hispanic achievement gap in ct

8/6/2019 Hispanic Achievement Gap in CT

1/78

Are Connecticut SchoolsMeeting the Needs of

Hispanic Students?

Annemarie HillmanAlexandra Dufresne, J.D.

July 2011


2/78

Connecticut Voices for Children 2

Are Connecticut Schools Meeting the Needs of Hispanic Students?Annemarie Hillman and Alexandra Dufresne, J.D.

July 2011

I. Introduction

In June 2011, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released a state-by-state analysis of theachievement gaps, or differences in academic performance, between Hispanic students and their whitepeers.1 As measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), commonly referred to asthe nations report card, Connecticut was found to have one of the largest gaps in the country in bothmathematics and reading.2 In addition, NCES found that while the scores of Hispanic students inConnecticut in math and reading had improved since the 1990s,3 the breadth of the gap between the scoresof Hispanic and white students had remained consistent in reading, and only narrowed slightly in math.4

Like the NCES study, this report focuses on the achievement gaps between the diverse and growingpopulation of Hispanic students and their white peers, but unlike the NCES, it focuses solely onConnecticuts children.5 The goal of this report is to provide a foundation for a deeper, data-driven inquiryinto methods of ensuring equal educational opportunity for Connecticuts Hispanic students. There are

several reasons for this particular focus. First, Hispanic children currently comprise the largest minoritygroup in Connecticut schools.6 Second, Hispanic children are the largest growing segment of the school-aged population in Connecticut.7 Third, although the achievement gaps between Connecticuts black andwhite students are quite severe, in some respects, the achievement gaps between Connecticuts Hispanic andwhite students are more severe.8Fourth, although Connecticuts Hispanic student population is internallydiverse, there are reasons to believe that many of Connecticuts Hispanic students face common challenges.Finally, given its importance to children and to the state as a whole, we believe this issue has not yet receivedthe full attention it deserves.

This report adds to the picture provided by the NCES analysis and past Connecticut-specific studies inseveral respects. First, it focuses on results at the district level. It provides a district-level analysis of the

Hispanic-white achievement gap, as measured by 2007-2008 through 2009-2010 scores on the ConnecticutMastery Test (CMT)9 for fourth and eighth graders in reading and math for the twelve, non-charter schooldistricts in Connecticut with student populations that are at least 30 percent Hispanic. Additionally, weprovide 2009-2010 test scores for fourth and eighth graders in reading, math, science, and writing for themore than 40 districts for which the scores of Hispanic students are reported. We analyze and compareachievement gaps at the district level for several reasons, including Connecticuts strong legal and culturaltradition of local control of educational decision-making. Identifying the relative severity of gaps indifferent communities across Connecticut will help educators and policy-makers identify best practices andtarget interventions. To our knowledge, this is the first district-levelstudy of the Hispanic-white achievementgap in Connecticut.10

Second, unlike many Connecticut studies, this report focuses on analyzing results at the goal level, ratherthan the lower proficient standard. The State Department of Education has identified goal as the level atwhich it wants students to perform: a challenging, yet reasonable, expectation for Connecticut students.11As its name suggests, goal or higher is the standard to which all schools and students should aspire.Proficiency, in contrast, is the benchmark against which districts are most commonly held accountable andwhich has garnered the most attention. Not surprisingly, by choosing a higher benchmark, the achievementgaps described in this paper are greater than what would be indicated by differences in achievement at thelower proficiency level. (For context, proficiency scores are included in Appendix C). A recent analysis byConnecticuts State Department of Education shows some improvements in test scores, as measured by theincreasing percentage of students reaching proficiency on the CMT in Connecticuts lowest-performing


3/78


districts, including improvements in test scores of Hispanic students.12 Though modest, these improvementsare promising.13 However, given the importance of setting high expectations for all students, a detailedanalysis of results at the goal level supplements the understanding of the problem provided by existingresearch.

The significant disparities in test scores between Connecticuts Hispanic students and their white peersindicate that Connecticut is not meeting the needs of its Hispanic students.14 Achievement gaps between

Hispanic students and white students exist in every district in Connecticut for which data about Hispanicstudents are publicly available, regardless of income level, location, size, or percentage of Hispanic students.In some school districts, Hispanic students are less than halfas likely as white students to score at or abovethe states goal level on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) for their grade level.15 In addition, absolutescores for Hispanic students raise concerns about the educational opportunities afforded Hispanic childrenin Connecticut. For example, in several school districts in 2009-2010, less than 25 percentof fourth-gradeHispanic students reached goal or above in reading.16

Achievement gaps have broad social, economic, and political consequences for the state and itscommunities. As a matter of principle, every child in Connecticut should have equal access to educationalopportunity. As a matter of economics, Connecticut simply cannot afford such stark educational divides,

particularly considering the large demographic shifts described in this paper. According to a 2009 study byMcKinsey and Company, poorer health and higher rates of incarceration, both important community socialfactors, are related to underperformance in academic achievement. Furthermore, it has been estimated thatif achievement gaps across the nation, such as the ones present in Connecticut, had been narrowed, the USGross Domestic Product (GDP) would have been between $310 and $525 billion higher in 2008. (Theseamounts are equal to 2 to 4 percent of the US GDP, respectively.)17 While there exist no comprehensive,rigorous analyses of the costs of the Hispanic achievement gap to Connecticut, given the nature ofConnecticuts economy,18 the costs are likely staggering.

This paper does not analyze the causes of the achievement gap between Connecticuts Hispanic andwhitestudents. Academic and policy literature suggest a number of factors including poverty,19 English language

needs,

20

inadequate access to early care and education services,

21

family structure,

22

education levels ofparents,23 immigration status,24 residential and school-level racial segregation,25 inadequate funding,26 lowexpectations,27 barriers to parental engagement,28 exclusionary disciplinary policies,29 and institutionalracism,30 among other factors.31 Regrettably, as discussed in Section V below, limitations in the publicly-available data in Connecticut make it extremely difficult to disentangle the various factors and their relativeweights. Furthermore, the significance of various factors likely varies substantially among communities.Nonetheless, we hope that by describing in detail the degree and nature of the achievement gaps in differentcommunities in Connecticut, we can advance a community-level and statewide conversation regarding boththe urgency of the challenge and potential solutions.


4/78


Background Regarding Connecticuts Hispanic Student Population

Race/Ethnicity.Hispanics are the largest growing ethnic/racial group in the United States32 and inConnecticut.33 During the 2009-2010school year, Hispanics accounted forapproximately one of every six children

(17.3 percent) in Connecticuts publicschool system (grades K-12). Otherlarge racial/ethnic groups representedwere Caucasians (64.3 percent),African-Americans (13.7 percent), andAsians (4.4 percent).34 Overall, the K-12 population in Connecticut has been declining in enrollment since it peaked in the 2004-2005 academicyear. Statewide enrollment is projected to bottom-out around 2020. During this 15-year period, the Hispanicpopulation is expected to grow both in numbers and as a percentage of the total K-12 population. Initialcounts from Census 2010 suggest that growth among K-12 Hispanics has been larger than previouslyprojected.35 By 2020, the percentage of Hispanic children is expected to increase to one of every five (19.6

percent) school-aged children (age 5 to 17) in Connecticut.36

During the same period, the percentage ofCaucasian students is expected to decline to 58.9 percent while African-Americans and Asians will increasetheir share of the K-12 population to 15.0 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively.37

Citizenship Status.The majority (95.5 percent) of Hispanic children (ages 0 to 17) in Connecticut are U.S.citizens.38 In Connecticut, 93.9 percent of Hispanic children were born in the U.S. or Puerto Rico.39 Anadditional 1.6 percent are naturalized citizens. Among Hispanics ages 18 to 64, 68.5 percent are U.S.citizens. Among elderly Hispanics (age 65+), 90.0 percent are U.S. citizens.40

While the majority of Hispanic children (ages 0 to 17) in Connecticut are U.S. citizens, they are diverse interms of their ancestry or their parents place of birth. Over half (51.8 percent) of all Hispanics in

Connecticut were born in the fifty states, while Hispanics born in Puerto Rico account for another 21.3percent. The foreign-born population accounts for 26.8 percent of all Hispanics in Connecticut. 41 Amongforeign-born Hispanics in Connecticut, the largest populations in order are from Mexico (23,513), Ecuador(16,252), Colombia (12,700), the Dominican Republic (11,710), Guatemala (11,202), and Peru (10,597).42

Population Counts.The ten towns with the largest Hispanic populations, in order from largest to smallest,are listed in the chart below.43

