Author: Nicole Sagullo

Nicole Sagullo is in her third year at Trinity College in Hartford, CT. She studies Education and Psychology with a minor in music. She has done research in the Psychology Department at Trinity as well as at the School of Education at Boston University.

Lying with Maps

Posted on Author Nicole Sagullo

Similar to last week, this post is about manipulations of statistics in terms of how they are presented. However, instead of charts, this post focuses on cartography: MAPS. In this case, data was drawn from

Using the same data, these maps were made to show the same information in different ways. Unlike the charts, both of these maps illustrate completely different situations.

Using “Buckets” on Google Fusion tables, shows a stark contrast of mostly white suburbs in a ring around higher percent minority areas in the center.

Using “Gradient” on Google Fusion tables, the map created is able to illustrate a larger amount of racial diversity and integration in the area.

This post seconds the prior post to warn consumers of knowledge to be skeptical when being presented with maps in the media and in research. Look at legends and keys being presented and the colors being utilized.

Lying with Statistics

Posted on Author Nicole Sagullo

This post is about manipulations of statistics in terms of how they are presented. In this case, data was drawn from

Jack Dougherty, Jesse Wanzer ’08, and Christina Ramsay ’09. “Sheff v. O’Neill: Weak Desegregation Remedies and Strong Disincentives in Connecticut, 1996-2008.” In From the Courtroom to the Classroom: The Shifting Landscape of School Desegregation, edited by Claire Smrekar and Ellen Goldring, 103–127. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2009. http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp_papers/3/.

Using the same data, the following line charts were created. The data and x-axis were kept constant to show the importance of the y-axis values, specifically the minimum and maximums though the increments of the y-axis are also important.

 

Percent of Hartford minorities in reduced-isolation settings

The first graph lists percentages up to 100% (complete integration) in increments of 10. In this chart, minimal progress is revealed (though the goal of Sheff II is only a modest 30%).

 

 

This graph shows leaps of progress with a deceptive minimum of 10% and maximum of 18% with increments of 2. In this way, the line seems to increase dramatically though the graph above illustrates this isn’t so.

 

Question what is being measured and reported when “consuming” statistics. Do test scores show ‘education’ rate? Is there something to be noted about whether suburban residents are coming into urban schools or vice versa? The starting point, the target goal, and actual possibilities of racial integration need to all be taken account.

Should these charts show the goal result as the maximum or to give context? What increments would be most illustrative of the progress of Sheff I and Sheff II remedies?

The goal of this post to the public is to warn consumers of knowledge to be skeptical when being presented with statistics in the media and in research. Look out for what exactly is being reported (progress from a starting point versus progress from zero) and how certain variables are being defined and presented.

Lying with Statistics

Posted on Author Nicole Sagullo

This post is about manipulations of statistics in terms of how they are presented. In this case, data was drawn from

Jack Dougherty, Jesse Wanzer ’08, and Christina Ramsay ’09. “Sheff v. O’Neill: Weak Desegregation Remedies and Strong Disincentives in Connecticut, 1996-2008.” In From the Courtroom to the Classroom: The Shifting Landscape of School Desegregation, edited by Claire Smrekar and Ellen Goldring, 103–127. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2009. http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp_papers/3/.

Using the same data, the following line charts were created. The data and x-axis were kept constant to show the importance of the y-axis values, specifically the minimum and maximums though the increments of the y-axis are also important.

 

Percent of Hartford minorities in reduced-isolation settings

The first graph lists percentages up to 100% (complete integration) in increments of 10. In this chart, minimal progress is revealed (though the goal of Sheff II is only a modest 30%).

 

 

This graph shows leaps of progress with a deceptive minimum of 10% and maximum of 18% with increments of 2. In this way, the line seems to increase dramatically though the graph above illustrates this isn’t so.

 

Question what is being measured and reported when “consuming” statistics. Do test scores show ‘education’ rate? Is there something to be noted about whether suburban residents are coming into urban schools or vice versa? The starting point, the target goal, and actual possibilities of racial integration need to all be taken account.

Should these charts show the goal result as the maximum or to give context? What increments would be most illustrative of the progress of Sheff I and Sheff II remedies?

The goal of this post to the public is to warn consumers of knowledge to be skeptical when being presented with statistics in the media and in research. Look out for what exactly is being reported (progress from a starting point versus progress from zero) and how certain variables are being defined and presented.

