Office of the Superintendent of Schools
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Rockville, Maryland
May 25, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To:
Members of the Board of Education
From:
Jerry D. Weast, Superintendent of Schools
Subject:
Continued Improvement in Second Grade Achievement on a Nationally
Standardized Assessment of Reading, Language, and Mathematics
Four years ago, the plans for improving the early literacy skills for a new generation of children
were implemented by the Montgomery County Public Schools. The effort targeted kindergarten
as the gateway to elementary school and began the incremental improvement of what children
were expected to know and be able to do in each subsequent grade level. Last year, the first
group of children to experience those reforms reached second grade and produced record levels
of achievement on a nationally standardized assessment of reading, language, and mathematics.
This spring, the second group of children followed and set new records.
The more than 9,900 students in Grade 2 this year—one of the most racially and ethnically
diverse grade levels in the school system—achieved at least the 68th median national percentile
(language) and scored as high as the 87th median national percentile (language mechanics), the
highest ever performance on the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS).1 African
American students scored above the national average in every subject on this assessment for the
first time, with the highest performance in mathematics computation (68th median national
percentile). They were matched by Hispanic students, who narrowly missed the national average
in only one subject (reading), but reached the 76th median national percentile in mathematics
computation.
Overall, 75 percent of second grade scores were at or above the national average, compared to 70
percent last year and 65 percent four years ago. The national average was matched or exceeded
by 61 percent of scores for Hispanic students, 60 percent for African American students, 56
percent for students receiving federal meal assistance, 50 percent for students receiving English
language assistance, and 48 percent for students in special education. Each of these achievements
surpassed previous levels of performance.
This year’s performance levels build on a robust record of steady, incremental improvements in
student achievement since the kindergarten reforms were first implemented. Median scores for
African American students, for example, have climbed from the 35th median national percentile
in mathematics four years ago to the 60th median national percentile this year. This progression
1
Stevenson, J. W., & Schatz, C. (2004). Results of the Spring 2004 Administration of the Grade 2 TerrNova
Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools.
Members of the Board of Education
2
May 25, 2004
of improvement was foreshadowed by a series of reports beginning in 2001 that documented the
implementation of the school system’s early childhood education reforms that targeted the
teaching and learning of reading and mathematics skills at the earliest possible age.2 At that
time, there was great controversy about the appropriateness of the reform initiatives and whether
children at risk of academic failure because of poverty and language would succeed in an
academically rigorous school environment.
In 1999-2000, for example, only 45 percent of scores for African American students and 44
percent for Hispanic students were at or above the national average (see Figure 1). Four years
ago, 76 percent of scores for white and Asian students met or exceeded that benchmark, setting a
comparative distinction that defined a significant portion of the achievement gap by race and
ethnicity. The gains since then not only narrowed the gap but also occurred with improved
achievement for all groups of students. Indeed, the performance gains by special education
Figure 1: Increase in Percentage of Scores At or Above National
Average by Race and Ethnicity Since 2000
2
Bridges-Cline, F. (2001). Kindergarten student progress: acquisition of reading skills year 1 of the MCPS
kindergarten initiative 2000-2001. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools.
See also: Bridges-Cline, F. (2002). Results of the MCPS assessment program: 2001-02 kindergarten
reading report. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools;
See also: Cooper-Martin, E., & Alban, T. (2003). Evaluation of the Montgomery County Public Schools
assessment program: grades 1 and 2 reading. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools; and
See also: Curry-Corcoran, D., & Alban, T. (2003). Report on kindergarten student progress in reading for
2002-2003. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools.
Members of the Board of Education
3
May 25, 2004
students, students receiving English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), and students
receiving Free and Reduced-price Meals System (FARMS) underscore the ideal situation in
which achievement gaps narrow even as all groups of children improve (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Increase in Percentage of Scores At or Above National
Average for Students Receiving Special Services Since 2000
The transformation in Grade 2 achievement has occurred against a backdrop of increased
demographic diversity. The majority of students tested was comprised of African American
students (21 percent), Hispanic students (20 percent), or Asian students (15 percent). Hispanic
student enrollment has grown by 522 students (35 percent) since 2000. White student enrollment
has declined by 14 percent (723 students) to 43 percent overall. The success of the reform
initiatives under these conditions has been cited repeatedly at the national level,3 most recently at
this year’s conferences of the National School Boards Association and the American Association
of School Administrators. This July, a school system report on the Early Success Performance
Plan: Closing the Gap for our Youngest Learners will be presented at the 2004 National Forum
on Education Policy, sponsored by the Education Commission of the States.
Nonetheless, there is still much work to be done. Achieving consistent steady progress in every
subject area reflects the central challenge facing the school system. ESOL students, for example,
achieved at the 76th median national percentile in mathematics computation but declined in
reading to the 34th median national percentile, even though they increased to the 43rd median
national percentile in language. This inconsistency is occurring as the population of ESOL has
dramatically increased. Since 2000, the ESOL enrollment in Grade 2 has grown by 19 percent,
to 911 students, reflecting the expansion of this segment of the student population in
3
For example, see Hodgkinson, H. L. (2003). Leaving too many children behind: a demographer's view on the
neglect of America's youngest children. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Members of the Board of Education
4
May 25, 2004
Montgomery County. The county already has nearly half of the state’s ESOL population and
one of the largest ESOL enrollments in the Washington area.
The improved performance is building on a record of achievement across much of the school
system. Nonetheless, the number of schools achieving levels of median performance in each
subject area at or above the national average has increased substantially in four years, reaching
its highest levels this year (see Figure 3). This underscores the strength of individual school
instructional programs as improvement efforts continue to target specific groups of students.
Figure 3: Percentage of Schools with Grade 2 Median Performance At or
Above the National Average by Subject Area on CTBS
Subject
Percent in 2000
Percent in 2004
Reading
74% (87)
89% (106)
Language
74% (87)
94% (112)
Mathematics
85% (100)
100% (119)
Language Mechanics
96% (113)
99% (118)
Mathematics Computation
78% (92)
100% (119)
Compared to 119 elementary schools with Grade 2 classes in 2004, and 118 schools in 2000
The school system has focused considerable support and attention on 17 schools with the largest
percentage of students participating in FARMS as a measure of the impact of poverty. As a
group, the performance improvements are noteworthy, with the performance of students
accelerating in the last two years as the children who first benefited from full-day kindergarten in
these schools reached second grade in 2003 and 2004 (see Figure 4). Notable increases this year
were made in mathematics and mathematics computation.
Figure 4: Increase in Median National Percentile Ranks among Grade 2
Students in the 17 Focus Schools from 2000 to 2004 on the CTBS
Subject
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Reading
40
40
40
47
47
Language
43
43
43
43
55
Mathematics
43
43
43
52
70
Language Mechanics
55
55
55
65
65
Mathematics Computation
49
49
58
76
83
Much of the early evidence of success has depended on locally designed and implemented
assessments of students at the early grades. The use of CTBS in Grade 2, however, provides the
first opportunity for young students to complete a norm-referenced assessment that is used
throughout the country as a nationally standardized benchmark of academic performance. The
test provides the school system with median national percentile data that can be correlated to
other measures and used analytically to assess long-term implications of the elementary school
reform initiatives. Preliminary analyses by the Office of Shared Accountability, for example,
Members of the Board of Education
5
May 25, 2004
indicate that student performance on the CTBS in Grade 2 is statistically related to student
performance on the Maryland School Assessment (MSA) for Grade 3. The expectation is that
students who reach the 50th median national percentile rank this year on the CTBS will be able to
meet the state’s proficiency standards on the MSA next year.
We will continue to use the CTBS for Grade 2 both as a predictive measure for future
performance and as an assessment of progress made in the preceding grade levels. We know that
it is not sufficient to wait until Grade 3 for a standardized measure of student performance,
especially under the weight of state and federal requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act.
Even though the state has discontinued the CTBS for all grade levels, it remains a useful
assessment for the monitoring of student achievement at this time.
Conclusion
These results are not occurring in a vacuum. Evidence of increased achievement in Grade 4 last
year on the CTBS hinted at the accelerated pace now evident in Grade 2. The pace is likely to
accelerate again next year as the third group of students who received the early education
reforms reaches Grade 2. Their ascendancy to the higher ranks of school performance is
generating great expectations in the intermediate grades of elementary school, as well as among
teachers and principals in middle and high schools. Our strategy in the reform effort was to begin
with kindergarten and move forward, while also working back from high school. Already, the
indications of more rigorous instruction and achievement grow by the month as data emerge
about the percentage of students completing accelerated math in elementary and middle school,
Algebra 1 or higher level math in Grade 8, and honors and Advanced Placement courses in high
school.
We know that a great deal of patience was required four years ago when expectations were raised
by the Our Call to Action report in November 1999 and the subsequent audits, reforms, and
strategic plans. The controversies that surrounded the decisions by the Board of Education to
overhaul the kindergarten program seem far removed from excitement and promise being
generated today. The continuing support from the County Executive and County Council for the
Board of Education’s decision to improve early education programs, expand full-day
kindergarten, increase staff development, and invest in grade level assessments, accountability,
and technology have helped stabilize the school system’s focus on improving student
achievement. Nonetheless, we know how difficult the last four years have been, and we can
anticipate more challenges in the future, especially as our county continues to raise expectations
for an increasingly diverse school system. The difference now, however, is that we are building
on hard data from the success of our youngest students.
JDW:kmy
Attachment
Copy to:
Executive Staff
Results of the Spring 2004 Administration of the
Grade 2 TerraNova Comprehensive Tests of Basic
Skills (CTBS)
Office of Shared Accountability
May 2004
Jose W. Stevenson, Ph.D.
Coordinator of Testing
Carol Schatz, Ph.D.
Evaluation Specialist
OFFICE OF SHARED ACCOUNTABILITY
Dr. Theresa Alban, Acting Director
850 Hungerford Drive
Rockville, Maryland 20850
(301) 279-3448
Dr. Jerry D. Weast
Dr. Frieda K. Lacey
Superintendent of Schools
Chief of Staff
Results of the Spring 2004 Administration of the Grade 2
TerraNova Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS)
Four years ago Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) embarked on a series of academic
reforms in early elementary school education, which included, among other features, a revised
kindergarten curriculum, a strong emphasis on reading and mathematics, and sharply reduced
class sizes (15:1 in kindergarten and 17:1 in Grades 1 and 2). The second group of students to
receive the benefits of these reforms has now reached Grade 2, and the effect of these reforms
continue to positively influence the achievement of these students in key content areas measured
by the nationally normed TerraNova Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS).1 Countywide
results from the spring 2004 administration of the CTBS show that this year’s Grade 2 students
earned major gains in reading, mathematics, and language mechanics relative to the 2003 results,
while maintaining a high level of performance in language and mathematics computation. The
median national percentile rank these students earned on the language mechanics and the
mathematics computation content areas is now above the 80th national percentile, the first time
that two CTBS results in MCPS have reached this level of achievement.2 These results are
shown below in Table 1 and in Attachment B.
Table 1
Grade 2 Median National Percentile Ranks for the Nation and MCPS 2000–2004
MCPS
3
Subtest
Nation
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Reading
50
64
64
64
64
73
Language
50
55
68
68
68
68
Mathematics
50
70
70
70
70
79
Language Mechanics
50
77
77
77
77
87
Mathematics Computation
50
68
68
76
83
83
The sections that follow reveal the same pattern of success among racial and ethnic groups,
especially African American and Hispanic students, and among students who receive support
services, particularly students who receive special educations services. Improvements also were
evident among the elementary schools that have been the focus of targeted interventions over the
past several years. These gains are notable because of the large numbers of students tested,
particularly Hispanic students. Since 2000, the number of Hispanic students has grown from
1,486 to 2,008, or a 35 percent increase (Attachment A). Increased participation generally leads
to declining scores. Yet, this is not the case among MCPS Hispanic students in Grade 2.
______________________
1.
2.
3.
The Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS), 5th edition, is a component of the TerraNova series of assessments
published by CTB/McGraw-Hill. The TerraNova CTBS was normed nationally in 1996.
The median is the middle score of a group. That is, half of the scores are above it and half are below. Thus, if the median
national percentile rank for a group of local students is 78, one can then say that half of the students in the local group
outperformed 78 percent of students in the national reference group.
Results for 2000 were recalculated in order to make them comparable with the 2001–2004 results. The original 2000 results
were not comparable because the student inclusion criteria used by the Maryland State Department of Education to calculate
median national percentile ranks was different from the criterion used since 2001.
1
Results by Racial/Ethnic Groups
Table 2 below shows positive strides in many areas for each racial and ethnic group since 2000,
and particularly over the past two years. During this period, African American and Hispanic
students have made measurable progress towards the level of performances of their Asian
American and White peers. In 2004, African American students are performing above the
national average, or 50th percentile, in all of the CTBS content areas, with three of these at or
above the 60th percentile. Hispanic students on the other hand have consistently improved their
reading scores over time to within three points from the national average in 2004. Their
performance on the other four content areas is now above the national average, especially
mathematics computation, which surpassed the 70th percentile, the first ever for this minority
group. White and Asian American students continued to maintain or improve their already high
performance. Both groups have performances in mathematics computation at or above the 90th
percentile. This year Asian American students also posted a median national rank above the 90th
percentile in language mechanics (Attachment B).
Table 2
Grade 2 Median National Percentile Ranks by Race/Ethnicity, 2000–2004
African American
Asian American
Subtest
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2000 2001 2002 2003
Reading
40
47
40
47
64
73
73
73
55
Language
43
43
43
43
68
68
68
82
55
Mathematics
35
43
43
43
79
79
87
79
60
Language
Mechanics
55
65
55
65
87
87
79
87
65
Mathematics
Computation
40
49
49
68
87
90
90
94
68
Subtest
Reading
Language
Mathematics
Language
Mechanics
Mathematics
Computation
White
2002 2003
82
82
82
82
79
79
2004
73
82
87
94
94
2000
40
35
43
2001
34
43
43
Hispanic
2002
34
43
43
2003
40
43
52
2004
47
55
60
2000
82
68
79
2001
82
68
79
55
55
55
65
65
77
87
87
87
87
49
49
49
68
76
68
76
83
90
90
2004
82
82
87
Results by Gender
Results for male and female students in 2004 were the same for language (68th percentile),
mathematics (79th percentile), and mathematics computation (83rd percentile). Female students
did better than male students in reading (73rd vs. 64th percentile) and language mechanics (87th
vs. 77th percentile). (Attachment B).
