| The Facts | Recommendations | Success Stories | Participate | About Us |
A Plan to Help Close
Connecticut’s Achievement Gap
These recommendations amount to a 10-year plan to improve Connecticut’s pre-K–12 education. If implemented, they will significantly close the achievement gap. Many of them will also help raise the education achievement of all our students, whatever their circumstances. Here’s how we can help close the achievement gap.
Support for Our Recommendations |
Support for Our Recommendations
“I commend Connecticut’s leadership community for coming together to produce a plan that starts to address the State’s stubborn achievement gap. We hope this report will spur debate and further efforts in raising educational achievement for all.”
Arne Duncan
United States Secretary of Education
“Finally, the State of Connecticut has an aggressive blueprint for how to move achievement forward for all of the state’s children. The Commission on Educational Achievement did a terrific job; we hope its far-reaching recommendations will be widely embraced.”
Kati Haycock
President, Education Trust
“I commend the Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement for a bold and comprehensive report aimed at remedying a critical issue – closing the achievement gap between white and minority students in Connecticut. These proposals merit national attention as well.”
Joel Klein
Chancellor, New York City Department of Education
“I would like to compliment the members of the Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement for their hard work and dedication to improving education in Connecticut. I believe the vast majority of these recommendations deserve serious consideration for implementation. We look forward to working collaboratively in moving forward on these recommendations to close the achievement gap.”
Sharon Palmer
President, Connecticut American Federation of Teachers
“As a Parent and the Co-Founder of the State of Black CT Alliance, I stand behind the Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement, with hopes that many of their recommendations to close the knowledge, skill and opportunity gap (known as the achievement gap) will be adopted and implemented to provide all of Connecticut’s children with equitable access to a high quality education and a fair chance at life!”
Gwen Samuel
State of Black CT Alliance
“I appreciate the effort of the Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement and applaud its members’ passion for wanting the absolute best for all of Connecticut’s children.”
M. Jodi Rell
Governor of Connecticut
“I applaud the Commission’s work in producing this thoughtful and comprehensive report. Many of these recommendations could significantly accelerate reform and advance student achievement in Connecticut.”
Paul Reville
Secretary of Education, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
“The Commission has developed an excellent blueprint for closing Connecticut’s worst-in-the-nation achievement gap that the next governor, whoever that may be, should be proud to implement. It is obvious from the comprehensive nature of the report’s recommendations that the commission members invested vast amounts of time and energy listening to educational stakeholders and getting to the heart of the problem. We applaud this report.”
Dr. Steven J. Adamowski
Superintendent of Schools, Hartford, Connecticut
“The Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement has presented a thoughtful analysis of what currently ails public education in Connecticut. The recommendations are a good starting point for those who seek to seriously transform our education system. I believe we need to focus on ensuring that every child in Connecticut has access to a great teacher and an instructional program of the highest standards that prepares them for the 21st century. This will take the strategic investment of resources aligned to student needs and the willingness by all interested parties to take bold action. The Commission’s report is the first step in the right direction.”
Joshua Starr
Superintendent of Schools, Stamford, Connecticut
“The Commission’s report makes it abundantly clear that closing the achievement gap for Connecticut’s children is non-negotiable. As a result of this report, an important group of community leaders now understands the challenges and is invested in working with school districts and the state to make the changes necessary that will improve educational outcomes for all children. The recommendations for leader and teacher development as well as accountability at the school, district and state level is exactly the right strategy.”
Diane D. Ullman
Superintendent of Schools, Simsbury, Connecticut
“It’s clear that the Commission has delved into some of the most important challenges our schools face, from making sure we get and keep the best teachers in our classrooms to pursuing a transparent and equitable school finance system. The release of this report couldn’t be more timely, given that we will elect a new governor two weeks from today. I hope the next governor will use this report as a starting point for some much-needed conversations about — and more importantly, action on — closing Connecticut’s achievement gap.”
Alex Johnston
Chief Executive Officer, ConnCAN
“The Commission’s report is a remarkable piece of work assembled in record time and with all of the urgency, passion, and clear thinking needed to erase Connecticut’s achievement gaps in the next decade. The recommendations set forth offer a clear path for Connecticut to follow, and while some will stir controversy, we are fortunate to receive this report at a time when the need for change is highly evident. Our students, our state, and our economy will only benefit if we begin now to determine how best to move these recommendations forward with the full involvement of all—parents, educators, business and community leaders, boards of education, and government and elected officials alike.”
