Author: Amanda Gurren

Connecticut ‘Takes the Wheel’ on Education Reform: Project Concern

Posted on Author Amanda Gurren

Amanda Gurren–Trinity College

Connecticut ‘Takes the Wheel’ on Education Reform:

Project Concern

Early Student Participants of Project Concern Project; Source: Hartford Times 1968, Hartford Public Library

Conventionally, students attend school in the district where they live, but the option to choose other educational alternatives has been a part of Connecticut’s state policy for years. One of these educational alternatives included Project Concern, one of the first voluntary busing programs in the United States executed in 1966, which granted Connecticut students residing within city limits the ability to attend suburban schools. In 1998-99, Project Concern was supplanted by the Project Choice (also known as Open Choice) program, which enables the two-way movement of urban and suburban students in the areas neighboring Connecticut’s three largest cities (Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven).

The Concern that Prompted ‘Concern’

In the mid 1960’s, the quality of education in Hartford’s public schools was greatly compromised. Studies concluded that the students who attended the public schools in the low-income areas of Hartford were racially segregated, testing far below both the state and national averages, and dropping out at unforeseeably high rates. Parents, students, and school faculty members were outraged and demanded government intervention immediately. Unsure of what should be done that would most effectively address and resolve the issues at hand, the city requested the aid of Harvard University to examine and essentially assess Hartford and its respective public schools. The findings of Harvard University’s study of Hartford were later published in what is known today as the “Harvard Report.” The Report presented Hartford with a number of suggestions the city could undertake to improve the disastrous conditions of its schools. Although many of these propositions were never implemented due to the lack of sufficient funds, the idea of a state-funded provincial busing program looked hopeful and most importantly–affordable.

En Route to Change: The Beginning Years 

Map of Hartford and its Surrounding Suburbs that Agreed to Participate in Project Concern; Source: Hartford Times 1968, Hartford Public Library.

Project Concern, one of many desegregation social experiments, was put into effect during the sweeping idealism of the 1960s in Connecticut. Hartford responded to Harvard University’s findings by experimenting with busing a randomly selected group of its inner city children to schools of five surrounding suburbs. Considering that more suburbs strongly opposed this desegregation program than volunteered to participate during its early years, the project leaders hoped that the anticipated success of the experiment would encourage more suburbs to join the effort. During this two-year experimental phase, extensive records were kept of the academic and social progress of the 260 student program participants, and were compared to control groups of children remaining in the Hartford public schools.The results of the testing convinced ten other towns and white middle class areas of Hartford to partake in the project and admit target area children into their schools.

Conclusions of ‘Concern’

Men looking at urban-suburban school integration (busing) report; Source: Hartford History Center, Hartford Public Library

Project Concern symbolizes the paradoxical nature of school desegregation efforts around the nation as it has produced a number of both positive and negative outcomes.

The Successes

In 1982, approximately 700 of the former program participants were interviewed and surveyed for the Final Evaluation Report, after having finished secondary school. It was determined that attending the suburban schools significantly reduced high school dropout rates, increased adult socializations between whites and nonwhites, and increased the number of blacks choosing to live in interracial housing. Additionally, it was found that the program participants had fewer complications with police, observed less discrimination in colleges and in their respective jobs, and were more likely to excel in college.

The Failures

In spite of the apparent successes, Project Concern was widely criticized by the public. Many argued that the one-way busing program did not produce anything close to integration. In fact, the burden of busing was placed solely on minority students, rather than two-way desegregation.  Furthermore, critics of the program claimed that the number of program participants was a relatively small percentage of the total number of Hartford students. Even during the program’s highest enrollment years, Project Concern students never made up more than eight percent of any participating district’s student population. The limited number of student participants consequently made it difficult to determine the legitimacy of the final evaluation report’s findings.

Watch Me!


Learn More:

Crain, Robert L., and Jack Strauss. School Desegregation and Black Occupational Attainments: Results from a Long-Term Experiment., July 1985. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED260170.

Crain, Robert L., and Others. Finding Niches: Desegregated Students Sixteen Years Later. Final Report on the Educational Outcomes of Project Concern, Hartford, Connecticut., June 1992. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED396035.

Harvard University Graduate School of Education. Center for Field Studies. Schools for Hartford. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1965. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ja3cbmoamr5cg9v/aET1OjiL79

Iwanicki, Edward F, and Robert K Gable. “Hartford Project Concern Program. Final Evaluation Report, 1982-83.” (August 1983). http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED237612&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED237612.

