X07 HHD CV 145037565 3 SUPERIOR COURT
CONNECTICUT COALITION FOR JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JUSTICE IN EDUCATION FUNDING, OF HARTFORD

INC., ET AL.

V. COMPLEX LITIGATION
DOCKET

M. JODI RELL, ET AL.

SEPTEMBER 7, 2016

Memorandum of Decision

Honorable Thomas G. Moukawsher

FILI-
SEP 07 2015

(Owes wali'ded 4-0 v?QLord and

mum} ?In H52 0% on HARTFORD J.D.

39900

 

1.

10.

11.

Table of Contents

Summary: To be constitutional, the state?s chief educational
policies do not have to be richly funded, but they must at least
be rational, substantial, and veri?able ..1

The state is responsible for the condition of our schools: Its
duty to educate is non-delegable. ..3

The courts may impose reason in state spending, but beyond a
bare minimum they may not dictate how much to spend ..9

This state spends more than the bare minimum on schools.23

Whatever the state spends on education it must at least spend
rationally 

The state must de?ne an elementary and secondary education
reasonably ..44

The way educators are hired, ?red, paid, and evaluated isn?t
sensibly linked to its value in teaching children ..62

The state?s program of special education spending is
irrational ..71

The difference between rational policy and the best 

The nextjob is to craft 

Conclusion: Schools are for kids ..89

?Learning is not attained by 

Abigail Adams

1. Summary: To be constitutional, the state?s chief education
policies do not have to be richly funded but they
must at least be rational, substantial, and veri?able.

In Connecticut?s constitution, the state promises to give children a fair
opportunity for an elementary and secondary school education. This doesn?t
mean the courts can tell the General Assembly how much to spend on schools.
But the language can?t mean that the state can leave learning to chance. It has to
mean that the state must do thoughtful, visible things to give them that
opportunity. To put it as a legal proposition, beyond a bare minimum, it is for
the General Assembly to decide how much to spend on schools, but the state
must at least deploy in its schools resources and standards that are rationally,
substantially, and veri?ably connected to teaching children. It isn?t a lot to ask,

but asking it raises doubts about many of our state?s key education policies.

Requiring at least a substantially rational plan for education is a problem
in this state because many of our most important policies are so befuddled or
misdirected as to be irrational. They lack real and Visible links to things known to
meet children?s needs. For instance, the state spends billions of dollars on
schools without any binding principle guaranteeing that education aid goes

Where it?s needed. During the recent budget crisis, this left rich schools robbing

millions of dollars from poor schools. State graduation and advancement
standards are so loose that in struggling cities the neediest are leaving schools
with diplomas but without the education we promise them. State standards are
leaving teachers with uselessly perfect evaluations and pay that follows only
seniority and degrees instead of re?ecting need and good teaching. With the
state requiring expensive services but doing nothing to see they?re going to the
right people in the right way, special education spending is also adrift. All of this
happens because the state is torn between the need for communal and objective
standards and the apparently irresistible pressure for the status
quo. Instead of the state honoring its promise of adequate schools, this paralysis

has left rich school districts to ?ourish and poor school districts to ?ounder.

To keep its promise of adequate schools for all children, the state must
rally more forcefully around troubled schools. It can?t possibly help them while
standing on the sidelines imposing token statewide standards. And while only
the legislature can decide precisely how much money to spend on public schools,
the system cannot work unless the state sticks to an honest formula that delivers

state aid according to local need.

Having a special promise of adequate schools in our highest law shouldn?t

put the courts in charge of schools, but it should at least mean this much:

 

children have a judicially enforceable right to ?rst principles governing our

schools that are reasoned, substantial, and verifiany connected to teaching.

2. The state is responsible for the condition of our schools: Its
duty to educate is non-delegable.

The state is responsible for Connecticut public schools, not local school

districts.

The Connecticut constitution, in article eighth, says: ?There shall
always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state. The general

assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation.?

There is no misreading article eighth, It says the state?speci?cally the
General Assembly?must ful?ll the promise of free public schools. In 2012 in
Pereira v. State Board of Education the Supreme Court didn?t hesitate to
underline this, holding: ?Obviously, the furnishing of education for the general

public is a state function and duty.?1

The constitution gives the General Assembly leeway about how to keep
this promise, but it isn?t endless. Like anyone else with a job in hand, the state
can get help?m from state employees, local school districts, and others. But, that
doesn?t mean the state can point the ?nger of blame at these helpers when things

go wrong. As the Pereira Court ruled, whatever local boards of education do,

 

1 304 Conn. 1, 33.

they do ?on behalf of the state.?2 This means that like other important legal
duties the state?s responsibility for what happens in schools is non?delegable.
Legal duties can spring from charters, statutes, or the courts, but duties
that come from constitutions are the highest duties and sweep the others aside
when they con?ict. In 2009, in Machado v. Hartford, the Connecticut Supreme
Court held that, wherever they come from, our most important duties are so
important that responsibility for them may not be sloughed off onto others?

ful?lling those duties is ?nondelegable.?3

Our courts have made this rule stick in far more mundane contexts than
this. For instance, in 2001, in Gazo v. Stamford, the Court applied the widely
known rule that ?the owner or occupier of premises owes invitees a nondelegable
duty to exercise ordinary care for the safety of such persons.?4 As the Court
explained it, nondelegable duties create vicarious liability situations, in which
?the law has  broaden[ed] the liability for that fault by imposing it upon an
additional, albeit innocent, the party that has the
nondelegable duty.?5 In Ramsdell v. Union Trust Co., the Supreme Court held
that the core functions of trustees are nondelegable.6 In 2013, in State v. Brown,

the Appellate Court held that even judges have constitutionally-mandated

 

2 Id.

3 292 Conn. 364, 371?72.
4 255 Conn. 245, 257.

5 Id.

6 202 Conn. 57, 69.

 

nondelegable duties: they may not delegate to the state?s attorney or defense
counsel the duty to canvas plea bargainers about what it means to break their

plea deals.7

In 2009, in eney v. Oppedisano, the Superior Court held a plumber with
warranty obligations liable for ?ood damage caused by an independent
contractor because the plumber?s duty to perform the work to the warranty
standard was nondelegable.8 In Borovicka v. Oshkosh Corp, it con?rmed the
long-standing rule that liability for inherently dangerous activities is
nondelegable.9 In 2005, in Cornelius v. Connecticut Dept. of Banking, the
Superior Court held that mortgage brokers must answer for the misdeeds of the

appraisers they hire.10

And in 2009 in Machado v. Hartford, the Supreme Court enforced the
long?standing rule that cities can?t pass off liability for public roads by hiring
private contractors?the law puts the duty to maintain them on the cities and no
one else.11 The court took as a bedrock assumption that ?a vital public duty, once

imposed by the state, generally is considered nondelegable.?12

 

7 145 Conn. App. 174, 181.
8 2009 WL 1055528%

9 2013 WL 23505167?

10 2005 WL 1757631, 5.

11 292 Conn. 364, 372-73.
12 Id. at 372.

 

If the work of plumbers, landlords and even judges is important enough to
be non?delegable, the state?s constitutional duty to provide free public schools is

important enough to be non?delegable too.

The importance of the state?s direct duty over education couldn?t be
clearer. In 1977, in Horton v. Meskill our Supreme Court held that because it is
speci?cally enumerated in the constitution, ?in Connecticut, elementary and
secondary education is a fundamental 13 As the court knew, labelling the
right ?fundamental? raised it to the most important level known to law. In the
equal rights context, it said that nobody from the General Assembly down could
diminish one person?s right compared with another?s unless the court strictly
scrutinized it and found the difference justi?ed by some compelling state
interest.14 Car dealers, plumbers and landlords take a back seat here. Other
constitutionally guaranteed civil rights may rise to this level, but no rights are

more important.

Still the state would rather be a little less directly responsible. It points to
a tradition of local control that it almost never brings up except to get itself out of
a jam. It isn?t persuasive here because most of the time in cases like the 1980
Supreme Court case City Council v. Hall, the state loudly reminds local

governments that they are merely its creatures, and that ?the only powers a

 

13 172 Conn. 615, 648.
14 Id. at 640.

municipal corporation has are those which are expressly granted to it by the

state. ?15

The state insists the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of local
control. But that does not mean it has recognized its primacy. In Horton v.
Meskill, for example, the court discussed the valuable bene?ts of local control but
saw them as no obstacle to imposing an educational ?nancing plan that sent

more money to poor towns than rich ones}6

It?s obvious that local control can be a good thing: the education
commissioner and others testi?ed to its it is working. But this
requires nothing more than acknowledging that little intervention is needed
where little problems reside. Knowing this takes nothing away from insisting
that where great problems persist, great efforts may be required. The state may
not have to rush to interfere in most schools, but when it needs to interfere, the

state should not be able to claim that it?s powerless.

It certainly can?t say its hands are tied when it tied the knots itself. In
describing its limits the state points mostly to restraints it has included in the
General Statutes. State witnesses pointed again and again to these laws to say

that the bulk of authority over education rests with local boards of education. But

 

15 180 Conn. 243, 248.
16 172 Conn. at 638.

if the state isn?t giving children a constitutionally required fair chance in school, it

may not use its own laws as an excuse.

The standards at issue here are casualties of the state?s View that education
is by right a local affair. This has left most of the key state standards trying to
look like statewide rules while being little more than guidance. Yet any review of
the statutes shows that the state is being forced to recognize that it can?t simply
send money and hope for the best. Almost 15 years ago, following the federal No
Child Left Behind Act, the legislature passed General Statutes 10?223e setting
up new ways for the state to take over dysfunctional school systems. Over the
years, the state has intervened in varying ways in Bridgeport, Hartford, New
London, Windham, and Winchester. The state knows it can?t keep up the
pretense that local schools are local problems, but it seems numb to the logical

implications.

The state?s direct responsibility is important to deciding this case. The
court has to decide if the state is keeping its promise about education. If it isn?t,
the court has to decide what to do about it. This would require the court to weed
out any General Statutes holding the effort back. Orders might have to limit state
power, but given the state?s direct and non-delegable responsibilities, court
orders could also increase the power of the State Board of Education and

Department of Education over troubled school systems and the agents they use to

keep the state?s promises to children. Depending on the depths of the problems

revealed in some districts, those powers might change considerably.

3. The courts may impose reason in state spending, but they may
not dictate precisely how much to spend beyond a bare
minimum.

The ?rst job is to explore the limits of judicial power and decide if they are
broad enough to address the problems pointed out at trial and the solutions

mooted.

The basic promise in article eighth, is simple and is simple to repeat:
?There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state.

The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation.?

In 2010 in Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v.
Rell, four of the seven justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court sent this case
here for trial after reading this promise to require that our education system must
be minimally adequate.? Three justices said the education provision meant that
the constitution ?guarantees Connecticut?s public school students educational

standards and resources suitable to participate in democratic institutions, and to

 

17 295 Conn. 240.

 

prepare them to attain productive employment and otherwise contribute to the

state?s economy or to progress on to higher education.?18

Justice Palmer was the fourth and deciding vote for holding that the
constitution requires an adequate education. Like concurring Justice Schaller,
Justice Palmer saw that some standard of minimum adequacy is required to
avoid doing ?violence to the meaning of the term ?school?? in the constitution.19
But to respect the rights of the legislature he de?ned the adequacy needed to pass

constitutional muster more narrowly than the other three justices. 20

Ultimately, Justice Palmer was more restrained than the three?judge
plurality, but he was still at a point on the same continuum with them. The
continuum was the legislature?s duty to calculate educational resources and
standards rationally. The plurality said it would strike down an educational
program inadequate to prepare children for college, careers, and democracy. But
the plurality said it would ?stay its hand? on remedies awaiting legislative action
unless the state lacked program of instruction rationally calculated to enforce

the constitutional right to a minimally adequate education 

Justice Palmer, by contrast, said he would not even ?nd a constitutional

adequacy violation unless the irrationality point had been reached, and the state?s

 

18 Id. at 244?45.
19 Id. at 331..

20 Id. at 321.

21 Id. at 317 11.59.

10

program ?is so lacking as to be unreasonable by any fair or objective standard.?22
He emphasized that the legislature might come up with a variety of solutions, but
it must operate ?within the limits of rationality.?23 This means that the most the
four justices agreed on was that irrational public school resources and standards

are unconstitutional.

This doesn?t ask that much. Rationality doesn?t mean the state must show
a ?compelling interest? for everything it does or that the education provision
subjects its decisions about schools to ?strict scrutiny.? It just means that
irrational standards andprograms are unconstitutional. So for a violation to be
found, the evidence must show in Justice Palmer?s words that ?core or essential
components?24 or in the plurality?s words that the ?resources and standards?25 are

irrational.

What does ?irrational? mean in this context? It can?t mean that the
constitution?s education provision requires nothing more than traditional equal
protection case law that seeks out a ?rationa basis for legislative distinctions.

That?s the lowest standard that could possibly apply. That standard led the

 

22 Id at 321.

23 Id. at 336.
24 Id. at 343.
25 Id. at 320.

11

 

Supreme Court in 2004 in State v. Long to say that for a distinction to be

irrational is to ?negative every conceivable basis which might support it 

Applying this lowest possible standard here would contradict Horton v.
Meskill Where the Supreme Court held that education is a fundamental right.?
As re?ected in Horton, this usually means in equal rights cases that the laws at
issue face some form of strict scrutiny.28 Strict scrutiny is the highest possible
standard that could apply. That standard only applied?~the court only said
education was a fundamental right?because the constitution?s education
provision requires speci?c action from the state about schools.29 It would hardly
make sense to take words that gave birth in one context to the highest duty and

use them in another context to impose the lowest duty.

In Horton, the Supreme Court suggested that the way to resolve this is to
remember that education cases are ?in signi?cant aspects sui generis and not
subject to analysis by accepted conventional tests or the application of
mechanical standards.?30 This means that when the majority of the Supreme
Court in this case said the state?s efforts must be ?reasonable? and ?rational? the
words must re?ect education?s unique status in the constitution as something the

state must do rather than merely something it must not do. A call for action on

 

26 268 Conn. 508, 534, cert. denied, 543 US. 969.
27 172 Conn. at 648?49.

23 Id at 649.

29 Id.

30 172 Conn. 615,645 .

12

 

education in the highest law of the land unavoidably leads Connecticut citizens to
expect something more than a token effort. For this reason, the court can?t have
meant to con?ne these words to the minimal equal protection analysis that
applies to rights that aren?t fundamental commands. The court must have

expected something more.

So while we have to focus on rationality, we should at least expect that it
means some rational thing substantial enough to be seen and veri?able enough to
be measured. Anything less would hardly have required a trial. The state could
have met it by adopting a budget and spending as much as a dollar or so, and the
constitution?s promise of free public schools would be empty. But insubstantial
efforts can hardly satisfy a specific constitutional command. To keep from
frustrating legitimate public expectations, we don?t have to demand that the
state?s efforts be perfect or follow any particular ?xed idea, but we can certainly
expect that these efforts will be more than illusory; we can expect that they have
real worth, solidity, value, meaning?we can expect them to be substantial, and to

be seen to be so.

They must be seen to be so because the efforts can?t be credible if we have
to guess whether they exist. We can?t possibly judge the adequacy of the state?s
work unless that work and its connection to teaching children are veri?able. We

should be able to study budget formulas to see if they reasonably account for the

13

differing needs of districts. Standards should be clear enough so we can tell if
they reasonably connect what they do with what they are supposed to do. With
visible statistical evidence we can measure the effects of these standards in the
schools. But the judiciary can hardly play a realistic role in protecting children?s
educational opportunities if there are no governing principles for the state to
follow, and the courts are left counting the desks and supplies in every classroom
in Connecticut. This would move the judiciary from policing ?rst principles to
being the ?rst principal in every school in the state. The state simply cannot
ful?ll hopes fairly raised by our constitutional promise by adopting empty,
unrecognizable, or non?existent policies: only discernible policies should be

credited with being policies at all.

Taking these three points together means that if the court is to conclude
that the state is not affording Connecticut children adequate educational
opportunities, it must be proved that the state?s educational resources or core
components are not rationally, substantially, or veri?ably connected to creating

educational opportunities for children.

This must be proved against a high standard. As the Supreme Court held
in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health in 2008, constitutional violations

have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.31 The plaintiffs say proof by a

 

31 289 Conn. 135, 155.
14

preponderance of the evidence should be enough in this unusual case involving
an af?rmative state obligation concerning education. But the Supreme Court
chose to ?acknowledge? the higher standard in its analysis of an education claim
in 1985 in its second review of Horton v. Meskill. 32 More tellingly, the plurality
in this case held it up as a check against raids on legislative prerogatives, noting
that ?deciding that a statute is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied, is
a delicate task in any event, and one that the courts perform only if convinced
beyond a reasonable doubt of the statute?s invalidity.?33 If the three justices
leaning closest to the plaintiffs? position thought a high standard of proof applies,
we can assume that the justices ?rmly against the plaintiffs would rely on it even

more heavily. This court will require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court never got to consider any proof or apply any standard
about what the constitution required. It sent the case here for the standard to be
?re?ned and developed further as it is applied to the facts eventually to be found
at trial in this case.?34 All four justices ?nding a constitutional minimum deemed
the ?core or essential components?35 the ?resources and standards?36 subject to
review. But the opinion only considered the education provision in the limited

context of case law about the resources devoted to schools.

 

32 195 Conn. 24, 35.

33 295 Conn. 240, 267.

34 Id. at 318.

35 Id. at 343 (Justice Palmer).
36 Id. at 320 (Plurality).

15

 

These justices all cited a 1995 standard on minimum resources from the
New York Court of Appeals in Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State.37 The
plurality seemed to View the New York standard as a starting point because it
went on to review later New York case law that expanded on it. But Justice
Palmer appeared to view it as enough to consider about resources; he didn?t even
cite the more expansive decisions. Interpreting constitutional language similar to

Connecticut?s, the New York court listed what it considered basic enough features

from which to discern a school rationally:

minimally adequate physical facilities and classrooms which provide
enough light, space, heat, and air to permit children to learn. Children
should have access to minimally adequate instrumentalities of learning
such as desks, chairs, pencils, and reasonably current textbooks. Children
are also entitled to minimally adequate teaching of reasonably up-to-date
basic curricula such as reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social
studies, by suf?cient personnel adequately trained to teach those subject
areas.38
This is a fairly easy standard for schools to meet, and even on its face it?s
unlikely to force the state to increase the raw amount of money it spends each
year. But if this is the narrowest ground a majority of the upper court can agree
on concerning a minimum level of resources, this court has to follow it.
Our Supreme Court approved of this narrowest-grounds of agreement

approach in 2005 in State v. Ross Where it quoted the U.S. Supreme Court saying

that ?[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining

 

37 Id. at 301, 316 (citing 86 307).
38 Id. at 317.

16

the result enjoys the assent of ?ve Justices, the holding of the Court may be
viewed as the position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments
on the narrowest grounds The plaintiffs cite the District of Columbia Court
of Appeals ruling in 1991 in King v. Palmer40 to argue this is not true if the two
sets of opinions are mutually exclusive. The problem for the plaintiffs is that the
justices? positions are not mutually exclusive. Justice Palmer merely takes a more
restrained View of the same belief that the plurality holds. This means four
justices agree that Justice Palmer is right. Three of them simply think he should
have gone further.

The narrowest-grounds rule favors Justice Palmer?s View on what the
constitution requires. But there isn?t a lot of law on this point in Connecticut, so
it?s worth saying that even if the court didn?t have to follow the common thread in
his opinion, this limited approach would still be right. Beyond a bare minimum,
the judiciary is constitutionally un?t to set the total amount of money the state

has to spend on schools.

Courts are constitutionally un?t because they can?t sort out competing
legislative spending priorities or even competing constitutional spending
priorities. This is why any constitutional standard the courts set for overall

spending levels must be modest. Courts look at the issues and the evidence

 

39 272 Conn. 577, 604 n. 13, quoting, Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977).
40 950 F.2d 771 (en bane).

17

brought to them in speci?c cases. Judges see issues under a microscope. As the
Connecticut Supreme Court held in Travelers Ins. Co. v. The Netherlands Ins.
Co. in 2014, courts only consider cases or controversies.41 A court does not hold
sway over the general welfare. The case or controversy requirement means a
court doesn?t hold public hearings on the entire state budget nor can it launch its
own investigations. The legislature?s concern by contrast is the entire public

welfare.

The plaintiffs hired as an expert witness Henry Levin, a Columbia
University professor specializing in educational economics. He recognized that
the costs and bene?ts of education spending must be weighed against other
spending priorities before they can be imposed. The plaintiffs know that only the
General Assembly does this. The legislature uses no microscope. It faces the full
tidal wave of public demand. It considers every public matter and weighs it
against the interests that compete with it for funding. In weighing those interests
against each other, unlike the courts, the legislature can seek out whatever
information it chooses. It is nonsense under such a system for a court to set
expansive goals for the schools and direct whatever spending it takes to achieve
them when it hasn?t even thought about how its orders might undercut spending

on other important rights, including those protected by the constitution.

 

41 312 Conn. 714, 730.
18

This court already sits in the shadow of other lawsuits pressing
constitutional demands for money. For over 20 years, Juan F. v. O?Neill has left a
federal judge in the name of the constitution dictating state spending on child
protection issuesx?i2 How can this court decide how much to spend teaching
children against another court ordering how much to spend to keep them from
abuse or neglect? Following our Supreme Court?s 1996 decision in She?v.
O?Neill, billions of dollars have been spent addressing Hartford students? race
discrimination claims.43 Is an integrated education worth more or less money
than an adequate education? Should the court drag the Sheff and Juan F. parties
before it to explore the issues? Or should the court blindly pile on top of those
mandates whatever else it thinks might be needed and let the chips fall where
they may? What about the stipulated settlement in Shafer v. Bremby requiring
the state to speed up processing Medicaid claims? What about Briggs v. Bremby
where a federal court ordered the state to speed up processing food stamp
claims?44 What does the court say to prisoners without beds or decent lawyers?
To challenges ?led on behalf of the mentally ill? Any ruling taking an overly?
broad View of judicial discretion over education spending would squeeze the
money being spent on those cases and what might be spent on them. It also

would take money from causes without cases of their own?all without even

 

42 2:89 CV 859 
43 3:12 CV 0035 
44 792 F.3d 239.

19

 

considering whether they exist?all Without weighing their importance against
the claims made here. It can?t matter that some courts have already taken
expansive views of their constitutional authority over government spending. It
doesn?t change the good reasons against this View. It only suggests the judiciary
should consider that the standard it sets in one matter may adversely affect other

matters.

It doesn?t help to try to mask the judiciary?s role either. Orders that
indirectly drain public money still drain it. Just as much damage is done by
declaring legislative efforts unconstitutional and deferring action to the
legislative branch ?subject to judicial review.? Nominally deferring to the
legislature on a remedy while menacing it with potential action, still chooses the
priority of one claim to public funds over others without even identifying and

weighing the competing rights.

Arguably, this is what the Connecticut Supreme Court did in 1996 in Shejj?
v. O?Neill45 and in 1977 in Horton v. Meskill. 46 Most notably the She?? Court
declared: ?the needy schoolchildren of Hartford have waited long enough? and
concluded that direct the legislature and the executive branch to put the

search for appropriate remedial measures at the top of their respective

 

45 238 Conn 1.
46 172 Conn. 615.

20

 

 

agendas.?47 This approach does not apply here. She?? considered what it called
the unique circumstance of race discrimination,48 and Horton was an equal
protection case which expressly rejected the notion of considering ?adequacy.?49
Perhaps that?s why the Supreme Court majority in this case did not apply this

thinking.

Only three of seven justices in this case suggested an expansive view of
judicial power might be adopted and followed by judicial monitoring of a
legislative response. Writing for them in the plurality opinion, Justice Norcott
said that the court?s job was to ?articulate the broad parameters of that
constitutional right, and to leave their implementation political branches
of state and local government He wrote that so long as the other branches
rationally act within those parameters, ?the judicial department properly stays its

hand 

In adopting his ?unreasonable by any fair or objective standard? test,
Justice Palmer rejected this approach:

I take a different view from the plurality with respect to the scope of the
right guaranteed by article eighth, 1. In particular, I believe that the
executive and legislative branches are entitled to considerable deference
with respect to the determination of what it means, in practice, to provide
for a minimally adequate, free public education. Thus, it is the prerogative

 

47 238 Conn172 Conn at 645-46.

50 295 Conn. at 317, H59.
51 295 Conn. at 282.

21

of the legislature to determine, within reasonable limits, what a minimally
adequate education entails.52

The narrow ground of agreement among four justices in the upper court is that
courts should be restrained in ?nding the violation, not merely in remedying it.

The remaining justices thought the courts shouldn?t get involved at all.

That leaves only one way to set a high constitutional threshold without
blindly mandating more spending. It would be to ?nd the constitution breached
but say the court won?t do anything about it. But this can?t be done either. That
approach was rejected in 1984 in Pellegrino v. O?Neill when our Supreme Court
said the judiciary will not give advisory opinions.53 The Pellegrino Court barred
them in the face of constitutional claims about the underfunding of the judiciary.
The court recognized its un?tness to decide how much to spend on the courts,
and it approved of Horton only because that unusual case covered matters on
which the court assumed it could act directly.54

Thus, if the court weren?t limited by the minimal elements listed in the
New York case, it would still reject an expansive view of its power to set overall
state educational spending levels. Beyond a bare minimum, it is for the

legislature to decide how much to spend on schools.

 

52 Id. at 321.
53 193 Conn. 670, 683.
54 Id.

22

 

4. This state spends more than the bare minimum on schools.

While the legislature has the job of setting overall school spending, this
doesn?t mean it can spend less than the modest constitutional minimum. The
legislature must spend at least enough to create things recognizable under
contemporary standards as schools. Because it has done so?because
Connecticut schools more than meet the New York minimum standard the upper
court pointed to?the state has not violated the constitution by devoting an
overall inadequate level of resources to the schools.

Connecticut schools already go far beyond the New York minimum. The
state spends a billion dollars a year on just that case?s concern about school
buildings. In recently completed or underway projects in Bridgeport alone, the
state has committed $378 million to new buildings. While statewide enrollment
has been declining for over a decade, spending on buildings has increased. And
according to Michele Dixon, an educational consultant with the state of?ce
overseeing school construction grants, the state basically never turns down a
project. The state shapes them, but especially in poor districts, it ultimately
approves them and then pays most of the bill. With the billions of dollars spent
in recent years on magnet schools aimed at desegregation, it has paid even more,
particularly with Hartford?area magnet schools built in the wake of She??v.

O?Neill, where it has paid 100% of the bill.

23

 

There is anecdotal evidence of physical de?ciencies in some schools?a
leaky roof here, a unreliable boiler therembut nothing to suggest a statewide
failure to provide adequate facilities, including classrooms which provide enough
light, space, heat, and air to permit children to learn. Where there are problems
as in Windham or New London they appear to be already on the state?s list to be
?xed and ?xed mostly with state money. The plaintiffs haven?t proved by a
preponderance of the evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt, that the state?s
schools lack enough light, space, heat, and air to permit children to learn.

No Witness or document suggests that children lack desks, chairs, pencils,
and reasonably current textbooks either. Again, there is some anecdotal evidence
that teachers in some schools ?nd themselves using older textbooks and some
teachers buy supplies. But there is no proof of a statewide problem caused by the
state sending school districts too little money. Many teachers supplement their
materials from internet sources and most children have some access to
computers. There are certainly some hardships with computers and signi?cant
disparities in computer access, but against a minimal standard the plaintiffs have
not proved by a preponderance and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt that
there is a systemic problem that should spark a constitutional crisis and an order
to spend more on school supplies.

Connecticut children have minimally adequate teachers teaching,

reasonably up?to-date basic curricula such as reading, writing, mathematics,

24

 

science, and social studies. Connecticut uses a nationally recognized test called
Praxis to certify teachers. Both sides of this lawsuit commended it. The
Department of Education maintains an array of teacher training materials online
and in the ?eld to support teachers, including help with curriculum initiatives. In
impoverished districts with troubled schools, it provides very direct help,
including extra money for interventionists, teacher coaches, and technical
support. No one suggests that teaching in Connecticut is broadly incompetent.
The claim is that opportunities for good teaching are not being rationally
marshaled in favor of needy kids. Judged against a low minimum and judged as
a system, the plaintiffs have plainly not met their burden to show beyond a
reasonable doubt that Connecticut lacks minimally adequate teaching and
curricula nor have they proved it by a preponderance of the evidence.

That Connecticut is spending enough to meet a low constitutional
threshold is made even clearer by the host of extras the state provides beyond the
conservative minimum. Since 2012, over $400 million in new money has ?owed
into the 30 lowest performing schools under the state?s Alliance Districts
program. Its Commissioner?s Network of schools currently focuses additional
resources and interventions on 14 individual failing schools. In 2015, it yielded
for them some $13 million in additional ?nancial support. On top of this, the
state currently allots roughly $4 million a year for school improvement grants to

around 30 high needs schools. When temporary federal funds following the

25

 

 

Great Recession were cut, Connecticut was one of a handful of states that kept the
extra spending going out of its own pocket. Most of what the state has done
financially has been combined with additional non-?nancial resources.

State and federal programs also beef up needy schools districts by
providing students breakfast, lunch, and many times food to take home. Schools
in some districts feed students even in the summer. After?school programs
instruct and care for kids. Parents are invited into schools to share in learning.
Homeless children are sought out and their needs tended. There are programs to
prevent sexually transmitted diseases, young parents programs, pregnant student
supports, and mental health programs. The plaintiffs claim that all of these
programs are under-effective because they are under-funded. But the very
existence of these programs means the state far exceeds the bare minimum
spending levels the judiciary is willing to order under the education provision, so
the plaintiffs? claims for more overall spending belong in the legislature, not the
courts. The evidence certainly shows that thousands of Connecticut students
would bene?t from enhancing some of these programs, but once the state spends
enough to meet the bare constitutional minimum only the legislature can decide
whether to spend more on them or spend on something else.

All of this extra spending bene?ts poor districts but not wealthier districts.
It is on top of basic education aid that has a history of strongly favoring poor

districts over wealthier ones. This heavy tilt in state education aid in favor of the

26

 

state?s poorer communities shows the state is devoting to needy schools a great
deal more in resources than is required by the modest standard created by the

New York court.

This tilt is also fatal to the plaintiffs? equal protection claim as a basis for
an order to increase the total amount the state spends on education. The
Connecticut constitution provides in article ?rst, sections 1 and 20 that all
citizens enjoy ?equal rights? to state bene?ts and ?equal protection of the law.? In
1985, in Horton v. Meskill, our Supreme Court held that an equal protection
claim based on spending disparities can only succeed if, among other things, any
claimant can show that the disparities ?jeopardize the plaintiffs? fundamental
right to education.?55 Unlike the disparities in Horton, the state?s current
education spending disparity favors the impoverished districts with which the
plaintiffs are most concerned. They can hardly claim getting more money
compared to other towns is the cause of their woes. They claim lack of enough
money is the cause of inadequacy, but that claim has no place under the Horton
equal protection analysis.56 Equal protection analysis is comparative; it does not
provide a basis to dictate the absolute amount of money the state has to spend on

schools.

 

55 195 Conn. at 38.
56 Id.

27

 

5. Whatever the state spends on education it must at least spend
rationally.

The state?s latitude to decide how much overall money to spend on schools
doesn?t mean the state can have a constitutionally adequate school program while
spending its money Whimsically. As already explained, rationality was the test
the Supreme Court set up for the education provision, and to give this standard
any weight it has to require the state?s spending plan to be rationally,
substantially, and verifiably connected to creating educational opportunities for
children.

A rational education plan has a substantial and veri?able link between
educating children and the means used to do it. Following Horton, the state said
it adopted one that evolved into What is now the Educational Cost Sharing
formula in General Statutes ?10?262f i. That formula starts with a foundation
amount of aid per pupil. Nothing in the formula explains how it was chosen, and
the most the parties suggest is that the basic number may re?ect typical per pupil
spending back when it was adopted. The formula then calls for that number to be
adjusted for a variety of factors which include, among other things, the relative
wealth of the town, student population and educational need. The formula
includes producing a dollar amount de?ned in the statutes as a ?fully funded?
amount. The parties wrangle over just how aspirational this ?fully funded?
amount is. But whatever it means to be ?fully funded,? the state has never gotten

near it. And whatever the formula?s Virtues and vices, they don?t matter anymore

28

 

 

 

because the state stopped using the formula in 2013?14. The state says this is
okay because it?s free to repeal the ECS formula entirely and work without any
discernable plan at all.

It?s nearly doing that now. In place of the formula, since 2013-14, the
legislature has simply adopted set dollar amounts of aid for each town. It did the
same thing for several years before 2013-14 by overriding the formula and simply
adopting the same numbers year after year. The state says it can do this because
while you can?t tell why districts get what they get the state has still been giving
much more money to property?poor towns than to property-rich towns.

But a plan that spends a lot of money and is not entirely irrational is still
not a rational plan. Without consciously and logically marshaling education aid??
if the legislature can adopt principles and then ignore them?the state cannot be
said to have a formula at all, not to mention one that takes seriously the Supreme
Court?s insistence on ?a program of instruction rationally calculated to enforce
the constitutional right-to a minimally adequate education.? The General
Assembly may have the power to decide how much to spend on education, but the
state cannot afford to misallocate it or hide its spending priorities from scrutiny.
Without a defensible and discernible plan, no one can be sure what the state is
delivering and what lines it may not cross.

Yet the state claims the legislature doesn?t have to allocate education aid

rationally. It says it can spend education aid capriciously, taking money from

29

 

those in need and giving it without explanation to those without need, so long as
in general more aid goes to poor towns than rich towns. This is because the state
says that any review of educational adequacy has to be episodic instead of
systemic. Under this View, for each year, without explanation or plan, the
General Assembly can adopt budgets. To consider an adequacy challenge under
the constitution, you would have to look each year in each town to see if it met the
New York minimum standard. Under this approach, presumably New Haven
might get more money than Hartford without any reason so long as both cities
got the bare minimum, and it wouldn?t matter how much money Darien got as
long the bare minimum Hartford got was a few dollars more. Educational
spending priorities under this approach could be concealed in a black box of
secrecy free from all but the most perfunctory review.

But this still isn?t enough for the state. Another part of its argument says
that the only people who would have standing to sue for a constitutional violation
are individual children who can prove harm to them personally by some speci?c
act of bad teaching, lack of supplies, etc. The state even agreed this would mean
that any relief would have to be individual too. The state retreated only 
when the court started describing this kind of claim as one for ?educational
malpractice.?

Whatever we name it, the state?s approach would be a disaster. The courts

have no business running the schools, not to mention second?guessing every

30

 

 

child?s education. If there is a meaningful role for the courts in enforcing the
constitutional promise of an adequate educationvery high level:
the courts can set a minimum base for overall resources and then ensure that the
major policies carrying them into action are rationally, substantially, and
veri?ably calculated to achieve educational opportunities.

This constitutional principle is important regardless whether an individual
school system is ?ush with resources or not. But it adds to the urgency of
ensuring a rational scheme to know how hard it is for poor cities in this state to
?ll in any gaps. Against the harsh realities of our poorest communities, it is
inconceivable that we adopted a constitutional guarantee blind to the effort
required to deliver adequate public schools across a broad spectrum of need.

The limited means of the state?s largest city shows how bad the situation
is. According to the state?s most recent municipal ?scal indicators, with 147,000
people Bridgeport has enormous needs that it struggles to meet. The people of
the city are so poor that the federal government makes no distinctions but gives
free lunch to all of its 21,500 students. Its unemployment rate in recent years has
hovered near 12%. The per capita income in that town was recently measured at
$20,000 in a county where some towns? per capita income exceeds $95,000. Its
median household income is $41,050 in a county where some towns? median
household income exceeds $200,000. While it spends less on education per

pupil than the statewide median, Bridgeport?s per capita debt is more than three

31

 

 

 

times the state median. It has the third worst rate of collecting outstanding taxes
in the state. Connecticut municipalities get 70% of their revenue from property
taxes and spend most of that revenue on schools, so a property poor town is a
town that has less for its schools. While Bridgeport has almost eight times as
many people, the taxable property in the nearby town of New Canaan is worth
over $1 billion more than all of the taxable property in crowded Bridgeport. The
taxable property in nearby Greenwich is worth more than four times that in
Bridgeport though it has less than half the population.

Bridgeport has a very hard time coming up with money when the state
shortchanges it. The burden of Bridgeport?s debt as a percentage of the value of
its taxable property is already the worst in the state, 7.5 times the state median.
Having little valuable property to tax, its mill rate?the tax burden per dollar of
assessed value of property? is double that of most nearby towns. And while
those towns have some of the highest and best bond ratings in the country, even
with the state behind it, Bridgeport?s bond rating is signi?cantly impaired,
making it even more expensive for the city to borrow.

Gaps in school resources are grappled to gaps in school results. While
reason is needed for an?important constitutional action regardless of results,
achievement gaps in Connecticut certainly can explain the stakes. The distance

between the rich and poor students in this state is great enough to remove any

32

 

doubt about the importance of being careful to send money where it is most
needed.

On average, Connecticut students do exceptionally well on standardized
tests. This shows up in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the
federal government sponsored ?nation?s report card?:

0 Based on NAEP 2013 Grade 4 reading results, no state earned an average
scale score higher than Connecticut.

0 Based on NAEP 2013 Grade 8 reading results, no state earned an average
scale score higher than Connecticut.

0 Connecticut high school seniors from the Class of 2013 outperformed
students from all other states in the 12th grade NAEP reading assessment.
The Programme for International Student Assessment sponsored by the
intergovernmental Organization for Economic Co?operation and Development
similarly ranks Connecticut at the top in several categories:

0 Only four education systems in the world outperformed Connecticut in
reading on the 2012 PISA assessment.

0 Only seven education systems in the world earned scores higher than
Connecticut in science on the 2012 PISA assessment.

0 In mathematics, only 12 education systems in the world scored higher than
Connecticut on the 2012 PISA assessment.

Connecticut is the home of some of the world?s best students. But the

NAEP and PISA measures both suffer from what Stanford University Professor

33

 

 

Sam Savage calls, the ??aw of averages.?57 The ?aw of averages is easy to see.
Averages mislead when they cut across wide extremes. Let?s say the average
Windham household income were $30,000. If Bill Gates moved in, Windham?s
average household income would soar. Windham would look rich, but typical
income in the town wouldn?t have changed at all.

So it is with Connecticut?s schools. Many soar, but some sink. Schools
serving the poorest in Connecticut are concentrated in just 30 out of its 169
municipalities. The children in most Connecticut towns do well on tests and
some do extremely well, pulling up the average to impressive heights. But viewed
individually, the state of education in some towns is alarming.

Until recently, Connecticut?s statewide tests were home grown. The state
tested elementary school students with the Connecticut Mastery Test. It tested
secondary school students with the Connecticut Academic Performance Test.

These tests reveal alarming statistics about reading skills among the poor
that suggest there are no resources the General Assembly can afford to spare
them in favor of indiscriminate impulse or political routine. The state points to a
few improvements in recent years, but the testing gap is still so great that any
gains the state points to can?t mean the gap will heal itself if the state merely sits

on its hands.

 

57 See, Sam L. Savage and Jeff Danzier, The Flaw ofAverages: Why We Underesn'mate Risk in
the Face of Uncertainty. (John Wiley 8: Sons, Inc. 2012).

34

 

 

 

Every expert at the trial agreed that acquiring reading skills by the end of
third grade is essential. Without the skill to read, the rest of the material the
schools present later is often lost. But while well over 70% of the students in the
state?s richest communities met their third grade reading goals in recent CMT
tests, on average nearly 70% of the least af?uent students in the towns this case
has focused on did not. While less than 1 in 10 students in many of the state?s
richest communities are below the most basic reading levels under CMT, nearly 1
in 3 students in many of the state?s poorest communities can?t read even at basic

levels.

Third grade readers rated as ?advanced? are approaching a majority in rich
towns, but there is no appreciable percentage of advanced readers in the poor
cities. Likewise, while around 90% of the students in the state?s richest places

made their third grade math goals, most students in the poorest places did not.

The contrast is equally stark in high school. Under CAPT in the last few
years, most of the children in Darien, New Canaan, Ridge?eld, Weston, Westport
and Wilton scored as ?advanced? in math and approached the same status in
reading. Meanwhile, one out of three children in Bridgeport, Windham, New
Britain, and similar communities didn?t even reach the most basic levels in math
and only did modestly better at reading. Not reaching the most basic level means

they don?t have even limited ability to read and respond to grade level material.

35

 

 

There can be no serious talk of these children having reached the goals set for
them. Only a tiny number of them did. In Bridgeport, New Britain and similar
communities only 10?15% made it that high. Therefore, 85-90% of them missed

their goals.

Things only get worse when we look at what happened when the state
adopted new tests it deemed more appropriate?the tests developed by the
Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium, a group of states led in part by
Connecticut. The state ?rst used the SBAC test for the School Year 2014-15. The
tests showed that while nearly 70% of the poor missed the minimum standards
for English, over 80% of the richest towns exceeded them. While around half of
the students in poor focus towns didn?t even meet the lowest requirements, only

insigni?cant numbers of the students in the richest towns missed them.

There is no place to hide this bad news. The achievement gap between the
rich and poor in Connecticut is not just because our rich do so well. If it were,
our poor would consistently outpace the poor in poorer states. But they don?t.
According to 2013 NAEP tests, Connecticut?s poor children are no better readers
than the poor anywhere else in the country and do worse at math. In fact, 2015
NAEP results show that poor children in 40 other states did better in math than

Connecticut?s poor??including children in places like Arkansas, Mississippi, and

36

 

 

Louisiana?10 did about the same, and nobody did worse. The numbers for

eighth graders were not much better.

The state says more money will not necessarily fix this problem. Its expert
witness Michael Podgursky, an economics professor at the University of Missouri,
testi?ed convincingly that there is no direct correlation between merely adding
more money to failing districts and getting better results. This is hard to argue
with, and the plaintiffs concede that only well-spent extra money could help. But
if the egregious gaps between rich and poor school districts in this state don?t
require more overall state spending, they at least cry out for coherently calibrated
state spending.

There is no room for a slack system to support cities like Bridgeport. If
education spending could be set by something other than educational need, it
could even empower the legislature to make the balance worse. It might lead to
desperately needed funds moving away from starving cities to rich suburbs for no
good reason. This would be a big problem in a system supposed to be guided by
need and reason. Yet while the plaintiffs were in court complaining of the lack of
a principled system, the legislature started moving money from poor towns to
rich ones.

Throughout 2016, the state has faced a bone-crushing ?scal crisis.
Thousands of state employees have been laid off. Resources are scarce and being

carefully rationed. The state knows there couldn?t be a worse time to move

37

 

 

education money from struggling poor districts to rich districts. But the state did
it anyway in May 2016 when, in the name of austerity, it amended the 2016-17
?scal year budget.

