Hispanic Achievement Gap in CT

Are Connecticut Schools
Meeting the Needs of

Hispanic Students?
Annemarie Hillman
Alexandra Dufresne, J.D.
July 2011
Are Connecticut Schools Meeting the Needs of Hispanic Students?
Annemarie Hillman and Alexandra Dufresne, J.D.
July 2011
I. Introduction
In June 2011, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released a state-by-state analysis of the
“achievement gaps,” or differences in academic performance, between Hispanic students and their white
peers.1 As measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), commonly referred to as
“the nation‟s report card,” Connecticut was found to have one of the largest gaps in the country in both
mathematics and reading.2 In addition, NCES found that while the scores of Hispanic students in
Connecticut in math and reading had improved since the 1990s,3 the breadth of the gap between the scores
of Hispanic and white students had remained consistent in reading, and only narrowed slightly in math.4
Like the NCES study, this report focuses on the achievement gaps between the diverse and growing
population of Hispanic students and their white peers, but unlike the NCES, it focuses solely on
Connecticut‟s children.5 The goal of this report is to provide a foundation for a deeper, data-driven inquiry
into methods of ensuring equal educational opportunity for Connecticut‟s Hispanic students. There are
several reasons for this particular focus. First, Hispanic children currently comprise the largest minority
group in Connecticut schools.6 Second, Hispanic children are the largest growing segment of the school-
aged population in Connecticut.7 Third, although the achievement gaps between Connecticut‟s black and
white students are quite severe, in some respects, the achievement gaps between Connecticut‟s Hispanic and
white students are more severe.8 Fourth, although Connecticut‟s Hispanic student population is internally
diverse, there are reasons to believe that many of Connecticut‟s Hispanic students face common challenges.
Finally, given its importance to children and to the state as a whole, we believe this issue has not yet received
the full attention it deserves.
This report adds to the picture provided by the NCES analysis and past Connecticut-specific studies in
several respects. First, it focuses on results at the district level. It provides a district-level analysis of the
Hispanic-white achievement gap, as measured by 2007-2008 through 2009-2010 scores on the Connecticut
Mastery Test (CMT)9 for fourth and eighth graders in reading and math for the twelve, non-charter school
districts in Connecticut with student populations that are at least 30 percent Hispanic. Additionally, we
provide 2009-2010 test scores for fourth and eighth graders in reading, math, science, and writing for the
more than 40 districts for which the scores of Hispanic students are reported. We analyze and compare
achievement gaps at the district level for several reasons, including Connecticut‟s strong legal and cultural
tradition of local control of educational decision-making. Identifying the relative severity of gaps in
different communities across Connecticut will help educators and policy-makers identify best practices and
target interventions. To our knowledge, this is the first district-level study of the Hispanic-white achievement
gap in Connecticut.10
Second, unlike many Connecticut studies, this report focuses on analyzing results at the “goal” level, rather
than the lower “proficient” standard. The State Department of Education has identified goal as the level at
which it wants students to perform: “a challenging, yet reasonable, expectation for Connecticut students.”11
As its name suggests, goal − or higher − is the standard to which all schools and students should aspire.
Proficiency, in contrast, is the benchmark against which districts are most commonly held accountable and
which has garnered the most attention. Not surprisingly, by choosing a higher benchmark, the achievement
gaps described in this paper are greater than what would be indicated by differences in achievement at the
lower proficiency level. (For context, proficiency scores are included in Appendix C). A recent analysis by
Connecticut‟s State Department of Education shows some improvements in test scores, as measured by the
increasing percentage of students reaching proficiency on the CMT in Connecticut‟s lowest-performing
Connecticut Voices for Children 2

districts, including improvements in test scores of Hispanic students.12 Though modest, these improvements
are promising.13 However, given the importance of setting high expectations for all students, a detailed
analysis of results at the goal level supplements the understanding of the problem provided by existing
research.
The significant disparities in test scores between Connecticut‟s Hispanic students and their white peers
indicate that Connecticut is not meeting the needs of its Hispanic students.14 Achievement gaps between
Hispanic students and white students exist in every district in Connecticut for which data about Hispanic
students are publicly available, regardless of income level, location, size, or percentage of Hispanic students.
In some school districts, Hispanic students are less than half as likely as white students to score at or above
the state‟s goal level on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) for their grade level.15 In addition, absolute
scores for Hispanic students raise concerns about the educational opportunities afforded Hispanic children
in Connecticut. For example, in several school districts in 2009-2010, less than 25 percent of fourth-grade
Hispanic students reached goal or above in reading.16
Achievement gaps have broad social, economic, and political consequences for the state and its
communities. As a matter of principle, every child in Connecticut should have equal access to educational
opportunity. As a matter of economics, Connecticut simply cannot afford such stark educational divides,
particularly considering the large demographic shifts described in this paper. According to a 2009 study by
McKinsey and Company, poorer health and higher rates of incarceration, both important community social
factors, are related to underperformance in academic achievement. Furthermore, it has been estimated that
if achievement gaps across the nation, such as the ones present in Connecticut, had been narrowed, the US
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would have been between $310 and $525 billion higher in 2008. (These
amounts are equal to 2 to 4 percent of the US GDP, respectively.)17 While there exist no comprehensive,
rigorous analyses of the costs of the Hispanic achievement gap to Connecticut, given the nature of
Connecticut‟s economy,18 the costs are likely staggering.
This paper does not analyze the causes of the achievement gap between Connecticut‟s Hispanic and white
students. Academic and policy literature suggest a number of factors including poverty,19 English language
needs,20 inadequate access to early care and education services,21 family structure,22 education levels of
parents,23 immigration status,24 residential and school-level racial segregation,25 inadequate funding,26 low
expectations,27 barriers to parental engagement,28 exclusionary disciplinary policies,29 and institutional
racism,30 among other factors.31 Regrettably, as discussed in Section V below, limitations in the publicly-
available data in Connecticut make it extremely difficult to disentangle the various factors and their relative
weights. Furthermore, the significance of various factors likely varies substantially among communities.
Nonetheless, we hope that by describing in detail the degree and nature of the achievement gaps in different
communities in Connecticut, we can advance a community-level and statewide conversation regarding both
the urgency of the challenge and potential solutions.

Background Regarding Connecticut’s Hispanic Student Population
Race/Ethnicity. Hispanics are the largest growing ethnic/racial group in the United States32 and in
Connecticut.33 During the 2009-2010
school year, Hispanics accounted for Ethnic Composition of K-12 Student Population
approximately one of every six children Projected - Change Over
2010 (%)
(17.3 percent) in Connecticut‟s public 2020 (%) Time (% Pts)
school system (grades K-12). Other African-American 13.7 15.0 +1.3
large racial/ethnic groups represented Asian 4.4 6.4 +2.0
were Caucasians (64.3 percent), Caucasian 64.3 58.9 -5.4
African-Americans (13.7 percent), and Hispanic 17.3 19.6 +2.3
Asians (4.4 percent).34 Overall, the K-
12 population in Connecticut has been declining in enrollment since it peaked in the 2004-2005 academic
year. Statewide enrollment is projected to bottom-out around 2020. During this 15-year period, the Hispanic
population is expected to grow both in numbers and as a percentage of the total K-12 population. Initial
counts from Census 2010 suggest that growth among K-12 Hispanics has been larger than previously
projected.35 By 2020, the percentage of Hispanic children is expected to increase to one of every five (19.6
percent) school-aged children (age 5 to 17) in Connecticut.36 During the same period, the percentage of
Caucasian students is expected to decline to 58.9 percent while African-Americans and Asians will increase
their share of the K-12 population to 15.0 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively.37
Citizenship Status. The majority (95.5 percent) of Hispanic children (ages 0 to 17) in Connecticut are U.S.
citizens.38 In Connecticut, 93.9 percent of Hispanic children were born in the U.S. or Puerto Rico.39 An
additional 1.6 percent are naturalized citizens. Among Hispanics ages 18 to 64, 68.5 percent are U.S.
citizens. Among elderly Hispanics (age 65+), 90.0 percent are U.S. citizens.40
While the majority of Hispanic children (ages 0 to 17) in Connecticut are U.S. citizens, they are diverse in
terms of their ancestry or their parents‟ place of birth. Over half (51.8 percent) of all Hispanics in
Connecticut were born in the fifty states, while Hispanics born in Puerto Rico account for another 21.3
percent. The foreign-born population accounts for 26.8 percent of all Hispanics in Connecticut. 41 Among
foreign-born Hispanics in Connecticut, the largest populations in order are from Mexico (23,513), Ecuador
(16,252), Colombia (12,700), the Dominican Republic (11,710), Guatemala (11,202), and Peru (10,597).42
Population Counts. The ten towns with the largest Hispanic populations, in order from largest to smallest,
are listed in the chart below.43
Town Population Size
Hartford 50,413 Among these ten towns, Puerto Ricans are the largest
Bridgeport 45,796 Hispanic population in Hartford, Bridgeport, Waterbury, New
Haven, New Britain, Meriden, and East Hartford. Puerto
Waterbury 30,139
Ricans are also the largest Hispanic population in New
New Haven 29,434
London. Guatemalans are the largest Hispanic population in
Stamford 26,294
Stamford. Ecuadorians predominate in Danbury and
New Britain 22,507 Mexicans in Norwalk. Windham also has a significant
Norwalk 19,041 population of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans.44
Danbury 16,651
Meriden 16,092
East Hartford 10,929

Connecticut has twelve non-charter school districts with student populations which are more than thirty
percent Hispanic. The achievement gaps in these districts are analyzed in Sections III and IV of this paper.45
These districts are listed in the chart below.46
Percentage of
Number of
School District Student Population
Hispanic Students
that is Hispanic
Windham 60.7 2,081
New Britain 57.6 5,847
Hartford 52.3 11,028
Bridgeport 48.0 9,564
New London 46.3 1,378
Meriden 44.7 3,741
Waterbury 44.2 7,904
East Hartford 38.2 2,699
New Haven 37.2 7,295
Danbury 33.9 3,455
Norwalk 33.4 3,623
Stamford 32.2 4,840
Economic Profile. Hispanic children (ages 0 to 17) are among Connecticut‟s poorest residents. Almost one
in three (31.4 percent) Hispanic children in Connecticut lived in poverty between 2007 and 2009. African-
American children had a slightly lower poverty rate of 25.0 percent over this period. In contrast, 4.9 percent
of Caucasian children and 7.6 percent of Asian children lived in poverty.47 Additionally, in Connecticut, less
than half (41.5 percent) of Hispanic children live in married couple households, compared with 50.6 percent
of African-American, 79.0 percent of Caucasian, and 90.6 percent of Asian children.48
II. Methodology – Defining the Achievement Gap in Connecticut
This analysis of the achievement gap utilizes student scores from the CMT Test Standards
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) as a central indicator of student Advanced (Best)*
performance.49 The CMT is a standardized test administered by the Goal*
state of Connecticut in March of each year to students in grades Proficient
three through eight.50 It assesses knowledge of math, reading, and Basic
writing at each grade level. Fifth and eighth graders are also tested on Below Basic (Worst)
their science skills. One purpose of this testing is to determine if
Connecticut‟s students are meeting standards of achievement which *Students performing at these levels
51 meet CT‟s goal standards of
have been set by the State Board of Education. Ideally, each child achievement.
would receive a score of “goal” or better in each subject area; the
State Board of Education states that it believes that this is a “challenging, yet reasonable, expectation for
Connecticut students.”52 As the CMT is a method of assessment that has been approved and used statewide
by the State Board of Education for many years,53 and provides yearly, disaggregated data made available to
the public by the State Department of Education,54 the test is an excellent source of information about the
academic achievement of children in Connecticut.55
We choose goal level as our standard for analysis of student achievement given the state‟s belief that goal is
a “challenging, yet reasonable” expectation. We believe that Hispanic students should be held to the same
academic expectations as all Connecticut students, and we wanted to show how Hispanic students – and
their white peers – have been performing in relation to the state‟s expectations for them. In addition,
previous reports have reported proficiency scores,56 which are used by the federal government to determine
“Adequate Yearly Progress” under the No Child Left Behind Act.57 We recognize the importance of these
proficiency scores to many school districts, but choose to focus on goal scores as a new topic of discussion.
In addition, recent studies suggest that state standards fall well below national standards, so student
achievement at goal level or better may be more indicative of students‟ achievement in a certain area.58 Thus,
unless otherwise indicated, percentages of students listed indicate the percentage of students within the
indicated ethnic group who scored at or above goal in a specific subject area; all percentages in Appendices
A, B, and D depict the percentage of students scoring at or above goal level on the CMT. However, in
recognition of the importance of CMT proficiency scores to many districts, and in acknowledgement of the
efforts that many school districts have made to increase the number of their students who perform at or
above proficient, we have listed proficiency scores for Hispanic and white students in all districts reporting
Hispanic scores in 2009-2010. These proficiency scores are located in Appendix C.59
To compare CMT scores between Hispanic and white students, we used the ethnic data provided by the
Connecticut State Department of Education (SDE). (No other data connecting CMT scores to ethnicity is
available.) SDE compiles this information from its statewide student database, known as the “Public School
Information System,” also known as the “PSIS.” Data provided in the PSIS about a student‟s ethnicity is
determined by self-identification by either the student or his or her parents. If a parent does not provide this
information to their school district, then the school district must decide under which ethnic category the
student will be listed in the PSIS.60 In the past (including the school years analyzed in this paper), a student
could only be identified under a single racial or ethnic group: American Indian, Asian American, Black,
Hispanic, or White.61 As a result, multiracial Hispanics who chose to identify themselves under one of the
non-Hispanic categories, or who were listed by their school districts under one of the non-Hispanic
categories, are not included under the “Hispanic” results listed in this report. Additionally, information
about CMT scores for school districts with fewer than 20 Hispanic students in a grade is unavailable, likely
due to privacy concerns and/or lack of data.62
To determine the size of the achievement gaps in various districts, we compare the percentage of white
students who scored at or above goal in a district to the percentage of Hispanic students who scored at or
above goal in that district. Dividing the percentage of white students by the percentage of Hispanic students
creates a ratio which describes how many times more likely it is that a white student will score at or above
goal level than a Hispanic student. For example, if District X had 50 percent of its white students scoring at
or above goal and 25 percent of its Hispanic students scoring at or above goal, then dividing 50/25, shows
that white students were 2 times more likely to score at or above goal than Hispanic students. If the end
result (the ratio of scores) was 1.0, it would indicate that Hispanic and white students were equally likely to
achieve goal level.
In order to provide a broader context for the achievement gap, Section III of the paper includes data from
all non-charter school districts that report publicly available scores for their Hispanic students.63 These
results include scores from the math, reading, writing, and science sections of 2009-2010 CMT. Data for
these districts can be found in Appendix A.64
Additionally, in order to take a closer look at the Hispanic achievement gap in Connecticut‟s most Hispanic
school districts, Section IV of this paper focuses on fourth- and eighth-grade test data from all non-charter
school districts with a student population that is 30 percent or greater Hispanic.65 These districts were
chosen in order to ensure that Hispanic populations are large enough that significant changes in the
achievement gap are unlikely to be due to the presence of a few extremely underperforming or
overperforming students.66 The data analysis focuses on math and reading scores over the past three years to
account for differences in class ability67 and subject area bias.68 Fourth and eighth grade were chosen to

