Minnesota Reading First Program 2006 – 2007 · Minnesota Reading First Program 2006 – 2007 ... and comprehension instructional strategies were discussed. ... South Koochiching/Rainy

Prepared by

Assessment and Evaluation Concepts Inc.

Minnesota Reading First Program2006 – 2007

Final Evaluation Report

2007-MN-ReadingFirst-FinalReportCover-v01.indd 12007-MN-ReadingFirst-FinalReportCover-v01.indd 1 11/30/2007 11:32:08 AM11/30/2007 11:32:08 AM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 2. Evaluation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 3. Interview Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter 4. Classroom Observation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Chapter 5. Achievement Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 6. Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Appendix A: Data Reports by Subtest by School for Round Two Schools . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Appendix B: Data Reports for Disaggregated Groups for Round Two Schools . . . . . . 37

Appendix C: Data Reports for Racial/Ethnic Groups for Round Two Schools . . . . . . 51

i

Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report

2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introi2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introi 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM

ii


2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introii2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introii 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

1. Results of Classroom Observation for Kindergarten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. Results of Classroom Observation for First Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3. Results of Classroom Observation for Second Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4. Results of Classroom Observation for Third Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5. Number of Students Tested by Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6. Round Two Schools: Grade 1 – Number and Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

7. Round Two Schools: Grade 1 – Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets for Disaggregated Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

8. Round Two Schools: Grade 1 – Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets by Racial/Ethnic Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

9. Round Two Schools: Grade 1– Two-Year ComparisonsPercent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16




13. Round Two Schools: Grade 2 – Two-Year ComparisonsPercent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18




17. Round Two Schools: Grade 3 – Two-Year ComparisonsPercent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

iii


2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introiii2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introiii 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM

iv


2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introiv2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introiv 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM

Chapter 1

Introduction

During the 2006–2007 school year, the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) funded 24 elementary schools throughout the state, including schools with a substantial number of educationally disadvantaged students, to implement Reading First programs. The overall goal of these Reading First programs is to improve the reading skills of educationally disadvantaged students in grades K–3. The program is a key component of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Title I, Part B) and utilizes scientifi cally-based reading research instructional strategies and assessment procedures.

Each of the 24 Reading First schools was coordinated by a full-time Literacy Coordinator, a part-time (two days per week) External Facilitator from the University of Minnesota (the U of M), and a part-time data collector from the U of M. It should also be noted that each school’s building principal played a prominent role in his/her school’s program. As in previous school years, the Literacy Coordinators organized weekly Study Group meetings within their respective schools where the teachers, principals, and Literacy Coordinators discussed the latest reading research fi ndings provided by the U of M. (The U of M prepared packets of the reading articles from the latest reading journals for the teachers to use within their Study Groups.) During the year, the evaluation consultants observed Study Groups where higher-level questioning skills, vocabulary, and comprehension instructional strategies were discussed. The Literacy Coordinators modeled lessons for the teachers and offered suggestions to the Reading First teachers on how to improve their reading instruction, and arranged for the videotaping of teachers to help them further examine their instruction methods. The External Facilitator frequently participated in each school’s Study Group and was observed interpreting the Reading First test scores with the classroom teachers. They, along with the Literacy Coordinator, helped each teacher identify individual students’ strengths and weaknesses and suggested instructional techniques to remediate students’ defi ciencies. The U of M’s data collectors used classroom observation instruments to determine the specifi c instructional techniques teachers implemented within their classrooms. As noted above, each Reading First principal played a prominent role within his/her school’s Reading First program. Each principal participated in the school’s weekly Study Groups and attended the numerous professional development workshops provided by the U of M. The principals were also given training on how to implement “shared leadership” and other effective administrative strategies.

As previously discussed, the U of M provided the entire Reading First community with numerous professional develop-ment workshops during the summer (the Summer Institute) as well as during the school year (the Fall, Winter and Spring Institutes). These large-scale training sessions (approximately 500 Reading First teachers, principals, Literacy Coordi-nators, and External Facilitators attended these workshops) included presentations by national reading experts and Dr. Barbara Taylor, a professor from the U of M, and her associates. The Institutes also included presentations by many of the Literacy Coordinators, the External Facilitators, and many Reading First classroom teachers.

The Reading First Program Components

As noted above, the Reading First program is based upon scientifi cally-based reading research. Therefore, the United States Department of Education recommended that each Reading First program focus on the fi ve major components of reading instruction. They include the following:

Phonemic Awareness Instruction,• Phonics Instruction,•

1


2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:12007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:1 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM

Fluency Instruction,• Vocabulary Instruction, and • Text Comprehension Instruction.•

Phonemic Awareness Instruction is the ability to notice, think about, and work with individual sounds in spoken words. Phonics Instruction focuses on the relationships between the letters of written language and the sounds of spoken language. Fluency Instruction focuses on helping students read text accurately and quickly. Vocabulary Instruction is designed to help students recognize word meanings and to effectively communicate those meanings. The use of the word vocabulary here can imply either oral vocabulary or reading vocabulary, where oral vocabulary refers to words that are used in speak-ing or recognized in listening, and reading vocabulary refers to words recognized or used in print. Text Comprehension Instruction is the ultimate reason for reading. As a federal government pamphlet on Reading First said, “If the readers can read the words but do not understand what they are reading, they are not really reading.”

Participating School Districts and Schools: Round Two Schools

Fourteen school districts throughout Minnesota implemented a Reading First program in the following 24 elementary schools:

Owatonna Public SchoolsWilson Elementary School

Robbinsdale Public Schools Neill Elementary School

Rochester Public SchoolsRiverside Central Elementary School

South Koochiching/Rainy River Public SchoolsIndus Elementary School

Spring Lake Park Public SchoolsWoodcrest Elementary School

St. Cloud Public SchoolsDiscovery Community School

St. Paul Public SchoolsCrossroads Elementary SchoolFarnsworth Aerospace Magnet SchoolHancock-Hamline University Collaboration Magnet SchoolPaul and Sheila Wellstone Elementary

Anoka-Hennepin Public SchoolsUniversity Elementary SchoolWilson Elementary School

Austin Public SchoolsNeveln-Woodson Elementary School

Cass Lake-Bena Public SchoolsCass Lake-Bena Elementary School

Crookston Public SchoolsWashington Elementary School

Minneapolis Public SchoolsBancroft Elementary SchoolBethune Community SchoolJenny Lind Community SchoolRamsey Fine Arts SchoolRisen Christ (Nonpublic)Shingle Creek Urban Environmental CenterWaite Park Elementary School

North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale Public SchoolsRichardson Elementary School

Ogilvie Public SchoolsOgilvie Elementary School

2



Chapter 2

Evaluation Methodology

As in the previous two school years, Assessment and Evaluation Concepts Inc. (AEC) was hired by the MDE to conduct the summative evaluation of the Reading First program. (The U of M, under the direction of Dr. Barbara Taylor, conducted the formative evaluation of the Minnesota Reading First subgrant program.) This fi nal evaluation report summarizes the various tests and assessments administered in each of the 24 participating Reading First schools. The evaluation report also includes the results of a series of classroom observations conducted by the evaluation consultants, which focused on the fi ve major components of the Reading First program: Phonemic Awareness Instruction, Phonics Instruction, Fluency Instruction, Vocabulary Instruction, and Text Comprehension Instruction. In addition, the evaluation report contains the results of a series of individual interviews from each of the Reading First schools’ principals, Literary Coordinators, External Facilitators, and a sample of the classroom teachers. The evaluation consultants examined all relevant program documents and data fi les from the MDE, the U of M, and a sample of the Reading First schools.

Regarding the Reading First tests and assessments, the Minnesota Reading First proposal to the United States Depart-ment of Education delineated several specifi c reading tests and subtests for the Round Two schools to administer and provided specifi c target scores for these Reading First schools to achieve. Therefore, the achievement tests were analyzed to determine the number of students meeting the achievement targets and the total number of students participating in the Reading First program. Furthermore, percentages of students meeting or exceeding the targets for the state over time are presented in this fi nal evaluation report.

3



4



Chapter 3

Interview Results

AEC visited 20 of the participating Reading First elementary schools. During these on-site visits, the evaluation con-sultants individually interviewed each school principal, the Literacy Coordinator, the External Facilitator, and a sample of the Reading First classroom teachers. Using a series of structured interview guides, the evaluation consultants conducted interviews with a sample of the Reading First staff. The following is a summary of these interviews.

The Reading First Principals

Each of the building principals interviewed were pleased to have their schools participating in the Reading First pro-gram. They all indicated the various tests and assessments help drive the reading instruction within their buildings. One rural principal said, “This is the fi rst time we have used test data to drive instruction in my school.” She said that the read-ing scores for the Reading First program help identify individual students’ needs, monitor the students’ progress, are used to communicate with the children’s parents, and help her inform her school board on the achievements of her students in the Reading First program. A principal in a non-public urban school had similar feelings toward the use of the various tests and assessments in her school’s Reading First program. She said, “The test scores help my teachers determine the place-ment of students in reading groups, monitor each child’s progress, and determine what type of intervention is appropriate for each child.” One urban principal was critical of the tests and assessments used in the Reading First program and said, “The tests in the program are not very useful in working with special needs students or English language learners.” How-ever, nearly all other principals felt the tests and assessments were worthwhile components of the Reading First program.

All principals interviewed were positive about the use of the latest reading research in their schools. Several principals discussed how they used the reading research in their schools’ Study Groups. One suburban principal said, “The research we discuss in our Study Groups help us be strategic about achieving our goals. We discuss best practices and how to implement the instructional strategies we read about.” An urban principal indicated she used the reading research in her school’s faculty meetings as well as in her school’s Study Groups. Another urban principal said he worked closely with his Literacy Coordinator and planned the topics discussed in his school’s Study Groups. He indicated that his school focused on comprehension and vocabulary topics in this year’s Study Groups. He also planned to extend the Study Group’s model for his fourth-, fi fth-, and sixth-grade teachers.

Each principal was laudatory about his/her school’s Literacy Coordinators and the External Facilitators. They all felt these “reading experts” were an invaluable resource to their classroom teachers. Whether they were modeling a lesson for a struggling teacher or helping set the agenda for the weekly Study Group meetings, all principals were pleased with their school’s Literacy Coordinator and External Facilitator. One principal said, “Our External Facilitator is unbelievably helpful to my teachers. She is an excellent resource.”

The principals were also complimentary about assistance from the Minnesota Department of Education. One urban principal said, “My Reading First specialist is excellent…she is always positive and very knowledgeable.” Another princi-pal from a rural elementary school made similar positive remarks. She said, “My Reading First specialist from the Min-nesota Department of Education has been extremely helpful to me…I can call or e-mail her any time.”

Nearly all principals were positive about the professional development workshops provided by the U of M. They felt that the training sessions provided their teachers with many valuable instructional strategies to use in their reading classes. One urban principal said, “I think the workshops give my teachers many new insights. The workshops also give my staff an opportunity to network with other teachers.” In spite of the many positive comments about the professional

5



development workshops, one urban principal thought the U of M should have provided a more in-depth presentation on various components of the Reading First program at the beginning of the program. Another urban principal suggested his instructional assistants be invited to the professional development workshops, while another urban principal thought the workshops were too repetitive.

