Hispanic Achievement Gap in CT

Are Connecticut Schools Meeting the Needs of Hispanic Students?

Annemarie Hillman Alexandra Dufresne, J.D.

July 2011

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 the “achievement gaps,” or differences in academic performance, between Hispanic students and their white peers.1 As measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), commonly referred to as “the nation‟s report card,” Connecticut was found to have one of the largest gaps in the country in both mathematics and reading.2 In addition, NCES found that while the scores of Hispanic students in Connecticut in math and reading had improved since the 1990s,3 the breadth of the gap between the scores of 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 growing population of Hispanic students and their white peers, but unlike the NCES, it focuses solely on Connecticut‟s children.5 The goal of this report is to provide a foundation for a deeper, data-driven inquiry into methods of ensuring equal educational opportunity for Connecticut‟s Hispanic students. There are several reasons for this particular focus. First, Hispanic children currently comprise the largest minority group in Connecticut schools.6 Second, Hispanic children are the largest growing segment of the schoolaged population in Connecticut.7 Third, although the achievement gaps between Connecticut‟s black and white students are quite severe, in some respects, the achievement gaps between Connecticut‟s Hispanic and white students are more severe.8 Fourth, although Connecticut‟s Hispanic student population is internally diverse, there are reasons to believe that many of Connecticut‟s 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 received the full attention it deserves. This report adds to the picture provided by the NCES analysis and past Connecticut-specific studies in several 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 Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT)9 for fourth and eighth graders in reading and math for the twelve, non-charter school districts in Connecticut with student populations that are at least 30 percent Hispanic. Additionally, we provide 2009-2010 test scores for fourth and eighth graders in reading, math, science, and writing for the more than 40 districts for which the scores of Hispanic students are reported. We analyze and compare achievement gaps at the district level for several reasons, including Connecticut‟s strong legal and cultural tradition of local control of educational decision-making. Identifying the relative severity of gaps in different communities across Connecticut will help educators and policy-makers identify best practices and target interventions. To our knowledge, this is the first district-level study of the Hispanic-white achievement gap in Connecticut.10 Second, unlike many Connecticut studies, this report focuses on analyzing results at the “goal” level, rather than the lower “proficient” standard. The State Department of Education has identified goal as the level at which it wants students to perform: “a challenging, yet reasonable, expectation for Connecticut students.”11 As 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 and which has garnered the most attention. Not surprisingly, by choosing a higher benchmark, the achievement gaps described in this paper are greater than what would be indicated by differences in achievement at the lower proficiency level. (For context, proficiency scores are included in Appendix C). A recent analysis by Connecticut‟s State Department of Education shows some improvements in test scores, as measured by the increasing percentage of students reaching proficiency on the CMT in Connecticut‟s lowest-performing
Connecticut Voices for Children 2

districts, including improvements in test scores of Hispanic students.12 Though modest, these improvements are promising.13 However, given the importance of setting high expectations for all students, a detailed analysis of results at the goal level supplements the understanding of the problem provided by existing research. The significant disparities in test scores between Connecticut‟s Hispanic students and their white peers indicate 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 Hispanic students are publicly available, regardless of income level, location, size, or percentage of Hispanic students. In some school districts, Hispanic students are less than half as likely as white students to score at or above the state‟s goal level on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) for their grade level.15 In addition, absolute scores for Hispanic students raise concerns about the educational opportunities afforded Hispanic children in Connecticut. For example, in several school districts in 2009-2010, less than 25 percent of fourth-grade Hispanic students reached goal or above in reading.16 Achievement gaps have broad social, economic, and political consequences for the state and its communities. As a matter of principle, every child in Connecticut should have equal access to educational opportunity. 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 by McKinsey and Company, poorer health and higher rates of incarceration, both important community social factors, are related to underperformance in academic achievement. Furthermore, it has been estimated that if achievement gaps across the nation, such as the ones present in Connecticut, had been narrowed, the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would have been between $310 and $525 billion higher in 2008. (These amounts 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 of Connecticut‟s economy,18 the costs are likely staggering. This paper does not analyze the causes of the achievement gap between Connecticut‟s Hispanic and white students. 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 of parents,23 immigration status,24 residential and school-level racial segregation,25 inadequate funding,26 low expectations,27 barriers to parental engagement,28 exclusionary disciplinary policies,29 and institutional racism,30 among other factors.31 Regrettably, as discussed in Section V below, limitations in the publiclyavailable data in Connecticut make it extremely difficult to disentangle the various factors and their relative weights. 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 different communities in Connecticut, we can advance a community-level and statewide conversation regarding both the urgency of the challenge and potential solutions.

Connecticut Voices for Children

3

Background Regarding Connecticut’s Hispanic Student Population
Race/Ethnicity. Hispanics are the largest growing ethnic/racial group in the United States32 and in

Connecticut.33 During the 2009-2010 Ethnic Composition of K-12 Student Population school year, Hispanics accounted for Projected Change Over approximately one of every six children 2010 (%) 2020 (%) Time (% Pts) (17.3 percent) in Connecticut‟s public African-American 13.7 15.0 +1.3 school system (grades K-12). Other Asian 4.4 6.4 +2.0 large racial/ethnic groups represented Caucasian 64.3 58.9 -5.4 were Caucasians (64.3 percent), Hispanic 17.3 19.6 +2.3 African-Americans (13.7 percent), and Asians (4.4 percent).34 Overall, the K12 population in Connecticut has been declining in enrollment since it peaked in the 2004-2005 academic year. Statewide enrollment is projected to bottom-out around 2020. During this 15-year period, the Hispanic population is expected to grow both in numbers and as a percentage of the total K-12 population. Initial counts from Census 2010 suggest that growth among K-12 Hispanics has been larger than previously projected.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 of Caucasian students is expected to decline to 58.9 percent while African-Americans and Asians will increase their 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 An additional 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 in terms 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 21.3 percent. The foreign-born population accounts for 26.8 percent of all Hispanics in Connecticut. 41 Among foreign-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 Town Population Size Hartford 50,413 Bridgeport 45,796 Waterbury 30,139 New Haven 29,434 Stamford 26,294 New Britain 22,507 Norwalk 19,041 Danbury 16,651 Meriden 16,092 East Hartford 10,929

Among these ten towns, Puerto Ricans are the largest Hispanic population in Hartford, Bridgeport, Waterbury, New Haven, New Britain, Meriden, and East Hartford. Puerto Ricans are also the largest Hispanic population in New London. Guatemalans are the largest Hispanic population in Stamford. Ecuadorians predominate in Danbury and Mexicans in Norwalk. Windham also has a significant population of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans.44

Connecticut Voices for Children

4

Connecticut has twelve non-charter school districts with student populations which are more than thirty percent Hispanic. The achievement gaps in these districts are analyzed in Sections III and IV of this paper.45 These districts are listed in the chart below.46 School District Windham New Britain Hartford Bridgeport New London Meriden Waterbury East Hartford New Haven Danbury Norwalk Stamford Percentage of Student Population that is Hispanic 60.7 57.6 52.3 48.0 46.3 44.7 44.2 38.2 37.2 33.9 33.4 32.2 Number of Hispanic Students 2,081 5,847 11,028 9,564 1,378 3,741 7,904 2,699 7,295 3,455 3,623 4,840

Economic Profile. Hispanic children (ages 0 to 17) are among Connecticut‟s poorest residents. Almost one

in three (31.4 percent) Hispanic children in Connecticut lived in poverty between 2007 and 2009. AfricanAmerican children had a slightly lower poverty rate of 25.0 percent over this period. In contrast, 4.9 percent of Caucasian children and 7.6 percent of Asian children lived in poverty.47 Additionally, in Connecticut, less than half (41.5 percent) of Hispanic children live in married couple households, compared with 50.6 percent of African-American, 79.0 percent of Caucasian, and 90.6 percent of Asian children.48 II. Methodology – Defining the Achievement Gap in Connecticut This analysis of the achievement gap utilizes student scores from the CMT Test Standards Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) as a central indicator of student Advanced (Best)* performance.49 The CMT is a standardized test administered by the Goal* state of Connecticut in March of each year to students in grades Proficient three through eight.50 It assesses knowledge of math, reading, and Basic writing at each grade level. Fifth and eighth graders are also tested on Below Basic (Worst) their science skills. One purpose of this testing is to determine if *Students performing at these levels Connecticut‟s students are meeting standards of achievement which meet CT‟s goal standards of 51 have been set by the State Board of Education. Ideally, each child achievement. would receive a score of “goal” or better in each subject area; the State Board of Education states that it believes that this is a “challenging, yet reasonable, expectation for Connecticut students.”52 As the CMT is a method of assessment that has been approved and used statewide by the State Board of Education for many years,53 and provides yearly, disaggregated data made available to the public by the State Department of Education,54 the test is an excellent source of information about the academic achievement of children in Connecticut.55 We choose goal level as our standard for analysis of student achievement given the state‟s belief that goal is a “challenging, yet reasonable” expectation. We believe that Hispanic students should be held to the same academic expectations as all Connecticut students, and we wanted to show how Hispanic students – and
Connecticut Voices for Children 5

their white peers – have been performing in relation to the state‟s expectations for them. In addition, previous reports have reported proficiency scores,56 which are used by the federal government to determine “Adequate Yearly Progress” under the No Child Left Behind Act.57 We recognize the importance of these proficiency 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 student achievement 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 Appendices A, B, and D depict the percentage of students scoring at or above goal level on the CMT. However, in recognition of the importance of CMT proficiency scores to many districts, and in acknowledgement of the efforts that many school districts have made to increase the number of their students who perform at or above proficient, we have listed proficiency scores for Hispanic and white students in all districts reporting Hispanic 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 the Connecticut State Department of Education (SDE). (No other data connecting CMT scores to ethnicity is available.) SDE compiles this information from its statewide student database, known as the “Public School Information System,” also known as the “PSIS.” Data provided in the PSIS about a student‟s ethnicity is determined by self-identification by either the student or his or her parents. If a parent does not provide this information to their school district, then the school district must decide under which ethnic category the student will be listed in the PSIS.60 In the past (including the school years analyzed in this paper), a student could only be identified under a single racial or ethnic group: American Indian, Asian American, Black, Hispanic, or White.61 As a result, multiracial Hispanics who chose to identify themselves under one of the non-Hispanic categories, or who were listed by their school districts under one of the non-Hispanic categories, are not included under the “Hispanic” results listed in this report. Additionally, information about CMT scores for school districts with fewer than 20 Hispanic students in a grade is unavailable, likely due 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 or above goal in that district. Dividing the percentage of white students by the percentage of Hispanic students creates a ratio which describes how many times more likely it is that a white student will score at or above goal level than a Hispanic student. For example, if District X had 50 percent of its white students scoring at or above goal and 25 percent of its Hispanic students scoring at or above goal, then dividing 50/25, shows that white students were 2 times more likely to score at or above goal than Hispanic students. If the end result (the ratio of scores) was 1.0, it would indicate that Hispanic and white students were equally likely to achieve goal level. In order to provide a broader context for the achievement gap, Section III of the paper includes data from all non-charter school districts that report publicly available scores for their Hispanic students.63 These results 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 Connecticut‟s most Hispanic school districts, Section IV of this paper focuses on fourth- and eighth-grade test data from all non-charter school districts with a student population that is 30 percent or greater Hispanic.65 These districts were chosen in order to ensure that Hispanic populations are large enough that significant changes in the achievement gap are unlikely to be due to the presence of a few extremely underperforming or overperforming students.66 The data analysis focuses on math and reading scores over the past three years to account for differences in class ability67 and subject area bias.68 Fourth and eighth grade were chosen to
Connecticut Voices for Children 6

assess the achievement gap toward the end of elementary school and the end of middle school. It should be noted that comparison of the achievement gap in these grades over time is difficult – changes could be attributed to differences in class population, variations in the CMT, effects from implementation of the MAS pilot,69 or actual changes in instruction and student performance. Scores from these districts can be found 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 the achievement gap in comparison to other factors is unclear. Of Connecticut‟s English language learners (ELLs) – a term 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 school program”71 – 21,664 were identified as using Spanish as their dominant language during the 2009-2010 school year.72 Assuming that all of these Spanish-speaking ELLs are Hispanic,73 it can be determined that 22.1 percent of Connecticut‟s Hispanic student population in 2009-2010 could not understand English at a level that would assure equal educational opportunity, limiting their chance at academic success.74 In Connecticut non-charter school districts with student populations that are 30 percent or more Hispanic, the percentages of Spanish-speaking ELLs in 2009-2010 were often higher than the statewide figure:75 District Danbury New London Windham Stamford New Haven Hartford Percentage of Hispanics Who are ELL 42.0 41.6 37.7 30.5 30.0 28.9 District Norwalk Bridgeport Meriden New Britain Waterbury East Hartford Percentage of Hispanics Who are ELL 28.5 22.9 22.5 22.5 21.4 16.2