2
Results of Nonstandard Administrations
Students who take the CTBS mathematics computation subtest with a calculator in accordance
with their Individualized Education Program or Section 504 Plan participate in nonstandard
administrations of this subtest. A total of 87 students used this accommodation (less than 1
percent of the students in Grade 2 who took the Mathematics Computation subtest). Their
median percentile rank was 94.
Results by Support Services
Like the trend for racial/ethnic groups, the performance of students receiving support services,
which includes English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), special education, and Free
and Reduced-price Meals System (FARMS), also shows an ongoing trend toward higher scores
on the CTBS over time, and particularly in 2003 and 2004, when the first two groups of students
that received the advantages of reforms began to take the CTBS. ESOL students, while
experiencing a decline in reading this year, have made considerable progress since 2000. Their
2004 performance in mathematics computation surpassed the 76th national percentile, the first
time ever for this group. Like their ESOL counterparts, the performance of students receiving
FARMS services also surpassed the 70th national percentile in 2004, the first time ever for this
group as well. Their scores on this content area and in language mechanics and mathematics are
now above the national average. Finally, in 2004, students receiving special education services
moved out of a pattern of mixed performances in previous years to one of substantial gains in
every CTBS content area. Their performance is now above the national average in three of the
five content areas. These results are summarized on Table 3 below.
Subtest
Reading
Language
Mathematics
Language
Mechanics
Mathematics
Computation
Table 3
Median National Percentile Ranks for Grade 2 Students
Receiving Support Services, 2000–2004
ESOL
Special Education
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2000 2001 2002 2003
25
21
25
40
34
34
40
40
34
27
21
35
35
27
27
27
27
43
29
29
35
43
29
29
35
35
52
2004
47
35
52
45
36
45
55
55
45
45
45
45
55
40
31
49
68
76
40
40
49
58
68
Subtest
Reading
Language
Mathematics
Language Mechanics
Mathematics Computation
2000
34
35
35
55
40
2001
34
35
35
55
40
3
FARMS
2002
34
35
35
55
49
2003
40
43
43
55
58
2004
47
43
52
65
76
What is remarkable about the gains of ESOL students is that they have occurred within a context
of increasing participation rates. It is usually expected that as a higher number of students take a
test, the scores will decline. This has not materialized for these students on this test, even though
the number of ESOL students tested rose by 19 percent in the 2000–2004 period. The
participation rate of students receiving FARMS and special education services has also risen by 2
and 1 percent, respectively, in the same period (Attachment A).
Results by School
A total of 118 elementary schools participated in the Grade 2 CTBS testing in 2000 and 2001,
while a total of 119 schools participated in 2002 to 2004. Attachment H presents school-byschool results. In 2004 the majority of schools received a median national percentile rank well
above the national average in all CTBS content areas. All 119 schools are above the national
average in mathematics and mathematics computation. Table 5 summarizes these results.
Table 5
Number (N) and Percentage (%) of MCPS Schools Scoring at the
50th Median National Percentile Rank and Above, 2000–2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
Subtest
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Reading
87
90
90
93
74
76
76
78
Language
87
94
92
92
74
80
77
77
Mathematics
100
85 104
88 104
87 111
93
Language Mechanics
113
96 112
95 115
97 118
99
Mathematics Computation
92
95
78
81 105
88 117
98
2004
N
%
106
89
112
94
119 100
118
99
119 100
A substantial number of the 119 elementary schools received a median national percentile rank
of 75 or above in 2004. Such a performance places the average students in these schools at the
top 25 percent in the nation. As can be seen on Table 6 below, the number of schools reaching
this level of excellence since 2000 has increased across all content areas. Eighty percent of all
schools received a median national percentile rank of 75 in language mechanics, and 90 percent
of schools achieved the same performance in Mathematics Computation in 2004.
Table 6
Number (N) and Percentage (%) of MCPS Schools Scoring at the
75th Median National Percentile Rank and Above, 2000–2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
Subtest
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Reading
24
24
31
37
20
20
26
31
Language
25
27
30
31
21
23
25
26
Mathematics
39
40
46
54
33
34
39
45
Language Mechanics
60
65
78
77
51
55
66
65
Mathematics Computation
49
49
66
94
42
42
55
79
4
2004
N
%
44
37
50
42
69
58
95
80
107
90
Results for the CTBS Battery Index and Focus Schools
An analysis of the number of students and the percentage of their scores at the 50th national
percentile rank and above (i.e., the CTBS battery index) and an examination of the performance
of students in the 17 schools most highly impacted by poverty and second language learning
provide additional evidence that the school reforms are making a sustained difference in
academic achievement for all children. As these reforms began to take hold among students and
schools following the first few years of implementation, the rate of achievement accelerated.
The CTBS Battery Index is similar to the standards of performance required by the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) legislation, namely, the percentage of students who performed at or above a
designated cut score. For this analysis, the cut score is the CTBS 50th national percentile rank,
since it is the national average and it is slightly above the proficiency standards of the NCLBmandated Maryland School Assessment (MSA) for Grade 3. On the basis of this cut score,
results can be combined across subtests to provide an overall performance indicator on the
battery of CTBS tests. The resulting CTBS battery index is then the percentage of scores that are
at or above the CTBS 50th national percentile across the five CTBS subtests.
The 2000–2004 trend data in Table 4 show that the CTBS battery index remained stable, for the
most part, for all student groups during the initial years, began to pick up by 2002, and stepped
up over the past 2 years. Appendix G presents the percentage of students who performed at or
above the CTBS 50th national percentile rank disaggregated by subtest for individual schools.
Table 4
Number (N) of Students and Percentage (%) of All CTBS Subtest Scores
at the 50th National Percentile and Above, 2000–2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
All Students
9,947
64.5
9,851
64.0
9,812
67.0
10,076
69.6
9,965
74.8
Female
Male
4,831
5,116
66.2
62.9
4,804
5,047
65.7
62.4
4,754
5,058
68.9
65.2
4,897
5,179
72.8
66.5
4,777
5,188
77.4
72.3
Asian Am.
African Am.
White
Hispanic
1,290
2,120
5,023
1,486
75.8
45.1
75.9
43.6
1,228
2,141
4,800
1,651
76.6
45.4
76.9
41.4
1,362
2,063
4,602
1,752
79.6
48.4
79.8
45.3
1,409
2,143
4,570
1,919
82.5
52.0
80.9
52.8
1,498
2,124
4,300
2,008
85.3
60.4
84.9
60.7
ESOL
Non-ESOL
764
9,183
36.2
66.8
832
9,019
34.2
66.8
911
8,901
37.8
70.0
1,277
8,799
47.7
72.8
911
9,054
49.6
77.3
Special Ed.
Non-Sp. Ed.
988
8,959
39.5
67.2
878
8,973
38.7
66.4
924
8,888
40.5
69.7
1,027
9,049
42.6
72.6
999
8,966
48.2
77.7
FARMS
Non-FARMS
2,702
7,245
40.1
73.5
2,615
7,236
38.9
73.1
2,608
7,204
41.8
76.1
2,771
7,305
48.4
77.6
2,757
7,208
55.6
82.1
5
A similar trend is evident when analyzing the performance of Grade 2 students in the 17 focus
elementary schools. The trend data in Table 7 shows a significant acceleration in the rate of
achievement as the full effect of the reforms get under way among the students in these schools
in 2003 and 2004. Attachments D, E, and F show the performance of the 17 focus elementary
schools individually.
Table 7
Median National Percentile Ranks, 2000–2004
Performance of the 17 Focus Elementary Schools with Grade 2
Subtest
Reading
Language
Mathematics
Language Mechanics
Mathematics Computation
2000
40
43
43
55
49
2001
40
43
43
55
49
2002
40
43
43
55
58
2003
47
43
52
65
76
2004
47
55
70
65
83
Conclusion
The remarkable progress that Grade 2 students demonstrated on the CTBS 2004 helps to further
underscore the constructive impact that the early elementary school reforms initiated four years
ago are having on the achievement of all students. Students in 2003 and 2004, the first
beneficiaries of these reforms, particularly those who are members of minority groups and/or
recipients of special services, are gradually realizing equality of performance in key content
areas with those groups that have traditionally excelled in achievement measures.
6
Attachment A
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS (CTBS)
2000–2004 Number (N) of Grade 2 Students Tested
By Race/Ethnicity
African American
Asian American
Hispanic
White
Native American
2000
2120
1290
1486
5023
28
2001
2141
1228
1651
4800
31
2002
2063
1362
1752
4602
33
2003
2143
1409
1919
4570
35
2004
2124
1498
2008
4300
35
TOTAL
9947
9851
9812
10076
9965
2000–2004 Change
N
%
+4
0%
+208
+16%
+522
+35%
-723
-14%
+18
0%
2000–2004 Number (N) of Grade 2 Students Tested
By Special Services
ESOL
FARMS
Special Education
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
764
2702
988
832
2615
878
911
2608
924
1277
2771
1027
911
2757
999
2000–2004 Change
N
%
+144
+55
+11
+19%
+2%
+1%
Attachment B
SPRING 2004 TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS (CTBS)
Grade 2 Results
Number of Students Tested (N) and their Median National Percentile (MNP) Ranks
Countywide
Subtest
N
Reading
Language
Mathematics
Language Mechanics
Mathematics Computation
MNP
9953
9953
9938
9928
9846
73
68
79
87
83
Number of Students Tested (N) and their Median National Percentile (MNP) Ranks
By Race/Ethnicity
African
American
N
MNP
Subtest
Reading
Language
Mathematics
Language Mechanics
Mathematics Computation
2120
2120
2117
2116
2079
55
55
60
65
68
Asian
American
N
MNP
1497
1497
1495
1493
1491
73
82
87
94
94
Hispanic
N
MNP
2004
2003
2002
1999
1979
47
55
60
65
76
N
White
MNP
4297
4298
4290
4285
4262
82
82
87
87
90
Number of Students Tested (N) and their Median National Percentile (MNP) Ranks
By Gender
Subtest
Reading
Language
Mathematics
Language Mechanics
Mathematics Computation
N
Male
MNP
5181
5180
5174
5164
5112
64
68
79
77
83
N
Female
MNP
4772
4773
4764
4764
4734
73
68
79
87
83
___________________________
Note: The median is the middle score of a group. That is, 50 percent of the scores are above it and 50 percent are
below it. Thus, if the median national percentile rank for a group of local students is 78, one can then say that half of
the students in the local group outperformed 78 percent of students in the national reference group. The median
national percentile for the national reference group is 50.
Attachment C
SPRING 2004 TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS (CTBS)
Grade 2 Results
Number of Students Tested (N) and Their Median National Percentile (MNP) Ranks
ESOL Students
ESOL
Subtest
Reading
Language
Mathematics
Language Mechanics
Mathematics Computation
N
MNP
908
907
907
902
893
34
43
52
55
76
Non-ESOL
N
MNP
9045
9046
9031
9026
8953
73
68
79
87
90
Number of Students Tested (N) and Their Median National Percentile (MNP) Ranks
Free and Reduced-price Meals System (FARMS)
FARMS
Subtest
Reading
Language
Mathematics
Language Mechanics
Mathematics Computation
Non-FARMS
MNP
N
MNP
N
2751
2750
2746
2741
2700
47
43
52
65
76
7202
7203
7192
7187
7146
82
82
87
87
90
Number of Students Tested (N) and Their Median National Percentile (MNP) Ranks
Special Education Students
Subtest
Reading
Language
Mathematics
Language Mechanics
Mathematics Computation
Special Education
N
MNP
997
997
992
981
906
47
35
52
55
68
General Education
N
MNP
8956
8956
8946
8947
8940
73
68
79
87
90
________________________________________
Note: The median is the middle score of a group. That is, 50 percent of the scores are above it and 50 percent are
below it. Thus, if the median national percentile rank for a group of local students is 78, one can then say that half of
the students in the local group outperformed 78 percent of students in the national reference group. The median
national percentile for the national reference group is 50.