assess the achievement gap toward the end of elementary school and the end of middle school. It should be
noted that comparison of the achievement gap in these grades over time is difficult – changes could be
attributed to differences in class population, variations in the CMT, effects from implementation of the
MAS pilot,69 or actual changes in instruction and student performance. Scores from these districts can be
found in Appendix B.70
English Language Learners
English language ability plays a role in the creation of the achievement gap, but the extent to which language issues affect the
achievement gap in comparison to other factors is unclear. Of Connecticut‟s English language learners (ELLs) – a
term which refers to those students “whose dominant language is other than English and [whose]
proficiency in English is not sufficient to assure equal educational opportunity in the regular school
program”71 – 21,664 were identified as using Spanish as their dominant language during the 2009-2010
school year.72 Assuming that all of these Spanish-speaking ELLs are Hispanic,73 it can be determined that
22.1 percent of Connecticut‟s Hispanic student population in 2009-2010 could not understand English at a
level that would assure equal educational opportunity, limiting their chance at academic success.74 In
Connecticut non-charter school districts with student populations that are 30 percent or more Hispanic, the
percentages of Spanish-speaking ELLs in 2009-2010 were often higher than the statewide figure:75
Percentage of Percentage of
District Hispanics District Hispanics
Who are ELL Who are ELL
Danbury 42.0 Norwalk 28.5
New London 41.6 Bridgeport 22.9
Windham 37.7 Meriden 22.5
Stamford 30.5 New Britain 22.5
New Haven 30.0 Waterbury 21.4
Hartford 28.9 East Hartford 16.2
The above numbers of Hispanic ELLs do not count students who have recently been discharged from ELL
programs and who might still be struggling with English, or students who might not have been identified as
ELL, but who have poor English skills and could benefit from ELL services. Thus, the number of Hispanic
students who face linguistic barriers to education could be even higher. For students from families whose
parents do not understand English, obstacles to educational success could also include lack of parental
involvement in, or understanding of, the Connecticut education system.76
All ELLs must take all sections of the Connecticut Mastery Test in English, unless they have attended
school in the United States for less than twelve calendar months.77 This requirement, combined with the
number of Hispanic ELLs in Connecticut, seems to explain some component of the Hispanic achievement
gap in Connecticut.78 When scores from ELLs are removed from consideration, the percentage of Hispanic
students reaching goal in each school district increases. For example, statewide, 30.9 percent of fourth-grade
Hispanic students scored at or above goal in reading in 2009-2010;79 if Hispanic ELLs are removed from
that number, 37.5 percent of fourth-grade, non-ELL Hispanics in Connecticut met or exceeded goal in that
subject.80 Of all eighth-grade Hispanic students in 2009-2010, 47.3 percent scored at or above goal in
reading;81 excluding eighth-grade Hispanic ELLs, the number increases to 54.9 percent statewide.82
The extent to which Hispanic ELL scores affect the overall percentage of Hispanic students scoring at or
above goal varies widely. For example, among the twelve school districts with student populations that are
30 percent or more Hispanic, the exclusion of ELL scores caused the percentage of fourth-grade Hispanic
students reaching goal in reading in each district in 2009-2010 to increase between 4.3 and 11.4 percentage
points.83 In eighth-grade reading in these districts, removing ELL scores caused the percentages of Hispanic
students achieving goal or better to increase between 4.5 and 15.6 percentage points during the same year.84
The inclusion of ELL scores in analysis of Hispanic performance in math tends to have a lesser, although
still significant, effect. Hispanic and white scores with ELLs excluded can be found in Appendix D.85
Although it is apparent that English language ability affects the achievement gap, it is also clear that it is not
the only factor affecting the gap. Achievement gaps are found in school districts with both low proportions
of ELLs in their Hispanic population – e.g., Vernon86 – and high proportions of ELLs among their Hispanic
students – e.g., Danbury.87 In addition, absolute student achievement and the size of achievement gaps do
not appear to be fully linked with the number or percentage of ELLs in a district. Of the twelve most
Hispanic districts, Danbury and Stamford, with the highest and fourth-highest percentages, respectively, of
their Hispanic students identified as ELLs, consistently placed in the top three in terms of the percentage of
students scoring at or above goal. Danbury‟s fourth-grade reading achievement gap was smaller than the
fourth-grade reading gap in Waterbury, New Britain, or Meriden, which had some of the smallest
percentages of ELLs within the most Hispanic school districts. Furthermore, even when ELL scores are
removed from consideration, significant achievement gaps remain. English language ability seems unlikely to
be the only factor in the achievement gap.
Given the variation in the effects of including ELLs in the Hispanic population, and in order to provide a
broad, full picture of the achievement gap and its effects on all Hispanic students, we choose to include
ELL scores in our analysis featured in this paper. We recognize that to some degree, the presence of ELLs
affects a district‟s ability to get all of its students to goal level, and we note the argument that bringing ELL
achievement to goal level is a very high expectation for a district. Yet, some districts do have ELLs that
perform at goal level, including Danbury, which had 12.3 percent of its fourth-grade ELLs and 21.2 percent
of its eighth-grade ELLs score at goal level or better in reading in 2009-2010, and New Haven, whose
numbers were 8.3 percent and 12.9 percent for fourth- and eighth-grade ELLs, respectively, in reading in
2009-2010.88 Additionally, ELL students are permitted various testing accommodations, which in theory
should limit disparities between ELL student scores and non-ELL student scores.89
ELL achievement – and districts‟ ability to improve students‟ English language skills quickly and successfully
– are crucial components of understanding the whole picture of Hispanic student success. The sheer
number of ELLs underscores the importance of Connecticut‟s bilingual education options, which,
depending on the school or district, may include English as a second language (ESL) programs, language
transition support services (LTSS), sheltered English programs, English immersion programs, or dual
language programs.90 It also highlights the need for school- and community-based English language learner
programs and supports for non-English speaking parents. However, given that the vast majority of Hispanic
students are not identified as English language learners, and the gap exists even when ELL scores are
excluded, we cannot write off the gap as purely based on language. ELLs are an important part of the
picture, and as such, are included in our analysis, but they comprise only one-fifth of the Hispanic student
population in the state.
III. Findings From Districts Across Connecticut91
The Achievement Gap Across Connecticut
Connecticut students experience achievement gaps at both the state and district level. Statewide, Hispanic student scores
are found to lag behind those of their white peers, and achievement gaps of varying sizes are reported in all
school districts for which data about Hispanic students‟ CMT scores are available.92 Furthermore, these gaps
tend to be reported in multiple subject areas – often all tested subject areas – and multiple grade levels.
Districts facing these obstacles encompass communities of all geographic and economic varieties.

Across Time
While there has been improvement over the last few years in the percentage of Hispanic students performing at or above goal in
some subjects, there has not been consistent progress across subjects, and there has been little change in the gap between Hispanic
and white student performance over time. Between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010, there was improvement in the
percentage of Hispanic students statewide meeting or exceeding goal on the CMT in fourth-grade math
(32.8 percent to 43.5 percent), eighth-grade math (25.9 percent to 38.8 percent), and eighth-grade reading
(36.2 percent to 47.3 percent). Between 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, there was also some improvement in
eighth-grade science scores (25.9 percent to 32.0 percent). However, in other subjects (fourth-grade reading
and writing, and eighth-grade writing), there was more limited or no consistent progress. In addition, despite
some progress in the percentage of students reaching goal, there has been little progress across subjects in
closing the gap between Hispanic and white students meeting or exceeding goal.
Fourth-Grade Achievement Gap Among Connecticut Students Over Time93

% of Students % Students % Students
Gap Gap Gap
At or Above At or Above At or Above
Math Reading Writing
Goal in Math Goal in Reading Goal in Writing
2005- Hispanic 32.8 27.4 39.2
2.1 2.5 1.8
2006 White 69.9 69.6 71.9
2006- Hispanic 35.6 27.5 40.8
2.1 2.5 1.8
2007 White 74.2 69.5 75.2
2007- Hispanic 35.5 27.9 37.8
2.0 2.4 1.9
2008 White 72 67.9 73.3
2008- Hispanic 38.2 30.7 40.1
2.0 2.4 1.9
2009 White 75.1 72.7 74.2
2009- Hispanic 43.5 30.9 40.3
1.8 2.3 1.8
2010 White 78.2 71.8 73.7
*Achievement gap = % White Students At or Above Goal / % Hispanic Students At or Above Goal
Eighth-Grade Achievement Gap Among Connecticut Students Over Time94

% of % Students % Students % Students
Students At or At or At or
Gap Gap Gap Gap
At or Above Above Above Above
Math Reading Writing Science
Goal in Goal in Goal in Goal in
2005- Hispanic 25.9 36.2 34.3 -
2.7 2.2 2.1 -
2006 White 71.1 78.5 72.9 -
2006- Hispanic 29.7 37.3 34.5 -
2.5 2.1 2.2 -
2007 White 73.4 78.2 75.4 -
2007- Hispanic 30.5 34.4 35.4 25.9
2.4 2.2 2.1 2.8
2008 White 73.8 77 74.6 72.8
2008- Hispanic 33.6 38.3 40 27.9
2.3 2.1 1.9 2.7
2009 White 77.2 80.1 77.2 74.9
2009- Hispanic 38.8 47.3 34.3 32.0
2.0 1.8 2.2 2.4
2010 White 79 83.4 73.8 76.2

Across Academic Subjects
Achievement gaps in reading and math are experienced by Hispanic students throughout the state. CMT data compiled
about Hispanic students statewide indicates that in 2009-2010, white fourth graders were 2.3 times more
likely than Hispanic fourth graders to achieve goal in reading, and 1.8 times more likely than Hispanic fourth
graders to reach goal in math. White eighth graders statewide in 2009-2010 were 1.8 times more likely than
their Hispanic peers to make goal level in reading, and 2.0 times more likely to score at or above goal in
math. However, achievement gaps varied widely in size from district to district. For example, white eighth
graders from Meriden were 2.7 times more likely than their Hispanic classmates to achieve goal in math,
while white eighth graders in Southington were only 1.2 times more likely than Hispanics to score at that
level.
Connecticut’s achievement gaps are experienced by Hispanic students in writing and science as well. Statewide in 2009-2010,
fourth-grade white students were 1.8 times more likely to reach goal in writing than Hispanic students;
eighth-grade white students were 2.2 times more likely to meet or exceed goal level in writing than their
Hispanic peers in that same year. In eighth-grade science in 2009-2010, white students statewide were 2.4
times more likely than Hispanic students to achieve goal or above. As in math and reading, the extent of
these gaps – and the absolute performance of students – varied widely from district to district. For example,
Shelton reported in 2009-2010 that its fourth-grade white students were 1.1 times more likely than its
Hispanic students to score at or above goal level in writing, which indicates a minimal achievement gap. In
contrast, white Vernon fourth graders were 2.2 times more likely than their Hispanic peers to reach or
exceed goal in writing in 2009-2010. Appendix A lists the fourth- and eighth-grade achievement gaps for all
non-charter districts reporting scores for their Hispanic and white students.
Achievement gaps are apparent not only in fourth- and eighth-grade CMT scores, but throughout CMT results in grades three
through eight. The chart below shows that achievement gaps affect students at many points during their K-12
education.95
Achievement Gap in Connecticut Schools During the 2009-2010 School Year

Grades 3 to 8
Grade 3 1.9 2.3 1.9 -
Grade 4 1.8 2.3 1.8 -
Grade 5 1.6 2.3 1.8 2.5
Grade 6 1.8 1.7 1.9 -
Grade 7 2.0 1.7 2.2 -
Grade 8 2.0 1.8 2.2 2.4
Across Geographic Regions
School districts reporting achievement gaps in their test scores are not limited to any one region of Connecticut – the challenge of
the achievement gap is one that affects Connecticut as a whole. From Enfield on the Massachusetts border, to
Torrington in the northwest, to Stamford in the southwest, to Waterbury and Hartford in the center of the
state, to Groton and New London in the southeast, to Windham in the northeast, residents across the state
confront achievement gaps in their schools. Certainly, the populations of Hispanics in these communities
vary greatly by number and nationality, and in some small districts, the size of achievement gaps might be
affected be a few extremely high- or low-scoring Hispanic students. Yet the central issue remains; Hispanic
students‟ educational needs are too frequently not being met in many districts around the state.