Under the changes adopted, education aid to the state?s poorest districts?

with the exception of Danbury and Stamford?was cut by over $5.3 million:

Ansonia $82,361
Bridgeport $905,293
Derby $39,412
East Hartford $245,381
Hartford $1,003,800
New Britain $230,590
New Haven $770,653
New London $129,072
Meriden $301,307
Norwalk $57,755
Norwich $181,023
Waterbury $668,272
West Haven $603,559
Windham $133,117
$5,351,595

In the same bill, while signi?cantly cutting funds for some wealthy
districts- without formula or explanation?the state also protected education aid
increases for other comparatively wealthy towns in the state amounting to over

$5.1 million in extra money:

Berlin 59,301
Branford $304,456
Canton $10,050
Chester $7,858
Cromwell $68,585
East Granby $40,618
Glastonbury $263, 457

38

 

 

 

Haddam $99,496

Hamden $67,521
Middlebury $103,096
New air?eld $3,812
Newtown $322,147
Orange $266,396
Rocky Hill $430,201
Seymour $181
Shelton $686,007
Simsbury $288,579
Trumbull $331,250
West Hartford $1,494,623
Wethers?eld $480,424
Woodbridge $32,760
Woodbury $289,888
$5,170,282

The plaintiffs certainly think this is wrong, but the state says that $5
million isn?t much money. But there are two problems with the claim that we
shouldn?t worry about the diversion of only $5 million dollars. First, in desperate
times in desperate towns $5 million is a lot of money. At $85,000 a head that
represents around 59 full-time teaching positions at a time when poor cities
without substantial tax bases are struggling with some of the nation?s neediest
students. Second, it broadcasts that the legislature does not feel bound to a
principled division of education aid. If this View of the state?s constitution won
out, the legislature would be free to make today?s $5 million tomorrow?s $50

million and the next day?s $500 million.

39

 

 

There are no millions to be diverted in the face of ?nancial circumstances
that are choking poor Connecticut towns to death. Based on prior budgets,
Bridgeport had been expecting an extra $8 million for 2016?17. Without the extra
funding, the school district was facing a $15 million funding gap just to maintain
current services when the state took nearly a million dollars more away from it
and gave it to wealthier towns. This followed a de?cit of $5.8 million from the
prior year. Administrators, clerks, guidance counselors and technicians are being
shed. Kindergarten and special education paraprofessionals are being let go.
Some schools have no extras like music and athletics left to cut. The school year
is to be shortened. Class sizes are increasing in many places to 29 children per
room rooms where teachers might have a class with one third requiring special
education, many of them speaking limited English, and almost all of them
working considerably below grade level. Many of these children get their only
meals at school. They don?t have two parents at home. Sometimes they have no
homes at all. They bounce from place?to?place and from school-to?school as the
system struggles to ?nd some way to teach them.

For almost all students, there will be no high school buses in Bridgeport.
Children will get tokens for the public transit system and some youngsters will
have to ?gure out how to switch multiple transit buses just to make it to school in
the morning. City efforts to raise taxes to make up the difference have resulted in

reported threats of secession by the city?s wealthiest neighborhood and angry

40

 

 

meetings jammed with hundreds of residents.53 At the board of education, the
interim superintendent reports that she routinely faces four to ?ve hours of
harassment from disgruntled board members. Real board business in Bridgeport
usually doesn?t even get started until around 11 pm.

It?s the same in other poor towns. Too little money is chasing too many
needs. Wasteful spending cannot be blamed for it all. Incompetent leadership is
not the real answer. The interim superintendent in Bridgeport is a former
education department of?cial. She was a top candidate for commissioner.
Another top candidate runs the cash?strapped East Hartford public schools.

These schools might be recognizable as schools for constitutional
purposes, but they face systemic problems that require consistent and rational
solutions. Against this backdrop, considering the fundamental right of a child to
an education in Connecticut, the state cannot meet its educational duties under
the constitution without adhering to a reasoned and discernible formula for
distributing state education aid. That formula must apply educationally?based
principles to allocate funds in light of the special circumstances of the state?s
poorest communities. An approach that allows rich towns to raid money
desperately needed by poor towns makes a mockery of the state?s constitutional

duty to provide adequate educational opportunities to all students.

 

58 local article/ 

41

 

 

 

So does a system that spends money on school construction without rhyme
or reason. The state devotes $1 billion to school construction every year when the
rest of its basic education aid totals roughly $2 billion. This happens while
experts for both sides in this case rated physical facilities at the bottom of their
lists of things that help students learn. A recent international study says the
same thing, rating buildings? impact on education of ?very low or no impact.?59

Still Connecticut keeps on spending and does so without following any
rational criteria for what should be built or renovated and what shouldn?t. As
Michele Dixon from the of?ce of school construction testi?ed, there is no
practical limit on spending beyond the raw dollar amount the state borrows each
year and local appetite for building and sharing some of the cost, which for some
projects has been zero. While the state has project criteria that create nominal
priorities, Dixon reported that virtually all projects ?nd their way into the two
highest priority categories because the criteria are ?uid enough to encourage it.

This building boom has happened while the state?s student population has
been shrinking considerably. It also goes on amidst a legislative free-for?all
where, as Dixon testi?ed, every year legislators with enough clout swoop in and
change school construction spending priorities or reimbursement rates to favor
projects in their districts without any consideration of relative needs across the

state. In the absence of a constitutional mandate this approach might be

 

59 evidence teaching-learning?toolkit/ physical?
environment.

42

 

 

 

permissible, but decisions rationally related to children?s needs are an irreducible
minimum in education spending. To form a logical part of an organized school
system for this state, school construction spending must be connected
substantially, intelligently, and veri?ably to school construction needs aimed at
helping students learn. To pass muster there must be a legitimate goal and a
rational, substantial, and veri?able plan to achieve it.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, Connecticut is defaulting on its constitutional
duty to provide adequate public school opportunities because it has no rational,
substantial and veri?able plan to distribute money for education aid and school
construction. This doesn?t mean the court should draft the state?s education
spending plan, but it does mean the state has to draft a rational one and follow it
as a matter of law. Without a court order, a plan adopted today can be ignored
tomorrow. That?s what happened with the Educational Cost Sharing formula.
Instead, the court will begin its review of the state?s proposed remedy 180 days
from the entry of judgment on this ruling.

Many rational approaches are possible. A formula can be designed that
distributes money in proportion to need regardless of the overall amount the
General Assembly decides to spend. Depending on what is proposed, the review
and approval might be of key principles only, leaving the legislature the ?exibility
to change parts of it as circumstances warrant. While its starting point is unclear,

the ECS formula contained some sensible elements for designing a state budget

43

 

 

formula. The important thing is that whatever rational formula the state
proposes must be approved and followed. If the legislature can skip around
changing formulas every year, it invites a new lawsuit every year.

The court will only review the formula to be sure that it rationally,
substantially, and veri?ably connects education spending with educational need.
The plan should include a timetable for carrying it out if the state believes the
system would be harmed by any immediate changes. The plaintiffs will have 60
days to respond to the state?s plan and then a hearing will be scheduled.

6. The state must de?ne an elementary and secondary education
reasonably.

Any spending plan rationally, substantially, and veri?ably linked to
teaching children mustnot only be deliberate, it must be aimed at what the
constitution promises: a free elementary and secondary education. A spending
scheme really can?t be said to be aimed at elementary and secondary school
education when the state doesn?t even enforce a coherent idea of what these
words mean.

For its secondary schools, the state has allowed the form of high school
graduation to overwhelm its substance. High school graduation rates in
Connecticut are going up. But, as Henry Levin, an economics and education
professor at Columbia University testi?ed, increasing high school graduation
rates is a worthy goal, but it loses its desired effect if the state hasn?t set a

meaningful standard level of achievement meriting graduation.

44

 

 

In Connecticut there isn?t one. The state?s definition of what it means to
have a secondary education is like a sugar-cube boat. It dissolves before it?s half
launched. It was sunk by a highly?soluble statutory scheme.

The state?s central high school graduation requirement is in General
Statutes 10?221a It requires high school students to complete 20 ?credits?
to graduate: four in English, three in math, three in social studies, two in science,
one in the arts or vocations, one in physical education and a half credit in civics
and American government. For the Class of 2020 the credits needed are
supposed to go up by ?ve.

Whatever the number of credits required, the state undercuts the
requirement with ?10-221a de?ning a credit as the ?equivalent? of a 45-minute
class every school day for a year. If using the word ?equivalent? weren?t enough
to keep a student from having to actually go to class to get credit, later language
removes any doubt by directly letting students do online work as a substitute for

9! 

showing up. The online work must be ?equivalent, rigorous,? ?systematic? and
but the law doesn?t make these words actually mean anything. Still,
General Statutes 10?223g says that school districts with high dropout rates must
have these online credit programs.

Computers are unseen culprits in this murky business. Online credit

recovery is credit-earning work where students sit in front of computers

reviewing material instead of in classrooms. It?s unregulated. It?s ill-de?ned, but

45

 

 

 

the legislature demands it. Superintendent Rabinowitz, Superintendent Garcia
and two high school principals agreed that whatever it was it was less demanding
than classroom work. Rabinowitz admitted the system was an open invitation for
abuse and that the invitation had been accepted.

General Statutes ?10?223a includes equally insubstantial guidance. It
requires local school districts to ?specify the basic skills necessary for
include a process to assess a student?s level of competency in
such skills.? The law requires an unde?ned role for a mastery examination,
leaving that role to be great, small, or indifferent. It accompanies this loose
arrangement with one of its few inescapable mandates. The basic law decisively
forbids school districts from using minimum test scores as the sole basis for
promotion or graduation. If this point is not clear enough in 10?223a it is
repeated in 10-14n 

The only other thing directly addressing graduation standards is a 15-year?
old letter from the education commissioner to superintendents. It attached a
copy of the Milford public school graduation standards and encouraged
superintendents to read it.

The state says that even if it doesn?t have a strong graduation standard it
still has new statewide academic standards that outline what high school students
should learn. The ?common core? and the tests created by the smarter balance-

academic consortium set signi?cant goals. The standards say what students

46

 

 

should learn at each grade level, but they can?t do much good where they?re
needed most because they don?t st0p students from graduating when they fall
miles below the standard. The new standards might affect school ratings under
state and federal measures. They might draw attention to failing schools and
students. But the schools and students at issue here were utterly failing under
the old system too. It?s too late for a court to accept as constitutional a system for
troubled schools that does little more than call attention to problems.

In the end, the state admits it needs new graduation standards. But on this
and other subjects it says it?s working on the problem and should be free to keep
trying. Unfortunately, the ?work? the state cites on graduation standards only
highlights its paralysis, not its progress.

In 2015, the General Assembly launched a task force to study aligning high
school graduation requirements with the state?s new common core standards.
The task force decided that high school graduation standards needed an ?urgent
overhaul.? It called for the new standards to have ?rigor,? ?alignment,? and
re?ect ?21St Century skills.? But it spoke mostly in generalities, and while it said
?mastery? is more important than ?seat time,? the only thing it suggested doing
about mastery was weakening year?end mastery tests expected to acquire force in
2020. In fact, on the various graduation pathways it envisioned, the task force
never suggested any way students would have to show they have mastered high

school material. In the wake of this wobbly logic the report made the puzzling

47

 

 

 

 

disclaimer that ?the task force wishes to make it very clear that it is not
denigrating the importance of acquiring academic knowledge and skills 

This seems obvious grounds for relief. And the task force even saw ?t to
add that, not only were they good, but knowledge and skills should be pursued
?rigorously.? Still the whole thing suggests the report was some kind of spoof.
The task force certainly took nothing away from that impression when its biggest
thought on how to ?x the problem turned out to be another task force. But the
state couldn?t even get that job done. In 2016, any prospect for another task force
along with hope for improved graduation requirements died in a legislative
committee- without even a vote.60

Reading the task force report and the statutes after hearing and watching
school of?cials struggle to talk about graduation standards forces the conclusion
that the state is paralyzed about high school graduation. The state sings the
praises of a high school degree as a door opener. It hears clamoring from the
community to get them into students? hands. But in the end it only leaves
districts free to meet these demands in the easiest possible way?by supplying
students with unearned diplomas.

The lack of a substantial and rational high?school?graduation standard has
resulted in unready children being sent along to high school, handed degrees, and

left?if they can scrape together the money?to buy basic skills at a community

 

asp cgabillstatus 
&bi11_num=378.

48

 

 

 

 

college. Those who can?t immediately buy the education they were supposed to
get for free must hope for a higher?education degree someday or simply accept
drastically reduced prospects every day.

The facts are incontestable. Test scores show that high schools in
impoverished cities are graduating high percentages of their students without the
basic literacy and numeracy skills the schools promise. Recent CAPT test results
show that one out of three high school children in Bridgeport, Windham, New
Britain and similar communities did not reach even the most basic levels in math
and only did modestly better at reading. Not reaching the most basic levels
means these children can?t even demonstrate a limited ability to read and
respond to grade level material. An East Hartford high school science teacher
testi?ed that 80% of her students do not test at grade level. Many of them, she
said, required explanations of common words like ?faucet? and ?sink.? In
Bridgeport, New Britain, and similar communities, around 90% of the students
missed their high school achievement goals. SBAC tests revealed that across the
state 80 to 90% of the poor failed to reach the minimum standards for high
school reading. Recent PSAT scores in Bridgeport show that just 1.9% of students
were on track to be college and career ready. SAT scores showed 90% of

Bridgeport students were not college and career ready.

Yet Bridgeport has a high school graduation rate of over 70%. Only 2% of

Windham high school students were on track under the PSAT for college and

49

 

 

career ready but that town?s superintendent reports that it now has a graduation
rate of more than 80%. No wonder the school superintendent of Bridgeport
painfully but readily confessed that a functionally illiterate person could get a
Bridgeport high school degree. No wonder the superintendent of Windham
likewise conceded that her system was producing graduates who were ready for
neither college nor a career. Contrasts between very low SAT college-and-career

ready scores and very high graduation rates are stark in poor communities across

 

the state:
Most recent SAT college Graduating but
graduation career ready not ready 
Municipality rate 

 

 

Hartford 71.5% 8% 63.5%

 

 

SO

 

 

.. . . ?sebum.? .

 

 

New Haven 75.5% 11% 64.5%

 

Waterbury 67.9% 15% 52.9%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This isn?t the fault. While there is a gap in most communities, the

number of unready graduates is pretty small in Connecticut?s wealthiest towns:

 

Municipality Most recent SAT college Graduating but
graduation career ready not ready 

 

    
 

New Canaan

?9   '17? f}     7  - i  



 

 

51

 

 

 

 

      

 

   

 

You can?t overlook the failure of our graduation standards in poor towns
when a solid majority of their students are graduating unready and a solid
majority of students in rich towns aren?t having any trouble at all. But if test
scores aren?t enough, higher education realities remove any doubt that the state is
failing poor students by giving them unearned degrees.

According to the state?s statistics, more than 70% of impoverished
students across the state?s public higher education system and 70% of all
Connecticut community college students don?t have basic literacy and numeracy
skills and have to get special instruction. Now higher education is under pressure
too with Public Act 14?217, 209 de?ecting attention from the problem by
requiring state colleges to embed remedial work in credit-bearing courses rather
than in stand-alone remedial courses. It?s almost as though the inevitable end
will be to keep pushing these students along and giving them more unearned
degrees?this time while charging them for the privilege. But the origin of the
problem isn?t so easily buried. The higher education ?gures led even the state?s
chief education performance of?cer, Ajit Gopalakrishnan, to agree that the
statistics force the conclusion that the state?s high schools are graduating

students unprepared for higher education.

52

 

 

 

Without a reasonable and substantial state standard, these unready
graduates are an inevitable product of demands for higher graduation rates. The
federal and state government rate schools higher the higher their graduation
rates. Aid amounts and remedial requirements are sensitive to these numbers
too. While the state says this factor is weighed less than others that doesn?t
change the message: high school graduation rates should rise. And so they do.
While the state points to one high school principal who testi?ed that higher rates
at his school meant more educated graduates, this testimony can?t overcome the
overwhelming statewide statistics and their consistency with credible testimony
from other educators. The state is letting graduation rates rise without them
meaning that there are more educated people among us.

Without any reasonable doubt, this breaks the state?s constitutional
promise of a free secondary education by making it for the neediest students
meaningless. Among the poorest, most of the students are being let down by
patronizing and illusory degrees. It?s a safe bet that doing away with them will
put enormous pressure on schools, but perhaps when it comes to focusing
attention above all on basic literacy and numeracy skills, enormous pressure is
just what they need.

A new system is constitutionally required to rationally, substantially, and
veri?ably connect an education degree with an education. The super?cial,

subjective, and easily circumvented systems some schools use are the root of the

53

 

Hump

 

?mum um 

problem. The obvious way to replace them is to use a readily available means to
show that students have been educated?that is, that students have learned
something useful by going to school. Every school system on earth knows how to
do this. Some form of objective test is given. The form of it is always fought over,
but the state has already proved it knows how to create and impose one and
believes it?s an appropriate tool. Right now, to get a high school degree outside of
secondary school?to get a ?graduate equivalent General Statutes 10-5
requires in most cases passing ?an examination approved by the commissioner.?
The state can hardly say that an objective graduation requirement is too much to
ask when it?s already using one.

Others have them too. According to the state?s witness, Stanford
University professor of education and economics Edward Hanushek, they work.
He particularly likes Massachusetts?s objective mastery requirement. Hanushek
was impressed that our neighbor state radically changed things in the 1990s, and
he said these changes made Massachusetts a national education leader. In 1993,
Massachusetts passed Mass. Gen. Laws c. 69 1D. It requires students to pass a
statewide standard test or, in a few cases, another objective test tailored for an
individual student under an ?educational proficiency plan.? Either way
Massachusetts made what children learn matter most, not how much time they
sit in a classroom or how long they stare at a computerized lesson. Fourteen

states including Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey now require their

students to pass a test to get a degree.61 The state has plenty of examples to
consider.

It will have 180 days to consider them. Then it must submit for court
review an objective and mandatory statewide?graduation standard. We can hope
the state picks one that will become the preeminent standard in the United
States. But it doesn?t have to be that good to pass constitutional muster. All the
de?nition has to do is rationally, substantially, and veri?ably connect secondary-
school learning with secondary-school degrees. If they aren?t shams Connecticut
can follow the Massachusetts example and adopt multiple tests. But the tests
mustn?t fall prey to the kind of evasions in place now. As in some states, the test
could lead to different kinds of degrees??class one,?, ?class two,? ?honors,?
?certi?cate of completion,? etc.

Presenting a policy in six months doesn?t mean that the state has to apply
it to all students immediately. The state should propose a way to introduce the
new requirement as quickly as possible but as fairly as possible. It should address
the problem of requiring students to meet a new standard we haven?t prepared

some of them to face. The schedule may connect that problem with granting

varying diploma degrees temporarily or otherwise. If it is reasonable, it will be

 

61http: ew/ section multimedia 
2015?16.htm1.

55

 

 

 

approved. Once the court has the state?s plan, the plaintiffs may have 60 days to
comment on it.

The only way a mastery?based high school graduation requirement can
work constitutionally and practically is to join it with a rational, substantial, and
veri?able de?nition of an elementary school education. Experts like Rutgers
University Professor Stephen Barnett for the plaintiffs and Hanushek for the
defendants are sure that the basic problem for those having trouble in secondary
school starts from them not learning to read, write and do basic math in
elementary school. Again, Connecticut has no state standard with any teeth for
students to pass from elementary to secondary school.

Elementary school is the heart of the problem for students in struggling
Connecticut districts. Secondary school students can?t succeed Without
elementary school skills, and children just aren?t picking them up in this state?s
poorest communities.

Gregory Furlong, a teacher at Bridgeport?s Byrant Elementary School, says
that ?fth graders at his school are often reading at kindergarten ?See Spot run?
levels. They still get promoted. Elizabeth Carpasso, a Bridgeport middle school
teacher, deals with these children three grades later in eighth grade. She has put
her textbooks aside because the children can?t read them. She looks for other
ways of teaching her class and passes the students on. Elsa Saavedra-Rodriguez,

principal of New Britain?s Smalley Elementary School, tells the same story.

56

 

 

 

Virtually none of her students have the basic skills they should have before
moving up and not one exceeds them. Ruth Stewart?Curley teaches English
language learners at New London?s Benny Dover Jackson Middle School. Sixth
through eighth graders are lumped together in her class. Some are entirely
illiterate. Some can?t even hold a pencil. They range from those who speak no
English to those bordering on the mainstream. Mixed in are special education
students. She is supposed to teach these students English and science. But she
can?t ?nd a text to use with a diverse and troubled group like this. She struggles
along, but her work sounded frustrating at least and maybe even fruitless at
worst. But the kids move on. Patricia Garcia, Windham superintendent, sees her
students at every level missing what they are supposed to be doing in their grade
and sadly watches them moving up the grades anyway.

These aren?t isolated stories. The test scores described earlier and detailed
in this opinion?s fact??nding appendix show how for thousands of Connecticut
students there is no elementary education, and without an elementary education
there is no secondary education. Beyond a reasonable doubt the state?s failure to
de?ne elementary education rationally violates its constitutional duty to provide
a meaningful opportunity to get one.

Several experts testi?ed about the importance of good elementary schools
and preschools and their connection to success in secondary school. They

included:

57

 

 

 

0 Eric Hanushek from Stanford

0 Henry Levin from Columbia.

Robert Villanova director of LEAD CT and fermer superintendent of
the Farmington Public Schools

Early Childhood Commissioner Myra Jones Taylor

Bridgeport Superintendent Frances Rabinowitz

East Hartford Superintendent Nathan Quesnel

Education Commissioner Dianna Wentzell,

Deputy Commissioner Ellen Cohn

All of them and every teacher, administrator, and professor who testified
agreed that if children are going to have a chance they must learn to read, write,
and do basic math in elementary school. Many pointed directly at the end of third
grade. A child lost then is hard to recover. According to a 2012 study by the
Annie E. Casey Foundation, more than a quarter of children illiterate at the end
of third grade never even graduate from high school?and in Connecticut we
know just how easy that is to do.

While both sides of the case agree on the priority, they want to do different
things about it. The plaintiffs lean too hard on more money as the answer. Some
of their witnesses suggested that basic literacy work meant an army of reading
interventionists simply layered on top of what is already being done.

The state leaned too hard on leadership as the solution. The education
commissioner and others rigidly suggested that none of the state?s schools were
short of money and that all would be well if the school day were reorganized,
curriculum martialed, and teachers collaborated. Given the magnitude of the

problem this seemed doubtful. More air went out of it when rebuttal witnesses

58

 

 

 

Superintendent Rabinowitz and East Hartford Superintendent Quesnel credibly
explained that most of these tactics are painfully familiar and mostly being used
already.

Deputy Education Commissioner Ellen Cohn was a breath of fresh air.
Cohn wrote a 2014-15 report on early reading strategies. This former Navy nurse
said the task is like a medical triage. To her, early literacy was important enough
to mean stripping resources from wherever necessary to prevent another wave of
children passing through elementary school set up to fail. It would require giving
her department the power to mandate the basic literacy techniques in a state
reading pilot called CK3LI. She said the merit of these techniques is now beyond
debate, and no witness quarreled with her. To Cohn, the job could be done. It
would mean painful realignments but the state could break the cycle of failure in
its poor communities.

Cohn wanted strong elementary school standards but opposed just
keeping children back and doing the same thing over again. She believed
children who stay back too often become children who later drop out. More
important, she believed doing the same thing over again would get the same
result.

Whatever the right answer is, Cohn must be right that the state can?t
continue down the same path with troubled elementary schools. The failure is

just too big and the response to it is just too small. Therefore, the state must

59

 

 

 

propose a de?nition of what it means to have an elementary school education
that is rationally and primarily related to developing the basic literacy and
numeracy skills needed for secondary school. No de?nition without force behind
it can be rational, especially since the state would already say that it has amply
laid out what elementary school should achieve by adopting its common core
standards. Here the difference between a de?nition and a constitutionally
adequate de?nition is that the former may have no real consequence while the
latter requires substantial consequences. In other words, the de?nition of an
elementary education must be rational and substantial and its effectiveness
veri?able.

The state will have 180 days from this decision to propose a remedy that
creates a rational, substantial, and veri?able de?nition of elementary school.
There are many possibilities. Many of the elements that need to be given life and
weight are in Cohn?s report. They might gain some heft, for example, if the rest of
school stopped for students who leave third grade without basic literacy skills.
School for them might be focused solely on acquiring those skills. Eighth grade
testing would have to show they have acquired those skills before they move on to
secondary school. This would give the schools four school years to ?x the
problem for most children. The work could start as early as high?quality

preschool. But it?s up to the state to decide that, not the court.

60

 

 

Whatever the state does, the effort in troubled districts would likely focus
on whole classes of children. In many city schools virtually none of the students
have the skills they need to leave third grade, so it?s not as if a new approach
would mean that a small number of children would be left socially isolated.
Whatever the state comes up with will have to allow for the special challenges
poor districts face, including the reality that many poor children move from
school to school as they more frequently than most children move from home to
home.

The state must tell the court What powers over local districts it needs to get
the job done. But it must also marshal its ?nancial resources. The state could do
this several ways. It could simply provide the money. It could cut spending on
unfocused and inconsequential school construction, and spend the savings on
communities that need drastic interventions. The state could take money from
elsewhere in the state education budget or from elsewhere in the school budgets
of troubled districts. Cohn?s triage analogy may prove painfully apt. But the
education commissioner and the deputy commissioner emphasized that money
for needed interventions can be found if courage is used in reprioritizing district
spending to focus money on the key problem. Everyone in this litigation agrees
on What that key problem is, so the state should have a chance and the power in
troubled districts to test its claim that the resources can be found to give meaning

to the constitution?s promise of a free elementary school education.

61

 

 

As with the other orders, the parties should propose for the remedies stage
a plan to roll out the changes. One aspect of triage that won support from experts
like Hanushek is that the state would be better off trying to succeed with a full
blown effort in a small number of districts rather than sapping its strength by
trying to succeed in too many districts at once. Starting efforts with some group
of districts with fewer members than the state?s 3o?member Alliance District
group might work?the lowest 10 which it labels ?Reform Districts? in particular
might make sense. Spreading the standards from the greatest to the least
troubled districts also might work. The only thing that would make neither
progress on the ground nor with the court would be a plan that is more of a dodge
than a to-do list.

7. Connecticut?s teacher evaluation and compensation systems
are impermissibly disconnected from student learning.

Most of the state?s education money is spent on teachers. Both sides agree
this is where the money belongs. It is also undisputed that good teachers are the
key to a good school system. The problem is that in Connecticut there is no way
to know who the best teachers are and no rational and substantial connection
between their compensation and their effect on teaching children.

The ?rst problem is a dysfunctional evaluation system. Despite a lot of
talk, teacher evaluation is still almost entirely local and the state standards are

almost entirely illusory. This has left virtually every teacher in the 

62

 

 

being marked as pro?cient or even exemplary while nothing in the system and no
one in the case indicated these results are useful or accurate. The state insists
that many schools across the country suffer from this problem, but?as we all
learned in school?others doing something wrong is hardly an excuse.

An in?ated teacher evaluation system, like a graduation or grading system
where everyone succeeds, is virtually useless. A virtually useless evaluation
system is constitutionally inadequate to undergird the state?s largest financial
commitment to education. As With the other key points, students can?t receive a
constitutionally adequate educational opportunity when something of this
importance to schools has no rational, substantial, and veri?able connection to
effective teaching.

General Statutes 10-151b misses that connection by missing any real
requirement entirely. It says that schools must have evaluations ?consistent with
the guidelines for a model teacher evaluation and support program adopted by
the State Board of Education.? But while requiring the guidelines, the statute
didn?t even allow the board to adopt the guidelines by itself. The law gave the
board until 2012 to adopt the guidelines through a typical task force approach
required by 10-151d under which they must be adopted ?in consultation with?
something called the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council or 

PEAC members included teachers, principals, school boards, superintendents?

63

 

 

 

everyone in education most likely to disagree about what to do?people whose
views are vital but whose votes are most likely to sti?e a meaningful result.

PEAC did not disappoint. Although it faced a federal mandate to include a
connection between teacher evaluations and student learning, PEAC did
everything it could to weaken this requirement and then reconvened a year later
to weaken it some more.

An earlier federal mandate, the No Child Left Behind Act, was roundly
criticized for linking teacher evaluations to student test results. Some of the
thinking behind this criticism shows up in the 2010 decision in this case,
re?ecting legitimate concerns that teachers are not responsible for the condition
students are in when they walk into the schoolhouse. In the schools at the center
of this case in particular, everyone agrees that crushing socio-economic
circumstances handicap many of the students and make it wrong to expect them
to get the same test scores as other Connecticut students. But those old cries of
foul persisted at PEAC even when the new Every Child Succeeds Act replaced
measuring absolute student performance with measuring evidence of growth. It
hardly seems unreasonable to evaluate teachers partly based on how much their
students have learned from them. The state?s own expert Eric Hanushek insisted
this was a vital element, saying that these so-called ?measures of student

learning? should make up around 35% of teacher evaluations.

64

 

 

 

Yet PEAC seems to have buckled under the load of criticism about tests.
In the end, the State Board of Education set its teacher evaluation standards in
capitulation to PEAC rather than in consultation with it. The instrument of
surrender was a series of guidelines and a sample called the System for Educator
Evaluation and Development or The ?rst article of the surrender is that
schools don?t have to use SEED at all. They can come up with their own system
and use it so long as the Department of Education approves it as meeting the
guidelines.

The main surrender is in the guidelines. Perhaps its authors thought
people would assume the guidelines were serious simply because they are so
complex. They certainly are complex, but they are not serious.

Under the guidelines, half of the evaluation is supposed to be on teacher
practices and skills. This half is subjective and is like the traditional system where
ultimately a principal watches a teacher in action and ?les a review. The
remaining 10% of the ?rst half is an equally subjective but highly limited role for
parent or peer evaluation surveys.

The evaluation?s second half is supposed to meet federal requirements
about connecting how teachers do with how students learn. It says its focus is
?student outcome indicators.? But it quickly turns to slush. Measures of student

achievement were supposed to make up 22.5% of a teacher?s evaluation. One half

65

 

    

 

of this?a mere 11.25% of a teacher?s evaluation ?was supposed to be linked to
growth rates in the state?s carefully wrought system of student testing.

The other 11.25% addressing ?outcome indicators? is illusory. First, the
state allows schools to use any ?standard indicator? or any ?non-standardized
indicator? of how much students learn. Second, the teacher has to agree to use it
at all and then the teacher and evaluator have to agree What weight to give a
standardized indicator and what weight to give the ?non?standardized indicator.?
The goals can be changed mid-year. The only guidance about it is that it?s
supposed to be ?fair, reliable valid and useful? or at least be so ?to the greatest
extent possible.? In short, this part of the evaluation doesn?t really require
anything at all.

If this wasn?t weak enough, the department then granted some two dozen
waivers to school systems which didn?t want to follow the guidelines and, in 2014,
it gave up all pretenses, vaporizing the 11.25% that was supposed to be based on
the state?s of?cial test scores, using the new SBAC testing system as an excuse.
PEAC suggests that it will be imposed later, and the state has managed to hold off
federal sanctions with these blandishments. The remainder of the student
outcome indicators ~?can'optionally be student input or something called
?whole-school student learning indicators.? In a gutted system, what these

indicators are hardly seems to matter.

66

 

 

 

The state?s teacher evaluation system is little more than cotton candy in a
rainstorm. Everything about it suggests it was designed to give only the
appearance of imposing a signi?cant statewide evaluation standard. These empty
evaluation guidelines mean good teachers can?t be recognized and bad teachers
reformed or removed. As Superintendent Rabinowitz testi?ed, these failures are
integral to the daunting task she faces in trying to weed out teachers holding her
system back. They run counter to the spirit if not the letter of the Every Child
Succeeds Act. And they make a mockery of years of work the state has put in
perfecting goals for students and the yardsticks to measure them against. Why
bother measuring how students are doing if it never has any direct connection to
how they?re being taught?

Beyond a reasonable doubt the state?s teacher evaluation system creates
no rational, substantial, and veri?able link between teacher evaluations and
student learning. It?s not merely a matter of the standard being weak. The
standard fails the constitutional test because it doesn?t even honestly do what it
says its doing.

It could. The state?s chief performance of?cer, Aj it Gopalakrishnan, said
the state has student test growth data for all of the state?s teachers. He agreed the
department could use the information in whatever intelligent way it might want
to judge whether teachers are teaching. But it doesn?t use or distribute the

information for this purpose at all.

67

 

 

 

Better teachers aren?t made by teachers earning better degrees or by long
years on the job. Plaintiffs? expert Jennifer King Rice, professor and associate
dean at the University of Maryland, agreed with state expert Eric Hanushek of
Stanford about this. So did Superintendent Rabinowitz. So did Commissioner
Wentzell. According to this undisputed View, teachers make signi?cant gains in
the early years of teaching but plateau after about ?ve years.62 No one defended
the idea that having a master?s degree makes a better teacher and an extensive
study by Jennifer King Rice shows it has nothing to do with how well a teacher
teaches. Although state of?cials, local board members, superintendents,
principals, and teachers testi?ed, no one said long years on the job and advanced
degrees always meant good teaching.

Yet in Connecticut these two factors, which may have almost no role in
good teaching, play Virtually the entire role in deciding how much a teacher
makes. The only exceptions are some loan programs and tuition forgiveness
plans designed to attract teachers in shortage areas. Otherwise, the billions that
?ow to increased teacher pay in this state have nothing to do with either how
much teachers are needed or some recognized measure of how well they teach.

Connecticut pays teachers well. It ranked third in the country in terms of
teacher salary in 2012?13, but Professor Rice?s study showed that doesn?t matter

so much to teachers. Money isn?t the biggest reason why teachers teach or where

 

62 See also, http:/ tntp.org/ publications View/ 
quest-for?teaeher?development at 15.

68

 

 

 

they teach. But if the way money is spent?especially on raises-? means nothing,
it?s still being wasted. Professor Hanushek in particular saw this as a lost
opportunity. He thinks paying more while in?uencing nothing merely locks in
inef?ciencies. He and the commissioner of education testi?ed that pay
differentials based on things like shortages make more sense. As Superintendent
Quesnel testi?ed, East Hartford gets six times as many applications for
elementary teacher jobs than for high school science instructors, yet there is no
distinction in pay that re?ects the dif?culty of attracting and keeping one group
of teachers over another. The same shortage problems with only minimal
shortage solutions hold true in many districts for math teachers, bilingual
instructors, special education teachers, and, in general in poor districts Where the
working conditions make the jobs less attractive.

The state sees itself as powerless here. It set up a system of local control in
which school districts must agree on these things with teachers. But if the system
was set up by the state then the state is responsible for the system. Any obstacle
to a rational system the state has set up, the state can take down. The state is not
powerless.

There are ways the state could link compensation to effective teaching, but

it?s nothing to do Studies show that some ?nancial incentives have little

69

 

 

worth.53 Bluntly tying pay to test results for example makes no sense. It would
give teachers in rich districts more money just because their kids always do better
on tests while stripping money from teachers in poor districts where teaching
skill is most needed. Professor Rice agreed that some ?nancial incentives work
and others don?t. Extra money for shortage areas and in troubled districts seem
to get the strongest support from full-time experts like Hanushek and Rice,
professionals like Quesnel, and scholarly sources too.64 But that doesn?t mean
other approaches linking compensation and performance should be ruled out.

It also doesn?t mean that there is no role to play for seniority beyond 5
years and advanced degrees. It?s not as though any conceivable role these things
might play would be irrational; the problem is that it?s irrational for these two
factors to play the only role. The court isn?t going to decide how to pay teachers.
The only thing the court concludes is that beyond a reasonable doubt the teacher
pay system we have lacks a rational, substantial, and veri?able connection
between teaching need and teaching pay.

The parties agree that paying and evaluating principals and
superintendents is handled even more loosely and locally. Yet the state insists
that leadership is the biggest thing troubled schools need to succeed, with the

commissioner practically pounding the table about the importance of principals

 

63 See, Roland G. Fyer, ?The Production of Human Capital in Developed Countries:
Evidence from 196 Randomized Field Experiments? (March 2016) at 47;

http:/ scholar.harvard.edu/ ?les /fryer/?1es 

64 Id. at 52

70

 

 

 

who know what?s wrong in their schools and have the courage to set it right.
Former Farmington superintendent Robert Villanova, a respected authority on
school leaders, highlighted this too. For him, the political chaos that often
overwhelms the business of paying and reviewing superintendents is hurting our
schools, including the arcane contractual relationships that push superintendents
out of most districts with unnatural regularity.

The court ?nds beyond a reasonable doubt that the state is using an
irrational statewide system of evaluation and compensation for educational
professionals and therefore denies students constitutionally adequate
opportunities to learn. The state will submit plans to replace them no later than
180 days from the date of this decision. The plans can include appropriate
rational elements of the current system but should include proposals for hiring,
evaluating, promoting, removing, and compensating educational professionals
including teachers, principals, and superintendents. The plaintiffs may then have
60 days to respond to the proposals. The parties should include proposed
implementation schedules. If the state proposes a rational plan the court will
approve it.

8. The state?s program of special education spending is irrational.

Not every dollar the state spends on schools is fair game for constitutional

scrutiny. But like teacher salaries, special education spending is so large that

71

 

 

. MM am i. mm

 

whatever happens to it has an outsized in?uence on the state?s chance of keeping
its promise of adequate opportunities in our schools.

Congress and the General Assembly have ordered school districts to bear
immense ?nancial burdens in the name of special education without giving them
much help shouldering them. Special education mandates come chie?y from the
federal Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) at 20 U.S.C. 1400 et. seq. and
General Statutes ?10?76a et seq. purpose under 20 U.S.C. 1400 (1)
(A) is ?to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free
appropriate public education (FAPE) that emphasizes special education and
related services to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further
education, employment, and independent living.? The law also requires that
students learn in the least restricted environment (LRE) possible with the goal of
keeping them in the classroom with the other children. As experts for bothsides
explained, the IDEA mandates an ?Individual Education Program? (IEP) be
prepared following a ?Planning and Placement Team? (PPT) meeting which
includes school or counselors, working with parents and teachers.
These PPT meetings and the resulting evaluations decide whether a child is
eligible for special education with the IEP essentially telling the school system
what it has to do and consequently what it has to spend.

The state has a pretty broad view of the program. It says special education

requires extensive services ranging from tutoring services for students with mild

72

 

 

dyslexia to immensely expensive transportation and therapy for profoundly,
multiply-disabled children. The state?s Vision is well-re?ected in a case it cited.
In 1989, the First Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted IDEA in Timothy W. U.
Rochester, New Hampshire School District.65 Timothy W. had almost no
cerebral cortex and could respond to light and other things just enough to let
people know he was experiencing them.66 The First Circuit said the act covered
all disabled children and required that all of them receive an ?appropriate?.67
The Timothy W. case has contributed to this and other states telling School
districts to transport, care for and provide extensive services for multiply?
disabled children regardless whether the state can do anything that would look to
most people like education. It is a phenomenon that costs immense sums, but
conventional education, thinking seems resigned to it.

The cost of special education is staggering. In many places over 20% of
the money spent on schools is spent on special education, and more than 66,000
students are enrolled. In 2013-14 federal, state, and local spending on special
education in Connecticut reached $1.82 billion when annual basic state school
aid was roughly $2 billion. Almost all of that $1.82 billion comes from local

government; federal and state aid amounts to just 15-20%.

 

65 875 F.2d 954.
66 Id.
67 Id. at 959-60.

73

 

 

The state does insist it pays more. It says that for federal purposes it uses
an old post?Horton formula to claim 19%-22% of its general local education aid is
special education aid. But this really isn?t credible anymore since the evidence
shows it is largely an arbitrary percentage, it was abandoned from the formula
decades ago, and the state has now entirely given up any pretense of having a
formula. Around 10% of special education spending?around $200 million?is
spent every year on students with multiple disabilities.

Bridgeport Superintendent Rabinowitz said her district spent around $75
million on Special education in 2014-15 and got just $1.5 million of it from the
federal government and $4.8 million from the state. Because the law makes her
spend whatever the IEPs require for special education children, she has less to
spend on other children. At great expense-ma single student?s care can cost
$100,000 or even $20 0,000?Bridgeport cares outside of the district schools for
roughly 300 children that might be called multiply?disabled and incapable of
being educated within the system. According to East Hartford Superintendent
Quesnel, the only children he?s spending more money on each year are children
in special education. For years zero-increase budgets for his school system have
left him constantly stripping resources from the student population as a whole to
meet those things like special education over which he is powerless.

There are two problems with special education serious enough to warrant

constitutional concern. First is the problem of spending education money on

74

 

those in special education who cannot receive any form of elementary or
secondary education. Second is the evidence that shows that getting picked for
special education in this state is mostly arbitrary and depends not on rational
criteria but on where children live and what pressures the system faces in their
name.

Daniel J. is a professor of educational at Vanderbilt
University. He was the state?s special education expert at trial. said that
special education spending is crowding out spending on general education in
Connecticut and across the country. Margaret McLaughlin, a professor of special
education at the University of Maryland,-was the plaintiffs? expert. She agreed
with A 2013 state study of education funding said the same thing and
said schools should change the way they pay for special education and how it?s
done.

said a lot about how schools identify special education students.
Schools are supposed to make a call about whether a student needs services and
what services if any are ?appropriate.? A school might grant or deny services to a
child with a reading problem depending on why the child can?t read and whether
the system can give the child an ?appropriate education.? Schools have to use
judgment.

But also considered cases like Timothy W. About these dif?cult

cases, he said the schools never make a judgment call at all. He, other witnesses,

75

 

and scholarly sources say circumstances like Timothy W.?s and worse can costs
school districts amounts approaching and exceeding $200,000 a year per child.?58
Yet school of?cials never consider the possibility that the education appropriate
for some students may be extremely limited because they are too profoundly
disabled to get any bene?t from an elementary or secondary school education.
struggled to say why hundreds of thousands of dollars might be spent on
someone profoundly disabled without even considering whether it?s a good idea
while for other disabled children the schools have to shape programs to ?t their
prospects and circumstances. After a lot of back and forth, he settled on saying
that schools provide extensive services for the multiply disabled without
inquiring into their circumstances to avoid the ?degree of pushback? they would
get by saying limited or no services were appropriate.

Part of the problem may be unfounded fear of cases like Timothy W. That
case turned on whether IDEA covered a child who could not be educated in any
traditional sense.69 Framed that way, the First Circuit could only answer that the
act covers all disabled children, and it requires them to be given an education
appropriate for their circumstances. But that ignores the real judgment call that
says schools run away from. The call is not about whether certain

profoundly disabled children are entitled to a ?free appropriate public education.?

 

68 See, Note, ?Special Education, Equal Protection and Education Finance: Does the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act Violate a General Education Student?s Fundamental Right to
Education?,? 40 BC. L. Rev. 633 at 634 (March 1999).

69 875 F.2d 954 (1989). .

76

 

 

It is about whether schools can decide in an education plan for a covered child
that the child has a minimal or no chance for education, and therefore the school
should not make expensive, extensive, and ultimately pro?forma efforts. For a
child in a coma, the judgment call may be painful, but it is simple: the
?appropriate? education service for a child in a coma is likely little more than
evaluating the child?s condition and following the proper procedure to recognize
that no educational service is appropriate because the child cannot bene?t from
it. No case holds otherwise, and this means that extensive services are not
always required.

