UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group Evaluation of Massachusetts Reading First Year 3 Evaluator’s Report A Review of Program Activity through June 30, 2005 Presented to the Massachusetts Department of Education June 2006 Contents Program Description 2 Background 2 Program Requirements 2 State Level Support and Oversight 4 Dissemination Activities 5 Participation Profile 6 Timeline of Year 3 Accomplishments 9 Evaluation Overview 10 Research Design 10 Areas Addressed in This Report 10 Management of Student Assessment Data 11 Methodology 12 Other Data Sources 13 Student Reading Skills and Proficiency 14 Cohort 1: Comparison of Year 1 and Year 2 Outcomes 14 Cohort 1: Outcomes for Demographic Subgroups 20 Cohort 1: Impact of Longer Exposure to Reading First 22 Cohort 2: Initial Outcome Data 25 Correlations Between RF Assessments and MCAS 27 District and School Performance 29 Changes in Percent at Benchmark and Seriously Behind 29 Top Performing Schools – Spring 2005 GRADE 31 Most Improved Schools - GRADE 31 Top Performing Schools – 3rd grade MCAS 32 Most Improved Schools – 3rd grade MCAS 33 Summary 35 Appendix A: Use of Curricula 38 Appendix B: Reading Specialist Job Description 46 Appendix C: Teacher Reading Academy Content Description 48 Appendix D: MRFP Assessment Framework 50 Appendix E: Administration and Use of Assessments 54 Appendix F: Implementation Facilitator Job Description 61 Appendix G: Feedback on IF Role 63 Appendix H: MRFP Schools – Student Profiles 65 Appendix I: Cohort 1 GRADE composite scores 68 Appendix J: School Level Results - DIBELS ORF 70 Appendix K: School Level Results – GRADE 105 Appendix L: School Level Results – MCAS Reading Test 140 Program Description Background Reading First is a federally-funded grant program that supports at-risk districts and schools in improving student reading skills through implementation of scientifically-based instruction in K-3 classrooms. The program’s ultimate goal is to have all students reading proficiently by the end of third grade. In October 2002, Massachusetts received a 6-year, $100 million Reading First grant, making it the 12th state to receive the award. The first year of the Massachusetts Reading First Plan (MRFP) was devoted to start-up tasks including awarding initial district subgrants. The second year of funding (2003-2004) included the initial professional development activity through week-long Teacher Reading Academies followed by classroom implementation of scientifically-based instruction, curricula, and student assessments. More on these years can be found in the respective evaluation reports, which are available online at the following URL: http://www.doe.mass.edu/read/mrfp/links.html?section=donahue Program Requirements While individual schools and districts have some flexibility in how they implement their Reading First grant, all must incorporate the following basic program requirements. * Develop and implement a 3-tier model of instruction. Based on research conducted at the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading & Language Arts at the University of Texas at Austin, the 3-Tier Reading Model (Principal Invesitgator Sharon Vaughn with Co-Prncipal Investigators Sylvia Linan-Thompson and Batya Elbaum) focuses on early identification of at-risk students based on student assessment results. 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. Under the Massachusetts 3-Tier Reading Model all students receive at least 90 minutes of daily uninterrupted reading instruction using a core curriculum that is aligned with scientifically based reading research. At least 20-30 minutes of this core instruction takes place in small homogeneous groups with the classroom teacher. Students who are not currently working with the teacher are engaged in learning center activities. Students identified as somewhat or substantially at risk on formative assessments receive an additional 30 minutes of instruction every day for 10-20 weeks. At the end of this intervention they are reassessed. Those who continue to be at risk are then generally moved into more intensive interventions consisting of an additional 60 minutes of instruction every day. For second and third grade students who are more than one year below grade level, the intensive intervention may take the form of an alternative core program which is delivered for at least 90 minutes with an additional 30 minutes of intensive intervention. See Appendix A for additional information on the curricula being used in Massachusetts Reading First schools. * Employ a full-time reading specialist in each participating K-3 school. The reading specialist’s role is to provide high-level support to classroom teachers and others involved in the teaching of reading. The duties include: literacy coaching; coordinating student assessment, data analysis and use of data to inform instruction; district- and school-based professional development in reading; and consulting with classroom teachers in the implementation of the 3-tier model. See Appendix B for a copy of the Massachusetts Reading First Reading Specialist job description. As of Fall 2005 all reading specialists are required to hold valid Massachusetts Reading Specialist certification, which requires completion of an approved education program, passing scores on the Reading Specialist Licensure Test as well as the Communication and Literacy test, and an initial teaching license with at least one year of teaching experience under that license. * Participate in Massachusetts Department of Education professional development and support. Building administrators, reading specialists, and K-3 classroom teachers in Massachusetts Reading First schools are expected to have attended a multi-day Teacher Reading Academy (TRA) which provides an introduction to Reading First principles and the five components of reading instruction. Overall, about 90% of reading specialists and K-3 classroom teachers and 80% of building administrators employed in Reading First schools during the 2004-2005 school year had attended a TRA. See Appendix C for a description of the content covered in the Teacher Reading Academies. Summer TRAs were held in July and August 2004 and served approximately 700 staff members in Reading First schools and participating non-public schools. The Department offers additional training on special topics or for individuals in particular Reading First roles. During the reporting period these trainings included: o Coaches Institute: This training was targeted to reading specialists and Implementation Facilitators (formerly Regional Providers). It involved an initial two-day session in September 2004 and a follow-up session in March 2005. The initial session was led by Dr. Sharon Walpole of the University of Delaware and Dr. Cecilia Minden-Cupp of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. They were joined by Dr. Michael McKenna of Georgia Southern University for the follow-up. The text for the course was The Literacy Coaches Handbook: A Guide to Research-Based Practice written by Drs. Walpole and McKenna (Guilford, 2004) which describes the roles and responsibilities of literacy coaches. o Vocabulary follow-up session: Dr. Isabel Beck of the University of Pittsburgh returned for this follow-up session to the vocabulary advanced seminar held in April 2004. She was joined by Dr. Maria Carlo of the University of Miami. Participants included reading specialists, district reading coordinators, and sheltered English immersion liaisons. In the morning, reading specialists shared vocabulary lessons that they had used with a class followed by opportunities to receive feedback from Dr. Beck and their peers. Reading specialists received several lesson plans to use in their schools. The afternoon featured presentations by Dr. Carlo focused on issues related to vocabulary instruction for English Language Learners. o Leadership for Literacy Institute: This two-day institute held in November 2004 was attended by 130 district coordinators and school principals. It was led by Dr. Sandra Jones of the MGH Institute of Health Professions, Hanson Initiative for Language and Literacy (HILL) with presentations by Stuart Greenberg of the Eastern Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center and Dr. Cheryl Liebling of the Massachusetts Department of Education. Participants examined the principles of high-quality literacy programs, the roles of literacy leaders, and strategies for using data to inform classroom reading instruction. The session included considerable time for sharing and discussion among participants. o Curriculum specific professional development: In February and March 2005, the Department sponsored professional development sessions for the specific core curricula being used by Massachusetts Reading First schools. o Comprehension advanced seminar: In April 2005, Drs. Cathy Collins Block of Texas Christian University and John Mangieri presented a session on comprehension for reading specialists. * Administer student assessments and use data to inform instruction. A critical component of Reading First is the use of valid and reliable assessments for screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring purposes as well as measuring learning outcomes. Massachusetts Reading First schools are required to administer certain assessments to their students in first, second, and third grades. There are also recommended assessments for kindergarten, but they are not required. 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) (DIBELS is a benchmark assessment administered to all students three times each year – fall and winter screening assessments and spring outcomes assessment). 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 D. See Appendix E for more information on the administration and use of assessments in Massachusetts Reading First schools. State Level Support and Oversight Implementation Facilitators (IF) In addition to specific professional development events, the Massachusetts Department of Education employs a cadre of 13 Implementation Facilitators whose role is to provide ongoing, direct support to staff in Reading First schools. Their services include helping schools to integrate TRA content into classroom practice, implement their selected curricula, and use assessment data to inform instruction. They also share knowledge and skills in the areas of project management, team building and school change. Each IF is assigned to approximately six schools. They work primarily with the reading specialist in each school but also frequently have direct contact with building administrators and teachers. They are also available to support district personnel in dissemination of Reading First professional development to other schools in the district. The Implementation Facilitators lead bimonthly regional meetings, which bring together reading specialists and district coordinators to share experiences and address implementation challenges. See Appendix F for a copy of the Implementation Facilitator job description and Appendix G for results of survey questions related to the IF role. Monitoring Visits Staff from the Massachusetts Department of Education’s Office of Reading make annual monitoring visits to each Reading First school. During the visit they meet with the district coordinator, building administrator(s), Reading First reading specialist, and a group of K-3 teachers. They also observe reading instruction in two classrooms. Based upon these interactions, the Department staff members rate the level of implementation using a common instrument developed by Dr. Cheryl Liebling based upon Kame’enui and Simmons’ Planning and Evaluation Tool for Effective Schoolwide Reading Programs (2000). The instrument addresses the following five areas: instructional leadership; instructional materials, approaches and programs; assessments; professional development; and technical assistance. The objective of the visit is to identify areas of strength and weakness as well as actions needed to improve Reading First implementation. After the visit each school receives a letter summarizing findings from the visit and is expected to work with their implementation facilitator to develop an action plan addressing those findings. Reading Leadership Team Massachusetts appointed a State Reading Leadership Team to set policy with regard to promoting a unified approach to reading instruction across the state. The Massachusetts Reading Leadership Team is charged with broadly reviewing policy to be sure that it is aligned with Reading First, while providing oversight of the implementation and evaluation of MRFP. Members of the Reading Leadership Team represent a diverse constituency, but share a common interest in improving reading instruction and the reading skills in K-3 classrooms. The Reading Leadership team met three times during the reporting period to receive updates on program implementation. A small active subgroup of members has formed an outreach committee that has developed and disseminated informational materials to parents, libraries and community literacy groups. As of June 2005 there had been several attempts to actively engage a higher education subgroup to promote alignment of teacher preparation with the findings of scientifically based reading research, but those efforts had not gained much traction. Dissemination Activities The Massachusetts Department of Education has made significant efforts to extend the impact of the Reading First program beyond those districts and schools that are receiving grant funds. The goal is to reach wider circles of staff beginning with the state’s highest need districts. In its most significant dissemination effort, the Department administers the state-funded John Silber Early Reading Program (formerly known as the Bay State Readers Program), which is modeled after Reading First. The Silber program provides funding to schools that have an identified need, but are not eligible for Reading First, primarily because they don’t meet the poverty criteria. Silber schools receive professional development (including the TRAs) and support to improve K-3 reading instruction. They are required to administer the DIBELS and GRADE assessments to their students. Four schools participated during the 2004-2005 school year. An additional 32 schools were awarded grants in April 2005. They had their initial orientation and assessment training in May 2005. Teachers from those schools attended TRAs during the summer of 2005 and began classroom implementation in the 2005-2006 school year. Silber schools will receive ongoing professional development as part of the Reading First regional network and statewide meetings. More information on the full-scale Silber program will be available in the Year 4 evaluator’s report covering the 2005-2006 academic year. On a somewhat smaller scale, 17 Reading First districts participated in Project Focus. Within each district this initiative paired a Reading First and non-Reading First school to form study groups related to the 3-Tier model. Participating teachers attended a presentation by Shari Levy of the national Reading First center and read the book on 3-Tier models. Beyond Project Focus, fifteen Reading First districts reported including one or more of their non-RF schools in Reading First activities. In addition, the Department has made TRA content CDs and videos available to all districts in the state. As of June 2005, 50 districts had requested and received materials. (Six of those districts reported using the materials for training events in the 2004-2005 school year with K-3 teachers from Reading First schools comprising the largest share of attendees.) Each of the 50 districts were invited to send two people to the summer 2005 TRAs and a two-day training of trainers to be held in August 2005. In return, those districts are required to hold the training locally at least once during the 2005-2006 academic year. More information on the training of trainers and district-sponsored professional development will be available in the Year 4 evaluator’s report. Finally, twelve Reading First districts reported including local non-public schools in their Reading First activities. A total of 47 Massachusetts non-public schools received Reading First funding during the 2004-2005 school year. Thirty of those schools were continuing from the previous year and 17 were new. The most common use of funding was for purchasing instructional materials, followed by hiring reading specialists/consultants, and then by providing teachers with professional development. The majority of these non-public schools were implementing comprehensive reading programs aligned with the goals of Reading First. In addition, several were using DIBELS for student assessment. Participation Profile Massachusetts awarded no additional Reading First grants during the reporting period. Yet there were some changes in the districts and schools participating during the 2004-2005 school year. First, Somerville closed the Powderhouse School. The district continued to participate in Reading First through the East Somerville Community School, which had been funded in round 1.3. In addition, the Massachusetts Department of Education discontinued funding to the Fitchburg Public Schools, which had been using a core curriculum that was not well aligned with Reading First and was unresponsive to requests to select a new program. Districts and Schools During the 2004-2005 academic year, 36 districts received funding through the Massachusetts Reading First program. Of them, 25 included schools in their second year of Reading First, six included schools beginning their first year of program implementation, and five included schools in both their first and second year of the program. In total, 83 schools participated during this period. Table 1 provides a listing of Reading First districts, including FY05 funding and selected curricula. See Appendix H for student profiles for each participating school. Table 1: Massachusetts Reading First Districts – funding and curricula District Funding Round FY 05 Award Schools Core Curriculum Athol-Royalston 1.1 $99,600 1 Open Court Boston 1.3 $2,676,909 12 Harcourt Trophies Boston Renaissance Charter 1.1 $117,786 1 Harcourt Trophies Brockton 1.2 $474,300 2 Scott Foresman Cambridge 1.2 $196,067 1 Harcourt Trophies Chelsea 1.1 $438,350 3 Open Court Chicopee 1.1 $462,160 2 Houghton-Mifflin Fall River 1.1 $842,499 5 Harcourt Trophies Gill-Montague 1.1 $213,820 2 Houghton Mifflin Haverhill 1.1 $323,274 4 Harcourt Trophies Holyoke 1.3 $506,779 3 Scott Foresman Lawrence 1.1 $785,504 4 Success for All Lawrence Family Development Charter 1.1 $90,944 1 Harcourt Trophies Leominster 1.3 $172,925 3 Harcourt Trophies Lowell 1.2 $664,275 3 Scott Foresman Lowell Community Charter 1.1 $87,498 1 Success for All Lynn 1.3 $468,739 2 Harcourt Trophies Malden 1.1 $167,425 1 Macmillan/McGraw Hill Methuen 1.1 $134,289 1 Harcourt Trophies Neighborhood House Charter 1.1 $89,534 1 Harcourt Trophies New Bedford 1.3 $523,883 2 Open Court North Adams 1.1 $202,113 2 Scott Foresman Pittsfield 1.1 $177,996 1 Harcourt Trophies Plymouth 1.1 $203,172 2 Houghton Mifflin Quincy 1.1 $186,994 1 Harcourt Trophies Revere 1.1 $231,925 1 Scott Foresman Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter 1.1 $78,792 1 Harcourt Trophies Salem 1.1 $217,340 2 Harcourt Trophies Seven Hills Charter 1.2 $90,088 1 Success for All Somerville 1.1 $199,494 1 Harcourt Trophies Springfield 1.1 $1,037,085 5 Harcourt Trophies Taunton 1.2 $185,857 1 Harcourt Trophies Ware 1.1 $93,713 1 Houghton Mifflin Webster 1.2 $100,291 2 Open Court Westfield 1.1 $318,702 3 Houghton Mifflin Worcester 1.1 $767,304 4 Houghton Mifflin Educators As shown in Table 2, nearly 1,500 administrators, reading specialists, and K-3 classroom teachers were employed in Massachusetts Reaching First schools during the 2004-2005 school year. (These figures are based on the Spring 2005 School personnel roster through which each school provides basic demographic information on their Reading First staff.)   Table 2: Reading First School Personnel Administrators 112 Reading Specialists 102 Classroom Teachers 1,257 Among these individuals the average number of years of teaching experience is about 15 years. About three-quarters of the building administrators and about 85% of reading specialists and K-3 classroom teachers are certified in elementary education. While nearly two-thirds of the reading specialists are certified in reading, this is true of only seven percent of the K-3 classroom teachers. Within each group strong majorities hold professional certification. However, as many as 12% of reading specialists and nearly 20% of classroom teachers have yet to attain that status (most with preliminary or initial certification). Nearly all building administrators in Reading First schools hold at least a Master’s Degree as do more than 80% of reading specialists and 60% of the K-3 classroom teachers. This does indicate that about 40% of the K-3 classroom teachers have attained only a bachelor’s degree. Presumably, most are working toward a masters degree in order to meet the requirements for professional certification. Students Through the first two years of classroom implementation (fall 2003 through spring 2005) approximately 40,000 Massachusetts K-3 students participated in Reading First with more than 9,000 students in grades 1-3 participating for that entire period. (K-3 participation figures estimated from student assessment data submitted by participating schools each fall and spring.) The large number of students assessed and the relatively small number with two full years of participation is not surprising given the substantial mobility of the population in these schools. For instance, by the end of the 2004-2005 academic year these schools were serving fewer than 65% of the individual K-3 students that they enrolled on October 1, 2004. Table 3 provides a snapshot of the characteristics of the K-3 students enrolled in Massachusetts Reading First schools on October 1, 2004. (Demographics generated from the October 1, 2004 Student Information Management System file compiled by the Massachusetts Department of Education.) Table 3: K-3 Students Enrolled in Massachusetts Reading First Schools (October 1, 2004) Total enrolled 22,872 Special Education students 13.3% English Language Learners 20.5% Low Income students 69.1% White students 37.9% Hispanic/Latino students 38.2% Black/African American students 17.7% Timeline of Year 3 Accomplishments The following is a brief summary of Massachusetts Reading First accomplishments during the reporting period. July/August 2004 Teacher Reading Academies for Round 1.3 schools September 2004 Coaches Institute led by Drs. Sharon Walpole and Cecilia Minden-Cupp Reading Leadership Team meeting Fall screening and diagnostic assessment begins October 2004 Vocabulary Advanced Seminar follow-up event with Drs. Isabel Beck and Maria Carlo Teacher Reading Academies for new staff in Reading First schools Memo to superintendents announcing availability of TRA materials November 2004 Leadership for Literacy initial training with Sandy Jones January 2005 Outreach – Project Focus 3-Tier Reading Intervention Model Conference with Shari Levy Mid-year progress monitoring assessment February 2005 Reading Leadership Team meeting Core curriculum professional development sessions begin March 2005 Outreach – John Silber Early Reading Program grant awards to 36 schools approved by Massachusetts Board of Education (formerly BayState Readers Development Grants) Coaches Institute follow-up event with Sharon Walpole, Cecilia Minden-Cupp and Mike McKenna April 2005 Comprehension Advanced Seminar with Cathy Collins Black Cheryl Liebling presents at the Massachusetts Reading Association annual meeting Outreach – Meeting with VoyagerU to discuss pilot project of online course May 2005 Spring student outcomes assessment begins Outreach – Assessment institute and workshop sessions at Title I Annual Conference Outreach – John Silber Early Reading Program Orientation Reading Leadership Team meeting June 2005 Massachusetts Reading First second annual meeting. Dr. Joe Torgesen as keynote speaker: Using Data and Interventions to Improve Reading Outcomes 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 3-Tier instruction models, 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 evaluation is designed to serve both formative and summative functions. As a formative activity, the evaluation provides 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 changes in students’ reading skills and proficiency. Areas Addressed in This Report Consistent with federal expectations for the third Annual Performance Review, this Year 3 Evaluator’s Report documents program activity from July 2004 through June 2005. Its primary focus is the analysis of student assessment data and examination of changes in student outcomes after two full years of classroom implementation (for schools funded in rounds 1.1 and 1.2). In particular, the report addresses the following primary questions: 1. Have student assessment results in MRFP schools improved? 2. Are MRFP schools beginning to close the performance gap for key demographic subgroups? 3. Is there a benefit to longer participation in Reading First schools? 4. What are the initial results for MRFP schools with one year of student outcome data? 5. What is the relationship between MRFP assessments and the state’s third grade reading test? 6. Which MRFP schools are the strongest performers? 7. Which MRFP schools are showing the most improvement? Management of Student Assessment Data The MRFP program evaluation utilizes results from three student assessments as the basis for measuring student improvement and providing comparisons among groups of students. * DIBELS ORF – The DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency subtest is a measure of intermediate outcome – fluid and accurate decoding of text. It is a standardized, individually administered assessment developed at the University of Oregon. Students are given a written passage to read aloud and the examiner counts the number of words read correctly within one minute. Words per minute benchmarks are established for each grade-level at three testing points – fall, winter and spring. Based on performance, students are placed in three performance categories – at risk, some risk and low risk. * GRADE – The GRADE is a norm-referenced, group-administered assessment developed and marketed by American Guidance Services (AGS). It is a comprehensive test covering the five key components of reading and 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 reading skills. Although sub-test scores are available, to date the evaluation has focused on scores for the total test. The Massachusetts Department of Education has established four categories of reading achievement based on students’ scores. Those standards place students scoring in the first through third stanine in the weak category, students in the fourth stanine in the low average category, students in the fifth and sixth stanine in the average category and students in the seventh through ninth stanine in the strength category. Students scoring in the average or strength category are considered to be performing “at or above grade-level.” * MCAS – The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System reading test is designed to assess the reading skills of all public 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, through 2005, scores are based solely on the multiple-choice items. Results of the third grade reading test are reported as raw scores and in terms of three performance levels – proficient, needs improvement and warning. Schools may utilize accommodations such as one-on-one administration, quiet setting, and reading directions aloud in the child’s first language. Non-standard accommodations that may result in data that do not fairly represent the ability of students to read text independently are discouraged and may only be used if specified in the student’s Individual Education Plan. Reading the test aloud to the student is considered a non-standard accommodation for all three assessments. Administering DIBELS as an untimed test is also non-standard. Very few schools reported using non-standard accommodations during the 2004-2005 school year – one for DIBELS and five for GRADE. All of the assessments are administered by school personnel. Thus, the evaluators have no direct oversight of the process. The Department specifies a window of about four weeks during which the DIBELS and GRADE assessments are to be administered, but beyond this it is largely up to the district or school to determine how and when that testing will occur. As a major statewide accountability assessment, MCAS administration dates and conditions are more clearly defined by the state. DIBELS and GRADE assessments are also scored in the field. MCAS assessments are returned to the state for scoring by the testing contractor. Each district submits disks with 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 receives two important data files from the Massachusetts Department of Education. The first of these files contains individual student results on the third grade 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. Over the past year, the Donahue Institute has invested significant time and effort in merging numerous discrete datasets into a single master file with a single record for each participating student containing all of his/her available assessment results and demographic data. To ensure that the process of merging did not introduce error, the results generated from this master file were systematically compared to each school’s data submissions and the MCAS files provided by the Department. Final summaries of the data were sent to each MRFP district for review and approval before the master date file was considered to be final. Methodology Most analyses of student assessment results presented in this report are focused on comparisons of different groups of students. As shown later in the report, these groups tend to have different demographic profiles. There is a substantial research base demonstrating that the demographic characteristics of students and the schools they attend have an impact on learning outcomes. In recognition of this, the analysis uses a mixed model regression procedure that controls for demographic differences in the schools and students being measured. The mixed model regression procedure is a general linear model (GLM) that offers the flexibility to specify multi-level models, fixed and random effects models, as well as the ability to model the variances and co-variances within the data. One type of mixed model is a multi-level model where observations are “nested” within larger units. The classic example of a nested model is in education research where students are nested within schools. In this example, student performance can be simultaneously modeled as a function of both student level factors as well as school level factors. Another main type of a multi-level “nested” model is when more than one time point is measured within an observational unit. Each repeated measure can be conceptualized as nested within the larger unit and both the repeated measure as well as the higher unit factors can be included. The mixed model that was specified for this analysis was a multi-level repeated measures model where observations occurred within the school. Schools were the main unit of analysis, and both repeated measures (changes over time) as well as school based factors were included in the analysis. Within each school, demographic factors as well as the outcome factors are repeatedly observed. The model then allows one to test the theory that the change in the outcome over time is more than just a function of the change in demography (i.e., the change in student performance within a school can be significant controlling for the change in demography). Throughout this report a value of p less than or equal to 0.05 was used as the cut off for statistical significance. Other Data Sources In addition to student assessment data, the MRFP employs other data collection instruments to gather information on program implementation. The following are very brief descriptions of those instruments and how they are employed. Additional details and copies of the actual instruments are available on request. School personnel rosters In the spring of 2005, each MRFP school submitted a 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 for 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 MRFP schools, which may have an impact on the level of program implementation and student reading outcomes. District Implementation Reports The District Implementation Report (DIR) is a standard annual report designed to be completed each spring by the District Coordinator in consultation with school staff. The questions and format of the report template were developed by the Donahue Institute in consultation with the Massachusetts Department of Education. The purpose is to gather 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 the 3-Tier model, and use of student assessment data. The 2005 DIR was emailed to each district in June with a return deadline of July 1st. Each funded district was instructed to complete both the district-level instrument and a school-level instrument for each Reading First school in their district. Prior to the July 1st deadline, email reminders were sent out. After the deadline passed, emails and phone calls were made to districts that had yet to return a DIR. In order to increase the response rate, follow-up with delinquent districts continued throughout the summer and into the next school year. In November 2005, follow-up efforts were discontinued and the dataset was officially closed, making the official response rate 92% of the 36 districts. These 33 DIRs include data on 75 Reading First schools. Annual Personnel Surveys The annual personnel survey is used to gather feedback from those most closely involved with the grant in the field including classroom teachers, reading specialists, building administrators and district staff. It is used primarily to gather attitudinal and opinion data, with some questions on classroom level fidelity of implementation. The 2005 annual personnel surveys were mailed out in May with a due date of June 10th. Surveys were sent directly to each school’s reading specialist with instructions to distribute them to classroom teachers, administrators and other relevant staff. The reading specialists were responsible for collecting their school’s completed surveys and returning them to the Donahue Institute. Massachusetts DOE required at least an 80% response rate from each school. After the deadline, follow-up emails and phone calls were made to each school with a response rate below 80%. In some cases the total number of surveys handed out was adjusted and the response rate became satisfactory. In other cases, additional surveys needed to be completed. Follow-up attempts continued during the summer and into the next school year. Upon closing the dataset in November 2005, more than 1,700 surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 92%. Only two schools had failed to reach the required 80% response rate. Student Reading Skills and Proficiency This section of the report primarily compares Reading First assessment results for those schools with both spring 2004 and spring 2005 outcomes data. These schools began classroom implementation of Reading First during the 2003-2004 school year. This report will refer to them collectively as Cohort 1. Schools that began classroom implementation in the 2004-2005 school year will be referenced collectively as Cohort 2. Cohort 1: Comparison of Year 1 and Year 2 Outcomes Findings: * Results of the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency assessment show statistically significant improvement in fluency among students at all grade-levels. Yet, many students continue to require support in developing this critical skill. * GRADE data show some improvement in overall reading ability, with the strongest results at first grade where the percentage of students meeting benchmark increased from 62% to 68%. These are the first students to have received RF instruction in both kindergarten and first grade. * As with the state as a whole, cohort 1 schools show little change in performance on the MCAS third grade reading test. However, once we control for student demographics it does appear that Reading First had some positive impact on the mean score for the 2005 MCAS. Before examining the assessment data that supports the above findings, it is important to recognize that year-to-year changes in the demographic characteristics of students at a given grade level can influence the observed outcomes. Table 4 shows the demographic profiles of students tested in cohort 1 schools at each grade level in each of the two years. Differences within each grade level were tested for statistical significance with a chi-square test using a p-value of less than or equal to 0.05. Table 4: Demographic characteristics of students tested in cohort 1 schools. Spring 2004 vs. Spring 2005 Grade Year Total # students SPED LEP Low Income Non-White 1 2004 3,830 *11.3% 16.9% 65.0% *55.3% 2005 3,686 *9.5% 17.0% 66.1% *56.3% 2 2004 3,729 *14.5% *18.1% 65.4% *52.1% 2005 3,619 *11.4% *15.6% 65.1% *54.7% 3 2004 3,766 15.7% 15.7% 64.9% *51.7% 2005 3,536 15.7% 15.6% 65.5% *52.5% Note: Statistically significant differences are indicated by an asterisk before the value (p less than or equal to 0.05) NOte: Demographics for students enrolled in spring 2004 are taken from the year-end 2004 SIMS file. In order to maintain consistency with federally reported Reading First data, demographics for students enrolled in spring 2005 are taken from the October 2004 SIMS file. These data were the most recently available to the Donahue Institute at the time that the federal Annual Performance Report was submitted in July 2005. The most notable demographic differences are: * Special education students – A smaller proportion of first and second graders tested in spring 2005 were identified as special education students. * Limited English proficient students – A smaller proportion of second graders tested in spring 2005 were identified as limited English proficient. * Racial/ethnic minority – At all grade levels a larger proportion of students tested in spring 2005 were identified as members of racial or ethnic minority groups. The lower proportions of SPED and LEP students would lead us to expect higher first and second grade test scores in 2005 even without the impact of Reading First. However, the higher proportion of non-white students at all grade levels would lead us to expect lower test scores thus potentially offsetting any increase resulting from Reading First. Thus, in order to determine whether MRFP had an impact on the observed outcomes, we used a mixed-model regression procedure to control for the demographic differences for