Author: Brigit

Lying with Maps

Posted on Author Brigit

Like lying with statistics and charts, one can also lie with maps. While we can manipulate charts to tell a different story, maps can do the same thing, depending on the way one manipulates it.

These maps below show the percent minority in the Hartford region. However, they show it much differently and one can assume different things by looking at them both.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These maps above, using the gradient feature on google fusion, show where minority rates are concentrated more in the Hartford region. It shows the contrast and one is able to understand that looking at this, where more minority rates live.

These maps below, on the other hand, show a different story and are much harder to understand. A gradient feature shows the differences within the areas through different shades of one color, while using the bucket feature, you manipulate the graph with completely different colors, and makes it harder to understand which area has more amounts of minority. One can see that different areas have different concentrations, but people could think that oh, a color is darker, which means there’s more; however, this is not true necessarily. Also, one can also change the percentage scale, as I did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The way I scaled the percentages is not even in any sense, so it is harder to understand and grasp which areas really have more minority. In addition, the colors I used also make it more confusing, because 90%-100% minority is a lighter shade of color. This exercise shows how important it is for one to really look at the legend and keys of maps to make sure they really are understanding what the map is supposed to show.

How to Lie with Statistics

Posted on Author Brigit

If you have ever looked at a chart, you probably made assumptions about what exactly it was telling you, according to what it looked like. By manipulating the scales of the x and y axis, charts that display the same data can be perceived very different. This data, of the progress of Sheff I can look two different ways; it can look like there was a ton of progress, and it can look like there was very little progress. The data I am working with is:

Actual and Legal Process toward Sheff I Goal, 2003-2007 Chart – Data Source: Dougherty et al. “Sheff v O’Neill: Weak Desegregation Remedies,” Figure 5.1, p. 111

 

 

 

 

 

With this, we can make the data look like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or, look like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

When looking at these two charts, we see two different stories. By changing the scales, we see that there was a lot of progress towards the goal (chart 1) or that there was little progress towards the goal (chart 2). Those that use charts to show statistics can make the data look different based on the way scales are used. To make the data look different, I changed the Y-scale to 0-100% rather than 0-35%. By doing this, the data looks entirely different and tells two different stories. I created these charts through excel by putting data into a spreadsheet and then creating a chart according to that data. All people have to do with charts showing statistics is change the maximum and minimum values of the Y-scale and the chart tells something different.

Sheff v. O’Neill Settlements 2003,2008

Posted on Author Brigit

Sheff vs. O’Neill Settlements (2003, 2008).

Background: In 1989, Milo Sheff, then a fourth grader, and 17 other children, filed a lawsuit through their parents, addressing the inequalities within Hartford’s segregated schools. The lawsuit’s goal was to give the children in Hartford an equal educational opportunity. Finally, after years of deliberating, a decision was made; in 1996 the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3, in favor of Sheff. The court stated that the separation of suburban students and Hartford students violated the segregation clause in the Connecticut Constitution and ruled that the state was obligated to provide equal educational opportunity for all students. With that, the court urged the State to find ways to promote desegregation, but without any specific goals or timetables.

To learn more about the Sheff case, click below to watch an oral history video interview of Elizabeth Horton Sheff, one of the plaintiffs in the case.


Sheff vs. O’Neill 2003: After the ruling in 1996, the Sheff plaintiffs were dissatisfied; they saw no real change or efforts done by the state officials. As a result, the Sheff plaintiffs filed a proposal in 2000 and in 2003 a legal settlement was declared. The settlement had a timetable of four years, and it called for 30% of Hartford minority

January 23rd, 2003. Hartford Courant

students in reduced-isolation settings, which are schools with fewer than 75% minority students. Another goal of this settlement was that the Project Choice program, a voluntary transfer program for Hartford students to attend schools in the suburbs, would have 1,600 students enrolled by 2007. One outcome of the settlement was that 22 magnet schools, which are public schools with themes and an application system, were created. These schools were created to attract a diverse body of students; however, the racial composition in these magnet schools varied immensely. While some of the magnet schools met the criteria of fewer than 75% minority students, others had too few or too many minorities. Additionally, many of the minority students of these magnet schools were not even Hartford residents; they were instead residents of the surrounding suburban towns. Even though there was an increase in magnet schools during this time, the main goals were not met of the settlement; only 17% of Hartford minority students were in reduced-isolation settings and only 1,070 students were enrolled in Project Choice.

Sheff vs. O’Neill 2008: Since the goals were not met in the first settlement in 2003, another settlement was negotiated. This time a focus was made on the percent of students applying to go to a reduced-isolation school rather than just looking at the percent of students enrolled in reduced-isolation schools. With that, two goals were created; a goal of 80 percent of Hartford students applying to go to a reduced-isolation school would be able to and a goal of 41 percent of minority students from Hartford would be enrolled in a reduced-isolation school. Both goals did not have to be met; however, the goal was that one was met. In addition to this, the settlement included a descriptive plan for schools such as magnet schools and those schools that participated in Project Choice to follow. The due date for these settlement goals was the 2012-2013 academic school year.

Actual and Legal Process toward Sheff I & Sheff II Goal, 2003-2013 Chart – Data Source: Dougherty et al. “Sheff v O’Neill: Weak Desegregation Remedies,” Figure 5.1, p. 111; Thomas. “State Falls Short on School Desegregation Requirements | The Connecticut Mirror.”

Update on Progress of 2008 Settlement:  The 2008 settlement goal of 41% minority students from Hartford being enrolled in a reduced-isolation school was not met by the 2012-2013 due date; only 37% minority students from Hartford were enrolled in a reduced-isolation school. Because they did not meet the goal, state officials and the Sheff plaintiffs will be meeting to negotiate a new settlement. The date and goals of this new settlement have not been set yet.


Learn more:

Dougherty, Jack, Wanzer, Jesse, Ramsay, Christina. “Sheff v. O’Neill: Weak Desegregation Remedies and Strong Disincentives in Connecticut, 1996-2008.” In From the Courtroom to the Classroom, edited by Claire Smrekar and Ellen Goldring, 103-127. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Education Press, 2009.

“Sheff Movement.” Sheff Movement: Quality Integrated Education for All Children, n.d. http://www.sheffmovement.org/index.shtml.

Mozdzer, Jodie. “Sheff Vs. O’Neill: A Timeline.” Courant.com, n.d. http://www.courant.com/news/education/hc-sheff-oneill-timeline-flash,0,105112.flash.

Thomas, Jacqueline. “State Falls Short on School Desegregation Requirements | The Connecticut Mirror.” CT Mirror, November 15, 2012. http://www.ctmirror.org/story/18223/state-falls-short-school-desegregation-requirements

Works Cited:

Connecticut Superior Court. “Sheff Vs. O’Neill Stipulation and Order (Phase I, 2003).” Archival Documents, January 22, 2003. http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp_archives/20.

Connecticut Superior Court. “Sheff Vs. O’Neill Stipulation and Proposed Order (Phase II, 2008).” Archival Documents, April 4, 2008. http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp_archives/19.

Dougherty, Jack. “part 4: challenges of desegregation & choice.” On The Line, October 18, 2011.http://ontheline.trincoll.edu/preview-chapter/part-4/.