Today, the Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now released their comparison of the official high school graduation rate by the CT Department of Education versus the independent rates calculated by Education Week’s Diplomas Count project.
This comparison was conducted in previous years to draw attention to the discrepancies between the state’s methodology, which significantly underreported the number of students who did not complete high school, and Education Week’s, which provides a more accurate accounting. After a sustained push by legislators and advocates, including ConnCAN, the Connecticut State Department of Education announced earlier this year that the overstatement of graduation rates will be rectified with the implementation of a new system that will provide more accurate data.
[…]
In the past, the Connecticut State Department of Education calculated graduation rates using a paper-based system that relied on students to declare that they were dropping out and on districts to fully report their dropout rates. The new tracking system announced by the Department but not yet fully implemented uses the same criteria as 49 other states and will follow individual students, even when they transfer schools. This new system will eliminate many of the inaccuracies and overstatements that existed in previous reports, bringing it into much closer alignment with Education Week’s graduation rate estimates. The improved analysis will be reflected in the count for the Class of 2009 and subsequent years.
The preliminary 2009 data released by the Connecticut State Department of Education revealed that while 86.8 percent of white students graduated in four years, that figure drops to 58.1 percent for Hispanic students and 66.2 percent for African American students. In all cases, the estimated percentage of graduates dropped significantly under the new and more accurate accounting.
When the more accurate independent accounting was used for school in the Greater Danbury, the graduation rate for some schools dropped significantly.
District Name: Danbury School District 2007 CT-SDE Graduation Rate: 92.4 percent 2007 Education Week Graduation Rate: 72.6 percent Gap: 19.8 percent
District Name: Bethel School District 2007 CT-SDE Graduation Rate: 100 percent 2007 Education Week Graduation Rate: 84.1 percent Gap: 15.9 percent
District Name: Ridgefield School District 2007 CT-SDE Graduation Rate: 98.8 percent 2007 Education Week Graduation Rate: 91.3 percent Gap: 7.5 percent
District Name: Brookfield School District 2007 CT-SDE Graduation Rate: 99.1 percent 2007 Education Week Graduation Rate: 87.9 percent Gap: 11.1 percent
District Name: Newtown School District 2007 CT-SDE Graduation Rate: 97.5 percent 2007 Education Week Graduation Rate: 95.5 percent Gap: 2.0 percent
District Name: New Fairfield School District 2007 CT-SDE Graduation Rate: 97.4 percent 2007 Education Week Graduation Rate: 88.9 percent Gap: 8.5 percent
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.