Transcript Shaping the Learning Corridor Interdistrict Magnet Schools

Shaping the Learning Corridor
Interdistrict Magnet Schools,
1990s to the Present
Nivia Nieves ’06
Cities, Suburbs, and Schools
research project
Trinity College, Hartford CT
www.trincoll.edu/depts/educ/css
July 18, 2005
Sheff vs. O’Neill & Magnet Schools
 1996 ruling supported plaintiffs and
claimed that metro Hartford schools are
segregated.
 2003 Sheff settlement affirmed the
expansion of interdistrict magnet schools
as the key remedy.
Research Question:
What were the original concerns and goals of
The Learning Corridor advocates
(and opponents),
and how did they gain support from various
interest groups during the design phase
(1990s-2000)
and how are they addressing issues during the
implementation (2000-present)?
What is the Learning Corridor?
• Montessori Magnet School –prek-5
• Hartford Magnet Middle School 6-8
• Greater Hartford Academy of Math & Science 9-12
• Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts 9-12
Began before
Learning Corridor
 Montessori Magnet
School (MMS)
 Greater Hartford
Academy of the Arts
(GHAA)
Began before
Learning Corridor
Created as part of
Learning Corridor
 Montessori Magnet
School (MMS)
 Hartford Magnet
Middle School
(HMMS)
 Greater Hartford
Academy of the Arts
(GHAA)
 Greater Hartford
Academy of Math &
Science (GHAMAS)
Comparison of School District Participation
in the Learning Corridor, 2005
Student participation (by tow n)
Hartford
Non-Hartford
Hartford Magnet Middle School
Montessori Magnet School
Greater Hartford Academy of Math and
Science
Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Comparison of School District Participation
in the Learning Corridor, 2005
Student participation (by race)
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
20%
40%
Hartford Magnet Middle School
Montessori Magnet School
Greater Hartford Academy of Math and
Science
Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts
0%
60%
80%
100%
Comparison of School District Participation
in the Learning Corridor, 2005
Student Participation (by race and tow n)
Hartford White
Hartford Minority
Suburb White
Suburb Minority
Hartford Magnet Middle School
Montessori Magnet School
Greater Hartford Academy of Math and
Science
Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Comparison of District Participation in LC, 2004-2005
HMMS
MMS
Le ge nd
Student Enrollment
as Percent of Total
0
0 - 2.5%
2.5 - 5%
5 - 10%
10 - 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 70%
GHAMAS
GHAA
Sources & Methods:
Historical Documents
• Reports:
Examples: Kellogg Project & Aetna Center for Families
Community Resident Survey
• News Stories:
Examples: Hartford Courant
• Archival Documents:
Examples: Minutes from Trinity Board of Trustee meetings
Sources & Methods:
Interviews
Design Phase
(1990s-2000)
Key Actors




Hartford
Suburban
Trinity
State & Regional
Government
 Learning Corridor
Sources & Methods:
Interviews




Design Phase
(1990s-2000)
Implementation Phase
(2000-present)
Key Actors
Key Actors
Hartford
Suburban
Trinity
State & Regional
Government
 Learning Corridor




