Dr. Armand Fusco to speak in Wethersfield

 

September 1, 2011, 6:00 PM

Community Room,

Wethersfield Library, Silas Deane Hwy. 

 

Contact:  Paul Copp, copppaul@hotmail.com

 

From Paul Copp:  On September 1, 2011 I will introduce Dr. Armand A. Fusco, a retired Connecticut school superintendent, who has authored many publications to include School Corruption: Betrayal of Children and the Public Trust.

 

On September 1, Dr. Fusco will discuss his latest book, School Pushouts: A Plague of Hopelessness Perpetrated by Zombie Schools.  Chapter 8, entitled The Connecticut Enigma, is highlighted below.  The book addresses the issues, problems and solutions concerning the most serious socio-economic problem facing the nation, as well as, the state—the failure to educate inner city youth. The consequences of that failure impacts not only the inner cities, but every suburban and rural community in higher crime rates, higher unemployment, increased taxes, and other economic and societal problems.

 

The presentation  will include specific data and information about the Wethersfield schools with comparisons to state averages and district reference groups, as well as, where and how quality and productivity studies should be implemented to get the "biggest bang" for each buck. School district board of education policies will also be examined to show how they can be improved to develop a culture and practice of real accountability.

 

The shameful and deplorable condition of education in Connecticut, a full chapter in his book entitled The Connecticut Enigma, will be highlighted. In addition, relevant parts of his first book on School Corruption: Betrayal of Children and the Public Trust will be shared along with a brief preview of his manuscript in progress: Productivity and Quality Management of Schools: Elusive but Essential.

He is a passionate advocate for establishing citizen audit committees to determine if schools are efficient, effective and economical in the use of physical, financial and human resources, and he has helped over 14 communities start such committees. His commitment is demonstrated by the fact that he does not charge for his services. Dr. Fusco also authored the Yankee Institute manual, How to Cut Property Taxes with Citizen Audit Committees along with many manuals used by Citizen Audit Committees.

 

Dr. Fusco will also offer a power point presentation.  Time will be made available for discussion and questions.

 

 

************

 

 

The Connecticut Enigma

 

Introduction By

Dr. Armand A. Fusco

 

The Connecticut Enigma (the deplorable and shameful condition of public education in Connecticut) that follows this intro is Chapter 8 from my soon to be released book, School Pushouts:  A Plague of Hopelessness Perpetrated by Zombie Schools that documents the issues and problems of miseducation of inner city children.  It has 280 pages and contains over 400 references, 35 edited reports and studies, and 36 recommendations.

 

The central theme is:  can't read, can't learn, can't get a diploma, can't get a job, can't survive, can't stay within the law.  Specific to Connecticut is that 80% of the prison population are high school dropouts; and of those who attend community colleges, only 12% graduate after 3 years—diplomas to nowhere.

 

The following insightful quotes provide a more detail glimpse of the book's content:

 

§         School Pushouts, is a time bomb exploding economically and socially every 26 seconds

§         Remember what the basic problem is—they are in all respects illiterate and that is why they are failing.

§         Every three years the number of dropouts and pushouts adds up to a city bigger than Chicago. 

§         Politics trump the needs of all children to achieve their potential.

§         One reason that the high school dropout crisis is known as the “silent epidemic” is that the problem is frequently minimized.

§         Simply stated black male students can achieve high outcomes; the tragedy is most states and districts choose not to do so.

§         In the majority of schools, the conditions necessary for Black males to systematically succeed in education do not exist.

§         While one in four American children is Latino--the largest and fastest-growing minority group in the United States—they are chronically underserved by the nation's public schools and have the lowest education attainment levels in the country. 

§         Miseducation is the most powerful example of cruel and unusual punishment; it’s exacted on children innocent of any crime. 

§         Traditional proposals for improving education—more money, smaller classes, etc.—aren't getting the job done.

§         The public school system is designed for Black and other minority children to fail.

§         The U.S. Department of Education has never even acknowledged the problem exists.

§         Though extensive records are kept…unions and school boards do not want productivity analysis done.

§         Educational bureaucracies like the NEA are at the center of America’s dysfunctional minority public schools.

§         Does bonus pay alone improve student outcomes? – we found that it does not.

§         Performance pay is equivalent to “thirty pieces of silver.”

§         Data necessary to distinguish cost effective schools are all available, but our system has been built to make their use difficult.

§         Districts give credit for students who fail standardized tests on the expectation that students someday will pass

§         We saw some schools that were low performing and had a very high parent satisfaction rate

§         We're spending ever-greater sums of money yet our high school graduates' test results have been absolutely flat.

§         America's primary and secondary schools have many problems, but an excess of excellence is not one of them.

§         Mediocrity is the national norm.

§         Not only is our use of incarceration highly concentrated among men with little schooling, but corrections systems are doing less to correct the problem by reducing educational opportunities for the growing number of prisoners.

§         Although states will require school districts to implement the common core state standards, the majority of these states are not requiring districts to make complementary changes in curriculum and teacher programs.

§         We can show that merit pay is counterproductive, that closing down struggling schools (or firing principals) makes no sense.

§         The gap between our articulated ideals and our practice is an international embarrassment.

§         It’s interesting to note that despite the growing support by minority parents for charters, the NAACP, the National Urban League and other civil-rights groups collectively condemn charter schools

§         Public schools do respond constructively to competition, by raising their achievement and productivity.

§         Gates Foundation has also stopped funding the small school concept because no results could be shown..

§         The policies we are following today are unlikely to improve our schools.

§         Our country still does a better job of tracking a package than it does a student,

§         Indeed, we give these children less of all the things that both research and experience tell us make a difference. 

§         Reformers have little knowledge of what is working and how to scale what works.

§         The problem of illiteracy has persisted in all states for generations, particularly among the most vulnerable children and getting worse, is testament that the development and implementation of national policy and creative leadership rings hollow.

§         We can't change a child's home life, but what we can do is affect what they do here at school.

§         Only a third of  young Americans will leave high school with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed

§         Black churches can no longer play gospel in the sanctuaries while kids drop out into poverty and prison. they must embrace school reform and take the role that catholic churches have done for so long and for so many.

§         There is only one way to equalize education for all—technology. 

§         Whatever made you successful in the past won't in the future.

§         The real potential of technology for improving learning remains largely untapped in schools today.

§         Can’t read, can’t learn, can’t get a job, can’t survive, so can’t stay within the law.

§      Of 19.4 million government workers half work in education which rivals health care for the most wasteful sector in America.

§         The only people not being betrayed are those who feed off of our failing education system…that group gets larger every year.

§         Mediocrity, not excellence, is the national norm as demonstrated by the deplorable evidence.

§         Parents are left to face the bleak reality that their child will be forever stuck in a failing school and a failing system.

§         The key is that unless there is accountability, we will never get the right system.

§         The very public institutions intended for student learning have become focused instead on adult employment.

§         We conclude that the strategies driving the best performing systems are rarely found in the United States.

§         No reform has yet lived up to its definition!

§         Minority males don’t get the beef, they get the leftovers.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 8

 

THE CONNECTICUT ENIGMA

 

Connecticut has tremendous resources to be a leader in solving the urban educational problems it faces (largest achievement gap in the U.S., high dropout rate, and low successful attainment percentage of minority students); instead—very regretfully and shamefully—it is a laggard.

 

“If you don’t identify the real problems and its consequences and don’t have the resolve to solve the problems, solutions are rhetorical and evasive.”

                                                                                                                          Armand A. Fusco

Connecticut, from time to time, has been used as an example to demonstrate how a rich state with more than ample resources has been unable --due to its obvious inability and incompetence-- to even make a dent in closing its achievement gap—the largest in the U.S. in spite of  numerous attempts.   It is particularly noteworthy because it has the highest per capita income and the highest starting and average teacher salaries among all states (according to Teacher Portal website).  Also, it has lost out twice on Race to the Top funds.  A study by the National Center for Education Statistics reported that the State slightly (no indication of how much) narrowed the math gap but the reading gap remained unchanged based on 2009 achievement test scores.

Therefore, its failure after decades of efforts needs to be examined more thoroughly to understand the variety of factors that are at play; in reality, it is an enigma of sorts.  This chapter will go into more detail concerning its impotence in coming to grips with the problems other than providing unending rhetoric, studies that repeat the problems over and over again, legislative regulatory reforms that seem to end up in dead ends and failed funding efforts.

Yet, Alabama that economically cannot compare with Connecticut and has far more educational challenges because of its high minority population, has managed to close its achievement gap and reduce the number of dropout factories as some other states have done. 

“The state (CT) has long struggled with an economic and racial academic achievement gap despite its relative wealth.  The problem has stayed in the background for years, but only relatively recently has it become too visible to ignore…the gap has remained unchanged for the past two decades.”[1] 

Obviously, Connecticut for too many years chose to ignore the problem until it became too public to ignore; is it any wonder that no progress was made for decades?  Until a problem is identified and accepted as fact, it cannot be solved.  This is similar to the fact that it and other states refuse to identify and accept the fact that school corruption is a pervasive problem and that is why it continues its relentless foray into district after district and school after school as well as state and federal education levels (my book, School Corruption:  Betrayal of Children and the Public Trust documents the problem; since its publication in 2005, there is enough new material for a sequel).