Among these ten towns, Puerto Ricans are the largestHispanic population in Hartford, Bridgeport, Waterbury, NewHaven, New Britain, Meriden, and East Hartford. PuertoRicans are also the largest Hispanic population in New

London. Guatemalans are the largest Hispanic population inStamford. Ecuadorians predominate in Danbury andMexicans in Norwalk. Windham also has a significantpopulation of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans.44

Ethnic Composition of K-12 Student Population

2010 (%)Projected -

2020 (%)

Change Over

Time (% Pts) African-American 13.7 15.0 +1.3 Asian 4.4 6.4 Caucasian 64.3 58.9 -5.4Hispanic 17.3 19.6 +2.3

Town Population SizeHartford 50,413Bridgeport 45,796 Waterbury 30,139

New Haven 29,434Stamford 26,294New Britain 22,507Norwalk 19,041Danbury 16,651Meriden 16,092East Hartford 10,929


5/78


6/78


their white peershave been performing in relation to the states expectations for them. In addition,previous reports have reported proficiency scores,56 which are used by the federal government to determineAdequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind Act. 57 We recognize the importance of theseproficiency scores to many school districts, but choose to focus on goal scores as a new topic of discussion.In addition, recent studies suggest that state standards fall well below national standards, so studentachievement at goal level or better may be more indicative of students achievement in a certain area.58 Thus,unless otherwise indicated, percentages of students listed indicate the percentage of students within the

indicated ethnic group who scored at or above goal in a specific subject area; all percentages in AppendicesA, B, and D depict the percentage of students scoring at or above goal level on the CMT. However, inrecognition of the importance of CMT proficiency scores to many districts, and in acknowledgement of theefforts that many school districts have made to increase the number of their students who perform at orabove proficient, we have listed proficiency scores for Hispanic and white students in all districts reportingHispanic scores in 2009-2010. These proficiency scores are located in Appendix C. 59

To compare CMT scores between Hispanic and white students, we used the ethnic data provided by theConnecticut State Department of Education (SDE).(No other data connecting CMT scores to ethnicity isavailable.) SDE compiles this information from its statewide student database, known as the Public SchoolInformation System, also known as the PSIS.Data provided in the PSIS about a students ethnicity is

determined by self-identification by either the student or his or her parents. If a parent does not provide thisinformation to their school district, then the school district must decide under which ethnic category thestudent will be listed in the PSIS.60 In the past (including the school years analyzed in this paper), a studentcould only be identified under a single racial or ethnic group: American Indian, Asian American, Black,Hispanic, orWhite.61 As a result, multiracial Hispanics who chose to identify themselves under one of thenon-Hispanic categories, or who were listed by their school districts under one of the non-Hispaniccategories, are not included under the Hispanic results listed in this report. Additionally, informationabout CMT scores for school districts with fewer than 20 Hispanic students in a grade is unavailable, likelydue to privacy concerns and/or lack of data.62

To determine the size of the achievement gaps in various districts, we compare the percentage of white

students who scored at or above goal in a district to the percentage of Hispanic students who scored at orabove goal in that district. Dividing the percentage of white students by the percentage of Hispanic studentscreates a ratio which describes how many times more likely it is that a white student will score at or abovegoal level than a Hispanic student. For example, if District X had 50 percent of its white students scoring ator above goal and 25 percent of its Hispanic students scoring at or above goal, then dividing 50/25, showsthat white students were 2 times more likely to score at or above goal than Hispanic students. If the endresult (the ratio of scores) was 1.0, it would indicate that Hispanic and white students were equally likely toachieve goal level.

In order to provide a broader context for the achievement gap, Section III of the paper includes data fromall non-charter school districts that report publicly available scores for their Hispanic students.63 Theseresults include scores from the math, reading, writing, and science sections of 2009-2010 CMT. Data for

these districts can be found in Appendix A.64

Additionally, in order to take a closer look at the Hispanic achievement gap in Connecticuts most Hispanicschool districts, Section IV of this paper focuses on fourth- and eighth-grade test data from all non-charterschool districts with a student population that is 30 percent or greater Hispanic.65 These districts werechosen in order to ensure that Hispanic populations are large enough that significant changes in theachievement gap are unlikely to be due to the presence of a few extremely underperforming oroverperforming students.66 The data analysis focuses on math and reading scores over the past three years toaccount for differences in class ability67 and subject area bias.68 Fourth and eighth grade were chosen to


7/78


assess the achievement gap toward the end of elementary school and the end of middle school. It should benoted that comparison of the achievement gap in these grades over time is difficultchanges could beattributed to differences in class population, variations in the CMT, effects from implementation of theMAS pilot,69 or actual changes in instruction and student performance. Scores from these districts can befound in Appendix B.70

English Language Learners

English language ability plays a role in the creation of the achievement gap, but the extent to which language issues affect theachievement gap in comparison to other factors is unclear.Of Connecticuts English language learners (ELLs) aterm which refers to those students whose dominant language is other than English and [whose]proficiency in English is not sufficient to assure equal educational opportunity in the regular schoolprogram7121,664 were identified as using Spanish as their dominant language during the 2009-2010school year.72 Assuming that all of these Spanish-speaking ELLs are Hispanic,73 it can be determined that22.1 percent of Connecticuts Hispanic student population in 2009-2010 could not understand English at alevel that would assure equal educational opportunity, limiting their chance at academic success.74 InConnecticut non-charter school districts with student populations that are 30 percent or more Hispanic, thepercentages of Spanish-speaking ELLs in 2009-2010 were often higher than the statewide figure:75

The above numbers of Hispanic ELLs do not count students who have recently been discharged from ELL

programs and who might still be struggling with English, or students who might not have been identified asELL, but who have poor English skills and could benefit from ELL services. Thus, the number of Hispanicstudents who face linguistic barriers to education could be even higher. For students from families whoseparents do not understand English, obstacles to educational success could also include lack of parentalinvolvement in, or understanding of, the Connecticut education system.76

All ELLs must take all sections of the Connecticut Mastery Test in English, unless they have attendedschool in the United States for less than twelve calendar months.77 This requirement, combined with thenumber of Hispanic ELLs in Connecticut, seems to explain some component of the Hispanic achievementgap in Connecticut.78 When scores from ELLs are removed from consideration, the percentage of Hispanicstudents reaching goal in each school district increases. For example, statewide, 30.9 percent of fourth-grade

Hispanic students scored at or above goal in reading in 2009-2010;79

if Hispanic ELLs are removed fromthat number, 37.5 percent of fourth-grade, non-ELL Hispanics in Connecticut met or exceeded goal in thatsubject.80 Of all eighth-grade Hispanic students in 2009-2010, 47.3 percent scored at or above goal inreading;81 excluding eighth-grade Hispanic ELLs, the number increases to 54.9 percent statewide. 82

The extent to which Hispanic ELL scores affect the overall percentage of Hispanic students scoring at orabove goal varies widely. For example, among the twelve school districts with student populations that are30 percent or more Hispanic, the exclusion of ELL scores caused the percentage of fourth-grade Hispanicstudents reaching goal in reading in each district in 2009-2010 to increase between 4.3 and 11.4 percentagepoints.83 In eighth-grade reading in these districts, removing ELL scores caused the percentages of Hispanic

DistrictPercentage of

HispanicsWho are ELL

DistrictPercentage of

HispanicsWho are ELL

Danbury 42.0 Norwalk 28.5New London 41.6 Bridgeport 22.9 Windham 37.7 Meriden Stamford 30.5 New Britain 22.5New Haven 30.0 Waterbury 21.4Hartford 28.9 East Hartford 16.2


8/78


students achieving goal or better to increase between 4.5 and 15.6 percentage points during the same year.84The inclusion of ELL scores in analysis of Hispanic performance in math tends to have a lesser, althoughstill significant, effect. Hispanic and white scores with ELLs excluded can be found in Appendix D.85

Although it is apparent that English language ability affects the achievement gap, it is also clear that it is notthe only factor affecting the gap. Achievement gaps are found in school districts with both low proportionsof ELLs in their Hispanic populatione.g., Vernon86and high proportions of ELLs among their Hispanic

studentse.g., Danbury.87 In addition, absolute student achievement and the size of achievement gaps donot appear to be fully linked with the number or percentage of ELLs in a district. Of the twelve mostHispanic districts, Danbury and Stamford, with the highest and fourth-highest percentages, respectively, oftheir Hispanic students identified as ELLs, consistently placed in the top three in terms of the percentage ofstudents scoring at or above goal. Danburys fourth-grade reading achievement gap was smaller than thefourth-grade reading gap in Waterbury, New Britain, or Meriden, which had some of the smallestpercentages of ELLs within the most Hispanic school districts. Furthermore, even when ELL scores areremoved from consideration, significant achievement gaps remain. English language ability seems unlikely tobe the only factor in the achievement gap.

