In an increasingly large and metropolitan city, Hartford’s educational inequality issues are anything but simple. Sheff v. O’Neill, Connecticut’s 1996 State Supreme Court ruling which found that the extreme racial and ethnic isolation of Hartford schools was unconstitutional, left the Sheff plaintiffs eager for an integration plan. In recent years, that plan has been choice schools – a Sheff strategy often supported by high test scores and increased diversity statistics. However, just like the Sheff ruling, choice schools may not be as perfect as they initially seem.
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) results reveal that magnet school students, on average, outperform neighborhood school students. 2013 data shows that while 54% of third graders in CREC magnet schools met the state reading goal, only 25% of third graders in Hartford Public Schools (HPS) achieved similar results (Thomas). The data does not lie – there is an undeniable achievement gap between magnet school students and their public school peers. However, when asked why Hartford students perform better in choice schools, HPS spokesman David Medina stated that, “The district will have no further comment” (Thomas).
Magnet school students’ high test scores do not prove that choice schools cause improved academic achievement. Choice school proponents such as Sheff lawyer Martha Stone claim that, “The performance of Hartford youth soars once they attend magnet schools and schools in the suburbs” (Thomas). Stone’s statement mistakes correlation for causation. There is a direct correlation, or parallel, between high test scores and choice schools. However, there is no explicit proof that desegregated schools are the root of student achievement.
Student achievement in choice school environments may be skewed, because many choice school advocates unfairly separate Hartford schoolchildren into two distinct groups: choice school students and non-choice school students. A true evaluation of choice schools must acknowledge that Hartford’s school lottery system actually divides children into three groups: choice school students, HPS students who applied to choice schools but did not receive a spot, and HPS students who did not apply at all. Rather than compare the CMT scores of choice vs. non-choice schools, Hartford should compare the test scores of its choice school students against the scores of HPS students who participated in the lottery but did not receive a spot.
By evaluating the change in test scores of both the students who transferred from HPS to a choice school and students who attempted to transfer but failed after bad luck in the lottery, Hartford can determine the net impact of its magnet and charter schools. All students who participate in the lottery fill out choice school applications on their own accord, thus creating a pool of applicants that may not evenly reflect the demographics of Hartford schoolchildren as a whole. To compare the scores of choice vs. non-choice schools would be unfair, because each school might have widely different groups of students due to the self-selected applicant pool.
Choice school advocates’ belief in charter and magnet schools relies on the false assumption that if the school lottery process is random, then choice school applicants must be random as well. It’s possible that choice school applicants are a distinct sector of all Hartford schoolchildren who share more in common than just their desire to leave HPS. For example, magnet school students may outperform public school students not because they underwent some elaborate academic transformation, but because they were outperforming their peers all along. Families with the initiative to apply to successful magnet schools have also probably taken the initiative to help their children perform in their less-successful school (Winans). Also, considering the tedious and confusing choice school application process, it would not be surprising if the time, money, and knowledge parents utilize to complete lengthy school applications also goes towards helping their child succeed in an underperforming public school (Dougherty et al., 2013, p. 234).
Choice schools are unarguably the most politically viable option in Hartford. The Sheff movement has worked tireless for twenty-four years to allow thirty-seven percent of district students to attend integrated schools (Thomas). However, despite the good intentions of choice school advocates, a simple comparison of choice school and non-choice school test scores does not prove that CREC magnet students outperform HPS students because of their new school environment. Hartford should compare the test scores of all choice school applicants, because those students may outperform their peers in whatever school they attend. Criticism of magnet and charter school success should not be seen as a call for their closure. Instead, there simply needs to be a deeper analysis of the way standardized test scores are used to make claims about this city’s students – the children all educational integration activists are ultimately working for.
Explanation: I revised my Op-Ed essay, because the debate over magnet schools is one I need to know and understand. After receiving comments on my original draft, I saw gaps and holes in my argument that I believed I could fix with a little more analysis and thinking. It is one thing for me to understand the recent history of Sheff v. O’Neill, but considering my interest in educational policy, I know it is just as important to evaluate the current policy efforts that are taking place. I spent most of my time editing my claims about how Hartford should use test scores to judge choice school effectiveness. Before this final draft, I did not understand that choice school advocates should focus their attention on all choice school applicants’ CMT scores – not just those who won the lottery. After this realization, I restructured my essay to begin with an explanation of correlation vs. causation, which then allowed me to transition into a discussion about test score comparisons and the lottery’s applicant pool.
Works Cited
Dougherty, J., Zannoni, D., Chowhan, M., Coyne, C., Dawson, B., Guruge, T., & Nukie, B
(2013). School Information, Parental Decisions, and the Digital Divide. In G. Orfield,
Educational Delusions? (pp. 219-237). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thomas, Jacqueline Rabe (2013, September 12). State Report: Students in Desegregated
Schools Test Higher). CT Mirror. Retrieved from http://ctmirror.org.
Winans, Sutter (2013, January 20). Letter: Unfair Comparison Of Hartford Schools. The
Hartford Courant. Retrieved from http://courant.com.