Reduced Isolation: An Examination of Integration in Magnet and Charter Schools

According to the Connecticut State Department of Education, both magnet and charter schools were founded on the basis of creating environments designed to “reduce racial, ethnic, and economic isolation.” However, of the two, only magnet schools are actually required to maintain a racial balance, whereas it is merely a suggestion for charter schools. In an attempt to reduce racially isolated schools, settlements that arose out of the Sheff vs. O’Neill case include a section outlining specific requirements for magnet schools to be considered desegregated. In our essay, we look to past school enrollment data to reveal the importance of having this defined standard of reduced isolation, and how the presence of this guideline is more effective in racially, ethnically, and economically integrating schools when strictly employed as in magnet schools than when simply encouraged as in charters. The data reveals that every year, the number of racially isolated magnet schools decreases while the number of racially isolated charter schools remains relatively the same, which accounts for the majority of charter schools. Without a specific standard they are required to adhere to, the majority of charter schools are, in terms of Sheff standards, considered racially isolated. This supports the effectiveness of the Sheff standard in encouraging the desegregation of schools. Without the standard, charter schools have a larger proportion of racially isolated student bodies, as compared to magnet schools. Why then, are charters not held to the same racial requirements as magnets are? This is a question we would like to further explore through data analysis and visualization.

Magnets Versus Charters

The magnet schools we have chosen to discuss in this essay are those that participate in the Sheff legislation and specifically abide by the clearly defined standards for environments of reduced isolation. That said, magnet schools are also public schools, but these operate under “a local or regional school district, a regional educational service center, or a cooperative arrangement involving two or more districts” ¹. Magnets have two main goals: to reduce racial, ethnic and economic isolation and to offer curricula that encourage and support educational improvement and achievement ². The Sheff Stipulation and Proposed Order from 2013 went into effect to remedy the Hartford schools’ violation of the Connecticut Constitutional order to reduce the racial, ethnic and socioeconomic isolation ³. Because schools were not effectively desegregating, Sheff proposed benchmarks to enhance incentives and promote reduced isolation. If magnet schools fail to meet these guidelines, they risk losing grant funding ⁴. In 2008, the order required that magnets enroll between 25% and 75% minority students, defined as non-white students ⁵ . In 2013, the range remained the same, but the definition of minority changed to only Black and Hispanic students ⁶. In 2013, Sheff included a section calling for the enrollment of at least 44% Hartford-resident minorities ⁷. Most recently, Sheff has increased that requirement to 47.5% ⁸. Together these two clearly defined and measurable standards function to increase integration, achieving the primary goal of magnet schools.

Charter schools, on the other hand, are public schools “that operate independently of local and regional boards of education” ⁹. One main goal for charter schools is “to reduce racial, ethnic and economic isolation” ¹⁰. With its goals at the forefront, charters establish their own methods and standards for achieving them. Because charters function autonomously, they are not held to any specific standard, as magnets are. This raises concerns for the incentives and accountability of charters and their goal of fostering diverse environments.

Charters abide by the Connecticut State Statute ¹¹, which frequently mentions racial and socioeconomic integration. The first section discusses the approval process for a charter. The document states that the “State Board of Education shall consider the effect of the proposed charter school on the reduction of racial, ethnic and economic isolation in the region in which it is to be located” ¹². To say that the Board will “consider” granting a charter based on its proposal to reduce isolation becomes altogether meaningless when there is no specifically outlined goal for which charters should aim to achieve concerning the diversity in enrollment. Merely considering something does not hold charters accountable to any kind of consequence if they do not successfully reduce isolation. Whether or not a proposed charter contributes to reducing isolated environments, the Board of Education is simply asked to consider it, not to decline the charter on the grounds of lacking a racially and socioeconomically integrated student body.

The next section mentioning reduced isolation discusses it in the context of probation processes. Charters can be placed on probation if they fail to “achieve measurable progress in reducing racial, ethnic and economic isolation” ¹³. The question here is: what qualifies as measurable progress when there is no quantifiable value provided? “Measurable progress” is a subjective term, whereby charters decide on their own ratio of minority to non-minority students. They are then held only to their own personal standard for reduced isolation. However, with the autonomy that they are grounded in, charters can adjust their measure to prevent them from going on probation or having their charter revoked. With the freedom to judge for themselves what is considered “measurable progress” or not, charters would never have to be at risk of losing funding or risk termination because they are in control of their own progress and how that progress is viewed by the Board. The main issue with this language is that while the statute does require charters to actively work towards integration, it provides no specific boundary on which to hold them accountable.

