12 36 81.8 44 ^^ ^^ 7 22 75.9 29 ^^ ^^ 3 9 31.0 29 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 98 Table 82: Students with Limited English Proficiency -- GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with LEP Students w/o LEP Students with LEP Students w/o LEP Students with LEP Students w/o LEP District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 0 20 54.1 37 0 28 68.3 41 ^^ ^^ 1 32 72.7 44 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 1 46 34.1 135 ^^ ^^ 1 84 59.6 141 ^^ ^^ 4 103 56.9 181 Brockton Downey 0 16 25.8 62 0 50 54.9 91 0 61 70.9 86 Brockton Davis 2 20.0 10 28 28.0 100 8 50.0 16 65 64.4 101 4 22.2 18 71 72.4 98 Cambridge Haggerty* ^^ ^^ 2 27 64.3 42 ^^ ^^ 3 16 72.7 22 0 25 89.3 28 Chelsea Kelly 2 6.7 30 20 37.0 54 13 28.9 45 36 54.5 66 19 57.6 33 39 54.9 71 Chelsea Shurtleff ^^ ^^ 3 29 30.5 95 ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 1 5.3 19 3 6.8 44 4 28.6 14 25 53.2 47 ^^ ^^ 9 29 58.0 50 Chicopee Stefanik 2 10.0 20 5 10.0 50 1 10.0 10 22 47.8 46 3 21.4 14 30 56.6 53 Fall River Healy 3 14.3 21 5 23.8 21 2 11.1 18 8 38.1 21 0 0.0 15 14 63.6 22 Fall River Doran 6 35.3 17 24 55.8 43 4 30.8 13 22 48.9 45 4 28.6 14 29 58.0 50 Fall River Laurel Lake 0 17 39.5 43 0 19 63.3 30 0 27 62.8 43 Fall River N.B. Borden 0 3 15.0 20 0 9 39.1 23 0 8 34.8 23 Fitchburg McKay* 5 29.4 17 38 71.7 53 8 38.1 21 34 57.6 59 3 27.3 11 32 71.1 45 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ^^ ^^ 2 6 13.3 45 ^^ ^^ 3 26 55.3 47 ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 1 15 31.3 48 Haverhill Burnham 1 4.2 24 7 25.9 27 2 11.8 17 20 62.5 32 ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 0 10 14.1 71 0 36 48.0 75 0 76 67.3 113 Haverhill Walnut Square 0 15 36.6 41 0 27 73.0 37 ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch ^^ ^^ 3 27 57.4 47 21 45.7 46 ^^ ^^ 8 29 72.5 40 ^^ ^^ 8 Lawrence Arlington 3 15.8 19 18 20.0 90 0 0.0 32 23 28.4 81 0 0.0 28 26 28.3 92 Lawrence Frost ^^ ^^ 7 13 15.5 84 ^^ ^^ 6 42 46.2 91 ^^ ^^ 5 35 44.3 79 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 4 8 12.3 65 2 20.0 10 29 43.9 66 ^^ ^^ 8 31 41.3 75 Lowell Community Charter School 9 22.0 41 16 32.7 49 15 28.8 52 20 48.8 41 22 37.9 58 23 53.5 43 Lowell Murkland* 9 25.7 35 26 53.1 49 19 41.3 46 26 60.5 43 39 60.9 64 25 67.6 37 Lowell Bailey* ^^ ^^ 3 66 81.5 81 6 37.5 16 46 63.0 73 9 47.4 19 52 81.3 64 Lowell Greenhalge 4 33.3 12 35 53.8 65 6 37.5 16 41 61.2 67 12 60.0 20 36 67.9 53 Malden Ferryway 4 26.7 15 31 38.8 80 5 31.3 16 53 68.8 77 7 63.6 11 62 77.5 80 Methuen Tenney 4 25.0 16 59 54.1 109 5 50.0 10 81 75.7 107 ^^ ^^ 6 115 90.6 127 * First graders took Level K test ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 99 Table 82 (continued): Students with Limited English Proficiency -- GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with LEP Students w/o LEP Students with LEP Students w/o LEP Students with LEP Students w/o LEP District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter 0 15 68.2 22 0 12 54.5 22 0 13 65.0 20 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 3 26 52.0 50 ^^ ^^ 1 31 51.7 60 ^^ ^^ 3 32 62.7 51 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 1 6 14.0 43 0 26 56.5 46 ^^ ^^ 1 33 71.7 46 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 1 9 12.9 70 ^^ ^^ 3 32 54.2 59 ^^ ^^ 3 43 55.8 77 Plymouth South 0 45 32.4 139 0 88 62.0 142 0 128 83.7 153 Plymouth West 0 22 48.9 45 0 37 74.0 50 0 60 89.6 67 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 2 11.1 18 13 27.7 47 10 32.3 31 19 36.5 52 13 68.4 19 45 71.4 63 Revere Garfield 1 5.6 18 15 16.0 94 ^^ ^^ 7 59 64.1 92 0 0.0 12 45 56.3 80 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr 0 9 56.3 16 0 11 57.9 19 0 14 87.5 16 Salem Bates 0 22 29.3 75 0 20 42.6 47 0 47 66.2 71 Salem Bentley ^^ ^^ 4 20 43.5 46 ^^ ^^ 1 29 56.9 51 0 31 59.6 52 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 6 16 25.4 63 ^^ ^^ 3 32 46.4 69 ^^ ^^ 7 50 70.4 71 Somerville Powderhouse 4 14.8 27 11 36.7 30 5 17.9 28 15 46.9 32 7 35.0 20 12 54.5 22 Springfield Boland 0 0.0 10 12 18.8 64 ^^ ^^ 8 22 55.0 40 ^^ ^^ 4 22 35.5 62 Springfield Gerena 2 8.7 23 18 18.6 97 1 6.7 15 32 36.8 87 3 15.0 20 36 38.7 93 Springfield Milton Bradley 1 7.1 14 20 22.5 89 4 20.0 20 37 51.4 72 0 0.0 19 42 57.5 73 Springfield White Street 2 15.4 13 13 22.8 57 ^^ ^^ 5 28 62.2 45 0 0.0 13 17 34.0 50 Taunton Walker 0 9 30.0 30 ^^ ^^ 1 26 63.4 41 ^^ ^^ 3 27 65.9 41 Ware Koziol ^^ ^^ 1 25 28.4 88 0 51 52.6 97 ^^ ^^ 1 65 72.2 90 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 5 91 79.8 114 Webster Park Avenue 4 36.4 11 54 43.5 124 ^^ ^^ 5 92 65.7 140 ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave ^^ ^^ 8 10 38.5 26 ^^ ^^ 3 12 37.5 32 ^^ ^^ 3 16 50.0 32 Westfield Highland 0 0.0 28 23 62.2 37 1 3.6 28 22 62.9 35 0 0.0 25 31 73.8 42 Westfield Moseley 0 9 30.0 30 0 10 40.0 25 0 17 65.4 26 Worcester A.L.L. 3 12.5 24 7 15.6 45 9 33.3 27 16 36.4 44 2 10.0 20 19 33.9 56 Worcester City View 2 12.5 16 10 22.7 44 6 46.2 13 23 51.1 45 ^^ ^^ 9 26 54.2 48 Worcester Goddard 4 10.3 39 9 24.3 37 6 16.2 37 15 45.5 33 6 22.2 27 17 48.6 35 Worcester Lincoln Street 3 14.3 21 7 23.3 30 5 25.0 20 11 68.8 16 ^^ ^^ 9 8 33.3 24 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 100 Table 83: Students with Limited English Proficiency -- GRADE results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with LEP Students w/o LEP Students with LEP Students w/o LEP Students with LEP Students w/o LEP District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 0 35 92.1 38 0 36 92.3 39 ^^ ^^ 1 42 95.5 44 Boston Renaissance Charter 0 119 85.0 140 0 111 79.3 140 ^^ ^^ 7 133 75.1 177 Brockton Downey 0 34 54.8 62 0 72 80.0 90 0 72 84.7 85 Brockton Davis ^^ ^^ 9 71 79.8 89 8 53.3 15 73 76.0 96 7 41.2 17 68 85.0 80 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 2 30 69.8 43 ^^ ^^ 3 19 82.6 23 0 22 81.5 27 Chelsea Kelly 21 72.4 29 46 83.6 55 33 73.3 45 53 80.3 66 24 70.6 34 50 78.1 64 Chelsea Shurtleff ^^ ^^ 2 77 86.5 89 ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 11 61.1 18 27 57.4 47 6 42.9 14 38 88.4 43 ^^ ^^ 8 51 89.5 57 Chicopee Stefanik 10 45.5 22 34 70.8 48 2 20.0 10 40 80.0 50 6 54.5 11 48 88.9 54 Fall River Healy 13 61.9 21 18 85.7 21 1 5.0 20 18 90.0 20 7 50.0 14 17 85.0 20 Fall River Doran 20 90.9 22 34 82.9 41 9 52.9 17 37 80.4 46 2 14.3 14 41 77.4 53 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 4 32 76.2 42 0 24 80.0 30 ** 38 84.4 45 Fall River N.B. Borden ^^ ^^ 1 18 90.0 20 ^^ ^^ 1 17 77.3 22 ^^ ^^ 3 10 62.5 16 Fitchburg McKay 11 50.0 22 45 80.4 56 7 35.0 20 39 68.4 57 11 73.3 15 55 90.2 61 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ^^ ^^ 2 28 62.2 45 ^^ ^^ 3 42 85.7 49 ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 1 38 76.0 50 Haverhill Burnham 10 40.0 25 24 92.3 26 8 44.4 18 24 85.7 28 ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake ^^ ^^ 3 54 80.6 67 ^^ ^^ 1 64 92.8 69 ^^ ^^ 1 90 84.1 107 Haverhill Walnut Square 0 47 94.0 50 0 48 100 48 ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 13 68.4 19 32 88.9 36 38 76.0 50 ^^ ^^ 8 33 80.5 41 9 75.0 12 Lawrence Arlington 12 60.0 20 63 69.2 91 10 37.0 27 58 69.9 83 4 14.3 28 48 57.1 84 Lawrence Frost ^^ ^^ 7 61 74.4 82 ^^ ^^ 7 71 75.5 94 ^^ ^^ 5 62 80.5 77 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 6 41 64.1 64 6 46.2 13 48 72.7 66 2 20.0 10 54 72.0 75 Lowell Community Charter School 28 71.8 39 40 81.6 49 26 57.8 45 38 82.6 46 31 57.4 54 32 76.2 42 Lowell Murkland 17 41.5 41 21 50.0 42 27 52.9 51 30 71.4 42 38 60.3 63 26 70.3 37 Lowell Bailey ^^ ^^ 3 63 72.4 87 7 46.7 15 48 70.6 68 14 70.0 20 58 92.1 63 Lowell Greenhalge 13 61.9 21 49 79.0 62 12 70.6 17 43 72.9 59 15 62.5 24 38 76.0 50 Malden Ferryway 12 85.7 14 77 89.5 86 16 84.2 19 77 97.5 79 8 80.0 10 74 92.5 80 Methuen Tenney 17 89.5 19 101 90.2 112 10 76.9 13 102 93.6 109 ^^ ^^ 9 128 92.8 138 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 101 Table 83 (continued): Students with Limited English Proficiency -- GRADE results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with LEP Students w/o LEP Students with LEP Students w/o LEP Students with LEP Students w/o LEP District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter 0 22 100 22 0 18 81.8 22 0 19 86.4 22 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 2 45 91.8 49 ^^ ^^ 1 47 78.3 60 ^^ ^^ 2 43 79.6 54 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 1 35 85.4 41 0 39 81.3 48 ^^ ^^ 1 40 87.0 46 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 2 53 79.1 67 ^^ ^^ 4 55 87.3 63 ^^ ^^ 3 65 90.3 72 Plymouth South 0 128 88.9 144 ^^ ^^ 1 125 88.0 142 0 148 93.7 158 Plymouth West 0 45 95.7 47 0 50 96.2 52 0 65 95.6 68 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 17 77.3 22 33 82.5 40 16 80.0 20 50 82.0 61 ^^ ^^ 6 66 91.7 72 Revere Garfield 8 44.4 18 78 83.9 93 ^^ ^^ 6 75 89.3 84 ^^ ^^ 4 67 80.7 83 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr 0 18 81.8 22 0 14 82.4 17 0 12 70.6 17 Salem Bates 0 66 86.8 76 0 41 83.7 49 0 55 77.5 71 Salem Bentley 5 50.0 10 39 92.9 42 6 54.5 11 34 87.2 39 ^^ ^^ 9 42 93.3 45 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 8 41 64.1 64 ^^ ^^ 3 54 73.0 74 ^^ ^^ 7 54 80.6 67 Somerville Powderhouse 9 40.9 22 28 77.8 36 8 32.0 25 19 55.9 34 6 46.2 13 17 60.7 28 Springfield Boland Data are incomplete 6 60.0 10 35 67.3 52 Data are incomplete Springfield Gerena 8 47.1 17 58 60.4 96 7 53.8 13 56 78.9 71 7 41.2 17 58 69.0 84 Springfield Milton Bradley 5 31.3 16 53 69.7 76 9 39.1 23 38 80.9 47 10 40.0 25 55 76.4 72 Springfield White Street 8 66.7 12 39 70.9 55 ^^ ^^ 1 34 97.1 35 3 23.1 13 34 60.7 56 Taunton Walker 0 35 81.4 43 ^^ ^^ 1 32 80.0 40 ^^ ^^ 3 28 71.8 39 Ware Koziol 0 69 84.1 82 0 75 79.8 94 ^^ ^^ 1 81 87.1 93 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 6 103 88.8 116 Webster Park Avenue 9 81.8 11 108 93.1 116 ^^ ^^ 6 126 84.6 149 ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave ^^ ^^ 9 21 77.8 27 ^^ ^^ 6 21 75.0 28 ^^ ^^ 5 23 76.7 30 Westfield Highland 12 44.4 27 31 93.9 33 16 55.2 29 30 78.9 38 8 30.8 26 38 82.6 46 Westfield Moseley 0 21 75.0 28 0 20 87.0 23 ^^ ^^ 2 19 82.6 23 Worcester A.L.L. 7 26.9 26 10 23.3 43 18 66.7 27 33 80.5 41 8 42.1 19 34 64.2 53 Worcester City View 5 27.8 18 27 65.9 41 7 53.8 13 37 82.2 45 ^^ ^^ 8 38 82.6 46 Worcester Goddard 19 38.8 49 21 56.8 37 14 33.3 42 26 72.2 36 8 28.6 28 31 81.6 38 Worcester Lincoln Street 12 50.0 24 28 87.5 32 11 57.9 19 12 70.6 17 ^^ ^^ 9 16 84.2 19 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 102 Table 84: Economically Disadvantaged Students -- GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 8 50.0 16 12 57.1 21 13 65.0 20 15 71.4 21 13 61.9 21 19 79.2 24 Boston Renaissance Charter 24 33.8 71 22 33.8 65 39 60.0 65 46 59.7 77 44 51.2 86 59 59.6 99 Brockton Downey 9 25.0 36 7 26.9 26 24 48.0 50 26 63.4 41 33 61.1 54 28 87.5 32 Brockton Davis 14 23.7 59 16 31.4 51 48 55.8 86 25 80.6 31 55 61.8 89 20 74.1 27 Cambridge Haggerty* ^^ ^^ 9 24 68.6 35 7 63.6 11 11 78.6 14 ^^ ^^ 5 21 91.3 23 Chelsea Kelly 11 17.5 63 11 52.4 21 34 37.4 91 15 75.0 20 40 50.0 80 18 75.0 24 Chelsea Shurtleff 13 19.4 67 16 51.6 31 ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 4 7.3 55 ^^ ^^ 8 26 47.3 55 ^^ ^^ 6 21 42.0 50 ^^ ^^ 9 Chicopee Stefanik 6 10.3 58 1 8.3 12 16 34.8 46 7 70.0 10 27 47.4 57 6 60.0 10 Fall River Healy 6 15.0 40 ^^ ^^ 2 10 27.0 37 ^^ ^^ 2 11 33.3 33 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Doran 21 45.7 46 9 64.3 14 20 43.5 46 6 50.0 12 24 51.1 47 9 52.9 17 Fall River Laurel Lake 12 36.4 33 5 50.0 10 12 57.1 21 ^^ ^^ 9 17 54.8 31 10 83.3 12 Fall River N.B. Borden 2 13.3 15 ^^ ^^ 5 9 39.1 23 0 8 36.4 22 ^^ ^^ 1 Fitchburg McKay* 21 50.0 42 22 78.6 28 18 37.5 48 24 75.0 32 15 55.6 27 20 69.0 29 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 2 7.7 26 4 19.0 21 12 44.4 27 14 60.9 23 ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** 7 23.3 30 8 42.1 19 Haverhill Burnham 2 6.1 33 6 33.3 18 14 37.8 37 8 66.7 12 ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 2 5.4 37 8 23.5 34 11 29.7 37 25 65.8 38 20 57.1 35 56 71.8 78 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 3 15 39.5 38 ^^ ^^ 2 25 71.4 35 ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 24 58.5 41 ^^ ^^ 9 19 43.2 44 5 50.0 10 29 76.3 38 7 70.0 10 Lawrence Arlington 18 18.8 96 3 23.1 13 19 19.0 100 4 30.8 13 25 22.1 113 ^^ ^^ 7 Lawrence Frost 10 15.9 63 3 10.7 28 27 38.6 70 16 59.3 27 24 38.7 62 11 50.0 22 Lawrence Wetherbee 6 9.7 62 ^^ ^^ 7 27 42.2 64 4 33.3 12 28 36.8 76 ^^ ^^ 7 Lowell Community Charter School 21 28.4 74 4 25.0 16 25 35.7 70 10 43.5 23 25 37.3 67 20 58.8 34 Lowell Murkland* 29 38.2 76 ^^ ^^ 8 42 51.2 82 ^^ ^^ 7 58 64.4 90 6 54.5 11 Lowell Bailey* 32 69.6 46 36 94.7 38 25 46.3 54 27 77.1 35 34 68.0 50 27 81.8 33 Lowell Greenhalge 29 47.5 61 10 62.5 16 36 58.1 62 11 52.4 21 34 64.2 53 14 70.0 20 Malden Ferryway 18 33.3 54 17 41.5 41 30 62.5 48 28 62.2 45 30 69.8 43 39 81.3 48 Methuen Tenney 15 42.9 35 48 53.3 90 25 61.0 41 61 80.3 76 42 82.4 51 77 93.9 82 * First graders took Level K test ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 103 Table 84 (continued): Economically Disadvantaged Students -- GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter 6 50.0 12 9 90.0 10 6 60.0 10 6 50.0 12 ^^ ^^ 8 10 83.3 12 North Adams Brayton 16 47.1 34 11 57.9 19 16 48.5 33 16 57.1 28 15 53.6 28 20 76.9 26 North Adams Sullivan 2 11.1 18 4 15.4 26 12 48.0 25 14 66.7 21 17 63.0 27 16 80.0 20 Pittsfield Morningside 3 6.8 44 6 22.2 27 23 52.3 44 11 61.1 18 23 50.0 46 22 64.7 34 Plymouth South 3 23.1 13 42 33.3 126 10 43.5 23 78 65.5 119 13 76.5 17 115 84.6 136 Plymouth West ^^ ^^ 7 21 55.3 38 ^^ ^^ 6 32 72.7 44 ^^ ^^ 3 57 89.1 64 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 3 10.3 29 12 33.3 36 9 24.3 37 20 43.5 46 20 50.0 40 38 90.5 42 Revere Garfield 8 8.8 91 8 38.1 21 51 63.0 81 9 50.0 18 37 48.1 77 8 53.3 15 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr 7 53.8 13 ^^ ^^ 3 6 60.0 10 ^^ ^^ 9 11 84.6 13 ^^ ^^ 3 Salem Bates 3 13.6 22 19 35.8 53 4 30.8 13 16 47.1 34 10 52.6 19 37 71.2 52 Salem Bentley 2 12.5 16 18 52.9 34 8 42.1 19 21 63.6 33 7 33.3 21 24 77.4 31 Seven Hills Charter School 8 16.7 48 8 38.1 21 21 46.7 45 13 48.1 27 29 60.4 48 24 80.0 30 Somerville Powderhouse 8 19.0 42 7 46.7 15 17 34.7 49 3 27.3 11 15 41.7 36 ^^ ^^ 6 Springfield Boland 10 16.9 59 2 13.3 15 23 53.5 43 ^^ ^^ 5 19 33.3 57 ^^ ^^ 9 Springfield Gerena 18 16.1 112 ^^ ^^ 8 27 30.3 89 6 46.2 13 31 30.1 103 8 80.0 10 Springfield Milton Bradley 15 16.7 90 6 46.2 13 36 43.4 83 ^^ ^^ 9 37 43.0 86 ^^ ^^ 6 Springfield White Street 14 21.2 66 ^^ ^^ 4 22 52.4 42 ^^ ^^ 8 15 26.3 57 ^^ ^^ 6 Taunton Walker 4 22.2 18 5 41.7 12 11 55.0 20 16 72.7 22 9 40.9 22 18 81.8 22 Ware Koziol 7 16.7 42 18 38.3 47 20 42.6 47 31 62.0 50 20 57.1 35 45 80.4 56 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** 44 72.1 61 50 86.2 58 Webster Park Avenue 18 36.0 50 40 47.1 85 38 60.3 63 57 69.5 82 ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave 7 28.0 25 ^^ ^^ 9 7 25.0 28 ^^ ^^ 7 12 44.4 27 ^^ ^^ 8 Westfield Highland 6 15.0 40 17 68.0 25 8 21.6 37 15 57.7 26 12 30.0 40 19 70.4 27 Westfield Moseley 2 15.4 13 7 41.2 17 6 40.0 15 4 40.0 10 4 40.0 10 13 81.3 16 Worcester A.L.L. 10 14.7 68 ^^ ^^ 1 23 35.4 65 ^^ ^^ 6 19 26.4 72 ^^ ^^ 4 Worcester City View 9 19.6 46 3 21.4 14 22 46.8 47 7 63.6 11 18 41.9 43 9 64.3 14 Worcester Goddard 11 15.7 70 ^^ ^^ 6 17 26.6 64 ^^ ^^ 6 17 30.9 55 ^^ ^^ 7 Worcester Lincoln Street 9 19.1 47 ^^ ^^ 4 11 40.7 27 ^^ ^^ 9 7 24.1 29 ^^ ^^ 4 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 104 Table 85: Economically Disadvantaged Students -- GRADE results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 14 87.5 16 21 95.5 22 16 94.1 17 20 90.9 22 18 94.7 19 25 96.2 26 Boston Renaissance Charter 85 89.5 95 34 75.6 45 62 75.6 82 49 84.5 58 88 72.1 122 48 77.4 62 Brockton Downey 21 47.7 44 13 72.2 18 49 77.8 63 23 85.2 27 49 80.3 61 23 95.8 24 Brockton Davis 43 69.4 62 32 88.9 36 59 67.0 88 22 95.7 23 61 76.3 80 14 82.4 17 Cambridge Haggerty 3 30.0 10 28 80.0 35 7 58.3 12 13 92.9 14 ^^ ^^ 5 18 81.8 22 Chelsea Kelly 49 77.8 63 18 85.7 21 68 74.7 91 18 90.0 20 55 73.3 75 19 82.6 23 Chelsea Shurtleff 55 85.9 64 24 88.9 27 ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 33 60.0 55 5 50.0 10 37 75.5 49 ^^ ^^ 8 41 82.0 50 13 86.7 15 Chicopee Stefanik 34 57.6 59 10 90.9 11 32 66.7 48 10 83.3 12 43 79.6 54 11 100 11 Fall River Healy 29 72.5 40 ^^ ^^ 2 18 46.2 39 ^^ ^^ 1 20 66.7 30 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Doran 40 85.1 47 14 87.5 16 34 68.0 50 12 92.3 13 30 62.5 48 13 68.4 19 Fall River Laurel Lake 27 79.4 34 9 75.0 12 15 78.9 19 9 81.8 11 27 87.1 31 11 78.6 14 Fall River N.B. Borden 15 88.2 17 ^^ ^^ 4 16 72.7 22 ^^ ^^ 1 10 55.6 18 ^^ ^^ 1 Fitchburg McKay 29 56.9 51 27 100 27 21 46.7 45 25 78.1 32 33 84.6 39 33 89.2 37 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 18 60.0 30 11 64.7 17 21 75.0 28 22 91.7 24 ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** 26 72.2 36 12 80.0 15 Haverhill Burnham 20 62.5 32 14 73.7 19 24 66.7 36 8 80.0 10 ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 23 63.9 36 32 94.1 34 29 87.9 33 36 97.3 37 25 71.4 35 65 89.0 73 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 4 44 95.7 46 ^^ ^^ 5 43 100 43 ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 41 80.4 51 ^^ ^^ 4 43 76.8 56 ^^ ^^ 2 40 81.6 49 ^^ ^^ 4 Lawrence Arlington 66 66.0 100 9 81.8 11 58 61.1 95 10 66.7 15 46 47.4 97 6 40.0 15 Lawrence Frost 45 72.6 62 19 70.4 27 55 77.5 71 21 70.0 30 47 73.4 64 15 83.3 18 Lawrence Wetherbee 40 64.5 62 ^^ ^^ 8 46 67.6 68 8 72.7 11 50 64.1 78 ^^ ^^ 7 Lowell Community Charter School 58 74.4 78 10 100 10 54 68.4 79 10 83.3 12 53 66.3 80 10 62.5 16 Lowell Murkland 