2002 – 2006

U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

Prepared by American Institutes for Research

Reading First APR Data (2003-2006): Cohort 1 Schools Only The attached information provides Reading First Annual Performance Report (APR) data submitted by the 54 SEAs that have received Reading First funding. Data are reported for: • fluency and comprehension measures • grades 1-3 • subgroups: o All Students o Economically Disadvantaged Students o English Language Learners o Students with Disabilities o Racial categories White Students African American Students Hispanic Students Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Students American Indian/Alaska Native Students

Notes about the Data The figures included in these reports are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. • Proficiency Rates: The reported percent proficient is determined by a state's benchmark on a given assessment. • Benchmarks: States that have changed assessment benchmarks to determine proficiency have been noted in the State Data Tables. • Cohort 1: These figures include data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of a state’s subgrant awards. For example, if a state first awarded subgrants in 2004, all schools that received funding in 2004 would be considered Cohort 1. • Baseline Data: Baseline data may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. • Missing Data: The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. • Racial Categories: Although data may be collected separately for Asian and Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Students, for the purpose of these summaries the data have been combined. This is also the case for American Indian and Alaska Native Students. • Rounding Error: There is a rounding error of +/- 0.1 points.

i

American Institutes for Research

®

State Data Tables The state data tables show the percent proficient for each state for each subgroup from baseline to 2006. The tables also show the percent of LEAs showing improvement in proficiency. • Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. • “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer. • If a state had five or fewer LEAs, the number of LEAs showing improvement and the total number of LEAs are shown [e.g. 33.3% (1 of 3)]. • “N/A” indicates an assessment was not administered. • “X” indicates either information was not provided, or the number proficient and number tested were both zero. • If a state provided data for multiple fluency and/or comprehension assessments for a given grade, multiple sheets were created.

ii

American Institutes for Research

®

Table of Contents

Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas Bureau of Indian Affairs California Colorado Connecticut District of Columbia Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi

1 5 9 13 19 23 27 31 35 39 43 47 51 55 61 65 69 73 77 83 87 91 95 99 105 109 113

Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

119 123 127 131 137 141 145 149 153 159 163 169 173 177 181 185 191 197 201 205 209 213 217 221 225 229 233

iii

American Institutes for Research

®

Alabama
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 2: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 3: SAT-10 Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X 35.6 2004 50.5 47.9 44.0 2005 59.0 50.4 50.0 2006 61.0 52.6 49.5

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 62.5 51.5 51.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X 33.2 48.4 44.3 41.3 56.6 47.6 47.5 59.1 50.2 47.1 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X 13.9 26.9 19.8 14.8 32.2 18.6 15.8 33.5 20.9 17.6 X X 26.1 X X X X X X 66.7 52.9 35.0

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued.

1

American Institutes for Research

®

Alabama
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 2: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 3: SAT-10 Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X 51.3 58.7 63.0 61.8 66.4 69.0 64.8 70.9 72.4 66.6 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X 33.3 41.0 53.6 55.6 49.1 26.7 38.7 47.8 42.1 43.6 X X 32.3 48.6 43.7 39.5 56.9 45.5 46.2 58.5 48.1 45.2

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X 22.6 65.2 50.0 55.6 79.3 55.6 66.7 69.0 73.4 53.8

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X X X X X X X

2

American Institutes for Research

®

Alabama
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X 37.8 28.4 2004 57.4 53.4 46.2 2005 73.1 67.9 63.9 2006 76.9 73.3 70.8

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 88.2 97.1 93.1

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 31.2 24.1 14.5 46.1 34.5 24.5 51.2 45.3 35.3 X X X X X X X X X 79.7 87.8 67.8 X X X 56.4 51.5 45.2 72.5 67.3 63.3 77.2 72.6 71.3 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

3

American Institutes for Research

®

Alabama
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 45.5 30.3 52.3 51.7 45.2 54.3 63.5 59.6 52.6 X X X 56.0 51.7 44.2 72.5 67.3 63.7 76.5 72.8 70.4 X X X 60.2 59.1 51.5 76.6 71.0 63.2 78.5 76.2 71.6 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 81.0 63.4 72.9 90.9 81.1 81.8 87.9 93.0 78.9

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X X X X X X X

4

American Institutes for Research

®

Alaska
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Retell Fluency

Proficiency Benchmark
25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 80.7 86.6 78.4 2006 82.3 89.3 79.3

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 33.3 (1 of 3) 33.3 (1 of 3) 0.0 (0 of 3)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 73.7 86.2 83.3 87.3 96.0 77.4 N/A N/A N/A 82.3 74.3 71.4 72.5 80.3 70.2 N/A N/A N/A 79.0 86.3 75.4 77.2 79.2 58.6 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.
®

5

American Institutes for Research

Alaska
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Retell Fluency

Proficiency Benchmark
25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 67.7 84.7 73.0 82.5 87.0 69.0 N/A N/A N/A 78.3 78.9 67.3 57.9 75.4 71.9 N/A N/A N/A 88.9 86.7 91.7 84.9 93.3 63.3 N/A N/A N/A 81.5 88.3 77.3 78.0 79.2 85.4 N/A N/A N/A 84.5 90.8 76.9 86.4 92.7 85.1 2004 2005 2006

6

American Institutes for Research

®

Alaska
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 54.1 40.9 37.2 2005 54.0 46.4 37.6 2006 63.5 57.5 47.5

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 66.7 (2 of 3) 66.7 (2 of 3) 33.3 (1 of 3)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 29.5 11.5 10.4 24.6 17.2 15.0 36.4 22.0 7.6 37.9 43.6 30.0 32.3 43.2 28.6 41.3 35.5 40.3 49.5 34.8 26.1 45.9 38.1 25.1 54.7 48.0 38.6 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

7

American Institutes for Research

®

Alaska
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 43.8 33.3 28.0 35.4 40.0 24.3 51.3 33.7 31.0 66.7 47.1 40.8 28.3 43.7 34.7 38.6 43.5 48.4 48.3 36.7 22.2 63.9 53.3 33.3 54.6 53.3 40.9 61.5 36.7 42.5 61.1 41.7 34.1 69.5 54.2 39.0 57.6 44.9 42.2 65.7 52.6 47.3 72.9 71.5 56.7 2004 2005 2006

8

American Institutes for Research

®

American Samoa
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: SAT-10 Total Reading Not reported Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X 2004 N/A N/A X 2005 N/A N/A X 2006 N/A N/A 0.8

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A N/A

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

9

American Institutes for Research

®

American Samoa
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: SAT-10 Total Reading Not reported Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X

10

American Institutes for Research

®

American Samoa
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 2004 11.7 9.1 9.3 2005 11.6 10.1 12.1 2006 13.6 14.8 22.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 0.0 (0 of 1) 100.0 (1 of 1) 100.0 (1 of 1)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

11

American Institutes for Research

®

American Samoa
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X X X X X X X

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X X X X X X X

12

American Institutes for Research

®

Arizona
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: TerraNova Grade 3: TerraNova 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th

Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 N/A 41.3 X 2006 N/A 42.9 39.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A Not comparable Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X X N/A 40.5 36.3 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 18.5 X N/A 21.1 16.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 24.6 X N/A 30.6 20.5

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

13

American Institutes for Research

®

Arizona
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: TerraNova Grade 3: TerraNova 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th

Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 37.9 X N/A 39.6 34.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 36.3 X N/A 40.9 38.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60.4 X N/A 63.6 61.2 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 59.1 X N/A 58.7 54.8

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 36.3 X N/A 35.0 34.5

14

American Institutes for Research

®

Arizona
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards 431 (Scale score) Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 N/A N/A 51.3 2006 N/A N/A 54.2

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 47.2 N/A N/A 51.7 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 24.9 N/A N/A 23.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 30.4 N/A N/A 33.8

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

15

American Institutes for Research

®

Arizona
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards 431 (Scale score) Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 46.0 N/A N/A 51.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 49.3 N/A N/A 51.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 70.6 N/A N/A 72.3 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 68.4 N/A N/A 70.2

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 45.8 N/A N/A 48.4

16

American Institutes for Research

®

Arizona
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 40.9 31.3 30.5 2005 54.4 46.1 43.8 2006 60.5 50.4 49.2

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 92.3 92.3 96.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 34.3 28.2 26.9 52.0 43.7 41.9 59.5 49.0 47.5 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 26.0 15.6 10.2 33.2 23.2 17.3 43.1 26.4 23.5 N/A N/A N/A 34.2 25.6 22.8 51.1 39.8 37.3 52.2 33.9 30.5

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

17

American Institutes for Research

®

Arizona
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 37.5 29.4 29.5 52.5 43.7 42.8 58.2 47.6 46.4 N/A N/A N/A 41.6 36.0 24.3 54.4 45.0 41.6 61.2 52.2 44.0 N/A N/A N/A 53.2 47.4 40.0 64.6 58.8 54.0 72.4 65.6 61.9 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 59.5 38.2 48.1 70.0 69.6 47.4 72.1 63.1 68.8

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 39.8 25.5 24.2 48.3 35.4 30.5 57.2 48.5 45.4

18

American Institutes for Research

®

Arkansas
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Comprehension Grade 2: ITBS Comprehension Grade 3: ITBS Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 59.4 56.4 49.2 2005 63.1 61.2 55.2 2006 69.7 59.6 55.7

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 84.8 45.5 54.5

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 56.4 53.2 43.6 60.2 57.7 48.6 67.5 55.4 50.8 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 38.3 25.2 16.1 35.0 18.5 10.6 40.5 20.2 14.5 N/A N/A N/A 46.8 47.7 39.6 41.4 36.2 39.7 60.5 39.7 56.8

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

19

American Institutes for Research

®

Arkansas
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Comprehension Grade 2: ITBS Comprehension Grade 3: ITBS Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 43.8 45.9 35.0 45.8 45.9 46.5 61.7 44.1 58.7 N/A N/A N/A 56.0 50.5 38.8 60.5 54.2 43.7 65.9 52.5 44.3 N/A N/A N/A 70.9 70.7 69.1 71.9 76.0 74.3 77.6 74.8 73.7 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 77.8 50.0 60.0 56.5 77.3 73.3 83.3 86.7 75.0

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n 63.6 low n 86.7 low n low n low n

20

American Institutes for Research

®

Arkansas
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 73.5 46.0 58.9 2005 61.4 48.4 40.5 2006 63.1 50.0 42.2

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 20.6 40.6 15.2

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 71.2 42.4 55.5 60.3 46.4 37.1 60.8 45.9 39.8 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 32.3 11.1 15.1 29.1 10.7 8.4 26.3 10.9 9.8 N/A N/A N/A 67.1 41.6 52.5 46.6 45.5 42.9 42.1 24.1 36.6

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

21

American Institutes for Research

®

Arkansas
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 58.8 37.0 52.2 45.8 45.9 44.6 43.4 31.1 39.3 N/A N/A N/A 71.3 41.4 54.7 60.6 42.3 33.5 61.9 45.8 36.7 N/A N/A N/A 80.4 55.5 65.4 66.4 59.0 49.0 70.7 61.3 52.1 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 81.5 78.9 79.2 58.3 72.0 85.7 71.4 70.0 54.2

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n 71.4 low n 63.6 low n

22

American Institutes for Research

®

Bureau of Indian Affairs
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 2: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 3: Stanford-RF Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 57.1 27.5 18.9 2006 65.0 29.3 22.3

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 100.0 (1 of 1) 0.0 (0 of 1) 0.0 (0 of 1)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X 54.1 25.9 4.4 N/A N/A N/A X X X 62.7 27.2 14.6 N/A N/A N/A 57.1 27.5 18.9 65.0 29.3 22.3 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

23

American Institutes for Research

®

Bureau of Indian Affairs
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 2: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 3: Stanford-RF Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 57.1 27.5 18.8 65.0 29.3 22.3 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X N/A N/A N/A X X X X low n X N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X N/A N/A N/A X X X X low n X 2004 2005 2006

24

American Institutes for Research

®

Bureau of Indian Affairs
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A 36.1 25.5 2005 38.0 33.5 26.7 2006 50.7 43.9 41.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 100.0 (1 of 1) 100.0 (1 of 1) 100.0 (1 of 1)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X 27.0 20.0 19.2 N/A N/A N/A X X X 45.1 41.0 36.7 X 36.1 25.5 38.0 33.5 26.7 50.7 43.9 41.0 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

25

American Institutes for Research

®

Bureau of Indian Affairs
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 36.1 25.5 38.0 33.5 26.7 50.7 43.9 41.0 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X N/A N/A N/A X X X low n X X N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X N/A N/A N/A X X X X low n X 2004 2005 2006

26

American Institutes for Research

®

California
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: California Standards Test Grade 3: California Standards Test Not reported Not reported Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 19.8 15.7 2004 N/A 19.4 13.9 2005 N/A 25.6 14.9 2006 N/A 28.6 18.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** Not reported 72.7 37.2

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 17.6 13.6 N/A 18.3 12.8 N/A 24.1 13.8 N/A 27.3 16.8 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 8.9 6.6 N/A 6.0 3.3 N/A 8.0 3.5 N/A 14.6 9.2 N/A 14.8 11.7 N/A 14.6 8.2 N/A 19.1 8.7 N/A 22.7 15.0

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

27

American Institutes for Research

®

California
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: California Standards Test Grade 3: California Standards Test Not reported Not reported Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 31.8 27.5 N/A 33.7 27.5 N/A 42.0 30.0 N/A 43.4 31.8 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 16.6 13.2 N/A 17.5 12.4 N/A 23.4 13.2 N/A 27.2 16.7 N/A 17.2 12.4 N/A 18.9 12.1 N/A 24.8 14.0 N/A 26.2 15.6

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 36.7 28.7 N/A 29.5 24.6 N/A 42.0 25.8 N/A 45.6 30.7

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 16.6 13.5 N/A 22.8 12.4 N/A 30.1 18.5 N/A 27.3 17.9

28

American Institutes for Research

®

California
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: CA End of Year Assessment Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: CA End of Year Assessment Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: CA End of Year Assessment Oral Reading Fluency

Proficiency Benchmark
60 WPM 94 WPM 114 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 26.5 N/A N/A 2004 35.8 X X 2005 40.1 32.5 29.7 2006 43.3 43.4 43.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 70.1 Not comparable Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup*** 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X N/A N/A X 37.7 38.2 X 39.4 39.3 X 42.5 43.2 2004 2005 2006
*** Subgroup data for 2004-2006 for grades 2 and 3 is for approximately 60 percent of Cohort 1 schools.

