waterbury cmt investigative report 9-13-11

8/3/2019 Waterbury CMT Investigative Report 9-13-11

1/75

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTfor the

CONNECTICUT STATEDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Regarding Allegations of TestingIrregularities during the 2011 ConnecticutMastery Test at Hapeville ElementarySchool, Waterbury Public Schools

September 13, 2011Prepared by:Frederick L. DorseySiegel, O'Connor,O'Donnell & Beck, P.C.150 Trumbull StreetHartford, Connecticut 06103

MANAGEMENT ONLY LASOR &EMPL..OYMENT LAW


2/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011

I. BACKGROUNDOn August 2, 2011, the State Department of Education ("SDE") retained the

undersigned to conduct an investigation as to whether and to what extent testingirregularities occurred during the 2011 administration of the Connecticut Mastery Test("GMT") at Hapeville Elementary School ("Hopeville") in the Waterbury Public Schools("Waterbury" or the "District"). Specifically, the SDE, through its Bureau of StudentAssessment, determined that the results of such testing conducted in Grades 3, 4 and 5 atHopeville warranted investigation to determine whether the results were invalid due tocompromised test security and/or breaches in testing procedures. The SDE's primaryconcern over the validity of the 2011 Hopeville GMT results was the extreme rise in thesescores compared with previous years, as well as the disparity between such high scoresand the scores in other Waterbury schools, in other school districts in Waterbury's DistrictReference Group ("DRG"), and the statewide averages. In addition to the unusually highscores, it appeared that many of the correct multiple choice responses that had been"bubbled in" by students in their answer booklets showed erasure marks changing to adifferent answer. Remarkably, out of all of the responses that had been erased andchanged to a different answer, the vast majority of changes made were from an incorrectanswer to a correct one, representing a statistical anomaly.

Prior to commencing interviews of staff and students involved in the 2011 CMTadministration at Hopeville and members of the Waterbury Administration, which aredescribed in detail below, the SDE provided me with the following general informationabout the CMT, as well as specific concerns about the Hopeville test results.

A. CMTBackground Information The CMT is a mandatory statewide assessment of public school students thatincludes timed subtests in reading, writing, and mathematics for each grade level

subject to testing (currently, Grades 3 to 8), as well as an additional subtest inscience that is administered only to Grades 5 and 8. The specific subtestsadministered to each grade level are: Degrees of Reading Power, ReadingComprehension, Direct Assessment of Writing, Editing & Revising, andMathematics. Students sit for the GMT over a series of days in March andparticipate in 45- to 70-minute test sessions, with up to two sessions per day and abreak between the two sessions of at least fifteen minutes.

On multiple choice questions, students are required to "bubble in" their selections intheir test booklets. For open-ended questions, students must write out theirresponses in a test booklet, using cursive or manuscript handwriting. The regular testing procedures vary depending on the subtest administered.Generally, students are read instructions by a professional staff member who

serves as a proctor. The proctor then instructs the students to begin the test andstarts to keep time. The students who are not receiving contrary accommodations

Page 1 of44


3/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011due to disabilities or English language limitations are then responsible for silentlyreading each item and providing a response.

At the elementary school level, the standard GMT procedures require students to sitfor the test sessions with their regular classroom teachers. Students who aredisruptive during the testing session are removed from the classroom and requiredto take the test in an alternate setting. In addition, students who are absent fromschool on a regularly scheduled test day are required to "make up" the missedsessions; also done in small group settings.

Students with disabilities who are determined to be eligible for accommodationsduring the GMT pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("specialeducation students") or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (,,504students"), and students who are not proficient in English, sometimes require testingin small groups. Additional test accommodations for such students may include, butare not limited to, typed responses, directions and/or test items read out loud, andextended time to complete testing.

Student performance on the GMT is measured by placing scores into five levels,which are, from lowest to highest, Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, Goal, andAdvanced.B. Hapeville 2011CMT Scores

For both the 2010 and 2011 administrations of the GMT, Hopeville scores werehigher than those of other Waterbury schools, as well as the statewide averages.Scores on the Mathematics subtest for all three grades in question (third, fourth andfifth grades) at Hopeville were especially high in 2011: For third grade, the averageHopeville score was 280, with an average of 244 for the rest of the WaterburyPublic Schools and 259 as the statewide average; for fourth grade, the 2011Hapeville average was 306, while the rest of Waterbury averaged at 245 and thestatewide at 268; for fifth grade, the 2011 Hopeville average was 327, with theWaterbury and statewide averages at 255 and 273, respectively. These scoresresults had 100% of third grade Hopeville students testing at or above the proficientlevel in math in 2011. (See, Data Analysis by SDE, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.)

In an initial internal investigation conducted by the Waterbury Public Schools, the2010 GMT scores taken by third and fourth graders at Hopeville was compared tothe 2011 CMT scores of the same student population, taken again as fourth andfifth graders, respectively. The gains between the two years were enormous. Forexample, in 2010, only 37% of Hopeville fourth graders scored at or above goal inreading. This same group in 2011, as fifth graders, scored goal at 100%, a gain of63% in comparing the two years. (See, Waterbury Board of Education InvestigationReport, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.)(\

Page 2 of 44


4/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13, 2011 Waterbury redistricted certain elementary schools for the 2010-11 school year,causing a number of students to transfer into Hapeville, while a number of Hapevillestudents transferred to another Waterbury elementary school. The fourth and fifth

grade students who transferred into Hapeville for 2010-11 scored significantlyhigher on the CMT then they had done the prior year as third and fourth graders inanother Waterbury school. For example, 69.2% of the student population that tookthe math subtest at another school as third graders in 2010, and then took the CMTas fourth graders at Hapeville in 2011, improved from the lowest to the highestlevels, while the District averaged only 2.1% of its third grade students making sucha gain as fourth graders in 2011. Conversely, 20.4% of the student population thathad taken the math subtest at Hapeville as fourth graders in 2010, and then tookthe GMT as fifth graders at another school in 2011, fell from the highest levels to thelowest. (See, Ex. 2.)

According to the Bureau of Student Assessment, of the seven school districtsincluded in DRG I, which includes Waterbury, only 8 of the fourth grade studentswhose 2010 GMT scores were Level 1 improved all the way to Level 5 as fifthgraders. Of these 8 students, 6 took the 2011 CMT at Hapeville.II. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES

My investigation consisted of a review of the information and documents shared bythe SDE, referenced above in Section I, followed by interviews of several Hapevilleemployees, Waterbury Central Office Staff and two students. A complete list ofinterviewees is attached hereto as Appendix A. These interviews began on August 5,2011 and continued through September 7, 2011. I also had informal meetings related tothe scheduling of employee interviews with Ron Frost, Director of Personnel for Waterbury,who was exceedingly helpful in arranging both scheduling and meeting places for thenumerous interviews. In addition, I conducted a site visit of Hopeville and revieweddocuments recovered by teachers from their classrooms, with the knowledge and consentof central office administration.III. GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT BY SUBJECT AREA

The purpose of this section is to provide an overview, in narrative form organized bysubject area, of the information provided by interviewees and gleaned from the exhibitsattached hereto.A. Literacy TeamEach Hopeville employee confirmed that, as in past years, Hopeville had a "LiteracyTeam" in place during the 2010-11 school year and that this team consisted of a group offaculty members who would be responsible for oversight and administration of the school's

GMT preparation efforts. Several interviewees indicated that the Literacy Team was alsoresponsible for administrative duties related to the handling of the CMT test materials (e.g.,

Page 3 of 44


5/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.CSeptember 13, 2011packing up test materials), while other interviewees believed that this role was handled bya smaller group within the team.

Some interviewees listed the following individuals as members of the Literacy Teamor those with specific duties related to the CMT: Mrs. Perugini, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Smith,Mrs. Labbe, Mrs. Bette, and Mrs. Giampetruzzi. As a retired teacher, Mrs. Dabbo wasasked by the Mrs. Moulthrop to return on a part-time basis to assist with test preparationand proctoring of small-group testing, and was considered part of the 2010-11 LiteracyTeam by some staff members. Mrs. Moulthrop, as Principal, also provided guidance andoversight of the Literacy Team's activities. Some interviewees believed that Mrs. Ramirez,Vice-Principal, was also part of the Literacy Team; although, Mrs. Ramirez stated that herrole in the CMT preparation and related activities was limited to very specific tasks whenneeded to "cover" for Mrs. Moulthrop when she was not available. For example, Mrs.Ramirez remembers spending a day helping with the packaging of test materials, but doesnot consider this an activity conducted by the Literacy Team. Based on all of theinterviewees' statements, I conclude that the Literacy Team included the followingindividuals: Mrs. Perugini, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Labbe, Mrs. Bette, and Mrs.Giampetruzzi, with occasional involvement of Mrs. Dabbo and Mrs. Moulthrop.