Dr. Mark K. McQuillan
Connecticut Commissioner of Education
“The Commission deserves an A. Their recommendations focus on what matters most: leadership at all levels, teacher quality, and turning around the lowest-performing schools. Our challenge is to make these recommendations a reality.”
Andrew Lachman
Executive Director, Connecticut Center for School Change
“While we do not agree with all of the recommendations made in the report, we welcome it and consider it valuable because it proposes systemic changes at the state and local levels and recognizes several needs:
· to establish a robust data system as the foundation for all efforts to provide the information that all parties will need in order to reach the goal of universal student success
· to clearly establish the roles of boards of education and superintendents of schools in a manner that best facilitates effective school systems
· to address teacher tenure in a manner that allows school and school system administrators to hold teachers and themselves accountable for student performance.”
Joseph J. Cirasuolo, Ed.D.
Executive Director, CT Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPPS)
“The work of this Commission shows just how far Connecticut has come toward recognizing the moral imperative of closing the achievement gap. The Commission’s recommendations include strong and sensible reforms, particularly around data, teacher and principal effectiveness and student-centered funding, that would do much to improve the education not only of Connecticut’s most disadvantaged students, but of all students. My hope is that Connecticut will hold itself accountable for taking concrete and aggressive action to ensure that all kids get the high-quality education they deserve.”
Margaret Spellings
Former United States Secretary of Education
“The Simmons Commission has produced a report that is impressively comprehensive and provocative. The report’s recommendations address every significant leverage point for improving education in Connecticut. Remarkably, the report includes a recommendation for expansion of preschool and early childhood services.”
David Nee
Executive Director, William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund
“The recommendations outlined in the Commission’s report provide a blueprint to help narrow the achievement gap; however, doing so requires collaboration from all the educational stakeholders in the state. As dean of the Neag School of Education, I am supportive of those measures within the report that are aligned with our mission of producing highly effective teachers and administrators as well as the implementation of a state-wide database that can be used to improve and enhance teacher preparation in Connecticut.”
Thomas Defranco
Dean, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut
“The UConn Foundation applauds the report of the Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement. Closing the achievement gap in our public schools is imperative if our nation is to remain competitive in the global economy. Higher education is one of the key ways to address how we provide additional resources for teachers and students, and we welcome any findings that encourage investment in these programs from the public and private sectors.”
John K. Martin
President, The University of Connecticut Foundation, Inc.
“The business community strongly supports the Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement’s recommendations to close the state’s achievement gap and get Connecticut’s students back to the top of the class. We must improve the overall academic performance of all Connecticut’s students to give them the skills necessary to become productive, positive contributors to society and leaders of our future economy. Our next governor will need to make it a top priority to implement these strategies, adopt real reforms, and invest in policy changes that are proven to improve student performance.”
John R. Rathgeber,
President & CEO, CT Business and Industry Association
Commission Member
“There is no greater social or economic need than to close the achievement gap here in Hartford. The Commission’s report is timely and on-target. The detailed recommendations that focus on raising expectations and creating increased accountability supported by enhanced uses of data, proven leadership methods and effective teaching are all components essential to meaningfully addressing our State’s unacceptable achievement gap.”
James L. Starr
Executive Director, Achieve Hartford!
“The Connecticut Black Alliance for Educational Options (CT BAEO) has nothing but kudos and praise for the Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement as they release a much-anticipated report. The recommendations contained therein demonstrate a real –world connectedness to the current challenges and opportunities for providing every Connecticut child access to high-quality schools and educational settings. The commission’s inclusion of meaningful parent involvement as an inextricable component of the formula for sustainable education reform is especially laudable. As Connecticut elects a new governor and decides who will represent us in the state legislature this November, we eagerly anticipate the continued role that the commission will play in applying the necessary pressure and leadership to build the political and public will to close all achievement gaps in our state.”
