Download Sheff G No Suburban

Superior Court Judge Marshall K. Berger gave preliminary approval to a multimillion-dollar plan to expand remedies that evolved in fits and starts over a quarter century, primarily in state-funded magnet schools and the voluntary Open Choice program in suburban districts.

It would expand existing magnets, open one new one, expand access to suburban schools through Open Choice and take a more holistic approach to the student experience by enhancing athletics and extracurricular activities.

Download 🔥 https://urlca.com/2y4Id6 🔥

There currently are 1,287 applicants from Hartford for spots next year in Open Choice, 2,584 for magnet schools and 468 for CTECS, the Hartford Region Connecticut Technical Educational & Career System. There also are nearly 6,000 suburban applicants for magnet, CTEC and Choice schools.

A lottery system implemented because of strong demand for the new options resulted in what critics say is a two-tiered system: one tier for traditional public school kids and another for those at well-resourced magnet or suburban schools.

Tong said the settlement agreement is designed to meet demand for all Hartford students who want magnet school choice seats by the 2028-29 school year. The state also will provide financial incentives for suburban Open Choice schools to accept additional Hartford students up to a goal of 450 new seats, he said.

The court directed the legislature and executive branch to implement remedial measures. Since then, the parties in the case have entered into a series of agreements, which have established dozens of Hartford-area magnet schools and the Open Choice program, which allows Hartford students to attend suburban schools.

According to preliminary data from the state Department of Education, 2,158 Hartford students enrolled in nearby suburban districts through Open Choice during the 2022-23 school year, down from 2,161 last year and 2,211 the year before. Having made no progress over recent years in boosting Open Choice in Hartford, the state appears unlikely to hit targets outlined in the Sheff v. O'Neill settlement approved last January.

So far, however, those investments have delivered an uptick in magnet school enrollment, according to data Cecere presented last week, but little progress when it comes to Open Choice. For the 2022-23 school year, suburban school districts made 958 offers to Hartford residents, up slightly from the year before but down from the year before that and not enough to boost the program's total enrollment.

"The Open Choice program up to this point has kind of been disappointing, in terms of the numbers, in terms of suburban districts offering up seats," Stone said. "The suburban districts are really stingy about offering up seats."

Interdistrict cooperative programs are school sponsored programs in which students fromdifferent school districts participate together in a diverse array of educationalexperiences. These programs, funded largely by the State, bring urban and suburbanstudents together in the context of quality educational experiences. Educators who werecalled as witnesses by both the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed that interdistrictprograms were beneficial. For example, Raul Montanez Pietre, principal of the Mary HookerElementary School in Hartford, called as a witness by the plaintiffs, testified that theinterdistrict program between children at the Mary Hooker School and the Plantsvilleelementary school was highly successful in breaking down racial and economic barriersbetween the children. He testified the children learned and gained educational benefitfrom interdistrict programs despite the fact that they were not full time programs.

The nature and duration of Interdistrict Cooperative Programs varies considerably. Somesuch programs are five week residential programs, where the participants live together andconduct in depth studies of particular topics like art and literature. Others are"Sister School" programs with minor State stipends that allow for students fromurban and suburban schools to visit museums together or conduct other classroom exchanges. In order to fund a greater number of programs, the State typically funds theinterdistrict cooperative programs at 70-90% of the funds requested. At this level offunding, the applicants tend to make up any gap in funding through local monies or privatedonations. After July, 2000, no program can receive approval unless it establishes that nomore than 80% of the student participants will come from any one school district. Abouthalf of these programs are sponsored by Regional Educational Service Centers and half bylocal school districts.

Like interdistrict cooperative programs, magnet schools grow out of the ideas,enthusiasm and commitment of the local districts that join forces to create them. Thesepeople are in the best position to assess what concepts will gain support and thrive asnew schools. Magnet schools in urban areas which have unique educational programs can andhave in this state attracted suburban students.