Furthermore, to address the largest achievement gap in the nation with programs that could be effective in closing the gap, it chooses instead to use funding as an excuse. 

“For years Connecticut has been working with urban school districts to use data to improve instruction.  Four years ago, the state also used a $10 million grant to launch targeted early reading skills program in urban classrooms. But the state is no longer funding the reading program.”[2]

It also had proposed as part of its Race to the Top grant (which it did not get twice) to open an institute to instruct teachers on how to teach English-language learners.  This too has been put on hold because of funding issues.  In other words, with the millions spent on education, a fraction of one-percent to implement these programs to address the largest achievement gap in the country is instead deposited on the heap of all the failed efforts to date. 

 

Where is the educational priority of the State; it certainly is not with the urban districts?  Of course, there is nothing to prevent the urban districts from implementing their own efforts to solve their problems; waiting for the State to intervene is obviously a futile dream.  Waiting for the districts to lead also seems to be futile.

 

Oh, it is not as though some attempts have not been made to turn around failing schools; but consider the fact that the problem has been going on for decades in reading the following:

 

“The longer school day didn’t work out as well as planned at the city’s first in-house “turnaround” experiment.  As an inaugural school year draws to a close (2011), the principal overseeing one of the city’s (New Haven) most-watched reform experiments offered those observations.

 

The principal, Karen Lott of K-8 Brennan/Rogers in West Rock, took a moment to share results and draw lessons from her first year seeking to turn around a struggling school with unprecedented latitude in hiring and rule-making.

 

Those lessons will not only guide Lott as she embarks on year two of an ambitious school reform experiment in the fall. They offer guidance for another principal, Sabrina Breland, as she launches the second such experiment at Wexler/Grant Community School in Dixwell.

 

Both schools were chosen for overhauls because they ranked near the bottom in the district in student performance. As part of a citywide school change initiative, a few failing schools are being tapped each year as ‘turnarounds’  to undergo restructuring. Brennan/Rogers and now Wexler/Grant are experimenting with a particular kind of turnaround that doesn’t call for shutting down a school or calling in private management.

 

As the leader of the city’s first in-house ‘turnaround’ school, Lott got unprecedented authority last year to hand-pick a new crew of teachers and set new rules allowed for by a new teacher’s contract. Brennan/Rogers opened last fall with a slate of new teachers and a longer school day for students and staff…

            Of the 35 teachers at the school last year, only 12 got hired back…

 

Brennan/Rogers landed a multimillion dollar grant to become a magnet school in the fall, accepting students from the suburbs as well as New Haven.

 

But the change in the student body means the school must adhere to the timetable of other magnets. District school buses make only one sweep through the suburbs to deliver kids to New Haven’s 17 other magnet schools.”[3]

 

With 17 magnet schools in New Haven, it has not changed the state’s achievement gap.  Flashy new buildings with shiny new furniture, etc. do not obviously improve instruction where it counts—literacy.  And as will be seen, the district has also just resorted to private management of a school.  These are what can be described as “bells and whistles” that get a lot of attention and money, but literacy results remain elusive as does the achievement gap. 

 

Putting in all into perspective, the city and state have spent millions upon millions of dollars to create magnet schools, but there is no money to fund an early reading program—it makes no educational sense unless there really is no desire to solve the problem.  As indicated in previous chapters, too many adults benefit—personally, professionally and financially-- by not solving the problem.  As will be seen, deceitful practices also play a part in this debacle.

 

Estela Lopez, a member of the State Board of Education stated in the Courant article that “In Connecticut, it’s embarrassing.”  However, it is not embarrassing enough as yet; it seems that nothing will make it embarrassing enough.  The only logical explanation is that there are forces (politics and unions) at work that do not want the problem solved.

It’s true that a new report by Civic Enterprises, Building a Grad Nation, indicates that Connecticut reduced its dropout factories from 14 to 1 between 2008 and 2009 interestingly, without any statewide plan—statistically it is not improbable, but impossible.  The fact that this author has tried to obtain information as to the criteria that was used to reduce 13 dropout factories—a feat that even Houdini would not have been able to accomplish-- has yielded no responses that shed any light on how this reduction could have possibly occurred unless there was alteration or misinterpretation of data. This is not to suggest that the data is fabricated, but to suggest that their sources were anything but accurate or reliable.

The Alliance for Excellent Education continues to state that there are 14 dropout factories in Connecticut. Either they do not know about the Building a Grad Nation report, which is very doubtful, or they are sticking with the number of 14.  It does report an overall decrease in the number of dropout factories nationally from 2000 to 1883, but the overwhelming evidence makes the claim suspect because schools have been deceitful in reporting data accurately.  Just as one example is the disparity in graduation rates reported by states and the actual grad rates documented in Diploma Counts 2010 (Education Week). 

In addition, the following is further indication that the reduction in numbers may not be as reported:

 

“Mountains of research suggest that the reason high-poverty schools fail so often is that economic

segregation drives failure: it congregates the children with the smallest dreams, the parents who are the most pressed, and burnt out teachers who often cannot get hired elsewhere. There is a strange quality to the turnaround debate… we stand in awe of the impressive efforts of a few schools and ignore the larger reality that economic segregation normally perpetuates failure. As James Foreman, Jr., has written, ‘As much as it thrills us to read about extraordinary people succeeding with poor children, I want to see how ordinary people can do the same.’  Using magnet themes to turn around failing high poverty schools will not work everywhere, but high quality economically integrated schools should be the first turnaround option explored…”[4]

Socio-economic conditions have not changed for the better; in fact, during the years reported for the reduction in dropout factories, economic conditions have gotten worse and test scores have continued to remain flat.  So how could so many dropout factories disappear from the radar screen?  No doubt, the other 1883 dropout factories would like to know how this Houdini caper was achieved.

Significantly, Connecticut has also been saddled with a court case since 1989  (Sheff v  O’Neil) brought by 18 inner city students  “alleging  significant constitutional violations under applicable sections of the State constitution which they believe constituted a denial of their fundamental rights to an education and rights to equal protection under the law.”  It should be noted that in order to get redress from the State that has been derelict in its Constitutional and legal responsibilities, action was required by its citizens—the extremely powerful educational lobby and the various educational institutions remained silent for years (and still do) to assist in solving this achievement gap plague.  The lone voice that has been exposing this problem has been ConnCAN, an advocacy group in New Haven, Ct.

Of particular note are the Connecticut Association of School Boards and the Connecticut Public School Superintendent’s Association organizations that should be supporting efforts of their urban members to provide them with information and training that would certainly help in developing antidotes for the plague of failing urban schools.  They stand rather mute in the debate.  When those who should be involved stand mute it raises the question as to why when it is such a serious problem; furthermore, standing on the sidelines provides a void for others to intervene such as the State Department of Education, the courts and legislators.

As noted, the court system has intervened, but the years since have seen the usual legal twists and turns in this on-going saga and it demonstrates how ineffective the judicial system is to resolving the urban challenges facing public education.  The fact is that judges are not “all knowing” and full of the wisdom needed to address complex problems as evidenced by the fact that the problems persist.  These urban education problems cannot be solved by legal decisions that obviously have been based on false assumptions.  Rather the problems must be solved by those legally responsible—the State Departments of Education, the local school districts and legislature. 

When the locals do not solve the problem, the State has the responsibility for intervening and developing a plan to address the problems—not the judicial system except when all else fails.  Apparently, they are no more qualified to solve the problem than the courts as evidenced by the fact that the problem of unequal and failing schools

still remains and getting worse judging by the number of such schools and dropout factories. [5]

 “In 1995, Judge Harry Hammer ruled in favor of the State in the case. His decision rejected claims that officials are obligated to correct educational inequities, no matter how they came to be. Further, he ruled that without proof that government action helped foster racial isolation, courts cannot require steps that would change the composition of city and suburban school enrollments.

 This decision was appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court. On July 9, 1996, the court overturned Hammer's ruling, in a split 4-3…The court ruled that the state had an affirmative obligation to provide Connecticut's school children with a substantially equal educational opportunity and that this constitutionally guaranteed right encompasses the access to a public education which is not substantially and materially impaired by racial and ethnic isolation. The Court further concluded that school districting based upon town and city boundary lines are unconstitutional, and cited a statute that bounds school districts by town lines as a key factor in the high concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities in Hartford.

As a result of the Connecticut Supreme Court decision, legislation was passed in 1997 which encouraged voluntary actions toward racial integration. The act also included a number of other measures related to magnet and regional charter schools and included a requirement for the State Department of Education to come up with a five-year plan to assess and eliminate inequalities between school districts.