Danielle Smith
State Director, Connecticut Black Alliance for Educational Options
|
Demand Accountability Strengthen state leadership and drive accountability for educational change. |
Leadership Matters
Leadership matters at all levels, but the educational crisis facing Connecticut will require the next governor to lead the agenda for dramatic improvement in student achievement. Connecticut operates its system of K-12 public education in a disjointed manner and without accountability to the Governor. In addition, responsibility for early childhood education and care programs is dispersed across four state agencies (SDE, the Department of Social Services, Department of Public Health, and Department of Developmental Services). Responsibility for the preparation of teachers and principals is dispersed between the SDE and the Department of Higher Education. There is inadequate strategic planning and coordination between these two state departments and Connecticut’s state Schools of Education supervised by the State University system and the University of Connecticut. LEARN MORE
|
High Expectations Set high expectations for all students. Provide curricula and support so all students can reach them. |
Expand high quality preschool and full day kindergarten to assure school readiness
A robust body of research reveals solid short- and long-term benefits from high quality preschool and all day kindergarten. Preschool is especially critical for low-income children, because they are often not exposed to the same early stimuli that enable early age cognitive and social development. While all students benefit from high quality, it is essential for low-income students and provides the largest fiscal return on investment. With roughly 40% of Connecticut’s entering kindergarteners demonstrating full readiness for school, there is a demonstrable need for high quality preschool and a more substantial kindergarten experience. LEARN MORE
|
Foster Leadership Attracting, developing, and empowering the most effective leaders for our schools and districts |
Broaden the pool of school and district leaders
The second most important factor in student achievement (after teacher effectiveness) is educational leadership. The SDE has identified “an urgent need for highly effective administrators in high-need schools, a need that is not being met by existing preparation and recruitment strategies”. Beyond this immediate need, it is likely that many current school administrators will retire over the coming five to ten years resulting in even higher demand for exceptional leaders. In 2008-09, the average age of administrators was 51 years and 38% were over age 55. LEARN MORE
|
Excellent Teaching Ensure students, especially low-income students, have well-trained, highly effective teachers, and support teachers with effective professional development opportunities |
Improve the process and outcomes of teacher preparation programs
Connecticut does not currently require the use of student achievement data in teacher evaluations, yet it is a central tenet of current federal education policy and is increasingly accepted as a solid means of improving both teaching and student achievement. There is also evidence that teachers themselves find the current system of performance appraisal unsatisfactory. Recent legislation requires the SBOE to establish guidelines for districts on a model teacher evaluation program and provide guidance on the use of multiple indicators of student academic growth in teacher evaluations, by July 1, 2013. It does not require that the new evaluation systems give student achievement either significant or preponderant weight in teacher evaluation decisions. LEARN MORE
|
Invest Intelligently Provide an effective and transparent way of funding public education. |
Why recommendation is necessary
In this time of fiscal constraint, it is critical that we allocate the funds we have to best meet student needs. Connecticut’s schools are funded without ensuring that students with the same needs consistently receive the same level of funding, regardless of the public school they attend. The majority of Connecticut’s state education funds are distributed through the $1.9 billion Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grants. Originally, the amount of ECS funding received by districts was intended to take into account students’ needs and the wealth of the city or town. Due to years of alterations, caps, and other adjustments the ECS formula now has little correlation with the actual costs to educate a child. As a result, many schools and districts both affluent and poor feel they are not receiving their fair share of funding. LEARN MORE
|
Turnaround Schools Improve our lowest achieving schools through greater authority, accountability and more time for learning. |
Transform Failing Schools through Restructuring, Innovation and Competition
Connecticut must be bold and strategic in turning around the lowest achieving 5% of schools. However, with 120 schools on the federal “In Need of Improvement” list for five years or more, it does not have a strong track record. There are several reasons for the state’s slow progress. First, many local contracts set conditions that likely hamper significant turnaround efforts. Second, many of the strongest legal actions available to the state to intervene in chronically low achieving schools have not been employed. Third, superintendents and school principals have not been granted the autonomy, authority and responsibility to overcome barriers to rapid and dramatic change. Finally, although student performance in charter and magnet schools often exceeds that of other students in the district in which they are located, expansion of these models has been slow. LEARN MORE
Endnotes |
Endnotes
Demand Accountability Endnotes
46 Source: Connecticut General Assembly. (2010). Public Act 10-111
“An Act Concerning Education Reform in Connecticut”. Sec. 3(c). Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/Pa/pdf/2010PA-00111-R00SB-00438-PA.pdf Note: These include: (a) tracking and reporting data related to student, teacher, school and district performance for use in evaluating teachers and principals; (b) include student data on parent education level, primary home language, student transcripts, attendance and mobility, and entry to kindergarten readiness; (c) include teacher data on credentials, preparation programs completed, certification levels and endorsement areas along with teacher performance assessments related to “effectiveness” criteria; (d) include school district data on student enrollment in and graduation from post-secondary education. In addition, the SDE must develop means for access to and data sharing with the data systems of higher education in the state. The new law also requires the Commissioner of Education to report by July 1, 2011 (and annually thereafter) to the General Assembly on progress in implementing these changes, specifying those data elements completed and those remaining to be added by July 1, 2013. Note: Connecticut is falling behind other states in its data system elements. For more information, see: Data Quality Campaign (2010). State Survey Profile. Retrieved from http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states/CT
47 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (March 31, 2010). Notes for Facilitated Breakout: CT’s RTTT Phase II Stakeholders Meeting—Longitudinal Data Systems.