\I

Mr. Smith was the first member of the Literacy Team who was interviewed andprovided detail about its purpose and activities. He said that the team was focused onguided reading activities and on strengthening vocabulary. Mr. Smith also distinguishedthe "team" responsible for handling the completed test booklets as differing from theLiteracy Team, identifying "team" members as himself, Mrs. Bette, Mrs. Giampetruzzi, andMrs. Ramirez. He said that this smaller group was formed to handle the erasure of straymarks in the test booklets, because over the past few years, the shipment center had"yelled at us" for having too many stray marks. He then said that, in addition to this group,more people were needed to box up the tests.

The information provided by the interviewees did not clearly indicate a specificleader who spearheaded the efforts of the Literacy Team, or the school's general GMTpreparation efforts. However, Mrs. Perugini was often mentioned by the other teachers,including the rest of the Literacy Team, as having a good deal of involvement with GMT-related activities. They seemed to point to her as having a leadership type role as theschool moved forward with preparation for the exam. When asked specifically about Mrs.Perugini's role at the school, and in specific regarding her duties concerning the GMT, Mr.Smith remarked that her job description had seemed to change over the course of theschool year, probably due in part to another literacy teacher leaving mid-year (MichelleLucian), which caused Mrs. Perugini to pick up some duties. Despite her apparently heavyinvolvement in GMT preparation and testing procedures, Mrs. Perugini acted during herinterviews as if she knew little or nothing regarding many aspects of the preparation ortesting process.

Page 4 of 44


6/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011B. Emphasis on Improved Student Performance in 2010-11During the grade level meetings beginning with the start of the 2010-11 school year,Mrs. Moulthrop made a point of emphasizing the importance of raising student scores on

the CMT in order to avoid the forming of a parent committee that would have the right to beinvolved in educational decision-making for the school.' According to the teachers, Mrs.Moulthrop's tone was very serious and clearly expressed that this result would beextremely bad and was to be avoided. Some interviewees suggested that Mrs. Moulthroprepeated this theme throughout the school year, while others did not recall any suchspecific statements by Mrs. Moulthrop at any meeting. However, all interviewees notedMrs. Moulthrop's year-to-year emphasis on achieving high test scores and the pressureshe applied to improve student performance.

Mrs. Perugini stated that she did not recall discussing the potential parent-runcommittee during a meeting at the beginning of the year, but heard about this throughoutthe year. She also said that she did not think this was an important issue or that Mrs.Moulthrop was too concerned with it. I did not find this statement credible in light of theconsistency with which most other teachers, particularly the classroom teachers andliteracy staff, stated that Mrs. Moulthrop heavily emphasized, and seemed very upset andconcerned with, improving student performance in order to avoid this oversight committeefrom being imposed on the school.

Mrs. Moulthrop confirmed that she discussed with staff the issue of raising the CMTscores for 2011 "all the time", but said that this was in reference to new regulationsconcerning the potential creation of a parent committee to oversee the school. She saidthat she thought this was a change related to the No Child Left Behind Act. She said thatshe told the staff that she would like this not to happen, but that she never said that itwould not happen.

C. Hopeville's CMTPreparation ActivitiesAll of the interviewees with past experience at Hapeville confirmed that the school's

year-to-year CMT preparation activities were fairly consistent. Generally, Mrs. Moulthropwould hold several meetings throughout the school year to discuss preparation activitiesand progress. The meetings led by Mrs. Moulthrop consisted of meetings of the LiteracyTeam, "grade-level meetings" of the staff assigned to a particular grade involved in testing,or larger meetings for multiple grade-level staff and departments. Teachers were given theproctor's instructions and told to become familiar with them prior to testing.

The Literacy Team was largely responsible for developing test preparationexercises and materials, and for distributing these to the appropriate classroom, bilingualand special education teachers. According to Mr. Smith, the Literacy Team members haddifferent specialties to assist the classroom teachers in CMT preparation activities. Mr.1 It is assumed that by "parent committee," the interviewees were referring to a "school governance council,"as that term is defined in Section 10-223e(g) of the Connecticut General Statutes.

Page 5 of44


7/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011Smith was responsible for the guided reading program, which involved meeting with third,fourth and fifth grade teachers, and discussing open-ended responses and multiple choicequestions with them. The students had a guided reading block for 4 out of the 5 rotatingschool days (Days A through E), and on the remaining day he would have grade levelmeetings with the teachers. Mr. Smith's counterpart for these activities was Mrs. Hanson.The same activities were conducted for bilingual students by Mrs. Bette. Mrs. Hanson andMrs. Bette's descriptions of their activities were consistent with Mr. Smith's.

The majority of classroom activities related to GMT preparation consisted offamiliarizing students with the general content and format of the various GMT subtests andadministering practice tests. Many of the practice tests were State-authorized samplesbased on prior administrations of the official GMT, while others were professionallydeveloped and distributed sample test materials from private companies that provided in-service training and seminars for educators on test preparation and methodology. The useof authorized sample test materials from the SDE or similar materials produced by privatecompanies is an acceptable test preparation practice. In addition, the school's literacystaff spent time throughout the school year conceptualizing, developing, and finalizingpractice reading comprehension and writing subtests for students in all three grades. Forexample, the Literacy Team would develop questions following a reading comprehensionpassage similar to those appearing on the GMT to allow students to practice reading andresponding to such questions. This was typically a school year-long process that had itsgenesis in a series of fall meetings and led to dissemination of the practice test materials inearly spring, so that classroom teachers could begin using the materials in the daysleading up to the GMT.

Many interviewees confirmed that, beginning 4-6 weeks before the GMT, regularcurriculum time normally used for "specials" (i.e., art, music, and library classes) wassuspended and, instead, used to administer practice GMT questions in various subtests: Mrs. Moulthrop claimed that she called the Assistant Superintendent, Dr. PaulSequeira, for permission to use about four weeks' time spent on music, art, and

library classes to work on GMT reading activities, and that this permission wasgranted. She opined that the practice questions were related to the subject area inquestion, e.g., during art class students would answer practice test questions basedon an art-related reading passage. Most teachers, however, felt that specials wereinstead "taken away" and the time used solely for test preparation activities, with norelation to the subject area in question, and that these sessions were actually led byone of the seven Hopeville reading specialists. It was unclear, based on theinterviewee statements, whether special permission from either the District or Statelevel was required in order to conduct test preparation activities during class timededicated to specials, and whether any such permission had been obtained. Mrs.Moulthrop commented that no such permission was needed anyway, because ofthe relation of the practice test materials to the subject at issue. I later asked Dr.Sequeira to confirm this story, and he denied giving Mrs. Moulthrop permission touse class time for specials on GMT preparation of any kind.

Page 6 of 44


8/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel~ o'connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.

September 13, 2011

Mrs. Giampetruzzi stated that, about 25 days prior to the GMT, Mrs. Moulthropannounced a "plan" to take away the students' classes in music, art, and library todo various CMT preparation activities. Specifically, in place of library class, Mrs.Giampetruzzi and the librarian would conduct practice DRP questions; during art,another teacher would do editing and revising activities; and a math coach wouldwork with the students during music. Mrs. Giampetruzzi had never heard of thiskind of plan, and agreed that music, art, and library are parts of the regularcurriculum that Mrs. Moulthrop purposely suspended during this period to bereplaced by GMT prep. In addition, during the same 25 days, Mrs. Moulthrop gaveMrs. Giampetruzzi and others "goal band kids" in all three grades to work with."Goal band kids" were students who had not quite made goal and, therefore,needed a push on the GMT. Mrs. Moulthrop had Mrs. Giampetruzzi work with thesestudents in lieu of her regular afternoon schedule of servicing her bilingual K-2students. Mrs. Moulthrop said not to worry, because it was only for about a month,and that the reading tutor would take care of them in the interim. However, Mrs.Giampetruzzi said that the tutor-substitute was not enough to provide the studentswith the full amount of services for which they were scheduled, because they onlyreceived one-half the extra instruction they would normally have received. Mrs.Giampetruzzi had formerly worked at the middle school level, as well as at anotherelementary school in Waterbury, and was unaware of any other school in theDistrict doing this.

Mrs. Matthews recalls that around February of 2011, classes in art, music andlibrary were stopped to do GMT preparation. On a related note, she recalls that,when students missed GMT preparation activities due to snow days, packets wouldbe sent home for the students to make up these activities. She received numerouscomplaints from parents about this and about the students' homework in general. Inaddition, Mrs. Moulthrop frowned upon indoor recess activities, instead wanting thetime used for GMT preparation. Mrs. Koestner similarly confirmed that art, musicand library classes were used for GMT preparation.

Mrs. Labbe believed that time was also taken away in areas such as science andsocial studies for focus on reading questions, but that it was justified by conformingthe materials to the subject areas that were supposed to be covered.