In 1998, the Sheff plaintiffs filed a motion for a court order to require the state to adhere to the Supreme Court ruling. On March 3, 1999 Superior Court Judge Julia L. Aurigemma ruled that the state of Connecticut had complied with the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

In 2002 Judge Aurigemma held a hearing on the progress of the case and negotiations began on a settlement, which was approved in 2003.  It included a goal of having 30 percent of Hartford minority students in reduced-isolation school settings by 2007.  In 2007, the 2003 settlement expired short of its goal. An independent Trinity College report found that only 9 percent of Hartford's minority students attended less racially isolated schools. The plaintiffs brought the issue back to court in 2007 and the two sides began talks on a second settlement.

In June 2008 a second settlement was negotiated calling for building more magnet schools in Hartford suburbs and expanding the number of spots for Hartford children in suburban public schools. The new settlement also included state-run technical and agricultural high schools.

In Dec 2008 the state and the plaintiffs issued a 50-page document that outlined exactly how the new goals would be met. The plan called for a mix of existing programs, creating new magnet and charter schools, increasing support for the programs and collecting data on progress.”[6]

So who is on third or who is on first base?  No one can seem to agree; unfortunately, it depends on the umpire (judge) and who determines how to interpret the very same facts.  In essence, it really has nothing to do with the law but rather who is interpreting what seems to be applicable laws. 

Interestingly, according to the document, the consequences of the racial isolation were never mentioned as being fundamental to the entire case—the pieces of the puzzle were never put into place because the courts have a myopic view as illustrated in educational cases of this nature (even in criminal cases) where there is only certain available evidence that can be presented.  This in spite of the fact that  other evidence that would be applicable is excluded because of technicalities, objections by attorneys, and the rulings of the judge involved who are sometimes overruled by courts of appeal.  Obviously, they are not always correct in their judgment calls.  The issue is not necessarily to get at the entire truth or examine all of the available evidence, but rather to confine the findings to narrow rules and judgments all in the name of “justice.”

 The reality is that the process is aptly named—“criminal justice” and not “victim justice.”  Nevertheless, this process takes place within specific rules of laws and precedents covering volumes and volumes of law and cases; it is far from perfect because it depends on the human factor of judgment calls by judges and juries.  In the case of providing legal wisdom to cases of educational issues such as equal education opportunity judges are at a disadvantage because there are no volumes of case history.  Furthermore, there is no legal or accepted definition that all can agree on and there is no defined law involved; thus, they have no real basis on which to make a decision other than trying to find some legal precedent or stretching a law that could be applicable.  At least in criminal cases, they have been trained in the law, but this is not true with educational issues.

The Sheff  v O’Neil debacle is an example of nothing really being accomplished after more than 20 years of litigation and the problem remains untouched in terms of results by legal efforts. Of course, there have been some changes such as the development of magnet schools, new buildings, increased graduation standards, many studies and reports, etc. but no significant impact has been made on the problems at hand. 

 

If there was any doubt about the ineffectiveness of judicial intervention, consider the case of Brown v Board of Education.  Fifty seven years have passed since this landmark Supreme Court decision that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.  The result to date is that racial isolation has increased.

 

“If eradicating racial segregation in education was the original civil rights battle, it continues to be the most enduring one. A court decision that called “separate but equal” schools unlawful led to a couple hopeful decades of racial integration. But today most U.S. kids go to schools that are both racially and socioeconomically homogenous.

Around 40 percent of black and Latino students in the U.S. are in schools than are over 90 percent black and Latino, according to a 2009 study by UCLA’s Civil Rights Project. The schools that black and Latino kids are concentrated in are very often high-poverty schools, too. The average black student goes to a school where 59 percent of their classmates live in poverty, while the average Latino student goes to a school that’s 57 percent poor.”[7]

            Just as an observation, no one has been held accountable for this continuing plague upon minority students.  In other words, court decisions seem to be without any enforcement provisions even though they provide the rhetoric, rather than, the reality of hope; instead, the courts provide the “brutality of false hopes.”

What these cases and others like it demonstrate is that judges are no judge of how to solve educational problems—it is Judicial Jaundice at work unsuccessfully, but practiced with a passion.

 

For example, the entire basis for ending racial isolation is that it will lead to improved academic and social opportunity resulting in improved achievement.  Where is the substantial evidence to support this assumption, and is this the only means and best means by which it can be accomplished?  

 

Over decades many efforts have been made by district after district of moving students around within and beyond district lines and the results, creating magnet schools, and sending minority students to other non-urban districts yet nothing has really changed.  Furthermore, the turnaround examples documented in chapter 6 provide ample evidence that minority children can learn even in the squalor of socio-economic blight, in the same run down schools, with the same staff, and administration, and no additional funding by simply changing the cultural and instructional strategy as documented in the Brockton High School turnaround.  Further substantial evidence is provided by the Kansas City story—the best kept secret in education—proving beyond any doubt that no amount of money that included a doubling of the school budget in one year, new schools, smaller classes, magnet schools, higher teacher pay etc. solved the problem of segregation by a judge who was in charge.  The fact is that after ten years, the problem was worse, not better. 

 

More recent evidence is the use of School Improvement Funds provided by the federal government involving over 750 schools because it seems that the schools tend to be in stalemate since administrators are seemingly immobilized as to what to do even though the funds are available and numerous examples abound as illustrated in Chapter 4 and 5.  In addition, the growth of minority populations makes it impossible in terms of cost to “equalize opportunity” through the distribution of children by racial makeup.

 

In other words, the wrong antidote to eliminate the plague has been and continues to be used, but the plague remains because the symptoms are being treated rather than the cause. 

           

The reason is that all of the pieces of this complex puzzle have not been identified and put into place in order to obtain a full picture not only of the problem but the various consequences related to it that have not really been connected.  To put it bluntly, one of the fundamental causes for the abject failure to solve this problem is the fact that deceitful practices have been perpetrated by the educators and there are no consequences of any kind for such actions.

 

A District Example

 

The best way to illustrate this is to review and analyze a specific district situation that by all evidence is multiplied many times by other districts time and time again. The deceit (intentionally misleading) involving the reporting of data to make districts look good has been known, but it is only until very recently that some effort is being made to correct the deceit that has taken place to standardize reporting of graduation rates as one example.  Assuredly, any new system will have flaws that educators will use to their advantage.

           

This midsize city has a student minority population of roughly 45% primarily black and Hispanic.  Its state test scores from middle school to high school for all subjects tested are below state goals and if the white test scores are extracted, the minority test scores would drop precipitously.

 

Even with these seemingly sparse facts, but with readily available research, it would be expected that there

would be a significant dropout rate.  However, the State School Profile of the district shows a graduation rate of 96.1%

(2008-2009 school year) a percentage that equals the graduation rate of some of the best and wealthiest school districts with no minority population to speak of. 

 

How is this possible? Of course, it is not!  Statistically, it is improbable and, in fact, statistically it is impossible!  Yet, it has been going on for years by too many districts and hidden under the public radar screen.

 

Education Week’s Diploma Counts reveals that the data from the State Department of Education indicates a graduation rate of only 71.8% while the district is claiming a rate of 97.3% for the 2007-2008 school year which was the latest information at the time the data was assembled (over 25 schools were shown to have a discrepancy of 25 points or more, and 80 had lower discrepancies representing half of the school districts in Connecticut).

 

To verify that this information was valid, the author checked the number of students who graduated in 2010—252--against the enrollment of the seniors when they were in grade 9—353--which showed a reduction of 100 students or a dropout rate of approximately 30%.  However, all 100 may not have been dropouts because some could have moved to other districts (although there was also movement into the district), some could have enrolled in available parochial high school schools (this is really doubtful with minority children because of cost and particularly when they are in high school), some could have been withdrawn for homeschooling although again very doubtful at this age group, so the dropout rate calculated by the state that was certainly provided by the local district certainly seems to be well in the ball park.

           

So again, how can the district show on the state school profile (generated from information supplied from the local district) such a discrepancy?  Since the state is reporting a graduation rate that had a 25.5 point gap, why did the state allow the district to use a graduation rate of 97.3%?  It’s not as though the SDE was unaware of the factual data.  Therefore, it would seem that the state has been complicit in perpetrating the deceit.

 

It should be emphasized that no one is being accused of lying.  So how could there be such a discrepancy without anyone lying?  The simplicity and the practice are well known within the educational cocoon, but certainly not to the public.  One common method  is to calculate the rate by taking the number of students entering grade 12 and calculating how many of that number graduated by the end of the year.  Of course, there are other creative ways to achieve high graduation rates.  No lying, but certainly deceitful because it hides a serious problem.  Furthermore, it’s just not an educational problem since it impacts the community and, therefore, becomes an issue for the City to address.

           

There are many questions to be asked such as who supplied the information from the high school (it had to originate from there), was the superintendent involved in any way, and was the board of education aware of the deceit?  If the board was unaware, it compounds the deceit. However, if the board was unaware it demonstrates a failure not only of oversight but also asking basic questions about what is happening in the school district. 

 

Another fact is that the minority community and its leaders have also been deceived about the extent of the dropout problem affecting their students.  Again, however, there is no evidence that anyone from the minority community raised any issues about the number of students that did not graduate—they are certainly evident in the minority community. Was everyone blind, disinterested, or in denial?

