1. Shaping the Learning Corridor Interdistrict Magnet Schools, 1990s to the Present Nivia Nieves ’06 Cities, Suburbs, and Schools research project Trinity College, Hartford CT www.trincoll.edu/depts/educ/css July 18, 2005

2. Sheff vs. O’Neill & Magnet Schools  1996 ruling supported plaintiffs and claimed that metro Hartford schools are segregated.  2003 Sheff settlement affirmed the expansion of interdistrict magnet schools as the key remedy.

3. What were the original concerns and goals of The Learning Corridor advocates (and opponents), and how did they gain support from various interest groups during the design phase (1990s-2000) and how are they addressing issues during the implementation (2000-present)? Research Question:

4. Montessori Magnet School –prek-5 Hartford Magnet Middle School 6-8 Greater Hartford Academy of Math & Science 9-12 Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts 9-12 What is the Learning Corridor?

5. Began before Learning Corridor  Montessori Magnet School (MMS)  Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts (GHAA)

6. Began before Learning Corridor  Montessori Magnet School (MMS)  Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts (GHAA) Created as part of Learning Corridor  Hartford Magnet Middle School (HMMS)  Greater Hartford Academy of Math & Science (GHAMAS)

7. Comparison of School District Participation in the Learning Corridor, 2005

10. Comparison of District Participation in LC, 2004-2005 HMMS MMS GHAMAS GHAA

11. Sources & Methods: Historical Documents Reports: Examples: Kellogg Project & Aetna Center for Families Community Resident Survey News Stories: Examples: Hartford Courant Archival Documents: Examples: Minutes from Trinity Board of Trustee meetings

12. Sources & Methods: Interviews Design Phase (1990s-2000) Key Actors  Hartford  Suburban  Trinity  State & Regional Government  Learning Corridor

13. Sources & Methods: Interviews Design Phase (1990s-2000) Key Actors  Hartford  Suburban  Trinity  State & Regional Government  Learning Corridor Implementation Phase (2000-present) Key Actors  Hartford  Suburban  Trinity  State & Regional Government  Learning Corridor Prospective parents at Hartford Magnet Middle School (51)

14. Sources & Methods: Interviews -- Design phase (1990s-2000) Key actors conducted Summer 2004  Hartford Elizabeth Horton Sheff Edie Lacey Eddie Perez Saundra Kee Borges Kevin Kinsella Jim Boucher Eugene Leach  Suburban Jacqueline Jacoby Robert Villanova Ernest Perlini Joe Townsley Alan Beitman Lou Saloom  State & Regional Marc O’Donnell Kevin Sullivan Joe Townsley  Trinity Scott Reynolds Jackie Mandyck Evan Dobelle Eddie Perez Kevin Sullivan Saundra Kee Borges Paula Russo Eugene Leach  Learning Corridor Tim Nee Eddie Perez Kevin Kinsella Paula Russo Saundra Kee Borges

15. Sources & Methods: Interviews -- Implementation phase Key actors planned Summer 2005  Hartford Edie Lacey Eddie Perez Luis Caban Hyacinth Yennie Robert Henry David Martinez Alta Lash Michael Menatian  State & Regional Rep. Cameron Staples Theodore S. Sergi Marc O’Donnell Kevin Sullivan Joe Townsley Bruce Douglas Marcia B. Yulo Marie M. Spivey  Trinity Jackie Mandyck Eddie Perez Kevin Sullivan Alta Lash  Learning Corridor Tim Nee Eddie Perez Delores Bolton Herb Sheppard Jeffery L. Osborn  Suburban Jacqueline Jacoby Robert Villanova Joe Townsley

16. Sources & Methods: Sample questions design phase  What concerns did you have about Hartford and the region in the mid-1990s?

17. Sources & Methods: Sample questions design phase  What concerns did you have about Hartford and the region in the mid-1990s?  I’m going to list different groups of people -- to your knowledge, what actions did they take regarding the Learning Corridor -- and why? State and regional officials Southside Institutional Neighborhood Alliance (SINA) Hartford city and school officials Hartford neighborhood organizations Suburban town and school officials Trinity College Hartford business groups

18. Sources & Methods: Implementation issues  Funding  Suburban participation  Learning Corridor influence on Hartford  Hartford Magnet Middle School  CREC vs HPS Management  Goals

19. Sources & Methods: Sample questions -- Implementation phase  Funding has been a continuing concern for the Learning Corridor magnet schools. - What are the underlying causes of the funding problem? - Has financial support from different sources changed over time? - What are the consequences of these funding problems for the LC?

20. Sources & Methods: Sample questions -- Implementation phase  Funding has been a continuing concern for the Learning Corridor magnet schools. - What are the underlying causes of the funding problem? - Has financial support from different sources changed over time? - What are the consequences of these funding problems for the LC?  Over the past five years, two organizations have taken responsibility for managing magnet schools in Hartford: HPS and CREC. Where does the LC stand between the two right now? And in the future?

21. Findings: Design phase (1990s-2000)

22. The primary goal of the Learning Corridor was urban renewal, not necessarily education.

23. Findings: Design phase (1990s-2000) The primary goal of the Learning Corridor was urban renewal, not necessarily education. “The Learning Corridor wasn’t a concept of just these four schools. It’s a much broader concept than that. And, I don’t think people always appreciate the broader concept.” (Tim Nee, MMS Principal, p. 4) “Well, I think its original objectives were to…through education, to stabilize a neighborhood and to make it a healthy vibrant place to, first of all where people want to live.” (Scott Reynolds, Secretary of Trinity College, p. 7)

24. Findings: Design phase (1990s-2000) The Learning Corridor probably would have happened regardless of the Sheff plaintiff victory, due to Trinity College plans prior to the 1996 ruling.

25. Findings: Design phase (1990s-2000) The Learning Corridor probably would have happened regardless of the Sheff plaintiff victory, due to Trinity College plans prior to the 1996 ruling.

26. Findings: Design phase (1990s-2000) But the Sheff litigation (1988-present) clearly influenced the Learning Corridor.

27. Findings: Design phase (1990s-2000) The Sheff decision served as a two-edged blade for the Learning Corridor. –Added political and financial momentum –Diluted the impact on Hartford neighborhoods

28. Findings: Design phase (1990s-2000) The Sheff decision served as a two-edged blade for the Learning Corridor. –Added political and financial momentum –Diluted the impact on Hartford neighborhoods “The way that money works restricts the number of Hartford kids who participate…So we have not served nearly as many community kids…We thought the middle school would be a neighborhood school and it is now a magnet school.” (Kevin Sullivan, former Vice President of Institutional and Community Relations, Trinity College, p. 12)

29. Findings: Design phase (1990s-2000) The Sheff decision served as a two edged blade for the Learning Corridor. –Added political and financial momentum –Diluted the impact on Hartford neighborhoods “The former superintendent Anthony Amato pulled some political strings and got [HMMS] changed from a neighborhood school to a magnet school, which infuriated the neighborhood, because really we felt that our kids who were at risk were the middle school kids and that if we could have them in a quality neighborhood school we could probably do something… He betrayed our neighborhood. And, he did it because he could get more money as a magnet school.” (Edie Lacey, Hartford Community activist and former chair of Frog Hallow South NRZ, p. 2)

30. Findings: Implementation phase (2000-present)  Interest groups collectively succeeded in constructing the Learning Corridor and achieving better racial balance than city or suburban schools.

31. Findings: Implementation phase (2000-present)  Interest groups collectively succeeded in constructing the Learning Corridor and achieving better racial balance than city or suburban schools.  But the interest groups’ motivations and concerns differed.

32. Findings: Implementation phase (2000-present)  Interest groups collectively succeeded in constructing the Learning Corridor and achieving better racial balance than city or suburban schools.  But the interest groups’ motivations and concerns differed.  Interest groups rarely interacted with each other.

33. Sources & Methods: Interviews Design Phase (1990s-2000) Key Actors  Hartford  Suburban  Trinity  State & Regional Government  Learning Corridor Implementation Phase (2000-present) Key Actors  Hartford  Suburban  Trinity  State & Regional Government  Learning Corridor Prospective parents at Hartford Magnet Middle School (51)

34. Sources & Methods: Focus on 51 interviews with prospective parents White 31% Non-White 69% Hartford 45% Suburb 55% Low educ level ( high school or some college ) 51% High educ level ( college or graduate school ) 49%

35. Sources & Methods: Definitions Parental Motivations for applying to magnets Push - Dissatisfaction with current school for any reason (such as class size) Pull - Attraction to magnet schools for any reason (such as convenient location)

36. Findings: Parent Motivation Disparities (by race) Non-white parents are more likely to feel both “pushed” away from neighborhood schools and “pulled” towards magnet schools

37. Categories identified in open-ended parental responses Better educational opportunities Child attending: Class size: Convenient: Curriculum/Teaching: Diversity: Do not like current school: Friends attending: Private school costs are high: Reputation: Security: Thematic Analysis of Motivations

38. Findings: Parent Motivation Similarities (by town) Both Hartford and Suburban Parents were equally as interested in magnet schools for better educational opportunities, reputation of magnet school, dislike of child’s current school, enrollment of siblings, security, and enrollment of friends.

39. Findings: Parent Motivation Disparities (by parent education) Parents with the lowest levels of education were motivated by school reputation, convenience, and having a sibling enrolled. Parents with the highest levels of education were more attracted to magnets for diversity.

40. Findings: Source of School Word of mouth was the greatest source of information on magnet schools for both white and non-white parents. Non-white parents were more likely to also conduct their own informational search and receive mail from the magnet schools.