ࡱ>  y{ vwx~stkl~A3 bjbjdd iu*z5 lt t t t :::;XXX;cFf"DOBPTP, ɚ:PR=DOPPb\t b ʁb\b\b\PP :b\Pb\4b\bzV.p :ع dL(;yXQV.L30c(ۛ0T2ۛb\;;t t National Assessment of Title I Interim Report Executive Summary Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance NCEE 2006-4000 U.S. Department of Education February 2006 U. S. Department of Education Margaret Spellings Secretary Institute of Education Sciences Grover J. Whitehurst Director National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance Phoebe Cottingham Commissioner February 2006 This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: National Assessment of Title I Interim Report: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 2006. To order copies of this report, Write to ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Call in your request toll free to 1-877-4ED-Pubs. If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 800-872-5327 (800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 800-437-0833. Fax your request to 301-470-1244. Order online at  HYPERLINK "http://www.edpubs.org" www.edpubs.org. This report also is available on the Departments Web site at  HYPERLINK "http://www.ed.gov/ies" http://www.ed.gov/ies. Upon request, this report is available in alternate formats such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at 202-260-9895 or 202-205-8113. Preface This is one of three documents constituting the mandated Interim Report on the National Assessment of Title I. This Executive Summary describes the studies that comprise the National Assessment of Title I and provides executive summaries of the findings of Volumes I and II. Volume I, Implementation of Title I, was prepared by the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Volume II, Closing the Reading Gap: First Year Findings from a Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers, was prepared by the Corporation for the Advancement of Policy Evaluation. Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Executive Summary of Volume I: Implementation of Title I 9 III. Executive Summary of Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap 27 Appendix A. Independent Review Panel Members 46 Introduction The Title I program began in 1965 as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and is intended to help ensure that all children have the opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach proficiency on challenging state standards and assessments. As the largest federal program supporting elementary and secondary education (funded at $12.7 billion in FY2006), Title I, Part A targets these resources primarily to high-poverty districts and schools, where the needs are greatest. TitleI provides flexible funding that may be used to provide additional instructional staff, professional development, extended-time programs, and other strategies for raising student achievement. The program focuses on promoting schoolwide reform in high-poverty schools and ensuring students access to scientifically based instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Title I holds states, school districts, and schools accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students and turning around low-performing schools, while providing alternatives to students in such schools to enable them to receive a high-quality education. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which first went into effect beginning with the 2002-03 school year, reauthorized the Title I program and made a number of significant changes. NCLB strengthened the accountability provisions of the law, requiring that states establish assessments in each grade from 3-8 and once in grades 10-12, and set annual targets for school and district performance that would lead to all students reaching proficiency on those assessments by the 2013-14 school year. Schools and districts that do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) towards this goal are identified as needing improvement and are subject to increasing levels of interventions designed to improve their performance and provide additional options to their students. NCLB also required that all teachers of core academic subjects become highly qualified, which the law defines as holding a bachelors degree and full state certification, as well as demonstrating competency, as defined by the state, in each core academic subject that he or she teaches. These and other changes were intended to increase the quality and effectiveness not only of the Title I program, but of the entire elementary and secondary education system in raising the achievement of all students, particularly those with the lowest achievement levels. A. National Assessment of Title I As part of NCLB, the Congress mandated a National Assessment of Title I (Section 1501) to evaluate the implementation and impact of the program. This mandate also required the establishment of an Independent Review Panel (IRP) to advise the Secretary on methodological and other issues that arise in carrying out the National Assessment and the studies that contribute to this assessment. In addition, the law specifically requires a longitudinal study of Title I schools to examine the implementation and impact of the Title I program. On November 6, 2002, the President signed the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, establishing a new National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) in the Institute of Education Sciences. Part D of this Act assigned responsibility for the National Assessment of Title I to NCEE. The creation of this Center represented an important shift in the purposes of program evaluation and the types of methodology used in Department evaluation studies from broader policy and program assessments to specific scientific evaluations of program effectiveness. In the past, Department program evaluation studies of Title I have, for the most part, focused on broader issues of program implementation, such as targeting of federal resources, compliance with federal laws and regulations, characteristics of program participants, and types of services provided. Such studies, now carried out by the Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) in the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, include examinations of issues such as trends in student achievement, implementation of State assessment systems, accountability and support for school improvement, Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, teacher quality, and the targeting of federal Title I funds. However, school superintendents, principals, and teachers often do not have the information they need in order to make sound decisions to improve instruction and raise student achievement. In many areas, the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of education programs is weak, inconsistent, or nonexistent. Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of specific interventions to inform Title I program improvement. NCLB repeatedly emphasizes the importance of adopting scientifically proven educational practices and programs. In an effort to significantly raise the quality of scientific evidence on program effectiveness, NCEE has launched a generation of evaluation studies that use the most rigorous evaluation designs possible to detect the impact of educational practices and programs on student achievement. Under the National Assessment of Title I, NCEE has begun studies of remedial reading programs, reading comprehension programs, and mathematics curricula to assess the effectiveness of educational programs in these important areas of academic achievement. These studies are using randomized trials in which schools or teachers are randomly assigned to an educational program or to the control condition. Such experimental designs are the most reliable and accurate way of estimating the effectiveness of an educational intervention. This combination of implementation studies conducted by PPSS and effectiveness studies conducted by NCEE will provide valid evidence upon which to improve Title I services and the academic achievement of students. Implementation studies can provide nationally representative data on the types of programs and practices that schools have adopted. Effectiveness studies can provide evidence about which of those practices produce the best results. Together these two types of studies can provide the information needed to effectively target technical assistance and assist policymakers in making decisions on the best use of resources. B. Independent Review Panel for the National Assessment of Title I The mandated function of the Independent Review Panel (IRP) for the National Assessment of Title I is to advise on methodological and other issues that arise in carrying out the assessment. The IRP is to ensure that the assessment and studies adhere to the highest possible standards of quality with respect to research design, statistical analysis, and the dissemination of findings; and that the studies use valid and reliable measures to document program implementation and impacts. The IRP was appointed in November 2002 and is made up of researchers, education practitioners, parents, and members of other organizations involved with the implementation and operation of programs under Title I. A list of IRP members and their affiliations is included in Appendix A. The IRP first met in January 2003 and has been instrumental in shaping the direction of implementation and effectiveness studies under the National Assessment of Title I. At this meeting, the IRP noted that an evaluation of the impact of Title I funds on student achievement was not feasible because it would require random assignment of Title I funds to eligible districts and schools. Past evaluations of activities supported by Title I have provided little information on how to improve student achievement. The IRP recommended that Title I effectiveness studies focus on what works evaluations of well-defined interventions for improving achievement of high-poverty students in the critical areas of reading and mathematics. These evaluations would provide information on the effectiveness of specific interventions that could be adopted by schools to improve academic achievement. Additional information on IRP recommendations for effectiveness studies is included below in descriptions of each of these studies. The IRP has also provided essential advice on the conduct of implementation studies. At its first meeting, the panel agreed that the mandated national longitudinal study of Title I schools should be launched as soon as possible, and most members advised that it should focus on program implementation rather than the impact of federal funds for reasons described above. However, the IRP also recommended that the study include an analysis, using a quasi-experimental design, of student achievement in schools that have been identified for improvement. The panel noted that although the longitudinal study (now known as the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) is to focus on Title I schools, it should include a comparison group of non-Title I schools. The IRP recommended that the study include a survey of parents concerning Title I school choice and supplemental educational services provisions and other aspects of Title I, and provided advice regarding the study designs and data collection instruments for both the NLS-NCLB and a companion state-level study. The IRP has met six times over the past three years. Several meetings were held in the first year after the panels appointment in November 2002: January 30-31, 2003; March 17-18, 2003; September 22, 2003; and November 9, 2003. There were also IRP meetings on November 21, 2004 and on July 29, 2005. The IRP has provided valuable advice on the design and implementation of the Title I studies as well as extensive comments on this Executive Summary and Volume I of the Interim Report. C. Title I Implementation Studies To answer questions of program implementation, the Department will rely on surveys of states, districts, schools, and teachers as well as more in-depth case studies and analyses of state performance reports and other extant data sources. Findings from these kinds of studies are valuable to the Congress, the Department, and educators as they assess the degree to which federal programs are being implemented as intended, describe the problems and challenges to implementation, and identify states and districts that have made significant progress. The National Assessments two main data sources on NCLB implementation, the National Longitudinal Study of NCLB and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality under NCLB, both collected data in the 2004-05 school year, and preliminary findings from those studies are presented in this interim report. The report also includes data from earlier studies, state performance reports, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). These studies are listed below and a summary of their key findings on the implementation of Title I are reported later in this document. Volume I of this report contains an in-depth look at findings on the implementation of Title I. 1. National Longitudinal Study of NCLB (NLS-NCLB) This study is examining the implementation of NCLB provisions concerning accountability, teacher quality, Title I school choice and supplemental services, and targeting and resource allocation. The study is surveying districts, principals, classroom teachers, special education teachers, and Title I paraprofessionals in a nationally representative sample of 300 districts and 1,483 schools in the 2004-05 and 200607 school years. The study is also surveying parents and supplemental service providers in a small subsample of districts in both years. The study is collecting targeting and resource allocation data from all 300 districts in 2004-05 only. Finally, the study includes two exploratory achievement analyses that examine a) achievement outcomes for students participating in the Title I choice and supplemental services options in nine districts, and b) student achievement following identification of schools for improvement in two states. 2. Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality under NCLB (SSINCLB) This companion study to the NLS-NCLB is collecting information from all states about their implementation of the accountability, assessment, and teacher quality provisions of the law, as well as Title III requirements for inclusion of students with limited English proficiency. The study is surveying state education staff responsible for implementing these provisions in 2004-05 and in 2006-07. In addition, the study is also analyzing extant data relating to state implementation, including state lists of schools and districts that did not make adequate yearly progress and those that were identified as in need of improvement. 3. Study of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE) This study examines implementation of Title I accountability provisions during the transition years from 2001-02 (prior to implementation of NCLB) through 2003-04 (the second year of NCLB implementation). The study surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,200 districts and 740 schools that had been identified for improvement under the previous authorization of ESEA. 4. Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Supplemental Educational Services These case studies in nine districts examine the early experiences of districts implementing the NCLB supplemental services provisions in 2002-03 and 2003-04. 5. State Consolidated Performance Reports These annual state reports, required under NCLB, provide data on student achievement on state assessments as well as basic descriptive information, such as numbers of identified schools and number of student participants. 6. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) NAEP provides information on a common assessment for populations targeted by Title I. The final report will provide more complete data on Title I implementation and outcomes, including information about the targeting and uses of Title I funds, services for private school students, findings from the NLS-NCLB parent survey and supplemental service provider survey. Quasi-experimental analyses of student achievement related to participation in the Title I choice and supplemental services options, as well as the identification of schools for improvement, will be included in the final report. D. Title I Effectiveness Studies A central principle of NCLB is that states, districts, schools, and teachers adopt instructional practices backed by evidence of effectiveness from scientifically based research. This principle has created a demand for rigorous evaluation evidence currently unavailable for most education programs and instructional areas. For this reason, the Departments evaluation strategy for Title I features a strong emphasis on evaluation studies that are designed to produce rigorous scientific evidence on the effectiveness of specific education programs and practices that are critical to the effective use of TitleI funds. At the second meeting of the Independent Review Panel on March 17-18, 2003, presentations were made by reading and mathematics experts on what we know and need to know in these areas. Ultimately, three large-scale evaluations were undertaken. The first is examining the effects of remedial reading programs for 3rd and 5th graders. Based on the advice of an expert panel formed by NCEE, the second evaluation will look at the effectiveness of reading comprehension interventions for 5th graders. The third evaluation will assess the effectiveness of mathematics curricula that are widely used in the early elementary grades. The rationales for these three large-scale evaluations of specific interventions are described briefly below. 1. Remedial Reading Interventions According to the NAEP, nearly 4 in 10 fourth graders read below the basic level. Historically, nearly three-quarters of these students never attain average levels of reading skill. To address this problem, many school districts have created remedial programs that aim to improve the skills of students reading below grade level. However, it is very difficult for these students to close the reading gap and become average readers. We know very little about the effectiveness of remedial reading programs for struggling readers in regular school settings. Closing the Reading Gap, the evaluation of remedial reading programs, is addressing three broad questions: What is the impact of being in any of four promising remedial reading interventions, considered as a group, relative to the instruction provided by the schools? What is the impact of being in one of the remedial reading programs that focuses primarily on developing word-level skills, considered as a group, relative to the instruction provided by the schools? What is the impact of being in each of the four particular remedial reading interventions, considered individually, relative to the instruction provided by the schools? Do the impacts of programs vary across students with different baseline characteristics? To what extent can the instruction provided in this study close the reading gap and bring struggling readers within the normal range, relative to the instruction provided by their schools? The key findings from the first report on Closing the Reading Gap are summarized later in this document. Volume II of this Interim Report contains the full report on this study. Future reports will include the longer term impacts of these interventions on student achievement. 2. Reading Comprehension Interventions The decision to conduct an evaluation of the efficacy of reading comprehension interventions for informational materials in content areas such as social studies or science resulted from a series of discussions between the IRP and reading experts, as well as from the advice of a subsequent expert panel convened to identify important and policy-relevant evaluation questions to study in reading. The expert panels advice was that there are increasing cognitive demands on student knowledge in middle elementary grades where students become primarily engaged in reading to learn, rather than learning to read. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds lack general vocabulary as well as vocabulary related to academic concepts that enable them to comprehend what they are reading and acquire content knowledge. They also do not know how to use strategies to organize and acquire knowledge from informational text in content areas such as science and social studies. The panel advised that strategies for improving comprehension are not as well developed as those for decoding and fluency. While there are multiple techniques for direct instruction of comprehension in narrative text that have been well-demonstrated in small studies, there is not as much evidence on teaching reading comprehension within content areas. This evaluation of reading comprehension is addressing the following questions: Can promising reading comprehension interventions improve student reading achievement of informational text? What are the most effective reading comprehension interventions for improving student reading achievement of informational text? Under what conditions and practices do reading comprehension interventions improve student reading achievement of informational text? Five supplemental interventions have been selected by an expert panel and are being piloted in 5th grade classrooms during the 2005-06 school year. Selection of the interventions was based on existing research evidence, quality of the intervention design, capability to implement the intervention, and appropriateness of the intervention for the target population. All of the selected interventions teach reading comprehension of text containing information such as science or social studies content. The interventions being piloted and their publishers are: CRISS (Project CRISS): CRISS teaches a wide array of comprehension and note-taking strategies using science text. Students then apply the strategies to the actual texts used in their social studies and science classes. The program teaches students the difference between reading a text for basic information, reading for understanding a physical or natural phenomenon, and how to create succinct summaries. It also stresses active reading strategies such as asking oneself questions while reading and then jotting down the answers. The program is designed to be used for 30 minutes each day during language arts, science, or social studies periods. Teachers participate in three days of initial training and one day of follow-up training. ReadAbout (Scholastic): Students are taught reading comprehension skills such as authors purpose, main idea, cause and effect, compare and contrast, summarizing, and inferences primarily through a computer program. The program is designed to be used for 30 minutes per day, and students apply what they have learned during this time to a selection of science and social studies trade books. Teachers receive two days of initial training plus two additional days during the school year. Read for Real (Chapman University; Zaner-Bloser): In Read for Real, teachers use a six-volume set of books to teach reading strategies appropriate for before, during and after reading such as previewing, activating prior knowledge, setting a purpose, main idea, graphic organizers, and text structures. Students use the materials for 30 to 45 minutes per day. Each of these units includes vocabulary, fluency, and writing activities. Teachers participate in three days of initial training and two, one-day follow-up training sessions. Reading for Knowledge (Success for All Foundation): Reading for Knowledge, a 30-minute daily program, makes extensive use of cooperative learning strategies and a process called SQRRRL (Survey, Question, Read, Restate, Review, Learn). Teachers receive 2.5 days of initial training in addition to monthly follow up sessions. Skills Handbooks (SRA): Students are taught reading comprehension skills (e.g., compare and contrast, cause and effect, fact and opinion, main idea, summarizing) through a set of workbooks and practice activities in science and social studies. Teachers are expected to use the program for about 30 minutes per day. They receive one day of initial training and an additional 16 hours during the school year. The reading comprehension interventions that are successfully piloted will be randomly assigned to a total of 100 participating elementary schools during the 2006-07 school year. The impact of the interventions on reading comprehension of informational social studies texts will be assessed. The first report on the effectiveness of the reading comprehension interventions is planned for Spring 2008. 3. Mathematics Curricula The decision to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of mathematics curricula resulted from a series of discussions with and recommendations from the IRP, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), and an expert panel convened to provide advice on policy-relevant questions it would be important to address in an impact evaluation focused on mathematics. Information on the effectiveness of mathematics curricula is crucial to improving performance on state mathematics assessments under NCLB. There is considerable controversy about what mathematics children should learn and how it should be taught, but there is very little reliable information available to educators and policy makers about which curricula are most likely to improve mathematics achievement. This evaluation will focus on early elementary grades because disadvantaged children fall behind their more advantaged peers in basic mathematics competencies even before entering elementary school. If basic concepts are not mastered in early elementary grades, students have great difficulty understanding more advanced mathematics concepts in upper elementary grades. The evaluation will compare different approaches to teaching early elementary mathematics, since there are many mathematics curricula that are being widely implemented without evidence of their effectiveness. What is the relative effectiveness of a variety of mathematics curricula on mathematics achievement for early elementary school students in disadvantaged schools? Under what conditions is each mathematics curriculum most effective? Up to five mathematics curricula will be competitively selected during the 2005-06 school year. The selected curricula will be randomly assigned to participating schools. Teachers will be trained and the curricula will be implemented during the 2006-07 school year. Data will be collected on implementation of each curriculum and student mathematics achievement at the beginning and end of the 2006-07 school year. The first report on the relative effectiveness of the mathematics curricula is planned for Spring 2008. Organization of This Executive Summary The following two sections of this document contain the executive summaries from Volume I and Volume II of the National Assessment of Title I: Interim Report. Volume I contains key findings on the implementation of Title I under No Child Left Behind. Volume II is a report on the findings from Closing the Reading Gap, an evaluation of the impact of supplemental remedial reading programs on student achievement. End Notes Executive Summary of Volume I: Implementation of Title I  A Report Prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences by Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, Joseph McCrary, and Collette Roney Policy and Program Studies Service Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development The Title I program began in 1965 as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and is intended to help ensure that all children have the opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach proficiency on challenging state standards and assessments. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) built upon and expanded the assessment and accountability provisions that had been enacted as part of the ESEAs previous reauthorizing legislation, the Improving Americas Schools Act (IASA), while also creating new provisions related to parental choice and teacher quality. These and other changes were intended to increase the quality and effectiveness not only of the Title I program, but also of the entire elementary and secondary education system in raising the achievement of all students, particularly those with the lowest achievement levels. As part of the No Child Left Behind Act, the Congress mandated a National Assessment of Title I to evaluate the implementation and impact of the program. The mandate specifically requires a longitudinal study of Title I schools, as well as an Independent Review Panel composed of expert researchers and practitioners to advise the U.S. Department of Education on the conduct of the National Assessment. An interim report is due in 2005 and a final report is due in 2007. This report constitutes Volume I of the National Assessment of Title I interim report and focuses on implementation of key Title I provisions related to state assessments, accountability, school choice and supplemental educational services, and teacher quality, as well as examining trends in student achievement. The report draws on data from two evaluations of NCLB implementation conducted by the Department, the National Longitudinal Study of NCLB and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB, both of which collected data in the 2004-05 school year. The report also includes data from earlier studies, state performance reports, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and other sources. The final report will provide more complete data on Title I implementation and outcomes, including information about the targeting and uses of Title I funds, services for private school students, findings from a parent survey about parents experiences with choice options, and analyses of a) student outcomes associated with participation in the Title I choice and supplemental services options and b) the impact on student achievement of identifying schools for improvement. A. Key Provisions of Title I under the No Child Left Behind Act NCLB, which went into effect beginning with the 2002-03 school year, strengthened the assessment and accountability provisions of the law, requiring that states annually test all students in grades 3-8 and once in grades 10-12 on assessments that are aligned with challenging state standards. States must also set targets for school and district performance that lead to all students achieving proficiency on state reading and mathematics assessments by the 2013-14 school year. Schools and districts that do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) towards this goal for two consecutive years are identified as needing improvement and are subject to increasing levels of interventions designed to improve their performance, as well as provide additional options to their students. In schools identified for improvement, districts must offer students the option to transfer to another school. If an identified school misses AYP again (for a third year), low-income students in the school must be offered the option to receive supplemental educational services from a state-approved provider. If an identified school misses AYP for a fourth year, the district must take one of a set of corrective actions specified in the law, and if the school misses AYP for a fifth year, the district must begin planning to restructure the school. NCLB also requires that all teachers of core academic subjects become highly qualified, which the law defines as having a bachelors degree and full state certification as well as demonstrating competency, as defined by the state, in each core academic subject that they teach. Exhibit E-1 provides a more detailed summary of key NCLB provisions. Exhibit E-1 Key Provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act State assessmentsStates must implement annual state assessments in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 10-12, and in science at least once in each of three grade spans: 35, 69, and 10-12. Assessments must be aligned with challenging state content and academic achievement standards. States must provide for participation of all students, including students with disabilities and limited English proficient (LEP) students. States must provide for the assessment of English language proficiency of all LEP students.Adequate yearly progress (AYP)States must set annual targets that will lead to the goal of all students reaching proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2013-14. For each measure of school performance, states must include absolute targets that must be met by key subgroups of students (major racial/ethnic groups, low-income students, students with disabilities, and LEP students). Schools and districts must meet annual targets for each student subgroup in the school, and must test 95% of students in each subgroup, in order to make adequate yearly progress. States also must define an other academic indicator that schools must meet in addition to proficiency targets on state assessments.Schools identified for improvementSchools and districts that do not make AYP for two consecutive years are identified for improvement and are to receive technical assistance to help them improve. Those that miss AYP for additional years are identified for successive stages of interventions, including corrective action and restructuring (see below). To leave identified for improvement status, a school or district must make AYP for two consecutive years.Public school choiceDistricts must offer all students in identified schools the option to transfer to a non-identified school, with transportation provided by the district.Supplemental educational servicesIn schools that miss AYP for a third year, districts also must offer low-income students the option of supplemental educational services from a state-approved provider.Corrective actions In schools that miss AYP for a fourth year, districts also must implement at least one of the following corrective actions: replace school staff members who are relevant to the failure to make AYP; implement a new curriculum; decrease management authority at the school level; appoint an outside expert to advise the school; extend the school day or year; or restructure the internal organization of the school.RestructuringIn schools that miss AYP for a fifth year, districts also must begin planning to implement at least one of the following restructuring interventions: reopen the school as a charter school; replace all or most of the school staff; contract with a private entity to manage the school; turn over operation of the school to the state; or adopt some other major restructuring of the schools governance. Districts must spend a year planning for restructuring and implement the school restructuring plan the following year.Highly qualified teachersAll teachers of core academic subjects must be highly qualified as defined by NCLB and the state. To be highly qualified, teachers must have a bachelors degree, full state certification, and demonstrated competence in each core academic subject that they teach. Subject-matter competency may be demonstrated by passing a rigorous state test, completing a college major or coursework equivalent, or (for veteran teachers) meeting standards established by the state under a high, objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE). B. Profile of Title I Participants and Resources Funding for Title I, Part A, has increased by 46 percent over the past five years, after adjusting for inflation, from $7.9 billion in FY2000 to $12.7 billion in FY 2006. Title I funds go to nearly all of the nations school districts and to 55 percent of all public schools, but are more strongly targeted to high-poverty districts and schools than are state and local education funds. Most Title I funds go to elementary schools, and three-fourths of Title I participants are in pre-kindergarten through grade 6.  Fueled by a growing use of Title I schoolwide programs, the number of students counted as Title I participants has more than doubled in recent years, rising from 6.7 million in 1994-95 to 16.5 million in 2002-03 (a 146 percent increase). The dramatic increase in participation is due in part to the way that students are counted: when a school converts from targeted assistance to a schoolwide program, all students in the school are counted as Title I participants instead of just the lowest-achieving students who are receiving specific targeted services. In 2002-03, 84 percent of Title I participants were in schoolwide programs. C. Trends in Student Achievement This report examines trends in student achievement using both state assessment data and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). We also examine recent trends in graduation rates, another important indicator of student achievement. Student achievement on state assessments represents the primary criterion that the Title I legislation applies to measure school success, but these data cannot be aggregated across states to examine national trends, because they measure different content and use different achievement levels. In addition, many states have revised their assessment systems in recent years, so they often do not have the trend data needed to assess student progress. This interim report examines recent three-year trends (2000-01 through 2002-03) in 23states that had consistent assessments in place over this period; however, few states had these data available for all student subgroups during this period. The NAEP provides a high-quality assessment that is consistent across states, making the data useful for examining national trends in student achievement. However, the NAEP is not aligned with individual state content and achievement standards, so it does not necessarily measure what students are expected to learn in their states. This report examines achievement trends on both the Main NAEP (1990 to 2005) and the Trend NAEP (1971 to 2004), with a focus on recent trends. The Main NAEP was created in the early 1990s to provide an assessment that is more consistent with current content focuses and testing approaches, while the Trend NAEP continues the original NAEP assessment begun in the 1970s in order to track long-term trends. In general, the Main NAEP places greater emphasis on open-ended and extended response items and less emphasis on multiple choice questions. In addition, the Main NAEP reports on the percentages of students performing at various achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced) as well as average scale scores, while the Trend NAEP reports only scale scores. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has stated that although results from these two NAEP assessments cannot be compared directly, comparisons of the patterns they show over time, especially for student demographic groups, may be informative. For both state assessment and NAEP results, recent achievement trends through 2004 or 2005 are positive overall and for key subgroups. At this early stage of NCLB implementation states, districts, and schools only began to implement the NCLB provisions in 2002-03it is too early to say whether these trends are attributable to NCLB, to other improvement initiatives that preceded it, or a combination of both. The data presented below provide a baseline indicator of achievement levels and trends that existed at the time that NCLB implementation began. They may very well reflect pre-existing state standards-based reform efforts and accountability systems that NCLB was intended to strengthen. Moreover, even when additional years of assessment data become available, such data will be limited in their ability to precisely address the impact of NCLB, because it is difficult to separate the impact of NCLB from the effects of other state and local improvement efforts. 1. Student Achievement on State Assessments Are students whom Title I is intended to benefit (including low-income students, racial/ethnic minorities, LEP students, migrant students, and students with disabilities) making progress toward meeting state academic achievement standards in reading and mathematics? Exhibit E-2 Number of States Showing an Increase in the Percentage of 4th-Grade Students Performing at or Above the States Proficient Level from 2000-01 to 2002-03, by Student SubgroupReadingMathematicsAll students11 out of 23 states17 out of 23 statesLow-income12 out of 16 states10 out of 10 statesBlack5 out of 7 states5 out of 7 statesHispanic6 out of 7 states5 out of 7 statesWhite7 out of 7 states7 out of 7 statesLEP12 out of 20 states15 out of 20 statesMigrant11 out of 15 states12 out of 16 statesStudents with disabilities14 out of 20 states16 out of 20 states Exhibit reads: The proportion of students performing at or above states proficient levels in 4th-grade reading (or another nearby elementary grade) increased from 2000-01 to 2002-03 in 11 out of 23 states that had consistent trend data available. Note: For states that did not consistently assess students in 4th-grade reading and mathematics from 2000-01 to 2002-03, this table is based on either 3rd-grade or 5th-grade results. Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports (n = 23 states).In states that had three-year trend data available from 2000-01 to 2002-03, the percentage of students achieving at or above the states proficient level rose for most student subgroups in a majority of the states (see Exhibit E-2), but the increases in student proficiency were often small. For example, state reading assessments administered in the 4th grade or an adjacent elementary grade show achievement gains in elementary reading for low-income students in 12 out of 16 states. Across all student subgroups examined, states showed achievement gains in about three-fourths of the cases. Results for mathematics and for 8th grade show similar patterns. Based on trend data for 20 states, most would not meet the goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2013-14 unless the percentage of students achieving at the proficient level increased at a faster rate. For example, four out of 11 states with consistent elementary reading assessment data for low-income students would meet the 100 percent goal by 2013-14 for this subgroup if they sustained the same rate of growth that they achieved from 200001 to 2002-03. Looking across six different student subgroups (low-income, black, Hispanic, LEP, migrant, and students with disabilities), an average of 33percent of the subgroups within these states would be predicted to reach 100 percent proficiency based on current growth rates. 2. Student Achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Are students, especially disadvantaged students, showing achievement gains on the National Assessment of Educational Progress? Recent NAEP trends show gains in 4th-grade reading and especially in mathematics for black and Hispanic students and for students in high-poverty schools. For example, from 2000 to 2005, black students gained 10 points in reading and Hispanic students gained 13 points, while in mathematics, black students gained 17 points and Hispanic students gained 18points. Over the longer term, black and Hispanic students showed even larger gains in mathematics (33 points and 26 points, respectively, from 1990 to 2005), but somewhat smaller gains in reading (eight points and seven points, respectively, from 1992 to 2005) (see Exhibits E-3 and E-4).  EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8   EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8  * Indicates that the score is significantly different from the one in 2005 (p<.05). Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP. Eighth-grade students also made significant gains in mathematics but not in reading. The 12th-grade NAEP assessment was not administered in 2003 or 2005. The long-term achievement trends measured by the Trend NAEP show significant gains for all three age groups tested in mathematics and for 9-year-olds and 13-year-olds in reading. In addition, recent gains from 1999 to 2004 are significant for 9-year-olds in both mathematics and reading and for 13-year-olds in mathematics. Black and Hispanic students show substantial gains on the Trend NAEP, both in the most recent period as well as over the full three decades covered by the assessment. Are achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and other students closing over time? State assessments and NAEP both provide some indications that achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and other students may be narrowing, but recent changes are small. For example, state assessments show a slight reduction in the achievement gap between low-income students and all students in most states, typically a reduction of one to three percentage points. On the Trend NAEP, achievement gains for black and Hispanic students since the 1970s substantially outpaced gains made by white students, resulting in significant declines in black-white and Hispanic-white achievement gaps, but recent changes in achievement gaps often were not statistically significant. 3. Graduation Rates Are graduation rates improving over time? Under NCLB, high schools are held accountable for graduation rates, but methods for calculating graduation rates vary considerably across states. The averaged freshman graduation rate (calculated by NCES based on data from the Common Core of Data) is useful for providing a common standard against which state-reported graduation rates may be compared. The median state graduation rate in 2002 was 84 percent based on state reports and 75 percent based on the averaged freshman graduation rate. The recent trend in the averaged freshman graduation rate has been fairly level, and the mean graduation rate in 2002 (73 percent) was the same as in 1996. D. Implementation of State Assessment Systems 1. Development of Assessments Required under No Child Left Behind To what extent have states implemented the annual assessments in reading, mathematics, and science that will be required under NCLB? While some states have standards and assessments in place in all of the required grade levels, most states need to implement additional assessments to meet the NCLB requirements by 2005-06 for reading and mathematics and by 2007-08 for science. As of March 2005, 27 states had completed their first full administration of all required reading assessments; 26 states had done so for all required mathematics assessments; and 22 states had done so for all required science assessments. Most of the remaining states had at least field-tested all of the required assessments. How are states developing their English language proficiency assessments? Many state approaches to assessing English language proficiency (ELP) were still evolving as of 2004-05. All states had an assessment in place for 2004-05, but 44 states indicated that they anticipated making revisions to their ELP assessments. Twenty states reported that they had an ELP assessment in place that met NCLB requirements, 27 states plan to have an ELP assessment that meets NCLB requirements in place for 2005-06, and five states had not made a decision as to which ELP assessment instrument they will use in 2004-05. 2. Inclusion and Accommodations To what extent do state assessment systems include students with special needs? Most states have met the requirement to annually assess 95 percent or more of their students, including major racial/ethnic groups, students with disabilities, limited English proficient (LEP) students, and low-income students. However, 14 states did not meet the minimum test participation requirement for one or more student subgroups. Ten states assessed fewer than 95 percent of one or more minority student groups (black, Hispanic, and/or Native American), and nine states did not meet the test participation requirement for LEP students. The lowest participation rates were for students with disabilities. While states missing the test participation requirement for other subgroups often missed by just one or two percentage points, states that failed to assess 95 percent of students with disabilities typically had lower participation rates for those students (as low as 77 percent in one state). 3. Disaggregated Student Achievement Data How fully are states meeting NCLB requirements for reporting state assessment data? The number of states that report student achievement data has more than doubled since NCLB was enacted. Fifty states present data disaggregated by race/ethnicity and gender and for limited English proficient students, students with disabilities, and low-income students on state report cards. E. Accountability and Support for School Improvement 1. School Identification for Improvement What types of schools are identified for improvement? States identified 13 percent of all schools for improvement for 2004-05. Of these, 9,028 were TitleI schools (18 percent of Title I schools), representing nearly a 50 percent increase over the approximately 6,000 Title I schools identified for the previous two years (see Exhibit E-5). Most (76 percent) of the identified Title I schools were in their first year or second year of improvement, 12 percent were in corrective action, and 12 percent were in restructuring status. The number and percentage of Title I schools identified for improvement varied considerably across states. Schools in large and urban districts, and those with high concentrations of poor, minority, and LEP students, were more likely to be identified than other schools. For example, just over one-third of all schools with 75 percent or more of their students from low-income families or minority groups were identified schools in 2004-05, compared with fewer than 5 percent of schools with low concentrations of these students. Middle schools also were more likely to be identified (18 percent of middle schools) than were elementary or high schools (11 percent at each level). Ten percent of districts (or 1,511 districts) also were identified for 2004-05; 32 percent of these had no identified schools.  EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8   Exhibit reads: In 2004-05, 9,028 Title I schools had been identified for improvement based on test scores for 2003-04 and earlier years; these identified schools represented 18 percent of all TitleI schools in that year. Note: The first year that schools were identified for improvement based in part on NCLB AYP definitions was 200304, based on assessments administered in 2002-03. However, schools are identified when they miss AYP for two consecutive years, and 200405 was the first year that includes schools identified because they missed NCLB AYP targets for two consecutive years. Sources: Consolidated State Performance Reports (1996-97 to 2002-03); Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB (2003-04 and 2004-05) (based on data from 50 states and the District of Columbia).  2. Adequate Yearly Progress What are the reasons schools did not make adequate yearly progress (AYP)? Three-fourths (75 percent) of all schools and 71 percent of districts met all applicable AYP targets in 2003-04 testing. The number of all schools missing AYP (21,540) based on 2003-04 testing is nearly double the number of schools identified for improvement for 2004-05 (11,530). If many non-identified schools that did not make AYP in 2003-04 testing miss AYP again the following year, the number of identified schools could rise substantially in 2005-06. Schools most commonly missed AYP for the achievement of all students and/or multiple subgroups; only in a minority of cases did schools miss only one AYP target. Based on data from 33 states, among schools that missed AYP in 2003-04, 33 percent did not meet achievement targets for the all students group in reading or mathematics, and another 18 percent missed AYP for the achievement of two or more subgroups (see Exhibit E-6). Only 23 percent missed AYP solely due to the achievement of a single subgroup. Twenty percent missed AYP due to the other academic indicator, but only 7 percent missed for this indicator alone. More than one-fourth (29 percent) missed AYP due to insufficient test participation rates, but only 6 percent missed solely due to test participation. Theremaining 13 percent of schools that missed AYP missed for other combinations of AYP targets. Exhibit E-6 Reasons Schools Missed AYP, 2003-04  Exhibit reads: In 2003-04 testing, 33 percent of schools missed AYP for the achievement of the all students group in reading and/or mathematics. Source: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB (based on data from 33 states and 15,731 schools that missed AYP in these states). However, schools that were held accountable for more subgroups were less likely to make AYP. Among schools for which AYP was calculated for six or more subgroups, 39 percent did not make AYP, compared with 10 percent of schools for which AYP was calculated based on only one subgroup. More than one-fifth of those schools that were held accountable for the achievement of African-American students, LEP students, or students with disabilities did not make AYP for those subgroups in 2003-04 testing. Schools with subgroups of students from low-income families, Hispanic students, or Native American students were somewhat less likely to miss AYP for those subgroups (12 to 15 percent). Schools were much less likely to miss AYP due to the achievement of white or Asian students (1 percent and 4 percent of schools with these subgroups, respectively). 3. School Improvement Activities What assistance is provided to districts and schools identified for improvement? What interventions are implemented in these districts and schools? All states notified schools about their identification status for 2004-05 based on 2003-04 testing, and a majority provided preliminary results before September 2004, but 20 states did not, and only 15 states provided final results by that time. NCLB regulations require states to notify schools and districts of their school improvement status prior to the beginning of the school year; this is important to enable districts with identified schools to notify parents of eligible students about their TitleI choice options in a timely manner. Identified schools were much more likely to report needing assistance in a variety of specific areas than non-identified schools, and they also reported receiving more days of assistance than non-identified schools. Identified schools were most likely to report needing assistance to improve the quality of teachers professional development (80 percent), and most schools needing this assistance reported that they received it (91 percent). The most common improvement strategies implemented by identified schools included developing a school improvement plan, using assessment data to inform instruction, and providing additional instruction to low-achieving students. Nearly one-third (30 percent) of identified elementary schools reported increasing the amount of instructional time in reading by more than 30 minutes in 2004-05, and 17 percent reported a similar increase in instructional time for mathematics. Non-identified schools less frequently reported such increases. At the secondary school level, identified schools also more commonly reported increasing instructional time for low-achieving students in reading (55 percent). Almost all states had implemented a statewide system of support for identified schools by fall 2004, and these often involved school support teams and specialized individuals. Twenty-one states noted that an important objective of their statewide systems of support was to build district capacity to provide support to identified schools. Most states applied NCLB consequences for school identification (i.e., public school choice, supplemental services, corrective actions, and restructuring) to Title I identified schools only. Most states (42) reported that providing assistance to all schools identified for improvement was a moderate or serious challenge in 2003-04. Large and urban districts more commonly provided assistance of various kinds to identified schools than smaller districts. For example, in 2002-03, two-thirds of very large districts reported employing more than one full-time equivalent (FTE) staff member per identified school to provide assistance to those schools, compared with one-third of small districts. Title I schools in corrective action status nearly universally experienced the interventions NCLB defines for schools in this stage of improvement. Corrective actions were implemented in 95 percent of Title I schools in corrective action status in 2004-05. The most common corrective actions experienced by Title I schools in this status in 2003-04 and 2004-05 resembled forms of technical assistance rather than sanctions. For instance, 90 percent of Title I schools in corrective action were required to implement new research-based curricula or instructional programs and 58 percent had an outside expert appointed to advise the school. F. School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services 1. Eligibility and Participation How many students are eligible to participate, and how many actually do so? Although more students were eligible to participate in the Title I school choice option, a larger number actually participated in the supplemental services option. Based on district reports, twice as many students were eligible to transfer to another school under the Title I school choice option in 2003-04 (3.9 million) as were eligible to receive supplemental services (1.4 million). However, six times as many students actually participated in the supplemental services option (233,000) as participated in the school choice option (38,000) in that year (see Exhibit E-7).  EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8   Exhibit reads: The number of students participating in Title I school choice rose from 18,000 in 2002-03 to 45,000 in 2004-05. Source: Study of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (2002-03); National Longitudinal Study of NCLB and Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB (2003-04 and 2004-05).  The number of schools where supplemental services were offered tripled from 200203 to 2003-04 (from 800 to 2,500), while the number where Title I school choice was offered increased from 5,100 in 2002-03 to 6,200 in 2004-05. TitleI school choice was offered in about 6,200 schools and 1,800 districts in 2004-05, and supplemental services were offered in 2,500 schools and 500 districts in 2003-04. The number of state-approved supplemental service providers has tripled over the past two years, rising from 997 in May 2003 to 2,734 in May 2005. Private firms accounted for 76 percent of approved providers in May 2005 and served 59 percent of participating students in the previous school year (2003-04). A growing number and percentage of faith-based organizations have obtained state approval, rising from 18 providers (2percent of providers) in May 2003 to 249 (9 percent) in May 2005, but they served less than one-half of one percent of student participants in 2003-04. School districts and public schools accounted for 17 percent of providers in May 2005, but served a larger proportion of participants (40 percent in 2003-04) (see Exhibit E-8).  EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8   Exhibit reads: Private providers accounted for 70 percent of state-approved providers in May 2004 and 59 percent of participating students during the 2003-04 school year. Source: PPSS review of SEA websites, May 2004 (51 states); National Longitudinal Study of NCLB.  2. Parental Notification How and when do districts and schools inform parents of eligible children about the Title I school choice and supplemental services options? The timing of parental notification was often too late to enable parents to choose a new school before the start of the 2004-05 school year. Almost half (49 percent) of districts notified parents after the school year had already started, and in these districts this notification occurred, on average, five weeks after the start of the school year. 3. Monitoring of Supplemental Service Providers How are states monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of supplemental service providers? States report that they are working to develop and implement systems for monitoring and evaluating the performance of supplemental service providers, but, as of early 2005, 15 states had not established any monitoring process, 25 states had not yet established any standards for evaluating provider effectiveness, and none had finalized their evaluation standards. Seventeen states say they will evaluate student achievement on state assessments, although only one of these plans to use a matched control group. The most common approaches that states have implemented to monitor providers are surveying the districts about provider effectiveness (25 states) and using providers reports on student-level progress (18 states). G. Teacher Quality and Professional Development 1. State Definitions of Highly Qualified Teachers How have states implemented the requirements to define highly qualified teacher and to develop a high objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE)? Most states meet the requirement to test the content knowledge of new teachers through the Praxis II subject assessments developed by the Educational Testing Service (41 states). States vary considerably in the passing scores that they require teachers to obtain on the Praxis II exams in order to be certified to teach or to be deemed highly qualified under NCLB. Nearly all states (47) allowed veteran teachers to demonstrate their subject-matter competency through a high objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE), as of the spring of 2005. The most common type of HOUSSE option involved a point system wherein teachers were allowed to accumulate a state-determined number of points in order to earn a highly qualified status (29states). Most states allowed points to be earned retroactively for such things as successful completion of certain college courses (28 states) or publishing articles and/or receiving teaching awards or honors (23 states). Four states allowed teachers to earn some points for evidence of improved student achievement. Twenty-six states allowed teachers to earn one-quarter or more of their HOUSSE points for a specified number of years of prior teaching experience in their subject(s). Eight states used their current, initial teacher certification systems as their official HOUSSE option; they reported that the certification requirements contained high standards of subject-area expertise. 2. Teachers Highly Qualified Status How many teachers meet the NCLB requirement to be highly qualified? The large majority of teachers across the country have been designated as highly qualified under NCLB. According to state-reported data for 42 states, 86 percent of classes were taught by highly qualified teachers in 2003-04. Principal and teacher reports for 2004-05 provide somewhat lower estimates of the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers, but this is because a sizeable percentage did not know their highly qualified status. For example, 74 percent of teachers reported that they were considered highly qualified under NCLB, but 23 percent said they did not know their status and only 2 percent said they were not highly qualified. Students in schools that have been identified for improvement were more likely to be taught by teachers who were not highly qualified than were students in non-identified schools. For example, only one percent of elementary teachers in non-identified schools said they were considered not highly qualified, compared with 5 percent in schools that were inthe first or second year of being identified for improvement, 8 percent in schools in corrective action, and 6percent of schools in restructuring. Schools with high concentrations of poor and minority students have more teachers who are considered not highly qualified than do other schools. In high-poverty schools, for example, 5percent of elementary teachers and 12 percent of secondary English and math teachers reported in 2004-05 that they were considered not highly qualified under NCLB, compared with one percent in low-poverty elementary schools and 3 percent in low-poverty secondary schools. 3. Professional Development To what extent are teachers participating in professional development activities that are sustained, intensive, and focused on instruction? Most teachers reported receiving some professional development in reading and math content and instructional strategies, but fewer than one-quarter of the teachers participated in such training for more than 24 hours over the 2003-04 school year and summer. For example, 90 percent of elementary teachers participated in at least one hour of professional development focused on instructional strategies for teaching reading, but only 20 percent participated for more than 24 hours over the 2003-04 school year and summer. Teachers in high-poverty schools were more likely to participate in professional development focused on reading and mathematics than were teachers in low-poverty schools. For example, 53percent of secondary English teachers in high-poverty schools reported participating in professional development focused on in-depth study of topics in reading or English compared with 36 percent of their colleagues in low-poverty schools. 4. Qualifications of Title I Paraprofessionals How many paraprofessionals meet the NCLB qualifications requirements? According to principal reports, 63 percent of Title I instructional aides had been determined to meet NCLB qualification requirements as of the 2004-05 school year. However, 87 percent of Title I instructional aides indicated that they had at least two years of college (and/or an associates degree) or had passed a paraprofessional assessment. Nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of Title I instructional aides reported that, of the time that they spent tutoring or working with students in a classroom, a teacher was present only half or less of this time. End Notes Executive Summary of Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap A report prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences by the Corporation for the Advancement of Policy Evaluation Joseph Torgesen, Florida Center for Reading Research David Myers, Allen Schirm, Elizabeth Stuart, Sonya Vartivarian, & Wendy Mansfield Mathematica Policy Research Fran Stancavage, American Institutes for Research Donna Durno and Rosanne Javorsky Allegheny Intermediate Unit Cinthia Haan, Haan Foundation Evaluation Context According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (U.S. Department of Education 2003), nearly 4 in 10 fourth graders read below the basic level. Unfortunately, these literacy problems get worse as students advance through school and are exposed to progressively more complex concepts and courses. Historically, nearly three-quarters of these students never attain average levels of reading skill. While schools are often able to provide some literacy intervention, many lack the resources(teachers skilled in literacy development and appropriate learning materials(to help older students in elementary school reach grade level standards in reading. The consequences of this problem are life changing. Young people entering high school in the bottom quartile of achievement are substantially more likely than students in the top quartile to drop out of school, setting in motion a host of negative social and economic outcomes for students and their families. For their part, the nations 16,000 school districts are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on often untested educational products and services developed by textbook publishers, commercial providers, and nonprofit organizations. Yet we know little about the effectiveness of these interventions. Which ones work best, and for whom? Under what conditions are they most effective? Do these programs have the potential to close the reading gap? To help answer these questions, we initiated an evaluation of either parts or all of four widely used programs for elementary school students with reading problems. The programs are Corrective Reading, Failure Free Reading, Spell Read P.A.T., and Wilson Reading, all of which are expected to be more intensive and skillfully delivered than the programs typically provided in public schools. The programs incorporate explicit and systematic instruction in the basic reading skills in which struggling readers are frequently deficient. Corrective Reading, Spell Read P.A.T., and Wilson Reading were implemented to provide word-level instruction, whereas Failure Free Reading focused on building reading comprehension and vocabulary in addition to word-level skills. Recent reports from small-scale research and clinical studies provide some evidence that the reading skills of students with severe reading difficulties in late elementary school can be substantially improved by providing, for a sustained period of time, the kinds of skillful, systematic, and explicit instruction that these programs offer (Torgesen 2005). A. Evaluation Purpose and Design Conducted just outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the Allegheny Intermediate Unit (AIU), the evaluation is intended to explore the extent to which the four reading programs can affect both the word-level reading skills (phonemic decoding, fluency, accuracy) and reading comprehension of students in grades three and five who were identified as struggling readers by their teachers and by low test scores. Ultimately, it will provide educators with rigorous evidence of what could happen in terms of reading improvement if intensive, small-group reading programs like the ones in this study were introduced in many schools. This study is a large-scale, longitudinal evaluation comprising two main elements. The first element of the evaluation is an impact study of the four interventions. This evaluation report is addressing three broad types of questions related to intervention impacts: What is the impact of being in any of the four remedial reading interventions, considered as a group, relative to the instruction provided by the schools? What is the impact of being in one of the remedial reading programs that focuses primarily on developing word-level skills, considered as a group, relative to the instruction provided by the schools? What is the impact of being in each of the four particular remedial reading interventions, considered individually, relative to the instruction provided by the schools? Do the impacts of programs vary across students with different baseline characteristics? To what extent can the instruction provided in this study close the reading gap and bring struggling readers within the normal range, relative to the instruction provided by their schools? To answer these questions, the impact study was based on a scientifically rigorous designan experimental design that uses random assignment at two levels: (1) 50 schools from 27 school districts were randomly assigned to one of the four interventions, and (2) within each school, eligible children in grades 3 and 5 were randomly assigned to a treatment group or to a control group. Students assigned to the intervention group (treatment group) were placed by the program providers and local coordinators into instructional groups of three students. Students in the control groups received the same instruction in reading that they would have ordinarily received. Children were defined as eligible if they were identified by their teachers as struggling readers and if they scored at or below the 30th percentile on a word-level reading test and at or above the 5th percentile on a vocabulary test. From an original pool of 1,576 3rd and 5th grade students identified as struggling readers, 1,042 also met the test-score criteria. Of these eligible students, 772 were given permission by their parents to participate in the evaluation. The second element of the evaluation is an implementation study that has two components: (1) an exploration of the similarities and differences in reading instruction offered in the four interventions and (2) a description of the regular instruction that students in the control group received in the absence of the interventions and the regular instruction received by the treatment group beyond the interventions. Test data and other information on students, parents, teachers, classrooms, and schools are being collected several times over a three-year period. Key data collection points pertinent to this summary report include the period just before the interventions began, when baseline information was collected, and the period immediately after the interventions ended, when follow-up data were collected. Additional follow-up data for students and teachers are being collected in 2005 and again in 2006. B. The Interventions We did not design new instructional programs for this evaluation. Rather, we employed either parts or all of four existing and widely used remedial reading instructional programs: Spell Read P.A.T., Corrective Reading, Wilson Reading, and Failure Free Reading. As the evaluation was originally conceived, the four interventions would fall into two instructional classifications with two interventions in each. The interventions in one classification would focus only on word-level skills, and the interventions in the other classification would focus equally on word-level skills and reading comprehension/vocabulary. Corrective Reading and Wilson Reading were modified to fit within the first of these classifications. The decision to modify these two intact programs was justified both because it created two treatment classes that were aligned with the different types of reading deficits observed in struggling readers and because it gave us sufficient statistical power to contrast the relative effectiveness of the two classes. Because Corrective Reading and Wilson Reading were modified, results from this study do not provide complete evaluations of these interventions; instead, the results suggest how interventions using primarily the word-level components of these programs will affect reading achievement. With Corrective Reading and Wilson Reading focusing on word-level skills, it was expected that Spell Read P.A.T. and Failure Free Reading would focus on both word-level skills and reading comprehension/vocabulary. In a time-by-activity analysis of the instruction that was actually delivered, however, it was determined that three of the programsSpell Read P.A.T., Corrective Reading, and Wilson Readingfocused primarily on the development of word-level skills, and oneFailure Free Readingprovided instruction in both word-level skills and the development of comprehension skills and vocabulary. Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) provides systematic and explicit fluency-oriented instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics along with every-day experiences in reading and writing for meaning. The phonemic activities include a wide variety of specific tasks focused on specific skill mastery and include, for example, building syllables from single sounds, blending consonant and vowel sounds, and analyzing or breaking syllables into their individual sounds. Each lesson also includes reading and writing activities intended to help students apply their phonically based reading skills to authentic reading and writing tasks. The Spell Read intervention had originally been one of the two word-level plus comprehension interventions, but after the time x activity analysis, we determined that it was more appropriately grouped as a word-level intervention. Corrective Reading uses scripted lessons that are designed to improve the efficiency of instruction and to maximize opportunities for students to respond and receive feedback. The lessons involve very explicit and systematic instructional sequences, including a series of quick tasks that are intended to focus students attention on critical elements for successful word identification as well as exercises intended to build rate and fluency through oral reading of stories that have been constructed to counter word-guessing habits. Although the Corrective Reading program does have instructional procedures that focus on comprehension, they were originally designated as a word-level intervention, and the developer was asked not to include these elements in this study. Wilson Reading uses direct, multi-sensory, structured teaching based on the Orton-Gillingham methodology. The program is based on 10 principles of instruction, some of which involve teaching fluent identification of letter sounds; presenting the structure of language in a systematic, cumulative manner; presenting concepts in the context of controlled as well as non-controlled text; and teaching and reinforcing concepts with visual-auditory-kinesthetic-tactile methods. Similar to Corrective Reading, the Wilson Program has instructional procedures that focus on comprehension and vocabulary, but since they were originally designated as a word-level intervention, they were asked not to include these in this study. Failure Free Reading uses a combination of computer-based lessons, workbook exercises, and teacher-led instruction to teach sight vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. The program is designed to have students spend approximately one-third of each instructional session working within each of these formats, so that they are not taught simultaneously as a group. Unlike the other three interventions in this study, Failure Free does not emphasize phonemic decoding strategies. Rather, the intervention depends upon building the students vocabulary of sight words through a program involving multiple exposures and text that is engineered to support learning of new words. Students read material that is designed to be of interest to their age level while also challenging their current independent and instructional reading level. Lessons are based on story text that is controlled for syntax and semantic content. C. Measures of Reading Ability Seven measures of reading skill were administered at the beginning and end of the school year to assess student progress in learning to read. As outlined below, these measures of reading skills assessed phonemic decoding, word reading accuracy, text reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Phonemic Decoding Word Attack (WA) subtest from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R) Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (PDE) subtest from the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) Word Reading Accuracy and Fluency Word Identification (WI) subtest from the WRMT-R Sight Word Efficiency (SWE) subtest from the TOWRE Oral Reading Fluency subtest from Edformation, Inc. The text of this report refers to the reading passages as Aimsweb passages, which is the term used broadly in the reading practice community. Reading Comprehension Passage Comprehension (PC) subtest from the WRMT-R Passage Comprehension from the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) For all tests except the Aimsweb passages, the analysis uses grade-normalized standard scores, which indicate where a student falls within the overall distribution of reading ability among students in the same grade. Scores above 100 indicate above-average performance; scores below 100 indicate below-average performance. In the population of students across the country at all levels of reading ability, standard scores are constructed to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, implying that approximately 70 percent of all students scores will fall between 85 and 115 and that approximately 95 percent of all students scores will fall between 70 and 130. For the Aimsweb passages, the score used in this analysis is the median correct words per minute from three grade-level passages. Implementing the Interventions The interventions were implemented from the first week of November 2003 through the first weeks in May 2004. During this time students received, on average, about 90 hours of instruction, which was delivered five days a week to groups of three students in sessions that were approximately 50 minutes long. A small part of the instruction was delivered in groups of two, or 1:1, because of absences and make-up sessions. Since many of the sessions took place during the students regular classroom reading instruction, teachers reported that students in the treatment groups received less reading instruction in the classroom than did students in the control group (1.2 hours per week versus 4.4 hours per week.). Students in the treatment group received more small-group instruction than did students in the control group (6.8 hours per week versus 3.7 hours per week). Both groups received a very small amount of 1:1 tutoring in reading from their schools during the week. Teachers were recruited from participating schools on the basis of experience and the personal characteristics relevant to teaching struggling readers. They received, on average, nearly 70 hours of professional development and support during the implementation year as follows: About 30 hours during an initial week of intensive introduction to each program About 24 hours during a seven-week period at the beginning of the year when the teachers practiced their assigned methods with 4th-grade struggling readers in their schools About 14 hours of supervision during the intervention phase According to an examination of videotaped teaching sessions by the research team, the training and supervision produced instruction that was judged to be faithful to each intervention model. The program providers themselves also rated the teachers as generally above average in both their teaching skill and fidelity to program requirements relative to other teachers with the same level of training and experience. Characteristics of Students in the Evaluation The characteristics of the students in the evaluation sample are shown in Table 1 (see the end of this summary for all tables). About 45 percent of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunches. In addition, about 27 percent were African American, and 73 percent were white. Fewer than two percent were Hispanic. Roughly 33 percent of the students had a learning disability or other disability. On average, the students in our evaluation sample scored about one-half to one standard deviation below national norms (mean 100 and standard deviation 15) on measures used to assess their ability to decode words. For example, on the Word Attack subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R), the average standard score was 93. This translates into a percentile ranking of 32. On the TOWRE test for phonemic decoding efficiency (PDE), the average standard score was 83, at approximately the 13th percentile. On the measure of word reading accuracy (Word Identification subtest for the WRMT-R), the average score placed these students at the 23rd percentile. For word reading fluency, the average score placed them at the 16th percentile for word reading efficiency (TOWRE SWE), and third- and fifth-grade students, respectively, read 41 and 77 words per minute on the oral reading fluency passages (Aimsweb). In terms of reading comprehension, the average score for the WRMT-R test of passage comprehension placed students at the 30th percentile, and for the Group Reading and Diagnostic Assessment (GRADE), they scored, on average, at the 23rd percentile. This sample, as a whole, was substantially less impaired in basic reading skills than most samples used in previous research with older reading disabled students. These earlier studies typically examined samples in which the phonemic decoding and word reading accuracy skills of the average student were below the tenth percentile and, in some studies, at only about the first or second percentile. Students in such samples are much more impaired and more homogeneous in their reading abilities than the students in this evaluation and in the population of all struggling readers in the United States. Thus, it is not known whether the findings from these previous studies pertain to broader groups of struggling readers in which the average students reading abilities fall between, say, the 20th and 30th percentiles. This evaluation can help to address this issue. It obtained a broad sample of struggling readers, and is evaluating in regular school settings the kinds of intensive reading interventions that have been widely marketed by providers and widely sought by school districts to improve such students reading skills. Discussion of Impacts This first year report assesses the impact of the four interventions on the treatment groups in comparison with the control groups immediately after the end of the reading interventions. In particular, we provide detailed estimates of the impacts, including the impact of being randomly assigned to receive any of the interventions, being randomly assigned to receive a word-level intervention, and being randomly assigned to receive each of the individual interventions. For purposes of this summary, we focus on the impact of being randomly assigned to receive any intervention compared to receiving the instruction that would normally be provided. These findings are the most robust because of the larger sample sizes. The full report also estimates impacts for various subgroups, including students with weak and strong initial word attack skills, students with low or high beginning vocabulary scores, and students who either qualified or did not qualify for free or reduced price school lunches.  The impact of each of the four interventions is the difference between average treatment and control group outcomes. Because students were randomly assigned to the two groups, we would expect the groups to be statistically equivalent; thus, with a high probability, any differences in outcomes can be attributed to the interventions. Also because of random assignment, the outcomes themselves can be defined either as test scores at the end of the school year, or as the change in test scores between the beginning and end of the school year (the gain). In the tables of impacts (Tables 2-4), we show three types of numbers. The baseline score shows the average standard score for students at the beginning of the school year. The control gain indicates the improvement that students would have made in the absence of the interventions. Finally, the impact shows the value added by the interventions. In other words, the impact is the amount that the interventions increased students test scores relative to the control group. The gain in the intervention group students average test scores between the beginning and end of the school year can be calculated by adding the control group gain and the impact. In practice, impacts were estimated using a hierarchical linear model that included a student-level model and a school-level model. In the student-level model, we include indicators for treatment status and grade level as well as the baseline test score. The baseline test score was included to increase the precision with which we measured the impact, that is, to reduce the standard error of the estimated impact. The school-level model included indicators that show the intervention to which each school was randomly assigned and indicators for the blocking strata used in the random assignment of schools to interventions. Below, we describe some of the key interim findings: For third graders, we found that the four interventions combined had impacts on phonemic decoding, word reading accuracy and fluency, and reading comprehension. There are fewer significant impacts for fifth graders than for third graders (see Table 2). The impacts of the three word-level interventions combined were similar to those for all four interventions combined. Although many of the impacts shown in Table 2 for third graders are positive and statistically significant when all, or just the three word-level, interventions are considered, it is noteworthy that on the GRADE, which is a group-administered test for reading comprehension, the impact estimate and the estimated change in standard scores for the control group indicate that there was not a substantial improvement in reading comprehension in the intervention groups relative to the larger normative sample for the test. Instead, this evidence suggests that the interventions helped these students maintain their relative position among all students and not lose ground in reading comprehension, as measured by the GRADE test. Results from the GRADE test are particularly important, because this test, more than others in the battery, closely mimics the kinds of testing demands (group administration, responding to multiple choice comprehension questions) found in current state-administered reading accountability measures. Among key subgroups, the most notable variability in findings was observed for students who qualified for free or reduced price lunches and those who did not. Although the ability to compare impacts between groups is limited by the relatively small samples, we did generally find significant impacts on the reading outcomes for third graders who did not qualify and few significant impacts for those who did qualify (see Tables 3 and 4), when all four interventions are considered together and when the three word-level interventions are considered together. These findings for third graders may be driven in part by particularly large negative gains among the control group students in the schools assigned to one intervention. At the end of the first year, the reading gap for students in the intervention group was generally smaller than the gap for students in the control group when considering all four interventions together. The reading gap describes the extent to which the average student in one of the two evaluation groups (intervention or control) is lagging behind the average student in the population (see Figures 1-12 and Table 5). The reduction in the reading gap attributable to the interventions at the end of the school year is measured by the interventions impact relative to the gap for the control group, the latter showing how well students would have performed if they had not been in one of the interventions. Being in one of the interventions reduced the reading gap on Word Attack skills by about two-thirds for third graders. On other word-level tests and a measure of reading comprehension, the interventions reduced the gap for third graders by about one-fifth to one-quarter. For fifth graders, the interventions reduced the gap for Word Attack and Sight Word Efficiency by about 60 and 12 percent, respectively. Future reports will focus on the impacts of the interventions one year after they ended. At this point, it is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of the interventions assessed in this study. Based on the results from earlier research (Torgesen et al. 2001), there is a reasonable possibility that students who substantially improved their phonemic decoding skills will continue to improve in reading comprehension relative to average readers. Consistent with the overall pattern of immediate impacts, we would expect more improvement in students who were third graders when they received the intervention relative to fifth graders. We are currently processing second-year data (which includes scores on the Pennsylvania state assessments) and expect to release a report on that analysis within the next year. End Notes Bibliography Torgesen, J.K. Recent Discoveries from Research on Remedial Interventions for Children with Dyslexia. In M. Snowling and C. Hulme, eds., The Science of Reading. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2005. Torgesen, J.K., A.W. Alexander, R.K. Wagner, C.A. Rashotte, K. Voeller, T. Conway, and E. Rose. Intensive Remedial Instruction for Children with Severe Reading Disabilities: Immediate and Long-Term Outcomes from Two Instruction Approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities 2001, 34: 33-58. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. The Nations Report Card: Reading Highlights 2003. NCES 2004-452. Washington, DC: NCES. Available online at [www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2003/2004452.pdf].     Figure 1 Third Grade Gains in Word Attack                          Figure 7 Fifth-Grade Gains in Word Attack                        Appendix A Independent Review Panel Members Kaleem Caire, American Education Reform Council Tom Cook, Northwestern University Chris Cross, Cross & Joftus, LLC Gayle Fallon, Houston Federation of Teachers David Francis, University of Houston Norma Garza Eric Hanushek, Hoover Institution, Stanford University Sharon Johnson, Withrow University High School Paul Peterson, Harvard University Steve Raudenbush, University of Chicago Eric Smith, Anne Arundel County Public Schools John Stevens, Texas Business and Education Coalition Patricia Supple, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Tasha Tillman Maris Vinovskis, University of Michigan Rodney Watson, Louisiana Department of Education     PAGE  PAGE 37  The Nations Report Card: Reading 2005 (2005). Washington, DC: US Department of Education.  National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.  The National Academy of Sciences (2004). On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.  U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service.  Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich (2000). Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service. The estimate of the percentage of public schools receiving Title I funds was updated based on the number of Title I schools reported on Consolidated State Performance Reports for 2002-03 divided by the total number of public elementary and secondary schools in 200102 from the NCES Common Core of Data.  Beth Sinclair (forthcoming). State ESEA Title I Participation Information for 2002-03: Final Summary Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.  Beth Sinclair (forthcoming). State ESEA Title I Participation Information for 2002-03: Final Summary Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.  U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, unpublished data on averaged freshman graduation rates. U.S.Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service analysis of state-reported graduation rates from Consolidated State Performance Reports and State Education Agency websites. State-reported rates for 2003 or 2004 were used for 16 states where 2002 rates were not available.  Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2003-04.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.  Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2003-04.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality under No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.  Center on Education Policy (2005). From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 3 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.  Christine Padilla, Katrina Woodworth, Andrea Lash, Patrick M. Shields, and Katrina G. Laguarda (2005). Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts: Findings From 2002-03. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.  Policy and Program Studies Service monthly reviews of State Education Agency Websites, conducted by Westat from May 2003 through May 2005.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.  Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2003-04.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.  U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.  These four interventions were selected from more than a dozen potential program providers by members of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Haan Foundation for Children. See Appendix Q in Volume II for a list of the Scientific Advisory Board members.  The impacts described here represent the impact of being selected to participate in one of the interventions. A small number of students selected for the interventions did not participate, and about 7.5 percent received less than a full dose (80 hours) of instruction. Estimation of the effect of an intervention on participants and those who participated for 80 or more hours requires that stronger assumptions be made than when estimating impacts for those offered the opportunity to participate, and we cannot have the same confidence in the findings as we do with the results discussed in this summary. Our full report presents estimates of the effects for participants and those who participated for at least 80 hours. These findings are similar to those reported here.  In future analyses, we plan to explore another approach for estimating the impact of the interventions on closing the reading gap. This approach will contrast the percentage of students in the intervention groups and the control groups who scored within the normal range on the standardized tests.  EMBED Excel.Sheet.8   EMBED Excel.Sheet.8  Figure 2 Third Grade Gains in Phonemic Decoding Efficiency aTreatment group gain bControl group gain 0.2b 5.0a Control Gap = 7.2 Impact = 5.0 Norm Achievement ( T ) ( C )  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Treatment Gap = 2.2 Norm Achievement 3.0 6.0  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Figure 3 Third Grade Gains in Word Identification  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Treatment Gap = 9.6 Before Intervention After Intervention Before Intervention Before Intervention After Intervention After Intervention Impact = 2.3 Control Gap = 11.9 Norm Achievement 3.4 6.1 Figure 4 Third Grade Gains in Sight Word Efficiency After Intervention Before Intervention Control Gap = 10.1 Impact = 2.7 Treatment Gap = 7.4 Norm Achievement ( T ) ( C )  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  After Intervention Before Intervention Figure 5 Third Grade Gains in Passage Comprehension Control Gap = 7.3 Impact = 1.2 Treatment Gap = 6.1 Norm Achievement ( T ) ( C )  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  -4.0 0.7 After Intervention Before Intervention Figure 6 Third Grade Gains in GRADE Test Control Gap = 17.7 Impact = 4.6 Treatment Gap = 13.1 Norm Achievement ( T ) ( C )  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  ( T ) ( C ) ( T ) Achievement Figure 9 Fifth-Grade Gains in Word Identification 5.9 7.3  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Achievement Norm Treatment Gap = 11.7 Impact = 1.4 Control Gap = 13.1 Before Intervention After Intervention Figure 8 Fifth-Grade Gains in Phonemic Decoding Efficiency 2.2 Treatment Gap = 2.0 Impact = 2.7 Control Gap = 4.7 Before Intervention After Intervention 4.8 Before Intervention After Intervention Norm ( T ) ( C ) Control Gap = 8.4 2.9 3.4  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Treatment Gap = 7.9 Impact = 0.5 Achievement Norm  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Achievement Norm Before Intervention After Intervention  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  ( T ) Impact = 1.3 Treatment Gap = 7.8 Control Gap = 9.1 -0.4 Norm Achievement Figure 10 Fifth-Grade Gains in Sight Word Efficiency Figure 11 Fifth-Grade Gains in Passage Comprehension Before Intervention After Intervention 5.4 4.0 ( C ) Impact = 1.4 ( T ) Treatment Gap = 10.4 Control Gap = 11.8  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s   EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Achievement Norm After Intervention Before Intervention Control Gap = 7.5 Impact = -0.2 Treatment Gap = 7.7 ( T ) ( C ) 1.0 0.8 Figure 12 Fifth-Grade Gains in GRADE Test 1.7 -0.6 ( C ) ( C ) ( T ) ( T ) 2.1 0.9 Control Gap = 11.4 Treatment Gap = 8.4 Impact = 3.0 ( C ) ( C ) -1.7 ./0BQRabxyLk}~ *9Z C D U V y z { ɿ⹩}vq B*ph 0J.OJQJjOJQJUjOJQJUB*OJQJph5OJQJ\ OJQJ]6CJOJQJ] 5OJQJ 6OJQJ5CJ 6CJ] 56CJ]6OJQJ]aJ OJQJaJOJQJ CJ0OJQJCJ4 56CJ4] 6CJ4\]*./0BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV$a$, d $7$8$H$a$$a$$a$yy^VWXYZ[\]^_`abLk~   7$8$H$$a$*+,:;'( ! D E   { $a$ D% $ D% a$ D%  & F1$    w ! : . { | QRTb'Jfg*!$Q'꿸wnwhwawaw CJOJQJ 6CJaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJ\aJCJOJQJ\aJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJ 6\]aJ\aJOJQJ\aJOJQJ\aJ OJQJaJOJQJ 0J.OJQJ jB*OJQJUphjB*OJQJUphB*OJQJph5B*OJQJ\ph$ PQRSTbcd&' D%  D% ^ D% /$ S|LT$ \ ,d4t"D%a$'JKfg$$P'Q'''**..22444 D%  D% $a$ D%  D% Q'''*G+I+444444!7m789:=3>4>@AA|B}B~BBBsCCC}D~DDDG4G5G6GIһ䢪ҪҪҪҪyliCJ56CJOJQJ\]5CJOJQJ\aJOJQJ5OJQJ\5CJOJQJ\ 5OJQJCJOJQJ\ CJOJQJ5CJOJQJaJCJOJQJ\]aJ56CJOJQJ]5CJOJQJ5CJOJQJaJCJOJQJ\aJ\aJ5CJOJQJ\]aJ'44 7!799::==3>4>@@AA}B~BBBrCsCCC}D~DDD Eh^h D%  E EGG5G6GIILLLLNNMONObQcQQQzR{RS^ & F & F  & F   & Fh^h & FIIJJJJKKLLLLLLNNNNOyRRRSSSWWX9Y:YZZ\\\\____aaaaccccee*e3eHhIhվഫ5CJOJQJCJOJQJ\aJ6]j0JCJOJQJUaJCJOJQJaJ5CJOJQJ\6CJOJQJ]j0JCJOJQJU5>*CJOJQJ\5OJQJ\CJH*OJQJ CJOJQJ>*CJOJQJ4SSSSXX9Y:YYY)Z*ZZZ\\__aacceef#$ & Fa$ & F ^^ & F#$a$ffHhIhchdhvkwkmm`nnppppyrzr{rrrrrr#$a$$a$h^h  & F !8^$h^h$#$a$Ihchdhtkukmm`nnnppppppHqvqrrvr{rrrrrsww{{}~̺|toee[5CJOJQJaJCJOJQJ\aJOJQJ6CJOJQJjUmHnHu6CJKH] 5CJaJ\aJ6CJ\]aJ56CJKH\]5CJKH\CJKH CJ\aJ6CJKHOJQJ]6CJOJQJ]CJj0JCJOJQJUaJCJOJQJaJ CJOJQJ5OJQJ\"rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr sZs}sswwxx{{ D% `#$a$#$a${}}~C݄ބ߄ee$$Ifl     D%% 6`M0    %4 la$$M&`#$/If`$$$M&`#$/If`a$#$a$#$a$ ބ߄%ʼnƉCDf$ώ֐אCȔɔJKLN;ɗʗ̗ŤƤʤz 6\]aJ56CJ\]aJ5CJOJQJ\aJCJH*OJQJaJjCJH*OJQJUaJj0JCJOJQJUaJCJOJQJaJ5CJOJQJaJ 6CJaJCJOJQJaJ5CJOJQJ\aJ CJOJQJ5CJOJQJaJ.߄%ʼnƉo o<o\$$M&`#$/If`v$$Ifl    0D%  6`M0    %4 la $M&`#$/If $M&`#$/If CDf$ώ֐אv0vvXvv$$Ifl    0D%  6`M0    %4 la$$M&`#$/If` CMN˗̗~~ww~~~~~#$a$#$a$x$$Ifl    *0D%  6`M0    %4 la ŤƤ]$ D% $&`#$/Ifa$$ D% $&`#$/Ifa$$ D% $&`#$/Ifa$ D% $&`#$/If D% #$a$ ʤKM]?EesaXYZ}įů25!"#>׿xxmmcx^ jUCJOJQJ\aJB*CJOJQJphCJOJQJaJ5CJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJ5CJOJQJaJ CJOJQJPJCJCJOJQJ^JaJ5CJOJQJ\^JaJ5CJH*OJQJ5CJOJQJ5CJOJQJaJ56CJOJQJaJ 5OJQJ6aJ"ȦԦXkk$ D% $&`#$/Ifa$% D% $&`#$/9DIfd$$Ifl4    #H$ 6`0    H$4 laԦզ *>vaIIvaII$ D% $&`#$/Ifa$ D% $&`#$/If$$Ifl    F6 ~# H ^ 6`0    H$    4 la>?EWijv_GGv$ D% $&`#$/Ifa$% D% $&`#$/9DIf$$Ifl    F6 ~# H ^ 6`0    H$    4 lajs§çII$$Ifl    F6 ~# H ^ 6`0    H$    4 la$ D% $&`#$/Ifa$ D% $&`#$/Ifçǧۧ !II$$Ifl    F6 ~# H ^ 6`0    H$    4 la$ D% $&`#$/Ifa$ D% $&`#$/If!<Pdef`G77#$$&`#$/Ifa$$$Ifl    F6 ~# H ^ 6`0    H$    4 la$ D% $&`#$/Ifa$ D% $&`#$/If`aYZů!|zwwwp#$a$$#$a$#$a$e$$Ifl    #H$ 6`0    H$4 la#$$&`#$/Ifa$ !"BCcdePo^Q $ D% $Ifa$"$L$If]L^a$&$d$If`a$x$$Ifl    0d&h t0    d&44 lal$If >?@ABCD_`abdeHݶ޶ƹǹWʼ˼PQ|yuk56CJOJQJ6aJCJ 6CJaJj0JCJOJQJUaJ 5OJQJ CJOJQJ6CJaJ56CJOJQJaJ5CJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJCJmHnHuCJaJCJOJQJaJ jUUj>G UV mHnHu jU jUj>G UV(ݶ޶ƹǹ}{{{#$a$'he$$Ifl    d&d& t0    d&44 lal$If VWʼ˼PQڿۿef !uv$#$a$#$a$ڿۿE ef !u5B&ABDE`abcdef迹ܷ迯襚}jUmHnHu j#UjݞG UV jU5B*OJQJph5CJOJQJaJ5CJOJQJ5 6OJQJ6CJOJQJ\aJ5CJOJQJaJ CJOJQJ56CJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJjCJH*OJQJUaJ.67DdfEFH$&`#$/If]^H$&`#$/If$$&`#$/Ifa$ &$d`a$#$`a$#$a$#` $ #$a$ftE+,TUVb$!CDȿȿ|sjȿdȰȿ 5OJQJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJ5CJOJQJaJ$jCJOJQJUaJmHnHu j6U5CJOJQJ^J6OJQJ^JjCJH*OJQJUaJCJOJQJaJ5CJOJQJaJ56CJOJQJaJ CJOJQJ6CJOJQJaJ CJOJQJ5CJOJQJ'V|||wwwwww#$a$$ ]^p$$Ifl      \$$ t 6`0      644 la Vb d_Z#$a$#$a$\$$IfTl:064 la= $ L$Ifa$$If $)$If])a$ $ $Ifa$ $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ CD|}$%QRtu#$a$#$`a$, S|LT$ \ ,d4t"D%#$a$z{}, !%'QRtug!"#$%&7v&')*+ ! j0JCJOJQJU\aJCJOJQJaJ CJOJQJj5UmHnHu jU j[F U jU556OJQJ6 5OJQJ5CJOJQJ 6CJaJjCJH*OJQJUaJ5CJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJ2%'($If X  $If] ^( X 8$If]8^( X $If]^ $$Ifa$#$a$ ( X ]^ ()"#CDFGooooo D% $ &#$/If]^b$$$ &#$/Ifa$b$#$a$X$$IflT064 la !"#$?@ABCDEURSmstuvsEF[\ܿ}}yohh CJOJQJ5CJOJQJaJ6>*5jCJH*OJQJUaJ5CJOJQJaJ56CJOJQJ56CJOJQJaJ6 5OJQJCJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJ'j5CJOJQJUaJmHnHu5CJOJQJaJ jU jtF U jUCJOJQJaJ(STUVWXYZ[\]dbbbbbbbbq$$Ifl       t 6 0      644 lae4$ &#$/Ifb$#$$ &#$/If^a$b$ ]^_`abcdefghijklmnuv`#$a$EF]^ij! #$a$#$a$#$a$\^oW.cghij  "      H I  v w x y    "j5OJQJU\mHnHuCJKHOJQJ5OJQJaJCJ 6OJQJB*CJOJQJaJph B*ph CJOJQJ56CJOJQJaJ66CJjCJH*OJQJUaJ5CJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJ1! "     H I x          =>?tu$a$ $7$8$H$a$#$a$1$7$8$H$$a$#$a$   =>?Vtu cowd(z(0004050w3x333666S9g9:ʻʍuʕʀ56CJOJQJ]56CJOJQJ\]5CJOJQJ56CJOJQJ\] 6OJQJ6OJQJ\] j0JU] B*ph jCJOJQJ CJOJQJCJOJQJaJ 56CJ]5\OJQJ5CJOJQJ\5CJKHOJQJ\-9UVt !Z[ ! ,-=)$ & Fa$)$`a$)`, d$a$$a$=>U V $$o&p&c(d(z({())**--0x36S9 $ & F a$*$`a$)$`a$)$ & Fa$)$a$::;<<< =5>G>H>??\@]@@D3D IZJK+L}OOVVlWrWZZZZZRbcglhjvkll o o oofoqUrVr_r`rdrerrrĿjCJUmHnHu5OJQJaJ OJQJaJj0JCJOJQJU56CJOJQJ\]aJ0JaJj0JUaJ0JaJ B*ph 6OJQJ6OJQJ\] CJOJQJ6CJOJQJ]CJOJQJ]4S9<< = =4>G>H>>>??J??D@E@\@]@@@@ & F & F & F  & F  & F  & F  *$`a$ $ & F a$@DD3D4DHH IpIJZJKK+L,LMMfRgRVVVVZ & F & F*$`a$)$`a$ & F *$`a$ZZ__Rbgj oUrVr`rarbrcrdrrrsr?s@sjtktuuuu+$ & Fa$ $ & Fa$*$`a$)$`a$rrsrss7tYtuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu}}}CJOJQJ\^JaJ OJQJ\$jCJOJQJU^JmHnHuCJOJQJ^JCJOJQJ^J"j5OJQJU\mHnHu#j;CJOJQJUmHnHu;CJOJQJjUmHnHu6OJQJ]OJQJ5OJQJ\1uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ^`,+uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuv vvvvvvvvvv ^`uuuuuvv vvvvvvvvvvv v/v0v6v7v9v:vAvBvLvUv\v|v}vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvʽʱjUmHnHu5CJOJQJ\^JjCJUmHnHuCJOJQJ^J$jCJOJQJU^JmHnHu"j5OJQJU\mHnHu5OJQJ\Avv!v"v#v$v%v&v'v(v)v*v+v,v-v.v/v1v2v3v4v5v6v8v9v;vv?v?v@vAvCvDvEvFvGvHvIvJvKvUv}vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv,$  a$,vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvwwwww1w$a$$a$,vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvwwwww0w1w3wyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzBzĽ6CJOJQJ] CJOJQJj0JCJOJQJU0JmHnHu0J j0JU jUCJOJQJaJ OJQJaJCJOJQJaJ5CJOJQJ\aJ"j5OJQJU\mHnHujCJUmHnHu5OJQJ\21w2w3wcwdwwwwwwwww x xAxBxqxrxxxxxxx#y$y ^$a$$yPyQy_y`yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy$h]ha$ $&`#$a$&`#$ ^yyyBz{G|w|~aRC};J݉7"BCBzCzz@{{{{|F|G|H|w|x||$}~~~4/abPRSACD_{}~ۆ9;<WHJKۉ݉މ;6CJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJj0JCJOJQJUaJ6CJOJQJ6CJOJQJ] CJOJQJj0JCJOJQJUH 78 "#DEՎ׎؎5QSTDEՑבؑ5hjkȒ[ʥj0JCJOJQJUaJCJOJQJaJ6CJOJQJCJOJQJ]aJ6CJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJj0JCJOJQJUaJ6CJOJQJ]j0JCJOJQJU CJOJQJ8CD׎SDבj#"/]^yzҙәԙ$a$!#$"#/0]^_uvwxz{љәԙՙ  +,12>?EFLMNhCJOJQJ^JCJOJQJ^JCJH*OJQJ^J5CJOJQJ\^JCJOJQJ^J jUjz-G CJUV jUj G CJUV jU CJOJQJj0JCJOJQJU6CJOJQJaJCJOJQJaJ2  +,12>?EFLMlmnophijkpšÚĚƚ./CDWXlmΛӛԛ !45CJOJQJ\^J jC4UjdG CJUVaJ5CJOJQJ\^JCJOJQJ^J j/UjF CJUVCJOJQJ^JCJOJQJ^J jU j+UjF CJUV<ŚƚϚК$./CDWXlm$a$͛Λӛԛ !45IJ]^kl$a$!45IJ]^klÜ֜ל!"#56CDYZ_`lmstz{|Νϝ 2389EFLMS j=UjF CJUVCJOJQJ^JCJOJQJ^J j8UjF CJUV jUCJOJQJ^JCJOJQJ^JIœÜ֜ל!"#56CDYZ_`lms$a$stz{Νϝ؝ٝ 2389EF- @d$a$FLMSTstz{|}ʞ˞̞͞ўҞ֞מ$a$STUopqrtz}ɞʞ͞ўҞ֞מ؞   !./BCWXklßğџҟ '(;<ABЩ5CJOJQJ\^J jsGUj7oG CJUV5CJOJQJ\^JCJOJQJ^JCJOJQJ^JCJOJQJ^J jBUjF CJUV jUB   !./BCWXklußğџҟ $a$ '(;<ABHJPQRdeijnoŠ(BQRdeijnopŠƠǠ !"#=>?@BCDJKX[pqҡӡԡ CJOJQJ^JCJOJQJ^J jUUj=H CJUVaJ jQUjrG CJUV jZLUj.F CJUV jUCJOJQJ^JCJOJQJ^J>ŠƠ !"ABCDJKXYZ[pqӡԡޡߡ   3489=>DERSYZpq$a$    3489=>DERSYZpq¢âŢѢҢעآ"#89?@FGKLPQ{|}½CJOJQJ^JCJOJQJ^J jZ_UjF CJUV jZUjtG CJUVaJ jUCJOJQJ^JCJOJQJ^J5CJOJQJ\^JCĢŢѢҢעآ"#89?@FGKLPQ[\$a$\|}ɣʣ$a$ɣʣߣ~CJOJQJ^JCJOJQJ^Jʣߣ      !"#$$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@AABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{{|}~ ^ '0&P1h/ =!"#$%* 00&P1h/ =!"#$% 1h/ =!"#<$(% 1h/ =!"#$%# 01h/ =!"#$%# 01h/ =!"#$%& 01h0= /!"#$%& 01h0= /!"#$%& 01h0= /!"#$%& 01h0= /!"#$%& 01h0= /!"#$%& 01h0= /!"#$%# 01h/ =!"#$%# 01h/ =!"#$%'01hP/ =!"#$%`!Sq߫(Ǚ@dh&il(6!xŝml[Ul)Kܔ"@BhQ3;Cm}xkNG*#5]`$ V;5?+ь@B0ZP$E+!=|>>3Z7s~sqgL#js14nB27nૐAYEYWFW[.ƍƟg=J"~o aOY}x$e|N8Sy'F@cσg ]-zLs\_6?׍c9oqc1`Fϼ],ͧ\5T+dLh!BQS+ع?%c#w; ߆vλa˂!f6,$x✛ˤ@鷩0vL}jMy==g3%m0zjS<݇}ӅL9G.'?mşo=GY奝(M<\jifZ#ᤎ"blsy$c"cǣڃFuwP#n$fAqv3E7fJ'Y4zئyzln|3|4H4Q;tS^6_褽Ly0; Za-+,?6crنK&,N4cr6bTqoَxؙ^Ó~~e5{ҿ'1^IzJx zafS_IA[%p1>=Ie\$Q6Q}>ɦO6t'@`oM;,^7LzPߒ,*= JI@nKs^*3npwD}6ֻ7c#|Y~wX֏!QZ߅cߎM'Ti9Snr>Ng^:VF9kcY&Ԑe6nfbxclwqPĆCEiFi$=&JF\ U!4q ED+Y}`wxaR7 J%pkԾ 3TR}&͚ޑFK^+5 iFi5 i⥁z\X5s][35sY'J5CkE+vTrSG1m;aL*â>KäEi4Xo(M3?t-֟o~ -akmҺ;6|>diჇ}=buxaZml&ggxƣ{^Glc|5jĖqnϺI{;-;sof{֙ Yv3SN}d/v4^c4d3&gShm폍s՘X'y弚dc1I9I,,|:Ougs|98eѤ1$wwʶ 1YQWȭwtaQ~w3ijc$*wZ[fsP-Ew\.#TdqX~[) 4]]33Lvñfki;BNY5"oj|jW$oCm:XT"ˑ1YҐ#4M94J5w#?s>Wy(M+xN/JӈGč|߼GRG cYR%611yi՘(MG>T%nJ#!:<ȖKlȖKl6M/[de<5~p>":Q%2uQs9a߻sueV˛ɬVXk "s(-}nw(w{1uhO^ b0Ga&UOJHPմEx4L;*;";wue9&o#VTJ9N6rn401A~b, K=rw&;I;33ELc,`KsU;ade,,lOYm d[Ffl+Ge nTt&Fc̺AA{qd}uhIY'~啓vrs3Z|.^f=>멾ls+ҪjaCaS-h{ edyɪo>[yqAןz^ a؁j<1{sgw$xʗa/x-:E/Js%|LO]AQ(3$+d?I+\>Wz]- ;sh xaW<&)I͝q6;X?gN73ssN?=w#"k'b07Rwy=>gg̦em=xZO0nϘ-?;WWlSyNu̯뜘ͤf¯~q i3sN;3'SBoT;ͭg#MbGs_5xˑ0(`CW1͈U_D_p/BBS&>8?q\ALE 5߉LiKlil#|5TL(Ay_ؕ1*ߍo2}eUG3TuEUTq~nN]hN*?g5T>7I+s7 /:p{Y);> q6t଑/L]n+^uDitlƫp z6ڸvo)3=[c.׻ݤKV&k _L eܤsnd;Yj7ڸ qc7|!UiUjku!{K~b~C ܴg!ԣO33tz}q2oQQ߫ؕ(,6xV9aM+g.>;ѵtf~u!E&5% SƷf@w(gw\߇֠sUs]s=~ls,iD?or5PkFbXլf3=]&kk1玦zQ=íٍ 63D  kI5Xn-}Y.5?H+\Ez.79CN-W5h~4:DpkTMsZ=#1P]k iaMsڢ9=Z.[wى^`k='au6͂.Xk$=_49g2f~w*<@kh|Z˃HOgS=]TOlIXךЯiuZѲaZ^mYd4,ZgQ-j+R}կ`Lnm6]Fi(X~6]Fi3k>֌ߎUl} ] ES]P˺fo/ۿFZԵU`4D{PkGxS={Xkicylnh͞Y쩚6]fzXk$P|hj5O?]GWo=1m*#O`W⿓ Qn/!|K v\.4ҮYt݄_kF`OO5SzM>SqZ*.QeZ,QUZ*Q5jZ&Q->S Z*!Q>P%TEKUredO)F'&enJ̍NȍM T\@TY@UTUj@մTMXnlR%'JhD@Zʗ P-U2ʠW7&Q2j2#jQ; *3PbF퀌ګ(B% TYK% TUKU%TMK$e^eFJ̨Q{ED@Zʗ P-U<=a@53޽\N( 6}jX94fetU ȱImךrlrlR۵&v )& &]kBʱ ȱImךrlrlR۵&v ke!CHJy5DMuc]b'IBx#*)+ *ED1g'$x><5,Ouެ{z-t4SANl+gg$TwVYīe)0nm,Vhd=xcA鍛 s7%>dȂ6"ʗ* deIWVWUj@մTM!2db}eu] WZPf \N5} ʞ@#3POk߉HUp2sQ`J3-l!T4 P-%E SeW Q]eEl@F!n5n#{,]Hی) TU*Q5jZ&ūlEF(+rƺk)g P׾83 kQg?ru|~V͌il{Vqg'٪*4g̸DUjDՀiD|Ve&|گ*1յȱgetYk.KU,KvkG-TEK31e[zҭ*#6cʊ#Ċ;bǁk)v(ݪ2k%]UZ]UUR5i,lݪ2kwKJ[Uk)q*sI]O8=ሽ .k#T 6 UA`AYUB% ޭU@D U(xRV*x|҇QD=/yJW*UUUjY'yYI7TBK%$Rb'y |Q5)K(!jID2ʄKT*KTJT IEe %F#HѣX\QuU+8"|U(Q2UUUjŢ|UeBQ^Z /u PUɍD-畆qEb @mR$nRHvk5ԘSgh:hut@ZUζnYi@)S Zt=zJ"P/j%,PgY:y-u^}-D}gZ3 U-uU u4Lm-Kڠ6HVj*bZjD=#ZjZKMKTJ)NiSg;x&2V+ׁz]K.Qoz[>C-D} Zc/ԗ-Pjo%*] ͖ d@mR%-#Qz@_K헨P -c@R$4Piz'ԓP/h$U^RJԛ@ޔzOK'QTuEK]@R7$j=IuzMn--Q@ h.-KuHKأsF]G. tt]NK9-DKZ%UR:y-u^.uAK]*PU-UODK}"Q+@h@FGCβogugB`!Qq24\E3PHA ߝ`Nx\]lcŻNh`#ٙs!!dqnK{-5]@iF_J DU5`-R^>JU* "TNJޝ5Z9waAW >~^{+DHBPnpy~>w jQkXζa-4$xo >oC'BXiXS)BEw}|=oRΔ0 QIu#:wJxe/DuXukh4]zq 3 `c@A9&Ɵec=!́jankO?=epP+Kbh+7oF~Re7|TS|SwN5.y3׸[=p!?3WfSP^<%s%BsO% !D\B?O|PT3D'$π-@yJZH6}Q7Y6Ӂk<&w=~=\ ;1;t,??\KxuZhգnlJ5Xuc&մ1Vjcd&'vع9vc5[MH5&25Fu*LMք:ȵjscc,2s\!M]slʞF^( Ӹ*VB4SihGQDJx=/oQ fU-A94VN1jpr%}Lr/݌m&-iK_n#&>0d-qr@Jn,VX9q<16"Hc3"X4y0 5b 'I xprm1v0j"8c  pl1,+H'HhHd1y](m6ydW=8*M+ŒjȓkW *`U/P֬kvWPQ\jZ`dj"ZBqBח0IW;|-=R2Z<%O-0F@Nh1wyD<|{(n.jEejdR{NTE)hW K=%%8X.4Q{W0罏v}K㎞e[I̻nת}.Zy/NS9N Zrr iMrz(i;3G0jmd> 5љO7 lG^_`ˀ*9BM.޹cff(_m5az W,GIvncCcZ`ԁ5Z4gG􎉻Bp۪F"!&3G ӧEH[E;EP%6; };SU08+ÚR`N ywмI9s=0{](7[j]Z*ĒC> 2V;9i;'Ɩ~HK(c߯^Uw;9g >Fhŧv}Nz͉oƦzf']ؼ޾#s8-޵޾-vϭ"oo׷9i[a}h1ڻo.gk`n"\A0pfZr=JqoCʮ5zgn5GW>p/|kZ̚a͸dOV)INFtZ;.'{kw7㢓7!ZSw\NV^jbk}+#tIYt98㢓cB\c\)q9;]wfv㢓{B\{\r/z_2.:'DgpJX="z3i\K$M:易ߟK5T)PRR z{ZS˥%TxZ,*;_:3YRWKEə2z2yRi=>}:>˗NEy(jmAE}-Ȳ!N}wz Ѕذ~T ^GPZfD%4ֱrpψU[Q/h'zZ-NKg`& Sʉ ^O}MC+~,w yzgfe%Wg3ډ]E3ڇ\u wAj;rͰQRJ9FCD]CVO mWOJ3"^fdfUsF{ *xPhK.B2GNBT^R/ZjTت^`&8rmBaЪ~0co[7}s r+oW`Nz6t÷ ltoxӷq+TVMZt5r÷ [34?x'y,MME[ɾWdk]>{H ZU[YY:F,zj ux+$hXjVxյnZ Ktt h@ފưd7P1,ٍh Kvux+:Òh@AX\n#8t[YkuM}]::ೳ:Eꢭ&a>װd\P ˴la^ RׂvVP U0dguboHw.A?S`!_r*N IA ߝ`Nx\]lٿ16^v^ 63?8Pǐ1m"m65Y/T"MCyԠ(j*C5*UKViRIC崉D޻3˰v;{{Ϝw9XAA ^~=]wAGD9 ھw/ ! 8;'^մ+ym.ފ|/x}z<ᢈ߅2VJ@uϸd~F:*[}B=Ltct\ibZmDg^8rP*AJ~r*p*nة䓱's.dG Aptt2 US!s؈EsWkjrg.j 3dlw%hрÜ#b?T= 3ZBu,ZBsj&1ͮ5Z8Ӂ5tp<&9wv5^4wR8;7ϩo"t&S *CRaZ}Qe9skNu!3_VTC=z=u涰.8n 2Y~ iwsG0aC{@b8Nr؝pcfӪ6½~4v#PZ}&sn\M{ ` %tv[0 ;d 7vJzM ƯRܵalU6mb{MZ'5b{Mmqpc&Lc4&ӛ'W9^U, RJK2e ӉzO.{x^Z~9ޚyis3D90 3T눗d%Ae l,g^+xхJr66GCڼ7Xpavp9}R:v^ku~̕bܦ8{1;2Lc=CQ ׮v{>{i bNllNstc-tñ`΀ʹX"hf|5.}d֥&h]hJϘu5/u ^(^3=^kZM$35h0D JF.Wd%KH3%/hfY {s؇>G L#oA؇X78X%{ zОSkVcLb:Etmd a:62LiWay.$[[;FI'wQj(9.JN;N䴓(9.JN ONQNLrʸ&̬Ӛ0dP2_ʸ&TF|M8*nɘGeJŨMM8 vZ Fte/anud{ꛜlߖqJ0y]%3dTLjet#JS8Oag!YqSIYWC%12b"U Ph8tb NAmsNA̰9tI n#8F27NQY|z280n#8D<#q'M~'EX$,$Hq L^N}oU)Q]Cͤꣿq;C~V6 S`Ȱb69.DsG:nvq(ÜZM'. SiwTj%3;"9XI>p޽ ֒]ܽuKjU[]7zI=YP jΤVUޤްw($MZh`ީ凛\rIJ`=Wrr0q+9jOt^#GWS:Az-Z4Iqk^KS+,AנONLJes=}03M~VHA'=hЬ'n A2ǎoj{ NSh97w$SѠY_q  +8ޕ\M b 4)$6V : g{+Hl~}oBݩ#&JiV} R҉2UPU' & ex8@^<>^ +O,9׏*/5~?XEHW7F8ֲ~gM^:AZ#zH7|ZE~;?}X'W*j\Q S Ro!O໦u^oVv=@w+̗|Fb,gʳ'vhwZ̨u Qj'?r* "HG; = b` !+K 鳕xhFV5#KGE ʺ("9$m㟦sB?}"Ay,> LI*E\NI]e}_= } uYpglJ7pjnu ex-\CGVZ{P5;Ժz eXazgX$[{ZÒ7 E1,yZÒ7 E1,yʰZG 襸wP<Bm25]n-(jQ>;-(j]6.j]nu KveXL vkAV z=heX`jCvZPƊK$~ˌژyx 0R<8z`!s lWΧ;clI~58pVA x[]l[I9})˅&⿶(v/mIVpƪcc} !BڲY / !@BxtW"_ <XPm;3w71D9s|3g|vxN8ϟ8{?>RmT#N\ _9/,m{HYoiclCx<+FțO.tl3FK.*܏֫evqD>r |zXl;|@Ҋdi>2qZQ?U+4v((ElkuȺ7c^Fp ;Mm w WKQ.U hzL{(i&LC^S8+5xO|AlŘαo@GDUJ AϽm(EgΓx>Q ֟4ZӨ4J E(s<#\ tV]]AN;ɑnӱ8nq4 #Cm톙3x{ FfNpOg= o 8 )޸D/fǽSD/smlƎ޸D/g{YƽdfX|[.}Y @oEK 칝|ef{DخlsumK[Xmm!ffXmۼum2[]w`NM ,l_/;SYwN;Sa2ߚ̸ߚŚ5A/z٬=Ǣ zozPf\otx΂Y$s/\KӺu?ugκ;up+ANZ5eP_oihC\Ui|k2Vw_;"e : ?W]^KFQt#fij(GqVw!?κlfb{ȏC!?ͺl qV[+7C"uH>4> dn'sϟDw]򪖟Fݣ-O>ih d d[>,'K00>3-+nq{ wM2tc2e螼L/o6D7LY^r0esݘ5iL/?7`^wg{lMSo,/a֤0e|K0eylM Soln)[Ô)K0ek`^bk[0lL]{a_~e{؛pXre{bqV^il˔a+aֳ=,g{X&g{zh+r/gU-u KH\%,wU҂353gFXms&y&kE3bտ6rڷṯ-*[IJG.tb ehT(`epppA2)VYoia *zi!dŇ&6 YQz U-$XͰBbCU71V1y@I3݃|R D(> V=il !dm<<q˽l'9Ҷ('o4Ƹ<9+^x zreAdrKLeicQ>42"ہ,L(d&,9a6Iz˚|k՘{~Y-q`6c:EcT1z~D?lD<~k՚Nn gX-#+Smdh#hf*-G0wIįcމ&Q D@y ˽f50C2{|/TkDzkɨ:hCW+eB?Vz"ݦXbEYBU1+UgPn3&"X1=9Qs:e[EkZFzȌ^7 1 UIZ*UaRpl藌jehBT[ uMu:EdL>.ukJ:gSlt Ad ~۞t'o7!lv>ܫ ^RۍEcq;{OcI{߹[w3κغ`^`&On;s} 0lwf= P~o2D}/flw}ڭΣqp>3`Xm(tQsn0w{yYħ _F:rߺ%%7)ėԒmTwo(R퓊>ߊ:#+=",E{wO=V,i,3ОDžO ;j>tS~#Uk'-;j{).)\k>&~}R=d۞Nc>v~"uI aA,'vK2;إ" t}ڭ?z>f?V#ڬ?`!1cDoA+*80=dxڵMHQϝ,," i”Q-ZyزUA6HB*BnLMH. w.ܹE\p'd0{s>i{qsw9sf}w')4KV}T\|pU|"$F}&CM*̻)=߹yJ×M?4<8'_/SDZ,~hWY8NG޾'ҠFv|'32jT'dqS8: Q#c#]9x%Z [[ވ@5 ׌jBT;Gt-xU?sBW蚾.=q,X}?е,ٷ>՝p(Պ7E+dxcy$'mq<IwC^8BIQJ32{$cq<#+.1V̎#7IVDmIVSN!7MVDmiV3 7GVDm9V~D3 HfV . HXdrdj.ZavU2aWY1ڰ6DnCm-V%fKmy gG.)y Zf] 4 լ<תV ̶1l;rjf2Eڰ=2ۋ\ڰyaTxYi戙#<7Rfm5vb$8B$0{qM#vU@):PuE'\: }t,[kUw&AS{<D|>'3ڙ*`nZkZR5ok_+GNȽto{p о\F'_=BrMқJ{4VKw *p%]rRٝZke V'ƌ_a6FUw`!;?Ki>Sd\';0xڵWKTQ}w^4M)#P*EE!D;A۱& JW AH( jUPrSP‚,w^;z9s Q bX +DN6(HK5琣Qya A񷚲YŪ%21U˙HꎪG0#%˧nLωK 262 ^SNH{fr'SيAybdYo|ǧ3կ,=hq4Dy,'Οw[$_4 ׼!Vtkn@TZL9kO;W1Ը6n=a}׌q,a)MYNuc=y!P&0HkP]Pl|X޿鸥NQK*NUs(d42 #.AQyg۠A tC8K`O+V(FWq i`۠V;*tcM0 ƸՎ*&5].I<ZA= <]ZBi<ڧH%=l4eo-Mk}Bfk j 0۩l4c?"fSZBmц qy km+VXrjEmZ uBWIͨ"f[mj7QR6km\Q պ{Mbv^;#ydg-aunX&+ +_>id]V55xs3jtSg-a' {]ΎWʼ}q<#l&8vE_x3͔Lyji>"\Z'bǧyr/ ҧQ]w%kvK..UX)1j+̆ R¼ <.Ev)*G[a%K,]>ߟBFNR@ԓޝ̷ /Ͽ~GY`!cQ0Oދ@x;0oxڵWAKTQ>{>HJI",iPԲ.B'M JHr'*!AȅB ;\LPLMi {ws{=@ ]@4ZJ5AcZ7xSZ2?ZJC s˩j5gZ={Or Z-t(B{U p9sSZwy?olHGNn8 E*BN[UMhK Gy%Ƴz5Dq$F^(ӉD^y9Dz$HO(f#yEGؼ5k19| m!_+az-+u ru7~nwY= ~~((_# | F"~.@ Si M wySș wƛ4gƌxE;'޼p瑷F.^e6BXoE+[e#rW[+p71FhI[m wy;lZxVF'=iUBEpGoD< yx xVp :gG^ qzfGjm`!Į3~]>[';(@xڵWMHTQqƙ42 "AEE#(hiS& J@2ZH. wB h0w|Wh<ι{O z@?y< /N+-,  x"BAVtڵ$jb~Sy׼JGBKT\uM'c ?~󕾏h@Rv-ǿ. /Ǖb>Dոfy-wo߹+8(fvH֠N òv=>Uۆ!gGgCĻĦu#VLAq AZlLPԾs@/fSŵ'kOuLb -o};~+lMaX@e׏]yVsGL[f ͓iWhY7< 0F @@Ն;LŒ@z1bF2vc61bq>34c86mIƾ +`$6mƾ!{kD Ve,a3meĜZ1y/nƈўE/n Έ%֖Ё$lpЉ$SAJ8!hUu :ɶZDXl0blvE/%\nXD)c[F у$˙lU2$eԐdV{JyG3|g/BްWUGux݄JIbSp|r nsƮr݁h!QmԵfe'^*s~LGM|=op,Do)Lԓۺ+NrkTݛaŎQ!oʙ0Uг"c|甯@H}c&lT<;o#(K]O:.&S◒,W(5A/sd _Ay;ҏ *v `!@žL^;0xڵOHqovw42 +-d`"t!KG2 *ʛ<R!ЛP:2f~e |~y3HDIhCKXZ T*g S2<TG ST2GCєߌȼz#~+>|[/ׇ)BϱT|q̣(4 ,,=KCr5 dƷB:#uBf8=]ϯC~53~0ѿӳ+睅Fx ώ &TZ9kƳ+~:tpiynu Ko}+S }O>cRxs0.@Ϗ'G-󩍕=#ߦcыl6wĶ*]G)ͨƆz<D+Y?~?!=<<լk5rd&&YM1; Yx*BL̳Z`vEjVZbv eˬV]En,gX}c+r! ?@z5+Z-"Av`&rY[2` " dYYD6"BE-̶1ۊ\胣Bz5+ZM!EAaY'|7GɏWx'wInFTY cpdCGWMfUۯ/qΨ:Pu:N IǸ46WZUf_q^~y?d\S3*_S_nZ\*\;Z;#v <r\ Cx 8r)]|WOH'[zTyuFX` iqI9*W(ىUJ $Eou߆/Ȱ<d#T6vt`!5bz5>ߖ9Wa;0xڵWoUo^@(0ѝp„ mhiˣ-BߏhkBbYLd,0`Q{gn̴9s!VAZ^W+QB+Κҽt qb)?`k$Nǟh%UIJgLԴN [ؿg&ٳ]İt`w$P~h݈C9:$xY9kY_@gݘOgv|||glݩ=6JÈl&gxV~g[yHzpx'݅hCBWQ9ZYohܑb!<K]!0YLQG}c.pgsFr>ї{8Bcb%"8J]1o1w飌Aꊆp)pg~De SWt'/8_)/N$]a\2F{t5p":NU1J]) ܛ8;][Qi pcKp"㴎98uEȉfe%:}1I]6zV W4u m(sxIfivY e{(w9#j~O=WV~l,rudb$)U}B qsFg:~ȧxU vY=>ZUYډSt-4/Z&L}| |gNŐ1xN |N*Z[KkqfXy1Y17onկ*y]g{ڭm6w+%c7Gϛ4wذKE;%!V-X+&WhP܉S  znV/:`!66ulV?xڵAhSY&MlEUGj2Ƒ6i6iťw2 FD-j\t +++RЍ QQWuᮋE9{_T{w9woo) wHc_yNkȳ{A|?j>8WMxCG;*LJ3Owr!Țtw|I3~F{ı?! /5jaU\j{sv`fL_f7;l4n2_|dU^[m.VYcDrG; zz43:7sz\k2jU۬ڂ<ô,OOzWV5OX{;_NWst;`!e睕k&u6ģV;0xڵWˏLY}^] bb2 ?`gg1 2 iFnnoh- 2a6ǂĬHH$ZW:VcTu}{NKHOӁE 4pC1FSiT(Fhc<}0XP鱗 _7 6/bcm"^9;/ T9f=Tfa?8j hXǚ_@{<?Ddac6D{%.<3_@ 㻝uQ'U?Gt-|ιO=6ڳ7|xlJeqS{r*J]Ni|~t<>S4 Tח&n}Џaf !8/VG#ѕ&ZNю~t$2bk.݉wv1whmN; 0 5 }γ [1Nflu7؂؄OV[~ެ5Ԏ4 ((N[K9Qi#F+F0i'Ldh֨ N Z0]obk`I0ybbQ骓UY\#ŵsk#UfxM(UOc46k56#_;PډLl!<jۤlOVe~ߋ{R7U 2yƓؓy<gLiT~LekiNQUTjſPٱw乏^tw2~LHn(Vqc1F C$է_وSڥt./MKR W(D.e /dK1|f6 H`!c~ͱ\M~;0xڵWIhTA}gˌq %8zQOKI (7A/FP x &IA=DQzNm&^ӟ E࿔j! ŢFIj7B #bѷX5E{3? dݴcFmTFG:7ȭCT3PǨ'7ۤWsOǓ4 dG:g m3VffV1aqs\S=JQŻ sKǽ3T :nȢ٪4|i*W.~\T{F?HOu{^eN//ܰp™D}M^R.p`E׏_qyij81ɛn@HOj®0~4&3ߤQKIG?Πgcl;t^zq[pMPuzuzpS7Ѓ!m0[ +;Jwxf{mPхǺu+-uhЁ`KsA/EB^olUmPN;6ӭ]vQDf۬m}C V`۠fv ֢p(ȞfMH& Shfeۡtsi'MV˶C E@mchvFNazGFPtOblAY{K|YRg'N1,I)YM~d$?v9cf`+0~ i+j OJe}fJglX$z eNYG*=6ԕJR)*߿V?U8oq\ zM恇 H[r5WY1Vfe򼍸8*eKV)gG)9^o 3eΐ_S d_ _qq;2M,~;y`!\!ÄB;0xڵAHa7;n[J+-TUnC /HJ2 *ʛ<:A`MS`l{|o[g5sWy{{fIؠv? 2h}|h- Cu7#es$=M͘*̻a)=<o\kCppI^zrt =ז&Rm1">ph;YXVw歫r5 lƷ":#FuBf8=]o@~53~0m#O[_>ׂjDԪ3Gt-SxVsOAg蜾N=q;,\}=7sY-o};gxJQjoQe>yt,qVoqs 'Pq8JiFUf764x,\FPQVCs^ʱV̎#7AVD]db$MQ촯 0 `u/s晝Gnu.{>@z5+Z-2Yu%V+̮ JV@3  cJ̖['P{L`v9KHPf9fm&<:G>]8R96J;̌yC-OIVjRX9kO;WATT36n=c}3׌q7,c1ˍYNu'{dbyZ"_;kcfs>{85˛O*NlƪPq(d42wđu(zYQ9g۠ V{^.WlVP׭r.ZAv@щ;`6l+ԁ!B˫SNQ;Z1vh=ڧB'̶k ej_"780{R+6hjG=j}B fOh ~A V`۠I!tf1ۢl+ԄmW06b.F, fm*vЭzTZ˶Bu`VSf뵶V( )VLcg~,sziRĜIL6%ϨL?ߘ:}ڋmĪ"nT}qT&8vEOx2f*<V4NUR.q|dXWy/5r/ ҧꭩnkvH.-%X,1~9T?8o#,OKɂ]Jk~e6{D+dv"l2Nq;odX? j#nI`!rHK`_7TxL;0xڵWMKQ~;SfS!F Ik'g~f0(]DB w-Zkᢈ2syLq8>{;𢡄bi1U*;a1<\.qK c{H\X/לNixJ5O-zMA}:qGnߥOh]dXE$UQzd/GfSczrí?Q?׭"o,5ϭyT&h/ YG˸o? `[>u7aķ|m%92brjũϬ?9;_z"Y!i3ijV!AӘyL1ҦB8zS3sLOY$-xuop6A`AWyDyK www.edpubs.orgyK .http://www.edpubs.org/DyK http://www.ed.gov/iesyK ,http://www.ed.gov/iesDd   3 ~Alexhibit e-3, reading achievement on the main naep, 1992 to 2005: average scale scores in fourth grade by race/ethnicity. in 1992 white students were at 223 points, hispanic students were at 194 points and black students were 191 points. in 1994 white students were at 222 points, hispanic students were at 186 points and black students were at 184 points. in 198 white students were at 223 points, hispanic students were at 192 points and black students were at 198 points. in 2000 white students were at 223 points, hispanic students were at 188 points and black students were at 189 points. in 2002 white students were at 227 points, hispanic students were at 199 points and black students were at 198 points. In 2003 white students were at 227 points, hispanic students were at 199 points and black students were at 197 points. in 2005 white students were at 228 points, hispanic students were at 201 points and black students were at 199 points.2 d1wV `! d1wVD@ p`ER4s x\{l}0`ySm"r&DBUpNF!U*$P"%}HچrIRiSP[Y(A#^Y{k{iog77#xį->_mR Ny?!<`%yz"  CO@!Cfn @bO LKK"|H4ȴ# XJ|Ui3meTÿa:0,Qp7PΟo[~-Rg2{:'WԼ<;Oc}2;r/D݂wޢhGY3a*%' 4Q7D&%Qv/EqP_;FO  B7Fo)?ڷ]6"5kq--= '% :{1 l+-dƄOYzotoi:ޚuo8LvDOE۵h`+zXGDvk MkڠтUu@8[wyT Cbv~5W !JuOM?WeZjcoǰR#-FhԶc z]+uUzW{ޠ֑v;TF :0T׈ayڭe%QpM9M h{k;m/5:maxVX|?D1xyifL.ekcLi)s;Qd郣Z=V VO@ʯBcK>J,={M-N!ͽ,LI7Ghh6F=]nǯd{uf|ʄ'~8'`Ow l7`xӲuZŖmev -fb-`0^oUR&o &x*E62 =Y|)=^N=EhẕzX0Rgጕj~hxyN^{ي0Egu,6{_'}/zzm~( pΊ4uZjM9͑kFPb`q 0q4df{T0,29aj\U?&'gUGTջ9G9/C<稸ۡZ$AQYWя1{T!J̽2U61gn{T%O+GGXW)am <0uLY:L_NI'/j]')FY: a!DڱctR(wF𓊬"Y,k|+Rh wU(&=)%=)Eν٫ ' IYJHYJs/5]YMOcrWSl<QxS?D3 u`Lɓ115@pV N 4|$<#| 6yY"^^xn9McR"^)L46"^6a ]8K RQx)  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmopqrstuz}Root Entry FL(|@Data ncWordDocumentiObjectPool.lK(L(_1195285681dO)lK(lK(Ole CompObjuObjInfo  !"#$%')*+,-.0123456789<?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\^`abcdeghijklmnopsvwxyz{|}~ dO)Microsoft PowerPoint SlideMSPresentationPowerPoint.Slide.89q@=HН.uyYjR.*vIx\klE>gmRPJ(B?)!4KG ᔎEpP4"Gy$Ǎ;]OsWP;$y?wB a:&/{_NNY6ݶHN;MᢄҔx>ч')r*JEc|]R-|Q>R*G/]3(?E+:QR1ilr}x^8OUk)ﵔXK,C ||R^n[?ϳ 6لTߦ,*d=j$3ͳhsHiO>)Tku⫥fDS3s1 UDWڑKh/r}Է/}w?/?RK}g} ,J-,ozgǷ mώo3&IvLƷ̓>;e7}v|U}o},ώ;͓>;m|=[nړ>;|ݞטxC哙ʼqW~pk'hs;7BcT;;?~(%9Arsp`B//:8ۻ},wۤڞ4ɘ"2ܤX?lo2LۗA=?;dt>RI`m/Hs /$N1t:tr<ڎEbPms\q+uq35qk5lg[&=XWa;sD49"9Naa@nb ۙxcP [mS`hn#$?켷^tIG1vc)X޸PCrK؀Wϓp>c?v,6Z&v,s&#6JQH8LyẒ辋8gLË&|0a2 E\OW dE&b~F%rKf86q6O}~j3*Fo)ݏx9xh$-Y zҿyPB]w7ߩzx\If&݆w: Gxm2=A80.H/6 .(40Pz}e w،A2iӯA _!- ƲLFcfss>O`hl1ø`>V㥨|܌v>¸1D\OȤM{ JO*tЂ,M1׈t08^uxƮ{*~1W!\#"B{5sp`l$Z*b͚1Wzb1~GcNsm׌֊kC̵V3j :4x&G;x8^Ǽ|ܡL0/w:|s9}w]Ig-_WwX16sO+ۓya{LoO",G [GmoF[wcYqx2q?zw2c\W/ g\{BA!폤vg4!R$ZZi em$bo5}CYz^%WLnLu֯+W|/u;D1FE*_w)QStephanie StullichStephanie StullichOh+'0 `h , L X dpxuExhibit E-3 Reading Achievement on the Main NAEP, 1992 to 2005: Average Scale Scores in 4th Grade by Race/Ethnicity:Stephanie StullichgStephanie Stullichg1epMicrosoft PowerPointAch@@v">@v">G՜.+,0((   Q Chart MSGraph.Chart.804Microsoft Graph 2000 Chartb/ 0DTimes New RomanvQ )0Y 0DArialNew RomanvQ )0Y 0h" ` .  @n?" dd@  @@``  ,"$Н.uyYjPc $@tExhibit E-3 Reading Achievement on the Main NAEP, 1992 to 2005: Average Scale Scores in 4th Grade by Race/Ethnicity6uZ   0` ` ̙33` 333MMM` ff3333f` f` f` 3>?" dd@,|?" dd@   " @ ` n?" dd@   @@``PR    @ ` ` p>> l(    6$Q P Q T Click to edit Master title style! !  0Q  Q RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  0غQ `` Q @*   0Q `  Q B*   0dQ `  Q B* H  0޽h ? ̙33 Default Design  0  C(  x  c $QP  Q  0 HA ?`   Q  0QS KWhite*8F2  0Q 4  KBlack*8F2  0QF 3*  0dQ @z  3*  0,Q0 @*  3*   0Q@ P :  3*   0Qz Ft  3*   0Q5 0/  3*   0Q   3*   0|Q@ 3*  0\Q )  3*  0$Q$ 3*  0J  NHispanic* 8F2  <L 61992  <$ 61994  <  61998  < # 62000  <t 62002  <G 62005  0 P  3*  0 2  3*  0  @  3*H  0޽h ? ̙33n Rx[kl\G>gz~q^]<8EM6n!M8icTjh+ J[** 4RB%(( msqݻwz.