A description of the IDEA ?appropriate education? duty came from the
highest authority nearly 35 years ago in the US. Supreme Court?s opinion in
Board of Education v. Rowley.70 Rowley was mostly deaf. She was certainly
capable of getting an education and was getting one. The question was whether
she should have a sign language interpreter with her in class as opposed to less
expensive assistance]1

The Supreme Court held that the act aimed, not at an equal education, but
a ?basic ?oor of opportunity? that ?consists of access to specialized instruction
and related services which are individually designed to provide educational

bene?t to the handicapped child??2 It also recognized that ?[t]he educational

 

7'0 458 US. 176 (1982).
71 Id. at 184.
72 Id. at 201.

77

 

opportunities provided by our public school systems undoubtedly differ from
student to student, depending upon a myriad of factors that might affect a
particular student's ability to assimilate information presented in the
classroom.?73 The Court rejected the idea of a one-size ?ts all analysis of what
effort may be enough:

The determination of when handicapped children are receiving suf?cient
educational bene?ts to satisfy the requirements of the Act presents a more
dif?cult problem. The Act requires participating States to educate a wide
spectrum of handicapped children, from the marginally hearing-impaired
to the profoundly retarded and palsied. It is clear that the bene?ts
obtainable by children at one end of the spectrum will differ dramatically
from those obtainable by children at the other end, with in?nite variations
in between. One child may have little dif?culty competing successfully in
an academic setting with nonhandicapped children, while another child
may encounter great dif?culty in acquiring even the most basic of self-
maintenance skills. We do not atteth todav to establish any one
test for determining the adequacy of educational bene?ts
conferred upon all children covered by the Act.74

The Supreme Court overturned the lower court rulings requiring the sign
language interpreter, saying only local experts control how far any effort must go:
?The primary responsibility for formulating the education to be accorded a
handicapped child, and for choosing the educational method most suitable to the
child's needs, was left by the Act to state and local educational agencies in

cooperation with the parents or guardian of the child.?75

 

73 Id. at 198. .
74 Id. at 202 (emphasis added).
75 Id. at 207.

78

 

 

Out of this kind of modest statement, urban legends about IDEA seem to
have grown, and they have led many to think the law requires unthinking,
expensive, and futile efforts in the name of education. Media reports re?ect a
wide public perception that herculean efforts are required even to achieve
virtually nothing]6 But as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, sitting on the DC.
Circuit Court of Appeals in 1984, wrote in Lunceford v. District of Columbia
Board of Education: public ?resources are not in?nite,? and federal law ?does
not secure the best education money can buy; it calls upon government, more
modestly, to provide an appropriate education for each [disabled] child.?77
was reluctant but clear enough: the reason so much is spent is because
someone has to take responsibility for saying that it shouldn?t be, and no one is
willing to do it.

If, as and others said, roughly 10% of the special education
population ?ts this description and we assume the unlikely scenario that they
command just 10% of total special education spending then this is costing our
state schools nearly $200 million a year. This doesn?t mean none of the money
should be spent or even decide how much should be spent. An appropriate

education for some severely-disabled multiple-handicapped children doubtless

 

76 Sec 9.9., Struggle to Educate the Severely Disabled?,
2010 06/ 20/ education/ 20donovan.html.; ?Special Needs, Painful Costs,?


77 745 F.2d 1577, 1583-

79

 

 

and. m, A

 

requires this kind of spending to get results, but we don?t know who these
children are because no judgment on the question is made at all?schools wrongly
think they aren?t supposed to think, but must do something no matter the degree
or character of the bene?t.

Neither federal law nor educational logic says that schools have to spend
fruitlessly on some at the expense of others in need. Medical services including
physical and occupational therapy may help some multiply-disabled children and
may be an important social service. When they are ?related services? to educating
children under 20 U.S.C. 1401 (17), IDEA says schools must supply them. But
when they have no substantial connection to education no one says they have to
be paid for out of education budgets.

This kind of spending is hard to square with seeing the constitution as
requiring a substantial, rational, and veri?able connection between things
schools do and things that teach kids. That thinking must at least require schools
to spend education money on education. It means schools shouldn?t be forced to
spend their education budgets on other social needs?however laudable? at the
expense of special education children who can learn and all the other children
who can learn along with them. The ?rst step is for schools to identify and focus
their efforts on those disabled students who can pro?t from some form of
elementary and secondary education. This will require state standards to address

this issue and require school districts to make the necessary judgments.

80

 

 

.. ?urn. . . .

Doubtless the state can choose to continue to serve multiply?disabled children in
any way it sees It may simply have to rethink forcing local school districts to
pay for it with local school money.

Spending education money on education is certainly needed to marshal
resources for thousands of children in inner city schools whom we already know
can be educated but aren?t being educated. This includes special education
students. research shows that while there are very few children like
Timothy W. there is a bigger problem with special education money and it affects
all the disabled children in our schools.

closely studied which students were getting tapped for special
education in Connecticut. He did it to prove that impoverished students are not
being identi?ed for special education much more than wealthier students. But he
discovered something more ominous along the way. He drew some scatter graphs
comparing school districts and considering the identi?cation rates for various
kinds of special education. Figure 4 in his report shows total prevalence patterns

for special education identi?cation:

81

 

 

 

Figure 4. Reiatiemhip {if Tera? SWB- Prevalence and mama. Poverty in 203 9481.1

Cassie:  Pisealem  

 

as; ?nger-?; Freez?gbuca?  Luna?) 1 
$0ume CQEFWZW I ?a Sappxis 1533?); -- gamma? (ram;

Each dot on his graph is a school district. The horizontal axis shows
relative poverty based on the percentage of students who receive free and reduced
price lunches under federal law. The vertical axis shows students with disability
(SWD) identi?cation prevalence?the total percentage of the student population
found eligible for special education. Overall, the scatter graphs show that
children aren?t signi?cantly more likely to get special education just because they
live in a poor town.

But the graphs also show that the disability identi?cation rates vary so
widely between districts that was left scratching his head trying to ?nd a
pattern. Similar districts were identifying completely dissimilar percentages of I
special education students. He didn?t think this could mean one town had many
intellectually disabled children while another town with the same characteristics

had scarcely a single one. Instead, was left believing that the variations

82

 

 

meant some districts were ignoring problems, some districts were over-
identifying problems, and some districts just refused to use certain labels. For
example, some districts he knows avoid saying kids are intellectually disabled?-
those formerly called mentally retarded?preferring instead to call them autistic.

His experience with Connecticut?s system and others revealed chaos.
Poor districts call some children emotionally disturbed while wealthy districts
call the same kind of children ADHD sufferers?with consequent variations in
services and expenses. In many districts there is no limit to special education
when it comes to bad behavior. Bad behavior in these places always comes from
some kind of disability like emotional disturbance no matter where it comes
from, how bad it is, or how often it happens.

Deputy Commissioner Cohn supported this sense that things were out of
control. She explained that children in Hartford were under?identi?ed for special
education, but she said ?you just need a hang nail to get identi?ed for special
education in Glastonbury.? thought ?it always has been 
that schools could have markedly different rates of disability identi?cation using
the same state de?nitions and classi?cation criteria.? He ultimately agreed that
the inexplicable and in his word ?enormous? differences between districts can
only be because the state standards allow serious over?inclusion or under?

inclusion in special education.

83

 

 

 

This unstable reality is because Connecticut hardly has any state standards
for identifying speci?c disabilities and a method of dealing with them. Doubtless,
some categories of disability are harder to recognize than others and, yes,
everyone knows that what needs to be done is highly individual. Does a child
slow to read have dyslexia? Is a behavior problem ADHD or emotional
disturbance? Plainly these depend on the child. But doesn?t agree that all
speech and language dif?culties are subjective and many other disabilities can
obviously be identi?ed with more or less objectivity (blindness, etc.) and so can
the typical services schools should provide.

said the problem can be brought far closer to reason by standard
procedures and methods of ensuring compliance with them. He says that
without them too many judgments are open to outside pressure to supply
unneeded special education services or supply the wrong ones. said the
system is warped by pressure from parents, by pressure from individual schools
for more outside resources, and by pressure from central school district leaders to
use in?house services and save money. and others saw these pressures as
a ?signi?cant? problem. They hurt schools, but more important they hurt the
children the schools are supposed to educate by ignoring their actual needs.

Even with government spending $1.8 billion every year on special
education in Connecticut the state requires little or nothing of districts in how

they go about spending it. The state did publish a 2010 book of guidelines. The

84

 

guidelines focus on federal law and walk through generalities, discussing the
relationship between general and special education and making some general
suggestions about accuracy. The guidelines include nothing that local PPT can
use to know how to ensure uniformity, to accurately label, to set reasonable goals
and to use reasonable means to carry them out. The state also pointed to a
document called ?Guidelines for the Practice of School These
guidelines are even less helpful. They say nothing about how to identify disabled
students, virtually nothing about special education, and aren?t even
required PPT members. More helpfully, the department website publishes
informational papers on a variety of topics, including speci?c information on
subjects like intellectual disability, autism and ADHD. Fleshed out and made
part of required protocols, documents like these might be useful, but the only
evidence is that these resources are there if anyone wants them and nothing
more.

There isn?t any reasonable monitoring of over-identi?cation or under-
identi?cation either. IDEA compliance is the focus of a lot of work and some
regular samples across the state, but its focus has been on ensuring paperwork
compliance and monitoring compliance with the individual education plans that
get created without examining their appropriateness. This process does not

signi?cantly address under-identi?cation or over?identi?cation.

85

 

 

Special education identi?cation and intervention is unquestionably
individualized, but that doesn?t mean it has to be chaotic. Without a rational
basis, neither the state?s command to local school districts nor its means of
identifying and educating disabled students can stand under the constitution?s
education provision. Here again, it is not a question of whether the state has
chosen the most effective course. The problem rises to a constitutional level
because, with respect to one of the largest components of its funding scheme, the
state beyond a reasonable doubt lacks a rational, substantial, and veri?able
connection between its educational mandate and a means of carrying it out.

Within 180 days, the state will submit new standards concerning special
education which rationally, substantially, and veri?ably link special education
spending with elementary and secondary education. The plaintiffs will have 60
days to respond.

9. The difference between rational policy and the best policy.

The connection between the constitution?s education mandate and the
means of carrying it out doesn?t have to be ideal to avoid judicial scrutiny. Not
everything has to be perfectly equal either. If these things were true, this decision
could say a lot about several topics.

It might discuss class size. There was a spirited debate at trial about class
size that challenged the preconception that a smaller class was a better class.

That discussion highlighted the importance of good teachers over smaller class

86

 

 

sizes. There was also a robust discussion about the role of interventionists and
classroom teachers as well as the role of classroom teachers and
paraprofessionals. The role of a good principal was discussed. The most effective
way to create an education budget was mooted. The relative importance of racial
integration and effective education was discussed, with several witnesses
debating the role of the state?s magnet schools. The struggles of English language
learners were reviewed with many suggestions for how to ease their lot.

But if there was any one thing in the trial that stood out as good?as
opposed to constitutional? policy it was the need for universal high-quality
preschool. Witnesses for both sides agreed that high-quality preschool would be
the best weapon to get ahead of the literacy and numeracy problems plaguing
schools in impoverished cities. Eric Hanushek, the state expert from Stanford,
believed the state would gain a lot from targeting free public preschool to a small
number of cities and offering it to every child in them rather than spreading the
effort thinly to some children throughout the state. Early Childhood
Commissioner ones?Taylor agreed. More work in this area cries out for
attention?but not from this court.

All this is just to ?show that there is a difference in a constitutional case
between a court pushing good education policy and a court barring irrational
education policy. The legislature makes policy. The only reason for any of the

court?s legal conclusions is that the fundamental right to an adequate educational

87

 

opportunity won?t mean much unless the state?s major policies have good links to
teaching Connecticut children. The remedies that will be considered in this case
are required because in several senses these links are missing.

10. The next job is to craft remedies.

To get rid of an irrational policy, adopt a rational one. It?s the court?s job
to require the state to have one. It?s is the state?s job to develop one. The court
will judge the state?s solutions, and if they meet the standards described in this
decision, uphold them. The state will submit proposed reforms consistent with
this opinion within 180 days. The state will propose changes consistent with this

opinion on the following subjects:

0 the relationship between the state and local government in education.
a an educational aid formula;
0 a de?nition of elementary and secondary education;

0 standards for hiring, ?ring, evaluating, and paying education
professionals;

- funding, identi?cation, and educational services standards for special
education.

Once the state submits its proposed remedies, the plaintiffs will have 60

days to comment on them and propose alternatives. A hearing will then be

scheduled.

88

 

 

 

All proposals will include a timetable and any other proposed variables
related to carrying them out along with a thorough justi?cation. Both parties

should list any statutes they claim are invalidated by the court?s rulings.

11. Conclusion: Schools are for kids.

This case has been fought over for more than 11 years. It started in
Superior Court in 2005 and the Supreme Court sent it here for a trial nearly
seven years ago. After the parties spent countless hours gathering evidence and
the court heard many motions, it has had 60 days of trial stretching over a six?
month period. Over 5,000 exhibits were marked and thanks to nearly 2,000 fact
admissions they were whittled down to 826 full exhibits. Over 50 Witnesses
testi?ed, including nearly 20 education and ?nancial experts. Thousands of
pages of brie?ng have been ?led and studied. The court has made 1,060
individual ?ndings of fact in an appendix to this decision.

So nothing here was done or blindly. The court knows what its
ruling means for many deeply ingrained practices, but it also has a marrow-deep
understanding that if they are to succeed where they are most strained schools
have to be about teaching children and nothing else. If they are to succeed rather
than be overwhelmed by demands for alternative schools, public schools must
keep their promises. So change must come. The state has to accept that the
schools are its blessing and its burden, and if it cannot be wise, it must at least be

sensible. The implications here are plain:

89

 

 

 

 The state?s responsibility for education is direct and non-delegable:
it must assume unconditional authority to intervene in troubled
school districts.

0 The court can?t dictate the amount of education spending, but
spending including school construction spending must follow a
formula in?uenced only by school needs and good practices.

0 The state must de?ne elementary and secondary education
objectively, ending the abuses that in some places have nearly
destroyed the meaning of high school graduation and have left
children rising from elementary school to high school without
knowing how to read, write, and do math well enough to move up.

The state must link the terms of educators? jobs with things known
to promote better schools: it cannot churn out uselessly perfect
teacher evaluations nor can teacher pay consider solely what
degrees teachers have and how long they have been on the job.

0 The state must end arbitrary spending on special education that has
delivered too little help to some and educationally useless services
to others; it must set sensible rules for schools to follow in
identifying and helping disabled children.

The clerk will enter judgment partially favoring the plaintiffs, and the
court will schedule a hearing on remedies after reviewing the proposals the
parties begin submitting 180 days from now. The court will retain jurisdiction to

enforce the equitable constitutional decrees in this ruling.

nu

Moukawsher, J.

 

90

 

 

X07 HHD CV 14 5037565 SUPERIOR COURT

CONNECTICUT COALITION FOR  JUDICIAL DISTRICT

JUSTICE IN EDUCATION FUNDING, OF HARTFORD
INC., ET AL. 

V. COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET
M. JODI RELL, ET AL. SEPTEMBER 7, 2016

Memorandum of Decision
Appendix One:
Fact Findings
The court has found those facts it deems material to its decision and justi?ed by
the evidence. Among those things it has not found as facts are rhetorical claims by the

parties in this litigation and school of?cials? rhetorical descriptions of their schools.

1. Positive ?ndings about Connecticut?s schools

1. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the largest nationally
representative and continuing assessment of what America?s students know and can
do in various subject areas, including Reading and Math for Grades 4, 8, and 12.

2. The results from NAEP, Often called, the "The Nation's Report Card," report the
educational progress Of students across the nation and allow states to compare the
performance of their students to the performance of students in other states across
the country, including subgroups and achievement differences between groups.

3. NAEP does not test every student but uses a complex sampling design to select
representative samples of students for testing. Schools are selected to participate
based on factors such as size, location, or demographic data. Students are randomly
selected from the selected schools.

4. Performance is reported in terms of average scale scores and performance level,
speci?cally the percentage Of students at/ above the three NAEP achievements level
of basic, pro?cient, and advanced.

5. NAEP describes the pro?ciency level as "competency over challenging subject

1

matter." NAEP set its pro?ciency level before the term became pervasive in
discussing student performance because of the No Child Left Behind Act. NAEP's
pro?ciency level was intended to be an aspirational standard.

6. Data is analyzed using widely accepted statistical standards so that NAEP does
not make statements claiming performance differences unless there is a statistically
signi?cant difference.

7. Connecticut has participated in every state level assessment of NAEP since the
very ?rst administration in 1990.

8. Schools in Connecticut are required to participate in NAEP by state law passed in
1990. (General Statutes 10-239i). In addition, federal law requires any district
receiving Title I funding to participate in NAEP testing.

9. State level NAEP results for Grades 4 and 8 in Reading and Mathematics are
provided every two years. State level results for Grade 12 in Reading and Math have
been provided twice in 2009 and 2013.

10. The 2009 Grade 12 administration of NAEP was the first time that states could
elect to assess a sample of Grade 12 students large enough to yield state-level results.
In 2009, eleven states participated in the ?rst Grade 12 state level NAEP
administration. In 2013, thirteen states participated in the second Grade 12 state
level NAEP administration. Connecticut participated in both administrations of the
state level NAEP assessments for Grade 12.

11. Based on NAEP 2013 Grade 4 mathematics results, 10 states earned an average scale
score higher than Connecticut, 20 states earned scores not different, and 19 states
scored lower than Connecticut?s fourth graders.

12. Based on NAEP 2013 Grade 4 reading results, no state earned an average scale score
higher than Connecticut.

13. Based on NAEP 2013 Grade 8 mathematics results, 15 states earned an average scale
score higher than Connecticut, 14 states earned scores not different, and 20 states
scored lower than Connecticut?s eighth graders.

14. Based on NAEP 2013 Grade 8 reading results, no state earned an average scale score
higher than Connecticut.

15. Based on NAEP 2013 Grade 12 reading results, no participating state earned an
average scale score higher than Connecticut.

16. Connecticut high school seniors from the Class of 2013 outperformed students from
all other states in the 12th grade NAEP reading assessment.

17. Based on NAEP 2013 Grade 4 mathematics results, Connecticut students earned an

2

overall higher average scale score than the national public average.

18. The overall average scale score in mathematics for Connecticut?s Grade 12 students
improved in 2013 when compared to the NAEP 2009 scores.

19. Based on NAEP 2013 Grade 4 reading results, Connecticut students earned an
overall higher average scale score than the national public average.

20. Based on NAEP 2013 Grade 8 reading results, Connecticut students earned an
overall higher average scale score than the national public average.

21. When comparing Connecticut?s NAEP 2013 Grade 4 and Grade 8 mathematics and
reading results for these subgroups to NAEP 2003 performance, all subgroups
showed either an increase in performance or scores did not change.

22. When comparing Connecticut?s NAEP 2013 Grade 12 mathematics and reading
results for these subgroups to NAEP 2009 performance, all subgroups showed either
an increase in performance or scores did not change.

23. Connecticut's 2013 NAEP performance for Grade 12 Reading shows a
statistically signi?cant narrowing of the achievement gap between black and white
students from 2009 to 20 13. In addition, the results show the lower performing
black subgroup increasing at a higher rate than the higher performing white
subgroup.

24. Connecticut's achievement gaps, including the Black/ White, Hispanic/ White and
National School Lunch program (NSLP economically disadvantaged non NSLP
gaps are the same as those of Massachusetts and New Jersey based on the NAEP
Grade 12 Reading and Math assessments for the 2013 administration with the
exception of the NSLP gap for Grade 12 Math.

25. Connecticut's Black and NSLP subgroups, outperformed the nation (national
public) in the NAEP Grade 12 Reading assessment for the 2013 administration.
Connecticut's Hispanic subgroup performed no differently than the nation.

26. Connecticut's Black and NSLP subgroups improved their performance from 2009 on
the NAEP Grade 12 Reading assessment for 2013. The performance of Connecticut's
Hispanic subgroup remained the same from 2009 to 2013.

27. Massachusetts and New ersey's NSLP subgroup performance for the NAEP
Grade 12 Reading assessment for the 2013 administration is not statistically different
than that of Connecticut.

28. Connecticut's Black subgroup outperformed the nation (national public) in the

NAEP Grade 12 Math assessment for 2013. Connecticut's NSLP and Hispanic
subgroups performed no differently than the nation (national public).

3

29. The performance of the Black, NSLP, and Hispanic subgroups in Connecticut
remained the same from 2009 to 2013 for the NAEP Grade 12 Math assessment.

30. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a system of I
international assessments that aims to evaluate education systems worldwide by
testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year?old students in reading literacy,
mathematics literacy and science literacy.

31. Only four education systems in the world outperformed Connecticut in reading on
the 2012 PISA assessment.

32. Connecticut students earned an average score in reading that was higher than the
international average and higher than the US. average on the 2012 PISA assessment.

33. Only seven education systems in the world earned scores higher than Connecticut in
science on the 2012 PISA assessment.

34. Connecticut students earned an average score in science that was higher than the
international average and higher than the US. average on the 2012 PISA assessment.

35. In mathematics, 12 education systems in the world scored higher than Connecticut
on the 2012 PISA assessment.

36. Connecticut students earned an average score in mathematics that was higher than
the US. average and not different from the international average on the 2012 PISA
assessment.

37. Connecticut ranks third in the country as to the number of National Association for
the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) accredited pre-K programs,
Massachusetts being ?rst and California being second.

38. Connecticut ranks third in the country in state per pupil spending for pre-K.

2. Contrasts between rich and poor towns in Connecticut

State programs for lower performing school districts.

39. The Connecticut State Department of Education (the department) has designated
Ansonia, Bloom?eld, Bridgeport, Bristol, Danbury, Derby, East Hartford, East
Haven, East Windsor, Hamden, Hartford, Killingly, Manchester, Meriden,
Middletown, Naugatuck, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Norwalk, Norwich,
Putnam, Stamford, Vernon, Waterbury, West Haven, Winchester, Windham,
Windsor, and Windsor Locks as Alliance Districts.

4

40. Alliance Districts receive additional funding earmarked for education and delivered

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47-

48.

49.

through the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) funding to the 30 towns and cities. (An
Alliance grant constitutes the portion of an Alliance District?s ECS grant that is in
excess of the Alliance District?s Fiscal Year 2012 ECS grant, receipt of which is made
conditional on the Commissioner?s approval of an Alliance District plan.)

The following amounts were appropriated for Alliance Districts: $39,499,998 for FY
2013, $87,442,021 for FY 2014, $132,901,813 for FY 2015, and $147,487,030 for FY
2016.

In 2015-2016, an aggregate amount of $147,487,030 was awarded to Alliance
Districts.

The Connecticut commissioner of education selects schools to participate in the
Commissioner?s Network program, which is a partnership between local
stakeholders and the department. Currently, there are four cohorts of a total of 17
schools drawn from the state?s lowest performing schools that are part of the
Commissioner?s Network.

Of these 17 schools, the following are from focus districts: Bridgeport James J.
Curiale School, Marin School; East Hartford O?Brien School, East Hartford Middle
School; New Britain DiLoreto Magnet School; Windham Windham Middle
School.

In Fiscal Year 2015, an aggregate amount of $12,937,306 was awarded to
Commissioner?s Network schools.

Each Commissioner?s Network program lasts for a period of three to ?ve years.

During the course of the Commissioner?s Network program, the schools adhere to a
?Network Turnaround Plan,? which implements various reforms to improve student
achievement.

The Turnaround Plans must include: (1) speci?c academic, developmental, and
other student goals to be met in three years; (2) speci?c interim objectives to be met
in each year that the school is in the network;? (3) speci?c, dramatic, and
transformative strategies to maintain or establish; a strong family and
community connection to the school; a positive school environment; effective
leadership; effective teachers and support staff; effective use of time; an
effective curriculum and instructional program; and effective use of evidence to
inform decision-making.?

In Fiscal Year 2016, it is anticipated that an aggregate amount of $10,321,405 will be
awarded to Commissioner?s Network schools.

 

50.

The department subsidizes the cost of the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test
(PSAT) for all Alliance Districts.

51. The Priority School District (PSD), Extended School Hour (ESH) Grant initiated in

1995 is an entitlement grant that provides funding to support after school programs
in the school districts identi?ed as PSDs. The funds are used to provide academic
support, enrichment and recreational programming outside of the traditional school
day, which may include before and after school hours, weekends, summers and
vacations.

State programs for English language learners.

52.

53.

Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO) are performance targets for
English as a Second Language (ESL) students. AMAO 1 is the percentage of English
learners (ELs) who receive ESL services that have made progress in English language
acquisition. AMAO 2 is the percentage of ELs who have attained English language
pro?ciency based on the LAS links. AMAO 3 is the adequate yearly progress (AYP)
performance of the ELL subgroup on state standardized tests and where districts
have high schools, AMAO 3 includes whether EL subgroup met its graduation rate
targets. Overall AMAO means that a Title subgrantee met all three AMAOs.

The following districts failed to make overall AMAO, as of the 2012-13 academic
year, for ten years: Bridgeport, Danbury, East Hartford, Hartford, Meriden, New
Britain, New Haven, New London, Norwalk, Norwich, Stamford and Waterbury. In
contrast, Greenwich has only failed to meet the standard 1 year.

Local Financing Resources.

55-

54. The Equalized Net Grand List (ENGL) is the estimate of the market value of all
taxable property in a municipality. The state Of?ce of Policy and Management
calculates the ENGL from sales and assessment ratio information and grand list
reports ?led by municipalities. According to a report from the Of?ce of Legislative
Research, ?[w]hen measured on a per capita basis, ENGL represents the amount of
property wealth available in a town to support each resident. It is an estimate of the
market value of a town?s taxable preperty, equalized to re?ect each town?s taxable
real and personal preperty at 100 percent fair market value.?

As reported in the 2007?11 and 2009-13 editions of the Municipal Fiscal Indicators,
the Equalized Net Grand List per capita for the below municipalities, the
corresponding rank (highest to lowest) out of 169 municipalities, and the state
median for FYFY 2011 and FY 2013 are set forth in the following table.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$76,323
22 392
State Median $138,977

 

$130,321

__l?_lew London

    
        

 

 

 

56. As reported in the 2007?2011 and 2009?2013 editions of the Municipal Fiscal

Indicators, equalized mill rates for the below municipalities, the corresponding rank
(highest to lowest) out of 169 municipalities for FY 2013, the corresponding rank
(highest to lowest) out of 168 municipalities for FY 2011, and the state median mill
rates for the state of Connecticut for FY 2011 and 2013 are set forth in the following
table.

 

 
FY2013 
Equalized?

  
..DiS.tI'ict_  .. Darien 

  
Rid e?eld  .  . 
    I,
Westport . . .. .
     --  
Greenwich.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Danb

Bri rt .01

New London 18 I. 22.16

 

State Median 1 .16 1 .

57. As reported in the 2007-11 and 2009-13 editions of the Municipal Fiscal Indicators,
Median Household Income from the US. Census Bureau for the below districts, and
the corresponding rank (highest to lowest) out of 169 municipalities, and the
Connecticut State median household income (MHI) for 2011 and 2013 are set forth
in the following table.

Darien
Rid e?eld
rt 160 106
Greenwich
1;
Danb

21

Bri

rt

New London

 

State

 

 

 

 

Challenges in lower performing schools.

58. The chronic absenteeism rate for students eligible for free meals for the 2013?14
academic year was more than three times that of those who were ineligible for lunch

subsidies.

59. As reported in the 2015 CT Equity Plan, the percentage of Core Academic Teachers
with four years or less experience for teachers for all schools, schools in the high
poverty quartile, and schools in the low poverty quartile for 2013-14 are set forth in
the following table.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60. As reported in the 2015 CT Equity Plan, the percentage of all teachers with four or
less years of experience and the percentage of teacher mobility (which is the metric
used to re?ect a school?s educator retention rate) for all schools, schools in the high
poverty quartile, and schools in the low poverty quartile for 2013-14 is set forth in

the following table. 

 

gar-1906mm   - Teachers (are-aches
. - . i 4Yeajrs orLess Mobility15..
EXP-   . years

 

20.8   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Schools in the I 

 

 

 

 

 

61. As reported in the 2015 CT Equity Plan, the percentages of principals with two years
or less of experience, principals with four years or less of experience, and the
principal mobility rate for ?ve years, for all schools, schools in the high poverty

quartile, and schools in the low poverty quartile for 2013?14 is set forth in the
following table.

All Schools I. i I

Schools in the
Low Poverty


 

62. As reported in the 2015 CT Equity Plan, the percentages of Core Academic Teachers
with four years or less experience for all schools, schools in the high minority

quartile, and schools in the low minority quartile for 2013-14 are set forth in the
following table.

 

School Type COre  Teacherswith 
19f? 
All Schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

63. As reported in the 2015 CT Equity Plan, the percentages of all teachers with four

 

 

years or less of experience and the percentage of teacher mobility (which is the

metric used to re?ect a school?s educator retention rate) for all schools, schools in
the high minority quartile, and schools in the low minority quartile for 2013-14 are

set forth in the following table.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64. As reported in the 2015 CT Equity Plan, the percentages of principals with two years

 

 

 

 

 

 

or less of experience, principals with four years or less of experience, and the
principal mobility rate for ?ve years for all schools, schools in the high minority

quartile, and schools in the low minority quartile, for 2013?14, are set forth in the

following table.

 

I School Type

Principals 2

'%'Prmcip514

 Principal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yearsor Iess- Years or "less =Mobility5

 of EXp-ei'ien'cegigof  years
All Sch?ols 44-7" 64.4
 1.47:3  6.44.7-

     

yQuia-?grt?e; -- gigSchools in the 22.7 42.7 57.5
Low Minority

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65. As reported in the 2015 CT Equity Plan, the percentage of Core Academic Teachers
with four years or less of experience for 2011-12 and 2012-13 for schools in the high
minority quartile and schools in the low minority quartile is set forth in the following

table.

 

 

  

.ademic'freachers -

  

'123151

  
 
   

 . 'fgi'iwith?fo.

 

 

 

  -  34.912151? .  7537-55:3313

High Minority 30.8 29.4
Quartile Schools
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  .515 .-

 

1121 

      
 

 

 

 

 

66. As reported in the 2015 CT Equity Plan, the percentage of Core Academic Teachers
with four or less years of experience for 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013?14 for the high
poverty quartile schools and for the low poverty quartile schools is set forth in the
following table.

 

205115112Cfore 2012;133Core 
- Academic Teachers. 3 Academic: Teachers
 5 i 5' iffourior-fl?Ss years of.
. . years  . . 
High Poverty Quartile 29.0 28.4
Schools
Low Poverty, Quartile? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

67. According to the 2015 CT Equity Plan from the 2008?09 to the 2013-14 retention in
high?poverty schools was less than half of that in low poverty schools.

68. According to the 2015 CT Equity Plan, nearly 125,000 students attending high
poverty schools ?are much more likely to see staff and program changes on a
frequent basis than their peers attending low-poverty schools.?

12

69. According to the 2015 CT Equity Plan, ?[o]ver 1180 of the work force in high poverty
schools in 2008-2009 transferred to a lower-poverty school while 532 teachers
moved to a higher-poverty school.?

70. According to the 2015 CT Equity Plan, from 2008-09 to 2013-14, of
Connecticut educators moved to lower-minority schools and approximately 4.4% of
Connecticut educators moved into high minority schools.?

71. According to the 2015 CT Equity Plan, the nearly 125,000 students attending high
minority schools ?are much more likely to see staff and program changes on a
frequent basis than their peers attending low-minority schools.?

Standardized test results.

72. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the below
subgroups on the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT) Mathematics
assessment for 2012 and 2013White . 10.6% .
Black 73. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students scoring Below Basic and the percentage of students
scoring Advanced for the below districts on the CAPT Reading assessment for the
years 2012 and 2013.

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
  
 
   

 

.:917681?1Wich 1.9%


 

Danbury

   

 

 

 

 

 

5.8%

 

74. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students scoring below basic and the percentage of students
scoring advanced for the below districts on the CAPT Math assessment for the years
2012 and 2013.

 

. 1D) 

537;ij DiStri'ct  - 3'3 1013} [i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Darien 16% 557%

 - i  .    1 

 

 

 

 

 

?Ridge?eld 0.4% 48.4% 1.6% 49.3%

      
Westport 1.5% 52.3% 0.4% 59.3%

 

 

 

 

'l '5-33971%Lf
 449% 3.6% 3.83%.

 

 

 

 

 

 .- If:

Bridgeport 38.9% 2.5% 41.2% 2.5%

  .   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New London

 

 

 

75. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students scoring below basic and the percentage of students
scoring advanced for the below districts on the CAPT Science assessment for the
years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15.

..;2.o14   
.i-Below.
- ed 'BaSic 

Darien' II 44.1% 1.5% 47.9% 0.6% 51.4% 0.6%

Ri e?eld 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% ?51.8% o. . I 0.0%

rt 1.3% 47.7% 0 . 0.6% 0.7%
Greenwich . 1. 40.7% 2. . 2.2% 47.

Dianbu 18.2% 9.9% 15.2% 14.3% 21.8% 11.6% 17.6% 9.7%

Bridgeport 37.9% 2.9% 34.1% 2.1% 34.0% 4.2% 36.2% 2.3%
New 19.0% 8.2% 14.9% 9.4% 18.8% 12.0% 21.7% 11.1%
London

 .     
State 9.8% 24.7% 7.6% 26.7% 9.1% 26.7% 9.5% 25.6%

 

76. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the reported percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for all
Connecticut students and for the following subgroups 0n the Grade 3 Connecticut

 

 

 

(GMT) Reading assessment. forthe rears. 2.0.12. and 2.013th?-cient? '5  Goal  
All Students 27.6% 43.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  /o 
Black 45.9% 65.9% 47.7% 67.3%
Hispanic 46.4% 65.4% 49.9% 67.9%

 

 

77. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the reported percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the
state of Connecticut and for the below subgroups on the Grade 3 Math assessment
for the years 2012 and 2013.

All Students 1 I i  8. 

EL 1.6% 8.2%
12. o. . 

White ?21. 26.1%
Black 2.78. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the reported percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the
state of Connecticut and for the below subgroups on the Grade 5 GMT Reading

assessment for the years 2012 and 2013.

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I ii 

 

 

 



 

. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     
White 11.1% . 11.8%
Black 40.7% 58.4% 40.5%
Hispanic 40.9% 57.2% 39.6%

 

 

 

 

79. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the reported percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient 01' Goal for the
state of Connecticut and for the below subgroups on the Grade 5 GMT Math
assessment for the years 2012 and 2013.

All Students I

EL



White
Black

His




12. 

I 6. 
2.6%
2 

28.2%.


26.1%

1 
6%
0. 



8.2%
1 



. 
1.2%

 





80. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the reported percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the
state of Connecticut and for the below subgroups 0n the Grade 5 Science assessment
for the years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015.

 

 

 

 

     

20:12 

'B?lciw  

"1525;935515-212: -- (31.9211? I

All 17.6% 35.9% 18.3%

Students

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

.0525;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whlte I. . 21.9% 8.4% 23.6% 7.2% 26.7%  29.17 In
Black 39.6% 67.3% 40.8% 68% 37.5% 71.4% 45.4% 75.2%
Hispanic 36.9% 62.3% 35.8% 63% 33.5% 65.8% 41.2% 71.3%

 

81. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the state of
Connecticut and for the listed subgroups on the Grade 8 GMT Reading assessment
for the years 2011?12 and 2012?13.

5337? ii  

All Students

EL



- on?S
White
Black

'c

11.







28. 

1.2%

12.


6%



28.2%



1. 
21.6%

i 


6.8%

 

82. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the state of
Connecticut and for the listed subgroups on the Grade 8 GMT Math assessment for

 

 

 

the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. I 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     
    .. . .. 
Pro?cient. . I  -: Goal

18

 

1384.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.3% 20.3% 6.4% 22.8%
Black 29.9% 62.6% 30.6% 62.6%
HiSpanic 29.7% 59.6% 30.6% 61.3%

 

 

83. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the state of
Connecticut and for the listed subgroups on the Grade 8 Science assessment for the
years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15.

23.5% 37.5% 23.3% 7 ?38.9%
Students

EL . 8 . 6.8% 82. . 81. i 2.8%
. 21.1% . 1 20.8% 6.6%

White 11 12.1% 2 . . 22. 11.1% 
Black 8% 8 6 . 6.8% . o. 
His anic 66.1% 6.6% 66.6% 66% . 6 

 

84. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the listed
districts on the CAPT Reading assessment for the years 2011?12 and 2012?13.

19

 

 

 

   
   
    
  
 
 



 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgeport
New London

Eate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the listed
districts on the CAPT Math assessment for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13.

 

 rDistrict. --  
. -- .        
Darien 3.6% 17.5% 3.4% 11.4%
 I-   I  :1        
Ridge?eld 1.8% 16.3% I 3.5% 15.Westport 3.3% 14.1% 2.6% 10%
3           
Greenwich 8.6% 29.1% 7.8% 27.5%

 3 3             I   
Danbury 38.7% 70.2% 31.9% 63.9%

Bridgeport 63.5% 89.7% 64.5% 88.7%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

    
 
    

L9H 9n. w.
 
State

 

 

 

50.7%

86. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the listed
districts on the CAPT Science assessment for the years 2011?12, 2012-13, 2013-14,
and 2014-15.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        
     
 
 
   
 
     

 gig,  I. 
.e?eld . . . .

 

 

 

 

 
 

   i   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I New
. 5'  .

State

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

87. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the listed
districts on the Grade 3 GMT Reading assessment for the years 2011?12 and 2012-13.

21

 

Darien

Ri e?eld

rt

Greenwich

Danb . i . 
Bri rt 7 

New London . . 8.2% 

 

State 2 . 0.8% 2 

88. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the listed
districts on the Grade 3 CMT Math assessment for the years 2011?12 and 2012-13.



-
iDarien I: I I I. 
Ri e?eld . i  . %l
i i i  111.2%. 
Greenwich i I.  . %i

Bri rt 66. 

 

New London . i

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

89. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the listed
districts on the Grade 5 GMT Reading assessment for the years 2011?12 and 2012-13.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- -  
.Erid. . ort


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the listed
districts on the Grade 5 GMT Math assessment for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13.

 

 ?a - (Cl . . (D). - .
District .52 2012 .  I 2013  ?2013 
.   "Below? - - Below 3910?? -- Below- 
GOal Pro?cient .Goal' 
Darien .. 34% 96% 

 

 

 

     
Ridge?eld . 16%  . 13% 75%
  xii-996.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

91. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the listed
districts on the Grade 5 GMT Science assessment for the years 2011-12, 2012-13,
2013-14 and 2014?15.

     

   
. Bel? I

 

. . igenxz -geargj?;.
Dairie'n I  I 2.e?eld 2% 3.1%  . NI.  I.  
5.2%
Greenwich 6% 7.5%  7 . i 1 9.6%

IDanbury 23.4% I 22.7%  I 33.3%

Bridgeport 48.3%. I 50.8% I 55.6%

NewLondon 39.9% I 33.9% I 36.9%

 . - . 4.0. 
State 17.6% 18.3% 20.9%

 

 

92. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the listed
districts on the Grade 8 CMT Reading assessment for the years 2011-12 and 2012?13.

Darien

Rid e?eld

rt

Greenwich . 
Danb 26. 
Brid rt . 

New London 2. I 1.6%

 

State 1 2 2% I 1 

93. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Proficient or Goal for the listed
districts on the Grade 8 CMT Math assessment for the years 2011?12 and 2012-13.

 

   i    
9 "District'rW 250121312;?22913: - . 2013 
Below. . Below  . B-?lowv-sif. 

1  I   Pm??ie?t Goal 
1.6% 4.7% 4.1%

 

 

 3'f1;;83% 357-33353  gigfjf;

 

 

 

 

 

    ..    
Greenwich 58% . . . 17.2%  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

-  - '3 3 -   

 

 

 

 

 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

94. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not reach Pro?cient or Goal for the listed
districts on the Grade 8 GMT Science assessment for the years 2011-12, 2012?13,
2013-14 and 2014-15.

  +2012gBelow? Below  . Below. B?lfowi

        

Darien . 10.2% 1. 
Rid e?eld 6% . . 11.2% 
rt . 6. . 8% 

Greenwich . 11.6% 12.2% 10. 

Danb . . . . I 0.6%

Brie rt 6o.%

New London . 6 . 6.2% 
State 22.% 21. 

 

95. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students scoring below basic and the percentage of students

26

 

 

scoring advanced for the below districts on the Grade 3 CMT Reading assessment for
the years 2012 and 2013.

l" 3     . 

Dari-ene?eld I ?1 7.41.0%
Greenwich . 41.1% 
IDanbury 18.1% 11.7% 22.1% 11.3% I
Bridgeport. 40.9% I 3.4% I. 41.4% I 

New London 19.8% 10.8% I I 26.6%. I 5.9%

State I 15.0% 23.5% 16.8% 21.6%

 

96. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students scoring below basic and the percentage of students
scoring advanced for the below districts on the Grade 3 CMT Math assessment for

the years 2012 and 2013.

 

1' ?District  20512  2013

Darien? 0.6% 49.1% 2.6%  37.2%-

 

 

 7        
Ridge?eld . 512%-
  494%.  2:

52.3%
 

 

 

 

Westport I I

 

 

 

 

..  .   ..  .  
Greenwich 1.5% 471% 3.8% 38.Danbury 4.3% I I 10.6%" i 17.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if:  Elfin-i: 53 la.    .  . . 45,gseix?S?i?tifii?wzaizi 

 

   I.   I

          

   
  

 

 

 

97. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students scoring below basic and the percentage of students
scoring advanced for the below districts on the Grade 5 CMT Reading assessment for
the years 2012 and 2013FA?yanc9d*

Darien 3.6% . 1.7% 3 4%

Rj e?eld 32-. . II 2.6% I 48 %l
rt I 2.3% I 3.1% I I I 3.1% .-
Greenwich ?36.5% I I 5.2% I 6.9%
Danbury I. I I  14.2% i 12.3% i 13.4%   15.36% 
Bridgeport I I 37.4%. i. I 3.2% II 40.4% I I I. 3.63%? I

New London 30.3% 6.4% 33.0% 3.7%

 

State 12.7% 21.9% i II 13.1% 21.4%

98. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students scoring below basic and the percentage of students
scoring advanced for the below districts on the Grade 5 CMT Math assessment for
the years 2012 and 2013.

28

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgeport


 

.


.-

 3V

 

 

0

 

 

 

 

99. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students scoring below basic and the percentage of students
scoring advanced for the below districts on the Grade 5 GMT Science assessment for

 



I Behw
 ?Basic -  .-

ii. .i  I:  pie-:1; I 

the years 2011-12, 2012513, __2o13?14_a_nd 2014515.

-  2014

.3: f.  

Below

- 2.1014- 

2  Basic 

  

Advanc .
ed 

Below 4

Basic 

 

 

 

 

1.1%

 

     

 

 

 

Ridge?eld.._ .. . .

0.0%

 

 



 

Westport I I

 

0.6% .. .. 

 

 

122-2 .  

 

 

 

 

 

Greenwich

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgeport

 

 

 

 

 

.   

 

 

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

6.8%

6.

    

 . 

 

 

       

 

100. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students scoring below basic and the percentage of students
scoring advanced for the below districts on the Grade 8 GMT Reading assessment for
the years 2012 and 2013.

