**Iowa Reading First:**

**External Evaluator Final Report**

**Grades 1-3**

**2006-2007**

![](media/image1.png){width="2.857638888888889in" height="2.0in"}

**Prepared by**

**Psychology in Education Research Lab**

**Iowa State University**

**Arlene de la Mora**

**Faith Lichoro**

**Petra Hofstedt**

**Tsun-Yao Ku**

**Gary D. Phye**

### Table of Contents

+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| * |   |     |                                                        | 4 |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| E |   |     |                                                        |   |
| x |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| c |   |     |                                                        |   |
| u |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| i |   |     |                                                        |   |
| v |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| S |   |     |                                                        |   |
| u |   |     |                                                        |   |
| m |   |     |                                                        |   |
| m |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| y |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| O |   |     |                                                        |   |
| v |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| v |   |     |                                                        |   |
| i |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| w |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| f |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| h |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| I |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| w |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| R |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| d |   |     |                                                        |   |
| i |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| g |   |     |                                                        |   |
| F |   |     |                                                        |   |
| i |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| S |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| u |   |     |                                                        |   |
| d |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| D |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| C |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| c |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| i |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | Web |                                                        | 1 |
|   |   | -Ba |                                                        | 1 |
|   |   | sed |                                                        |   |
|   |   | D   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ata |                                                        |   |
|   |   | C   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | oll |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ect |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ion |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Cen |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ter |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | De  |                                                        | 1 |
|   |   | scr |                                                        | 1 |
|   |   | ipt |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ion |                                                        |   |
|   |   | of  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | R   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ead |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Me  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | asu |                                                        |   |
|   |   | res |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | As  |                                                        | 1 |
|   |   | ses |                                                        | 2 |
|   |   | sme |                                                        |   |
|   |   | nts |                                                        |   |
|   |   | by  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ade |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Lev |                                                        |   |
|   |   | el, |                                                        |   |
|   |   | R   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ead |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Fi  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | rst |                                                        |   |
|   |   | St  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ate |                                                        |   |
|   |   | E   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | val |                                                        |   |
|   |   | uat |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ion |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Sc  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | hed |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ule |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | S   |                                                        | 1 |
|   |   | tud |                                                        | 3 |
|   |   | ent |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Le  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | vel |                                                        |   |
|   |   | De  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | scr |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ipt |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ors |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | Web |                                                        | 1 |
|   |   | -ba |                                                        | 3 |
|   |   | sed |                                                        |   |
|   |   | R   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | epo |                                                        |   |
|   |   | rts |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | U   |                                                        | 1 |
|   |   | nde |                                                        | 4 |
|   |   | rst |                                                        |   |
|   |   | and |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Pe  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | rfo |                                                        |   |
|   |   | rma |                                                        |   |
|   |   | nce |                                                        |   |
|   |   | B   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | enc |                                                        |   |
|   |   | hma |                                                        |   |
|   |   | rks |                                                        |   |
|   |   | and |                                                        |   |
|   |   | th  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | eir |                                                        |   |
|   |   | use |                                                        |   |
|   |   | for |                                                        |   |
|   |   | R   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ead |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Fi  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | rst |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cho |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ols |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | U   |                                                        | 1 |
|   |   | nde |                                                        | 5 |
|   |   | rst |                                                        |   |
|   |   | and |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | eat |                                                        |   |
|   |   | est |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Ga  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ins |                                                        |   |
|   |   | and |                                                        |   |
|   |   | th  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | eir |                                                        |   |
|   |   | use |                                                        |   |
|   |   | for |                                                        |   |
|   |   | R   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ead |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Fi  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | rst |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cho |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ols |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | S   |                                                        | 1 |
|   |   | tud |                                                        | 5 |
|   |   | ent |                                                        |   |
|   |   | D   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ata |                                                        |   |
|   |   | An  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | aly |                                                        |   |
|   |   | sis |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Des |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cri |                                                        |   |
|   |   | bed |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| R |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| u |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| f |   |     |                                                        |   |
| S |   |     |                                                        |   |
| c |   |     |                                                        |   |
| h |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| d |   |     |                                                        |   |
| S |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| u |   |     |                                                        |   |
| d |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| R |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| d |   |     |                                                        |   |
| i |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| g |   |     |                                                        |   |
| P |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| f |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| m |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| c |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| ( |   |     |                                                        |   |
| F |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| , |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 2 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 5 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| - |   |     |                                                        |   |
| - |   |     |                                                        |   |
| S |   |     |                                                        |   |
| p |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| i |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| g |   |     |                                                        |   |
| , |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 2 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 6 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| ) |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   | A |     |                                                        | 1 |
|   | n |     |                                                        | 6 |
|   | a |     |                                                        |   |
|   | l |     |                                                        |   |
|   | y |     |                                                        |   |
|   | s |     |                                                        |   |
|   | i |     |                                                        |   |
|   | s |     |                                                        |   |
|   | o |     |                                                        |   |
|   | f |     |                                                        |   |
|   | P |     |                                                        |   |
|   | e |     |                                                        |   |
|   | r |     |                                                        |   |
|   | f |     |                                                        |   |
|   | o |     |                                                        |   |
|   | r |     |                                                        |   |
|   | m |     |                                                        |   |
|   | a |     |                                                        |   |
|   | n |     |                                                        |   |
|   | c |     |                                                        |   |
|   | e |     |                                                        |   |
|   | B |     |                                                        |   |
|   | e |     |                                                        |   |
|   | n |     |                                                        |   |
|   | c |     |                                                        |   |
|   | h |     |                                                        |   |
|   | m |     |                                                        |   |
|   | a |     |                                                        |   |
|   | r |     |                                                        |   |
|   | k |     |                                                        |   |
|   | s |     |                                                        |   |
|   | M |     |                                                        |   |
|   | e |     |                                                        |   |
|   | t |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   | G |     |                                                        | 2 |
|   | r |     |                                                        | 0 |
|   | e |     |                                                        |   |
|   | a |     |                                                        |   |
|   | t |     |                                                        |   |
|   | e |     |                                                        |   |
|   | s |     |                                                        |   |
|   | t |     |                                                        |   |
|   | G |     |                                                        |   |
|   | a |     |                                                        |   |
|   | i |     |                                                        |   |
|   | n |     |                                                        |   |
|   | s |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   | H |     |                                                        | 2 |
|   | i |     |                                                        | 2 |
|   | g |     |                                                        |   |
|   | h |     |                                                        |   |
|   | l |     |                                                        |   |
|   | y |     |                                                        |   |
|   | S |     |                                                        |   |
|   | u |     |                                                        |   |
|   | c |     |                                                        |   |
|   | c |     |                                                        |   |
|   | e |     |                                                        |   |
|   | s |     |                                                        |   |
|   | s |     |                                                        |   |
|   | f |     |                                                        |   |
|   | u |     |                                                        |   |
|   | l |     |                                                        |   |
|   | S |     |                                                        |   |
|   | c |     |                                                        |   |
|   | h |     |                                                        |   |
|   | o |     |                                                        |   |
|   | o |     |                                                        |   |
|   | l |     |                                                        |   |
|   | s |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| R |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| u |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| f |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 2 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 6 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| - |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 2 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 7 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| S |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| u |   |     |                                                        |   |
| d |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| P |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| f |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| m |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| c |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| C |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| m |   |     |                                                        |   |
| p |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| i |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| ( |   |     |                                                        |   |
| Y |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 1 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| : |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 2 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 6 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| S |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| - |   |     |                                                        |   |
| Y |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| S |   |     |                                                        |   |
| c |   |     |                                                        |   |
| h |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| ) |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | St  |                                                        | 2 |
|   |   | ude |                                                        | 4 |
|   |   | nts |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cor |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | at  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ade |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Lev |                                                        |   |
|   |   | el: |                                                        |   |
|   |   | All |                                                        |   |
|   |   | St  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ude |                                                        |   |
|   |   | nts |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | St  |                                                        | 2 |
|   |   | ude |                                                        | 5 |
|   |   | nts |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cor |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | at  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ade |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Lev |                                                        |   |
|   |   | el: |                                                        |   |
|   |   | *wi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | th* |                                                        |   |
|   |   | and |                                                        |   |
|   |   | *wi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | tho |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ut* |                                                        |   |
|   |   | an  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Ec  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ono |                                                        |   |
|   |   | mic |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Dis |                                                        |   |
|   |   | adv |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ant |                                                        |   |
|   |   | age |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | St  |                                                        | 3 |
|   |   | ude |                                                        | 0 |
|   |   | nts |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cor |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | at  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ade |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Lev |                                                        |   |
|   |   | el: |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Ma  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | jor |                                                        |   |
|   |   | R   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | aci |                                                        |   |
|   |   | al/ |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Eth |                                                        |   |
|   |   | nic |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gro |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ups |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | St  |                                                        | 3 |
|   |   | ude |                                                        | 6 |
|   |   | nts |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cor |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | at  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ade |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Lev |                                                        |   |
|   |   | el: |                                                        |   |
|   |   | *wi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | th* |                                                        |   |
|   |   | and |                                                        |   |
|   |   | *wi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | tho |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ut* |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Dis |                                                        |   |
|   |   | abi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | lit |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ies |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | St  |                                                        | 4 |
|   |   | ude |                                                        | 1 |
|   |   | nts |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cor |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | at  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ade |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Lev |                                                        |   |
|   |   | el: |                                                        |   |
|   |   | *wi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | th* |                                                        |   |
|   |   | and |                                                        |   |
|   |   | *wi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | tho |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ut* |                                                        |   |
|   |   | L   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | imi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ted |                                                        |   |
|   |   | E   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ngl |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ish |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Pr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ofi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cie |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ncy |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | S   |                                                        | 4 |
|   |   | pec |                                                        | 5 |
|   |   | ial |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Edu |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cat |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ion |                                                        |   |
|   |   | D   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ata |                                                        |   |
|   |   | by  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gra |                                                        |   |
|   |   | de: |                                                        |   |
|   |   | 2   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | 006 |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | tar |                                                        |   |
|   |   | t-Y |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ear |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cho |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ols |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| R |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| u |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| f |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 2 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 6 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| - |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 2 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 7 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| S |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| u |   |     |                                                        |   |
| d |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| P |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| f |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| m |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| c |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| C |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| m |   |     |                                                        |   |
| p |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| i |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| n |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| ( |   |     |                                                        |   |
| Y |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 4 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| : |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 2 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 0 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 3 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| S |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| t |   |     |                                                        |   |
| - |   |     |                                                        |   |
| Y |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| r |   |     |                                                        |   |
| S |   |     |                                                        |   |
| c |   |     |                                                        |   |
| h |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| o |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| ) |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | St  |                                                        | 4 |
|   |   | ude |                                                        | 8 |
|   |   | nts |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cor |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | at  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ade |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Lev |                                                        |   |
|   |   | el: |                                                        |   |
|   |   | All |                                                        |   |
|   |   | St  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ude |                                                        |   |
|   |   | nts |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | St  |                                                        | 4 |
|   |   | ude |                                                        | 9 |
|   |   | nts |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cor |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | at  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ade |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Lev |                                                        |   |
|   |   | el: |                                                        |   |
|   |   | *wi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | th* |                                                        |   |
|   |   | and |                                                        |   |
|   |   | *wi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | tho |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ut* |                                                        |   |
|   |   | an  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Ec  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ono |                                                        |   |
|   |   | mic |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Dis |                                                        |   |
|   |   | adv |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ant |                                                        |   |
|   |   | age |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | St  |                                                        | 5 |
|   |   | ude |                                                        | 3 |
|   |   | nts |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cor |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | at  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ade |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Lev |                                                        |   |
|   |   | el: |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Ma  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | jor |                                                        |   |
|   |   | R   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | aci |                                                        |   |
|   |   | al/ |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Eth |                                                        |   |
|   |   | nic |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gro |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ups |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | St  |                                                        | 6 |
|   |   | ude |                                                        | 0 |
|   |   | nts |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cor |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | at  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ade |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Lev |                                                        |   |
|   |   | el: |                                                        |   |
|   |   | *wi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | th* |                                                        |   |
|   |   | and |                                                        |   |
|   |   | *wi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | tho |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ut* |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Dis |                                                        |   |
|   |   | abi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | lit |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ies |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | St  |                                                        | 6 |
|   |   | ude |                                                        | 4 |
|   |   | nts |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cor |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ing |                                                        |   |
|   |   | at  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ade |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Lev |                                                        |   |
|   |   | el: |                                                        |   |
|   |   | *wi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | th* |                                                        |   |
|   |   | and |                                                        |   |
|   |   | *wi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | tho |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ut* |                                                        |   |
|   |   | L   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | imi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ted |                                                        |   |
|   |   | E   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ngl |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ish |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Pr  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ofi |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cie |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ncy |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   | S   |                                                        | 6 |
|   |   | pec |                                                        | 9 |
|   |   | ial |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Edu |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cat |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ion |                                                        |   |
|   |   | D   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ata |                                                        |   |
|   |   | by  |                                                        |   |
|   |   | Gra |                                                        |   |
|   |   | de: |                                                        |   |
|   |   | 2   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | 003 |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | tar |                                                        |   |
|   |   | t-Y |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ear |                                                        |   |
|   |   | S   |                                                        |   |
|   |   | cho |                                                        |   |
|   |   | ols |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| T |   |     |                                                        |   |
| a |   |     |                                                        |   |
| b |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| s |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
| * |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| T |   |     | Percentage of 2003 Start-Year schools meeting          | 6 |
| a |   |     | performance benchmarks in ITBS subtests.               |   |
| b |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 1 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| . |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| T |   |     | Iowa Reading First Assessment Schedule                 | 1 |
| a |   |     |                                                        | 2 |
| b |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 2 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| . |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| T |   |     | Test Types and Student Levels                          | 1 |
| a |   |     |                                                        | 3 |
| b |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 3 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| . |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| T |   |     | Number of PB Met by 2006 Start-Year School Buildings   | 1 |
| a |   |     |                                                        | 6 |
| b |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 4 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| . |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| T |   |     | Reading First Performance Benchmarks Met Totals:       | 1 |
| a |   |     |                                                        | 7 |
| b |   |     | 2006 Start-Year Schools                                |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 5 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| . |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| T |   |     | Number of PB Met by 2003 Start-Year School Buildings   | 1 |
| a |   |     |                                                        | 8 |
| b |   |     |                                                        |   |
| l |   |     |                                                        |   |
| e |   |     |                                                        |   |
| 6 |   |     |                                                        |   |
| . |   |     |                                                        |   |
+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------------+---+

+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Reading First Performance Benchmarks Met Totals:       | 1 |
| 7.      |                                                        | 9 |
|         | 2003 Start-Year Schools                                |   |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | 2006 Start-Year Schools, Greatest Gains by School and  | 2 |
| 8.      | by Test                                                | 1 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | 2003 Start-Year Schools, Greatest Gains by School and  | 2 |
| 9.      | by Test                                                | 1 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | 2006 Start-Year Reading First Schools Identified as    | 2 |
| 10.     | "Highly Successful Schools"                            | 2 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | 2003 Start-Year Reading First Schools Identified as    | 2 |
| 11.     | "Highly Successful Schools"                            | 2 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|         |                                                        |   |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| *       |                                                        |   |
| *Tables |                                                        |   |
| 12-17:  |                                                        |   |
| 20      |                                                        |   |
| 06-2007 |                                                        |   |
| Student |                                                        |   |
| Perf    |                                                        |   |
| ormance |                                                        |   |
| Compar  |                                                        |   |
| isons** |                                                        |   |
|         |                                                        |   |
| **(Year |                                                        |   |
| 1: 2006 |                                                        |   |
| Sta     |                                                        |   |
| rt-Year |                                                        |   |
| Sch     |                                                        |   |
| ools)** |                                                        |   |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 7 |
| 12.     | All Students                                           | 2 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 7 |
| 13.     | *with* and *without* an Economic Disadvantage          | 3 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 7 |
| 14a.    | Major Racial/Ethnic Groups (White and American         | 4 |
|         | Indian/Alaskan Native Students)                        |   |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 7 |
| 14b.    | Major Racial/Ethnic Groups (White and Asian Students)  | 5 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 7 |
| 14c.    | Major Racial/Ethnic Groups (White and African          | 6 |
|         | American/Black Students)                               |   |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 7 |
| 14d.    | Major Racial/Ethnic Groups (White and Hispanic/Latino  | 7 |
|         | Students)                                              |   |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 7 |
| 15.     | *with* and *without* Disabilities                      | 8 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 7 |
| 16.     | *with* and *without* Limited English Proficiency       | 9 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Special Education Data                                 | 8 |
| 17.     |                                                        | 0 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
|         |                                                        |   |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| *       |                                                        |   |
| *Tables |                                                        |   |
| 18-24:  |                                                        |   |
| 20      |                                                        |   |
| 06-2007 |                                                        |   |
| Student |                                                        |   |
| Perf    |                                                        |   |
| ormance |                                                        |   |
| Compar  |                                                        |   |
| isons** |                                                        |   |
|         |                                                        |   |
| **(Year |                                                        |   |
| 4: 2003 |                                                        |   |
| Sta     |                                                        |   |
| rt-Year |                                                        |   |
| Sch     |                                                        |   |
| ools)** |                                                        |   |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 8 |
| 18.     | All Students                                           | 1 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 8 |
| 19.     | *with* and *without* an Economic Disadvantage          | 2 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 8 |
| 20a.    | Major Racial/Ethnic Groups (White and American         | 3 |
|         | Indian/Alaskan Native Students)                        |   |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 8 |
| 20b.    | Major Racial/Ethnic Groups (White and Asian Students)  | 4 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 8 |
| 20c.    | Major Racial/Ethnic Groups (White and African          | 5 |
|         | American/Black Students)                               |   |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 8 |
| 20d.    | Major Racial/Ethnic Groups (White and Hispanic/Latino  | 6 |
|         | Students)                                              |   |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 8 |
| 21.     | *with* and *without* Disabilities                      | 7 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   | 8 |
| 22.     | *with* and *without* Limited English Proficiency       | 8 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| Table   | Special Education Data                                 | 8 |
| 23.     |                                                        | 9 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+
| **Refer |                                                        | 9 |
| ences** |                                                        | 0 |
+---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---+

###  Executive Summary

**Program Description.** Reading First is a focused nationwide effort to
enable all students to become successful early readers. The goal is to
improve the reading achievement through high-quality, comprehensive
reading instruction in kindergarten through grade 3. The Iowa Reading
First program builds upon a solid foundation of research designed to
select, implement, and provide professional development for teachers
using scientifically based reading programs. The program also ensures
accountability through ongoing, valid and reliable screening,
diagnostic, and classroom-based assessment.

