Category: Student Posts

Ed Studies Junior Research Plan

Name: Ambar Paulino

Major(s)/Concentration: English/Educational Studies/ African American Studies Minor

Last updated: December 9th, 2013

1)  What is your proposed research question, and how is it significant to educational studies, broadly defined?

How has the relocation of the Trinity College campus, from Downtown Hartford to Frog Follow affected families and their children’s education in the Hartford community and surrounding areas? What role has Trinity College played in the development and closing of the achievement gap for Hartford Public Schools?

2)   What courses, experiences, and/or readings inspired you to choose this question?

As an Educational Studies major, I was able to take an array of classes which help piece together my concentration which is: “Race, Class, the Achievement Gap and Educational Success.” I am currently taking a class called Race and Urban Space, with Professor Davarian Baldwin which explores the racial implications that decision in city planning lead to. Through my studies in that course I’ve learned that the environment I am living in is not just existent. Months of planning, zoning, and construction go into making cities, and when it comes to urban planning, there are always decisions made.

One of my major assignments for the semester engaged me in my own community. Through the research of my own built environment, I found that my neighborhood underwent a process of transformation with the aide of local prestigious institution- Columbia University. As I delved deeper in my research, I was exposed to all of the changes that were driven by the presence and expansion of Columbia University. As a Trinity College student, I began to think about the relationship that Trinity College posses with the city of Hartford, and what role Trinity has played in the community. Along with your course- Cities, Suburbs, and Schools, I’d like to explore the relationship between the transformation of Hartford due to Trinity’s presence, and also how that has affected (or if it has affected) the public school system and other colleges/universities in the area. For the most part, there are many factors such as real estate, employment, policing, and policy making that may be influenced and or affected by Trinity; I’d like to explore the relationship that our institution has had in the development of Educational policies, creation of magnets schools/open choice schools in the area.

One article that inspired my thinking for this proposal was an article written by Professor Baldwin called, “Phoenix Rising? Arizona State University As An Urban Growth Machine.” This article highlights the effect of the expansion of Arizona State University into the downtown area of Phoenix, a large buzzing city with no real “culture”(Baldwin, 1). Upon reading the article, I thought about the numerous articles I’ve read which label Hartford as one of the most dangerous and or poorest cities in the country. Since my matriculation at Trinity, I have seen very little change in Hartford. However, since the 1970s, there has been a significant amount of change.

In, “Universities and Cities Need to Rethink Their Relationships” author Richard M. Freeland writes:

“ It is useful to distinguish between defensive actions taken to protect our institutions from harm and civic-minded actions that strengthen the community.     An initiative to ameliorate urban blight around a campus because such conditions   adversely affect admissions is different in spirit than a program to enhance K-12       education by housing a city high school in university facilities and enriching the     school’s curriculum” (Freeland, 3).

Parallel to our campus you can find the Learning Corridor which encompasses a variety of smaller sized schools, including the Hartford Magnet Trinity College Academy, a school that is sponsored by Trinity College. To date, I have not heard of other relationships/interactions that Trinity College has besides the one with HMTCA. Through my research, I hope to discover if there were ever other attempts to formulate relationships like the one with HMTCA and if so, how Trinity has supported the schools.

3)  What prior methods training do you have, and what primary sources and methods will you use to answer this question?

In order to answer my proposed research question, I intend on using a combination of qualitative and historical research. Next semester I will be taking a course with professor Rachael Barlow named Research Interviewing, which will teach me how to converse with strangers for research purposes. This learning experience will prepare me to interact and properly execute interviews with  Hartford Public School Officers, different school administration, faculty and staff from both Trinity College and surrounding primary and secondary schools. Through my historical research, I plan on analyzing the effects of the moving of Trinity’s campus from downtown Hartford to Frog Hollow and the relationship between Trinity and other Hartford Public Schools in the area over a 40 year span.

4)  Does your plan include research with human subjects?

My plan does involve research with human subjects through interviews. If there are cases identified where Trinity has been labeled as a beneficial or harmful asset to the community, I plan to identify and meet with the people who have expertise in the subject.

5) Does your research plan require access to a school or organization?

No.

Works Cited

Baldwin, Davarian L. “Phoenix Rising? Arizona State University as an Urban Growth Machine.” Trinity College- Center For Urban and Global Studies: The Urban Planet 6.Fall (2013): 1-2. Oct. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.