 
Rid eiield I 0.7%
it 1. 
Greenwich   

Danbury 9.7% . 10.9%

Bridgeport 25.6% . I I 26.9%

New London I 21.7% . I 19.5%
 . .--  j4 - 
State 8.0% . 8.1%

 

101. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students scoring below basic and the percentage of students
scoring advanced for the below districts on the Grade 8 GMT Math assessment for
the years 2012 and 2013.

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

102. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students scoring below basic and the percentage of students
scoring advanced for the below districts on the Grade 8 GMT Science assessment for
the years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15.

 

          

  220-12,; .2013 2.013. - 3 

       
5.35::  BaSiic-t-  ed Basic?   

 

 

 

 

 

  3 ieston:              2   .

Westportb?m 1.1% 33.7% f? 2.8% 4 33.6% 2.0% 33.7%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   -
Greenwich 5.6% 30.9% 6.3% 28.4% 6.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

  - Eff-rug?  

Bridgeport 38.9% 2.2% 40.9% 1.8% 36.5% 2.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New London 33.9% 1.3% 31.3% 4.5% 35.0% 0.6% 40.3% 1.6%

 

State 14.0% 18.1% 14.4% 17.9% 12.5% 17.5% 13.9% 15.7%

103. According to the 2012?13 District Performance Reports for the below districts, the
number of schools that fall into the Connecticut School District Classi?cations are set
forth in the following table.

 

    
 
       
 

  

 ?Progress; 
-  .  -ing-   - 
Schoolzsfeg. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 
 
  

 

 

?'tp'ort

 

 

 

enwich



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-     

 

 

 

 

 

 

104. According to the 2012-13 District Performance Reports for the below districts, the
percentage of total enrollment attending schools that fall into the Connecticut School
District Classi?cations for 2012?13 are set forth in the following table.

32

 

 

 

(A) Darien . 0.0% 0.0%

(C) Ridge?eld I 0.0% 0.0%
(E) WestPOI't . 0.0% I 0.0%
(G) GreenWiCh I . . I. . 0.0% 0.0%

(I) Danbury I . 0.0% 0.0%

(K) Bridgeport I I 18. 28.6%

17.4% 30.6%
0 on

 

105. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not meet level 3 or 4 for the state of
Connecticut and the listed subgroups 0n the Smarter Balanced assessments (SBAC)
for 2014?15.

 

  .

If  i5 i I A?hi?V?mem 2' 
2- Level 2 22:5??   

 

 

 

 

.5113Wdents 60.9% 44.0% 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

White 49.7% 32.7%
Black 86.1% 69.7%
Hispanic 82.7% 67.2%

 

106. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students that did not meet level 3 or 4 for the listed districts
on the Smarter Balanced Assessments for the 2014-15 school year.

Darien  I I  I I I 24.1% i I:  .-
Ri e?eld  I I I pl  18.0%

I. I I 27.2% i I 14.9% 
Greenwich?l  I I 36.0% I 22.2% I 

Danbury I 70.2% I 52.3%
East Hartford 83.2% 66.8%

New Britain 85.4% 77.0%

 

Windham I I 81.9% I 72.4%-

107. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following table sets
forth the percentage of students for the listed districts that were at Level 1 for the
Smarter Balanced Assessments.

34

 

 

 

 

 

5132523252};

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State 21.9% 32.4%

 

108. Based on 2013 Grade 4 NAEP Math data, the following table sets forth
Connecticut?s average scale score of each subgroup and percentage of each subgroup
at each achievement level.

 

- .   I  .eS?bgroiiP;
 Average   . -  . .. 
    - ..  em, 

.Silbsrour) . 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HiSpanic 224 35 65 19 1

 

109. Based on 2013 Grade 8 NAEP Math data, the following table sets forth
Connecticut?s average scale score of each subgroup and percentage of each subgroup
at each achievement level.

35

 

14

Hispanic 258

 

110. Based on 2013 Grade 4 NAEP Reading data, the following table sets forth
Connecticut?s average scale score of each subgroup and percentage of each subgroup
at each achievement level.

 

    
Subgroup  - -. 

(mp  
Percentag i
6 At.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hispanic 209 44 56 2O 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

111. Based on 2013 Grade 8 NAEP Reading data, the following table sets forth
Connecticut?s average scale score of each subgroup and percentage of each subgroup
 

 

 

    

 

 

1 2.2 g"
Advanced: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

284 9 91 57 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

White 282 11 89 54 8

 

 

 

 

Hispanic 256 33 67 24 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

112. The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) College and Career Readiness (CCR) Benchmark
score is 1550. The percentage of test-takers for the class of 2012 and 2013 who met
the CCR benchmark score of 1550 for the listed districts and for the state of
Connecticut are re?ected in the following table.

I?Darien Ridge?eld 74%
WI   i .. fjj.  _1 .5 
Westport 81%

. I "i  
Greenwich 69%

Danbury 34%

 

Bridgeport I I I 10%

37

 

 

 

 

113. The average SAT scores for the classes of 2012, 2013 and 2014 for the below listed
districts, as well as the state average are re?ected on the table below.

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

114. The Advanced Placement (AP) test data, released by the College Board, for 2015 for
the below listed high schools are re?ected on the table below.

 

  ?((1)357 (me3:319:51" 1'5-1532Daren  Dariean"  ?1,365 362 744m 697 ?94%

 

 

659

 

 

 

 

115. The Advanced Placement (AP) test data, released by the College Board, for 2014 for
the below listed high schools are re?ected on the table below.

Darien I Darien I
Ri 'e?eld Rid e?eld Hs

  I ISta les 
Greenwich I Greenwich. 

Danb HS .-

Bassick 

Warren Hardin

 

39

 

 

 

New Lodon HS --4

116. The Advanced Placement (AP) test data, released by the College Board, for 2013 for
the below listed high schools are re?ected on the table below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Damn   636 618 97%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 953?? i - I I
New L_ondo_n_H_S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

117. The Advanced Placement (AP) test data, released by the College Board, for 2012 for
the below listed high schools are re?ected on the table below.

40

 

Darien
Ri e?eld
rt

Greenwich

Danb

Briert

Bridgeport

New London

 

Bassick HS

Warren Harding

New London HS 

Darien HS

Ri e?eld HS
Sta les HS

Greenwich HS

Danb 118. The department reported four-year cohort graduation rates for 2012?2014 for the
listed districts are re?ected in the below table.

District": 3

Darien




Greenwich I 2
Danb

Bri 

 

Rid e?eld

 

(Ar-:3    .. .
Come-2914

Cohortg?-org _i'iCOhort I
6. 2%


8.2% 6. 

  
   
 

 --  
  t:  .1. . 
New L?'?dbn .  7 7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

119. Based on the National Student Clearinghouse Reports, the following table sets forth
the percentage of students entering four?year colleges immediately after high school
for the classes of 2012 to 2014 for the following high schools.

(A) Darienn I Darien-HS 8 
(C) Rid e?eld Rid e?eld HS I 8 8
(E) Weston I Weston HS. 8 

(G) Greenwich I Greenwich HS I 69% 
(I) Danb I I Danb  51%  
(K) Brid _'Bassick Hardin HS 20% 19%

(0) New London New London HS I 0% 0% I

 

120. Based on the National Student Clearinghouse Reports, the following table sets forth
the percentage of students entering two?year colleges immediately after high school
for the classes of 2011 to 2014 for the following high schools.

 

        
. . E?f?   .. 

'Darien 'Dafi??'Hs   1% 3% 0% 3%

 

 

Ridgefield'm'l? Ridge?eldHS? 1% 2% 2%  

Weston Weston HS I 3% 2% 1% 2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22.3

New London
HS

 

 

 

121. Based on the National Student Clearinghouse Reports, the following table sets forth
the percentage of students in the class of 2011 that were no longer enrolled in college
but had not graduated in 2012-13 and 2013-14.

IDarien HS 2.8% 
Ri e?eld Rid e?eld HS I 3.8% i 
'Westoin  I. Weston HS 1 I. 2.6% I. i  
Greenwich-I Greenwich HS I 5.2%  I I. I I. I

Danb I I Danbr  I I 1.7%

Bri rt Bassick HS 19.2% I I
Brid rt Hardin HS 1 22.5%

-  . ..    of. 
New London New London HS 11. 21. 

 

122. Based on the National Student Clearinghouse Reports, the following table sets forth

43

 

the percentage of students in the class of 2012 that were no longer enrolled in college
but had not graduated in 2013?14.

 

 

 

Greenwich HS

 

 

 
Harding HS

 

 
 
 

 

 

New London New London HS 20.5%
Windham Windham HS 13.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

123. Based on data maintained by the department, the following table sets forth the
performance levels of students who did not qualify for free or reduced lunch on the
2015 Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment for the listed districts.

 

 

 

 

 

Darien

 

 

New Canaan  

 

Ridge?eld  - --

 

Wilton  

 

Weston 5- 

 

Westport

 

I . 2:

Greenwich   

 

Bethel  -- 

 

Danbury   

 

East Hartford

 

ii  456%:

46 5

Bridgeport

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Britain  

 

44

 

 

 

    

?New London 25.1% 
Windham 24.3% 37.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124. Based on data maintained by the department, the following table sets forth the
performance levels of students who quali?ed for free or reduced lunch on the 2015
Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment for the listed districts.

     

        

Darien
New Canaan
Ridge?eld
Weston

Westport
Wilton

2 



0%





12.8% -

18.6%
2 .

20.6%
0.0%

  
 
  
 
  
   
 
  
  
  
  
 
   
 

            
     

    

                   
   

22.0%
2 .

28.Bethel 2o . 2 
Greenwich 22.2% 2 . . 1 . 
Danbury 1. 1.1% 28.6% 8.8% - 

          
    
    
   

 

         
    
      
     

East Hartford
Bridgeport

New London
New Britain
Windham



. .
 
.  

22.1%
18.
22.2%
1 0%
16. 

. 

1.1%
6.8%


2 . 
2 
1. 
6%
28.8%

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

         

          

125. Based on data maintained by the department, the following table sets forth the
performance levels of students who did not qualify for free or reduced lunch on the
2015 Smarter Balanced Mathematics Assessment for the listed districts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 . 3 
        
Darien 7.0% 16.4% 31.4% 45.2% 
New Canaan 7.4% 18.5% 28.6% 45.5%  _74.12% 
Ridge?eld 9.0% 24.2% 32.5% 34.4%  
Weston 7.4% 21.7% 32.2% 38.6%  ?370.8%-
Westport 7.8% 17.9% 29.1% 45.3%    
Wilton 13.3% 29.1% 31.4% 26.1%   
GreenWich 10.2% 19.0% 29.2% 41. 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bethel

Danbury 26.9% 31.0% 26.9%
East Hartford 41.8% 33.1% 16.9%
Bridgeport 
New Britain 41.3% 27.7% 21.2%
New London 38.6% 30.3% 20.1%
Windham 33.4% 29.9% 22.6%

 

 

126. Based on data maintained by the department, the following table sets forth the
performance levels of students who quali?ed for free or reduced lunch on the 2015
Smarter Balanced Mathematics Assessment for the listed districts.

2 

20. 
18. 
2 
0.0%
6.1%

6.127. While over 95% 0f kindergartners in Connecticut?s wealthiest districts have
attended pre-K, the percentages of those kindergarteners in Connecticut?s lower-
wealth districts who attended pre-K are generally signi?cantly lower (in the 50~70%
range).

128. Bridgeport, Danbury, East Hartford, New Britain, New London, and Windham

educate signi?cantly above?average percentages of students who live in poverty as
measured by eligibility for free or reduced price lunch (FRPL), as re?ected by the

46

 

 

following table setting forth the percentage of students who quali?ed for lunch
subsidies in each district.

 

      
   
   

 

I  I- 3      

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

129. Poorer school districts tend to have more inexperienced teachers and principals
than rich ones.

130. As Dr. Jennifer Rice King testi?ed, students in districts with higher concentrations
of poverty also had access to teachers that failed the PRAXIS I and PRAXIS II tests 
state certi?cation tests that focus on teachers' general knowledge, content
knowledge, and pedagogy - at higher rates than districts with lower concentrations of

poverty.

131. Schools that have higher concentrations of poverty have a more dif?cult time
recruiting and retaining teachers.

132. Wage premiums may be required to attract teachers to high poverty and high
minority school districts.

133. Data from Connecticut?s 2015 equity plan shows that educators leave high?poverty
districts at higher rates than low?poverty districts.

134. High-poverty, low?wealth schools have a more dif?cult time recruiting teachers to
shortage areas.

135. As re?ected in the table below, schools in low-income, high?poverty districts 

despite demonstrably greater needs have significantly fewer guidance counselors
per student.

47

 

 

v. . .  . Wes..th .

Greenwich

 .BassicthS. w.

EiffegiiEBIldEe-  {555-1511. Egi?-Efjf: 
    .. 
     
. 11(10an.  .
--  refi-      

 

 

 

 

 

The performance of Connecticut?s poor student versus poor students in
other states on standardized tests

136. Based on 2013 NAEP math data, the following table sets forth Connecticut?s
average scale score for RPL students, the corresponding national public average for
RPL students, and Whether Connecticut?s average for FRPL students is statistically

signi?cantly different from the national public average for RPL students at a
signi?cance level of 0.05.

 

Grade  Connectic National Sign'ifican
3 'ut I 'Puibl-i'cg. 113? -
Average - Average  Different
FRPL RPL . frOm
Math Math- 
Scale Scale Average?
Score Score 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

 

137. Based on 2013 NAEP reading data, the following table sets forth Connecticut?s
average scale score for FRPL students, the corresponding national public average for
FRPL students, and whether Connecticut?s average for FRPL students is signi?cantly
different from the national public average for FRPL students at a signi?cance level of

0.05.

Scale-7
.. 5?0le 

I 224.62

230.20

 

 

ConheCticut
Aircrage 
FRPL

-.;Reading
- Sea-18 Score 3' 

 

.5215? "from. "3 

  

 

 

 

 

Differentfif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

138. Based on 2013 NAEP math data, the following table sets forth Connecticut?s
average scale score for Hispanic students, the corresponding national public average
for Hispanic students, and Whether Connecticut?s average for Hispanic students is
signi?cantly different from the national public average for Hispanic students at a

significance level of 0.05.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade iCOnnecticut National} 5' Signi?can
Average - Public f: tly
Hispanic Average i Different
Math Scale Hispanic 1' from; 
Score "Math - 3 *N'atimgial 
Scale ?AVErage?
Score 224.03 230.41 Yes
  

 

 

 

139. Based on 2013 NAEP reading data, the following table sets forth Connecticut?s
average scale score for Hispanic students, the corresponding national public average
for Hispanic students, and whether Connecticut?s average for Hispanic students is

signi?cantly different from the national public average for Hispanic students at a
significance level of 0.05Reading f'f? ii I:
  

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

140. Based on 2013 NAEP math data, the following table sets forth Connecticut?s
average scale score for black students, the corresponding national public average for
black students, and whether Connecticut?s average for black students is signi?cantly

different from the national public average for black students at a signi?cance level of
0.05219.06 I

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

141. Based on 2013 NAEP reading data, the following table sets forth Connecticut?s
average scale score for black students, the corresponding national public average for
black students, and whether Connecticut?s average for black students is signi?cantly

different from the national public average for black students at a signi?cance level of
0.05.

50

 

 

142. The dropout rates of New England member states by economic status, as reported
by the New England Secondary School Consortium?s Common Data Project are set
forth in the table below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

Economically 19.7%
Disadvantaged 18.4% 0
Students 157/" 15.2 1?

Students 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economically

Disadvantaged 15.5%
Students 126% 12.2%

?NonnED Students 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

Economically
Disadvantaged
Students

Students 

 

 

 

 

 

iRhcdeiaand;  

 

 

 

 

Economically 14.5%

Disadvantaged 12.3%
Students 11.2% 9.8%

Students  3.3%  2.5% I

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont  Economically 16.8% 12.8% 18% 14.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

 

 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disadvantaged
Students

Students  4.0% I 3.5% I 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
   

 

 

 

 

 

Economlcally 16.8%

Disadvantaged 15.5%

Students 13.2% 12.3%
Students 3.6% 3.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

143. Based on 2015 NAEP math data, the following table sets forth Connecticut?s
average scale score for FRPL students, the corresponding national public average for
FRPL students, and whether Connecticut?s average for FRPL students was
statistically signi?cantly different from the national public average for FRPL
students at a signi?cance level of 0.05.

 

Grade  -3 

  
  

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2332:: fie?  
 
i -i 5-5  -.
 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

144. Based on 2015 NAEP math data for Grade 4 FRPL students, and using a
signi?cance level of 0.05, 40 jurisdictions? average scale scores for FRPL Grade 4
math were higher than Connecticut?s as a matter of statistical signi?cance, 10
jurisdictions? average FRPL Grade 4 scale scores were not different from
Connecticut?s as a matter of statistical signi?cance, and 0 jurisdictions? average

FRPL Grade 4 scale scores were lower than Connecticut?s as a matter of statistical
signi?cance.

145. Based on 2015 NAEP math data for Grade 4 RPL students, and using a
signi?cance level of 0.05, the 40 jurisdictions whose average scale scores for FRPL
Grade 4 math were signi?cantly higher than Connecticut?s as a matter of statistical
signi?cance were Indiana, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Florida,

52

 

Texas, Minnesota, North Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, Maine, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
North Dakota, Washington (state), Vermont, Nebraska, Montana, Iowa, Kansas,
Utah, New Jersey, West Virginia, Oregon, Idaho, Ohio, Arkansas, Missouri,
Delaware, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Hawaii, South Carolina,
Mississippi, Arizona, New York, Louisiana, Colorado, and Georgia.

146. Based on 2015 NAEP math data for Grade 4 RPL students, the following
jurisdictions had the ?ve lowest average scale scores for RPL students as measured
by absolute scale score averages rather than statistical signi?cance: Connecticut
(223); Michigan (223), Alabama (223), District of Columbia (222); and California
(221).

147. Based on 2015 NAEP math data for Grade 8 FRPL students, and using a
signi?cance level of 0.05, 32 jurisdictions? average scale scores for RPL Grade 8
math were signi?cantly higher than Connecticut?s as a matter of statistical
signi?cance, 16 jurisdictions? average scale scores for RPL Grade 8 math were not
different from Connecticut as a matter of statistical signi?cance, and 2 jurisdictions?
average scale scores for FRPL Grade 8 math were signi?cantly lower than
Connecticut?s average scale scores as a matter of statistical signi?cance.

148. Based on 2015 NAEP math data for Grade 8 RPL students, and using a
signi?cance level of 0.05, the 32 jurisdictions whose average scale scores for FRPL
Grade 8 math were signi?cantly higher than Connecticut?s as a matter of statistical
signi?cance were Massachusetts, Vermont, Montana, New Hampshire, Minnesota,
Indiana, Texas, Wyoming, Arizona, Maine, Washington, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon,
North Dakota, New York, Utah, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, New Jersey, Ohio,
Virginia, Hawaii, Illinois, Wisconsin, Colorado, North Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia,
Delaware, and Rhode Island.

149. Based on 2015 NAEP math data for Grade 8 RPL students, the following
jurisdictions had the lowest average scale scores for FRPL students as measured by
absolute scale score averages rather than statistical signi?cance: Connecticut (261);
Louisiana (260); Alabama (254), and the District of Columbia (254).

High School Graduation Facts

150. State law guides local districts in establishing their high school graduation
policies. General Statutes 10-223a provides in relevant part that "each local
and regional board of education shall specify the basic skills necessary for graduation
. . . and include a process to assess a student's level of competency in such skills. The
assessment criteria shall include, but not be exclusively based on, the results of the
mastery examination, in section 10?14n, for students in grade ten or eleven. Each
local and regional board of education shall identify a course of study for those
students who have not successfully completed the assessment criteria to assist such
students to reach a satisfactory level of competency prior to graduation." General

53

 

Statutes 10-223a 

151. General Statutes 10?14n provides in relevant part that the "mastery
examination" means "an examination or examinations, approved by the State Board
of Education, that measure essential and grade?appropriate skills in reading, writing,
mathematics or science." General Statutes 10-14n.

152. General Statutes 10?14n provides that "No public school may require
achievement of a satisfactory score on a mastery examination, or any subsequent
retest on a component of such examination as the sole criterion of promotion or
graduation." Thus, satisfactory completion of the mastery examination is part of, but
not solely, what a local district must consider in the construction of its local
graduation requirements.

153. The current mastery examination referenced in sections 10?223a and 10-14n is the
SAT.

154. Neither 10-223a nor 10?14n provide for a minimal required score on the mastery
examination in order for a student to graduate. The legislation provides that there
will be a mastery examination, and that the board adopts the particular examination,
but that it is up to the local districts to set a minimum score on the mastery
examination in order for a student to graduate.

155. Prior to July 1, 2013, the mastery examination for high school was the
CAPT, administered in grade 10. For the 20:13?14 and 2014?15 school years, the high
school level mastery examination for reading, writing and mathematics was the
SBAC, administered in grade 11, and the CAPT for science, administered in grade 10.

156. In the 2013?14 school year, the SBAC assessment was given as a ?eld test only,
so results were not available. Therefore, the baseline year for the SBAC assessment is
2014-15. In 2015-16, the high school level mastery examination for reading, writing
and mathematics was changed from the SBAC to the SAT, administered in grade 11,
and was again the CAPT for science, administered in grade 10.

157. The department has provided model high school graduation policies to districts that
it distributed to all superintendents in the state and makes publicly available on its
website. The Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE), a CCJEF
member, also develops model policies for districts. The department has worked
directly with CABE to develop model policies for boards of education in the area of
local graduation requirements.

158. In accordance with 10?223a the department has set up achievement levels on
the mastery examinations that can be used by local districts. For example, local
districts decided whether "a satisfactory level of basic skills competency" on the

54

 

 

CAPT test was either at goal or pro?ciency, based on guidance from the department?s
achievement level descriptors. Under the SBAC test, the desired achievement level
was level 3. The achievement level descriptor for grade 11 stated that "students
performing at [level 3] are on track for likely success in rigorous high school
coursework and entry level, credit?bearing college coursework or career training."
Through such descriptors, the department conveys its expected level of performance
to all districts. Achievement levels on the redesigned SAT, which was used for the
?rst time in 2015-16, have not yet been established. Setting these standards ?rst
requires review and use of the SAT results from 2015-16. Once that occurs, the SAT
will also become part of the Next Generation Accountability System.

159. Under 10-223a where a student does not meet whatever satisfactory level
of competency on a mastery examination a school district chooses to adopt, other
ways of demonstrating competency prior to graduation can be used. For example, in
New Britain during Sharon Locke's tenure as Chief Academic Of?cer, ending in
2013?14, if a student scored basic or below basic on the CAPT test, that student could
take an alternative assessment that New Britain created in-district. Or if a student
had an individualized education plan (IEP), that student could do a portfolio
presentation or demonstrate pro?ciency in some other way. New Britain would offer
intervention classes for students below pro?cient at high school level. Students
would also continue to take the in-house performance measure until they
demonstrated mastery. The in-house test used the constructs of the CAPT
assessment. Students could also demonstrate mastery on the SAT test. Similarly, in
East Hartford, if a student did not reach pro?ciency on the CAPT, he she would take
an additional class and could earn pro?ciency through successful completion of that
class.

160. General Statutes 10-221a sets high school graduation requirements
related to the completion of credits. For example, 10?221a and (0) set the
requirements for credit completion for classes graduating from 2004 to 2020, and
2021 and thereafter, respectively. In 2021, the graduation standards will increase
from 20 to 25 credits, with more speci?city as to the composition of those credits.

161. While the current minimum requirement is 20 credits, some districts have a tiered
- credit system. In Windham, for example, students need to complete at a minimum
21 credits to graduate. Students can also complete 25 credits to graduate with
distinction.

162. General Statutes 10-221a provides that "Commencing with classes graduating
in 2021, and for each graduating class thereafter, local and regional boards of
education shall provide adequate student support and remedial services for students
beginning in grade seven. Such student support and remedial services shall provide
alternate means for a student to complete any of the high school graduation
requirements or end of the school year examinations described in subsection of
this section, if such student is unable to satisfactorily complete any of the required
courses or exams. Such student support and remedial services shall include, but not

55

 

 

be limited to, (1) allowing students to retake courses in summer school or through an
on?line course; (2) allowing students to enroll in a class offered at a constituent unit
of the state system of higher education, as de?ned in section 10a?1, pursuant to
subdivision (4) of subsection of this section; (3) allowing students who received a
failing score, as determined by the Commissioner of Education, on an end of the
school year exam to take an alternate form of the exam; and (4) allowing those
students whose individualized education programs state that such students are I
eligible for an alternate assessment to demonstrate competency on any of the ?ve
core courses through success on such alternate assessment.?

163. In 2013, legislation was passed that allows school districts to move toward a
"mastery-based diploma," Where students can accumulate credits based on
demonstrations of competencies rather than on the number of hours that they spend
in class. General Statutes 10?221a provides in relevant part that "Determination
of eligible credits shall be at the discretion of the local or regional board of education,
provided the primary focus of the curriculum of eligible credits corresponds directly
to the subject matter of the speci?ed course requirements. . . . For purposes of this
section, a credit shall consist of not less than the equivalent of a forty-minute class
period for each school day of a school year except for a credit or part of a credit
toward high school graduation earned (1) at an institution accredited by the Board of
Regents for Higher Education or Of?ce of Higher Education or regionally accredited,
(2) through on-line coursework that is in accordance with a policy adopted pursuant
to subsection of this section, or (3) through a demonstration of mastery based on
competency and performance standards, in accordance with guidelines adopted by
the State Board of Education."

164. Under General Statutes 10-221a in June, 2015, the Connecticut State Board of
Education (the board) adopted a set of guidelines for school districts that are
permissively moving toward a mastery-based credentialing system. Currently there
are about twenty high schools in Connecticut that utilize mastery?based
credentialing, including schools in New Haven (including a Commissioner's Network
school) and Windsor Locks, both Alliance Districts.

165. The board guidelines on mastery-based learning are designed to support local
decisions regarding policy, practice and community engagement. The guidelines are
developed so that student expectations for mastery-based learning align with state
content standards. They also include provisions for multiple pathways for learning
and local accountability for the implementation of equitable learning for all students.
Under the guidelines, students must demonstrate mastery in order to advance. The
intent is to create increased ?exibility for students, teachers, schools, districts and
their communities to design and individualize learning in alignment with state
content standards and frameworks. The standards are objective in each content area.
Additionally, the department will develop a series of resources for local use and
distribute these resources in multiple ways including using a website. The
department also has a staff member dedicated to mastery?based learning.

56

 

166. For a state?issued high school diploma, the department uses an objective measure,
the General Educational Development (GED) exam and its objectively
established passing standards, to determine the student eligibility for a high school
diploma.

167. In 2010, the board adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English
Language Arts and Mathematics. In 2015, the board adopted the Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS). As a result, the state has (1) set more rigorous curricular
standards focused on college and career readiness (Common Core State Standards
and Next Generation Science Standards), (2) aligned mastery examinations to those
more rigorous standards (SBAC, redesigned SAT, and CAPT in science), and (3) set
or will be setting (in the summer of 2016) achievement level goals for those
examinations (level 3 for SBAC, pro?ciency or goal for CAPT, and SAT levels to be
set in summer 2016). The state has also provided substantial support and guidance
to districts, and devoted considerable ?nancial resources to assist districts in
implementing the new standards and tests.

168. Like the old standards and tests, the new standards and tests provide information
the state uses to focus additional resources in school districts. The standards and
tests do not determine student graduation or promotion or currently have any
required role in teacher evaluation.

169. General Statutes 10-223g requires school districts with dropout rates of 8% or
more establish online credit recovery programs and also requires each school in the
district to designate an online credit recovery coordinator.

170. No one in the department has responsibility for evaluating the statutorily required
online credit?recovery programs.

171. The increase in online credit-recovery courses allows students who are behind on
credits to catch up and graduate through programs that are not as rigorous and do
not have the same standards as traditional coursework.

172. As department commissioner Dianna Wentzell and deputy commissioner Ellen
Cohn testi?ed, one reason Connecticut moved in 2010 to reform academic standards
was concern that high school graduates were not prepared for adult life after high
school.

173. Contrasts between very low SAT college and career ready scores and high
graduation rates exist in poor communities across the state:

57

 

 

 

 

Most recent SAT college Graduating but
graduation career ready not ready 
Municipality rate 

 

 

     

 

Waterbury 67.9% 15% 52.9%

 II ii; #55;   347.7% 

174. While there is some gap in most communities, it is pretty small in Connecticut?s
wealthier towns:

58

 

 

 

Municipality Most recent SAT college Graduating but
graduation career ready not ready 

 

 

.-  

 

 

I New Canaan

    
   2   .

 

 

 

175. According to the state?s statistics, more than 70% 0f impoverished students in the
state?s public higher education system and 70% of all Connecticut community college
students must be taught basic literacy and numeracy skills. Public Act 14?217, 209
now requires these schools to embed remedial work in credit-bearing courses
rather than in stand?alone remedial courses.

176. As the state?s chief education performance of?cer, Ajit Gopalakrishnan, testi?ed,
the higher education remediation rates show that the state?s high schools are
graduating students unprepared for higher education.

177. In 2014, the statewide graduation rate increased 1.5 points to 87.0 percent?up for a
total 5.2 points since 2010.

178. In 2014, black, Hispanic, and RPL students continued to outpace the statewide
average yearly increase in graduation rates at 2.9 points, 3.8 points, and 3.8 points,
respectively. Over the last four years, graduation rates increased by nearly 10 points
for black students, by 10 points for Hispanic students, and by 13.2 points for low-
income students.

179. The Educational Reform Districts, a subset of the Alliance Districts constituting the
10 lowest performing in the state, showed a 25?point gain as compared with 2013.
New Haven Public Schools, an educational reform district, increased 13 points since
2010 to a 75.5 percent graduation rate in 2014.

180. The graduation rate gap between black students and white students decreased to a
136? point gap?down from 20 points in 2010. Overall, the gap has decreased 6.4
points since 2010. That?s a gap closure of 31.8 percent.

59

 

181. The graduation rate gap between Hispanic students and white students decreased
to an 18.3?point gap-down from 24.7 points in 2010. Overall, the gap decreased 6.4
points since 2010. That?s a gap closure of 26.1 percent.

182. Using FRPL eligibility as an indicator of family wealth, the graduation rate gap
between low-income students and their more af?uent peers decreased to a 17.9?point
gap?down from 25.7 points in 2010. Overall, the gap decreased by 7.8 points since 7
2010. That?s a gap closure of 30.2 percent.

183. Rising graduation rates may not re?ect that more students are prepared
academically at the time of graduation or have met the appropriate standards for
graduation.

184. From 2004 through 2010, 41% of high school graduates in Connecticut completed a
postsecondary degree.

185. Commissioner Wentzell admitted that the need for postsecondary school
remediation classes is a concern because it shows that some Connecticut public
school graduates are not college and career ready.

186. Department Chief Performance Of?cer Gopalakrishnan admitted that the data
shows that the state is graduating high school students unprepared for higher
education.

187. In 2014, the Preschool Through Grade Twenty WorkForce Information Network
(P20 WIN) evaluated postsecondary outcomes achieved by the high school
graduation cohort of 2010 in Connecticut?s State University and Community College
systems.

188. P20WIN found that 48% of the students from the 2010 graduating cohort who
enrolled in the State?s University and Community College systems were enrolled in
remedial coursework. The numbers of students with some remediation were much
higher for students who were part of a subgroup: 77% for 74% for students with
disabilities; 71% for students eligible for free lunch; and 64% for students eligible for
reduced lunch.

189. Department Commissioner Wentzell admitted that close to 70 percent of
Connecticut public school graduates enrolled in community colleges require
remediation in reading or math.

190. The High School Graduation Task Force, of which Commissioner Wentzell was a

60

 

 

member, concluded ?that the 2021 graduation requirements are in urgent need of a
major overhaul in order to align well with the objective of every student meeting the
[the board?s] Standards.?

191. The Report of the High School Graduation Task Force states that the 2021
graduation requirements ?must clearly specify what have come to be known as 21St
Century Skills: skills students must acquire in order to be successful from graduation
after high school whether they pursue further academic education, education for a
speci?c career or enter the world of work.? It called for new standards to have ?rigor?
and ?alignment.? It spoke mostly in generalities, and while it said ?mastery? is more
important than ?seat time,? it suggested weakening year-end mastery tests expected
to acquire force in 2020. The report never suggested any way students should be
required to show they have mastered high school material. The report said, ?the task
force wishes to make it very clear that it is not denigrating the importance of
acquiring academic knowledge and skills . . . . 

192. The state dedicated in 2012-13 and each subsequent year for
implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). That investment
included professional development, the CCSS website, and direct funding to districts
for implementing CCSS in their schools. Districts are also using Alliance District
funding for CCSS implementation. The state has also provided substantial funding
in technology grants to help districts align their technology to the CCSS, SBAC and
redesigned SAT.

193. The department also provides professional development to districts for
implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards. Regional Educational
Service Centers (RESCs) also provide professional development for CCSS curriculum
development that has informed the work of districts, including Danbury and
Windham. Teachers in Alliance Districts can attend the department?s CCSS
trainings for free. Alliance District funding has also been used to purchase supplies,
instructional materials and technology aligned to the CCSS.

194. The department has a fully dedicated staff member for NGSS assessments and
another for NGSS implementation. The department has also contracted with the CT
Science Center to develop professional development to train teachers, sample
curriculum units and lessons, and perform tasks.

195. The department also provides supports to districts regarding standardized
assessment testing and technology training for tests such as the SBAC and SAT.

196. The SBAC and newly redesigned SAT tests are designed to align with the more
rigorous CCSS.

197. As part of establishing the SAT as the mastery examination for 11th graders, all

61

 

students are afforded free access to the examination and can bene?t from the
information and supports that accompany the examination which encourage
students to think about college. The state also offers free SAT preparation classes for
students through a partnership with Khan Academy.

198. The state also pays for the universal administration of the PSAT in the Alliance
Districts. The PSAT offers predictive information relative to AP potential. The
department sends letters to individual students who achieve a certain score on the
PSAT encouraging them to ask their schools and districts about the availability of AP
courses.

199. Connecticut's Next Generation Accountability System (NextGen system) publishes
Information on school performance and is an indicator of whether students have
been served well by their district. It helps inform the state about the need to support
or intervene in local school districts.

200. The NextGen system and its supports are a way in which the state provides
information related to whether the state is graduating students who are prepared for
college or career. The system gives weight to high school graduation rates but
weighs mastery related factors signi?cantly higher.

201. The NextGen system looks at graduation in two ways -- one is the 4-year rate; the
other is the 6-year rate for high needs students. Both the 4? and 6-year rates are
weighted equally. The 4-year graduation rate (indicator 8) is weighted at 100, which
is only 8% of the total index for a given school or district. The 6?year graduation rate
for high needs students (indicator 9) is also weighted at 100, which encourages
districts to retain and reengage high needs students to ensure that they are ready
academically before graduating. Despite pushback from the United States
Department of Education (USDOE), the department fought hard to include the 6?
year graduation rate in the NextGen system, and listened to feedback from
superintendents, such as Dr. Sal Pascarella in Danbury, who wanted the 6-year rate
to be part of the system because high needs students such as English learners might
need more time to reach grade level.

202. Under the NextGen system, if a district's 4-year graduation rate is, for example,
70%, the district does not get 0 points for indicator 8. Instead, it would get 74.46 out
of 100 points (94 is the state's 4-year graduation rate target).

203. In addition to the graduation rates themselves, the NextGen system has other
indicators that emphasize academic readiness based on test-based measures; this
includes the performance index for state mastery examinations (indicators 1 and 2),
as well as performance on (International Baccalaureate) exams and
workplace experience (indicators 5 and 6). Indicators 5 and 6, 50 points each in the
index, are for preparation for postsecondary and career readiness coursework and
exams, respectively. So, districts are rewarded for exposing students to college and

62

 

career coursework and exams. Indicator 5, which is an opportunity access indicator,
includes coursework such as AP, IB, dual enrollment coursework, career and
technology education (CTE) coursework, and workplace experience "courses."
Indicator 6 is for students achieving college and career readiness benchmark in
assessments including SBAC 11th grade, SAT, ACT, AP and 1B.

204. Additionally, Indicator 7 in the NextGen system awards points to schools and
districts for the percentage of 9th grade students earning at least 5 full year credits in
the year and no more than one failing grade in English, math, science or social
studies.

205. The department is unaware of any school in CT where none of the students are at
grade level. Under the NextGen system's recent index results, several high needs
groups in focus district schools are outperforming the statewide high needs group
average in one or more subjects, including 10 schools in Bridgeport, 6 schools in New
Britain, 4 schools in East Hartford, and 2 schools in New London.

206. While graduation rates have increased, the state has not lowered its graduation
standards. The state has never had any objective, mandatory standard and does not
now.

207. Pressure to give out more high school diplomas has come from within school
districts and within the culture generally, only part of that pressure comes from the
in?uence of state and federal government. In the wake of this pressure, the state?s
system allows local school districts to give in to it by adopting standards loose
enough to permit unready students to graduate.

208. Bridgeport superintendent Fran Rabinowitz and Windham superintendent Patricia
Garcia admitted that despite their resistance this pressure has left their schools
graduating students who should not be graduating. When asked by the court: ?Could
a functionally illiterate person get a high school degree from Bridgeport?? without
hesitation, Rabinowtiz answered ?Yes.? She said she hoped it didn?t happen often
and couldn?t say if it did. Both Rabinowitz and Garcia work to see that students are
ready to graduate, and Superintendent Rabinowitz held back some students she
believed were not using online credit recovery properly.

209. East Hartford High School?s principal said his school is graduating more and better
educated students today than it was ten years ago.

210. Graduation rates are up at all of Connecticut?s troubled school districts but CAPT,
PSAT, SAT, and secondary school remediation rates unequivocally re?ect that these
schools are graduating large numbers of students who are not college or career
ready.

211. Most of these schools are making some forms of progress lowering absenteeism

decreasing suspension rates and making in some cases modest increases in tests
scores. These events don?t suggest that the growing gaps between test scores and

63

graduation rates are going to heal themselves. These gaps are growing as test scores
in troubled schools hover at very low points, worsening in some places as graduation
rates continue to climb.

212. To work on compliance with new graduation requirements, Bridgeport will be
establishing a high school graduation committee, comprised of Aresta Johnson,
Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, the district's director of guidance, a
principal in the district, and other administrators, counselors and teachers in the
district.

213. In its Alliance plan, Bridgeport has added additional supports, including, but not
limited to, literacy and math coaches to support scienti?c research-based
interventions (SRBI) by providing embedded professional development to teachers
to improve instruction and differentiation for all students, as well as interventionists,
intervention and enhancement at the elementary level, and attendance intervention
of?cers at the high school. Bridgeport high schools have literacy interventionists
available to students. Bridgeport also has literacy programs in reading, such as
myOn, Wilson Just Words, and American Reading Company, and in math, such as
Math. Bridgeport has also received SRBI training through the State
Personnel DeveIOpment Grant (SPDG), Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) training through the School Climate Transformation Grant (SCTG),
and additional support through the Safe Schools and Health Student Grant (SSHS),
such as well-managed classroom training, which trains teachers in better responding
to the social and emotional needs of children, and the hiring of three additional
social workers. The well?managed classroom training is also provided to New
Britain through the SSHS grant.

214. Bridgeport also uses the Ruler Program, which provides training to teachers and
administrators in social and emotional support for students. This program uses
private funding as well as funding through the Safe Schools and Health Students
Grant, and is relatively inexpensive. As a result of this training, Bridgeport has seen
attendance improving and both chronic absenteeism and out?of-school suspensions
decreasing.

215. In Bridgeport, based on results from interim assessments, students are making
incremental positive changes in test scores in reading and math, and showing growth
in behavioral components, such as chronic absenteeism and both in- and out-0f?
school suspensions.

216. More recently, Bridgeport elementary students have made academic progress on
Academic Improvement Measurement System Web assessments, which
is on the approved list of early reading screening tests that Priority School Districts
are required to administer in grades The test re?ects whether a student is on
grade level for literacy and math. The results show that from the winter of
2015 to the winter of 2016, across the board, for grades 1?9, the number of students
scoring below the 25th percentile declined for reading ?uency, comprehension and

64

 

math. The percentage of students scoring in the 50th and 75th percentiles grew. In
addition to comparing scores one year to the next, the district also looked at cohort
scores over time, and found in almost all cases students did better in 2016 than in
2015. Superintendent Rabinowitz said that these gains were because of a heavy
emphasis on reading and math. She added, "what we can say is growth is taking
place across the grades," and that "it makes sense that if students are better readers,
they should perform better on other assessments that require reading."

217. Five years ago, Danbury Public Schools eliminated all "low track" courses for
high school students, and instead integrated classes. As a result, there is more
diversity in classes, and gains have been realized in having advanced students in the
same class as struggling students for role modeling and mentoring. In Pascarella?s
View, these students now feel part of the culture and climate of the school by having
access to all programs. If students are struggling academically, they are provided
special support, which has been aided by the use of grants. Instruction is now
differentiated in order to integrate the different tiers of students in the classroom.
The district uses professional development to train teachers to differentiate
instruction.

218. Danbury Public Schools claim they do not "socially promote," do not advance
students who do not earn the required credits. The EXCEL program in Danbury
offers college preparation to lower income and future ?rst generation college
students. Middle school students move up to Upward Bound at the high
school level. Some student success has been proven in the program's retention rate
and rate of attendance at four?year colleges. Alternative schools provide credit
recovery options for students. See General Statutes 10?221a (D. For example,
New Britain's Satellite Careers Academy is an alternative school located in a separate
building from the high school that assists overaged, undercredited students to
graduate.

219. High school graduates who may not have attained college level literacy may be
required to take a remedial course upon entering college. This is a national
phenomenon, and remediation rates tend to be higher at community colleges than at
state universities.

220. In response to the remediation issue, the legislature passed Public Act 12-40,
amended by Public Act 14-217, ?209. This law shifted the state from a
developmental remediation to a model of embedded transitional instruction, where
students will receive their remedial education either embedded in college level
classes, through an intensive remedial course, or via transitional programs
associated with the community college structure. It also requires the Board of
Regents to examine the effectiveness of the remedial coursework and how students
are getting identi?ed for the remedial coursework.

4. Primary School Facts

65

 

221. Connecticut's Of?ce of Early Childhood (CEO) is one of only four cabinet?level state
agencies in the country, including Massachusetts, Washington, and Georgia, which
focus exclusively on early childhood education.

222. OEC is responsible for the delivery of services and programs that were formerly
handled by ?ve state agencies for children birth to age 5. These programs and
services now reside in one of its four divisions of Early Care and Education,
Licensing, Family Support, and Quality Improvement.

223. OEC has a budget of $350 million.

224. Early childhood education for 3? and 4-year olds (also known as pre?kindergarten,
pre-K, or preschool) is an important component of providing adequate and equitable
educational opportunities.

225. Early educational experiences in the ?rst ?ve years of life set the foundation for
learning through the rest of a child?s life. Commissioner Dr. Myra ones-Taylor
testi?ed that the earliest years of childhood are the most important in setting
children on a solid path.

226. Gaps in academic performance between groups of students based on income and
race known as achievement gaps are strongly associated with gaps in early
learning experiences and early preparation.

