Choice Watch: Diversity and Access in Connecticut s School Choice Programs

Transcription

1 Choice Watch: Diversity and Access in Connecticut s School Choice Programs Robert Cotto, Jr., Ed.M. Kenneth Feder April 2014 [Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Drawing Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.] Connecticut Voices for Children 0

2 I. Introduction This report examines the impact of Connecticut s interdistrict school choice programs on the state s goals of providing an equal educational opportunity to every child the opportunity to attend a well-resourced school with an integrated learning environment that prepares students (1) to engage in a democratic society and (2) to access gainful employment or higher education. 1 Interdistrict school choice programs permit parents to enroll their children in schools outside their local school district. 2 Nearly 50,000 Connecticut students now utilize one of these programs, 3 and the State has spent millions of dollars above and beyond its traditional commitment to local public schools to support and expand various choice programs. 4 National research shows that, when appropriately designed and regulated, school choice can help reduce student racial and ethnic isolation in public schools and provide otherwise disadvantaged students access to learning environments that meet their unique needs. When poorly designed, however, choice programs can exacerbate existing segregation and limit educational opportunities for students who are not English language dominant or who have disabilities. This report focuses on interdistrict magnet, charter, and technical schools. Not only do these programs have larger enrollment than the state s other choice programs and more readily available demographic data, but they also have a diverse set of missions, regulations, and program offerings that allow for an analysis of the impact of school design on integration and opportunity. This report seeks to answer the following questions: What is the demographic composition of Connecticut s school choice programs? Do Connecticut s choice programs reduce or increase racial segregation? Do Connecticut s choice programs reduce or increase socioeconomic segregation? Are emerging bilingual students, for whom English is not a first language, proportionately represented in school choice programs? Are students with disabilities proportionately represented in school choice programs? To answer these questions, the report examines the enrollment and demographics of each of Connecticut s school choice programs throughout the state and, in the case of school choice programs in each of the State s four largest towns (which enroll the most students in choice programs), it draws demographic comparisons between the choice programs and the local public schools of each respective town. State level findings: Demographic Composition: When compared to all Connecticut public schools, charter, magnet and technical schools enroll a higher proportion of students of color and low-income students; by contrast, charter, magnet, and technical schools enroll a slightly lower proportion of emerging bilingual students and students with disabilities. Racial Segregation: A majority of magnet and technical schools are integrated by race/ethnicity, where integrated is defined as enrolling between 25% and 75% minority students (see Appendix A: Extended Methods). By contrast, a majority of charter schools are hypersegregated by race/ethnicity, where hypersegregated is defined as enrolling more than 90% or less than 10% minority students (again, see Appendix A: Extended Methods). Socioeconomic Segregation: A majority of all school choice programs are integrated by socioeconomic status, where integrated is defined as enrolling between 25% and 75% students eligible for free or reduced price meals (Appendix A: Extended Methods). Emerging Bilingual Enrollment: Emerging bilingual students are at least five percentage points underrepresented in a majority of all charter, magnet, and technical schools when these schools are compared to the local public schools of the towns in which they are located. Connecticut Voices for Children 1

3 Students with Disabilities Enrollment: Students with disabilities are at least five percentage points underrepresented in a more than a third of all charter and magnet schools, and a majority of technical schools, when these schools are compared to the local public schools of the towns in which they are located. Local findings: Racial Segregation: In Connecticut s four largest cities Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, and Stamford magnet schools are typically more integrated by race/ethnicity than the local public schools. By contrast, technical schools in Bridgeport and Hartford are slightly more segregated than those towns public schools (New Haven and Stamford have no technical schools), and charter schools are more segregated by race/ethnicity than the local public schools in all four towns. Socioeconomic Integration: In Connecticut s four largest cities, school choice programs are typically more integrated by socioeconomic status than the local public schools, reflecting the fact that these programs are less likely to enroll low income students. Charter schools in Stamford and New Haven prove the exception to this rule, with Stamford charter schools less and New Haven schools comparably integrated. Emerging Bilingual Enrollment: Emerging bilingual students are underrepresented in every choice program in all four large cities. Students with Disabilities Enrollment: Students with disabilities are underrepresented in every choice program in all four large cities, with the exception of Stamford s charters where they are overrepresented. Connecticut Voices for Children 2

