    
Are Connecticut Schools Making the Grade? It is easy to get lost in the data when trying to answer the question above. Indeed, the annual results from the Connecticut Mastery Test for the state’s 166 districts and more than 800 public elementary and middle schools across the grades (3-8), subjects (reading, writing and math) and five largest subgroups (poor, non-poor, white, African American, Hispanic) tested lead to more than 80,000 different data points for measuring academic performance. Adding in measures for performance gains, gaps between subgroups and improvements over time quickly brings the tally over the one million mark. Yet, hidden in this stream of figures are concrete answers to some of the most basic questions asked by policymakers, parents and the public-at-large about our public schools: Where are we succeeding? Where are we falling short? Are we heading in the right direction? To help simplify the task of evaluating the performance of Connecticut’s public schools, in this section grades are assigned for the state’s elementary and middle schools across four key indicators of performance. Drawing on this overview, school-level data is then employed to shed light on the factors operating under the surface of these state averages. Grade Scale An “A” grade is assigned to each section of the report card as follows:
At the other end of the scale, an F grade is assigned to each section as follows:
The full grade scale and methodology can be found in the Appendix. 2006 Elementary School Results In 2006, 58 percent of fourth-grade students reached or exceeded the state goal for reading on the Connecticut Mastery Test. This figure was 63 percent for writing, and 59 percent for math, producing an average score of 60 percent of students within goal range across the three tests. This result earns a grade of C+ for the state on the Students within Goal Range indicator, up two points from the 2004 CMT. The expansion of the CMT in 2006 from grades 4, 6 and 8 to grades 3 through 8 made it possible for the first time to measure the relative effectiveness of schools in increasing the percentage of students within goal range during their time in school. The results show that statewide the percentage of students scoring within goal range increased five points between their 4th grade test (in fall 2004) and their 5th grade test (in spring 2006), meriting a grade of B- on the Performance Gains indicator. However, despite this progress, the performance of Connecticut’s African American, Hispanic and low-income students continues to lag behind their white, middle class peers. In fact, while the percentage of whites and non low-income students within goal range increased slightly (2 points), Hispanics and low-income students saw no increase at all. The average percentage of African American (32 percent), Hispanics (33 percent) and low-income students (33 percent) within goal range – less than half the average for whites and non-poor students – resulted in a grade of D+ on the Subgroups within Goal Range indicator, unchanged from 2004. The average achievement gap between non-poor and white students and their poor and minority peers increased 1.5 points to an average of 38 points, resulting in an F for the Gap between Subgroups indicator. 2006 Middle School Results The results for middle schools largely mirror those of Connecticut’s elementary schools, but there are a few important differences. On average, the percentage of students deemed to be meeting or exceeding state goals on the 8th grade CMT is slightly higher than in fourth grade (62 percent versus 60 percent). However, a closer look reveals that this difference is driven entirely by higher percentages of white students (4 points above 4th grade numbers) and non-poor students (2 points above 4th grade numbers). The average percentage of African American, Hispanic and low-income students within goal range on the 8th grade CMT is the same as the average on the 4th grade CMT. As a result, in 2006 the achievement gap in Connecticut’s middle schools is actually larger, on average, than the one in our elementary schools. Perhaps the most significant difference between elementary and middle schools is found in the area of performance gains. Connecticut’s elementary schools increased the percentage of students within goal range by 5 points between their students’ 4th and 5th grade tests. By contrast, Connecticut middle schools achieved zero gain between the 6th and 7th grade tests. While Connecticut’s elementary schools are making strides to close the achievement gap by catching students up, Connecticut’s middle schools are not making similar gains in reaching students who have fallen behind. Beyond Statewide Averages: While the state report cards provide an important overview of Connecticut’s public school system, they also mask important differences among the individual schools and districts throughout our state. For example, a quick glance at the statewide figures might suggest that large performance gains in middle school are rare, since the average gain is zero. Looking at the same indicator on the school level tells a different story: large performance gains are a relatively frequent occurrence in many Connecticut schools that is being offset by other schools’ losses. In fact, more than a quarter of Connecticut middle schools achieved increases of more than 5 points in a year, while 18 percent of schools had declines of more than 5 points. Although gains are more common than losses, the schools serving the largest number of students are more likely to experience declines, pulling the overall average