these two time periods. DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Figures 1 and 2, respectively, show the percentages of students scoring in the low risk and at risk categories for spring 2004 and spring 2005. For all grade levels there were increases in the percentage of students in the low risk category and decreases in the percentage of students in the at risk category on the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency subtest. Figure 1 DIBELS ORF: Percent Low Risk -- 2004 vs. 2005 (histogram replaced with table) Grade Spring 2004 Spring 2005 1 50% 60% 2 41% 50% 3 37% 43% Figure 2 DIBELS ORF: Percent At Risk -- 2004 vs. 2005 (histogram replaced with table) Grade Spring 2004 Spring 2005 1 22% 16% 2 36% 30% 3 28% 24% As shown in Table 5, mean scores also increased at all three grade levels. The magnitude of the change in mean score ranged from nearly five words per minute at third grade to nearly seven words per minute at first and second grades. All year-to-year differences (percent low risk, percent at risk, and mean score) are statistically significant after controlling for differences in the demographic profiles in the two time periods indicating that these changes are not merely the result of changing demographics. Table 5: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) –2004 vs. 2005 mean scores for cohort 1 schools Spring 2004 Spring 2005 Change in Mean Score Grade Benchmark N Mean Standard Deviation N Mean Standard Deviation 1 40 3758 46.41 31.981 3644 53.13 33.408 6.72 2 90 3683 81.04 36.154 3556 87.95 36.707 6.91 3 110 3676 97.00 35.047 3477 101.59 35.975 4.59 Year-to-year changes provide an indication of the impact that Reading First is having in these schools. However, it is also important to look at absolute performance to understand where students in these schools stand relative to grade level expectations. At the first grade level, mean scores exceed the low risk benchmark. Thus, on average, first grade students in these schools could be considered “low risk” for reading problems. Although the mean is strong, 40% of the first graders tested in 2005 failed to reach the benchmark with about 16% at considerable risk. At the second and third grade levels, mean scores have yet to reach the low risk benchmark. Thus, even the average second or third grader in these schools needs to improve his fluency skills. In fact, 24% of third graders and 30% of second graders are at considerable risk. While these schools are moving in the right direction when it comes to building fluency skills, there are clearly many students who continue to need support even as they move into fourth grade and out of the Reading First program. Given the emphasis placed on early identification and intervention for students with the weakest reading skills, it is also instructive to look for evidence of improvement among those students. As shown in Table 6, mean scores for the lowest performers increased at all grade levels. Most notably, at the second grade level the magnitude of improvement was similar to the improvement for all second graders. Controlling for demographics, these increases are statistically significant, offering further evidence that Reading First is having a positive impact on fluency development – even among the lowest performing students. Table 6: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) –2004 vs. 2005 mean scores for students in cohort 1 schools with scores in the bottom 20 percent Spring 2004 Spring 2005 Change in Mean Score Grade Benchmark N Mean Standard Deviation N Mean Standard Deviation 1 40 759 10.94 5.514 747 13.25 6.716 2.31 2 90 758 29.73 13.845 723 36.72 15.614 6.99 3 110 758 46.57 18.627 701 49.20 19.815 2.63 GRADE Figures 3 and 4, respectively, show the percentages of students scoring in the average/strength (stanines 5-9) and weak (stanines 1-3) categories for spring 2004 and spring 2005. Regardless of grade level, around one-third of those tested in 2005 failed to reach the 5th stanine benchmark with about one-fifth in need of intensive intervention. Figure 3 GRADE: Percent Average/Strength -- 2004 vs. 2005 (histogram replaced with table) Grade Spring 2004 Spring 2005 1 62% 68% 2 60% 63% 3 61% 63% Figure 4 GRADE: Percent Weak -- 2004 vs. 2005 (histogram replaced with table) Grade Spring 2004 Spring 2005 1 25% 20% 2 23% 20% 3 23% 22% After controlling for demographic differences between the students tested in 2004 and 2005, only the increase in average/strength for first graders is statistically significant. All of the other changes appear to be driven largely by demographic changes in the populations of the cohort 1 schools. It is worthwhile to note that spring 2005 first graders are the first group to have attended both kindergarten and first grade under Reading First. Thus providing support for the expectation that students who receive scientifically based reading instruction starting in kindergarten will have a leg up in developing strong overall reading skills. As shown in Table 7, the GRADE results, which measure overall reading ability, appear to be stronger than the DIBELS ORF results, which measure only fluency. This could be interpreted to mean that some students are good overall readers without strong fluency skills, which seems rather illogical. A more likely explanation is that benchmarks for the two assessments reflect differing levels of expectation. The DIBELS benchmarks established at the University of Oregon are intended to predict student performance on state reading assessments administered in the third grade, such as the MCAS. The Year 2 Evaluator’s Report for MRFP confirmed that third grade DIBELS ORF performance at the low risk benchmark is highly correlated with MCAS proficiency. The same report showed a strong correlation between MCAS proficiency and GRADE performance at the 6th stanine. Thus, it would be reasonable to expect that DIBELS ORF performance at the low risk benchmark is correlated with GRADE performance at the 6th stanine, which is above the 5th stanine GRADE performance benchmark established by the Massachusetts Department of Education9. Indeed, a comparison of the proportion of students scoring low risk on DIBELS ORF with the proportion of students scoring at or above the 6th stanine on GRADE paints a more logical picture. Table 7 shows that at first and second grade more students have good fluency skills than are proficient at reading grade level material (GRADE stanine 6). By third grade DIBELS ORF is a very good predictor of students’ strong overall reading ability as indicated by GRADE scores at or above the sixth stanine, which correlates with proficiency on the MCAS assessment. Table 7: Spring 2005 Comparison – DIBELS ORF vs. GRADE Grade level DIBELS Percent “Low Risk” GRADE stanine 5 or higher GRADE stanine 6 or higher 1 60% 68% 52% 2 50% 63% 41% 3 43% 63% 44% Table 8 shows mean raw scores on the GRADE assessment for 2004 and 2005 as well as the change. After controlling for demographic differences, the first and third grade changes are statistically significant, but the second grade change is not. Thus, as above, the improvements among second graders appear to be largely driven by demographic differences in the tested populations. In particular, it seems likely that improvement among second graders is mitigated by significant decreases in the percentage of special education and limited English proficient students among those tested in the spring of 2005. Table 8: GRADE Total Test –2004 vs. 2005 mean raw scores for students in cohort 1 schools Spring 2004 Spring 2005 Change in Mean Score Grade N Mean Raw Score Standard Deviation N Mean Raw Score Standard Deviation 1 3729 64.59 17.985 3649 66.75 17.800 2.16 2 3636 82.28 15.884 3594 83.50 15.489 1.22 3 3648 81.82 17.690 3511 82.80 17.743 0.98 As with DIBELS, we can add to the picture of overall reading ability by examining changes in mean GRADE score among the students with scores in the bottom 20%. As shown in Table 9, there were increases in mean score for all grade-levels. However, after controlling for demographic differences between the bottom 20 percent in 2004 and the bottom 20 percent in 2005, only the increase for first grade is statistically significant. This provides further evidence of the value of early intervention for students with the most serious reading difficulties. Table 9: GRADE Total Test –2004 vs. 2005 mean raw scores for students in cohort 1 schools with scores in the bottom 20 percent Spring 2004 Spring 2005 Change in Mean Score Grade N Mean Raw Score Standard Deviation N Mean Raw Score Standard Deviation 1 769 37.12 9.572 743 38.54 10.957 1.42 2 746 56.60 13.913 761 59.69 15.764 3.09 3 761 53.85 14.162 702 54.09 14.721 0.24 MCAS As with the state as a whole, Reading First schools show little change in performance on the MCAS 3rd grade reading test. As shown in Figure 5, statewide warning figures remained constant at 7% and proficiency figures declined slightly from 63% to 62%. After controlling for demographic differences between the students tested statewide in 2003 and those tested in 2005, the decrease in proficiency is not statistically significant. Thus statewide warning and proficiency figures are essentially flat. Figure 5 Statewide MCAS Peformance Grade 3 Reading 2003-2005 (histogram replaced with table) Performance Level 2003 2004 2005 Warning 7% 7% 7% Needs Improvement 31% 30% 31% Proficient 63% 63% 62% For MRFP cohort 1, warning figures declined from 15% in 2003 to 14% in 2005 and proficiency increased slightly from 43% to 44%. These small changes are not statistically significant when controlling for demographic differences between the two groups. Figure 6 RF Cohort 1 MCAS Peformance Grade 3 Reading 2003-2005 (histogram replaced with table) Performance Level 2003 2004 2005 Warning 15% 13% 14% Needs Improvement 42% 43% 42% Proficient 43% 43% 44% Given the observed improvements in cohort 1 scores on the GRADE assessments, the evaluators and Department of Education staff hypothesized that the performance level groupings might be masking improved reading skills. In particular, there was some hope that there would be a shift from lower to higher scores within the needs improvement category. To investigate this, the Donahue Institute split the needs improvement category into two and generated frequencies for the new performance levels for both the statewide and cohort 1 populations. Unfortunately, those frequencies were also fairly constant over time and did not support the hypothesis of within-category improvement on the MCAS. Table 10 shows that cohort 1 mean scores on the MCAS decreased from 28.5 in 2003 to 26.9 in 2004 only to return to 28.5 in 2005. Interestingly, if we control for demographic differences between 2003 and 2005 the variable representing the impact of Reading First is statistically significant. This tells us that the impact of Reading First on the 2005 MCAS mean score for cohort 1 schools is being offset by a more demographically disadvantaged population. Thus, if the demographics in 2003 and 2005 were the same, we would likely see a higher mean raw score in 2005 indicating that Reading First has had a positive impact on mean scores for students taking the third grade MCAS reading test. However, this is not true for the students with the most significant deficits. Analysis shows no statistically significant change in mean score among cohort 1 students with MCAS scores in the bottom 20%. Table 10: RF Cohort 1 MCAS – Mean Raw Score 2003-2005 Year N Mean Raw Score Standard Deviation 2003 3731 28.50 7.969 2004 3767 26.88 7.812 2005 3508 28.50 8.208 Cohort 1: Outcomes for Demographic Subgroups Federal Reading First regulations require that all states report outcomes data for the following demographic subgroups: special education students, students with limited English proficiency, low income students, and students belonging to racial and ethnic minority groups. One goal of Reading First is to prevent reading achievement gaps between more and less advantaged students – or to close existing gaps by the end of third grade. This section of the report examines subgroup performance of third graders in cohort 1 with a particular focus on changes from spring 2004 to spring 2005. Students for whom we were unable to obtain demographic data are excluded from the analysis. Finding: All subgroups show improvement in both fluency and overall reading ability. Special education students, low income students, and Asian students showed statistically significant improvements in fluency. Only low income students showed statistically significant improvement in overall reading ability. DIBELS ORF Tables 11 and 12 summarize the spring 2004 and spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results for third grade students in the specified demographic subgroups. All subgroups show improvement in the level of fluency with statistically significant changes for special education students (decrease in “at risk”), low income students (increase in mean and “low risk”) and Asian students (increase in mean). Table 11: RF Cohort 1 – 2004 DIBELS ORF Performance of Selected Third Grade Subgroups Number Tested Mean Raw Score Standard Deviation Percent Low Risk Percent At Risk Special Education 560 62.95 35.228 8.9% 68.4% Limited English Proficient 581 83.95 36.851 23.2% 41.8% Low Income 2378 90.62 34.693 29.4% 34.2% Race/ethnicity White 1787 102.64 34.945 44.1% 23.3% Asian/Pacific Islander 234 100.93 30.755 40.2% 21.4% African American/Black 548 94.45 33.489 31.4% 32.5% Hispanic or Latino 1089 88.24 35.034 26.7% 35.5% Table 12: RF Cohort 1 – 2005 DIBELS ORF Performance of Selected Third Grade Subgroups Number Tested Mean Raw Score Standard Deviation Percent Low Risk Percent At Risk Special Education 526 67.91 35.351 12.7% 61.4% Limited English Proficient 529 86.97 35.756 25.9% 37.6% Low Income 2220 96.55 35.106 37.1% 28.0% Race/ethnicity White 1653 107.20 35.632 50.5% 19.1% Asian/Pacific Islander 237 106.24 38.057 48.5% 19.0% African American/Black 490 100.23 31.969 37.6% 23.9% Hispanic or Latino 1080 92.80 36.083 33.4% 32.1% GRADE Tables 13 and 14 summarize the spring 2004 and spring 2005 GRADE results for third grade students in the specified demographic subgroups. All groups show increases in raw score and percentages of students in the average/strength categories. With the exception of white students, all groups also show a decrease in the percentage of students in the weak category. However, after controlling for demographic differences between the years, the only change that is statistically significant is the increase in mean score for low income students. Table 13: RF Cohort 1 – 2004 GRADE Performance of Selected Third Grade Subgroups Number Tested Mean Raw Score Standard Deviation % Average/Strength (stanine 5-9) % Weak (stanine 1-3) Special Education 569 62.80 21.161 23.4% 62.4% Limited English Proficient 581 68.89 18.971 28.1% 50.4% Low Income 2338 77.82 18.032 50.4% 29.9% Race/ethnicity White 1798 86.72 16.461 74.0% 14.7% Asian/Pacific Islander 232 80.84 14.443 54.7% 22.8% African American/Black 542 80.28 16.943 57.0% 24.4% Hispanic or Latino 1057 74.41 17.906 40.5% 37.5% Table 14: RF Cohort 1 – 2005 GRADE Performance of Selected Third Grade Subgroups Number Tested Mean Raw Score Standard Deviation % Average/Strength (stanine 5-9) % Weak (stanine 1-3) Special Education 534 64.68 21.225 23.8% 59.7% Limited English Proficient 535 70.44 17.798 28.8% 49.0% Low Income 2238 79.62 17.952 54.7% 27.6% Race/ethnicity White 1669 87.18 16.788 75.3% 15.2% Asian/Pacific Islander 238 82.16 16.743 59.7% 22.3% African American/Black 492 83.21 16.191 64.8% 18.5% Hispanic or Latino 1092 76.08 18.040 45.0% 35.0% Cohort 1: Impact of Longer Exposure to Reading First Ideally, an evaluation of Reading First would be designed to answer the question, “Is there more improvement within Reading First schools than there is in comparable non-Reading First schools within the state?” In order to address this directly we would need to establish a well-matched comparison group of schools and arrange to have them administer and submit DIBELS and GRADE data for their students. Those schools would also need to be isolated from any impact of Reading First. In planning for the evaluation of Massachusetts Reading First, establishing such a comparison group has been considered, but deemed to be infeasible for the following reasons: * Reading First funds are generally sufficient to support the state’s neediest districts and schools. As a result, most of the districts and schools not funded by Reading First have more advantaged demographic profiles and stronger student achievement than the Reading First schools and would not constitute a well-matched comparison group. * As mentioned earlier in this report and consistent with federal expectations, the Massachusetts Department of Education has made considerable effort to make Reading First professional development and materials available to teachers in non-Reading First districts and schools. As a result, it is difficult, if not practically impossible, to find comparison schools that have been isolated from Reading First. * Even if a reasonable comparison group could be established, the program does not have sufficient additional resources to compensate non-Reading First schools for administering and submitting DIBELS and GRADE data and it seems unlikely that a sufficient number would do so without some substantial incentive for cooperation. * The MCAS third grade reading test does provide some opportunity to compare the results of Reading First and non-Reading First schools. However, given the stagnant nature of results on that assessment the results offer little insight into performance differences. Furthermore, as described above the non-Reading First schools do not constitute a well-matched comparison group. Evaluation guidance provided by the Eastern Region Reading First Technical Assistance Center suggests that a valid surrogate for the well-matched comparison group is to analyze outcome differences for students in Reading First schools who had been exposed to the program for different amounts of time. For example, we can judge the impact of Reading First instruction in first grade during the first year of classroom implementation (2003-2004) by comparing the fall 2004 second grade assessment results for students who had attended a Reading First first grade the previous year vs. those who had not. Similarly, we can judge the impact of one year of Reading First instruction in second grade by comparing the fall 2004 third grade assessment results for students who had attended a Reading First second grade the previous year vs. those who had not. In Massachusetts, we are undertaking this analysis by comparing fall 2004 GRADE results for those students who were also tested in fall 2003 (“treatment group”) to results for those students who were not tested in fall 2003 (“comparison group”). This approach gives us the best chance of capturing a treatment group of students who spent the complete previous year in Reading First classrooms. However, it also means that some students who previously had substantial time in a Reading First classroom – such as those who entered Reading First schools after the fall testing but prior to the winter benchmark – will be included in the comparison group. This has the potential to lessen the observed impact of previous Reading First instruction since a number of students in the comparison group would also have previous Reading First experience. (An alternative would have been to create a treatment group of students with assessment results from the previous spring (spring 2004). This approach would also have the potential to lessen the observed impact of Reading First since the treatment group would include a number of students who had not entered Reading First schools until late in the academic year.) However, even with this consideration the analysis shows statistically significant differences in assessment results for the treatment and comparison groups – all favoring the treatment group. Unfortunately, in Massachusetts this analysis is necessarily limited to the impact of first and second grade instruction. We cannot assess the impact of third grade instruction because we do not have fall assessment results for these students once they are enrolled in fourth grade. We cannot assess the impact of kindergarten instruction because kindergarten testing is optional and thus we cannot reliably establish whether our first graders were enrolled in a Reading First kindergarten the previous fall. For future reports we will examine the possibility of using October SIMS data to establish where these first grade students attended kindergarten. As with analyses presented earlier in this report, it is important to understand the differences in demographic characteristics of students in our treatment and control group. Table 15 shows the demographic profiles of students in the treatment and control group at each grade-level. Differences within each grade-level were tested for statistical significance with a chi-square test using a p-value less than or equal to 0.05. In this case our control group is considerably more disadvantaged than our treatment group so we would expect them to have lower test scores even without the treatment. The question is whether a treatment effect remains after controlling for this demographic disadvantage. Table 15: Cohort 1 Demographics of students in “treatment” and “comparison” groups Grade Group Total # students SPED LEP Low Income Non-White 2 Treatment 3119 12.1% 14.5% 62.5% 53.4% Comparison 2533 15.5% 27.5% 78.6% 71.9% 3 Treatment 3095 16.0% 15.4% 63.1% 51.7% Comparison 2649 19.4% 25.7% 78.1% 72.4% * All differences between treatment and comparison groups are statistically significant (p less than or equal to 0.05) Figures 7 and 8, respectively, show the percentages of students scoring in the average/strength (stanines 5-9) and weak (stanines 1-3) categories for the treatment and comparison groups. For both grade-levels there is a persistent performance disparity of about 15 percentage points between the treatment and control groups. Even after controlling for demographic differences between the groups, all of the fall 2004 differences are statistically significant. For spring 2005 the only statistically significant difference is the percentage of second graders in the average/strength category. The remaining spring 2005 performance category differences appear to be driven by demographics. Figure 7: GRADE Percent Average/Strength - Treatment vs. Comparison (histogram replaced with table) Grade Testing Period Treatment Comparison 2 Fall 2004 44% 30% 2 Spring 2005 67% 50% 3 Fall 2004 48% 32% 3 Spring 2005 66% 50% Figure 8: GRADE Percent Weak - Treatment vs. Comparison (histogram replaced with table) Grade Testing Period Treatment Comparison 2 Fall 2004 38% 54% 2 Spring 2005 17% 30% 3 Fall 2004 35% 48% 3 Spring 2005 19% 34% Table 16 shows mean raw scores on the GRADE assessment for the treatment and comparison groups. For all grade levels and testing points there are also statistically significant differences in mean score. This meshes fairly well with the performance category analysis. The exception is the third grade results for spring 2005 where, after controlling for demographics, the difference in mean scores is statistically significant, but the differences in proportions of students in the weak and average/strength categories are not statistically significant. In this case we can interpret the mean to indicate that if the two groups were demographically alike they would have similar percentages of students in the performance categories, but those students in the treatment group would tend to have higher scores within the ranges defining the performance levels. Table 16: Cohort 1 GRADE Total Test –Grade-level Mean Scores for Treatment and Comparison Groups Fall 2004 and Spring 2005 Treatment Group Comparison Group Difference in Mean Score Grade/Time N Mean Raw Score Standard Deviation N Mean Raw Score Standard Deviation G2/Fall 2004 3036 67.27 20.235 2388 58.41 21.792 -8.86 G2/Spring 2005 2902 84.86 14.683 2196 78.57 17.836 -6.29 G3/Fall 2004 2966 71.18 19.663 2477 62.68 21.753 -8.50 G3/Spring 2005 2849 84.53 16.125 2301 76.98 19.326 -7.55 Finding: Second and third graders who did not spend the full previous academic year in a Reading First classroom started the 2004-2005 school year somewhat behind their classmates. Furthermore, to a large extent those gaps persist at the end of the school year. Cohort 2: Initial Outcome Data This section of the report summarizes initial student outcome data from schools that began classroom implementation in the 2004-2005 school year (cohort 2 schools). DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Table 17 shows the cohort 2 DIBELS ORF mean scores and risk category distribution for spring 2005. At the first grade level the mean score slightly exceeds the low risk benchmark. Thus, on average, first grade students in these schools could be considered “low risk” for reading problems. However, more than half of the cohort 2 first graders tested in 2005 failed to reach the benchmark with more than a quarter at considerable risk. At the second and third grade levels mean scores do not reach the low risk benchmark. Thus, even the average second or third grader in these schools needs to improve his fluency skills. In fact, 26% of third graders and 39% of second graders are at considerable risk as evidenced by the proportion of students in the “at risk” category. Table 17: Cohort 2 DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Outcomes Spring 2005 Grade Benchmark Mean Score Std Dev At Risk Some Risk Low Risk N 1 40 43.12 30.132 26.0% 26.1% 47.9% 1853 2 90 77.80 37.335 38.5% 23.1% 38.3% 1803 3 110 95.71 36.582 26.2% 30.5% 32.7% 1902 GRADE Table 18 shows the cohort 2 GRADE total test mean scores and performance category distribution for spring 2005, including subgroup results for third grade students. Each of the grade levels had about half of the general population scoring in the average/strength categories at the end of their first year of classroom implementation. These figures lag a bit behind cohort 1 results for the end of their first year, which were around 60% at all grade-levels. Among the subgroups, white, Asian and African American/black students performed above the third grade general population with the remaining subgroups – particularly LEP and SPED – performing at lower levels. Table 18: Cohort 2 GRADE Total Test Outcomes Spring 2005 Grade Mean Score Std Dev Weak Low Average Average Strength N 1 61.11 19.345 30.6% 14.4% 29.0% 26.0% 1871 2 77.73 18.838 31.5% 18.6% 35.5% 14.4% 1840 3 76.39 19.417 34.5% 16.4% 35.6% 13.5% 1946 Results for 3rd grade subgroups SPED 61.56 20.678 66.2% 15.0% 16.8% 2.1% 340 LEP 67.71 20.185 53.1% 17.9% 23.4% 5.5% 525 Low Income 74.86 18.873 37.9% 17.0% 35.9% 9.3% 1500 White 85.75 16.295 14.2% 13.5% 43.8% 28.5% 445 Asian 81.17 17.498 25.6% 14.6% 39.0% 20.7% 82 Black 77.10 17.855 34.1% 15.8% 37.5% 12.6% 437 Hispanic 71.52 19.778 44.6% 18.2% 30.7% 6.5% 973 MCAS Table 19 shows the cohort 2 MCAS mean scores and performance level distribution for 2004 and 2005. While there was a small increase in mean score for cohort 2 schools, there was also an increase in the percentages of students in the warning category and a decrease in the percentage of students in the proficient category. After controlling for demographic differences between the students tested in cohort 2 schools during 2004 and 2005, none of these changes are statistically significant. Thus, as with the statewide and cohort 1 data, MCAS results for cohort 2 schools are essentially flat. Table 19: Cohort 2 MCAS Outcomes 2004 vs. 2005 Year Mean Score Std Dev Warning Needs Improvement Proficient N 2004 25.10 8.097 18.3% 48.2% 33.5% 2044 2005 26.02 8.470 20.6% 48.6% 30.8% 1903 Correlations Between RF Assessments and 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 subtest) and GRADE performance can predict whether or not a student will attain proficiency on the third grade MCAS reading test. In the Year 2 Evaluator’s report we examined the correlation between third grade Reading First assessments (DIBELS ORF and GRADE) and the 3rd grade MCAS given during the same school year. For this report we are able to add similar analysis for second grade Reading First assessment results from the 2003-2004 school year and the 3rd grade MCAS given in 2005. The key to such analysis is having a sufficiently large group of students with results from both the specified Reading First assessments and the third grade MCAS. Provided there is a sufficient sample the next evaluator’s report will add a similar analysis for first grade Reading First assessment results from the 2003-2004 school year and the 3rd grade MCAS given in 2006. The analyses of second grade data are limited to cohort 1 schools, which have two years of student assessment data. Analyses for third grade group together both cohorts and for cohort 1 include both school years. In other words, the fall DIBELS data for third grade include cohort 1 data from fall 2003, cohort 1 data from fall 2004 and cohort 2 data from fall 2004 (similar for GRADE) and the MCAS correlations are based on pooled data from 2004 and 2005. A note about statistical significance and strength of relationship: 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 the 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 this is at least 80% agreement between measures. DIBELS ORF and MCAS Data for students attending cohort 1 schools reveal that there are statistically significant correlations between DIBELS ORF and MCAS raw scores. As shown in Table 20, the coefficients for those correlations range between 0.520 and 0.597 depending on the grade level and testing period (fall or spring) of the DIBELS assessment. As might be expected, the data show the strongest correlation with DIBELS raw scores from the spring of third grade and weakest correlation with DIBELS raw scores from the fall of second grade.     Table 20: Correlation of DIBELS ORF to MCAS N Raw score correlation* Number Low Risk MCAS Performance of Low Risk Students Warning Low NI High NI Proficient Spring G3 DIBELS ORF 8836 0.597 3514 1.6% 6.7% 22.8% 68.9% Fall G3 DIBELS ORF 8486 0.582 3319 2.0% 6.7% 22.1% 69.2% Spring G2 DIBELS ORF 2976 0.566 1255 1.5% 6.4% 20.9% 71.2% Fall G2 DIBELS ORF 2797 0.520 1272 2.5% 7.7% 21.6% 68.2% *All correlation coefficients are significant at the 0.01 level When it comes to using DIBELS ORF results to predict MCAS performance, the results are quite similar across grade levels and testing periods. About 70% of those students with low risk scores on DIBELS ORF attain proficiency on the MCAS with roughly another 20% reaching the upper level of the needs improvement range. This is fairly consistent even with results of DIBELS assessments taken as early as the fall of second grade. Thus, there is a moderately strong relationship between meeting the DIBELS ORF benchmark and attaining proficiency on the MCAS and a very strong relationship to scoring at or above high needs improvement. GRADE and MCAS Data for students attending cohort 1 schools reveal that there are statistically significant correlations between GRADE total test and MCAS raw scores. As shown in Table 21, the coefficients for those correlations range between 0.580 and 0.721 depending on the grade level and testing period (fall or spring) of the GRADE assessment. As with DIBELS, the data show the strongest correlation with GRADE raw scores from the spring of third grade and weakest correlation with GRADE raw scores from the fall of second grade. In general, raw score correlations between GRADE and MCAS are stronger than between DIBELS and MCAS. Table 21: Correlation of GRADE Total Test to MCAS N Raw score correlation* Number Average/Strength MCAS Performance of A/S Students Warning Low NI High NI Proficient Spring G3 GRADE 8866 0.721 5332 1.1% 6.7% 28.2% 64.0% Fall G3 GRADE 8521 0.706 3485 0.5% 3.3% 19.2% 77.0% Spring G2 GRADE 2934 0.628 1804 1.3% 6.9% 25.9% 65.9% Fall G2 GRADE 2814 0.580 1032 0.8% 3.6% 18.2% 77.4% *All correlation coefficients are significant at the 0.01 level In terms of predicting MCAS performance, the results for GRADE are similar those for DIBELS, though with a wider range. Interestingly, the spring GRADE results appear to be somewhat less predictive of MCAS performance compared to the fall results. This holds true for both second and third grade. In the fall, about 77% of those who reach benchmark (stanine 5) on GRADE attain proficiency on the MCAS compared to only about 65% of those who meet the benchmark on GRADE in the spring. For high needs improvement or above the figures are about 96% in the fall and 92% in the spring. District and School Performance As described earlier in this report, there is some level of variability in Reading First implementation at the district and school level. This section of the report utilizes a cross grade level composite of results on the GRADE assessment as a gauge of school-level performance. See Appendix I for GRADE composite scores (percent weak and percent average/strength) for each cohort 1 school. Detailed school-level data showing the number and percentage of students meeting benchmark for all grade levels and demographic subgroups can be found in the following appendices: Appendix J – DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency by grade-level Appendix K – GRADE by grade-level Appendix L – MCAS by grade-level Changes in Percent at Benchmark and Seriously Behind Figure 9 illustrates the school level changes in percentage of students seriously behind (stanines 1-3) and percentage of students at benchmark (stanines 5-9). Each dot represents a cohort 1 school. Table 22 lists the schools falling into each of the quadrants. (For accessibility purposes the information from Figure 9 and Table 22 are combined and summarized in the statements below.) * 32 schools have both decreased the percentage of students who are seriously behind and increased the percentage of students at benchmark. They represent 60% of the cohort 1 schools with data for both spring 2004 and spring 2005 (upper left quadrant). Names of the schools: Boston Renaissance Charter, Davis (Brockton), Haggerty (Cambridge), Kelly (Chelsea), Bowe (Chicopee), Stefanik (Chicopee), N. B. Borden (Fall River), Sheffield (Gill-Montague), Pentucket Lake (Haverhill), Arlington (Lawrence), Wetherbee (Lawrence), Lowell Community Charter, Bailey (Lowell), Greenhalge (Lowell), Murkland (Lowell), Neighborhood House Charter, Sullivan (North Adams), South (Plymouth), West (Plymouth), Lincoln-Hancock (Quincy), Garfield (Revere), Bates (Salem), Milton Bradley (Springfield), Gerena (Springfield), Walker (Taunton), Koziol (Ware), Park Ave(Webster), Franklin Ave (Westfield), Highland (Westfield), Moseley (Westfield), City View (Worcester), Lincoln Street (Worcester) * 6 schools have increased the percentage of students at benchmark but also show an increase in the percentage of students seriously behind (upper right quadrant). Names of the schools: Burnham (Haverhill), Frost (Lawrence), Ferryway (Malden), Brayton (North Adams), Morningside (Pittsfield), White Street (Springfield) * 5 schools decreased the percentage of students seriously behind but also show a decrease in the percentage of students at benchmark (bottom left quadrant). Names of the schools: Sanders Street (Athol-Royalston), Laurel Lake (Fall River), Hillcrest (Gill-Montague), Seven Hills Charter, Goddard (Worcester) * 10 schools saw an overall drop in performance with decreases in the percentage of students at benchmark and an increases in the percentage of students seriously behind. Names of the schools: Downey (Brockton), Doran (Fall River), Healy (Fall River), Walnut Square (Haverhill), Lawrence Family Development Charter, Tenney (Methuen), Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter, Bentley (Salem), Sitkowski (Webster), ALL (Worcester) * Results are not included for the Boland School in Springfield, which had incomplete GRADE data for spring 2004.   