In 2006-07 there were 48 school buildings within 29 school districts in
their fourth year of participating in the Iowa Reading First Program.
During this time period, approximately 9,653 students in grades
kindergarten through four participated at these 2003 Start-Year Schools.
In 2006-07, 52 new school buildings within 23 school districts began
their first year of implementation in the Iowa Reading First Program.
There were approximately 12,474 students in grades kindergarten through
four participating at these 2006 Start-Year Schools. The following is an
overview of the activities that took place in 2006-07.

**Data Collection:** Iowa Reading First Data Collection site was
available for data entry in the fall between August 7, 2006 and November
17, 2006. In the spring, the data collection site was open for data
collection between January 22, 2007 and May 2, 2007. Because schools
that administer their ITBS in spring were not expected to receive their
scores by May 2, 2006, the data collection for ITBS ended on May 25,
2006.

**Performance Benchmarks (Number of Performance Benchmarks Met) 2006
Start-Year Schools.** In 2006-07, a total of 15 performance benchmarks
were used to determine whether 2006 Start-Year schools made a difference
in student achievement. Specifically, whether schools increased the
proportion of students attaining proficiency in each of the 15
assessment data areas collected during the 2006-07 school year. The
number of performance benchmarks met by schools ranged from 15 to 2 (see
Table 4). One school building met 15 performance benchmarks; 10 school
buildings met 14 performance benchmarks; 14 school buildings met 13
performance benchmarks; 12 school buildings met 12 performance
benchmarks, 6 school buildings met 11 performance benchmarks; 2 school
10 performance benchmarks; and 3 school building met 7 or less
performance benchmarks. Three participating schools do not have a
complete K-4 range; therefore, the number of performance benchmarks is
less than 15 for these schools. Schools were combined with other
participating schools within their respective school districts to
represent a K-4 range.

The majority (85% to 100%) of 2006 Start-Year schools met their
performance benchmarks in Phonological Awareness Test subtests (PAT;
rhyming, deletion, blending, segmentation, isolation, substitution,
graphemes and decoding) among their kindergarten and first grade
students (see Table 5). The majority (83%) of 2006 Start-Year schools
met their performance benchmarks in second and third grade Basic Reading
Inventory (BRI) comprehension. The majority of schools (81%) also met
their performance benchmark in second grade BRI fluency, but only 15% of
the schools met their performance benchmark in third grade BRI fluency.

**Performance Benchmarks (Percentage of Performance Benchmarks Met) 2003
Start-Year Schools.** In 2006-07, a total of 44 performance benchmarks
were used to determine whether 2003 Start-Year schools made a difference
in student achievement. The 44 assessment data areas included benchmarks
collected during the 2006-07 school year, and benchmarks that compared
student performance between 2003-04 to 2006-07 and between 2005-06 to
2006-07. The number of performance benchmarks met by schools ranged from
43 to 16 (see Table 6). Three school buildings met between 40-43
performance benchmarks; 10 school buildings met between 35-39; 10 school
building met between 30-34; and 13 school buildings met between 25-29; 8
school buildings met between 20-24; and 2 school buildings met between
16-19. All buildings met 16 or more performance benchmarks.

The majority(89%-100%) of 2003 Start-Year schools met their performance
benchmarks in PAT subtests (rhyming, deletion, blending, segmentation,
isolation, substitution, graphemes and decoding) among kindergarten,
first, and second grade students between Fall 2006 and Spring 2007 and
across year comparisons (2003-04 and 2005-06 compared to 2006-7; see
Table 7).

Students in 2003 Start-Year schools continue to need support in BRI
fluency (see Table 7). The majority (28%-41%) of 2003 Start Year schools
*did not* meet their performance benchmarks in fluency between Fall 2006
and Spring 2007 (within year comparison) for second and third grade
students. Across year comparisons were made to examine the progress
students have made in fluency overtime. Over half (59%) of the schools
met their performance benchmark in fluency when comparing first grade
student performance in 2003-04 to first grade student performance in
2006-07 and about one-third (37%) of the schools met their performance
benchmark in fluency when comparing first grade student performance in
2005-06 to first grade student performance in 2006-07. Across year
comparisons were also made for three student cohort groups:
approximately one-third (39%) of 2003 Start-Year schools met their
performance benchmark in fluency comparing first grade student
performance in 2003-04 to third grade student performance in 2006-07,
half (50%) of 2003 Start-Year schools met their performance benchmark in
fluency comparing first grade student performance in 2005-06 to second
grade student performance in 2006-07, and less than one-third (26%) of
2003 Start-Year schools met their performance benchmark in fluency
comparing second grade student performance in 2005-06 to third grade
student performance in 2006-07.

Student performance in BRI comprehension is varied. The majority (89%)
of 2003 Start Year schools met their performance benchmarks in
comprehension between Fall 2006 and Spring 2007 (within year comparison)
for second and third grade students. Across year comparisons were made
to examine the progress students have made in comprehension overtime.

Over half (59%) of the schools met their performance benchmark in
comprehension when comparing first grade student performance in 2003-04
to first grade student performance in 2006-07 and over one-third (39%)
of the schools met their performance benchmark in comprehension when
comparing first grade student performance in 2005-06 to first grade
student performance in 2006-07. Across year comparisons were also made
for three student cohort groups: the majority (89%) of 2003 Start-Year
schools met their performance benchmark in comprehension comparing first
grade student performance in 2003-04 to third grade student performance
in 2006-07, slightly less than half (46%) of 2003 Start-Year schools met
their performance benchmark in comprehension comparing first grade
student performance in 2005-06 to second grade student performance in
2006-07, and the majority (89%) of 2003 Start-Year schools met their
performance benchmark in comprehension comparing second grade student
performance in 2005-06 to third grade student performance in 2006-07.

The percentage of 2003 Start-Year schools meeting their benchmarks in
ITBS comprehension NPR, vocabulary NPR, and reading total NPR for third
and fourth grade students varied between (39%-65%). Across year
comparisons were made to examine progress made on ITBS subtests.
Comparisons were made between third grade performance in 2005-06 and
third grade performance in 2006-07; fourth grade performance in 2005-06
and fourth grade performance in 2006-07; a cohort group of third grade
students in 2005-06 and fourth grade students in 2006-07; third grade
performance in 2003-04 and third grade performance in 2006-07; and
fourth grade performance in 2003-04 and fourth grade performance in
2006-07.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 1. Percentage of 2003 Start-Year schools meeting performance
  benchmarks in ITBS subtests.

  ![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.423611111111111in"
  height="0.7548611111111111in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Greatest Gains:** Every year the United States Department of Education
requires states to determine schools participating in Reading First who
have made the greatest gains in student achievement. Among 2006
Start-Year Schools, five schools in their first year of implementation
were identified by the Iowa Department of Education as having made the
greatest gains. These schools are: Denison Elementary School, Shellsburg
Elementary School, Council Bluffs Walnut Grove Elementary School, Des
Moines Garton Elementary School, and Lamoni Elementary School (see
description of criteria on page 24; Table 8).

The Iowa Department of Education also identified four 2003 Start-Year
schools as having made the greatest gains. These schools are: Storm Lake
East/North Elementary, Russell Elementary, Council Bluffs Washington
Elementary, and Ottumwa Wilson Elementary (see description of criteria
on page 24; Table 9).

[]{.mark}

**Highly Successful Schools:** The Iowa Department of Education
identified schools that have been highly successful at increasing the
percentage of students proficient on various reading assessments. A 2006
Start-Year school was identified as a "highly successful school" if it
achieved 14 or more of the 15 performance benchmarks with 75% of
students proficient ***and/or*** was identified as having made the
greatest gains in the 2006-2007 school year (see Table 10). The
following 2006 Start-Year schools were identified as 2006-07 Highly
Successful Schools: Denison Elementary, Walnut Grove Elementary, Garton
Elementary, Lamoni Elementary, Lineville-Clio Elementary, Prescott
Elementary, Wayne Elementary, and Shellsburg Elementary.

Fifteen 2003 Start-Year Reading First schools were identified as highly
successful schools. Criteria for a highly successful 2003 Start-Year
school was 75% (33) of the performance benchmarks met with 75% of
students proficient on diagnostic measures and 70% of students
proficient on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and/or was identified as
having made the greatest gains during the 2006-2007 school year (see
Table 11). The following 2003 Start-Year schools were identified as
2006-07 Highly Successful Schools: Diagonal Elementary School, New
Market Elementary School, Russell Elementary School, Sentral Elementary
School, Seymour Elementary School, Twin Rivers Elementary School, Albert
City-Truesdale Elementary School, East Greene Elementary School, Wall
Lake View Auburn Elementary School, East/North Elementary School,
Columbus/Van Allen Elementary School, Chantry Elementary School,
Sigourney Elementary School, Washington Elementary School, and Wilson
Elementary School.

**Student Performance, 2006 Start-Year Schools:** The percentage of
students proficient in reading increased between fall and spring
2006-2007 semesters in PAT (rhyming, deletion, blending, segmentation,
isolation, and substitution), Phonics (graphemes and decoding), and BRI
(fluency and comprehension) assessments. In PAT assessments, the
majority first grade students (79%-96%) were proficient in their skills
in Spring 2007. In Phonics, the majority of first grade students were
proficient in graphemes (89%) and decoding (82%) in Spring 2007. Over
half (66%) of second grade students were proficient in graphemes and
over half (63%) were proficient in decoding.

In fluency, approximately 49% of first grade students, 53% of second
grade students, and 46% of third grade students were proficient. In
comprehension, 52%, of first grade students, 31% of second grade
students and 73% of third grade students were proficient.

Over half of third students are proficient in their ITBS NPR subtests.
The majority (63%) of third grade students were proficient in ITBS
comprehension, 62% were proficient in ITBS vocabulary, and 62% were
proficient in ITBS reading total scores.

Student performance was also examined by student subgroups (i.e.,
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage, students from
major racial/ethnic categories, students *with* and *without*
disabilities, and students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency). Students *with* an economic disadvantage were able to
narrow the achievement gap when their performance was compared to
students *without* an economic disadvantage increasing the percentage of
students proficient between semesters in the all of assessments
collected. However, the achievement gap between students *with* an
economic disadvantage and students *without* an economic disadvantage
widened in the following areas: second grade BRI comprehension, and the
achievement gap remained the same in BRI fluency.

Students from the five major race/ethnic groups (i.e., White,
Hispanic/Latino, Black/African-American, Asian, or Native American)
increased the percentage of students proficient in the assessments
administered between Fall 2006 and Spring 2007. The achievement gap
between students from major race/ethnic groups was examined by comparing
student performance between White students and students from one of the
four other major race/ethnic groups. The achievement gap between
Hispanic/Latino and White students narrowed in all of the assessments
administered between semesters and across years.

The achievement gap between Black/African-American and White students
narrowed in most of the assessments administered between semesters. The
achievement gap remained constant or widened between White and
Black/African-American students in the following areas: it remained
constant in first grade students in PAT rhyming, widened in PAT
substitution, and widened in second grade BRI fluency.

The achievement gap between Asian and White students narrowed in most of
the assessments administered between semesters. Asian students had a
greater number of students proficient than White students in some
measures (e.g., first grade PAT rhyming, deletion, segmentation,
substitution, graphemes, decoding, BRI fluency, third grade BRI fluency,
and third grade ITBS comprehension). The achievement gap between White
and Asian students widened for second third grade BRI fluency.

The achievement gap between Native American and White students narrowed
in most of the assessments administered between semesters. Native
American students had a higher percentage of students proficient than
White students in some measures (e.g., first grade PAT deletion,
blending, segmentation, graphemes, and decoding, second grade BRI
fluency, comprehension, and third grade BRI comprehension). In other
measures, the achievement gap between the White and Native American
students widened in the following areas: second grade BRI fluency, and
third grade BRI fluency. The achievement gap widened between White and
Native American second grade students because Native American students
had greater percentage of students proficient on these assessments. The
percentage of Native American students proficient in third grade BRI
fluency decreased from 50% proficient in Fall 2006 and to 39% proficient
in Spring 2006, causing the achievement gap to widen.

Students *with* disabilities increased the percentage of students
proficient on all assessments except second grade BRI fluency
(proficiency decreased by 2% between semesters). The achievement gap
between students *with* and *without* disabilities was narrowed in
approximately 60% of the assessments administered between semesters. The
achievement gap widened between students *with* and *without*
disabilities in the following areas: first grade PAT deletion,
substitution, decoding, second grade BRI fluency and comprehension, and
third grade BRI fluency and comprehension.

Students *with* a limited English proficiency were able to narrow the
achievement gap when their performance was compared to students
*without* a limited English proficiency increasing the percentage of
students proficient between semesters in the all of assessments
administered. The achievement gap widened for second grade BRI
comprehension.

[]{.mark}

**Student Performance, 2003 Start-Year Schools:** The percentage of
students proficient in reading increased between fall and spring
2006-2007 semesters in PAT (rhyming, deletion, blending, segmentation,
isolation, and substitution), Phonics (graphemes and decoding), and BRI
(fluency and comprehension) assessments. In PAT assessments, the
majority of first grade students (83%-94%) were proficient in their
skills in Spring 2007. In Phonics, the majority of first grade students
are proficient in graphemes (94%) and decoding (89%) in Spring 2007. The
majority of second grade students were proficient in PAT graphemes (90%)
and decoding (86%).

In fluency, approximately 58% of first grade students, 61% of second
grade students, and 56% of third grade students were proficient. In
comprehension, 62% of first and second grade students, and 76% of third
grade students were proficient.

Over half of third grade students were proficient in ITBS NPR subtests,
(65%) of third grade students were proficient in ITBS comprehension and
vocabulary, and 66% were proficient in ITBS reading total scores.

Student performance in 2003 Start-Year schools was also examined by
student subgroups (i.e., students *with* and *without* an economic
disadvantage, students from major racial/ethnic categories, students
*with* disabilities, and students *with* limited English proficiency).
Students *with* an economic disadvantage were able to narrow the
achievement gap when their performance was compared to students
*without* an economic disadvantage increasing the percentage of students
proficient between semesters in the all of assessments collected.

Students from the five major race/ethnic groups (i.e., White,
Hispanic/Latino, Black/African-American, Asian, or Native American)
increased the percentage of students proficient in the assessments
administered between Fall 2006 and Spring 2007. The achievement gap
between students from major race/ethnic groups was examined by comparing
student performance between White students and students from one of the
four other major race/ethnic groups. The achievement gap between
Hispanic/Latino and White students narrowed in all of the assessments
administered between semesters.

The achievement gap between Black/African-American and White students
narrowed in most of the assessments administered between semesters. The
achievement gap widened between White and Black/African-American student
in the following areas: second grade BRI fluency and comprehension and
remained constant in third grade BRI fluency.

The achievement gap between Asian and White students narrowed in most of
the assessments administered between semesters. Asian students had a
greater number of students proficient than White students in some
measures (e.g., first grade PAT deletion, segmentation, isolation,
graphemes, decoding, BRI fluency, second grade BRI comprehension, and
third grade BRI fluency, however, in Spring 2007, the percentage of
Asian students proficient in second grade BRI fluency decreased by 2% in
comparison to Fall 2006 student performance. The achievement gap widened
between White and Asian students in the following areas: first grade PAT
segmentation, second grade BRI comprehension, and third grade BRI
fluency.

The achievement gap between Native American and White students narrowed
in many of the assessments administered between semesters. Native
American students had a higher percentage of students proficient than
White students in first grade PAT graphemes and decoding. The
achievement gap between the two groups widened in the following areas:
second grade PAT rhyming and deletion, remained constant in second grade
PAT blending, widened in third grade BRI fluency. The gap widened
between White and Native American students in first grade PAT deletion
and third grade BRI fluency because Native American decreased the
percentage of students proficient in these assessments by 8% and 4%
respectively.

Students *with* disabilities increased the percentage of students
proficient on all assessments. The achievement gap between students
*with* and *without* disabilities was widened in the majority of
assessments administered between semesters. The achievement gap widened
between students *with* and *without* disabilities in the following
areas: first grade PAT deletion, substitution, decoding, second grade
BRI fluency and comprehension, and third grade BRI fluency and
comprehension.

Students *with* a limited English proficiency were able to narrow the
achievement gap when their performance was compared to students
*without* a limited English proficiency increasing the percentage of
students proficient between semesters in the majority of assessments
administered. Students *with* limited English proficiency had a greater
percentage of student proficient in PAT isolation than students
*without* limited English proficiency. The achievement gap widened
between students *with* and *without* limited English proficiency in
second grade BRI comprehension.

**Special Education Services:** Data were collected to determine the
number of students receiving Special Education services, the number of
students referred to pre-referral services, and the number of
pre-referrals that resulted in an IEP for students. The data between
Fall 2006 and Spring 2007 were compared to evaluate 2006 Start-Year
schools, and data between Spring 2006 and Spring 2007 were compared to
evaluate 2003 Start-Year schools.

