DOCUMENT RESUME ED 313 467 UD 027 108 TITLE A Report on Racial/Ethnic Equity and Desegregation an Connecticut's Public Schools. Prepared for pre.sen+m4-1nn 4-0 4-11n r'nnnem-.4-1,114- AnnrA nf Education. INSTITUTION Connecticut State Dept. of Lducation, HarLford. PUTS DATE Jan 88 NOTE 26p.; For fallow -up document, see UD 027 109. 1,UB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Cooperative Programs; Desegregation Plans; Elementary Secondary Education; Equal Education; *Racial Balance; *Racial Integration; School Demography; *School Desegregation; State Surveys; *Suburban Schools; *Urban Schools; Urban to Suburban Migration; Voluntary De.eyLe9aLion IDENTIFIERS *Connecticut ABSTRACT Demographic trends are developing in Connecticut that show increasing racial segregation and divided educational facilities in contiguous urban and suburban school districts. Racial balance, on a statewide basis is not sufficient to counteract the effects of the growth of the state's minority populations, the residential clustering of racial/ethnic groups in the cities, and the move of whites to the suburbs. By 1990, the statewide st'ident population will be comprised of 25 percent minorities, with a decline in the Black population and a sharp increase in the Hispanic population. By the year 2000, urban districts are projected to be comprised of 40 to 70 percent minorities. The Connecticut State Board of Education has rigorously monitored racial desegregation laws since 1986 but has been unable to provide a racially integrated environment that fosters academic achievement. Recent litigation in Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, and Ohio indicates that states should develop interdistrict collaboration to fulfill their responsibility to desegregate. The following recommendations are suggested: (1) the state should promote the concept of "collective responsibility" for integrating the public schools; (2) the state should make available financial incentives to encourage school districts that plan and implement voluntary programs that advance quality, integrated education; (3) the State Department of Education should provide technical assistance to school districts to develop and implement plans to achieve and maintain integrated schools; and (4) the State Department of Education should unC,e,-take planning with other agencies responsible for housing, transportation, and other factors that can help promote integration. Statistical data are included on two tables and seven graphs and maps A list of 28 references is appended. (FMW) **************************, **************h************** t t * * * * * * t * * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ************************** * * * * * * * * * A A * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * k * * * *
Transcript
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 313 467 UD 027 108
TITLE A Report on Racial/Ethnic Equity and Desegregation anConnecticut's Public Schools. Prepared forpre.sen+m4-1nn 4-0 4-11n r'nnnem-.4-1,114- AnnrA nf
Education.INSTITUTION Connecticut State Dept. of Lducation, HarLford.PUTS DATE Jan 88NOTE 26p.; For fallow -up document, see UD 027 109.1,UB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Cooperative Programs; Desegregation Plans; Elementary
Secondary Education; Equal Education; *RacialBalance; *Racial Integration; School Demography;*School Desegregation; State Surveys; *SuburbanSchools; *Urban Schools; Urban to Suburban Migration;Voluntary De.eyLe9aLion
IDENTIFIERS *Connecticut
ABSTRACTDemographic trends are developing in Connecticut that
show increasing racial segregation and divided educational facilitiesin contiguous urban and suburban school districts. Racial balance, ona statewide basis is not sufficient to counteract the effects of thegrowth of the state's minority populations, the residentialclustering of racial/ethnic groups in the cities, and the move ofwhites to the suburbs. By 1990, the statewide st'ident population willbe comprised of 25 percent minorities, with a decline in the Blackpopulation and a sharp increase in the Hispanic population. By theyear 2000, urban districts are projected to be comprised of 40 to 70percent minorities. The Connecticut State Board of Education hasrigorously monitored racial desegregation laws since 1986 but hasbeen unable to provide a racially integrated environment that fostersacademic achievement. Recent litigation in Missouri, Indiana,Virginia, and Ohio indicates that states should develop interdistrictcollaboration to fulfill their responsibility to desegregate. Thefollowing recommendations are suggested: (1) the state should promotethe concept of "collective responsibility" for integrating the publicschools; (2) the state should make available financial incentives toencourage school districts that plan and implement voluntary programsthat advance quality, integrated education; (3) the State Departmentof Education should provide technical assistance to school districtsto develop and implement plans to achieve and maintain integratedschools; and (4) the State Department of Education should unC,e,-takeplanning with other agencies responsible for housing, transportation,and other factors that can help promote integration. Statistical dataare included on two tables and seven graphs and maps A list of 28references is appended. (FMW)
**************************, **************h************** t t * * * * * * t * *
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
PERMISSION TO RFPRnnolrc ToleMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
fleck
Cr S fate (12(4
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ER10;
A REPORT ON RACIAL/ETHNIC EQUITYAND DESEGREGATION IN
CONNECTICUT'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Prepared for Presentation toThe Connecticut State Board of Education
by
The Committee on Racial EquityAppointed by the Commissioner of EducationConnecticut State Department of Education
January, 1988
BEST COPY AVAILABLE .110 rs
iA REPORT ON RACIAL/ETHNIC EQUITY AND DESEGPES:-:,,',
IN CONNECTICPT'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS
INTRODUCTION
The premise underlying this report of the Committee on Racial Equity isthat segregation is educationally, morally and legally wrong. A trend isdeveloping in Connecticut's public schools that is causing, according to thedictionary definition of segregation, the "isolation of the races..." with"divided educational facilities." Consider the following:
o Minorities constitute 11% of Connecticut's population at large, butconstitute over 21% of the state's student enrolment. As thesechildren become adults, the growth in the minority population willaccelerate.
