Nonprofit Hopes Business Input Will Help Close Achievement Gap
by Hugh McQuaid | Jul 12, 2011 1:45pm
(6) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Business, Education, Nonprofits
A nonprofit group consisting predominately of business leaders and inspired by a commission appointed by former-Gov. M. Jodi Rell called Tuesday for the implementation of 65 recommendations included its report, which they said will help to close Connecticut’s worst-in-the-country achievement gap.
The group originated as the Connecticut Commission on Education Achievement, a Rell initiative comprised of philanthropic and business leaders. And according to Chairwoman Peyton R. Patterson, former CEO of New Alliance Bank, business input is why the group will succeed where other nonprofits have failed.
“Some people may wonder, ‘why do we need another education focused nonprofit in the state of Connecticut? We have several.’ While Connecticut is fortunate to have some amazing organizations on some facet of education reform, there is no group, sponsored by the business community, that addressed the comprehensive statewide scope of the council,” she said during a press conference at the state Capitol.
The group’s recommendations focus on changing the governance of education, push for access to prekindergarten, and demand accountability of schools and teachers, she said.
For years, the state’s academic performance gap between low and non-low income students has confounded leaders. On average Connecticut spends more on the education of each student than most other states in the country.
And while Connecticut students traditionally perform well on standardized testing, the achievement gap persists. On the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress for 8th grade math, Connecticut had the largest score gap of 34. That’s three points larger than Maryland, the state with the second biggest gap on that test, according statistics from the U.S. Department of Education.
Discussion about the topic is plagued by misconceptions, Patterson said. Many attribute the achievement gap to the high performance of Connecticut’s non-low income students. The reality, she said, is the problem is largely due to the poor performance of its low-income students, who rank in the nation’s bottom third.
“Connecticut’s low-income students on average perform like states like Arkansas, Louisiana and West Virginia,” she said.
The council stressed that the wide academic divide between income levels is not strictly a city problem, as many people believe. The fourth grade reading achievement gap is actually larger in wealthy towns like West Hartford, Greenwich and Stamford than it is in Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport, they said.
“Although the achievement gap is wider in wealthier districts, low-income students actually have better academic achievement in these districts. So it is safe to say the achievement gap affects all of us, it exists in every town and every district across the state of Connecticut,” Patterson said.
The divide impacts the state’s economy because educational failure comes at a huge cost, she said. Students who dropped out of high school have an unemployment rate close to 2.5 times than that of high school grads and on average they earn just two-thirds of their incomes, she said.
They are more likely also to end up in state prisons and more likely to be relying on government health care and public services, according to studies.
More dropouts also mean a loss of tax dollars for the state. High school graduates contribute approximately $500,000 more in net tax contributions, she said.
Despite the current budget crisis, the council said the time for education reform is now. The state must accept many aspects of education reform as priorities and find a way to get them in place, said board member and Connecticut Business and Industry Association President John R. Rathgeber.
One of those priorities should be universal access to prekindergarten education, he said. The council did not initially have the topic on their agenda, but as they held hearings in cities and towns across the state, it became evident it was important, he said.
In addition to funding, the state lacks the infrastructure accommodate more pre-K education. That necessitates building adequate facilities and getting more people trained to do the job, he said.
“There are resources available and I think over time we’re just going to have to say this is a priority for the state of Connecticut recognizing the fact that if we don’t do it we’re going to have more dropouts we’re going to have more incarcerations and more issues that are going to cost a lot of money,” he said.
Some funding for reform could come from reallocating money already being spent on education, said board member and retired Chairman of The Hartford Ramani Ayer.
“It is so important that we recognize that we are in this state spending a lot of money on education also, spending a significant amount of money on discretionary grants around the state. We need to take a step back and take a look at what’s working and what’s not working,” he said.
Rathgeber said the city of Hartford recently showed a great example of how to successfully reallocate funds by shifting money out of its central office and into the classrooms.
Patterson said the council will continue to work to get its recommendations implemented by publicizing the achievement gap regularly and show its negative effect the state. They will also work with Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and lawmakers to change policies, she said.
She pointed out that Malloy has already stated the next legislative session should focus on education reform.
“The winds of change are going in our direction and we intend to act on that,” she said.
Tags: education, reform, nonprofit, Hugh McQuaid
(6) Comments
posted by: Matt W. | July 12, 2011 4:17pm
Learning is as much a matter of mental discipline as all these other factors combined. So why does every discussion about education reform resort to extensive acrobatics to avoid discussing student discipline. To my understanding this is the #1 problem teachers have in the classroom yet it is avoided like the plauge when we talk about reform.
Discipline is not something explained to a child and accepted, it is a matter of persistent effort. How do you train a mind when all you have at your disposal are pleas, bribes and empty threats?
Why would we rather see these kids in jail than in detention?
posted by: ASTANVET | July 12, 2011 5:36pm
I don’t think anyone disagrees that there is an education gap - in our state and others. I would say that the answer is in the home and the community rather than the distribution, or re-distribution of wealth. When are families going to accept responsibility for the learning, discipline and performance of their kids. I know that I am involved in my child’s education, and that seems to be the difference between relying on the state/schools to get the job done at her classroom, and instilling a desire to learn, and a desire to perform at a top level. Much like anything else in life, you get out what you put in, if you as parents put NO effort into it, you will have marginal performers.
posted by: NOW What? | July 12, 2011 6:54pm
Those recommendations presented will NOT be enough to improve Connecticut’s education system and to do so in an affordable way.