           

What must be added to this tale of woe is that the board of education and Mayor have had some very contentious relationships over funding issues.  However, at no time has the board or administration informed the Mayor that funds were needed to address the dropout problem which has not been publicly identified.

           

Since there is no way to know who was involved on the school side, this issue was brought to the attention of City officials.  They were also informed about the fact that although this is seemingly a school problem over which the City has no direct control, the City is impacted very directly.  As mentioned in previous sections of this book, survey’s of prison populations indicate that on average two-thirds are high school dropouts and 80% of the prison population are lacking literacy skills even if they have a high school graduate.  What is also known is that a prison sentence is evidence that one or more crimes were committed (this also makes it a state problem as well since the state pays for the prisons).

 

Research indicates that crimes committed by these dropout inmates usually took place in their own community

adding to make the local crime rate higher and, perhaps even being responsible for most of the crimes directly or indirectly.  These inmates have two strikes against them; they lack literacy skills (even those with high school diplomas may lack sufficient literacy skills), and with no such skills and no high school diploma, they cannot get or retain decent paying jobs or any job.  Their only recourse to survive is to resort to criminal activity usually involving (1) drug usage--requiring money needed to purchase the drugs and is a known motivating factor in many crimes (2) dealing in drugs (selling and distribution) that causes gangs to be involved along with violence that leads to shootings because of territorial disputes (3) simply resorting to theft to get money to survive (4) dealing in stolen goods or (5) getting involved one way or another with prostitution.  All of these activities impact a community negatively because it is costly, provides unwelcomed publicity, and negatively impacts the neighborhoods in which they live.

 

What does not seem to be known is whether the police department has put their piece of the puzzle in place by recognizing the crimes committed by dropouts and realizing that if the dropout problem was addressed more constructively by the schools—but it can’t because the deceit is that there is no dropout problem-- crime could be reduced and the city made a more safe and secure place for its residents.  But since the district has indicated that there is no dropout problem, there is no reason why the police would realize that they have a piece of the puzzle to add to the broader picture of the consequences of the dropout problem.  The City officials were advised to check with the police department to determine if they are aware of the problem; and if not, to search their data resources to determine the incidence of dropouts to crime rates in order to obtain a measure of the dropout incidence on crime in the City.

 

The reason this information is so important is that when dropout inmates are released from prison after serving

their sentences, they usually return back to their neighborhood community.  Now they have three strikes against

them—no diploma (unless possibly a GED was awarded while in prison), perhaps insufficient literacy skills even with a GED, and a prison record which does not look inviting on a resume for a job.  No diploma, no skills, and a prison record will usually lead to joblessness so the only means left for financial survival is back to what they can do—criminal activity of one type or another since no resume is required, a diploma is not needed, no literacy skills are necessary other than counting money, and a prison term that, instead of detracting from their resume, enhances their stature.

 

 However, simply analyzing the data to determine how many of the local dropouts end up in prison is not the true indicator of the level of crime since what must be added are the dropouts who have been arrested but not sent to prison (usually because they are juveniles).  Instead of prison sentences, they often receive suspended sentences or probation; sometimes they get off on technicalities.  Added to this problem, thanks to the school deceit, is that there is another group for the city to be concerned about—those who have dropped out but have not yet been involved with criminal activity.

 

This scenario then presents the City (and others like it) with three distinct separate problems and a strategy needs to be developed to address each.  The City is really caught between a rock and hard place because if it publicly exposes the deceit, the probability is that the BOE will retort by insinuating that the problem is that the City does not fund the schools adequately.  Additionally, the BOE will claim that to solve the problem the schools will need more money to pay for more preschool programs, alternative programs, more teachers, and consultants to assist with professional development, higher teacher salaries, and smaller classes--on and on it goes.  In other words, instead of the BOE admitting fault in their lack of oversight and lack of policies designed to prevent problems and even solve problems, they will go on the offensive and forget that the school system never apprised the funding authorities of the need for money to address the dropout problem.

 

What can the City officials do to counter the argument for the money need?  First, they should use the research in this book to show that all of these efforts have been tried not only in Connecticut but other states with limited or no success.  There is no reason to believe that doing what always has been done will yield any different results.  In addition, examples of turnaround schools can be used to document that these popular strategies are not the answer. Also, using the Brockton, MA high school literacy strategy as an example of a successful turnaround pointing out it was the worse high school in Massachusetts and in and it is now one of the best by employing one simple strategy.  Unlike the federal regulations suggesting four strategies to turnaround schools, the teachers came up with a common sense strategy so simple and effective that can be copied by any district—every class, including gym, provides literacy training as part of the subject matter.  This is probably the only turnaround situation where the teachers came up with a plan that was accepted by the administration and basically run by the teachers.  No extra dollars were involved, no smaller classes, etc. but there was an abundant level of professional development created by the teachers and not by consultants or anyone else.  Uncooperative teachers were told that if they did not join the effort, they did not belong at Brockton.

 

The response from the BOE and administration will probably be along the lines that union rules or contracts prevent them from implementing such a strategy that requires all teachers to be involved.  So the city officials need to know the facts and state that Brockton has a strong union and that all union rules were followed and they still succeeded.

 

An effort is now underway in Connecticut to increase the dropout age to 18, so the BOE could also say that there is no need to do anything special since students must stay in school--bad thinking to say the least.  Of course, the schools would rather not have such students held in bondage by a law because they could make it difficult for the teachers and administration by becoming discipline problems; and if they are suspended, they must be given tutorial assistance.  However, parents could also be a factor by simply providing written excuses that the student is ill, or is being homeschooled, etc. because they do not want to deal with a student who does not want to go to school and deal with school authorities over truancy issues etc.  Yes, the parents could be fined, but is a mother running a single parent household on welfare going to be fined? 

 

It all comes down to deceit again because it will depend on the “creative” interpretation of when a student is identified as “truant” or is considered a “dropout.”  There is a specific BOE policy on “truancy” but there is no policy on “dropouts.”  However, whether the explicit policy on truancy is followed is unknown.  The hope is that the BOE will realize that the deceit has shamed the schools and that cooperation would be in their best interests, as well as, those of the students.  But what is then done about the three issues facing the City—the released inmates, the juveniles arrested but not sent to prison, and the more recent dropouts that have not yet become involved with criminal activity.

 

Fortunately for the City, the key resources it needs to tap into are available—a community college, a University, a technical high school and two parochial high schools (male and female) that are all in immediate proximity.

           

The next step would be to develop strategies for each of the groups and also for enlisting the school department to engage in an effort to reduce the dropout rate (hard to do when they admit there is no such problem), but if the BOE has not been involved, they should be incensed about the deceit and work cooperatively to address the problem.  A list of strategies was provided to the city officials by this author.  Among the strategies were: 

 

Forming a Charter School

           

Probably the best way for the City to address the issues involved is to start a City Charter High School and later feeder elementary grades.  The two advantages are that (1) it would be funded by the state and (2) it would operate independently from the school district that has failed in its duty to make any effort to reduce the dropout problem and achievement gap.

 

Establishing a Citizen Audit Committee

           

Obviously the schools need far more oversight and this can be provided by a citizens audit committee.  One of the activities the members are trained in is the use of Best Practices so they could be a rich resource of information.  This author has started over 14 such local committees in the state at absolutely no cost. 

 

The Prison Pendulum

           

An interesting column appeared in the Hartford Courant on May 15, 2011 written by Robert Farr, a lawyer

who had served on the Pardons and Parole Board.   He cites the fact that in 1979 there were 3,500 inmates in

Connecticut and by 2003 the number surpassed 19,000.  In order to stop more prisons from being built, a new program was developed—Supervised Home Release—that allowed 6,000 prisoners to be released early with some serving only 10% of their sentence.  The result, of course, was predictable because “it created a revolving door that saw early released inmates returning on new charges—a recidivism rate of 60 percent within three years of release.”  Yet, in spite of this data, the Governor is planning to close some prisons in order to help close the state deficit.  So the process will be repeated again and again and again.  History does not seem to offer any learning’s when it comes to superficial dollar savings because the recidivism will continue at a substantial cost.

           

“We need to better understand what causes inmates to commit crimes in the first place.”—no truer words were ever spoken about this problem.  In reviewing over 4,000 cases, Farr found that 80 percent were dropouts and a similar percentage came from dysfunctional families “with other family members involved in the criminal justice system, and with abuse of drugs and alcohol in the home….It is alarming to find that most of the male inmates have three or four children by three or four different women and have little or no relationship with those children.”

           

However, he missed the most obvious reason why crimes are committed in the first place—can’t read, can’t learn, can’t get a job, can’t survive, so can’t stay within the law.  It’s all about literacy and it seems to fall on deaf ears.

Connecticut Reforms

 

Needless to say, there is never an absence of new reforms and among the latest reform initiatives is the following list of proposed changes:

 

§      Graduation credits will be increased from 20-25

§      Graduation exams in algebra, geometry, biology, American history and English will be required along with    a foreign language requirement.

