{"id":1671,"date":"2011-12-06T19:12:26","date_gmt":"2011-12-07T00:12:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/cssp\/?p=1671"},"modified":"2011-12-11T17:29:53","modified_gmt":"2011-12-11T22:29:53","slug":"pornpat-and-nathan-temporary-title","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/cssp\/2011\/12\/06\/pornpat-and-nathan-temporary-title\/","title":{"rendered":"Desegregated Schools with Segregated Classrooms: The Reality of Racialized Tracking at Magnet Schools"},"content":{"rendered":"

Desegregated Schools with Segregated Classrooms<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h1>\n

The Reality of Racialized Tracking at Magnet Schools<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n

\"\"<\/h2>\n

Introduction <\/strong><\/h2>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Over the past decades, politicians, civil rights leaders, and community organizers have worked to give every Hartford child the opportunity to attend a racially and socioeconomically integrated school. Sheff v. O\u2019Neill <\/em>is a landmark civil rights lawsuit filed by Elizabeth Horton Sheff and other parents against then-Governor William O\u2019Neill in 1989, claiming that the severe racial and socioeconomic isolation of Hartford school children violated the state\u2019s constitution. However, this situation is not unique to Hartford. The Sheff <\/em>case has implications for the dynamic between urban and suburban disparities nationally. The de facto<\/em> segregation that the lawyers argue is to blame for the poor educational opportunities of Hartford students is, in fact, pervasive in nearly every city nationwide. All students stand to benefit from more racially integrated schools.<\/p>\n

One aspect of the settlement, the creation of inter-district magnet schools, serves as one of the strongest means of remedying racial segregation in public schools, by bringing together children from both suburban towns and the city. \u201cMagnet schools may very well be effective tools for desegregating at the building level. However, magnet schools may exacerbate or even cause within-school segregation.\u201d [1. Kimberly West. \u201cA Desegregation Tool That Backfired: Magnet Schools and Classroom Segregation.\u201d The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 103, No. 8, Symposium: The Informal Economy <\/em>(Jun., 1994): 2567. http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/797056.] The goal of Sheff v. O\u2019Neill<\/em> is to promote desegregated schools. However its measure of desegregation is incomplete. Desegregation measured only at the school level does not indicate segregation at the classroom level. \u00a0Put simply, while an overall school may be technically desegregated, individual classrooms can remain highly segregated virtually eliminating any benefit of desegregation. \u201cBy definition, it is paradoxical to attach the label \u2018desegregated\u2019 to a magnet school that operates segregated classrooms. Nevertheless, the commonly accepted definition of desegregation permits a magnet school with racially segregated classrooms to be deemed desegregated.\u201d [1. Kimberly West. \u201cA Desegregation Tool That Backfired: Magnet Schools and Classroom Segregation.\u201d The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 103, No. 8, Symposium: The Informal Economy <\/em>(Jun., 1994): 2567. http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/797056.] We argue that the state should create a more effective definition of desegregation that includes not only the overall school but also the classroom level. The state needs to addresses racialized tracking in desegregation efforts.<\/p>\n

Sheff v. O\u2019Neill<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sheff plaintiffs advocated for the State of Connecticut to uphold the constitutional rights of children in Hartford schools to equal opportunity. They argued that the Connecticut\u2019s districting system based upon city and suburban boundary lines led to racially segregated schools. [1. \u201cSheff Movement: Quality Integrated Education for All Children\u201d http:\/\/www.sheffmovement.org\/index.shtml.] \u201cHartford Public Schools\u2019 population consisted of 91 percent minority students, surrounded by suburban district comprised of 88 percent white students.\u201d [1. Jack Dougherty, Christina Ramsay, and Jesse Wanzer, \u201cSheff v. O\u2019Neill: Weak Desegregation Remedies and Strong Disincentives in Connecticut, 1996-2008,\u201d in From the Courtroom to the Classroom: The Shifting Landscape of School Desegregation<\/em>, ed. Claire Smrekar, and Ellen Goldring (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2009).] Although in 1996, the State Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sheff plaintiffs, \u201cthe Court did not specify a goal, remedy, or timetable to resolve the problem, stating that this responsibility belonged to the legislative and executive branches.\u201d [1. “Sheff Movement: Quality Integrated Education for All Children” http:\/\/www.sheffmovement.org\/index.shtml.]<\/p>\n

