Ambar Paulino – Cities, Suburbs & Schools Project at Trinity College

Draft Junior Research Plan

December 22, 2013Ambar Paulino

Ed Studies Junior Research Plan

Name: Ambar Paulino

Major(s)/Concentration: English/Educational Studies/ African American Studies Minor

Last updated: December 9th, 2013

1) What is your proposed research question, and how is it significant to educational studies, broadly defined?

How has the relocation of the Trinity College campus, from Downtown Hartford to Frog Follow affected families and their children’s education in the Hartford community and surrounding areas? What role has Trinity College played in the development and closing of the achievement gap for Hartford Public Schools?

2) What courses, experiences, and/or readings inspired you to choose this question?

As an Educational Studies major, I was able to take an array of classes which help piece together my concentration which is: “Race, Class, the Achievement Gap and Educational Success.” I am currently taking a class called Race and Urban Space, with Professor Davarian Baldwin which explores the racial implications that decision in city planning lead to. Through my studies in that course I’ve learned that the environment I am living in is not just existent. Months of planning, zoning, and construction go into making cities, and when it comes to urban planning, there are always decisions made.

One of my major assignments for the semester engaged me in my own community. Through the research of my own built environment, I found that my neighborhood underwent a process of transformation with the aide of local prestigious institution- Columbia University. As I delved deeper in my research, I was exposed to all of the changes that were driven by the presence and expansion of Columbia University. As a Trinity College student, I began to think about the relationship that Trinity College posses with the city of Hartford, and what role Trinity has played in the community. Along with your course- Cities, Suburbs, and Schools, I’d like to explore the relationship between the transformation of Hartford due to Trinity’s presence, and also how that has affected (or if it has affected) the public school system and other colleges/universities in the area. For the most part, there are many factors such as real estate, employment, policing, and policy making that may be influenced and or affected by Trinity; I’d like to explore the relationship that our institution has had in the development of Educational policies, creation of magnets schools/open choice schools in the area.

One article that inspired my thinking for this proposal was an article written by Professor Baldwin called, “Phoenix Rising? Arizona State University As An Urban Growth Machine.” This article highlights the effect of the expansion of Arizona State University into the downtown area of Phoenix, a large buzzing city with no real “culture”(Baldwin, 1). Upon reading the article, I thought about the numerous articles I’ve read which label Hartford as one of the most dangerous and or poorest cities in the country. Since my matriculation at Trinity, I have seen very little change in Hartford. However, since the 1970s, there has been a significant amount of change.

In, “Universities and Cities Need to Rethink Their Relationships” author Richard M. Freeland writes:

“ It is useful to distinguish between defensive actions taken to protect our institutions from harm and civic-minded actions that strengthen the community. An initiative to ameliorate urban blight around a campus because such conditions adversely affect admissions is different in spirit than a program to enhance K-12 education by housing a city high school in university facilities and enriching the school’s curriculum” (Freeland, 3).

Parallel to our campus you can find the Learning Corridor which encompasses a variety of smaller sized schools, including the Hartford Magnet Trinity College Academy, a school that is sponsored by Trinity College. To date, I have not heard of other relationships/interactions that Trinity College has besides the one with HMTCA. Through my research, I hope to discover if there were ever other attempts to formulate relationships like the one with HMTCA and if so, how Trinity has supported the schools.

3) What prior methods training do you have, and what primary sources and methods will you use to answer this question?

In order to answer my proposed research question, I intend on using a combination of qualitative and historical research. Next semester I will be taking a course with professor Rachael Barlow named Research Interviewing, which will teach me how to converse with strangers for research purposes. This learning experience will prepare me to interact and properly execute interviews with Hartford Public School Officers, different school administration, faculty and staff from both Trinity College and surrounding primary and secondary schools. Through my historical research, I plan on analyzing the effects of the moving of Trinity’s campus from downtown Hartford to Frog Hollow and the relationship between Trinity and other Hartford Public Schools in the area over a 40 year span.

4) Does your plan include research with human subjects?

My plan does involve research with human subjects through interviews. If there are cases identified where Trinity has been labeled as a beneficial or harmful asset to the community, I plan to identify and meet with the people who have expertise in the subject.

5) Does your research plan require access to a school or organization?

No.

Works Cited

Baldwin, Davarian L. “Phoenix Rising? Arizona State University as an Urban Growth Machine.” Trinity College- Center For Urban and Global Studies: The Urban Planet 6.Fall (2013): 1-2. Oct. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.

Freeland, Richard M. “Point of View: Universities and Cities Need to Rethink Their Relationships.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 51.36 (2005): B36. Community-wealth.org. 13 May 2005. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. <http://community-wealth.org/_pdfs/news/recent-articles/07-05/article-freeland.pdf>.