§      Advanced placement courses will be required.

§      A “capstone” project (written project) will be included

§      Charter enrollment cap will be  lifted

§      Student performance will be a factor in teacher and principal evaluations

§      Boards can be replaced  in low  achievement  districts

§      The cost for 380 more teachers is estimated at $21-30 million

 

            Even though the state is dealing with a $3.4 billion dollar deficit for the 2012-14 budget years, the reform efforts continue.  The 2010 Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement, an 11-member commission made up of bank presidents, philanthropists and business leaders, made 65 recommendations in a 32 page report. As with all such previous reports the promises proliferate:  "If these recommendations are implemented ... we will significantly close the achievement gap.”  How the educational establishment will wade through 65 recommendations when it can’t keep abreast of other mandates and financial difficulties will be an interesting challenge to observe.

 

            What it fails to address directly is that it will not help the 50% of male minority students that are pushed out of schools each year; neither does it end other problems.  For example, the State Supreme Court has decided that the State

Constitution guarantees not just a free public education, but a “suitable” one that adequately prepares them for a career or college education. The estimated cost is $2 billion but it does not say exactly what the cost will accomplish.  The next step is that The Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding lawsuit must now go forward to determine if students have been provided with a suitable education.  However, it would seem that it has already been determined by some form of osmosis since a price tag has been put into place.

 

In addition, the new Governor will no doubt develop his own education reform agenda that may include a longer school year, performance evaluations, and, no doubt, more funding.  The increased funding will in all likelihood fall on the local school districts—the state mandates, but the local districts must pay.

 

            But the tales of woe for Connecticut continue with the aftermath of the Scheff v O’Neil 1996 Supreme Court decision to desegregate Hartford schools.  The job still has not been accomplished to have 35% of the schools integrated with only 28% at the present time and the goal is to have 41% integrated by 2012 or provide 80% of students that want to leave their schools with the opportunity to do so.  With over a billion dollars spent to alleviate the problem thus far, policymakers are realizing that the approach is not working and it is too expensive particularly with the huge budget deficit facing the state.  Yet all the different solutions still require huge expenditures.

 

The Dropout to Diploma Fantasy

 

Once again, another report—Closing the Attainment Gap in Connecticut High Schools[8]--attempts to solve the problem; unfortunately, it simply is another excursion on the yellow brick road to the educational magic land of unrealistic and impractical hopes.  It’s another example of why the problem exists and will continue to exist—the edited content speaks for itself.

 

“In April 2010, the Connecticut Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights invited government officials, scholars, advocacy group representatives, community representatives, and the public to participate in a briefing that examined the disparity of academic achievement along racial, ethnic and socioeconomic lines, focusing specifically on high school graduation rates in Connecticut’s public schools. Based on the briefings, the Committee offers the enclosed report and findings and recommendations with the aim of improving high school graduation rates in economically disadvantaged school districts and across the state. In distilling best practices, the report focuses on school culture, school leadership, teacher evaluation, teacher retention, parental involvement, data collection, English language learners, and the GED Test.

 

•  Incentives (higher salaries or generous retirement plans)may help retain teachers.  As their

   numbers increase, other high-quality teachers will join, improving the support systems for teachers.

 

•  Local school districts and the State Department of Education (SDE) should establish a rigorous,

college-ready program of study for all students and identify exemplar programs to extend to local school districts in order to cultivate a strong district and school culture of belonging through mentoring, extracurricular programming, leadership opportunities, college preparation, and supportive, highly-engaging classroom environments.

 

•  Schools need high-quality district leadership to make progress and thrive. The SDE should explore exemplary leadership preparation programs to ensure that certification requirements leadership programming are structured to fully prepare pre-service administrators for positions of leadership Additionally, school districts should create support structures for school leaders that provide coaching, feedback, and training according to the Common Core of Leading. The SDE should also explore ways to promote the Superintendent’s networks so that leadership practices between and among suburban and urban school districts are more collaborative and less isolating.

 

•  Access to high-quality teachers remains a crucial component of academic success. Quality instruction delivered by competent, motivated teachers invested in their students’ success is key to high school graduation, and to students’ future success in college, careers, and citizenship. Placing and retaining high-quality teachers in underperforming schools and school districts can improve high school attainment rates.

 

•  Often, urban school districts are not able to retain high-quality teachers. Fatigue and burnout often lead high-quality teachers to flee from these districts for more supportive suburban environments. Therefore, the schools with the greatest challenges are often staffed with the least experienced teachers. The SDE should consider incentives to keep high-quality teachers in these districts. One suggested incentive is to allow teachers who work in such districts for a period of time to retire earlier. For example, teachers who work at least 10 years in underperforming or troubled schools could retire after 30 instead of 37 years of service.

 

• There is a correlation between parental involvement in a child’s education and scholastic success. The Connecticut SDE should consider approaches to facilitating parental involvement in school governance structures, such as advisory councils and boards of governance. Teachers and administrators should clearly communicate their expectations to parents and students and should encourage open lines of communication with parents. Parents should be actively encouraged to participate at home in their children’s growth toward proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics.

 

• The Connecticut SDE has made significant progress towards improving its mechanisms for measuring high school graduation rates by adopting the National Governors’ Association Compact and implementing a longitudinal data system and a unique student identifier. It should, however, enhance its measures to exercise quality control on the data it receives from school districts to ensure that data is provided consistently across districts.

 

• English Language Learners (ELL) represent a large and growing part of Connecticut’s student population. They are often at a greater risk of failing to complete school than their English-speaking classmates. Connecticut does not have a statewide, comprehensive policy to address the unique needs of ELL students. Therefore, the Connecticut Legislature, Connecticut SDE, and school districts should take steps to ensure that Connecticut teachers are adequately prepared to teach ELL students. Among such measures should be the hiring of more ELL teachers.

 

• The Connecticut State Board of Education should ensure that GED completion and high school graduation are not treated as equivalent when reporting longitudinal data on student outcomes, and school districts should emphasize to students and their parents that failing to graduate from high school leaves them with fewer opportunities later in life, and that the completion of the GED program does not serve as a substitute for a high school diploma.

 

The Committee hopes this report serves as a step, albeit an incremental one, toward fulfilling the promise that a high-quality education provides, and assuring a just and prosperous future for the Constitution State.

 

It would have been better to conclude with: “and assuring a just and prosperous future for the most vulnerable and disposable children in Connecticut.”  How can these recommendations “assure” hope and opportunity?  Consider the unrealistic second recommendation: establish a rigorous, college-ready program of study for all students.  These are students who lack the literacy skills necessary to succeed with basic academic knowledge and skills just in order to graduate.  To expect them to be involved with a college ready program is asinine because the system has failed them time and time again by keeping them in the bondage of failing schools with failing leadership, and low achievement, and it has been going on for years.  It demonstrates how naïve smart, intelligent and well meaning people can be when they are not in the trenches of the reality of these at risk students

 

The report continues its journey on the road to fantasy land by stating:  Dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country – and this country needs and values the talent of every American. Although true, it is meaningless to students caught in the snake pit of failure caused not by them but by a system that has allowed it to continue because it’s a system primarily for the needs of adults, political power, and union dominance and not for students; otherwise, this problem would have been solved decades ago.  The report continues:

 

“Families are forced to rely on the failing neighborhood public schools, many of which are composed primarily of minority students and English Language Learners. Consequently, the likelihood of a student graduating from high school is strongly correlated to his/her race, ethnicity, and/or socioeconomic status, creating the nation’s largest achievement gap between white middle-class communities and low-income minority students… Despite these judicial and legislative endeavors, equal access to education remains elusive and the nation has not delivered on the fundamental promise of equal opportunity for all children.”

 

 Today, education is the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”

 

How do any of the recommendations address, alleviate or compensate for the socio-economic realities along with ethnicity, a history of failed reforms, legislative ineptitude, lethargic response to court orders, and state department of education paralysis, etc.?

 

There is no doubt who is really legally responsible and in charge—the State--and it should be responsible for taking decisive action to intervene in any failing school and failing district (it is finally intervening in one district after years of failing its students only because it reached crisis proportions). 

 

The number of failing schools and dropout factories has been known for years, so a fundamental and perhaps legal question is whether the SDE has been malfeasant in its responsibilities by its failure to act decisively and quickly to use its Constitutional and lawful authority along with the No Child Left Behind provisions?   It alone has the responsibility and authority to put an end to failing schools or at least freeing the students therein from bondage by providing them with schools that succeed. 

 

The plague of hopelessness cannot be treated with reports, studies, platitudes, educational rhetoric, and legislative acts, and court decisions, but require common sense action to put end to failing schools.  Failing schools have been shown to be turned around successfully so the antidotes are known that can end the plague. No further action of any kind is needed for the State to act except “to act” far more appropriately and decisively.

What is the major overall purpose of the NCLB act?  It is to promote greater parental and community awareness of school achievement levels, to provide school districts with greater flexibility in the use of federal education funds, to increase federal funding of education programs that have proven effective, and to provide families of students the option of transferring their child to a better-performing school within a school district if the child’s designated school consistently underperforms for two consecutive years.