Across Socioeconomic Groups
Besides affecting geographically diverse communities, achievement gaps are found in a wide range of
economic communities. Students in wealthier communities, such as Greenwich, Glastonbury, and West
Hartford, experience achievement gaps, as do students from poorer communities, such as Hartford,
Bridgeport, and New Haven.96 In the 2009-2010 school year, white fourth graders in Bridgeport and
Greenwich were 1.5 and 1.6 times more likely, respectively, to meet goal in reading than their Hispanic
peers, while white eighth graders in West Hartford and New Haven were 1.6 times more likely than
Hispanic eighth graders to achieve goal in math.
There are differences in absolute academic performance, however. Hispanic students from wealthier
communities seem to achieve at higher absolute levels than their peers from poorer communities. The
fourth-grade students from Bridgeport and Greenwich mentioned above had strikingly different levels of
achievement; only 21.9 percent of Hispanic fourth graders reached goal level in reading in Bridgeport, while
53.8 percent of Hispanic students made goal in Greenwich. It is not clear that poverty is the only factor in
these differences. Bridgeport and Greenwich have vastly different numbers of Hispanic students, English
language learners, and median family income levels, which likely all contribute to the variations in absolute
score. Yet in the communities described, the achievement gaps in fourth-grade reading were nearly equal.
Unfortunately, available data regarding Hispanic wealth and income are imprecise,97 which makes it difficult
to determine direct correlations between income and academic performance or achievement gap size.
Nonetheless, a brief study of the median family incomes for Hispanics and the absolute academic
performance of Hispanic students in the twelve most Hispanic school districts yields some illuminating
results. Of these districts, Norwalk, Stamford, and Danbury – the schools which tended to have the highest
performing Hispanic students in fourth and eighth grade – also have the top three median family incomes
for Hispanics among the state‟s most Hispanic districts. 98 Often, but less consistently, these districts also
claimed some of the smallest achievement gaps between their white and Hispanic students. If more rigorous
data were to become available, it would be worthwhile to analyze these correlations further to determine the
true impact of wealth and poverty on Hispanic academic performance and the achievement gap.
IV. Findings From Connecticut’s Most Hispanic Schools99
Although achievement gaps are found in districts throughout Connecticut, many of these districts have relatively small
populations of Hispanic students. Thus, we also assess the status of reading and math achievement gaps for fourth graders and
eighth graders in Connecticut’s “most Hispanic” districts – those with a district-wide student population that is at least 30
percent Hispanic. Scores and achievement gaps for these schools can be found in Appendix B.
Fourth Grade
Connecticut’s schools with the highest concentrations of Hispanic students struggle with a persistent achievement gap in fourth-
grade reading.
In 2009-2010, the achievement gap in reading ranged from 1.5 to 3.5. In other words, in East Hartford,
white fourth graders were 1.5 times more likely to score at or above goal in reading than their Hispanic
peers, while in Windham, white fourth graders were 3.5 times more likely to score at or above goal in
reading than their Hispanic peers. The performance of students in the other districts fell somewhere
between those two extremes. At the median, fourth-grade white students were 2.3 times more likely to score
at or above goal in reading than their Hispanic peers.

The range of the achievement gap in these schools has not changed significantly over the past several school
years. The median reading gap among the twelve districts has also changed little over this period with a
median of 2.3 in 2009-2010, compared to a median gap of 2.1 in both 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. No
individual district school has shown continual decrease in the reading achievement gap between its white
and Hispanic students.
Absolute achievement in reading – the percentage of fourth-grade Hispanic students scoring at or above goal – is quite low.
In 2009-2010, Norwalk had the highest percentage of Hispanic students at or above goal in reading, with
only 40.2 percent meeting that standard; in New Britain and Windham, only 15.6 percent of Hispanic
students achieved goal. Over the course of the three school years studied, only three school districts of the
twelve analyzed had 30 percent or more of its Hispanic students meet or exceed goal level in reading:
Danbury, Norwalk, and Stamford. These three districts displayed the highest levels of Hispanic
achievement, in terms of absolute percentages of students scoring at or above goal, in each of the three
years for which data was assessed. Danbury displayed the greatest improvement since 2007-2008 in terms of
absolute achievement in reading for Hispanic fourth graders, with an increase of 6.0 percentage points in the
percentage of Hispanic students achieving at/above goal.
The fourth-grade students in the state’s most Hispanic school districts also face achievement gaps in math, although these gaps in
math tend to be less extreme than those in reading.
During the 2009-2010 school year, the greatest achievement gap in these districts in math was in New
Britain, where white students were 2.2 times more likely to score at or above goal in reading than their
Hispanic peers; the smallest gap was in Danbury, where white fourth graders were 1.2 times more likely to
score at or above goal in reading than their fellow Hispanic classmates. The median gap in 2009-2010 was
1.6, which was not a significant improvement from the 2007-2008 or 2008-2009 school years. Only Danbury
and New London demonstrated a continual decrease in the achievement gap between 2007-2008 and 2009-
2010.
Absolute achievement for fourth-grade Hispanic students in highly Hispanic districts also tends to be better in math than
reading, but is still quite low.
In the 2009-2010 school year, Danbury had the highest percentage of Hispanic students scoring at or above
goal in math, with 67.0 percent achieving that standard. New Britain had the lowest percentage of Hispanic
students scoring at or above goal, with only 20.6 percent attaining that level. Six of the twelve school
districts studied had over 30 percent of their fourth-grade Hispanic students score at or above goal in math
in each of the past three school years. Three of these districts – Danbury, Norwalk, and Stamford –
reported more than 40 percent of their Hispanic students attaining goal or better on the math CMT since
2007-2008. As in reading, Danbury, Norwalk, and Stamford (not necessarily in that order) demonstrated the
top three highest percentages of Hispanic students scoring at or above goal in math. However, only New
London and Danbury showed greater than ten percentage points of improvement between 2007-2008 and
2009-2010 in the percentage of Hispanic students reaching goal or better.
Eighth Grade
Eighth-grade Hispanic students in Connecticut’s most Hispanic school districts consistently face achievement gaps on the reading
component of the CMTs. In general, the median achievement gap in eighth-grade reading does not appear to be significantly
different from the median achievement gap in fourth-grade reading.

In the past, eighth-grade white students have been as much as 4.8 times more likely to achieve at or above
goal in reading than their Hispanic classmates (New London in 2007-2008). During the 2009-2010 school
year, no school district demonstrated a gap of that magnitude, but significant achievement gaps in reading
remained, ranging from eighth-grade white students being 1.3 times more likely to meet goal in reading than
Hispanic students in Norwalk to eighth-grade white students being 2.4 times more likely to meet goal in
reading than their Hispanic peers in New Britain. The median achievement gap in 2009-2010 was 1.8 times
more likely for eighth-grade white students to score at or above goal than their Hispanic counterparts, lower
than the median gap in both 2007-2008 (2.3) and 2008-2009 (2.2). Four districts showed constant decrease
in the size of their achievement gaps since 2007-2008: Hartford, New London, Stamford, and Windham.
The academic performance of Hispanic eighth graders in reading is low in terms of absolute achievement.
Only in three school districts – Danbury, Norwalk, and Stamford – did more than 30 percent of the
Hispanic eighth-grade population meet goal for reading during each of the past three school years. During
the three years analyzed, Norwalk consistently displayed the highest percentage of Hispanic students scoring
at or above goal, followed each year by Stamford, and then Danbury. In 2009-2010, 58.0 percent of
Hispanic students in Norwalk achieved goal level on their reading CMTs. This was the highest level of
achievement that eighth-grade Hispanic students from Norwalk (or from any other district whose
population was more than 30 percent Hispanic) had reached since the 2007-2008 school year. Windham‟s
Hispanic students performed most poorly in 2009-2010, with only 24.8 percent reaching goal. Although
work is clearly needed to improve the performance of these students, some progress can already be noticed.
The percentage of Hispanic students scoring at or above goal has increased continually, and by more than
ten percentage points since 2007-2008, in seven of the twelve school districts studied – Danbury, Hartford,
Meriden, New Haven, New London, Norwalk, and Stamford.
As in fourth grade, Hispanic students in eighth grade confronted substantial achievement gaps in math. The median
achievement gap in eighth-grade math was larger than the median gap in fourth-grade math for each year studied.
During the 2009-2010 school year, achievement gaps in math ranged from eighth-grade white students in
Norwalk being 1.5 times more likely to score at or above goal than their Hispanic classmates to white
students in Meriden and New Britain being 2.7 times more likely to score at or above goal than their
Hispanic peers. The median math achievement gap in eighth grade for all districts did not change
substantially between 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, with the median gap being 2.0 in 2009-2010. Of the twelve
schools studied, only three school districts – Danbury, Norwalk, and Stamford – displayed a constant
decrease in their achievement gaps over the three years analyzed.100
In these school districts, the absolute performance of Hispanic eighth graders in math is poor – generally worse than performance
in reading – which is a noteworthy difference from fourth-grade results.
Only Norwalk had more than 30 percent of their Hispanic students meet or exceed goal level on the math
CMT for all three school years analyzed. In the 2009-2010 school year, Norwalk had the highest percentage
of Hispanic students who achieved at or above goal at 48.4 percent of the population. In other words, even
in the highest performing district, less than 50 percent of Hispanic students could meet the Board of
Education‟s “challenging, yet reasonable expectation for Connecticut students.” Yet, Hispanic students in
Norwalk during the 2009-2010 school year performed far better than those in other districts – for example,
in New Britain, only 19.6 percent of eighth graders achieved goal level; in Waterbury, this number was 20.1
percent; and in Windham, only 21.3 percent met goal. Interestingly, similar to the districts‟ fourth-grade
performance in reading, Norwalk and Stamford placed in the top three districts with the highest percentage
of eighth-grade Hispanic students scoring at or above goal during all three years. New Haven also placed in
the top three during 2007-2008 and 2009-2010; Danbury placed in the top three in 2008-2009. In addition,

Danbury, New Haven, and Stamford showed more than a ten percentage point increase in the percentage of
Hispanic eighth graders meeting or exceeding goal in math between 2007-2008 and 2009-2010.
V. The Need for Better Data
Analysis of Hispanic achievement is limited by the poor quality of data regarding Hispanic students and Hispanic
communities in Connecticut. Historically it has been difficult to accurately capture the number of Hispanic
students in Connecticut. As discussed earlier, the State Department of Education‟s PSIS database has only
allowed students to be documented as one race or ethnicity. It is unclear how many students listed as
“white,” “black,” “American Indian,” or “Asian American” could also have been identified as Hispanic.
Beginning in the 2010-2011 school year, students were able to be identified under multiple ethnic and racial
categories. Under these new guidelines, all students who identify themselves as Hispanic/Latino will have
their CMT scores reported under the Hispanic/Latino category, even if they have identified themselves as
another race.101 However, it would be useful if data about multiracial Hispanics were to become publicly
available, given that this data would be helpful in understanding which populations of Hispanics are most
affected by achievement gaps.
More importantly, the new federal guidelines allow states to collect information about subcategories of racial
or ethnic groups.102 Since Connecticut has such a large and diverse Hispanic population, it would be very
helpful to collect information about the different national origins of Hispanic students in the state. This
ability to accurately and adequately disaggregate Hispanic test scores and demographics is crucial to
understanding the achievement gap, allowing the more precise monitoring of Hispanic student performance
and the identification of correlations between performance levels and various community factors.
Data regarding the demographic characteristics of Hispanic families are also problematic. Census information about
Hispanic household or family median income tends to have large margins of error, often due to
underreporting and/or small population sizes. Thus, it is difficult to determine the extent to which
variations in income affect the achievement gap. Students might perform better in wealthier communities,
but it is unclear to what extent it is a result of the increased community wealth, increased family income, or a
combination of the two.
Better information about the level of education reached by Hispanic adults in a community would also be helpful for studying the
achievement gap. One of the main indicators of a student‟s success is the educational achievement of his or her
mother.103 Currently, although there are some town level data available about the educational attainment
level of the general community, there are minimal data about the educational attainment levels of the varied
ethnic and racial groups within those communities.
Conclusion
Although the data analyzed in this report paint a complex and nuanced picture, several key findings emerge:
 Achievement gaps at goal level between Hispanic students and white students exist in every district
in Connecticut for which data about Hispanic students are publicly available, regardless of income
level, location, size, or percentage of Hispanic students.
 Gaps between the percentages of Hispanic students and white students at goal level exist across
grade level and subject matter.