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 as ELL, but who have poor English skills and could benefit from ELL services. Thus, the number of Hispanic students who face linguistic barriers to education could be even higher. For students from families whose parents do not understand English, obstacles to educational success could also include lack of parental involvement 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 attended school in the United States for less than twelve calendar months.77 This requirement, combined with the number of Hispanic ELLs in Connecticut, seems to explain some component of the Hispanic achievement gap in Connecticut.78 When scores from ELLs are removed from consideration, the percentage of Hispanic students 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 from that number, 37.5 percent of fourth-grade, non-ELL Hispanics in Connecticut met or exceeded goal in that subject.80 Of all eighth-grade Hispanic students in 2009-2010, 47.3 percent scored at or above goal in reading;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 or above goal varies widely. For example, among the twelve school districts with student populations that are 30 percent or more Hispanic, the exclusion of ELL scores caused the percentage of fourth-grade Hispanic students reaching goal in reading in each district in 2009-2010 to increase between 4.3 and 11.4 percentage points.83 In eighth-grade reading in these districts, removing ELL scores caused the percentages of Hispanic
Connecticut Voices for Children 7

students achieving goal or better to increase between 4.5 and 15.6 percentage points during the same year.84 The inclusion of ELL scores in analysis of Hispanic performance in math tends to have a lesser, although still 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 not the only factor affecting the gap. Achievement gaps are found in school districts with both low proportions of ELLs in their Hispanic population – e.g., Vernon86 – and high proportions of ELLs among their Hispanic students – e.g., Danbury.87 In addition, absolute student achievement and the size of achievement gaps do not appear to be fully linked with the number or percentage of ELLs in a district. Of the twelve most Hispanic districts, Danbury and Stamford, with the highest and fourth-highest percentages, respectively, of their Hispanic students identified as ELLs, consistently placed in the top three in terms of the percentage of students scoring at or above goal. Danbury‟s fourth-grade reading achievement gap was smaller than the fourth-grade reading gap in Waterbury, New Britain, or Meriden, which had some of the smallest percentages of ELLs within the most Hispanic school districts. Furthermore, even when ELL scores are removed from consideration, significant achievement gaps remain. English language ability seems unlikely to be 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 include ELL scores in our analysis featured in this paper. We recognize that to some degree, the presence of ELLs affects a district‟s ability to get all of its students to goal level, and we note the argument that bringing ELL achievement to goal level is a very high expectation for a district. Yet, some districts do have ELLs that perform at goal level, including Danbury, which had 12.3 percent of its fourth-grade ELLs and 21.2 percent of its eighth-grade ELLs score at goal level or better in reading in 2009-2010, and New Haven, whose numbers were 8.3 percent and 12.9 percent for fourth- and eighth-grade ELLs, respectively, in reading in 2009-2010.88 Additionally, ELL students are permitted various testing accommodations, which in theory should limit disparities between ELL student scores and non-ELL student scores.89 ELL achievement – and districts‟ ability to improve students‟ English language skills quickly and successfully – are crucial components of understanding the whole picture of Hispanic student success. The sheer number of ELLs underscores the importance of Connecticut‟s bilingual education options, which, depending on the school or district, may include English as a second language (ESL) programs, language transition support services (LTSS), sheltered English programs, English immersion programs, or dual language programs.90 It also highlights the need for school- and community-based English language learner programs and supports for non-English speaking parents. However, given that the vast majority of Hispanic students are not identified as English language learners, and the gap exists even when ELL scores are excluded, we cannot write off the gap as purely based on language. ELLs are an important part of the picture, and as such, are included in our analysis, but they comprise only one-fifth of the Hispanic student population 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 scores are found to lag behind those of their white peers, and achievement gaps of varying sizes are reported in all school districts for which data about Hispanic students‟ CMT scores are available.92 Furthermore, these gaps tend to be reported in multiple subject areas – often all tested subject areas – and multiple grade levels. Districts facing these obstacles encompass communities of all geographic and economic varieties.
Connecticut Voices for Children 8

Across Time

While there has been improvement over the last few years in the percentage of Hispanic students performing at or above goal in some subjects, there has not been consistent progress across subjects, and there has been little change in the gap between Hispanic and white student performance over time. Between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010, there was improvement in the percentage 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 in eighth-grade science scores (25.9 percent to 32.0 percent). However, in other subjects (fourth-grade reading and writing, and eighth-grade writing), there was more limited or no consistent progress. In addition, despite some progress in the percentage of students reaching goal, there has been little progress across subjects in closing the gap between Hispanic and white students meeting or exceeding goal.
Fourth-Grade Achievement Gap Among Connecticut Students Over Time93 % of Students % Students % Students Gap Gap At or Above At or Above At or Above Math Reading Goal in Math Goal in Reading Goal in Writing Hispanic 32.8 27.4 39.2 2.1 2.5 White 69.9 69.6 71.9 Hispanic 35.6 27.5 40.8 2.1 2.5 White 74.2 69.5 75.2 Hispanic 35.5 27.9 37.8 2.0 2.4 White 72 67.9 73.3 Hispanic 38.2 30.7 40.1 2.0 2.4 White 75.1 72.7 74.2 Hispanic 43.5 30.9 40.3 1.8 2.3 White 78.2 71.8 73.7

Gap Writing 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8

20052006 20062007 20072008 20082009 20092010

*Achievement gap = % White Students At or Above Goal / % Hispanic Students At or Above Goal
Eighth-Grade Achievement Gap Among Connecticut Students Over Time94 % of % Students % Students % Students Students At or At or At or Gap Gap Gap At or Above Above Above Above Math Reading Writing Goal in Goal in Goal in Goal in Math Reading Writing Science 25.9 36.2 34.3 2.7 2.2 2.1 71.1 78.5 72.9 29.7 73.4 30.5 73.8 33.6 77.2 38.8 79 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.0 37.3 78.2 34.4 77 38.3 80.1 47.3 83.4 2.1 2.2 2.1 1.8 34.5 75.4 35.4 74.6 40 77.2 34.3 73.8 2.2 2.1 1.9 2.2 25.9 72.8 27.9 74.9 32.0 76.2

Gap Science

20052006 20062007 20072008 20082009 20092010

Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White

2.8 2.7 2.4

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

Connecticut Voices for Children

9

Across Academic Subjects

Achievement gaps in reading and math are experienced by Hispanic students throughout the state. CMT data compiled about Hispanic students statewide indicates that in 2009-2010, white fourth graders were 2.3 times more likely than Hispanic fourth graders to achieve goal in reading, and 1.8 times more likely than Hispanic fourth graders to reach goal in math. White eighth graders statewide in 2009-2010 were 1.8 times more likely than their 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 eighth graders 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 that level. Connecticut’s 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 their Hispanic peers in that same year. In eighth-grade science in 2009-2010, white students statewide were 2.4 times more likely than Hispanic students to achieve goal or above. As in math and reading, the extent of these gaps – and the absolute performance of students – varied 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 its Hispanic students to score at or above goal level in writing, which indicates a minimal achievement gap. In contrast, white Vernon fourth graders were 2.2 times more likely than their Hispanic peers to reach or exceed goal in writing in 2009-2010. Appendix A lists the fourth- and eighth-grade achievement gaps for all non-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 three through eight. The chart below shows that achievement gaps affect students at many points during their K-12 education.95 Achievement Gap in Connecticut Schools During the 2009-2010 School Year Grades 3 to 8 Math Reading Writing Science Grade 3 1.9 2.3 1.9 Grade 4 1.8 2.3 1.8 Grade 5 1.6 2.3 1.8 2.5 Grade 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
*Achievement gap = % White Students At or Above Goal / % Hispanic Students At or Above Goal

Across Geographic Regions

School districts reporting achievement gaps in their test scores are not limited to any one region of Connecticut – the challenge of the achievement gap is one that affects Connecticut as a whole. From Enfield on the Massachusetts border, to Torrington in the northwest, to Stamford in the southwest, to Waterbury and Hartford in the center of the state, to Groton and New London in the southeast, to Windham in the northeast, residents across the state confront achievement gaps in their schools. Certainly, the populations of Hispanics in these communities vary greatly by number and nationality, and in some small districts, the size of achievement gaps might be affected be a few extremely high- or low-scoring Hispanic students. Yet the central issue remains; Hispanic students‟ educational needs are too frequently not being met in many districts around the state.
Connecticut Voices for Children 10

Across Socioeconomic Groups

Besides affecting geographically diverse communities, achievement gaps are found in a wide range of economic communities. Students in wealthier communities, such as Greenwich, Glastonbury, and West Hartford, 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 and Greenwich 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 than Hispanic eighth graders to achieve goal in math. There are differences in absolute academic performance, however. Hispanic students from wealthier communities seem to achieve at higher absolute levels than their peers from poorer communities. The fourth-grade students from Bridgeport and Greenwich mentioned above had strikingly different levels of achievement; only 21.9 percent of Hispanic fourth graders reached goal level in reading in Bridgeport, while 53.8 percent of Hispanic students made goal in Greenwich. It is not clear that poverty is the only factor in these differences. Bridgeport and Greenwich have vastly different numbers of Hispanic students, English language learners, and median family income levels, which likely all contribute to the variations in absolute score. 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 difficult to 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 academic performance of Hispanic students in the twelve most Hispanic school districts yields some illuminating results. Of these districts, Norwalk, Stamford, and Danbury – the schools which tended to have the highest performing Hispanic students in fourth and eighth grade – also have the top three median family incomes for Hispanics among the state‟s most Hispanic districts. 98 Often, but less consistently, these districts also claimed some of the smallest achievement gaps between their white and Hispanic students. If more rigorous data were to become available, it would be worthwhile to analyze these correlations further to determine the true impact of wealth and poverty on Hispanic academic performance and the achievement gap. IV. Findings From Connecticut’s Most Hispanic Schools99 Although achievement gaps are found in districts throughout Connecticut, many of these districts have relatively small populations of Hispanic students. Thus, we also assess the status of reading and math achievement gaps for fourth graders and eighth graders in Connecticut’s “most Hispanic” districts – those with a district-wide student population that is at least 30 percent Hispanic. Scores and achievement gaps for these schools can be found in Appendix B.
Fourth Grade

Connecticut’s schools with the highest concentrations of Hispanic students struggle with a persistent achievement gap in fourthgrade 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 Hispanic peers, while in Windham, white fourth graders were 3.5 times more likely to score at or above goal in reading than their Hispanic peers. The performance of students in the other districts fell somewhere between those two extremes. At the median, fourth-grade white students were 2.3 times more likely to score at or above goal in reading than their Hispanic peers.