Top Performing Schools – Spring 2005 GRADE As shown in Table 23, eight schools stood out as having 80% or more of their students performing at benchmark on the spring 2005 GRADE assessment. With the exception of the Fall Brook school in Leominster they are all cohort 1 schools. The top performer was West Elementary in Plymouth, with 89% of its students attaining the benchmark. Table 23: Spring 2005 GRADE - Top Performing Schools District School N % at benchmark Plymouth West 175 89% Neighborhood House Charter 65 88% Plymouth South 432 87% Haverhill Walnut Square 80 86% Webster Park Ave 254 83% Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 121 83% Leominster Fall Brook 403 81% Westfield Moseley 81 80% Most Improved Schools - GRADE Looking only at absolute performance in 2005 fails to recognize the gains made by many schools that are not yet at the point of the top performers mentioned above. This section of the report highlights those schools making the most gains in increasing the percentage of students at benchmark as well as those making the most gains in decreasing the percentage of students who are seriously behind. Because two years of data are required to judge change the results are necessarily limited to cohort 1 schools. Increase in Percentage at Benchmark As shown in Table 24, eight schools increased their percentage of students at benchmark by at least ten percentage points. Sheffield Elementary in Gill-Montague and the Franklin Avenue School in Westfield were the most improved with respective increases of 18 and 17 percentage points. Table 24: Most Improved Cohort 1 Schools. Increase in Percentage at Benchmark (2004 vs. 2005) Spring 2004 Spring 2005 Change District School Number Tested % at Benchmark Number Tested % at Benchmark Gill-Montague Sheffield 51 61% 52 79% 18 Westfield Franklin Ave 108 48% 92 65% 17 Chicopee Stefanik 196 54% 180 69% 15 Lowell Bailey 274 55% 255 70% 15 Worcester Lincoln Street 121 45% 88 59% 14 Westfield Moseley 80 68% 81 80% 13 Westfield Highland 212 48% 179 59% 12 Lowell Murkland 278 38% 245 49% 10 District Acknowledgement In addition to the schools acknowledged above, three districts deserve acknowledgement for increasing the percentage of students at benchmark in all three grade-levels as well as the designated third grade subgroups. Those districts are Boston Renaissance Charter School, Plymouth Public Schools, and Westfield Public Schools. Decrease in Percentage Seriously Behind As shown in Table 25, seven schools decreased their percentage of students with serious reading difficulties by at least ten percentage points. Stefanik in Chicopee, Sheffield in Gill-Montague, and Lincoln Street in Worcester were the most improved each with decreases of 14 percentage points. With the exception of N.B. Borden in Fall River and Milton Bradley in Springfield, all of the schools are also included on the list of those with the largest increases in percentage of students at benchmark. Table 25: Most Improved Cohort 1 Schools. Decrease in Percentage Seriously Behind (2004 vs. 2005) Spring 2004 Spring 2005 Change District School Number Tested % Weak Number Tested % Weak Chicopee Stefanik 196 29% 180 14% -14 Gill-Montague Sheffield 51 25% 52 12% -14 Worcester Lincoln Street 121 30% 88 16% -14 Westfield Highland 212 33% 179 21% -13 Fall River N.B. Borden 64 27% 75 16% -11 Westfield Moseley 80 18% 81 7% -10 Springfield Milton Bradley 267 35% 286 25% -10 Top Performing Schools – 3rd grade MCAS As shown in Table 26, six Reading First schools had third grade MCAS proficiency rates equal or better than the statewide rate of 63%. They are all cohort 1 schools. By far the top MCAS performer was the Franklin Ave school in Westfield, which had a 90% proficiency rate. Three schools were top performers on both GRADE and MCAS. They are: South and West Elementary in Plymouth and the Moseley School in Westfield. It is not surprising that these are the only schools to appear on both lists as MCAS includes only third grade and the GRADE top performers are based on a cross-grade composite. Table 26: 2005 MCAS Top Performing Schools District School Number Tested % Proficient Westfield Franklin Ave 30 90% Plymouth South 138 74% North Adams Sullivan 47 68% Westfield Moseley 24 67% Plymouth West 56 64% Ware Koziol 92 63% It is also important to acknowledge that three of these schools – Franklin Ave, South Elementary, and Moseley – had no students with scores in the warning category. For Franklin Ave and Moseley this was also true for the 2004 MCAS. Most Improved Schools – 3rd grade MCAS Looking only at absolute performance in 2005 fails to recognize the gains made by many schools that are not yet at the point of the top performers mentioned above. This section of the report highlights those schools making the most gains in increasing the percentage of students in the proficient category as well as those making the most gains in decreasing the percentage of students in the warning category. Changes for cohort 1 schools are judged by examining the differences between 2005 MCAS results and results from the 2003 MCAS administered prior to their classroom implementation of Reading First. Changes for cohort 2 schools are judged by examining the differences between 2005 MCAS results and results from the 2004 MCAS administered prior to their classroom implementation. Increase in Proficiency As shown in Table 27, five cohort 1 schools have increased their MCAS proficiency rate by at least 20 percentage points in the two years that they have been implementing Reading First. The results for Lowell Community Charter school should be interpreted with some caution as the proficiency rate increased by 29 percentage points from 2003 to 2004 and then actually declined by four percentage points between 2004 and 2005. Additional data are necessary to understand the trend for this school. Table 27: Most Improved Cohort 1 Schools. Increase in MCAS Proficiency (2003 vs. 2005) 2003 2004 2005 change District School Number Tested % Prof Number Tested % Prof Number Tested % Prof Chicopee Stefanik 82 27% 66 38% 60 57% 30 Lowell Community Charter 41 7% 95 36% 87 32% 25 Salem Bates 41 34% 74 51% 50 58% 24 North Adams Sullivan 55 45% 48 54% 47 68% 23 Revere Garfield 94 30% 89 37% 97 49% 20 As shown in Table 28, four cohort 2 schools increased their MCAS proficiency rate by more than five percentage points after one year of implementing Reading First. Three are part of the Boston Public Schools system and the fourth is from Lynn. Table 28: Most Improved Cohort 2 Schools. Increase in MCAS Proficiency (2004 vs. 2005) 2004 2005 change District School Number Tested % Proficient Number Tested % Proficient Boston Otis 57 40% 43 53% 13 Lynn Ingalls 94 26% 73 38% 13 Boston Condon 101 21% 109 29% 9 Boston Tobin 49 14% 42 21% 7 Decrease in Warning As shown in Table 29, ten cohort 1 schools decreased their percentage of students in the warning category by at least ten percentage points. The results for Lowell Community Charter school and the Arlington school in Lawrence should be interpreted with some caution since they actually increased from 2004 to 2005. Table 29: Most Improved Cohort 1 Schools. Decrease in MCAS Warning (2003 vs. 2005) 2003 2004 2005 change District School Number Tested % Warn Number Tested % Warn Number Tested % Warn Lawrence Frost 117 30% 85 25% 94 14% -16 Worcester ALL 67 36% 73 22% 67 22% -13 Lawrence Wetherbee 48 31% 81 20% 82 18% -13 Springfield Milton Bradley 112 26% 104 16% 97 13% -12 Chicopee Stefanik 82 21% 66 8% 60 8% -12 Salem Bates 41 20% 74 8% 50 8% -12 Lowell Community Charter 41 37% 95 14% 87 25% -11 Brockton Davis 115 16% 115 10% 112 4% -11 Lawrence Arlington 130 45% 105 30% 105 34% -10 Westfield Moseley 31 10% 26 0% 24 0% -10 As shown in Table 30, three cohort 2 schools decreased their MCAS warning rate by more than five percentage points after one year of implementing Reading First. The Ingalls school in Lynn appears on this list as well as the list of cohort 2 schools showing the largest increase in proficiency. Table 30: Most Improved Cohort 2 Schools. Decrease in MCAS Warning (2004 vs. 2005) 2004 2005 District School Number Tested % Warning Number Tested % Warning change Lynn Ingalls 94 24% 73 14% -11 Boston Agassiz 109 37% 105 28% -9 Boston Eliot 36 42% 25 36% -6 Summary This report provides an overview of activities and student outcome data for Massachusetts’ third year of funding under the federal Reading First program. Its primary focus is the analysis of student assessment data and examination of changes in student outcomes after two full years of classroom implementation. Program Description During the 2004-2005 academic year, 83 schools in 36 districts received funding through the Massachusetts Reading First program. Those schools employed nearly 1,500 administrators, reading specialists and K-3 classroom teachers. Through the first two years of classroom implementation (fall 2003 through spring 2005) approximately 40,000 Massachusetts K-3 students participated in Reading First with more than 9,000 students in grades 1-3 participating for that entire period. The large number of students assessed and the relatively small number with two full years of participation is not surprising given the significant mobility of the population in these schools. For instance, by the end of the 2004-2005 academic year these schools were serving fewer than 65% of the individual K-3 students that they enrolled on October 1, 2004. Table 31 provides a snapshot of the characteristics of the K-3 students enrolled in Massachusetts Reading First schools on October 1, 2004. Table 31: K-3 Students Enrolled in Massachusetts Reading First Schools (October 1, 2004) Total enrolled 22,872 Special Education students 13.3% English Language Learners 20.5% Low Income students 69.1% White students 37.9% Hispanic/Latino students 38.2% Black/African American students 17.7% While individual schools and districts have some flexibility in how they implement their Reading First grant, all must incorporate the following basic program requirements: * Develop and implement a 3-tier model of instruction including core instruction for all students and supplemental and intensive intervention for those identified as needing additional instruction. * Employ a full-time reading specialist in each participating K-3 school to provide high-level support to classroom teachers and others involved in the teaching of reading. * Participate in Massachusetts Department of Education professional development and support including multi-day Teacher Reading Academies as well as additional training on special topics or for individuals in particular Reading First roles. * Administer designated student assessments and use data to inform instruction. In addition to specific professional development events, the Massachusetts Department of Education employs a cadre of Implementation Facilitators (IF) whose role is to provide ongoing, direct support to staff in Reading First schools. They work primarily with the reading specialist in each school but also frequently have direct contact with building administrators and teachers. The Implementation Facilitators also lead bimonthly regional meetings, which bring together reading specialists and district coordinators to share experiences and share implementation challenges. Staff from the Department’s Office of Reading also make annual monitoring visits to each Reading First school. The objective is to identify areas of strength and weakness as well as actions needed to improve Reading First implementation. After the visit each school receives a letter summarizing findings from the visit and is expected to work with their implementation facilitator to develop an action plan addressing those findings. Program Evaluation The program evaluation utilizes results from three student assessments as the basis for measuring student improvement and providing comparisons among groups of students. They are: * The DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency subtest is a standardized, individually administered assessment developed at the University of Oregon. Based on performance, students are placed in three categories – at risk, some risk and low risk. * GRADE is a norm-referenced, group-administered assessment developed and marketed by American Guidance Services (AGS). It is a comprehensive test covering the five key components of reading and offers multiple level tests for use across many grade-levels. The Massachusetts Department of Education has established four categories of reading achievement based on students’ scores – weak, low average, average and strength. Students scoring in the average or strength category are considered to be performing “at or above grade-level.” * The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) reading test is designed to assess the reading skills of all public third graders in the state. The skills tested are based on the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts. Results of the third grade reading test are reported as raw scores and in terms of three performance levels – proficient, needs improvement and warning. Most analyses of student assessment results presented in this report are focused on comparisons of different groups of students with different demographic profiles. There is a substantial research base demonstrating that the demographic characteristics of students and the schools they attend have an impact on learning outcomes. In recognition of this, the analysis uses a mixed model regression procedure that controls for demographic differences in the schools and students being measured. Schools were the main unit of analysis, and both repeated measures (changes over time) as well as school based factors were included in the analysis. Within each school, demographic factors as well as the outcome factors are repeatedly observed. The model then allows one to test the theory that the change in the outcome over time is more than just a function of the change in demography (i.e., the change in student performance within a school can be significant controlling for the change in demography). Throughout this report a value of p less than or equal to 0.05 was used as the cut off for statistical significance. Findings Among those schools with two years of outcome data (cohort 1 schools): * There is statistically significant improvement in fluency at all grade-levels, even among the lowest performing students. This is strong evidence that these schools are moving in the right direction when it comes to building fluency skills. At the same time, about 40% of first graders, 50% of second graders, and 57% of third graders failed to reach their grade level benchmark on the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency assessment. Clearly, many students continue to need support even as they move into fourth grade and beyond the official reach of the Reading First program. * GRADE data show some improvement in overall reading ability with the strongest results in first grade where the percentage of students meeting benchmark increased from 62% to 68%. These are the first students to have received Reading First instruction in both kindergarten and first grade, thus providing support for the expectation that students who receive scientifically based reading instruction starting in kindergarten will have a leg up in developing strong overall reading skills. Yet, regardless of grade level, around one-third of those tested in spring 2005 failed to reach benchmark with about one-fifth in need of intensive intervention. * As with the state as a whole, cohort 1 schools show little change in performance on the MCAS third grade reading test. However, once we control for demographic differences it does appear that Reading First had some positive impact on the cohort 1 mean score for the 2005 MCAS. * At the third grade level, all key demographic subgroups show some improvement in both fluency and overall reading ability. Special education students, low income students, and Asian students showed statistically significant improvements in fluency. However, only low income students showed statistically significant improvement in overall reading ability. * Second and third graders who did not spend the full previous academic year in a Reading First classroom started the 2004-2005 school year somewhat behind their classmates. Furthermore, to a large extent those gaps persist at the end of the school year. * The majority of cohort 1 schools demonstrated overall improvement as measured by a cross grade level composite of results on the GRADE assessment. About 60% both decreased the percentage of students scoring in the “weak” category on GRADE and increased the percentage of students meeting benchmark. An additional 21% either decreased “weak” performance or increased benchmark performance, but not both. Unfortunately, the remaining 19% showed both increases in weak and decreases in benchmark. These schools are clearly in need of additional support if they are to succeed. After three years of funding and two years of classroom implementation, the Massachusetts Reading First program has had positive measurable impacts. Across the board increases in fluency mark an important first step in helping students read and comprehend appropriate text for their grade level. Improvement in overall reading ability at the first grade level bodes well for positive student outcomes as the program moves forward. At the same time it recognizes and celebrates the progress to date, it will be important for the Massachusetts Department of Education to better understand the challenges that are holding back schools and students who have yet to show the hoped for improvement and to provide the necessary professional development and support to jumpstart lagging achievement. Appendix A: Use of Curricula Selected Curricula – Core and Intervention Table A1 provides a list of each of the core programs being used in Massachusetts Reading First districts, the number of districts and school using each, and the list of specific districts using each. Harcourt Trophies is clearly the most popular core program among Reading First schools, followed by Houghton-Mifflin and Scott Foresman.   Table A1: Core Programs Used by Massachusetts Reading First Districts (N = 36) Core Program # of districts # of schools Districts Using Program Harcourt Trophies 16 38 Boston, Boston Renaissance Charter School, Cambridge, Fall River, Haverhill, Lawrence Family Development Charter School, Leominster, Lynn, Methuen, Neighborhood House Charter School, Pittsfield, Quincy, Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School, Salem, Somerville, Taunton Houghton-Mifflin:A Nation's Choice 6 14 Chicopee, Gill-Montague, Plymouth, Ware, Westfield, Worcester Scott Foresman 6 16 Brockton, Holyoke, North Adams, Revere, Springfield Open Court 4 8 Athol-Royalston, Chelsea, New Bedford, Webster Success For All 3 6 Lawrence, Lowell Community Charter School, Seven Hills Charter School MacMillan McGraw-Hill 1 1 Malden In addition to a core curriculum, each Reading First school must select and implement supplemental and intensive intervention programs. Table A2 lists several intervention programs and the number of Reading First schools using each. The majority of Reading First schools employ multiple programs for both supplemental and intensive intervention purposes. Table A2: Intervention Program Use (N = 75) Intervention Programs Total Number of Schools Using Program Number of Schools Using Program as Supplemental Number of Schools Using Program as Intensive Early Reading Intervention 63 25 53 Harcourt Trophies 35 34 5 Lexia Phonics 29 29 2 Project Read 22 7 22 Read Naturally 14 13 3 Soar to Success 14 5 9 EPS Primary Phonics 13 10 8 Reading Recovery 13 1 13 Early Success 11 3 8 Wilson Reading System 10 2 10 Fundations 9 5 6 Waterford 9 9 --- Houghton Mifflin 7 7 2 Great Leaps 6 6 --- Quick Reads 6 5 1 Language for Learning 5 2 3 SFA Tutorial 5 5 1 Phonemic Awareness in Young Children 4 4 --- Road to the Code 4 4 --- Horizons 2 --- 2 Language for Thinking 2 1 1 Phono-graphix 2 1 2 Earobics 1 1 --- Language! 1 --- 1 Open Court Fluency Coach 1 1 --- Table A6 (page 40) lists each Reading First school along with its core curriculum, supplemental and intensive intervention programs. Fidelity of Implementation A clear majority of the schools reported that they are implementing their core program as prescribed by the publisher (64 of 73). Many of those that indicated they had made changes to their core curriculum cited the inclusion of additional phonics and phonemic awareness instruction. Some schools also adapted their core program in an attempt to provide reading materials that were more appropriate for their ‘at-risk’ students. Seventeen schools reported that there were aspects of their original Reading First proposals not being fully implemented. Nine of these schools cited difficulties with offering every level of the three-tier model, primarily intensive intervention. Inadequate staffing, lack of time, and incomplete understanding of the requirements for Tiers II & III were common challenges to full implementation. The 2005 annual personnel survey also asked about fidelity of implementation at the classroom level. Classroom teachers completing the survey were asked to indicate how closely they followed their core curriculum. As shown in Table A3, fewer than two-thirds of classroom teachers indicated that they covered all or nearly all of the content in their core curriculum. Similarly, just over 60% reported that they adhered to the instructional sequence all or nearly all of the time. Only 53.6% followed the teacher’s manual instructional routines all or nearly all of the time. Table A3: Adherence to Core Curriculum by Classroom Teachers (N = 1,304) Percentage Responding Little or None Less Than Half About Half More Than Half All or Nearly All How much of the content for your grade level, as prescribed by your school's core curriculum, did you cover this year? 1.2% 1.2% 3.8% 19.3% 63.7% How much did you adhere to the instructional sequence prescribed by your school's core curriculum? 0.5% 1.1% 5.8% 21.2% 60.7% How much did you follow your teacher's manual guidance on instructional routines? 0.5% 2.1% 7.9% 25.8% 53.6% Note: Percentages do not add to 100% because not every classroom teacher who took the survey answered these questions. Another requirement of Massachusetts Reading First is that each school hold an uninterrupted literacy block each day for at least 90 minutes. Based on Spring 2005 District Implementation Report (DIR) data, over 46% of Reading First schools hold a 90-minute literacy block and more than 52% reported holding a 120-minute literacy block. In addition, a majority of the schools reported that they provide additional literacy instruction outside the literacy block. Seven of these specified that they offered sessions before and/or after school, and three schools said that they offer sessions during the summer. Perceived Quality and Effectiveness In addition to gauging the degree to which the comprehensive reading program has been implemented, the evaluation of Massachusetts Reading First also seeks to gather data on the alignment, quality and effectiveness of the comprehensive programs themselves. Survey respondents were asked to rate the alignment of the core, supplemental and intensive components of their school’s comprehensive reading program. Nearly 75% rated the alignment of all three components as either good or excellent. Because each district was allowed to select its own core curriculum, it is likely that some curricula will be better aligned with Massachusetts Reading First than others. Respondents to the annual personnel survey rated the alignment of their schools’ core curriculum with the Teacher Reading Academies and other Reading First professional development. Over 87% rated their core program’s alignment with Reading First as either good or excellent. As shown in Table A4, overall the majority of survey respondents favorably rated their selected curricula with regard to ease of use and effectiveness. The core received the highest ratings, followed by supplemental and intensive intervention programs. This reflects the struggles that many schools are facing in implementing the second and especially third tiers of their instructional model. Table A4: Comprehensive Program Ratings (N = 1,702) Percentage Responding Poor Fair Good Excellent Ease of Use Core 1.1% 12.5% 56.9% 26.7% Supplemental 1.1% 11.0% 52.8% 21.9% Intensive 0.9% 10.2% 42.6% 18.7% Effectiveness Core 1.2% 13.7% 56.2% 25.5% Supplemental 0.9% 12.4% 50.4% 23.0% Intensive 0.8% 10.2% 39.0% 21.5% Note: Percentages do not add to 100% because not every classroom teacher who took the survey answered these questions. As shown in Table A5, among the core programs Houghton-Mifflin received very high ratings on all three survey questions, while Success For All consistently earned the fewest favorable ratings. Interestingly, Harcourt Trophies is the most commonly used core curriculum but not the highest rated by school personnel. Table A5: Ratings of Core Program, by Program Used Program Used Percentage Responding "Good" or "Excellent" Core Program's Alignment with RF Core Program's Ease of Use Core Program's Effectiveness N % N % N % Harcourt Trophies 723 90.9% 728 86.5% 726 85.8% Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice 223 96.4% 222 89.6% 223 88.8% MacMillan/McGraw-Hill 38 94.8% 38 86.9% 38 92.2% Open Court 190 87.9% 188 81.4% 187 86.1% Scott Foresman 275 91.6% 276 92.0% 270 87.4% Success For All 151 72.2% 154 70.8% 153 59.5% Although more than 68% of the schools that submitted Spring 2005 DIRs indicated that they experienced difficulties with their core program, many reported that they were able to work through those difficulties with training and simple remedies. Of the 50 schools that reported having difficulties with their core curriculum, about one-quarter explained that they had trouble becoming familiar with the new program and navigating the materials. Most of these schools overcame these difficulties with further training and sessions with their programs’ publishers. Several other schools said it was difficult to schedule enough time for the prescribed lessons, but many were able to resolve this by allowing for a longer literacy block and consulting with the publisher to identify the most critical activities and essential components. Other schools mentioned their concern about the limited selection of leveled readers and that the reading selections were too difficult for their at-risk readers. As noted earlier, these issues were overcome in most cases by adopting some additional reading materials to strengthen the core curriculum. Although the schools reported being able to resolve most of these difficulties using the available resources, many had ideas for additional assistance that would help them overcome these obstacles. These schools said they could benefit from further professional development for their staff. In particular, the schools most often requested in-service training with their publishers on modeling, differentiated instruction, and small-group instruction. Table A6: Curricula Used by Reading First Schools (2004-2005) District School Core Supplemental Intensive Athol-Royalston Sanders Street Open Court ERI; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Read Naturally; Other ERI; Project Read; Other Boston Agassiz Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Other ERI; Project Read Boston Condon Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Other ERI Boston Dever Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Other ERI Boston Eliot Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading ERI; Project Read Boston Harvard-Kent Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Other ERI Boston Mendell Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading ERI; Project Read Boston Orchard Gardens Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Other ERI Boston Otis Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Other ERI Boston Perkins Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Other ERI Boston Stone Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading ERI; Wilson Reading System Boston Tobin Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Other ERI Boston Trotter Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading ERI BRCS BRCS Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Road to the Code; Read Naturally; Project Read ERI; Project Read Brockton Davis Scott Foresman Other Early Success; Soar to Success; ERI Brockton Downey Scott Foresman Other Early Success; Soar to Success; ERI Chelsea Berkowitz Scott Foresman Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Great Leaps Reading ERI Chelsea ELC Scott Foresman ERI; Language for Learning; Phonemic Awareness in Young Children; Other ERI; Other Chelsea Kelly Scott Foresman Open Court; Great Leaps Reading; Earobics; Other Project Read Chicopee Bowe Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice ERI; Language For Learning; Language For Thinking; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Road to the Code; Read Naturally Project Read; Other Chicopee Stefanik Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice Road to the Code; EPS Primary Phonics; Other ERI; Language For Learning; Language!; Project Read Fall River Doran Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Other ERI; Reading Recovery; Project Read Fall River Healy Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Other ERI; Reading Recovery; Project Read Fall River Laurel Lake Harcourt Trophies Lexia Phonics Based Reading ERI; Project Read Fall River N.B. Borden Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Other ERI; Project Read; Reading Recovery Fall River Slade Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit ERI; Project Read; Reading Recovery Gill-Montague Hillcrest/Sheffield Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice Early Success; Soar to Success; Houghton Mifflin Phonics Intervention Kit; ERI; EPS Primary Phonics; Read Naturally; Project Read ERI; EPS Primary Phonics; Wilson Reading System; Read Naturally; Project Read; Reading Recovery Haverhill Burnham Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; ERI; EPS Primary Phonics EPS Primary Phonics; Other Haverhill Golden Hill Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; ERI; EPS Primary Phonics EPS Primary Phonics; Other Haverhill Pentucket Lake Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; ERI; EPS Primary Phonics Harcourt Trophies; ERI; EPS Primary Phonics; Other Haverhill Walnut Square Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; ERI; EPS Primary Phonics Harcourt Trophies; ERI; EPS Primary Phonics; Other Holyoke E.N. White Scott Foresman ERI Other Holyoke Kelly Scott Foresman ERI; Phonographix ERI; Phonographix Holyoke Lawrence Scott Foresman ERI; Other ERI Lawrence Arlington Success For All Waterford; EPS Primary Phonics Lawrence Frost Success For All Success For All Tutorial Intervention; Waterford; Phonemic Awareness in Young Children; EPS Primary Phonics; Other Success For All Tutorial Intervention Lawrence Parthum Success For All Success For All Tutorial Intervention; Waterford; EPS Primary Phonics; Other Lawrence Wetherbee Success For All Success For All Tutorial Intervention; Waterford Leominster Priest St./Fall Brook/Bennett Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit ERI; Fundations; Reading Recovery LFDCS LFDCS Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Fundations ERI; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Fundations; Other Lowell Bailey Scott Foresman Other ERI; Other Lowell Greenhalge Scott Foresman Lexia Phonics Based Reading ERI; Other Lowell Murkland Scott Foresman ERI; Other Lynn Harrington Harcourt Trophies Houghton Mifflin Phonics Intervention Kit; Wilson Reading System Houghton Mifflin Phonics Intervention Kit; ERI; Wilson Reading System Lynn Ingalls Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Houghton Mifflin Phonics Intervention Kit; Fundations; Other ERI; Wilson Reading System Malden Ferryway MacMillan McGraw Hill ERI; Project Read; Other ERI; Project Read Methuen Tenney Grammar Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit New Bedford Hayden-McFadden Open Court Great Leaps Reading; Quick Reads ERI; Language For Learning; Language For Thinking; Horizons New Bedford Sgt. Carney Open Court ERI; Language For Learning; Horizons North Adams Brayton Scott Foresman ERI; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Wilson Reading System; Fundations; Read Naturally; Project Read ERI; Wilson Reading System; Fundations; Project Read North Adams Sullivan Scott Foresman ERI; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Read Naturally; Project Read; Other ERI; Wilson Reading System; Fundations; Project Read Pittsfield Morningside Community Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit ERI; Project Read; Other Plymouth South Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice Project Read; Other Soar to Success; ERI; Project Read Plymouth West Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice ERI; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Project Read; Other ERI; Quick Reads; Read Naturally; Project Read Quincy Lincoln-Hancock Harcourt Trophies harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Phonemic Awareness in Young Children; Great Leaps Reading; Quick Reads ERI; Project Read Revere Garfield Magnet Scott Foresman Lexia Phonics Based Reading Soar to Success; ERI; Reading Recovery Salem Bates Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; ERI Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; ERI; Reading Recovery Salem Bentley Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; ERI; EPS Primary Phonics; Quick Reads; Reading Recovery ERI; Wilson Reading System; Reading Recovery; Project Read SHCS SHCS Success For All Success For All Tutorial Intervention; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Other Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Wilson Reading System Springfield Boland Harcourt Trophies Lexia Phonics Based Reading Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; ERI; EPS Primary Phonics; Other Springfield Gerena Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; ERI; Read Naturally ERI; EPS Primary Phonics Springfield Homer St. Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; ERI; Other ERI Springfield Milton Bradley Harcourt Trophies Soar to Success; ERI; Read Naturally; Other EPS Primary Phonics; Read Naturally Springfield White St. Harcourt Trophies Harcourt Trophies Intervention Kit; Soar to Success; ERI; Read Naturally; Other Ware Stanley M. Koziol Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice Houghton Mifflin Phonics Intervention Kit; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Great Leaps Reading; Quick Reads; Other Early Success; Soar to Success; Houghton Mifflin Phonics Intervention Kit; ERI; Wilson Reading System; Fundations Westfield Franklin Ave. Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice ERI; Road to the Code; Phonemic Awareness in Young Children; Great Leaps Reading; Read Naturally Phonographix; Reading Recovery; Other Westfield Highland Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice Early Success; Soar to Success; ERI; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Fundations; Read Naturally; Other Reading Recovery; Other Westfield Moseley Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice Early Success; Soar to Success; ERI; Lexia Phonics Based Reading; Quick Reads; Read Naturally; Other Fundations; Reading Recovery Worcester A.L.L. Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice Houghton Mifflin Phonics Intervention Kit; Waterford; Other Early Success; Soar to Success Worcester City View Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice Waterford; Other Early Success; Soar to Success Worcester Goddard Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice Houghton Mifflin Phonics Intervention Kit; Waterford; Other Early Success; Soar to Success Worcester Lincoln St. Houghton-Mifflin Nation's Choice Houghton Mifflin Phonics Intervention Kit; ERI; Waterford; Other Early Success; Soar to Success; Other Appendix B: Reading Specialist Job Description Massachusetts Reading First Plan (MRFP) Fund Code: 728B Reading Specialist Job Description Position Description: A Reading First Reading Specialist is a specially prepared professional who has responsibility for the literacy performance of readers in general or struggling readers in particular within their schools. The Reading Specialist will provide high-level literacy support for members of the school community that is consistent with and fulfills the requirements of the Massachusetts Reading First Plan (MRFP). The Reading Specialist in this role works closely with DOE, the RF Implementation Facilitator (IF), Principal, the Central Office Reading Coordinator/District Contact, and other relevant school/district administrators, teachers, and parents to accomplish the goals outlined in the MRFP. The Reading Specialist's full-time job is to improve reading instruction in the school. This individual will not have direct classroom duties or intensive intervention instructional responsibilities, nor will they be burdened with administrative responsibilities outside of the reading program. Preferred Qualifications 1. Masters in reading, education, special education, or related field 2. Three to five years prior K-5 teaching experience, K-3 preferred; preference for individuals with experience in varied positions, including reading teacher and classroom teacher 3. Valid MA Reading Specialist certification preferred and required by September 2005; in the interim, valid MA teacher certification with documented reading coursework required 4. Experience and skill as a coach or mentor for adults on literacy related topics 5. Excellent communication skills 6. Deep understanding of scientifically based reading research and evidence-based practices for teaching K-3 reading and assessing student progress toward achievement of benchmarks as documented in coursework and experience as a teacher of reading Major Responsibilities 1) Professional Development a. Provide resources and training to school staff on scientifically based reading research and evidence-based practices; b. Coach (e.g. co-teach, model, demonstrate, observe, and provide feedback) classroom teachers on the implementation with fidelity of core, supplemental, and intensive intervention approaches for K-3 reading and the use of data from valid and reliable assessments as the basis for instructional decision making; c. Provide support for the implementation of the commercial reading programs and approaches selected by the district, working with the publishers as necessary d. Establish and oversee a peer mentoring support network for teachers as they implement recommended instructional practices; include opportunities for teachers to visit one another's classrooms to observe the implementation of specified practices e. Re-deliver Teacher Reading Academy (TRA) content or advanced seminar content to K-3 teachers in school or district-based professional development opportunities; lead study groups to discuss the research, enhance commercial programs with TRA content, share experiences on implementing recommended practices, and examine student work f. Act as catalyst for building a school learning community that focuses on integrated learning, building connections across grades 2) Assessment a. Lead and coordinate the seven member school assessment team: Help administer the MRFP screening, progress monitoring, diagnostic, and outcomes measures b. Working with the Implementation Facilitator, coach teachers on the administration and interpretation of assessment data, to determine adequate progress or those in need of supplemental or intensive intervention as well as grouping for core instruction c. Become familiar with the administration and interpretation of in-depth diagnostic measures or additional assessments commonly used in the school 3) Curriculum and Instruction a. Use available guidance for reviewing core, supplemental, and intensive intervention materials under consideration for purchase for evidence of alignment with Reading First's b. Know how to use a range of effective strategies, analyze instruction, and provide clear, specific information on strategy implementation c. Working with the Implementation Facilitator, help organize and lead school, district, and regional professional development opportunities to disseminate Reading First content to non-Reading First schools 4) School Liaison a. Meet regularly with the Central Office Reading Coordinator/District Contact, Principal, IF, and others to assess the progress of the implementation of Reading First and to modify elements as necessary b. Participate actively in school literacy team and district literacy team meetings c. Assist in the analysis of school-wide literacy strengths and weaknesses and formulate plans to improve student achievement in reading and teaching effectiveness d. Create an atmosphere of trust and collaboration among staff to promote professional growth and accelerate the reading achievement of all students. e. Attend all professional development and networking meetings designed for MRFP reading specialists Copied from: http://www.doe.mass.edu/read/mrfp/rfrs_job.html Appendix C: Teacher Reading Academy Content Description Teacher Reading Academy (TRA) Content Description Acknowledgement: The Massachusetts Teacher Reading Academies are based on the Texas Teacher Reading Academies, which were developed and implemented in a collaborative effort between the Texas Education Agency and the Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts at the University of Texas at Austin. The TRAs are represented by a quilt to remind the participants that, like pieces of a quilt, the components of effective reading instruction are essential and must be combined to assure that all children become successful readers. Oral Language: This module addresses