227. Dr. Robert Villanova, a respected former Farmington school superintendent,
testi?ed that the effects of poverty are apparent in preschool screenings and
kindergarten orientation, and that students in higher?poverty districts have more
students coming in with de?cits that make success in the early grades challenging.

228. Dr. Eric Hanushek of Stanford University testi?ed that there is considerable
information to support the conclusion that children from disadvantaged
backgrounds come to school less prepared than those from more advantaged
backgrounds.

229. An analysis of results for the Kindergarten Entrance Inventory assessment by
district reference groups (DRG) conducted by Plaintiffs? expert Dr. Steven Barnett
showed that children in the lower socio-economic DRGs are signi?cantly more likely
to be poorly prepared at kindergarten entry than children from higher socio-
economic DRGs.

230. Achievement gaps based on income and race emerge in early childhood, and
increase as children go from ages three to ?ve. Low?income children are exposed to
far less language in terms of both number of words and breadth of vocabulary. This
leads to gaps in vocabulary that are evident throughout the early years but

66

 

 

particularly by age ?ve, as well as gaps in literacy skills, mathematics knowledge and
skill, social skills, and emotional self-regulation.

231. These achievement gaps persist through subsequent elementary and secondary
education. Children who begin behind when they reach kindergarten often remain
behind their peers as they continue in school, even if they make progress year-over?
year.

232. It is undisputed that high-quality preschool has been shown to have a large effect
on closing these achievement gaps, with a large impact on the gaps at kindergarten
entry and a continuing impact in later grades.

233. The achievement gap is an effect of a gap in opportunities between students in
poverty and other students. Exposure to high-quality preschool experiences is a key
policy to reduce that gap in opportunities, reduce the gap in achievement, and
ameliorate the challenges that poverty presents for children.

234. Because they have less exposure to language, books, and other resources, children
in poverty typically come to school with signi?cant language de?cits. Remedying the
gap in exposure between students in poverty and other students involves preschool
exposure and early interventions with students in need.

235. The department?s Position Statement on Early Childhood Education states that ?in
order to close Connecticut's achievement gap, state? and publicly?supported early
childhood programs must join forces to meet the needs of our youngest learners. All
early childhood stakeholders must address the achievement gap early in order to
maximize success for all students.?

236. Commissioner ones?Taylor testi?ed that she agreed with the board?s position
statement, and that high-quality preschool is an important component of closing the
achievement gap.

237. In 2013, Governor Dannel Malloy wrote to the federal government as part of
Connecticut?s unsuccessful application for Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge
funding that ?Connecticut's reality remains that one in four children enters
Kindergarten without the skills, knowledge, and behaviors, needed to succeed 
reducing their chances of reaching their educational potential and contributing to
the worst achievement gap of any state in the country.?

238. To the extent that low-income families cannot access a high-quality preschool
program, that leads to an opportunity gap between children who have access to high-
quality preschool and those who do not.

239. Dr. Robert Villanova agreed that a major part of preparing students to be college

and career ready would be to begin in the early years and prepare students to enter
kindergarten with the advantages that a preschool experience provides.

67

 

240. State experts Dr. Eric Hanushek and Dr. Richard Seder both agreed that the
research shows positive bene?ts from preschool for low-income or minority
students.

241. Hanushek agreed that preschool would rank highly among efforts to improve
student performance, and that it would ?make sense? to have more preschool
programs for students in poverty. 

242. All children bene?t from a high-quality preschool experience, but there are
particularly strong bene?ts for at?risk children such as children in poverty and
English Learners.

243. Commissioner ones?Taylor agreed that preschool is bene?cial for all students.

244. High?quality preschool develops children?s executive functions, which include skills
like short-term memory, ability to pay attention, and ability to control emotions.
These skills help to develop children?s ability to learn.

245. Commissioner ones?Taylor testi?ed that children who attend preschool have
richer language acquisition and are better able to self-regulate emotionally.

246. Children who attend high-quality preschool programs bene?t academically, socio-
emotionally, and physically. Bene?ts from a high-quality preschool program include
student familiarity with letters, sounds and numbers; understanding how to write a
message; understanding how to interact with non-family adults; understanding how
to use language to resolve con?ict; and developing large and ?ne motor skills.

247. There are signi?cant differences in kindergarten readiness between children who
have attended preschool and those who have not. Children who have attended
preschool are more ready to access the kindergarten curriculum and are less in need
of additional instruction to catch them up right from the beginning.

248. Children who enter kindergarten without having had a preschool experience often
lack basic skills to function in a classroom, basic academic skills, and basic socio-
emotional skills. This creates a tremendous challenge for kindergarten teachers to
meet the needs of these students as well as the needs of their other students, and has
a negative impact on the education for all students.

249. High?quality preschool has the effect of lowering rates of identi?cation for special
education services and lowering the rates of students being retained (held back) for
one or more grades.

250. Effective preschool programs have been shown to produce a number of long-term
gains, including increased achievement test scores, decreased need for special
education and grade repetition, decreased behavioral problems, higher graduation
and employment rates, higher lifetime earnings, reductions in involvement with the

68

 

criminal justice system, reductions in the probability of being on welfare, and
improved health measures.

251. Commissioner ones?Taylor agreed that high-quality preschool has long?term
bene?ts, including lower rates of dependence on social services later in life, lower
rates of drug addiction, lower rates of teen parenthood, and a higher likelihood of
owning their own home. For society, having children attend high-quality preschool
is a very good thing.

252. Characteristics of high-quality preschool programs include high-quality teachers
who are knowledgeable and have the disposition to work with young children, strong
leadership and supervision, continual professional development for teachers and
assistant teachers, a strong developmentally appropriate curriculum, and reasonably
small classes, in addition to basic health and safety of apprOpriate facilities.

253. High-quality programs will include the components based upon the state standards
for the development of young children, which are standards for what children should
know and can do prior to entering kindergarten. Those standards are important so
that children arrive at kindergarten able to meet the requirements of the
kindergarten standards.

254. Research has shown that two years of preschool for ages three and four)
provides greater bene?ts than a single year at age four.

255. Connecticut does not have in place a quality rating and improvement system
(QRIS), which is a system to assist with improving the quality of programs and
ultimately assessing and rating program quality. Connecticut is one of a handful of
states that does not have such a system in place. Connecticut is in the process of
developing and implementing the quality improvement aspect of such a system, with
the rating system to come at a later (as yet unspeci?ed) time.

256. Currently, the CBC does not itself evaluate the quality of preschool programs, but
uses accreditation by the NAEYC as a proxy for quality.

257. Connecticut has engaged a national expert, Ann Mitchell, to conduct a cost?of-
quality study, using a tool developed by Augenblick, Palaich Associates and Ms.
Mitchell. This is a cost study to determine, based on various inputs, what the actual
cost of providing high?quality preschool is. The intention is to use this cost study to
devise a standardized reimbursement rate.

258. The cost?of-quality study was not completed at the time of Commissioner ones?
Taylor?s testimonyJune 30, 2016.
259. Teacher compensation is a major factor in the quality of preschool programs. If

teacher compensation is a community-based program is substantially lower than
comparable positions in public schools, the community programs are likelier to have

69

 

 

difficulty retaining teachers and therefore to have a greater number of inexperienced
teachers.

260. Commissioner ones-Taylor testi?ed that preschool teachers are an underpaid
profession, particularly for teachers who have bachelor?s degrees.

261. The average teacher salary for preschool teachers in School Readiness non-public
school settings is $33,939, compared to $53,045 for preschool teachers in School
Readiness public schools, and $71,709 for public school elementary teachers.

262. Commissioner ones-Taylor supports requiring preschool teachers to have
bachelor?s degrees. She said that preschool teachers with bachelor?s degrees are not
necessarily better than those without them but she believed that requiring these
degrees would increase respect for the work and increase pay for the teachers.

263. Connecticut has legislation that requires that half? of all teachers in state-funded
programs have a bachelor?s degree by 2017, and all teachers in state?funded
programs must have a bachelor?s degree by 2020. Those deadlines have been
pushed back by the legislature several times.

264. Commissioner ones-Taylor testi?ed that it is a challenge to attract and retain
preschool teachers currently because salaries are not necessarily rising at the same
pace as the requirements.

265. Connecticut?s primary state funding for preschool is through the School Readiness
grant program. The school readiness program is a grant program which provides
funding for spaces in approved programs for eligible children in selected districts
(both priority and competitive School Readiness districts).

266. School Readiness is a mixed delivery model, which means that funding can be
provided for slots in community-based settings as well as public school-based
settings.

267. Parents pay fees for children in School Readiness slots according to a sliding scale
set by the state.

268. A smaller number of children are served through other programs, including state
and federal Head Start, state and federal daycare, the Federal Preschool
Development Grant, and the State Smart Start program.

269. With the exception of small numbers of students who are enrolled at school
districts? costs, preschool is not counted as part of the ECS formula and state funding
is not provided through the formula for preschool education.

270. School Readiness reimbursement rates are set by statute and vary depending on

the type of program (full-day, school-day, party?day, or extended-day). Currently
the rates are $8,924 for full-day, $6,000 for school day, $4,500 for part day, and

70

 

$2,722 for extended day.

271. The reimbursement rates are not intended to cover the full cost of providing
preschool. This causes a concern for providers, and causes some providers to leave
the School Readiness program and go to a fully parent-paid model.

272. As the credential requirements increase for preschool teachers, the DEC
expectation is that reimbursement rates would need to rise to support increased
teacher compensation. However, while there is legislation increasing the credential
requirements, there is currently no legislation describing a compensation schedule
or providing additional funding to support those necessary increases in
reimbursement and salary.

273. New Britain could only offer part-day/part-year programs, rather than school?
day/school-year programs, because of the state?s reimbursement scheme. The
reimbursement rates were not suf?cient to support funding a school-year/school?
day program.

274. A program would be more bene?cial for students than the
program.

275. After reviewing Connecticut?s state-funded preschool system, plaintiffs? expert
Steven Barnett recommended that Connecticut raise its standards for preschool
teacher quali?cations and provide appropriate compensation, meaning
compensation at least comparable to people with the same quali?cations in the 
system; reduce class size to a maximum class size of 15 from the current maximum of
20; put in place a continuous improvement system; identify barriers that may be
limiting participation; and follow up with attention to the quality of education in
later grades.

276. The most effective form of providing state support for preschool is to provide it to
entire communities that have high?needs, rather than only students in poverty or
other high-needs children within the communities. The reasons are because families
may or may not move in and out of what the cutoff would be to receive support, and
also because there are peer effects of having children learn from one another which
are stronger when mixed groups of children attend preschool together.

277. Commissioner ones?Taylor agreed that peer effects do exist in that children in
socio-economically mixed settings perform better than children in separate settings.
However, because of limited resources Connecticut has elected to pursue a model of
universal access rather than universal preschool. Universal preschool is a model
where any child in the state would receive state support to go to preschool, while
universal access is a model where state funding only goes to support families who
could not otherwise afford preschool.

278. Universal access would involve making affordable, accessible slots available for all
children who need them throughout the state.

71

 

 

279. Connecticut does not have universal access currently because there are not enough
affordable slots in programs for all children who need them. Even just considering
children in poverty in high?poverty communities, there are children who do not have
access.

280. According to the OEC: great number of children in Connecticut do not
participate in preschool programs because: (1) there is not enough funding to
establish spaces for all eligible children who need services; (2) market rate program
tuitions are more than many low-income working families can afford; and (3) there
is a lack of open preschool spaces in most communities.?

281objective of its ?rst?ever strategic plan to provide universal
access to high?quality preschool for 3? and 4-year olds statewide by 2020.

282. The objective of achieving universal access as outlined in the OEC strategic plan is
aspirational because there is no speci?c plan in place to move towards universal
access and any such plan would be dependent on whether funding is made available
to provide the slots.

283. The number of spaces made available through the School Readiness program is
dependent on the legislative appropriation for the program;

284. The amount of money allocated by the legislature is not determined based on the
number of slots that are needed.

285. If more funding is made available for the School Readiness program, then OEC can
provide more slots through the program.

286. Currently, there is not enough funding available to establish spaces for all eligible
children who need services.

287. Universal access has been a goal of the state since at least 2006. The department?s
2006?2011 ive-Year Comprehensive Plan for Education, adopted by the board,
included universal access as its ?rst priority.

288. The board?s Five?Year Comprehensive Plan for Education states that close the
large and unacceptable gaps in achievement [in Connecticut] . . . . [a]ll students must
receive a high-quality preschool education.?

289. According to the board, ?[t]he wide disparity in access to and the availability of
high?quality preschool education is a major contributor to [the] achievement gap?
between Connecticut?s poorest students and their wealthier counterparts.

290. According to the board, in addition to insuf?cient access, ?in both state- and

privately supported preschool programs, a large disparity exists in preschool
teachers? credentials, knowledge, and skills . . . . contribut[ing] signi?cantly to the

72

 

 

 

uneven preparation of young children and the resulting achievement gap.?

291. The Achievement Gap Task Force, a legislative task force, recommended phasing in
a system to provide School Readiness to all eligible children in its 2011 Report, and
recommended providing high?quality preschool for all low-income
children in its 2014 Master Plan to Eliminate the Achievement Gap.

292. In 2014, the Governor announced a plan to add School Readiness slots to move
Connecticut to universal access by ?scal year 2019 by adding 1,020 additional School
Readiness slots in ?scal year 2015, 1,020 slots in ?scal year 2016, 1,021 slots in ?scal
year 2017, 475 slots in ?scal year 2018, and 474 slots in ?scal year 2019.

293. The Governor?s plan lasted for a single year - there were 1,020 slots added in ?scal
year 2015, but no funding allocated for additional slots for ?scal years 2016 and
2017.

294. For the 2015 expansion in slots, there were more applications for slots than slots
available. The OEC developed a tiered system to evaluate programs to allocate the
limited resources. Preschool programs had the capacity to expand further and make
additional slots available if there had been funding available to do so.

295. For the 2015 slot allocation, Bridgeport received 30% of its requested spaces,
Danbury received 33%, East Hartford received 50%, New Britain received 42%, New
London received 100%, and Windham received 38%.

296. Commissioner ones-Taylor testi?ed that the DEC is currently conducting an
analysis of the unmet need for preschool in Connecticut statewide, but it does not
have the results yet.

297. The CBC (and earlier, the department) has previously submitted reports to the
legislature containing estimates of unmet needs for preschool in the School
Readiness communities, with the most recent report submitted in 2014.

298. Both the Commissioner of the DEC and the DEC staff member who wrote the 2014
report and the prior reports testi?ed that they believe those reports underestimate
the total unmet need in the state.

299. The OEC report is based on ?the estimated capacity to serve 3? and 4-year-old
children across licensed center-based programs, public schools, parochial schools,
charter schools and magnet schools? not the number of children actually being
served.

300. The OEC report does not accurately measure the capacity for high?quality
preschool in the priority and competitive school districts because it assumes that all
slots in licensed center-based programs, public schools, parochial schools, charter
schools and magnet schools are high-quality, which is not necessarily the case.
Therefore, the report underestimates the actual need for high-quality preschool slots

73

 

 

in the priority and competitive school districts.

301. According to the 2014 unmet need report, which is the most recent OEC
estimation of unmet School Readiness need, there is an estimated unmet need of
approximately 8,946 children in the School Readiness priority and competitive
districts, which include the focus districts.

302. The OEC unmet need report used an 80% participation rate to determine unmet
need, meaning the report assumed that of children not being served by a preschool
program, only 80% would choose to attend a program if one were available and
affordable. A higher participation rate would result in a larger estimate of unmet
need.

303. In 2013, the Connecticut Health and Educational Facilities Authority (CHEFA)
estimated the unmet need for subsidized preschool slots in Connecticut statewide.
The CHEFA report estimated a need for 17,060 slots statewide.

304. CHEFA also conducted a determination of unmet need in 2014 related to the Smart
Start program, which estimated an unmet need of 11,875 for children who are under
75% of the state median income (a standard proxy for children in poverty).

305. Commissioner ones?Taylor testi?ed that aside from the OEC report on School
Readiness need and the two CHEFA reports, she is unaware of other estimates of
unmet need for preschool.

306. Because of the lack of state funding for affordable, accessible slots, the focus
districts could not provide access to high?quality'preschool for all children who need
it. Cost of programs, availability of open slots, and transportation are all obstacles
preventing children from attending preschool programs.

307. Commissioner ones-Taylor agreed that the children who are not receiving
preschool the most are low?income children, and that there are barriers to enrolling
low~income children into preschool including the cost of the programs and
transportation.

308. The following table re?ects the percentage of kindergartners who had any
preschool experience in the focus districts, the districts in DRG A, and statewide for
the last three years, as collected and reported by the department:

 

 

   

 7? . i 
New Canaan 99.4 90.4 100.0

School

District

 

 

 

 

 

 

74

 

 

 

Weston 98.3 100.0 99.3
School
.. .

   
   

    
Westport
School
District

 

Ridge?eld 89.4 91.6 91.6
School

District
New Britain 74.1 66.6 80.8
School

 

 

 

I Windham 79.7 76.9  I. 77.5 I
School

 

 

 

 

 

 

New London 66.2 55.9 73.0
School
District

 

 

 

 
 
  

Bridgeport
School
District

 .: ting-5:173; 

 

 

 

 . . .  
District'lliiffii'z51159]' 11-15 

 

 

 

 

 

 

309. In terms of the percentage of low-income children enrolled in preschool,

75

Connecticut is the highest ranking state in the country, and Connecticut has the
highest percentage of any state of non?low?income children enrolled in preschool.

310. In 2014, Connecticut was ranked 3rd in the nation in state per pupil spending for
pre-K which includes the childcare subsidy and parent fee.

311. In 2015, Connecticut was ranked 5th in the nation in state per pupil spending with
the recognition of its Child Day Care Contracts as one of its state funded programs by
the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) and inclusion in the
2015 NIEER Yearbook. The lower ranking is because of the different funding sources
for the Child Day Care Contracts compared to the School Readiness grant in that the
Child Day Care Contracts do not receive all the same funding sources of the School
Readiness Program such as quality enhancement grants. The funding sources of
both grants taken together and divided by 2 result in the lower ranking.

312. With the inclusion of the Connecticut's Child Day Care Contracts in the 2015
NIEER Yearbook, Connecticut's access ranking for 4 year olds has risen from 29 in
the 2014 NIEER Yearbook to 23 in the NIEER 2015 Yearbook. The access ranking
for 3 year olds has risen from 12 to 8.

313. Florida provides universal pre-K and is ranked 3rd in the nation with regard to
access for pre?K 4 year olds but serves no 3 year olds.

314. Florida offers pre-K programs for three hours a day and Connecticut offers several
different dosages to meet family needs, including full day/ school day, and part day
spaces. These include full day/ full year spaces for ten hours a day, ?fty weeks a year;
school day/ school year for six hours a day, ?ve days a week, 180 days a year; part day
spaces for 2 1/2 hours a day, 5 days a week, 180 days a year and extended day
programs.

315. Florida offers universal pre-K and spent $2,238 per child in 2014 and $2,304 per
child in 2015.

316. Among Connecticut's state?funded pre-K programs are the Child Day Contracts
which are the oldest, created in the 19608 as part of President Lyndon ohnson's war
on poverty, for which the state pays 54 of the total allocation in the amount of
$10,473,088 and serves 1,482 children. The program can only enroll children of
families whose income falls below 75% of the State Median Income.

317. Connecticut's Child Day Care Contracts have been recognized by NIEER of which
Plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. W. Stephen Barnett, is the Director, for inclusion in its
2015 Yearbook as one of Connecticut's state funded pre-K programs, thereby
increasing the number served by Connecticut's state?funded pre?K.

318. The NIEER Yearbook is a report based on a survey of state?funded pre-school

programs whose purpose is to provide comparable information across the states on
state reported spending, enrollment information, the extent to which programs meet

76

a set of 10 benchmarks for state policies relating to quality. The benchmarks include
teacher quali?cations, early learning standards, class size, teacher/ student ratio, and
professional development.

319. Among Connecticut's state funded pre?K programs are the School Readiness
Program which provides high quality pre-K to children in the 19 Priority School
Districts, the highest poverty communities and the Competitive School Districts
which also show signs of poverty. The program is a mixed delivery model that seeks
to provide parents with choices in providing spaces in both public schools, for pro?t
and non-pro?t (community) early childhood programs, Head Start and state funded
day care programs. The programs serve over 12,000 children annually through state
funding totaling $93.8 million.

320. Local School Readiness Councils in each school district are responsible for making
recommendations to OEC regarding application/ proposals from interested providers
for pre?K spaces based on a preliminary funding allocation amount provided by OEC
that is determined by a legislative formula. The providers are from a variety of
settings including public schools, for pro?t and non-pro?t early childhood programs,
Head Start and state funded day care programs. In the event the legislature
authorizes an increase in School Readiness funding from the previous year, OEC
reviews the applications/ proposals with a View to funding spaces to which children
can have immediate access, that are viable in terms of accreditation and actual
physical space.

321. The School Readiness Councils are co?chaired by the Superintendent in each
district and the Mayor. A liaison acts as the staff to the Council.

322. OEC provides assistance to the School Readiness Councils through liaison
meetings to discuss challenges faced by the communities in ?lling spaces as well as
share forms among liaisons and allow liaisons to provide input into the design of
funding proposals and the state's general policies.

323. The residency requirement for School Readiness Programs was removed recently
by legislation.

324. Because of administrative failures, Bridgeport recently lost 19 approved preschool
slots because they were un?lled. The slots were needed and were left un?lled
because of local errors about where the slots were available along with
transportation and public awareness failures.

325. Over the past six fiscal years, the funding for School Readiness grant steadily
increased from $70 million for the Priority Districts and $5 million for the
Competitive Districts in 2010 to $83 million for the Priority Districts and $11 million
for the Competitive Districts in 2016, serving 12,263 children.

326. Quality Enhancement Grants are supplemental grants that are available to school

77

 

readiness municipalities to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of school
readiness programs. The grants are awarded annually by OEC upon application by
Local School Readiness Councils. More than $1.1 million of quality enhancement
grants were awarded for FY16. They can be used, among other items, to help
providers to obtain accreditation, provide training for directors and administrators,
purchase educational equipment, provide comprehensive services, such as enhanced
access to health care, parent education, literacy and parent involvement, community
and home outreach programs as well as provide scholarships to advance academic
degree attainment.

327. Connecticut's state funded pre-K programs also include the State Head Start
supplement of $5.6 million to enhance the federal Head Start Program which
promotes the school readiness of children from low income families by supporting
the comprehensive development of children from birth to age 5. The state funds are
used to either extend the day of a Head Start program or extend the year of a Head
Start program for the 6,691 children served by the federal Head Start program.

328. Among the requirements for School Readiness programs and all state funded
programs is accreditation by NAEYC or Head Start approval.

329. NAEYC accreditation is respected among accrediting bodies in terms of being the
most rigorous and having the highest standards for child outcomes.

33o. Plaintiff witness Barnett considers NAEYC accreditation to be higher than other
accreditations.

331. Barnett considers accreditation to be a valuable process for pre?K to go through.
332. Barnett views NAEYC accreditation as one route to higher quality.

333. Connecticut ranks third in the country in the number of pre-K programs accredited
by the NAEYC, a widely respected preschool credentialing organization, after the
more populous states of Massachusetts and California.

334. The State provides parents access to information on program location as well as
licensing and accreditation status through its website and a call center staffed by
over 100 staff by calling Childcare 211, the state Childcare and Resource Referral
phone line, run by United Way of Connecticut. In addition, parents can obtain
further information on NAEYC accreditation status through the link on the DEC
website to the NAEYC website.

335. Beyond the phase-in requirement, OEC has provided support for meeting
preschool staff education requirements through investing $2.6 million in individual
scholarships for preschool teachers since 2013 and speci?cally $1million for FY16, a
50% increase from FY15.

336. DEC has also developed the Early Childhood Teacher Credential (ECTC) as an

78

 

alternative to the BA degree to meet the staff education quali?cations and develop a
pipeline of teachers that meet high standards of teacher preparation and early care
settings. Eight colleges have been approved to offer the ECTC.

337. To date, 288 ECTCs have been approved.

338. Among the other requirements for state funded programs are class sizes not
exceeding 20 although OEC recommends class size not to exceed 18 and a
teacher/ child ratio of 1 to 9. In addition, 9 hours of professional development are
required a year.

339. Access to pre-K for low?income children has been expanded in the public schools
through the Smart Start program with the addition of 581 slots in public schools for
the 2015/2016 school year and the same for the upcoming 2016/2017 school year.
Boards of education must demonstrate an unmet need for low-income children and
allocate at least 60% of the slots to children of families who are at or below 75% of
the state median income, or 50% of the slots to children who are eligible for free and
reduced price lunches. This program provides a grant to school districts for a
portion of operating costs; up to 75,000 per classroom which equates to $5,000 per
child for 15 children awarded annually for up to 10 years, and capital improvements;
up to $300,000 as a one- time award for up to four classrooms following the same
formula. The program was intentionally designed by the Legislature to incentivize
public schools to provide pre-K by not covering the full operating costs with the
expectation that the District pay for the differential.

340. There have been 2 cohorts of funding for the Smart Start program awarded to 18
districts totaling $1,923,350 for operations and $1,587,955 for capital improvements
for the FY 16 and $899,073 for operations and $1,218,405 for capital improvements
for the FY 17.

341. The amount that a district has to cover under the Smart Start program is based on
the difference between the amount of reimbursement for a school day/ school year
space in the School Readiness Program, $6,000 per child, and the amount received
under the grant, $5,000 per child, the district then covering $1,000 per child and
any other costs to run the program above and beyond the $1,000 difference in
reimbursement between the School Readiness and Smart Start funding.

342. Additional funds for Smart Start are available for FY 17. OEC has done outreach to
encourage public schools to apply.

343. The locations of the various state funded pre-K programs are evenly split
throughout the state; 85 towns having a state?funded site and the other 84 towns
having none.

344. Access to pre-K has also been expanded through the federal Pre?School

Development Grant (PDG). The grant was awarded to Connecticut, as one of 18
states, in December 2014 in the amount of $10,844,079 for the ?rst of the 4 year,

79

 

 

47.5 million grant. The purpose of the grant is to expand and improve high quality
pre-K spaces for four year olds whose families earn under 200% of the federal
poverty line. It includes comprehensive services, including dental, health, nutrition
screening, and mental health services as well as rigorous professional development
that might be expanded to School Readiness providers and Child Daycare contract
providers. CEO is seeking funding for the next year of the PDG, having been briefed
by the department in Washington, DC. that the ?rst year recipients will have priority
for the second year.

345. The ?rst year of the PDG grant for FY 16 funded 712 spaces and includes both
expansion (new) (428) and improvement spaces (for a longer period of time) (248).
In order to honor Connecticut's mixed delivery system, the recipients included 19
public schools and 19 community?based provider sites (including 10 Head Start
provider sites), offering either school day school year or full day/ full year spaces.

346. Since the PDG grant is limited to four year olds, the state supplemented the grant
through quality enhancement funds in the amount of $456,411 to provide 112 spaces
for three year olds to ensure diversity of age.

347. In an effort to address Bridgeport's unmet need, Bridgeport was the only Priority
District allowed to apply for the PDG. Otherwise, the recipients were the
Competitive School Districts which typically do not receive the slots they need.

348. Bridgeport received funding for 270 spaces and 18 classrooms though the ?rst year
of the PDG grant for a total of $4,008,350.

349. Bridgeport also received $215,259 in quality enhancement funds through the PDG
grant for FY 16 to support spaces and comprehensive services for ineligible children
under the grant because of their age and income requirements.

350. Minor Capital Improvement Grants are available for individual state funded
programs to improve existing facilities, including security systems, playgrounds
improvements, HVAC systems, roofs, windows, sinks etc.

351. Minor Capital Improvement Bond Funds were awarded in three cohorts in 2013,
2014 and 2015 in the amounts of $5,601,232, $2,475,396, and $7,454,986
respectively for a total of $15.7 million.

352. Of those bond funds, Bridgeport received $1,093,279, $497,170 and $679,995
respectively for the three years for a total of $2,270,444. New Britain received
$272,000, $70,000, and 190,000 respectively for the three years for a total of
$532,000. New London received $292,000, $54,494, and $178,510 respectively for
the three years for a total of $525,004. Danbury received $50,000, $41,885 and
$318,742 respectively for the three years for a total of $410,627. Plain?eld received
$81,902 for the third year.

80

 

353. The School Facilities Construction Grant Program provides a 5% increase in the
reimbursement rates to any district or regional school district for any new building
or expansion of an existing building for an elementary school that includes space for
an early childhood program for the portion of the building where the program is
located.

354. The School Facilities Construction Grant Program provides a 10% increase in the
reimbursement rates to any district or regional school district for full day
kindergarten programs and full day preschool programs for the portion of the
building where the program is located.

355. In ?scal year 2016 roughly $2.1 million in School Readiness funds, $1.8 million in
CDCs funds and $400,000 in federal Preschool Development Grant were not spent.

356. To keep slots ?lled, local School Readiness Councils must be proactive given that
they know their allotment every July and need to have good connections and
relationships in the community with the providers to communicate with parents to
?ll the Pre?K spaces.

357. The same issue applies in preschool expansion years which require planning time
between May when the expansion proposal is announced and July when the budget
is passed.

358. To address the issue of unspent funds, OEC contacts local School Readiness
Councils in October following the availability of School Readiness funds in July to
determine chronically un?lled slots. The Councils are asked to come up with a plan
to ?ll the spots quickly. If the spots are not ?lled by November, the spots are
redistributed to other communities that have a need and the capacity to ?ll them.

359. Bridgeport is one of three districts that historically have unspent funds. The other
2 districts are Hartford and Waterbury. For FY 15, Bridgeport and Waterbury each
had over a half million dollars of unSpent funds while Hartford had over $1 million.
As of February 2016 before the ?nal tally of unspent funds in May 2016 for FY 16,
Bridgeport and Waterbury each had over $430,000 of unspent funds and Hartford
had $650,579.

360. For FY 15, the following are the amounts of unspent funds for Danbury- $170,600,
East Hartford-116,800, New New and Windham-
$94,280. The following are the amount of unspent funds for FY 16 as of February
2016 before the ?nal tally of unspent funds in May 2016: East
New New and Windham?
$68,171.

361. New Britain maxed out the number of its preschool providers receiving School
Readiness funding through a cooperative venture between community providers and
the board By the 2011/ 12 school year, every preschool provider in New Britain was
recipients of the School Readiness grant except for the parochial schools and the

81

 

 

cooperative nursery school. Shortly, thereafter, one of the parochial schools became
a recipient of School Readiness funding.

362. Among OEC initiatives is one to improve the child care licensing system to ensure
basic health and safety as the foundation to early care and education. This initiative
included the drafting of a standardized procedure manual and the hiring of 17 new
licensing staff to conduct annual inspections of child care programs.

363. Among OEC initiatives is the development of an integrated home visiting system
and a universal screening for development delays.

364. Among OEC initiatives is the development of an early childhood data system, the
Early Childhood Information System (ECIS) to provide data on how children from
birth to age ?ve are being served or the constellation of state services children are
receiving whether through early intervention, home visiting services, pre-K etc. It
will provide an unduplicated count of children who are receiving services through
the assignment of a state assigned student identi?cation number (SASID) number
that a child will have through grade 12. Among the bene?ts speci?c to pre-K is the
tracking of program funding to determine how programs fund slots through parent
fee or subsidy. Together with the new unmet need report, it will allow for integrating
the pre-K services to target the need.

365. Among OEC initiatives is the development of the Early Learning and Development
Standards of what children should know and be able to do from birth to age ?ve.
Curriculum will be tied to these standards.

366. As part of a seven state consortium through a $4.9 million grant, OEC has
developed a new Kindergarten Entrance Inventory (KEI) based on an informative
assessment for Kindergarten children that will be administered by the department.

367. The Pre-K-Grade 3 Leadership Program is a yearlong program developed jointly by
OEC and the University of Connecticut NEAG School of Education to train
administrators, including principals and superintendents, as well as lead teachers,
community provider directors, special education providers on curriculum and
instruction, assessment and evaluation for early child development from pre?K
through Grade 3. The program is funded by OEC in the amount of $320,000 for two
cohorts, Cohort 1, July 2015-May 2016 having ended and Cohort 11, July 2016-May
2017, presently taking place. OEC offers grants of $1500 per participant to defray
the tuition cost. Districts across the state have participated, including the Plaintiffs'
focus districts, speci?cally the Preschool Coordinator, School Readiness Coordinator,
and Instructional Kindergarten Coach for New Britain, the Director of Early
Childhood and the Executive Director of Elementary Education for Bridgeport, the
Assistant Superintendent and a principal for East Hartford.

368. Of the 169 School districts in Connecticut, 143 Districts offer full day kindergarten.
In addition, 13 charter schools and 14 magnet schools offer full day kindergarten.

82

 

369. The percentage of children enrolled in full-day kindergarten in Connecticut has
increased in the past 4 years to 94.2% for the 2014/15 school year.

5. Teacher Compensation and Evaluation

370. In 2012, with the department?s blessing in collaboration with the Performance
Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC), the board adopted the Connecticut Guidelines
for Educator Evaluation.

371. ?The primary goal of the educator evaluation and support system is to strengthen
individual and collective practices so as to increase student learning an
development.? The system does not achieve this goal. 

372. The guidelines require that in all cases the primary evaluator for a teacher be
certi?ed as an administrator.

373. Connecticut?s System for Educator Evaluation and Development (SEED) is the
state?s model for teacher evaluation which serves as ?a model evaluation and support
system that is aligned to the Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation.?

374. If a Connecticut public school district does not use the SEED model, it must use a
department approved evaluation plan aligned to the Connecticut Guidelines for
Educator Evaluation.

375. The SEED model was implemented in Connecticut public school districts by the
2014-15 school year.

376. The SEED model, and any department approved district evaluation system aligned
to the Guidelines for Educator Evaluation, includes four components: (1) student
growth and development, (2) teacher performance and practice, (3) parent feedback
and (4) whole?school student learning indicators or student feedback.

377. Scores from each of the four components are combined to produce a summative
performance rating designation of (1) exemplary, (2) pro?cient, (3) developing or (4)
below standard.

378. The exemplary performance level is de?ned as substantially exceeding indicators of
performance.

83

 

 

 

379. The pro?cient performance level is de?ned as meeting indicators of performance.

380. The developing performance level is de?ned as meeting some indicators of
performance but not others.

381. The below standard performance level is de?ned as not meeting indicators of
performance.

382. A majority of an educator?s evaluation is based on subjective components.

383. The state?s standard as represented in the PEAC adopted guidelines is virtually
empty since it allows schools essentially to construct the same entirely subjective
system that has produced results showng almost no room from improvement in
Connecticut teachers.

384. Under the guidelines, half of the evaluation is supposed to be on teacher
practices and skills. This half is subjective and is akin to the traditional system where
ultimately a principal watches a teacher at work and ?les an evaluation. The
remaining 10% of the ?rst half is an equally subjective but highly limited role for
parent or peer evaluation surveys.

385. The evaluation?s second half is designed to address the federal
requirements about connecting teacher performance evaluations with student
learning. It says its focus is ?student outcome indicators.? Measures of student
achievement were supposed to make up 22.5% of a teacher?s evaluation. One half of
this?a mere 11.25% of a teacher?s evaluation ?-?was to be linked to growth rates in
the state?s carefully wrought system of student testing.

386. The other 11.25% addressing ?outcome indicators? is illusory. First, the state
allows schools to use any ?standard indicator? or any ?non-standardized indicator.?
Second, the teacher has to agree to use it at all and then the teacher and the
evaluator have to agree what weight to give a standardized indicator and what weight
to give the ?non?standardized indictor.? The only guidance about what this means is
that it?s supposed to be ?fair, reliable, valid and useful? or at least be so ?to the
greatest extent possible.? It doesn?t really require anything at all.

387. After adopting the standard, the department granted nearly two dozen
waivers to school systems that do not want to follow the guidelines. In 2014, the
state eliminated the 11.25% that was supposed to be based on the state?s of?cial test
scores, citing the advent of the new SBAC testing system as a justi?cation. The
suggestion is that it will be imposed later. The remainder of the student outcome
indicators?5%? can optionally be student input or ?whole-school student learning
indicators.?

84

 

388. As noted by defendants? expert witness Dr. Eric Hanushek, local control over
educator evaluations is ineffective because nationally 97% of teachers are rated as
being perfect, which is not accurate.

389. Connecticut Educator Evaluation Data for 2014-15 indicates that 98% of teachers
evaluated received summative performance ratings of exemplary or pro?cient.

390. Superintendent Rabinowitz was deeply dissatis?ed with the current teacher
evaluation system and how it deals with growth in test scores particularly the fact
that the growth rates have to be agreed on by the teacher and can be changed in the
middle of the year. She blamed this ?aw for yielding what she believed were
dishonest and, therefore useless, evaluations for Bridgeport teachers. She believes
the evaluation system together with the rules governing the hiring and ?ring of
teachers keep her from weeding out bad teachers and promoting good ones.

391. The quality of teachers is the single most important school?related factor affecting
student achievement.

392. The hiring and retention of teachers for a particular district or school is dependent
on a number of factors, including quality of leadership, working conditions, student
demographics, and salary.

393. The comparative ?nancial attraction of other occupations in business, science and
engineering has made it harder to attract teachers in math and science.

394. Potential entrants to the teaching profession especially women have relatively
better economic options in other ?elds today than in past generations.

395. Teachers are attracted to districts based on community connections, school
leadership and working conditions. Pay is signi?cant, but it is not the highest factor.
This leads many away from high-poverty with lower?achieving students.

396. In order to address this preference, schools and districts with higher poverty,
higher numbers of minority students, lower?achieving students, and more dif?cult
working conditions would signi?cantly improve their attraction by paying a wage
premium in terms of higher salaries in order to attract and retain teachers.

397. As plaintiffs? fact witness, Windham?s Superintendent Dr. Garcia, testi?ed, low

85

 

 

 

salary scale in Windham poses a challenge in attracting quali?ed teaching staff and
contributes to teacher turnover in Windham Public Schools.

398. As plaintiffs? expert witness, Interim Superintendent Rabinowitz, testi?ed, low
salary scale and difficult working conditions in Bridgeport pose a challenge to
attracting and retaining quality teachers in Bridgeport Public Schools.

399. Defendants? expert witness, Dr. Villanova, agreed that districts facing challenging
circumstances should have ways to encourage teachers and leaders, one of which
should be compensation.

400. Defendants? expert witness, Dr. Michael Podgursky, agreed that because teachers
in Connecticut are subject to collective bargaining agreements that do not permit
salary reductions, the principal alternative means to lower labor costs is by reducing
staff.

401. According to data maintained and reported by the department the average salaries
for superintendents, principals, general education teachers, and special education
teachers for the year 2012?13 are set forth in the following table. Special Education
Teacher average salaries represent the average salaries for staff whose ?rst
assignment was Special Education Grades 1-12.

 

 

 

  
     

     
  
 

 

Darien $237,000.00 

   
 

     

    
 

    
    

  

I- 

..Rid e?eld 

 

 $594563.  $775941.
ii? Iii-53" i 5? ?5in  i I
 -.   -. 13* 5535* 523135115] i; ?51"?53; ..
Westport $2448728.99-00._ $146,529-75? $78,447-42 .
Greenwich $86,721.74

 

 

    
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 ,000.00
35 $155,630.50 

Danbury $204,614.00 $126 20188 $70,813.56 $74,081.59

 

 

 

 

 

. .             
   I.     

Bridgeport $234,000.00 $133,130.94 $64,103.01 $67,582.98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

86

 

"Mm-mamWw? - -

3: .-2-2.  I
New $61,782.33 $67,325.28
66 

$150,668.71 $127,327.36 $68,767 $70,801.78

 

402. The state average for superintendents? salaries is skewed lower because of the
inclusion of salaries for part time superintendents and low numbers that appear to

be errors.

403. Based on 2011?12 data, the average adjusted teacher salary in highest poverty
quartile schools is $63,960 compared to $71,119 in lowest poverty quartile schools.
The average adjusted teacher salary in high minority quartile schools was $64,775
compared to $70,035 in low minority quartile schools.

404. Plaintiffs? expert witness, Interim Superintendent Rabinowitz, testi?ed that the
starting salary for a teacher in Bridgeport is $42,000, approximately $8,000 -
$10,000 less than neighboring towns.

405. In the 2012?13 school year, Bridgeport?s teacher salary was the lowest for any
district in Fair?eld County.

406. In the 2012-13 school year, the average elementary school teacher salary in
Bridgeport was $64,250.39 compared to $71,957.45 in Darien, $74,704.46 in
Fair?eld, $75,931.76 in New Canaan, $77,229.81 in Westport, $77,535.5 in
Ridge?eld, and $88,737.19 in Greenwich.

407. In the 2012?13 school year, the average elementary school teacher salary in
Windham was $57,485.36, compared to a State average of $67,944.37.

408. In the 2012-13 school year, the average elementary school teacher salary in New
London was $57,028.14 compared to $66,059.24 in Groton and $80,811.47 in
Waterford.

409. In spite of a severe recession in 2008, the average pay of Connecticut educators
and administrators has risen consistently over the last decade and has kept pace with

87

 

 

national measures of in?ation and wage growth.

410. Connecticut ranked third in the country in terms of teacher salary in 2012?13.

411. Connecticut ranked 7th in the country in terms of salaries for teachers with a
Bachelor's degree and 5th in the country in terms of salaries for teachers with a
Master's degree and 20 or more years' experience in 2011-12.

412. Teacher salaries are keeping up with non-teacher salaries in Connecticut better
than in some other states.

413. Regarding average salaries in 2012?13 for general education teachers, three of the
six focus districts (Danbury, East Hartford and New Britain) were above the state
average.

414. New Britain's average salary for general education teachers in 2012?13 was about
greater than each of its adjoining towns: New Britain 
Newington (74,489); Farmington (71,773); Berlin (69,067); Southington (65,570);
Plainville (63,686).

415. Regarding average salaries in 2012-13 for special education teachers (grades 1-12),
three of the six focus districts (Danbury, East Hartford and New Britain) were above
the state average.

416. Regarding average salaries in 2012?13 for principals, two of the six focus districts
(Bridgeport and New Britain) were above the state average. Because of the small
numbers of principals in two of the other four focus districts, Windham and New
London, average salaries in those districts may have shown greater variability.

417. Regarding average salaries in 2012?13 for superintendents, all six of the focus
districts were above the state average. Bridgeport superintendent's salary was ninth
in the state, above both New Haven and Hartford.

418. In 2012?13, the average general education teacher salary in Bridgeport was
$64,103, compared to nearby New Haven County districts like Orange 
West Haven New Haven Derby and Ansonia


419. The best leaders are not necessarily the highest paid leaders.

420. In Bridgeport, teachers have had salary increases of about 2% each year for the last
2-3 years.

421. In Danbury, teachers received salary increases of approximately 1 and
1.5% for each respective year in their current contract (2014-17). Administrators

88

 

received salary increases of 2.75%, and 2.5% for each of their 3 years, for a
total of In both cases, the Danbury school board negotiated these raises.

422. In Danbury, as in most districts, about 80?82% of the district budget is comprised
of personnel salary and bene?ts, with salaries alone in the 60-65% range.

