Choice Watch: Access and Diversity in

Connecticut’s School Choice Programs

Robert Cotto, Jr.

May 17, 2014

Hartford Board of Education

Trinity College - Hartford, CT

The Report

Robert Cotto, Jr. & Kenny Feder (CT Voices for Children)

• Source: CT State Department of Education, 2011-12

enrollment data. (October 2011)

• Pre-K – grade 12 counts for all CT schools, including

charter, interdistrict magnet, & technical schools.

• Comparisons of demographics to local school districts

by ELL, SWD, FRPM, race/ethnicity.

• Analysis of data with regard to relevant diversity laws.

Background

• CT school choice programs: technical schools, agricultural

science & technology centers, Open Choice, interdistrict

magnet schools, & charter schools.

• All voluntary enrollment programs.

• CT law promotes reduction of racial, ethnic, & economic

isolation through all programs except technical schools.

• Interdistrict magnet schools have desegregation standards,

enrollment rules, and/or financial support towards this goal.

CT School Choice Programs in 2011-12Type of

School/Program

Number of

Children

Number of

Schools

Grade levels

(varies)

All Public Schools 553,861 1,134 PK-12

Interdistrict

Magnet27,170 63 PK-12

Technical 10,656 16 9-12

Charter 6,097 17 PK-12

Agricultural

Science and Tech.

Center

3,245 19 9-12

Open Choice 2,086 — PK-12

Framework for Thinking About Choice

Erika Frankenberg and other researchers point

out, choice can help reduce racial, ethnic, and

economic isolation, yet “choice without equity”

can undermine educational opportunity for many

children and their families.

- Frankenberg and Orfield, 2013.

Research Questions

• What is the demographic composition of

Connecticut’s school choice programs?

• Which programs meet their respective goals of

reducing racial/ethnic/economic isolation?

• How does their enrollment of emerging

bilingual students & students with disabilities

compare to local school districts?

Key Findings

Our analysis of CT SDE enrollment data for school choice

programs - charter, interdistrict magnet, & technical schools:

• Higher proportion of students of color & low-income

students;

• Majority of interdistrict magnet & technical schools are

numerically desegregated by race/ethnicity.

• Majority of these three types of schools could be

considered “integrated” by free/reduced lunch status.

• Relatively lower proportion of emerging bilingual &

students with disabilities compared to local districts.

CT School Choice Demographics

39%35%

6%12%

90%

71%

5%8%

70%

55%

5%9%

47%41%

3%7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent Minority Percent FRPMEligible

Percent ELL Percent SpecialEducation

Perc

en

t o

f S

tud

en

ts E

nro

lled

All Public Schools Charter Magnet Technical

Charter & Magnet Enrollment by City

1437 1249 1622

311

1478774

6444

7863

1496

10593

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Bridgeport Hartford New Haven Stamford All OtherTowns

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

den

ts E

nro

lled Charter Magnet

Sources: CT State Department of Education, 2012 (2011-12 School Year). Cotto & Feder 2014

Analysis: Racial/Ethnic Segregation

65%

12% 18%6%

0%2%

33%

62%

3% 0%

19%

0%

56%

19%6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

en

t o

f S

ch

oo

ls

Charter Interdistrict Magnet Technical

Analysis: Socioeconomic Integration

6%

41%

53%

0% 0%6% 5%

81%

8%0%0% 0%

88%

13%

0%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

HypersegregatedFRPM

ModeratelySegregated

FRPM

Integrated ModeratelySegregated non-

FRPM

Hyper Segregatednon-FRPM

Perc

en

t o

f sc

ho

ols

Charter Interdistrict Magnet Technical

Analysis: Emerging Bilingual (ELL)

Choice

Compared

w/District

Percentage

Point

Differential

Charter

Schools

Interdistrict

Magnet

Schools

Technical

Schools

Substantially

Lower ELL

5 or higher 13 (76%) 42 (67%) 9 (56%)

Somewhat

lower ELL

Between 1 and

5

2 (12%) 11 (18%) 5 (31%)

Within 1

percentage pt.

1 (6%) 7 (11%) 0

Somewhat

Higher ELL

Between 1 and

5

1 (6%) 1 (2%) 1 (6%)

Substantially

Higher ELL

5 or higher 0 2 (3%) 1 (6%)

Comparison: Emerging Bilingual (ELL)

13%

18%

14% 13%

2%3%

9%

0%

1%

5% 6% 7%

2%

5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Bridgeport Hartford New Haven Stamford

Perc

en

t o

f S

tud

en

ts I

den

tifi

ed

as

EL

L

District

Charters

Magnet

Technical

Analysis: Students with Disabilities

Choice

Compared

w/District

Percentage

Point

Differential

Charter

Schools

Interdistrict

Magnet

Schools

Technical

Schools

Substantially

Lower SWD

5 or higher 6 (35%) 24 (38%) 10 (63%)

Somewhat

lower SWD

Between 1 and

5

6 (35%) 27 (43%) 4 (25%)

Within 1

percentage pt.

1 (6%) 5 (8%) 0

Somewhat

Higher SWD

Between 1 and

5

2 (12%) 5 (8%) 2 (13%)

Substantially

Higher SWD

5 or higher 2 (12%) 2 (3%) 0

Recommendations

• Account for demographic differences between choice

programs & local schools.

• All school choice programs and systems should have

clear, quantifiable, and enforced integration

standards, and sufficient resources to comply.

• Investigate barriers to enrolling ELL students and

students with disabilities in choice programs -

take action to remove any barriers identified.

• Investigate disincentives to enroll these children -

take action to alleviate them.

Additional Resources

Full report, appendices, & additional resources can be found at The Cities, Suburbs & Schools Project site:

http://commons.trincoll.edu/cssp/

Contact: Robert.Cotto@trincoll.edu

Thanks to CT State Department of Education; CT Voices for Children - Kenny Feder & Ellen Shemitz, J.D.