Connecticut Voices for Children

11

The range of the achievement gap in these schools has not changed significantly over the past several school years. The median reading gap among the twelve districts has also changed little over this period with a median of 2.3 in 2009-2010, compared to a median gap of 2.1 in both 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. No individual district school has shown continual decrease in the reading achievement gap between its white and Hispanic students. Absolute achievement in reading – the percentage of fourth-grade Hispanic students scoring at or above goal – is quite low. In 2009-2010, Norwalk had the highest percentage of Hispanic students at or above goal in reading, with only 40.2 percent meeting that standard; in New Britain and Windham, only 15.6 percent of Hispanic students achieved goal. Over the course of the three school years studied, only three school districts of the twelve 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 Hispanic achievement, in terms of absolute percentages of students scoring at or above goal, in each of the three years for which data was assessed. Danbury displayed the greatest improvement since 2007-2008 in terms of absolute achievement in reading for Hispanic fourth graders, with an increase of 6.0 percentage points in the percentage of Hispanic students achieving at/above goal. The fourth-grade students in the state’s most Hispanic school districts also face achievement gaps in math, although these gaps in math 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 New Britain, where white students were 2.2 times more likely to score at or above goal in reading than their Hispanic peers; the smallest gap was in Danbury, where white fourth graders were 1.2 times more likely to score at or above goal in reading than their fellow Hispanic classmates. The median gap in 2009-2010 was 1.6, which was not a significant improvement from the 2007-2008 or 2008-2009 school years. Only Danbury and New London demonstrated a continual decrease in the achievement gap between 2007-2008 and 20092010. Absolute achievement for fourth-grade Hispanic students in highly Hispanic districts also tends to be better in math than reading, but is still quite low. In the 2009-2010 school year, Danbury had the highest percentage of Hispanic students scoring at or above goal in math, with 67.0 percent achieving that standard. New Britain had the lowest percentage of Hispanic students scoring at or above goal, with only 20.6 percent attaining that level. Six of the twelve school districts studied had over 30 percent of their fourth-grade Hispanic students score at or above goal in math in each of the past three school years. Three of these districts – Danbury, Norwalk, and Stamford – reported more than 40 percent of their Hispanic students attaining goal or better on the math CMT since 2007-2008. As in reading, Danbury, Norwalk, and Stamford (not necessarily in that order) demonstrated the top three highest percentages of Hispanic students scoring at or above goal in math. However, only New London 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-grade Hispanic students in Connecticut’s most Hispanic school districts consistently face achievement gaps on the reading component of the CMTs. In general, the median achievement gap in eighth-grade reading does not appear to be significantly different from the median achievement gap in fourth-grade reading.

Connecticut Voices for Children

12

In the past, eighth-grade white students have been as much as 4.8 times more likely to achieve at or above goal in reading than their Hispanic classmates (New London in 2007-2008). During the 2009-2010 school year, no school district demonstrated a gap of that magnitude, but significant achievement gaps in reading remained, ranging from eighth-grade white students being 1.3 times more likely to meet goal in reading than Hispanic students in Norwalk to eighth-grade white students being 2.4 times more likely to meet goal in reading than their Hispanic peers in New Britain. The median achievement gap in 2009-2010 was 1.8 times more 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 decrease in 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 districts – Danbury, Norwalk, and Stamford – did more than 30 percent of the Hispanic eighth-grade population meet goal for reading during each of the past three school years. During the three years analyzed, Norwalk consistently displayed the highest percentage of Hispanic students scoring at or above goal, followed each year by Stamford, and then Danbury. In 2009-2010, 58.0 percent of Hispanic students in Norwalk achieved goal level on their reading CMTs. This was the highest level of achievement 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. Windham‟s Hispanic students performed most poorly in 2009-2010, with only 24.8 percent reaching goal. Although work 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 than ten percentage points since 2007-2008, in seven of the twelve school districts studied – Danbury, 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 median achievement 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 white students in Meriden and New Britain being 2.7 times more likely to score at or above goal than their Hispanic peers. The median math achievement gap in eighth grade for all districts did not change substantially between 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, with the median gap being 2.0 in 2009-2010. Of the twelve schools studied, only three school districts – Danbury, Norwalk, and Stamford – displayed a constant decrease in their achievement gaps over the three years analyzed.100 In these school districts, the absolute performance of Hispanic eighth graders in math is poor – generally worse than performance in reading – which 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 math CMT 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, even in the highest performing district, less than 50 percent of Hispanic students could meet the Board of Education‟s “challenging, yet reasonable expectation for Connecticut students.” Yet, Hispanic students in Norwalk during the 2009-2010 school year performed far better than those in other districts – for example, in New Britain, only 19.6 percent of eighth graders achieved goal level; in Waterbury, this number was 20.1 percent; and in Windham, only 21.3 percent met goal. Interestingly, similar to the districts‟ fourth-grade performance in reading, Norwalk and Stamford placed in the top three districts with the highest percentage of eighth-grade Hispanic students scoring at or above goal during all three years. New Haven also placed in the top three during 2007-2008 and 2009-2010; Danbury placed in the top three in 2008-2009. In addition,
Connecticut Voices for Children 13

Danbury, New Haven, and Stamford showed more than a ten percentage point increase in the percentage of Hispanic 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 Hispanic students in Connecticut. As discussed earlier, the State Department of Education‟s PSIS database has only allowed students to be documented as one race or ethnicity. It is unclear how many students listed as “white,” “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 racial categories. Under these new guidelines, all students who identify themselves as Hispanic/Latino will have their CMT scores reported under the Hispanic/Latino category, even if they have identified themselves as another race.101 However, it would be useful if data about multiracial Hispanics were to become publicly available, given that this data would be helpful in understanding which populations of Hispanics are most affected by achievement gaps. More importantly, the new federal guidelines allow states to collect information about subcategories of racial or ethnic groups.102 Since Connecticut has such a large and diverse Hispanic population, it would be very helpful to collect information about the different national origins of Hispanic students in the state. This ability to accurately and adequately disaggregate Hispanic test scores and demographics is crucial to understanding the achievement gap, allowing the more precise monitoring of Hispanic student performance and the identification of correlations between performance levels and various community factors. Data regarding the demographic characteristics of Hispanic families are also problematic. Census information about Hispanic household or family median income tends to have large margins of error, often due to underreporting and/or small population sizes. Thus, it is difficult to determine the extent to which variations 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 a combination of the two. Better information about the level of education reached by Hispanic adults in a community would also be helpful for studying the achievement gap. One of the main indicators of a student‟s success is the educational achievement of his or her mother.103 Currently, although there are some town level data available about the educational attainment level of the general community, there are minimal data about the educational attainment levels of the varied ethnic 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 district in Connecticut for which data about Hispanic students are publicly available, regardless of income level, location, size, or percentage of Hispanic students. Gaps between the percentages of Hispanic students and white students at goal level exist across grade level and subject matter.
14



Connecticut Voices for Children



Contrary to what might be expected, statewide, the largest gaps in performance at goal level are not always on the reading component of the CMT. For example, statewide in 2009-2010, eighth-grade Hispanic 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 vary significantly between districts. For example, in Glastonbury, Manchester, and Trumbull in 20092010, fourth-grade white students were 1.3 times more likely to score at or above goal in reading than their Hispanic peers; in contrast, in eleven districts, fourth-grade white students were at least two times more likely to meet or exceed goal in reading than fourth-grade Hispanic students. These eleven districts were Hartford, Meriden, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Stamford, Vernon, Wallingford, West Hartford, West Haven, and Windham. Many of Connecticut‟s school districts struggle with low levels of absolute achievement among Hispanic students in all subject areas and grades. In absolute terms, districts vary considerably in their success in meeting the needs of Hispanic students. 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 fourthgrade reading. In contrast, in eight other districts, fewer than 25 percent of fourth-grade Hispanic students 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 20092010, only 30.9 percent of Hispanic students met or exceed goal in fourth-grade reading. In the state‟s districts with student populations that are 30 percent or more Hispanic, achievement gaps at goal level in math and reading between eighth-grade Hispanic students and white students have 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 have generally risen over the last five years, achievement gaps between scores have remained relatively constant, with slight improvements in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth-grade math, and more significant improvements in eighth-grade math and science. English language ability contributes to achievement gaps at goal level between Hispanic and white students; however, our analysis shows that these gaps cannot be attributed solely to differences in English language skills. For example, statewide, 30.9 percent of fourth-grade Hispanic students scored 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 that subject.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 not necessarily smaller than those in other, less wealthy communities. Better data are needed to understand more fully the weight of various factors – such as income status and parental education level – that contribute to the achievement gaps at goal level between Hispanic and white students.



 











As described in the report, some districts appear to have been more successful than others in meeting the needs of their Hispanic students and in narrowing the achievement gaps between Hispanic and white
Connecticut Voices for Children 15

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

See F. Cadelle Hemphill and Alan Vanneman, “Achievement Gaps: How Hispanic and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NCES 2011-459)” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education (June 2011) (available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011459.pdf) (Hereinafter “NCES Report”). 2 Ibid. In 8th grade mathematics, Connecticut tied with Massachusetts for worst achievement gap between Hispanic and White students in the country. Gaps in the other grade levels and subjects tested were only slightly better. In 4 th grade reading, only Minnesota and the District of Columbia had larger Hispanic-White achievement gaps. In 4th grade mathematics, only California, the District of Columbia, Rhode Island, and Utah had larger Hispanic-White achievement gaps. In 8th grade reading, only California, 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 not administered to eighth graders in Connecticut until 1998. The difference between the average eighth grade reading score for Hispanic students in 1998 and 2009 was not statistically significant. Ibid. 47 and 55. 4 Ibid., 21 and 29. While the decreases in the gaps between 1992 and 2009 were statistically significant for both fourth and eighth grade mathematics, the gaps remained among the largest in the nation. See endnote 4. Changes in the gap on the reading assessments since the first year of administration were not statistically significant. Ibid., 47 and 55. 5 For more information about this paper’s definition of “Hispanic,” refer to the section entitled “Methodology – Defining the Achievement Gap in Connecticut,” beginning on pg. 5. For more information about the diversity of Connecticut’s Hispanic population, see the section entitled “Background Regarding Connecticut‟s 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” and “Hispanic” are interchangeable. 6 See the section entitled “Background Regarding Connecticut‟s Hispanic Student Population,” starting on pg. 4. 7 See the section entitled “Background Regarding Connecticut‟s 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 in reading and writing at every grade level tested, with the exception of the 2009 grade 3 writing exam (equal percentages of blacks and Hispanics scored at or above goal) and the 2008 grade 8 writing exam (0.1 percent more Hispanics scored at or above goal than black students). See “CT Students Improve Performance on 2010 CMT; Post Gains over Benchmark Year (2006) Across Grades 3-8 in All Content Areas Except Writing at Grade 3; Largest Gains Seen in Grades 6, 7 and 8,” Connecticut State Department of Education (July 15, 2010) (available at http://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 for Asian/Pacific Islander and 86.8 percent for White/Caucasian.) See “Commissioner Calls for Action: New Formula, Unique Student Data Produce More Accurate State Graduation Rates,” Connecticut State Department of Education (March 23, 2010) (available at http://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 at absolute Hispanic achievement at district level. Other past studies have, however, given a visual overview of district-level Hispanic achievement. See “Mapping the Gap: An Illustration of the State of Connecticut Public Education,” ConnCAN (September 2008) (available at http://www.conncan.org/sites/default/files/research/ConnCAN_MapBook.pdf).
1

