Author: Bianca

Revision: Correlation is not Causation

Posted on Author Bianca

Correlation is NOT the same as Causation

People often mistakenly believe that students who go to schools that are higher scoring must have gained more education at that school. In reality this confusion leads readers to think that attending high performing schools is the cause for higher achievement. For these reasons, people misunderstand claims made about Hartford student achievement in choice programs. In my opinion much of this confusion is due to the fact that many writers attribute success of students in choice programs to what school they attend. It is possible, however, that some students who applied to the program were already high achieving. Many articles that address the achievement gap between choice programs and district schools do not give evidence as to how or why choice programs are outperforming district schools, they simply say that integrated schools are the better schools. A major theme that I found while reading articles that express the issue of the achievement gap reflect correlation as being causation. In other words, these articles are implying that students’ high achievement in school is caused by which school they attend.

The article headlined, “State report: Students in desegregated schools test higher” by Jacqueline Rabe Thomas may imply to readers that there is a cause and effect relationship between desegregated schools and higher test scores. The headline of the article is technically correct because it is a fact, however, the problem is that readers may interpret the correlational statement to mean a causal one that “desegregated schools cause higher test scores”. This connection has yet to be proven because sufficient data has not been collected and examined such as records and comparisons of all students who have applied to and been accepted/denied to Choice Programs over the years. Later in her article Thomas quoted Martha Stone, “the lawyer behind the successful school desegregation lawsuit [in Connecticut]…” (Thomas, 1). Stone said, “The performance of Hartford youth soars once they attend magnet schools and schools in the suburb” (Thomas, 1). Stone jumps to the conclusion that attending magnet schools and schools in the suburbs causes the performance of Hartford youth to soar, leading readers to misunderstand the achievement of students within choice programs. Thomas later goes on to say, “When city students attend schools that enroll a mix of suburban and Hartford students, city students test higher” (Thomas, 3). This again is a fact, but the wording of the claim confuses readers and makes them think that the school they attend causes the success of the student.

A Research Analyst who commented on Thomas’ article clearly understood the correlation vs. causation conflict and stated it well that:

“The lawyer, Martha Stone would like everyone to believe that it is the desegregation that is causing the higher test scores… it is important for lay people not familiar with statistics to know that Correlation is NOT the same as Causation. In other words, just because it appears that 2 things are connected, it does NOT mean that one of those things caused the other” (Comment page in first article titled: “Correlation is not the same a Causation).

This comment helps readers understand how confusion arises out of the way people interpret the claims made about achievement in choice programs. Much of Thomas’ article states cause and effect; attending choice programs causes better test scores and academic achievement. In order to clear up this confusion, readers must understand that it is unknown whether or not choice schools are, in fact, causing higher academic achievement. In order to know what is causing higher academic achievement, data must be collected linking higher achievement to choice programs.

An article entitled, “Can Interdistrict Choice Boost Student Achievement” The Case of Connecticut’s Interdistrict Magnet School Program” written by Casey Cobb, Bob Bifulco, and Courtney Bell, explores whether or not student achievement is “boosted” by choice programs. Jack Dougherty, an Associate Professor at Trinity College, asked questions in a letter to Cobb, Bifulco, and Bell expressing his confusion and questions about how data was collected on Hartford students in comparison to non-Hartford students. In a letter responding to Jack Dougherty’s questions Bob Bifulco stated that the EEPA article which spoke about the high achievement of magnet school students, was based on assumption rather than fact because they “[could not] demonstrate [it] empirically” (Dougherty, 1). Correlation is not Causation, and because it is unproven that magnet schools indeed cause high achievement, causal language should not be used in articles that speak about student achievement in choice programs.

 

 

CorrelationCausationFinal1
Figure 1 Illustrates that Correlation is not Causation. Credit to Doug Neill

 

The image above is an example of the correlation/causation conflict. In the image it is implied that because one has an umbrella it will rain. The umbrella causes it to rain, which is not true, the umbrella and rain are simply correlated and the umbrella does not cause it to rain. Similarly, misunderstanding claims made about Hartford student achievement in choice programs is caused by the false connection between correlation and causation.