High Expectations Endnotes
48 Source: The Pew Center on the States (2010). The Case for Pre-K in Educational Reforms: A Summary of Program Evaluation Findings. Retrieved from www.preknow.org/documents/thecaseforprek_april2010.pdf.
Note: For a list of studies showing both the short-term and long-term benefits of PK, see: http://www.promisingpractices.net/programs_outcome_area.asp?outcomeid=4
49 Source: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University (2009). Providing Preschool Education for All 4-Year-Olds: Lessons from Six State Journeys. Retrieved from http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/19.pdf
50 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (October 4, 2010). Fall Kindergarten Inventory Results for 2009. Provided by the Bureau Chief for Data Collection, Research and Evaluation.
51 Note: For a list of studies showing both the short-term and long-term benefits of Pre-K, see: http://www.promisingpractices.net/programs_outcome_area.asp?outcomeid=4
52 Source: Governor’s Early Childhood Research and Policy Council (February 2009). Rebased estimates of preschool need and cost.
53 Source: Recommendations for a Connecticut Quality Rating and Improvement System, adopted by the Connecticut Early Childhood Education Cabinet (2008).
54 Source: Action for Bridgeport Community Development, Inc. (2008). Assessment of Children’s Developmental Progress: Early Learning Program 2007-2008.
55 Source: ERIC. Recent research on All day Kindergarten. Retrieved from www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Recent_Research_All/-. See also: Full day or Half day? The Kindergarten Conundrum, online at – www.education.com
56 Note: A report on the effectiveness of these grants must be completed prior to any recommendation to continue, modify or expand state funding. Successful approaches will be shared with all school districts.
57 Source: Harvard Center on the Developing Child (2010). How Early Experiences Get Into the Body: A Biodevelopmental Framework. Retrieved from http://developingchild.harvard.edu/library/multimedia/interactive_features/biodevelopmental-framework///developingchild.harvard.edu/library/multimedia/ interactive_features/biodevelopmental-framework/
58 Source: Urban Education (2005). A Meta-Analysis of the Relation of Parental Involvement to Urban Elementary School Student Academic Achievement. See also: Urban Education (2007). The Relationship between Parental Involvement and Urban Secondary School Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis.
59 Source: Connecticut General Assembly. (2010). Public Act 10-111 “An Act Concerning Education Reform in Connecticut”. Sec. 21(g). Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/Pa/pdf/2010PA-00111-R00SB-00438-PA.pdf
60 Note: An excellent philanthropic resource on parental engagement in Connecticut is the William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund. See information about the Discovery Initiative at – www.wcgmf.org
61 Note: The most current information on Connecticut’s curriculum frameworks is online at—www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2618&q;=320954
62 Note: See the Common Core Curriculum Mapping Project, online at—www.commoncore.org. See also: Curriculum Producers Work to Reflect New Standards, Ed Week.
63 Note: The authority of the Connecticut State Department of Education to review and act on local district curricula is granted in Connecticut General Statutes 10-223(e) and Public Act 10-111.
64 Source: North Central Educational Regional Laboratory (NCREL). Critical Issue: Beyond Social Promotion and Retention—Five Strategies to Help Students Succeed. Retrieved from www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at800.htm
65 Source: Terzian, M., K. A. Moore, and K. Hamilton. 2009. Effective and promising summer learning programs and approaches for economically-disadvantaged children and youth: A white paper for the Wallace Foundation. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends. Retrieved from: http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/Out-Of-SchoolLearning/
Documents/Effective-and-Promising-Summer-Learning-Programs.pdf
66 Source: Connecticut General Assembly, General Statutes of Connecticut. Sec. 10-265f. Early reading success grant program. Sec. 10-265g. Summer reading programs required for priority school districts. Evaluation of student reading level. Personal reading plans. Sec. 10-265m. Grants for summer school programs in priority school districts.
67 Source: Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands. What are Benchmark Assessments and How Do They Work? Retrieved from www.relnei.org/newsletters.php?nlid=19&nlapno;=6. Note: Benchmarks assessments are “are tests administered throughout the school year to give teachers immediate, formative feedback on how their students are performing.”
68 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (2009). Commissioner’s Circular Letter C-5. Retrieved from www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/circ/circ09-10/C5.pdf
69 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (September 7, 2010). Data provided by a Consultant with the Education Psychometrics and Applied Research, Bureau of Student Assessment. Note: In 2009-2010, over half the districts used CBAS at one level or another.