Connecticut Voices for Children

16

See “Understanding Your Child‟s Scores on the CMT,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2010) (available at http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/2010%20CMT%20Understanding%20Test%20 Scores%20with%20MAS.pdf). 12 “Impact 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 on CMT 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 and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access scores for Hispanic and white students in all school districts which report Hispanic scores, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4 th Generation,” located under “Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by District/School Report.” Choose “2010” under “Administration Years,” then choose the appropriate grade, select all districts, and select the right arrow to move them into the “Selected” column. Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click “Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” The percentages of Hispanic students and white students in each district who scored at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Goal” column. Statewide figures can be obtained by ensuring that “State” is also selected when districts names are selected. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school year. We have used the “school year” terminology in our report. In this paper, the term “Hispanic” is used, rather than “Latino,” in order to match the usage of the term 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. 15 See Appendix 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. See Appendix B. 17 See Social Sector Office, “The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America‟s Schools,” McKinsey and Company (April 2009), 5-6 (available at http://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 lower income occupations – many of which require lower levels education – have lost jobs. See Joachim Hero, Orlando Rodriguez, and Jacob Siegel, The State of Working Connecticut 2010, Connecticut Voices for Children, III-8 (available at http://ctkidslink.org/publications/econ10sowctfull.pdf). These changes could potentially exacerbate economic stratification in the state, where income inequality is already among the nation‟s highest. 19 See Sean Reardon and Claudia Galindo, “The Hispanic-White Achievement Gap in Math and Reading in the Elementary Grades,” American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 46 (September 2009), 853-891 (citing Richard Rothstein, Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black–White 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 Economics Review Vol. 8, No. 2 (2006), 249–281). 20 See Carol Schmid, “Educational Achievement, Language-Minority Students, and the New Second Generation,” Sociology of Education, Vol. 74 (2001), 74. 21 See Barbara Schneider, Sylvia Martinez, and Ann Owens, “Barriers to Educational Opportunities for Hispanics in the United States,” 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. 22 See Roger A. Wojtkiewicz and Katharine M. Donato, “Hispanic Educational Attainment: The Effects of Family Background and Nativity,” Social Forces, Vol. 74, No. 2 (December 1995), 559-574. 23 See Frances E. Contreras, “Access, Achievement, and Social Capital: Standardized Exams and the Latino College-Bound Population,” Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, Vol. 4, No. 197 (2005), 197-214. 24 See Leisy Janet Abrego, “„I Can't Go to College Because I Don't Have Papers‟: Incorporation Patterns Of Latino Undocumented Youth,” Latino Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Autumn 2006), 212-231. 25 See Russell 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 See Adriana D. Kohler and Melissa Lazarín, “Hispanic Education in the United States,” National Council of La Raza, Statistical Brief No. 8 (2007), 9 (available at http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/file_SB8_HispEd_fnl.pdf). 27 See Jason Irizarry with Taína Vargas, “Why Aren‟t More Latinos in College Prep Courses? A Critique of Tracking and Academic Apartheid,” in Jason Irizarry, The Latinization of U.S. Schools (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2011). 28 See Edward Olivos, “Tensions, Contradictions, and Resistance: An Activist‟s Reflection of the Struggles of Latino Parents in the Public School System,” The High School Journal, Vol. 87, No. 4 (April/May 2004). 29 See Taby Ali and Alexandra Dufresne. “Missing Out: Suspending Students from Connecticut Schools,” Connecticut Voices for Children (August 2008), 6 (available at http://ctkidslink.org/publications/edu08missingout.pdf) (concluding that, “in the 20062007 school year, the suspension rates among black and Hispanic students were at least triple those of the white students”).
11

Connecticut Voices for Children

17

See Valerie Martinez-Ebers, Luis Fraga, Linda Lopez, and Arturo Vega, “Latino Interests in Education, Health, and Criminal Justice Policy,” PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 33, No. 3 (September 2000), 548. 31 See Yolanda Padrón, Hersh Waxman, and Héctor Rivera, “Educating Hispanic Students: Obstacles and avenues to improved academic achievement,” Educational Practice Report, No. 8 (Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, 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 other racial/ethnic groups combined. See Karen Humes, Nicholas Jones, and Roberto Ramirez, “Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010 – 2010 Census Briefs,” United States Census Bureau (March 2011), 4 (available at http://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 other racial/ethnic groups combined. Comparison of “Table QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin: 2010,” in the 2010 Census Summary File 1, United States Census Bureau (available at http://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 (available at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=). Click on “Enter a Table Number,” enter the appropriate number, then choose the requested “Geographic Type” and “Geographic 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 large racial/ethnic group. Counts are for the 2009-2010 school year. Hispanics exclude all other racial groups and vice-versa. This count includes students enrolled in charter schools, which are considered to be part of the public school system. It does not include children enrolled in public school pre-K programs. If pre-K students were included, the racial breakdown of the public school system would be as follows: white, 64.0 percent; Hispanic, 17.5 percent; African American, 13.7 percent; Asian, 4.4 percent; and American Indian, 0.4 percent. K-12 enrollment numbers retrieved using the “Create a Custom Export Table” under “Enrollment,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011) (available at http://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 of 452,190 Hispanics in Connecticut in 2010. See “Table QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin: 2010,” in the 2010 Census Summary File 1, United States Census Bureau (available at http://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 American Indian 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 for Children. 37 Ibid. 38 Customized output from the 2010 Current Population Survey (CPS). Customized output from the 2010 Current Population Survey (CPS). See “Current Population Survey (CPS) Table Creator II,” (listing “Hispanic Origin” and “Age” by “Nativity – Detailed”) United States Census Bureau (available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.html). This number assumes that all people listed as native-born U.S. citizens were born in the U.S. or Puerto Rico. A small number may be born in other U.S. territories or abroad to U.S. citizen parents. 39 Ibid. 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. 40 Ibid. 41 See “Table B06004I: Place of Birth by Race (Hispanic or Latino) in the United States,” in the 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau (available at http://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 speak Portuguese. See “Table B05006: Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population,” in the 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau (available at http://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.” 43 See “Table B06004I: Place of Birth by Race (Hispanic or Latino) in the United States,” in the 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau (available at http://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.”
30

Connecticut Voices for Children

18

See “Table B06004I: Place of Birth by Race (Hispanic or Latino) in the United States,” in the 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau (available at http://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.” 45 Charter school districts falling into this category were not analyzed in this paper, since their population sizes were often quite small, 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 the charter 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 include students in public school pre-K programs. The percent enrollment of Hispanic students was determined by dividing the total number of Hispanic students in a district by the total enrollment of that same district, and then multiplying by 100. Enrollment numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut State Department of Education, via e-mail, on May 26, 2011. 47 See “Table S0201: Selected Population Profile in the United States (Connecticut),” in the 2007-2009 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, United State Census Bureau (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en). Click on “Enter a Table Number” in the 2007-2009 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates section of the website, then enter the appropriate 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,” then click “Show Result.” 48 Customized output from the 2007-2010 Current Population Survey (CPS). See “Current Population Survey (CPS) Table Creator II,” United States Census Bureau (available at http://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 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to drop-out rates to college admittance and completion rates. Each test has its own limitations in terms of its ability to depict the achievement gap, and serious concerns have been raised about the unintended consequences 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 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 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 all students to the same extent and direction, with no variation due to ethnicity, gender, race, and/or content area); see Robert 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. Solórzano, “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 learners and, 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 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 of instruction and recommending that ethnically-, racially-, culturally-, and linguisticallyappropriate 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 United States for less than ten months. See “Bilingual Education/ESL Exemptions: CMT and CAPT Exemption Information,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011) (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?A=2618&Q=320820). ELLs may be permitted various accommodations on the test, including time extensions, alternate test settings, someone to read directions (in English or their native language), someone to read math and science test questions and answer choices in English, and/or a dictionary. See “CMT/CAPT Testing Accommodations: 2010-2011,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011), 22 (available at http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdf). Special education students 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 Modified Assessment System (MAS), only available in math and reading, with or without accommodations, or they may use the CMT Skills Checklist. For information on how IEP teams identify which test a special education student should take, see “CMT/CAPT Testing Accommodations: 2010-2011,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011), 9 (available at http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdf). For more information about the CMT MAS, see “CMT/CAPT Modified Assessment System,” Connecticut State Department of Education (available at http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/mas/index.htm). For more information about the CMT Skills Checklist, see “CMT/CAPT Skills Checklist,” Connecticut State Department of Education (available at http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/checklist/index.htm). For more information about the Connecticut Mastery Test in general, see “The 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
44

Connecticut Voices for Children

19

http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/standard%20parent%20brochure%20for%20w eb%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 in Connecticut, identify students in need of academic assistance, monitor individual student achievement, identify weaknesses in curriculum and improve those areas, and increase the accountability of the state‟s educational system. See “The Connecticut Mastery Test: What Every Parent/Guardian Should Know About the CMT for Grades 3 through 8,” Connecticut State Board of Education (2010), 1 (available at http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/standard%20parent%20brochure%20for%20w eb%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). See “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4th Generation: Understanding Test Scores on the Individual Student Report,” Connecticut State Board of Education (2009) (available at http://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 grades four, six, and eight. Students in grades three, five, and seven began taking the CMT in the 2005-2006 school year, while the science section of the CMT (given to fifth and eighth graders) was added in the 2007-2008 school year. The current version of the CMT is known as the “4th generation” CMT, and includes CMT administrations dating back to 2005-2006. See Steve Martin, “Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) [PowerPoint],” State Department of Education (2006). See also “Public Summary Performance Reports,” under “Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports” (available at http://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 at www.ctreports.com. Information is also available via the Connecticut State Department of Education‟s “Connecticut Education Data and Research (CEDAR)” website, under “Connecticut Mastery Test: 4th Generation Reports,” available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/CMTLandingDT.aspx. We chose to use the www.ctreports.com site because data can be more easily sorted between grades, subjects, ethnicities, language ability, and level of achievement. Both websites generally report the same percentages, although occasionally, there is a difference of 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points between the two websites in regard to the percentage of students who achieved at or above goal. We believe that 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 an indicator of academic success. Nonetheless, tests are useful, accessible tools which provide at least some basis for comparison of student achievement. Thus, we view the analysis of CMT scores in this paper as a useful exercise, so long as it is viewed as only one 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 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 all students to the same extent and direction, with no variation due to ethnicity, gender, race, and/or content area); see Robert L. Linn, Eva L. Baker, and Stephen B. Dunbar, “Complex, Performance-Based Assessment: Expectations and Validation Criteria,” Evaluation Comment (UCLA) (Winter 19912991), 2-9 (listing critiques of standardized testing); see also Ronald W. Solórzano, “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 learners and 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 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 of instruction and recommending that ethnically-, racially-, culturally-, and linguistically-appropriate measures of assessment be developed). 56 For information about Connecticut’s achievement gap in relation to proficiency scores, see, e.g., “Every Child Should Have a Chance to Be Exceptional. Without Exception.,” Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement (2010) (available at http://www.ctachieve.org/pdf/commission_report.pdf); “Achievement Gap More than a Black and White Issue,” ConnCAN (January 2011) (available at http://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 Areas Except Writing at Grade 3; Largest Gains Seen in Grades 6, 7 and 8,” Connecticut State Department of Education (July 15, 2010) (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/cmt2010pressrelease.pdf); and see also “Impact of Connecticut Accountability Learning Initiative (CALI) on the Partner Districts,” Connecticut Department of Education (May 4, 2011). 57 See “Improvements Over Last Year: 125 More Connecticut Schools and 18 More Districts Meet the Federal NCLB Standard of “Adequate Yearly Progress this Year: Reading is Still the Issue in Elementary and Middle Schools; Math is the Challenge in High Schools,” State Department of Education (August 11, 2010), 1 (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/ayp_2010_newsrelease.pdf). 58 See “Are All America‟s Children Really Above Average? A Comparison of State and National Reading Assessments,” Voices for America’s Children (July 2010) (available at http://www.voices.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Are-All-Americas-Children-