{f̜sf]^u/@FZ\LB%CeJ8u%}{k9Je^qʥ(S\IJӯʳ(PMy幔QOu)_Cr#&͔[(/|-EJٴ pOf(L!<+.|BUot=s횟st=ŏ[$NwJ@xo0!=O]214U~n_w0 7д7r :L|HE;ƛW9zM/LpF{5 ;$KK] ~$͉-T~*%Te Pyr &ar2JƩ_R_c낔vt6)ΓT=cgѕS59Irjyr?ǁ@ 1IzuRR(9m#†. ҩs-U|S ;l>/N[? ̕uW508r WAZspjff EhР4X$TYI%BGt~H#Jhnu0Ȗ9B^#.!-r!Ԣ42(䨃w1]5bQ]0E[ȥ 9 A-J#?SA.w!ߤ]ȷҢ4-J#O(Q k -ªƪpkDU.'(5zHX Zdwd㷑qkZ\3zp rңTH_qͲlڪ;vנ &^x>0Ѝt/I=l*$J)vz0H6{Jw\BU/KcTf6{^%v9S'GnL,g9P)< G hǛH\ sCZqp5;erV>5+d3ҶfX1~ʫvM4w%5@3%c w4wDq|Wcy2Oć{$wL(pyK{=Ul BdȿK<$[n_n!k>|ʰ\+) ;Q:j+r/Iqr~mNLܣgVЭo_ztZ@ܬuI'!\c/w<Э-IF9838gbM&\Mv‘VI;^*Wl+%6^`f%PDߤ^+|gnXDW)eY_0H^D~E"Lx~ce?ۿŒ8>W}לɅo~D+<|+<|+<||x-d14ώo~!IU| R֨o>%pf> VogiS:M?+m~RNd~->۪{c%;R+f=SÖ@[RaJ(K2%KEXwܪL)S0gܦuÃ}୻t*x޺+Uvɱ}*m; h~ё.WBW9F)f9ϱ?)TO!p0kQxP{dClȑsdY0`d#lđ5:FHtx-33G;ⷖa=Zj<{WxW2cOɠ3K%4}_rdkR!mN bU59|HkSI`^O~\vnU $#C.~nz&דh1֊$y&Mh՘VZE˅ja(`:'HJ\VQkńf j#ik|>gP{'J:߀0F*X9X.{W9<`Uw,07tXgN#9F:VwN:7ŃfT񠣧XOW9x9Xh;Xk-0&jbb{G xsPLoubb1(@B "i:+_{cYx |n<3hůAгź/|[`9YYsu2TбH`+=/,؁yX'_ C/&_ [_xǿm%^1cv=f%k=^yw{OwzF[s\!>%٤92s0ӣ[y}}ae4ߺWhҖu[>j<r@0 [)DocumentSummaryInformation8/_1195285697HdO)K(K(Ole :CompObj;u    ( On-screen ShowU.S. Department of Educationg1 Times New RomanArialDefault DesignMicrosoft Graph 2000 ChartuExhibit E-3 Reading Achievement on the Main NAEP, 1992 to 2005: Average Scale Scores in 4th Grade by Race/Ethnicity  Fonts UsedDesign TemplateEmbedded OLE Servers Slide Titles dO)Microsoft PowerPoint SlideMSPresentationPowerPoint.Slide.89q@=یtx̼RI.*vI}x\]lE>B\?"%HAX_ ŇD MOcT ᡘzObjInfo=Pictures>Current User]VSummaryInformation(_@_l4j$FCU30wvY]=3go|?(M( 1.ErœsԴvo}/aqLS%?b0(Q.}x >U@KqخmTr=NXĹnԢ}nm$c6KP OR*Wb5q5ajY&pNG5 0^Qw0j{6Si*PS?7{3FLndMëim \WQg$9l@G?= a8ИlYߥ/wq{|>b_.걧k6Wr+I(ufƾb^R>z}=ľJp+?mq/'c1`vIW9Ig^96++::#k#}; .R6VET}wG 'WEww)qݝM|)yhds;wNycFw#/ʑ떣LE\cy˕v-XccT@;{|4`9aC=_%DXL0n. l>7`n4849>>mq(' 49>c ۃ0n}u`>~x!oc> 1@0BSNj 7za pXŒkǍ5Œ pO#e>gru};Y!||Ɛ Dݧ7 RD?gb,u&xF`˘C>|y>iDYc3YDžsg˅qpco pÑ9W'Y\].ܹzf̞+xp]c gwx q8r-xpFu7c~201=^RW>HozeO_n<&}w mU'W<6|O~O0ߜ>7 k0*m~rǎ]xuwS<}ԾˁmP?%EO*_*Stephanie StullichStephanie StullichOh+'0 `h $0 P \ ht|yExhibit E-4 Mathematics Achievement on the Main NAEP, 1990 to 2005: Average Scale Scores in 4th Grade by Race/Ethnicity0Stephanie StullichaStephanie Stullicha1epMicrosoft PowerPointics@@F@FG՜.+,0 PowerPoint Document(+*DocumentSummaryInformation8f_1201593835xrdO)#K(#K(Ole q,(   ~ Chart MSGraph.Chart.804Microsoft Graph 2000 Chartb/ 0DTimes New Roman$ )0Y 0DArialNew Roman$ )0Y 0" ` .  @n?" dd@  @@``   ,"$یtx̼Rc $@xExhibit E-4 Mathematics Achievement on the Main NAEP, 1990 to 2005: Average Scale Scores in 4th Grade by Race/Ethnicity6y^   0` ` ̙33` 333MMM` ff3333f` f` f` 3>?" dd@,|?" dd@   " @ ` n?" dd@   @@``PR    @ ` ` p>> l(    6P P  T Click to edit Master title style! !  00   RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  08 ``  @*   0 `   B*   0 `   B* H  0޽h ? ̙33 Default Design  0 ?7 (  x  c $8    0 HA ?x"    0đ P KWhite*8F2  0` NHispanic* 8F2  0,e 6  KBlack*8F2  0hl   3*  0q 3*   0`[ ,U  3*   0   3*   0fA` 3*   0PJ 3*   0W "Q  3*  0\\y  3*  0$- /'  3*  08y  s  3*  08   3*  0S hM  3*  <p 61990  <8T 61992  <˜  61996  <Ř{ 62000  <ɘ$ 62005  0X͘} 3*  0 јk 3*  0Ԙ  3*H  0޽h ? ̙33n Lx\{pTιfJGb^UX˂#B(Zhay,GN:S ک#Vc;8IPjq,?ۢLE}{f;n=9|s|x~!+} )", L&əO'*}TsH9ub1%a.\sxWb D̓0Wcy 橘a\Ju17`nܤ0?MK+\,X]١ 0MAy{sɿ.Ʌc̰cKLq9`ǿv`%)ҘF˟oRȽz7Ce'KOm3I/y?˸+ukv2}r0P%C1}ւe鍽w쾣D"!m,[)5Нkr?&h$Um4QUa@V""#YA=h-R1.<7,4}^8.%PV7[*M:2<|: a%1E+M,k?b-F?iQ,jlLuڙbH=YyWݍyݨ9kj5 ٭Tka6#:Y]kBÜq76,`Wg?w *Xf&es9X.\hC̅BճwO24ኑ#=pn{q5ލ,rXS;S a&#_u9Wgx_ÿp5-4Ģ]nf>lfjW 휮&^Rī"qoƫbxs/%-ܪ? VIٳG b~hk H.I|**am2v?S~ۏ%awemhؚr?.ꇽ{6~$?"#jfFrV mqtW`8#fDDUzn5$Hӫ}#ICһwv7flx[jcOi:=T?)I"Q$nV$n%IȆ 9@'6EҊd#C@ZtU*vq9&$ט1"\%jkkRr-upۮHN-2r [$ Nw(@"9t*IW8:+5CMl==&Zh[ƪQ콰9WbtQMʅc$8%r;iN;m7ybFc ǵ>Lbny}[.SwE]2Tq,; rwS˅h5DsՎ11&9thGpaM(n|¢! #CW8(qLGcðfb1;)1c4t%Ke>#0F0NFNM&YKݽod?1WJt+r놥P<5 {"Nৰ63n"}98! J葝G͐lPCIPq.S !Ҝ6%E)KhWeSR79x6flb̸EFL.{+A7eS tv *T$}{]3(jN贁_eď{W_F$_'y{868vD|?g)?ߍ7<ag |rg2z_ gA3_?7F_㿗?|7La>C_U3?㿗o?^s{h{?X㍟a/_Z&e?2?{{Ə?y O~[sdiaO~o\:ƗK<#D㖌t~woSmz݌|m(b~-݇zz)nB|FŨ4>tsK`2BTaO2-] mj: dimtWV*m[v[6]I+&4Itw5Ƈa7,M;xq$yswޏY6HXd3_+?ߟekr:CoG +ݷy;]Ռtx87?"Y),*aE;RZEh-dv48hZEhl[, AGAq\eJXxdӍ)>4 {&9fXfg~ Z%CLt?kZ%M*V**yZ%x [<-##GccţiVKkŃ'>=oK-FN³sxҲ_.zo0:p@sw}G9֤@Hӄ 4&FRQZδsYn6y}v߼{fg!T4hx<?*0-ztvt{] н@KA[}Ӏ7A7g/~d?҈2=ALmzMn<7ؿM@;w(p(ǜ%0_j$  aB| jt_3ٟ:ˀg2&i{Agz\ׄRS}#5B܉ 9:T{T \ TJ菣y_ z[*ZPWRju?\A Jm'gDb ~b&[m48O6,y mۮ-8Z'yl 4]aBt `sd|$_ uIK-Gk%y$.ɧK/!]$y:6ӱYQo풼]њY^.%y$o,H)<@{ G^TPcIX0G!5#HQh%9XGw~b}ϜeĞҜ<@( 6 c$$j<>wa+Y_5*~$ ƮrTU s[m5#Ŏ}Zy*6[EZjjy_0#:_ 2NWxeԎ'ּP3N*kVy)S}Ƭ[70 ^2lBT/&H]CދZ?j-?#"FuWƆpl߅o~.jN.טj?zMeE|m2v?~4SD`Gd xgI/_֌ =l}WE!9yt1Xcy;~1Xcy;~Ng)^۵6"[[|p} dn֧n}*Ol5)gv' R9 3o:e^9CIE"}t ,eMP=\p0nGl1\gv+c ;,0p|[ ag.PyC# v0;X`ءAO8.fp-C",Wafv޴Э!3Ͱq \!_3윯c2{ YAj-08ea3 1da81Gm1ev^pVCN$ݰa=aȱ0^7Ӄ1p=!xi:Dh06]wG/rǼʞ#_' gloria.veragloria.veraOh+'0X `h   ( 4@HUExhibit E-5 Number and Percentage of Identified Title I Schools, 1996-97 to 2004-05d gloria.vera gloria.vera1orMicrosoft PoSummaryInformation(PowerPoint Document('DocumentSummaryInformation8x_1191835040# FK(K(werPointnd @I@3@3G՜.+,0H    On-screen ShowDoEDree0  Times New RomanArialDefault DesignMicl(=   x Chart MSGraph.Chart.804Microsoft Graph 2000 Chartb/ 0DTimes New Roman' )0Y 0DArialNew Roman' )0Y 0h" ` .  @n?" dd@  @@`` (  ,"$ ~rYCO|E޻  0@B:2___PPT9/ 0? %O =TExhibit E-5 Number and Percentage of Identified Title I Schools, 1996-97 to 2004-05UU  0` ̙33` ` ff3333f` 333MMM` f` f` 3>?" dd@,|?" dd@   " @ ` n?" dd@   @@``PR    @ ` ` p>> $(    6 P  T Click to edit Master title style! !  08'   RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  0/ ``  X*  0p1 `   Z*  09 `   Z*H  0޽h ? ̙33 Default Design 0 z (    0pb P    R*    0g     T*  d  c $ ?    0k  @  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  68a 0PP   R*    6n 0 P  T*  H  0޽h ? ̙33!  0 0 a(   ~  s * wHxl     0 HA ?!(    0X|4 ;16%  08 ;17%  < ;20%  <ȇ`  ;19%  <@  ;18%  <  ;12%  <p, D  ;13%  <\`d4 ;18%  <$0  ;12%H  0޽h ? ̙33 @x[{p\UιwmBo!@4Milc5)LL@"5mwiḧaeTFytAggDpDsݽd3jg{|uwsEo=YoCV,hp<M(p1?JlrdWcDC>y) Jp Z)"NCT NG,F,A8qb)bb9R:YN|A@\x[)b_2}b_䖝ݡ{*GQÞS.>H] yfW c3\_S?́L3O[U*>7Y'z)C qo34O#1W +ՈD-l9:*D=b5b B4"E0""b&D3ъ#CE|hmhC#\$e<| { &G.a[U4MNM&86v1m=C#a30Z⃫kS"vh >H?ի*e<յ5 55ݫJ}% 5_ƘL;xORu8d)jMD_]e{VݫcPfn&TmAQOnL,6:e:bǡ\M4 99+qPA>G1RT8)B. s_ۄP\~\pqNvЃ l4΂vk ntN+pRa[ﯹgcٿNlU#FYN5םadQ%|w+3pHJ;<%dR?l1+DRFG/Pebb/Xht&'SpaF%iRl_V^Qf2ED88l'SD:JI4JxW(b(n^`i QCbb+ݾ. \W4K輬klhCUזm}:N0V x9opY&{bĤK%o%1{i.P-ďMGr6ΏOG5Y~|4=74ƿC5D{ZH8ۨ)i}L?''`#͖0*iOsoej1lrl_Ĺޠ3$@_ ]ȿ2nE,gBUԲYIߌ*J x٨b p|'W0Vgw}60*\x66g! Sz6j PlO\a7qxD:a rwЩL%yPϤsD1ߓŲ/sWJ맵˱_Y|3_i$vY4Ǿđ&eߟc׸ZW˱=OMe.di?ʶ5h9d ͳ_ScFQK;}#x w[L2ZoKNm}$qHwAkPԁ7'^{{G=X,pDD夵5茜Hr<:!I3ѡw)4P.?Puo~߄.h//k H&$9.M'2 k䧒= k5iC~-qש^?lǛs>ya #$l$S;L-o'\ ;.Pm%ex$OwAV>dƥy`_yXS߃x"}:M}+Y? B}A$'KSgHSM)+=!5h|1ƘބJě@Vdcû]$ƘtxT11)iRyeo| ~O9g1&aqxA>AFӢѢ%NZE-v{%խʇ۷;_|@Yk`3PӰ5w;39&YKڥMshC{lڳ`ӆڰC[84,.-xáMjDv8C;]4FCK8'ړMlܥll003{pվ^Pvn r і&(G:Fm2wJ{᪎Ϊ^i G3Vz"^YR|`m7C.5[1 8`!h5I+6c'yޘos󠮠]RJ6_?~ur:~?+߻ٽkaX)?dm>mr[\E߽pH@}`s~loy-$dnsC,iDz ʧ_Z^m"ܨƌ-TKr.|$#Sd+0ܦxs1w..2-K\s f$wm"sDyߚ>:<ߞՊjFrgӹnvK>9M6 mpox@j +" 2h?_`qcܟ(n'7Y\p;l/n;Q{~Z}w?xgi zg"~xh q>5Fmaq5o[a 4^d[cֈxi4nmkF̭Q)FMDV"[ N;^ɚ.^~ܲ4^c}dž<KrPf Yt0z'rosoft Graph 2000 ChartUExhibit E-5 Number and Percentage of Identified Title I Schools, 1996-97 to 2004-05  Fonts UsedDesign TemplateEmbedded OLE Servers Slide Titles FMicrosoft Excel WorksheetBiff8Excel.Sheet.89q      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRrUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopq]vwxyz{|}~!&s38aR[*^>"^Fyyۅ_[^"^uw+uiFGnGͤ/e/UMuH_Vic'\x0(~ep}ϠsA43i>zKq9: ^*j]˃xiG.⥉VV ?r}wh9Nk)^hmqG8lވea+ M {+$M{<> =hD{[| _‰u1`z_o"{xoAO?SK^%_oxşxe4MwUﯜtڀ5=]X6B ̅|[Wnx/L3Cu:0.bʿ=+䧎}c{y]2;GcD=pDH!1` {IH-U*=J}.QAAD(O/^g~%8<滋G'^@|< ȊB'1 1.鍀],Ai߈՝sY~?tûCڛ@o1=Vy,z`;ڶNfOԩcB:w3腩f25WjF] Z qDX?(dab"IႼV5fU<V./wӊߪ}޽꫞#PA;gǓjR­RBCߐx6_/ga~Ӛw פSYB\/_}ݺ]e;E\.Y#O?U`Dd   3 AÐexhibit e-4, mathematics achievement on the main naep, 1990 to 2005: average scale scores in fourth grade by race/ethnicity. in 1990 white students were at 219 points, hispanic students were at 199 points and black students were at 187 points. in 1992 white students were at 227 points, hispanic students were at 201 points, and black students were at 192 points. in 1996 white students were at 231 points, hispanic students were at 207 points and black students were at 198 points. in 2000 white students were at 233 points, hispanic students were at 207 points and black students were at 203 points. in 2003 white students were at 243 points, hispanic students were at 221 points and black students were at 216 points. in 2005 white students were at 246 points, hispanic students were at 225 points and black students were at 220 points.2 TgG_Ia `!Y TgG_Ih?@ p`ER4' x[}lofwnmǮLRGqvΡ&NmE$I+!hj柄T(Hn6)%e 5BKBD[E NS3;3kyodRV7vޛ7s,B;B(I( װj %K-尹}ÆxNC=\%)kV-hM ĪA> Ģ3R>cNr;"ݶ!h?p5dXm6MVs)fu/szgN1"/w8Y / ^sMR%/9%i^ƙU~%xE^u/Sfk~9K(棟]OPCǛ-Ԣ/MsEJ-,B_ri6p_S6;_jr0i!^@)~w;pAʥK⻮|xɥK)qtYQmS.Qt/K(xyW_B/;d%ϊJI<4yYVՉ)$OJ^(/U?V__[c<)^ǀӞ|{tus!lҶO~'vI7``;%l_qw5;O E&K]_ţp+,P f٫ּ:<uҴ䌯 :W1A \vg]_1_Ztn2ˠ* ;zq>wEsa*ucz6Gt@.{AxGfd1M򁾟:8og'Ϊ?A/ڠ'V"Ǵ@OxB6kf 6ը,CO2gӞVh|^ӏmO4}.lPo?g8}=; dVpb~Wde~Wz HkD)kDp۫g᣺D oȗ eGK] o, 6xA׆?i\nK=〗y&uH{# vMvz/ qӞx;԰4Ug>;ʷ.Dd $   3 A exhibit e-5, number and percentage of identified title 1 schools, 1996-1997 to 2004-2005. in 1996-97, 7021 title 1 schools had been identified for improvements representing 16 percent of all title 1 schools in that year. in 1997-98, 7353 title 1 schools had been identified for improvements representing 17 percent of all title 1 schools in that year. in 1998-99, 8408 title 1 schools had been identified for improvements representing 20 percent of all title 1 schools in that year. in 1999-2000, 8348 title 1 schools had been identified for improvements representing 19 percent of all title 1 schools in that year. in 2000-01, 8375 title 1 schools had been identified for improvements representing 18 percent of all title 1 schools in that year. in 2001-02, 6441 title 1 schools had been identified for improvements representing 13 percent of all title 1 schools in that year. in 2002-03, 6094 title 1 schools had been identified for improvements representing 12 percent of all title 1 schools in that year. in 2003-04, 5963 title 1 schools had been identified for improvements representing 12 percent of all title 1 schools in that year. in 2004-05, 9028 title 1 schools had been identified for improvements representing 18 percent of all title 1 schools in that year.2U6 *E18$`!)6 *E3@ p`ER4x[}lEmKKiKm,X0"h? M*=m )D"L(hPCBL4XB`J4Q1X Nڽw-5vyo~79vR`T,s-) 8ă5P9PQV^,8m``% */R1e x&R  %K%IMDrdmD :,#J "#a'fXfAh`4'c+h^$UBr_8ӛv=})v/t042C 1̤"% Q //‹Ydc,'b9PU-˼ /Bso MVm) %2K1FA;e\-&\4Em6]qʞo֪jrsYָY+Vhkښƺ| 9+Bk =g#n5UyuvT-M-}}%QRz0ho)ogE-GQHvip{('gWb2"UB8<Йg!5.|)dy VUogH"C9FOd+'T\e@+TNK2z4S2?8 !$"6S [o"5'CvGP~3E]`o1?g qD}d%IizVoV7W59.If=F;lT֢\I#2HIh 1ҤlI_b-rVH"Vo <9C5좢TmTB7R)l`1RQ9*@"[@Df`cTT4ʠ mv***U:vx:lSST::rcV:"L4]&Г:z>H8֤!c(Xt)tgiɊr:֔lLwtUu'u]-B+tBFMslAKA{nН3BwCn]6u 2.&tׄg͸a%ܸ?D:&`)Z3Qp-Ja-wyGV&V+x!fgMDŽ a-(<#p퀏ÌpZ=B0&xsk.UrCov|N/E v6@&Z7Gx3?)3}d읰j`]Vj)>;wqva3;ԃ|Ľi݃(0z= <*[py`.Gb Oѫ{:ߙgbGO. 琢iᱭh1iNUX QIV~Fw=vAz9~>"S/|"lqAxGحgguɼñDorGQ>/_,*|[叔BP|᫴_O߷JVk=ʻ6 *W9l==JsERr=vȯcѿkl`gY;Գ6k^hi_Jb'09SDd+$"  S A44Exhibit OLD NATI 12-06-05exhibit e-6. reasons schools missed a y p, 2003-2004. in 2003-04 testing, 33 percent of schools missed a y p for the achievement of the all students group in reading and/or mathematics. 18 percent missed a y p for the achievement of two or more subgroups. 23 percent missed a y p due to achievement of a single subgroup. 6 percent missed a y p due to test participation. 7 percent missed a y p due to other academic indicator only. 3 percent missed a y p for other combinations of a y p targets. source: study of state implementation of accountability and teacher quality under NCLB, based on data from 33 states and 15731 schools that missed a y p in these states.bU02D>pq6917n)02D>pq69PNG  IHDRa pHYsgRgAMA7tEXtSoftwareAdobe ImageReadyqe<PLTE  ???%%&123///=>?789++,-./$%&779*** !888567OOODDFJKLPQR___VWY\]_IJL@ABRSU[]_TTUVWXKLMFFFcdfooovwylmoefhnorwy{klnbbcpqq`ac~uIDATxyC/颎3iiǥ_Sv"v TPPs&dI! $=+@ (}!@ @ ,@*XT `RA"E H@ @ ,@*XT `RA"E H@ @ ,@*XT `RA"E H@ @ ,@*XT `RA"E H"W4ͦSиJ!S݃ E#lFE5믿z0_##;} !M+1Q *`Q(0zo;XL/?~_0ႊ%`bF 3諯_~9P Be/`*E2*B5Ak :r_uo=^,@(}$)&ҏoFnt`TNMG| m ,$X2 ocH-R >$sh~UC_o Xsb搯G `Q9r|<X/ . l7ZBH Z_M\WZ9aP2ET}1}(6^yLq2}d[:UbEe!qZ"`Qz*h{5(͊FIUy(XzDY_׷hUpMmIZ`(!jQߠ*UnX, rpocshDTȚ!,%NU[ bw_P/TEW+}}÷Rlב+p?E"`Q2_}hۏKuEB8+^V EDͼkZhbX,J$65aoaM E` l;?3p,^UL"~+=a {`(uނI4~{`(iYg|- EɪWTo{`(IU,fϼh=X YQ+{`()M4~4ʞ;LX,JDΣ_֌L(dX,JuiAX,JD,/" E@"Š0p,Fq(=X$FSH7)p,ťV H!~ UEP$o)שb9kulF_u)E =|1↑Q$=XU軄CjR>"`"$24 ~M.&(MEUW/I8E!x~&=XzU5|wbPJ{`(*B_촮ۧ7n Qץ 5e"`QhWO=S!G1(BY1}ǂ9t~0nNènjyBy{t2N&߾]4Q=XNM y_)ڽtpxy  ~SǨKnf39ԀCl2g4XX,(qҞ6=ˈETi7ٕ=ErfLwtic EEϥL6% |ˢsDi"S,Ϣ)5En7j͌EȍX:'G>AxrɟP\x} +MR&6Y,:l<QF"`\2`(BK~""Ҋ4<#|D("DQ$v q;#_"LZxE^ o_-#TE"_+ڸkEŒ Ig= HeO4"uLOG,"kCk4 I,:#wJo#39AJ,vp,ERpE\6@sJk[Y5?XAHaI>[g=QL`E sFnRb+W\YF"`[K=? =H7^j\!8voDu} myNqq*7.,%lL\_\rTrEȤϛ+˫Rni"`Z@7~EǗvQXZ7M&ߖ/]:^: X,jih1_ez~z>i"`S-Ȃ$rq9|ӀE"^-]&߾ڻQE"kзkX.gi,͝ߘPYИXµ6;Em&!;O{(N#`QY4WӔp*a43fj.4E5b:-뇭< ׹s ͢\EqJs?:~[ڽ g̢~E3>,YєEvsY4pXL-:D߯ hd7$#`goµ{)l`QqYB?xX`> YWY6,EXzYt=c 5^v0?kxv0p,2CQlei1 2 aP,z 4RSE}`-Ƣ*S1YV/؂*ΉIđ6E7mDO יO4E(v<-74Vwfݏ3-1YrsJdg I/'\h'KFBh7b*Kj@VBCϓL=K'gl,Nzb7Dy}2#`QXGc"q}EtƩAo"n7kA%!Զ6n:i ;`5"n.m}=nO|YG+"PR,*[փ@gBTςEdNf|Yt˟G=YB'r(Z@ɰH EׯcFSXDҸn f0a5ɔGb5nF֨"J4xk9W8j"P,j)hXӉ,P+ǥGE]SΝgQyTęU%\%`W ,#LUPu\/NYv{"̭`s}Dt1GOxc8T( ,!ҏ;lZG,:0bg}׌9 Qc,%+3ƚp|#(,R"f+1{򉣱ב`EYxM~;sxΣZ}`QXgݮ}^xiEl&-Roŝpx(w,)s4D׏E< vm`=~T)ݏ|3Տ'\f, يh ʉE7E|g15{M Sg hs ItH"Z>(g,+ux@SN=d,zi RG#7N 1S޹ĭ8s.TŢB!4[Li⻦`tjlk_tߠe4:-7,[6Qm%XDZLDz"h:ŽFK&z,Pk5`QXZ#r_ ٟtKna jy-.bt7¦4"vP }g&GI%\Gi ,T[sEnӥ<> 8:shWOZI5(/,+S~0x8OD)$\+E*ڟ 4M`("UGQcdsr,"5E`"oSZ Rwr"u3$_KhC"p)Yh qpq-"`Qh)ZՏ{fµebE!R뫭t=K5(,Rg#{:1y0p6oٔ;Gԥ[LasRNh,=5O\=v~?plw>_<;K#\fZlx9r }0ARO2eEۚ,mq6yX=[Ok/x;Avn,k @µej(,gEse4f "l ݌x/m%apuy'ȁƳl+=J5Xue"ok1Y4"!XYxeO`HzwX$^W!ڣ4 ӀEg)SFXԸ nnݹ>YOF2Ylvn8#[x9{ܟ9,w{LX:\H,Xt"Mk(^Flыld@(ޣrFX2ֽvf ~@[șea=Ѝ=1)pazEf nvEg5=b68S{Tyގ;Az>zoGvy"bG5ڨnPv5xhk98kcٶK;D"US_ɢ~Q,Mw~e`9XoXdYkj,yDѤ1ҥ^oejA6X$&æNç7w^3pFX,r)o|}IDE8pNR?syCrgz266s ~:. m "ɄkY EaQB~cd=?On9{>f#cэ\SşEUm6Dk~Wk]E\fµKEaQ3NOLlsfr1 c!s@Ax}h)7vL&#=,cC!cH>hQ#uhsQFe]"`Q"8y(dOt@ t D%_5y RBcչE_1[e Bb5! .핀E"[yji"lpw4YCd y6mt>EBnۣ-1M~Mv)G`QVX4GG?Lbэv^1Ets;nsd Lb| "iy31* .%,r0m|إ.EשY̓=Lg<6"6~?Eb퍯ukHxeELstb,j˟^-0ddD4nX6vµ0(,cK7Eh/L]a ]DLb) I,pϗEX{lݏ}ON0eEy7|0jY԰Tދ!ˢ{7|Ff~ڍgT'\˺0eE7'#?Obe6+ X2;*vwׄkadǢJ!Y~^em±0BWҊp-)>HU6g\]7bcH!ZREnm7;}FfX?wud'ГwYkY-`QQXT.q.Oz/L<(~bQx\_fQ =gADfQ%kc$q;j``32ĢBw hv5ڳlQq3 p-i1Q â Pv!UA.KkhGڡSi>B*^µjX`/Q,r=#;,*nk?-wXDgyt"jț甭&\;u,_9Q#!i۵W]l:{~dI\Z0ﰈ7l a1ZZ+[,w+=ka?S'rw[7YK )۠ǭ[$EO~ ,E^E!YDdW(jµrX:aAm%k.L3˺d; ?rt"[ ,`6SrE]{==/f*7ZR]Gk6U"]n28pL[uC1u3"3EֻݮsU n_v "!՝#aQKeguFxweEDEV?c J9ZZ2"a #l>adI-^TdgE}#[xi-.XTwcܝzˢS u S=,J}?E3[_9:EZ'뉓YDqrFhc-"!U4vgR}st0zw0x8cIOmKcD&u "%Ъ{6wESӉVQ8({H2`X{K&>,%d#~ky2K\Jv"Ψ{£f`6Y!ڽHkbRYD֋7i9]!{hS"wp-+!"?5nG!D˼lr`Qؒq 8SkHv*"?ѓ3VGgݸXv8T)ׇk,rEDu iEq? Hj,EG;=Έ4F]z8t)ׇ1] `Q|qVh,=E`/ip(^XDjW{Ӱ'bgi)"d.Bh{fl:(Ai܃(5.vRM^G 6PvQ X !=:j8HXI׳nYZ؄ R mo'cؽt=#xψZ_ ܌`92ݺ"WmZx@J+>z- e2ܓ$1}{"s:]ٽ9\ae cv'Zcoa}(}eS96h\>thck;ӑ3/*,=֮"SZfC'\_ DMk{鱲}t:f!6wg^0,'hmehowB9:% Pmc.mD$$5e*cUE\͞i,ru j{m'iAx.?;c)|06OeEPP? ;2{XXnbBDaƢ\65._ DEtBƶ:cE1?"Q4 "g>4EřԾxtzs? l:.  $IFթ+Dـ&zj  &b[۽qjOkw6.sj*~ , :Z9"aK| 8|ǖE[-}u ;lwHT MQ2ZYuoG5AEcDN?[b3mw͌,z ~gۚ'ϻuƦ!fͳ4T j{SӔEPXoSwXaCa׈8ڎP#&f4D. q>e~{|=;*Q=PKZ$%#ҁ97lE5Gc9dFnL(rEtN7v4񫾰'^(o7AklS-3l#,YbѺG |ّغq JmymY]UEv]J3n((fhĝ='l_C ;@{a?ǿwCްn#Ex:\_b,˻DSEQlY1䁳+nLgQ۶zn1gg6Ah>^AHh7FwnyѾ}v115~#'H)h.%׏ܸhbE(|YtVkpleYb~,‹3єadͩFɮ+`Xwn,1ȗEALLy~LCo+hK^ j@(+-68>ؒiv"/1LJ5 ,:UI.Ubeit?MqIkLQM&"+ Q/"u$(a3eQ?p20nTk LJE6pn3W6]x{j/X_ "pͫtޖv[mS7Υ<Wd=ɇ{a׷//\;^7cLݮ)"! 6͘~q{vE,EAi?3br|Xϐ'v?0FHfpW ]JPuŢ@tg `c#ZInN &D=́/G{f,:uTben%3F6b )j; Oة1NEлh%׏ ( èXo̯Fp]mj<\f^D񷛍"( @,c/re -moU)]-FS=*tkHH2i"H*SBMj a"u!-%{UJDfvHg^z^8&\y+I XqE_x׈]C@'EC Qe&}nY%Z[,jiI%Τ/n- (v '\{ )p}fE(†!AI k~y'|Ɨhal2(t|5D9/OXY/v/Hwڣ #uXmEK,d+khSAfL=JBr@w()EW+M]ٻJO! 4 6X>QzՐ),rԶ)%9E4XYɴu#LJEu *(,Jueib>X=Zc,9G(hj%\ l·_t2a{=ҁEfQ뾸ݤp҅ʥk4>[ GhYiYZ ZYEn. {[Z X:J(фF&=Ϣ+QJ<J䄗KYTjzJ,ݬb ט=|C)4!vURgQtaf="-0ˢ@ֳ-G-2d OEUK^GL;4mP4`Q,,VvUը#6$/:خţ-k(,e!?Ȋ_a,J`eTei%\ۃ^`X/XX%Xc̢jTc7}丳I,*VEZ8VEPFCkYi1׀0EW.z5X]eE-` 3n5×EHkJ֊s DCر4E"=ִ?.v%\%a!teoRQ@f,JKvo˻iE&fdzwah"Tj(T;5 JKECDp}!#1">Vw}&p]MY㫣R踾wZ?]A+c,"n˫=R» 3X6Zz@M]j4i,JEFABUpD5鉣#b! X6n/&//rr"p% fLa*:S " Hz 2ˢ>$J-WueE^-KS/: Q,JEMGZ,`uFeEs*pՓXUUio5rK`VXXձyVʽ@f5i)pMH0̢hҋXVGşE\ˢ3c1lZYTih YT#`Q,*Er.âo_"to *nZE o7 ,*LW7*/=GǢұ;:fE󎑅HEEgڢsԴ$t:̂Eo˜q;J(XU-^T%:Խ4dk=N1CDX$*Qt2mLYUM ͠f3١>h=Z Ubvs]8w_fggf>CzzC 1/XM;=DZwӆF}YtQ %kDcScϪqx9i֗:ywQ5zdGsd'{5X)|"ݩ-&}A64Jt(N(UBIi C2zX׋.,;d,ß~w{KXx78:W #\Ygʞ2[tlaт^\]X2|9Ș&2ctǰS\^%/tiN]cEeӐp2SҸ]8zge?E+[7m &^d$Y{$t2;gf8P, `9gE-::4,#uJSXp§eɛ*.>zQji ?4f2V-!faYt4/ZAN(o8E ] ȢdۨFau2UHgjaI,"Kf -p}$&1/6V o {y򍋽u"8"Cf=ɾAey(KW;_4]# = ĝ!1w3˒ƕ}n}'^">il%|hIa"pߤYD&~UF)*(X\+<-iىK1XYg8#?}=ktf& v/BKv.yH.5EZ,+Ԕ)b!j| "kh&dQp $[97kRs& 9,-=5=8豯ɉ௴nhI ~Ywa{ Ofmn<]-Cwc|K ̢*;hSâd ?7GtHYcc!ȇ}qBL+2 N+tw*h+NW| :R$G=>,"~1ԷD q ^㿀K}GG\WbleϏ,/GJ6/;xuEңXt( i=fO,ȑ0vDLF,syJ2,uݮvNp)vF,J ` MO`Qɲ} UD;Jb'jҦi?&$bz#Ofw:dW~(]%#2mpSf!YJ Fw_tȱ'F?΢mY,r%uk0*O,Z7ҎXY =oLbY4\:Wxĭdɫ/sbmcd]WԢ!cJI&E=vDb%;D:\z6.uж"&rE|u|0XGs'mu1{t!a+hU x&wOnoVW|E=Z_Eoah M+l,4$Jq4š~hyS(фYm' F1ڐLA,ignK, t>O&⭼gŸʢCNe{+,fΎ]!?pA _ ui>֗EW,V0,^}"]gF!X4dTb̸ϳ %Q;m%cdCvFgGW} YSYth_Qh͖%zMx}BRZ =";hK*Bj٩qtը0dwftR#6MlI@iU%gޭD[ֱoT:&M.F ʹ!ڱ#.3y.m_%!Xp\Yx͢eC={Ѻ"ZG{RE;T+HXL6yP/j'DƢŧ)q$<,q vr[K8uCrNvކ;vUܖ~WqӬȁ?P$?Ykإ;/U#k,:\ZSEFqjIC\XYt!ʾ\W!96閸rE]nפ/zA$"rPt6Xkw9EdW9#У#/,"qC[>%.>fqo71 ,ʥ/[Y&WXD2nw.{0yEnl`H` ?o#,Vi5hN I~uE++Mc{X9;dђQtLmCd5Fg#)lBAEee~$ڼŸ슿BCGalKu,]_XT}qcƟEp`U˟|1`/w+];2`zނ`[4S[z=,BȖ'ryuOюAH#aKL1Q ({D+)EmtlNQ;q}v]ԝ$..IOY_߽r2ɽӜ\o]mmW {/]fENt _WGGmrOz]$?C#m-A]Aß /hWk>~eiڷ2EUE&_!wB'.m+@J$WR9(X=5}b!Bv cx\}۴})*{tGI ͢izGu"XD1.jCw&\y,w}QZ$"<-P(Y,JFFp=X)d)W4 ;[Ι!6O)âpf(}i5hEbuv™EC `Q>B8ZH(uF4;i&+il `Q%Ev~QH(EUfi} `Qz:!YE9!X֥*m?âu<˨ڴ|jp/(04:`,Sg%fg}jcF |2d Mr_?ڧcXcMB:\Ԯb"VP4뼡ns'H^iF1q?ؘ (>ml=pn˫m^C怤MH1ßE J=vGk=ݑ-#>֐JE鱨n4"*\m(I1l;,ڥՔib6>? `}NYUqj O]x(Am{Y\MvY(y><,ؠH`]\@SYVg??viOXm¦Pvޒki= FEUOZǎ{Q9;-z?K+L;r::rH+6+U ʢC׀5/c1.bƐQ!R'j0dYB%R*2.Yd4T噐k|y3џ׏T:f*E".?߰SÊۿHR]&y61U2"c5wFf0X"0Ԟ8jp qюj`Q,RLOѼ}+>x2տf(KElT}6[P%h qi3iю)k0Aii ̉7-gfѬ18f^kӮ-tJKE$^+_H099D&}ESD8^>s F3tE/tBXXz#FV1c2T7ZNyWߐ̍vLG:f2uI!#1Ϧ"lvUFKmel#Q1lkU]Sw7QFF;ӮEiHdjˉܻ68ZOw$U?~BcP"`Q"po/R,*9=}Cl} LӍ!V&Xt}rNN̢j 7&ׯ< ȏEf&XbQ^m7"U1}M$"g [oHю)jTG`Q,*v9xv&5\оz(ZUhio|< ȫӋEiH.$$[I͢YXTuUt6'}%#n tTeEe5LѪ MYT!I-P8ŧo4"=,{.ONhܜEx[[b齴q!{>{? ݇GYFQI jy6e'^+b */3>_/BȢ-vÀDBc;cBYr{d=M޹InՏH~e5Aٔ"eY4GbO[8BQ-I-MaL"dw1 7IHYX8_(\p칏m zу0ޱ|Giuͭ7ʱHv5M,Rw=E}ynAR?,zx>GxF,b$HB4/o~w}b"p/>"er oj@)ӯuWe>ny@P!Xd6rO%!7AN$aqJPwǣoEh  kè&mbc(0^c"i_̗yin&l GMCյ?vg)wX% pϸ欂7}B4*hC=,zě_;HE'' 99`\cx} կ_nJ_5^u\HeY/3hYK:Y#k"ꌵi0rE}/ݏEwaw=΢hg9~E9)=kښ{yQڲEXh #wcSnO j,?΢/<)z,R{Oô78: 3â7Fu|!k[O3YDsߏ:cJHi,b4;hc l85 [lsbӛ"/XDJ@P.rf VFL7 FK;ƾкX|m:A3g3g:Q(QbBI[h]0os.L{-2]՗k'ĩ7.,@Z(-`N^96q,[lIU6^0,Ru@г!ǩv Ģ%X#g~`QBW6 01L5(H MI, Ydi!d,zlx|WX}RAGe`Q"+O"%na"EPBbjAOШF`QDO, g9,SUE%PˆivQF;n]3)18 !d0@M`Q":D]4AȂ”V}M?E#k-P §;,rX*eV[iv\EI9({̣Gn=- IwW{|{40OG;UEG2hU5NVI?,E ww)-NQHu,t>@2h^lEz8j}DXEԷO(i\Z[6dGoX=Nf϶$"^c3ѶNYy|D Y;AƁC_rn,5Y3?ݽ_峁VQ}'N"`֛^}A{ "p^/ 34j[DL+Bf]ƢkAUvP,!S>"`&4@ڧǍE༞[(_(FU5Y6mE,; {,ڤkX_j9 óȚ#'cShGzkh~:;ޓN@4hğ}}9i]1Gzdv if{bnMqf{En"@q6DLgJ_MGٯ̻|2cW5{=?"xϠG1+M/Bnhz^x){*ź>nzP$dQjΓ714BdM`3CEn ;RPP}mw<(=Zu/ VW}b<$/™Ҥ/Ң֢/,&B^$, 79^1HtEY *vYŽ>0m( O٧<6$Y\[.&|bF;6#l'TyזU#ÊF\GL4)'F,¿""7|Xd)o 3pO dXVgϢ-n3mW~ _ԑ"vGPow?^9l":ڟk'̸msF$w?NBfG_ԑ̢>fQno12Yrnt,YDxm<,ƉtmzH~lK~/c&1ޡw/ Ifd;ΡjT( 7DK4;(uEYte[+f:졲$"R!O}m䎣88>G x%"XqL>nc")pK"u> ,"8"6/ZQw?ݧk\,!iՊEVmbxwQL,;қnݍ?xɟE~<ڏEpme! qiO~]hCpq#ji:?`>Ъ0 ƆGe\XEɢьRvG;F.-q:>ଞ]oR@`l}Æ ezVo>Տw/_VXei>E)Y`2HU89Fe3(wQ|ĨU]/,ي2H|시'FYK7hn_qAIl"G|}Cl9^ekcEbq+sâ>fQd3tc)"/fz1hξ!Bo;km ,ʶ,lˈEVBާX#J7ZoŢfJh޾!>L4h+4ECT񰨷5 (Fe X/ATUT^thOHюTcD("µAt#{-EycQ3YPduNsR4RwqD<`B,d鱡h!BDR4I"K_<.`j-w"b(=?Qd!}0qZ#"՟R(ZoiFvܭ"+,-Lg?'?_/_kȢ|(~Ƌ8?>'L#ҍ"J"HS|E\wa_ FZb,ԊE #ωHt&(,Eڸt+vMJ4f)1*l 8bQ>1gт}ClO4&hB^EV>?Vwo?'ޮlg,REPQ)YðPIzSN7p/*M4 K'1q\nUgl0ӪJ%_~,EGf,ZoHj4z#\ɢ Ic4B}6aDk Mf?"ͭj"(jC꿩(th14WZj6ðE̢iNdQE鬾,HS/\AׯIFdcJ4r#ZP 4+~:"5ZVMyA,JH qzLK9(DXYa; XT`PA,tG9 >q Hz+c,ҩ7 L[;͂ENM"$a >Jos iz(Lߐi]a&XԷe7OLJ;qSʰFgwV+,*c@U5qEbs"MޓRK0Zs4J|nKYD,jzG>իВXQԪU5af27T]^3Ĥ2a܏[; oLӍ:`UzE4Ƽ>-QX ؔSz,↕FM_8cZjAwG.3IU>DiFIv<֬i56WYļ9}NaQՎLV7U qfjt"EUծ ,,I-<>֣KF|TfT[C0$*F!8Z3{RE}OTiR&PR8N<_g{))"j$,J3&hTJ?K,ReE65tEYn,7ToIG篪XD2"`jWȾ! FIv<؟ۙtҬu "Ӯ=XD2ʭFLl*8{U]k|`NJ2HX'Ѱi(юQʢ7%hE%qIkoz"l~j̎#Je~UOd'ZيEIpnhǫNb)A,B%qXT#V)֠wXvUr,b$S0}L9&hoQEz֐)_|XdtȪ尨$Ja~:ڲ>gq%'@JV*E/ׯSFdnVbeɩTuMѱ$UZD~,*[ЌHf#6$=q5+&)Ff , 7D )84+3,Bedij@ "KAj@܏W0_mMC̢US@enFƢԃi"hǍZXDaMlUyQN6%+FC2W8 z wǪ=jc]W5׷ZfY\3!7EJ6I\ ×X~0ͦQFWR= CMg>oZ;3EP/y nH(LWQh/TO!Kgz 4BUZMar1t>d܏E/wH`MӍZbQKNX<@GU,ʢ"w1ĢHHvFs 7ah0y͢fT{mXiI%T 1EnaEljQeí﵋BEYd(ĤRj( =>֣w?+ĢHG;^aw~,^&Ea͢,*LE qi(ҍ+(5Q*EG kMgQQs(!B_ Ekm'CС.v_,"bRJE\ha "I7ڋe  >%lM"cvOgQ1;DU;E_{E_&CN"~ga}=UE1>֣Jx?dq<+&J*#f`fhX~/]E7 UEaG;F_6tC<+ȘxiB"Eg$kUP+MxPeE?qEiT)u)D~18EXs"MLFr {.2BIC- O1H_"r4NL~܎)En.),*!@:5]$51zMv,(XD~ȱI)x*+ 7LEYiU`]Y b"I3E z"Շ~HXD$8fQk(Ҿ!J8~?h/B ,2~KRyEv9`/*X~E\YrɚceC5S_,Z4!Ronrq2}X(U^U 9~gv((iWS6Me2tu ǃ o)hHehю{9b!=Un-k+WE2$3ˢee7d drmDOZټ (W~/뒍R2M[:(1"a"EiLZzl?a"Wӫ=zsihVugNPZ)5}qJBlaMt!7A^KjvCғ61X,*aSE_h["S D@]%at!F&aAd >iqдɦC=FᯤZi È Ȗbs h! Ql159ܤ“s^;,bAdWM`614j ;AXT6F K],,Rd4I7:1EP"iYd:oF6:,6Ex=jMJqE7 )3qZ3p(lt MybߵYv* }Yﬨ́{Z$ 845dݚ<1V(f~Yh};_Q3,ZjN뉘~mofy=/H! bQ*dI-?Ţ;ŃiLҍb5`9}P"XkC^i y`;zU  ir?j^ӁFR(XrJu5ю_X͢9X$ G/|j@9$\KȮa%+EM,oˣ8V&8طsH"8DL_0GKtx͢,ruϩfX%MNމF٬p}oW"طsH"!K0ZlF'n쵿'<[5漱_S5(R(+!v0mWâ?!Ăr;J͝nYTU4.~My6TJ-jE ?.ܟOUf41f ,*镡i:Aj~YRj@j,zCsӰ~wk oYĖ"B9YYr9(J 7D ͉b#o%,7nv\3b3Ģ{2^Ŝ/j>Z$h;tA_4f&(nvqZ()TU/*aV,zy7_0-b{M)G#x5;SEz(ߔjE(fs5B۷-̤(9wKk,$i)ZU3Lß,O#lB M~K $$,|j^gQ.;_Z_;?A#}d4HHəEC\Mrj(#AL-⊯oLg>NhE_1W;gRp.)f L-o4ahGFvx[-#*M":;o6E⳾E/}=7f,z^r!*0+UzXdEJq7d`wEd(JE91Tfo^Q`6&U|([_ P*,UEB i8Yv wRcQwAT>$4A{;q]q4[gѫPNPz,Q£꿵qӂ p~wEh'v965B\!yA1 qikB"Lu9*"&.,Sbb+`0?~w'OV qm;p~ՓdXE!u A ,xEwa!,\ |7@>*elYa0mЀE*[,Yi5/`,[es%y]GsvޅЀE+CNo<εPhe'1Jb+Xj XYݘ՚j,zlԡV2¢|>տQԡU6(B ЀE* =ZJEӂ-{݄XzHΰ74!>cfڌrL-*ߥȃijmXNUQ>%5qBWmXJ=9!v0MLP E!WEwA7 5W> ? , -7f}1-|#Ɩc?-pž/OE/ׯ Fl&W^KaN-IEQ pP>LG;Aʰ꫚eB4ډEt~/C8XZj(? i#gV`Qd\5ߥȢiB 2EK,\C{i'B 2E^2까rRݔN)w0 5h^aZNNI,5Fj=-EcRQ^Ҵzs({ jo;g?XJyM!JEć"h/:1m&By8E_4Jý1e}1ϻ0Z7;EJ(iMP,g]nf"SE/'pszˢ 5"XdLĿ؊n?Y 5EULkm!,JFy^SE j,*XR5lp,[Ojil^Y=3!T}Cl+hk#_mh,Yͫ~47Ҥ^C`(MŐZ4ؠngHщ-5XiEbQFLUEOe”jX,JͣBJMͿDY4T )o#.eFM~JgQZiF1JgPr !t0m'DN 84b -N.3R DB p2gQ݌bH-깧MEU=82@jxmww]J!8@(8R:iα3A!B+V],"~4_![zKnPG @)(aqN]Dy4\DlFd#x"_ћMX>fwj! "0E"60-#Ұi1CeFh-L ReFt-"aQϩ,{)ڈ,~yY%@:ASfY (eEUmy/qyWDˢy<&Ƣ(͢E8@(1Ե?GLa뵨Yԛs|>EEEYbZTr`f$ugF=_ߐgz|ytHw@(S,JFu-jN!g%Ey<3l}G߀"PXbVvף5,]Yf,k|,7^W#5^(`c ݄:8"D<轲/CoHo|yKfֻEl(vq>p/j;^%̗QW|@cnjf}y!^H{NE},UfBi2 Qr,F1D޾C/D3 .#xߐ7njj}" h32} Ln2! B E(uGj 2lFHᴦ ;{\ ܢ1h ~ ڑDѿ!hdIԦ 8zz B*(Q+K4j=d7(fH38gLN#H:E`8*YK-RMl",&Bѱdz0YHPX,J@Ռ滀|;(쿝$cg(kUH@oPIbeeu>޺!n:w*1ˤ?> +,K[A莽~f x`+ƣ~9-Yid(jiK:ёPM1摽wBߎٖs5xԑOrN`Qb0*PwR!㣏YD7K0L=@4E%LJ4kܕMYU,w6%iaC,$l-N\1JMSAXB*~8H*l)}C0yd>6`?{Ec,!:gL|ΚL>)7f`Z,BM-Ul9y&ݵV }`QY$Aj\Ҿ( ͝1hN:iX{(YoI,bϥ&j_Ѯy$RKX, /XjW,zy5o EoYiI!=tz ](JX/5B^U{kFӠ,Yuz []7r~@bQE)pߐTtjeiM}AaQpZRz*hBvUoH+RI"`Q-.^jW5QgM>n)/EPZ (o !jXYhQ-RR"qEӬn"(,Z$;Ԣ6 )H&6*zB92EP hEs;RJ-j,Ir̴c+ɑ y܏jY. tZTuU}^Eh hUE.g^E䕫%XfvYԧ}q~+ P^Mt]M7TuZJE%aQ!2+@^Rk52,(RCաaQӱؼ2@/! -Ծl6-\3j,š봴~Yn8oT2ֻ5Bj-/~En"*v[AI3f[<}C\= SH ,Ŧyv-Gt4żL+3>vZZs7{ְeɷc?eHh1 kv-]{$6Bn֪6rzL"Qo1("559,"dr23L΢X?rcg,ߧcE= {,Xzr엘CuBDXdEj6/XT6 [ : X DsX4}D*&9ϟ]:2ƏHEf(K7R]QR4[}JE5TBf"4G*8:Z^>lVf\BUvԐF?"4P7E\ XDolX]-EԞ" JXTLVfLתJ~Z-b)&eY+xت:$ٯR1jVG:T:O?vrȖ͢^S_0zCI*{UCn`Q7tTe~p(>$3}֩ ,қe>pSF6m6`G%5oTParC>V.%ERkF3&|C䚿aƱʐQN?:3ko]x&޷Pcv*?Hi-_Kg,LCCe {gJMUm8(aHs{hV21saJf?udxBU3 YV2GT,jܐїӐžPj0XSZ?lV )[EMg0I*1_Yդh0D"Ql8 ɉf8E0 "+%'qρ!l%"]Bd5W<1 }"ހ6J0vDS+e+&â>@HW!Lp8tgKk԰ap@^^7tyNa`QB*W 3٬Κ]q4e RfTn$A_cn@>TDl~Ǩ3SZ ap;,rx֢){֧r[Z dcNu|H%xM_PrRkd3U -DLgrEEC;OȮ?ad~i*(b)^L,a -è5$|ӯ"o 53,4s:}1h&$Q)d&f)^F}G}$"v X >쳄xͪӶ4BkeﺃqsyfE#{ UѾ[MC y53`G2@ށZg]`i{ \|C88SL1j1=d\YslD pE%A,4,,PcVPnH,*#fvtڇt7IO|.4)FS5̱p F&I2 ,"lef%b2D&q+)Ňbeǹ$D21k;3*d_T|ef%Et42Hz5uv \]b$K|}C?]) #Kj>k4sHXRk4w~Aaˢʰ_K2@ϒqM]h|.k_ 5A_K2@ϒqYe;>ӯ`&PceWLߝ9ݴ ?͗E%VYhY"1ʝh ɈTȖXbisK|X9&րTMy{vϩiz+:Q'EؼBP >L^ƺ:Jx4 b]'kc;v'GU XʞPC@S?(`(ceH.ʣEfQ,eLMڇO!@ ,@*XT ;S5IENDB`Ddmd  3 @A.exhibit e-7. number of students participating in title 1 school choice and supplemental services. he number of students participating in Title 1 school choice rose from 18,000 in 2002-03 to 45,000 in 2004-05. supplemental services rose from 42000 in 2002-03 to 233000 in 2004-05"44B[X@=4B[lfgE@@4x] pT>#İl%!M  fVec BEI0JP;3N+mTj-ZBVTѪs߽ٻ7}d}w| כ^VOcSg6hA530W%MzZB@0)괘"imoҳ4 gc({"^#ūbx$3fU=1#޵HTS7auvcy]4p (3QD q MSFz)UxsᄼΓIƱW#8jϰ|mWa;beC99n}R$wįQ?O=TK oҋaz.f_޽C3U,[VGFX $;H*Eh zJ/ EQ` {0O87p|cas-E66KDgΠ*C!׼Mx#yFD{+F!/-;$̣wXŰtV*ˌZz["V5*2in{>r? Fʣq;/asK"݌=T8n !Up$$9e1/^+<8101AK]s K0>_ "6/tt0 hH`$ %;ad s UZЊڿ&kwtmx&8"l~GwOTEN].TEO$]4IE b \YXbE4\TwȞq;'w]}9t;;miѹ~u>Gwd|,yws|J3w˜SGl}{\P:?bbX8C]h݄)-XR/:KẓМCJ>nK,sC"ZTkնmhsq+1}yA<$\.[23A}<余1/h6^ؓ4XGh}K4?"$ƌ|Lځt7<kD= [ zLm!camZO۴ՌzzFm6mM%}d ٨7">^Q[՟˖\wRIu_/{Vw_W.VjQwzNFu9N+NF=to%~y:v$*c]Ut*ͅ,j'`2. >9|.jG<ϔђ :5cJ *:yt>Gεټ\Q&j8JEHːWt.R(s-N))Tw. @EA4fFQ }Z&hѽqn}\ Պ}G[6v-tplkQRtv ?MT_gSp)Y4pcr׃YϠ]+[kQnr(7CwwOيfzy9 It^L){%9IӣjM:ȶ; <%Y_Cߓ+(S\ڝe{эԶ{po9U>O:Ks}`6C]]9ϼYXroc|?+4AL۴/oJ[U|W[,ZGG,!ֶ.*1m+O:5Oh[tY8Sn(Юsg ~[:-XPIk/޿Qf2(]Ib9C˥4q1%cV*+_pig;tv9)6vWuf6 _;kYلlB=7R؜2|8V}X3lĄ| mH3H1ʻЅ9_©Z\X+JKm|w\b0SY}T_=T \K ]^돻TX[Xa5sy5\b-SY=YM깺MIw{<'2 <\yG)2},0>Rjf)[k<ؾTL _[$%q &8)V߈:&I EoeݓrG`ܮ d;-dm}+!uo^sO|/7oN=J;eS|v,z~]"~.)G7%_xߎitvW:4^j8a]r}'+؇J'?+ $֧9 `ፗ+ǞH¾Rؠ2;ēX<%E|jl]W XXE>亃y}uHo!!Ϻz)>9mu~]Od&}gؗ؁Uamu!)żw{toqi?n݆it/Q-І#Oc-dMh99]ygox볟j]%9Op}MȳM}^_Y[쿋.FnegtTl[/Cf1i-[>n(պ8[>)Ͼc6}#g?t}3:ggg?v`'xsa.2gߛO;:8[ǢPg\ˑg ބm7gy<]}ZP Z6|Wi'І>E?tP֭~؎Cfgu:$ZC٧E[^ 5ܿ>F&woR _>)Toَ\H?1]Ͼ~}ҸX}f>}CK.wgsrnmt@Np(eI_oqt;0c21G>?~C)8~NgDXO>#rLeI,6`16( {,0O>G˘g?`﷑ˍPުM_kM=SFg,Œ[Wn~Ci"/MJĭ5)q⿝u2UNZ3[QTOo0jlDd&  3 Aexhibit e-8. supplemental Service providers: share of providers and participants, by provider type, 2003-04. Private providers accounted for 70 percent of state-approved providers in May 2004 and 59 percent of participating students during the 2003-04 school year. Faith based providers accounted for 6 percent of state-approved providers in May 2004 and zero percent of participating students during the 2003-04 school year. Districts and public schools accounted for 25 persent of state-approved providers in May 2004 and 40 percent of participating students during the 2003-04 school year. Colleges and universities accounted for 2 percent of state-approved providers in may 2004 and zero percent of participating students during the 2003-04 school year."JUD_&D@=UD_8}fgE@@4x pTvkHº!HB70|l) FV $4hЀ&c(XiA3ŊJk:-*5:Bgt?`tdԑ޽ٻw{6®͜ys߹Ͻg'@D?FT ]6yZWNd?GōzVcA B@rÕX (j{TvP9^)>B,*#NJ%tv}Ip8p}D]Px4ʱ<ь0ZΎ@+oC(~Co\; oP\POԦ+*k tZZ v刃)OزzU"߃X{&~L6FWMg#4*|3xSYAr|%b^~rmS\#ׇirur>Q|>30Q؁l g~K+=7a~)"xkk9A= F!/Қz?kW(H.&_ӆ PTn̋h0Me#<ѫY{L~DmGI ,U EsXvgU",0jIg- G- ,26 D(Av |+O60m>{67Faym 'HD;Zvm :mڽWv+IjknDIgfz>뱜\v4Ď7Y6̲X:QpS.>@iȱN btN.8Ql.ɴ֝;C,;غsfu;l֝bÖ26sjr` >Irb` % /LXp4_"ŸFCCތΘKa~_cEl * pa rn CzH(D k{z2]b-_ ðez.b Ͼ.P[#_OoHL=mlyn.6pvn 鶿 ЫV<x%TB|@)ViL3%&K|J,Ȥo/e 2tH2GOƛN%e^09=Vf^o~*fϘ*fjyIV$Y&i*Q"hFϷogZ ۧ-珀z$Hcx#4xo`c"{#=3W /Pw1uɈ<7IŇ4;QBatJ_a: 겻336bbߢ$sg^gc^#=!,fG4f3ϛ"t)ϛJrm8:-C=m7Ҥ1y-CS#uȆ Px Ssٓ~?kL<Mk^cԳH-3da{g# & }X}H;HgeO} *^(ϵʏJ7giҌ26˴װ6H}BҾG*fk1_:mi^1yߡaT&fD^8n4FPM"&1-NY7qzi6e59URkC+d:߂0^ yqwլ:8NOt~`a0h1%Xnqo%1zd p/"^ǴCmhZ%Vh_׭fcLo/^*yHx ID[ #^Z&J˷xmv`^I:D[ WIZ,\<`/+_KÅȣ+Wɀd`6^Uw\9.{_g ;"^8߫ݫOHq^?+4/ԜofZrn̹J rYލρfqNn9^%@wQѽBqX}ńݘOd@<_lFфlGYЧ\ |u9ΓH.tڷ;LuO!<H6q}ltBzT}?fcp~Ǯr3q޴:<'%~?rompcLl5Qy1ƛ/=m}B,ڹO'ԉ}Ox%{IO$ˋ՚&.u~*ggZQ<߂r)*E ϊ_Ole PRINT "T:CompObjfObjInfo!%iQge {   ;''  ' :' :Times New Romanww0- 2 Baseline Means8% %)%J%%) Times New Romanww0-*2 XStudent Characteristics...%.<.*%*%%% % - 2 Agel;)%2 'Male (%)J%%E2  Hispanic (%)< *%)%E2 Race--White (%)7%%%O)%E02 \Race--African American (%)7%%%;%%);?%%%)E2 Race--Other (%))7%%%<)%E=2 *$Family income less than $30,000 (%).%?()%*?%% )%)******EL2 .Family income between $30,000 and $60,000 (%).%?()%*?%*%:%%)******%)*******E62 Family income over $60,000 (%).%?()%*?%*)%******EK2 _-Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (%)3)*%*.%%*7%*)%%*/%%2))%)EE2 )Has any learning or other disability (%)<% %)(%%)))**)%* %*(EH2 -+Mother has bachelor's degree or higher (%)%J*)%)% *%%)%* *%)%%*)))%E2 Standard.%)*%*2  Standard 0.%)*%*2 6Standard.%)*%*-2   Reading Tests<%*..*7%  -2  Score.%*%2  | Percentile/%%%)%2  Score.%*%2  - Percentile/%%%)%2  kScore.%*%2   Percentile/%%%)%-2 Screening Tests).%%%%..*7%  -02 TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency4<O73.))O**3%%)%( 2  84.3*** 2 15** 2 84.4*** 2 15** 2 84.2*** 2 B15**:2 T "TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency4<O73/)*)%?%<%%**))3%%)%( 2 T  82.9*** 2 T 13** 2 T 85.6*** 2 T 17** 2 T 80.5*** 2 T B10**C2 (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test--Revised/%%***(/%)%<*%%*)%(4% 7%) %* 2  94.8*** 2 36** 2 94.6*** 2 36** 2 94.9*** 2 B37**-2 J Baseline Tests8* %.%7%  -*2 WRM Word IdentificationO7JO***%)%%*) 2  88.7*** 2 23** 2 88.7*** 2 23** 2 88.7*** 2 B22**:2  "TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency4<O73/)*)%?%<%%**))3%%)%( 2   83.2*** 2  13** 2  85.6*** 2  17** 2  81.0*** 2  B10**2 WRM Word AttackO7JO**;%%) 2  92.9*** 2 32** 2 92.6*** 2 31** 2 93.1*** 2 B32**02 TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency4<O73.))O**3%%)%( 2  85.3*** 2 16** 2 86.5*** 2 18** 2 84.2*** 2 B15**$2 N AIMSWeb (Raw score);J.O%*7%: %*% 2 N  NA<; 2 N NA<; 2 N 40.9*** 2 N NA<; 2 N 77.4*** 2 N 0NA<;-2 WRM Passage ComprehensionKO7J/% %)%7*?*%)%) *) 2  92.3*** 2 30** 2 91.8*** 2 29** 2 92.7*** 2 B31**2 GRADE<7;<3 2  89.0*** 2  23** 2  86.3*** 2 18** 2 91.4*** 2 B28**-2 Woodcock Johnson SpellingKO***%*%)!*)) *).*%)) 2  89.7*** 2  25** 2  88.6*** 2 22** 2 90.8*** 2 B27**12 Woodcock Johnson CalculationO***%*%)!*)) *)7%%)%*) 2  94.9*** 2  37** 2  95.4*** 2 38** 2 94.6*** 2 B36**-92 y!Other Baseline Tests AdministeredyA.%%8* %.%7%  <.C. %%%.-2  RAN Colors7;<7** 2  89.0*** 2  23** 2  87.7*** 2 21** 2 90.2*** 2 B26**2 H RAN Letterst7;<2%% 2 H 89.7*** 2 H 25** 2 H 87.0*** 2 H19** 2 H92.1*** 2 HB30**2  RAN Numberst7;<<)?*% 2  92.0*** 2  30** 2  89.6*** 2 24** 2 94.3*** 2 B35**2  RAN Objectst7;<<*%% 2  88.8*** 2  23** 2  87.7*** 2 21** 2 89.8*** 2 B25***2 }RAS Numbers and Letters7;.<)?*% %)*2%% 2 } 89.3*** 2 } 24** 2 } 87.1*** 2 }19** 2 }91.4*** 2 }B28**72  RAS Colors, Numbers, and Letters7;.7** <)?*% %)*2%% 2  88.9*** 2  23** 2  86.6*** 2 19** 2 91.0*** 2 B27**%2 KCTOPP Blending Words74<//8%)*))O** 2 K 7.50** 2 K 20** 2 K 7.70** 2 K22** 2 K7.30** 2 KB18**2  CTOPP Elision74<//3 *) 2  7.70** 2  22** 2  7.90** 2 25** 2 7.50** 2 B20**+2 CTOPP Rapid Digit Naming74<//7%**<)<%?)) 2  7.90** 2  24** 2  7.80** 2 24** 2 8.00** 2 B25**-2 CTOPP Rapid Letter NamingK74<//7%**2%%<%?)) 2  8.50** 2  30** 2  8.50** 2 31** 2 8.40** 2 B30**N2 /Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-IV7)%%3)%)%*)*2%)))%)%.))*%?%)% < 2  7.80** 2  23** 2  7.60** 2 21** 2 8.00** 2 B25**-2 v Sample Sizeo.*C.%.