minnesota reading first program 2006 – 2007 · minnesota reading first program 2006 – 2007 ......
TRANSCRIPT
Prepared by
Assessment and Evaluation Concepts Inc.
Minnesota Reading First Program2006 – 2007
Final Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-FinalReportCover-v01.indd 12007-MN-ReadingFirst-FinalReportCover-v01.indd 1 11/30/2007 11:32:08 AM11/30/2007 11:32:08 AM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 2. Evaluation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Chapter 3. Interview Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Chapter 4. Classroom Observation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Chapter 5. Achievement Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chapter 6. Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A: Data Reports by Subtest by School for Round Two Schools . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix B: Data Reports for Disaggregated Groups for Round Two Schools . . . . . . 37
Appendix C: Data Reports for Racial/Ethnic Groups for Round Two Schools . . . . . . 51
i
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introi2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introi 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM
ii
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introii2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introii 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
1. Results of Classroom Observation for Kindergarten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Results of Classroom Observation for First Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Results of Classroom Observation for Second Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Results of Classroom Observation for Third Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Number of Students Tested by Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Round Two Schools: Grade 1 – Number and Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Round Two Schools: Grade 1 – Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets for Disaggregated Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Round Two Schools: Grade 1 – Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets by Racial/Ethnic Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Round Two Schools: Grade 1– Two-Year ComparisonsPercent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Round Two Schools: Grade 2 – Number and Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Round Two Schools: Grade 2 – Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets for Disaggregated Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. Round Two Schools: Grade 2 – Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets by Racial/Ethnic Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13. Round Two Schools: Grade 2 – Two-Year ComparisonsPercent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14. Round Two Schools: Grade 3 – Number and Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
15. Round Two Schools: Grade 3 – Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets for Disaggregated Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
16. Round Two Schools: Grade 3 – Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets by Racial/Ethnic Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
17. Round Two Schools: Grade 3 – Two-Year ComparisonsPercent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
iii
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introiii2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introiii 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM
iv
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introiv2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Introiv 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM
Chapter 1
Introduction
During the 2006–2007 school year, the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) funded 24 elementary schools throughout the state, including schools with a substantial number of educationally disadvantaged students, to implement Reading First programs. The overall goal of these Reading First programs is to improve the reading skills of educationally disadvantaged students in grades K–3. The program is a key component of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Title I, Part B) and utilizes scientifi cally-based reading research instructional strategies and assessment procedures.
Each of the 24 Reading First schools was coordinated by a full-time Literacy Coordinator, a part-time (two days per week) External Facilitator from the University of Minnesota (the U of M), and a part-time data collector from the U of M. It should also be noted that each school’s building principal played a prominent role in his/her school’s program. As in previous school years, the Literacy Coordinators organized weekly Study Group meetings within their respective schools where the teachers, principals, and Literacy Coordinators discussed the latest reading research fi ndings provided by the U of M. (The U of M prepared packets of the reading articles from the latest reading journals for the teachers to use within their Study Groups.) During the year, the evaluation consultants observed Study Groups where higher-level questioning skills, vocabulary, and comprehension instructional strategies were discussed. The Literacy Coordinators modeled lessons for the teachers and offered suggestions to the Reading First teachers on how to improve their reading instruction, and arranged for the videotaping of teachers to help them further examine their instruction methods. The External Facilitator frequently participated in each school’s Study Group and was observed interpreting the Reading First test scores with the classroom teachers. They, along with the Literacy Coordinator, helped each teacher identify individual students’ strengths and weaknesses and suggested instructional techniques to remediate students’ defi ciencies. The U of M’s data collectors used classroom observation instruments to determine the specifi c instructional techniques teachers implemented within their classrooms. As noted above, each Reading First principal played a prominent role within his/her school’s Reading First program. Each principal participated in the school’s weekly Study Groups and attended the numerous professional development workshops provided by the U of M. The principals were also given training on how to implement “shared leadership” and other effective administrative strategies.
As previously discussed, the U of M provided the entire Reading First community with numerous professional develop-ment workshops during the summer (the Summer Institute) as well as during the school year (the Fall, Winter and Spring Institutes). These large-scale training sessions (approximately 500 Reading First teachers, principals, Literacy Coordi-nators, and External Facilitators attended these workshops) included presentations by national reading experts and Dr. Barbara Taylor, a professor from the U of M, and her associates. The Institutes also included presentations by many of the Literacy Coordinators, the External Facilitators, and many Reading First classroom teachers.
The Reading First Program Components
As noted above, the Reading First program is based upon scientifi cally-based reading research. Therefore, the United States Department of Education recommended that each Reading First program focus on the fi ve major components of reading instruction. They include the following:
Phonemic Awareness Instruction,• Phonics Instruction,•
1
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:12007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:1 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM
Fluency Instruction,• Vocabulary Instruction, and • Text Comprehension Instruction.•
Phonemic Awareness Instruction is the ability to notice, think about, and work with individual sounds in spoken words. Phonics Instruction focuses on the relationships between the letters of written language and the sounds of spoken language. Fluency Instruction focuses on helping students read text accurately and quickly. Vocabulary Instruction is designed to help students recognize word meanings and to effectively communicate those meanings. The use of the word vocabulary here can imply either oral vocabulary or reading vocabulary, where oral vocabulary refers to words that are used in speak-ing or recognized in listening, and reading vocabulary refers to words recognized or used in print. Text Comprehension Instruction is the ultimate reason for reading. As a federal government pamphlet on Reading First said, “If the readers can read the words but do not understand what they are reading, they are not really reading.”
Participating School Districts and Schools: Round Two Schools
Fourteen school districts throughout Minnesota implemented a Reading First program in the following 24 elementary schools:
Owatonna Public SchoolsWilson Elementary School
Robbinsdale Public Schools Neill Elementary School
Rochester Public SchoolsRiverside Central Elementary School
South Koochiching/Rainy River Public SchoolsIndus Elementary School
Spring Lake Park Public SchoolsWoodcrest Elementary School
St. Cloud Public SchoolsDiscovery Community School
St. Paul Public SchoolsCrossroads Elementary SchoolFarnsworth Aerospace Magnet SchoolHancock-Hamline University Collaboration Magnet SchoolPaul and Sheila Wellstone Elementary
Anoka-Hennepin Public SchoolsUniversity Elementary SchoolWilson Elementary School
Austin Public SchoolsNeveln-Woodson Elementary School
Cass Lake-Bena Public SchoolsCass Lake-Bena Elementary School
Crookston Public SchoolsWashington Elementary School
Minneapolis Public SchoolsBancroft Elementary SchoolBethune Community SchoolJenny Lind Community SchoolRamsey Fine Arts SchoolRisen Christ (Nonpublic)Shingle Creek Urban Environmental CenterWaite Park Elementary School
North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale Public SchoolsRichardson Elementary School
Ogilvie Public SchoolsOgilvie Elementary School
2
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:22007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:2 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM
Chapter 2
Evaluation Methodology
As in the previous two school years, Assessment and Evaluation Concepts Inc. (AEC) was hired by the MDE to conduct the summative evaluation of the Reading First program. (The U of M, under the direction of Dr. Barbara Taylor, conducted the formative evaluation of the Minnesota Reading First subgrant program.) This fi nal evaluation report summarizes the various tests and assessments administered in each of the 24 participating Reading First schools. The evaluation report also includes the results of a series of classroom observations conducted by the evaluation consultants, which focused on the fi ve major components of the Reading First program: Phonemic Awareness Instruction, Phonics Instruction, Fluency Instruction, Vocabulary Instruction, and Text Comprehension Instruction. In addition, the evaluation report contains the results of a series of individual interviews from each of the Reading First schools’ principals, Literary Coordinators, External Facilitators, and a sample of the classroom teachers. The evaluation consultants examined all relevant program documents and data fi les from the MDE, the U of M, and a sample of the Reading First schools.
Regarding the Reading First tests and assessments, the Minnesota Reading First proposal to the United States Depart-ment of Education delineated several specifi c reading tests and subtests for the Round Two schools to administer and provided specifi c target scores for these Reading First schools to achieve. Therefore, the achievement tests were analyzed to determine the number of students meeting the achievement targets and the total number of students participating in the Reading First program. Furthermore, percentages of students meeting or exceeding the targets for the state over time are presented in this fi nal evaluation report.
3
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:32007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:3 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM
4
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:42007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:4 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM
Chapter 3
Interview Results
AEC visited 20 of the participating Reading First elementary schools. During these on-site visits, the evaluation con-sultants individually interviewed each school principal, the Literacy Coordinator, the External Facilitator, and a sample of the Reading First classroom teachers. Using a series of structured interview guides, the evaluation consultants conducted interviews with a sample of the Reading First staff. The following is a summary of these interviews.
The Reading First Principals
Each of the building principals interviewed were pleased to have their schools participating in the Reading First pro-gram. They all indicated the various tests and assessments help drive the reading instruction within their buildings. One rural principal said, “This is the fi rst time we have used test data to drive instruction in my school.” She said that the read-ing scores for the Reading First program help identify individual students’ needs, monitor the students’ progress, are used to communicate with the children’s parents, and help her inform her school board on the achievements of her students in the Reading First program. A principal in a non-public urban school had similar feelings toward the use of the various tests and assessments in her school’s Reading First program. She said, “The test scores help my teachers determine the place-ment of students in reading groups, monitor each child’s progress, and determine what type of intervention is appropriate for each child.” One urban principal was critical of the tests and assessments used in the Reading First program and said, “The tests in the program are not very useful in working with special needs students or English language learners.” How-ever, nearly all other principals felt the tests and assessments were worthwhile components of the Reading First program.
All principals interviewed were positive about the use of the latest reading research in their schools. Several principals discussed how they used the reading research in their schools’ Study Groups. One suburban principal said, “The research we discuss in our Study Groups help us be strategic about achieving our goals. We discuss best practices and how to implement the instructional strategies we read about.” An urban principal indicated she used the reading research in her school’s faculty meetings as well as in her school’s Study Groups. Another urban principal said he worked closely with his Literacy Coordinator and planned the topics discussed in his school’s Study Groups. He indicated that his school focused on comprehension and vocabulary topics in this year’s Study Groups. He also planned to extend the Study Group’s model for his fourth-, fi fth-, and sixth-grade teachers.
Each principal was laudatory about his/her school’s Literacy Coordinators and the External Facilitators. They all felt these “reading experts” were an invaluable resource to their classroom teachers. Whether they were modeling a lesson for a struggling teacher or helping set the agenda for the weekly Study Group meetings, all principals were pleased with their school’s Literacy Coordinator and External Facilitator. One principal said, “Our External Facilitator is unbelievably helpful to my teachers. She is an excellent resource.”
The principals were also complimentary about assistance from the Minnesota Department of Education. One urban principal said, “My Reading First specialist is excellent…she is always positive and very knowledgeable.” Another princi-pal from a rural elementary school made similar positive remarks. She said, “My Reading First specialist from the Min-nesota Department of Education has been extremely helpful to me…I can call or e-mail her any time.”
Nearly all principals were positive about the professional development workshops provided by the U of M. They felt that the training sessions provided their teachers with many valuable instructional strategies to use in their reading classes. One urban principal said, “I think the workshops give my teachers many new insights. The workshops also give my staff an opportunity to network with other teachers.” In spite of the many positive comments about the professional
5
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:52007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:5 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM
development workshops, one urban principal thought the U of M should have provided a more in-depth presentation on various components of the Reading First program at the beginning of the program. Another urban principal suggested his instructional assistants be invited to the professional development workshops, while another urban principal thought the workshops were too repetitive.
Literacy Coordinators
All of the Literacy Coordinators interviewed were enthusiastic about their participation in their schools’ Reading First program. The Literacy Coordinators discussed how they helped teachers interpret and use the various tests and assess-ments. For example, one Literacy Coordinator said, “We look for trends in the data and use the tests to differentiate the instruction.” Another Literacy Coordinator said they have monthly assessment days in her school and use the test informa-tion to monitor her students’ progress. Another Literacy Coordinator from an urban school said, “We use the test data to drive the instruction in my school…and we look at the test scores to see what interventions the students need.” In addition, another Literacy Coordinator discussed how she presented the Reading First test results to her local school board. She thought the positive test results would be benefi cial to retaining her position when the Reading First grant expires.
The Literacy Coordinators discussed their roles within their schools’ Study Groups. A Literacy Coordinator from an urban school said, “We have weekly Study Group meetings to discuss comprehension skills and Early Intervention Pro-grams…we try to identify strategies that impact our students’ achievement.” A Literacy Coordinator said, “Through our Study Groups, we try new instructional techniques.” She also discussed how teachers used videotaping to critique each others’ teaching. She noted, “We try to fi nd out what works with our students.”