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X N/A N/A X 15.3 13.1 X 16.6 13.3 X 19.5 15.4 X N/A N/A X 35.0 33.2 X 36.8 34.8 X 37.4 35.9

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

29

American Institutes for Research

®

California
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: CA End of Year Assessment Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: CA End of Year Assessment Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: CA End of Year Assessment Oral Reading Fluency

Proficiency Benchmark
60 WPM 94 WPM 114 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X N/A N/A X 37.2 38.1 X 40.1 40.3 X 42.6 43.5 X N/A N/A X 35.4 36.3 X 38.0 37.9 X 41.5 39.8 X N/A N/A X 43.3 41.8 X 47.1 47.6 X 48.4 47.7 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X N/A N/A X 51.9 51.3 X 58.7 54.6 X 59.3 61.4

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X N/A N/A X 33.3 30.1 X 39.1 40.0 X 40.0 40.5

Note: Subgroup data for 2004-2006 for grades 2 and 3 is for approximately 60 percent of Cohort 1 schools. All Students data submitted with these files were not used since the All Students data reported in 2005 and 2006 consisted of a larger portion of Cohort 1 schools.

30

American Institutes for Research

®

Colorado
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: Basic Early Assessment of Reading Comprehension Grade 2: Basic Early Assessment of Reading Comprehension Grade 3: CO Student Assessment Program Comprehension

Proficiency Benchmark
15 15 466

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X 82.5 2004 86.3 70.1 80.5 2005 92.6 79.7 81.3 2006 92.9 78.3 84.2

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 23.5 52.9 16.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 66.1 34.6 49.4 78.2 53.7 49.1 83.9 42.3 49.0 X X X 76.7 59.1 68.5 85.7 69.0 67.7 89.5 67.6 67.6 X X X 80.5 65.9 77.5 91.2 75.3 78.4 92.4 77.0 81.3 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.
®

31

American Institutes for Research

Colorado
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: Basic Early Assessment of Reading Comprehension Grade 2: Basic Early Assessment of Reading Comprehension Grade 3: CO Student Assessment Program Comprehension

Proficiency Benchmark
15 15 466

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 81.1 65.9 76.6 90.2 75.6 76.1 92.0 74.5 78.8 X X X 77.9 52.8 70.4 85.8 62.8 72.4 94.6 77.6 83.8 X X X 88.1 76.9 89.5 96.4 89.0 91.9 96.3 86.5 90.5 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 72.7 77.8 84.6 94.4 75.0 88.9 100.0 93.8 95.0

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 66.7 64.3 77.8 91.3 88.2 81.0 95.2 77.8 100.0

32

American Institutes for Research

®

Colorado
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 20 WPM 70 WPM 80 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 82.6 65.5 78.3 2005 76.8 66.4 74.7 2006 81.7 69.0 78.7

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 16.7 58.3 41.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup*** 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students*** Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 78.1 63.1 74.6 74.0 60.7 73.0 87.8 66.7 75.7 2004 2005 2006
*** Subgroup data for 2004-2006 do not include assessment results from all Reading First schools.

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X X X X N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X X X X

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

33

American Institutes for Research

®

Colorado
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 20 WPM 70 WPM 80 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 79.2 65.0 74.4 70.3 60.2 70.6 74.5 64.8 76.2 N/A N/A N/A 85.7 40.0 81.8 82.6 63.6 69.4 84.1 64.4 82.9 N/A N/A N/A 83.0 64.3 75.9 79.9 67.1 79.4 82.4 70.7 80.8 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 91.7 low n low n 92.9 61.9 78.6 73.3 low n 72.2

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n 81.8 low n 75.0 low n 84.6 63.6

34

American Institutes for Research

®

Connecticut
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Composite Grade 2: TerraNova Composite Grade 3: TerraNova Composite Proficiency Benchmark 550 (Scale score) 594 (Scale score) 627 (Scale score)

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 52.1 54.4 38.1 2005 57.9 57.6 44.5 2006 60.7 58.3 46.7

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 40.0 40.0 26.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 23.8 23.3 9.9 29.5 23.4 13.1 26.9 21.2 12.7 36.6 20.8 14.4 40.1 37.4 18.5 37.5 38.8 12.1 46.0 46.4 30.2 52.4 52.5 38.9 54.6 51.0 38.8 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

35

American Institutes for Research

®

Connecticut
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Composite Grade 2: TerraNova Composite Grade 3: TerraNova Composite Proficiency Benchmark 550 (Scale score) 594 (Scale score) 627 (Scale score)

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 low n low n 69.2 low n low n low n low n low n low n 63.0 60.0 63.2 80.4 67.7 61.5 78.9 79.6 59.3 43.4 44.0 25.4 48.7 48.5 34.7 49.0 48.8 35.9 48.4 46.6 30.2 53.1 52.7 34.9 56.4 49.5 39.1 64.5 72.4 58.8 72.8 72.4 64.0 79.2 77.5 66.9 2004 2005 2006

36

American Institutes for Research

®

Connecticut
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 45.5 43.3 38.2 2005 48.0 36.6 33.3 2006 53.0 46.2 38.1

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 53.3 53.3 60.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 26.8 15.4 12.5 29.4 13.6 8.2 27.1 17.2 13.7 36.0 32.1 21.0 42.6 23.4 16.8 37.8 31.9 17.5 40.9 39.7 34.5 43.1 33.4 29.8 47.8 40.4 32.7 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

37

American Institutes for Research

®

Connecticut
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 27.3 low n low n low n low n low n low n low n 54.5 64.6 53.1 60.0 68.1 45.2 55.6 75.7 70.0 50.0 38.8 35.5 34.5 41.2 30.6 27.5 43.0 36.1 30.0 43.0 39.4 33.6 45.2 34.7 27.8 51.2 42.3 33.9 54.7 55.6 46.1 57.4 45.5 44.4 66.4 60.8 51.7 2004 2005 2006

38

American Institutes for Research

®

District of Columbia
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: DC CAS Reading Scale Score 345 (Scale score) Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A X 2005 N/A N/A X 2006 N/A N/A 33.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A 15.2 N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A 36.4 N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A 33.0 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

39

American Institutes for Research

®

District of Columbia
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: DC CAS Reading Scale Score 345 (Scale score) Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A low n N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A 64.3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A 40.0 N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A 30.3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A 100.0 2004 2005 2006

40

American Institutes for Research

®

District of Columbia
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 X X X 2005 34.5 24.8 22.7 2006 42.8 30.9 29.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 80.0 (4 of 5) 60.0 (3 of 5) 80.0 (4 of 5)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X 17.0 9.0 3.9 X X X X X X 40.7 42.7 33.9 X X X X X X 38.9 29.3 28.0 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

41

American Institutes for Research

®

District of Columbia
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X X low n low n X X X X X X 50.0 58.3 50.0 X X X X X X 41.7 33.1 33.6 X X X X X X 42.5 30.4 26.8 X X X X X X low n low n low n 2004 2005 2006

42

American Institutes for Research

®

Delaware
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 2: DE Student Testing Program Comprehension Grade 3: DE Student Testing Program Comprehension

Proficiency Benchmark
25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 361† 415†

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 73.8 66.5 73.5 2005 89.6 59.1 74.4 2006 92.2 74.7 75.1

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 85.7 (6 of 7) 80.0 (4 of 5) 80.0 (4 of 5)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 72.3 44.0 73.0 88.8 51.7 70.0 93.9 X 68.0 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 48.0 60.3 67.5 77.2 35.9 62.6 91.4 X 24.0 N/A N/A N/A 52.8 65.4 57.1 72.3 49.1 47.1 86.5 X 66.7

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

43

American Institutes for Research

®

Delaware
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 2: DE Student Testing Program Comprehension Grade 3: DE Student Testing Program Comprehension

Proficiency Benchmark
25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 361† 415†

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 57.4 59.0 67.4 80.0 50.0 72.1 88.7 X 70.8 N/A N/A N/A 72.2 59.1 67.9 89.4 50.1 64.6 93.1 X 68.3 N/A N/A N/A 57.4 74.5 80.4 80.0 71.3 84.1 88.7 X 85.3 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n 83.3 low n low n X 93.8

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n low n X low n

44

American Institutes for Research

®

Delaware
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 44.6 40.0 32.1 2005 58.9 54.2 42.3 2006 61.7 59.2 47.7

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 100.0 (7 of 7) 100.0 (5 of 5) 80.0 (4 of 5)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 40.5 31.4 26.6 54.7 48.3 32.8 57.3 55.5 42.2 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 17.4 28.2 20.5 35.7 23.3 18.8 35.8 24.6 22.2 N/A N/A N/A 33.3 48.2 30.8 47.1 49.1 19.4 54.6 36.4 28.4

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

45

American Institutes for Research

®

Delaware
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 30.2 42.1 29.3 46.3 50.0 39.5 60.9 50.5 35.7 N/A N/A N/A 42.7 35.0 25.6 56.9 52.8 37.8 58.5 57.3 44.3 N/A N/A N/A 55.3 44.8 38.4 65.1 56.0 47.0 67.0 64.8 55.7 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n 66.7

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n

46

American Institutes for Research

®

Florida
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 2: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 3: FCAT Comprehension

Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile Level 3
† th th

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 57.7 55.0 57.1 2005 57.8 58.7 58.6 2006 59.5 60.4 66.6

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 31.8 54.5 90.9

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 53.1 49.6 51.3 53.1 53.2 53.2 55.3 55.5 61.6 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 34.4 30.2 30.3 37.9 35.3 32.8 42.7 39.4 42.4 N/A N/A N/A 40.9 35.2 30.4 36.3 31.8 31.2 43.1 37.4 44.1

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

47

American Institutes for Research

®

Florida
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 2: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 3: FCAT Comprehension

Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile Level 3
† th th

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 51.0 49.2 49.7 50.7 51.5 52.6 53.5 54.1 61.3 N/A N/A N/A 52.2 42.8 45.2 52.3 47.6 47.3 54.2 50.4 56.0 N/A N/A N/A 64.8 66.2 69.1 65.1 70.5 70.1 67.3 71.7 77.5 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 70.2 71.9 66.7 72.4 64.9 71.7 71.1 68.9 75.2

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 61.6 71.2 67.6 62.8 67.3 62.6 72.6 68.3 71.3

48

American Institutes for Research

®

Florida
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 50.7 36.8 42.0 2005 52.1 48.2 39.4 2006 54.1 46.8 38.9

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 36.4 95.5 9.1

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 46.7 32.6 37.9 47.9 43.6 34.9 50.2 42.5 34.5 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 29.6 18.1 19.5 33.4 27.6 19.0 38.4 28.4 21.0 N/A N/A N/A 35.6 23.2 24.7 33.4 28.7 21.3 39.8 31.8 22.8

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

49

American Institutes for Research

®

Florida
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 43.2 31.8 37.7 45.4 43.2 35.9 48.0 42.8 35.2 N/A N/A N/A 49.3 31.2 35.3 49.0 43.2 33.2 51.3 41.0 33.2 N/A N/A N/A 55.3 42.7 48.5 57.5 54.3 45.6 60.1 53.3 45.4 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 63.0 57.5 56.7 69.2 61.8 57.1 71.1 64.9 52.8

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 50.5 45.6 53.6 55.7 45.7 44.6 57.6 44.5 40.0

50

American Institutes for Research

®

Georgia
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Comprehension Grade 2: ITBS Comprehension Grade 3: ITBS Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 50 percent 50 percent 50 percent

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 58.0 50.2 41.7 2005 57.8 50.5 41.0 2006 57.5 50.9 43.3

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 24.3 16.2 39.4

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 26.2 19.7 16.7 43.0 22.7 22.1 41.7 25.4 23.3 34.3 18.7 8.9 36.3 21.8 15.8 38.1 18.6 19.8 50.1 43.0 36.7 53.0 43.4 36.7 56.2 46.9 36.2 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

51

American Institutes for Research

®

Georgia
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Comprehension Grade 2: ITBS Comprehension Grade 3: ITBS Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 50 percent 50 percent 50 percent

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 low n low n 54.5 low n low n low n low n 57.1 low n 71.4 59.3 42.9 67.2 60.2 48.6 60.5 72.7 54.8 43.3 38.5 35.0 49.9 41.3 34.2 51.3 44.0 37.7 54.7 43.2 31.1 54.7 44.2 32.8 53.8 43.9 33.8 65.5 62.9 57.1 65.3 63.7 57.7 64.8 63.3 60.6 2004 2005 2006

52

American Institutes for Research

®

Georgia
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 X 54.7 43.3 2005 64.8 50.9 44.1 2006 69.5 55.5 50.8

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 39.5 42.1 52.6

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X 50.2 32.3 27.4 X X X X X X 64.2 41.9 44.1 X X X X X X 67.5 53.5 47.9 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

53

American Institutes for Research

®

Georgia
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X low n low n low n X X X X X X 74.5 74.6 56.9 X X X X X X 62.7 45.3 47.0 X X X X X X 69.3 53.6 48.5 X X X X X X 71.9 60.9 55.2 2004 2005 2006

54

American Institutes for Research

®

Hawaii
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: SAT-9 Comprehension Grade 2: SAT-9 Comprehension Grade 3: SAT-9 Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 4-6 (Average) 4-6 (Average) Not reported

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 78.8 2004 N/A N/A 83.2 2005 88.1 79.6 81.0 2006

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** Not comparable Not comparable 0.0 (0 of 1)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A 37.1 53.1 27.6 39.1 N/A N/A X N/A N/A 49.0 83.7 63.2 57.3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A 75.0 82.1 70.8 73.4 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

55

American Institutes for Research

®

Hawaii
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: SAT-9 Comprehension Grade 2: SAT-9 Comprehension Grade 3: SAT-9 Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 4-6 (Average) 4-6 (Average) Not reported

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A 81.0 92.3 81.8 86.2 N/A N/A X N/A N/A 92.4 84.0 77.4 91.1 N/A N/A X N/A N/A 88.4 87.1 82.9 84.7 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A 79.8 86.9 79.1 79.9

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A low n 90.9 low n 83.3

56

American Institutes for Research

®

Hawaii
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Hawaii State Assessment Comprehension 300 (Scale score), 35 (Raw score) Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 43.1 2004 N/A N/A 47.1 2005 N/A N/A 49.8 2006

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A 0.0 (0 of 1)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 8.0 N/A N/A 6.9 N/A N/A 17.2 N/A N/A 13.9 N/A N/A 36.4 N/A N/A 17.3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A 35.2 N/A N/A 35.1 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.
®

57

American Institutes for Research

Hawaii
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Hawaii State Assessment Comprehension 300 (Scale score), 35 (Raw score) Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A low n N/A N/A 45.5 N/A N/A X N/A N/A 54.8 N/A N/A 62.2 N/A N/A X N/A N/A 62.9 N/A N/A 62.7 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A 43.3 N/A N/A 47.2