Literacy Coordinators

All of the Literacy Coordinators interviewed were enthusiastic about their participation in their schools’ Reading First program. The Literacy Coordinators discussed how they helped teachers interpret and use the various tests and assess-ments. For example, one Literacy Coordinator said, “We look for trends in the data and use the tests to differentiate the instruction.” Another Literacy Coordinator said they have monthly assessment days in her school and use the test informa-tion to monitor her students’ progress. Another Literacy Coordinator from an urban school said, “We use the test data to drive the instruction in my school…and we look at the test scores to see what interventions the students need.” In addition, another Literacy Coordinator discussed how she presented the Reading First test results to her local school board. She thought the positive test results would be benefi cial to retaining her position when the Reading First grant expires.

The Literacy Coordinators discussed their roles within their schools’ Study Groups. A Literacy Coordinator from an urban school said, “We have weekly Study Group meetings to discuss comprehension skills and Early Intervention Pro-grams…we try to identify strategies that impact our students’ achievement.” A Literacy Coordinator said, “Through our Study Groups, we try new instructional techniques.” She also discussed how teachers used videotaping to critique each others’ teaching. She noted, “We try to fi nd out what works with our students.”

Literacy Coordinators indicated that they worked closely with their schools’ principal. One Literacy Coordinator said, “I meet weekly with my principal and we discuss our school’s Leadership Team.” These meetings help us set the agenda for our weekly Study Group meetings. Another Literacy Coordinator said she had an excellent relationship with her prin-cipal. She said, “My principal is an excellent problem solver.”

Nearly all of the Literacy Coordinators were positive about the professional development workshops provided by the U of M. A Literacy Coordinator said, “The workshops have made a huge difference in my school…Catholic schools do not have much professional development…my teachers are able to hear nationally known experts.” Another Literacy Coordi-nator from an urban school indicated that there was a great resistance from some of her teachers about having to attend the U of M workshops. She said, “Some of my teachers have embraced the new ideas and suggestions…and others are not willing to learn new approaches.” As a matter of fact, one of the teachers said to the evaluation consultant, “These work-shops are a waste of my time…I have taught over 30 years and I already know all this stuff.”

External Facilitators

Each External Facilitator indicated that he/she worked closely with the school’s Literacy Coordinators, as well as help-ing the principal and teachers interpret the test scores. They also indicated that they worked closely with the Literacy Coordinators in implementing the Study Groups within their schools. One External Facilitator from a large urban school said, “I am the representative from the U of M…I am there to provide the research to the teachers.” She also saw that her role was to provide the teachers with information about the best instructional practices. Another External Facilitator from an urban school said, “I work closely with the Literacy Coordinator…and spend a great deal of time in the classrooms…to give feedback to the teachers.”

All of the External Facilitators indicated that they would frequently model lessons for their teachers. One External Facilitator said, “I demonstrate a lesson for the teachers and share the video of my lesson with other teachers.” Another External Facilitator indicated that she modeled lessons several times a week and had her teachers critique her lesson. She found the modeling of lessons to be an effective learning experience for her teachers. After modeling the lesson, the External Facilitator would go into the teacher’s classroom and observe the teacher trying the newly learned instructional technique.

6



Besides modeling lessons, the External Facilitators frequently distributed research articles to their teachers. One Exter-nal Facilitator from a large urban school said, “I am constantly distributing articles to the teachers…our school subscribes to Reading Research and we discuss these articles in our Study Groups.” Another External Facilitator from another large urban school said, “The reading articles and the professional workshops provide my teachers with useful information on instructional practices.”

Overall, the External Facilitators were seen as valuable resources to each school’s Reading First program. Working closely with their schools’ Literacy Coordinators and building principals, they provided expert assistance to each of their respective Reading First schools’ classroom teachers.

Classroom Teachers

An overwhelming majority of the teachers interviewed said they were pleased to participate in the Reading First pro-gram. Although most of the teachers indicated the program required a signifi cant time commitment, they felt that they had learned a great deal about reading and they substantially improved their teaching skills. For example, many teachers discussed how they used test scores to set up their reading groups. They also discussed how they used the test results to identify each student’s strengths and weaknesses. One teacher from a large urban elementary school said, “I use the test data to refer students for special education and to talk to the parents.” Another teacher in a rural elementary school indi-cated she used the test results “to identify which of my students need an intervention and to monitor the other students’ progress.”

Nearly all of the teachers indicated they used the research they had acquired in their Study Groups to improve their teaching. Working closely with their schools’ Literacy Coordinators and the External Facilitators, they had learned many new instructional techniques. For example, a teacher from a large urban school said, “I try to apply the latest techniques in my class…such as Post-it notes for questioning skills.” Another teacher from another urban school said, “The research has changed the way I teach reading…I use higher-level questioning in my reading classes.” In spite of the numerous positive comments, one negative teacher from a large urban elementary school said, “I read about things I already know about…I know much of the material already.”

Many of the teachers interviewed indicated that they participated in their school’s Leadership Team. One teacher from an urban elementary school said, “We have a wonderful environment in our school…we are very supportive to one another… even though we combined two different schools.” Another teacher from a suburban school said, “We have a representative from each grade level on our school’s Leadership Team and we discuss new ideas and make decisions to-gether.” Another teacher from a non-public school said, “I have an awesome relationship with my principal and I also love my Literacy Coordinator. She is very helpful to me.”

Most of the teachers interviewed were very positive about professional development workshops they were required to attend. A teacher from a rural elementary school said, “The workshops really meet my needs…I learned many new ideas from each session.” Another teacher from a large urban school was particularly laudatory about the Winter Institute and said, “I really like the Winter Institute…the teachers got to share what they were doing in their classes.” She also suggested that the teachers be given an opportunity to visit other teachers’ classrooms. Several other teachers were pleased they had an opportunity to view other teachers’ videos. One teacher from an urban school said, “We saw how other teachers are doing things…and learn from each other.” One less-than-enthusiastic teacher from a suburban elementary school said, “I think the in-service workshops are so-so…some of the workshops are great and some are not so good.”

All of the teachers interviewed were pleased with the abundance of new instructional materials they had received to use with their students. For example, one rural teacher said, “The Literacy Coordinator is always getting us plenty of new instructional materials.” Another teacher from a suburban elementary school said, “We have an amazing amount of mate-rials.” Overall, the teachers were very enthusiastic about the amount of new reading books they had acquired.

7



In summary, nearly all of the teachers interviewed by the evaluation consultants were pleased to participate in the Reading First program. As noted above, they had learned a great deal about reading instruction through the weekly Study Group meetings and the U of M’s professional development institutes. They like participating in their schools’ Leadership Teams and they had acquired an infusion of new reading materials. There were only a few teachers who were negative toward their participation in the Reading First program.

8



Chapter 4

Classroom Observation Results

During September and October of 2006, January of 2007, and May of 2007, the evaluation consultants visited 20 of the Reading First schools throughout Minnesota. During these on-site visits, the evaluation consultant observed kindergarten through grade 3 Reading First classes. After the MDE Reading First specialist contacted the Reading First schools, the evaluation consultant called the school and the Literacy Coordinator or the principal faxed a schedule of classroom obser-vations for the evaluation consultant to follow. These classroom observations were usually conducted during the morn-ing’s school reading/literacy block and each classroom observation lasted between 20–30 minutes. Using a specially con-structed classroom observation instrument, the evaluation consultants visited a sample of the Reading First classrooms. It should be noted that the classroom observation instrument focused on the fi ve major areas of the Minnesota Reading First program: Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, and Text Comprehension. Below is a brief description of each of these fi ve major components:

Under Phonemic Awareness, the instruction included such components as identifying and making oral rhymes, iden-tifying and working with syllables in spoken words, identifying and working with syllables in spoken words, identifying and working with onsets and rimes in spoken syllables, and identifying and working with phonemes in words spoken.

Under Phonics, the instruction included such components as systematic approach, explicit approach, relating letters and sounds, breaking spoken words into sounds, blending sounds, aiding children in applying letter-sound correspondence as they read and write text, and adapting to needs of individuals.

Under Fluency, the instruction included such components as fl uency (students reading and re-reading text until fl uency is met), guidance in re-reading through student-adult reading, choral reading, tape-assisted reading, partner reading or reader’s theater, and monitoring students toward reading effortlessly and with expression.

Under Vocabulary, the instruction included such components as engagement in daily oral language, text orally read, time for extensive individual reading, implicit and explicit word instruction, and repeat exposure to vocabulary, word learning strategies such as word parts (affi xes), and using context clues.

Under Text Comprehension, the instruction included such components as strategies for comprehension monitoring, use of graphic and semantic organizers, teacher’s questioning, student generating questions, elements for text structure, direct instruction such as direct explanations, modeling guided practice and application, activating prior knowledge, and use of mental imagery.

Using these fi ve major components of the Reading First program, the evaluation consultants rated their implementation during the classroom observation on a fi ve-point Likert scale:

0• =No evidence of implementation

1• =Minimal evidence of implementation

2• =Some evidence of implementation and usage

3• =Evidence of implementation, with no practice

4• =Evidence of implementation, minimal practice

5• =Extreme evidence of implementation

9



Frequently, the evaluation consultant observed more than one component of the Reading First program being taught; for example, Vocabulary instructional strategy was included in a lesson focusing on Comprehension. Therefore, the total reading scores are a duplicated count, with some lessons receiving only one rating and some lessons receiving several rat-ings for an individual lesson. The following are the total ratings and the mean rating scores for each grade level.

Table 1 reports the ratings of the evaluation consultants for the kindergarten classes observed. Phonics was clearly the most prevalent Reading First component observed followed by Fluency instruction. Since many kindergarten teachers spend a substantial amount of time teaching their students letter sounds and blends, it is not surprising that the evaluation consultants observed Phonics being taught in many kindergarten classrooms.

Table 1Results of Classroom Observation for Kindergarten

(N=22)

Reading First Component Total Rating Mean Rating

Phonemic Awareness 3 3.00

Phonics 44 4.88

Fluency 30 4.28

Vocabulary 19 3.80

Text Comprehension 19 3.80

Table 2 shows the ratings of the evaluation consultants for the fi rst-grade classes. Fluency instruction (mean=4.50) was the most prevalent instruction activity observed by the evaluation consultants followed by Comprehension (mean=4.25) and Vocabulary instruction (mean=3.87) in the fi rst-grade classes.

Table 2Results of Classroom Observation for First Grade

(N=30)


Phonemic Awareness 4 4.00

Phonics 27 3.85

Fluency 36 4.50

Vocabulary 31 3.87


10



Table 3 presents the ratings of the evaluation consultants for the second-grade Reading First classes observed. Interest-ingly, Text Comprehension (mean=4.69), Vocabulary (mean=4.44), Fluency (mean=4.20), and Phonics (mean=4.25) all had very similar ratings. Not surprisingly, Phonemic Awareness was not observed in any of the second-grade classes, since Phonemic Awareness is usually only taught in kindergarten classes.

Table 3Results of Classroom Observation for Second Grade

(N=32)


Phonemic Awareness 0 0

Phonics 17 4.25

Fluency 21 4.20

Vocabulary 40 4.44


Table 4 below depicts the results of the classroom observations for the third-grade Reading First classes. During the 2006–2007 school year, the evaluation consultants visited 32 third-grade classes. Text Comprehension was observed in a substantial number of these third-grade classes, followed by Vocabulary instruction. Since Comprehension skills play a prominent role in the reading curriculum as one moves into higher grade levels, it is not surprising that they were fre-quently observed in the third-grade classes.

Table 4Results of Classroom Observation for Third Grade

(N=32)


Phonemic Awareness 0 0

Phonics 5 5.0

Fluency 18 3.60

Vocabulary 30 4.28


11



12



Chapter 5

Achievement Results

The Minnesota Reading First program has established a comprehensive system to collect relevant achievement infor-mation on the participating students. As mentioned earlier, numerous formative assessments are conducted to provide Reading First personnel with ongoing diagnostic and achievement measurements on the participating students. These as-sessments are utilized from kindergarten through grade 3 and comprise the basis of the formative assessment component conducted by the University of Minnesota.