Freeland, Richard M. “Point of View: Universities and Cities Need to Rethink Their Relationships.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 51.36 (2005): B36. Community-wealth.org. 13 May 2005. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. <http://community-wealth.org/_pdfs/news/recent-articles/07-05/article-freeland.pdf>.

 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.

 

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.

“On Behalf of All Our Children”: The 1996 Appeal of Sheff v. O’Neill 

The landmark court case charged with creating quality and integrated schooling in the Hartford area has been a labor of love on behalf of many and a long drawn out battle between citizens and the state of Connecticut. Stunned by the inequities between her son’s Hartford public school resources and that of their suburban neighbors, Elizabeth Horton Sheff filed a 1989 lawsuit against the city of Hartford that would put her family on the nation’s stage. In a 2011 interview, the outspoken Sheff reveals that the landmark case she spearheaded was never a “personal thing” for her. “It was always something that I engaged in on behalf of all our children,” Sheff says. A victory on paper that has been difficult to put into practice is what was won on behalf of Harford’s children in the 1996 Supreme Court ruling.

The Beginning of Sheff v. O’Neill

In 1989, Elizabeth Horton Sheff alongside several other parents from the city of Hartford and surrounding suburbs took the state to task over their children’s education. The 18 school children, with their parents at the forefront, presented the state of Connecticut with what would become a landmark lawsuit. In the suit, the families claimed that the state has contributed to the racial, ethnic, and economic isolation of Hartford students that led to subpar quality schooling in comparison to their suburban counterparts.

The Sheff case was eventually went to trial in 1992. After nearly three months of trial, Superior Court Judge Harry Hammer rules in favor of the state. He contended that state officials could not be held liable for rectifying educational inequalities, because the plaintiffs were not able to prove intent. He also asserted that the plaintiffs presented no proof that government action created the racial isolation that was so detrimental to the education of Hartford public school students.

The Sheff case eventually went to trial in 1992. After nearly three months, Superior Court Judge Harry Hammer rules in favor of the state. He contended that state officials could not be held liable for rectifying educational inequalities. He also asserted that the plaintiffs presented no proof that government action created the racial isolation that was so detrimental to the education of Hartford public school students.

Appeal and Victory: The 1996 Majority Opinion

After their 1995 loss, Sheff plaintiffs appealed their case to the State Supreme Court. It took the Justices ten months of deliberation to overturn Judge Hammer’s ruling and come back with a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. The majority opinion, led by Justice Ellen Ash Peters, ruled that the state was in fact responsible for providing equal educational opportunities for all children. Section 42 of the 1996 ruling states:

“Despite the initiatives undertaken by the defendants to alleviate the severe racial and ethnic disparities among school districts, and despite the fact that the defendants did not intend to create or maintain these disparities, the disparities that continue to burden the education of the plaintiffs infringe upon their fundamental state constitutional right to a substantially equal educational opportunity.”

The dissenting opinion agreed that Hartford school children were at an educational disadvantage, but not solely because of racial isolation. The dissent named poverty, not merely racial isolation for the disadvantages the city’s students faced. The Connecticut Supreme Court disagreed. In this instance, the outcomes and not the intentions of the defendants’ actions had been tried. It was presumed that the state had not intended for the racial, economic, and ethnic isolation of Hartford school children, but they were charged with remedying it. The ruling also pointed to location of Greater Hartford urban-suburban school district boundary lines as a cause of racial isolation and deemed them unconstitutional. Despite the ruling’s progressive rhetoric, the court made no clear recommendations to create a racially, ethnically, and economically integrated city-suburban school system. The majority cried urgency for Hartford school children, yet “stayed their hand.” The Sheff plaintiffs had won, but what had they really accomplished on behalf of all our children?

To read more about Sheff v. O’Neill click here.

Sources

Eaton, Susan E. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin of Chapel Hill, 2007. Print.

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.

“Sheff vs. O’Neill: A Timeline.” Courant.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2013. <http://www.courant.com/news/education/hc-sheff-oneill-timeline-flash,0,105112.flash>.

Sheff v. O’NEILL, 238 Conn. 1, 678 A.2d 1267 (1996).