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A 59.1 N/A N/A 58.3

58

American Institutes for Research

®

Hawaii
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 61.4 52.3 41.4 2005 69.1 56.2 44.1 2006

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 100.0 (1 of 1) 0.0 (0 of 1) 0.0 (0 of 1)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 50.9 42.3 31.5 53.5 43.2 28.7 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 34.0 18.4 10.8 23.5 15.6 11.6 N/A N/A N/A 69.0 54.9 18.6 60.2 52.7 32.3

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

59

American Institutes for Research

®

Hawaii
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 54.7 61.3 39.5 73.0 53.1 35.1 N/A N/A N/A 60.7 49.0 51.0 66.7 51.0 46.9 N/A N/A N/A 63.2 51.5 49.3 61.3 62.8 51.6 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 62.5 52.5 39.6 69.3 55.8 40.9

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n 41.7

60

American Institutes for Research

®

Idaho
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Reading Total Grade 2: ITBS Reading Total Grade 3: ITBS Reading Total Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 70.6 62.4 64.3 2005 68.8 66.5 62.2 2006 67.3 63.7 64.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 40.0 45.5 18.2

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 45.4 34.4 27.8 51.5 42.2 33.3 55.4 50.3 48.7 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 45.5 20.7 20.0 13.9 2.7 0.0 15.1 12.6 13.8 N/A N/A N/A 45.3 28.5 26.8 19.7 12.6 1.0 26.1 19.6 22.1

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

61

American Institutes for Research

®

Idaho
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Reading Total Grade 2: ITBS Reading Total Grade 3: ITBS Reading Total Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 51.6 41.4 40.7 23.4 31.1 12.4 41.7 32.6 32.1 N/A N/A N/A 92.3 low n 76.5 low n low n low n 72.7 low n 62.5 N/A N/A N/A 79.2 74.8 75.4 71.1 64.3 56.8 71.4 64.0 60.3 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 58.3 low n 66.7 38.9 low n 45.5 58.3 85.7 61.5

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n

62

American Institutes for Research

®

Idaho
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Idaho Reading Inventory Grade 2: Idaho Reading Inventory Grade 3: Idaho Reading Inventory Proficiency Benchmark 54 WPM 90 WPM 124 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 57.1 57.7 53.7 2004 X X X 2005 69.3 68.0 59.7 2006 71.7 69.3 64.3

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** Not comparable Not comparable Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 52.7 47.2 47.4 X X X 66.4 63.2 54.3 66.2 63.4 59.7 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 37.5 6.25 12.9 X X X 56.7 27.1 16.1 3.23 14.6 11.3 40.3 32.4 30.8 X X X 51.5 56.7 43.6 53.0 46.8 45.4

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

63

American Institutes for Research

®

Idaho
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Idaho Reading Inventory Grade 2: Idaho Reading Inventory Grade 3: Idaho Reading Inventory Proficiency Benchmark 54 WPM 90 WPM 124 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 60.9 62.4 57.6 X X X 75.7 71.2 63.4 76.3 74.1 68.3 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 48.3 45.4 41.0 X X X 55.5 59.6 48.5 58.1 57.3 52.0 X X X X X X X X X 0.0 low n 0.0

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X X X X 0.0 0.0 0.0

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X X X X low n low n low n

64

American Institutes for Research

®

Illinois
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Illinois Standards Achievement Test Comprehension 50th percentile

Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 40.7 2004 N/A N/A 48.7 2005 N/A N/A 53.8 2006 N/A N/A X

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 44.4 N/A N/A 51.4 N/A N/A X 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 17.5 N/A N/A 34.8 N/A N/A X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A low n N/A N/A low n N/A N/A X

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.
®

65

American Institutes for Research

Illinois
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Illinois Standards Achievement Test Comprehension 50th percentile

Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 57.9 N/A N/A 51.9 N/A N/A X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 39.9 N/A N/A 51.4 N/A N/A X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 63.9 N/A N/A 62.7 N/A N/A X 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A low n N/A N/A low n N/A N/A X

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A low n N/A N/A low n N/A N/A X

66

American Institutes for Research

®

Illinois
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 38.6 26.3 21.2 2005 50.4 32.4 23.9 2006 43.0 38.4 26.1

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** Not comparable Not comparable Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 34.8 22.4 16.5 48.3 27.5 20.7 40.9 33.0 23.3 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 15.6 7.5 5.7 30.0 17.7 8.0 20.6 24.0 12.3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n 52.8 33.3 26.3 35.3 40.0 low n

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

67

American Institutes for Research

®

Illinois
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 36.5 21.4 27.9 43.2 29.0 26.9 39.3 33.3 28.3 N/A N/A N/A 37.3 23.3 15.8 48.4 27.4 21.1 37.8 34.5 20.2 N/A N/A N/A 44.7 38.6 35.8 60.2 46.8 32.2 55.8 48.9 36.6 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n 54.5

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X X X X

68

American Institutes for Research

®

Indiana
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 2: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 3: ISTEP Comprehension/Vocabulary Proficiency Benchmark 50 percent 50 percent 404

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 54.4 51.5 39.0 2005 53.2 46.8 64.8 2006 59.9 52.8 65.1

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 57.9 45.0 90.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 48.0 46.8 30.8 46.1 39.4 60.2 54.3 46.8 60.2 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 33.1 32.2 3.9 32.1 25.7 23.2 40.6 33.1 34.3 N/A N/A N/A 43.5 34.2 49.1 35.0 21.8 30.9 52.1 37.2 36.1

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

69

American Institutes for Research

®

Indiana
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 2: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 3: ISTEP Comprehension/Vocabulary Proficiency Benchmark 50 percent 50 percent 404

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 46.4 36.4 16.5 38.5 30.9 31.7 56.6 41.0 50.5 N/A N/A N/A 42.1 36.6 23.4 44.4 32.9 51.8 47.9 38.3 55.0 N/A N/A N/A 57.7 57.6 49.5 59.3 54.9 70.2 65.7 60.2 71.4 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 42.1 46.7 15.4 54.2 44.4 X 68.0 76.7 66.7

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n X low n low n low n low n low n low n

70

American Institutes for Research

®

Indiana
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 49.0 44.7 38.1 2005 60.8 54.5 49.5 2006 68.6 62.3 57.9

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 85.0 95.0 84.2

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 43.3 39.1 31.8 54.0 48.5 43.1 63.7 57.1 53.6 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 26.4 26.8 19.7 39.8 30.7 28.8 46.7 40.9 32.5 N/A N/A N/A 37.9 37.0 26.9 40.9 39.5 38.3 52.4 52.3 46.1

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

71

American Institutes for Research

®

Indiana
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 41.8 34.7 32.8 43.3 45.7 38.1 61.0 52.1 47.0 N/A N/A N/A 43.7 37.0 28.0 52.5 46.9 40.1 61.5 55.6 52.3 N/A N/A N/A 51.4 49.3 42.5 64.4 56.1 53.3 72.8 67.0 61.6 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 55.6 60.7 34.4 69.7 53.3 51.7 58.1 86.7 61.5

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n

72

American Institutes for Research

®

Iowa
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: BRI Comprehension Grade 2: BRI Comprehension Grade 3: BRI Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 85 percent 85 percent 85 percent

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X 21.2 46.0 2004 46.3 59.2 76.4 2005 55.9 59.5 77.0 2006 58.8 58.5 76.6

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 70.4 33.3 33.3

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X 14.8 40.4 39.3 52.2 72.3 49.3 53.9 72.9 51.9 51.9 73.7 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X 23.2 42.2 18.5 25.6 44.2 29.0 29.4 45.6 29.5 29.1 46.4 X 8.3 21.6 28.6 51.3 54.7 38.4 45.8 61.6 46.9 43.9 59.4

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

73

American Institutes for Research

®

Iowa
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: BRI Comprehension Grade 2: BRI Comprehension Grade 3: BRI Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 85 percent 85 percent 85 percent

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X 25.4 52.3 52.4 63.4 81.4 62.3 65.7 81.8 64.2 63.6 81.9 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X 9.1 27.7 29.0 46.9 58.1 41.6 41.0 64.0 47.7 45.0 62.9 X 8.5 37.2 39.0 47.6 70.0 42.0 50.6 67.0 52.1 50.5 70.3

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X 15.4 26.9 49.3 62.0 70.3 49.1 64.4 75.5 56.9 57.1 72.7

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X 19.0 32.7 26.9 51.6 66.7 47.3 56.8 66.7 33.3 50.0 68.1

74

American Institutes for Research

®

Illinois
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 38.6 26.3 21.2 2005 50.4 32.4 23.9 2006 43.0 38.4 26.1

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** Not comparable Not comparable Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 34.8 22.4 16.5 48.3 27.5 20.7 40.9 33.0 23.3 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 15.6 7.5 5.7 30.0 17.7 8.0 20.6 24.0 12.3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n 52.8 33.3 26.3 35.3 40.0 low n

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

75

American Institutes for Research

®

Illinois
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 36.5 21.4 27.9 43.2 29.0 26.9 39.3 33.3 28.3 N/A N/A N/A 37.3 23.3 15.8 48.4 27.4 21.1 37.8 34.5 20.2 N/A N/A N/A 44.7 38.6 35.8 60.2 46.8 32.2 55.8 48.9 36.6 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n 54.5

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X X X X

76

American Institutes for Research

®

Kansas
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 2: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 3: SAT-10 Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 60.4 38.4 43.6 2005 58.0 39.7 45.2 2006 68.5 40.5 N/A

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 60.0 44.4 Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 56.2 31.7 36.3 55.6 33.2 38.5 64.5 36.0 N/A 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 43.4 27.1 31.3 30.6 15.1 23.5 36.8 21.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 39.9 23.7 24.7 48.1 24.3 28.2 56.7 26.7 N/A

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

77

American Institutes for Research

®

Kansas
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 2: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 3: SAT-10 Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 47.4 26.8 30.5 51.2 29.7 32.6 60.8 32.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 62.7 27.4 35.4 52.9 29.7 38.1 56.7 26.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 65.7 47.2 55.7 64.6 48.1 53.7 76.1 51.0 N/A 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 56.5 50.0 low n 63.6 44.0 48.5 71.1 48.3 N/A

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 73.9 35.1 43.3 40.0 62.5 52.8 72.3 40.9 N/A

78

American Institutes for Research

®

Kansas
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Kansas State Reading Assessment Comprehension 67 percent

Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 N/A N/A N/A 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 N/A N/A N/A 2006 N/A N/A 67.3

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A Not comparable

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 61.2 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 44.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50.0

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.
®

79

American Institutes for Research

Kansas
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Kansas State Reading Assessment Comprehension 67 percent

Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 53.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 76.2 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 72.7

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 81.8

80

American Institutes for Research

®

Kansas
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 51.6 39.7 35.6 2005 51.3 40.2 39.3 2006 57.3 44.6 38.4

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 45.5 45.5 27.3

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 49.1 35.6 31.3 48.1 34.5 34.6 54.1 39.4 34.9 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 22.8 23.9 28.4 20.6 14.1 19.3 34.3 19.7 22.3 N/A N/A N/A 51.7 38.3 26.6 52.1 36.8 37.8 53.3 41.6 21.6

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

81

American Institutes for Research

®

Kansas
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 48.9 38.4 30.5 52.3 37.8 35.5 55.5 42.4 32.8 N/A N/A N/A 46.2 31.1 24.9 43.8 22.3 31.3 50.2 38.2 30.5 N/A N/A N/A 52.9 43.6 41.7 55.0 46.4 44.1 62.3 47.8 44.3 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 72.7 31.8 30.0 61.8 64.0 54.5 65.9 64.5 51.7

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 43.5 37.8 33.3 23.5 50.0 38.2 55.1 34.1 50.0

82

American Institutes for Research

®

Kentucky
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: GRADE Comprehension Grade 2: GRADE Comprehension Grade 3: GRADE Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 50 percentile 50 percentile 50 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 56.9 50.1 49.7 2006 66.4 56.9 55.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 69.0 54.8 56.1

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 36.8 25.8 27.3 51.5 37.6 31.4 N/A N/A N/A 45.5 33.7 39.1 49.3 35.3 29.0 N/A N/A N/A 48.9 41.1 40.3 59.8 50.2 45.1 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

83

American Institutes for Research

®

Kentucky
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: GRADE Comprehension Grade 2: GRADE Comprehension Grade 3: GRADE Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 50 percentile 50 percentile 50 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 52.6 low n 23.1 86.7 low n low n N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n 62.1 51.2 40.4 N/A N/A N/A 42.6 28.5 30.2 50.8 38.9 36.6 N/A N/A N/A 51.4 36.1 28.1 59.3 44.3 36.0 N/A N/A N/A 67.4 63.7 61.0 69.0 60.7 60.9 2004 2005 2006

84

American Institutes for Research

®

Kentucky
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 57.9 46.6 44.2 2006 68.9 57.4 52.9

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 83.3 73.8 68.3

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 36.2 23.4 20.5 48.5 34.5 29.3 N/A N/A N/A 36.4 35.3 26.6 50.0 44.9 46.3 N/A N/A N/A 50.7 40.7 38.5 63.4 51.4 47.2 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

85

American Institutes for Research

®

Kentucky
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 47.1 36.4 18.2 low n 46.2 low n N/A N/A N/A 73.3 56.5 56.0 63.9 66.7 61.3 N/A N/A N/A 40.2 40.1 38.2 57.9 47.5 47.7 N/A N/A N/A 54.1 38.4 31.8 65.2 49.2 39.7 N/A N/A N/A 59.9 49.3 47.7 70.1 59.9 56.6 2004 2005 2006

86

American Institutes for Research

®

Louisiana
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: N/A Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 N/A N/A N/A 2006 N/A N/A N/A

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A N/A

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

87

American Institutes for Research

®

Louisiana
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: N/A Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2004 2005 2006

88

American Institutes for Research

®

Louisiana
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark Not reported Not reported Not reported

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 35.7 23.5 29.5 2005 47.5 35.0 32.5 2006 57.3 44.7 42.1

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 60.0 60.0 65.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 23.8 11.5 10.6 31.6 20.8 12.4 38.4 23.6 16.1 34.3 29.4 30.8 48.4 40.0 37.5 61.1 48.4 25.8 33.5 21.8 27.0 45.5 32.7 29.8 55.7 43.1 40.4 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

89

American Institutes for Research

®

Louisiana
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark Not reported Not reported Not reported

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n 42.9 33.3 X 66.7 46.2 X 71.1 62.5 43.6 39.4 28.1 37.5 44.4 29.3 36.2 54.0 54.8 21.9 33.2 20.9 26.4 44.7 31.9 29.1 55.2 42.6 39.7 45.6 33.0 39.6 55.3 43.3 41.6 62.5 49.5 48.2 2004 2005 2006

90

American Institutes for Research

®

Maine
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 2: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 3: TerraNova Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 64.8 67.5 67.9 2006 69.2 70.1 66.4

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 42.9 14.3 28.6

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 42.1 30.2 15.4 40.5 26.3 37.1 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n N/A N/A N/A 57.2 63.6 58.8 54.5 58.1 59.6 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

91

American Institutes for Research

®

Maine
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 2: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 3: TerraNova Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n X X low n low n low n N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n X low n low n N/A N/A N/A low n X low n low n X low n N/A N/A N/A 65.4 68.0 67.6 69.8 70.4 67.1 2004 2005 2006

92

American Institutes for Research

®

Maine
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 58.9 44.3 41.1 2005 54.1 49.4 37.9 2006 64.2 54.6 46.9

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 85.7 71.4 71.4

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 37.1 12.2 4.7 24.3 16.7 0.0 44.4 14.8 16.4 low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n 46.9 42.7 32.5 45.6 43.0 30.0 49.6 47.7 37.9 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

93

American Institutes for Research

®

Maine
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 low n X X low n X X low n low n low n X low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n X low n low n low n X low n low n X low n low n X low n 59.1 44.0 41.4 54.7 48.7 38.8 65.0 55.8 47.8 2004 2005 2006

94

American Institutes for Research

®

Maryland
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: SAT-10/SAT-10 RF Total Reading Grade 2: SAT-10/SAT-10 RF Total Reading Grade 3: Maryland State Assessment Comprehension
† † †

Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

State reports SAT-10/SAT-10 RF together, combining the results of SAT-10 and SAT-10 RF.

