Improving Expanding Hartford’s Project Choice Program · 40 years of the Project Concern/Project Choice program in Hartford. We are now working to develop committees of support-ers

Improving and ExpandingHartford’s

Project Choice Program

Prepared for the Sheff Movement coalition

by Erica Frankenberg

Poverty & Race Research Action Counci l , Washington, DC September 2007

Poverty & Race Research Act ion Counci l , Washington, DC September 2007

Improving and ExpandingHartford’s

Project Choice Program

Prepared for the Sheff Movement coalition

by Erica Frankenberg

AcknowledgmentsThis report would not be possible without a number of people, including those interviewedlisted in Appendix A. Phil Tegeler from the Poverty & Race Research Action Council pro-vided resources, guidance, and contacts; project interns Christina Ramsey and Katie Brewerfrom Trinity College and their supervisor Professor Jack Dougherty assisted with some datacollection; Chinh Le, Susan Eaton, and Kathryn McDermott have informally talked with meabout Sheff. I appreciate the assistance of numerous assistants not listed above who helped tocoordinate these interviews, particularly Tennille Cintron at CREC. Marcus Rivera was alsohelpful in sharing data on the program with me. Thomas Kissling edited an earlier draft ofthis manuscript.

We are particularly grateful for the support of the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving,which provided funding for this research, and the Capitol Region Education Council(CREC), which acted as a fiscal agent for the Project Choice Campaign. The Sheff Movementcoalition is independent from the Foundation and CREC and the conclusions of this report are not meant to reflect those of the Foundation or CREC.

About the AuthorErica Frankenberg is an advanced doctoral candidate at the Harvard University GraduateSchool of Education. She has authored a report on the racial segregation of public schoolteachers and is also co-author of a series of reports and articles on school desegregation trends.Recently, Frankenberg helped coordinate and write a social science statement filed with theU.S. Supreme Court in the Louisville/Seattle voluntary school integration cases, regarding thebenefits of integrated schools (Ms. Frankenberg’s analysis was specifically cited and attached asan appendix to the dissenting opinion of Justice Breyer). Frankenberg helped author a widelydisseminated manual on voluntary integration published by the NAACP Legal Defense Fundand the Civil Rights Project at Harvard. She is the co-editor of Lessons in Integration: Realizingthe Promise of Racial Diversity in American Schools (with Gary Orfield, 2007) from the Universityof Virginia Press.

Table of ContentsIntroduction to the Sheff Movement coalition and the Project Choice Campaign . . . . . . ii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Section I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Section II: Demographics of the Hartford Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Section III: Benefits of Racial/Ethnic Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Section IV: Other City-suburban Desegregation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Section V: Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Section VI: Recommendations and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Appendices

Appendix A: List of Interviews Conducted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Appendix B: Participation in Project Concern and Project Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Appendix C: Recommendations for Improvements to Websites Related to Project Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Appendix D: METCO Students, as a Percentage of District Enrollment & Minority Share, October 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

iP r e p a r e d f o r t h e S h e f f M o v e m e n t c o a l i t i o n 2 0 0 7

The Sheff Movement is a community basedcoalition that is working to expand andstrengthen the range of quality, integratededucation programs available to Hartfordfamilies under the Sheff v. O’Neill school de-segregation court decrees. These programsinclude the “Project Choice” program,which places Hartford children in suburbanschools, and a system of 15-20 Hartford-based magnet schools that are open to chil-dren from throughout the Hartford Region.

The coalition has recently launched theProject Choice Campaign, a new project togive voice to the network of Project Choiceparents and alumni and to expand supportfor the Project Choice program in the Hart-ford suburbs. The Campaign kicked off itswork with an anniversary conference on De-cember 2, 2006, co-sponsored by the Capi-tol Region Education Council, celebrating40 years of the Project Concern/Project

Choice program in Hartford. We are nowworking to develop committees of support-ers in selected suburban towns, with focusgroups and some small-scale events, and weare preparing a DVD that includes inter-views with alumni and some of the originalfounders of the Project Concern program.This research report is also a key part of thecoalition’s work.

Philip Tegeler of the Poverty & Race Re-search Action Council (and a former lawyerin the Sheff case) is helping to oversee theProject Choice Campaign, along with SheffMovement co-chairs Elizabeth HortonSheff and Jim Boucher.

The Project Choice Campaign is grateful forfunding support from the Hartford Founda-tion for Public Giving, the Hartford CourantFoundation, and the City of Hartford.

Introduction to the Sheff Movement

ii Improving and Expanding Hartford’s Project Choice Program

The Project Choice program, whichprovides integrated school opportuni-ties for Hartford schoolchildren

throughout the region, is an integral part ofthe State of Connecticut’s response to the1996 Sheff v. O’Neill school decision. TheChoice program has been overshadowed bythe larger interdistrict magnet school pro-gram, but like the magnet program, ProjectChoice has also lagged in its growth – leavingthe state well short of its desegregation goals.Simply put, suburban districts in the regionhave not yet provided a sufficient number ofseats to meet the student demand for the pro-gram. However, local districts do not makesuch decisions in a vacuum – there are impor-tant issues of funding, transportation, studentsupport, coordination and capacity that haveto be addressed by the state before the pro-gram can grow to its full potential. This studyexplored these issues in depth and includesrecommendations to improve and expand theProject Choice program for participatingtowns and students.

In looking to the next phase of compliancewith the Sheff v. O’Neill mandate, ProjectChoice could have a larger role than in thepast. This is largely because the program is themost efficient means of placing students in in-tegrated school placements. Typically, an inter-district magnet school will take several years ofmarketing and awareness among suburbanparents to attain a meaningful degree of racialintegration. In contrast, placements in theProject Choice program provide Hartford stu-

dents with immediate access to integratedschools and classrooms – usually in exemplarylearning environments.

Though the program’s growth has lagged,there appears to be ample capacity in suburbanschool districts to accommodate additionalProject Choice students. Of the 27 participat-ing districts, ten provide less than 1% of theirseats to Hartford students, and every district isunder 3% of total enrollment. The state ofConnecticut’s school facility capacity data,which looks at only physical school capacity,suggests there may be thousands of potentialseats in already existing suburban schools. Thisrough capacity data needs to be supplementedby a careful district-by-district review of actualcapacity in the suburban districts, to determinefair target goals for each town in the region. Ifthere were greater funding for Project Choice—for faculty, staff, and curriculum materials—suburban districts could use their excess capac-ity to accommodate more Hartford students.

The slow growth and low suburban participa-tion rates in Hartford’s Project Choice pro-gram stand in sharp contrast to similarprograms in Boston, Minneapolis, and St.Louis. In these cities, suburban districts aretaking significantly larger numbers and pro-portions of students. In Boston’s METCOprogram, for example, Boston minority stu-dents account for more than 3% of district en-rollment in fourteen suburban districts. Onesuburban Boston district enrolled 415METCO students in 2006 (in contrast, the

P r e p a r e d f o r t h e S h e f f M o v e m e n t c o a l i t i o n 2 0 0 7 1

Executive Summary

2 Improving and Expanding Hartford’s Project Choice Program

largest participating district in the Hartfordarea enrolls 96 Project Choice students).Even at the current low participation rates,Project Choice students make up a substantialpercentage of the total Black and Latino en-rollment in most participating suburban dis-tricts – in other words, without this program,student diversity would decline significantly atmany suburban schools. The Choice program,by creating more diverse schools, brings sub-stantial benefits to participating Hartford stu-dents and to suburban students and districts.Research on the long term benefits of integra-tion, including studies of Hartford’s ProjectConcern, shows that students of color in inte-grated schools are more likely to graduatefrom high school, go on to college, and gradu-ate from college than their segregated peers.There are also benefits for all students, includ-ing white suburban students, such as improvedcross-racial understanding and communicationskills and a reduction in racial prejudice andbias, as well as improvements in critical think-ing skills associated with exposure to a broadercross section of student backgrounds.

In addition to the long term benefits of diver-sity for students and society, there is recent ev-idence that Hartford students participating inProject Choice are doing better on standard-ized achievement tests. More than half of Proj-ect Choice students are performing at or aboveproficiency on state standardized tests in bothmathematics and reading, rates that are higherthan their Hartford Public School peers andblack and Latino students statewide. This isperhaps not surprising, in that many of thesesuburban schools are high achieving, resource-rich environments with relatively small classsize and low percentages of low-income stu-dents – which makes it more likely that ade-quate teaching resources can be devoted toeach student’s needs. These recent achieve-

ment results are consistent with achievementstudies of Hartford students in the Project Con-cern program in the 1960s and 70s.

The youngest Project Choice students alsoshow impressive academic gains. In the “EarlyBeginnings” program, an interdistrict kinder-garten program (offering half day kindergartenalong with a full day enrichment option in se-lected suburban districts), Hartford studentshad large gains in language acquisition.

In trying to ascertain the reasons for the slowgrowth in the Project Choice program, we in-terviewed nearly fifty participants and ob-servers in the program and reviewed the rolesand responsibilities of the key “stakeholders”in the Project Choice program, including theState of Connecticut, the Capitol Region Edu-cation Council (CREC), the Sheff plaintiffs,the state courts, the suburban school districts,and Hartford families participating in the pro-gram. While each of these entities has an im-portant role, our primary conclusion is thatresponsibility for the program is too diffuse –there is no central “champion” for the program.

The State of Connecticut: One conclusionwe reached, as have others, is that the State ofConnecticut – through its Commissioner andDepartment of Education – must play a leadrole as the champion for expansion and pri-mary implementer of Project Choice. Thestate can no longer play a passive role in theChoice program if this program is to signifi-cantly expand – it must become an active part-ner with CREC and the local districts, but italso must lead, fund, monitor, and enforceChoice program obligations. Their obligationsinclude:

Adequate per pupil funding for subur-ban districts: The recent increase in per

3P r e p a r e d f o r t h e S h e f f M o v e m e n t c o a l i t i o n 2 0 0 7

pupil reimbursement to suburban districtswill help in expanding the Choice pro-gram, but this is still far from adequate.Fair reimbursement for Hartford studentswill enable suburban districts to fund theteacher training, district coordinators andother program enhancements that are nec-essary to support Project Choice studentsin the district and possibly reduce studentattrition.

Transportation funding: The recent in-crease in Project Choice transportationfunding from $2100 per student to $3250per student is very helpful, but will notnecessarily be adequate to reduce long busrides until the efficiency of bus routes isincreased by larger district enrollments inthe program. Until enrollment reachesthis point, funding should be maintainedat an adequate level to ensure that no stu-dents have longer than a one-hour trip toschool, and that all students have access toafter-school athletics and other extracur-ricular activities.

CREC program support funding: Evenif the state were to more fairly compensatethe suburban districts, the state shouldcontinue to fund and further expand theinnovative and essential support staff andprograms that CREC provides: interven-tion specialists to assist students with thetransition to suburban schools; teachertraining programs for suburban teachers;and summer and weekend academic sup-port activities for Project Choice students.

Marketing and parent education: Al-though demand for seats currently out-strips supply, the publicity and marketingof the Choice program has been over-looked. This is a function that the state

should lead. It is important that there be atwelve-month plan for continuous infor-mation dissemination about the programto all Hartford schoolchildren and theirfamilies. There should be a particular em-phasis to market the program to familieswith young children (where suburbanavailability is greatest) and in the Latinocommunity. The parent information cen-ters being proposed to consolidate magnetschool fairs, application materials, andother information on magnet school pro-grams should also include full informationon the Choice program.

Expand the “Early Beginnings” pro-gram: The proven results of this full dayintegrated kindergarten program shouldattract both Hartford parents as well assuburban districts looking to expand Proj-ect Choice in the lower grades. The stateshould also look to expand the New Be-ginnings concept to its statewide preschoolinitiatives, to help foster integrated experi-ences for children in pre-kindergarten.State and suburban officials should recog-nize, however, that the “Early Beginnings”program will not alone be a panacea, assome parents are reluctant to send kinder-garten-age children to school on a bus.

A Project Choice Advisory Committee:A standing advisory committee to theCommissioner and State Board of Educa-tion should be set up, including all stake-holders in Project Choice, to ensure that avariety of views are received and consid-ered by the state and problems and pro-gram needs are dealt with quickly.

Expectations of suburban districts:Only the state is in a position to set expec-tations for each district’s participation in

the Choice program. The State Depart-ment of Education has an important roleto play in setting ambitious but fair annualrequirements for each town to significantlyexpand overall regional participation in theProject Choice program.

Capitol Region Education Council(CREC): CREC was viewed by many peoplewe interviewed as a highly competent adminis-trator of the program. However, as a stategrantee, they are not in a position to providethe strong leadership and advocacy that theprogram needs on the state level. Greater ef-forts should be devoted to publicity and mar-keting of the program, as discussed above, andCREC should take additional steps to engageparents and alumni of the program to developa voice in the region in support of the Choiceprogram – including working directly with theSheff Movement coalition on parent outreachand engagement.

The Sheff plaintiffs and the state courts:The Sheff plaintiffs can hardly be faulted forthe slow growth of the Choice program – theyhave returned to the trial court three separatetimes since 1996 to argue that magnet andchoice programs are growing too slowly. Thestate court system, however, has not beenquick to support the Connecticut SupremeCourt’s mandate. As the implementation of theruling goes forward, the state courts need torecognize their essential role as part of the im-plementation process.

The suburban school districts: The majorbarrier to growth of the Choice program is thefailure of suburban districts to offer a largernumber of seats to Hartford children. SomeHartford-area districts barely participate in theprogram, and even the districts with thelargest participation rates are far below the lev-

els of participation in other city-suburban pro-grams across the country. This is not an issueof capacity – most districts have ample space tosubstantially increase participation in the pro-gram, and only a few districts have a largeenough resident minority school population tobe exempt from required participation. Thekey barriers to greater suburban participationin the Choice program are inadequate per-stu-dent funding levels and the lack of clear guid-ance from the state as to the number of Choicestudents each district is expected to enroll.Stronger per-student funding would create in-centives for suburban participation, and wouldeliminate the financial objections of some localresidents. Clear fair share participation targetsfrom the state would eliminate the notion thatsuburban participation is “optional” and woulddefuse undercurrents of concern that a town isdoing more than its fair share, or taking “toomany” Hartford students.

Even without waiting for a strong mandateand enhanced funding from the state, there areadditional steps suburban districts can andshould take to enhance the program. First,and most obviously, towns should offer themaximum number of seats available for ProjectChoice students, without waiting for state di-rection. Nearby districts with particularly lowrates of participation should take the lead inthis process, and local school board membersand other political leaders should set a positivetown for participation in the program. In ad-dition, increasing diversity of suburban teach-ing staff is critical (districts should considerimplementing city-suburban teacher transferprograms where towns have difficulty attract-ing teaching candidates of color), as are fo-cused efforts to engage city parents inschool-based activities, including the develop-ment of “host family” programs. On-goingteacher development programs (like the Hart-

Improving and Expanding Hartford’s Project Choice Program4

ford tours CREC sponsored this summer) canincrease sensitivity of suburban staff to the is-sues faced by Choice students. St. Louis andBoston both have useful models of profes-sional development and student support forsuburban towns to consider; perhaps local uni-versities can collaborate on these importantprojects.

Hartford families participating in the pro-gram: Project Choice would not exist withoutthe Hartford families and students who partici-pate in Project Choice despite the long hoursof transportation, and going to a distant schoolwhere they may know few others—sacrificesthat are often overlooked. Additional support

for Hartford parents to stay connected to theirchildren’s schools may be needed, especiallywhere transportation barriers, distance, andwork schedules may interfere. Hartford parentsin the Choice program are also in a good posi-tion to represent and advocate for the Choiceprogram in suburbs and on the state level. Allof the participants in the Project Choice pro-gram, including CREC, need to work to helpgive these families a voice so that they too canparticipate in the implementation of the pro-gram and the education of their children. Thisorganizing work has been begun by the SheffMovement coalition (which sponsored this re-port), but it will require the support of all theother entities engaged in Project Choice.



Section I: Introduction

In 1996, the Connecticut Supreme Courtdeclared that the state was in violation ofits provision of a “substantially equal edu-

cation” guaranteed under the state constitu-tion due to the racial and economic isolationof the Hartford schools. Unlike most schooldesegregation cases, this case was tried underthe state constitution (most cases rely on theU.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendmentprohibiting discrimination on the basis ofrace). Importantly, this decision declared thatthe segregation was illegal even though therehad been no deliberate segregation of students(e.g., de facto segregation).1

In response, the Connecticut General Assemblyenacted Public Act 97-290, which established atwo way voluntary integration program, whichrelied on a regional interdistrict magnet schoolsystem, along with a regional “Open Choice”program placing Hartford students in suburbanclassrooms. This latter program was conceivedas an expansion of the long running “ProjectConcern” program in Hartford, and in July1998, Project Concern was reconfigured as“Project Choice.”2

However, despite the 1997 magnet and subur-ban choice legislation, relatively few newspaces opened up in the choice program dur-ing the first years of implementation—and fewstudents were actually attending integratedschools. Plaintiffs returned to court several

times to demand a comprehensive plan andseek stricter enforcement of a remedy. Sixyears later, an interim settlement was reachedand adopted by the Connecticut General As-sembly. The settlement specified that by June2007, 30% of minority public school studentsin Hartford were to be attending “reduced-isolation educational settings”3 through inter-district magnet schools, the Project Choiceprogram, or interdistrict cooperative grants.As of 2006-07, 2,006 Hartford students wereattending racially integrated magnet schools.4

Another 1,070 minority students were partici-pating in Project Choice, for a total of 3,076students out of 21,942 Hartford minority students, for a total of 13.9%. Even includingthe 3% credit for funding Interdistrict Coop-erative Grants (which isn’t tied to the numberof students participating, but rather theamount of money the state allocates to inter-district programs), these programs are justover halfway to the goal set for June 2007 inthe 2003 Settlement.

The parties in Sheff recently negotiated a newfive-year agreement that increases the targetpercentage of Hartford minority students inreduced isolation educational settings up to41% by 2011-12.5 Based on the state’sprogress to date, however, a substantial in-crease in Hartford students enrolled in theProject Choice program would make it mucheasier to achieve this goal.6


Although all components of the Sheff remedyare potentially important contributors to cre-ating integrated schools in the Hartford area,this report will focus solely on the ProjectChoice program (also called Open Choice7).Because the premise of the Choice program isplacing students in successful schools that al-ready exist and will have an integrated studentbody, this program has the greatest potentialover the next five years to move Hartford stu-dents voluntarily to integrated settings.8 Theprogram also has the potential to benefit thou-sands of suburban students whose schools willalso be enhanced by the racial diversity ofHartford students.

The two interrelated guiding questions for thisreport were:

1. What could be done to improve ProjectChoice for students and participatingtowns?

2. What has limited the growth of the program and what can be done to substantially increase Project Choice enrollment?

This report is structured as follows. The firstsection will review the demographics of theHartford area, including the school districtsand Project Choice participants. The secondsection will discuss the research about desegre-gation generally as well as specific research onProject Concern and Project Choice. Fromthere, we review similar urban-suburban de-segregation programs in three other metropol-itan areas in the U.S. Section Five draws onextensive interviews to examine the roles of, inturn: the state, plaintiffs/court, CREC, subur-ban districts, and Hartford families. SectionSix concludes with recommendations for im-proving Project Choice.


Endnotes1 Sheff v. O’Neill, 238 Conn. 1, 687 A.2d 1267 (1996).

2 Project Concern, as Project Choice was originallynamed, began in September 1966 when 266 stu-dents were bused to the suburban districts ofWest Hartford, Farmington, Manchester, SouthWindsor and Simsbury. According to the initial1966 agreement between districts, participatingstudents were tested along with a control groupof Hartford students who were not accepted toparticipate. The positive initial results convincedten other districts to join the program. Through1996, approximately 6,000 students had partici-pated in Project Concern, with 1,175 students par-ticipating at the peak of the program in the late1970s and a staff of 12 teachers and 56 parapro-fessionals. The program’s enrollment declined as,in part, federal funding for integration programsdeclined beginning in the early 1980s. In July1998, the program was renamed Project Choiceand placed under the administration of the Capi-tol Region Educational Center (CREC), with severalkey program changes (including the adoption of apure lottery admission process, removal of restric-tions on students with special learning needs, anda guarantee of attendance within the receivingdistricts until graduation from the district, pro-vided that Hartford residence is maintained.)

3 A reduced isolation educational setting is definedunder the settlement as one in which the minoritypercentage at a particular school is less than 30percentage points above the percentage of minority students in the entire Sheff region. Although these schools do not have the high iso-lation as many Hartford public schools, at thesame time, a school would be considered reducedisolation if nearly 75% minority—which is not the

same as being an “integrated school”. The dis-

tricts included in the Sheff Region to determine

minority percentage are: Avon, Bloomfield,

Canton, East Granby, East Hartford, East Windsor,

Ellington, Farmington, Glastonbury, Granby,

Hartford, Manchester, Newington, Rocky Hill,

Simsbury, South Windsor, Suffield, Vernon, West

Hartford, Wethersfield, Windsor, and Windsor

Locks.

4 Dougherty, J., Wanzer, J., & Ramsey, C. (June

2007). “Missing the Goal: A Visual Guide to Sheff

v. O’Neill School Desegregation.” Hartford, CT:

Cities, Suburbs & Schools Research Project at

Trinity College; Note, more students were attend-

ing magnet schools than this but some magnet

schools were not within the racial guidelines spec-

ified by the settlement agreement.

5 As of the time this report went to press in August

2007, the Phase II settlement had only been pro-

posed but had not yet been approved by the state

legislature, which is required by state law.

6 The 2003 interim Sheff agreement stipulated that

200 Project Choice seats would be added per year;

from 2004-05 to 2005-06, the number of students

increased by only 42.

7 There are also city-suburban choice programs

(Open Choice) in New Haven and Bridgeport that

are not part of the Sheff settlement and are ad-

ministered by other regional education service

providers, but this report will not focus on those

programs and the students they serve.

8 Substantial growth in the Project Choice program

is feasible – there is substantial unmet demand for

the program among Hartford families and sub-

stantial untapped capacity in suburban school

districts throughout the region.



Demographics of entire population in Hartford area

Hartford is the second largest metropolitanarea in New England, with nearly 1.2 millionresidents counted in the 2000 Census.1 Overthree-quarters of metro residents (77%) werewhite, which represents a decline over the lasttwo decades: 88% of area residents were whitein 1980. Black and Latino residents constituteapproximately 10% of the population; Latinoresidents have tripled in two decades and thenumber of Asian residents is five times as largeas 1980. Hartford is surrounded by a fewracially diverse suburbs and a larger number ofextremely white suburbs, in sharp contrast tothe overwhelmingly minority urban core.Twenty suburban towns are at least 90% whitewhile just over one-quarter (27.7%) of Hart-ford residents were white.

In the Hartford area, like many other metro-politan areas, segregation by race is also com-plicated by economic segregation. Accordingto calculations from a series of economic indi-cators (e.g., percent in poverty, median in-come, homeownership, etc) from the 2000Census, there was a wide disparity between thecities and suburbs in the Hartford area. In fact,Hartford was in the bottom quartile of metroareas across the country in terms of the widedisparity on economic well-being indicators

between the suburbs and the urban center.2 Asseen in Table 1, although there are substantialvariations in the socioeconomic characteristicsof the population among suburban towns inthe Hartford area, Hartford residents are morelikely to live in poverty, have lower annual in-comes, and are less likely to own their ownhomes than residents in any other town.

These differences have important implicationsfor public schools since funding for schools isrelated to a town’s property wealth. Further,the level of educational attainment differs sub-stantially, which affects the type of jobs resi-dents can qualify for. Parents with lowereducational attainment may also know lessabout how to effectively advocate for theirchildren with schools or to evaluate the besteducational option for their child. In nearlyhalf of Hartford County towns, 90% of resi-dents have at least a high school diploma. Innine towns, at least 40% of residents are col-lege graduates. The two largest cities in thecounty, Hartford and New Britain, have thelowest percentage of high school graduates,under 70%. Further, only one in eight Hart-ford residents are college graduates.

