Upload
jesus-meeks
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Race and Education in Connecticut:
Historical Overview & Policy Questions
Jack DoughertyEducation Reform, Past & Present
Trinity Collegehttp://commons.trincoll.edu/edreform
updated March 2012
1830s A Northern State’s White Opposition to Black Education
1831 New Haven, CT citizens vote 700-4 against proposal to open first college for Black men
1833 White teacher Prudence Crandall opens private boarding school for African-American girls in Canterbury CT, but local whites respond violently and shut it down
1834 Additional controversies prompt CT legislature to pass “Black laws,” banning the teaching of out-of-state Black students (only state above Mason-Dixon line to do so at that time)
Evening Post (Hartford)
Hartford school superintendent Thomas Weaver proposed segregated evening schools for older students to retain Blacks who were “slighted and ignored” by Whites;
Black pastors form Ministerial Alliance to oppose segregation; Weaver drops plan
1917 Whites officials propose segregating Black students in Hartford
Report targets “racial imbalance and poverty”
1965 Hartford and civil rights activists focus on reorganizing school system
Hartford total non-Whites (1960)
Hartford School Population, 1964
Grade % Non-White
K-9 50%
9-12 32%
Recommended solutions:
Locate new HPS schools to promote city-wide desegregation
Suburban schools enroll some low-income city students (1-2 per suburban classroom)
1965 Hartford and civil rights activists focus on reorganizing school system
Hartford total non-Whites (1960)
1966 Project Concern voluntary city-to-suburb desegregation sparks controversy
Hartford Times 1968, Hartford Public Library
Some suburban districts voted to accept city students, with state funding; others refused
1966 Project Concern voluntary city-to-suburb desegregation sparks controversy
Hartford Times 1968, Hartford Public Library
Some suburban districts voted to accept city students, with state funding; others refused
1966 Project Concern voluntary city-to-suburb desegregation sparks controversy
Hartford Times 1968, Hartford Public Library
Some suburban districts voted to accept city students, with state funding; others refused
Project Choice enrollment
1989 Activists file Sheff v O’Neill deseg lawsuit
Ten-year-old Milo Sheff and sixteen other plaintiffs filed suit against then-Governor O’Neill, charging that Hartford’s segregated school system deprived them of equal opportunity under Connecticut constitution
Milo Sheff and mother, Elizabeth Horton Sheff,
Hartford Courant
Since 1974 Milliken v Bradley federal ruling in Detroit blocked mandatory city-suburban desegregation remedies, Sheff plaintiffs turned to Connecticut state courts instead Hartford 91% minority
students (1988-89)
11 week trial
1,000 pieces of evidence; 50 witnesses
State defended its position by arguing that government action did not create segregated schools; individual decisions in housing market were to blame
1992 Sheff lawsuit finally goes to trial
Hartford Courant
1996
What the court did (and did NOT) rule:
• racial segregation in schools violates state constitution, but no specific remedy for legislature to follow, and no deadline
• school boundary lines have caused unconstitutional segregation, but no mandate to change boundaries in Hartford or metro region
Republican Gov. Rowland and Democratic legislative leaders agree not to force suburban districts to integrate; voluntary only
2003
The Settlement emphasized:• voluntary city-suburban
enrollment through magnet schools
• voluntary city-suburban transfers through Project Choice (formerly Project Concern)
• raise Hartford minority student enrollment in voluntary deseg from 10 to 30 percent by 2007
Sheff attorney Horton, Atty Gen Blumenthal & Comm of Ed Sergi with Sheff plaintiffs, H Courant
2007 - Our report found that existing voluntary desegregation efforts served only 17% of Hartford minority children, not 30% goal
2007 - Our report found that existing voluntary desegregation efforts served only 17% of Hartford minority children, not 30% goal
2007 - Our report found that existing voluntary desegregation efforts served only 17% of Hartford minority children, not 30% goal
2008 - Sheff II agreement sets new voluntary desegregation 5-year goals & strategy:Expanded options to raise Hartford minority student enrollment in desegregated settings to 41% (by 2012-13), or meet 80% of demand
Q1: Are voluntary measures sufficient to meet Sheff goals? And the other 70%?
• voluntary city-suburb enrollment in 22 magnet schools
Q1: Are voluntary measures sufficient to meet Sheff goals? And the other 70%?
• voluntary city-suburb enrollment in 22 magnet schools
• voluntary city-suburb transfers through Project Choice
Q1: Are voluntary measures sufficient to meet Sheff goals? And the other 70%?
Sheff legal settlements did NOT redraw city-suburban district boundaries, nor did they require suburban districts to participate in Project Choice or magnet school programs.
Are mandatory measures the answer?
Q1: Are voluntary measures sufficient to meet Sheff goals? And the other 70%?
Sheff legal settlements did NOT redraw city-suburban district boundaries, nor did they require suburban districts to participate in Project Choice or magnet school programs.
Are mandatory measures the answer?
Should the State erase the boundary lines that separate school districts? And/or should they require some degree of suburban program participation?
Q2: Does system promote free choice -- or forced choice -- for Hartford parents?
Distant suburbs more likely to participate in Project Choice:
Magnet application waiting lists:
Breakthrough (Spr 2007)
1,681 applications
43 enrolled (2.5%)
235 admitted to others
Q2: Does system promote free choice -- or forced choice -- for Hartford parents?
Project Concern alumni oral history interview: "If you are stuck, as a parent. . . and you can’t put yourself in the neighborhood that you want your kids to go to school in, then you have no choice but to be in the city-to-suburb desegregation program.” (Banks & Dougherty, 2004)
Distant suburbs more likely to participate in Project Choice
Magnet application waiting lists:
Breakthrough (Spr 2007)
1,681 applications
43 enrolled (2.5%)
235 admitted to others
Q3: How do selected high-achieving, high-minority schools fit into Sheff?
Jumoke Academy, public K-8 charter school located in Hartford’s North End
On CT “failing school” list 2002-05, but recently on top list of high-achieving elem schools for Af-Am and low-income students
Q3: How do selected high-achieving, high-minority schools fit into Sheff?
Jumoke Academy, public K-8 charter school located in Hartford’s North End
On CT “failing school” list 2002-05, but recently on top list of high-achieving elem schools for Af-Am and low-income students
Q5: Should we expand Sheff beyond race to include social class integration?
1989 original Sheff lawsuit targeted segregation along “racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines”
1996 Sheff court ruling for plaintiffs on grounds that “extreme racial and ethnic isolation” in public schools violated state constitution
Current Sheff remedy formula focuses entirely on race
2007 Seattle & Louisville cases at US Supreme Court
Context: both districts voluntarily created integration plans to promote racial balance goalsQuestion: Does the US constitution prohibit school boards from using race-conscious criteria in a limited way to achieve racial diversity and integration in K-12 schools?
US Supreme Court divided in a 4 -1 - 4 decisionBreyer, Stevens Kennedy Roberts, ScaliaGinsburg, Souter Thomas, Alito
School districts may consider race <------> Seattle and Louisville plansviolate constitution because they act in
“non-individualized, mechanical way” on race
Q5: Should we expand Sheff beyond race to include social class integration?
Five policy questions to discuss:
Q1: Are voluntary measures sufficient to meet Sheff goals?
Q2: Does the system promote free choice -- or forced choice -- for
Hartford parents?
Q3: How do selected high-achieving, high-minority schools fit into
Sheff?
Q4: Will housing desegregation gradually solve school segregation
by itself? Or not?
Q5: Should we expand Sheff beyond race to focus on social class
integration? If so, what would that look like?