423. New London teachers recently reached a 3-year collective bargaining agreement
effective July 1, 2016, with 9% raises over the three years. New London Public
Schools Superintendent Manuel Rivera said that the contract will help the district
remain competitive and maintain high morale. The New London teachers union
president said the union members' support for the contract was overwhelming.

424. In Windham, school personnel received increases in each of the three years of the
collective bargaining agreement ending in 2016, including a 3.3% increase in 2015-
16.

425. Nationally, bene?ts for school teachers compare favorably with those of private
sector professionals.

426. In Connecticut, bene?ts as a share of salary for public school teachers is above the
national average.

427. The retirement bene?t rate for Connecticut teachers is far above the national rate
for private sector professionals.

428. Under the Teacher Negotiation Act, General Statutes 10?153a et seq. (TNA), local
school boards are required to negotiate with the teachers? and administrators' union
over the terms and conditions of employment, including salary and bene?ts.
General Statutes 10-153d The TNA covers principals, assistant principals, and
teachers. General Statutes 10-153b. Superintendents are excluded from this
provision. General Statutes 10-153b Superintendents, who have executive
authority over the school system and responsibility for its supervision, maintain
individual contracts with the local school boards. General Statutes 10?157 

429. The TNA de?nes the duty to negotiate in good faith as follows: negotiate in
good faith is the performance of the mutual obligation of the board of education or
its representatives or agents and the organization designated or elected as the
exclusive representative for the appropriate unit to meet at reasonable times,
including meetings appropriately related to the budget-making process, and to
participate actively so as to indicate a present intention to reach agreement with
respect to salaries, hours and other conditions of employment, or the negotiation of
an agreement, or any question arising thereunder and the execution of a written
contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such

89

 

 

obligation shall not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making
of a concession." General Statutes 10-153e 

430. Though local boards of education can act unilaterally in setting the school year or
day, negotiations may be required. For example, unions retain the right to demand
negotiations over the impact of any changes in the school day or year that affect their
hours of employment. General Statutes 10-153d 

431. The teachers in Connecticut, like teachers in most states, are paid according to
salary schedules set forth in collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the
school district and teachers' union, that base the pay of every teacher in the district
on years of experience. As the state illustrated with a New London contract, the
columns in the salary schedules will be years of education or professional graduate
credits or BA, BA plus 15 credits, MA, and so on. These contracts almost never
differentiate across the ?eld by the type of teacher or subject area taught. The only
differentiation is typically in terms of extra duties. For example, in Danbury, the
teachers' contract provides that the district not be permitted to pay certain teachers
more based on their area of teaching. For example, the district pays elementary 
teachers the same as bilingual teachers, even though there is no shortage of
elementary teachers.

432. Connecticut ranks favorably nationally on student-teacher and student-staff ratios;
both measures are well below those in most other states -- 9th lowest and 6th lowest
in the nation, respectively.

433. Research varies as to the impact on student achievement of the number of students
per teacher in a classroom. In fact, in one study that is relied on by those who argue
that class size impacts student achievement, while the results showed some small
improvements during kindergarten, the small claSses did not continue to have an
impact on achievement in the later grades of the experiment, even though that would
have been expected if small classes had an impact across grades. Moreover, the
reductions in class size were very large (moving from 23 to 15 students per class),
making it an extraordinarily expensive policy. No comparable studies even exist for
later grades.

434. What is usually more important is the skill level of the teacher, how the teacher
is planning for and instructing the class.

435. Regarding average class size in the 2014-15 school year, the department data on the
average class sizes in grades statewide and in the focus districts showed that in
general there are only small and inconsistent variations in class size in the focus
districts as compared to the state average.

436. While there is some favorable information about student?teacher ratios in
Connecticut, recent cuts in state funding are increasing some class sizes in

90

 

Bridgeport to 29 students.

437. There are many applicants for most open teaching positions in Connecticut. This is
particularly true in elementary school and in areas other than math and science.
Signi?cantly fewer people apply for math, science, bilingual, and some special
education positions. This decreases the chance of higher high quality teachers,
particularly in poor communities which have working condition obstacles to
overcome as well.

438. From 2012-13 to 2014?15, the Education Reform Districts added 4.3% in additional
total certi?ed positions, the remaining Alliance Districts added 2.6% in additional
total certi?ed positions, and all other local districts added 0% additional positions.

439. From 2012?13 to 2014?15, even though they increased their position counts, unlike
the average of the remainder of districts, the Education Reform Districts ?lled 91%
of their available positions by October 1, the remaining Alliance Districts ?lled 92.2%
of their available positions by October 1, and all remaining local districts ?lled 94.3%
of their available positions by October 1, so that all groups ?lled over 90% of their
available positions by October 1.

440. Though the total number of certi?ed positions statewide (excluding approved
private special education programs) declined (less than one half of one
percent) from 53,484 in 2014?15 to 53,225 in 2015-16, some districts evidenced
modest increases in certi?ed positions. For example, in the 10 lowest performing
Alliance Districts the Education Reform Districts), the t0tal number of certi?ed
positions increased by 1.6 percent (173 positions).

441. The number of vacancies that districts sought to staff prior to the start of the school
year decreased from 5,145 in fall of 2014 to 4,836 in fall of 2015 - a 6 percent decline.

442. Financial incentives offered to support teaching in shortage areas or Priority School
Districts include: federal loan forgiveness or deferral; state mortgage assistance by
way of lower interest rates, consistent with General Statutes 8-265pp; retired
educators can teach in a shortage area or a Priority School District and not be limited
to earning only 45% of their salary as is the customary rule; tuition assistance by
allocating department Title monies to reduce tuition costs and increase the
number of candidates who enroll in the Alternate Route to Certi?cation for Teachers
of English Language Learners (ARCTELL) program administered by Area
Cooperative Education Services and department scholarships for students
enrolled in educator preparation programs in speci?ed shortage areas.

443. When substitute teachers are certi?ed and have been in the same position more
than forty days in a school year, they are "long term substitute[s]" under the
certi?cation regulations. Regs. Conn. State Agencies 10?145d-400 Since
they must be appropriately certi?ed, they are members of the teachers' bargaining

91

 

 

unit. General Statutes 10?153b 

444. The department may also issue durational shortage area permits (DSAP) upon the
application of a school district when it is not possible to hire a teacher with
appropriate certi?cation for the position. Regs. Conn. State Agencies 10-145d?421.
To be eligible for a DSAP, an individual must have a bachelor's degree, must have
passed Praxis I, must have completed at least twelve semester hours in the subject
for which the permit will be issued, and must ?le an intent to be or actually be in a
planned prOgram leading to certi?cation (if such a program is required). The
regulations permit the department to reissue a DSAP up to two times provided that
speci?ed conditions are met. Regs. Conn. State Agencies 10-145d-422. Persons
holding a DSAP are included by statute in the teachers' bargaining unit. General
Statutes 10-153b School boards are therefore required to negotiate with the
teachers union over their terms and conditions of employment.

445. The Connecticut Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric 2015 is a standards-based
tool, aligned with the Common Core of Leading, offered as an option for voluntary
use as part of a district?s evaluation and support plan when evaluating
administrators.

446. The Connecticut Common Core of Teaching (CCT) Rubric for Effective Service
Delivery 2015 is a standards-based voluntary tool, aligned with the CCT, offered as
an option for use as part of a district?s evaluation and support plan when evaluating
educator support specialists, including but not limited to: school 
speech and language pathologists, school social workers, school counselors, board
certi?ed behavior home school family liaison, instructional coaches, and
transition coordinators.

447. The state believes districts and schools should provide professional learning
opportunities for teachers based on the individual?s needs identi?ed through the
evaluation process.

448. An important part of the evaluation of teachers is the courage of the
principal to have dif?cult conversations with the teacher during the evaluation
process. That skill is being taught for those who wish to take advantage of it through
the LEAD CT program, a collaborative effort among educational stakeholders to
guide school leaders. The state provides support to LEAD CT but it is not a state
agency.

449. Beyond the optional use of SEED and its ineffective guidelines the state encourages
schools to improve teacher evaluation but requires nothing of them. Different
systems do different things. Some Alliance Districts have used their money to try to
improve evaluations. In Bridgeport the superintendent personally scrutinizes the
performance of non-tenured teachers.

450. Under General Statutes 10-157 local boards of education must evaluate the

92

 

 

performance of the superintendent annually in accordance with guidelines and
criteria mutually determined and agreed to by such board and such superintendent.

451. Despite its repeated emphasis on the importance of leadership, the state requires
nothing in particular in superintendents? evaluations. LEAD CT has developed a
model evaluation for superintendents. This model is currently being used
voluntarily by some districts in the state. Robert Villanova, the director of LEAD CT,
criticizes the way superintendents are evaluated in the state. He reports that it is
chaotic and often overtly political. He testi?ed that most superintendent contracts
are three years long and renewed each year. Political changes often sweep
superintendents in or out. Most superintendents only stay in a district a few years
and this regularly prevents continuity of and diminishes the quality of leadership he
believes is critical to school systems.

452. When the state took over the New London and Windham schools as part of its
special master program in those districts it used performance-based evaluations for
superintendents.

453. Superintendent Nathan Quesnel is comfortable with the teacher retention rates in
East Hartford. At East Hartford High School, Principal Matthew Ryan does not have
to hire teachers because they do not leave very often to go teach elsewhere.

454. New teacher salaries in East Hartford are in the top third of all Hartford County
districts.

455. In East Hartford out of roughly 1,500 teachers, only about 120 resigned last year
Another 80 teachers retired Thus, about 1,380, or 87%, of teachers
stayed in the district.

456. 99% of students in CT are taught by "highly quali?ed" teachers (fully certi?ed to
teach in that subject area) in the core subjects, with 99.5% in low poverty districts
and 98% in high poverty districts.

6. Special Education Facts

457. Special education is controlled by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Act
(IDEA) at 20 U.S.C. 1400 et. seq. and General Statutes ?10? 76a et seq. Students
in it are sometimes called students and sometimes ?Students with
Disabilities? or purpose under 20 U.S.C. 1400(d)(1)(A) is ?to
ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate
public education (FAPE) that emphasizes special education and related services to
meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and
independent living.? The law also requires that students learn in the least restricted
environment (LRE) possible with an integrated regular classroom being the goal. As

93

 

experts for both sides explained, the IDEA mandates an ?Individual Education
Program? (IEP) be prepared following a ?Planning and Placement Team? (PPT)
meeting which includes school or counselors, parents and teachers.
These PPT meetings and the associated evaluations decide whether a child is eligible
for special education, and the IEP essentially dictates to the school system what it
must spend.

458. Students with disabilities have a wide range of needs. Depending on their
disability, they may require a one~to-one paraprofessional to help them with their
basic needs, special arrangements for transportation, modi?cations to their
educational program in an academic setting or other services and supports.

459. Total spending per pupil on students with disabilities is usually a signi?cant
multiple of per pupil expenditures on students without them.

460. In 2010?11, Connecticut public school districts reported spending $1.715 billion on
special education, which breaks down to approximately $27,000 per special
education student, compared to an average of $14,425 for a regular education
student.

461. In Connecticut, every year $1.8 billion dollars is spent on special education from
federal, state, and local money. Federal and state aid amount to only 15?20%.

462. Bridgeport Superintendent Rabinowitz testi?ed that her district?s special education
spending in ?scal year 2014-15 was $75 million for which she got just $1.5 million
from the federal government and $4.8 million from the state. Because she is
compelled by law to spend whatever special education requires, she has less to spend
on other children. At great expense?a single student?s care can cost $100,000 or
even approach $200,000?uBridgeport cares outside of the district schools for
roughly 300 children that might be called multiply?disabled and incapable of being
educated within the system. According to East Hartford Superintendent Quesnel,
the only children getting increased spending in his district are those in special
education. For years, zero increase budgets for his school system have left him
constantly stripping resources from the student population as a whole to meet those
things like special education over which he has no control.

463. Special education spending in poorer districts can create strain and incentives to
withhold services.

464. Special education challenges can encourage individual schools to refer students to
out-of?district services so the school doesn?t have to deal with them. School districts
have to bear most of the expense. They have an incentive to deal with the students
within the districts.

465. Based on a study that looked at expenditures for special education, which was
conducted around 2000, the expenditures associated with educating a special

94

 

education student was 2.7 to 3 times more than the expenditures associated with
educating a general education student.

466. A large number of special education students in Bridgeport are sent out of the
district because the district does not have the funding available to build the capacity
within the district to meet the students? needs.

467. In Bridgeport, $3.6 million of the ?scal year 2015-16 $5.8 million budget de?cit is
because of increases in special education costs.

468. East Hartford High School lacks suf?cient staf?ng for its Special education
students, with 14 special education teachers managing a caseload of 25-30 students
and a single department head spread across schools.

469. No students who qualify for special education services at East Hartford High
School reach grade level in reading by grade 12.

470. Special education students at Lincoln Elementary in New Britain are served in
groups of 10 to 12 in order to meet mandated service hours at current staff levels,
reducing the quality of the instruction of the students.

471. Because of shortages of special education teachers at New Britain High School
Freshman Academy, large numbers of special education students, sometimes as
many as 17 special education students in a class of up to 31 students, are all clustered
together in classrooms so that services required by IEPs can be provided by the
limited number of special education teachers, drastically increasing the challenges of
meeting such diverse student needs.

472. Students at Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School in New London who are
designated as both EL and special education could not receive services in both ESL
and special education because of staffing constraints and scheduling limitations.

473. Daniel J. a professor of educational at Vanderbilt University,
was the state?s special education expert at trial. Consistent with his testimony, the
court concludes that special education Spending is crowding out spending on general
education in Connecticut and across the country. Plaintiffs? expert Margaret
McLaughlin, a professor of special education at the University of Maryland, agreed.
A 2013 state study of education funding called attention to the same problem and
urged reform of both funding and monitoring.

474. As testi?ed, judgment calls are made for most allegedly disabled students
to determine if they are disabled and need special education services and What kind

95

 

 

are appropriate to give them. But for the most severely multi?disability children, no
judgment is made about the extent of appropriate services and the possibility that in
some cases virtually no services may be appropriate. It is assumed that extensive
services should be supplied regardless of their appropriateness or expense. 
believed judgments could be made but aren?t because of the degree of ?pushback?
that would result?pressure from parents and others.

475. As acknowledged, while rare, some special education services for multi-
disability children can cost in excess of $200,000. He said around 10% of children
?t the multi-disability description, meaning that up to $200 million might be being
spent on them in Connecticut every year if they account for 10% of the $1.8 billion
spending. These extraordinary expenditures assumed to be legally mandated mean
the districts bearing them have fewer resources for other students, including special
education students and this expense places a great strain on poor communities like
Bridgeport and East Hartford. Particularly in these places, it reduces the quality of
education available for the general student population.

476. Figure 4 in his report shows total prevalence patterns for special education
identi?cation:
 re  R-eiatiunship errata! 3%?31?revaleme and ?ieiriet Pervert?? in; 33:71 was;

.wis
(Hf?

   



    

     
as ?'iigtb??e for Preei?ecmeed "Waited tune-3a

genres .3  {Tbij??' $3?gxfe 

477. Each dot on his graph represents a school district. The horizontal axis shows
relative poverty based on the percentage of students who receive free and reduced
price lunches under federal law. The vertical axis shows students with disability
(SWD) identi?cation prevalence?the total percentage of the student population
found eligible for special education. Overall, the scatter graphs show that children
aren?t signi?cantly more likely to get special education just because they live in a
poor town.

478. But the graphs also show that the disability identi?cation rates vary so widely
between districts that couldn?t explain the pattern by any rational means.
Many similar districts have completely dissimilar percentages of special education
students. This cannot reflect that one town has many intellectually disabled children

96

 

 

while another, quite similar, town has scarcely got a single one. Instead, 
correctly concludes that the variations mean some districts are ignoring problems,
some districts are over identifying problems, or some districts refuse to use certain
labels. For example, districts he knows from experience eschew the intellectual
disability label (formerly mentally retarded) as a matter of policy in favor of autism.

479. experience with Connecticut and elsewhere reveals a chaotic pattern.
Poor districts call some children emotionally disturbed while wealthy districts call
the same kind of children ADHD sufferersmwith consequent variations in services
and expenses. In many districts there is no limit to special education when it comes
to bad behavior. Bad behavior in these places is always attributed to a disability such
as emotional disturbance no matter the origin of the behavior, the type of behavior,
or the frequency of the behavior.

480. The conclusion that special educational spending is supported also by Deputy
Commissioner Cohn. She explained that children in Hartford were under?identi?ed
for special education, but ?you just need a hang nail to get identified for special
education in Glastonbury.?

481. To ?it always has been that schools could have markedly
different rates of disability identi?cation using the same state de?nitions and
classi?cation criteria.? He ultimately agreed and the court concludes that the
inexplicable and in his word ?enormous? differences between districts can only be
the result of a state standard that without doubt allows over?inclusion or under?
inclusion in special education.

482. There are no state mandated procedures or guidelines on how to identify and assist
disabled children in the schools.

483. The state publishes mostly on its website, guideline examples, ?Guidelines for the
Practice of School sometimes are on PPTS), speci?c
information on subjects like intellectual disability, autism and ADHD. No one is
required to use them or even look at them.

484. On February 28, 2014, the Stamford Public School District settled a dispute with
the U. S. Department of Justice regarding the ?adequacy of the District?s provision of
English Language Learner (ELL) services, teachers, materials, and special education
services to ELLS, its monitoring of current and former ELLs, and its evaluation of its
ELL programs.?

485. In January 2014, the department found that Bridgeport Public Schools violated
IDEA and Section 10~76d?7 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.

486. According to a department data bulletin, in 2014-15, 18% of English Learners were
identi?ed for special education services.

97

 

487. When reporting on its special education efforts to the federal government, the
department says that approximately 20?22% of its principle vehicle for aid to local
schools (the Educational Cost Sharing grant) is for special education.

488. For these reports, the department infers that the special education percentage of
the ECS grant is the same as the ratio of total statewide special educational
expenditures divided by total education expenditures. The percentage is therefore
entirely theoretical. It bears no relation to actual expenses nor does the state even
follow the ECS formula this calculation supposedly derives from.

489. For Connecticut?s FY 2014 report of state maintenance of effort, it reported that the
?Special Education Portion? of the ECS grant was $404,984,726 in FY 2011, and
$419,834,085 in FY 2012.

490. For FY 2013, the department reported to the federal government that the special
education portion of the ECS grant was 21.3 percent.

491. Based on data maintained and reported by the department, the following chart sets

forth, at the district and state levels, SPED expenditure as a percentage of total
current expenditures for FYs 2004, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014:

Darien 2.2% 28.8%

Ri e?eld I.  18.2%? 1 

Weston I. I 21.1% I I 21.

Greenwich 21. 

Danb  I 18.2% 18. 1 . 

VBrid rt  I. 20.6%. 22.0% I 22.

New London. . 2 .  28.1% 28.1% 28.

Windham 2 2 . . 2 21. 2o.

 

492. Beyond the theoretical amounts included in reports to the federal government, the

98

 

 

state contributes money for special education chie?y by adopting a ?xed sum to
spend on the subject each year and then applying it to a portion of the local cost
exceeding 4.5 times the non-special education per pupil expenditure.

493. Therefore, there are ?capped? and ?uncapped? special education expenditures in
excess of the 4.5 times ?gure. The uncapped amount includes the amount in excess
of 4.5 times ordinary expenditures that is uncovered by the excess cost grant.

494. In FY 2014, the Excess Cost grant applied to 6.3% of SPED students in Connecticut
public schools (4,375 out of 69,746 total SPED students).

495. The department made supplemental SPED payments of $19,316,240 for FYs 2010,
2011, 2012, and 2013.

496. The Excess Cost Grant appropriation was $120,489,491 in FY 2012.

497. According to calculations by the department, the Excess Cost Grant ?Uncapped
Appropriation? was $161,328,825 in FY 2012.

498. According to calculations by the department, the amount applied to the Excess
Cost Grant formula was 75% of the Excess Cost Grant ?Uncapped Appropriation? in
FY 2012.

499. The Excess Cost Grant appropriation was $120,489,491 in FY 2013.

500. According to calculations by the department, the Excess Cost Grant ?Uncapped
Entitlement? was $164,617,884 in FY 2013.

501. According to calculations by the department, the Excess Cost Grant appropriation
was 73% of the Excess Cost Grant ?Uncapped Appropriation? in FY 2013.

502. The initial threshold of 4.5x a district?s net current expenditure per pupil, above
which a student?s expenditures become eligible for the Excess Cost Grant, is referred
to as the ?basic contribution.?

503. For FY 2015, Excess Cost Grant basic contributions for Plaintiffs? focus districts are
projected as follows:

99

 

  
 
   
  

        
    

    
   

 



a 
$14,

8.47

   82; iia?ii? 
nt for eligible exces osts.

  

   

  
 

 

 

505. The Excess Cost Grant appropriation has been capped below costs in? excess of the

basic contribution in all but three years from FY 2002 through present.

506. As calculated by the department, the chart below provides Excess Cost Grant ?Total

Capped? and ?Total Uncapped? appropriations, as well as the dollar and percentage
impact of the appropriations cap on the Excess Cost Grant, from FY 2002 through
FY 2011:

        -.  

    . 
  

- gi:_  .

 

 

 
    

7.1.9038 
 ..    

 

  
$24,542,3
I     
   
$107,777,339 $18,930,83

    
   
  
  

     
   
   
 

$86,042,383

 

 
 ..     
$129,782,443.  . 
   
   

 

 

 I _3  

100

 

 

 

507. The difference between towns? uncapped excess cost and their capped Excess Cost
appropriations was as follows for Fiscal Year 2014-2015:

 

 

 

508. The excess cost grant only applies to a small minority of special education students
in Connecticut. In FY 2014, the Excess Cost grant applied to 6.3% of special
education students in Connecticut public schools (4,375 out of 69,746 total special
education students).

509. Like federal funding, the excess cost grant covers a small portion of what is spent
on special education. Connecticut spent approximately $1.8 billion on special
education in the 2013-14 school year, and the appropriation for excess costs FY 2015
was $139,805,731 approximately 7.7% of special education expenditures.

510. Based on data maintained and reported by the department the percentages of
Special Education students enrolled for the below districts and for the state of
Connecticut for 2014?15 are set forth in the following table.

3.. Darien .. ..  11.4% 
 .8. 8.7%

   

11. Westport 12. 10.0%
 5.5   
.. 16-10494
3    

19.Danbury _20.11.9%


23. Bridgeport 24. 14.1%

101

 

 

 

      

 State 

511. Alliance Districts may use some of their grants on special education and some do.

512. Although Defendants? expert witness, Dr. opined that Connecticut has
suf?cient funding to implement the legal mandates of IDEA, he declined to opine
that any particular district had suf?cient resources to provide an appropriate
education to its special education students.

513. Plaintiffs? focus districts spent signi?cantly less on their special education students
than wealthier districts, and on a per pupil basis spend among the lowest amounts in
the state, as re?ected by the chart set forth below chart showing special education
expenditures for the 2013-14 school year.

    . 

  

_Darien

   

 
  

 - 213 .  ..  

Westport' $20,895,950 _579  $36,090 18

       

Greenwich . . .. . 897 $451674 2

'$io;0oig84ii' 

Danbury .. 1,286 $209291 1.51

IRE-ridge'pbrf I  
    

. . . . ..

New $14,162,134 693 $20,436. I 149
London

102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State $1,822,92o,222 69,513

514. Special education services were not meant to and cannot compensate for an
inadequate or poor general education environment and structure.

515. In Connecticut, the rate and number of students qualifying for Special education
has increased from 11.5% in 2007?08 to 13% in 2014-15.

516. Five out of the six Plaintiffs? focus districts had higher than average percentages of
students who quali?ed for special education in the 2014-15 school year as set forth in
the following table533 23; if"?
Greenwich 1 10.1%

     

     1

Bridgeport 14.1%
   
New London 17.3%
.. 
State 12.7% 

517. Data maintained and reported by the state shows that Plaintiffs? focus districts

generally have fewer special education teachers for every 100 special education
students than wealthy districts, as set forth in the table below.

103

 

 

 

Darien

 I   - -- 
New London 



 

518. Plaintiffs? focus districts have signi?cantly fewer school per student
than do wealthy Connecticut districts.

  
  

   

  
Ridge?eld . .5268 446 1.1 4789. 40.5.

i52W?StF5rty 16:8.-  

Weston 241.9  5 . 483.8. 424

42839  4992229 ?1351352534102 693.3954

Hartford 1089 14



New Britain 10204 1608 16 637.8 100.5

hNEWIiOndon 3:049" -  5.6 
Windham 3189 508 4 797.3 127.0

 

 

519. Jackie Simmons, principal of Roosevelt School in Bridgeport, testi?ed that the
special education teachers at Roosevelt had very full caseloads and could not meet
legal obligations set forth by IEPs because of staf?ng levels. At the time of her
testimony, Roosevelt was not meeting all IEP requirements because of a shortage of
staff.

520. In the 2015-16 school year, un?lled vacancies for special education teachers in
Harding High School and Bassick High School in Bridgeport meant that Bridgeport
could not comply with students? IEPs.

521. SWDs at Lincoln Elementary in New Britain are served in groups of 10 to 12 in
order to meet mandated service hours at current staff levels. Elaine Cabral, the
principal of Lincoln, testi?ed that serving students in this manner negatively impacts
the students and minimizes the effectiveness of specialized instruction because
students with different educational needs are grouped together.

522. East Hartford High School lacks suf?cient staf?ng for its special education
students, with 14 special education teachers managing caseloads of 25-30 students
and a single department head spread across all schools in the district.

523. As Barbara Maselek, a teacher at New Britain High school, testi?ed shortages of
special education teachers in the Freshman Academy left large numbers of special
education students (sometimes as many as 17 special education students in a class of
31 students) clustered together in classrooms so that services required by IEPs can
be provided by the limited number of special education teachers, drastically
increasing the challenges of meeting such diverse student needs.

524. In the 2015?16 school year, because of an un?lled position, students in the LINKS
class (a class for students with severe socio?emotional needs) at New London High
School are being taught by a substitute teacher without a background in special
education.

525. Performance of special education students across the state on standardized
assessments is signi?cantly lower than for non-Special education students.

526. According to a department presentation, SWDs were the second lowest performing
subgroup on the CMT Reading test from 2010-2013.

105

 

 

 

 

527. Both parties? special education experts stated that it would be of concern if
outcomes were not improving for SWDs with disabilities.

528. In particular, Plaintiffs? expert witness Dr. McLaughlin noted that the federal
government?s major focus was to see more SWDs reach higher achievement levels.

529. From 2010-2013, performance by SWDs on the CMT Reading grew only 1.5 index
points, based on the state?s index score calculations, and the gap between SWDs and
all students grew by 0.1.

530. Performance on the CMT Reading by SWDs in affluent districts (those in District
Reference Groups (DRGs) A and B) was signi?cantly higher across different
disability categories than performance by SWDs in Alliance and Reform districts,
which include Plaintiffs? focus districts. For example, SWDs in DRG A with a
learning disability scored twice as high as SWDs in Alliance and Reform districts,
with DRG A having an average index score of 69 and Alliance and Reform districts
having average scores of approximately 30 to 32. The same pattern is seen for other
disability categories, including emotional disturbance, speci?c learning disability,
other health impairments and autism.

531. SWDs in Plaintiffs? focus districts scored poorly on the CAPT and CMT in 2013, as
re?ected in the below table which sets forth index scores for SWDs in the focus
districts and for the state of Connecticut.

 

 

Average

532. SWDs performed poorly on the 2015 English Language Arts and Mathematics
Smarter Balanced assessments.

106

 

 

 

 

 

   

  
   

 

I SWD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

62.1% 11.6%
16.3% 22.6% 34.9%
SWD Math 73.4% 18.4% 6.0%
26.7% 29.9% 24.8%

 

 

533. Performance on the Smarter Balanced assessment by SWDS vary by district wealth,
with signi?cantly more SWDS in wealthier districts reaching state standards, and
only 3.6% of SWDS in DRG I reaching state standards, as re?ected in the below table
which sets forth 2015 Smarter Balanced ELA scores for SWDS?Graham?.  
A 1543 474 307% 571 370%

4758 1908 40.1% 1313 27.6%

2115 933 44.1% 532 25.2%

4618 2475 53.6% 806 17.5%

1399 704 50 3% 290 20.7%

1625 1004 61.8% 197 12.1%

3913 2726 69.7% 361 9.2%

4107 3111 75.7% 239 5.8%

I 6585 5595 85.0% 235 3.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

534. SWDS in DRG A outperformed non-disabled students, students who have not
been identi?ed as having a disability, in DRG I on the Smarter Balanced Reading
assessment. Compared to 37% of SWDS in DRG A that reached the state standard of
Level 3 or above, 31% of non-disabled students in DRG I reached the state standard.

535. SWDS graduate at signi?cantly lower rates than their non-disabled peers as
reflected in the following table setting forth the four-year cohort graduation rate for
the listed years.

107

 

 

88.0% 88.6% 90.3%

536. Danbury's percentage of special education population is below the state average.

537. From 2000-2012, the mainstreaming of special education students in New London
increased.

538. From 2000?2012, it was infrequent that a parent of a special education student in
New London ?led a complaint regarding their IEP services. These kinds of
complaints are rare across special education.

539. From 2002?2008, there was a signi?cant reduction in out of district costs for

special education in New London.

540. From 2002-08, there was a signi?cant reduction in special education prevalence
rate and disproportionate identi?cation in New London.

541. Prior to 2008, New London developed and implemented a "co-teaching" model in
grades One purpose of the co?teaching model was to improve the educational

opportunities for special education students.

542. Connecticut's special education identi?cation rate in 2012-13 was 12.7%. That
same year the national mean was 12.9% and the national median was 13.5%.

543. Since the year 2007, Connecticut has had a better IDEA compliance record than
any state in the Northeast except 

544. IDEA compliance does not consider over-identi?cation or under?identi?cation but
focuses on procedural due process and compliance with PPTs.

545. Since 2007 when the ratings were ?rst published the State of Connecticut has
never been cited for failure to meet requirements of the Part portion of IDEA in
identifying young children with disabilities.

546. In the 2011-12 school year, 90 percent of Connecticut's 166 school districts met the

108

 

 

requirements of the IDEA.

547. In the 2011?12 school year, 3 percent of Connecticut school districts were found to
have needed assistance two years in a row. And in about 90 percent of those districts
the needs assistance ?nding was because of dif?culties complying with timelines
with regard to initiating the initial evaluation, completing the evaluation, developing
the IEP, meeting with parents and implementing the program.

548. Of the Connecticut districts that needed assistance two years in a row, there was no
relationship to the number of free and reduced price lunch students. At least one

district that needed assistance two years in a row had a FRPL population of 2 or 3
percent.

549. About 1% of Connecticut's school population is made up of low incidence high cost
special education students.

550. The identi?cation of learning disabilities throughout the United States and in the
State of Connecticut has declined over the last ten years.

551. The City of Danbury receives the special education excess cost reimbursement from
the state and doesn't share that money with the Danbury Board of Education.

552. Average per pupil spending in Connecticut for all students in 2011-12 was $17,403
per student. That same year the national average was about $11,000.

553. Autistic students generally have more expensive special education programs than
the average for all special education students.

554. In Connecticut, in 2012-13, low-wealth districts were no more likely to have
children with autism than high-wealth districts.

555. In Connecticut, in 2012-13, 75% of the variation of students with disabilities levels

among districts is not attributable to poverty.

556. In Connecticut, in 2012?13, there was virtually no statistical relationship between

poverty and the identi?cation of students with learning disabilities.

557. In Connecticut, in 2012-13, 82% of the variation of students with intellectual
disabilities is not attributable to poverty.

109

558. In Connecticut, in 2012-13, 72% of the variation of students with emotional
disturbance is not attributable to poverty.

559. In Connecticut, in 2012-13, virtually none of the variation of students with other
health impairment is attributable to poverty.

560. In Connecticut, in 2012?13, 10% of the variation of students with low incidence
disabilities is attributable to poverty.

561. In Connecticut, in 2011-12, the non-plaintiff districts spent $1220 more per special
education student than the plaintiff districts. "Plaintiff districts" were derived from
the Corrected Third Amended Complaint, dated January 7, 2013, and were
Bridgeport, Danbury, Windham, East Granby, Plain?eld, Norwich, New Britain, New
London, East Hartford, Hartford, and Stamford.

562. In 2011?12, the national average for special education students in the general
education classroom for 80% or more of the school day was 61%.

563. In 2011?12, the Connecticut average for special education students in the general
education classroom for 80% or more of the school day was 69%.

564. Over the last several years, Connecticut districts have improved reduced) the
number of special education students outplaced.

565. In Connecticut there is no statistically signi?cant relationship between the number
of special education students outplaced and the poverty level of their district.

566. Out-of?district placements are typically more costly.

567. Connecticut is trying to improve the implementation of scienti?c research based
interventions (SRBI) in all Connecticut schools with the idea of improving reading
performance overall.

568. Connecticut's 2010-11 ratios of special education teachers, speech language
pathologists, and school to number of students with disabilities are
substantially better than the United States averages for all three of these groups.

569. Bridgeport will bring some special education students back to district next year
(2016?17 school year). This is happening in many districts (alliance and others) to
save money on transportation and tuition from outplacement, and because districts
can build programs internally to meet the needs of students, for which the
department provides assistance.

570. The department is working with Bridgeport to provide eight days of in?district

llO

training and development sessions to support its efforts to improve its work to
identify young children with disabilities this year. The department is also doing
focused monitoring in Bridgeport.

571. Bridgeport has programs for special education students for emotionally disturbed
students and for autistic students.

572. During Superintendent Garcia's tenure in Windham, Windham has returned 16
special education students into the district, which has resulted in a cost savings of
about $200,000 for the district. That money, in turn, will go to bene?t special
education students in Windham.

573. During Superintendent Garcia's tenure in Windham, Windham has ful?lled its
students IEPs, and there have been no governmental ?ndings of violations with
regard to special education services in the district.

574. Windham has started a co-teaching model for special education students.
575. The graduation rate of special education students has increased in Windham.
576. New London High School is in compliance with the IDEA.

577. New London has reduced the growth and number of special education
outplacements, resulting in savings in tuition and transportation, in part through the
High Roads program.

578. New London is training special education teachers on implementing IEPs aligned
to the Common Core State Standards.

579. The self-contained special education classrooms at New London High School range
from 12:1 to 18:1 student to staff ratio. Some of these classes have more than 1 adult
in the room, such as paraprofessionals or special education assistants.

580. New London High School has a transitional coordinator and job coaches paid with
alliance district funding who help special needs students transition to the world of
work by helping ?nd employment for students and monitoring them on the job site.

581. During Commissioner Wentzell's tenure in South Windsor, the district brought
back outplaced special education students while staying within its budget. It did so
by discontinuing other actions that were less of a priority, and training existing staff,
?nding time to do so by reassigning them.

582. The department assists districts to comply with the IDEA.
The department contracts with the State Education Resource Center (SERC) to
provide supports and professional development to districts in the area of special
education. The department also assists districts to develop in-house programs and

111

bring special education students back to their districts by providing technical
assistance and connecting them with experts during Alliance District convening
meetings or other districts, such as assisting Bridgeport with a Tier 1 behavioral
program that had been used in New Haven and Hartford.

583. East Hartford High School has an inclusion program for special education
students.

7. Focus Districts Facts

Bridgeport facts

584. All of the students in Bridgeport are eligible for free and reduced price lunch.

585. Bridgeport has approximately 21,500 students in 37 schools.

586. The student population in Bridgeport Public Schools is around 48% Hispanic, and
38% African-American.

587. Approximately 13% of Bridgeport students are English Language Learners, and
nearly 15% receive special education services.

588. In Bridgeport at least 200 teachers leave each year. The turnover rate is impacted
by working conditions and salary levels. Teachers in special education, world
language, math, and science are especially dif?cult to recruit to Bridgeport. There
are 11.5 positions in the district ?lled by permanent substitutes as opposed to
certi?ed teachers.

589. Even as the student population grew, Bridgeport cut 73.5 certi?ed staff such as
certi?ed teachers, social workers, and special education teachers.

590. Waltersville School in Bridgeport has one literacy coach for approximately 600
students from Pre?K to 8th grade.

591. Waltersville School has one social worker who only oversees children with IEPs, so
she cannot meet with students with socio?emotional needs but without IEPs.

592. Waltersville School has one guidance counselor who is overstretched in terms of
her caseload and, as a result, does not meet with students with socio?emotional
needs as often and as long as she should.

593. Roosevelt School in Bridgeport has one full time guidance counselor, one part time
social worker and one full time for a population of approximately 613
students in grades PK-8.

594. Bryant Elementary School in Bridgeport has one guidance counselor, one

112

 

 and one social worker, all three of whom are part-time and are at the
school between two to three days a week for a population of approximately 400
students.

595. Secondary students in Bridgeport require interventions in literacy but there are no
reading teachers or reading interventionists in the comprehensive high schools.

596. In the 2015-2016 school year, there are vacancies for special education teachers in
Harding High School and Bassick High School in Bridgeport.

597. During the 2015-2016 school year, Harding High School lacked mathematics
teachers; in response the district moved a math coach from the elementary school to
provide mathematics instruction.

598. Harding High School has a medical magnet component, but students in the 2015-
2016 school year could not receive their CNA certi?cation because there was no
nurse teacher.

599. At Bassick High School, there are approximately 1,000 students and only three
guidance counselors.

600. There are Bridgeport schools are in need of renovation. For example, boilers in
some elementary schools are unreliable. Ceilings in one Bridgeport school fell the
previous year.

601. Edison School in Bridgeport, at least during the 2012-2015 school years
experienced leaks from radiators and water fountains some of which caused Edison
students to slip and fall.

602. The Bryant Elementary School building?s roof has been leaking for past 11 years.

603. During certain months of the school year, one ?fth grade classroom in Bryant
Elementary School becomes extremely hot, averaging around 90 degrees by nine to
nine-thirty in the morning.

604. The literacy coach at Waltersville School in Bridgeport does not have a dedicated
space for providing her interventions. Instead, the literacy coach provides student
interventions at various spaces throughout the school building, including at the back
of classrooms, in pods which are located next to the school bathrooms, and a
teacher?s work room that the literacy coach converted into a work space.

605. The one computer lab at Waltersville School has 24 computers, none of which are
functioning. Even if the computers were functioning, they would be insuf?cient for
many of the classes in Waltersville School which have more than 24 students.

606. The literacy coach at Waltersville School in Bridgeport does not receive any pencils,
pens, crayons, or notebooks from the school even though she requires them for her

113

 

classroom instruction.

607. There are no school buses to transport students to the comprehensive high schools
in Bridgeport; students who live outside a certain mile radius are provided municipal
bus passes.

608. In Bridgeport, students with severe special needs tend to go out of the district for
support.

609. A large number of special education students in Bridgeport are sent out of the
district because the district does not have the funding available to build the capacity
within the district to meet the students? needs.

610. Because class sizes are already so large in Bridgeport, many special education
students that would bene?t from ?mainstream? interaction with non?special
education students remain self-contained in their respective classes.

611. Waltersville School in Bridgeport has an occupational therapist, physical therapist,
and speech therapist that support the special education students in the school. None
of these support staff are full-time; the speech therapist works in three different
schools and is only present at Waltersville School three times a week and the
occupational and physical therapists are also assigned to numerous other schools.

612. Bridgeport has not met the State?s AMAOs for EL students in years. That means
that EL students do not have the language skills to pass a language pro?ciency test or
the vocabulary skills to reach pro?cient on the SBAC.

613. Bridgeport operates a bilingual hub at one high school that students from the other
high schools must travel to attend.

614. Only two?thirds of all students in Bridgeport attend preschool. In surrounding
wealthier communities, the numbers are closer to 95% of students or more who have
attended preschool.

615. Not all preschool-age children in Bridgeport have an opportunity to attend
preschool because of a lack of funding to provide suf?cient preschool spaces and a
lack of transportation to access preschool spaces.

616. Bridgeport has left some stateufunded preschool education slots left vacant because
of administrative mistakes. It has failed to make the most of its opportunities, but it
would lack sufficient preschool resources even if it did.

617. The lack of preschool for Bridgeport students has a signi?cant effect on education

in Bridgeport, in that students do not have basic academic, socio-emotional, and
developmental skills when they begin kindergarten.

114

618. Bridgeport received $14 million in Alliance District money for 2015-16, $7 million
of which at minimum should go to intervention. But in Bridgeport, many of the
intervention items that were in the Operating budget were moved to the Alliance
budget.

619. Bridgeport's ECS grant in ?scal year 2014 was $173.7 million - $37.6 million short
of its statutorily-de?ned "fully funded grant." The parties sharply dispute the
signi?cance of this de?nition, but the state has never met it in any focus district and
has essentially abandoned the formula anyway, making this true but largely a moot
point.

620. In 2012, the average elementary school teacher salary in Bridgeport was
$64,250.39 compared to $71,957.45 in Darien, $74,704.46 in Fair?eld, $75,931.76 in
New Canaan, $77,229.81 in Westport, $77,535.5 in Ridge?eld, and $88,737.19 in
Greenwich. The low salary scale and dif?cult working conditions in Bridgeport pose
a challenge to attracting and retaining quality teachers in Bridgeport public schools.

621. Bridgeport focuses on growth in student achievement as a measure of student
success. Although the gaps between it and the rest of the state remain very large,
Bridgeport has seen increases in the rates of growth with literacy within the last two
years.

622. During Superintendent Rabinowitz's tenure, Bridgeport has shown incremental
positive gains in student achievement scores) and behavioral
components, such as chronic absenteeism and both in- and out?of?school
suspensions.

623. Bridgeport has seen good outcomes and solid growth in scores from
2014-15 to 2015-16 in nearly all grade levels and in most subject areas, with fewer
students below grade level in math and reading and more students above grade level.
Bridgeport has seen increases in the level of growth in achievement across all grades.

624. Bridgeport saw growth in academic achievement and behaviorally in language arts,
overall academic achievement, behavior, attendance and graduation rates from 2012
through 2014 and that continued in 2014?15.

625. Bridgeport is now ready to buy into the state's Connecticut Literacy Initiative
(CK3LI) program and absolutely believes in what the program is teaching. One of its
schools, Columbus School, is already involved.

626. Bridgeport has put a curriculum in place aligned with the Common Core State
Standards and has provided training to all of its teachers in that curriculum.

627. Bridgeport is always working with staff to improve the ?Tier I instruction? directed
at mainstream students.

115

 

628. Bridgeport now has training in place for its school leaders in effective teacher
evaluation. This training is funded through the Alliance District grant.

629. Bridgeport's system of intervention is in better shape than it was when
Superintendent Rabinowitz came to Bridgeport. Rabinowitz reinstituted the
directors of literacy and math. She hired them using Alliance District funding.
Bridgeport has a 90-minute literacy period followed by an SRBI period which has an
'all hands on deck' approach that redistributes and differentiates students based on
their needs. All 29 elementary schools in Bridgeport have had the 90?minute blocks
since 2014-15. The intervention system is coming along. Bridgeport has used its
Alliance District funding to support this system. The system helps defray the cost of
interventionists by having time set aside where classroom teachers can do some of
the intervention.