 Contrary to what might be expected, statewide, the largest gaps in performance at goal level are not
always on the reading component of the CMT. For example, statewide in 2009-2010, eighth-grade
Hispanic students faced larger gaps in math, science, and writing than they did in reading.
 The size of the achievement gaps between Hispanic students and white students at goal level vary
significantly between districts. For example, in Glastonbury, Manchester, and Trumbull in 2009-
2010, fourth-grade white students were 1.3 times more likely to score at or above goal in reading
than their Hispanic peers; in contrast, in eleven districts, fourth-grade white students were at least
two times more likely to meet or exceed goal in reading than fourth-grade Hispanic students. These
eleven districts were Hartford, Meriden, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Stamford, Vernon,
Wallingford, West Hartford, West Haven, and Windham.
 Many of Connecticut‟s school districts struggle with low levels of absolute achievement among
Hispanic students in all subject areas and grades.
 In absolute terms, districts vary considerably in their success in meeting the needs of Hispanic
students. For example, in 2009-2010 in Glastonbury, Greenwich, Manchester, Shelton, Southington,
Trumbull, and Windsor, fifty percent or more of Hispanic students scored above goal in fourth-
grade reading. In contrast, in eight other districts, fewer than 25 percent of fourth-grade Hispanic
students scored at goal or better in reading in 2010. These eight districts were Bridgeport, Hartford,
New Britain, New Haven, New London, Vernon, West Haven, and Windham. Statewide in 2009-
2010, only 30.9 percent of Hispanic students met or exceed goal in fourth-grade reading.
 In the state‟s districts with student populations that are 30 percent or more Hispanic, achievement
gaps at goal level in math and reading between eighth-grade Hispanic students and white students
have generally been equal to or greater than gaps at the fourth-grade level over the past three years.
 Although the percentages of Hispanic and white students meeting or exceeding goal level have
generally risen over the last five years, achievement gaps between scores have remained relatively
constant, with slight improvements in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth-grade math, and
more significant improvements in eighth-grade math and science.
 English language ability contributes to achievement gaps at goal level between Hispanic and white
students; however, our analysis shows that these gaps cannot be attributed solely to differences in
English language skills. For example, statewide, 30.9 percent of fourth-grade Hispanic students
scored at or above goal in reading in 2009-2010;104 if Hispanic ELLs are removed from that number,
37.5 percent of fourth-grade, non-ELL Hispanics in Connecticut met or exceeded goal in that
subject.105
 Although the percentages of Hispanic and white students achieving goal level or better tend to be
higher in districts within wealthier communities, the achievement gaps in these districts are not
necessarily smaller than those in other, less wealthy communities.
 Better data are needed to understand more fully the weight of various factors – such as income
status and parental education level – that contribute to the achievement gaps at goal level between
Hispanic and white students.
As described in the report, some districts appear to have been more successful than others in meeting the
needs of their Hispanic students and in narrowing the achievement gaps between Hispanic and white

students. We hope that this paper will encourage districts that have been relatively successful in narrowing
the gaps, or in improving the absolute academic achievement of their Hispanic students, to share best
practices and strategies. In addition, we hope that this analysis will help lay the groundwork for data-driven
discussion at the community and state level regarding how best to meet the educational needs of
Connecticut‟s large, diverse, and fast-growing population of Hispanic students. Finally, we hope that this
report will underscore the urgency of redoubling investments and targeting interventions in communities
where needs are greatest.
1 See F. Cadelle Hemphill and Alan Vanneman, “Achievement Gaps: How Hispanic and White Students in Public Schools
Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NCES 2011-459)” National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education (June 2011) (available at
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011459.pdf) (Hereinafter “NCES Report”).
2 Ibid. In 8th grade mathematics, Connecticut tied with Massachusetts for worst achievement gap between Hispanic and White
students in the country. Gaps in the other grade levels and subjects tested were only slightly better. In 4 th grade reading, only
Minnesota and the District of Columbia had larger Hispanic-White achievement gaps. In 4th grade mathematics, only California,
the District of Columbia, Rhode Island, and Utah had larger Hispanic-White achievement gaps. In 8th grade reading, only
California, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania had larger Hispanic-White achievement gaps.
3 The increase from 1992 to 2009 in average score for Hispanic students was statistically significant in fourth grade mathematics
(Ibid., 21), eighth grade mathematics (Ibid., 29), and fourth grade reading (Ibid., 47). The NAEP state reading assessment was not
administered to eighth graders in Connecticut until 1998. The difference between the average eighth grade reading score for
Hispanic students in 1998 and 2009 was not statistically significant. Ibid. 47 and 55.
4 Ibid., 21 and 29. While the decreases in the gaps between 1992 and 2009 were statistically significant for both fourth and eighth
grade mathematics, the gaps remained among the largest in the nation. See endnote 4. Changes in the gap on the reading
assessments since the first year of administration were not statistically significant. Ibid., 47 and 55.
5 For more information about this paper’s definition of “Hispanic,” refer to the section entitled “Methodology – Defining the Achievement Gap
in Connecticut,” beginning on pg. 5. For more information about the diversity of Connecticut’s Hispanic population, see the section entitled
“Background Regarding Connecticut‟s Hispanic Student Population,” starting on pg. 4. In this paper, the term “Hispanic” is used,
rather than “Latino,” in order to match the term most commonly used in the SDE database. In general, the terms “Latino” and
“Hispanic” are interchangeable.
6 See the section entitled “Background Regarding Connecticut‟s Hispanic Student Population,” starting on pg. 4.
7 See the section entitled “Background Regarding Connecticut‟s Hispanic Student Population,” starting on pg. 4.
8 For example, statewide since 2007, a higher percentage of black students than Hispanic students have scored at or above goal in
reading and writing at every grade level tested, with the exception of the 2009 grade 3 writing exam (equal percentages of blacks
and Hispanics scored at or above goal) and the 2008 grade 8 writing exam (0.1 percent more Hispanics scored at or above goal
than black students). See “CT Students Improve Performance on 2010 CMT; Post Gains over Benchmark Year (2006) Across
Grades 3-8 in All Content Areas Except Writing at Grade 3; Largest Gains Seen in Grades 6, 7 and 8,” Connecticut State Department
of Education (July 15, 2010) (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/cmt2010pressrelease.pdf).
Additionally, Hispanics have the lowest 4-year graduation rate of any racial/ethnic group in Connecticut (58.1 percent Class of
2009 adjusted cohort graduation rate vs. 66.2 percent for African-Americans, 73.8 percent for Native American, 82.4 percent for
Asian/Pacific Islander and 86.8 percent for White/Caucasian.) See “Commissioner Calls for Action: New Formula, Unique
Student Data Produce More Accurate State Graduation Rates,” Connecticut State Department of Education (March 23, 2010) (available
at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/new_graduate_data.pdf).
9 The CMT is described in more detail in the section entitled “Methodology – Defining the Achievement Gap in Connecticut,”
beginning on pg. 5. The NCES study, in contrast, was based on the NAEP, a test administered in multiple states.
10 This is the first district-level analysis of achievement gaps between Hispanic and white students, and first in-depth look at
absolute Hispanic achievement at district level. Other past studies have, however, given a visual overview of district-level Hispanic
achievement. See “Mapping the Gap: An Illustration of the State of Connecticut Public Education,” ConnCAN (September 2008)
(available at http://www.conncan.org/sites/default/files/research/ConnCAN_MapBook.pdf).

11 See “Understanding Your Child‟s Scores on the CMT,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2010) (available at
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/2010%20CMT%20Understanding%20Test%20
Scores%20with%20MAS.pdf).
12 “Impact of Connecticut Accountability Learning Initiative (CALI) on the Partner Districts,” Connecticut Department of Education
(May 4, 2011), 3.
13 For example, the 2007 Grade 3 cohort of students attending schools in the Partner Districts went from 47 percent proficient on
CMT reading in 2007 to 71 percent proficient in 2010. Additionally, “in most instances,” the rate of increase in percent of
students meeting proficiency on the CMT was greatest for black and Hispanic students in the partner districts. Ibid.
14 Score information obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut CMT and
CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access scores for Hispanic and white students in all school districts
which report Hispanic scores, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4 th Generation,” located under “Public Summary
Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by District/School Report.” Choose “2010” under “Administration Years,” then
choose the appropriate grade, select all districts, and select the right arrow to move them into the “Selected” column. Next, click
“Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click
“Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” The percentages of Hispanic students and white students in each district who scored at or
above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Goal” column. Statewide figures can be obtained by ensuring that “State” is also
selected when districts names are selected. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school year. We have used the “school year”
terminology in our report. In this paper, the term “Hispanic” is used, rather than “Latino,” in order to match the usage of the
term in the SDE database. In general, the terms “Latino” and “Hispanic” are interchangeable. All other data in this paper,
including enrollment numbers, median family income, etc. uses the most recent data that is publicly available.
15 See Appendix A and Appendix B.
16 Districts which had fewer than 25 percent of their fourth-grade Hispanic students achieve goal in reading in 2010 are:
Bridgeport, Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Vernon, West Haven, and Windham. See Appendix B.
17 See Social Sector Office, “The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America‟s Schools,” McKinsey and Company
(April 2009), 5-6 (available at

http://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Images/Page_Images/Offices/SocialSector/PDF/achievement_gap_report.pdf).
18 In the past several years, Connecticut has experienced job gains in high-wage, high-skill occupations, while middle and lower
income occupations – many of which require lower levels education – have lost jobs. See Joachim Hero, Orlando Rodriguez, and
Jacob Siegel, The State of Working Connecticut 2010, Connecticut Voices for Children, III-8 (available at
http://ctkidslink.org/publications/econ10sowctfull.pdf). These changes could potentially exacerbate economic stratification in
the state, where income inequality is already among the nation‟s highest.
19 See Sean Reardon and Claudia Galindo, “The Hispanic-White Achievement Gap in Math and Reading in the Elementary
Grades,” American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 46 (September 2009), 853-891 (citing Richard Rothstein, Class and Schools: Using
Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black–White Achievement Gap (Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute,
2004), and Roland Fryer and Steven Levitt, “The Black-White Test Score Gap through Third Grade,” American Law and Economics
Review Vol. 8, No. 2 (2006), 249–281).
20 See Carol Schmid, “Educational Achievement, Language-Minority Students, and the New Second Generation,” Sociology of
Education, Vol. 74 (2001), 74.

21 See Barbara Schneider, Sylvia Martinez, and Ann Owens, “Barriers to Educational Opportunities for Hispanics in the United
States,” in Marta Tienda and Faith Michell, eds., Hispanics and the Future of America, National Research Council, (Washington, D.C.:
The National Academies Press, 2006), 84.
22 See Roger A. Wojtkiewicz and Katharine M. Donato, “Hispanic Educational Attainment: The Effects of Family Background
and Nativity,” Social Forces, Vol. 74, No. 2 (December 1995), 559-574.
23 See Frances E. Contreras, “Access, Achievement, and Social Capital: Standardized Exams and the Latino College-Bound
Population,” Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, Vol. 4, No. 197 (2005), 197-214.
24 See Leisy Janet Abrego, “„I Can't Go to College Because I Don't Have Papers‟: Incorporation Patterns Of Latino
Undocumented Youth,” Latino Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Autumn 2006), 212-231.

25 See Russell Rumberger and Gregory Palardy, “Does Segregation Still Matter? The Impact of Student Composition on Academic
Achievement in High School,” Teachers College Record, Vol. 107, No. 9 (September 2005), 1999-2045.
26 See Adriana D. Kohler and Melissa Lazarín, “Hispanic Education in the United States,” National Council of La Raza, Statistical
Brief No. 8 (2007), 9 (available at http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/file_SB8_HispEd_fnl.pdf).

27 See Jason Irizarry with Taína Vargas, “Why Aren‟t More Latinos in College Prep Courses? A Critique of Tracking and Academic
Apartheid,” in Jason Irizarry, The Latinization of U.S. Schools (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2011).
28 See Edward Olivos, “Tensions, Contradictions, and Resistance: An Activist‟s Reflection of the Struggles of Latino Parents in the
Public School System,” The High School Journal, Vol. 87, No. 4 (April/May 2004).
29 See Taby Ali and Alexandra Dufresne. “Missing Out: Suspending Students from Connecticut Schools,” Connecticut Voices for
Children (August 2008), 6 (available at http://ctkidslink.org/publications/edu08missingout.pdf) (concluding that, “in the 2006-
2007 school year, the suspension rates among black and Hispanic students were at least triple those of the white students”).

30 See Valerie Martinez-Ebers, Luis Fraga, Linda Lopez, and Arturo Vega, “Latino Interests in Education, Health, and Criminal
Justice Policy,” PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 33, No. 3 (September 2000), 548.
31 See Yolanda Padrón, Hersh Waxman, and Héctor Rivera, “Educating Hispanic Students: Obstacles and avenues to improved
academic achievement,” Educational Practice Report, No. 8 (Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on
Education, Diversity & Excellence, 2002).
32 Between 2000 and 2010, the Hispanic population in the U.S. grew by 15,171,776 (43.0 percent), which was more than all other
racial/ethnic groups combined. See Karen Humes, Nicholas Jones, and Roberto Ramirez, “Overview of Race and Hispanic
Origin: 2010 – 2010 Census Briefs,” United States Census Bureau (March 2011), 4 (available at
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf).
33 Between 2000 and 2010, the Hispanic population in Connecticut grew by 158,764 (49.6 percent), which was more than all other
racial/ethnic groups combined. Comparison of “Table QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin: 2010,” in the 2010 Census
Summary File 1, United States Census Bureau (available at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP3&prodType=table)
and "Table QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino: 2010,” in the 2000 Census Summary File 1, United States Census Bureau (available
at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=).
Click on “Enter a Table Number,” enter the appropriate number, then choose the requested “Geographic Type” and
“Geographic Area.”
34 American Indian students are also identified by the Connecticut State Department of Education as their own ethnic group.
However, this group comprises only 0.4 percent of the entire K-12 population in Connecticut, so we did not include it as a large
racial/ethnic group. Counts are for the 2009-2010 school year. Hispanics exclude all other racial groups and vice-versa. This count
includes students enrolled in charter schools, which are considered to be part of the public school system. It does not include
children enrolled in public school pre-K programs. If pre-K students were included, the racial breakdown of the public school
system would be as follows: white, 64.0 percent; Hispanic, 17.5 percent; African American, 13.7 percent; Asian, 4.4 percent; and
American Indian, 0.4 percent. K-12 enrollment numbers retrieved using the “Create a Custom Export Table” under “Enrollment,” Connecticut
State Department of Education (2011) (available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EnrollmentDT.aspx) on May 4,
2011.
35 Comparison of Census 2010 count of 479,087 Hispanics in Connecticut and Connecticut State Data Center 2007 projection of
452,190 Hispanics in Connecticut in 2010. See “Table QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin: 2010,” in the 2010 Census
Summary File 1, United States Census Bureau (available at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP3&prodType=table)
and “State Projection Data,” Connecticut State Data Center (2007) (available at http://ctsdc.uconn.edu/projections/state_wide.html).
36 The number of American Indians in Connecticut is so low that a projection cannot be made for the size of the K-12 American
Indian population in 2020. Information provided by Orlando Rodriguez, Senior Policy Fellow, Connecticut Voices for Children,
via e-mail, on July 8, 2011. Population projections calculated in May 2008 by the Connecticut State Data Center for the
Connecticut Deptartment of Children and Families, available from Orlando Rodriguez, Senior Policy Fellow, Connecticut Voices for
Children.
37 Ibid.
38 Customized output from the 2010 Current Population Survey (CPS). Customized output from the 2010 Current Population
Survey (CPS). See “Current Population Survey (CPS) Table Creator II,” (listing “Hispanic Origin” and “Age” by “Nativity –
Detailed”) United States Census Bureau (available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.html). This
number assumes that all people listed as native-born U.S. citizens were born in the U.S. or Puerto Rico. A small number may be
born in other U.S. territories or abroad to U.S. citizen parents.
39 Ibid. Like their counterparts born in the fifty United States or the District of Columbia, those born in Puerto Rico acquire U.S.
citizenship at birth.
40 Ibid.
41 See “Table B06004I: Place of Birth by Race (Hispanic or Latino) in the United States,” in the 2005-2009 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau (available at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en). Click on
“Enter a Table Number,” enter the appropriate number, then choose the requested “Geographic Type” and “Geographic Area.”
42 This excludes Brazilians and other populations in the western hemisphere who are not considered Hispanic because they speak
Portuguese. See “Table B05006: Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population,” in the 2005-2009 American Community Survey
5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau (available at