Literacy Coordinators indicated that they worked closely with their schools’ principal. One Literacy Coordinator said, “I meet weekly with my principal and we discuss our school’s Leadership Team.” These meetings help us set the agenda for our weekly Study Group meetings. Another Literacy Coordinator said she had an excellent relationship with her prin-cipal. She said, “My principal is an excellent problem solver.”
Nearly all of the Literacy Coordinators were positive about the professional development workshops provided by the U of M. A Literacy Coordinator said, “The workshops have made a huge difference in my school…Catholic schools do not have much professional development…my teachers are able to hear nationally known experts.” Another Literacy Coordi-nator from an urban school indicated that there was a great resistance from some of her teachers about having to attend the U of M workshops. She said, “Some of my teachers have embraced the new ideas and suggestions…and others are not willing to learn new approaches.” As a matter of fact, one of the teachers said to the evaluation consultant, “These work-shops are a waste of my time…I have taught over 30 years and I already know all this stuff.”
External Facilitators
Each External Facilitator indicated that he/she worked closely with the school’s Literacy Coordinators, as well as help-ing the principal and teachers interpret the test scores. They also indicated that they worked closely with the Literacy Coordinators in implementing the Study Groups within their schools. One External Facilitator from a large urban school said, “I am the representative from the U of M…I am there to provide the research to the teachers.” She also saw that her role was to provide the teachers with information about the best instructional practices. Another External Facilitator from an urban school said, “I work closely with the Literacy Coordinator…and spend a great deal of time in the classrooms…to give feedback to the teachers.”
All of the External Facilitators indicated that they would frequently model lessons for their teachers. One External Facilitator said, “I demonstrate a lesson for the teachers and share the video of my lesson with other teachers.” Another External Facilitator indicated that she modeled lessons several times a week and had her teachers critique her lesson. She found the modeling of lessons to be an effective learning experience for her teachers. After modeling the lesson, the External Facilitator would go into the teacher’s classroom and observe the teacher trying the newly learned instructional technique.
6
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:62007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:6 12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM12/6/2007 10:21:02 AM
Besides modeling lessons, the External Facilitators frequently distributed research articles to their teachers. One Exter-nal Facilitator from a large urban school said, “I am constantly distributing articles to the teachers…our school subscribes to Reading Research and we discuss these articles in our Study Groups.” Another External Facilitator from another large urban school said, “The reading articles and the professional workshops provide my teachers with useful information on instructional practices.”
Overall, the External Facilitators were seen as valuable resources to each school’s Reading First program. Working closely with their schools’ Literacy Coordinators and building principals, they provided expert assistance to each of their respective Reading First schools’ classroom teachers.
Classroom Teachers
An overwhelming majority of the teachers interviewed said they were pleased to participate in the Reading First pro-gram. Although most of the teachers indicated the program required a signifi cant time commitment, they felt that they had learned a great deal about reading and they substantially improved their teaching skills. For example, many teachers discussed how they used test scores to set up their reading groups. They also discussed how they used the test results to identify each student’s strengths and weaknesses. One teacher from a large urban elementary school said, “I use the test data to refer students for special education and to talk to the parents.” Another teacher in a rural elementary school indi-cated she used the test results “to identify which of my students need an intervention and to monitor the other students’ progress.”
Nearly all of the teachers indicated they used the research they had acquired in their Study Groups to improve their teaching. Working closely with their schools’ Literacy Coordinators and the External Facilitators, they had learned many new instructional techniques. For example, a teacher from a large urban school said, “I try to apply the latest techniques in my class…such as Post-it notes for questioning skills.” Another teacher from another urban school said, “The research has changed the way I teach reading…I use higher-level questioning in my reading classes.” In spite of the numerous positive comments, one negative teacher from a large urban elementary school said, “I read about things I already know about…I know much of the material already.”
Many of the teachers interviewed indicated that they participated in their school’s Leadership Team. One teacher from an urban elementary school said, “We have a wonderful environment in our school…we are very supportive to one another… even though we combined two different schools.” Another teacher from a suburban school said, “We have a representative from each grade level on our school’s Leadership Team and we discuss new ideas and make decisions to-gether.” Another teacher from a non-public school said, “I have an awesome relationship with my principal and I also love my Literacy Coordinator. She is very helpful to me.”
Most of the teachers interviewed were very positive about professional development workshops they were required to attend. A teacher from a rural elementary school said, “The workshops really meet my needs…I learned many new ideas from each session.” Another teacher from a large urban school was particularly laudatory about the Winter Institute and said, “I really like the Winter Institute…the teachers got to share what they were doing in their classes.” She also suggested that the teachers be given an opportunity to visit other teachers’ classrooms. Several other teachers were pleased they had an opportunity to view other teachers’ videos. One teacher from an urban school said, “We saw how other teachers are doing things…and learn from each other.” One less-than-enthusiastic teacher from a suburban elementary school said, “I think the in-service workshops are so-so…some of the workshops are great and some are not so good.”
All of the teachers interviewed were pleased with the abundance of new instructional materials they had received to use with their students. For example, one rural teacher said, “The Literacy Coordinator is always getting us plenty of new instructional materials.” Another teacher from a suburban elementary school said, “We have an amazing amount of mate-rials.” Overall, the teachers were very enthusiastic about the amount of new reading books they had acquired.
7
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:72007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:7 12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM
In summary, nearly all of the teachers interviewed by the evaluation consultants were pleased to participate in the Reading First program. As noted above, they had learned a great deal about reading instruction through the weekly Study Group meetings and the U of M’s professional development institutes. They like participating in their schools’ Leadership Teams and they had acquired an infusion of new reading materials. There were only a few teachers who were negative toward their participation in the Reading First program.
8
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:82007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:8 12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM
Chapter 4
Classroom Observation Results
During September and October of 2006, January of 2007, and May of 2007, the evaluation consultants visited 20 of the Reading First schools throughout Minnesota. During these on-site visits, the evaluation consultant observed kindergarten through grade 3 Reading First classes. After the MDE Reading First specialist contacted the Reading First schools, the evaluation consultant called the school and the Literacy Coordinator or the principal faxed a schedule of classroom obser-vations for the evaluation consultant to follow. These classroom observations were usually conducted during the morn-ing’s school reading/literacy block and each classroom observation lasted between 20–30 minutes. Using a specially con-structed classroom observation instrument, the evaluation consultants visited a sample of the Reading First classrooms. It should be noted that the classroom observation instrument focused on the fi ve major areas of the Minnesota Reading First program: Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, and Text Comprehension. Below is a brief description of each of these fi ve major components:
Under Phonemic Awareness, the instruction included such components as identifying and making oral rhymes, iden-tifying and working with syllables in spoken words, identifying and working with syllables in spoken words, identifying and working with onsets and rimes in spoken syllables, and identifying and working with phonemes in words spoken.
Under Phonics, the instruction included such components as systematic approach, explicit approach, relating letters and sounds, breaking spoken words into sounds, blending sounds, aiding children in applying letter-sound correspondence as they read and write text, and adapting to needs of individuals.
Under Fluency, the instruction included such components as fl uency (students reading and re-reading text until fl uency is met), guidance in re-reading through student-adult reading, choral reading, tape-assisted reading, partner reading or reader’s theater, and monitoring students toward reading effortlessly and with expression.
Under Vocabulary, the instruction included such components as engagement in daily oral language, text orally read, time for extensive individual reading, implicit and explicit word instruction, and repeat exposure to vocabulary, word learning strategies such as word parts (affi xes), and using context clues.
Under Text Comprehension, the instruction included such components as strategies for comprehension monitoring, use of graphic and semantic organizers, teacher’s questioning, student generating questions, elements for text structure, direct instruction such as direct explanations, modeling guided practice and application, activating prior knowledge, and use of mental imagery.
Using these fi ve major components of the Reading First program, the evaluation consultants rated their implementation during the classroom observation on a fi ve-point Likert scale:
0• =No evidence of implementation
1• =Minimal evidence of implementation
2• =Some evidence of implementation and usage
3• =Evidence of implementation, with no practice
4• =Evidence of implementation, minimal practice
5• =Extreme evidence of implementation
9
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:92007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:9 12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM
Frequently, the evaluation consultant observed more than one component of the Reading First program being taught; for example, Vocabulary instructional strategy was included in a lesson focusing on Comprehension. Therefore, the total reading scores are a duplicated count, with some lessons receiving only one rating and some lessons receiving several rat-ings for an individual lesson. The following are the total ratings and the mean rating scores for each grade level.
Table 1 reports the ratings of the evaluation consultants for the kindergarten classes observed. Phonics was clearly the most prevalent Reading First component observed followed by Fluency instruction. Since many kindergarten teachers spend a substantial amount of time teaching their students letter sounds and blends, it is not surprising that the evaluation consultants observed Phonics being taught in many kindergarten classrooms.
Table 1Results of Classroom Observation for Kindergarten
(N=22)
Reading First Component Total Rating Mean Rating
Phonemic Awareness 3 3.00
Phonics 44 4.88
Fluency 30 4.28
Vocabulary 19 3.80
Text Comprehension 19 3.80
Table 2 shows the ratings of the evaluation consultants for the fi rst-grade classes. Fluency instruction (mean=4.50) was the most prevalent instruction activity observed by the evaluation consultants followed by Comprehension (mean=4.25) and Vocabulary instruction (mean=3.87) in the fi rst-grade classes.
Table 2Results of Classroom Observation for First Grade
(N=30)
Reading First Component Total Rating Mean Rating
Phonemic Awareness 4 4.00
Phonics 27 3.85
Fluency 36 4.50
Vocabulary 31 3.87
Text Comprehension 34 4.25
10
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:102007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:10 12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM
Table 3 presents the ratings of the evaluation consultants for the second-grade Reading First classes observed. Interest-ingly, Text Comprehension (mean=4.69), Vocabulary (mean=4.44), Fluency (mean=4.20), and Phonics (mean=4.25) all had very similar ratings. Not surprisingly, Phonemic Awareness was not observed in any of the second-grade classes, since Phonemic Awareness is usually only taught in kindergarten classes.
Table 3Results of Classroom Observation for Second Grade
(N=32)
Reading First Component Total Rating Mean Rating
Phonemic Awareness 0 0
Phonics 17 4.25
Fluency 21 4.20
Vocabulary 40 4.44
Text Comprehension 61 4.69
Table 4 below depicts the results of the classroom observations for the third-grade Reading First classes. During the 2006–2007 school year, the evaluation consultants visited 32 third-grade classes. Text Comprehension was observed in a substantial number of these third-grade classes, followed by Vocabulary instruction. Since Comprehension skills play a prominent role in the reading curriculum as one moves into higher grade levels, it is not surprising that they were fre-quently observed in the third-grade classes.
Table 4Results of Classroom Observation for Third Grade
(N=32)
Reading First Component Total Rating Mean Rating
Phonemic Awareness 0 0
Phonics 5 5.0
Fluency 18 3.60
Vocabulary 30 4.28
Text Comprehension 63 4.84
11
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:112007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:11 12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM
12
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:122007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:12 12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM
Chapter 5
Achievement Results
The Minnesota Reading First program has established a comprehensive system to collect relevant achievement infor-mation on the participating students. As mentioned earlier, numerous formative assessments are conducted to provide Reading First personnel with ongoing diagnostic and achievement measurements on the participating students. These as-sessments are utilized from kindergarten through grade 3 and comprise the basis of the formative assessment component conducted by the University of Minnesota.
The summative evaluation, conducted by AEC, uses the overall impact assessment subtests specifi ed in the MDE’s agreement with the federal Reading First program. The required summative evaluation achievement instruments are ad-ministered to participating students in grades 1–3. These test instruments are:
Gates-MacGinitie Comprehension ♦ (grades 1, 2);
Gates-MacGinitie Word Decoding ♦ (grades 1, 2);
Gates-MacGinitie Word Knowledge ♦ (grade 2);
Deno’s Oral Fluency ♦ (grades 1, 2, 3); and
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment ♦ – MCA II (grade 3).