The percentage of students receiving special education services
increased between Fall 2006 and Spring 2007 in 2006 Start-Year schools.
Among 2006 Start-Year schools, the percentage of students receiving
special education services increased by 2% between Fall 2006 and Spring
2007 for first, second, and third, grades. Among 2003 Start-Year school,
the percentage of first grade students receiving special education
services decreased by 1% between Spring 2006 and Spring 2007; decreased
by 3% for second grade students, and increased by 2% for third grade
students.

The percentage of students referred for pre-referral services increased
between Fall 2006 and Spring 2007 among 2006 Start-Year schools in all
grades. The percentage increased by 4% for first and second grade
students; and by 2% for third grade students. Among 2003 Start-Year
schools, the percentage of students referred for pre-referral services
increased by 2% for first grade students; decreased by 1% for second
grade students; increased by 2% for third grade students between Spring
2006 and Spring 2007.

Overall, the percentage of students placed in special education among
2006 Start-Year schools increased between Fall 2006 and Spring 2007. The
percentage of students that had an IEP initiated and placed in special
education services increased by 2% for first and second grade students,
and increased by 1% for third grade students. Among 2003 Start-Year
schools the percentage of students that had an IEP initiated and placed
in special education services remained constant for first and second
grade students; and increased by 1% for third grade students.

### Overview of Iowa Reading First State Evaluation Student Data Collection 

### Web-based Data Collection Center

Central to the evaluation of the Iowa Reading First Program is the
collection of student data. Reading First participants entered data on a
secure (password-protected) web-based data collection center. To assist
schools to navigate through the web site (e.g., data entry, running
reports, charts), support is provided by the Iowa Department of
Education and the external evaluator along with a user manual that is
easy to follow. Training is provided as needed.

Student data is collected two times per year (fall and spring) aligned
with the Data Collection Plan. Tests administered include the
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT), Basic Reading Inventory (BRI), and
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). A description of these tests is
provided in the following section, *Description of Reading Measures*.
The *Assessment by Grades Level, Reading First State Evaluation
Schedule* indicates which tests are administered in the fall and spring
by grade.

Demographic data is also collected on each student. Demographic data
collected includes gender, students *with*/*without* disabilities, major
race/ethnic categories, students *with* an economic
advantage/disadvantage, and students *with*/*without* English limited
proficiency. In addition, specific information regarding special
education status, referral for pre-referral services is also collected.
These demographic data allows tests scores to be disaggregated by these
five subgroups.

### Description of Reading Measures

### Phonological Awareness Test (Phonological Awareness and Phonics) 

The Phonological Awareness Test is a normed referenced test designed to
assess phonological processing and phoneme-grapheme correspondence
(Robertson & Salter, 1997). The following phonological processing
subtests are administered to kindergarten and first grade students:
rhyming, deletion, and blending. Some of the phonological processing
subtests may not be appropriate for all five year olds; therefore, the
following subtests are only administered to first grade students:
segmentation, isolation, and substitution.

The phonics subtests (graphemes and decoding) are administered to first
grade students in the fall and spring. For scoring purposes, students
who are proficient at 100% in phonological processing and
phoneme-grapheme correspondence are not re-tested during subsequent
testing. Therefore, the number of students are proficient at 100% in the
fall are added to the number of student who passed in the spring.

### Basic Reading Inventory (Reading Fluency and Comprehension)

To assess student achievement in reading fluency and comprehension, the
Basic Reading Inventory (BRI) is administered to second and third grade
students in the fall and spring. The BRI is an informal reading
assessment test comprised of a series of graded word lists and graded
passages that can be used to gain insight into these areas (Johns,
2001). Student scores reported reflect whether students were independent
at their current grade level in fluency and comprehension.

### Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS)

The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills is an achievement battery of tests
comprised of various subject areas that have been standardized within
the same group of students (Hoover, H., Dunbar, S., Frisbie, D.,
Oberley, K., Bray, R., Naylor, J., Lewis, J., Ordman, V., & Qualls,
A.L., 2003).

National and Iowa percentile rank scores are derived for each of the
following reading subject areas: vocabulary, comprehension, and reading
total. The vocabulary test is a measure of a students' reading
vocabulary. The comprehension test assesses three main skills: Factual
Understanding, Inference and Interpretation, and Analysis and
Generalization. The reading total subtest assesses the extent of
student's development in reading comprehension.

Students in the third and fourth grades are administered the ITBS once
during the fall, winter, or spring of each school year.
Districts/schools determine the time of the year it is administered in
their respective districts/schools.

### Assessments By Grade Level: Iowa Reading First Evaluation Schedule

The following table indicates the tests required in Fall and Spring by
grade for Reading First State Evaluation purposes.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Table 2. Iowa Reading First Assessment Schedule                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image3.png){width="6.496527777777778in" height="4.1125in"}  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Note: ITBS is required for third and fourth grade students; however |
| > it is only administered once per year. Schools determine when the   |
| > ITBS is administered.                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

### Student Level Descriptors

Scores on each of the assessments administered to students participating
in the Iowa Reading First Initiative are converted to student level
descriptors (e.g., at grade level, needs additional intervention, needs
substantial intervention). Table 3 indicates the cut points on each of
the reading assessments when scores are converted to the student level
descriptors. In addition, these student level descriptors provide
information regarding the instructional needs for planning classroom
instruction and for developing quality intervention plans for children
who are at risk for reading difficulty.

The goal of the Reading First Initiative is for all students to be at
grade level in each of the reading subtests administered. These
descriptors assist buildings, teachers, parents, and technical
assistance providers a structured way of monitoring movement in student
achievement in each of the five essential components (phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension).

**Table 3. Test Types and Student Levels\
**

+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Test**             | **At Grade    | **Needs       | **Needs       |
|                      | Level**       | Additional    | Substantial   |
|                      |               | I             | I             |
|                      |               | ntervention** | ntervention** |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Phonological         | 26th          | 17th to 25th  | 16th          |
| Awareness Test (PAT) | percentile    | percentile    | percentile    |
|                      | rank or       | rank\*        | rank or       |
|                      | above\*       |               | below\*       |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Basic Reading        | 50th          | 26th to 49th  | 25th          |
| Inventory (BRI)      | percentile    | percentile    | percentile    |
| *Fluency*            | rank or above | rank          | rank or below |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Basic Reading        | Independent   | Instructional | Frustration   |
| Inventory (BRI)      | Level:        | Level:        | Level:        |
| *Reading             |               |               |               |
| Comprehension*       | 0--1½         | 2--4          | 4½ or more    |
|                      | comprehension | comprehension | comprehension |
|                      | questions     | questions     | questions     |
|                      | missed        | missed        | missed        |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Iowa Test of Basic   | 41st          | 20th to 40th  | 19th          |
| Skills               | percentile    | percentile    | percentile    |
|                      | rank or above | rank          | rank or below |
| *(For each subtest)* |               |               |               |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

*Note*: \* Percentile ranks are calculated for each of the PAT subtests
(6 phonological awareness and 2 phonics subtests)

### Web-based Reports

Building reports and charts available on the Iowa Reading First Data
Collection website were developed to provide schools with access to
their data in a useful and meaningful way. Reports and charts serve
several functions: 1) the results and data can be used to examine a
school or district's progress in helping students become proficient
readers; 2) information gleaned from reports/charts may be helpful in
guiding school instruction or interventions; 3) results may be useful in
communicating findings to various stakeholders (e.g., teachers, parents,
school policy makers); and reports/charts provide a tool for data
validation.

The report and chart options available provide information regarding the
number and/or percentage of students at various levels of proficiency
(i.e., at grade level, needs additional support, needs substantial
support) by grade, by test, by subgroup (i.e., gender, economic
advantage/disadvantage, students *with/without* disabilities, student
*with*/*without* limited English proficiency, and major race/ethnic),
and/or by time. Data pertaining to students' performance on the
Phonological Awareness Test (e.g., Retesting results); ITBS decile
reports; and progress in narrowing the achievement gap between subgroups
can also be downloaded. Reports and charts can be downloaded and easily
inserted into other software programs (e.g., MS Word, Powerpoint, or
Excel).

### Understanding Performance Benchmarks and their use for Reading First Schools

***Purpose of performance benchmarks.*** For Reading First Schools,
performance benchmarking is used to determine if there is a
statistically significant increase in the proportion of students
attaining proficiency and to determine a building's funding status.

***How do we determine whether performance benchmarks have been met?***
Schools can meet their performance benchmarks in one of two ways. The
first method involves a statistical comparison of the percentage of
students proficient in the fall to the percentage of students proficient
in the spring. The second method involves determining whether 75% (70%
on Iowa Tests of Basic Skills) or more of the students were proficient
in the spring.

The percentage of students proficient in the fall is statistically
compared to the percentage of students proficient in the spring. Schools
that achieve a statistically significant increase between fall and
spring are coded as having met their performance benchmark. Comparisons
are made by test and by grade.

When schools do not meet their performance benchmarks statistically, the
second method of assessment is used. Schools with 75% or more of their
students proficient (70% on Iowa Tests of Basic Skills) in the spring
are coded as having met their performance benchmark. This assessment is
made by test and by grade. The second method is used because some
schools will not be able to statistically increase the percentage of
students proficient from fall to spring. In particular, *school size*
and the *percentage of students proficient at baseline* may affect
whether schools are able to increase the percentage of students
proficient in the spring statistically. Sample size affects significance
testing and smaller schools may have greater difficulty meeting their
performance benchmark statistically (see "Sample size influences whether
statistically significant differences are achieved"). Other schools will
not be able to significantly increase the percentage of students
proficient in the spring because they have a relatively large percentage
of students who are proficient on their tests at baseline (e.g., fall).
As a result these schools will make smaller gains in the spring making
it impossible to achieve a statistically significant difference.
However, the percentage of students proficient at these schools may be
greater than the percentage of students proficient among some of the
schools that achieved statistical significance.

### Understanding Greatest Gains and their use for Reading First Schools {#understanding-greatest-gains-and-their-use-for-reading-first-schools .IRF-Subheading}

***Greatest Gains, 2006 Start-Year Schools.*** The Iowa Department of
Education determined that a 2006 Start-Year Reading First school would
be considered as having made greatest gains if they were successful in
moving student achievement based on one of the two following
criteria: 1) At least 1 standard deviation on the Basic Reading
Inventory in the area of comprehension at grade 2 or 3,
*[and]{.underline}* at least 1 standard deviation on the Basic Reading
Inventory in the area of fluency at grade 2 or 3; or 2) at least 1
standard deviation on the Basic Reading Inventory in the area of
comprehension at grade 2 or 3, *[or]{.underline}* at least 1 standard
deviation on the Basic Reading Inventory in the area of fluency at grade
2 or 3, [*plus*:]{.underline} at least 1 standard deviation on 1 of the
3 subtests on the Phonological Awareness Test in kindergarten,
*[and]{.underline}*; at least 1 standard deviation on 4 of the 6
subtests on the Phonological Awareness Test: Phonemic Awareness in first
grade, *[and]{.underline}*; at least 1 standard deviation on 1 of 2
subtests on the Phonological Awareness Test: Phonics in first grade.

Schools received a score of 1 for each grade and assessment they were
successful in moving students at least one standard deviation above the
mean percentage of students proficient. There were 15 points possible
(six points for kindergarten /first grade rhyming, deletion, blending;
five points for first grade segmentation, substitution, isolation,
graphemes, and decoding; four points for second/third grade fluency and
comprehension).

***Greatest Gains, 2003 Start-Year Schools.*** Results for each school
were analyzed by grade and assessment. Schools received a score of 1 for
each grade and assessment they were successful in moving at least one
standard deviation at grade level (see Performance Benchmark template
for 2003 Start-Year schools). Total overall score that a school could
receive was 44 (within years and across years for phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary).

Using the results for the Basic Reading Inventory (BRI) and results for
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), school could achieve a total of 29
standard deviations (see Table 9). The Iowa Department of Education
determined that a 2003 Start-Year Reading First school would be
considered as having made the greatest gains if they were successful in
moving student achievement on 10 of the 29 BRI and ITBS results
combined.

### Student Data Analysis Described {#student-data-analysis-described .IRF-Subheading}

On a yearly basis, the test data and demographic data are analyzed to
determine progress made by schools to increase the percentage of
students proficient in reading as well as narrowing the achievement gap
between groups (e.g., students *with* disabilities versus students
*without* disabilities). Results are provided to the Iowa Department of
Education for review.

**RESULTS OF SCHOOL AND STUDENT READING PERFORMANCE**

### School Performance Results: 2006 Start-Year Schools (Fall 2006 -- Spring 2007) {#school-performance-results-2006-start-year-schools-fall-2006-spring-2007 .IRF-Subheading}

### Analysis of Performance Benchmarks Met: (See Tables 4-7) {#analysis-of-performance-benchmarks-met-see-tables-4-7 .IRF-Subheading}

***Performance Benchmarks, 2006 Start-Year Schools.*** In the 2006-07
school year, a total of 15 performance benchmarks were used to determine
whether 2006 Start-Year schools made a difference in student
achievement. Specifically, whether schools increased the proportion of
students attaining proficiency in each of the 15 assessment data areas
collected during the 2006-07 school year.

The number of performance benchmarks met by schools ranged from 15 to 2
(see Table 4). One school building met 15 performance benchmarks; 10
school buildings met 14 performance benchmarks; 14 school buildings met
13 performance benchmarks; 12 school buildings met 12 performance
benchmarks, 6 school buildings met 11 performance benchmarks; 2 school
10 performance benchmarks; and 3 school building met 7 or less
performance benchmarks. It should be noted that 3 participating schools
do not have a complete K-4 range and the number of performance
benchmarks is less than 15 for these schools.

Table 4. Number of PB Met by 2006 Start-Year School Buildings

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Number**                        | **Number**                        |
|                                   |                                   |
| **of PB Met**                     | **of PB Met\***                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 1                                 | 15/15                             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 10                                | 14/15                             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 14                                | 13/15                             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 12                                | 12/15                             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 6                                 | 11/15                             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 2                                 | 10/15                             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 3                                 | 7 or less                         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

Note: Three schools do not have a complete K-4 grade range.

***Performance Benchmarks, PAT Assessments (2006-Start-Year Schools).***
Comparisons of the percentage of students proficient in Fall 2006 to the
percentage of students proficient in Spring 2007 indicate that the
majority of schools were able to meet their performance benchmarks on
their phonological awareness subscales (see Table 5). Among kindergarten
students, 100%, 89%, and 98% of the schools met their performance
benchmarks on rhyming, deletion, and blending respectively. Among first
grade students, 98% of schools met their performance benchmarks in
rhyming, 85% in deletion, 98% in blending, 100% in segmentation, 98% in
isolation, 91% in substitution, 96% in graphemes, and 94% of schools met
their performance benchmarks in decoding.

***Performance Benchmarks, BRI Assessments (2006-Start-Year Schools).***
The majority of schools met their performance benchmarks on fluency.
Among participating schools, 81% and 83% met their benchmarks for second
and third grade students respectively (see Table 5). The majority of
schools (83%) of the schools met their performance benchmarks for second
grade students. Only 15% of schools met their performance benchmarks for
third grade comprehension.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 5. Reading First Performance Benchmarks Met Totals: 2006
  Start-Year Schools

  ![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.998611111111111in" height="4.16875in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

***Performance Benchmarks, 2003 Start-Year Schools.*** In the 2006-07
school year, a total of 44 performance benchmarks were used to determine
whether schools made a difference in student achievement. Specifically,
whether schools increased the proportion of students attaining
proficiency in each of the 44 assessment data areas collected during the
2006-07 school year.

The number of performance benchmarks met by schools ranged from 43 to 16
(see Table 6). Three school buildings met between 40-43 performance
benchmarks; 10 school buildings met between 35-39; 10 school building
met between 30-34; and 13 school buildings met between 25-29; 8 school
buildings met between 20-24; and 2 school buildings met between 16-19.
All buildings met 16 or more performance benchmarks.

***Performance Benchmarks, PAT Assessments, 2003 Start-Year Schools.***
Comparisons of the percentage of students proficient in Fall 2006 to the
percentage of students proficient in Spring 2007 indicate that the
majority of schools were able to meet their performance benchmarks on
their phonological awareness subscales (see Table 7). Among kindergarten
students, 100%, 89%, and 98% of the schools met their performance
benchmarks on rhyming, deletion, and blending respectively. Among first
grade students, 100% of schools met their performance benchmarks in
rhyming, 89% in deletion, 100% in blending, 98% in segmentation, 100% in
isolation, 98% in substitution, 100% in graphemes, and 93% of schools
met their performance benchmarks in decoding.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 6. Number of PB Met by 2003 Start-Year School Buildings

  ![](media/image5.wmf){width="4.920138888888889in"
  height="1.9979166666666666in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparisons of second grade student performance in Fall 2003-2004
(Year 1) and second grade student performance in 2006-2007 (Year 4) in
graphemes and decoding were made (see Table 7). The majority of schools
met their performance benchmarks in graphemes (100%) and decoding (96%).

Comparisons of second grade student performance in Fall 2005-2006 (Year
3) and second grade student performance in 2006-2007 (Year 4) on
graphemes and decoding were made (see Table 7). The majority of schools
met their performance benchmarks in graphemes (98%) and decoding (91%)
respectively.

***Performance Benchmarks, BRI Assessments, 2003 Start-Year Schools.***
The majority of schools met their performance benchmarks on
comprehension. Among participating schools, 89% met their benchmarks for
both second and third grade students (see Table 7). The percentage of
schools meeting their performance benchmarks dropped when comparing
progress measured with fluency. Under half (41%) and just over
one-fourth (28%) of schools met their performance benchmarks for second
and third grades.

