document_title: SAT

question_text: when do june third sat scores come out

question_tokens: when do june third sat scores come out

text: SAT

text: Function[edit]

text:
Education in the United States

By state + insular areas
By subject area
History of
Issues: Finance – Law – Literacy – Reform
Levels: Primary – Secondary – Higher
Organizations

 Education portal
 United States portal

v
t
e

text: The SAT is typically taken by high school juniors and seniors.[11] The College Board states that the SAT measures literacy and writing skills that are needed for academic success in college. They state that the SAT assesses how well the test takers analyze and solve problems—skills they learned in school that they will need in college. However, the test is administered under a tight time limit (speeded) to help produce a range of scores.[12]

text: The College Board also states that use of the SAT in combination with high school grade point average (GPA) provides a better indicator of success in college than high school grades alone, as measured by college freshman GPA. Various studies conducted over the lifetime of the SAT show a statistically significant increase in correlation of high school grades and college freshman grades when the SAT is factored in.[13] A large independent validity study on the SAT's ability to predict college freshman GPA was performed by the University of California. The results of this study found how well various predictor variables could explain the variance in college freshman GPA. It found that independently high school GPA could explain 15.4% of the variance in college freshman GPA, SAT I (the SAT Math and Verbal sections) could explain 13.3% of the variance in college freshman GPA, and SAT II (also known as the SAT subject tests; in the UC's case specifically Writing, Mathematics IC or IIC, plus a third subject test of the student's choice) could explain 16% of the variance in college freshman GPA. When high school GPA and the SAT I were combined, they explained 20.8% of the variance in college freshman GPA. When high school GPA and the SAT II were combined, they explained 22.2% of the variance in college freshman GPA. When SAT I was added to the combination of high school GPA and SAT II, it added a .1 percentage point increase in explaining the variance in college freshman GPA for a total of 22.3%.[14]

text: There are substantial differences in funding, curricula, grading, and difficulty among U.S. secondary schools due to U.S. federalism, local control, and the prevalence of private, distance, and home schooled students. SAT (and ACT) scores are intended to supplement the secondary school record and help admission officers put local data—such as course work, grades, and class rank—in a national perspective.[15] However, independent research has shown that high school GPA is better than the SAT at predicting college grades regardless of high school type or quality.[16]

text: Historically, the SAT was more widely used by students living in coastal states and the ACT was more widely used by students in the Midwest and South; in recent years, however, an increasing number of students on the East and West coasts have been taking the ACT.[17][18] Since 2007, all four-year colleges and universities in the United States that require a test as part of an application for admission will accept either the SAT or ACT, and over 950 colleges and universities do not require any standardized test scores at all for admission.[19][20]

text: Structure[edit]

text: The SAT has four sections: Reading, Writing and Language, Math (no calculator), and Math (calculator allowed). The test taker may optionally write an essay which, in that case, is the fifth test section. The total time for the scored portion of the SAT is three hours (or three hours and fifty minutes if the optional essay section is taken). Some test takers who are not taking the essay may also have a fifth section which is used, at least in part, for the pretesting of questions that may appear on future administrations of the SAT. (These questions are not included in the computation of the SAT score.) Two section scores result from taking the SAT: Evidence-Based Reading and Writing, and Math. Section scores are reported on a scale of 200 to 800, and each section score is a multiple of ten. A total score for the SAT is calculated by adding the two section scores, resulting in total scores that range from 400 to 1600. There is no penalty for guessing on the SAT: scores are based on the number of questions answered correctly. In addition to the two section scores, three "test" scores on a scale of 10 to 40 are reported, one for each of Reading, Writing and Language, and Math. The essay, if taken, is scored separately from the two section scores.[21]

text: Reading Test[edit]

text: The Reading Test of the SAT is made up of one section with 52 questions and a time limit of 65 minutes.[21] All questions are multiple-choice and based on reading passages. Tables, graphs, and charts may accompany some passages, but no math is required to correctly answer the corresponding questions. There are five passages (up to two of which may be a pair of smaller passages) on the Reading Test and 10-11 questions per passage or passage pair. SAT Reading passages draw from three main fields: history, social studies, and science. Each SAT Reading Test always includes: one passage from U.S. or world literature; one passage from either a U.S. founding document or a related text; one passage about economics, psychology, sociology, or another social science; and, two science passages. Answers to all of the questions are based only on the content stated in or implied by the passage or passage pair.[22]

text: Writing and Language Test[edit]

text: The Writing and Language Test of the SAT is made up of one section with 44 multiple-choice questions and a time limit of 35 minutes.[21] As with the Reading Test, all questions are based on reading passages which may be accompanied by tables, graphs, and charts. The test taker will be asked to read the passages, find mistakes or weaknesses in writing, and to provide corrections or improvements. Reading passages on this test range in content from topic arguments to nonfiction narratives in a variety of subjects. The skills being evaluated include: increasing the clarity of argument; improving word choice; improving analysis of topics in social studies and science; changing sentence or word structure to increase organizational quality and impact of writing; and, fixing or improving sentence structure, word usage, and punctuation.[23]

text: Mathematics[edit]

text: The mathematics portion of the SAT is divided into two sections: Math Test – Calculator and Math Test – No Calculator. In total, the SAT math test is 80 minutes long and includes 58 questions: 45 multiple choice questions and 13 grid-in questions.[24] The multiple choice questions have four possible answers; the grid-in questions are free response and require the test taker to provide an answer.

text:
The Math Test – No Calculator section has 20 questions (15 multiple choice and 5 grid-in) and lasts 25 minutes.
The Math Test – Calculator section has 38 questions (30 multiple choice and 8 grid-in) and lasts 55 minutes.

text: Several scores are provided to the test taker for the math test. A subscore (on a scale of 1 to 15) is reported for each of three categories of math content: "Heart of Algebra" (linear equations, systems of linear equations, and linear functions), "Problem Solving and Data Analysis" (statistics, modeling, and problem-solving skills), and "Passport to Advanced Math" (non-linear expressions, radicals, exponentials and other topics that form the basis of more advanced math). A test score for the math test is reported on a scale of 10 to 40, and a section score (equal to the test score multiplied by 20) is reported on a scale of 200 to 800. [25][26][27]

text: Calculator use[edit]

text: All scientific and most graphing calculators, including Computer Algebra System (CAS) calculators, are permitted on the SAT Math – Calculator section only. All four-function calculators are allowed as well; however, these devices are not recommended. All mobile phone and smartphone calculators, calculators with typewriter-like (QWERTY) keyboards, laptops and other portable computers, and calculators capable of accessing the Internet are not permitted.[28]

text: Research was conducted by the College Board to study the effect of calculator use on SAT I: Reasoning Test math scores. The study found that performance on the math section was associated with the extent of calculator use: those using calculators on about one third to one half of the items averaged higher scores than those using calculators more or less frequently. However, the effect was "more likely to have been the result of able students using calculators differently than less able students rather than calculator use per se."[29] There is some evidence to suggest that the frequent use of a calculator in school outside of the testing situation has a positive effect on test performance compared to those who do not use calculators in school.[30]

text: Style of questions[edit]

text: Most of the questions on the SAT, except for the optional essay and the grid-in math responses, are multiple choice; all multiple-choice questions have four answer choices, one of which is correct. Thirteen of the questions on the math portion of the SAT (about 22% of all the math questions) are not multiple choice.[31] They instead require the test taker to bubble in a number in a four-column grid.

text: All questions on each section of the SAT are weighted equally. For each correct answer, one raw point is added.[32] No points are deducted for incorrect answers. The final score is derived from the raw score; the precise conversion chart varies between test administrations.

text:
Section
Average Score[1]
Time (Minutes)
Content

Mathematics
527
80
Number and operations; algebra and functions; geometry; statistics, probability, and data analysis

Evidence-Based Reading and Writing
533
100
Vocabulary, Critical reading, sentence-level reading, Grammar, usage, and diction.

text: Logistics[edit]

text: The SAT is offered seven times a year in the United States: in August, October, November, December, March, May, and June. The test is typically offered on the first Saturday of the month for the October, November, December, May, and June administrations.[33] In other countries, the SAT is offered four times a year: in October, December, March, and May.[34] The test was taken by 1,715,481 high school graduates in the class of 2017.[1]

text: Candidates wishing to take the test may register online at the College Board's website, by mail, or by telephone, at least three weeks before the test date.

text: The SAT costs $45 ($57 with the optional essay), plus additional fees if testing outside the United States) as of 2017[update].[8] The College Board makes fee waivers available for low income students. Additional fees apply for late registration, standby testing, registration changes, scores by telephone, and extra score reports (beyond the four provided for free).

text: Candidates whose religious beliefs prevent them from taking the test on a Saturday may request to take the test on the following day, except for the October test date in which the Sunday test date is eight days after the main test offering. Such requests must be made at the time of registration and are subject to denial.

text: Students with verifiable disabilities, including physical and learning disabilities, are eligible to take the SAT with accommodations. The standard time increase for students requiring additional time due to learning disabilities or physical handicaps is time + 50%; time + 100% is also offered.

text: Raw scores, scaled scores, and percentiles[edit]

text: Students receive their online score reports approximately three weeks after test administration (six weeks for mailed, paper scores), with each section graded on a scale of 200–800 and two sub scores for the writing section: the essay score and the multiple choice sub score. In addition to their score, students receive their percentile (the percentage of other test takers with lower scores). The raw score, or the number of points gained from correct answers and lost from incorrect answers is also included.[35] Students may also receive, for an additional fee, the Question and Answer Service, which provides the student's answer, the correct answer to each question, and online resources explaining each question.

text: The corresponding percentile of each scaled score varies from test to test—for example, in 2003, a scaled score of 800 in both sections of the SAT Reasoning Test corresponded to a percentile of 99.9, while a scaled score of 800 in the SAT Physics Test corresponded to the 94th percentile. The differences in what scores mean with regard to percentiles are due to the content of the exam and the caliber of students choosing to take each exam. Subject Tests are subject to intensive study (often in the form of an AP, which is relatively more difficult), and only those who know they will perform well tend to take these tests, creating a skewed distribution of scores.

text: The percentiles that various SAT scores for college-bound seniors correspond to are summarized in the following chart:[36][37]

text:
Percentile
Score, 1600 Scale
(official, 2006)
Score, 2400 Scale
(official, 2006)

99.93/99.98*
1600
2400

99+ **
≥1540
≥2280

99
≥1480
≥2200

98
≥1450
≥2140

97
≥1420
≥2100

93
≥1340
≥1990

88
≥1280
≥1900

81
≥1220
≥1800

72
≥1150
≥1700

61
≥1090
≥1600

48
≥1010
≥1500

36
≥950
≥1400

24
≥870
≥1300

15
≥810
≥1200

8
≥730
≥1090

4
≥650
≥990

2
≥590
≥890

* The percentile of the perfect score was 99.98 on the 2400 scale and 99.93 on the 1600 scale.

