1. UNTOUCHABLE CARROTS: MARKETING SCHOOL CHOICE AND REALITIES IN HARTFORD'S INTER-DISTRICT MAGNET PROGRAM Mira Debs, Yale University mira.debs@yale.edu Trinity College, April 7, 2015

2. Inspiration of Sheff vs. O’Neill

3. Accomplishments of Sheff  As of 2014, 44.5% of Hartford students now attend racially integrated schools.  17,000 Hartford and suburban students enrolled at 48 inter-district magnet schools  31 suburban districts accept 2,000 Hartford students as part of the Open choice program (Sheff Movement Coalition, 2014)  Hartford Public Schools children entering Kindergarten with preK experience – 34.2% in 2007, now 68% in 2013 (Debs, 2015).

4. Research Question  Why are many families/stakeholders in Hartford dissatisfied with the post-2008 school choice system? RSCO lottery Hartford (HPS) choice lottery - magnet & Open Choice schools - optional - non-magnet schools & charter schools - required at transitional grades - no guaranteed neighborhood school

5. Methodology  18 month multi-site qualitative study including  Observations of parent events at 2 public magnet schools in Hartford  Observations at magnet fairs, Open Houses, community forums, Sheff meetings  Formal and informal interviews with 64 parents & Hartford and state educators  400+ hours of observation in Hartford

6. Theoretical Background  Controlled choice as the more equitable alternative to market based choice (Orfield & Frankenberg, 2012; Wells, Baldridge, et al., 2009)  Hartford has a strong controlled choice system. So why are parents dissatisfied?

7. Findings: Marketing Disconnect Marketing of choice FREEDOM, PERSONAL FIT vs. reality for Hartford families a White Hartford mother with biracial children, explained to me how she chose a school for her son, “I really liked [the arts school]. I actually thought [my son] had more of a performing arts bent. Not in my zone. Not in my neighborhood...So, you can have a sciency child in zone 3 or you can have an artsy child in zone 4.”

8. Findings: Transportation problems  34% of Hartford families don’t own cars (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014)  Very few magnets offer transportation for PreK students. These families are least able to enroll in magnet schools at the moment that they have the best chance of admission (Debs, 2015)

9. Parent Reactions to Racial Balancing  Illegal to select students on the basis of race. But Sheff schools must attract 25% White & Asian students. So – open seats, targeted recruitment efforts Black magnet recruiter “Of course they’re all white. They’re supposed to be recruiting white families, and they have a better chance of convincing them to come that way.”

10. Implications  “J-curve of increased expectations” (Davies 1966). Hartford parents have increased ACCESS. Now  Feeling of inequality (recruitment focus, double lottery, zones, transportation)  New boundary lines – magnets and non-magnets, lottery winners, lottery losers  Fiercest critics: Hartford middle class families – even as they benefit the most  ability to attract and retain middle class families

11. Concluding questions  How might we change the Sheff agreement mechanisms so that parents experience equal treatment in the choice process?  How do we respond to Hartford parents’ desire/transportation needs for quality schools in their neighborhood?  How do we make all choices good choices?

12. Works cited:  Davies, J. C. (1969). The J-curve of rising and declining satisfactions as a cause of some great revolutions and a contained rebellion. Violence in America, 690-730.  Debs, M. (2015). Pre-Kindergarten Availability and Access in Hartford Region Magnet and Open Choice Schools. from http://www.sheffmovement.org/publications/pre-k-programs/ http://www.sheffmovement.org/publications/pre-k-programs/  Eaton, S. (2008). The children in Room E4: American education on trial: Algonquin Books.  Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2012). Educational delusions?: Why choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.  Wells, A. S., Baldridge, B. J., Duran, J., Grzesikowski, C., Lofton, R., Roda, A.,... White, T. (2009). Boundary Crossing for Diversity, Equity and Achievement. Cambridge, MA: Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, Harvard Law School.