o Over 60% of the minority students are enrolled in the five largestschool districts (see Table 1). Hartford, Bridv.p...t and New mavennow have minority enrollments that exceed 80 percent. Stamford andWaterbury enroll at least 45% minority students.
o Of the 166 st...00l districts in the state, 14 districts have minorityenrollments of 25% or more, 37 districts have minority enrollments offrom 5% to 25%, and ttw remaining 115 districts have minorityenrollments of less than 5%.1
As so aptly stated by James Coleman et al; The emerging problem ofschool segregation in large cities is a problem of metropolitan arearesidential segregation, black central cities, and white suburbs, broughtabout by a loss of whites from the central cities. This loss is intensifiedby extensive school desegregation in those central cities, but in cities withhigh proportion of blacks and predominantly white suburbs, it proceeds at a
relatively rapid rate with or without desegregation.m2
TABLE 1MINORITY STUDENT ENROLLMENT
IN CONNECTICUT'S LARGEST PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS31986-87
"There has been an enormous, long-term trend of whites leaving thecentral cities for the suburbs and blacks coming into the largest cent,-'cities. This trend began in many areas after World War 1, gained momentum
-1-
throughout the nation after World War II, and represents a triumph of nationalhousing policy.°4 Thomas 'ettigrew and Robert L. Green writing in theHarvard Educational Review stated that 6...federal programs such as urbanrenewal, public housing, Model Cities, discriminatory mortgage programs andeven federal highway construction have furthered the separationof the races between city and suburb. This separation antedated schooldesegregation by decades. This trend toward residential segregation has been£0 massive that school desegregation could have at most a relatively smallimpact."5
The state's minority population is growing by 1.5% each year, with theHispanic segment increasing the most rapidly. It is instructive to look atthe school districts that have more than 25% minority enrollment and thedistricts contiguous to them (see Figure 1). While the state's five largestcities still enroll a disproportionately large and growing number of minoritystudents, the mid-size cities and suburban communities are showing noticeableincreases as well. For example:
o Connecticut's minority populations live predominantly in a corridorfrom Danbury through Fairfield County to New Haven and northward toHartford.
o Additionally, two other geographical areas with growing minoritypopulations are forming in the New London and Windham regions.
o School districts with relatively few minorities continue to existcontiguous to school districts with high minority populations.Curiously, some even border more than one such concentration ofminorities (e.g., Darien (1.9%) is located between Stamford (47.4%)and Norwalk (39.7%), and Newington (5.1%) shares boundaries with bothHartford (90.4%) and New Britain (49.0%)).
Specifically with reference to Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven, theseadditional facts are enlightening:
o Wethersfield and Newington, neighbors of Hartford, each has aminority student population of less than six percent.
o Fairfield, which is adjacent to Bridgeport, has a minority studentpopulation of approximately four percent.'
o East Haven, Woodbridge and North Haven, which are neighbors of NewHaven, have minority student populations of less than nine percent.
One must ask why these great differences exist in the enrollment ofminorities in the schools of contiguous towns.
From an economic perspective, Connecticut boasts the highest per capitaincome in the United States. But, nationally, according to the 1980 census,Hartford is ranked the fourth poorest city in the country, New Haven theseventh, and Bridgeport is the twenty-sixth poorest city in the country.6Poverty is a tragic reality for Connecticut.