The structure for the operational funding of interdistrict magnet schools is designedto encourage racial and ethnic diversity. Magnet schools are rewarded through financialincentives for accomplishing the greatest diversity in the racial and ethnic makeup oftheir student bodies. State funds for operating an interdistrict magnet school are basedon per pupil payments determined as a percentage of the State's "foundation"level, currently set at $5775 per pupil. If the districts participating in the magnetschool send no more than 30% of the students to the school, then the magnet schoolreceives 90% of the foundation level for each pupil from each such district. As thepercentage from the sending district rises above the 30% threshold, the operationalreimbursement decreases correspondingly. This funding formula provides a strong financialincentive to the founders of magnet schools to seek to have three or more districtsinvolved in the magnet school, with each contributing less than 30% of the students. Sincethe school must show it will reduce racial and/or ethnic isolation, this funding formulaensures participation of both urban and suburban districts in appropriate proportionswhile avoiding the pitfalls and possible legal challenges of having raced based quotas.(3)

The 1998-99 School year is the first year for the operation of the Choice Program.Suburban school districts made 1400 seats available statewide. The commitment of this manyseats in the first year of the program was particularly encouraging because many suburbandistricts have a strained capacity due to increases in student populations and theincreasing number of special education students who are taught in mainstream classrooms.

Mr. James Thompson, principal of Simpson-Waverly Elementary School in Hartford,testified that following the forty-eight recommendations to improve the Hartford schoolswill bring about positive results, which will in turn play a role in bringing suburbanstudents into the schools. Mr. Allison, another witness called by the plaintiffs, statedthat improving the quality of education in Hartford is "critical," and Dr.Natriello, one of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses, testified that it was appropriate foreducational leaders to seek to improve urban education at the same time they seek toreduce isolation because there is a relationship between the two -- higher qualityattracts more students. Another plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Gordon, testified that ifthere is a quality program at the end of the bus ride in Hartford, people will support it.He also opined that the majority of successful desegregation plans succeed because theyimprove the quality of schooling that was present in the minority schools before the plan.

Dr. Rossell testified that the State's approach is to implement a state-wide remedythat is based on the premise that voluntary integration is more likely to produce alasting integration and will have more positive social effects and that this will beenhanced by their equal emphasis on improving educational quality for all children. Herresearch shows that a voluntary approach to school desegregation is the most effectiveapproach and it will produce the most lasting integration. In other words, according toDr. Rossell, in the area of school desegregation slow and steady wins the race. In lightof Dr. Rossell's findings about the relationship between mandatory reassignment ofstudents and white flight it is not surprising to learn that since 1981 only two smallschool districts, Hattiesburg and Natchez, have adopted desegregation plans which usemandatary reassignment. In those districts mandatory reassignment produced a rate of whiteenrollment loss of about 45%. Dr. Rossell predicted that if white suburban students weremandatorily reassigned to Hartford that Hartford schools would experience a whiteenrollment loss at approximately the rate of 45 - 50%.

Filed in 1989, the suit was tried in the early 1990s. At the time, minority students comprised more than 92 percent of Hartford's public school enrollment, and of the 21 surrounding suburban towns, only seven had school districts with minority enrollments that exceeded 10 percent.

Brittain's skepticism seems justified: The state funds other segregated regions of the state far less, and is already attempting to shift more Sheff costs onto local suburban districts. In 2015, the state signed a one-year agreement to expand seats in existing magnet schools, but Connecticut officials said they would refuse to open new magnets in the future, and refused to increase magnet per-pupil funding. Even today, the existing magnet schools are operating only at 93 percent capacity, in part because the state has capped the number of seats it will fund.

In 2016, President Obama's Education Secretary John King traveled to Hartford and proclaimed that the region's desegregation work could serve as a model for the country. He touted the state's hefty investments in magnet schools that attract suburban kids, and praised Hartford's voluntary busing and interdistrict school choice program. e24fc04721