Hartford
Suburban
Trinity
State & Regional
Government
 Learning Corridor
Prospective parents at Hartford
Magnet Middle School (51)
Sources & Methods:
Interviews -- Design phase (1990s-2000)
Key actors conducted Summer 2004
 Hartford
Elizabeth Horton Sheff
Edie Lacey
Eddie Perez
Saundra Kee Borges
Kevin Kinsella
Jim Boucher
Eugene Leach
 Suburban
Jacqueline Jacoby
Robert Villanova
Ernest Perlini
Joe Townsley
Alan Beitman
Lou Saloom
 State & Regional
Marc O’Donnell
Kevin Sullivan
Joe Townsley
 Trinity
Scott Reynolds
Jackie Mandyck
Evan Dobelle
Eddie Perez
Kevin Sullivan
Saundra Kee Borges
Paula Russo
Eugene Leach
 Learning Corridor
Tim Nee
Eddie Perez
Kevin Kinsella
Paula Russo
Saundra Kee Borges
Sources & Methods:
Interviews -- Implementation phase
Key actors planned Summer 2005
 Hartford
 Trinity
Edie Lacey
Eddie Perez
Luis Caban
Hyacinth Yennie
Robert Henry
David Martinez
Alta Lash
Michael Menatian
Jackie Mandyck
Eddie Perez
Kevin Sullivan
Alta Lash
 State & Regional
Rep. Cameron Staples
Theodore S. Sergi
Marc O’Donnell
Kevin Sullivan
Joe Townsley
Bruce Douglas
Marcia B. Yulo
Marie M. Spivey
 Learning Corridor
Tim Nee
Eddie Perez
Delores Bolton
Herb Sheppard
Jeffery L. Osborn
 Suburban
Jacqueline Jacoby
Robert Villanova
Joe Townsley
Sources & Methods:
Sample questions design phase
 What concerns did you have about
Hartford and the region in the mid-1990s?
Sources & Methods:
Sample questions design phase
 What concerns did you have about
Hartford and the region in the mid-1990s?
 I’m going to list different groups of people -- to
your knowledge, what actions did they take
regarding the Learning Corridor -- and
why?
State and regional officials
Southside Institutional Neighborhood Alliance (SINA)
Hartford city and school officials
Hartford neighborhood organizations
Suburban town and school officials
Trinity College
Hartford business groups
Sources & Methods:
Implementation issues
 Funding
 Suburban participation
 Learning Corridor influence on Hartford
 Hartford Magnet Middle School
 CREC vs HPS Management
 Goals
Sources & Methods:
Sample questions -- Implementation phase
Funding has been a continuing concern for the
Learning Corridor magnet schools.
- What are the underlying causes of the funding problem?
- Has financial support from different sources changed over time?
- What are the consequences of these funding problems for the LC?
Sources & Methods:
Sample questions -- Implementation phase
Funding has been a continuing concern for the
Learning Corridor magnet schools.
- What are the underlying causes of the funding problem?
- Has financial support from different sources changed over time?
- What are the consequences of these funding problems for the LC?
Over the past five years, two organizations
have taken responsibility for managing magnet
schools in Hartford: HPS and CREC. Where
does the LC stand between the two right now?
And in the future?
Findings:
Design phase (1990s-2000)
Findings:
Design phase (1990s-2000)
The primary goal of the Learning Corridor was
urban renewal, not necessarily education.
Findings:
Design phase (1990s-2000)
The primary goal of the Learning Corridor was
urban renewal, not necessarily education.
“The Learning Corridor wasn’t a concept of just these four schools. It’s a much
broader concept than that. And, I don’t think people always appreciate the
broader concept.” (Tim Nee, MMS Principal, p. 4)
“Well, I think its original objectives were to…through education, to stabilize a
neighborhood and to make it a healthy vibrant place to, first of all where
people want to live.” (Scott Reynolds, Secretary of Trinity College, p. 7)
Findings:
Design phase (1990s-2000)
The Learning Corridor probably would have
happened regardless of the Sheff plaintiff
victory, due to Trinity College plans prior to the
1996 ruling.
Findings:
Design phase (1990s-2000)
The Learning Corridor probably would have
happened regardless of the Sheff plaintiff
victory, due to Trinity College plans prior to the
1996 ruling.
Findings:
Design phase (1990s-2000)
But the Sheff litigation (1988-present) clearly
influenced the Learning Corridor.
Findings:
Design phase (1990s-2000)
The Sheff decision served as a two-edged blade
for the Learning Corridor.
– Added political and financial momentum
– Diluted the impact on Hartford neighborhoods
Findings:
Design phase (1990s-2000)
The Sheff decision served as a two-edged blade
for the Learning Corridor.
– Added political and financial momentum
– Diluted the impact on Hartford neighborhoods
“The way that money works restricts the number of Hartford kids who
participate…So we have not served nearly as many community
kids…We thought the middle school would be a neighborhood school
and it is now a magnet school.” (Kevin Sullivan, former Vice President of
Institutional and Community Relations, Trinity College, p. 12)
Findings:
Design phase (1990s-2000)
The Sheff decision served as a two edged blade
for the Learning Corridor.
– Added political and financial momentum
– Diluted the impact on Hartford neighborhoods
“The former superintendent Anthony Amato pulled some political strings
and got [HMMS] changed from a neighborhood school to a magnet
school, which infuriated the neighborhood, because really we felt that our
kids who were at risk were the middle school kids and that if we could
have them in a quality neighborhood school we could probably do
something… He betrayed our neighborhood. And, he did it because he
could get more money as a magnet school.” (Edie Lacey, Hartford
Community activist and former chair of Frog Hallow South NRZ, p. 2)
Findings:
Implementation phase (2000-present)
 Interest groups collectively succeeded in
constructing the Learning Corridor and
achieving better racial balance than city or
suburban schools.
Findings:
Implementation phase (2000-present)
 Interest groups collectively succeeded in
constructing the Learning Corridor and
achieving better racial balance than city or
suburban schools.
 But the interest groups’ motivations and
concerns differed.
Findings:
Implementation phase (2000-present)
 Interest groups collectively succeeded in
constructing the Learning Corridor and
achieving better racial balance than city or
suburban schools.
 But the interest groups’ motivations and
concerns differed.
 Interest groups rarely interacted with each
other.
Sources & Methods:
Interviews




