City mayors and educators seek more money for what keeps failing

Posted bycxpowellPosted inUncategorizedTags:, , , , , ,

By Chris Powell

Governor Lamont welcomed the General Assembly back to work two weeks ago with a remarkable exhortation.

“We have a longer legislative session this cycle,” the governor said, “giving us an opportunity to get in the weeds, lift up the hood — not always arguing about more money but better results.”

To regrow Connecticut’s cities, first understand their decline

Tong seeks a new euphemism for nullifying immigration law

Connecticut’s prosperity depends on more housing

Five days later the mayors and school superintendents of Connecticut’s five largest cities — Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, Stamford, and Waterbury — gathered at the Capitol and showed that they hadn’t heard what the governor said, or, if they had, didn’t think he meant it.

For the mayors and superintendents urged state government to increase financial support to city schools by $545 million, as if spending more in the name of education, especially in the cities, isn’t what Connecticut has been doing without ever improving student performance since the Education Enhancement Act was passed in 1986.

In recent years the cities haven’t been able even to get their children to school reliably, with a quarter to half of them being chronically absent. How is another $545 million per biennium going to get them to school? Will the money hire parents and chauffeurs for the kids? No one put that question to the mayors and superintendents.

Journalism last September about the recent Hartford Public High School graduate who confessed her illiteracy and is suing her school system for damages recently prompted journalism showing that city school systems have formal policies enforcing their longstanding practice of social promotion. That is, the school systems, in writing, explicitly forbid teachers from giving failing grades to students even if they learn nothing and don’t show up for class. 

How will giving another $545 million per biennium for those school systems stop this fraud? No one put that question to the mayors and superintendents either.

Four decades of throwing more money at schools in Connecticut have proven that more spending in the name of education lacks any correlation with student performance. More “education” spending correlates only with the quality of the cars driven by teachers and administrators, the recipients of most “education” spending.

The governor and state legislators have yet to recognize — or don’t yet dare acknowledge — that social promotion policy is an admission of permanent failure, an admission that educators have given up on educating. It is also an admission that 95% of education is a matter of parenting. 

About a quarter of Connecticut’s children are growing up in a home with only one parent. In the cities most children have only one parent at home, if that many. Such children suffer much neglect, and their parents know that their children will be promoted and graduated without learning anything or even attending and that their schools rationalize and accept this neglect. 

This is a disaster and paying teachers and school administrators more hasn’t fixed it and won’t fix it.

But there is good cause for increasing state government spending on local education in one respect: “special education.” That’s the extra schooling and programming provided to the most neglected, disturbed, and handicapped children. 

Since it is a matter of social welfare, “special education” should be financed entirely by the state, but most of its expense is borne by the schools attended by “special education” students. The expense is heaviest in the impoverished cities, where most such children live. 

State government should have assumed all “special education” costs many years ago as a matter of fairness to property taxpayers in the cities, where such taxes are oppressive. But state financing for general school purposes should not be increased in the cities and anywhere else until it can be shown to make any difference apart from the cars school employees drive.

FLAMING HYPOCRISY: Last week’s award for hypocrisy in Connecticut goes to state Attorney General William Tong who, speaking in New London at a forum for immigrants, denounced the incoming national administration of Donald Trump. “They don’t care about the rule of law or precedent,” Tong said even as he promised to try to nullify federal immigration law and precedent himself.

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)

One thought on “City mayors and educators seek more money for what keeps failing”

  1. From ChatGPT:

    When it comes to supporting at-risk fourth graders, Florida tends to perform better overall than Connecticut in terms of narrowing achievement gaps and improving outcomes for these students.

    Here are a few key points to consider:1. Florida’s Focus on Closing Achievement Gaps:

    • Florida has made significant strides in improving educational outcomes for at-risk students, particularly those from low-income families, English language learners, and students of color. The state’s policies, including targeted interventions, standardized testing, and early literacy programs, have been credited with helping raise achievement for these groups.
    • Programs like Florida’s Read to Learn initiative, which emphasizes early intervention and reading instruction, have been particularly successful in supporting at-risk students, particularly in elementary grades. Florida’s efforts to ensure that struggling readers receive targeted support have helped the state improve performance for at-risk groups on the NAEP.

    2. Educational Reforms in Florida:

    • Florida has adopted a range of reforms aimed specifically at improving outcomes for at-risk students. These include school choice options (e.g., charter schools and vouchers), which give families in low-income communities access to better educational opportunities.
    • The state has also invested in intensive support for struggling readers, including diagnostic tools and individualized interventions to ensure students are reading at grade level by the time they reach fourth grade. These efforts have resulted in substantial gains for Florida’s at-risk students, helping close gaps between disadvantaged students and their peers.

    3. Connecticut’s Achievement Gaps:

    • While Connecticut performs well overall on the NAEP, it has some of the largest achievement gaps in the country, especially between affluent and low-income students, and between White students and Black or Hispanic students. At-risk students in Connecticut, particularly those from lower-income households, tend to score lower than their peers, and the gap has been more difficult to close.
    • Despite significant investments in education, Connecticut has struggled to provide consistent support to at-risk students across its diverse districts, which results in disparities in educational outcomes. Although there are efforts underway to improve support, Connecticut has not made as much progress in narrowing the achievement gaps for at-risk students as Florida has.

    4. NAEP Performance for At-Risk Groups:

    • On the NAEP, Florida’s at-risk students (e.g., economically disadvantaged students, students of color, and English language learners) generally perform better than similar groups in Connecticut. Florida’s educational reforms targeting equity and academic achievement have allowed it to outperform many other states when it comes to the performance of at-risk fourth graders.
    • Connecticut, on the other hand, has high overall performance, but the achievement gap between at-risk students and their peers remains wide. The state’s resources are often more concentrated in wealthier districts, and this results in significant differences in educational outcomes.

    Conclusion:

    Florida has proven to be more effective than Connecticut in improving the academic performance of at-risk fourth graders, particularly when it comes to narrowing achievement gaps and providing targeted interventions. While Connecticut performs well overall, its achievement gaps are among the widest in the nation, especially for low-income and minority students. Florida’s focus on literacy, early intervention, and equity has led to stronger outcomes for its at-risk student populations.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment