Author: Emily Heneghan

Op-Ed Revision

Posted on Author Emily Heneghan

Each day, we are bombarded by numbers in the media through the many facts and figures given to us by the news and other articles. Although statistical studies have become a prominent feature throughout our daily lives, most citizens, and even many reporters, do not have the right knowledge required to read them critically in order to portray the most accurate findings. This poses a problem to our society, as people tend to form opinions and make decisions based on the information they are given through the media, even though much of this information has been misinterpreted or analyzed in a biased way. After the 1996 Connecticut Supreme Court case, Sheff vs. O’Neill, ruled racial and ethnic isolation in Hartford schools unconstitutional, state legislators began looking for a plan to make schools more diverse after being forced to do so by Sheff activists, in hopes of achieving educational equality. Choice programs in Hartford, including magnet, charter, and Open Choice schools have been created with the purpose of increasing academic achievement for all students through a more integrated school system. The goal of the Open Choice Program is to “improve academic achievement, reduce racial, ethnic, and economic isolation and provide all children with a choice of high quality educational programs” (“Open Choice: Your Choice…Our Future”). With such lofty goals it is no wonder why Hartford choice school supporters have jumped at opportunities to support their claim that choice schools lead to higher student achievement. Although it seems as if this claim is accurate by comparing achievement scores from the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) between students enrolled in choice programs and students who attend district schools, it is necessary to look at the applicant pool to determine whether or not there are other factors that come into play about what types of students actually apply to choice programs and which do not. This is significant because it could would disprove the idea that those students who are randomly chosen to attend choice schools is not, in fact, as random as it may appear.

According to 2013 data, it is in fact true that, in general, students in choice schools perform better on the CMT as compared to regular district schools (“CMT/CAPT Results for Hartford Resident Students”). For example, data shows that while 53% of third graders in CREC magnet schools met the state math goal, only 25% of third graders in Hartford Public Schools (HPS) met the state math goal. So for all the supporters of choice schools this data has lead them to claim that the creation of such schools has been the cause of higher student achievement, and therefore can be labeled as a better option for students. This statement cannot be taken as completely accurate because academic performance for schools in Hartford is measured by a snapshot, or at one moment in time. In order to prove whether or not magnet schools lead to higher achievement there would need to be data about students’ achievement over time on the CMT. For example take two different students who apply to a choice program, both average academic performers. One student was chosen to enroll and the other one was not. The CMT scores of both students, after one has been enrolled in the choice school and the other in a district school, need to be compared in order to understand if choice schools are leading students to achieve higher. If the student who was enrolled in the choice program showed an improvement in his/her CMT scores and the student who continued to go to a district school did not show any improvement this would be evidence that choice programs are leading students to achieve higher. If we do not compare the applicants who were chosen versus those who were not then the claim that choice schools are “better” than district schools can never be proven.

Another reason why comparing student achievement in choice schools and district schools is misinterpreted is because the applicant pool to choice programs is most likely not a random sample of the total student population in the greater Hartford area. Although all students are technically given the opportunity to apply to choice schools, it is ultimately the parent’s or guardian’s decision. For a variety of different reasons, Hartford parents either decide to apply their child to choice schools or they decide to just send him/her to a district school. This could mean that some parents have a greater desire for their child to succeed in school than others, which would lead these more invested parents to apply their child for choice schools. Other reasons could be that some parents do not have the time, means, or knowledge to apply while others do. Although it would be difficult to measure what general type of parent chooses to apply their child, information about this would be helpful to understanding if family background, rather than the type of school a student is enrolled in, has a greater effect on the achievement of students. Another aspect that could be related to this, shown in the diagram below, is that it is possible that students who are already high-achieving are more likely to apply for choice schools than average or low-achieving students. If this is true, it is probable that there would be a significant decrease in the amount of high achievers in district schools, which would lead to lower CMT scores in district schools and higher CMT scores in choice schools.

There have been some other claims made that disagree with the idea that these racially integrated choice schools have led to higher student achievement, but the answer as to why students perform lower in district schools as compared to choice schools remains unsolved. One person who commented on the article “State report: Students in desegregated schools test higher” brings up the idea of correlation and causation, saying that although two things may appear to be connected, it does not mean that one thing is necessarily causing the other. At this point it is not clear what is causing choice schools to have higher achieving students, whether it is solely choice schools’ design, curriculum, and racial composition that lead students to achieve higher or the possibility that higher achieving students or students who have greater levels of family support are more likely to apply to choice programs.

This graphic is hypothetical because it has not yet been definitively proven that the applicant pool differs from the general population of the greater Hartford area. SOURCE: Emily Heneghan
This graphic is hypothetical because it has not yet been definitively proven that the applicant pool differs from the general population of the greater Hartford area. SOURCE: Emily Heneghan

There have been some other claims made that disagree with the idea that these racially integrated choice schools have led to higher student achievement, but the answer as to why students perform lower in district schools as compared to choice schools remains unsolved. One person who commented on the article “State report: Students in desegregated schools test higher” brings up the idea of correlation and causation, saying that although two things may appear to be connected, it does not mean that one thing is necessarily causing the other. At this point it is not clear what is causing choice schools to have higher achieving students, whether it is solely choice schools’ design, curriculum, and racial composition that lead students to achieve higher or the possibility that higher achieving students or students who have greater levels of family support are more likely to apply to choice programs. This person brings up a good point, stating, “Until we know the cause(s) for the different outcomes, we shouldn’t just throw money, time, and effort at solutions which ultimately need to include all students in all school systems” (“State Report: Students in Desegregated Schools Test Higher”). Although it appears like choice programs have been leading to higher student achievement, it cannot yet be proven what exactly is causing the different academic outcomes of students and, therefore, nothing can be accurately claimed until more research is done.

Sources:

  1. Connecticut State Department of Education, “CMT/CAPT Results for Hartford Resident Students,” September 3, 2013, embedded in Thomas, “State Report,” CT Mirror, September 12, 2013, http://www.ctmirror.org/node/143623#report.
  2. Jacqueline Rabe Thomas, “State Report: Students in Desegregated Schools Test Higher,” CT Mirror, September 12, 2013.
  3. Capital Region Education Council. “Open Choice: Your Choice…Our Future,” 2013, http://www.crec.org/choice/.

 

How and why I revised my essay:

In my essay, in addition to fixing some grammatical errors and making structural changes, I also revised some points and evidence that I used to support my argument. One of the more significant changes I made was that I completely revised my last dew sentences in the first paragraph to be clearer and also to set up exactly what claims I would be making in the body of my essay. In the second paragraph I added particular grade-level data within the text to make my argument stronger and easier for the reader to understand. At the end of the second paragraph I explained the significance of comparing applicants who were chosen versus those who were not because that is a crucial part of my argument and needed to be made more clear. In the third paragraph I changed my topic sentence as well as my second sentences to start off the paragraph with the basic idea that the applicant pool to choice programs is most likely not a random sample of the total student population and then I also changed some of my sentences that followed. My graphic was improved by making 4 changes: I stated that it was a hypothetical situation because there is no definitive evidence that the applicant pools differ, I changed “non-high achieving student” to “regular student,” I changed one of the parallel labels from “APPLICANT POOL” to “INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL APPLICANT POOL” to be more distinct, and l added some information that said that if the lottery phase s random, then we would expect to see the same proportion of high-achieving students in the winners box as the losers box. Lastly, in the final paragraph I got rid of the claim that students are achieving higher in choice programs due to the idea that district schools probably have less resources than choice schools because this claim is not related to the main point of my essay, it was just kind of a random add on that was unnecessary. I also removed the sentences that said “Further, choice programs are not fair in that they leave a lot of students behind since they cannot accept a majority of students,” because that sentences was randomly thrown into there and did not really belong. At the end of the paragraph I better supported my argument by adding the sentence “At this point it is not clear what is causing choice schools to have higher achieving students, whether it is solely choice schools’ design, curriculum, and racial composition that lead students to achieve higher or the possibility that higher achieving students or students who have greater levels of family support are more likely to apply to choice programs,” and then continuing with the importance of why more research needs to be done to find out what the true causes of higher student achievement in choice schools.

 

 

 

Samuel Cullers Housing Discrimination Case, 1954-1957

Posted on Author Emily Heneghan
              Samuel J. Cullers (right) and Corneal A. Davis, Hartford Redevelopment Project Model. Connecticut History Online
Samuel J. Cullers (right) and Corneal A. Davis, Hartford Redevelopment Project Model. Connecticut History Online

 In 1955 the principal planner for the Hartford Redevelopment Agency applied to rent a two-room garden apartment from McKinley Park Homes in Hartford but was deceitfully informed that there were no more vacancies. This young man, Samuel J. Cullers, was African American and believed that he was being barred from the housing development on racial grounds by being “deceitfully” informed that there were no vacancies. Cullers filed—and won—a discrimination complaint against McKinley Park Homes but the Connecticut Supreme Court later overturned the ruling. The court declared that there was “insufficient evidence of bias” to prove that McKinley Park Homes discriminated against Cullers by failing to supply him with an apartment.

 The Hearing and the Civil Rights Commission Ruling in Favor of Cullers

Samuel Cullers, who was born in Chicago, Illinois, graduated from Fisk University with a bachelor’s degree in sociology and economics in 1950. Right after graduation Cullers attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology as a John A. Whitney Fellow where he earned his masters degree in city planning in 1952. Shortly after, Cullers became the principal planner for the Hartford Redevelopment Agency as well as the City Plan Commission (“Samuel Cullers Appointed to Redevelopment Post.”). In 1955, when Cullers filed a racial discrimination complaint after applying to rent an apartment from McKinley Park, it appeared that this highly accomplished city planner could not secure the housing he desired solely because he was African American.

On March 12, 1956 a public hearing called by the State Commission on Civil Rights in the case of Cullers vs. McKinley Park Homes was held a the State Capitol at 10 a.m. Attorney Cyril Coleman represented McKinley Park in the dispute, while Assistant Attorney General Raymond J. Cannon represented the Commission. The Connecticut Civil Rights Commission appointed a three-member fact finding board to study and file briefs on the case. The case stated that Samuel J. Cullers, an African-American Hartford resident as well as chief planner in the Hartford Redevelopment Agency, filed a complaint that he was denied entry into McKinley Park Homes twice because of his race. These occasions took place in 1954, and April of 1955. The commission entered the case because McKinley Park was under “publicly assisted housing,” receiving a tax abatement from the city. With this 10-year tax moratorium on its buildings, the development paid only $350,000 when the total assessment of the property was set at $513, 471.  Because McKinley Homes had another year to run its abatement during the time of Cullers complaint, this apartment complex was still subject to anti-discrimination policy under the Public Accommodations Act (“McKinley Park Told to Give Negro Home.”).

During the time of Cullers complaint there were no African Americans residing in the McKinley Park Homes. Diane Shumsky, manager of the apartment complex, denied that African Americans were unwelcome as tenants to the apartments stating, “Anybody can live in these apartments as long as they qualify.” On further questioning Shumsky explained that these qualifications had to do with the prospective tenant’s credit rating. At the hearing Cannon presented evidence that McKinley Park submitted leases to two tenants shortly after Cullers was told there were no vacancies, which supported the claim of racial discrimination. Cullers visited the company on April 18, 1955 when a woman clerk told him there were no more applications available and later informed him that there were no apartments vacant, but on June 8 and June 20 of 1955 two tenants were admitted to McKinley Park Homes respectively. Although Cannon gave evidence that two tenants were admitted to McKinley Park after Cullers applied, Robert W. Gesecus, N.Y. president Presidential Management Corporation, which manages the McKinley development, said under cross-examination that there were no vacancies at the time of Cullers application. He also testified that personal interviews were necessary before applications were seriously considered. Although Cullers applied for an interview he did not receive a letter in return confirming his request, like other applicants had received. Gesecus claimed that he did not know why that was. When asked if the personal interview had something to do with determining the race of the applicant, Gesecus said it did not (“Hearing Ends in Case Charging Discrimination.”).

On June 19, 1956 the board of the Connecticut Commission on Civil Rights found that McKinley Park violated the Public Accommodations Act by refusing to rent an apartment to Cullers because of his race. The board ruled that Samuel Cullers of 101 Adelaide St., must be given an apartment at McKinley Park Homes, on Dauntless Lane, regardless of his race. After the ruling Cullers was enthusiastic about the decision and maintained his interest in renting an apartment at McKinley Park (“McKinley Park Told to Give Negro Home.”).

 Appeal to Connecticut Superior Court: Ruling is Overturned

After the court ruled in favor of Cullers on June 19, McKinley Park homes appealed the board’s findings to the Connecticut Superior Court. Superior Judge John P. Cotter did agree that Cullers’ rent application was dealt with in a way that “creates a suspicion” but that the findings must be based on “substantial and competent evidence, not on a mere scintilla of evidence.” Judge Cotter points out that Culler sent his first application in 1954 by mail and made other contact through telephone. The fact that Cullers did not appear in person, Cotter argued, gives evidence that McKinley Park Homes was most likely unaware of his race. When Cullers did visit the company office on April 18, Judge Cotter said that from the evidence it seemed like Cullers was already “apprehensive and suspicious” that he was being barred on the basis of race when he entered the building. Furthermore, Cotter argued that based on the actions of the woman clerk, “we cannot infer an intent to discriminate against Cullers.” Based on this supposed rationale, Judge John P. Cotter overturned the Civil Rights Commission ordering McKinley Homes to rent an apartment to Samuel Cullers on the reasoning that there was insufficient evidence of bias (“Evidence of Bias Ruled Insufficient in Rent Case.”), even though there was a severe lack of evidence to prove that there was no racial intent behind denying Sam Culler from home in McKinley Park.

 Cullers vs. McKinley Park Homes was not an exceptional case of racial housing discrimination, as there is much evidence of other instances of such practices that African Americans living in Hartford faced during the 1950s (“Where can a Negro Live?”). This case makes it evident that during this time affluent African Americans were confronted with housing discrimination, not just lower class African Americans. Furthermore, the case gives evidence that even after anti-discrimination laws were put in place, African Americans continued to be challenged with housing barriers. The two different rulings in on the Culler’s case exposes the difficulties of documenting and proving more subtle forms of racial bias at the time. This burden of proof can be seen as one reason why anti-discrimination laws alone did not eradicate unfair practices in housing.

Works Cited

“Crime and Courts.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): Jan 1 1957. ProQuest. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

“Evidence of Bias Ruled Insufficient in Rent Case.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): Nov 6 1956. ProQuest. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

“Hearing Ends in Case Charging Discrimination.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): Mar 27 1956. ProQuest. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

“McKinley Park Told to Give Negro Home.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): Jun 19 1956. ProQuest. Web 8 Oct. 2013.

Rotberg, Robert. “Where can a Negro Live?” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): 16. Aug 25 1956. ProQuest. Web. 13 Sep. 2013

“Samuel Cullers Appointed to Redevelopment Post.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): Jan 16 1957. ProQuest. Web 8 Oct. 2013

How and why I revised my work:

In my revision of the CT History essay I fixed the opening paragraph by sharpening the assertion that Sam Culler was deceitfully informed there were no more vacancies. I also looked through the essay and made grammatical corrections as well as made sure that there was no repetition and that I stuck to the past tense throughout the entire piece. I further analyzed how I agree with the first ruling and found fault with the second ruling by adding that there was a lack of evidence as to how their was no racial intent behind denying Sam Culler a house in McKinley Park. Lastly, in the conclusion I added more information about the significance of the case by including the idea that maybe the burden of proof is a reason unfair practices continued even after anti-discrimination laws were put into place. The reasons behind many of these changes is to do a better job of convincing readers that the second ruling was unjust because previously it seemed as if the entry could have been concluded to readers that the verdict of the Supreme Court seems pretty reasonable.