70 Note: While Connecticut may choose to create missing assessment frameworks for grades 1-2 and 9-12, national content assessments aligned to the Common Core Standards will be available to all states. Connecticut is participating in one of the two national consortia designing these assessments. For more information, go to--www.k12.wa.us/smarter/
71 Note: Connecticut General Statute10-223(e) authorizes the SDE to require local boards of education to implement model curriculum, including but not limited to recommended textbooks, materials and supplies approved by the SDE.
72 Source: Connecticut Department of Higher Education. Email communication with the Commissioner. October 5, 2010. Note: Approximately 75% of full time freshmen students in CT community colleges test as needing remedial math and/or English. 65% of full time freshmen CSU students enroll in remedial or developmental math and/or English courses.
Foster Leadership Endnotes
73 Source: Connecticut Center for School Change (2008). Overwhelmed and Out: Principals, District Policy, and Teacher Retention. Pg. i. Retrieved from www.ctschoolchange.org/pdf/res-Overwhelmed.pdf
74 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (2010). Connecticut’s Race to the Top Application for Phase 2 Funding. Pg. 139. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/arra/ct_rttt_application_section_e.pdf.
75 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (2009). Administrators: Education, Experience and Demographics.
Retrieved from http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/StateStaffReport.aspx
76 Source: Connecticut General Assembly (2009). Public Act 09-1. “An Act Concerning Educator Certification and Professional Development and Other Education Issues.” Retrieved from www.cga.ct.gov/…/ACT/…/2009PA-00001-R00HB-06901SS2-PA.htm and National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) Interstate Agreement. Connecticut Status. Retrieved from http://www.nasdtec.org/document.php . Note: Connecticut does not currently participate in the interstate agreement for administrators.
77 Source: Connecticut General Assembly. (2010). Public Act 10-111 “An Act Concerning Education Reform in Connecticut”. Sec. 1. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/Pa/pdf/2010PA-00111-R00SB-00438-PA.pdf
78 Source: Connecticut General Assembly. (2010). Public Act 10-111 “An Act Concerning Education Reform in Connecticut”. Sec. 2(c). Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/Pa/pdf/2010PA-00111-R00SB-00438-PA.pdf
79 Source: Connecticut Center for School Change (2008). Overwhelmed and Out: Principals, District Policy, and Teacher Retention. Pg. 1. Retrieved from www.ctschoolchange.org/pdf/res-Overwhelmed.pdf
80 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (2010).
Guide to Approved Educator Preparation Programs in Connecticut. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/Cert/guides/ap_ed_prep_prgms.pdf
81 Source: Independent analysis based on responses from administrator prep programs. Ryan Colwell, Commission Intern, July 2010. Note: New certification regulations, to be implemented in 2014, will require a full-time supervised internship, but with the option to substitute 40 months o teaching for this requirement.
82 Connecticut State Department of Education. (October 7, 2010). Connecticut Administrator Test. Performance Status Report. First-time Pass Rates, 2007-2010. Data provided by a Consultant for the Bureau of Educator Standards and Certification.
83 Source: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Departmentof Education. Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/1035
84 Source: Connecticut General Assembly. (2010). Public Act 10-111 “An Act Concerning Education Reform in Connecticut”. Sec. 3(c) and 4(c). Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/Pa/pdf/2010PA-00111-R00SB-00438-PA.pdf
85 Note: Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-145a(l)(1)(i) requires superintendents and other administrators to receive at least fifteen hours of training on teacher evaluation pursuant to as part of the mandatory ninety hoursof CEU activities during each five-year period.
86 Source: Connecticut General Assembly, General Statutes of Connecticut. Sec. 10-151b.
87 Source: Thompson school board ties administrator bonuses to results. Norwich Bulletin. September 14, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.norwichbulletin.com/communities/x1032445963/Thompson-school-board-ties-administrator-bonuses-to-results
88 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (2010). Connecticut’s Race to the Top Application for Phase 2 Funding,Section E “Turning Around the Lowest Achieving Schools,” Pg. 145. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/arra/ct_rttt_application_section_e.pdf.
89 Source: Connecticut General Assembly, General Statutes of Connecticut. Sec. 10-151.
90 Source: Mooney, Thomas B (2008). A Practical Guide to Connecticut School Law. Connecticut Association of Boards of Education. Pg. 223
91 Source: Mooney, Thomas B (2008). A Practical Guide to Connecticut School Law. Connecticut Association of Boards of Education. Pg. 248
92 Source: Connecticut Federation of School Administrators (2010) Our Services. January STATEment Newsletter. Pg. 1. Retrieved from http://www.ct-fsa.org/news.htm.