“When Good Will Is Not Enough; Desegregation Project at Heart of Hartford School Suit – New York Times.” New York Times, n.d. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/01/nyregion/when-good-will-not-enough-desegregation-project-heart-hartford-school-suit.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.

Lying with Maps

Posted on Author Amanda Gurren
   

Map and Key that Portray a Racially Diverse Region

Map and Key that Depict Sharp Racial Division within Hartford Region

 

 

 

Although both maps are created using the same information, they appear drastically different in respect to the composition of demographics of the population. In the map I created to portray the Hartford region as being racially diverse, one can look at it and presume there appears to be a mix of races within each respective district. This is attributed to the fact that I changed the map style to have numerous “breaks” in the legend. By increasing the number of gradients within the legend, I increased the appearance that the region was increasingly more racially diverse. In contrast, for the map to portray little to no racial diversity, the map is simply divided into two colors: red (white) and blue (minority). By creating the map with only two “color categories” (divided based on anything below .50 was non-minority and anything above .50 was minority), the Hartford region appears to be completely racially segregated.

The map that depicts racial segregation shows an isolated minority population in the center—Hartford, Bloomfield, Manchester, and parts of Windsor. It appears as though essentially the majority of the suburbs in this area are predominantly white and the center is entirely non-white. In contrast, the map I created to depict a racially diverse region makes it appear as though there are higher and lower concentrations of non-whites in certain districts, but it appears as though every district is mixed and composed of both whites and non-whites. Hartford and Bloomfield are the only districts that appear to have a very concentrated population of non-whites.

In summarization, the more legends I add to the scale, the more accurate my map appears to be. I find it incredibly fascinating that I could completely “lie” about the statistics of a certain area without actually “lying” or by altering any of the data I wish to present to my audience.

#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

Charts–”How to Lie with Statistics”

Posted on Author Amanda Gurren

To lie about the statistics, I altered the minimum and maximum of the Y-axis to portray the data in a way that would make it appear drastically different from what a simple data table—or an appropriately scaled graph—would portray to the viewer. By increasing the maximum of the Y-axis, the graph made the results of the data appear as though the actual and legal progress towards reaching the 30% proposed goal of the Sheff 1 case (2003-2007) was not only reached—but fairly insignificant of a progress (as you can see, the lines appear as though they are essentially one). On the other hand, increasing the minimum and decreasing the maximum on the scale of the Y-axis made it appear to the viewer as though not only was there little progress made over the years—however, the actual proposed goal of 30% seems blatantly unachievable in the near future.

Not Altered–"Original" Graph

 

This exercise proved itself rather fascinating and showed how fairly detrimental and deceiving visuals can be in respect to portraying data. What I mean by this is that human beings are very visual and tend to look at the shape of the graph and not really read into the actual numbers. Although all of the three graphs present the same data and same numbers, they are portraying completely different results visually.

To create the graph where it appears as though virtually no change or progress was made towards reaching the 30% integration goal of schools by 2007, I changed the minimum of the Y-axis to 14 and the maximum of the Y-axis to 30. I also changed the major unit to 0.8 and the minor unit to 0.1. By increasing the minimum, It made the line appear as though very insignificant growth on the “progression department” had occurred. By decreasing the maximum to the actual goal of 30, it made the other line appear at the very top. The major and minor units changed the intervals between by increasing them—furthering the distance between the actual progress of the state and the proposed goal of the original Sheff I hearing.

Altered Graph–Data Appears As Though No Progress Was Made Towards Obtaining Goal

In respect to the graph where it appears as though there was great progress and that the proposed goal of 30% was met, I decreased the minimum of the Y-axis to -50 and increased the maximum of the Y-axis to 2000. Additionally, I played around a bit and changed the major unit to 200 and the minor unit to 50. By making all of the alterations listed, it looks as though not only did the state meet the proposed goal—but it wasn’t far below the goal of 30% to begin with—virtually the two lines appear as though they intersect. Clearly, this is not the case, because Sheff II and a newly negotiated proposed goal came into effect shortly after the state failed to meet the original goal of Sheff I.