areas of Oral Language Development: phonology, vocabulary, syntax (grammar), and pragmatics and the ways to extend children's language development and increase receptive and expressive vocabulary. English Language Learners: This module addresses the strengths, proficiencies, and diversity of English Language Learners and the stages of Second Language Development with suggestions for instruction. Circle Time: This module describes how Circle Time can provide literary experiences that promote oral language, reading, and writing and build important links between home and school experiences. Phonological Awareness (and Phonemic Awareness): This module addresses the differences between phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and phonics and the research supporting its important role in the reading process. It describes how phonemic awareness instruction improves students' understanding of how the words in spoken language are represented in print and describes instructional practices and activities for teaching the five levels of phonological awareness. Finally, it outlines the systematic monitoring of progress, which then informs instruction. Assessment: This module addresses the importance of using systematic classroom-based instruction and assessment to inform instruction and as the basis of forming instructional groups. Learning Centers: This module describes the variety of learning centers that can be designed with appropriate activities focusing on reading and writing instruction and language development which meet the needs and size of a class. Alphabet and Phonics: This module describes instructional practices and activities for teaching the alphabet, letter-sound relationships, matching beginning texts to children's abilities, and ways to systematically monitor progress in these areas. Spelling and Writing: This module describes instructional practices which help children use their phonological knowledge to map sounds to letters in the early years and begin writing parts of words and whole words, then later express their thoughts in written form. Read Aloud: This module describes the role of reading aloud in building children's oral language skills, vocabulary, and knowledge and in helping children learn the spoken/written language connection. Listening Comprehension: This module addresses ways of enhancing listening comprehension, in general, and increasing listening comprehension of expository and narrative texts, in particular. It also describes ways of meeting the needs of English Language Learners, addresses the needs of struggling learners, and describes ways of monitoring progress. Comprehension: This module examines important ideas that have emerged from research about reading, comprehension, and comprehension instruction. It describes ways to help children to know how and when to use comprehension strategies as they read, and it incorporates a variety of activities so they will understand what they read. Wide Reading: This module focuses on creating classroom environments that promote wide reading and motivate students to read both in and out of school. It describes the importance of reading a lot and reading a variety of texts. Writing: This module describes ways of helping students make connections and communicate understanding and knowledge, while reinforcing and extending students' growing knowledge about reading. It describes the use of instructional frameworks that address all aspects of writing, including writing processes and writing conventions. Vocabulary: This module describes what we know from research about vocabulary development and addresses ways of developing students' vocabulary through wide reading and explicit vocabulary instruction. Designing Effective Lessons: This module incorporates what has been learned in the other modules about effective reading instruction and provides strategies for teachers to meet the varying needs of all learners in a classroom. Fluency: This module addresses the importance of developing fluency and provides information about the means to achieve it. It describes fluency as reading quickly, accurately, and with expression in ways that free cognitive resources to process meaning. Word Study and Phonics: This module describes what is known about reading instruction in the area of applying knowledge of letter sounds, spelling patterns, and word parts to read and spell words accurately and quickly. It describes ways of teaching these things explicitly and systematically. It also addresses the importance of scaffolding or adjusting instruction to meet the specific needs of students. Book Knowledge: This module describes methods of improving children's understanding of book concepts, ways of teaching print concepts, and means of systematically monitoring progress in book and print awareness. Struggling Readers: This module refers to additional, targeted, and intensive reading instruction which needs to be provided to students who continue to struggle with learning to read and write despite conventional instruction. It addressees both neurological and environmental factors that can contribute to the problems of struggling readers. It examines instructional elements for effective beginning reading instruction and how to differentiate instruction for struggling readers. Reading Groups: This module examines the implementation of small group reading instruction in classrooms and the adaptations of instructional materials. The lessons address the issues of managing the classroom, extending learning in literacy-related centers, and providing supported, teacher-led reading instruction to target the needs of individuals. Spelling: This module explores the foundations of developmental spelling and outlines systematic procedures for effective spelling instruction. It describes ways of helping students make connections between the sounds, spellings, and meanings of words. Putting It All Together: This module reviews the components of effective reading instruction that are covered in the TRAs, and using the image of the quilt, reminds participants how all the pieces of effective instruction fit together and when implemented appropriately, no child is left behind. Copied from: http://www.doe.mass.edu/read/jser/tra_outline.html Appendix D: MRFP Assessment Framework Massachusetts Reading First Plan Assessment Framework Kindergarten Assessment (1) Component: Phonemic Awareness Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - None Individual - DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(2): DIBELS Winter Benchmark (January): DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency and DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - None Individual - DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Component: Phonics Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - None Individual - DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(2): DIBELS Winter Benchmark (January): DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency and DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - None Individual - DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency and DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Component: Fluency No Kindergarten assessments Component: Vocabulary Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - None Individual - None Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(2): PPVT-III (listening) Winter Benchmark (January): None Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - None Individual - None Component: Comprehension Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - GRADE, Level P Listening Comprehension Individual - None Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(2): None Winter Benchmark (January): None Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - GRADE, Level K Listening Comprehension Individual - None Notes: (1) Kindergarten assessments are optional, and no kindergarten data will be reported to the U.S. Department of Education. (2) In-depth diagnostic as needed for at risk students; DIBELS progress monitoring assessments can be administered as frequently as prudent using alternate forms (3) Key: DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; GRADE: Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - 3rd Ed. Massachusetts Reading First Plan Assessment Framework Grade 1 Assessment Component: Phonemic Awareness Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - GRADE, Level K Sound Matching and Rhyming Individual - DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): DIBELS Winter Benchmark (January): DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - None Individual - DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Component: Phonics/Word Identification Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - GRADE, Level K Print Awareness, Letter Recognition, Same/Diff Words, Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondence, Word Reading (opt) Individual - DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency and DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): DIBELS and GRADE (off level) Winter Benchmark (January): DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - Grade, Level 1 Word Reading Individual - DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Component: Fluency Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - None Individual - None Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): NOne Winter Benchmark (January): DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - None Individual - DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Component: Vocabulary Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - None Individual - None Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): PPVT-III (listening) Winter Benchmark (January): None Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - GRADE, Level 1 Word Meaning (reading) Individual - None Component: Comprehension Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - GRADE, Level K Listening Comprehension Individual - None Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): GRADE (off level) Winter Benchmark (January): None Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - GRADE, Level 1 Listening Comprehension, Sentence and Passage Comprehension (reading) Individual - None Notes: (1) In-depth diagnostic as needed for at risk students; DIBELS progress monitoring assessments can be administered as frequently as prudent using alternate forms (2) Key: DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; GRADE: Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - 3rd Ed. Massachusetts Reading First Plan Assessment Framework Grade 2 Assessment Component: Phonemic Awareness Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - None Individual - None Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): CTOPP (Elison) and DIBELS Winter Benchmark (January): None Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - None Individual - None Component: Phonics/Word Identification Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - GRADE, Level 2 Word Reading Individual - DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): DIBELS and GRADE (off level) Winter Benchmark (January): None Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - Grade, Level 2 Word Reading Individual - None Component: Fluency Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - None Individual - DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): NOne Winter Benchmark (January): DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - None Individual - DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Component: Vocabulary Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - GRADE, Level 2 Word Meaning (reading) Individual - None Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): PPVT-III (listening) Winter Benchmark (January): None Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - GRADE, Level 2 Word Meaning (reading) Individual - None Component: Comprehension Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - GRADE, Level 2 Listening Comprehension, Sentence and Passage Comprehension (Reading), DRP (optional) Individual - None Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): GRADE (off level) Winter Benchmark (January): DRP (optional) Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - GRADE, Level 2 Listening Comprehension, Sentence and Passage Comprehension (reading), DRP (optional) Individual - None Notes: (1) In-depth diagnostic as needed for at risk students; DIBELS progress monitoring assessments can be administered as frequently as prudent using alternate forms (2) 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. Massachusetts Reading First Plan Assessment Framework Grade 3 Assessment Component: Phonemic Awareness Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - None Individual - None Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): CTOPP (Elison) and DIBELS Winter Benchmark (January): None Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - None Individual - None Component: Phonics/Word Identification Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - GRADE, Level 3 Word Reading Individual - None Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): DIBELS and GRADE (off level) Winter Benchmark (January): None Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - Grade, Level 3 Word Reading Individual - None Component: Fluency Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - None Individual - DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): NOne Winter Benchmark (January): DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - None Individual - DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Component: Vocabulary Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - GRADE, Level 3 vocabulary (reading) Individual - None Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): PPVT-III (listening) Winter Benchmark (January): None Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - GRADE, Level 3 Vocabulary (reading) Individual - None Component: Comprehension Screening/Diagnostic (Fall Benchmark - September/October): Group - GRADE, Level 3 Listening Comprehension, Sentence and Passage Comprehension (reading), DRP (optional) Individual - None Individual In-depth Diagnostic/Progress Monitoring (As Needed)(1): GRADE (off level) Winter Benchmark (January): DRP (optional) Outcomes (Spring Benchmark - May): Group - GRADE, Level 3 Listening Comprehension, Sentence and Passage Comprehension (reading), DRP (optional) Individual - None Notes: (1) In-depth diagnostic as needed for at risk students; DIBELS progress monitoring assessments can be administered as frequently as prudent using alternate forms (2) 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. Appendix E: Administration and Use of Assessments Progress Monitoring Progress monitoring is the process of assessing students for the purpose of gauging their progress and adjusting their instruction accordingly. Progress monitoring is recommended for students receiving Tier II and III intervention. Annual personnel survey respondents were asked how often their students are progress monitored using DIBELS. As shown in Table E1, more than two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they progress monitor their “some risk” students once or twice a month, while over 55% monitor their “at risk” students every week or every other week. Table E1: DIBELS Progress Monitoring (N = 1,702) Percentage Responding How often is DIBELS used for progress monitoring for students who are: Once a Week Twice a Month Once a Month Other At Some Risk 3.7% 24.2% 43.7% 15.0% At Risk 13.0% 42.3% 23.8% 9.0% Note: Percentages do not add to 100% because not all respondents answered every question. Responsibility for Assessment Administration When Massachusetts Reading First began, each school designated a seven-member assessment team that would be trained and take responsibility for administering the first round of assessments. Following a gradual release model, this assessment team would then train other staff, particularly classroom teachers, who would take over responsibility for administering assessments over the course of the year. For cohort 1 schools, this transfer of responsibility largely took place during the 2003-2004 academic year. For Cohort 2 schools, which began classroom implementation in Fall 2004, this shift should have occurred during 2004-2005. According to the data gathered via Spring 2005 District Implementation Reports (DIRs), in many schools the student assessments are now administered primarily by the classroom teachers. However, in nearly one-quarter of the schools, the classroom teachers administered GRADE while other staff administered DIBELS. Thirty-eight schools reported still having assessment teams in place, including several cohort 1 schools, but only three schools’ teams were primarily responsible for administering all assessments. In four schools the assessment team and classroom teachers administered the assessments together. Also, 44 schools reported that other staff assisted with administering the assessments, including reading specialists, resource specialists, Title I teachers and tutors, and paraprofessionals. The annual personnel survey asked respondents to indicate in which assessment administrations they participated. As shown in Table E2, teacher involvement with administering the required student assessments generally increased during the course of the school year. In cohort 1 schools slightly larger percentages of teachers were involved with assessing students than in cohort 2 schools, for whom this is still a fairly new process. In addition, in cohort 1 schools, the involvement of reading specialists in assessing students decreased during the course of the year. The same cannot be said for cohort 2 schools. Because this was the first year of grant implementation for cohort 2 schools, those teachers relied more heavily on help from their reading specialists for administering assessments. We would expect that next year (2006-2007) cohort 2 schools will look more like cohort 1 schools in this respect. Table E2: Participation in Assessment Administration, by Role and Cohort Building Administrators District Coordinators Reading Specialists Teachers Others Cohort 1 Schools (N =62) (N = 22) (N =98 ) (N =922) (N = 114) DIBELS Fall 14.5% 18.2% 76.5% 56.8% 45.6% Mid-Year 21.0% 9.1% 79.6% 63.4% 43.0% Spring 19.4% 13.6% 71.4% 64.1% 37.7% GRADE Fall 6.5% 13.6% 68.4% 68.9% 14.6% Spring 16.1% 4.5% 58.2% 70.9% 28.9% Building Administrators District Coordinators Reading Specialists Teachers Others Cohort 2 Schools (N =19) (N = 3) (N =41 ) (N =382) (N = 18) DIBELS Fall 26.3% --- 87.8% 45.3% 61.1% Mid-Year 15.8% --- 90.2% 58.6% 44.4% Spring 15.8% --- 87.8% 61.3% 33.3% GRADE Fall 10.5% --- 73.2% 68.6% 50.0% Spring 5.3% --- 75.6% 76.4% 44.4% Ease of Administration Survey respondents who indicated they had taken part in administering the student assessments were then asked to rate the ease of administration for each assessment. Table E3 shows that DIBELS was rated slightly more favorably than GRADE for ease of administration. Table E3: Student Assessments – Ease of Administration How would you rate the ease of administration for: Percentage Responding: N Poor Fair Good Excellent DIBELS 1168 0.3% 5.9% 45.7% 42.5% GRADE 1229 0.8% 8.6% 54.4% 31.3% Data Analysis and Application The results of the required student assessments may be used by school personnel for a number of purposes. Table E4 shows that DIBELS is largely used as a tool for instructional grouping and skill analysis. GRADE, on the other hand, does not appear to be widely used for any single purpose, with only about 41% using it for skill analysis. Table E4: Uses of Student Assessment Data (N = 1,702) For which purpose(s) did you review student assessment data? DIBELS GRADE Grouping for Instruction 81.1% 38.8% Skill Analysis 66.7% 40.9% Identifying Students for In-Depth Testing 52.9% 27.4% Other 7.2% 5.5% Survey respondents were also asked to rate the effectiveness of the data for each of the purposes listed above. As shown in Table E5, 72% thought DIBELS was an effective tool for skill analysis, 83% thought it was effective for instructional grouping, and 73% found it effective for identifying students for further testing. GRADE also received relatively favorable ratings in each category, and was actually rated effective for skill analysis by a larger percentage of respondents than was DIBELS. Table E5: Effectiveness of Student Assessment Data Please Rate the Effectiveness of the Assessment Data for: Percentage Responding: Poor Fair Good Excellent DIBELS (N = 1519) Skill Analysis 3.7% 20.3% 51.7% 20.0% Instructional Grouping 2.0% 12.3% 55.9% 27.2% Identifying Students for In-depth Testing 3.0% 16.1% 50.3% 22.3% GRADE (N =930 ) Skill Analysis 2.2% 15.8% 59.4% 14.8% Instructional Grouping 2.9% 19.2% 54.5% 13.4% Identifying Students for In-depth Testing 2.7% 18.3% 49.5% 13.3% As shown in Table E6, about three-quarters of survey respondents were generally satisfied with DIBELS. In comparison, only about half of the respondents were generally satisfied with GRADE. Table E6: Satisfaction with Assessments (N = 1,702) Percentage Responding: Poor Fair Good Excellent Overall Satisfaction with DIBELS 2.5% 15.0% 52.8% 23.0% Overall Satisfaction with GRADE 3.6% 20.4% 45.7% 8.4% Other Assessments Table E7 shows that the most frequently used in-depth assessments were the CTOPP and PPVT-III. Roswell-Chall and off-level administration of the GRADE assessment were used by very few schools and for fewer than ten students at each grade level.   Table E7: Use of In-Depth Diagnostic Assessments (N = 75 Schools) Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade Assessment Schools Students Schools Students Schools Students Schools Students PPVT III 15 104 12 39 10 44 9 32 GRADE Off-Level --- --- --- --- 1 7 2 6 CTOPP --- --- --- --- 15 56 15 44 Roswell-Chall --- --- --- --- 2 2 2 3 The DIR also collected data on other assessments administered in Reading First schools. As shown in Table E8, most schools also utilized assessments that were integrated with their core curriculum. About half of the schools also use the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) and about one-quarter used Marie Clay’s Observation Survey.   Table E8: Other Assessments Used by Reading First Schools (2004-2005) Assessment Number of Schools Using Core Program / Unit Benchmark Assessments 59 Developmental Reading Assessment 41 Clays Observation Survey 22 Language Assessment Scales 9 Scholastic Reading Inventory 8 Iowa Test of Basic Skills 5 Terra Nova Reading 4 California Achievement Test 3 Slossen Oral Reading Test 2 Other Assessments 42 Data Tools Schools have the option of administering DIBELS using a hand held computer and software from Wireless Generation. Of the 1,702 survey respondents, about one-fifth indicated they made use of this option. As shown in Table E9, about 88% favorably rated ease of use, about three-quarters were pleased with the ease of report generation, and 80% rated the quality of reports favorably. Table E9: Palm Handheld/Wireless Generation Ratings (N=315) Please Rate Wireless Generation on the Following: Percentage Responding: Poor Fair Good Excellent NA Ease of Use 1.0% 6.0% 28.9% 59.4% 1.6% Ease of Report Generation 1.3% 8.6% 34.0% 39.7% 9.2% Quality of Reports 0.6% 5.1% 46.0% 34.0% 6.0% In addition to administering these assessments, Reading First schools must purchase and use TestWiz, which is a software program designed to store and analyze student assessment data. Only about 12% of all survey respondents reported using TestWiz during the 2004-2005 school year. Table E10, below, shows the percentage of individuals reporting having used TestWiz, by role. Here we see that about half of the reading specialists and district coordinators indicated they used TestWiz, as did 43% of building administrators. Only about 6% of teachers reported using TestWiz.   Table E10: TestWiz Use by Role Role: N Percentage Using TestWiz Reading Specialists 139 50.4% District Coordinators 25 48.0% Building Administrators 81 43.2% Teachers 1304 5.7% Schools are required to use TestWiz to enter their assessment data and save it to disk for submission to the Donahue Institute. In addition, TestWiz provides schools with numerous other functions. Those survey respondents that reported having used TestWiz were then asked for which specific purposes they used the software. As shown in Table E11, use of TestWiz for various purposes varies a bit by role. For example, building administrators are most likely to use TestWiz for examining the performance of groups of students, while reading specialists are mostly likely to use it for examining individual student performance and for entering data to be sent to the Donahue Institute.   Table E11: Various Uses for TestWiz, by Role For which of the following have you used TestWiz: Building Admin. District Coordinators Reading Specialists Teachers Others (N = 35) (N = 12) (N = 70) (N = 74) (N = 16) To examine individual student performance 77.1% 58.3% 94.3% 74.3% 68.8% To examine the performance of groups of students 85.7% 91.7% 87.1% 52.7% 68.8% To track student performance trends 77.1% 66.7% 68.6% 59.5% 43.8% To enter data to be sent to the Donahue institute 54.3% 33.3% 91.4% 17.6% 68.8% To communicate to parents 25.7% 8.3% 34.3% 36.5% 31.3% Other 8.6% 8.3% 5.7% 8.1% 6.3% Information gathered via the Spring 2005 DIRs supports the data in the table above. Most schools indicated on their DIRs that reading specialists are largely responsible for entering data into TestWiz. Only four schools reported that the district-level coordinators were responsible for data input; another three schools said they had data entry staff that was primarily responsible for this task. The practice of having licensed reading specialists perform data entry is inconsistent with the expectations of Massachusetts Reading First. The reading specialist is intended to be a coach who works directly with classroom teachers. The Massachusetts Department of Education should encourage schools to identify clerical resources to handle these data entry tasks. The 207 survey respondents who had used TestWiz also provided their opinions on the software. * Nearly 52% rated the ease of use of TestWiz as either good or excellent. * About 7% of them had attended a TestWiz training during 2004-2005. Of those 115 individuals, 71% rated the training they received as either good or excellent. * Just under 11% made use of TestWiz reports. Of those 185 people, 82% rated the reports as either good or excellent. * Of the 207 TestWiz users, 53% reported having difficulty using TestWiz. Of those who had difficulties, 96% contacted dataMetrics for support. Table E12 shows that three-quarters of those who contacted dataMetrics for support with TestWiz rated the support they received favorably. In addition, 78% were pleased with the responsiveness of dataMetrics staff. Table E12: Ratings of dataMetrics Support (N = 105) Please rate your experience with dataMetrics on the following: Percentage Responding: Poor Fair Good Excellent Quality of Support Received 2.9% 15.2% 28.6% 46.7% Responsiveness of dataMetrics Staff to your Needs 4.8% 11.4% 33.3% 44.8% Although Reading First schools are required to administer DIBELS and GRADE and enter the data into TestWiz for submission to the Donahue Institute, they are not specifically required to use any one tool or method for analyzing their students’ data; there are several available options from which schools can pick. Spring 2005 DIRs asked schools to report which data analysis tools they used and were allowed to choose as many as applied. As shown in Table E13, most schools made use of TestWiz for data analysis. Many also used Microsoft Excel and Wireless Generaton reports. Somewhat fewer used the DIBELS data system, EdFormation’s AIMSweb, and reports generated from the GRADE software.   Table E13: Use of Other Data Analysis Tools (N = 75) Data Analysis Tool Number of Schools TestWiz 72 Microsoft Excel 26 Wireless Generation Reports 20 DIBELS Data System 15 EdFormation/AIMSweb/Ideal Consulting 12 GRADE Software Reports 9 Other 25 As seen in Table E14, large majorities of schools indicated that principals, reading specialists, and teachers were the ones making use of the data tools listed in the previous table. And more than 50 of the 75 schools indicated that individuals in several different roles were involved in using these data analysis tools. Fewer than 40 schools indicated that district data specialists and other staff made us of these tools. Table E14: School Staff Using Data Analysis Tools (N = 75) Role Number of Schools Principal 71 Reading Specialist 71 Teacher 69 Literacy Team 62 SPED Teacher 61 District Reading Coordinator 57 Leadership Team 57 Implementation Facilitator 51 Title I Staff 47 Support Staff 42 District Data Specialist 36 Other 30 Appendix F: Implementation Facilitator Job Description Massachusetts Reading First Plan (MRFP) Fund Code: 728B Reading First Implementation Facilitator (RF IF) Position Description: A Reading First Implementation Facilitator (RF IF) is responsible for organizing, designing, and delivering ongoing and sustained professional development in reading for Reading First districts and schools in Massachusetts. The RF IF will provide high-level literacy support for members of the school and district community that is consistent with and fulfills the requirements of the MRFP. The RF IF works closely with the school-based Reading First Reading Specialists, school principals, district grant contacts and reading coordinators, and others to accomplish the goals of the MRFP. Preferred Qualifications 1. Masters in reading, education, special education, or related field 2. Three to five years prior K-5 teaching experience, K-3 preferred; preference for individuals with experience in varied positions, including reading teacher and classroom teacher 3. Valid MA Reading Specialist license preferred and required by September 2005; in the interim, valid MA teacher license with documented reading coursework required 4. Experience and skill as a coach or mentor for teachers on the implementation of effective early reading practices 5. Excellent communication and presentation skills 6. Deep understanding of scientifically based reading research and evidence-based practices for teaching K-3 reading and assessing student progress toward achievement of benchmarks as documented in coursework and experience as a teacher of reading 7. Ability to work independently in unstructured setting Major Responsibilities 1. Professional Development: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment a. Provide resources, demonstration materials, and training on scientifically based reading research and the implementation of instructional practices consistent with research findings. b. Target consultative assistance to the school-based Reading First Reading Specialist for the implementation of core, supplemental, and intensive interventions in classrooms, the integration of published program approaches with effective practices introduced during the teacher reading academies and follow-up seminars, and the use of assessment data to inform instructional decision-making. c. Mentor the Reading First Reading Specialist on the use of effective coaching strategies when working with K-3 classroom teachers, especially the modeling of effective strategies and instructional practices for struggling readers. d. Design, organize, and lead district and school-based ongoing professional development (e.g. study groups, district wide meetings, and regional meetings) that is analytic, reflective, and inquiry-based as follow-up to the Department's teacher reading academies and seminars on specific early reading topics. e. Work with reading core, supplemental, and intensive intervention commercial publishers on program-specific professional development that is aligned with Reading First. f. Act as catalyst for building a school and district learning community that focuses on integrated learning, building connections across grades and across buildings to establish cohesive and consistent messages regarding evidence-based practices. g. Support the Reading First Reading Specialist, school assessment team and classroom teachers in the administration of Reading First assessments, analysis of data, and use of data to inform instruction (e.g. grouping, identifying students for supplemental instruction or intensive interventions). h. Support the Reading First Reading Specialist's coaching of teachers regarding the use of Reading First assessments or additional assessments (e.g. classroom or program-based assessments), helping teachers avoid over-assessing students or using redundant measures. 2. Field-Based Liaison for Reading First a. Meet regularly with the Department's Office of Reading staff and others for ongoing training and problem solving. b. Meet regularly with the Reading First Reading Specialists for ongoing professional development, coaching, network building, and problem solving; c. Meet regularly with district and school leadership including district and school literacy teams to support the implementation of Reading First; d. Based upon the Doe's annual monitoring of Reading First, assist districts and schools in the analysis of school-wide literacy strengths and challenges and formulate action plans with timelines to improve student achievement in reading and teaching effectiveness. e. Create an atmosphere of trust and collaboration among staff to promote professional growth and accelerate the reading achievement of all students. Copied from: http://www.doe.mass.edu/read/mrfp/if_job.html Appendix G: Feedback on IF Role The role of an IF is multifaceted and varies, depending on the needs of each school. Survey respondents were asked in which ways they had interacted with their IF and were allowed to choose as many answers as applied. As shown in Table G1, building administrators, district coordinators and reading specialists all had relatively similar types of interaction with their IFs – primarily in meetings at the school and when working to interpret student assessment data. In addition, 80% of district coordinators reported interacting with their IF at regional meetings. Teachers most frequently reported contact with their IF at grade-level meetings. Table G1: Types of Interaction with IF by Role In which ways have you had contact with your school's IF: All Respondents Building Admin. District Coordinators Reading Specialists Teachers At Grade-Level Meetings 59.2% 50.6% 60.0% 56.8% 62.2% Interpreting Assessment Data 55.8% 75.3% 88.0% 72.7% 53.9% At school-level Meetings 51.8% 70.4% 80.0% 64.7% 50.1% Instructional Planning 40.5% 53.1% 64.0% 46.0% 39.7% Instructional Grouping 36.9% 39.5% 48.0% 46.8% 36.7% Administering Assessments 33.8% 29.6% 28.0% 31.7% 34.9% Identifying Additional Resources 33.3% 54.3% 72.0% 41.7% 30.7% Receiving Individual Coaching/Modeling 31.1% 30.9% 40.0% 39.6% 31.2% At Regional Meetings 14.5% 58.0% 80.0% 48.2% 7.4% Other 7.8% 11.1% 20.0% 12.9% 7.1% Those who indicated they had interacted with their IF in some way were then asked to rate their IF on several dimensions. As shown in Table G2, district coordinators consistently provided the highest rating for their IFs. In contrast, reading specialists consistently gave them the lowest ratings. Across the board, IFs received the lowest ratings for their contribution to increasing the respondent’s knowledge and skills.   Table G2: Overall IF Ratings by Role Survey Item: Percentage Responding “Good” or “Excellent” Building Admin. District Coordinators Reading Specialists Teachers Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with the services provided by your IF? 73.3% 76.0% 68.0% 69.4% How would you rate your IF's contribution to the overall effectiveness of Reading First at your school? 66.7% 80.0% 61.1% 65.7% How would you rate your IF's contribution to increasing your knowledge and skills around reading instruction? 66.6% 72.0% 58.0% 62.4% How would you rate your IF's responsiveness to the specific needs of your school? 74.6% 76.0% 64.1% 65.8% Table G3 shows that, overall, the IFs received the most favorable ratings regarding their expertise in the area of reading content. With the exception of district coordinators, all types of respondents gave the lowest ratings to their IFs expertise in the area of coaching and modeling.   