The achievement information in this chapter comes from several sources. The Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA II) information was generated directly from MDE data fi les. The demographic fi les and coding schemes were provided by the MDE; the non-MCA II student achievement fi les were provided by the University of Minnesota. AEC converted these fi les and merged them with the student demographic data by using the state’s system of student identifi ca-tion numbers as the common element. During the analysis, when missing or duplicate student identifi cation numbers were encountered, they could not be matched and were therefore dropped from the analysis. AEC maintained strict confi denti-ality and security procedures at all times throughout the processing and analysis of the data.
This evaluation report presents end-of-year overall and disaggregated achievement performance data for grades 1–3 to indicate the number and percentage of students meeting the target profi ciency level and the total number of students in the tested group. Disaggregated information is provided for racial/ethnic categories and for special population groups (students on free and reduced price lunch, limited English profi cient students, and special education students). Due to the substantial amount of overall school data and disaggregated school data for the subtests included in the Minnesota Reading First program, this information is included in Appendices A, B, and C. The results are presented for students for whom test scores were reported and who could be matched across fi les by their student identifi cation number. In order to maintain confi dentiality of individual student information and to avoid presenting data from groups that are too small to provide reliable achievement estimates, AEC has used the Minnesota reporting policy of not reporting group data for fewer than 10 students. As a result, any data cell that includes fewer than 10 students is signifi ed by a notation.
The achievement targets, established by the MDE and used in this report, are in terms of normal curve equivalents (NCEs) for all Gates-MacGinitie subtests, words correct per minute for Deno’s Oral Fluency measures, and achievement levels for the MCA II.
Also, where possible and technically defensible, AEC has provided achievement information over the two years that the Round Two schools in the Reading First program have been collecting data. The large majority of the analyses include
13
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:132007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:13 12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM
at least 100 cases. The reader is reminded that the accountability provisions of NCLB require a cross-sectional design in which students are tested at each grade level but not followed longitudinally. Therefore, the comparisons over time should be viewed with some caution since they are derived from different groups of students being compared (e.g., third graders from last year versus this year’s third graders).
Table 5 indicates that the Minnesota Reading First program had complete test records on a total of 4,573 students in grades 1–3 in the Round Two schools during 2006–2007 across the school sites that operated the program.
Table 5Number of Students Tested by Grade
Grade Number of Students Tested
Grade 1 1,519
Grade 2 1,544
Grade 3 1,510
TOTAL 4,573
Grade 1 Achievement Information
The 2006–2007 achievement information for grade 1 is presented on Tables 6–8.
Table 6Round Two Schools
Grade 1Number and Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets
SubtestPercent Meeting the
TargetNumber of Students Meeting the Target
Total Number of Students
Gates-MacGinitieComprehension
67.3 1,021 1,517
Gates-MacGinitieWord Decoding
71.2 1,080 1,517
Deno’s Oral Fluency 71.2 1,081 1,519
Nearly 70 percent of students met or exceeded the target in comprehension and slightly over 70% achieved the target in word decoding and oral fl uency. When the data are broken down for disaggregated groups in Table 7, the percentages are somewhat lower. For instance, the results for students identifi ed on the poverty indicator (free and reduced price lunch) show that about 60% of the students met the achievement targets. Special education students scored the lowest of the three groups.
14
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:142007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:14 12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM
Table 7Round Two Schools
Grade 1Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets for Disaggregated Groups
SubtestFree/Reduced Price
LunchLimited English
Profi cientSpecial Education
Gates-MacGinitieComprehension
58.7 56.4 42.3
Gates-MacGinitieWord Decoding
62.9 56.3 54.1
Deno’s Oral Fluency 63.2 60.3 54.7
NCLB also requires that the achievement data be disaggregated by racial/ethnic categories. Table 8 presents these data and indicates that fi rst-grade Caucasian Reading First students are meeting the achievement targets at higher rates than the African American, Asian, and Native American students, and that Hispanic students are scoring the lowest.
Table 8Round Two Schools
Grade 1Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets by Racial/Ethnic Categories
SubtestNative
AmericanAsian Hispanic
African American
Caucasian
Gates-MacGinitieComprehension
57.3 69.5 52.8 55.8 78.0
Gates- MacGinitieWord Decoding
71.9 66.8 54.2 63.6 81.8
Deno’s Oral Fluency
63.8 75.3 54.2 62.5 80.6
15
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:152007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:15 12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM
It was also possible to compare the percentages of students meeting the Minnesota Reading First achievement standards in 2006–2007 to those of the previous year. Table 9 presents this information and indicates that a higher percentage of students participating in Reading First in 2006–2007 met the target in oral fl uency than in the fi rst year of the program. As mentioned earlier, the reader is reminded that the accountability provisions of NCLB require a cross-sectional design in which students are tested at each grade level but not followed longitudinally. Therefore, the comparisons over time should be viewed with some caution.
Table 9Round Two Schools
Grade 1 – Two-Year Comparisons Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets
SubtestPercent Meeting
the Target2005 - 2006
Percent Meeting the Target
2006 - 2007Percentage Difference
Gates-MacGinitieComprehension
69.1 67.3 - 1.8
Gates-MacGinitieWord Decoding
72.0 71.2 - 0.8
Deno’s Oral Fluency 69.7 71.2 + 1.5
Grade 2 Achievement Information
The 2006–2007 achievement information for grade 2 in Round Two schools is presented on Tables 10–12. On Table 10, the overall data indicate that, on the Gates-MacGinitie subtests, participants are meeting the achievement targets at a low-to-mid 60% level. On Deno’s Oral Fluency measure, only 74% of the students met the words-per-minute criterion set as the target.
Table 10Round Two Schools
Grade 2Number and Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets
SubtestPercent Meeting the
TargetNumber of Students Meeting the Target
Total Number of Students
Gates-MacGinitieComprehension
65.9 1,008 1,529
Gates-MacGinitieWord Decoding
64.2 981 1,528
Gates-MacGinitieWord Knowledge
64.5 987 1,531
Deno’s Oral Fluency 74.0 1,143 1,544
16
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:162007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:16 12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM
When the data are broken down for disaggregated groups in Table 11, as we saw in earlier tables for grade 1 data, the percentages are lower than the information across all Reading First students.
Table 11Round Two Schools
Grade 2Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets for Disaggregated Groups
SubtestFree/Reduced Price
LunchLimited English
Profi cientSpecial Education
Gates-MacGinitieComprehension
55.1 48.5 37.2
Gates-MacGinitieWord Decoding
54.2 46.7 41.0
Gates-MacGinitieWord Knowledge
52.0 40.5 40.4
Deno’s Oral Fluency 66.3 64.8 47.2
Table 12 indicates the results for racial/ethnic categories. As with grade 1, Caucasian students did better than the other groups. Hispanic students performed lower overall than the other groups.
Table 12Round Two Schools
Grade 2Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets by Racial/Ethnic Categories
SubtestNative
AmericanAsian Hispanic
African American
Caucasian
Gates-MacGinitieComprehension
73.3 58.9 46.3 50.0 79.3
Gates- MacGinitieWord Decoding
70.7 57.6 42.6 50.7 77.1
Gates- MacGinitieWord Knowledge
70.7 49.1 41.2 48.9 81.3
Deno’s Oral Fluency 82.9 74.2 60.3 61.9 82.0
17
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:172007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:17 12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM
Table 13 presents the two-year information and indicates mixed results with three of the four subtests registering lower percentages over time. Once again, the reader is reminded that the comparisons over time should be viewed with some caution since there were different students in each of the two years (not the same students over time).
Table 13Round Two Schools
Grade 2 – Two-Year Comparisons Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets
SubtestPercent Meeting
the Target2005 – 2006
Percent Meeting the Target
2006 – 2007
Percentage Difference
Gates-MacGinitieComprehension
69.9 65.9 - 4.0
Gates-MacGinitieWord Decoding
67.1 64.2 - 2.9
Gates-MacGinitieWord Knowledge
62.3 64.5 + 2.2
Deno’s Oral Fluency 75.7 74.0 - 1.7
Grade 3 Achievement Information
The 2006–2007 achievement information for grade 3 is presented on Tables 14–17. The overall data indicates that 67.6% of the students were meeting the target on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA II), while 80% of the stu-dents met the words-per-minute criterion set as the target for the oral fl uency measure. It should be noted that 2006–2007 marked the fi rst year that students classifi ed as Limited English Profi cient (LEP) were required to take the state test. About 25% of the Reading First group (380 of 1,510 test takers) were classifi ed as LEP.
Table 14Round Two Schools
Grade 3Number and Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets
SubtestPercent Meeting the
TargetNumber of Students Meeting the Target
Total Number of Students
MCA II 67.6 1,020 1,510
Deno’s Oral Fluency 80.0 1,188 1,485
18
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:182007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:18 12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM
The data broken down for disaggregated groups in Table 15 indicates, as with the earlier grades, the percentages of students meeting the targets in disaggregated groups are lower than the percentages demonstrated for all Reading First students.
Table 15Round Two
Grade 3Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets for Disaggregated Groups
SubtestFree/Reduced Price
LunchLimited English
Profi cientSpecial Education
MCA II 56.2 46.1 42.2
Deno’s Oral Fluency 73.6 72.9 54.3
Table 16 indicates the results for racial/ethnic categories. As with grades 1 and 2, Caucasian students did better than the other groups. Native Americans students also met targets relatively well.
Table 16Round Two
Grade 3Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets by Racial/Ethnic Categories
SubtestNative
AmericanAsian Hispanic
African American
Caucasian
MCA II 70.7 56.8 53.3 52.3 82.5
Deno’s Oral Fluency
82.7 81.6 73.2 69.1 86.4
Table 17 below shows the two-year comparisons on the MCA II and the Deno’s Oral Fluency measure. While the oral fl uency measure showed an increase, the MCA II, the Minnesota state assessment instrument, results appear to show a 3.6% decline in the number of students meeting the achievement targets. In addition to the cautions listed in other sections of this report on comparisons over time, 2006–2007 marked the fi rst year that students classifi ed as Limited English Pro-fi cient (LEP) were required to take the state test. Approximately 25% of the Reading First group were classifi ed as LEP.
Table 17Round Two Schools
Grade 3 – Two-Year Comparisons Percent of Students Meeting the Achievement Targets
SubtestPercent Meeting
the Target2005 – 2006
Percent Meeting the Target
2006 – 2007
Percentage Difference
MCA II 71.2 67.6 - 3.6
Deno’s Oral Fluency 78.1 80.0 + 1.9
19
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:192007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:19 12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM12/6/2007 10:21:03 AM
20
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:202007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:20 12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM
Chapter 6
Summary and Recommendations
At each of the Reading First classes visited, the teachers focused on one of the fi ve major components of the Reading First program. Furthermore, based upon the interviews of the classroom teachers, building principals, Literacy Coordina-tors, and External Facilitators, the staff were using the test results to help drive the reading instruction. Whether they were using the test scores to identify individual students’ strengths and weaknesses or monitoring their students’ progress, the reading tests played a signifi cant role in the Reading First programs. In addition, the weekly Study Group meetings, the videotaping of the participating teachers, and the extensive professional development activities provided by the University of Minnesota have all apparently contributed to the reading gains.
With respect to the summative evaluation data, there are several general statements that can be made about achievement of the Reading First participants.
Overall, about 2/3 of the participants met the achievement standards in the 2006–2007 school year. ♦
Children in poverty and those with limited English profi ciency did not score as well as the overall group ♦
of participants.
Special education students generally scored lower than any other group. ♦
Caucasian students in the program consistently out-performed other groups. Hispanic students tended to ♦
score lower than all other racial/ethnic groups.
The required inclusion of LEP students in the MCA II may have contributed to the lower scores in the ♦
second year as this group tends to score lower on standardized tests as they are building their English skills.
In order to help “fi ne tune” the Minnesota Reading First program, the evaluation consultants offer the following recommendations:
Since the Reading First program is only funded through 2007–2008, the MDE should continue to • encourage each of the participating Reading First schools to develop plans to continue components of the program when the grant expires (such as a Literacy Coordinator or the Study Groups to assist in the interpretation and use of the assessment results).
More attention should be given to the issue of sustainability after the Reading First funds are gone. A • survey of the Round One schools whose funding ended in 2005–2006 should be considered to determine which elements of the Reading First operations have been sustained, which have not, and the challenges faced by these schools in continuing the program. This information should help Round Two schools in their thinking about the sustainability issues.
Several of the classroom teachers indicated they would like to observe other teachers in other Reading • First schools. Therefore, the MDE may want to encourage the Reading First principals to arrange for some of their teachers to visit other Reading First schools.