Comparisons of first grade student performance in Spring 2003-2004
(Year 1) and first grade student performance in 2006-2007 (Year 4) in
fluency and comprehension were made. Over half of the schools met their
performance benchmarks on comprehension (59%) and fluency (59%).

A cohort group comparison of a first grade student performance in Spring
2004-2005 (Year 2) and third grade student performance in 2006-2007
(Year 4) on fluency and comprehension was also made. The majority (89%)
of schools met their performance benchmarks on comprehension and about
one-third (39%) of the schools met their performance benchmarks in
fluency.

Comparisons of first grade student performance in Spring 2005-2006 (Year
3) and first grade student performance in 2006-2007 (Year 4) on fluency
and comprehension were also made. About one-third (39%) of schools met
their performance benchmarks on comprehension and about one-third (37%)
of the schools met their performance benchmarks in fluency.

A second cohort group was compared between first grade student
performance in Spring 2005-2006 (Year 3) and their performance in the
second grade in Spring 2006-2007 (Year 4) in fluency and comprehension.
Only students present at both time points were included in the analysis.
Less than half (46%) of the schools met their performance benchmark in
comprehension and half (50%) met their performance benchmark on fluency.

A third cohort group was compared between second grade student
performance in Spring 2005-2006 (Year 3) and their performance in the
third grade in Spring 2006-2007 (Year 4) in fluency and comprehension.
Only students present at both time points were included in the analysis.
The majority (89%) of the schools met their performance benchmark in
comprehension and less than one-third (26%) met their performance
benchmark on fluency.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 7. Reading First Performance Benchmarks Met Totals: 2003
  Start-Year Schools

  ![](media/image6.wmf){width="5.845138888888889in"
  height="6.574305555555555in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

***Performance Benchmarks on ITBS Assessments, 2003 Start-Year
Schools.***

Performance on ITBS comprehension, vocabulary, and reading total was
also compared between 2005-2006 (Year 3) and 2006-2007 (Year 4) school
years (see Table 7). Comparisons were made between third grade
performance in Year 3 and third grade performance in Year 4, fourth
grade performance in Year 3 and fourth grade performance in Year 4, and
third grade performance in Year 3 and fourth grade performance in Year
4. When comparing third to fourth grade performance, only students who
were present in both years were included in the analysis. In
comprehension, 43%, 59%, and 65% of the schools met their performance
benchmarks for third, fourth, and third to fourth grade comparison
respectively. In vocabulary, 61%, 41%, and 43% of the schools met their
performance benchmarks for third, fourth, and third to fourth grade
comparison respectively. In reading total skills, 54%, 48%, and 52% of
the schools met their performance benchmarks for third, fourth, and
third to fourth grade comparison respectively.

Performance on ITBS comprehension, vocabulary, and reading total was
also compared between 2003-2004 (Year 1) and 2006-2007 (Year 4) school
years (see Table 7). Comparisons were made between third grade
performance in Year 1 and third grade performance in Year 4, and fourth
grade performance in Year 1 and fourth grade performance in Year 4. In
comprehension, 39% and 59% of the schools met their performance
benchmarks for third and fourth grade comparisons respectively. In
vocabulary, 50% and 39% of the schools met their performance benchmarks
for third and fourth grade comparisons respectively. In reading, 52% and
48% of the schools met their performance benchmarks for third and fourth
grade comparisons respectively.

### Greatest Gains {#greatest-gains .IRF-Subheading}

***Greatest Gains, 2006 Start-Year Schools.*** The Iowa Department of
Education made the decision that a 2006 Start-Year Reading First school
would be considered as having made greatest gains if they were
successful in moving student achievement based on one of the two
following criteria: 1) At least 1 standard deviation on the Basic
Reading Inventory in the area of comprehension at grade 2 or 3,
*[and]{.underline}* at least 1 standard deviation on the Basic Reading
Inventory in the area of fluency at grade 2 or 3; or 2) at least 1
standard deviation on the Basic Reading Inventory in the area of
comprehension at grade 2 or 3, *[or]{.underline}* at least 1 standard
deviation on the Basic Reading Inventory in the area of fluency at grade
2 or 3, [*plus*:]{.underline} at least 1 standard deviation on 1 of the
3 subtests on the Phonological Awareness Test in kindergarten,
*[and]{.underline}*; at least 1 standard deviation on 4 of the 6
subtests on the Phonological Awareness Test: Phonemic Awareness in first
grade, *[and]{.underline}*; at least 1 standard deviation on 1 of 2
subtests on the Phonological Awareness Test: Phonics in first grade.

Schools received a score of 1 for each grade and assessment they were
successful in moving students at least one standard deviation above the
mean percentage of students proficient. There were 15 points possible
(six points for kindergarten /first grade rhyming, deletion, blending;
five points for first grade segmentation, substitution, isolation,
graphemes, and decoding; four points for second/third grade fluency and
comprehension). The greatest gains scores ranged from eight achieved by
Shellsburg Elementary to 0.

**Based on these criteria five schools in their first year of
implementation were identified as having made the greatest gains. These
schools are: Denison Elementary School, Shellsburg Elementary School,
Council Bluffs Walnut Grove Elementary School, Des Moines Garton
Elementary School, and Lamoni Elementary School. (See Table 8)**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 8: 2006 Start-Year Schools, Greatest Gains by School and by Test

  ![](media/image7.wmf){width="6.486111111111111in"
  height="1.7833333333333334in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

***Greatest Gains, 2003 Start-Year Schools (see Table 9).*** Results for
each school were analyzed by grade and assessment. Schools received a
score of 1 for each grade and assessment they were successful in moving
at least one standard deviation at grade level (see Performance
Benchmark template for 2003 Start-Year schools). Total overall score
that a school could receive was 44 (within years and across years for
phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary).
The greatest gains scores ranged from 18 achieved by Council Bluffs
Washington Elementary to 0.

Using the results for the Basic Reading Inventory (BRI) and results for
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), school could achieve a total of 29
standard deviations (see Table 9). The Iowa Department of Education made
the decision that a 2003 Start-Year Reading First school would be
considered as having made the greatest gains if they were successful in
moving student achievement on 10 of the 29 BRI and ITBS results
combined.

Based on these criteria four schools in their fourth year of
implementation were identified as having made the greatest gains. These
schools are: Storm Lake East/North Elementary, Russell Elementary,
Council Bluffs Washington Elementary, and Ottumwa Wilson Elementary (see
Table 9).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 9. 2003 Start-Year Schools, Greatest Gains by School and by Test

  ![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.629861111111111in"
  height="1.9819444444444445in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

###   {#section .IRF-Subheading}

### Highly Successful Schools (see Tables 10 and 11) {#highly-successful-schools-see-tables-10-and-11 .IRF-Subheading}

***Highly Successful Schools, 2006 Start-Year Schools.*** The Iowa
Department of Education has identified eight 2006 Start-Year Reading
First Schools that were highly successful at increasing the percentage
of student proficiency on various reading assessments. A school was
identified as a "highly successful school" if it achieved 14 or more of
the 15 performance benchmark with 75% of student proficient ***and/or***
was identified as having made the greatest gains in the 2006-2007 school
year (see Table 10).

  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------
  Table 10. 2006 Start-Year Reading First      
  Schools Identified as "Highly Successful     
  Schools"                                     

  **DISTRICT**                                 **SCHOOL**

  Denison Community School District            Denison Elementary\*

  Council Bluffs Community School District     Walnut Grove Elementary\*

  Des Moines Independent Community School      Garton Elementary\*
  District                                     

  Lamoni Community School District             Lamoni Elementary\*

  Lineville-Clio Community School District     Lineville-Clio Elementary

  Prescott Community School District           Prescott Elementary

  Wayne Community School District              Wayne Elementary

  Vinton Shellsburg Community School District  Shellsburg Elementary\*
  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------

*\*Indicates Greatest Gains School*

***Highly Successful Schools, 2003 Start-Year Schools.*** Fifteen 2003
Start-Year Reading First schools were identified as highly successful
schools (see Table 11). Criteria for a highly successful school was 75%
(33) of the performance benchmarks met with 75% of students proficient
on diagnostic measures and 70% of students proficient on the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills and/or was identified as having made the greatest gains
during the 2006-2007 school year.

Table 11. 2003 Start-Year Reading First Schools Identified as "Highly
Successful Schools"

  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **DISTRICT**                           **SCHOOL**

  Diagonal Community School District     Diagonal Elementary School

  New Market Community School District   New Market Elementary School

  Russell Community School District      Russell Elementary School\*

  Sentral Community School District      Sentral Elementary School

  Seymour Community School District      Seymour Elementary School

  Twin Rivers Community School District  Twin Rivers Elementary School

  Albert City-Truesdale Community School Albert City-Truesdale Elementary
  District                               School

  East Greene Community School District  East Greene Elementary School

  Wall Lake View Auburn Community School Wall Lake View Auburn Elementary
  District                               School

  Storm Lake Community School District   East/North Elementary School\*

  Chariton Community School District     Columbus/VanAllen Elementary
                                         School

  Malvern Community School District      Chantry Elementary School

  Sigourney Community School District    Sigourney Elementary School

  Council Bluffs Community School        Washington Elementary School\*
  District                               

  Ottumwa Community School District      Wilson Elementary School\*
  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------

\*Indicates Greatest Gains School

### 

### RESULTS OF 2006-2007 STUDENT PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS (Year 1: 2006 Start-Year Schools) 

### Fall 2006 -- Spring 2007 Student Performance Comparison Results 

### (Year 1: 2006 Start-Year Schools)

### Students Scoring at Grade Level: All Students (see Table 12)  {#students-scoring-at-grade-level-all-students-see-table-12 .IRF-Subheading}

***PAT Rhyming.*** In the fall, 71% of first grade students were
proficient in rhyming. By spring, 90% of first grade students were
proficient in rhyming, an increase of 19%.

***PAT Deletion.*** In the fall, 58% of first grade students were
proficient in deletion. By spring, 79% of first grade students were
proficient in deletion, an increase of 21%.

***PAT Blending.*** In the fall, 67% of first grade students were
proficient in blending. By spring, 90% of first grade students were
proficient in blending, an increase of 23%.

***PAT Segmentation.*** In the fall, 74% of first grade students were
proficient in segmentation. By spring, 96% of first grade students were
proficient in segmentation, an increase of 22%.

***PAT Isolation.*** In the fall, 66% of first grade students were
proficient in isolation. By spring, 92% of first grade students were
proficient in isolation, an increase of 26%.

***PAT Substitution.*** In the fall, 60% of first grade students were
proficient in substitution. By spring, 82% of first grade students were
proficient in substitution, an increase of 22%.

***PAT Graphemes.*** In the fall, 60% of first grade students were
proficient in graphemes. By spring, 89% of first grade students were
proficient in graphemes, an increase of 29%.

In the fall, 66% of second grade students were proficient in graphemes.

***PAT Decoding.*** In the fall, 56% of first grade students were
proficient in decoding. By spring, 82% of first grade students were
proficient in decoding, an increase of 26%.

In the fall, 63% of second grade students were proficient in decoding.

***BRI Fluency***. In the fall, 47% of second grade students and 44% of
third grade students were proficient in fluency. By spring, 53% of
second grade students and 46% of third grade students were proficient in
fluency, an increase of 6% and 2% respectively.

In the spring, 49% of first grade students were proficient in fluency.

***BRI Comprehension.*** In the fall, 23% of second grade students and
48% of third grade students were proficient in comprehension. By spring,
54% of second grade students and 73% of third grade students were
proficient in comprehension, an increase of 31% and 25% respectively.

In the spring, 52% of first grade students were proficient in
comprehension.

***ITBS Comprehension NPR.*** ITBS Comprehension scores based upon
national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third grade
students, 63% of the students were proficient.

***ITBS Vocabulary NPR.*** ITBS Vocabulary scores based upon national
percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third grade students, 62% of
the students were proficient.

***ITBS Reading Total NPR.*** ITBS Reading Total scores based upon
national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third grade
students, 62% of the students were proficient.

### Students Scoring at Grade Level: *with* and *without* an Economic Disadvantage (see Table 13)

***PAT Rhyming***

*PAT Rhyming, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 66% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 80% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in rhyming.
By spring, 88% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 93% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in rhyming,
an increase of 22% and 13% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in rhyming between first grade students
*with* and *without* and an economic disadvantage was 14% (with students
*without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with*
an economic disadvantage). Both students *with* and *without* an
economic disadvantage made progress in the spring, and the achievement
gap between the two groups narrowed to 5% (with students *without* an
economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with* an economic
disadvantage).

***PAT Deletion***

*PAT Deletion, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 50% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 71% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in deletion.
By spring, 76% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 86% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in deletion,
an increase of 26% and 15% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in deletion between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 21% (with
students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students
*with* an economic disadvantage*)*. Both students *with* and *without*
an economic disadvantage made progress in the spring, and the
achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to 10% (with students
*without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with*
an economic disadvantage).

***PAT Blending***

*PAT Blending, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 62% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 77% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in blending.
By spring, 89% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 93% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in blending,
an increase of 27% and 16% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in deletion between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 15% (with
students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students
*with* an economic disadvantage*)*. Both students *with* and *without*
an economic disadvantage made progress in the spring, and the
achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to 4% (with students
*without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with*
an economic disadvantage).

***PAT Segmentation***

*PAT Segmentation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 69% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 82% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in
segmentation. By spring, 95% of students *with* an economic disadvantage
and 97% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient
in segmentation, an increase of 26% and 15% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in segmentation between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 13% (with
students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students
*with* an economic disadvantage*)*. Both students *with* and *without*
an economic disadvantage made progress in the spring, and the
achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to 2% (with students
*without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with*
an economic disadvantage).

***PAT Isolation***

*PAT Isolation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 61% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 76% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in
isolation. By spring, 91% of students *with* an economic disadvantage
and 96% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient
in isolation, an increase of 30% and 20% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in isolation between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 15% (with
students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students
*with* an economic disadvantage*)*. Both students *with* and *without*
an economic disadvantage made progress in the spring, and the
achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to 5% (with students
*without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with*
an economic disadvantage).

***PAT Substitution.***

*PAT Substitution, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 55% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 70% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in
substitution. By spring, 79% of students *with* an economic disadvantage
and 89% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient
in substitution, an increase of 24% and 19% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in substitution between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 15% (with
students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students
*with* an economic disadvantage*)*. Both students *with* and *without*
an economic disadvantage made progress in the spring, and the
achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to 10% (with students
*without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with*
an economic disadvantage).

***PAT Graphemes.***

*PAT Graphemes, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 55% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 70% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in
graphemes. By spring, 87% of students *with* an economic disadvantage
and 93% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient
in graphemes, an increase of 32% and 23% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap between first grade students *with* and
*without* an economic disadvantage was 15% (with students *without* an
economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with* an economic
disadvantage*)*. Both students *with* and *without* an economic
disadvantage made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap
between the two groups narrowed to 6% (with students *without* an
economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with* an economic
disadvantage*)*.

*PAT Graphemes, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 62%
of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 73% of students
*without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in graphemes in the
fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in graphemes between second grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 11% (with
students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students
*with* an economic disadvantage).

***PAT Decoding***

*PAT Decoding, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 50% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 68% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in decoding.
By spring, 78% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 88% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in decoding,
an increase of 28% and 20% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap between first grade students *with* and
*without* an economic disadvantage was 18% (with students *without* an
economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with* an economic
disadvantage*)*. Both students *with* and *without* an economic
disadvantage made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap
between the two groups narrowed to 10% (with students *without* an
economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with* an economic
disadvantage*)*.

*PAT Decoding, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 58%
of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 71% of students
*without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in decoding in the
fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in decoding between second grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 13% (with
students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students
*with* an economic disadvantage).

***BRI Fluency***

*BRI Fluency, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students, 41% of
students *with* an economic disadvantage and 62% of students *without*
an economic disadvantage were proficient in fluency in the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in fluency between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 21% (with
students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students
*with* an economic disadvantage).

*BRI Fluency, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students in the
fall, 40% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 59% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in fluency.
By spring, 46% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 65% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in fluency,
an increase of 6% and 6% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between second grade
students *without* an economic disadvantage and those *with* an economic
disadvantage was 19% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage). Both
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage made progress in
the spring but the achievement gap between the two groups remained
constant at 19% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage).

*BRI Fluency, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in the
fall, 37% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 55% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in fluency.
By spring, 40% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 57% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in fluency,
an increase of 3% and 2% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between third grade students
*without* an economic disadvantage and those *with* an economic
disadvantage was 18% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage*)*. Both
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage made progress in
the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to
17% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher
than students *with* an economic disadvantage*)*.

***BRI Comprehension***

*BRI Comprehension, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students,
45% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 65% of students
*without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in comprehension in
the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in comprehension between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 20% (with
students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students
*with* an economic disadvantage).

*BRI Comprehension, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students
in the fall, 19% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 31% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in
comprehension. By spring, 48% of students *with* an economic
disadvantage and 63% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were
proficient in comprehension, an increase of 29% and 32% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in comprehension between second grade
students *without* an economic disadvantage and those *with* an economic
disadvantage was 12% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage). Both
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage made progress in
the spring, but the achievement gap between the two groups widened to
15% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher
than students *with* an economic disadvantage*).*

*BRI Comprehension, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in
the fall, 41% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 58% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in
comprehension. By spring, 69% of students *with* an economic
disadvantage and 79% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were
proficient in comprehension, an increase of 28% and 21% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between third grade students
*without* an economic disadvantage and those *with* an economic
disadvantage was 17% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage). Both
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage made progress in
the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to
10% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher
than students *with* an economic disadvantage*).*

***ITBS Comprehension NPR***

*ITBS Comprehension NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Comprehension
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 56% of students *with* an economic disadvantage
and 74% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient.