630. At Waltersville School in Bridgeport, SRBI is being applied to all students. Most
teachers are engaged in tiered instruction aimed at different teaching for different
abilities, and all teachers and interventionists are training in SRBI strategies. There
are also teachers trained in the Wilson, Lexia and Just Words reading programs for


631. Bridgeport is implementing a new data system, which will take about 3 years to be
fully implemente . This approach has virtually unanimous support from
contemporary scholars in education, and was missing in Bridgeport when
Superintendent Rabinowitz started her tenure there.

632. Superintendent Rabinowitz was deeply dissatis?ed with the current teacher

evaluation system and how it deals With growth in test scores particularly the fact

633. Bridgeport has four interdistrict magnet schools with about 2,000 students and
receives an additional $3,000 from the state for each Bridgeport student who
attends (about 70% of the 2,000). Bridgeport also receives about $7,000 per pupil
for each of the out?of?district students enrolled (about Bridgeport is
opening a new magnet school, Geraldine Clayton School, in Jan. 2017, which will
provide additional state funding to the district.

634. Bridgeport has several groups where it is developing teachers to be leaders, which

gives the teachers more training and the opportunity to in?uence the school system.
One such program is through CCSU. Bridgeport also participates in LEAD CT's

635. Parental involvement is a critical factor in student success.

636. The relationship between the superintendent and the board of education of

116

 

Bridgeport affects the reforms that have been put in place or adopted in 2012.

637. In Bridgeport, the Commissioner's Network program has had a positive effect in
terms of providing funding for professional development, instructional coaching,
smaller class sizes and more interventions.

638. Suspensions in Bridgeport classes that participated in the ALIVE wraparound
program were reduced by 23%. Out-of?school suspensions have dramatically
dropped this year at Marin School. Additionally, Dunbar School saw an
improvement in its culture and climate, including an over 30% decrease in in- and
out-of?school suspensions.

639. The department gave Bridgeport Public Schools $200,000 for Columbus School
With that money, Bridgeport helped put the Columbus School's principal
through LEAD Connecticut training to help build his capacity to be an effective
leader. Columbus School has seen growth in outcomes scores) and
reduced out-of?school suspensions signi?cantly. The principal is now at a different
school in Bridgeport and is expected to succeed there, given his training. Columbus
has a new principal and has reapplied to the Commissioner's Network.

640. Bridgeport has a head of early childhood. Bridgeport has a universal preschool
task force and is looking at establishing preschools throughout the city, and has done
more marketing to reach out to parents about preschool opportunities.

641. Bridgeport has worked with the United Way to ?nd children and provide services in
those areas.

642. Around 2 3 of kindergarteners in Bridgeport have had a preschool experience.

643. Out of roughly 1,500 teachers, only about 120 resigned last year Another 80
teachers retired Thus, about 1,380, or 87%, of teachers stayed in the district.

644. Teachers in Bridgeport, like most teachers, are not primarily motivated by salary,
and according to Superintendent Rabinowitz they would not leave their jobs if they
did not get raises in a given year. Money is a factor for all teachers, but it isn?t the
highest priority for a teacher picking the profession or a school.

645. All teacher contracts in Bridgeport Public Schools grant raises every year.

646. Bridgeport has a district-wide behavioral support program called RULER which is
an early intervention strategy where trauma in students is identi?ed and, rather than
identifying them as special needs, the program removes the children from the
classroom to receive "high-powered" behavioral support, including work with
families and schools, and then returns the students to the classroom after
completion of the program. Through this program, parents are very committed and
try to come in to learn better ways of parenting.

117

. I

 

649. In 2015-16, Bridgeport received over in Alliance District funding and over
in Priority School District funding. Beyond these grants, Bridgeport received
almost in 2014-15 in competitive state, federal and private grants.

650. Using its Year Four Alliance District funding this school year, Bridgeport has used
embedded literacy and math coaching, professional development to support the

652. Bridgeport's per pupil expenditures have increased since 2011-12. Of that
spending, 70% comes from the state, 21% from the municipality and 8% from the
federal government.

653. In 2012?13, the average general education teacher salary in Bridgeport was
$64,103, compared to nearby New Haven County districts like Orange 
West Haven New Haven Derby and Ansonia


654. Bridgeport was awarded $2.68 million for improvements to school buildings under
the Alliance District school building grant. Bridgeport will use these funds for
facility updates, including boiler replacements.

655. Bridgeport schools have received school improvement grants (SIG) since 2011. For
example, Roosevelt School received a SIG from 2011?14 (over $800,000 per year),

118

 

 

and 4 schools (Cesar Batalla School, Geraldine Johnson School, Columbus School,
Tisdale School) received a SIG from 2014?15 to present (between $130,000 and
$200,000 per year each).

656. The Lighthouse program serves about 2,000 students in Bridgeport and offers after
school and summer programs, and includes homework help, reading and math
enrichment, computer instruction, music, arts, tutoring. The program is available
during the school year for a sliding scale of $5 to $20 per week, with scholarships
available, and in the summer all day. The all?day program is available for $10 to $40
a week on a sliding scale with scholarships available.

657. In recently completed or underway projects in Bridgeport, the state has committed
$378 million to new buildings. Bridgeport projects are reimbursed by the state at
80% for renovations and 100% for roof replacements.

658. In 2014-15, Bridgeport upgraded over 10,000 Chromebooks. Bridgeport has more
than one Chromebook for every two students. Bridgeport also tripled its internet
access in 2014-15 after hiring a new technology director. Bridgeport received about
in E-Rate funding which will be used to provide additional access points for
computer use and double the internet bandwidth this summer. Bridgeport is also
receiving an expansion of wireless internet infrastructure for all 3rd to 12th grade
classrooms this year.

659. Bridgeport also received an Apple grant that provided for an iPad for every student
and teacher in in ?ve different schools. This grant was given to only 114 schools
nationwide, ?ve of which are in Bridgeport. The roughly 3,000 students in those
schools will not need Chromebooks.

66o. Bridgeport received a grant for ?ve elementary schools, including Waltersville
School, to provide a resident artist in each school who works with students and gives
teachers and the principals training on how to integrate the arts into instruction. It
also provides about $40,000 for supplies across the ?ve schools.

661. Bridgeport has implemented the MyOn program in classes, which is "an
excellent program" that provides online and of?ine access for students to over 6,000
digital books. MyOn allow students to read genres that they like; monitors where the
students are, gives a quick quiz after every book that is read and suggests other
books and allows students to learn about other genres.

662. Bridgeport participates in the Jobs for the Future program for grades 9-12, which
helps the district design pathways (courses) for students in the areas of culinary,
business, the arts, etc. Using this funding program, Bridgeport has done incredible
amounts of training in grades 7-10 in good strategies for literacy to get students to be
college and career ready. Bridgeport also developed a program through this grant
with Housatonic Community College where a number of students attend advanced
manufacturing classes at the college (with transportation provided).

119

 

- wnW?mwm663. Harding High School in Bridgeport has international baccalaureate (1B) and law
academy programs.

664. Principals at Central High School and Bridgeport Military Academy were "good
hires" and have performed well.

665. Bridgeport has a portfolio of professional development opportunities for teachers
and administrators that it conducts in-house in Bridgeport.

666. The literacy and math coaches at Bryant School are trained in various reading and
math initiatives for the purpose of bringing them back to present to teachers in the
classroom.

667. Bridgeport implemented a new math program that was geared towards the
Common Core called Math in Focus. This was a paradigm shift in teaching math in
each grade, building on the foundation of the previous grade starting with
kindergarten through Grade 8. Professional development was given to teachers on
this program.

668. Roosevelt School in Bridgeport is a new facility. There have been gains at
Roosevelt School in attendance this year. Each student at Roosevelt has received an
iPad mini from an Apple grant, and the teachers receive MacBook Airs and iPad
minis as well.

669. Regarding raises every year for teachers, Superintendent Rabinowitz didn?t think
about asking teachers to make certain concessions given the budgetary issues in
Bridgeport and the state. According to Rabinowitz, because of collective bargaining,
the board has, to negotiate the terms with the unions, and they would likely refuse to
consider these concessions, such as not having salary increases every year. These
changes would be dif?cult, especially given binding arbitration.

670. Superintendent Rabinowitz's relationship with the Bridgeport Board of Education
is a challenge. The board gets stuck for 4 1/2 hours on political issues whether
the superintendent's contract is legal) and "bickers about trivial matters," which
leaves little time for substantive matters. It is dif?cult to conduct business, and the
board often loses a quorum because it is so late by the time they get to substantive
issues. Four members are opposed to most of whatever Rabinowitz wants to do.
This dysfunction interferes with the functioning of the board and its ability to work
on policy.

671. Tisdale School in Bridgeport was built in 2008 and is state of the art.

672. Eleven schools in Bridgeport, in one subject or another, re?ect high needs students
who are outperforming the state average of high needs students.

673. In 2012, Bridgeport?s four year cohort graduation rate was 66.3%. In 2013, the four

120

 

 

year cohort graduation rate was 67.3%. In 2014, the four year cohort graduation rate
was 71.5%.

674. According to the SAT, only 10% of Bridgeport?s test takers met the ?College and
Career Readiness Benchmar ?i in 2012. In 2013, 10% met the benchmark. Only 2%
of PSAT students were marked as on track to graduate.

675. According to the 2012 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 36.5% of
Bridgeport?s students performed at or above pro?ciency in mathematics, and 10.3%
performed at or above goal. In science, the results were 40.7% of students
performing at or above pro?ciency, and 10.5% performing at or above goal. In
reading, 42% performed at or above pro?ciency and 8.2% performed at or above
goal. Finally, in writing, 59% performed at or above pro?ciency and 21.3%
performed at or above goal. 

676. According to the 2013 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 35.5% of
Bridgeport?s students performed at or above pro?ciency in mathematics, and 11.3%
performed at or above goal. In science, the results were 38.2% of students
performing at or above pro?ciency, and 9.7% performing at or above goal. In
reading, 38% performed at or above pro?ciency and 8.6% performed at or above
goal. Finally, in writing, 60.3% performed at or above pro?ciency and 20.7%
performed at or above goal.

677. According to the 2014 CAPT grade 10 performance report, only 11.3% of
Bridgeport?s students met goal range and 38.4% were pro?cient.

East Hartford facts

678. East Hartford has approximately 7,000 students in 16 schools.

679. The student population in East Hartford is 35% African-American, 42% Hispanic,
and 16% white, and there is a growing Asian population.

680. Seventy-one percent of East Hartford students are eligible for free and reduced
price lunches. In ?ve schools, 100% of the population is eligible for free and reduced
lunches.

681. Over 15% of students in East Hartford are special education students, and 12% are
English language learning students.

682. For 2014?15, the East Hartford superintendent requested a 5.7% budget increase,
but received a 0% increase. As a result, Reduction in Force (RIF) letters were issued
to teachers prior to May 1 to inform them of a potential layoff.

683. For 2015?16, the East Hartford superintendent requested a $90.4 million budget,
but received an $88 million budget.

12]

 

 

 

684. East Hartford?s budget for instructional materials is extremely limited. The 2015-
16 budget for textbooks is $40,000, and is slated speci?cally for a collection of worn
out textbooks for a single class. Other textbooks in East Hartford, for example math
textbooks from 1991, also need to be replaced.

685. East Hartford?s budget for library books is zero dollars.

686. Most media centers in East Hartford are staffed by library paraprofessionals,
rather than certi?ed librarians, in order to save costs. Library paraprofessionals
stock the shelves, but are not teachers who can instruct students on research
techniques or help students select reading materials.

687. East Hartford has four or ?ve elementary schools that do not have a social worker.

688. The high percentage of special education students in East Hartford combined with
federal legal mandates related to the provision of special education services requires
East Hartford to devote substantial and increasing funds to special education.

689. East Hartford?s high concentration of English language learning (EL) students
(around 12% of the student population) creates a challenge for appropriately
resourcing and addressing individuals? language barriers or learning disabilities or
both.

690. In 2011, East Hartford?s EL rate was but in 2014, it was In 2011, the
statewide EL rate was but in 2014, it was (These numbers are different
from the ones described above because there are often discrepancies between
internal data and data that the state reports). There are approximately 50 languages
represented in East Hartford.

691. East Hartford only has one translator who speaks Spanish. The district?s students,
however, collectively speak 50 languages.

692. Because of budget constraints in East Hartford, 48% of the Alliance grant is used to
support preexisting staff and programs.

693. Two East Hartford schools are currently members of the Commissioner?s Network,
but more than two would bene?t from the additional funding associated with the

Commissioner?s Network.

694. East Hartford High School has one social worker for the 400 ninth grade students,
which is insuf?cient to meet the varied socio?emotional needs of the students.

695. East Hartford High School hired two more school social workers for a total of
four, but this was at the expense of additional intervention classes or more teachers.

696. There is one teacher for the reading intervention class at East Hartford High

122

 

School. Because of the high number of students who qualify for reading intervention
based on the Standardized Test for the Assessment of Reading (STAR), many
students, including those far below grade level, can?t receive these services.

697. At East Hartford High School, limited staf?ng prevents some students eligible for
math interventions from getting them.

698. At the time of trial, the textbooks at East Hartford High School for ninth grade
science are outdated, for example, the physical science textbook in East Hartford
High School is ten years old and the biology textbook is 15 years old.

699. Because of budget constraints over the past several years, teaching staff for elective
programs have been reduced limiting student exposure to career and early college
opportunities at East Hartford High School.

700. East Hartford High School lacks suf?cient staf?ng for its special education
students, with 14 special education teachers managing a caseload of 25?30 students
and a single department head spread across schools.

701. No students who qualify for special education services at East Hartford High School
reach grade level in reading by grade 12.

702. East Hartford High School has one school for its 1700 students
working 70-90 hours a week, including service at other schools, and cannot meet
student need.

703. Because of staf?ng limits, East Hartford High School has had to delegate personal
counseling from the to social workers, raising their caseload and
limiting their intervention outside of mandated IEPs.

704. Superintendent Quesnel has publicly stated that he is comfortable with and proud
of the direction East Hartford is heading, the work it is doing and the quality of
leaders in the district.

705. Superintendent Quesnel agrees with East Hartford High School Principal Matt
Ryan that East Hartford is educating more and better educated students than it was
10 years ago. This can be seen in part by the double?digit gains in SAT scores.

706. East Hartford and the state as a whole are in the midst of new raised expectations;

the Common Core State Standards have raised the bar of what career and college
ready means and what it stands for.

707. East Hartford has not alerted the department about any due process issues
regarding special education services.

708. In 2013, the Hartford Courant and FOX CT named East Hartford Public Schools

123

the seventh best place to work in the state.

709. An East Hartford principal recently told Superintendent Quesnel that the culture
(based on rate of suspensions) at East Hartford Public Schools is the "best [he's] ever
seen it" in 36 years in East Hartford schools.

710. Superintendent Quesnel is comfortable with the teacher retention rates in East
Hartford. At East Hartford High School, Principal Ryan does not have to hire
teachers because they do not leave very often to go teach elsewhere.

711. Total per pupil expenditures have increased in East Hartford every year from 2011-
12 to 2014-15.

712. Increases in per pupil spending in East Hartford, as in other districts, is driven
predominantly by teacher raises mandated through collective bargaining.

713. In East Hartford additional increased spending has been dictated by special
education costs forcing him to cut other programs.

714. East Hartford does not have a coherent sustainability plan with regard to its
Alliance District or Commissioner's Network plans. Instead, it goes from grant to
grant. This is because East Hartford could not continue to do the things these
programs are paying for without the grants.

715. Although school turnaround doesn?t happen overnight or even in a year, East
Hartford?s O'Brien School has seen strong signs of progress in its second year as a
Commissioner's Network School.

716. East Hartford Middle School Principal Anthony Menard is a graduate of the LEAD
CT program, which he found to be a transformative process. East Hartford Middle
School also uses the RISE program which provides behavioral support to students in
need.

717. O'Brien STEM Academy in East Hartford has seen signi?cant growth as a
Commissioner's Network School, including levels of literacy across grade levels,
chronic absenteeism rates, and parental engagement.

718. O'Brien School has a parent center and a food pantry. East Hartford has also
secured a $750,000 grant from The Hartford Foundation for Public Giving to
support efforts around family and community engagement, including developing a
teaching and learning center and launching an of?ce of family and community
partnership. The district will use the Harvard School of Education's family
engagement model and dual capacity building framework to help district leaders and
teachers develop the necessary skills, abilities, and mindset to more effectively
engage in work with families, with the special focus on culturally responsive
practices. Superintendent Quesnel believes the plan will have a long?lasting impact
on the East Hartford community.

124

719. Superintendent Quesnel appreciates the value of the Commissioner's Network and
believes it is helping at both O'Brien and East Hartford Middle School.

720. East Hartford has not applied for more Commissioner's Network schools, although
it is eligible for up to ?ve. Conversely, Bridgeport has four Commissioner's Network
schools, and is applying for another, and New Haven has three Commissioner's
Network schools. It has not applied because Superintendent Quesnel could not get
the union agreement required to apply. He hopes to get another opportunity soon.

721. Superintendent Quesnel supports the state's CK3LI reading program. East
Hartford is using CK3LI strategies across the district and it has changed the district's
approach towards reading. East Hartford piloted the program at Norris School and
Langford School. In part because of improvements resulting from the CK3LI
program, Norris School just exited turnaround status.

722. East Hartford's new early childhood center was built along a bus line to help
increase access for students.

723. East Hartford's International Baccalaureate Academy High School was ranked as
the best magnet high school in Connecticut and the 11th best in the nation this year.

724. East Hartford is developing social and emotional standards in the same way as they
have adopted new academic standards aligned with the Common Core State
Standards.

725. While its gaps compared with other districts are great, East Hartford is making
progress toward its goals in both math and reading on the STAR assessment across
all grades.

726. From 2015 to 2016, East Hartford saw a 25% decrease district-wide in students
chronically absent, including a 39% decrease in elementary students chronically
absent.

727. From 2015 to 2016, East Hartford also saw a steady decline in? and out-of-school
suspensions across the district.

728. State policy and educational policy trends are discouraging suspensions. The
theory behind discouraging them is that troubled students need more school, not
less. This creates some risk of forcing teachers to tolerate classroom misbehavior,
but the state is trying to train teachers in techniques to manage the problems.

729. Although its numbers were very low and remain very low, East Hartford outpaced
the state average in growth on both the CMT and CAPT from 2009-10 to 2012-13 for
all students and high needs students. Experts for both sides credibly noted that
schools with very low scores are more likely to see bigger jumps in growth when

125

growth happens because there is such a long way to go.

730. In 2014-15, East Hartford's average class sizes for each of grades K-6 were below
the state average.

731. In 2012-13, East Hartford teacher salaries were higher than the state average for
general education and special education teachers. For general education teachers,
East Hartford's salaries were higher than nearby districts like Hartford, Manchester
and Windsor. East Hartford's superintendent salary was also above the state average
in that year.

732. New teacher salaries in East Hartford are in the top third of all Hartford County
districts.

733. East Hartford uses Alliance funding to hire behavior managers as well as
attendance of?cers at East Hartford High School, East Hartford Middle School, and
Synergy. An attendance task force consisting of representatives from each school
meets to share strategies. Alliance funding is also used to fund the School
Transitional Environment Program (STEP) program at the high school, a transition
program for students in high school who are experiencing signi?cant personal
challenges. Alliance funding is also used for professional development, teacher
evaluation, embedded literacy and math coaching, SRBI, prek?3 literacy (Smart Start
classrooms and Fundations), a chief turnaround of?cer, and an IB pipeline.

734. East Hartford developed a partnership with Asnuntuck Community College,
Manchester Community College and Goodwin College to work with students at
Synergy who can enroll in college-level courses and ?eld experiences. At Synergy,
students focus on a career-readiness component called the Above and Beyond
Program.

735. East Hartford extended the school day at O'Connell School by 300 hours using
Alliance funding. The school also has an international baccalaureate curriculum,
which is a very rigorous, challenging curriculum. Students are provided intervention
so that they can succeed in this curriculum. The school also added new teachers. In
the ?rst year after integrating students from other neighborhoods into O'Connell
School, which raised the free and reduced price lunch student enrollment, things
were as good or better, with math scores increasing by over 

736. In 2014, East Hartford received a technology grant of $337,414 to purchase 480
iPad 2's and 16 carts.

737. At East Hartford High School (EHHS), Alliance District funding was used to hire
two additional social workers, a remedial reading teacher, behavior managers, and
attendance of?cers. EHHS also has two EL bilingual tutors, a four
social workers, and employs the co?teaching model. EHHS also has about 45 student

126

clubs, including a Future Teachers Club. It also has a teacher leadership academy for
leadership professional development. EHHS has had professional development in
reading training, reading strategies, chronic absenteeism workshOps, PBIS training,
Next Generation Science Standards training, Common Core training, STAR reading
and math training, and teacher evaluation training. Also, SRBI is being
implemented at EHHS, supported by the Alliance grant. Students in math
intervention at EHHS are on track to exceed their projected growth rate, and are no
longer in the intervention.

738. EHHS has a structure in place with a dedicated team in 9th and 10th grade for gifted
and talented students, some of Whom feed into honors and AP classes. REHHS also
offers at least 15 AP classes.

739. EHHS has a special education inclusion program called REALITIES, which focuses
on academic skills, community participation, vocational training, and independent
living skills.

740. EHHS has a program called Team Aspire for EL students, with the goal of moving
students out of the need for EL assistance and helping to develop their life skills and
encourage community involvement.

741. EHHS has a Jobs for America's Graduates (JAG) program, which is an elective
credit course teaching professional skills and offering individual mentoring and
counseling to students. A senior at EHHS won second place in an employability
contest at the JAG National Student Leadership Academy in Washington, DC.

742. Superintendent Quesnel has praised Governor Malloy for working hard to make
sure that school districts and ED reform cities have the resources they need to make
the changes they need to make.

743. In 2012, East Hartford?s four year cohort graduation rate was 76.6%. In 2013, the
four year cohort graduation rate was 77.7%. In 2014, the four year cohort graduation
rate was 78.3%.

744. According to the SAT, only 21% of East Hartford?s test takers met the ?College and
Career Readiness Benchmark? in 2012. In 2013, 20% met the benchmark.

745. According to the 2012 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 53.9% of East
Hartford?s students performed at or above pro?ciency in mathematics, and 20.2%
performed at or above goal. In science, the results were 56.6% of students
performing at or above pro?ciency, and 20% performing at or above goal. In
reading, 54% performed at or above pro?ciency and 21.7% performed at or above
goal. Finally, in writing, 71.6% performed at or above pro?ciency and 35.3%
performed at or above goal.

746. According to the 2013 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 50.9% of East

127

 

Hartford?s students performed at or above pro?ciency in mathematics, and 23.1%
performed at or above goal. In science, the results were 65.3% of students
performing at or above pro?ciency, and 19.8% performing at or above goal. In
reading, 60.8% performed at or above pro?ciency and 18.7% performed at or above
goal. Finally, in writing, 84.3% performed at or above pro?ciency and 46.2%
performed at or above goal.

747. According to the 2014 CAPT grade 10 performance report, only 19.8% of East
Hartford?s students met goal range and 62.6% were pro?cient.

New Britain facts

748. New Britain is a high poverty district, and is now a universal feeding district,
meaning that all of the students in New Britain receive free lunch because a
consistently high number approximately 80% of students - were eligible for free
and reduced price lunch for several consecutive years.

749. New Britain has approximately 10,000 students enrolled and operates nine 
elementary schools, one pre-K?8 magnet school, three middle schools and one
comprehensive high school for grades 9-12.

750. New Britain?s homeless population has increased to about 500 of the
approximately 10,000 students in the district.

751. The student population in New Britain is around 61% Hispanic, 21% white, 12%
African American, and 2% Asian.

752. Approximately 18% of New Britain?s current students receive special education
services and approximately 14% are English learners. New Britain?s special
education population percentage remains higher than the state average, about 18%
against 12%.

753. The percentages of special education students, ELs and minority students has
generally increased in New Britain over the past ?ve years, with students in poverty
remaining relatively stable at approximately 80%.

754. Approximately 130?135 of the 720 students at New Britain?s Lincoln Elementary are
EL students, or approximately 18%.

755. Approximately 110-120 of the 720 students at New Britain?s Lincoln Elementary
receive special education services, or approximately 15?16%.

756. A zero-based budget calculation?on starting from zero not a prior year?s number?
determined that for the school year 2012-13 New Britain was approximately ten to
?fteen million dollars short of what would be required to meet the needs of the kids
students in its neighborhood schools, taking into account any and all sources of

128

funding, including Alliance District funding and all grants from Federal, State, local
and private sources.

757. New Britain has no signi?cant programs for homeless students beyond a staff
member who works to collect money for uniforms or gifts on holidays despite having
approximately 500 homeless students out of the 10,000 student population.

758. New Britain eliminated 75 positions for 2013?14 because of budget constraints on
hiring additional teaching staff.

759. Social workers and school in New Britain are at the maximum of their
case load limit.

760. Middle schools in New Britain have 1.5 guidance counselors for 800 students.

761. New Britain had to eliminate paraprofessionals in kindergarten classes, increase
kindergarten class sizes, and allocate state grant money away from early reading
intervention programs and high school programs to implement full-day kindergarten
and reap its proven bene?ts.

762. At Lincoln Elementary in New Britain teachers provide intervention services in
coatrooms and book closets.

763. Students have been relocated at Lincoln Elementary to the hallway, another school,
or another classroom because of heating and cooling issues.

764. Lincoln Elementary has one school to deal with extensive social
emotional needs of over 720 students, forcing the principal, her assistant principal
and a social worker to triage addressing the needs of the vast number of students
with social emotional needs, attending to only students with the worst crises, and
leaving many students needs unmet.

765. Lincoln Elementary?s three reading interventionists are insuf?cient to meet the
needs of the over 200 students identi?ed as Tier and requiring extensive needs
for interventions. Only 85 students are served in any given marking period,
excluding some Tier 111 students and many Tier II students from intervention.

766. There are no math interventionists at Lincoln Elementary.

767. There are approximately 700 students in New Britain High School?s Freshman
Academy, of which approximately 450 of those students are in ?standard? classes.

768. Substantially all of the 450 students in ?standard? classes out of the 700 students in
New Britain High School?s Freshman Academy read substantially below grade level,

with many reading at the lowest ?beginning reader? level.

769. There is one reading teacher to help provide reading help to the approximately 700

129

 

students in New Britain High School?s Freshman Academy.

770. There is one social worker to help address the extensive social emotional needs of
the approximately 700 students in New Britain High School?s Freshman Academy.

771. One of the main reasons that some New Britain students did not have a preschool
experience was lack of available space in preschool programs. In FY 2014, 666
children had unmet preschool needs.

772. Special education students at Lincoln Elementary are served in groups of 8 to 12 to
meet mandated service hours at current staff levels.

773. Because of shortages of special education teachers at New Britain High School
Freshman Academy, large numbers of special education students, sometimes as
many as 17 special education students in a class of up to 31 students, are clustered
together in classrooms so that services required by IEPs can be provided by the
limited number of special education teachers.

774. For the 2012?2013 school year, 17.2% of students in New Britain were not
?uent in English, nearly triple the state total of 

775. At Lincoln Elementary, kindergarten EL students? needs are undercut by combining
EL and non-EL students in ELD classes that are designed to contain exclusively ELL
students.

776. Lincoln Elementary has EL classes that pose overcrowding and safety concerns,
such as a ?rst?grade EL class of 28 students, and in the past an EL class has had as
up to 34 students.

777. While Dr. Pamela Granucci was principal of Lincoln Elementary School, teachers
could not bring many kindergarten students who had not attended preschool up to
where they were supposed to be by the end of kindergarten, which perpetuated a
cycle whereby those students were continually behind.

778. In New Britain, in the 2012?13, 2013-14 schools years, an estimated 65% of
kindergarten students were below national norms in terms of their academic skills.

779. In New Britain, because many students enter kindergarten without the basic skills
that they are expected to possess at that age, it is important that administrators and
teachers develop interventions to support those students at that age.

780. The skills of kindergarteners in New Britain are extremely diverse, with many
students of poverty entering kindergarten without knowing letters, sounds, or colors.

781. Pre-kindergarten classes at Lincoln Elementary number 18?20 and are broken into

half?day sessions because staf?ng is insuf?cient to provide fullvday programming for
all students.

130

 

 

782. It is extremely challenging for a single teacher at Lincoln Elementary to handle a
kindergarten of 25 or 26 students when many students lack academic skills or need
physical assistance, leaving many educational needs unmet.

783. The majority of ?rst and second graders in Lincoln Elementary were signi?cantly
below grade level on the 2012 Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)
examinations.

784. Seventy percent of Lincoln Elementary students were not reading at grade level as
of the last administered reading CMT.

785. In 2014, only 25?30 percent of Lincoln Elementary students performed at grade
level in reading or math on the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA)
examination.

786. In New Britain, NWEA Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) tests generally
show 65-70% below goal in reading and 75% below goal in math, with numbers as
many as 90% for subgroups like ELs.

787. Recent improvement in the graduation rate in New Britain, up to 69% from
approximately 55%, are due in part to better tracking of students, distinguishing
those who moved away from actual dropouts.

788. DiLoreto Magnet School in New Britain is in its ?nal year as a Commissioner?s
Network school, and hours and personnel will likely be cut after the Commissioners?
Network funding ends.

789. At Smalley Academy in New Britain, one social worker serves 680 students the
school one spends most of her time serving special education students.

790. Smalley Academy in New Britain does not have any math interventionists and as a
result cannot follow with the state's recommended interventions from the SRBI
framework.

791. At Ellsworth Avenue Elementary School, 30% of students come in without having a
preschool experience. Students who come in without a pre?K experience tend to
have more dif?culty with cognitive development as well as functional skills such as
handling emotions, self?control, and conventions such as taking turns, waiting for a
teacher or the bathroom, or not being able to eat until a certain time.

792. At Smalley Academy in New Britain, NWEA tests show approximately 80% of
students are below grade?level in both reading and math, and approximately 55% of
the students are in the lowest performance level (Tier 3).

793. There have been a number of positive developments in the New Britain school

131

-- -- -

 

district over the last three years. For example, New Britain partnered with
community organizations to run a successful program to reduce summer learning
loss. While still very low, reading scores on the NWEA in New Britain have shown
progress. The town issued bonds to buy new textbooks and put SMART boards in
every classroom. The district used Alliance and Commissioner's Network funds to
add assistant principals in schools that did not have them, which has helped them to
better supervise and evaluate teachers. Gaffney School has been completely rebuilt
with 80% state funding into what is now a beautiful effectively new facility.

794. Chronic absenteeism has decreased signi?cantly in New Britain. For example,
chronic absenteeism in kindergarten in New Britain dropped from 30% in 2011?12 to
13.4% in 2013?14. The rate decreased for elementary schools as well, including from
19% in 2014?15 to 10-12% as of January 2016 at Lincoln Elementary School.
Decreases in chronic absence and corresponding increases in time in class for
instruction are correlated with better performance in school.

795. New Britain's average class sizes in 2014?15 were comparable to the state averages
for grades 

796. Efforts to reduce class sizes at the elementary level over the past three years have
worked. The 2015-16 class sizes are very good compared to previous years.

797. New Britain's transition back to neighborhood schools in 2012-13 led to positive
results, such as greater involvement of parents with schools, greater communication
between schools and parents, and savings on tranSportation costs.

798. Using Alliance funding, New Britain has a transition plan from 8th to 9th grade to
place students immediately based on and weaknesses to improve
instructional practices.

799. New Britain has several schools that have received school improvement grants,
including Slade Middle School, Pulaski Middle School, Smalley Academy, Northend,
Smith, Slade and Pulaski. At Pulaski and Slade, there have been signi?cant
reductions in absenteeism and in- and out?of-school suspensions.

800. In 2013-14, New Britain received in bonding from the city to buy new
textbooks and technology for every classroom, including a language arts series for all
grades including hard cover textbooks, soft cover reading books, and writing
journals. New Britain also purchased Chromebook mobile labs with a set of laptops
for every four classrooms.

801. In August 2015, New Britain purchased four Chromebook carts for Slade Middle
School to provide teachers with necessary technology to meet the needs of students.
In October 2015, two additional Chromebook carts were purchased for New Britain's
Satellite Careers Academy and an additional Chromebook cart with 32 Chromebooks
for Pulaski Middle School using state grant funds.

132

 

802. New Britain had a ?ve-year capital improvement plan for 2008-2013. All projects
in the plan were completed. New Britain has the latest in high?tech SMART Boards
in every classroom in the district.

803. New Britain's NWEA assessment tool, purchased in 2013-14, assists the district in
tracking performance and helps teachers work better with students by identifying
de?ciencies.

804. New Britain operates preschool classes available to all children in the district on a
sliding scale. In 2014- 15, 81% of kindergarteners in New Britain had received a
preschool experience, above the state average of 79%.

805. New Britain has all-day kindergarten in all of its elementary schools.

806. New Britain has an established curriculum for each subject in each grade. New
Britain teachers teach to the new Common Core State Standards.

807. New Britain recently started to make greater use of the English Language
Development teachers and coaches through an English Language Development
program for EL instructors. As a result, English Learner students are increasing
their English pro?ciency. For example, when the 1,700 EL students in New Britain
were tested in September of 2014, they showed a 75% increase in reading scores over
the previous year.

808. Using Alliance District funding, New Britain hired Clark Consulting to revamp its
EL program. In 2014-15, all ELL teachers and tutors received six training sessions
with an outside consultant. Each teacher additionally received demonstration
lessons, co-planning and co-teaching sessions, and coaching with the outside
consultant and in-house coaches. Two tutors and four language support assistants
attended Alliance professional development sessions: Strategies for Teaching
English Learners. Those teachers trained then go into the classrooms and provide

- embedded coaching to train other teachers.

809. DiLoreto School in New Britain, a Commissioner's Network school, went from
being rated the 8th worst school in the state to being recognized in 2014 as a model
for dual language programs in CT with credible performances by its students
including its ELs.

810. The Commissioner's Network funding for DiLoreto School extended the school day
for students and provided for physical upgrades to the building.

811. The culture and climate have improved at DiLoreto School. For example, rates of
in- and out?of?school suspensions have declined signi?cantly, in part because of the
ALIVE wraparound program at the school.

812. New Britain High School has expressed signi?cant interest in joining the
Commissioner's Network.

133

813. Using state and federal funding as well as community partnerships, all schools in
New Britain have some form of after school or extended day programs, except for the
Satellite Careers Academy and the Alternative Center.

814. In 2015-16, New Britain completed a total renovation of Gaffney Elementary
School, adding about 15,000 square feet and additional classrooms. Eighty percent
of the total cost of the project was paid by the state.

815. New Britain High School's Finance Academy is a partnership between the district
and local businesses to serve as a career pathway for students in the area of ?nance.
Students have been successful in this program, and the number of students desiring
to participate has increased by 102 students in its second year. The Academy also
became part of the National Academy Foundation, which will give students a
certi?cation that is looked favorably upon by Fortune 500 companies.

816. New Britain offers about 15 AP courses in all of the major academic subjects as well
as ?ne arts areas.

817. The City of New Britain completed ?scal year 2015 with a surplus of New
Britain school district planned to seek that surplus to apply to its school budget.

818. New Britain used its 2015?16 Alliance District funding for various initiatives and
staf?ng, including six building administrators to support teacher evaluation and
development, Clark Consulting to provide professional development for ELD
training throughout the district and ELE for two middle schools, ten kindergarten
teachers for extended day, 10 reading interventionists for Tier ELD tutors and
coaches, two district coordinators for SRBI and academics, six math teachers,
professional development for reading and interventions, 39 ELD teachers, 36
teachers (reading, interventionists, early literacy, language arts and middle school
reform ELE), six math teachers, and other professional development.

819. The Read 180 intervention program helps students who are behind grade level and
assesses and addresses individual needs through adaptive instructional software,
high interest texts, and direct instruction in reading and writing skills. Alliance
District funding is being used to train reading interventionists in New Britain on
Read 180.

820. In nine schools to date (including NBHS and Smalley Academy), New Britain has
implemented well-managed classroom training (Boys Town model) for all teachers
on understanding the social and emotional needs of students through the Safe
Schools Healthy Student grant.

821. Data teams at New Britain High School meet twice a week.

822. Teachers in New Britain have access to the Bloomboard platform, which provides
resources for teachers including books, videos, webinars, and other documents for

134

 

 

 

professional learning. All teachers received a $75 credit to use the website.

823. Common Core curriculum has been implemented at New Britain High School.
Teachers received training to assist in this implementation.

824. All classrooms at New Britain High School have interactive ENO boards.

825. At Lincoln Elementary School in New Britain, two of the three pre-k classrooms are
co-taught classes, where a special education and regular education teacher co-teach
special education and regular education students (peer model). These special
education students receive their services in-district. There are ?ve teachers and four
paraprofessionals for the three pre-k classes. 

826. The class sizes range from 15 to 20 students at Lincoln Elementary. This is at or
below state averages for K-5, which are between 19.1 and 21.4.

827. Lincoln Elementary was renovated extensively ten years ago. Classes at Lincoln
Elementary were only canceled once because of severely cold weather, at a time
when many other districts canceled school as well. That school day was eventually
made up.

828. Lincoln Elementary has full-day kindergarten for all students, funded through the
Priority School District grant. It also has wi? and ENO boards in each room, and all
teachers have iPads which are used among other things for Power School to keep
contact with parents and keep track of student attendance and grades.

829. New Britain undertook a kindergarten initiative to make connections with parents
on the importance of attendance in early grades. Two attendance monitors were
hired in 2012?13 at Lincoln Elementary to focus strictly on kindergarten students,
and make home visits. Lincoln Elementary and all other elementary schools in New
Britain formed school attendance groups of teachers and social workers. These
efforts have been successful in decreasing chronic absenteeism and improving
attendance, particularly in kindergarten. For example, Lincoln Elementary has
decreased its chronic absenteeism rate from 19% to 10-12%.

830. Lincoln Elementary provides an adequate learning environment for students to be
successful.

831. At Lincoln Elementary, each grade level made an average of one year's growth or
more on the Spring 2015 NWEA assessment.

832. With Title 1 federal funding, Lincoln Elementary received three literacy
interventionists at a cost of $24,990 for 392 hours of tutoring from January 3rd to
June 1, 2013, as well as $2,500 for the chronic absentee intervention and $4,500 to
purchase intervention materials (individualized reading books) for identi?ed
students as well as DRA 2 software (and iPads for all teachers) for student progress
monitoring.

135

 

 

 

 

833. The assistant principal position that Lincoln Elementary received was paid for with
Alliance District funding. Administrative professional development was also funded
through the Alliance grant. Lincoln Elementary also received state funding for
summer school intervention.

834. At Lincoln Elementary, the I-DRIVE teacher evaluation platform causes the
teachers to be very re?ective practitioners and review their own practice and to work
in teams to improve their practices with each other and by learning from each other.
It is a very organized platform for the school to provide consistent feedback to the
teachers on their performance and using the rubric from the state (SEED) to give
teachers speci?c feedback on areas they can work on and areas that they excel in.

835. Smalley Academy in New Britain was selected as one of only 33 schools of
distinction in the nation by College for Every Student in June 2015, as a school with
exemplary programs incorporating mentoring, leadership through service, and
pathways to college (providing students with college experiences).

836. Smalley Academy has a school attendance team that meets biweekly to discuss
student attendance and chronic absenteeism. Smalley Academy has seen a 50%
reduction in suspensions from when Principal Saavedra started there to present.

837. Smalley Academy has four interventionists and additional reading tutors paid for
with SIG funding. As a result, there has been growth across the board in student
achievement in fall 2014 and fall 2015.

838. Classroom teachers at Smalley Academy provide interventions to small groups in
their classrooms. All teachers are trained in providing differentiated instruction and
interventions in the classroom.

839. Regarding SRBI and math intervention, New Britain has used the Alliance District
grant to fund two district coordinators for SRBI and Academics, six math teachers
(middle school reform) and six other math teachers, as well as an intervention team
in each building using Power School Teacher "intervention homepage" to track and
record interventions and progress monitor.

840. All new teachers at Smalley Academy have gone through Common Core training
for ELA and math, new assessments including NWEA (Northwest Evaluation
Association), and SRBI interventions.

841. Smalley Academy has new technology for blended learning that incorporates digital
instruction beyond textbook instruction in every classroom.

842. Using federal funding, New Britain parent, board member, and CCJEF Treasurer
Merrill Gay helped organize and run a forum for kindergarten teachers and
elementary school administrators about the role of imaginative play in developing
executive functioning in kindergarten students, which has had positive feedback and

136

will be expanded.

843. From fall 2013 to winter 2014, there was growth in NWEA reading for all grades
except 8th grade. For EL students, the percentage of students at or above average
increased and often substantially. For NWEA language usage, the percentage of
students at or above average increased for all but grade 7, and overall by Most
grades also saw increases for EL students. There was also substantial growth in
NWEA scores from fall 2013 to fall 2014.

844. For every single subject at every single school in New Britain there has been some
positive growth shown in the total number of students falling into the average and
above average bands from fall 2014 to spring 2015 in NWEA.

845. New Britain outpaced the state average in growth on the CMT from 2009?10 to
2012?13 for all students and high needs students.

846. In 2012-13, salaries for general education teachers, special education teachers,
principals and the superintendent were higher than the state average.

847. The salaries for general education teachers in New Britain that year were greater
than each of the adjoining towns.

848. Per pupil spending in New Britain has increased every year from 2011?12 to 2014-
15 (last available year of data). Of that spending, 62% comes from the state, 31%
from the municipality and 7% from the federal government.

849. On a per pupil basis, New Britain receives the ?fth highest amount of ECS funding
of all the districts in the state.

850. In 2014-15, six schools in New Britain, in one subject or another include high needs
students who are outperforming the state average of high needs students.

851. In 2012, New Britain?s four year cohort graduation rate was 60.5%. In 2013, the
four year cohort graduation rate was 60.9%. In 2014, the four year cohort
graduation rate was 63.6%.

852. According to the SAT, only 24% of New Britain?s test takers met the ?College and
Career Readiness Benchmark? in 2012. In 2013, 25% met the benchmark.

853. According to the 2012 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 45% of New
Britain?s students performed at or above proficiency in mathematics, and 14.8%
performed at or above goal. In science, the results were 35.4% of students
performing at or above pro?ciency, and 11.8% performing at or above goal. In
reading, 48.3% performed at or above pro?ciency and 18% performed at or above
goal. Finally, in writing, 62.5% performed at or above pro?ciency and 28.4%
performed at or above goal.

137

 

 

  . . . Am.

 

854. According to the 2013 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 39.5% of New
Britain?s students performed at or above pro?ciency in mathematics, and 14.6%
performed at or above goal. In science, the results were 37% of students performing
at or above pro?ciency, and 8.1% performing at or above goal. In reading, 44.9%
performed at or above pro?ciency and 14.6% performed at or above goal. Finally, in
writing, 61% performed at or above pro?ciency and 24.4% performed at or above
goaL

855. According to the 2014 CAPT grade 10 performance report, only 12.2% of New
Britain?s students met goal range and 44% were pro?cient.
Windham facts

856. Windham is a low income town that includes a substantial immigrant and
homeless population.

857. Most North Windham Elementary School students live in the Willimantic area.

858. Many North Windham Elementary School students live in dilapidated buildings
owned by absent landlords.

859. Most of the North Windham Elementary School students? families qualify for food
stamps.

860. About 80% of the students at North Windham School are of Latino heritage.

861. At North Windham Elementary School, many students do not have money for
lunch, coats, or boots.

862. North Windham Elementary School has only one social worker for 466 students.

863. The social worker at North Windham Elementary School, Catina Caban?Owen,
works out of a former locker room.

864. The quality of her counseling is undercut by the constant noise from the next
to her of?ce.

865. She often meets with 10?12 students at a time.

866. The ceiling tiles in her of?ce have collapsed previously and many are currently
sagging.

867. During winter her students have to wear jackets in her of?ce because it lacks heat.

868. In certain Windham public schools, areas not designated as classrooms are used
for instructional space. This includes spaces such as hallways, closets or old showers

138

 

gymnasium in Sweeney, Windham Center and North Windham and the Windham
Center auditorium.