45 Charter school districts falling into this category were not analyzed in this paper, since their population sizes were often quite
small, and thus, the size of their gaps would be more susceptible to being skewed by a few high- or low-performing students.
Furthermore, since these populations are so small, many districts have fewer than 20 Hispanic or white students enrolled per
grade, which means that test scores are not made available to the public due to privacy concerns. Additionally, not all of the
charter districts include both fourth and eighth grades, which are those analyzed for all other districts in this paper.
46 These percentages reflect 2009-2010 enrollment data. Hispanics exclude all other racial groups and vice-versa. Numbers include
students in public school pre-K programs. The percent enrollment of Hispanic students was determined by dividing the total
number of Hispanic students in a district by the total enrollment of that same district, and then multiplying by 100. Enrollment
numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut State Department of Education, via e-mail, on May 26, 2011.
47 See “Table S0201: Selected Population Profile in the United States (Connecticut),” in the 2007-2009 American Community
Survey 3-Year Estimates, United State Census Bureau

(http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en). Click on
“Enter a Table Number” in the 2007-2009 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates section of the website, then enter the
appropriate table number. To view Connecticut-specific results, select “Geography” in the top left of the page, choose “State,”
select “Connecticut,” then click “Add” and “Next.” On the next webpage, choose the appropriate “Race or Ethnic Group,” then
click “Show Result.”
48 Customized output from the 2007-2010 Current Population Survey (CPS). See “Current Population Survey (CPS) Table Creator
II,” United States Census Bureau (available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.html).

49 The achievement gap can be measured by a wide variety of tests and indicators, ranging from the CMT to the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to drop-out rates to college admittance and completion rates. Each test has its own
limitations in terms of its ability to depict the achievement gap, and serious concerns have been raised about the unintended
consequences of overreliance on testing. Nonetheless, standardized tests such as the CMT provide a useful basis for comparison,
as long as they are only seen as one piece of the puzzle in understanding student achievement. For information about critiques of the use
of testing to measure student performance, see, e.g., Katherine E. Ryan, Allison M. Ryan. Keena Arbuthnot, and Maurice Samuels,
“Students‟ Motivation for Standardized Math Exams,” Educational Researcher, Vol. 36, No. 1(January/February 2007), 5-13
(concluding that standardized tests rest on the false assumption that high-stakes test systems have a motivating power for all
students to the same extent and direction, with no variation due to ethnicity, gender, race, and/or content area); see Robert L.
Linn, Eva L. Baker, and Stephen B. Dunbar, “Complex, Performance-Based Assessment: Expectations and Validation Criteria,”
Evaluation Comment (UCLA) (Winter 1991-2991), 2-9 (listing critiques of standardized testing); see also Ronald W. Solórzano,
“High Stakes Testing: Issues, Implications, and Remedies for English Language Learners,” Review of Education Research, Vol. 78, No.
2 (June 2008), 260-329 (concluding that current standardized tests are not appropriately designed for English language learners
and, as such, should not be used to make high stakes decisions for ELLs); and see also Richard G. Lomax, Mary Maxwell West,
Maryellen C. Harmon, Katherine A. Viator, and George F. Madaus, “The Impact of Mandated Standardized Testing on Minority
Students,” The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Spring 1995), 171-185 (concluding that increasing high stakes testing does
not result in improvement in the delivery of instruction and recommending that ethnically-, racially-, culturally-, and linguistically-
appropriate measures of assessment be developed).
50 All ELLs must take all sections of the Connecticut Mastery Test in English, unless they have attended school in the United
States for less than ten months. See “Bilingual Education/ESL Exemptions: CMT and CAPT Exemption Information,” Connecticut
State Department of Education (2011) (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?A=2618&Q=320820). ELLs may be
permitted various accommodations on the test, including time extensions, alternate test settings, someone to read directions (in
English or their native language), someone to read math and science test questions and answer choices in English, and/or a
dictionary. See “CMT/CAPT Testing Accommodations: 2010-2011,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011), 22 (available at
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdf). Special education
students with individualized education plans (IEPs) do not necessarily have to take the CMT. Depending on the extent of their
disability, a special education student may take the CMT with or without accommodations, or they may take the CMT Modified
Assessment System (MAS), only available in math and reading, with or without accommodations, or they may use the CMT Skills
Checklist. For information on how IEP teams identify which test a special education student should take, see “CMT/CAPT Testing
Accommodations: 2010-2011,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011), 9 (available at
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdf). For more information
about the CMT MAS, see “CMT/CAPT Modified Assessment System,” Connecticut State Department of Education (available at
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/mas/index.htm). For more information about the CMT Skills Checklist, see
“CMT/CAPT Skills Checklist,” Connecticut State Department of Education (available at
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/checklist/index.htm). For more information about the Connecticut Mastery Test in
general, see “The Connecticut Mastery Test: What Every Parent/Guardian Should Know About the CMT for Grades 3 through 8,”
Connecticut State Board of Education (2010) (available at

http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/standard%20parent%20brochure%20for%20w
eb%202%20pages%20no%20photos%202010.pdf).
51 According to the State Board of Education, the full purpose of the test is to create high expectations for education in
Connecticut, identify students in need of academic assistance, monitor individual student achievement, identify weaknesses in
curriculum and improve those areas, and increase the accountability of the state‟s educational system. See “The Connecticut
Mastery Test: What Every Parent/Guardian Should Know About the CMT for Grades 3 through 8,” Connecticut State Board of
Education (2010), 1 (available at
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/standard%20parent%20brochure%20for%20w
eb%202%20pages%20no%20photos%202010.pdf).
52 Each section of the CMT includes five levels of scoring: Advanced, Goal, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic (best to worst, l-r).
See “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4th Generation: Understanding Test Scores on the Individual Student Report,” Connecticut State
Board of Education (2009) (available at
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/misc_cmt/2009_CMT_Understanding_Test_Scores.pdf).
53 The first CMTs, with math, reading, and writing components, were given in the 1985-1986 school year to students in grades
four, six, and eight. Students in grades three, five, and seven began taking the CMT in the 2005-2006 school year, while the
science section of the CMT (given to fifth and eighth graders) was added in the 2007-2008 school year. The current version of the
CMT is known as the “4th generation” CMT, and includes CMT administrations dating back to 2005-2006. See Steve Martin,
“Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) [PowerPoint],” State Department of Education (2006). See also “Public Summary Performance
Reports,” under “Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports” (available at http://www.ctreports.com/).
54 Score information in this report was obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website,
“Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. Information is also available via the Connecticut
State Department of Education‟s “Connecticut Education Data and Research (CEDAR)” website, under “Connecticut Mastery
Test: 4th Generation Reports,” available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/CMTLandingDT.aspx. We chose to
use the www.ctreports.com site because data can be more easily sorted between grades, subjects, ethnicities, language ability, and
level of achievement. Both websites generally report the same percentages, although occasionally, there is a difference of 0.1 or
0.2 percentage points between the two websites in regard to the percentage of students who achieved at or above goal. We believe
that this is due to a rounding error, and it does not affect the results of our analysis.
55 It should be noted that serious concerns have been raised about the unintended consequences of overreliance on testing as an
indicator of academic success. Nonetheless, tests are useful, accessible tools which provide at least some basis for comparison of
student achievement. Thus, we view the analysis of CMT scores in this paper as a useful exercise, so long as it is viewed as only
one component of the achievement gap. For information about critiques of the use of testing to measure student performance, see, e.g.,
Katherine E. Ryan, Allison M. Ryan. Keena Arbuthnot, and Maurice Samuels, “Students‟ Motivation for Standardized Math
Exams,” Educational Researcher, Vol. 36, No. 1(January/February 2007), 5-13 (concluding that standardized tests rest on the false
assumption that high-stakes test systems have a motivating power for all students to the same extent and direction, with no
variation due to ethnicity, gender, race, and/or content area); see Robert L. Linn, Eva L. Baker, and Stephen B. Dunbar,
“Complex, Performance-Based Assessment: Expectations and Validation Criteria,” Evaluation Comment (UCLA) (Winter 1991-
2991), 2-9 (listing critiques of standardized testing); see also Ronald W. Solórzano, “High Stakes Testing: Issues, Implications, and
Remedies for English Language Learners,” Review of Education Research, Vol. 78, No. 2 (June 2008), 260-329 (concluding that
current standardized tests are not appropriately designed for English language learners and as such, should not be used to make
high stakes decisions for ELLs); and see also Richard G. Lomax, Mary Maxwell West, Maryellen C. Harmon, Katherine A. Viator,
and George F. Madaus, “The Impact of Mandated Standardized Testing on Minority Students,” The Journal of Negro Education, Vol.
64, No. 2 (Spring 1995), 171-185 (concluding that increasing high stakes testing does not result in improvement in the delivery of
instruction and recommending that ethnically-, racially-, culturally-, and linguistically-appropriate measures of assessment be
developed).
56 For information about Connecticut’s achievement gap in relation to proficiency scores, see, e.g., “Every Child Should Have a Chance to Be
Exceptional. Without Exception.,” Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement (2010) (available at

http://www.ctachieve.org/pdf/commission_report.pdf); “Achievement Gap More than a Black and White Issue,” ConnCAN
(January 2011) (available at http://www.conncan.org/aboutus/news/achievement-gap-more-black-and-white-issue); “CT
Students Improve Performance on 2010 CMT; Post Gains over Benchmark Year (2006) Across Grades 3-8 in All Content Areas
Except Writing at Grade 3; Largest Gains Seen in Grades 6, 7 and 8,” Connecticut State Department of Education (July 15, 2010)
(available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/cmt2010pressrelease.pdf); and see also “Impact of Connecticut
Accountability Learning Initiative (CALI) on the Partner Districts,” Connecticut Department of Education (May 4, 2011).
57 See “Improvements Over Last Year: 125 More Connecticut Schools and 18 More Districts Meet the Federal NCLB Standard of
“Adequate Yearly Progress this Year: Reading is Still the Issue in Elementary and Middle Schools; Math is the Challenge in High
Schools,” State Department of Education (August 11, 2010), 1 (available at
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/ayp_2010_newsrelease.pdf).
58 See “Are All America‟s Children Really Above Average? A Comparison of State and National Reading Assessments,” Voices for
America’s Children (July 2010) (available at http://www.voices.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Are-All-Americas-Children-

Really-Above-Average_report.pdf); see also Ryan McAuliffe, “Defining Educational Proficiency and Achievement in Connecticut,”
Connecticut Voices for Children (November 2007) (available at http://ctkidslink.org/publications/ece07achievementct.pdf).
59 See Appendix C, endnote iii for information about the data collection process and calculations for information provided in
Appendix C.
60 Conversation with Abe Krisst, State Department of Education, on Monday, June 15, 2010.
61 See “Table B” and “Appendix E” under “SASID Register/Unregister Record Layout,” Connecticut State Department of Education
(August 2009). Due to changes in federal reporting guidelines, students will be able to be identified in the PSIS as being of more
than one race/ethnicity as of the 2010-2011 school year. See Mark McQuillan, “New Student Race/Ethnicity Reporting
Requirements,” Connecticut State Department of Education (June 2009) (available at
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/circ/circ08-09/C14.pdf). For more information about the change in data collection, see George
Coleman, “2011 CMT Results Show Increases from 2010, Continuing a Positive Trend for the Fourth Generation CMT,”
Connecticut State Department of Education (July 13, 2011), 7 (available at
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF%5Cpressroom%5C2011_CMT_Press_Release.pdf).This modification in data
collection is a result of changes to federal reporting guidelines.
62 According to test results published on the Connecticut State Department of Education‟s www.ctreports.com website, results
are not presented for groups of fewer than 20 students.

63 Results for Area Cooperative Educational Services (ACES) and the Capital Region Education Council (CREC) districts were
available in some subject and grade levels, but we chose to exclude the results from these districts to avoid a potential source of
bias in the analysis, given that these districts are non-traditional school districts.
64 See Appendix A, endnote i for information about the data collection process and calculations for information provided in
Appendix A.
65 The Connecticut charter school districts with a Hispanic population that makes up more than 30 percent of the overall student
population are: The Bridge Academy District (30.0 percent), Side By Side Community School District (31.5 percent), Amistad
Academy District (34.7 percent), Interdistrict School for the Arts and Communication (35.7 percent), Park City Prep Charter
School (36.0 percent), Trailblazers Academy District (36.6 percent), Common Ground High School District (36.9 percent), and
Bridgeport Achievement First (41.6 percent). Charter school districts falling in this category were not analyzed in this paper, since
their population sizes were often quite small, and thus, the size of their gaps would be more susceptible to being skewed by a few
high- or low-performing students. Furthermore, since these populations are so small, many districts have fewer than 20 Hispanic
or white students enrolled per grade, which means that test scores are not made available to the public due to privacy concerns.
Additionally, not all of the charter districts include both fourth and eighth grades, which are analyzed in this paper. The percent
enrollment of Hispanic students was determined by dividing the total number of Hispanic students in a district by the total
enrollment of that same district, and then multiplying by 100. Enrollment numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut
State Department of Education, via e-mail, on May 26, 2011.
66 Of the twelve districts featured, all over 1,000 Hispanic students enrolled in the district, with New London having the fewest
Hispanic students (1,378 in the 2009-2010 school year). Enrollment numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut State
Department of Education, via e-mail, on May 26, 2011.
67 Different class years of student might have varying natural academic abilities – e.g., fourth graders in 2007-2008 could naturally
perform better on their exams than the fourth graders in 2009-2010 – so several years of data are included to determine if
multiple years of classes faced an achievement gap.
68 We wanted to determine if the achievement gap was an issue in just one subject area with which students particularly struggled,
or if it was an issue in multiple subject areas.