4 II. Background: The History of and Theory Behind School Choice In 1969, the State of Connecticut enacted legislation defining four state educational interests: To provide every Connecticut child with an equal opportunity to receive a suitable program of educational experiences; To provide financing sufficient for students to achieve such a suitable education; To reduce racial and ethnic isolation by providing its students with educational opportunities to interact with students and teachers from other racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds; and To implement the other educational requirements set forth in statute. 5 Over the past several decades, Connecticut has relied increasingly on a variety of public school choice programs to help fulfill the state s educational goals. 6 Prior to the introduction of school choice, Connecticut families chose between public schools by choosing where to live, buying or renting homes in the town in which they wanted their children to attend school. 7 The school district typically assigned children to specific schools based primarily on their neighborhood of residence. 8 Families dissatisfied with these options could home-school their children or send them to private school. Neighborhood choice as a means of school choice has obvious limitations. Discriminatory practices in the advertising and sale of real estate that began as early as the 1930s and 40s led to dramatic racial and ethnic segregation, with white families concentrated in suburban towns and minority families in urban centers. 9 This in turn had the impact of dramatically segregating school districts by race and ethnicity. Such segregation persists to this day, undercutting the ability of schools to prepare students to participate in democratic institutions and collaborate in the workplace in a diverse society. 10 Over time, public school choice has developed as an alternative and increasingly widespread method of selecting public schools for one s children. Rather than having children assigned to a school in their local school district of the town in which they reside, parents may opt to enroll their children in a school choice program that may or may not be located in their town of residence. Currently, Connecticut offers five school choice options: 11 Technical high schools; Agricultural science and technology centers; The Open Choice program; Interdistrict magnet schools; and Charter schools. Many of these programs have operated for decades but, while all seek to promote academic success, they do not share all the same goals. Connecticut s technical schools have operated since the 1910s to provide students with the opportunity to master trade and technology skills. 12 Agricultural education centers were established in their current form in the 1950s to prepare students for careers in the environmental, natural resources, and agriculture science fields. 13 The Open Choice program which allows urban students to attend suburban public schools began in the 1960s (when it was named Project Concern) to reduce racial and ethnic segregation. 14 Interdistrict magnet schools, introduced in the 1980s, sought to reduce racial, ethnic, and economic segregation, by providing high quality, theme-based curricula that would attract students from a range of towns and backgrounds. 15 Connecticut Voices for Children 3

5 Charter schools, the newest of the school choice options intended to improve academic achievement, promote innovation and reduce racial, ethnic and economic isolation, began operating in the 1990s. 16 Proponents of school choice generally fall into one of two camps: those who seek to heighten school quality and improve individual educational outcomes through market forces, and those who seek to effect positive societal change by using school choice as means to create a more inclusive and integrated learning environment. 17 The first group of choice proponents those who seek to improve school quality and maximize individual educational outcomes through market forces believe that competition for students among educational providers will improve school performance and create efficiencies that lead to better educational services for individual families and children. 18 This theory, sometimes called market theory, is based on the ideals of a well-functioning market, which in the context of public education would mean: Families have equal access to information needed to make fully informed choices; Families have knowledge of the school choice process and equal capacity to exercise their choices; Schools are willing and able to accept children who apply to them, and are willing and able to keep children in school absent a family choice to move children to a different setting; Children have equal access to their selected schools, without barriers such as lack of transportation; and There are low barriers to entry into the educational market, and parties who seek to provide new educational options to meet student needs have equal opportunity to open new programs. These proponents of choice believe that, given the existence of a well-functioning market, education funds should be deployed in such a way that individual families have equal and unfettered opportunities to select among a number of school options based on what they believe will produce the best educational outcomes for their children. 19 School options might include magnet schools, charter schools, and public or private schools that might accept a voucher. 20 In the context of public school selection, however, these ideal market conditions likely do not exist. Rather: Only limited information, such as test scores, may be available to parents about school quality, making informed choices challenging; Only some families may have full knowledge of the choice process because of societal barriers, and those families with socioeconomic, linguistic, or regional advantages may be able to exploit the choice process to their advantage; Schools may intentionally or unintentionally exclude students who are challenging to educate; Transportation to any school may not be readily available; Because of the challenges of opening a school, new choice programs may not be able to enter the market quickly enough to meet parental demands. The second group of school choice proponents (sometimes called integration theorists ) are unsatisfied with simply increasing individual educational outcomes. They seek instead to redress societal inequities by providing students who are deprived of educational opportunity through segregation or isolation the opportunity to attend integrated schools that can meet their educational needs and prepare them to be participants in public institutions and the workforce of a diverse society. 21 Integration theorists may fear that market flaws not only undercut the ability of competition to raise school quality, but also further increase social inequalities as parents of greater privilege exploit the choice process to self-segregate, leaving the most vulnerable children effectively shut out of a range of educational opportunities. Therefore, this second group of school choice proponents often support regulations, protections, and incentives to ensure Connecticut Voices for Children 4

