Crossing the Bridge to Equity and Excellence: A Vision of Quality and Integrated Education for Connecticut Report

    Governor's Commission 
on 

Quality and Integrated Education 

David G. Carter, Sr. James P. Sandler 
Co-Chair Co-Chair 

December 31, 1990 

The Honorable William A. O'Neill 
Governor 
State of Connecticut 
Executive Chambers 
State Capitol 
210 Capitol Avenue 
Hartford, Connecticut 06106 

Dear Governor O'Neill: 

The members of the Commission on Quality and Integrated Education thank you for the 
opportunity to address and make recommendations concerning the effectiveness of public 
education in Connecticut. We are pleased to submit our final report to you. It is the 
culmination of 17 months of research, consultation and discussions with state and 
national education experts, Connecticut's citizens, students, teachers, administrators, 
public officials and state agency personnel. 

The recommendations in this report respond to your charge to us to "develop specific 
recommendations for new and/or expanded programs that will promote voluntary and/or 
cooperative approaches to achieving quality integrated education throughout the state''. 
They cite opportunities and pose challenges for the education profession and, more 
broadly, for all our citizens as we set out to ensure that our young learners benefit from 
the richness of the diversity among us. These recommendations encourage greater 
cooperation across school district lines and will surely require changes in curricula and in 
the way we prepare our teachers, But the Commission is convinced that Connecticut's 
people will respond eagerly and constructively to all of these opportunities and challenges. 

A number of Commission members are of the opinion that voluntary approaches are 
unlikely to be adequate and have sought to have the report include mandates. Others 
believe that mandates are beyond the charge of the Commission or that mandatory 
approaches are not effective. We ask you and Governor-elect Weicker to recognize that 
strong arguments supporting both options have been advanced by Commission members 
and Connecticut citizens at public hearings held across the state. Despite this 
difference of opinion, all members agree that the unanimity of members in voting for this 
report represents a strong consensus that the issue requires prompt and positive action. 

 



* » : 
Governor William A. O'Neill 2. 

  

Commission members feel a sense of urgency to reduce racial and economic isolation, a 
problem the enormity of which grows alarmingly with every passing moment. Today's 
youngsters are critical to tomorrow's civilization, its social relationships and its work 
force, citizenship and leadership. Thus, educational quality is not just an issue for 
educators and parents. Economics, simple justice and the demands of modern society 
necessitate that we provide high-quality, integrated educational programs for all 
students. With the size of the labor pool diminishing, we cannot afford to undereducate 
any of our young people -- but we are. With our cities being more and more alienated, 
we cannot afford to leave their residents increasingly isolated -- but we are. We must 
take the lead in ensuring that today's young learn all of the skills, knowledge and 
attitudes necessary to become productive members of Connecticut's work force and our 
society as a whole. The alternative is an accelerating divisiveness, apathy, and anger 
that are dehumanizing, threatening and costly. We must act now. | 

Education cannot shoulder the burden of social change by itself. We now realize that no 
set of educational strategies can fully address the myriad social issues that produce 
inequality and undermine education. Substance abuse, hunger, parental neglect, crowded 
and substandard housing and inadequate employment opportunities disproportionately 
attack minority children in our state and divert them from educational opportunity. - 
Unless other elements of society and other institutions actively share with education the 
responsibility for addressing and remedying these conditions, not even the best of 
strategic education plans can succeed. 

This report is just a beginning. It focuses only on the role education has to play in the 
pursuit of quality and integrated learning. The time has come to enlist those other 
institutions we just mentioned. Accordingly, the Commission asks that the next 
Governor advance the work of this Commission into such related areas of concern as 
housing, human resources, income maintenance, and employment. If we refuse to face 
these issues now, they will become more severe threatening our economic and social well 
being. 

The Commission recognizes that the state is confronting a serious budget problem, and 
the Commission acknowledges that, while some of its recommendations will not require 
any new money, others will. The fact that the Commission has not attached a dollar 
amount to each recommendation must not bar legislative consideration. We can think of 
no better investment than underwriting the opportunity for all our children to achieve to 
their full potential and to welcome and value diversity. 