All too often people assume that because students attend higher achieving schools, the school causes the achievement. And not often enough do people think that students are high scoring and high achieving before they apply to choice programs. In my opinion, less causal language will equal less confusion among readers. There is information that can help people understand the correlation between Choice Programs and academic achievement. If all students who have applied to a Magnet lottery were tracked and compared over time (comparing those who were accepted to those who were not accepted) it would be more clear if the schools caused the achievement. Knowing what actually causes the achievement of students is very important to the public because it allows parents to make an educated decision for their children’s schooling, which ultimately effects their future. For these reasons, simply saying that a school causes academic achievement does not suffice when it comes to determining the “better school”. Without concrete proof that choice schools cause student achievement, writers should not use causal language that confuses readers.

 

I chose to edit this assignment because it was one that interested me a lot. The idea that Choice Programs cause academic achievement is a misconception that many people have. In the essay I gave more evidence to a lot of my points as well as sharpened some of my claims to be better understood by the reader. I agree that Magnet schools are great, however the assumption that these schools cause success undermines the intelligence of the students attending the schools. I gave more reasons why it is still unknown whether or not Choice Programs cause academic achievement as well as ways in which research can be done in order to tell if Choice Programs, in fact, cause higher academic achievement.

Work Cited:

Jack Dougherty, correspondence with Robert Bifulco re: their EEPA article.

 

Thomas, Jacqueline R. State report: Students in desegregated schools test higher.

2013. <http://www.ctmirror.org/source/jacqueline-rabe-thomas>.

 

Thomas, Jacqueline R. State report: Students in desegregated schools test higher.

2013. <http://www.ctmirror.org/source/jacqueline-rabe-thomas>. Comment: “Correlation is NOT the same as Causation”

 

http://www.thegraphicrecorder.com/2012/01/18/freakonomics-correlation-≠-causation-money-cant-buy-elections/ (for image).

 

 

 

 

Montessori Magnet School Tour

Posted on Author Bianca

Bianca Brenz

Montessori Magnet schools are not generally located inside of  public schools, however, the Montessori Magnet School at Moylan School is. 760 students attend Moylan School and of those students 157 are Montessori Magnet students. The principal of the school, Carolyn Havrda gave the tour around the Montessori Magnet School and gave those on the tour an inside look of the everyday experiences of the students in the Montessori Magnet School (ranges from Pre K to 3rd Grade). Havrda led the tour into the courtyard at the entrance of Moylan School where there were gardens that were made and taken care of by Montessori Magnet students. Throughout the tour Havrda expressed the theme of independence instilled in each student.

A video was played based on Maria Montessori, the women who created this form of teaching. Throughout the video real life accounts were shown from students who had been in Montessori Magnet Schools and loved their experiences. During the tour a commonly asked question was: “Is it difficult to adjust from Montessori to Public School?” the answer was simple and was answered in the video. Because the Montessori method of teaching grants students the ability to be self-disciplined and self-motivated, making the adjustment from Montessori to Public was an independent step in their lives that students were prepared for. Havrda explained that young students interact with older students in Montessori Magnet schools, which provides them with a learning opportunity with no help from their “guides” (because independence is the goal teachers are not called teachers but rather guides who help guide the students to become independent). In a classroom where ages range from 3 years to 6 years, young students learn what is acceptable and what is not acceptable from their older peers and older students gain confidence in showing younger students what to do.

Independence among the very young Montessori Magnet students was emphasized as a way to prepare students for the real world and their futures. Throughout the tour and looking into classrooms children were preparing their own snacks, cleaning up after themselves, and did not receive very much help from their “guides”. I learned that students not only prepare their own snacks, but they also help prepare their meals, and eat inside of their classrooms as opposed to the cafeteria at Moylan School. I had the opportunity to sit in on a Montessori style class and immediately saw children acting independently. In this classroom children were not told what to do, they had a choice, giving them a high level of independence. In one corner children were playing amongst themselves, and at another end of the classroom children were preparing and eating their snacks, and cleaning up after themselves once snack time was over. Below is an image that I took while sitting in on the class; many shelves look identical to these in their neatness:

Photo on 11-10-13 at 7.40 PM #2

Maria Montessori started this Montessori movement and schools like Montessori Magnet at Moylan School reinforce the importance of one of Montessori’s missions: granting children independence for their futures.

How to Lie With Maps

Posted on Author Bianca


Map 1: This map shows sharp racial divisions in the outlined towns of Connecticut.


Map 2: This map shows a more widespread racial diversity throughout the selected towns of Connecticut.

The two maps shown above are both interpretations of the same data, the percentage of minority students in the given towns of Connecticut in 2009-10. The maps look very different, however, because I have altered some of the percentage settings. Map 1 shows that the percentage of diversity is either heavily swayed one way or the other, that a town either has a very low percentage of minority students or a very high percentage of minority students (no in-between). This is due to there only being two options of shaded regions in the legend on the bottom right hand corner of the map. I purposely altered these percentages to only show 5-52.5% for the lightly shaded region, and 52.5-100% in the darker shaded region. These alterations made the map look significantly different than Map 2. The reason Map 2 shows much more racial diversity in the selected towns is because I allowed for there to be more of a variety of shaded regions in the legend on the bottom right hand corner of this map. In adding these “buckets” I was able to decrease the gap in between the percentages for each shaded region (i.e. leaving 10% of a gap for each “bucket” as opposed to nearly 50%). By decreasing the gap percentage for each shaded region the map allows one to interpret the data differently than Map 1 and shows more racial diversity, although both maps illustrate the same data.

Sheff v. O’Neill Complaint of 1989: Striving for Educational Equality

Posted on Author Bianca

Bianca Brenz

Under the Connecticut Constitution and Connecticut Statutes, all school-aged children in Connecticut are entitled to equal educational opportunities no matter their race, ethnicity, or class background. The Sheff v. O’Neill complaint of 1989 specifically pointed out that the state was not holding true to its constitution. Instead of having the opportunity to their right to equal education, the Sheff plaintiffs (and other Hartford schoolchildren alike) were being deprived of an equal education to suburban school-aged children. The Sheff plaintiffs argued that poor and minority students living in Hartford were isolated from suburban and upper class students based on their racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences. Simply put, both of these groups of students were being deprived of a cultural and social education by being isolated from each other. The Sheff plaintiffs argued in favor of integrating suburban and urban students so that lessons might be learned from one another that could positively affect their work experiences in the future.

The plaintiffs on this case were made up of seventeen schoolchildren (5 Black, 6 Puerto Rican, and 6 White). Representing them were their parents, Elizabeth Sheff (one child), Pedro and Carmen Wilda Bermudez (three children), Oscar and Wanda Melendez (two children), Virginia Pertillar (one child), Rosetta Hughley (two children), Denise Best (one child), Adria Laboy (one child), Karen and Leo Harrington (two children), Eugene Leach and Kathleen Fredrick (two children), and Carol Vinick and Tom Connolly (two children). With a common goal to provide their children with equal educational opportunities, the plaintiffs of the Sheff v. O’Neill case went forward with the lawsuit against Governor William O’Neill, the State Board of Education (7 members), the Commissioner of Education of the state of Connecticut, the Treasurer of Connecticut, and the Comptroller of the state of Connecticut. The Sheff plaintiffs claimed that the above listed defendants were not doing their job in giving children in the Hartford Public Schools district an equal educational opportunity, and saw that these underprivileged children were not given an adequate chance to merely perform at grade level on the Connecticut Mastery Test. (Sheff Complaint)

Up Close and Personal with Plaintiff Concerns

Elizabeth Horton Sheff, the primary plaintiff involved in this case expressed that wanting to be part of this case as a way to stand up for her community. In an Interview Sheff said, “I’m fully committed to ensuring that there is access to quality, integrated education for those people who want it… Sheff is voluntary, you don’t have to participate” (Sheff Interview). Personal experiences made the decision for Sheff to be a plaintiff in this case difficult. Often Sheff’s friends and family were offended by the case and thought they did not need to be “sitting next to white kids” (Sheff Interview). To Sheff, however, it was much broader than a black student sitting next to a white student, it was also learning in an integrated environment with students who were very different while still learning the same things.

Sheff USE
Statmement by Elizabeth Horton Sheff
(Source: Candace Simpson Interview)

In an interview, Denise Best expressed her experiences with the Hartford School System. Her daughter Neiima Best had been “deemed gifted” but would have had to attend a school where “only 11% of the children were reading on grade level” (Best Interview). In wanting the best for her child, Denise Best took a stand on bettering her child’s education through joining the Sheff movement.

