Sunday, August 08, 2010

Election 2010 - Primary Edition

The 2010 primary is quickly approaching, and the campaigns are definitely heating up on all fronts. Some of the political battles have reached a fever pitch, in terms of both intensity and negativity. I can’t remember the last time I got so much campaign literature during the month of August

While I have made no secret of being a registered Republican, I have always felt that it is important to get as much information out to the voters as possible.

With that in mind, below you will find tables listing all of the major party candidates that are going to appear on a ballot. I have also listed those candidates running with the Independent Party for those who are most familiar with Waterbury politics.

(Races that are shown in italics have a primary on the 10th.)

Republican Candidates
GovernorTom FoleyMike FedeleOz Griebel
Lt. GovernorMark BoughtonLisa Wilson-Foley
Secretary Of StateJerry Farrell Jr.
Attorney GeneralMartha DeanRoss Garber
TreasurerJeff Wright
ComptrollerJack Orchulli
US SenateLinda McMahonPeter SchiffRob Simmons
1st Congressional DistrictAnn BrickleyMark Zydanowicz
2nd Congressional DistrictDoug DubitskyDaria NovakJanet Peckinpaugh
3rd Congressional DistrictJerry Labriola Jr.
4th Congressional DistrictDan DebicellaRob MerkleRick Torres
5th Congressional DistrictSam CaligiuriJustin BernierMark Greenberg
80th State HouseRob SampsonAlan Giacomi


Democratic Candidates
GovernorDan MalloyNed Lamont
Lt. GovernorNancy WymanMary Glassman
Secretary Of StateDenise MerrillGerry Garcia
Attorney GeneralGeorge Jepsen
TreasurerDenise Nappier
ComptrollerKevin LemboMike Jarjura
US SenateRichard Blumenthal
1st Congressional DistrictJohn Larson
2nd Congressional DistrictJoe Courtney
3rd Congressional DistrictRosa DeLauro
4th Congressional DistrictJim Himes
5th Congressional DistrictChris Murphy


Independent Party Candidates
GovernorTom Marsh
Lt. GovernorCicero Booker Jr.
Secretary Of StateMike Telesca
US SenateWarren Mosler

Monday, August 02, 2010

Putting The Results In Perspective

As a result of Commissioner D’Angelo’s letter in the Sunday Republican of July 25, I decided to do a little research and find out just how Waterbury’s scores stacked up to the rest of the state. What I found provides an interesting insight to the discussions that are sure to arise as we head into the 2010-11 school year.

Some of the numbers were disappointing, while others actually gave the city of Waterbury something to be proud of. There are two big questions that arise from my basic analysis.

1) Will the school board look at the disappointing side of the numbers to make some serious changes?

2) Will the public look at the positive aspect of these numbers and stop trying to concoct excuses for bashing everything and anything that is Waterbury?

So what are the results from the 2010 school year? To start with, let’s look at the results from Waterbury compared to the results from across the state of Connecticut. The table below lists these results for all grades of CMT and CAPT.

2010 RESULTS

WATERBURYSTATE

GRADE 3 MATH

74.4

83.6

GRADE 3 READING

53.8

72.3

GRADE 3 WRITING

65.7

80.3

GRADE 4 MATH

77.5

85.2

GRADE 4 READING

52.2

72.9

GRADE 4 WRITING

77.4

86.5

GRADE 5 MATH

82.6

87.8

GRADE 5 READING

58.2

75.4

GRADE 5 WRITING

75.7

87.3

5 SCIENCE

64.4

82.5

GRADE 6 MATH

67.2

88.2

GRADE 6 READING

64.6

85.5

GRADE 6 WRITING

63.9

85.5

GRADE 7 MATH

65.3

87.4

GRADE 7 READING

66.4

85.3

GRADE 7 WRITING

60.7

79.7

GRADE 8 MATH

59.6

86.6

GRADE 8 READING

58.8

82.6

GRADE 8 WRITING

60.4

80.6

GRADE 8 SCIENCE

40.9

76.0

GRADE 10 MATH

41.1

78.8

GRADE 10 READING

61.1

81.5

GRADE 10 WRITING

75.5

82.9

GRADE 10 SCIENCE

46.1

86.2




As you can see, this is the disappointing side of the numbers. The Waterbury School System was below the state averages in every test from Grades 3-10. Clearly the Department of Education has a lot of work to do, and I don’t think there’s anyone that denies that. From what I’ve seen, the big questions are what action to take, and how quickly to take that action. Some members of the Board want to impose sweeping changes yesterday, while others seem to drag their feet on new initiatives.