6 both that school choice actually achieves its goal of integration, and that students disadvantaged by socioeconomic status, English language proficiency, or disability derive the same benefits from the choice process as their peers. These alternative perspectives on school choice matter. They inform how officials design public school choice programs and can affect schools and communities. Increasingly, researchers have presented evidence that public school choice can exacerbate existing inequality among schools and communities absent sufficient oversight and equity safeguards. 22 In other words, if school choice is designed to serve only the individual interests of families, then the aggregate impact of choice programs would likely undermine achieving the goal of equitable educational opportunity. This report examines the impact of Connecticut s choice programs on integration and equity to determine whether such choice actually improves educational opportunity for our state s children. Connecticut Voices for Children 5

7 III. Methods This report uses enrollment data provided by the State Department of Education (SDE) for the school year (hereafter SY 2012). 23 The enrollment data provided counts at the school level of the number of children in each demographic category along several dimensions (grade, race/ethnicity, free/reduced price meals eligibility, ELL identification, and special education identification), allowing for an analysis of each school s integration or segregation by race/ethnicity and/or socioeconomic status. The data further allow a comparative analysis of choice schools versus local public schools, assessing both relative integration as well as relative enrollment of children who do not speak English as a first language and children with disabilities. This report focuses on interdistrict magnet, charter, and technical schools: Interdistrict magnet schools are public schools, operated by a local or regional school district, a regional educational service center, or a cooperative arrangement involving two or more districts. 24 Interdistrict magnet schools have two stated goals: (1) to reduce, eliminate or prevent the racial, ethnic, or economic isolation of public school students, and (2) to offer a high-quality curriculum that supports educational improvement. 25 Interdistrict magnet schools that began operating after July 1, 2005 must enroll a student body which is between 25% and 75% students of color. 26 The Commissioner of Education can withhold interdistrict magnet grant funds from operators of schools that do not meet this standard. 27 Charter schools are public schools organized as non-profit entities that operate independently of local and regional boards of education. 28 Charter schools have four stated goals: (1) to improve academic achievement, (2) to provide for educational innovation, (3) to provide vehicles for the reduction of racial, ethnic and economic isolation, and (4) to provide a choice of public education programs for students and their parents. 29 Charter schools may have their charter revoked if they fail to attract, enroll, and retain low-income students, minority students, emerging bilingual students, or students with disabilities, and may be placed on probation if they fail to make measurable progress in reducing racial, ethnic, and economic isolation. 30 However, no integration standards or external benchmarks exist to indicate whether a charter school is achieving measurable progress in reducing racial, ethnic, and economic isolation. In most instances, charter school operators set goals for themselves in their applications for a new charter and subsequent annual reports. 31 The Connecticut Technical High School System constitutes its own school district governed by the State Board of Education. 32 The stated goal of technical high schools is to provide students in Grades 9-12 with the opportunity to master trade and technology skills while earning a high school diploma. 33 Technical high schools have no integration requirements. These schools are the focus of our report because they are the State s three largest school choice programs, and the ones for which enrollment data were readily available. Furthermore, because missions and integration standards differ across school types, 34 comparing school types provide an opportunity to see if different school choice policies lead to different enrollment outcomes, and to determine whether integration standards impact access to the school market and help or hinder the mission of providing equal educational opportunity. For a detailed discussion of analysis and research methodology, see Appendix A: Detailed Methods. Connecticut Voices for Children 6

8 IV. Summary of Choice Program Enrollment In the , there were 49,254 children enrolled in Connecticut s school choice programs. Of these, 89% attended magnet, charter, or technical schools. Our analysis focuses on these three programs. Figure 1: School Choice Programs in Connecticut in Type of School/Program Number of Children Number of Schools Grade levels (varies) All Public Schools ,861 1,134 PK-12 Interdistrict Magnet 27, PK-12 Technical 36 10, Charter 37 6, PK-12 Agricultural Science and Tech. Center 38 3, Open Choice 39 2,086 PK-12 Source: CT Voices for Children s Analysis of Connecticut State Department of Education Data, 2012 a. Historical Enrollment Enrollment in choice programs has grown dramatically over the last decade, driven primarily by growth in magnet and charter programs, both of which have more than doubled their enrollment. Figure 2: Historical Growth in School Choice Programs Number of Children Enrolled 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Charter Interdistrict Magnet Technical 27,170 19,117 10,996 10,910 10,026 10,656 2,594 6,097 3,583 Source: CT Voices for Children s Analysis of Connecticut State Department of Education Data, 2012 b. Location School Year (October 1st) Interdistrict magnet and charter schools are concentrated in Connecticut s large cities. In fact, 62 percent of students attending a charter or magnet school attend school in one of four cities: Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, and Stamford. Connecticut Voices for Children 7