Governmental services that were regionalizedduring the late 1960s include water, waste dis-posal, and mass transit. Also, in the private sec-


Section II: Demographics of the

Hartford Region


Table 1: Selected Demographic Characteristics of Towns in Hartford County, 20003

White Median Percent ofPercent Household Percent of Owner- Median Percent Percent

Total of Income, population Occupied Value of HS CollegeTown Population Population 1999 in poverty Housing Homes graduate4 Graduate

Avon 15,832 94.9 $90,934 1.7 85.9 $241,400 95.4 62.0

Berlin 18,215 97.0 $68,068 2.5 88.3 $169,100 87.3 30.8

Bloomfield 19,587 40.0 $53,812 7.6 74.9 $133,300 84.2 30.8

Bristol 60,062 91.6 $47,422 6.6 61.9 $123,700 80.8 16.2

Burlington 8,190 97.4 $82,711 1.1 94.9 $198,400 93.8 43.5

Canton 8,840 97.1 $65,013 2.7 80.6 $175,900 92.9 43.0

East Granby 4,745 95.6 $68,696 1.5 81.9 $165,700 93.0 37.2

East Hartford 49,575 64.7 $41,424 10.3 57.5 $110,700 77.4 13.4

East Windsor 9,818 91.5 $51,092 4.1 65.2 $129,800 82.4 20.2

Enfield 45,212 89.7 $52,810 4.0 75.6 $123,500 83.9 18.2

Farmington 23,641 92.9 $67,073 4.5 75.3 $184,800 91.6 49.2

Glastonbury 31,876 93.1 $80,660 2.1 81.7 $213,600 93.7 55.0

Granby 10,347 97.5 $81,151 3.1 88.8 $180,500 92.9 51.8

Hartford 121,578 27.7 $24,820 30.6 24.6 $95,300 60.8 12.4

Hartland 2,012 98.3 $64,674 2.1 91.7 $164,300 90.5 28.6

Manchester 54,740 82.8 $49,426 8.0 56.3 $122,900 87.5 29.4

Marlborough 5,709 97.5 $80,265 2.2 90.3 $178,900 91.9 44.3

New Britain 71,538 69.4 $34,185 16.4 42.7 $97,600 69.0 16.6

Newington 29,306 92.5 $57,118 3.5 80.6 $141,600 85.5 29.1

Plainville 17,328 93.5 $48,136 5.1 69.5 $123,500 84.0 20.2

Rocky Hill 17,966 90.2 $60,247 2.9 65.5 $156,900 88.2 37.1

Simsbury 23,234 95.3 $82,996 2.2 83.8 $226,300 94.5 61.4

Southington 39,728 96.4 $60,538 3.3 81.4 $159,000 86.0 27.2

South Windsor 24,412 91.5 $73,990 1.8 89.3 $162,700 91.4 41.6

Suffield 13,552 88.7 $66,698 3.6 82.1 $171,700 87.4 34.8

West Hartford 63,589 86.0 $61,665 4.5 71.9 $172,300 90.3 53.0

Wethersfield 26,271 93.2 $53,289 4.4 77.9 $157,400 83.6 33.3

Windsor 28,237 65.1 $64,137 3.7 80.3 $141,100 87.7 30.9

Windsor Locks 12,043 92.5 $48,837 4.4 75.5 $120,400 86.4 17.2

Source: Census 2000

tor, the Greater Hartford Chamber of Com-merce was established at this time. There weretwo notable exceptions to this trend towardsregionalization in a state where town bound-aries are deeply ingrained: affordable housingand education. In 1967, a proposal to establisha regional housing authority to spread publicand affordable housing beyond the city limitsof Hartford was defeated by suburban legisla-tors.5 Likewise, the recommendation of a Har-vard report on the Hartford schools to beginmetropolitan busing was rejected by the Hart-ford School Board. Even when five suburbsagreed to participate in Project Concern, theymade clear that this was not meant to be amove towards a “super-district” nor that thesedistricts shared responsibility for the problemsof racial isolation and concentrated povertythat were prevalent in the Hartford SchoolDistrict.6 The lack of regional efforts for af-fordable housing and education, combinedwith riots in the city of Hartford in the late1960s which helped accelerate the loss ofmany remaining middle-class residents, meantthat the city was locked into increasing racialand economic isolation without the resourcesof neighboring towns.

Recognizing this reality, a report released al-most ten years ago by an independent, non-profit organization, Connecticut Center forSchool Change, suggested that the most effec-tive way to meet the Connecticut SupremeCourt’s mandate to desegregate schools andcreate high-quality schools would be to con-solidate Hartford with its surround districtsinto a regional school system (into a systemthat would be the size of some countywide dis-tricts in the South).7 From a follow-up reporttwo years later, it seems that this plan receivedmixed reviews during a public engagementcampaign to discuss the proposal. One modi-fied version of the program subsequently sug-

gested was to create several pie-shaped re-gional school districts that would each incor-porate part of Hartford and suburban districts.During interviews conducted for this report,the need for regionalizing schools was men-tioned quite a few times. Most people, how-ever, who saw the need for regional educationefforts (beyond those provided by RESCs likeCREC) realized that it was unlikely that trueregionalization would occur in the near futuregiven the importance of town boundaries inConnecticut. Thus, for the foreseeable future,voluntary interdistrict programs (includingboth magnet schools and Project Choice) willremain the primary vehicle for reducing racialisolation for Hartford-area schoolchildren.

Resident and Student Demographics

Only 18% of school-aged population in thecity of Hartford is white, 36% of young Hart-ford residents are black, and 42% are Latino.In the suburban portion of the metro area,78% of the under-18 population is white. Notsurprisingly, the under-18 white, black, andLatino population in the Hartford metro arealive in areas very isolated from otherracial/ethnic groups and, mirroring nationaltrends, white youth are the most isolated. Theneighborhood where the typical white Hart-ford child lives is nearly 84% white. The aver-age black or Latino child lives in an areawhere over 40% of residents are from theirown racial/ethnic group.8 These trends meanthat typically most students, particularly whitestudents in the Hartford metro area, are un-likely to encounter substantial shares of peo-ple from other racial/ethnic groups in theirneighborhoods.

The Hartford Public Schools had approxi-mately 22,300 students in 2004-


05.9 Only 5.3% students were white and two-thirds were receiving free or reduced pricelunch (a measure of family poverty). Dispari-ties in academic performance between studentsin the Hartford school district and suburbandistricts persist: three times as many Hartfordstudents as suburban students did not meet thegoal on the state mastery test in 1997; the av-erage SAT score for Hartford was 300-400points lower for Hartford students than stu-dents in suburban districts; and the cumulativedropout rate was ten times higher for Hartfordthan surrounding districts. Nearly half of stu-dents who entered ninth grade in Hartford inFall 1992 had not graduated by June 1996.10

As we see in the table opposite, most districtsin the region are small and overwhelminglycomprised of white students. Among districtsthat take Project Choice students, only Bristol,Enfield, and West Hartford have ten or moreschools. Ten districts which enroll ProjectChoice students have at least 90% white en-rollment (Table 2). East Windsor and Windsorare the only districts in which black studentscomprise at least ten percent of the student en-rollment; Bristol and West Hartford are theonly districts where Latino students are at leastten percent. In other words, even in districtswhere there is some racial diversity, there arenot large shares of any one racial/ethnic groupaside from white students. Additionally, mostProject Choice suburban districts have verylow percentages of English Language Learnerand low-income students.

Project Choice Enrollment

For students to be counted towards the Sheffgoal, the 2003 Sheff settlement requires Proj-ect Choice students to be assigned to a schoolwhose minority percentage is less than 30 per-centage points above the minority percentage

of the Sheff region.11 In 2007, the minoritypercent of the region was 44%,12 meaning thatthere was a cap of 75% minority for participat-ing schools in receiving districts. While somedistricts’ overall racial composition is near theupper limit of minority percent, such asBloomfield, New Britain, East Hartford, andWaterbury, there are often schools of varyingracial composition within districts and thesedistricts may well have schools that wouldqualify as reduced-isolation educational set-tings (see Table 2). Although white studentscan also participate in Project Choice,13 sinceonly minority students participating in ProjectChoice count towards the Sheff goals accord-ing to the 2003 interim settlement, they arenot included in the tables below.14

Before turning to participation rates disaggre-gated by district, it is worth examining thecombined progress towards the enrollmentgoals in the Choice Program outlined in theJanuary 2003 Interim Sheff agreement. Therewere a total of 182 new seats offered by subur-ban districts in 2006-07 (approximately 170were filled); 124 of those seats were forkindergarten, first, or second grade. The 182new seats would have been just short of thegoal of 200 new seats per year under the in-terim agreement assuming that all studentsfrom the previous year continued in 2006-07.However, as seen in table 3, 46 students grad-uated in 2005-06 and another 121 left theprogram for other reasons after October 1,2005. Thus, there was only a net increase of 8students from 2005-06 to 2006-07. Whilehaving students graduate is obviously an im-portant objective of the program, in order tojust maintain the number of students in theprogram the number of graduates will have tobe replaced by an equal number of new seats.In addition, the loss of students due to attri-tion means even more new seats must be



Table 2: Characteristics of Students in Hartford-area School Districts, 2004-05

Percentage of Students Who Are: Number English

School of Total American Low- LanguageDistrict Schools Enrollment Indian Asian Black Hispanic White Income Learners

Avon* 5 3,301 0.1 5.8 2.6 3.0 88.6 1.9 1.7

Berlin* 5 3,352 0.1 3.5 0.7 1.3 94.5 5.7 3.1

Bloomfield 6 2,366 0.1 1.1 87.0 5.9 5.9 38.1 0.0

Bolton* 2 933 0.5 1.4 2.6 1.5 94.0 10.1 0.0

Bristol* 15 9,029 0.2 2.2 7.2 11.4 79.0 27.4 2.0

Canton* 4 1,699 0.0 1.7 2.5 1.9 93.8 3.1 0.7

Cromwell* 3 1,925 0.2 2.7 6.2 5.3 85.6 10.6 4.1

East Granby* 4 888 0.5 2.3 6.0 2.6 88.7 1.0 0.6

East Hartford 16 7,916 0.5 6.1 34.5 30.3 28.7 49.5 4.8

East Windsor* 3 1,586 0.3 3.2 13.4 7.1 76.0 19.4 2.8

Ellington* 5 2,434 0.1 2.4 2.4 1.4 93.7 5.0 1.1

Enfield* 13 6,688 0.2 2.6 6.6 4.3 86.4 21.4 1.4

Farmington* 7 4,369 0.2 6.2 5.1 3.0 85.4 4.6 0.8

Glastonbury* 8 6,628 0.1 6.1 2.5 3.4 88.0 3.3 2.3

Granby* 5 2,225 0.2 0.9 2.5 1.7 94.7 1.9 0.2

Hartford 41 22,296 0.2 0.8 40.4 53.3 5.3 66.6 17.0

Hartland 1 233 1.7 3.0 0.0 2.2 93.1 1.7 0.0

Manchester 15 7,475 0.4 5.3 19.6 17.0 57.8 31.9 2.8

Marlborough 1 636 0.0 2.8 1.7 1.1 94.3 1.3 0.0

New Britain 15 10,936 0.2 2.2 17.9 53.0 26.7 51.3 14.6

Newington* 7 4,624 0.3 6.1 4.9 7.1 81.7 13.4 2.5

Plainville* 6 2,637 0.2 2.1 6.4 5.2 86.1 17.0 3.6

Regional School 4 2,721 0.1 2.0 0.7 1.9 95.4 2.4 0.1

District 10*

Rocky Hill* 5 2,486 0.0 7.0 4.6 4.2 84.2 6.2 2.6

Simsbury* 7 5,055 0.1 3.4 3.3 2.0 91.2 3.4 1.3

Somers* 3 1,733 0.0 1.2 1.3 1.0 96.4 2.8 0.2

South Windsor* 7 5,073 0.4 6.5 5.4 3.8 84.0 5.5 1.3

Southington* 11 6,829 0.2 2.3 2.0 3.5 92.0 7.2 1.0

Suffield* 5 2,524 0.1 1.1 1.9 1.5 95.4 4.5 0.2

Tolland 4 3,102 0.4 2.6 1.3 1.3 94.3 3.4 0.7

Vernon* 7 3,989 0.5 5.7 10.5 7.7 75.7 24.6 2.4

Waterbury 30 17,896 0.3 2.0 26.8 40.3 30.6 64.9 11.0

West Hartford* 15 9,940 0.3 9.2 9.6 12.6 68.4 12.1 6.1

Wethersfield* 7 3,722 0.1 3.2 4.2 10.0 82.5 10.8 4.7

Windsor Locks* 4 1,936 0.2 5.1 6.5 3.7 84.6 18.8 2.0

Windsor* 7 4,324 0.4 4.1 47.7 9.2 38.7 26.9 0.0

Source: NCES Common Core of Data, 2005-05

* Indicates district currently has Project Choice students, though several districts have not taken students in quite a few years.

opened—plus the 200 extra seats that wouldbe needed each year for the annual projectedgrowth in the 2003 interim Sheff agreement.According to data collected since October2005, 41% of attrition is due to families mov-ing from the city of Hartford. Nearly 30% re-turn to Hartford schools and another 7% goto magnet schools.

Of the 609 applicants for 2006-07, 57 studentsdeclined placement when offered. An addi-tional 158 students were removed from thewaiting list, including 118 because there wasno response from the parent or guardian whenCREC tried to contact them (see Table 4). In2006-07, there were 206 students on the wait-ing list for Project Choice including 200 mi-nority students. Although there is a substantialwaitlist for Project Choice seats at highergrade levels, there were only 2 kindergartenand first grade students on the waiting list - in-dicating that districts offered as many seats asthere were applicants for in those early grades(this also suggests that the Choice program

should consider stronger marketing efforts inthe early grades – see discussion below). How-ever, it is important to note that of all appli-cants, more ended up on the waiting list thanactually getting placed in a suburban school.The number of students on the waiting list hasalso declined in recent years, from 428 stu-dents in 2003-04.

Relative Rates of Participation in Project Choice and Impact onDiversity

Districts participate in the Choice program tovarying degrees, whether measured by numberof Project Choice students enrolled or as apercentage of district students. The differencesin rates of participation by town raise impor-tant questions about the unmet capacity of dis-tricts to absorb additional students, the relativedesirability of placements among participatingtowns, and the fairness of enrollment varia-tions among towns.


Table 3: Projected and Actual Enrollment in Choice Program After 2003 Sheff Agreement

Attrition afterProjected Enrollment Total Number of Total Number of October 1 untilunder 2003 Settle- minority students minority students October 1 of

Year ment Agreement on October 1 on January 115 succeeding year16 Graduates

2003-04 1,000 853 906 104 45

2004-05 1,200 988 1,020 123 40

2005-06 1,400 1,045 1,062 121 46

2006-07 1,600 1,062 1,070 40 (Projected)

Source: Data from Connecticut State Department of Education

Table 4: Applicants for Project Choice for 2006-0717

Year Applicants Accepted Declined No Response/ Waiting ListPlacement Placement Removed

2006-07 609 170 57 158 206

Source: Data from Connecticut State Department of Education

In size of Hartford students enrolled, sevendistricts in the Hartford region have less than20 Project Choice students (see Table 5).Simsbury enrolls the most minority Choicestudents at 96, although it’s also important tonote that Simsbury is one of the larger partici-

pating suburban districts. Districts that takevery small numbers of students pose two chal-lenges to the success of the Program: 1) theHartford students may be tokenized sincethere are so few students who live in Hartfordand/or are students of color in overwhelmingly

P r e p a r e d f o r t h e S h e f f M o v e m e n t c o a l i t i o n 2 0 0 717

Table 5: Minority Students in Project Choice by Suburban District, 2006-07

Number of Number of All Choice Students as Percentage of: Receiving Minority Choice District Students, All Minority Black & Hispanic

District Students, 2006-07 2005-06 Students Students Students

Avon 41 3,379 1.2 9.8 21.7

Berlin 14 3,343 0.4 7.0 18.2

Bolton 22 931 2.4 37.9 53.7

Bristol 36 9,040 0.4 1.8 2.0

Canton 39 1,719 2.3 34.8 50.0

Cromwell 41 1,967 2.1 13.9 17.2

East Granby 20 905 2.2 20.2 27.1

East Windsor 43 1,563 2.8 10.9 12.8

Ellington 10 2,494 0.4 5.9 9.6

Enfield 78 6,617 1.2 8.0 9.9

Farmington 95 4,277 2.2 13.9 26.6

Glastonbury 42 6,723 0.6 4.6 9.6

Granby 53 2,261 2.3 38.7 48.2

Newington 52 4,604 1.1 5.5 8.6

Plainville 58 2,540 2.3 15.7 17.9

Region 10 8 2,795 0.3 5.7 10.4

Rocky Hill 33 2,556 1.3 7.2 12.7

Simsbury 96 5,057 1.9 19.8 32.2

Somers 18 1,743 1.0 26.1 36.0

South Windsor 55 5,084 1.1 6.6 11.5

Southington 19 6,842 0.3 3.1 4.7

Suffield 23 2,562 0.9 17.3 22.6

Vernon 42 3,936 1.1 4.4 5.8

West Hartford 76 9,986 0.8 2.3 3.3

Wethersfield 13 3,736 0.4 1.9 2.3

Windsor 13 4,223 0.3 0.5 0.5

Windsor Locks 30 1,954 1.5 9.1 13.4

Grand Total 1,070 102,837

Data from Connecticut Department of Education and NCES Common Core of Data, 2005-06. Note that the lat-est year of NCES data providing racial/ethnic student counts by district is 2005-06.

white affluent suburban schools and 2) it is notcost-effective to transport such a small numberof students to so many different districts. Increasing the number of students taken to aminimum level would create a critical mass ofstudents in schools and districts and would bea more efficient allocation of resources.

In eleven districts, Choice students compriseless than 1% of all students and there isn’t asingle district in which Choice students com-prise even 3% of district enrollment. EastWindsor has the highest percentage of Choicestudents at 2.8% of the district’s enrollment;there are seven other districts where ProjectChoice students comprise at least two out ofevery one hundred students. While there issome variation among districts, the most im-portant point is that in most suburban districtsthe number and percentage of Choice studentsis low, and this cumulatively contributes to thefailure to reach the Sheff settlement’s 2006-07goal of 1600 students in the Choice program.

Significantly, if every currently participatingdistrict increased its participation so thatChoice students were only 3% of its enroll-ment, the program would be able to accom-modate 3,100 students (2000 more than thecurrent enrollment). For comparison, in theBoston-area, 13 suburban districts that partici-pate in METCO have Boston students at least3% of their student enrollment; and twoBoston suburban districts have up to 7% ofenrollment comprised by METCO students.18

Table 5 also illustrates the diversity that Choicestudents add to participating suburban dis-tricts. Despite low numbers of Choice studentsin some districts, in six districts Choice stu-dents are at least one-fifth of all minority stu-dents in the district. In ten districts, Choicestudents are at least 20% of all black and His-

panic students in the district, demonstratingthat these districts would lose a substantialshare of their racial/ethnic diversity were it notfor Choice students.

Although Table 5 shows the numbers ofChoice students and percentage of district stu-dents who are Choice students currently par-ticipating in 2006-07, these numbers havevaried substantially over the forty years ofProject Concern and now Project Choice, dueto changes in the program, funding from thestate or federal government, or the perceivedcapacity of a district given their trends in en-rollment of students residing within districtboundaries. See Appendix B for the numbersof Project Choice students enrolled in selectedsuburban districts since the late 1960s.

Capacity

A number of districts, when asked how theydetermined the number of choice studentsthey took, said that they examined projectedenrollments at each school along with the ca-pacity to determine whether they might haveempty seats.19 However, there does not appearto be a uniform, agreed-upon methodology inplace for determining the actual capacity of anyschool or district to provide additional seats toProject Choice students; additionally, the statehas not set enrollment targets for ProjectChoice participation in any individual towns.

At the same time, the State of Connecticut’sSchool Capacity data suggest there is signifi-cant room available in many suburban districtsto accommodate additional Project Choicestudents. Before discussing this finding, it isimportant to say what this is not saying. Fromavailable data, it is not possible to precisely de-termine the number of available seats thatcould be taken by Project Choice students in


participating suburban districts. In addition tothe school capacity data, determining the exactspace availability in local schools also involvesan assessment of physical capacity, number offaculty and staff, student-teacher ratios as re-quired by local board policy or union con-tracts, books and supplies, assignment ofclassroom space to specialized uses, and other

considerations. However, a review of schoolcapacity data as determined by the state is auseful starting point—and it strongly suggeststhe need for a thorough review of local capac-ity by the state, including the adoption of auniform methodology for determining thenumber of seats available by school for ProjectChoice students in future years.


Table 6: 2005-06 School Enrollment as Compared to School Capacity, by Suburban District20

Schools Schools Between Schools More Number ofReceiving Under Capacity and 5% than 5% Total Number Choice District Capacity over capacity over capacity of Schools Students

Avon 3 0 2 5 39

Berlin 5 0 0 5 11

Bolton 2 0 0 2 20

Bristol 12 3 0 15 46

Canton 3 0 0 3 47

Cromwell 1 0 2 3 45

East Granby 4 0 0 4 24

East Windsor 2 0 1 3 53

Ellington 5 0 0 5 14

Enfield 11 0 1 12 89

Farmington 6 0 1 7 94

Glastonbury 4 0 4 8 45

Granby 4 1 0 5 40

Newington 6 1 0 7 57

Plainville 4 1 0 5 65

Region 10 3 1 0 4 11

Rocky Hill 5 0 0 5 46

Simsbury 7 0 0 7 104

Somers 3 0 0 3 17

South Windsor 2 4 1 7 56

Southington 9 1 1 11 16

Suffield 3 0 1 4 22

Vernon 7 0 0 7 48

West Hartford 11 0 4 15 61

Wethersfield 4 2 1 7 13

Windsor 7 0 0 7 12

Windsor Locks 4 0 0 4 30

TOTAL 137 14 19 170 1125(80.6%) (8.2%) (11.2%)

Sources: Connecticut Strategic School Profile, 2005-06; Connecticut Department of Education, Condition ofConnecticut’s Public School Facilities-December 2005; author’s calculations


Using the State of Connecticut’s school facilitycapacity data and enrollment figures, it appearsthat four-fifths of all schools in districts thatreceive Project Choice students have “physi-cal” room available under the official schoolcapacity audit (see Table 6).21 As noted above,this analysis does not take into account futureenrollment projections or the other resourcesneeded to educate students (e.g., a teacher forevery classroom, textbooks, etc), but it does indicate a substantial excess capacity in manysuburban districts which can be a future resource for growth in the Project Choice program.

We also analyzed the number of seats abovecurrent enrollment that would be available ifeach suburban school were to be filled to itsphysical capacity, to get an idea of how manymore Choice students there was theoreticallyspace for—again, there is much more thansimply classroom space that is needed to edu-cate students, but this analysis is helpful in giv-ing us a sense of the upper bounds of thepotential scale of the Choice program. In thetable below, a positive number means thatthere are seats available at a given school levelin a given district; a negative number indicatesthat schools are above capacity. As seen inTable 7 opposite, among participating districts,

there are more than 12,000 seats that are phys-ically available if each school were filled to itstheoretical capacity. In elementary schoolalone, there are more than 5,000 seats in ex-cess capacity in Hartford-area suburbanschools.

One of the important things to note about thisanalysis is that there are physical spaces avail-able across elementary, middle, or high schools- meaning that if students were admitted in el-ementary school, there should be space forthose students as they progressed into highergrades. In addition, unless there is an unex-pected baby boom or other significant influx ofnew resident children, one could expect hun-dreds of new seats to open up every year asstudents are promoted and the oldest classgraduates.

These projections, while obviously not a pre-cise estimate of suburban capacity, suggest thatthe Project Choice program can accommodatea significant portion of the growth needed tomeet the Sheff v. O’Neill goals. Further, theypoint to the urgent need for the state to de-velop a comprehensive estimate of capacity forProject Choice, so that annual expectationsand targets can be set for each district.


Table 7: Number of Students Below School Capacity, by Suburban District and Level of School, 2005-0622

Elementary Middle High Total Current Receiving School School School Number of Number ofDistrict (Grades PK-5) (Grades 6-8) (Grades 9-12) Available Seats Choice Students

Avon* 87 59 141 287 39

Berlin 157 173 96 426 11

Bolton23 199 80 279 20

Bristol 444 243 532 1,219 46

Canton24 78 259 337 47

Cromwell25 -273 -61 67 -267 45

East Granby 102 29 29 160 24

East Windsor26 -98 212 278 392 53

Ellington* 73 117 79 269 14

Enfield* 511 130 285 926 89

Farmington* 94 22 77 193 94

Glastonbury* -133 53 -514 -594 45

Granby 35 107 76 218 40

Newington** 223 185 -15 393 57

Plainville 386 -6 231 611 65

Region 10 44 55 116 215 11

Rocky Hill 95 157 82 334 46

Simsbury* 317 115 56 488 104

Somers 102 80 54 236 17

South Windsor -6 -17 -133 -156 56

Southington 632 133 -157 608 16

Suffield** 255 137 -43 349 22

Vernon 578 50 614 1,242 48

West Hartford -53 308 21 276 61

Wethersfield* 26 183 58 267 13

Windsor27 843 207 21 1,071 12

Windsor Locks 609 707 923 2,239 30

TOTAL Student Enrollment Below Capacity 5,327 3,378 3,313 12,018 1,125

Sources: Connecticut Strategic School Profile, 2005-06; Connecticut Department of Education, Condition ofConnecticut’s Public School Facilities-December 2005; author’s calculation

* Elementary school includes students in grades PK-6; Middle School includes 7-8.

** Elementary school includes students in grades PK-4; Middle School includes 5-8.

21

Improving and Expanding Hartford’s Project Choice Program

Endnotes1 Data in this section was taken from Census 2000,

as displayed on Lewis Mumford site. Accessed onApril 30, 2007 at http://mumford.albany.edu/ census/data.html.

2 For the Hartford MSA, see http://mumford.albany.edu/census/CityProfiles/Profiles/3280msaProfile.htm (accessed on April 30, 2007).