-2-
Figure 1
Connnecticut Public School Districts With Minority StudentComposition of 25% or More, and Geographically Contiguous School Districts
Fall, 1986
SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH 25%OR MORE MINORITIES
CONTIGUOUS SCHOOL DISTRICTS
ADJACENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Poverty is a common characteristic of many minority communities, whoseresidents often lack the education and training to fill the available jobs.Ironically, at present Connecticut has &ore job openings than it can fill.This is the result of low unemployment combined with rapid economic growth.Yet the unemployment rate among minorities continues to be disproportionatelyhigh. The state's schools must provide appropriate education and training toerible all students to assume productive roles in society.
The failure to provide equal educational opportunity is not just badeconomic policy. Any state that does not address the existence of segregatedschools is potentially vulnerable to legal action. The federal courts haverepeatedly held states responsible for the establishment and continuation ofracially segregated schools and for correcting the educational deficienciesresulting from past discrimination. Also, the courts continue to maintainthat ignoring or not being involved in the operation of such schools does notabsolve a state of its responsibility. For Connecticut, the period of graceis running out. There are no shortcuts to desegregation. It is a processthat requites time, nurturing, patience and investment, both financial andhuman.
In response to all of these conditions--the statistical, the geographic,the economic, the legal, and the social--this report contains recommendationsthat seek to avoid a portrayal of the state as two Connecticuts--the affluentono the poor, participants and nonparticipants, white and minority. With thefour broad-based recomm_Adations contained herein, a constructive program ofcorrective measures that focus on the public schools is presented.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Connecticut's public school population has changed markedly since the1969 racial imbalance law was passed. The remedy it prescribes--i.e.,achieving racial balance in the schools on a districtwide basis--has came tobe recognized as bn insufficient method of counteracting the effects of thegrowth of the state's minority populations, especially when combined with apattern of residential cluster!ng of racial/ethnic groups in the cities andthe tendency of white populations in the cities to move to the suburbs Inspite of the state's racial imbalance law, most schools in Bridgeport,Hartford, and New Haven are predominantly minority;
Many of the state's school districts that have larger proportions ofminority students continue to show steady increases in these proportions.From October, 1985 to October, 1986, all but two of the fourteen schooldistricts over 25% minority showed increases of at least one percentage point(see Table 2). This may not seem substantial until one compounds this rate ofgrowth over a ten or twenty-year period. Of the 25 school districts with 10%or more minority enrollment, all but two reported increased minoritypercentages in 1986 over the prior year.
-4-
-
TABLE 2MINORITY STUDENTS ENROLLED IN SELECTED SCHOOL
DISTRICTS EXPRESSED AS A PERCENT?OCTOBER, 1971 THROUGH OC1OBER, 1386
*Straight line projection of 1982 to 1986 percentages
TRENDS
If current trends continue, Connecticut can expect significant changesin its minority student population. Statewide, by 1990, it is likely thatConnecticut's total school population will be comprised of over 25% minoritystudents (see Figure 2). Projecting to the year 2000, school districts nowwith 20% to 30% minority students--in particular, Meriden, Danbury,Middletown, Windsor, and Windham-may be in the 40% to 55% range. Thosecurrently in the 40% tc 50% range (i.e., Stamford, New London, Waterbury, andNewritain) will move into the 60% to 70% range. 'And those currently havingover 60% minority students (i.e., New Haven, Bloomfield, Bridgeport, andHartford) will become effectively all-minority school districts.
The shifting composition of Connecticut's public school minoritypopulation is most interesting. Over the last ten years, in all but the mostrecant year, the black student population has been gradually declining (from62,619 students in 1976 to 56,208 in 1986). Over the same time, the Hispanicstudent population has grown at a rate of three or four percent per year (orfrom 28,882 in 1976 to 39,737 in 1986). The number of Asian American studentsin the public schools has grown more rapidly on a percentage basis but, from asubstantially smaller base (approximately 2,800 in 1976 vs 7,994 in 1986)
-5-
yr,
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
e
6
4
2
0
Nur 2.
Percentage of Minority Students in ConnecticutPublic Schools, 1976.1986 & Projection to 1990
XLS
2 1 721 1
20 3
It S
172u0 111-5
II 11111.1
76 77 78 79 80 Si 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Year
6
(i
Overall, these growth patterns have caused both the number and the proportionof minority students to increase. In 1985 for the first time, the totalminority student enrollment in Connecticut public schools exceeded one hundredthousand students of a total public school population of 465,000. Currently,among the large cities, both Bridgeport and Hartford enroll more Hispanicstudents than black students.