The summative evaluation, conducted by AEC, uses the overall impact assessment subtests specifi ed in the MDE’s agreement with the federal Reading First program. The required summative evaluation achievement instruments are ad-ministered to participating students in grades 1–3. These test instruments are:

Gates-MacGinitie Comprehension ♦ (grades 1, 2);

Gates-MacGinitie Word Decoding ♦ (grades 1, 2);

Gates-MacGinitie Word Knowledge ♦ (grade 2);

Deno’s Oral Fluency ♦ (grades 1, 2, 3); and

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment ♦ – MCA II (grade 3).

The achievement information in this chapter comes from several sources. The Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA II) information was generated directly from MDE data fi les. The demographic fi les and coding schemes were provided by the MDE; the non-MCA II student achievement fi les were provided by the University of Minnesota. AEC converted these fi les and merged them with the student demographic data by using the state’s system of student identifi ca-tion numbers as the common element. During the analysis, when missing or duplicate student identifi cation numbers were encountered, they could not be matched and were therefore dropped from the analysis. AEC maintained strict confi denti-ality and security procedures at all times throughout the processing and analysis of the data.

This evaluation report presents end-of-year overall and disaggregated achievement performance data for grades 1–3 to indicate the number and percentage of students meeting the target profi ciency level and the total number of students in the tested group. Disaggregated information is provided for racial/ethnic categories and for special population groups (students on free and reduced price lunch, limited English profi cient students, and special education students). Due to the substantial amount of overall school data and disaggregated school data for the subtests included in the Minnesota Reading First program, this information is included in Appendices A, B, and C. The results are presented for students for whom test scores were reported and who could be matched across fi les by their student identifi cation number. In order to maintain confi dentiality of individual student information and to avoid presenting data from groups that are too small to provide reliable achievement estimates, AEC has used the Minnesota reporting policy of not reporting group data for fewer than 10 students. As a result, any data cell that includes fewer than 10 students is signifi ed by a notation.

The achievement targets, established by the MDE and used in this report, are in terms of normal curve equivalents (NCEs) for all Gates-MacGinitie subtests, words correct per minute for Deno’s Oral Fluency measures, and achievement levels for the MCA II.

Also, where possible and technically defensible, AEC has provided achievement information over the two years that the Round Two schools in the Reading First program have been collecting data. The large majority of the analyses include

13



at least 100 cases. The reader is reminded that the accountability provisions of NCLB require a cross-sectional design in which students are tested at each grade level but not followed longitudinally. Therefore, the comparisons over time should be viewed with some caution since they are derived from different groups of students being compared (e.g., third graders from last year versus this year’s third graders).

Table 5 indicates that the Minnesota Reading First program had complete test records on a total of 4,573 students in grades 1–3 in the Round Two schools during 2006–2007 across the school sites that operated the program.

Table 5Number of Students Tested by Grade

Grade Number of Students Tested

Grade 1 1,519

Grade 2 1,544

Grade 3 1,510

TOTAL 4,573

Grade 1 Achievement Information

The 2006–2007 achievement information for grade 1 is presented on Tables 6–8.

Table 6Round Two Schools

Grade 1Number and Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets

SubtestPercent Meeting the

TargetNumber of Students Meeting the Target

Total Number of Students

Gates-MacGinitieComprehension

67.3 1,021 1,517

Gates-MacGinitieWord Decoding

71.2 1,080 1,517

Deno’s Oral Fluency 71.2 1,081 1,519

Nearly 70 percent of students met or exceeded the target in comprehension and slightly over 70% achieved the target in word decoding and oral fl uency. When the data are broken down for disaggregated groups in Table 7, the percentages are somewhat lower. For instance, the results for students identifi ed on the poverty indicator (free and reduced price lunch) show that about 60% of the students met the achievement targets. Special education students scored the lowest of the three groups.

14




Grade 1Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets for Disaggregated Groups

SubtestFree/Reduced Price

LunchLimited English

Profi cientSpecial Education


58.7 56.4 42.3


62.9 56.3 54.1

Deno’s Oral Fluency 63.2 60.3 54.7

NCLB also requires that the achievement data be disaggregated by racial/ethnic categories. Table 8 presents these data and indicates that fi rst-grade Caucasian Reading First students are meeting the achievement targets at higher rates than the African American, Asian, and Native American students, and that Hispanic students are scoring the lowest.


Grade 1Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets by Racial/Ethnic Categories

SubtestNative

AmericanAsian Hispanic

African American

Caucasian


57.3 69.5 52.8 55.8 78.0

Gates- MacGinitieWord Decoding

71.9 66.8 54.2 63.6 81.8

Deno’s Oral Fluency

63.8 75.3 54.2 62.5 80.6

15



It was also possible to compare the percentages of students meeting the Minnesota Reading First achievement standards in 2006–2007 to those of the previous year. Table 9 presents this information and indicates that a higher percentage of students participating in Reading First in 2006–2007 met the target in oral fl uency than in the fi rst year of the program. As mentioned earlier, the reader is reminded that the accountability provisions of NCLB require a cross-sectional design in which students are tested at each grade level but not followed longitudinally. Therefore, the comparisons over time should be viewed with some caution.


Grade 1 – Two-Year Comparisons Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets

SubtestPercent Meeting

the Target2005 - 2006

Percent Meeting the Target

2006 - 2007Percentage Difference


69.1 67.3 - 1.8


72.0 71.2 - 0.8

Deno’s Oral Fluency 69.7 71.2 + 1.5


The 2006–2007 achievement information for grade 2 in Round Two schools is presented on Tables 10–12. On Table 10, the overall data indicate that, on the Gates-MacGinitie subtests, participants are meeting the achievement targets at a low-to-mid 60% level. On Deno’s Oral Fluency measure, only 74% of the students met the words-per-minute criterion set as the target.







65.9 1,008 1,529


64.2 981 1,528

Gates-MacGinitieWord Knowledge

64.5 987 1,531


16



When the data are broken down for disaggregated groups in Table 11, as we saw in earlier tables for grade 1 data, the percentages are lower than the information across all Reading First students.







55.1 48.5 37.2


54.2 46.7 41.0


52.0 40.5 40.4


Table 12 indicates the results for racial/ethnic categories. As with grade 1, Caucasian students did better than the other groups. Hispanic students performed lower overall than the other groups.



SubtestNative


African American

Caucasian


73.3 58.9 46.3 50.0 79.3

Gates- MacGinitieWord Decoding

70.7 57.6 42.6 50.7 77.1

Gates- MacGinitieWord Knowledge

70.7 49.1 41.2 48.9 81.3

Deno’s Oral Fluency 82.9 74.2 60.3 61.9 82.0

17



Table 13 presents the two-year information and indicates mixed results with three of the four subtests registering lower percentages over time. Once again, the reader is reminded that the comparisons over time should be viewed with some caution since there were different students in each of the two years (not the same students over time).




the Target2005 – 2006


2006 – 2007

Percentage Difference


69.9 65.9 - 4.0


67.1 64.2 - 2.9


62.3 64.5 + 2.2

Deno’s Oral Fluency 75.7 74.0 - 1.7


The 2006–2007 achievement information for grade 3 is presented on Tables 14–17. The overall data indicates that 67.6% of the students were meeting the target on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA II), while 80% of the stu-dents met the words-per-minute criterion set as the target for the oral fl uency measure. It should be noted that 2006–2007 marked the fi rst year that students classifi ed as Limited English Profi cient (LEP) were required to take the state test. About 25% of the Reading First group (380 of 1,510 test takers) were classifi ed as LEP.






MCA II 67.6 1,020 1,510


18



The data broken down for disaggregated groups in Table 15 indicates, as with the earlier grades, the percentages of students meeting the targets in disaggregated groups are lower than the percentages demonstrated for all Reading First students.

Table 15Round Two





MCA II 56.2 46.1 42.2


Table 16 indicates the results for racial/ethnic categories. As with grades 1 and 2, Caucasian students did better than the other groups. Native Americans students also met targets relatively well.

Table 16Round Two


SubtestNative


African American

Caucasian

MCA II 70.7 56.8 53.3 52.3 82.5

Deno’s Oral Fluency

82.7 81.6 73.2 69.1 86.4

Table 17 below shows the two-year comparisons on the MCA II and the Deno’s Oral Fluency measure. While the oral fl uency measure showed an increase, the MCA II, the Minnesota state assessment instrument, results appear to show a 3.6% decline in the number of students meeting the achievement targets. In addition to the cautions listed in other sections of this report on comparisons over time, 2006–2007 marked the fi rst year that students classifi ed as Limited English Pro-fi cient (LEP) were required to take the state test. Approximately 25% of the Reading First group were classifi ed as LEP.




the Target2005 – 2006


2006 – 2007

Percentage Difference

MCA II 71.2 67.6 - 3.6

Deno’s Oral Fluency 78.1 80.0 + 1.9

19



20



Chapter 6

Summary and Recommendations

At each of the Reading First classes visited, the teachers focused on one of the fi ve major components of the Reading First program. Furthermore, based upon the interviews of the classroom teachers, building principals, Literacy Coordina-tors, and External Facilitators, the staff were using the test results to help drive the reading instruction. Whether they were using the test scores to identify individual students’ strengths and weaknesses or monitoring their students’ progress, the reading tests played a signifi cant role in the Reading First programs. In addition, the weekly Study Group meetings, the videotaping of the participating teachers, and the extensive professional development activities provided by the University of Minnesota have all apparently contributed to the reading gains.

With respect to the summative evaluation data, there are several general statements that can be made about achievement of the Reading First participants.

Overall, about 2/3 of the participants met the achievement standards in the 2006–2007 school year. ♦

Children in poverty and those with limited English profi ciency did not score as well as the overall group ♦

of participants.

Special education students generally scored lower than any other group. ♦

Caucasian students in the program consistently out-performed other groups. Hispanic students tended to ♦

score lower than all other racial/ethnic groups.

The required inclusion of LEP students in the MCA II may have contributed to the lower scores in the ♦

second year as this group tends to score lower on standardized tests as they are building their English skills.

In order to help “fi ne tune” the Minnesota Reading First program, the evaluation consultants offer the following recommendations:

Since the Reading First program is only funded through 2007–2008, the MDE should continue to • encourage each of the participating Reading First schools to develop plans to continue components of the program when the grant expires (such as a Literacy Coordinator or the Study Groups to assist in the interpretation and use of the assessment results).

More attention should be given to the issue of sustainability after the Reading First funds are gone. A • survey of the Round One schools whose funding ended in 2005–2006 should be considered to determine which elements of the Reading First operations have been sustained, which have not, and the challenges faced by these schools in continuing the program. This information should help Round Two schools in their thinking about the sustainability issues.

Several of the classroom teachers indicated they would like to observe other teachers in other Reading • First schools. Therefore, the MDE may want to encourage the Reading First principals to arrange for some of their teachers to visit other Reading First schools.

When external facilitators are selected to work in a Reading First school, neither school personnel nor • the MDE have input into the hiring process. There should be a method for the University to seek and consider input from these sources as they each have a major stake in the selection of the External Facilitator.

