Shaping the Learning Corridor Interdistrict Magnet Schools, 1990s to the Present Nivia Nieves ’06 Cities, Suburbs, and Schools research project Trinity.

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.

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)?

Research Question:

• 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

What is the Learning Corridor?

Began before Learning Corridor

Montessori Magnet School (MMS)

Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts (GHAA)

Began before Learning Corridor

Montessori Magnet School (MMS)

Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts (GHAA)

Created as part of Learning Corridor

Hartford Magnet Middle School (HMMS)

Greater Hartford Academy of Math & Science (GHAMAS)

Comparison of School District Participation in the Learning Corridor, 2005

Student participation (by town)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts

Greater Hartford Academy of Math andScience

Montessori Magnet School

Hartford Magnet Middle School

Hartford Non-Hartford


Student participation (by race)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian


Student Participation (by race and town)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





Hartford White Hartford Minority Suburb White Suburb Minority

Comparison of District Participation in LC, 2004-2005

Legend

Student Enrollment

as Percent of Total

0

0 - 2.5%

2.5 - 5%

5 - 10%

10 - 20%

20 - 40%

40 - 70%

HMMS

MMS

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Historical Documents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




Implementation Phase (2000-present)



Prospective parents at Hartford Magnet Middle School (51)

Sources & Methods:

Interviews -- Design phase (1990s-2000)

Key actors conducted Summer 2004 HartfordElizabeth Horton SheffEdie Lacey Eddie Perez Saundra Kee Borges Kevin KinsellaJim BoucherEugene Leach

SuburbanJacqueline JacobyRobert VillanovaErnest PerliniJoe Townsley Alan Beitman Lou Saloom

State & Regional Marc O’Donnell Kevin SullivanJoe Townsley

TrinityScott ReynoldsJackie Mandyck Evan Dobelle Eddie PerezKevin SullivanSaundra Kee BorgesPaula Russo Eugene Leach

Learning CorridorTim NeeEddie PerezKevin Kinsella Paula Russo Saundra Kee Borges

Sources & Methods:

Interviews -- Implementation phase Key actors planned Summer 2005

HartfordEdie Lacey Eddie Perez Luis CabanHyacinth YennieRobert HenryDavid MartinezAlta LashMichael Menatian

State & Regional Rep. Cameron StaplesTheodore S. SergiMarc O’Donnell Kevin SullivanJoe Townsley Bruce Douglas Marcia B. YuloMarie M. Spivey

TrinityJackie Mandyck Eddie PerezKevin SullivanAlta Lash

Learning CorridorTim NeeEddie PerezDelores BoltonHerb Sheppard Jeffery L. Osborn

SuburbanJacqueline JacobyRobert VillanovaJoe 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 officialsSouthside Institutional Neighborhood Alliance (SINA)Hartford city and school officialsHartford neighborhood organizationsSuburban town and school officialsTrinity CollegeHartford business groups

Sources & Methods:

Implementation issues

Funding

Suburban participation

Learning Corridor influence on Hartford


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:


But the Sheff litigation (1988-present) clearly influenced the Learning Corridor.

Findings:


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:


The Sheff decision served as a two-edged blade for the Learning Corridor.– Added political and financial momentum


“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


“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:



But the interest groups’ motivations and concerns differed.

Findings:



But the interest groups’ motivations and concerns differed.

Interest groups rarely interacted with each other.

Sources & Methods:

Interviews




Implementation Phase (2000-present)



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)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Push Pull Both Neither

Non-White White

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:

Thematic Analysis of Motivations

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)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Ed Opp Reputation DislikeCurrent

Sibling Enr Security Friend Enr

Hartford Suburb

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)

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%

Reputation Convenience Sibling Enr Diversity

High Low

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Word ofmouth

Mail Search Presentation Childattending

School Employee

White Non-White

Shaping the Learning Corridor Interdistrict Magnet Schools, 1990s to the Present Nivia Nieves ’06 Cities, Suburbs, and Schools research project Trinity.

Documents

learning corridor advocates

hartford ctwww

montessori magnet school

metro hartford schools

oneill magnet schools

interviewsdesign phase

key remedy

arts ghaacreated