The geographical distribution pattern for Asian American students issomewhat different than for the other racial/ethnic groups. While theirstatewide number has grown in 1986 to 7,994, they are more widely dispersedthroughout the state's school districts than are either black or Hispanicstudents. Fifty-four school districts enroll more Asian American studentsthan either black or Hispanic. Other than the five largest cities, those thatenroll one hundred or more Asian American students are: Danbury, EastHartford, Fairfield, Glastonbury, Greenwich, Groton, Hamden, Manchester,Middletown, New Britain, Norwalk, Simsbury, South Windsor, TrAbull, Vernonand West Hartford. Seven of these sixteen enroll more Asian American thanblack or Hispanic students.
Many minority children are forced by factors related to economicdevelopment, housing, zoning and transportation to live in poor urbancommunities where resources are limited. They often have available to themfewer educational opportunities. Of equa' significance is the fact thatseparation means that neither they nor th.ir counterparts in the more affluentsuburban school districts have the chance to learn to interact with eachother, as they will inevitably have to do as adults living and working in amulti-cultural society. Such interaction is a most important element ofquality education, and it benefits both minority and nonminority studentsalike. Like their counterparts in predominantly minority schools, children insuburban districts lack cultural diversity as they are educated and preparedto be members of society.
PREVIOUS EFFORTS
Connecticut's racial imbalance law, Section 10-226a-e, of theConnecticut General Statutes, passed in 1969, represented a significantattempt to address the problems of racial imbalance at a time when none ofConnecticut's cities had more than 60 percent minority student enrolment.Regulations, however, were not adopted until 1980, in large Neasure as aresult of resistance to their promulgation from various quarters. it was inthe spring of 1980 that the first monitoring of school districts under theseregulations began. At that time, Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven hadminority enrollments above seventy percent.
The State Board of Education has not been simply a spectator. It hasrepeatedly advanced equal educational opportunities for all Connecticutresidents. lhrough legislation, financial aid and incentives, programinitiatives, monitoring for racial balance and the deployment of departmentstaff, it has attempted to assist local school districts to better serve allof their students. The board's recently adopted definition of equal
educational opportunity must serve as a driving force in the implementation ofthe recommendations of this report.8
Over the past eight years, the State Department of Education basrigorously monitored local school districts for compliance with the state'sracial imbalance law. A total of nine districts have been cited fornoncompliance, and required to develop and implement plans to correct racialimbalance. Six of the cited districts have successfully balanced theirschools in keeping with their approved plans.
Project Concern, which is Connecticut's only state-sponsored program forenrolling inner-city minority students in suburban schools, served only 758students in 1986-87. This compares to the nearly 1,300 students whoparticipatedin the program in the mid nineteen seventies. During the pastyear Bridgeport enrolled 45 students in the schools of Westport and Wilton.Hartford sent 713 students to 13 cooperating suburban school districts, thelargest of which was West Hartford which educated 254 students.
lbe academic i.ichievement of children participating 'n Project Concern has beenmore than satisfactory. However, in addition to moving minority students tothe suburbs, the original design of the program was also intended to bringstudents from the suburbs to city school districts. This, it has neversucceeded in doing.
The statistics demonstrate that Connecticut's efforts to date have notbeen able to provide the state's minorities with an integrated environmentthat fully nurtures learning. A new approach would seem to be in order.Appropriately, as will be elaborated in the next section, new directions arebeing demanded by the co.Irts. As the examples from other states illustrate,achieving the goals of school desegregation and equal educational opportunitywill require a major rethinking of Connecticut's public education system.
LEGAL PRECEDENTS
The early focus of desegregation was on eliminating barriers and endingongoing discriminatory practices. However, by 1968, the courts began to movefrom this first step of opening schoolhouse doors to charging government andschool authorities with the obligation to come forward with plans both to enddiscriminatory practices and to elimin. le all vestiges of any priorstate-imposed segregation. These "second generation" remedies require a moresubstantial commitment of resources and greater expertise and coordinationthan did the first generation desegregation remedies.
A 1986 study by David S. Tatel, (et al.9) drcuments numerous legaldecisions in other states related to the responsibility of state officials todesegregate urban public schools under the U. S. Constitution. For example,in 1985, in the decision of Jenkins v. Missouri,10 the court stated, 'It isequitable to place the greatest burden of removing the vestiges of suchdiscrimination and the continued effects of same on the state rather than onthose who are the victims."
-8-
An instance in which the state can be held liable for not desegregatingoccurs when district lines have been deliberately drawn on the basis of race.In the decision of United States v. Missouri,11 the district court foundtnat, because a small suburban school district in St. Louis was operated,supported and supervised by both state and local officials in a way thatdenied equal educational opportunity, state officials were held respolsiblefor developing a desegregation plan that would work.
