Prove demographics don’t
have to be destiny
We can’t remake our public schools without you.
We can’t remake our public schools without you.
ConnCAN needs your support right now to make sure that every child in Connecticut, regardless of race, ethnicity, or class, has access to a great public school.
Groups representing school boards, superintendents, business groups and education reform activists are joining to announce their shared priorities for the new Connecticut legislative session.
Representatives of the six groups will meet Tuesday to discuss their concerns about closing the achievement gap between wealthy and poor students.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and state education officials have said reforming the state’s public schools will be their top priority in the legislative session, which runs through May.
A day after delivering his State of the State address, Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy is hitting the road to promote his education reform ideas.
[...] Patrick Riccards of the reform group ConnCAN sees an effort to boost the quality of educators and greater accountability over dollars spent.
"In too many places, Connecticut public schools are failing their two most basic missions: to provide children with an equal, world-class education, irrespective of race or income, and to ensure that their skills and knowledge match the needs of Connecticut's employers."
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy is calling on legislators to completely change how the state's 45,000 teachers earn tenure.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy will seek $10.3 million to raise the bar on who qualifies to be a teacher and to judge teacher preparation programs by how well their graduates perform in the classroom.
Connecticut lost ground in the annual ranking of state laws that govern charter schools, mainly because other states such as Maine and New Mexico passed more progressive reforms in the past year.
The 2011 report by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, which rates states on how well they support charters, ranked Connecticut 29th among other states, down five places from last year’s ranking of 24th place. At the top of the list this year was Maine, which passed a new charter school law in 2011 that seeks to offer “equitable funding” for charter schools and an easier application process. Other states, such as Nevada and Illinois, created statewide charter boards and Indiana got big points for setting aside $17 million for a facilities assistance program to offer grants and loans to charters.
The report points out that Connecticut, which has 17 public charter schools that serve 6,000 students, did not pass any charter school legislation last year.
“However, its ranking dropped from #24 to #29 because it was surpassed by states that made substantial changes to their charter laws,” the report stated.
Patrick Riccards, CEO of Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now, or ConnCAN, said he was disappointed by the state’s ranking, but not surprised, given the fact that Connecticut still falls short of more progressive charter school laws in other states. Riccards said Connecticut’s biggest problem is failure to fund all public school students equally, whether they attend traditional public schools, charters or magnets.
“Where Connecticut really falls down is this notion that we don’t treat all public school students equitably. And this is the real crime,” he said. “We made really clear that a student at a traditional public school is somehow worth more than a student at a public charter school or magnet school.”
Riccards said the state’s law also is lacking in that is places a cap on the number of charter schools and the number of kids who can attend them.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has said education reform, including improvements to the way the state funds education, are a priority in the coming year.
At the bottom of the list are states like Mississippi, which has no public charter schools, and Maryland, which got points for having no caps on the number of charter schools but lost points for not offering adequate funding options, transparency of application process and not allowing enough operational autonomy.