Attachment D
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS (CTBS) 2001–2004
Grade 2 Results
Focus Elementary Schools
Reading and Mathematics
(Median National Percentile Ranks)
Reading
School
Mathematics
2001
2002
2003
2004
2001
2002
2003
2004
Broad Acres
Brookhaven
Burnt Mills
East Silver Spring
Gaithersburg
Glen Haven
Harmony Hills
Highland
Maryvale
Montgomery Knolls
New Hampshire Estates
Rolling Terrace
Rosemont
Summit Hall
Viers Mill
Weller Road
Wheaton Woods
29
47
40
40
34
29
34
40
34
47
29
47
40
47
40
47
40
34
51
47
47
40
34
47
29
34
47
34
47
34
34
55
40
40
47
55
47
47
47
34
40
44
55
40
47
47
47
47
47
47
55
55
64
47
47
55
55
47
40
47
40
40
55
51
47
64
47
47
22
43
43
43
43
29
43
43
43
52
29
52
43
43
52
52
52
35
60
52
52
39
52
43
35
43
52
52
52
29
35
60
52
52
52
60
52
52
52
35
52
52
79
60
52
60
43
60
70
60
60
65
70
52
60
52
79
70
52
70
52
70
65
60
70
79
60
70
FOCUS SCHOOLS
40
40
47
47
43
43
52
70
Attachment E
2001–2004 TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS (CTBS)
GRADE 2 RESULTS
Focus Elementary Schools
Language Mechanics and Mathematics Computation
(Median National Percentile Ranks)
Language Mechanics
School
2001
2002
2003
Broad Acres
Brookhaven
Burnt Mills
East Silver Spring
Gaithersburg
Glen Haven
Harmony Hills
Highland
Maryvale
Montgomery Knolls
New Hampshire Estates
Rolling Terrace
Rosemont
Summit Hall
Viers Mill
Weller Road
Wheaton Woods
36
77
65
55
65
45
55
65
36
65
45
55
55
65
55
77
77
55
55
65
65
65
65
65
45
36
77
45
65
55
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
55
65
55
71
55
55
55
65
65
65
55
77
77
77
FOCUS SCHOOLS
55
55
65
Mathematics Computation
2004
2001
2002
2003
2004
77
87
65
65
77
77
65
50
45
55
65
77
55
71
87
65
77
24
40
40
40
76
24
58
49
58
40
31
68
68
49
68
68
58
49
58
83
49
58
40
58
49
76
49
49
83
40
58
76
58
68
49
76
58
76
76
49
83
76
90
68
58
83
58
76
90
76
90
94
83
68
76
76
90
83
76
83
58
87
76
68
76
94
83
80
65
49
58
76
83
Attachment F
2001–2004 TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS (CTBS)
Grade 2 Results
Focus Elementary Schools
Language
(Median National Percentile Ranks)
Language
School
2001
2002
2003
2004
Broad Acres
Brookhaven
Burnt Mills
East Silver Spring
Gaithersburg
Glen Haven
Harmony Hills
Highland
Maryvale
Montgomery Knolls
New Hampshire Estates
Rolling Terrace
Rosemont
Summit Hall
Viers Mill
Weller Road
Wheaton Woods
27
43
35
35
35
27
35
43
35
43
35
43
55
43
43
55
43
43
55
43
55
49
43
55
35
35
35
43
43
35
35
43
43
39
55
55
43
43
55
35
43
43
55
35
49
55
49
43
43
55
43
55
55
55
55
55
68
55
43
55
43
68
68
55
55
68
43
68
FOCUS SCHOOLS
43
43
43
55
Attachment G
CTBS Battery Index by Subtest for Individual Schools
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
ASHBURTON ES
BANNOCKBURN
ES
BARNSLEY (LUCY
V.) ES
BEALL ES
BEL PRE ES
BELLS MILL ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
84
70
80
83
98
82
57
62
81
66
80
71
53
72
79
96
95
100
107
72
142
129
171
153
134
61
86
76
75
84
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
53.6%
77.1%
73.8%
72.3%
69.4%
91.5%
89.5%
88.7%
82.7%
92.4%
66.2%
64.8%
64.2%
73.6%
60.8%
70.8%
56.8%
61.0%
64.5%
69.4%
45.1%
61.2%
46.2%
61.4%
62.7%
73.8%
72.1%
73.7%
78.7%
91.7%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
84
56.0%
70
75.7%
80
73.8%
83
73.5%
98
76.5%
82
86.6%
57
84.2%
62
88.7%
81
82.7%
66
89.4%
81
55.6%
70
72.9%
53
64.2%
72
72.2%
79
67.1%
96
62.5%
95
60.0%
100
58.0%
107
69.2%
72
72.2%
142
54.9%
129
63.6%
171
48.5%
153
66.0%
134
68.7%
61
77.0%
86
79.1%
76
81.6%
75
76.0%
84
94.0%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
84
70.2%
70
82.9%
80
75.0%
83
80.7%
97
79.4%
82
86.6%
57
94.7%
62
88.7%
81
91.4%
66
93.9%
81
67.9%
70
74.3%
53
62.3%
72
75.0%
79
79.7%
95
69.5%
95
61.1%
100
68.0%
103
76.7%
72
87.5%
142
64.1%
129
58.9%
171
67.3%
153
72.5%
134
80.6%
61
75.4%
85
80.0%
76
77.6%
74
79.7%
84
94.0%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
84
66.7%
70
88.6%
80
82.5%
83
81.9%
98
75.5%
82
86.6%
57
89.5%
62
87.1%
81
82.7%
66
90.9%
80
68.8%
71
74.6%
53
64.2%
72
72.2%
79
74.7%
96
78.1%
95
75.8%
100
77.0%
106
77.4%
72
84.7%
142
79.6%
129
73.6%
171
64.3%
153
73.9%
133
77.4%
61
85.2%
85
85.9%
75
90.7%
73
89.0%
84
90.5%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
84
58.3%
69
81.2%
79
91.1%
83
84.3%
97
83.5%
82
85.4%
57
86.0%
62
74.2%
80
76.2%
65
87.7%
76
65.8%
70
64.3%
53
54.7%
69
81.2%
79
82.3%
95
65.3%
94
58.5%
99
65.7%
101
75.2%
72
81.9%
142
61.3%
129
50.4%
170
62.9%
153
80.4%
133
82.7%
61
77.0%
85
78.8%
75
84.0%
73
78.1%
83
90.4%
G-1
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
BELMONT ES
BETHESDA ES
BEVERLY FARMS
ES
BRADLEY HILLS
ES
BROAD ACRES ES
BROOKE GROVE
ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
54
88
62
79
70
54
56
64
61
61
103
91
78
89
85
62
89
57
72
64
73
82
89
95
70
99
89
101
101
87
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
70.4%
71.6%
82.3%
78.5%
74.3%
66.7%
80.4%
76.6%
91.8%
91.8%
84.5%
71.4%
85.9%
83.1%
84.7%
75.8%
88.8%
86.0%
93.1%
93.8%
24.7%
22.0%
29.2%
47.4%
57.1%
64.6%
69.7%
71.3%
60.4%
71.3%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
54
68.5%
88
71.6%
62
71.0%
79
62.0%
70
71.4%
54
63.0%
56
78.6%
64
76.6%
61
88.5%
61
82.0%
103
85.4%
91
68.1%
78
74.4%
89
74.2%
85
87.1%
62
71.0%
89
83.1%
57
80.7%
72
90.3%
64
93.8%
73
26.0%
82
26.8%
89
40.4%
95
57.9%
70
61.4%
99
65.7%
89
58.4%
101
66.3%
101
48.5%
87
70.1%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
51
64.7%
88
73.9%
62
85.5%
79
79.7%
70
88.6%
54
77.8%
55
78.2%
63
81.0%
61
88.5%
61
88.5%
104
82.7%
92
71.7%
77
84.4%
89
82.0%
85
87.1%
61
86.9%
89
93.3%
57
87.7%
72
93.1%
64
98.4%
73
34.2%
83
21.7%
89
38.2%
95
53.7%
70
72.9%
99
84.8%
89
77.5%
101
73.3%
101
71.3%
87
74.7%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
51
78.4%
88
69.3%
62
88.7%
79
69.6%
70
75.7%
54
55.6%
56
80.4%
64
78.1%
61
91.8%
58
86.2%
103
87.4%
91
84.6%
78
92.3%
89
89.9%
85
89.4%
62
72.6%
89
82.0%
57
89.5%
72
97.2%
64
93.8%
30
40.0%
82
37.8%
89
50.6%
95
66.3%
70
78.6%
98
81.6%
88
78.4%
101
84.2%
101
70.3%
87
80.5%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
51
45.1%
86
60.5%
62
67.7%
79
81.0%
70
82.9%
54
79.6%
55
87.3%
63
84.1%
61
96.7%
61
90.2%
101
84.2%
81
75.3%
74
87.8%
86
82.6%
85
95.3%
61
82.0%
89
79.8%
55
76.4%
72
80.6%
64
90.6%
68
47.1%
83
20.5%
88
37.5%
95
43.2%
70
91.4%
93
81.7%
85
72.9%
92
65.2%
91
79.1%
87
72.4%
G-2
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
BROOKHAVEN ES
BROWN STATION
ES
BURNING TREE
ES
BURNT MILLS ES
BURTONSVILLE
ES
CANDLEWOOD ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
67
55
58
39
59
58
55
41
66
49
84
83
77
88
83
78
93
87
99
66
132
110
108
132
123
64
61
70
55
61
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
43.3%
45.5%
50.0%
59.0%
54.2%
58.6%
50.9%
61.0%
45.5%
65.3%
82.1%
84.3%
87.0%
85.2%
83.1%
37.2%
32.3%
46.0%
46.5%
45.5%
60.6%
62.7%
63.0%
55.3%
70.7%
76.6%
72.1%
68.6%
83.6%
78.7%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
67
53.7%
55
43.6%
58
60.3%
39
59.0%
59
62.7%
58
48.3%
55
58.2%
41
53.7%
66
47.0%
49
71.4%
84
81.0%
83
88.0%
77
80.5%
88
77.3%
83
73.5%
78
42.3%
93
32.3%
87
43.7%
99
48.5%
66
53.0%
132
66.7%
110
68.2%
108
56.5%
132
41.7%
123
66.7%
64
75.0%
61
65.6%
70
77.1%
55
74.5%
61
75.4%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
65
47.7%
54
38.9%
55
61.8%
39
64.1%
59
69.5%
59
61.0%
55
61.8%
41
73.2%
65
52.3%
49
65.3%
84
89.3%
83
85.5%
77
85.7%
88
87.5%
83
84.3%
78
47.4%
93
48.4%
87
51.7%
99
56.6%
66
57.6%
132
59.8%
111
58.6%
108
57.4%
131
50.4%
123
70.7%
64
78.1%
61
77.0%
70
74.3%
55
70.9%
61
86.9%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
65
66.2%
54
59.3%
58
65.5%
39
64.1%
59
86.4%
58
72.4%
55
63.6%
40
77.5%
66
50.0%
49
81.6%
82
86.6%
83
88.0%
77
83.1%
88
78.4%
83
85.5%
78
55.1%
93
58.1%
87
59.8%
99
64.6%
66
60.6%
132
75.0%
110
83.6%
82
65.9%
131
61.8%
122
80.3%
64
90.6%
61
85.2%
70
80.0%
55
76.4%
61
86.9%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
65
36.9%
49
36.7%
57
56.1%
39
69.2%
59
78.0%
59
62.7%
55
47.3%
41
75.6%
65
50.8%
49
69.4%
77
92.2%
79
89.9%
72
84.7%
82
85.4%
75
92.0%
78
52.6%
93
39.8%
81
66.7%
96
61.5%
66
59.1%
131
63.4%
110
61.8%
108
61.1%
131
55.0%
123
76.4%
63
77.8%
61
62.3%
70
72.9%
55
76.4%
61
82.0%
G-3
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
CANNON ROAD
ES
CARDEROCK
SPRINGS ES
CARSON
(RACHEL) ES
CASHELL ES
CEDAR GROVE
ES
CLARKSBURG ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
65
55
71
67
53
62
51
55
54
60
109
123
113
121
110
73
49
55
66
58
95
93
92
103
90
58
59
55
52
76
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
49.2%
54.5%
57.7%
59.7%
67.9%
83.9%
90.2%
90.9%
90.7%
90.0%
60.6%
66.7%
68.1%
69.4%
87.3%
71.2%
79.6%
74.5%
84.8%
79.3%
66.3%
66.7%
57.6%
73.8%
81.1%
56.9%
67.8%
63.6%
44.2%
84.2%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
65
63.1%
55
58.2%
71
56.3%
67
49.3%
53
69.8%
62
83.9%
51
76.5%
55
92.7%
54
87.0%
60
90.0%
109
54.1%
123
66.7%
113
63.7%
121
66.9%
110
82.7%
73
72.6%
49
75.5%
55
83.6%
66
84.8%
58
77.6%
95
54.7%
93
63.4%
92
65.2%
103
69.9%
90
78.9%
58
53.4%
59
71.2%
55
65.5%
52
51.9%
76
81.6%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
64
54.7%
55
47.3%
71
57.7%
67
55.2%
53
71.7%
62
87.1%
51
80.4%
54
96.3%
54
100.0%
60
93.3%
109
67.9%
122
82.0%
113
62.8%
121
78.5%
110
81.8%
73
69.9%
48
87.5%
54
85.2%
66
92.4%
58
93.1%
95
74.7%
92
75.0%
92
73.9%
102
85.3%
90
87.8%
60
66.7%
58
65.5%
55
81.8%
52
63.5%
76
88.2%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
64
70.3%
55
70.9%
71
71.8%
67
62.7%
53
77.4%
62
85.5%
50
90.0%
55
96.4%
54
83.3%
59
79.7%
109
79.8%
123
80.5%
113
70.8%
121
75.2%
110
78.2%
73
86.3%
50
92.0%
55
94.5%
66
92.4%
58
82.8%
95
64.2%
93
87.1%
92
73.9%
103
75.7%
90
82.2%
59
72.9%
59
78.0%
55
83.6%
52
69.2%
76
89.5%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
59
47.5%
48
41.7%
65
66.2%
64
59.4%
53
75.5%
62
80.6%
50
70.0%
54
94.4%
54
94.4%
60
93.3%
103
60.2%
120
70.0%
113
59.3%
115
68.7%
108
80.6%
71
66.2%
50
72.0%
55
74.5%
65
86.2%
58
91.4%
95
58.9%
91
61.5%
90
60.0%
99
86.9%
90
86.7%
55
47.3%
53
66.0%
49
89.8%
49
63.3%
70
90.0%
G-4
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
CLEARSPRING ES
CLOPPER MILL ES
CLOVERLY ES
COLD SPRING ES
COLLEGE
GARDENS ES
CRESTHAVEN ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
79
69
58
69
71
77
91
88
71
67
82
75
68
68
64
39
55
38
54
46
81
61
79
78
80
96
98
80
94
96
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
67.1%
42.0%
55.2%
59.4%
67.6%
54.5%
25.3%
39.8%
40.8%
52.2%
84.1%
77.3%
79.4%
85.3%
81.3%
89.7%
94.5%
97.4%
83.3%
97.8%
58.0%
68.9%
60.8%
80.8%
77.5%
53.1%
46.9%
52.5%
42.6%
56.3%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
79
62.0%
69
44.9%
58
65.5%
69
62.3%
71
64.8%
77
45.5%
91
30.8%
88
43.2%
71
39.4%
67
55.2%
82
80.5%
75
86.7%
68
80.9%
68
76.5%
64
85.9%
39
84.6%
55
76.4%
38
94.7%
54
85.2%
46
91.3%
81
51.9%
61
70.5%
79
73.4%
78
73.1%
80
78.8%
96
52.1%
98
42.9%
80
57.5%
94
47.9%
96
59.4%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
76
61.8%
69
39.1%
57
66.7%
68
70.6%
70
74.3%
77
58.4%
91
29.7%
88
47.7%
71
49.3%
67
67.2%
81
91.4%
75
88.0%
68
83.8%
68
89.7%
63
95.2%
39
87.2%
55
92.7%
38
94.7%
54
94.4%
46
100.0%
81
66.7%
60
78.3%
80
86.3%
78
78.2%
80
78.8%
97
55.7%
98
50.0%
80
57.5%
94
59.6%
96
74.0%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
79
73.4%
69
62.3%
58
77.6%
68
70.6%
70
80.0%
77
55.8%
89
34.8%
88
51.1%
70
52.9%
67
76.1%
82
89.0%
75
90.7%
68
89.7%
68
89.7%
64
96.9%
39
87.2%
55
98.2%
38
97.4%
54
88.9%
46
100.0%
81
53.1%
61
68.9%
79
73.4%
78
75.6%
80
86.3%
96
72.9%
98
60.2%
80
76.3%
94
62.8%
96
80.2%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
77
54.5%
67
34.3%
56
66.1%
65
81.5%
70
81.4%
76
53.9%
89
36.0%
85
62.4%
70
58.6%
67
74.6%
80
86.3%
74
91.9%
68
85.3%
68
89.7%
64
95.3%
39
89.7%
55
94.5%
38
94.7%
54
90.7%
46
97.8%
81
60.5%
60
78.3%
78
96.2%
78
91.0%
80
95.0%
92
53.3%
92
48.9%
77
66.2%
91
64.8%
93
83.9%
G-5
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
DALY (CAPT.