Table G3: IF Expertise Ratings by Role Percentage Responding “Good” or “Excellent” How would you rate your IF's expertise in each of the following areas: Building Admin. District Coordinators Reading Specialists Teachers Reading Content 81.3% 84.0% 71.7% 74.2% Coaching/Modeling 66.7% 76.0% 58.0% 61.6% Providing Structured Professional Development 69.3% 52.0% 59.5% 66.1% Appendix H: MRFP Schools – Student Profiles Enrollment K-3 Demographics 2004 Grade 3 MCAS District School K-3 SPED LEP Low Inc Non-White P W Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 149 13.4% 0.0% 40.9% 12.8% 60.9% 2.2% Boston Agassiz 406 14.0% 49.8% 89.2% 96.6% 11.0% 36.7% Boston Condon 382 19.9% 25.1% 84.0% 78.0% 20.8% 16.8% Boston Dever 356 13.8% 39.3% 89.6% 92.4% 26.4% 16.5% Boston Eliot 101 20.8% 10.9% 67.3% 57.4% 33.3% 41.7% Boston Harvard Kent 315 14.9% 52.1% 90.5% 86.7% 33.3% 10.7% Boston Mendell 111 13.5% 9.9% 90.1% 95.5% 44.0% 12.0% Boston Orchard Gardens 258 10.9% 36.8% 85.3% 98.1% 14.1% 31.3% Boston Otis 173 8.1% 65.9% 88.4% 68.2% 40.4% 3.5% Boston Perkins 161 11.8% 13.7% 95.7% 78.9% 41.9% 9.7% Boston Stone 93 16.1% 5.4% 87.1% 100.0% 69.0% 0.0% Boston Tobin 204 9.8% 47.1% 83.8% 99.0% 14.3% 22.4% Boston Trotter 327 15.0% 3.7% 74.3% 98.5% 13.5% 23.6% Boston Renaissance Charter School 716 8.9% 3.4% 66.6% 99.2% 36.9% 17.1% Brockton Davis 667 9.9% 25.9% 68.4% 69.0% 52.2% 9.6% Brockton Downey 274 23.7% 1.8% 66.4% 63.9% 43.3% 20.2% Cambridge Haggerty 162 21.0% 0.6% 34.6% 46.9% 57.1% 10.7% Chelsea Berkowtiz 319 10.3% 23.2% 84.0% 86.8% 57.9% 5.3% Chelsea Kelly 328 11.0% 32.9% 81.7% 92.7% 48.5% 10.1% Chelsea Shurtleff 423 4.7% 30.7% 77.5% 88.4% n/a n/a Chicopee Bowe 248 19.4% 25.4% 84.3% 52.8% 53.7% 9.0% Chicopee Stefanik 270 11.5% 21.5% 85.2% 66.3% 37.9% 7.6% Fall River Doran 253 7.9% 26.5% 78.3% 18.2% 33.3% 18.2% Fall River Healy 164 6.7% 46.3% 91.5% 66.5% 33.3% 12.1% Fall River Laurel Lake 151 6.0% 4.0% 78.8% 42.4% 45.5% 6.8% Fall River N.B. Borden 97 8.2% 5.2% 91.8% 30.9% 0.0% 39.1% Fall River Slade 131 11.5% 3.8% 84.0% 25.2% 40.0% 12.5% Gill-Montague Hillcrest 130 22.3% 3.1% 58.5% 12.3% n/a n/a Gill-Montague Sheffield 55 14.5% 7.3% 60.0% 14.5% 33.3% 23.5% Haverhill Burnham 113 7.1% 45.1% 54.0% 57.5% n/a n/a Haverhill Golden Hill 235 14.9% 7.2% 43.8% 26.8% 51.5% 13.1% Haverhill Pentucket Lake 301 12.6% 1.0% 45.5% 22.9% 58.8% 6.7% Haverhill Walnut Square 120 5.0% 0.0% 10.0% 5.8% n/a n/a Holyoke Kelly 270 15.9% 36.3% 87.0% 88.9% 9.1% 33.3% Holyoke Lawrence 303 13.9% 37.6% 88.4% 92.1% 20.5% 31.5% Holyoke White 249 18.5% 25.7% 72.3% 73.1% 24.2% 25.8% Lawrence Arlington 384 14.1% 27.3% 91.7% 95.1% 15.4% 29.8% Lawrence Frost 374 13.4% 13.4% 72.5% 75.1% 23.5% 24.7% Lawrence Parthum 530 12.5% 23.2% 82.1% 81.5% 37.2% 17.6% Lawrence Wetherbee 298 10.7% 17.1% 84.9% 84.9% 30.9% 19.8% Lawrence Family Development Charter School 246 11.4% 39.4% 86.6% 99.6% 38.6% 12.3% Leominster Bennett 86 27.9% 11.6% 18.6% 32.6% n/a n/a Leominster Fall Brook 406 13.5% 14.3% 30.3% 27.6% 50.3% 11.6% Leominster Priest Street 250 24.8% 19.6% 19.6% 43.2% n/a n/a Lowell Bailey 365 9.3% 6.8% 49.0% 51.2% 38.2% 13.5% Lowell Greenhalge 311 15.8% 12.9% 67.8% 46.6% 36.0% 22.7% Lowell Murkland 365 14.5% 30.1% 83.8% 80.3% 22.3% 18.4% Lowell Community Charter School 406 5.2% 41.9% 79.1% 81.5% 35.8% 13.7% Lynn Harrington 311 12.5% 49.5% 91.6% 84.6% 30.0% 14.4% Lynn Ingalls 318 10.1% 47.2% 92.1% 85.2% 25.5% 24.5% Malden Ferryway 387 8.5% 11.4% 56.1% 56.3% 62.5% 10.2% Methuen Tenney 532 9.6% 11.3% 33.8% 23.9% 58.0% 6.0% Neighborhood House Charter School 110 10.0% 0.0% 60.0% 64.5% 68.2% 4.5% New Bedford Carney 310 20.0% 0.3% 79.4% 53.5% 52.5% 11.1% New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 437 22.4% 14.0% 90.6% 54.5% 28.6% 21.0% North Adams Brayton 221 14.9% 3.2% 63.3% 9.5% 47.4% 14.0% North Adams Sullivan 175 10.9% 1.1% 45.7% 10.9% 54.2% 2.1% Pittsfield Morningside 270 12.6% 3.0% 67.8% 20.4% 43.2% 14.8% Plymouth South 562 11.0% 0.5% 10.7% 2.8% 72.2% 2.5% Plymouth West 239 14.2% 1.3% 13.4% 3.8% 72.2% 4.2% Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 307 9.1% 29.3% 36.5% 35.8% 62.2% 4.9% Revere Garfield 408 17.2% 21.6% 80.6% 75.0% 36.7% 7.8% Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 87 2.3% 0.0% 62.1% 96.6% 60.0% 0.0% Salem Bates 235 15.3% 0.0% 38.7% 29.8% 51.4% 8.1% Salem Bentley 204 20.1% 25.0% 44.6% 41.7% 65.4% 3.8% Seven Hills Charter School 309 10.7% 13.6% 75.4% 81.9% 43.6% 9.0% Somerville East Somerville 250 21.6% 43.2% 82.4% 84.0% 54.4% 12.7% Springfield Boland 295 20.3% 18.0% 82.0% 83.1% 31.4% 11.4% Springfield Gerena 396 18.2% 19.7% 90.4% 92.2% 20.2% 27.7% Springfield Homer Street 267 6.0% 22.1% 80.9% 95.1% 28.2% 17.9% Springfield Milton Bradley 394 13.2% 21.6% 83.5% 90.6% 31.7% 14.9% Springfield White Street 296 9.1% 14.2% 85.1% 87.5% 17.1% 17.1% Taunton Walker 155 16.1% 5.2% 52.3% 23.9% 31.7% 24.4% Ware Koziol 379 17.2% 0.5% 49.3% 7.1% 52.2% 8.7% Webster Park Ave 422 14.5% 5.5% 38.6% 13.3% n/a n/a Webster Sitkowski 153 18.3% 2.6% 41.8% 3.9% 59.4% 14.8% Westfield Franklin Ave 137 16.1% 20.4% 83.2% 41.6% 97.2% 0.0% Westfield Highland 213 12.2% 41.8% 49.3% 8.0% 36.0% 18.7% Westfield Moseley 106 8.5% 0.0% 53.8% 12.3% 57.7% 0.0% Worcester A.L.L. 251 13.9% 38.2% 89.2% 75.7% 15.1% 21.9% Worcester City View 247 15.4% 20.2% 81.0% 58.7% 30.2% 17.0% Worcester Goddard 307 16.3% 51.1% 94.1% 70.7% 30.3% 15.2% Worcester Lincoln Street 146 11.6% 32.9% 87.7% 70.5% 20.0% 23.3% Note: Enrollment and demographic figures generated through October 2004 SIMS file Appendix I: Cohort 1 GRADE composite scores Spring 2004 Spring 2005 Change District School N % Weak % A/S N % Weak % A/S Weak A/S Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 123 7% 85% 121 6% 83% -1 -3 Boston Renaissance Charter School 467 21% 62% 423 16% 70% -5 7 Brockton Davis 307 25% 63% 343 19% 68% -6 5 Brockton Downey 241 25% 59% 225 25% 58% 0 -1 Cambridge Haggerty 101 26% 65% 102 24% 68% -2 2 Chelsea Kelly 294 22% 56% 306 19% 60% -3 4 Chicopee Bowe 190 27% 57% 179 24% 59% -3 2 Chicopee Stefanik 196 29% 54% 180 14% 69% -14 15 Fall River Borden 64 27% 47% 75 16% 55% -11 8 Fall River Doran 193 26% 57% 195 28% 46% 2 -11 Fall River Healy 117 37% 48% 128 38% 42% 2 -6 Fall River Laurel Lake 121 19% 67% 112 19% 59% 0 -8 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 102 28% 59% 91 26% 55% -2 -4 Gill-Montague Sheffield 51 25% 61% 52 12% 79% -14 18 Haverhill Burnham 98 32% 54% 74 34% 55% 2 1 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 248 15% 76% 237 11% 78% -4 2 Haverhill Walnut Square 98 3% 91% 80 5% 86% 2 -5 Lawrence Arlington 337 42% 38% 326 33% 46% -8 8 Lawrence Frost 277 25% 55% 273 27% 57% 1 2 Lawrence Wetherbee 235 34% 47% 231 30% 49% -4 2 Lawrence Family Development Charter School 169 21% 60% 177 23% 58% 2 -3 Lowell Bailey 274 26% 55% 255 18% 70% -8 15 Lowell Greenhalge 234 27% 59% 235 20% 66% -8 8 Lowell Murkland 278 42% 38% 245 34% 49% -8 10 Lowell Community Charter School 279 30% 49% 288 24% 58% -5 9 Malden Ferryway 288 8% 76% 292 10% 78% 2 2 Methuen Tenney 400 10% 82% 385 10% 79% 0 -3 Neighborhood House Charter School 66 11% 83% 65 5% 88% -6 4 North Adams Brayton 168 17% 70% 166 20% 71% 3 1 North Adams Sullivan 137 15% 74% 128 11% 78% -4 4 Pittsfield Morningside 219 14% 68% 217 18% 73% 4 6 Plymouth South 447 10% 83% 432 7% 87% -3 4 Plymouth West 172 5% 88% 175 4% 89% -1 1 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 239 16% 70% 227 16% 76% 0 6 Revere Garfield 292 21% 62% 307 16% 70% -6 8 Robert M Hughes Academy Charter School 63 19% 65% 61 26% 56% 7 -9 Salem Bates 200 19% 70% 177 15% 75% -4 6 Salem Bentley 161 17% 73% 157 22% 68% 5 -5 Seven Hills Charter School 226 30% 55% 226 27% 52% -3 -4 Springfield Boland Data are incomplete 207 27% 56% -- -- Springfield Gerena 303 35% 40% 289 33% 47% -2 8 Springfield Milton Bradley 267 35% 51% 286 25% 57% -10 6 Springfield White Street 172 31% 47% 210 35% 51% 4 4 Taunton Walker 127 23% 62% 118 22% 69% -1 6 Ware Koziol 271 17% 72% 265 16% 72% -1 0 Webster Park Ave 284 12% 76% 254 9% 83% -3 7 Webster Sitkowski 122 11% 79% 148 19% 71% 7 -8 Westfield Franklin Ave 108 30% 48% 92 27% 65% -2 17 Westfield Highland 212 33% 48% 179 21% 59% -13 12 Westfield Moseley 80 18% 68% 81 7% 80% -10 13 Worcester ALL 213 48% 35% 175 49% 33% 1 -2 Worcester City View 172 31% 53% 168 25% 58% -6 5 Worcester Goddard 234 48% 37% 225 44% 36% -4 0 Worcester Lincoln Street 121 30% 45% 88 16% 59% -14 14 Appendix J: School Level Results - DIBELS ORF Table J1: Spring 2004 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 25 67.6 37 16 41.0 39 21 45.7 46 Boston Renaissance Charter School 86 61.9 139 54 38.8 139 61 39.6 154 Brockton Downey 20 30.8 65 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 36.8 106 48 48.5 99 Chelsea Shurtleff 66 71.7 92 ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 15 23.8 63 27 50.9 53 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 47.7 44 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 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 Square 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 25 26.9 93 23 22.8 101 Lowell Bailey 38 42.7 89 34 39.1 87 28 31.8 88 Lowell Greenhalge 34 42.0 81 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 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 45.1 91 29 34.5 84 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 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 27 52.9 51 32 59.3 54 Seven Hills Charter School 26 33.8 77 19 24.7 77 23 30.3 76 Springfield Boland 29 42.0 69 26 41.9 62 24 34.8 69 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 16 66.7 24 15 55.6 27 Worcester A.L.L. 10 16.1 62 26 38.2 68 18 26.1 69 Worcester City View 23 37.7 61 26 44.1 59 13 24.1 54 Worcester Goddard 27 39.7 68 21 26.9 78 18 25.7 70 Worcester Lincoln Street 23 44.2 52 15 40.5 37 4 14.3 28 ** School does not include this grade-level Table J2: Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 33 80.5 41 33 78.6 42 19 50.0 38 Boston Renaissance Charter School 87 64.0 136 67 47.5 141 51 36.7 139 Brockton Downey 36 56.3 64 22 31.4 70 35 38.5 91 Brockton Davis 54 40.9 132 49 48.5 101 35 31.8 110 Cambridge Haggerty 22 57.9 38 24 63.2 38 14 58.3 24 Chelsea Kelly 82 68.9 119 65 63.1 103 43 48.9 88 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 37 63.8 58 25 37.3 67 27 58.7 46 Chicopee Stefanik 47 74.6 63 31 47.7 65 31 56.4 55 Fall River Healy 29 60.4 48 12 25.0 48 8 27.6 29 Fall River Doran 40 63.5 63 34 52.3 65 13 20.0 65 Fall River Laurel Lake 19 54.3 35 23 51.1 45 20 60.6 33 Fall River N.B. Borden 19 76.0 25 14 51.9 27 7 30.4 23 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 21 45.7 46 20 44.4 45 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** 19 37.3 51 Haverhill Burnham 12 40.0 30 25 62.5 40 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 41 63.1 65 30 53.6 56 77 66.4 116 Haverhill Walnut Square 32 80.0 40 26 68.4 38 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 34 58.6 58 19 32.8 58 24 39.3 61 Lawrence Arlington 76 62.8 121 40 40.4 99 44 39.6 111 Lawrence Frost 54 58.7 92 38 44.2 86 42 44.7 94 Lawrence Wetherbee 46 54.1 85 21 30.9 68 33 42.3 78 Lowell Community Charter School 64 63.4 101 45 45.9 98 26 28.9 90 Lowell Murkland 37 50.0 74 18 23.1 78 18 19.8 91 Lowell Bailey 46 55.4 83 54 62.8 86 51 58.6 87 Lowell Greenhalge 46 55.4 83 28 39.4 71 25 30.9 81 Malden Ferryway 70 73.7 95 64 68.1 94 65 64.4 101 Methuen Tenney 100 74.1 135 84 63.6 132 51 42.5 120 Neighborhood House Charter School 16 72.7 22 19 90.5 21 17 77.3 22 North Adams Brayton 34 65.4 52 30 55.6 54 27 45.0 60 North Adams Sullivan 32 76.2 42 18 46.2 39 18 38.3 47 Pittsfield Morningside 35 58.3 60 32 43.2 74 35 44.9 78 Plymouth South Elementary 114 80.3 142 97 63.4 153 75 54.0 139 Plymouth West Elementary 61 84.7 72 37 75.5 49 35 67.3 52 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 47 65.3 72 48 66.7 72 41 53.9 76 Revere Garfield 73 64.0 114 54 52.9 102 40 44.0 91 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 11 55.0 20 8 34.8 23 5 25.0 20 Salem Bates 40 71.4 56 47 67.1 70 33 70.2 47 Salem Bentley 35 68.6 51 37 56.9 65 24 58.5 41 Seven Hills Charter School 27 36.5 74 39 50.6 77 22 28.2 78 Springfield Boland 30 42.9 70 31 54.4 57 31 51.7 60 Springfield Gerena 40 35.1 114 35 37.2 94 18 23.4 77 Springfield Milton Bradley 55 55.0 100 29 30.9 94 42 45.7 92 Springfield White Street 28 36.4 77 22 32.8 67 17 23.6 72 Taunton Walker 26 81.3 32 20 46.5 43 19 44.2 43 Ware Koziol 52 55.9 93 40 51.3 78 46 48.9 94 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** 59 39.9 148 Webster Park Avenue 98 76.0 129 76 59.8 127 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 14 45.2 31 11 31.4 35 11 37.9 29 Westfield Highland 33 57.9 57 28 47.5 59 30 47.6 63 Westfield Moseley 20 76.9 26 20 64.5 31 15 62.5 24 Worcester A.L.L. 4 7.5 53 16 34.0 47 15 24.6 61 Worcester City View 34 55.7 61 30 50.8 59 18 43.9 41 Worcester Goddard 30 46.2 65 25 33.8 74 18 24.0 75 Worcester Lincoln Street 15 51.7 29 14 45.2 31 9 36.0 25 ** School does not include this grade-level Table J3: Students with Disabilities -- Spring 2004 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 7 Boston Renaissance Charter School 4 20.0 20 0 0.0 21 1 6.3 16 Brockton Downey ^^ ^^ 9 3 21.4 14 0 0.0 10 Brockton Davis ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 8 2 20.0 10 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 8 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 2 0 0.0 12 2 11.8 17 Chelsea Shurtleff ^^ ^^ 8 ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 1 7.1 14 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 7 Chicopee Stefanik ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 7 Fall River Healy ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 Fall River Doran ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 7 0 0.0 13 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River N.B. Borden 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 0 0.0 12 ^^ ^^ 7 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** 0 0.0 16 Haverhill Burnham ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 7 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 6 0 0.0 16 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 6 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School ^^ ^^ 5 1 8.3 12 0 0.0 10 Lawrence Arlington 2 11.1 18 2 11.8 17 0 0.0 18 Lawrence Frost 2 20.0 10 ^^ ^^ 8 1 6.3 16 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 9 Lowell Community Charter School ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 7 Lowell Murkland 1 7.7 13 2 15.4 13 1 8.3 12 Lowell Bailey ^^ ^^ 4 2 18.2 11 1 7.7 13 Lowell Greenhalge 3 30.0 10 1 7.7 13 0 0.0 15 Malden Ferryway 5 38.5 13 6 50.0 12 4 36.4 11 Methuen Tenney 1 9.1 11 ^^ ^^ 8 1 5.6 18 Neighborhood House Charter School 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 7 3 20.0 15 1 10.0 10 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 9 0 0.0 10 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 9 2 14.3 14 Plymouth South Elementary 7 41.2 17 6 24.0 25 5 22.7 22 Plymouth West Elementary ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 2 16.7 12 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock ^^ ^^ 4 1 6.3 16 3 25.0 12 Revere Garfield 7 43.8 16 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 ^^ ^^ 2 0 Salem Bates 2 20.0 10 ^^ ^^ 8 1 6.3 16 Salem Bentley 5 35.7 14 2 13.3 15 ^^ ^^ 9 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 5 Springfield Boland 5 31.3 16 4 40.0 10 5 35.7 14 Springfield Gerena 3 18.8 16 0 0.0 14 0 0.0 15 Springfield Milton Bradley 4 28.6 14 1 6.7 15 1 5.3 19 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 7 0 0.0 10 Taunton Walker ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 8 1 7.1 14 Ware Koziol 2 20.0 10 1 5.6 18 1 9.1 11 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** 1 6.7 15 Webster Park Avenue 5 41.7 12 13 36.1 36 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 6 0 0.0 10 Westfield Highland ^^ ^^ 3 2 20.0 10 0 0.0 14 Westfield Moseley ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 3 Worcester A.L.L. ^^ ^^ 6 1 10.0 10 ^^ ^^ 8 Worcester City View 3 25.0 12 ^^ ^^ 7 3 17.6 17 Worcester Goddard ^^ ^^ 5 0 0.0 18 0 0.0 17 Worcester Lincoln Street 1 10.0 10 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J4: Students with Disabilities -- Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 6 Boston Renaissance Charter School 2 16.7 12 2 15.4 13 1 5.6 18 Brockton Downey 3 25.0 12 0 0.0 10 3 18.8 16 Brockton Davis ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 3 0 0.0 10 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 7 Chelsea Kelly 4 28.6 14 ^^ ^^ 6 2 16.7 12 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 8 61.5 13 1 9.1 11 ^^ ^^ 4 Chicopee Stefanik ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Healy ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 Fall River Doran ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 5 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River N.B. Borden ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 9 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 5 Haverhill Burnham ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 3 23.1 13 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 1 7.7 13 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 8 4 25.0 16 4 17.4 23 Lawrence Frost ^^ ^^ 8 1 9.1 11 ^^ ^^ 9 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 5 2 20.0 10 ^^ ^^ 5 Lowell Community Charter School ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 6 Lowell Murkland ^^ ^^ 4 2 12.5 16 2 20.0 10 Lowell Bailey ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 5 38.5 13 Lowell Greenhalge ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 1 7.1 14 Malden Ferryway ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 8 4 33.3 12 Methuen Tenney 2 20.0 10 ^^ ^^ 9 0 0.0 13 Neighborhood House Charter School ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 6 2 14.3 14 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 0 0.0 11 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 4 21.1 19 Plymouth South Elementary 5 35.7 14 8 36.4 22 7 31.8 22 Plymouth West Elementary ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 9 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 5 2 15.4 13 Revere Garfield 6 50.0 12 5 33.3 15 0 0.0 12 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates ^^ ^^ 6 1 8.3 12 ^^ ^^ 8 Salem Bentley ^^ ^^ 9 5 41.7 12 ^^ ^^ 8 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 8 1 8.3 12 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 Springfield Gerena 1 5.3 19 1 9.1 11 0 0.0 11 Springfield Milton Bradley 2 15.4 13 ^^ ^^ 7 0 0.0 13 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 9 Taunton Walker ^^ ^^ 1 2 18.2 11 1 7.7 13 Ware Koziol 2 16.7 12 5 35.7 14 2 7.7 26 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** 5 18.5 27 Webster Park Avenue 11 61.1 18 6 33.3 18 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 Westfield Highland ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 6 2 15.4 13 Westfield Moseley ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 Worcester A.L.L. ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 7 Worcester City View ^^ ^^ 7 0 0.0 11 3 30.0 10 Worcester Goddard ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 0 0.0 23 Worcester Lincoln Street 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J5: Students with Limited English Proficiency -- Spring 2004 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter School 0 0 ^^ ^^ 5 Brockton Downey 0 0 0 Brockton Davis ^^ ^^ 9 2 14.3 14 3 17.6 17 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 0 Chelsea Kelly 13 44.8 29 16 37.2 43 17 48.6 35 Chelsea Shurtleff ^^ ^^ 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 4 22.2 18 3 27.3 11 ^^ ^^ 8 Chicopee Stefanik 7 33.3 21 1 10.0 10 3 27.3 11 Fall River Healy 9 42.9 21 2 10.0 20 3 21.4 14 Fall River Doran 13 59.1 22 6 35.3 17 1 7.1 14 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 4 0 0 Fall River N.B. Borden ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 1 Haverhill Burnham 8 33.3 24 5 26.3 19 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Haverhill Walnut Square 0 0 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 7 38.9 18 20 39.2 51 12 31.6 38 Lawrence Arlington 6 28.6 21 5 18.5 27 2 7.1 28 Lawrence Frost ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 5 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 6 2 14.3 14 ^^ ^^ 9 Lowell Community Charter School 19 47.5 40 9 19.1 47 16 29.6 54 Lowell Murkland 8 19.5 41 13 25.0 52 16 24.6 65 Lowell Bailey ^^ ^^ 3 3 18.8 16 4 17.4 23 Lowell Greenhalge 5 23.8 21 5 29.4 17 6 24.0 25 Malden Ferryway 4 28.6 14 9 47.4 19 6 60.0 10 Methuen Tenney 8 42.1 19 3 23.1 13 ^^ ^^ 9 Neighborhood House Charter School 0 0 0 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 Plymouth South Elementary 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Plymouth West Elementary 0 0 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 11 50.0 22 11 50.0 22 ^^ ^^ 8 Revere Garfield 4 25.0 16 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 3 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 0 Salem Bates 0 0 0 Salem Bentley 2 20.0 10 2 18.2 11 ^^ ^^ 9 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 7 Springfield Boland 2 20.0 10 4 40.0 10 ^^ ^^ 3 Springfield Gerena 3 15.8 19 3 14.3 21 3 16.7 18 Springfield Milton Bradley 5 31.3 16 5 19.2 26 1 4.0 25 Springfield White Street 6 46.2 13 ^^ ^^ 7 0 0.0 13 Taunton Walker 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 Ware Koziol 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 6 Webster Park Avenue 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 6 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 3 30.0 10 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Highland 10 34.5 29 7 23.3 30 4 14.3 28 Westfield Moseley 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 Worcester A.L.L. 5 20.0 25 10 33.3 30 4 21.1 19 Worcester City View 2 11.1 18 7 50.0 14 ^^ ^^ 8 Worcester Goddard 14 38.9 36 6 14.3 42 5 16.7 30 Worcester Lincoln Street 7 30.4 23 5 26.3 19 ^^ ^^ 9 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J6: Students with Limited English Proficiency -- Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 0 0 0 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 4 Brockton Downey ^^ ^^ 3 0 0 Brockton Davis 5 13.9 36 3 30.0 10 1 8.3 12 Cambridge Haggerty 0 0 0 Chelsea Kelly 21 51.2 41 18 60.0 30 12 40.0 30 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 7 63.6 11 8 44.4 18 5 45.5 11 Chicopee Stefanik 14 87.5 16 6 40.0 15 ^^ ^^ 9 Fall River Healy 13 65.0 20 7 33.3 21 2 16.7 12 Fall River Doran 11 78.6 14 10 58.8 17 0 0.0 14 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Fall River N.B. Borden 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 3 Haverhill Burnham 2 14.3 14 7 41.2 17 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 Haverhill Walnut Square 0 0 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 4 30.8 13 5 27.8 18 19 44.2 43 Lawrence Arlington 21 61.8 34 2 11.8 17 3 12.0 25 Lawrence Frost 2 18.2 11 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 Lawrence Wetherbee 7 50.0 14 ^^ ^^ 7 3 23.1 13 Lowell Community Charter School 28 60.9 46 14 35.9 39 7 17.5 40 Lowell Murkland 13 56.5 23 4 13.3 30 1 3.7 27 Lowell Bailey ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 1 6 42.9 14 Lowell Greenhalge 7 50.0 14 3 23.1 13 6 40.0 15 Malden Ferryway 6 60.0 10 ^^ ^^ 6 7 53.8 13 Methuen Tenney 7 41.2 17 2 14.3 14 ^^ ^^ 9 Neighborhood House Charter School 0 0 0 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 Plymouth South Elementary 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 13 68.4 19 17 70.8 24 9 47.4 19 Revere Garfield 14 41.2 34 0 0.0 11 0 0.0 11 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 0 Salem Bates ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Salem Bentley 9 50.0 18 3 23.1 13 ^^ ^^ 9 Seven Hills Charter School 5 38.5 13 1 8.3 12 ^^ ^^ 7 Springfield Boland 6 46.2 13 5 41.7 12 6 54.5 11 Springfield Gerena 2 9.5 21 6 40.0 15 2 10.0 20 Springfield Milton Bradley 6 27.3 22 4 20.0 20 7 29.2 24 Springfield White Street 0 0.0 13 4 36.4 11 ^^ ^^ 5 Taunton Walker 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 5 Ware Koziol ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 4 Webster Park Avenue ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 5 Westfield Highland 11 64.7 17 6 24.0 25 5 25.0 20 Westfield Moseley 0 0 0 Worcester A.L.L. 3 15.0 20 5 23.8 21 4 18.2 22 Worcester City View 4 33.3 12 6 46.2 13 3 30.0 10 Worcester Goddard 12 44.4 27 11 29.7 37 8 20.0 40 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 9 7 53.8 13 ^^ ^^ 8 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J7: Economically Disadvantaged Students -- Spring 2004 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 8 53.3 15 6 35.3 17 9 45.0 20 Boston Renaissance Charter School 60 63.8 94 30 37.0 81 41 40.6 101 Brockton Downey 9 20.0 45 21 32.8 64 17 27.4 62 Brockton Davis 19 29.7 64 30 31.9 94 28 30.4 92 Cambridge Haggerty 2 18.2 11 4 30.8 13 ^^ ^^ 6 Chelsea Kelly 32 50.8 63 30 34.5 87 37 48.7 76 Chelsea Shurtleff 43 66.2 65 ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 12 22.2 54 25 54.3 46 21 43.8 48 Chicopee Stefanik 21 36.2 58 12 25.0 48 25 45.5 55 Fall River Healy 15 37.5 40 8 20.5 39 12 37.5 32 Fall River Doran 29 61.7 47 14 28.0 50 12 25.5 47 Fall River Laurel Lake 13 39.4 33 5 26.3 19 12 46.2 26 Fall River N.B. Borden 8 44.4 18 8 33.3 24 4 19.0 21 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 11 35.5 31 9 32.1 28 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** 6 16.7 36 Haverhill Burnham 15 46.9 32 11 29.7 37 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 12 33.3 36 13 39.4 33 14 40.0 35 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 27 55.1 49 19 33.9 56 17 37.0 46 Lawrence Arlington 33 32.7 101 26 27.1 96 17 17.5 97 Lawrence Frost 32 52.5 61 27 37.5 72 19 28.8 66 Lawrence Wetherbee 16 25.8 62 24 34.8 69 15 19.0 79 Lowell Community Charter School 37 46.8 79 21 26.6 79 24 30.0 80 Lowell Murkland 13 18.1 72 23 28.8 80 18 19.8 91 Lowell Bailey 10 23.8 42 8 17.0 47 13 26.0 50 Lowell Greenhalge 25 40.3 62 15 28.3 53 13 23.2 56 Malden Ferryway 32 55.2 58 39 66.1 59 30 66.7 45 Methuen Tenney 20 58.8 34 16 43.2 37 17 32.7 52 Neighborhood House Charter School 8 66.7 12 4 40.0 10 5 50.0 10 North Adams Brayton 19 59.4 32 10 31.3 32 7 25.0 28 North Adams Sullivan 7 41.2 17 9 34.6 26 3 11.5 26 Pittsfield Morningside 23 51.1 45 19 38.0 50 13 28.9 45 Plymouth South Elementary 7 43.8 16 8 36.4 22 9 50.0 18 Plymouth West Elementary ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 5 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 8 27.6 29 17 43.6 39 18 48.6 37 Revere Garfield 49 51.6 95 36 46.8 77 24 34.3 70 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 11 68.8 16 8 66.7 12 6 40.0 15 Salem Bates 10 41.7 24 7 43.8 16 5 23.8 21 Salem Bentley 7 31.8 22 7 36.8 19 11 50.0 22 Seven Hills Charter School 18 33.3 54 10 20.4 49 9 19.6 46 Springfield Boland 20 37.0 54 24 42.9 56 18 29.5 61 Springfield Gerena 30 26.1 115 21 23.3 90 16 15.4 104 Springfield Milton Bradley 37 42.0 88 26 31.3 83 25 26.9 93 Springfield White Street 29 45.3 64 21 37.5 56 7 10.4 67 Taunton Walker 9 36.0 25 5 25.0 20 6 23.1 26 Ware Koziol 16 41.0 39 14 31.1 45 11 27.5 40 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** 11 20.4 54 Webster Park Avenue 32 64.0 50 32 43.8 73 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 8 27.6 29 7 26.9 26 10 38.5 26 Westfield Highland 16 39.0 41 13 32.5 40 16 33.3 48 Westfield Moseley 4 33.3 12 9 64.3 14 4 36.4 11 Worcester A.L.L. 10 16.7 60 23 37.1 62 15 23.4 64 Worcester City View 19 43.2 44 19 43.2 44 7 19.4 36 Worcester Goddard 24 37.5 64 18 25.0 72 16 26.7 60 Worcester Lincoln Street 20 41.7 48 10 37.0 27 3 11.5 26 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J8: Economically Disadvantaged Students -- Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 12 75.0 16 13 72.2 18 ^^ ^^ 9 Boston Renaissance Charter School 54 57.4 94 45 47.4 95 31 34.8 89 Brockton Downey 19 50.0 38 8 18.2 44 22 36.1 61 Brockton Davis 32 36.4 88 24 37.5 64 24 27.9 86 Cambridge Haggerty 6 42.9 14 4 30.8 13 5 38.5 13 Chelsea Kelly 66 67.3 98 51 60.0 85 31 45.6 68 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 30 65.2 46 20 37.7 53 23 56.1 41 Chicopee Stefanik 40 78.4 51 25 46.3 54 24 53.3 45 Fall River Healy 28 66.7 42 10 23.3 43 8 29.6 27 Fall River Doran 30 61.2 49 25 54.3 46 10 20.4 49 Fall River Laurel Lake 14 48.3 29 17 44.7 38 12 60.0 20 Fall River N.B. Borden 18 75.0 24 9 45.0 20 7 31.8 22 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 8 32.0 25 8 30.8 26 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** 10 37.0 27 Haverhill Burnham 6 30.0 20 13 65.0 20 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 21 56.8 37 13 44.8 29 20 47.6 42 Haverhill Walnut Squre ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 29 54.7 53 15 30.6 49 20 39.2 51 Lawrence Arlington 65 67.0 97 35 39.8 88 37 38.5 96 Lawrence Frost 32 56.1 57 27 42.9 63 30 45.5 66 Lawrence Wetherbee 37 53.6 69 16 27.6 58 27 42.2 64 Lowell Community Charter School 50 60.2 83 33 42.3 78 21 30.9 68 Lowell Murkland 34 50.7 67 14 20.9 67 15 19.2 78 Lowell Bailey 17 42.5 40 21 52.5 40 20 45.5 44 Lowell Greenhalge 27 51.9 52 19 35.2 54 18 30.5 59 Malden Ferryway 31 63.3 49 41 64.1 64 35 61.4 57 Methuen Tenney 34 63.0 54 15 41.7 36 10 27.0 37 Neighborhood House Charter School 11 68.8 16 11 84.6 13 8 72.7 11 North Adams Brayton 19 57.6 33 16 44.4 36 14 35.0 40 North Adams Sullivan 13 65.0 20 2 18.2 11 4 18.2 22 Pittsfield Morningside 26 60.5 43 17 37.8 45 22 41.5 53 Plymouth South Elementary 12 70.6 17 6 31.6 19 12 50.0 24 Plymouth West Elementary ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 8 6 54.5 11 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 12 50.0 24 17 56.7 30 16 48.5 33 Revere Garfield 60 64.5 93 39 47.0 83 35 46.7 75 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 10 52.6 19 4 25.0 16 ^^ ^^ 9 Salem Bates 11 57.9 19 12 48.0 25 12 66.7 18 Salem Bentley 21 63.6 33 10 38.5 26 5 35.7 14 Seven Hills Charter School 18 30.5 59 28 45.9 61 15 28.3 53 Springfield Boland 27 44.3 61 24 49.0 49 27 49.1 55 Springfield Gerena 34 32.4 105 30 34.9 86 13 19.4 67 Springfield Milton Bradley 45 52.3 86 22 27.8 79 34 42.5 80 Springfield White Street 24 36.4 66 18 32.1 56 14 24.6 57 Taunton Walker 8 72.7 11 10 37.0 27 9 36.0 25 Ware Koziol 17 47.2 36 18 45.0 40 19 36.5 52 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** 21 33.9 62 Webster Park Avenue 32 69.6 46 27 55.1 49 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 11 42.3 26 8 28.6 28 8 33.3 24 Westfield Highland 14 51.9 27 7 24.1 29 10 31.3 32 Westfield Moseley 12 85.7 14 8 53.3 15 8 53.3 15 Worcester A.L.L. 3 6.4 47 14 33.3 42 13 26.0 50 Worcester City View 27 55.1 49 23 48.9 47 13 41.9 31 Worcester Goddard 28 46.7 60 21 32.3 65 15 21.7 69 Worcester Lincoln Street 12 50.0 24 12 41.4 29 5 26.3 19 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J9: First Grade Racial and Ethnic Subgroups – Spring 2004 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 22 68.8 32 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 75 64.1 117 8 47.1 17 Brockton Downey 9 33.3 27 ^^ ^^ 5 7 24.1 29 ^^ ^^ 2 Brockton Davis 17 41.5 41 0 16 37.2 43 4 30.8 13 Cambridge Haggerty 17 81.0 21 ^^ ^^ 6 3 27.3 11 ^^ ^^ 6 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 41 56.9 72 Chelsea Shurtleff 15 83.3 18 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 42 65.6 64 Chicopee Bowe 10 31.3 32 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 3 12.5 24 Chicopee Stefanik 13 50.0 26 0 ^^ ^^ 5 11 28.9 38 Fall River Healy 6 50.0 12 0 ^^ ^^ 4 10 38.5 26 Fall River Doran 31 58.5 53 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 6 Fall River Laurel Lake 13 52.0 25 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 Fall River N.B. Borden 10 71.4 14 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 6 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 16 36.4 44 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 14 73.7 19 0 ^^ ^^ 3 10 35.7 28 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 30 63.8 47 0 ^^ ^^ 3 8 40.0 20 Haverhill Walnut Square 34 68.0 50 0 0 0 Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 0 0 30 55.6 54 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 2 36 34.0 106 Lawrence Frost 10 45.5 22 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 7 28 50.9 55 Lawrence Wetherbee 7 58.3 12 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 10 18.9 53 Lowell Community Charter School 6 50.0 12 16 64.0 25 ^^ ^^ 9 17 40.5 42 Lowell Murkland 4 25.0 16 10 22.7 44 ^^ ^^ 2 3 15.0 20 Lowell Bailey 18 43.9 41 11 55.0 20 ^^ ^^ 7 4 20.0 20 Lowell Greenhalge 22 51.2 43 3 23.1 13 ^^ ^^ 6 8 42.1 19 Malden Ferryway 25 58.1 43 18 75.0 24 6 40.0 15 9 47.4 19 Methuen Tenney 76 79.2 96 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 5 12 46.2 26 Neighborhood House Charter School ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 10 90.9 11 ^^ ^^ 6 North Adams Brayton 31 67.4 46 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan 20 54.1 37 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 27 50.0 54 ^^ ^^ 1 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 4 Plymouth South Elementary 92 65.2 141 0 0 0 Plymouth West Elementary 34 79.1 43 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 20 52.6 38 10 62.5 16 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 8 Revere Garfield 17 60.7 28 20 71.4 28 ^^ ^^ 7 22 44.9 49 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School ^^ ^^ 1 0 13 65.0 20 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 35 63.6 55 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 9 56.3 16 Salem Bentley 27 81.8 33 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 5 23.8 21 Seven Hills Charter School 6 33.3 18 ^^ ^^ 3 8 47.1 17 10 25.6 39 Springfield Boland 8 47.1 17 0 9 42.9 21 12 38.7 31 Springfield Gerena 3 30.0 10 0 6 18.8 32 23 29.5 78 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 1 14 48.3 29 23 39.0 59 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 8 53.3 15 15 39.5 38 Taunton Walker 15 45.5 33 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 Ware Koziol 36 48.6 74 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 78 73.6 106 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 7 8 72.7 11 Westfield Franklin Avenue 7 38.9 18 0 ^^ ^^ 1 7 36.8 19 Westfield Highland 31 54.4 57 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 10 37.0 27 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Worcester A.L.L. 1 8.3 12 ^^ ^^ 5 3 25.0 12 4 12.1 33 Worcester City View 11 45.8 24 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 7 25.0 28 Worcester Goddard 7 35.0 20 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 6 17 44.7 38 Worcester Lincoln Street 10 66.7 15 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 10 33.3 30 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J10: Second Grade Racial and Ethnic Subgroups – Spring 2004 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 15 41.7 36 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 46 39.7 116 5 35.7 14 Brockton Downey 9 27.3 33 ^^ ^^ 2 13 34.2 38 5 31.3 16 Brockton Davis 15 39.5 38 ^^ ^^ 1 20 35.1 57 6 27.3 22 Cambridge Haggerty 8 53.3 15 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 9 0 Chelsea Kelly 3 27.3 11 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 34 38.6 88 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 16 61.5 26 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 10 40.0 25 Chicopee Stefanik 11 45.8 24 0 ^^ ^^ 2 7 20.6 34 Fall River Healy 5 31.3 16 0 ^^ ^^ 3 3 14.3 21 Fall River Doran 18 34.6 52 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 6 30.0 20 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 8 Fall River N.B. Borden 8 47.1 17 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 24 53.3 45 0 0 ^^ ^^ 7 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 6 42.9 14 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 9 32.1 28 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 32 54.2 59 0 ^^ ^^ 1 3 30.0 10 Haverhill Walnut SquAre 35 76.1 46 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 21 36.8 57 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 9 0 ^^ ^^ 3 29 29.3 99 Lawrence Frost 13 48.1 27 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 20 30.8 65 Lawrence Wetherbee 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 2 17 28.8 59 Lowell Community Charter School 7 38.9 18 8 28.6 28 ^^ ^^ 8 7 17.9 39 Lowell Murkland 8 33.3 24 14 29.2 48 ^^ ^^ 5 3 18.8 16 Lowell Bailey 24 51.1 47 6 30.0 20 ^^ ^^ 5 3 21.4 14 Lowell Greenhalge 12 26.1 46 5 41.7 12 ^^ ^^ 7 2 18.2 11 Malden Ferryway 33 80.5 41 21 77.8 27 8 42.1 19 6 54.5 11 Methuen Tenney 57 67.9 84 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 11 40.7 27 Neighborhood House Charter School 8 61.5 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 0 North Adams Brayton 22 41.5 53 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 North Adams Sullivan 20 45.5 44 0 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Pittsfield Morningside 22 41.5 53 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 5 Plymouth South Elementary 76 55.5 137 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary 38 73.1 52 0 0 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 27 49.1 55 14 66.7 21 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 3 Revere Garfield 9 34.6 26 14 70.0 20 ^^ ^^ 8 15 41.7 36 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 10 50.0 20 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 22 52.4 42 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 Salem Bentley 21 65.6 32 0 ^^ ^^ 2 5 29.4 17 Seven Hills Charter School 5 27.8 18 ^^ ^^ 1 10 30.3 33 4 16.0 25 Springfield Boland 7 70.0 10 0 4 36.4 11 14 35.0 40 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 6 0 7 33.3 21 15 20.5 73 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 7 0 10 33.3 30 16 28.6 56 Springfield White Street 5 45.5 11 ^^ ^^ 3 4 21.1 19 13 43.3 30 Taunton Walker 15 44.1 34 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 Ware Koziol 39 45.3 86 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 4 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 62 42.5 146 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 Westfield Franklin Avenue 8 38.1 21 0 0 3 23.1 13 Westfield Highland 26 42.6 61 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 14 66.7 21 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 Worcester A.L.L. 9 50.0 18 8 72.7 11 ^^ ^^ 9 6 20.0 30 Worcester City View 13 50.0 26 0 ^^ ^^ 6 10 37.0 27 Worcester Goddard 8 38.1 21 5 38.5 13 ^^ ^^ 2 6 14.3 42 Worcester Lincoln Street 6 46.2 13 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 6 33.3 18 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J11: Third Grade Racial and Ethnic Subgroups – Spring 2004 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 18 42.9 42 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 5 42 34.1 123 10 50.0 20 Brockton Downey 16 43.2 37 0 9 26.5 34 3 23.1 13 Brockton Davis 13 37.1 35 ^^ ^^ 2 18 30.5 59 4 26.7 15 Cambridge Haggerty 11 84.6 13 0 3 21.4 14 ^^ ^^ 1 Chelsea Kelly 11 57.9 19 0 ^^ ^^ 1 36 45.6 79 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 19 54.3 35 0 ^^ ^^ 4 8 38.1 21 Chicopee Stefanik 16 57.1 28 0 ^^ ^^ 3 11 32.4 34 Fall River Healy 9 60.0 15 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 5 29.4 17 Fall River Doran 16 28.6 56 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 10 43.5 23 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 Fall River N.B. Borden 1 7.1 14 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 3 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 10 22.7 44 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 53 57.6 92 0 ^^ ^^ 4 2 16.7 12 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 17 35.4 48 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 2 17 16.0 106 Lawrence Frost 7 33.3 21 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 15 26.3 57 Lawrence Wetherbee 3 30.0 10 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 13 19.1 68 Lowell Community Charter School 4 30.8 13 10 31.3 32 4 33.3 12 11 28.9 38 Lowell Murkland 2 9.5 21 13 24.1 54 ^^ ^^ 5 6 28.6 21 Lowell Bailey 14 34.1 41 6 28.6 21 3 30.0 10 5 31.3 16 Lowell Greenhalge 13 27.7 47 4 25.0 16 ^^ ^^ 2 1 9.1 11 Malden Ferryway 36 70.6 51 13 76.5 17 6 46.2 13 ^^ ^^ 6 Methuen Tenney 51 51.0 100 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 10 28.6 35 Neighborhood House Charter School ^^ ^^ 8 0 6 50.0 12 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Brayton 13 28.3 46 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 North Adams Sullivan 9 22.5 40 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 19 33.9 56 0 4 36.4 11 ^^ ^^ 6 Plymouth South Elementary 82 54.3 151 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary 40 58.8 68 0 ^^ ^^ 2 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 34 59.6 57 10 76.9 13 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 Revere Garfield 8 36.4 22 8 44.4 18 4 36.4 11 9 27.3 33 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School ^^ ^^ 1 0 6 42.9 14 ^^ ^^ 5 Salem Bates 25 44.6 56 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 4 33.3 12 Salem Bentley 25 71.4 35 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 6 37.5 16 Seven Hills Charter School 11 45.8 24 ^^ ^^ 2 5 20.0 25 7 28.0 25 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 1 4 21.1 19 15 37.5 40 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 8 0 6 16.7 36 11 16.4 67 Springfield Milton Bradley 5 45.5 11 ^^ ^^ 3 11 36.7 30 8 14.8 54 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 4 21.1 19 2 5.0 40 Taunton Walker 14 46.7 30 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 9 Ware Koziol 36 40.0 90 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Webster Sitkowski 37 34.6 107 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 9 Webster Park Avenue ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 6 27.3 22 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 4 33.3 12 Westfield Highland 32 43.2 74 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Westfield Moseley 14 53.8 26 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Worcester A.L.L. 4 21.1 19 2 20.0 10 ^^ ^^ 6 11 32.4 34 Worcester City View 10 32.3 31 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 2 11.8 17 Worcester Goddard 4 21.1 19 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 5 11 28.2 39 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 1 6.7 15 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J12: First Grade Racial and Ethnic Subgroups – Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 27 79.4 34 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 73 63.5 115 11 61.1 18 Brockton Downey 18 72.0 25 ^^ ^^ 4 14 51.9 27 ^^ ^^ 8 Brockton Davis 23 67.6 34 0 29 34.1 85 2 15.4 13 Cambridge Haggerty 12 70.6 17 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 6 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 76 70.4 108 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 20 74.1 27 0 ^^ ^^ 2 16 55.2 29 Chicopee Stefanik 10 66.7 15 0 0 37 77.1 48 Fall River Healy 10 66.7 15 0 ^^ ^^ 3 18 60.0 30 Fall River Doran 35 67.3 52 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 9 50.0 18 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 8 Fall River N.B. Borden 16 84.2 19 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 20 47.6 42 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 8 57.1 14 0 ^^ ^^ 1 4 26.7 15 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 35 76.1 46 0 ^^ ^^ 2 5 29.4 17 Haverhill Walnut Squre 31 83.8 37 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 33 58.9 56 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 72 64.9 111 Lawrence Frost 16 69.6 23 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 1 31 52.5 59 Lawrence Wetherbee 9 81.8 11 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 1 29 43.9 66 Lowell Community Charter School 10 66.7 15 21 65.6 32 7 70.0 10 26 59.1 44 Lowell Murkland 5 33.3 15 18 51.4 35 ^^ ^^ 3 12 57.1 21 Lowell Bailey 24 63.2 38 19 61.3 31 ^^ ^^ 4 0 0.0 10 Lowell Greenhalge 25 64.1 39 9 52.9 17 5 50.0 10 7 41.2 17 Malden Ferryway 35 81.4 43 16 69.6 23 10 58.8 17 9 75.0 12 Methuen Tenney 77 79.4 97 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 17 58.6 29 Neighborhood House Charter School ^^ ^^ 9 0 8 72.7 11 ^^ ^^ 1 North Adams Brayton 31 68.9 45 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan 30 81.1 37 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 Pittsfield Morningside 30 65.2 46 0 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 6 Plymouth South Elementary 110 80.3 137 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 0 Plymouth West Elementary 58 85.3 68 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 36 64.3 56 9 75.0 12 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Revere Garfield 13 59.1 22 17 73.9 23 8 66.7 12 35 61.4 57 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 10 58.8 17 ^^ ^^ 3 Salem Bates 28 73.7 38 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 10 66.7 15 Salem Bentley 20 87.0 23 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 14 56.0 25 Seven Hills Charter School 6 54.5 11 0 11 40.7 27 8 24.2 33 Springfield Boland 5 45.5 11 ^^ ^^ 1 5 35.7 14 19 43.2 44 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 9 0 7 28.0 25 30 37.5 80 Springfield Milton Bradley 8 80.0 10 ^^ ^^ 1 27 71.1 38 20 39.2 51 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 6 8 42.1 19 14 32.6 43 Taunton Walker 19 79.2 24 0 ^^ ^^ 8 0 Ware Koziol 47 54.7 86 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 84 76.4 110 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 6 54.5 11 Westfield Franklin Avenue 12 63.2 19 0 0 2 16.7 12 Westfield Highland 32 62.7 51 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 Westfield Moseley 18 78.3 23 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 Worcester A.L.L. ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 3 0 0.0 15 3 11.1 27 Worcester City View 17 63.0 27 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 6 10 38.5 26 Worcester Goddard 8 38.1 21 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 6 14 45.2 31 Worcester Lincoln Street 5 50.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 2 9 52.9 17 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J13: Second Grade Racial and Ethnic Subgroups – Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 30 81.1 37 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Renaissance Charter School 0 ^^ ^^ 5 53 44.9 118 9 50.0 18 Brockton Downey 10 37.0 27 ^^ ^^ 5 9 25.7 35 ^^ ^^ 1 Brockton Davis 21 58.3 36 0 24 49.0 49 2 16.7 12 Cambridge Haggerty 16 80.0 20 ^^ ^^ 3 3 30.0 10 ^^ ^^ 5 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 6 56 64.4 87 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 16 51.6 31 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 7 24.1 29 Chicopee Stefanik 17 56.7 30 0 ^^ ^^ 4 11 35.5 31 Fall River Healy 5 33.3 15 0 ^^ ^^ 7 7 26.9 26 Fall River Doran 27 54.0 50 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 8 Fall River Laurel Lake 16 59.3 27 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 3 Fall River N.B. Borden 10 62.5 16 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 7 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 19 47.5 40 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 14 87.5 16 0 ^^ ^^ 2 9 40.9 22 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 21 52.5 40 0 ^^ ^^ 5 5 45.5 11 Haverhill Walnut Square 26 68.4 38 0 0 0 Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 0 0 19 32.8 58 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 2 38 40.4 94 Lawrence Frost 8 36.4 22 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 25 47.2 53 Lawrence Wetherbee 4 40.0 10 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 14 26.9 52 Lowell Community Charter School 9 64.3 14 9 33.3 27 ^^ ^^ 8 21 43.8 48 Lowell Murkland 3 20.0 15 12 30.8 39 ^^ ^^ 2 3 14.3 21 Lowell Bailey 27 60.0 45 12 80.0 15 ^^ ^^ 8 10 55.6 18 Lowell Greenhalge 19 48.7 39 3 27.3 11 ^^ ^^ 5 5 33.3 15 Malden Ferryway 23 62.2 37 19 86.4 22 9 52.9 17 13 72.2 18 Methuen Tenney 68 68.7 99 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 6 10 43.5 23 Neighborhood House Charter School ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 10 90.9 11 ^^ ^^ 4 North Adams Brayton 28 58.3 48 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan 17 48.6 35 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 24 44.4 54 ^^ ^^ 1 7 58.3 12 ^^ ^^ 6 Plymouth South Elementary 95 63.3 150 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary 36 81.8 44 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 25 65.8 38 15 78.9 19 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 8 Revere Garfield 13 52.0 25 16 64.0 25 ^^ ^^ 7 21 46.7 45 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School ^^ ^^ 1 0 7 35.0 20 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 37 72.5 51 0 ^^ ^^ 4 7 46.7 15 Salem Bentley 25 67.6 37 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 9 42.9 21 Seven Hills Charter School 9 60.0 15 ^^ ^^ 3 12 60.0 20 15 39.5 38 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 8 0 9 52.9 17 18 56.3 32 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 7 0 5 22.7 22 27 42.2 64 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 2 7 28.0 25 14 24.1 58 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 8 6 42.9 14 12 30.8 39 Taunton Walker 12 38.7 31 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 6 Ware Koziol 35 49.3 71 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 66 61.7 107 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 8 Westfield Franklin Avenue 6 35.3 17 0 0 5 27.8 18 Westfield Highland 25 48.1 52 0 0 ^^ ^^ 7 Westfield Moseley 18 64.3 28 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Worcester A.L.L. ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 8 8 32.0 25 Worcester City View 12 54.5 22 ^^ ^^ 1 8 72.7 11 10 40.0 25 Worcester Goddard 7 33.3 21 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 15 34.1 44 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 9 47.4 19 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J14: Third Grade Racial and Ethnic Subgroups – Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 18 52.9 34 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 41 34.5 119 7 46.7 15 Brockton Downey 9 30.0 30 ^^ ^^ 2 15 42.9 35 7 33.3 21 Brockton Davis 12 33.3 36 ^^ ^^ 1 16 30.8 52 6 31.6 19 Cambridge Haggerty 9 60.0 15 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 6 0 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 33 44.6 74 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 15 65.2 23 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 9 45.0 20 Chicopee Stefanik 16 76.2 21 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 12 40.0 30 Fall River Healy 4 33.3 12 0 ^^ ^^ 3 3 21.4 14 Fall River Doran 13 25.5 51 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 8 Fall River Laurel Lake 15 71.4 21 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 7 Fall River N.B. Borden 5 38.5 13 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 5 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 17 38.6 44 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 70 69.3 101 0 ^^ ^^ 2 5 38.5 13 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 24 42.1 57 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 6 0 ^^ ^^ 6 37 37.4 99 Lawrence Frost 12 54.5 22 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 4 23 37.7 61 Lawrence Wetherbee 6 60.0 10 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 2 24 41.4 58 Lowell Community Charter School 7 41.2 17 8 32.0 25 ^^ ^^ 9 7 17.9 39 Lowell Murkland 6 28.6 21 7 16.3 43 ^^ ^^ 7 4 20.0 20 Lowell Bailey 31 64.6 48 11 55.0 20 ^^ ^^ 4 7 46.7 15 Lowell Greenhalge 16 32.7 49 5 45.5 11 ^^ ^^ 8 2 15.4 13 Malden Ferryway 28 73.7 38 21 72.4 29 9 39.1 23 7 63.6 11 Methuen Tenney 42 46.7 90 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 4 17.4 23 Neighborhood House Charter School 11 84.6 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 0 North Adams Brayton 22 44.0 50 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 North Adams Sullivan 18 42.9 42 0 ^^ ^^ 5 0 Pittsfield Morningside 28 45.2 62 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 6 Plymouth South Elementary 73 54.9 133 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary 35 68.6 51 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 22 52.4 42 13 65.0 20 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 7 Revere Garfield 6 27.3 22 11 55.0 20 ^^ ^^ 9 19 48.7 39 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 5 26.3 19 ^^ ^^ 1 Salem Bates 28 75.7 37 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 Salem Bentley 17 68.0 25 0 ^^ ^^ 3 6 50.0 12 Seven Hills Charter School 6 35.3 17 0 13 39.4 33 3 10.7 28 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 8 0 7 58.3 12 17 43.6 39 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 6 0 2 16.7 12 13 22.0 59 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 7 0 18 54.5 33 18 34.6 52 Springfield White Street 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 3 2 14.3 14 8 18.2 44 Taunton Walker 16 47.1 34 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 Ware Koziol 42 50.0 84 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Webster Sitkowski 57 41.3 138 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 9 Webster Park Avenue ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 9 52.9 17 0 0 2 16.7 12 Westfield Highland 25 45.5 55 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 13 61.9 21 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 Worcester A.L.L. 5 29.4 17 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 6 6 20.0 30 Worcester City View 11 57.9 19 0 ^^ ^^ 3 5 26.3 19 Worcester Goddard 6 30.0 20 3 30.0 10 ^^ ^^ 2 8 18.6 43 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 4 30.8 13 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J15: Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz 59 60.2 98 40 43.0 93 35 31.8 110 Boston Condon 45 50.0 90 35 40.2 87 41 37.3 110 Boston Dever 35 38.9 90 30 36.6 82 26 25.2 103 Boston Eliot 17 65.4 26 14 46.7 30 9 37.5 24 Boston Harvard Kent 45 53.6 84 35 47.3 74 38 53.5 71 Boston Mendell 16 53.3 30 9 42.9 21 15 44.1 34 Boston Orchard Gardens 21 36.8 57 12 20.3 59 13 18.3 71 Boston Otis 30 62.5 48 26 54.2 48 24 54.5 44 Boston Perkins 13 32.5 40 6 25.0 24 15 37.5 40 Boston Stone 11 50.0 22 6 24.0 25 9 34.6 26 Boston Tobin 17 28.3 60 13 24.1 54 24 50.0 48 Boston Trotter 47 51.1 92 26 32.9 79 20 28.2 71 Chelsea Berkowitz 79 74.5 106 56 44.8 125 53 60.9 87 Fall River Slade 19 59.4 32 11 33.3 33 15 57.7 26 Haverhill Golden Hill 24 63.2 38 22 71.0 31 58 53.7 108 Holyoke Kelly 10 13.3 75 11 16.2 68 11 16.4 67 Holyoke Lawrence 15 16.9 89 7 10.6 66 3 4.2 72 Holyoke White 17 28.3 60 11 15.5 71 11 19.0 58 Lawrence Parthum 79 59.8 132 56 48.7 115 40 30.3 132 Leominster Fall Brook 83 70.3 118 87 62.1 140 82 56.6 145 Lynn Harrington 23 30.7 75 27 37.0 73 21 30.0 70 Lynn Ingalls 23 26.1 88 22 26.5 83 14 20.3 69 New Bedford Carney 59 74.7 79 50 64.9 77 31 41.3 75 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 42 38.9 108 20 18.7 107 22 24.2 91 Somerville East Somerville 27 62.8 43 41 51.9 79 46 55.4 83 Springfield Homer Street 32 43.8 73 18 30.5 59 19 28.36 67 Table J16: Students with Disabilities -- Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz 4 40.0 10 4 28.6 14 1 5.0 20 Boston Condon ^^ ^^ 8 3 15.0 20 4 14.8 27 Boston Dever 1 6.7 15 ^^ ^^ 7 1 5.6 18 Boston Eliot ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 Boston Harvard Kent ^^ ^^ 2 7 46.7 15 6 31.6 19 Boston Mendell ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 2 20.0 10 Boston Orchard Gardens ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 9 Boston Otis ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Perkins ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 Boston Stone ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 7 Boston Tobin ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 7 Boston Trotter ^^ ^^ 7 2 13.3 15 3 25.0 12 Chelsea Berkowitz 2 18.2 11 4 23.5 17 ^^ ^^ 5 Fall River Slade ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 1 Haverhill Golden Hill ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 2 15.4 13 Holyoke Kelly 2 20.0 10 0 0.0 11 0 0.0 13 Holyoke Lawrence 2 15.4 13 0 0.0 10 0 0.0 17 Holyoke White 1 10.0 10 0 0.0 10 3 20.0 15 Lawrence Parthum ^^ ^^ 5 1 9.1 11 0 0.0 16 Leominster Fall Brook 6 37.5 16 9 47.4 19 6 33.3 18 Lynn Harrington ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 9 Lynn Ingalls ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 New Bedford Carney ^^ ^^ 9 6 46.2 13 1 8.3 12 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 8 28.6 28 2 10.0 20 2 9.5 21 Somerville East Somerville ^^ ^^ 9 1 6.3 16 4 21.1 19 Springfield Homer Street ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J17: Students with Limited English Proficiency -- Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz 19 42.2 45 21 42.0 50 16 26.2 61 Boston Condon 13 50.0 26 13 48.1 27 12 34.3 35 Boston Dever 10 28.6 35 12 31.6 38 12 27.9 43 Boston Eliot ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 Boston Harvard Kent 24 54.5 44 21 55.3 38 22 55.0 40 Boston Mendell ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 Boston Orchard Gardens 1 6.3 16 3 15.0 20 10 33.3 30 Boston Otis 17 60.7 28 17 47.2 36 18 52.9 34 Boston Perkins ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 7 Boston Stone 0 ^^ ^^ 5 0 Boston Tobin 6 26.1 23 9 32.1 28 10 52.6 19 Boston Trotter ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 Chelsea Berkowitz 10 52.6 19 9 28.1 32 5 35.7 14 Fall River Slade 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Haverhill Golden Hill 0 ^^ ^^ 1 4 23.5 17 Holyoke Kelly 1 4.2 24 0 0.0 21 5 17.9 28 Holyoke Lawrence 4 10.5 38 0 0.0 22 0 0.0 20 Holyoke White 2 11.8 17 1 7.1 14 0 0.0 17 Lawrence Parthum 17 43.6 39 3 23.1 13 1 4.5 22 Leominster Fall Brook 3 30.0 10 5 23.8 21 8 36.4 22 Lynn Harrington 7 17.9 39 14 40.0 35 5 25.0 20 Lynn Ingalls 8 18.6 43 7 19.4 36 1 4.3 23 New Bedford Carney 0 0 0 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 7 35.0 20 1 6.7 15 2 18.2 11 Somerville East Somerville 13 59.1 22 11 42.3 26 16 44.4 36 Springfield Homer Street 6 40.0 15 2 18.2 11 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J18: Economically Disadvantaged Students -- Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz 53 61.6 86 36 45.0 80 26 27.1 96 Boston Condon 39 50.0 78 30 40.0 75 32 34.4 93 Boston Dever 30 36.6 82 23 34.3 67 24 26.7 90 Boston Eliot 11 64.7 17 10 43.5 23 7 41.2 17 Boston Harvard Kent 40 52.6 76 31 47.7 65 32 51.6 62 Boston Mendell 15 53.6 28 7 43.8 16 14 45.2 31 Boston Orchard Gardens 15 34.1 44 11 20.4 54 13 20.6 63 Boston Otis 26 59.1 44 18 47.4 38 20 54.1 37 Boston Perkins 11 29.7 37 6 27.3 22 14 38.9 36 Boston Stone 8 44.4 18 6 25.0 24 5 26.3 19 Boston Tobin 13 29.5 44 12 25.5 47 19 48.7 39 Boston Trotter 37 53.6 69 20 34.5 58 14 26.9 52 Chelsea Berkowitz 57 71.3 80 42 45.2 93 44 59.5 74 Fall River Slade 18 66.7 27 7 29.2 24 11 57.9 19 Haverhill Golden Hill 16 69.6 23 7 53.8 13 20 41.7 48 Holyoke Kelly 5 8.5 59 7 12.3 57 8 13.8 58 Holyoke Lawrence 14 17.9 78 6 10.2 59 3 4.6 65 Holyoke White 10 21.3 47 7 14.3 49 5 12.8 39 Lawrence Parthum 58 59.2 98 43 48.9 88 32 30.2 106 Leominster Fall Brook 19 55.9 34 12 31.6 38 16 35.6 45 Lynn Harrington 20 29.4 68 27 41.5 65 19 29.2 65 Lynn Ingalls 20 26.7 75 18 24.0 75 12 20.0 60 New Bedford Carney 44 71.0 62 34 60.7 56 21 38.9 54 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 36 38.3 94 18 18.8 96 19 25.0 76 Somerville East Somerville 21 65.6 32 29 49.2 59 37 52.9 70 Springfield Homer Street 24 42.9 56 17 32.1 53 16 28.1 57 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J19: First Grade Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 1 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 15 78.9 19 42 55.3 76 Boston Condon 9 69.2 13 ^^ ^^ 9 19 43.2 44 10 41.7 24 Boston Dever ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 3 17 47.2 36 15 32.6 46 Boston Eliot 13 76.5 17 0 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Harvard Kent ^^ ^^ 8 21 63.6 33 10 55.6 18 10 40.0 25 Boston Mendell ^^ ^^ 3 0 7 43.8 16 7 63.6 11 Boston Orchard Gardens ^^ ^^ 2 0 17 50.0 34 2 9.5 21 Boston Otis 8 53.3 15 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 21 70.0 30 Boston Perkins ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 7 33.3 21 3 27.3 11 Boston Stone 0 0 11 57.9 19 ^^ ^^ 3 Boston Tobin ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 7 36.8 19 7 18.9 37 Boston Trotter ^^ ^^ 1 0 41 51.9 79 6 50.0 12 Chelsea Berkowitz 10 66.7 15 ^^ ^^ 1 7 70.0 10 61 76.3 80 Fall River Slade 16 66.7 24 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 3 Haverhill Golden Hill 19 65.5 29 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 Holyoke Kelly ^^ ^^ 9 0 ^^ ^^ 3 6 9.5 63 Holyoke Lawrence ^^ ^^ 7 0 ^^ ^^ 1 14 17.3 81 Holyoke White 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 9 20.9 43 Lawrence Parthum 19 79.2 24 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 56 54.9 102 Leominster Fall Brook 65 75.6 86 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 14 53.8 26 Lynn Harrington 9 52.9 17 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 8 8 17.8 45 Lynn Ingalls 5 35.7 14 ^^ ^^ 8 4 30.8 13 14 26.4 53 New Bedford Carney 25 71.4 35 ^^ ^^ 1 15 71.4 21 18 81.8 22 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 19 44.2 43 ^^ ^^ 2 5 38.5 13 18 36.7 49 Somerville East Somerville ^^ ^^ 8 0 ^^ ^^ 2 20 62.5 32 Springfield Homer Street ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 12 40 30 18 47.4 38 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J20: Second Grade Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz ^^ ^^ 5 0 6 40.0 15 32 43.8 73 Boston Condon 7 36.8 19 5 45.5 11 12 32.4 37 11 55.0 20 Boston Dever ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 11 42.3 26 12 30.8 39 Boston Eliot ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 9 4 40.0 10 Boston Harvard Kent 4 36.4 11 14 46.7 30 4 28.6 14 13 68.4 19 Boston Mendell ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 8 4 33.3 12 Boston Orchard Gardens ^^ ^^ 1 0 7 21.9 32 5 19.2 26 Boston Otis 4 23.5 17 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 19 70.4 27 Boston Perkins ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 1 2 20.0 10 ^^ ^^ 6 Boston Stone 0 0 6 31.6 19 ^^ ^^ 6 Boston Tobin 0 0 3 21.4 14 10 25.0 40 Boston Trotter ^^ ^^ 1 0 21 31.3 67 4 40.0 10 Chelsea Berkowitz 10 71.4 14 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 9 38 38.4 99 Fall River Slade 9 36.0 25 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 3 Haverhill Golden Hill 16 69.6 23 0 0 ^^ ^^ 8 Holyoke Kelly ^^ ^^ 8 0 ^^ ^^ 4 8 14.3 56 Holyoke Lawrence ^^ ^^ 6 0 0 6 10.0 60 Holyoke White 5 18.5 27 0 ^^ ^^ 1 6 14.0 43 Lawrence Parthum 13 48.1 27 0 ^^ ^^ 1 43 49.4 87 Leominster Fall Brook 78 71.6 109 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 5 20.0 25 Lynn Harrington ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 3 3 30.0 10 20 37.7 53 Lynn Ingalls 5 45.5 11 2 15.4 13 3 30.0 10 12 25.0 48 New Bedford Carney 23 62.2 37 ^^ ^^ 2 15 68.2 22 10 62.5 16 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 11 22.9 48 0 3 17.6 17 6 14.3 42 Somerville East Somerville 10 76.9 13 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 7 26 48.1 54 Springfield Homer Street ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 5 27.8 18 10 27.0 37 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table J21: Third Grade Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- Spring 2005 DIBELS ORF results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING LOW RISK BENCHMARK Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 7 38.9 18 26 29.5 88 Boston Condon 13 52.0 25 ^^ ^^ 7 15 27.8 54 10 41.7 24 Boston Dever 3 27.3 11 ^^ ^^ 2 10 27.8 36 12 22.2 54 Boston Eliot ^^ ^^ 7 0 5 45.5 11 ^^ ^^ 6 Boston Harvard Kent 6 54.5 11 16 55.2 29 6 54.5 11 10 50.0 20 Boston Mendell 0 0 12 41.4 29 ^^ ^^ 5 Boston Orchard Gardens ^^ ^^ 1 0 1 3.2 31 12 30.8 39 Boston Otis 7 46.7 15 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 16 64.0 25 Boston Perkins ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 1 8 40.0 20 2 18.2 11 Boston Stone 0 0 8 33.3 24 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Tobin 0 ^^ ^^ 1 9 56.3 16 14 48.3 29 Boston Trotter 0 0 18 30.5 59 1 10.0 10 Chelsea Berkowitz 7 63.6 11 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 40 58.0 69 Fall River Slade 12 66.7 18 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 Haverhill Golden Hill 43 59.7 72 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 13 43.3 30 Holyoke Kelly ^^ ^^ 6 0 ^^ ^^ 2 7 11.9 59 Holyoke Lawrence ^^ ^^ 6 0 ^^ ^^ 5 1 1.6 61 Holyoke White 3 23.1 13 0 ^^ ^^ 3 7 16.7 42 Lawrence Parthum 5 27.8 18 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 30 28.0 107 Leominster Fall Brook 59 62.1 95 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 8 16 45.7 35 Lynn Harrington 5 50.0 10 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 5 10 21.7 46 Lynn Ingalls ^^ ^^ 9 2 18.2 11 ^^ ^^ 5 9 20.5 44 New Bedford Carney 11 32.4 34 0 15 51.7 29 5 41.7 12 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 9 21.4 42 ^^ ^^ 1 5 41.7 12 7 19.4 36 Somerville East Somerville 9 69.2 13 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 7 30 50.0 60 Springfield Homer Street ^^ ^^ 1 0 12 40 30 6 16.7 36 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Appendix K: School Level Results – GRADE Table K1: Spring 2004 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 33 86.8 38 31 79.5 39 41 89.1 46 Boston Renaissance Charter School 96 67.6 142 89 63.1 141 105 57.1 184 Brockton Downey 26 40.6 64 58 63.7 91 58 67.4 86 Brockton Davis 68 68.7 99 66 59.5 111 58 59.8 97 Cambridge Haggerty 29 63.0 46 16 61.5 26 21 72.4 29 Chelsea Kelly 57 67.1 85 52 46.8 111 56 57.1 98 Chelsea Shurtleff 69 75.0 92 ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 27 41.5 65 37 63.8 58 44 65.7 67 Chicopee Stefanik 32 45.7 70 31 50.8 61 42 64.6 65 Fall River Healy 24 57.1 42 14 35.0 40 18 51.4 35 Fall River Doran 46 73.0 63 31 49.2 63 33 49.3 67 Fall River Laurel Lake 28 62.2 45 21 67.7 31 32 71.1 45 Fall River N.B. Borden 14 63.6 22 10 43.5 23 6 31.6 19 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 22 44.0 50 38 73.1 52 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** 31 60.8 51 Haverhill Burnham 29 56.9 51 24 51.1 47 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 50 71.4 70 59 84.3 70 80 74.1 108 Haverhill Walnut Square 42 84.0 50 47 97.9 48 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 41 73.2 56 25 42.4 59 36 66.7 54 Lawrence Arlington 55 49.1 112 43 38.1 113 29 25.9 112 Lawrence Frost 51 56.7 90 59 57.8 102 42 49.4 85 Lawrence Wetherbee 29 41.4 70 38 47.5 80 43 50.6 85 Lowell Community Charter School 56 62.2 90 40 43.0 93 41 42.7 96 Lowell Murkland 30 35.7 84 41 43.6 94 36 36.0 100 Lowell Bailey 50 54.3 92 50 54.3 92 51 56.7 90 Lowell Greenhalge 48 58.5 82 43 56.6 76 46 60.5 76 Malden Ferryway 77 77.0 100 72 73.5 98 70 77.8 90 Methuen Tenney 113 86.3 131 97 79.5 122 119 81.0 147 Neighborhood House Charter School 21 95.5 22 16 72.7 22 18 81.8 22 North Adams Brayton 44 86.3 51 35 57.4 61 39 69.6 56 North Adams Sullivan 30 71.4 42 37 77.1 48 34 72.3 47 Pittsfield Morningside 46 63.9 72 44 64.7 68 58 73.4 79 Plymouth South Elementary 119 82.6 144 114 78.6 145 139 88.0 158 Plymouth West Elementary 43 87.8 49 44 83.0 53 65 92.9 70 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 41 60.3 68 60 68.2 88 66 79.5 83 Revere Garfield 70 61.9 113 60 65.2 92 50 57.5 87 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 18 78.3 23 11 55.0 20 12 60.0 20 Salem Bates 55 70.5 78 37 74.0 50 47 65.3 72 Salem Bentley 41 73.2 56 38 74.5 51 38 70.4 54 Seven Hills Charter School 37 50.0 74 41 53.2 77 47 62.7 75 Springfield Boland Data are incomplete 32 50.8 63 Data are incomplete Springfield Gerena 47 40.5 116 39 45.9 85 34 33.3 102 Springfield Milton Bradley 53 55.8 95 35 49.3 71 49 48.5 101 Springfield White Street 37 55.2 67 26 72.2 36 18 26.1 69 Taunton Walker 29 67.4 43 29 69.0 42 21 50.0 42 Ware Koziol 62 74.7 83 66 70.2 94 67 71.3 94 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** 96 78.7 122 Webster Park Avenue 112 87.5 128 105 67.3 156 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 19 51.4 37 18 51.4 35 15 41.7 36 Westfield Highland 34 51.5 66 32 46.4 69 35 45.5 77 Westfield Moseley 14 48.3 29 18 75.0 24 22 81.5 27 Worcester A.L.L. 13 18.8 69 34 47.9 71 27 37.0 73 Worcester City View 24 40.7 59 34 57.6 59 33 61.1 54 Worcester Goddard 27 30.7 88 26 33.3 78 33 48.5 68 Worcester Lincoln Street 30 53.6 56 15 40.5 37 10 35.7 28 ** School does not include this grade-level Table K2: Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 34 82.9 41 37 88.1 42 29 76.3 38 Boston Renaissance Charter School 101 72.1 140 94 65.3 144 99 71.2 139 Brockton Downey 37 57.8 64 38 54.3 70 56 61.5 91 Brockton Davis 84 63.6 132 72 72.7 99 77 68.8 112 Cambridge Haggerty 27 69.2 39 26 66.7 39 16 66.7 24 Chelsea Kelly 81 69.8 116 56 54.9 102 48 54.5 88 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 40 70.2 57 30 45.5 66 35 62.5 56 Chicopee Stefanik 47 74.6 63 34 54.0 63 43 79.6 54 Fall River Healy 23 46.9 49 18 36.0 50 13 44.8 29 Fall River Doran 40 63.5 63 29 43.3 67 20 30.8 65 Fall River Laurel Lake 21 60.0 35 20 45.5 44 25 75.8 33 Fall River N.B. Borden 19 76.0 25 15 55.6 27 7 30.4 23 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 25 54.3 46 25 55.6 45 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** 41 78.8 52 Haverhill Burnham 17 53.1 32 24 57.1 42 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 42 65.6 64 45 81.8 55 99 83.9 118 Haverhill Walnut Square 35 87.5 40 34 85.0 40 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 40 69.0 58 34 58.6 58 28 45.9 61 Lawrence Arlington 68 56.7 120 41 43.2 95 40 36.0 111 Lawrence Frost 62 67.4 92 48 55.8 86 46 48.4 95 Lawrence Wetherbee 47 55.3 85 28 41.2 68 38 48.7 78 Lowell Community Charter School 66 66.0 100 60 61.2 98 41 45.6 90 Lowell Murkland 48 64.9 74 34 42.5 80 38 41.8 91 Lowell Bailey 59 72.0 82 65 75.6 86 54 62.1 87 Lowell Greenhalge 57 68.7 83 48 67.6 71 51 63.0 81 Malden Ferryway 76 80.9 94 77 81.1 95 76 73.8 103 Methuen Tenney 112 84.2 133 102 77.3 132 90 75.0 120 Neighborhood House Charter School 21 95.5 22 19 90.5 21 17 77.3 22 North Adams Brayton 38 73.1 52 38 70.4 54 42 70.0 60 North Adams Sullivan 35 83.3 42 31 79.5 39 34 72.3 47 Pittsfield Morningside 45 73.8 61 51 68.0 75 63 77.8 81 Plymouth South Elementary 123 86.6 142 129 84.9 152 124 89.9 138 Plymouth West Elementary 61 84.7 72 45 90.0 50 50 94.3 53 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 56 73.7 76 59 80.8 73 58 74.4 78 Revere Garfield 87 79.1 110 63 61.8 102 64 67.4 95 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 7 36.8 19 13 54.2 24 14 77.8 18 Salem Bates 41 73.2 56 54 74.0 73 38 79.2 48 Salem Bentley 31 60.8 51 46 70.8 65 30 73.2 41 Seven Hills Charter School 31 41.9 74 43 57.3 75 43 55.8 77 Springfield Boland 40 54.8 73 40 56.3 71 36 57.1 63 Springfield Gerena 52 45.6 114 54 55.7 97 31 39.7 78 Springfield Milton Bradley 61 62.9 97 46 48.9 94 56 58.9 95 Springfield White Street 42 55.3 76 29 43.3 67 37 55.2 67 Taunton Walker 27 84.4 32 29 67.4 43 25 58.1 43 Ware Koziol 71 75.5 94 51 65.4 78 69 74.2 93 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** 105 70.9 148 Webster Park Avenue 111 86.7 128 101 80.2 126 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 19 65.5 29 22 62.9 35 19 67.9 28 Westfield Highland 37 64.9 57 31 52.5 59 38 60.3 63 Westfield Moseley 22 84.6 26 22 71.0 31 21 87.5 24 Worcester A.L.L. 6 10.5 57 21 39.6 53 30 46.2 65 Worcester City View 36 58.1 62 34 54.0 63 28 65.1 43 Worcester Goddard 36 51.4 70 26 33.8 77 20 25.6 78 Worcester Lincoln Street 20 66.7 30 16 48.5 33 16 64.0 25 ** School does not include this grade-level Table K3: Students with Disabilities -- Spring 2004 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 7 Boston Renaissance Charter School 4 20.0 20 2 9.5 21 3 12.5 24 Brockton Downey ^^ ^^ 8 5 35.7 14 2 20.0 10 Brockton Davis ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 8 4 40.0 10 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 8 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 2 1 8.3 12 4 25.0 16 Chelsea Shurtleff ^^ ^^ 7 ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 3 20.0 15 ^^ ^^ 3 5 50.0 10 Chicopee Stefanik ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 7 Fall River Healy ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 Fall River Doran ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 7 1 7.7 13 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 6 Fall River N.B. Borden 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 0 0.0 12 ^^ ^^ 7 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** 6 37.5 16 Haverhill Burnham ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 7 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 6 2 12.5 16 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 6 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School ^^ ^^ 6 3 25.0 12 4 36.4 11 Lawrence Arlington 4 22.2 18 2 11.8 17 2 11.1 18 Lawrence Frost 2 20.0 10 ^^ ^^ 8 5 31.3 16 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 9 Lowell Community Charter School ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 7 Lowell Murkland 2 13.3 15 2 15.4 13 1 8.3 12 Lowell Bailey ^^ ^^ 4 2 14.3 14 1 7.1 14 Lowell Greenhalge 4 36.4 11 1 7.1 14 4 26.7 15 Malden Ferryway 6 46.2 13 6 50.0 12 4 36.4 11 Methuen Tenney 5 45.5 11 ^^ ^^ 8 7 38.9 18 Neighborhood House Charter School 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 7 3 18.8 16 2 20.0 10 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 9 2 20.0 10 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 9 12 63.2 19 Plymouth South Elementary 8 44.4 18 8 33.3 24 11 50.0 22 Plymouth West Elementary ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 8 66.7 12 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock ^^ ^^ 4 1 6.7 15 4 33.3 12 Revere Garfield 7 43.8 16 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 ^^ ^^ 2 0 Salem Bates 2 20.0 10 ^^ ^^ 8 2 12.5 16 Salem Bentley 8 61.5 13 6 40.0 15 ^^ ^^ 9 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 5 Springfield Boland Data are Incomplete 3 30.0 10 Data are Incomplete Springfield Gerena 4 30.8 13 2 20.0 10 1 7.1 14 Springfield Milton Bradley 2 14.3 14 1 6.7 15 1 4.5 22 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 8 0 ^^ ^^ 9 Taunton Walker ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 8 0 0.0 14 Ware Koziol 2 20.0 10 5 27.8 18 0 0.0 11 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** 3 20.0 15 Webster Park Avenue 5 41.7 12 13 36.1 36 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 7 0 0.0 10 Westfield Highland ^^ ^^ 4 2 20.0 10 3 21.4 14 Westfield Moseley ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 3 Worcester A.L.L. 1 10.0 10 0 0.0 14 0 0.0 12 Worcester City View 2 16.7 12 ^^ ^^ 7 8 47.1 17 Worcester Goddard ^^ ^^ 7 0 0.0 18 2 12.5 16 Worcester Lincoln Street 3 25.0 12 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K4: Students with Disabilities -- Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 6 Boston Renaissance Charter School 2 15.4 13 3 21.4 14 3 16.7 18 Brockton Downey 2 16.7 12 0 0.0 10 3 18.8 16 Brockton Davis ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 3 1 10.0 10 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 8 1 ^^ 6 Chelsea Kelly 1 8.3 12 ^^ ^^ 6 2 16.7 12 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 8 61.5 13 3 25.0 12 ^^ ^^ 7 Chicopee Stefanik ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Healy ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 Fall River Doran ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 5 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River N.B. Borden ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 9 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 5 Haverhill Burnham ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 9 69.2 13 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 2 15.4 13 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 8 3 18.8 16 3 13.0 23 Lawrence Frost ^^ ^^ 8 0 0.0 11 ^^ ^^ 9 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 5 1 10.0 10 ^^ ^^ 5 Lowell Community Charter School ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 6 Lowell Murkland ^^ ^^ 4 4 23.5 17 1 10.0 10 Lowell Bailey ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 1 7.7 13 Lowell Greenhalge ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 4 28.6 14 Malden Ferryway ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 8 6 46.2 13 Methuen Tenney 3 30.0 10 ^^ ^^ 9 4 30.8 13 Neighborhood House Charter School ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 6 2 14.3 14 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 1 9.1 11 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 10 50.0 20 Plymouth South Elementary 6 42.9 14 10 47.6 21 16 72.7 22 Plymouth West Elementary ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 9 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 5 4 30.8 13 Revere Garfield 7 70.0 10 4 26.7 15 2 15.4 13 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Salem Bates ^^ ^^ 6 2 16.7 12 ^^ ^^ 9 Salem Bentley ^^ ^^ 9 5 41.7 12 ^^ ^^ 8 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 8 1 8.3 12 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 9 2 16.7 12 ^^ ^^ 7 Springfield Gerena 2 10.5 19 1 8.3 12 1 9.1 11 Springfield Milton Bradley 2 15.4 13 ^^ ^^ 7 2 14.3 14 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 6 Taunton Walker ^^ ^^ 1 3 27.3 11 0 0.0 13 Ware Koziol 4 30.8 13 7 50.0 14 5 20.0 25 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** 4 14.8 27 Webster Park Avenue 14 77.8 18 6 33.3 18 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 Westfield Highland ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 6 4 30.8 13 Westfield Moseley ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 Worcester A.L.L. ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 0 0.0 10 Worcester City View ^^ ^^ 7 1 9.1 11 3 30.0 10 Worcester Goddard ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 2 8.7 23 Worcester Lincoln Street 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K5: Students with Limited English Proficiency -- Spring 2004 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter School 0 0 ^^ ^^ 7 Brockton Downey 0 0 0 Brockton Davis ^^ ^^ 9 7 46.7 15 2 11.8 17 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 0 Chelsea Kelly 16 55.2 29 18 40.0 45 17 50.0 34 Chelsea Shurtleff ^^ ^^ 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 6 33.3 18 5 35.7 14 ^^ ^^ 8 Chicopee Stefanik 7 31.8 22 1 10.0 10 2 18.2 11 Fall River Healy 10 47.6 21 0 0.0 20 2 14.3 14 Fall River Doran 17 77.3 22 6 35.3 17 1 7.1 14 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 4 0 0 Fall River N.B. Borden ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 1 Haverhill Burnham 7 28.0 25 3 15.8 19 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Haverhill Walnut Square 0 0 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 11 57.9 19 22 43.1 51 26 63.4 41 Lawrence Arlington 7 33.3 21 2 7.4 27 1 3.6 28 Lawrence Frost ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 5 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 6 2 14.3 14 ^^ ^^ 9 Lowell Community Charter School 20 50.0 40 13 27.7 47 18 33.3 54 Lowell Murkland 14 34.1 41 17 32.7 52 18 28.6 63 Lowell Bailey ^^ ^^ 3 4 25.0 16 5 21.7 23 Lowell Greenhalge 9 42.9 21 9 52.9 17 13 52.0 25 Malden Ferryway 10 71.4 14 5 26.3 19 5 50.0 10 Methuen Tenney 15 78.9 19 6 46.2 13 ^^ ^^ 9 Neighborhood House Charter School 0 0 0 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 Plymouth South Elementary 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Plymouth West Elementary 0 0 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 13 56.5 23 13 59.1 22 ^^ ^^ 8 Revere Garfield 6 33.3 18 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 0 Salem Bates 0 0 0 Salem Bentley 3 30.0 10 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 9 Seven Hills Charter School ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 7 Springfield Boland Data are Incomplete 2 20.0 10 Data are Incomplete Springfield Gerena 4 23.5 17 4 30.8 13 3 17.6 17 Springfield Milton Bradley 5 31.3 16 7 30.4 23 5 20.0 25 Springfield White Street 6 50.0 12 ^^ ^^ 1 1 7.7 13 Taunton Walker 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 Ware Koziol 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 6 Webster Park Avenue 7 63.6 11 ^^ ^^ 6 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Highland 8 26.7 30 5 16.1 31 3 10.0 30 Westfield Moseley 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 Worcester A.L.L. 4 15.4 26 12 41.4 29 4 21.1 19 Worcester City View 4 22.2 18 8 57.1 14 ^^ ^^ 8 Worcester Goddard 12 24.0 50 9 21.4 42 7 24.1 29 Worcester Lincoln Street 8 33.3 24 6 31.6 19 ^^ ^^ 9 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K6: Students with Limited English Proficiency -- Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 0 0 0 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 4 Brockton Downey ^^ ^^ 3 0 0 Brockton Davis 16 44.4 36 4 40.0 10 4 28.6 14 Cambridge Haggerty 0 0 0 Chelsea Kelly 17 41.5 41 10 33.3 30 10 33.3 30 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 8 80.0 10 5 26.3 19 4 36.4 11 Chicopee Stefanik 11 68.8 16 5 35.7 14 ^^ ^^ 9 Fall River Healy 10 50.0 20 9 40.9 22 1 8.3 12 Fall River Doran 10 71.4 14 4 22.2 18 0 0.0 14 Fall River Laurel Lake ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Fall River N.B. Borden 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 3 Haverhill Burnham 3 21.4 14 7 38.9 18 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 Haverhill Walnut Square 0 0 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 4 30.8 13 8 44.4 18 20 47.6 42 Lawrence Arlington 16 47.1 34 1 6.3 16 3 12.0 25 Lawrence Frost 2 18.2 11 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 Lawrence Wetherbee 7 50.0 14 ^^ ^^ 7 1 7.7 13 Lowell Community Charter School 28 62.2 45 20 51.3 39 11 27.5 40 Lowell Murkland 14 60.9 23 9 30.0 30 4 14.8 27 Lowell Bailey ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 1 4 28.6 14 Lowell Greenhalge 11 78.6 14 6 46.2 13 6 40.0 15 Malden Ferryway 7 70.0 10 ^^ ^^ 6 8 61.5 13 Methuen Tenney 9 56.3 16 7 50.0 14 ^^ ^^ 9 Neighborhood House Charter School 0 0 0 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 Plymouth South Elementary 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 14 70.0 20 19 76.0 25 12 63.2 19 Revere Garfield 20 62.5 32 0 0.0 11 2 16.7 12 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 0 Salem Bates ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Salem Bentley 8 44.4 18 6 46.2 13 ^^ ^^ 9 Seven Hills Charter School 6 46.2 13 3 25.0 12 ^^ ^^ 7 Springfield Boland 6 46.2 13 6 42.9 14 3 27.3 11 Springfield Gerena 6 28.6 21 5 33.3 15 4 20.0 20 Springfield Milton Bradley 7 33.3 21 5 25.0 20 5 20.0 25 Springfield White Street 3 23.1 13 5 50.0 10 ^^ ^^ 4 Taunton Walker 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 5 Ware Koziol ^^ ^^ 1 0 0 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** ^^ ^^ 4 Webster Park Avenue ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Highland 12 70.6 17 8 32.0 25 5 25.0 20 Westfield Moseley 0 0 0 Worcester A.L.L. 2 10.0 20 6 26.1 23 5 22.7 22 Worcester City View 6 50.0 12 6 46.2 13 3 27.3 11 Worcester Goddard 14 50.0 28 9 24.3 37 8 19.0 42 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 9 5 35.7 14 ^^ ^^ 8 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K7: Economically Disadvantaged Students -- Spring 2004 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 13 81.3 16 12 70.6 17 17 85.0 20 Boston Renaissance Charter School 68 70.8 96 44 53.7 82 67 54.9 122 Brockton Downey 14 31.8 44 38 59.4 64 36 59.0 61 Brockton Davis 37 59.7 62 47 53.4 88 45 56.3 80 Cambridge Haggerty 3 27.3 11 6 50.0 12 ^^ ^^ 5 Chelsea Kelly 39 60.9 64 38 41.8 91 41 54.7 75 Chelsea Shurtleff 46 70.8 65 ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 23 41.8 55 32 65.3 49 31 60.8 51 Chicopee Stefanik 24 40.7 59 22 45.8 48 31 57.4 54 Fall River Healy 22 55.0 40 13 33.3 39 14 45.2 31 Fall River Doran 36 76.6 47 25 50.0 50 23 47.9 48 Fall River Laurel Lake 20 58.8 34 12 60.0 20 22 71.0 31 Fall River N.B. Borden 10 55.6 18 9 40.9 22 6 33.3 18 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 14 45.2 31 19 67.9 28 ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** 31 60.8 51 20 55.6 36 Haverhill Burnham 15 46.9 32 16 43.2 37 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 20 55.6 36 26 78.8 33 20 57.1 35 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 36 70.6 51 23 41.1 56 34 68.0 50 Lawrence Arlington 48 47.5 101 35 36.8 95 25 25.8 97 Lawrence Frost 35 55.6 63 40 55.6 72 31 46.3 67 Lawrence Wetherbee 25 40.3 62 33 47.8 69 37 46.8 79 Lowell Community Charter School 47 59.5 79 33 41.8 79 33 41.3 80 Lowell Murkland 25 33.8 74 37 45.7 81 28 31.1 90 Lowell Bailey 16 37.2 43 19 38.0 50 24 46.2 52 Lowell Greenhalge 36 57.1 63 28 52.8 53 34 60.7 56 Malden Ferryway 46 79.3 58 41 69.5 59 36 76.6 47 Methuen Tenney 26 76.5 34 26 68.4 38 41 75.9 54 Neighborhood House Charter School 11 91.7 12 6 60.0 10 7 70.0 10 North Adams Brayton 27 84.4 32 15 44.1 34 18 64.3 28 North Adams Sullivan 11 61.1 18 17 65.4 26 16 61.5 26 Pittsfield Morningside 30 65.2 46 30 60.0 50 34 70.8 48 Plymouth South Elementary 11 68.8 16 14 63.6 22 14 77.8 18 Plymouth West Elementary ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 5 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 10 34.5 29 23 60.5 38 26 70.3 37 Revere Garfield 55 57.9 95 49 62.8 78 43 58.9 73 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 12 75.0 16 7 63.6 11 8 53.3 15 Salem Bates 12 50.0 24 10 62.5 16 9 42.9 21 Salem Bentley 10 47.6 21 11 57.9 19 12 54.5 22 Seven Hills Charter School 23 43.4 53 23 46.9 49 23 51.1 45 Springfield Boland Data are Incomplete 28 50.0 56 Data are Incomplete Springfield Gerena 42 38.5 109 34 44.2 77 27 28.4 95 Springfield Milton Bradley 45 52.3 86 31 47.7 65 44 45.8 96 Springfield White Street 33 54.1 61 20 66.7 30 16 25.0 64 Taunton Walker 15 60.0 25 12 57.1 21 9 34.6 26 Ware Koziol 24 61.5 39 27 60.0 45 25 62.5 40 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** 96 78.7 122 36 65.5 55 Webster Park Avenue 42 84.0 50 46 63.0 73 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 13 46.4 28 12 44.4 27 10 38.5 26 Westfield Highland 15 34.9 43 11 26.8 41 15 30.6 49 Westfield Moseley 5 41.7 12 9 64.3 14 7 63.6 11 Worcester A.L.L. 13 19.7 66 29 45.3 64 23 33.8 68 Worcester City View 18 42.9 42 23 52.3 44 19 52.8 36 Worcester Goddard 23 28.0 82 22 30.6 72 26 44.1 59 Worcester Lincoln Street 26 50.0 52 10 37.0 27 8 30.8 26 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K8: Economically Disadvantaged Students -- Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 12 75.0 16 14 77.8 18 ^^ ^^ 9 Boston Renaissance Charter School 65 66.3 98 64 66.0 97 59 66.3 89 Brockton Downey 20 52.6 38 18 40.9 44 35 57.4 61 Brockton Davis 57 64.8 88 42 65.6 64 55 62.5 88 Cambridge Haggerty 7 50.0 14 5 35.7 14 5 41.7 12 Chelsea Kelly 65 67.7 96 40 47.6 84 31 45.6 68 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 31 68.9 45 23 41.8 55 27 57.4 47 Chicopee Stefanik 37 74.0 50 26 51.0 51 33 75.0 44 Fall River Healy 22 51.2 43 16 36.4 44 11 40.7 27 Fall River Doran 31 63.3 49 21 43.8 48 15 31.3 48 Fall River Laurel Lake 16 53.3 30 14 37.8 37 14 70.0 20 Fall River N.B. Borden 18 75.0 24 9 45.0 20 7 31.8 22 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 11 44.0 25 13 50.0 26 ** ** *8 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** 19 70.4 27 Haverhill Burnham 11 50.0 22 13 61.9 21 ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 21 58.3 36 22 78.6 28 33 78.6 42 Haverhill Walnut Square ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 5 ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 35 66.0 53 28 57.1 49 24 48.0 50 Lawrence Arlington 60 62.5 96 37 44.0 84 36 37.5 96 Lawrence Frost 37 64.9 57 32 50.8 63 31 47.0 66 Lawrence Wetherbee 38 55.1 69 24 41.4 58 30 46.9 64 Lowell Community Charter School 49 59.8 82 45 57.7 78 30 44.1 68 Lowell Murkland 43 64.2 67 28 40.6 69 34 43.6 78 Lowell Bailey 27 69.2 39 26 65.0 40 19 43.2 44 Lowell Greenhalge 35 67.3 52 34 63.0 54 34 57.6 59 Malden Ferryway 35 72.9 48 49 75.4 65 41 70.7 58 Methuen Tenney 37 69.8 53 18 50.0 36 23 62.2 37 Neighborhood House Charter School 15 93.8 16 12 92.3 13 9 81.8 11 North Adams Brayton 22 66.7 33 27 75.0 36 25 62.5 40 North Adams Sullivan 15 75.0 20 6 54.5 11 12 54.5 22 Pittsfield Morningside 31 72.1 43 31 67.4 46 41 75.9 54 Plymouth South Elementary 14 82.4 17 11 61.1 18 19 79.2 24 Plymouth West Elementary ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 8 10 90.9 11 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 16 66.7 24 23 74.2 31 22 66.7 33 Revere Garfield 72 79.1 91 48 57.8 83 51 65.4 78 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 6 35.3 17 7 43.8 16 ^^ ^^ 9 Salem Bates 11 57.9 19 12 48.0 25 15 83.3 18 Salem Bentley 17 51.5 33 16 61.5 26 7 50.0 14 Seven Hills Charter School 22 37.3 59 30 50.0 60 27 50.9 53 Springfield Boland 35 56.5 62 31 52.5 59 31 55.4 56 Springfield Gerena 43 41.3 104 52 59.1 88 26 38.2 68 Springfield Milton Bradley 51 61.4 83 36 46.2 78 47 56.0 84 Springfield White Street 32 50.0 64 24 45.3 53 30 56.6 53 Taunton Walker 8 72.7 11 17 63.0 27 11 44.0 25 Ware Koziol 25 67.6 37 23 57.5 40 31 60.8 51 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** 39 62.9 62 Webster Park Avenue 38 82.6 46 39 79.6 49 ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 15 62.5 24 16 57.1 28 14 60.9 23 Westfield Highland 16 59.3 27 9 31.0 29 15 46.9 32 Westfield Moseley 11 78.6 14 8 53.3 15 12 80.0 15 Worcester A.L.L. 3 6.1 49 19 42.2 45 24 45.3 53 Worcester City View 28 56.0 50 28 56.0 50 18 54.5 33 Worcester Goddard 32 51.6 62 21 30.9 68 17 23.9 71 Worcester Lincoln Street 14 58.3 24 14 45.2 31 12 60.0 20 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K9: First Grade Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- Spring 2004 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (statnine 5-9) Grade 1 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 29 87.9 33 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 82 68.3 120 10 58.8 17 Brockton Downey 11 40.7 27 ^^ ^^ 5 9 32.1 28 ^^ ^^ 2 Brockton Davis 31 77.5 40 0 27 61.4 44 7 63.6 11 Cambridge Haggerty 18 81.8 22 ^^ ^^ 6 4 33.3 12 ^^ ^^ 6 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 48 65.8 73 Chelsea Shurtleff 16 88.9 18 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 44 68.8 64 Chicopee Bowe 18 54.5 33 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 5 20.0 25 Chicopee Stefanik 15 57.7 26 0 ^^ ^^ 5 12 30.8 39 Fall River Healy 9 75.0 12 0 ^^ ^^ 4 12 46.2 26 Fall River Doran 37 69.8 53 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 6 Fall River Laurel Lake 16 61.5 26 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 Fall River N.B. Borden 11 78.6 14 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 6 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 20 45.5 44 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 16 84.2 19 0 ^^ ^^ 3 10 34.5 29 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 36 76.6 47 0 ^^ ^^ 3 12 60.0 20 Haverhill Walnut Square 42 84.0 50 0 0 0 Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 0 0 41 73.2 56 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 2 49 46.2 106 Lawrence Frost 13 59.1 22 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 7 32 56.1 57 Lawrence Wetherbee 7 58.3 12 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 19 35.8 53 Lowell Community Charter School 7 58.3 12 16 64.0 25 ^^ ^^ 9 25 59.5 42 Lowell Murkland 5 27.8 18 20 45.5 44 ^^ ^^ 2 5 25.0 20 Lowell Bailey 26 60.5 43 10 50.0 20 ^^ ^^ 7 8 38.1 21 Lowell Greenhalge 29 65.9 44 6 46.2 13 ^^ ^^ 6 10 52.6 19 Malden Ferryway 34 81.0 42 21 87.5 24 11 73.3 15 11 57.9 19 Methuen Tenney 84 87.5 96 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 5 20 76.9 26 Neighborhood House Charter School ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 11 100.0 11 ^^ ^^ 6 North Adams Brayton 39 84.8 46 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan 28 73.7 38 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 33 60.0 55 ^^ ^^ 1 8 66.7 12 ^^ ^^ 4 Plymouth South Elementary 119 82.6 144 0 0 0 Plymouth West Elementary 39 90.7 43 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 25 67.6 37 11 68.8 16 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 9 Revere Garfield 19 67.9 28 19 67.9 28 ^^ ^^ 8 28 57.1 49 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter Schoolool ^^ ^^ 1 0 16 80.0 20 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 42 76.4 55 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 8 50.0 16 Salem Bentley 29 87.9 33 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 9 45.0 20 Seven Hills Charter School 9 52.9 17 ^^ ^^ 3 11 64.7 17 14 37.8 37 Springfield Boland Data are Incomplete Springfield Gerena 5 50.0 10 0 11 37.9 29 29 38.7 75 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 1 18 62.1 29 28 49.1 57 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 9 60.0 15 18 51.4 35 Taunton Walker 22 66.7 33 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 Ware Koziol 55 74.3 74 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 94 88.7 106 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 7 10 90.9 11 Westfield Franklin Avenue 10 55.6 18 0 ^^ ^^ 1 8 44.4 18 Westfield Highland 31 52.5 59 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 13 48.1 27 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Worcester A.L.L. 1 7.1 14 ^^ ^^ 5 6 42.9 14 4 11.1 36 Worcester City View 13 54.2 24 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 6 23.1 26 Worcester Goddard 5 20.8 24 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 16 30.8 52 Worcester Lincoln Street 13 81.3 16 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 13 39.4 33 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K10: Second Grade Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- Spring 2004 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (statnine 5-9) Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 29 80.6 36 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 75 63.6 118 8 57.1 14 Brockton Downey 25 75.8 33 ^^ ^^ 2 22 59.5 37 7 43.8 16 Brockton Davis 24 68.6 35 ^^ ^^ 1 31 59.6 52 10 45.5 22 Cambridge Haggerty 9 64.3 14 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 8 0 Chelsea Kelly 3 27.3 11 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 6 42 45.7 92 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 22 75.9 29 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 13 50.0 26 Chicopee Stefanik 16 66.7 24 0 ^^ ^^ 2 15 44.1 34 Fall River Healy 11 68.8 16 0 ^^ ^^ 3 1 4.8 21 Fall River Doran 28 53.8 52 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 17 81.0 21 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 8 Fall River N.B. Borden 7 46.7 15 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 32 71.1 45 0 0 ^^ ^^ 7 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 11 78.6 14 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 9 32.1 28 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 51 86.4 59 0 ^^ ^^ 1 7 70.0 10 Haverhill Walnut Square 45 97.8 46 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 23 40.4 57 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 8 0 ^^ ^^ 3 38 38.4 99 Lawrence Frost 19 70.4 27 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 34 52.3 65 Lawrence Wetherbee 7 63.6 11 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 2 26 44.1 59 Lowell Community Charter School 11 61.1 18 11 39.3 28 ^^ ^^ 8 12 30.8 39 Lowell Murkland 12 50.0 24 20 40.8 49 ^^ ^^ 5 7 43.8 16 Lowell Bailey 32 65.3 49 10 47.6 21 ^^ ^^ 5 5 31.3 16 Lowell Greenhalge 26 56.5 46 9 75.0 12 ^^ ^^ 7 4 36.4 11 Malden Ferryway 38 92.7 41 16 59.3 27 9 47.4 19 9 81.8 11 Methuen Tenney 72 85.7 84 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 17 60.7 28 Neighborhood House Charter School 10 76.9 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 0 North Adams Brayton 31 57.4 54 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan 34 77.3 44 0 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Pittsfield Morningside 35 66.0 53 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 5 Plymouth South Elementary 109 80.1 136 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary 44 83.0 53 0 0 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 37 68.5 54 17 81.0 21 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 3 Revere Garfield 17 63.0 27 15 75.0 20 ^^ ^^ 8 22 61.1 36 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 10 55.6 18 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 32 76.2 42 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 Salem Bentley 28 87.5 32 0 ^^ ^^ 2 9 52.9 17 Seven Hills Charter School 11 61.1 18 ^^ ^^ 1 20 60.6 33 9 36.0 25 Springfield Boland 6 60.0 10 0 6 54.5 11 18 45.0 40 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 6 0 9 47.4 19 25 41.7 60 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 5 0 11 57.9 19 20 42.6 47 Springfield White Street 9 90.0 10 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 9 11 73.3 15 Taunton Walker 26 76.5 34 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 5 Ware Koziol 61 70.9 86 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 99 67.8 146 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 Westfield Franklin Avenue 13 61.9 21 0 0 5 35.7 14 Westfield Highland 28 45.2 62 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 16 76.2 21 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 Worcester A.L.L. 12 60.0 20 7 63.6 11 5 50.0 10 10 33.3 30 Worcester City View 16 61.5 26 0 ^^ ^^ 6 14 51.9 27 Worcester Goddard 8 38.1 21 7 53.8 13 ^^ ^^ 2 9 21.4 42 Worcester Lincoln Street 6 46.2 13 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 7 38.9 18 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K11: Third Grade Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- Spring 2004 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (statnine 5-9) Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 37 88.1 42 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 5 81 55.9 145 14 51.9 27 Brockton Downey 26 72.2 36 0 21 61.8 34 8 61.5 13 Brockton Davis 19 63.3 30 ^^ ^^ 1 29 54.7 53 7 63.6 11 Cambridge Haggerty 13 100.0 13 0 6 42.9 14 ^^ ^^ 1 Chelsea Kelly 14 73.7 19 0 ^^ ^^ 1 41 52.6 78 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 30 75.0 40 0 ^^ ^^ 4 9 40.9 22 Chicopee Stefanik 27 93.1 29 0 ^^ ^^ 3 12 36.4 33 Fall River Healy 13 86.7 15 0 ^^ ^^ 3 4 23.5 17 Fall River Doran 29 50.9 57 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 19 67.9 28 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 6 Fall River N.B. Borden 4 28.6 14 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 31 70.5 44 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 72 78.3 92 0 ^^ ^^ 4 5 41.7 12 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 36 67.9 53 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 4 0 ^^ ^^ 2 25 23.6 106 Lawrence Frost 12 57.1 21 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 26 44.8 58 Lawrence Wetherbee 8 80.0 10 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 30 44.1 68 Lowell Community Charter School 9 69.2 13 14 43.8 32 8 66.7 12 9 23.7 38 Lowell Murkland 10 50.0 20 11 20.8 53 ^^ ^^ 5 13 59.1 22 Lowell Bailey 28 66.7 42 14 66.7 21 6 60.0 10 3 17.6 17 Lowell Greenhalge 31 66.0 47 8 50.0 16 ^^ ^^ 2 5 45.5 11 Malden Ferryway 44 84.6 52 14 77.8 18 8 61.5 13 ^^ ^^ 6 Methuen Tenney 88 87.1 101 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 23 63.9 36 Neighborhood House Charter School ^^ ^^ 8 0 8 66.7 12 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Brayton 32 69.6 46 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 North Adams Sullivan 29 72.5 40 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 46 74.2 62 0 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 6 Plymouth South Elementary 133 88.1 151 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary 64 94.1 68 0 ^^ ^^ 2 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 46 80.7 57 10 76.9 13 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 Revere Garfield 16 69.6 23 15 78.9 19 10 90.9 11 9 26.5 34 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School ^^ ^^ 1 0 8 57.1 14 ^^ ^^ 5 Salem Bates 40 71.4 56 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 5 41.7 12 Salem Bentley 29 82.9 35 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 7 43.8 16 Seven Hills Charter School 19 79.2 24 ^^ ^^ 2 13 54.2 24 13 52.0 25 Springfield Boland Data are Incomplete Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 7 0 16 48.5 33 13 21.0 62 Springfield Milton Bradley 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 3 21 65.6 32 19 34.5 55 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 4 21.1 19 9 23.1 39 Taunton Walker 17 56.7 30 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 9 Ware Koziol 64 71.1 90 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Webster Sitkowski 87 80.6 108 0 ^^ ^^ 4 6 60.0 10 Webster Park Avenue ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 10 45.5 22 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 3 25.0 12 Westfield Highland 35 46.1 76 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Westfield Moseley 21 80.8 26 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Worcester A.L.L. 8 38.1 21 4 40.0 10 ^^ ^^ 6 13 36.1 36 Worcester City View 23 74.2 31 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 7 41.2 17 Worcester Goddard 14 73.7 19 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 5 13 34.2 38 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 4 26.7 15 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K12: First Grade Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (statnine 5-9) Grade 1 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 28 82.4 34 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 84 70.6 119 14 77.8 18 Brockton Downey 18 72.0 25 ^^ ^^ 4 14 51.9 27 ^^ ^^ 8 Brockton Davis 27 79.4 34 0 48 56.5 85 9 69.2 13 Cambridge Haggerty 13 72.2 18 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 6 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 74 70.5 105 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 22 81.5 27 0 ^^ ^^ 2 16 57.1 28 Chicopee Stefanik 12 80.0 15 0 0 34 72.3 47 Fall River Healy 9 60.0 15 0 ^^ ^^ 3 13 41.9 31 Fall River Doran 35 67.3 52 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 10 55.6 18 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 9 Fall River N.B. Borden 16 84.2 19 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 24 57.1 42 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 12 75.0 16 0 ^^ ^^ 1 5 33.3 15 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 35 76.1 46 0 ^^ ^^ 2 6 37.5 16 Haverhill Walnut Square 34 91.9 37 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 39 69.6 56 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 63 57.3 110 Lawrence Frost 18 78.3 23 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 1 36 61.0 59 Lawrence Wetherbee 8 72.7 11 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 1 32 48.5 66 Lowell Community Charter School 12 80.0 15 22 68.8 32 7 70.0 10 25 58.1 43 Lowell Murkland 9 60.0 15 25 71.4 35 ^^ ^^ 3 11 52.4 21 Lowell Bailey 26 68.4 38 27 87.1 31 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 9 Lowell Greenhalge 27 69.2 39 11 64.7 17 7 70.0 10 12 70.6 17 Malden Ferryway 39 90.7 43 17 73.9 23 10 62.5 16 10 83.3 12 Methuen Tenney 84 86.6 97 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 20 74.1 27 Neighborhood House Charter School ^^ ^^ 9 0 10 90.9 11 ^^ ^^ 1 North Adams Brayton 35 77.8 45 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan 32 86.5 37 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 Pittsfield Morningside 34 77.3 44 0 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 6 Plymouth South Elementary 119 86.9 137 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 0 Plymouth West Elementary 58 85.3 68 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 44 75.9 58 10 76.9 13 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Revere Garfield 15 75.0 20 19 82.6 23 8 66.7 12 45 81.8 55 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 7 46.7 15 ^^ ^^ 3 Salem Bates 30 78.9 38 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 9 60.0 15 Salem Bentley 18 78.3 23 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 12 48.0 25 Seven Hills Charter School 5 45.5 11 0 14 51.9 27 9 27.3 33 Springfield Boland 6 50.0 12 ^^ ^^ 1 8 57.1 14 25 54.3 46 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 9 0 11 44.0 25 36 45.6 79 Springfield Milton Bradley 9 90.0 10 ^^ ^^ 1 29 78.4 37 23 46.9 49 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 5 13 72.2 18 16 39.0 41 Taunton Walker 20 83.3 24 0 ^^ ^^ 8 0 Ware Koziol 64 73.6 87 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 97 89.0 109 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 6 54.5 11 Westfield Franklin Avenue 14 82.4 17 0 0 5 41.7 12 Westfield Highland 35 68.6 51 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 Westfield Moseley 19 82.6 23 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 Worcester A.L.L. ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 3 1 5.9 17 3 10.7 28 Worcester City View 15 55.6 27 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 7 13 50.0 26 Worcester Goddard 11 52.4 21 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 7 15 44.1 34 Worcester Lincoln Street 7 70.0 10 0 ^^ ^^ 3 11 64.7 17 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K13: Second Grade Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (statnine 5-9) Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 33 89.2 37 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Renaissance Charter School 0 ^^ ^^ 5 79 65.3 121 10 55.6 18 Brockton Downey 15 55.6 27 ^^ ^^ 5 17 48.6 35 ^^ ^^ 1 Brockton Davis 31 86.1 36 0 31 66.0 47 6 50.0 12 Cambridge Haggerty 16 80.0 20 ^^ ^^ 3 4 36.4 11 ^^ ^^ 5 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 6 44 51.2 86 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 16 55.2 29 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 8 26.7 30 Chicopee Stefanik 19 65.5 29 0 ^^ ^^ 4 12 41.4 29 Fall River Healy 7 46.7 15 0 ^^ ^^ 7 9 32.1 28 Fall River Doran 23 44.2 52 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 8 Fall River Laurel Lake 17 63.0 27 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 Fall River N.B. Borden 9 56.3 16 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 7 Gill-Montague Hillcrest 24 60.0 40 0 0 ^^ ^^ 4 Gill-Montague Sheffield ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Burnham 12 70.6 17 0 ^^ ^^ 2 10 43.5 23 Haverhill Pentucket Lake 33 82.5 40 0 ^^ ^^ 4 8 72.7 11 Haverhill Walnut Square 34 85.0 40 0 0 0 Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 0 0 34 58.6 58 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 3 0 ^^ ^^ 2 38 42.2 90 Lawrence Frost 13 59.1 22 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 28 52.8 53 Lawrence Wetherbee 5 50.0 10 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 20 38.5 52 Lowell Community Charter School 9 64.3 14 14 51.9 27 ^^ ^^ 8 30 62.5 48 Lowell Murkland 8 47.1 17 18 46.2 39 ^^ ^^ 2 7 33.3 21 Lowell Bailey 36 80.0 45 12 80.0 15 ^^ ^^ 8 10 55.6 18 Lowell Greenhalge 29 74.4 39 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 5 9 60.0 15 Malden Ferryway 32 84.2 38 18 81.8 22 12 70.6 17 15 83.3 18 Methuen Tenney 81 81.8 99 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 6 13 56.5 23 Neighborhood House Charter School ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 10 90.9 11 ^^ ^^ 4 North Adams Brayton 34 70.8 48 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan 28 80.0 35 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 35 63.6 55 ^^ ^^ 1 10 83.3 12 ^^ ^^ 6 Plymouth South Elementary 127 85.2 149 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary 40 90.9 44 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 32 84.2 38 17 89.5 19 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 9 Revere Garfield 15 60.0 25 18 72.0 25 ^^ ^^ 7 24 53.3 45 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School ^^ ^^ 1 0 9 45.0 20 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 42 80.8 52 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 7 46.7 15 Salem Bentley 29 78.4 37 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 12 57.1 21 Seven Hills Charter School 10 71.4 14 ^^ ^^ 3 12 60.0 20 18 48.6 37 Springfield Boland 6 46.2 13 0 8 42.1 19 26 66.7 39 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 7 0 13 54.2 24 35 54.7 64 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 2 14 58.3 24 23 39.0 59 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 8 6 42.9 14 14 38.9 36 Taunton Walker 20 64.5 31 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 6 Ware Koziol 47 66.2 71 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 Webster Sitkowski ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Webster Park Avenue 87 82.1 106 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 8 Westfield Franklin Avenue 10 58.8 17 0 0 12 66.7 18 Westfield Highland 28 53.8 52 0 0 ^^ ^^ 7 Westfield Moseley 20 71.4 28 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Worcester A.L.L. 4 36.4 11 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 8 11 37.9 29 Worcester City View 15 62.5 24 ^^ ^^ 1 8 72.7 11 10 37.0 27 Worcester Goddard 8 36.4 22 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 5 13 28.9 45 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 9 45.0 20 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K14: Third Grade Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (statnine 5-9) Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # ^^ # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 27 79.4 34 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 84 70.6 119 10 66.7 15 Brockton Downey 18 60.0 30 ^^ ^^ 2 24 68.6 35 10 47.6 21 Brockton Davis 27 77.1 35 ^^ ^^ 1 34 64.2 53 15 71.4 21 Cambridge Haggerty 12 75.0 16 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 5 0 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 36 48.6 74 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 20 74.1 27 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 13 50.0 26 Chicopee Stefanik 19 95.0 20 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 21 70.0 30 Fall River Healy 9 75.0 12 0 ^^ ^^ 3 2 14.3 14 Fall River Doran 17 33.3 51 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 8 Fall River Laurel Lake 19 90.5 21 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 7 Fall River N.B. Borden 4 30.8 13 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 5 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 36 80.0 45 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 92 89.3 103 0 ^^ ^^ 2 6 46.2 13 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 26 46.4 56 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 6 0 ^^ ^^ 6 34 34.3 99 Lawrence Frost 14 63.6 22 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 4 25 40.3 62 Lawrence Wetherbee 9 90.0 10 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 2 26 44.8 58 Lowell Community Charter School 12 70.6 17 8 32.0 25 ^^ ^^ 9 13 33.3 39 Lowell Murkland 9 42.9 21 20 46.5 43 ^^ ^^ 7 6 30.0 20 Lowell Bailey 35 72.9 48 9 45.0 20 ^^ ^^ 4 8 53.3 15 Lowell Greenhalge 30 61.2 49 8 72.7 11 ^^ ^^ 8 7 53.8 13 Malden Ferryway 35 89.7 39 21 72.4 29 11 45.8 24 9 81.8 11 Methuen Tenney 70 77.8 90 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 13 56.5 23 Neighborhood House Charter School 10 76.9 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 0 North Adams Brayton 34 68.0 50 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 North Adams Sullivan 32 76.2 42 0 ^^ ^^ 5 0 Pittsfield Morningside 54 83.1 65 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 6 Plymouth South Elementary 118 89.4 132 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary 50 96.2 52 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 35 79.5 44 15 75.0 20 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 6 Revere Garfield 13 59.1 22 14 70.0 20 8 80.0 10 28 66.7 42 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 13 76.5 17 ^^ ^^ 1 Salem Bates 32 84.2 38 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 Salem Bentley 21 84.0 25 0 ^^ ^^ 3 8 66.7 12 Seven Hills Charter School 12 75.0 16 0 23 69.7 33 8 28.6 28 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 9 0 8 61.5 13 19 48.7 39 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 6 0 5 41.7 12 21 35.0 60 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 7 0 26 76.5 34 24 44.4 54 Springfield White Street 10 90.9 11 ^^ ^^ 3 7 53.8 13 18 45.0 40 Taunton Walker 22 64.7 34 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 Ware Koziol 61 73.5 83 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Webster Sitkowski 101 73.2 138 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 9 Webster Park Avenue ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 13 76.5 17 0 0 6 54.5 11 Westfield Highland 33 60.0 55 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 19 90.5 21 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 Worcester A.L.L. 12 63.2 19 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 7 10 32.3 31 Worcester City View 15 75.0 20 0 ^^ ^^ 3 11 55.0 20 Worcester Goddard 8 40.0 20 6 60.0 10 ^^ ^^ 2 6 13.0 46 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 8 66.7 12 ** School does not include this grade-level ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K15: Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz 56 58.3 96 39 41.9 93 46 41.4 111 Boston Condon 51 55.4 92 41 47.1 87 46 41.8 110 Boston Dever 40 44.0 91 35 41.2 85 45 43.7 103 Boston Eliot 17 68.0 25 17 56.7 30 13 52.0 25 Boston Harvard Kent 43 50.6 85 31 41.3 75 36 50.7 71 Boston Mendell 18 58.1 31 9 42.9 21 16 45.7 35 Boston Orchard Gardens 18 31.6 57 18 30.5 59 19 26.0 73 Boston Otis 34 70.8 48 28 59.6 47 35 79.5 44 Boston Perkins 16 41.0 39 17 53.1 32 25 61.0 41 Boston Stone 14 63.6 22 10 40.0 25 16 64.0 25 Boston Tobin 16 26.7 60 18 33.3 54 16 34.0 47 Boston Trotter 48 50.5 95 26 31.3 83 27 37.0 73 Chelsea Berkowitz 87 82.1 106 70 56.5 124 55 64.7 85 Fall River Slade 19 54.3 35 16 47.1 34 13 46.4 28 Haverhill Golden Hill 22 57.9 38 27 67.5 40 83 72.2 115 Holyoke Kelly 20 27.0 74 23 32.9 70 7 10.1 69 Holyoke Lawrence 41 46.6 88 23 34.8 66 21 29.6 71 Holyoke White 29 44.6 65 37 52.9 70 27 41.5 65 Lawrence Parthum 86 64.7 133 73 63.5 115 61 46.6 131 Leominster Fall Brook 100 84.7 118 112 80.0 140 116 80.0 145 Lynn Harrington 31 40.3 77 33 45.8 72 35 40.7 86 Lynn Ingalls 41 47.1 87 39 43.3 90 41 56.9 72 New Bedford Carney 61 77.2 79 53 69.7 76 45 58.4 77 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 54 49.5 109 52 47.3 110 45 48.4 93 Somerville East Somerville 27 61.4 44 44 54.3 81 37 44.6 83 Springfield Homer Street 39 50.6 77 28 45.9 61 29 42.6 68 Table K16: Students with Disabilities -- Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz ^^ ^^ 9 2 14.3 14 1 4.8 21 Boston Condon ^^ ^^ 8 5 23.8 21 7 25.9 27 Boston Dever 1 6.3 16 ^^ ^^ 7 3 17.6 17 Boston Eliot ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 Boston Harvard Kent ^^ ^^ 2 4 26.7 15 4 21.1 19 Boston Mendell ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 1 10.0 10 Boston Orchard Gardens ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 9 Boston Otis ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Perkins ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 8 Boston Stone ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 7 Boston Tobin ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 7 Boston Trotter ^^ ^^ 8 4 23.5 17 0 0.0 14 Chelsea Berkowitz 3 27.3 11 5 29.4 17 ^^ ^^ 5 Fall River Slade ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 Haverhill Golden Hill ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 8 57.1 14 Holyoke Kelly 3 30.0 10 5 45.5 11 1 7.1 14 Holyoke Lawrence 4 30.8 13 2 20.0 10 2 12.5 16 Holyoke White 2 20.0 10 0 0.0 12 4 23.5 17 Lawrence Parthum ^^ ^^ 5 2 18.2 11 0 0.0 16 Leominster Fall Brook 7 43.8 16 9 47.4 19 11 61.1 18 Lynn Harrington ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 5 1 4.5 22 Lynn Ingalls ^^ ^^ 4 2 20.0 10 ^^ ^^ 8 New Bedford Carney ^^ ^^ 9 6 46.2 13 3 25.0 12 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 9 32.1 28 5 26.3 19 4 19.0 21 Somerville East Somerville ^^ ^^ 8 1 6.3 16 5 26.3 19 Springfield Homer Street ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K17: Students with Limited English Proficiency -- Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz 23 52.3 44 19 38.0 50 20 32.8 61 Boston Condon 14 50.0 28 12 44.4 27 8 23.5 34 Boston Dever 11 31.4 35 14 35.0 40 17 39.5 43 Boston Eliot ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 Boston Harvard Kent 24 53.3 45 19 50.0 38 22 55.0 40 Boston Mendell ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 Boston Orchard Gardens 1 6.3 16 4 20.0 20 8 25.0 32 Boston Otis 18 64.3 28 20 55.6 36 26 76.5 34 Boston Perkins ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 7 Boston Stone 0 ^^ ^^ 5 0 Boston Tobin 6 26.1 23 10 35.7 28 5 25.0 20 Boston Trotter ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 Chelsea Berkowitz 15 78.9 19 9 29.0 31 3 21.4 14 Fall River Slade 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Haverhill Golden Hill 0 ^^ ^^ 1 4 23.5 17 Holyoke Kelly 3 12.5 24 0 0.0 23 0 0.0 29 Holyoke Lawrence 13 35.1 37 4 18.2 22 0 0.0 19 Holyoke White 3 15.8 19 2 13.3 15 2 10.5 19 Lawrence Parthum 17 42.5 40 3 23.1 13 2 9.1 22 Leominster Fall Brook 6 60.0 10 8 38.1 21 9 40.9 22 Lynn Harrington 13 32.5 40 15 42.9 35 4 18.2 22 Lynn Ingalls 20 47.6 42 13 31.0 42 3 13.0 23 New Bedford Carney 0 0 0 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 7 36.8 19 1 6.7 15 1 9.1 11 Somerville East Somerville 12 57.1 21 7 26.9 26 7 19.4 36 Springfield Homer Street 9 56.3 16 3 27.3 11 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K18: Economically Disadvantaged Students -- Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz 50 59.5 84 33 41.3 80 37 38.1 97 Boston Condon 43 53.8 80 36 47.4 76 38 40.9 93 Boston Dever 35 42.2 83 30 42.9 70 40 44.9 89 Boston Eliot 11 68.8 16 11 47.8 23 9 50.0 18 Boston Harvard Kent 40 51.9 77 27 41.5 65 31 50.0 62 Boston Mendell 17 58.6 29 6 37.5 16 14 43.8 32 Boston Orchard Gardens 13 29.5 44 15 27.8 54 18 27.7 65 Boston Otis 30 68.2 44 20 54.1 37 30 81.1 37 Boston Perkins 14 38.9 36 16 53.3 30 23 62.2 37 Boston Stone 11 61.1 18 10 41.7 24 12 63.2 19 Boston Tobin 12 27.3 44 15 31.9 47 15 37.5 40 Boston Trotter 40 56.3 71 18 30.0 60 18 33.3 54 Chelsea Berkowitz 65 81.3 80 53 57.6 92 47 64.4 73 Fall River Slade 17 56.7 30 10 40.0 25 8 40.0 20 Haverhill Golden Hill 15 65.2 23 13 68.4 19 28 56.0 50 Holyoke Kelly 14 23.7 59 19 32.2 59 6 10.0 60 Holyoke Lawrence 36 47.4 76 21 35.6 59 18 28.1 64 Holyoke White 18 37.5 48 24 50.0 48 16 37.2 43 Lawrence Parthum 62 63.3 98 55 62.5 88 46 43.8 105 Leominster Fall Brook 27 79.4 34 21 55.3 38 25 55.6 45 Lynn Harrington 27 39.1 69 30 47.6 63 32 40.5 79 Lynn Ingalls 34 45.9 74 36 43.9 82 37 59.7 62 New Bedford