9 Number of Students Enrolled Figure 3: Charter and Magnet Attendance by Town Source: CT Voices for Children s Analysis of Connecticut State Department of Education Data, 2012 By contrast, the technical high schools are scattered throughout Connecticut, with each of the 16 located in a different town. 40 c. Demographic Summary All three choice programs (magnet, charter, and technical) are more likely than the typical Connecticut public school to enroll minority students. They are also more likely to enroll students eligible for Free or Reduced Price Meals (FRPM), a common metric of student socioeconomic status. However, they are slightly less likely to enroll identified ELL and special education students. Percent of Students Enrolled 7863 Figure 4: Demographics of Connecticut School Choice Programs 100% 90% 90% 80% 70% 71% 70% 60% 55% 47% 50% 39% 41% 40% 35% 30% 20% 12% 10% 6% 5% 5% 3% 8% 9% 7% 0% Percent Minority Percent FRPM Eligible Percent ELL Percent Special Education Bridgeport Hartford New Haven Stamford All Other Towns All Public Schools Charter Magnet Technical Source: CT Voices for Children s Analysis of Connecticut State Department of Education Data, 2012 Charter Magnet Connecticut Voices for Children 8

10 V. Racial and Ethnic Integration This section examines whether school choice programs (a) offer their students a racially and ethnically integrated learning environment and (b) increase or decrease relative racial and ethnic school segregation as compared with the population of the school district of the towns in which they are located. a) Integration Within Choice Programs In , a majority of magnet schools and technical schools were integrated, as measured by the standard set forth in the 2008 settlement agreement of the landmark Sheff v. O Neill school desegregation case: a school with a student body composed of between 25% and 75% minority students (see Appendix A: Extended Methods). In contrast, only 18% of charter schools met the Sheff standard. The majority of charter schools were instead hypersegregated, with a student body composed of more than 90% minority students (see Appendix A: Extended Methods). Percent of Schools Figure 5: School Choice Programs by Level of Racial/Ethnic Integration 100% 90% 80% 70% 64.7% 61.9% 60% 56.3% 50% 40% 33.3% 30% 18.8% 17.6% 18.8% 20% 11.8% 10% 5.9% 1.6% 0.0% 3.2% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0% Hypersegrated Minority Moderately Segregated Minority Integrated (Sheff standard) Charter Interdistrict Magnet Technical Source: CT Voices for Children s Analysis of Connecticut State Department of Education Data, 2012 b) Choice Programs Compared to Local School s Moderately Segregated White Hypersegregated White Figure 6 examines the racial/ethnic demographics of charter, magnet, and technical schools in Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, and Stamford, the four towns in the state with the greatest number of students enrolled in choice programs. Magnet schools, the only choice programs with quantifiable desegregation standards, serve the lowest percentage of minority students in every city, followed by district schools. The technical schools in Bridgeport and Hartford serve on average a greater percentage of non-white students than the towns where they reside. (New Haven and Stamford have no technical schools.) Finally, charter schools have the highest percentage of minority student body in all four cities. The data show that while magnet schools tend to reduce educational segregation, technical and charter schools tend to increase educational segregation. Connecticut Voices for Children 9

11 Figure 6: Racial/Ethnic Composition of Students in Schools and Choice Programs in Connecticut s Largest Towns % 92% 99% 92% 100% 94% 97% 96% 90% 90% 85% 79% 80% 72% 74% 70% 64% 60% 54% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent of Student Body Identified as Students of Color Source: CT Voices for Children s Analysis of Connecticut State Department of Education Data, 2012 c) Ethnic Composition of Minority Students State integration standards treat students of color as a single group; however, the data allow for further analysis of the composition of racial and ethnic minority students in each school choice program, showing that this composition varies by program type. Black students make up a majority of the minority student enrollment in charter schools, and slightly less than half in magnet schools. Hispanic/Latino students make up the majority share of children of color in technical schools. Figure 7: Ethnic Distribution of Non-White Students by Choice Program Percent of Non White Students Enrolled Source: Connecticut State Department of Education, d) Discussion 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Bridgeport Hartford New Haven Stamford Charters Magnet Technical 5% 10% 6% 27% 68% 42% 49% Integration by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status has academic and social benefits for children of all racial and ethnic groups. 42 In fact, the long-term academic, career, and civic outcomes from integrated educational experiences can be profound for both white children and children of color. 43 The benefits of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic school integration can include access to other successful peers, increased resources, a broad curriculum, and a diverse, skilled group of educators. 44 In contrast, mounting evidence 63% 31% Charter Magnet Technical Other Hispanic Black Connecticut Voices for Children 10

