Who Chooses in Hartford?�Report 1: Regional School Choice Office Applications from Hartford-resident
HPS students in 2012
May 2014 presentation
by Jack Dougherty and Stephen Spirou�with Diane Zannoni and Marissa Block
Cities Suburbs & Schools Project
Trinity College, Hartford CT
See full report at http://commons.trincoll.edu/cssp/research
Research question:
Which Hartford-area families are more/less likely to apply for public school choice options, and how do they vary?
- student characteristics
- achievement levels
- school composition
- neighborhood demographics
Hartford Public School zones
Census tracts
Census block groups
Findings from Who Chooses Report 1:
We analyzed RSCO applicants vs non-applicants among Hartford-resident HPS grade 3-7 students in Spring 2012:
Applications not random, but linked to student socioeconomic characteristics that often showed higher participation by more privileged families:
- lower levels by English language learners & special needs
- higher levels by high CMT scores, and living in census areas with higher incomes and owner-occupied housing
3 policies increased public school choice in Hartford:
1) Sheff v O’Neill school desegregation raised interdistrict magnets and Open Choice through RSCO *our focus*
2) State legislature approved public charter schools
3) HPS shifted from neighborhood attendance areas to “all-choice” initiative for district schools
Typical parent of Hartford 6th grader eligible to apply to over 40 district & interdistrict options in metro region
Our study linked records across four data silos
Reg School
Choice Office
18,000 city & suburban applications to interdistrict magnets & Open Choice
CT Dept of Education
Public Sch Info System + CMT tests for 180,000 students in region
Hartford Public Sch
22,000 student addresses and more test data
Census Bureau
American Community
Survey 5yr
for 100 census block groups
John Smith
John Smith
1234567890
1234567890
100 Main St.
100 Main St.
Census 500101
Application Flow Chart (abbreviated) Spring 2012
+ 2 unmatched student records
Hartford-resident HPS Grade 3-7 students
= 6675
Applicants to RSCO lottery
= 1408 (21%)
Non-applicants to RSCO lottery
= 5265 (79%)
Analysis of Characteristics of RSCO Applicants
Gender | Probability of applying | of not applying | Magnitude of difference |
Male | .20 | .80 | no significant diff |
Female | .20 | .80 |
English Language Learner | Probability of applying | of not applying | Magnitude of difference |
ELL | .14 | .86 | 89 fewer ELL students applied than expected |
non-ELL | .23 | .77 |
Analysis of Characteristics of RSCO Applicants
Special Ed | Probability of applying | of not applying | Magnitude of difference |
SPED | .16 | .84 | 57 fewer SPED students applied than expected |
non SPED | .22 | .78 |
High scoring CT Mastery Test (4-5) | Probability of applying | of not applying | Magnitude of difference |
High scoring | .26 | .74 | 33 more high scoring students applied than exp. |
Lower scoring | .21 | .79 |
Owner occupied home census blk grp | Probability of applying | of not applying | Magnitude of difference |
Over 40% | .26 | .74 | 74 more students in upper group applied than exp. |
Less than 1% | .17 | .83 |
Median household income | Probability of applying | of not applying | Magnitude of difference |
Over $40k | .25 | .75 | 47 more students in upper group applied than exp. |
Under $20k | .18 | .82 |
Policy considerations:
1) If State wishes to evaluate public school choice, then link RSCO applications to CSDE records and make data available to researchers.
2) If State and Sheff plaintiffs desire more equitable choice participation, establish benchmarks by student characteristics (e.g. ELL, SPED, Income), in addition to the traditional total goal (e.g. 41% Hartford minority students).
3) Possible strategies to achieve equity participation benchmarks:
- School choice fairs and door-to-door outreach in under-represented areas
- Magnet themes (e.g. Dual Language) to attract under-represented students
- Weighted lottery to increase odds for under-represented Hartford areas
4) Explore why patterns exist: Creaming by schools and/or climbing by parents? Support qualitative research to explore what quantitative data does not reveal.
Acknowledgements:
Trinity co-authors: Prof. Diane Zannoni & Marissa Block ‘14
Trinity staff: David Tatem, Sue Denning, Rachael Barlow, Jason Rojas
Funded by: Achieve Hartford (not necessarily represent their views)
Data provided by: CT Dept of Education, under no-cost contract approved by CT Attorney General, which restricts use of confidential student records for the purpose of this study; Hartford Public Schools
Stay tuned for Report 2 spatial analysis (with maps)
For more information, contact: Jack.Dougherty@trincoll.edu