31 42.5 73 7 70.0 10 50 62.5 80 7 53.8 13 55 61.1 90 9 90.0 10 Lowell Bailey 24 57.1 42 41 85.4 48 25 54.3 46 30 81.1 37 38 79.2 48 34 97.1 35 Lowell Greenhalge 47 73.4 64 15 78.9 19 38 71.7 53 17 73.9 23 40 74.1 54 13 65.0 20 Malden Ferryway 54 93.1 58 35 83.3 42 55 93.2 59 38 97.4 39 42 89.4 47 40 93.0 43 Methuen Tenney 29 85.3 34 89 91.8 97 32 84.2 38 80 95.2 84 47 87.0 54 85 91.4 93 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 105 Table 85 (continued): Economically Disadvantaged Students -- GRADE results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter 12 100 12 10 100 10 8 80.0 10 10 83.3 12 8 80.0 10 11 91.7 12 North Adams Brayton 29 90.6 32 18 94.7 19 23 67.6 34 25 92.6 27 20 71.4 28 25 89.3 28 North Adams Sullivan 13 72.2 18 23 95.8 24 17 65.4 26 22 100 22 20 76.9 26 21 100 21 Pittsfield Morningside 37 84.1 44 18 72.0 25 42 85.7 49 17 94.4 18 40 88.9 45 28 93.3 30 Plymouth South 14 87.5 16 114 89.1 128 16 72.7 22 110 90.9 121 17 89.5 19 131 94.2 139 Plymouth West ^^ ^^ 8 38 97.4 39 ^^ ^^ 7 43 95.6 45 ^^ ^^ 3 62 95.4 65 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 17 68.0 25 33 89.2 37 26 74.3 35 40 87.0 46 27 79.4 34 42 95.5 44 Revere Garfield 71 74.7 95 15 93.8 16 63 82.9 76 13 92.9 14 56 76.7 73 11 78.6 14 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr 11 73.3 15 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 9 69.2 13 ^^ ^^ 4 Salem Bates 17 73.9 23 49 92.5 53 11 68.8 16 30 90.9 33 13 61.9 21 42 84.0 50 Salem Bentley 13 68.4 19 31 93.9 33 11 61.1 18 29 90.6 32 18 81.8 22 28 87.5 32 Seven Hills Charter School 27 52.9 51 16 76.2 21 34 69.4 49 22 78.6 28 30 66.7 45 27 93.1 29 Somerville Powderhouse 26 63.4 41 11 64.7 17 21 44.7 47 6 50.0 12 16 51.6 31 7 70.0 10 Springfield Boland Data are incomplete 37 66.1 56 ^^ ^^ 6 Data are incomplete Springfield Gerena 61 57.0 107 ^^ ^^ 6 58 76.3 76 ^^ ^^ 8 58 61.7 94 ^^ ^^ 7 Springfield Milton Bradley 50 60.2 83 ^^ ^^ 9 43 66.2 65 ^^ ^^ 5 60 65.2 92 ^^ ^^ 5 Springfield White Street 43 70.5 61 ^^ ^^ 6 29 96.7 30 ^^ ^^ 6 34 53.1 64 ^^ ^^ 5 Taunton Walker 19 76.0 25 16 88.9 18 15 71.4 21 18 90.0 20 13 50.0 26 16 100 16 Ware Koziol 29 76.3 38 40 90.9 44 32 71.1 45 43 87.8 49 31 77.5 40 50 92.6 54 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** 44 80.0 55 64 95.5 67 Webster Park Avenue 45 90.0 50 72 93.5 77 57 78.1 73 74 90.2 82 ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave 18 66.7 27 ^^ ^^ 9 16 61.5 26 ^^ ^^ 8 18 72.0 25 8 80.0 10 Westfield Highland 22 56.4 39 21 100 21 24 61.5 39 22 78.6 28 24 53.3 45 22 81.5 27 Westfield Moseley 7 63.6 11 14 82.4 17 11 78.6 14 ^^ ^^ 9 7 63.6 11 14 100 14 Worcester A.L.L. 17 25.8 66 ^^ ^^ 3 45 72.6 62 ^^ ^^ 6 38 56.7 67 ^^ ^^ 5 Worcester City View 23 54.8 42 9 52.9 17 32 74.4 43 12 80.0 15 26 72.2 36 16 88.9 18 Worcester Goddard 37 45.7 81 ^^ ^^ 5 35 48.6 72 ^^ ^^ 6 31 53.4 58 ^^ ^^ 8 Worcester Lincoln Street 36 69.2 52 ^^ ^^ 4 16 61.5 26 7 70.0 10 20 76.9 26 ^^ ^^ 2 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 106 Table 86: Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 19 54.3 35 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 0 41 36.0 114 4 22.2 18 Brockton Downey 5 17.2 29 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 2 6 26.1 23 ^^ ^^ 2 Brockton Davis 14 31.1 45 0 ^^ ^^ 4 10 21.7 46 5 33.3 15 Cambridge Haggerty* 18 81.8 22 ^^ ^^ 6 0 3 27.3 11 ^^ ^^ 5 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 2 16 21.6 74 Chelsea Shurtleff 9 39.1 23 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 15 23.1 65 Chicopee Bowe 2 7.1 28 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 6 0 0.0 27 Chicopee Stefanik 4 14.8 27 0 0 ^^ ^^ 5 1 2.6 38 Fall River Healy 4 28.6 14 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 3 12.5 24 Fall River Doran 24 46.2 52 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Fall River Laurel Lake 13 50.0 26 ^^ ^^ 9 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 3 Fall River N.B. Borden 3 25.0 12 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 6 Fitchburg McKay* 25 75.8 33 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 10 43.5 23 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 6 14.0 43 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 4 20.0 20 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 2 6.9 29 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 5 10.4 48 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 4 20.0 20 Haverhill Walnut Square 15 36.6 41 0 0 0 0 Lawrence Family Development Ch 0 0 0 0 29 58.0 50 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 6 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 19 18.6 102 Lawrence Frost 2 8.7 23 ^^ ^^ 7 0 ^^ ^^ 5 8 14.3 56 Lawrence Wetherbee 4 28.6 14 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 4 3 6.0 50 Lowell Community Charter School 1 8.3 12 12 48.0 25 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 9 6 14.6 41 Lowell Murkland* 8 42.1 19 17 40.5 42 0 ^^ ^^ 2 9 42.9 21 Lowell Bailey* 35 89.7 39 12 66.7 18 0 ^^ ^^ 7 15 75.0 20 Lowell Greenhalge 24 60.0 40 6 42.9 14 0 ^^ ^^ 5 6 33.3 18 Malden Ferryway 17 42.5 40 8 34.8 23 ^^ ^^ 1 3 23.1 13 7 38.9 18 Methuen Tenney 51 54.8 93 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 10 45.5 22 * First graders took Level K test ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 107 Table 86 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 0 8 66.7 12 ^^ ^^ 6 North Adams Brayton 25 54.3 46 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 North Adams Sullivan 6 15.0 40 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 7 11.9 59 0 0 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 4 Plymouth South 45 32.4 139 0 0 0 0 Plymouth West 21 52.5 40 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 12 30.0 40 2 11.8 17 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 Revere Garfield 3 11.1 27 9 31.0 29 ^^ ^^ 1 1 10.0 10 3 6.7 45 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 7 53.8 13 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 19 35.8 53 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 5 2 12.5 16 Salem Bentley 17 50.0 34 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 0 0.0 12 Seven Hills Charter School 5 33.3 15 ^^ ^^ 3 0 4 25.0 16 6 17.1 35 Somerville Powderhouse 7 70.0 10 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 6 17.6 34 Springfield Boland 5 27.8 18 0 0 4 16.7 24 3 9.4 32 Springfield Gerena 1 10.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 1 4 13.8 29 15 18.8 80 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 8 25.0 32 9 14.3 63 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 8 0 5 33.3 15 6 15.4 39 Taunton Walker 7 28.0 25 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 Ware Koziol 23 27.7 83 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 49 44.1 111 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 6 46.2 13 Westfield Franklin Ave 5 27.8 18 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 6 40.0 15 Westfield Highland 19 33.3 57 ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 ^^ ^^ 7 Westfield Moseley 8 30.8 26 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Worcester A.L.L. 1 5.9 17 ^^ ^^ 6 0 4 30.8 13 2 6.1 33 Worcester City View 6 26.1 23 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 7 3 10.3 29 Worcester Goddard 6 27.3 22 ^^ ^^ 6 0 ^^ ^^ 7 5 12.2 41 Worcester Lincoln Street 5 31.3 16 0 0 ^^ ^^ 7 4 14.3 28 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 108 Table 86: Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 26 68.4 38 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 0 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 0 70 58.8 119 11 78.6 14 Brockton Downey 22 68.8 32 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 20 52.6 38 5 29.4 17 Brockton Davis 29 80.6 36 0 ^^ ^^ 1 35 61.4 57 9 39.1 23 Cambridge Haggerty 10 71.4 14 ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 8 0 Chelsea Kelly 5 41.7 12 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 5 39 42.4 92 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 19 57.6 33 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 1 8 32.0 25 Chicopee Stefanik 13 61.9 21 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 9 27.3 33 Fall River Healy 8 50.0 16 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 2 10.0 20 Fall River Doran 21 45.7 46 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 14 82.4 17 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 9 Fall River N.B. Borden 6 42.9 14 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 Fitchburg McKay 21 60.0 35 6 54.5 11 0 ^^ ^^ 4 12 40.0 30 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 24 55.8 43 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 7 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 10 71.4 14 ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 3 7 24.1 29 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 34 54.0 63 0 0 0 2 16.7 12 Haverhill Walnut Square 26 72.2 36 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Lawrence Family Development Ch ** ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 0 24 46.2 52 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 7 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 22 21.4 103 Lawrence Frost 15 57.7 26 ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 4 23 37.1 62 Lawrence Wetherbee 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 9 0 ^^ ^^ 2 22 40.7 54 Lowell Community Charter School 8 53.3 15 12 42.9 28 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 9 10 25.0 40 Lowell Murkland 12 54.5 22 23 51.1 45 0 ^^ ^^ 5 8 47.1 17 Lowell Bailey 32 68.1 47 12 57.1 21 0 ^^ ^^ 5 6 37.5 16 Lowell Greenhalge 30 60.0 50 8 61.5 13 0 ^^ ^^ 6 5 35.7 14 Malden Ferryway 32 76.2 42 15 55.6 27 ^^ ^^ 1 5 35.7 14 ^^ ^^ 9 Methuen Tenney 66 79.5 83 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 13 54.2 24 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 109 Table 86 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter 8 61.5 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 0 North Adams Brayton 29 52.7 55 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 North Adams Sullivan 26 61.9 42 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Pittsfield Morningside 26 53.1 49 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 3 Plymouth South 88 62.4 141 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Plymouth West 37 74.0 50 0 0 0 0 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 16 30.8 52 13 61.9 21 0 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 2 Revere Garfield 15 53.6 28 18 81.8 22 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 9 20 51.3 39 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr 0 0 0 9 52.9 17 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 20 46.5 43 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 Salem Bentley 21 67.7 31 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 7 36.8 19 Seven Hills Charter School 10 58.8 17 0 0 13 41.9 31 11 45.8 24 Somerville Powderhouse ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 5 0 3 30.0 10 11 30.6 36 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 9 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 13 41.9 31 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 8 0 0 9 37.5 24 19 27.1 70 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 7 0 0 16 53.3 30 18 32.7 55 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 0 9 56.3 16 13 54.2 24 Taunton Walker 24 66.7 36 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 Ware Koziol 46 52.3 88 ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 79 65.8 120 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 13 68.4 19 Westfield Franklin Ave 9 40.9 22 0 0 0 3 23.1 13 Westfield Highland 19 33.9 56 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 9 40.9 22 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 2 Worcester A.L.L. 8 42.1 19 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 1 3 30.0 10 7 23.3 30 Worcester City View 12 52.2 23 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 5 13 44.8 29 Worcester Goddard 8 53.3 15 6 42.9 14 0 ^^ ^^ 4 6 16.2 37 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 4 7 35.0 20 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 110 Table 86 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 30 73.2 41 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 1 82 55.8 147 12 44.4 27 Brockton Downey 27 73.0 37 0 ^^ ^^ 3 21 63.6 33 10 76.9 13 Brockton Davis 27 77.1 35 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 39 60.0 65 5 41.7 12 Cambridge Haggerty 12 100.0 12 0 ^^ ^^ 1 11 78.6 14 ^^ ^^ 1 Chelsea Kelly 15 71.4 21 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 42 51.2 82 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 20 62.5 32 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 7 29.2 24 Chicopee Stefanik 19 70.4 27 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 12 31.6 38 Fall River Healy 12 75.0 16 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 1 1 5.6 18 Fall River Doran 30 53.6 56 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 15 57.7 26 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 7 Fall River N.B. Borden 5 29.4 17 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 Fitchburg McKay 24 70.6 34 4 40.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 14 32.6 43 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 65 69.1 94 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 6 46.2 13 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 0 0 0 0 36 75.0 48 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 4 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 23 20.0 115 Lawrence Frost 8 34.8 23 ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 1 24 42.1 57 Lawrence Wetherbee 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 2 24 36.9 65 Lowell Community Charter School 8 57.1 14 11 33.3 33 ^^ ^^ 1 8 61.5 13 17 42.5 40 Lowell Murkland 14 66.7 21 32 58.2 55 0 ^^ ^^ 6 14 73.7 19 Lowell Bailey 29 76.3 38 16 80.0 20 0 7 70.0 10 9 60.0 15 Lowell Greenhalge 33 70.2 47 1 66.7 15 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 9 Malden Ferryway 43 79.6 54 13 81.3 16 ^^ ^^ 1 8 61.5 13 ^^ ^^ 7 Methuen Tenney 87 92.6 94 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 25 83.3 30 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 111 Table 86 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- GRADE results by school (Fall 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 7 0 0 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Brayton 28 62.2 45 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 North Adams Sullivan 30 71.4 42 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Pittsfield Morningside 34 55.7 61 0 0 8 66.7 12 ^^ ^^ 7 Plymouth South 124 83.2 149 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Plymouth West 58 89.2 65 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 0 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 40 69.0 58 10 83.3 12 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 Revere Garfield 13 65.0 20 13 59.1 22 0 8 61.5 13 11 29.7 37 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 10 90.9 11 ^^ ^^ 4 Salem Bates 42 75.0 56 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 3 4 36.4 11 Salem Bentley 25 75.8 33 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 2 5 31.3 16 Seven Hills Charter School 21 84.0 25 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 16 66.7 24 14 51.9 27 Somerville Powderhouse ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 8 9 34.6 26 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 1 0 5 27.8 18 14 35.9 39 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 1 0 17 48.6 35 17 24.3 70 Springfield Milton Bradley 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 2 0 24 77.4 31 10 20.8 48 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 0 6 33.3 18 5 15.2 33 Taunton Walker 23 67.6 34 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 8 Ware Koziol 63 70.8 89 ^^ ^^ 2 0 0 0 Webster Sitkowski 84 79.2 106 0 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 8 Webster Park Avenue ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave 12 52.2 23 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 2 20.0 10 Westfield Highland 31 47.0 66 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Westfield Moseley 17 68.0 25 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 Worcester A.L.L. 7 26.9 26 2 20.