Excerpts from the Senate Report (Episodic Barriers)
Working File
January 1, 1982

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Memo from Brittain to File Re: Interview with Robert Nearin on May 13, 1991, 1991. a2484b62-a946-f011-877a-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/25e58358-5c80-417e-8c03-e496c9115337/memo-from-brittain-to-file-re-interview-with-robert-nearin-on-may-13-1991. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
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.