Given the variation in the effects of including ELLs in the Hispanic population, and in order to provide a

broad, full picture of the achievement gap and its effects on all Hispanic students, we choose to includeELL scores in our analysis featured in this paper. We recognize that to some degree, the presence of ELLsaffects a districts ability to get all of its students to goal level, and we note the argument that bringing ELLachievement to goal level is a very high expectation for a district. Yet, some districts do have ELLs thatperform at goal level, including Danbury, which had 12.3 percent of its fourth-grade ELLs and 21.2 percentof its eighth-grade ELLs score at goal level or better in reading in 2009-2010, and New Haven, whosenumbers were 8.3 percent and 12.9 percent for fourth- and eighth-grade ELLs, respectively, in reading in2009-2010.88 Additionally, ELL students are permitted various testing accommodations, which in theoryshould limit disparities between ELL student scores and non-ELL student scores.89

ELL achievementand districts ability to improve students English language skills quickly and successfully

are crucial components of understanding the whole picture of Hispanic student success. The sheernumber of ELLs underscores the importance of Connecticuts bilingual education options, which,depending on the school or district, may include English as a second language (ESL) programs, languagetransition support services (LTSS), sheltered English programs, English immersion programs, or duallanguage programs.90 It also highlights the need for school- and community-based English language learnerprograms and supports for non-English speaking parents. However, given that the vast majority of Hispanicstudents are not identified as English language learners, and the gap exists even when ELL scores areexcluded, we cannot write off the gap as purely based on language. ELLs are an important part of thepicture, and as such, are included in our analysis, but they comprise only one-fifth of the Hispanic studentpopulation in the state.

III. Findings From Districts Across Connecticut91

The Achievement Gap Across Connecticut

Connecticut students experience achievement gaps at both the state and district level. Statewide, Hispanic student scoresare found to lag behind those of their white peers, and achievement gaps of varying sizes are reported in allschool districts for which data about Hispanic students CMT scores are available.92 Furthermore, these gapstend to be reported in multiple subject areasoften alltested subject areasand multiple grade levels.Districts facing these obstacles encompass communities of all geographic and economic varieties.


9/78


Across Time

While there has been improvement over the last few years in the percentage of Hispanic students performing at or above goal insome subjects, there has not been consistent progress across subjects, and there has been little change in the gap between Hispanicand white student performance over time. Between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010, there was improvement in thepercentage of Hispanic students statewide meeting or exceeding goal on the CMT in fourth-grade math(32.8 percent to 43.5 percent), eighth-grade math (25.9 percent to 38.8 percent), and eighth-grade reading

(36.2 percent to 47.3 percent). Between 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, there was also some improvement ineighth-grade science scores (25.9 percent to 32.0 percent). However, in other subjects (fourth-grade readingand writing, and eighth-grade writing), there was more limited or no consistent progress. In addition, despitesome progress in the percentage of students reaching goal, there has been little progress across subjects inclosing the gap between Hispanic and white students meeting or exceeding goal.

*Achievement gap = % White Students At or Above Goal / % Hispanic Students At or Above Goal


Fourth-Grade Achievement Gap Among Connecticut Students Over Time93

% of StudentsAt or AboveGoal in Math

GapMath

% StudentsAt or Above

Goal in Reading

GapReading

% StudentsAt or Above

Goal in Writing

GapWriting

2005-

2006

Hispanic 32.82.1

27.42.5

39.21.8

White 69.9 69.6 71.92006-2007

Hispanic 35.62.1

27.52.5

40.81.8

White 74.2 69.5 75.2

2007-2008

Hispanic 35.52.0

27.92.4

37.81.9

White 72 67.9 73.3

2008-2009

Hispanic 38.22.0

30.72.4

40.11.9

White 75.1 72.7 74.2

2009-2010

Hispanic 43.51.8

30.92.3

40.31.8

White 78.2 71.8 73.7

Eighth-Grade Achievement Gap Among Connecticut Students Over Time94

% ofStudents

At or AboveGoal inMath

GapMath

% StudentsAt or

AboveGoal inReading

GapReading

% StudentsAt or

AboveGoal in

Writing

GapWriting

% StudentsAt or

AboveGoal inScience

GapScience

2005-2006

Hispanic 25.92.7

36.22.2

34.32.1

--

White 71.1 78.5 72.9 -

2006-2007

Hispanic 29.72.5

37.32.1

34.52.2

--

White 73.4 78.2 75.4 -

2007-2008 Hispanic 30.5 2.4 34.4 2.2 35.4 2.1 25.9 2.8White 73.8 77 74.6 72.8

2008-2009

Hispanic 33.62.3

38.32.1

401.9

27.92.7

White 77.2 80.1 77.2 74.9

2009-2010

Hispanic 38.82.0

47.31.8

34.32.2

32.02.4

White 79 83.4 73.8 76.2


10/78


Across Academic Subjects

Achievement gaps in reading and math are experienced by Hispanic students throughout the state. CMT data compiledabout Hispanic students statewide indicates that in 2009-2010, white fourth graders were 2.3 times morelikely than Hispanic fourth graders to achieve goal in reading, and 1.8 times more likely than Hispanic fourthgraders to reach goal in math. White eighth graders statewide in 2009-2010 were 1.8 times more likely thantheir Hispanic peers to make goal level in reading, and 2.0 times more likely to score at or above goal in

math. However, achievement gaps varied widely in size from district to district. For example, white eighthgraders from Meriden were 2.7 times more likely than their Hispanic classmates to achieve goal in math,while white eighth graders in Southington were only 1.2 times more likely than Hispanics to score at thatlevel.

Connecticuts achievement gaps are experienced by Hispanic students in writing and science as well. Statewide in 2009-2010,fourth-grade white students were 1.8 times more likely to reach goal in writing than Hispanic students;eighth-grade white students were 2.2 times more likely to meet or exceed goal level in writing than theirHispanic peers in that same year. In eighth-grade science in 2009-2010, white students statewide were 2.4times more likely than Hispanic students to achieve goal or above. As in math and reading, the extent ofthese gapsand the absolute performance of studentsvaried widely from district to district. For example,

Shelton reported in 2009-2010 that its fourth-grade white students were 1.1 times more likely than itsHispanic students to score at or above goal level in writing, which indicates a minimal achievement gap. Incontrast, white Vernon fourth graders were 2.2 times more likely than their Hispanic peers to reach orexceed goal in writing in 2009-2010. Appendix A lists the fourth- and eighth-grade achievement gaps for allnon-charter districts reporting scores for their Hispanic and white students.

Achievement gaps are apparent not only in fourth- and eighth-grade CMT scores, but throughout CMT results in grades threethrough eight.The chart below shows that achievement gaps affect students at many points during their K-12education.95

Achievement Gap in Connecticut Schools During the 2009-2010 School YearGrades 3 to 8

Math Reading Writing ScienceGrade 3 1.9 2.3 1.9 -Grade 4 1.8 2.3 1.8 -Grade 5 1.6 2.3 1.8 2.5Grade 6 1.8 1.7 1.9 -Grade 7 2.0 1.7 2.2 -Grade 8 2.0 1.8 2.2 2.4


Across Geographic Regions

School districts reporting achievement gaps in their test scores are not limited to any one region of Connecticutthe challenge ofthe achievement gap is one that affects Connecticut as a whole. From Enfield on the Massachusetts border, toTorrington in the northwest, to Stamford in the southwest, to Waterbury and Hartford in the center of thestate, to Groton and New London in the southeast, to Windham in the northeast, residents across the stateconfront achievement gaps in their schools. Certainly, the populations of Hispanics in these communitiesvary greatly by number and nationality, and in some small districts, the size of achievement gaps might beaffected be a few extremely high- or low-scoring Hispanic students. Yet the central issue remains; Hispanicstudents educational needs are too frequently not being met in many districts around the state.


11/78


Across Socioeconomic Groups

Besides affecting geographically diverse communities, achievement gaps are found in a wide range ofeconomic communities. Students in wealthier communities, such as Greenwich, Glastonbury, and WestHartford, experience achievement gaps, as do students from poorer communities, such as Hartford,Bridgeport, and New Haven.96 In the 2009-2010 school year, white fourth graders in Bridgeport andGreenwich were 1.5 and 1.6 times more likely, respectively, to meet goal in reading than their Hispanic

peers, while white eighth graders in West Hartford and New Haven were 1.6 times more likely thanHispanic eighth graders to achieve goal in math.

