Testing Brief. Trend Results for Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments A. R. Douglas, Ph.D. Department of Shared Accountability.

Transcription

1 Testing Brief December 2006 Department of Shared Accountability Trend Results for Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments A. R. Douglas, Ph.D. Background The Montgomery County Public Schools Assessment Program for Primary Reading (MCPSAP PR) is a locally developed assessment that provides information about students reading development, including reading accuracy, oral reading fluency, and comprehension. The MCPSAP PR consists of two components foundational reading skill areas and reading proficiency skill areas. Proficiency standards in kindergarten, first, and second grades are used as grade-appropriate benchmarks for literacy skills. For kindergarten, the spring text reading and comprehension benchmark is for students to read a level 3 text with 90 or higher accuracy and demonstrate comprehension on a retelling measure. Grade 1 students must read a level 16 text or higher with 90 or higher accuracy and achieve a score of 4 or higher on oral comprehension. The Grade 2 spring benchmark is to read a level M text with 90 or higher accuracy, achieve a score of 4 or higher on oral comprehension, and a score of 2 or higher for both written comprehension questions. Changes in to the written comprehension questions and their scoring necessitate a new baseline for second grade. Methodology The results reported are the percentages of students meeting the spring text reading and comprehension benchmark for kindergarten, first, and second grades. The results are reported for the district overall and disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, Free and Reduced-price Meals System (FARMS), special education, and English language learner (ELL) services. Students in Reading First schools take Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) subtests only, which are not included as text reading and comprehension benchmark criteria. These students are not included in this evaluation. Results Students continue to show gains in achievement in kindergarten and first grade (Figure 1). Figure 1. Percentage of students meeting text reading and comprehension benchmarks from 2002 to 2006 by grade. Results for Kindergarten For the district overall, 88 of kindergarten students achieved the benchmark in , revealing a 7 percentage-point gain from and four years of continuous improvement (Figure 1). Percent of Students Percent of Students Kindergarten Grade District Overall Hispanic White Figure 2. Percentage of kindergarten students achieving benchmark by race/ethnicity, spring Grade Office of Information and Organizational Systems 1 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments

2 Figure 2 shows the closing of the achievement gap for race/ethnicity. The widest gap is now 5 percentage points. Overall, 86 of students achieved the kindergarten spring benchmark, compared with 90 of, 85 of Hispanic, and 90 of White students. These reflect increases of 34 percentage points since for, 19 percentage points for, 43 percentage points for Hispanic, and 23 percentage points for White students (Appendix Figure A1). By service provision, 84 of kindergarteners who received FARMS services achieved the benchmark, representing a 40 percentage-point increase from (Appendix Figure A2). By the end of the school year, 77 of students who received special education services achieved the benchmark, representing a 32 percentage-point increase since Furthermore, 84 of students receiving ELL services achieved the benchmark, resulting in a 56 percentage-point increase since Table 1 in the Appendix includes results for kindergarten. Results for First Grade At first grade, 77 of students met the spring benchmark for text reading and comprehension (Figure 3). In student performance by race/ethnicity, there were large increases from These include a 20 percentage-point increase for students, a 14 percentage-point increase for students, a 22 percentage-point increase for Hispanic students, and a 17 percentagepoint increase for White students (Appendix Figure A3). Figure 3 also shows the performance by race/ethnicity in first grade. Percent of Students Figure District Overall Hispanic 87 White Percentage of first grade students achieving benchmark by race/ethnicity, spring In student performance by service provision, students who received FARMS services showed a small drop of 3 percentage points compared with , but a 19 percentage-point increase from (Appendix Figure A4). Students who received special education services showed a 5 percentage-point increase since , and a 9 percentage-point increase since Fifty-two percent of students who received ELL services achieved the benchmark, representing a slight decline since the academic year but an 18 percentage-point increase since Table 2 in the Appendix includes results for first grade. Results for Second Grade For the district overall, 55 of second grade students achieved the spring text reading and comprehension benchmark by the end of the academic year (Figure 4). Disaggregated, 45 of students achieved the benchmark, compared with 64 of students, 40 of Hispanic students, and 65 of White students. Percent of Students District Overall Hispanic 65 White Figure 4. Percentage of second grade students achieving benchmark by race/ethnicity, spring Overall, 53 of male students and 58 of female students achieved benchmark during For students who received services for FARMS, 37 achieved the spring benchmark. For students who received special education and ELL services, 29 and 23, respectively, achieved the benchmark. Table 3 in the Appendix includes results for second grade. Conclusion Achievement Gap The apparent closing of the achievement gap is encouraging and demonstrates that it is possible. The kindergarten results may serve as a precursor to the continued closing of the gap in Grades 1 and 2. The gap in Grades 1 and 2, as opposed to kindergarten, may be partially explained by higher achieving student groups benefiting from further learning at Office of Information and Organizational Systems 2 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments

3 increasing exponential rates over time, compared with their lower achieving counterparts (DiPerna, Volpe, and Elliott, 2005). Achievement gains for high achieving students are likely to occur with socioeconomic experiences and self-regulation skills that foster continued academic progress. Such experiences and skills may be uncommon for their lower achieving counterparts, coupled with the issue of lower achieving students being at risk for negative daily stressors, negative peer pressure, and demonstrating behaviors that serve as barriers for academic progress (Taylor, 2005; Eamon, 2005; Fleming, Haggerty, Catalano, Harachi, Mazza, and Gruman, 2005; and DeGarmo and Martinez, 2006). Such contextual factors need to be explored when planning strategies to eliminate achievement gaps (Rothstein, 2004; Casanova, Garcia-Linares, de la Torre, and Carpio, 2005; Mandara, 2006; and Bernard, 2006). Implication for Future Administration Figures A1 and A2 clearly indicate that the majority of students for all student groups achieved the spring kindergarten text reading and comprehension benchmark. Hence, for future administrations, it would be reasonable to increase the spring text reading level from 3 to a higher level, raising the bar for kindergarten students. Additionally, there is need for yearly, documented validation study of assessment results for all grade levels. Such research also should investigate the reliability for scoring tasks, as well as incorporate range-finding sessions to facilitate consistent scoring among all teachers. When changes to assessment components are made, such study is required in order to ascertain the impact of modifications. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Mrs. Ann Bedford, Dr. Faith Connolly, Mrs. Sophie Kowzun, Mr. Carlos Martinez, Jr., Dr. Shahpar Modaressi, Dr. Carol J. Schatz, Dr. Clare Von Secker, and Dr. Huafang Zhao for their suggestions for this brief. References Bernard, M. E. (2006). It s Time We Teach Socio- Emotional Competence as Well as We Teach Academic Competence. Reading & Writing Quarterly. Vol. 22, No. 2, p Casanova, P. F.; Garcia-Linares, M. C.; de la Torre, M. J.; and Carpio, M. de la Villa. (2005). Influence of Family and Socio- Demographic Variables on Students with Low Academic Achievement. Educational Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 4, p DeGarmo, D. S. and Martinez, C. R., Jr. (2006). A Culturally Informed Model of Academic Well-Being for Latino Youth: The Importance of Discriminatory Experiences and Social Support. Family Relations, Vol. 55, No. 3, p DiPerna, J. C.; Volpe, R. J.; and Elliott, S. N. (2005). A Model of Academic Enablers and Mathematics Achievement in the Elementary Grades. Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 43, No. 5, p Eamon, M. K. (2005). Socio-Demographic, School, Neighborhood, and Parenting Influences on the Academic Achievement of Latino Young Adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 34, No. 2, p Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P.; Catalano, R. F.; Harachi, T. W., Mazza, J. J., and Gruman, D. H. (2005). Do Social and Behavioral Characteristics Targeted by Preventive Interventions Predict Standardized Test Scores and Grades? Journal of School Health, Vol. 75, No. 9, p Mandara, J. (2006). The Impact of Family Functioning on Males Academic Achievement: A Review and Clarification of the Empirical Literature. Teachers College Record. Vol. 108, No. 2, p Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, Taylor, D. L. (2005). Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close The Black-White Achievement Gap. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, Vol. 16, No. 4, p Office of Information and Organizational Systems 3 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments

4 Appendix Kindergarten Results Percent of Students District Overall Hispanic White Figure A1. Percentages of kindergarten students who achieved the grade-level benchmark for the district overall and by race/ethnicity for school years to Results are not reported separately for Indian students. Percent of Students District Overall Male FARMS Special Ed ELL Figure A2. Percentages of kindergarten students who achieved the grade-level benchmark for the district overall, by male and female, FARMS, special education, and ELL status for school years to Office of Information and Organizational Systems 4 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments

5 Grade 1 Results Percent of Students District Overall Hispanic White Figure A3. Percentages of first grade students who achieved the grade-level benchmark for the district overall and by race/ethnicity for school years to Results are not reported separately for Indian students. 100 Percent of Students District Overall Male FARMS Special Ed ELL Figure A4. Percentages of first grade students who achieved the grade-level benchmark for the district overall, by male and female, FARMS, special education, and ELL status for school years to Office of Information and Organizational Systems Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments

6 Table 1 Numbers and Percentages of Kindergarten Students Who Achieved the Grade-level Benchmark by Student Reporting Groups During the School Year Student Total Number of Students Met Benchmark Not Met Benchmark Reporting Group N N N District 8,317 7, Male 4,159 3, ,158 3, ,846 1, Male ,296 1, Male Hispanic 1,686 1, Male White 3,467 3, Male 1,747 1, ,720 1, FARMS 2,252 1, Special Ed ELL 2,095 1, Note: Results are not reported separately for Indian students. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding error. Office of Information and Organizational Systems 667 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments

7 Table 2 Numbers and Percentages of First Grade Students Who Achieved the Grade-level Benchmark by Student Reporting Groups During the School Year Student Total Number of Students Met Benchmark Not Met Benchmark Reporting Group N N N District 9,356 7, , Male 4,791 3, , ,565 3, ,129 1, Male 1, , ,463 1, Male Hispanic 1,875 1, Male White 3,846 3, Male 1,996 1, ,850 1, FARMS 2,529 1, , Special Ed ELL 1, Note: Results are not reported separately for Indian students. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding error. Office of Information and Organizational Systems 77 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments

8 Table 3 Numbers and Percentages of Second Grade Students Who Achieved the Grade-level Benchmark by Student Reporting Groups During the School Year Student Total Number of Students Met Benchmark Not Met Benchmark Reporting Group N N N District 9,424 5, , Male 4,891 2, , ,533 2, , , , Male 1, , , Male Hispanic 1, , Male White 3,978 2, , Male 2,136 1, ,842 1, FARMS 2, , Special Ed 1, ELL 1, Note: Results are not reported separately for Indian students. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding error. Office of Information and Organizational Systems 8 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments

9 Office of Information and Organization Systems 9 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4A Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , Kindergarten Male Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL School N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met Ashburton n/r n/r Bannockburn n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Barnsley, Lucy V Beall Bel Pre Bells Mill n/r n/r Belmont n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Bethesda n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Beverly Farms n/r n/r Bradley Hills n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Broad Acres n/r n/r Brooke Grove Brookhaven n/r n/r Brown Station n/r n/r Burning Tree n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Burnt Mills n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Burtonsville n/r n/r n/r n/r Candlewood Cannon Road Carderock Springs n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Carson, Rachel Cashell n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Cedar Grove n/r n/r n/r n/r Clarksburg Clearspring n/r n/r

10 Office of Information and Organization Systems 10 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4A Continued Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , Kindergarten Male Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL School N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met Clopper Mill Cloverly Cold Spring n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r College Gardens n/r n/r n/r n/r Cresthaven Daly, Capt. James E Damascus n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Darnestown n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Diamond n/r n/r Drew, Dr. Charles R n/r n/r n/r n/r DuFief n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r East Silver Spring Fairland n/r n/r Fallsmead n/r n/r n/r n/r Farmland n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Fields Road n/r n/r Flower Hill Flower Valley n/r n/r n/r n/r Forest Knolls n/r n/r Fox Chapel n/r n/r Gaithersburg n/r n/r Galway n/r n/r Garrett Park n/r n/r Georgian Forest n/r n/r Germantown