JAMES E.) ES
DAMASCUS ES
DARNESTOWN ES
DIAMOND ES
DREW (DR.
CHARLES R.) ES
DUFIEF ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
105
106
98
89
103
54
47
63
66
53
61
64
64
76
76
78
82
59
64
75
63
58
52
53
73
71
59
71
80
90
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
38.1%
46.2%
40.8%
43.8%
51.5%
63.0%
72.3%
61.9%
60.6%
81.1%
78.7%
87.5%
92.2%
81.6%
86.8%
70.5%
52.4%
69.5%
71.9%
84.0%
44.4%
43.1%
46.2%
52.8%
57.5%
88.7%
83.1%
83.1%
91.3%
87.8%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
105
42.9%
106
50.9%
98
39.8%
89
47.2%
103
63.1%
54
57.4%
47
70.2%
63
50.8%
66
60.6%
53
71.7%
61
82.0%
64
68.8%
64
87.5%
76
77.6%
76
84.2%
78
62.8%
82
48.8%
59
69.5%
64
78.1%
75
86.7%
63
54.0%
58
56.9%
52
55.8%
53
43.4%
73
63.0%
71
90.1%
59
72.9%
71
78.9%
80
85.0%
90
93.3%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
108
59.3%
104
51.9%
96
41.7%
89
64.0%
103
65.0%
54
75.9%
47
72.3%
63
54.0%
66
62.1%
53
84.9%
61
83.6%
64
82.8%
64
96.9%
76
92.1%
75
96.0%
79
74.7%
82
63.4%
59
83.1%
62
80.6%
76
86.8%
63
60.3%
58
60.3%
52
61.5%
53
56.6%
72
66.7%
70
94.3%
59
94.9%
71
84.5%
80
90.0%
90
91.1%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
106
64.2%
106
67.0%
84
59.5%
86
53.5%
103
72.8%
54
74.1%
47
74.5%
63
77.8%
66
56.1%
53
75.5%
61
90.2%
64
92.2%
63
95.2%
76
86.8%
76
96.1%
78
78.2%
82
79.3%
59
83.1%
62
87.1%
71
84.5%
63
66.7%
58
63.8%
52
65.4%
53
52.8%
73
69.9%
70
94.3%
59
84.7%
71
88.7%
80
83.7%
90
90.0%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
108
42.6%
105
47.6%
89
39.3%
86
68.6%
103
70.9%
54
63.0%
45
51.1%
61
60.7%
66
62.1%
53
79.2%
57
64.9%
63
69.8%
63
92.1%
75
77.3%
75
94.7%
79
69.6%
80
70.0%
58
82.8%
61
83.6%
72
93.1%
63
61.9%
56
73.2%
46
76.1%
49
69.4%
73
78.1%
70
94.3%
59
84.7%
69
89.9%
76
96.1%
89
93.3%
G-6
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
EAST SILVER
SPRING ES
FAIRLAND ES
FALLSMEAD ES
FARMLAND ES
FIELDS ROAD ES
FLOWER HILL ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
107
92
78
86
67
87
82
83
73
79
85
87
92
99
82
78
92
93
86
98
97
77
92
83
86
98
75
91
85
91
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
48.6%
34.8%
48.7%
47.7%
44.8%
62.1%
37.8%
56.6%
49.3%
55.7%
75.3%
81.6%
79.3%
84.8%
85.4%
91.0%
81.5%
89.2%
87.2%
86.7%
62.9%
62.3%
60.9%
71.1%
69.8%
51.0%
56.0%
47.3%
55.3%
47.3%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
107
47.7%
93
37.6%
78
56.4%
86
40.7%
67
50.7%
87
60.9%
82
37.8%
83
59.0%
74
43.2%
79
54.4%
85
72.9%
87
80.5%
92
73.9%
99
82.8%
82
79.3%
78
89.7%
92
83.7%
93
90.3%
86
91.9%
98
82.7%
97
66.0%
77
64.9%
92
65.2%
83
71.1%
86
76.7%
98
55.1%
75
58.7%
91
54.9%
85
58.8%
91
52.7%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
107
52.3%
93
37.6%
78
55.1%
86
53.5%
66
60.6%
86
60.5%
82
41.5%
82
68.3%
74
59.5%
79
62.0%
85
78.8%
87
78.2%
91
81.3%
96
85.4%
82
86.6%
77
92.2%
92
91.3%
91
97.8%
86
89.5%
98
91.8%
97
77.3%
77
71.4%
92
73.9%
83
71.1%
86
81.4%
97
47.4%
75
53.3%
91
48.4%
85
58.8%
91
70.3%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
107
60.7%
93
52.7%
78
65.4%
86
53.5%
60
75.0%
86
90.7%
83
73.5%
83
71.1%
74
64.9%
79
58.2%
85
80.0%
87
89.7%
91
80.2%
99
86.9%
82
84.1%
78
97.4%
92
93.5%
92
97.8%
86
96.5%
98
88.8%
97
80.4%
77
80.5%
92
78.3%
83
68.7%
86
83.7%
98
69.4%
54
74.1%
91
75.8%
85
74.1%
91
73.6%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
102
45.1%
88
38.6%
75
48.0%
85
65.9%
63
73.0%
86
74.4%
82
61.0%
83
61.4%
73
69.9%
79
70.9%
84
78.6%
86
75.6%
91
80.2%
99
82.8%
82
80.5%
77
89.6%
91
95.6%
92
93.5%
86
90.7%
97
89.7%
93
76.3%
76
68.4%
90
74.4%
83
74.7%
84
79.8%
94
42.6%
75
50.7%
90
33.3%
83
71.1%
89
71.9%
G-7
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
FLOWER VALLEY
ES
FOREST KNOLLS
ES
FOX CHAPEL ES
GAITHERSBURG
ES
GALWAY ES
GARRETT PARK
ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
84
69
71
79
80
86
97
105
89
96
69
77
69
83
73
79
86
86
79
95
126
108
109
120
100
57
73
95
78
68
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
71.4%
68.1%
76.1%
83.5%
78.7%
60.5%
69.1%
66.7%
65.2%
64.6%
39.1%
45.5%
46.4%
59.0%
53.4%
36.7%
41.9%
38.4%
45.6%
55.8%
54.8%
63.9%
65.1%
42.5%
63.0%
66.7%
76.7%
87.4%
91.0%
82.4%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
84
75.0%
69
72.5%
71
76.1%
79
87.3%
80
78.8%
86
61.6%
97
70.1%
105
72.4%
89
61.8%
96
78.1%
69
33.3%
77
44.2%
69
46.4%
83
55.4%
73
63.0%
79
48.1%
86
39.5%
86
51.2%
79
51.9%
95
61.1%
126
59.5%
108
65.7%
109
69.7%
120
50.8%
100
59.0%
57
80.7%
73
76.7%
95
86.3%
78
87.2%
68
88.2%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
84
78.6%
69
81.2%
71
74.6%
79
93.7%
80
86.2%
86
65.1%
96
72.9%
104
76.0%
89
68.5%
96
80.2%
69
50.7%
77
51.9%
69
53.6%
82
58.5%
73
74.0%
79
62.0%
86
43.0%
82
42.7%
79
57.0%
95
58.9%
126
68.3%
108
81.5%
109
68.8%
120
52.5%
100
73.0%
58
72.4%
72
84.7%
95
87.4%
78
88.5%
68
85.3%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
84
79.8%
67
76.1%
68
88.2%
80
90.0%
80
83.8%
86
75.6%
97
84.5%
105
81.0%
88
77.3%
96
86.5%
69
63.8%
77
72.7%
69
60.9%
83
74.7%
73
69.9%
79
75.9%
86
57.0%
86
65.1%
79
63.3%
95
69.5%
126
77.0%
108
84.3%
109
80.7%
120
67.5%
98
80.6%
57
84.2%
72
81.9%
95
88.4%
78
88.5%
68
89.7%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
84
81.0%
67
61.2%
66
75.8%
80
91.3%
80
91.3%
82
67.1%
95
73.7%
103
80.6%
88
78.4%
96
89.6%
66
48.5%
73
47.9%
67
40.3%
80
56.3%
73
83.6%
73
54.8%
86
64.0%
86
55.8%
78
69.2%
95
68.4%
126
64.3%
108
77.8%
106
67.9%
120
63.3%
99
60.6%
58
65.5%
72
70.8%
95
77.9%
78
94.9%
68
83.8%
G-8
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
GEORGIAN
FOREST ES
GERMANTOWN
ES
GLEN HAVEN ES
GLENALLAN ES
GOSHEN ES
GREENCASTLE
ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
73
68
80
59
70
67
61
78
75
76
72
77
78
86
77
80
75
66
69
64
112
118
125
120
100
114
102
104
82
131
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
50.7%
52.9%
40.0%
54.2%
51.4%
59.7%
49.2%
60.3%
56.0%
60.5%
31.9%
24.7%
32.1%
31.4%
53.2%
52.5%
45.3%
60.6%
63.8%
59.4%
60.7%
70.3%
66.4%
68.3%
70.0%
37.7%
38.2%
47.1%
39.0%
44.3%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
73
47.9%
68
54.4%
80
42.5%
59
50.8%
70
51.4%
67
55.2%
61
44.3%
78
56.4%
75
57.3%
76
57.9%
72
41.7%
77
27.3%
78
39.7%
86
39.5%
77
71.4%
80
67.5%
75
60.0%
66
74.2%
69
68.1%
64
76.6%
112
58.9%
118
61.0%
125
61.6%
120
63.3%
100
67.0%
114
38.6%
102
33.3%
104
49.0%
82
32.9%
131
40.5%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
73
54.8%
68
64.7%
80
55.0%
59
50.8%
70
60.0%
67
59.7%
61
60.7%
78
60.3%
74
60.8%
76
56.6%
72
34.7%
76
28.9%
78
57.7%
85
36.5%
77
76.6%
79
62.0%
74
62.2%
66
66.7%
69
66.7%
64
81.2%
112
65.2%
117
66.7%
124
71.8%
120
77.5%
100
81.0%
116
44.8%
102
45.1%
104
52.9%
82
41.5%
131
59.5%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
73
54.8%
68
82.4%
80
57.5%
64
62.5%
70
60.0%
67
73.1%
61
72.1%
75
68.0%
75
70.7%
76
72.4%
71
64.8%
77
45.5%
79
72.2%
86
51.2%
77
70.1%
80
71.2%
74
64.9%
65
73.8%
69
82.6%
64
82.8%
112
79.5%
118
86.4%
124
83.9%
120
75.8%
100
80.0%
114
46.5%
102
54.9%
104
58.7%
70
54.3%
131
53.4%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
72
48.6%
66
71.2%
79
59.5%
64
57.8%
69
63.8%
67
53.7%
61
49.2%
78
52.6%
75
74.7%
76
76.3%
70
25.7%
77
20.8%
75
36.0%
83
44.6%
76
84.2%
75
64.0%
65
64.6%
64
78.1%
69
84.1%
63
74.6%
110
50.9%
117
70.1%
122
67.2%
119
74.8%
98
83.7%
115
60.9%
102
55.9%
103
67.0%
81
58.0%
131
70.2%
G-9
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
GREENWOOD ES
HARMONY HILLS
ES
HIGHLAND ES
HIGHLAND VIEW
ES
JACKSON ROAD
ES
JONES LANE ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
116
99
112
106
94
65
68
76
70
69
109
97
117
98
122
87
57
57
52
50
60
68
76
72
68
88
74
79
92
91
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
74.1%
83.8%
82.1%
80.2%
89.4%
43.1%
19.1%
42.1%
31.4%
49.3%
26.6%
33.0%
28.2%
41.8%
36.9%
57.5%
35.1%
47.4%
69.2%
64.0%
43.3%
48.5%
52.6%
40.3%
47.1%
78.4%
77.0%
83.5%
67.4%
71.4%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
116
66.4%
99
80.8%
112
83.0%
106
88.7%
94
86.2%
65
53.8%
68
33.8%
76
51.3%
70
40.0%
69
56.5%
109
37.6%
97
39.2%
117
31.6%
98
40.8%
122
48.4%
87
43.7%
57
21.1%
57
47.4%
52
67.3%
50
68.0%
60
48.3%
68
47.1%
76
51.3%
72
45.8%
68
60.3%
88
77.3%
74
79.7%
79
83.5%
92
67.4%
91
80.2%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
115
60.9%
98
84.7%
112
81.3%
106
90.6%
92
87.0%
65
55.4%
68
42.6%
76
44.7%
70
60.0%
69
69.6%
109
52.3%
97
35.1%
116
39.7%
98
51.0%
122
57.4%
88
62.5%
56
60.7%
56
55.4%
51
88.2%
50
78.0%
61
41.0%
68
55.9%
76
50.0%
72
45.8%
68
64.7%
88
81.8%
74
89.2%
79
91.1%
92
70.7%
91
78.0%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
115
75.7%
99
90.9%
112
93.8%
106
91.5%
90
88.9%
65
75.4%
68
54.4%
76
63.2%
70
71.4%
69
72.5%
109
58.7%
97
61.9%
117
47.9%
97
55.7%
122
50.0%
88
54.5%
57
45.6%
57
45.6%
52
84.6%
50
82.0%
60
53.3%
68
60.3%
76
71.1%
72
58.3%
68
72.1%
88
88.6%
74
94.6%
79
91.1%
88
81.8%
91
83.5%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
113
53.1%
96
80.2%
112
76.8%
104
93.3%
94
89.4%
64
62.5%
62
53.2%
70
52.9%
70
67.1%
69
79.7%
99
52.5%
95
45.3%
113
41.6%
97
73.2%
122
68.0%
82
58.5%
56
62.5%
55
65.5%
52
94.2%
50
80.0%
61
42.6%
66
54.5%
74
41.9%
71
66.2%
68
63.2%
84
81.0%
70
84.3%
75
93.3%