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 46.5 48.9 45.8 2006 55.1 50.3 53.8

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 77.8 55.6 66.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X 33.0 28.8 25.5 N/A N/A N/A X X X 41.7 24.3 27.2 N/A N/A N/A X X X 50.9 47.2 48.0 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

95

American Institutes for Research

®

Maryland
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: SAT-10/SAT-10 RF Total Reading Grade 2: SAT-10/SAT-10 RF Total Reading Grade 3: Maryland State Assessment Comprehension
† † †

Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

State reports SAT-10/SAT-10 RF together, combining the results of SAT-10 and SAT-10 RF.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X low n low n low n low n N/A N/A N/A X X 53.7 69.8 73.0 78.7 N/A N/A N/A X X 37.4 46.4 38.7 53.7 N/A N/A N/A X X 42.9 51.3 45.8 47.2 N/A N/A N/A X X 58.8 72.1 70.9 70.8 2004 2005 2006

96

American Institutes for Research

®

Maryland
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A 40.7 26.3 2005 55.7 38.0 32.6 2006 59.0 41.1 33.4

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 44.4 22.2 22.2

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A X X 29.4 15.9 15.7 27.3 17.0 13.4 N/A X X 32.6 14.9 12.0 53.2 23.6 14.8 N/A X X 52.3 32.8 28.2 55.3 38.0 30.3 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

97

American Institutes for Research

®

Maryland
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A X X low n low n low n low n low n low n N/A X X 64.3 61.9 40.2 76.8 56.5 67.9 N/A X X 46.1 31.4 21.8 57.4 40.3 32.8 N/A X X 55.0 34.7 27.9 55.6 38.3 27.8 N/A X X 66.9 50.1 46.9 71.0 53.0 45.8 2004 2005 2006

98

American Institutes for Research

®

Massachusetts
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: GRADE Composite Grade 2: GRADE Composite Grade 3: GRADE Composite

Proficiency Benchmark 5 stanine 5 stanine 5 stanine
th th th † † †

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant. All results below are reported for 5th stanine benchmark.

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 18.7 35.5 39.2 2004 61.8 59.9 60.5 2005 67.5 62.5 63.2 2006 69.7 67.2 65.6

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 50.0 63.3 50.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 13.1 28.4 28.3 53.3 51.1 50.5 61.2 54.1 54.7 63.9 60.4 57.8 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 8.3 11.3 9.8 26.6 19.7 23.4 32.4 25.2 23.9 36.8 26.1 28.7 7.5 16.2 15.6 40.3 31.9 27.9 49.6 36.4 28.8 53.0 37.6 28.9

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

99

American Institutes for Research

®

Massachusetts
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: GRADE Composite Grade 2: GRADE Composite Grade 3: GRADE Composite

Proficiency Benchmark 5 stanine 5 stanine 5 stanine
th th th † † †

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant. All results below are reported for 5th stanine benchmark.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 23.4 44.4 52.6 71.3 70.9 74.1 77.7 72.9 75.8 79.3 80.3 77.7 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 11.2 22.0 19.0 48.7 43.9 40.5 56.8 49.1 45.5 60.4 53.5 50.1 20.0 33.9 36.8 63.6 57.7 57.1 64.6 62.4 64.7 65.6 65.9 66.0

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 25.2 38.4 37.8 64.0 60.1 54.6 75.2 65.2 60.7 77.4 66.0 69.8

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X X X X X X X

100

American Institutes for Research

®

Massachusetts
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: MA Comprehensive Assessment System Composite

Proficiency Benchmark

Proficient†

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 N/A N/A 43.6 2004 N/A N/A 43.8 2005 N/A N/A 43.7 2006 N/A N/A 38.7

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A 13.3

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 33.5 N/A N/A 33.7 N/A N/A 35.9 N/A N/A 29.8 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 19.5 N/A N/A 19.5 N/A N/A 22.3 N/A N/A 18.2 N/A N/A 13.3 N/A N/A 23.9 N/A N/A 16.3 N/A N/A 13.2

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

101

American Institutes for Research

®

Massachusetts
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: MA Comprehensive Assessment System Composite

Proficiency Benchmark

Proficient†

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 54.6 N/A N/A 55.8 N/A N/A 56.8 N/A N/A 48.3 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 28.7 N/A N/A 27.1 N/A N/A 27.1 N/A N/A 25.7 N/A N/A 39.3 N/A N/A 37.9 N/A N/A 38.7 N/A N/A 35.3

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 38.8 N/A N/A 41.5 N/A N/A 37.7 N/A N/A 43.5

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X N/A N/A X

102

American Institutes for Research

®

Massachusetts
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 44.2 38.2 2004 49.8 41.0 36.7 2005 60.0 49.9 43.1 2006 63.1 55.4 46.6

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 73.3 86.7 70.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 36.8 30.8 39.9 32.8 27.8 53.8 41.1 37.1 57.3 49.5 40.6 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 20.3 14.6 22.0 13.9 9.3 29.5 20.0 12.8 34.3 18.8 17.5 N/A 29.6 24.5 33.2 27.0 23.2 44.6 33.6 25.9 48.3 33.9 26.2

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

103

American Institutes for Research

®

Massachusetts
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 49.2 43.7 58.0 48.6 43.8 70.0 58.1 50.9 72.0 64.3 54.2 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 33.4 26.7 39.4 29.9 26.6 51.3 40.8 33.7 55.2 47.6 40.1 N/A 44.7 40.1 49.9 36.0 31.8 54.1 45.4 37.5 56.1 49.9 39.5

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 56.7 46.6 52.7 50.0 39.9 63.5 54.4 49.1 72.5 62.8 51.4

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A X X X X X X X X X X X

104

American Institutes for Research

®

Michigan
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Comprehension Grade 2: ITBS Comprehension Grade 3: ITBS Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 50 percentile 50 percentile 50 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 32.2 29.1 21.5 2004 39.6 36.5 30.7 2005 41.7 37.3 33.0 2006 45.3 38.5 33.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 83.3 66.7 50.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 23.2 17.0 16.9 26.4 19.8 16.8 24.1 20.2 17.6 X X X 37.2 35.0 25.2 42.8 31.2 19.9 45.8 32.1 23.2 X X X 35.1 32.7 26.5 38.2 32.7 28.8 42.8 34.9 28.5 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

105

American Institutes for Research

®

Michigan
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Comprehension Grade 2: ITBS Comprehension Grade 3: ITBS Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 50 percentile 50 percentile 50 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 32.2 32.2 28.5 39.1 29.3 28.8 38.3 33.7 26.1 X X X 40.4 33.9 25.6 38.3 32.9 26.7 44.2 36.2 24.6 X X X 45.0 46.5 43.4 50.4 50.0 47.6 54.7 48.0 51.1 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 29.7 33.3 58.3 65.0 35.0 46.2 57.1 47.6 40.0

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 29.6 13.3 11.8 35.7 27.3 25.0 66.7 18.2 33.3

106

American Institutes for Research

®

Michigan
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 90 WPM 110 WPM Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A X X 2004 N/A X X 2005 N/A X X 2006 N/A 42.0 35.3

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A Not comparable Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A 23.6 17.7 N/A X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A 40.9 32.1 N/A X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A 38.4 32.5 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

107

American Institutes for Research

®

Michigan
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 90 WPM 110 WPM Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A 39.6 38.0 N/A X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A 38.1 28.9 N/A X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A 51.2 45.0 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A 61.9 53.3

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A 36.4 36.4

108

American Institutes for Research

®

Minnesota
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Grade 2: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Grade 3: Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment

Proficiency Benchmark 34th NP = 41 NCE 34th NP = 41 NCE 350 (Scale score)

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 62.2 60.3 57.4 2005 66.7 64.7 61.9 2006 66.1 65.0 70.4

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 43.8 40.0 72.2

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 56.0 52.2 46.5 59.8 55.8 53.9 58.6 56.3 61.6 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 37.4 31.1 24.9 39.8 33.1 29.1 41.5 32.8 38.1 N/A N/A N/A 48.4 43.4 30.5 58.4 38.6 43.1 51.5 43.8 53.5

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

109

American Institutes for Research

®

Minnesota
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Grade 2: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Grade 3: Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment

Proficiency Benchmark 34th NP = 41 NCE 34th NP = 41 NCE 350 (Scale score)

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 39.3 40.3 37.7 53.3 38.7 45.7 50.0 46.9 54.0 N/A N/A N/A 55.3 52.0 41.2 56.9 53.9 51.1 61.1 50.3 55.3 N/A N/A N/A 72.6 73.9 76.1 75.8 80.9 75.7 75.9 81.5 80.7 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 59.9 51.2 42.5 69.7 46.7 45.1 60.0 53.6 70.3

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 66.7 68.3 54.3 61.0 76.6 72.1 65.3 61.5 71.3

110

American Institutes for Research

®

Minnesota
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Deno’s Oral Fluency Grade 2: Deno’s Oral Fluency Grade 3: Deno’s Oral Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 75 WPM 95 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 63.7 69.3 73.7 2005 66.0 72.8 75.3 2006 70.4 74.8 77.7

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 56.3 40.0 37.5

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 57.6 63.6 69.5 58.2 66.8 69.5 63.9 69.4 72.4 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 40.5 42.9 35.9 43.8 42.9 44.4 46.0 44.5 48.3 N/A N/A N/A 47.9 60.3 64.2 57.1 60.5 61.3 58.3 63.0 62.1

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

111

American Institutes for Research

®

Minnesota
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Deno’s Oral Fluency Grade 2: Deno’s Oral Fluency Grade 3: Deno’s Oral Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 75 WPM 95 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 38.1 50.5 70.9 50.7 56.6 64.7 57.2 64.3 59.7 N/A N/A N/A 65.9 62.6 66.5 56.0 67.4 66.8 64.0 65.1 70.3 N/A N/A N/A 71.4 78.3 79.6 76.1 80.5 84.6 79.5 84.1 85.6 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 59.6 73.4 68.4 71.6 69.6 68.7 66.3 73.6 81.3

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 62.0 71.4 68.5 55.3 75.5 75.4 66.7 71.8 79.5

112

American Institutes for Research

®

Mississippi
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Woodcock Johnson III Comprehension Grade 2: Woodcock Johnson III Comprehension Grade 3: Woodcock Johnson III Comprehension

Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th † † †

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 70.1 58.5 39.6 2004 62.7 57.0 46.0 2005 59.5 53.8 47.7 2006 66.1 62.4 58.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 64.3 56.3 81.3

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 64.2 59.7 33.3 52.9 51.0 38.1 58.5 53.1 46.7 63.5 61.6 56.4 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 23.5 58.1 13.7 41.5 36.8 21.3 50.0 37.0 34.6 37.5 48.3 38.2 low n low n low n low n low n 0.0 28.6 35.3 15.2 49.5 56.6 56.3

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

113

American Institutes for Research

®

Mississippi
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Woodcock Johnson III Comprehension Grade 2: Woodcock Johnson III Comprehension Grade 3: Woodcock Johnson III Comprehension

Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th † † †

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 91.7 62.9 57.5 74.7 71.9 70.9 57.3 62.5 51.2 71.4 75.7 75.8 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 71.4 40.0 22.2 91.7 50.0 37.5 38.5 40.5 25.6 60.9 50.9 32.6 57.2 53.2 33.1 60.8 50.3 40.9 60.3 53.0 47.1 65.2 60.3 55.4

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X low n low n low n low n low n X low n low n low n X low n

114

American Institutes for Research

®

Mississippi
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: Mississippi Curriculum Test Reading Grade 3: Mississippi Curriculum Test Reading 421 (Scale score) 452 (Scale score) Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 72.7 64.4 2004 N/A 78.2 70.0 2005 N/A 80.6 76.7 2006 N/A 83.2 81.5

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A 47.6 76.2

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 71.3 61.2 N/A 75.9 67.9 N/A 79.8 75.4 N/A 82.4 80.6 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 56.3 43.7 N/A 34.0 32.7 N/A 54.0 50.5 N/A 60.1 50.2 N/A X low n N/A 46.2 41.2 N/A 48.3 48.5 N/A 53.9 50.0

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

115

American Institutes for Research

®

Mississippi
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: Mississippi Curriculum Test Reading Grade 3: Mississippi Curriculum Test Reading 421 (Scale score) 452 (Scale score) Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 68.6 60.9 N/A 79.3 78.8 N/A 89.6 86.7 N/A 89.3 88.5 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A low n low n N/A 46.4 42.9 N/A 58.5 54.8 N/A 66.7 62.2 N/A 71.5 55.4 N/A 76.2 66.7 N/A 79.5 74.9 N/A 82.5 80.6

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A low n low n N/A low n low n N/A low n low n N/A low n low n

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A X X N/A low n low n N/A X X N/A X low n