11 Office of Information and Organization Systems 11 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4A Continued Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , Kindergarten Male Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL School N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met Glen Haven Glenallan n/r n/r n/r n/r Goshen Greencastle n/r n/r Greenwood n/r n/r n/r n/r Harmony Hills Highland View Jackson Road n/r n/r Jones Lane Kemp Mill Kensington Parkwood n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Lake Seneca n/r n/r n/r n/r Lakewood n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Laytonsville Luxmanor n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Marshall, Thurgood n/r n/r Maryvale n/r n/r Matsunaga, Spark M McAuliffe, S. Christa McNair, Ronald Meadow Hall Mill Creek Towne Monocacy n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Montgomery Knolls n/r n/r

12 Office of Information and Organization Systems 12 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4A Continued Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , Kindergarten Male N Met N Met N Met Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met School New Hampshire Estates Oakland Terrace Olney Page, William Tyler n/r n/r n/r n/r Poolesville n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Potomac n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Resnik, Judith A Ride, Dr. Sally K Ritchie Park Rock Creek Forest n/r n/r Rock Creek Valley n/r n/r n/r n/r Rock View Rockwell, Lois P Rolling Terrace Rosemary Hills Sandburg, Carl n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Sequoyah Seven Locks n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Sherwood Sligo Creek n/r n/r Somerset n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r South Lake Stedwick Stone Mill n/r n/r

13 Office of Information and Organization Systems 13 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4A Continued Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , Kindergarten Male Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL School N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met Stonegate n/r n/r Strawberry Knoll Takoma Park n/r n/r Travilah n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Twinbrook Viers Mill Washington Grove Waters Landing Watkins Mill Wayside n/r n/r n/r n/r Weller Road Westbrook n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Westover n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Wheaton Woods n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Whetstone Wood Acres n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Woodfield n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Woodlin n/r n/r Wyngate n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

14 Office of Information and Organization Systems 14 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4B Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , First Grade Male Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL School N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met Ashburton Bannockburn n/r n/r n/r n/r Barnsley, Lucy V n/r n/r Beall Bel Pre Bells Mill n/r n/r Belmont n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Bethesda n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Beverly Farms n/r n/r Bradley Hills n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Broad Acres n/r n/r Brooke Grove Brookhaven n/r n/r n/r n/r Brown Station Burning Tree n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Burnt Mills n/r n/r n/r n/r Burtonsville Candlewood Cannon Road Carderock Springs n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Carson, Rachel Cashell n/r n/r n/r n/r Cedar Grove Clarksburg Clearspring n/r n/r

15 Office of Information and Organization Systems 15 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4B Continued Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , First Grade Male Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL School N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met Clopper Mill Cloverly Cold Spring n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r College Gardens n/r n/r Cresthaven Daly, Capt. James E n/r n/r Damascus n/r n/r n/r n/r Darnestown n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Diamond Drew, Dr. Charles R DuFief n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r East Silver Spring Fairland Fallsmead Farmland n/r n/r n/r n/r Fields Road Flower Hill Flower Valley n/r n/r Forest Knolls Fox Chapel Gaithersburg n/r n/r n/r n/r Galway Garrett Park n/r n/r Georgian Forest Germantown

16 Office of Information and Organization Systems 16 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4B Continued Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , First Grade Male Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL School N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met Glen Haven Glenallan n/r n/r n/r n/r Goshen Greencastle Greenwood n/r n/r Harmony Hills Highland n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Highland View n/r n/r n/r n/r Jackson Road n/r n/r Jones Lane Kemp Mill Kensington Parkwood Lake Seneca n/r n/r Lakewood n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Laytonsville n/r n/r n/r n/r Luxmanor n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Marshall, Thurgood Maryvale n/r n/r Matsunaga, Spark M McAuliffe, S. Christa McNair, Ronald Meadow Hall Mill Creek Towne Monocacy n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Montgomery Knolls

17 Office of Information and Organization Systems 17 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4B Continued Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , First Grade Male N Met N Met N Met Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met School New Hampshire Estates Oakland Terrace Olney n/r n/r n/r n/r Page, William Tyler n/r n/r Poolesville n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Potomac n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Resnik, Judith A Ride, Dr. Sally K Ritchie Park Rock Creek Forest n/r n/r Rock Creek Valley Rock View Rockwell, Lois P n/r n/r Rolling Terrace n/r n/r Rosemary Hills Rosemont n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Sandburg, Carl n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Sequoyah Seven Locks n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Sherwood n/r n/r Sligo Creek n/r n/r n/r n/r Somerset n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r South Lake Stedwick Stone Mill n/r n/r

