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.
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:
- 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.
- Jacqueline Rabe Thomas, “State Report: Students in Desegregated Schools Test Higher,” CT Mirror, September 12, 2013.
- 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.