3 The towns in Table 1 do not correspond perfectlywith the districts involved in Project Choice.Burlington, East Hartford, Hartland, Manchester,Marlborough, & New Britain do not take Hartfordstudents in Project Choice. Additionally some par-ticipating districts in Project Choice are located inTolland County.

4 High school and college graduates are measuredas a percentage of all residents 25 or older.

5 Eaton, S. E. (2006). The Children in Room E4:American Education on Trial. New York: AlgonquinBooks.

6 August 1971. “Project Concern: Hartford, Con-necticut.” New York: Center for Urban Education.

7 “The Unexamined Remedy.” (June 5, 1998). Hartford, CT: The Connecticut Center for SchoolChange.

8 Supra note 2.

9 This total does NOT include over 1,000 Hartfordresident schoolchildren who are being educatedin suburban districts through the Project Choiceprogram.

10 “Education Statistics for Hartford and Four Suburbs.” Accessed on 22 June 2007 athttp://www.cga.ct.gov/ps99/rpt/olr/htm/99-r-0152.htm. Similar discrepancies were alsofound in the Boston metro area between studentsin Boston as compared to surrounding suburbs.(Lee, C. (2004). Racial Segregation and Educa-tional Outcomes in Metropolitan Boston. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.)

11 Sheff v. O’Neill Stipulation and Order, January 22, 2003, Section III.B.5.

12 Supra note 4, Part I.

13 The percentage of white students among all Project Choice students must be lower than theirshare of students in Hartford Public Schools.

14 In 2006-07, only seven Project Choice studentswere white.

15 Although the official counts for funding purposesare based on October 1, in order to get closer tothe Sheff goal, they continue to try to place stu-dents through the end of December. Thus, theJanuary count of minority students is used forSheff compliance.

16 As of June 23, 2007; 2006-07 data are still beingverified. Attrition and graduate counts also in-cludes white Project Choice students.

17 The numbers of Choice students at various pointsin times do not fully reconcile. This is likely a re-sult of the high mobility of Hartford-area stu-dents. It also emphasizes the need for a betterintegrated data system between the state, dis-tricts, and CREC to carefully track students.

18 See accompanying report, “Boston’s METCO Program: Lessons for the Hartford Area”.

19 This analysis is not meant to imply that this ap-proach is the appropriate way to determine howmany Project Choice students to take; it simply re-flects the reality of how most districts operate dueto the financial constraints of the program. As theplaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Leonard Stevens, wrote in hiscompliance report in March 2004, “If 15 childrenarrived in a suburban school district on August 15from Nebraska, there is no question that seats forthem would be found when the school yearopened. Indeed, if the families of 15 Open Choiceapplicants relocated from Hartford to the suburbson August 15, seats for the children of new resi-dents would immediately be found….Currently, adual standard applies: instant seat availability forresident students, situational availability for OpenChoice students.” (p.11) Stevens, L.B. (March2004). Progress Toward Desegregated Educationin Metropolitan Hartford: A Report to the Plaintiffs. Sheff v. O’Neill. (available athttp://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/hartford/Sheff_Report_on_Progress.pdf).

20 This includes calculations based only on grossphysical capacity; this analysis has not consideredother factors that are essential to educating stu-dents, such as teachers, books, supplies, etc.

21 Note: calculations using school enrollment in-cluded existing Project Choice students that arecurrently enrolled in suburban schools.

22 This includes calculations based only on grossphysical capacity; this analysis has not consideredother factors that are essential to educating stu-dents, such as teachers, books, supplies, etc.

23 One school serves K-8 grade students.

24 Elementary school includes students in grades PK-6; Connecticut capacity report did not includemiddle school (grades 7 and 8).

25 Elementary school includes students in grades PK-4; Middle school includes grades 5-9.

26 Elementary serves students in PK-4; Middle Schoolserves 5-10; and high school serves grades 9-12.

27 Middle School serves students in grades 6-9; highschool serves students in grades 9-12.

22


In the recent school integration cases con-sidered by the U.S. Supreme Court,1 morethan 50 briefs were filed by approximately

1,000 educational, legal, and academic individ-uals and organizations citing, among otherthings, the multifaceted benefits of integratedschools for students who attend them, theircommunities, and for our democracy.2 Al-though it is somewhat artificial to divide thebenefits of integrated schools into discrete cat-egories—because they are often interrelated—research on desegregated schools has focusedon social/psychological, academic achievementand attainment, and long-term (life chances)outcomes. Additionally, there appear to be im-portant benefits for communities with inte-grated schools.

Over 50 years ago, Harvard psychologist Gordon Allport suggested that in order to re-duce prejudice, people needed to be in contactwith one another with contact structured ac-cording to certain conditions. These condi-tions that Allport suggests are important are:

1. Support of authority for desegregation;

2. Equal status for all groups;

3. Common goals that groups work towards;and

4. Promoting intergroup contact.3

Research in racially integrated schools con-firms that, when desegregated schools are

structured according to Allport’s theory ofequal status contact by allowing for students ofdifferent races and ethnicities to be in contactwith one another, students can develop im-proved cross-racial understanding and experi-ence a reduction of racial prejudice and bias.4

Some evidence also suggests that diverse class-rooms can improve the critical thinking skillsof students.5

Much of the research about desegregatedschools that has entered political and judicialdiscourse has centered around how studentsin desegregated school perform on achieve-ment tests, sometimes after only a year in adesegregated school and regardless of thecontext. Because much of this research is sev-eral decades old, it focuses primarily on theachievement of African Americans and findsmodest gains for black students in desegre-gated schools.6 A more recent study using aunique longitudinal dataset in Texas foundthat for black students, a decline in the per-centage of black students they attend schoolwith, when cumulated over several years, wasrelated to a substantial increase in theirachievement, even when controlling for otherschool quality factors.7 Research on the effectsof desegregation for Latino students—themost segregated minority group—is morelimited than that for black students, but re-search generally finds a modest, positive effecton achievement or no effect at all.8 Research

Section III: Benefits of Racial/Ethnic Integration

23

on successful Latino students in elite collegesfound that the majority of them attended de-segregated schools, which connected themwith college-going peer networks and gavethem confidence in their academic abilities.9

Research has also confirmed that the fear thatdesegregation might harm the test scores ofwhite students is largely unfounded.10

Looking beyond test-based achievementmeasures, research has documented long termbenefits of integration for students and com-munities. Students in integrated schools aremore likely to graduate from high school, goon to college, and graduate from college thantheir segregated peers, meaning that inte-grated schools result in a more highly skilledworkforce.11 These students are also con-nected to social networks that give them in-formation about and access to competitivecolleges and higher-status jobs. Perhaps be-cause of this access or the fact that studentswho attend integrated schools tend to bemore likely to attain graduate degrees, labormarket studies show that African-Americanswho attend integrated schools have highersalaries than their peers from segregatedschools.12 Students who attend racially diverseschools are more likely to be civically engagedafter graduation and more likely to feel com-fortable working in diverse settings.13 Re-search also indicates that communities withextensive school desegregation have experi-enced declines in residential integration,which would lessen the need for policies tocreate desegregated schools.14 Communitieswith integrated schools tend to experiencehigher levels of parental involvement in andsupport for the schools.15

Research continues to show that segregatedschools are harmful for students who attendthem. Most schools with high concentrations

of minority students are also schools with highpercentages of students from low-income fam-ilies.16 Many such schools traditionally havefewer educational resources such as qualifiedand experienced teachers, advanced curricularofferings such as AP classes, and college-goingpeers.17 Given usually unequal educational re-sources, it is perhaps not surprising that re-search has also found that the achievement andhigh-school graduation rates of all students insegregated minority schools tends to be lowerthan their peers in more integrated schools.18

In areas like Hartford, where racially isolatedschools are also schools with high concentra-tions of poverty, racial integration programsalso provide access to more economically di-verse and better resourced schools.

Although there is a large body of evidenceabout the benefits of integrated schools, re-search has also demonstrated that it matters inhow integration is implemented.19 Researchgenerally suggests that benefits are more likelyto accrue when desegregation is voluntary,20 asis the case in the Project Choice program, andwhen students attend desegregated schools atan early age.21

Project Choice/Project Concern Research

Because of the requirement by a participatingsuburb as a condition for participation, theProject Concern program was initially struc-tured so that research could assess whether theprogram participants benefited from their ex-perience in suburban schools. From the entiregroup of students who applied for the pro-gram, students were randomly assigned to ei-ther the experimental group, students whoattend desegregated suburban schools, andthose assigned to the control group, or stu-dents who remained in segregated Hartford


schools. This initial design provided an unusu-ally rigorous experimental design, at least inthe first few years, to assess not only the bene-fits of Project Concern but also of integratedschools more generally. As a result, there havebeen several studies assessing the academic, so-cial and long-term benefits for students inProject Concern.22 There were both initialstudies to evaluate the effectiveness of the pro-gram as well as later studies to assess the pro-gram in terms of life chances.

A 1970 report analyzing students’ achievementin reading (using results from standardizedtesting) found that the achievement of studentsin Project Concern was higher than studentsfrom similar backgrounds remaining in theHartford schools.23 Students who beganschool in the suburbs (e.g., had not attendedHartford Public Schools) read at least onegrade level above normal. There were alsolarger gains for students who began in kinder-garten or first grade and for students who hadspent more years in Project Concern.

There were several studies completed duringthe 1980s analyzing several types of long-termoutcomes. First, a study completed in 1984followed African-American students whobegan school in the suburbs in elementaryschools through their high school graduation(with a comparative control group of studentswho attended Hartford Public Schools). Therewere a number of educational and social bene-fits found for black students, particularly formale students, who participated in ProjectConcern. They were more likely to graduatefrom high school and to complete more yearsof college. Further, there seemed to a greatersense of interracial comfort for black partici-pants in Project Concern. They were lesslikely to have sensed discrimination during andafter college, less likely to have encounters

with the police or fights, and more likely tohave closer contact with whites, such as livingin integrated neighborhoods or interactingwith more white friends in college. Femalestudents in Project Concern were less likely tohave a child before they were 18 than their fe-male peers in Hartford schools.24 A secondstudy using follow-up data seventeen yearsafter students began school examined the typeof employment that students obtained. Thisstudy concluded that black students who at-tended desegregated suburban schools workedin professions that had traditionally employedfewer blacks. The students who participated inProject Concern were more likely to be in pri-vate sector or white collar jobs while studentsin the control group (students who went tosegregated Hartford schools) were more likelyto have government or blue collar jobs.25 Fi-nally, an analysis of participants’ self-reportedoccupational aspirations, work history, andpost-graduation activities found that ProjectConcern students were more likely to have a“consistent” career plan than the controlgroup of Hartford students.26

Anecdotal evidence from recent interviews ofProject Concern alumni supports earlier re-search.27 Alumni were asked, “Do you thinkthat Project Concern had a positive effect onyour life?” Several of the most common re-sponses were that they attribute their currentsuccess to their participation in Project Con-cern and that they currently lived in an inte-grated neighborhood or a suburbandistrict—which research on desegregation’sperpetuation effect on students suggests is liketo occur.28 Academically, they felt like theywere considerably more advanced than theirHartford friends, and valued education morefor their own children. Socially they felt confi-dent in their ability to get along with others,such as college roommates, since they had the


experience of attending schools in which theywere from a different background than most ofthe students. Alumni interviewed detailed dif-ficulties that they encountered as students, butmost believed that despite the challenges ofthe experience at the time, they were better offas a result of their participation.29

There have been few recent studies of ProjectChoice, but recent test results find positive ac-ademic gains among Project Choice partici-pants. According to the 2006 standardizedtesting results, more than half of ProjectChoice students are scoring at or above theproficiency level on the Connecticut MasteryTest (CMT) and the Connecticut AcademicPerformance Test (CAPT). Further, the per-centage of students scoring at or above profi-ciency is higher than the percentage ofHartford students for both math and reading(see Table 8). The gap between Hartford Pub-

lic School Students and Project Choice stu-dents is particularly noticeable in reading. Al-though not shown here, Project Choicestudents outperform the average percentage ofblack and Latino students scoring at or aboveproficiency statewide, for both reading andmath, on the CMT and CAPT.

Another recent study used scores on the Con-necticut Mastery Test to examine the academicachievement of 5th through 8th grade studentsin Project Choice as compared to those whoapplied for the program and did not partici-pate (e.g., students who remained in the Hart-ford Public Schools). Overall, in math, thisresearch found that students moving to subur-ban schools initially scored lower than studentsremaining in Hartford, but became more posi-tive with more time in suburban schools.Reading results were higher for students insuburban schools whereas their writing scoreswere lower when compared with the Hartfordsample.30 As with earlier research, this studyfinds that students score higher in comparisonto their peers remaining in city schools afterseveral years in the suburban transfer program.

Initial Research on the Project Choice “EarlyBeginnings” kindergarten program has alsoshown positive results for city and suburbanresident students alike (see discussion at page50, infra).

The relative dearth of information about theeffects of the urban-suburban desegregationprogram may be a contributing factor to thelack of support for the program by the state.During the 1990s, according to a review ofpublic opinion polls, in Connecticut there wasa growing perception from 1990 to 1996 thatschool desegregation did not improve educa-tion for minority students (33%) or white stu-dents (19%).31 Though 55% of respondents in1999 thought that more was needed to be


Table 8: Achievement Test Results of Students in Project Choice, Hartford Public Schools, and Statewide, 2006

% at Proficient Level and Above (L3-5)

Mathematics Reading

CMT 2006, Gr. 3-8Hartford Open Choice (N=517) 57.8 54.5

CMT 2006, Gr. 3-8Hartford District Average 46.8 39.0

CMT 2006, Gr. 3-8State Average 79.3 73.7

CAPT 2006, Gr. 10Hartford Open Choice (N=64) 57.8 68.8

CAPT 2006, Gr. 10Hartford District Average 43.3 49.7

CAPT 2006, Gr. 10State Average 77.9 79.8

Sources: Connecticut Department of Education;“Connecticut CMT and CAPT Online Reports” Accessed on August 10, 2007 at http://www.ctreports.com/.

done in order to integrate schools in Con-necticut,32 small minorities supported busingwhite and minority children to created inte-grated schools (27% in 1996) or creating re-gional school districts to balance schools(35%). Respondents were most favorable to-wards magnet schools to balance schools (65%in 1999). White respondents were more favor-able to remedies that would keep their chil-dren in their community, while a substantialshare of minorities supported a remedy thatwould give children the opportunity to experi-ence other communities.33 In earlier decades,

the demonstrated benefits of the program—asrequired by a suburb as a condition for partici-pating—helped to garner support for the pro-gram’s expansion.

In Section V of this report, there is further dis-cussion of the different responses from subur-ban district officials as to why their districtparticipates in the Project Choice programand the benefits they perceive for suburbanstudents. Additionally, Hartford parents sharewhy they chose to participate.


Endnotes1 Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education,

et al. and Parents Involved in Community Schoolsv. Seattle School District No. 1, et al.

2 Briefs can be accessed at http://www.naacpldf.org/volint/add_docs/volint_school_amicus.html.

3 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

4 See also Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L.R., (2000). Doesintergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recentmeta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93-114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.; Killen, M., Crystal,D., and Ruck, M. (2007). The Social DevelopmentalBenefits of Intergroup Contact among Childrenand Adolescents. In E. Frankenberg and G. Orfield(Eds.), Lessons in Integration: Realizing the Promise of Racial Diversity in American Schools.Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.

5 Bransford, J.D. and Schwartz, D.L. (1999). Rethink-ing Transfer: A Simple Proposal with Multiple Im-plications. In Review of Research in Education,eds. A. Iran-Nejad and P. D. Pearson. Washington,D.C.: American Educational Research Association:61-101; A. Wigfield et al., “Development ofAchievement Motivation,” in Social, Emotional,and Personality, vol. 3, 6th ed. of Handbook ofChild Psychology, eds. W. Damon, R. M. Lerner,and N. Eisenberg (New York: Wiley, in press).

6 See 553 Social Scientists; Schofield, J. W. (1995).Review of Research on School Desegregation’s Im-pact on Elementary and Secondary School Stu-dents. In J. A. Banks and C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.),Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education(pp. 597-617). New York: Simon & SchusterMacmillan.

7 Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J. F., and Rivkin, S. G. (2006).New Evidence about Brown v. Board of Education:The Complex Effects of School Racial Composition

on Achievement. Working Paper, Cambridge, MA:National Bureau of Economic Research.

8 Schofield, supra note 6. Horn, C. & Kurlaender, M.(April 2006). The End of Keyes—ResegregationTrends and Achievement in Denver Public Schools.Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

9 Gándara, P. G. (1995). Over the Ivy Walls: The Educational Mobility of Low Income Chicanos. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

10 Supra note 6.

11 Camburn, E.M. (August 1990). “College Completion among Students from High SchoolsLocated in Large Metropolitan Areas,” AmericanJournal of Education 98 (4): 551-69.

12 M. A. Boozer et al., “Race and School Qualitysince Brown v. Board of Education,” in BrookingsPapers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics, eds.M. N. Baily and C. Winston (Washington, D.C.: TheBrookings Institution, 1992): 269-338.

13 Kurlaender, M. and Yun, J.T. (2005). “Fifty Yearsafter Brown: New Evidence of the Impact ofSchool Racial Composition on Student Outcomes,”International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice 6 (1): 51-78.

14 Pearce, D. (1980). Breaking Down Barriers: NewEvidence on the Impact of Metropolitan SchoolDesegregation on Housing Patterns, Final Report.Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ. of America.

15 Michael, B. (Ed.) (1990). Volunteers in PublicSchools. Washington, D.C.: National AcademyPress.

16 Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2006). Racial Transformationand the Changing Nature of Segregation. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

17 Yun, J.T. and Moreno, J.F. (2006). “College Access,K-12 Concentrated Disadvantage, and the Next 25

Years of Education Research,” Educational Researcher 35 (1): 12-19.

18 Mickelson, R. (2001). Subverting Swann: First andsecond generation segregation in Charlotte-Mecklenberg schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 215-252.; Swanson, C.B.(2004). Who Graduates? Who Doesn’t? A Statistical Portrait of Public High School Graduation, Class of 2001. Washington, D.C.: TheUrban Institute.; Lee, C. (2004). Racial Segregationand Educational Outcomes in MetropolitanBoston. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project atHarvard University.

19 Frankenberg, E. & Orfield, G. (Eds.) (2007). Lessonsin Integration: Realizing the Promise of Racial Diversity in American Schools. Charlottesville, VA:University of Virginia Press.

20 Stephan, W.G. (1984). “Blacks and Brown: The Effects of School Desegregation on Black Stu-dents,” in School Desegregation and BlackAchievement, eds. T. Cook et al. Washington, D.C.:National Institute of Education, 131-59; L. A.Bradley and G. W. Bradley, “The AcademicAchievement of Black Students in DesegregatedSchools: A Critical Review,” Review of EducationalResearch 47 (1977): 399-449.

21 Mahard, R. E. and Crain, R. L. (1983). “Research onMinority Achievement in Desegregated Schools,”in The Consequences of School Desegregation,eds. C. Rossell and W. D. Hawley. Philadelphia, Pa.:Temple Univ. Press: 103-25.

22 Like most of the earlier research on desegrega-tion, this research focused on whether there werebenefits for minority (usually African-American)students and not on the benefits for white stu-dents who were attending desegregated schools.The one exception is a study by Mahan (1968),which found that most suburban parents’ atti-tudes towards the program were favorable, par-ticularly those who had actually had directcontact with the program. Teachers also rated stu-dents as above average in terms of both academicand social skills. See Mahan, T. W. (1968). ProjectConcern: A Supplementary Report on Non-Academic Factors.

23 Crane, T. (1970). A Three Year Summary of Hartford Project Concern (a Program of Urban-Suburban Cooperation). Hartford, CT: ConnecticutState Department of Education.

24 Crain, R., Miller, R.L, Hawes, J.A., and Peichert, J.R.(1992). Finding Niches: Desegregated students six-teen years later. Final Report on the EducationalOutcomes of Project Concern, Hartford, Connecticut. New York: Institute for Urban andMinority Education, Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity, ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 396 035.

25 Crain, R. L., & Strauss, J. (July 1985). School Desegregation and Black Occupational Attain-ments: Results from a Long-Term Experiment. Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization ofSchools, The Johns Hopkins University.

26 Gable, R. K., Thompson, D. L., & Iwanicki, E. F.(1983). The effects of voluntary desegregation onoccupational outcomes. The Vocational GuidanceQuarterly 31: 230-239.

27 Interviews with Project Concern alumni, December 2006. Sheff Coalition.

28 See Wells, A. S. & Crain, R. L. (Winter 1994). Perpetuation Theory and the Long-Term Effects ofSchool Desegregation. Review of Educational Research 64(2): 531-55.

29 See also Banks, D. & Dougherty, J. (2004). City-Suburban Desegregation and Forced Choices: AReview Essay of Susan Eaton’s The Other BostonBusing Story. Teachers College Record 106 (5): 985-998; Project Concern Oral History Interviews(2003). Conducted by students from the Cities,Suburbs, and Schools seminar. Tapes and tran-scripts deposited at the Hartford Studies Project,Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut. Available athttp://www.trincoll.edu/depts/hartstud

30 Jacobs, E. (2003). Educating Inner-City Children inSuburban Schools: A Randomized Study of Majority-to-Minority Transfer and Achievement inConnecticut. Ithaca, NY: Unpublished Senior The-sis, Cornell University. This study found, however,that there was substantial variation in terms of ac-ademic effects of Project Choice when evaluatingby students’ socioeconomic status, specifically thatlower-income Project Choice students had loweracademic achievement. Current research under-way at the University of Connecticut is examiningthe outcomes of students participating in ProjectChoice. Jacobs’ study indicates the need for ex-amining the outcomes of different subgroups ofstudents participating in the Choice program.

31 When results were disaggregated by respondents’race, people of color were much more likely tobelieve that integrated schools benefited stu-dents. Connecticut results were also much less fa-vorable towards desegregation than nation publicopinion polls.

32 78% of minority respondents believed that moreneeded to be done, compared with only 51% ofwhite respondents.

33 McMiller, D. L. (2000). Public Opinion and SchoolDesegregation in Hartford, Connecticut. Equityand Excellence in Education 33(2): 68-80.



Before turning to a more in-depth analy-sis of the structure of the Hartfordarea’s Project Choice program, we will

first briefly examine three similar programs inother metropolitan areas. METCO, in theBoston area, was established at the same timeas Project Concern but is now three timeslarger than Project Choice. Minneapolis’ “The Choice is Yours” Program was estab-lished in 2001-02 and has already grown to belarger than Project Choice. St. Louis has hadthe nation’s largest urban-suburban desegrega-tion program serving over 12,000 students.The design of these programs might be in-formative in assessing potential areas forgrowth for Project Choice (see Table 9 onpage 30 for summary of programs).1

Interestingly, interviews or analyses of theseprograms all agree that the ultimate objec-tive—racial and ethnic integration of schoolsacross a metropolitan area—is challenging,particularly given the lack of political supportfor such objectives. Given the current policyenvironment, these programs all try todemonstrate to the suburbs, cities, and thestate that desegregation is in everyone’sself-interest.

A. METCO, Boston, Massachusetts2

Program Structure

Boston’s urban-suburban desegregation pro-gram, METCO (which stands for Metropoli-tan Council for Educational Opportunity),3

began in 1966, the same year as Project Con-cern in Hartford. METCO pre-dated Boston’scourt-order desegregation, which only per-tained to the Boston school district, not any ofthe surrounding suburban districts. In contrastto Boston Public Schools (15% white), partici-pating METCO suburban districts are all atleast 70% white, with half of them over 90%white. METCO students comprise anywherefrom 1% of a participating district’s enroll-ment to over 7% of total enrollment. In contrast to the Hartford suburbs’ low partici-pation rates, fourteen suburban Boston dis-tricts enroll METCO students at a level ofmore than 3% of their total enrollment (seeAppendix D).

METCO is a state-funded grant programsince it qualifies as a program under the Com-monwealth’s Racial Imbalance Act,4 whichfunds programs to reduce racial imbalance andisolation in schools. Thus, each year the Legis-lature must allocate funding. Every participat-ing suburban district (38 total districts)

Section IV: Other City-suburban

Desegregation Programs

29

annually submits a RFP to the state, in whichthey indicate the number of seats the districtwill provide for METCO students, which istied to the funding they request. In 2007, sub-urban districts were reimbursed $3,700 foreach METCO student they accepted (forcomparative purposes, approximately $12,000was spent per student in these districts).5 Addi-tionally, approximately $1,700 is allocated fortransportation per student; in some districts,METCO Inc. is the transportation provider;for other districts, METCO, Inc. providessupport to other districts where another grouphas bid for the transportation contract. Thetotal funding for the program is approximately

$17 million and currently there are approxi-mately 3,300 students in the program (includ-ing 135 students who attend suburbanSpringfield districts). Boston Public Schoolsdoes not receive any funding for students whoparticipate in METCO.