Design Phase
(1990s-2000)
Implementation Phase
(2000-present)
Key Actors
Key Actors
Hartford
Suburban
Trinity
State & Regional
Government
 Learning Corridor




Hartford
Suburban
Trinity
State & Regional
Government
 Learning Corridor
Prospective parents at Hartford
Magnet Middle School (51)
Sources & Methods:
Focus on 51 interviews with prospective parents
White 31%
Non-White 69%
Hartford 45%
Suburb 55%
Low educ level (high school or some college) 51%
High educ level (college or graduate school) 49%
Sources & Methods:
Definitions
Parental Motivations for applying to magnets
Push - Dissatisfaction with current school for any
reason (such as class size)
Pull - Attraction to magnet schools for any reason
(such as convenient location)
Findings:
Parent Motivation Disparities (by race)
• Non-white parents are more likely to feel both
“pushed” away from neighborhood schools and
“pulled” towards magnet schools
Parent Motivation Disparities (by race)
Non-White
White
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Push
Pull
Both
Neither
Thematic Analysis of Motivations
Categories identified in open-ended parental responses
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Better educational opportunities
Child attending:
Class size:
Convenient:
Curriculum/Teaching:
Diversity:
Do not like current school:
Friends attending:
Private school costs are high:
Reputation:
Security:
Findings:
Parent Motivation Similarities (by town)
Both Hartford and Suburban Parents were equally as interested
in magnet schools for better educational opportunities, reputation
of magnet school, dislike of child’s current school, enrollment of
siblings, security, and enrollment of friends.
Parent Motivation Similarities (by town)
Hartford
Suburb
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Ed Opp
Reputation
Dislike
Current
Sibling Enr
Security
Friend Enr
Findings:
Parent Motivation Disparities (by parent education)
Parents with the lowest levels of education were motivated by
school reputation, convenience, and having a sibling enrolled.
Parents with the highest levels of education were more attracted to
magnets for diversity.
Parent Motivation Disparities (by education level)
High
Low
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Reputation
Convenience
Sibling Enr
Diversity
Findings:
Source of School
Word of mouth was the greatest source of information on magnet
schools for both white and non-white parents.
Non-white parents were more likely to also conduct their own
informational search and receive mail from the magnet schools.
Source of school information
White
Non-White
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Word of
mouth
Mail
Search
Presentation
Child
attending
School
Employee