%%-2 n[Note: Weights used to account for differential randomization probabilities and nonresponse.<*%O%)) ) %**%%%*))**%%)%%)**?%%*)***%*% %)*)*)% **) %2 xNote: All standard scores have mean 100 and standard deviation 15, except for CTOPP and Clinical Evaluation of Language <*%; %)*%* %*% )%)%?%%)***%)* %)*%**%)%*)**%)%%**74<//%)*7)%%3)%)%*)*2%)))%)%"System 0-'- :q 2 fpFundamentals-IV, which have mean 10 and standard deviation 3. Standard scores unavailable for the Aimsweb test..))*%?%)% <:)%))%)%?%%)**%)* %)*%**%)%*)*.%)*%* %*% ))%)%%*%*)%;? :%*% -'- :-'- O: 2 lNote: The percentile score shown for each test is the percentile corresponding with the mean standard score.<*%4)%*%%%)% %*% )*:)*%%%)%  )%*%%%)%%*% **)*)):))%?%%) %)*%* %*%-'- : X2 6a Values suppressed to protect student confidentialiy.%<%)%  )**% %****%% )*%)%*)*%)%(-'- "j   2  8.70**-'- "j   2 ' 52**-'- k7 2 " Table 1d4%*%*-'- 7 N2 /Baseline Characteristics of the Analysis Sample8% %)%7)%%%% % *)%;)%(  .%?*%-'- b7 *2 3rd Grade and 5th Gradeg**<%*%%)**)<%*%-'-  \ 2  Combined7*?*)%*-'- j   2  3rd0**-'- 7  2 d5th0*)-'- Y7\ 2  Grade Levelo<%*%2%)%-'- " \  2  9.70**-'-  "\  2 ' 54**-'-  \  2  24*-'- W \  2  73**-'-  \  2  34**-'- Z \  2  16**-'-  Z\  2 _ 45**-'- j   2  25*-'- Wj   2  71**-'- Wj   2 \ 29**-'- Zj   2 _ 46**-'-  W\  2 \ 27**-'- % \  2  a7%-'-  %\  2 * 50**-'- Z7  2 o14**-'- j   2  33**-'- Zj   2  18**-'- 7W  2 \o26**-'- 7%  2 *o50**-'- 7  2 o35**-'- %j   2  a5%-'- %7  2 a5%-'- %j   2 * 49**-'- "7  2 P10.7***-'- 7"  2 'o56**-'- 7  2 16*-'- W7  2 o74**-'-  r\  2 w 7427***-'- rj   2 w 3357***-'- 7r  2 wZ4077***-'- 7Z  2 _o45**-'- (7  2 o32**-'- 7(  2 -o12**-'- (j   2  34**-'-  (\  2 - 12**-'- ( \  2  33**-'- (j   2 - 12**-'- :-'- ;- -8- !4-\8- ! \-''8- !4'-} \} 8- ! } \-nn8- !4n-8- !4--'- :'Workbookub_VBA_PROJECT_CUR"$,*K(K(VBA(K(K(dir      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[^f_`abcdegjiaTSnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ @\p Micki Morris Ba=K(!ONMQPL ThisWorkbook B ='2<@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1Arial1Arial1Arial1$Arial1 Arial1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)0.0 0.000 0.0%"Yes";"Yes";"No""True";"True";"False""On";"On";"Off" \(###,0\)*100 0.000000 0.00000 0.000083_(* #,##0.000_);_(* \(#,##0.000\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)4/_(* #,##0.0_);_(* \(#,##0.0\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)0+_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_) 0.0000000 #,##0.0 #,##0.000:5_(* #,##0.0000_);_(* \(#,##0.0000\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)0+_(* #,##0.0;_(* \-#,##0.0;_(* "-"??_);_(@_)_(* #,##0;_(* \-#,##0 _(* #,##0.00;_(* \-#,##0.00_(* #,##0.0;_(* \-#,##0.0(#_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* \(\-#,##0.00\)3._(* #,##0.0_);_(* \(#,##0.0\);_(* "-"?_);_(@_) \(#,##0.00\);\(\-#,##0.00\)* #,##0;* \-#,##0\(#,##0.0\);\(\-#,##0.0\) 00000 \100*#                + ) , *    "< !< "< !<     , (   + ) +< (< +< )< (< )< (\  L   L !\ ! (|  l !| (|  l !| !   " (<  , !<  ,@   , " * *< *< "\ "| "| "< " " "< #< #< #\ # #| #| +\ #< # "8 " )\ *\ +| *| )| +| *| )| " *|@ !  <  <  \  |  |  <   "< "8    (  (   (  8   8   8  !8@ !8@ !8 !8      "  "<  "< !8  " "| " (8 *8 ( "\ " "| "| "< "\ " "| "| #\  # #| #|  ,   !< !   !  , "< # ! *<@ "0@  0@  8@  ,@ +<@ #<@ #8@ "< "8@ " " " "8 *<@ (0@ "8  0 "< "0 "< *< (0 *|@ *| "| "<@  0@ "<  0  8@  8 " " *8  `,-Table 1[Table 2Table 3Table 4Table 5 Table 6 ,Table 7NTable 8zdTable 9qTable 10 2   ;B   ;&   ;*   ;%  ;%  ;%  ;  ;'`iImpacts for 3rd and 5th GradersGrade 3ABCDBCDABCDGainImpact*Grade 5Control Sample Size Word Attack TOWRE PDEWord Identification TOWRE SWEAimswebPassage ComprehensionGRADEBaseline# #Word-level interventionsAll InterventionsFailure Free ReadingWilson ReadingCorrective Reading Spell ReadTOWRE Sight Word Efficiency"TOWRE Phonemic Decoding EfficiencyBaseline MeansStudent CharacteristicsAgeMale (%)(Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test--RevisedWRM Word IdentificationWRM Word AttackAIMSWeb (Raw score)WRM Passage ComprehensionWoodcock Johnson SpellingWoodcock Johnson Calculation RAN Colors RAN Letters RAN Numbers RAN ObjectsRAS Numbers and Letters RAS Colors, Numbers, and LettersCTOPP Blending Words CTOPP ElisionCTOPP Rapid Digit NamingCTOPP Rapid Letter Naming/Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-IV[Note: Weights used to account for differential randomization probabilities and nonresponse./Baseline Characteristics of the Analysis Sample3rd Grade and 5th Grade Grade LevelCombined3rd5thTable 1Table 2Table 3Table 48* Impact is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.P# Impact is statistically different from the 3rd grade impact at the 0.05 level.f# Impact is statistically different from the impact for all students in that grade at the 0.05 level.Screening TestsBaseline Tests$Family income less than $30,000 (%).Family income between $30,000 and $60,000 (%)Family income over $60,000 (%)-Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (%))Has any learning or other disability (%)+Mother has bachelor's degree or higher (%)StandardScore Percentile Standard NARace--White (%)Race--African American (%)xNote: All standard scores have mean 100 and standard deviation 15, except for CTOPP and Clinical Evaluation of Language Reading Tests Hispanic (%)lNote: The percentile score shown for each test is the percentile corresponding with the mean standard score.Table 5Average at follow-upGap at follow-up 3rd GradeAverage at baselineIntervention Group Control GroupRGRtgr 5th GradeGap at baseline (Std. Units) (Std. Units)PImpacts for 3rd and 5th Graders Eligible for Free or Reduced Price School Lunch SImpacts for 3rd and 5th Graders Not Eligible for Free or Reduced Price School LunchTNote: Values for Aimsweb not available because normed standard scores unavailable. pFundamentals-IV, which have mean 10 and standard deviation 3. Standard scores unavailable for the Aimsweb test.2Relative Gap Reduction: All Interventions CombinedAll Word-level Failure FreeSpellWilson Corrective interventionsReadingReadTest pNote: "Test" refers to the Chi-Square test statistic for a general linear hypothesis test (Wald Test) with 1 degree of freedom.h"p" is the p-value produced by HLM5 software and is automatically set to 0.5 for values that exceed 0.5.  Table 6Table 7Table 10]Tests for differences in impacts for students eligible for free or reduced price school lunchCImpacts are compared to the impacts for all students in that grade.Table 98Tests for differences in impacts for 3rd and 5th GradersTable 8?Test statistics and p-values of impacts for 3rd and 5th GraderssTest statistics and p-values of impacts for 3rd and 5th Graders not eligible for free or reduced price school lunchoTest statistics and p-values of impacts for 3rd and 5th Graders eligible for free or reduced price school lunch Note: Sample sizes indicate the number of students randomly assigned to the intervention or control group, excluding students with missing test scores at the beginning or end of the school year.PNote: RGR defined as RGR = (Impact/(100-Average for Control Group at follow-up).}Note: Gap defined as (100-Average Score)/15, where 100 is the population average and 15 is the population standard deviation.Race--Other (%)a6a Values suppressed to protect student confidentialiy.!Other Baseline Tests Administered aUcW2 & " # a$U$&& ' E(9 ) 5,) @  dMbP?_*+%MColor5_ oUXLetterPRIV''''J"UX??U} h} m(h} Ih} m h}  h} I>} h}  >} >} $ h} >} $>} $ h} h} Ih} $ h} $h} h} $ hK@f@@@@f@jjj fj f@ @ @ @@@@@@@@@@@Z@@@@@@@f@ >(ghhhhhh*ggggggghhhhhh 8(ghhhhhh 9(ghhhhhh*iiiiiiihhhhhh*jjjjjjjhhhhhh lll :"jjjjjj*jllRRRRjjjjjj l! ll ;  <   = jjjjjj* mmmmmvmvvmvwjjjjjj* nnnnnwnwwnwwhhhhhh k"( nnnnwnwwnwwhhhhhh h j# j s?Sj#@ > Ep4O!@ > Eb5_%@ >hhhhhh h j$ j `sJ@hh D d { >C#I@  D d { Q-L@  D d Gh  G = pE? G Gb? G G®dP?h jVjh4}? D d {ɦآ? Dd { rF,? Dd  Gh  G{X?GGb۽Sn?GG]@Ȣ?h jRjU76'R@ D d {ϒ/Q@ Dd { HwR@ Dd  Gh  GQnh  GX9v?G~ GH@GGjt?h jHjgffff&A@ D d {̌@@ Dd { 33333A@ Dd  >h  GʡE?GGv/?GG-?h jIj0@ D d {fffff1@ Dd { ,@ Dd  >h ~  G0@GGx?GGM?h jJjuBqF@ D d {&/[bCF@ Dd { |F@ Dd  Gh  GB?GGPe!4?GG[3՜?h jKjAYlhw@@ D d {tbA@ Dd { ےV?@ Dd  Gh  GS?GG\ot?GG[?h hLhuG'@ D d {`d'@ Dd { l]vi(@ Dd  Gh  GO&暾?GG?GG&㏿?*jjjGGGGGGGGGhhhhhh jjj GM GG GP GG  GM GGhhhhhh kU jj HN HOH HN HOH  HN  HO Ghhhhhhh kE&jGGGGhGGhGhhhhhhh rr>k/ U@{3j-@>>e^U@{ȁ-@> > U@ {J.#-@ >hhhhhhh r r>/xAT@{= i)@>>oJeU@{Z~趂0@> >T@ {;f?#@ >hhhhhhh h%h>qZW@{(B@>>\ tW@{) A@> >)W@ {V!W]B@ >hhhhhh*xxx>{>>{>>{>hhhhhhD&l:.::..D.|..:.pB @!@"@#@$@%@&@'@(@)@*f@+@,@-@.@/@0@1@2@3@4@5@6@7f@8j9f@:@;@<@=@>@?x@ n nF l>{>>{>>{ !h !r&!r!>N9.,V@!{ e6@!>!>\/V@!{b.|6@!>! > )V@! {dHIGy6@"h "r "r">"QrT@"{y6*@">">8ZfU@"{P0@">" >kb>T@" {zD8t$@#h #r'#r#>^a9W@#{DZC:i?@#>#>Lg'W@#{X#?@#># >nqIW@# {ŠQ1@@$h $r$r$>MIk|RU@${^P=V0@$>$>vWgҝU@${Q7X2@$>$ >\: U@$ {E-@%h %r(%r %>Q %{Q%>%>^SrD@ %{Q%>% >[$ZS@ % {Q&h &r)&r&>ǬvW@&{@&>&>&AȊV@&{cG=@&>& >c\6*W@& {e9?@'h 'r'r'>p?V@'{bq K#7@'>'> .tU@'{g 2@'>' >6FV@' {V˟ EX<@(h (r*(r(>iLnV@({ϺP68@(>(>އ F%V@({SFU6@(>( >(V@( {GFJ:@)h )r+)r)>ڻW@){dB@)>)>UW@){ZUaB@)>) >HW@) {@FA@*xxx>{>>{>>{ +h +n+l>{>>{>>{ ,n ,l,,l,>-'>V@,{O9 F7@,>,>kSsU@,{Sw4@,>, >nV@, {X 9@-n -l--l->&6iV@-{R8@->-> U@-{D(؈K3@->- >W@- {S̃=@.n .l..l.>TW@.{T۰0=@.>.>sOcV@.{{*R8@.>. >8؂W@. { GA@/h /r//r/>l3(3V@/{P\6@/>/>$G\U@/{84@/>/ >tV@/ {LV8@0h 0r00r0>tDTV@0{Jj7@0>0>hU@0{8y3@0>0 >ڸV@0 {r8<@0 >1h 1r11r1>Ob01>fwU@1{F0l2@1>1 >[?V@1 {o;@1 >2h 2r22r2>"T@~ 2{@2>2>lT c@2{+!6@2>2 >z@2 {g 42@2 >3h 3r33r3>E@~ 3{F@3>3>h@3{ o8@3>3 >a|N@3 {ن 4@3 >4h 4r44r4>C@~ 4{@4>4>_U@4{`ف7@4>4 >XM@4 {P8@4 >5h 5r55r5>, @~ 5{ʧ@5>5>"C!@5{6 >@5>5 >5S @5 {]G=@5 >6h 6r66r6>*3@~ 6{@6>6>;@6{[ 4@6>6 >ũ3 @6 {8Yiz9@6 >7nnmiiiiiiiij 8o 8pr~ 80@ 8u~ 8t@ 8u~ 8 py@ 8 u 9qqqqqHqHHqHf :rrrrrfrffrff ;h7;ssssss <hssssss =hT=hhhh>h>>h>> >h >hh>hhh>h>>h>> ?hhhhh>h>>h>> D~l4 4"p"".".6@@A@B@C@D@Ef@F@GtHtI@J@ @hW@hhhh>h>>h>> Ahhhhh>h>>h>> BjBhhhh>h>>h>> Cjhhhh>h>>h>> Djhhhh>h>>h>> Ehhhhh>h>>h>> Fttttt>t>>t>> Gtttttytyytyy Htttttytyytyy Ittttt>t>>t>> Jttttt>t>>t>> j.".""""""">@<d+++r.                888888    7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W oSXLetterPRIV'''';U"SX??U} } mF} F} mF} Q} $} I5} 5} F} Q} } I} } IF} Q} } I} } F} Q} } I} } mF} Q} } I} } F} mQ} } } I} !$ ,!!@!f@!@!x@!x@!x@!@!!@ !i@ !, !, !x, !@!@!@!x@!,!,!x,!<!x@!@!!@!x@!!!x@!!! ?DFIIII>L>L DFFJJJJJJF=IIIII===I== =       =  = >> >  "" >    !!  >  !! >  !! >  !! >  # $ @@ @  && @   %%  @  %% @  %% @  %% @  %F 'AAA#'((A#'''A#'''A#'''A#'''A#'' ) BLg'W@ B B? KZ @ * 55 Bi KAP?;F@ *   Bķn]? K`80 * ** B`x@ K]l@ * ** B KF^!@ * ** BB? KFҿ@ *  * ) B5ZfU@ B B @ Kǘ@ * -- BW%@ KY2@ * **  B,\X@ KmY * ** B!@ K3~$k@ * ** BU? K)@̘@ *  B੘^ª @ KCmT? *  +F )BBBK*--BK***BK***BK***BK***BK**  >\/V@ > >} L/@  55 >w(  Lpё@    >{+ Loߣz?   >|u:? Ls%??   >o Ln\p@  >0r\? L.` @    >wWgҝU@>>LN @L'JB"m@  ..> E @ LU@      > ߶ @L:@  >ʢ@LeO7?  > t @LCn@ >쥛L@L~C@   >XSrD@>>X 4@L_@  ..>t_W4@ LoE@      >Fy5@Lܘ?  >LOד6@Lp}Oi?  >&YDKք1@L[v@  >R04@L"j%@  H>>>L..>L>L>L>L>L /C%AȊV@CCk7j@ 0 00C\v^@MX? 0 00CV>*M ]V? 0 00C \@MQUXv? 0 0, /CeFU@CC 1M>@ 0 55C wKa Mr@  000  C@\R!MK@ 0 00CpWM}<@ 0 00Cp= MvӾ@ 0 00CeHM@ 0 0, H2DDDN344DN333DN333DN333DN333DN33, 8~ Et@ E~ t@~  @n@  ~  @W@ ~ @W@8~ W@8~ Q@~ S@ < H>>>!""?!?!?!?!?! =       = = >> >  "" >    !!  >  !! >  !! >  !! >  # $ @@ @  && @   %%  @  %% @  %% @  %% @  % H'AAA#'((A#'''A#'''A#'''A#'''A#'' )BnqIW@BB@y7@K[=@ * 55Bw*@ K*X@  *    Bzo0?K^s * **Ḃ @K@ * **Bu@KPs@ * **B.:.@K'@? * *, )Bkb>T@BB0ާS@K$? *--BZp`@ KU-Ћf?  ***  B8v@Ko}Xo*? * **B }@KM܂@ * **BH9@KS{/ * BaG@Ki<y? * +, H)BBBK*--BK***BK***BK***BK***BK**, B )V@BB`h@O@K+I? * 55B`LS@ K}0(?  *  **  B!@KefbZ * **BTԻ@K H? * **B ?H@K-N@ ***B@a@KNGk? * *, B\: U@BBg3@K*? * ..B`/@ KjB~0?  ***  B,q@K)2? * **BqJ@K3M~@ ***Bƚڡ@KRQ+߿ * **Bw.$ @K8+r@ **, B[$ZS@BBck&3@K^^Cp? * ..BDFJ2@ K3H;@  *  **  Byh{4@Kvluտ * **B+"K3@K_n @ * **B~nj3@K㾼 * **Bh 1@KԴ}@ * *, D!lVJVJJJ,JJLLL.LL !x@!!"!@#!x,$!<%!x@&!'!x@(!)!x@*!+!H BBBK*..BK***BK***BK***BK***BK**, !/!B_\6*W@!B!BLCZ!K8? !* !11!B3Y#! Kj&U? ! *** ! BZP!K3rC? !* !**!B@'_w!KtK? !* !**!B 3 !K`7l[@ !* !**!B) -!K.,? !* !*, "/"C-!V@"C"C=?"Mw#ƿ "0 "55"C D?" Mg:|? " 0 " 00 " C@_>e?"Mtv28: "0 "00"Ch\"Mt"T "0 "00"C|G"Ms u? "0 "00"C@1 @"Mv? "0 "0, H#2DDDN344DN333DN333DN333DN333DN33, $8~ $Epy@ $E~ $py@$~ $ q@$ ~ $_@ $~ $Z@$~ $Z@$9~ $V@$9~ $U@ $< H%>>>L..>L>L>L>L>L &.BF&>>>L..>L>L>L>L>L H'FFFQ55FQFQFQFQFQ (6CF(FFFQ55FQFQFQFQFQ H)FFFQ55FQFQFQFQFQ *F*FFFQ55FQFQFQSQFQ +F+FFFQ55FQFQFQFQFQ LLLXLXLX>@<d***:'        7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W oSXLetterPRIV'''';U"SX??U} } mF} F} mF} e} $5} I5} 5} F} e} e} I} } IF} e} 5} I} } F} Q} e} I} } mF} e} 5} I} } F} me} 5} } $ +!!@!f@!@!x@!x@!x@!@!!@ !i@ !, !, !x, !@!@!@!x@!,!,!x,!<!x@!@!!@!x@!!!x@!!! @DF____I_> .> . eDFF````J```F=____I__==_= =       =  = >> >  "" >    !!  >  !! >  !! >  !! >  # $ @@ @  && @   %%  @  %% @  %% @  %% @  %F 'AAA'(((A''''A'(''A#'''A'(''A'(' ) BǤ W@ B B> @ a BB B<)պ? av@ - \ \ B9.7@ a=ϟ6 @ -  B ) By'CRU@ B BqnC@ a5x_%? - \\ BP'e-@ aA@ a \ \ BJ @ a< - BB BPm`|A@ K66;@ a BB B@b p? ag?R| @ - \ \ B:j@ a&EdX -  BF )BBBa-BBBaaBBBa-BBBKaBBBa-BBBa-B  >sf-U@ > > 5m?  t? . >> >EJ? /?m?? \\  >%ʿ  Ȥ? . >> >M@ L˓  >> >YC  f? . >> >ȡ+p  Xv@ .> >]U@>>sB @ nG? . >>>p @ Vy?   >>  >[>@ @ . >>>|@L)o  >>>`JT2@ /DP@ . >>>N%7@ jׄ4?^ > >wPC@>>IזK4@ YC@ . >>>Ϙ3@ )䝂@   >>  >*rs6@ m\ . >>>¬M6@Li2m  >>>Jd0@ ǥ*mqu@ . >>>YK4@ U@ . >H>>> .>>> >>> .>>>L >>> .>>> .> /CeZFV@CC`t @bk\qqTN 1 \\Co@ b}  b  \ \ CDo?bn-x? 1 CCC{ @Mh ? b CCC~@b 1 \\CE`y3@b} 1 C, /C^xU@CCb7Ub]9? 1 \\CBI b0l.  b  \ \ C!TbHrJ@ 1 CCC@M㾵? b CCCXըb30 1 \\CŔ?bnen 1 C, H2DDDc4DDDccDDDc4DDDNcDDDc4DDDc4D, 8~ z h@DDD2XWWW22WWW2XWWWY2WWW2XWWW2X]< HBBB)TUUU))UUU)TUUUO)UUU)TUUU)TU =CC C  C  C C C C BB B  UU B    UU  B  UU B  UU B  UU B  Z $ WW W  WW W   WW  W  WW W  WW W  WW W  W H'ZZZ/[ZZZ//ZZZ/[ZZZV/ZZZ/[ZZZ/[Z )B2uW@BB@ @a&? - \\BI8@ ag?  a  \\  B4?ahx, - BBB0)bl@Kv? a \\B/՗U @a*+VE@ - BBBሣ@aSHY? - B, )B]sT@BBPK @a :? - BBBPhn@ a \3?  a  BB  B`0&sI@aΔAH - BBB!@KCV@ aBBB0O5v@aI U - BBB+"`O@a!#? - B, H)BBBa-BBBaaBBBa-BBBKaBBBa-BBBa-B, B+/U@BB`1Umь@adY(? - BBB>> ...> > .>L > .> . &.BF&>>> ...> > .>L > .> . H'FFFe555FeeFe5FQeFe5Fe5 (6DF(FFFe555FeeFe5FQeFe5Fe5 H*FFFe555FeeFe5FQeSe5Fe5 LLdLXLX>@<d:'        7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W oSXLetterPRIV'''';U"SX??U} } mF} F} mF} e} $5} I5} 5} F} e} e} I} } IF} e} 5} I} } F} Q} e} I} } mF} e} 5} I} } F} me} 5} } $ +!!@!f@!@!x@!x@!x@!@!!@ !i@ !, !, !x, !@!@!@!x@!,!,!x,!<!x@!@!!@!x@!!!x@!!! ADF____I_> .> . fDFF````J```F=____I__==_= =       =  = >> >  "" >    !!  >  !! >  !! >  !! >  # $ @@ @  && @   %%  @  %% @  %% @  %% @  %F 'AAA'(((A''''A'(''A#'''A'(''A'(' ) B(\QW@ B B@lS4| aBbԵ@ - BB B*E aUXk;%@ a \\  BP+? az - BB BpOq? K? @ a BB Bj* aL!q3@ - \ \ Bq>? ayw@ -B ) Bi9U@ B B!? aQZ@ - \\ BHBb ah @ a \ \ Bq祮t@ aA'It - BB B0N|@ K\W@ a BB B1( au?1@ - \ \ B { { @ aк ? -  BF )BBBa-BBBaaBBBa-BBBKaBBBa-BBBa-B  >"ѕwV@ > >O  ` @ . >> >ע P7fn@ \\  >ʻ|Tȿ  ֪]r? . >> >JS LՊ6ǹ@  >> >@ŃA^  t["@ .>> >\ҿ  p(| @ .  > > [U@>> r@ %L1@ . >>>pC@ zs@   >>  >P`K@ <"? . >>>2s@LBA}ݿ  >>>o8 +@ . >>>Zە? v|H@ . \ >t?wF@>>ާQ#3@ =V@ . >>>R2@ vg @   >>  >8ލ3@ ɕzn@ . >>> ~7@L=?  >>>w)@ O>#@ . >>>4@ n#e-@ . >H>>> .>>> >>> .>>>L >>> .>>> .> /CfSuW@CCPbb;t@ 1 \\C|ܰ b˿@  b  \ \ C`Xlb?2:@ 1 CCCՓ@M'&z b CCC4bS4|3@ 1 \\C*?bD؈ @ 1 C, /CݟL>> ...> > .>L > .> . &.BF&>>> ...> > .>L > .> . H'FFFe555FeeFe5FQeFe5Fe5 (6DF(FFFe555FeeFe5FQeFe5Fe5 H*FFFe555FeeFe5FQe7e5Fe5 LLdLXLX>@<d:'        7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W odXLetterPRIV'''';U"dX??U} m} m} } } } } } $} m} } } } } I} } } I} } } $ *f i x= x@   x@ x@x@x@x@x@ X:<IIIIII>>>> :<<JJJJJJ==== j G k G l G  m  G  n G o p G p G q G  r  G  q G q  G  G  G    G   G   Hs tH Hs tH Hs t H  Hs  t H  Hs tH Hs t<   Gv;A3@ G@fg;? G G;@ GTqs*> G G*?~ G? G G(2FQ#@ GHPsb? G G~oO-@ G 5? G G>"Dz@ G+?   Gpo2@ G:ؗlEn?~ G?GGiQl@/?~ G? G Gœ1 _{?~  G? G G  ?~ G?GG?x!ZͰ?~ G? H$2M@H+j0 G?HHB̲n @HZ{?HHwL@H"nN%? H H? H|Pk? H H^l?H yP?HHm+lU?H/ ?, j G k G l G  m  G  n G o  p G p G q G  r  G  q G q   f  f  f    f   f    Hs tH Hs tH Hs t H  Hs  t H  Hs tH Hs t, Gm}A*@Gm)B?GGp4@GrQ-" ?GG:È?~ G? G G}4,@ G9̗7? G GSE8!@Gm2k?GGv`?G>"D?G G>GA @G!ƭ?GG@GL[.?GG,[+?~ G? G Gh!w @ GQi>q? G G꿌?~ G?GG)fl?G^N?G,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G%}0D"?~ G?GG"?GZ(?GGUX9?~ G? G G^LE81o?~  G? G G[g@R @G5{?GG3߳?~ G?G G6n@GW)?GG G@G$d .߶?GG71?Gg? G G5Z{}@ G c? G GR ?~ G?GGNt@GHP?G G"?GW{ l?GGߡ-y5@Gё\C?GG%Њ?~ G? G G1L? Gq? G GJA\T?~ G?GG}6@G 8Kr?G,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGD4lL@L@@@0,@40,0 "000 !"x@#x@$%&x@(x@)  G;1@ GL1%? G Gh f@ Gn-? G Gը"S?~ G? G GH=P ?~ G? G GLʠHA@ Gq9? G GzC9? Gf@9? G !!H2ϛh?~ !H?!H!HCA?~ !H?!H!Hۺ?~ !H?! H! H0-?~ ! H?! H! H[3Y?~ !H?!H!HZ.W?~ !H?!H,",# $u*$ %v*%,&,(,)6@ 00<<00>@d2&            7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W odXLetterPRIV'''';U"dX??U} m} $} } } } } } $} m} } } } } I} } } I} } } $ *f i x= x@   x@ x@x@x@x@x@ w:<IIIII_I_>>>> :<<JJJJJ`J`==== j G k G l G  m  G  n G o p G p G q G  r  G  q G q  G  G  G    G   G   Hs tH Hs tH Hs t H  Hs  t H  Hs tH Hs t<   GML0*@ G-y<-?? G Gz1g!@ G*nEEl? G GJ,hW?~ G? G Gs* @ G (s? G G ʞ@ G2#? G GzbN5? G$+?   GBD5-4?~ G? G G>? GD? G G{X?~ G? G GK$9@ Gv|H? G GqDĴ? G!x|{נ? G GP?~ G? < GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG  G/? G]ؚ? G G(Ov? G4/w ? G GB?~ G? G Gi?~ G? G G0 )C?~ G? G G/\ @ G=?  G`.?~ G?GG?~ G?GG\B?GD o? G G=?~  G? G GE1ez=?GA>D?GG{%?~ G? GxIW?~ G?GGߵ?~ G?GGﶜg?~ G? G GN5,?~  G? G G7*?G2ou?GG]?~ G?,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G.V u?~ G?GGV:]9?~ G?GGMB]?~ G? G G/o?~  G? G GY9g?~ G?GG#X?~ G? H0j)H?~ H?HHAp˱?~ H?HHǖM~?~ H? H HHˢd?~  H? H H"0ͧ?~ H?HHYx?~ H?,GGGGG j G k G l G  m  G  n G o  p G p G q G  r  G  q G q   f  f  f    f   f    Hs tH Hs tH Hs t H  Hs  t H  Hs tH Hs t,GGGGG GW&|?~ G?GGűh?~ G?GGǠ,lp?Gw@? G G1?~  G? G G?GIZ?GGaR?~ G? G !!Hr2@!H YK?!H!Hj?lM@!H)[$F?!H!Hu?܅~E @!H@d2&            7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W odXLetterPRIV'''';U"dX??U} m} m} } } } } } $} m} } } } } I} } } I} } } $ *f i x= x@   x@ x@x@x@x@x@ x:<IIIII_I_>>>> :<<JJJJJ`J`==== j G k G l G  m  G  n G o p G p G q G  r  G  q G q  G  G  G    G   G   Hs tH Hs tH Hs t H  Hs  t H  Hs tH Hs t<   Gq15@ G&|? G GoD;@ G&|> G GYMÿ?~ G? G GPN<%@ Gp;Z? G G)|a2-@ Gh㈵4? G GTu* @ G?Qy9?   Gaxm{0@ Gv'? G G_xN9@ G?̔> G G[@ G _B? G Gπ/Y"@ G pA,_g? G G'G5@ Gh㈵? G Gf?~ G? < GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG  GK`d@ GJFžv? G Gnt}s@ G7U? G G[??~ G? G Gq?? G8ah? G GO @ Genݳ? G GEϧ@ G-y<-?  GE[B{@GDOʤ6?GGy7@G ^f?GG2]l?~ G? G G]%?~  G? G G,?G À%W?GGѶۅ)@GobHN&nE? GIJv@GH\Q?GG6z,@G66;R?GGW?~ G? G Ggݍ?~  G? G G(?G:8?GG* @Gu6?,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G /a!@G~o?GG}A @GY |E~?GG>/]?G!˂?? G GHRo?~  G? G G=qiqr'@GIӠhN?GGϫ>}?~ G? Hl"N{$@HʩajK]?HHt{ @H1=Bp?HHnd+ ?HUe? H H0mL>o? H#F-? H HHFj@H|,}?HH ySS?HmnLO?,GGGGG j G k G l G  m  G  n G o  p G p G q G  r  G  q G q   f  f  f    f   f    Hs tH Hs tH Hs t H  Hs  t H  Hs tH Hs t,GGGGG Gg,9%@GZ}uUV?GGIג-@Gu 4?GG.,?~ G? G G}3x1@ G}r$? G G0JC@GR?GG薆n?Ge@?G Ga@q?Go$j?GG]7?~ G?GGO?~ G? G G|2,.@ G Q?Û? G G?~ G?GG|?~ G?G,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GR0I wh?~ G?GG?~ G?GGȊY?GI*S? G GZ"?~  G? G G z?~ G?GG!2_@IL?~ G?G G?~ G?GGi?~ G?GGKeR?~ G? G G${f?~  G? G G.Km?~ G?GGb?G@"2?G GIJehX?~ G?GG@Y1}?~ G?GGah?~ G? G GfH0=?~  G? G G!?~ G?GGDI[ ?~ G?G,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGDlL@L@@@00@0,,0"000  !"x@#x@$%&x@(x@)  GBj @ GF \? G G?M@ Gnmyش? G G-(|?~ G? G Go"G?~ G? G Gqܫ@ GO9&? G Gt9?~ G? G !!H2S8i?~ !H?!H!H#?~ !H?!H!H%X?~ !H?! H! H?~ ! H?! H! Hw5+?~ !H?!H!H}Yz}߷?~ !H?!H,",# $u*$ %v*%,&,(,)6< 00<<00>@d2&            7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W odXLetterPRIV'''';U"dX??U} m} m} } } } } } $} m} } } } } I} } } I} } } $ f i x= x@   x@ x@x@x@x@x@x@ ~:<IIIIII>>>> }:<<JJJJJJ==== j G k G l G  m  G  n G o p G p G q G  r  G  q G q  G  G  G    G   G  Hs tH Hs tH Hs t H  Hs  t H  Hs tH Hs t<   G|\$@ G =N? G G @ G&ǝ? G GXf ʘ?~ G? G GTl?~ G? G G8@ G@@w? G GfYy2? G,`p?   GsTҒ? G Tƿ? G Gf1@ G&:,B? G Gf廣?~ G? G Gވת? G-ͭVc? G GT@ Go? G G6+U?~ G? < GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG  Gh Ih @ GSy=? G Gjn[!@ G.rOWw,? G G7^? G R ? G G*{? G? G GP1L?~ G? G G&v@ G.Ȗ?  G.aw?G]?GG߃b?GWW?GG @pN?~ G? G G ?~  G? G G!|6@GPR)?GGnoqS(?~ G? Gŗu_?G?GG+V?GP9&?GG<EzR?~ G? G GsF$?~  G? G Go@C?G!˛?GGBx?GU6?,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GjNLY?~ G?GG5NT?~ G?GGG?~ G? G GZt?~  G? G Gϧs/k?~ G?GG*?~ G? H?.M @Hk@?HH͘~?HB= ?HHdխ@Hw ? H Ho9NJ? Hދ/? H H@?~ H?HHlЅ?~ H?,,, u* v*,,,6:L@L@@@,,@0(,0 000<<00>@d      7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W odXLetterPRIV'''';U"dX??U} m} m} } } } } } $} m} } } } } I} } } I} } } $ *f  x= x@   x@ x@x@x@x@x@ |:<IIIII_I_>>>> z:<<JJJJJ`J`==== j G k G l G  m  G  n G o p G p G q G  r  G  q G q  G  G  G    G   G   Hs tH Hs tH Hs t H  Hs  t H  Hs tH Hs t<   Ggp? GKK? G Gާ\@ GeRC ? G GuoO?~ G? G GZO?~ G? G G0LL@ G'+V]? G Gb?~ G?   G_0 @ G ? G Gο@ Gr3܀? G GaH?~ G? G G(lƨ?~ G? G G'}dN#@ Gz9ya? G G1?~ G? < GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG  GRD8@ GFtϺF? G Gƨ@ G9tyƶ? G G:?~ G? G Gr]? Gro~D? G G]tU@ G!? G Gձ?~ G?  G~Ԗ?~ G?GG k @GlЗ\?GGަOa`?~ G? G GcO?~  G? G GSwg+?~ G?GGN@Gy[X? G1Fg?G/ͮ{?GG-a (?~ G?GG>A?~ G? G Gx`?~  G? G G@aoٵ?~ G?GG]Fr.?Gv?,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GS@GۿҤ?GGYb.@GbiG5?GG6R1?~ G? G Gߚ ?~  G? G GA'@GǜgK6N?GG0ZΞ)?G? H6Iy @HmYg?HHO"?@HJ5o?HH2P?~ H? H Hϱ^?~  H? H H]]oF@HG5\?HH)2?H*]gC?,GGGGG j G k G l G  m  G  n G o  p G p G q G  r  G  q G q   f  f  f    f   f    Hs tH Hs tH Hs t H  Hs  t H  Hs tH Hs t,GGGGG GK@Gwb֋?GG=9+x@G^D1?GG'ZC?~ G? G G{@ G͋? G GE++?~ G?GGIs?~ G?G G_*?~ G?GGL9?~ G?GG ,h?~ G? G G&*3?~  G? G G՝YŶ?~ G?GG%?~ G?G,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Gm%k/H ?~ G?GG&Rq?~ G?GG;Cc?~ G? G Gˬ}? G? G GlE?G (zc?GG܆|=w?~ G?G GY/@GL:?GG]@G@z{?GG_!0?~ G? G G\6?~  G? G Gp]1yM?~ G?GGj>"@G. g?G G'x?~ G?GG #r"?GM*k?GG2z?~ G? G G(@ G[&|? G GV2?~ G?GG)$?~ G?G,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGDlL@L@@@((@,$$000 0 !"x@#x@$%&x@'(x@)  GC ,P@ GΊ>? G GhI4? GM:/K? G G=<e ?~ G? G Gb|1R8?~ G? G GK}@ G-$`? G GC$r?~ G? G !!H8{@!HM£?!H!Hp>ߜ @!Hd;O?!H!HρaI?!H !?! H! H/Xl<4@! Hn?! H! H{k4?!HIH]?!H!H@?~ !H?!H,",# $u*$ %v*%,& '{*',(,)600<<0<0>@d2&            7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W odXLetterPRIV'''';U"dX??U} $h} I h} I h}  h} $ h} Ih}  h} h} $h} m u} $ u} Ih} Ih} $ u} $ h'x@x@x@x@@@@   x@  x@x@@@x@x@x@ y(hhhh*hhhhhhhhhuuhhuhhhh i(hhhh*hhhhhhhhhuuhhuhhhh*iiiiiiiiiRRiiRhhhh*hhhhhhhhhuuhhuhhhhhhhhhhhhh  Z hhuhhhh hhh Y g  g  d hhuhhhh |[ }\ }c }] }^} }] }^}  }]  }^    }_ hhh ~` ) Lg'W@$ U[rN{?dD ' 5qX@ D D D ! {Be=2W@ D D  ! f:k@  D D  ? $ W? dD $ "Mp? dD  Z @ - z? D dD D  hhh0 hH? P D dD d ) 5ZfU@$ M? dD ' liV@ D D D ! t3'V@ D D  ! qc@  D D   @ $ լ@j? dD $ +طK? dD  ǘ@ - E v? D dD D  hhh0 hL ,ڿ D dD d* )hhhh  \/V@$ ``? dD ' >PV@ D D D !  g V@ D D  ! tf?  D D  } $ >So? dD $ o̝XI? dD  /@ - *J? D dD D  hhh0 h`3ÿ D dD d  wWgҝU@$ ob? dD '  8&W@ D D D !  DxV@ D D  ! y ݐ@  D D  LN @ $ BS? dD $ N;oN? dD  'JB"m@ - U@? D dD D  hhh0 h ݿ D dD d  Q Q Q Q!Ԃ DD X 4@  Q  Q  Q  Qhhhh   a hhh ha /%AȊV@$o)Ss?dD'Q|W@ DDD !ia.W@ DD!8@ DD kF@U@ DDD !=e>T@ DD!{۫? DD  1$ "??dD$ aX?dD >@  - u ?D dDD hhh0hN7DdDd*hhhhhhuuuhhhhhhhhhh  Z uhhhh h Y g  g  d uhhh ha |b @\ }c @] @^} }] }^}  }]  }^    }_ hhh ha )nqIW@$DkWT@$k9L? dD'f\V@ DDD ! kU@ DD![\U@ DD 0ާS@$ rb?dD$ og?dD $? - 8;'?D dDD hhh0h_lؿDdDd )  a hhh ha  )V@$3? dD'$a/W@ DDD !sV@ DD!؍̳G @ DD `h@O@$ 2]?dD$ D)?dD +I? - ,?D dDD hhh0hBBx<ӿDdDd \: U@$fs~? dD'S=fV@ DDD !N*V@ DD!L2c_G@ DD g3@$ $1?dD$ 3ʱ6j?dD *?  - 1?D dDD hhh0h-L4'տDdDd  Q Q Q Q!Ԃ DD X 4@  Q  Q  Q  Qhhhh   a hhh ha /_\6*W@$Eq T?dD'AW@ DDD !<'V@ DD!qNڿ DD LCZ$ w$"V?dD$ ]O?dD 8? - 5?D dDD hhh0h mg?DdDd 2-!V@$u2? dD'OdpW@ DDD !5JW@ DD!'? DD =?$ As?dD$ C?dD w#ƿ - bԩ D dDD hhh0hhG$DdDd*hhhhhhhhhuuhhuhhhhD\l:.:...Dp.P.D|PP !x@"#x@$%x@& .B!h "h#h $h%h &hgx   >@dr         7 hhuhhhh| 3rd Grade}Average at baseline%}Gap at baseline (Std. Units)}Intervention Group} Control Group}}Intervention Group} Control Group} }Intervention Group } Control Group Impact   }RGR hhh ~tgr ) Word Attack Lg'W@$ U[rN{?dD ' 5qX@ D D D ! {Be=2W@ D D  ! f:k@  D D  ? $ W? dD $ "Mp? dD  Z @ *- z? D dD D  hhh0 hH? P D dD d ) TOWRE PDE 5ZfU@$ M? dD ' liV@ D D D ! t3'V@ D D  ! qc@  D D   @ $ լ@j? dD $ +طK? dD  ǘ@ *- E v? D dD D  hhh0 hL ,ڿ D dD d* )hhhh Word Identification \/V@$ ``? dD ' >PV@ D D D !  g V@ D D  ! tf?  D D  } $ >So? dD $ o̝XI? dD  /@ *- *J? D dD D  hhh0 h`3ÿ D dD d  TOWRE SWE wWgҝU@$ ob? dD '  8&W@ D D D !  DxV@ D D  ! y ݐ@  D D  LN @ $ BS? dD $ N;oN? dD  'JB"m@ *- U@? D dD D  hhh0 h ݿ D dD dAimsweb NA NA NA NA!Ԃ DD X 4@  NA  NA  NA   NAhhhh     hhh h /Passage Comprehension%AȊV@$o)Ss?dD'Q|W@ DDD !ia.W@ DD!8@ DD kF@U@ DDD !=e>T@ DD!{۫? DD  1$ "??dD$ aX?dD >@  *- u ?D dDD hhh0hN7DdDd*hhhhhhuuuhhhhhhhhhh Gap at follow-up uhhhh hAverage at follow-up g Gain g (Std. Units) uhhh h | 5th Grade@Average at baseline%}Gap at baseline (Std. Units)@Intervention Group@ Control Group}}Intervention Group} Control Group} }Intervention Group } Control Group Impact   }RGR hhh h ) Word AttacknqIW@$DkWT@$k9L? dD'f\V@ DDD ! kU@ DD![\U@ DD 0ާS@$ rb?dD$ og?dD $? - 8;'?D dDD hhh0h_lؿDdDd )    hhh h Word Identification )V@$3? dD'$a/W@ DDD !sV@ DD!؍̳G @ DD `h@O@$ 2]?dD$ D)?dD +I? - ,?D dDD hhh0hBBx<ӿDdDd TOWRE SWE\: U@$fs~? dD'S=fV@ DDD !N*V@ DD!L2c_G@ DD g3@$ $1?dD$ 3ʱ6j?dD *?  *- 1?D dDD hhh0h-L4'տDdDdAimsweb NA NA NA NA!Ԃ DD X 4@  NA  NA  NA   NAhhhh     hhh h /Passage Comprehension_\6*W@$Eq T?dD'AW@ DDD !<'V@ DD!qNڿ DD LCZ$ w$"V?dD$ ]O?dD 8? - 5?D dDD hhh0h mg?DdDd2GRADE-!V@$u2? dD'OdpW@ DDD !5JW@ DD!'? DD =?$ As?dD$ C?dD w#ƿ - bԩ D dDD hhh0hhG$DdDd*hhhhhhhhhuuhhuhhhhD!lA.k...Sk.P.SiPP !x@"#x@$%x@&A .8* Impact is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.!hY"hPNote: RGR defined as RGR = (Impact/(100-Average for Control Group at follow-up).#h$h}Note: Gap defined as (100-Average Score)/15, where 100 is the population average and 15 is the population standard deviation.%h]&hTNote: Values for Aimsweb not available because normed standard scores unavailable. 7xE ] >@dr          7 ױ0* pHd VBAProject4@j = r K!D J< rstdole>stdole f%\*\G{00020430-C 0046}#2.0#0#C:\WINNT\system32\c2.tlb#OLE Automation^DOfficDO>fic5DD2DF8D04C-5BFA-101B -BDE5DAAB42D\\MATH1\VOL1\APPSL$MS6\2^sr1\PFiles\ 9.DLL#Microsoft 9.0 Ob Li`braryPKThisWorkbookGThosWA[rkboU 2 HB1Bz%,B,!?*"B+BBThisWorkbook')_VBA_PROJECT PROJECT&+EPROJECTwm)K?#xME (SLSS<N0{00020819-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}8(%HxAttribute VB_Name = "ThisWorkbook" Bas0{00020P819-0C$0046} |GlobalSpacFalse dCreatablPredeclaIdTru BExposeTemplateDerivBustomizD2am  $*\G{000204EF-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#4.0#9#X:\WINAPPS\MSOffice\2000sr1\PFiles\Common\MSShared\VBA\VBA6\VBE6.DLL#Visual Basic For Applications>*\G{00020813-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#1.3#0#\\MATH1\VOL1\APPS\WINAPPS\MSOffice\2000sr1\PFiles\MSOffice\Office\EXCEL9.OLB#Microsoft Excel 9.0 Object Library*\G{00020430-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#2.0#0#C:\WINNT\system32\stdole2.tlb#OLE Automation<*\G{2DF8D04C-5BFA-101B-BDE5-00AA0044DE52}#2.1#0#\\MATH1\VOL1\APPS\WINAPPS\MSOffice\2000sr1\PFiles\MSOffice\Office\MSO9.DLL#Microsoft Office 9.0 Object Library K!DKThisWorkbook0144155e75!ThisWorkbook?h%hXLυ@lN(-9?Zy%8Q#B#ݷ׋Hy`1hô6X&Excel+VBAWin16~Win32MacVBA6#Project1 stdole` VBAProjectOfficeuSheet24IP _EvaluateSheet21FPSheet22GPSheet23HP Worksheet ThisWorkbook|WorkbookkSheet25JPSheet221#Sheet26KPSheet251U$H! ID="{C11A1BDF-E942-4734-ADC1-E5F25226AE0D}" Document=ThisWorkbook/&H00000000 Name="VBAProject" HelpContextID="0" VersionCompatible32="393222000" CMG="93916A19F91DF91DF91DF91D" DPB="2624DF8EE1B275B375B375" GC="B9BB40B541B5414A" [Host Extender Info] &H00000001={3832D640-CF90-11CF-8E43-00A0C911005A};VBE;&H00000000 ThisWorkbookThisWorkbookSummaryInformation(-DocumentSummaryInformation8p_1194162922f 0 F`DK(`DK(Ole Oh+'0HPl Sonya Vartivariane Micki MorrisriaMicrosoft Excel@j<׬@ `b@~J՜.+,0@ PXt | Mathematica, Inc.h  Table 1Table 2Table 3Tabl      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFHIJKLOPQSTUVWZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~e 4Table 5Table 6Table 7Table 8Table 9 Table 10  Worksheets  FMicrosoft Excel WorksheetBiff8Excel.Sheet.89qױ0* pHd VBAProject4@j = r K!D J< rstdole>stdole f%\*\GCompObj/2fObjInfoWorkbook1:m_VBA_PROJECT_CUR"8`DK(`DK(      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQR\UVWXYZ[]_^`ibwcdefghjoklmnp}qrstuvxyz{| @Ba=K(!ONMQPL ThisWorkbook & =v-0'< 1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1Arial1Arial1Arial1$Arial1 Arial1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)0.0 0.000 0.0%"Yes";"Yes";"No""True";"True";"False""On";"On";"Off" \(###,0\)*100 0.000000 0.00000 0.000083_(* #,##0.000_);_(* \(#,##0.000\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)4/_(* #,##0.0_);_(* \(#,##0.0\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)0+_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_) 0.0000000 #,##0.0 #,##0.000:5_(* #,##0.0000_);_(* \(#,##0.0000\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)0+_(* #,##0.0;_(* \-#,##0.0;_(* "-"??_);_(@_)_(* #,##0;_(* \-#,##0 _(* #,##0.00;_(* \-#,##0.00_(* #,##0.0;_(* \-#,##0.0(#_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* \(\-#,##0.00\)3._(* #,##0.0_);_(* \(#,##0.0\);_(* "-"?_);_(@_) \(#,##0.00\);\(\-#,##0.00\)* #,##0;* \-#,##0\(#,##0.0\);\(\-#,##0.0\) 00000 \100*#                + ) , *    "< !< "< !<     , (   + ) +< (< +< )< (< )< (\  L   L !\ ! (|  l !| (|  l !| !   " (<  , !<  ,@   , " * *< *< "\ "| "| "< " " "< #< #< #\ # #| #| +\ #< # "8 " )\ *\ +| *| )| +| *| )| " *|@ !  <  <  \  |  |  <   "< "8    (  (   (  8   8   8  !8@ !8@ !8 !8      "  "<  "< !8  " "| " (8 *8 ( "\ " "| "| "< "\ " "| "| #\  # #| #|  ,   !< !   !  , "< # ! *<@ "0@  0@  8@  ,@ +<@ #<@ #8@ " "8@ " " " "8 *<@ (0@ "8  0 "< "0 "< *< (0 *|@ *| "| "<@  0@ "< "<  0  8@  8 *8  4,Table 1_Table 2{Table 3Table 4Table 5DTable 6?Table 7eeTable 8 }Table 9%Table 10 2   ;A   ;&   ;*   ;%  ;%  ;%  ;  ;'`ivImpacts for 3rd and 5th GradersGrade 3ABCDBCDABCDGainImpact*Grade 5Control Sample Size Word Attack TOWRE PDEWord Identification TOWRE SWEAimswebPassage ComprehensionGRADEBaseline# #Word-level interventionsAll InterventionsFailure Free ReadingWilson ReadingCorrective Reading Spell ReadTOWRE Sight Word Efficiency"TOWRE Phonemic Decoding EfficiencyBaseline MeansStudent CharacteristicsAgeMale (%)(Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test--RevisedWRM Word IdentificationWRM Word AttackAIMSWeb (Raw score)WRM Passage ComprehensionWoodcock Johnson SpellingWoodcock Johnson Calculation RAN Colors RAN Letters RAN Numbers RAN ObjectsRAS Numbers and Letters RAS Colors, Numbers, and LettersCTOPP Blending Words CTOPP ElisionCTOPP Rapid Digit NamingCTOPP Rapid Letter Naming/Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-IV[Note: Weights used to account for differential randomization probabilities and nonresponse./Baseline Characteristics of the Analysis Sample3rd Grade and 5th Grade Grade LevelCombined3rd5thTable 1Table 2Table 3Table 48* Impact is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.P# Impact is statistically different from the 3rd grade impact at the 0.05 level.f# Impact is statistically different from the impact for all students in that grade at the 0.05 level.Screening TestsBaseline Tests!Other baseline tests administered$Family income less than $30,000 (%).Family income between $30,000 and $60,000 (%)Family income over $60,000 (%)-Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (%))Has any learning or other disability (%)+Mother has bachelor's degree or higher (%)StandardScore Percentile Standard NARace--White (%)Race--African American (%)xNote: All standard scores have mean 100 and standard deviation 15, except for CTOPP and Clinical Evaluation of Language Reading Tests Hispanic (%)lNote: The percentile score shown for each test is the percentile corresponding with the mean standard score.Table 5Average at follow-upGap at follow-up 3rd GradeAverage at baselineIntervention Group Control GroupRGRtgr 5th GradeGap at baseline (Std. Units) (Std. Units)PImpacts for 3rd and 5th Graders Eligible for Free or Reduced Price School Lunch SImpacts for 3rd and 5th Graders Not Eligible for Free or Reduced Price School LunchpFundamentals-IV, which have mean 10 and standard deviation 3. Standard scores unavailable for the Aimsweb test.2Relative Gap Reduction: All Interventions CombinedAll Word-level Failure FreeSpellWilson Corrective interventionsReadingReadTest pNote: "Test" refers to the Chi-Square test statistic for a general linear hypothesis test (Wald Test) with 1 degree of freedom.h"p" is the p-value produced by HLM5 software and is automatically set to 0.5 for values that exceed 0.5.  Table 6Table 7CImpacts are compared to the impacts for all students in that grade.Table 9Table 8 Note: Sample sizes indicate the number of students randomly assigned to the intervention or control group, excluding students with missing test scores at the beginning or end of the school year.PNote: RGR defined as RGR = (Impact/(100-Average for Control Group at follow-up).}Note: Gap defined as (100-Average Score)/15, where 100 is the population average and 15 is the population standard deviation.6a Values suppressed to protect student confidentialiy.?Test Statistics and p-Values of Impacts for 3rd and 5th GraderspTest Sstatistics and p-Values of Impacts for 3rd and 5th Graders Eligible for Free or Reduced Price School LunchsTest Statistics and p-Values of Impacts for 3rd and 5th Graders Not Eligible for Free or Reduced Price School Lunch8Tests for Differences in Impacts for 3rd and 5th Graders]Tests for Differences in Impacts for Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price School LunchYNote: Values for Aimsweb not available because normed standard scores were unavailable. NA4 }U,W#N&1! H" 2# $% % .' 8) @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W oUXLetterPRIV'''';U"UX??U} h} m(h} Ih} m h}  h} I>} h}  >} >} $ h} >} $>} $ h} h} Ih} $ h} $h} h} $ hJ@f@@@@f@jjj fj f@ @ @ @@@@@@@@@@Z@@@@@@@f@@Table 1(ghhhhhh*ggggggghhhhhh8/Baseline Characteristics of the Analysis Sample(ghhhhhh 3rd Grade and 5th Grade(ghhhhhh*iiiiiiihhhhhh*jjjjjjjhhhhhh lll Grade Level"jjjjjj*jllRRRRjjjjjjlBaseline Means llCombined  3rd   5th jjjjjj* mmmmmvmvvmvwjjjjjj* nnnnnwnwwnwwhhhhhh kStudent Characteristics( nnnnwnwwnwwhhhhhh h jAge j s?Sj#@ > Ep4O!@ > Eb5_%@ >hhhhhh h jMale (%) j `sJ@)h D d { >C#I@  D d { Q-L@  D d Gh  G = pE? G Gb? G G®dP?hj Hispanic (%)jh4}? D d {ɦآ? Dd { rF,? Dd  Gh  G{X?GGb۽Sn?GG]@Ȣ?hjRace--White (%)jU76'R@ D d {ϒ/Q@ Dd { HwR@ Dd  Gh  GQnh  GX9v?G~ GH@GGjt?h7j.Family income between $30,000 and $60,000 (%)jgffff&A@ D d {̌@@ Dd { 33333A@ Dd  >h  GʡE?GGv/?GG-?h(jFamily income over $60,000 (%)j0@ D d {fffff1@ Dd { ,@ Dd  >h ~  G0@GGx?GGM?h6j-Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (%)juBqF@ D d {&/[bCF@ Dd { |F@ Dd  Gh  GB?GGPe!4?GG[3՜?h2j)Has any learning or other disability (%)jAYlhw@@ D d {tbA@ Dd { ےV?@ Dd  Gh  GS?GG\ot?GG[?h4h+Mother has bachelor's degree or higher (%)huG'@ D d {`d'@ Dd { l]vi(@ Dd  Gh  GO&暾?GG?GG&㏿?*jjjGGGGGGGGGhhhhhh jjjGStandard GGG Standard GG GStandard GGhhhhhhk Reading Tests jjHScoreH PercentileHHScoreH PercentileH HScore H Percentile GhhhhhhhkScreening Tests&jGGGGhGGhGhhhhhhh$rTOWRE Sight Word Efficiencyr>k/ U@{3j-@>>e^U@{ȁ-@> > U@ {J.#-@ >hhhhhhh+r"TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiencyr>/xAT@{= i)@>>oJeU@{Z~趂0@> >T@ {;f?#@ >hhhhhhh1h(Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test--Revisedh>qZW@{(B@>>\ tW@{) A@> >)W@ {V!W]B@ >hhhhhh*xxx>{>>{>>{>hhhhhhnnBaseline Tests&l>{>>{>>{>hhhhhhDXl@.hP..N...P  .-)+.P. @!@"@#@$@%@&@'@(@)f@*@+@,@-@.@/@0@1@2@3@4@5@6f@7j8f@9@:@;@<@=@>x@?@ h rWRM Word Identification r >N9.,V@ { e6@ > >\/V@ {b.|6@ > > )V@ {dHIGy6@!h+!r"TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency!r!>"QrT@!{y6*@!>!>8ZfU@!{P0@!>! >kb>T@! {zD8t$@"h"rWRM Word Attack"r">^a9W@"{DZC:i?@">">Lg'W@"{X#?@">" >nqIW@" {ŠQ1@@#h$#rTOWRE Sight Word Efficiency#r#>MIk|RU@#{^P=V0@#>#>vWgҝU@#{Q7X2@#># >\: U@# {E-@$h$rAIMSWeb (Raw score)$r $>NA ${NA$>$>^SrD@ ${NA$>$ >[$ZS@ $ {NA%h"%rWRM Passage Comprehension%r%>ǬvW@%{@%>%>&AȊV@%{cG=@%>% >c\6*W@% {e9?@&h&rGRADE&r&>p?V@&{bq K#7@&>&> .tU@&{g 2@&>& >6FV@& {V˟ EX<@'h"'rWoodcock Johnson Spelling'r'>iLnV@'{ϺP68@'>'>އ F%V@'{SFU6@'>' >(V@' {GFJ:@(h%(rWoodcock Johnson Calculation(r(>ڻW@({dB@(>(>UW@({ZUaB@(>( >HW@( {@FA@)xxx>{>>{>>{ *h**n!Other baseline tests administered*l>{>>{>>{ +n+l RAN Colors+l+>-'>V@+{O9 F7@+>+>kSsU@+{Sw4@+>+ >nV@+ {X 9@,n,l RAN Letters,l,>&6iV@,{R8@,>,> U@,{D(؈K3@,>, >W@, {S̃=@-n-l RAN Numbers-l->TW@-{T۰0=@->->sOcV@-{{*R8@->- >8؂W@- { GA@.h.r RAN Objects.r.>l3(3V@.{P\6@.>.>$G\U@.{84@.>. >tV@. {LV8@/h /rRAS Numbers and Letters/r/>tDTV@/{Jj7@/>/>hU@/{8y3@/>/ >ڸV@/ {r8<@0h)0r RAS Colors, Numbers, and Letters0r0>Ob00>fwU@0{F0l2@0>0 >[?V@0 {o;@0 >1h1rCTOPP Blending Words1r1>"T@~ 1{@1>1>lT c@1{+!6@1>1 >z@1 {g 42@1 >2h2r CTOPP Elision2r2>E@~ 2{F@2>2>h@2{ o8@2>2 >a|N@2 {ن 4@2 >3h!3rCTOPP Rapid Digit Naming3r3>C@~ 3{@3>3>_U@3{`ف7@3>3 >XM@3 {P8@3 >4h"4rCTOPP Rapid Letter Naming4r4>, @~ 4{ʧ@4>4>"C!@4{6 >@4>4 >5S @4 {]G=@4 >5h85r/Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-IV5r5>*3@~ 5{@5>5>;@5{[ 4@5>5 >ũ3 @5 {8Yiz9@5 >6nnmiiiiiiiij 7o Sample Size 7pr~ 70@ 7u~ 7t@ 7u~ 7 py@ 7 u 8qqqqqHqHHqHf 9rrrrrfrffrff d:h[Note: Weights used to account for differential randomization probabilities and nonresponse.:ssssss ;hssssss <hxNote: All standard scores have mean 100 and standard deviation 15, except for CTOPP and Clinical Evaluation of Language <hhhh>h>>h>> =hy=hpFundamentals-IV, which have mean 10 and standard deviation 3. Standard scores unavailable for the Aimsweb test.=hhh>h>>h>> >hhhhh>h>>h>> u?hlNote: The percentile score shown for each test is the percentile corresponding with the mean standard score.?hhhh>h>>h>> Dl T"z""""@@A@B@C@Df@E@FtGtH@I@@hhhhh>h>>h>> ?Aj6a Values suppressed to protect student confidentialiy.Ahhhh>h>>h>> Bjhhhh>h>>h>> Cjhhhh>h>>h>> Dhhhhh>h>>h>> Ettttt>t>>t>> Ftttttytyytyy Gtttttytyytyy Httttt>t>>t>> Ittttt>t>>t>> ]"c""""""">@<dB Z+               777777    7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W oSXLetterPRIV'''';U"SX??U} } mF} F} mF} Q} $} I5} 5} F} Q} } I} } IF} Q} } I} } F} Q} } I} } mF} Q} } I} } F} mQ} } } I} !$ ,!!@!f@!@!x@!x@!x@!@!!@ !i@ !, !, !x, !@!@!@!x@!,!,!x,!<!x@!@!!@!x@!!!x@!!!Table 2DFIIII>L>L(Impacts for 3rd and 5th GradersDFFJJJJJJF=IIIII===I== =All Interventions!Word-level interventions   Failure Free Reading Spell ReadWilson Reading=Corrective Reading = >>>Control ABCD "">Control  BCD  !!  >Control A !!>Control B !!>Control C !!>Control D #$Grade 3@Baseline@ @GainImpact && @Gain Impact  %%   @GainImpact %% @GainImpact %% @GainImpact %% @GainImpact %F 'AAA#'((A#'''A#'''A#'''A#'''A#'' ) Word Attack BLg'W@ B B? KZ @ ** 55 Bi KAP?;F@ **   Bķn]? K`80 * ** B`x@ K]l@ ** ** B KF^!@ ** ** BB? KFҿ@ ** * ) TOWRE PDE B5ZfU@ B B @ Kǘ@ ** -- BW%@ KY2@ ** **  B,\X@ KmY * ** B!@ K3~$k@ ** ** BU? K)@̘@ **  B੘^ª @ KCmT? * +F )BBBK*--BK***BK***BK***BK***BK** Word Identification >\/V@ > >} L/@ * 55 >w(  Lpё@ *   >{+ Loߣz?   >|u:? Ls%??   >o Ln\p@  >0r\? L.` @ *  TOWRE SWE>wWgҝU@>>LN @L'JB"m@ * ..> E @ LU@  *    > ߶ @L:@  >ʢ@LeO7?  > t @LCn@ >쥛L@L~C@ *Aimsweb>XSrD@>>X 4@L_@ * ..>t_W4@ LoE@  *    >Fy5@Lܘ?  >LOד6@Lp}Oi?  >&YDKք1@L[v@  >R04@L"j%@ *H>>>L..>L>L>L>L>L /Passage ComprehensionC%AȊV@CCk7j@ 0 00C\v^@MX? 0 00CV>*M ]V? 0 00C \@MQUXv? 0 0, /GRADECeFU@CC 1M>@ 0* 55C wKa Mr@  000  C@\R!MK@ 0 00CpWM}<@ 0 00Cp= MvӾ@ 0 00CeHM@ 0 0, H2DDDN344DN333DN333DN333DN333DN33, 8 Sample Size~ Et@ E~ t@~  @n@  ~  @W@ ~ @W@8~ W@8~ Q@~ S@ < H>>>!""?!?!?!?!?! =All Interventions!Word-level interventions   Failure Free Reading Spell ReadWilson Reading=Corrective Reading= >>>Control ABCD "">Control  BCD  !!  >Control A !!>Control B !!>Control C !!>Control D # $Grade 5@Baseline@ @GainImpact && @Gain Impact  %%   @GainImpact %% @GainImpact %% @GainImpact %% @GainImpact % H'AAA#'((A#'''A#'''A#'''A#'''A#'' ) Word AttackBnqIW@BB@y7@K[=@ ** 55Bw*@ K*X@  **    Bzo0?K^s * **Ḃ @K@ ** **Bu@KPs@ ** **B.:.@K'@? * *, ) TOWRE PDEBkb>T@BB0ާS@K$? *--BZp`@ KU-Ћf?  ***  B8v@Ko}Xo*? * **B }@KM܂@ ** **BH9@KS{/ * # BaG@Ki<y? * +, H)BBBK*--BK***BK***BK***BK***BK**, Word IdentificationB )V@BB`h@O@K+I? * 55B`LS@ K}0(?  *  **  B!@KefbZ * **BTԻ@K H? * **B ?H@K-N@ ***B@a@KNGk? * *,  TOWRE SWEB\: U@BBg3@K*? ** ..B`/@ KjB~0?  ***  B,q@K)2? * **BqJ@K3M~@ ***Bƚڡ@KRQ+߿ * **Bw.$ @K8+r@ **, AimswebB[$ZS@BBck&3@K^^Cp? * ..BDFJ2@ K3H;@  *  **  Byh{4@Kvluտ * **B+"K3@K_n @ * **B~nj3@K㾼 * **Bh 1@KԴ}@ * *, D#l\JtJJJ/?iJJLLL1AkLL !x@!!"!@#!x,$!<%!x@&!'!x@(!)!x@*!+!H BBBK*..BK***BK***BK***BK***BK**, !/Passage Comprehension!B_\6*W@!B!BLCZ!K8? !* !11!B3Y#! Kj&U? ! *** ! BZP!K3rC? !* !**!B@'_w!KtK? !* !**!B 3 !K`7l[@ !* !**!B) -!K.,? !* !*, "/GRADE"C-!V@"C"C=?"Mw#ƿ "0 "55"C D?" Mg:|? " 0 " 00 " C@_>e?"Mtv28: "0 "00"Ch\"Mt"T "0 "00"C|G"Ms u? "0 "00"C@1 @"Mv? "0 "0, H#2DDDN344DN333DN333DN333DN333DN33, $8 Sample Size~ $Epy@ $E~ $py@$~ $ q@$ ~ $_@ $~ $Z@$~ $Z@$9~ $V@$9~ $U@ $< H%>>>L..>L>L>L>L>L A&.8* Impact is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.F&>>>L..>L>L>L>L>L H'FFFQ55FQFQFQFQFQ _(6P# Impact is statistically different from the 3rd grade impact at the 0.05 level.F(FFFQ55FQFQFQFQFQ H)FFFQ55FQFQFQFQFQ *Note: Sample sizes indicate the number of students randomly assigned to the intervention or control group, excluding students with missing test scores at the beginning or end of the school year.F*FFFQ55FQFQFQSQFQ + F+FFFQ55FQFQFQFQFQ ~ LLLLL>@<d***:'        7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W oSXLetterPRIV'''';U"SX??U} } mF} F} mF} e} $5} I5} 5} F} e} e} I} } IF} e} 5} I} } F} Q} e} I} } mF} e} 5} I} } F} me} 5} } $ +!!@!f@!@!x@!x@!x@!@!!@ !i@ !, !, !x, !@!@!@!x@!,!,!x,!<!x@!@!!@!x@!!!x@!!!Table 3DF____I_> .> .YPImpacts for 3rd and 5th Graders Eligible for Free or Reduced Price School Lunch DFF````J```F=____I__==_= =All Interventions!Word-level interventions   Failure Free Reading Spell ReadWilson Reading=Corrective Reading = >>>Control ABCD "">Control  BCD  !!  >Control A !!>Control B !!>Control C !!>Control D #$Grade 3@Baseline@ @GainImpact && @Gain Impact  %%   @GainImpact %% @GainImpact %% @GainImpact %% @GainImpact %F 'AAA'(((A''''A'(''A#'''A'(''A'(' ) Word Attack BǤ W@ B B> @ a* BB B<)պ? av@ -* \#  \ B9.7@ a=ϟ6 @ - B ) TOWRE PDE By'CRU@ B BqnC@ a5x_%? - \\ BP'e-@ aA@ a \#  \ BJ @ a< - BB BPm`|A@ K66;@ a* BB B@b p? ag?R| @ - \#  \ B:j@ a&EdX - BF )BBBa-BBBaaBBBa-BBBKaBBBa-BBBa-B Word Identification >sf-U@ > > 5m?  t? . >> >EJ? /?m?? \\  >%ʿ  Ȥ? . >> >M@ L˓  >> >YC  f? . >> >ȡ+p  Xv@ .> TOWRE SWE>]U@>>sB @ nG? . >>>p @ Vy?   >>  >[>@ @ . >>>|@L)o  >>>`JT2@ /DP@ . >>>N%7@ jׄ4?^ >#Aimsweb>wPC@>>IזK4@ YC@ . >>>Ϙ3@ )䝂@   >>  >*rs6@ m\ . >>>¬M6@Li2m  >>>Jd0@ ǥ*mqu@ . >>>YK4@ U@ .>H>>> .>>> >>> .>>>L >>> .>>> .> /Passage ComprehensionCeZFV@CC`t @bk\qqTN 1 \# \Co@ b}  b  \#  \ CDo?bn-x? 1 CCC{ @Mh ? b CCC~@b 1 \# \CE`y3@b} 1 C, /GRADEC^xU@CCb7Ub]9? 1 \# \CBI b0l.  b  \#  \ C!TbHrJ@ 1 CCC@M㾵? b CCCXըb30 1 \# \CŔ?bnen 1 C, H2DDDc4DDDccDDDc4DDDNcDDDc4DDDc4D, 8 Sample Size~ z h@DDD2XWWW22WWW2XWWWY2WWW2XWWW2X]< HBBB)TUUU))UUU)TUUUO)UUU)TUUU)TU =CCAll InterventionsC!Word-level interventions C  Failure Free ReadingC Spell ReadCWilson ReadingCCorrective ReadingC BBBControl ABCD UUBControl  BCD  UU  BControl A UUBControl B UUBControl C UUBControl D Z $Grade 5WBaselineW WGainImpact WW WGain Impact  WW   WGainImpact WW WGainImpact WW WGainImpact WW WGainImpact W H'ZZZ/[ZZZ//ZZZ/[ZZZV/ZZZ/[ZZZ/[Z ) Word AttackB2uW@BB@ @a&? - \\BI8@ ag?  a  \\  B4?ahx, - BBB0)bl@Kv? a \# \B/՗U @a*+VE@ - BBBሣ@aSHY? - B, ) TOWRE PDEB]sT@BBPK @a :? - BBBPhn@ a \3?  a  BB  B`0&sI@aΔAH - BBB!@KCV@ aBBB0O5v@aI U - BBB+"`O@a!#? - B, H)BBBa-BBBaaBBBa-BBBKaBBBa-BBBa-B, Word IdentificationB+/U@BB`1Umь@adY(? - BBB>> ...> > .>L > .> . A&.8* Impact is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.F&>>> ...> > .>L > .> . H'FFFe555FeeFe5FQeFe5Fe5 u(6f# Impact is statistically different from the impact for all students in that grade at the 0.05 level.F(FFFe555FeeFe5FQeFe5Fe5 H*FFFe555FeeFe5FQeSe5Fe5 [LLnLL>@<d:'        7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W oSXLetterPRIV'''';U"SX??U} } mF} F} mF} e} $5} I5} 5} F} e} e} I} } IF} e} 5} I} } F} Q} e} I} } mF} e} 5} I} } F} me} 5} } $ +!!@!f@!@!x@!x@!x@!@!!@ !i@ !, !, !x, !@!@!@!x@!,!,!x,!<!x@!@!!@!x@!!!x@!!!Table 4DF____I_> .> .\SImpacts for 3rd and 5th Graders Not Eligible for Free or Reduced Price School LunchDFF````J```F=____I__==_= =All Interventions!Word-level interventions   Failure Free Reading Spell ReadWilson Reading=Corrective Reading = >>>Control ABCD "">Control  BCD  !!  >Control A !!>Control B !!>Control C !!>Control D #$Grade 3@Baseline@ @GainImpact && @Gain Impact  %%   @GainImpact %% @GainImpact %% @GainImpact %% @GainImpact %F 'AAA'(((A''''A'(''A#'''A'(''A'(' ) Word Attack B(\QW@ B B@lS4| aBbԵ@ -* BB B*E aUXk;%@ a* \\  BP+? az - BB BpOq? K? @ a* BB Bj* aL!q3@ -* \#  \ Bq>? ayw@ -B ) TOWRE PDE Bi9U@ B B!? aQZ@ -* \\ BHBb ah @ a* \#  \ Bq祮t@ aA'It - BB B0N|@ K\W@ a* BB B1( au?1@ -* \#  \ B { { @ aк ? - BF )BBBa-BBBaaBBBa-BBBKaBBBa-BBBa-B Word Identification >"ѕwV@ > >O  ` @ .* >> >ע P7fn@ * \\  >ʻ|Tȿ  ֪]r? . >> >JS LՊ6ǹ@  >> >@ŃA^  t["@ .>> >\ҿ  p(| @ . > TOWRE SWE> [U@>> r@ %L1@ .* >>>pC@ zs@  *  >>  >P`K@ <"? . >>>2s@LBA}ݿ  >>>o8 +@ . >>>Zە? v|H@ .* \# Aimsweb>t?wF@>>ާQ#3@ =V@ .* >>>R2@ vg @  *  >>  >8ލ3@ ɕzn@ . >>> ~7@L=?  >>>w)@ O>#@ . >>>4@ n#e-@ .*>H>>> .>>> >>> .>>>L >>> .>>> .> /Passage ComprehensionCfSuW@CCPbb;t@ 1* \# \C|ܰ b˿@  b*  \#  \ C`Xlb?2:@ 1 CCCՓ@M'&z b CCC4bS4|3@ 1* \# \C*?bD؈ @ 1 C, /GRADECݟL>> ...> > .>L > .> . A&.8* Impact is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.F&>>> ...> > .>L > .> . H'FFFe555FeeFe5FQeFe5Fe5 u(6f# Impact is statistically different from the impact for all students in that grade at the 0.05 level.F(FFFe555FeeFe5FQeFe5Fe5 H*FFFe555FeeFe5FQe7e5Fe5 ZLLnLL>@<d:'        7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W odXLetterPRIV'''';U"dX??U} m} m} } } } } } $} m} } } } } I} } } I} } } $ *f i x= x@   x@ x@x@x@x@x@Table 5:<IIIIII>>>>H?Test Statistics and p-Values of Impacts for 3rd and 5th Graders:<<JJJJJJ==== All G Word-level G Failure Free G  Spell  G  Wilson G Corrective interventions G interventions GReading G   Read  G  Reading GReading ABCD G BCD G A G   B  G   C G DGrade 3 HTest  pH HTest  pH HTest  p H  HTest   p H  HTest  pH HTest  p<   Word Attack Gv;A3@ G@fg;? G G;@ GTqs*> G G*?~ G? G G(2FQ#@ GHPsb? G G~oO-@ G 5? G G>"Dz@ G+?   TOWRE PDE Gpo2@ G:ؗlEn?~ G?GGiQl@/?~ G? G Gœ1 _{?~  G? G G  ?~ G?GG?x!ZͰ?~ G?GRADEH$2M@H+j0 G?HHB̲n @HZ{?HHwL@H"nN%? H H? H|Pk? H H^l?H yP?HHm+lU?H/ ?, All G Word-level G Failure Free G  Spell  G  Wilson G Corrective  interventions G interventions GReading G   Read  G  Reading GReading  ABCD f BCD f A f   B  f   C f D Grade 5 HTest  pH HTest  pH HTest  p H  HTest   p H  HTest  pH HTest  p, Word AttackGm}A*@Gm)B?GGp4@GrQ-" ?GG:È?~ G? G G}4,@ G9̗7? G GSE8!@Gm2k?GGv`?G>"D?G TOWRE PDEG>GA @G!ƭ?GG@GL[.?GG,[+?~ G? G Gh!w @ GQi>q? G G꿌?~ G?GG)fl?G^N?G,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGWord IdentificationG%}0D"?~ G?GG"?GZ(?GGUX9?~ G? G G^LE81o?~  G? G G[g@R @G5{?GG3߳?~ G?G TOWRE SWEG6n@GW)?GG G@G$d .߶?GG71?Gg? G G5Z{}@ G c? G GR ?~ G?GGNt@GHP?GAimswebG"?GW{ l?GGߡ-y5@Gё\C?GG%Њ?~ G? G G1L? Gq? G GJA\T?~ G?GG}6@G 8Kr?G,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGDlR@@@"@:4@F820&00("0$&  !"x@#x@$%&x@(x@) Passage Comprehension G;1@ GL1%? G Gh f@ Gn-? G Gը"S?~ G? G GH=P ?~ G? G GLʠHA@ Gq9? G GzC9? Gf@9? G!GRADE!H2ϛh?~ !H?!H!HCA?~ !H?!H!Hۺ?~ !H?! H! H0-?~ ! H?! H! H[3Y?~ !H?!H!HZ.W?~ !H?!H,",#$Note: "Test" refers to the Chi-Square test statistic for a general linear hypothesis test (Wald Test) with 1 degree of freedom.*$%h"p" is the p-value produced by HLM5 software and is automatically set to 0.5 for values that exceed 0.5.  *%,&,(,)6O.0000>@d%2&            7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W odXLetterPRIV'''';U"dX??U} m} $} } } } } } $} m} } } } } I} } } I} } } $ *f i x= x@   x@ x@x@x@x@x@Table 6:<IIIII_I_>>>>ypTest Sstatistics and p-Values of Impacts for 3rd and 5th Graders Eligible for Free or Reduced Price School Lunch:<<JJJJJ`J`==== All G Word-level G Failure Free G  Spell  G  Wilson G Corrective interventions G interventions GReading G   Read  G  Reading GReading ABCD G BCD G A G   B  G   C G DGrade 3 HTest  pH HTest  pH HTest  p H  HTest   p H  HTest  pH HTest  p<   Word Attack GML0*@ G-y<-?? G Gz1g!@ G*nEEl? G GJ,hW?~ G? G Gs* @ G (s? G G ʞ@ G2#? G GzbN5? G$+?   TOWRE PDE GBD5-4?~ G? G G>? GD? G G{X?~ G? G GK$9@ Gv|H? G GqDĴ? G!x|{נ? G GP?~ G? < GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Word Identification G/? G]ؚ? G G(Ov? G4/w ? G GB?~ G? G Gi?~ G? G G0 )C?~ G? G G/\ @ G=?  TOWRE SWEG`.?~ G?GG?~ G?GG\B?GD o? G G=?~  G? G GE1ez=?GA>D?GG{%?~ G?AimswebGxIW?~ G?GGߵ?~ G?GGﶜg?~ G? G GN5,?~  G? G G7*?G2ou?GG]?~ G?,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGPassage ComprehensionG.V u?~ G?GGV:]9?~ G?GGMB]?~ G? G G/o?~  G? G GY9g?~ G?GG#X?~ G?GRADEH0j)H?~ H?HHAp˱?~ H?HHǖM~?~ H? H HHˢd?~  H? H H"0ͧ?~ H?HHYx?~ H?,GGGGG All G Word-level G Failure Free G  Spell  G  Wilson G Corrective  interventions G interventions GReading G   Read  G  Reading GReading  ABCD f BCD f A f   B  f   C f D Grade 5 HTest  pH HTest  pH HTest  p H  HTest   p H  HTest  pH HTest  p,GGGGG Word AttackGW&|?~ G?GGűh?~ G?GGǠ,lp?Gw@? G G1?~  G? G G?GIZ?GGaR?~ G? G!GRADE!Hr2@!H YK?!H!Hj?lM@!H)[$F?!H!Hu?܅~E @!H@d&2&            7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W odXLetterPRIV'''';U"dX??U} m} m} } } } } } $} m} } } } } I} } } I} } } $ *f i x= x@   x@ x@x@x@x@x@Table 7:<IIIII_I_>>>>|sTest Statistics and p-Values of Impacts for 3rd and 5th Graders Not Eligible for Free or Reduced Price School Lunch:<<JJJJJ`J`==== All G Word-level G Failure Free G  Spell  G  Wilson G Corrective interventions G interventions GReading G   Read  G  Reading GReading ABCD G BCD G A G   B  G   C G DGrade 3 HTest  pH HTest  pH HTest  p H  HTest   p H  HTest  pH HTest  p<   Word Attack Gq15@ G&|? G GoD;@ G&|> G GYMÿ?~ G? G GPN<%@ Gp;Z? G G)|a2-@ Gh㈵4? G GTu* @ G?Qy9?   TOWRE PDE Gq15@ Gv'? G G_xN9@ G?̔> G G[@ G _B? G Gπ/Y"@ G pA,_g? G G'G5@ Gh㈵? G Gf?~ G? < GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Word Identification GK`d@ GJFžv? G Gnt}s@ G7U? G G[??~ G? G Gq?? G8ah? G GO @ Genݳ? G GEϧ@ G-y<-?  TOWRE SWEGE[B{@GDOʤ6?GGy7@G ^f?GG2]l?~ G? G G]%?~  G? G G,?G À%W?GGѶۅ)@GobHN&nE?AimswebGIJv@GH\Q?GG6z,@G66;R?GGW?~ G? G Ggݍ?~  G? G G(?G:8?GG* @Gu6?,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGPassage ComprehensionG /a!@G~o?GG}A @GY |E~?GG>/]?G!˂?? G GHRo?~  G? G G=qiqr'@GIӠhN?GGϫ>}?~ G?GRADEHl"N{$@HʩajK]?HHt{ @H1=Bp?HHnd+ ?HUe? H H0mL>o? H#F-? H HHFj@H|,}?HH ySS?HmnLO?,GGGGG All G Word-level G Failure Free G  Spell  G  Wilson G Corrective  interventions G interventions GReading G   Read  G  Reading GReading  ABCD f BCD f A f   B  f   C f D Grade 5 HTest  pH HTest  pH HTest  p H  HTest   p H  HTest  pH HTest  p,GGGGG Word AttackGg,9%@GZ}uUV?GGIג-@Gu 4?GG.,?~ G? G G}3x1@ G}r$? G G0JC@GR?GG薆n?Ge@?G TOWRE PDEGa@q?Go$j?GG]7?~ G?GGO?~ G? G G|2,.@ G Q?Û? G G?~ G?GG|?~ G?G,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGWord IdentificationGR0I wh?~ G?GG?~ G?GGȊY?GI*S? G GZ"?~  G? G G z?~ G?GG!2_@IL?~ G?G TOWRE SWEG?~ G?GGi?~ G?GGKeR?~ G? G G${f?~  G? G G.Km?~ G?GGb?G@"2?GAimswebGIJehX?~ G?GG@Y1}?~ G?GGah?~ G? G GfH0=?~  G? G G!?~ G?GGDI[ ?~ G?G,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGDlR@@@"@:8@B420.&00(0  !"x@#x@$%&x@(x@) Passage Comprehension GBj @ GF \? G G?M@ Gnmyش? G G-(|?~ G? G Go"G?~ G? G Gqܫ@ GO9&? G Gt9?~ G? G!GRADE!H2S8i?~ !H?!H!H#?~ !H?!H!H%X?~ !H?! H! H?~ ! H?! H! Hw5+?~ !H?!H!H}Yz}߷?~ !H?!H,",#$Note: "Test" refers to the Chi-Square test statistic for a general linear hypothesis test (Wald Test) with 1 degree of freedom.*$%h"p" is the p-value produced by HLM5 software and is automatically set to 0.5 for values that exceed 0.5.  *%,&,(,)6K*0000>@d%2&            7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W odXLetterPRIV'''';U"dX??U} m} m} } } } } } $} m} } } } } I} } } I} } } $ f i x= x@   x@ x@x@x@x@x@x@Table 8:<IIIIII>>>>A8Tests for Differences in Impacts for 3rd and 5th Graders:<<JJJJJJ==== All G Word-level G Failure Free G  Spell  G  Wilson G Corrective interventions G interventions GReading G   Read  G  Reading GReading ABCD G BCD G A G   B  G   C G D HTest  pH HTest  pH HTest  p H  HTest   p H  HTest  pH HTest  p<   Word Attack G|\$@ G =N? G G @ G&ǝ? G GXf ʘ?~ G? G GTl?~ G? G G8@ G@@w? G GfYy2? G,`p?   TOWRE PDE GsTҒ? G Tƿ? G Gf1@ G&:,B? G Gf廣?~ G? G Gވת? G-ͭVc? G GT@ Go? G G6+U?~ G? < GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Word Identification Gh Ih @ GSy=? G Gjn[!@ G.rOWw,? G G7^? G R ? G G*{? G? G GP1L?~ G? G G&v@ G.Ȗ?  TOWRE SWEG.aw?G]?GG߃b?GWW?GG @pN?~ G? G G ?~  G? G G!|6@GPR)?GGnoqS(?~ G?AimswebGŗu_?G?GG+V?GP9&?GG<EzR?~ G? G GsF$?~  G? G Go@C?G!˛?GGBx?GU6?,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGPassage ComprehensionGjNLY?~ G?GG5NT?~ G?GGG?~ G? G GZt?~  G? G Gϧs/k?~ G?GG*?~ G?GRADEH?.M @Hk@?HH͘~?HB= ?HHdխ@Hw ? H Ho9NJ? Hދ/? H H@?~ H?HHlЅ?~ H?,,,Note: "Test" refers to the Chi-Square test statistic for a general linear hypothesis test (Wald Test) with 1 degree of freedom.*h"p" is the p-value produced by HLM5 software and is automatically set to 0.5 for values that exceed 0.5.  *,,,6:R@@@@64@B02000000>@d      7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W odXLetterPRIV'''';U"dX??U} m} m} } } } } } $} m} } } } } I} } } I} } } $ *f  x= x@   x@ x@x@x@x@x@Table 9:<IIIII_I_>>>>f]Tests for Differences in Impacts for Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price School Lunch:<<JJJJJ`J`==== All G Word-level G Failure Free G  Spell  G  Wilson G Corrective interventions G interventions GReading G   Read  G  Reading GReading ABCD G BCD G A G   B  G   C G DGrade 3 HTest  pH HTest  pH HTest  p H  HTest   p H  HTest  pH HTest  p<   Word Attack Ggp? GKK? G Gާ\@ GeRC ? G GuoO?~ G? G GZO?~ G? G G0LL@ G'+V]? G Gb?~ G?   TOWRE PDE G_0 @ G ? G Gο@ Gr3܀? G GaH?~ G? G G(lƨ?~ G? G G'}dN#@ Gz9ya? G G1?~ G? < GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Word Identification GRD8@ GFtϺF? G Gƨ@ G9tyƶ? G G:?~ G? G Gr]? Gro~D? G G]tU@ G!? G Gձ?~ G?  TOWRE SWEG~Ԗ?~ G?GG k @GlЗ\?GGަOa`?~ G? G GcO?~  G? G GSwg+?~ G?GGN@Gy[X?AimswebG1Fg?G/ͮ{?GG-a (?~ G?GG>A?~ G? G Gx`?~  G? G G@aoٵ?~ G?GG]Fr.?Gv?,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGPassage ComprehensionGS@GۿҤ?GGYb.@GbiG5?GG6R1?~ G? G Gߚ ?~  G? G GA'@GǜgK6N?GG0ZΞ)?G?GRADEH6Iy @HmYg?HHO"?@HJ5o?HH2P?~ H? H Hϱ^?~  H? H H]]oF@HG5\?HH)2?H*]gC?,GGGGG All G Word-level G Failure Free G  Spell  G  Wilson G Corrective  interventions G interventions GReading G   Read  G  Reading GReading  ABCD f BCD f A f   B  f   C f D Grade 5 HTest  pH HTest  pH HTest  p H  HTest   p H  HTest  pH HTest  p,GGGGG Word AttackGK@Gwb֋?GG=9+x@G^D1?GG'ZC?~ G? G G{@ G͋? G GE++?~ G?GGIs?~ G?G TOWRE PDEG_*?~ G?GGL9?~ G?GG ,h?~ G? G G&*3?~  G? G G՝YŶ?~ G?GG%?~ G?G,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGWord IdentificationGm%k/H ?~ G?GG&Rq?~ G?GG;Cc?~ G? G Gˬ}? G? G GlE?G (zc?GG܆|=w?~ G?G TOWRE SWEGY/@GL:?GG]@G@z{?GG_!0?~ G? G G\6?~  G? G Gp]1yM?~ G?GGj>"@G. g?GAimswebG'x?~ G?GG #r"?GM*k?GG2z?~ G? G G(@ G[&|? G GV2?~ G?GG)$?~ G?G,GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGDlR@@@"@20@>,*0.00 0$ !"x@#x@$%&x@'(x@) Passage Comprehension GC ,P@ GΊ>? G GhI4? GM:/K? G G=<e ?~ G? G Gb|1R8?~ G? G GK}@ G-$`? G GC$r?~ G? G!GRADE!H8{@!HM£?!H!Hp>ߜ @!Hd;O?!H!HρaI?!H !?! H! H/Xl<4@! Hn?! H! H{k4?!HIH]?!H!H@?~ !H?!H,",#$Note: "Test" refers to the Chi-Square test statistic for a general linear hypothesis test (Wald Test) with 1 degree of freedom.*$%h"p" is the p-value produced by HLM5 software and is automatically set to 0.5 for values that exceed 0.5.  *%,&L'CImpacts are compared to the impacts for all students in that grade.*',(,)6*"000~0>@d'2&            7 @  dMbP?_*+%MPS5511W odXLetterPRIV'''';U"dX??U} $h} I h} I h}  h} $ h} Ih}  h} h} $h} m u} $ u} Ih} Ih} $ u} $ h'x@x@x@x@@@@   x@  x@x@@@x@x@x@Table 5(hhhh*hhhhhhhhhuuhhuhhhh;2Relative Gap Reduction: All Interventions Combined(hhhh*hhhhhhhhhuuhhuhhhh*iiiiiiiiiRRiiRhhhh*hhhhhhhhhuuhhuhhhhhhhhhhhhh Gap at follow-up hhuhhhh hhhAverage at follow-up g Gain g (Std. Units) hhuhhhh| 3rd Grade}Average at baseline%}Gap at baseline (Std. Units)}Intervention Group} Control Group}}Intervention Group} Control Group} }Intervention Group } Control Group Impact   }RGR hhh ~tgr ) Word Attack Lg'W@$ U[rN{?dD ' 5qX@ D D D ! {Be=2W@ D D  ! f:k@  D D  ? $ W? dD $ "Mp? dD  Z @ *- z? D dD D  hhh0 hH? P D dD d ) TOWRE PDE 5ZfU@$ M? dD ' liV@ D D D ! t3'V@ D D  ! qc@  D D   @ $ լ@j? dD $ +طK? dD  ǘ@ *- E v? D dD D  hhh0 hL ,ڿ D dD d* )hhhh Word Identification \/V@$ ``? dD ' >PV@ D D D !  g V@ D D  ! tf?  D D  } $ >So? dD $ o̝XI? dD  /@ *- *J? D dD D  hhh0 h`3ÿ D dD d  TOWRE SWE wWgҝU@$ ob? dD '  8&W@ D D D !  DxV@ D D  ! y ݐ@  D D  LN @ $ BS? dD $ N;oN? dD  'JB"m@ *- U@? D dD D  hhh0 h ݿ D dD dAimsweb NA NA NA NA!Ԃ DD X 4@  NA  NA NA   NAhhhh     hhh h /Passage Comprehension%AȊV@$o)Ss?dD'Q|W@ DDD !ia.W@ DD!8@ DD kF@U@ DDD !=e>T@ DD!{۫? DD  1$ "??dD$ aX?dD >@  *- u ?D dDD hhh0hN7DdDd*hhhhhhuuuhhhhhhhhhh Gap at follow-up uhhhh hAverage at follow-up g Gain g (Std. Units) uhhh h | 5th Grade@Average at baseline%}Gap at baseline (Std. Units)@Intervention Group@ Control Group}}Intervention Group} Control Group} }Intervention Group } Control Group Impact   }RGR hhh h ) Word AttacknqIW@$DkWT@$k9L? dD'f\V@ DDD ! kU@ DD![\U@ DD 0ާS@$ rb?dD$ og?dD $? - 8;'?D dDD hhh0h_lؿDdDd )    hhh h Word Identification )V@$3? dD'$a/W@ DDD !sV@ DD!؍̳G @ DD `h@O@$ 2]?dD$ D)?dD +I? - ,?D dDD hhh0hBBx<ӿDdDd TOWRE SWE\: U@$fs~? dD'S=fV@ DDD !N*V@ DD!L2c_G@ DD g3@$ $1?dD$ 3ʱ6j?dD *?  *- 1?D dDD hhh0h-L4'տDdDdAimsweb NA NA NA NA!Ԃ DD X 4@  NA  NA NA   NAhhhh     hhh h /Passage Comprehension_\6*W@$Eq T?dD'AW@ DDD !<'V@ DD!qNڿ DD LCZ$ w$"V?dD$ ]O?dD 8? - 5?D dDD hhh0h mg?DdDd2GRADE-!V@$u2? dD'OdpW@ DDD !5JW@ DD!'? DD =?$ As?dD$ C?dD w#ƿ - bԩ D dDD hhh0hhG$DdDd*hhhhhhhhhuuhhuhhhhD!l@.k...Sk.P.SiPP !x@"#x@$%x@&A .8* Impact is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.!hY"hPNote: RGR defined as RGR = (Impact/(100-Average for Control Group at follow-up).#h$h}Note: Gap defined as (100-Average Score)/15, where 100 is the population average and 15 is the population standard deviation.%hb&hYNote: Values for Aimsweb not available because normed standard scores were unavailable. <xE ] >@d52& b        7 VBA6`DK(`DK(dirThisWorkbook57_VBA_PROJECT {00020430-C 0046}#2.0#0#C:\WINNT\system32\c2.tlb#OLE Automation^DOfficDO>fic5DD2DF8D04C-5BFA-101B -BDE5DAAB42D\\MATH1\VOL1\APPSL$MS6\2^sr1\PFiles\ 9.DLL#Microsoft 9.0 Ob Li`braryPKThisWorkbookGThosWA[rkboU 2 HB1Bz%,B,!?*"B+BBK?#xME (SLSS<N0{00020819-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}8(%HxAttribute VB_Name = "ThisWorkbook" Bas0{00020P819-0C$0046} |GlobalSpacFalse dCreatablPredeclaIdTru BExposeTemplateDerivBustomizD2am  $*\G{000204EF-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#4.0#9#X:\WINAPPS\MSOffice\2000sr1\PFiles\Common\MSShared\VBA\VBA6\VBE6.DLL#Visual Basic For Applications>*\G{00020813-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#1.3#0#\\MATH1\VOL1\APPS\WINAPPS\MSOffice\2000sr1\PFiles\MSOffice\Office\EXCEL9.OLB#Microsoft Excel 9.0 Object Library*\G{00020430-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#2.0#0#C:\WINNT\system32\stdole2.tlb#OLE Automation<*\G{2DF8D04C-5BFA-101B-BDE5-00AA0044DE52}#2.1#0#\\MATH1\VOL1\APPS\WINAPPS\MSOffice\2000sr1\PFiles\MSOffice\Office\MSO9.DLL#Microsoft Office 9.0 Object Library K!DKThisWorkbook0144155e75!ThisWorkbook?h%hXLυ@lN(-9?Zy%8Q#B#ݷ׋Hy`1hô6X&Excel+VBAWin16~Win32MacVBA6#Project1 stdole` VBAProjectOfficeuSheet24IP _EvaluateSheet21FPSheet22GPSheet23HP Worksheet ThisWorkbook|WorkbookkSheet25JPSheet221#Sheet26KPSheet251U$H! ID="{C11A1BDF-E942-4734-ADC1-E5F25226AE0D}" Document=ThisWorkboPROJECT49GGPROJECTwmM)SummaryInformation(3;NDocumentSummaryInformation8Rpok/&H00000000 Name="VBAProject" HelpContextID="0" VersionCompatible32="393222000" CMG="FEFC07E609EA18EE18EE18EE18EE" DPB="1113E80DE90DE90D" GC="2426DD0CE31EE41EE4E1" [Host Extender Info] &H00000001={3832D640-CF90-11CF-8E43-00A0C911005A};VBE;&H00000000 ThisWorkbookThisWorkbookOh+'0HPl Sonya Vartivariane Micki MorrisriaMicrosoft Excel@y콋@ `b@4՜.