AN OVERVIEW OF TRENDS IN CMT AND CAPT DATA

CALI PARTNER AND SUPPORTED DISTRICTS

HEATHER LEVITT DOUCETTEEDUCATION CONSULTANT

BUREAU OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPROVEMENTCONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

SELECTION OF PARTNER DISTRICTS

• PARTNER DISTRICTS• Selected in 2007, again in 2008, and again in 2010• 12 in 2007• An additional 3 in 2008• An additional 3 in 2010

• In Year 3 or greater of In Need of Improvement Status

• Did not make AYP at the whole district level in math, reading or both in the year selected

SELECTION OF SUPPORTED DISTRICTS

• SUPPORTED DISTRICTS• Selected in 2007• In Year 3 or greater of In Need of Improvement

Status• Did not make AYP at in math, reading or both for

sub-group performance only• Some Supported Districts later met the criteria for

Partner Districts• No new Supported Districts identified since 2007

SUPPORTS FOR PARTNER DISTRICTS

• Instructional and financial diagnostic assessments of the districts and schools• Technical Assistance team assigned to

facilitate the revision and monitor implementation of the District Improvement Plan (DIP)• Required to establish an accountability

system based on the CALI model • Free access to training and on site technical

assistance in the CALI modules• Demonstration Schools

SUPPORTS FOR SUPPORTED DISTRICTS

• Facilitated district self-assessment using the DSAC tool• Free access to training and on site technical

assistance in the CALI modules• Demonstration Schools

CURRENT PARTNER AND SUPPORTED DISTRICTS

Partner Districts Selected in 2007

Partner Districts Selected in 2008

Partner Districts Selected in 2010

Supported Districts

Bridgeport Ansonia Hamden* Bristol

East Hartford Danbury West Haven* Manchester

Hartford Stamford Windsor* Naugatuck

Meriden CTHSS

Middletown

New Britain

New London

New Haven

Norwalk

Norwich

Waterbury

Windham* Former Supported Districts

Partner Districts: Ansonia, Bridgeport, Danbury, East Hartford, Hartford, Meriden, Middletown,New Britain, New Haven, New London, Norwalk, Norwich, Stamford, Waterbury, Windham

DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF 15 PARTNER DISTRICTS AS COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE STATE: (2009-10 SCHOOL YEAR)

AA/NA4%

Distribution of Special Education, Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible and ELL students in 15 Partner Districts as Compared to the Rest of the State (2009-

10 School Year)

WHAT DOES THIS DATA LOOK LIKE FOR THE DISTRICTS WE ARE WORKING IN?

Percent of Students Performing at/above Proficiency on CMT Reading: 3rd Grade 2007 Matched Cohort

District 2007 (Grade 3) 2008 (Grade 4) 2009 (Grade 5) 2010 (Grade 6)Manchester 76 78 78 88STATE 76 77 82 88Bristol 75 74 82 87Danbury 69 69 77 86Middletown 74 78 83 85Hamden 69 70 77 85Stamford 73 71 78 84Norwalk 66 64 77 84Norwich 58 64 77 84Ansonia 63 68 72 84Naugatuck 60 61 75 84West Haven 68 70 77 79Meriden 52 63 71 78Windsor 64 67 66 74New Haven 49 50 56 73East Hartford 45 48 59 71New London 31 36 51 69Waterbury 51 53 63 68Bridgeport 43 45 49 68Hartford 36 38 44 63Windham 38 45 37 55New Britain 31 37 44 51

Percent of Students Performing at/above Proficiency on CMT Math: 3rd Grade 2007 Matched Cohort

District 2007 (Grade 3) 2008 (Grade 4) 2009 (Grade 5) 2010 (Grade 6)Ansonia 75 91 93 94Danbury 90 90 91 92State 86 87 89 91Manchester 83 87 88 89Middletown 82 83 89 89Bristol 86 86 86 88Hamden 71 76 83 88Windsor 82 83 86 88Naugatuck 74 82 83 87Stamford 83 84 89 86West Haven 83 80 85 83Norwalk 81 81 86 82Meriden 73 81 84 80East Hartford 68 73 73 80Bridgeport 60 62 67 76Norwich 77 70 77 75New Haven 74 75 69 73Hartford 58 58 64 71Waterbury 75 76 80 71New London 54 50 63 61New Britain 53 53 55 56Windham 52 61 46 54

Percent of Students Performing at/above Proficiency on CMT Reading: 4th Grade 2007 Matched Cohort

District 2007 (Grade 4) 2008 (Grade 5) 2009 (Grade 6) 2010 (Grade 7)Bristol 79 80 82 90Manchester 73 79 77 89State 76 80 84 88Danbury 70 78 81 88Naugatuck 66 67 83 86Middletown 72 82 82 86Windsor 74 77 83 85West Haven 77 79 80 85Stamford 67 77 77 83Norwalk 64 75 73 83Hamden 66 71 83 82Norwich 61 69 73 78Ansonia 63 67 70 77Meriden 54 62 66 74New London 48 51 58 72Waterbury 49 59 58 69Bridgeport 45 47 57 68East Hartford 54 56 60 68New Haven 40 49 56 66Hartford 33 43 50 57Windham 42 33 44 55New Britain 36 46 46 55

Percent of Students Performing at/above Proficiency on CMT Math: 4th Grade 2007 Matched Cohort

