“Considering the fact that Woodstock ranks in the lowest 3% of all of the towns in the state in terms of spending per pupil…the Woodstock school system deserves an A”
Today, August 11th, the Norwich Bull published numerous articles on reactions in eastern Connecticut to the publication of 2006 CMT scores for all of the towns in the state. The CT Department of Education has published this information on the Internet on an elegant website www.cmtreports.com that allows one to parse the CMT results by town, groups of towns (for comparison), by grade level, and by various demographic categories. A tremendous amount of data is presented. Thus, it is difficult to do justice to this information at the Café. Nevertheless, I thought I would start with some preliminary observations. It will be up to the citizens of Woodstock who care about education to examine this information first hand to evaluate how students and the school system are performing, at the taxpayers expense.
We have heard much supportive commentary and vitriol about our public school system here at the Café, in the Villager, in numerous town meetings, and causal conversation among friends. Some people don’t like standard tests because these tests contain cultural, demographic, social, and cognitive biases. And I wish to refer all readers to the elegant statement by ‘Cyssan’ regarding the value of our school system that cannot be measured by standardized testing. Nevertheless, the results of such standard tests may provide certain insights into the efficacy of education systems. Furthermore, the federal government has mandated goals in education with achievement measured by standard testing. So the results of these statewide standardized tests are recognized both as a measure of performance of students and school systems.
For the purpose of this article I thought it would be best to simplify the numbers rather than summarize all of the numbers. The first simplification I chose was to average the math and reading test scores for each grade rather than present 2 numbers. This cuts the data down by one-third since I have not included new third test scores on “writing�. Next I have limited this presentation to Woodstock, Pomfret, Brooklyn, Thompson, Killingly, and one of the most affluent Towns in Connecticut, Darien with scores at the top of the food chain. To reduce the numbers further when talking about specific grades, I will focus on grades 3, 6, and 8, but I will also describe results that are averages of the scores from grades 3 through 8. I will leave it to you to fill in any gaps by accessing the “CMT reports� website. For additional information relevant to these surrounding towns I would like to refer you to an April 18th article at the Café entitled “Woodstock vs. Area Public Schools – Spending per pupil, income demographics & school rankings� that contains additional information taken from state websites.
Regarding grade 3 students in Woodstock, 74.4 %, scored above goal set by “No Student Left Behind”. This same statistic for Pomfret, Brooklyn, Thompson, Killingly, state-wide, and Darien was, 76.7%, 61.9%, 57.2%, 54.3%, 55.4%, and 84.4% respectively. Regarding grade 6, 74.8% of Woodstock students scored above goal while students from Pomfret, Brooklyn, Thompson, Killingly, state-wide, and Darien scored above goal 71.2%, 57.2%, 46.4%, 59.6%, 61.1%, and 87.4% of the time. Regarding grade 8, 84.7% of Woodstock students scored above goal while students from Pomfret, Brooklyn, Thompson, Killingly, state-wide, and Darien scored above goal 86.3%, 54%, 52.8%, 61.7%, 61.1%, and 92.6% of the time. Before such goals were set by “No Child Left Behindâ€?, the state measured and compared performance of school systems using a lower threshold of performance. This threshold is called a “proficiency scoreâ€?. For grade 8, 92.6% of Woodstock students scored above proficiency while students from Pomfret, Brooklyn, Thompson, Killingly, state-wide, and Darien scored above proficiency 93.9%, 67.9%, 65.9%, 79.2%, 76.4%, and 96.5% of the time.
If we examine the average performance for all grades 3 through 8 using the “proficiency scores�, 84.7% of Woodstock students scored above the proficiency level while students from Pomfret, Brooklyn, Thompson, Killingly, and Darien scored above proficiency 90.6%, 76%, 66.9%, 80.3%, and 95.2% of the time.
Considering the fact that Woodstock ranks in the lowest 3% of all of the towns in the state in terms of spending per pupil, and has a relatively high student to teacher ratio, the Woodstock K-8 school system deserves an A.
Yes, Administrators, teachers, parents, and students all deserve credit for this. This is a joint effort. We can all be very proud. Our schools get a bad wrap, but it is usually coming from those who have their own issues. I believe there will be many school systems who will be jealous for what we have done here. Keeping costs down and still maintaining quality. This is the trend in American public education and we are showing that it can be done. By keeping costs down, our town remains affordable, yet not cheap. Rural but not redneck.
Diverse, but not devisive (except for a few). We can continue to make Woodstock a great place to live, raise a family, and retire into.
I don’t think I would give much credit to administrators for the kids’ fine showing on the tests. Administrators did nothing but whine about how they don’t have enough money, defied the board of finance over the budget, and undermined the Academy. The main credit goes to the teachers. The point of contact for learning is between teacher and student in the classroom. Parents deserve credit for things like reading to their children, assuring they do their homework, taking time to help them understand, and instilling a value for learning. The kids’ performance is essentially a product of the environment created for them by their teachers and parents. I commend the teachers of Woodstock.
Let’s not take anything way from the Administrators or Board of Education. These people are advocates for the school system, and we need that advocacy given the school bashing by some in the Town. The school system works well because of all involved largely because of good leadership.
This of course, could all change if this Town remains too affordable as to let a lower economic element in. You all ain’t seen a burden on the tax payers until we get some of those rukas types of children and families heah! Part of the reason we do so well with our school and are able to spend so little is ’cause we got GOOD people here. And that can all change. All that can change.