116

American Institutes for Research

®

Mississippi
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 59.9 56.5 41.5 2004 55.7 44.8 32.2 2005 62.0 43.3 37.9 2006 57.6 46.1 41.6

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 35.0 45.5 63.6

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 61.3 57.8 36.1 53.9 43.8 30.0 61.6 42.1 36.4 54.8 45.5 40.6 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 31.3 41.1 14.8 42.2 18.8 14.5 48.4 30.0 22.8 36.1 30.1 25.4 28.6 19.4 1.8 31.8 33.3 28.8 51.4 22.2 12.8 47.6 42.1 38.5

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

117

American Institutes for Research

®

Mississippi
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 41.6 41.3 34.5 61.3 36.9 28.5 66.8 52.4 43.8 60.0 50.4 46.6 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 8.3 57.1 26.7 48.4 35.5 33.3 52.0 30.2 26.8 51.5 37.7 19.6 56.2 51.6 38.3 53.5 43.1 28.6 61.4 41.6 36.5 57.3 45.4 41.3

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 low n 5.2 low n low n low n low n low n low n low n 63.6 low n low n

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X low n low n low n low n low n X low n low n low n X low n

118

American Institutes for Research

®

Missouri
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: TerraNova Grade 2: TerraNova Grade 3: Missouri Assessment Program Communication Arts

Proficiency Benchmark
616 (Scale score) 648 (Scale score) 648 (Scale score)

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 X X 22.4 2005 19.3 19.0 25.6 2006 23.3 18.1 37.2

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 44.4 25.9 61.8

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X 13.3 X X 13.1 X X 18.1 X X 2.0 X X 9.3 X X 15.2 X X 16.6 X X 18.5 X X 30.3 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.
®

119

American Institutes for Research

Missouri
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: TerraNova Grade 2: TerraNova Grade 3: Missouri Assessment Program Communication Arts

Proficiency Benchmark
616 (Scale score) 648 (Scale score) 648 (Scale score)

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X low n X X 33.3 X X low n X X 25.9 X X 33.3 X X 42.1 X X 6.7 X X 13.2 X X 20.6 X X 13.0 X X 14.9 X X 27.8 X X 28.5 X X 31.4 X X 42.6 2004 2005 2006

120

American Institutes for Research

®

Missouri
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 54.0 43.2 38.2 2005 58.1 49.9 46.7 2006 85.5 70.1 76.4

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 94.2 82.0 90.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 32.2 24.9 18.0 36.1 31.3 25.1 65.8 48.8 47.3 36.1 37.4 18.2 48.7 52.3 6.7 78.7 67.7 80.9 49.4 38.6 33.8 54.5 46.2 43.3 85.0 68.1 74.9 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

121

American Institutes for Research

®

Missouri
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X 81.8 low n low n X X X X X X 81.8 87.5 69.2 X X X X X X 72.3 63.7 70.0 49.4 41.1 32.5 53.7 44.8 44.9 86.2 69.9 76.5 58.0 45.0 41.9 62.9 54.0 50.2 90.0 74.1 79.6 2004 2005 2006

122

American Institutes for Research

®

Montana
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Retell Fluency

Proficiency Benchmark
25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 2004 83.1 82.1 71.8 2005 89.5 84.3 78.1 2006 88.2 87.7 78.9

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 45.5 45.5 81.8

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 50.0 47.2 25.7 67.1 58.9 37.4 66.7 68.5 49.1 X X X 69.2 50.0 40.8 74.1 59.0 52.1 69.4 73.1 60.7 X X X 77.5 77.6 64.1 85.6 80.3 72.0 84.1 83.8 76.1 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.
®

123

American Institutes for Research

Montana
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Retell Fluency

Proficiency Benchmark
25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 82.8 82.8 68.2 93.8 66.7 78.1 86.8 79.4 59.4 X X X low n low n low n low n 84.6 low n 72.7 81.8 75.0 X X X 87.0 86.1 74.6 92.7 88.8 82.4 91.1 89.0 81.2 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X low n 100.0 low n low n low n low n low n low n low n

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 75.9 70.0 64.6 84.0 78.3 68.6 83.9 85.9 76.8

124

American Institutes for Research

®

Montana
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 2004 54.8 49.4 41.6 2005 61.6 54.2 56.6 2006 65.2 58.6 52.9

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 63.3 63.6 81.8

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 16.1 7.6 7.1 35.6 25.0 13.3 30.9 27.0 25.5 X X X 36.5 10.9 14.3 27.2 21.3 22.9 36.7 38.5 16.7 X X X 42.4 39.8 34.0 53.7 44.8 46.4 58.2 53.1 44.2 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

125

American Institutes for Research

®

Montana
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 51.7 31.0 45.5 56.3 26.7 43.8 60.5 55.9 28.1 X X X low n low n low n low n 30.8 low n 36.4 54.6 31.3 X X X 61.1 54.3 45.6 69.6 60.1 63.6 74.8 63.5 59.0 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X low n 61.5 low n low n low n low n low n low n low n

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 43.5 38.3 32.3 45.9 45.0 41.2 49.3 48.6 44.7

126

American Institutes for Research

®

Nebraska
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Grade 2: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Grade 3: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 X 47.7 45.0 2006 X 39.2 48.6

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** Not comparable 18.2 66.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X 46.3 22.4 X 26.2 22.1 N/A N/A N/A X low n 4.4 X 11.1 9.1 N/A N/A N/A X 44.7 29.2 X 24.1 34.8 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

127

American Institutes for Research

®

Nebraska
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Grade 2: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Grade 3: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X low n 24.0 X 5.9 32.4 N/A N/A N/A X X X X low n low n N/A N/A N/A X 40.0 32.0 X 20.9 42.4 N/A N/A N/A X 27.9 23.9 X 15.1 19.6 N/A N/A N/A X 53.8 55.7 X 52.1 60.2 2004 2005 2006

128

American Institutes for Research

®

Nebraska
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 low n 39.7 36.9 2005 53.9 47.8 43.2 2006 67.7 59.4 57.4

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 66.7 66.7 83.3

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X 24.6 20.2 33.3 24.4 19.3 46.8 37.3 24.4 X 27.3 16.0 36.7 31.0 17.4 46.2 53.6 36.4 X 33.3 29.3 45.6 39.8 35.4 61.2 52.7 51.8 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

129

American Institutes for Research

®

Nebraska
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X 10.0 26.1 5.9 15.8 20.0 70.0 52.9 47.1 X X X X X X low n low n low n X 35.5 37.1 42.9 42.2 39.1 62.5 56.3 49.4 X 36.6 25.8 41.1 38.4 28.1 55.1 50.5 57.4 low n 43.0 41.3 61.0 53.5 49.7 71.8 63.9 62.3 2004 2005 2006

130

American Institutes for Research

®

Nevada
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Reading Total Grade 2: ITBS Reading Total Grade 3: ITBS Reading Total Proficiency Benchmark 40 NPR 40 NPR 40 NPR

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 42.6 47.0 49.1 2006 52.3 48.1 51.7

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 50.0 16.7 16.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 20.4 18.5 21.3 26.6 22.8 19.4 N/A N/A N/A 28.8 30.2 29.5 38.9 30.6 34.8 N/A N/A N/A 36.4 41.8 43.0 49.6 43.9 49.5 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

131

American Institutes for Research

®

Nevada
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Reading Total Grade 2: ITBS Reading Total Grade 3: ITBS Reading Total Proficiency Benchmark 40 NPR 40 NPR 40 NPR

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 65.5 60.5 71.4 48.6 45.9 51.8 N/A N/A N/A 56.0 62.3 65.4 72.5 67.1 66.9 N/A N/A N/A 33.6 36.7 37.9 43.5 36.8 43.2 N/A N/A N/A 42.4 46.6 36.2 53.1 51.8 44.6 N/A N/A N/A 52.9 61.0 63.5 63.2 63.8 66.9 2004 2005 2006

132

American Institutes for Research

®

Nevada
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Criterion Reference Test Reading Total 300 Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 N/A N/A 33.5 2006 N/A N/A 41.3

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A 83.3

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10.1 N/A N/A 11.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15.9 N/A N/A 22.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26.1 N/A N/A 35.0 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

133

American Institutes for Research

®

Nevada
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Criterion Reference Test Reading Total 300 Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 31.3 N/A N/A 40.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 52.4 N/A N/A 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23.2 N/A N/A 32.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29.3 N/A N/A 33.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 47.8 N/A N/A 55.4 2004 2005 2006

134

American Institutes for Research

®

Nevada
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 30.6 44.9 29.9 2006 53.0 47.9 44.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 83.3 66.7 66.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 16.2 25.3 16.1 31.0 23.8 29.0 N/A N/A N/A 18.2 35.7 18.0 42.8 38.6 28.3 N/A N/A N/A 24.8 40.9 24.6 50.8 45.2 40.4 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

135

American Institutes for Research

®

Nevada
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 35.1 46.5 40.0 60.0 52.6 50.0 N/A N/A N/A 55.3 68.8 42.3 70.5 67.1 61.1 N/A N/A N/A 22.1 38.8 22.9 45.7 43.0 39.0 N/A N/A N/A 26.2 39.3 25.9 51.3 47.8 34.7 N/A N/A N/A 40.2 52.1 39.0 63.0 53.8 52.3 2004 2005 2006

136

American Institutes for Research

®

New Hampshire
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford RF Comprehension Grade 2: Stanford RF Comprehension Grade 3: Stanford RF Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 19.9 60.9 34.9 2005 64.8 44.3 52.6 2006 67.8 52.6 55.4

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 42.9 57.1 57.1

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 11.9 20.0 11.9 24.6 16.2 19.0 27.5 21.1 18.1 0.0 22.2 11.5 30.0 0.0 26.3 40.0 19.4 27.3 12.9 50.0 30.2 56.1 36.0 46.8 60.0 45.9 44.2 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

137

American Institutes for Research

®

New Hampshire
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford RF Comprehension Grade 2: Stanford RF Comprehension Grade 3: Stanford RF Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n 5.6 58.6 19.4 38.6 36.4 45.5 51.2 20.0 29.2 0.0 41.2 low n 61.5 19.1 41.7 69.2 30.8 37.5 21.3 61.4 35.7 67.2 45.5 53.7 69.1 55.1 58.4 2004 2005 2006

138

American Institutes for Research

®

New Hampshire
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 X 34.9 32.4 2005 50.5 42.3 39.1 2006 56.9 53.9 46.1

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 71.4 71.4 57.1

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X 6.9 14.1 15.9 10.8 17.3 15.9 17.5 7.3 X low n 12.5 26.3 7.7 10.5 43.3 22.6 34.8 X 29.4 28.3 43.0 35.4 34.6 48.4 49.1 38.9 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

139

American Institutes for Research

®

New Hampshire
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n X low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n X 29.0 32.1 27.9 25.7 30.3 42.9 25.7 30.6 X 29.4 33.3 69.2 28.6 50.0 58.3 38.5 46.7 X 36.2 33.3 52.3 44.1 40.0 57.9 55.5 47.8 2004 2005 2006

140

American Institutes for Research

®

New Jersey
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: TerraNova Reading Grade 2: TerraNova Reading Grade 3: Assessment of Skills and Knowledge 3 Reading

Proficiency Benchmark
41 percentile 41 percentile 200 (Scale score)
† st st

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 72.3 57.2 56.0 2005 74.3 57.5 69.5 2006 74.6 58.6 68.1

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 33.3 50.0 83.3

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 71.3 51.4 49.8 72.0 50.9 65.3 73.4 54.0 64.1 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 51.8 44.0 25.4 33.8 28.1 39.3 54.3 25.6 35.1 N/A N/A N/A 75.3 32.6 42.7 70.3 22.5 47.2 54.3 25.6 36.1

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.
®

141

American Institutes for Research

New Jersey
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: TerraNova Reading Grade 2: TerraNova Reading Grade 3: Assessment of Skills and Knowledge 3 Reading

Proficiency Benchmark
41 percentile 41 percentile 200 (Scale score)
† st st

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 77.5 55.4 57.7 75.4 56.0 64.4 77.5 59.8 66.9 N/A N/A N/A 54.2 43.2 30.0 67.7 45.4 56.4 65.6 49.7 55.1 N/A N/A N/A 82.5 75.1 77.9 80.4 76.6 86.9 91.1 77.2 86.8 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 85.2 60.0 70.4 80.0 38.1 90.9 54.2 low n 68.2

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n 68.8 low n X low n low n 38.8 X

142

American Institutes for Research

®

New Jersey
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 43.0 34.6 32.1 2005 50.4 38.5 32.8 2006 54.4 40.3 35.6

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 50.0 50.0 33.3

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X 48.5 35.3 36.4 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X 18.6 20.0 8.3 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X 29.8 21.3 19.4

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

143

American Institutes for Research

®

New Jersey
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X 48.6 35.6 34.5 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X 47.6 37.6 25.2 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X 70.6 61.3 56.3 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X 23.1 57.9 low n

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X X low n low n low n

144

American Institutes for Research

®

New Mexico
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: NM Standards-Based Assessment Comprehension 621

Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 N/A N/A X 2005 N/A N/A 48.2 2006 N/A N/A 48.3

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X N/A N/A 45.8 N/A N/A 46.3 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X N/A N/A 23.5 N/A N/A 20.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X N/A N/A 39.6 N/A N/A 42.7

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

145

American Institutes for Research

®

New Mexico
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: NM Standards-Based Assessment Comprehension 621

Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X N/A N/A 46.3 N/A N/A 47.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X N/A N/A 36.8 N/A N/A X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X N/A N/A 60.2 N/A N/A 63.1 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X N/A N/A 53.3 N/A N/A X

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X N/A N/A 36.0 N/A N/A 30.0

146

American Institutes for Research

®

New Mexico
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 35.0 28.3 31.9 2005 43.0 39.0 38.2 2006 55.1 52.2 53.8

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 100.0 100.0 87.5

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 38.0 36.9 34.2 X X X 53.6 53.4 52.4 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 21.7 14.9 16.1 25.0 19.5 20.0 48.1 35.3 30.1 N/A N/A N/A 29.1 25.8 23.8 32.8 40.5 31.8 53.7 48.7 48.7

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

147

American Institutes for Research

®

New Mexico
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 22.5 34.6 47.9 40.7 36.2 38.1 53.3 52.2 50.5 N/A N/A N/A X X X 52.6 34.5 31.0 61.8 46.2 40.0 N/A N/A N/A X low n low n 65.2 51.5 47.6 67.3 60.8 59.6 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X low n low n 42.9 low n low n 72.7

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n 43.8 41.0 45.6 45.3 55.9 58.8