12 shows that schools and neighborhoods extremely segregated by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status can have a negative impact on children and families long-term development, well-being, and access to services and opportunities. 45 The importance of integration is reflected in Connecticut law, which is clear that public school choice programs (with the exception of technical schools) have an obligation to reduce racial, ethnic, and economic isolation of students. 46 Additionally, Connecticut has chosen to subsidize school choice programs by providing additional funding outside the traditional state aid grant for local public education (the Education Cost Sharing grant). 47 Given this financial support, together with the clear mandate of the law to provide a diverse learning environment and the mounting evidence of the benefits of an integrated education, the State must give careful consideration to whether different school choice programs advance or undermine the state s educational interests by offering parents the option of sending their children to school in an integrated learning environment. The data presented here suggests that: Magnet schools tend to offer a racially and ethnically integrated learning environment, and offer students who attend school in Connecticut s four largest cities a more integrated learning environment than is present in their local public school districts. Technical schools are on average racially and ethnically integrated; however, the fact that technical schools in Hartford and Bridgeport are as or more segregated as the school districts of these towns suggests that the integrated quality of these schools on average may reflect the more diverse communities in which they are located, rather than any element of their design that contributes to desegregation. Charter schools are typically hypersegregated by race/ethnicity and, in Connecticut s four largest cities, actually offer students, on average, a learning environment that is more or equally segregated by race and ethnicity than local public schools. One reason for these differing levels of integration is likely the different integration standards applied to each choice program. In Connecticut, magnet schools are the only choice program with quantifiable desegregation standards, 48 and the only choice program that consistently reduces racial segregation in Connecticut s four largest cities. By contrast, technical schools have no desegregation standards. Charter schools may be placed on probation by the Commissioner of Education if they fail to achieve measureable progress in reducing racial, ethnic, and economic isolation; 49 however, because state law prescribes no quantifiable desegregation standard for charters, schools develop their own, 50 and as a result these vary widely from school to school. National trends mirror those seen in Connecticut: when school choice programs have racial and ethnic integration guidelines, access to resources (such as support services and transportation), and a multi-district student enrollment, they more often meet the goal of reducing racial, ethnic, and economic segregation. 51 Odyssey Community School in Manchester and Achievement First Bridgeport provide telling examples of the different desegregation standards applied by charter schools and how these standards may impact the extent to which each school offers an integrated learning environment. In its annual report, under the goal of Efforts to Reduce Racial, Ethnic and Economic Isolation to Increase the Racial and Ethnic Diversity of the Student Body, Achievement First-Bridgeport s report states: Goal A: In our capstone grades fourth, eighth and tenth Achievement First Bridgeport Academy s African-American, Hispanic and low-income students will outperform African- American, Hispanic and low-income students in their host district and state-wide, reducing racial, ethnic and economic isolation among these historically underserved subgroups by fostering high student achievement that prepares them for success in college and life beyond. 52 Connecticut Voices for Children 11

13 This goal for reducing racial and ethnic isolation is unrelated to the demographic composition of the student body. Notably, Bridgeport Achievement First has a student body that is 99% children of color. By contrast, the annual report of Odyssey Community School in Manchester, CT states: Goal A: Odyssey will continue to attract a diverse student body, and will embrace a culture of acceptance and celebration of diversity % of Odyssey s students are racial and ethnic minorities. 54 Many of the state s segregated charter schools are located in towns that operate the most segregated districts districts in which the State has also opened many interdistrict magnet schools in an attempt to offer children a more integrated learning environment. Although the State is under an 18-year-old court order to desegregate the Hartford public schools, many children in the Hartford region and elsewhere still do not have access to an integrated learning environment due to district boundaries and limited seats in magnet schools and the Open Choice program. 55 Therefore, while the State may have good reasons for the supporting urban charter and technical schools, when the State funds these programs but does not ensure that they are integrated, it offers parents whose children cannot get into an integrated magnet program (or possibly a suburban school district through the Open Choice program) a false choice between segregated district schools and segregated charter and technical schools. If policymakers intend to commit continued or increased State resources to school choice programs, then they must have a plan including detailed guidelines and clear integration benchmarks for how these programs will meet their legal and educational obligations to reduce racial, ethnic, and economic isolation. 56 Without a plan for integrating all school choice programs, the State will be knowingly replicating or worsening the racial and ethnic isolation that already exists in Connecticut s schools. Connecticut Voices for Children 12