** 99+ means better than 99.5 percent of test takers.

text: The older SAT (before 1995) had a very high ceiling. In any given year, only seven of the million test-takers scored above 1580. A score above 1580 was equivalent to the 99.9995 percentile.[38]

text: In 2015 the average score for the Class of 2015 was 1490 out of a maximum 2400. That was down 7 points from the previous class’s mark and was the lowest composite score of the past decade.[39]

text: SAT-ACT score comparisons[edit]

text: The College Board and ACT, Inc. conducted a joint study of students who took both the SAT and the ACT between September 2004 (for the ACT) or March 2005 (for the SAT) and June 2006. Tables were provided to concord scores for students taking the SAT after January 2005 and before March 2016. [40][41]

text: In May, 2016, the College Board released concordance tables to concord scores on the SAT used from March 2005 through January 2016 to the SAT used since March 2016, as well as tables to concord scores on the SAT used since March 2016 to the ACT.[42]

text: History[edit]

text:
Mean SAT Scores by year[43]

Year of
exam
Reading
/Verbal
Score
Math
Score

1972
530
509

1973
523
506

1974
521
505

1975
512
498

1976
509
497

1977
507
496

1978
507
494

1979
505
493

1980
502
492

1981
502
492

1982
504
493

1983
503
494

1984
504
497

1985
509
500

1986
509
500

1987
507
501

1988
505
501

1989
504
502

1990
500
501

1991
499
500

1992
500
501

1993
500
503

1994
499
504

1995
504
506

1996
505
508

1997
505
511

1998
505
512

1999
505
511

2000
505
514

2001
506
514

2002
504
516

2003
507
519

2004
508
518

2005
508
520

2006
503
518

2007
502
515

2008
502
515

2009
501
515

2010
501
516

2011
497
514

2012
496
514

2013
496
514

2014
497
513

2015
495
511

2016
494
508

2017
533
527

text: Many college entrance exams in the early 1900s were specific to each school and required candidates to travel to the school to take the tests. The College Board, a consortium of colleges in the northeastern United States, was formed in 1900 to establish a nationally administered, uniform set of essay tests based on the curricula of the boarding schools that typically provided graduates to the colleges of the Ivy League and Seven Sisters, among others.[44][45]

text: In the same time period, Lewis Terman and others began to promote the use of tests such as Alfred Binet's in American schools. Terman in particular thought that such tests could identify an innate "intelligence quotient" (IQ) in a person. The results of an IQ test could then be used to find an elite group of students who would be given the chance to finish high school and go on to college.[44] By the mid-1920s, the increasing use of IQ tests, such as the Army Alpha test administered to recruits in World War I, led the College Board to commission the development of the SAT. The commission, headed by Carl Brigham, argued that the test predicted success in higher education by identifying candidates primarily on the basis of intellectual promise rather than on specific accomplishment in high school subjects.[45] In 1934, James Conant and Henry Chauncey used the SAT as a means to identify recipients for scholarships to Harvard University. Specifically, Conant wanted to find students, other than those from the traditional northeastern private schools, that could do well at Harvard. The success of the scholarship program and the advent of World War II led to the end of the College Board essay exams and to the SAT being used as the only admissions test for College Board member colleges.[44]

text: The SAT rose in prominence after World War II due to several factors. Machine-based scoring of multiple-choice tests taken by pencil had made it possible to rapidly process the exams.[46] The G.I. Bill produced an influx of millions of veterans into higher education.[46][47] The formation of the Educational Testing Service (ETS) also played a significant role in the expansion of the SAT beyond the roughly fifty colleges that made up the College Board at the time.[48] The ETS was formed in 1947 by the College Board, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and the American Council on Education, to consolidate respectively the operations of the SAT, the GRE, and the achievement tests developed by Ben Wood for use with Conant's scholarship exams.[46] The new organization was to be philosophically grounded in the concepts of open-minded, scientific research in testing with no doctrine to sell and with an eye toward public service.[49] The ETS was chartered after the death of Brigham, who had opposed the creation of such an entity. Brigham felt that the interests of a consolidated testing agency would be more aligned with sales or marketing than with research into the science of testing.[46] It has been argued that the interest of the ETS in expanding the SAT in order to support its operations aligned with the desire of public college and university faculties to have smaller, diversified, and more academic student bodies as a means to increase research activities.[44] In 1951, about 80,000 SATs were taken; in 1961, about 800,000; and by 1971, about 1.5 million SATs were being taken each year.[50]

text: A timeline of notable events in the history of the SAT follows.

text: 1901 essay exams[edit]

text: On June 17, 1901, the first exams of the College Board were administered to 973 students across 67 locations in the United States, and two in Europe. Although those taking the test came from a variety of backgrounds, approximately one third were from New York, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania. The majority of those taking the test were from private schools, academies, or endowed schools. About 60% of those taking the test applied to Columbia University. The test contained sections on English, French, German, Latin, Greek, history, mathematics, chemistry, and physics. The test was not multiple choice, but instead was evaluated based on essay responses as "excellent", "good", "doubtful", "poor" or "very poor".[51]

text: 1926 test[edit]

text: The first administration of the SAT occurred on June 23, 1926, when it was known as the Scholastic Aptitude Test.[52][53] This test, prepared by a committee headed by Princeton psychologist Carl Campbell Brigham, had sections of definitions, arithmetic, classification, artificial language, antonyms, number series, analogies, logical inference, and paragraph reading. It was administered to over 8,000 students at over 300 test centers. Men composed 60% of the test-takers. Slightly over a quarter of males and females applied to Yale University and Smith College.[53] The test was paced rather quickly, test-takers being given only a little over 90 minutes to answer 315 questions.[52] The raw score of each participating student was converted to a score scale with a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. This scale was effectively equivalent to a 200 to 800 scale, although students could score more than 800 and less than 200.[46]

text: 1928 and 1929 tests[edit]

text: In 1928, the number of sections on the SAT was reduced to seven, and the time limit was increased to slightly under two hours. In 1929, the number of sections was again reduced, this time to six. These changes were designed in part to give test-takers more time per question. For these two years, all of the sections tested verbal ability: math was eliminated entirely from the SAT.[52]

text: 1930 test and 1936 changes[edit]

text: In 1930 the SAT was first split into the verbal and math sections, a structure that would continue through 2004. The verbal section of the 1930 test covered a more narrow range of content than its predecessors, examining only antonyms, double definitions (somewhat similar to sentence completions), and paragraph reading. In 1936, analogies were re-added. Between 1936 and 1946, students had between 80 and 115 minutes to answer 250 verbal questions (over a third of which were on antonyms). The mathematics test introduced in 1930 contained 100 free response questions to be answered in 80 minutes, and focused primarily on speed. From 1936 to 1941, like the 1928 and 1929 tests, the mathematics section was eliminated entirely. When the mathematics portion of the test was re-added in 1942, it consisted of multiple choice questions.[52]

text: 1941 and 1942 score scales[edit]

text: Until 1941, the scores on all SATs had been scaled to a mean of 500 with a standard deviation of 100. Although one test-taker could be compared to another for a given test date, comparisons from one year to another could not be made. For example, a score of 500 achieved on an SAT taken in one year could reflect a different ability level than a score of 500 achieved in another year. By 1940, it had become clear that setting the mean SAT score to 500 every year was unfair to those students who happened to take the SAT with a group of higher average ability.[54]

text: In order to make cross-year score comparisons possible, in April 1941 the SAT verbal section was scaled to a mean of 500, and a standard deviation of 100, and the June 1941 SAT verbal section was equated (linked) to the April 1941 test. All SAT verbal sections after 1941 were equated to previous tests so that the same scores on different SATs would be comparable. Similarly, in June 1942 the SAT math section was equated to the April 1942 math section, which itself was linked to the 1942 SAT verbal section, and all SAT math sections after 1942 would be equated to previous tests. From this point forward, SAT mean scores could change over time, depending on the average ability of the group taking the test compared to the roughly 10,600 students taking the SAT in April 1941. The 1941 and 1942 score scales would remain in use until 1995. [54] [55]

text: 1946 test and associated changes[edit]

text: Paragraph reading was eliminated from the verbal portion of the SAT in 1946, and replaced with reading comprehension, and "double definition" questions were replaced with sentence completions. Between 1946 and 1957 students were given 90 to 100 minutes to complete 107 to 170 verbal questions. Starting in 1958 time limits became more stable, and for 17 years, until 1975, students had 75 minutes to answer 90 questions. In 1959 questions on data sufficiency were introduced to the mathematics section, and then replaced with quantitative comparisons in 1974. In 1974 both verbal and math sections were reduced from 75 minutes to 60 minutes each, with changes in test composition compensating for the decreased time.[52]

text: 1960s and 1970s score declines[edit]

text: From 1926 to 1941, scores on the SAT were scaled to make 500 the mean score on each section. In 1941 and 1942, SAT scores were standardized via test equating, and as a consequence, average verbal and math scores could vary from that time forward.[54] In 1952, mean verbal and math scores were 476 and 494, respectively, and scores were generally stable in the 1950s and early 1960s. However, starting in the mid-1960s and continuing until the early 1980s, SAT scores declined: the average verbal score dropped by about 50 points, and the average math score fell by about 30 points. By the late 1970s, only the upper third of test takers were doing as well as the upper half of those taking the SAT in 1963. From 1961 to 1977, the number of SATs taken per year doubled, suggesting that the decline could be explained by demographic changes in the group of students taking the SAT. Commissioned by the College Board, an independent study of the decline found that most (up to about 75%) of the test decline in the 1960s could be explained by compositional changes in the group of students taking the test; however, only about 25 percent of the 1970s decrease in test scores could similarly be explained.[50] Later analyses suggested that up to 40 percent of the 1970s decline in scores could be explained by demographic changes, leaving unknown at least some of the reasons for the decline.[56]

