As a followup to my previous post regarding The Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now's (ConnCAN) report on Danbury High School, here's a breakdown of ConnCAN's report card on the city's elementary and secondary schools.
Each year, Connecticut administers two standardized tests, the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT). These tests are designed to measure how well students are achieving on grade-level academic subjects. Both tests are designed and administered by the State Department of Education.
The CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST (CMT) is administered each spring to all public school students in grades three through eight. The CMT measures how student achievement in the areas of mathematics, reading, and writing compared to the expectations for their grade level. In fifth and eighth grades, science is also tested.
The CONNECTICUT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE TEST (CAPT) is administered each spring to all public school students in tenth grade. The CAPT measures student achievement in the areas of mathematics, reading, writing, and science compared to the expectations for high school students.
The skills tested on the CMT and CAPT are identified in the Connecticut curriculum framework, and each student’s achievement is compared to a set of established standards for his or her grade in each subject area. There is no “passing” grade on the CMT or the CAPT. Instead, the State of Department of Education sets a “goal” level score for each subject area in every grade tested. The State Department of Education gives each student a raw score (ranging from 100-400 points) and assigns score cut points for each of five levels: Advanced, At Goal, Proficient, Basic, or Below Basic. The State Department of Education reports scores for schools and districts as the percentage of students scoring at one of these levels. According to the State Department of Education, a student scoring at the “Goal” level has the knowledge, skills, and critical thinking abilities that are “reasonable to expect of students” within their grade level.
ConnCAN uses the Goal standard to set the bar for rating schools since it is the state’s best estimate of students meeting or exceeding grade-level expectations. The State Department of Education reports on the percentage of students “At Goal” in the subjects tested (math, reading, writing and science) for schools in which at least 20 students in any given grade completed the CMT or CAPT.
How we calculate achievement scores
ConnCAN’s report cards provide a single score to help readers compare schools and subgroups within those schools. To do so, we calculate a single “Students At or Above Goal Range” by taking that average percentage of students at or above goal across all subject areas on CMT and CAPT. We calculate this score for elementary schools using the results from the fifth-grade test (with fourth-grade results used when an elementary school does not have a fifth grade). For middle schools, we use the results from the eighth-grade test (with the seventh-grade results used when a middle school does not have an eighth grade). For high schools, we use the results from the CAPT, which tests tenth grade students only. These scores provide a straightforward, easy-to-use yardstick on how well schools, on average, meet the needs of students across key subject areas.
How we assign grades
To provide families and communities with a clear benchmark for how their child’s school or district performs, we use achievement scores to assign the school a letter grade from A to F. For each school and district we also show how scores compare to district and state averages.
We assign each school and district letter grades in four categories: Performance Gains, Overall Student Performance, Student Subgroup Performance, and Achievement Gap.
In short, a review of ConnCAN's report for this year compared to last year's write-up provides mixed reviews for the city's elementary and secondary schools with some showing improvement (Pembroke School, Mill Ridge Inter, Stadley Rough) while others show a nominal to moderate decrease in student performance (Shelter Rock, Park Ave, Hayestown).
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 30 percent or F
YEAR 2009: 32 percent or D-
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 14 percent or F
YEAR 2009: 17 percent or F
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 50 percent or C- (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 55 percent or C
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 43 percent or D+ (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 47 percent or D+
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 57 percent or C (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 47 percent or D+
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 20 percent or F (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: N/A
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 63 percent or C+ (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 61 percent or C+
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 44 percent or D+ (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 44 percent or D+
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 50 percent or C- (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 50 percent or C-
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 38 percent or D (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 36 percent or D
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 61 percent or C+ (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 54 percent or C
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 45 percent or D+ (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 27 percent or F
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 51 percent or C- (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 54 percent or C
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 43 percent or D+ (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 40 percent or D
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 49 percent or C- (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 53 percent or C-
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 44 percent or D+ (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 36 percent or D
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 46 percent or D+ (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 46 percent or D+
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 35 percent or D- (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 41 percent or D
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 50 percent or D+ (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 45 percent or D+
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 27 percent or F (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 27 percent or F
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 54 percent or C (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 58 percent or C
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 48 percent or C (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 54 percent or C
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 76 percent or B+ (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 79 percent or B+
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
N/A
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 70 percent or B- (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 71 percent or B-
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 51 percent or C- (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 42 percent or D+
If you're a parent and want a more detailed analysis of your child's school, go to the ConnCAN website.