 

Harnessing Diversity’s Potential: Employing Student-Centered Learning and Technology to Achieve Equity

Posted on Author Emily Heneghan

On Friday night, November 8th the two-day school integration conference in Hartford held an open panel at Environmental Sciences Magnet School at Mary Hooker titled, “Harnessing Diversity’s Potential: Employing Student-Centered Learning and Technology to Achieve Equity and to Build 21st Century Skills.” Principal Peter Dart opened with welcoming remarks and then Susan Eaton introduced the panel. In her introduction Susan spoke of the importance of working together and how all struggles should be tied together instead of everyone working in isolation in order to work towards greater racial, social, and economic. With that statement she introduced six different panelists who employ their own methods of student-centered learning in order to achieve equal opportunity in education, which would lead to a more equitable society.

Robert Cotto, from Connecticut Voices, was the moderator for the panel discussion and asked each panelist to introduce him/herself and briefly discuss his/her method for student-centered learning. Nicholas Donohue, CEO of Nellie Mae Education Foundation, was the first to speak and said that his organization promoted very high student agency by teaching mastery and competency in the use of technology. Shandra Brown, Principal of CREC Museum Academy, then said how Museum Academy has collaborations with museums in Hartford, in which they use their ideologies to engage students in art in order to educate them in not what to think but how to think. Alicia Iannucci, teacher at Quest to Learn, spoke about how this school, which many have called the “xbox school” promotes situational learning using technology because “life is one large game.” Barbara Cervone, Founder and President of What Kids Can Do said that the goal of the program is to change people’s views on what children are capable of because they are part of the solution to equity in education. Helen Soule, executive director of The Partnership for 21st Century Skills discussed the importance of career skills, self-direction and the 4 C’s: creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration. Lastly, Melissa Giraud, digital media and learning strategist and consultant, spoke of media projects and radio stories and the significance of increasing opportunities for student internships that count for credit.

Robert Cotto then asked the panelists “Why are these methods well suited for racially/culturally/economically diverse schools?” Shandra Brown explained how at the end of the year each student has to present in front of students, parents, and community partners and how students politely critique one another in which they ground opinions in evidence “without seeing color.” Melissa Giraud discussed described her experience teaching in a Northern Mexican neighborhood in Chicago, in which she took the students on a trip, many of whom were flunking out of school, and had them make national scripts through interviewing. Melissa explained the significance of having students construct their own knowledge that is relevant to them. Nicholas Donohue ended the panel discussion by explaining that education is a politically and culturally constructed system that is becoming more individualized. He said that although the technological aspect is significant for increasing equality, it will not work until our society’s current cultural set of values and beliefs are challenged and shifted.

Harnessing Diversity's Potential

How to Lie with Maps

Posted on Author Emily Heneghan

Widespread Racial Diversity

Sharp Racial Differences

These two maps display the same data from the racial composition of students in the Hartford area for the 2009-2010 academic year. Both of the data visualizations are mathematically correct, in that they both represent the accurate data, but the two maps are designed differently which can lead viewers to have inaccurate perceptions of the data. The first map shows Hartford and its surrounding neighborhoods as racially diverse by displaying a large number of buckets that divide the data and by using a good range of colors to represent a wide variety of racial compositions. The second map is only divided into three ranges: 0.0-0.25, 0.25-0.75, and 0.75-1.0 and visually it looks like there are sharp racial differences. The color choice goes from the lightest color representing the range with the smallest percentage of minorities to the darkest color representing the range with the largest percentage of racial minorities which causes the viewer to immediately recognize the sharp racial differences by town.