Mrs. Battistoni was not aware of any District-wide program or policy allowing timespent on "specials" to be replaced by GMT preparation. In response to my questionwhether this was or was not a violation of any State requirement, Mrs. Battistonisaid that she was not sure, but believed that a certain number of minutes needed tobe spent on these classes as part of the curriculum.Based on the above findings, it is evident that the heavy emphasis placed byPrincipal Moulthrop on Hapeville CMT preparation compromised the school's opportunity

to engage students in meaningful instruction. This is especially apparent from the fact that

Page 7 of 44


9/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011

Mrs. D'Alessio remembers a grade level meeting at the beginning of the schoolyear, along with all of the reading specialists (i.e., Literacy Team), at which a groupdecision was made as to which GMT strands to review with students during giventime periods. The teachers would have the students practice open-endedresponses, and would correct these together at every meeting. Meetings like thisoccurred beginning in September every "A" day to review guided readingresponses. However, things reportedly became unusual just prior to the GMT,when Mrs. D'Alessio recalls being summoned to another such meeting in thePrincipal's office, where Mrs. Perugini distributed new open-ended responsequestions. Mrs. Perugini told the teachers to review these in their guided readinggroups and classes. Mrs. Perugini explained that she had remembered some ofthese questions from last year, and that she had gotten others from a friend. Theunusual facet to these questions was that they changed the focus of the testpreparation from fiction to nonfiction passages. Mrs. Perugini also gave out a list ofvocabulary words that she said she "felt" would be on the ORP subtest, saying thatshe remembered these from last year. Mrs. O'Alessio asked her where she shouldput the words and Mrs. Perugini said to have the students write them into their GMTvocabulary notebooks. Mrs. Moulthrop also commented that this was not a testsecurity breach, but that she, Mrs. Perugini, and ''friends of theirs" had rememberedthese materials from last year. Mrs. D'Alessio thought she had kept a copy of theopen-ended response questions and vocabulary words provided by Mrs. Peruginiand, after receiving permission from Waterbury Administration, went to Hapevillewhere she found a copy of the questions, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, butwas unable to locate a copy of the list of vocabulary words.

time was taken away from mandatory elements of the curriculum to use for GMTpreparation, as well as in the loss of bilingual services to Mrs. Giampetruzzi's children infavor of GMT practice activities for other students.

Some of the teachers interviewed stated that Mrs. Perugini had circulated a list ofopen-ended response questions in a meeting that occurred within the weeks just prior tothe 2011 GMT, and some also mentioned that Mrs. Perugini had later circulated a new listof vocabulary words. The individual interviewees' accounts of this incident are as follows:

Mr. Smith explained, as a backdrop to the incident described above by Mrs.D'Alessio, that the Literacy Team spends the entire school year focused ondeveloping practice open-ended response questions that are worked onconsistently by the students until the GMT is administered. He recalls that,approximately two weeks before the GMT, he attended a meeting with the entireLiteracy Team as well as all three grade levels, at which Mrs. Perugini distributed alist of open-ended questions, followed later by a list of vocabulary words she hadplaced in everyone's mailboxes. Mrs. Perugini told him that "a friend" had given herthe questions and the words, and mentioned the name "Vito." He later heardrumors that "Vito from the State" or "reading buddies" had provided the material toMrs. Perugini; he remembers thinking that this was a joke of some kind. Given that

Page 8 of 44


10/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011this was an about-face from the types of stories and questions the students hadbeen working on all year, these new questions required significant work for theteachers to find stories for exercise purposes to correlate to the new list of open-ended questions. Given the late timeframe, this change did not seem right to Mr.Smith; he remembers feeling offended because he felt the work he had done allyear on his own questions had rendered the students well-prepared. Mr. Smithidentified the document that Mrs. D'Alessio had provided after her interview (Exhibit3) as the list of open-ended questions received in March 2011 from Mrs. Perugini.He also noted that Mrs. Perugini had given him a handwritten version of the list totype up and told him to "make sure that the kids know" the questions. I asked Mr.Smith why he did not say anything directly to Mrs. Perugini about the new questionsor the direction she was taking the GMT preparation activities, and he said that he"was just disgusted" and was "doing what I was told."

The other teachers were unequivocal in stating that Mrs. Perugini had distributedthe new questions and vocabulary lists just prior to the GMT. Ms. Brooks said thatMrs. Perugini told her that the new questions "may be on the CMT" but did not saywhere they came from. Ms. Brooks thought this was odd because it was the firstyear at Hapeville that practice questions had been distributed so late in the year,close to the GMT. Upon viewing Exhibit 3, Ms. Brooks confirmed that the questionshad appeared on the GMT, but thought that this document was slightly differentfrom the one she had received in that it had more questions on it. Ms. Brooks alsorecalls that she discussed the questions with Mrs. D'Alessio after the GMT, and thatthey had both agreed that they saw questions on the actual GMT that had been onthe practice list, and even in the same order. Ms. Brooks thought she had kept acopy of the vocabulary words and, after receiving permission from WaterburyAdministration, went to Hopeville and retrieved the document from her classroom.See, Exhibit 4.

Mrs. Munro recalled receivmq the new practice questions first, and that Mrs.Perugini later stopped into her classroom to give her a list of vocabulary words,saying she was not sure where they came from. Mrs. Munro thought this was"fishy" and did not trust Mrs. Perugini, so she threw out the list. Mrs. Munro thinksthis occurred about a week before the GMT began. Mrs. Giampetruzzi recalls that a list of questions for each of the three grades washanded out about a week before the GMT at a Literacy Team meeting, and thatMrs. Perugini said they would now work on these questions for the rest of the week.

Mrs. Perugini did most of the talking at this meeting, which was strange because itwas usually Mrs. Moulthrop who would lead the meeting. Mrs. Perugini stated atthis meeting that she and her "reading friends" got together and came up with a listof open-ended questions that they thought would be on the GMT. Mrs.Giampetruzzi wondered how they had come up with this list of maybe sevenquestions to focus on, when there are a "ton" of open-ended questions on the GMT.She also found it strange to be getting these lists only a week before the GMT. She

Page 9 of 44


11/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13, 2011also knew that by "reading friends," Mrs. Perugini was not referring to the HopevilleLiteracy Team members, or else she would have known about this earlier. Mrs.Giampetruzzi said that some of these practice questions were the same or similar towhat was actually on the 2011 CMT. During the course of her interview, Mrs.Giampetruzzi identified Exhibit 3 as the list of questions that had been handed outjust prior to the 2011 CMT.

Mrs. Bette recalls that a week before the CMT began for the fourth and fifth grades,Mrs. Perugini came in with a list of open-ended questions and asked her and Mr.Smith to find stories to go along with them, to prep the third graders. Mrs. Betteasked Mrs. Perugini where the questions had come from, and Mrs. Perugini replied"other reading teachers and a friend from the State." Later, Mrs. Bette realized thatthe practice questions matched the actual CMT questions almost "word-for-word."Upon reviewing Exhibit 3, Mrs. Bette recognized this document as the list that Mrs.Perugini distributed. Mrs. Bette also felt it was strange that Mrs. Perugini gave outthis list so close to the CMT.

Mrs. Perugini denied that she distributed any new practice material just prior to theCMT. When showed the list of open-ended questions (Exhibit 3), she said it lookedlike the kinds of questions they had been working on all year, but that she did notrecall distributing it or commenting that she had obtained it from friends, the State,or anywhere else.\As a follow-up on the above information obtained from the interviewees on the twodocuments that teachers said they received from Mrs. Perugini, I asked the SDE's Bureauof Student Assessment to compare the two documents. First, according to Deirdre

Ducharme of the Bureau's CMT Unit, each of the 34 words listed on Exhibit 4 can be foundin either the reading passage or answer choices of the DRP section of the 2011 CMT.Based upon this, Ms. Ducharme concluded that the list of words must have been obtaineddirectly from the 2011 CMT itself.

Next, the open-ended response questions listed in Exhibit 3 were reviewed bySteve Martin, CMT Unit Coordinator, for a comparison with the 2011 CMT test items.Before viewing the document, Mr. Martin explained that his office maintains a website withsample passages from past versions of the GMT, and "stem questions" that call for open-ended responses based on those passages. He noted that these materials, including thestem questions, are available for use by any school district, and that the stem questions donot vary widely from year to year, although there are some differences in the questions forfiction versus nonfiction passages. Therefore, it may be possible to obtain or developpractice stem questions that are very similar to the ones that appear on the actual CMT inany given year without committing a breach of test security by reviewing and disseminatingsecure test materials.