69 See Viana Turcios-Cotto and Robert Cotto, Jr., "Recalculating School Reform in Hartford, CT," Working Paper Presented at
Harvard Graduate School of Education Alumni of Color Conference (March 4, 2011).

70 See Appendix B, endnote ii for information about the data collection process and calculations for information provided in
Appendix B.
71 Connecticut General Statutes, Section 10-17e (available at http://cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap164.htm#Sec10-17e.htm).
72 For the number of Spanish-speaking ELLs per district, see “Number of English Language Learners,” Connecticut State Department of
Education (2011) (available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EllDT.aspx).

73 The race/ethnicity breakdown for these Spanish-speaking students is not publicly available, forcing us to make this assumption.
74 In order to determine the percentage of Hispanics who are also identified as ELLs statewide, we divided the total number of
Spanish-speaking ELLs in Connecticut by the total Hispanic enrollment in Connecticut and multiplied by 100. These calculations
make the assumption that all Spanish-speaking ELLs are Hispanic because the race/ethnicity breakdown for these Spanish-
speaking students is not publicly available. For the number of Spanish-speaking ELLs per district, see “Number of English Language
Learners,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011) (available at
http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EllDT.aspx). Enrollment numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut
75 In order to determine the percentage of Hispanics who are also identified as ELLs, we divided the total number of Spanish-
speaking ELLs by the total Hispanic enrollment in each Connecticut school district and multiplied by 100. These calculations
make the assumption that all Spanish-speaking ELLs are Hispanic because the race/ethnicity breakdown for these Spanish-

speaking students is not publicly available. For the number of Spanish-speaking ELLs per district, see “Number of English Language
http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EllDT.aspx). Enrollment numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut
76 During the 2009-2010 school year, 48,243 Connecticut students were identified as living with a non-English home language. For
the number of students who have been identified as having Spanish as their “home language,” see “Number of English Language Learners,”
Connecticut State Department of Education (2011) (available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EllDT.aspx).
77 See “Bilingual Education/ESL Exemptions: CMT and CAPT Exemption Information,” Connecticut State Department of Education
(2010) (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?A=2618&Q=320820).

78 See “English Language Learners, School Year 2009-2010,” Connecticut State Department of Education (November 2010), 6-7
(available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/Files/Pdf/Reports/db_ell_report_11_2010.pdf).
79 See Appendix A.
80 See Appendix D.
81 See Appendix A.
82 See Appendix D.
83 See Appendix D.
84 See Appendix D.
85 See Appendix D, endnote iv for information about the data collection process and calculations for information provided in
Appendix B.
86 3.9 percent of Hispanics in the Vernon school district were identified as ELLs in the 2009-2010 school year, assuming that all
Spanish-speaking ELLs are Hispanic. For the number of Spanish-speaking ELLs per district, see “Number of English Language
http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EllDT.aspx).
87 42.0 percent of Hispanics in Danbury were identified as ELLs in the 2009-2010 school year, assuming that all Spanish-speaking
ELLs are Hispanic. For the number of Spanish-speaking ELLs per district, see “Number of English Language Learners,” Connecticut State
Department of Education (2011) (available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EllDT.aspx).
88 Score information for these districts obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website,
“Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access the scores for Hispanic and white
students in these districts, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4 th Generation,” located under “Public Summary Performance
Reports.” Next, select “State by District/School Report.” Choose the appropriate years under “Administration Years,” then
choose the appropriate grade, select the identified districts, and select the right arrow to move them into the “Selected” column.
Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click
“Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” Lastly, select “Filter,” choose “ELL” in the drop down menu next to “Add Filter,” and click
“Submit.” The percentages of ELL Hispanic students and white students in each district who scored at or above goal will be listed
under the “% At/Above Goal” column. Statewide figures can be obtained by ensuring that “State” is also selected when districts
names are selected. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school year, “2009” refers to the 2008-2009 school year, etc. We
have used the “school year” terminology in our report.
89 See “Bilingual Education/ESL Exemptions: CMT and CAPT Exemption Information,” Connecticut State Department of Education
(2011) (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?A=2618&Q=320820). ELLs may be permitted various

accommodations on the test, including time extensions, alternate test settings, someone to read directions (in English or their
native language), someone to read math and science test questions and answer choices in English, and/or a dictionary. See
“CMT/CAPT Testing Accommodations: 2010-2011,” Connecticut State Department of Education (2011), 22, (available at
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/agl/resources/Accommodation%202010-2011.pdf).
90 For more information about bilingual education in Connecticut, see Annemarie Hillman, Lauren Velazquez, and Cyd Oppenheimer,
“English Language Learning Students in Connecticut,” Connecticut Voices for Children (July 2010) (available at
http://ctkidslink.org/publications/edu10englishlanguage.pdf).
91 See Appendix A for all information referenced in this section.
92 School districts with fewer than 20 students in a grade did not report the percentage of students scoring at or above goal on the
different components of the CMT, due to privacy concerns. As a result, there are some districts which have small Hispanic
populations, but for which data are unavailable. Additionally, some districts which have close to 20 students at fourth or eighth
grade did not report percentages for all components of the CMT, since enough students were absent from some sections of the
test that the number of students taking the exam fell below 20 and could not be publicly reported. It should be noted that districts
with smaller Hispanic populations are likely to experience more natural flux in scores from year to year, since extreme
performances have more of an effect on the overall population results.
93 Statewide score information obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut
CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access the scores for Hispanic and white students in these
districts, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4th Generation,” located under “Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next,
select “State by District/School Report.” Choose the appropriate years under “Administration Years,” then choose “Grade 4.”
Next, ensure that “State” is listed as being “Selected.” (If it is not selected, highlight the term “State” and use the right arrow to

move the term into the “Selected” column.) Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by
District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click “Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” The percentages of Hispanic students
and white students statewide who scored at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Goal” column. Note that “2010”
refers to the 2009-2010 school year, “2009” refers to the 2008-2009 school year, etc. We have used the “school year” terminology
in our report. Achievement gaps were calculated by dividing the percentage of white students statewide who scored at or above
goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students statewide who scored at or above goal in the same
subject, grade, and year.
94 Statewide score information obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut
select “State by District/School Report.” Choose the appropriate years under “Administration Years,” then choose “Grade 8.”
Next, ensure that “State” is listed as being “Selected.” (If it is not selected, highlight the term “State” and use the right arrow to
move the term into the “Selected” column.) Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by
95
Statewide score information obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut
select “State by District/School Report.” Choose “2010” under “Administration Years,” then choose the appropriate grade. Next,
ensure that “State” is listed as being “Selected.” (If it is not selected, highlight the term “State” and use the right arrow to move
the term into the “Selected” column.) Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by
96 Median family income was used as an indicator of community wealth. For example, median family incomes in the listed
communities were: Bridgeport - $48,054; Greenwich - $169,559; Glastonbury - $119,821; Hartford - $32,512; New Haven -
$46,579; and West Hartford - $103,123. For information about town-level median family incomes in Connecticut, see “Table B19113: Median
Family Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2009 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars),” in the 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau (available at
“Enter a Table Number,” enter the appropriate number, then choose “County Subdivision” and the requested “State,” “County”
and “Geographic Area.” Then click “Add,” and “Show Result.”
97 Town-level data regarding the median family incomes of Hispanic families often have limited population samples and very high
margins of error, especially in very wealthy communities.

98 Median family incomes for Hispanic families in the twelve districts with student populations which are 30 percent or more
Hispanic were: Bridgeport - $40,412; Danbury - $48,883; East Hartford - $34,632; Hartford - $24,237; Meriden - $37,191; New
Britain - $33,371; New Haven - $32,690; New London - $39,135; Norwalk - $56,875; Stamford - $49,590; Waterbury - $29,285;
and Windham - $27, 602. For information about town-level median family incomes for Hispanic families in Connecticut, see “Table B19113I:
Median Family Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2009 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) (Hispanic or Latino Householder),” in the
2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau (available at
“Enter a Table Number,” enter the appropriate number, then choose “County Subdivision” and the requested “State,” “County”
and “Geographic Area.” Then click “Add,” and “Show Result.”
99 See Appendix B for all information referenced in this section.
100 As mentioned in the Methodology section, we don‟t know why the size of the eighth grade achievement gap in these school
districts changed; it could be the result of a natural variation in class academic ability, changes to curriculum or instruction
methods, among other factors.
101 For more information about the change in data collection, see George Coleman, “2011 CMT Results Show Increases from 2010,
Continuing a Positive Trend for the Fourth Generation CMT,” Connecticut State Department of Education (July 13, 2011), 7 (available
at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF%5Cpressroom%5C2011_CMT_Press_Release.pdf).This modification in data
collection is a result of changes to federal reporting guidelines. See Mark McQuillan, “New Student Race/Ethnicity Reporting

Requirements,” Connecticut State Department of Education (June 1, 2009) (available at
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/circ/circ08-09/C14.pdf).
102 See “Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial
and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education,” United State Department of Education (October 19, 2007) (available at
http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2007-4/101907c.html).
103 See, e.g., Mark R. Rosenzweig and Kenneth I. Wolpin, “Are There Increasing Returns to the Intergenerational Production of
Human Capital? Maternal Schooling and Child Intellectual Achievement,” The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Spring
1994) , 670-693 (referring to the strong positive correlations between the educational attainment of mothers and measures of the
well-being of their children, including school performance indicators, that are commonly found in studies of both high- and low-
income households).
104 See Appendix A.
105 See Appendix D.

Appendix A
Student Performance Data – Goal Level

All Connecticut School Districts Publicly
Reporting Data for Hispanic Studentsi
Goal Level Scores for