Funding is a major reason that the METCOprogram has not expanded in recent decades—both in terms of students accepted and in thenumber of suburban districts that participate.METCO Inc. prioritizes closing what theyterm a “funding gap” before they look to ex-pand the program. Likewise, the state depart-


Table 9: Comparison of City-suburban Desegregation Programs

Boston Minneapolis St. Louis Hartford

Number of Students 3,300 1,977 8,800 1,070

Participating 38 10 15 27suburban districts

Funding per student $3700 Per-pupil allotment Per-pupil allotment $2000*($6,430)

Year Began 1966 2001 1983 1966

Magnet schools/ No Yes Yes YesIntra-city choice

Transportation Operated by Reimbursed through Operated by state; Operated by METCO Inc. state desegregation geocoded area to CREC;

or provider chosen aid; districts provide make transportation funded by stateby district; supplemental funding more efficient

reimbursed by state after-school, in summer, for parents

Support by Yes Yes Yes Yesservice provider

Support services in METCO Director Some districts have Teacher exchange On an as-suburban districts employed by each parent liaison or needed basis

suburban district support staff for Specially-designedcity students curriculum materials

Publicity Annual Lobby Day at School choice Mail brochure with Limited State Legislature; videos distributed; information about advertising a coordinated with paid advertising information about few years ago

, parents alumni, on radio, TV, participating districts by CRECsuburban supporters billboards, news- and application to

spapers; parent every St. Louis familyinformation centers

Research on Program Through annual Done annually by Former annual reports Most researchsurvey of districts Aspen Associates by court monitor is several

decades old

* Raised to $2500 in 2007-08

ment of education website acknowledges thefinancial burden on participating districts:

[G]iven the low reimbursement andthe present level funding of the pro-gram, it is unclear exactly how a schooldistrict could join without additionaloverall funding to the program itself.Although a school district can ‘with-draw’ from the METCO Program, thedecision would only be made aftercareful discussion and consideration. Aschool district should meet with repre-sentatives of METCO Inc. and theDepartment of Education before mak-ing such intentions public.6

The state department of education has over-sight for the program. In 2003, the Massachu-setts Commissioner of Education appointed aseparate METCO advisory committee, whichconsists of representatives from METCO Inc.,suburban directors, superintendents, andMETCO parents. The state also helps interms of policy decisions and providing specialeducation services to participating students.

Participating suburban districts have a full-time METCO coordinator, called a METCOdirector, who serves as the contact person inthe district, coordinator of METCO-relatedactivities, and the liaison for METCO fami-lies. METCO directors are employees of thesuburban district. According to a recent re-port, all METCO directors are people ofcolor, which can help provide an importantrole model for METCO students in over-whelming white districts.7 One role that iscommon to every director is that they actu-ally place the students in district schoolswhen students are referred to them byMETCO Inc. and send out the official ac-ceptance letters.8 They serve as a resource for

students making the adjustment from Boston,and for the suburban district to make surethat someone is focusing on the needs of in-coming Boston students. Many directors alsocoordinate matching suburban host familiesto each METCO student to ease the transi-tion for the Boston family and student intothe new district. The directors then are com-munication assets for the districts—but theyalso help parents bridge the gap betweenBoston and an unfamiliar, distant community.According to research, parental involvementlevels in suburban districts are quite high, andthis may well be due to the efforts of theMETCO Directors.9

METCO Inc. is a non-profit organization thathas been designated as the service provider bythe Massachusetts Department of Education.In this role, they handle placements of stu-dents in suburban communities, provide sup-port services to METCO students, andcoordinate advocacy in support of the pro-gram’s funding. METCO Inc. gets 5% of theoverall funding for the program for serving asa service provider. One of their primary func-tions is to take applications and place students.Parents can put their child on the waiting listat any point in time: some add their studentshortly after they’re born, and some choose tojoin the list when they’re about to start schooland are looking at what the school options are.The waiting list has approximately 12,000 stu-dents. Because of the length of the waitinglist—which is several times as large as thenumber of available spaces in suburbanschools—there is little publicity or outreach toeligible families. METCO Inc. annually placesapproximately 460 students, most of whom arein kindergarten through second grade.10 Thetime on the waiting list averages five years,though this varies by student’s race and gradelevel.11 The program’s goal is to try to reach a


racial composition of METCO students simi-lar to that of Boston Public Schools. However,the program is disproportionately African-American: 77% of students are black.12

METCO Inc. also provides support services tostudents. They employ two social workers, aguidance counselor, and student services ad-ministrators. Additional services include pro-viding after-school tutorial programs atMETCO Inc, SAT prep courses, exam schoolprep, and student aid workshops.

Lobbying is particularly important for the ex-istence of METCO since it is funded by an-nual state grant, and is thus subject to thewhims of the economy and the politicalprocess. To try to maintain political supportfor the program and thus continued fundingto support the program’s existence, METCOInc. coordinates an annual lobby day in whichsupporters go to Beacon Hill to lobby thestate legislature and provides information forlobbying activities. One important source ofinformation is presenting annual results fromtheir survey of participating districts to docu-ment the success of participating students.Through this data collection, they have beenable to demonstrate the importance of theprogram in raising achievement, graduationand college-going rates for black & Latinostudents from Boston.

Research Findings — METCO

Ten years ago, Professor Gary Orfield and ateam of graduate students at Harvard, at theinvitation of METCO, surveyed parents of allstudents participating in METCO (a sample ofover 2,400 parents, or around three-quartersof all parents).13 Parents generally indicatethat they are very involved with the suburbanschools (at rates similar to parental participa-

tion in the Boston schools with their otherchildren) and indicate general satisfaction.Their reasons for choosing METCO weremainly academic related (almost three-fourthsindicated this was the most important factor intheir decision), though other popular reasonsincluded safety and wanting an integrated edu-cation for their child. Over 90% of parentsthought that METCO had been a great expe-rience in helping their child learn to get alongwith students of other backgrounds; an equallyhigh percentage of METCO students agreedwith this assessment. Perhaps contributing totheir rosy assessment of interracial relations,85% of students thought that their experiencewith host families and other suburban familieshad been excellent. A lower but still an over-whelming majority of parents thought therewas good respect for their child’s backgroundin their suburban school (though studentswere less likely to agree with their parents).Further, parents reported some discrimination,though few felt it was serious, particularlyamong faculty and staff. The highest seriousdiscrimination reported by students was fromthe suburban police.

Though virtually all alumni agreed (to someextent) that they would participate again orthey would want their child to participate inMETCO, there was some hesitation.14 Fur-ther, they admitted that they likely would nothave answered in the affirmative while theywere actually in METCO. Benefits from par-ticipating in METCO that the alumni cite in-cluding feeling more comfortable with whites(in college, in the workplace) than they believethey would have been without attending thesuburban schools. It also gave them access tomore prestigious educational and job opportu-nities. At the same time, there were culturalclashes with white suburbs—feeling as thoughtheir peers stereotyped them.



B. Minneapolis, Minnesota

Program Structure

The Minneapolis metro area implemented“The Choice is Yours (CIY) Program” urban-suburban desegregation program in 2001-02in response to a lawsuit filed by the NAACPagainst the state of Minnesota. The settlementcalled for the program to last for four years,through the end of the 2004-05 school year,and to continue on a voluntary basis thereafter.The program is administered by the WestMetro Education Program,15 and the compre-hensive settlement also includes an intra-Min-neapolis magnet choice option as well. Eachsuburban district provides orientation and aca-demic support to CIY students; some districts,using federal funding, employ a parental liai-son or support staff.

The Minneapolis metro has 6.7% low-incomeresidents but 16.4% of residents are classifiedpoor in the city of Minneapolis—and 2/3 ofMinneapolis Public Schools students are onfree/reduced lunch. Further, despite having ahigh white percentage in the metro area, by2002, 60% of Minneapolis Public Schoolswere 80-100% minority.16

The program began in 2001-02 with 472 stu-dents. By 2006-07, 1,977 students participated(the program was continued beyond the re-quired end date from the court settlement) andthese students enrolled in 9 suburban Min-neapolis districts.17 Eligibility for the programis based on student’s low-income status,18 anda lottery assigns students to schools based onthe choices they submit. Virtually all studentsreceive either their first or second choiceschool. Currently, half of all participants areAfrican-American, most hailing from two zipcode regions in the northern part of the city.Hispanic students are more likely to choose

the intra-district magnet instead of the subur-ban choice option.

Each suburban district receives the full stateper-pupil spending per student as well as theextra compensatory funding that the studentwould have received if he/she attended theMinneapolis Public Schools. The result of thisfunding structure is that districts get moremoney for city students than for their ownsuburban students. Additionally, many districtsare facing shrinking enrollment and need extrarevenue. This causes some suburban districtsto market themselves toward CIY-eligible fam-ilies. In fact, two inner-ring suburban districtshave become more racially identifiable with theacceptance of CIY students (who are over-whelmingly nonwhite).19

The initial goal of 2,500 participants by 2005-06 was not met: there were 1,680 students inthe program by 2005-06.20 Several districts didnot even enroll half of their allotted slots overthe five-year period, possibly because theschools chosen by MPS students were filledand the students were not aware of other op-tions in that district. One contributing factormight be that there were initial problems inname recognition and knowledge of programamong those families who were eligible. Evensome parents who were participating did notknow the name of the program.21

Research Findings — Minneapolis

Annual evaluations of the Minneapolis choiceprogram are conducted by Aspen. These eval-uations concern both the structure and func-tion of the program and satisfaction with theprogram. They find that the primary sourcesof information about school choice optionsamong those who are eligible are their socialnetworks, which can be neighbors, coworkers,

33

representatives from school or community or-ganization, or friends.22 Very few learnedabout the programs through the media. Thesenetworks are also influential in determiningwhich schools parents apply for. One impor-tant factor for parents whose children are eli-gible for the program, but chose not toparticipate, is that they prefer that their childattend school closer to home.

The Minneapolis program seems to have a re-tention problem, though some of this is due tofamily mobility out of the district. Of 1,435students who were in CIY at the end of the2004-05 school year, 1,090 students in 2005-06 returned, or 76% of students. Typically, be-tween 75-85% of students return to suburbanschools from end of the previous year whileapproximately 17% return to Minneapolisschools.23 Parents of suburban choice studentswere more satisfied and likely to make thesame school choice than eligible non-partici-pants. Additionally, 98% said that they’d rec-ommend the program to others (70% ofparents in the survey had already made such arecommendation). Aspen researchers foundthat free transportation is important: only 1/3of parents said that they would choose thesame school again if they didn’t have freetransportation. Bus rides range from 3 minutesto 1:45; the average bus ride is 33 minutes.

A majority of parents said that they preferredschools with diverse students and teachers anda school that taught their student about theirracial background; however, among parentsutilizing choice, there were higher percentagesof those valuing cultural heritage who stayedin Minneapolis (vs. moving to suburban dis-tricts). Parents also cite academics and safety asimportant factors in their choices. Interviewswith teachers demonstrated that they were lesscomfortable than parents thought in talking

about race/racism and didn’t think studentsworked well across racial lines; it is unclearwhether the program implementation includ-ing providing training for teachers aboutteaching in more diverse classrooms.24

Achievement results are mixed, when compar-ing suburban choosers vs. their peers who stay.However, there were only two years of data inthe most recent survey, and most students hadonly experienced one year in the suburbanschool – similar to results of research in St.Louis’s city-suburban desegregation program(discussed below).25

C. St. Louis, Missouri, Voluntary InterdistrictTransfer Program St. Louis has had the largest interdistrict city-suburban desegregation program in the coun-try. It was implemented as a settlement to a St.Louis-area desegregation case, originally filedin 1972, which included suburban districts asdefendants as well as the state of Missouri.26

At its peak, 12,400 St. Louis students partici-pated in the aspect of the program that trans-ferred students to suburban districts. The casewas taken off the active court docket in 1999after a settlement was negotiated, which pro-vided for the continuance of both the city-sub-urban transfer program and a number ofinterdistrict magnet schools. The program iscurrently administered by the Voluntary Inter-district Choice Corporation (VICC), a non-profit organization formed in 1999, whichprovides placement and transportation serv-ices. Just before the 1999 settlement, VICCreceived just over $1 million to administer theprogram. The state under the settlementagreed to pay $50 million as VICC assumedcontrol of the program, but has not fully com-plied with its initial promises.


The suburban transfer program began as apilot program in 1981 with five suburban dis-tricts. Under the original 1983 settlement, thestate (which was liable for the school segrega-tion) bore the cost of the program includingtransportation. The state’s participation, aftermany years of fighting the litigation, gave im-plicit support and endorsement to the pro-gram—which encouraged participation bysuburbs and students. Each suburban districtwas reimbursed their per-pupil expenditure foreach St. Louis student they took27; St. Louisalso received half of its per-pupil funding foreach student attending suburban schools. In1992, this combined to cost the state approxi-mately $60 million. At its height, 12,700 blackcity students went to suburban schools in 16districts through the program.28 Like Hart-ford, there are other components of the deseg-regation plan as well: suburban and St. Louisstudents attended city magnets, which enrolledapproximately 14,000 at the program’s peak.This meant that nearly half of St. Louis publicschool students participated in magnets orsuburban choice.29

As part of the settlement, school districts hadgoals that they had to reach, which helpedopen spaces: districts had to increase their mi-nority percentage 15% in five years, up to25% black, which was the regional average.Districts had to participate since it was part ofthe settlement and had to open up seats even ifspace wasn’t available, as the state would helpwith building costs for suburban districts ifnecessary. There was an annual report on theprogress of the program by district. Each sub-urban district had a contact person for the pro-gram; unlike METCO, this contact also hadother responsibilities but they would help re-solve problems, provide data to the VICC pro-gram, and attended meetings about theprogram.

Although participation was mandatory for dis-tricts, the participation of St. Louis studentswas completely voluntary. Under the terms ofthe settlement, only African-American studentsin St. Louis were eligible to participate in thesuburban transfer program. Students wereserved on a first-come, first-served basis. Theywere allowed to choose three school districts; ifthere was not space in that district, they hadthe option of going to another district or beingon the waiting list for the following year. Dur-ing the placement process, VICC encouragedschool districts to meet the families, and thefamilies attended orientation in suburbs.

Recruitment was a major focus of program ad-ministrators, who sought to continuously keepthe program in the minds of eligible families.Materials were sent to families several timesper year; staff went to community meetings;there were public service announcements onTV; and other advertisements. For example, abrochure listing information about every par-ticipating school district (including college andhigh school graduation rates, student-teacherratios, etc) was annually produced from infor-mation supplied by districts and mailed to St.Louis families. Another flyer had stories of suc-cessful graduates talking about the importanceof the program. Additionally, applications auto-matically go to every African-American publicschool student in St. Louis. VICC had one staffmember whose focus was on communicationsand the applications.

One of the initial implementation problemswas related to transportation—bus rides werelong, sometimes unpredictable. After the statetook over transportation and geocoded thearea, the average bus ride was reduced to anhour. Students are allowed one roundtrip perday which could be at any time (early morningbuses, late buses, etc). At the peak of the pro-



gram, transportation costs were roughly $30million. According to feedback the program re-ceived from students who had withdrawn, theybelieved that reducing problems like trans-portation and social services in the early yearshelped to improve the attractiveness of the pro-gram to encourage student participation.

According to the program director, one of themost difficult things about the program wasthat students and families were in quite differ-ent environments than what they were used to.To try to make the transition smoother, VICCemployed five counselors to help St. Louisfamilies and suburban districts adjust and to bean advocate for diversity and the St. Louis stu-dents in the schools.30 Support services includeprofessional development workshops to trainsuburban staff, enrichment programs for trans-ferred students, and a curriculum developed fortransferred students.31 Most of the money tofund training and other interdistrict programsthat had occurred prior to the 1999 settlementno longer exist, however; the former programdirector believed that a number of suburbandistricts, as a result of the increased student di-versity, altered their curriculum to make itmore inclusive of minority history.

Under the 1999 settlement, suburban enroll-ment targets were gradually reduced (as wasrecruitment). As of June 2005, just under 8,800

students from St. Louis were participating inthe program and attending suburban schools.To replace state desegregation funds, votersapproved a tax increase; however, if full reim-bursement for St. Louis city students was notavailable, suburban districts would be giventhe option to opt out of participating. Addi-tionally, beginning in 2004-05, there were nominimum enrollment requirements for subur-ban districts and tuition payments were cappedat $6,430. Two suburban districts no longeraccept transfer students. Recently, participat-ing districts voted to extend the program forfive additional years beyond 2008-09 when theprogram was originally scheduled to end.32

There have been a number of important bene-fits for participating students. Approximately60,000 students have participated in the pro-gram during its 25-year existence. Nearlytwice as many students who attend suburbanschools (49%) graduate within four years as docity students who do not transfer (27%). Par-ticipating students are also more likely to en-roll in higher education and experienced largerachievement gains. A survey of recent partici-pating students who graduated found that 77percent were planning to attend at least a two-year college.33 Some research also suggeststhat racial stereotyping was reduced in subur-ban schools.34

36

Endnotes1 There are other plans described in a recent report,

however, these three are highlighted because ofsimilarities with Project Choice: METCO has alsobeen in existence for four decades and the pro-grams in the Minneapolis & St. Louis areas havedesigned their programs in response to segrega-tion challenges in the central cities. See Zoffer, G.and Palmer, E. (Fall 2005). Profiles of InterdistrictTransfer and Voluntary Integration Programs inthe United States. Edina, MN: Aspen Associates.

2 See accompanying report, “Boston’s METCO Program: Lessons for the Hartford Area”, for amore in-depth discussion of the METCO programand the lessons for Hartford.

3 METCO, which began in Boston and its surround-ing suburbs, consists mostly of Boston students,but there are about 100-150 Springfield studentswho also participate in the program by attendingschool in suburban Springfield districts. It is ad-ministered by the Springfield school districts, anddiffers from the Boston program in several otherways. Because of these differences, the smallernature of the program, and the historical roots ofMETCO in Boston, the Springfield program is notdiscussed in great detail here.

4 Connecticut also has a Racial Imbalance Law,though this addresses only within-district racialimbalance. Massachusetts’ Racial Imbalance Act,however, reads in part that “the school commit-tee of any city or town or any regional school dis-trict may adopt a plan for attendance at itsschools by any child who resides in another city,town, or regional school district in which racialimbalance exists.” This plan “shall tend to elimi-nate racial imbalance in the sending district” and“to help alleviate racial isolation in the receivingdistrict.” See Chapter 76, Section 12A of Massachusetts General Laws.

5 Another comparison is the funding for OpenChoice students in Massachusetts, in which $5,000in funding goes with the student to the districtthey choose. This choice program, however, doesnot pay transportation costs.

6 “METCO Program Frequently Asked Questions,”http://www.doe.mass.edu/METCO/faq.asp? section=b Accessed on April 26, 2007.

7 Zoffer, G. and Palmer, E. (Fall 2005). Profiles of Interdistrict Transfer and Voluntary IntegrationPrograms in the United States. Edina, MN: AspenAssociates.

8 By law, the suburban districts are not allowed tohave any screening procedures for METCO stu-dents that differ from other district students.

9 Orfield, G., et al. (September 1997). City-SuburbanDesegregation: Parent and Student Perspectives inMetropolitan Boston. Cambridge, MA: The CivilRights Project at Harvard University.

10 By contrast, there were 167 new Project Choicestudents placed in 2006-07; 114 of these studentswere in kindergarten through second grade.

11 One of the differences in the Springfield METCOprogram is that students are randomly chosen toparticipate via a lottery.

12 METCO, like Project Choice, tends to be usedmore often by African Americans. Some officialswho were asked about this trend suggested thiscould be because METCO was begun by African-American activists and rooted within Boston’sblack community. There might also be at least aperception that suburban districts might be lesslikely to have programs and teachers who can ed-ucate Latino and Asian students whose first lan-guage is not English.

13 Orfield, G., et al. (September 1997). City-SuburbanDesegregation: Parent and Student Perspectives inMetropolitan Boston. Cambridge, MA: The CivilRights Project at Harvard University.

14 Eaton, S.E. (2001). The Other Boston Busing Story:What’s Won and Lost Across the Boundary Line.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

15 For more information, see the West Metro Education Program’s website athttp://www.wmep.k12.mn.us/wmepchoice.html

16 Orfield, M. (Summer 2006). Choice, Equal Protection, and Metropolitan Integration: TheHope of the Minneapolis Desegregation Settle-ment. Law and Inequality 24(2): 269-352, p. 284.

17 Only 41% of participants come from Minneapolisschools (come from other districts, private schools,and charter schools).

18 One major difference between CIY and other pro-grams is the requirement that students be fromlow-income families to be eligible to participate.Although this may reduce the poverty concentra-tions in Minneapolis schools, it would likely needto also consider the racially integrative effects oftransferring students if the program is to also ad-dress the city-suburban racial segregation dispari-ties that were at the center of the legal case thatpreceded CIY. See generally Or-


field, M. (Summer 2006). Choice, Equal Protection,and Metropolitan Integration: The Hope of theMinneapolis Desegregation Settlement. Law and Inequality24(2): 269-352.

19 The Choice is Ours: Expanding Educational Opportunity for all Twin Cities Children. Minneapolis, MN: Institute for Race and Poverty,University of Minnesota Law School, May 2006, P.36-41.

20 However, in only four years time, the CIY Programhad already surpassed the number of students involved in Project Choice in Hartford.

21 Orfield, M. (Summer 2006). Choice, Equal Protection, and Metropolitan Integration: TheHope of the Minneapolis Desegregation Settle-ment. Law and Inequality 24(2): 269-352, p. 316.

22 School choice literature suggests that althoughschool choice is predicated on parents making thebest choices for their child, the role of networks isoften an important influence on school choice—even if not based on full and accurate informa-tion. See Holme, J. J. (Summer 2002). BuyingHomes, Buying Schools: School Choice and the So-cial Construction of School Quality. Harvard Edu-cational Review, 177-205; Further, higher-statusparents are more likely to utilize school choice op-tions (Fiske, E.B. & Ladd, H.F. (2000). When schoolscompete: A cautionary tale. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press).

23 The Choice is Ours: Expanding Educational Opportunity for all Twin Cities Children. Minneapolis, MN: Institute for Race and Poverty,University of Minnesota Law School, May 2006,Table 4-5.

24 Palmer, E. A. (2003). The Choice is Yours After TwoYears: An Evaluation. Edina, MN: Aspen Associates, P. 67-68

25 Minnesota Voluntary Public School Choice, 2004-2005, Evaluation Report. Edina, MN: Aspen Associates (2006).

26 Liddell v. Board of Education

27 According to testimony by the program director,the funding was “an extremely critical compo-nent” to the success of the program because itboth encouraged districts to participate and gavethem the funding needed to do a satisfactory jobin educating the students. (P. 429)

28 In addition to the St. Louis students who trans-ferred to the suburbs and therefore, to integratedschools, approximately 112,000 students annuallyin suburban districts benefited from the increaseddiversity in their schools.

29 Heaney, G. W. and Uchitelle, S. (2004). UnendingStruggle: The long road to an equal education inSt. Louis. Lincoln, Neb.: University of NebraskaPress.

30 According to Uchitelle’s testimony, one of thethings they tried repeatedly to do (ultimately, un-successfully) was to get more funding to increasethe number of support staff: 5 counselors for12,000 students meant that the social workerslogged long hours.

31 Another related aspect of the settlement (therewere five distinct parts of the settlement) was acity-suburban teacher exchange. The teachertransfer was intended at least, in part, to makethe adjustment to suburban districts more com-fortable for St. Louis students and to increase thepercentage of African-American teachers in thesuburban districts.

32 Hampel, P. (June 23, 2007). Districts vote to extenddesegregation program. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Ac-cessed on June 24, 2007 at http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/3445AB419C933CC2862573030009E4A1?OpenDocument.

33 Compared to 47% of minority students in Missouri.

34 McDermott, K.S., Bruno, G., and Varghese, A.(April 2002). Have Connecticut’s DesegregationPolicies Produced Desegregation? Equity & Excellence in Education 35(1): 18-27.



In this section, we will review the rolesplayed by the major “stakeholders” in theProject Choice program – including the

State of Connecticut, the Capitol Region Edu-cation Council (CREC), the Sheff plaintiffs andthe court, the suburban school districts, andHartford families participating in the program.

A. Role of the State of ConnecticutThe state, as the defendants in Sheff and as theentity responsible for the provision of educa-tion in the state of Connecticut, bears chief re-sponsibility for the program. Local schoolboards are agents of the state to carry out theirduty to provide public education. Thoughfunding is critically important,2 leadershipfrom the state, which has been sorely lacking,is critical as well.

There are actually a number of state actors,each of whom relate to the Choice program indifferent ways:

✱ The Connecticut State Commissioner ofEducation is a powerful figure in Connecti-cut education and was mentioned by severalpeople who were interviewed as a key figurein potentially creating more spaces in theProject Choice program. The new commis-sioner, Mark McQuillan, is from Massachu-setts where he was once superintendent of a

suburban district that took the highest per-centage of METCO students; however, hewas also deputy commissioner in Massachu-setts where he was reportedly responsible for“freezing” METCO transportation funding,which threatened the program’s continua-tion. Former Commissioner Ted Sergi wasconsidered to have had clout with suburbandistricts and could open up new spots in theprogram through persuasion; Former Com-missioner Betty Sternberg was regarded aslargely ineffectual in this role.

