Alfonso Robinson

Political activist, online journalist

ConnCAN gives Danbury Elementary/Secondary schools mixed reviews

|

Cross post from HatCityBLOG

As a followup to my previous post regarding The Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now’s (ConnCAN) report on Danbury High School, here’s a breakdown of ConnCAN’s report card on the city’s elementary and secondary schools.

Here’s the breakdown of ConnCAN’s methodology:

Each year, Connecticut administers two standardized tests, the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT). These tests are designed to measure how well students are achieving on grade-level academic subjects. Both tests are designed and administered by the State Department of Education.

The CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST (CMT) is administered each spring to all public school students in grades three through eight. The CMT measures how student achievement in the areas of mathematics, reading, and writing compared to the expectations for their grade level. In fifth and eighth grades, science is also tested.

The CONNECTICUT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE TEST (CAPT) is administered each spring to all public school students in tenth grade. The CAPT measures student achievement in the areas of mathematics, reading, writing, and science compared to the expectations for high school students.

The skills tested on the CMT and CAPT are identified in the Connecticut curriculum framework, and each student’s achievement is compared to a set of established standards for his or her grade in each subject area. There is no “passing” grade on the CMT or the CAPT. Instead, the State of Department of Education sets a “goal” level score for each subject area in every grade tested. The State Department of Education gives each student a raw score (ranging from 100-400 points) and assigns score cut points for each of five levels: Advanced, At Goal, Proficient, Basic, or Below Basic. The State Department of Education reports scores for schools and districts as the percentage of students scoring at one of these levels. According to the State Department of Education, a student scoring at the “Goal” level has the knowledge, skills, and critical thinking abilities that are “reasonable to expect of students” within their grade level.

ConnCAN uses the Goal standard to set the bar for rating schools since it is the state’s best estimate of students meeting or exceeding grade-level expectations. The State Department of Education reports on the percentage of students “At Goal” in the subjects tested (math, reading, writing and science) for schools in which at least 20 students in any given grade completed the CMT or CAPT.

How we calculate achievement scores

ConnCAN’s report cards provide a single score to help readers compare schools and subgroups within those schools. To do so, we calculate a single “Students At or Above Goal Range” by taking that average percentage of students at or above goal across all subject areas on CMT and CAPT. We calculate this score for elementary schools using the results from the fifth-grade test (with fourth-grade results used when an elementary school does not have a fifth grade). For middle schools, we use the results from the eighth-grade test (with the seventh-grade results used when a middle school does not have an eighth grade). For high schools, we use the results from the CAPT, which tests tenth grade students only. These scores provide a straightforward, easy-to-use yardstick on how well schools, on average, meet the needs of students across key subject areas.

How we assign grades

To provide families and communities with a clear benchmark for how their child’s school or district performs, we use achievement scores to assign the school a letter grade from A to F. For each school and district we also show how scores compare to district and state averages.

We assign each school and district letter grades in four categories: Performance Gains, Overall Student Performance, Student Subgroup Performance, and Achievement Gap.

In short, a review of ConnCAN’s report for this year compared to last year’s write-up provides mixed reviews for the city’s elementary and secondary schools with some showing improvement (Pembroke School, Mill Ridge Inter, Stadley Rough) while others show a nominal to moderate decrease in student performance (Shelter Rock, Park Ave, Hayestown).

Danbury High School:
RANKED: 125 out of 164

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 30 percent or F
YEAR 2009: 32 percent or D-

STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 14 percent or F
YEAR 2009: 17 percent or F


Shelter Rock School
RANKED: 271 out of 396

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 50 percent or C- (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 55 percent or C

STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 43 percent or D+ (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 47 percent or D+


Pembroke School
RANKED: 236 out of 396

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 57 percent or C (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 47 percent or D+

STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 20 percent or F (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: N/A


Broadview Middle School
RANKED: 166 out of 299

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 63 percent or C+ (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 61 percent or C+

STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 44 percent or D+ (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 44 percent or D+


Roger’s Park Middle School
RANKED: 211 out of 299

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 50 percent or C- (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 50 percent or C-

STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 38 percent or D (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 36 percent or D


Mill Ridge Intermediate School
RANKED: 215 out of 396

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 61 percent or C+ (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 54 percent or C

STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 45 percent or D+ (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 27 percent or F


Park Avenue School
RANKED: 263 out of 396

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 51 percent or C- (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 54 percent or C

STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 43 percent or D+ (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 40 percent or D


Hayestown Avenue School
RANKED: 277 out of 396

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 49 percent or C- (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 53 percent or C-

STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 44 percent or D+ (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 36 percent or D


Morris Street School
RANKED: 290 out of 396

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 46 percent or D+ (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 46 percent or D+

STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 35 percent or D- (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 41 percent or D


Stadley Rough School
RANKED: 268 out of 396

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 50 percent or D+ (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 45 percent or D+

STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 27 percent or F (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 27 percent or F


Roberts Avenue School
RANKED: 248 out of 396

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 54 percent or C (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 58 percent or C

STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 48 percent or C (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 54 percent or C


Western CT Academy for International Studies (Magnet School)

RANKED: 118 out of 396

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 76 percent or B+ (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 79 percent or B+

STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
N/A


King Street Intermediate School
RANKED: 154 out of 396

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 70 percent or B- (State avg: 63)
YEAR 2009: 71 percent or B-

STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects:
YEAR 2010: 51 percent or C- (State avg: 37)
YEAR 2009: 42 percent or D+

If you’re a parent and want a more detailed analysis of your child’s school, go to the ConnCAN website.


RELATED POSTS:

DEC 2009: ConnCAN gives Danbury failing grade.

Nov 19 2010: ConnCAN gives Danbury High a failing grade.

Categories: General

Leave a Reply

3 Responses

  1. kafir says:

    I have a rhetorical question to ask: WHY?

    I keep this question in the rhetorical category because I know none of the readers of this blog know the answer; we will all just speculate and reveal our own biases, which isn’t what I’m seeking.

    I’d like to know the statistical methods (apologies if you’ve printed them before) used to group students into this “subgroup” — what qualifies one for membership, whose grades & scores are used, what would disqualify a score from participating in the larger statistic.

    And then I’d like to know what differences there are in the way such students are taught which seem to guarantee their failure.

    You’ve cited Danbury-area schools. Were there any — state-wide — who did NOT fall below average? (Statistically, there *have to* be.) What did they do right that these cited schools did not?

    This is a critical question. To continue down this path guarantees a future of racially-linked economic failure, when there should be no excuse for either systemic economic failure or even a coincidental racial link to it.

  2. Sherpaguy says:

    It is interesting to see how the Magnet School has no sub groups and consequently has the highest scores in the district. This if further proof that Magnet and Charter schools simply skim the highest achieving students and leave behind the poor, minority and ELL subgroups for the rest of the public schools.