Danbury faces a quadruple whammy in the coming budget season, Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton told the department heads Thursday.
The state is cutting aid. Federal stimulus money that reached almost $4 million last year for the city and schools combined will be gone next year, and negotiated employee benefits and pay raises may cost the city another $3 million. That could lead to layoffs in the budget that starts July 1, 2011.
Boughton said next year's revenues will be down nearly $8 million and it's expenses if every department budget comes in flat will rise almost $3 million. That is a bad scenario, but it is possible, Boughton said.
[...]
"The state is talking about cutting services and shared pain," Boughton said. "Just tell us straight. What that translates into is they're doing less and they're giving us less money."
He said for Danbury, that means there are no sacred cows in the budget
"Everything is on the table. You'll see layoffs," Boughton said.
And I bet he still thinks not hiring a FULL-TIME Economic Director was a good idea...and lets not started on:
the decline in tax revenue due to the number of large companies (i.e. JOBS) that left Danbury in the last four years, or
UPDATE 1:30PM: A friend writes that ConnCAN's ranking of Danbury HIgh School is lower than first thought:
The rank number is messed up, too. When there's a tie, they don't skip a number. So the rank might go 50, 51, 52, 52 (tie), then they go to 53, 54, etc. Should skip the 53. So Danbury shows a 125th rank, but is actually 145th on the list. Just data nitpicking.
Yesterday, the The Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN) released their 2010 School Rankings and when it comes to High School performance, the City of Danbury is an embarrassment.
Out of the 164 high schools in the state of Connecticut, ConnCAN ranks Danbury High 125 with only 30 percent of the students meeting state goals across all subjects (a drop of 2 percent from 2009).
Each year, Connecticut administers two standardized tests, the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT). These tests are designed to measure how well students are achieving on grade-level academic subjects. Both tests are designed and administered by the State Department of Education.
The CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST (CMT) is administered each spring to all public school students in grades three through eight. The CMT measures how student achievement in the areas of mathematics, reading, and writing compared to the expectations for their grade level. In fifth and eighth grades, science is also tested.
The CONNECTICUT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE TEST (CAPT) is administered each spring to all public school students in tenth grade. The CAPT measures student achievement in the areas of mathematics, reading, writing, and science compared to the expectations for high school students.
The skills tested on the CMT and CAPT are identified in the Connecticut curriculum framework, and each student’s achievement is compared to a set of established standards for his or her grade in each subject area. There is no “passing” grade on the CMT or the CAPT. Instead, the State of Department of Education sets a “goal” level score for each subject area in every grade tested. The State Department of Education gives each student a raw score (ranging from 100-400 points) and assigns score cut points for each of five levels: Advanced, At Goal, Proficient, Basic, or Below Basic. The State Department of Education reports scores for schools and districts as the percentage of students scoring at one of these levels. According to the State Department of Education, a student scoring at the “Goal” level has the knowledge, skills, and critical thinking abilities that are “reasonable to expect of students” within their grade level.
ConnCAN uses the Goal standard to set the bar for rating schools since it is the state’s best estimate of students meeting or exceeding grade-level expectations. The State Department of Education reports on the percentage of students “At Goal” in the subjects tested (math, reading, writing and science) for schools in which at least 20 students in any given grade completed the CMT or CAPT.
Given that the education spending takes up the majority of the city's budget, parents should expect more bang fort their buck. Based on these results, if I had a child attending DHS, I'd be rather upset.
BETHEL: Board of Selectmen approve "revised" road repair proposal
Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Time: 3:30 PM
Yesterday, the Bethel Board of Selectmen voted unanimously to send a revised road repair project to the board of finance for approval. The original 8.5 million dollar proposal was rejected by the Board of Finance last week.
Under the new proposal, funding for the repairs to the roads will be done in increments with the first two million going towards phase one of the project. WIth the Board of Selectmen's vote, the proposal now goes to the Board of Finance for final approval this Thursday before public referendum.
While the selectmen agree that the conditions of the road are unacceptable and need to be addressed, the Democrats and Republicans have different views on how best to fund the project. While expressing their displeasure with the Board of Finance's rejection of the original proposal, Democratic First Selectman Matt Knickerbocker and Selectman Richard Straiton supported the idea of paying for the multi-year project with one bond as opposed to multiple bonds over a series of years. Sympathizing with the concerns raised by the Board of Finance, Republican Selectman Paul Szatkowski stated that funding the project with a series of short term bonds is a better approach in light of the current state of the economy and the uncertainties with level of state funding for next year's budget.