14 VI. Socioeconomic Integration This section examines whether school choice programs (a) offer their students socioeconomically integrated learning environments and (b) increase or decrease socioeconomic segregation in the school districts of the towns in which they are located. a) Integration within School Choice Programs In , a majority of all school choice programs were integrated by socioeconomic status, as measured by applying the Sheff standard to the percent of students eligible for Free and Reduced Price Meals (FRPM) (see Appendix A: Methods). Percent of schools Figure 8: School Choice Programs by Level of Socioeconomic Integration (Eligibility for Free and Reduced Price Meals) 100% 90% 81% 88% 80% 70% 60% 53% 50% 41% 40% 30% 20% 13% 6% 6% 5% 8% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Hypersegregated Moderately Integrated Moderately Hyper Segregated FRPM Segregated FRPM Segregated non non FRPM FRPM Charter Interdistrict Magnet Technical Source: CT Voices for Children s Analysis of Connecticut State Department of Education Data, 2012 b) Choice Programs Compared to Local School s Figure 9 examines the socioeconomic demographics of charter, magnet, and technical schools in Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, and Stamford. Magnet schools serve the lowest percentage of FRPM-eligible students in every city, followed by technical schools in Bridgeport and Hartford. The degree of socioeconomic integration in charter schools varies by city. In Bridgeport and Hartford, charter schools serve fewer students eligible for FRPM than the local public schools. By contrast, in New Haven and Stamford, charter schools serve a higher percentage of FRPM-eligible students than the local public schools. This variation across districts largely reflects variation in the composition of local public schools, not in the average composition of charter schools while FRPM eligibility in the local public schools ranges from 99% in Bridgeport to 48% in Stamford, charter schools in all four cities serve between 75% and 85% FRPM eligible students. Connecticut Voices for Children 13

15 Figure 9: Socioeconomic Composition of Students in Schools and Choice Programs in Connecticut s Largest Towns % 99% 90% 90% 83% 84% 80% 80% 76% 67% 69% 69% 70% 63% 59% 60% 56% 48% 50% 40% 35% Percent of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Meals 30% 20% 10% 0% Source: CT Voices for Children s Analysis of Connecticut State Department of Education Data, 2012 c) Discussion Bridgeport Hartford New Haven Stamford Charter Magnet Technical Choice programs are more likely to be integrated by socioeconomic status than by race in every program type. Furthermore, a majority of all schools in each type of choice program are integrated by socioeconomic status. However, some choice programs are more socioeconomically integrated than the towns in which they are located, and some are less. Taken together, these findings suggest that: In contrast to race and ethnicity, all school choice program types tend to offer their students a learning environment that is relatively more integrated by socioeconomic status than local public schools; Whether choice programs tend to increase or decrease student socioeconomic segregation in Connecticut s four largest towns varies by both program type and by town. Connecticut Voices for Children 14

16 VII. Emerging Bilingual Student Disparities This section examines whether emerging bilingual students students for whom English is not a first language and are identified as English Language Learners (ELL) are proportionately represented in school choice programs. a) Comparing Choice Programs to Local Public Schools As shown in Figure 10, a large majority of school choice programs enroll a smaller share of ELL students than the local public schools of the towns in which they are located. In fact, 76% of all charter schools, 64% of all magnet schools, and 56% of all technical schools had substantially lower ELL enrollment 5 percentage points or fewer below the local public schools of the towns in which they were located (see Appendix A: Methods). Figure 10: Over- and Underrepresentation of ELL Students in Choice Programs as Compared to their Town s Local Public Schools Percent of Schools 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 6% 3% 2% 6% 6% 11% 6% 0% 12% 17.5% 31% 76% 66.7% Source: CT Voices for Children s Analysis of Connecticut State Department of Education Data, 2012 This trend is exhibited in all four of Connecticut s largest towns. ELL students are less likely to be enrolled in all three types of choice programs than in the local public schools in each of these towns. 56% Charter Magnet Technical Substantially Higher ELL Enrollment (5 percentage points higher) Somewhat Higher ELL Enrollment (Between 1 and 5 percentage points) Within 1 percentage point Somewhat Lower ELL Enrollment (Between 1 and 5 percentage points) Substantially Lower ELL Enrollment (5 percentage points lower) Connecticut Voices for Children 15

17 Figure 11: ELL Composition of Students in Schools and Choice Programs in Connecticut s Largest Towns 58 Percent of Students Identified as ELL 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 13% 2% 2% 1% 18% 3% 5% 5% 14% 13% Bridgeport Hartford New Haven Stamford Source: CT Voices for Children s Analysis of Connecticut State Department of Education Data, 2012 This trend is even more dramatic in the five towns whose local public schools enrolled the highest percentage of ELL students in the state Windham, New London, Danbury, Hartford, and New Britain. 9% 6% 0% 7% Charters Magnet Technical Figure 12: ELL Composition of Students in Schools and Choice Programs in Connecticut Towns with Highest Local Public School ELL Enrollment Percent of Students Identified as ELL 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Source: CT Voices for Children s Analysis of Connecticut State Department of Education Data, 2012 b) Discussion 26% 3% 0% 21% 11% 17% 18% 18% 6% 5% 5% 3% Taken together, the findings presented here suggest that emerging bilingual students are consistently underenrolled in Connecticut s school choice programs. This finding is true across program type and across a range of towns. 3% 17% Windham New London Danbury Hartford New Britain 7% Charters Magnet Technical Connecticut Voices for Children 16

