1. AN OVERVIEW OF TRENDS IN CMT AND CAPT DATA CALI PARTNER AND SUPPORTED DISTRICTS HEATHER LEVITT DOUCETTE EDUCATION CONSULTANT BUREAU OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPROVEMENT CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

2. SELECTION OF PARTNER DISTRICTS PARTNER DISTRICTS Selected in 2007, again in 2008, and again in 2010 12 in 2007 An additional 3 in 2008 An additional 3 in 2010 In Year 3 or greater of In Need of Improvement Status Did not make AYP at the whole district level in math, reading or both in the year selected

3. SELECTION OF SUPPORTED DISTRICTS SUPPORTED DISTRICTS Selected in 2007 In Year 3 or greater of In Need of Improvement Status Did not make AYP at in math, reading or both for sub-group performance only Some Supported Districts later met the criteria for Partner Districts No new Supported Districts identified since 2007

4. SUPPORTS FOR PARTNER DISTRICTS Instructional and financial diagnostic assessments of the districts and schools Technical Assistance team assigned to facilitate the revision and monitor implementation of the District Improvement Plan (DIP) Required to establish an accountability system based on the CALI model Free access to training and on­site technical assistance in the CALI modules Demonstration Schools

5. SUPPORTS FOR SUPPORTED DISTRICTS Facilitated district self-assessment using the DSAC tool Free access to training and on­site technical assistance in the CALI modules Demonstration Schools

6. CURRENT PARTNER AND SUPPORTED DISTRICTS Partner Districts Selected in 2007 Partner Districts Selected in 2008 Partner Districts Selected in 2010 Supported Districts BridgeportAnsoniaHamden*Bristol East HartfordDanburyWest Haven*Manchester HartfordStamfordWindsor*Naugatuck MeridenCTHSS Middletown New Britain New London New Haven Norwalk Norwich Waterbury Windham * Former Supported Districts

7. Partner Districts: Ansonia, Bridgeport, Danbury, East Hartford, Hartford, Meriden, Middletown, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Norwalk, Norwich, Stamford, Waterbury, Windham DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF 15 PARTNER DISTRICTS AS COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE STATE: (2009-10 SCHOOL YEAR) AA/NA 4%

8. Distribution of Special Education, Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible and ELL students in 15 Partner Districts as Compared to the Rest of the State (2009-10 School Year)

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

12. Percent of Students Performing at/above Proficiency on CMT Reading: 3rd Grade 2007 Matched Cohort District2007 (Grade 3)2008 (Grade 4)2009 (Grade 5)2010 (Grade 6) Manchester7678 88 STATE76778288 Bristol75748287 Danbury69 7786 Middletown74788385 Hamden69707785 Stamford73717884 Norwalk66647784 Norwich58647784 Ansonia63687284 Naugatuck60617584 West Haven68707779 Meriden52637178 Windsor64676674 New Haven49505673 East Hartford45485971 New London31365169 Waterbury51536368 Bridgeport43454968 Hartford36384463 Windham38453755 New Britain31374451

13. Percent of Students Performing at/above Proficiency on CMT Math: 3rd Grade 2007 Matched Cohort District2007 (Grade 3)2008 (Grade 4)2009 (Grade 5)2010 (Grade 6) Ansonia75919394 Danbury90 9192 State86878991 Manchester83878889 Middletown828389 Bristol86 88 Hamden71768388 Windsor82838688 Naugatuck74828387 Stamford83848986 West Haven83808583 Norwalk81 8682 Meriden73818480 East Hartford6873 80 Bridgeport60626776 Norwich77707775 New Haven74756973 Hartford58 6471 Waterbury75768071 New London54506361 New Britain53 5556 Windham52614654

14. Percent of Students Performing at/above Proficiency on CMT Reading: 4th Grade 2007 Matched Cohort District2007 (Grade 4)2008 (Grade 5)2009 (Grade 6)2010 (Grade 7) Bristol79808290 Manchester73797789 State76808488 Danbury70788188 Naugatuck66678386 Middletown7282 86 Windsor74778385 West Haven77798085 Stamford6777 83 Norwalk64757383 Hamden66718382 Norwich61697378 Ansonia63677077 Meriden54626674 New London48515872 Waterbury49595869 Bridgeport45475768 East Hartford54566068 New Haven40495666 Hartford33435057 Windham42334455 New Britain3646 55