There are differences in absolute academic performance, however. Hispanic students from wealthiercommunities seem to achieve at higher absolute levels than their peers from poorer communities. Thefourth-grade students from Bridgeport and Greenwich mentioned above had strikingly different levels ofachievement; only 21.9 percent of Hispanic fourth graders reached goal level in reading in Bridgeport, while53.8 percent of Hispanic students made goal in Greenwich. It is not clear that poverty is the only factor inthese differences. Bridgeport and Greenwich have vastly different numbers of Hispanic students, Englishlanguage learners, and median family income levels, which likely all contribute to the variations in absolutescore. Yet in the communities described, the achievement gaps in fourth-grade reading were nearly equal.

Unfortunately, available data regarding Hispanic wealth and income are imprecise, 97 which makes it difficultto determine direct correlations between income and academic performance or achievement gap size.Nonetheless, a brief study of the median family incomes for Hispanics and the absolute academicperformance of Hispanic students in the twelve most Hispanic school districts yields some illuminatingresults. Of these districts, Norwalk, Stamford, and Danburythe schools which tended to have the highestperforming Hispanic students in fourth and eighth gradealso have the top three median family incomesfor Hispanics among the states most Hispanic districts. 98 Often, but less consistently, these districts alsoclaimed some of the smallest achievement gaps between their white and Hispanic students. If more rigorousdata were to become available, it would be worthwhile to analyze these correlations further to determine thetrue impact of wealth and poverty on Hispanic academic performance and the achievement gap.

IV. Findings From Connecticuts Most Hispanic Schools99

Although achievement gaps are found in districts throughout Connecticut, many of these districts have relatively smallpopulations of Hispanic students. Thus, we also assess the status of reading and math achievement gaps for fourth graders andeighth graders in Connecticuts most Hispanic districts those with a district-wide student population that is at least 30percent Hispanic. Scores and achievement gaps for these schools can be found in Appendix B.

Fourth Grade

Connecticutsschools with the highest concentrations of Hispanic students struggle with a persistent achievement gap in fourth-

grade reading.

In 2009-2010, the achievement gap in reading ranged from 1.5 to 3.5. In other words, in East Hartford,white fourth graders were 1.5 times more likely to score at or above goal in reading than their Hispanicpeers, while in Windham, white fourth graders were 3.5 times more likely to score at or above goal inreading than their Hispanic peers. The performance of students in the other districts fell somewherebetween those two extremes. At the median, fourth-grade white students were 2.3 times more likely to scoreat or above goal in reading than their Hispanic peers.


12/78


The range of the achievement gap in these schools has not changed significantly over the past several schoolyears. The median reading gap among the twelve districts has also changed little over this period with amedian of 2.3 in 2009-2010, compared to a median gap of 2.1 in both 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. Noindividual district school has shown continual decrease in the reading achievement gap between its whiteand Hispanic students.

Absolute achievement in readingthe percentage of fourth-grade Hispanic students scoring at or above goalis quite low.

In 2009-2010, Norwalk had the highest percentage of Hispanic students at or above goal in reading, withonly 40.2 percent meeting that standard; in New Britain and Windham, only 15.6 percent of Hispanicstudents achieved goal. Over the course of the three school years studied, only three school districts of thetwelve analyzed had 30 percent or more of its Hispanic students meet or exceed goal level in reading:Danbury, Norwalk, and Stamford. These three districts displayed the highest levels of Hispanicachievement, in terms of absolute percentages of students scoring at or above goal, in each of the threeyears for which data was assessed. Danbury displayed the greatest improvement since 2007-2008 in terms ofabsolute achievement in reading for Hispanic fourth graders, with an increase of 6.0 percentage points in thepercentage of Hispanic students achieving at/above goal.

The fourth-grade students in the states most Hispanic school districts also face achievement gaps in math, although these gaps inmath tend to be less extreme than those in reading.

During the 2009-2010 school year, the greatest achievement gap in these districts in math was in NewBritain, where white students were 2.2 times more likely to score at or above goal in reading than theirHispanic peers; the smallest gap was in Danbury, where white fourth graders were 1.2 times more likely toscore at or above goal in reading than their fellow Hispanic classmates. The median gap in 2009-2010 was1.6, which was not a significant improvement from the 2007-2008 or 2008-2009 school years. Only Danburyand New London demonstrated a continual decrease in the achievement gap between 2007-2008 and 2009-2010.

Absolute achievement for fourth-grade Hispanic students in highly Hispanic districts also tends to be better in math thanreading, but is still quite low.

In the 2009-2010 school year, Danbury had the highest percentage of Hispanic students scoring at or abovegoal in math, with 67.0 percent achieving that standard. New Britain had the lowest percentage of Hispanicstudents scoring at or above goal, with only 20.6 percent attaining that level. Six of the twelve schooldistricts studied had over 30 percent of their fourth-grade Hispanic students score at or above goal in mathin each of the past three school years. Three of these districts Danbury, Norwalk, and Stamfordreported more than 40 percent of their Hispanic students attaining goal or better on the math CMT since2007-2008. As in reading, Danbury, Norwalk, and Stamford (not necessarily in that order) demonstrated thetop three highest percentages of Hispanic students scoring at or above goal in math. However, only NewLondon and Danbury showed greater than ten percentage points of improvement between 2007-2008 and

2009-2010 in the percentage of Hispanic students reaching goal or better.

Eighth Grade

Eighth-gradeHispanic students in Connecticutsmost Hispanic school districts consistently face achievement gaps on the readingcomponent of the CMTs.In general, the median achievement gap in eighth-grade reading does not appear to be significantlydifferent from the median achievement gap in fourth-grade reading.


13/78


In the past, eighth-grade white students have been as much as 4.8 times more likely to achieve at or abovegoal in reading than their Hispanic classmates (New London in 2007-2008). During the 2009-2010 schoolyear, no school district demonstrated a gap of that magnitude, but significant achievement gaps in readingremained, ranging from eighth-grade white students being 1.3 times more likely to meet goal in reading thanHispanic students in Norwalk to eighth-grade white students being 2.4 times more likely to meet goal inreading than their Hispanic peers in New Britain. The median achievement gap in 2009-2010 was 1.8 timesmore likely for eighth-grade white students to score at or above goal than their Hispanic counterparts, lower

than the median gap in both 2007-2008 (2.3) and 2008-2009 (2.2). Four districts showed constant decreasein the size of their achievement gaps since 2007-2008: Hartford, New London, Stamford, and Windham.

The academic performance of Hispanic eighth graders in reading is low in terms of absolute achievement.

Only in three school districtsDanbury, Norwalk, and Stamforddid more than 30 percent of theHispanic eighth-grade population meet goal for reading during each of the past three school years. Duringthe three years analyzed, Norwalk consistently displayed the highest percentage of Hispanic students scoringat or above goal, followed each year by Stamford, and then Danbury. In 2009-2010, 58.0 percent ofHispanic students in Norwalk achieved goal level on their reading CMTs. This was the highest level ofachievement that eighth-grade Hispanic students from Norwalk (or from any other district whose

population was more than 30 percent Hispanic) had reached since the 2007-2008 school year. WindhamsHispanic students performed most poorly in 2009-2010, with only 24.8 percent reaching goal. Althoughwork is clearly needed to improve the performance of these students, some progress can already be noticed.The percentage of Hispanic students scoring at or above goal has increased continually, and by more thanten percentage points since 2007-2008, in seven of the twelve school districts studiedDanbury, Hartford,Meriden, New Haven, New London, Norwalk, and Stamford.

As in fourth grade, Hispanic students in eighth grade confronted substantial achievement gaps in math. The medianachievement gap in eighth-grade math was larger than the median gap in fourth-grade math for each year studied.

During the 2009-2010 school year, achievement gaps in math ranged from eighth-grade white students in

Norwalk being 1.5 times more likely to score at or above goal than their Hispanic classmates to whitestudents in Meriden and New Britain being 2.7 times more likely to score at or above goal than theirHispanic peers. The median math achievement gap in eighth grade for all districts did not changesubstantially between 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, with the median gap being 2.0 in 2009-2010. Of the twelveschools studied, only three school districtsDanbury, Norwalk, and Stamforddisplayed a constantdecrease in their achievement gaps over the three years analyzed.100

In these school districts, the absolute performance of Hispanic eighth graders in math is poorgenerally worse than performancein readingwhich is a noteworthy difference from fourth-grade results.