21



22



APPENDIX A

DATA REPORTS BY SUBTEST BY SCHOOL

FOR ROUND TWO SCHOOLS

23



24



Notes for Reading the Tables in the Appendices

In order to maintain confi dentiality of individual student information and to avoid presenting data from ♦

groups that are too small to provide reliable achievement estimates, AEC has used the Minnesota report-ing policy of not reporting group data for fewer than 10 students. As a result, any data cell that includes fewer than 10 students is signifi ed by a notation (*).

The reader should note that, while there may be many notations in cells particularly on the disaggregated ♦

tables, each of those notations represents actual achievement data for fewer than 10 students, and these data are aggregated into the totals for the tables in the body of the report.

25



26



Dis

tric

t Nam

eSc

hool

Nam

e%

Pas

sing

#

Pass

ing

All

Stud

ents

A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

INU

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y82

.56%

7186

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y78

.31%

6583

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y81

.40%

7086

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

60.7

6%48

79C

RO

OK

STO

N

WA

SH

ING

TON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

70.8

9%56

79M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

AN

CR

OFT

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

50.0

0%27

54M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

ETH

UN

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y47

.06%

1634

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

JEN

NY

LIN

D E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y49

.21%

3163

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RA

MS

EY

FIN

E A

RTS

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

51.6

5%47

91M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

ISE

N C

HR

IST

84.0

0%21

25M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

S

HIN

GLE

CR

EE

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y78

.79%

2633

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

WA

ITE

PA

RK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

59.3

2%35

59N

OR

TH S

T P

AU

LR

ICH

AR

DS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

66.1

0%39

59O

GIL

VIE

O

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

87.1

0%27

31O

WA

TON

NA

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y55

.00%

4480

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

83.3

3%50

60R

OC

HE

STE

R

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y75

.28%

6789

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

88.0

0%88

100

ST.

CLO

UD

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

62.8

2%49

78S

T. P

AU

LC

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

63.4

6%33

52S

T. P

AU

LFA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

69.7

4%53

76S

T. P

AU

LH

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

59.1

5%42

71S

T. P

AU

LP

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

32.6

5%16

49TO

TALS

67.3

0 %10

2115

17

R2A

1

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 1

- G

ates

-Mac

Gin

itie

Com

preh

ensi

on b

y Sc

hool

Pa

ssin

g >=

41 N

orm

al C

urve

Equ

ival

ents

27



Dis

tric

t Nam

eSc

hool

Nam

e%

Pas

sing

#

Pass

ing

All

Stud

ents

A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

INU

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y79

.73%

5974

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y75

.51%

7498

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y82

.54%

5263

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

74.5

8%44

59C

RO

OK

STO

N

WA

SH

ING

TON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

70.9

3%61

86M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

AN

CR

OFT

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

47.1

7%25

53M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

ETH

UN

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y61

.90%

1321

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

JEN

NY

LIN

D E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y45

.59%

3168

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RA

MS

EY

FIN

E A

RTS

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

60.2

3%53

88M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

ISE

N C

HR

IST

79.3

1%23

29M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

S

HIN

GLE

CR

EE

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y38

.24%

1334

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

WA

ITE

PA

RK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

65.4

5%36

55N

OR

TH S

T P

AU

LR

ICH

AR

DS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

62.9

0%39

62O

GIL

VIE

O

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

70.9

7%22

31O

WA

TON

NA

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y61

.84%

4776

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

65.8

5%54

82R

OC

HE

STE

R

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y81

.71%

6782

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

100.

00%

1313

SP

RIN

G L

AK

E P

AR

K

WO

OD

CR

ES

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y79

.28%

8811

1S

T. C

LOU

DD

ISC

OV

ER

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y55

.26%

4276

ST.

PA

UL

CR

OS

SR

OA

DS

SC

IEN

CE

PR

OG

RA

M71

.43%

3549

ST.

PA

UL

FAR

NS

WO

RTH

AE

RO

SP

AC

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y66

.18%

4568

ST.

PA

UL

HA

NC

OC

K/H

AM

LIN

E M

AG

NE

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y54

.26%

5194

ST.

PA

UL

PA

UL

& S

HE

ILA

WE

LLS

TON

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y36

.84%

2157

TOTA

LS65

.93%

1008

1529

R2A

2

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 2

- G

ates

-Mac

Gin

itie

Com

preh

ensi

on b

y Sc

hool

Pa

ssin

g >=

41 N

orm

al C

urve

Equ

ival

ents

28



Dis

tric

t Nam

eSc

hool

Nam

e%

Pas

sing

#

Pass

ing

All

Stud

ents

A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

INU

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y88

.37%

7686

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y84

.34%

7083

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y94

.19%

8186

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

78.4

8%62

79C

RO

OK

STO

N

WA

SH

ING

TON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

65.8

2%52

79M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

AN

CR

OFT

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

46.3

0%25

54M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

ETH

UN

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y61

.76%

2134

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

JEN

NY

LIN

D E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y49

.21%

3163

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RA

MS

EY

FIN

E A

RTS

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

61.5

4%56

91M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

ISE

N C

HR

IST

88.0

0%22

25M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

S

HIN

GLE

CR

EE

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y66

.67%

2233

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

WA

ITE

PA

RK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

62.7

1%37

59N

OR

TH S

T P

AU

LR

ICH

AR

DS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

61.0

2%36

59O

GIL

VIE

O

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

100.

00%

3131

OW

ATO

NN

AW

ILS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

58.7

5%47

80R

OB

BIN

SD

ALE

N

EIL

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y85

.00%

5160

RO

CH

ES

TER

R

IVE

RS

IDE

CE

NTR

AL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

78.6

5%70

89S

OU

TH K

OO

CH

ICH

ING

IN

DU

S E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

SP

RIN

G L

AK

E P

AR

K

WO

OD

CR

ES

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y87

.00%

8710

0S

T. C

LOU

DD

ISC

OV

ER

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y70

.51%

5578

ST.

PA

UL

CR

OS

SR

OA

DS

SC

IEN

CE

PR

OG

RA

M67

.31%

3552

ST.

PA

UL

FAR

NS

WO

RTH

AE

RO

SP

AC

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y64

.47%

4976

ST.

PA

UL

HA

NC

OC

K/H

AM

LIN

E M

AG

NE

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y64

.79%

4671

ST.

PA

UL

PA

UL

& S

HE

ILA

WE

LLS

TON

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y36

.73%

1849

TOTA

LS71

.19%

1080

1517

R2A

3

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 1

- G

ates

-Mac

Gin

itie

Wor

d D

ecod

ing

by S

choo

l Pa

ssin

g >=

41 N

orm

al C

urve

Equ

ival

ents

29



Dis

tric

t Nam

eSc

hool

Nam

e%

Pas

sing

#

Pass

ing

All

Stud

ents

A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

INU

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y71

.62%

5374

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y78

.57%

7798

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y87

.30%

5563

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

77.9

7%46

59C

RO

OK

STO

N

WA

SH

ING

TON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

72.0

9%62

86M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

AN

CR

OFT

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

33.3

3%18

54M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

ETH

UN

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y61

.90%

1321

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

JEN

NY

LIN

D E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y40

.30%

2767

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RA

MS

EY

FIN

E A

RTS

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

56.8

2%50

88M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

ISE

N C

HR

IST

72.4

1%21

29M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

S

HIN

GLE

CR

EE

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y44

.12%

1534

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

WA

ITE

PA

RK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

56.3

6%31

55N

OR

TH S

T P

AU

LR

ICH

AR

DS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

59.6

8%37

62O

GIL

VIE

O

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

74.1

9%23

31O

WA

TON

NA

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y55

.26%

4276

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

67.0

7%55

82R

OC

HE

STE

R

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y81

.71%

6782

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

100.

00%

1313

SP

RIN

G L

AK

E P

AR

K

WO

OD

CR

ES

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y76

.58%

8511

1S

T. C

LOU

DD

ISC

OV

ER

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y59

.21%

4576

ST.

PA

UL

CR

OS

SR

OA

DS

SC

IEN

CE

PR

OG

RA

M62

.50%

3048

ST.

PA

UL

FAR

NS

WO

RTH

AE

RO

SP

AC

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y66

.18%

4568

ST.

PA

UL

HA

NC

OC

K/H

AM

LIN

E M

AG

NE

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y51

.06%

4894

ST.

PA

UL

PA

UL

& S

HE

ILA

WE

LLS

TON

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y40

.35%

2357

TOTA

LS64

.20%

981

1528

R2A

4

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 2

- G

ates

-Mac

Gin

itie

Wor

d D

ecod

ing

by S

choo

l Pa

ssin

g >=

41 N

orm

al C

urve

Equ

ival

ents

30



Dis

tric

t Nam

eSc

hool

Nam

e%

Pas

sing

#

Pass

ing

All

Stud

ents

A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

INU

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y86

.05%

7486

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y77

.11%

6483

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y83

.72%

7286

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

71.4

3%60

84C

RO

OK

STO

N

WA

SH

ING

TON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

75.6

4%59

78M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

AN

CR

OFT

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

50.0

0%27

54M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

ETH

UN

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y64

.71%

2234

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

JEN

NY

LIN

D E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y53

.13%

3464

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RA

MS

EY

FIN

E A

RTS

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

54.9

5%50

91M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

ISE

N C

HR

IST

73.3

3%22

30M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

S

HIN

GLE

CR

EE

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y87

.88%

2933

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

WA

ITE

PA

RK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

65.5

2%38

58N

OR

TH S

T P

AU

LR

ICH

AR

DS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

63.7

9%37

58O

GIL

VIE

O

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

83.8

7%26

31O

WA

TON

NA

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y64

.56%

5179

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

86.6

7%52

60R

OC

HE

STE

R

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y78

.89%

7190

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

89.9

0%89

99S

T. C

LOU

DD

ISC

OV

ER

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y73

.08%

5778

ST.

PA

UL

CR

OS

SR

OA

DS

SC

IEN

CE

PR

OG

RA

M60

.78%

3151

ST.

PA

UL

FAR

NS

WO

RTH

AE

RO

SP

AC

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y71

.62%

5374

ST.

PA

UL

HA

NC

OC

K/H

AM

LIN

E M

AG

NE

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y63

.38%

4571

ST.

PA

UL

PA

UL

& S

HE

ILA

WE

LLS

TON

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y38

.30%

1847

TOTA

LS71

.17%

1081

1519

R2A

5

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 1

- D

eno'

s O

ral F

luen

cy b

y Sc

hool

Pa

ssin

g >=

40 W

ords

Cor

rect

Per

Min

ute

31



Dis

tric

t Nam

eSc

hool

Nam

e%

Pas

sing

#

Pass

ing

All

Stud

ents

A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

INU

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y86

.49%

6474

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y78

.79%

7899

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y84

.62%

5565

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

89.8

3%53

59C

RO

OK

STO

N

WA

SH

ING

TON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

77.9

1%67

86M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

AN

CR

OFT

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

62.9

6%34

54M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

ETH

UN

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y90

.48%

1921

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

JEN

NY

LIN

D E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y53

.62%

3769

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RA

MS

EY

FIN

E A

RTS

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

66.3

0%61

92M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

ISE

N C

HR

IST

81.8

2%27

33M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

S

HIN

GLE

CR

EE

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y67

.65%

2334

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

WA

ITE

PA

RK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

75.0

0%42

56N

OR

TH S

T P

AU

LR

ICH

AR

DS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

70.9

7%44

62O

GIL

VIE

O

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

70.9

7%22

31O

WA

TON

NA

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y71

.05%

5476

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

74.3

9%61

82R

OC

HE

STE

R

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y86

.59%

7182

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

100.