148

American Institutes for Research

®

New York
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 2: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 3: TerraNova Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 593 (Scale score) 623 (Scale score) 643 (Scale score)

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 28.3 21.7 21.9 2006 32.1 22.0 22.9

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 63.6 40.0 32.6

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 12.5 6.6 5.6 13.8 5.4 4.5 N/A N/A N/A 15.4 7.9 4.8 14.9 7.6 4.8 N/A N/A N/A 24.0 17.4 17.3 26.8 17.4 18.1 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

149

American Institutes for Research

®

New York
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 2: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 3: TerraNova Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 593 (Scale score) 623 (Scale score) 643 (Scale score)

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 21.4 10.6 19.6 30.9 20.4 20.9 N/A N/A N/A 38.4 27.0 26.5 35.0 25.9 27.9 N/A N/A N/A 21.7 15.7 15.4 22.1 13.5 14.4 N/A N/A N/A 23.4 14.2 15.6 25.7 16.2 16.9 N/A N/A N/A 41.9 37.6 37.5 50.6 39.0 40.6 2004 2005 2006

150

American Institutes for Research

®

New York
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 45.9 36.9 32.8 2006 52.7 45.3 38.9

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 62.2 53.3 50.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 21.3 14.9 9.7 25.3 17.7 12.7 N/A N/A N/A 36.0 20.5 16.9 40.7 31.5 21.9 N/A N/A N/A 42.6 33.7 29.2 48.7 42.0 35.6 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

151

American Institutes for Research

®

New York
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 35.9 27.1 36.5 59.6 35.3 40.9 N/A N/A N/A 66.6 54.9 50.4 72.6 63.2 56.2 N/A N/A N/A 41.7 32.6 28.6 46.8 40.4 34.6 N/A N/A N/A 41.8 33.2 28.4 48.2 41.5 34.5 N/A N/A N/A 54.1 45.2 41.7 62.4 54.7 47.7 2004 2005 2006

152

American Institutes for Research

®

North Carolina
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS: Comprehension Grade 2: ITBS: Comprehension Grade 3: ITBS: Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark Grade-level score Grade-level score Grade-level score

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 93.9 86.7 72.0 2006 94.5 87.2 74.4

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 15.8 25.6 48.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 88.3 58.5 41.8 89.8 71.5 57.6 N/A N/A N/A 91.9 79.0 61.8 91.4 79.6 62.2 N/A N/A N/A 94.3 85.3 69.5 94.2 86.5 72.1 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

153

American Institutes for Research

®

North Carolina
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS: Comprehension Grade 2: ITBS: Comprehension Grade 3: ITBS: Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark Grade-level score Grade-level score Grade-level score

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 95.8 81.5 69.8 86.6 84.3 75.5 N/A N/A N/A 100.0 85.0 87.5 100.0 90.0 78.9 N/A N/A N/A 92.3 81.6 67.9 91.2 84.0 68.1 N/A N/A N/A 94.4 86.0 68.4 94.8 85.8 71.0 N/A N/A N/A 96.5 92.1 84.4 96.8 92.0 84.1 2004 2005 2006

154

American Institutes for Research

®

North Carolina
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: North Carolina End of Grade Level 3 Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 N/A N/A 70.5 2006 N/A N/A 70.2

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A 23.5

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 77.5 N/A N/A 36.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 92.1 N/A N/A 49.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 66.1 N/A N/A 66.2 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

155

American Institutes for Research

®

North Carolina
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: North Carolina End of Grade Level 3 Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 66.5 N/A N/A 67.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 94.1 N/A N/A 76.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 67.8 N/A N/A 58.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 65.5 N/A N/A 67.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 83.7 N/A N/A 82.0 2004 2005 2006

156

American Institutes for Research

®

North Carolina
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Curriculum-Based Measurement Grade 2: Curriculum-Based Measurement Grade 3: Curriculum-Based Measurement Proficiency Benchmark 30 WRC 70 WRC 85 WRC

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 76.1 72.9 71.9 2006 69.5 67.3 67.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 13.2 5.3 13.2

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 48.2 84.2 22.7 60.8 52.6 49.9 N/A N/A N/A 70.6 70.4 68.6 62.5 58.5 63.7 N/A N/A N/A 74.0 70.6 70.2 66.8 64.4 64.7 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

157

American Institutes for Research

®

North Carolina
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Curriculum-Based Measurement Grade 2: Curriculum-Based Measurement Grade 3: Curriculum-Based Measurement Proficiency Benchmark 30 WRC 70 WRC 85 WRC

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 70.0 50.0 72.7 45.2 50.0 52.6 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n N/A N/A N/A 68.1 72.0 68.4 64.1 66.4 64.1 N/A N/A N/A 75.4 70.3 69.6 68.7 64.3 65.6 N/A N/A N/A 81.0 79.8 78.8 74.9 75.4 71.8 2004 2005 2006

158

American Institutes for Research

®

North Dakota
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Reading Grade 2: TerraNova Reading Grade 3: ND State Assessment Proficiency Benchmark Grade equivalent scores Grade equivalent scores Proficient

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 61.6 61.7 N/A 2005 83.5 85.6 74.1 2006 23.8 52.9 80.6

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 0.0 (0 of 5) 25.0 (1 of 4) N/A

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 51.1 61.0 N/A 75.7 82.1 71.8 25.6 41.4 75.6 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X low n N/A 58.8 low n 45.5 low n 30.8 low n N/A N/A N/A X X N/A low n X 50.0 X X X

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

159

American Institutes for Research

®

North Dakota
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Reading Grade 2: TerraNova Reading Grade 3: ND State Assessment Proficiency Benchmark Grade equivalent scores Grade equivalent scores Proficient

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n X N/A X low n X low n X low n N/A N/A N/A low n low n N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n N/A N/A N/A 62.1 62.3 N/A 84.2 85.9 73.5 25.6 48.6 81.3 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X low n N/A low n X low n low n low n X

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n N/A low n low n 84.6 7.7 low n low n

160

American Institutes for Research

®

North Dakota
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 62.1 64.8 38.7 2005 68.5 57.0 57.5 2006 89.9 79.8 90.2

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 100.0 (5 of 5) 80.0 (4 of 5) 100.0 (5 of 5)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 55.1 62.8 34.1 68.4 40.9 52.9 78.4 72.5 89.8 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X low n low n 52.9 low n low n 75.0 64.7 low n N/A N/A N/A X X low n low n low n X X X X

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

161

American Institutes for Research

®

North Dakota
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n X low n X low n X low n X low n N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n N/A N/A N/A 65.6 63.9 40.7 67.9 57.8 58.8 93.2 83.7 90.9 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X low n X low n low n low n low n low n X

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n 72.7 low n low n low n low n 68.8 45.5 81.8

162

American Institutes for Research

®

Ohio
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Reading Composite Grade 2: TerraNova Reading Composite Grade 3: TerraNova Reading Composite Proficiency Benchmark 50 percentile 50 percentile 50 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 44.6 39.3 33.3 2005 49.2 46.2 40.0 2006 50.8 40.2 40.8

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 60.0 40.0 70.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 40.9 36.3 30.7 46.1 43.0 36.6 47.0 35.7 37.7 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 20.8 15.6 10.8 30.6 21.4 19.2 34.4 14.0 21.4 N/A N/A N/A 15.8 12.4 18.9 17.0 19.1 19.2 21.1 11.9 9.3

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

163

American Institutes for Research

®

Ohio
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Reading Composite Grade 2: TerraNova Reading Composite Grade 3: TerraNova Reading Composite Proficiency Benchmark 50 percentile 50 percentile 50 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 33.2 30.6 31.0 37.9 31.4 36.2 43.5 25.4 35.6 N/A N/A N/A 39.9 31.8 24.1 44.4 40.2 31.1 44.0 31.7 33.5 N/A N/A N/A 52.5 51.6 46.4 57.6 54.6 50.8 61.1 55.4 51.4 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 70.0 71.4 low n 54.5 low n low n 62.5 33.3 33.3

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n 77.8 low n low n low n low n

164

American Institutes for Research

®

Ohio
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Ohio Reading Achievement Test 400 (Scale score) Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 N/A N/A 56.3 2005 N/A N/A 60.5 2006 N/A N/A 50.7

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A 10.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 53.1 N/A N/A 57.6 N/A N/A 47.9 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26.9 N/A N/A 41.7 N/A N/A 30.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 33.9 N/A N/A 42.6 N/A N/A 19.5

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

165

American Institutes for Research

®

Ohio
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Ohio Reading Achievement Test 400 (Scale score) Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 51.2 N/A N/A 53.9 N/A N/A 41.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 48.5 N/A N/A 56.4 N/A N/A 45.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 67.7 N/A N/A 68.0 N/A N/A 59.1 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 75.0 N/A N/A 81.8 N/A N/A 53.3

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A low n N/A N/A low n N/A N/A low n

166

American Institutes for Research

®

Ohio
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 36.4 29.3 26.2 2005 40.5 37.4 33.6 2006 44.7 36.4 36.6

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 66.7 55.6 66.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 33.3 25.6 23.7 37.3 33.6 31.0 41.3 33.8 34.3 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 14.6 10.7 7.1 18.6 13.6 10.8 19.1 11.6 9.4 N/A N/A N/A 14.4 15.5 14.7 11.3 19.7 35.7 26.3 17.6 21.3

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

167

American Institutes for Research

®

Ohio
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 27.6 24.3 24.9 30.1 31.6 33.8 43.2 24.4 36.6 N/A N/A N/A 34.3 25.9 22.7 37.1 34.5 29.2 38.7 30.4 32.0 N/A N/A N/A 41.3 34.4 30.7 47.5 42.0 39.0 53.2 49.1 43.2 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n 64.3 low n 50.0 low n 81.8 low n 38.1 40.0

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n

168

American Institutes for Research

®

Oklahoma
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Comprehension Grade 2: ITBS Comprehension Grade 3: ITBS Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 50 percentile 50 percentile 50 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 54.6 54.4 47.1 2005 58.7 57.8 53.3 2006 61.4 62.4 54.8

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 60.6 48.5 60.6

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 47.9 48.5 40.3 53.6 51.0 47.0 57.0 57.6 50.4 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 25.5 19.6 13.1 27.0 19.5 22.2 32.8 24.9 18.6 N/A N/A N/A 34.5 30.9 24.2 42.0 29.7 30.0 35.8 38.7 41.1

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

169

American Institutes for Research

®

Oklahoma
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Comprehension Grade 2: ITBS Comprehension Grade 3: ITBS Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 50 percentile 50 percentile 50 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 39.3 32.5 29.7 45.8 34.3 37.6 47.1 44.2 36.5 N/A N/A N/A 42.6 36.4 31.7 49.3 46.3 36.3 49.4 55.0 44.5 N/A N/A N/A 61.1 60.9 54.6 62.1 65.4 61.6 68.8 68.5 62.4 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 57.1 69.7 23.1 57.1 44.0 53.3 63.2 64.0 66.7

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 55.5 58.2 50.2 64.1 59.7 52.8 61.9 67.8 54.5

170

American Institutes for Research

®

Oklahoma
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 45.2 45.1 39.9 2005 56.2 52.7 51.1 2006 61.9 63.4 58.2

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 75.8 84.8 84.8

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 42.7 40.8 35.9 54.2 48.4 46.0 58.1 60.1 54.0 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 20.8 23.6 13.7 32.1 24.7 22.9 43.2 34.0 25.2 N/A N/A N/A 35.2 33.3 23.0 38.2 37.5 40.7 47.4 49.8 51.5

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

171

American Institutes for Research

®

Oklahoma
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 25.3 29.1 24.5 39.7 39.7 44.5 50.6 51.8 52.8 N/A N/A N/A 37.4 33.9 30.7 51.2 48.1 41.5 54.8 56.4 52.5 N/A N/A N/A 50.3 50.2 45.7 60.0 55.6 55.4 66.5 66.7 61.4 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 51.4 62.9 43.8 66.7 57.1 60.0 72.7 81.5 76.0

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 45.8 45.6 39.5 59.5 54.8 49.4 63.5 67.2 56.3

172

American Institutes for Research

®

Oregon
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 2: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 3: OR Statewide Achievement Test Total Reading

Proficiency Benchmark
40 percentile 40 percentile 201
th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 42.5 46.2 78.5 2005 52.8 53.5 81.6 2006 57.7 56.5 83.3

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 92.9 78.6 71.4

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 38.4 43.9 79.2 50.0 48.6 78.3 54.1 53.2 81.4 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 22.6 27.0 60.6 28.3 27.2 48.9 40.9 38.4 72.5 N/A N/A N/A 27.5 29.1 63.6 40.7 33.7 72.0 40.2 40.7 74.0

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

173

American Institutes for Research

®

Oregon
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 2: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 3: OR Statewide Achievement Test Total Reading

Proficiency Benchmark
40 percentile 40 percentile 201
th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 30.8 33.2 67.0 41.5 38.9 75.5 47.4 44.0 77.6 N/A N/A N/A 44.1 43.4 72.2 52.4 49.5 80.5 61.7 57.1 79.4 N/A N/A N/A 49.8 55.7 86.2 61.4 64.5 85.2 67.3 65.1 89.5 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 53.3 50.8 82.7 62.3 53.9 83.2 67.9 69.9 87.6

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 46.5 40.3 79.6 47.9 48.8 80.7 55.9 54.8 87.9

174

American Institutes for Research

®

Oregon
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 29.0 28.1 2004 39.7 35.1 35.0 2005 47.8 43.3 40.1 2006 55.2 51.9 46.5

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 92.9 100.0 78.6

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 26.8 26.8 36.2 32.6 34.1 44.8 38.3 37.1 51.6 49.7 42.4 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 9.1 9.5 23.7 12.8 11.0 26.5 20.7 14.0 35.9 32.1 24.8 N/A 16.6 15.7 27.2 23.5 21.9 39.4 30.7 25.8 40.4 44.8 35.6

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

175

American Institutes for Research

®

Oregon
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 34.3 35.4 39.7 36.4 39.1 53.8 50.3 45.7 63.3 55.3 53.8 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 19.4 18.8 26.7 24.2 24.0 37.6 32.7 30.6 45.1 44.0 39.2 N/A 35.3 22.1 40.7 30.7 23.8 46.4 34.4 35.2 62.2 50.6 32.9

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 38.1 39.3 53.5 44.5 43.7 65.9 56.6 51.9 74.5 73.3 61.9

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A 24.0 25.1 46.5 26.9 23.4 48.0 51.5 41.8 55.6 58.6 55.7