From last night, here's video footage of the Board of Selectmen meeting.
Residents of Bethel are frustrated with the amount of time it has taken for the local government to address the road repair problem…and rightfully so. Accusations of obstruction and dirty politics have been tossed around (which is par for the course in Bethel). Whether the accusations are warranted or over the top is irrelevant…what's relevant is that the roads in the town are an embarrassment. Hopefully, with yesterday's vote, the residents of Bethel are one step closer to having at least a portion of the town's roads repaved.
Bethel, Danbury polling locations selected for audit
Monday, November 15, 2010 Time: 1:24 PM
Today, the Secretary of State's office randomly selected 86 polling places to be audited. Out of the 86 places picked, two polling places in Greater Danbury (Frank A Berry School District 5 in Bethel and Pembroke School Ward 2, Distrcit 9 in Danubry) were selected.
The audit will consist of a hand count of the Nov 2 general election results that will be compared with the machine count in order to make sure that the process worked correctly.
From the Sec. of State's office:
“We had one of the closest election results for Governor in Connecticut history on Tuesday November 2nd,” said Secretary Bysiewicz. “Therefore, I have ordered that all polling precincts chosen for the post-election audit examine machine counts for the governor’s race from Election Day, as well as two other offices selected at random. As voters came to the polls in droves they must have continued confidence that their votes were recorded accurately and that’s why the independent audits are so vital.”
The audits can begin no sooner than November 17, 2010 and must be completed by November 22, 2010.
“Auditing election results isn’t just a good idea, it’s absolutely essential in order to guarantee the integrity of our elections,” said Secretary Bysiewicz. “Record numbers of Connecticut residents cast ballots on November 2nd, and we don’t just take the machines’ word for it. So we will have every ballot cast in a full 10% of all our precincts hand counted and matched against the machine totals. Connecticut has the toughest elections audit law in the country and I am confident at the end of this year’s audit the numbers will match.”
[...]
The law requires a hand audit 10% of all polling places in all elections and primaries. (Polling precincts which are already part of a recount are exempt from audits by statute). The provisions in the law, developed in close cooperation with the computer science department at the University of Connecticut, give Connecticut one of the strictest audit statutes in the country. Connecticut is the first state in New England to require a comprehensive audit of election results.
Connecticut General Statute 9-320f states that local Registrars of Voters, “… shall conduct a manual audit of the votes recorded in not less than ten per cent of the voting districts in the state, district or municipality, whichever is applicable. Such manual audit shall be noticed in advance and be open to public observation.” The results of audits will be analyzed by the University of Connecticut and then presented to the Secretary of the State’s Office and the State Elections Enforcement Commission, and ultimately made available to the public.
The law contains a detailed description of the audit process:
“The manual audit… shall consist of the manual tabulation of the paper ballots cast and counted by each voting machine subject to such audit. Once complete, the vote totals established pursuant to the manual tabulation shall be compared to the results reported by the voting machine on the day of the election or primary. The results of the manual tabulation shall be reported on a form prescribed by the Secretary of the State which shall include the total number of ballots counted, the total votes received by each candidate in question, the total votes received by each candidate in question on ballots that were properly completed by each voter and the total votes received by each candidate in question on ballots that were not properly completed by each voter. Such report shall be filed with the Secretary of the State who shall immediately forward such report to The University of Connecticut for analysis. The University of Connecticut shall file a written report with the Secretary of the State regarding such analysis that describes any discrepancies identified. After receipt of such report, the Secretary of the State shall file such report with the State Elections Enforcement Commission.”