✱ At the Connecticut State Department of Ed-ucation, the Bureau of Educational Equity,headed by Jack Hasegawa, has been respon-sible for the Choice program. Created in2004, the Bureau reports directly to theCommissioner. Marcus Rivera is directly re-sponsible for Open Choice (along with otherresponsibilities). Marcus was widely praisedin interviews for his tireless persistence withthe program and for being supportive withthe districts.3

✱ The Connecticut State Board of Educationis an appointed board by the governor, cur-rently consisting of nine members. AllanTaylor, formerly a member of the HartfordSchool Board, is the chair. Their legislativeimpact is small, although their recommenda-tions on specific educational issues receiveconsiderable deference, and the Board could

Section V: Stakeholders1

39

exert pressure regarding the expansion ofProject Choice if so inclined.4

✱ The Legislature ultimately approves thebudget for Project Choice and therefore setsthe amount that districts receive for eachProject Choice student and the administra-tive budget received by CREC (Capitol Re-gion Educational Council) as serviceprovider. In particular, the Education andAppropriations Committees have importantoversight for the program. The co-chairs ofthe Education Committee, RepresentativeAndrew Fleischmann and Senator ThomasGaffey, play a particularly important role.

✱ Governor Jodi Rell is, at the very least, animportant player in terms of her proposedbudget. She could also be an important ad-vocate for the expansion of the program,though it appears that she has rarely com-mented about Project Choice directly.5

Official State Response to Sheff

After the 1996 Sheff decision, the Legislaturepassed P.A. 97-290, “An Act Enhancing Edu-cational Choices and Opportunities” as part oftheir response. This statutory change in 1997included a new requirement that each districthad to share responsibility for integrated education.6 This point was emphasized in sev-eral circular letters by state commissioners to suburban school board chairs and superintendents.7

The first interim settlement agreement in 2003was short in length, focusing on the goals thatthe state would be responsible for. The statecommitted itself to certain annual benchmarks(e.g., two new magnet schools each year, 200new Project Choice students) but did not com-mit to specifics as to how, for example, they

would increase Project Choice by 200 studentsannually. Unfortunately, many of the problemsthat are still causing lower participation inProject Choice could have been addressed inthat agreement. Involving those who are incharge of the implementation of ProjectChoice in designing the state’s Sheff responsewould help to ensure that the state’s efforts aretargeted most effectively (e.g., providingneeded support requested by districts).

The new plan under the proposed second in-terim settlement agreement is five years in du-ration. Deputy commissioner of educationGeorge Coleman said it would require“greater involvement of the state…assumingresponsibility for creating better options”.8

This will include creating an information cen-ter to help inform families of the different op-tions such as Project Choice or magnetschools.9 By 2011-12, the state will fund theprograms at more than $43 million and thegoal is to place 41% of Hartford minority stu-dents in “reduced isolation” educational set-tings. The settlement agreement, as of thiswriting, has not yet been approved by the Leg-islature, which means that districts did notknow whether the reimbursement for studentsmight increase to incorporate into their fall2007 planning. The biennial budget that waspassed in the spring includes line items to funda Sheff remedy for the next two years; theamount in the budget is the exact amount thatOPM requested for the first two years of thesecond Sheff settlement (as presented at theEducation Committee hearing).

Connecticut Racial Imbalance Act

Connecticut’s Racial Imbalance Act, adoptedin 1969 and modified in 1980, governs widevariances in school racial compositions withinschool districts. It defines a school as imbal-


anced if the minority percentage of students ina given school is more than 25 percentagepoints away from the district’s minority per-centage. In the Hartford area, West Hartfordhas been cited by the state because two schoolsare out of balance (in this case, the two schoolshave disproportionately high percentages ofminority students).10 The state could take adistrict to court if it does not take action tocorrect the imbalance, though this has onlyhappened once. According to one desegrega-tion expert, the lack of enforcement for dis-tricts that are out of racial balance weakens thelaw.11

A report for the Connecticut State Board ofEducation in the late 1990s did recognize thatthe Racial Imbalance Law was relatively inef-fective due to the homogeneous nature ofmost Connecticut districts though it did notrecommend any regional approaches to exam-ining racial imbalance.12 Further, as noted byan education writer, the law “[b]ecause it af-fects only individual districts and does not re-quire regional efforts at desegregation, [] hasvirtually no effect on districts that have nearlyall white or all minority enrollments.”13 Giventhe fact that, nationally and in Connecticut,segregation across school district boundarylines is a larger contributing factor to overallsegregation than within district segregation, itis unlikely that even if strongly enforced, thelaw would have much effect on the segregationin the Hartford area.14

Expanding the State’s Role

Ultimately, it seems that the lack of leadershipand funding from the state has forced difficultdilemmas for some district leadership: do theytry to educate their community about thevalue of Project Choice or do they try not tospotlight their involvement for fear of unfairly

spotlighting Project Choice students and stir-ring up opposition from those who object tothe low reimbursement rates from the state?These fears, based on the lack of leadershipand stereotypes of Hartford students, mayweaken district resolve to participate. (Thelack of research about the program could alsobe a contributing factor.) In fact, the percep-tion from the higher-participating districts wasthat the smaller districts were reluctant to con-tribute by taking their fair share of Hartfordstudents and may even need to be required bythe state. One way to directly address any per-ceptions held by districts would be to offer ses-sions at the Connecticut Association of Boardsof Education’s annual conference to help edu-cate about Project Choice. Another approachmay include setting of district-by-district en-rollment expectations by the state.

At the same time, however, there certainlywere plenty of anecdotes about committed su-perintendents who worked behind the scenesto encourage their district’s participation, evenif it meant taking controversial votes by theschool board or continually discussing with theboard the success of Project Choice students.There were accounts of principals who quietlyensured that Project Choice students wereplaced with teachers with prior success teach-ing Hartford students.

Funding: As will be discussed in subsequentsections, adequately funding the program andfairly compensating the districts is imperative.Though it could be argued that the suburbandistricts could do more to increase their partici-pation through their own financial commit-ment, the minimal level of funding makes iteasy for districts to cite funding as a reason fornot participating to a greater extent.15 For2005-06, Hartford’s state funding average of$7250 per student. If this is what the state cal-


culates as its share of educating each child inHartford, this should be what the state pro-vides to suburban districts who educate theseHartford students. With increased funding, thestate could also increase responsibility of subur-ban districts who take Project Choice studentssuch as requiring districts to go throughmandatory training, which would help preparethem for Project Choice students as well as thegrowing numbers of minority students who re-side within their district boundary. Ironically,this is an easy program to fund—there are al-ready established districts so no extra funding isneeded to build new schools or other infra-structure (as with magnet schools).

The need for a Champion: A repeatedtheme in interviews was the lack of politicalwill for the program, which many attributed tothe lack of a publicly visible advocate or“champion” for the program at the state level.

The impression is that state officials believethat their response is sufficient to respond toSheff despite falling far short of the June 2007goal.16 The State Department of Educationnow works with CREC to make presentationsin districts about taking Project Choice stu-dents, which includes talking about that dis-trict’s capacity, minority percentage, andfunding. Yet, as numbers continue to stagnate,without restructuring or a program champion,large numbers of seats won’t be opened up,and there won’t be greater publicity to Hart-ford families. One state official was surprisedthat the money set aside for the program wasnot fully used, despite the lack of active cham-pioning by state officials.

With so many partners involved in the pro-gram, the result seems to be that no one takesthe lead. In the words of plaintiff expert Dr.Len Stevens and as defined in the initial settle-

ment agreement in 2003, the state should serveas “Lead Agency” for this program and magnetschools—it would diagnose problems identifiedby outside experts, ensure adequate funding,and allow for the exchange of successful ideasand practices among district administrators. Itwould also involve important efforts towardseducating the public and their elected officialsas to the need for the program and the supportrequired to effectively operate the program atthe level specified by the settlement agreement.While there is always the possibility of crossingthe line and creating a backlash to efforts togrow the program in a given community whenaddressing low levels of compliance, this seemslike a distant concern when there is littlegrowth in opening new seats and no real cham-pion for the program.

The proposed 2007 agreement would establisha magnet center jointly between Hartford andCREC to work together in administeringmagnet schools. This Center or partnershipshould also include Project Choice (includingparticipating suburban districts), or thereshould be a separate center to effectively coor-dinate information and be a “champion” forthe program.

Publicity: Although demand for seats cur-rently outstrips supply of seats, the publicityand marketing of the Choice program hasbeen overlooked. This is an important func-tion that the state, as defendant, should lead.In the proposed settlement agreement, thestate will operate information centers to in-form Hartford families about magnet options;it is crucial that the information centers alsoinclude information about Project Choice, andprovide opportunities for families to meet withstaff from suburban districts. As St. Louis didwith year-round publicity, it is important thatthere is a twelve-month plan for continuous


information dissemination about the existenceof the program, the experience of students,and the educational options available in partic-ipating suburban districts. This informationwas mailed to every St. Louis household. SinceHartford schools might be reluctant to helpadvertise a program that would take studentsfrom their system, a similar model of contact-ing families directly might be more effective.This might also be effective for families whohave had bad educational experiences them-selves and may not feel comfortable going to aschool or school system to find out aboutschool choice options.17 Further, particularly ifthe funding is increased, there will likely bemore seats available and thus more need forpublicity. There already is the ability to ac-commodate all young students who apply, sothere should be a particular emphasis to mar-ket towards families with young children, per-haps through daycare centers. This could alsobe done in cooperation with the suburban dis-tricts, and coordinated by CREC if there is notinternal state capacity to do so. More fundingwould have to be provided for CREC to takeon this task or funding could be provided to anoutside advocacy group as well. Without per-sistence publicity, the program is likely to ad-vantage those who are better connected.18

Transportation: Most essential is the provi-sion of a more streamlined system of trans-portation for participating Project Choicestudents. This will require increased trans-portation funding, which should not be re-garded as a luxury but essential to the successof the program. Currently, there is nearly $3.7million budgeted for the next academic year(2007-08) to transport just under 1,100 pro-jected students, which averages out to a cost ofroughly $3,400 per students. In the past, therewas pressure from the state not to operatebuses unless they were filled with Project

Choice students, but because of the low num-bers of students in many suburban schoolsthere aren’t enough students to fill a bus,which requires multiple stops. As discussedmore in-depth later in this report, long busrides for many students are a barrier to bothstudent participation and district participationin the program. These long rides are not pri-marily a function of distance, but of trans-portation funding and student enrollments ineach school. It is doubtful that the transporta-tion burden required of these students wouldbe tolerated if these students were from morewealthy, politically powerful districts. Should ittake an hour to transport students to a WestHartford school that is less than 10 minutesfrom Hartford? Or 90 minutes to a school inSimsbury? Adding 90 minutes on to the begin-ning and end of each school day makes forlong days for children, and cuts into their abil-ity to build friendships or even do their home-work. They and their families should not haveto sacrifice to save the state money. In addi-tion, there needs to be multiple transportationoptions, for both early and later buses beyondwhat is currently offered.19 This would allowthem to more completely avail themselves ofthe social and academic options available intheir suburban district on a basis that is moreequitable with resident students.

Organizing and Advocacy forProject Choice at the State Level

One of the problems seems to be the decentral-ized nature of Project Choice—there are manyinvolved parties and yet no one is responsiblefor the program overall. To more effectivelyadvocate for the program, it would be helpfulto have a permanent advisory committee to theCommissioner set up with the various con-stituencies represented. It will allow for im-proved communication and understanding of


how the program operates to all involved.20

There have been numerous committees andtask forces in Connecticut with regard to Proj-ect Choice21 or school segregation in general22

and yet this issue still remains far from re-solved. Clearly, unless a committee is given au-tonomy and the state is obliged to consider itsadvice, it would be a waste of everyone’s timeand energy to appoint. Yet, it has the prospectof being the sorely needed voice for the pro-gram and the students in it. If such an advisorycommittee is created, it should include legisla-tive representatives of Hartford and key sur-rounding districts.

Related, in order to unite the political repre-sentatives for participating districts, state rep-resentatives should consider organizing alegislative caucus of Hartford and participatinglegislators. Because all have a vested interest inthe funding and success of this program, creat-ing such a caucus will allow for a more unitedadvocacy for the program and its funding. Ini-tially, a suburban legislator advocated for thecurrent funding of the program ($2,000 perstudent), and suburban districts stand to gainsignificantly from future funding increases. Itis unlikely that Hartford legislators alonewould be able to garner increased funding, butthis urban-suburban coalition could be the leg-islative champion for Project Choice.

B. Role of Capitol Region Educational Council (CREC)

On July 1, 1998, the urban-suburban volun-tary desegregation program known as ProjectConcern came under the direction of CREC,the Capitol Region Educational Council.CREC was founded in 1966 and serves 35member districts in the greater Hartford areathrough a variety of educational services. It isa non-profit, 501 (c)(3) organization, and in

Fiscal Year (FY) 06 had a budget of nearly$115 million.23 The budget for ProjectChoice in FY 06 was $3.7 million, which in-cludes about $350,000 to CREC for adminis-tering the program (with another $850,000allocated for the Early Beginnings program,of which $360,000 went to CREC); projectedfigures for FY07 were $3.9 million for thechoice program ($1.5 million for Early Begin-nings). Transportation for 2006-07 was bud-geted at just over $3.7 million.

Other service providers in the state operatesimilar open choice programs for two otherurban areas and their surrounding suburbandistricts: in New Haven, Area Cooperative Ed-ucational Services is the service provider, andin Bridgeport, Cooperative Educational Serv-ices is the service provider.

As of spring 2007, the Project Choice officeemploys six staff members, including severalalumni of the Project Concern program.Nessa Oram has been the Project Director forseven years, taking over from long-time direc-tor of Project Concern, Mary Carroll. Twopeople work on student services, which includemonitoring student progress, communicatingwith parents, and working with transportationspecialists (bus monitors). There are also twonew positions created last year called interven-tion specialists. There is a database administra-tor who also provides administrative supportfor the entire program. Other CREC officesthat they work with include the Early Begin-nings program and the transportation office.Although the staff has recently expanded withthe hiring of the two intervention specialists,staffing levels are below what they weredecades ago.

Project Concern, at its height, employed 12teachers and 56 paraprofessionals to ride the


buses with students and to work in suburbanschools to help Hartford students adjust to thenew suburban, wealthy, and white environ-ments that they found themselves in. Althoughthere are still bus monitors (called transporta-tion counselors), this position is now a part-time position and does not include time spentin schools to help students adapt. The lastparaprofessionals were eliminated in a budgetcut by the Legislature in 1997 at the same timefunding was increased to suburban districtsthat accepted Hartford students—although thelegislature did not require that the increasedfunding went to support the educational expe-rience of the Project Choice students. Accord-ing to researchers, educators in suburbanschools, and Project Choice staff, the bus aideswere instrumental in helping teachers and stu-dents.24 Additionally, during numerous inter-views with school administrators and formerstudents who had experience with ProjectConcern decades ago, the importance of theparaprofessionals in the schools and on the busrides was repeatedly mentioned. Project Con-cern also offered tutoring, counseling, and so-cial workers to support Hartford students andto encourage their success in the suburbanschool districts.25

Application Process

One of the most essential roles that CRECplays is accepting applications and placingHartford students in suburban schools. TheProject Choice staff holds open houses, ac-cepts applications, and places students in sub-urban districts. Approximately 600-700families apply annually to Project Choice, forone or more children. There is a lottery to se-lect the students who can be accommodatedwith the slots allotted from the suburban dis-tricts, with a preference given to students inschools that have lost accreditation or have

been identified as “in need of improvement”by No Child Left Behind. There is a separateprocess for students with siblings in ProjectChoice that is done first, before consideringthe applications from new families; where pos-sible (when space is available), children areplaced in the same suburban district as theirolder sibling so that families can build rela-tionships with only one district.26

The application itself is simple, although it isonly available in English. The applicationprocess begins in January, when four openhouses are held at CREC, which usually netsabout 200-300 applications. The applicationdeadline is in early March, and the lottery isheld in early April. After the lottery, the staffthen starts at the top of the list and begins plac-ing students in suburban schools depending onavailability by grade level. At the end of June,students who haven’t been placed in a suburbanschool are placed on a waiting list. If studentsaren’t offered a spot, they have to re-apply thefollowing year if they are still interested in par-ticipating. For students already in the program,after their initial placement their first year, sub-urban districts control their placement into ac-tual schools and classrooms.27

In 2006-07, there were several hundred stu-dents on the waiting list for the program (seeTable 4). A few years ago, there was $20,000 ofadvertising done about Project Choice, andstaff was not sure that there was an increase inthe number of applications. They have tried todo some outreach to the Hispanic communitysince there are a low percentage of Hispanicapplicants.28 From informal feedback, CRECstaff and state officials believe that the Hispaniccommunity is more reluctant to send studentsfar from the city.29 According to analyses of ap-plicants to the choice programs, the highestshare of applicants comes from three neighbor-


hoods in northern Hartford, all of which arepredominantly African-American.30

Areas for Improvement: Partially due to theway in which suburban districts allocate spacesfor Project Choice students—only after theyhave accommodated all district students—stu-dents’ placement can take the entire summersince the program staff can only offer spaces asthey are made available by the suburbs. Thisimpacts students and their families because itmight mean that families miss a school’s orien-tation program, which makes it difficult forparents to understand the expectations forthemselves and their child. Further, it limitsopportunities for students’ summer enrich-ment in the district they will enroll in.

As mentioned, there is very little advertisingfor the program partially due to the fact thatconsistently there have not been enough spotsfor applicants. Through the four decades ofthe program, there have been a variety ofmethods in which students have been chosenfor the program. Although the program nowrandomly selects participants among applica-tions submitted (with preferences, as discussedabove, for siblings and current school NCLBstatus), with little advertising, it is likely thateveryone is not equally aware of the programand therefore not able to take advantage of theprogram.31 In St. Louis, applications are sentto every African-American resident, along withinformation about the program several times ayear. If CREC and/or the state were to simi-larly send applications to every Hartford resi-dent along with other outreach efforts, itwould help to assure that access to the pro-gram is available—and would likely lead to anincrease in applications (possibly from a widercross section of Hartford residents), whichmight help leverage more financial support

and ultimately open up more spaces in thesuburban districts.

Another way to increase access to the programfor everyone is to ensure that information andintake sessions are offered at times that areconvenient to parents who are working. Thisyear, the two kindergarten intake sessions inMay (which were required in order for thechild to participate) were held only during themiddle of the day during the week. Althoughthere was flexibility for parents if they wereunable to make it and requested alternativemeetings from CREC, the scheduling of thesesessions disadvantages parents who work andhave difficulty taking off from work—or whomay not realize that they can ask for an alter-native intake session.

In a number of interviews, there were sugges-tions that students should be screened or par-ents should be required to participate incertain activities in order for their child tocontinue with the program. These suggestionslikely were the result of specific frustrating ex-amples of families who the districts or Choicestaff did not feel were committed to ensuringthe success of their students. (One suburbanadministrator did also note that suburban par-ents also were not always as committed as onewould hope to their child’s education.) Thisprogram, however, is a public school programand therefore, cannot require any screening oradditional requirements that are not requiredof every family or child who live within thedistrict boundaries.

In interviews with some districts, there wereseveral examples of families whose studentswere placed in multiple suburban districtsand/or schools. As these administrators noted,having children in two separate schools or dis-tricts makes the difficulties of a Hartford fam-


ily engaging with a suburban school even morechallenging.32 It is the policy of the programthat siblings get preference in terms of gettinga place in the program and they try to placesiblings in the same district. However, this iscontingent on space available in thedistrict/school of the current sibling(s) in theprogram. Again, it is doubtful that this wouldhappen to siblings who happened to reside inthe district, so it raises the question of why thisis allowed to happen for Choice students. Oneway to avoid this problem would be to auto-matically guarantee a space to siblings of anyChoice students into the school in which theirsibling is in, and remove any contingencies re-lated to whether space is available. Addition-ally, if, for whatever reason this is impossible,the placement of siblings in separate schools ordistricts, should be reviewed annually to deter-mine whether it would be possible for a stu-dent to transfer (if the family desired).

Finally, every kindergarten and first grade seatopened by suburban districts has been filled inrecent years— there haven’t been kindergartenor first grade students on the waiting list since2003-04. This suggests an urgent need to domore recruiting and information sessions tar-geted at families with young children sincesuburbs reiterated their desire to bring in stu-dents as young as possible. As will be discussedin the next section, transportation is likely tobe an important factor for Hartford familieswith young children that may consider apply-ing to Project Choice.

Transportation

Virtually every person interviewed observedthat transportation was a huge problem thatstill needed to be addressed. As discussed ear-lier, St. Louis’s interdistrict transfer programfound that this problem had to be addressed

in the early stages of its implementation inorder to attract and retain students. CREChas attempted several systems of transportingstudents. Currently, they are piloting a newtransportation system. With rising transporta-tion costs and persistent frustration withtransportation, it would be imperative to re-view whether there might be a more efficientsystem. Students in a few high schools andmiddle schools in selected districts (e.g., closeto Hartford) ride public transportation.CREC contracts with three separate bus com-panies and serves 100 schools. Bus rides forstudents are from 45 minutes to 1.5 hours ormore each way.

This is not simply a matter of a bus ride. Manyof these students, from an early age, spend upto three hours on the bus each day. In fact, stu-dents are described as straddling three worlds:Hartford, the suburban school, and the bus.Many of the problems in school begin as prob-lems on the bus. (This is likely true for anystudents riding buses, but since Choice stu-dents ride the bus for so long and get on veryearly, this likely exacerbates this tendency.)Further, there are not now enough transporta-tion counselors (currently there are 21) to goon every bus, so they are assigned at the dis-cretion of the CREC staff. Generally, coun-selors are assigned for younger students. Withthe rising costs of benefits for staff, it has beendifficult to retain some veteran transportationcounselors, which then may lead to inexperi-enced and less qualified staff on the bus—andresult in more problems.

An example demonstrates their importance. Inone district, bus personnel (drivers and aides)became so disruptive that a CREC interventionspecialist had to mediate a meeting betweenthe personnel and the students at their school.Other personnel have been switched because of


48

inappropriate actions. Because CREC buses,unlike some suburban schools, do not havevideo cameras on the bus, it can be harder toascertain what happens on the buses—makingthe role of adults on the buses even more im-portant. Again, it is possible that these inci-dents may occur elsewhere, but given thelength of the bus ride that many of these stu-dents face, any such incidents make their tran-sition to the suburban school that much moredifficult and increase the possibility of eitherattrition or limiting interest in the program be-cause word would spread among Hartford so-cial networks that the bus ride is very difficultfor students who participate in the program.Although it is unclear whether this has been ex-plored, small buses might be more effective inreducing bus problems because students wouldnot have an entire bus to spread out and be be-yond the reach of the driver.

There are currently some late buses availableso that students can stay after school for ex-tracurricular activities or extra academic help ifoffered by their school. Interviews with ad-ministrators and parents suggest that there isdemand for greater availability and that thelack of consistent early and late buses sorelyimpedes the ability of Project Choice studentsto fully take advantage of the suburbanschools’ offerings and to build friendships tofully integrate into the life of the school andcommunity. Some schools, for example, offermorning musical opportunities—chorus or or-chestra—before school starts. Others havebreakfast. After school, there are academic en-richment opportunities, other extracurricularactivities, and sports. However, due to inade-quate state funding, the transportation toHartford for students who want to participatein these activities is extremely limiting.33 Re-search has suggested that participation in ex-tracurricular opportunities can be an excellent

way to build interracial friendships, and hasalso been cited as helping to engage studentsin school and reduce the potential for drop-ping out. Additionally, critically needed aca-demic enrichment could be offered to studentswho need it if there were multiple bus optionsafter school.34

Finally, it is essential that transportation be re-liable and on time despite the traffic andweather difficulties. By virtue of their back-ground and where they live, Project Choicestudents may be seen as different by the otherstudents in their school. If they consistently ar-rive late to school, it may be even more diffi-cult for students to see similarities with oneanother. Further, it places students at an aca-demic disadvantage if they lose class time.

Work with Districts

Most of the CREC staff has responsibility tosupport students in suburban districts, be li-aisons for parents, and to help build capacity inthe suburban districts. This can include help-ing to resolve communication problems be-tween parents and schools if there is an adverserelationship; or a school could call the staff andask them to meet with a student or studentswho are having either social or academic prob-lems. During interviews, staff memberslamented the fact that they often only havetime to “put out fires” and that there’s notenough time to do preventative work with stu-dents or schools, for example.

Many of the issues handled by CREC staffseemed to revolve around miscommunicationand unspoken expectations. Some parents aredealing with a variety of problems, and mayhave little time available or know-how abouthow to advocate for their own children. Al-though many administrators interviewed spoke


49

of the resiliency and dedication of Hartfordfamilies to participate in the program given themany hurdles, there was also a feeling byCREC staff that there was not full understand-ing of families’ decision. According to one,“districts need to understand the sacrifices thatfamilies make to participate in the program—that it’s not just a free bus ride.” This mightnot just be true for districts, but also for subur-ban residents and Connecticut Legislators.