However, upon comparing Exhibit 3 with the Reading Comprehension subtest of the2011 CMT for Grade 4, Mr. Martin confirmed that the 9 questions listed in Exhibit 3 were

Page 10 of 44


12/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011the same as the only 9 open-ended response questions that appear on the actual subtest.Out of the 31 Reading Comprehension test questions, only 9 of the questions called foropen-ended responses, and these same 9 appear in Exhibit 3. The only differencebetween Exhibit 3 and the actual test was that whoever created Exhibit 3 made thequestions "generic," in the sense that specific names and references were removed thatwould have more obviously revealed that these questions were taken from the CMT.Therefore, Mr. Martin concluded that strong evidence exists that Exhibit 3 was created bycopying and making slight changes to the actual Reading Comprehension questions onthe 2011 CMT.

Finally, Mr. Martin and Ms. Ducharme both confirmed that, to their knowledge, theyhave never spoken to anyone at Hopeville, and have never distributed or facilitated thedistribution of test questions from any version of the CMT that was not already releasedand authorized for such usage. In addition, neither has heard of this happening withregard to any person affiliated with Hopeville or Waterbury, nor were they aware of anyperson by the name of Margaret Perugini until this investigation.

Another prominent subject of the interviews was the issue of whether Mrs.Moulthrop had advised the proctors to say "check your work" to students at timesthroughout the testing, as well as to point to an answer that needed to be changed. Theinterviewees disagreed over what the directive "check your work" was supposed toaccomplish, and when it could be used. A few teachers stated that they were told to use"check your work" when a student completed the subtest early, or when a student hadskipped a question when filling in the answer bubbles. Other teachers stated that theywere directed to walk by a student, pause, look down and say "check your work" in amanner designed to indicate to the student that an answer was wrong and should bechanged. According to these teachers, Mrs. Moulthrop told them that a former district-leveladministrator, Pamela Barker-Jones, had endorsed this practice and expressly advisedstaff to do it. In her interview with me, Mrs. Moulthrop denied having told proctors to say"check your work" to students to specifically indicate a wrong answer, even when I told herthat both teachers and students had told me this. In an interview with Ms. Barker-Jones,Head of the Waterbury Math Curriculum from 2004 to 2011, she indicated to me that shehad always advocated active proctoring, telling teachers and administrators that theyshould not be sitting and watching, but instead moving around the classroom to be sure alstudents were actively engaged in the testing process and not doing anythinginappropriate. Ms. Barker-Jones definitively denied that she ever told teachers to sayanything to students that would cause them to change their CMT test answers and, in fact,cautioned them that inappropriate actions of this kind could cost them their teachingcertification. This subject is discussed in further detail later in this report, at Section III.Eand Section V.B.

There was also a report of a meeting held early in the 2010-11 school year betweenMrs. Moulthrop, Mrs. Perugini, and two relatively new, nontenured special educationteachers (Mrs. Koestner and Ms. Tomasko) to discuss proctoring during reading tests,other than the CMT. All four of these individuals recall Mrs. Moulthrop making comments

Page 11 of 44


13/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011to the effect that the teachers were young and may not understand how to correctly proctorthe students during exams. The teachers additionally recall that Mrs. Moulthrop told themto point to incorrect answers on the exam when walking around the classroom, and to say"check your work" to indicate that an answer should be changed. Both these teachersindicated they ignored Ms. Moulthrop's directive.

Mrs. Giampetruzzi recalled another GMT preparation activity involving the LiteracyTeam that occurred prior to the March 2010 GMT. Mrs. Moulthrop had wanted the LiteracyTeam to go through the DRP subtest of the GMT test booklets, and take out thevocabulary words they thought the students would not know. Mrs. Giampetruzzi asked ifthis was allowed, and Mrs. Moulthrop said that Tara Battistoni, the District's Supervisor ofResearch and Development, had said it was acceptable to extract vocabulary words fromthe test "for data purposes." At a Literacy Team meeting held on March 31, 2010, Mrs.Moulthrop stated that the team would review the vocabulary words each team member hadpulled, and add these to the list of Marzan02 words to be studied. Mrs. Moulthrop then toldthe group something to the effect of "this isn't a breach of security, it's ok, we're just talkingabout the vocabulary words." Mrs. Giampetruzzi recalled the exact date of the meeting,because it was the last day of work before she was to start her maternity leave. Sherecalls that she had wanted to leave early that day because she was feeling ill, and Mrs.Perugini told her that they would hold the meeting before she had to leave. Later, afterMrs. Giampetruzzi was on leave, Mrs. Perugini called her to say that Mrs. Moulthrop hadlost her copy of the vocabulary words that Mrs. Giampetruzzi had picked. Mrs.Giampetruzzi said she would email the list.

D. CMTAdministration Schedule for Third, Fourth and Fifth GradesTesting for each grade level occurred over the course of seven (7) school days.

First, on March 8, 2011, students in all three grade levels took a writing prompt. Testingthen began on a staggered schedule, with the fourth and fifth grades beginning theirsessions first on March 9, and continuing on consecutive school days thereafter, followedby the third grade beginning on March 17 and continuing on consecutive school daysthereafter.Unless removed for small group testing, students in all grades were tested in theirregular classrooms, with their teacher serving as proctor along with an additionallyassigned staff member (typically a literacy or reading teacher) as follows:Grade 3Classroom Teacher:Mrs. HarveyMrs. MatthewsMrs. Collette

Additional Assigned Proctor:Mr. SmithMrs. PeruginiMs. Hanson

2 "Marzano" words are vocabulary words from an accepted commercial vendor frequently used by schoolsystems.

Page 12 of 44


14/75

Waterbury GMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13, 2011Grade 4Classroom Teacher:Mrs.D'AlessioMs. Brooks

Additional Assigned Proctor:NoneMrs. Giampetruzzi

Grade 5Classroom Teacher:Mr. EspositoMrs. Munro

Additional Assigned Proctor:Mr. SmithMrs. Labbe & Ms. HansonE. Procedures for Serving as Proctor during eMT Test SessionsPrior to the GMT, each proctor was given a box of test booklets with computer-

generated labels for each student and a bar code. The labels, which indicated studentname, date of birth, teacher, and grade, were attached to the booklets by the teachers,placed back into the box with a lid, and remained in Mrs. Moulthrop's office until testingbegan. This year, the boxes remained in Mrs. Moulthrop's office for approximately twoweeks before the CMT began. According to Mrs. Moulthrop, this is because the boxesarrived at the school earlier than usual.' One teacher, Mrs. Villar, received booklets withno labels. Mrs. Moulthrop had her hand out the booklets to the students, who were to writetheir names on the booklets, and said they would be labeled later. Mrs. Villar assumedthis was because her students were so new to the school, but she is not certain if this wasthe reason.

On each day of testing, students who had been preassigned for various reasons totake their test in a small group alternate setting would be picked up by their proctors fromtheir regular classrooms and brought to the alternate setting. When testing began in eachclassroom, the door would be closed, a sign placed in the door indicating that testing wasgoing on, and the students would sharpen their pencils. The proctor would then read thedirections out loud from a manual, including sample questions, and the test would beginwith the proctor keeping time.

Mr. Smith said that the proctor's job was to walk around the classroom and tellstudents to check their work if they had finished early, or to say "get moving" if a studentwas off task. He also said that the proctor was to make sure there was no talking goingon, that the time limits were followed, and that all pencils were down when time was up. In3 According to the SDE, the CMT booklets were shipped in early February in 2010 as well as 2011, andwould have required some time for local distribution before arriving at each individual school. The reasonsfor the early shipping was to allow for adequate time to allow for local distribution and the checking ofmaterials to ensure that everything was properly received, especially in light of the possibility of delays due tosnow days and the week-long winter vacation that occurs in most Connecticut school districts during the thirdweek of February.

Page 13 of 44


15/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13, 2011the classes he proctored, he helped the classroom teacher collect the tests and placethem in piles, with separate piles for the students who had been removed for small grouptesting.

Although there were great similarities in the interviewees' descriptions of the propertesting procedures, these descriptions varied in some respects. For example, Mrs. Perezbelieved that Mrs. Moulthrop had instructed her to remind students to "show your work" onmath items. Mrs. Perez explained that the reason for this was that whoever corrected theitems could look at the student's work and know how they came up with the answer. Thiscomment was inconsistent with the statements given by the other test proctors that the testbooklets were not supposed to be reviewed for any reason by the school except for theerasure of stray marks or darkening of answer bubbles. For example, Mrs. D'Alessiostated that the teachers were responsible for checking over the test booklets for straymarks, including any math calculations that may have been left there, and that the studenttest booklets were not otherwise altered. Mrs. D'Alessio believed that the students were touse scrap paper for any math calculations, and that students were not instructed to "showyour work."