A complete list of the polling places picked are below:
List of polling precincts to be audited:
Town Polling Place
Bethel Frank A Berry School District 5 New Britain Generale Ameglio Society District 7 Waterbury St. Peter & Paul School Gym 16 District 74 Granby Granby Memorial High School District 1 Plainville Wheeler School District 4 Killingly South Killingly Fire Station District 3 Montville Town Hall Gym District 6 Hartford Burns School District 9 Stratford Second Hill Lane 120 District 100 Danbury Danbury High School Gym Ward 1 District 1 Southbury Sacred Heart Church District 2 New Haven Firehouse Woodward Ward 17 District 17 Sprague Baltic Fire House District 1 New Milford Catherine E Lillis Building District 2 Southbury The Jewish Center District 4 Middletown Farm Hill School District 11 Greenwich North Mianus School District 12 Colchester Bacon Academy Cafeteria District 1 Mansfield Mansfield Library/Buchanan Auditorium District 3 Seymour Paul Chatfield School District 3 Wilton Driscoll School District 2 Ansonia First Congregational Church Ward 2 District 2 Precinct 2 East Haven East Farm Village 1-S District 1 Southington Derynoski Elementary School District 3 Cheshire Norton School District 4 Newington Anna Reynolds School District 3 New Britain Graham Apartments District 5-2 District 5 East Haven Hays School District 5 Fairfield Dwight School District 3 Stratford Bunnell High School 120 District 90 Hartford Achievement 1st Hartford Academy District 1 Milford Harborside Middle School District 5 District 529 Thompson Quinebaug Volunteer Fire Department District 3 Waterbury Edward D Bergin Apartments District 72 West Haven City Hall Voting District 4 District 1 Preston Town Hall District 1 Norwalk Kendall School Voting District A3 District 140 Greenwich Town Hall District 2 Madison District 2 North Hartford South End Senior Wellness Center District 13 Orange Mary L Tracy School District 1 Fairfield Osborn School 133 District 4 Thomaston Town Hall – Lena Morton Gallery District 1 Bloomfield Firehouse Number 3 District 5 Kent Town Hall District 1 Hamden Dunbar Hill School District 7 Stafford West Stafford Fire Department District 3 East Hartford Langford School District 2 New Britain New Britain Senior Center District 5 Meriden Meriden Community Towers Area 1 District 12 Danbury War Memorial Gym Ward 5 District 5 Precinct 10 Enfield JFK Middle School District 1 District 2 Branford Community House Voting District 1, Precinct 0 District 1 Groton West Side Middle School District 2 Middletown Woodrow Wilson Middle School District 3 Stratford Wilcoxson School 120 District 70 New Haven New Horizons School District 6 Precinct 2 Stamford Julia A Stark School District 11 Norwich Stanton School District 8 Simsbury Henry James Memorial School District 1 Windsor Locks Windsor Locks High School District 2 Mansfield Audrey P. Beck Municipal Building District 1 Plainfield 4 Atwood Hose Station District 4 Lyme Lyme fire House District 1 Southington Reuben Thalberg Elementary School District 9 Ashford Knowlton Town Hall District 1 Danbury Pembroke School Gym Ward 2 District 2 Berlin Senior Center District 4 Newington Elizabeth Green School District 4 Torrington Armory District 8 Wallingford Evarts G. Stevens School District 2 Plainville Our Lady of Mercy Parrish Hall District 2 Milford Orange Avenue School District 1-2 District 127 Tolland Hicks – Town Hall District 2
List of Polling Precincts in Bridgeport with extended hours on Election Day November 2, 2010:
· Beardsley School, 500 Huntington Avenue; · Read Middle School, 130 Ezra Street; · Central High School, 1 Lincoln Blvd.; · John Winthrop School, 85 Eckart St.; · Hallen School, Division St.; · Thomas Hooker School, Roger Williams Rd.; · Black Rock School, 545 Brewster St.; · John F. Kennedy Campus, 700 Palisade Ave.; · Blackham School, 425 Thorme St.; · Park City Magnet School, 1526 Chopsey Hill Rd.; · City Hall, 45 Lyon Terrace; and · Longfellow School, 139 Ocean Terrace.
BETHEL: First Selectman Knickerbocker speaks out on Board of Finance rejection of road repair proposal
Time: 10:20 AM
Tomorrow night, the Bethel Board of Selectmen are scheduled to address the board of finance's rejection of the road repair renewal proposal.
At their last meeting, to the disapproval of First Selectman Matt Knickerbocker and many in attendance, by a 4-3 margin, the Bethel Board of Finance rejected and voted to remand the 8.5 million dollar road repair plan to the Board of Finance for further consideration. After the board's vote, I had a chance to talk to First Selectman Knickerbocker and get his opinion on the board's vote and why the proposal is should go for a referendum vote in it's current condition.
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.