18 Office of Information and Organization Systems 18 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4B Continued Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , First Grade Male Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL School N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met Stonegate n/r n/r Strawberry Knoll Summit Hall n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Takoma Park Travilah n/r n/r Twinbrook Viers Mill Washington Grove Waters Landing Watkins Mill Wayside n/r n/r n/r n/r Weller Road Westbrook n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Westover n/r n/r Wheaton Woods n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Whetstone Wood Acres n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Woodfield n/r n/r Woodlin Wyngate n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

19 Office of Information and Organization Systems 19 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4C Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , Second Grade Male Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL School N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met Ashburton Bannockburn n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Barnsley, Lucy V n/r n/r Beall Bel Pre Bells Mill n/r n/r Belmont n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Bethesda n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Beverly Farms n/r n/r Bradley Hills n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Broad Acres n/r n/r n/r n/r Brooke Grove Brookhaven n/r n/r Brown Station n/r n/r Burning Tree n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Burnt Mills n/r n/r n/r n/r Burtonsville n/r n/r Candlewood n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Cannon Road Carderock Springs n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Carson, Rachel Cashell n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Cedar Grove n/r n/r Clarksburg Clearspring

20 Office of Information and Organization Systems 20 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4C Continued Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , Second Grade Male Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL School N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met Clopper Mill Cloverly Cold Spring n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r College Gardens Cresthaven Daly, Capt. James E Damascus n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Darnestown n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Diamond Drew, Dr. Charles R DuFief n/r n/r n/r n/r East Silver Spring n/r n/r Fairland Fallsmead Farmland n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Fields Road n/r n/r Flower Hill Flower Valley Forest Knolls Fox Chapel Gaithersburg n/r n/r Galway Garrett Park Georgian Forest n/r n/r Germantown n/r n/r

21 Office of Information and Organization Systems 21 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4C Continued Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , Second Grade Male Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL School N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met Glen Haven Glenallan Goshen Greencastle n/r n/r Greenwood n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Harmony Hills Highland n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Highland View n/r n/r Jackson Road n/r n/r Jones Lane Kemp Mill Kensington Parkwood n/r n/r n/r n/r Lake Seneca n/r n/r Lakewood n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Laytonsville n/r n/r n/r n/r Luxmanor n/r n/r Marshall, Thurgood n/r n/r n/r n/r Maryvale Matsunaga, Spark M McAuliffe, S. Christa McNair, Ronald Meadow Hall Mill Creek Towne Monocacy n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Montgomery Knolls

22 Office of Information and Organization Systems 22 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4C Continued Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , Second Grade Male N Met N Met N Met Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met School New Hampshire Estates Oakland Terrace Olney n/r n/r Page, William Tyler n/r n/r Poolesville n/r n/r n/r n/r Potomac n/r n/r Resnik, Judith A n/r n/r Ride, Dr. Sally K Ritchie Park Rock Creek Forest Rock Creek Valley n/r n/r Rock View Rockwell, Lois P Rolling Terrace Rosemary Hills Rosemont n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Sandburg, Carl n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Sequoyah Seven Locks n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Sherwood Sligo Creek n/r n/r Somerset n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r South Lake Stedwick Stone Mill n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

23 Office of Information and Organization Systems 23 Spring Reading Benchmark Assessments Table 4C Continued Number of Students Assessed and Percent Who Met Benchmark by School in , Second Grade Male Hispanic White FARMS Special Ed ELL School N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met N Met Stonegate n/r n/r Strawberry Knoll Summit Hall n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Takoma Park Travilah n/r n/r n/r n/r Twinbrook Viers Mill Washington Grove n/r n/r Waters Landing Watkins Mill n/r n/r Wayside n/r n/r n/r n/r Weller Road Westbrook n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Westover n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Wheaton Woods n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Whetstone Wood Acres n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Woodfield n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r Woodlin Wyngate n/r n/r