18 There are likely multiple factors driving this enrollment disparity, some of which may include: Of the three choice programs examined here, two (interdistrict magnet and technical schools) have no explicit requirements with regard to ELL enrollment. Though the State Board of Education may deny charter renewal applications on the grounds that they have failed to make sufficient effort to attract, enroll, and retain... students who are English language learners, 59 no charter renewal has ever been denied for this reason. 60 The procedures required to apply to school choice programs may deter the parents and families of emerging bilingual children. 61 Although application forms may be available in languages such as Spanish, navigating the complex choice process may demand expansive English language skills, unpaid time, and resources from social networks that may not be available to parents whose first language is not English. 62 Per state law, once a school has more than twenty children identified as ELL, it must offer a schoolwide bilingual education program. 63 Since there are expenses associated with operating such a program, this creates a financial disincentive to enroll ELL students or even to identify enrolled students as ELL. Furthermore, unlike the case of special education services (where state law clearly specifies that the home district and the state are responsible for paying for the excess costs of special education for children attending choice programs), 64 the party responsible for the excess cost of a bilingual program is not specified, meaning that schools may be required to shoulder the full cost. Conversely, because there is no requirement that choice programs offer bilingual education if they enroll fewer than 20 ELL students, many parents or families of emerging bilingual children may opt out of enrolling their children in these schools because they do not meet their educational needs. Finally, by definition, choice programs enroll students from multiple towns. While many of these schools are located in towns with a large number of ELL students, they may also draw from towns with fewer ELL students, decreasing the percent of their student body one would expect to have ELL needs. However, the magnitude of the difference between local public schools and choice programs suggests that this cannot explain the disparity entirely. Many local public school systems enroll ELL students at more than twice the rate of choice programs. This suggests that even if 50% of each choice program drew its student body entirely from suburban towns with no ELL students, the disparity presented here would still be larger than expected. While most choice programs underenroll ELL students, it is important to note that those magnet schools which do enroll a high share of ELL students made concerted efforts to attract these students and serve them well. These schools John C. Daniels in New Haven (a dual language immersion school), 65 Regional Multicultural Magnet in New London (a bilingual/bicultural program), 66 Dual Language and Arts Academy in Waterford (a dual language program), 67 and Rogers International School in Stamford (an international baccalaureate (IB) program) 68 incorporate bilingualism, multiculturalism, and international knowledge into their school curriculum and design. If Connecticut continues to invest education resources in its choice programs above and beyond its standard commitment to local public schools, it is essential that the State ensure these programs are a viable educational option for emerging bilingual students. Unless the state establishes protections that help these students enroll in and receive a quality education from school choice programs, the state will be depriving emerging bilingual children of important educational opportunities simply because their predominant language is not English. Connecticut Voices for Children 17

19 VIII. Students with Disabilities Disparities This section examines whether students with disabilities those who are identified as requiring special education services are proportionately represented in school choice programs. a) Comparing Choice Programs to Local Public Schools As shown in Figure 13, a large majority of school choice programs enroll a smaller share of special education students than the local public schools of the towns in which they are located. In fact, 35% of all charter schools, 38% of all magnet schools, and 63% of all technical schools had substantially lower special education enrollment five percentage points or fewer below the local public schools of the towns in which they were located (see Appendix A: Methods). Figure 13: Over- and Underrepresentation of Students with Disabilities in Choice Programs as Compared to their Town s Local Public Schools Percent of Schools 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 12% 12% 6% 35% 43% 35% 38% 3% 0% 8% 13% 8% 0% Source: CT Voices for Children s Analysis of Connecticut State Department of Education Data, 2012 This trend is exhibited in all four of Connecticut s largest towns, in every type of choice program except for Stamford s charter schools, where students with special education needs are substantially overrepresented. Notably, in both of Stamford s charter schools, Stamford Academy and Trailblazers Academy, more than 20% of students require special education. Both of these schools are specifically designed as alternatives to traditional education: the former is a high school for students who have dropped out, do not attend school, or are otherwise disengaged; 69 the latter is a middle school for students who struggled in a traditional learning environment % 63% Charter Magnet Technical Substantially Greater Special Education Enrollment (5 percentage points higher) Somewhat Greater Special Education Enrollment (Between 1 and 5 percentage points) Within 1 Percentage Point Somewhat Lower Special Education Enrollment (Between 1 and 5 percentage points) Substantially Lower Special Education Enrollment (5 percentage points lower) Connecticut Voices for Children 18