District 2007 (Grade 4) 2008 (Grade 5) 2009 (Grade 6) 2010 (Grade 7)Bristol 89 88 91 94Windsor 83 86 92 94Danbury 93 94 94 92State 86 89 90 90Ansonia 77 92 92 89Hamden 78 85 90 87Norwalk 78 81 79 86Naugatuck 77 81 87 86Stamford 82 90 86 85Manchester 83 88 83 84Middletown 82 88 87 84West Haven 84 88 83 84Meriden 70 77 75 80Norwich 77 79 74 79New Haven 65 71 70 69Waterbury 73 80 69 69Bridgeport 60 66 73 69East Hartford 68 69 68 68Hartford 51 60 65 65New London 63 73 72 63New Britain 54 57 54 55Windham 66 48 56 53

Percent of Students Performing at/above Proficiency on CMT Reading: 5th Grade 2007 Matched Cohort

District 2007 (Grade 5) 2008 (Grade 6) 2009 (Grade 7) 2010 (Grade 8)Bristol 80 85 91 91Naugatuck 73 87 90 86Manchester 79 87 85 86State 79 83 87 86Hamden 76 85 85 85Danbury 72 75 84 84Stamford 78 76 86 83Windsor 75 82 82 81Middletown 73 79 80 79West Haven 72 79 84 78Ansonia 64 68 77 76Norwalk 64 68 80 74Norwich 66 70 75 72Meriden 64 66 71 71New Haven 51 59 71 70East Hartford 47 54 62 64New London 41 48 57 63Waterbury 58 61 67 63Hartford 39 52 60 59Bridgeport 47 57 63 56New Britain 42 49 55 51Windham 35 45 49 49

Percent of Students Performing at/above Proficiency on CMT Math: 5th Grade 2007 Matched Cohort

District 2007 (Grade 5) 2008 (Grade 6) 2009 (Grade 7) 2010 (Grade 8)Bristol 87 92 94 95Naugatuck 80 89 90 90Windsor 90 94 91 90State 87 90 89 89Hamden 85 90 88 89Middletown 88 89 83 86Ansonia 78 78 82 86Danbury 92 89 88 85Stamford 88 84 85 85Manchester 85 92 84 84Norwalk 73 75 82 83Meriden 73 78 78 82Norwich 80 78 75 81West Haven 88 84 81 80New Haven 73 78 75 75East Hartford 66 64 61 72Bridgeport 65 72 67 66Waterbury 79 71 70 63Hartford 55 66 63 62New Britain 58 66 60 59Windham 49 58 56 59New London 60 62 57 57

Percent of Students Performing At/Above Proficient: CAPT Reading

District 2007 2008 2009 2010Bristol 87 90 89 89Naugatuck 72 87 86 85State 80 83 82 83CTHSS 77 82 79 82Windsor 81 75 77 80Stamford 76 79 78 79Norwalk 77 80 74 78Ansonia 71 76 63 78Manchester 77 81 77 77West Haven 73 72 74 76Hamden 79 73 76 73Middletown 78 78 77 71Meriden 70 65 70 68Danbury 72 75 68 67Hartford 50 52 53 64East Hartford 57 64 56 64Waterbury 56 57 67 61New Britain 49 53 52 59New Haven 51 60 57 59Windham 53 63 55 56New London 47 51 52 55Bridgeport 33 45 44 39Norwich* * * * *

*Norwich has only one alternative High School; the N size for CAPT participants is too small to report the data publicly.

Percent of Students Performing At/Above Proficient: CAPT Math

District 2007 2008 2009 2010Bristol 88 89 90 89Naugatuck 69 86 83 83CTHSS 75 81 79 81State 77 80 78 79Windsor 77 79 77 77Norwalk 69 75 72 73Manchester 68 74 73 69Hamden 71 68 70 68Stamford 63 72 69 68Middletown 72 70 68 66Danbury 61 67 63 62Ansonia 57 63 61 62West Haven 66 65 63 59Meriden 62 63 64 57East Hartford 53 58 48 55Hartford 43 47 45 52New London 41 45 48 51New Haven 44 46 46 49New Britain 43 44 40 49Windham 50 58 51 45Waterbury 48 48 49 41Bridgeport 34 37 36 34Norwich* * * * *

*Norwich has only one alternative High School; the N size for CAPT participants is too small to report the data publicly.

WHAT ABOUT THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP?

Percent of Students At/Above Proficient on Math CMT by Race:3rd Grade 2007 Matched Cohort

Percent of Students At/Above Proficient on Reading CMT by Race:3rd Grade 2007 Matched Cohort

Percent of Students At/Above Proficient on Reading CMT by Free/Reduced Lunch Eligibility:3rd Grade 2007 Matched Cohort

Percent of Students At/Above Proficient on Math CMT by Free/Reduced Lunch Eligibility:3rd Grade 2007 Matched Cohort

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOLS, DISTRICTS AND THE STATE

• Cohort information is different than status• Some districts and schools need to start

looking at Goal• Closing the achievement gap requires

accelerating the learning of sub-groups• Vertical Scale Analysis• The assessment and accountability system

will be changing• Schools and districts need to mine their

own data

HEATHER LEVITT DOUCETTEBUREAU OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPROVEMENT

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARMENT OF EDUCATIONHEATHER.LEVITT@CT.GOV