 

It has not been done, the law is being violated, but unfortunately there are no consequences and more recommendations will not likely change anything to end the plight of these disposable children. To add more fuel to the fire of this problem is Substitute Senate Bill No. 438--An Act Concerning Education Reform in Connecticut. It makes substantial changes to education laws, policies and practices to strengthen standards for students, increase accountability for teachers and administrators, and provide a more significant role for parents and community leaders in the operation of low-achieving schools. The bill makes numerous changes to state education laws, including:

 

1. setting higher minimum standards to receive a high school diploma by increasing “minimum credits” necessary to graduate from 20 to 25, starting with the graduating class of 2018;

2. giving the SDE the power to reconstitute a local school or regional board of education, after being designated as low-achieving, following two consecutive years of failure to make adequate progress;

3. requiring the SDE to develop, by July 1, 2013, guidelines for teacher evaluations that include student academic growth, and requiring every school district to incorporate student academic growth into the teacher evaluation process by this date;

4. requiring the SBE to expand the “public school information system” by July 1, 2013, to track and report to school boards data on performance growth by students, teachers, schools, and school districts;

5. permitting the school board of a priority school district to convert an existing school or establish a new school as an “innovation school” that allows the school greater autonomy and flexibility in curriculum, budget, school schedule, and other policies;

6. requiring school boards with low-achieving schools to create “school governance councils” made up of parents (or guardians), teachers, administrators, students, and community leaders to advise the principal on the school budget, interview candidates to fill major vacancies, etc;

7. modifying charter school laws to improve their standing and capacity; and

8. revising state certification laws for administrators and superintendents

 

This is simply more inconsequential legislative minutia providing more legal authority for the SDE to use the authority it now has to promote equal educational opportunity; obviously, it has failed to do so otherwise the legislature would not have had to intervene. There are no consequences for failing to perform the duties clearly articulated in law and regulations—Pontius Pilate Syndrome seems to be a catchy virus in Connecticut and the report continues:

 

“Many of Connecticut’s urban school districts are failing their students. This failure to provide high-quality education has meant that too many Connecticut children, mostly poor and mostly African American and Latino, are denied opportunities to participate fully in our communities.

 

The Committee’s choice to examine disparities in high school graduation rates reflects the importance of a successful high school education for young people. According to a recent report, there is a ‘high school dropout epidemic’ in the United States. Each year, almost one third of all public high school students – and nearly one half of all African-American students – fail to graduate from public high school. The high school dropout problem is a crisis for the United States – dropouts are far more likely to spend their lives unemployed, poor, on government assistance, and/or cycling through the criminal justice system.

 

The Advisory Committee learned that 65 percent of inmates in Connecticut prisons are high school

Dropouts and that the Connecticut state budget provides three times more funding to the criminal justice system than the public education system. Known as the school-to-prison pipeline, the disparity for Connecticut

residents is striking – three quarters of the Connecticut prison population is comprised of ethnic minorities.”

 

What more compelling reasons can be provided before there is concrete, realistic and decisive action to put an

end to Zombie schools?  What else needs to be known?  Absolutely nothing!

 

It seems that Connecticut is stuck in a quagmire of failure, ineptitude and impotence.  Perhaps they should learn from the examples of other states. Consider how Oklahoma and Massachusetts have addressed their problems in comparison to Connecticut.

 

“Oklahoma Public schools no longer will be able to promote third-grade students who cannot read at appropriate levels under a bill signed into law Wednesday (SB 346)…in the first through the third grade a child learns to read, but the fourth grade on, a child reads to learn.

 

If our children are not able to read at grade- appropriate levels, they can’t learn the math, the science, the social studies as they continue to go through the education system.  We’re doing a great disservice to our children, a great disservice to our parents, a great disservice to our workforce when our children are passed from grade to grade without the ability to read at grade- appropriate levels.

 

It requires school districts to notify parents that their child has a reading deficiency and that the student would be held back if the deficiency isn’t remedied. Public schools would be required to develop a plan to work with parents to help their child read…intense reading sessions would start with first-graders and continue each year through third grade.  Under the measure, a student could be held back in the first or second grade if not reading at appropriate levels.  No student can be held back more than twice; a student held back twice and still found to lack necessary reading skills at the end of the third grade would be promoted to the fourth grade but would receive additional reading instructions.

 

It’s about literacy…If a child can’t read, they can’t learn. This state is now drawing a very important line in the sand, and what we are saying is that we are going to assure that Oklahoma children are ready to read, ready to learn after the third grade…” [9]

 

They got it right--“It’s about literacy” and the action is specific, early on, and designed to help those who are at most risk.  Connecticut should learn from Oklahoma!  However, instead of keeping children back, it would be far more effective to have them enter a Literacy Intensive Program (LIP) and then decide after completing the program successfully the grade level they can be moved too.

 

Massachusetts has moved aggressively to change its 35 underperforming schools in just two months after changes in legislation gave superintendents and principals extraordinary powers to make staffing and other changes at such schools.

 

 “It has approved overhaul plans for nearly all the underperforming schools, and 28 have qualified for more than $1 million in federal school improvement funds. More than half of the schools have extended their days by as much as 90 minutes, 20 schools have installed new principals, and about one third of the schools have replaced or are replacing at least half the teaching staffs.

Schools are also turning to innovative and more technologically savvy approaches to teaching. Fall River’s Kuss Middle School has given every seventh-grader a laptop, Lynn’s Harrington Elementary School is teaching parents to speak English so they can help their children with homework, and several Boston schools have enlisted City Year volunteers to tutor and mentor students.”[10]

The effort is among the most ambitious ever undertaken by Massachusetts to turn around chronically failing schools, an area the state has had limited success in.

However, it was not so easy to do since superintendents and union leaders in some districts clashed with unions over plans to overhaul schools, often because school districts wanted to pay teachers less than what was outlined in their contracts—it’s too often all about adults, not children.

            In the meantime, Connecticut sits on the sidelines while the action parade marches on and the failing schools trail behind.  But from time to time, a local district takes action.  For example, in New Haven a failing school (note the name)--Roberto Clemente Leadership Academy-- is to get an overhaul by contracting it out to a private management firm because it is the lowest performing school in the district.   It is interesting to read why Renaissance was chosen as the contractor:

 

“Asked why the school district didn’t opt for an internal solution such as replacing a principal or staff, instead of hiring a private company…Renaissance has training, strategies and specialists to make the school successful.”

           

In other words, this major urban district that is being applauded for a new teacher evaluation system has not developed training or strategies to improve failing schools in the district, nor does it have among its ample staff any specialists.  Yet, as cited in the beginning of this chapter, it has two schools in a turnaround situation, but apparently they are not models to be emulated. 

 

This may sound like a rather naïve question, but isn’t this what administrators in an urban district are hired to do?  If this is not their job, what is their job?  They are also backed up by Assistants, Directors, Supervisors, etc. yet no one has the knowledge or skill to know what needs to be done and how to do it?  A new evaluation system will certainly not do the job either because obviously no one is expected to know how to turn a school around. 

 

This is a practice that has been used occasionally in Connecticut and in other districts around the country with successes and failures.  However, interestingly the same school administration that admits it is unable to turn the school around, stays in place.  Therefore, why not contract out all of the schools and have the administration sit back and observe others doing the job that they were hired to do?  Obviously, it’s legal and ethical to admit the job you were hired to do is beyond your ability to do it—it can only happen in the public school system.  Let’s take it to the next step, if a teacher is unable to perform adequately in the classroom, apparently it would be okay to have the system hire someone who can, and still keep the teacher on the payroll.  Of course, it should be noted that the State did not intervene—they should have!

 

ConnCAN[11]

 

As mentioned earlier, ConnCAN is the only voice speaking on behalf of these children.  Findings from a June 2008 follow-up analysis included pertinent information:

 

·      The overall graduation rate for Connecticut in the Diplomas Count study was 13.1 points lower than the official statewide average of 91.2 percent—the 14th largest disparity among the 50 states.

·      Connecticut’s statewide graduation rate declined 1.8 points from 79.8 percent to 78.1 percent between 2004 and 2005.

·      Among the three largest districts in Connecticut, the gap between the official and independent rates was 33.7 points in Hartford, 22.6 points in New Haven, and 20.5 points in Bridgeport.

·      Since 1997, Bridgeport’s graduation rate, as measured in Diplomas Count, increased almost 10 points, from 44.7 to 54.2, and Hartford’s graduation rate increased more than 5 points, from 33.5 to 38.6. By contrast, New Haven’s graduation rate declined almost 10 points, from 61.9 to 52.4.[12]

·      The Diplomas Count project found that the official graduation rates overstated the percentage of students graduating in four years with a diploma in 94 percent of Connecticut districts.

·      In seven districts the graduation rates were overstated by 25 or more points: West Haven (38.8 points),

Hartford (33.7)-Bloomfield (32.5)-Manchester (29.5)-Windham (26.6)-Middletown (26.3)-Putnam (25.8).