Connecticut Voices for Children

20

Really-Above-Average_report.pdf); see also Ryan McAuliffe, “Defining Educational Proficiency and Achievement in Connecticut,” Connecticut Voices for Children (November 2007) (available at http://ctkidslink.org/publications/ece07achievementct.pdf). 59 See Appendix C, endnote iii for information about the data collection process and calculations for information provided in Appendix C. 60 Conversation with Abe Krisst, State Department of Education, on Monday, June 15, 2010. 61 See “Table B” and “Appendix E” under “SASID Register/Unregister Record Layout,” Connecticut State Department of Education (August 2009). Due to changes in federal reporting guidelines, students will be able to be identified in the PSIS as being of more than one race/ethnicity as of the 2010-2011 school year. See Mark McQuillan, “New Student Race/Ethnicity Reporting Requirements,” Connecticut State Department of Education (June 2009) (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/circ/circ08-09/C14.pdf). For more information about the change in data collection, see George Coleman, “2011 CMT Results Show Increases from 2010, Continuing a Positive Trend for the Fourth Generation CMT,” Connecticut State Department of Education (July 13, 2011), 7 (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF%5Cpressroom%5C2011_CMT_Press_Release.pdf).This modification in data collection is a result of changes to federal reporting guidelines. 62 According to test results published on the Connecticut State Department of Education‟s www.ctreports.com website, results are not presented for groups of fewer than 20 students. 63 Results for Area Cooperative Educational Services (ACES) and the Capital Region Education Council (CREC) districts were available in some subject and grade levels, but we chose to exclude the results from these districts to avoid a potential source of bias in the analysis, given that these districts are non-traditional school districts. 64 See Appendix A, endnote i for information about the data collection process and calculations for information provided in Appendix A. 65 The Connecticut charter school districts with a Hispanic population that makes up more than 30 percent of the overall student population are: The Bridge Academy District (30.0 percent), Side By Side Community School District (31.5 percent), Amistad Academy District (34.7 percent), Interdistrict School for the Arts and Communication (35.7 percent), Park City Prep Charter School (36.0 percent), Trailblazers Academy District (36.6 percent), Common Ground High School District (36.9 percent), and Bridgeport Achievement First (41.6 percent). Charter school districts falling in this category were not analyzed in this paper, since their population sizes were often quite small, 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 the charter districts include both fourth and eighth grades, which are analyzed in this paper. The percent enrollment of Hispanic students was determined by dividing the total number of Hispanic students in a district by the total enrollment of that same district, and then multiplying by 100. Enrollment numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut State Department of Education, via e-mail, on May 26, 2011. 66 Of the twelve districts featured, all over 1,000 Hispanic students enrolled in the district, with New London having the fewest Hispanic students (1,378 in the 2009-2010 school year). Enrollment numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut State Department of Education, via e-mail, on May 26, 2011. 67 Different class years of student might have varying natural academic abilities – e.g., fourth graders in 2007-2008 could naturally perform better on their exams than the fourth graders in 2009-2010 – so several years of data are included to determine if multiple years of classes faced an achievement gap. 68 We wanted to determine if the achievement gap was an issue in just one subject area with which students particularly struggled, or if it was an issue in multiple subject areas. 69 See Viana Turcios-Cotto and Robert Cotto, Jr., "Recalculating School Reform in Hartford, CT," Working Paper Presented at Harvard Graduate School of Education Alumni of Color Conference (March 4, 2011). 70 See Appendix B, endnote ii for information about the data collection process and calculations for information provided in Appendix B. 71 Connecticut General Statutes, Section 10-17e (available at http://cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap164.htm#Sec10-17e.htm). 72 For the number of Spanish-speaking ELLs per district, see “Number of English Language Learners,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011) (available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EllDT.aspx). 73 The race/ethnicity breakdown for these Spanish-speaking students is not publicly available, forcing us to make this assumption. 74 In order to determine the percentage of Hispanics who are also identified as ELLs statewide, we divided the total number of Spanish-speaking ELLs in Connecticut by the total Hispanic enrollment in Connecticut and multiplied by 100. These calculations make the assumption that all Spanish-speaking ELLs are Hispanic because the race/ethnicity breakdown for these Spanishspeaking students is not publicly available. For the number of Spanish-speaking ELLs per district, see “Number of English Language Learners,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011) (available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EllDT.aspx). Enrollment numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut State Department of Education, via e-mail, on May 26, 2011. 75 In order to determine the percentage of Hispanics who are also identified as ELLs, we divided the total number of Spanishspeaking ELLs by the total Hispanic enrollment in each Connecticut school district and multiplied by 100. These calculations make the assumption that all Spanish-speaking ELLs are Hispanic because the race/ethnicity breakdown for these SpanishConnecticut Voices for Children 21

speaking students is not publicly available. For the number of Spanish-speaking ELLs per district, see “Number of English Language Learners,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011) (available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EllDT.aspx). Enrollment numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut State Department of Education, via e-mail, on May 26, 2011. 76 During the 2009-2010 school year, 48,243 Connecticut students were identified as living with a non-English home language. For the number of students who have been identified as having Spanish as their “home language,” see “Number of English Language Learners,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011) (available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EllDT.aspx). 77 See “Bilingual Education/ESL Exemptions: CMT and CAPT Exemption Information,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2010) (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?A=2618&Q=320820). 78 See “English Language Learners, School Year 2009-2010,” Connecticut State Department of Education (November 2010), 6-7 (available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/Files/Pdf/Reports/db_ell_report_11_2010.pdf). 79 See Appendix A. 80 See Appendix D. 81 See Appendix A. 82 See Appendix D. 83 See Appendix D. 84 See Appendix D. 85 See Appendix D, endnote iv for information about the data collection process and calculations for information provided in Appendix B. 86 3.9 percent of Hispanics in the Vernon school district were identified as ELLs in the 2009-2010 school year, assuming that all Spanish-speaking ELLs are Hispanic. For the number of Spanish-speaking ELLs per district, see “Number of English Language Learners,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011) (available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EllDT.aspx). 87 42.0 percent of Hispanics in Danbury were identified as ELLs in the 2009-2010 school year, assuming that all Spanish-speaking ELLs are Hispanic. For the number of Spanish-speaking ELLs per district, see “Number of English Language Learners,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011) (available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EllDT.aspx). 88 Score information for these districts obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access the scores for Hispanic and white students in these districts, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4 th Generation,” located under “Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by District/School Report.” Choose the appropriate years under “Administration Years,” then choose the appropriate grade, select the identified districts, and select the right arrow to move them into the “Selected” column. Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click “Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” Lastly, select “Filter,” choose “ELL” in the drop down menu next to “Add Filter,” and click “Submit.” The percentages of ELL Hispanic students and white students in each district who scored at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Goal” column. Statewide figures can be obtained by ensuring that “State” is also selected when districts names are selected. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school year, “2009” refers to the 2008-2009 school year, etc. We have used the “school year” terminology in our report. 89 See “Bilingual Education/ESL Exemptions: CMT and CAPT Exemption Information,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011) (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?A=2618&Q=320820). ELLs may be permitted various accommodations on the test, including time extensions, alternate test settings, someone to read directions (in English or their native language), someone to read math and science test questions and answer choices in English, and/or a dictionary. See “CMT/CAPT Testing Accommodations: 2010-2011,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011), 22, (available at http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdf). 90 For more information about bilingual education in Connecticut, see Annemarie Hillman, Lauren Velazquez, and Cyd Oppenheimer, “English Language Learning Students in Connecticut,” Connecticut Voices for Children (July 2010) (available at http://ctkidslink.org/publications/edu10englishlanguage.pdf). 91 See Appendix A for all information referenced in this section. 92 School districts with fewer than 20 students in a grade did not report the percentage of students scoring at or above goal on the different components of the CMT, due to privacy concerns. As a result, there are some districts which have small Hispanic populations, but for which data are unavailable. Additionally, some districts which have close to 20 students at fourth or eighth grade did not report percentages for all components of the CMT, since enough students were absent from some sections of the test that the number of students taking the exam fell below 20 and could not be publicly reported. It should be noted that districts with smaller Hispanic populations are likely to experience more natural flux in scores from year to year, since extreme performances have more of an effect on the overall population results. 93 Statewide score information obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access the scores for Hispanic and white students in these districts, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4th Generation,” located under “Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by District/School Report.” Choose the appropriate years under “Administration Years,” then choose “Grade 4.” Next, ensure that “State” is listed as being “Selected.” (If it is not selected, highlight the term “State” and use the right arrow to Connecticut Voices for Children 22

move the term into the “Selected” column.) Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click “Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” The percentages of Hispanic students and white students statewide who scored at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Goal” column. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school year, “2009” refers to the 2008-2009 school year, etc. We have used the “school year” terminology in our report. Achievement gaps were calculated by dividing the percentage of white students statewide who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students statewide who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year. 94 Statewide score information obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access the scores for Hispanic and white students in these districts, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4th Generation,” located under “Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by District/School Report.” Choose the appropriate years under “Administration Years,” then choose “Grade 8.” Next, ensure that “State” is listed as being “Selected.” (If it is not selected, highlight the term “State” and use the right arrow to move the term into the “Selected” column.) Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click “Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” The percentages of Hispanic students and white students statewide who scored at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Goal” column. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school year, “2009” refers to the 2008-2009 school year, etc. We have used the “school year” terminology in our report. Achievement gaps were calculated by dividing the percentage of white students statewide who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students statewide who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year. 95 Statewide score information obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access the scores for Hispanic and white students in these districts, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4th Generation,” located under “Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by District/School Report.” Choose “2010” under “Administration Years,” then choose the appropriate grade. Next, ensure that “State” is listed as being “Selected.” (If it is not selected, highlight the term “State” and use the right arrow to move the term into the “Selected” column.) Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click “Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” The percentages of Hispanic students and white students statewide who scored at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Goal” column. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school year, “2009” refers to the 2008-2009 school year, etc. We have used the “school year” terminology in our report. Achievement gaps were calculated by dividing the percentage of white students statewide who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students statewide who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year. 96 Median family income was used as an indicator of community wealth. For example, median family incomes in the listed communities were: Bridgeport - $48,054; Greenwich - $169,559; Glastonbury - $119,821; Hartford - $32,512; New Haven $46,579; and West Hartford - $103,123. For information about town-level median family incomes in Connecticut, see “Table B19113: Median Family Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2009 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars),” in the 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau (available at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en). Click on “Enter a Table Number,” enter the appropriate number, then choose “County Subdivision” and the requested “State,” “County” and “Geographic Area.” Then click “Add,” and “Show Result.” 97 Town-level data regarding the median family incomes of Hispanic families often have limited population samples and very high margins of error, especially in very wealthy communities. 98 Median family incomes for Hispanic families in the twelve districts with student populations which are 30 percent or more Hispanic were: Bridgeport - $40,412; Danbury - $48,883; East Hartford - $34,632; Hartford - $24,237; Meriden - $37,191; New Britain - $33,371; New Haven - $32,690; New London - $39,135; Norwalk - $56,875; Stamford - $49,590; Waterbury - $29,285; and Windham - $27, 602. For information about town-level median family incomes for Hispanic families in Connecticut, see “Table B19113I: Median Family Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2009 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) (Hispanic or Latino Householder),” in the 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau (available at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en). Click on “Enter a Table Number,” enter the appropriate number, then choose “County Subdivision” and the requested “State,” “County” and “Geographic Area.” Then click “Add,” and “Show Result.” 99 See Appendix B for all information referenced in this section. 100 As mentioned in the Methodology section, we don‟t know why the size of the eighth grade achievement gap in these school districts changed; it could be the result of a natural variation in class academic ability, changes to curriculum or instruction methods, among other factors. 101 For more information about the change in data collection, see George Coleman, “2011 CMT Results Show Increases from 2010, Continuing a Positive Trend for the Fourth Generation CMT,” Connecticut State Department of Education (July 13, 2011), 7 (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF%5Cpressroom%5C2011_CMT_Press_Release.pdf).This modification in data collection is a result of changes to federal reporting guidelines. See Mark McQuillan, “New Student Race/Ethnicity Reporting