Analyses taken from 1987-88 have shown that of the approximately 25,000 students in the Hartford Public School district, 90.5% of them are in the ethnic minority. Other suburban school districts ranged from approximately 2-30% in minority students. Interestingly the percentage of minority staff was significantly higher in the Hartford Public Schools District (approximately 33%) than surrounding suburban school districts (approximately 0-5%). Data from the same period also showed fewer racial and ethnic minorities held teaching positions in the suburban school districts compared to Hartford. These statistics supported the plaintiffs’ argument that racial isolation (or segregation) pervaded the school system at all levels.

Ultimately, the reasons for the 1989 Sheff complaint were the state’s inadequate efforts to provide equal educational opportunities to school-aged children living in impoverished circumstances and single-family households. Furthermore, Sheff plaintiffs argued that the state did not provide these students with a minimally adequate education due to their race, ethnicity, and to a certain extent, their geographical location (a poor city).

The Broader View

End insert
(Source: sheffmovement.org)

The Sheff movement was one that was widely known across the country as the breakthrough in educational equality. The goal of integrating urban and suburban schools was felt throughout the country; however, the Sheff v O’Neill complaint was the starting point for this revolution of magnet schools and the Project Choice program. The Sheff movement set out to, through winning this case, prepare children to live in a society and country that is ethnically, economically, and socially diverse. To Sheff plaintiffs, their children would become prepared through learning in an integrated setting, mixed with urban and suburban students, to take on life.

 

 

Work Cited:

Bermudez, Wildaliz and Eva. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill school desegregation by Anique Thompson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, June 30, 2011. Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

Best, Denise. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill (with video) by Anique Thompson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, August 10, 2011. Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

Lauren A. Wetzler. Yale Law & Policy Review , Vol. 22, No. 2 (Spring, 2004), pp. 481-524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40239617

Sheff, Elizabeth Horton. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill (with video) by Candace Simpson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, July 28, 2011.Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

Sheff Movement: Quality Integrated Education for All Children. About Sheff v. O’Neill. http://www.sheffmovement.org/index.shtml.

Sheff v. O’Neill complaint (Connecticut Superior Court 1989). Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford, Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu)

 

Learn More:

Harrington, Leo and Karen. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill (with video) by Anique Thompson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, June 27, 2011. Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

Leach, Eugene. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill, with video, by Anique Thompson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, June 7, 2011. Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

Avoiding Plagiarism

Posted on Author Bianca

Step 0: Original text: Select what you believe to be the most important passage from Susan Eaton’s book.

  • “In Sheff v. O’Neill, 19 schoolchildren and their families sued the state of Connecticut, arguing that the racial, ethnic, and class segregation that characterized their schools failed to deliver the equal educational opportunity promised in the state’s constitution” (Eaton, XIII).

Step 1: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word.

  • In Sheff v. O’Neill, 19 schoolchildren and their families sued the state of Connecticut, arguing that the racial, ethnic, and class segregation that characterized their schools failed to deliver the equal educational opportunity promised in the state’s constitution.

Step 2: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, without copying it word-for-word.

  • Arguing that racial, ethnic, and class segregation was the reason their schools failed, 19 schoolchildren and their parents sued the state of Connecticut in the Sheff v. O’Neill case.

Step 3: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, with a citation to the original source (using any academic citation style). Remember, even if you include a citation, paraphrasing too closely is still plagiarism.

  • 19 schoolchildren and their parents sued the state of Connecticut because they “[argued] that the racial, ethnic, and class segregation that characterized their schools failed to deliver the equal educational opportunity promised in the state’s constitution” (Eaton, XIII).

Step 4: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, with a citation to the original source.

  • Because educational inequality in the school systems was so evident, a large number of Connecticut residents sued the state of Connecticut in an effort to make way for, not only racial and ethnic, but also class equality throughout the school systems.

Step 5: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, supplemented with a direct quotation of a key phrase, plus a citation to the original source.

 

  • In an effort to eliminate the educational inequality within the school systems, “19 schoolchildren and their families sued the state of Connecticut, arguing that the racial, ethnic, and class segregation that characterized their schools failed to deliver the equal educational opportunity promised in the state’s constitution” (Eaton, XIII).

 

Work Cited:

Eaton, Susan. The Children in Room E4. New York: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2006. Print.