Magnet Schools and Sheff vs. O’Neill

Presentation for the Hartford Public Schools

by Hambisa Goso, Erik Jefferson, Kerry Kincy, Chris Olenoski, and Sam Zivin, with Professor Jack Dougherty

Trinity College, Hartford CT

April 25, 2007

Part 1: Racial composition of magnet schools and Sheff settlement goals

Part 2: Interviews with prospective parents at magnet school fairs

Are We Meeting the Sheff Goal?

According to the Sheff legal settlement of 2003, all parties agreed to a goal of 30% of Hartford minority students in desegregated school settings by June 2007

Are We Meeting the Sheff Goal? 22 magnets currently open, 2006-07

Magnet Schools Yr Open Manager

Magnet Prog Pct Minority Enroll 06-07

within Sheff minority cap (74% for 06-07)

Sheff exemption due to 1st or 2nd yr in operation

Hartford Minority Enroll in magnet program 06-07

Annie Fisher 2005 HPS 96% no yes 194Simpson-Waverly 2004 HPS 95% no 154Hooker 2006 HPS 89% no yes 56Pathways 2003 HPS 89% no 172Noah Webster 2004 HPS 86% no 240Capitol Prep 2005 HPS 86% no yes 122Kinsella 2006 HPS 85% no yes 67Grtr Hartford Classical 2003 HPS 83% no 320University HS 2004 HPS 81% no 200Big Picture 2005 Blmfd 80% no 0Sports & Med Sci 2002 HPS 78% no 210Montessori 1990 CREC 78% no 148MLC 1998 CREC 75% no 193UHMS 2001 CREC 74% yes 193HMMS 2002 HPS 74% yes 341Breakthrough 2002 HPS 73% yes 163Intl Bacc 1999 EastHtfd 54% yes 22Two Rivers 2002 CREC 53% yes 141Great Path 2002 CREC 48% yes 13GHAMAS 2000 CREC 46% yes 51EHG 1992 CREC 39% yes 0GHAA 1989 CREC 26% yes 49

Source: CT State Dept. Ed

Are We Meeting the Sheff Goal?

Are We Meeting the Sheff Goal?

Hartford minority students in public schools

2005-06 Total

2005-06 Percent toward Sheff goal

2006-07 Total

one-year difference

2006-07 Total

2006-07 Percent toward Sheff goal

Magnet schools -- meeting Sheff standard 1396 6.3% 1412 16 1412 6.4% -- not meeting Sheff standard 1141 1637 496 1637 -- grade levels not phased in 961 1406 445 1406Open Choice suburban transfers 1062 4.8% *1062 *4.8%Hartford neighborhood schools 17521 16412 -1109 16412Total 22081 21929 Interdistrict Cooperative Grants 3.0% 3.0%Total Percent 14.1% *14.3%

ACTUAL CURRENT ESTIMATE

Are We Meeting the Sheff Goal?

Hartford minority students in public schools

2005-06 Total

2005-06 Percent toward Sheff goal

2006-07 Total

one-year difference

2006-07 Total

2006-07 Percent toward Sheff goal

Magnet schools -- meeting Sheff standard 1396 6.3% 1412 16 1412 6.4% -- not meeting Sheff standard 1141 1637 496 1637 -- grade levels not phased in 961 1406 445 1406Open Choice suburban transfers 1062 4.8% *1062 *4.8%Hartford neighborhood schools 17521 16412 -1109 16412Total 22081 21929 Interdistrict Cooperative Grants 3.0% 3.0%Total Percent 14.1% *14.3%

ACTUAL CURRENT ESTIMATE

Are We Meeting the Sheff Goal?

Hartford minority students in public schools

2005-06 Total

2005-06 Percent toward Sheff goal

2006-07 Total

one-year difference

2006-07 Total

2006-07 Percent toward Sheff goal

Magnet schools -- meeting Sheff standard 1396 6.3% 1412 16 1412 6.4% -- not meeting Sheff standard 1141 1637 496 1637 -- grade levels not phased in 961 1406 445 1406Open Choice suburban transfers 1062 4.8% *1062 *4.8%Hartford neighborhood schools 17521 16412 -1109 16412Total 22081 21929 Interdistrict Cooperative Grants 3.0% 3.0%Total Percent 14.1% *14.3%

ACTUAL CURRENT ESTIMATE

Are We Meeting the Sheff Goal?

Hartford minority students in public schools

2005-06 Total

2005-06 Percent toward Sheff goal

2006-07 Total

one-year difference

2006-07 Total

2006-07 Percent toward Sheff goal

Magnet schools -- meeting Sheff standard 1396 6.3% 1412 16 1412 6.4% -- not meeting Sheff standard 1141 1637 496 1637 -- grade levels not phased in 961 1406 445 1406Open Choice suburban transfers 1062 4.8% *1062 *4.8%Hartford neighborhood schools 17521 16412 -1109 16412Total 22081 21929 Interdistrict Cooperative Grants 3.0% 3.0%Total Percent 14.1% *14.3%

ACTUAL CURRENT ESTIMATE

*based on prior year Choice data

Are We Meeting the Sheff Goal?