Connecticut’s municipalities NEED to organize themselves into regions, with region-based school districts, and have a “school choice” system implemented within each of those regions. The State would then allocate its public education aid money to those REGIONAL school districts rather than the currently individual town or city school districts.
The additional transportation costs associated with regional “school choice” would be MORE than offset by operational overhead cost reductions, regions’ school districts would be able to afford to create FAR more specialized school programs accessible to a given region’s students, and the quality of even Special (or “Exceptional”) Education (both for intellectually challenged AND gifted students) would increase DRAMATICALLY - as would general ed. students’ test scores.
Regional “school choice” systems introduce a MUCH greater sense of “competition” among schools, teachers and students than “charter schools” can or ever will, offer much more diversification among relatively “specialized” programs than “magnet schools” can ever hope to achieve, and regionalization of school districts would make it all affordable.
posted by: ASTANVET | July 12, 2011 7:55pm
Steve - who pays for the new regional schools?? Who pays for that infrastructure and administration… lastly how does this play into the idea that you pay taxes to live in a certain area which has good schools. I choose to live in an area that has a good school system, i pay out the nose for that opportunity for my child… in your system how does my high tax rate factor into the quality of education which i am paying for. Further, after reading those recommendations from the new “counsel” I agree with you, it is largely grandiose language with no specifics… no responsibility or acknowledgement that learning begins at home. No state agency is going to enforce parents to take a vested interest in their child’s education - ignoring that elephant in the room seems to be the fatal flaw of this “plan” - that and no actual plan to speak of. “we need leadership” is not an answer. We already pay more per capita for students, so throwing money at the situation has not given us the desired result…CT’s answer to the problem, ignore the family and throw more money at it. I agree that we need competition, but how does your idea actually foster that competition…whether we compete as towns or as ‘regions’ what’s the difference?
posted by: NOW What? | July 13, 2011 2:03am
“ASTANVET” - I never suggested creating “new” regional schools nor would I ever even suggest such a thing. My post was really aimed at people who are familiar with regional and/or county-based school board and “school choice” systems that have been implemented in certain other states. But to explain:
1. Re: “regionalization” -
a) All pre-existing, “local” schools would remain in place. Individual city or town school boards and districts would be REPLACED with ONE *regional* school board and district for each region (and I say “regional” because although CT has “counties” those counties have no government… although there’d certainly be nothing inherently wrong with letting the *counties’* boundaries be the *regions’* boundaries). Thus, administrative overhead costs are sharply reduced, SAVING taxpayers money.
b) Once regionalization becomes administratively operational, it then becomes possible for one or more of the schools within a region to provide specialized ed. and voc. programs that would be accessible to all appropriate and interested students living within that region - KIND of like “magnet” schools, only better and with a greater variety of programs. Such specialization is simply way too cost-prohibitive for CT’s current city and town-based school districts and boards to provide.
2. Re “school choice” - In school choice systems, students living within a given regionalized school district can annually elect which school within that region they’d like to go to (many such systems ask students or their parents to list 2 or 3, in order of priority or preference). Each school gets “graded” by the State based on its students’ standardized test scores (via the “No Child Left Behind” testing systems). Those school scores (NOT individual students’ scores) get HEAVILY publicized, as does the popularity of each school within the region (generally as evidenced by the number of students who pick a given school as their first choice, the length of each school’s “waiting list” of students who couldn’t get into their first choice due to that school’s capacity already having been reached that year, etc.). Students can request transfer from one school to another within their region via the annual school choice procedures. Believe me, such systems foster a LOT of really *healthy* competition among the schools within each region!!! It WORKS! Transportation costs increase somewhat - because you have students being bussed to their preferred schools which are often NOT the school closest to where they live - but those increased school bus transportation costs are generally MORE than offset by the consolidation of multiple local school boards and districts into ONE regional school district with ONE school board.
These strategies WORK; I’ve seen it with my own eyes elsewhere. I’ve seen them result in “failing” schools turn into “A” schools within 2-3 years!!! In the BEST systems, the state’s aid to schools goes to the REGIONAL districts (based at least *in part* on each district’s collective or average school score), and those regional district’s boards in turn allocate that state money to each school based at least *in part* on the schools’ annual SCORE (or “grade”).
I can guarantee you based on what I’ve seen elsewhere, if CT were to convert to such a system we’d see improvent in our schools MIGHTY fast!!!
posted by: Web Dunce | July 13, 2011 1:19pm
It has always baffled me that no one ever brings up curriculum as a culprit in our big achievement gap. When I was a kid my parents took no role in educating me at home, yet I did just fine. Why? Because in the 1970s in the New Britain Public School System I was actually taught to read and write, add and subtract, etc. It wasn’t fun, but rather a necessary means of educating children. I see what 1st and 2nd graders are taught in school today and it sickens me. It’s no wonder they can’t read or write properly by the 4th grade. It’s solely the fault of the people who create this idiotic education curriculum. I guess I am in the minority when I say that school is supposed to suck. You’re there to get an education - not a pat on the back and a “good job” if you remember to write your name at the top of the page.