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 4 10 27.8 36 Worcester City View 17 54.8 31 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 6 7 36.8 19 Worcester Goddard 9 52.9 17 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 5 9 25.0 36 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 5 2 10.5 19 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 112 Table 87: Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- GRADE results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 32 94.1 34 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 0 101 85.6 118 14 82.4 17 Brockton Downey 13 50.0 26 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 14 51.9 27 ^^ ^^ 2 Brockton Davis 32 80.0 40 0 ^^ ^^ 4 32 74.4 43 8 72.7 11 Cambridge Haggerty 19 86.4 22 ^^ ^^ 6 0 5 41.7 12 ^^ ^^ 5 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 2 57 79.2 72 Chelsea Shurtleff 17 94.4 18 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 52 82.5 63 Chicopee Bowe 21 65.6 32 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 6 12 48.0 25 Chicopee Stefanik 18 72.0 25 0 0 ^^ ^^ 5 21 52.5 40 Fall River Healy 12 100.0 12 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 15 57.7 26 Fall River Doran 45 84.9 53 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 6 Fall River Laurel Lake 19 73.1 26 ^^ ^^ 9 0 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 3 Fall River N.B. Borden 13 92.9 14 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 Fitchburg McKay 30 85.7 35 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 14 50.0 28 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 26 61.9 42 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 17 89.5 19 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 14 48.3 29 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 41 87.2 47 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 13 61.9 21 Haverhill Walnut Square 47 94.0 50 0 0 0 0 Lawrence Family Development Ch 0 0 0 0 45 81.8 55 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 3 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 70 66.0 106 Lawrence Frost 19 82.6 23 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 5 37 64.9 57 Lawrence Wetherbee 7 63.6 11 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 4 34 63.0 54 Lowell Community Charter School 7 63.6 11 21 84.0 25 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 8 31 73.8 42 Lowell Murkland 6 35.3 17 24 54.5 44 0 ^^ ^^ 2 8 40.0 20 Lowell Bailey 33 78.6 42 15 75.0 20 0 ^^ ^^ 7 11 52.4 21 Lowell Greenhalge 35 77.8 45 9 69.2 13 0 ^^ ^^ 6 13 68.4 19 Malden Ferryway 36 87.8 41 23 95.8 24 ^^ ^^ 1 14 93.3 15 15 78.9 19 Methuen Tenney 87 90.6 96 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 22 84.6 26 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 113 Table 87 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- GRADE results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 1 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 0 11 100.0 11 ^^ ^^ 6 North Adams Brayton 42 91.3 46 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan 32 84.2 38 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 42 75.0 56 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 4 Plymouth South 128 88.9 144 0 0 0 0 Plymouth West 41 97.6 42 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 29 82.9 35 15 93.8 16 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 Revere Garfield 23 88.5 26 24 85.7 28 0 ^^ ^^ 8 33 67.3 49 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 16 84.2 19 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 48 88.9 54 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 5 12 75.0 16 Salem Bentley 29 93.5 31 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 10 62.5 16 Seven Hills Charter School 11 64.7 17 ^^ ^^ 3 0 11 68.8 16 18 50.0 36 Somerville Powderhouse ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 22 64.7 34 Springfield Boland Data are incomplete Springfield Gerena 5 50.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 1 16 57.1 28 44 59.5 74 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 21 72.4 29 30 55.6 54 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 8 0 10 66.7 15 25 69.4 36 Taunton Walker 26 78.8 33 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 Ware Koziol 63 85.1 74 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 99 92.5 107 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 11 100.0 11 Westfield Franklin Ave 13 72.2 18 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 12 70.6 17 Westfield Highland 39 72.2 54 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 20 76.9 26 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Worcester A.L.L. 1 7.1 14 ^^ ^^ 5 0 6 40.0 15 8 22.9 35 Worcester City View 15 62.5 24 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 8 10 38.5 26 Worcester Goddard 10 41.7 24 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 7 23 45.1 51 Worcester Lincoln Street 14 87.5 16 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 6 20 60.6 33 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 114 Table 87 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- GRADE results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 33 91.7 36 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 0 92 78.6 117 12 85.7 14 Brockton Downey 27 84.4 32 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 29 80.6 36 11 64.7 17 Brockton Davis 26 74.3 35 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 37 71.2 52 16 72.7 22 Cambridge Haggerty 11 78.6 14 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 8 0 Chelsea Kelly 9 81.8 11 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 6 69 75.0 92 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 27 84.4 32 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 1 15 68.2 22 Chicopee Stefanik 19 79.2 24 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 23 67.6 34 Fall River Healy 14 87.5 16 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 2 9.5 21 Fall River Doran 37 71.2 52 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 17 85.0 20 ^^ ^^ 2 0 0 ^^ ^^ 8 Fall River N.B. Borden 12 80.0 15 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 Fitchburg McKay 24 66.7 36 5 45.5 11 0 ^^ ^^ 4 13 50.0 26 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 37 82.2 45 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 7 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 12 85.7 14 ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 2 16 59.3 27 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 56 94.9 59 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 8 80.0 10 Haverhill Walnut Square 46 100.0 46 ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Lawrence Family Development Ch 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 0 42 75.0 56 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 7 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 63 63.0 100 Lawrence Frost 20 80.0 25 ^^ ^^ 6 0 ^^ ^^ 4 47 71.2 66 Lawrence Wetherbee 9 81.8 11 ^^ ^^ 8 0 ^^ ^^ 2 38 65.5 58 Lowell Community Charter School 14 82.4 17 17 60.7 28 0 ^^ ^^ 9 25 67.6 37 Lowell Murkland 15 62.5 24 30 62.5 48 0 ^^ ^^ 5 9 56.3 16 Lowell Bailey 31 68.9 45 14 66.7 21 0 ^^ ^^ 4 7 53.8 13 Lowell Greenhalge 32 69.6 46 11 91.7 12 0 ^^ ^^ 7 8 72.7 11 Malden Ferryway 40 97.6 41 25 92.6 27 0 18 94.7 19 10 90.9 11 Methuen Tenney 80 95.2 84 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 23 82.1 28 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 115 Table 87 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- GRADE results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter 10 76.9 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 0 North Adams Brayton 44 81.5 54 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan 35 79.5 44 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Pittsfield Morningside 47 88.7 53 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 5 Plymouth South 121 87.7 138 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West 50 96.2 52 0 0 0 0 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 41 82.0 50 18 85.7 21 0 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 Revere Garfield 21 80.8 26 19 95.0 20 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 29 80.6 36 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr 0 0 0 13 86.7 15 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 38 88.4 43 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 Salem Bentley 27 90.0 30 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 11 61.1 18 Seven Hills Charter School 14 77.8 18 ^^ ^^ 1 0 27 81.8 33 14 56.0 25 Somerville Powderhouse ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 7 0 4 36.4 11 15 45.5 33 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 9 0 ^^ ^^ 1 8 66.7 12 25 62.5 40 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 6 0 0 13 76.5 17 44 72.1 61 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 5 0 0 15 83.3 18 27 57.4 47 Springfield White Street 10 100.0 10 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 9 14 93.3 15 Taunton Walker 27 79.4 34 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 Ware Koziol 68 79.1 86 ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 105 83.3 126 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 19 86.4 22 Westfield Franklin Ave 16 80.0 20 0 0 0 7 50.0 14 Westfield Highland 42 70.0 60 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 17 89.5 19 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 3 Worcester A.L.L. 16 88.9 18 ^^ ^^ 9 0 8 72.7 11 19 63.3 30 Worcester City View 22 88.0 25 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 17 63.0 27 Worcester Goddard 13 76.5 17 9 64.3 14 0 ^^ ^^ 5 15 35.7 42 Worcester Lincoln Street 6 60.0 10 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 4 12 66.7 18 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 116 Table 87 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- GRADE results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 39 95.1 41 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 1 107 73.8 145 17 63.0 27 Brockton Downey 31 88.6 35 0 ^^ ^^ 3 27 79.4 34 11 84.6 13 Brockton Davis 25 83.3 30 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 39 73.6 53 8 72.7 11 Cambridge Haggerty 11 100.0 11 0 ^^ ^^ 1 9 64.3 14 ^^ ^^ 1 Chelsea Kelly 16 84.2 19 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 57 73.1 78 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 34 87.2 39 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 16 72.7 22 Chicopee Stefanik 28 96.6 29 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 23 69.7 33 Fall River Healy 14 93.3 15 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 9 52.9 17 Fall River Doran 36 62.1 58 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 23 82.1 28 ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 6 Fall River N.B. Borden 6 42.9 14 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 Fitchburg McKay 40 90.9 44 7 70.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 7 13 86.7 15 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 35 79.5 44 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 77 83.7 92 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 9 75.0 12 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 42 80.8 52 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 4 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 47 44.3 106 Lawrence Frost 19 90.5 21 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 1 38 67.9 56 Lawrence Wetherbee 8 80.0 10 ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 2 41 60.3 68 Lowell Community Charter School 11 84.6 13 20 62.5 32 ^^ ^^ 1 9 75.0 12 22 57.9 38 Lowell Murkland 15 75.0 20 30 56.6 53 0 ^^ ^^ 5 16 72.7 22 Lowell Bailey 37 90.2 41 16 84.2 19 0 ^^ ^^ 9 10 71.4 14 Lowell Greenhalge 36 76.6 47 10 66.7 15 0 ^^ ^^ 2 5 50.0 10 Malden Ferryway 49 94.2 52 17 94.4 18 ^^ ^^ 1 11 84.6 13 ^^ ^^ 6 Methuen Tenney 95 94.1 101 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 28 77.8 36 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 117 Table 87 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- GRADE results by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVERAGE BENCHMARK (Stanine 4 and above) Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 8 0 0 9 75.0 12 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Brayton 38 82.6 46 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 North Adams Sullivan 35 87.5 40 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 55 91.7 60 0 0 8 80.0 10 ^^ ^^ 5 Plymouth South 141 93.4 151 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 Plymouth West 63 95.5 66 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 0 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 46 86.8 53 12 92.3 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 Revere Garfield 19 82.6 23 18 94.7 19 0 10 90.9 11 20 58.8 34 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 7 63.6 11 ^^ ^^ 5 Salem Bates 45 81.8 55 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 3 8 66.7 12 Salem Bentley 32 91.4 35 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 2 11 68.8 16 Seven Hills Charter School 22 91.7 24 ^^ ^^ 2 0 17 73.9 23 16 64.0 25 Somerville Powderhouse ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 8 13 54.2 24 Springfield Boland Data are incomplete Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 7 0 0 25 75.8 33 33 54.1 61 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 3 0 25 80.6 31 30 55.6 54 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 0 10 52.6 19 18 46.2 39 Taunton Walker 23 76.7 30 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 9 Ware Koziol 78 86.7 90 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Webster Sitkowski 98 90.7 108 6 60.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 4 7 70.0 10 Webster Park Avenue ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave 16 72.7 22 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 8 72.7 11 Westfield Highland 46 64.8 71 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Westfield Moseley 20 83.3 24 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Worcester A.L.L. 12 57.1 21 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 20 57.1 35 Worcester City View 26 83.9 31 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 5 11 64.7 17 Worcester Goddard 15 78.9 19 ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 5 17 45.9 37 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 5 10 66.7 15 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 118 Overall Student Outcomes: MCAS Massachusetts, like many other states, has established a goal that all students are able to read and comprehend age-appropriate text by the end of third grade. The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System reading test is designed to assess the reading skills of all public school third graders in the state. The skills tested are based on the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts. The test itself consists of three sessions. For each session students read selected passages and then answer multiple-choice and open-response questions. However, scores are based solely on the multiple-choice items. Results of the grade 3 Reading test are reported as raw scores and in terms of three performance levels: Proficient, Needs Improvement, and Warning. To provide a context for interpreting MCAS scores for the Reading First program, this report examines the data in relationship to statewide results as well as results from a selected comparison group. The Donahue Institute made efforts to establish a reasonable comparison group of schools not participating in the program. In establishing its application process for Reading First, Massachusetts recognized that it would not be able to adequately fund all of the eligible schools. Within Reading First districts, the eligible schools that were not funded form the best available comparison group for Reading First schools. It is important to recognize that the decision to fund some eligible schools within a district and not others was not random. Applying districts were asked to rank order their eligible schools – primarily in terms of need. In most cases the Massachusetts Department of Education deferred to the districts’ prioritization. Therefore, the funded schools tend to be somewhat needier than unfunded schools in the comparison group. The table below presents the demographics for students participating in the 2004 MCAS Reading Test. There are no significant differences in the percentage of special education students. However there are important differences in the other demographic variables. In relation to the statewide figures, both the Reading First and comparison groups have significantly larger proportions of limited English proficient (LEP), low income and minority students. Furthermore, in relation to the comparison group, the Reading First group has significantly larger proportions of students in these demographic groups. Table 88: Student Demographics – Statewide, Comparison Group and Reading First N Special Education Limited English Proficient Low Income Racial or Ethnic Minority Statewide 73332 16.0% 6.3% 30.4% 26.1% Comparison group 2730 15.6% 11.4% 57.0% 43.3% Reading First 3911 16.5% 15.8% 63.6% 51.6% Overview of program-wide results As shown in the table below, Reading First schools had a mean score that was about 3.6 points lower than the statewide mean. In addition, Reading First schools had a mean score that was about 1.7 points lower than the comparison group mean. Both differences are statistically significant24. Compared to the state as a whole, Reading First schools have a larger proportion of students in the warning and needs improvement categories. In addition to looking for changes between performance categories, future reports will examine changes within performance categories as evidence of student improvement. 24 Differences between the statewide and Reading First means were compared using a one-sample t-test with a test value of 30.13 (the statewide mean). Differences between the Reading First and comparison group means were compared using an independent samples t-test. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 119 Table 89: Grade 3 MCAS – Statewide, Comparison Group and Reading First. Mean Raw Score Std Dev Warning Needs Improvement Proficient N Statewide 30.13 7.733 6.7% 30.1% 63.2% 73332 Comparison group 28.26 7.756 8.6% 41.1% 50.3% 2730 RF Program-wide 26.54 8.317 13.3% 43.3% 43.4% 3911 However, it is possible that the demographic differences between the groups account for much of the differences in student MCAS scores. To control for these differences, we conducted a four-way ANOVA including interaction terms. The results of this analysis reveal that, after controlling for demographics, the mean score for Reading First schools is not statistically different from either the statewide or comparison group mean score. This underscores the real challenge that Reading First schools face in getting all of their students to perform at grade-level and the importance of a comprehensive program to aid them in reaching that goal. Performance of selected demographic groups – program wide results The data presented here constitute a performance baseline for the specified demographic subgroups. Future reports will examine changes in the data to determine whether Massachusetts Reading First is making progress in closing the performance gap for these groups. Table 90: MCAS Proficiency – Selected Demographic Groups in Round 1 and 2 Reading First schools MCAS Performance Level Group N=3911 Warning Needs Improvement Proficient Students with disabilities 647 34.2% 47.1% 18.7% Other students 3264 9.2% 42.6% 48.3% Students with limited English proficiency 619 23.3% 53.0% 23.7% Other students 3292 11.5% 41.5% 47.1% Economically disadvantaged students 2488 17.0% 49.6% 33.4% Other students 1423 7.0% 32.3% 60.7% Race/ethnicity* Asian/Pacific Islander 246 14.6% 44.7% 40.7% African American 605 14.0% 48.1% 37.9% Hispanic 1151 19.5% 53.5% 26.9% Native American/Alaskan Native 16 0.0% 43.8% 56.3% White 1888 9.2% 35.4% 55.4% * Race/ethnicity data is missing for 5 students. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 120 Based on results from the 2004 MCAS reading test, Reading First students with disabilities and limited English proficiency had proficiency rates that were less than half those of other students. Economically disadvantaged students participating in Reading First had a proficiency rate of 33% compared to 61% for other students. In terms of race, white Reading First students had the highest rate of proficiency (55%) followed by Asian students (41%). The proficiency rate for African American students was 38% and for Hispanic students it was 27%. These data demonstrate that there is a clear proficiency gap between demographically advantaged and disadvantaged students in Reading First schools. However, it is also important to recognize many of the more advantaged groups still have a long way to go before attaining the goal of full proficiency at third grade. School-level performance Table 91 shows the percentage of third grade students at each school demonstrating proficiency on the MCAS. Data from 2003 represents the pre-Reading First baseline and data from 2004 represent student outcomes after one year of program implementation. For those seeking more detail, Appendix E contains 2003 and 2004 MCAS data with mean raw scores and performance level summaries by school. Table 91: Grade 3 MCAS – Proficiency rates by school – Round 1 and 2 Reading First schools Spring 2003 Spring 2004 District School # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 16 44.4 36 28 60.9 46 Boston Renaissance Charter School 78 46.7 167 69 36.9 187 Brockton Downey 42 39.6 106 45 43.3 104 Brockton Davis 44 38.3 115 60 52.2 115 Cambridge Haggerty 18 75.0 24 16 57.1 28 Chelsea Kelly 41 48.2 85 48 48.5 99 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** Chicopee Bowe 19 25.7 74 36 53.7 67 Chicopee Stefanik 22 26.8 82 25 37.9 66 Fall River Doran 15 39.5 38 22 33.3 66 Fall River Healy 16 27.6 58 11 33.3 33 Fall River Laurel Lake 18 46.2 39 20 45.5 44 Fall River N.B. Borden 6 22.2 27 0 0.0 23 Fitchburg McKay 31 42.5 73 35 43.2 81 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 26 66.7 39 17 33.3 51 Haverhill Burnham ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 74 62.2 119 70 58.8 119 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 24 40.0 60 22 38.6 57 Lawrence Arlington 12 9.3 129 16 15.4 104 Lawrence Frost 37 32.7 113 20 23.5 85 Lawrence Wetherbee 11 22.9 48 25 30.9 81 Lowell Community Charter School 3 7.3 41 34 35.8 95 Lowell Murkland 27 32.9 82 23 22.3 103 Lowell Bailey 46 48.9 94 34 38.2 89 Lowell Greenhalge 28 29.5 95 27 36.0 75 Malden Ferryway 55 57.3 96 55 62.5 88 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 121 Table 91 continued: Grade 3 MCAS – Proficiency rates by school Spring 2003 Spring 2004 District School # % N # % N Methuen Tenney 71 59.2 120 87 58.0 150 Neighborhood House Charter School 10 50.0 20 15 68.2 22 North Adams Brayton 33 45.8 72 27 47.4 57 North Adams Sullivan 25 46.3 54 26 54.2 48 Pittsfield Morningside 47 50.0 94 35 43.2 81 Plymouth South 107 78.7 136 114 72.2 158 Plymouth West 41 57.7 71 52 72.2 72 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 41 51.9 79 51 62.2 82 Revere Garfield 28 30.1 93 33 36.7 90 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 10 41.7 24 12 60.0 20 Salem Bates 14 37.8 37 38 51.4 74 Salem Bentley 32 56.1 57 34 65.4 52 Seven Hills Charter School 37 50.7 73 34 43.6 78 Somerville Powderhouse 12 35.3 34 23 56.1 41 Springfield Boland 30 37.0 81 22 31.4 70 Springfield Gerena 37 38.9 95 24 20.2 119 Springfield Milton Bradley 39 35.5 110 32 31.7 101 Springfield White Street 29 37.2 78 12 17.1 70 Taunton Walker 22 44.9 49 13 31.7 41 Ware Koziol 61 61.6 99 48 52.2 92 Webster Sitkowski 47 45.6 103 76 59.4 128 Webster Park Avenue 28 62.2 45 ** Westfield Franklin Ave 34 79.1 43 35 97.2 36 Westfield Highland 40 50.0 80 27 36.0 75 Westfield Moseley 18 58.1 31 15 57.7 26 Worcester A.L.L. 12 17.9 67 11 15.1 73 Worcester City View 25 43.1 58 16 30.2 53 Worcester Goddard 28 31.5 89 20 30.3 66 Worcester Lincoln Street 13 43.3 30 6 20.0 30 The spring 2004 results show proficiency rates ranging from 0% to as high as 97%. Of the 52 schools enrolling third graders, 9 had a proficiency rate of 60% or more. The 60% threshold is related to Massachusetts’ Reading First eligibility criteria which, in addition to high levels of poverty, limited eligibility to schools with MCAS proficiency rates lower than 60%. Those schools with proficiency rates of 60% or more were: Sanders Street (Athol-Royalston), Ferryway (Malden), Neighborhood House Charter, South and West Elementary (Plymouth), Lincoln-Hancock (Quincy), Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter, Bentley (Salem), and Franklin Ave (Westfield). Thus nearly one-fifth of the schools were relatively strong performers after only one year of RF implementation. In addition, two schools fell just short of the 60% proficiency indicator but had exceptionally few students in the warning category. They were Moseley (Westfield) with 0% warning and 58% proficient and Sullivan (North Adams) with 2% warning and 54% proficient. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 122 Comparing school-level MCAS results from 2003 and 2004, four schools had results that could be characterized as positive changes and five schools had results that could be characterized as negative changes. . Lowell Community Charter School showed a significant increase in proficiency as well as a significant decrease in warning. . Franklin Avenue (Westfield) had a significant increase in proficiency and a significant decrease in needs improvement while maintaining no students in the warning category for either year. . Bowe (Chicopee) showed a significant increase in proficiency and a significant decrease in needs improvement, but no change in warning. . As noted earlier in this report, schools selected for Reading First typically had the lowest proficiency levels in their district. Two schools – Bowe (Chicopee) and Goddard (Worcester) had 2003 MCAS proficiency rates that were lower than their district average, but by 2004 had caught up to the district average. . Gerena and White Street (both Springfield) had both significant decreases in proficiency and significant increases in warning. . N.B. Borden (Fall River) and Sheffield (Gill-Montague) both had significant decreases in proficiency. . Walker (Taunton) had a significant increase in the warning category. The tables that follow provide demographic subgroup results by school. Consistent with Massachusetts Department of Education policies data are not reported for any subgroup consisting of fewer than ten students. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 123 Table 92: Demographic Subgroups – MCAS proficiency by school (Spring 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Limited English Students without Limited English Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street ^^ ^^ 3 16 48.5 33 0 16 44.4 36 8 50.0 16 8 40.0 20 Boston Renaissance Charter 3 15.0 20 75 51.0 147 0 78 46.7 167 41 44.1 93 37 50.0 74 Brockton Downey 3 16.7 18 39 44.3 88 0 42 39.6 106 20 31.3 64 22 52.4 42 Brockton Davis 2 20.0 10 42 40.0 105 1 5.6 18 43 44.3 97 24 29.6 81 20 58.8 34 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 7 14 82.4 17 0 18 75.0 24 ^^ ^^ 7 15 88.2 17 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 5 41 51.3 80 7 28.0 25 34 54.0 63 26 41.9 62 15 57.7 26 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 1 9.1 11 18 28.6 63 1 4.8 21 18 34.0 53 13 22.4 58 6 37.5 16 Chicopee Stefanik 1 9.1 11 21 29.6 71 ^^ ^^ 9 22 30.1 73 15 22.4 67 7 46.7 15 Fall River Healy ^^ ^^ 9 16 32.7 49 0 0.0 12 16 34.8 46 9 21.4 42 7 43.8 16 Fall River Doran ^^ ^^ 4 14 41.2 34 2 12.5 16 13 59.1 22 9 29.0 31 ^^ ^^ 7 Fall River Laurel Lake 6 31.6 19 12 40.0 30 0 18 46.2 39 11 35.5 31 ^^ ^^ 8 Fall River N.B. Borden ^^ ^^ 2 6 24.0 25 0 6 22.2 27 6 30.0 20 ^^ ^^ 7 Fitchburg McKay 1 9.1 11 30 48.4 62 7 28.0 25 24 50.0 48 12 30.0 40 19 57.6 33 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ^^ ^^ 5 24 70.6 34 ^^ ^^ 2 26 70.3 37 15 68.2 22 11 64.7 17 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 3 15.8 19 71 71.0 100 0 74 62.2 119 16 43.2 37 58 70.7 82 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 2 18.2 11 22 44.9 49 ^^ ^^ 1 24 40.7 59 17 37.8 45 7 46.7 15 Lawrence Arlington 0 0.0 18 12 10.8 111 3 8.1 37 9 9.8 92 8 7.3 110 4 21.1 19 Lawrence Frost 1 7.7 13 36 36.0 100 2 7.7 26 35 40.2 87 20 25.6 78 17 48.6 35 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 6 11 26.2 42 ^^ ^^ 4 11 25.0 44 6 15.0 40 ^^ ^^ 8 Lowell Community Charter School ^^ ^^ 5 3 8.1 37 1 3.6 28 2 14.3 14 2 6.7 30 1 8.3 12 Lowell Murkland 0 0.0 13 27 39.1 69 7 28.0 25 20 35.1 57 24 31.6 76 ^^ ^^ 6 Lowell Bailey 0 0.0 11 46 55.4 83 4 30.8 13 42 51.9 81 25 41.0 61 21 63.6 33 Lowell Greenhalge 3 18.8 16 25 36.8 68 1 4.5 22 27 43.5 62 19 27.1 70 9 64.3 14 Malden Ferryway 2 14.3 14 53 64.6 82 ^^ ^^ 9 53 60.9 87 27 52.9 51 28 62.2 45 Methuen Tenney 3 27.3 11 68 62.4 109 ^^ ^^ 4 71 61.2 116 14 36.8 38 57 69.5 82 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 124 Table 92 (continued): Demographic Subgroups – MCAS proficiency by school (Spring 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Limited English Students without Limited English Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 6 8 57.1 14 0 10 50.0 20 5 41.7 12 ^^ ^^ 8 North Adams Brayton 2 15.4 13 31 52.5 59 ^^ ^^ 1 32 45.1 71 12 31.6 38 21 61.8 34 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 7 22 46.8 47 ^^ ^^ 1 25 47.2 53 11 37.9 29 14 56.0 25 Pittsfield Morningside 11 100 11 36 43.4 83 ^^ ^^ 1 46 49.5 93 30 45.5 66 17 60.7 28 Plymouth South 12 48.0 25 95 85.6 111 0 107 78.7 136 12 85.7 14 95 77.9 122 Plymouth West ^^ ^^ 8 37 71.2 52 0 41 68.3 60 ^^ ^^ 4 37 66.1 56 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock ^^ ^^ 9 39 55.7 70 6 17 35 62 14 37.8 37 27 64.3 42 Revere Garfield ^^ ^^ 8 28 32.9 85 0 0.0 20 28 38.4 73 18 24.7 73 10 50.0 20 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr 0 10 41.7 24 0 10 41.7 24 8 61.5 13 2 18.2 11 Salem Bates ^^ ^^ 7 13 43.3 30 0 14 37.8 37 3 16.7 18 11 57.9 19 Salem Bentley ^^ ^^ 8 29 59.2 49 3 25.0 12 29 64.4 45 8 34.8 23 24 70.6 34 Seven Hills Charter School 3 30.0 10 34 54.0 63 0 37 50.7 73 17 42.5 40 20 60.6 33 Somerville Powderhouse 1 8.3 12 11 50.0 22 2 28.6 7 10 37.0 27 6 25.0 24 6 60.0 10 Springfield Boland 0 0.0 15 30 47.6 63 1 14.3 7 29 39.2 74 26 34.7 75 ^^ ^^ 6 Springfield Gerena 2 14.3 14 35 43.2 81 1 20.0 5 36 40.0 90 34 38.2 89 ^^ ^^ 6 Springfield Milton Bradley 1 4.5 22 38 43.2 88 0 0.0 18 39 42.4 92 31 32.6 95 8 53.3 15 Springfield White Street 1 10.0 10 28 41.2 68 0 0.0 13 29 44.6 65 28 38.9 72 ^^ ^^ 6 Taunton Walker 0 0.0 14 22 62.9 35 0 22 44.9 49 4 21.1 19 18 60.0 30 Ware Koziol 1 6.7 15 60 71.4 84 0 61 88.4 69 27 51.9 52 34 72.3 47 Webster Sitkowski 1 4.8 21 46 56.1 82 0 47 45.6 103 12 37.5 32 35 49.3 71 Webster Park Avenue ^^ ^^ 6 27 69.2 39 0 28 62.2 45 10 52.6 19 18 69.2 26 Westfield Franklin Ave ^^ ^^ 6 30 81.1 37 6 75.0 8 28 80.0 35 26 78.8 33 8 80.0 10 Westfield Highland ^^ ^^ 8 37 51.4 72 2 9.1 22 38 65.5 58 9 20.0 45 31 88.6 35 Westfield Moseley ^^ ^^ 4 18 66.7 27 0 0.0 1 18 60.0 30 5 29.4 17 13 92.9 14 Worcester A.L.L. ^^ ^^ 9 12 20.7 58 0 0.0 11 12 21.4 56 8 13.8 58 ^^ ^^ 9 Worcester City View ^^ ^^ 9 23 46.9 49 0 0.0 3 25 45.5 55 15 34.1 44 10 71.4 14 Worcester Goddard 8 47.1 17 20 27.8 72 6 18.8 32 22 38.6 57 24 29.6 81 ^^ ^^ 8 Worcester Lincoln Street 4 36.4 11 9 47.4 19 1 100 1 12 41.4 29 9 37.5 24 ^^ ^^ 6 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 125 Table 93: Demographic Subgroups – MCAS proficiency by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Limited English Students without Limited English Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street ^^ ^^ 7 23 59.0 39 0 28 60.9 46 13 65.0 20 15 57.7 26 Boston Renaissance Charter 1 4.5 22 68 41.2 165 ^^ ^^ 6 67 37.0 181 40 33.9 118 29 42.0 69 Brockton Downey 3 27.3 11 42 52.5 80 0 45 49.5 91 25 42.4 59 20 62.5 32 Brockton Davis ^^ ^^ 9 56 52.8 106 2 11.8 17 58 59.2 98 43 48.3 89 17 65.4 26 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 6 14 70.0 20 0 16 61.5 26 ^^ ^^ 4 14 63.6 22 Chelsea Kelly 0 0.0 11 6 12.2 49 20 48.8 41 28 50.0 56 33 44.6 74 15 65.2 23 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 5 55.6 9 31 53.4 58 2 20.0 10 34 59.6 57 25 46.3 54 11 84.6 13 Chicopee Stefanik ^^ ^^ 8 24 41.4 58 3 25.0 12 22 40.7 54 19 35.2 54 6 50.0 12 Fall River Healy 1 9.1 11 21 38.2 55 0 18 39.1 46 14 29.8 47 8 42.1 19 Fall River Doran ^^ ^^ 5 10 35.7 28 0 0.0 11 11 50.0 22 8 27.6 29 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 7 18 48.6 37 0 20 45.5 44 12 38.7 31 8 61.5 13 Fall River N.B. Borden ^^ ^^ 2 0 0.0 21 0 0 0.0 23 0 0.0 22 ^^ ^^ 1 Fitchburg McKay 3 20.0 15 32 52.5 61 1 6.7 15 34 55.7 61 13 34.2 38 2 5.3 38 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 2 13.3 15 15 42.9 35 ^^ ^^ 1 17 34.7 49 8 24.2 33 9 52.9 17 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 8 38.1 21 62 65.3 95 ^^ ^^ 1 70 60.9 115 20 52.6 38 50 64.1 78 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch ^^ ^^ 8 21 43.8 48 19 45.2 42 3 21.4 14 15 34.1 44 7 58.3 12 Lawrence Arlington 2 11.8 17 14 16.3 86 0 0.0 22 16 19.8 81 14 15.4 91 2 16.7 12 Lawrence Frost 0 0.0 15 20 29.4 68 ^^ ^^ 3 20 25.0 80 14 21.2 66 6 35.3 17 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 8 25 34.7 72 ^^ ^^ 5 25 33.3 75 20 27.0 74 ^^ ^^ 6 Lowell Community Charter School ^^ ^^ 6 33 37.1 89 19 35.8 53 15 35.7 42 26 32.9 79 8 50.0 16 Lowell Murkland 1 8.3 12 22 24.2 91 10 14.9 67 13 36.1 36 17 19.5 87 6 37.5 16 Lowell Bailey 1 7.1 14 33 44.0 75 2 9.1 22 32 47.8 67 12 24.5 49 22 55.0 40 Lowell Greenhalge 0 0.0 15 27 45.8 59 9 31.0 29 18 40.0 45 16 33.3 48 11 42.3 26 Malden Ferryway 0 0.0 12 55 72.4 76 ^^ ^^ 9 50 63.3 79 29 64.4 45 26 60.5 43 Methuen Tenney 5 27.8 18 82 64.6 127 ^^ ^^ 5 84 60.0 140 26 55.3 47 61 62.2 98 * First graders took Level K test ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 126 Table 93 (continued): Demographic Subgroups – MCAS proficiency by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY Students with Disabilities Students without Disabilities Students with Limited English Students without Limited English Economically Disadvantaged Economically Advantaged District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 4 12 66.7 18 0 15 68.2 22 5 50.0 10 10 83.3 12 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 9 26 54.2 48 ^^ ^^ 3 25 46.3 54 11 35.5 31 16 61.5 26 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 8 23 59.0 39 ^^ ^^ 1 26 56.5 46 11 44.0 25 15 68.2 22 Pittsfield Morningside 10 71.4 14 25 37.3 67 ^^ ^^ 4 34 44.2 77 20 41.7 48 15 45.5 33 Plymouth South 6 28.6 21 108 78.8 137 0 114 72.2 158 10 52.6 19 104 74.8 139 Plymouth West 4 33.3 12 48 82.8 58 0 52 74.3 70 ^^ ^^ 5 49 75.4 65 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 1 9.1 11 50 70.4 71 10 52.6 19 41 65.1 63 15 40.5 37 36 80.0 45 Revere Garfield 1 10.0 10 32 40.0 80 ^^ ^^ 7 33 39.8 83 27 36.0 75 6 40.0 15 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr 0 12 60.0 20 0 12 60.0 20 8 53.3 15 ^^ ^^ 5 Salem Bates 2 13.3 15 36 63.2 57 0 38 52.8 72 9 42.9 21 29 56.9 51 Salem Bentley ^^ ^^ 8 30 68.2 44 ^^ ^^ 1 34 66.7 51 10 47.6 21 24 77.4 31 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 6 33 45.8 72 ^^ ^^ 9 33 47.8 69 14 29.2 48 20 66.7 30 Somerville Powderhouse 8 50.0 16 15 60.0 25 9 37.5 24 14 82.4 17 16 50.0 32 ^^ ^^ 9 Springfield Boland 2 14.3 14 20 36.4 55 ^^ ^^ 9 21 35.0 60 18 29.5 61 ^^ ^^ 8 Springfield Gerena 0 0.0 16 24 24.5 98 3 15.0 20 21 22.3 94 17 16.0 106 ^^ ^^ 8 Springfield Milton Bradley 1 4.5 22 31 41.3 75 1 7.1 14 31 37.3 83 28 30.4 92 ^^ ^^ 5 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 9 10 16.4 61 2 14.3 14 10 17.9 56 11 16.7 66 ^^ ^^ 4 Taunton Walker 0 0.0 13 13 46.4 28 ^^ ^^ 2 13 33.3 39 5 20.8 24 8 47.1 17 Ware Koziol 1 10.0 10 47 57.3 82 0 48 52.7 91 18 48.6 37 30 54.5 55 Webster Sitkowski 2 10.5 19 74 67.9 109 ^^ ^^ 7 73 60.3 121 29 46.8 62 47 71.2 66 Webster Park Avenue ** ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave 9 90.0 10 26 100 26 ^^ ^^ 4 32 100 32 26 96.3 27 ^^ ^^ 9 Westfield Highland 1 6.7 15 26 43.3 60 4 16.0 25 23 46.0 50 12 25.0 48 15 55.6 27 Westfield Moseley ^^ ^^ 3 13 56.5 23 0 15 57.7 26 6 60.0 10 9 56.3 16 Worcester A.L.L. 2 16.7 12 9 14.8 61 1 5.0 