Citywide Conference Teaches Attendees About Montessori Schools

November 11, 2013November 11, 2013Ambar Paulino

HARTFORD, CT- Friday marked the beginning of a two-day conference hosted by One Nation Indivisible, an organization dedicated to form and sustain integrated schools and communities across the nation. The conference–“Where Integration Meets Innovation” was designed to bring together activists, educators, parents and students who have shown interest in transforming communities through the building of diverse public schools. The two day conference (November 8-9th, 2013), held across the city of Hartford encompassed a series of events that ranged from tours of schools, panel discussions, and a series of workshops that were designed to teach attendees about successful curriculums, policies and strategies that empowered public schools across the United States.

Starting off the tour at 9A.M. Principal of Montessori Magnet at Moylan School, Ms. Carolyn Hayrda led the group into the Moylan School courtyard, which Montessori Magnet shares grounds with. Hayrda explained that Montessori Magnet Schools are not usually found within public schools, but an extension built onto the original structure of the public school in 1997 allowed the Montessori Magnet school to have their own wing in the school. According to Hayrda, there are about 760 students enrolled at Moylan. About 157 of those students, are enrolled at Montessori Magnet at Moylan in their Pre-Kindergarden through third grade.

The tour followed with a video explaining the Montessori Method, a form of teaching developed by Italian Physician and educator Maria Montessori mixes students that are from 2-3 to 6 years of age and allows students to explore independence through choice and interrupted blocks of work time. The video described the “discovery” model as an educational approach that allows students to work with materials and learn about their own learning styles by exploring the materials provided by them and giving children freedom to move around in the classrooms as they wish. Many of the guests wondered how students transitioning from a Montessori approach of teaching to a regular approach of teaching and Hayrda explained that the Montessori approach allows students to become self-disciplined, allowing them them to adjust in any educational setting.

Students in a traditional Montessori Classroom at Montessori Magnet at The Moylan School

The tour was concluded with the opportunity for guests to sit in Montessori classrooms. Hayrda explained that the classrooms had children of different ages and teachers- that were referred to as guides. The adults in the room were referred to as guides because they act as active guiding adults in the children’s developmental psychology. Once the tour was concluded, most of the people attending recall sitting in the classroom and seeing children learn and take from their older peers as they moved around freely in the classrooms. The guides merely acted as guardians in the setting. In these Montessori classrooms, the students were expected to understand their role in the classroom. Many of these children were independent and mature beyond their years. Three year olds prepared their own lunches, while four year olds were seen cleaning up and washing dishes after lunch.

The tour of Montessori Magnet at Moylan proved to be successful in teaching those lacking knowledge about Montessori education and bringing all of the things that were taught into fruition and reality. It was interesting to sit in, take part in the Montessori method, and actually see the effects of allowing children to participate in society as independent beings.

Protected: Q5: Change in Total Enrollment of CT Public Schools

November 8, 2013November 9, 2013Ambar Paulino and Bianca Brenz

Excercise 7: How To Lie With Maps

October 28, 2013October 29, 2013Ambar Paulino

Racial Diversity in Hartford Area Schools: 2009-10

The two maps above display the same information. Interestingly enough, I was able to use the same data and display two completely different interpretations of that data using Google Fusion Tables. Although both maps represent the same numerical data, the geographical representations may look entirely different because of the ability to switch the way each county is set up and the number of “buckets” (data sets) I wish to be shown on the map. The first visual map depicts a very diverse Hartford area, each bucket representing different percentages of minority students enrolled in schools. Because there are a total of six buckets represented in the first map, one can tell that the area being observed is diverse- one can see the different amounts of percentages in each area within the map that represent the differing town statistics. On the other hand, the second map shows very little diversity in the Hartford area. The data interpreted in the second map is exactly the same to the first, but the legend shows that in the second map there are only a few “buckets” of numerical data to be represented on the map. As one can see, the map then shows large amounts of shaded regions in one area of the map, whereas it looks less concentrated in the middle of the map. The simple alterations of the number of buckets being represented in both maps allows for the maps to depict same data in differing views-one showing more diversity (different shaded regions), and another one showing less diversity (large amounts of one color overbearing the entire map.