No interviewee said that students were allowed to ask questions about the testanswers or any other reason, beyond placing a hand in the air to indicate the need for atissue or a new pencil. If a student were to complain that an item was difficult or that he orshe did not understand it, the proctor was supposed to respond by saying "do your best" or"try your best." In the bilingual classrooms, a student could not receive a translation fromthe teacher on a test item, but translation dictionaries were allowed in accordance with testprotocols.

The interviewees who served as proctors stated that they were to walk around theroom occasionally during testing. Many said that Mrs. Moulthrop had instructed them tosay "check your work" if a student had finished early. In addition, several intervieweesstated that Mrs. Moulthrop had expressly instructed proctors to use the phrase "check yourwork," either with or without pointing to the answers, as a way to prompt a student tochange an answer: Mrs. D'Alessio recalls asking Mrs. Moulthrop, "Are you sure we can do that?", andthat Mrs. Moulthrop responded in the positive. Mrs. D'Alessio noted, however, that

the test instructions do not say to do this, so she assumed this was solely thePrincipal's directive.

Ms. Brooks said that Mrs. Moulthrop had instructed the staff to check the students'work frequently during the test, and that if you should observe wrong answers, youshould stand over the student's shoulder and say "check your work." Ms. Brookssaid that "check your work" would indicate to a student that his or her answer shouldbe changed. When I asked Ms. Brooks how the student was expected to know this,she stated that "the kids just knew," although she had never told them that this wasthe intended result. She further explained that Mrs. Moulthrop had given this

Page 14 of 44


16/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011directive during grade level meetings, and that the students "just understood what itmeant" and "took the cue" when she kept walking around the room. However, Ms.Brooks said that she could only tell a student this once, and that if the student didnot change an answer, that you needed to keep walking. Ms. Brooks did confirm,however, that she followed Mrs. Moulthrop's directive in walking around and tellingstudents to "check your work."

Mrs. Moulthrop had also told Ms. Brooks that, because the fourth gradeperformance had been so low, she wanted Ms. Brooks to address the possibilitythat the students were erasing correct answers and changing them to wronganswers, and that when stating "check your work" Ms. Brooks should "be morespecific." However, Ms. Brooks stated that she declined to do this because she feltit would be overstepping. She recalls that Mrs. Moulthrop had threatened to movethe fourth grade classrooms down near her office for monitoring, because the 2009-10 GMT scores had been so low. Ms. Brooks interpreted this statement asintending a punishment for low test scores.

Mr. Esposito also confirmed that he followed Mrs. Moulthrop's directive in tellingstudents to "check your work" during the testing sessions. He recalled that Mrs.Moulthrop had said the proctors could tell students to "check your work" if itappeared that they had answered a question wrong. He explained that this wassupposed to be a prompt for the student to look at the last problem on which he orshe had been working. He said that at the time, he was just following Mrs.Moulthrop's instructions and had no concerns about the practice, but that, in light ofthis investigation, he was wondering if there was a problem with it. Mr. Espositosaid that this practice had also been followed for prior years.

Mrs. Munro said that in her two years of teaching at Hopeville (2009-10 and 2010-11), Mrs. Moulthrop stated at the fifth grade level meetings just prior to the GMT thatit was acceptable to read over a student's shoulder and point out a wrong answerby telling the student to "check your work." In 2011, Mrs. Moulthrop added that theteachers should read the GMT ahead of time, so that during the test the teacherswould know the correct answers and be able to prompt the students from over theirshoulders. Mrs. Munro said she never did this because she knew it was cheating.She recalls that the 2011 fifth grade level meeting included herself, Mr. Esposito,Mrs. Villar, and the Principal. At this meeting, Mrs. Moulthrop said that the practicewas acceptable, and commented that Pam Barker-Jones in central office hadendorsed this practice. Mrs. Munro did not discuss this with anyone except theformer bilingual teacher, Mrs. Ayala, and her husband (a former district employee).She said that because it was only her second year here, and because it seemedlike "everybody knows everybody," she was not sure who she could trust. She hadbeen told not to trust Mrs. Perugini because she was close with Mrs. Moulthrop.Mrs. Munro added, without any prompting from me, that it was difficult for herworking in Waterbury. She was afraid for her job security and health benefits,especially since her husband, who had also worked as a teacher in Waterbury, was

Page 15 of 44


17/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.. September 13,2011terminated from employment within his first 90 days, followed closely by Mrs.Munro's pregnancy. She feels that if her situation had been different, she wouldhave felt secure enough to make an anonymous report of what Mrs. Moulthrop hadtold her. She also reiterated the comment made by most of the other teachers thatMrs. Moulthrop was very intimidating.

The two students I interviewed confirmed that their teachers walked around theroom during the 2011 GMT and pointed to questions while saying "check yourwork." Both students said that they understood this to mean that an answer neededto be changed. Student A 4 had taken the 2009-10 GMT as a third grader in Mrs.Harvey's class, and took the 2010-11 GMT in Ms. Brooks' class. Student B took the2010-11 GMT as a third grader in Ms. Harvey's class. Student A's statement wasconsistent with that of Ms. Brooks, who confirmed that, at Mrs. Moulthrop'sdirective, she used the phrase "check your work" for this purpose. However, Mrs.Harvey did not similarly confirm using "check your work" to prompt students tochange their answers, or that Mrs. Moulthrop gave this directive. Instead, Mrs.Harvey stated that the phrase "check your work" was used only if a student finishedearly or if a student missed a question.

When I asked Mrs. Moulthrop whether she told teachers to look over students'shoulders and see how they were answering the questions, she said "that was froma directive from Dr. Sequeira in 200B." She then added that the GMT bookletencouraged "active proctoring and walking around and noticing." When asked"Noticing what?", she said she did not know and that she would need to see thebooklet again. She denied that the thing they should be "noticing" was whether thestudents had answered correctly. Mrs. Moulthrop denied that if a teacher said"check your work," it was intended to indicate a wrong answer, and had noexplanation for why teachers and students would have told me this. Dr. Sequeiradenies the directive referenced by Mrs. Moulthrop during her interview.

Mrs. Battistoni confirmed that it was a blatant security violation to say "check yourwork" in a manner intended to prompt a student to change an answer, and/or topoint to an answer for the same purpose. She had been made aware, however,that teachers were saying "check your work," because Mrs. Moulthrop had told herthat teachers would say this generally, as a means of encouragement. Specifically,Mrs. Moulthrop had told Mrs. Battistoni that Pamela Barker-Jones, a former memberof central office administration, had said this was an authorized practice. However,Mrs. Moulthrop did not at any point say anything to Mrs. Battistoni about pointing toanswers.

4 It is ironic that the parents of Student A indicated that they had transferred their child to Hopevillefrom another Waterbury elementary school because of Hopeville's history of higher CMT testscores.

Page 16 of 44


18/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13, 2011In regard to make-up examinations for students who were absent, Mrs.

Giampetruzzi commented that the main office had a list of students who needed to makeup test days, and that she recalls one of her students being on this list and eventuallymaking up the test with Mrs. Labbe. Mrs. Giampetruzzi asked Mrs. Moulthrop about this,because her understanding until then was that each teacher was responsible for make-upexams for students in their own class or group who missed a day. Mrs. Moulthrop told herabout the list in the main office, and said that the reading specialists were taking thesestudents for make-up testing. Mrs. Matthews also stated that some of her students wereremoved to make up their tests, but that classroom teachers were not responsible fordoing the make-ups.

F. Testing in Small Groups1. Small Group AssignmentsCMT protocols allow for certain categories of students to be tested in small group

settings, explained in detail below. At Hopeville, prior to the 2011 CMT, lists were createdand distributed showing which staff members would be responsible for testing specificstudents in small groups, with the names and classifications listed for each student. (See,Small Group Lists, attached hereto as Exhibit 5.) The staff who conducted small grouptesting included the reading/literacy staff (Mrs. Labbe, Mrs. Oabbo, Mrs. Perugini, Ms.Hanson and Mr. Smith), the special education staff (Ms. Tomasko and Mrs. Koestner), andthe bilingual reading teacher (Mrs. Giampetruzzi).It was unclear from the interviewees who had created the lists of students to betested in small groups. Mr. Smith first said that he did not create the lists or determine whowould be in a small group, although he did administer some small group testing as well as

some make-up tests. He then said that he could not recall who had set up the groups, andsaid that perhaps it was "all of us" and that he runs around all the time doing things likesetting up computer programs. He clarified that "all of us" referred to the Literacy Team,and that each team member was responsible for taking small groups to proctor. Mrs.Perugini was the only interviewee who claimed to have received the lists specifically fromMr. Smith.Mr. Smith believed that all small groups received extra time (time and one half) fortesting, and that no one who sat for the regular test setting received extra time. Mrs.Hanson also believed that all small groupings, regardless of classification, received "as

much [time] as they needed," including students with behavior issues. Mrs. Perugini statedthat Mrs. Battistoni had trained Hopeville staff on giving extended time to special educationstudents in the form of time plus time and one half. Mrs. Battistoni denied that any studentgroup was eligible for unlimited time and confirmed that when extra time is appropriate, it istypically time and a half, but never beyond one day.