Only Norwalk had more than 30 percent of their Hispanic students meet or exceed goal level on the mathCMT for all three school years analyzed. In the 2009-2010 school year, Norwalk had the highest percentage

of Hispanic students who achieved at or above goal at 48.4 percent of the population. In other words, evenin the highest performing district, less than 50 percent of Hispanic students could meet the Board ofEducations challenging, yet reasonable expectation for Connecticut students. Yet, Hispanic students inNorwalk during the 2009-2010 school year performed far better than those in other districtsfor example,in New Britain, only 19.6 percent of eighth graders achieved goal level; in Waterbury, this number was 20.1percent; and in Windham, only 21.3 percent met goal. Interestingly, similar to the districts fourth-gradeperformance in reading, Norwalk and Stamford placed in the top three districts with the highest percentageof eighth-grade Hispanic students scoring at or above goal during all three years. New Haven also placed inthe top three during 2007-2008 and 2009-2010; Danbury placed in the top three in 2008-2009. In addition,


14/78


Danbury, New Haven, and Stamford showed more than a ten percentage point increase in the percentage ofHispanic eighth graders meeting or exceeding goal in math between 2007-2008 and 2009-2010.

V. The Need for Better Data

Analysis of Hispanic achievement is limited by the poor quality of data regarding Hispanic students and Hispanic

communities in Connecticut. Historically it has been difficult to accurately capture the number of Hispanicstudents in Connecticut. As discussed earlier, the State Department of Educations PSIS database has onlyallowed students to be documented as one race or ethnicity. It is unclear how many students listed aswhite, black, American Indian, or Asian American could also have been identified as Hispanic.Beginning in the 2010-2011 school year, students were able to be identified under multiple ethnic and racialcategories. Under these new guidelines, all students who identify themselves as Hispanic/Latino will havetheir CMT scores reported under the Hispanic/Latino category, even if they have identified themselves asanother race.101 However, it would be useful if data about multiracial Hispanics were to become publiclyavailable, given that this data would be helpful in understanding which populations of Hispanics are mostaffected by achievement gaps.

More importantly, the new federal guidelines allow states to collect information about subcategories of racialor ethnic groups.102 Since Connecticut has such a large and diverse Hispanic population, it would be veryhelpful to collect information about the different national origins of Hispanic students in the state. Thisability to accurately and adequately disaggregate Hispanic test scores and demographics is crucial tounderstanding the achievement gap, allowing the more precise monitoring of Hispanic student performanceand the identification of correlations between performance levels and various community factors.

Data regarding the demographic characteristics of Hispanic families are also problematic. Census information aboutHispanic household or family median income tends to have large margins of error, often due tounderreporting and/or small population sizes. Thus, it is difficult to determine the extent to whichvariations in income affect the achievement gap. Students might perform better in wealthier communities,

but it is unclear to what extent it is a result of the increased community wealth, increased family income, or acombination of the two.

Better information about the level of education reached by Hispanic adults in a community would also be helpful for studying theachievement gap.One of the main indicators of a students success is the educational achievement of his or hermother.103 Currently, although there are some town level data available about the educational attainmentlevel of the general community, there are minimal data about the educational attainment levels of the variedethnic and racial groups within those communities.

Conclusion

Although the data analyzed in this report paint a complex and nuanced picture, several key findings emerge:

Achievement gaps at goal level between Hispanic students and white students exist in every districtin Connecticut for which data about Hispanic students are publicly available, regardless of incomelevel, location, size, or percentage of Hispanic students.

Gaps between the percentages of Hispanic students and white students at goal level exist acrossgrade level and subject matter.


15/78


Contrary to what might be expected, statewide, the largest gaps in performance at goal level are notalways on the reading component of the CMT. For example, statewide in 2009-2010, eighth-gradeHispanic students faced larger gaps in math, science, and writing than they did in reading.

The size of the achievement gaps between Hispanic students and white students at goal level varysignificantly between districts. For example, in Glastonbury, Manchester, and Trumbull in 2009-2010, fourth-grade white students were 1.3 times more likely to score at or above goal in readingthan their Hispanic peers; in contrast, in eleven districts, fourth-grade white students were at leasttwo times more likely to meet or exceed goal in reading than fourth-grade Hispanic students. Theseeleven districts were Hartford, Meriden, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Stamford, Vernon,Wallingford, West Hartford, West Haven, and Windham.

Many ofConnecticuts school districts struggle with low levels of absolute achievement amongHispanic students in all subject areas and grades.

In absolute terms, districts vary considerably in their success in meeting the needs of Hispanicstudents. For example, in 2009-2010 in Glastonbury, Greenwich, Manchester, Shelton, Southington,Trumbull, and Windsor, fifty percent or more of Hispanic students scored above goal in fourth-grade reading. In contrast, in eight other districts, fewer than 25 percent of fourth-grade Hispanicstudents scored at goal or better in reading in 2010. These eight districts were Bridgeport, Hartford,New Britain, New Haven, New London, Vernon, West Haven, and Windham. Statewide in 2009-2010, only 30.9 percent of Hispanic students met or exceed goal in fourth-grade reading.

In the states districts with student populations that are 30 percent or more Hispanic, achievementgaps at goal level in math and reading between eighth-grade Hispanic students and white studentshave generally been equal to or greater than gaps at the fourth-grade level over the past three years.

Although the percentages of Hispanic and white students meeting or exceeding goal level havegenerally risen over the last five years, achievement gaps between scores have remained relativelyconstant, with slight improvements in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth-grade math, andmore significant improvements in eighth-grade math and science.

English language ability contributes to achievement gaps at goal level between Hispanic and whitestudents; however, our analysis shows that these gaps cannot be attributed solely to differences inEnglish language skills. For example, statewide, 30.9 percent of fourth-grade Hispanic studentsscored at or above goal in reading in 2009-2010;104 if Hispanic ELLs are removed from that number,37.5 percent of fourth-grade, non-ELL Hispanics in Connecticut met or exceeded goal in thatsubject.105

Although the percentages of Hispanic and white students achieving goal level or better tend to be

higher in districts within wealthier communities, the achievement gaps in these districts are notnecessarily smaller than those in other, less wealthy communities.

Better data are needed to understand more fully the weight of various factorssuch as incomestatus and parental education levelthat contribute to the achievement gaps at goal level betweenHispanic and white students.

As described in the report, some districts appear to have been more successful than others in meeting theneeds of their Hispanic students and in narrowing the achievement gaps between Hispanic and white


16/78


students. We hope that this paper will encourage districts that have been relatively successful in narrowingthe gaps, or in improving the absolute academic achievement of their Hispanic students, to share bestpractices and strategies. In addition, we hope that this analysis will help lay the groundwork for data-drivendiscussion at the community and state level regarding how best to meet the educational needs ofConnecticuts large, diverse, and fast-growing population of Hispanic students. Finally, we hope that thisreport will underscore the urgency of redoubling investments and targeting interventions in communitieswhere needs are greatest.

1SeeF. Cadelle Hemphill and Alan Vanneman, Achievement Gaps: How Hispanic and White Students in Public SchoolsPerform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NCES 2011-459)National Center forEducation Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education(June 2011) (available athttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011459.pdf) (Hereinafter NCES Report).2Ibid. In 8th grade mathematics, Connecticut tied with Massachusetts for worst achievement gap between Hispanic and Whitestudents in the country. Gaps in the other grade levels and subjects tested were only slightly better. In 4th grade reading, onlyMinnesota and the District of Columbia had larger Hispanic-White achievement gaps. In 4 th grade mathematics, only California,the District of Columbia, Rhode Island, and Utah had larger Hispanic-White achievement gaps. In 8th grade reading, onlyCalifornia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania had larger Hispanic-White achievement gaps.3 The increase from 1992 to 2009 in average score for Hispanic students was statistically significant in fourth grade mathematics(Ibid., 21), eighth grade mathematics (Ibid., 29), and fourth grade reading (Ibid., 47). The NAEP state reading assessment was notadministered to eighth graders in Connecticut until 1998. The difference between the average eighth grade reading score forHispanic students in 1998 and 2009 was not statistically significant. Ibid. 47 and 55.4Ibid., 21 and 29. While the decreases in the gaps between 1992 and 2009 were statistically significant for both fourth and eighthgrade mathematics, the gaps remained among the largest in the nation. Seeendnote 4. Changes in the gap on the readingassessments since the first year of administration were not statistically significant. Ibid., 47 and 55.5