176

American Institutes for Research

®

Pennsylvania
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Reading Grade 2: TerraNova Reading Grade 3: PA System of School Assessment Reading Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile Proficient
th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 47.7 2004 49.2 49.4 52.5 2005 58.5 48.6 39.6 2006 59.2 47.9 42.6

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 39.3 14.3 7.1

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 43.5 X X 48.5 55.5 44.4 35.2 55.8 44.0 38.3 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 24.4 X X 24.6 38.2 23.0 14.6 44.2 22.1 16.2 N/A N/A 23.9 X X 25.0 34.0 25.9 13.6 42.6 23.1 18.9

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

177

American Institutes for Research

®

Pennsylvania
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Reading Grade 2: TerraNova Reading Grade 3: PA System of School Assessment Reading Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile Proficient
th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 72.4 X X 72.7 73.5 67.3 59.8 76.1 67.2 62.7 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 40.4 X X 39.9 47.0 41.0 30.1 52.0 40.1 34.5 N/A N/A 42.3 X X 48.3 56.7 42.7 33.3 54.6 41.8 36.4

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 41.2 X X 44.6 low n 61.9 51.7 66.7 56.1 51.6

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 63.6 X X low n low n low n low n low n low n 45.5

178

American Institutes for Research

®

Pennsylvania
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 44.1 35.9 30.1 2005 48.8 40.1 33.7 2006 50.6 42.5 38.2

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 67.9 71.4 85.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X 44.4 36.6 30.5 47.3 39.1 33.9 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X 30.5 21.4 17.1 37.4 21.0 17.7 N/A N/A N/A X X X 25.6 23.2 16.0 31.6 22.7 23.2

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

179

American Institutes for Research

®

Pennsylvania
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X 37.5 33.8 26.5 40.4 33.8 30.0 N/A N/A N/A X X X 48.4 36.6 30.0 48.5 39.1 34.1 N/A N/A N/A X X X 59.6 51.8 45.7 63.6 56.6 53.1 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X 60.6 54.1 47.2 67.6 59.0 57.3

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X low n low n low n low n 41.7 low n

180

American Institutes for Research

®

Rhode Island
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 2: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 3: SAT-10 Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 N/A N/A N/A 2006 67.5 25.2 41.2

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** Not comparable Not comparable Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 51.9 12.5 19.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 66.7 24.9 40.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 64.5 23.3 37.6 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

181

American Institutes for Research

®

Rhode Island
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 2: SAT-10 Comprehension Grade 3: SAT-10 Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 78.6 30.0 36.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60.0 19.3 33.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 78.4 27.5 40.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 73.6 39.8 58.7 2004 2005 2006

182

American Institutes for Research

®

Rhode Island
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford RF Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: Stanford RF Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: Stanford RF Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 50.6 36.6 37.2 2006 61.8 38.9 33.7

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 100.0 (3 of 3) 33.3 (1 of 3) 0.0 (0 of 3)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 30.8 22.7 11.3 42.0 19.1 12.9 N/A N/A N/A 33.0 27.2 29.2 60.7 38.7 33.6 N/A N/A N/A 48.2 33.4 32.9 58.3 37.2 30.9 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

183

American Institutes for Research

®

Rhode Island
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford RF Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: Stanford RF Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: Stanford RF Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n low n low n low n low n N/A N/A N/A 88.5 35.5 50.0 78.6 55.0 40.9 N/A N/A N/A 40.7 33.6 30.4 53.7 36.4 32.2 N/A N/A N/A 57.7 31.3 32.2 73.5 36.9 26.4 N/A N/A N/A 64.9 45.9 51.2 68.5 45.5 40.9 2004 2005 2006

184

American Institutes for Research

®

South Carolina
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 2: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 3: Stanford-RF Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 33.5 33.0 27.3 2005 45.8 37.2 44.2 2006 47.5 39.8 48.6

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 34.8 30.4 43.5

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 20.1 15.6 12.4 28.9 18.7 25.0 28.2 18.2 20.9 16.9 28.3 15.4 30.8 27.8 33.3 28.9 40.9 32.8 31.4 28.9 22.0 42.1 32.3 39.5 44.5 34.9 44.5 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

185

American Institutes for Research

®

South Carolina
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 2: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 3: Stanford-RF Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 56.3 27.3 low n 43.8 45.5 low n low n 28.6 low n 21.4 66.7 35.7 40.0 70.6 50.0 50.0 63.6 69.2 34.4 29.8 23.4 47.8 33.3 46.3 32.6 43.5 37.1 31.6 28.5 20.9 43.2 31.2 39.4 44.6 34.0 43.3 47.7 47.7 48.2 53.4 56.8 59.4 57.9 56.5 65.8 2004 2005 2006

186

American Institutes for Research

®

South Carolina
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests 296 (Scale score) Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A 73.2 2005 N/A N/A 73.6 2006 N/A N/A 75.4

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A 21.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 48.7 N/A N/A 49.7 N/A N/A 47.9 N/A N/A 66.7 N/A N/A 67.4 N/A N/A 66.1 N/A N/A 71.2 N/A N/A 71.4 N/A N/A 72.4 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

187

American Institutes for Research

®

South Carolina
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests 296 (Scale score) Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A 81.8 N/A N/A low n N/A N/A low n N/A N/A 93.3 N/A N/A 81.1 N/A N/A 82.4 N/A N/A 72.1 N/A N/A 68.4 N/A N/A 70.8 N/A N/A 70.0 N/A N/A 71.0 N/A N/A 72.6 N/A N/A 82.3 N/A N/A 82.6 N/A N/A 85.2 2004 2005 2006

188

American Institutes for Research

®

South Carolina
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: Stanford-RF Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: Stanford-RF Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 10.5 39.3 19.3 2005 60.7 47.9 42.9 2006 63.9 54.1 50.1

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 43.5 47.8 56.5

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 4.7 20.1 8.2 38.5 26.6 25.6 43.8 31.2 22.8 10.8 26.1 5.8 47.7 22.2 25.4 45.6 52.1 39.1 8.8 35.5 17.2 58.0 45.5 39.9 61.6 51.5 47.6 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

189

American Institutes for Research

®

South Carolina
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: Stanford-RF Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: Stanford-RF Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 6.3 45.5 low n 50.0 54.5 low n low n 50.0 low n 14.3 73.3 28.6 66.7 76.5 57.1 66.7 72.7 69.2 13.3 35.1 13.0 60.0 34.8 39.0 48.4 58.7 45.2 9.9 36.2 17.5 59.8 46.9 41.2 62.9 51.0 47.4 12.3 48.3 25.3 64.5 51.9 49.0 67.6 61.4 57.4 2004 2005 2006

190

American Institutes for Research

®

South Dakota
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 2: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 3: Stanford-RF Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 81.5 52.0 61.3 2005 83.2 60.5 60.7 2006 89.4 65.5 66.7

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 55.6 66.7 55.6

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 58.5 19.6 30.3 62.8 36.0 33.6 71.0 45.6 45.5 low n low n low n 72.7 7.1 33.3 50.0 50.0 27.3 69.7 35.0 32.3 74.3 48.3 43.8 85.7 49.5 55.9 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

191

American Institutes for Research

®

South Dakota
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 2: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 3: Stanford-RF Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 67.1 26.2 30.8 69.0 41.0 35.4 79.9 39.1 47.3 low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n 91.7 low n low n low n 58.3 low n low n low n X X low n low n low n low n low n 87.7 62.9 73.7 89.0 70.3 72.6 94.1 75.3 75.2 2004 2005 2006

192

American Institutes for Research

®

South Dakota
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: Stanford-RF Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: Stanford-RF Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 70.5 47.3 42.6 2005 80.7 63.3 57.8 2006 87.3 68.8 58.1

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 55.6 44.4 44.4

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 37.9 25.0 21.2 47.9 40.0 34.0 71.6 48.5 32.2 low n low n low n 54.6 46.2 26.7 52.4 50.0 42.9 64.9 31.1 31.2 68.4 51.7 42.4 82.8 54.8 43.8 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

193

American Institutes for Research

®

South Dakota
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: Stanford-RF Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: Stanford-RF Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile 40 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 53.5 35.3 32.5 62.6 41.5 33.1 77.9 46.4 36.0 low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n 83.3 low n low n low n 83.3 low n low n low n X X low n low n low n low n low n 77.6 52.7 48.4 88.7 71.6 68.5 90.9 77.0 66.6 2004 2005 2006

194

American Institutes for Research

®

South Dakota
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark Not reported Not reported Not reported

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 60.7 52.5 51.3 2005 71.1 63.5 53.3 2006 75.6 73.1 61.2

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 44.4 66.7 55.6

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 40.0 46.2 40.4 40.0 35.1 39.1 50.0 36.6 27.0 40.0 25.0 X 40.0 40.0 25.0 50.0 20.0 35.7 54.8 35.9 37.5 61.0 50.4 42.4 68.1 63.3 48.9 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

195

American Institutes for Research

®

South Dakota
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark Not reported Not reported Not reported

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 45.6 30.9 32.7 51.5 50.7 36.4 66.9 60.0 44.6 low n low n X low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n 76.9 low n low n low n 72.7 low n low n low n X 100.0 low n low n 100.0 X low n 69.2 61.2 50.8 79.2 70.0 60.9 79.7 78.2 68.6 2004 2005 2006

196

American Institutes for Research

®

Tennessee
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Retell Fluency

Proficiency Benchmark
25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 70.1 64.9 52.7 2005 79.0 69.9 59.3 2006 82.2 77.9 64.8

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 47.6 57.1 57.1

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 42.1 32.4 24.3 58.8 42.5 29.4 61.1 55.1 40.5 46.1 31.2 30.7 61.4 50.3 34.8 64.6 57.2 52.4 67.8 62.7 49.8 77.0 68.1 56.7 80.8 75.9 62.7 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.
®

197

American Institutes for Research

Tennessee
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Retell Fluency

Proficiency Benchmark
25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X low n low n low n X low n low n low n X 73.1 59.3 50.0 76.3 70.7 60.0 91.4 88.6 70.3 51.5 45.3 42.6 66.8 55.0 45.2 70.3 68.3 59.9 68.7 63.8 48.8 76.4 67.5 56.4 80.1 75.1 60.8 79.5 70.6 59.5 85.2 78.1 68.1 89.2 85.1 74.2 2004 2005 2006

198

American Institutes for Research

®

Tennessee
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 40.4 32.1 27.1 2005 50.1 35.1 32.1 2006 52.2 43.0 38.4

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 54.5 68.2 68.2

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 49
* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

2004

2005

2006

37.8 29.3 24.5

47.1 32.4 29.5

49.7 40.0 35.8

23.5 14.8 11.7

30.1 25.0 14.8

37.3 26.4 33.3

17.6 11.2 6.9

27.9 14.3 9.7

34.4 20.3 15.3

199

American Institutes for Research

®

Tennessee
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X low n low n low n X low n low n low n X 57.6 39.3 23.8 61.9 50.0 41.9 65.7 65.7 66.7 29.3 25.9 20.8 35.1 30.7 30.6 48.8 36.1 39.3 38.8 28.3 24.2 48.4 31.8 28.0 48.4 38.9 33.9 49.5 42.2 37.4 55.1 42.9 40.4 60.7 51.8 46.9 2004 2005 2006

200

American Institutes for Research

®

Texas
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: EQA Grade 2: EQA Grade 3: Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile State passing rate
th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 47.0 46.9 76.9 2004 53.5 51.8 88.7 2005 55.1 51.2 90.8 2006 53.9 49.7 90.9

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 27.7 29.3 36.2

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X 74.7 50.9 48.3 87.7 52.8 47.7 90.0 52.4 49.6 89.9 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 21.0 17.5 64.9 27.7 19.0 78.6 30.7 23.2 80.2 32.3 24.2 83.3 44.4 29.2 68.4 57.1 40.5 85.1 49.0 52.9 88.5 50.1 38.3 88.0

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

201

American Institutes for Research

®

Texas
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: EQA Grade 2: EQA Grade 3: Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills Proficiency Benchmark 40 percentile 40 percentile State passing rate
th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 55.1 61.6 88.4 73.7 72.5 93.7 72.4 74.9 94.7 70.2 73.7 97.0 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 44.2 46.8 76.1 51.3 47.7 88.3 52.4 46.2 91.1 50.9 47.4 91.1 43.5 43.5 71.6 48.4 47.4 86.6 53.4 50.1 87.0 47.2 46.2 85.9

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 71.6 74.1 78.9 67.5 76.8 94.4 78.1 70.5 97.8 71.9 64.8 96.0

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 low n low n 74.6 73.5 62.1 82.2 81.8 56.7 94.5 55.6 70.0 89.7

202

American Institutes for Research

®

Texas
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: N/A Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 N/A N/A N/A 2006 N/A N/A N/A

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A N/A

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

203

American Institutes for Research

®

Texas
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: N/A Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

204

American Institutes for Research

®

Utah
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Criterion Referenced Test Language Arts Grade 2: Criterion Referenced Test Language Arts Grade 3: Criterion Referenced Test Language Arts Proficiency Benchmark 160 160 160

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 45.5 61.4 51.2 2005 58.1 61.4 56.4 2006 63.6 65.3 59.5

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 100.0 50.0 66.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 40.2 54.7 43.0 52.4 56.4 50.9 58.3 61.1 55.3 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 30.2 41.7 29.9 25.3 24.4 21.1 40.3 28.6 28.9 N/A N/A N/A 28.3 31.2 31.7 32.0 35.3 25.7 43.9 25.7 20.1

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

205

American Institutes for Research

®

Utah
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Criterion Referenced Test Language Arts Grade 2: Criterion Referenced Test Language Arts Grade 3: Criterion Referenced Test Language Arts Proficiency Benchmark 160 160 160

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 31.6 50.4 34.4 44.2 48.6 47.8 47.1 54.6 46.1 N/A N/A N/A 43.5 low n 36.4 62.5 58.3 81.3 51.3 64.0 54.8 N/A N/A N/A 58.0 71.1 64.5 71.7 73.0 65.2 76.5 75.7 71.2 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 44.0 81.8 43.3 62.1 51.6 59.4 66.7 78.3 57.1

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 22.5 33.7 34.6 59.3 46.5 36.0 54.3 47.5 44.3

206

American Institutes for Research

®

Utah
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 45.4 36.0 30.4 2005 52.7 42.8 39.8 2006 58.1 46.3 37.6

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 100.0 83.3 66.7

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 41.1 30.0 25.6 46.7 39.3 34.1 54.5 42.9 33.8 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 20.2 12.8 7.7 17.5 12.9 5.5 24.0 14.7 13.5 N/A N/A N/A 22.9 14.2 16.0 35.3 24.8 22.6 46.3 33.7 15.8