In both St. Louis12 and Kansas City,13 the State of Missouri wasordered to contribute to the cost of implementing desegregation programs. A
1983 settlement provided for voluntary interdistrict transfers between cityand c,Ju;ty schools, including fiscal incentives that would encourage thetransfer of black city students to county schools. The settlement packageincluded provisions for the creatici of interdistrict magnet schools andvoluntary teacher transfers. Moreover, the courts required the state to fundmore than one-half of .he total costs of the desegregation components,Including capital improvements to the existing schools and all ofthe costs for the voluntary interdistrict transfers. In Kansas City, thecourt ordered the state to fund $27 million in "priority" capitalimprovements, -, 1, under a court-approved plan, the state was required to fundSi million of the $13 million operating cost of six magnet schools.
In Indianapois.14 where the court ruled that discriminatory intentcontributed to segregation of students, the school system was excluded from astate legislative reorganization scheme which had extended the city'sboundaries to include surrounding areas of the county for all purposes excepteducation. This left a large share of the growing black population within apredominantly black inner-city school district.
In Virginia,15 state-a_Asted student transfers were found to be inviolation of the federal consititution. The transfers, it was decidedprovided funds for students to attend schools outside their district in a waythat would allow them to avoid attending desegregated schools.
And in other cases,16 the courts have ruled that dismantling a dualsystem cannot be carried out through pupil reassignment within the districtbut must be remedied by interdistrict desegregation. One ruling pointed outthat children who are "educationally and culturally set apart" will inevitablyacquire "habits of speech, conduct, and attitudes reflecting their culturalisolation" and consequently will be less able to 'function and compete" in thelarger community.17 Thus, states have been ordered to share with localschool districts in the responsibility for, and the cost of achieving,desegregation through student assignments. The obv:ous advantage ofinterdistrict remedies, vollntary or mandatory, is that courts are able toinclude suburban districts 'n a desegregation reme;. 18
A number of desegregation remedies place increasing reliance on thedevelopment of magnet schools and magnet programs. They are acceptable as adesegregation tool, however, only if they are not used to siphon off all themost able minority students.19
D-IDS
Ohio is among the several states that have been required by the courtsto share the financial responsibility for desegregating local schools. In
Cleveland, the court concluded that the state's failure to act and itscontinued funding of the Cleveland Public Schools, that it knew to besegregated, constituted °intentional racial segregation.°2u In a similarsituation in Columbus, the court held that the State Board of Education andthe state Superintendent of Public Instruction were to share equally with thelocal board of education in the cost of remedies. These were designated toinclude remedial and compensatory programs, development of a multiculturalcurriculum for elementary schools, a parent involvement program and a humanrelations program for students, parents and staff.21
In the case of Dayton, the State of Ohio was ordered to share the costof remedying the unconstitutional segregation in the city's schoolsystem.n In 1985, the State of Ohio entered into an agreement with theCincinnati Public Schools in which the state agreed to fund 50% of the cost ofdesigning, implementing and maintaining magnet schools in Cincinnati and apercentage of the expenses of transporting students to these schools through1990-91.23
Based on the case law to date, it seems certain that states that developand implement programs of interdistrict collaboration will put themselves in asignificantly better position to demonstrate that they have attempted tofulfill their responsibility to deal with the problems arising from segregatedconditions. However, a prereq'iisite to the achievement of desegregatedschools is the commitment by state officials to the elimination ofracial/ethnic isolation. Without some overt action by the State Board ofEducation, supported by appropriate legislation, change will continueunmanaged and further segregation, or in some cases resegregation, of theschools will continue.
-10-
r
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONNECTICUT
In the remainder of this report, the Committee on Racial Equity presentsfour recommendations for action. Each is accompanied by the rationale for therecommendation and explanation, where needed, of suggested alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION ONE
That the state, through administrative and legislative means,endorse the concept of *collective responsibility` fordesegregating the public schools of Connecticut.
Collective responsibility means the sharing of responsibility todesegregate schools by the state, the school district identified as havingracially imbalanced schools, as well as geographically contiguous schooldistricts and those school districts which border the contiguous districts,here referred tr, as adjacent districts. This is a departure from the currentpractice of placing sole responsibility for correcting instances of racialimbalance on a single, cited school district. The principle of collectiveresponsibility applies only in certain instances. Specifically, if any publicschool districts' minority enrollment exceeds a certain established percentagethe district shall be deemed racially imbalanced and school districtsdetermined to be contiguous and adjacent shall be joined with the citeddistrict in being required to develop a plan to racially balance schools andachieve quality integrated education. On the other hand, when a public schooldistrict with less than the established percentage of mino?ity students iscited for having one or more racially imbalanced school pursuant to Section10-226b of The Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, such school districtwill be given the option of pursuing intra or interdistrict means for raciallybalancing its schools. The principle of collective responsibility shall notapply in the later case.