20 Figure 14: Students with Disabilities in Schools and Choice Programs in Connecticut s Largest Towns 71 Percent of Students Identified as Requiring Special Education Services 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Source: CT Voices for Children s Analysis of Connecticut State Department of Education Data, 2012 b) Discussion 12% 9% 5% 2% 13% 11% 8% 9% 7% 6% 6% In Connecticut, as elsewhere in the United States, children with disabilities have a right to receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment possible. 72 The evidence presented here suggests that, with limited exception, students with disabilities are underrepresented in school choice programs. As with ELL students, there are several possible reasons students with disabilities are underrepresented in choice programs. These include: 9% 22% Bridgeport Hartford New Haven Stamford Charters Inter Magnet Technical 7% In accordance with state and federal law, all public school choice programs have legal obligations to serve children with disabilities once enrolled in the school. However, of the three choice programs examined here, only charter schools are explicitly expected to attract, enroll, and retain children with disabilities. 73 Charter schools may have their renewal applications denied if they fail to do so; 74 however, in practice, no renewal has ever been denied for this reason. 75 Not only are technical schools not required to attract and enroll children with disabilities; they are explicitly allowed to refer children with disabilities back to the district where they reside if the special education services a child needs preclude participation in the vocational education program. 76 School administrators may fear that enrolling students with disabilities will lower their average standardized test scores. 77 Because schools are often publicly evaluated on the basis of their students test scores, lower scores could result in stigma, additional government regulation, or other government action. As such, this concern may lead them to exclude or simply make no effort to attract children with disabilities. Connecticut Voices for Children 19

21 Parents may choose (or be directed by district or school staff) to have their child enrolled in neighborhood schools, rather than choice school programs, because district schools have a critical mass of staff already serving children with similar disabilities, or because parents prefer to remain close to their child s schools so they can more easily get to school in the case of emergency or attend a Planning and Placement Team meeting (PPT). 78 Schools may actively or passively push out enrolled children with disabilities with methods such as grade retention or excessive discipline. 79 As is the case with emerging bilingual students, if Connecticut continues to invest increasing education resources in its choice programs above and beyond its standard commitment to public schools, it is essential that the state ensure these programs are a viable educational option for students with special needs. Unless the state establishes protections that help these students enroll in and receive a quality education from school choice programs, students with disabilities will not have available to them the same range of educational opportunities as other students. Connecticut Voices for Children 20

22 IX. Conclusion The State s educational interest is to provide all children with an equal opportunity to attend school in an integrated environment, and an equal opportunity to learn regardless of predominant language or disability. While public school choice may be designed to advance integration and equity, the evidence presented here suggests that without appropriate oversight and regulation, school choice may also run counter to these goals. Simply having more schools to choose from does not necessarily result in increased educational quality or equity. 80 In some cases, public school choice in Connecticut is helping to reduce racial and ethnic isolation; in other cases, public school choice may be replicating or increasing segregation by race and ethnicity. Similarly, in some cases school choice programs may offer excellent educational alternatives to children with different learning abilities and primary languages; in other cases, public school choice may shut these children out. The evidence presented in this paper suggests that appropriate regulation can help to make school choice work better for a larger and more diverse group of children. Interdistrict magnet schools typically operate the most racially and socioeconomically diverse schools, probably because of their design (e.g., location, multiple district student composition, resources, curriculum) and because they must adhere to a legally defined quantifiable set of integration guidelines and goals. By contrast, charter schools, with self-defined (and often vaguely defined) and unenforced integration goals, are most often hypersegregated by race and ethnicity, overwhelmingly enrolling children of color (although many are socioeconomically integrated). Finally, probably because of their locations, regional student enrollments, and transportation resources, most technical schools are integrated by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. However, possibly because they have no legally defined diversity goals or integration guidelines, several of these schools (notably in the State s urban centers) are intensely segregated by race and ethnicity, and are more likely to serve children of color than the already segregated local public school districts. With nonexistent or unenforced protections and integration guidelines, charter, interdistrict magnet, and technical schools almost universally served a smaller share of children with disabilities and emerging bilingual children than both the State as a whole and the local public schools of the towns where they are located. Most of the exceptions to this trend were in schools specifically designed to serve these populations. Finally, the demographic data lends support to the idea that, when given the right to choose a school, parents will often exercise that right; however, without appropriate market regulation, choice can lead to segregation and barriers to access for linguistically or ability disadvantaged students. As the last century s experience demonstrates, schools that are severely segregated by race, ethnicity, language, ability, and socioeconomic status undermine the state s ability to provide an equitable public education to its children. 81 School choice programs can help to alleviate such segregation. Public school choice policies may provide families, particularly historically marginalized groups such as black and Latino families, with a greater sense of involvement and agency in their child s education. 82 Nevertheless, greater choice is not necessarily equivalent to greater equity or quality of choice. Poor school choice policy can offer some parents better choices but leave diminished choices for the majority of parents. 83 If public school choice expands, then policymakers must provide sufficient protections and regulations that promote equity for vulnerable groups of children and deliberately address racial, ethnic, and economic isolation of students. Connecticut Voices for Children 21