Fourth Grade Math, Reading, & Writing
Eighth Grade Math, Reading, Writing, & Science
2009-2010
iScore information obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut CMT
and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access scores for Hispanic and white students in all
school districts which report Hispanic scores, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4 th Generation,” located under
“Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by District/School Report.” Choose “2010” under
“Administration Years,” then choose the appropriate grade, select all districts, and select the right arrow to move them
into the “Selected” column. Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by
District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click “Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” The percentages of Hispanic
students and white students in each district who scored at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Goal”
column. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school year. We have used the “school year” terminology in our
report. Achievement gaps for each district were calculated by dividing the percentage of white students in a specific
school district who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students in
that district who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year. The statewide achievement gap was
calculated by dividing the percentage of white students statewide who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade,
and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students statewide who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and
year.
Fourth-Grade Math Achievement Gap and Scores
All Districts Reporting Publicly Available Data for Hispanic Students
% Fourth Graders
Achievement Gap*
At or Above Goal in Math
2009-2010 2009-2010
Statewide Hispanic 43.5
1.8
White 78.2
Ansonia Hispanic 60.0
1.2
White 72.4
Bridgeport Hispanic 31.5
1.4
White 43.8
Bristol Hispanic 42.2
1.7
White 71.5
Danbury Hispanic 67.0
1.2
White 79.3
Derby Hispanic 20.0
2.0
White 40.0
East Hartford Hispanic 28.7
1.7
White 49.5
East Haven Hispanic 52.3
1.1
White 59.5
Enfield Hispanic 50.0
1.6
White 78.2
Fairfield Hispanic 64.4
1.3
White 85.0
Glastonbury Hispanic 52.2
1.6
White 86.1
Greenwich Hispanic 56.3
1.5
White 84.8
Groton Hispanic 48.8
1.4
White 69.7
Hamden Hispanic 48.1
1.5
White 71.2
Hartford Hispanic 28.7
1.6
White 45.9
Manchester Hispanic 57.8
1.3
White 72.8
Meriden Hispanic 43.3
1.7
White 72.0
% Fourth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
Middletown Hispanic 50.0 1.8
1.5
White 72.8
Milford Hispanic 56.7
1.3
White 73.4
Naugatuck Hispanic 46.0
1.4
White 62.9
New Britain Hispanic 20.6
2.2
White 44.5
New Haven Hispanic 41.4
1.8
White 73.7
New London Hispanic 26.3
1.5
White 38.7
New Milford Hispanic 46.2
1.4
White 65.8
Newington Hispanic 54.5
1.5
White 80.7
Newtown Hispanic 85.0
1.1
White 89.6
Norwalk Hispanic 49.6
1.6
White 80.3
Norwich Hispanic 28.0
1.8
White 50.7
Shelton Hispanic 55.6
1.3
White 73.8
Southington Hispanic 69.0
1.3
White 89.5
Stamford Hispanic 49.7
1.6
White 78.8
Stratford Hispanic 61.7
1.3
White 77.5
Torrington Hispanic 55.8
1.2
White 68.2
Trumbull Hispanic 75.0
1.2
White 90.5
Vernon Hispanic 24.0
2.7
White 65.0
% Fourth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
Wallingford Hispanic 61.7
1.8
1.3
White 81.4
Waterbury Hispanic 46.1
1.5
White 69.1
West Hartford Hispanic 54.4
1.6
White 86.8
West Haven Hispanic 33.3
1.9
White 62.9
Wethersfield Hispanic 52.9
1.5
White 78.3
Windham Hispanic 30.5
1.8
White 54.9
Windsor Hispanic 69.4
1.2
White 85.5
Fourth-Grade Reading Achievement Gap and Scores
% Fourth Graders
Achievement Gap*
At or Above Goal in Reading
2009-2010 2009-2010
2.3
White 71.8
1.7
White 54.1
1.5
White 33.6
1.8
White 61.3
1.8
White 66.4
Derby Hispanic 28.0
1.9
White 51.9
1.5
White 41.7
1.4
White 49.2
1.9
White 61.7
1.8
White 80.9
1.3
White 80.9
1.6
White 83.9
1.7
White 63.1
1.8
White 67.6
2.4
White 40.5
1.3
White 65.6
2.4
White 62.0
% Fourth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.7
White 68.3
1.4
White 66.1
1.7
White 52.6
2.3
White 36.2
2.7
White 65.6
2.6
White 45.2
1.5
White 71.5
1.4
White 67.4
1.8
White 71.9
1.9
White 51.7
1.1
White 73.7
1.4
White 77.5
2.2
White 72.0
1.7
White 71.3
1.5
White 63.9
1.3
White 80.1
2.9
White 57.5
2.0
White 71.2
% Fourth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
Waterbury Hispanic 25.7 2.3
1.9
White 49.6
2.0
White 80.8
2.4
White 58.5
1.4
White 68.0
3.5
White 54.3
1.4
White 80.7
Fourth-Grade Writing Achievement Gap and Scores
% Fourth Graders
Achievement Gap*
At or Above Goal in Writing
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.8
White 73.7
1.1
White 56.6
1.4
White 47.6
1.8
White 66.8
1.3
White 59.7
Derby Hispanic 34.6
1.3
White 46.3
1.5
White 52.9
1.4
White 51.3
1.6
White 66.3
1.2
White 83.6
1.5
White 81.5
1.3
White 84.9
1.1
White 57.0
1.7
White 67.3
1.7
White 46.7
1.3
White 66.7
2.2
White 59.9
Middletown Hispanic 52.8
1.3
White 70.6
% Fourth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.8
1.3
White 71.4
1.3
White 51.8
2.0
White 37.0
1.8
White 63.1
1.5
White 50.0
1.3
White 72.0
1.5
White 80.2
1.0
White 82.5
1.5
White 73.8
1.3
White 44.9
Seymour Hispanic 65.0
1.1
White 70.0
1.1
White 76.4
1.3
White 77.9
1.5
White 73.7
1.3
White 73.1
1.6
White 65.2
1.1
White 81.6
2.2
White 62.2
1.5
White 73.6
% Fourth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.6
White 61.8
1.5
White 82.6
1.3
White 52.3
1.2
White 69.0
1.8
White 52.4
1.1
White 75.9
Eighth-Grade Math Achievement Gap and Scores
% Eighth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
2.0
White 79.0
1.6
White 70.8
Bethel Hispanic 63.3
1.3
White 80.6
Branford Hispanic 61.9
1.1
White 70.2
1.6
White 46.7
1.9
White 75.6
1.6
White 64.2
2.0
White 55.6
1.4
White 64.6
1.6
White 89.9
1.3
White 87.0
1.4
White 84.7
1.6
White 71.4
1.5
White 76.5
2.5
White 63.0
2.2
White 64.3
2.7
White 72.1
2.0
White 68.9
% Eighth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
Milford Hispanic 41.7 2.0
1.8
White 77.0
1.3
White 66.5
2.7
White 52.6
1.6
White 70.2
2.0
White 46.2
1.2
White 71.6
1.3
White 76.4
1.1
White 90.4
1.5
White 70.2
1.7
White 57.5
1.7
White 78.3
1.2
White 85.6
1.7
White 75.6
1.6
White 74.1
1.6
White 65.1
1.1
White 85.2
1.6
White 71.6
1.3
White 76.0
% Eighth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
2.3
White 46.2
1.6
White 85.1
1.5
White 58.2
1.5
White 83.5
2.2
White 47.1
1.5
White 88.2
Eighth-Grade Reading Achievement Gap and Scores
% Eighth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.8
White 83.4
1.5
White 70.5
1.2
White 84.5
1.1
White 80.2
1.6
White 56.7
1.4
White 81.7
1.4
White 78.8
2.0
White 63.0
1.2
White 68.8
1.4
White 91.2
1.7
White 87.2
1.4
White 89.7
1.4
White 85.7
1.3
White 84.9
2.2
White 77.4
1.6
White 77.5
2.1
White 72.2
% Eighth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.8
1.7
White 73.5
1.4
White 82.6
1.4
White 74.6
2.4
White 63.5
1.7
White 80.0
1.7
White 61.5
1.3
White 79.9
1.2
White 85.5
1.0
White 94.4
1.3
White 76.1
1.5
White 66.5
1.4
White 81.5
1.1
White 86.0
1.4
White 80.0
1.5
White 88.1
1.3
White 60.9
1.2
White 94.9
1.5
White 73.6
1.4
White 79.1
% Eighth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.9
White 63.2
1.5
White 88.6
1.2
White 68.2
1.3
White 78.2
2.2
White 53.8
1.3
White 80.2
Eighth-Grade Writing Achievement Gap and Scores
% Eighth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
2.2
White 73.8
1.8
White 56.1
1.5
White 77.7
1.3
White 70.2
1.6
White 42.7
2.1
White 62.2
1.6
White 62.7
2.4
White 52.4
1.8
White 48.5
1.5
White 83.5
1.3
White 80.4
1.4
White 81.7
1.2
White 66.7
1.5
White 66.2
2.7
White 65.1
1.8
White 56.8
2.9
White 53.8
1.9
White 69.4
% Eighth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.7
White 72.5
1.2
White 64.8
3.1
White 46.7
2.4
White 61.1
1.7
White 42.3
1.6
White 64.7
1.2
White 80.5
1.2
White 84.3
1.5
White 60.3
1.5
White 46.1
1.1
White 66.3
1.1
White 72.3
1.7
White 71.0
1.3
White 72.4
1.8
White 57.2
1.2
White 88.7
1.7
White 62.2
1.7
White 67.8
% Eighth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.9
White 48.2
1.7
White 82.2
1.4
White 52.4
1.6
White 68.5
3.1
White 32.7
2.6
White 75.9
Eighth-Grade Science Achievement Gap and Scores
% Eighth Graders
Achievement Gap*
At or Above Goal in Science
2009-2010 2009-2010
2.4
White 76.2
2.5
White 58.8
1.1
White 79.7
1.2
White 79.8
1.8
White 43.9
1.5
White 72.3
1.9
White 66.3
2.6
White 61.9
2.1
White 50.2
1.4
White 87.3
1.4
White 83.8
1.7
White 80.1
1.4
White 72.6
1.6
White 67.6
3.7
White 68.0
2.3
White 61.5
3.1
White 55.5
2.3
White 60.6
% Eighth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.8
White 74.9
1.5
White 60.2
3.3
White 45.8
2.3
White 67.9
2.1
White 42.3
1.1
White 75.8
1.7
White 75.5
1.1
White 86.6
1.7
White 67.5
1.7
White 55.5
1.7
White 65.2
1.3
White 73.8
1.9
White 69.5
1.6
White 71.4
2.0
White 65.8
1.3
White 83.7
3.0
White 62.7
1.8
White 80.8
% Eighth Graders
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
2.4
White 44.4
2.3
White 82.6
1.5
White 57.1
Wethersfield Hispanic 40
1.7
White 69.2
3.7
White 43.4
1.9
White 75.9
Appendix B
Student Performance Data – Goal Level
Connecticut School Districts with Large Hispanic
Student Populations (≥30%)ii
Goal Scores for 12 Districts with Large Hispanic Populations

Fourth Grade Math and Reading
Eighth Grade – Math and Reading
2007-2008 to 2009-2010
In order to determine these numbers, we first determined which school districts had student populations which are 30
ii
percent or more Hispanic. To calculate the percent enrollment of Hispanic students, we divided the total number of
Hispanic students in a district by the total enrollment of that same district, and then multiplied by 100. Enrollment
numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut State Department of Education, via e-mail, on May 26, 2011. Once the
appropriate districts had been identified, we obtained score information for these districts from the Connecticut State
Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at
www.ctreports.com. To access the scores for Hispanic and white students in these districts, first click on “Connecticut
Mastery Test, 4th Generation,” located under “Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by
District/School Report.” Choose the appropriate years under “Administration Years,” then choose the appropriate
grade, select the identified districts, and select the right arrow to move them into the “Selected” column. Next, click
“Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” The percentages of Hispanic students and white students in each district who scored
at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Goal” column. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school
year, “2009” refers to the 2008-2009 school year, etc. We have used the “school year” terminology in our report.
Achievement gaps for each district were calculated by dividing the percentage of white students in a specific school
district who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students in that
district who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year. The statewide achievement gap was calculated
by dividing the percentage of white students statewide who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by
the percentage of Hispanic students statewide who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year.
CT Districts with Large Hispanic Student Populations (≥30%)
% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Math Achievement Gap*
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2009-2010
Statewide Hispanic 35.5 38.2 43.5
1.8
White 72.0 75.1 78.2
Bridgeport Hispanic 28.2 25.9 31.5
1.4
White 45.2 46.7 43.8
Danbury Hispanic 46.4 51.0 67.0
1.2
White 69.8 73.0 79.3
East Hartford Hispanic 32.4 31.3 28.7
1.7
White 44.9 63.0 49.5
Hartford Hispanic 23.6 24.6 28.7
1.6
White 41.0 52.6 45.9
Meriden Hispanic 38.0 36.2 43.3
1.7
White 62.9 68.4 72.0
New Britain Hispanic 18.5 19.2 20.6
2.2
White 46.8 49.1 44.5
New Haven Hispanic 36.7 33.9 41.4
1.8
White 61.5 62.9 73.7
New London Hispanic 4.6 22.0 26.3
1.5
White 35.0 54.5 38.7
Norwalk Hispanic 47.2 52.1 49.6
1.6
White 65.5 76.3 80.3
Stamford Hispanic 44.2 44.8 49.7
1.6
White 75.6 74.9 78.8
Waterbury Hispanic 38.8 38.0 46.1
1.5
White 61.7 61.2 69.1
Windham Hispanic 25.6 28.4 30.5
1.8
White 55.1 44.3 54.9
% Fourth Graders At or Above Goal in Reading Achievement Gap*
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2009-2010
2.3
White 67.9 72.7 71.8
1.5
White 35.3 41.9 33.6
1.8
White 54.8 61.8 66.4
1.5
White 42.1 58.2 41.7
2.4
White 43.6 50.6 40.5
2.4
White 54.7 58.6 62.0
2.3
White 38.5 43.0 36.2
2.7
White 55.6 54.3 65.6
2.6
White 41.0 60.6 45.2
1.8
White 60.7 68.3 71.9
2.2
White 67.9 74.5 72.0
1.9
White 53.4 56.0 49.6
3.5
White 50.0 50.0 54.3
% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Math Achievement Gap*
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2009-2010
2.0
White 73.8 77.2 79.0
1.6
White 43.0 50.0 46.7
1.6
White 54.9 63.6 64.2
2.0
White 57.1 48.1 55.6
2.5
White 65.0 63.4 63.0
2.7
White 48.2 62.1 72.1
2.7
White 45.4 45.3 52.6
1.6
White 60.0 66.7 70.2
2.0
White 35.0 36.4 46.2
1.5
White 73.4 79.8 70.2
1.7
White 72.5 76.4 75.6
2.3
White 44.2 44.4 46.2
2.2
White 43.8 46.0 47.1
% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Reading Achievement Gap*
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2009-2010
1.8
White 77.0 80.1 83.4
1.6
White 53.7 53.8 56.7
1.4
White 65.8 73.8 78.8
2.0
White 60.7 53.3 63.0
2.2
White 69.3 80.3 77.4
2.1
White 59.6 65.5 72.2
2.4
White 49.3 59.7 63.5
1.7
White 65.4 74.5 80.0
1.7
White 60.0 46.9 61.5
1.3
White 76.4 81.9 76.1
1.4
White 79.7 81.8 80.0
1.9
White 54.7 54.0 63.2
2.2
White 54.4 54.7 53.8
Appendix C
Student Performance Data – Proficiency Level

All Connecticut School Districts Publicly
Reporting Data for Hispanic Studentsiii
Proficiency Level Scores for