 

A school system’s high school graduation rate is one of the most important indicators of its success. Research has demonstrated that, on average every 10 percent increase in high school graduation rates is correlated with a 13 percent lower rate of auto thefts and a 20 percent lower rate of murders and assaults.

The Diplomas Count report comes on the heels of a national push to measure high school graduation rates more accurately, including the adoption of a Compact on State High School Graduation Data.

Fully implementing the recommendations of the NGA will require a new state data system that uses unique student identifiers to track the movement of students between schools and districts within Connecticut, as recommended in ConnCAN’s “Great Schools for All” plan.  n 2007, $6.4 million over two years was included in the state education budget to support the creation of a state longitudinal data system and the State Department of Education is currently working to develop this new system.

This new study adds to the urgency to create and fully implement a comprehensive and publicly-accessible system for tracking the progress of every public school student in our state.”

More Disturbing Data

 

            Regardless of the variety of educational data that is reviewed and analyzed, Connecticut students are at a decided disadvantage because it is difficult for far too many, particularly black and Hispanic, to compete for jobs, careers and college readiness.  This information should also be a source of great concern for the business community of the state since much of the economic engine is dependent on science, technology, and information services.

 

STEM Issues

 

Add to the above other data that shows Connecticut wallowing in the swamp of failure for its students. 

 

“The future of Connecticut depends on its ability to boost student performance in science, technology,

engineering and mathematics (STEM).  Young people will increasingly face stiff competition for jobs

from people across the word, and to succeed in the global economy, students will need a much stronger foundation in STEM subject areas.”[13]

           

The evidence that Connecticut is at risk is abundantly clear.  Closing the many gaps in achievement is just not an educational issue because it is “a moral and economic imperative;” in fact, it is a national security issue as well.

 

NAEP  Results

           

Another factor that does not bode well for Connecticut is the gap that exists between reading and math scores. For example, the 2009 NAEP 12^th grade Poor/Non-Poor Achievement data shows a gap of 2.95 grade levels within

this group. With the Black/White group the gap is 3.50 grade levels; and the Hispanic/White gap is 3.05 grade levels.  These gaps are higher than the national averages. 

 

In addition, the state test rates 85 percent of the  8^th graders as proficient in math—that’s far more than the 40 percent of Connecticut’s 8^th graders who score proficient on the 2009 NAEP.  But this is only part of the story.  When the scores at or above proficiency on the 2009 NAEP are broken down by ethnic groups, it becomes shocking.

 

                                    White              Hispanic          Black

Grade 4 Math                        58%                18%                13%

Grade 8 Math                        49%                14%                10%

Grade 4 Science         53%                  11%                  9%

Grade 8 Science         44%                   9%                  9

 

Also, when compared with the top three states (MA, MN, NH), Connecticut ranks below all of them for 4th, 8^th, and 12^th scores in math and science.  What is more telling is comparing Connecticut with Massachusetts  that has had Proposition 2½ since 1980 which limits property tax increases to 2.5% by municipalities.  This ballot initiative was prompted because Massachusetts was called ‘Taxachusetts’; today, because of Prop 2½, it ranks 26^th among the states. What is remarkable to note is that with this cap on spending, and when the same educational measurements are compared, Massachusetts outscores Connecticut in every measurement according to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2010, and it ranks number one among the states in international comparisons on math achievement.

 

§   K-12 achievement—state achievement index

Mass (ranked #1

Conn (ranked #35

§   K-12 achievement—NAEP math 2007—8^th grade

Mass --ranked #1  

       Conn --ranked #23  

 

“When NAEP results are far worse than the results on state tests, the state might have low academic expectations.”  It is not a question that it “might” have lower expectations, it does when compared with other states that have much narrower gaps between state tests and the NAEP.    Massachusetts obviously has much higher state standards than Connecticut.

 

            It should be noted that the NAEP standards are below eighth grade competencies so even though it has higher standards than the state standards, its standards are still below grade levels tested.

 

College Graduation Rates[14]                                                  Conn               U.S.

% Assoc degree candidates graduating in 3 yrs*              12%                28%

% of bachelor’s degree candidates graduating in 6 yrs     64%                56%

% of 18-24 year olds enrolled in college                 33%                36%

*Connecticut ranks 47^th in the nation

 

In addition, four out of five students attending college need to take a remedial reading, English or math courses.

 

To add “fuel to the fire,” in 2009, Connecticut was awarded with a grade of  “D+” in teacher quality and even

more fire has been ignited with the latest news adding more misery to the educational landscape. 

 

But there is more icing for the crumbling cake: “The majority of Connecticut’s graduates who attend the state’s community colleges and four smaller universities are not prepared for college work…At least 72% of those attending community colleges in 2009 required remedial or developmental math or English; for the state universities, the figure was 65%.[15]

 

What was far more revealing was a statement by Michael Meotti, the State’s Commissioner on Higher Education, that “there has long been an understanding that many students arrive at these colleges in need of remedial work, but until now the numbers were not available.”

 

            In other words, it was known that this problem existed for years, but no previous attempt was apparently made

to determine the extent of the problem.  No problem can be solved or addressed realistically or effectively until the facts are known.  Unfortunately, this is much too typical of what takes place in our public schools—denial.

           

            In addition, enrollment in schools has dropped over the past five years, while the number of Latino and poor students has risen.  It has dropped every year since 2004, when it peaked at 578,000 and it is projected to decline to 524,200 students in 2019.  In addition to a smaller, more diverse student population, schools now have more low-income students than ever. Currently, 30% of all Connecticut students come from families poor enough to qualify for free or reduced–price lunches, an increase of 18,800 newly eligible students over the past 5 years (Hartford Courant, 11/6/2010)

 

The State Dept of Education’s reported high school graduation rates are typically higher than rates reported by

the 2010 Education Week’s Diploma Project   with a 44.7% disparity between the two reporting entities for 2007.

New CSDE data showed 79.3% of the class of 2009 graduated high school within 4 yrs compared to previous reports indicating 92%.  The graduation rate of male minority students hovers around only 50%.  Unfortunately, this is the problem in most urban districts that typically report much higher graduation rates.  If the dropout problem is not

accurately identified, solutions are impossible.

 

Forty per cent of the state's public schools (406 of 987) failed to meet performance standards under No Child Left Behind Act and it even included some prestigious high schools. The 2010 report of schools not making Annual Yearly Progress under NCLB revealed that one third of the schools in the U.S. did not make AYP, but in Connecticut, 41% of schools didn’t make AYP--28 states did better than Connecticut despite its high per pupil expenditure and highest teacher salaries and other rich resources.

           

Army Failure Rates

 

During the period of 2004-2009, 2,911Connecticut high school graduates took the Army vocational aptitude exam and failed exceeding the national average.  This group does not include the dropouts, only those with a diploma. 

 

“When the data is disaggregated, 29 percent of Hispanics and 39 percent of African Americans failed the exam…clearly the K-12 system has not responded with a sufficiently rigorous course of study depriving many applicants of the knowledge and skills they need to serve”.[16] 

 

Indeed, the graduates, specifically minority, are not well prepared for college readiness or a career in the military which, for many, is really a second chance opportunity to have hope to gain needed skills (the military is very effective in providing skills in very short time periods) with opportunities to practice and hone their skills for possible future employment in the civilian work force or as a career in the military.

 

Another Commission

            In its never ending quest to study the problem to death and look like something is finally getting done to

address the problem, the Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement was appointed by the Governor.  It continues the rhetoric of recommendations without end that end up in the scrap heap of recommendations that continue to be unproductive, unsuccessful, futile, and hopeless in making any inroads in solving the educational problems facing the State.  The recommendations follow:

1.   Demand accountability

2.   High expectations

3.   Foster leadership

4.   Excellent teaching

5.   Invest intelligently

6.   Turnaround schools

 

What do these recommendations intend to achieve? 

 

“Every child should have a chance to be exceptional.  Without exception:  A plan to help close Connecticut’s achievement gap…A great education, not for some students, not for most students, for all students.

 

The achievement gap in Connecticut is a crisis in our state’s classrooms. Yet it’s a crisis with a

resolution in sight. Our recommendations can have a significant impact on turning the current situation

around and helping close the achievement gap. Undoubtedly, there will be debate. But we believe everyone— policymakers, teachers, administrators, elected officials, business and community leaders, and especially parents and students—will be able to agree on one thing. There’s no time to lose. The time for action is now. It’s about our children, their futures and ours…

 

This reform plan will require the courageous actions of elected officials, educators, business and community leaders, parents, students and all concerned citizens. But the rewards are worth it—for everyone”

Incidentally, it is a ten year plan of action, but of course “there is no time to lose.”

 

Wow!  Three cheers for the plan--hooray, hooray, hooray--the rhetorical recommendations provide absolutely nothing new; they have been reiterated time and time again without results—the brutality of false hopes continues at work. 