15. Percent of Students Performing at/above Proficiency on CMT Math: 4th Grade 2007 Matched Cohort District2007 (Grade 4)2008 (Grade 5)2009 (Grade 6)2010 (Grade 7) Bristol89889194 Windsor83869294 Danbury9394 92 State868990 Ansonia7792 89 Hamden78859087 Norwalk78817986 Naugatuck77818786 Stamford82908685 Manchester83888384 Middletown82888784 West Haven84888384 Meriden70777580 Norwich77797479 New Haven65717069 Waterbury738069 Bridgeport60667369 East Hartford686968 Hartford516065 New London63737263 New Britain54575455 Windham66485653

16. Percent of Students Performing at/above Proficiency on CMT Reading: 5th Grade 2007 Matched Cohort District2007 (Grade 5)2008 (Grade 6)2009 (Grade 7)2010 (Grade 8) Bristol808591 Naugatuck73879086 Manchester79878586 State79838786 Hamden7685 Danbury727584 Stamford78768683 Windsor7582 81 Middletown73798079 West Haven72798478 Ansonia64687776 Norwalk64688074 Norwich66707572 Meriden646671 New Haven51597170 East Hartford47546264 New London41485763 Waterbury58616763 Hartford39526059 Bridgeport47576356 New Britain42495551 Windham354549

17. Percent of Students Performing at/above Proficiency on CMT Math: 5th Grade 2007 Matched Cohort District2007 (Grade 5)2008 (Grade 6)2009 (Grade 7)2010 (Grade 8) Bristol87929495 Naugatuck808990 Windsor90949190 State879089 Hamden85908889 Middletown88898386 Ansonia78 8286 Danbury92898885 Stamford888485 Manchester859284 Norwalk73758283 Meriden7378 82 Norwich80787581 West Haven88848180 New Haven737875 East Hartford66646172 Bridgeport65726766 Waterbury79717063 Hartford55666362 New Britain58666059 Windham49585659 New London606257

18. Percent of Students Performing At/Above Proficient: CAPT Reading District2007200820092010 Bristol879089 Naugatuck72878685 State80838283 CTHSS77827982 Windsor81757780 Stamford76797879 Norwalk77807478 Ansonia71766378 Manchester778177 West Haven73727476 Hamden79737673 Middletown78 7771 Meriden70657068 Danbury72756867 Hartford50525364 East Hartford57645664 Waterbury56576761 New Britain49535259 New Haven51605759 Windham53635556 New London47515255 Bridgeport33454439 Norwich* **** *Norwich has only one alternative High School; the N size for CAPT participants is too small to report the data publicly.

19. Percent of Students Performing At/Above Proficient: CAPT Math District2007200820092010 Bristol88899089 Naugatuck698683 CTHSS75817981 State77807879 Windsor777977 Norwalk69757273 Manchester68747369 Hamden71687068 Stamford63726968 Middletown72706866 Danbury61676362 Ansonia57636162 West Haven66656359 Meriden62636457 East Hartford53584855 Hartford43474552 New London41454851 New Haven4446 49 New Britain43444049 Windham50585145 Waterbury48 4941 Bridgeport34373634 Norwich***** *Norwich has only one alternative High School; the N size for CAPT participants is too small to report the data publicly.

20. WHAT ABOUT THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP?

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

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

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

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

25. IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOLS, DISTRICTS AND THE STATE Cohort information is different than status Some districts and schools need to start looking at Goal Closing the achievement gap requires accelerating the learning of sub-groups Vertical Scale Analysis The assessment and accountability system will be changing Schools and districts need to mine their own data

26. HEATHER LEVITT DOUCETTE BUREAU OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPROVEMENT CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARMENT OF EDUCATION HEATHER.LEVITT@CT.GOV