Sheff I and Sheff II

Posted on Author Nicole Sagullo

1. What were the goals of Sheff I?

        What happened as a result of Sheff I?

 Who, if anyone, benefitted from the results of Sheff I?

                               Use the visuals from http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp_papers/6/ to justify your answer.

2. How did Sheff II propose to solve the problems unsolved by Sheff I?

3. Do you think Sheff II has been or will be more effective?

4. Do you feel there was a punishment for the goals not being met after Sheff I? What would be a reasonable punishment (and applied to whom) if Sheff II goals are not met by 2013?

Are Racial Demographics in the Hands of Realtors?

Posted on Author Nicole Sagullo

A Closer Look at Racial Steering and Blockbusting in the Hartford area
Throughout the past 50 years, real estate agents played a prominent role in racial segregation through the practices of steering and blockbusting in housing. In Connecticut, these practices had a clear impact on the racial composition of the greater Hartford area.The map of Racial Change in the Hartford region from 1900-2010 illustrates a non-white population appearing isolated in the city center of Hartford. Over time, the non-white population in Bloomfield grew, beginning in the 1970s. The composition of the area was affected by realtors in beginning in the 70s, and continue to move in the direction sparked by those brokers. Bloomfield’s non-white population percentage grew over time as whites left and minorities moved to this suburb to relocate from their isolated placement in the center of Hartford.
Blockbusting: An Illustration
Blockbusting practices were one of the determinants to Bloomfield’s racial composition throughout the late 60s and 70s. Roy Litchfield, a white resident of a Bloomfield neighborhood, bought his home in 1968. In the Hartford Courant, Litchfield reported calls from agents urging him to sell his home at a lower rate as non-whites moved into the area. Real estate agents scared white residents, claiming integration would lead to decreased property values; this tactic led to “panic selling.” In turn, the agent would sell the home above market value to black homebuyers. Agents maximized profit by buying low and selling high, due to the small supply of homes where blacks could live without being harassed or even legally restricted.
Racial Steering
Related to blockbusting, racial steering involved real estate agents directing people of certain races to specific areas. One white homebuyer, John Keever, reported an agent’s behavior to the Hartford Courant. Keever explained how the agent praised about Avon and West Hartford. In contrast, the agent talked negatively about Bloomfield and its schools systems. Keever claimed that the agent may have been afraid to insult clients by taking them to integrated neighborhoods. The stereotypes real estate agents have and perpetuate in their selling behaviors led to racially isolated neighborhoods as seen in the map below. Racial steering was a large factor of racial segregation in the past and continue to impact housing situations present day.
Impacting Today
Racial steering and blockbusting practices, though illegal, remain present today. A 2003 article in the Hartford Courant discussed implications of racial steering occurring today. Jacobs, a former member of the town council in Windsor, reported seeing a house go through many inhabitants but never shown to white residents.. A quarter of the affluent black population of the Greater Hartford area live primarily in six adjacent geographical units. The past existence of these real estate practices started the patterns of racial segregation, but continuous steering practices prevent integration. In 2003, the Hartford Courant discussed tests using black and white volunteers posing as potential homebuyers with 17% illustrating preference for the white homebuyers. Blockbusting and steering today continue to contribute to the racial segregation and limited opportunities available to non-white populations.

Click for interactive feature and original source.

Click for interactive feature and original source.


Learn more:

Jack Dougherty and colleagues, “Preview Chapter,” On The Line: How schooling, housing, and civil rights shaped Hartford and its suburbs. Web-book preview edition. Hartford, CT: Trinity College, Fall 2011, http://OnTheLine.trincoll.edu.

Ross, James. “Bloomfield Officials Lead Fight To Keep Town’s Housing Open.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1986), February 24, 1974. http://search.proquest.com/hnphartfordcourant/docview/552112941/1398DE0313CC9FA77A/1?accountid=14405.

Ross, James. “Realty Agents Blamed for Shift In Bloomfield’s Racial Pattern.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1986). Hartford, Conn., United States, February 24, 1974.

Swift, Mike. “Home Buyers Suspect Racial Steering.” The Hartford Courant, September 8, 2003. http://www.s4.brown.edu/cen2000/othersay/090803Hartford.pdf

University of Connecticut Libraries Map and Geographic Information Center – MAGIC. (2012).Racial Change in the Hartford Region, 1900-2010. Retrieved from http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/otl/timeslider_racethematic.html.