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

207

American Institutes for Research

®

Utah
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 35.2 28.3 21.3 45.7 36.1 33.6 51.3 37.6 32.4 N/A N/A N/A 56.0 37.5 41.7 35.7 41.7 33.3 46.0 40.7 23.8 N/A N/A N/A 53.7 42.6 38.9 63.6 49.5 46.7 63.7 52.8 41.1 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 63.8 85.7 26.7 57.4 52.9 56.3 81.5 71.1 48.8

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 13.6 20.0 22.5 51.9 20.6 21.6 47.3 45.3 29.9

208

American Institutes for Research

®

Vermont
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Grade 2: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Grade 3: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 43 NCE 44 NCE 44 NCE

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X 51.5 2004 64.9 69.9 62.8 2005 63.0 61.6 62.3 2006 69.4 63.5 60.1

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 33.3 (1 of 3) 0.0 (0 of 3) 50.0 (1 of 2)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X 44.9 55.0 66.7 59.1 54.1 55.2 54.3 59.4 55.6 49.1 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X 20.0 40.0 31.4 18.0 27.3 31.3 23.9 25.7 31.4 23.9 X X low n low n 46.2 low n 36.4 33.3 26.7 41.4 50.0 29.6

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

209

American Institutes for Research

®

Vermont
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Grade 2: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Grade 3: Gates MacGinitie Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 43 NCE 44 NCE 44 NCE

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X 49.3 65.7 X 62.4 66.0 65.3 67.9 73.4 65.8 64.9 2004 2005 2006

African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X low n low n X low n low n low n low n low n low n low n X X low n low n X low n low n low n low n 50.0 low n low n

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X low n low n X low n 80.0 81.8 41.7 75.0 69.2 72.7

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X low n X X low n low n X X

210

American Institutes for Research

®

Vermont
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: TOWRE Total Reading Grade 3: TOWRE Total Reading Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 88 88

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 47.5 87.1 84.2 2005 48.6 81.9 82.4 2006 51.4 84.5 77.5

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 33.3 (1 of 3) 33.3 (1 of 3) 0.0 (0 of 3)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 15.7 85.6 75.3 41.1 74.6 75.8 40.6 78.9 68.5 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 16.7 53.1 42.0 21.2 52.1 47.8 22.9 51.4 41.3 N/A N/A N/A 66.7 84.6 low n 30.3 42.9 40.0 27.6 62.5 48.2

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

211

American Institutes for Research

®

Vermont
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: TOWRE Total Reading Grade 3: TOWRE Total Reading Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 88 88

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n X X low n low n low n low n low n low n N/A N/A N/A X X X low n low n low n 50.0 low n low n N/A N/A N/A 44.4 X X 50.6 85.5 88.1 53.6 87.4 81.5 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n X X 66.7 100.0 75.0 66.7 92.3 90.9

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X X X low n low n X X

212

American Institutes for Research

®

Virgin Islands
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Reading Total Grade 2: ITBS Reading Total Grade 3: ITBS Reading Total Proficiency Benchmark 50 percentile 50 percentile 50 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 2005 N/A 16.8 19.2 2006 41.7 22.0 20.9

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** Not comparable Not comparable Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X 56.3 5.0 11.1 X X X 19.1 low n low n X 16.8 19.2 41.7 22.0 20.9 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

213

American Institutes for Research

®

Virgin Islands
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ITBS Reading Total Grade 2: ITBS Reading Total Grade 3: ITBS Reading Total Proficiency Benchmark 50 percentile 50 percentile 50 percentile
th th th

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X low n X X X X X low n X X X X low n 7.1 31.7 21.9 12.9 X 18.2 21.8 43.3 22.3 22.1 X X low n low n low n low n 2004 2005 2006

214

American Institutes for Research

®

Virgin Islands
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 2005 39.4 39.4 32.0 2006 45.0 30.2 22.2

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** Not comparable Not comparable Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 15.4 low n low n 30.8 0.0 33.3 23.1 0.0 low n 26.3 low n low n 39.4 39.4 32.0 45.0 30.2 22.2 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

215

American Institutes for Research

®

Virgin Islands
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X X X X X X X X X low n X X 25.0 23.1 32.4 34.8 16.2 15.6 42.6 38.1 31.8 46.6 33.1 23.3 X low n low n low n low n low n 2004 2005 2006

216

American Institutes for Research

®

Virginia
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 2: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 3: Standards of Learning Reading

Proficiency Benchmark Above 10 Above 10 23+ out of 35 items

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 71.2 43.3 58.1 2005 72.8 45.0 70.2 2006 74.5 46.4 77.6

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 36.8 38.5 85.4

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 67.6 36.0 50.5 67.1 39.1 64.4 73.4 45.9 73.5 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 52.1 25.0 37.3 54.8 28.7 48.2 63.1 29.9 64.5 N/A N/A N/A 64.8 38.5 48.6 63.0 33.1 63.4 62.0 34.0 71.4

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

217

American Institutes for Research

®

Virginia
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 2: Stanford-RF Comprehension Grade 3: Standards of Learning Reading

Proficiency Benchmark Above 10 Above 10 23+ out of 35 items

Proficiency benchmark changed over the course of the grant.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 67.8 41.7 52.1 66.2 35.7 67.2 66.6 39.2 72.2 N/A N/A N/A 66.8 31.9 50.1 67.9 36.6 63.6 71.5 36.2 73.2 N/A N/A N/A 73.8 53.5 66.6 78.1 54.2 76.5 78.9 57.2 82.5 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n low n 67.9 low n low n 78.9 77.3 65.9 X

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X low n X X low n X X X

218

American Institutes for Research

®

Virginia
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Reading Fluency Grade 2: Stanford-RF Reading Fluency Grade 3: N/A Proficiency Benchmark Above 10 Above 10

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 58.6 51.3 N/A 2005 57.9 53.7 N/A 2006 60.3 53.9 N/A

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 33.3 41.0 N/A

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 53.0 44.5 N/A 51.5 47.9 N/A 58.5 53.2 N/A 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 39.6 36.3 N/A 40.3 36.4 N/A 49.8 37.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 56.3 49.6 N/A 50.0 45.1 N/A 48.2 41.3 N/A

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

219

American Institutes for Research

®

Virginia
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: Stanford-RF Reading Fluency Grade 2: Stanford-RF Reading Fluency Grade 3: N/A Proficiency Benchmark Above 10 Above 10

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 52.5 51.5 N/A 53.3 47.1 N/A 52.8 46.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 52.6 41.2 N/A 51.4 45.6 N/A 54.9 44.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A 62.3 60.5 N/A 64.9 62.0 N/A 67.0 63.5 N/A 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A low n X N/A low n low n N/A 72.7 73.2 N/A

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A

220

American Institutes for Research

®

Washington
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Retell Fluency

Proficiency Benchmark
25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 N/A N/A N/A 2006 84.8 78.9 72.1

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** Not comparable Not comparable Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 83.5 77.0 69.8 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 67.1 55.2 52.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 80.0 72.1 65.2

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.
®

221

American Institutes for Research

Washington
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Retell Fluency

Proficiency Benchmark
25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 82.2 74.9 68.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 88.0 83.3 77.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 90.3 88.8 83.0 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 87.0 86.6 70.6

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 73.7 66.7 62.4

222

American Institutes for Research

®

Washington
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 2004 56.0 46.1 43.3 2005 57.8 50.5 45.8 2006 67.2 57.5 59.9

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 77.3 81.0 90.5

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X 54.1 46.8 41.5 64.9 54.1 57.8 2004 2005 2006

English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X 34.7 26.7 23.4 42.6 31.8 37.0 N/A N/A N/A X X X 50.7 42.8 39.9 42.6 31.8 37.0

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

223

American Institutes for Research

®

Washington
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X 52.7 44.5 42.8 62.6 51.4 57.0 N/A N/A N/A X X X 67.9 57.9 42.7 70.7 61.6 61.6 N/A N/A N/A X X X 66.0 58.0 51.3 72.5 68.4 65.0 2004 2005 2006

Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X 74.9 69.2 65.4 81.0 78.8 72.9

American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X X X 54.3 52.9 44.3 69.6 53.0 53.8

224

American Institutes for Research

®

West Virginia
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Retell Fluency

Proficiency Benchmark
25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 X 83.9 60.1 2006 96.2 86.2 83.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** Not comparable 23.8 95.2

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X 64.2 40.5 91.2 74.7 66.0 N/A N/A N/A X low n low n low n X low n N/A N/A N/A X 81.6 55.0 95.5 83.6 80.5 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.
®

225

American Institutes for Research

West Virginia
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Retell Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Retell Fluency

Proficiency Benchmark
25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency 25 percent of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A X low n low n X low n low n N/A N/A N/A X low n low n low n low n low n N/A N/A N/A X low n low n low n low n low n N/A N/A N/A X 87.8 46.5 94.9 88.9 70.7 N/A N/A N/A X 83.8 60.5 96.4 85.8 83.3 2004 2005 2006

226

American Institutes for Research

®

West Virginia
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 X 43.9 42.8 2005 59.4 51.6 50.5 2006 91.8 79.7 83.9

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 100.0 100.0 100.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X 22.3 24.1 40.9 25.7 28.2 77.9 58.6 56.3 X low n low n low n low n low n low n X low n X 37.9 34.0 52.2 44.2 43.5 88.4 74.3 79.5 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

227

American Institutes for Research

®

West Virginia
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 X low n low n low n low n low n X low n low n X low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n X low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n X 47.6 40.0 59.0 54.8 44.4 93.6 83.8 81.8 X 43.9 42.9 59.2 51.6 50.7 91.8 79.3 84.2 2004 2005 2006

228

American Institutes for Research

®

Wisconsin
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 2: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 3: TerraNova Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 50 NCE 50 NCE 50 NCE

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 42.9 44.5 40.9 2006 53.2 47.4 42.8

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 64.0 44.0 44.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 28.6 16.4 12.5 36.4 23.4 15.2 N/A N/A N/A 38.7 38.1 32.5 50.3 38.7 32.3 N/A N/A N/A 37.9 36.7 32.9 47.4 40.2 34.4 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

229

American Institutes for Research

®

Wisconsin
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 2: TerraNova Comprehension Grade 3: TerraNova Comprehension Proficiency Benchmark 50 NCE 50 NCE 50 NCE

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 52.2 55.6 48.1 58.6 47.4 47.4 N/A N/A N/A 44.3 48.3 31.5 64.5 41.9 38.8 N/A N/A N/A 44.0 38.2 33.7 55.5 48.1 37.9 N/A N/A N/A 34.6 34.1 30.0 40.7 33.7 30.2 N/A N/A N/A 51.6 58.2 56.8 65.7 62.9 60.4 2004 2005 2006

230

American Institutes for Research

®

Wisconsin
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ERDA Fluency Grade 2: ERDA Fluency Grade 3: ERDA Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 50 NCE 50 NCE 50 NCE

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 20.5 21.3 27.5 2006 50.0 44.4 38.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 100.0 100.0 76.0

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 9.0 6.3 9.5 30.6 20.5 17.2 N/A N/A N/A 15.0 19.4 26.2 45.2 49.1 36.9 N/A N/A N/A 16.4 17.3 22.5 44.0 36.9 30.8 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

231

American Institutes for Research

®

Wisconsin
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: ERDA Fluency Grade 2: ERDA Fluency Grade 3: ERDA Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 50 NCE 50 NCE 50 NCE

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A 26.3 31.3 28.6 30.8 35.3 41.2 N/A N/A N/A 24.7 24.6 27.7 64.3 47.1 48.3 N/A N/A N/A 22.8 16.6 28.8 45.7 47.1 39.4 N/A N/A N/A 17.0 16.7 20.2 39.3 34.3 28.7 N/A N/A N/A 23.1 26.7 35.1 62.5 53.8 47.1 2004 2005 2006

232

American Institutes for Research

®

Wyoming
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Proficiency Assessment for Wyoming Students State passing rate

Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 N/A N/A N/A 2005 N/A N/A N/A 2006 N/A N/A 48.2

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** N/A N/A Not comparable

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 25.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 38.1 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

233

American Institutes for Research

®

Wyoming
Comprehension: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used
Grade 1: N/A Grade 2: N/A Grade 3: Proficiency Assessment for Wyoming Students State passing rate

Proficiency Benchmark

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 30.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A low n N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 39.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A low n N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 53.9 2004 2005 2006

234

American Institutes for Research

®

Wyoming
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—All Students 2003 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 2004 49.7 35.0 37.4 2005 56.8 55.7 44.3 2006 66.2 52.4 57.0

Percent of LEAs showing improvement** 50.0 (2 of 4) 0.0 (0 of 4) 100.0 (4 of 4)

** Percent of LEAs showing an improvement of 5 percentage points or more from the first year of implementation to 2006. LEAs that do not have first year or 2006 data were not included in these calculations. The “first year of implementation” does not represent baseline data.

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup 2003 Economically Disadvantaged Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 English Language Learners Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 36.6 17.8 24.3 32.4 38.1 20.3 44.2 37.1 42.3 48.6 19.4 17.7 40.8 45.5 22.2 33.9 40.4 36.6 42.7 22.2 31.2 49.8 45.9 32.1 57.9 48.2 49.3 2004 2005 2006

* The figures above are from data provided by state education agencies. AIR has not altered these data, although system-detected errors have been omitted (e.g., in cases where the number of students passing is greater than the total number tested, etc.). All district- and state-level results are based upon the aggregation of school-level data. AIR does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of any information disclosed herein. Data and information are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended for validation of core reading programs or assessment instruments. These tables include all of the data reported for Cohort 1 schools. “Cohort 1” includes all schools that were funded in the first calendar year of subgrant awards. The data upon which the proficiency rates in these tables are based may include schools that have merged, separated, changed names, and/or been discontinued. Baseline data, noted in italics, may not include data for all schools, districts, and/or assessments. “Low n” indicates cases where the total number tested is ten students or fewer.

235

American Institutes for Research

®

Wyoming
Fluency: Cohort 1*
Assessments Used Grade 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 2: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 3: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Proficiency Benchmark 40 WPM 90 WPM 110 WPM

Percent Proficient—Students by Subgroup (continued) 2003 White Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 African American Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Hispanic Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Asian/Pacific Islander Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 American Indian/Native Alaskan Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 36.8 20.0 27.8 44.1 41.8 24.5 38.2 47.1 36.2 low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n low n 42.9 28.6 61.5 52.8 59.3 40.6 56.3 37.5 58.1 low n low n X 36.4 low n low n low n 53.9 low n 56.7 39.2 43.7 60.8 58.5 47.6 74.0 55.0 61.3 2004 2005 2006

236

American Institutes for Research

®

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.