87
85.1%
91
82.4%
G-10
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
KEMP MILL ES
KENSINGTON
PARKWOOD ES
LAKE SENECA ES
LAKEWOOD ES
LAYTONSVILLE
ES
LUXMANOR ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
112
106
100
102
100
54
52
68
69
77
61
54
53
71
55
104
94
86
92
108
97
89
89
96
104
38
39
41
48
45
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
47.3%
40.6%
37.0%
35.3%
59.0%
75.9%
78.8%
83.8%
75.4%
80.5%
68.9%
66.7%
60.4%
50.7%
50.9%
77.9%
79.8%
87.2%
76.1%
88.9%
74.2%
76.4%
75.3%
75.0%
78.8%
76.3%
87.2%
85.4%
79.2%
86.7%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
112
50.0%
106
39.6%
100
35.0%
102
38.2%
100
71.0%
54
61.1%
52
76.9%
68
75.0%
69
76.8%
77
77.9%
61
63.9%
54
63.0%
53
50.9%
71
52.1%
55
49.1%
103
88.3%
94
83.0%
86
83.7%
92
83.7%
108
86.1%
97
73.2%
89
66.3%
89
68.5%
96
80.2%
104
85.6%
38
84.2%
39
79.5%
41
78.0%
48
70.8%
45
93.3%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
111
51.4%
106
47.2%
100
42.0%
101
50.5%
99
71.7%
53
79.2%
52
71.2%
68
82.4%
68
85.3%
77
79.2%
61
70.5%
54
66.7%
52
67.3%
70
52.9%
55
69.1%
103
85.4%
94
86.2%
86
89.5%
92
91.3%
108
92.6%
97
71.1%
89
75.3%
89
78.7%
96
86.5%
104
88.5%
38
94.7%
39
89.7%
41
87.8%
48
91.7%
45
88.9%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
112
67.0%
104
60.6%
100
56.0%
102
59.8%
100
79.0%
54
70.4%
52
67.3%
68
80.9%
68
88.2%
77
79.2%
61
65.6%
54
70.4%
53
64.2%
70
61.4%
55
63.6%
103
92.2%
94
88.3%
86
90.7%
92
88.0%
108
90.7%
97
66.0%
89
79.8%
89
91.0%
96
90.6%
104
94.2%
38
84.2%
39
89.7%
41
90.2%
48
79.2%
46
91.3%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
110
54.5%
104
48.1%
100
43.0%
102
60.8%
100
85.0%
49
73.5%
49
63.3%
63
77.8%
68
83.8%
73
76.7%
55
76.4%
51
72.5%
51
66.7%
70
67.1%
55
69.1%
99
81.8%
90
86.7%
85
89.4%
88
90.9%
104
97.1%
97
54.6%
89
62.9%
89
61.8%
95
88.4%
104
89.4%
38
89.5%
39
87.2%
40
82.5%
48
85.4%
46
95.7%
G-11
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
MARSHALL
(THURGOOD) ES
MARYVALE ES
MATSUNAGA
(SPARK M.) ES
MCAULIFFE (S.
CHRISTA) ES
MCNAIR (RONALD
A.) ES
MEADOW HALL
ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
73
87
75
90
102
68
90
89
88
101
111
161
180
122
122
114
111
119
151
160
96
104
107
56
66
63
56
58
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
68.5%
59.8%
69.3%
73.3%
63.7%
26.5%
34.4%
34.8%
52.3%
44.6%
64.9%
67.7%
71.7%
50.8%
45.9%
53.5%
63.1%
58.8%
61.6%
63.1%
55.2%
68.3%
76.6%
44.6%
45.5%
30.2%
50.0%
53.4%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
73
61.6%
87
60.9%
75
60.0%
90
71.1%
102
54.9%
68
35.3%
90
30.0%
89
37.1%
88
51.1%
101
51.5%
111
68.5%
161
71.4%
180
73.9%
122
47.5%
122
50.0%
114
50.0%
111
66.7%
119
62.2%
151
63.6%
160
65.0%
96
64.6%
105
71.4%
107
76.6%
56
50.0%
66
51.5%
63
36.5%
56
46.4%
58
62.1%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
75
72.0%
87
59.8%
75
64.0%
90
74.4%
100
72.0%
68
48.5%
88
47.7%
90
50.0%
88
69.3%
101
64.4%
111
74.8%
161
72.0%
181
87.8%
122
55.7%
121
47.1%
113
67.3%
110
68.2%
119
67.2%
152
72.4%
161
74.5%
96
81.2%
105
71.4%
107
90.7%
56
46.4%
66
45.5%
63
46.0%
56
39.3%
58
69.0%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
73
79.5%
87
81.6%
75
72.0%
90
70.0%
101
60.4%
68
50.0%
88
29.5%
89
39.3%
88
53.4%
101
49.5%
111
84.7%
159
83.0%
180
85.6%
122
49.2%
120
65.8%
113
57.5%
108
57.4%
119
55.5%
152
80.9%
161
85.7%
96
90.6%
105
77.1%
107
93.5%
56
60.7%
66
59.1%
62
51.6%
55
50.9%
58
60.3%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
74
54.1%
87
54.0%
75
65.3%
90
77.8%
99
68.7%
68
32.4%
88
52.3%
89
68.5%
88
78.4%
101
74.3%
111
79.3%
156
81.4%
180
87.2%
122
49.2%
120
46.7%
111
69.4%
109
82.6%
115
67.8%
152
66.4%
159
74.2%
95
78.9%
102
71.6%
107
88.8%
54
33.3%
66
48.5%
62
46.8%
56
55.4%
58
65.5%
G-12
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
MILL CREEK
TOWNE ES
MONOCACY ES
MONTGOMERY
KNOLLS ES
NEW HAMPSHIRE
ESTATES ES
OAKLAND
TERRACE ES
OLNEY ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
62
76
50
69
83
47
43
50
46
35
80
92
90
105
93
111
119
100
116
87
108
116
112
110
124
88
84
90
99
96
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
56.5%
46.1%
56.0%
71.0%
79.5%
68.1%
58.1%
56.0%
58.7%
77.1%
53.8%
48.9%
44.4%
41.0%
41.9%
27.0%
20.2%
35.0%
47.4%
40.2%
52.8%
46.6%
61.6%
62.7%
60.5%
65.9%
56.0%
70.0%
70.7%
62.5%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
62
69.4%
76
51.3%
50
64.0%
69
71.0%
83
77.1%
47
63.8%
43
48.8%
50
60.0%
46
47.8%
35
80.0%
80
45.0%
92
48.9%
90
32.2%
105
41.9%
93
45.2%
111
33.3%
119
32.8%
100
40.0%
116
50.0%
87
63.2%
108
49.1%
116
43.1%
112
56.2%
110
61.8%
124
57.3%
88
52.3%
84
64.3%
90
60.0%
99
67.7%
96
55.2%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
62
66.1%
76
59.2%
50
74.0%
69
76.8%
83
90.4%
47
76.6%
43
58.1%
50
76.0%
46
73.9%
35
80.0%
79
60.8%
92
50.0%
89
51.7%
105
57.1%
93
57.0%
112
29.5%
119
31.9%
100
58.0%
115
56.5%
86
69.8%
109
58.7%
116
52.6%
112
67.9%
109
70.6%
124
66.9%
87
70.1%
84
67.9%
90
71.1%
97
74.2%
96
67.7%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
62
66.1%
74
64.9%
50
82.0%
69
79.7%
82
79.3%
47
72.3%
43
72.1%
50
74.0%
46
65.2%
35
88.6%
80
75.0%
92
70.7%
90
67.8%
107
59.8%
93
54.8%
111
53.2%
119
39.5%
99
46.5%
115
67.0%
85
58.8%
108
67.6%
115
67.0%
112
79.5%
109
70.6%
124
69.4%
88
65.9%
84
65.5%
90
65.6%
98
65.3%
96
67.7%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
56
60.7%
73
67.1%
48
85.4%
68
94.1%
79
94.9%
44
75.0%
43
48.8%
50
58.0%
46
71.7%
35
82.9%
79
51.9%
91
36.3%
90
48.9%
107
65.4%
93
60.2%
112
36.6%
119
31.9%
99
48.5%
116
58.6%
84
88.1%
109
55.0%
115
52.2%
111
66.7%
109
72.5%
124
67.7%
84
58.3%
84
61.9%
87
66.7%
98
72.4%
96
62.5%
G-13
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
PAGE (WILLIAM
TYLER) ES
POOLESVILLE ES
POTOMAC ES
RESNIK (JUDITH
A.) ES
RIDE (DR. SALLY
K.) ES
RITCHIE PARK ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
49
69
52
52
62
80
75
64
77
91
102
108
116
116
102
116
95
100
81
105
116
128
109
110
84
57
55
50
61
55
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
46.9%
49.3%
53.8%
53.8%
53.2%
63.8%
58.7%
73.4%
59.7%
73.6%
74.5%
85.2%
82.8%
85.3%
92.2%
44.0%
53.7%
54.0%
53.1%
59.0%
57.8%
47.7%
54.1%
56.4%
60.7%
61.4%
69.1%
70.0%
68.9%
70.9%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
49
42.9%
69
52.2%
52
51.9%
52
44.2%
62
56.5%
80
53.8%
75
62.7%
64
70.3%
77
61.0%
91
68.1%
102
81.4%
108
82.4%
116
84.5%
116
84.5%
102
93.1%
116
45.7%
95
58.9%
100
57.0%
81
53.1%
105
63.8%
116
61.2%
128
49.2%
109
56.9%
110
52.7%
85
62.4%
57
57.9%
56
66.1%
50
68.0%
61
57.4%
55
76.4%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
49
57.1%
69
59.4%
52
67.3%
52
59.6%
62
77.4%
80
70.0%
75
72.0%
64
85.9%
76
75.0%
90
83.3%
102
87.3%
108
86.1%
116
90.5%
117
89.7%
102
93.1%
117
52.1%
95
61.1%
100
64.0%
81
67.9%
105
79.0%
117
56.4%
129
48.1%
109
58.7%
110
62.7%
85
71.8%
59
81.4%
56
64.3%
50
70.0%
61
67.2%
55
87.3%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
49
69.4%
69
65.2%
52
65.4%
52
71.2%
62
77.4%
80
65.0%
75
65.3%
64
87.5%
75
58.7%
90
66.7%
102
83.3%
107
89.7%
116
94.8%
116
89.7%
102
94.1%
116
69.0%
95
80.0%
100
78.0%
81
76.5%
105
76.2%
117
71.8%
128
58.6%
109
69.7%
110
73.6%
85
76.5%
57
80.7%
56
67.9%
50
82.0%
61
65.6%
55
76.4%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
45
48.9%
67
73.1%
52
73.1%
52
67.3%
56
83.9%
79
57.0%
75
45.3%
64
57.8%
77
70.1%
91
74.7%
101
77.2%
107
82.2%
117
84.6%
116
86.2%
102
89.2%
114
54.4%
95
58.9%
99
69.7%
81
72.8%
105
77.1%
113
53.1%
128
39.8%
104
55.8%
109
72.5%
84
72.6%
59
79.7%
56
71.4%
50
72.0%
61
68.9%
55
83.6%
G-14
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
ROCK CREEK
FOREST ES
ROCK CREEK
VALLEY ES
ROCK VIEW ES
ROCKWELL (LOIS
P.) ES
ROLLING
TERRACE ES
ROSEMARY HILLS
ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
93
83
86
86
84
41
57
46
43
48
75
72
84
79
71
83
79
82
65
66
101
107
98
122
104
175
193
167
169
155
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
62.4%
69.9%
67.4%
65.1%
52.4%
43.9%
47.4%
50.0%
44.2%
56.2%
44.0%
45.8%
41.7%
53.2%
59.2%
63.9%
68.4%
72.0%
63.1%
84.8%
49.5%
47.7%
46.9%
49.2%
53.8%
72.6%
72.5%
77.2%
76.9%
81.3%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
93
67.7%
83
74.7%
86
61.6%
86
69.8%
84
52.4%
41
41.5%
57
57.9%
46
67.4%
43
55.8%
48
50.0%
75
53.3%
72
48.6%
84
52.4%
79
58.2%
71
71.8%
83
59.0%
79
63.3%
82
62.2%
65
69.2%
66
80.3%
101
57.4%
107
48.6%
98
46.9%
122
55.7%
104
60.6%
175
70.9%
193
68.4%
167
74.3%
168
75.6%
155
85.2%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
93
71.0%
83
79.5%
86
81.4%
86
79.1%
82
67.1%
40
55.0%
56
58.9%
45
57.8%
43
46.5%
48
58.3%
75
48.0%
72
41.7%
84
48.8%
78
52.6%
71
64.8%
82
72.0%
79
73.4%
82
76.8%
65
84.6%
66
84.8%
101
64.4%
107
53.3%
98
52.0%
122
58.2%
104
65.4%
174
69.5%
194
76.8%
167
82.0%
169
78.7%
156
82.1%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
93
78.5%
83
89.2%
86
72.1%
86
83.7%
84
76.2%
40
45.0%
57
78.9%
46
76.1%
42
78.6%
48
72.9%
75
62.7%
72
58.3%
84
60.7%
79
73.4%
71
76.1%
84
60.7%
79
77.2%
82
74.4%
51
74.5%
66
84.8%
101
64.4%
107
51.4%
98
66.3%
122
60.7%
104
72.1%
175
76.6%
192
75.5%
167
87.4%
169
79.3%
156
88.5%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
93
73.1%
83
83.1%
86