For more information about this papers definition of Hispanic, refer to the section entitledMethodology Defining the Achievement Gapin Connecticut, beginning on pg. 5. For more information about the diversity of Connecticuts Hispanic population, seethe section entitledBackground Regarding Connecticuts Hispanic Student Population, starting on pg. 4. In this paper, the term Hispanic is used,rather than Latino, in order to match the term most commonly used in the SDE database. In general, the terms Latino andHispanic are interchangeable.6Seethe section entitled Background Regarding Connecticuts Hispanic Student Population, starting on pg. 4. 7Seethe section entitled Background Regarding Connecticuts Hispanic Student Population, starting on pg.4.8 For example, statewide since 2007, a higher percentage of black students than Hispanic students have scored at or above goal inreading and writing at every grade level tested, with the exception of the 2009 grade 3 writing exam (equal percentages of blacksand Hispanics scored at or above goal) and the 2008 grade 8 writing exam (0.1 percent more Hispanics scored at or above goalthan black students). SeeCT Students Improve Performance on 2010 CMT; Post Gains over Benchmark Year (2006) AcrossGrades 3-8 in All Content Areas Except Writing at Grade 3; Largest Gains Seen in Grades 6, 7 and 8, Connecticut State Departmentof Education(July 15, 2010) (available athttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/cmt2010pressrelease.pdf).Additionally, Hispanics have the lowest 4-year graduation rate of any racial/ethnic group in Connecticut (58.1 percent Class of

2009 adjusted cohort graduation rate vs. 66.2 percent for African-Americans, 73.8 percent for Native American, 82.4 percent forAsian/Pacific Islander and 86.8 percent for White/Caucasian.) See Commissioner Calls for Action: New Formula, UniqueStudent Data Produce More Accurate State Graduation Rates, Connecticut State Department of Education(March 23, 2010) (availableathttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/new_graduate_data.pdf).9 The CMT is described in more detail in the section entitled Methodology Defining the Achievement Gap in Connecticut,beginning on pg. 5. The NCES study, in contrast, was based on the NAEP, a test administered in multiple states.10 This is the first district-level analysis of achievement gaps between Hispanic and white students, and first in-depth look atabsolute Hispanic achievement at district level. Other past studies have, however, given a visual overview of district-level Hispanicachievement. SeeMapping the Gap: An Illustration of the State of Connecticut Public Education, ConnCAN(September 2008)(available athttp://www.conncan.org/sites/default/files/research/ConnCAN_MapBook.pdf).
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011459.pdfhttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011459.pdfhttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/cmt2010pressrelease.pdfhttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/cmt2010pressrelease.pdfhttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/cmt2010pressrelease.pdfhttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/new_graduate_data.pdfhttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/new_graduate_data.pdfhttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/new_graduate_data.pdfhttp://www.conncan.org/sites/default/files/research/ConnCAN_MapBook.pdfhttp://www.conncan.org/sites/default/files/research/ConnCAN_MapBook.pdfhttp://www.conncan.org/sites/default/files/research/ConnCAN_MapBook.pdfhttp://www.conncan.org/sites/default/files/research/ConnCAN_MapBook.pdfhttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/new_graduate_data.pdfhttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/cmt2010pressrelease.pdfhttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011459.pdf


17/78


11SeeUnderstanding Your Childs Scores on the CMT, Connecticut State Department of Education(2010) (available athttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/2010%20CMT%20Understanding%20Test%20Scores%20with%20MAS.pdf).12Impact of Connecticut Accountability Learning Initiative (CALI) on the Partner Districts, Connecticut Department of Education(May 4, 2011), 3.13 For example, the 2007 Grade 3 cohort of students attending schools in the Partner Districts went from 47 percent proficient onCMT reading in 2007 to 71 percent proficient in 2010. Additionally, in most instances, the rate of increase in percent of

students meeting proficiency on the CMT was greatest for black and Hispanic students in the partner districts. Ibid.14 Score information obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, Connecticut CMT andCAPT Online Reports, available atwww.ctreports.com. To access scores for Hispanic and white students in all school districtswhich report Hispanic scores, first click on Connecticut Mastery Test, 4 thGeneration, located under Public SummaryPerformance Reports. Next, select State by District/School Report. Choose 2010 under Administration Years, thenchoose the appropriate grade, select all districts, and select the right arrow to move them into the Selected column. Next, clickGet Report. Once the report is visible, under the title State by District/School Report, select Disaggregate, clickEthnicity, then choose Submit. The percentages of Hispanic students and white students in each district who scored at orabove goal will be listed under the % At/Above Goal column. Statewide figures can be obtained by ensuring that State is a lsoselected when districts names are selected. Note that 2010 refers to the 2009-2010 school year. We have used the school yearterminology in our report. In this paper, the term Hispanic is used, rather than Latino, in order to match the usage of theterm in the SDE database. In general, the terms Latino and Hispanic are interchangeable. All other data in this paper,including enrollment numbers, median family income, etc. uses the most recent data that is publicly available.15SeeAppendix A and Appendix B.16 Districts which had fewer than 25 percent of their fourth-grade Hispanic students achieve goal in reading in 2010 are:Bridgeport, Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Vernon, West Haven, and Windham. SeeAppendix B.17SeeSocial Sector Office, The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in Americas Schools, McKinsey and Company(April 2009), 5-6 (available athttp://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Images/Page_Images/Offices/SocialSector/PDF/achievement_gap_report.pdf).18 In the past several years, Connecticut has experienced job gains in high-wage, high-skill occupations, while middle and lowerincome occupationsmany of which require lower levels educationhave lost jobs. SeeJoachim Hero, Orlando Rodriguez, andJacob Siegel, The State of Working Connecticut 2010, Connecticut Voices for Children, III-8 (available athttp://ctkidslink.org/publications/econ10sowctfull.pdf). These changes could potentially exacerbate economic stratification inthe state, where income inequality is already among the nations highest.19SeeSean Reardon and Claudia Galindo, The Hispanic-White Achievement Gap in Math and Reading in the ElementaryGrades, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 46(September 2009), 853-891 (citing Richard Rothstein, Class and Schools: UsingSocial, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the BlackWhite Achievement Gap (Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute,

2004), and Roland Fryer and Steven Levitt, The Black-White Test Score Gap through Third Grade,American Law and EconomicsReviewVol. 8,No. 2 (2006), 249281).20SeeCarol Schmid, Educational Achievement, Language-Minority Students, and the New Second Generation, Sociology ofEducation, Vol. 74 (2001), 74.21SeeBarbara Schneider, Sylvia Martinez, and Ann Owens, Barriers to Educational Opportunities for Hispanics in the UnitedStates, in Marta Tienda and Faith Michell, eds., Hispanics and the Future of America, National Research Council, (Washington, D.C.:The National Academies Press, 2006), 84. 22SeeRoger A. Wojtkiewicz and Katharine M. Donato, Hispanic Educational Attainment: The Effects of Family Backgroundand Nativity, Social Forces, Vol. 74, No. 2(December 1995), 559-574.23SeeFrances E. Contreras, Access, Achievement, and Social Capital: Standardized Exams and the Latino College-BoundPopulation,Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, Vol. 4, No. 197(2005), 197-214.24SeeLeisy Janet Abrego, I Can't Go to College Because I Don't Have Papers: Incorporation Patterns Of LatinoUndocumented Youth, Latino Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Autumn 2006), 212-231.25SeeRussell Rumberger and Gregory Palardy, Does Segregation Still Matter? The Impact of Student Composition on Academic