When external facilitators are selected to work in a Reading First school, neither school personnel nor • the MDE have input into the hiring process. There should be a method for the University to seek and consider input from these sources as they each have a major stake in the selection of the External Facilitator.
21
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:212007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:21 12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM
22
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:222007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:22 12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM
APPENDIX A
DATA REPORTS BY SUBTEST BY SCHOOL
FOR ROUND TWO SCHOOLS
23
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:232007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:23 12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM
24
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:242007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:24 12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM
Notes for Reading the Tables in the Appendices
In order to maintain confi dentiality of individual student information and to avoid presenting data from ♦
groups that are too small to provide reliable achievement estimates, AEC has used the Minnesota report-ing policy of not reporting group data for fewer than 10 students. As a result, any data cell that includes fewer than 10 students is signifi ed by a notation (*).
The reader should note that, while there may be many notations in cells particularly on the disaggregated ♦
tables, each of those notations represents actual achievement data for fewer than 10 students, and these data are aggregated into the totals for the tables in the body of the report.
25
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:252007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:25 12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM
26
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:262007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:26 12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM
Dis
tric
t Nam
eSc
hool
Nam
e%
Pas
sing
#
Pass
ing
All
Stud
ents
A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
INU
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y82
.56%
7186
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y78
.31%
6583
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y81
.40%
7086
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
60.7
6%48
79C
RO
OK
STO
N
WA
SH
ING
TON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
70.8
9%56
79M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
AN
CR
OFT
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
50.0
0%27
54M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
ETH
UN
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y47
.06%
1634
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
JEN
NY
LIN
D E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y49
.21%
3163
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RA
MS
EY
FIN
E A
RTS
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
51.6
5%47
91M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
ISE
N C
HR
IST
84.0
0%21
25M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
S
HIN
GLE
CR
EE
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y78
.79%
2633
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
WA
ITE
PA
RK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
59.3
2%35
59N
OR
TH S
T P
AU
LR
ICH
AR
DS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
66.1
0%39
59O
GIL
VIE
O
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
87.1
0%27
31O
WA
TON
NA
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y55
.00%
4480
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
83.3
3%50
60R
OC
HE
STE
R
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y75
.28%
6789
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
88.0
0%88
100
ST.
CLO
UD
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
62.8
2%49
78S
T. P
AU
LC
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
63.4
6%33
52S
T. P
AU
LFA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
69.7
4%53
76S
T. P
AU
LH
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
59.1
5%42
71S
T. P
AU
LP
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
32.6
5%16
49TO
TALS
67.3
0 %10
2115
17
R2A
1
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 1
- G
ates
-Mac
Gin
itie
Com
preh
ensi
on b
y Sc
hool
Pa
ssin
g >=
41 N
orm
al C
urve
Equ
ival
ents
27
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:272007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:27 12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM
Dis
tric
t Nam
eSc
hool
Nam
e%
Pas
sing
#
Pass
ing
All
Stud
ents
A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
INU
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y79
.73%
5974
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y75
.51%
7498
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y82
.54%
5263
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
74.5
8%44
59C
RO
OK
STO
N
WA
SH
ING
TON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
70.9
3%61
86M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
AN
CR
OFT
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
47.1
7%25
53M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
ETH
UN
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y61
.90%
1321
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
JEN
NY
LIN
D E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y45
.59%
3168
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RA
MS
EY
FIN
E A
RTS
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
60.2
3%53
88M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
ISE
N C
HR
IST
79.3
1%23
29M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
S
HIN
GLE
CR
EE
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y38
.24%
1334
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
WA
ITE
PA
RK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
65.4
5%36
55N
OR
TH S
T P
AU
LR
ICH
AR
DS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
62.9
0%39
62O
GIL
VIE
O
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
70.9
7%22
31O
WA
TON
NA
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y61
.84%
4776
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
65.8
5%54
82R
OC
HE
STE
R
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y81
.71%
6782
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
100.
00%
1313
SP
RIN
G L
AK
E P
AR
K
WO
OD
CR
ES
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y79
.28%
8811
1S
T. C
LOU
DD
ISC
OV
ER
Y C
OM
MU
NIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y55
.26%
4276
ST.
PA
UL
CR
OS
SR
OA
DS
SC
IEN
CE
PR
OG
RA
M71
.43%
3549
ST.
PA
UL
FAR
NS
WO
RTH
AE
RO
SP
AC
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y66
.18%
4568
ST.
PA
UL
HA
NC
OC
K/H
AM
LIN
E M
AG
NE
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y54
.26%
5194
ST.
PA
UL
PA
UL
& S
HE
ILA
WE
LLS
TON
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y36
.84%
2157
TOTA
LS65
.93%
1008
1529
R2A
2
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 2
- G
ates
-Mac
Gin
itie
Com
preh
ensi
on b
y Sc
hool
Pa
ssin
g >=
41 N
orm
al C
urve
Equ
ival
ents
28
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:282007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:28 12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM
Dis
tric
t Nam
eSc
hool
Nam
e%
Pas
sing
#
Pass
ing
All
Stud
ents
A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
INU
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y88
.37%
7686
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y84
.34%
7083
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y94
.19%
8186
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
78.4
8%62
79C
RO
OK
STO
N
WA
SH
ING
TON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
65.8
2%52
79M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
AN
CR
OFT
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
46.3
0%25
54M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
ETH
UN
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y61
.76%
2134
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
JEN
NY
LIN
D E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y49
.21%
3163
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RA
MS
EY
FIN
E A
RTS
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
61.5
4%56
91M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
ISE
N C
HR
IST
88.0
0%22
25M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
S
HIN
GLE
CR
EE
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y66
.67%
2233
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
WA
ITE
PA
RK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
62.7
1%37
59N
OR
TH S
T P
AU
LR
ICH
AR
DS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
61.0
2%36
59O
GIL
VIE
O
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
100.
00%
3131
OW
ATO
NN
AW
ILS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
58.7
5%47
80R
OB
BIN
SD
ALE
N
EIL
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y85
.00%
5160
RO
CH
ES
TER
R
IVE
RS
IDE
CE
NTR
AL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
78.6
5%70
89S
OU
TH K
OO
CH
ICH
ING
IN
DU
S E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
SP
RIN
G L
AK
E P
AR
K
WO
OD
CR
ES
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y87
.00%
8710
0S
T. C
LOU
DD
ISC
OV
ER
Y C
OM
MU
NIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y70
.51%
5578
ST.
PA
UL
CR
OS
SR
OA
DS
SC
IEN
CE
PR
OG
RA
M67
.31%
3552
ST.
PA
UL
FAR
NS
WO
RTH
AE
RO
SP
AC
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y64
.47%
4976
ST.
PA
UL
HA
NC
OC
K/H
AM
LIN
E M
AG
NE
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y64
.79%
4671
ST.
PA
UL
PA
UL
& S
HE
ILA
WE
LLS
TON
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y36
.73%
1849
TOTA
LS71
.19%
1080
1517
R2A
3
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 1
- G
ates
-Mac
Gin
itie
Wor
d D
ecod
ing
by S
choo
l Pa
ssin
g >=
41 N
orm
al C
urve
Equ
ival
ents
29
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:292007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:29 12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM12/6/2007 10:21:04 AM
Dis
tric
t Nam
eSc
hool
Nam
e%
Pas
sing
#
Pass
ing
All
Stud
ents
A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
INU
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y71
.62%
5374
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y78
.57%
7798
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y87
.30%
5563
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
77.9
7%46
59C
RO
OK
STO
N
WA
SH
ING
TON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
72.0
9%62
86M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
AN
CR
OFT
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
33.3
3%18
54M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
ETH
UN
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y61
.90%
1321
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
JEN
NY
LIN
D E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y40
.30%
2767
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RA
MS
EY
FIN
E A
RTS
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
56.8
2%50
88M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
ISE
N C
HR
IST
72.4
1%21
29M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
S
HIN
GLE
CR
EE
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y44
.12%
1534
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
WA
ITE
PA
RK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
56.3
6%31
55N
OR
TH S
T P
AU
LR
ICH
AR
DS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
59.6
8%37
62O
GIL
VIE
O
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
74.1
9%23
31O
WA
TON
NA
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y55
.26%
4276
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
67.0
7%55
82R
OC
HE
STE
R
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y81
.71%
6782
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
100.
00%
1313
SP
RIN
G L
AK
E P
AR
K
WO
OD
CR
ES
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y76
.58%
8511
1S
T. C
LOU
DD
ISC
OV
ER
Y C
OM
MU
NIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y59
.21%
4576
ST.
PA
UL
CR
OS
SR
OA
DS
SC
IEN
CE
PR
OG
RA
M62
.50%
3048
ST.
PA
UL
FAR
NS
WO
RTH
AE
RO
SP
AC
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y66
.18%
4568
ST.
PA
UL
HA
NC
OC
K/H
AM
LIN
E M
AG
NE
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y51
.06%
4894
ST.
PA
UL
PA
UL
& S
HE
ILA
WE
LLS
TON
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y40
.35%
2357
TOTA
LS64
.20%
981
1528
R2A
4
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 2
- G
ates
-Mac
Gin
itie
Wor
d D
ecod
ing
by S
choo
l Pa
ssin
g >=
41 N
orm
al C
urve
Equ
ival
ents
30
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:302007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:30 12/6/2007 10:21:05 AM12/6/2007 10:21:05 AM
Dis
tric
t Nam
eSc
hool
Nam
e%
Pas
sing
#
Pass
ing
All
Stud
ents
A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
INU
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y86
.05%
7486
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y77
.11%
6483
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y83
.72%
7286
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
71.4
3%60
84C
RO
OK
STO
N
WA
SH
ING
TON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
75.6
4%59
78M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
AN
CR
OFT
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
50.0
0%27
54M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
ETH
UN
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y64
.71%
2234
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
JEN
NY
LIN
D E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y53
.13%
3464
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RA
MS
EY
FIN
E A
RTS
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
54.9
5%50
91M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
ISE
N C
HR
IST
73.3
3%22
30M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
S
HIN
GLE
CR
EE
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y87
.88%
2933
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
WA
ITE
PA
RK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
65.5
2%38
58N
OR
TH S
T P
AU
LR
ICH
AR
DS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
63.7
9%37
58O
GIL
VIE
O
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
83.8
7%26
31O
WA
TON
NA
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y64
.56%
5179
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
86.6
7%52
60R
OC
HE
STE
R
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y78
.89%
7190
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
89.9
0%89
99S
T. C
LOU
DD
ISC
OV
ER
Y C
OM
MU
NIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y73
.08%
5778
ST.
PA
UL
CR
OS
SR
OA
DS
SC
IEN
CE
PR
OG
RA
M60
.78%
3151
ST.
PA
UL
FAR
NS
WO
RTH
AE
RO
SP
AC
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y71
.62%
5374
ST.
PA
UL
HA
NC
OC
K/H
AM
LIN
E M
AG
NE
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y63
.38%
4571
ST.
PA
UL
PA
UL
& S
HE
ILA
WE
LLS
TON
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y38
.30%
1847
TOTA
LS71
.17%
1081
1519
R2A
5
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 1
- D
eno'
s O
ral F
luen
cy b
y Sc
hool
Pa
ssin
g >=
40 W
ords
Cor
rect
Per
Min
ute
31
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:312007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:31 12/6/2007 10:21:05 AM12/6/2007 10:21:05 AM
Dis
tric
t Nam
eSc
hool
Nam
e%
Pas
sing
#
Pass
ing
All
Stud
ents
A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
INU
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y86
.49%
6474
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y78
.79%
7899
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y84
.62%
5565
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
89.8
3%53
59C
RO
OK
STO
N
WA
SH
ING
TON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
77.9
1%67
86M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
AN
CR
OFT
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
62.9
6%34
54M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
ETH
UN
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y90
.48%
1921
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
JEN
NY
LIN
D E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y53
.62%
3769
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RA
MS
EY
FIN
E A
RTS
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
66.3
0%61
92M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
ISE
N C
HR
IST
81.8
2%27
33M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
S
HIN
GLE
CR
EE
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y67
.65%
2334
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
WA
ITE
PA
RK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
75.0
0%42
56N
OR
TH S
T P
AU
LR
ICH
AR
DS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
70.9
7%44
62O
GIL
VIE
O
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
70.9
7%22
31O
WA
TON
NA
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y71
.05%
5476
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
74.3
9%61
82R
OC
HE
STE
R
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y86
.59%
7182
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
100.