gain in student achievement down to zero. The story is somewhat different when performance gains are sorted by the student demographics within these schools. For example, when Connecticut middle schools are divided into five groups by their percentage of low-income students, the greatest gains are found among the schools with the fewest low-income students. While schools with less than 40 percent low-income students secured an average increase in the percentage of students within goal range of more than two points, schools with 80 percent or more low-income students lost ground, experiencing nearly a two point decrease. In other words, the schools that would need to be making the greatest gains with their students if we were to close our state’s achievement gap are actually losing ground. Nevertheless, a closer look at the data reveals that student demographics are not destiny. Schools securing double-digit increases are found across the spectrum. In fact, the middle school with the largest performance gains, Amistad Academy in New Haven, has a student body that is 98 percent African American or Hispanic and 73 percent low-income. Similarly, the elementary school with the largest performance gains, New Haven’s Nathan Hale, has a student body that is 47 percent African American or Hispanic and 67 percent low-income. The following sections take a look beneath the statewide averages to explore the school types, districts and individual schools that are making the greatest impact in raising student achievement and closing Connecticut’s achievement gap. What Types of Schools Are Closing the Gap? One approach for looking beneath the statewide numbers is to examine the relative performance of Connecticut’s more than 1,000 public schools in terms of school type. There are three main types of public elementary and middle schools represented on the 2006 CMT:
While student demographics vary considerably from school to school, in general Connecticut’s magnet and public charter schools are serving a more diverse student population than the state’s traditional public schools. For example, among elementary schools, 31 percent of students attending magnet schools and 49 percent of students attending public charter schools are African American, compared to just 14 percent in traditional public elementary schools. Similarly, while 53 percent of students in magnet schools and 51 percent of students in public charter schools are low-income, the same is true of only 31 percent of students in traditional public schools (See Table 1). Performance Measures The average percentage of students within goal range in both elementary school (4th grade CMT) and middle school (8th grade CMT) is similar across the three school types. In elementary school, 58 percent of students in traditional schools, 54 percent of students in public charter schools and 50 percent of students in magnet schools score within goal range. Similarly, in middle school, 60 percent of students within traditional schools, 58 percent of students within public charter schools and 50 percent of students within magnet schools score within goal range. While the overall percentage of students within goal range is higher in traditional public schools than in their magnet and public charter school counterparts, the same is not true for low-income and minority students. In fact, on average the percentage of low-income, African American and Hispanic students within goal range is nine points higher in magnet schools and 28 points higher in public charter schools than in traditional public schools. As a result, the average achievement gap in public charter schools is only 12 points in elementary school and zero points in middle school. By contrast, the achievement gap in traditional public schools is 45 points in elementary school and 46 points in middle schools, and a slightly smaller gap of 42 points for magnet elementary schools and 35 points for magnet middle schools. A similar pattern is found in the area of performance gains. While public charter schools secured a 7 point increase in the percentage of elementary school students within goal range, traditional public elementary schools achieved an average gain of only 4 points and magnet elementary schools achieved just a 1 point gain. In middle school, public charter schools achieved an 11 point increase with their students, significantly outpacing the 1 point increase achieved by magnet schools and the zero point increase for traditional public schools. While Connecticut’s public charter schools outperform their magnet and traditional public school counterparts across a number of key indicators, it is important to note the small number of schools (14 in total) and small size of these schools in any comparative analysis. This is particularly true for the subgroup analysis, where many charter schools were too small to report out these subgroup scores. Also of note is the wide variation found in student achievement among magnet schools. In general, magnet schools were found to have a wider span of both low and high-performing individual schools than their traditional public school counterparts. As will be seen in the next section, while the overall averages for all magnet schools are not all that different than the traditional public school averages, they are more likely than traditional schools to be found on the Top 10 Schools lists given the high levels of student achievement found among the top-performing magnet schools. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The State of Connecticut Public Education: A 2006 Report Card for Elementary and Middle Schools