Carney 45 72.6 62 35 62.5 56 33 60.0 55 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 45 47.9 94 45 46.4 97 40 52.6 76 Somerville East Somerville 20 62.5 32 32 52.5 61 30 44.1 68 Springfield Homer Street 30 52.6 57 26 47.3 55 26 45.6 57 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K19: First Grade Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 1 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 10 52.6 19 44 59.5 74 Boston Condon 9 69.2 13 ^^ ^^ 9 24 54.5 44 12 46.2 26 Boston Dever ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 3 22 59.5 37 13 28.3 46 Boston Eliot 13 76.5 17 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Harvard Kent ^^ ^^ 8 21 61.8 34 8 47.1 17 9 34.6 26 Boston Mendell ^^ ^^ 3 0 8 50.0 16 8 66.7 12 Boston Orchard Gardens ^^ ^^ 2 0 13 38.2 34 3 14.3 21 Boston Otis 8 53.3 15 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 24 80.0 30 Boston Perkins ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 7 35.0 20 5 45.5 11 Boston Stone 0 0 13 68.4 19 ^^ ^^ 3 Boston Tobin ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 6 31.6 19 7 18.9 37 Boston Trotter ^^ ^^ 1 0 41 50.6 81 7 53.8 13 Chelsea Berkowitz 13 86.7 15 ^^ ^^ 1 8 80.0 10 65 81.3 80 Fall River Slade 15 60.0 25 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 Haverhill Golden Hill 17 58.6 29 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 Holyoke Kelly ^^ ^^ 9 0 ^^ ^^ 3 14 22.6 62 Holyoke Lawrence ^^ ^^ 7 0 ^^ ^^ 1 39 48.8 80 Holyoke White 7 63.6 11 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 18 37.5 48 Lawrence Parthum 20 83.3 24 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 62 60.2 103 Leominster Fall Brook 75 87.2 86 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 20 76.9 26 Lynn Harrington 11 64.7 17 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 9 15 33.3 45 Lynn Ingalls 6 42.9 14 ^^ ^^ 8 8 61.5 13 24 46.2 52 New Bedford Carney 25 71.4 35 ^^ ^^ 1 17 81.0 21 18 81.8 22 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 26 60.5 43 ^^ ^^ 2 6 42.9 14 22 44.9 49 Somerville East Somerville ^^ ^^ 8 0 ^^ ^^ 2 19 57.6 33 Springfield Homer Street ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 15 50 30 22 52.4 42 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K20: Second Grade Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 2 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 15 28 38.4 73 Boston Condon 14 73.7 19 7 63.6 11 ^^ ^^ 37 6 30.0 20 Boston Dever ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 27 13 31.7 41 Boston Eliot ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 2 5 55.6 9 4 40.0 10 Boston Harvard Kent 4 36.4 11 14 45.2 31 ^^ ^^ 14 10 52.6 19 Boston Mendell ^^ ^^ 1 0 5 62.5 8 4 33.3 12 Boston Orchard Gardens ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 32 5 19.2 26 Boston Otis 6 35.3 17 ^^ ^^ 1 2 66.7 3 19 73.1 26 Boston Perkins 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 13 ^^ ^^ 7 Boston Stone 0 0 ^^ ^^ 19 ^^ ^^ 6 Boston Tobin 0 0 ^^ ^^ 14 12 30.0 40 Boston Trotter ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 70 3 27.3 11 Chelsea Berkowitz 11 84.6 13 ^^ ^^ 2 6 75.0 8 51 51.0 100 Fall River Slade 10 40.0 25 ^^ ^^ 1 2 40.0 5 ^^ ^^ 3 Haverhill Golden Hill 22 71.0 31 0 0 ^^ ^^ 9 Holyoke Kelly ^^ ^^ 9 0 3 75.0 4 15 26.3 57 Holyoke Lawrence ^^ ^^ 6 0 0 22 36.7 60 Holyoke White 18 69.2 26 0 0 0.0 2 19 45.2 42 Lawrence Parthum 21 77.8 27 0 1 100.0 1 51 58.6 87 Leominster Fall Brook 98 89.9 109 ^^ ^^ 1 4 80.0 5 9 36.0 25 Lynn Harrington ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 3 4 44.4 9 21 42.0 50 Lynn Ingalls 8 72.7 11 7 53.8 13 ^^ ^^ 12 18 34.0 53 New Bedford Carney 25 67.6 37 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 21 12 75.0 16 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 30 62.5 48 0 ^^ ^^ 16 15 32.6 46 Somerville East Somerville 12 92.3 13 ^^ ^^ 4 0 0.0 6 27 48.2 56 Springfield Homer Street ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 19 14 36.8 38 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table K21: Third Grade Racial/Ethnic Subgroups -- Spring 2005 GRADE results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING AVG/STRENGTH BENCHMARK (stanine 5-9) Grade 3 White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 10 52.6 19 33 37.5 88 Boston Condon 16 64.0 25 ^^ ^^ 7 19 34.5 55 8 34.8 23 Boston Dever 5 45.5 11 ^^ ^^ 2 20 57.1 35 18 32.7 55 Boston Eliot ^^ ^^ 7 0 7 58.3 12 ^^ ^^ 6 Boston Harvard Kent 8 72.7 11 14 48.3 29 4 36.4 11 10 50.0 20 Boston Mendell 0 0 15 51.7 29 ^^ ^^ 6 Boston Orchard Gardens ^^ ^^ 1 0 7 22.6 31 12 29.3 41 Boston Otis 12 80.0 15 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 20 80.0 25 Boston Perkins ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 1 14 70.0 20 6 54.5 11 Boston Stone 0 0 16 69.6 23 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Tobin 0 ^^ ^^ 1 9 56.3 16 7 24.1 29 Boston Trotter 0 0 23 38.3 60 3 27.3 11 Chelsea Berkowitz 10 90.9 11 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 40 58.8 68 Fall River Slade 9 45.0 20 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 Haverhill Golden Hill 64 83.1 77 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 16 50.0 32 Holyoke Kelly ^^ ^^ 6 0 ^^ ^^ 2 3 4.9 61 Holyoke Lawrence ^^ ^^ 6 0 ^^ ^^ 5 12 20.0 60 Holyoke White 8 57.1 14 0 ^^ ^^ 3 19 39.6 48 Lawrence Parthum 9 52.9 17 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 45 42.9 105 Leominster Fall Brook 87 91.6 95 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 8 15 42.9 35 Lynn Harrington 8 57.1 14 6 60.0 10 ^^ ^^ 8 17 33.3 51 Lynn Ingalls 7 70.0 10 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 6 23 51.1 45 New Bedford Carney 19 54.3 35 0 19 65.5 29 7 53.8 13 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 29 65.9 44 ^^ ^^ 1 5 45.5 11 10 27.0 37 Somerville East Somerville 10 76.9 13 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 7 21 35.0 60 Springfield Homer Street ^^ ^^ 1 0 15 50 30 13 35.1 37 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Appendix L: School Level Results – MCAS Reading Test Table L1: MCAS results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY 2003 2004 2005 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 16 43.2 37 28 60.9 46 20 52.6 38 Boston Renaissance Charter School 78 46.7 167 69 36.9 187 61 44.2 138 Brockton Downey 42 35.9 117 45 43.3 104 39 39.4 99 Brockton Davis 44 38.3 115 60 52.2 115 56 50.0 112 Cambridge Haggerty 18 72.0 25 16 55.2 29 14 56.0 25 Chelsea Kelly 41 47.7 86 48 48.5 99 26 29.2 89 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 19 25.7 74 37 54.4 68 22 36.7 60 Chicopee Stefanik 22 26.8 82 25 37.9 66 34 56.7 60 Fall River Healy 15 39.5 38 11 33.3 33 8 26.7 30 Fall River Doran 16 27.6 58 22 33.3 66 20 31.7 63 Fall River Laurel Lake 18 46.2 39 21 45.7 46 17 51.5 33 Fall River N.B. Borden 6 22.2 27 0 0.0 23 6 25.0 24 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 26 61.9 42 17 33.3 51 28 53.8 52 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 74 59.7 124 70 58.8 119 70 55.6 126 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 24 40.0 60 22 38.6 57 19 31.1 61 Lawrence Arlington 12 9.2 130 16 15.2 105 20 19.0 105 Lawrence Frost 37 31.6 117 20 23.5 85 29 30.9 94 Lawrence Wetherbee 11 22.9 48 25 30.9 81 29 35.4 82 Lowell Community Charter School 3 7.3 41 34 35.8 95 28 32.2 87 Lowell Murkland 27 32.9 82 23 22.5 102 21 23.6 89 Lowell Bailey 46 48.9 94 34 37.4 91 35 40.2 87 Lowell Greenhalge 28 31.5 89 27 35.5 76 28 33.7 83 Malden Ferryway 55 57.3 96 56 62.9 89 49 47.1 104 Methuen Tenney 71 56.3 126 88 57.9 152 75 58.6 128 Neighborhood House Charter School 10 50.0 20 15 68.2 22 12 54.5 22 North Adams Brayton 33 45.8 72 27 47.4 57 33 54.1 61 North Adams Sullivan 25 45.5 55 26 54.2 48 32 68.1 47 Pittsfield Morningside 47 50.0 94 35 43.2 81 45 54.2 83 Plymouth South Elementary 107 78.7 136 114 72.2 158 102 73.9 138 Plymouth West Elementary 41 63.1 65 53 72.6 73 36 64.3 56 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 41 51.9 79 51 62.2 82 36 46.2 78 Revere Garfield 28 29.8 94 33 37.1 89 48 49.5 97 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 10 41.7 24 12 60.0 20 5 25.0 20 Salem Bates 14 34.1 41 38 51.4 74 29 59.2 49 Salem Bentley 32 56.1 57 36 66.7 54 21 51.2 41 Seven Hills Charter School 37 50.7 73 34 43.6 78 31 39.7 78 Springfield Boland 30 38.5 78 22 31.4 70 23 33.8 68 Springfield Gerena 37 36.6 101 24 20.2 119 19 23.8 80 Springfield Milton Bradley 39 34.8 112 33 31.7 104 49 50.5 97 Springfield White Street 29 36.3 80 13 18.1 72 23 32.4 71 Taunton Walker 22 44.9 49 14 33.3 42 19 44.2 43 Ware Koziol 61 61.6 99 49 52.7 93 58 63.0 92 Webster Sitkowski 47 45.6 103 77 59.7 129 70 47.0 149 Webster Park Avenue 28 60.9 46 ** ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 34 79.1 43 35 94.6 37 27 90.0 30 Westfield Highland 40 50.0 80 27 35.5 76 24 40.0 60 Westfield Moseley 18 58.1 31 15 57.7 26 16 66.7 24 Worcester A.L.L. 12 17.9 67 11 15.1 73 14 20.9 67 Worcester City View 25 43.1 58 18 32.7 55 11 24.4 45 Worcester Goddard 28 31.5 89 20 29.9 67 13 16.7 78 Worcester Lincoln Street 13 43.3 30 6 20.0 30 9 36.0 25 ** School does not include third grade students Table L2: Students with Disabilities -- MCAS results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY 2003 2004 2005 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 6 Boston Renaissance Charter School 3 15.0 20 1 4.0 25 3 16.7 18 Brockton Downey 4 13.3 30 3 12.5 24 3 12.0 25 Brockton Davis 2 18.2 11 4 40.0 10 5 50.0 10 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 6 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 6 1 5.9 17 3 23.1 13 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 1 9.1 11 7 63.6 11 ^^ ^^ 8 Chicopee Stefanik 1 9.1 11 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 8 Fall River Healy ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 1 Fall River Doran 1 10.0 10 2 15.4 13 ^^ ^^ 7 Fall River Laurel Lake 6 60.0 10 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River N.B. Borden ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ^^ ^^ 7 2 12.5 16 ^^ ^^ 5 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 3 13.0 23 8 33.3 24 6 30.0 20 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 2 18.2 11 1 7.7 13 2 15.4 13 Lawrence Arlington 0 0.0 18 3 15.0 20 3 13.0 23 Lawrence Frost 1 5.9 17 0 0.0 18 0 0.0 12 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 6 0 0.0 10 ^^ ^^ 5 Lowell Community Charter School ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 6 Lowell Murkland 0 0.0 13 1 8.3 12 0 0.0 10 Lowell Bailey 0 0.0 12 1 6.7 15 0 0.0 14 Lowell Greenhalge 2 11.1 18 0 0.0 16 2 12.5 16 Malden Ferryway 2 16.7 12 1 7.7 13 4 28.6 14 Methuen Tenney 3 18.8 16 5 21.7 23 6 33.3 18 Neighborhood House Charter School ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 North Adams Brayton 2 16.7 12 1 10.0 10 2 14.3 14 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 8 4 40.0 10 6 54.5 11 Pittsfield Morningside 11 100.0 11 12 66.7 18 7 33.3 21 Plymouth South Elementary 12 48.0 25 7 30.4 23 10 45.5 22 Plymouth West Elementary 4 33.3 12 4 26.7 15 4 36.4 11 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock ^^ ^^ 8 2 16.7 12 1 7.7 13 Revere Garfield ^^ ^^ 9 1 10.0 10 1 7.7 13 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 Salem Bates 1 9.1 11 2 11.8 17 ^^ ^^ 9 Salem Bentley ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 Seven Hills Charter School 3 30.0 10 ^^ ^^ 7 2 16.7 12 Springfield Boland 0 0.0 15 2 13.3 15 ^^ ^^ 8 Springfield Gerena 2 10.0 20 0 0.0 22 1 9.1 11 Springfield Milton Bradley 1 4.2 24 1 3.6 28 6 37.5 16 Springfield White Street 1 8.3 12 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 Taunton Walker 0 0.0 14 1 7.1 14 2 16.7 12 Ware Koziol 1 6.7 15 1 9.1 11 8 30.8 26 Webster Sitkowski 1 5.0 20 2 10.5 19 3 11.1 27 Webster Park Avenue ^^ ^^ 7 0 0 Westfield Franklin Avenue ^^ ^^ 6 10 90.9 11 ^^ ^^ 4 Westfield Highland ^^ ^^ 8 1 6.7 15 2 15.4 13 Westfield Moseley ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 Worcester A.L.L. ^^ ^^ 8 2 16.7 12 0 0.0 11 Worcester City View ^^ ^^ 9 4 22.2 18 2 16.7 12 Worcester Goddard 8 47.1 17 3 16.7 18 5 21.7 23 Worcester Lincoln Street 4 36.4 11 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 ** School does not include third grade students ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table L3: Students with Limited English Proficiency -- MCAS results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY 2003 2004 2005 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Boston Renaissance Charter School 0 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 4 Brockton Downey 0 0 0 Brockton Davis 1 5.6 18 2 11.8 17 3 21.4 14 Cambridge Haggerty 0 0 0 Chelsea Kelly 7 30.4 23 17 48.6 35 6 20.0 30 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 1 4.8 21 ^^ ^^ 8 3 25.0 12 Chicopee Stefanik ^^ ^^ 9 2 18.2 11 ^^ ^^ 9 Fall River Healy 2 12.5 16 0 0.0 11 1 8.3 12 Fall River Doran 0 0.0 12 1 7.1 14 0 0.0 12 Fall River Laurel Lake 0 0 0 Fall River N.B. Borden 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School ^^ ^^ 1 19 44.2 43 14 32.6 43 Lawrence Arlington 3 8.3 36 0 0.0 20 0 0.0 23 Lawrence Frost 2 7.1 28 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 5 2 12.5 16 Lowell Community Charter School 1 4.0 25 17 32.1 53 8 21.6 37 Lowell Murkland 7 28.0 25 10 15.6 64 2 7.4 27 Lowell Bailey 4 30.8 13 2 8.7 23 4 28.6 14 Lowell Greenhalge 1 4.5 22 8 30.8 26 3 20.0 15 Malden Ferryway ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 1 7.1 14 Methuen Tenney ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 9 Neighborhood House Charter School 0 0 0 North Adams Brayton ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Sullivan ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Pittsfield Morningside ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 3 Plymouth South Elementary 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary 0 0 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 6 35.3 17 ^^ ^^ 7 7 35.0 20 Revere Garfield 0 0.0 20 ^^ ^^ 2 0 0.0 13 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 0 Salem Bates 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Salem Bentley 3 25.0 12 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 9 Seven Hills Charter School 0 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 7 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 3 2 14.3 14 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 5 3 15.0 20 5 26.3 19 Springfield Milton Bradley 0 0.0 19 4 14.3 28 6 22.2 27 Springfield White Street 0 0.0 13 1 7.7 13 ^^ ^^ 6 Taunton Walker 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 Ware Koziol 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Webster Sitkowski 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 3 Webster Park Avenue ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Highland 2 9.1 22 4 14.8 27 3 15.8 19 Westfield Moseley ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 0 Worcester A.L.L. 0 0.0 11 1 5.3 19 2 8.7 23 Worcester City View ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 8 0 0.0 10 Worcester Goddard 6 19.4 31 4 14.8 27 5 11.6 43 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 8 ** School does not include third grade students ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table L4: Economically Disadvantaged Students -- MCAS results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY 2003 2004 2005 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 8 47.1 17 13 65.0 20 ^^ ^^ 9 Boston Renaissance Charter School 41 44.1 93 41 33.1 124 35 39.3 89 Brockton Downey 20 27.8 72 29 37.7 77 24 34.8 69 Brockton Davis 24 29.6 81 45 48.9 92 37 41.6 89 Cambridge Haggerty ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 5 3 25.0 12 Chelsea Kelly 26 43.3 60 33 43.4 76 16 23.2 69 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 13 22.4 58 25 47.2 53 16 32.7 49 Chicopee Stefanik 15 22.7 66 20 35.7 56 27 54.0 50 Fall River Healy 9 29.0 31 8 27.6 29 8 28.6 28 Fall River Doran 8 19.5 41 15 31.3 48 13 27.1 48 Fall River Laurel Lake 11 35.5 31 13 40.6 32 8 40.0 20 Fall River N.B. Borden 6 30.0 20 0 0.0 22 6 26.1 23 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 14 63.6 22 10 27.8 36 14 51.9 27 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 14 35.0 40 20 50.0 40 17 36.2 47 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 17 38.6 44 20 37.7 53 17 33.3 51 Lawrence Arlington 8 7.4 108 15 16.1 93 17 18.1 94 Lawrence Frost 19 24.1 79 14 20.6 68 19 27.5 69 Lawrence Wetherbee 6 15.4 39 20 26.7 75 23 33.8 68 Lowell Community Charter School 2 7.4 27 25 32.1 78 20 30.8 65 Lowell Murkland 24 31.6 76 17 18.5 92 19 24.4 78 Lowell Bailey 25 42.4 59 12 23.1 52 8 18.2 44 Lowell Greenhalge 15 22.7 66 18 33.3 54 15 25.0 60 Malden Ferryway 25 53.2 47 31 66.0 47 28 47.5 59 Methuen Tenney 14 33.3 42 29 51.8 56 19 47.5 40 Neighborhood House Charter School 5 45.5 11 5 50.0 10 5 45.5 11 North Adams Brayton 11 29.7 37 10 34.5 29 19 46.3 41 North Adams Sullivan 10 35.7 28 12 44.4 27 14 63.6 22 Pittsfield Morningside 30 46.9 64 21 42.9 49 30 53.6 56 Plymouth South Elementary 12 85.7 14 10 55.6 18 16 69.6 23 Plymouth West Elementary ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 5 5 41.7 12 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 12 34.3 35 17 45.9 37 10 29.4 34 Revere Garfield 17 23.3 73 27 36.5 74 40 50.0 80 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 8 61.5 13 8 53.3 15 ^^ ^^ 9 Salem Bates 3 14.3 21 9 40.9 22 8 42.1 19 Salem Bentley 8 34.8 23 11 50.0 22 4 26.7 15 Seven Hills Charter School 17 43.6 39 14 29.2 48 17 32.1 53 Springfield Boland 24 34.3 70 18 29.0 62 21 35.6 59 Springfield Gerena 33 35.9 92 18 16.1 112 15 21.4 70 Springfield Milton Bradley 31 32.0 97 29 29.3 99 41 48.2 85 Springfield White Street 26 36.1 72 12 17.9 67 20 35.1 57 Taunton Walker 3 16.7 18 6 23.1 26 8 32.0 25 Ware Koziol 27 51.9 52 20 51.3 39 29 56.9 51 Webster Sitkowski 12 37.5 32 29 47.5 61 22 35.5 62 Webster Park Avenue 10 50.0 20 0 0 Westfield Franklin Avenue 26 81.3 32 26 96.3 27 22 88.0 25 Westfield Highland 9 20.5 44 12 25.0 48 8 26.7 30 Westfield Moseley 5 29.4 17 6 60.0 10 9 60.0 15 Worcester A.L.L. 8 14.3 56 9 13.2 68 11 19.6 56 Worcester City View 15 34.1 44 11 29.7 37 8 23.5 34 Worcester Goddard 23 30.3 76 15 25.4 59 11 15.3 72 Worcester Lincoln Street 9 37.5 24 5 18.5 27 7 35.0 20 ** School does not include third grade students ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table L5: Racial/Ethnic Subgroups – Spring 2003 MCAS results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 14 42.4 33 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 4 64 44.8 143 9 56.3 16 Brockton Downey 25 51.0 49 ^^ ^^ 4 12 26.7 45 4 22.2 18 Brockton Davis 22 53.7 41 ^^ ^^ 1 15 27.3 55 6 40.0 15 Cambridge Haggerty 15 83.3 18 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 Chelsea Kelly 11 52.4 21 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 30 50.8 59 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 15 35.7 42 0 ^^ ^^ 3 4 13.8 29 Chicopee Stefanik 9 33.3 27 0 ^^ ^^ 7 12 25.5 47 Fall River Healy 8 61.5 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 3 15.0 20 Fall River Doran 12 24.0 50 0 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 3 Fall River Laurel Lake 9 40.9 22 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 7 Fall River N.B. Borden 4 18.2 22 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 21 65.6 32 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 62 60.8 102 0 ^^ ^^ 3 3 27.3 11 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 24 41.4 58 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 6 0 ^^ ^^ 2 11 9.2 119 Lawrence Frost 13 41.9 31 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 18 24.0 75 Lawrence Wetherbee ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 1 10 30.3 33 Lowell Community Charter School ^^ ^^ 6 2 15.4 13 ^^ ^^ 5 0 0.0 15 Lowell Murkland 4 23.5 17 15 34.9 43 ^^ ^^ 4 6 33.3 18 Lowell Bailey 19 54.3 35 13 65.0 20 ^^ ^^ 7 8 29.6 27 Lowell Greenhalge 20 45.5 44 2 8.7 23 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 8 Malden Ferryway 26 59.1 44 9 50.0 18 13 56.5 23 ^^ ^^ 5 Methuen Tenney 63 65.6 96 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 3 5 25.0 20 Neighborhood House Charter School ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 5 35.7 14 0 North Adams Brayton 29 44.6 65 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 1 North Adams Sullivan 24 47.1 51 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 36 52.9 68 ^^ ^^ 2 6 42.9 14 ^^ ^^ 8 Plymouth South Elementary 104 78.8 132 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary 40 63.5 63 0 0 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 23 51.1 45 14 58.3 24 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 Revere Garfield 13 33.3 39 6 24.0 25 ^^ ^^ 8 3 15.8 19 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School ^^ ^^ 3 0 9 42.9 21 0 Salem Bates 12 42.9 28 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 8 Salem Bentley 24 70.6 34 ^^ ^^ 2 0 6 30.0 20 Seven Hills Charter School 26 65.0 40 ^^ ^^ 1 5 41.7 12 5 26.3 19 Springfield Boland 4 36.4 11 0 13 48.1 27 13 32.5 40 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 4 0 13 44.8 29 21 31.8 66 Springfield Milton Bradley 10 58.8 17 ^^ ^^ 3 10 38.5 26 17 25.8 66 Springfield White Street 12 75.0 16 ^^ ^^ 6 7 35.0 20 8 21.6 37 Taunton Walker 19 47.5 40 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 Ware Koziol 60 63.2 95 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Webster Sitkowski 39 43.8 89 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 8 Webster Park Avenue 24 60.0 40 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 Westfield Franklin Avenue 20 87.0 23 0 ^^ ^^ 1 14 73.7 19 Westfield Highland 37 50.7 73 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 18 62.1 29 0 0 ^^ ^^ 2 Worcester A.L.L. 5 20.8 24 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 8 3 11.5 26 Worcester City View 19 59.4 32 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 4 20.0 20 Worcester Goddard 10 41.7 24 4 33.3 12 ^^ ^^ 4 12 27.3 44 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 5 45.5 11 ** School does not include third grade students ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table L6: Racial/Ethnic Subgroups – Spring 2004 MCAS results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 25 59.5 42 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 5 49 33.3 147 11 39.3 28 Brockton Downey 25 64.1 39 0 14 31.8 44 4 23.5 17 Brockton Davis 24 64.9 37 ^^ ^^ 2 27 45.8 59 6 40.0 15 Cambridge Haggerty 11 84.6 13 0 4 28.6 14 ^^ ^^ 1 Chelsea Kelly 11 57.9 19 0 ^^ ^^ 1 36 45.6 79 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 26 63.4 41 0 ^^ ^^ 4 8 34.8 23 Chicopee Stefanik 16 57.1 28 0 ^^ ^^ 3 8 22.9 35 Fall River Healy 8 53.3 15 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 1 7.1 14 Fall River Doran 19 33.9 56 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 Fall River Laurel Lake 11 39.3 28 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 7 Fall River N.B. Borden 0 0.0 14 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 4 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 17 38.6 44 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 63 64.3 98 0 ^^ ^^ 5 3 18.8 16 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 22 39.3 56 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 2 13 13.3 98 Lawrence Frost 4 19.0 21 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 14 24.1 58 Lawrence Wetherbee 6 60.0 10 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 2 14 21.9 64 Lowell Community Charter School 4 30.8 13 12 37.5 32 6 50.0 12 11 29.7 37 Lowell Murkland 7 33.3 21 9 16.4 55 ^^ ^^ 4 5 22.7 22 Lowell Bailey 18 41.9 43 8 38.1 21 5 50.0 10 3 17.6 17 Lowell Greenhalge 19 39.6 48 5 31.3 16 ^^ ^^ 2 2 20.0 10 Malden Ferryway 36 69.2 52 12 70.6 17 6 46.2 13 ^^ ^^ 6 Methuen Tenney 65 61.3 106 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 18 48.6 37 Neighborhood House Charter School ^^ ^^ 8 0 7 58.3 12 ^^ ^^ 2 North Adams Brayton 25 54.3 46 0 ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 5 North Adams Sullivan 20 48.8 41 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Pittsfield Morningside 30 47.6 63 0 4 36.4 11 ^^ ^^ 7 Plymouth South Elementary 109 71.7 152 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary 53 74.6 71 0 ^^ ^^ 2 0 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 35 61.4 57 9 69.2 13 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 6 Revere Garfield 10 41.7 24 10 55.6 18 6 46.2 13 7 20.6 34 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School ^^ ^^ 1 0 9 64.3 14 ^^ ^^ 5 Salem Bates 34 60.7 56 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 2 14.3 14 Salem Bentley 26 74.3 35 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 2 7 43.8 16 Seven Hills Charter School 17 68.0 25 ^^ ^^ 2 9 36.0 25 7 26.9 26 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 1 3 15.0 20 15 37.5 40 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 8 0 8 21.6 37 12 16.2 74 Springfield Milton Bradley 6 54.5 11 ^^ ^^ 2 13 39.4 33 12 20.7 58 Springfield White Street ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 2 10.0 20 6 15.0 40 Taunton Walker 10 33.3 30 0 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 9 Ware Koziol 47 52.2 90 ^^ ^^ 2 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Webster Sitkowski 67 59.3 113 0 ^^ ^^ 6 6 60.0 10 Webster Park Avenue ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 23 95.8 24 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 1 10 90.9 11 Westfield Highland 27 36.0 75 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 Westfield Moseley 14 56.0 25 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Worcester A.L.L. 4 19.0 21 2 20.0 10 ^^ ^^ 6 5 13.9 36 Worcester City View 15 48.4 31 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 2 11.8 17 Worcester Goddard 8 40.0 20 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 7 7 20.0 35 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 6 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 1 5.9 17 ** School does not include third grade students ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table L7: Racial/Ethnic Subgroups – Spring 2005 MCAS results by school (Cohort 1) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Athol-Royalston Sanders Street 19 55.9 34 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Renaissance Charter School ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 52 43.7 119 5 33.3 15 Brockton Downey 14 41.2 34 ^^ ^^ 2 18 45.0 40 6 30.0 20 Brockton Davis 24 66.7 36 ^^ ^^ 1 21 39.6 53 9 45.0 20 Cambridge Haggerty 10 66.7 15 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 6 0 Chelsea Kelly ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 19 25.3 75 Chelsea Shurtleff ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Chicopee Bowe 16 55.2 29 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 4 14.3 28 Chicopee Stefanik 16 64.0 25 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 16 51.6 31 Fall River Healy 6 46.2 13 0 ^^ ^^ 3 2 14.3 14 Fall River Doran 20 40.0 50 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 7 Fall River Laurel Lake 15 71.4 21 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 7 Fall River N.B. Borden 4 28.6 14 0 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 5 Gill-Montague Hillcrest ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Gill-Montague Sheffield 24 53.3 45 0 0 ^^ ^^ 6 Haverhill Burnham ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Haverhill Pentucket Lake 64 58.7 109 0 ^^ ^^ 2 5 33.3 15 Haverhill Walnut Square ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Lawrence Family Development Charter School 0 ^^ ^^ 1 0 18 31.6 57 Lawrence Arlington ^^ ^^ 6 0 ^^ ^^ 6 16 17.2 93 Lawrence Frost 10 45.5 22 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 4 15 24.6 61 Lawrence Wetherbee 5 50.0 10 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 1 22 34.9 63 Lowell Community Charter School 9 50.0 18 7 28.0 25 ^^ ^^ 9 8 22.9 35 Lowell Murkland 5 23.8 21 11 26.2 42 ^^ ^^ 6 2 10.0 20 Lowell Bailey 29 61.7 47 4 20.0 20 ^^ ^^ 4 1 6.3 16 Lowell Greenhalge 20 40.0 50 3 27.3 11 ^^ ^^ 9 3 23.1 13 Malden Ferryway 28 68.3 41 11 39.3 28 5 20.8 24 5 45.5 11 Methuen Tenney 62 65.3 95 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 2 6 24.0 25 Neighborhood House Charter School 8 61.5 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 0 North Adams Brayton 27 52.9 51 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 North Adams Sullivan 31 73.8 42 0 ^^ ^^ 5 0 Pittsfield Morningside 40 59.7 67 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 6 Plymouth South Elementary 98 74.2 132 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 1 Plymouth West Elementary 35 63.6 55 0 0 ^^ ^^ 1 Quincy Lincoln-Hancock 21 48.8 43 11 55.0 20 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 8 Revere Garfield 9 40.9 22 13 65.0 20 6 60.0 10 19 43.2 44 Robert M. Hughes Academy Charter School 0 0 5 26.3 19 ^^ ^^ 1 Salem Bates 27 71.1 38 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 Salem Bentley 18 69.2 26 0 ^^ ^^ 3 2 16.7 12 Seven Hills Charter School 9 52.9 17 0 16 48.5 33 6 21.4 28 Springfield Boland ^^ ^^ 9 0 6 42.9 14 12 27.3 44 Springfield Gerena ^^ ^^ 6 0 3 21.4 14 13 21.7 60 Springfield Milton Bradley ^^ ^^ 7 0 19 55.9 34 24 42.9 56 Springfield White Street 5 45.5 11 ^^ ^^ 3 4 28.6 14 13 30.2 43 Taunton Walker 17 50.0 34 0 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 7 Ware Koziol 53 63.9 83 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 Webster Sitkowski 67 48.2 139 ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 9 Webster Park Avenue ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Westfield Franklin Avenue 16 94.1 17 0 0 11 84.6 13 Westfield Highland 22 41.5 53 0 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 6 Westfield Moseley 16 76.2 21 0 0 ^^ ^^ 3 Worcester A.L.L. 7 38.9 18 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 7 4 12.1 33 Worcester City View 7 30.4 23 0 ^^ ^^ 3 3 15.8 19 Worcester Goddard 7 35.0 20 3 30.0 10 ^^ ^^ 2 3 6.5 46 Worcester Lincoln Street ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 4 33.3 12 ** School does not include third grade students ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table L8: MCAS results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY 2004 2005 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz 12 11.0 109 13 12.4 105 Boston Condon 21 20.8 101 32 29.4 109 Boston Dever 24 26.4 91 20 19.4 103 Boston Eliot 12 33.3 36 7 28.0 25 Boston Harvard Kent 25 33.3 75 21 30.4 69 Boston Mendell 11 44.0 25 7 20.0 35 Boston Orchard Gardens 9 14.1 64 8 11.1 72 Boston Otis 23 40.4 57 23 53.5 43 Boston Perkins 13 41.9 31 14 34.1 41 Boston Stone 20 69.0 29 12 50.0 24 Boston Tobin 7 14.3 49 9 21.4 42 Boston Trotter 12 13.5 89 12 16.7 72 Chelsea Berkowitz 54 57.4 94 38 43.2 88 Fall River Slade 16 40.0 40 11 37.9 29 Haverhill Golden Hill 67 51.9 129 64 55.7 115 Holyoke Kelly 6 9.1 66 5 7.5 67 Holyoke Lawrence 15 20.5 73 13 18.1 72 Holyoke White 15 24.2 62 11 17.5 63 Lawrence Parthum 54 36.7 147 37 27.6 134 Leominster Fall Brook 78 50.3 155 80 54.8 146 Lynn Harrington 27 30.0 90 20 24.4 82 Lynn Ingalls 24 25.5 94 28 38.4 73 New Bedford Carney 52 52.5 99 36 45.0 80 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 30 28.6 105 30 30.6 98 Somerville East Somerville 43 55.1 78 27 32.9 82 Springfield Homer Street 22 28.2 78 18 27.7 65 Table L9: Students with Disabilities -- MCAS results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY 2004 2005 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz 3 14.3 21 1 5.0 20 Boston Condon 6 25.0 24 8 25.8 31 Boston Dever 1 5.3 19 4 20.0 20 Boston Eliot 2 11.1 18 ^^ ^^ 8 Boston Harvard Kent 6 23.1 26 1 5.0 20 Boston Mendell ^^ ^^ 8 1 10.0 10 Boston Orchard Gardens 1 5.6 18 ^^ ^^ 9 Boston Otis ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Perkins ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 8 Boston Stone ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 7 Boston Tobin ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 7 Boston Trotter 0 0.0 13 0 0.0 14 Chelsea Berkowitz 6 46.2 13 ^^ ^^ 5 Fall River Slade ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 2 Haverhill Golden Hill 0 0.0 14 7 36.8 19 Holyoke Kelly 0 0.0 17 0 0.0 13 Holyoke Lawrence 2 12.5 16 1 5.6 18 Holyoke White 1 5.3 19 1 6.3 16 Lawrence Parthum 2 8.0 25 1 5.0 20 Leominster Fall Brook 2 9.1 22 5 27.8 18 Lynn Harrington 5 22.7 22 3 13.6 22 Lynn Ingalls 2 13.3 15 ^^ ^^ 9 New Bedford Carney 6 22.2 27 3 20.0 15 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 6 22.2 27 3 12.5 24 Somerville East Somerville 3 15.8 19 2 10.5 19 Springfield Homer Street 4 28.6 14 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table L10: Students with Limited English Proficiency -- MCAS results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY 2004 2005 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz 3 6.3 48 5 8.6 58 Boston Condon 1 6.7 15 7 20.6 34 Boston Dever 6 35.3 17 5 11.6 43 Boston Eliot ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 Boston Harvard Kent 5 25.0 20 13 33.3 39 Boston Mendell ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 Boston Orchard Gardens 0 0.0 19 4 12.5 32 Boston Otis 2 11.8 17 15 46.9 32 Boston Perkins ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 7 Boston Stone 0 0 Boston Tobin 0 0.0 19 4 26.7 15 Boston Trotter ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 3 Chelsea Berkowitz 4 30.8 13 1 7.1 14 Fall River Slade ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 1 Haverhill Golden Hill 1 3.7 27 2 13.3 15 Holyoke Kelly 1 5.3 19 1 3.6 28 Holyoke Lawrence 0 0.0 26 2 10.0 20 Holyoke White 0 0.0 17 0 0.0 15 Lawrence Parthum 1 4.5 22 0 0.0 22 Leominster Fall Brook 6 18.8 32 4 18.2 22 Lynn Harrington 0 0.0 16 3 13.6 22 Lynn Ingalls 0 0.0 26 3 14.3 21 New Bedford Carney 0 0 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden ^^ ^^ 6 1 9.1 11 Somerville East Somerville 9 31.0 29 4 12.5 32 Springfield Homer Street 3 21.4 14 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table L11: Economically Disadvantaged Students -- MCAS results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY 2004 2005 LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz 11 10.5 105 8 8.6 93 Boston Condon 15 16.9 89 24 25.5 94 Boston Dever 21 25.9 81 19 20.9 91 Boston Eliot 8 28.6 28 5 27.8 18 Boston Harvard Kent 21 31.8 66 15 25.0 60 Boston Mendell 10 43.5 23 7 21.9 32 Boston Orchard Gardens 8 13.6 59 8 12.3 65 Boston Otis 18 35.3 51 18 51.4 35 Boston Perkins 13 41.9 31 13 35.1 37 Boston Stone 19 67.9 28 10 52.6 19 Boston Tobin 6 12.8 47 8 22.2 36 Boston Trotter 9 13.0 69 7 13.2 53 Chelsea Berkowitz 40 54.1 74 31 41.3 75 Fall River Slade 11 34.4 32 5 23.8 21 Haverhill Golden Hill 16 25.8 62 20 40.0 50 Holyoke Kelly 5 7.9 63 3 5.0 60 Holyoke Lawrence 10 14.9 67 12 17.6 68 Holyoke White 10 20.0 50 4 9.8 41 Lawrence Parthum 41 32.0 128 28 25.5 110 Leominster Fall Brook 12 31.6 38 13 28.9 45 Lynn Harrington 24 27.9 86 17 21.8 78 Lynn Ingalls 18 21.4 84 26 41.3 63 New Bedford Carney 35 53.8 65 24 42.9 56 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 25 26.3 95 23 28.4 81 Somerville East Somerville 31 48.4 64 21 31.3 67 Springfield Homer Street 21 28.4 74 13 23.2 56 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table L12: Racial/Ethnic Subgroups – Spring 2004 MCAS results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 2 11.8 17 9 10.2 88 Boston Condon 6 24.0 25 4 26.7 15 8 17.4 46 3 21.4 14 Boston Dever ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 5 6 15.8 38 9 22.5 40 Boston Eliot 6 50.0 12 0 3 27.3 11 3 23.1 13 Boston Harvard Kent 3 27.3 11 11 42.3 26 8 38.1 21 3 17.6 17 Boston Mendell ^^ ^^ 1 0 ^^ ^^ 9 5 33.3 15 Boston Orchard Gardens ^^ ^^ 1 0 8 21.1 38 1 4.0 25 Boston Otis 3 18.8 16 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 18 48.6 37 Boston Perkins ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 5 5 35.7 14 ^^ ^^ 9 Boston Stone 0 0 16 66.7 24 ^^ ^^ 5 Boston Tobin 0 ^^ ^^ 1 4 25.0 16 2 6.3 32 Boston Trotter 0 0 10 14.5 69 2 12.5 16 Chelsea Berkowitz 14 70.0 20 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 7 32 51.6 62 Fall River Slade 10 43.5 23 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 ^^ ^^ 8 Haverhill Golden Hill 62 68.1 91 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 3 2 6.5 31 Holyoke Kelly ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 2 3.6 55 Holyoke Lawrence 8 57.1 14 0 ^^ ^^ 2 6 10.7 56 Holyoke White 6 50.0 12 ^^ ^^ 1 0 9 18.4 49 Lawrence Parthum 16 48.5 33 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 8 33 31.4 105 Leominster Fall Brook 65 58.6 111 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 5 8 21.6 37 Lynn Harrington 7 50.0 14 ^^ ^^ 6 4 26.7 15 13 23.6 55 Lynn Ingalls 8 53.3 15 1 6.7 15 6 46.2 13 9 17.6 51 New Bedford Carney 25 59.5 42 0 17 53.1 32 9 37.5 24 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 13 26.0 50 0 7 41.2 17 9 25.0 36 Somerville East Somerville 18 81.8 22 ^^ ^^ 5 ^^ ^^ 5 20 43.5 46 Springfield Homer Street ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 8 27.6 29 13 28.9 45 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students Table L13: Racial/Ethnic Subgroups – Spring 2005 MCAS results by school (Cohort 2) STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROFICIENCY White Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Hispanic or Latino LEA School # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested # % # Tested Boston Agassiz ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 1 2 11.1 18 9 10.8 83 Boston Condon 10 40.0 25 ^^ ^^ 7 15 28.8 52 4 16.0 25 Boston Dever 4 36.4 11 ^^ ^^ 2 9 24.3 37 6 11.3 53 Boston Eliot ^^ ^^ 7 0 3 25.0 12 ^^ ^^ 6 Boston Harvard Kent 5 41.7 12 8 29.6 27 4 40.0 10 4 20.0 20 Boston Mendell 0 0 7 24.1 29 ^^ ^^ 6 Boston Orchard Gardens ^^ ^^ 1 0 1 3.3 30 7 17.1 41 Boston Otis 10 76.9 13 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 3 12 46.2 26 Boston Perkins ^^ ^^ 9 ^^ ^^ 1 9 45.0 20 3 27.3 11 Boston Stone 0 0 12 54.5 22 ^^ ^^ 2 Boston Tobin 0 ^^ ^^ 1 4 25.0 16 5 20.0 25 Boston Trotter 0 0 9 15.3 59 1 9.1 11 Chelsea Berkowitz 7 63.6 11 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 26 37.1 70 Fall River Slade 10 50.0 20 ^^ ^^ 1 ^^ ^^ 4 ^^ ^^ 4 Haverhill Golden Hill 53 64.6 82 ^^ ^^ 3 ^^ ^^ 3 9 33.3 27 Holyoke Kelly ^^ ^^ 6 0 ^^ ^^ 1 2 3.3 60 Holyoke Lawrence ^^ ^^ 5 0 ^^ ^^ 5 9 14.5 62 Holyoke White 4 28.6 14 0 ^^ ^^ 3 7 15.2 46 Lawrence Parthum 10 52.6 19 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 5 21 19.4 108 Leominster Fall Brook 64 67.4 95 ^^ ^^ 7 ^^ ^^ 8 11 30.6 36 Lynn Harrington 6 42.9 14 2 20.0 10 ^^ ^^ 8 11 22.0 50 Lynn Ingalls 5 45.5 11 4 36.4 11 ^^ ^^ 6 15 33.3 45 New Bedford Carney 16 44.4 36 ^^ ^^ 1 14 50.0 28 6 40.0 15 New Bedford Hayden-McFadden 17 37.8 45 ^^ ^^ 1 4 33.3 12 8 20.0 40 Somerville East Somerville 10 76.9 13 ^^ ^^ 2 ^^ ^^ 7 14 24.1 58 Springfield Homer Street ^^ ^^ 1 0 8 28.6 28 9 25 36 ^^ Data not included for subgroups with fewer than 10 students