For the first time, in August 2007 CREC hasoffered a two-day summer program for teach-ers in suburban schools to help them under-stand the context from where Hartfordstudents come from. This training programincluded a bus ride of Hartford so that admin-istrators could actually see students’ neighbor-hoods. They hope to make this an annualevent, although there is currently no ongoingfunding for this program. CREC also holdsregular conversations with administrators atsuburban districts, and can provide space fordistrict administrators to come into Hartfordto meet with the families of students who maybe unable to get to suburban schools or toallow them to meet in a more comfortable en-vironment for the family. The State Educa-tional Resource Center (SERC), which hasalready begun similar work with some districtsin the Sheff region, could also be a helpfulpartner in such efforts.

The recent addition of the intervention spe-cialists was repeatedly lauded though therealso seemed to be some ambiguity as to theirrole.35 For example, several administratorswondered aloud at what they could ask the in-tervention specialists to do. Administrators ex-pressed a desire to have more such staffmembers so that they could spend more timein their district, building relationships. (Thisdesire for more staff to reduce current staff

workloads was echoed during interviews withseveral CREC employees.) There was also thehope that these staff could assist district byhelping with professional development (SERCmight be another option for districts). If moreintervention specialists were added to ease theworkload of the two current staff, one day perweek could be dedicated to helping to buildcapacity among school faculties and staff. Ifmore funding were available, districts couldhire their own (or share) intervention special-ist. One key emphasis by district administra-tors was that if more intervention specialistswere hired, it had to be the right kind of per-son. Implicitly, it seemed they were saying thatthe two current staff members succeed—inways that district staff hasn’t— because theyare highly skilled and have real legitimacy withHartford families. Thus, simply adding morebodies isn’t enough: it matters who are hired inthese critical positions.

Early Beginnings

As a result of conversations with suburban dis-trict personnel – who expressed a need to en-roll students in their district at the earliestgrade level possible (and to close the schoolreadiness gaps between Hartford and suburbanstudents, particularly in vocabulary acquisi-tion), three years ago, CREC added a youngerdimension to Project Choice called Early Be-ginnings. Originally CREC intended to buskindergarten students to half-day kindergartenin their suburban district, and then return thestudents to Hartford for afternoon enrichmentto provide a full-day kindergarten experience.However, as it was implemented, the programwas adjusted to keep students in the suburbandistrict the entire day in order to allow stu-dents to spend the entire day with their subur-ban peers. Facilitators for the program werethen allocated on a rotating basis to participat-


50

ing schools and childcare programs. In a fewdistricts that have full-day kindergarten, stu-dents attend the entire day and ride the buslike other district students. In other districts,there are existing transportation options fromschools to after-school childcare providers thatChoice students use.

Early Beginnings has led to important gainsfor all students in participating classroomsand has encouraged some of the participatingsixteen districts to move towards full-daykindergarten. Each district receives an addi-tional $3,600 for each kindergarten child inEarly Beginnings in addition to the $2,000per child through Project Choice. This extrafunding has allowed one suburban district, forexample, to offer a full-day kindergarten as apilot program for Project Choice studentsand district students who were chosen by alottery. Another district has double its partici-pation in the program since Early Beginningswas established.

The program began the first year—with only amonth to prepare after funding was approved—with 63 students in suburban schools and 5 certified teachers as facilitators. Each facilita-tor spends an average of one day per week ineach school or program. The facilitators servean important role: for parents, for schools, fordistricts. Facilitators are there for the entireclass—not just Project Choice children, be-cause the key is to integrate them in with otherstudents. They can share best practices withclassroom teachers regarding literacy, whichprovides a substantial benefit for participatingschools. Facilitators can build relationshipswith Hartford parents, and are an added re-source for helping to resolve problems such asthose that might result from transportation. Asa result, this might help with recruitment forthe program since parents may be wary of put-

ting young children on buses. Unfortunately,despite extensive recruiting efforts, there areno minority facilitators.

In addition the benefits of additional fundingand facilitator time, research on the benefits ofthe program have helped to convince superin-tendents of the benefits of Early Beginningsfor Hartford students and for resident stu-dents. Using pre- and post-testing on vocabu-lary and letter identification, there were largegains for participating Hartford students andmore modest gains for suburban students.36

These data have been used to demonstrate todistricts that the Program is successful in itsgoal of improving the academic success ofProject Choice students—instead of remem-bering anecdotal evidence of when a ProjectChoice student may not have adjusted as well,these data demonstrate that the average Hart-ford student improves substantially during thecourse of an academic year. Reports analyzingthe data are annually shared with superintend-ents of participating districts.

Given the success of Early Beginnings, itwould be worth exploring expanding toyounger children by providing preschool op-portunities. Connecticut is looking to dramati-cally expand early childhood initiatives andfunding through all-day kindergarten and pre-school. It is imperative to ensure that such ini-tiatives provide adequate space and funding forall Project Choice-participating districts.

Improving and Expanding theProgram

Based on their daily experiences working withstudents, families, and schools, CREC staffhad many suggestions and valuable insight asto how the program might be improved. Anumber of suggestions were targeted towards


51

improving the experience of students; manywould require additional funding. One consis-tent suggestion was to sponsor a four-weekorientation program for students before theystart the program, to help them learn the ex-pectations of the schools and communitiesthey are going to, to build relationships withother students, and to provide academic en-richment.37 A second suggestion would be tohave a building that would be solely dedicatedto Choice students – to provide tutoring sup-port, evening sessions, meetings for parents(with suburban schools and with each other),parental education workshops, skill-buildingworkshops, etc. METCO (in Boston) cur-rently has its own building with classroomspace and can offer more programming, plusthe building serves as a drop-off place if thereare problems with transportation.

Some suggestions would be simple to imple-ment and cost little to nothing. For example,each school and/or district should have a con-tact person who is not a principal or the super-intendent—since these people are oftendifficult to reach due to the many commit-ments required by their job. Another examplewas to have a parental support group estab-lished in the suburban district. Staff membersalso had suggestions for how suburbs could bemore welcoming—for example, sending out aletter to Project Choice parents every year ex-plicitly welcoming them to come into theschool and introducing the principal.

Finally, the importance of adult role modelswas a common theme in several suggestionsfrom staff members. There were suggestionsto reinstate the paraprofessionals used duringProject Concern. If paraprofessionals becamea part of the program again, these staff couldalso be given educational development oppor-tunities and eventually groomed into teachers

for the suburban communities that they workin.38 Given the dire lack of faculty of color inmost suburban districts in the Hartford area—despite a desire for a more diverse staff fromvirtually everyone involved—this programcould be one step towards improving students’experiences and to creating more long-lastingdiversity. Additionally, there was a suggestionthat training for districts who take studentsshould be required along with ongoing staffdevelopment. It would be important, however,that this not create a disincentive for districtsto participate in the program. Such a require-ment would also benefit resident students ofcolor, however.

Miscellaneous

CREC retains lobbyists to represent its manyinitiatives and is also asked to give testimonyto the legislature and the courts. Perhaps be-cause CREC operates so many programs,there is not the coordinated lobbying effort insupport of Project Choice as we saw withBoston’s METCO program (discussed earlier).There are efforts to coordinate both alumniand parents networks, though these tasks areadded to the already demanding workload ofthe CREC staff. The parents’ network is notvery active and only consists of Hartford par-ents. An urban-suburban parent group shouldbe built to help bring parents together with ashared focus, and to more effectively organizeas a group in support of adequate funding.

An advisory committee for Project Choicecould help to become the champion for theprogram that is currently lacking – and couldsupport the State Commissioner of Educationif he or she steps forward as that champion. Anadvisory committee would include representa-tives from CREC, suburban and urban par-ents, suburban districts, alumni, urban and


suburban students,39 and state officials.40 Thiscommittee should be given a vital role in ad-vising the Commissioner of Education and thecourts.

C. Role of Suburban Districts

Though the suburbs are often referred to as asingle entity (in contrast to the central city),there are vast differences among suburbs interms of population characteristics.41 As seenin Table 1, there are vast differences in thepopulation characteristics of neighboringtowns—their racial/ethnic composition, edu-cational attainment, and socioeconomic status.Towns vary in their diversity (or lack thereof)and financial capacity, among other differencesin towns’ history and context. Municipalitiesalso differ in their history with Project Choiceand the number of Project Choice studentsthey have traditionally had in their district (seeAppendix B for selected districts’ enrollmentover time). Although the discussion below willhighlight themes among suburban partici-pants, it should be noted that there are manydifferences because of the differences in theirschool systems.42

From interviews and review of documents,there seems to be significant support for Proj-ect Choice among participating suburban dis-tricts.43 There were different reasonsenumerated as to why districts participated inthe program: districts saw the program as bothbeneficial for suburban students as well as achance to help Hartford students take advan-tage of suburban educational opportunities.44

As discussed in Part III, one of the benefits re-peatedly mentioned by suburban districts ofparticipating is that Hartford students helpedto diversify the enrollment of the suburbandistricts, many of which are overwhelmingly

white. Parents and educators talked of howmuch the suburban students gain from havinga more diverse exposure in their classrooms,which would be far less available without theprogram. One educator, in fact, commentedthat participating in the program provideslearning opportunities for both students andadults in the schools. Another mentioned thatit positively requires schools to be more at-tuned to diversity than they otherwise mightbe. As seen in Table 10, the percentage of mi-nority students increases the minority percent-age in every district, of course, but in severaldistricts there is an increase of several percent-age points. For example, despite enrolling only39 Project Choice students district-wide, Can-ton’s minority student enrollment jumps from4.25% of the entire district enrollment to6.52% with the addition of these students.Even small increases help to reduce the likeli-hood of tokenism, which can have harmful so-cial and psychological effects for students.45

Suburban districts emphasized that they preferto take students as young as possible, both foracademic and social reasons. Early enrollmentgives students a chance to experience the samecurriculum as resident students to lessen theadjustment if they switch in after a few years inHartford, for example, and gives them achance to form friendships at a very early age.As noted, virtually every kindergarten and firstgrade student who applied for Project Choicewere able to be placed in suburban districts—demonstrating the suburban districts’ desirefor young students. Well over half of the seatsopened in 2006-07 for Project Choice studentswere for kindergarten and first grade students,while only 37 of the 182 seats offered weresixth grade or higher. One district contem-plated full-day preschool for one cohort of stu-dents, including Project Choice students, toensure that early gaps are closed.



Table 10: Project Choice students’ contribution to suburban diversity, 2006-07

Number of Minority percentMinority Choice All district Without Project With Project

Receiving District Students students46 Choice students Choice students

Avon 41 3,379 11.1 12.3

Berlin 14 3,343 5.6 6.0

Bolton 22 931 3.9 6.2

Bristol 36 9,040 21.5 21.9

Canton 39 1,719 4.3 6.5

Cromwell 41 1,967 12.9 15.0

East Granby 20 905 8.7 10.9

East Windsor 43 1,563 22.6 25.3

Ellington 10 2,494 6.4 6.8

Enfield 78 6,617 13.6 14.8

Farmington 95 4,277 13.8 16.0

Glastonbury 42 6,723 12.9 13.5

Granby 53 2,261 3.7 6.1

Newington 52 4,604 19.3 20.4

Plainville 58 2,540 12.3 14.6

Region 10 8 2,795 4.7 5.0

Rocky Hill 33 2,556 16.7 18.0

Simsbury 96 5,057 7.7 9.6

Somers 18 1,743 2.9 4.0

South Windsor 55 5,084 15.4 16.5

Southington 19 6,842 8.6 8.9

Suffield 23 2,562 4.3 5.2

Vernon 42 3,936 23.3 24.4

West Hartford 76 9,986 32.1 32.8

Wethersfield 13 3,736 17.9 18.2

Windsor 13 4,223 63.2 63.5

Windsor Locks 30 1,954 15.4 16.9

Source: Connecticut State Department of Education

54

Continuing Frustration with Structural Issues

The root of most concerns of suburbanitesabout the program interviewed was related tofunding for Project Choice. Despite the dis-tricts’ support—or perhaps because of—therewas frustration that the state did not do moreto support the program. Asked one person, “Ifwe can agree that Project Choice is providinga better chance of success [than the Hartfordschool system], doesn’t that also make it atleast as worthy an investment as the [state’s]support for the established system in Hart-ford?” Other suburban interviewees wonderedwhy the Legislature was reluctant to fundProject Choice when the schools to takeChoice students were already built, teachershired, textbooks bought and had an estab-lished record of successfully educating stu-dents. There seemed to be a belief that thesuburban districts were doing their part, butweren’t getting financial or political supportfrom the state.47

There was also a widespread sentiment thatthe state was not requiring all suburbs to par-ticipate at similar levels. Skeptics have worriedthat increasing funding for the program mightget districts who are currently not involved toparticipate for the “wrong reasons”. Certainly,if districts looked at Project Choice as amoney-maker only, that would be a source ofconcern. However, to counter that concern, ifincreased funding were implemented, therecould also be requirements that districts wouldhave to comply with in terms of how the fund-ing is used, professional development offer-ings, etc. It is not possible to parse out themotivations of participating actors, nor does itnecessarily matter, as long as districts are ac-countable for providing a welcoming, inte-grated, high-quality education for all students

regardless of whether they live within districtboundaries or in Hartford.

Another concern for suburban districts, partic-ularly in accepting older students, is the per-ceived or anticipated effect that older studentsmight have on a school’s status in achievingannual yearly progress (AYP) as required byNo Child Left Behind (NCLB). For example,some area schools have so few minority stu-dents that accepting a substantial number ofProject Choice students might trigger an addi-tional “subgroup” that they would be held ac-countable for under NCLB. Second, whenolder students transfer into suburban schools,there is often a gap between the rigor of theirprior education and that of their peers. Fur-ther, research has shown in city-suburbantransfer programs, achievement results actuallydecline in the first year (possibly due to thesignificant adjustment being made by a stu-dent) before rising in subsequent years. A wayto remove this disincentive would be to pro-vide a waiver for an initial period in exchangefor a school accepting a certain number of stu-dents. In fact, there is already a safe harborprovision written into the federal law, 20U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(I), which creates a mini-mum subgroup expectation that should pre-vent a suburban school from being penalizedfor accepting a larger number of ProjectChoice students. Ultimately, there is a vast re-search base of educational strategies to im-prove student learning, and districts providingenriched academic offerings—after school,during the summer, etc—to help entering stu-dents if they are behind their resident peers.48

It is crucial that districts – or district politi-cians – be dissuaded from arguing that low in-come students should be excluded from thedistrict because they might have lower scores;as the Sheff case points out, the responsibilityfor educating low income children is a state re-


55

sponsibility that is shared equally by Hartfordand surrounding suburban districts. Many ofthe Hartford area’s school districts arerenowned for the education they provide and itis unlikely they would not be able to meet theeducational needs of the students who enter.49

Partially due to the low per-pupil funding perstudent, most districts report that they deter-mine how many seats to offer for ProjectChoice students by looking at their projectedenrollments by grade (by determining howmany students will be promoted at the end ofthe year) and, if there are available seats in anyexisting classrooms, offer them for Hartfordstudents.50 In other words, they will take stu-dents if it is convenient for them (though ofcourse this commits them to educating thatstudent through twelfth grade).51 With enroll-ment projections for Hartford-area districtsare leveling off, if not declining, we should ex-pect an increase in the number of seats avail-able for Project Choice students particularlygiven the fact that there appears to be excesscapacity in many suburban Hartford schools.However, while there may be small increasesin the number of students accepted by somedistricts, it is unlikely to greatly increase thenumber of students. The recently adoptedstate funding formula provides larger bonusesfor 10 or more students in a school, and EarlyBeginnings is also funded at a higher level forkindergarten students. Perhaps there shouldalso be a stronger requirement to accommo-date Project Choice students in order to qual-ify for state funding for new construction, as away of encouraging districts to actively makemore room available. 52

Faculty

Many of the suburban districts have few facultyof color, which amplifies the “whiteness” of

many suburban schools. District administratorsspoke of the struggles of trying to hire teachersof color into schools and communities wherethese prospective teachers would be in a verysmall minority.53 Attracting and retainingteachers of color is also a problem nationally.54

This lack of faculty diversity may mean an im-portant support for Project Choice participantsin schools is not available. Project Concernalumni spoke of the importance of having ateacher or earlier, a paraprofessional, to serve asan advocate for them or to help them throughtheir adjustment. Likewise, in one district aveteran African-American teacher was oftencalled on by students, parents, and even admin-istrators to help work out problems that arosefor Project Choice students.

In addition to diversifying faculty, when a stu-dent body is more diverse, it is important toprovide professional development for teachers.Given the racial, economic, and geographic di-versity that is inherent with bringing in ProjectChoice students, schools need to be explicit inthinking about how this will affect theirschools. One educator interviewed talked aboutthe importance of having training as a contextfor educating and understanding the childrenin their classroom. A number of administratorsspoke of misunderstandings with their facultyin which faculty were well-intentioned but un-familiar with the culture or practices of minor-ity families. When good intentions go awry, itcan damage the relationship between familiesand the school and potentially affect otherProject Choice students as well. Incorporatingmulticultural training into Connecticut’steacher certification requirements would beginto address the need that every teacher needs tounderstand the background and particularneeds/expectations of students from a variety ofracial/ethnic backgrounds.


56

There are a number of existing opportunitiesfor professional development regarding stu-dent diversity. The State Education ResourceCenter (SERC) has offered to facilitate bookdiscussion groups for Project Choice districts.The groups meet four times over the courseof the school year to read and discuss BeverlyDaniel Tatum’s book, Why are all the BlackKids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?, and tocreate an action plan for their school. SelectedProject Choice districts were offered the op-portunity to participate and in 2005-06, teamsfrom three districts participated; 2 districtscontinued their discussion within their districtthis past year. SERC offered technical assis-tance in implementing action plans to partici-pating districts but no one took them up onthis offer. This year, two districts participated;some groups were offered the opportunity butdidn’t participate. Funding for this profes-sional development does not come fromCREC or the Sheff budget, though they getrecommendations from CREC as to what dis-tricts to invite. They have received positiveevaluations of this opportunity and how it willhelp participants better understand ProjectChoice students. In the coming year, theyplan to offer a networking session so that dis-tricts can share ideas about what has workedin their districts. The Connecticut Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has offered anti-bias and prejudice training to some suburbandistricts, both for students and teachers. Someschools have formed equity or diversity com-mittees either among faculty and administra-tors or sometimes including parents as well.One district offers schools a walkthrough tohelp them think about ways in which theymight not be welcoming to all families.

St. Louis and Boston offer models for subur-ban Hartford districts contemplating how toprepare their staffs for increasing diversity.

Each suburban Boston district, as mentioned,employs METCO directors, and the METCODirectors Association annually offers a confer-ence for professional development for teach-ers. METCO Directors, in some instances,can serve as a resource for faculty. In St. Louis,there were several initiatives to assist teachers.First, there was a teacher exchange. This notonly helped to expose students to more diverseteachers, but helped teachers to understandthe context from which transferring studentscame. When they returned to their originalschool, they brought this knowledge and couldserve as a resource for the staff. City teachersgoing into the suburb also helped the integra-tion of St. Louis students coming into pre-dominantly white environments. Second, thestaff of the agency administering the transferprogram developed curriculum that teacherscould use in their classroom and gave work-shops to help teachers understand the culturesand expectations of the families of St. Louisstudents. Ideally, the intervention specialistscould help build this capacity within districts—or districts could hire their own METCO-likedirector whose responsibilities could be moreproactively establish partnerships and strate-gies to support Project Choice students andfamilies adapt and succeed in their suburbanschools. These staff could help, for example,figure out how Project Choice students couldparticipate in extracurricular activities, estab-lish mentoring programs, and address otherneeds that are identified by participating indi-viduals. However, with the intervention spe-cialists employed by CREC already stretchedthin, and the lack of resources going to dis-tricts, it is likely that more funding would beneeded to implement any of these ideas.

In addition to possible solutions suggested bythe experiences of St. Louis and Boston,Chicago’s “Grow Your Own Teacher” offers an


57

interesting blueprint for creating a diverseteaching force. Perhaps building on the para-professional model used during the years ofProject Concern, paraprofessionals could betrained and “grow” into part of the teachingforce in the suburban district they work with.This model could meet several existingneeds—to provide a link and support in subur-ban schools for Hartford students and could di-versify teaching staffs in the suburban districts.Most of the leaders in suburban districts, liketheir faculties, are overwhelmingly white.While faculty diversity and training is impor-tant, the same is also needed among the lead-ers of the districts. Some administrators havebeen part of training offered by the Connecti-cut ADL or SERC. CREC also hosts an ad-ministrators’ conversation every quarter.Particularly since interviews suggested thatprincipals and superintendents were key peo-ple to expanding the program, engaging themin conversation and reflection about diversityin schools is critical. The overt stance of a dis-trict about the importance of diversity is im-portant for students.55 The demands ofteaching are time-consuming and supportiveleadership can help provide resources forteachers to help them learn—this could beprovided internally, by SERC, or if there werefunding for more intervention specialists. Of-fering teachers of Project Choice students pro-fessional development opportunities far inadvance with the opportunity to share their ex-periences with others might also be effective.

Innovative Ideas and Practices

One educator reflected on the importance tocontinually be trying new things, reflecting onone’s teaching practice in relation to includingProject Choice students. A key lesson shelearned was that it was important to “not reston your laurels” even if a school has had a

good relationship in the past with Choice fam-ilies. In fact, many districts have taken ProjectChoice children for decades, which could begthe question as to whether there is still a needfor specific support programs or training forfaculty, students, and parents. However, giventhe transient nature of these communities andof schools, in general, there is a need for con-tinuing education of teachers regarding theProgram and the needs of the students; theresidents of the benefits and participation inthe Program; and building relationships andcommunication with Hartford parents.

There was general agreement that relation-ships with Project Choice staff, particularly theprogram director and intervention specialists,were strong and beneficial. There was a desirefor more support—from intervention special-ists or reinstituting paraprofessionals who rodebuses and helped in schools, which would helpto alleviate any the burden that sometimes fellto the few district minority teachers.

There are a number of innovative practices in-dividual districts have implemented to enhancethe experience of both resident and ProjectChoice students. They include:

✱ Provide breakfast for students since theyhave to leave home so early (or snacks afterschool);

✱ Provide transportation and dinner so thatfamilies can attend evening events such asparent-teacher conferences;

✱ Structured, supervised time for ProjectChoice students pre- and post- school whilewaiting for the bus to enhance academicskills;


58

✱ Provide tutoring, including in-school tutor-ing, to catch students up and to try to getstudents to move into more advancedclasses—offering tutoring during school sothat it doesn’t conflict with transportation;

✱ Offer homework center after school to pro-vide more instructional time;

✱ Potluck dinner in Hartford with families,students, and district faculty and administrators;

✱ Move activities like chorus meeting duringlunch (as opposed to before or after school)so that Project Choice students can also participate;

✱ Glastonbury offers foreign language in ele-mentary school, which puts all students onthe same footing since they enter equallywithout any knowledge of the language; and

✱ Hiring a liaison to work with Project Choicestudents after school.

Many educators had great ideas about howthey would like to improve the program, ideasthat usually weren’t implemented due to thecost or the lack of staff time to implement theidea. The lack of consistent late buses is a con-tinuing barrier to implementing many activi-ties. Some administrators spoke of wanting topilot different ideas, such as providing pre-school opportunities that many resident stu-dents could also experience. Educators inanother district suggested devoting staff timeto helping Project Choice students find sum-mer job opportunities and college scholarshipprograms. The state department of educationcould annually provide the opportunity fordistricts to apply for grants to pilot such ideasor programs. A requirement of receiving state

grant money would be to document the im-pact of any pilot program and to reflect on theprogram or idea implemented with other Proj-ect Choice districts. This could allow for a wayto pilot and determine best practices for inte-grating Project Choice students into the sub-urban districts to improve the entire program,and, in fact, could be useful for other suburbandistricts around the country that are experi-encing growing student diversity.

Families

Suburban districts repeatedly stressed the needfor parental56 commitment to building rela-tionships with their suburban schools—thatparticipating in the program is not simply put-ting your child on a bus every morning.57 Fordistricts that have been participating in theprogram for a long time, there was some frus-tration with some families that may not be asdedicated as families of their resident children,although the distance from families’ homes tothe suburban schools could be a significant ob-stacle to active participation by these families.

In addition to commitment by parents or fami-lies, however, suburban districts can also playan important role in trying to make it easierfor families coming into a distant, and some-times unfamiliar, environment.58 One simpleway is to provide transportation to parents forevents. Several schools have hired a bus to pickup Hartford families for parent-teacher con-ferences, arranged for conferences to be heldaround the same time, and provided dinner.Another idea is to have a dedicated parent liai-son to establish regular communication withProject Choice families. Since these familiesdon’t live in the suburban communities, it maybe harder for them to know about what is hap-pening in the school and they may not alreadyknow each other from other activities. Finally,


59

Hartford families spoke of at least mild anxietyat going into the suburban schools, and mostof these parents were involved, active parents.Some school administrators also acknowl-edged that they had, as a result of commentsby Hartford parents, realized that in variousways their school was construed to be unwel-coming to Choice families. For these reasons,there have been sporadic instances of suburbanschools, districts, or individual teachers set upmeetings in Hartford; CREC could help to fa-cilitate these meetings or dinners on a moreregular basis. It would help to establish a con-nection with families on a more equal basisand help suburban educators understand thecontext of students in Hartford better.