However, the story does not end with these few statistics. There are always going to be people who look at this one bit of information and try to declare that the Waterbury School System is “The Worst In The State” and “Nothing Ever Goes Right In Waterbury” and “Everyone Needs to Move Out” and on and on.

What is truly sad about that situation is that the people who act like that don’t realize that they’re contributing to the problem. Perception and perspective is the key to understanding any situation, whether real or fictional. So let’s add some perspective to these numbers.

The most important aspect to this discussion of perspective is who we compare ourselves too when we look at our test results. It is easy for the public (and the newspaper) to compare us to districts such as Wolcott, Region 15 (Middlebury/Southbury), Region 16 (Prospect/Beacon Falls), Cheshire, and Watertown. These are all towns that we are familiar with, and can relate too. However, these towns have very little to do with education in Waterbury. As a state, Connecticut has a reputation of being very self segregating, and the greater Waterbury area is no different.

During the 2007-2008 school year, the students in Waterbury were 28.1% Black, 43.1% Hispanic, and 26.7% White. The students in Wolcott, on the other hand, were 1.9% Black, 3.7% Hispanic, and 92.6% White.

Wolcott had 13.8% of its students qualify for free and reduced price lunch; Waterbury had 71.9% of its students qualify for the same program.

Wolcott had 4.2% of its students come from households where English is not the primary language, in Waterbury that number was 14.2%.

(Data collected from the Waterbury and Wolcott 2007-2008 Strategic School Profiles)

Obviously, comparing Wolcott and Waterbury is an exercise in futility, and shows what those of us who have been in the classroom mean when we say that there are certain factors beyond our control.

So what numbers should we look at? In an effort to answer that question the state divided the different school districts into 9 groups known as District Reference Groups (DRGs) lettered A through I. The schools in a particular DRG have similar demographics, and (it is assumed) similar challenges. DRG A has places such as Darien, Westport, and Wilton. Waterbury is currently placed in DRG I. Therefore, if we are to compare ourselves to similar schools, we should look at those in our DRG.

The schools currently in DRG I are, Bridgeport, Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Waterbury, and Windham

When you compare Waterbury to these six other districts, you come to realize that, though things are difficult, they are far from hopeless. To illustrate my point, the table below shows the results of the 3rd grade CMT for the seven schools in DRG I. (The number in parenthesis is our ranking within the DRG.)

CMT GRADE 3 RESULTS

MATHREADINGWRITING

BRIDGEPORT

57.2

41.2

59.5

HARTFORD

61.4

45.7

66.4

NEW BRITAIN

43.6

35.2

50.8

NEW HAVEN

62.7

41.3

56.7

NEW LONDON

60.9

44.2

62.6

WATERBURY

74.4 (1)

53.8 (1)

65.7 (3)

WINDHAM

68.3

48.8

66.2


As you can see, the only section of the test where Waterbury students were outperformed was the Writing sample. In that test we were third out of seven districts, but the top district (Hartford) was only 0.7% better. The trend continues in the 4th and 5th Grade CMT results, where Waterbury was the top performing district in six out of seven areas. The only test where we were out performed was the 5th Grade writing, where we came in second to New London. (see below)

CMT GRADE 4 RESULTS

MATHREADINGWRITING

BRIDGEPORT

59.0

41.6

67.3

HARTFORD

58.9

34.1

65.8

NEW BRITAIN

49.7

35.4

57.1

NEW HAVEN

67.4

44.7

71.5

NEW LONDON

61.6

41.4

75.1

WATERBURY

77.5 (1)

52.2 (1)

77.4 (1)