The achievement gap in ITBS Comprehension NPR between third grade
students *with* an economic disadvantage and those *without* an economic
disadvantage was 18% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage).

***ITBS Vocabulary NPR***

*ITBS Vocabulary NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Vocabulary scores
based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third
grade students, 53% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 75%
of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in their
vocabulary skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Vocabulary NPR between third grade students
*with* an economic disadvantage and those *without* an economic
disadvantage was 22% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage).

***ITBS Reading Total NPR***

*ITBS Reading Total NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Reading Total
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 54% of students *with* an economic disadvantage
and 74% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient
in their reading skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Reading Total NPR between third grade
students *with* an economic disadvantage and those *without* an economic
disadvantage was 20% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage).

### Students Scoring at Grade Level: Major Racial/Ethnic Groups (see Tables 14a -- 14d). {#students-scoring-at-grade-level-major-racialethnic-groups-see-tables-14a-14d. .IRF-Subheading}

***PAT Rhyming.***

*PAT Rhyming, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 78% of White students, 47% of Hispanic students, 73% of
Black/African-American students, 75% of Asian students and 64% of Native
American students were proficient in rhyming. By spring, 93% of White
students, 80% of Hispanic students, 88% of Black/African-American
students, 95% of Asian students and 90% of Native American students were
proficient in rhyming, an increase of 15%, 33%, 15%, 20%, and 26%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in Rhyming between first grade students
varied between racial groups. There was a 31% gap between White and
Hispanic students, a 5% gap between White and Black students, a 3% gap
between White and Asian students, and a 14% gap between White and Native
American students (with White students scoring higher than all the other
racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in increasing
the percentage of students proficient in rhyming and the achievement gap
between White students and all other student subgroups narrowed. The
achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic students from 31% to
13%, remained constant at 5% between White and Black students, narrowed
from 3% to -2% between White and Asian students, and narrowed from 14%
to 3% between White and Native American students (with the exception of
Asian students, White students continued to score higher than the other
racial groups).

***PAT Deletion***

*PAT Deletion, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 65% of White students, 39% of Hispanic students, 50% of
Black/African-American students, 58% of Asian students and 56% of Native
American students were proficient in deletion. By spring, 84% of White
students, 70% of Hispanic students, 72% of Black/African-American
students, 88% of Asian students and 85% of Native American students were
proficient in deletion, an increase of 19%, 31%, 22%, 30%, and 29%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in Deletion between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 26% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 15% gap between White and Black students, a 7%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 9% gap between White and
Native American students (with White students scoring higher than all
the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in Deletion and the
achievement gap between White students and all other student subgroups
narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic
students from 26% to 14%, from 15% to 12% between White and Black
students, from 7% to -4% between White and Asian students, and from 9%
to -1% between White and Native American students (with the exception of
Asian and Native American students, White students continued to score
higher than the other racial groups).

***PAT Blending***

*PAT Blending, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 74% of White students, 55% of Hispanic students, 56% of
Black/African-American students, 59% of Asian students and 60% of Native
American students were proficient in blending. By spring, 92% of White
students, 88% of Hispanic students, 87% of Black/African-American
students, 92% of Asian students and 95% of Native American students were
proficient in blending, an increase of 18%, 33%, 31%, 33%, and 35%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in Blending between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 19% gap between White
and Hispanic students, an 18% gap between White and Black students, a
15% gap between White and Asian students, and a 14% gap between White
and Native American students (with White students scoring higher than
all the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in Blending and the
achievement gap between White students and all other student subgroups
narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic
students from 19% to 4%, from 18% to 5% between White and Black
students, from 15% to 0% between White and Asian students, and from 14%
to -3% between White and Native American students (with the exception of
Native American students, White students continued to score higher than
the other racial groups).

***PAT Segmentation***

*PAT Segmentation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 78% of White students, 61% of Hispanic students, 73% of
Black/African-American students, 73% of Asian students and 56% of Native
American students were proficient in segmentation. By spring, 96% of
White students, 94% of Hispanic students, 95% of Black/African-American
students, 98% of Asian students and 100% of Native American students
were proficient in segmentation, an increase of 18%, 33%, 22%, 25%, and
44% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in Segmentation between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 17% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 5% gap between White and Black students, a 5%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 22% gap between White and
Native American students (with White students scoring higher than all
the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in Segmentation and the
achievement gap between White students and all other student subgroups
narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic
students from 17% to 2%, from 5% to 1% between White and Black students,
from 5% to -2% between White and Asian students, and from 22% to -4%
between White and Native American students (with the exception of Asian
and Native American students, White students continued to score higher
than the other racial groups).

***PAT Isolation***

*PAT Isolation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 74% of White students, 53% of Hispanic students, 55% of
Black/African-American students, 58% of Asian students and 48% of Native
American students were proficient in isolation. By spring, 95% of White
students, 90% of Hispanic students, 86% of Black/African-American
students, 92% of Asian students and 95% of Native American students were
proficient in isolation, an increase of 21%, 37%, 31%, 34%, and 47%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in Isolation between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 21% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 19% gap between White and Black students, a 16%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 26% gap between White and
Native American students (with White students scoring higher than all
the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in Isolation and the
achievement gap between White students and all other student subgroups
narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic
students from 21% to 5%, from 19% to 9% between White and Black
students, from 16% to 3% between White and Asian students, and from 26%
to 0% between White and Native American students. (White students
continued to score higher than the other racial groups).

***PAT Substitution***

*PAT Substitution, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 66% of White students, 47% of Hispanic students, 54% of
Black/African-American students, 53% of Asian students and 52% of Native
American students were proficient in substitution. By spring, 87% of
White students, 76% of Hispanic students, 70% of Black/African-American
students, 92% of Asian students and 80% of Native American students were
proficient in substitution, an increase of 21%, 29%, 16%, 39%, and 28%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in Substitution between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 19% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 12% gap between White and Black students, a 13%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 14% gap between White and
Native American students (with White students scoring higher than all
the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in Substitution. The
achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic students from 19% to
11%, widened from 12% to 17% between White and Black students, narrowed
from 13% to -5% between White and Asian students, and narrowed from 14%
to 7% between White and Native American students (with the exception of
Asian students, White students continued to score higher than the other
racial groups).

***PAT Graphemes***

*PAT Graphemes, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 66% of White students, 51% of Hispanic students, 49% of
Black/African-American students, 58% of Asian students and 44% of Native
American students were proficient in graphemes. By spring, 91% of White
students, 88% of Hispanic students, 80% of Black/African-American
students, 93% of Asian students and 95% of Native American students were
proficient in graphemes, an increase of 25%, 37%, 31%, 35%, and 51%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in Graphemes between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 15% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 17% gap between White and Black students, an 8%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 22% gap between White and
Native American students (with White students scoring higher than all
the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in Graphemes and the
achievement gap between White students and all other student subgroups
narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic
students from 15% to 3%, from 17% to 11% between White and Black
students, from 8% to -2% between White and Asian students, and from 22%
to -4% between White and Native American students (with the exception of
Asian and Native American students, White students continued to score
higher than the other racial groups).

*PAT Graphemes, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 71%
of White students, 64% of Hispanic students, 50% of
Black/African-American students, 70% of Asian students and 71% of Native
American students were proficient in graphemes in the fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in graphemes between second grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 7% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 21% gap between White and Black students, a 1%
percent gap between White and Asian students, and an 0% gap between
White and Native American students (except for Native American students,
White students scored higher than other racial groups).

***PAT Decoding***

*PAT Decoding, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 63% of White students, 43% of Hispanic students, 45% of
Black/African-American students, 56% of Asian students and 48% of Native
American students were proficient in decoding. By spring, 85% of White
students, 80% of Hispanic students, 68% of Black/African-American
students, 87% of Asian students and 95% of Native American students were
proficient in decoding, an increase of 22%, 37%, 23%, 31%, and 47%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in Decoding between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 20% gap between White
and Hispanic students, an 18% gap between White and Black students, a 7%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 15% gap between White and
Native American students (with White students scoring higher than all
the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in Decoding and the
achievement gap between White students and all other student subgroups
narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic
students from 20% to 5%, from 18% to 17% between White and Black
students, from 7% to -2% between White and Asian students, and from 15%
to -10% between White and Native American students. (with the exception
of Asian and Native American students, White students continued to score
higher than the other racial groups).

*PAT Decoding, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 69%
of White students, 59% of Hispanic students, 44% of
Black/African-American students, 74% of Asian students and 79% of Native
American students were proficient in decoding in the fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in decoding between second grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 10% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 25% gap between White and Black students, a -5%
percent gap between White and Asian students, and a -10% gap between
White and Native American students. Asian and Native American students
scored higher than White students and White students scored higher than
Black and Hispanic students.

***BRI Fluency***

*BRI Fluency, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students, 54% of
White students, 40% of Hispanic students, 36% of Black/African-American
students, 67% of Asian students and 50% of Native American students were
proficient in fluency in the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in fluency between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 14% gap between White
and Hispanic students, an 18% gap between White and Black students, a
-13% percent gap between White and Asian students, and a 4% gap between
White and Native American students (except for Asian students, White
students scored higher than the other racial groups.).

*BRI Fluency, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students in the
fall, 52% of White students, 35% of Hispanic students, 36% of
Black/African-American students, 54% of Asian students and 54% of Native
American students were proficient in fluency. By spring, 59% of White
students, 43% of Hispanic students, 39% of Black/African-American
students, 54% of Asian students and 65% of Native American students were
proficient in fluency, an increase of 7%, 8%, 3%, no change at 0%, and
an increase of 11% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in Fluency between second grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 17% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 16% gap between White and Black students, a -2%
gap between White and Asian students, and a -2% gap between White and
Native American students (with the exception of Asian and Native
American students, White students scoring higher than all the other
racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in increasing
the percentage of students proficient in Fluency and the achievement gap
between White students and all other student subgroups narrowed. The
achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic students from 17% to
16%, widened from 16% to 20% between White and Black students, widened
from -2% to 5% between White and Asian students, and widened from -2% to
-6% between White and Native American students (with the exception of
Native American students, White students scoring higher than all the
other racial groups).

*BRI Fluency, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in the
fall, 49% of White students, 37% of Hispanic students, 26% of
Black/African-American students, 57% of Asian students and 50% of Native
American students were proficient in fluency. By spring, 51% of White
students, 42% of Hispanic students, 30% of Black/African-American
students, 68% of Asian students and 39% of Native American students were
proficient in fluency, an increase of 2%, 5%, 4%, 11%, and a decrease of
11% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in Fluency between third grade students
varied between racial groups. There was a 12% gap between White and
Hispanic students, a 23% gap between White and Black students, a -8% gap
between White and Asian students, and a -1% gap between White and Native
American students (with the exception of Asian and American Native
students, White students scoring higher than all the other racial
groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in increasing the
percentage of students proficient in Fluency and the achievement gap
between White students and all other student subgroups narrowed. The
achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic students from 12% to
9%, from 23% to 21% between White and Black students, widened from -8%
to -17% between White and Asian students, and widened from -1% to 12%
between White and Native American students (with the exception of Asian
students, White students continued to score higher than the other racial
groups).

***BRI Comprehension***

*BRI Comprehension, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students,
60% of White students, 35% of Hispanic students, 44% of
Black/African-American students, 53% of Asian students and 25% of Native
American students were proficient in comprehension in the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in comprehension between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 25% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 16% gap between White and Black students, a 7%
percent gap between White and Asian students, and a 35% gap between
White and Native American students (with White students scoring higher
than all the other racial groups).

*BRI Comprehension, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students
in the fall, 30% of White students 8% of Hispanic students, 14% of
Black/African-American students, 16% of Asian students and 25% of Native
American students were proficient in comprehension. By spring, 59% of
White students, 40% of Hispanic students, 48% of Black/African-American
students, 54% of Asian students and 61% of Native American students were
proficient in comprehension, an increase of 29%, 32%, 34%, 38%, and 36%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in Comprehension between second grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 22% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 16% gap between White and Black students, a 14%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 5% gap between White and
Native American students (with White students scoring higher than all
the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in Comprehension and
the achievement gap between White students and all other student
subgroups narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White and
Hispanic students from 22% to 19%, from 16% to 11% between White and
Black students, from 14% to -5% between White and Asian students, and
from 5% to -2% between White and Native American students (with the
exception of Native American students, White students continued to score
higher than the other racial groups).

*BRI Comprehension, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in
the fall, 56% of White students, 33% of Hispanic students, 31% of
Black/African-American students, 34% of Asian students and 50% of Native
American students were proficient in comprehension. By spring, 78% of
White students, 58% of Hispanic students, 67% of Black/African-American
students, 75% of Asian students and 83% of Native American students were
proficient in comprehension, an increase of 22%, 25%, 36%, 41%, and 33%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in Comprehension between third grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 23% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 25% gap between White and Black students, a 22%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 6% gap between White and
Native American students (with White students scoring higher than all
the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in Comprehension and
the achievement gap between White students and all other student
subgroups narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White and
Hispanic students from 23% to 20%, from 25% to 11% between White and
Black students, from 22% to 3% between White and Asian students, and
from 6% to -5% between White and Native American students. (with the
exception of Native American students, White students continued to score
higher than the other racial groups).

***ITBS Comprehension NPR***

*ITBS Comprehension NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Comprehension
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 69% of White students, 56% of Hispanic students,
43% of Black/African-American students, 75% of Asian students and 61% of
Native American students were proficient in their comprehension skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Comprehension NPR varied between the
different racial groups. Among third grade students, there was a 13% gap
between White and Hispanic students, a 26% gap between White and Black
students, a -6% gap between White and Asian students, and an 8% gap
between White and Native American students (with the exception of Asian
students, White students scoring higher than all the other groups).

***ITBS Vocabulary NPR***

*ITBS Vocabulary NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Vocabulary scores
based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third
grade students, 70% of White students, 45% of Hispanic students, 46% of
Black/African-American students, 59% of Asian students and 52% of Native
American students were proficient in their vocabulary skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Vocabulary NPR varied between the different
racial groups. Among third grade students, there was a 25% gap between
White and Hispanic students, a 24% gap between White and Black students,
an 11% gap between White and Asian students, and an 18% gap between
White and Native American students (with White students scoring higher
than all the other groups)..

***ITBS Reading Total NPR***

*ITBS Reading Total NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Reading Total
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 69% of White students, 49% of Hispanic, 44% of
Black/African-American students, 68% of Asian students and 61% of Native
American students were proficient in their reading skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Reading Total NPR varied between the
different racial groups. Among third grade students, there was a 20% gap
between White and Hispanic students, a 25% gap between White and Black
students, a 1% gap between White and Asian students, and an 8% gap
between White and Native American students (with White students scoring
higher than all the other groups).

### Students Scoring at Grade Level: *with* and *without* Disabilities (See Table 15) {#students-scoring-at-grade-level-with-and-without-disabilities-see-table-15 .IRF-Subheading}

***PAT Rhyming***

*PAT Rhyming, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 44% of students *with* disabilities and 73% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in rhyming. By spring, 69% of students
*with* disabilities and 92% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in rhyming, an increase of 25% and 19% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in rhyming between first grade students
*with* and *without* disabilities was 29% (with students *without*
disabilities scoring higher than students *with* disabilities). Both
students *with* and *without* disabilities made progress in the spring
and the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to 23% (with
students *without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

***PAT Deletion***

*PAT Deletion, First Grade Students*. Among first grade students in the
fall, 24% of students *with* disabilities and 60% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in deletion. By spring, 44% of students
*with* disabilities and 83% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in deletion, an increase of 20% and 23% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in deletion between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 36% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring, the achievement gap widened to 39% (with
students *without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

***PAT Blending***

*PAT Blending, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 30% of students *with* disabilities and 70% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in blending. By spring, 65% of students
*with* disabilities and 93% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in blending, an increase of 35% and 23% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in blending between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 40% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring and the achievement gap between the two groups
narrowed to 28% (with students *without* disabilities scoring higher
than students *with* disabilities).

***PAT Segmentation***

*PAT Segmentation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 44% of students *with* disabilities and 76% of students
*without* disabilities were proficient in segmentation. By spring, 78%
of students *with* disabilities and 97% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in segmentation, an increase of 34% and 21%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in segmentation between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 32% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both groups of students made progress in the spring, and
the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to 19% (with
students *without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

***PAT Isolation***

*PAT Isolation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 27% of students *with* disabilities and 70% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in isolation. By spring, 68% of students
*with* disabilities and 95% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in isolation, an increase of 41% and 25% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in isolation between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 43% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring and the achievement gap between the two groups
narrowed to 27% (with students *without* disabilities scoring higher
than students *with* disabilities).

***PAT Substitution***

*PAT Substitution, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 29% of students *with* disabilities and 63% of students
*without* disabilities were proficient in substitution. By spring, 49%
of students *with* disabilities and 86% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in substitution, an increase of 20% and 23%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in substitution between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 34% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring and the achievement gap widened to 37% (with
students *without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

***PAT Graphemes***

*PAT Graphemes, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 24% of students *with* disabilities and 63% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in graphemes. By spring, 59% of students
*with* disabilities and 92% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in graphemes, an increase of 35% and 29% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap between first grade students *with* and
*without* disabilities was 39% (with students *without* disabilities
scoring higher than students *with* disabilities). Both students *with*
and *without* disabilities made progress in the spring and the
achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to 33% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

*PAT Graphemes, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 32%
of students *with* disabilities and 70% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in graphemes in the fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in graphemes between second grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 38% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

***PAT Decoding***

*PAT Decoding, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 19% of students *with* disabilities and 60% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in decoding. By spring, 43% of students
*with* disabilities and 86% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in decoding, an increase of 24% and 26% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap between first grade students *with* and
*without* disabilities was 41% (with students *without* disabilities
scoring higher than students *with* disabilities). Both students *with*
and *without* disabilities made progress in the spring, the achievement
gap widened to 43% (with students *without* disabilities scoring higher
than students *with* disabilities).

*PAT Decoding, First Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 25%
of students *with* disabilities and 68% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in decoding in the fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in decoding between second grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 43% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

***BRI Fluency***

*BRI Fluency, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students, 19% of
students *with* disabilities and 52% of students *without* disabilities
were proficient in fluency in the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in fluency between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 33% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

*BRI Fluency, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students in the
fall, 17% of students *with* disabilities and 50% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in fluency. By spring, 15% of students
*with* disabilities and 59% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in fluency, a decrease of 2% and an increase of 9%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between second grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 33% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Only students *without* disabilities made progress in the
spring (with students *with* disabilities decreased the percentage of
students proficient in fluency) widening the achievement gap between the
two groups from 33% to 44% between fall and spring.

*BRI Fluency, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in the
fall, 12% of students *with* disabilities and 49% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in fluency. By spring, 13% of students
*with* disabilities and 52% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in fluency, an increase of 1% and 3% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between third grade students
*with* and *without* disabilities was 37% (with students *without*
disabilities scoring higher than students *with* disabilities). Both
students *with* and *without* disabilities made progress in the spring,
but the achievement gap between the two groups widened from 37% to 39%
between fall and spring (with students *without* disabilities scoring
higher than students *with* disabilities).

***BRI Comprehension***

*BRI Comprehension, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students,
22% of students *with* disabilities and 55% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in comprehension in the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in comprehension between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 33% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

*BRI Comprehension, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students
in the fall, 8% of students *with* disabilities and 25% of students
*without* disabilities were proficient in comprehension. By spring, 23%
of students *with* disabilities and 58% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in comprehension, an increase of 15% and
33% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in comprehension between second grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 17% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring, but the achievement gap between the two groups
widened from 17% to 35% between fall and spring (with students *without*
disabilities scoring higher than students *with* disabilities).

*BRI Comprehension, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in
the fall, 18% of students *with* disabilities and 52% of students
*without* disabilities were proficient in comprehension. By spring, 39%
of students *with* disabilities and 79% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in comprehension, an increase of 21% and
27% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in comprehension between third grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 34% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring, but the achievement gap between the two groups
widened from 34% to 40% between fall and spring (with students *without*
disabilities scoring higher than students *with* disabilities).

***ITBS Comprehension NPR***

*ITBS Comprehension NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Comprehension
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 23% of students *with* disabilities and 70% of
students *without* disabilities were proficient in their comprehension
skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Comprehension NPR between third grade
students *with* disabilities and students *without* disabilities was 47%
(with students *without* disabilities scoring higher than students
*with* disabilities)*.*

***ITBS Vocabulary NPR***

*ITBS Vocabulary NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Vocabulary scores
based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third
grade students, 37% of students *with* disabilities and 66% of students
*without* disabilities were proficient in their vocabulary skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Vocabulary NPR between third grade students
*with* disabilities and students *without* disabilities was 29% (with
students *without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

***ITBS Reading Total NPR***

*ITBS Reading Total NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Reading Total
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 28% of students *with* disabilities and 67% of
students *without* disabilities were proficient in their reading skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Reading Total NPR between third grade
students *with* disabilities and students *without* disabilities was 39%
(with students *without* disabilities scoring higher than students
*with* disabilities).

### Students Scoring at Grade Level: *with* and *without* Limited English Proficiency (see Table 16).  {#students-scoring-at-grade-level-with-and-without-limited-english-proficiency-see-table-16. .IRF-Subheading}

***PAT Rhyming***

*PAT Rhyming, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 40% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 77% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
rhyming. By spring, 78% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 92% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in rhyming, an increase of 38% and 15% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in rhyming between first grade students
*with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited English
proficiency was 37% (with students *without* limited English proficiency
scoring higher than students *with* limited English proficiency).

Both students *with* and *without* limited English proficiency made
progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups
narrowed to 14% (with students *without* limited English proficiency
scoring higher than students *with* limited English proficiency).

***PAT Deletion***

*PAT Deletion, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 34% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 62% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
deletion. By spring, 69% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 81% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in deletion, an increase of 35% and 19% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in deletion between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 28% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency). Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups narrowed to 12% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***PAT Blending***

*PAT Blending, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 48% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 71% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
blending. By spring, 88% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 91% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in blending, an increase of 40% and 20% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in blending between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 23% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency). Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups narrowed to 3% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***PAT Segmentation***

*PAT Segmentation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 57% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 77% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
segmentation. By spring, 93% of students *with* limited English
proficiency and 96% of students *without* limited English proficiency
were proficient in segmentation, an increase of 36% and 19%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in segmentation between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 20% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency). Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups narrowed to 3% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***PAT Isolation***

*PAT Isolation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 48% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 70% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
isolation. By spring, 90% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 93% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in isolation, an increase of 42% and 23% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in isolation between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 22% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency). Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups narrowed to 3% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***PAT Substitution***

*PAT Substitution, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 43% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 63% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
substitution. By spring, 74% of students *with* limited English
proficiency and 84% of students *without* limited English proficiency
were proficient in substitution, an increase of 31% and 21%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in substitution between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 20% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency). Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups narrowed to 10% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***PAT Graphemes***

*PAT Graphemes, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 47% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 63% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
graphemes. By spring, 89% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 89% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in graphemes, an increase of 42% and 26% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in graphemes between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 16% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency). Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups had narrowed to 0%.

*PAT Graphemes, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 64%
of students *with* limited English proficiency and 67% of students
*without* limited English proficiency were proficient in graphemes in
the fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in graphemes between second grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 3% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***PAT Decoding***

*PAT Decoding, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 40% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 59% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
decoding. By spring, 80% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 82% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in decoding, an increase of 40% and 23% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in decoding between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 19% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency). Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups had narrowed to 2% (with students *without* limited
English proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

*PAT Decoding, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 59%
of students *with* limited English proficiency and 64% of students
*without* limited English proficiency were proficient in decoding in the
fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in decoding between second grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 5% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***BRI Fluency***

*BRI Fluency, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students, 38% of
students *with* limited English proficiency and 50% of students
*without* limited English proficiency were proficient in fluency in the
spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in fluency between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 12% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

*BRI Fluency, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students in the
fall, 32% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 49% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
fluency. By spring, 41% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 55% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in fluency, an increase of 9% and 6% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between second grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 17% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency). Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups had narrowed to 14% (with students *without* limited
English proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

*BRI Fluency, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in the
fall, 34% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 45% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
fluency. By spring, 41% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 47% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in fluency, an increase of 7% and 2% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between third grade students
*with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited English
proficiency was 11% (with students *without* limited English proficiency
scoring higher than students *with* limited English proficiency). Both
students *with* and *without* limited English proficiency made progress
in the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed
to 6% (with students *without* limited English proficiency scoring
higher than students *with* limited English proficiency).

***BRI Comprehension***

*BRI Comprehension, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students,
32% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 56% of students
*without* limited English proficiency were proficient in comprehension
in the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in comprehension between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 24% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

*BRI Comprehension, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students
in the fall, 6% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 26%
of students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
comprehension. By spring, 33% of students *with* limited English
proficiency and 57% of students *without* limited English proficiency
were proficient in comprehension, an increase of 27% and 31%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in comprehension between second grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 20% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency). Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups widened to 24% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

*BRI Comprehension, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in
the fall, 28% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 51% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
comprehension. By spring, 55% of students *with* limited English
proficiency and 76% of students *without* limited English proficiency
were proficient in comprehension, an increase of 27% and 25%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in comprehension between third grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 23% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency). Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups narrowed to 21% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***ITBS Comprehension NPR***

*ITBS Comprehension NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Comprehension
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 51% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 65% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in their comprehension skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Comprehension NPR between third grade
students *with* and *without* limited English proficiency was 14% (with
students *without* limited English proficiency scoring higher than
students *with* limited English proficiency).

***ITBS Vocabulary NPR***

*ITBS Vocabulary NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Vocabulary scores
based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third
grade students, 37% of students *with* limited English proficiency and
65% of students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
their vocabulary skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Vocabulary NPR between third grade students
*with* and *without* limited English proficiency was 28% (with students
*without* limited English proficiency scoring higher than students
*with* limited English proficiency).

***ITBS Reading Total NPR***

*ITBS Reading Total NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Reading Total
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 43% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 64% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in their reading skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Reading Total NPR between third grade
students *with* and *without* limited English proficiency was 21% (with
students *without* limited English proficiency scoring higher than
students *with* limited English proficiency).

### Special Education Data by Grade: 2006 Start-Year Schools (see Table 17) {#special-education-data-by-grade-2006-start-year-schools-see-table-17 .IRF-Subheading}

Data was collected to assess the number of students receiving Special
Education services, the number of students referred to pre-referral
services, and the number of pre-referrals that resulted in an IEP for
students.

***Percentage of students currently receiving special education
services.*** The percentage of students receiving special education
services increased for first grade students by 2% (10% received services
in Spring 2007 compared to 8% that received services in Fall 2006);
increased for second grade students by 2% (13% received services in
Spring 2007 compared to 11% that received services in Fall 2006); and
increased for third grade students by 2% (15% received services in
Spring 2007 compared to 13% that received services in Fall 2006).

***Percentage of students referred for pre-referral services.***
Overall, the percentage of students referred for pre-referral services
increased between Fall 2006 and Spring 2007. The percentage increased by
4% for first grade students (5% were referred for pre-referral services
in Spring 2007 compared to 1% that were referred in Fall 2006);
increased by 4% for second grade students (6% were referred for
pre-referral services in Spring 2007 compared to 2% that were referred
in Fall 2006); and increased by 2% for third grade students (4% were
referred for pre-referral services in Spring 2007 compared to 2% that
were referred in Fall 2006).

***Percentage of students placed in special education services.***
Overall, the percentage of students placed in special education
increased between Fall 2006 and Spring 2007. The percentage of students
that had an IEP initiated and placed in special education services
increased for first grade students by 2% (2% were placed in special
education services in Spring 2007 compared to 0% placed in Fall 2006);
an increase of 2% for second grade students (2% were placed in special
education services in Spring 2007 compared to 0% placed in Fall 2006);
and an increase of 1% for third grade students (1% were placed in
special education services in Spring 2007 compared to 0% placed in Fall
2006).

### RESULTS OF 2006-2007 STUDENT PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS (Year 4: 2003 Start-Year Schools) 

### Fall 2006-Spring 2007 Student Performance Comparison Results 

### (Year 4: 2003 Start-Year Schools)

### Students Scoring at Grade Level: All Students (see Table 18)  {#students-scoring-at-grade-level-all-students-see-table-18 .IRF-Subheading}

***PAT Rhyming.*** In the fall, 87% of first grade students were
proficient in rhyming. By spring, 93% of first grade students were
proficient in rhyming, an increase of 6%.

***PAT Deletion.*** In the fall, 80% of first grade students were
proficient in deletion. By spring, 83% of first grade students were
proficient in deletion, an increase of 3%.

***PAT Blending.*** In the fall, 85% of first grade students were
proficient in blending. By spring, 93% of first grade students were
proficient in blending, an increase of 8%.

***PAT Segmentation.*** In the fall, 82% of first grade students were
proficient in segmentation. By spring, 96% of first grade students were
proficient in segmentation, an increase of 14%.

***PAT Isolation.*** In the fall, 74% of first grade students were
proficient in isolation. By spring, 94% of first grade students were
proficient in isolation, an increase of 20%.

***PAT Substitution.*** In the fall, 68% of first grade students were
proficient in substitution. By spring, 88% of first grade students were
proficient in substitution, an increase of 20%.

***PAT Graphemes.*** In the fall, 72% of first grade students were
proficient in graphemes. By spring, 94% of first grade students were
proficient in graphemes, an increase of 22%.

In the fall, 90% of second grade students were proficient in graphemes.

***PAT Decoding.*** In the fall, 66% of first grade students were
proficient in decoding. By spring, 89% of first grade students were
proficient in decoding, an increase of 23%.

In the fall, 86% of second grade students were proficient in decoding.

***BRI Fluency***. In the fall, 51% of second grade students and 50% of
third grade students were proficient in fluency. By spring, 61% of
second grade students and 56% of third grade students were proficient in
fluency, an increase of 10% and 6% respectively.

In the spring, 58% of first grade students were proficient in fluency.

***BRI Comprehension.*** In the fall, 22% of second grade students and
49% of third grade students were proficient in comprehension. By spring,
62% of second grade students and 76% of third grade students were
proficient in comprehension, an increase of 40% and 27% respectively.

In the spring, 62% of first grade students were proficient in
comprehension.

***ITBS Comprehension NPR.*** ITBS Comprehension scores based upon
national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third grade
students, 65% of the students were proficient.

***ITBS Vocabulary NPR.*** ITBS Vocabulary scores based upon national
percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third grade students, 65% of
the students were proficient.

***ITBS Reading Total NPR.*** ITBS Reading Total scores based upon
national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third grade
students, 66% of the students were proficient.

### Students Scoring at Grade Level: *with* and *without* an Economic Disadvantage (see Table 19) {#students-scoring-at-grade-level-with-and-without-an-economic-disadvantage-see-table-19 .IRF-Subheading}

***PAT Rhyming***

*PAT Rhyming, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 84% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 92% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in rhyming.
By spring, 91% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 96% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in rhyming,
an increase of 7% and 4% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in rhyming between first grade students
*with* and *without* and an economic disadvantage was 8% (with students
*without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with*
an economic disadvantage). Both students *with* and *without* an
economic disadvantage made progress in the spring, and the achievement
gap between the two groups narrowed to 5% (with students *without* an
economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with* an economic
disadvantage).

***PAT Deletion***

*PAT Deletion, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 76% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 87% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in deletion.
By spring, 80% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 89% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in deletion,
an increase of 4% and 2% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in deletion between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 11%. Both
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage made progress in
the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to
9% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than
students *with* an economic disadvantage).

***PAT Blending***

*PAT Blending, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 82% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 90% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in blending.
By spring, 92% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 95% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in blending,
an increase of 10% and 5% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in deletion between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 8%. Both
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage made progress in
the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to
3% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than
students *with* an economic disadvantage).

***PAT Segmentation***

*PAT Segmentation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 79% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 89% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in
segmentation. By spring, 96% of students *with* an economic disadvantage
and 97% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient
in segmentation, an increase of 17% and 8% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in segmentation between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 10%. Both
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage made progress in
the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to
1% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than
students *with* an economic disadvantage).

***PAT Isolation***

*PAT Isolation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 69% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 83% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in
isolation. By spring, 93% of students *with* an economic disadvantage
and 96% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient
in isolation, an increase of 24% and 13% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in isolation between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 14%. Both
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage made progress in
the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to
3% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than
students *with* an economic disadvantage).

***PAT Substitution***

*PAT Substitution, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 62% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 77% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in
substitution. By spring, 85% of students *with* an economic disadvantage
and 92% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient
in substitution, an increase of 23% and 15% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in substitution between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 15%. Both
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage made progress in
the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to
7% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than
students *with* an economic disadvantage).

***PAT Graphemes***

*PAT Graphemes, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 66% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 81% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in
graphemes. By spring, 93% of students *with* an economic disadvantage
and 96% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient
in graphemes, an increase of 27% and 15% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap between first grade students *with* and
*without* an economic disadvantage was 15%. Both students *with* and
*without* an economic disadvantage made progress in the spring, and the
achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to 3% (with students
*without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with*
an economic disadvantage).

*PAT Graphemes, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 87%
of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 94% of students
*without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in graphemes in the
fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in graphemes between second grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 7% (with
students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students
*with* an economic disadvantage).

***PAT Decoding***

*PAT Decoding, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 60% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 77% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in decoding.
By spring, 87% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 92% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in decoding,
an increase of 27% and 15% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap between first grade students *with* and
*without* an economic disadvantage was 17%. Both students *with* and
*without* an economic disadvantage made progress in the spring, and the
achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to 5% (with students
*without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with*
an economic disadvantage).

*PAT Decoding, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 82%
of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 93% of students
*without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in decoding in the
fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in decoding between second grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 11% (with
students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students
*with* an economic disadvantage).

***BRI Fluency***

*BRI Fluency, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students, 51% of
students *with* an economic disadvantage and 69% of students *without*
an economic disadvantage were proficient in fluency in the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in fluency between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 18% (with
students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students
*with* an economic disadvantage).

*BRI Fluency, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students in the
fall, 44% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 62% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in fluency.
By spring, 55% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 71% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in fluency,
an increase of 11% and 9% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between second grade
students *without* an economic disadvantage and those *with* an economic
disadvantage was 18% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage). Both
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage made progress in
the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to
16% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher
than students *with* an economic disadvantage).

*BRI Fluency, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in the
fall, 42% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 63% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in fluency.
By spring, 48% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 68% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in fluency,
an increase of 6% and 5% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between third grade students
*without* an economic disadvantage and those *with* an economic
disadvantage was 21%. Both students *with* and *without* an economic
disadvantage made progress in the spring, but the achievement gap
between the two groups widened to 20% (with students *without* an
economic disadvantage scoring higher than students *with* an economic
disadvantage).

***BRI Comprehension***

*BRI Comprehension, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students,
57% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 69% of students
*without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in comprehension in
the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in comprehension between first grade
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage was 12% (with
students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than students
*with* an economic disadvantage).

*BRI Comprehension, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students
in the fall, 18% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 30% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in
comprehension. By spring, 59% of students *with* an economic
disadvantage and 68% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were
proficient in comprehension, an increase of 41% and 38% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in comprehension between second grade
students *without* an economic disadvantage and those *with* an economic
disadvantage was 12% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage). Both
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage made progress in
the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to
9%(with students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher than
students *with* an economic disadvantage).