Connecticut Voices for Children

23

Requirements,” Connecticut State Department of Education (June 1, 2009) (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/circ/circ08-09/C14.pdf). 102 See “Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education,” United State Department of Education (October 19, 2007) (available at http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2007-4/101907c.html). 103 See, e.g., Mark R. Rosenzweig and Kenneth I. Wolpin, “Are There Increasing Returns to the Intergenerational Production of Human Capital? Maternal Schooling and Child Intellectual Achievement,” The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Spring 1994) , 670-693 (referring to the strong positive correlations between the educational attainment of mothers and measures of the well-being of their children, including school performance indicators, that are commonly found in studies of both high- and lowincome households). 104 See Appendix A. 105 See Appendix D.

Connecticut Voices for Children

24

Appendix A
Student Performance Data – Goal Level All Connecticut School Districts Publicly Reporting Data for Hispanic Studentsi

Goal Level Scores for Fourth Grade Math, Reading, & Writing Eighth Grade Math, Reading, Writing, & Science 2009-2010

Score information obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access scores for Hispanic and white students in all school districts which report Hispanic scores, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4 th Generation,” located under “Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by District/School Report.” Choose “2010” under “Administration Years,” then choose the appropriate grade, select all districts, and select the right arrow to move them into the “Selected” column. Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click “Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” The percentages of Hispanic students and white students in each district who scored at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Goal” column. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school year. We have used the “school year” terminology in our report. Achievement gaps for each district were calculated by dividing the percentage of white students in a specific school district who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students in that district who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year. The statewide achievement gap was calculated by dividing the percentage of white students statewide who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students statewide who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year.
i

Fourth-Grade Math Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Math 2009-2010
Statewide Ansonia Bridgeport Bristol Danbury Derby East Hartford East Haven Enfield Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Meriden Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 43.5 78.2 60.0 72.4 31.5 43.8 42.2 71.5 67.0 79.3 20.0 40.0 28.7 49.5 52.3 59.5 50.0 78.2 64.4 85.0 52.2 86.1 56.3 84.8 48.8 69.7 48.1 71.2 28.7 45.9 57.8 72.8 43.3 72.0

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.2 2.0 1.7 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.7

% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Math 2009-2010
Middletown Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven New London New Milford Newington Newtown Norwalk Norwich Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 50.0 72.8 56.7 73.4 46.0 62.9 20.6 44.5 41.4 73.7 26.3 38.7 46.2 65.8 54.5 80.7 85.0 89.6 49.6 80.3 28.0 50.7 55.6 73.8 69.0 89.5 49.7 78.8 61.7 77.5 55.8 68.2 75.0 90.5 24.0 65.0

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.5 1.3 1.4 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.2 2.7

% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Math 2009-2010
Wallingford Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 61.7 81.4 46.1 69.1 54.4 86.8 33.3 62.9 52.9 78.3 30.5 54.9 69.4 85.5

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.2

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

Fourth-Grade Reading Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Reading 2009-2010
Statewide Ansonia Bridgeport Bristol Danbury Derby East Hartford East Haven Enfield Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Meriden Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 30.9 71.8 31.3 54.1 21.9 33.6 34.3 61.3 36.0 66.4 28.0 51.9 28.7 41.7 34.1 49.2 33.3 61.7 44.4 80.9 63.6 80.9 53.8 83.9 37.2 63.1 38.0 67.6 16.8 40.5 51.7 65.6 26.2 62.0

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.3 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.4 1.3 2.4

% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Reading 2009-2010
Middletown Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven New London New Milford Newington Norwalk Norwich Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Wallingford Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 40.8 68.3 48.3 66.1 30.6 52.6 15.6 36.2 24.5 65.6 17.7 45.2 47.8 71.5 47.7 67.4 40.2 71.9 27.6 51.7 69.2 73.7 55.6 77.5 32.8 72.0 40.9 71.3 42.9 63.9 60.7 80.1 20.0 57.5 36.2 71.2

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.3 1.7 1.4 1.7 2.3 2.7 2.6 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.1 1.4 2.2 1.7 1.5 1.3 2.9 2.0

% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Reading 2009-2010
Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 25.7 49.6 40.0 80.8 23.9 58.5 47.1 68.0 15.6 54.3 59.5 80.7

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.3 1.9 2.0 2.4 1.4 3.5 1.4

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

Fourth-Grade Writing Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Writing 2009-2010
Statewide Ansonia Bridgeport Bristol Danbury Derby East Hartford East Haven Enfield Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Meriden Middletown Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 40.3 73.7 53.8 56.6 33.8 47.6 37.5 66.8 46.5 59.7 34.6 46.3 36.4 52.9 35.4 51.3 41.9 66.3 67.3 83.6 53.8 81.5 62.9 84.9 52.3 57.0 40.7 67.3 27.6 46.7 50.0 66.7 27.1 59.9 52.8 70.6

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.1 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.7 1.7 1.3 2.2 1.3

% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Writing 2009-2010
Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven New London New Milford Newington Newtown Norwalk Norwich Seymour Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Wallingford Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 53.3 71.4 40.4 51.8 18.7 37.0 34.4 63.1 32.5 50.0 53.8 72.0 52.2 80.2 85.0 82.5 49.1 73.8 35.0 44.9 65.0 70.0 66.7 76.4 62.1 77.9 50.3 73.7 57.4 73.1 41.5 65.2 72.4 81.6 28.0 62.2 50.0 73.6

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.3 1.3 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.1 2.2 1.5

% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Writing 2009-2010
Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 39.1 61.8 56.4 82.6 39.7 52.3 60.0 69.0 29.3 52.4 67.6 75.9

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.1

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

Eighth-Grade Math Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Math 2009-2010
Statewide Ansonia Bethel Branford Bridgeport Bristol Danbury East Hartford East Haven Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Meriden Middletown Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 38.8 79.0 44.4 70.8 63.3 80.6 61.9 70.2 29.3 46.7 39.6 75.6 41.3 64.2 27.2 55.6 46.3 64.6 57.4 89.9 69.6 87.0 61.6 84.7 45.0 71.4 51.7 76.5 24.9 63.0 29.3 64.3 26.5 72.1 34.8 68.9

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.0 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.6 1.9 1.6 2.0 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.5 2.5 2.2 2.7 2.0

% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Math 2009-2010
Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven New London New Milford Newington Newtown Norwalk Norwich Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Wallingford Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 41.7 77.0 50.0 66.5 19.6 52.6 44.5 70.2 22.9 46.2 58.3 71.6 59.0 76.4 82.6 90.4 48.4 70.2 33.3 57.5 46.4 78.3 69.2 85.6 45.3 75.6 45.7 74.1 40.4 65.1 74.3 85.2 43.5 71.6 58.1 76.0

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.0 1.8 1.3 2.7 1.6 2.0 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.1 1.6 1.3

% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Math 2009-2010
Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 20.1 46.2 53.8 85.1 38.4 58.2 56.8 83.5 21.3 47.1 58.6 88.2

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.0 2.3 1.6 1.5 1.5 2.2 1.5

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

Eighth-Grade Reading Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Reading 2009-2010
Statewide Ansonia Bethel Branford Bridgeport Bristol Danbury East Hartford East Haven Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Meriden Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 47.3 83.4 45.7 70.5 70.0 84.5 76.2 80.2 36.2 56.7 57.3 81.7 56.0 78.8 32.1 63.0 56.1 68.8 63.8 91.2 52.2 87.2 64.6 89.7 60.0 85.7 65.0 84.9 35.9 77.4 47.6 77.5 34.2 72.2

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.3 2.2 1.6 2.1

% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Reading 2009-2010
Middletown Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven New London New Milford Newington Newtown Norwalk Norwich Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Wallingford Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 42.2 73.5 58.3 82.6 52.6 74.6 26.4 63.5 46.5 80.0 35.2 61.5 61.1 79.9 71.8 85.5 90.9 94.4 58.0 76.1 45.2 66.5 57.1 81.5 80.8 86.0 56.2 80.0 60.6 88.1 46.8 60.9 82.4 94.9 50.0 73.6 57.8 79.1

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.7 1.4 1.4 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.4

% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Reading 2009-2010
Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 33.7 63.2 58.3 88.6 56.6 68.2 61.1 78.2 24.8 53.8 62.1 80.2

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.3 2.2 1.3

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

Eighth-Grade Writing Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Writing 2009-2010
Statewide Ansonia Bethel Branford Bridgeport Bristol Danbury East Hartford East Haven Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Meriden Middletown Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 34.3 73.8 31.9 56.1 53.3 77.7 52.4 70.2 25.9 42.7 29.7 62.2 38.5 62.7 21.7 52.4 26.8 48.5 55.3 83.5 60.0 80.4 59.4 81.7 54.8 66.7 43.5 66.2 24.0 65.1 31.5 56.8 18.5 53.8 37.5 69.4

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.2 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.6 2.1 1.6 2.4 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.5 2.7 1.8 2.9 1.9

% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Writing 2009-2010
Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven New London New Milford Newington Newtown Norwalk Norwich Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Wallingford Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 43.5 72.5 55.3 64.8 14.9 46.7 25.4 61.1 25.5 42.3 41.7 64.7 69.2 80.5 68.0 84.3 39.5 60.3 30.2 46.1 60.7 66.3 65.4 72.3 41.5 71.0 56.9 72.4 31.4 57.2 77.1 88.7 37.5 62.2 40.4 67.8

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.2 1.7 1.2 3.1 2.4 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.7 1.3 1.8 1.2 1.7 1.7

% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Writing 2009-2010
Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 25.7 48.2 49.5 82.2 37.3 52.4 43.6 68.5 10.7 32.7 29.4 75.9

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.2 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.6 3.1 2.6