Page 17 of 44


19/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.

September 13,20112. SmallGroupCategoriesandTestingProceduresa. Bilingual and English Language Learner (ELL) StudentsThe interviewees indicated somewhat consistently that students who were

designated as having ELL status at the time of testing were tested in small groups.Accommodations received by this grouping of students included extended test time,directions read out loud in English and in the student's primary language, and use of adictionary for translation of English words. Ms. Perez stated that she read the individualmath subtest questions out loud, in addition to the instructions. Ms. Perez said that shewould wait for all students to finish the item before moving on to read the next individualitem on the math subtest. Mrs. Giampetruzzi also said that she was instructed to read tothe ELL students the entire math subtest, including questions and answer choices. Mrs.Villar stated that she did not read the questions or answer choices aloud, but that she didread the instructions and then gave the students unlimited time to finish, except for a lunchbreak at 12:30. Mrs. Moulthrop stated that the amount of time was up to the proctor, aslong as it did not exceed a whole school day. These accommodations are allowed for ELLstudents under CMT testing protocols, but are only to be provided on an individualizedbasis that takes into account a specific student's needs.

ELL small groups were tested by Ms. Perez, Ms. Bette, Ms. Villar, and Ms. Tavares.Some students who had ELL status, but were not assigned to a bilingual classroom on aday-to-day basis, were sent into small group testing with students from the bilingualclasses.

Mrs. Villar, Mrs. Tavares, Mrs. Giampetruzzi, and Mrs. Bette stated that studentswho had been in the U.S. for less than 10 months took the CMT, but their scores were notcounted for purposes of measuring school or district performance. Mrs. Tavares addedthat these students received extended time on the test in the form of time and a half. Mrs.Bette believed that it was only on the reading subtests, and not the math, that the scoresdid not count for students in this grouping. The proper procedure is to require all students,regardless of time spent in the U.S., to take the math subtest, but not the reading or writingsubtests (although it is also acceptable to choose to administer the reading and writingsubtests); however, none of the scores for such testing are factored into the school ordistrict's overall scores.

Mrs. Bette confirmed that she created the lists of ELL small groups, and when Ishowed her Exhibit 5, she confirmed that she had created the two pages labeled "ELL's"and "ELL Checklist," including the handwriting. She was also aware of which ELL studentswere exempt for score reporting purposes, although these students were not marked. Shedid not create the first three pages indicating small groupings for third, fourth and fifthgrade classrooms, but had input into these groupings as far as ELL students wereconcerned.

Page 18 of 44


20/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, o'connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.

September 13, 2011b. Special Education and Section 504 StudentsAll interviewees were relatively familiar with the similarities and differences betweenstudents with disabilities who received test accommodations due to either special

education or 504 status. All students eligible for special education are technically coveredby Section 504, but all 504 students are not eligible for special education. For thepurposes of this report "504 students" are the latter: students with disabilities requiringaccommodations, but not eligible for special education. The information providedregarding these small groupings (disabled students entitled to accommodations) pertainedto the identification and treatment of "504" students. Specifically, several intervieweesstated that Mrs. Moulthrop had instructed staff to automatically assign students whosevision screenings by the school nurse had indicated a need for glasses, but had not yetobtained glasses, to the list of 504 students. Some interviewees indicated that Mrs.Moulthrop seemed to emphasize the need to identify and accommodate 504 students forthe GMT more than in prior years, indicating the likelihood that there were a higher numberof students tested under the 504 desiqnation in 2011 than in the past.

Mrs. D'Alessio recalls being given a list of students in her classroom "to 504" for theCMT due to things like vision problems, asthma, and allergies. She "504'd" 7 or 8 out ofher class of 22 students and all of these students were pulled out for small group testing inan alternate setting. Mrs. D'Alessio also had a special education student in her class andMrs. Moulthrop asked her if he should take the regular test or a modified one (referred toby some teachers as the "MAS", an approved alternative testing process). Mrs. D'Alessiosaid that she believed that he needed the modified test, but that she should ask the specialeducation teacher. Mrs. Moulthrop's response was that he would take the standard GMTwith Mrs. Perugini, but with extended time. Mrs. D'Alessio disagreed, but Mrs. Malthroupinsisted that Mrs. Perugini had this student in her reading group and believed that hewould do well. This same student was later found to have gotten the entire readingsubtest responses correct, according to Mrs. Perugini, which Mrs. D'Alessio did not believe(see, below Section J). Ms. Brooks encountered a similar situation with her students; onestudent in particular was in the 504 group (due to needing glasses) and scored a level 4even though she had emotional issues that caused her to "shut down" in class andrequired intensive interventions to improve her performance. This student would typicallyanswer two questions and then begin drawing on her paper instead of remaining on task.Ms. Brooks was skeptical of the level 4 result.

Mrs. Perugini believed that special education and 504 students received time plustime and one half on the GMT. This was contradicted by every other teacher, whoconsistently said the modified length for special education or 504 students was time andone half. Mrs. Perugini claimed that Mrs. Battistoni had told her to give students time plustime and one half, an assertion that Mrs. Battistoni denies and which was contradictory to

Page 19 of 44


21/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.

September 13, 2011Ms. Battistoni's training presentation materials" for the 2010-11 GMT testing. Later, Mrs.Perugini said it was up to the special education staff to determine the procedures applyingto special education and 504 students, in terms of how the GMT was administered andwhether the scores counted.

Mrs. Giampetruzzi recalls a fourth grade special education student in her testinggroup, who only tested with her on the first day, and then was moved to testing with Mrs.Perugini. After the first day, Mrs. Moulthrop had asked Mrs. Giampetruzzi how he wasdoing. Mrs. Giampetruzzi said that the student was not really focusing and would onlywrite a sentence or two. Mrs. Moulthrop then said that she would take this student out ofMrs. Giampetruzzi's testing group and place him with Mrs. Perugini. Mrs. Giampetruzzirecalled the same thing happening the previous year. It made her feel incompetentbecause she wondered what Mrs. Perugini could do any differently. The student testedwith Mrs. Perugini for the remainder of the GMT. Mrs. Giampetruzzi asked Mrs. Peruginihow he was doing, and she said he was doing great, and that she "should see how muchhe is writing."

Mrs. Giampetruzzi noticed that in general, Hapeville seemed to have a lot ofstudents testing in small groups, compared with her experience working at the middleschool level and at another elementary school. She recalls that, at a faculty meeting acouple months before the 2011 GMT, Mrs. Moulthrop had requested that the staff make504 referrals for things like sleeping problems or asthma. Mrs. Giampetruzzi recalls thatMrs. Moulthrop seemed to be making a joke by saying "I can get them on a 504 foranything," as if she was proud of this. Mrs. Moulthrop also said to make sure the referralhappened "now," because it needed to happen before the GMT. Mrs. Giampetruzzithought this was odd, because her understanding was that a 504 student needed to havesome sort of medical issue. On a similar note, Mrs. Giampetruzzi thought that Hapevillehad a lot of "checklist kids." Her understanding was that the "checklist" was a differentassessment given to certain special education students who for some reason could nottake the GMT. Instead, these students were evaluated by the teachers with a list of skillsthat they could or could not do, for example, sequencing a story from beginning to middleto end. Mrs. Giampetruzzi recalls the special education teachers saying that there were ahigh number of students on the checklist, and that Mrs. Moulthrop pushed for students tobe on it. Mrs. Giampetruzzi believed that Mrs. Moulthrop made this push as a way to avoidhaving certain students bring down the GMT scores, since the checklist is not factored intothe scores.

Both of the school's special education teachers, Ms. Tomasko and Mrs. Koestner,stated that they were instructed by Mrs. Moulthrop to hold PPT meetings just prior to theGMT for certain special education students with current IEP's that did not call for smallgroup testing or other accommodations during the GMT. The purpose of these meetings,5 Mrs. Battistoni conducted annual training for Waterbury literacy staff regarding eMT administrationprocedures. The training was accompanied by a Power Point presentation which this investigator reviewed,an excerpt from which is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. The presentation included reference to the time andone half standard for extra time accommodations.

Page 20 of 44


22/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011as described by the teachers, was to "justify" or "legalize" the testing of such students in asmall group or with other accommodations, even though the two teachers disagreed thatsuch accommodations were necessary or appropriate for the students in question. In atleast one case recalled by Mrs. Koestner, a special education student who was capable ofsitting for the regular GMT was given a PPT meeting to change his IEP so that he couldtake the modified assessment. In Mrs. Koestner's professional opinion, Mrs. Moulthroppushed for this change not in order to meet the student's educational needs, but only sothat the student could score higher on the GMT.