The Struggle for Educational Equity During the 1970s: Lumpkin v. Dempsey

October 16, 2013October 16, 2013Ambar Paulino

Screenshot of Filed Complaint by Plaintiffs on February 20, 1970; Courtesy of: United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

Sixteen years after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling outlawed racially segregated schools in Southern and border states, civil rights activists filed a similar lawsuit in the northern city of Hartford, Connecticut. The Brown v. Board of Education court case unanimously ruled (9-0) that, “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” on May 17th, 1954[1]. On February 20th, 1970, four minority Hartford parents challenged then Connecticut Governor, John Dempsey (1970-1971) in his ability to provide educational equity to all Hartford children by filing a similar lawsuit to that of Brown vs. Board of Education. Lumpkin v. Dempsey later recognized as Lumpkin vs. Meskill (Thomas J. Meskill 1971-1974) argued that certain Connecticut district laws functioned in such a way that they worked against the minority children of Hartford and ultimately denied them basic equal educational opportunities. The Lumpkin plaintiffs publicly challenged set school district boundaries between the city of Hartford and eight neighboring suburbs. The lawsuit challenged the efficiency of those district lines while raising important questions such as: why did certain towns have the ability to choose who they enrolled, and more importantly, why were Hartford schools not as academically successful as their neighboring suburban towns?

Legal Decisions leading to Lumpkin vs. Dempsey

Before the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954, the Board of Education abided by educational policies and regulations influenced by racial segregation. Under the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the notion of “separate but equal” was unanimously voted as unconstitutional in 1954.

Since its inception, the sole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment has been to guarantee all American citizens equal protection of their laws. The plaintiffs in the Lumpkin v. Dempsey lawsuit based their case on the fact the government failed to provide equal opportunity to minority students residing in Hartford, therefore violating the Fourteenth amendment. Southern states utilized Jim Crow laws to create a distinct separation between racial differences. While Northern states, such as Connecticut did not directly mandate segregated schools in their state laws, the plaintiffs argued that laws practiced in the South were being indirectly practiced in the North as well. The Lumpkin plaintiffs, who happened to be of Hispanic and African American descent strongly believed that the educational system was de facto segregated by socioeconomic and ultimately racial means, whereas the plaintiffs in the Brown plaintiffs had factual evidence (established laws), which they argued to be inherently unequal.

The Fight For Equal Educational Opportunities in Hartford

Lumpkin v. Meskill placed the legitimacy and efficiency of Hartford’s Public School system into question. According to the initial complaint filed by the plaintiffs, Mae Willie Lumpkin, Helen Vernell Johnson, Barbara Henderson and Mary Diaz, certain Connecticut State laws function to segregate and create “racially imbalanced school districts”, and because they are not able to provide the plaintiffs and people of their class equal educational opportunities, are ultimately unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment[2]

The plaintiffs, all parents of minority children enrolled in Hartford public schools were identified as citizens of the United States, but belonging to similar ethnic groups: African American and Hispanic (particularly of the Puerto Rican ethnic groups). The plaintiff’s racial background became the driving force behind their lawsuit which claimed, that many schools in Hartford had an excess amount (90%) of minority students enrolled, therefore making it practically impossible to integrate the schools, which is why they sought help from higher echelons that would restructure the way minority groups were distributed within Hartford[3].

Mae Willie Lumpkin and the other three plaintiffs demanded that the court recognize the fact that certain laws violated rights, and most importantly, the ordering of the state to integrate suburban towns by erasing district lines and creating a regional school district in order to have statewide integration. Defendants Thomas J. Meskill and other members of the Board of Education countered their argument by stating that there were many discrepancies in the plaintiff’s complaints. These complaints included the misunderstanding of Constitutional laws, to vague accusations[4].

To counter the plaintiff’s claims, in the Reply Brief of Defendants, the defendants called the plaintiff’s claims weak and urged them to reconstruct the foundation of their argument. “However, they [plaintiffs] are strangely reticent about stating with some specificity just what educational opportunities the defendants are denying to them and in what way such denial is being accomplished by the defendant State officials.[5]” The defendants based their counter argument on the fact that, the state oversees district activities such as: allocation of resources for a fiscal year, implement educational interests for the school year, but does not control site selection, enrollment or construction of the school. The court brief reiterates the fact that “Neither state law nor the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandate equal educational achievement for every child attending a public school,[6]” thus making the Lumpkin argument invalid.

Dissenting Opinions that Lead to Demise of Lumpkin Case

As Lumpkin v. Meskill gained regional attention, dissenting opinions arose from parents living in the surrounding suburban neighborhoods. Various periodicals of the time tracked the opinions of residents in the neighboring towns such as Bloomfield and

Sample Headline on Lumpkin Case. Courtesy of: James Ross, The Hartford Courant

Windsor. “The Bloomfield School board, one of the eight suburban boards named in the suit, is the only one to support the Lumpkin side of the issue requiring total integration”[7] wrote journalist Bill Grava in a Hartford Courant article published in 1974. Parents of students enrolled in Bloomfield schools were not pleased with the unanimous decision in a Parent-Teacher Association meeting to support the plaintiffs of Lumpkin v. Meskill. Another article published by James Ross, states, “‘I’m so burned up’ one parent said, ‘If this thing works, are they going to throw kids out like cattle? Will they divide kids up by color like a rainbow?’…. The parent accused the board [Parent-Teacher Association] of not wanting to fight.[8]”