79.1%
86
77.9%
82
69.5%
40
42.5%
53
54.7%
44
52.3%
41
68.3%
41
82.9%
74
47.3%
72
43.1%
80
55.0%
76
75.0%
67
74.6%
69
56.5%
79
62.0%
82
62.2%
65
84.6%
66
81.8%
101
59.4%
107
60.7%
96
78.1%
121
76.0%
104
77.9%
174
64.4%
181
71.8%
167
83.2%
169
83.4%
155
85.8%
G-15
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
ROSEMONT ES
SEQUOYAH ES
SEVEN LOCKS ES
SHERWOOD ES
SLIGO CREEK ES
SOMERSET ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
84
76
76
70
72
94
98
85
77
86
50
42
40
38
45
74
80
86
79
69
47
110
109
115
121
74
74
66
78
58
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
27.4%
36.8%
36.8%
45.7%
50.0%
57.4%
48.0%
62.4%
54.5%
57.0%
82.0%
73.8%
85.0%
92.1%
82.2%
63.5%
56.3%
69.8%
73.4%
63.8%
57.4%
62.7%
55.0%
64.3%
61.2%
86.5%
81.1%
93.9%
92.3%
86.2%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
84
33.3%
76
51.3%
76
40.8%
70
50.0%
72
58.3%
94
64.9%
98
48.0%
85
72.9%
77
62.3%
86
58.1%
50
76.0%
42
66.7%
40
90.0%
38
89.5%
45
73.3%
74
59.5%
80
55.0%
86
66.3%
79
59.5%
69
66.7%
47
51.1%
110
58.2%
109
46.8%
115
54.8%
121
57.9%
74
87.8%
74
78.4%
66
87.9%
78
83.3%
58
81.0%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
83
26.5%
76
46.1%
76
27.6%
70
45.7%
72
63.9%
94
76.6%
98
67.3%
85
68.2%
76
64.5%
86
75.6%
50
88.0%
42
90.5%
40
92.5%
38
100.0%
45
91.1%
75
77.3%
80
67.5%
86
75.6%
79
75.9%
70
70.0%
54
64.8%
114
60.5%
113
60.2%
115
72.2%
122
74.6%
73
86.3%
74
74.3%
66
78.8%
77
89.6%
58
86.2%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
82
43.9%
75
54.7%
76
51.3%
58
67.2%
72
56.9%
94
83.0%
98
68.4%
85
81.2%
77
80.5%
86
67.4%
50
90.0%
42
81.0%
40
90.0%
38
94.7%
45
77.8%
74
78.4%
80
80.0%
86
74.4%
79
70.9%
70
72.9%
47
59.6%
110
65.5%
109
65.1%
115
63.5%
121
57.9%
73
90.4%
74
90.5%
66
87.9%
77
87.0%
58
86.2%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
82
24.4%
74
58.1%
75
32.0%
69
53.6%
68
69.1%
89
79.8%
96
74.0%
84
76.2%
74
62.2%
86
83.7%
50
88.0%
39
82.1%
40
90.0%
38
94.7%
44
88.6%
75
73.3%
79
60.8%
86
72.1%
79
72.2%
70
65.7%
54
64.8%
113
61.1%
112
64.3%
115
80.9%
122
79.5%
73
76.7%
74
75.7%
66
80.3%
77
80.5%
58
86.2%
G-16
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
SOUTH LAKE ES
STEDWICK ES
STONE MILL ES
STONEGATE ES
STRAWBERRY
KNOLL ES
SUMMIT HALL ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
80
79
75
94
91
84
84
109
95
102
129
116
128
112
106
72
80
69
76
61
83
87
87
94
96
73
81
67
93
82
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
42.5%
49.4%
42.7%
55.3%
56.0%
65.5%
64.3%
63.3%
53.7%
63.7%
84.5%
91.4%
85.9%
75.9%
90.6%
73.6%
77.5%
75.4%
75.0%
78.7%
57.8%
47.1%
55.2%
56.4%
52.1%
27.4%
44.4%
32.8%
44.1%
40.2%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
80
48.8%
79
48.1%
75
40.0%
94
54.3%
91
48.4%
84
65.5%
84
61.9%
109
60.6%
95
52.6%
102
63.7%
129
79.8%
116
81.0%
128
85.9%
112
83.9%
106
92.5%
72
77.8%
80
83.7%
69
56.5%
76
71.1%
61
85.2%
83
61.4%
87
50.6%
87
63.2%
94
58.5%
96
72.9%
73
32.9%
81
44.4%
67
28.4%
93
38.7%
82
52.4%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
80
38.7%
79
48.1%
75
33.3%
94
61.7%
91
58.2%
85
74.1%
84
69.0%
109
67.0%
95
62.1%
102
65.7%
129
89.1%
115
96.5%
126
92.1%
112
86.6%
106
92.5%
72
75.0%
80
87.5%
69
75.4%
76
82.9%
61
91.8%
86
46.5%
87
44.8%
87
65.5%
94
69.1%
95
75.8%
73
34.2%
80
43.8%
67
43.3%
93
60.2%
82
68.3%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
80
65.0%
78
56.4%
75
61.3%
94
69.1%
91
59.3%
84
78.6%
84
73.8%
109
86.2%
95
74.7%
102
72.5%
129
89.9%
116
94.8%
127
93.7%
109
94.5%
106
93.4%
72
88.9%
80
92.5%
69
88.4%
76
90.8%
62
88.7%
82
79.3%
87
67.8%
87
79.3%
94
83.0%
96
77.1%
73
50.7%
81
64.2%
67
62.7%
93
51.6%
82
70.7%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
80
48.7%
77
48.1%
73
42.5%
92
72.8%
90
75.6%
85
65.9%
84
44.0%
108
51.9%
94
75.5%
102
70.6%
126
77.8%
115
90.4%
125
88.8%
112
88.4%
106
96.2%
72
84.7%
80
93.7%
68
79.4%
76
92.1%
62
95.2%
86
43.0%
86
38.4%
86
58.1%
94
71.3%
94
76.6%
67
28.4%
78
42.3%
65
53.8%
91
67.0%
79
67.1%
G-17
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
TAKOMA PARK ES
TRAVILAH ES
TWINBROOK ES
VIERS MILL ES
WASHINGTON
GROVE ES
WATERS
LANDING ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
163
135
121
102
118
91
96
86
82
73
67
81
92
84
87
106
116
86
103
103
53
58
63
66
63
113
84
110
96
110
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
70.6%
63.0%
62.0%
56.9%
76.3%
82.4%
76.0%
89.5%
87.8%
89.0%
55.2%
51.9%
39.1%
50.0%
55.2%
44.3%
39.7%
53.5%
49.5%
62.1%
50.9%
48.3%
52.4%
42.4%
69.8%
61.1%
52.4%
61.8%
71.9%
66.4%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
163
68.7%
135
67.4%
121
57.0%
102
51.0%
118
72.0%
91
87.9%
96
79.2%
86
81.4%
82
85.4%
73
83.6%
67
49.3%
81
45.7%
92
44.6%
84
65.5%
86
64.0%
106
45.3%
116
47.4%
86
44.2%
103
49.5%
103
60.2%
53
50.9%
58
44.8%
63
57.1%
66
42.4%
63
71.4%
113
58.4%
84
61.9%
110
63.6%
96
79.2%
110
69.1%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
166
69.3%
135
73.3%
121
73.6%
102
58.8%
118
78.8%
91
92.3%
96
76.0%
86
83.7%
82
92.7%
73
87.7%
67
67.2%
80
58.7%
91
51.6%
84
73.8%
86
69.8%
106
54.7%
116
54.3%
86
66.3%
102
71.6%
103
80.6%
53
56.6%
58
50.0%
63
46.0%
66
43.9%
61
72.1%
112
56.2%
84
51.2%
110
51.8%
95
70.5%
110
75.5%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
163
70.6%
135
65.9%
121
60.3%
102
56.9%
118
78.0%
91
93.4%
96
83.3%
85
90.6%
81
96.3%
73
86.3%
67
77.6%
80
71.2%
91
57.1%
84
81.0%
86
74.4%
106
51.9%
116
58.6%
85
69.4%
103
74.8%
103
76.7%
53
71.7%
58
55.2%
62
67.7%
66
37.9%
63
79.4%
110
74.5%
84
77.4%
109
72.5%
96
81.2%
110
74.5%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
165
66.7%
135
65.2%
121
71.9%
102
60.8%
117
79.5%
91
73.6%
96
71.9%
85
71.8%
80
90.0%
73
87.7%
65
67.7%
76
71.1%
87
69.0%
80
76.2%
82
73.2%
106
48.1%
116
63.8%
85
77.6%
103
84.5%
103
96.1%
46
63.0%
53
45.3%
58
56.9%
62
50.0%
57
78.9%
111
55.0%
84
48.8%
108
59.3%
94
75.5%
110
80.0%
G-18
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
WATKINS MILL ES
WAYSIDE ES
WELLER ROAD ES
WESTBROOK ES
WESTOVER ES
WHEATON
WOODS ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
81
93
74
83
97
111
97
115
110
108
99
101
98
88
95
54
47
56
44
48
63
43
43
54
43
87
90
93
87
106
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
59.3%
48.4%
52.7%
63.9%
58.8%
84.7%
83.5%
78.3%
87.3%
88.9%
38.4%
46.5%
36.7%
48.9%
44.2%
85.2%
91.5%
87.5%
93.2%
91.7%
58.7%
60.5%
74.4%
72.2%
76.7%
42.5%
34.4%
38.7%
51.7%
46.2%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
81
59.3%
93
51.6%
74
56.8%
83
68.7%
97
61.9%
111
83.8%
97
88.7%
115
79.1%
110
80.0%
108
87.0%
99
45.5%
101
48.5%
98
46.9%
88
56.8%
95
45.3%
54
64.8%
47
85.1%
56
87.5%
44
93.2%
48
89.6%
63
58.7%
43
48.8%
43
58.1%
54
63.0%
43
60.5%
87
49.4%
90
46.7%
93
45.2%
87
46.0%
106
65.1%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
81
53.1%
92
62.0%
74
70.3%
83
68.7%
97
75.3%
110
90.0%
96
84.4%
114
86.8%
109
87.2%
107
93.5%
99
48.5%
101
49.5%
97
53.6%
88
65.9%
95
68.4%
54
81.5%
47
87.2%
56
85.7%
44
95.5%
48
93.8%
63
69.8%
43
65.1%
43
67.4%
54
61.1%
43
69.8%
89
46.1%
89
57.3%
93
51.6%
87
71.3%
105
71.4%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
81
69.1%
91
71.4%
74
60.8%
83
83.1%
97
75.3%
111
92.8%
97
91.8%
115
90.4%
111
91.0%
107
95.3%
99
68.7%
101
81.2%
97
64.9%
88
73.9%
95
72.6%
54
70.4%
47
85.1%
56
94.6%
44
88.6%
48
87.5%
62
75.8%
43
74.4%
43
72.1%
54
85.2%
43
86.0%
87
64.4%
90
65.6%
93
60.2%
86
70.9%
106
70.8%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
81
39.5%
91
59.3%
71
69.0%
79
81.0%
97
75.3%
110
88.2%
96
83.3%
114
83.3%
111
87.4%
107
94.4%
98
54.1%
101
59.4%
97
53.6%
88
75.0%
95
82.1%
52
65.4%
47
83.0%
55
81.8%
44
86.4%
48
91.7%
61
57.4%
42
66.7%
41
61.0%
52
53.8%
43
65.1%
89
48.3%
89
57.3%
89
60.7%
85
89.4%
104
82.7%
G-19
Attachment G
Performance of Grade 2 Students on CTBS Subtests for each Elementary School
Percentage of Scores At or Above the 50th National Percentile (NP)
Reading
WHETSTONE ES
WOOD ACRES ES
WOODFIELD ES
WOODLIN ES
WYNGATE ES
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number
Tested
90
98
85
109
91
83
102
83
98
114
75
78
85
86
73
91
83
72
65
68
92
74
100
87
84
Pct.
At/Above
50th NP
47.8%
50.0%
49.4%
55.0%
67.0%
91.6%
89.2%
89.2%
82.7%
86.8%
65.3%
73.1%
80.0%
70.9%
84.9%
60.4%
57.8%
62.5%
69.2%
80.9%
89.1%
78.4%
85.0%
81.6%
95.2%
Language
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
90
56.7%
98
62.2%
85
49.4%
109
53.2%
91
65.9%
83
88.0%
102
89.2%
83
88.0%
98
81.6%
114
76.3%
75
65.3%
78
61.5%
85
67.1%
86
58.1%
73
67.1%
91
72.5%
83
63.9%
72
59.7%
65
69.2%
68
76.5%
92
78.3%
74
89.2%
100
84.0%
87
85.1%
84
94.0%
Mathematics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
89
66.3%
98
64.3%
85
56.5%
109
69.7%
91
79.1%
83
85.5%
102
91.2%
84
91.7%
97
86.6%
114
86.8%
75
82.7%
78
87.2%
86
80.2%
86
74.4%
73
86.3%
91
74.7%
83
65.1%
72
70.8%
65
78.5%
68
77.9%
90
87.8%
74
82.4%
100
86.0%
87
73.6%
84
96.4%
Language Mechanics
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
90
73.3%
98
75.5%
85
70.6%
109
71.6%
91
79.1%
83
89.2%
102
91.2%
83
95.2%
97
91.8%
114
87.7%
75
76.0%
78
91.0%
86
87.2%
86
76.7%
73
76.7%
91
72.5%
82
70.7%
72
69.4%
65
64.6%
69
79.7%
92
90.2%
74
91.9%
100
94.0%
87
89.7%
84
97.6%
Math Computation
Pct.