First, it is recommended that the school districts affected, followingstate guidelines, would be required to prepare a corrective action plan toeliminate racial imbalance. Each school district in a region, including thosedeemed to be contiguous and adjacent. shall participate in the plandevelopment and implementation. Boundary lines separating school districts,often perceived as barriers that prohibit or discourage the reduction ofracial isolation, should not be allowed to defeat the school integrationeffOrts.
Second, it is recommended that solutions contained in the desegregationplan should initially be nonprescriptive and voluntary, such that the affectedschool districts might themselves find remedies appropriate to their ownunique situations. Nevertheless, to ensure that solutions are found andprogress is made, the State Board of Education should be empowered to impose amandatory desegregation plan at such time as it might judge the voluntaryapproach, in whole or in part, to be ineffectual.
Third, it is recommended that the State Board of Education, at the veryoutset of this new process, adopt a carefully considered set of optionaldesegregation methodologies. These methodologies would provide a "menu" of
various state-sanctioned approaches toward antra- and interdistrictdesegregation. They would therefore be useful to the school districts aspossible plan components. They might include, for example, the development ofmagnet schools, magnet programs, educational parks straddling school districtboundaries, and voucher programs that would extend traditional public schoolaccess.
Fourth, it is recommended that high quality educational programs shouldserve as the common thread in all desegregation plans. Indeed, the StateDepartment of education should be directed by the State Board of Education tolead by its own example in this continuing quest for quality education. To dothis, consideration should be given tr establishing one or morestate-sponsored 'regional" schools that would operate both to provide anexemplary integrated environment and to offer quality educational programs inthe sciences, math, humanities, etc.. The administration of such regionalschools could fall to the regional education service centers, regional boardsof education established for this purpose, individual boards of education orthe State Department of Education. As "centers for excellence," they couldserve as a model for others to follow. They should:
o be diverse in student characteristics, draw students across townboundaries and have heterogeneous student groupings,
o be exemplary with regard to policies of affirmative action andstandards for staffing .24
o offer extended day kindergarten, day care and early childhoodeducation programs,
o deronstrate the hit practices of schooling, such as those presentedin the department's own publication, "Research Based SchoolImprovement Practices,"25 in its series of curriculum guides, inthe general literature on effective schools, and in tne widelydistributed federal publication, "What Works .1126
o provide an exemplary implementation of "Connecticut's Common Core ofLearning."27
Examples of geographical groupings of school districts are given infigures 3 through 7. As an example of a major urban school district, figure 3
describes New Haven and its surrounding towns. Those which share a commonborder have been identified as contiguous to New Haven. Those which border onthe contiguous towns are identified as adjacent. Similarly, representing asmall urban area, New London (See Figure 4) is presented with its contiguousand adjacent towns. Groupings of this type represent the geographical areasthat might be affected by implementations of the collective responsibilityconcept. For other areas of the state, groupings should be constructed toappropriately deal with issues of geographical proximity, historical patternsof urban-suburban association, transportation routes, and economic ties.
-12-
1
NEW HAVEN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
WITH CONTIGUOUS AND ADJACENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS, 1986
NORTHBRANFORD
MINORITY TOTALSCHOOL CISTRICT TYPE STUDENTS STUDENTS
Finally, it is recognized that implementation of a policy of collectiveresponsibility will require modification of:
o leadership patterns that, while recognizing the existence ofracial/ethnic isolation, are insensitive and unresponsive to anyinitiatives for change;
o traditions and practices that place the concept of "the neighborhoodschool" and 'local autonomy" above the desired goal of qualityintegrated education;
o public laws and ordinances whose interpretation, if unchallenged,may discriminate against ethnic groups;
o foregone conclusions that find de facto segregation to be caused bysegregated housing and, consequently, to be unalterable;
o jurisdictional restrictions that cause segmented finances, resourcesand operations to impede comprehensive solutions to majoreducational and social problems.
None of these barriers is insurmountable for citizens ready to acceptthe challenge to racially balance their schools.