Any parents who have children in multipleschools understand the difficulty of trying tobuild relationships with faculty in multipleschools, juggling events and teacher confer-ences that might conflict. For Project Choicefamilies, they may not only have this conflict(within a district) but (in spite of the ProjectChoice “sibling preference” factor), they mayhave children going to opposite sides of Hart-ford in two different suburban districts. OtherProject Choice families may have one child inHartford and another in the suburban district.In addition to the distance that Hartford par-ents have to travel and any perceived unwel-come in the suburban school, if parents arejuggling multiple districts, it complicates aneven more challenging situation. Districtsneed to try to accommodate these families andbe understanding of their difficulty in attend-ing events at suburban schools.

Suburban participation in identifying “hostfamilies” varies widely by district and evenwithin district. A CREC staff member esti-mated that half of the districts have host fami-lies. In some districts, host families are set up

in schools of older children, but it would makemore sense to pair families up with a suburbanfamily when they first enter the district tobegin their experience with the district with aresident family. There is wide agreement byparents, districts, and CREC staff that hostfamilies could be utilized more effectively, andthat districts might not even fully recognizethe importance of institutionalizing a way ofconnection between urban and suburban par-ents. Host families can function in a variety ofways, but some examples include: providingdinner or a place to stay for students if they arestaying late before an evening event, callingProject Choice parents to let them know ofschool events, and being available to help if astudent gets sick at school.

There are a number of reasons that host fami-lies could be important for participating dis-trict families. Suburban parents spokeeloquently of their experiences with studentsin the Choice program: the learning that hap-pened as a family as a host family, either for-mally or on a more ad hoc basis. These adultsreflected on the educational benefits for theirchildren but also for themselves as adults.Building a connection would help all parentsbut especially Project Choice families andwould provide opportunity for parents to getto know each other and bond over their com-monalities—their children—rather thanstereotype each other as the “other”. Hostfamilies also help to educate the communityabout the district’s participation in ProjectChoice, many of whom may be unaware of theprogram given the lack of publicity.

One program that has been used for parents inWest Hartford is called Love & Logic.59 Thedistrict spends time working with parents tohelp them understand how they can be in-volved in supporting their child’s education


60

and about building relationships with schoolstaff. According to administrators, they recog-nize that many parents may have had bad edu-cational experiences themselves so they wantto heighten awareness and knowledge of theimportant role that parenting plays and whatgood parenting techniques are.

Conclusion

One suggestion for districts is to make surethat diversity initiatives begin early in everyschool. At the high school level, students areoften drawn from many elementary or middleschools, some of which may not have partici-pated in Project Choice or did not have muchdiversity. Interviews with both urban and sub-urban students indicate that there exists a gooddeal of polarization within school (classes,cafeteria, and extracurricular activities). Onestudent suggested that it was students who hadattended a predominantly white school thatwere the most insensitive, even though the dis-trict and school believed it was very cognizantof diversity.60 Particularly given the stereo-types that exist about Hartford and the unwill-ingness of students or their parents to go toHartford, districts must begin educating stu-dents early.

Finally, as mentioned elsewhere, it has beensurprising to see the extent that there is littleknown about the outcomes of students in theProgram—or whether it has impacted residentstudents in schools where there are ProjectChoice students. One district was able to pro-duce college matriculation figures for theirgraduates (70% of Project Choice studentsplanned to attend college after graduation);more than a decade ago, Farmington pub-lished a similar report of Project Concern stu-dents. During interviews, when explicitlyasked, most district officials admitted to know-

ing little about the outcomes of studentsthough anecdotally, they reflected, that itseemed that Project Choice students may bedisproportionately retained in grade (thoughthis wasn’t a high number of students) andmight be tracked into the lowest rigor courses.If these patterns are true, it would suggest theneed for examining why this inequality existsand whether targeted academic or social sup-port could improve the outcomes of these stu-dents.61 Additionally, examining the impact onsuburban students—one example is to use theDiversity Assessment Questionnaire that hasbeen used in fifteen districts across thecountry62—to understand how students’ per-ceptions may change as a result of going toschools with Project Choice students. This in-formation could not only help to improve theprogram for all students involved, but couldhelp build support for the Project Choiceamong suburban residents and state officials.

D. Role of Courts and the Plaintiffs

The role of the plaintiffs (and the judicial sys-tem) is largely aspirational in regard to ProjectChoice, although the plaintiffs also can go tocourt to enforce the agreements if they feelthat progress towards the goals is not occur-ring as quickly as it should. In 2003, the origi-nal agreement was set, specifying a goal of30% of Hartford students in integratedschools by June 2007 and 1600 students usingProject Choice to attend integrated suburbanschools. In Summer 2007, a new proposedagreement was discussed at hearings before theGeneral Assembly’s Education Committee,specifying goals for the next five years as nego-tiated between the state and the plaintiffs. Theplaintiffs, of course, brought Sheff, which re-sulted in the original decision holding the stateliable for existing de facto school segregation


61

and the agreement by the state in 1997 to ex-pand Project Choice as part of their responseto the decision.

The state court system is an active and indis-pensable party in the ongoing enforcement ofthe Sheff decision. Though some spoke favor-ably of the four or five-year plans specifyingintegration goals, a number of those inter-viewed expressed regret that the courts didn’tuse the case, post-1996 decision, to force moreintegration. The plaintiffs returned to courtthree times between 1996 and 2006, but werenot able to convince Superior Court judges toenforce the 1996 decision or the 2003 Settle-ment. This failure on the part of the statecourts to “back up” the Connecticut SupremeCourt ruling with active enforcement hasmade it difficult to address the constitutionalviolations found over a decade ago by the stateSupreme Court. The new agreement is re-puted to have stronger enforcement provisionsthan the 2003 agreement, but ultimately it willbe up to the courts to take assertive action ifthe state is again in non-compliance.

Some thought that the only expansion of theprogram would come if the courts compelledthe state/districts to expand including throughrequiring each district to take a certain per-centage or “fair share” of the needed growth inregional enrollment of Hartford students(though others expressed the opinion thatnothing should be mandated).63 Courts are in-creasingly reluctant to be seen as “policy-mak-ing” and leave this up to the discretion of localofficials even when, as in this case, those offi-cials have been found to be in violation of theconstitution. Unfortunately, when an issue ispolitically unpopular, elected officials some-times lack the will to lead on particular is-sues.64 By putting the fate of the program inthe hands of the legislature and school

boards—political bodies that may be hesitantto make a bold move because of fear of losingsupport of those who elect them—the courtpotentially missed an opportunity to createreal change. In the next round of Sheff compli-ance, the state court system may need to ac-tively exercise its central role in theimplementation process to ensure that the de-fendants—the state of Connecticut—are mak-ing as much progress towards the settlementgoals as possible. Based on the remarkablyslow pace of implementation in Phase 1 of thesettlement, the court may want to consider ap-pointment of a special master to oversee com-pliance, if the new annual goals are not met.

E. Role of Hartford FamiliesProject Choice would not exist, of course,without the interest of Hartford parents, andthe Project Choice students themselves. Al-though there is no formal role for parents(CREC has a fledgling parent network), it isimportant to recognize their importance tothis program.

Parents

The parents with children in Project Choicespoke highly of the program. They reportedthat their children loved their schools and are“thriving”. Parents spoke of the well-resourcedschools their children attended as a benefit yetthey also were aware of the important benefitssuburban students gained from being exposedto more diversity through Project Choice.They chose to participate in the program hop-ing that it would give their children a bettereducation and exposure to diverse students de-spite bus rides for their children that last fromforty-five minutes to an hour and forty-fiveminutes. One parent said her elementaryschool aged children arrive home at 5 pm.65


62

The Hartford parents interviewed had heardabout Project Choice from a friend or relative,and each of them knew someone who had ap-plied to Project Choice because of their rec-ommendation, indicating the importance ofsocial networks in spreading informationabout Project Choice to potential applicants.One of the parents had also participated inProject Choice as a child.

Although parents thought that Project Choicewas pretty well-known, they suggested severalreasons that others might not want to partici-pate in the program. Because of the long busrides and the behavior on the buses, parentsmight not want to put small children on thebus.66 Parents suggested that adding monitorsto all buses would be helpful, and that retiredteachers might be effective candidates for suchpositions. They also suggested that some par-ents were understandably uneasy about theirchild feeling isolated in an overwhelminglywhite suburban district. Given the small num-bers of Project Choice students and minoritystudents in some districts, one way to alleviatethis concern would be to increase the numbersof students going into each school so that stu-dents don’t feel so isolated.

The Hartford parents spoke warmly of therole that CREC staff had played in their expe-rience with Project Choice while opinionswere more mixed about the suburban districts.They believed that the CREC staff was verydedicated to making the children’s experienceas good as possible and realized that CREC’stask is “enormous”. One of the themes thatemerged from conversations with Hartfordparents was the lack of feeling comfortable atthe suburban schools, partially due to whatthey perceived as stereotypes about Hartfordresidents. One parent described her experienceas a parent with the district as finding that ac-

ceptance was lacking. She suggested the needfor cultural diversity and sensitivity trainingfor suburban staff but also parents and stu-dents as well. Other parents commented onfeeling excluded by district parents. Severalalso commented on the need to provide clearerexpectations and training for Hartford parents.

These parents, like district officials, acknowl-edged that Hartford parental involvement insuburban schools was lacking. They suggestedthat this was partially due to feeling intimi-dated in the suburban communities and thatthey didn’t fit in. CREC could offer parentscounseling or workshops about how to ap-proach suburban schools (e.g., different com-munication styles) or about the neededparental engagement for educating their child.Their other suggestions included helping toprovide transportation to the district, hostinga welcoming event for Project Choice fami-lies, providing free after-school care foryounger students when there is a school func-tion in the evening, and having schools’ par-ent orientation that is late enough thatHartford parents can also attend. One com-monality that each parent mentioned fromtheir own experience was the importance ofhaving a “go-to” person in their child’s schoolto have a way of communicating with theschool despite what seemed to be an unwel-coming environment. One parent suggestedthat this pointed to the need to assign a dis-trict buddy parent to each incoming family.

Finally, it is also necessary to consider the con-text within which Hartford parents are makingeducational decisions. As discussed earlier, theHartford public schools have lower achieve-ment outcomes for students, on average, thansurrounding suburban districts and, in fact,were taken over by the state a decade ago.67 Itis now back under its own control, but the


63

number of schools identified under NCLB asneeding improvement was 27 (out of 41schools in the district). A qualitative study ofstudents in Project Concern (the predecessorto Project Choice) suggested that some ofthose choosing were making “forced choices”indicating that they chose to participate in theprogram at least in small part due to a per-ceived lack of quality and/or integrated educa-tional options in the city of Hartford.68 But aslong as so many Hartford schools are burdenedwith extreme levels of student poverty concen-tration, in the context of unconstitutional state-defined school district boundaries andstate-facilitated housing development patterns,parental choice will continue to be defined byunequal educational opportunities, and theProject Choice program will continue to be anecessary choice for many Hartford families.

Students

Interviews from alumni of Project Concernand with current students in Project Choiceexplain the importance of a number of themesdiscussed.69 They offer insight into how thethemes impact the actual experiences of stu-dents. The dilemma faced by Hartford stu-dents going into suburban schools—indicatingboth the benefits of the experience and the tri-als students often faced are articulated by twoalumni. One remembered, “My mother didn’tgive me a choice to come back to Harford[public schools] until about the 9th grade, andby the 9th grade I knew that I was getting abetter education in South Windsor.” Theother student based on her experience com-mented about the current status of ProjectChoice, “you really need adequate support inorder to make the program successful and toreally support the students… so unless they’regonna do that, I would say no, don’t enlarge

the program because you’re going to be doingthe students a disservice.”

The benefits that the alumni, as students insuburban schools, received were repeatedlymentioned in interviews. One common re-sponse was that the students “didn’t knowwhere they’d be” without having participatedin the program. Several mentioned that Proj-ect Concern was one of the factors they’d cho-sen to live in a suburban community. Othersmentioned the ability to get along with oth-ers—in their community, in college, in theirworkplace—who were different from them.Despite these important benefits from partici-pating in Project Concern, students enumer-ated a number of difficulties they encounteredas students. The lack of support from teachersand staff and their lower expectations for Hart-ford students were repeatedly mentioned. Onestudent felt that his guidance counselor neverexpected him to go to college and never offeredhim advice for preparing for and applying tocolleges. Although a few students noted thatthey had to catch up to what their suburbanpeers had learned even when they started in el-ementary school, there were more commentsabout the difficulty of the social adjustment.For example, one alumna from the early yearsof the program recalled crying the first day offirst grade as she looked around and realizedthat she was the only black student in theroom. Another student remarked on how Proj-ect Choice students had to work to disprovethe stereotypes that suburban students haveabout Hartford. At the same time, one studentalso remarked that his Hartford friends treatedhim differently—while also looking up tohim—because of his education in the suburbs.

Several students commented on the impor-tance of other Project Choice students in help-ing them adjust. One current student


64

wondered why they couldn’t fill the bus (sheestimated that there were 10 or so students onthe bus) that she rides to school with morepeople since she has friends who want to go toher school and thinks there is space for them.Two students also thought someone who hadbeen in the program would also be helpful totalk with or to serve as a mentor. This mightbe a great way to involve Project Concernalumni to help current Project Choice stu-dents and to keep them connected with theprogram. Other types of social support werealso mentioned as essential to the experienceof students. One student suggested a welcom-ing committee for new Project Choice stu-dents. Some schools may already have this fornew students in the district, and could makesure this also encompasses Project Choice stu-dents. Offering networking opportunities forProject Choice students and communicationwith the districts and other Project Choiceparticipants could be helpful. The bottom line,according to several students, was the need toappropriate enough resources to make theprogram work.

Transportation was a major theme noted bystudents and alumni. Several alumni men-tioned their regret in not being able to partici-pate in after-school activities or sports becauseof the need to have to catch the bus back toHartford. Students spoke of wanting to staylate for sports or arts events, but that suburban

parents didn’t want to drive Hartford studentsback to the city at night. They believed thatthe lack of a late bus took away critical oppor-tunities to make friends and to become a partof the school community. This, one suggested,would help students “bridge the gap”. Therewere also frequent transportation problems.According to one student, she missed the busbecause it left early (normally is at 5:45 am)and by the time she found an alternative wayto get to school she missed her first class andwas given detention. They also commented onthe difficulties of the long hours that the trans-portation and school made for.

Conclusion

Giving Hartford families a role in guiding theimplementation of Project Choice might helpto make the program more responsive to theconcerns that are leading to significant lossesof students annually. Though CREC has asmall parent network, the state could also ben-efit from their insight. Additionally, a short an-nual survey of participating Hartford familiescould help gather information from a largergroup of parents. Information from this surveycould guide the state in implementation andalso be shared with participating suburban dis-tricts for them to revise any relevant policiesor programs.


65

Endnotes1 Section V is based on extensive interviews with

Hartford-area residents and officials from Marchto June 2007 along with a review of relevant doc-uments and data. To preserve confidentiality, gen-eral themes that arose during interviews arediscussed rather than specific examples. Please seeAppendix A for a list of interview participants.

2 Although the proposed new settlement goals andeducation budget promise additional resources,the Governor’s budget is still far from adequate tosignificantly expand the Choice program (see dis-cussion below). There are also valid argumentsthat the entire funding system for public schoolsand financial support from the state to communi-ties needs to be overhauled. These issues arebeing addressed in a separate lawsuit and are be-yond the scope of this report except to say thatany such reform needs to make sure to explicitlyconsider the Sheff remedies including ProjectChoice to ensure that financial disincentives donot get replicated in future funding schemes.

3 With the appointment of the new commissionerof education, the department is being reorgan-ized. This research was conducted before the reor-ganization. The deputy commissioner, GeorgeColeman, will now have oversight of Sheff re-sponse and the equity office will report to him.

4 In Massachusetts, the state board of education’srecent recommendations to increase METCO’sfunding has consistently been upheld by the Leg-islature. Data demonstrating the success ofMETCO helped to convince the board that theprogram needed support.

5 Interestingly, fellow Republican Governor MittRomney made support of METCO a key plank inhis K-12 educational goals even before taking office.

6 Connecticut General Statutes Section 10-4a(3);One earlier analysis of Connecticut’s response tothe Sheff decision noted that the state empha-sized the benefits of diversity for suburban and/orwhite students not the importance of providingequitable educational opportunities for Hartfordstudents who attended minority isolated, disad-vantaged schools. See McDermott, K.A. (July2001). Diversity or Desegregation? Implications ofArguments for Diversity in K-12 and Higher Edu-cation. Educational Policy 153): 452-473. Ofcourse, in many suburban districts in the Sheff re-gion, there remains a small amount of racial diver-sity among the student enrollment.

7 See for example Circular Letter C-20, Series 1998-99(March 19, 1999 from Ted Sergi); Circular Letter C-

15, Series 1999-2000 (March 31, 2000 from TedSergi) and Circular Letter C-25, Series 2003-04 (June4, 2004 from Betty Sternberg.

8 Frahm, R. A. (June 7, 2007). State Revising Its Response to Sheff. Hartford Courant.

9 Charter schools also are mentioned as options,which will make it important to enforce the racialdesegregation of charter schools, which can them-selves exacerbate school segregation. Althoughreducing racial isolation became one of the crite-ria for granting charters in 1997, research sug-gests that states do not always enforce racialbalance requirements in charter school legislation.See Frankenberg, E. and Lee, C. (2003, September5). Charter schools and race: A lost opportunityfor integrated education. Education Policy Analy-sis Archives, 11(32).

10 There are four other schools cited across the stateas being out of racial balance outside of the Hartford area.

11 Cowan, A. L. (April 5, 2007). Wealthy ConnecticutDistrict Starts to Grapple with Racial Imbalance.New York Times.

12 “The Unexamined Remedy.” (June 5, 1998). Hartford, CT: The Connecticut Center for SchoolChange.

13 Frahm, R. A. (April 5, 2007). State Officials Moni-tor Racial Makeup As Minority Enrollment TestsGuidelines. Hartford Courant, B1.

14 Due to the 1997 statutory changes that requiredall districts to make an effort to reduce racial iso-lation, the state—as well as any individual—couldpenalize a district that does not make appropriateeffort towards reducing isolation. According to a2002 article, this had not been done. (See McDermott, K.S., Bruno, G., and Varghese, A.(April 2002). Have Connecticut’s DesegregationPolicies Produced Desegregation? Equity & Excellence in Education 35(1): 18-27.) Thus, Connecticut law indicates that it is unlikely thatthere would be much support or even a require-ment to more evenly distribute students acrossdistricts to create more integrated schools. In-stead, more favored measures will be magnetschools or city-suburban choice programs that donot force white, suburban districts or parents tochange much unless they volunteer to do so.

15 Some state officials referred to this as a “bribe”for taking students from Hartford. Such state-ments indicate the lack of understanding aboutthe financial disincentives and political realitiesthat local superintendents and school boardsfaced when determining their level of participa-tion, given the many other educational expenses.


66

16 An exception to this is Marcus Rivera, who asmentioned, seems to work tirelessly with CREC totry to open more seats and fill seats when a stu-dent may leave the program, and is responsive toparticipating suburban districts.

17 As seen in Table 1 earlier, just 60% of Hartfordresidents over 25 have a high school diploma andonly 13% have a college degree. Thus, it is likelythan many families of students may have had dif-ficult educational experiences.

18 Assuring the information about the program isavailable to all is one way to alleviate concerns(which it is unclear as to whether this is actuallyoccurring or not) that Project Choice is creamingthe most well-connected students.

19 The proposed budget increases the grant from$2100 per student to $3250 per student, thoughthis is still below the current costs with the supple-mental transportation subsidy.

20 To give but one example as to why this is neces-sary, I was often asked during interviews as Iasked questions about different aspects of theprogram about the role of a staff member, for ex-ample, or policy related to the program. AlthoughI have spent several months studying this pro-gram, it seemed as though these questions shouldhave been directed elsewhere. I got the distinctimpression that there was little communicationamong various groups.

21 “The Recommendations of the Project ConcernTask Force.” Final Report to the General Assem-bly’s Joint Committee on Education, January 1996.

22 In 1987, the report by then-state commissionerGerald Tirozzi called “A Report on Racial/EthnicEquity and Desegregation in Connecticut’s PublicSchools” called for shared responsibility for deseg-regating Connecticut’s public schools, which thereport termed had grown up in the “two Con-necticuts” that existed: one white and wealthy,the other poor and minority.

23 “Making Connections: CREC Annual Report, 2005-06.” Accessed at http://www.crec.org/crec/about/documents/CREC_AR.pdf on May 10, 2007.

24 See Green, R. (June 23, 1997). In the Wake ofSheff, Project Concern Shrinks. Hartford CourantA3.

25 Green, R. (July 1, 1998). Quiet End for an Acclaimed Program. Hartford Courant A4.

26 There is also a separate application process formagnet schools as well (CREC administers some ofthe magnet schools in the Hartford region). Itmight be easier for families and increase access tocentralize the multiple applications into one.

27 Some districts spoke of trying to carefully placestudents into classrooms where they knew thatteachers were well-equipped to teach ProjectChoice students.

28 As of 2006-07, 208 Project Choice students wereLatino and 858 were African-American. Therewere also seven white students (who don’t counttowards the Sheff goal), two Asian students, and2 American Indian students.

29 Analysis of Minneapolis’ inter-district and intra-district choice programs shows that Hispanic families are more likely to use choice within Minneapolis and less likely to use choice programto send their children to suburban Minneapolisschools (Supra note 19, Part IV). There is also anunder-representation of Hispanic students who enroll inMETCO, in the Boston area.

30 Dougherty, J. & Estevez, N. (October 11, 2005).Public and Private school choice in greater Hartford: A Brief Overview and Computer Mapping Analysis. Presented at “Who ChoosesSchools and Why?” conference. Accessed at http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/educ/css on April 23,2007.

31 The parents of Project Choice students each hadheard about the program from someone else and knew someone who had applied at their recommendation.

32 Family relationship with suburban schools will bediscussed in the following section, Part V.D.

33 Some of the reasons that providing transportationfor Project Choice students is critical is a lack oftransportation options for Hartford parents or in-flexible work schedules that do not allow forthem to pick up their children in distant suburbanlocations.

34 In addition to the need for regular late buses, it isimportant to have a transportation fund to helpprovide transportation to Hartford students andtheir families for special evening events such asparent-teacher conferences, sporting events, orconcerts, for example. If such transportation wereto be provided, it would also be helpful to pro-vide an opportunity for students and their parentsto eat dinner at the school. Host families or theschool’s parent-teacher organization could possi-bly help organize transportation and food if therewere funding available.

35 It is worth noting that seeing as these two staffpositions are brand new that may have con-tributed to the frequency they were mentionedduring interviews. The program director’s effec-tiveness was praised when mentioned, but since


67

she has been involved for many years, she did notalways come up during interviews. It would behelpful to have a formal evaluation to understandhow and in what ways these intervention special-ists have improved the experience of participatingstudents, families, and/or schools—this evaluationcould provide critical evidence about the need formore such positions.

36 Ideally, this research would also be able to com-pare participating Hartford students with a con-trol group of Hartford students who weren’taccepted into the program. Future research will also evaluate students in years followingkindergarten.

37 Suburban interviewees would suggest that theirdistrict would be the best place to provide orien-tation and enrichment (e.g., have students enrollin their summer school so that they can use thesame curriculum as district students do). An orien-tation program such as this could probably splitthe time that students spend with CREC staff andin their suburban district.

38 The Grow Your own teachers program is a greatexample of what has been done in this regard.For more information, see http://www.growyourownteachers.org/.

39 The lone high school student interviewed for thisreport was extremely thoughtful with a very clearunderstanding of diversity and difference—andarticulated these issues with more clarity thanmany adults could. Likewise, the Project Choicestudents whose interviews were videotaped lastDecember had important insights into neededchanges for the program. An advisory committeeshould include student representatives.

40 Representatives from Sheff plaintiffs should alsobe included on the committee.

41 Orfield, M. (2002). American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality. Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution Press.

42 It should also be noted that this research did notinclude interviews with personnel in districts thatcurrently do not participate in the Project Choiceprogram.

43 Of course, support does not always translate toaction. For example, public opinion polls nation-ally show overwhelming support for desegre-gated schools but there is far less support for thesteps it would take to create integrated schools.And, while districts are supportive, they generallyfelt like they were doing their fair share in termsof the numbers of students they accepted despitethe overall low percentage of students accepted.

It’s hard to know whether this would differ ifthere were greater incentives for participation.

44 Farmington’s Board of Education adopted a reso-lution (P1-8.4) in early 1990s articulating their rea-sons for participating in Project Choice andguaranteeing equal status for Project Concern stu-dents as resident students. Project Choice is consid-ered one of the programs that helps Farmingtonmeet one of their basic goals of education.