Another section states that applicants, when applying to charters, will receive preference if they “reside in a district in which seventy-five per cent or more of the enrolled students are members of racial or ethnic minorities” ¹⁴. This means that charters will give preference to students coming from homogenous, minority communities. Again, giving preference to these students promotes integration and functions to help those most in need. However, that does not hold them accountable for any particular percentage and it does not consider the effects of racial and socioeconomic imbalance. Similar to the issue of language discussed above, with no quantifiable quota there is no way for these charters to effectively reach the type of student body conducive with high minority achievement.

The Sheff Standard: Old and New

In an attempt to reduce racially isolated schools, Sheff settlements include a section outlining requirements for schools to be considered desegregated. In 2008, Sheff categorized reduced isolation as schools whose minority percentage fell between 25%-75% of total enrollment ¹⁵. Minority was defined as non-white students, including Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, and Pacific Islander. Under this standard, about a third of magnets failed to comply. Only two of these non-compliant schools failed to meet reduced isolation standards because its enrollment population comprised of mostly non-minority students – the remaining schools were considered segregated due to an exceedingly high percentage of minority and low-income students. The non-compliant schools described in the latter comprised of anywhere from 75% to almost 90% minority students, a point at which the student body was hyper-segregated with near homogeneity. The frequency of this extremely segregated environment can be attributed to the “niche market approach,” where schools and their administrators hope to target low-income and minority groups to serve populations with the greatest need ¹⁶. By enrolling a larger number of minority students than of white, the schools achieve their goals of reaching more disadvantaged communities. However, as we will discuss later in the essay, this approach proves to be far more detrimental to those disadvantaged students; educating them in a racially and economically segregated environment seems to do more harm than good.

In 2013 Sheff amended its reduced isolation standards to refer solely to students identifying as any part Black or Hispanic ¹⁷. Under this new definition of minority, the number of non-compliant magnets in the 2013-2014 school year was cut almost in half.

When counting only Black and/or Hispanic students towards reduced isolation, 83% of the magnets (52 out of 63 schools) successfully achieved Sheff compliance, a number that significantly increased from its original 66% of compliant schools (41 out of 63 schools) in the 2011-2012 school year, using the previous definition of minority. Looking at the most recent school enrollment data for magnet schools reveals only 5 out of 45 listed schools out of compliance with Sheff standards, which further increases the percentage to 89% compliant (see tables 1 and 2 at the end of this section for the data used in this analysis). The annual enrollment data shows a consistent increase in compliance; by holding magnets to a measurable standard of reduced isolation, schools are held accountable and given real incentives to foster integrated student bodies.

It is important to acknowledge, however, that the way the word “minority” is defined has immense power in its ability to influence future demographics and enrollment standards in schools. Simply changing the definition for reduced isolation had a significant impact on whether or not magnet schools remained compliant with the racial standards set by Sheff. Had the definition remained unchanged, 18 magnet schools would have been noncompliant in 2013-2014 (compared to the 11 noncompliant schools under Sheff’s 2013 standard), showing little to no significant change from past years. Furthermore, of those 18 magnets that failed to meet Sheff’s 2008 standards, 8 of them became compliant under Sheff’s revised standards in 2013 without having to alter their student enrollment. Under the original Sheff standard, defining “minority” as non-white, these schools would not have been in compliance. However, the updated definition of minority automatically puts these schools in compliance without any active effort to adjust racial enrollment. Thus, while an increasing number of schools were considered desegregated, the racial distribution for some schools changed minimally or not at all. Regardless, a significant portion of these newly compliant schools did in fact make an active effort to reduce isolation, reinforcing the idea that this imposed standard of compliance encourages magnet schools to diversify and become compliant with Sheff standards.