00%

1313

SP

RIN

G L

AK

E P

AR

K

WO

OD

CR

ES

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y84

.96%

9611

3S

T. C

LOU

DD

ISC

OV

ER

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y64

.47%

4976

ST.

PA

UL

CR

OS

SR

OA

DS

SC

IEN

CE

PR

OG

RA

M66

.00%

3350

ST.

PA

UL

FAR

NS

WO

RTH

AE

RO

SP

AC

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y75

.00%

5168

ST.

PA

UL

HA

NC

OC

K/H

AM

LIN

E M

AG

NE

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y67

.02%

6394

ST.

PA

UL

PA

UL

& S

HE

ILA

WE

LLS

TON

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y47

.27%

2655

TOTA

LS74

.03%

1143

1544

R2A

6

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 2

- D

eno'

s O

ral F

luen

cy b

y Sc

hool

Pa

ssin

g >=

75 W

ords

Cor

rect

Per

Min

ute

32



Dis

tric

t Nam

eSc

hool

Nam

e%

Pas

sing

#

Pass

ing

All

Stud

ents

A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

IN

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

84.1

3%53

63A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

IN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y82

.93%

6882

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y82

.19%

6073

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y85

.92%

6171

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y74

.47%

3547

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

81.4

8%22

27M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

57.3

5%39

68M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y78

.00%

7810

0M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T73

.53%

2534

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

76.9

2%30

39M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y79

.10%

5367

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y77

.92%

6077

OG

ILV

IE

OG

ILV

IE E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y83

.33%

3036

OW

ATO

NN

AW

ILS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

78.8

7%56

71R

OB

BIN

SD

ALE

N

EIL

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y88

.46%

6978

RO

CH

ES

TER

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y82

.11%

7895

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

93.2

2%11

011

8S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

75.9

0%63

83S

T. P

AU

L C

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

76.9

2%40

52S

T. P

AU

L FA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

90.2

4%74

82S

T. P

AU

L H

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

83.5

8%56

67S

T. P

AU

L P

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

50.9

1%28

55TO

TALS

80.0

0%11

8814

85

R2A

7

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 3

- D

eno'

s O

ral F

luen

cy b

y Sc

hool

Pa

ssin

g >=

95 W

ords

Cor

rect

Per

Min

ute

33



Dis

tric

t Nam

eSc

hool

Nam

e%

Pas

sing

#

Pass

ing

All

Stud

ents

A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

INU

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y78

.38%

5874

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y79

.59%

7898

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y84

.13%

5363

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

76.2

7%45

59C

RO

OK

STO

N

WA

SH

ING

TON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

72.0

9%62

86M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

AN

CR

OFT

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

38.8

9%21

54M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

ETH

UN

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y66

.67%

1421

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

JEN

NY

LIN

D E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y41

.18%

2868

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RA

MS

EY

FIN

E A

RTS

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

59.0

9%52

88M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

ISE

N C

HR

IST

62.0

7%18

29M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

S

HIN

GLE

CR

EE

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y35

.29%

1234

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

WA

ITE

PA

RK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

58.1

8%32

55N

OR

TH S

T P

AU

LR

ICH

AR

DS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

59.6

8%37

62O

GIL

VIE

O

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

70.9

7%22

31O

WA

TON

NA

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y63

.16%

4876

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

65.8

5%54

82R

OC

HE

STE

R

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y80

.49%

6682

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

100.

00%

1313

SP

RIN

G L

AK

E P

AR

K

WO

OD

CR

ES

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y75

.68%

8411

1S

T. C

LOU

DD

ISC

OV

ER

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y60

.53%

4676

ST.

PA

UL

CR

OS

SR

OA

DS

SC

IEN

CE

PR

OG

RA

M74

.00%

3750

ST.

PA

UL

FAR

NS

WO

RTH

AE

RO

SP

AC

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y61

.76%

4268

ST.

PA

UL

HA

NC

OC

K/H

AM

LIN

E M

AG

NE

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y51

.06%

4894

ST.

PA

UL

PA

UL

& S

HE

ILA

WE

LLS

TON

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y29

.82%

1757

TOTA

LS64

.47%

987

1531

R2A

8

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 2

- G

ates

-Mac

Gin

itie

Wor

d K

now

ledg

e by

Sch

ool

Pass

ing

>=41

Nor

mal

Cur

ve E

quiv

alen

ts

34



Dis

tric

t Nam

eSc

hool

Nam

e%

Pas

sing

#

Pass

ing

All

Stud

ents

A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

IN

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

81.2

5%52

64A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

IN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y67

.86%

5784

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y67

.57%

5074

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y72

.60%

5373

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y61

.22%

3049

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

70.3

7%19

27M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

45.7

1%32

70M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y63

.37%

6410

1M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

ISE

N C

HR

IST

55.8

8%19

34M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

S

HIN

GLE

CR

EE

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y41

.03%

1639

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

WA

ITE

PA

RK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

63.2

4%43

68N

OR

TH S

T P

AU

LR

ICH

AR

DS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

70.5

1%55

78O

GIL

VIE

O

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

86.1

1%31

36O

WA

TON

NA

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y70

.83%

5172

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

85.0

0%68

80R

OC

HE

STE

RR

IVE

RS

IDE

CE

NTR

AL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

78.1

3%75

96S

OU

TH K

OO

CH

ICH

ING

IN

DU

S E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

SP

RIN

G L

AK

E P

AR

K

WO

OD

CR

ES

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y83

.90%

9911

8S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

66.6

7%56

84S

T. P

AU

L C

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

72.2

2%39

54S

T. P

AU

L FA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

76.7

4%66

86S

T. P

AU

L H

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

38.8

1%26

67S

T. P

AU

L P

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

33.9

3%19

56TO

TALS

67.5

5%10

2015

10

R2A

9

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 3

- M

inne

sota

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

sses

smen

t II b

y Sc

hool

Pa

ssin

g >=

3 A

chie

vem

ent L

evel

35



36



APPENDIX B

DATA REPORTS FOR DISAGGREGATED GROUPS


37



38








39



40



F

ree

and

Red

uced

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Pric

e Lu

nch

P

rofic

ienc

y

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n D

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y77

.78%

2836

78.9

5%15

19*

**

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y71

.88%

2332

82.1

4%23

28*

**

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y77

.27%

3444

**

**

**

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y56

.92%

3765

**

*46

.15%

613

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y55

.00%

2240

**

**

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y42

.55%

2047

40.0

0%12

30*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

46.6

7%14

30*

**

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

43.9

0%18

4143

.75%

716

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y38

.71%

2462

30.7

7%8

26*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T94

.74%

1819

**

**

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

76.6

7%23

3072

.73%

811

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y54

.55%

2444

57.8

9%11

19*

**

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y57

.14%

1628

**

**

**

OG

ILV

IE

OG

ILV

IE E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y84

.21%

1619

**

**

**

OW

ATO

NN

A

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y47

.83%

2246

33.3

3%6

1836

.36%

411

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

79.3

1%23

29*

**

**

*R

OC

HE

STE

R

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y70

.59%

3651

66.6

7%12

18*

**

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

81.8

2%18

2281

.82%

911

**

*S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

52.8

3%28

5338

.46%

513

**

*S

T. P

AU

LC

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

58.3

3%21

3663

.64%

1422

**

*S

T. P

AU

LFA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

69.4

9%41

5963

.27%

3149

**

*S

T. P

AU

LH

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

52.4

6%32

6156

.86%

2951

**

*S

T. P

AU

LP

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

28.8

9%13

4534

.38%

1132

**

*

R2B

1

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 1

- G

ates

-Mac

Gin

itie

Com

preh

ensi

on b

y Sc

hool

D

isag

greg

ated

by

Pove

rty,

Lim

ited

Engl

ish

Prof

icie

ncy,

and

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n C

ateg

orie

s Pa

ssin

g >=

41 N

orm

al C

urve

Equ

ival

ents

41



F

ree

and

Red

uced

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Pric

e Lu

nch

P

rofic

ienc

y

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n D

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y67

.74%

2131

**

**

**

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y60

.61%

2033

61.5

4%16

26*

**

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y73

.53%

2534

**

*54

.55%

611

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y71

.74%

3346

**

**

**

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y57

.45%

2747

**

**

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y40

.00%

1845

34.4

8%10

29*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

60.0

0%12

20*

**

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

42.5

9%23

5450

.00%

1020

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y46

.43%

2656

50.0

0%11

22*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T78

.26%

1823

75.0

0%9

12*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

35.4

8%11

3154

.55%

611

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y56

.41%

2239

38.8

9%7

18*

**

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y61

.76%

2134

**

**

**

OG

ILV

IE

OG

ILV

IE E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y63

.16%

1219

**

**

**

OW

ATO

NN

A

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y50

.00%

1938

**

*38

.46%

513

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

44.7

4%17

38*

**

**

*R

OC

HE

STE

R

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y73

.33%

3345

63.6

4%14

22*

**

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

62.5

0%20

3246

.67%

715

**

*S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

37.5

0%15

4036

.84%

719

22.2

2%4

18S

T. P

AU

LC

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

66.6

7%18

2764

.29%

914

**

*S

T. P

AU

LFA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

62.2

2%28

4558

.33%

2136

**

*S

T. P

AU

LH

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

49.3

7%39

7950

.00%

3468

**

*S

T. P

AU

LP

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

36.8

4%21

5730

.77%

1239

**

*

R2B

2

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 2

- G

ates

-Mac

Gin

itie

Com

preh

ensi

on b

y Sc

hool

D

isag

greg

ated

by

Pove

rty,

Lim

ited

Engl

ish

Prof

icie

ncy,

and

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n C

ateg

orie

s Pa

ssin

g >=

41 N

orm

al C

urve

Equ

ival

ents

42



F

ree

and

Red

uced

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Pric

e Lu

nch

P

rofic

ienc

y

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n D

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y86

.11%

3136

84.2

1%16

19*

**

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y75

.00%

2432

78.5

7%22

28*

**

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y88

.64%

3944

**

**

**

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y75

.38%

4965

**

*69

.23%

913

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y55

.00%

2240

**

**

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y40

.43%

1947

36.6

7%11

30*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

63.3

3%19

30*

**

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

42.5

0%17

4038

.89%

718

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y48

.39%

3062

23.0

8%6

26*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T89

.47%

1719

**

**

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

63.3

3%19

3054

.55%

611

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y56

.82%

2544

57.8

9%11

19*

**

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y50

.00%

1428

**

**

**

OG

ILV

IE

OG

ILV

IE E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y10

0.00

%19

19*

**

**

*O

WA

TON

NA

W

ILS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

47.8

3%22

4633

.33%

618

36.3

6%4

11R

OB

BIN

SD

ALE

N

EIL

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y79

.31%

2329

**

**

**

RO

CH

ES

TER

R

IVE

RS

IDE

CE

NTR

AL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

76.9

2%40

5278

.95%

1519

**

*S

OU

TH K

OO

CH

ICH

ING

IN

DU

S E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

SP

RIN

G L

AK

E P

AR

K

WO

OD

CR

ES

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y72

.73%

1622

81.8

2%9

11*

**

ST.

CLO

UD

D

ISC

OV

ER

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y60

.38%

3253

38.4

6%5

13*

**

ST.

PA

UL

CR

OS

SR

OA

DS

SC

IEN

CE

PR

OG

RA

M63

.89%

2336

72.7

3%16

22*

**

ST.

PA

UL

FAR

NS

WO

RTH

AE

RO

SP

AC

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y64

.41%

3859

59.1

8%29

49*

**

ST.

PA

UL

HA

NC

OC

K/H

AM

LIN

E M

AG

NE

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y60

.66%

3761

60.7

8%31

51*

**

ST.