text: 1994 changes[edit]

text: In early 1994, substantial changes were made to the SAT.[57] Antonyms were removed from the verbal section in order to make rote memorization of vocabulary less useful. Also, the fraction of verbal questions devoted to passage-based reading material was increased from about 30% to about 50%, and the passages were chosen to be more like typical college-level reading material, compared to previous SAT reading passages. The changes for increased emphasis on analytical reading were made in response to a 1990 report issued by a commission established by the College Board. The commission recommended that the SAT should, among other things, "approximate more closely the skills used in college and high school work".[52] A mandatory essay had been considered as well for the new version of the SAT; however, criticism from minority groups as well as a concomitant increase in the cost of the test necessary to grade the essay led the College Board to drop it from the planned changes.[58]

text: Major changes were also made to the SAT mathematics section at this time, due in part to the influence of suggestions made by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Test-takers were now permitted to use calculators on the math sections of the SAT. Also, for the first time since 1935, the SAT would now include some math questions that were not multiple choice, instead requiring students to supply the answers. Additionally, some of these "student-produced response" questions could have more than one correct answer. The tested mathematics content on the SAT was expanded to include concepts of slope of a line, probability, elementary statistics including median and mode, and counting problems.[52]

text: 1995 recentering (raising mean score back to 500)[edit]

text: By the early 1990s, average total SAT scores were around 900 (typically, 425 on the verbal and 475 on the math). The average scores on the 1994 modification of the SAT I were similar: 428 on the verbal and 482 on the math.[59] SAT scores for admitted applicants to highly selective colleges in the United States were typically much higher. For example, the score ranges of the middle 50% of admitted applicants to Princeton University in 1985 were 600 to 720 (verbal) and 660 to 750 (math).[60] Similarly, median scores on the modified 1994 SAT for freshmen entering Yale University in the fall of 1995 were 670 (verbal) and 720 (math).[61] For the majority of SAT takers, however, verbal and math scores were below 500: In 1992, half of the college-bound seniors taking the SAT were scoring between 340 and 500 on the verbal section and between 380 and 560 on the math section, with corresponding median scores of 420 and 470, respectively.[62]

text: The drop in SAT verbal scores, in particular, meant that the usefulness of the SAT score scale (200 to 800) had become degraded. At the top end of the verbal scale, significant gaps were occurring between raw scores and uncorrected scaled scores: a perfect raw score no longer corresponded to an 800, and a single omission out of 85 questions could lead to a drop of 30 or 40 points in the scaled score. Corrections to scores above 700 had been necessary to reduce the size of the gaps and to make a perfect raw score result in an 800. At the other end of the scale, about 1.5 percent of test takers would have scored below 200 on the verbal section if that had not been the reported minimum score. Although the math score averages were closer to the center of the scale (500) than the verbal scores, the distribution of math scores was no longer well approximated by a normal distribution. These problems, among others, suggested that the original score scale and its reference group of about 10,000 students taking the SAT in 1941 needed to be replaced.[54]

text: Beginning with the test administered in April 1995, the SAT score scale was recentered to return the average math and verbal scores close to 500. Although only 25 students had received perfect scores of 1600 in all of 1994, 137 students taking the April test scored a 1600.[63] The new scale used a reference group of about one million seniors in the class of 1990: the scale was designed so that the SAT scores of this cohort would have a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 110. Because the new scale would not be directly comparable to the old scale, scores awarded on April 1995 and later were officially reported with an "R" (for example, "560R") to reflect the change in scale, a practice that was continued until 2001.[54] Scores awarded before April 1995 may be compared to those on the recentered scale by using official College Board tables. For example, verbal and math scores of 500 received before 1995 correspond to scores of 580 and 520, respectively, on the 1995 scale.[64]

text: 1995 re-centering controversy[edit]

text: Certain educational organizations viewed the SAT re-centering initiative as an attempt to stave off international embarrassment in regards to continuously declining test scores, even among top students. As evidence, it was presented that the number of pupils who scored above 600 on the verbal portion of the test had fallen from a peak of 112,530 in 1972 to 73,080 in 1993, a 36% backslide, despite the fact that the total number of test-takers had risen over 500,000.[65] Other authors have argued that the evidence for a decline in student quality is mixed, citing that top scorers on the ACT have shown little change in the same period, and that the proportion of 17-year-olds scoring at the highest performance level on the NAEP long-term trend assessment has been roughly stable for decades.[66]

text: 2002 changes – Score Choice[edit]

text: In October 2002, the College Board dropped the Score Choice Option for SAT-II exams. Under this option, scores were not released to colleges until the student saw and approved of the score.[67] The College Board has since decided to re-implement Score Choice in the spring of 2009. It is described as optional, and it is not clear if the reports sent will indicate whether or not this student has opted-in or not. A number of highly selective colleges and universities, including Yale, the University of Pennsylvania, and Stanford, have announced they will require applicants to submit all scores. Stanford, however, only prohibits Score Choice for the traditional SAT.[68] Others, such as MIT and Harvard, have fully embraced Score Choice.

text: 2005 changes, including a new 2400-point score[edit]

text: In 2005, the test was changed again, largely in response to criticism by the University of California system.[69] Because of issues concerning ambiguous questions, especially analogies, certain types of questions were eliminated (the analogies from the verbal and quantitative comparisons from the math section). The test was made marginally harder, as a corrective to the rising number of perfect scores. A new writing section, with an essay, based on the former SAT II Writing Subject Test, was added,[70] in part to increase the chances of closing the opening gap between the highest and midrange scores. Other factors included the desire to test the writing ability of each student; hence the essay. The essay section added an additional maximum 800 points to the score, which increased the new maximum score to 2400.[71] The "New SAT" was first offered on March 12, 2005, after the last administration of the "old" SAT in January 2005. The mathematics section was expanded to cover three years of high school mathematics. The verbal section's name was changed to the Critical Reading section.

text: Scoring problems of October 2005 tests[edit]

text: In March 2006, it was announced that a small percentage of the SATs taken in October 2005 had been scored incorrectly due to the test papers' being moist and not scanning properly, and that some students had received erroneous scores.[72] The College Board announced they would change the scores for the students who were given a lower score than they earned, but at this point many of those students had already applied to colleges using their original scores. The College Board decided not to change the scores for the students who were given a higher score than they earned. A lawsuit was filed in 2006 on behalf of the 4,411 students who received an incorrect score on the SAT.[73] The class-action suit was settled in August 2007 when the College Board and Pearson Educational Measurement, the company that scored the SATs, announced they would pay $2.85 million into a settlement fund. Under the agreement each student could either elect to receive $275 or submit a claim for more money if he or she felt the damage was greater.[74] A similar scoring error occurred on a secondary school admission test in 2010–2011 when the ERB (Educational Records Bureau) announced after the admission process was over that an error had been made in the scoring of the tests of 2010 (17%) of the students who had taken the Independent School Entrance Examination for admission to private secondary schools for 2011. Commenting on the effect of the error on students' school applications in The New York Times, David Clune, President of the ERB stated "It is a lesson we all learn at some point—that life isn't fair."[75]

text: 2008 changes[edit]

text: In late 2008, a new variable came into play. Previously, applicants to most colleges were required to submit all scores, with some colleges that embraced Score Choice retaining the option of allowing their applicants not to have to submit all scores. However, in 2008, an initiative to make Score Choice universal had begun, with some opposition from colleges desiring to maintain score report practices. While students theoretically now have the choice to submit their best score (in theory one could send any score one wishes to send) to the college of their choice, some colleges and universities, such as Cornell, ask that students send all test scores.[76] This had led the College Board to display on their web site which colleges agree with or dislike Score Choice, with continued claims that students will still never have scores submitted against their will.[77] Regardless of whether a given college permits applicants to exercise Score Choice options, most colleges do not penalize students who report poor scores along with high ones; many universities, such as Columbia[citation needed] and Cornell,[citation needed] expressly promise to overlook those scores that may be undesirable to the student and/or to focus more on those scores that are most representative of the student's achievement and academic potential. College Board maintains a list of colleges and their respective score choice policies that is recent as of November 2011.[78]

text: 2012 changes[edit]

text: Beginning in 2012, test takers are required to submit a current, recognizable photo during registration. Students are required to present their photo admission ticket – or another acceptable form of photo ID – for admittance to their designated test center. Student scores and registration information, including the photo provided, are made available to the student’s high school. In the event of an investigation involving the validity of a student’s test scores, their photo may be made available to institutions to which they have sent scores. Any college that is granted access to a student’s photo is first required to certify that they are all admitted students.[79]

text: 2016 changes, including the return to a 1600-point score[edit]

text: On March 5, 2014, the College Board announced its plan to redesign the SAT in order to link the exam more closely to the work high school students encounter in the classroom.[7] The new exam was administered for the first time in March, 2016.[80] Some of the major changes are: an emphasis on the use of evidence to support answers, a shift away from obscure vocabulary to words that students are more likely to encounter in college and career, a math section that is focused on fewer areas, a return to the 1600-point score scale, an optional essay, and the removal of penalty for wrong answers (rights-only scoring).[81] To combat the perceived advantage of costly test preparation courses, the College Board announced a new partnership with Khan Academy to offer free online practice problems and instructional videos.[7]

text: Name changes[edit]

text: The SAT has been renamed several times since its introduction in 1926. It was originally known as the Scholastic Aptitude Test.[82][52] In 1990, a commission set up by the College Board to review the proposed changes to the SAT program recommended that the meaning of the initialism SAT be changed to "Scholastic Assessment Test" because a "test that integrates measures of achievement as well as developed ability can no longer be accurately described as a test of aptitude".[83][84] In 1993, the College Board changed the name of the test to SAT I: Reasoning Test; at the same time, the name of the Achievement Tests was changed to SAT II: Subject Tests.[82] The Reasoning Test and Subject Tests were to be collectively known as the Scholastic Assessment Tests. According to the president of the College Board at the time, the name change was meant "to correct the impression among some people that the SAT measures something that is innate and impervious to change regardless of effort or instruction."[85] The new SAT debuted in March 1994, and was referred to as the Scholastic Assessment Test by major news organizations.[57][86] However, in 1997, the College Board announced that the SAT could not properly be called the Scholastic Assessment Test, and that the letters SAT did not stand for anything.[87] In 2004, the Roman numeral in SAT I: Reasoning Test was dropped, making SAT Reasoning Test the new name of the SAT.[82]