At/Above
Number
50th NP
Tested
89
71.9%
95
67.4%
81
71.6%
106
80.2%
91
84.6%
83
68.7%
102
73.5%
84
71.4%
97
75.3%
114
63.2%
75
69.3%
78
89.7%
84
79.8%
86
80.2%
72
91.7%
91
63.7%
77
57.1%
72
56.9%
63
85.7%
69
85.5%
90
73.3%
74
78.4%
100
82.0%
87
82.8%
84
90.5%
G-20
Attachment H
School by School Results
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
ASHBURTON ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
61
80
83
98
82
73
73
82
61
80
83
98
82
82
82
82
61
80
83
97
87
83
79
79
61
80
83
98
94
87
87
77
61
79
83
97
90
90
90
83
BANNOCKBURN ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
56
62
81
66
90
90
90
90
56
62
81
66
95
82
82
82
56
62
81
66
87
87
87
94
56
62
81
66
94
77
87
87
56
62
80
65
90
83
76
90
LUCY V. BARNSLEY ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
69
53
72
79
73
73
73
64
69
53
72
79
68
68
68
68
69
53
72
79
79
70
79
79
69
53
72
79
77
65
77
87
69
53
69
79
76
58
83
83
BEALL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
90
100
107
72
64
64
73
69
90
100
107
72
68
55
68
82
90
100
103
72
60
70
79
79
90
100
106
72
87
77
87
94
90
99
101
72
58
76
83
87
BEL PRE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
123
170
153
134
64
47
64
69
123
170
153
134
68
43
68
68
123
170
153
134
52
60
70
79
123
170
153
133
77
65
77
87
123
169
153
133
58
76
83
83
BELLS MILL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
82
76
75
84
82
82
82
90
82
76
75
84
82
82
82
95
82
76
74
84
87
79
79
87
82
75
73
84
87
87
87
94
82
75
73
83
90
90
90
90
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
BELMONT ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
85
62
79
70
73
73
73
73
85
62
79
70
68
68
68
68
85
62
79
70
70
75
79
79
85
62
79
70
77
77
77
77
85
62
79
70
68
76
83
76
BETHESDA ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
54
64
61
61
82
82
90
90
54
64
61
61
68
82
82
82
53
63
61
61
79
87
87
87
54
64
61
58
77
87
94
91
54
63
61
61
90
90
94
94
BEVERLY FARMS ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
78
78
89
85
82
82
82
90
78
78
89
85
82
82
68
82
79
77
89
85
79
79
87
94
78
78
89
85
94
87
94
94
79
74
86
85
83
83
83
94
BRADLEY HILLS ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
85
58
72
64
90
86
90
90
85
58
72
64
82
68
82
82
85
58
72
64
94
87
94
94
85
58
72
64
87
87
94
94
85
56
72
64
83
83
83
90
BROAD ACRES ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
80
88
95
70
29
34
47
55
80
88
95
70
27
43
55
55
81
88
95
70
22
35
52
65
80
88
95
70
36
55
65
77
81
87
95
70
24
49
49
94
BROOKE GROVE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
83
100
101
87
73
73
64
73
83
100
101
87
55
68
43
68
83
100
101
87
79
70
70
79
82
100
101
87
77
77
77
77
83
91
91
87
76
68
83
83
BROOKHAVEN ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
45
58
39
59
47
51
55
64
45
58
39
59
43
55
55
55
45
55
39
59
43
60
60
70
45
58
39
59
77
55
65
87
45
57
39
59
40
58
76
83
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
BROWN STATION ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
49
41
66
49
55
55
47
64
49
41
66
49
55
55
43
68
49
41
65
49
60
70
52
60
49
40
66
49
65
77
50
77
49
41
65
49
49
68
58
83
BURNING TREE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
75
78
88
83
90
86
90
90
75
78
88
83
82
82
82
82
75
78
88
83
87
87
87
87
75
78
88
83
94
87
87
87
75
73
82
75
83
83
90
90
BURNT MILLS ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
90
87
99
66
40
47
47
47
90
87
99
66
35
43
43
55
90
87
99
66
43
52
52
52
90
87
99
66
65
65
65
65
90
81
96
66
40
83
58
68
BURTONSVILLE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
108
109
132
123
73
64
55
64
108
109
132
123
68
55
43
68
108
109
131
123
60
60
52
70
108
83
131
122
87
65
65
87
108
109
131
123
83
68
58
83
CANDLEWOOD ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
61
71
55
61
73
73
82
82
61
71
55
61
68
68
82
82
61
71
55
61
70
70
70
87
61
71
55
61
87
87
87
87
61
71
55
61
76
83
90
83
CANNON ROAD ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
45
70
67
53
55
64
55
73
45
70
67
53
55
68
43
68
45
70
67
53
43
52
60
79
45
70
67
53
65
65
65
77
45
64
64
53
49
68
68
76
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
CARDEROCK SPRINGS ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
48
55
54
60
90
90
90
90
48
55
54
60
68
95
82
82
48
54
54
60
70
94
94
87
48
55
54
59
87
87
77
77
48
54
54
60
76
94
90
90
RACHEL CARSON ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
117
113
121
110
73
73
73
82
117
113
121
110
68
68
68
82
117
113
121
110
79
60
79
79
117
113
121
110
77
87
77
77
117
113
115
108
76
68
76
76
CASHELL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
48
55
66
58
90
73
90
82
48
55
66
58
82
82
82
82
47
54
66
58
79
83
94
94
49
55
66
58
94
94
87
87
49
55
65
58
83
76
83
90
CEDAR GROVE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
89
92
103
90
73
60
73
82
89
92
103
90
55
68
68
82
89
92
102
90
70
70
87
87
89
92
103
90
87
77
77
94
89
90
99
90
68
68
90
90
CLARKSBURG ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
50
55
52
76
64
64
40
90
50
55
52
76
68
68
55
82
49
55
52
76
70
79
60
94
50
55
52
76
77
87
65
94
50
49
49
70
83
83
68
94
CLEARSPRING ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
66
58
69
71
40
60
64
73
66
58
69
71
43
68
68
55
66
57
68
70
43
70
79
70
66
58
68
70
65
77
77
87
66
56
65
70
40
72
83
83
CLOPPER MILL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
84
87
71
67
29
40
29
55
84
87
71
67
35
35
43
55
84
87
71
67
22
43
43
60
82
87
70
67
36
55
55
77
84
84
70
67
40
68
58
83
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
CLOVERLY ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
73
68
68
64
82
73
82
82
73
68
68
64
82
82
82
95
73
68
68
63
87
83
87
87
73
68
68
64
87
87
94
94
73
68
68
64
90
90
90
94
COLD SPRING ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
55
38
54
46
90
93
90
90
55
38
54
46
68
82
82
95
55
38
54
46
79
94
94
94
55
38
54
46
94
98
94
98
55
38
54
46
94
94
94
94
COLLEGE GARDENS ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
58
80
78
80
73
64
73
82
58
80
78
80
68
68
68
82
58
81
78
80
87
70
87
87
58
80
78
80
77
77
77
87
58
79
78
80
90
90
94
94
CRESTHAVEN ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
90
82
94
96
47
55
40
55
90
82
94
96
43
55
43
55
90
82
94
96
52
52
52
70
90
82
94
96
65
77
65
87
90
79
91
93
49
68
68
90
CAPT. JAMES DALY ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
101
98
89
103
47
40
47
55
101
98
89
103
55
35
43
68
100
96
89
103
52
35
60
70
101
84
86
103
65
55
55
77
101
89
86
103
49
40
76
76
DAMASCUS ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
43
63
66
53
73
55
64
82
43
63
66
53
82
55
55
68
43
63
66
53
70
52
65
79
43
63
66
53
77
77
55
77
43
61
66
53
49
68
80
90
DARNESTOWN ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
64
64
76
76
90
90
82
90
64
64
76
76
68
95
82
95
64
64
76
75
79
87
87
94
64
63
76
76
87
94
87
94
64
63
75
75
76
90
83
90
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
DIAMOND ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
80
59
64
75
64
82
73
73
80
59
64
75
43
68
68
82
80
59
62
76
70
87
79
87
80
59
62
71
87
87
87
87
80
58
61
72
76
83
83
90
CHARLES R. DREW ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
50
52
53
73
47
47
55
55
50
52
53
73
68
55
43
68
50
52
53
72
79
60
52
60
50
52
53
73
77
77
55
87
50
47
49
73
90
76
76
83
DUFIEF ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
55
71
80
90
82
82
90
82
55
71
80
90
82
68
82
95
55
71
80
90
79
87
94
94
55
71
80
90
77
87
94
94
55
69
76
89
94
90
94
94
EAST SILVER SPRING ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
84
79
86
67
40
47
47
47
85
79
86
67
35
55
43
55
85
79
86
66
43
52
52
60
85
79
86
60
55
65
55
65
85
76
85
63
40
49
76
76
FAIRLAND ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
80
84
73
79
47
55
47
64
80
84
74
79
35
55
43
55
80
83
74
79
43
60
60
60
81
84
74
79
77
77
65
55
81
84
73
79
58
68
76
76
FALLSMEAD ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
81
93
99
82
82
82
82
82
81
93
99
82
82
82
82
82
81
92
96
82
87
87
87
94
81
92
99
82
87
87
87
87
81
92
99
82
90
87
90
87
FARMLAND ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
87
93
86
98
82
90
82
90
87
93
86
98
82
82
95
82
87
91
86
98
87
87
87
87
87
92
86
98
94
94
94
94
87
92
86
97
90
94
94
90
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
FIELDS ROAD ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
74
92
83
86
64
73
73
73
74
92
83
86
68
68
68
82
74
92
83
86
79
79
79
79
74
92
83
86
87
94
77
87
74
90
83
84
76
83
76
83
FLOWER HILL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
71
92
85
91
64
47
55
47
71
92
85
91
55
55
55
55
71
92
85
91
52
43
60
60
50
92
85
91
77
77
77
77
71
91
83
89
58
40
83
76
FLOWER VALLEY ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
66
72
79
80
73
73
90
82
66
72
79
80
68
68
82
82
66
72
79
80
70
75
87
87
64
69
80
80
77
94
94
94
66
67
80
80
68
76
90
90
FOREST KNOLLS ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
92
106
89
96
73
73
73
73
92
106
89
96
68
82
68
68
92
105
89
96
79
70
70
79
92
106
88
96
87
87
77
94
92
104
88
96
83
90
83
90
FOX CHAPEL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
70
71
83
73
47
47
64
55
70
71
83
73
43
43
55
68
70
71
82
73
52
52
60
70
70
71
83
73
65
55
65
77
70
69
80
73
49
40
58
90
GAITHERSBURG ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
84
88
79
95
34
40
47
55
84
88
79
95
35
49
55
55
84
84
79
95
43
39
52
52
84
88
79
95
65
65
65
77
84
88
78
95
76
58
76
76
GALWAY ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
103
109
120
100
64
64
47
64
103
109
120
100
68
68
55
55
103
109
120
100
87
70
52
70
103
109
120
98
94
87
77
82
103
106
120
99
90
68
68
68
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
GARRETT PARK ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
66
95
78
68
73
90
82
78
66
95
78
68
82
82
82
68
66
95
78
68
79
79
83
94
66
95
78
68
87
94
87
87
66
95
78
68
76
90
94
90
GEORGIAN FOREST ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
64
80
59
70
55
47
55
55
64
80
59
70
55
43
55
55
64
80
59
70
60
52
52
60
64
80
64
70
87
55
65
55
64
79
64
69
83
68
68
83
GERMANTOWN ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
55
78
75
76
55
55
55
64
55
78
75
76
43
55
55
68
55
78
74
76
60
60
60
52
55
75
75
76
77
65
65
77
55
78
75
76
58
58
83
76
GLEN HAVEN ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
69
77
86
77
29
34
34
55
69
77
86
77
27
43
35
68
68
77
85
77
29
52
35
79
69
78
86
77
45
65
55
77
69
74
83
76
24
40
49
90
GLENALLAN ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
64
66
69
64
47
55
64
64
64
66
69
64
68
68
68
82
64
66
69
64
60
65
70
83
64
65
69
64
77
77
77
91
64
64
69
63
58
80
83
90
GOSHEN ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
114
126
120
100
73
69
73
82
114
126
120
100
68
55
68
82
113
125
120
100
70
79
79
79
114
125
120
100
87
77
77
87
114
122
119
98
76
68
83
90
GREENCASTLE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
101
105
82
131
40
47
40
40
101
105
82
131
35
43
35
43
101
105
82
131
43
52
39
52
100
105
70
131
55
65
55
55
101
104
81
131
58
68
58
76
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
GREENWOOD ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
90
112
106
94
82
82
82
82
90
112
106
94
82
82
82
82
90
112
106
92
87
87
87
87
90
112
106
90
87
94
94
94
90
112
104
94
76
83
90
90
HARMONY HILLS ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
61
75
70
69
34
47
40
47
61
75
70
69
35
55
43
55
61
75
70
69
43
43
52
70
61
75
70
69
55
65
71
65
61
69
70
69
58
58
83
83
HIGHLAND ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
88
118
98
122
40
29
44
40
88
118
98
122
43
35
43
43
88
117
98
122
43
35
52
52
89
118
97
122
65
45
55
50
89
114
97
122
49
49
76
76
HIGHLAND VIEW ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
55
56
52
50
34
44
82
73
55
56
52
50
35
43
68
68
54
55
51
50
60
60
87
79
55
56
52
50
45
41
77
82
55
54
52
50
76
76
83
83
JACKSON ROAD ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
64
76
72
68
47
55
47
47
64
76
72
68
43
55
43
55
64
76
72
68
60
48
43
70
64
76
72
68
65
77
60
77
64
74
71
68
58
49
68
68
JONES LANE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
67
79
92
91
82
82
73
82
67
79
92
91
82
82
82
82
67
79
92
91
87
87
75
79
67
79
88
91
94
94
87
87
67
75
87
91
90
90
90
83
KEMP MILL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
102
100
102
100
40
40
34
55
102
100
102
100
35
35
39
68
102
100
101
99
43
35
52
60
102
100
102
100
55
55
55
82
102
100