PA

UL

PA

UL

& S

HE

ILA

WE

LLS

TON

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y31

.11%

1445

34.3

8%11

32*

**

R2B

3

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 1

- G

ates

-Mac

Gin

itie

Wor

d D

ecod

ing

by S

choo

l D

isag

greg

ated

by

Pove

rty,

Lim

ited

Engl

ish

Prof

icie

ncy,

and

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n C

ateg

orie

s Pa

ssin

g >=

41 N

orm

al C

urve

Equ

ival

ents

43



F

ree

and

Red

uced

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Pric

e Lu

nch

P

rofic

ienc

y

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n D

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y58

.06%

1831

**

**

**

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y60

.61%

2033

69.2

3%18

26*

**

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y85

.29%

2934

**

*72

.73%

811

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y76

.09%

3546

**

**

**

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y63

.83%

3047

**

**

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y28

.26%

1346

24.1

4%7

29*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

60.0

0%12

20*

**

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

35.1

9%19

5435

.00%

720

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y44

.64%

2556

40.9

1%9

22*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T65

.22%

1523

50.0

0%6

12*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

41.9

4%13

3145

.45%

511

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y51

.28%

2039

38.8

9%7

18*

**

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y67

.65%

2334

**

**

**

OG

ILV

IE

OG

ILV

IE E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y68

.42%

1319

**

**

**

OW

ATO

NN

A

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y42

.11%

1638

**

*38

.46%

513

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

52.6

3%20

38*

**

**

*R

OC

HE

STE

R

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y73

.33%

3345

68.1

8%15

22*

**

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

65.6

3%21

3253

.33%

815

**

*S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

45.0

0%18

4042

.11%

819

27.7

8%5

18S

T. P

AU

LC

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

48.1

5%13

2740

.00%

615

**

*S

T. P

AU

LFA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

62.2

2%28

4563

.89%

2336

**

*S

T. P

AU

LH

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

44.3

0%35

7947

.06%

3268

**

*S

T. P

AU

LP

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

40.3

5%23

5733

.33%

1339

**

*

R2B

4

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 2

- G

ates

-Mac

Gin

itie

Wor

d D

ecod

ing

by S

choo

l D

isag

greg

ated

by

Pove

rty,

Lim

ited

Engl

ish

Prof

icie

ncy,

and

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n C

ateg

orie

s Pa

ssin

g >=

41 N

orm

al C

urve

Equ

ival

ents

44



F

ree

and

Red

uced

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Pric

e Lu

nch

P

rofic

ienc

y

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n D

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y80

.56%

2936

78.9

5%15

19*

**

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y71

.88%

2332

75.0

0%21

28*

**

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y72

.73%

3244

**

**

**

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y68

.57%

4870

**

*64

.29%

914

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y64

.10%

2539

**

**

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y44

.68%

2147

40.0

0%12

30*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

63.3

3%19

30*

**

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

48.7

8%20

4161

.11%

1118

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y41

.94%

2662

26.9

2%7

26*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T73

.91%

1723

66.6

7%8

12*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

86.6

7%26

3090

.91%

1011

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y58

.14%

2543

63.1

6%12

19*

**

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y53

.57%

1528

**

**

**

OG

ILV

IE

OG

ILV

IE E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y78

.95%

1519

**

**

**

OW

ATO

NN

A

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y63

.04%

2946

50.0

0%9

1836

.36%

411

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

79.3

1%23

29*

**

**

*R

OC

HE

STE

R

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y76

.92%

4052

63.1

6%12

19*

**

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

86.3

6%19

2290

.91%

1011

**

*S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

64.1

5%34

5346

.15%

613

**

*S

T. P

AU

LC

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

54.2

9%19

3559

.09%

1322

**

*S

T. P

AU

LFA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

70.6

9%41

5870

.83%

3448

**

*S

T. P

AU

LH

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

56.6

7%34

6059

.62%

3152

**

*S

T. P

AU

LP

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

34.8

8%15

4338

.71%

1231

**

*

R2B

5

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 1

- D

eno'

s O

ral F

luen

cy b

y Sc

hool

D

isag

greg

ated

by

Pove

rty,

Lim

ited

Engl

ish

Prof

icie

ncy,

and

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n C

ateg

orie

s Pa

ssin

g >=

40 W

ords

Cor

rect

Per

Min

ute

45



F

ree

and

Red

uced

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Pric

e Lu

nch

P

rofic

ienc

y

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n D

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y74

.19%

2331

**

**

**

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y73

.53%

2534

62.9

6%17

27*

**

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y77

.78%

2836

**

*58

.33%

712

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y91

.30%

4246

**

**

**

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y70

.21%

3347

**

**

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y58

.70%

2746

51.7

2%15

29*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

90.0

0%18

20*

**

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

47.2

7%26

5547

.62%

1021

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y54

.39%

3157

54.5

5%12

2241

.67%

512

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T77

.78%

2127

73.3

3%11

15*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

64.5

2%20

3190

.91%

1011

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y69

.23%

2739

72.2

2%13

18*

**

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y67

.65%

2334

**

**

**

OG

ILV

IE

OG

ILV

IE E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y63

.16%

1219

**

**

**

OW

ATO

NN

A

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y57

.89%

2238

**

*46

.15%

613

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

65.7

9%25

38*

**

**

*R

OC

HE

STE

R

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y77

.78%

3545

77.2

7%17

22*

**

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

66.6

7%22

3366

.67%

1015

54.5

5%6

11S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

57.5

0%23

4050

.00%

918

36.8

4%7

19S

T. P

AU

LC

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

64.2

9%18

2866

.67%

1015

**

*S

T. P

AU

LFA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

73.3

3%33

4575

.00%

2736

**

*S

T. P

AU

LH

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

62.0

3%49

7967

.65%

4668

**

*S

T. P

AU

LP

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

47.2

7%26

5547

.22%

1736

**

*

R2B

6

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 2

- D

eno'

s O

ral F

luen

cy b

y Sc

hool

D

isag

greg

ated

by

Pove

rty,

Lim

ited

Engl

ish

Prof

icie

ncy,

and

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n C

ateg

orie

s Pa

ssin

g >=

75 W

ords

Cor

rect

Per

Min

ute

46



F

ree

and

Red

uced

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Pric

e Lu

nch

P

rofic

ienc

y

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n D

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

70.0

0%14

20*

**

**

*A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

IN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y71

.88%

2332

66.6

7%16

2483

.33%

1012

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y76

.74%

3343

**

**

**

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

86.4

4%51

59*

**

56.2

5%9

16M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

AN

CR

OFT

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

69.2

3%27

3957

.89%

1119

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

B

ETH

UN

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y82

.61%

1923

**

**

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

SJE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

53.1

9%25

4766

.67%

1015

18.1

8%2

11M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

RA

MS

EY

FIN

E A

RTS

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

74.2

4%49

6671

.43%

2535

50.0

0%8

16M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T68

.97%

2029

62.5

0%10

16*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

SS

HIN

GLE

CR

EE

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y79

.41%

2734

**

**

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

SW

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y66

.67%

2842

93.3

3%14

15*

**

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y76

.32%

2938

**

*63

.64%

711

OG

ILV

IEO

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

68.7

5%11

16*

**

**

*O

WA

TON

NA

W

ILS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

63.3

3%19

30*

**

**

*R

OB

BIN

SD

ALE

N

EIL

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y78

.38%

2937

**

**

**

RO

CH

ES

TER

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y67

.57%

2537

73.3

3%11

15*

**

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

88.4

6%23

2687

.50%

1416

**

*S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

66.6

7%36

5469

.23%

913

58.8

2%10

17S

T. P

AU

L C

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

79.4

1%27

3488

.24%

1517

**

*S

T. P

AU

L FA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

90.6

3%58

6490

.20%

4651

**

*S

T. P

AU

L H

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

83.3

3%50

6083

.02%

4453

**

*S

T. P

AU

L P

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

50.9

8%26

5148

.57%

1735

**

*

R2B

7

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 3

- D

eno'

s O

ral F

luen

cy b

y Sc

hool

D

isag

greg

ated

by

Pove

rty,

Lim

ited

Engl

ish

Prof

icie

ncy,

and

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n C

ateg

orie

s Pa

ssin

g >=

95 W

ords

Cor

rect

Per

Min

ute

47



F

ree

and

Red

uced

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Pric

e Lu

nch

P

rofic

ienc

y

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n D

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y61

.29%

1931

**

**

**

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y63

.64%

2133

61.5

4%16

26*

**

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y76

.47%

2634

**

*54

.55%

611

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y71

.74%

3346

**

**

**

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y61

.70%

2947

**

**

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y30

.43%

1446

24.1

4%7

29*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

65.0

0%13

20*

**

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

35.1

9%19

5430

.00%

620

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y41

.07%

2356

40.9

1%9

22*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T65

.22%

1523

58.3

3%7

12*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

32.2

6%10

3127

.27%

311

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y51

.28%

2039

27.7

8%5

18*

**

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y52

.94%

1834

**

**

**

OG

ILV

IE

OG

ILV

IE E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y63

.16%

1219

**

**

**

OW

ATO

NN

A

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y55

.26%

2138

**

*46

.15%

613

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

44.7

4%17

38*

**

**

*R

OC

HE

STE

R

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y66

.67%

3045

59.0

9%13

22*

**

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

56.2

5%18

3220

.00%

315

**

*S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

50.0

0%20

4036

.84%

719

33.3

3%6

18S

T. P

AU

LC

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

64.2

9%18

2860

.00%

915

**

*S

T. P

AU

LFA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

55.5

6%25

4555

.56%

2036

**

*S

T. P

AU

LH

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

43.0

4%34

7947

.06%

3268

**

*S

T. P

AU

LP

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

29.8

2%17

5720

.51%

839

**

*

R2B

8

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 2

- G

ates

-Mac

Gin

itie

Wor

d K

now

ledg

e by

Sch

ool

Dis

aggr

egat

ed b

y Po

vert

y, L

imite

d En

glis

h Pr

ofic

ienc

y, a

nd S

peci

al E

duca

tion

Cat

egor

ies

Pass

ing

>=41

Nor

mal

Cur

ve E

quiv

alen

ts

48



Fre

e an

d R

educ

ed

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Pric

e Lu

nch

Prof

icie

ncy

S

peci

al E

duca

tion

Dis

tric

t Sc

hool

%

Pas

s#

Pass

Tota

l %

Pas

s#

Pass

Tota

l %

Pas

s#

Pass

Tota

lA

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

INU

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y61

.90%

1321

**

**

**

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

W

ILS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

46.8

8%15

3232

.00%

825

53.8

5%7

13A

US

TIN

N

EV

ELN

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

56.8

2%25

44*

**

**

*C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

AC

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y72

.13%

4461

**

*52

.94%

917

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y55

.00%

2240

36.8

4%7

19*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

69.5

7%16

23*

**

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JEN

NY

LIN

D E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y40

.82%

2049

26.6

7%4

1515

.38%

213

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

SR

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y56

.06%

3766

52.7

8%19

3637

.50%

616

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

SR

ISE

N C

HR

IST

55.1

7%16

2937

.50%

616

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

38.2

4%13

34*

**

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

WA

ITE

PA

RK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

44.1

9%19

4346

.67%

715

**

*N

OR

TH S

T P

AU

LR

ICH

AR

DS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

61.5

4%24

39*

**

45.4

5%5

11O

GIL

VIE

OG

ILV

IE E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y87

.50%

1416

**

**

**

OW

ATO

NN

A

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y50

.00%

1530

**

**

**

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

74.3

6%29

39*

**

**

*R

OC

HE

STE

RR

IVE

RS

IDE

CE

NTR

AL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

65.7

9%25

3840

.00%

615

**

*S

OU

TH K

OO

CH

ICH

ING

IN

DU

S E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

SP

RIN

G L

AK

E P

AR

K

WO

OD

CR

ES

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y65

.38%

1726

68.7

5%11

16*

**

ST.