text: Math–verbal achievement gap[edit]

text: In 2002, Richard Rothstein (education scholar and columnist) wrote in The New York Times that the U.S. math averages on the SAT and ACT continued their decade-long rise over national verbal averages on the tests.[88]

text: Reuse of old SAT exams[edit]

text: The College Board has been accused of completely reusing old SAT papers previously given in the United States.[89] The recycling of questions from previous exams has been exploited to allow for cheating on exams and impugned the validity of some students' test scores, according to college officials. Test preparation companies in Asia have been found to provide test questions to students within hours of a new SAT exam's administration.[90][91]

text: Perception[edit]

text: Association with culture[edit]

text: For decades many critics have accused designers of the verbal SAT of cultural bias as an explanation for the disparity in scores between poorer and wealthier test-takers.[92] A famous (and long past) example of this bias in the SAT I was the oarsman–regatta analogy question. The object of the question was to find the pair of terms that had the relationship most similar to the relationship between "runner" and "marathon". The correct answer was "oarsman" and "regatta". The choice of the correct answer was thought to have presupposed students' familiarity with rowing, a sport popular with the wealthy. However, according to Murray and Herrnstein, the black-white gap is smaller in culture-loaded questions like this one than in questions that appear to be culturally neutral.[93] Analogy questions have since been replaced by short reading passages.

text: Association with family income[edit]

text: A report from the New York Times stated that family income can explain about 95% of the variance in SAT scores.[94] In response, Lisa Wade, contributor at the website The Society Pages, commented that those with higher family income, “tend to have better teachers, more resource-rich educational environments, more educated parents who can help them with school and, sometimes, expensive SAT tutoring.”[95] However, University of California system research found that after controlling for family income and parental education, the already low ability of the SAT to measure aptitude and college readiness fell sharply while the more substantial aptitude and college readiness measuring abilities of high school GPA and the SAT II each remained undiminished (and even slightly increased). The University of California system required both the SAT and the SAT II from applicants to the UC system during the four years included in the study. They further found that, after controlling for family income and parental education, the so-called achievement tests known as the SAT II measure aptitude and college readiness 10 times higher than the SAT.[96] As with racial bias, correlation with income could also be due to the social class of the makers of the test, although according to the authors of The Bell Cuve, empirical research suggests that poorer students actually perform worse on questions the authors believed to be "neutral" compared to the ones they termed as "privileged."[97]

text: Association with gender[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (September 2015)

text: The largest association with gender on the SAT is found in the math section where male students, on average, score higher than female students by approximately 30 points.[98] In 2013, the American College Testing Board released a report boys outperformed girls on the mathematics section of the test.[99]

text: Association with race and ethnicity[edit]

text: African American, Hispanic, and Native American students, on average, perform an order of one standard deviation lower on the SAT than white and Asian students.[100][101][102][103]

text: Researchers believe that the difference in scores is closely related to the overall achievement gap in American society between students of different racial groups. This gap may be explainable in part by the fact that students of disadvantaged racial groups tend to go to schools that provide lower educational quality. This view is supported by evidence that the black-white gap is higher in cities and neighborhoods that are more racially segregated.[104] It has also been suggested that stereotype threat has a significant effect on lowering achievement of minority students. For example, African Americans perform worse on a test when they are told that the test measures "verbal reasoning ability", than when no mention of the test subject is made.[105] Other research cites poorer minority proficiency in key coursework relevant to the SAT (English and math), as well as peer pressure against students who try to focus on their schoolwork ("acting white").[106] Cultural issues are also evident among black students in wealthier households, with high achieving parents. John Ogbu, a Nigerian-American professor of anthropology, found that instead of looking to their parents as role models, black youth chose other models like rappers and did not put forth the effort to be a good student. However, they felt that racism was wrong.[107]

text: One set of studies has reported differential item functioning – namely, some test questions function differently based on the racial group of the test taker, reflecting some kind of systematic difference in a groups ability to understand certain test questions or to acquire the knowledge required to answer them. In 2003 Freedle published data showing that Black students have had a slight advantage on the verbal questions that are labeled as difficult on the SAT, whereas white and Asian students tended to have a slight advantage on questions labeled as easy. Freedle argued that these findings suggest that "easy" test items use vocabulary that is easier to understand for white middle class students than for minorities, who often use a different language in the home environment, whereas the difficult items use complex language learned only through lectures and textbooks, giving both student groups equal opportunities to acquiring it.[108][109] [110] The study was severely criticized by the ETS board, but the findings were replicated in a subsequent study by Santelices and Wilson in 2010.[111][112]

text: There is no evidence that SAT scores systematically underestimate future performance of minority students. However, the predictive validity of the SAT has been shown to depend on the dominant ethnic and racial composition of the college.[113] Some studies have also shown that African American students under-perform in college relative to their white peers with the same SAT scores; researchers have argued that this is likely because white students tend to benefit from social advantages outside of the educational environment (for example, high parental involvement in their education, inclusion in campus academic activities, positive bias from same-race teachers and peers) which result in better grades.[105]

text: Christopher Jencks concludes that as a group African Americans have been harmed by the introduction of standardized entrance exams such as the SAT. This, according to him, is not because the tests themselves are flawed, but because of labeling bias and selection bias; the tests measure the skills that African Americans are less likely to develop in their socialization, rather than the skills they are more likely to develop. Furthermore, standardized entrance exams are often labeled as tests of general ability, rather than of certain aspects of ability. Thus, a situation is produced in which African American ability is consistently underestimated within the education and workplace environments, contributing in turn to selection bias against them which exacerbates underachievement.[105]

text: Dropping SAT[edit]

text: A growing number of colleges have joined the SAT optional movement. These colleges do not require the SAT for admission.

text: One example of a college that did this is Drew University in New Jersey. After they adopted an optional SAT policy, they had a 20% increase in applications. Dean of Admissions Mary Beth Carey says that "Our own research showed us that high school grade point average is by far the most important predictor of success in college." The college reported that they accepted their most diverse class ever as a result of the policy.[114]

text: In a 2001 speech to the American Council on Education, Richard C. Atkinson, the president of the University of California, urged dropping the SAT as a college admissions requirement:

text: Anyone involved in education should be concerned about how overemphasis on the SAT is distorting educational priorities and practices, how the test is perceived by many as unfair, and how it can have a devastating impact on the self-esteem and aspirations of young students. There is widespread agreement that overemphasis on the SAT harms American education.[115]

text: In response to threats by the University of California to drop the SAT as an admission requirement, the College Entrance Examination Board announced the restructuring of the SAT, to take effect in March 2005, as detailed above.

text: In the 1960s and 1970s there was a movement to drop achievement scores. After a period of time, the countries, states and provinces that reintroduced them agreed that academic standards had dropped, students had studied less, and had taken their studying less seriously. They reintroduced the tests after studies and research concluded that the high-stakes tests produced benefits that outweighed the costs.[116]

text: IQ studies[edit]

text: Frey and Detterman (2003) investigated associations of SAT scores with intelligence test scores. Using an estimate of general mental ability, or g, based on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, which can be best thought of as representing crystallized intelligence (learned abilities), they found SAT scores to be highly correlated with g (r=.82 in their sample, .857 when adjusted for non-linearity) in their sample taken from a 1979 national probability survey. Additionally, they investigated the correlation between SAT results, using the revised and recentered form of the test, and scores on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices, a test of fluid intelligence (reasoning), this time using a non-random sample. They found that the correlation of SAT results with scores on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices was .483. They estimated that this latter correlation would have been about 0.72 were it not for the restriction of ability range in the sample. They also noted that there appeared to be a ceiling effect on the Raven’s scores which may have suppressed the correlation.[117] Beaujean and colleagues (2006) have reached similar conclusions to those reached by Frey and Detterman.[118]

text: Preparation[edit]

text: SAT preparation is a highly lucrative field[119] pioneered by Stanley Kaplan in 1938 and many companies and organizations offer test preparation in the form of books, classes, online courses, and tutoring. The test preparation industry began almost simultaneously with the introduction of university entrance exams in the U.S. and flourished from the start.[120]

text: The College Board maintains that the SAT is essentially uncoachable and research by the College Board and the National Association of College Admission Counseling suggests that tutoring courses result in an average increase of about 20 points on the math section and 10 points on the verbal section.[121] Other studies have shown significantly different results. A longitudinal study from Ohio State showed that taking private SAT prep classes correlated with scores higher by ~60 points.[122] A study from Oxford showed that coaching courses boosted scores by an average of 56 points.[120]

text: Montgomery and Lilly (2012) performed a systematic literature review of all published SAT coaching research in search of high quality studies (defined as those with randomized controlled trials). They found that the randomized treatments resulted in V/M gains of +23/32 points for a total of +56; the high quality study that showed the highest score increase was Johnson (1984; San Francisco) which was based on a 30-hour prep course that showed an average increase of 178 points. The Johnson San Francisco study was also the only high quality study found on a prep course of 30 hours or more in length, although validity of this outlier study is uncertain due to the attrition of half the participants.[120]

text: Use by high-IQ societies[edit]

text: Certain high IQ societies, like Mensa, the Prometheus Society and the Triple Nine Society, use scores from certain years as one of their admission tests. For instance, the Triple Nine Society accepts scores of 1450 on tests taken before April 1995, and scores of at least 1520 on tests taken between April 1995 and February 2005.[123]

text: The SAT is sometimes given to students younger than 13 by organizations such as the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth, Duke TIP, and other organizations who use the results to select, study and mentor students of exceptional ability.

text: Writing section[edit]

text: In 2005, MIT Writing Director Pavan Sreekireddy plotted essay length versus essay score on the new SAT from released essays and found a high correlation between them. After studying over 50 graded essays, he found that longer essays consistently produced higher scores. In fact, he argues that by simply gauging the length of an essay without reading it, the given score of an essay could likely be determined correctly over 90% of the time. He also discovered that several of these essays were full of factual errors; the College Board does not claim to grade for factual accuracy.

