Memo from Brittain to File Re: Interview with Robert Nearin on May 13, 1991

    T 
3 
C 

HE 
~N Iv ERSITY OF 65 Elizabeth Street 

Hartford, CT 06105-2290 

ONNECTICUT ATTORNEY PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIAL 

School of Law 

  

MAY 13, 1991 

TO: SHEFF FILE 

FROM: JOHN BRITTAIN 

SUBJECT: INTERVIEW WITH ROBERT NEARIN ON MAY 13, 1991 

Bob Nearin is the head of evaluations for the Hartford School 
District. His office generates computerize data on various aspects 
of student performance. Martha, Phil and I interviewed him 
concerning the attached research questions. 

1. There 1s a correlation between schools with a high 
concentration of poverty and poor performance on the Connecticut 
Mastery Tests (CMT), but no clear documents prove it. Essentially 
we need data by classroom, CMT scores and percent of poverty 
students. The best and only data on poverty in the district comes 
from the students on AFDC and students receiving free or reduced 
milk/lunch. Joe Dougherty, the Special Funds Coordinator maintains 
the stats on poverty. To compare the effects of poverty on the 
performance of children, we need data on the mean scores of poor 
children in different classrooms in different schools in the 
district. Bob will inform us on the feasibility of producing this 
information. 

2 To determine if students, who have lived in poverty for 
several years, perform less well on the CMT, we need data at 2-3 
points in time of their test scores and their poverty status. The 
district keeps better records on the percentage of poor students in 
a school than in a classroom. Virtually no information is 
currently available on which student comes from a poor family. 
However, the district might be able to determine the actual poor 
student (her name remains anonymous to the public) for our request 
of information. Again, both Bob and we must make a further 
evaluation of the feasibility. 

3. If the district can identify the students on the free or 
reduced milk/lunch program, Bob can match them with their CMT 
scores. This request requires further evaluation too. 

4. For the rate of growth of Hartford School District students on 
the CMT or SAT, Bob referred us to Bob Gable at UConn and Joe 
Constantine at the District. 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 

“a
s 
e
s
 

 



  

Sheff Case Interview Page 2 
Robert Nearin, Hartford School District 
May 13, 1991 

5. Students with limited English proficiency do not take the CMT. 
He knows of a study nearly ready for Board approval concerning a 
longitudinal review of bilingual education. The report will 
confirm existing views. The longer in bilingual education, the 
better the educational performance. The earlier in bilingual 
education, the earlier out. We must clarify bilingual education, 
limited English proficiency and special education classifications. 
Bob referred us to Jack Hubert in the District. I made a note to 
ask Hubert about the "MAT." 

6. Bob did not know the exemption rate for the CMT. He guessed 
that probably few students were exempted. We did not determine any 
other source of this information. 

7» For any data on a comparison of curricula between Hartford and 
the surrounding communities, Bob referred us to Mary Wilson, 
Assistant Director for Curriculum and Staff Development. 

8. Data, which shows better performance of students on lower 
level objectives than high order sills on the CMT, are contained in 
the last group of test results. 

Next, we identified documents and their location: 

a) CMT data. Received. 
b) Matched scores, 1987-88. Received. 
C) Internal studies on performance of students. See the 

longitudinal study previously mentioned to be released in the 
future. | 

d) Mobility rates. In-out measure. See Jeff Forman. 
e) Absentee-tardy rates. Percentage of stability 

statistics. Location undetermined. 
E) Analysis of SAT scores. See Joe Constantine. 
g) "Quick Facts." Past yearly booklets published by the 

District containing numerous factual categories. Bob Nearin. 
h) Strategic Plan. To be released in near future. 
i) Chapter 1 - matched scores. See Joe Dougherty. 
3) Project Concern Evaluation. See Mary Carroll, Ed Iwaniki 

and John Allison. 

In addition, Bob made notes of all of our requests for 
information. He will determine the amount of work to collect the 
information, the cost and the necessary approval. The next 
scheduled meeting to analyze this report is on Wednesday, June 5, 
1991 at 11:30 a.m. in his office. 

 



  

    Z 
Ep: 

  

msg 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS zr 
WY, { Mears 

YP -X KN 

: Ig Is there a correlation between schools wich a Aifgh 

concentration of poverty and poor performance on the stery 

tests? rue — wm 7 Sse £ mar 
¢ Jie Doser > ww OC. | ere 2 MES oven 

2. Do students who have lived in poverty status for a n er of 

years perform less well on the mastery tests? 

    

what are the median CMT scores for all free/reduced lunch 

students by classroom? 

LF
S)
 

4, What is rate of growth on mastery tests over the last five 

years? What is rate of growth on SAT scores over the past 

five years? How does this compare to the state's average 

rate of growth? 

Bs Can you separate out bilingual students from others in 

analysis of mastery test scores? In what other ways can you 

separate? 

6. what is the exemption rate on mastery test scores? How does 

this compare to the surrounding communities? 

7. Have you done any curriculum comparison between Hartford and 

surrounding communities? 

  

2. Do you have data which shows students are doing better on 

lower level objectives than higher order skills on mastery 

tests? 

Documents 

1. Longitudinal mastery priority school data analysis. 

a. Group test results for FY 1990 and 1987 and matched scores 

report for 1987-19885. 

3. Studies done internally on mastery test scores. 

4, Studies done on mobility rates of students. 

5 Mean and median of the absentee and tardy rates. 

6. Analysis of SAT scores.