*BRI Comprehension, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in
the fall, 42% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 62% of
students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in
comprehension. By spring, 71% of students *with* an economic
disadvantage and 84% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were
proficient in comprehension, an increase of 29% and 22% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between third grade students
*without* an economic disadvantage and those *with* an economic
disadvantage was 20% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage). Both
students *with* and *without* an economic disadvantage made progress in
the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to
13% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage scoring higher
than students *with* an economic disadvantage).

***ITBS Comprehension NPR***

*ITBS Comprehension NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Comprehension
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 57% of students *with* an economic disadvantage
and 78% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient
in their comprehension skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Comprehension NPR between third grade
students *with* an economic disadvantage and those *without* an economic
disadvantage was 21% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage).

***ITBS Vocabulary NPR***

*ITBS Vocabulary NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Vocabulary scores
based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third
grade students, 57% of students *with* an economic disadvantage and 78%
of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient in their
vocabulary skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Vocabulary NPR between third grade students
*with* an economic disadvantage and those *without* an economic
disadvantage was 21% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage).

***ITBS Reading Total NPR***

*ITBS Reading Total NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Reading Total
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 57% of students *with* an economic disadvantage
and 79% of students *without* an economic disadvantage were proficient
in their reading skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Reading Total NPR between third grade
students *with* an economic disadvantage and those *without* an economic
disadvantage was 22% (with students *without* an economic disadvantage
scoring higher than students *with* an economic disadvantage).

### Students Scoring at Grade Level: Major Racial/Ethnic Groups (see Tables 20a -- 20d). {#students-scoring-at-grade-level-major-racialethnic-groups-see-tables-20a-20d. .IRF-Subheading}

***PAT Rhyming***

*PAT Rhyming, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 92% of White students, 73% of Hispanic students, 83% of
Black/African-American students, 85% of Asian students and 93% of Native
American students were proficient in rhyming. By spring, 95% of White
students, 86% of Hispanic students, 94% of Black/African-American
students, 94% of Asian students and 93% of Native American students were
proficient in rhyming, an increase of 3%, 13%, 11%, 9%, and 0% change
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in rhyming between first grade students
varied between racial groups. There was a 19% gap between White and
Hispanic students, a 9% gap between White and Black students, a 7% gap
between White and Asian students, and a -1% gap between White and Native
American students (with the exception of Native American students, White
students scored higher than all the other racial groups). By spring, all
the groups made progress in increasing the percentage of students
proficient in rhyming and the achievement gap between White students and
all other student subgroups narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed
between White and Hispanic students to from 19% to 9%, from 9% to 1%
between White and Black students, from 7% to 1% between White and Asian
students, and widened from -1% to 2% between White and Native American
students (with White students scoring higher than the other racial
groups).

***PAT Deletion***

*PAT Deletion, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 87% of White students, 66% of Hispanic students, 71% of
Black/African-American students, 79% of Asian students and 80% of Native
American students were proficient in deletion. By spring, 86% of White
students, 77% of Hispanic students, 78% of Black/African-American
students, 89% of Asian students and 72% of Native American students were
proficient in deletion, a decrease of 1%, an increase of 11%, 7%, 10%,
and a decrease of 8% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in deletion between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 21% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 16% gap between White and Black students, an 8%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 7% gap between White and
Native American students (with White students scoring higher than all
the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in deletion and the
achievement gap between White students and all other student subgroups
narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic
students to from 21% to 9%, from 16% to 8% between White and Black
students, from 8% to -3% between White and Asian students, and from 7%
to -8% between White and Native American students (with the exception of
Asian and Native American students, White students scoring higher than
the other racial groups).

***PAT Blending***

*PAT Blending, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 90% of White students, 76% of Hispanic students, 73% of
Black/African-American students, 86% of Asian students and 90% of Native
American students were proficient in blending. By spring, 95% of White
students, 91% of Hispanic students, 90% of Black/African-American
students, 92% of Asian students and 95% of Native American students were
proficient in blending, an increase of 5%, 15%, 17%, 6%, and 5%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in blending between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 14% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 17% gap between White and Black students, a 4%
gap between White and Asian students, and no gap between White and
Native American students (with the exception of Native Americans, White
students scored higher than all the other racial groups). By spring, all
the groups made progress in increasing the percentage of students
proficient in blending and the achievement gap between White students
and all other student subgroups narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed
between White and Hispanic students to from 14% to 4%, from 17% to 5%
between White and Black students, from 4% to 3% between White and Asian
students, and remained constant at 0% between White and Native American
students (with the exception of Native American students, White students
scored higher than the other racial groups).

***PAT Segmentation***

*PAT Segmentation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 87% of White students, 71% of Hispanic students, 80% of
Black/African-American students, 85% of Asian students and 73% of Native
American students were proficient in segmentation. By spring, 97% of
White students, 94% of Hispanic students, 96% of Black/African-American
students, 100% of Asian students and 93% of Native American students
were proficient in segmentation, an increase of 10%, 23%, 16%, 15%, and
20% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in segmentation between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 16% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 7% gap between White and Black students, a 2%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 14% gap between White and
Native American students (with White students scoring higher than all
the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in segmentation and the
achievement gap between White students and all other student subgroups
narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic
students to from 16% to 3%, from 7% to 1% between White and Black
students, widened from 2% to -3% between White and Asian students, and
narrowed from 14% to 4% between White and Native American students (with
the exception of Asian students, White students scored higher than the
other racial groups).

***PAT Isolation***

*PAT Isolation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 81% of White students, 63% of Hispanic students, 57% of
Black/African-American students, 76% of Asian students and 68% of Native
American students were proficient in isolation. By spring, 95% of White
students, 93% of Hispanic students, 92% of Black/African-American
students, 98% of Asian students and 88% of Native American students were
proficient in isolation, an increase of 14%, 30%, 35%, 22%, and 20%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in isolation between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was an 18% gap between
White and Hispanic students, a 24% gap between White and Black students,
a 5% gap between White and Asian students, and a 13% gap between White
and Native American students (with White students scoring higher than
all the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in isolation and the
achievement gap between White students and all other student subgroups
narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic
students to from 18% to 2%, from 24% to 3% between White and Black
students, from 5% to -3% between White and Asian students, and from 13%
to 7% between White and Native American students (with the exception of
Asian students, White students scored higher than the other racial
groups).

***PAT Substitution***

*PAT Substitution, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 76% of White students, 56% of Hispanic students, 45% of
Black/African-American students, 61% of Asian students and 70% of Native
American students were proficient in substitution. By spring, 90% of
White students, 86% of Hispanic students, 79% of Black/African-American
students, 89% of Asian students and 86% of Native American students were
proficient in substitution, an increase of 14%, 30%, 34%, 28%, and 16%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in substitution between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 20% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 31% gap between White and Black students, a 15%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 6% gap between White and
Native American students (with White students scoring higher than all
the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in substitution and the
achievement gap between White students and all other student subgroups
narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White and Hispanic
students to from 20% to 4%, from 31% to 11% between White and Black
students, from 15% to 1% between White and Asian students, and from 6%
to 4% between White and Native American students (with White students
scoring higher than the other racial groups).

***PAT Graphemes***

*PAT Graphemes, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 77% of White students, 62% of Hispanic students, 60% of
Black/African-American students, 82% of Asian students and 68% of Native
American students were proficient in graphemes. By spring, 95% of White
students, 92% of Hispanic students, 91% of Black/African-American
students, 98% of Asian students and 98% of Native American students were
proficient in graphemes, an increase of 18%, 30%, 31%, 16%, and 30%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in graphemes between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 15% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 17% gap between White and Black students, a -5%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 9% gap between White and
Native American students (with the exception of Asian students, White
students scored higher than all the other racial groups). By spring, all
the groups made progress in increasing the percentage of students
proficient in graphemes and the achievement gap between White students
and all other student subgroups narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed
between White and Hispanic students to from 15% to 3%, from 17% to 4%
between White and Black students, from -5% to -3% between White and
Asian students, and from 9% to -3% between White and Native American
students (with the exception of Asian and Native American students,
White students scored higher than the other racial groups).

*PAT Graphemes, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 93%
of White students, 85% of Hispanic students, 77% of
Black/African-American students, 96% of Asian students and 89% of Native
American students were proficient in graphemes in the fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in graphemes between second grade
students varied between racial groups. There was an 8% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 16% gap between White and Black students, a -3%
percent gap between White and Asian students, and a 4% gap between White
and Native American students (with the exception of Asian students,
White students scored higher than all the other racial groups).

***PAT Decoding***

*PAT Decoding, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 72% of White students, 55% of Hispanic students, 54% of
Black/African-American students, 76% of Asian students and 63% of Native
American students were proficient in decoding. By spring, 90% of White
students, 88% of Hispanic students, 85% of Black/African-American
students, 91% of Asian students and 91% of Native American students were
proficient in decoding, an increase of 18%, 33%, 31%, 15%, and 28%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in decoding between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 17% gap between White
and Hispanic students, an 18% gap between White and Black students, a
-4% gap between White and Asian students, and a 9% gap between White and
Native American students (with the exception of Asian students, White
students scoring higher than all the other racial groups). By spring,
all the groups made progress in increasing the percentage of students
proficient in decoding and the achievement gap between White students
and all other student subgroups narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed
between White and Hispanic students to from 17% to 2%, from 18% to 5%
between White and Black students, from -4% to -1% between White and
Asian students, and from 9% to -1% between White and Native American
students (with the exception of Asian and Native American students,
White students scored higher than the other racial groups).

*PAT Decoding, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 90%
of White students, 79% of Hispanic students, 74% of
Black/African-American students, 96% of Asian students and 88% of Native
American students were proficient in decoding in the fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in decoding between second grade
students varied between racial groups. There was an 11% gap between
White and Hispanic students, a 16% gap between White and Black students,
a -6% percent gap between White and Asian students, and a 2% gap between
White and Native American students (with the exception of Asian
students, White students scored higher than all the other racial
groups).

***BRI Fluency***

*BRI Fluency, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students, 64% of
White students, 47% of Hispanic students, 41% of Black/African-American
students, 73% of Asian students and 47% of Native American students were
proficient in fluency in the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in fluency between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 17% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 23% gap between White and Black students, a -9%
percent gap between White and Asian students, and a 17% gap between
White and Native American students (with the exception of Asian
students, White students scoring higher than all the other racial
groups).

*BRI Fluency, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students in the
fall, 56% of White students, 40% of Hispanic students, 37% of
Black/African-American students, 73% of Asian students and 34% of Native
American students were proficient in fluency. By spring, 67% of White
students, 54% of Hispanic students, 43% of Black/African-American
students, 65% of Asian students and 54% of Native American students were
proficient in fluency, an increase of 11%, 14%, 6%, a decrease of 8%,
and an increase of 20% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between second grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 16% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 19% gap between White and Black students, a
-17% gap between White and Asian students, and a 2% gap between White
and Native American students (with the exception of Asian students,
White students scored higher than all the other racial groups). By
spring, all the groups made progress in increasing the percentage of
students proficient in fluency and the achievement gap between White
students and all other student subgroups narrowed. The achievement gap
narrowed between White and Hispanic students to from 16% to 13%, widened
from 19% to 24% between White and Black students, from -17% to 2%
between White and Asian students, and from 22% to 20% between White and
Native American students (with White students scoring higher than the
other racial groups).

*BRI Fluency, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in the
fall, 55% of White students, 43% of Hispanic students, 31% of
Black/African-American students, 56% of Asian students and 47% of Native
American students were proficient in fluency. By spring, 60% of White
students, 50% of Hispanic students, 36% of Black/African-American
students, 75% of Asian students and 43% of Native American students were
proficient in fluency, an increase of 5%, 7%, 5%, 19%, and a decrease of
4% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between third grade students
varied between racial groups. There was a 12% gap between White and
Hispanic students, a 24% gap between White and Black students, a -1% gap
between White and Asian students, and an 8% gap between White and Native
American students (with the exception of Asian students, White students
scored higher than all the other racial groups). By spring, all the
groups made progress in increasing the percentage of students proficient
in fluency and the achievement gap between White students and all other
student subgroups narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White
and Hispanic students to from 12% to 10%, remained constant at 24%
between White and Black students, widened from -1% to -15% between White
and Asian students, and narrowed from 8% to -4% between White and Native
American students (with the exception of Asian and Native American
students, White students scoring higher than the other racial groups).

***BRI Comprehension***

*BRI Comprehension, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students,
68% of White students, 53% of Hispanic students, 50% of
Black/African-American students, 55% of Asian students and 47% of Native
American students were proficient in comprehension in the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in comprehension between first grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 15% gap between White
and Hispanic students, an 18% gap between White and Black students, a
13% percent gap between White and Asian students, and a 21% gap between
White and Native American students (with White students scoring higher
than all the other racial groups).

*BRI Comprehension, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students
in the fall, 27% of White students, 13% of Hispanic students, 17% of
Black/African-American students, 29% of Asian students and 6% of Native
American students were proficient in comprehension. By spring, 66% of
White students, 54% of Hispanic students, 54% of Black/African-American
students, 69% of Asian students and 56% of Native American students were
proficient in comprehension, an increase of 39%, 41%, 37%, 40%, and 50%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in comprehension between second grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 14% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 10% gap between White and Black students, a -2%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 21% gap between White and
Native American students (with the exception of Asian students, White
students scored higher than all the other racial groups). By spring, all
the groups made progress in increasing the percentage of students
proficient in comprehension and the achievement gap between White
students and all other student subgroups narrowed. The achievement gap
narrowed between White and Hispanic students to from 14% to 12%, widened
from 10% to 12% between White and Black students, widened from -2% to
-3% between White and Asian students, and narrowed from 21% to 10%
between White and Native American students (with the exception of Asian
students, White students scored higher than the other racial groups).

*BRI Comprehension, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in
the fall, 58% of White students, 31% of Hispanic students, 35% of
Black/African-American students, 33% of Asian students and 39% of Native
American students were proficient in comprehension. By spring, 82% of
White students, 62% of Hispanic students, 72% of Black/African-American
students, 63% of Asian students and 67% of Native American students were
proficient in comprehension, an increase of 24%, 31%, 37%, 30%, and 28%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in comprehension between third grade
students varied between racial groups. There was a 27% gap between White
and Hispanic students, a 23% gap between White and Black students, a 25%
gap between White and Asian students, and a 19% gap between White and
Native American students (with White students scoring higher than all
the other racial groups). By spring, all the groups made progress in
increasing the percentage of students proficient in comprehension and
the achievement gap between White students and all other student
subgroups narrowed. The achievement gap narrowed between White and
Hispanic students to from 27% to 20%, from 23% to 10% between White and
Black students, widened from 25% to 30% between White and Asian
students, and narrowed from 19% to 15% between White and Native American
students (with White students scoring higher than the other racial
groups).

***ITBS Comprehension NPR***

*ITBS Comprehension NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Comprehension
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 71% of White students, 55% of Hispanic students,
48% of Black/African-American students, 64% of Asian students and 60% of
Native American students were proficient in their comprehension skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Comprehension NPR between third grade
students varied between racial groups. Among third grade students, there
was a 16% gap between White and Hispanic students, a 23% gap between
White and Black students, a 7% gap between White and Asian students, and
an 11% gap between White and Native American students (with White
students scoring higher than all the other racial groups).

***ITBS Vocabulary NPR***

*ITBS Vocabulary NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Vocabulary scores
based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third
grade students, 72% of White students, 54% of Hispanic students, 46% of
Black/African-American students, 60% of Asian students and 60% of Native
American students were proficient in their vocabulary skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Vocabulary NPR between third grade students
varied between racial groups. Among third grade students, there was an
18% gap between White and Hispanic students, a 26% gap between White and
Black students, a 12% gap between White and Asian students, and a 12%
gap between White and Native American students (with White students
scoring higher than all the other racial groups).

***ITBS Reading Total NPR***

*ITBS Reading Total NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Reading Total
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 72% of White students, 54% of Hispanic, 47% of
Black/African-American students, 66% of Asian students and 68% of Native
American students were proficient in their reading skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Reading Total NPR between third grade
students varied between racial groups. Among third grade students, there
was an 18% gap between White and Hispanic students, a 25% gap between
White and Black students, a 6% gap between White and Asian students, and
4% gap between White and Native American students (with White students
scoring higher than all the other racial groups).

### Students Scoring at Grade Level: *with* and *without* Disabilities (See Table 21) {#students-scoring-at-grade-level-with-and-without-disabilities-see-table-21 .IRF-Subheading}

***PAT Rhyming***

*PAT Rhyming, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 67% of students *with* disabilities and 89% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in rhyming. By spring, 75% of students
*with* disabilities and 95% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in rhyming, an increase of 8% and 6% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in rhyming between first grade students
*with* and *without* disabilities was 22% (with students *without*
disabilities scoring higher than students *with* disabilities). Both
students *with* and *without* disabilities made progress in the spring,
and the achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to 20% (with
students *without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

***PAT Deletion***

*PAT Deletion, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 55% of students *with* disabilities and 83% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in deletion. By spring, 55% of students
*with* disabilities and 86% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in deletion, an increase of 0% and 3% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in deletion between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 28% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring, but the achievement gap widened to 31% (with
students *without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

***PAT Blending***

*PAT Blending, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 62% of students *with* disabilities and 87% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in blending. By spring, 72% of students
*with* disabilities and 96% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in blending, an increase of 10% and 9% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in blending between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 25% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups
narrowed to 24% (with students *without* disabilities scoring higher
than students *with* disabilities).

***PAT Segmentation***

*PAT Segmentation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 58% of students *with* disabilities and 85% of students
*without* disabilities were proficient in segmentation. By spring, 84%
of students *with* disabilities and 98% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in segmentation, an increase of 26% and 13%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in segmentation between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 27% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups
narrowed to 14% (with students *without* disabilities scoring higher
than students *with* disabilities).

***PAT Isolation***

*PAT Isolation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 45% of students *with* disabilities and 77% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in isolation. By spring, 73% of students
*with* disabilities and 96% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in isolation, an increase of 28% and 19% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in isolation between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 32% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups
narrowed to 23% (with students *without* disabilities scoring higher
than students *with* disabilities).

***PAT Substitution***

*PAT Substitution, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 43% of students *with* disabilities and 70% of students
*without* disabilities were proficient in substitution. By spring, 61%
of students *with* disabilities and 91% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in substitution, an increase of 18% and 21%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in substitution between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 27% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups
widened to 30% (with students *without* disabilities scoring higher than
students *with* disabilities).

***PAT Graphemes***

*PAT Graphemes, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 43% of students *with* disabilities and 74% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in graphemes. By spring, 71% of students
*with* disabilities and 97% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in graphemes, an increase of 28% and 23% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap between first grade students *with* and
*without* disabilities was 31% (with students *without* disabilities
scoring higher than students *with* disabilities). Both students *with*
and *without* disabilities made progress in the spring, and the
achievement gap between the two groups narrowed to 26% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

*PAT Graphemes, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 70%
of students *with* disabilities and 92% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in graphemes in the fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in graphemes between second grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 22% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

***PAT Decoding***

*PAT Decoding, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 38% of students *with* disabilities and 69% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in decoding. By spring, 60% of students
*with* disabilities and 92% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in decoding, an increase of 22% and a decrease of 23%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap between first grade students *with* and
*without* disabilities was 31% (with students *without* disabilities
scoring higher than students *with* disabilities). Both students *with*
and *without* disabilities made progress the spring, but the achievement
gap between the two groups widened to 32% (with students *without*
disabilities scoring higher than students *with* disabilities).

*PAT Decoding, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 62%
of students *with* disabilities and 89% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in decoding in the fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in decoding between second grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 27% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

***BRI Fluency***

*BRI Fluency, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students, 32% of
students *with* disabilities and 61% of students *without* disabilities
were proficient in fluency in the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in fluency between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 29% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

*BRI Fluency, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students in the
fall, 22% of students *with* disabilities and 54% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in fluency. By spring, 26% of students
*with* disabilities and 66% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in fluency, an increase of 4% and 12% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between second grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 32% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring, but the achievement gap between the two groups
widened to 40% (with students *without* disabilities scoring higher than
students *with* disabilities).

*BRI Fluency, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in the
fall, 23% of students *with* disabilities and 55% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in fluency. By spring, 24% of students
*with* disabilities and 62% of students *without* disabilities were
proficient in fluency, an increase of 1% and 7% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between third grade students
*with* and *without* disabilities was 32% (with students *without*
disabilities scoring higher than students *with* disabilities). Both
students *with* and *without* disabilities made progress in the spring,
but the achievement gap between the two groups widened to 38% (with
students *without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

***BRI Comprehension***

*BRI Comprehension, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students,
30% of students *with* disabilities and 65% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in comprehension in the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in comprehension between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 35% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

*BRI Comprehension, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students
in the fall, 8% of students *with* disabilities and 24% of students
*without* disabilities were proficient in comprehension. By spring, 32%
of students *with* disabilities and 66% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in comprehension, an increase of 24% and
42% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in comprehension between second grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 16% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring, but the achievement gap between the two groups
widened to 34% (with students *without* disabilities scoring higher than
students *with* disabilities).

*BRI Comprehension, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in
the fall, 22% of students *with* disabilities and 54% of students
*without* disabilities were proficient in comprehension. By spring, 45%
of students *with* disabilities and 82% of students *without*
disabilities were proficient in comprehension, an increase of 23% and
28% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in comprehension between first grade
students *with* and *without* disabilities was 32% (with students
*without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities). Both students *with* and *without* disabilities made
progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between the two groups
widened to 37% (with students *without* disabilities scoring higher than
students *with* disabilities).

***ITBS Comprehension NPR***

*ITBS Comprehension NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Comprehension
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 28% of students *with* disabilities and 72% of
students *without* disabilities were proficient in their comprehension
skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Comprehension NPR between third grade
students *with* disabilities and students *without* disabilities was 44%
(with students *without* disabilities scoring higher than students
*with* disabilities).

***ITBS Vocabulary NPR***

*ITBS Vocabulary NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Vocabulary scores
based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third
grade students, 34% of students *with* disabilities and 71% of students
*without* disabilities were proficient in their vocabulary skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Vocabulary NPR between third grade students
*with* disabilities and students *without* disabilities was 37% (with
students *without* disabilities scoring higher than students *with*
disabilities).

***ITBS Reading Total NPR***

*ITBS Reading Total NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Reading Total
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 30% of students *with* disabilities and 73% of
students *without* disabilities were proficient.

The achievement gap in ITBS Reading Total NPR between third grade
students *with* disabilities and students *without* disabilities was 43%
(with students *without* disabilities scoring higher than students
*with* disabilities).

### Students Scoring at Grade Level: with and without Limited English Proficiency (see Table 22) {#students-scoring-at-grade-level-with-and-without-limited-english-proficiency-see-table-22 .IRF-Subheading}

***PAT Rhyming***

*PAT Rhyming, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 72% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 90% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
rhyming. By spring, 86% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 94% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in rhyming, an increase of 14% and 4% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in rhyming between first grade students
*with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited English
proficiency was 18%. Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups narrowed to 8% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***PAT Deletion***

*PAT Deletion, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 66% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 84% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
deletion. By spring, 78% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 84% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in deletion, an increase of 12% and no change respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in deletion between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 18%. Both students *with* and *without* limited
English proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap
between the two groups narrowed to 6% (with students *without* limited
English proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***PAT Blending***

*PAT Blending, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 77% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 87% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
blending. By spring, 89% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 94% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in blending, an increase of 12% and 7% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in blending between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 10%. Both students *with* and *without* limited
English proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap
between the two groups narrowed to 5% (with students *without* limited
English proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***PAT Segmentation***

*PAT Segmentation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 72% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 85% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
segmentation. By spring, 95% of students *with* limited English
proficiency and 97% of students *without* limited English proficiency
were proficient in segmentation, an increase of 23% and 12%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in segmentation between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 13%. Both students *with* and *without* limited
English proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap
between the two groups narrowed to 2% (with students *without* limited
English proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***PAT Isolation***

*PAT Isolation, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 66% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 76% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
isolation. By spring, 95% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 94% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in isolation, an increase of 29% and 18% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in isolation between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 10% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency). Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups narrowed to -1% (with students *with* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *without* limited English
proficiency).

***PAT Substitution***

*PAT Substitution, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in
the fall, 58% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 70% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
substitution. By spring, 87% of students *with* limited English
proficiency and 88% of students *without* limited English proficiency
were proficient in substitution, an increase of 29% and 18%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in substitution between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 12%. Both students *with* and *without* limited
English proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap
between the two groups narrowed to 1% (with students *without* limited
English proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***PAT Graphemes***

*PAT Graphemes, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 63% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 73% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
graphemes. By spring, 94% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 94% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in graphemes, an increase of 31% and 21% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in graphemes between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 10% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency). Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups narrowed to 0%. In spring, the students *with* limited
English proficiency and students *without* limited English proficiency
had similar scores.

*PAT Graphemes, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 86%
of students *with* limited English proficiency and 90% of students
*without* limited English proficiency were proficient in graphemes in
the fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in graphemes between second grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 4% (with students *with* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *without* limited English
proficiency).

***PAT Decoding***

*PAT Decoding, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students in the
fall, 56% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 69% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
decoding. By spring, 89% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 89% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in decoding, an increase of 20% and 33% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in decoding between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 13% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency). Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups narrowed to 0% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

*PAT Decoding, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students, 81%
of students *with* limited English proficiency and 87% of students
*without* limited English proficiency were proficient in decoding in the
fall.

In the fall, the achievement gap in decoding between second grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 6% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***BRI Fluency***

*BRI Fluency, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students, 52% of
students *with* limited English proficiency and 59% of students
*without* limited English proficiency were proficient in fluency in the
spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in fluency between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 7% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

*BRI Fluency, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students in the
fall, 42% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 52% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
fluency. By spring, 53% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 63% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in fluency, an increase of 11% and 11% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between second grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 10%. Both students *with* and *without* limited
English proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap
between the two groups remained constant at 10% (with students *without*
limited English proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited
English proficiency).

*BRI Fluency, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in the
fall, 42% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 52% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
fluency. By spring, 52% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 56% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in fluency, an increase of 10% and 4% respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in fluency between third grade students
*with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited English
proficiency was 10%. Both students *with* and *without* limited English
proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap between
the two groups narrowed to 4% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***BRI Comprehension***

*BRI Comprehension, First Grade Students.* Among first grade students,
49% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 65% of students
*without* limited English proficiency were proficient in comprehension
in the spring.

In the spring, the achievement gap in comprehension between first grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 16% (with students *without* limited English
proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

*BRI Comprehension, Second Grade Students.* Among second grade students
in the fall, 15% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 24%
of students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
comprehension. By spring, 53% of students *with* limited English
proficiency and 64% of students *without* limited English proficiency
were proficient in comprehension, an increase of 38% and 40%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in comprehension between second grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 9%. Both students *with* and *without* limited
English proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap
between the two groups widened to 11% (with students *without* limited
English proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

*BRI Comprehension, Third Grade Students.* Among third grade students in
the fall, 26% of students *with* limited English proficiency and 54% of
students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
comprehension. By spring, 57% of students *with* limited English
proficiency and 80% of students *without* limited English proficiency
were proficient in comprehension, an increase of 31% and 26%
respectively.

In the fall, the achievement gap in comprehension between third grade
students *with* limited English proficiency and those *without* limited
English proficiency was 28%. Both students *with* and *without* limited
English proficiency made progress in the spring, and the achievement gap
between the two groups narrowed to 23% (with students *without* limited
English proficiency scoring higher than students *with* limited English
proficiency).

***ITBS Comprehension NPR***

*ITBS Comprehension NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Comprehension
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 53% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 67% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in their comprehension skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Comprehension NPR between third grade
students *with* and *without* limited English proficiency was 14% (with
students *without* limited English proficiency scoring higher than
students *with* limited English proficiency).

***ITBS Vocabulary NPR***

*ITBS Vocabulary NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Vocabulary scores
based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among third
grade students, 51% of students *with* limited English proficiency and
68% of students *without* limited English proficiency were proficient in
their vocabulary skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Vocabulary NPR between third grade students
*with* and *without* limited English proficiency was 17% (with students
*without* limited English proficiency scoring higher than students
*with* limited English proficiency).

***ITBS Reading Total NPR***

*ITBS Reading Total NPR, Third Grade Students.* ITBS Reading Total
scores based upon national percentile ranks (NPR) indicate that among
third grade students, 52% of students *with* limited English proficiency
and 69% of students *without* limited English proficiency were
proficient in their reading skills.

The achievement gap in ITBS Reading Total NPR between third grade
students *with* and *without* limited English proficiency was 17% (with
students *without* limited English proficiency scoring higher than
students *with* limited English proficiency).

### Special Education Data by Grade: 2003 Start-Year Schools (see Table 23) {#special-education-data-by-grade-2003-start-year-schools-see-table-23 .IRF-Subheading}

Data was collected to assess the number of students receiving Special
Education services, the number of students referred to pre-referral
services, and the number of pre-referrals that resulted in an IEP for
students.

***Percentage of students currently receiving special education
services.*** The percentage of students receiving special education
services decreased for first grade students by 1% (10% received services
in Spring 2007 compared to 11% that received services in Spring 2006);
decreased for second grade students by 3% (12% received services in
Spring 2007 compared to 15% that received services in Spring 2006); and
increased for third grade students by 2% (17% received services in
Spring 2007 compared to 15% that received services in Spring 2006).

***Percentage of students referred for pre-referral services.***
Overall, the percentage of students referred for pre-referral services
increased between the Spring 2006 and Spring 2007. The percentage
increased by 2% for first grade students (6% were referred for
pre-referral services in Spring 2007 compared to 4% that were referred
in Spring 2006); decreased by 1% for second grade students (5% were
referred for pre-referral services in Spring 2007 compared to 6% that
were referred in Spring 2006); and increased by 2% for third grade
students (6% were referred for pre-referral services in Spring 2007
compared to 4% that were referred in Spring 2006).

***Percentage of students placed in special education services.*** The
percentage of students that had an IEP initiated and placed remained
constant for first grade students (1% were placed in special education
services in Spring 2007 compared to 1% placed in Spring 2006) and second
grade students (2% were placed in special education services in Spring
2007 compared to 2% placed in Spring 2006); and increased for third
grade students by 1% (2% were placed in special education services in
Spring 2007 compared to 1% placed in Spring 2006).

### 

### 

### Tables

Tables 12-16 indicate the number ("N"), total, and percentage of
students scoring at or above proficiency in Fall, 2006 and Spring, 2007.
Tables 13-16 also indicate the achievement gap between the comparison
groups (e.g., male/female students, students *with/without* an economic
disadvantage) in Fall, 2006 and Spring, 2007, the change in the
achievement gap (between fall and spring) and the direction of the
change (e.g, narrowed, widened, no change).

**Table 12**. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: All
Students (2006 Start-Year Schools)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image9.wmf){width="5.4430555555555555in"
  height="4.142361111111111in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Disaggregation of Students by Demographics*: ***Tables 13-16 report
the number of students who were proficient for each "risk" category and
racial/ethnic group in the fall of 2006 and in the spring of 2007.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 13. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: *with*
  and *without* an Economic Disadvantage (2006 Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image10.wmf){width="9.095138888888888in"
  height="3.5194444444444444in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 14a. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: Major
  Racial/Ethnic Groups (White Students and American Indian/Alaskan Native
  Students; 2006 Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image11.wmf){width="9.091666666666667in" height="4.0in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 14b. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: Major
  Racial/Ethnic Groups (White Students and Asian Students; 2006
  Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image12.wmf){width="9.091666666666667in" height="4.0in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 14c. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: Major
  Racial/Ethnic Groups (White Students and African American/Black
  Students; 2006 Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image13.wmf){width="9.091666666666667in" height="4.0in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 14d. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: Major
  Racial/Ethnic Groups (White Students and Hispanic/Latino Students; 2006
  Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image14.wmf){width="9.092361111111112in"
  height="3.990972222222222in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 15. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: *with*
  and *without* Disabilities (2006 Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image15.wmf){width="9.088194444444444in"
  height="3.576388888888889in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 16. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: *with*
  and *without* Limited English Proficiency (2006 Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image16.wmf){width="9.084722222222222in"
  height="4.017361111111111in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 17. Special Education Data (2005-2006; 2006 Start-Year
  Schools)**

  ![](media/image17.wmf){width="9.093055555555555in"
  height="3.198611111111111in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tables 18-22 indicate the number ("N"), total, and percentage of
students scoring at or above proficiency in Fall, 2006 and Spring, 2007.
Tables 19-22 also indicate the achievement gap between the comparison
groups (e.g., male/female students, students *with/without* an economic
disadvantage) in Fall, 2006 and Spring, 2007, the change in the
achievement gap (between fall and spring) and the direction of the
change (e.g, narrowed, widened, no change).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 18. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading (All
  Students; 2003 Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image18.wmf){width="5.972916666666666in"
  height="4.340277777777778in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Disaggregation of Students by Demographics*: ***Tables 19-22 report
the number of students who were proficient for each "risk" category and
racial/ethnic group in the fall of 2006 and in the spring of 2007.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 19. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: *with*
  and *without* an Economic Disadvantage (2003 Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image19.wmf){width="9.097222222222221in"
  height="3.707638888888889in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 20a. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: Major
  Racial/Ethnic Groups (White and American Indian/Alaskan Native
  Students; 2003 Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image20.wmf){width="9.086805555555555in" height="3.78125in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Table 20b. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading:   |
| > Major Racial/Ethnic Groups (White and Asian Students; 2003          |
| > Start-Year Schools)**                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image21.wmf){width="9.089583333333334in"                    |
| height="3.8027777777777776in"}                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 20c. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: Major
  Racial/Ethnic Groups (White and African-American/Black Students; 2003
  Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image22.wmf){width="9.089583333333334in"
  height="3.8027777777777776in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 20d. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: Major
  Racial/Ethnic Groups (White and Hispanic/Latino Students; 2003
  Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image23.wmf){width="9.0875in" height="3.7645833333333334in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 21. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: *with*
  and *without* Disabilities (2003 Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image24.wmf){width="9.088888888888889in"
  height="3.563888888888889in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 22. Number/Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading: *with*
  and *without* Limited English Proficiency (2003 Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image25.wmf){width="9.093055555555555in"
  height="3.6902777777777778in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 23. Special Education Data (2003 Start-Year Schools)**

  ![](media/image26.wmf){width="9.093055555555555in"
  height="3.0930555555555554in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

### References

Hoover, H., Dunbar, S., Frisbie, D., Oberley, K., Bray, R., Naylor, J.,
Lewis, J., Ordman, V., & Qualls, A.L., (2003). *The Iowa Tests:
Interpretive Guide for School Administrators.* Riverside, CA: Riverside
Publishing.

Johns, J. (2001). *Basic Reading Inventory: Pre-primer through grade
twelve and early literacy assessments*. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company.

Robertson, C. & Salter, W. (1997). *The Phonological Awareness Test.*
East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems, Inc.