\"\"
Students in Hartford Attending Racially Isolated or Racially Integrated Schools<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In 2003, the Sheff v. O\u2019Neill<\/em> reached to an agreement, to provide at least 30 percent of public school minority students with an educational experience with reduced isolation by using interdistrict magnet schools, the Open Choice program, and interdistrict cooperative programs. [1. \u201cSheff Movement: Quality Integrated Education for All Children\u201d http:\/\/www.sheffmovement.org\/index.shtml.] Moreover, the agreement required the state to open and maintain two new interdistrict magnet schools in Hartford per year. Even though the state was pressured to take actions to alleviate the violation, this goal is not directly enforceable. Four years later, the goal was only met with approximately 10% of students attending less racially isolated schools. [1. “Sheff Movement: Quality Integrated Education for All Children” http:\/\/www.sheffmovement.org\/index.shtml.]<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Click Here to View the Sheff II Stipulation and Order (2008)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Since the state failed to make significant progress towards the goal (Sheff I), the plaintiffs returned to Court several times and lead a discussion on a second settlement. The Sheff plaintiffs claimed that the State was not doing enough to fill new magnet schools to capacity, declaring the state\u2019s efforts to integrate Hartford students inadequate. Thus, the plaintiffs saw very little progress made by the state. On the other hand, the State \u201cresponds that it has complied with the settlement by opening two magnet schools per year, while phasing in grade levels as planned.\u201d [1. “Sheff Movement: Quality Integrated Education for All Children\u201d http:\/\/www.sheffmovement.org\/index.shtml.] The State managed to create 22 interdistrict magnet schools and enrolled 1,000 minority Hartford children in suburban schools. Both parties expressed common interest in increasing the racial, ethnic, and economic integration of Hartford Public School students.<\/p>\n

Under the current settlement agreement (Sheff II), the plaintiffs requested more magnets schools to be built and increasing the number of seats for Hartford children in suburban public schools. In addition, the state and the plaintiffs agreed to achieve at least 35% of Hartford minority children have access to racially integrated schools by 2010-11 and 41% by 2013.<\/p>\n

Check out the original 1989 complaint here!<\/a><\/p>\n

The Magnet School<\/strong><\/h2>\n

What are magnet schools? What is its role in public education?<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"
Magnet School Population in Hartford<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Magnet schools are public schools \u2013 they are tuition free schools that serve many different populations. Magnet schools are bureaucratically part of the public school system, which makes them different than private or charter schools. Public school districts oversee magnet schools. In some cases, however, inter-district magnet schools are operated by a separate system, like the schools part of the Capitol Region Education Council in Hartford that are managed by the Regional School Choice Office. Parents must apply for admission to magnet schools, which is frequently awarded through a lottery process. Inter-district magnet schools are financed through a mixture of state and local funds with certain schools receiving income from various federal or private sources. The bulk of operating costs, however, are covered through state allocation and the tuition the magnet school charges a student\u2019s home district.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Available Magnet Schools for a Hartford Student Entering the 9th Grade<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Magnet schools are different than zoned neighborhood public schools for in two respects. The first difference is the curriculum they offer. Magnet schools are not necessarily academically better than regular public schools; rather, magnet schools are able to offer more focused or unusual curricular offerings. For example, magnet schools in Hartford include the Greater Hartford Academy of Performing Arts and the University High of Science and Engineering, among others. The second difference is the student population magnet schools serve. Inter-district magnet schools enroll students across school district and town boundaries. Consequently, magnet schools generally have more diverse populations in terms of both race and socioeconomic status than zoned public schools.<\/p>\n

Higher socioeconomic diversity and more specialized curriculum are benefits of magnet schools. There are, however, multiple drawbacks. Magnet schools are not neighborhood schools. Students sometime travel considerable distances to their magnet schools. If the distance along isn\u2019t enough, the community dynamic present at a magnet school can be different than that at a zoned neighborhood school. This is not to imply it is worse, rather only that it is different. Also, unlike regular public schools, admission to magnet school is not guaranteed. Admission is based on academic merit or lottery. For example, in Hartford where admission is lottery based, a parent could apply to several inter-district magnet school but be accepted to none. Because of widespread popularity certain schools have large numbers of applications limiting acceptance to only a lucky few. Magnet schools are not without their faults and are not guaranteed to successfully create desegregation.<\/p>\n

Tracking<\/strong><\/h2>\n