There are many precedents, in Connecticut and elsewhere, forinterdistrict collaboration and coordination. Among others, Connecticut'sregional educational service centers (RESC's) are noted for the quality ofservice they make available to member school districts and their students. Itmay even be possible to tap the creative abilities and experience of theRESC's in order to help resolve boundar: issues, to promote regional planningand collaboration, to design and develop interdistrict programs for studentsand staff, and to find nontradit'onal ways for the utilization of facilities
RECOMMENDATION TWO
That the state, through the State Board of Education, makeavailable substantial financial incentives to school districtsthat plan and implement voluntary interaistrict programs andadvance desegregation, racial balance and integrated education in
, Connecticut's public schools.
First, it is recommended that under a voluntary plan to transferstudents, any participating school district, whether it sends or receivesstudents, should receive financial incentives.
o The school district sending a student(s) to another school districtwill continue to include the student(s) in its student count on aprorated basis for purposes of receiving aid.
o In turn a school district receiving a student from another schooldistrict will receive an additional desegregation grant. This
-18-
-72
grant will be a prorated share of the larger of the sendingdistrict's equalization aid per pupil or the receiving district'sequalization aid per pupil.
Second, it is recommended that there should be state funding for magnetschools and magnet programs. To the extent that the student transferincentive, outlined above, might not cover the costs, especially in thebeg'nning, of a magnet school or program, additional state funds should bemade available.
Third, it is recommended that a funding provision be established thatwould allow the operation of a number of regional schools, as outlined inrecommendation one, above.
Fourth, it is recommended that there should be a an increase in thenumber of State Department of Education staff who work directly in the area ofschool desegregation.
RECOMMENDATION THREE
That the State Department of Education provide technical assistanceto school districts in the development and implementation of plansto achieve and maintain desegregated schools.
It is recommended that state-sponsored technical assistance be expandedto facilitate local efforts at voluntary interdistrict collaboration. If
current demographic trends continue, school districts will need substantialexpert assistance in meeting the needs of diverse student populations. Thestate must be prepared to assist local school districts in developing agendasfor action, for research, for evaluation, and for dissemination of successfulpractices.
Additionally districts whose minority enrollments c;ceed the statewjdeaverage for two consecutive years shall be eligible for state assistance inthe form of human and fiscal resources.
RECOMMENDATION FOUR
That the State Department of Education undertake broad-basedplanning with other agencies concerned with housing,transportation and other factors that contribute to segregationin the public schools, to find ways to counteract adverseinfluences on integration.
Public education will not alone solve the problems posed by theseparation of racial/ethnic groups. If properly directed, other governmentalbodies can help develop policies that affect urban revitalization, housingdevelopment, public transportation, jobs creation, and employment training.
-19-
First, it is recommended that local governments, the state legislatureand appropriate state agencies and regional planning authorities be madeaware of the recommendations of this report so that they too can contribute tothe broader objectives of reducing racial/ethnic isolation.
Second, it is recommended that the following possible long-termbeneficial effects on housing be explored:
o Attempts should be made to influence the location of new housing asdescribed in the State's current housing initiative.
o The creation of housing and counseling centers to give urbanfamilies advice on moving to houses in the suburbs where theirpresence would increase racial integration. This could be coupledwith a state sponsored mortgage assistance program to helpminorities move to the suburbs and to help whites move to the cities.
o legislation should be pursued that would require municipalities toundertake, with local boards of education, a study of the potentialimpact of any new housing development on the racial balance ofschool attendence zones.
In 1976, Pettigrew and Green wrote that, "...state liability forsegregation of the schools may be based on actions not directly related to itspublic education policies. For example, the Supreme Court on a number ofoccasions has recognized the interrelated nature of school and housingsegregation. Although courts have been reluctant to order 'otherwiseinnocent' school officials to undertake desegregation activities based solelyon the discriminatory practices of government officials responsible forhousing-related policies, they have been willing to order school desegregationrelief where plaint'ffs show that some meaningful connection exists betweenthe policies of public housing officials and the policies of school boardofficials."28
Since segregated housing is one of the primary causes of segregation,Connecticut's desegregation efforts must include coordination with governmentagencies that are responsible for housing and economic development.
-20-
MOVING FORWARD
Once again the State Board of Education is being asked to demonstrateits leadership to ensure "that each child shall have...equal opportunity toeceive a suitable program of educational experiences." Taking a position ooissues that are as much social and economic as educational is not new to theBoard. The public schools have responded repeatedly to student needs which gobeyond the bounds of traditional school responsibility; examples are schoollunch and breakfast programs, special services and school-based healthclinics. The arguments for developing strategies to combat racial' isolationin the schools are even more compelling.