00%
1313
SP
RIN
G L
AK
E P
AR
K
WO
OD
CR
ES
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y84
.96%
9611
3S
T. C
LOU
DD
ISC
OV
ER
Y C
OM
MU
NIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y64
.47%
4976
ST.
PA
UL
CR
OS
SR
OA
DS
SC
IEN
CE
PR
OG
RA
M66
.00%
3350
ST.
PA
UL
FAR
NS
WO
RTH
AE
RO
SP
AC
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y75
.00%
5168
ST.
PA
UL
HA
NC
OC
K/H
AM
LIN
E M
AG
NE
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y67
.02%
6394
ST.
PA
UL
PA
UL
& S
HE
ILA
WE
LLS
TON
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y47
.27%
2655
TOTA
LS74
.03%
1143
1544
R2A
6
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 2
- D
eno'
s O
ral F
luen
cy b
y Sc
hool
Pa
ssin
g >=
75 W
ords
Cor
rect
Per
Min
ute
32
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:322007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:32 12/6/2007 10:21:05 AM12/6/2007 10:21:05 AM
Dis
tric
t Nam
eSc
hool
Nam
e%
Pas
sing
#
Pass
ing
All
Stud
ents
A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
IN
UN
IVE
RS
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
84.1
3%53
63A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
IN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y82
.93%
6882
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y82
.19%
6073
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y85
.92%
6171
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y74
.47%
3547
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
81.4
8%22
27M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
57.3
5%39
68M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y78
.00%
7810
0M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T73
.53%
2534
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
76.9
2%30
39M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y79
.10%
5367
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y77
.92%
6077
OG
ILV
IE
OG
ILV
IE E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y83
.33%
3036
OW
ATO
NN
AW
ILS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
78.8
7%56
71R
OB
BIN
SD
ALE
N
EIL
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y88
.46%
6978
RO
CH
ES
TER
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y82
.11%
7895
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
93.2
2%11
011
8S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
75.9
0%63
83S
T. P
AU
L C
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
76.9
2%40
52S
T. P
AU
L FA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
90.2
4%74
82S
T. P
AU
L H
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
83.5
8%56
67S
T. P
AU
L P
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
50.9
1%28
55TO
TALS
80.0
0%11
8814
85
R2A
7
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 3
- D
eno'
s O
ral F
luen
cy b
y Sc
hool
Pa
ssin
g >=
95 W
ords
Cor
rect
Per
Min
ute
33
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:332007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:33 12/6/2007 10:21:05 AM12/6/2007 10:21:05 AM
Dis
tric
t Nam
eSc
hool
Nam
e%
Pas
sing
#
Pass
ing
All
Stud
ents
A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
INU
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y78
.38%
5874
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y79
.59%
7898
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y84
.13%
5363
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
76.2
7%45
59C
RO
OK
STO
N
WA
SH
ING
TON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
72.0
9%62
86M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
AN
CR
OFT
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
38.8
9%21
54M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
ETH
UN
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y66
.67%
1421
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
JEN
NY
LIN
D E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y41
.18%
2868
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RA
MS
EY
FIN
E A
RTS
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
59.0
9%52
88M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
ISE
N C
HR
IST
62.0
7%18
29M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
S
HIN
GLE
CR
EE
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y35
.29%
1234
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
WA
ITE
PA
RK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
58.1
8%32
55N
OR
TH S
T P
AU
LR
ICH
AR
DS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
59.6
8%37
62O
GIL
VIE
O
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
70.9
7%22
31O
WA
TON
NA
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y63
.16%
4876
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
65.8
5%54
82R
OC
HE
STE
R
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y80
.49%
6682
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
100.
00%
1313
SP
RIN
G L
AK
E P
AR
K
WO
OD
CR
ES
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y75
.68%
8411
1S
T. C
LOU
DD
ISC
OV
ER
Y C
OM
MU
NIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y60
.53%
4676
ST.
PA
UL
CR
OS
SR
OA
DS
SC
IEN
CE
PR
OG
RA
M74
.00%
3750
ST.
PA
UL
FAR
NS
WO
RTH
AE
RO
SP
AC
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y61
.76%
4268
ST.
PA
UL
HA
NC
OC
K/H
AM
LIN
E M
AG
NE
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y51
.06%
4894
ST.
PA
UL
PA
UL
& S
HE
ILA
WE
LLS
TON
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y29
.82%
1757
TOTA
LS64
.47%
987
1531
R2A
8
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 2
- G
ates
-Mac
Gin
itie
Wor
d K
now
ledg
e by
Sch
ool
Pass
ing
>=41
Nor
mal
Cur
ve E
quiv
alen
ts
34
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:342007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:34 12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM
Dis
tric
t Nam
eSc
hool
Nam
e%
Pas
sing
#
Pass
ing
All
Stud
ents
A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
IN
UN
IVE
RS
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
81.2
5%52
64A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
IN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y67
.86%
5784
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y67
.57%
5074
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y72
.60%
5373
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y61
.22%
3049
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
70.3
7%19
27M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
45.7
1%32
70M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y63
.37%
6410
1M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
ISE
N C
HR
IST
55.8
8%19
34M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
S
HIN
GLE
CR
EE
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y41
.03%
1639
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
WA
ITE
PA
RK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
63.2
4%43
68N
OR
TH S
T P
AU
LR
ICH
AR
DS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
70.5
1%55
78O
GIL
VIE
O
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
86.1
1%31
36O
WA
TON
NA
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y70
.83%
5172
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
85.0
0%68
80R
OC
HE
STE
RR
IVE
RS
IDE
CE
NTR
AL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
78.1
3%75
96S
OU
TH K
OO
CH
ICH
ING
IN
DU
S E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
SP
RIN
G L
AK
E P
AR
K
WO
OD
CR
ES
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y83
.90%
9911
8S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
66.6
7%56
84S
T. P
AU
L C
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
72.2
2%39
54S
T. P
AU
L FA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
76.7
4%66
86S
T. P
AU
L H
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
38.8
1%26
67S
T. P
AU
L P
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
33.9
3%19
56TO
TALS
67.5
5%10
2015
10
R2A
9
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 3
- M
inne
sota
Com
preh
ensi
ve A
sses
smen
t II b
y Sc
hool
Pa
ssin
g >=
3 A
chie
vem
ent L
evel
35
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:352007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:35 12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM
36
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:362007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:36 12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM
APPENDIX B
DATA REPORTS FOR DISAGGREGATED GROUPS
FOR ROUND TWO SCHOOLS
37
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:372007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:37 12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM
38
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:382007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:38 12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM
Notes for Reading the Tables in the Appendices
In order to maintain confi dentiality of individual student information and to avoid presenting data from ♦
groups that are too small to provide reliable achievement estimates, AEC has used the Minnesota report-ing policy of not reporting group data for fewer than 10 students. As a result, any data cell that includes fewer than 10 students is signifi ed by a notation (*).
The reader should note that, while there may be many notations in cells particularly on the disaggregated ♦
tables, each of those notations represents actual achievement data for fewer than 10 students, and these data are aggregated into the totals for the tables in the body of the report.
39
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:392007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:39 12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM
40
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:402007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:40 12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM
F
ree
and
Red
uced
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Pric
e Lu
nch
P
rofic
ienc
y
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n D
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y77
.78%
2836
78.9
5%15
19*
**
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y71
.88%
2332
82.1
4%23
28*
**
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y77
.27%
3444
**
**
**
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y56
.92%
3765
**
*46
.15%
613
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y55
.00%
2240
**
**
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y42
.55%
2047
40.0
0%12
30*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
46.6
7%14
30*
**
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
43.9
0%18
4143
.75%
716
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y38
.71%
2462
30.7
7%8
26*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T94
.74%
1819
**
**
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
76.6
7%23
3072
.73%
811
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y54
.55%
2444
57.8
9%11
19*
**
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y57
.14%
1628
**
**
**
OG
ILV
IE
OG
ILV
IE E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y84
.21%
1619
**
**
**
OW
ATO
NN
A
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y47
.83%
2246
33.3
3%6
1836
.36%
411
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
79.3
1%23
29*
**
**
*R
OC
HE
STE
R
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y70
.59%
3651
66.6
7%12
18*
**
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
81.8
2%18
2281
.82%
911
**
*S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
52.8
3%28
5338
.46%
513
**
*S
T. P
AU
LC
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
58.3
3%21
3663
.64%
1422
**
*S
T. P
AU
LFA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
69.4
9%41
5963
.27%
3149
**
*S
T. P
AU
LH
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
52.4
6%32
6156
.86%
2951
**
*S
T. P
AU
LP
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
28.8
9%13
4534
.38%
1132
**
*
R2B
1
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 1
- G
ates
-Mac
Gin
itie
Com
preh
ensi
on b
y Sc
hool
D
isag
greg
ated
by
Pove
rty,
Lim
ited
Engl
ish
Prof
icie
ncy,
and
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n C
ateg
orie
s Pa
ssin
g >=
41 N
orm
al C
urve
Equ
ival
ents
41
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:412007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:41 12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM
F
ree
and
Red
uced
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Pric
e Lu
nch
P
rofic
ienc
y
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n D
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y67
.74%
2131
**
**
**
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y60
.61%
2033
61.5
4%16
26*
**
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y73
.53%
2534
**
*54
.55%
611
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y71
.74%
3346
**
**
**
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y57
.45%
2747
**
**
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y40
.00%
1845
34.4
8%10
29*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
60.0
0%12
20*
**
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
42.5
9%23
5450
.00%
1020
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y46
.43%
2656
50.0
0%11
22*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T78
.26%
1823
75.0
0%9
12*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
35.4
8%11
3154
.55%
611
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y56
.41%
2239
38.8
9%7
18*
**
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y61
.76%
2134
**
**
**
OG
ILV
IE
OG
ILV
IE E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y63
.16%
1219
**
**
**
OW
ATO
NN
A
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y50
.00%
1938
**
*38
.46%
513
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
44.7
4%17
38*
**
**
*R
OC
HE
STE
R
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y73
.33%
3345
63.6
4%14
22*
**
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
62.5
0%20
3246
.67%
715
**
*S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
37.5
0%15
4036
.84%
719
22.2
2%4
18S
T. P
AU
LC
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
66.6
7%18
2764
.29%
914
**
*S
T. P
AU
LFA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
62.2
2%28
4558
.33%
2136
**
*S
T. P
AU
LH
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
49.3
7%39
7950
.00%
3468
**
*S
T. P
AU
LP
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
36.8
4%21
5730
.77%
1239
**
*
R2B
2
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 2
- G
ates
-Mac
Gin
itie
Com
preh
ensi
on b
y Sc
hool
D
isag
greg
ated
by
Pove
rty,
Lim
ited
Engl
ish
Prof
icie
ncy,
and
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n C
ateg
orie
s Pa
ssin
g >=
41 N
orm
al C
urve
Equ
ival
ents
42
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:422007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:42 12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM12/6/2007 10:21:06 AM
F
ree
and
Red
uced
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Pric
e Lu
nch
P
rofic
ienc
y
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n D
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y86
.11%
3136
84.2
1%16
19*
**
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y75
.00%
2432
78.5
7%22
28*
**
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y88
.64%
3944
**
**
**
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y75
.38%
4965
**
*69
.23%
913
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y55
.00%
2240
**
**
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y40
.43%
1947
36.6
7%11
30*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
63.3
3%19
30*
**
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
42.5
0%17
4038
.89%
718
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y48
.39%
3062
23.0
8%6
26*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T89
.47%
1719
**
**
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
63.3
3%19
3054
.55%
611
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y56
.82%
2544
57.8
9%11
19*
**
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y50
.00%
1428
**
**
**
OG
ILV
IE
OG
ILV
IE E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y10
0.00
%19
19*
**
**
*O
WA
TON
NA
W
ILS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
47.8
3%22
4633
.33%
618
36.3
6%4
11R
OB
BIN
SD
ALE
N
EIL
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y79
.31%
2329
**
**
**
RO
CH
ES
TER
R
IVE
RS
IDE
CE
NTR
AL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
76.9
2%40
5278
.95%
1519
**
*S
OU
TH K
OO
CH
ICH
ING
IN
DU
S E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
SP
RIN
G L
AK
E P
AR
K
WO
OD
CR
ES
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y72
.73%
1622
81.8
2%9
11*
**
ST.
CLO
UD
D
ISC
OV
ER
Y C
OM
MU
NIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y60
.38%
3253
38.4
6%5
13*
**
ST.
PA
UL
CR
OS
SR
OA
DS
SC
IEN
CE
PR
OG
RA
M63
.89%
2336
72.7
3%16
22*
**
ST.