text: Perelman, along with the National Council of Teachers of English also criticized the 25-minute writing section of the test for damaging standards of writing teaching in the classroom. They say that writing teachers training their students for the SAT will not focus on revision, depth, accuracy, but will instead produce long, formulaic, and wordy pieces.[124] "You're getting teachers to train students to be bad writers", concluded Perelman.[125]


document_title: Massachusetts House of Representatives

question_text: who represents wellesley in the house of representatives

root

text: Massachusetts House of Representatives

text: Representation[edit]

text: Originally,[when?] representatives were apportioned by town. For the first 150 persons, one representative was granted, and this ratio increased as the population of the town increased. The largest membership of the House was 749 in 1812 (214 of these being from the District of Maine); the largest House without Maine was 635 in 1837.[1] The original distribution was changed to the current regional population system in the 20th century. Until 1978, there were 240 members of the house,[2] a number in multi-member districts; today there are 160 in single-member districts.[3]

tag: p

text: Today, each Representative represents about 40,000 residents. Their districts are named for the counties they are in and tend to stay within one county, although districts occasionally cross county lines.  Representatives serve two-year terms which are not limited.

text: The Sacred Cod[edit]

text: Within the House's debating chamber hangs the Sacred Cod of Massachusetts. The 5-foot-long (1.5 m) pine carving of the cod was offered by Representative John Rowe in 1784 in commemoration of the state's maritime economy and history. Two previous carvings of the cod existed during the legislature's colonial era; the first destroyed in a fire in 1747, and the second during the American War of Independence. Since 1784, the current Sacred Cod has been present at nearly every House session, and moved to its current location when the House began convening in the State House in 1798.

text: In 1933, members of the Harvard Lampoon stole the cod carving as part of a prank. The theft sparked a large statewide search by the Boston and Massachusetts State Police. Following outrage from Boston newspapers and the General Court itself, the cod was anonymously handed back.

text: Composition[edit]

text: The Democrats hold a supermajority in the House.

text:
Affiliation

Party (Shading indicates majority caucus)

Total

Democratic

Republican

Ind

Vacant

End of 186th General Court

144

16

0

160

0

Begin 187th

128

32

0

160

0

End 187th

126

33

159

1

Begin 188th

129

29

0

158

2

End 188th

124

153

7

Begin 189th

125

35

0

160

0

End 189th

126

34

Begin 190th[4]

125

35

0

160

0

June 18, 2017[5]

124

159

1

July 19, 2017[6]

123

158

2

August 22, 2017[7]

34

1

November 7, 2017[8]

125

160

0

January 2, 2018[9]

124

159

1

February 20, 2018[10]

123

2

February 22, 2018[11]

122

158

2

March 6, 2018[12]

121

157

3

April 3, 2018[13]

122

158

2

April 9, 2018[14]

121

157

3

April 21, 2018[15]

120

156

4

May 1, 2018[16]

119

155

5

May 2, 2018[17]

118

154

6

May 11, 2018[18]

117

153

7

Latest voting share

7001731009999900000♠73.1%

7001213000000000000♠21.3%

7000130000000000000♠1.3%

tag: table

text: Leadership[edit]

text: The Speaker of the House presides over the House of Representatives. The Speaker is elected by the majority party caucus followed by confirmation of the full House through the passage of a House Resolution. As well as presiding over the body, the Speaker is also the chief leader, and controls the flow of legislation. Other House leaders, such as the majority and minority leaders, are elected by their respective party caucuses relative to their party's strength in the House.

text: The current Speaker of the House is Robert DeLeo of the 19th Suffolk District (Winthrop). The Majority Leader is Ronald Mariano of the 3rd Norfolk District (Quincy). The Republican Minority Leader is Bradley Jones, Jr. of the 20th Middlesex District (North Reading).

text: Leaders[edit]

text:
Position
Name
Party
Residence
District

Speaker of the House
Robert A. DeLeo
Democratic
Winthrop
19th Suffolk

Majority Leader
Ronald Mariano
Democratic
Quincy
3rd Norfolk

Speaker Pro Tempore
Patricia A. Haddad
Democratic
Somerset
5th Bristol

Assistant Majority Leader
Byron Rushing
Democratic
Boston (South End)
9th Suffolk

Second Assistant Majority Leader
Paul J. Donato
Democratic
Medford
35th Middlesex

Second Assistant Majority Leader
Michael J. Moran
Democratic
Brighton
18th Suffolk

First Division Chair
Ann-Margaret Ferrante
Democratic
Gloucester
5th Essex

Second Division Chair
David M. Nangle
Democratic
Lowell
17th Middlesex

Third Division Chair
Sarah K. Peake
Democratic
Provincetown
4th Barnstable

Fourth Division Chair
Louis L. Kafka
Democratic
Stoughton
8th Norfolk

House Ways and Means Chair
Jeffrey Sánchez
Democratic
Jamaica Plain
15th Suffolk

Minority Leader
Bradley H. Jones, Jr.
Republican
North Reading
20th Middlesex

Assistant Minority Leader
Bradford R. Hill
Republican
Ipswich
4th Essex

Second Assistant Minority Leader
Elizbeth A. Poirier
Republican
North Attleborough
14th Bristol

Third Assistant Minority Leader
Paul K. Frost
Republican
Auburn
7th Worcester

Third Assistant Minority Leader
Susan Williams Gifford
Republican
Wareham
2nd Plymouth

text: The most recent election of members was held on November 8, 2016. Representatives serve two-year terms.

text: Members[edit]

text: The following is a complete list of Members of the House of Representatives in the 189th General Court, by district:

text: Barnstable, Dukes and Nantucket[edit]

text: 6 Representatives (2 Democrats, 4 Republicans)

text:
Representative

Party

Residence

District

District Description

First elected

Tim Whelan

Republican

Brewster

1st Barnstable

Precinct 1 of Barnstable, precincts 1 and 2 of Brewster, Dennis, and precincts 1–4 and 7 of Yarmouth, Barnstable County.

2014

William L. Crocker, Jr.

Republican

Barnstable

2nd Barnstable

Precincts 2–10 and 13 of Barnstable, and precincts 5 and 6 of Yarmouth, Barnstable County

2016

David Vieira

Republican

Falmouth

3rd Barnstable

Precincts 3–6 of Bourne, precincts 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Falmouth, and Mashpee, Barnstable County

2010

Sarah Peake

Democratic

Provincetown

4th Barnstable

Precinct 3 of Brewster, Chatham, Eastham, Harwich, Orleans, Provincetown, Truro and Wellfleet, Barnstable County

2006

Randy Hunt

Republican

Sandwich

5th Barnstable

Precincts 11 and 12, of Barnstable, precincts 1, 2, and 7 of Bourne, and Sandwich, Barnstable County;Precinct 9 of Plymouth, Plymouth County

2010

Dylan Fernandes

Democratic

Falmouth

Barnstable, Dukes and Nantucket

Precincts 1, 2, 5 and 6, of Falmouth, in Barnstable County;Chilmark, Edgartown, Aquinnah, Gosnold, Oak Bluffs, Tisbury and West Tisbury, all in Dukes County;Nantucket, Nantucket County

2016

text: Berkshire[edit]

text: 4 Representatives (4 Democrats)

text:
Representative

Party

Residence

District

District Description

First elected

John Barrett III[19]

Democratic

North Adams

1st Berkshire

Adams, Cheshire, Clarksburg, Florida, Hancock, Lanesborough, New Ashford, North Adams, and Williamstown, all in Berkshire County;

2017

Paul Mark

Democratic

Peru

2nd Berkshire

Dalton, Hinsdale, Peru, Savoy and Windsor, and precinct B of ward 1, of Pittsfield, Berkshire County;Bernardston, Charlemont, Colrain, Greenfield, Hawley, Heath, Leyden, Monroe, Northfield, and Rowe, Franklin County

2010

Tricia Farley-Bouvier

Democratic

Pittsfield

3rd Berkshire

Precinct A of ward 1, all precincts of wards 2–7, of Pittsfield, Berkshire County

2011

William "Smitty" Pignatelli

Democratic

Lenox

4th Berkshire

Alford, Becket, Egremont, Great Barrington, Lee, Lenox, Monterey, Mount Washington, New Marlborough, Otis, Richmond, Sandisfield, Sheffield, Stockbridge, Tyringham, Washington, and West Stockbridge, Berkshire County;Blandford, Russell, and Tolland, Hampden County

2002

text: Bristol[edit]

text: 14 Representatives (9 Democrats, 5 Republicans)

text:
Representative

Party

Residence

District

District Description

First elected

F. Jay Barrows

Republican

Mansfield

1st Bristol

Foxborough, Norfolk County;Precincts 2, 3 and 6, of Mansfield, and precincts 3, 4 and 5, of Norton, Bristol County

2006

 Jim Hawkins

Democratic

Attleboro

2nd Bristol

Wards 1 and 2, precinct A of ward 3, and Wards 4, 5 and 6, of Attleboro, Bristol County

2018

Shaunna O'Connell

Republican

Taunton

3rd Bristol

Precinct 6 of Easton, and precinct A of ward 3, and all precincts in wards 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8, of Taunton, Bristol County

2010

Steve Howitt

Republican

Seekonk

4th Bristol

Precincts 1 and 2 of Norton, Rehoboth and Seekonk, and precincts 4 and 5, of Swansea, Bristol County

2010

Patricia Haddad

Democratic

Somerset

5th Bristol

Dighton and Somerset, precincts 1, 2 and 3 of Swansea, and ward 6 of Taunton, Bristol County

2000

Carole Fiola

Democratic

Fall River

6th Bristol

Precincts B and C of ward 5, precinct C of ward 6, all precincts of wards 7, 8, and 9, of Fall River, and precinct 1, of Freetown, Bristol County

2013

Alan Silvia

Democratic

Fall River

7th Bristol

Precincts B and C of ward 1, ward 2, ward 3, ward 4, and precinct A of ward 5, of Fall River, Bristol County

2008

Paul Schmid

Democratic

Westport

8th Bristol

Precinct A of ward 1, precincts A and B of ward 6 of Fall River, precincts 2 and 3 of Freetown, precincts D, E and F of ward 1 of New Bedford, and Westport, Bristol County