WINDHAM

66.8

48.8

72.4


CMT GRADE 5 RESULTS

MATHSCIENCEREADINGWRITING

BRIDGEPORT

66.5

50.0

39.5

71.0

HARTFORD

62.7

43.6

32.2

66.1

NEW BRITAIN

58.8

47.5

40.1

61.0

NEW HAVEN

68.4

55.9

47.7

70.2

NEW LONDON

78.5

63.4

56.8

81.3

WATERBURY

82.6 (1)

64.4 (1)

58.2 (1)

75.7 (2)

WINDHAM

47.2

41.8

33.0

56.1



After 5th Grade our standing in the DRG seems to drop, but at no point are we the lowest performing school out of the 7 in our group. This suggests that programs that have been implemented in the Elementary Schools seem to be working, it also could support the belief that there needs to be a change away from the current Middle Schools to more K-8 schools. (Wait, wasn’t that one of the reasons for building or rebuilding Gilmartin, Duggan, Carrington, and the To-Be-Named School in the North End?)

Further, it seems that across the grades, our students are scoring well in the Writing section of the CMT and CAPT. This year’s 6th grade class is the only one that was not either first or second in their DRG. Even though they were fifth, they did considerably better then the two districts behind them, New Britain and Windham. The Reading section of these tests also show some promise, as Waterbury had the best scores in the DRG in 7th grade, and came in second among the DRG I schools on the CAPT.

There is an area of the results that does make me pause in concern, however. Waterbury’s scores in Math and Science after the students leave Elementary School are simply unacceptable. If the Board of Education wishes to prioritize on a specific section of the CMT and CAPT, I would strongly encourage them to focus on Math and Science. Technology is constantly changing and improving, devices that I would not have dreamed of when I was in High School are now commonplace, and our students are going to need to be able to keep up if they wish to thrive in the 21st century.

CMT GRADE 6 RESULTS

MATHREADINGWRITING

BRIDGEPORT

73.0

64.4

70.3

HARTFORD

71.8

64.8

69.1

NEW BRITAIN

53.3

47.5

50.4

NEW HAVEN

74.2

74.4

71.2

NEW LONDON

60.1

67.3

72.4

WATERBURY

67.2 (4)

64.6 (4)

63.9 (5)

WINDHAM

52.4

50.5

53.2


CMT GRADE 7 RESULTS

MATHREADINGWRITING

BRIDGEPORT

65.4

63.9

55.6

HARTFORD

65.8

59.2

51.9

NEW BRITAIN

53.5

52.1

39.3

NEW HAVEN

70.8

66.3

51.8

NEW LONDON

60.6

65.4

64.4

WATERBURY

65.3 (4)

66.4 (1)

60.7 (2)

WINDHAM

49.8

48.4

36.2


CMT GRADE 8 RESULTS

MATHSCIENCEREADINGWRITING

BRIDGEPORT

61.6

43.4

52.3

53.6

HARTFORD

63.1

44.4

59.5

57.9

NEW BRITAIN

56.2

35.2

49.7

46.8

NEW HAVEN

71.6

48.5

66.5

55.3

NEW LONDON

54.5

44.3

58.9

54.7

WATERBURY

59.6 (4)

40.9 (5)

58.8 (4)

60.4 (1)

WINDHAM

52.5

34.7

42.2

39.4



CAPT RESULTS

MATHSCIENCEREADINGWRITING

BRIDGEPORT

33.7

37.7

38.9

50.9

HARTFORD

52.2

49.9

64.3

68.1

NEW BRITAIN

49

46.1

59.1

58.7

NEW HAVEN

49.4

53.1

59.0

70.7

NEW LONDON

50.5

56.3

55.0

67.0

WATERBURY

41.1 (6)

46.1 (5)

61.1 (2)

75.5 (1)

WINDHAM

45.1

55.8

56.0

58.8



In conclusion, the CMT and CAPT results of 2010 are a mixed bag of positives and negatives. There are areas of improvement, to be certain, however, simply pointing at sections of the data and complaining without offering any solutions is not going to help anybody, least of all our students.