869. Approximately four years ago, the ceiling in Natchaug collapsed; it required the
school to be closed in order to conduct asbestos abatement and to repair the roof.

870. With the closure of Natchaug for approximately one year students were moved into
Windham Middle School and spent their entire school day in one classroom. Class
sizes for both Natchaug and Windham Middle School were increased to
accommodate presence of Natchaug students.

871. Natchaug School?s ventilation operates on a manually operated hose system that
creates noise in the classroom.

872. The Windham Center ventilation system has been covered over with insulation and
no longer functions.

873. Portable classrooms at Sweeney, Windham Center and North Windham have
experienced incidents where mice, rodents and other animals die in the walls,
leaving a stench and requiring removal.

874. Windham Center is prone to leaks that result in signi?cant water in?ltration into
front rooms of the building resulting in roofers to be called after almost every
rainstorm to repair sections of the roof.

875. Windham Middle currently has a tar and gravel roof permeated by vegetation, with
staff using seven to eight pails or garbage cans to collect water from leaks in
rainstorms; replacement of the roof is scheduled but has not yet begun.

876. Both Windham Center and North Windham are undergoing well water renovations
after well water was determined to be contaminated. Windham Center closed for
three days because of contamination.

877. Sweeney?s ?re system is incomplete, with alarms inaudible in parts of the school.

878. Natchaug, Sweeney and Windham Center lack sprinklers in their ?re system, and
Windham Center and Sweeney lack classroom smoke detectors.

879. In 2012, the average elementary school teacher salary in Windham was $57,485.36.
The low salary scale poses a challenge in attracting quali?ed teaching staff and
contributes to teacher turnover in Windham public schools.

880. Windham public schools have the highest percentage of EL students in the State of
Connecticut. But there are limited programs available for EL students as a result of
the dismantling of transitional bilingual programs from Windham public schools
during the special master's tenure.

139

881. Between 2014-15 and 2015?16 (as of Oct. 2015), there was a 17% increase in
Windham in the number of courses offered for college credit, a 2.5% decline in
student absences, an 8% increase in the graduation rate, a 16% increase in students
scoring 3 or better on AP exams, and a 9.8% increase for students reading at grade
level under the NWEA test.

882. During and after state supervision (2011?14), signi?cant progress has been made in
Windham in terms of board of education governance as well as academic and non?
academic indicators.

883. Per pupil expenditures in Windham are well above the state average, and have
steadily increased since 2011-12.

884. Windham outpaced the state average in growth on the CMT from 2009?10 to 2012-
13 for all students and high needs students.

885. Windham's average class sizes in 2014?15 were comparable to the state averages for
grades 

886. Using Alliance District funding, Windham has expanded the use of the CK3LI
model across the district in grades (serving 1,159 students), which has helped
create dramatic improvement for students in Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literary Skills (DIBELS) reading scores and the Riverside Interim Assessment in
ELA.

887. Small learning communities in Windham schools provide opportunity for
collaboration and building relationships, and have been funded through the Alliance
District and Commissioner's Network grants. They also provide for small class sizes;
for example, average class sizes at Windham Middle School are 18.

888. Windham is receiving $700,000 annually as part of its transition following state
supervision. The ?rst $700,000 was received around June 30, 2015, and was used
for summer schools, textbooks, AP resources, science resources and professional
development for teachers. The second $700,000 is expected by June 2016, and will
be used for summer school, outdoor camp for students, and training for teachers and
principals.

889. Using their 2015-16 Alliance District grant, Windham hired ?ve full-time EL
teachers. Other than the EL teachers, Windham has hired about 40 teachers.
Windham has a clear sustainability plan in its Alliance and Commissioner's Network
plans, and is bringing administrators up to speed on teacher evaluation. It also has a
robust plan for minority teacher recruitment. Windham has also taken on the cost of
some of the CK3LI coaches to build sustainability.

890. Windham's 2015? 16 Alliance District Plan provides money for twelve literacy

specialists, ?ve full-time ELA and math coaches, a half-time kindergarten to 31?d
grade literacy coach, a full-time special education instructional specialist, a full~time

140

 

instructional specialist at Windham Middle School, an early college opportunity
math teacher, nine part-time kindergarten teachers, an almost?full-time preschool
special education teacher.

891. Windham has a companeros program, providing a dual language program to
roughly 300 EL students from pre?k to 8th grade.

892. Windham will be redesigning the district's bilingual prOgram.
893. Windham's EL staff participates in professional development.

894. Windham recently received approval to participate in a pilot program for bilingual
second language students to develop a comprehensive program to help 15 new
arrivals in grades 6-12 build their literacy skills in English and their native language.
The grant provides Windham with $200,000 in each of the two years of the grant.
Windham already has access to these funds.

895. School culture and climate in Windham has been improving over the last two years.
Attendance has improved, the dropout rate has diminished, and the number of
discipline issues has decreased. In particular, Windham Middle School has seen a
dramatic decline in discipline referrals since joining the Commissioner's Network.
Windham's PBIS system has also bene?ted students.

896. During Dr. Garcia's tenure, Windham has ful?lled students' IEPs. There have been
no governmental ?ndings of violations with regard to special education services in
Windham during that time.

897. Preschool is available for Windham children on a sliding scale. In 2014-15, 78% of
kindergarteners in Windham had received a preschool experience, comparable to the
state average of 79%. As of the 2015?16 school year, Windham added two preschool
classrooms at Barrows STEM School for a total of 36 preschool students. The
Kramer School also has eight preschool classes for a total of about 250 students.
Windham also has about 295 preschool development grant spaces for 3 and four year
olds funded by state and federal preschool grants. The Windham Early Childhood
Program achieved NAEYC accreditation in 2014?15. Once the high school gets
renovated, Windham will add more preschool classrooms.

898. Two of Windham's principals (North Windham and Natchaug schools) have
participated in LEAD CT. This program has bene?ted them in regard to knowledge
of instructional practices. The principals have shared their new-found knowledge
with other principals in Windham.

899. In 2015-16, Windham received more than in Alliance District grant funds,
over in Priority School District (PSD) grant funds, $61,072 in Public School
District (PSD) extended school hours funds, and $67,473 in PSD summer school
grant funds. Windham also carried over about $100,000 in Alliance District funds
from 2014?15 to 2015?16. Windham High School also received a school

141

improvement grant from 2011?14 in the amount of $800,000 per year.

900. Windham has after school enrichment programs which include additional music
and arts programs, debate and cooking. Windham also offers summer school
programs in reading and math. In 2015-16, Windham also instituted the algebra
readiness camp to prepare students to take algebra in 8th grade.

901. Windham?s early college opportunity (ECO) program permits high school students
to graduate with an associate's degree in four, ?ve or six years, for no additional cost
to students. The students then can enter the workforce in manufacturing. Windham
is working with Electric Boat, QVCC and Squab Industry for this program. Electric
Boat donated 40 laptops to Windham High School for the program. Windham used
Alliance District funding to staff the program.

902. Windham has in place guidelines to implement a gifted and talented program for
2017-18.

903. Windham received 40-50 SMART boards in 2014-15. Windham also has a student
technology club where several students have received recognition and awards.

904. Teacher turnover has decreased in Windham.

905. Windham has seen more of a commitment from the community and parents.

906. Windham Middle School, a Commissioner's Network school, has improved in
preparing students for high school based in part on the additional learning time and
after?school enrichment programs.

907. From 2012 to 2015, Windham's graduation rates increased from 70.2% to 81.7%.
The graduation rates of Hispanics and special education students have increased as

well.

908. New language arts and math curricula were implemented in all grades in Windham
and are aligned to the Common Core State Standards.

909. During the 2015-16 school year, 77 SMART boards were installed throughout
Windham schools.

910. Windham anticipates that by the year 2020, each student will have a computing
device available to them at school.

911. Windham High School introduced new courses in 2015?16, many of which align
with careers and 2lst century technological skills like robotics, bioinformatics, audio
visual production, civil engineering, and architecture, that will help put each student
on track for graduation and success in college and a career.

912. Windham High School offers 20 college credit bearing courses from Eastern

142

 

Connecticut State University and UConn.

913. Over the summer of 2015, Windham saw improvements to its school facilities made
by custodians and maintenance technicians, including renovations of restrooms and
cafeteria space.

914. Windham schools have received signi?cant aid through technology grants to assist
with implementation of Common Core State Standards and the computer adaptive
SBAC tests, as well as low-performing bond funding since 2014, which have been
used for such projects as gymnasium, auditorium and bathroom upgrades, laptops,
calculators, software, SMART boards, Lenovo Think Pads, and carts.

915. Windham also received over in January 2016 for repairs and maintenance to
Windham schools as part of the Alliance District school building grant program.
Improvements include improvements to school security, school kitchens,
districtwide IT reliability, parking and school maintenance storage, student
laboratories, student communications, student playgrounds and the districtwide
server room.

916. Windham's school budget passed the referendum on the ?rst try in 2015?16, in part
because the superintendent was very visible in the community.

917. At the end of ?scal year 2016, Windham schools expected to have a surplus between
$25,000 and $30,000.

918. Some districts have enrolled their employees in the state health plan and saved a
signi?cant amount of money. Windham has looked into this option.

919. The United Way contributes about $65,000 annually for after-school programs in
Windham.

920. All Windham schools have Tier 1 intervention based on PBIS.

921. Ms. Caban-Owen, a social worker at North Windham School, has never had to
cancel a counseling session because of heating issues, damaged tiles or other
facilities issues. She also receives assistance with both formal and informal
counseling from six interns.

922. In Windham, about 45% of local money for the town goes to the board of
education. Local funding accounts for only 35.6% of the school budget, while the
rest is state and federal funding. Windham received budget increases of 3.6%
between Superintendent Garcia's ?rst and second year. She is proposing a 3%
increase for 2016-17, which includes a 3% increase in staff salaries, for
the Companeros program, and for non-Companeros ESL students.

923. The board of education in Windham has approved a signi?cant renovation of the
Windham High School costing about The state will reimburse Windham for

143

 

 

 

about 79% of that cost. After that renovation, Windham High School will house
about 600 high school students, up to 434 early childhood students, and the board of
education of?ces.

924. Windham Middle School is getting its roof replaced and a microgrid installed,
costing around The state will reimburse 100% of the cost of the roof
replacement. The Natchaug School roof was replaced prior to Dr. Garcia's tenure in
Windham. The Windham Interdistrict Magnet School project for was
completed, with the state paying 95% of the cost. Other projects included a roof
replacement, asbestos abatement and ?ooring replacement in one wing in the
cafeteria at Windham High School, new wells and other renovations at North
Windham School and Windham Center School, and a microgrid at Sweeney School.

925. There is adequate space at Windham Middle School and Windham High School.
Half of Windham High School is empty.

926. In 2014-15, four schools in Windham, in one subject or another include high needs
students who are outperforming the state average of high needs students.

927. Windham's efforts to bring back outplaced special education students during Dr.
Garcia's tenure have led to a savings of about $200,000. That money will go back to
bene?t the special education students.

928. In 2012, Windham?s four year cohort high school graduation rate was 70.2%. In
2013, the four year cohort graduation rate was 75.3%. In 2014, the four year cohort
graduation rate was 73.2%. In 2015, the four year cohort graduation rate was 81.7%.

929. According to the SAT, only 27% of Windham?s test takers met the ?College and
Career Readiness Benchmark? in 2012. In 2013, 34% met the benchmark. Only 2%
of PSAT test takers were deemed on track to graduate.

930. According to the 2012 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 41% of
Windham?s students performed at or above pro?ciency in mathematics, and 20.8%
performed at or above goal. In science, the results were 50% of students performing
at or above pro?ciency, and 22.5% performing at or above goal. In reading, 45.3%
performed at or above pro?ciency and 18.2% performed at or above goal. Finally, in
writing, 60.4% performed at or above pro?ciency and 32.5% performed at or above
goal.

931. According to the 2013 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 33.1% of
Windham?s students performed at or above pro?ciency in mathematics, and 13.7%
performed at or above goal. In science, the results were 47.7% of students
performing at or above pro?ciency, and 15.6% performing at or above goal. In
reading, 39.7% performed at or above pro?ciency and 12.4% performed at or above
goal. Finally, in writing, 40.6% performed at or above pro?ciency and 16.5%
performed at or above goal.

144

 

932. According to the 2014 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 10.9% of
Windham?s students performed at goal range in mathematics, and 34.5% were
pro?cient. In science, the results were 9.4% of students performing at goal range,
and 41.4% were pro?cient. In reading, 18.8% performed at goal range and 52.5%
were pro?cient. Finally, in writing, 27.5% performed at goal range and 66.1% were
pro?cient.

New London facts

933. New London is a high poverty district. The presence of non?taxable properties,
such as colleges and Section 8 housing, makes it hard for New London to raise
money from property taxes.

934. New London School District was ??at-funded? the city never increased
funding) between 2009 to 2012, requiring administrators to cut academic programs
(including the gifted and talented program), redevelop special education programs to
account for funding, eliminate counselors and social workers, and maximize class
Slzes.

935. In the 2011-2012 academic year New London had a high concentration of students
in poverty compared to other districts, over 86% of its students quali?ed for free and
reduced?price lunch compared to 19% percent in Bethel and approximately 21-22%
in Newington.

936. From 2009 to 2012, New London had no staff devoted to literacy intervention
compared to Newington that in 2013?14, had two reading interventionists for each
elementary school.

937. Plaintiffs? witness Dr. Christine Carver managed a caseload of approximately 35
special education students with learning disabilities during her time in New London
compared to a caseload of 15-16 students in other districts.

938. New London from 2009-2012 had one social worker shared between two
elementary schools, and the middle school counselors were eliminated because of
budget constraints. The high school had a part?time social worker and shared a
with an elementary school.

939. According to study conducted by the National Center for Linguistics during Dr.
Carver?s tenure, New London lacked the staff to address its high number of EL
students.

940. Dr. Carver left New London in May 2012, and is not aware of the reforms instituted
in New London since that time, nor is she aware of the current status of technology,
professional development, academic achievement, or any other speci?cs of the
district.

145

 

 

941. From 2009 to 2012, New London?s EL population was larger compared to Bethel
and Newington.

942. At the time of trial, approximately 75% of New London High School?s student
population was eligible for free and reduced price lunch.

943. When done well, sheltered content instruction ?integrating language learning and
content instruction??can be an effective way to teach English language learners
particularly when molded to a student?s grade and academic content level.

944. English language classes at Bennie Dover Middle School in New London provide
sheltered instruction.

945. These classes contain approximately 24 EL students in grades 6-8; students range
in literacy levels in their native language.

946. While they are supposed to include science instruction the school provides no
science materials and textbooks.

947. In 2012, the average elementary school teacher salary in New London was
$57,028.14 compared to $66,059.24 in Groton and $80,811.47 Waterbury.

948. Special education students at New London High School have varied academic and
socio?emotional needs. In the 2015-16 school year students in the LINKS class (a
class for students with severe socio-emotional needs) are taught by a teacher without
a background in special education.

949. During the 2015?16 school year New London High School couldn?t ?ll at least four
teaching positions leaving them ?lled by substitute teachers who could only teach for
a maximum of 40 days. They were not quali?ed to teach the subjects for which they
were assigned for instance, the substitute teacher hired to teach the Spanish world
language class couldn?t speak or read in Spanish.

950. Bennie Dover Middle School in New London has one social worker and one
guidance counselor to meet the needs of its entire student body - over 200 children.

951. Many students enter New London High School at least two grade levels behind.

952. While the building will soon be replaced, New London High School does not have
adequate heating. Teachers apply duct tape to their windows to keep wind and snow
from entering. Trash cans in three major areas catch rain leaking into the building.
The school has three boilers, which never work at the same time.

953. The state took over the New London schools, appointing a special master to run

them from 2012~2015. Progress was made in New London in terms of board
governance as well as academic and non-academic indicators.

146

 

1 . - V?r??MnAh?nwnan- . i .. . .

954. While its test scores remain very far behind others in the state, there have been
increases in reading and math standardized test scores from fall 2014 to fall 2015 at
New London High School increases in daily attendance from 2011-12 to
2014?15 at decreases in out of school suspensions from 2012?13 to 2014-15 at
and increases in graduation rates from 2011-12 to 2013-14 at NLHS.

955. In 2012, New London High School increased its CAPT scores by 33.3% in reading
and 15.6% in math. It also met its goal of increasing every subgroup and nearly
eliminated the achievement gap in reading between white and black students with
both groups earning about 82% pro?ciency or above.

956. New London High School was awarded a bronze medal as part of the US News 
World Report's 2014 Best High Schools rankings for its subgroups outperforming
their peers in the state based on CAPT and SAT scores as well as AP course
participation from 2010 to 2014.

957. New London outpaced the state average in growth on the CMT for all students and
high needs student and CAPT for all students from 2009?10 to 2012?13.

958. In 2014-15, third graders at Jennings Elementary School grew at a faster rate than
the National Expected Growth and at a faster rate than students at the other two
elementary schools in math on the NWEA universal screener.

959. In 2014?15, English Learners in grades 4?7 exceeded the expected growth target in
Math on the NWEA, with grade 7 English Learners exceeding by almost double the
expected growth norm.

960. In 2014-15, the seventh grade ELs scored 15% higher in the pro?ciency and
advanced ranges than in the previous year as 6th graders on the LAS Links test.

961. New London's graduation rate in 2014 was 72%, the highest it has been in the last
8-9 years.

962. The number of English Learners who graduated in 4 years increased 10% from
2012 to 2014.

963. These growth rates mean New London students in some categories outpace the
growth rates of other students mostly those in other poor communities or other
students who are poor. They do not mean that New London?s problems are solved or
that they will solve themselves with the status quo.

964. Since 2011, NLHS has used in various School Improvement Grant (SIG) funding.
For example, using its SIG 1003a funding, NLHS has trained teachers "to aid in
building capacity of coordinators in each content area who will then be able to
replicate the training for all And this helps build sustainability965. Some of the positions at NLHS that were funded through the SIG grant will be
integrated into the Alliance District plan such as the motivational of?cer, afterschool
program coordinator, credit recovery facilitator, and behavior support personnel.

966. Through the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG), training in SRBI by
SERC for teachers and administrators at NLHS has helped build the capacity of
administrators and teachers. School personnel have also received training in
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), as well as in trauma
informed schooling through the Project Prevent Grant, which is aimed at expanding
staffs understanding of the impact of trauma on student learning and behavior.

967. NLHS employs various cost?neutral methods of improving student behavior,
attendance and performance, such as formal advisory periods, where every student
meets for about 20 minutes a day with a designated staff member, having adults in
hallways during every transition in the school day, positive reinforcements and
"shout-outs." These efforts, which do not cost money, have helped improve student
behavior and decrease out?of?school suspensions.

968. Regarding any facilities issues asserted by plaintiffs, NLHS has not had to close any
schools and students have always been able to receive instruction.

969. New London, not the state, has made decisions on which facilities issues to
address. In the past, there was a constant battle between the local school board and
city over school funding, with little to no support at the city level for the school
budget. This has changed in the past few years, following state supervision in New
London (2012?15). Currently, the city is making the decisions regarding what needs
to be repaired now versus what can wait until the new high school is built in 2020. It
took a direct, dramatic, and sustained intervention from the state to improve things.

970. In 2014, New London voters approved an additional for construction of two
new high school campuses. In June 2015, the General Assembly approved the school
construction bonding package. An architect was selected for this project by the
Architects Selection Committee.

971. After the new high school is built, the facilities issues, including any heating issues
or ADA compliance issues, will be remedied.

972. Principal Thompson has partnered with LEAD CT to promote leadership in the
bilingual department by mentoring a New London teacher.

973. Beginning in 2014-15, consultants from Southern Connecticut State University
have been providing professional development on EL instruction to NLHS teachers.
NLHS is training more teachers in EL instructional strategies this year (2015-16)
Ultimately, NLHS plans to have all staff trained in EL instruction.

974. New London High School is in compliance with the IDEA.

148

new?. .  .. . 7 7 4,41,.

975. New London has reduced the growth and number of special education
outplacements, resulting in savings in tuition and transportation.

976. In partnership with LEARN (a local Regional Education Service Center -RESC) and
using Alliance District funding, New London is training special education teachers
on implementing IEPs aligned to the Common Core State Standards.

977. The self?contained special education classrooms at New London High School range
from 12:1 to 18:1 student to staff ratio.

978. New London High School has a transitional coordinator and job coaches paid with
Alliance District funding who help special needs students transition to the world of
work by helping ?nd employment for students and monitoring them on the job site.

979. Using Alliance District funding, NLHS also works to assist with college
applications.

980. NLHS has an afterschool program, early college opportunity program, AP courses,
adult education programs, and a central of?ce welcome center.

981. Harbor School and Friendship School provide preschool opportunities to New
London children.

982. All freshmen, sophomores, and juniors at NLHS have individual Chromebooks,
paid for through a state technology grant.

983. At NLHS, all teachers have access to Whiteboards, and there are also SMART
boards in some classrooms.

984. The library media center at NLHS used information from MAP and Achieve 3000
to source and purchase materials at various reading levels for students. As of 2013,
all media resources requested were approved and purchased.

985. NLHS has wi? and computer labs, and the district recently received new software,
video desk phones, and an Of?ce 365 rollout. NLHS also has a technology person
housed in the building to ensure technology issues are addressed in a timely manner.

986. NLHS has not received any union grievances for lack of facilities, training, or
support.

987. New London teachers will receive 9% salary increases over the next 3 years under
the new collective bargaining agreement.

988. The truancy review board in New London has had signi?cant success at reducing
chronic absenteeism.

149

 

 

 

989. As in other towns, total per pupil funding in New London has increased in recent
years, mostly absorbed by mandatory pay raises and increased special education
expenses.

990. NLHS has a credit recovery program that uses Apex Learning, which is a web-
based digital curriculum aligned to CCSS.

991. In 2012, New London?s four year cohort graduation rate was 61.9%. In 2013, the
four year cohort graduation rate was 64.2%. In 2014, the four year cohort
graduation rate was 71.1%.

992. According to the SAT, only 18% of New London?s test takers met the ?College and
Career Readiness Benchmark? in 2012. In 2013, 16% met the benchmark.

993. According to the 2012 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 59% of New
London?s students performed at or above pro?ciency in mathematics, and 21.7%
performed at or above goal. In science, the results were 64.6% of students
performing at or above pro?ciency, and 26.6% performing at or above goal. In
reading, 70.7% performed at or above pro?ciency and 21.7% performed at or above
goal. Finally, in writing, 77.1% performed at or above pro?ciency and 33.1%
performed at or above goal.

994. According to the 2013 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 51.1% of New
London?s students performed at or above pro?ciency in mathematics, and 26.1%
performed at or above goal. In science, the results were 55.8% of students
performing at or above pro?ciency, and 22.1% performing at or above goal. In
reading, 54.3% performed at or above pro?ciency and 22.6% performed at or above
goal. Finally, in writing, 68.9% performed at or above pro?ciency and 30.1%
performed at or above goal.

995. According to the 2014 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 31.2% of New
London?s students performed at goal range in mathematics, and 58.7% were
pro?cient. In science, the results were 25.5% of students performing at goal range,
and 60.4% were pro?cient. In reading, 22.4% performed at goal range and 67.7%
were pro?cient. Finally, in writing, 27.6% performed at goal range and 70.2% were
pro?cient.

Danbury facts

996. Danbury High School has three media specialists working in its media center for
approximately 2,900 students.

997. There are no media assistants for the media center, which reduces the amount of

time that the media instructors can devote to instruction because they have to take
up the duties of a media assistant, which include checking books in and out, checking

150

. students in and out of the media center, processing books.

998. In contrast to Danbury High, Greenwich High School, which has approximately
2,700 students, had 4?5 media specialists, two media assistants and a staff of
technological assistants that worked throughout the building. The Elementary
Schools in Greenwich are staffed with one full-time media specialist, library
assistant, and a technology assistant.

999. The media center at Danbury High School is a wide?open and noisy space.
Because there are no built?in outlets for the computer spaces, when students
accidentally kick cords, whole lines of computers will to lose power, causing
interruption to instruction time and time for students to work. This occurs on a daily
basis in the media center.

1,000. The internet at Danbury High frequently disconnects, also causing interruptions
to instruction. Because the media center runs primarily on Chromeboxes, which rely
entirely on an internet connection, the loss of internet is especially disruptive.

1,001. Students at Danbury High School rely predominately on the research resource
iConn because it is free. The school does not have access to Britannica
or other databases requiring subscription fees. Students at Greenwich had Discovery
streaming and the full version of Britannica.

1,002. For library books, it is standard procedure to not go outside a 12?year range for
non?ction books. Danbury High School has not adhered to these guidelines.
Additionally, books are not differentiated to different reading levels.

1,003. Greenwich Elementary Schools had a book budget line of $8,000; the magazine
budget line was $4,500 to $5,000. At Danbury High School, the book budget is zero.
Unless there is additional money left over from savings in other parts of the budget,
there is no money for books. In the 2014?15 school year, the media center received
$4,000 for books.

1,004. There are 26,000 books at Danbury High School. There are 25,000 to 30,000
books at Glenville Elementary School in Greenwich. High schools generally require
more books than elementary schools.

1,005. Classroom space has not kept up with increasing enrollment in Danbury Public
Schools. The schools have had to resort to classrooms on wheels, particularly special
education classes, using any available space, including auditorium stages and
hallways.

1,006. The state will pay for $3,000 per Danbury student and $7,500 for non?Danbury
students to attend an inter-district magnet school, while the costs are generally
estimated at $12,653 to accommodate each student.

1,007. There are approximately 500?600 applicants who want to go to one of Danbury?s

151

two magnet schools (one built around science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) and the other built around international studies), compared to
about 100 open seats at each school per year.

1,008. Administrators across Danbury Public Schools have been cut from 55?56 to 35.
The central of?ce is now just the superintendent, deputy superintendent, business
manager, personnel of?cial, and a special education of?cial.

1,009. Extending learning time is a valuable tool for dealing with the disadvantages of
poverty in education. If more resources were available, Danbury Public Schools
would invest in more summer school programs and extending class time during the
school year. Currently, there is extended learning at each of the Danbury?s schools,
but more resources would be needed for staf?ng and transportation to expand the
program to fully meet the needs.

1,010. At Danbury Public Schools' Ellsworth Avenue Elementary School, 65% of families
are Hispanic, 3% are White, and the remaining 12% are Asian, African American, or
multi?racial.

1,011. At Ellsworth Avenue Elementary School, 80% percent qualify for free and reduced
price lunch, 53% receive ELL services as English language learners, and 7% are
special education students.

1,012. While test scores coming from there remain very low, Morris Street School in
Danbury was identi?ed as the number one school in Fair?eld County for sustained
academic achievement for a seven-year period. Morris Street School had the highest
number of children in poverty and English Learners in the district.

1,013. Danbury ranked number two overall in the Connecticut Statewide Career and
Technical Education Assessment for schools with 100 or more concentrators.

1,014. Danbury outpaced the state average in growth on the CAPT from 2009-10 to
2012-13 for all students and high needs students.

1,015. Over 80% of Danbury High School graduates attend college.
1,016. Danbury High School had a student to teacher ratio of 16:1.

1,017. Danbury's average class sizes in 2014-15 were comparable to the state averages for
grades K-8.

1,018. Danbury High School has the lowest percentage of chronic absenteeism out of all
Alliance Districts, and last year had the highest overall average attendance rates out
of the Alliance Districts.

1,019. Danbury High School was recently rated number one in the state for teaching
students about computer information systems.

152

 

 

1,020. At Danbury High School, students in chemistry and biology can receive UConn
credit, and students enrolled in English Lit, English Lang, and calculus can receive
Western Connecticut State University credit while taking their AP courses.

1,021. In the past year, 100 students at Danbury High School enrolled in a new program
that will allow students to earn an associate?s degree together with their high school
diploma.

1,022. In June 2015, Danbury voters approved a expansion of Danbury High
School. 62% of that amount will be reimbursed by state taxpayers. The expansion
will be in time for the 2017-18 school year and will add 55,000 square feet and 26
new classrooms.

1,023. 89% of 8th graders were pro?cient on the CMT after 5 years in the Danbury
schools. The ?gure was only 62% for students who were enrolled fewer than 5 years.

1,024. In math, 8th grade students exceeded the state average with a score of 41,
compared to the state?s 36, according to CMT results.

1,025. English Learner students at the Danbury middle schools outpaced the state in
reading scores, growing an average of 47 points versus the overall state growth of 34.

1,026. Danbury has the region?s only STEM middle school.

1,027. Danbury is the only district in the area that offers middle school students a
chance to learn abroad. For example, Rogers Park School students taking Spanish 2
can go to Puerto Rico.

1,028. Broadview Middle School has award winning groups that include the BMS Media
Club and the Mathletes.

1,029. Danbury's EXCEL program offers college prep to lower income and ?rst
generation future college students. Middle school students move up to
Upward Bound at the high school level. Student success has been proven
in the program?s high retention rate and rate of attendance at four-year colleges.

1,030. The Academy of International Studies (AIS) Magnet School in Danbury was
named Connecticut Elementary School of the Year for 2014-2015.

1,031. Park Avenue School in Danbury underwent major renovations in 2014, including
an additional 20,000 square feet which included 12 new classrooms and a new
media center equipped with a SMART Board.

1,032. Shelter Rock School in Danbury was named a "success story" in 2014 by

Shelter Rock has 100% parent participation rate in parent/ teacher
conference attendance.

153

m.msk?nvmm.w .

 

1,033. Stadley Rough School in Danbury has a school and social worker to
provide social skills to students.

1,034. Per pupil spending in Danbury has increased every year from 2011?12 to 2014?15.

1,035. The Alliance District grant in Danbury has helped it fund programs such as full?
day kindergarten, specialized training for teachers, sheltered instruction observation
protocol (SIOP) training, and technology infrastructure work.

1,036. In 2014?15, a new cohort of elementary teachers and new hires from
Bilingual and World Language Departments received specialized training.
Others at Danbury High School and three middle schools received job?embedded
support from coaches. Teams from Danbury attend many state programs
throughout the year.

1,037. The percentage of English Learners in Danbury making progress in attaining
English language pro?ciency has been nearly 90%, well surpassing the state target of
80%. ELs attaining pro?ciency have steadily been at 55%, exceeding the state goal of
30%. Even prior to the installation of new programs, the district always met or
exceeded state goals in this area for 10 consecutive years, beginning in the 2003?4
school year.

1,038. Danbury has full-day kindergarten for the entire district.

1,039. In 2015-16, Danbury?s Alliance District grant was increased to over and its
Priority School District grant was over This funding was used for, among other
things, an associate principal of instruction for the middle schools, a Marzano
evaluator, administrator positions to help increase student attendance at Danbury
High School, seven math coaches at the elementary schools, 36 kindergarten
teachers in all of the elementary schools, summer school for 8-9th graders, 5 coaches,
10 EL teachers, Head Start, Common Core supplies, materials and technology
equipment, 32 part?time interventionist substitutes, credit recovery/ summer
program, and the hiring of 11 social workers to support school climate.

1,040. In 2012-13, salaries in Danbury were higher than the state average for general
education teachers and special education teachers, as well as its superintendent.

1,041. Ellsworth Avenue School, which has the highest percentage of EL's in Danbury, is
?ve years old and in excellent condition, with SMART boards in every classroom,
Chromebooks in each 4th and 5th grade classroom, and carts of laptops available for
the remaining grade levels and an iPad cart for kindergarten. The school has an
SRBI interventionist who works with the same group of 24 students four days a
week.

1,042. Media specialists are available at Danbury High School for an hour after school
each day.

154

 

 

 

1,043. At Danbury High School, media teacher Gencarelli does work one?on-one with
students, provides individualized instruction and problem solving for students,
provide small group instruction, helps with technology like Google Docs or iMovie,
help with classroom assignments, provides professional development for teachers,
and sets up equipment for teachers.

1,044. The media centers at all Danbury schools are at various stages in the process of
transforming into what are called Learning Commons. A Learning Commons is an
area that students can come into and create a hands-on experience on all different
types of subject areas, such as animation, ?lm or jewelry. The subject area changes 
students can learn about a subject in depth and can become part of that subject.

1,045. Danbury High School purchased additional Chromebooks and iMacs for
classrooms and the media center for the 2014?15 school year.

1,046. In January 2016, the State Bond Commission approved over $240,000 for
technology for Danbury, including for Chromebooks and Chromebook carts.

1,047. The library media center website at Danbury High School provides free access for
students to online and print resources, assistance with audio and eBooks outside of
the high school, and a teacher projects database for all classes, which includes links
to print and online resources for individual teacher research projects.

1,048. Danbury High School has Chromebooks and free access to eBooks and online
databases like iConn which can be read on a Chromebook. The eBooks can be
checked out by multiple users at the same time. Students also have free access to
Danbury Public Library.

1,049. All classrooms at Danbury High School are equipped with projectors and teachers
have laptops or desktops with high speed internet and 24/7 access to the network
and their ?les. Some classrooms, including special education classes and the social
studies department also have SMART boards, provided through a grant. Teachers
can instruct their students with Whiteboards or laptops just as effectively as with
SMART boards.

1,050. There are at least ?ve computer labs throughout Danbury High School, each with
at least 25 stations. This includes labs on every ?oor in the building, and
computers in speci?c rooms like the art rooms. In addition to what is in the library
media center, there are also mobile carts with laptops, Macbooks, Chromebooks,
iPad carts and iPods available upon reservation. There are also classroom labs with
advanced software for specialized instruction in the areas of business, art and
technology.

1,051. All computers at the Danbury High School have internet access. Danbury High

School has wireless technology for students to access the internet from their own
devices, which helps increase access to online resources, and reduces some of the

155

 

 

mmww.mmw . .. a. 1  ., 

demand on school equipment. Danbury High School also has a Citrix Gateway that
allows authorized users access from any device with Citrix downloaded on it.

1,052. In 2012-13, the elementary schools in Danbury had more books per student than
Danbury High School. Electronic resources that are now more prevalent than print
resources are not captured in the data regarding the number of volumes of books in
schools.

1,053. Gencarelli has never worked at an elementary school in Danbury, nor has she
worked at Greenwich High School. She has never been a classroom teacher nor
ordered classroom textbooks or established a school budget.

1,054. In Danbury, the 2012 reforms, including the Alliance District grant, have
provided bene?ts to the district, helped to narrow the achievement gaps, and allowed
the district to expand its initiatives.

1,055. Middle School students in Danbury exceeded the state average in math and
English Learner students outpaced the state in reading scores. ELs district wide are
way above the state objectives in making progress and attaining English language
pro?ciency.

1,056. In 2012, Danbury?s four year cohort graduation rate was 76.8%. In 2013, the four
year cohort graduation rate was 75.5%. In 2014, the four year cohort graduation rate
was 78.1%.

1,057. According to the SAT, only 34% of Danbury?s test takers met the ?College and
Career Readiness Benchmark? in 2012. In 2013, 34% met the benchmark.

1,058. According to the 2012 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 61.3% of
Danbury?s students performed at or above pro?ciency in mathematics, and 29.8%
performed at or above goal. In science, the results were 65.5% of students
performing at or above pro?ciency, and 27.5% performing at or above goal. In
reading, 70.2% performed at or above pro?ciency and 30.9% performed at or above
goal. Finally, in writing, 78.5% performed at or above pro?ciency and 48.4%
performed at or above goal.

1,059. According to the 2013 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 68.1% of
Danbury?s students performed at or above pro?ciency in mathematics, and 36.1%
performed at or above goal. In science, the results were 71% of students performing
at or above pro?ciency, and 32.1% performing at or above goal. In reading, 70.9%
performed at or above pro?ciency and 28% performed at or above goal. Finally, in
writing, 79.1% performed at or above pro?ciency and 46.2% performed at or above
goal.

1,060. According to the 2014 CAPT grade 10 performance level report, only 27.2% of

Danbury?s students performed at goal range in mathematics, and 58.5% were
pro?cient. In science, the results were 28.3% of students performing at goal range,

156

 

 

 

X07 HHD CV 14-50375658 SUPERIOR COURT

CONNECTICUT COALITION FOR  JUDICIAL DISTRICT

JUSTICE IN EDUCATION FUNDING, OF HARTFORD
INC., ET AL. 
COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET

V.
M. JODI RELL, ET AL. SEPTEMBER 7, 2016

Memorandum of Decision

APPENDIX TWO:

SUBORDINATE RULINGS

1. The individual plaintiffs have standing.

The state says the parents and students named as plaintiffs have no right to
bring this lawsuit -?no standing? because they did not all testify and because they did
not prove harm.

The state objects to the plaintiffs relying on factual admissions to establish these
plaintiffs? school districts and similar facts related to standing. It says the admissions
are invalid because they were the court?s idea and essentially shifted the standing
burden to the state. Requiring the parties to propose admissions may have been the
court?s idea, butu?if it matters? the plaintiffs did the asking, not the court. The state
could have asked for the right to depose any of the plaintiffs but decided not to. If it

had any serious concerns it could have challenged the truthfulness of where they lived,
1

 

etc. in a number of ways, including deposing them or subpoenaing them to court. This
suggests the reason it didn?t is because it doesn?t really dispute these factual
underpinnings.

The state claims none of the plaintiffs proved harm to them personally and
without harm they have no standing. As the Supreme Court held in 2014 in Kormer v.
Martise ?[o]ne cannot rightfully invoke the jurisdiction of the court unless he [or she]
has, in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the cause of
action 1 It explained that this means standing requires ?a colorable claim of direct
injury he has suffered or is likely to suffer, in an individual or representative capacity.?2
The state agrees that the individual plaintiffs are parents and students in the
impoverished school districts that are the focus of this lawsuit. They allege that these
children are being deprived of a constitutionally adequate education. This certainly
gives them a colorable claim to an interest in the lawsuit. The policies challenged in
this case affect every school child in the state, but the harms alleged focus particularly
on the plaintiffs? school districts and the inadequacies they face. What more can they
be asked? It would be impossible to prove that a specific failure caused them
personally not to learn something. That is why they only have to have a ?colorable

claim.? They have one. Therefore, they have standing.

 

1 312 Conn. 1, 10.
2 Id.

 

2. CCJEF has standing.

The state also claims the lead plaintiff Connecticut Coalition for Justice in
Education Funding, Inc. has no standing. They have lost this claim before. The court
agrees with Judge Dubay?s earlier ruling. It adds that the evidence at trial, including
facts contained in written admissions, make it incontestable that while CCJEF
members include organizations whose members include municipalities, school boards,
superintendents, and teachers it also includes several students and parents currently in
Connecticut public schools. Even the state does not challenge on this ground plaintiffs
Mary Gallucci, Pascal Phillips-Gallucci, and Ellis Phillips?Gallucci.

Instead, the state wants the court to hold they are not members of CCJEF
because they cannot vote on how to spend the group?s money or craft the litigation
strategy associated with it. It points to the 1986 Supreme Court decision in
ConnecticutAssn. of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Worrell.3 Judge Dubay discussed it
thoroughly in his earlier opinion on standing. Its first prong required that ?its
members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right.?4 The state says the
Galluccis and the others aren?t members for this prong of Worrell beCause they can?t
vote, and this kills claim to standing.

The trouble is that the state has its facts wrong. Article II, Section 2 of the

CCJEF bylaws says parents are members. Section 1 of the same article says all

 

3 199 Conn. 609.
4 Id. at 616.

 

 

members are ?Corporate Members? and ?The Corporate Members' powers include, but
are not limited to, the power to initiate and pursue litigation, to hire experts and other
staff, and to make spending decisions.? The state points to Article II Section 5. That
section cuts parents out of its definition of ?Voting Members? and reserves certain
decisions to them:
Only a Voting Member may participate in: the election or removal of
Members of the Steering Committee, as set forth below; (ii) any proposed
amendments to the Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation or these Bylaws
which would deprive the Members of their right to vote in the election or
removal of Members of the Corporation; and any proposed amendment to
the Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation or these Bylaws pertaining to
dues, assessments, ?nes, or penalties to be levied or imposed upon Members.
This means parents can vote on some very important things?including money
and lawsuits? but not everything. There is no reason to believe parent members aren?t
real members of CCJEF, and since they are, CCJEF meets the Worrell prong the state
says it does not. For this reason, and those expressed by Judge Dubay, CCJEF has
standing to sue.
3. The state is not protected from this lawsuit by sovereign immunity.
The Supreme Court rejected a sovereign immunity claim in a constitutional
challenge to state school funding in 1977 in Horton v. Meskill.5 It noted that 

holding to the contrary would foreclose proper judicial determination of a significant

and substantial constitutional question the determination of which is manifestly in the

 

5 172 Conn. 615.

 

 

public interest.?6 This decision avoided a disastrous policy. If no one could force the
state to comply with the highest law of the land, democracy would be badly undercut.
And despite the state?s suggestion, this isn?t a suit for damages. It would be if the
students were suing for damages resulting from educational malpractice, but they
aren?t. The only thing they are trying to do is vindicate rights promised to them under
the highest law of the land by way of a declaration and prospective relief. In that
respect, the case is the same as Horton, so a sovereign immunity claim here must meet
the same death it did there.

4. The case is neither moot nor unripe.

The state repeats claims it lost before. The court agrees with Judge Dubay?s
prior rulings. It adds that the trial showed the case to be overripe if anything in the
sense that the defects the court has found have been easy to see but unaddressed for
decades. The evidence does nothing to suggest the case is moot. Neither the 2012
reforms nor anything else the state has done hold any credible promise to fix the
systemic problems the court has found. The state?s standards will not morph by
themselves into something reasonable, and despite plenty of time the state has not

fixed them. The case is neither moot nor ripe.

 

6 Id. at 628.

 

 

5. Evidentiary objections.

The state presses its claim that the court should bar from evidence the
testimony and report of Robert Palaich. The Palaich evidence concerns his study of
how much money would be needed to operate an education system conforming to the
plaintiff 5 views.

Section 7-2 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence says that experts may testify ?if
the testimony will assist the trier of the fact in understanding the evidence or in
determining a fact in issue.? Without deciding any other challenges to it, Palaich?s
testimony will not assist the court because it has determined that it is powerless to set
overall education spending, and that is what the Palaich and his evidence address.
While the court holds that a rational formula must be followed, it isn?t the court?s job
to design one. Therefore, the Palaich evidence will not assist the court at this stage of
the litigation. His report and testimony are stricken, and the court will not rely on
other evidence related to them.

The state also objected to the testimony of Dr. Henry Levin of Columbia
University. The court relied on his testimony only to support its conclusion about
spending priorities and empty graduation standards. He was helpful on these points,
and the court didn?t rely on anything he said that the state objected to about
monetizing the value of high school graduation. Therefore, the state?s objection is

overruled.