Last Thursday, State Rep. Jason Bartlett, along with his supporters*, held a press conference at the LOB building to address his his continued effort to have House Bill 6569: An act concerning reporting of school graduation rates be addressed this session of the General Assembly.
As you might know, Rep. Bartlett has addressed the proposed legislation during a guest post he did at My Left Nutneg in March and the topic sparked a conversation regarding the merits of the bill. Although it died in the education committee, Rep. Bartlett and his supporters were able to collect the 78 signatures needed to allow the bill to be moved to the House calendar.
Specifically, the bill calls for the age in which students can drop out of high school be changed from sixteen to eighteen. Rep. Bartlett and his supporters believe that a drop out age of sixteen is a contributing factor in the state's achievement gap as well as a factor in terms of the number of people either on welfare, incarcerated and/or involved in drug use.
Putting a personal face on the issue, Rep. Bartlett was joined by individuals who told their life stories and the after effects of dropping out of school at a young age.
Finally, lawmakers of the bill gave their rationale behind supporting the bill...
I think it's safe to say that we haven't heard the last of this bill and the debate on the floor of the General Assembly regarding the merits of the legislation should be interesting.
* Supporters for the bill include the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, Latino Affairs, African American Affairs, CT Voices for Children, CT Juvenile Alliance, Connecticut NAACP, and the Commission on Children.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