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

Eighth-Grade Science Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Science 2009-2010
Statewide Ansonia Bethel Branford Bridgeport Bristol Danbury East Hartford East Haven Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Meriden Middletown Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 32.0 76.2 23.4 58.8 73.3 79.7 66.7 79.8 24.3 43.9 47.0 72.3 34.3 66.3 23.9 61.9 23.8 50.2 61.7 87.3 60.0 83.8 48.5 80.1 52.4 72.6 41.0 67.6 18.6 68.0 26.4 61.5 17.7 55.5 26.5 60.6

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.4 2.5 1.1 1.2 1.8 1.5 1.9 2.6 2.1 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.6 3.7 2.3 3.1 2.3

% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Science 2009-2010
Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven New London New Milford Newington Newtown Norwalk Norwich Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Wallingford Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 41.7 74.9 39.5 60.2 13.8 45.8 29.7 67.9 20.6 42.3 69.4 75.8 43.6 75.5 76.0 86.6 39.0 67.5 32.6 55.5 39.3 65.2 57.7 73.8 36.8 69.5 44.3 71.4 33.3 65.8 65.7 83.7 20.8 62.7 44.7 80.8

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.4 1.8 1.5 3.3 2.3 2.1 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.9 1.6 2.0 1.3 3.0 1.8

% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Science 2009-2010
Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 18.6 44.4 35.4 82.6 38.8 57.1 40 69.2 11.8 43.4 39.4 75.9

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.4 2.3 1.5 1.7 3.7 1.9

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

Appendix B
Student Performance Data – Goal Level Connecticut School Districts with Large Hispanic Student Populations (≥30%)ii

Goal Scores for 12 Districts with Large Hispanic Populations Fourth Grade Math and Reading Eighth Grade – Math and Reading 2007-2008 to 2009-2010

In order to determine these numbers, we first determined which school districts had student populations which are 30 percent or more Hispanic. To calculate the percent enrollment of Hispanic students, we divided the total number of Hispanic students in a district by the total enrollment of that same district, and then multiplied by 100. Enrollment numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut State Department of Education, via e-mail, on May 26, 2011. Once the appropriate districts had been identified, we obtained score information for these districts from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access the scores for Hispanic and white students in these districts, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4th Generation,” located under “Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by District/School Report.” Choose the appropriate years under “Administration Years,” then choose the appropriate grade, select the identified districts, and select the right arrow to move them into the “Selected” column. Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click “Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” The percentages of Hispanic students and white students in each district who scored at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Goal” column. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school year, “2009” refers to the 2008-2009 school year, etc. We have used the “school year” terminology in our report. Achievement gaps for each district were calculated by dividing the percentage of white students in a specific school district who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students in that district who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year. The statewide achievement gap was calculated by dividing the percentage of white students statewide who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students statewide who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year.
ii

Fourth-Grade Math Achievement Gap and Scores
CT Districts with Large Hispanic Student Populations (≥30%)
% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Math 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Statewide Bridgeport Danbury East Hartford Hartford Meriden New Britain New Haven New London Norwalk Stamford Waterbury Windham Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 35.5 72.0 28.2 45.2 46.4 69.8 32.4 44.9 23.6 41.0 38.0 62.9 18.5 46.8 36.7 61.5 4.6 35.0 47.2 65.5 44.2 75.6 38.8 61.7 25.6 55.1 38.2 75.1 25.9 46.7 51.0 73.0 31.3 63.0 24.6 52.6 36.2 68.4 19.2 49.1 33.9 62.9 22.0 54.5 52.1 76.3 44.8 74.9 38.0 61.2 28.4 44.3 43.5 78.2 31.5 43.8 67.0 79.3 28.7 49.5 28.7 45.9 43.3 72.0 20.6 44.5 41.4 73.7 26.3 38.7 49.6 80.3 49.7 78.8 46.1 69.1 30.5 54.9

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.4 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.8

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

Fourth-Grade Reading Achievement Gap and Scores
CT Districts with Large Hispanic Student Populations (≥30%)
% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Reading 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Statewide Bridgeport Danbury East Hartford Hartford Meriden New Britain New Haven New London Norwalk Stamford Waterbury Windham Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 27.9 67.9 22.4 35.3 30.0 54.8 24.5 42.1 14.3 43.6 24.9 54.7 14.3 38.5 20.3 55.6 15.7 41.0 35.5 60.7 34.8 67.9 25.4 53.4 14.6 50.0 30.7 72.7 20.4 41.9 33.2 61.8 18.0 58.2 16.7 50.6 27.9 58.6 14.4 43.0 27.2 54.3 21.2 60.6 34.2 68.3 37.2 74.5 26.7 56.0 17.5 50.0 30.9 71.8 21.9 33.6 36.0 66.4 28.7 41.7 16.8 40.5 26.2 62.0 15.6 36.2 24.5 65.6 17.7 45.2 40.2 71.9 32.8 72.0 25.7 49.6 15.6 54.3

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.3 1.5 1.8 1.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.6 1.8 2.2 1.9 3.5

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

Eighth-Grade Math Achievement Gap and Scores
CT Districts with Large Hispanic Student Populations (≥30%)
% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Math 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Statewide Bridgeport Danbury East Hartford Hartford Meriden New Britain New Haven New London Norwalk Stamford Waterbury Windham Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 30.5 73.8 23.1 43.0 26.8 54.9 25.7 57.1 16.6 65.0 18.9 48.2 13.7 45.4 31.2 60.0 15.5 35.0 39.5 73.4 28.6 72.5 19.4 44.2 16.4 43.8 33.6 77.2 23.4 50.0 37.8 63.6 27.5 48.1 14.8 63.4 31.0 62.1 16.5 45.3 29.6 66.7 18.1 36.4 44.9 79.8 36.8 76.4 20.5 44.4 13.7 46.0 38.8 79.0 29.3 46.7 41.3 64.2 27.2 55.6 24.9 63.0 26.5 72.1 19.6 52.6 44.5 70.2 22.9 46.2 48.4 70.2 45.3 75.6 20.1 46.2 21.3 47.1

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
2.0 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.5 2.7 2.7 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.7 2.3 2.2

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

Eighth-Grade Reading Achievement Gap and Scores
CT Districts with Large Hispanic Student Populations (≥30%)
% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Reading 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Statewide Bridgeport Danbury East Hartford Hartford Meriden New Britain New Haven New London Norwalk Stamford Waterbury Windham Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 34.4 77.0 28.2 53.7 31.7 65.8 28.3 60.7 19.3 69.3 22.3 59.6 20.5 49.3 28.7 65.4 12.4 60.0 46.5 76.4 34.7 79.7 29.3 54.7 17.6 54.4 38.3 80.1 28.1 53.8 35.2 73.8 20.5 53.3 23.3 80.3 31.0 65.5 20.3 59.7 31.8 74.5 21.1 46.9 49.8 81.9 47.2 81.8 29.3 54.0 20.9 54.7 47.3 83.4 36.2 56.7 56.0 78.8 32.1 63.0 35.9 77.4 34.2 72.2 26.4 63.5 46.5 80.0 35.2 61.5 58.0 76.1 56.2 80.0 33.7 63.2 24.8 53.8

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.9 2.2

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

Appendix C
Student Performance Data – Proficiency Level All Connecticut School Districts Publicly Reporting Data for Hispanic Studentsiii

Proficiency Level Scores for Fourth Grade Math, Reading, & Writing Eighth Grade Math, Reading, Writing, Science 2009-2010

Score information obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access scores for Hispanic and white students in all school districts which report Hispanic scores, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4 th Generation,” located under “Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by District/School Report.” Choose “2010” under “Administration Years,” then choose the appropriate grade, select all districts, and select the right arrow to move them into the “Selected” column. Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click “Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” The percentages of Hispanic students and white students in each district who scored at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Proficiency” column. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school year. We have used the “school year” terminology in our report. Achievement gaps for each district were calculated by dividing the percentage of white students in a specific school district who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students in that district who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year. The statewide achievement gap was calculated by dividing the percentage of white students statewide who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students statewide who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year.
iii

Fourth-Grade Math Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Fourth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Math 2009-2010
Statewide Ansonia Bridgeport Bristol CREC Danbury Derby East Hartford East Haven Enfield Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Meriden Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 69.6 92.7 73.8 88.8 57.9 72.6 63.7 87.6 87.1 88.6 88.6 92.1 60.0 65.0 54.5 77.7 75.0 86.3 80.0 95.5 84.4 96.0 91.3 96.2 82.5 96.0 69.8 86.7 76.9 84.0 58.7 81.1 74.4 92.3 70.0 88.6

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.3

% Fourth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Math 2009-2010
Middletown Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven Newington New London New Milford Newtown Norwalk Norwich Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 80.0 88.4 73.3 89.8 70.0 82.8 43.4 67.7 68.8 88.0 88.6 95.8 57.9 71.0 76.9 89.4 100.0 98.2 77.9 96.0 54.7 78.9 85.2 93.2 79.3 97.0 74.4 92.3 80.9 93.9 73.1 89.4 100.0 98.8 60.0 87.2

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.5

% Fourth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Math 2009-2010
Wallingford Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 87.2 94.8 75.7 90.5 77.7 94.6 71.5 85.2 85.3 92.3 59.6 76.8 94.4 96.4

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.0

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

Fourth-Grade Reading Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Fourth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Reading 2009-2010
Statewide Ansonia Bridgeport Bristol CREC Danbury Derby East Hartford East Haven Enfield Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Meriden Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 46.4 83.5 48.4 66.3 37.7 51.4 43.4 75.1 70.0 86.4 54.7 77.8 40.0 60.8 42.0 60.2 54.5 73.5 53.3 78.3 73.3 89.8 81.8 90.4 62.5 91.9 55.8 73.7 48.0 79.7 27.9 55.4 64.4 78.1 41.5 75.2

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.3 1.7 2.0 1.2 1.8

% Fourth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Reading 2009-2010
Middletown Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven Newington New London New Milford Norwalk Norwich Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Wallingford Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 61.2 80.9 58.6 79.7 44.9 68.0 27.4 56.6 39.8 80.2 65.9 83.4 37.2 54.8 65.2 83.4 59.5 87.0 35.5 67.5 84.6 87.0 66.7 88.7 50.6 82.0 62.4 84.9 63.3 78.7 75.0 89.2 24.0 70.9 59.6 81.6

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.0 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.9 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 3.0 1.4

% Fourth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Reading 2009-2010
Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 42.5 70.3 62.0 90.6 47.2 77.1 61.8 82.0 31.9 71.6 67.6 91.6

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.3 2.2 1.4

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

Fouth-Grade Writing Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Fouth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Writing Statewide Ansonia Bridgeport Bristol CREC Danbury Derby East Hartford East Haven Enfield Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 2009-2010 73.2 92.0 86.2 87.9 64.9 73.5 82.7 86.8 87.1 88.6 85.5 87.6 69.2 82.9 69.5 81.7 87.5 85.8 74.2 93.4 81.6 95.2 88.5 95.3 86.5 96.9 75.0 84.3 75.9 86.0 64.8 78.7 83.7 85.0 Achievement Gap* 2009-2010 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0

% Fouth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Writing Meriden Middletown Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven Newington New London New Milford Newtown Norwalk Norwich Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 2009-2010 66.2 86.8 84.9 90.6 73.3 92.1 69.2 83.7 50.9 67.3 69.1 87.2 80.4 97.0 71.8 81.3 80.8 91.9 100.0 96.5 80.1 93.4 63.8 79.5 85.2 92.7 82.8 94.3 80.1 92.0 84.0 92.9 76.9 88.7 89.7 96.6 80.0 89.4