Fourth Grade Math, Reading, & Writing
Eighth Grade Math, Reading, Writing, Science
2009-2010
Score information obtained from the Connecticut State Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut
iii
CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at www.ctreports.com. To access scores for Hispanic and white students in
all school districts which report Hispanic scores, first click on “Connecticut Mastery Test, 4 th Generation,” located under
“Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by District/School Report.” Choose “2010” under
“Administration Years,” then choose the appropriate grade, select all districts, and select the right arrow to move them
into the “Selected” column. Next, click “Get Report.” Once the report is visible, under the title “State by
District/School Report,” select “Disaggregate,” click “Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” The percentages of Hispanic
students and white students in each district who scored at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above
Proficiency” column. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010 school year. We have used the “school year”
terminology in our report. Achievement gaps for each district were calculated by dividing the percentage of white
students in a specific school district who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of
Hispanic students in that district who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year. The statewide
achievement gap was calculated by dividing the percentage of white students statewide who scored at or above goal in a
given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students statewide who scored at or above goal in the same
% Fourth Graders At or Above
Achievement Gap*
Proficiency in Math
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.3
White 92.7
1.2
White 88.8
1.3
White 72.6
1.4
White 87.6
CREC Hispanic 87.1
1.0
White 88.6
1.0
White 92.1
Derby Hispanic 60.0
1.1
White 65.0
1.4
White 77.7
1.2
White 86.3
1.2
White 95.5
1.1
White 96.0
1.1
White 96.2
1.2
White 96.0
1.2
White 86.7
1.1
White 84.0
1.4
White 81.1
1.2
White 92.3
1.3
White 88.6
Achievement Gap*
Proficiency in Math
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.3
1.1
White 88.4
1.2
White 89.8
1.2
White 82.8
1.6
White 67.7
1.3
White 88.0
1.1
White 95.8
1.2
White 71.0
1.2
White 89.4
1.0
White 98.2
1.2
White 96.0
1.4
White 78.9
1.1
White 93.2
1.2
White 97.0
1.2
White 92.3
1.2
White 93.9
1.2
White 89.4
1.0
White 98.8
1.5
White 87.2
Achievement Gap*
Proficiency in Math
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.3
1.1
White 94.8
1.2
White 90.5
1.2
White 94.6
1.2
White 85.2
1.1
White 92.3
1.3
White 76.8
1.0
White 96.4
Achievement Gap*
Proficiency in Reading
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.8
White 83.5
1.4
White 66.3
1.4
White 51.4
1.7
White 75.1
CREC Hispanic 70.0
1.2
White 86.4
1.4
White 77.8
Derby Hispanic 40.0
1.5
White 60.8
1.4
White 60.2
1.3
White 73.5
1.5
White 78.3
1.2
White 89.8
1.1
White 90.4
1.5
White 91.9
1.3
White 73.7
1.7
White 79.7
2.0
White 55.4
1.2
White 78.1
1.8
White 75.2
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.3
White 80.9
1.4
White 79.7
1.5
White 68.0
2.1
White 56.6
2.0
White 80.2
1.3
White 83.4
1.5
White 54.8
1.3
White 83.4
1.5
White 87.0
1.9
White 67.5
1.0
White 87.0
1.3
White 88.7
1.6
White 82.0
1.4
White 84.9
1.2
White 78.7
1.2
White 89.2
3.0
White 70.9
1.4
White 81.6
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.7
White 70.3
1.5
White 90.6
1.6
White 77.1
1.3
White 82.0
2.2
White 71.6
1.4
White 91.6
Fouth-Grade Writing Achievement Gap and Scores
% Fouth Graders At or Above
Achievement Gap*
Proficiency in Writing
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.3
White 92.0
1.0
White 87.9
1.1
White 73.5
1.0
White 86.8
CREC Hispanic 87.1
1.0
White 88.6
1.0
White 87.6
Derby Hispanic 69.2
1.2
White 82.9
1.2
White 81.7
1.0
White 85.8
1.3
White 93.4
1.2
White 95.2
1.1
White 95.3
1.1
White 96.9
1.1
White 84.3
1.1
White 86.0
1.2
White 78.7
1.0
White 85.0
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.3
White 86.8
1.1
White 90.6
1.3
White 92.1
1.2
White 83.7
1.3
White 67.3
1.3
White 87.2
1.2
White 97.0
1.1
White 81.3
1.1
White 91.9
1.0
White 96.5
1.2
White 93.4
1.2
White 79.5
1.1
White 92.7
1.1
White 94.3
1.1
White 92.0
1.1
White 92.9
1.2
White 88.7
1.1
White 96.6
1.1
White 89.4
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
Wallingford Hispanic 89.6 1.3
1.0
White 91.8
1.2
White 87.4
1.1
White 95.1
1.2
White 86.0
1.0
White 91.2
1.3
White 83.3
1.1
White 93.1
% Eighth Graders At or Above
Achievement Gap*
Proficiency in Math
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.4
White 93.8
1.2
White 90.3
1.0
White 95.3
1.1
White 91.9
1.3
White 78.3
1.2
White 94.1
1.2
White 87.3
1.3
White 81.5
1.2
White 81.9
1.1
White 97.2
1.1
White 96.3
1.2
White 94.5
1.2
White 90.6
1.1
White 93.5
1.7
White 92.1
1.4
White 88.8
1.4
White 89.2
1.3
White 88.2
Achievement Gap*
Proficiency in Math
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.3
White 94.9
1.5
White 88.3
1.6
White 77.6
1.2
White 90.1
1.2
White 93.5
1.3
White 69.2
1.2
White 92.2
1.0
White 98.7
1.2
White 90.3
1.3
White 85.1
1.2
White 92.8
1.0
White 97.0
1.2
White 89.8
1.1
White 95.4
1.1
White 86.4
1.0
White 97.0
1.2
White 89.9
1.0
White 95.2
Achievement Gap*
Proficiency in Math
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.4
White 77.5
1.2
White 98.2
1.3
White 83.6
1.3
White 97.2
1.5
White 68.6
1.2
White 94.1
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.5
White 90.5
1.3
White 84.8
1.0
White 89.1
1.0
White 86.4
1.4
White 69.2
1.2
White 89.5
1.2
White 87.5
1.5
White 80.2
1.2
White 76.8
1.2
White 94.9
1.3
White 95.2
1.3
White 94.1
1.2
White 92.4
1.1
White 88.4
1.7
White 87.2
1.4
White 87.7
1.8
White 85.4
1.4
White 82.5
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.3
White 91.9
1.4
White 82.6
1.8
White 72.2
1.4
White 89.2
1.0
White 91.2
1.3
White 69.2
1.3
White 88.4
1.1
White 97.1
1.2
White 84.2
1.2
White 75.7
1.2
White 88.0
1.0
White 92.9
1.3
White 90.2
1.2
White 93.1
1.1
White 73.8
1.1
White 98.6
1.4
White 85.1
1.2
White 90.3
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
White 77.4
1.4
White 94.0
1.1
White 78.0
1.4
White 88.9
1.9
White 63.5
1.3
White 90.1
Eighth-Grade Writing Achievement Gap and Scores
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.5
White 88.7
1.1
White 78.1
1.1
White 89.1
1.0
White 85.3
1.2
White 63.7
1.5
White 83.5
1.2
White 81.8
1.6
White 73.8
1.1
White 73.2
1.2
White 92.0
1.1
White 93.8
1.2
White 93.3
1.0
White 84.4
1.4
White 88.4
1.8
White 86.4
1.5
White 87.3
1.8
White 76.9
1.5
White 88.0
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
White 89.6
1.1
White 85.9
1.8
White 67.5
1.5
White 77.9
1.1
White 90.6
1.0
White 53.8
1.2
White 83.7
1.1
White 94.5
1.3
White 82.1
1.2
White 67.2
1.1
White 87.3
0.9
White 87.3
1.2
White 89.8
1.1
White 88.2
1.3
White 79.9
1.1
White 97.3
1.4
White 79.9
1.2
White 88.9
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.4
White 75.4
1.4
White 93.2
1.0
White 70.2
1.3
White 88.1
2.2
White 63.5
1.3
White 88.5
Eighth-Grade Science Achievement Gap and Scores
Achievement Gap*
Proficiency in Science
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.8
White 87.3
2.1
White 79.8
1.1
White 88.5
1.3
White 89.5
1.4
White 57.7
1.4
White 84.9
1.4
White 79.5
1.7
White 73.8
1.4
White 65.4
1.2
White 93.2
1.3
White 91.5
1.3
White 90.3
1.3
White 86.3
1.3
White 79.2
2.3
White 79.9
1.9
White 78.4
2.1
White 73.2
1.8
White 71.3
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.4
White 88.8
1.4
White 75.5
2.4
White 60.8
1.6
White 78.6
1.3
White 87.5
1.4
White 57.7
1.1
White 85.9
1.2
White 94.5
1.3
White 82.3
1.6
White 72.0
1.6
White 79.0
1.0
White 86.2
1.4
White 83.3
1.4
White 86.3
1.4
White 79.9
1.1
White 94.3
2.4
White 78.5
1.2
White 89.4
Achievement Gap*
2009-2010 2009-2010
1.9
White 62.9
1.6
White 92.1
1.2
White 76.3
1.5
White 86.0
2.5
White 60.4
1.5
White 86.2
Appendix D
Student Performance Data – Goal Level,

Excluding English Language Learners (ELL)
Connecticut School Districts with Large Hispanic
Student Populations (≥30%)i
Goal Level Scores Excluding ELL Students for

Fourth Grade Math and Reading
Eighth Grade Math and Reading
2007-2008 to 2009-2010
iIn order to determine these numbers, we first determined which school districts had student populations which are 30
percent or more Hispanic. To calculate the percent enrollment of Hispanic students, we divided the total number of
Hispanic students in a district by the total enrollment of that same district, and then multiplied by 100. Enrollment
numbers received from Raymond Martin, Connecticut State Department of Education, via e-mail, on May 26, 2011. Once the
appropriate districts had been identified, we obtained score information for these districts from the Connecticut State
Department of Education via their website, “Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports,” available at
www.ctreports.com. To access the scores for Hispanic and white students in these districts, first click on “Connecticut
Mastery Test, 4th Generation,” located under “Public Summary Performance Reports.” Next, select “State by
District/School Report.” Choose the appropriate years under “Administration Years,” then choose the appropriate
grade, select the identified districts, and select the right arrow to move them into the “Selected” column. Next, click
“Ethnicity,” then choose “Submit.” Lastly, select “Filter,” choose “Not ELL” in the drop down menu next to “Add
Filter,” and click “Submit.” The percentages of non-ELL Hispanic students and white students in each district who
scored at or above goal will be listed under the “% At/Above Goal” column. Note that “2010” refers to the 2009-2010
school year, “2009” refers to the 2008-2009 school year, etc. We have used the “school year” terminology in our report.
Achievement gaps for each district were calculated by dividing the percentage of white students in a specific school
district who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by the percentage of Hispanic students in that
district who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year. The statewide achievement gap was calculated
by dividing the percentage of white students statewide who scored at or above goal in a given subject, grade, and year, by
the percentage of Hispanic students statewide who scored at or above goal in the same subject, grade, and year.
CT Districts with Large Hispanic Student Populations (≥30%),
English Language Learners Excluded
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2009-2010
1.6
White 72.3 75.4 78.6
1.3
White 47.8 48.5 46.6
1.1
White 72.3 74.9 81.4
1.5
White 45.7 63.8 50.0
1.6
White 45.3 63.1 52.5
1.5
White 63.3 68.9 71.9
1.8
White 47.7 49.7 46.2
1.7
White 61.9 63.8 74.4
1.3
White 35.9 54.5 40.0
1.4
White 65.9 76.7 81.0
1.3
White 76.9 76.4 80.3
1.4
White 63.2 62.0 69.5
1.5
White 55.1 44.3 54.3
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2009-2010
1.9
White 68.4 73.2 72.3
1.4
White 38.8 43.8 35.9
1.5
White 57.1 64.8 68.9
1.2
White 42.9 59.0 42.0
2.3
White 53.1 59.4 49.2
2.0
White 55.3 59.1 61.8
2.0
White 40.3 46.6 39.0
2.0
White 56.0 55.2 67.7
1.8
White 42.1 60.6 46.7
1.5
White 61.7 68.9 72.8
1.7
White 69.7 76.2 73.0
1.7
White 55.9 56.9 51.3
2.3
White 50.0 50.0 55.0
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2009-2010
1.8
White 74.1 77.4 79.3
1.6
White 45.5 50.9 52.8
1.4
White 56.7 65.4 67.2
1.8
White 57.1 49.0 55.7
2.1
White 71.5 66.9 65.8
2.3
White 48.4 62.1 72.4
2.2
White 46.0 48.1 55.6
1.4
White 60.8 68.1 70.2
1.4
White 35.0 37.5 46.2
1.2
White 74.6 80.4 70.7
1.5
White 73.4 77.3 76.7
2.1
White 45.1 45.4 47.6
1.6
White 43.8 46.0 47.1

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2009-2010
1.5
White 77.4 80.4 83.7
1.4
White 58.0 58.2 63.2
1.2
White 67.9 76.3 82.0
1.8
White 60.7 54.3 64.6
1.8
White 77.2 84.8 81.3
1.8
White 59.8 65.5 72.5
2.0
White 52.6 63.6 68.2
1.4
White 66.3 76.1 80.0
1.2
White 60.0 48.4 61.5
1.0
White 77.7 82.5 76.6
1.3
White 80.5 82.7 80.9
1.6
White 57.0 55.2 64.9
1.6
White 54.4 54.7 53.8

Hispanic Achievement Gap in CT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hispanic Achievement Gap in CT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Are Connecticut Schools

Meeting the Needs of

Connecticut Voices for Children 2

Connecticut Voices for Children 3

Connecticut Voices for Children 4

II. Methodology – Defining the Achievement Gap in Connecticut

Connecticut Voices for Children 6

English Language Learners

III. Findings From Districts Across Connecticut91

The Achievement Gap Across Connecticut

Connecticut Voices for Children 8

Fourth-Grade Achievement Gap Among Connecticut Students Over Time93

Eighth-Grade Achievement Gap Among Connecticut Students Over Time94

Connecticut Voices for Children 9

Achievement Gap in Connecticut Schools During the 2009-2010 School Year

Across Geographic Regions

Connecticut Voices for Children 10

IV. Findings From Connecticut’s Most Hispanic Schools99

Connecticut Voices for Children 11

Connecticut Voices for Children 12

Connecticut Voices for Children 13

V. The Need for Better Data

Connecticut Voices for Children 14

Connecticut Voices for Children 15

Connecticut Voices for Children 16

(April 2009), 5-6 (available at

Education, Vol. 74 (2001), 74.

Undocumented Youth,” Latino Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Autumn 2006), 212-231.

Brief No. 8 (2007), 9 (available at http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/file_SB8_HispEd_fnl.pdf).

Connecticut Voices for Children 17

Survey 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau (available at

Survey 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau (available at

Connecticut Voices for Children 18

Survey 3-Year Estimates, United State Census Bureau

II,” United States Census Bureau (available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/apm/cpstc_altpov.html).

Connecticut Voices for Children 19

Exceptional. Without Exception.,” Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement (2010) (available at

America’s Children (July 2010) (available at http://www.voices.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Are-All-Americas-Children-

Connecticut Voices for Children 20

are not presented for groups of fewer than 20 students.

or if it was an issue in multiple subject areas.

Harvard Graduate School of Education Alumni of Color Conference (March 4, 2011).

Education (2011) (available at http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/EllDT.aspx).

Connecticut Voices for Children 21

(2010) (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?A=2618&Q=320820).

(2011) (available at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?A=2618&Q=320820). ELLs may be permitted various

Connecticut Voices for Children 22

margins of error, especially in very wealthy communities.

Connecticut Voices for Children 23

Connecticut Voices for Children 24

Student Performance Data – Goal Level

Goal Level Scores for

Goal Scores for 12 Districts with Large Hispanic Populations

Student Performance Data – Proficiency Level

Proficiency Level Scores for

Student Performance Data – Goal Level,

Goal Level Scores Excluding ELL Students for

% Eighth Graders At or Above Goal in Math Achievement Gap*

You might also like