20 10 18.9 53 10 14.3 70 ^^ ^^ 3 Worcester City View 3 21.4 14 13 33.3 39 ^^ ^^ 7 16 34.8 46 9 25.7 35 7 38.9 18 Worcester Goddard 3 18.8 16 17 34.0 50 4 15.4 26 16 40.0 40 15 25.9 58 ^^ ^^ 8 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 4 6 23.1 26 ^^ ^^ 9 5 23.8 21 5 18.5 27 ^^ ^^ 3 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 127 Table 94: Racial/Ethnic Subgroups – MCAS proficiency by school (Spring 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 14 43.8 32 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 64 44.8 143 9 56.3 16 Brockton Downey 25 55.6 45 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 12 28.6 42 4 28.6 14 Brockton Davis 22 53.7 41 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 15 27.3 55 6 40.0 15 Cambridge Haggerty 15 83.3 18 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 Chelsea Kelly 11 52.4 21 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 4 30 49.2 61 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 15 35.7 42 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 4 13.8 29 Chicopee Stefanik 9 33.3 27 0 0 ^^ ^^ 7 0 Fall River Healy 13 25.5 51 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 3 Fall River Doran 8 61.5 13 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 4 3 15.0 20 Fall River Laurel Lake 9 40.9 22 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 7 Fall River N.B. Borden 4 18.2 22 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 Fitchburg McKay 18 51.4 35 4 28.6 14 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 8 42.1 19 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 22 71.0 31 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 68 65.4 104 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 4 33.3 12 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 24 40.7 59 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 6 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 11 9.1 121 Lawrence Frost 14 43.8 32 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 4 18 24.7 73 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 6 0 ^^ ^^ 1 10 29.4 34 Lowell Community Charter School ^^ ^^ 6 2 13.3 15 0 ^^ ^^ 5 0 0.0 16 Lowell Murkland 4 23.5 17 15 34.9 43 0 ^^ ^^ 4 6 33.3 18 Lowell Bailey 20 54.1 37 14 60.9 23 0 ^^ ^^ 7 0 Lowell Greenhalge 22 48.9 45 2 8.3 24 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 3 30.0 10 Malden Ferryway 28 59.6 47 10 52.6 19 0 13 52.0 25 ^^ ^^ 5 Methuen Tenney 63 67.7 93 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 5 26.3 19 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 128 Table 94 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups – MCAS proficiency by school (Spring 2003) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 5 35.7 14 0 North Adams Brayton 29 44.6 65 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 1 North Adams Sullivan 24 47.1 51 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 36 52.2 69 ^^ ^^ 2 0 6 40.0 15 ^^ ^^ 8 Plymouth South 105 78.9 133 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West 40 67.8 59 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 24 52.2 46 15 60.0 25 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 Revere Garfield 14 35.0 40 7 26.9 26 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 3 16.7 18 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr ^^ ^^ 3 0 0 9 42.9 21 0 Salem Bates 12 48.0 25 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 8 Salem Bentley 25 71.4 35 ^^ ^^ 2 0 0 6 30.0 20 Seven Hills Charter School 26 65.0 40 ^^ ^^ 1 0 5 41.7 12 5 26.3 19 Somerville Powderhouse 6 42.9 14 ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 7 Springfield Boland 4 36.4 11 0 0 13 48.1 27 13 30.2 43 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 4 0 0 14 50.0 28 21 33.3 63 Springfield Milton Bradley 10 58.8 17 ^^ ^^ 3 0 10 38.5 26 17 26.6 64 Springfield White Street 12 75.0 16 ^^ ^^ 7 0 7 36.8 19 8 22.2 36 Taunton Walker 21 50.0 42 0 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 Ware Koziol 60 63.2 95 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Webster Sitkowski 39 43.3 90 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 8 Webster Park Avenue 24 61.5 39 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 Westfield Franklin Ave 20 87.0 23 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 14 73.7 19 Westfield Highland 37 50.7 73 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 7 Westfield Moseley 18 62.1 29 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 Worcester A.L.L. 5 20.8 24 ^^ ^^ 7 0 ^^ ^^ 9 3 11.1 27 Worcester City View 19 59.4 32 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 5 4 20.0 20 Worcester Goddard 10 38.5 26 4 33.3 12 0 ^^ ^^ 4 13 27.7 47 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 5 45.5 11 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 129 Table 95: Racial/Ethnic Subgroups – MCAS proficiency by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 25 59.5 42 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 1 50 33.8 148 11 39.3 28 Brockton Downey 25 64.1 39 0 ^^ ^^ 3 15 41.7 36 3 23.1 13 Brockton Davis 24 66.7 36 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 27 45.0 60 6 40.0 15 Cambridge Haggerty 11 84.6 13 0 ^^ ^^ 1 4 36.4 11 ^^ ^^ 1 Chelsea Kelly 11 57.9 19 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 36 46.8 77 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 26 63.4 41 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 7 31.8 22 Chicopee Stefanik 16 57.1 28 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 8 22.9 35 Fall River Healy 19 33.3 57 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Doran 8 53.3 15 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 3 1 7.1 14 Fall River Laurel Lake 11 40.7 27 ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 7 Fall River N.B. Borden 0 0.0 14 0 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 Fitchburg McKay 26 59.1 44 2 20.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 7 4 26.7 15 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 17 39.5 43 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 63 64.9 97 0 0 ^^ ^^ 5 3 21.4 14 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Ch 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 22 40.0 55 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 5 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 13 13.5 96 Lawrence Frost 4 19.0 21 ^^ ^^ 4 0 14 25.0 56 Lawrence Wetherbee 6 60.0 10 ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 2 14 22.2 63 Lowell Community Charter School 4 30.8 13 12 37.5 32 ^^ ^^ 1 6 50.0 12 11 29.7 37 Lowell Murkland 7 33.3 21 9 16.1 56 0 ^^ ^^ 4 5 22.7 22 Lowell Bailey 18 42.9 42 8 38.1 21 0 5 50.0 10 3 18.8 16 Lowell Greenhalge 19 40.4 47 4 28.6 14 0 ^^ ^^ 2 2 20.0 10 Malden Ferryway 36 69.2 52 11 68.8 16 ^^ ^^ 1 6 46.2 13 ^^ ^^ 6 Methuen Tenney 65 63.7 102 ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 3 17 50.0 34 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 130 Table 95 (continued): Racial/Ethnic Subgroups – MCAS proficiency by school (Spring 2004) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY White Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Hispanic or Latino District School # % N # % N # % N # % N # % N Neighborhood House Charter ^^ ^^ 8 0 0 7 58.3 12 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Brayton 25 54.3 46 0 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 North Adams Sullivan 20 50.0 40 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 30 48.4 62 0 0 4 36.4 11 ^^ ^^ 7 Plymouth South 109 71.7 152 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West 52 76.5 68 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 0 Quincy Lincoln- Hancock 35 61.4 57 9 69.2 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 Revere Garfield 10 41.7 24 10 55.6 18 0 6 46.2 13 7 20.0 35 Robert M. Hughes Academy Chtr ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 9 64.3 14 ^^ ^^ 5 Salem Bates 34 61.8 55 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 3 2 15.4 13 Salem Bentley 24 72.7 33 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 2 7 43.8 16 Seven Hills Charter School 17 70.8 24 ^^ ^^ 2 0 9 34.6 26 7 26.9 26 Somerville Powderhouse ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 8 11 45.8 24 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 9 0 0 3 15.8 19 15 37.5 40 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 1 0 8 22.2 36 11 16.2 68 Springfield Milton Bradley 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 2 0 13 39.4 33 11 21.6 51 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 0 2 10.5 19 5 12.8 39 Taunton Walker 10 32.3 31 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 8 Ware Koziol 46 51.7 89 ^^ ^^ 2 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Webster Sitkowski 66 58.9 112 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 6 60.0 10 Webster Park Avenue ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Ave 24 100.0 24 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 9 90.0 10 Westfield Highland 27 36.5 74 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Westfield Moseley 14 56.0 25 0 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Worcester A.L.L. 4 19.0 21 2 20.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 5 5 13.5 37 Worcester City View 13 44.8 29 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 5 2 11.8 17 Worcester Goddard 8 40.0 20 ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 7 7 20.6 34 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 5 1 5.9 17 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not reported for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Student Reading Skills and Proficiency UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 131 Top performing schools – spring 2004 In addition to looking at the required assessments individually, the Massachusetts Department of Education is interested in acknowledging those schools demonstrating strong performance across the spring outcomes assessments. We used the following criteria to identify the top performing schools: · DIBELS – 60% or more students scoring in the “low risk” category · GRADE – 80% or more students scoring in the “average” and “strength” categories · MCAS – 60% or more proficient (third grade only) Table 96 shows the top performing schools by grade level. None of the schools qualify as top performers across all three grade-levels. Several schools met the top performer criteria for two grade levels. They were: · Ferryway (Malden) – 2nd and 3rd grades · Tenney (Methuen) – 1st and 2nd grades · Neighborhood House Charter – 1st and 3rd grades · West Elementary (Plymouth) – 1st and 2nd grades The goal is to begin to see more schools meeting these top performance criteria at all three grade levels, essentially moving their performance into line with other schools that were not eligible for Reading First funding. Table 96: Top Performing Schools – Spring 2004 Assessments LEA School First Grade Second Grade Third Grade Athol-Royalston Sanders Street X Boston Renaissance Charter School X Chelsea Shurtleff X ** ** Fall River Doran X Haverhill Walnut Square X X ** Malden Ferryway X X Methuen Tenney X X Neighborhood House Charter School X X North Adams Brayton X Plymouth South X Plymouth West X X Quincy Lincoln-Hancock X Robert M Hughes Academy Charter X Salem Bates X Salem Bentley X Webster Park Avenue X ** Westfield Moseley X ** School does not include this grade level. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Summary and Conclusion UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 132 Summary and Conclusion This report provides an overview of activities and results during Massachusetts’ second year of funding under the federal Reading First program. Overall it shows that, in its first year of full implementation, Massachusetts Reading First is having a positive impact on participating schools, teachers, and students. All participating public schools (and many of the funded non-public schools) have adopted core reading programs that are consistent with the findings of scientifically-based reading research. About two-thirds of the public districts adopted new core reading programs concurrent with beginning classroom implementation of Reading First. While many of the schools report that they are implementing their core curricula as prescribed by the publishers, nearly a third report supplementing their curriculum to adjust for perceived gaps or weaknesses in particular areas or address students’ needs for additional intervention. Despite the need for some adaptation, more than three quarters of district and school personnel give their core program positive ratings for overall satisfaction, ease of use and effectiveness. Beyond the core curriculum, schools are beginning to select and acquire materials for supplemental and intensive intervention. Beginning with the 2004-2005 academic year, all Massachusetts Reading First schools will begin implementing three-tier models of instruction based on the work of the Gross Vaughn Center for Reading and Language Arts at the University of Texas at Austin. Most of the Round 1 schools meet the Massachusetts Department of Education’s defined criteria for strong instructional leadership. However, more than one quarter of the Round 1 schools had not established processes for professional development aligned with scientifically based reading research. The vast majority of school personnel reported that their Reading First instructional leaders – district coordinator, building principal, and reading specialist – are committed to Reading First and knowledgeable about scientifically based reading research. In all, more than 1600 Reading First educators participated in a Teacher Reading Academy (TRA), most in the full four-day format. Three-quarters of those who attended a TRA gave it an overall rating of good or excellent. About 60% of teachers and reading specialists indicated that they use more than half of the TRA content in their daily work. However, only 40% of teachers indicated that they use more than half of the TRA classroom activities. Analysis of the professional development assessment reveals that the TRAs had an immediate positive impact on participants’ knowledge. Furthermore that knowledge level increased over the course of the year, which may indicate that receiving on-going professional development and support as well as putting knowledge into practice were beneficial for participating teachers. All Reading First schools received ongoing professional development and support from a regional provider (RP). The most common types of support identified by school staff were: assisting with the interpretation of assessment results, providing supplemental instruction, identifying additional instructional materials and helping to plan differentiated instruction. Overall, a majority of the school staff was satisfied with the support they received from their RP. In particular, about 76% positively rated their RP’s expertise in reading content, 65% positively rated their RP’s expertise in providing structured professional development, and 63% positively rated their RP’s expertise in coaching and modeling. Using student assessment results to inform instruction is a key element of the Reading First model. Consistent with federal guidelines, all schools utilized prescribed assessments for screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring and outcomes evaluation. In Massachusetts the two main Reading First assessments are the Dynamic Indicators Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Summary and Conclusion UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 133 of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE). More than two-thirds of school staff rated DIBELS as good or excellent compared to fewer than 45% for GRADE. Furthermore, more than 80% of school staff indicated that they used DIBELS results to plan instruction, while only 43% reported using GRADE results in this way. The lower ratings for GRADE may be related to initial problems with test administration and scoring that suggest the need for additional professional development and support for using this assessment along with a greater commitment to use the results for instructional planning. Both are part of efforts underway in the 2004-2005 school year. Among those who used DIBELS to plan instruction, about three-quarters felt that the assessment results were effective for that purpose. Although fewer respondents used GRADE to plan instruction, about two-thirds of those who did felt that the results were effective for the purpose. The Massachusetts Department of Education deliberately selected screening assessments that were believed to serve as good predictors of third grade reading proficiency. Data for third grade students participating in Massachusetts Reading First support the expectation that the fall DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency subtest and the fall GRADE assessment are correlated with scores on the MCAS reading test. These data provided the opportunity to predict fall scores that are suggestive of MCAS proficiency among students participating in Massachusetts Reading First25. It is likely that a student scoring 90 or better on DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency in the fall of third grade will attain proficiency on the MCAS. It is also likely that a student with a GSV of 429 or better on GRADE in the fall of third grade will attain proficiency on the MCAS. Overall, the student data shows a modest number of high performing schools and there are significant findings of growth in a number of schools, particularly when comparing fall to spring results on the GRADE assessment. After one year of classroom implementation: · 43% of the students were considered low risk as measured by the DIBELS ORF assessment · 75% of the students were performing at or above grade-level as measured by the GRADE assessment · 43% of third graders were scoring in the proficient range on the MCAS reading test Table 97: Student Performance Summary by Assessment and Grade-level Spring 2004 DIBELS ORF Low Risk Spring 2004 GRADE At or Above Grade-Level Spring 2004 MCAS Proficient Grade # % N # % N # % N 1 1941 49.8% 3894 2881 73.1% 3942 2 1522 41.0% 3713 2882 76.3% 3781 3 1356 36.8% 3689 2894 76.6% 3779 1696 43.4% 3911 Total 4819 42.7% 11296 8657 75.3% 11502 The disparity between grade level performance on the GRADE assessment and proficiency on the MCAS illustrates the high performance standard that Massachusetts has established for proficiency. It is likely that students performing in the upper range of the MCAS needs improvement level would be considered performing at grade-level on other standardized tests. The Donahue Institute and the Massachusetts Department of Education are committed to studying this issue further so as to establish fair and appropriate standards for reporting gradelevel performance on the MCAS test. 25 It is not necessarily true that the same predictive score would apply to students in other Massachusetts schools. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Summary and Conclusion UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 134 Reading First students had a mean MCAS score that was 3.6 points lower than the statewide mean and 1.7 points lower than the mean for a selected comparison group. However, after controlling for demographic differences the Reading First mean score was not statistically different from either the statewide or comparison group mean score. Thus, it is likely that demographic differences between the groups account for the disparity in MCAS scores. Even so, it is important to recognize that Massachusetts has a long way to go before all students are effective readers by the time they reach third grade – especially students in Reading First schools. Certainly, the hope is that the key features of the Reading First program – scientifically based reading instruction, student assessment to inform instruction, core program with explicit and systematic instruction, as well as supplemental and intensive intervention for students needing additional support – will help participating schools close the performance gaps between their scores and statewide performance. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report References UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 135 References Buck, J., & Torgeson, J. (2003) The relationship between performance on a measure of oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, Florida Center for Reading Research. Edmonds, M.S., & Briggs, K.L. (2003). Instructional content emphasis instrument. In S.R. Vaughn & K.L. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the Classroom: Systems for Observing Teaching and Learning. Baltimore: Brookes. Kame’enui, E., & Simmons, D. (2000). Planning and Evaluation Tool for Effective Schoolwide Reading Programs. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement (IDEA). Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix A UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 136 Appendix A: District and School Survey Response Rates Appendix A: District and School Survey Response Rates District School Survey Response Rate Haverhill Walnut Square 100% Gill Montague Regional Hillcrest & Sheffield 100% Lawrence Wetherbee 100% Lowell Bailey 100% Lowell Greenhalge 100% North Adams Brayton 100% North Adams Sullivan 100% Seven Hills Charter Seven Hills Charter 100% Westfield Franklin Avenue 100% Westfield Moseley 100% Worcester City View 100% Springfield Boland 97% Chicopee Stefanik 96% Worcester Goddard 94% Athol-Royalston Regional Sanders Street 94% Chelsea Shurtleff Early Childhood Center 93% Chelsea Kelly 92% Lawrence Frost 92% Springfield Gerena 91% Ware Koziol 91% Webster Park Avenue 89% Springfield White Street 89% Malden Ferryway 88% Lawrence Arlington 88% Salem Bates 87% Fall River Doran 86% Fall River Laurel lake 86% Worcester Lincoln Street 86% Salem Bentley 85% Chicopee Bowe 85% Revere Garfield 83% Springfield Milton Bradley 83% Taunton Walker 83% Lowell Murkland 82% Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix A UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 137 District School Survey Response Rate Fall River Healy 81% Plymouth South 81% Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 81% Brockton Downey 80% Webster Sitowski 80% Plymouth West 79% Westfield Highland 70% Robert M. Hughes Academy Robert M. Hughes Academy 70% Methuen Tenney 67% Neighborhood House Charter Neighborhood House Charter 63% Haverhill Pentucket Lake 62% Somerville Powder House Community 57% Pittsfield Morningside 55% Fall River N.B. Borden 50% Lawrence Family Development Charter Lawrence Family Development Charter 37% Worcester Accelerated Learning Lab 34% Cambridge Haggerty 33% Boston Renaissance Charter School Boston Renaissance Charter School 27% Haverhill Burnham 19% Brockton Davis 14% Lowell Community Charter Lowell Community Charter 4% Fitchburg McKay with feeder Kindergartens 0% Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix B UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 138 Appendix B: MRFP Assessment Framework Massachusetts Reading First Plan Assessment Framework Kindergarten Assessment26 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER AS NEEDED JANUARY MAY Screening/ Diagnostic Fall Benchmark In-depth Diagnostic/ Progress Monitoring + Outcomes Spring Benchmark COMPONENT Group Individual Individual Winter Benchmark Group Individual Phonemic Awareness -- DIBELS • Initial Sound Fluency DIBELS DIBELS • Initial Sound Fluency • Phoneme Segmentation Fluency -- DIBELS • Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Phonics -- DIBELS • Letter Naming Fluency DIBELS DIBELS • Letter Naming Fluency • Nonsense Word Fluency -- DIBELS • Letter Naming Fluency • Nonsense Word Fluency Fluency -- -- -- -- -- -- Vocabulary -- -- PPVT-III (listening) -- -- -- Comprehension GRADE, Level P • Listening Comprehension -- -- -- GRADE, Level K, • Listening Comprehension -- Key: DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; GRADE: Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – 3rd Ed 26 Kindergarten assessments are optional, and no kindergarten data will be reported to the U.S. Department of Education. + In-depth diagnostic as needed for at risk students; DIBELS progress monitoring assessments can be administered as frequently as prudent using alternate forms. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix B UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 139 Massachusetts Reading First Plan Assessment Framework Grade 1 Assessment SEPTEMBER AS NEEDED JANUARY MAY Screening/ Diagnostic Fall Benchmark In-depth Diagnostic and Progress Monitoring* Outcomes Spring Benchmark COMPONENT Individual Individual Winter Benchmark Group Individual Phonemic Awareness -- -- CTOPP • Elision DIBELS -- -- -- Phonics/Word Identification GRADE, Level 2 • Word Reading DIBELS • Nonsense Word Fluency DIBELS GRADE (off-level) -- GRADE, Level 2 • Word Reading -- Fluency -- DIBELS • Oral Reading Fluency -- DIBELS • Oral Reading Fluency -- DIBELS • Oral Reading Fluency Vocabulary GRADE, Level 2 • Word Meaning (reading) -- PPVT-III (listening) -- GRADE, Level 2 • Word Meaning (reading) -- Comprehension GRADE, Level 2 • Listening Comprehension • Sentence & Passage Comprehension (reading) DRP (optional) -- GRADE (off-level) DRP (optional) GRADE, Level 2 • Listening Comprehension • Sentence & Passage Comprehension (reading) DRP (optional) -- Key: CTOPP: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; DRP: Degrees of Reading Power; GRADE: Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – 3rd Ed * In-depth diagnostics as needed for at-risk students; DIBELS progress monitoring may be administered as frequently as prudent using alternate forms. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix B UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 140 Massachusetts Reading First Plan Assessment Framework Grade 2 Assessment SEPTEMBER AS NEEDED JANUARY MAY Screening/ Diagnostic Fall Benchmark In-depth Diagnostic and Progress Monitoring* Outcomes Spring Benchmark COMPONENT Individual Individual Winter Benchmark Group Individual Phonemic Awareness -- -- CTOPP • Elision DIBELS -- -- -- Phonics/Word Identification GRADE, Level 2 • Word Reading DIBELS • Nonsense Word Fluency DIBELS GRADE (off-level) -- GRADE, Level 2 • Word Reading -- Fluency -- DIBELS • Oral Reading Fluency -- DIBELS • Oral Reading Fluency -- DIBELS • Oral Reading Fluency Vocabulary GRADE, Level 2 • Word Meaning (reading) -- PPVT-III (listening) -- GRADE, Level 2 • Word Meaning (reading) -- Comprehension GRADE, Level 2 • Listening Comprehension • Sentence & Passage Comprehension (reading) DRP (optional) -- GRADE (off-level) DRP (optional) GRADE, Level 2 • Listening Comprehension • Sentence & Passage Comprehension (reading) DRP (optional) -- Key: CTOPP: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; DRP: Degrees of Reading Power; GRADE: Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – 3rd Ed * In-depth diagnostics as needed for at-risk students; DIBELS progress monitoring may be administered as frequently as prudent using alternate forms. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix B UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 141 Massachusetts Reading First Plan Assessment Framework Grade 3 Assessment SEPTEMBER AS NEEDED JANUARY MAY Screening/ Diagnostic Fall Benchmark In-depth Diagnostic and Progress Monitoring* Outcomes (Outcomes also includes Grade 3 MCAS) Spring Benchmark COMPONENT Group Individual Individual Winter Benchmark Group Individual Phonemic Awareness -- -- CTOPP • Elision DIBELS -- -- -- Phonics/Word Identification GRADE, Level 3 • Word Reading -- DIBELS GRADE (off-level) -- GRADE, Level 3 • Word Reading -- Fluency -- DIBELS • Oral Reading Fluency -- DIBELS • Oral Reading Fluency -- DIBELS • Oral Reading Fluency Vocabulary GRADE, Level 3 • Vocabulary (reading) -- PPVT-III (listening) -- GRADE, Level 3 • Vocabulary (reading) -- Comprehension GRADE, Level 3 • Listening Comprehension • Sentence and Passage Comprehension (reading) DRP (optional) -- GRADE (off-level) DRP (optional) GRADE, Level 3 • Listening Comprehension • Sentence and Passage Comprehension (reading) DRP (optional) -- Key: CTOPP: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; DRP: Degrees of Reading Power; GRADE: Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – 3rd Ed *In-depth diagnostics as needed for at-risk students; DIBELS progress monitoring assessments may be administered as frequently as prudent using alternate forms. Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix C: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 142 Appendix C: School DIBELS scores by grade-level DIBELS ORF – Grade 2 Fall Grade 2 – Fall 2003 (Low Risk Benchmark Raw Score = 44) District School N Mean Raw Score % At Risk % Some Risk % Low Risk + Haverhill Walnut Square 46 65.7 4.3 19.6 76.1 + Cambridge Haggerty 25 63.0 24.0 12.0 64.0 + Taunton Walker 39 60.7 17.9 17.9 64.1 + Malden Ferryway 93 58.8 14.0 16.1 69.9 + Plymouth West 51 57.8 17.6 21.6 60.8 + Methuen Tenney 117 56.1 12.0 30.8 57.3 + Plymouth South 144 51.1 25.0 21.5 53.5 + Boston Renaissance Charter 142 50.8 19.0 30.3 50.7 + Fitchburg McKay 82 50.7 23.2 30.5 46.3 + Salem Bentley 51 50.5 25.5 27.5 47.1 + Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 86 50.5 22.1 40.7 37.2 + Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 22 50.5 4.5 40.9 54.5 + Springfield White Street 52 49.9 21.2 23.1 55.8 + Lowell Bailey 89 49.0 31.5 16.9 51.7 + Gill-Montague Hillcrest 50 48.9 26.0 28.0 46.0 + Neighborhood House Charter 22 48.8 18.2 31.8 50.0 + Brockton Davis 121 48.7 20.7 24.8 54.5 + Salem Bates 49 47.6 18.4 42.9 38.8 + Pittsfield Morningside 69 47.6 21.7 33.3 44.9 + Lowell Greenhalge 84 47.4 28.6 20.2 51.2 + North Adams Sullivan 45 47.0 26.7 24.4 48.9 + Haverhill Pentucket Lake 77 46.5 31.2 22.1 46.8 + Chicopee Bowe 62 46.4 22.6 27.4 50.0 + Revere Garfield 99 46.4 18.2 29.3 52.5 + Webster Park Avenue 145 46.1 22.1 37.2 40.7 + Springfield Boland 62 45.8 37.1 22.6 40.3 + Brockton Downey 90 45.7 24.4 30.0 45.6 + Ware Koziol 97 45.4 24.7 32.0 43.3 + North Adams Brayton 62 45.4 24.2 29.0 46.8 + Worcester Lincoln Street 36 44.3 25.0 36.1 38.9 * Lowell Murkland 89 42.9 32.6 28.1 39.3 * Lawrence Family Development Charter 61 42.6 32.8 32.8 34.4 * Fall River Doran 58 42.6 34.5 20.7 44.8 * Seven Hills Charter 76 41.5 28.9 34.2 36.8 * Fall River Laurel Lake 29 41.4 24.1 31.0 44.8 * Somerville Powderhouse 61 41.3 41.0 21.3 37.7 * Chelsea Kelly 112 41.2 25.0 33.9 41.1 * Worcester Goddard 70 41.2 38.6 22.9 38.6 * Springfield Milton Bradley 92 40.1 31.5 28.3 40.2 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix C: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 143 DIBELS ORF (continued) Grade 2 – Fall 2003 (Low Risk Benchmark Raw Score = 44) District School N Mean Raw Score % At Risk % Some Risk % Low Risk * Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 41 39.9 17.1 41.5 41.5 * Lowell Community Charter 95 38.4 45.3 17.9 36.8 * Lawrence Wetherbee 76 38.3 31.6 30.3 38.2 * Worcester City View 58 38.3 32.8 34.5 32.8 * Worcester ALL 66 37.9 39.4 25.8 34.8 * Westfield Franklin 36 37.8 41.7 27.8 30.6 - Lawrence Frost 97 36.3 38.1 29.9 32.0 * Haverhill Burnham 48 36.2 39.6 22.9 37.5 * Westfield Moseley 25 36.1 52.0 24.0 24.0 - Springfield Gerena 99 36.0 28.3 41.4 30.3 - Westfield Highland 64 35.9 37.5 34.4 28.1 - Lawrence Arlington 113 33.5 41.6 25.7 32.7 - Chicopee Stefanik 56 33.2 58.9 16.1 25.0 - Fall River Borden 23 31.6 47.8 30.4 21.7 - Fall River Healy 38 29.6 52.6 21.1 26.3 + School’s mean raw score falls into the low risk score range * School’s mean raw score falls below the low risk score range, but the difference is not statistically significant - School’s mean raw score falls significantly below the low risk range Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix C: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 144 DIBELS ORF – Grade 3 Fall Grade 3 – Fall 2003 (Low Risk Benchmark Raw Score = 90) District School N Mean Raw Score % At Risk % Some Risk % Low Risk + Cambridge Haggerty 27 93.9 11.1 25.9 63.0 * Neighborhood House Charter 17 88.9 23.5 11.8 64.7 * Plymouth West 69 84.5 14.5 33.3 52.2 * Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 85 83.4 22.4 17.6 60.0 - Malden Ferryway 92 82.9 14.1 23.9 62.0 - Plymouth South 153 78.8 20.3 29.4 50.3 - Lowell Bailey 87 77.6 20.7 32.2 47.1 - Brockton Downey 87 76.5 24.1 23.0 52.9 - Salem Bentley 52 75.7 26.9 28.8 44.2 - Lawrence Family Development Charter 60 74.9 13.3 35.0 51.7 - Ware Koziol 92 74.3 25.0 35.9 39.1 - Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 20 73.8 10.0 50.0 40.0 - Fitchburg McKay 85 73.7 28.2 27.1 44.7 - Westfield Moseley 26 73.6 26.9 30.8 42.3 - Seven Hills Charter 77 73.5 27.3 29.9 42.9 - Methuen Tenney 139 73.5 21.6 38.1 40.3 - Revere Garfield 92 73.4 22.8 33.7 43.5 - Haverhill Pentucket Lake 118 73.3 30.5 22.0 47.5 - Boston Renaissance Charter 190 73.2 25.8 29.5 44.7 - Chelsea Kelly 104 73.1 25.0 33.7 41.3 - Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 45 72.6 24.4 31.1 44.4 - Brockton Davis 116 72.3 27.6 27.6 44.8 - North Adams Sullivan 47 71.3 23.4 42.6 34.0 - Salem Bates 72 71.2 26.4 30.6 43.1 - Lowell Greenhalge 75 70.2 28.0 33.3 38.7 - Somerville Powderhouse 43 70.0 32.6 23.3 44.2 - Lowell Murkland 105 70.0 29.5 27.6 42.9 - Chicopee Bowe 62 67.9 38.7 21.0 40.3 - Webster Park Avenue 121 67.7 33.1 28.9 38.0 - Westfield Highland 68 66.1 41.2 19.1 39.7 - Springfield Boland 68 65.9 30.9 36.8 32.4 - Pittsfield Morningside 83 64.8 38.6 31.3 30.1 - North Adams Brayton 54 64.7 38.9 29.6 31.5 - Lowell Community Charter 102 63.3 40.2 32.4 27.5 - Worcester Goddard 68 62.4 44.1 16.2 39.7 - Worcester Lincoln Street 33 61.4 42.4 39.4 18.2 - Worcester City View 55 60.3 45.5 29.1 25.5 - Lawrence Wetherbee 83 60.3 44.6 25.3 30.1 - Fall River Healy 37 59.9 48.6 18.9 32.4 - Lawrence Frost 86 59.7 47.7 24.4 27.9 - Fall River Laurel Lake 41 59.7 43.9 26.8 29.3 - Chicopee Stefanik 67 59.4 46.3 23.9 29.9 - Springfield Milton Bradley 93 58.8 45.2 30.1 24.7 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix C: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 145 DIBELS ORF (continued) Grade 3 – Fall 2003 (Low Risk Benchmark Raw Score = 90) District School N Mean Raw Score % At Risk % Some Risk % Low Risk - Springfield Gerena 103 58.8 46.6 33.0 20.4 - Westfield Franklin 37 58.0 54.1 13.5 32.4 - Fall River Doran 64 57.5 48.4 21.9 29.7 - Gill-Montague Hillcrest 49 56.1 53.1 24.5 22.4 - Springfield White Street 70 53.4 48.6 38.6 12.9 - Worcester ALL 69 51.9 55.1 27.5 17.4 - Lawrence Arlington 120 50.1 60.0 19.2 20.8 - Fall River Borden 27 45.9 55.6 29.6 14.8 Taunton Walker Data are incomplete + School’s mean raw score falls into the low risk score range * School’s mean raw score falls below the low risk score range, but the difference is not statistically significant - School’s mean raw score falls significantly below the low risk range Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix C: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 146 DIBELS ORF – Grade 1 Spring DIBELS ORF Grade 1 - Spring 2004 (Low Risk Benchmark Raw Score = 40) District School N Mean Raw Score % At Risk % Some Risk % Low Risk + Neighborhood House Charter 22 77.6 0.0 18.2 81.8 + Plymouth West 49 65.8 4.1 22.4 73.5 + Methuen Tenney 131 65.6 6.1 22.9 71.0 + Haverhill Walnut Square 50 65.1 6.0 26.0 68.0 + Cambridge Haggerty 44 65.1 20.5 18.2 61.4 + Chelsea Shurtleff 92 63.2 8.7 19.6 71.7 + Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 38 62.0 7.9 26.3 65.8 + Webster Park Avenue 128 61.0 5.5 21.1 73.4 + North Adams Brayton 51 60.4 9.8 21.6 68.6 + Salem Bentley 57 57.1 14.0 24.6 61.4 + Plymouth South 141 55.7 8.5 26.2 65.2 + Boston Renaissance Charter 139 54.4 12.9 25.2 61.9 + Salem Bates 78 53.3 12.8 25.6 61.5 + Fall River Borden 22 53.0 9.1 40.9 50.0 + Chelsea Kelly 84 52.5 20.2 22.6 57.1 + Malden Ferryway 101 52.3 12.9 29.7 57.4 + Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 23 51.4 13.0 21.7 65.2 + Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 68 51.1 16.2 32.4 51.5 + Fall River Doran 63 49.9 7.9 30.2 61.9 + North Adams Sullivan 41 49.1 7.3 39.0 53.7 + Fall River Laurel Lake 45 48.8 13.3 40.0 46.7 + Haverhill Burnham 50 48.2 26.0 20.0 54.0 + Pittsfield Morningside 70 47.8 18.6 30.0 51.4 + Lowell Bailey 88 47.4 25.0 31.8 43.2 + Somerville Powderhouse 53 47.4 20.8 24.5 54.7 + Revere Garfield 112 47.0 18.8 25.0 56.3 + Lawrence Family Development Charter 54 46.6 16.7 27.8 55.6 + Westfield Highland 64 46.2 21.9 26.6 51.6 + Lowell Community Charter 90 46.1 21.1 27.8 51.1 + Taunton Walker 43 45.5 16.3 32.6 51.2 + Ware Koziol 83 45.2 20.5 31.3 48.2 + Haverhill Pentucket Lake 70 45.1 25.7 17.1 57.1 + Chicopee Stefanik 69 43.0 29.0 29.0 42.0 + Springfield Milton Bradley 97 42.9 29.9 24.7 45.4 + Lawrence Frost 88 42.8 20.5 28.4 51.1 + Gill-Montague Hillcrest 50 41.3 18.0 48.0 34.0 + Fitchburg McKay 79 41.2 31.6 22.8 45.6 + Springfield Boland 69 40.9 31.9 26.1 42.0 + Brockton Davis 101 40.2 17.8 44.6 37.6 * Worcester Goddard 68 39.6 32.4 27.9 39.7 * Westfield Moseley 29 39.2 20.7 41.4 37.9 * Worcester City View 61 39.2 29.5 32.8 37.7 * Lowell Greenhalge 82 38.8 20.7 37.8 41.5 * Springfield White Street 70 38.4 30.0 25.7 44.3 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix C: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 147 DIBELS ORF (continued) Grade 1 - Spring 2004 (Low Risk Benchmark Raw Score = 40) District School N Mean Raw Score % At Risk % Some Risk % Low Risk * Fall River Healy 42 38.1 28.6 31.0 40.5 * Worcester Lincoln Street 53 36.4 34.0 22.6 43.4 * Seven Hills Charter 77 34.5 39.0 27.3 33.8 - Lawrence Arlington 112 34.5 20.5 43.8 35.7 * Westfield Franklin 38 33.7 39.5 23.7 36.8 - Lawrence Wetherbee 70 33.0 37.1 35.7 27.1 - Brockton Downey 64 30.4 48.4 20.3 31.3 - Chicopee Bowe 63 30.2 42.9 33.3 23.8 - Springfield Gerena 122 29.4 40.2 33.6 26.2 - Lowell Murkland 82 26.5 46.3 32.9 20.7 - Worcester ALL 62 20.4 67.7 16.1 16.1 + School’s mean raw score falls into the low risk score range * School’s mean raw score falls below the low risk score range, but the difference is not statistically significant - School’s mean raw score falls significantly below the low risk range Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix C: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 148 DIBELS ORF – Grade 2 Spring Grade 2 - Spring 2004 (Low Risk Benchmark Raw Score = 90) District School N Mean Raw Score % At Risk % Some Risk % Low Risk + Haverhill Walnut Square 48 113.3 10.4 12.5 77.1 + Plymouth West 52 108.0 9.6 17.3 73.1 + Malden Ferryway 98 102.9 12.2 18.4 69.4 + Methuen Tenney 121 99.7 19.8 18.2 62.0 + Salem Bentley 50 93.9 24.0 24.0 52.0 + Salem Bates 50 93.6 22.0 28.0 50.0 + Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 89 93.0 29.2 20.2 50.6 + Neighborhood House Charter 22 92.5 27.3 18.2 54.5 + North Adams Sullivan 48 91.2 29.2 27.1 43.8 + Westfield Moseley 22 90.1 22.7 13.6 63.6 + Revere Garfield 90 90.0 21.1 33.3 45.6 * Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 22 89.0 27.3 22.7 50.0 * Plymouth South 144 88.8 29.2 16.7 54.2 * Gill-Montague Hillcrest 52 87.9 34.6 17.3 48.1 * Haverhill Pentucket Lake 70 87.8 25.7 22.9 51.4 * North Adams Brayton 59 85.4 32.2 27.1 40.7 * Pittsfield Morningside 68 85.1 32.4 27.9 39.7 * Chicopee Bowe 54 84.3 31.5 18.5 50.0 * Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 39 84.2 28.2 30.8 41.0 - Chelsea Kelly 105 83.5 31.4 31.4 37.1 * Westfield Highland 68 83.1 36.8 20.6 42.6 * Ware Koziol 93 83.0 39.8 16.1 44.1 - Lawrence Frost 102 81.0 34.3 27.5 38.2 - Springfield Boland 63 79.6 42.9 15.9 41.3 - Lowell Bailey 87 79.5 41.4 19.5 39.1 - Webster Park Avenue 156 79.4 32.7 23.7 43.6 - Boston Renaissance Charter 139 79.3 34.5 26.6 38.8 * Cambridge Haggerty 28 79.3 42.9 3.6 53.6 * Taunton Walker 41 78.6 34.1 24.4 41.5 - Worcester City View 59 78.4 32.2 23.7 44.1 - Haverhill Burnham 47 78.0 48.9 14.9 36.2 - Springfield Milton Bradley 93 77.2 39.8 25.8 34.4 - Fall River Doran 63 76.7 36.5 31.7 31.7 - Springfield White Street 63 76.1 39.7 22.2 38.1 - Brockton Davis 119 76.0 37.8 26.9 35.3 - Westfield Franklin 34 75.8 52.9 14.7 32.4 - Brockton Downey 92 75.6 33.7 34.8 31.5 - Worcester Lincoln Street 36 75.4 47.2 11.1 41.7 - Lawrence Family Development Charter 59 75.1 47.5 16.9 35.6 - Somerville Powderhouse 58 74.5 43.1 20.7 36.2 - Fall River Borden 26 74.4 38.5 23.1 38.5 - Lawrence Wetherbee 80 74.2 46.3 20.0 33.8 - Fitchburg McKay 78 73.7 55.1 11.5 33.3 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix C: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 149 DIBELS ORF (continued) Grade 2 - Spring 2004 (Low Risk Benchmark Raw Score = 90) District School N Mean Raw Score % At Risk % Some Risk % Low Risk - Lowell Community Charter 93 73.6 50.5 22.6 26.9 - Worcester ALL 69 73.1 43.5 18.8 37.7 - Fall River Laurel Lake 30 72.3 40.0 33.3 26.7 - Chicopee Stefanik 60 71.1 46.7 23.3 30.0 - Springfield Gerena 100 70.8 45.0 29.0 26.0 - Lawrence Arlington 113 67.9 39.8 31.9 28.3 - Seven Hills Charter 79 67.9 51.9 22.8 25.3 - Lowell Greenhalge 76 67.6 51.3 19.7 28.9 - Lowell Murkland 102 65.9 50.0 22.5 27.5 - Worcester Goddard 83 64.3 56.6 16.9 26.5 - Fall River Healy 40 59.8 60.0 20.0 20.0 + School’s mean raw score falls into the low risk score range * School’s mean raw score falls below the low risk score range, but the difference is not statistically significant - School’s mean raw score falls significantly below the low risk range Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix C: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 150 DIBELS ORF – Grade 3 Spring Grade 3 - Spring 2004 (Low Risk Benchmark Raw Score = 110) District School N Mean Raw Score % At Risk % Some Risk % Low Risk + Neighborhood House Charter 22 122.1 13.6 22.7 63.6 + Plymouth West 70 115.5 8.6 32.9 58.6 + Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 83 115.3 10.8 27.7 61.4 + Malden Ferryway 88 112.6 10.2 22.7 67.0 + Salem Bentley 54 112.6 16.7 24.1 59.3 + Plymouth South 157 111.4 14.6 30.6 54.8 + Chelsea Kelly 100 110.2 16.0 35.0 49.0 * Westfield Moseley 27 108.2 22.2 22.2 55.6 * Haverhill Pentucket Lake 108 107.8 17.6 28.7 53.7 * Cambridge Haggerty 29 107.1 24.1 27.6 48.3 * Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 20 106.5 20.0 35.0 45.0 * Lawrence Family Development Charter 49 105.3 12.2 53.1 34.7 * Chicopee Bowe 60 104.1 23.3 26.7 50.0 * Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 47 103.9 19.1 34.0 46.8 - Methuen Tenney 145 102.1 19.3 37.2 43.4 - Boston Renaissance Charter 154 101.6 24.7 35.7 39.6 * Somerville Powderhouse 40 100.8 30.0 20.0 50.0 - Ware Koziol 94 100.7 26.6 33.0 40.4 - Salem Bates 72 100.5 20.8 38.9 40.3 - Chicopee Stefanik 65 100.3 24.6 29.2 46.2 * Fall River Laurel Lake 38 100.0 31.6 21.1 47.4 - Revere Garfield 85 99.5 20.0 45.9 34.1 - Westfield Highland 75 99.2 32.0 25.3 42.7 - Brockton Downey 87 98.7 25.3 41.4 33.3 - Lowell Bailey 88 98.2 26.1 42.0 31.8 - Lawrence Frost 84 97.8 27.4 41.7 31.0 - Pittsfield Morningside 73 97.4 27.4 37.0 35.6 - Lowell Community Charter 96 95.4 32.3 36.5 31.3 - Webster Sitkowski 120 94.7 29.2 37.5 33.3 - Seven Hills Charter 76 94.1 38.2 31.6 30.3 - Brockton Davis 113 93.9 26.5 40.7 32.7 - Springfield Boland 70 92.9 32.9 32.9 34.3 - Worcester City View 54 92.5 24.1 51.9 24.1 - Fall River Healy 36 92.0 38.9 19.4 41.7 - North Adams Sullivan 47 91.8 27.7 51.1 21.3 - Springfield Milton Bradley 98 91.1 33.7 38.8 27.6 - Taunton Walker 42 90.5 31.0 28.6 40.5 - Lowell Greenhalge 76 90.1 38.2 36.8 25.0 - Worcester Lincoln Street 28 89.8 28.6 57.1 14.3 - North Adams Brayton 56 89.5 35.7 35.7 28.6 - Fitchburg McKay 79 88.7 38.0 36.7 25.3 - Lowell Murkland 102 88.7 38.2 39.2 22.5 - Lawrence Wetherbee 85 87.5 36.5 41.2 22.4 - Westfield Franklin 36 86.8 36.1 30.6 33.3 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix C: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 151 DIBELS ORF (continued) Grade 3 - Spring 2004 (Low Risk Benchmark Raw Score = 110) District School N Mean Raw Score % At Risk % Some Risk % Low Risk - Worcester ALL 70 85.9 41.4 32.9 25.7 - Fall River Doran 66 85.7 43.9 28.8 27.3 - Worcester Goddard 71 84.0 42.3 31.0 26.8 - Springfield Gerena 111 80.1 49.5 30.6 19.8 - Lawrence Arlington 112 79.4 36.6 46.4 17.0 - Gill-Montague Sheffield 51 78.8 51.0 29.4 19.6 - Fall River Borden 22 74.6 50.0 31.8 18.2 - Springfield White Street 71 72.7 57.7 31.0 11.3 + School’s mean raw score falls into the low risk score range * School’s mean raw score falls below the low risk score range, but the difference is not statistically significant - School’s mean raw score falls significantly below the low risk range Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix D: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 152 Appendix D: School GRADE scores by grade-level GRADE – Grade 1 (Level K) Fall Grade 1 (Level K) - Fall 2003 District School N Mean GSV % Weak % Average % Strength Cambridge Haggerty 45 ^ 37.8 44.4 17.8 Fitchburg McKay 75 ^ 38.7 48.0 13.3 Lowell Bailey 85 ^ 18.8 49.4 31.8 Lowell Murkland 84 ^ 58.3 40.5 1.2 ^ GRADE does provide GSVs for the Level K test, but they are on a different scale than the higher level tests. Thus, presenting these data might cause confusion for the reader. GRADE – Grade 1 (Level 1) Fall Grade 1 (Level 1) - Fall 2003 Average Benchmark GSV = 320 (stanine 4) Strength Benchmark GSV = 365 (stanine 7) District School N Mean GSV % Weak % Average % Strength + Neighborhood House Charter 22 344.4 31.8 40.9 27.3 + Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 17 329.1 47.1 41.2 11.8 + Methuen Tenney 125 327.8 49.6 31.2 19.2 + Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 37 327.0 45.9 43.2 10.8 + Lawrence Family Development Charter 60 325.8 46.7 43.3 10.0 + North Adams Brayton 53 324.5 49.1 32.1 18.9 + Lowell Greenhalge 77 323.6 49.4 42.9 7.8 + Haverhill Walnut Square 42 320.2 64.3 23.8 11.9 * Plymouth West 47 317.9 51.1 36.2 12.8 - Webster Park Avenue 137 316.5 56.9 37.2 5.8 * Salem Bentley 57 316.2 64.9 26.3 8.8 * Fall River Doran 61 315.2 49.2 44.3 6.6 * Chelsea Shurtleff 99 315.0 70.7 19.2 10.1 * Fall River Laurel Lake 43 314.7 60.5 34.9 4.7 - Plymouth South 142 311.9 67.6 25.4 7.0 - Westfield Franklin 34 311.3 67.6 32.4 0.0 * Westfield Moseley 32 311.3 71.9 25.0 3.1 - Lowell Community Charter 91 311.0 72.5 23.1 4.4 - Worcester City View 62 309.7 79.0 14.5 6.5 - Worcester Lincoln Street 51 308.7 80.4 15.7 3.9 - Malden Ferryway 96 307.6 62.5 28.1 9.4 * Taunton Walker 30 307.2 70.0 26.7 3.3 - Ware Koziol 89 305.5 71.9 25.8 2.2 - Seven Hills Charter 76 305.1 76.3 21.1 2.6 - Boston Renaissance Charter 137 303.3 66.4 27.7 5.8 * Fall River Borden 20 302.1 85.0 5.0 10.0 - Lawrence Arlington 110 299.8 80.9 16.4 2.7 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix D: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 153 Grade 1 - Fall 2003 Continued Average Benchmark GSV = 320 (stanine 4) Strength Benchmark GSV = 365 (stanine 7) District School N Mean GSV % Weak % Average % Strength - Chelsea Kelly 84 299.5 73.8 17.9 8.3 - Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 65 297.6 76.9 21.5 1.5 - Worcester Goddard 77 297.3 83.1 15.6 1.3 - Somerville Powderhouse 57 297.1 73.7 21.1 5.3 - Salem Bates 77 296.7 71.4 22.1 6.5 - Lawrence Frost 92 295.4 85.9 14.1 0.0 - Springfield Milton Bradley 104 295.1 79.8 18.3 1.9 - North Adams Sullivan 45 294.4 86.7 8.9 4.4 - Springfield Boland 74 293.4 83.8 13.5 2.7 - Pittsfield Morningside 73 292.0 87.7 6.8 5.5 - Revere Garfield 114 291.6 86.0 10.5 3.5 - Worcester ALL 70 290.4 84.3 12.9 2.9 - Lawrence Wetherbee 71 289.7 88.7 9.9 1.4 - Haverhill Pentucket Lake 73 289.0 86.3 9.6 4.1 - Gill-Montague Hillcrest 47 287.7 87.2 12.8 0.0 - Fall River Healy 43 286.8 79.1 18.6 2.3 - Springfield Gerena 120 278.5 83.3 14.2 2.5 - Westfield Highland 67 274.1 65.7 23.9 10.4 - Haverhill Burnham 53 271.3 84.9 11.3 3.8 - Chicopee Bowe 63 270.8 93.7 4.8 1.6 - Springfield White Street 71 260.5 78.9 21.1 0.0 - Chicopee Stefanik 70 241.6 90.0 7.1 2.9 - Brockton Davis 110 233.6 72.1 17.1 10.8 - Brockton Downey 62 213.9 74.2 21.0 4.8 ++ School’s mean GSV falls into the strength score range ** School’s mean GSV falls below the strength score range, but the difference is not statistically significant + School’s mean GSV falls into the average score range * School’s mean GSV falls below the average score range, but the difference is not statistically significant - School’s mean GSV falls significantly below the average score range Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix D: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 154 GRADE – Grade 2 Fall Grade 2 - Fall 2003 Average Benchmark GSV = 368 (stanine 4) Strength Benchmark GSV = 425 (stanine 7) District School N Mean GSV % Weak % Average % Strength + Cambridge Haggerty 25 398.0 28.0 40.0 32.0 + Plymouth West 52 396.0 25.0 51.9 23.1 + Haverhill Walnut Square 37 395.8 27.0 51.4 21.6 + Methuen Tenney 117 394.5 26.5 53.0 20.5 + Taunton Walker 43 385.4 34.9 39.5 25.6 + Plymouth South 144 384.5 38.2 43.1 18.8 + Fitchburg McKay 81 384.2 46.9 35.8 17.3 + Lowell Bailey 89 383.9 41.6 36.0 22.5 + Malden Ferryway 93 383.7 37.6 51.6 10.8 + Webster Park Avenue 145 381.4 34.5 46.9 18.6 + Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 41 381.1 31.7 61.0 7.3 + Neighborhood House Charter 23 381.0 43.5 30.4 26.1 + Ware Koziol 97 379.7 47.4 38.1 14.4 + Salem Bentley 52 379.4 44.2 38.5 17.3 + Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 22 378.9 36.4 59.1 4.5 + Revere Garfield 99 378.7 39.4 52.5 8.1 + North Adams Sullivan 46 376.3 43.5 43.5 13.0 + North Adams Brayton 62 373.6 46.8 37.1 16.1 + Lowell Greenhalge 84 373.1 42.9 41.7 15.5 + Boston Renaissance Charter 143 372.6 40.6 50.3 9.1 + Pittsfield Morningside 68 372.3 44.1 50.0 5.9 + Westfield Moseley 26 372.0 57.7 30.8 11.5 + Worcester Lincoln Street 36 371.9 55.6 30.6 13.9 + Seven Hills Charter 78 371.5 52.6 39.7 7.7 + Salem Bates 49 371.2 55.1 32.7 12.2 + Haverhill Pentucket Lake 77 371.0 53.2 37.7 9.1 + Springfield Boland 48 370.9 47.9 41.7 10.4 + Springfield White Street 51 370.4 43.1 49.0 7.8 + Lawrence Family Development Charter 62 370.3 58.1 30.6 11.3 + Gill-Montague Hillcrest 50 370.0 48.0 42.0 10.0 * Fall River Laurel Lake 31 367.1 35.5 58.1 6.5 * Lowell Murkland 90 366.8 50.0 38.9 11.1 * Chelsea Kelly 112 365.3 55.4 41.1 3.6 * Worcester City View 58 365.3 50.0 46.6 3.4 * Springfield Milton Bradley 94 363.7 55.3 39.4 5.3 * Lowell Community Charter 95 363.3 62.1 31.6 6.3 * Chicopee Stefanik 56 363.0 58.9 33.9 7.1 * Lawrence Frost 97 362.7 55.7 42.3 2.1 * Fall River Doran 59 362.1 55.9 42.4 1.7 * Chicopee Bowe 61 361.3 52.5 42.6 4.9 * Westfield Franklin 38 361.3 68.4 23.7 7.9 * Westfield Highland 64 358.3 64.1 26.6 9.4 * Haverhill Burnham 49 358.1 55.1 42.9 2.0 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix D: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 155 Grade 2 - Fall 2003 Continued Average Benchmark GSV = 368 (stanine 4) Strength Benchmark GSV = 425 (stanine 7) District School N Mean GSV % Weak % Average % Strength - Lawrence Wetherbee 76 357.7 59.2 38.2 2.6 - Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 86 354.9 65.1 25.6 9.3 - Springfield Gerena 103 353.5 68.0 29.1 2.9 - Somerville Powderhouse 61 352.6 65.6 27.9 6.6 - Worcester ALL 73 352.1 65.8 30.1 4.1 - Worcester Goddard 71 348.8 70.4 26.8 2.8 - Fall River Healy 40 347.7 75.0 25.0 0.0 - Fall River Borden 23 346.9 60.9 34.8 4.3 - Brockton Downey 92 345.8 45.7 44.6 9.8 - Lawrence Arlington 113 345.5 79.6 19.5 0.9 - Brockton Davis 119 327.9 37.8 51.3 10.9 ++ School’s mean GSV falls into the strength score range ** School’s mean GSV falls below the strength score range, but the difference is not statistically significant + School’s mean GSV falls into the average score range * School’s mean GSV falls below the average score range, but the difference is not statistically significant - School’s mean GSV falls significantly below the average score range Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix D: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 156 GRADE – Grade 3 Fall Grade 3 - Fall 2003 Average Benchmark GSV = 398 (stanine 4) Strength Benchmark GSV = 449 (stanine 7) District School N Mean GSV % Weak % Average % Strength ** Cambridge Haggerty 28 438.8 10.7 46.4 42.9 + Plymouth West 69 436.3 10.1 55.1 34.8 + Plymouth South 153 425.2 16.3 62.1 21.6 + Methuen Tenney 133 425.0 10.5 69.2 20.3 + Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 20 423.7 15.0 70.0 15.0 + Malden Ferryway 92 421.1 23.9 54.3 21.7 + Lowell Bailey 86 418.3 26.7 51.2 22.1 + Neighborhood House Charter 21 418.1 33.3 47.6 19.0 + Webster Sitkowski 121 417.8 22.3 62.0 15.7 + Ware Koziol 91 415.4 28.6 57.1 14.3 + Seven Hills Charter 78 414.0 32.1 52.6 15.4 + Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 45 412.7 28.9 62.2 8.9 + Haverhill Pentucket Lake 119 412.6 31.9 51.3 16.8 + Fitchburg McKay 58 412.4 36.2 51.7 12.1 + Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 85 410.9 29.4 58.8 11.8 + Salem