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1

% Fouth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Writing Wallingford Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 2009-2010 89.6 91.8 72.3 87.4 84.5 95.1 71.5 86.0 94.3 91.2 64.6 83.3 86.5 93.1

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.1

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

Eighth-Grade Math Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Eighth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Math 2009-2010
Statewide Ansonia Bethel Branford Bridgeport Bristol Danbury East Hartford East Haven Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Meriden Middletown Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 68.2 93.8 73.3 90.3 93.3 95.3 81.0 91.9 61.1 78.3 79.2 94.1 75.2 87.3 62.7 81.5 68.3 81.9 87.2 97.2 91.3 96.3 78.8 94.5 77.5 90.6 83.3 93.5 53.5 92.1 64.6 88.8 64.0 89.2 67.4 88.2

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.4 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.3

% Eighth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Math 2009-2010
Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven Newington New London New Milford Newtown Norwalk Norwich Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Wallingford Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 70.8 94.9 60.5 88.3 49.4 77.6 73.2 90.1 79.5 93.5 52.4 69.2 77.8 92.2 95.7 98.7 78.5 90.3 64.3 85.1 75.0 92.8 96.2 97.0 73.1 89.8 83.5 95.4 78.7 86.4 94.3 97.0 73.9 89.9 93.0 95.2

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.4 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0

% Eighth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Math 2009-2010
Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 54.8 77.5 82.8 98.2 62.6 83.6 73.0 97.2 44.9 68.6 79.3 94.1

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.2

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

Eighth-Grade Reading Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Eighth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Reading 2009-2010
Statewide Ansonia Bethel Branford Bridgeport Bristol Danbury East Hartford East Haven Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Meriden Middletown Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 61.2 90.5 63.0 84.8 93.3 89.1 85.7 86.4 49.0 69.2 72.9 89.5 72.0 87.5 51.8 80.2 65.9 76.8 78.7 94.9 73.9 95.2 73.7 94.1 80.0 92.4 78.3 88.4 49.9 87.2 64.3 87.7 47.2 85.4 60.0 82.5

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.5 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.4 1.8 1.4

% Eighth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Reading 2009-2010
Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven Newington New London New Milford Newtown Norwalk Norwich Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Wallingford Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 70.8 91.9 60.5 82.6 40.7 72.2 64.1 89.2 87.2 91.2 52.4 69.2 66.7 88.4 90.9 97.1 67.6 84.2 61.9 75.7 71.4 88.0 96.2 92.9 69.0 90.2 74.8 93.1 66.0 73.8 88.2 98.6 62.5 85.1 75.6 90.3

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.5 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.2

% Eighth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Reading 2009-2010
Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 50.3 77.4 69.0 94.0 72.7 78.0 63.9 88.9 32.8 63.5 69.0 90.1

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.5 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.9 1.3

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

Eighth-Grade Writing Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Eighth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Writing 2009-2010
Statewide Ansonia Bethel Branford Bridgeport Bristol Danbury East Hartford East Haven Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Meriden Middletown Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 59.1 88.7 70.2 78.1 80.0 89.1 85.7 85.3 51.6 63.7 56.4 83.5 66.9 81.8 46.9 73.8 65.9 73.2 78.7 92.0 84.0 93.8 79.2 93.3 81.0 84.4 62.9 88.4 48.2 86.4 59.8 87.3 43.6 76.9 58.3 88.0

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.5 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.5

% Eighth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Writing 2009-2010
Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven Newington New London New Milford Newtown Norwalk Norwich Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Wallingford Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 60.9 89.6 76.3 85.9 37.9 67.5 52.7 77.9 84.6 90.6 53.8 53.8 69.4 83.7 84.0 94.5 63.7 82.1 55.8 67.2 78.6 87.3 92.3 87.3 72.4 89.8 77.7 88.2 60.8 79.9 88.6 97.3 58.3 79.9 72.3 88.9

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.5 1.1 1.8 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.2

% Eighth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Writing 2009-2010
Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 53.1 75.4 68.0 93.2 71.6 70.2 66.7 88.1 29.3 63.5 67.6 88.5

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.5 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.3 2.2 1.3

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

Eighth-Grade Science Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Eighth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Science 2009-2010
Statewide Ansonia Bethel Branford Bridgeport Bristol Danbury East Hartford East Haven Fairfield Glastonbury Greenwich Groton Hamden Hartford Manchester Meriden Middletown Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 49.2 87.3 38.3 79.8 80.0 88.5 66.7 89.5 41.8 57.7 60.0 84.9 55.9 79.5 44.3 73.8 45.2 65.4 76.6 93.2 72.0 91.5 69.3 90.3 69.0 86.3 60.7 79.2 35.2 79.9 40.7 78.4 34.4 73.2 38.8 71.3

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 2.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.3 1.9 2.1 1.8

% Eighth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Science 2009-2010
Milford Naugatuck New Britain New Haven Newington New London New Milford Newtown Norwalk Norwich Shelton Southington Stamford Stratford Torrington Trumbull Vernon Wallingford Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 62.5 88.8 55.3 75.5 25.8 60.8 49.2 78.6 69.2 87.5 41.1 57.7 80.6 85.9 76.0 94.5 62.3 82.3 44.9 72.0 50.0 79.0 84.6 86.2 59.1 83.3 62.6 86.3 58.8 79.9 82.9 94.3 33.3 78.5 76.6 89.4

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.4 1.4 2.4 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 2.4 1.2

% Eighth Graders At or Above Proficiency in Science 2009-2010
Waterbury West Hartford West Haven Wethersfield Windham Windsor Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 32.4 62.9 56.3 92.1 66.0 76.3 57.5 86.0 24.3 60.4 57.6 86.2

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.9 1.6 1.2 1.5 2.5 1.5

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

Appendix D
Student Performance Data – Goal Level, Excluding English Language Learners (ELL) Connecticut School Districts with Large Hispanic Student Populations (≥30%)i

Goal Level Scores Excluding ELL Students for Fourth Grade Math and Reading Eighth Grade Math and Reading 2007-2008 to 2009-2010

In order to determine these numbers, we first determined which school districts had student populations which are 30 percent or more Hispanic. To calculate the percent enrollment of Hispanic students, we divided the total number of Hispanic students in a district by the total enrollment of that same district, and then multiplied by 100. Enrollment numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut State Department of Education, via e-mail, on May 26, 2011. Once the appropriate districts had been identified, we obtained score information for these districts from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access the scores for Hispanic and white students in these districts, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4th Generation,” located under “Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by District/School Report.” Choose the appropriate years under “Administration Years,” then choose the appropriate grade, select the identified districts, and select the right arrow to move them into the “Selected” column. Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click “Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” Lastly, select “Filter,” choose “Not ELL” in the drop down menu next to “Add Filter,” and click “Submit.” The percentages of non-ELL Hispanic students and white students in each district who scored at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Goal” column. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school year, “2009” refers to the 2008-2009 school year, etc. We have used the “school year” terminology in our report. Achievement gaps for each district were calculated by dividing the percentage of white students in a specific school district who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students in that district who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year. The statewide achievement gap was calculated by dividing the percentage of white students statewide who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students statewide who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year.
i

Fourth-Grade Math Achievement Gap and Scores
CT Districts with Large Hispanic Student Populations (≥30%), English Language Learners Excluded
% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Math 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Statewide Bridgeport Danbury East Hartford Hartford Meriden New Britain New Haven New London Norwalk Stamford Waterbury Windham Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 40.6 72.3 34.2 47.8 54.6 72.3 37.0 45.7 26.5 45.3 43.2 63.3 22.1 47.7 41.8 61.9 6.6 35.9 56.3 65.9 52.3 76.9 42.5 63.2 30.9 55.1 43.1 75.4 29.0 48.5 59.2 74.9 35.1 63.8 27.3 63.1 41.7 68.9 23.4 49.7 39.2 63.8 27.1 54.5 59.7 76.7 53.4 76.4 41.2 62.0 34.0 44.3 48.8 78.6 36.4 46.6 73.4 81.4 32.9 50.0 32.0 52.5 48.0 71.9 25.8 46.2 44.9 74.4 31.8 40.0 58.9 81.0 61.0 80.3 49.3 69.5 37.4 54.3

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.6 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5

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

Fourth-Grade Reading Achievement Gap and Scores
CT Districts with Large Hispanic Student Populations (≥30%), English Language Learners Excluded
% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Math 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Statewide Bridgeport Danbury East Hartford Hartford Meriden New Britain New Haven New London Norwalk Stamford Waterbury Windham Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 34.3 68.4 26.5 38.8 41.1 57.1 29.9 42.9 18.6 53.1 28.8 55.3 18.8 40.3 24.7 56.0 23.0 42.1 50.8 61.7 44.1 69.7 31.4 55.9 20.8 50.0 36.9 73.2 23.7 43.8 46.9 64.8 20.2 59.0 20.9 59.4 33.3 59.1 17.8 46.6 36.0 55.2 36.2 60.6 42.4 68.9 49.6 76.2 31.9 56.9 22.6 50.0 37.5 72.3 26.2 35.9 45.4 68.9 35.0 42.0 21.7 49.2 31.0 61.8 19.9 39.0 33.1 67.7 26.2 46.7 48.8 72.8 44.2 73.0 31.0 51.3 23.5 55.0

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.9 1.4 1.5 1.2 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.3

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

Eighth-Grade Math Achievement Gap and Scores
CT Districts with Large Hispanic Student Populations (≥30%), English Language Learners Excluded
% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Math 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Statewide Bridgeport Danbury East Hartford Hartford Meriden New Britain New Haven New London Norwalk Stamford Waterbury Windham Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 35.5 74.1 26.4 45.5 33.8 56.7 27.7 57.1 20.5 71.5 23.0 48.4 17.5 46.0 39.8 60.8 25.9 35.0 45.5 74.6 37.3 73.4 23.1 45.1 23.8 43.8 39.3 77.4 27.2 50.9 51.2 65.4 30.6 49.0 19.4 66.9 36.3 62.1 20.6 48.1 35.0 68.1 27.9 37.5 56.3 80.4 43.9 77.3 25.1 45.4 18.3 46.0 44.4 79.3 33.6 52.8 46.9 67.2 31.0 55.7 31.2 65.8 31.5 72.4 25.3 55.6 51.2 70.2 32.3 46.2 58.0 70.7 51.9 76.7 23.2 47.6 29.9 47.1

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.2 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.5 2.1 1.6

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

Eighth-Grade Reading Achievement Gap and Scores
CT Districts with Large Hispanic Student Populations (≥30%), English Language Learners Excluded
% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Math 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Statewide Bridgeport Danbury East Hartford Hartford Meriden New Britain New Haven New London Norwalk Stamford Waterbury Windham Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White 40.6 77.4 34.6 58.0 40.8 67.9 30.1 60.7 24.4 77.2 26.5 59.8 26.0 52.6 38.4 66.3 19.3 60.0 56.0 77.7 44.0 80.5 35.0 57.0 25.2 54.4 45.3 80.4 33.4 58.2 48.4 76.3 23.3 54.3 30.4 84.8 36.4 65.5 25.9 63.6 40.6 76.1 32.3 48.4 64.0 82.5 55.3 82.7 35.9 55.2 27.5 54.7 54.9 83.7 44.0 63.2 66.5 82.0 36.6 64.6 45.7 81.3 40.1 72.5 33.9 68.2 55.2 80.0 50.8 61.5 73.4 76.6 63.6 80.9 39.8 64.9 34.1 53.8

Achievement Gap* 2009-2010
1.5 1.4 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.6

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