CLO

UD

D

ISC

OV

ER

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y55

.56%

3054

50.0

0%7

1429

.41%

517

ST.

PA

UL

CR

OS

SR

OA

DS

SC

IEN

CE

PR

OG

RA

M61

.76%

2134

72.2

2%13

18*

**

ST.

PA

UL

FAR

NS

WO

RTH

AE

RO

SP

AC

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y75

.00%

5168

75.9

3%41

54*

**

ST.

PA

UL

HA

NC

OC

K/H

AM

LIN

E M

AG

NE

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y36

.67%

2260

32.0

8%17

53*

**

ST.

PA

UL

PA

UL

& S

HE

ILA

WE

LLS

TON

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y30

.77%

1652

27.7

8%10

36*

**

R2B

9

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

Gra

de 3

- M

inne

sota

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

sses

smen

t II b

y Sc

hool

D

isag

greg

ated

by

Pove

rty,

Lim

ited

Engl

ish

Prof

icie

ncy,

and

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n C

ateg

orie

s Pa

ssin

g >=

3 A

chie

vem

ent L

evel

49



50



APPENDIX C

DATA REPORTS FOR RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUPS


51



52








53



54



N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

A

sian

H

ispa

nic

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

Cau

casi

anD

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*72

.73%

811

78.5

7%11

1484

.31%

4351

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

76.9

2%10

13*

**

**

*79

.63%

4354

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*75

.00%

912

**

*83

.10%

5971

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y56

.72%

3867

**

**

**

**

*83

.33%

1012

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*53

.33%

815

**

*76

.19%

4863

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*42

.86%

1228

50.0

0%8

16*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*48

.00%

1225

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*44

.44%

818

**

*34

.62%

926

63.6

4%7

11M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*37

.93%

1129

38.7

1%12

3179

.31%

2329

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T*

**

**

**

**

92.8

6%13

14*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*75

.00%

912

**

*78

.57%

1114

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*55

.56%

1018

45.4

5%5

1169

.23%

1826

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*74

.36%

2939

OG

ILV

IEO

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

87.1

0%27

31O

WA

TON

NA

W

ILS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

45.0

0%9

20*

**

63.4

6%33

52R

OB

BIN

SD

ALE

N

EIL

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

80.0

0%16

2092

.59%

2527

RO

CH

ES

TER

R

IVE

RS

IDE

CE

NTR

AL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

63.6

4%7

1162

.50%

1016

79.2

5%42

53S

OU

TH K

OO

CH

ICH

ING

IN

DU

S E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

SP

RIN

G L

AK

E P

AR

K

WO

OD

CR

ES

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

92.8

6%13

14*

**

**

*89

.86%

6269

ST.

CLO

UD

D

ISC

OV

ER

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

50.0

0%7

1466

.04%

3553

ST.

PA

UL

CR

OS

SR

OA

DS

SC

IEN

CE

PR

OG

RA

M*

**

71.4

3%10

14*

**

63.1

6%12

19*

**

ST.

PA

UL

FAR

NS

WO

RTH

AE

RO

SP

AC

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

68.1

8%30

44*

**

**

*77

.78%

1418

ST.

PA

UL

HA

NC

OC

K/H

AM

LIN

E M

AG

NE

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

62.5

0%20

32*

**

48.0

0%12

25*

**

ST.

PA

UL

PA

UL

& S

HE

ILA

WE

LLS

TON

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*33

.33%

721

23.5

3%4

17*

**

R2C

1

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

G

rade

1 -

Gat

es-M

acG

initi

e C

ompr

ehen

sion

by

Scho

ol

Dis

aggr

egat

ed b

y R

acia

l/Eth

nic

Cat

egor

ies

Pass

ing>

=41

Nor

mal

Cur

ve E

quiv

alen

ts

55



N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

A

sian

His

pani

c A

fric

an A

mer

ican

Cau

casi

anD

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*80

.70%

4657

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*79

.27%

6582

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*85

.19%

4654

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y75

.93%

4154

**

**

**

**

**

**

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*47

.37%

919

**

*79

.69%

5164

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*34

.48%

1029

75.0

0%12

16*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*58

.82%

1017

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*43

.48%

1023

**

*31

.25%

1032

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*43

.48%

1023

45.7

1%16

3591

.67%

2224

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T*

**

**

**

**

83.3

3%15

18*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*16

.67%

318

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*25

.00%

416

**

*91

.30%

2123

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

40.0

0%6

15*

**

**

*70

.00%

2130

OG

ILV

IEO

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

72.4

1%21

29O

WA

TON

NA

W

ILS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

63.6

4%7

11*

**

63.3

3%38

60R

OB

BIN

SD

ALE

N

EIL

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

45.8

3%11

2483

.72%

3643

RO

CH

ES

TER

R

IVE

RS

IDE

CE

NTR

AL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*75

.00%

912

**

*66

.67%

812

92.0

0%46

50S

OU

TH K

OO

CH

ICH

ING

IN

DU

S E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*10

0.00

%12

12S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*72

.22%

1318

**

**

**

86.2

5%69

80S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

36.3

6%4

11*

**

60.7

8%31

51S

T. P

AU

L C

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

**

**

**

**

*64

.29%

914

88.2

4%15

17S

T. P

AU

L FA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*54

.55%

1833

**

**

**

84.2

1%16

19S

T. P

AU

L H

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*52

.17%

2446

**

*58

.62%

1729

58.3

3%7

12S

T. P

AU

L P

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

34.7

8%8

2333

.33%

721

**

*

R2C

2

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

G

rade

2 -

Gat

es-M

acG

initi

e C

ompr

ehen

sion

by

Scho

ol

Dis

aggr

egat

ed b

y R

acia

l/Eth

nic

Cat

egor

ies

Pass

ing>

=41

Nor

mal

Cur

ve E

quiv

alen

ts

56



N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

A

sian

H

ispa

nic

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

Cau

casi

anD

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*81

.82%

911

85.7

1%12

1492

.16%

4751

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

84.6

2%11

13*

**

**

*87

.04%

4754

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*91

.67%

1112

**

*94

.37%

6771

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y77

.61%

5267

**

**

**

**

*83

.33%

1012

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*53

.33%

815

**

*69

.84%

4463

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*39

.29%

1128

56.2

5%9

16*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*68

.00%

1725

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*40

.00%

820

**

*44

.00%

1125

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*31

.03%

929

64.5

2%20

3189

.66%

2629

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T*

**

**

**

**

92.8

6%13

14*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*66

.67%

812

**

*64

.29%

914

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*55

.56%

1018

45.4

5%5

1173

.08%

1926

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*74

.36%

2939

OG

ILV

IEO

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

100.

00%

3131

OW

ATO

NN

A

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*40

.00%

820

**

*71

.15%

3752

RO

BB

INS

DA

LE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*80

.00%

1620

88.8

9%24

27R

OC

HE

STE

R

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*83

.33%

1012

68.7

5%11

1680

.77%

4252

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

G

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

*S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*92

.86%

1314

**

**

**

86.9

6%60

69S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*57

.14%

814

75.4

7%40

53S

T. P

AU

L C

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

**

*78

.57%

1114

**

*68

.42%

1319

**

*S

T. P

AU

L FA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*63

.64%

2844

**

**

**

72.2

2%13

18S

T. P

AU

L H

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*65

.63%

2132

**

*64

.00%

1625

**

*S

T. P

AU

L P

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

28.5

7%6

2141

.18%

717

**

*

R2C

3

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

G

rade

1 -

Gat

es-M

acG

initi

e W

ord

Dec

odin

g by

Sch

ool

Dis

aggr

egat

ed b

y R

acia

l/Eth

nic

Cat

egor

ies

Pass

ing>

=41

Nor

mal

Cur

ve E

quiv

alen

ts

57



N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

A

sian

His

pani

c A

fric

an A

mer

ican

Cau

casi

anD

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*73

.68%

4257

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*81

.71%

6782

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*87

.04%

4754

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y79

.63%

4354

**

**

**

**

**

**

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*68

.42%

1319

**

*75

.00%

4864

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*17

.24%

529

58.8

2%10

17*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*64

.71%

1117

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*31

.82%

722

**

*28

.13%

932

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*43

.48%

1023

45.7

1%16

3587

.50%

2124

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T*

**

**

**

**

83.3

3%15

18*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*38

.89%

718

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*18

.75%

316

**

*82

.61%

1923

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

46.6

7%7

15*

**

**

*63

.33%

1930

OG

ILV

IEO

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

79.3

1%23

29O

WA

TON

NA

W

ILS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

36.3

6%4

11*

**

58.3

3%35

60R

OB

BIN

SD

ALE

N

EIL

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

45.8

3%11

2481

.40%

3543

RO

CH

ES

TER

R

IVE

RS

IDE

CE

NTR

AL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*83

.33%

1012

**

*66

.67%

812

90.0

0%45

50S

OU

TH K

OO

CH

ICH

ING

IN

DU

S E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*10

0.00

%12

12S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*77

.78%

1418

**

**

**

80.0

0%64

80S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

45.4

5%5

11*

**

64.7

1%33

51S

T. P

AU

L C

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

**

**

**

**

*53

.85%

713

88.2

4%15

17S

T. P

AU

L FA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*60

.61%

2033

**

**

**

78.9

5%15

19S

T. P

AU

L H

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*47

.83%

2246

**

*55

.17%

1629

58.3

3%7

12S

T. P

AU

L P

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

30.4

3%7

2347

.62%

1021

**

*

R2C

4

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

G

rade

2 -

Gat

es-M

acG

initi

e W

ord

Dec

odin

g by

Sch

ool

Dis

aggr

egat

ed b

y R

acia

l/Eth

nic

Cat

egor

ies

Pass

ing>

=41

Nor

mal

Cur

ve E

quiv

alen

ts

58



N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

A

sian

H

ispa

nic

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

Cau

casi

anD

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*81

.82%

911

71.4

3%10

1490

.20%

4651

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

76.9

2%10

13*

**

**

*81

.48%

4454

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*58

.33%

712

**

*90

.14%

6471

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y69

.44%

5072

**

**

**

**

*83

.33%

1012

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*73

.33%

1115

**

*77

.42%

4862

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*39

.29%

1128

68.7

5%11

16*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*60

.00%

1525

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*65

.00%

1320

**

*44

.00%

1125

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*34

.48%

1029

51.6

1%16

3179

.31%

2329

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T*

**

**

*63

.64%

711

81.2

5%13

16*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*91

.67%

1112

**

*78

.57%

1114

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*61

.11%

1118

**

*73

.08%

1926

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*68

.42%

2638

OG

ILV

IEO

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

83.8

7%26

31O

WA

TON

NA

W

ILS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

61.9

0%13

21*

**

70.5

9%36

51R

OB

BIN

SD

ALE

N

EIL

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

80.0

0%16

2096

.30%

2627

RO

CH

ES

TER

R

IVE

RS

IDE

CE

NTR

AL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

66.6

7%8

1275

.00%

1216

81.1

3%43

53S

OU

TH K

OO

CH

ICH

ING

IN

DU

S E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

SP

RIN

G L

AK

E P

AR

K

WO

OD

CR

ES

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

92.8

6%13

14*

**

**

*88

.41%

6169

ST.