Mrs. Koestner said that the procedure for testing special education students on theGMT is to remove them from class for small group testing in an alternate setting and thenreturn them to class. She said that the Literacy Team and people in the office make thelists of small groups based on the students' existing accommodation sheets. I showedMrs. Koestner Exhibit 5, and she confirmed that this included the list of students that shetested.

Mrs. Koestner stated that it was a common practice for Mrs. Moulthrop to be in thehallway after testing and ask her how the special education students were doing. If theywere not performing well enough, the student would be taken out and given to otherteachers for testing. This happened frequently. For example, during the 2010 GMT, Mrs.Koestner had a student who she felt was not motivated, and who was placed in anothertest group, which she believes was proctored by Mrs. Perugini.

Mrs. Koestner, who generally handles K-2 students but occasionally works with thirdgraders, shares a classroom with Ms. Tomasko, who has primary responsibility for grades3-5. She recalls that Ms. Tomasko also had students placed in other groups for testing,and she believes that Mrs. Perugini was also in charge of these groups. Mrs. Koestnerwas never told why a student was removed, but every year her groups got smaller, andshe thought it was because she was not prompting the students. She explained that by"prompt" she meant "say things you're not supposed to say." She discussed this with Ms.Tomasko, who was also aware that regular classroom teachers with special educationstudents had these students removed for testing. For example, she was aware of aparticular student of Mrs. Giampetruzzi's who was removed for testing with Mrs. Perugini.This was the same student whom Mrs. Giampetruzzi had stated, in her interview a fewdays before, was removed for testing with Mrs. Perugini.

Mrs. Koestner remembers that for the 2010 and 2011 GMT, she tested a group ofthird grade special education students, only to find afterward that the whole group wascalled down to Mrs. Perugini's office, with the door shut and a poster over her door toindicate that testing was in process. Mrs. Koestner thought this was odd because shethought that Mrs. Perugini was supposed to be working with K-2 students. This particulargroup of students tended to work very slowly; Mrs. Koestner surmised that they werefinishing their exam booklets in Mrs. Perugini's office. Mrs. Koestner also observed thatMrs. Perugini's door and Mrs. Moulthrop's door were both locked, and that she knockedbut no one answered, although she could hear people walking around inside. She noted

Page 21 of 44


23/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011that the doors were often closed during the GMT, and she would observe Mrs. Peruginienter her office and close the door behind her. Often, both the doors were closed at thesame time. She was also aware that the inside door connecting the two offices was lockedat times, though she is not sure about the mechanics of that lock.

As discussed above in Section G, Mrs. Moulthrop had discussed with Mrs. Koestnerand Mrs. Tomasko, purportedly because they were relatively new teachers, how to proctorreading examinations other than the GMT. Similar discussions ensued pertaining directlyto the GMT. First, sometime before the GMT, Mrs. Moulthrop told the teachers that shewanted them to observe Mrs. Perugini giving a practice test to the third graders so thatthey could learn how to do the same and know "what you could actually say" during CMTtesting. However, the scheduling did not work out and this did not happen. Mrs. Koestneralso recalls an incident from her first year of teaching, when Mrs. Moulthrop pulled her intoan empty classroom and said "this is your GMT training." At this time, Mrs. Moulthrop toldher that she had called certain downtown officials to ask if proctors could point to questionsand say, "check your work" in reference to specific questions, and that they did say thiswas acceptable. Mrs. Moulthrop remarked that she liked new teachers because she"could mold them the way I want." Mrs. Koestner told me that she chose to disregard Mrs.Moulthrop's directives and did not point to answers when administering the GMT.

Mrs. Moulthrop also had the two special education teachers review the MAS aheadof the exam time. Mrs. Koestner remembers reading the MAS with Ms. Tomasko, andcommenting to each other that the names found in the reading passages sounded kind ofsilly. In response, Mrs. Moulthrop told them that they should "change the name when youread it to them, because it's just a name, so it doesn't confuse them." This comment wasmade a few days before testing. Mrs. Koestner and Ms. Tomasko indicated that they didnot follow this directive. In another instance, Mrs. Moulthrop suggested changing wordsused in the reading sections of the GMT, such as "stance" or "stanza," to words like "poem"or "passage," which she believed would be easier for the students to understand. Mrs.Koestner said that she and Ms. Tomasko ignored this directive as well, because thissection was not supposed to be read aloud, and they did not understand how they couldotherwise change the words since it was up to the students to read them to themselves.

Ms. Tomasko confirmed the above communications with Mrs. Moulthrop, and alsonoted that Mrs. Moulthrop told the two special education teachers that they were not givingenough prompts to check answers. Ms. Tomasko added that she and Mrs. Koestner didnot point to answers because they knew this was inappropriate. She also believed thatMrs. Moulthrop was giving this directive to all teachers, but was not certain if this onlypertained to the special education students. Ms. Tomasko did not say anything to Mrs.Moulthrop because, as a nontenured teacher, she felt there would be repercussions forher, as she had seen with others, commenting that "your life can be miserable." Ms.Tomasko also said that Mrs. Moulthrop wanted as many students on the skills checklist aspossible, though she did not specifically indicate why, but this was a "constant battle"between the special education teachers, their supervisor, and Mrs. Moulthrop. She saidthat to be eligible for the skills checklist, you needed a low 10 or a severe disability. For

Page 22 of 44


24/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011one student in particular, the teachers fought Mrs. Moulthrop's attempt to put him on thechecklist because he was bright, despite having behavior issues.

Mrs. Koestner was also aware that Mrs. Moulthrop was inappropriately designatingstudents eligible for the skills checklist and complained to the Special EducationCoordinator, Robert Delaney, who was Mrs. Koestner's direct supervisor. This situationwas not limited to the 2011 CMT, as Mrs. Koestner commented that this was a "big battleevery year." Mr. Delaney would protest this practice and, in response, Mrs. Moulthropwould have the Vice Principal conduct a PPT meeting on a day Mr. Delaney wasunavailable to comment on a student's eligibility to be on the skills checklist. Mrs.Moulthrop would also facilitate PPT meetings for the purpose of changing a student'saccommodations, especially for students who were bilingual in addition to specialeducation. For example, Mrs. Koestner recalled one student who in 2010-11 was due totake the standard CMT and was switched to take the MAS. This student's booklet came inlate due to the last-minute change. Another student in fifth grade had a last-minute PPTmeeting for similar reasons. According to Mrs. Koestner, Mr. Delaney said he wascomplaining to "his boss" about this, but that nothing was ever done. Mrs. Koestner recallsthat in previous years, a score sheet would be printed to track the students on the skillschecklist. Mrs. Moulthrop would ask for the score sheets before they were submitted tothe District, so she could look them over. If Mrs. Moulthrop thought the scores were toohigh, she would make the teachers change them. The teachers complained about this toMr. Delaney, who suggested having the students take the test in pen so that Mrs.Moulthrop would not be able to change anything. The issue was that if a student did wellon the skills checklist, Mrs. Moulthrop was worried that the student would switch to takingthe regular test the following year. Mrs. Moulthrop wanted to keep as many students onthe skills checklist as possible, since the skills checklist had no impact on the overall CMTscore.

Ms. Tomasko also recalled testing a fifth grade student who on the first day oftesting during the 2010 CMT would not do the open-ended responses. Later, Mrs.Moulthrop told her that Mrs. Perugini had taken the student to finish the CMT and that hehad answered the questions. This student stayed with Mrs. Perugini for the additionaldays of testing. Ms. Tomasko believes this was a failure to follow state protocols, asstudents were not supposed to be switching classrooms during testing. She did not reportthis incident because she said she was afraid for her job.

Ms. Tomasko was aware of two students who had been exited from specialeducation that Mrs. Moulthrop had said on multiple occasions did not make her happy.These were two of the same students referenced earlier by Mrs. Koestner in her interview.Both students had been found on the small group lists as "behavior" students in 2011. Ms.Tomasko correctly stated that the State did not have a "behavior" classification for smallgroup purposes.

During her interview, Mrs. Moulthrop provided an inaccurate description of the wayin which students are supposed to be identified as eligible for disability accommodations

Page 23 of 44


25/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011pursuant to Section 504. She stated that any student who was classified as 504 wouldhave documentation from a doctor of some medical issue, offering the example of a childwho needed glasses or hearing aids, or with distractibility issues such as ADD or ADHD,as well as behavior issues such as mood disorders. She indicated that this would happenby way of a meeting held with the parents, the school nurse, teachers, andcommunications with the student's doctor. She claimed that any student who failed theschool vision test and was therefore "504'd" for vision issues was a student who neededglasses but did not have them for one reason or another.