Bentley 52 409.7 40.4 44.2 15.4 + Lowell Greenhalge 73 408.8 34.2 54.8 11.0 + North Adams Sullivan 47 408.1 29.8 61.7 8.5 + Fall River Laurel Lake 43 407.0 37.2 53.5 9.3 + Lawrence Family Development Charter 60 407.0 35.0 60.0 5.0 + Salem Bates 72 405.5 34.7 51.4 13.9 + Westfield Moseley 26 404.7 34.6 53.8 11.5 + Pittsfield Morningside 82 402.7 42.7 52.4 4.9 + Taunton Walker 44 402.7 38.6 47.7 13.6 + North Adams Brayton 54 401.4 35.2 57.4 7.4 + Chelsea Kelly 105 400.7 43.8 44.8 11.4 + Chicopee Bowe 60 400.5 50.0 45.0 5.0 + Boston Renaissance Charter 186 400.4 44.6 51.1 4.3 + Lowell Murkland 103 400.4 36.9 58.3 4.9 + Worcester City View 57 398.7 52.6 42.1 5.3 + Revere Garfield 92 398.1 51.1 42.4 6.5 * Brockton Davis 116 397.3 35.3 54.3 10.3 * Chicopee Stefanik 67 396.4 50.7 44.8 4.5 * Fall River Doran 64 396.4 48.4 46.9 4.7 * Westfield Highland 67 394.9 53.7 35.8 10.4 * Lowell Community Charter 102 394.8 54.9 37.3 7.8 * Springfield Milton Bradley 93 393.4 53.8 39.8 6.5 * Westfield Franklin 36 392.2 52.8 41.7 5.6 * Worcester Lincoln Street 33 390.4 72.7 24.2 3.0 - Lawrence Frost 86 390.3 59.3 34.9 5.8 * Fall River Healy 37 390.1 62.2 32.4 5.4 * Somerville Powderhouse 43 388.0 55.8 39.5 4.7 - Lawrence Wetherbee 83 387.8 60.2 39.8 0.0 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix D: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 157 Grade 3 - Fall 2003 Continued Average Benchmark GSV = 398 (stanine 4) Strength Benchmark GSV = 449 (stanine 7) District School N Mean GSV % Weak % Average % Strength - Springfield Boland 67 387.3 64.2 32.8 3.0 - Springfield White Street 66 386.2 71.2 25.8 3.0 - Brockton Downey 88 384.9 29.9 57.5 12.6 - Gill-Montague Sheffield 49 384.5 69.4 22.4 8.2 - Worcester Goddard 63 383.0 63.5 33.3 3.2 - Springfield Gerena 118 382.2 66.1 32.2 1.7 - Worcester ALL 77 381.3 72.7 27.3 0.0 - Fall River Borden 25 374.6 64.0 32.0 4.0 - Lawrence Arlington 120 372.5 78.3 20.0 1.7 ++ School’s mean GSV falls into the strength score range ** School’s mean GSV falls below the strength score range, but the difference is not statistically significant + School’s mean GSV falls into the average score range * School’s mean GSV falls below the average score range, but the difference is not statistically significant - School’s mean GSV falls significantly below the average score range Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix D: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 158 GRADE – Grade 1 Spring Grade 1 - Spring 2004 Average Benchmark GSV = 346 (stanine 4) Strength Benchmark GSV = 399 (stanine 7) District School N Mean GSV % Weak % Average % Strength ++ Neighborhood House Charter 22 409.3 0.0 40.9 59.1 ++ Haverhill Walnut Square 50 407.2 6.0 34.0 60.0 ++ Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 38 405.7 7.9 34.2 57.9 ++ Plymouth West 49 405.5 8.2 28.6 63.3 ++ North Adams Brayton 51 400.4 7.8 37.3 54.9 ++ Methuen Tenney 131 399.6 9.9 32.8 57.3 ** Plymouth South 144 398.8 11.1 33.3 55.6 ** Webster Park Avenue 128 397.1 7.8 38.3 53.9 ** Salem Bentley 56 391.7 16.1 26.8 57.1 + Ware Koziol 83 389.3 15.7 43.4 41.0 + Malden Ferryway 100 388.6 11.0 47.0 42.0 ** North Adams Sullivan 42 388.6 14.3 45.2 40.5 + Chelsea Shurtleff 92 388.6 13.0 41.3 45.7 + Haverhill Pentucket Lake 70 386.6 21.4 32.9 45.7 + Salem Bates 78 383.3 15.4 50.0 34.6 ** Cambridge Haggerty 46 382.2 32.6 23.9 43.5 + Lawrence Family Development Charter 56 381.3 17.9 51.8 30.4 + Boston Renaissance Charter 142 380.7 16.2 47.9 35.9 + Fall River Borden 23 380.7 8.7 69.6 21.7 + Chelsea Kelly 85 380.6 20.0 45.9 34.1 + Fall River Doran 63 379.8 14.3 63.5 22.2 + Pittsfield Morningside 72 379.0 22.2 43.1 34.7 + Taunton Walker 43 377.8 18.6 53.5 27.9 ** Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 23 377.7 17.4 56.5 26.1 + Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 67 377.2 17.9 49.3 32.8 + Lowell Bailey 91 376.8 27.5 37.4 35.2 + Brockton Davis 99 375.1 24.2 50.5 25.3 + Revere Garfield 113 374.5 23.9 45.1 31.0 + Westfield Highland 66 374.4 28.8 36.4 34.8 + Haverhill Burnham 51 370.9 33.3 31.4 35.3 + Lowell Community Charter 90 370.7 23.3 53.3 23.3 + Fitchburg McKay 79 370.5 29.1 49.4 21.5 + Lowell Greenhalge 83 370.3 25.3 47.0 27.7 + Fall River Laurel Lake 46 369.8 21.7 63.0 15.2 + Westfield Moseley 32 368.5 25.0 56.3 18.8 + Springfield White Street 67 367.8 29.9 47.8 22.4 + Lawrence Frost 90 366.9 27.8 55.6 16.7 + Westfield Franklin 37 365.8 29.7 48.6 21.6 + Fall River Healy 42 364.2 26.2 47.6 26.2 + Somerville Powderhouse 60 364.1 38.3 40.0 21.7 + Chicopee Stefanik 70 363.9 37.1 42.9 20.0 + Lawrence Arlington 112 363.4 32.1 52.7 15.2 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix D: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 159 GRADE (continued) Grade 1 - Spring 2004 Average Benchmark GSV = 346 (stanine 4) Strength Benchmark GSV = 399 (stanine 7) District School N Mean GSV % Weak % Average % Strength + Springfield Milton Bradley 95 363.1 37.9 42.1 20.0 + Gill-Montague Hillcrest 50 362.1 40.0 44.0 16.0 + Worcester Lincoln Street 56 361.4 28.6 55.4 16.1 + Lawrence Wetherbee 70 361.3 35.7 42.9 21.4 + Chicopee Bowe 65 361.3 41.5 40.0 18.5 + Seven Hills Charter 74 361.2 39.2 50.0 10.8 + Worcester City View 59 360.9 45.8 39.0 15.3 + Brockton Downey 63 358.3 44.4 31.7 23.8 + Springfield Gerena 119 355.2 43.7 44.5 11.8 * Worcester Goddard 88 345.4 52.3 38.6 9.1 * Lowell Murkland 84 345.4 53.6 33.3 13.1 - Worcester ALL 69 334.1 75.4 17.4 7.2 Springfield Boland Data are incomplete ++ School’s mean GSV falls into the strength score range ** School’s mean GSV falls below the strength score range, but the difference is not statistically significant + School’s mean GSV falls into the average score range * School’s mean GSV falls below the average score range, but the difference is not statistically significant - School’s mean GSV falls significantly below the average score range Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix D: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 160 GRADE – Grade 2 Spring Grade 2 - Spring 2004 Average Benchmark GSV = 388 (stanine 4) Strength Benchmark GSV = 443 (stanine 7) District School N Mean GSV % Weak % Average % Strength ++ Haverhill Walnut Square 48 446.8 0.0 45.8 54.2 ** Plymouth West 53 435.5 3.8 50.9 45.3 + Haverhill Pentucket Lake 70 434.2 7.1 52.9 40.0 ** North Adams Sullivan 48 432.1 18.8 37.5 43.8 + Plymouth South 144 430.9 11.8 41.7 46.5 ** Westfield Moseley 24 428.4 12.5 45.8 41.7 + Methuen Tenney 122 427.7 8.2 57.4 34.4 + Salem Bentley 50 426.6 20.0 40.0 40.0 ** Neighborhood House Charter 22 426.4 18.2 36.4 45.5 + Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 40 426.0 7.5 55.0 37.5 + Malden Ferryway 98 422.1 5.1 72.4 22.4 + Salem Bates 50 421.3 16.0 54.0 30.0 + Springfield White Street 38 421.0 2.6 73.7 23.7 + Ware Koziol 94 419.1 20.2 48.9 30.9 + Webster Park Avenue 156 417.4 15.4 59.0 25.6 + Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 88 417.2 19.3 59.1 21.6 + Brockton Downey 91 416.9 19.8 56.0 24.2 + Taunton Walker 42 416.5 19.0 52.4 28.6 + Gill-Montague Hillcrest 52 415.7 17.3 53.8 28.8 + Pittsfield Morningside 68 415.4 11.8 66.2 22.1 + Revere Garfield 92 414.7 16.3 64.1 19.6 + Boston Renaissance Charter 143 413.9 21.0 61.5 17.5 + Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 20 413.2 15.0 70.0 15.0 + North Adams Brayton 61 411.6 21.3 54.1 24.6 + Cambridge Haggerty 26 411.2 23.1 50.0 26.9 + Westfield Franklin 35 410.5 31.4 42.9 25.7 + Chicopee Bowe 58 409.1 24.1 55.2 20.7 + Lawrence Frost 102 409.0 24.5 59.8 15.7 + Fall River Laurel Lake 31 408.6 22.6 71.0 6.5 + Brockton Davis 111 408.4 27.0 53.2 19.8 + Worcester City View 59 407.7 23.7 66.1 10.2 + Chicopee Stefanik 61 407.5 31.1 52.5 16.4 + Seven Hills Charter 77 407.2 27.3 57.1 15.6 + Lowell Bailey 92 406.3 34.8 45.7 19.6 + Westfield Highland 69 405.8 31.9 52.2 15.9 + Lawrence Wetherbee 80 405.5 31.3 57.5 11.3 + Lowell Community Charter 93 405.1 31.2 53.8 15.1 + Lawrence Family Development Charter 59 405.0 23.7 64.4 11.9 + Fall River Doran 63 404.2 27.0 63.5 9.5 + Springfield Boland 65 404.2 35.4 49.2 15.4 + Lowell Greenhalge 76 403.6 27.6 53.9 18.4 + Chelsea Kelly 111 403.2 22.5 72.1 5.4 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix D: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 161 GRADE (Continued) Grade 2 - Spring 2004 Average Benchmark GSV = 388 (stanine 4) Strength Benchmark GSV = 443 (stanine 7) District School N Mean GSV % Weak % Average % Strength + Springfield Gerena 85 402.7 24.7 63.5 11.8 + Haverhill Burnham 47 402.7 29.8 53.2 17.0 + Fitchburg McKay 79 402.1 41.8 43.0 15.2 + Fall River Borden 26 401.6 26.9 69.2 3.8 + Worcester ALL 72 399.7 27.8 62.5 9.7 + Springfield Milton Bradley 71 398.6 32.4 53.5 14.1 + Worcester Lincoln Street 36 396.3 36.1 58.3 5.6 + Lowell Murkland 94 395.1 39.4 47.9 12.8 + Lawrence Arlington 112 391.6 39.3 55.4 5.4 * Worcester Goddard 78 387.8 48.7 41.0 10.3 * Somerville Powderhouse 58 386.8 53.4 37.9 8.6 * Fall River Healy 40 385.1 52.5 42.5 5.0 ++ School’s mean GSV falls into the strength score range ** School’s mean GSV falls below the strength score range, but the difference is not statistically significant + School’s mean GSV falls into the average score range * School’s mean GSV falls below the average score range, but the difference is not statistically significant - School’s mean GSV falls significantly below the average score range Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix D: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 162 GRADE – Grade 3 Spring Grade 3 - Spring 2004 Average Benchmark GSV = 410 (stanine 4) Strength Benchmark GSV = 458 (stanine 7) District School N Mean GSV % Weak % Average % Strength ++ Plymouth West 70 458.9 4.3 37.1 58.6 ** Plymouth South 158 456.9 6.3 38.6 55.1 + Salem Bentley 54 446.5 14.8 46.3 38.9 ** Neighborhood House Charter 22 446.3 13.6 40.9 45.5 + Methuen Tenney 147 446.0 10.2 53.7 36.1 + Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 47 445.4 4.3 70.2 25.5 + Malden Ferryway 90 445.3 8.9 52.2 38.9 + Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 82 444.0 11.0 50.0 39.0 + Ware Koziol 94 442.8 13.8 50.0 36.2 + Webster Sitkowski 122 442.5 11.5 54.1 34.4 + Haverhill Pentucket Lake 108 441.5 16.7 42.6 40.7 + Cambridge Haggerty 29 439.6 17.2 31.0 51.7 + Westfield Moseley 27 439.4 14.8 59.3 25.9 + North Adams Sullivan 47 438.7 12.8 55.3 31.9 + Pittsfield Morningside 79 438.5 10.1 62.0 27.8 + Brockton Downey 86 438.1 15.1 59.3 25.6 + Chicopee Bowe 67 435.9 16.4 59.7 23.9 + Salem Bates 72 435.7 23.6 48.6 27.8 + Fitchburg McKay 80 435.2 15.0 63.8 21.3 + Seven Hills Charter 75 434.5 22.7 54.7 22.7 + Lowell Bailey 90 434.4 14.4 56.7 28.9 + North Adams Brayton 56 434.2 19.6 50.0 30.4 + Worcester City View 54 432.4 22.2 46.3 31.5 + Brockton Davis 97 432.2 22.7 54.6 22.7 + Chicopee Stefanik 65 430.9 16.9 63.1 20.0 + Lawrence Family Development Charter 53 430.5 20.8 62.3 17.0 + Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 20 430.2 25.0 45.0 30.0 + Gill-Montague Sheffield 51 430.0 25.5 47.1 27.5 + Chelsea Kelly 99 427.9 25.3 54.5 20.2 + Revere Garfield 87 426.4 23.0 66.7 10.3 + Lowell Greenhalge 77 426.3 31.2 54.5 14.3 + Boston Renaissance Charter 185 425.2 26.5 60.0 13.5 + Fall River Laurel Lake 45 425.1 15.6 68.9 15.6 + Lawrence Frost 85 424.1 23.5 65.9 10.6 + Worcester Lincoln Street 28 422.0 21.4 75.0 3.6 + Lowell Community Charter 96 421.4 34.4 52.1 13.5 + Westfield Highland 77 421.3 39.0 39.0 22.1 + Taunton Walker 42 419.6 31.0 45.2 23.8 + Lawrence Wetherbee 85 419.6 34.1 54.1 11.8 + Westfield Franklin 36 419.1 27.8 52.8 19.4 + Fall River Healy 35 418.6 31.4 57.1 11.4 + Springfield Milton Bradley 101 417.9 33.7 43.6 22.8 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix D: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 163 GRADE (continued) Grade 3 - Spring 2004 Average Benchmark GSV = 410 (stanine 4) Strength Benchmark GSV = 458 (stanine 7) District School N Mean GSV % Weak % Average % Strength + Fall River Doran 67 417.3 35.8 52.2 11.9 + Lowell Murkland 100 415.1 36.0 56.0 8.0 + Springfield Gerena 106 413.3 37.7 55.7 6.6 + Somerville Powderhouse 40 412.4 45.0 42.5 12.5 + Springfield White Street 69 412.3 46.4 49.3 4.3 + Worcester ALL 73 411.1 42.5 50.7 6.8 + Worcester Goddard 68 410.9 41.2 50.0 8.8 * Fall River Borden 22 407.6 50.0 45.5 4.5 * Lawrence Arlington 112 407.2 53.6 39.3 7.1 Springfield Boland Data are incomplete ++ School’s mean GSV falls into the strength score range ** School’s mean GSV falls below the strength score range, but the difference is not statistically significant + School’s mean GSV falls into the average score range * School’s mean GSV falls below the average score range, but the difference is not statistically significant - School’s mean GSV falls significantly below the average score range Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix E: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 164 Appendix E: School MCAS Scores 2003 MCAS Third Grade Reading Test Grade 3 Reading MCAS - Spring 2003 LEA School N % Warning % Needs Improvement % Proficient Westfield Franklin Avenue 43 2.3 18.6 79.1 Plymouth South 136 2.2 19.1 78.7 Cambridge Haggerty 25 4.0 24.0 72.0 Plymouth West 65 7.7 29.2 63.1 Webster Park Avenue 45 4.4 33.3 62.2 Gill-Montague Sheffield 42 11.9 26.2 61.9 Ware Koziol 99 6.1 32.3 61.6 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 124 9.7 30.6 59.7 Westfield Moseley 31 9.7 32.3 58.1 Malden Ferryway 96 8.3 34.4 57.3 Methuen Tenney 126 7.9 35.7 56.3 Salem Bentley 57 1.8 42.1 56.1 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 79 5.1 43.0 51.9 Seven Hills Charter 73 15.1 34.2 50.7 Neighborhood House Charter 20 5.0 45.0 50.0 Pittsfield Morningside 94 7.4 42.6 50.0 Westfield Highland 80 8.8 41.3 50.0 Lowell Bailey 94 14.9 36.2 48.9 Chelsea Kelly 86 4.7 47.7 47.7 Boston Renaissance Charter 167 10.2 43.1 46.7 Fall River Laurel Lake 39 7.7 46.2 46.2 North Adams Brayton 72 11.1 43.1 45.8 Webster Anthony J. Sitkowski 103 10.7 43.7 45.6 North Adams Sullivan 55 12.7 41.8 45.5 Taunton Walker 49 6.1 49.0 44.9 Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 36 8.3 47.2 44.4 Worcester Lincoln Street 30 10.0 46.7 43.3 Worcester City View 58 12.1 44.8 43.1 Fitchburg McKay 73 6.8 50.7 42.5 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 24 4.2 54.2 41.7 Lawrence Family Development Charter 60 11.7 48.3 40.0 Fall River Healy 38 18.4 42.1 39.5 Springfield Gerena 95 10.5 50.5 38.9 Springfield Boland 78 20.5 41.0 38.5 Brockton Davis 115 15.7 46.1 38.3 Springfield White Street 78 7.7 55.1 37.2 Brockton Downey 117 26.5 37.6 35.9 Springfield Milton Bradley 110 24.5 40.0 35.5 Somerville Powderhouse 34 32.4 32.4 35.3 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix E: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 165 MCAS (Continued) Grade 3 Reading MCAS - Spring 2003 District School N % Warning % Needs Improvement % Proficient Salem Bates 41 19.5 46.3 34.1 Lowell Murkland 82 22.0 45.1 32.9 Lawrence Frost 117 29.9 38.5 31.6 Worcester Goddard 89 22.5 46.1 31.5 Lowell Greenhalge 89 25.8 42.7 31.5 Revere Garfield 94 12.8 57.4 29.8 Fall River Doran 58 22.4 50.0 27.6 Chicopee Stefanik 82 20.7 52.4 26.8 Chicopee Bowe 74 17.6 56.8 25.7 Lawrence Wetherbee 48 31.3 45.8 22.9 Fall River Borden 27 25.9 51.9 22.2 Worcester ALL 67 35.8 46.3 17.9 Lawrence Arlington 130 44.6 46.2 9.2 Lowell Community Charter 41 36.6 56.1 7.3 2004 MCAS Third Grade Reading Test Grade 3 Reading MCAS - Spring 2004 District School N % Warning % Needs Improvement % Proficient Westfield Franklin Avenue 36 0.0 2.8 97.2 Plymouth South 158 2.5 25.3 72.2 Plymouth West 72 4.2 23.6 72.2 Neighborhood House Charter 22 4.5 27.3 68.2 Salem Bentley 52 3.8 30.8 65.4 Malden Ferryway 88 10.2 27.3 62.5 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 82 4.9 32.9 62.2 Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 46 2.2 37.0 60.9 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 20 0.0 40.0 60.0 Webster Anthony J. Sitkowski 128 14.8 25.8 59.4 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 119 6.7 34.5 58.8 Methuen Tenney 150 6.0 36.0 58.0 Westfield Moseley 26 0.0 42.3 57.7 Cambridge Haggerty 28 10.7 32.1 57.1 Somerville Powderhouse 41 12.2 31.7 56.1 North Adams Sullivan 48 2.1 43.8 54.2 Chicopee Bowe 67 9.0 37.3 53.7 Brockton Davis 115 9.6 38.3 52.2 Ware Koziol 92 8.7 39.1 52.2 Salem Bates 74 8.1 40.5 51.4 Chelsea Kelly 99 10.1 41.1 48.5 North Adams Brayton 57 14.0 38.6 47.4 Fall River Laurel Lake 44 6.8 47.7 45.5 Seven Hills Charter 78 9.0 47.4 43.6 Year 2 Evaluator’s Report Appendix E: UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 166 MCAS (Continued) Grade 3 Reading MCAS - Spring 2004 District School N % Warning % Needs Improvement % Proficient Brockton Downey 104 20.2 36.5 43.3 Fitchburg McKay 81 11.1 45.7 43.2 Pittsfield Morningside 81 14.8 42.0 43.2 Lawrence Family Development Charter 57 12.3 49.1 38.6 Lowell Bailey 89 13.5 48.3 38.2 Chicopee Stefanik 66 7.6 54.5 37.9 Boston Renaissance Charter 187 17.1 46.0 36.9 Revere Garfield 90 7.8 55.6 36.7 Lowell Greenhalge 75 22.7 41.3 36.0 Westfield Highland 75 18.7 45.3 36.0 Lowell Community Charter 95 13.7 50.5 35.8 Fall River Doran 66 18.2 48.5 33.3 Fall River Healy 33 12.1 54.5 33.3 Gill-Montague Sheffield 51 23.5 43.1 33.3 Springfield Milton Bradley 101 14.9 53.5 31.7 Taunton Walker 41 24.4 43.9 31.7 Springfield Boland 70 11.4 57.1 31.4 Lawrence Wetherbee 81 19.8 49.4 30.9 Worcester Goddard 66 15.2 54.5 30.3 Worcester City View 53 17.0 52.8 30.2 Lawrence Frost 85 24.7 51.8 23.5 Lowell Murkland 103 18.4 59.2 22.3 Springfield Gerena 119 27.7 52.1 20.2 Worcester Lincoln Street 30 23.3 56.7 20.0 Springfield White Street 70 17.1 65.7 17.1 Lawrence Arlington 104 29.8 54.8 15.4 Worcester ALL 73 21.9 63.0 15.1 Fall River Borden 23 39.1 60.9 0.0