102
100
49
49
68
83
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
KENSINGTON PARKWOOD ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
40
68
69
77
90
82
82
82
40
68
69
77
82
82
82
82
40
68
68
77
79
87
87
87
40
68
68
77
87
82
87
77
40
63
68
73
83
83
83
90
LAKE SENECA ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
49
53
71
55
64
55
55
55
49
53
71
55
55
55
55
43
49
52
70
55
70
70
52
70
49
53
70
55
77
65
65
55
49
51
70
55
83
68
72
68
LAKEWOOD ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
84
86
92
108
82
82
82
82
84
86
92
108
82
82
82
82
84
86
92
108
87
87
87
87
84
86
92
108
94
94
87
87
84
85
88
104
83
90
94
94
LAYTONSVILLE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
87
89
96
104
73
73
73
78
87
89
96
104
68
68
68
68
87
89
96
104
70
70
87
87
87
89
96
104
87
87
87
94
87
89
95
104
58
58
83
94
LUXMANOR ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
39
41
48
45
90
90
82
82
39
41
48
45
82
82
68
82
39
41
48
45
87
87
79
94
39
41
48
46
87
94
77
87
39
40
48
46
83
83
76
94
THURGOOD MARSHALL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
84
75
90
102
64
73
82
64
84
75
90
102
55
68
68
55
84
75
90
100
60
60
70
70
84
75
90
101
77
77
77
65
84
75
90
99
58
76
72
76
MARYVALE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
87
91
88
101
34
34
55
47
87
91
88
101
35
35
55
55
87
91
88
101
43
43
79
70
86
90
88
101
36
36
55
45
87
90
88
101
58
76
90
83
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
SPARK M. MATSUNAGA ES
2
2002
2003
2004
112
161
180
73
73
73
112
161
180
68
68
75
112
161
181
79
70
79
112
159
180
87
87
87
112
156
180
83
90
90
S. CHRISTA MCAULIFFE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
116
113
111
119
47
55
64
64
116
113
111
119
55
55
68
68
116
112
110
119
43
60
70
60
116
112
108
119
65
55
55
55
116
110
109
115
49
76
90
76
RONALD A. MCNAIR ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
155
96
104
107
64
64
73
73
155
96
105
107
68
68
68
82
155
96
105
107
79
79
60
87
155
96
105
107
87
87
77
87
155
95
102
107
83
83
76
90
MEADOW HALL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
60
63
56
58
47
34
51
60
60
63
56
58
55
35
43
68
60
63
56
58
43
43
39
65
60
62
55
58
65
55
55
65
60
62
56
58
58
49
58
72
MILL CREEK TOWNE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
68
49
69
83
47
55
82
82
68
49
69
83
55
68
68
82
68
49
69
83
60
79
87
87
67
49
69
82
65
87
94
94
68
48
68
79
76
90
94
94
MONOCACY ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
34
50
46
35
55
64
64
73
34
50
46
35
55
55
43
82
34
50
46
35
52
70
70
79
34
50
46
35
65
65
65
87
34
50
46
35
58
72
76
90
MONTGOMERY KNOLLS ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
89
90
105
93
47
47
40
40
89
90
105
93
43
35
35
43
89
89
105
93
52
52
60
52
89
90
107
93
65
77
55
55
89
90
107
93
40
49
68
58
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
NEW HAMPSHIRE ESTATES ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
115
100
116
87
29
34
47
40
115
100
116
87
35
43
49
68
115
100
115
86
29
52
52
70
115
99
115
85
45
45
65
65
115
99
116
84
31
49
58
87
OAKLAND TERRACE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
112
112
110
124
47
60
64
64
112
112
110
124
43
55
62
55
112
112
109
124
52
70
60
65
112
112
109
124
65
77
65
71
112
111
109
124
58
68
76
68
OLNEY ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
80
90
99
96
55
64
82
73
80
90
99
96
55
62
68
55
80
90
97
96
60
70
79
70
80
90
98
96
55
65
77
77
80
87
98
96
68
76
76
68
WILLIAM TYLER PAGE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
64
52
52
62
47
55
55
55
64
52
52
62
55
55
43
55
64
52
52
62
60
60
60
70
64
52
52
62
77
60
77
87
64
52
52
56
68
90
76
83
POOLESVILLE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
69
65
77
91
73
73
64
73
69
65
77
91
68
68
55
68
69
65
76
90
70
70
70
87
69
65
75
90
77
87
55
65
69
65
77
91
49
58
76
76
POTOMAC ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
107
116
116
102
82
82
82
90
107
116
116
102
82
82
82
82
107
116
117
102
87
94
87
94
107
116
116
102
94
94
94
98
107
117
116
102
83
83
87
90
JUDITH A. RESNIK ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
92
102
81
105
55
55
55
55
92
102
81
105
55
55
55
68
92
102
81
105
52
70
70
79
92
102
81
105
77
77
77
77
92
101
81
105
68
76
83
83
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
SALLY K. RIDE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
117
109
110
84
55
55
55
64
117
109
110
85
55
55
55
68
118
109
110
85
43
70
60
79
117
109
110
85
65
77
82
87
118
104
109
84
40
58
76
83
RITCHIE PARK ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
52
50
61
55
73
73
64
73
53
50
61
55
68
68
55
82
53
50
61
55
70
79
60
79
53
50
61
55
87
77
77
87
53
50
61
55
76
76
83
83
ROCK CREEK FOREST ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
78
85
86
84
82
64
73
55
78
85
86
84
82
68
68
55
78
85
86
82
87
70
87
65
78
85
86
84
94
77
87
87
78
85
86
82
90
83
90
76
ROCK CREEK VALLEY ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
51
46
43
48
55
51
47
60
51
46
43
48
68
68
55
49
51
45
43
48
60
52
43
60
51
46
42
48
77
77
77
71
51
44
41
41
58
58
76
90
ROCK VIEW ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
63
86
79
71
55
40
55
64
63
86
79
71
55
55
55
68
63
86
78
71
43
48
52
60
63
86
79
71
65
65
77
77
63
82
76
67
49
58
80
83
ROCKWELL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
78
82
65
66
73
78
64
73
78
82
65
66
55
55
68
75
78
82
65
66
70
70
79
79
78
82
51
66
65
77
77
87
78
82
65
66
68
68
83
83
ROLLING TERRACE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
105
98
122
104
47
47
47
55
105
98
122
104
43
43
55
68
105
98
122
104
52
52
60
65
105
98
122
104
55
65
65
77
105
96
121
104
68
83
83
76
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
ROSEMARY HILLS ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
171
167
169
155
82
82
82
82
171
167
168
155
82
82
68
82
172
167
169
156
79
87
79
79
170
167
169
156
77
87
77
87
172
167
169
155
76
90
90
90
ROSEMONT ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
72
77
70
72
40
34
47
51
72
77
70
72
55
35
49
55
72
77
70
72
43
29
43
60
71
77
58
72
55
55
65
55
72
76
69
68
68
40
58
68
SEQUOYAH ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
93
86
77
86
55
64
55
64
93
86
77
86
55
68
55
68
93
86
76
86
79
79
60
70
93
86
77
86
65
87
77
65
93
85
74
86
83
83
68
83
SEVEN LOCKS ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
38
40
38
45
82
82
86
82
38
40
38
45
68
82
82
82
38
40
38
45
87
87
87
94
38
40
38
45
87
94
87
77
38
40
38
44
83
90
90
90
SHERWOOD ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
73
86
79
69
64
73
73
64
73
86
79
69
55
68
55
68
73
86
79
70
70
79
79
70
73
86
79
70
87
77
65
87
73
86
79
70
76
76
76
72
SLIGO CREEK ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
102
109
115
121
73
64
73
64
102
109
115
121
55
43
55
55
106
113
115
122
70
70
70
79
102
109
115
121
65
65
65
55
106
112
115
122
76
68
90
90
SOMERSET ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
72
66
78
58
90
90
90
82
72
66
78
58
82
82
82
82
72
66
77
58
79
75
79
87
72
66
77
58
94
87
94
87
72
66
77
58
83
83
90
90
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
SOUTH LAKE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
74
75
94
91
55
47
55
55
74
75
94
91
43
43
55
43
74
75
94
91
43
35
60
52
73
75
94
91
65
65
65
65
74
73
92
90
49
49
76
83
STEDWICK ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
79
109
95
102
73
64
55
64
79
109
95
102
68
55
55
68
79
110
95
102
70
70
60
70
79
110
95
102
87
87
77
77
79
109
94
102
49
58
83
76
STONE MILL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
113
129
112
106
82
82
90
82
113
129
112
106
82
82
82
82
113
127
112
106
94
87
87
94
113
128
109
106
94
98
94
94
113
126
112
106
90
90
90
94
STONEGATE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
74
69
76
61
73
82
82
73
74
69
76
61
82
68
75
82
74
69
76
61
87
79
79
87
74
69
76
62
94
87
94
87
74
68
76
62
94
94
94
94
STRAWBERRY KNOLL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
81
87
94
96
55
55
55
60
81
87
94
96
55
55
55
68
81
87
94
95
43
70
60
70
81
87
94
96
65
87
77
77
81
86
94
94
40
58
76
80
SUMMIT HALL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
78
67
93
82
47
34
47
47
78
67
93
82
43
35
43
55
77
67
93
82
43
35
60
70
78
67
93
82
65
65
55
71
78
65
91
79
49
58
76
76
TAKOMA PARK ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
135
121
102
118
73
73
60
82
135
121
102
118
68
55
55
75
135
121
102
118
79
79
60
79
135
121
102
118
77
65
65
77
135
121
102
117
83
83
72
83
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
TRAVILAH ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
91
86
82
73
82
90
90
90
91
86
82
73
82
82
82
82
91
86
82
73
79
87
87
87
91
85
81
73
94
94
94
87
91
85
80
73
76
83
90
90
TWINBROOK ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
72
92
84
87
55
44
51
55
72
92
84
86
43
43
68
68
71
91
84
86
60
52
60
70
71
91
84
86
65
55
77
87
72
87
80
82
76
76
83
87
VIERS MILL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
110
87
103
103
40
55
47
64
110
87
103
103
43
43
43
68
110
87
102
103
52
60
70
79
110
86
103
103
55
65
77
87
110
86
103
103
68
76
90
94
WASHINGTON GROVE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
52
63
66
63
47
55
44
73
52
63
66
63
43
55
43
82
52
63
66
61
43
43
43
70
52
62
66
63
55
77
36
77
52
58
62
57
49
58
54
76
WATERS LANDING ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
82
110
96
110
55
64
73
64
82
110
96
110
68
55
82
68
82
110
95
110
52
52
70
70
82
109
96
110
77
77
87
77
82
108
94
110
49
68
90
76
WATKINS MILL ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
89
76
83
97
47
55
73
64
89
76
83
97
55
55
68
68
89
76
83
97
60
60
79
79
88
76
83
97
65
55
87
87
89
73
79
97
58
68
83
83
WAYSIDE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
93
115
110
108
82
82
90
86
93
115
110
108
82
82
82
82
92
114
109
107
87
79
87
87
93
115
111
107
94
87
87
94
93
114
111
107
83
87
90
90
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
WELLER ROAD ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
96
101
88
95
47
40
47
47
96
101
88
95
55
43
55
43
96
100
88
95
52
52
60
60
96
100
88
95
77
65
77
65
96
100
88
95
68
58
76
83
WESTBROOK ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
46
56
44
48
90
86
90
90
46
56
44
48
82
82
82
82
46
56
44
48
87
87
87
87
46
56
44
48
87
87
87
87
46
55
44
48
76
76
90
90
WESTOVER ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
37
43
54
43
73
73
73
73
37
43
54
43
55
55
55
55
37
43
54
43
70
70
56
70
37
43
54
43
77
77
87
87
37
41
52
43
76
76
58
68
WHEATON WOODS ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
88
92
87
106
40
40
55
47
88
92
87
106
43
39
43
68
88
92
87
105
52
52
60
70
88
92
86
106
77
65
77
77
88
88
85
104
58
68
90
80
WHETSTONE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
94
85
109
91
55
47
64
73
94
85
109
91
68
43
55
68
94
85
109
91
60
52
79
79
94
85
109
91
77
77
77
87
94
81
106
91
76
76
83
90
WOOD ACRES ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
100
84
98
114
90
90
86
82
100
84
98
114
82
82
89
82
100
85
97
114
87
87
79
79
100
84
97
114
87
87
87
77
100
85
97
114
83
76
76
68
WOODFIELD ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
77
85
86
73
73
73
78
82
77
85
86
73
68
68
55
68
77
86
86
73
79
79
70
87
77
86
86
73
77
87
77
77
77
84
86
72
90
83
83
94
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----
TERRANOVA COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS: GRADE 2
MEDIAN NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS BY SCHOOL
SPRING 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & 2004
LANG
NO.
TSTED
-----
LANG
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
MATH
COMP
NO.
TSTED
-----
MATH
COMP
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
GRADE
-----
YEAR
----
WOODLIN ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
77
72
65
68
73
64
73
82
77
72
65
68
68
68
68
68
77
72
65
68
60
70
79
79
76
72
65
69
77
65
65
65
77
72
63
69
68
58
83
90
WYNGATE ES
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
69
100
87
84
90
90
82
90
69
100
87
84
82
82
68
82
69
100
87
84
79
87
79
94
69
100
87
84
87
87
94
94
69
100
87
84
76
83
90
94
COUNTY OVERALL
2
2001
2002
2003
2004
9238
9826
10060
9953
64
64
64
73
9240
9826
10061
9953
68
68
68
68
9226
9801
10028
9938
70
70
70
79
9201
9764
9995
9928
77
77
77
87
9227
9623
9902
9846
68
76
83
83
SCHOOL
------
READ
MDIAN
%TILE
-----
LANG
MECH
NO.
TSTED
-----
READ
NO.
TSTED
-----