2010

Christopher Markey

Democratic

Dartmouth

9th Bristol

Dartmouth, and precincts D, E and F of ward 3, of New Bedford, Bristol County

2010

William M. Straus

Democratic

Mattapoisett

10th Bristol

Fairhaven, and precinct A of ward 3, and precinct D and E of ward 4, of New Bedford, Bristol County;Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester, Plymouth County

1992

Robert Koczera

Democratic

New Bedford

11th Bristol

Acushnet, precincts A, B, and C, of ward 1 and all precincts of ward 2, and precincts B and C of ward 3, of New Bedford, Bristol County

1988

Keiko Orrall

Republican

Lakeville

12th Bristol

Berkley, precinct B of ward 3 and ward 4, of Taunton, Bristol County;Lakeville, and precincts 2, 4 and 5 of Middleborough, Plymouth County

2011

Antonio Cabral

Democratic

New Bedford

13th Bristol

Precincts A, B, C and F of ward 4, and wards 5 and 6, of New Bedford, Bristol County

1990

Elizabeth Poirier

Republican

North Attleborough

14th Bristol

Precinct B of ward 3, of Attleboro, precincts 1 and 5, of Mansfield, North Attleborough, Bristol County

1999

text: Essex[edit]

text: 18 Representatives (13 Democrats, 5 Republicans)

text:
Representative

Party

Residence

District

District Description

First elected

James Kelcourse

Republican

Amesbury

1st Essex

Amesbury and Salisbury, and Newburyport, Essex County

2015

Leonard Mirra

Republican

West Newbury

2nd Essex

Precincts 2 and 3 of Boxford, Georgetown, Groveland, precinct 3 of ward 4 and precinct 3 of ward 7, of Haverhill, and Merrimac, Newbury, and West Newbury, Essex County

2013

Andy Vargas[20]

Democratic

Haverhill

3rd Essex

Ward 1, precinct 3 of ward 2, ward 3, precincts 1 and 2 of ward 4, precincts 1 and 3 of ward 5, and ward 6, of Haverhill, Essex County

2017

Bradford Hill

Republican

Ipswich

4th Essex

Hamilton, Ipswich, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Rowley, Topsfield, and Wenham, Essex County

1999

Ann-Margaret Ferrante

Democratic

Gloucester

5th Essex

Essex and Rockport, and Gloucester, Essex County

2009

Jerry Parisella

Democratic

Beverly

6th Essex

Beverly, Essex County

2011

Paul Tucker

Democratic

Salem

7th Essex

Salem, Essex County

2015

Lori Ehrlich

Democratic

Marblehead

8th Essex

Precinct 4 of ward 3, and precinct 4 of ward 4, of Lynn, and Marblehead and Swampscott, Essex County

2007

Donald Wong

Republican

Saugus

9th Essex

Precincts 1 and 2 of ward 1, of Lynn, and precincts 1, 2, 4–9, of Saugus, Essex County;Precincts 1, 2, 3 and 7, of Wakefield, Middlesex County

2011

Dan Cahill

Democratic

Lynn

10th Essex

Precincts 3 and 4 of Ward 1, Ward 2, Precincts 1, 2 and 3 of Ward 3, Precincts 1 and 2 of Ward 4, and Precincts 2 and 3 of Ward 5, of Lynn.

2016

Vacant

11th Essex

Precinct 3 of ward 4, precincts 1 and 4 of ward 5, wards 6 and 7, of Lynn, and Nahant, Essex County

Thomas Walsh

Democratic

Peabody

12th Essex

Wards 1–4 and precincts 1 and 3 of ward 5 of Peabody, Essex County

2016

Theodore C. Speliotis

Democratic

Danvers

13th Essex

Danvers, precinct 2 of Middleton and, precinct 2 of ward 5 and ward 6, of Peabody, Essex County

1997

Diana DiZoglio

Democratic

Methuen

14th Essex

Precinct 2 of ward 7 in Haverhill, precincts 1 and 3 of ward A and precinct 1 of ward F, of Lawrence, precincts 3, 7, and 10 of Methuen, and precincts 1–5 of North Andover, Essex County

2013

Linda Dean Campbell

Democratic

Methuen

15th Essex

Precincts 1 and 2 of ward 2, precinct 2 of ward 5 and precinct 1 of ward 7 in Haverhill and precincts 1, 4, 5, 6, 8–12 of Methuen, Essex County

2007

Juana Matias

Democratic

Lawrence

16th Essex

Precincts 2 and 4 of ward A, ward B, precinct 4 of ward C, precincts 2, 3 and 4 of ward E, and precincts 2, 3 and 4 of ward F, of Lawrence, Essex County

2017

Frank A. Moran

Democratic

Lawrence

17th Essex

Precincts 2, 3 and 4, of Andover, precincts 1, 2 and 3, of ward C, ward D, and precinct 1 of ward E, of Lawrence, and precinct 2 in Methuen, Essex County

2013

James J. Lyons, Jr.

Republican

Andover

18th Essex

Precincts 1, 5–9, of Andover, precinct 1, of Boxford and precincts 6, 7 and 8, of North Andover, Essex County;Precincts 3 and 3A of Tewksbury, Middlesex County

2011

text: Franklin[edit]

text: 2 Representatives (1 Democrat, 1 Unenrolled)

text:
Representative

Party

Residence

District

District Description

First elected

Stephen Kulik

Democratic

Worthington

1st Franklin

Chester, Hampden County;Ashfield, Buckland, Conway, Deerfield, Leverett, Montague, Shelburne, Shutesbury, Sunderland, and Whately, Franklin County;Chesterfield, Cummington, Goshen, Huntington, Middlefield, Plainfield, Williamsburg, and Worthington, Hampshire County

1993

Susannah Whipps Lee

Unenrolled

Athol

2nd Franklin

Erving, Gill, New Salem, Orange, Warwick, and Wendell, Franklin County;Precinct A of Belchertown, Hampshire County;Athol, Petersham, Phillipston, Royalston, and Templeton Worcester County

2015

text: Hampden[edit]

text: 12 Representatives (10 Democrats, 2 Republicans)

text:
Representative

Party

Residence

District

District Description

First elected

Todd Smola

Republican

Palmer

1st Hampden

Brimfield, Holland, Palmer and Wales, Hampden County;Precincts B and C, in Ware, Hampshire County;Sturbridge and Warren, Worcester County

2004

Brian Ashe

Democratic

Longmeadow

2nd Hampden

Precincts 2, 3 and 4, of East Longmeadow, Hampden, Longmeadow and Monson, Hampden County

2008

Nicholas Boldyga

Republican

Southwick

3rd Hampden

Agawam, Granville and Southwick, Hampden County

2011

John Velis

Democratic

Westfield

4th Hampden

Westfield, Hampden County

2014

Aaron Vega

Democratic

Holyoke

5th Hampden

Holyoke, Hampden County

2013

Michael Finn

Democratic

West Springfield

6th Hampden

Precinct A of ward 2, precinct A of ward 3, precinct A of ward 4, of Chicopee, precinct E of ward 2 of Springfield, and West Springfield, Hampden County

2011

Thomas Petrolati

Democratic

Ludlow

7th Hampden

Precinct B of ward 6, of Chicopee, Ludlow, precincts E, F and G of ward 8, of Springfield, Hampden County;Precincts B, C, and D, of Belchertown, Hampshire County

1986

Joseph Wagner

Democratic

Chicopee

8th Hampden

Ward 1, precinct B of ward 2, precinct B of ward 3, precinct B of ward 4, precinct B of ward 5, precinct A of ward 6, wards 7, 8 and 9, of Chicopee, Hampden County

1990

Jose Tosado

Democratic

Springfield

9th Hampden

Precincts A, B, C, D, F and G of ward 2, precincts C, D, G and H of ward 5, precincts F and H of ward 7, and precincts A, B, D and H of ward 8, of Springfield, and precinct A of ward 5 of Chicopee, Hampden County

2015

Carlos Gonzalez

Democratic

Springfield

10th Hampden

Ward 1, precincts B, C, D, E, F, G and H of ward 3, and precincts A, B and F of ward 6, of Springfield, in Hampden County

2015

Bud Williams

Democratic

Springfield

11th Hampden

Precinct H of ward 2, precinct A of ward 3, ward 4, precincts A, B, E and F of ward 5, precinct E of ward 6, precinct A of ward 7, and precinct C of ward 8, of Springfield, in Hampden County

2017

Angelo Puppolo

Democratic

Springfield

12th Hampden

Precinct 1, of East Longmeadow, precincts C, D, G and H of ward 6, precincts B, C, D, E and G of ward 7, of Springfield, and Wilbraham, all in Hampden County

2006

text: Hampshire[edit]

text: 3 Representatives (3 Democrats)

text:
Representative

Party

Residence

District

District Description

First elected

Vacant

1st Hampshire

Montgomery, in Hampden County;Hatfield, Northampton, Southampton and Westhampton, Hampshire County

John Scibak

Democratic

South Hadley

2nd Hampshire

Easthampton, precinct 2 of Granby, Hadley and South Hadley, Hampshire County

2003

Solomon Goldstein-Rose

Unenrolled

Amherst

3rd Hampshire

Amherst, precinct 1 of Granby and Pelham, Hampshire County

2017

text: Middlesex[edit]

text: 37 Representatives (33 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 1 Vacant)

text:
Representative

Party

Residence

District

District Description

First elected

Sheila Harrington

Republican

Groton

1st Middlesex

Ashby, Dunstable, Groton, Pepperell, Townsend and precinct 1 of Ayer, Middlesex County

2011

James Arciero

Democratic

Westford

2nd Middlesex

Precincts 5, 7 and 8, of Chelmsford and Littleton and Westford, Middlesex County

2009

Kate Hogan

Democratic

Stow

3rd Middlesex

Hudson, Maynard and Stow, all in Middlesex County;Bolton, Worcester County

2009

Danielle Gregoire

Democratic

Marlborough

4th Middlesex

Precinct 1 of ward 2, wards 3–6, and precinct 2 of ward 7, of Marlborough, Middlesex County;Precincts 1 and 3 of Northborough, and precincts 1 and 3 of Westborough, Worcester County

2009-2011  2013

David Linsky

Democratic

Natick

5th Middlesex

Natick and Sherborn, Middlesex County;Precincts 2 and 3, of Millis, Norfolk County

1999

Vacant

6th Middlesex

Precincts 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12 and 15, of Framingham, Middlesex County