93 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (2010). Connecticut’s Race to the Top Application for Phase 2 Funding,Section E “Turning Around the Lowest Achieving Schools,” Pg. 234. June. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/arra/ct_rttt_application_section_e.pdf.
94 Source: Connecticut Association of Boards of Education. Discussion. September 24, 2010. Note: New board member orientation is $70 for members, $210 for non-members.
95 Source: Connecticut General Assembly, General Statutes of Connecticut. Sec. 10-157.
96 Source: Connecticut General Assembly, General Statutes of Connecticut. Sec. 10-151.
97 Source: Mooney, Thomas B (2008). A Practical Guide to Connecticut School Law. Connecticut Association of Boards of Education. Pg. 204
98 Source: Connecticut General Assembly, General Statutes of Connecticut. Sec. 10-223e(c)(2)(m).
Excellent Teaching Endnotes
99 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education.(November 2009). Foundations of Reading Pass Rates as of 11-3-2009. See also
Reading exam still an obstacle for would-be teachers. CTMirror.com. September 9, 2010. http://ctmirror.com/story/7654/exam-trips-prospective-teachers-90810.
100 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education. Regulations of the State Board of Education. Regulations Concerning State Educator Certificates, Permits and Authorizations. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/Cert/regulations/regulations1.pdf
101 Source: Independent analysis based on responses from the Deans of teacher preparation programs. Kara Chesal, Commission Intern.July 2010.
102 Source: Boston Teacher Residency. Boston Teacher Residency Impact. Retrieved from http://www.bostonteacherresidency.org/btr-impact. Note: For example, while the national retention rate for urban teachers within the first three years is 50%, 87% of Boston Urban Teacher Residency graduates are still teaching in Boston Public Schools after three years.
103 Source: The Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowships. Retrieved from http://www.wwteachingfellowship.org/. Note: States such as Michigan and Ohio have partnered with the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation to identify cost effective means of attracting new talent into subject shortage areas and low-income urban and rural schools.
104 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education. Email communication with a Consultant and Program Coordinator from the Bureau of Educator Standards and Certification. October 6, 2010.
105 Source: U.S. Department of Education (November 2009). Race to the Top Program Executive Summary.. Pg. 4. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf
106 Source: The New Teacher Project (2010). Preliminary Data Findings: Evaluation Process Preferences and Administrator Capacity for New Haven Public Schools.
107 Source: Connecticut General Assembly. (2010). Public Act 10-111 “An Act Concerning Education Reform in Connecticut”. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/Pa/pdf/2010PA-00111-R00SB-00438-PA.pdf
108 Note: For more information on what new teacher evaluation systems should include, see: The New Teacher Project (2010). Teacher Evaluation 2.0. Retrieved from: http://www.tntp.org/files/Teacher-Evaluation-Oct10F.pdf
109 Source: Darling-Hammond, Linda et al (2009). National Staff Development Council. Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. Retrieved from http://www.srnleads.org/resources/publications/pdf/nsdc_profdev_short_report.pdf . See also: Kardos, S. M., & Johnson, S. M. (2007). On their own and presumed expert: New teachers’ experiences with their colleagues. Teachers College Record, 109 (12) at http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=12812
110 Note: An exception to this is New Haven’s teacher evaluation model where teachers with high effectiveness ratings are eligible for additional teacher leadership positions.
111 Sources: Innovations in Teaching: Creating Professional Pathways for Alabama Teachers. Georgia Master Teachers at http://www.gamasterteachers.org and Master Teacher Program. White Paper, Douglas County Schools.
112 Source: Lohman, Judith. Office of Legislative Research,Connecticut General Assembly (April 22, 2002). Report:2002-R-0469 Teacher Tenure Law. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/ed/rpt/2002-r-0469.htm.
113 Source: Eric A. Hanushek & Steven G. Rivkin (2006). Teacher Quality. The Handbook of the Economics of Education. Retrieved from http://edpro.stanford.edu/hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/HESEDU2018.pdf See also: Hearther R. Jordan, Robert L. Mendro & Dash Weersinghe (1997). Teacher Effects and Long Term Achievement: A Report on Research in Progress. Dallas Public Schools. http://www.dallasisd.org/eval/research/articles/Jordan-Teacher-Effects-on-Longitudinal-Student-Achievement-1997.pdf
114 Source: U.S. Department of Education. Race to the Top Program Executive Summary.. November 2009. Pg. 12. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf . See definition of highly effective teacher.