Hartford minority students in public schools

2005-06 Total

2005-06 Percent toward Sheff goal

2006-07 Total

one-year difference

2006-07 Total

2006-07 Percent toward Sheff goal

Magnet schools -- meeting Sheff standard 1396 6.3% 1412 16 1412 6.4% -- not meeting Sheff standard 1141 1637 496 1637 -- grade levels not phased in 961 1406 445 1406Open Choice suburban transfers 1062 4.8% *1062 *4.8%Hartford neighborhood schools 17521 16412 -1109 16412Total 22081 21929 Interdistrict Cooperative Grants 3.0% 3.0%Total Percent 14.1% *14.3%

ACTUAL CURRENT ESTIMATE

*based on prior year Choice data

2006-07 Total

2006-07 Percent toward Sheff goal

4455 20.3%

1062 4.8%1641221929

3.0%28.2%

HYPOTHETICAL

Even if all magnet enrollments were counted, still would not reach 30% goal

Project Choice enrollments have not risen to 1600, the projected level in 2003 settlement

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

2002- 03* 2003- 04* 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07* 2006- 07goal

Are We Meeting the Sheff Goal?

*estimate

Progress toward the Sheff settlement goal of 30% by June 2007

Magnet School Fair Interviews

Research Questions:

1) What motivates parents to consider magnet schools relative to other choices?

2) How do parents construct ideas about the purpose and quality of magnet schools?

3) What sources of information and social networks do these parents rely upon?

4) How do parental motivations, ideas, and networks vary across demographic groups?

Magnet School Fair Interviews

Research Methods:

Interviews with 126 prospective magnet parents attending 3 HPS magnet fairs in January - February 2007

Magnet School Fair Interviews

Research Methods:

Interviews with 126 prospective magnet parents attending 3 HPS magnet fairs in January - February 2007

Magnet School Fair Interviews

Community partner

Delores Bolton, HPS Assistant

Supt for Magnet Schools

Research Methods:

Interviews with 126 prospective magnet parents attending 3 HPS magnet fairs in January - February 2007

Magnet School Fair Interviews

Fair at Breakthrough Magnet School, January 2007

Research Methods:

Interviews with 126 prospective magnet parents attending 3 HPS magnet fairs in January - February 2007

Magnet School Fair Interviews

Fair at Breakthrough Magnet School, January 2007

Transcribed, coded, and analyzed interview data

Magnet School Fair Interviews

Magnet School Fair Interviews

Demographic summary of parents in this sample

*We did not interview every parent at the magnet fair, nor should this sample be generalized to the larger pool of all magnet applicants

Residence Total Percentcity 67 53%suburb 57 45%(blank) 2 2%Total 126

Race/EthnicityMinority 102 81%White-only 24 19%Total 126

Parental EducationUpper (some college + above) 101 80%Lower (HS diploma + below) 25 20%Total 126

Current school Total Sub Percentneighborhood 60 48%choice 40 32% - magnet 25 - private/parochial 11 - charter school 4n/a (preK, blank, etc.) 26 21%Total 126

Claim 1: Race Does not Affect “Push” or “Pull” Motivations in this sample

We coded parent motivations for considering a magnet school:– “push” away from

current school– “pull” toward magnet

school– both– neither

Claim 1: Race Does not Affect “Push” or “Pull” Motivations in this sample

We coded parent motivations for considering a magnet school:– “push” away from

current school– “pull” toward magnet

school– both– neither

Motivation Minority WhitePush 13% 17%Pull 50% 50%Both 31% 29%Neither 6% 4%Total 100% 100%

Claim 2: More parents motivated by educational opportunity than diversity

in this sample

• Regardless of race, magnet fair parents were more likely to mention educational opportunities as their motivation (39%, or 49 out of 126), compared to diversity (1%, or 6 out of 126)

• Of the White parents, only 1 out of 24, acknowledged diversity as their motivation, in comparison to 5 out of 102 minority parents

Claim 3: Urban Parents Rely More Upon Current Schools for Magnet Information

than Suburban Parents

• 34% (23/67) Urban parents rely on current schools

• 21% (12/57) Suburban parents rely on current schools

• Typical urban parent responses: – “I got a flyer from school” or “School counselor”

• Suburban parents rely more upon social networks

Claim 4: Several Parents Perceive Magnet Schools as Different from

“Public” Schools

• Typical parent: “I’m just trying to find an alternative to public school in Hartford”

• The population lacks a clear vocabulary for two types of public schools: magnets and neighborhood schools

Claim 4: Several Parents Perceive Magnet Schools as Different from

“Public” Schools

• Typical parent: “I’m just trying to find an alternative to public school in Hartford”

• The population lacks a clear vocabulary for two types of public schools: magnets and neighborhood schools

Some magnet school promotional literature contributes to this confusion by associating magnets with “private” schools

Claim 5: Some Parents Concerned with Recently “Magnetized” Neighborhood Schools

• HPS neighborhood schools recently converted into magnets: Kinsella, Hooker, Annie Fisher, Simpson-Waverly, Noah Webster

• Typical parent comments:– “I don’t know what they are going to offer

different”... – “When it was a troubled elementary school,

[boom] it turned into a magnet school…”

Members of the Ed 309 seminar at Trinity, Spring 2007

Back (L to R): Hambisa Goso, Heather Moore, Erik Jefferson, Chris Olenoski, Ernie Laden; Middle: Dora Turjan, Gloribel Gonzalez, Ashley Clackson, Jen Shouldice, Kerry Kincy, Sam Zivin; Front: Elysha Padilla, Mari Zigas, Jason Haber. Not pictured: Noelle Bessette and Professor Jack Dougherty

Additional information available on the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools website

www.trincoll.edu/depts/educ/CSS