+,0@ PXt | Mathematica, Inc.h  Table 1Table 2Table 3Table 4Table 5Table 6Table 7Table 8Table 9 Table 10  Worksheets _1182856941BN>F0WK(0WK(Ole XPRINT=@YpCompObjd*  4    : ''  "Arialw@ }ww0-"Arialw@k }ww0-----"System 0-'- : -'- : ---'-- D { ` `  --'-- :  #-##``## -;#;L#L; # --'--  --'-- = --'-- : --&-  j-&-&)--  $("`a#)*a $ $  / $.fg/ g $ $5 $4lm5m $ $; $:rs;s $ $!""A $@mnAnj--&---$-B&-;&----'--- : j $jj,Uj---'--- : &-- - ;B---'-- - : j U---'-- - : ---'-- - = ---'-- - : ---'-- - : ----'-- - ;   2 80%% 2 890%% 2 tm100%%%---'-- - : ----'-- - ;    2 gB03 2 gSF0/---'-- - : - -' :  '  ' FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q @B""$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$ObjInfo?AWorkbook_1182856940DFK(K(Ole "#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=G ,##0.00_ @` J ` J ` 5n` 5n883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STU B FffffffU@fffffV@ffffffU@fffff&V@WY(#= W>X4x0l3'2d 3Q Line 1QQQ3_4E4 3Q Line 2QQQ3_  NM  d4E4D $% M`3O&Q4$% M`3O&Q4FAQy 3Oh 3 b &43*T@Y@$@@#M&! M43" 444 *  4    : ''  "Arialw@ }ww0-"Arialw@k }ww0-----"System 0-'-PRINTCFpCompObjdObjInfoEGWorkbook : -'- : ---'-- D { ` `  --'-- :  #-##``## -;#;L#L; # --'--  --'-- = --'-- : --&-  j-&-&)--  $("`a#)*a $ $  / $.fg/ g $ $5 $4lm5m $ $; $:rs;s $ $!""A $@mnAnj--&---$-B&-;&----'--- : j $jj,Uj---'--- : &-- - ;B---'-- - : j U---'-- - : ---'-- - = ---'-- - : ---'-- - : ----'-- - ;   2 80%% 2 890%% 2 tm100%%%---'-- - : ----'-- - ;    2 gB03 2 gSF0/---'-- - : - -' :  '  ' FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q @B""$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSUXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxy|}~!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=G ,##0.00_ @` J ` J ` 5n` 5n883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STU B FffffffU@fffffV@ffffffU@fffff&V@WY(#= W>X4x0l3'2d 3Q Line 1QQQ3_4E4 3Q Line 2QQQ3_  NM  d4E4D $% M`3O&Q4$% M`3O&Q4FAQy 3Oh 3 b &43*T@Y@$@@#M&! M43" 444 *       '' "Arial-"Arial--"System_1200907291`JFnK(nK(Ole PRINTIL.CompObjTe@Lp-----'- -'- ---'-- !=/ /NN--'-- N -|/|/N|N---'-- --'-- C{--'-- C{--L &-L-- $JKONMM $KLPONN $L M QPO O $M6N6RQP6QF $FObObSFSQbRr $rPPTrTRS $QRVUTT $RSWVUU $STXWVV" $"T>U>Y"XW>WN $NUjVjZNYXjXz $zVW[zZYZ $XX\\Z--L--$BLVLB---'--- C{& $&0&---'--- C{L- - VB---'-- - C{Z dP---'-- - C{---'-- - C{---'-- - ---'-- - ----'-- -   2 I80 2 I90 2 :7100---'-- - ----'-- -    2 2B( 2 2F(---'-- - - --' ' ' FMicrosoft Graph ChartGBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q B""$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)ObjInfoKMVWorkbookW_1182858400PF|K(|K(Ole z!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial= ~,##0.00_ ` J ` J ` 5n` 5n883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STU B F,V@V@,V@fffffV@WY(#= >X4x0l3d 3Q Line 1QQQ3_4E4 3Q Line 2QQQ3_  NM  d4E4D $% M=3O&Q4$% M=3O&Q4FA  3Oe3 b &43*T@Y@$@@#M&! M43" 444 (6Z     h ''  "Arialw@ }ww0-"Arialw@ g}ww0-----PRINTOR{ CompObjdObjInfoQSWorkbook"System 0-'- h -'- h ---'-- Ah 6d7 dg 7g --'-- h 7  7-  7dd77 7 g -?7 7? ?g  g --'-- H --'-- :~ !--'-- 7~ !--   ---  $566V $UV ${s{wr $n;f<nvj<e[ $ZaYa[i]X $TLT\PL  $ H@@AH PDA?a $`;3;aC72 $.&.6*& $"EF"*Ff $e f  $ $KLLk $jk $ $ P Q  Q p $o   p   ----$---'--- 7~ !  $     ---'--- 7~ !- - ---'-- - 7~ !    ---'-- - 7~ !---'-- - :~ !---'-- - h ---'-- - h ----'-- - i   2 80.. 2 490.. 2 xo100...---'-- - h ----'-- - i    2 wB0C 2 w} F0=---'-- - h - -' h  '  ' FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q @B""$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=$,##0.00_ @` J ` J ` 5n` 5n883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STU B FffffffU@fffffV@ffffffU@fffff&V@WY(#= >X43udd 3Q Line 1QQQ3_4E4 3Q Line 2QQQ3_  NM  d4E4D $% M`3O&Q4$% M`3O&Q4FAg  3OI3 b &43*T@Y@$@@#M&! M43" 444 ) 4   _1182927089ZVFcK(cK(Ole PRINTUXpCompObjd      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxy{~ 9 ''  "Arialw@g }ww0-"Arialw@ }ww0-----"System 0-'- 9 -'- 9 ---'-- C { _ _  --'-- 9  "-""__"" -:":J"J: " --'--  --'-- < --'-- 9 --,  h-,(--  $' _`( `  $   $  0 $/gh0h $ $8 $7op8p $ $  @ $?wx@x $ $'((H $GklHlh--,--$,A,#,---'--- 9 h $h}hSh---'--- 9 ,- - #A---'-- - 9 h }S---'-- - 9 ---'-- - < ---'-- - 9 ---'-- - 9 ----'-- - :   2 80%% 2 790%% 2 tm100%%%---'-- - 9 ----'-- - :    2 fB03 2 fQF0/---'-- - 9 - -' 9  '  ' FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q @B""$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,ObjInfoWYWorkbook_1182926775~\FL(L(Ole ?##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=c$,##0.00_ @` J ` J ` 5n` 5n883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STU B F33333V@yW@33333V@,W@WY(#= W>X403d 3Q Line 1QQQ3_4E4 3Q Line 2QQQ3_  NM  d4E4D $% M`3O&Q4$% M`3O&Q4FA|  3Ol 3 b &43*T@Y@$@@#M&! M43" 444 PRINT[^@pCompObjzdObjInfo]_|Workbook}) 4    9 ''  "Arialw@ `}ww0-"Arialw@ }ww0-----"System 0-'- 9 -'- 9 ---'-- C { _ _  --'-- 9  "-""__"" -:":J"J: " --'--  --'-- < --'-- 9 -- ,  h- , (--  $'^_(_ $~&"' $+ 4 ,#0 5- $,9cBd:-1>dD $HQI@MR $V_WN[`1 $0dhnif1\jio $s|tkx} $y6 $5lm6m $ $; $:kl;lh-- ,--$,A , ,---'--- 9 h $h}hSh---'--- 9  ,- - A---'-- - 9 h }S---'-- - 9 ---'-- - < ---'-- - 9 ---'-- - 9 ----'-- - :   2 80%% 2 790%% 2 tm100%%%---'-- - 9 ----'-- - :    2 fB03 2 fQF0/---'-- - 9 - -' 9  '  ' FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q @B""$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=c$,##0.00_ @` J ` J ` 5n` 5n883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STU B F̌U@33333U@̌U@̌T@WY(#= W>X403d 3Q Line 1QQQ3_4E4 3Q Line 2QQQ3_  NM  d4E4D $% M`3O&Q4$% M`3O&Q4FA|  3Ol 3 b &43*T@Y@$@@#M&! M43" 444 _1198502455lbF`]L(`]L(Ole PRINTadzCompObjd*  9    : ''  "Arialw@l RwƬw0-"Arialw@. +wƬw0-----"System 0-'- : -'- : ---'-- D { ` `  --'-- :  #-##``## -;#;L#L; # --'--  --'-- = --'-- : ---  j--)--  $(^_)_~ $}~ $   ) $(_`)` $~ $ |  y* $)u_g`o*}k`d $~`S[hWO $K > FSB :* $)6`)a1*>-a% $!) $    + $*`a+anj-----$-B- ----'--- : j $jjUj---'--- : -- -  B---'-- - : j U---'-- - : ---'-- - = ---'-- - : ---'-- - : ----'-- - ;   2 80%% 2 890%% 2 tm100%%%---'-- - : ----'-- - ;    2 gB03 2 gSF0/---'-- - : - -' :  '  ' FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q @B""$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$ObjInfoceWorkbook_1182922542<ThF@L(@L(Ole       !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;=@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`adefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=~[,##0.00_ @` J ` J ` 5n` 5n883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STU B F@T@33333V@@T@U@WY(#=  >X4x0l3d 3Q Line 1QQQ3_4E4 3Q Line 2QQQ3_  NM  d4E4D $% M`3O&Q4$% M`3O&Q4FA  3Oe3 b &43*T@Y@$@@#M&! M43" 444 ) 4    9 ''  "Arialw@ }ww0-"Arialw@ !}ww0-----"System 0-'-PRINTgjpCompObj<dObjInfoik>Workbook? 9 -'- 9 ---'-- C { _ _  --'-- 9  "-""__"" -:":J"J: " --'--  --'-- < --'-- 9 --,  h-,(--  $'_`(` $~ $z~{. $-wepfx.tfp $lemtif $b[cj_[5 $4WkPlX5_TlQ $MFNUJF $B;CJ?<; $:8r1s9;@5s1 $-&.5*' $# !$+ !A $@klA lh--,--$,A,,---'--- 9 h $h}hSh---'--- 9 ,- - A---'-- - 9 h ,}S---'-- - 9 ---'-- - < ---'-- - 9 ---'-- - 9 ----'-- - :   2 80%% 2 790%% 2 tm100%%%---'-- - 9 ----'-- - :    2 fB03 2 fQF0/---'-- - 9 - -' 9  '  ' FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q @B""$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=c$,##0.00_ @` J ` J ` 5n` 5n883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STU B F,V@fffffW@,V@fffffV@WY(#= W>X403d 3Q Line 1QQQ3_4E4 3Q Line 2QQQ3_  NM  d4E4D $% M`3O&Q4$% M`3O&Q4FA|  3Ol 3 b &43*T@Y@$@@#M&! M43" 444 , >    3 ''  "Arialw@a wƬw0-"Arialw@ 7wƬw0--"System _1198654118nF +.L( +.L(Ole bPRINTmpcCompObjd0-'- 3 -'- 3 ---'-- 5 kP P  --'-- 3  -PP -,,dd,  --'-- x --'-- . v--'-- + v--  ---  $KLLl $kl $ $RSSs $rs $" $!YZ"Zz $yz $  ) $(}`ya)}az $vqy~us $ojrwnk0 $/ggbhj0ofhd $`\dh``----$----'--- + v $---'--- + v- - ----'-- - + v` uK---'-- - + v---'-- - . v---'-- - 3 ---'-- - 3 ----'-- - 4   2 P80%% 2 (P90%% 2 d+100 %%%---'-- - 3 ----'-- - 4    2 XB03 2 XF0/---'-- - 3 - -' 3  '  ' FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89qObjInfooqWorkbook_1223376258tF:L(:L(Ole  @B""$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial="L,##0.00_ @` J ` J ` 5n` 5n883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STU B FfffffFW@X@fffffFW@33333W@WY(#= c>X4E3d 3Q Line 1QQQ3_4E4 3Q Line 2QQQ3_  NM  d4E4D$% M`3O&Q4$% M`3O&Q4FAc  3O3 b &43*T@Y@$@@#M&! M43" 444 */ 4    { ''  f"Arialw@ !wƬwPRINTsvpCompObjdObjInfouwWorkbook0-{"Arialw@ !wƬw0-----"System 0-'- { -'- { ---'--  88--'-- { 8 R-RR88RR-R R R--'-- 9 BB--'-- A --'-- ~A --Z  -ZR--  $QR $pqq $ !!a $`a $       $ . "/  / o $n & / o ' + $ 3 < , #4 9 $ A= I> 9 1A> F~ $} N V F~ >N S- $, [ c S- K[ ` $ hKpL` XhLm $u{kess--Z--$ZZ0Z---'--- ~A  $'---'--- ~A Z- - 0---'-- - ~A s I---'-- - ~A ---'-- - A ---'-- - { ---'-- - { ----'-- - |   2 #80JJ 2 u#90JJ 2 100JJJ---'-- - { ----'-- - |    2 'B0g 2 F0^---'-- - { - -' {  '  ' FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5      !"#$'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^`cdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~MSGraph.Chart.89q Z$@B""$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=@ ,##0.00_ Z$@` J ` J ` 5n` 5n883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STU B F,W@ W@,W@V@WY(#= ur>X403d 3Q Line 1QQQ3_4E4 3Q Line 2QQQ3_  NM  d4E4D $% M063O&Q4$% M063O&Q4FA^ 3Ol 3 b &43*T@Y@$@@#M&! M43" 444 #*       ''_1200911522zFiHL(iHL(Ole %PRINTy|&.CompObj_e "Arial-"Arial--"Systemp-----'- -'- ---'-- !=/ /NN--'-- N -|/|/N|N---'-- --'-- C{--'-- C{-- 8--- $ $ $    $455E $D_`E`p $op $ $}x|zx $v quzsp $n9j:nrl:iI $HgdcegIkeebu $t`\`ud^[ $YUY]W----$---'--- C{8 $.8B8.---'--- C{- - ---'-- - C{W aM---'-- - C{---'-- - C{---'-- - ---'-- - ----'-- -   2 I80 2 I90 2 :7100---'-- - ----'-- -    2 2B 2 2F---'-- - - --' ' ' FMicrosoft Graph ChartGBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q B""$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(ObjInfo{}aWorkbookb_1182924480FVL(VL(Ole * \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1nArial1nArial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial= V ,##0.00_ ` J ` J ` 5n` 5n883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STU B F U@ffffffV@ U@ V@WY(#= <N>X41l3'2d 3Q Line 1QQQ3_4E4 3Q Line 2QQQ3_  NM  d4E4D $% M=3O&Q4$% M=3O&Q4FAOy 3Og 3 b &43*T@Y@$@@#M&! M43" 444 ) 4    9 '' ?      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>CDEXGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWBYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~PRINTpCompObjdObjInfoWorkbook "Arialw@5 }ww0-"Arialw@ J}ww0-----"System 0-'- 9 -'- 9 ---'-- C { _ _  --'-- 9  "-""__"" -:":J"J: " --'--  --'-- < --'-- 9 --,  h-,(--  $'_`(` $ $0 $/g h0h $    $  8 $7op 8p $   $  @ $?wx@x $ $'((H $GklHlh--,--$,A,0,---'--- 9 h $h}hSh---'--- 9 ,- - 0A---'-- - 9 h  }S---'-- - 9 ---'-- - < ---'-- - 9 ---'-- - 9 ----'-- - :   2 80%% 2 790%% 2 tm100=%%%---'-- - 9 ----'-- - :    2 fB03 2 fQF0/---'-- - 9 - -' 9  '  ' FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q @B""$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=c$,##0.00_ @` J ` J ` 5n` 5n883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STU B FV@ W@V@33333W@WY(#= +>X403d 3Q Line 1QQQ3_4E4 3Q Line 2QQQ3_  NM  d4E4D $% M`3O&Q4$% M`3O&Q4FA|  3Ol 3 b &43*T@Y@$@@#M&! M43" 444 Oh+'0,8DT hGG"eŒD0+zj%qx "έYLF;;r],#A}X>{SA3`@[H>lȇi_iڌ|(::҈-uL<>FBW(zV}GdxTO9'Jax 5bz^utOtr]&='P>[:\G"knB{湳fPBt $A64H##r=HVyDSyDP<=>W<Αh{ x#M鲁7Kp&{K{D{.y kɆ?g:C\챘w#svLUޖ:ܢlVy;pw Wa~,cjy[?EocZy[=F>fޖb'љm&xAwnmu"w+oˉ0Gr+o'yJfOͼ-TVB}J!ok;zޖצJV"`;m7@X~ޖ7 Dgvvn'ǔlu8_gU:txO)ټpkx}YM%os=9d!3#xuVIZJ} _+mU2`M6oo#5#zͽO_z@m|:NlVߙxM%o뻤[7RMdh:l<[/tP54~~\1T;L'2o';ټL5:G8oڱm'^wi۪ xׅѪ!/tmo?=;okfO2!oCvMx٥+o!!zo2-o+w]mNmX;y[^֟Avi-˜|=̜s'g_>䜏h:ߣ-ʩT-Kt~ r)l_w=-Z_-cH}"Y^m,-Z< w+IbN@:y߷1M!W5}Ve|3ߴw?'vK 4?GDd'.}9LLJ  C A? "2q߫(Ǚ@dh[`!Sq߫(Ǚ@dh&il(6!xŝml[Ul)Kܔ"@BhQ3;Cm}xkNG*#5]`$ V;5?+ь@B0ZP$E+!=|>>3Z7s~sqgL#js14nB27nૐAYEYWFW[.ƍƟg=J"~o aOY}x$e|N8Sy'F@cσg ]-zLs\_6?׍c9oqc1`Fϼ],ͧ\5T+dLh!BQS+ع?%c#w; ߆vλa˂!f6,$x✛ˤ@鷩0vL}jMy==g3%m0zjS<݇}ӅL9G.'?mşo=GY奝(M<\jifZ#ᤎ"blsy$c"cǣڃFuwP#n$fAqv3E7fJ'Y4zئyzln|3|4H4Q;tS^6_褽Ly0; Za-+,?6crنK&,N4cr6bTqoَxؙ^Ó~~e5{ҿ'1^IzJx zafS_IA[%p1>=Ie\$Q6Q}>ɦO6t'@`oM;,^7LzPߒ,*= JI@nKs^*3npwD}6ֻ7c#|Y~wX֏!QZ߅cߎM'Ti9Snr>Ng^:VF9kcY&Ԑe6nfbxclwqPĆCEiFi$=&JF\ U!4q ED+Y}`wxaR7 J%pkԾ 3TR}&͚ޑFK^+5 iFi5 i⥁z\X5s][35sY'J5CkE+vTrSG1m;aL*â>KäEi4Xo(M3?t-֟o~ -akmҺ;6|>diჇ}=buxaZml&ggxƣ{^Glc|5jĖqnϺI{;-;sof{֙ Yv3SN}d/v4^c4d3&gShm폍s՘X'y弚dc1I9I,,|:Ougs|98eѤ1$wwʶ 1YQWȭwtaQ~w3ijc$*wZ[fsP-Ew\.#TdqX~[) 4]]33Lvñfki;BNY5"oj|jW$oCm:XT"ˑ1YҐ#4M94J5w#?s>Wy(M+xN/JӈGč|߼GRG cYR%611yi՘(MG>T%nJ#!:<ȖKlȖKl6M/[de<5~p>":Q%2uQs9a߻sueV˛ɬVXk "s(-}nw(w{1uhO^ b0Ga&UOJHPմEx4L;*;";wue9&o#VTJ9N6rn401A~b, K=rw&;I;33ELc,`KsU;ade,,lOYm d[Ffl+Ge nTt&Fc̺AA{qd}uhIY'~啓vrs3Z|.^f=>멾ls+ҪjaCaS-h{ edyɪo>[yqAןz^ a؁j<1{sgw$xʗa/x-:E/Js%|LO]AQ(3$+d?I+\>Wz]- ;sh xaW<&)I͝q6;X?gN73ssN?=w#"k'b07Rwy=>gg̦em=xZO0nϘ-?;WWlSyNu̯뜘ͤf¯~q i3sN;3'SBoT;ͭg#MbGs_5xˑ0(`CW1͈U_D_p/BBS&>8?q\ALE 5߉LiKlil#|5TL(Ay_ؕ1*ߍo2}eUG3TuEUTq~nN]hN*?g5T>7I+s7 /:p{Y);> q6t଑/L]n+^uDitlƫp z6ڸvo)3=[c.׻ݤKV&k _L eܤsnd;Yj7ڸ qc7|!UiUjku!{K~b~C ܴg!ԣO33tz}q2oQQ߫ؕ(,6xV9aM+g.>;ѵtf~u!E&5% SƷf@w(gw\߇֠sUs]s=~ls,iD?or5PkFbXլf3=]&kk1玦zQ=íٍ 63D  kI5Xn-}Y.5?H+\Ez.79CN-W5h~4:DpkTMsZ=#1P]k iaMsڢ9=Z.[wى^`k='au6͂.Xk$=_49g2f~w*<@kh|Z˃HOgS=]TOlIXךЯiuZѲaZ^mYd4,ZgQ-j+R}կ`Lnm6]Fi(X~6]Fi3k>֌ߎUl} ] ES]P˺fo/ۿFZԵU`4D{PkGxS={Xkicylnh͞Y쩚6]fzXk$P|hj5O?]GWo=1m*#O`W⿓ Qn/!|K v\.4ҮYt݄_kF`OO5SzM>SqZ*.QeZ,QUZ*Q5jZ&Q->S Z*!Q>P%TEKUredO)F'&enJ̍NȍM T\@TY@UTUj@մTMXnlR%'JhD@Zʗ P-U2ʠW7&Q2j2#jQ; *3PbF퀌ګ(B% TYK% TUKU%TMK$e^eFJ̨Q{ED@Zʗ P-U<=a@53޽\N( 6}jX94fetU ȱImךrlrlR۵&v )& &]kBʱ ȱImךrlrlR۵&v ke!CHJy5DMuc]b'IBx#*)+ *ED1g'$x><5,Ouެ{z-t4SANl+gg$TwVYīe)0nm,Vhd=xcA鍛 s7%>dȂ6"ʗ* deIWVWUj@մTM!2db}eu] WZPf \N5} ʞ@#3POk߉HUp2sQ`J3-l!T4 P-%E SeW Q]eEl@F!n5n#{,]Hی) TU*Q5jZ&ūlEF(+rƺk)g P׾83 kQg?ru|~V͌il{Vqg'٪*4g̸DUjDՀiD|Ve&|گ*1յȱgetYk.KU,KvkG-TEK31e[zҭ*#6cʊ#Ċ;bǁk)v(ݪ2k%]UZ]UUR5i,lݪ2kwKJ[Uk)q*sI]O8=ሽ .k#T 6 UA`AYUB% ޭU@D U(xRV*x|҇QD=/yJW*UUUjY'yYI7TBK%$Rb'y |Q5)K(!jID2ʄKT*KTJT IEe %F#HѣX\QuU+8"|U(Q2UUUjŢ|UeBQ^Z /u PUɍD-畆qEb @mR$nRHvk5ԘSgh:hut@ZUζnYi@)S Zt=zJ"P/j%,PgY:y-u^}-D}gZ3 U-uU u4Lm-Kڠ6HVj*bZjD=#ZjZKMKTJ)NiSg;x&2V+ׁz]K.Qoz[>C-D} Zc/ԗ-Pjo%*] ͖ d@mR%-#Qz@_K헨P -c@R$4Piz'ԓP/h$U^RJԛ@ޔzOK'QTuEK]@R7$j=IuzMn--Q@ h.-KuHKأsF]G. tt]NK9-DKZ%UR:y-u^.uAK]*PU-UODK}"Q+@h@FGCβogugB# Ddo-#0  # A2 lWΧ;clI{ YH`!s lWΧ;clI~58pVA x[]l[I9})˅&⿶(v/mIVpƪcc} !BڲY / !@BxtW"_ <XPm;3w71D9s|3g|vxN8ϟ8{?>RmT#N\ _9/,m{HYoiclCx<+FțO.tl3FK.*܏֫evqD>r |zXl;|@Ҋdi>2qZQ?U+4v((ElkuȺ7c^Fp ;Mm w WKQ.U hzL{(i&LC^S8+5xO|AlŘαo@GDUJ AϽm(EgΓx>Q ֟4ZӨ4J E(s<#\ tV]]AN;ɑnӱ8nq4 #Cm톙3x{ FfNpOg= o 8 )޸D/fǽSD/smlƎ޸D/g{YƽdfX|[.}Y @oEK 칝|ef{DخlsumK[Xmm!ffXmۼum2[]w`NM ,l_/;SYwN;Sa2ߚ̸ߚŚ5A/z٬=Ǣ zozPf\otx΂Y$s/\KӺu?ugκ;up+ANZ5eP_oihC\Ui|k2Vw_;"e : ?W]^KFQt#fij(GqVw!?κlfb{ȏC!?ͺl qV[+7C"uH>4> dn'sϟDw]򪖟Fݣ-O>ih d d[>,'K00>3-+nq{ wM2tc2e螼L/o6D7LY^r0esݘ5iL/?7`^wg{lMSo,/a֤0e|K0eylM Soln)[Ô)K0ek`^bk[0lL]{a_~e{؛pXre{bqV^il˔a+aֳ=,g{X&g{zh+r/gU-u KH\%,wU҂353gFXms&y&kE3bտ6rڷṯ-*[IJG.tb ehT(`epppA2)VYoia *zi!dŇ&6 YQz U-$XͰBbCU71V1y@I3݃|R D(> V=il !dm<<q˽l'9Ҷ('o4Ƹ<9+^x zreAdrKLeicQ>42"ہ,L(d&,9a6Iz˚|k՘{~Y-q`6c:EcT1z~D?lD<~k՚Nn gX-#+Smdh#hf*-G0wIįcމ&Q D@y ˽f50C2{|/TkDzkɨ:hCW+eB?Vz"ݦXbEYBU1+UgPn3&"X1=9Qs:e[EkZFzȌ^7 1 UIZ*UaRpl藌jehBT[ uMu:EdL>.ukJ:gSlt Ad ~۞t'o7!lv>ܫ ^RۍEcq;{OcI{߹[w3κغ`^`&On;s} 0lwf= P~o2D}/flw}ڭΣqp>3`Xm(tQsn0w{yYħ _F:rߺ%%7)ėԒmTwo(R퓊>ߊ:#+=",E{wO=V,i,3ОDžO ;j>tS~#Uk'-;j{).)\k>&~}R=d۞Nc>v~"uI aA,'vK2;إ" t}ڭ?z>f?V#ڬ?DdJ  C A? "2lrsI(ɿD6`!lrsI(ɿ80=dxڵOHqoYhjImBw;v*ԥPHAȋ y )Ã̓7v(.L~{<;o>޼pbSih@s>8oD ߌ}LR(1UwSzx!:/ݻ}G.ɀ~]yd M9qV?w_p' cEE&HѸ/Tpk?uWA;NDgdԨN Gⲧ~_7D,||zthounBv{#ՂW'\ IQZtѵU?ݡk~,ڳ<6c:Cײ`Tw1'_5EUx% SGœgMTͣ?IR`l'y$v 'YG)ͨyF<ő`YM0;YaXM3; YagX2;'3ڙPnZzR uo_+GVȽto{3p\z _#C3} I~|mFTpܪ]r?Z.\Wr 5P*Q/ZKꤿߘQyK3ƨ?vwDd J  C A? "2xၡ>_U?6`!xၡ>_U?;0xڵWIkA^ϖ=4"\cՋԃ?@ 7}:&!O z1AAAPГ`LN zRcҕD3:󽯿몚jB4$VbJz%|yiFq"FT@kjx7yzyI}jgFe2ޜ̞2G *K~Ӵ~eyU{;6n|/35ay{ C!3by8|w#rl|w4Z*![uK:CŪ^˰k:pό֞qm뛱f<ہ{ˍ[nr;ߓW + 2l(Q平66m6i>.'tr'fyҵIʼnX*N|ZFU殛8{m$~ :gBwq k pjU=ltj 0zp 洂m1b#=yc4.w'n| AmDVEЃDd  b  c $A? ?3"`?2cQ0Oދ@xI `!cQ0Oދ@x;0oxڵWAKTQ>{>HJI",iPԲ.B'M JHr'*!AȅB ;\LPLMi {ws{=@ ]@4ZJ5AcZ7xSZ2?ZJC s˩j5gZ={Or Z-t(B{U p9sSZwy?olHGNn8 E*BN[UMhK Gy%Ƴz5Dq$F^(ӉD^y9Dz$HO(f#yEGؼ5k19| m!_+az-+u ru7~nwY= ~~((_# | F"~.@ Si M wySș wƛ4gƌxE;'޼p瑷F.^e6BXoE+[e#rW[+p71FhI[m wy;lZxVF'=iUBEpGoD< yx xVp :gG^ qzfGjm4DdJ  C A? "2mcqCQ~r6`!jmcqCQ~ /@(L ,8xڵW]lUl-ŀ1AyyPLIA}DH4 ƄGZ(-mXmOhb@OBDhYϹ?gw"f:;?s{ 9 s5x+xDAX4( (p9XMA#J*L4'c bcy_I$T!"7ij h}}Gl+HԴNHPz 7zfG{WKtj/ >Trh1?#[tQj=HHel,X,ʞicۦ_Q|[\乥9q=yRx!O@Ə'lيsvqg7ϗnG'8fP"%M"0b8mv8qN!GgT;ƺ؞N!Ec8s{)'Ⱥ_pB1ۢS߸\%{)Ķh2F{)jduv)Ķh7TF"aO8ekC5qZ-BOh!}w!Xe4GZI!ۣUhLjN;`F֨6/pZ=ZgX< [pZ-:TE:H~ۢ>ڗaNqZ=zSon$+b[ԋT.b3}-$!ۣu; ک^ۣݪź=ԍ$lӊmQv?uܗq7J|EoTyߡ>"5&V*u3d98:1^sug5HV5i i}vׁݝ3.|b+zU{i͹FU7{^ʄ^NW/)SWnZzӟs]Ku;>U<1-Oܙ #=mf-愵&ZTImFZ.v)g>ϫX&e|+D* ٧O<]͘*)VDd J  C A? "2@žL^D6`!@žL^;0xڵOHqovw42 +-d`"t!KG2 *ʛ<R!ЛP:2f~e |~y3HDIhCKXZ T*g S2<TG ST2GCєߌȼz#~+>|[/ׇ)BϱT|q̣(4 ,,=KCr5 dƷB:#uBf8=]ϯC~53~0ѿӳ+睅Fx ώ &TZ9kƳ+~:tpiynu Ko}+S }O>cRxs0.@Ϗ'G-󩍕=#ߦcыl6wĶ*]G)ͨƆz<D+Y?~?!=<<լk5rd&&YM1; Yx*BL̳Z`vEjVZbv eˬV]En,gX}c+r! ?@z5+Z-"Av`&rY[2` " dYYD6"BE-̶1ۊ\胣Bz5+ZM!EAaY'|7GɏWx'wInFTY cpdCGWMfUۯ/qΨ:Pu:N IǸ46WZUf_q^~y?d\S3*_S_nZ\*\;Z;#v <r\ Cx 8r)]|WOH'[zTyuFX` iqI9*W(ىUJ $Eou߆/Ȱ<d#T6vtDd J  C A? "2H5bz5>ߖ9Wa$6`!5bz5>ߖ9Wa;0xڵWoUo^@(0ѝp„ mhiˣ-BߏhkBbYLd,0`Q{gn̴9s!VAZ^W+QB+Κҽt qb)?`k$Nǟh%UIJgLԴN [ؿg&ٳ]İt`w$P~h݈C9:$xY9kY_@gݘOgv|||glݩ=6JÈl&gxV~g[yHzpx'݅hCBWQ9ZYohܑb!<K]!0YLQG}c.pgsFr>ї{8Bcb%"8J]1o1w飌Aꊆp)pg~De SWt'/8_)/N$]a\2F{t5p":NU1J]) ܛ8;][Qi pcKp"㴎98uEȉfe%:}1I]6zV W4u m(sxIfivY e{(w9#j~O=WV~l,rudb$)U}B qsFg:~ȧxU vY=>ZUYډSt-4/Z&L}| |gNŐ1xN |N*Z[KkqfXy1Y17onկ*y]g{ڭm6w+%c7Gϛ4wذKE;%!V-X+&WhP܉S  znV/:Dd J  C A? "2Ie睕k&u6ģV%dR5`!e睕k&u6ģV;0xڵWˏLY}^] bb2 ?`gg1 2 iFnnoh- 2a6ǂĬHH$ZW:VcTu}{NKHOӁE 4pC1FSiT(Fhc<}0XP鱗 _7 6/bcm"^9;/ T9f=Tfa?8j hXǚ_@{<?Ddac6D{%.<3_@ 㻝uQ'U?Gt-|ιO=6ڳ7|xlJeqS{r*J]Ni|~t<>S4 Tח&n}Џaf !8/VG#ѕ&ZNю~t$2bk.݉wv1whmN; 0 5 }γ [1Nflu7؂؄OV[~ެ5Ԏ4 ((N[K9Qi#F+F0i'Ldh֨ N Z0]obk`I0ybbQ骓UY\#ŵsk#UfxM(UOc46k56#_;PډLl!<jۤlOVe~ߋ{R7U 2yƓؓy<gLiT~LekiNQUTjſPٱw乏^tw2~LHn(Vqc1F C$է_وSڥt./MKR W(D.e /dK1|f6 HDd J  C A? "2c~ͱ\M~ 6`!c~ͱ\M~;0xڵWIhTA}gˌq %8zQOKI (7A/FP x &IA=DQzNm&^ӟ E࿔j! ŢFIj7B #bѷX5E{3? dݴcFmTFG:7ȭCT3PǨ'7ۤWsOǓ4 dG:g m3VffV1aqs\S=JQŻ sKǽ3T :nȢ٪4|i*W.~\T{F?HOu{^eN//ܰp™D}M^R.p`E׏_qyij81ɛn@HOj®0~4&3ߤQKIG?Πgcl;t^zq[pMPuzuzpS7Ѓ!m0[ +;Jwxf{mPхǺu+-uhЁ`KsA/EB^olUmPN;6ӭ]vQDf۬m}C V`۠fv ֢p(ȞfMH& Shfeۡtsi'MV˶C E@mchvFNazGFPtOblAY{K|YRg'N1,I)YM~d$?v9cf`+0~ i+j OJe}fJglX$z eNYG*=6ԕJR)*߿V?U8oq\ zM恇 H[r5WY1Vfe򼍸8*eKV)gG)9^o 3eΐ_S d_ _qq;2M,~;yDdm{ J  C A? "2)66ulVv`!66ulV?xڵAhSY&MlEUGj2Ƒ6i6iťw2 FD-j\t +++RЍ QQWuᮋE9{_T{w9woo) wHc_yNkȳ{A|?j>8WMxCG;*LJ3Owr!Țtw|I3~F{ı?! /5jaU\j{sv`fL_f7;l4n2_|dU^[m.VYcDrG; zz43:7sz\k2jU۬ڂ<ô,OOzWV5OX{;_NWst;Dd J  C A? "2Į3~]>[V`!Į3~]>[';(@xڵWMHTQqƙ42 "AEE#(hiS& J@2ZH. wB h0w|Wh<ι{O z@?y< /N+-,  x"BAVtڵ$jb~Sy׼JGBKT\uM'c ?~󕾏h@Rv-ǿ. /Ǖb>Dոfy-wo߹+8(fvH֠N òv=>Uۆ!gGgCĻĦu#VLAq AZlLPԾs@/fSŵ'kOuLb -o};~+lMaX@e׏]yVsGL[f ͓iWhY7< 0F @@Ն;LŒ@z1bF2vc61bq>34c86mIƾ +`$6mƾ!{kD Ve,a3meĜZ1y/nƈўE/n Έ%֖Ё$lpЉ$SAJ8!hUu :ɶZDXl0blvE/%\nXD)c[F у$˙lU2$eԐdV{JyG3|g/BްWUGux݄JIbSp|r nsƮr݁h!QmԵfe'^*s~LGM|=op,Do)Lԓۺ+NrkTݛaŎQ!oʙ0Uг"c|甯@H}c&lT<;o#(K]O:.&S◒,W(5A/sd _Ay;ҏ *v Dd  b  c $A? ?3"`?2rHK`_7TDA `!rHK`_7TxL;0xڵWMKQ~;SfS!F Ik'g~f0(]DB w-Zkᢈ2syLq8>{;𢡄bi1U*;a1<\.qK c{H\X/לNixJ5O-zMA}:qGnߥOh]dXE$UQzd/GfSczrí?Q?׭"o,5ϭyT&h/ YG˸o? `[>u7aķ|m%92brjũϬ?9;_z"Y!i3ijV!AӘyL1ҦB8zS3sLOY$-xuop6A`AWyDd  J  C A? "2\!ÄBIO `!\!ÄB;0xڵAHa7;n[J+-TUnC /HJ2 *ʛ<:A`MS`l{|o[g5sWy{{fIؠv? 2h}|h- Cu7#es$=M͘*̻a)=<o\kCppI^zrt =ז&Rm1">ph;YXVw歫r5 lƷ":#FuBf8=]o@~53~0m#O[_>ׂjDԪ3Gt-SxVsOAg蜾N=q;,\}=7sY-o};gxJQjoQe>yt,qVoqs 'Pq8JiFUf764x,\FPQVCs^ʱV̎#7AVD]db$MQ촯 0 `u/s晝Gnu.{>@z5+Z-2Yu%V+̮ JV@3  cJ̖['P{L`v9KHPf9fm&<?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghi j k l m nopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ !1 i8@8 NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH @ %Heading 1,H1-Sec.Head,section head,h1$ D% @&56CJOJQJ]aJT@T Heading 2$<@& 56CJOJQJ\]^JaJJ@J Heading 3$ D% @&56OJQJ]aJB@B Heading 4$<@&5CJ\aJF@F Heading 5 <@&56CJ\]aJ:@: Heading 6$@&5OJQJ\2@2 Heading 7 <@& @ ,Heading 9,Heading 9 (business proposal only) $$:@&a$ 5CJaJ<A@< Default Paragraph FontD[@D E-mail Signature CJOJQJ6*@6 Endnote ReferenceH*<+@<  Endnote Text1$ CJaJh2P@"2 Body Text 25aJ2B@22 Body Text CJOJQJJ>@BJ Title%$ h8p @ a$5aJ@R <Footnote Text,F1,Footnote Text Char1,Footnote Text Char CharCJaJFOF Level 2 headd5CJOJQJaJ&)@q& Page NumberL @L Footer$ !da$CJOJQJaJhOh Bullet5$ & F hh]h^`a$CJ_HmH sH tH lOl Bullet (LAST)+$ & Fh]h^`a$CJ_HmH sH tH LR@L Body Text Indent 2 ^ CJOJQJ8^@8 Normal (Web) ddaJ8&@8 Footnote ReferenceH*44 H3$dd@&5CJaJhDOD Level 1 head $1$a$5CJaJh@@  Balloon Text CJOJQJ^JaJ6Q@6 Body Text 3!xCJaJ@C@"@ Body Text Indent"hx^h6O26 standard#$ D% a$\0OB0 Text$#`#\aJFORF xl27%dd9D[$\$CJOJPJQJ^JaJPObP aone Char Char&$ D% d`a$\\Or\ Chapter Heading' D%6CJKH \]^JaJ PT@P Block Text( D% TT]T^TCJOJQJaJJOJ NormalSS)$ @`a$CJOJQJaJ<O< ParagraphSS (LAST)*NON References$+$ @P^`Pa$aJ8O8 Center,$ @da$aJ.O. Figure-$a$CJaJ.U@. Hyperlink >*B*ph,, Header / !>V`> FollowedHyperlink >*B* phHStgȐKɓA+Tz & s[gv V k  ;; E?;;; ;;;;;^c}n _  W fS>`o-`?>Ky|8v()*+1>CHh$8LZpv$*7>Eey=CH\q&-:mnotyKPft 1GUbh&,2?v ' G g t z  $ & ( . 5 < C J O T U V W X l                           ' . 4  jihgba\[ZYX W  9Qqr [QP     !"#$%"#$%&'()*+,-./012345678tsR8v()*+1>CHh$8LZpv$*7>Eey=CH\q&-:mnotyKPft 1GUbh&,2?v ' G g t z  $ & ( . 5 < C J O T U V W X l                           ' . 4 7       !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<T n `nqqqqqqqqrsh)hUhwhhhh i3i[iiiiij./0BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abLk~ *+,:;'( !DE  {    P Q R S T b c d &'JKfg P#Q###&&**..0000 3!35566993:4:<<==}>~>>>r?s???}@~@@@ A ACC5C6CEEHHHHJJMKNKbMcMMMzN{NOOOOTT9U:UUU)V*VVVXX[[]]__aabbHdIdcdddvgwgii`jjllllynzn{nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn oZo}oossttwwyyzC݀ހ߀%ŅƅCDf$ϊ֌׌CMN˓̓ŠƠ]ȢԢբ *>?EWijs£ãǣۣ !<Pdef`aYZū!"BCcdeݲ޲ƵǵVWʸ˸PQڻۻef !uv67DdfEFVb CD|}$%QRtu%'(()"#CDFGSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnuvEF]^ij!"HIx           = > ? t u     9 U V t    !Z[ ! ,-=>UV  o"p"c$d$z${$%%&&)),x/2S588 9 94:G:H:::;;J;;D<E<\<]<<<<@@3@4@DD EpEFZFGG+H,HIIfNgNRRRRVV[[R^cf kUnVn`nanbncndnrnsn?o@ojpkpqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqr rrrrrrrrrrr!r"r#r$r%r&r'r(r)r*r+r,r-r.r/r1r2r3r4r5r6r8r9r;rr?r@rArCrDrErFrGrHrIrJrKrUr}rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrsssss1s2s3scsdsssssssss t tAtBtqtrttttttt#u$uPuQu_u`uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuBvwGxwxz{|a~~RC};J݅7"BCD׊SD׍j#"/]^yzҕӕԕ  +,12>?EFLMlmnopŖƖϖЖ$./CDWXlm͗Ηӗԗ !45IJ]^kl˜Ø֘ט!"#56CDYZ_`lmstz{Ιϙؙٙ 2389EFLMSTstz{|}ʚ˚͚̚њҚ֚ך   !./BCWXkluÛěћқ '(;<ABHJPQRdeijnoŜƜ !"ABCDJKXYZ[pqӝԝޝߝ   3489=>DERSYZpqĞŞўҞמ؞"#89?@FGKLPQ[\|}ɟʟߟ      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~0000.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.,0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0b0000k0k0k0k0k0k0k0000000000 00 00 00 00000 00000000000000000`00000000(00'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0' 0'0' 0'0' 0'0'0'0'0'0'#0'0'0'0' 0'0' 0'0' 0'0'0'0' 0'0' 0'0' 0'0' 0'0' #0'#0'#0'0'0'0'#0'#0'#0'0' 0' 0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'@0'000#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n0n#0n#0n#0n0n#0n#0n#0n#0n#0n$0n$0n$0n$0n0n0n0n0n0n0n0n0n0n0n$0n$0n0n$0n$0n0n$0n$0n0n$0n$0n0n$0n$0n0n(0n(0n#0#0#0#0(0n#0̓#0̓#0̓#0̓#0̓#0̓#0̓(0n(0n0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ%0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ%0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ0Ơ#0Ơ#0Ơ#0Ơ#0Ơ#0Ơ#0Ơ0Ơ#0Ơ#0Ơ(0n0ū0ū0ū#0ū0ū0ū0ū0ū0ū0ū&0ū"0ū0ū0ū0ū0ū0ū0ū'0#0ݲ(0ݲ000#0#0#0#0(0ݲ0W(0ݲ000#0#0#00#0(0ݲ(0ݲ00#0#0#0#0(0ݲ000#0#000#0#0#0#0&00000000000(0ݲ(0ݲ000#0#0#0#0#0#000000000#0#0#0000#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0(0ݲ0000(0#00@(0@(0@(0@(0@0@00#0#0#0000@0@0@0@0@0@#000000000000000000000000000#0#0#0#00000000#0#0#0(0ݲ000#0#0#00(0000#0#0#0#0#00(00j0j0j#0j#0j#0j(0(00000@000000000#0#0#00000000 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 )0 )0 )0 )0 )0 )0 0 0 0)0)0)0)0 )0)0 )0)0 )0)0)0)0)0)0)000 0d$)0d$)0d$)0d$)0d$)0d$)0d$*0d$ 0d$ 0d$ 0d$ 0d$0d$0 08*0880804: 04: 04:8080: 0: 0: 0:8088080E< 0E< 0E<0E<*0E<0E< 0 0@)0@)0@*0@ 0@ 0@ 0@*0@0@ 0 0G)0G)0G)0G)0G*0G0G 0 0R)0R)0R)0R)0R*0R 0R 0R 0R*0R0R@0R0R0R0R0RX0R0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn`0jn@+0jn`+0`+0+0jn`0@0`0jn@0jn,0jn,0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn`0jn00jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn,0jn,0jn0jn,0jn,0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn,0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn@0000jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0jn0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000-0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&))), Q'IIhʤ>f!\ :rruvBzh4SB    $'*-V '4 ESfr{߄Ԧ>jç!`!V ]! =S9@Zuuv?vv1w$yyCsF Š\ʣ$A^{   !"#%&()+,./0123Uz">@C_aD`b!##?AXX::::: !,!!35  HceE`b8:y,.h' B D G b d 7 ::::::::::::::  ?D2$q߫(Ǚ@dh[Fj$2$q24\E3PY2$_r*N 2$lWΧ;clI{ Ϡ2$1cDoA+*J2$;?Ki>Sd\2$cQ0Oދ@x2$Į3~]>[2$@žL^2$5bz5>ߖ9Wa$q2$66ulV2$e睕k&u6ģV%2$c~ͱ\M~2$\!ÄB2$lVUN0C{7J$$2$rHK`_7Tq@H 0(  }0z}(  B  0D?"0@NNN?NB  0D?"0@NNN?NHB  C DHB  C DT  c $A ?<   # A<   # A N   S  A ?  b 5 +$ U #"  t  +t V 3"5 +n W C W"! &  n X c $XA  ? "[ "tn Y C  Y" %  n Z C  Z"# %v   n [ C  ["   n \ C  \" 8#$   z $9 i%i  ]# 3"!G "qbB ^ C D"i%A i%i bB _ C D"$9 i%9 bB ` C D"$h a%h n a C a"! J& n b C b"& +a z && ' c# 3"%I &wbB d C D"' 'bB e C D"&&'bB f C D"0& ' n g C g"\   n h C h"6(] n i C i" $ T j C j T  C  b  c $A ? "" h && ' # #" #bB  C D"' 'bB  C D"&&'bB  C D"0& ' T  C % T  C . T  C - T  C  T  C    T  C !  !T  C " "h $#i%I' # #" $bB  C D"i%#i%I'bB  C D"$#i%#bB  C D"$@'a%@'T  C #* #T  C $& $T  C %  %T  C & &8 b + (,  #" / h + (,  "+ (,n  c $A 3? " w"n  C 2" K 2n  C 1" Z; 1n  C 0"+ V>  0n  C /"#  /z $9'k%( # 3"" 8#bB  C D"i%9'i%(bB  C D"$(i%(bB  C D"$:'k%:'n  C ."" &  .n  C -"" 'A -n  C ,"& (, ,n  C +"F +n  C *""i! *z $#i%I' # 3"" 4# bB  C D"i%#i%I'bB  C D"$#i%#bB  C D"$@'a%@'z && ' # 3"% 7'bB  C D"' 'bB  C D"&&'bB  C D"0& ' n  C )"3!w )n  C ("( (n  C '"4I ' b  .,&  #" 0n  c $A >? " "&n  C ="s1 =n  C <"m% <n  C ;" 6v ;n  C :"V# :n  C 9""^& 9n  C 8"@"& 8n  C 7"'m,e 7bB  C D"""rbB  C D"T""z && ' # 3"&'kbB  C D"' 'bB  C D"&&'bB  C D"0& ' n  C 6"." 6n  C 5"M#v$ 5n  C 4""# a$ 4z $9'k%( # 3"U"e"GbB  C D"i%9'i%(bB  C D"$(i%(bB  C D"$:'k%:'8 b 0 &+5  #" 3n  c $A K? "M H)#5d h 0 &+4  "0 &+4n  C J"1%2 Jn  C I"/#0 In  C H"0 )kI* Hn  C t    LNational Assessment of Title I Interim Report Executive Summary (MS Word)EXECUTIVE SUMMARYaudrey.pendletonNormal Amy.Ripton8Microsoft Word 9.0@0@Jx8@~e@KF(62՜.+,D՜.+,x4 hp  DoEDQ" JNational Assessment of Title I Interim Report Executive Summary (MS Word) TitleL@7 _PID_HLINKS_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayNameA0LEhttp://www.ed.gov/ies:/http://www.edpubs.org/Exhibit OLD NATI 12-06-05(.Title iklee@commworksllc.com Kristen Lee  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWoG"J L)#* Gz $9'k%( # 3""P0L#62bB  C D"i%9'i%(bB  C D"$(i%(bB  C D"$:'k%:'n  C F""_,'R. Fn  C E""e0'2 En  C D"&,+P. Dz $#i%I' # 3""*J#a0bB  C D"i%#i%I'bB  C D"$#i%#bB  C D"$@'a%@'z && ' # 3"%*'=2bB  C D"' 'bB  C D"&&'bB  C D"0& ' n  C C"& D) Cn  C B"|34 Bn  C A"-e3t 4 An  C @"S /0 @n  C ?"q812 ?T  C Mf Mb  c $A ? "mT  C s T  C p T  C n T  C l h $9'k%( # #" qbB  C D"i%9'i%(bB  C D"$(i%(bB  C D"$:'k%:'T  C k T  C o T  C j T  C u T  C v h $#i%I' # #" ibB  C D"i%#i%I'bB  C D"$#i%#bB  C D"$@'a%@'h && ' # #" gbB  C D"' 'bB  C D"&&'bB  C D"0& ' T  C h T  C r T  C t T  C w T  C x xT  C y yT  C y T  C x T  C |{ |T  C }~ }h $#i%I' # #" }bB  C D"i%#i%I'bB  C D"$#i%#bB  C D"$@'a%@'h && ' # #" |bB  C D"' ' bB  C D"&&' bB  C D"0& '  T  C u uT  C v vT  C { {T  C z zb  c $A ? "T  C  T  C  T  C s sT  C t tT  C  T  C  T  C  h && ' # #" bB  C D"' 'bB  C D"&&'bB  C D"0& ' T  C  T  C  HB  C DT  C  T  C  T  C  HB  C D T  C ' T  C  T  C  T  C , T  C + T  C  T  C  T  C ( HB  C D T  C 1 T  C 2 b r N!1'   #" n   c $ A ? "r N!1''n   C  " I r "' n  C "7!#' T  C ! T  C  HB O C D)T P C P T Q C Q h && ' R# #" bB S C D"' 'bB T C D"&&'bB U C D"0& ' h $#i%I' V# #" bB W C D"i%#i%I'bB X C D"$#i%#bB Y C D"$@'a%@'HB Z C DT [ C [ h $#i%I' `# #" bB a C D"i%#i%I'bB b C D"$#i%#bB c C D"$@'a%@'b q c $qA w? "zT r C ~r ~T s C =sF =T t C <t <b  C i"E ib  C ;"e ;b  C L"d LT  C Nc NT  C Ob OT  C Pa Pb  C h"G hb  C n"@ nb  C o"? ob  C j"C jT  C f= fT  C g> gn && ' # 3"DbB  C D"' 'bB  C D"&&'bB  C D"0& ' T  C Q; QVB  C D"Bb  C `"P `h  s *A r?  "4b  C p": pb  C q"9 qVB  C D"KVB  C D"JVB  C D"Ib  C a"O ab  C b"N bb  C c"M cb  C d"L dVB  C D"8VB  C D"7VB  C D"6\ && '   "5bB  C D"' ' bB  C D"&& ' bB  C D",& ' b  C e"H eb  C _"Q _b  c $A V? "\T  C W[ WT  C XZ Xh $9'k%( # #" YbB  C D"i%9'i%(bB  C D"$(i%(bB  C D"$:'k%:'T  C YX YT  C ZW ZT  C [V [T  C \U \n $#i%I' # 3"FbB  C D"i%#i%I'bB  C D"$#i%#bB  C D"$@'a%@'h && ' # #" TbB  C D"' 'bB  C D"&&'bB  C D"0& ' T  C ^R ^T  C ]S ]T  C T^ TT  C U] U  zBxCDEF ix  @``  zByCDEF iy  @`_b  f+`!7  #" <n  c $A m? " f+`!7n  C l" /pV1 ln  C k"0`2 kn $#i%I' # 3"AbB  C D"i%#i%I'bB  C D"$#i%#bB  C D"$@'a%@'HB  C DHB  C DHB  C DB S  ?nd%D dnqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqrr rrrrrrrrr/r6r9rArUrVrWrXrYrZr[r}r~rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrssZZT!i$iT{4{TTT<T@ t0$$.4 x3R4 LL,44 O/!4Uh~?$mt llt,Gt &tjt u` tu=tutV1tR<XtQu?t[u#twtZ?&?t tPNtwt\ tHctT Att~t~t~` t~xtlxtl~X [t$t td~tObtl1 Btw t~w@tjtT {tL"t "t \ vtxhth#it2& t p!t4yt@ttL@tH-1t8nE"t"0.t+&-t+0W-t'&}'t#%t# m't&&t $%&th# J'tt7 tU"#tt>t=tt<n * ttg  t=!#&t( t7!tiHtz tcBtM d!tcFt !%t8\ tjtCtbttt?^ t,[t2'(t X( r(t"cH#t*&\'t&0(t{ tT?t}Ct t27ttltX \%tltPt@ ttl; td< tlDtwRt0tHtTx'tx't dtGt Htq9 tlJ&t4tk4tX $t2trxtwts xtlt6b6tt(-t'tt4t%CPt^tt`lt8 t k t /r%tK !t@ tTGtLt:jtktl tpuCt_lt _Hlt121284630 _Hlt121285096 _Hlt121285097 _Hlt121284601 _Hlt121284602 _Hlt121285089 OLE_LINK1 OLE_LINK2 OLE_LINK3 OLE_LINK5v@@@@@@ wo"oSoXo         # 0 8 V ] ^ b d h uuuuuuuuuuuuuu!^ԕޕ'r  s ^ &###U$/OOOZOOymmmm_֌p[G|O@PEPPkpppuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuAF֊%]^z{ךo"@DG3333333333333333333QQRZ__T U V V V+"##SSUlmnqqqqqqqqrrssssssuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu]^xyyzӕԕ   *+,012=>?DEFKLMlpŖƖΖϖЖ-./BCDVWXklm̗͗Ηҗӗԗߗ !345HIJ\]^jkl˜Ø՘֘ט"#456BCDXYZ^_`klmrstyz͙Ιϙיؙٙ  123789DEFKLMRSTs@AKWXQZ[\|}ȟɟʟޟߟconstance.odomVC:\Documents and Settings\constance.odom\My Documents\interim reports ncee\execsum.docshelia.hamblin{C:\IWTemp\wdchqdtmsp01\cache\default\main\ED\en\RESEARCH\WORKAREA\work\rschstat\eval\disadv\title1interimreport\execsum.doc Amy.Ripton>C:\Documents and Settings\Amy.Ripton\Desktop\title1execsum.doc Amy.Ripton8C:\Documents and Settings\Amy.Ripton\Desktop\execsum.doc Amy.Ripton8C:\Documents and Settings\Amy.Ripton\Desktop\execsum.doc Amy.Ripton8C:\Documents and Settings\Amy.Ripton\Desktop\execsum.doc Amy.Ripton8C:\Documents and Settings\Amy.Ripton\Desktop\execsum.doc Amy.Ripton8C:\Documents and Settings\Amy.Ripton\Desktop\execsum.doc Amy.Ripton8C:\Documents and Settings\Amy.Ripton\Desktop\execsum.doc Amy.Ripton8C:\Documents and Settings\Amy.Ripton\Desktop\execsum.docƋqѐ]UDZĶ:)-'un +8: <%;^'e@>}&Z?B0;"C+F9L&kO,ڟ!,\J"&?v]6e0c4kwP*e=&K_k ro nȀ?EWijs£ãǣۣ !<PdeYZ!BdeDV()"#TUrrrrrrr^""&"6"6"&@`@Unknown Gz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial9GaramondY CG TimesTimes New Roman5& z!TahomaI& ??Arial Unicode MS?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1h˪fzӪӺ62Q<SuaY0d  2qHXINational Assessment of Title I Interim Report Executive Summary (MS Word)EXECUTIVE SUMMARYaudrey.pendleton Amy.RiptonrdDocWord.Document.89q