115 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (June, 2010). Connecticut’s Race to the Top Application for Phase 2 Funding, Section E “Turning Around the Lowest Achieving Schools,” Pg. 176. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/arra/ct_rttt_application.pdf. Note: These vacancies force districts to resort to filling these positions with short-term substitutes, cancelling courses and redistributing students and employing temporary teachers, none of which are conducive to high-quality instruction.
116 Source: State of Connecticut Teachers Retirement Board.Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/trb/cwp/view.asp?a=1580&Q;=272138&trbPNavCtr;=|#41403. Note: Current state policy only requires those who are planning to retire on July 1 to file an Application for Retirement benefits by June 30, in order to begin receiving benefits in July.
117 Source: Reichardt, R. & Arnold, M. (2006). In Search of Quality: Recruiting, Hiring, and Supporting Teachers (Technical Report). Connecticut Center for School Change. Retrieved from http://www.ctschoolchange.org/pdf/res-Technical-study.pdf
118 Source: Reichardt, R. & Arnold, M. (2006). In Search of Quality: Recruiting, Hiring, and Supporting Teachers (Technical Report). Connecticut Center for School Change. Retrieved from http://www.ctschoolchange.org/pdf/res-Technical-study.pdf
Invest Intelligently Endnotes
119 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education. Division of Finance and Internal Operations. Education Cost Sharing (ECS) Grant Program (2008-2009). Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/dgm/report1/merecsgd.pdf.
120 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (2009). Division of Finance and Internal Operations. Education Cost Sharing (ECS) Grant Program (2008-2009). Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/dgm/report1/merecsgd.pdf.
121 Source: Connecticut General Assembly. (October 2004). OLR Research Report: 2004-R-0815. Education Cost Sharing Formula. Retrieved from http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtSearch_lpa.html
122 Source: Connecticut General Assembly, Connecticut General Statutes. Section 10-66ee and Connecticut State Department of Education. Communication with the Chief Financial Officer. ECS Overview meeting and meeting documents. May 10, 2010.
123 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education. Bureau of Grants Management. 2008-09 Net Current Expenditures (NCE) per Pupil. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/dgm/report1/cpse2009/nceadm.pdf . Note: updated figures for 2008-2009 NCEP is $13,111.
124 Source: Reason Foundation. (2009). Weighted Student Formula Yearbook 2009. Retrieved from http://reason.org/files/wsf/yearbook.pdf. Note: Hartford Public Schools is an excellent example of weighted student funding at work. Weighted student funding has made per-pupil spending more equitable at the school level. Prior to 2008, half of Hartford’s schools spent $4,000-$7,000 per student while the other half spent between $7,000 and $18,000 per student. Hartford also has a more transparent funding process: the district publishes detailed school-level budgets that report student populations at each school, as well as the funds generated by each group of students and student performance data. Other cities that have implemented weighted student funding include New York City, Baltimore, and Boston Pilot Schools.
125 Source: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2006). Fund the Child: Tackling Inequity and Antiquity in School Finance. http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/FundtheChild062706.pdf.
126 Source: Reason Foundation. (2009). Weighted Student Formula Yearbook 2009. Retreieved from http://reason.org/files/wsf/yearbook.pdf.
127 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education. Communication with the Chief Financial Officer. ECS Overview meeting and related documents. May 10, 2010.
128 Source: Connecticut General Assembly, Connecticut General Statutes. Section 10-16p. Note: The language of the priority school grants statute grants maximum latitude to the districts receiving the grants to use as necessary.
129 Note: Commission analysis of available fiscal data on ConnecticutState Department of Education CEDaR website. Retrieved from http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/CedarHome.aspx? and Connecticut State Department of Education. School-level data, Email communication with a consultant with the Bureau of Data Collection, Research and Evaluation. July 12, 2010.
130 Note: Commission analysis of available fiscal data on Connecticut State Department of Education CEDaR website. Retrieved from http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/CedarHome.aspx?.
131 Source: The Education Trust. (2006). Funding Gaps. Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/FundingGap2006.pdf. Note: One source of inequitable funding within a district is the practice of salary averaging. There is ample evidence that the practice of reporting teacher salaries based on a district average rate rather than the actual salaries of teachers in an individual school can account for large discrepancies in funding between high-poverty and low-poverty schools. This is because high-poverty schools tend to have less experienced (and therefore cheaper) teachers than schools with more affluent student populations. This study profiles gaps in New York City schools. See Also: The Education Trust. (2010). Close the Hidden Funding Gaps in Our Schools. Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Hidden%20Funding%20Gaps_0.pdf.