Elite Pig, you’re right, but take a look at your planning and zoning regs. There’s where you’re gonna take it on the chin. Low income housing will be the builders’ choice as soon as the building boom fizzles in This area.
Mr. Klusek- you have piqued my interest. Would you please explain your comment? Can we actually stop a builder from choosing low income tenements? I have heard that Woodstock more than meets the “low income” quota for the state criteria already, in small and modest homes throughout our town- but what is it you are saying? Would you elaborate?
Elite Pig, A little over a year ago our planning and zoning regs were amended. In the new regs wording was added that includes provisions for “affordable” or low income housing. In addition to that, a provision was added that allows developers to build 20% more units of this type of housing than would otherwise be allowed in more traditional deveopments. I question why this additional incentive was given to developers.
My thinking is that a number of developers have had considerable influence on our Planning and Zoning commision for these new regulations. Why, you ask? The answer is quite simple and makes a lot of sense if you’re a developer. The time will come-probably soon- when our current housing boom slows down. With less to do, the developer will turn to our new regs and choose to build affordable housing. There will be funds available from State and Federal agencies that have been pushing hard for more “affordable housing”, especially in towns like Woodstock. That stinks in itself, but especially vexing is the provision that allows them to build more of the units than would otherwise be allowed.
In addition to those regs, the minimum road frontage requirement for a house lot was reduced from 200 feet to 100 feet.
With all the new commercial development going on in (especially in nearby southeastern CT)our region of the state, there will be even more pressure to provide housing for workers that are streaming in to build thes new developments. For example, casino workers, employees and laborers at Utopia and other projects will need housing and we’ve got the space. It’s only a matter of a short time before the pressure spreads here and the designers of our planning and zoning regs know it.
We moved here because of the demographics. ….ie: nice people and families who also take an interest in raising their kids- even though they may be in daycare. Someone from P&Z, got anything to say about what Joe Klusek has commented? Why the “affordable housing” claus???? We already meet that quota with Bungee Lake…….why do this to Woodstock???
I’m not from P&Z, but the simple answer is GREED.
I don’t want to throw cold water on our results and think they are admirable. But at the 09.14.06 BOE meeting (last night), the results were explained to the Board by the superintendent. While we are doing quite well and have a plan to address ‘strand’ areas that are not up to par, we did get a ‘free skate’ for last years’s testing. I apologise for not having the precise verbage, but the gist is that the eventual goal for NCLB (No Child Left Behind) is that 100% of the students are tested and meeting the proficiency standard. I’m not sure what year that requirement must be met, but the result is that there were probably a lot of other communities like us that received a sanctioned nod for the last round of testing. It just should be understood that our results on this year’s testing may look like we are not doing as well, but it is more about the phasing in more special education students and elevating proficiency goals. I’ll see if I can run down more precise information, but I just wanted to put the reported results in perspective because that fact wasn’t part of the article.
I just happened to come across this and wondered what was meant by “haven’t we met that with Lake Bungee?” Can you explain what “affordable housing clauses” have to do with Lake Bungee? This exchange took place between “elite pig” and “sour grapes” on August 20, 2006. Thank you for your anticipated response.
Sandra – I just reread the comment thread for this article after posting your comment. My response (only my opinion/gut understanding) would be to say that in the recent revamping of our P&Z regulations, there was language put in place to guarantee there is some percentage of ‘low income’ housing available. Some of the commenters are concerned that when the ‘housing bubble’ bursts, the builders in town will then switch over to developing ‘low-income’ housing which can be done at a higher density (by our new regs) than regular housing. They would want to do this (according to one of the commenters) because there is federal and state monies available for such endeavors. If they get government funding to build high density housing, their businesses and workers continue to prosper, but the community is left with having to provide increased services, especially in education costs.
The mention of Lake Bungee (my supposition) is to offset the argument that builder/developers would be able to switch to building high density/low income because the housing around the lakes probably surpasses the fed/state minimum necessary standard.
Hope that answers your question. Welcome to the site.
Thank you for responding….If you have only one more moment I’d be appreciative…. am I to assume that the builder/developers might plan to build high density/low income properties in the Lake Bungee area or did the writer mean that Lake Bungee IS a high density/low income area? I know you don’t have a crystal ball so to speak, but if you had an opinion, I’d appreciate hearing it.
Again, thank you.
Sandra – You are quite right to say that I don’t have a crystal ball. Back to your question, and understand this is my perspective and/or educated guess. While there may be regulations that allow builders/developers to build higher density housing, I don’t see an economic incentive to do so unless the project would qualify for federal or state support. I understand the matter, the large population around the lakes would preclude Woodstock from qualifying for this kind of governmental support. I know of no plan (or even consideration) for any low income development of the lakes area. As far as high density, I think the lake are about as dnese as anybody in Wo9odstock wants them to be. So, if you are worried about that, I don’t think you should lose too much sleep.
I heard that other statistics do NOT indicate that Woodstock is in the lowest 3% of spending.
Even on the stats used by the BOE, I understand that Glastonbury spends about the same amount per student as Woodstock and they have an excellent and effective school system.
When will people realize the TWO MOST IMPORTANT factors when it comes to quality of education and student performance are #1) the caliber of the teachers and their curriculum and 2) parental involvement and encouragement of their children. It’s NOT all about dollars….