PA
UL
FAR
NS
WO
RTH
AE
RO
SP
AC
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y64
.41%
3859
59.1
8%29
49*
**
ST.
PA
UL
HA
NC
OC
K/H
AM
LIN
E M
AG
NE
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y60
.66%
3761
60.7
8%31
51*
**
ST.
PA
UL
PA
UL
& S
HE
ILA
WE
LLS
TON
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y31
.11%
1445
34.3
8%11
32*
**
R2B
3
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 1
- G
ates
-Mac
Gin
itie
Wor
d D
ecod
ing
by S
choo
l D
isag
greg
ated
by
Pove
rty,
Lim
ited
Engl
ish
Prof
icie
ncy,
and
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n C
ateg
orie
s Pa
ssin
g >=
41 N
orm
al C
urve
Equ
ival
ents
43
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:432007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:43 12/6/2007 10:21:07 AM12/6/2007 10:21:07 AM
F
ree
and
Red
uced
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Pric
e Lu
nch
P
rofic
ienc
y
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n D
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y58
.06%
1831
**
**
**
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y60
.61%
2033
69.2
3%18
26*
**
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y85
.29%
2934
**
*72
.73%
811
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y76
.09%
3546
**
**
**
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y63
.83%
3047
**
**
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y28
.26%
1346
24.1
4%7
29*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
60.0
0%12
20*
**
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
35.1
9%19
5435
.00%
720
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y44
.64%
2556
40.9
1%9
22*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T65
.22%
1523
50.0
0%6
12*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
41.9
4%13
3145
.45%
511
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y51
.28%
2039
38.8
9%7
18*
**
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y67
.65%
2334
**
**
**
OG
ILV
IE
OG
ILV
IE E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y68
.42%
1319
**
**
**
OW
ATO
NN
A
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y42
.11%
1638
**
*38
.46%
513
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
52.6
3%20
38*
**
**
*R
OC
HE
STE
R
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y73
.33%
3345
68.1
8%15
22*
**
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
65.6
3%21
3253
.33%
815
**
*S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
45.0
0%18
4042
.11%
819
27.7
8%5
18S
T. P
AU
LC
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
48.1
5%13
2740
.00%
615
**
*S
T. P
AU
LFA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
62.2
2%28
4563
.89%
2336
**
*S
T. P
AU
LH
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
44.3
0%35
7947
.06%
3268
**
*S
T. P
AU
LP
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
40.3
5%23
5733
.33%
1339
**
*
R2B
4
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 2
- G
ates
-Mac
Gin
itie
Wor
d D
ecod
ing
by S
choo
l D
isag
greg
ated
by
Pove
rty,
Lim
ited
Engl
ish
Prof
icie
ncy,
and
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n C
ateg
orie
s Pa
ssin
g >=
41 N
orm
al C
urve
Equ
ival
ents
44
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:442007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:44 12/6/2007 10:21:07 AM12/6/2007 10:21:07 AM
F
ree
and
Red
uced
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Pric
e Lu
nch
P
rofic
ienc
y
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n D
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y80
.56%
2936
78.9
5%15
19*
**
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y71
.88%
2332
75.0
0%21
28*
**
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y72
.73%
3244
**
**
**
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y68
.57%
4870
**
*64
.29%
914
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y64
.10%
2539
**
**
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y44
.68%
2147
40.0
0%12
30*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
63.3
3%19
30*
**
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
48.7
8%20
4161
.11%
1118
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y41
.94%
2662
26.9
2%7
26*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T73
.91%
1723
66.6
7%8
12*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
86.6
7%26
3090
.91%
1011
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y58
.14%
2543
63.1
6%12
19*
**
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y53
.57%
1528
**
**
**
OG
ILV
IE
OG
ILV
IE E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y78
.95%
1519
**
**
**
OW
ATO
NN
A
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y63
.04%
2946
50.0
0%9
1836
.36%
411
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
79.3
1%23
29*
**
**
*R
OC
HE
STE
R
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y76
.92%
4052
63.1
6%12
19*
**
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
86.3
6%19
2290
.91%
1011
**
*S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
64.1
5%34
5346
.15%
613
**
*S
T. P
AU
LC
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
54.2
9%19
3559
.09%
1322
**
*S
T. P
AU
LFA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
70.6
9%41
5870
.83%
3448
**
*S
T. P
AU
LH
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
56.6
7%34
6059
.62%
3152
**
*S
T. P
AU
LP
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
34.8
8%15
4338
.71%
1231
**
*
R2B
5
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 1
- D
eno'
s O
ral F
luen
cy b
y Sc
hool
D
isag
greg
ated
by
Pove
rty,
Lim
ited
Engl
ish
Prof
icie
ncy,
and
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n C
ateg
orie
s Pa
ssin
g >=
40 W
ords
Cor
rect
Per
Min
ute
45
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:452007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:45 12/6/2007 10:21:07 AM12/6/2007 10:21:07 AM
F
ree
and
Red
uced
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Pric
e Lu
nch
P
rofic
ienc
y
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n D
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y74
.19%
2331
**
**
**
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y73
.53%
2534
62.9
6%17
27*
**
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y77
.78%
2836
**
*58
.33%
712
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y91
.30%
4246
**
**
**
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y70
.21%
3347
**
**
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y58
.70%
2746
51.7
2%15
29*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
90.0
0%18
20*
**
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
47.2
7%26
5547
.62%
1021
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y54
.39%
3157
54.5
5%12
2241
.67%
512
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T77
.78%
2127
73.3
3%11
15*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
64.5
2%20
3190
.91%
1011
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y69
.23%
2739
72.2
2%13
18*
**
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y67
.65%
2334
**
**
**
OG
ILV
IE
OG
ILV
IE E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y63
.16%
1219
**
**
**
OW
ATO
NN
A
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y57
.89%
2238
**
*46
.15%
613
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
65.7
9%25
38*
**
**
*R
OC
HE
STE
R
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y77
.78%
3545
77.2
7%17
22*
**
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
66.6
7%22
3366
.67%
1015
54.5
5%6
11S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
57.5
0%23
4050
.00%
918
36.8
4%7
19S
T. P
AU
LC
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
64.2
9%18
2866
.67%
1015
**
*S
T. P
AU
LFA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
73.3
3%33
4575
.00%
2736
**
*S
T. P
AU
LH
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
62.0
3%49
7967
.65%
4668
**
*S
T. P
AU
LP
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
47.2
7%26
5547
.22%
1736
**
*
R2B
6
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 2
- D
eno'
s O
ral F
luen
cy b
y Sc
hool
D
isag
greg
ated
by
Pove
rty,
Lim
ited
Engl
ish
Prof
icie
ncy,
and
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n C
ateg
orie
s Pa
ssin
g >=
75 W
ords
Cor
rect
Per
Min
ute
46
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:462007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:46 12/6/2007 10:21:07 AM12/6/2007 10:21:07 AM
F
ree
and
Red
uced
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Pric
e Lu
nch
P
rofic
ienc
y
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n D
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
UN
IVE
RS
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
70.0
0%14
20*
**
**
*A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
IN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y71
.88%
2332
66.6
7%16
2483
.33%
1012
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y76
.74%
3343
**
**
**
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
86.4
4%51
59*
**
56.2
5%9
16M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
AN
CR
OFT
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
69.2
3%27
3957
.89%
1119
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
B
ETH
UN
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y82
.61%
1923
**
**
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
SJE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
53.1
9%25
4766
.67%
1015
18.1
8%2
11M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
RA
MS
EY
FIN
E A
RTS
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
74.2
4%49
6671
.43%
2535
50.0
0%8
16M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T68
.97%
2029
62.5
0%10
16*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
SS
HIN
GLE
CR
EE
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y79
.41%
2734
**
**
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
SW
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y66
.67%
2842
93.3
3%14
15*
**
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y76
.32%
2938
**
*63
.64%
711
OG
ILV
IEO
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
68.7
5%11
16*
**
**
*O
WA
TON
NA
W
ILS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
63.3
3%19
30*
**
**
*R
OB
BIN
SD
ALE
N
EIL
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y78
.38%
2937
**
**
**
RO
CH
ES
TER
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y67
.57%
2537
73.3
3%11
15*
**
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
88.4
6%23
2687
.50%
1416
**
*S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
66.6
7%36
5469
.23%
913
58.8
2%10
17S
T. P
AU
L C
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
79.4
1%27
3488
.24%
1517
**
*S
T. P
AU
L FA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
90.6
3%58
6490
.20%
4651
**
*S
T. P
AU
L H
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
83.3
3%50
6083
.02%
4453
**
*S
T. P
AU
L P
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
50.9
8%26
5148
.57%
1735
**
*
R2B
7
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 3
- D
eno'
s O
ral F
luen
cy b
y Sc
hool
D
isag
greg
ated
by
Pove
rty,
Lim
ited
Engl
ish
Prof
icie
ncy,
and
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n C
ateg
orie
s Pa
ssin
g >=
95 W
ords
Cor
rect
Per
Min
ute
47
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:472007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:47 12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM
F
ree
and
Red
uced
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Pric
e Lu
nch
P
rofic
ienc
y
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n D
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y61
.29%
1931
**
**
**
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y63
.64%
2133
61.5
4%16
26*
**
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y76
.47%
2634
**
*54
.55%
611
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y71
.74%
3346
**
**
**
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y61
.70%
2947
**
**
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y30
.43%
1446
24.1
4%7
29*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
65.0
0%13
20*
**
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
35.1
9%19
5430
.00%
620
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y41
.07%
2356
40.9
1%9
22*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T65
.22%
1523
58.3
3%7
12*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
32.2
6%10
3127
.27%
311
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y51
.28%
2039
27.7
8%5
18*
**
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y52
.94%
1834
**
**
**
OG
ILV
IE
OG
ILV
IE E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y63
.16%
1219
**
**
**
OW
ATO
NN
A
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y55
.26%
2138
**
*46
.15%
613
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
44.7
4%17
38*
**
**
*R
OC
HE
STE
R
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y66
.67%
3045
59.0
9%13
22*
**
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
56.2
5%18
3220
.00%
315
**
*S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
50.0
0%20
4036
.84%
719
33.3
3%6
18S
T. P
AU
LC
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
64.2
9%18
2860
.00%
915
**
*S
T. P
AU
LFA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
55.5
6%25
4555
.56%
2036
**
*S
T. P
AU
LH
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
43.0
4%34
7947
.06%
3268
**
*S
T. P
AU
LP
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
29.8
2%17
5720
.51%
839
**
*
R2B
8
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 2
- G
ates
-Mac
Gin
itie
Wor
d K
now
ledg
e by
Sch
ool
Dis
aggr
egat
ed b
y Po
vert
y, L
imite
d En
glis
h Pr
ofic
ienc
y, a
nd S
peci
al E
duca
tion
Cat
egor
ies
Pass
ing
>=41
Nor
mal
Cur
ve E
quiv
alen
ts
48
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:482007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:48 12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM
Fre
e an
d R
educ
ed
Eng
lish
Lang
uage
Pric
e Lu
nch
Prof
icie
ncy
S
peci
al E
duca
tion
Dis
tric
t Sc
hool
%
Pas
s#
Pass
Tota
l %
Pas
s#
Pass
Tota
l %
Pas
s#
Pass
Tota
lA
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
INU
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y61
.90%
1321
**
**
**
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
W
ILS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
46.8
8%15
3232
.00%
825
53.8
5%7
13A
US
TIN
N
EV
ELN
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
56.8
2%25
44*
**
**
*C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
AC
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y72
.13%
4461
**
*52
.94%
917
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y55
.00%
2240
36.8
4%7
19*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
69.5
7%16
23*
**
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JEN
NY
LIN
D E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y40
.82%
2049
26.6
7%4
1515
.38%
213
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
SR
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y56
.06%
3766
52.7
8%19
3637
.50%
616
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
SR
ISE
N C
HR
IST
55.1
7%16
2937
.50%
616
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
38.2
4%13
34*
**
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
WA
ITE
PA
RK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
44.1
9%19
4346
.67%
715
**
*N
OR
TH S
T P
AU
LR
ICH
AR
DS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
61.5
4%24
39*
**
45.4
5%5
11O
GIL
VIE
OG
ILV
IE E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y87
.50%
1416
**
**
**
OW
ATO
NN
A
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y50
.00%
1530
**
**
**
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
74.3
6%29
39*
**
**
*R
OC
HE
STE
RR
IVE
RS
IDE
CE
NTR
AL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
65.7
9%25
3840
.00%
615
**
*S
OU
TH K
OO
CH
ICH
ING
IN
DU
S E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
SP
RIN
G L
AK
E P
AR
K
WO
OD
CR
ES
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y65
.38%
1726
68.7
5%11
16*
**
ST.
CLO
UD
D
ISC
OV
ER
Y C
OM
MU
NIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y55
.56%
3054
50.0
0%7
1429
.41%
517
ST.
PA
UL
CR
OS
SR
OA
DS
SC
IEN
CE
PR
OG
RA
M61
.76%
2134
72.2
2%13
18*
**
ST.
PA
UL
FAR
NS
WO
RTH
AE
RO
SP
AC
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y75
.00%
5168
75.9
3%41
54*
**
ST.
PA
UL
HA
NC
OC
K/H
AM
LIN
E M
AG
NE
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y36
.67%
2260
32.0
8%17
53*
**
ST.
PA
UL
PA
UL
& S
HE
ILA
WE
LLS
TON
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y30
.77%
1652
27.7
8%10
36*
**
R2B
9
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
Gra
de 3
- M
inne
sota
Com
preh
ensi
ve A
sses
smen
t II b
y Sc
hool
D
isag
greg
ated
by
Pove
rty,
Lim
ited
Engl
ish
Prof
icie
ncy,
and
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n C
ateg
orie
s Pa
ssin
g >=
3 A
chie
vem
ent L
evel
49
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:492007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:49 12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM
50
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:502007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:50 12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM
APPENDIX C
DATA REPORTS FOR RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUPS
FOR ROUND TWO SCHOOLS
51
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:512007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:51 12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM
52
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:522007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:52 12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM
Notes for Reading the Tables in the Appendices
In order to maintain confi dentiality of individual student information and to avoid presenting data from ♦
groups that are too small to provide reliable achievement estimates, AEC has used the Minnesota report-ing policy of not reporting group data for fewer than 10 students. As a result, any data cell that includes fewer than 10 students is signifi ed by a notation (*).
The reader should note that, while there may be many notations in cells particularly on the disaggregated ♦
tables, each of those notations represents actual achievement data for fewer than 10 students, and these data are aggregated into the totals for the tables in the body of the report.
53
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:532007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:53 12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM
54
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:542007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:54 12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM12/6/2007 10:21:08 AM
N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
A
sian
H
ispa
nic
A
fric
an A
mer
ican
Cau
casi
anD
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*72
.73%
811
78.5
7%11
1484
.31%
4351
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
76.9
2%10
13*
**
**
*79
.63%
4354
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*75
.00%
912
**
*83
.10%
5971
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y56
.72%
3867
**
**
**
**
*83
.33%
1012
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*53
.33%
815
**
*76
.19%
4863
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*42
.86%
1228
50.0
0%8
16*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*48
.00%
1225
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*44
.44%
818
**
*34
.62%
926
63.6
4%7
11M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*37
.93%
1129
38.7
1%12
3179
.31%
2329
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T*
**
**
**
**
92.8
6%13
14*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*75
.00%
912
**
*78
.57%
1114
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*55
.56%
1018
45.4
5%5
1169
.23%
1826
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*74
.36%
2939
OG
ILV
IEO
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
87.1
0%27
31O
WA
TON
NA
W
ILS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
45.0
0%9
20*
**
63.4
6%33
52R
OB
BIN
SD
ALE
N
EIL
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
80.0
0%16
2092
.59%
2527
RO
CH
ES
TER
R
IVE
RS
IDE
CE
NTR
AL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
63.6
4%7
1162
.50%
1016
79.2
5%42
53S
OU
TH K
OO
CH
ICH
ING
IN
DU
S E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
SP
RIN
G L
AK
E P
AR
K
WO
OD
CR
ES
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
92.8
6%13
14*
**
**
*89
.86%
6269
ST.
CLO
UD
D
ISC
OV
ER
Y C
OM
MU
NIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
50.0
0%7
1466
.04%
3553
ST.
PA
UL
CR
OS
SR
OA
DS
SC
IEN
CE
PR
OG
RA
M*
**
71.4
3%10
14*
**
63.1
6%12
19*
**
ST.
PA
UL
FAR
NS
WO
RTH
AE
RO
SP
AC
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
68.1
8%30
44*
**
**
*77
.78%
1418
ST.
PA
UL
HA
NC
OC
K/H
AM
LIN
E M
AG
NE
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
62.5
0%20
32*
**
48.0
0%12
25*
**
ST.
PA
UL
PA
UL
& S
HE
ILA
WE
LLS
TON
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*33
.33%
721
23.5
3%4
17*
**
R2C
1
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
G
rade
1 -
Gat
es-M
acG
initi
e C
ompr
ehen
sion
by
Scho
ol
Dis
aggr
egat
ed b
y R
acia
l/Eth
nic
Cat
egor
ies
Pass
ing>
=41
Nor
mal
Cur
ve E
quiv
alen
ts
55
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:552007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:55 12/6/2007 10:21:09 AM12/6/2007 10:21:09 AM
N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
A
sian
His
pani
c A
fric
an A
mer
ican
Cau
casi
anD
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*80
.70%
4657
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*79
.27%
6582
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*85
.19%
4654
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y75
.93%
4154
**
**
**
**
**
**
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*47
.37%
919
**
*79
.69%
5164
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*34
.48%
1029
75.0
0%12
16*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*58
.82%
1017
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*43
.48%
1023
**
*31
.25%
1032
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*43
.48%
1023
45.7
1%16
3591
.67%
2224
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T*
**
**
**
**
83.3
3%15
18*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*16
.67%
318
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*25
.00%
416
**
*91
.30%
2123
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
40.0
0%6
15*
**
**
*70
.00%
2130
OG
ILV
IEO
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
72.4
1%21
29O
WA
TON
NA
W
ILS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
63.6
4%7
11*
**
63.3
3%38
60R
OB
BIN
SD
ALE
N
EIL
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
45.8
3%11
2483
.72%
3643
RO
CH
ES
TER
R
IVE
RS
IDE
CE
NTR
AL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*75
.00%
912
**
*66
.67%
812
92.0
0%46
50S
OU
TH K
OO
CH
ICH
ING
IN
DU
S E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*10
0.00
%12
12S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*72
.22%
1318
**
**
**
86.2
5%69
80S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
36.3
6%4
11*
**
60.7
8%31
51S
T. P
AU
L C
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
**
**
**
**
*64
.29%
914
88.2
4%15
17S
T. P
AU
L FA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*54
.55%
1833
**
**
**
84.2
1%16
19S
T. P
AU
L H
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*52
.17%
2446
**
*58
.62%
1729
58.3
3%7
12S
T. P
AU
L P
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
34.7
8%8
2333
.33%
721
**
*
R2C
2
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
G
rade
2 -
Gat
es-M
acG
initi
e C
ompr
ehen
sion
by
Scho
ol
Dis
aggr
egat
ed b
y R
acia
l/Eth
nic
Cat
egor
ies
Pass
ing>
=41
Nor
mal
Cur
ve E
quiv
alen
ts
56
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:562007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:56 12/6/2007 10:21:09 AM12/6/2007 10:21:09 AM
N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
A
sian
H
ispa
nic
A
fric
an A
mer
ican
Cau
casi
anD
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*81
.82%
911
85.7
1%12
1492
.16%
4751
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
84.6
2%11
13*
**
**
*87
.04%
4754
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*91
.67%
1112
**
*94
.37%
6771
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y77
.61%
5267
**
**
**
**
*83
.33%
1012
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*53
.33%
815
**
*69
.84%
4463
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*39
.29%
1128
56.2
5%9
16*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*68
.00%
1725
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*40
.00%
820
**
*44
.00%
1125
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*31
.03%
929
64.5
2%20
3189
.66%
2629
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T*
**
**
**
**
92.8
6%13
14*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*66
.67%
812
**
*64
.29%
914
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*55
.56%
1018
45.4
5%5
1173
.08%
1926
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*74
.36%
2939
OG
ILV
IEO
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
100.
00%
3131
OW
ATO
NN
A
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*40
.00%
820
**
*71
.15%
3752
RO
BB
INS
DA
LE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*80
.00%
1620
88.8
9%24
27R
OC
HE
STE
R
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*83
.33%
1012
68.7
5%11
1680
.77%
4252
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
G
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*92
.86%
1314
**
**
**
86.9
6%60
69S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*57
.14%
814
75.4
7%40
53S
T. P
AU
L C
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
**
*78
.57%
1114
**
*68
.42%
1319
**
*S
T. P
AU
L FA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*63
.64%
2844
**
**
**
72.2
2%13
18S
T. P
AU
L H
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*65
.63%
2132
**
*64
.00%
1625
**
*S
T. P
AU
L P
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
28.5
7%6
2141
.18%
717
**
*
R2C
3
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
G
rade
1 -
Gat
es-M
acG
initi
e W
ord
Dec
odin
g by
Sch
ool
Dis
aggr
egat
ed b
y R
acia
l/Eth
nic
Cat
egor
ies
Pass
ing>
=41
Nor
mal
Cur
ve E
quiv
alen
ts
57
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:572007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:57 12/6/2007 10:21:09 AM12/6/2007 10:21:09 AM
N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
A
sian
His
pani
c A
fric
an A
mer
ican
Cau
casi
anD
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*73
.68%
4257
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*81
.71%
6782
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*87
.04%
4754
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y79
.63%
4354
**
**
**
**
**
**
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*68
.42%
1319
**
*75
.00%
4864
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*17
.24%
529
58.8
2%10
17*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*64
.71%
1117
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*31
.82%
722
**
*28
.13%
932
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*43
.48%
1023
45.7
1%16
3587
.50%
2124
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T*
**
**
**
**
83.3
3%15
18*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*38
.89%
718
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*18
.75%
316
**
*82
.61%
1923
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
46.6
7%7
15*
**
**
*63
.33%
1930
OG
ILV
IEO
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
79.3
1%23
29O
WA
TON
NA
W
ILS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
36.3
6%4
11*
**
58.3
3%35
60R
OB
BIN
SD
ALE
N
EIL
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
45.8
3%11
2481
.40%
3543
RO
CH
ES
TER
R
IVE
RS
IDE
CE
NTR
AL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*83
.33%
1012
**
*66
.67%
812
90.0
0%45
50S
OU
TH K
OO
CH
ICH
ING
IN
DU
S E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*10
0.00
%12
12S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*77
.78%
1418
**
**
**
80.0
0%64
80S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
45.4
5%5
11*
**
64.7
1%33
51S
T. P
AU
L C
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
**
**
**
**
*53
.85%
713
88.2
4%15
17S
T. P
AU
L FA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*60
.61%
2033
**
**
**
78.9
5%15
19S
T. P
AU
L H
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*47
.83%
2246
**
*55
.17%
1629
58.3
3%7
12S
T. P
AU
L P
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
30.4
3%7
2347
.62%
1021
**
*
R2C
4
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
G
rade
2 -
Gat
es-M
acG
initi
e W
ord
Dec
odin
g by
Sch
ool
Dis
aggr
egat
ed b
y R
acia
l/Eth
nic
Cat
egor
ies
Pass
ing>
=41
Nor
mal
Cur
ve E
quiv
alen
ts
58
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:582007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:58 12/6/2007 10:21:09 AM12/6/2007 10:21:09 AM
N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
A
sian
H
ispa
nic
A
fric
an A
mer
ican
Cau
casi
anD
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*81
.82%
911
71.4
3%10
1490
.20%
4651
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
76.9
2%10
13*
**
**
*81
.48%
4454
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*58
.33%
712
**
*90
.14%
6471
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y69
.44%
5072
**
**
**
**
*83
.33%
1012
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*73
.33%
1115
**
*77
.42%
4862
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*39
.29%
1128
68.7
5%11
16*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*60
.00%
1525
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*65
.00%
1320
**
*44
.00%
1125
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*34
.48%
1029
51.6
1%16
3179
.31%
2329
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T*
**
**
*63
.64%
711
81.2
5%13
16*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*91
.67%
1112
**
*78
.57%
1114
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*61
.11%
1118
**
*73
.08%
1926
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*68
.42%
2638
OG
ILV
IEO
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
83.8
7%26
31O
WA
TON
NA
W
ILS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
61.9
0%13
21*
**
70.5
9%36
51R
OB
BIN
SD
ALE
N
EIL
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
80.0
0%16
2096
.30%
2627
RO
CH
ES
TER
R
IVE
RS
IDE
CE
NTR
AL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
66.6
7%8
1275
.00%
1216
81.1
3%43
53S
OU
TH K
OO
CH
ICH
ING
IN
DU
S E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
SP
RIN
G L
AK
E P
AR
K
WO
OD
CR
ES
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
92.8
6%13
14*
**
**
*88
.41%
6169
ST.