132 Source: National Center for Education Statistics (May 2010). Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2007-08 (Fiscal Year 2008). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010326
133 Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
134 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education. Bureau of Grants Management. 2008-09 Net Current Expenditures (NCE) per Pupil. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/dgm/report1/cpse2009/nceadm.pdf . Note: an excel sheet is also available on the website for analyses.
135 Source: Analysis of state expenditures. Robert Brewer. Presented to Commission members on September 28, 2010.
136 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education. Phone communication with the Chief Financial Officer. August 12, 2010.
Turnaround Schools Endnotes
137 Note: This authority must include greater flexibility to close and reopen schools, make staffing changes with relief from collective bargaining agreements, use funds more flexibly, and make scheduling and program changes like expanding the school day or school year.
138 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (2010). Connecticut Elementary and Middle and Schools Identified as “In Need of Improvement,” 2009-2010 School Year. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/2010_CT_Public_
Elem_Middle_Schools_YearofImprovement.pdf. See also Connecticut High Schools Identified as “In Need of Improvement,” 2009-2010 School Year. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/2010_CT_Public_High_Schools_YearofImprovement.pdf
139 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education. (2010).List of Connecticut’s Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools:Tier I, II, and III Schools. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2703&Q;=322312
140 Source: The New Teacher Project (2005). Unintended consequences: The Case for Reforming the Staffing Rules in Urban TeachersUnion Contracts. See also: National Council on Teacher Quality. Human Capital in Hartford Public Schools: Rethinking how to Attract, Develop and Retain Effective Teachers. May 2009. www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_hartford_human_capital.pdf See also Connecticut General Assembly. General Statutes of Connecticut. Sec. 10-151 & Sec. 10-157. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/title10.htm.
141 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (2010). Connecticut’s Race to the Top Application for Phase 2 Funding. Pg. 230-233. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/arra/ct_rttt_application.pdf.
142 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (2010). Connecticut’s Race to the Top Application for Phase 2 Funding. Pg. 269. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/arra/ct_rttt_application.pdf.
143 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education (2010). School Improvement Grant Awards by School. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2703&Q;=322312. Note: SIG grants total $24,461,137 over the next three years. These 18 elementary and secondary schools represent the lowest 5% among low-achieving Title 1 schools. In addition, the SDE also identified 5 non-Title I high schools as among the lowest of low-achieving schools.
144 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education. (2010). List of Connecticut’s Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools: Tier I, II, and III Schools. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2703&Q;=322312
145 Source: Connecticut General Assembly. (2010). Public Act 10-111, An Act Concerning Education Reform in Connecticut. Sec. 21. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/Pa/pdf/2010PA-00111-R00SB-00438-PA.pdf
146 Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The Framework for District Accountability and Assistance. http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/framework/default.html. See also: School Improvement in Maryland. How does Maryland implement Adequate Yearly Progress? Comparison of Current NCLB Categories with Proposed Differentiated Accountability Designations. Table 2. http://mdk12.org/assessments/ayp/index_c.html
147 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education. Communication with the Bureau Chief and Consultant of the Bureau of Accountability and School Improvement. August 17, 2010 and October 7, 2010. See also Connecticut Accountability for Learning Initiative (CALI). http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2618&Q;=321754.
148 Source: Mass Insight. (2010). School Turnaround Models: Emerging Turnaround Strategies and Results. School Turnaround Group. Retrieved from http://www.massinsight.org/publications/stg-resources/112/.
149 Source: Center on Innovation and Improvement. (2009) Handbook of Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants. Perlman, C., & Redding, S. Retrieved from www.centerii.org/handbook/
150 Source: Connecticut General Assembly. General Statutes of Connecticut. Sec. 10-15. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/title10.htm.
151 Source: Connecticut State Department of Education and representatives from the 15 Partner Districts. Recommendations for The Connecticut Commission on Education Achievement. July 19, 2010.
152 Source: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. (2006). Borman, Geoffrey D. and N. M. Dowling.. The Longitudinal Achievement Effects of Multi-Year Summer School: Evidence from the Teach Baltimore Randomized Field Trial. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/369954.
153 Source: National Center for Children in Poverty. (2008) Present, Engaged, and Accounted For; The Critical Importance of Addressing Chronic Absence in the Early Grades. Chang, H. & Romero, M. Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_837.html.
154 Source: Connecticut General Assembly. General Statutes of Connecticut. Sec. 10-198a. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2
© Copyright 2010, Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement. All rights reserved.