 

Who will look back in ten years to see if the recommendations helped one iota?  Who has been held accountable for past recommendations?  Needless to say, no one! Who will be held accountable now --a person, not an entity--for implementing these recommendations?  A person can be held accountable with consequences, an entity such as the State Department of Education can be held accountable to some degree, but there are no consequences to speak of.  So who will be held accountable?  Of course, no one!  By then, there will probably be more commissions and more recommendations and the vulnerable children at risk will continue to be held in bondage in schools that fail them in providing literacy skills needed for  “hope and opportunity.”

 

This is yet another plan to close the achievement gap that has not been closed with other such plans and recommendations, so why will this one be any different?

 

The Bridgeport Saga

 

            In the never ending debacle of Connecticut education ineptness and confusion, another very interesting chapter has been added.  The Bridgeport Board of Education representing the second largest urban district voted to have the board dissolved by the State Department of Education because it has become totally dysfunctional.  This is the first time a board has asked that it be removed, and the SDE by a one vote margin approved the request. This is a district in which only 54% graduate from high school; furthermore, it has been dysfunctional for years so it is not a recent development.

 

 “I have never seen a more dysfunctional disagreeable, clashing hostile situation than you have on the Bridgeport Board of Education said Thomas Mulligan a school board member…

 

The action calls for the commissioner of education to replace the nine member board with a new panel which he will appoint.”[17]

 

            It will be interesting to see how this “unprecedented” action will unfold in terms of achieving results for the student population.  There are, of course, many questions and issues that can be, should be, and hopefully will be raised and answered.

 

            Although the SBOE has the power to do what it did, the question is whether it is constitutional to disenfranchise the voters by having the state appoint new board members?

 

            How will new board members be appointed?  To believe it will be done without politics involved would be unprecedented.  For example, will there be a list of criteria to select new board members?  If so, who will develop it or how will it be developed?

 

            Why will the appointed board members be any different from the old members?  They will no more know what to do than the old board members.  For example, will they know what is needed to improve achievement other than just more money because this, no doubt, will be where the effort will be made—get more dollars

           

Will they receive any substantial training, not just an orientation, as to their responsibilities and duties?

           

How will their effectiveness be monitored?  The present Commissioner is an interim and a new one has yet to

be appointed.  In addition, the SDE is being targeted for a 20% decrease in staffing because of state budget problems;

this is on top of previous cuts.  Therefore, they are not staffed to provide any effective monitoring or support.

           

The present Bridgeport budget request was for $233 million, but it was cut by the Mayor to $215.8 million.  The state has no additional funds to provide more financial support because it is facing a $2 billion dollar budget gap.  If by some miracle more funds were allocated, the other urban districts would certainly be justified in demanding more dollars.  Some private donors have offered to help but only if changes are made, but will the donors know whether their money will be spent effectively (they had better read the information in Recommendation #18)?  As long as money is viewed as the problem, the dysfunctional status of the district will not be solved because money is not the problem.

 

The reality is that lack of leadership by the BOE and superintendent and using present dollars more effectively are the real issues to be addressed.  Find a single urban district in the country where more dollars have solved the problems of low achievement, low graduation and high dropout rates.  Have millions upon millions of dollars for new facilities improved any of these problems?  These problems have existed for decades, and the facts and demographics suggest that it will get worse, not better.

 

Will the superintendent of schools also be replaced?  If so, at what cost?  If not, why not?

 

Will any productivity studies be conducted to determine how the dollars are spent?  As examples, productivity studies would show that more money is spent on elective courses than on core subjects (basic academic subjects that provide skills and knowledge) and that staffing increases over the years have not had any impact on improving achievement (this has been true in all urban districts).  What’s needed, as the data in this book substantiates, are intensive literacy programs (Brockton High School, MA—cited as a turnaround school previously) is a perfect example of what can be done quickly and inexpensively); without literacy skills, urban students are simply doomed to failure.

 

Will any reports or studies that show gains of any kind be authenticated as being real rather than falsified (read recommendation #18).

 

   What is interesting is that if board members (a split board that votes 6-3) felt that they were not being effective, why didn’t they resign and let the voters select new members?  Of course, this does not indicate that the electorate will choose any more effective board members, but this is also true if the Commissioner appoints.

 

In this authors opinion, based on the history of the urban district problems and the many reforms that have not reformed anything, is that it will simply be another futile exercise in solving the problems in Bridgeport, as well as, the other urban districts.  What will happen is that new members will use an X-Ray approach rather than an MRI analysis to determine what is really wrong and how to correct the real problems.

 

So what would be a solution under the present circumstances?  A Productivity Board should be appointed to analyze how money is spent, where it is spent most effectively, etc.  The new board will not have the time to do such an analysis.  The information in this book can certainly help to guide such an effort.

Conclusion

            Connecticut, of course, is not unique in being impotent in addressing the problems of dropouts and having achievement/attainment gap problems.  However, what is unique is that it is not only a moral and economic problem it is without doubt the civil rights issue of the century. 

Connecticut at present is facing a rather severe economic crunch that has manifested itself in billion dollar budget gaps that are always solved with increased taxes that never seem to solve the problem—the more money in, the more money is spent.   It is supposedly a smart state as evidenced by its high per capita income and high teacher salaries, but these factors do not seem to make a difference in the outcomes for its black and Hispanic population of students.  Furthermore, other test data and college graduation rates indicate that Connecticut fares poorly.

            There is only one explanation that makes sense—too many adults derive benefits—politically, personally, financially and/or professionally--by keeping the problems from being solved because it is inconceivable, based on all of the evidence and facts, that the problems have not been solved. 

It is no secret that the union lobby in Connecticut is very powerful and its needs are always paramount, but often hidden behind legislative actions.  For example, the state has a Minimum Budget Requirement mandating local districts to adopt a school budget no lower than the previous year.  In other words, regardless of circumstances, such as reduced enrollments, the same amount of dollars must be expended as the previous year.  This could only have been legislated by powerful union influence. 

This statutory requirement has manifested itself in Winchester where the BOE is suing the Town for violating the law and not providing students with “suitable educational opportunities” (get 2 judges or educators who could agree on what that means).  The Town’s response is that “enrollment has dropped by 20% and should drop even more when the town sends seventh and eighth graders to the Gilbert School, a semi private high school.”[18] In other words, even a significant drop in enrollment cannot be used as reason to cut the budget and reduce staff.

“Despite outspending almost every other state in the country on education, the way that Connecticut distributes over $7 billion a year in public education funding is inefficient, ineffective, and incomprehensible. The result: lagging student performance and the largest achievement gap in the nation. It is time to implement a new, smarter system of funding for all of our public schools that places students at the center of funding decisions and creates powerful incentives that induce districts and schools to educate all students to high standards. A student-based funding formula would create a coherent, transparent state policy that consistently funds student needs in all Connecticut public schools. Such a system would create parity in funding for districts with similar wealth, eliminate inefficiencies, incentivize innovation, and progressively direct a greater share of state funding to districts with the greatest need.”[19]

            Ultimately, however, the fault is with the voters who continue to elect the majority of legislators who are strongly influenced, if not controlled, by union forces.  They and they alone can change the dynamics, but so far it has not happened.  Until it does, the moral and economic realities will continue to fester and the black and Hispanic children will continue to be held in the bondage of failure and destined for the ultimate criminal career. 

There is no absolutely no reason or incentive for the teacher unions to want the problem solved because as long as it exists more money (staff) can be extracted from the taxpayers for even more efforts to solve the problems even though nothing has succeeded in doing so.  The cry is always that there are not sufficient funds or staff, but that is a false premise to say the least. 

The bottom line for Connecticut students who graduate from the urban schools is that the diploma doesn’t mean much or get much—a diploma to nowhere--and that includes many white students as well; of course, this is true in many other states!  Tragically this deplorable and shameful “tale of woe” that is solvable (as many turnaround schools have demonstrated) goes on year after year strongly implying that this is, in fact, the mission of these urban schools. 

In the meantime, the districts and state seem to be overwhelmed by the problem and rather bewildered concerning the effective action needed to solve the dropout dilemma and substantially narrowing the achievement/ attainment gap (every effort has failed); eventually, the state will pay the price in terms of its economic standing, but a much higher price will be paid by the students and their families—their fate is sealed in the brutality of false hopes and promises made time and time again by those who, by this time, should know better.

The Bridgeport Saga will probably turn out to be another situation in which there is the brutality of false hopes; time will tell.

Connecticut is simply one dramatic example that no amount of money can solve prolific rhetoric that is not based on facts nor when there is no sincere desire to solve the problem.  Furthermore, Massachusetts with the restraint on property tax increases, is a prime example that significantly better educational results can be obtained with less financial resources—a lesson that Connecticut (where there is no such restraint) and others should learn from. Obviously, Massachusetts spends its scarcer resources where it does the most good because it does not have the option to spend lavishly; and apparently it has more effective leadership.

The Adult Fairy Tale in the beginning of this book ended with a simple question:  Was it worth it?  Is the self indulgence of the policymakers, educators and unions worth the price being paid by the families and children of color who remain in bondage?

Based on the results to date, the answer seems to be “yes” and that is the major reason why Connecticut, rather than being a leader, is a laggard!  Is this anything Connecticut should be proud of?