Table 1: The spreadsheet above shows the percentages of reduced isolation for magnet schools in the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 school years. For the 2011-2012 school year, reduced isolation was calculated in terms of nonwhite students, and in 2013-2014 it became only Black and Hispanic students. Reduced isolation is given as the inverse of these calculations. Schools are compliant if their reduced isolation percentage falls between 25% and 75%. (Source: Robert Cotto and Jack Dougherty)

Table 2: The spreadsheet above shows the percentages of reduced isolation for magnet schools in the current 2014-2015 school year. Reduced isolation is given as the inverse of the percent Black and Hispanic students. Schools are compliant if their reduced isolation percentage falls between 25% and 75%. (Source: Barbara Canzonetti)

What If?: Applying Sheff to Charters

While currently, the Sheff reduced isolation standard is only exercised by magnets, this is not out of exclusivity within the legislation, but rather because other types of schools have chosen not to participate. In the Sheff legislation, the state agreed to incorporate a variety of programs, some of which include “charter school initiatives, state technical high schools and vocational agriculture programs, and other new and progressive initiatives,” that could, if they chose, be considered a part of the reduced isolation goal ¹⁸. Participating in this goal would allow the state to count the school in their total number of integrated schools, as well as make the school eligible for funding. Given that charters were designed to promote diversity, such a standard of integration appears to directly align with the mission statement of charter schools. However, charters have yet to act in accordance with the Sheff legislation; instead, they follow their own, more lenient integration guidelines as previously discussed.

Without a concrete and measurable unit for integration, charters can often neglect entirely this goal of diversity within their student bodies. A lack in standard also creates more difficulty in determining which charters are succeeding or failing to create diverse and integrated environments. In order to test how integrated Connecticut Open Choice charter schools were, we applied the new Sheff reduced isolation standard to charter schools from the 2013-2014 school year. We found that only 28% (5 out of 18) would be compliant with reduced isolation, compared to the 89% of magnets currently in compliance (see graph for comparison and table 3 for data). Based on this disparity, we would argue that magnets are far more successful than are charters in creating environments of reduced isolation, a difference that is rooted in the strictly defined integration standard that magnets, but not charters, are held accountable to.

Table 3: The schools highlighted in purple are the only 5 charters that would be compliant with Sheff’s reduced isolation standard. (Source: Jack Dougherty)

So why, then, do charters not adopt the Sheff standards? When our seminar spoke with the authors of A Smarter Charter, Kahlenberg and Potter explained that such a set standard was not in the nature of charters. Placing specific criteria or regulations on charters goes against Albert Shanker’s initial vision of charters as laboratory schools. For Shanker, charter schools were to function as experiments with varying approaches and curricula to discover what works best for all students ¹⁹. Charters do not want to hinder or bind themselves by requiring a standard for racial balance and integration because perhaps it is not the best way to educate its students. An education system built on freedom of exploration strives to hold on to that independence and self-governance. But while they exercise their freedom, charters fail to produce the rich and diverse environments Shanker had hoped would come naturally.

(Note from the instructor: Students were ask to write essays under 2500 words, which would be about here. Evaluators may read as much as they wish, but should not rate the essay beyond this point.)

So What?

What is the big deal about having racial, ethnic, and economic integration in school populations anyways? Integration on all levels plays a strong role in developing better, moral characters, leading to a “dramatic decrease in discriminatory attitudes and prejudices” ²⁰. Research has found that children are at higher “risk of developing stereotypes about racial groups if they live in and are educated in racially isolated settings,” further perpetuating the idea that integration is crucial ²¹.

Not only is integration important for character, but also for the creation of an environment producing higher academic achievement. Research has found that “children from socioeconomically deprived families do better academically when they are integrated with children of higher socioeconomic status and better-educated families” ²². The motivation and ambition of middle- and upper- class peers are contagious; deprived students are able to accelerate their learning through informal interactions with peers ²³. Integrated academic environments also allow low-income students and their families to profit from the presence of middle- and high-income parents, who tend to “volunteer in the classroom, have high standards, hold school officials accountable, apply political pressures to ensure adequate funding, and provide financial support” ²⁴. Increasing diversity is not a zero-sum game; the achievement levels of middle class, white students will not decrease due to the presence of low income, minority students ²⁵. In fact, their achievement will most likely remain the same, and their ability to interact with individuals of diverse backgrounds will improve.

The importance of integrated environments is highlighted by indisputable data regarding the higher academic achievement and increased social awareness of minority students educated in diverse environments. Looking at recent school enrollment data, we have found that a larger number of magnet schools have integrated student bodies than do charters. Should charters be held to a similar, strictly defined standard for creating environments of reduced isolation as magnets are held to Sheff, we strongly believe that they too can have more integrated student bodies.