Altered Graph–Progress Was Made

 

Project Concern

Posted on Author Amanda Gurren

Amanda Gurren–Trinity College

Connecticut ‘Takes the Wheel’ on Education Reform:

Project Concern

Early Student Participants of Project Concern Project; Source: Hartford Times 1968, Hartford Public Library

Conventionally, students attend school in the district where they live, but the option to choose other educational alternatives has been a part of Connecticut’s state policy for years. One of these educational alternatives included Project Concern, a program executed in 1966, which granted Connecticut students residing within city limits the ability to attend suburban schools. In 1998-99, Project Concern was supplanted by the Project Choice (also known as Open Choice) program, which enables the two-way movement of urban and suburban students in the areas neighboring Connecticut’s three largest cities (Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven).

The Concern that Prompted ‘Concern’

In the mid 1960’s, the quality of education in Hartford’s public schools was greatly compromised. Studies concluded that the students who attended the public schools in the low-income areas of Hartford were racially segregated, testing far below both the state and national averages, and dropping out at unforeseeably high rates. Parents, students, and school faculty members were outraged and demanded government intervention immediately. Unsure of what should be done that would most effectively address and resolve the issues at hand, the city requested the aid of Harvard University to examine and essentially assess Hartford and its respective public schools. The findings of Harvard University’s study of Hartford were later published in what is known today as the “Harvard Report.” The Report presented Hartford with a number of suggestions the city could undertake to improve the disastrous conditions of its schools. Although many of these propositions were never implemented due to the lack of sufficient funds, the idea of a state-funded provincial busing program looked hopeful and most importantly–affordable.

En Route to Change: The Beginning Years 

Map of Hartford and its Surrounding Suburbs that Agreed to Participate in Project Concern; Source: Hartford Times 1968, Hartford Public Library

Project Concern, one of many desegregation social experiments, was put into effect during the sweeping idealism of the 1960s in Connecticut. Hartford responded to Harvard University’s findings by experimenting with busing a randomly selected group of its inner city children to schools of five surrounding suburbs. Considering that more suburbs strongly opposed this desegregation program than volunteered to participate during its early years, the project leaders hoped that the anticipated success of the experiment would encourage more suburbs to participate. During this two-year experimental phase, extensive records were kept of the academic and social progress of the 260 student program participants, and were compared to control groups of children remaining in the Hartford public schools.The results of the testing convinced ten other towns and white middle class areas of Hartford to partake in the project and admit target area children into their schools.

Conclusions of ‘Concern’

Men looking at urban-suburban school integration (busing) report; Source: Hartford History Center, Hartford Public Library

Project Concern symbolizes the paradoxical nature of school desegregation efforts around the nation as it has produced a number of both positive and negative outcomes.

The Successes

In 1982, approximately 700 of the former program participants were interviewed and surveyed for the Final Evaluation Report, after having finished secondary school. It was determined that attending the suburban schools significantly reduced high school dropout rates, increased adult socializations between whites and nonwhites, and increased the number of blacks choosing to live in interracial housing. Additionally, it was found that the program participants had fewer complications with police, observed less discrimination in colleges and in their respective jobs, and were more likely to excel in college.

The Failures

In spite of the apparent successes, Project Concern was widely criticized by the public. Many argued that the one-way busing program did not produce anything close to integration. In fact, the burden of busing was placed solely on minority students, rather than two-way desegregation.  Furthermore, critics of the program claimed that the number of program participants was a relatively small percentage of the total number of Hartford students. Even during the program’s highest enrollment years, Project Concern students never made up more than eight percent of any participating district’s student population. The limited number of student participants consequently made it difficult to determine the legitimacy of the final evaluation report’s findings.

Watch Me!


Learn More:

Crain, Robert L., and Jack Strauss. School Desegregation and Black Occupational Attainments: Results from a Long-Term Experiment., July 1985. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED260170.

Crain, Robert L., and Others. Finding Niches: Desegregated Students Sixteen Years Later. Final Report on the Educational Outcomes of Project Concern, Hartford, Connecticut., June 1992. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED396035.

Harvard University Graduate School of Education. Center for Field Studies. Schools for Hartford. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1965. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ja3cbmoamr5cg9v/aET1OjiL79

Iwanicki, Edward F, and Robert K Gable. “Hartford Project Concern Program. Final Evaluation Report, 1982-83.” (August 1983). http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED237612&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED237612.

“When Good Will Is Not Enough; Desegregation Project at Heart of Hartford School Suit – New York Times.” New York Times, n.d. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/01/nyregion/when-good-will-not-enough-desegregation-project-heart-hartford-school-suit.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.