Jack Patrick Lewis

Democratic

Ashland

7th Middlesex

Ashland, and precincts 8, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18, of Framingham, Middlesex County

2017

Carolyn Dykema

Democratic

Holliston

8th Middlesex

Holliston and Hopkinton, Middlesex County;Southborough, and precinct 2, of Westborough, Worcester County

2009

Thomas Stanley

Democratic

Waltham

9th Middlesex

Lincoln, and wards 1, 2 and 3, precinct 1 of ward 4, precinct 2 of ward 5, precinct 1 of ward 6, and precinct 1 of ward 7, of Waltham, Middlesex County

2001

John J. Lawn

Democratic

Watertown

10th Middlesex

Precinct 1 and 4 of ward 1 of Newton, precinct 2 of ward 4, precinct 1 of ward 5, precinct 2 of ward 6, precinct 2 of ward 7, and wards 8 and 9, of Waltham, and precincts 10, 11 and 12, of Watertown, Middlesex County

2011

Kay Khan

Democratic

Newton

11th Middlesex

Precincts 2 and 3 of ward 1, ward 2, ward 3, ward 4, and precinct 2 of ward 7, of Newton, Middlesex County

1995

Ruth Balser

Democratic

Newton

12th Middlesex

Ward 5, ward 6, precincts 1, 3 and 4 of ward 7, and all precincts of ward 8, of Newton, Middlesex County

1999

Carmine Gentile

Democratic

Sudbury

13th Middlesex

Precinct 3 in Framingham, ward 1, precinct 2 of ward 2, and precinct 1 of ward 7 in Marlborough, Sudbury, precincts 1, 2 and 3 of Wayland, Middlesex County

2015

Cory Atkins

Democratic

Concord

14th Middlesex

Precincts 1, 2 and 6, of Acton, Carlisle and Concord, and precincts 1 and 9, of Chelmsford, Middlesex County

1999

Jay R. Kaufman

Democratic

Lexington

15th Middlesex

Lexington, and Wards 1 and 7, of Woburn, Middlesex County

1995

Thomas Golden, Jr.

Democratic

Lowell

16th Middlesex

Precincts 2, 3 and 6, of Chelmsford, wards 5, 6 and 9, of Lowell, Middlesex County

2003

David Nangle

Democratic

Lowell

17th Middlesex

Precinct 4, of Chelmsford, ward 1, precinct 3 of ward 2, precincts 2 and 3 of ward 4, and wards 10 and 11, of Lowell, Middlesex County

1999

Rady Mom

Democratic

Lowell

18th Middlesex

Precincts 1 and 2 of ward 2, ward 3, precinct 1 of ward 4, and wards 7 and 8, of Lowell, Middlesex County

2015

Vacant

19th Middlesex

Precincts 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 4 and 4A, of Tewksbury, and precincts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, of Wilmington, Middlesex County

Bradley Jones, Jr.

Republican

North Reading

20th Middlesex

Lynnfield, and precinct 1, of Middleton, Essex County;North Reading, and precincts 1, 6, 7 and 8, of Reading, Middlesex County

2003

Ken Gordon

Democratic

Bedford

21st Middlesex

Bedford and Burlington, and precinct 3, of Wilmington, Middlesex County

2013

Marc Lombardo

Republican

Billerica

22nd Middlesex

Billerica, Middlesex County

2011

Sean Garballey

Democratic

Arlington

23rd Middlesex

Precincts 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13–21 of Arlington, precinct 2 of ward 3, and precincts 1 and 2 of ward 6, of Medford, Middlesex County.

2008

Dave Rogers

Democratic

Cambridge

24th Middlesex

Precincts 2, 4, 8, 10 and 12, of Arlington, Belmont, precincts 1 and 3 of ward 11, of Cambridge, Middlesex County[21]

Marjorie Decker

Democratic

Cambridge

25th Middlesex

Ward 4, precincts 2 and 3 of ward 6, wards 7 and 8, and precincts 1 and 2 of ward 10, of Cambridge, Middlesex County[21]

2013

Mike Connolly

Democratic

Cambridge

26th Middlesex

Ward 1, precinct 1 of ward 2, ward 3, and precinct 1 of ward 6, of Cambridge, and ward 1 and precinct 1 of ward 2, of Somerville, Middlesex County[21]

2017

Denise Provost

Democratic

Somerville

27th Middlesex

Precincts 2 and 3 of ward 2, and wards 3, 5 and 6, of Somerville, Middlesex County

2006

Joe McGonagle

Democratic

Everett

28th Middlesex

Everett, Middlesex County

2015

Jon Hecht

Democratic

Watertown

29th Middlesex

Ward 9, precinct 3 of ward 10, and precinct 2 of ward 11, of Cambridge, and precincts 1–9, of Watertown, Middlesex County[21]

2009

James J. Dwyer

Democratic

Woburn

30th Middlesex

Precincts 2–5, of Reading, and wards 2–6, of Woburn, Middlesex County

2009

Michael Day

Democratic

Stoneham

31st Middlesex

Stoneham and Winchester, Middlesex County

Paul Brodeur

Democratic

Melrose

32nd Middlesex

Precinct 2 of ward 5 in Malden, Melrose, and precincts 4, 5 and 6, of Wakefield, Middlesex County

Steven Ultrino

Democratic

Malden

33rd Middlesex

Ward 2, precinct 1 of ward 3, ward 4, precinct 1 of ward 5, ward 6, precinct 2 of ward 7, and ward 8, of Malden, Middlesex County

2015

Christine Barber

Democratic

Somerville

34th Middlesex

Wards 4 and 5, precinct 1 of ward 7, and precinct 2 of ward 8, of Medford, and wards 4 and 7, of Somerville, Middlesex County

2015

Paul Donato

Democratic

Medford

35th Middlesex

Ward 1, precinct 2 of ward 3, precinct 1 of ward 7, of Malden, and ward 1 and 2, precinct 1 of ward 3, precinct 2 of ward 7, and precinct 1 of ward 8, of Medford, Middlesex County

2001

Colleen Garry

Democratic

Dracut

36th Middlesex

Dracut and Tyngsborough, Middlesex County

2003

Jennifer Benson

Democratic

Lunenburg

37th Middlesex

Precincts 3, 4 and 5, of Acton,  precinct 2 of Ayer, Boxborough and Shirley, all in Middlesex County;Harvard, and precincts A, C, and D, of Lunenburg, Worcester County

2009

text: Norfolk[edit]

text: 15 Representatives (14 Democrats, 1 Republican)

text:
Representative

Party

Residence

District

District Description

First elected

Bruce Ayers

Democratic

Quincy

1st Norfolk

Precincts 4 and 5 of ward 3, precincts 1 and 3 of ward 4, precinct 2 of ward 5, and ward 6, of Quincy, and precincts 5, 6, 11, and 12 of Randolph, Norfolk County

1999

Tackey Chan

Democratic

Quincy

2nd Norfolk

Ward 1, precincts 1 and 2 of ward 3, precincts 2 and 4 of ward 4 and precincts 1, 3, 4, and 5 of ward 5, of Quincy, Norfolk County

2011

Ronald Mariano

Democratic

Quincy

3rd Norfolk

Precincts 2, 3 and 4, of Holbrook, ward 2, and precinct 5 of ward 4, of Quincy, precincts 5, 6, 9, 12 and 16, of Weymouth, Norfolk County

1991

James Murphy

Democratic

Weymouth

4th Norfolk

Precincts 1–4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18, of Weymouth, Norfolk County;Precinct 2 of Hingham, Plymouth County

2001

Mark Cusack

Democratic

Braintree

5th Norfolk

Braintree, precinct 1, of Holbrook, precinct 4, of Randolph, Norfolk County

2011

William C. Galvin

Democratic

Canton

6th Norfolk

Avon and Canton, and precincts 1, 5, 7 and 8, of Stoughton, Norfolk County

1991

William Driscoll Jr.

Democratic

Milton

7th Norfolk

Precincts 3–10, of Milton, and precincts 1, 2, 3, 7–10, of Randolph, Norfolk County

Louis Kafka

Democratic

Stoughton

8th Norfolk

Precinct 4, of Mansfield, Bristol County;Sharon, precincts 2, 3, 4 and 6, of Stoughton, and precincts 3 and 4, of Walpole, Norfolk County

1991

Shawn Dooley

Republican

Norfolk

9th Norfolk

Precincts 3 and 4, of Medfield, precinct 1, of Millis, Norfolk and Plainville, precinct 5, of Walpole, and Wrentham, Norfolk County

2014

Jeffrey N. Roy

Democratic

Franklin

10th Norfolk

Franklin, and precincts 2, 3 and 4, of Medway, Norfolk County

2013

Paul McMurtry

Democratic

Dedham

11th Norfolk

Dedham, precinct 8, of Walpole, and Westwood, Norfolk County

2007

John H. Rogers

Democratic

Norwood

12th Norfolk

Norwood, precincts 1, 2, 6 and 7, of Walpole, Norfolk County

1992

Denise Garlick

Democratic

Needham

13th Norfolk

Dover, precincts 1 and 2 of Medfield, and Needham, Norfolk County

2011

Alice Peisch

Democratic

Wellesley

14th Norfolk

Precinct 4, of Wayland, and Weston, Middlesex County;Wellesley, Norfolk County

2003

Frank Smizik

Democratic

Brookline

15th Norfolk

Precincts 2–4, 6–13 of Brookline, Norfolk County

2001

text: Plymouth[edit]

text: 12 Representatives (7 Democrats, 5 Republicans)

text:
Representative

Party

Residence

District

District Description

First elected

Matt Muratore

Republican

Plymouth

1st Plymouth

Precincts 2–8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15, of Plymouth, Plymouth County

2015

Susan Williams Gifford

Republican

Wareham

2nd Plymouth

Carver, precincts 3 and 6, of Middleborough, and Wareham, Plymouth County

2003

Joan Meschino

Democratic

Hull

3rd Plymouth

Cohasset, Norfolk County;Precincts 1 and 3–6, of Hingham, Hull, and precinct 3, of Scituate, Plymouth County

Vacant

4th Plymouth

Marshfield, and precincts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, of Scituate, both in Plymouth County