45 This analysis likely understates the impact of di-versity since it looks across the district instead ofindividually at the specific schools that ProjectChoice students attend; in most districts studentsare concentrated in a selected number of schools,in part, because of the financial incentive given toschools with 10 or more Project Choice students.

46 District enrollment is from 2005-06 because 2006-07 enrollment figures are not yet available butProject Choice student numbers are from 2006-07.

47 A recent article observed, “Because of the localbasis on which public education is organized, thepolitical reality for superintendents is that theirjob depends on the good will of the Board of Education and voters in their own communities,rather than on their contribution toward the edu-cation of children from other communities” (McDermott et al., 2002, P. 23).

48 The proposed new funding provides for middleschool and high school aged academic supportservices.

49 The fact that these concerns exist points to theneed for appropriately researching the academicsuccess of students in Project Choice; althoughthe concern about test scores (or SAT scores) wasmentioned, it is unclear whether this is actuallyhappening.

50 Of course, districts are far more likely to offerseats for younger students where they determinethat room is available. An exception to this deter-mination of participation is Early Beginnings,where the increased benefits for the suburbs for participation seem to encourage higher participation.

51 In several instances particularly in fiscally conser-vative districts, this was referred to as recognizingthe political reality in districts and not wanting tostir up any opposition to Project Choice. Anotherfactor mentioned in terms of resistance is thatthough these districts have growing diversity, theolder population in many of the municipalities isoverwhelmingly white. This suggests the need foreducating the public or marketing the program tothe benefits to the community of participating inProject Choice.


52 Currently there’s a 10% bonus on reimbursementfor school construction costs for districts that in-clude room for Project Choice students in thoseschools. What might be more effective is requir-ing any district that is building new schools toguarantee room for Project Choice students inorder to qualify for any state reimbursement. Additionally, the state could provide supplemen-tal funding for more teachers and/or textbooks onan as needed basis to create more classes inschools where there are vacant classrooms andthus allow suburban schools to welcome moreProject Choice students.

53 West Hartford, one of the most diverse suburbandistricts in terms of student enrollment that par-ticipate, has less than 5% of teachers that are mi-nority at six of its ten schools. In Glastonbury, only16 district teachers (out of 496) are nonwhite: 5African-American; 8 Hispanic; 2 Asian; and 1American Indian. Further, the entire district lead-ership team is also white. Information on the di-versity of districts’ professional staff can be foundon their strategic school profiles on the state de-partment’s website.

54 HB 7344 is currently under consideration by theConnecticut General Assembly to recruit and re-tain teachers of color. (Bruce Douglas testimony)

55 This is one of the conditions identified by GordonAllport required for equal status contact.

56 “Parents” and “families” are used interchange-ably throughout. This is primarily due to the factthat interviewees usually discussed the need tobuild better relationships with parents thoughcertainly other family members or trusted adultscould fill this role.

57 In the past, students with a lack of parental support or response were dropped from ProjectConcern (as it was known then). With the restruc-turing of the program and institutionalized as aformal program under Connecticut’s Open Choiceprogram, districts cannot turn away students forany reason other than why they would expel aresident student.

58 The Connecticut State Board of Education’s posi-tion on family partnerships with schools recog-nizes families and schools as equal partners in achild’s learning and expects that schools shouldtake the lead in developing and maintainingsuch partnerships.

59 Several administrators are trainers for the program.For more information, see http://www.loveandlogic.com/.

60 This student commented, “we like to pretend thatwe’re more diverse than we are.”

61 Such research would not have to be made publicif it were for diagnostic purposes. There is concernamong officials that they not highlight ProjectChoice students separately because it might bestigmatizing to these students, which is a validconcern given the relatively small numbers of stu-dents in any given district. However, this informa-tion could be collected for district planningpurposes and could be combined among all par-ticipating suburban districts to examine the ef-fects of Project Choice at the aggregate level. Afew district administrators suggested that theywould be interested in participating in such re-search perhaps through a partnership with localcolleges or universities.

62 Kurlaender, M. & Yun, J. T. (2001). Is diversity acompelling educational interest? Evidence fromLouisville. In G. Orfield (Ed.) Diversity challenged:Evidence on the impact of affirmative action. (pp.111-141). Cambridge, MA: Harvard EducationPublishing Group.

63 If there was more publicity about the programand more demand from Hartford families, per-haps it would be easier for plaintiffs to make anargument that each suburb should be required totake a certain percentage of students or to shiftmore of the burden to the suburbs to requirethem to demonstrate why they can’t take morestudents.

64 The classic example of this, of course, is the desegregation of schools in the South followingthe Brown decision. A decade after Brown only2% of black students in the South attended majority white schools, indicating the very slowprogress in implementing an unpopular decisionat the time.

65 Transportation can make it particularly difficultfor single parents to have their children partici-pate since their work schedules, Project Choicebus schedules, and other after-school options maynot be aligned

66 This, of course, is compounded by the fact thatmost suburban districts want only younger childrenand open up many fewer seats for older students.

67 Special Act 97-4 of the Connecticut General Assembly

68 Supra note 29, Part III.

69 These interviews were conducted in December2006 with Project Concern alumni and currentProject Choice students. They were videotaped aspart of an oral history project.


How does Project Choice improveand expand to offer the opportunityto more Hartford children to experi-

ence integrated, high-quality education?There are a number of recommendations thathave been made throughout this report. Thereare a few worth reiterating here:

1. Leadership

The lack of committed leadership forProject Choice, primarily from the state,has resulted in only modest growth in thenumber of participating students since the2003 settlement. In October 2004, therewere 988 minority students going to sub-urban schools through Project Choice. ByJune 2007, there were 1,070 or less than100 more. There are individuals dedicatedto trying to improve and expand this pro-gram, but the lack of commitment to pro-viding leadership, accountability for thesuccess of the program, and appropriate fi-nancial resources limits the effectiveness ofthese individuals. The governor, statecommissioner of education, state board ofeducation, or state legislature could eachconceivably advocate effectively for Proj-ect Choice. Having one entity in charge ofthe program, committed to its success,would be preferable to the many differententities that now are partially responsiblefor the program. If political leadership is

lacking, then the plaintiffs or the courtsneed to make sure that the state as Sheffdefendants are held accountable for thelack of progress in expanding and improv-ing the program. One way to do thiswould be to specify certain design require-ments in administering Project Choice. Inthe first settlement agreement (and secondcurrently proposed), the state has insistedon few details as to how Project Choicewill be administered, preferring instead toset goals. In St. Louis, a court-appointedmonitor ensured that educators were inte-grally involved in designing and imple-menting the program and were able tocommunicate with the judicial system.Perhaps such a model is necessary here ifthe state, and its agent school boards, willnot provide the leadership that is neededfor Project Choice’s success and expansion.

2. Transportation

As discussed, the current transportationoptions for Project Choice both are amajor barrier to allowing Project Choicestudents to fully take advantage of the op-portunities in their suburban schools andmay hinder the lack of involvement byHartford families because of the onerousbus rides. Transportation was also a majorconcern mentioned by suburban districts.Though the Legislature appropriated sup-


Section VI:Recommendations and Conclusion

plemental funding and CREC has trieddifferent approaches to transporting stu-dents, the bus rides are still unacceptablylong and place an undue burden on stu-dents. Providing shorter, reliable trans-portation routes should be a priority forProject Choice. If needed, like St. Louisand Minneapolis, Hartford could be di-vided into geographical zones attached tocontiguous suburban districts. Additionalfunding should be allocated to improve thetransportation efficiency and, if needed,the supervision on buses. Providing latebus options for all students should also beconsidered a priority.

3. Funding

There are two distinct funding issues thatneed to be addressed, which hinder thesuccess of the program and its expansion:

1. Increased funding to provide proper sup-port for Hartford students making the aca-demic and social adjustment to suburbanschools.

2. The need to fairly compensate suburbandistricts for their participation in ProjectChoice.

Ensuring enough funding to be able tofully support the students in ProjectChoice is critical in terms of improving theexperience of participating students. Therealso may be side effects of improvementsby decreasing the attrition rate of students(and therefore needing to open up moreseats consistently to offset attrition) and byimproving the experience of participatingsuburban districts, who may then decide toopen up more seats for Project Choice stu-dents. Needed support includes providing

early childhood educational opportunities,in suburban districts if possible; profes-sional development for teachers and ad-ministrators; recruiting and retainingfaculty and administrators of color; provid-ing liaisons for Hartford students and fam-ilies in suburban schools; and offeringenhanced academic options after school, inevenings, and in summer where trans-portation is available.

There is also reluctance to substantiallyexpand the program in suburban districtsbecause of the low reimbursement re-ceived from the state for each Hartfordstudent. Although it is likely that the cur-rent educational funding system will be re-structured, a number of suburban districtsare facing budget cuts despite the propertywealth of some of these districts. In com-munities that have a reputation for beingfiscally conservative, Project Choice couldbe targeted because of the low reimburse-ment per student in districts where averageper pupil costs are $10,000 or more. Fur-ther, Hartford retains approximately$3,560 for each student who, throughProject Choice, attends a suburban school.Although suburban districts do not wantto begrudge Hartford state funding, Hart-ford gets nearly twice what the suburbandistricts get for students who do not evenattend their schools. In fact, this fundingformula actually amounts to a net savingsfor the state: the Hartford and suburbancontributions per Project Choice studentare approximately $5,560 as compared toan average contribution of $7,200 perchild attending Hartford. These savingsare more than offset by the transportationcosts, but this points to the inequity in thecurrent reimbursement system. Many ofthe suburban districts are relatively


wealthy, but by revising this formula, itwould remove a financial disincentive tofuller suburban participation.

4. Expectation of SuburbanParticipationIf the recommendations for an increasedstate role and increased funding were im-plemented, it would also be important toincrease the expectations for surroundingsuburban districts. Although ProjectChoice is a voluntary program for studentsand families who participate, a result of the1997 statutory change is to require thateach suburban district be making progresstowards reducing racial, ethnic, and eco-nomic isolation of students. Each strategicschool profile, for example, has informa-tion on schools’ diversity efforts. Thus far,although circular letters from the state ed-ucation commissioner periodically suggestthe number of students each district wouldneed to take to meet that year’s Sheff goal,there have been no numerical goals or ex-pectations set for each suburban district’sparticipation in Project Choice. This al-lows each district to think that they aredoing enough, despite the fact that, as seenearlier, there is excess capacity in sur-rounding districts and Project Choice ismore than 500 seats short of the 1600 seatgoal for June 2007—which is more seatsthan have been added since the 2003 in-terim settlement. The state should, usingcapacity information and district size, setannual targets for each suburban district.Ideally, this information would be publi-cized so that districts can be held account-able for their participation. These targetsshould be increased in correspondence tothe Sheff settlement goals.

According to the proposed settlement, infive years, 41% of Hartford studentsshould be in reduced isolation, or inte-grated, schools. If the expectation is thathalf of these students are in ProjectChoice, the program would need to besending over 4,000 students to suburbanschools, or four times the current numberof participating students. As seen, there isample room available and this size is moreon par with other areas’ city-suburban de-segregation programs (e.g., Boston and St.Louis). Additionally, in order to gain stateapproval for any new school constructionproject, there should be a requirement thatthe proposed school will allocate a certainnumber or percentage of seats for ProjectChoice students. In other words, it is notsimply enough to plan for district residentstudents and add Project Choice studentsin where feasible—instead, there should bean affirmative obligation that each districtcontributes to educating all students in theregion in integrated, high-quality schools,given the proper support from the state.

5. ResearchThe lack of recent research about ProjectChoice is a barrier to understanding howto better structure the program and mayalso impede the ability to build suburbanand political support for the expansion ofthe program. Ironically, in earlier decades,some of the most robust research aboutthe benefits of desegregation came fromstudying Project Concern because of itsunique design.

For the last two years there have been an-nual studies documenting the progress to-wards the Sheff settlement goals byProfessor Jack Dougherty and colleagues.



This is an important step towards under-standing the demographics of the programand could be expanded to examine theoverall racial/ethnic isolation of students inthe Hartford-area that resulted in the orig-inal Sheff decision. Although there mightbe a lack of political will for school deseg-regation, the racial isolation of studentswas the crux of the constitutional viola-tion, and how Project Choice (along withmagnet schools) impacts the isolation ofstudents should remain a central focus offuture research.

Given the increasing focus on closing theracial achievement gap, and the search tofind ways to improve the achievement ofblack and Latino students, needed researchon Project Choice should also examinewhether attending integrated, low-povertysuburban schools might be one solution.Thus, it is important to document both ac-ademic and social outcomes for Hartfordstudents who participate as compared to asimilar sample of Hartford students whoremain in the Hartford school system (agood match would be students who applyand don’t get accepted to Project Choice).Although much focus is on the academicachievement of students, other benefits ofdesegregated schools are arguably moreimportant to the success of students suchas increased graduation rates, college-going percentage, and exposure to middle-class, racially diverse peer groups.

It is also important to study whether Proj-ect Choice benefits students in suburbanschools. Educators and parents in the sub-urbs articulated a number of benefits forparticipating in Project Choice. To buildsupport for expanding the program in al-ready-participating districts and for partic-

ipation in districts that do not currentlyparticipate, it would be important to exam-ine outcomes for resident students as well.Research suggests that some benefits forall students in integrated schools includereducing prejudice and stereotypical think-ing; developing critical thinking skills; andgiving students the opportunity to learn towork together across racial lines, whichcan be helpful in future workplace envi-ronments, neighborhoods, or with collegeroommates where they may be exposed toracial diversity. One useful instrumentcould be the Diversity Assessment Ques-tionnaire that has been used in districtsacross the country to examine how stu-dents may be affected by attending inte-grated schools.

6. Marketing/Public Educating/OrganizingThere needs to be a coordinated effort tohelp educate the region about ProjectChoice, its benefits, and what is needed toimprove the program. Although this couldbe done by CREC, it would best done byan outside group working in coordinationwith CREC. Ideally, this outreach effortwould include marketing to the suburbandistricts about the importance of participat-ing in the program; a twelve-month re-cruitment plan for Hartford residents toincrease the demand for the program; andorganizing and lobbying the legislature forimproved funding for Project Choice. So-ciological research has consistently shownthat educational choice systems tend to bedisproportionately accessed by those whoare more well-connected because of thelack of complete information about all op-tions. For these reasons and the possibilitythat more demand could result in more

72

Endnote1 See Appendix C for detailed list of possible im-

provements. Thanks to Christina Ramsey for heranalysis of these websites.


seats being opened, it is critical that there isa more concerted effort to continually ad-vertise to eligible families (who may behighly mobile in and out of Hartford)about Project Choice, eligibility require-ments, and how to apply. St. Louis andMinneapolis offer promising models ofhow to improve recruitment efforts, whilein Boston, METCO’s lobbying efforts havebeen very successful in gaining increasedfunding for the program. Current studentsand alumni would be excellent resources tomarket the program to the suburbs and toeligible Hartford families. Additionally,simply improving the state and CREC’swebsites about Project Choice, which pro-vide little updated information, could im-prove the ability to get accurateinformation about the program.1

Finally, while these recommendations, if im-plemented, would open up more seats and im-prove the experience of families and students,change will likely remain incremental withouta wholesale commitment from the state.

Though there are recommendations that couldbe implemented by CREC or the suburbandistricts, both entities are working within thecontext of the state’s actions and support. Bothsubtly and in its provision of resources, thestate has signaled a real lack of support or stakein the success of Project Choice. The new Sheffagreement, approved by a new Commissionerof Education, signals a possible new style ofleadership and ownership on the part of thestate, though what counts most are results inexpansion and improvement of Project Choice.

True integration in the Hartford area will re-quire more far-reaching strategies than evensignificant expansion of currently existing in-terdistrict programs in the Sheff settlement, asmany interviewees recognized and hoped for.Designing housing policies to give incentivesfor residential integration could be effective.Regional solutions to education and housingmust also be considered. In the long run,larger school districts would offer the opportu-nity to create long-lasting, stably integratedschools (as is the case in many countywideschool districts in the South, for instance)which might also result in financial savingswith fewer educational bureaucracies to sup-port, since each of the 166 districts in Con-necticut has its own infrastructure andadministrative costs.

Currently, however, plaintiffs’ attorneys andstate officials have focused on the combinationof the regional magnet program and ProjectChoice to address the continuing segregationin the region. Project Choice plays a key rolein responding to the state supreme court’s de-cision, and through the dedication of Hartfordfamilies, educators, and administrators, theprogram offers important educational oppor-tunities to more than 1,000 Hartford studentsand thousands more suburban students. But inorder to meet proposed new settlement goalsand offer educational opportunity to all Hart-ford-area residents regardless of where theymay live, the program will need to grow signif-icantly. Strong leadership and support areneeded—and needed now.

73



In conducting research for this report, the fol-lowing list includes people interviewed fortheir opinions on Project Choice. I have listedtheir affiliation for identification purposesonly. Their participation does not imply en-dorsement of any ideas or conclusions in thisreport by the individuals or their organizations.

1. Allan Taylor, Connecticut State Board ofEducation

2. Beth Bye, CREC, Early Beginnings

3. Bruce Douglas, CREC

4. Christine Brown, Glastonbury PublicSchools Assistant Superintendent (for Curriculum and Instruction)

5. Colleen Palmer, CREC

6. Constance J. Smith, SERC

7. David MacDonald, Hartford Board of Education

8. Diane Ullman, Simsbury Public Schools

9. Dianne Devries, CCJEF Executive Director

10. Elizabeth Horton Sheff, plaintiff and Hartford city councilperson

11. Ellen Rosow-Stokoe, Principal, MorleySchool, West Hartford Public Schools

12. Eric Crawford, CREC

13. Farmington parents

14. Hartford/Project Choice parents

15. Jack Dougherty, Trinity College

16. Jackie Mendenhall, Teacher, FarmingtonPublic Schools

17. James Thompson, assistant superintendentof Hartford Public Schools

18. Jim Boucher, Hartford City Council

19. Joan Ramsey, Guidance Counselor, Simsbury High School

20. Karen List, West Hartford Public Schools

21. Kelly Lyman, Farmington Public Schools

22. Kim Greene, CREC

23. Lee Erdmann, Hartford Chief OperatingOfficer

24. Marcus Rivera, CT State Department of Education

25. Maria Ortiz, CREC

26. Mark Zito, Simsbury Public Schools

27. Martha Stone, plaintiffs lawyer

28. Mary Grace Reed, Farmington Board of Education

29. Mike Galluzzo, Farmington Public Schools

30. Nancy Nickerson, Farmington Board of Education

31. Natalie Simpson, Principal, BraeburnSchool, West Hartford Public Schools

32. Nelba Marquez-Greene, CREC 1

33. Nessa Oram, CREC

34. Patricia DaSilva, Principal, Buttonball LaneSchool, Glastonbury Public Schools

Appendix A: List of Interviews Conducted

75

35. Peg Beecher, Principal, Bugbee School,West Hartford Public Schools

36. Renita Satchell, CREC

37. Robert Villanova, Farmington PublicSchools

38. Sheri James, SERC

39. Tad Diesel, Farmington Board of Education

40. Ted Sergi, former Connecticut commis-sioner of education

41. West Hartford high school student

42. West Hartford parent

I drew on the taped interviews of Project Con-cern alumni and Project Choice students con-ducted in December 2006.


Endnote1 Colleen Palmer sat in on interviews with CREC

staff.

Appendix B:Participation in Project Concern & Project Choice,

1967-2006, Overall and by Selected Districts

Figure 1: Total Project Concern/Choice Enrollment, School Year Ending 1967-2007

Adapted from Dougherty, J., Wanzer, J., & Ramsey, C. (June 2007). “Missing the Goal: A Visual Guide to Sheffv. O’Neill School Desegregation.” Hartford, CT: Cities, Suburbs & Schools Research Project at Trinity College.

Figure 2: South Windsor Participation in Project Choice 1967-2006


1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

En

roll

men

t

Year1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Nu

mb

er

of

PC

Stu

den

ts

Year

1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

25

37

54

49

34

58

56

11

Figure 3: Simsbury Participation in Project Choice 1967-2006

Figure 4: Farmington Participation in Project Choice 1967-2006


120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Nu

mb

er

of

PC

Stu

den

ts

Year

1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

25

54

42

9384 80

54

72

91

97

67

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Nu

mb

er

of

PC

Stu

den

ts

Year

1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

25

54

42

9384 80

54

72

91

97

67


45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Nu

mb

er

of

PC

Stu

den

ts

Year

1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2003 2005

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Nu

mb

er

of

PC

Stu

den

ts

Year

1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2003 2005

66

384

77

Figure 5: Avon Participation in Project Choice 1967-2006

Figure 6: West Hartford Participation in Project Choice 1967-2006


100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Nu

mb

er

of

PC

Stu

den

ts

Year

1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2003 2005

26

44

31

58

13

35

53

73

91

48

52 54

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Nu

mb

er

of

PC

Stu

den

ts

Year

1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2003 2005

0

23

30 28

21 20

2831

38

29

53

Figure 7: Newington Participation in Project Choice 1967-2006

Figure 8: Granby Participation in Project Choice 1967-2006

Project Choice website (CREC):

1) Updated information on open houses,meetings (some information about meet-ings is two years old)

2) More information about the applicationprocess so parents come to the meetingsprepared

3) Contact telephone/email for parents, aswell as a list of staff and who is responsiblefor what

4) Updated activities, news

5) Link to Project Choice application fromthe How to Apply page

6) Spanish version needed

7) Consider making it easier to find—it’shard to navigate through CREC’s websiteto find the Choice section

Connecticut State Department ofEducation Website, Equity Bureau:

1) Need a link to apply or to download theapplication

2) Need Spanish version

3) Family guide is very lengthy (mentionsProject Choice on p 34); create shorterProject Choice-only guide about eligibilityand application process

4) Consistency in guide and website as toname of the program

Another example: METCO’s website

METCO Inc. has an extensive website withlobbying information, parent council informa-tion, a list of colleges/universities that gradu-ates attend. They list contact information anda staff directory, with each person’s extensionand email address. Additionally, there are sepa-rate websites for alumni (the METCO alumniassociation), the METCO Directors, and theState Department of Massachusetts office, allof which are linked from METCO Inc’s web-site. Finally, the URL (http://metcoinc.org/) iseasy to remember.


Appendix C:Recommendations for Improvements to Websites

Related to Project Choice



Appendix D:METCO Students, as a Percentage of District Enrollment & Minority Share, October 2006

METCO Students, as Percentage of District Enrollment & Minority Share, October 2006

METCO White METCO students as Percentage of:students, percent of District Minority Black & Hispanic

District Name October 2006 students students students students

Arlington 94 81.0 2.07 10.88 25.84Bedford 82 80.0 3.59 17.94 41.25Belmont 126 76.1 3.38 14.15 40.73Braintree 42 85.3 0.81 5.53 12.32Brookline 291 62.0 4.74 12.47 28.89Cohasset 47 95.4 3.16 68.62 85.31Concord 106 82.6 5.71 32.79 65.58Concord-Carlisle 72 84.2 5.73 36.28 69.91Dover 15 90.6 2.53 26.91 74.40Dover-Sherborn 21 92.4 1.94 25.51 60.60East Longmeadow 43 93.4 1.50 22.79 36.68Foxborough 44 93.0 1.50 21.50 36.70Framingham1 4 67.4 0.05 0.15 0.19Hampden-Wilbraham 21 92.8 0.56 7.74 12.67Hingham 39 94.0 1.03 17.12 36.68Lexington 264 68.8 4.24 13.59 54.36Lincoln 89 69.8 7.25 24.02 38.38Lincoln-Sudbury 91 87.8 5.64 46.24 78.36Longmeadow 46 89.4 1.43 13.47 33.21Lynnfield 33 92.4 1.44 18.89 41.01Marblehead 73 93.3 2.33 34.83 48.62Melrose 120 88.2 3.40 28.83 47.25Natick 60 86.4 1.31 9.66 21.19Needham 141 86.6 2.82 21.07 49.52Newton 415 72.0 3.57 12.74 31.30Reading 58 92.1 1.34 16.95 47.82Scituate 58 95.5 1.80 39.98 59.97Sharon 66 79.9 1.91 9.48 25.07Sherborn 4 91.8 0.84 10.25 40.02Southwick-Tolland 18 94.9 0.95 18.54 29.54Swampscott 43 91.6 1.77 21.02 33.96Wakefield 47 94.2 1.35 23.21 40.79Walpole 49 92.8 1.25 17.38 25.03Wayland 132 80.4 4.59 23.43 58.14Wellesley 157 82.6 3.39 19.48 44.61Weston 168 78.7 7.01 32.93 84.51Westwood 43 90.9 1.42 15.63 37.43

1 It is believed that Framingham is withdrawing from the program, since it has not taken new students in recentyears. Framingham is one of the most diverse suburban Boston districts. However, according to interviews, nei-ther METCO Inc. nor the Massachusetts Department of Education has been formally notified of Framingham’s withdrawal.


Thanks to Mary Pettigrew of ampersand graphic design for assistance with the design and layout of this report, and to James Baker (James Baker Design, Hartford) for the Project Choice Campaign logo.

Documents

Improving Expanding Hartford’s Project Choice Program · 40 years of the Project Concern/Project Choice program in Hartford. We are now working to develop committees of support-ers