Brown v. Board of Education, Original Court File; Courtesy of: OurDocuments.gov

Brown vs. Board of Education asserted that it was unconstitutional to racially segregate schools. Nearly two decades later, a four to five decision in Detroit resulted in the dissemination of a regionalization plan that would integrate schools involving nearly 800,000 students [9]. Milliken v. Bradley (1974) made it clear that because suburban towns had no direct involvement with creating a segregated environment, they were not obliged to help desegregate the districts in any way. The Milliken ruling played a critical role in the influence of the decision to dismiss the Lumpkin case because the decision clearly stated that suburban towns would not be held responsible for integrating cities. The Lumpkin plaintiffs specifically asked for the cooperation of the eight surrounding suburban towns in the initial lawsuit, and because this ruling made it constitutionally viable to refuse participation that is what many school districts chose to do.

A decade after both rulings, Sheff v. O’Neill surfaced, arguing a similar point to that of the Lumpkin case. The determining factor of the success of Sheff was the critical decision to take Sheff to the Connecticut Superior Court, versus Federal district court as done by Lumpkin plaintiffs. The complaint filed on April 26th, 1989 argued that the state of Connecticut allowed school districts to operate under racially, and socioeconomically segregated conditions ultimately allowing the state to create racially isolated residential communities such as those found in Hartford. In her book, The Children in Room E4, author Susan Eaton claims that there are parallels between the Lumpkin and Sheff cases, the earlier becoming the impetus for the latter to file in a higher level court, rather than Federal district court[10].

Ultimately, the Lumpkin case was left dismissed by the Federal District courts. After 1980, the plaintiffs, who worked endlessly to prove that those controlling the Board of Education caused the disparities in the public educational system were unheard of, and to this date there is no real updates of Mae Willie Lumpkin, or her childrens’ whereabouts. Although the Lumpkin case did not gain nation-wide recognition, it became the impetus for other big lawsuits such as the 1989 Sheff case, whose results have affected and will continue to affect children in Connecticut and potentially children across the nation for years to come. The Lumpkin case was the first of it’s kind; the plaintiffs being brave as parents of minority children to challenge those in power regardless of the socioeconomic and ethnic boundaries to fight for equal rights.

Work Cited

Collier, Christopher. Connecticut Public Schools: A History, 1650-2000. Orange: Clearwater Press, c2009.
Eaton, Susan. The Children in Room E4. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, N.C., 2007.
Grava, Bill. “Smith Predicts No Regional School Board: Bloomfield.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987). February 20, 1974.http://search.proquest.com/hnphartfordcourant/docview/552135542/abstract/140FFE468547E9ED9BF/1?accountid=14405.
Ross, James. “Town Viewed as Now Meeting Desegregation Suit Objections: Bloomfield.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987). April 26, 1974.http://search.proquest.com/hnphartfordcourant/docview/552141713/abstract/140FFD210DA46836B93/7?accountid=14405.
“Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka – 347 U.S. 483 (1954).” Justia US Supreme Court Center. Accessed October 8, 2013.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/case.html.
“Lumpkin Reply Brief Court File” United States District Court, District of Connecticut; Filed in New Haven on August 25th, 1972. Attorney Robert K. Killian. Accessed via DropBox October 8,2013 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pktjiisx2zhi9bz/erOj3QfPzP/Lumpkin_19720825%20D%20Reply%20Brief%20CourtFile.PDF.
“Lumpkin Plaintiff Complaint” United States District Court, District of Connecticut; Filed at Hartford on February 20^th, 1970. Attorneys Raymond B. Marcin, and Douglas M Crockett. Accessed October 8,2013 via DropBox.

[1] “Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka – 347 U.S. 483 (1954).”

[2] Attn. Marcin, Attn. Crocket, Lumpkin Plaintiff Complaint, 6.

[3] Attn. Marcin, Attn. Crocket, Lumpkin Plaintiff Complaint, 5.

[4] Attn. Robert K. Killian, Lumpkin Reply Brief Court File, 16.

[5] Attn. Robert K. Killian, Lumpkin Reply Brief Court File, 23.

[6] Attn. Robert K. Killian, Lumpkin Reply Brief Court File, 24.

[7] Grava, Bill. “Smith Predicts No Regional School Board: Bloomfield.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987). February 20, 1974.

[8] Ross, James. “Town Viewed as Now Meeting Desegregation Suit Objections: Bloomfield.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987). April 26, 1974.

[9] Collier, Connecticut’s Public Schools: A History: 1650-2000, 634.

[10] Eaton, Children of Room E4, 79.