Sheff Movement "Report Card" (from Spring 2007) |
|
|
| LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
|
STATUS
|
RATING
|
| Interdistrict magnet school per pupil funding must reflect the true cost of educating students (in accordance with the Sheff v. O’Neill legal agreement, and the 2005 CCJEF Education Adequacy Study and the forthcoming Magnet School Adequacy Study).
|
The operating costs of a magnet school exceed those of regular public schools yet receive less state funding. For example: per pupil costs in Hartford are approximately $13,000, of which the city receives $7,246 from the State and the balance from local taxes, but the interdistrict magnets serving Hartford children receive only about $6,500 per pupil in State support.
|
Failure
|
| Transportation grants for interdistrict magnet schools must be adequate.
|
A 2006 bill increased the maximum state grant for transporting students to interdistrict magnet schools outside their home districts by $100, from $1,200 to $1,300 per student. Yet, the average transportation cost per pupil is $1,500 statewide; and, given recent gasoline price increases, may be $1,750. Nor is this reimbursement sufficient for providing convenient, short-duration transport of regional students.
|
Failure
|
| Enrollment participation and cost sharing by regional school districts need to be strong and ever growing.
|
Recent trends have seen less commitment, primarily due to inadequate funding structures that also result in transportation arrangements unacceptable to many districts and families. Standard cost sharing by participating school districts is being resisted, as other districts’ own budgets grow increasingly constrained.
|
Needs Improvement
|
| Planning, development and coordination of new interdistrict magnet schools, host magnets and CHOICE Program needs to proceed aggressively to grow these enrollments.
|
The State of Connecticut has not followed the Court mandated remedy for optimal planning, nor has it posed other suitable alternatives for planning and implementing programs that could accelerate progress and comply with the agreement.
|
Failure
|
|
|
| COURT MANDATES
|
STATUS
|
RATING
|
| By the agreement’s 2007-end date, 30% of Hartford students should be enrolled in magnet schools and open choice programs that afford an educational experience of reduced racial and economic isolation. Total minority enrollment in such schools is to be within 30 percentage points of the region’s total minority school population.
|
By the beginning of 2007, about 15% of students in Hartford are attending schools that meet these desegregation goals.
|
Failure
|
| Two magnet schools opened each year (from 2003-2007) for a total of eight new schools with 4800 students meeting desegregation goals by 2007.
|
Altogether new magnet schools (ie: Annie Fisher, Hooker, Noah Webster, Kinsella, Simpson-Waverly, Capital Preparatory, Classical Magnet, and University High School) have not met State agreed upon desegregation goals, and currently enroll about only about 3600 students falling far short of the goal of 4800 additional students.
|
Needs Improvement
|
| Open Choice is to add 200 students per year for a total of 1600 students.
|
2006-2007 Open Choice enrollment is at 1050. Open Choice has added only 250, falling well short of the goal of 800 additional seats for a total of 1600.
|
Needs Improvement
|
KEY:
Failure = Total Lack Of Meeting Goal
Needs Improvement = Significantly Not Meeting The Goal
|