CLO

UD

D

ISC

OV

ER

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

57.1

4%8

1479

.25%

4253

ST.

PA

UL

CR

OS

SR

OA

DS

SC

IEN

CE

PR

OG

RA

M*

**

71.4

3%10

14*

**

61.1

1%11

18*

**

ST.

PA

UL

FAR

NS

WO

RTH

AE

RO

SP

AC

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

76.7

4%33

43*

**

**

*64

.71%

1117

ST.

PA

UL

HA

NC

OC

K/H

AM

LIN

E M

AG

NE

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

63.6

4%21

33*

**

62.5

0%15

24*

**

ST.

PA

UL

PA

UL

& S

HE

ILA

WE

LLS

TON

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*36

.84%

719

35.2

9%6

17*

**

R2C

5

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

G

rade

1 -

Den

o's

Ora

l Flu

ency

by

Scho

ol

Dis

aggr

egat

ed b

y R

acia

l/Eth

nic

Cat

egor

ies

Pas

sing

>=40

Wor

ds C

orre

ct P

er M

inut

e

59



N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

A

sian

H

ispa

nic

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

Cau

casi

anD

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*89

.47%

5157

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*81

.71%

6782

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*85

.19%

4654

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y92

.59%

5054

**

**

**

**

**

**

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*73

.68%

1419

**

*79

.69%

5164

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*48

.28%

1429

88.2

4%15

17*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*88

.24%

1517

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*50

.00%

1224

**

*43

.75%

1432

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*47

.83%

1123

59.4

6%22

3788

.00%

2225

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T*

**

**

*81

.82%

911

85.0

0%17

20*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*50

.00%

918

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*68

.75%

1116

**

*87

.50%

2124

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

80.0

0%12

15*

**

**

*70

.00%

2130

OG

ILV

IEO

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

72.4

1%21

29O

WA

TON

NA

W

ILS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

45.4

5%5

11*

**

73.3

3%44

60R

OB

BIN

SD

ALE

N

EIL

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

62.5

0%15

2481

.40%

3543

RO

CH

ES

TER

R

IVE

RS

IDE

CE

NTR

AL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*91

.67%

1112

**

*66

.67%

812

94.0

0%47

50S

OU

TH K

OO

CH

ICH

ING

IN

DU

S E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*10

0.00

%12

12S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*83

.33%

1518

**

**

**

92.5

9%75

81S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

69.2

3%36

52S

T. P

AU

L C

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

**

**

**

**

*71

.43%

1014

70.5

9%12

17S

T. P

AU

L FA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*72

.73%

2433

**

**

**

84.2

1%16

19S

T. P

AU

L H

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*71

.74%

3346

**

*62

.07%

1829

66.6

7%8

12S

T. P

AU

L P

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

55.0

0%11

2047

.62%

1021

**

*

R2C

6

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

G

rade

2 -

Den

o's

Ora

l Flu

ency

by

Scho

ol

Dis

aggr

egat

ed b

y R

acia

l/Eth

nic

Cat

egor

ies

Pass

ing>

=75

Wor

ds C

orre

ct P

er M

inut

e

60



N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

A

sian

H

ispa

nic

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

Cau

casi

anD

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

86.2

7%44

51A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

IN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*89

.47%

5157

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*83

.33%

1012

**

*81

.36%

4859

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y86

.36%

5766

**

**

**

**

**

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*52

.63%

1019

83.3

3%10

1291

.67%

1112

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*80

.95%

1721

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*70

.59%

1217

**

*51

.61%

1631

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*68

.57%

2435

77.1

4%27

3592

.00%

2325

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T*

**

**

*60

.00%

915

78.5

7%11

14*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*70

.83%

1724

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*89

.47%

1719

42.8

6%6

1489

.66%

2629

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

50.0

0%7

1485

.11%

4047

OG

ILV

IE

OG

ILV

IE E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*83

.33%

3036

OW

ATO

NN

A

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*87

.72%

5057

RO

BB

INS

DA

LEN

EIL

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

75.0

0%15

2095

.24%

4042

RO

CH

ES

TER

RIV

ER

SID

E C

EN

TRA

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

83.3

3%10

12*

**

75.0

0%9

1284

.13%

5363

SO

UTH

KO

OC

HIC

HIN

GIN

DU

S E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

SP

RIN

G L

AK

E P

AR

K

WO

OD

CR

ES

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

88.2

4%15

1710

0.00

%16

1683

.33%

1012

94.1

2%64

68S

T. C

LOU

DD

ISC

OV

ER

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*80

.33%

4961

ST.

PA

UL

CR

OS

SR

OA

DS

SC

IEN

CE

PR

OG

RA

M*

**

83.3

3%10

12*

**

58.8

2%10

1788

.24%

1517

ST.

PA

UL

FAR

NS

WO

RTH

AE

RO

SP

AC

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

90.0

0%36

4090

.91%

1011

94.1

2%16

1784

.62%

1113

ST.

PA

UL

HA

NC

OC

K/H

AM

LIN

E M

AG

NE

T E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

78.3

8%29

37*

**

94.7

4%18

19*

**

ST.

PA

UL

PA

UL

& S

HE

ILA

WE

LLS

TON

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*52

.17%

1223

50.0

0%12

24*

**

R2C

7

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

G

rade

3 -

Den

o's

Ora

l Flu

ency

by

Scho

ol

Dis

aggr

egat

ed b

y R

acia

l/Eth

nic

Cat

egor

ies

Pass

ing>

=95

Wor

ds C

orre

ct P

er M

inut

e

61



N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

A

sian

His

pani

c A

fric

an A

mer

ican

Cau

casi

anD

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*82

.46%

4757

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*82

.93%

6882

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*83

.33%

4554

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y77

.78%

4254

**

**

**

**

**

**

CR

OO

KS

TON

W

AS

HIN

GTO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*57

.89%

1119

**

*78

.13%

5064

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*24

.14%

729

64.7

1%11

17*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*70

.59%

1217

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*26

.09%

623

**

*34

.38%

1132

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*39

.13%

923

45.7

1%16

3591

.67%

2224

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

RIS

EN

CH

RIS

T*

**

**

**

**

61.1

1%11

18*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

SH

ING

LE C

RE

EK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*33

.33%

618

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

W

AIT

E P

AR

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*12

.50%

216

**

*86

.96%

2023

NO

RTH

ST

PA

UL

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

33.3

3%5

15*

**

**

*73

.33%

2230

OG

ILV

IEO

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

75.8

6%22

29O

WA

TON

NA

W

ILS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

45.4

5%5

11*

**

66.6

7%40

60R

OB

BIN

SD

ALE

N

EIL

L E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

41.6

7%10

2483

.72%

3643

RO

CH

ES

TER

R

IVE

RS

IDE

CE

NTR

AL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*75

.00%

912

**

*50

.00%

612

94.0

0%47

50S

OU

TH K

OO

CH

ICH

ING

IN

DU

S E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*10

0.00

%12

12S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*44

.44%

818

**

**

**

88.7

5%71

80S

T. C

LOU

D

DIS

CO

VE

RY

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

36.3

6%4

11*

**

70.5

9%36

51S

T. P

AU

L C

RO

SS

RO

AD

S S

CIE

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

**

**

**

**

*71

.43%

1014

94.1

2%16

17S

T. P

AU

L FA

RN

SW

OR

TH A

ER

OS

PA

CE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*51

.52%

1733

**

**

**

84.2

1%16

19S

T. P

AU

L H

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*43

.48%

2046

**

*62

.07%

1829

58.3

3%7

12S

T. P

AU

L P

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

17.3

9%4

2328

.57%

621

**

*

R2C

8

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

G

rade

2 -

Gat

es-M

acG

initi

e W

ord

Kno

wle

dge

by S

choo

l D

isag

greg

ated

by

Rac

ial/E

thni

c C

ateg

orie

sPa

ssin

g>=4

1 N

orm

al C

urve

Equ

ival

ents

62



N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

A

sian

H

ispa

nic

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

Cau

casi

anD

istr

ict

Scho

ol

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

% P

ass

# Pa

ssTo

tal

AN

OK

A-H

EN

NE

PIN

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

88.2

4%45

51A

NO

KA

-HE

NN

EP

IN

WIL

SO

N E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*81

.03%

4758

AU

STI

N

NE

VE

LN E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*50

.00%

612

**

*70

.00%

4260

CA

SS

LA

KE

-BE

NA

C

AS

S L

AK

E-B

EN

A E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y72

.06%

4968

**

**

**

**

**

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BA

NC

RO

FT E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*26

.32%

519

73.3

3%11

1590

.91%

1011

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

BE

THU

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*66

.67%

1421

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

JE

NN

Y L

IND

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*41

.18%

717

**

*42

.42%

1433

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

R

AM

SE

Y F

INE

AR

TS E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

*52

.78%

1936

60.0

0%21

3584

.00%

2125

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

SR

ISE

N C

HR

IST

**

**

**

46.6

7%7

1566

.67%

1015

**

*M

INN

EA

PO

LIS

S

HIN

GLE

CR

EE

K E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

37.5

0%9

24*

**

MIN

NE

AP

OLI

S

WA

ITE

PA

RK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

47.3

7%9

1913

.33%

215

93.1

0%27

29N

OR

TH S

T P

AU

LR

ICH

AR

DS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*42

.86%

614

82.9

8%39

47O

GIL

VIE

O

GIL

VIE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

86.1

1%31

36O

WA

TON

NA

W

ILS

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

81.0

3%47

58R

OB

BIN

SD

ALE

NE

ILL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

*77

.27%

1722

88.1

0%37

42R

OC

HE

STE

RR

IVE

RS

IDE

CE

NTR

AL

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*66

.67%

812

**

*66

.67%

812

87.5

0%56

64S

OU

TH K

OO

CH

ICH

ING

IND

US

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

*S

PR

ING

LA

KE

PA

RK

W

OO

DC

RE

ST

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*82

.35%

1417

81.2

5%13

1675

.00%

912

85.2

9%58

68S

T. C

LOU

DD

ISC

OV

ER

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

**

**

**

**

*73

.77%

4561

ST.

PA

UL

CR

OS

SR

OA

DS

SC

IEN

CE

PR

OG

RA

M*

**

61.5

4%8

13*

**

52.9

4%9

1794

.44%

1718

ST.

PA

UL

FAR

NS

WO

RTH

AE

RO

SP

AC

E E

LEM

EN

TAR

Y*

**

69.0

5%29

4210

0.00

%12

1264

.71%

1117

92.8

6%13

14S

T. P

AU

L H

AN

CO

CK

/HA

MLI

NE

MA

GN

ET

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

*27

.03%

1037

**

*52

.63%

1019

**

*S

T. P

AU

L P

AU

L &

SH

EIL

A W

ELL

STO

NE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

**

**

**

25.0

0%6

2437

.50%

924

**

*

R2C

9

Min

neso

ta R

eadi

ng F

irst P

rogr

am 2

007

- Rou

nd 2

Sch

ools

G

rade

3 -

Min

neso

ta C

ompr

ehen

sive

Ass

essm

ent I

ID

isag

greg

ated

by

Rac

ial/E

thni

c C

ateg

orie

sPa

ssin

g>=3

Ach

ieve

men

t Lev

el

63



Documents

Minnesota Reading First Program 2006 – 2007 · Minnesota Reading First Program 2006 – 2007 ... and comprehension instructional strategies were discussed. ... South Koochiching/Rainy