Achievement in High School, Teachers College Record, Vol. 107, No. 9(September 2005), 1999-2045.26 SeeAdriana D. Kohler and Melissa Lazarn, Hispanic Education in the United States, National Council of La Raza, StatisticalBrief No. 8 (2007), 9 (available athttp://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/file_SB8_HispEd_fnl.pdf).27SeeJason Irizarry with Tana Vargas, Why Arent More Latinos in College Prep Courses? A Critique of Tracking and AcademicApartheid, in Jason Irizarry, The Latinization of U.S. Schools(Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2011).28SeeEdward Olivos, Tensions, Contradictions, and Resistance: An Activists Reflection of the Struggles of Latino Parents in thePublic School System, The High School Journal, Vol. 87, No. 4 (April/May 2004).29SeeTaby Ali and Alexandra Dufresne. Missing Out: Suspending Students from Connecticut Schools, Connecticut Voices forChildren(August 2008), 6 (available athttp://ctkidslink.org/publications/edu08missingout.pdf) (concluding that, in the 2006-2007 school year, the suspension rates amongblack and Hispanic students were at least triple those of the white students).
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/2010%20CMT%20Understanding%20Test%20Scores%20with%20MAS.pdfhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/2010%20CMT%20Understanding%20Test%20Scores%20with%20MAS.pdfhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/2010%20CMT%20Understanding%20Test%20Scores%20with%20MAS.pdfhttp://www.ctreports.com/http://www.ctreports.com/http://www.ctreports.com/http://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Images/Page_Images/Offices/SocialSector/PDF/achievement_gap_report.pdfhttp://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Images/Page_Images/Offices/SocialSector/PDF/achievement_gap_report.pdfhttp://ctkidslink.org/publications/econ10sowctfull.pdfhttp://ctkidslink.org/publications/econ10sowctfull.pdfhttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=57047&pcid=35230231&SrchMode=3http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/file_SB8_HispEd_fnl.pdfhttp://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/file_SB8_HispEd_fnl.pdfhttp://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/file_SB8_HispEd_fnl.pdfhttp://ctkidslink.org/publications/edu08missingout.pdfhttp://ctkidslink.org/publications/edu08missingout.pdfhttp://ctkidslink.org/publications/edu08missingout.pdfhttp://ctkidslink.org/publications/edu08missingout.pdfhttp://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/file_SB8_HispEd_fnl.pdfhttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=57047&pcid=35230231&SrchMode=3http://ctkidslink.org/publications/econ10sowctfull.pdfhttp://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Images/Page_Images/Offices/SocialSector/PDF/achievement_gap_report.pdfhttp://www.ctreports.com/http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/2010%20CMT%20Understanding%20Test%20Scores%20with%20MAS.pdfhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/2010%20CMT%20Understanding%20Test%20Scores%20with%20MAS.pdf


18/78


30SeeValerie Martinez-Ebers, Luis Fraga, Linda Lopez, and Arturo Vega, Latino Interests in Education, Health, and CriminalJustice Policy, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 33, No. 3 (September 2000), 548.31SeeYolanda Padrn, Hersh Waxman, and Hctor Rivera, Educating Hispanic Students: Obstacles and avenues to improvedacademic achievement, Educational Practice Report, No. 8(Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research onEducation, Diversity & Excellence, 2002).32 Between 2000 and 2010, the Hispanic population in the U.S. grew by 15,171,776 (43.0 percent), which was more than all otherracial/ethnic groups combined. SeeKaren Humes, Nicholas Jones, and Roberto Ramirez, Overview of Race and Hispanic

Origin: 20102010 Census Briefs, United States Census Bureau(March 2011), 4 (available athttp://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf).33 Between 2000 and 2010, the Hispanic population in Connecticut grew by 158,764 (49.6 percent), which was more than all otherracial/ethnic groups combined. Comparison ofTable QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin: 2010, in the 2010 CensusSummary File 1, United States Census Bureau(available athttp://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP3&prodType=table)and "Table QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino: 2010, in the 2000 Census Summary File 1, United States Census Bureau(availableathttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=).Click on Enter a Table Number, enter the appropriatenumber, then choose the requested Geographic Type andGeographic Area.34 American Indian students are also identified by the Connecticut State Department of Education as their own ethnic group.However, this group comprises only 0.4 percent of the entire K-12 population in Connecticut, so we did not include it as a largeracial/ethnic group. Counts are for the 2009-2010 school year. Hispanics exclude all other racial groups and vice-versa. This countincludes students enrolled in charter schools, which are considered to be part of the public school system. It does not includechildren enrolled in public school pre-K programs. If pre-K students were included, the racial breakdown of the public schoolsystem would be as follows: white, 64.0 percent; Hispanic, 17.5 percent; African American, 13.7 percent; Asian, 4.4 percent; andAmerican Indian, 0.4 percent. K-12 enrollment numbers retrieved using the Create a Custom Export Table underEnrollment, ConnecticutState Department of Education(2011) (available athttp://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EnrollmentDT.aspx) on May 4,2011.35 Comparison of Census 2010 count of 479,087 Hispanics in Connecticut and Connecticut State Data Center 2007 projection of452,190 Hispanics in Connecticut in 2010. See Table QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin: 2010, in the 2010 CensusSummary File 1, United States Census Bureau(available athttp://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP3&prodType=table)and State Projection Data, Connecticut State Data Center(2007) (available at http://ctsdc.uconn.edu/projections/state_wide.html).36 The number of American Indians in Connecticut is so low that a projection cannot be made for the size of the K-12 AmericanIndian population in 2020. Information provided by Orlando Rodriguez, Senior Policy Fellow, Connecticut Voices for Children,via e-mail, on July 8, 2011. Population projections calculated in May 2008 by the Connecticut State Data Center for the

Connecticut Deptartment of Children and Families, available from Orlando Rodriguez, Senior Policy Fellow, Connecticut Voices forChildren.37Ibid.38 Customized output from the 2010 Current Population Survey (CPS). Customized output from the 2010 Current PopulationSurvey (CPS). See Current Population Survey (CPS) Table Creator II, (listing Hispanic Origin and Age by Nativity Detailed) United States Census Bureau(available athttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.html). Thisnumber assumes that all people listed as native-born U.S. citizens were born in the U.S. or Puerto Rico. A small number may beborn in other U.S. territories or abroad to U.S. citizen parents.39Ibid. Like their counterparts born in the fifty United States or the District of Columbia, those born in Puerto Rico acquire U.S.citizenship at birth.40Ibid.41SeeTable B06004I: Place of Birth by Race (Hispanic or Latino) in the United States, in the 2005-2009 American CommunitySurvey 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau(available athttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en). Click on

Enter a Table Number, enter the appropriate number, then choose the requested Geographic Type and Geographic Area.42 This excludes Brazilians and other populations in the western hemisphere who are not considered Hispanic because they speakPortuguese. SeeTable B05006: Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population, in the 2005-2009 American Community Survey5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau(available athttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en). Click onEnter a Table Number, enter the appropriate number, then choose the requested Geographic Type and Geographic Area. 43SeeTable B06004I: Place of Birth by Race (Hispanic or Latino) in the United States, in the 2005-2009 American CommunitySurvey 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau(available athttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en). Click onEnter a Table Number, enter the appropriate number, then choose the requested Geographic Type and Geographic Area.
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdfhttp://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP3&prodType=tablehttp://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP3&prodType=tablehttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EnrollmentDT.aspxhttp://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EnrollmentDT.aspxhttp://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EnrollmentDT.aspxhttp://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP3&prodType=tablehttp://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP3&prodType=tablehttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.htmlhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.htmlhttp://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP3&prodType=tablehttp://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EnrollmentDT.aspxhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP3&prodType=tablehttp://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf


19/78


44SeeTable B06004I: Place of Birth by Race (Hispanic or Latino) in the United States, in the 2005-2009 American CommunitySurvey 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau(available athttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en). Click onEnter a Table Number, enter the appropriate number, then choose the requested Geographic Type and Geographic Area.45 Charter school districts falling into this category were not analyzed in this paper, since their population sizes were often quitesmall, and thus, the size of their gaps would be more susceptible to being skewed by a few high- or low-performing students.Furthermore, since these populations are so small, many districts have fewer than 20 Hispanic or white students enrolled per

grade, which means that test scores are not made available to the public due to privacy concerns. Additionally, not all of thecharter districts include both fourth and eighth grades, which are those analyzed for all other districts in this paper.46 These percentages reflect 2009-2010 enrollment data. Hispanics exclude all other racial groups and vice-versa. Numbers includestudents in public school pre-K programs. The percent enrollment of Hispanic students was determined by dividing the totalnumber of Hispanic students in a district by the total enrollment of that same district, and then multiplying by 100. Enrollmentnumbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut State Department of Education, via e-mail, on May 26, 2011.47See Table S0201: Selected Population Profile in the United States (Connecticut), in the 2007-2009 American CommunitySurvey 3-Year Estimates, United State Census Bureau(http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en). Click onEnter aTable Number in the 2007-2009 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates section of the website, then enter theappropriate table number. To view Connecticut-specific results, select Geography in the top left of the page, choose State,select Connecticut, then click Add and Next. On the next webpage, choose the appropriate Race or Ethnic Group, thenclick Show Result.48 Customized output from the 2007-2010 Current Population Survey (CPS). SeeCurrent Population Survey (CPS) Table CreatorII, United States Census Bureau(available athttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.html).49 The achievement gap can be measured by a wide variety of tests and indicators, ranging from the CMT to the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to drop-out rates to college admittance and completion rates. Each test has its ownlimitations in terms of its ability to depict the achievement gap, and serious concerns have been raised about the unintendedconsequences of overreliance on testing. Nonetheless, standardized tests such as the CMT provide a useful basis for comparison,as long as they are only seen as one piece of the puzzle in understanding student achievement. For information about critiques of the useof testing to measure student performance, see, e.g., Katherine E. Ryan, Allison M. Ryan. Keena Arbuthnot, and Maurice Samuels,Students Motivation for Standardized Math Exams, Educational Researcher, Vol. 36, No. 1(January/February 2007), 5-13(concluding that standardized tests rest on the false assumption that high-stakes test systems have a motivating power for allstudents to the same extent and direction, with no variation due to ethnicity, gender, race, and/or content area); seeRobert L.Linn, Eva L. Baker, and Stephen B. Dunbar, Complex, Performance-Based Assessment: Expectations and Validation Criteria,Evaluation Comment (UCLA) (Winter 1991-2991), 2-9 (listing critiques of standardized testing); see also Ronald W. Solrzano,High Stakes Testing: Issues, Implications, and Remedies for English Language Learners, Review of Education Research, Vol. 78, No.