States that initiate policies and programs to deal directly withsegregated conditions wherever they are manifest and to correct the relatedinequities will be in a better position to meet the demands of the nextcentury.
The concept of voluntary desegregation, research shows, is workable. Ina 1987 report to the National Institute of Education, entitled The Carrot orthe Stick in School Desegregation Policy," Christine H. Russell and Ruth C.Clarke of Boston University argue for "interracial exposure" rather than"racial balance." They conclude that:
o Voluntary desegregation plans work, although some minimal mandatoryreassignments are generally necessary.
o Voluntary plans produce more interracial exposure than the primarilymandatory plans.
o Mandatory desegregation plans are not failures; they produce moreinterracial exposure han if nothing at all had been done.
o Voluntary magnet school plans appear to enhance the reputation ofthe school system in which the magnet schcol is located.
Other researchers (Tatel, Sneed, Lanigan and Routh) in their study ofthe responsibility of state officials to desegregate urban public schools,maintain that state governments have the power to reorganize and consolidateschool districts and to improve the quality of education without the proddingof federal courts. They also point out that, since segregated housing is oneof the primary causes of school segregation, a state's efforts must Includethose agencies responsible for housing and economic development.
Some may say that, in acting to correct and prevent racial isolation inConnecticut's public schools, the State Board of Education is exceeding itsauthority. The Committee on Racial Equity maintains that, legally andeducationally the Board is within its' authority to eliminate the arbitrarybarriers that limit educational opportunities for a large segment of thestate's student population.
The true potential of our chiloren will not be realized until they arefreed from racial isolation and the resulting educational ineduitit4.
-21-
'D-7(
ENDNO1ES
'State of Connecticut, Board of Education, "Minority Students and StaffReport", 1987 (pre-publication).
2Coleman, James S., Sara D. Kelly, and John A. Moore, "Trends in SchoolSegregation, 1968-73," unpublished paper, The Urban Institote, Washington,D.C., 15 Aug. 1975. Hereafter referred to as Paper III.
3State of Connecticut, Board of Education, Minority Students and StaffReport, 1987 (pre-publication).
40rfield, Gary, 'White Flight Research: Its Importance, Perplexities andPossible Policy Implications,' paper presented at the Symposium on SchoolDesegregation and White Flight, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 15Aug. 1975, p.18-20.
5Pettigrew, Thomas F., Green, Robert L., School Desegregation in LargeCities: A Critique of the Coleman "White Flight" Thesis, Harvard EducationalReview Vol. 46, No, 1, February 1976.
6U.S. Oepartment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Cities with a 1980Population of 100,000 or More, Ranted by Persons, Poverty Rate in 1979", U.S.Census of Population and Housing, 1980.
722. cit., State of Connecticut, Board of Education, 1986 and 1987.
8State of Connecticut, Board of Education, "Policy Statement on EqualEducational Opportunity", May 7, 1986.
9Tatel, David S., Maree F. Sneed, Kevin J. Lanigan, and Steven J. Routh,'The Responsibility of State Officials to Desegregate urban public Schoolsunder the United States Constitution', November 12, 1986 (draft). All -references to legal precedents have been drawn from the Tatel paper, in whichthe reader will find many detailed citations of court cases and greaterelaboration of issues.
10ibid., pp. 6,
6,
8,
34,
7,
12.
9,
40.
9,
35.
39,
11,
18,
10.
40.
23,
19,
24,
20,
25.
21, 22..
llibid., pp.
12ib.id., pp.
13ibid., p.
14ibid., pp.
15ibid., p.
16ibid., pp.
-22-
17ibid., p. 21
leibid., p. 22, 23, 24.
Ilibid., pp. 24.
20ibid., p 29.
2libid., p. 31, 32.
22ibid., p. 33.
23ibid., p. 34
24State of Connecticut, Department of Education, 'Standards for Staffing andInstrt.ctional Resources,' a document in draft form. September 21, 1987.
25State of Connecticut, Department of Education, "Research -Based SchoolImprovement Practices*, 1984.
26U.S. Department of Education, What Works, Research About Teaching andLearning", 1986.
27State of Connecticut, Board of Education, *Connecticut's Common Core of
Learning", January, 1987.
28petZigrew, Thomas F., Green, Robert L., School Desegregation in Large
Cities: A Critique of the Coleman "White Flight* Thesis, Harvard EducationalReview Vol. 46, No. 1, February 1976.
-23-
191611
The Committee on Racial Equity
Albert AlexanderDavid Cleaver
Angle Soler GallanuWilliam GauthisRobert Mar Jelin