David DeCoste

Republican

Norwell

5th Plymouth

Hanover, Norwell and Rockland, Plymouth County

2014

Josh S. Cutler

Democratic

Duxbury

6th Plymouth

Precincts 2-6, of Duxbury, the towns of Hanson and Pembroke, all in Plymouth County

2013

Geoff Diehl

Republican

Whitman

7th Plymouth

Abington, Precincts 2-4 in East Bridgewater and Whitman, Plymouth County

2011

Angelo D'Emilia

Republican

Bridgewater

8th Plymouth

Raynham, Bristol County;Bridgewater, Plymouth County

2011

Gerry Cassidy

Democratic

Brockton

9th Plymouth

Ward 2, precincts A, B, C of ward 3, precincts A and D of ward 4, precinct A of ward 5, and precincts A and B of ward 7, of Brockton, Plymouth County

Michelle DuBois

Democratic

Brockton

10th Plymouth

Precincts B and C of ward 4, precincts B, C and D of ward 5 and ward 6, of Brockton, precinct 1 of East Bridgewater, and West Bridgewater, Plymouth County

2015

Claire Cronin

Democratic

Brockton

11th Plymouth

Precincts 1–5, of Easton, Bristol County;Ward 1, precinct D of ward 3, and precincts C and D of ward 7, of Brockton, Plymouth County

2013

Vacant

12th Plymouth

Precinct 1 of Duxbury, Halifax, Kingston, precinct 1 of Middleborough, precincts 1, 11 and 13 of Plymouth, and Plympton, Plymouth County

text: Suffolk[edit]

text: 19 Representatives (19 Democrats)

text:
Representative

Party

Residence

District

District Description

First elected

Adrian Madaro

Democratic

East Boston, Boston

1st Suffolk

Precincts 1–14 of ward 1, of Boston, Suffolk County

Dan Ryan

Democratic

Charlestown, Boston

2nd Suffolk

Ward 2, of Boston, and Wards 1 and 2, precincts 1 and 3 of ward 3, and precincts 1 and 4 of ward 4, of Chelsea, Suffolk County

2014

Aaron M. Michlewitz

Democratic

North End, Boston

3rd Suffolk

Precincts 1–4, 6, 7 and 8 of ward 3, precinct 1 and 3 of ward 4, and precinct 1 of ward 5, of Boston, Suffolk County

2009

Vacant

4th Suffolk

Precinct 15 of ward 1, ward 6, precincts 1–8 of ward 7, and precinct 3 of ward 13, of Boston, Suffolk County

Evandro Carvalho

Democratic

Uphams Corner, Dorchester, Boston

5th Suffolk

Precinct 10 of ward 7, precincts 5, 6, and 7 of ward 8, precinct 6 of ward 12, precincts 1, 2, 4 and 5 of ward 13, precinct 1 of ward 14, precincts 1–5, 7, 8 and 9, of ward 15, and precincts 1 and 2 of ward 17, of Boston, Suffolk County

2014

Russell Holmes

Democratic

Mattapan, Boston

6th Suffolk

Precincts 2 and 4–14 of ward 14, precincts 6–9 of ward 17, precincts 7 and 8 of ward 18, and precinct 12 of ward 19, of Boston, Suffolk County

2011

Chynah Tyler

Democratic

Roxbury, Boston

7th Suffolk

Precincts 8, 9 and 10 of ward 4, sub-precinct 2A of ward 5, precincts 1–5 and 8 of ward 12, precincts 4 and 5 of ward 9, and precinct 1 of ward 21, of Boston, Suffolk County

Jay Livingstone

Democratic

Back Bay, Boston

8th Suffolk

Precinct 2 and 3 of ward 2, and ward 5, of Cambridge, in Middlesex County;Precinct 5 of ward 3, and precinct 6 of ward 4, and precincts 3–9 and 11 of ward 5, of Boston, Suffolk County[21]

2013

Byron Rushing

Democratic

South End, Boston

9th Suffolk

Precinct 2, 4, 5 and 7 of ward 4, precincts 2 and 10 of ward 5, precincts 1–4 of ward 8, and precincts 1, 2 and 3 of ward 9, of Boston, Suffolk County

1982

Edward F. Coppinger

Democratic

West Roxbury, Boston

10th Suffolk

Precincts 14–16, of Brookline, in Norfolk County;Precincts 1, 5–7, 10–20 of ward 20, of Boston, Suffolk County

2011

Liz Malia

Democratic

Jamaica Plain, Boston

11th Suffolk

Ward 11, precincts 7 and 9 of ward 12, precinct 3 of ward 14, and precincts 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13, of ward 19, of Boston, Suffolk County

1998

Dan Cullinane

Democratic

Dorchester, Boston

12th Suffolk

Precincts 1 and 2 of Milton, Norfolk County;Precincts 8 and 11 of ward 16, precincts 4 and 10–14 of ward 17, precincts 1–6 and 21 of ward 18, of Boston, Suffolk County

2013

Daniel Hunt

Democratic

Savin Hill, Dorchester, Boston

13th Suffolk

Precinct 3 of ward 3, of the city of Quincy, Norfolk County;Precinct 9 of ward 7, precincts 6–10 of ward 13, precinct 6 of ward 15, precincts 1–7, 9, 10 and 12 of ward 16, and precincts 3 and 5 of ward 17, of Boston, Suffolk County

2014

Angelo Scaccia

Democratic

Readville, Hyde Park, Boston

14th Suffolk

Precincts 9–20, 22 and 23 of ward 18, precincts 3, 8 and 9 of ward 20, of Boston, Suffolk County

1981

Jeffrey Sanchez

Democratic

Jamaica Plain, Boston

15th Suffolk

Precinct 5 of Brookline, Norfolk County;Ward 10, precincts 1–5 and 8 of ward 19, and precincts 2 and 4 of ward 20, of Boston, Suffolk County

2003

RoseLee Vincent

Democratic

Revere

16th Suffolk

Precincts 3 and 10, of Saugus, in Essex County;Precincts 2 and 4 of ward 3, precincts 2 and 3 of ward 4, of Chelsea, and precinct 3 of ward 1, precinct 1 of ward 3, ward 4, precincts 1 and 2 of ward 5, and ward 6, of Revere, Suffolk County

2014

Kevin Honan

Democratic

Brighton, Boston

17th Suffolk

Precincts 3, 5–12 and 15 of ward 21, and precincts 2, 3, 6, 9 and 10 in ward 22, of Boston, Suffolk County

Michael Moran

Democratic

Brighton, Boston

18th Suffolk

Precinct 1, of Brookline, Norfolk County;Precincts 2, 4, 13, 14 and 16 of ward 21, and precincts 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of ward 22, of Boston, Suffolk County

Robert DeLeo

Democratic

Winthrop

19th Suffolk

Precincts 1 and 2 of ward 1, ward 2, precincts 2 and 3 of ward 3, and precinct 3 of ward 5, of Revere, and Winthrop, Suffolk County

1995

text: Worcester[edit]

text: 18 Representatives (9 Democrats, 9 Republicans)

text:
Representative

Party

Residence

District

District Description

First elected

Kimberly Ferguson

Republican

Holden

1st Worcester

Holden, Paxton, Princeton, Rutland, precinct 1 of Sterling, and precinct 2 of Westminster, Worcester County

2010

Jonathan Zlotnik

Democratic

Gardner

2nd Worcester

Ashburnham, Gardner, Winchendon, and precinct 1 of Westminster, Worcester County

2012

Stephan Hay

Democratic

Fitchburg

3rd Worcester

Fitchburg and precinct B of Lunenburg, Worcester County

2016

Natalie Higgins

Democratic

Leominster

4th Worcester

Leominster, Worcester County

2016

Donnie Berthiaume

Republican

Spencer

5th Worcester

Precinct A, of Ware, Hampshire County;Barre, Brookfield, East Brookfield, Hardwick, Hubbardston, New Braintree, North Brookfield, Oakham, precincts 2, 3 and 4, in Spencer, and West Brookfield, Worcester County

2014

Peter Durant

Republican

Spencer

6th Worcester

Precincts 1, 2 and 3 of Charlton, Dudley, Southbridge, and precinct 1, of Spencer, Worcester County

2011

Paul Frost

Republican

Auburn

7th Worcester

Auburn, precinct 4 of Charlton, Millbury, and precincts 2 and 3, of Oxford, Worcester County

1996

Kevin Kuros

Republican

Uxbridge

8th Worcester

Bellingham, Norfolk County;Blackstone, Millville, and Uxbridge, Worcester County

2008

David Muradian

Republican

Grafton

9th Worcester

Grafton, Northbridge and Upton, Worcester County

2014

Brian Murray

Democratic

Milford

10th Worcester

Precinct 1, of Medway, Norfolk County;Hopedale, Mendon and Milford, Worcester County

2016

Hannah Kane

Republican

Shrewsbury

11th Worcester

Shrewsbury, and precincts 4 and 5, of Westborough, Worcester County

2015

Harold Naughton, Jr.

Democratic

Clinton

12th Worcester

Berlin, Boylston, Clinton, Lancaster, precincts 2 and 4 of Northborough, and precinct 2 of Sterling, Worcester County

1994

John J. Mahoney

Democratic

Worcester

13th Worcester

Precincts 1–4 of ward 1, precinct 2 of ward 3, ward 9, and precinct 1 of ward 10, of Worcester, Worcester County

2010

James O'Day

Democratic

West Boylston

14th Worcester

West Boylston, and precinct 5 of ward 1, ward 2, and precincts 1, 3 and 5 of ward 3, of Worcester, Worcester County

2007

Mary Keefe

Democratic

Worcester

15th Worcester

Precincts 2–5, of ward 10, precinct 4 of ward 3, ward 4, and precinct 3 of ward 5, of Worcester, Worcester County

2012

Dan Donahue

Democratic

Worcester

16th Worcester

Precincts 1, 2, 4 and 5, of ward 5, ward 6, and precincts 1 and 5 of ward 8, of Worcester, Worcester County

2013

Kate Campanale

Republican

Leicester

17th Worcester

Leicester, and ward 7, and precincts 2, 3 and 4 of ward 8, of Worcester, Worcester County

2014

Joseph D. McKenna

Republican

Webster

18th Worcester

Douglas, precincts 1 and 4 of Oxford, Sutton, and Webster, Worcester County

2014

text: Past composition of the House of Representatives[edit]