After collecting all of the above information from the interviewees, I reviewedrecords provided by the district of the students tested in small groups as "504" for the 2011GMT. Summary charts that I created based upon the District's records are attached heretoas Exhibit 6. Of the 14 students who received test accommodations for the GMT in 2011,6 were not referred for 504 accommodations until after January 1, 2011, and 5 werereferred in December 2010. For the 9 such students in grade 4, 2 were referred afterJanuary 1, 2011 and the remaining 7 were referred in December 2010. The 12 fifthgraders included 6 students referred after January 1, 2011, and 2 students who had beenidentified for eligibility in 2008, but who had never been deemed eligible for extra test.timeaccommodations until after January of 2011. Strikingly, it appears, from a review of theaccommodation plans for all 504 students, that extended time was only provided for theGMT and not for other tests regularly taken by the students, representing an inconsistencywith no educationally supported purpose. Mrs. Moulthrop attended each 504 teammeeting that was purportedly held to identify and implement accommodation plans forthese students, although the parents of such students were frequently absent from suchmeetings.

c. "Behevlor" Students"Behavior" was a separate classification, beyond special education, 504 and ELL,that Hopeville used to classify students to receive small group testing. The majority of theinterviewees who discussed what "behavior" meant confirmed that the designation was for

a student who was scheduled to take the standard test in his or her regular classroomsetting, but had to be removed from the test setting due to behavior problems thatdisrupted the test on the day in question. This was in direct contradiction to theinterviewees' confirmation that the small group lists (see, Exhibit 5) contained pre-designated small groups with specific "behavior" students listed. In other words, if theselists were created ahead of the testing time, to designate those students who requiredaccommodations justifying an alternate test setting, then there was no way that a studentwho was removed from testing for a specific incident of misbehavior could be pre-designated on this list.

Mrs. Perugini's description of what "behavior" meant was more equivocal. First, sheindicated that it meant that a teacher had started to give directions during the exam, butstopped to send a student out of the room for misbehaving. When asked how it could bepossible for such students' names to appear on the small group list that came out prior to

Page 24 of 44


26/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13,2011the GMT, she said she had been under the impression that, for example, the two behaviorstudents in her fourth grade small group were "possibilities" for her small group, but "notset in stone." Upon further questioning, she seemed to indicate that perhaps the studentshad acted up in the morning, prior to the start of testing that day, and were then placed onthe list. When asked how this was possible, when their classroom teachers had indicatedthat these students were not behavior problems prior to testing, she did not have ananswer. I also asked whether the behavior students, who from the list appeared to havebeen tested along with special education students, received extra time. She said no, butthat the behavior students just sat there waiting for the others to finish. When I pressedthe issue of why behavior students taking the standard exam would be grouped withspecial education students receiving accommodations, she said, "I don't know why Mr.Smith gave me those kids."

Ms. Brooks stated that, sometime after the 2011 GMT scores had been released,Mrs. Perugini approached her and asked her to say, if asked, that the "behavior" studentson the lists had created problems each day of the testing.When I interviewed Mrs. Perugini for a second time, she said she believed that"behavior" students were designated in advance of the GMT by the Principal, because she

did not know who else it could be. She then said she was unsure and that perhaps Mr.Smith made this determination. Next, she said that there were team meetings and Mrs.Moulthrop would ask the teachers about students who might cause behavior problemsduring the exam. However, Mrs. Perugini stated that she had no discussions with thePrincipal about any names going on the list for small group purposes. She claimed tohave no idea how students got on the list or how the exam was administered to them. Shethen said she did not believe that the scores for these students counted.

In regard to one fifth grade student, Mrs. Perugini indicated that he was a quiet littleboy who had received instruction in her reading group. He was tested in Mrs. Perugini'ssmall group with the designation "behavior." I asked how he was listed as a behaviorstudent if he had never exhibited a behavior problem, either prior to the GMT or on thedays of testing. She did not give a credible answer, at times blaming Mrs. Battistoni foremphasizing placement of problem students on the list ahead of time, although thisconflicted with Mrs. Perugini's account that this student had never posed a behaviorproblem. Next, she said that something must have happened on each day of testing, forhim to be tested in her small group. When I pressed her to explain the inconsistencies inher answer, she said she had no knowledge of the specific situation and just did notquestion the fact that he was on the list or that she tested him in her small group each dayof the GMT. She had two other behavior students in her fifth grade group; one, shebelieved to be a daily behavior problem, the other, she believed did not regularly exhibitbehavior issues. Mrs. Perugini then mentioned that during Mrs. Battistoni's training, shehad emphasized removing students with behavior problems during testing. However, thiswas only in reference to behavior problems that actually occurred during testing. Mrs.Perugini then stated again that it was Mrs. Moulthrop's practice to ask for the names ofstudents likely to cause behavior problems during testing, so that they could be placed on

Page 25 of 44


27/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13, 2011the list ahead of time. This time, she confirmed that behavior students were not supposedto receive extra testing time. Mrs. Perugini's statements were not credible, given that shewas on the Literacy Team and was responsible for training the staff on GMT procedures,according to her earlier statement.

Mrs. Munro said that the students removed from her classroom for small grouptesting included two "behavior" students, who Mrs. Moulthrop had determined might causea disruption for the other students during testing. These two students were assigned toMrs. Perugini for small group testing. Mrs. Munro believed that Mrs. Moulthrop hadselected these students herself, although she was not certain, and indicated that she (Mrs.Munro) did not have input into this decision. Further, Mrs. Munro confirmed that these twostudents had exhibited no specific behavioral incidents on the days of actual testing.When I asked why Mrs. Perugini would have told me that each of these students did causea disruption each day of testing that caused them to be removed, Mrs. Munro said she wasnot sure why she would say that. She confirmed that the list of small groups (Exhibit 5)was created prior to the GMT, so there was no way that the list could reflect a behaviorproblem that had occurred the day of testing. She then commented that "the way thisprincipal works is that she asks you for things sporadically throughout the school day," forexample, calling meetings or stopping by to see teachers and saying "I need a list of 6students in your class who are struggling." In retrospect, she believes that this practicewas intended to help Mrs. Moulthrop find ways to segregate students into small groups.She added that the two "behavior" students classified from her class for small group testingdid not have a history of behavior problems in her class.

Mrs. Labbe claimed that classroom teachers were responsible for identifyingpotential problem students to classify as "behavior" for removal during testing. She said allshe did was pick the kids up for her small groups on the days of testing. When I told herthat the classroom teachers said that they had no input into who got on the "behavior"small group list, she indicated surprise. In reviewing Exhibit 5, she indicated that she wasnot aware of any behavior problems exhibited by the fourth grade student she had testedas a "behavior" student, but that she only had this student in her guided reading group fora short period of time, so she was unsure if he had behavior issues for the rest of theschool day.

Mrs. Giampetruzzi said that prior to the GMT, Mrs. Moulthrop had mentioned that "ifa kid is a 'behavior,' then that child could have small group settings." I asked Mrs.Giampetruzzi if she knew what a "behavior" was. Her assumption was that this meant abehavior problem in the classroom, and that "if a kid disrupts another kid in the classroomthen they are allowed to have small group accommodations." She then said that she didnot know why the specific kids she tested were placed in her small groups.

Mrs. Koestner believed that it was Mrs. Moulthrop, not the classroom teachers, whodetermined who was a "behavior" student. She recalled that Mrs. Moulthrop had said thatif a student was disruptive, that student could be placed in a small group. In reviewingExhibit 5, Mrs. Koestner could not determine why the students listed as "behavior" had

Page 26 of 44


28/75

Waterbury CMT Investigative ReportSiegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck P.C.September 13, 2011been placed on that list. She noted the name of a student who she remembered had beenone of Ms. Tomasko's special education students, but had been exited from specialeducation prior to the CMT. She knew that Mrs. Moulthrop "was not happy with that" andnoted that he was now listed on Exhibit 5 as a "behavior" student to be tested by Mrs.Perugini (one of three "behavior" students to be tested in a group along with a specialeducation student and a 504 student), although this student had not exhibited behaviorproblems. She then observed another student on the list, under Mrs. Oabbo's group, whowas to be tested along with 504 students. She also recalled that at one point, this studentwas a special education student, and was now listed here as "behavior", although shecould not remember him having behavior problems. She added that since Mrs. Moulthropwas so involved, she would be able to know whether a student had the potential to be abehavior problem.

Mrs. Bette did not create the small group lists for each grade level class (Exhibit 5),but had input into the ELL student groupings. She did not know who determined the"behavior" designation but believes it had something to do with a student getting areputation as a behavior problem.

As discussed above in subsection (b), Mrs. Koestner and Ms. Tomasko stated that2 fifth grade students were properly exited from special education prior to the 2011 CMTand that Mrs. Moul

waterbury cmt investigative report 9-13-11

Documents