CLO
UD
D
ISC
OV
ER
Y C
OM
MU
NIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
57.1
4%8
1479
.25%
4253
ST.
PA
UL
CR
OS
SR
OA
DS
SC
IEN
CE
PR
OG
RA
M*
**
71.4
3%10
14*
**
61.1
1%11
18*
**
ST.
PA
UL
FAR
NS
WO
RTH
AE
RO
SP
AC
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
76.7
4%33
43*
**
**
*64
.71%
1117
ST.
PA
UL
HA
NC
OC
K/H
AM
LIN
E M
AG
NE
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
63.6
4%21
33*
**
62.5
0%15
24*
**
ST.
PA
UL
PA
UL
& S
HE
ILA
WE
LLS
TON
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*36
.84%
719
35.2
9%6
17*
**
R2C
5
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
G
rade
1 -
Den
o's
Ora
l Flu
ency
by
Scho
ol
Dis
aggr
egat
ed b
y R
acia
l/Eth
nic
Cat
egor
ies
Pas
sing
>=40
Wor
ds C
orre
ct P
er M
inut
e
59
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:592007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:59 12/6/2007 10:21:09 AM12/6/2007 10:21:09 AM
N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
A
sian
H
ispa
nic
A
fric
an A
mer
ican
Cau
casi
anD
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*89
.47%
5157
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*81
.71%
6782
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*85
.19%
4654
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y92
.59%
5054
**
**
**
**
**
**
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*73
.68%
1419
**
*79
.69%
5164
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*48
.28%
1429
88.2
4%15
17*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*88
.24%
1517
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*50
.00%
1224
**
*43
.75%
1432
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*47
.83%
1123
59.4
6%22
3788
.00%
2225
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T*
**
**
*81
.82%
911
85.0
0%17
20*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*50
.00%
918
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*68
.75%
1116
**
*87
.50%
2124
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
80.0
0%12
15*
**
**
*70
.00%
2130
OG
ILV
IEO
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
72.4
1%21
29O
WA
TON
NA
W
ILS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
45.4
5%5
11*
**
73.3
3%44
60R
OB
BIN
SD
ALE
N
EIL
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
62.5
0%15
2481
.40%
3543
RO
CH
ES
TER
R
IVE
RS
IDE
CE
NTR
AL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*91
.67%
1112
**
*66
.67%
812
94.0
0%47
50S
OU
TH K
OO
CH
ICH
ING
IN
DU
S E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*10
0.00
%12
12S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*83
.33%
1518
**
**
**
92.5
9%75
81S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
69.2
3%36
52S
T. P
AU
L C
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
**
**
**
**
*71
.43%
1014
70.5
9%12
17S
T. P
AU
L FA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*72
.73%
2433
**
**
**
84.2
1%16
19S
T. P
AU
L H
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*71
.74%
3346
**
*62
.07%
1829
66.6
7%8
12S
T. P
AU
L P
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
55.0
0%11
2047
.62%
1021
**
*
R2C
6
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
G
rade
2 -
Den
o's
Ora
l Flu
ency
by
Scho
ol
Dis
aggr
egat
ed b
y R
acia
l/Eth
nic
Cat
egor
ies
Pass
ing>
=75
Wor
ds C
orre
ct P
er M
inut
e
60
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:602007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:60 12/6/2007 10:21:10 AM12/6/2007 10:21:10 AM
N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
A
sian
H
ispa
nic
A
fric
an A
mer
ican
Cau
casi
anD
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
UN
IVE
RS
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
86.2
7%44
51A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
IN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*89
.47%
5157
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*83
.33%
1012
**
*81
.36%
4859
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y86
.36%
5766
**
**
**
**
**
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*52
.63%
1019
83.3
3%10
1291
.67%
1112
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*80
.95%
1721
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*70
.59%
1217
**
*51
.61%
1631
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*68
.57%
2435
77.1
4%27
3592
.00%
2325
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T*
**
**
*60
.00%
915
78.5
7%11
14*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*70
.83%
1724
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*89
.47%
1719
42.8
6%6
1489
.66%
2629
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
50.0
0%7
1485
.11%
4047
OG
ILV
IE
OG
ILV
IE E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*83
.33%
3036
OW
ATO
NN
A
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*87
.72%
5057
RO
BB
INS
DA
LEN
EIL
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
75.0
0%15
2095
.24%
4042
RO
CH
ES
TER
RIV
ER
SID
E C
EN
TRA
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
83.3
3%10
12*
**
75.0
0%9
1284
.13%
5363
SO
UTH
KO
OC
HIC
HIN
GIN
DU
S E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
SP
RIN
G L
AK
E P
AR
K
WO
OD
CR
ES
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
88.2
4%15
1710
0.00
%16
1683
.33%
1012
94.1
2%64
68S
T. C
LOU
DD
ISC
OV
ER
Y C
OM
MU
NIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*80
.33%
4961
ST.
PA
UL
CR
OS
SR
OA
DS
SC
IEN
CE
PR
OG
RA
M*
**
83.3
3%10
12*
**
58.8
2%10
1788
.24%
1517
ST.
PA
UL
FAR
NS
WO
RTH
AE
RO
SP
AC
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
90.0
0%36
4090
.91%
1011
94.1
2%16
1784
.62%
1113
ST.
PA
UL
HA
NC
OC
K/H
AM
LIN
E M
AG
NE
T E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
78.3
8%29
37*
**
94.7
4%18
19*
**
ST.
PA
UL
PA
UL
& S
HE
ILA
WE
LLS
TON
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*52
.17%
1223
50.0
0%12
24*
**
R2C
7
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
G
rade
3 -
Den
o's
Ora
l Flu
ency
by
Scho
ol
Dis
aggr
egat
ed b
y R
acia
l/Eth
nic
Cat
egor
ies
Pass
ing>
=95
Wor
ds C
orre
ct P
er M
inut
e
61
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:612007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:61 12/6/2007 10:21:10 AM12/6/2007 10:21:10 AM
N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
A
sian
His
pani
c A
fric
an A
mer
ican
Cau
casi
anD
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*82
.46%
4757
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*82
.93%
6882
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*83
.33%
4554
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y77
.78%
4254
**
**
**
**
**
**
CR
OO
KS
TON
W
AS
HIN
GTO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*57
.89%
1119
**
*78
.13%
5064
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*24
.14%
729
64.7
1%11
17*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*70
.59%
1217
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*26
.09%
623
**
*34
.38%
1132
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*39
.13%
923
45.7
1%16
3591
.67%
2224
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
RIS
EN
CH
RIS
T*
**
**
**
**
61.1
1%11
18*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
SH
ING
LE C
RE
EK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*33
.33%
618
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
W
AIT
E P
AR
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*12
.50%
216
**
*86
.96%
2023
NO
RTH
ST
PA
UL
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
33.3
3%5
15*
**
**
*73
.33%
2230
OG
ILV
IEO
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
75.8
6%22
29O
WA
TON
NA
W
ILS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
45.4
5%5
11*
**
66.6
7%40
60R
OB
BIN
SD
ALE
N
EIL
L E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
41.6
7%10
2483
.72%
3643
RO
CH
ES
TER
R
IVE
RS
IDE
CE
NTR
AL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*75
.00%
912
**
*50
.00%
612
94.0
0%47
50S
OU
TH K
OO
CH
ICH
ING
IN
DU
S E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*10
0.00
%12
12S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*44
.44%
818
**
**
**
88.7
5%71
80S
T. C
LOU
D
DIS
CO
VE
RY
CO
MM
UN
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
36.3
6%4
11*
**
70.5
9%36
51S
T. P
AU
L C
RO
SS
RO
AD
S S
CIE
NC
E P
RO
GR
AM
**
**
**
**
*71
.43%
1014
94.1
2%16
17S
T. P
AU
L FA
RN
SW
OR
TH A
ER
OS
PA
CE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*51
.52%
1733
**
**
**
84.2
1%16
19S
T. P
AU
L H
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*43
.48%
2046
**
*62
.07%
1829
58.3
3%7
12S
T. P
AU
L P
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
17.3
9%4
2328
.57%
621
**
*
R2C
8
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
G
rade
2 -
Gat
es-M
acG
initi
e W
ord
Kno
wle
dge
by S
choo
l D
isag
greg
ated
by
Rac
ial/E
thni
c C
ateg
orie
sPa
ssin
g>=4
1 N
orm
al C
urve
Equ
ival
ents
62
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:622007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:62 12/6/2007 10:21:10 AM12/6/2007 10:21:10 AM
N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
A
sian
H
ispa
nic
A
fric
an A
mer
ican
Cau
casi
anD
istr
ict
Scho
ol
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
% P
ass
# Pa
ssTo
tal
AN
OK
A-H
EN
NE
PIN
UN
IVE
RS
ITY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
88.2
4%45
51A
NO
KA
-HE
NN
EP
IN
WIL
SO
N E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*81
.03%
4758
AU
STI
N
NE
VE
LN E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*50
.00%
612
**
*70
.00%
4260
CA
SS
LA
KE
-BE
NA
C
AS
S L
AK
E-B
EN
A E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y72
.06%
4968
**
**
**
**
**
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BA
NC
RO
FT E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*26
.32%
519
73.3
3%11
1590
.91%
1011
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
BE
THU
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*66
.67%
1421
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
JE
NN
Y L
IND
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*41
.18%
717
**
*42
.42%
1433
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
R
AM
SE
Y F
INE
AR
TS E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
*52
.78%
1936
60.0
0%21
3584
.00%
2125
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
SR
ISE
N C
HR
IST
**
**
**
46.6
7%7
1566
.67%
1015
**
*M
INN
EA
PO
LIS
S
HIN
GLE
CR
EE
K E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
37.5
0%9
24*
**
MIN
NE
AP
OLI
S
WA
ITE
PA
RK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
47.3
7%9
1913
.33%
215
93.1
0%27
29N
OR
TH S
T P
AU
LR
ICH
AR
DS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*42
.86%
614
82.9
8%39
47O
GIL
VIE
O
GIL
VIE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
86.1
1%31
36O
WA
TON
NA
W
ILS
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
81.0
3%47
58R
OB
BIN
SD
ALE
NE
ILL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
*77
.27%
1722
88.1
0%37
42R
OC
HE
STE
RR
IVE
RS
IDE
CE
NTR
AL
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*66
.67%
812
**
*66
.67%
812
87.5
0%56
64S
OU
TH K
OO
CH
ICH
ING
IND
US
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*S
PR
ING
LA
KE
PA
RK
W
OO
DC
RE
ST
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*82
.35%
1417
81.2
5%13
1675
.00%
912
85.2
9%58
68S
T. C
LOU
DD
ISC
OV
ER
Y C
OM
MU
NIT
Y E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
**
**
**
**
*73
.77%
4561
ST.
PA
UL
CR
OS
SR
OA
DS
SC
IEN
CE
PR
OG
RA
M*
**
61.5
4%8
13*
**
52.9
4%9
1794
.44%
1718
ST.
PA
UL
FAR
NS
WO
RTH
AE
RO
SP
AC
E E
LEM
EN
TAR
Y*
**
69.0
5%29
4210
0.00
%12
1264
.71%
1117
92.8
6%13
14S
T. P
AU
L H
AN
CO
CK
/HA
MLI
NE
MA
GN
ET
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
*27
.03%
1037
**
*52
.63%
1019
**
*S
T. P
AU
L P
AU
L &
SH
EIL
A W
ELL
STO
NE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
**
**
**
25.0
0%6
2437
.50%
924
**
*
R2C
9
Min
neso
ta R
eadi
ng F
irst P
rogr
am 2
007
- Rou
nd 2
Sch
ools
G
rade
3 -
Min
neso
ta C
ompr
ehen
sive
Ass
essm
ent I
ID
isag
greg
ated
by
Rac
ial/E
thni
c C
ateg
orie
sPa
ssin
g>=3
Ach
ieve
men
t Lev
el
63
Minnesota 2007 Reading First Evaluation Report
2007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:632007-MN-ReadingFirst-EvalReport-FINAL.indd Sec2:63 12/6/2007 10:21:10 AM12/6/2007 10:21:10 AM