2(June 2008), 260-329 (concluding that current standardized tests are not appropriately designed for English language learnersand, as such, should not be used to make high stakes decisions for ELLs); and see also Richard G. Lomax, Mary Maxwell West,Maryellen C. Harmon, Katherine A. Viator, and George F. Madaus, The Impact of Mandated Standardized Testing on MinorityStudents, The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 2(Spring 1995), 171-185 (concluding that increasing high stakes testing doesnot result in improvement in the delivery of instruction and recommending that ethnically-, racially-, culturally-, and linguistically-appropriate measures of assessment be developed).50 All ELLs must take all sections of the Connecticut Mastery Test in English, unless they have attended school in the UnitedStates for less than ten months.SeeBilingual Education/ESL Exemptions: CMT and CAPT Exemption Information, ConnecticutState Department of Education(2011) (available athttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?A=2618&Q=320820). ELLs may bepermitted various accommodations on the test, including time extensions, alternate test settings, someone to read directions (inEnglish or their native language), someone to read math and science test questions and answer choices in English, and/or adictionary. SeeCMT/CAPT Testing Accommodations: 2010-2011, Connecticut State Department of Education(2011),22 (available athttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdf). Special educationstudents with individualized education plans (IEPs) do not necessarily have to take the CMT. Depending on the extent of their

disability, a special education student may take the CMT with or without accommodations, or they may take the CMT ModifiedAssessment System (MAS), only available in math and reading, with or without accommodations, or they may use the CMT SkillsChecklist. For information on how IEP teams identify which test a special education student should take, seeCMT/CAPT TestingAccommodations: 2010-2011, Connecticut State Department of Education(2011),9 (available athttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdf). For more informationabout the CMT MAS, seeCMT/CAPT Modified Assessment System, Connecticut State Department of Education(available athttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/mas/index.htm). For more information about the CMT Skills Checklist, seeCMT/CAPT Skills Checklist, Connecticut State Department of Education(available athttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/checklist/index.htm). For more information about the Connecticut Mastery Test in

general, seeThe Connecticut Mastery Test: What Every Parent/Guardian Should Know About the CMT for Grades 3 through 8,Connecticut State Board of Education (2010) (available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.htmlhttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?A=2618&Q=320820http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?A=2618&Q=320820http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?A=2618&Q=320820http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdfhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdfhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdfhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdfhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/mas/index.htmhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/mas/index.htmhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/checklist/index.htmhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/checklist/index.htmhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/checklist/index.htmhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/mas/index.htmhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdfhttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdfhttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?A=2618&Q=320820http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.htmlhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en


20/78


http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/standard%20parent%20brochure%20for%20web%202%20pages%20no%20photos%202010.pdf).51 According to the State Board of Education, the full purpose of the test is to create high expectations for education inConnecticut, identify students in need of academic assistance, monitor individual student achievement, identify weaknesses incurriculum and improve those areas, and increase the accountability of the states educational system. SeeThe ConnecticutMastery Test: What Every Parent/Guardian Should Know About the CMT for Grades 3 through 8, Connecticut State Board ofEducation (2010), 1 (available at

http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/standard%20parent%20brochure%20for%20web%202%20pages%20no%20photos%202010.pdf).52 Each section of the CMT includes five levels of scoring: Advanced, Goal, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic (best to worst, l -r).SeeConnecticut Mastery Test, 4thGeneration: Understanding Test Scores on the Individual Student Report, Connecticut StateBoardof Education (2009)(available athttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/2009_CMT_Understanding_Test_Scores.pdf).53 The first CMTs, with math, reading, and writing components, were given in the 1985-1986 school year to students in gradesfour, six, and eight. Students in grades three, five, and seven began taking the CMT in the 2005-2006 school year, while thescience section of the CMT (given to fifth and eighth graders) was added in the 2007-2008 school year. The current version of theCMT is known as the 4thgeneration CMT, and includes CMT administrations dating back to 2005-2006. SeeSteve Martin,Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) [PowerPoint], State Department of Education (2006). See alsoPublic Summary PerformanceReports, under Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports (available athttp://www.ctreports.com/).54 Score information in this report was obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website,Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports, available atwww.ctreports.com. Information is also available via the ConnecticutState Department of Educations Connecticut Education Data and Research (CEDAR) website, under Connecticut MasteryTest: 4thGeneration Reports, available athttp://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/CMTLandingDT.aspx. We chose touse thewww.ctreports.comsite because data can be more easily sorted between grades, subjects, ethnicities, language ability, andlevel of achievement. Both websites generally report the same percentages, although occasionally, there is a difference of 0.1 or0.2 percentage points between the two websites in regard to the percentage of students who achieved at or above goal. We believethat this is due to a rounding error, and it does not affect the results of our analysis.55 It should be noted that serious concerns have been raised about the unintended consequences of overreliance on testing as anindicator of academic success. Nonetheless, tests are useful, accessible tools which provide at least some basis for comparison ofstudent achievement. Thus, we view the analysis of CMT scores in this paper as a useful exercise, so long as it is viewed as onlyone component of the achievement gap. For information about critiques of the use of testing to measure student performance, see, e.g.,Katherine E. Ryan, Allison M. Ryan. Keena Arbuthnot, and Maurice Samuels, Students Motivation for Standardized MathExams, Educational Researcher, Vol. 36, No. 1(January/February 2007), 5-13 (concluding that standardized tests rest on the falseassumption that high-stakes test systems have a motivating power for all students to the same extent and direction, with no

variation due to ethnicity, gender, race, and/or content area); seeRobert L. Linn, Eva L. Baker, and Stephen B. Dunbar,Complex, Performance-BasedAssessment: Expectations and Validation Criteria, Evaluation Comment (UCLA) (Winter 1991-2991), 2-9 (listing critiques of standardized testing); see also Ronald W. Solrzano, High Stakes Testing: Issues, Implications, andRemedies for English Language Learners, Review of Education Research, Vol. 78, No. 2(June 2008), 260-329 (concluding thatcurrent standardized tests are not appropriately designed for English language learners and as such, should not be used to makehigh stakes decisions for ELLs); and see also Richard G. Lomax, Mary Maxwell West, Maryellen C. Harmon, Katherine A. Viator,and George F. Madaus, The Impact of Mandated Standardized Testing on Minority Students, The Journal of Negro Education, Vol.64, No. 2(Spring 1995), 171-185 (concluding that increasing high stakes testing does not result in improvement in the delivery ofinstruction and recommending that ethnically-, racially-, culturally-, and linguistically-appropriate measures of assessment bedeveloped).56For informationabout Connecticuts achievement gap in relation to proficiency scores, see, e.g., Every Child Should Have a Chance to BeExceptional. Without Exception., Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement(2010) (available athttp://www.ctachieve.org/pdf/commission_report.pdf); Achievement Gap More than a Black and White Issue, ConnCAN(January 2011) (available athttp://www.conncan.org/aboutus/news/achievement-gap-more-black-and-white-issue); CT

Students Improve Performance on 2010 CMT; Post Gains over Benchmark Year (2006) Across Grades 3-8 in All Content AreasExcept Writing at Grade 3; Largest Gains Seen in Grades 6, 7 and 8, Connecticut State Department of Education(July 15, 2010)(available athttp://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/cmt2010pressrelease.pdf); and see also Impact of ConnecticutAccountability Learning Initiative (CALI) on the Partner Districts, Connecticut Department of Education(May 4, 2011).57SeeImprovements Over Last Year: 125 More Connecticut Schools and 18 More Districts Meet the Federal NCLB Standard ofAdequate Yearly Progress this Year: Reading is Still the Issue in Elementary and Middle Schools; Math is the Challenge in HighSchools, State Department of Educatio

hispanic achievement gap in ct

Documents