Finally, we gratefully thank the many individuals and institutions that supported our work 
with contributions of time, expertise and money, particularly The New Haven Foundation, 
The Hartford Foundation, Pequot Community Foundation, Bridgeport Area Foundation, and 
Fairfield County Cooperative Foundation. We also welcome the public reception of our 
work. Many of our fellow Connecticut citizens already recognize that the 
recommendations in this report point us toward the highest possible quality of public 
education and a reaffirmation of the value of diversity in our State. 

Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted, 

David G. Carter es P. Sandler 
Co-Chair o-Chair 

 



  

CROSSING THE BRIDGE TO EQUITY AND EXCELLENCE: 

A VISION OF QUALITY AND INTEGRATED EDUCATION FOR CONNECTICUT 

Recommendations for Quality and 
Integrated Education 

The Report of the Governor's 
Commission on Quality and 
Integrated Education 
December 1990 

 



  

® 
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP LIST 

Co-Chair 
David G. Carter, President 
Eastern Connecticut State University 

Co-Chair 
James P. Sandler, Attorney-at-Law 
Byrne, Slater, Sandler, Shulman & Rouse 

Alice Bethea, Business Manager 
Intrn'l Ladies Garment Workers Union 

Christina P. Burnham 
Connecticut Association of 
Boards of Education 

Nancy Ciarleglio 
League of Women Voters 

Naomi K. Cohen 
. State Representative 

~ Amado Cruz, Principal 
Hartford High School 

Carol P. Duggan, Past President 
Parent Teachers. Association 

- M. Adela Eads 
. State Senator 

. Badi Foster, President 
Aetna Institute 
for Corporate Education 

Thomas P. Geyer, Former.CEO 
New Haven Register 

Abraham Glassman, Chair 
Connecticut State Board of Education 

Peter Handrinos, Student 

Yale University 

Michael Helfgott 
Executive Director 
University of Connecticut 
Educational Park, Inc. 

Henry Kelly, Principal 
Winthrop Elementary School 
Bridgeport, Connecticut 

Hartzel Lebed, Retired President 
CIGNA Corporation (resigned 9/90) 

I. Charles Mathews, Deputy Mayor 
Hartford, Connecticut 

Ramon A. Pacheco 

Attorney-at-Law 
Hartford, Connecticut 

William R. Papallo, Superintendent 
Stamford Public Schools 

George Schatzki, Professor 
University of Connecticut Law School 

Ruth Sims, Former First Selectman 
Greenwich, Connecticut 

Joseph M. Suggs, Mayor 
Bloomfield, Connecticut 

Kevin B. Sullivan 
State Senator 

Gerald N. Tirozzi, Commissioner 
Connecticut State Department of 
Education 

Robert M. Ward 
State Representative 

Molly Whalen, Student 
Bloomfield High School 

Deborah G. Willard 
Teacher of the Year, 1986 
Glastonbury High School 

Robert Wood 
Henry R. Luce Professor 
Wesleyan University 

 



  

PREFACE 

Unlike those states blessed with abundant natural resources--silver, oil, 
coal, iron ore and gold--Connecticut has always depended directly for its 
welfare and prosperity on the industry and ingenuity of its people. 
Connecticut must, therefore, continually invest in its citizens in order to 
maintain and enhance its quality of life. More specifically, the executive 
and legislative branches of government, our educators, and all our people earn 
the greatest possible return on their investment by making those choices most 
certain to produce a better educated populace. 

We must set basic standards, of course. But more importantly, we must 
expect and help our students to achieve, knowing as we do so that students 
become wise and productive citizens when they meet and understand and then 
value people from cultures, races and genders other than their own. Students 
benefit, and Connecticut benefits, from the richness of diversity. 

The Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated Education transmits 
this Report fully aware that other commissions, committees, and reports 
precede us. Nevertheless, we consider this report fresh and imperative. It 
focuses on and calls attention to both a critical problem that threatens our 
State and a need that, if met, can sustain and nourish it: we must ensure 
quality and integrated education for all our young learners. 

The Commission hopes that voluntary methods will enable all of 
Connecticut's public school students to receive a quality and integrated 
education. We feel the recommendations in our report should be enacted and 
that they then must be given time and resources to succeed. 

We are also mindful that to the extent that the achievement of these 
educational goals does not take place, the futures of far too many of our 
children will continue to be at risk. We, therefore, suggest that there be a 
finite amount of time given to these recommendations to determine if they do 
succeed. If it is deemed that they don't, other approaches must then be 
considered. 

We hope to see our report discussed and debated. But once the 
discussions cease, we expect our recommendations to generate action. 
Connecticut has the people and the good will to meet our explicit challenges. 
The question now before our State is this: can we afford not to help our 
students reach their potential in life while learning to welcome diversity? 

ii 

 



INTRODUCTION 

  

The State of Connecticut has long acknowledged an affirmative 
responsibility to desegregate its public schools and to guarantee educational 
equality for all students. The State's history of affirmative achievement has 
appeared in the following instances: 

(1) Since 1966, the State has provided both financial support and 
technical assistance for one of this country's first voluntary 
interdistrict transfer programs -- Project Concern -- which was 
designed to promote voluntary desegregation among schools in urban 
metropolitan areas. 

(2) In 1969, the Connecticut General Assembly adopted legislation to 
address what it saw as growing racial isolation in some Connecticut 
districts. This law required the schools within a single district be 
racially balanced. The racial balance regulations were adopted in 
1979. Under the regulations the proportion of minority students in 
any school must be within 25% points, plus or minus, of the 
proportion of minority students in the district as a whole. 

(3) Beginning in 1979, Connecticut's formula for financing public schools 
has taken into account the needs of urban school districts by 
including in the aid formula the number of children from low income 
families. In 1989, a weighting for the number of students who score 
below the remedial standard on the Connecticut Mastery Test was added 
to the State's major school aid formula. : 

(4) Since 1970, the State has supported magnet schools and programs as a 
means for improving the overall quality of education while reducing 
racial isolation. This support includes technical assistance to 
intradistrict magnet schools. Recently, the legislature authorized 
special bond funding for the construction or renovation of buildings 
to house interdistrict magnet schools. 

(5) In 1988, the State Department of Education issued a report on the 
current status of racial isolation in the State. In response to this 
report and at the direction of the State Board of Education, the 
Department of Education prepared a second report recommending options 
for achieving quality and integrated education. This report outlined 
a number of steps the State could take to advance integration. One 
of these "next steps" suggested that the Governor establish a "blue 
ribbon" commission to recommend strategies for achieving voluntary 
interdistrict integration. 

(6) Since 1988, the legislature has focused the competitive interdistrict 
cooperative grant program on educational programs that provide 
opportunities for integration with over 100 districts participating. 
More recently, the competitive summer school grant program has been 
revised to favor programs that promote multiracial and multicultural 

understanding. 

 



  

The Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated Education, appointed 
by Governor O'Neill on September 20, 1989, represented still another 
affirmative step in Connecticut's efforts to integrate its public schools. 
The Commission--which includes citizens from across the state, including 
legislators, corporate and community leaders, a member of a local school 
board, parents, educators and scholars--came together to study the issue and 
develop creative ways to promote voluntary and integrated education in 
Connecticut. Specifically, the Governor charged the Commission to: 

*(1) review the demography of the State of Connecticut and the trends in 
and reasons for difference in the racial, ethnic and economic makeup 
of Connecticut's public schools; 

(2) review programs that foster racial and economic integration in public 
schools, including magnet school programs, in Connecticut and other 
states identifying their strengths and weaknesses; 

(3) identify changes in the current school construction law and 
regulations that would foster integration; 

(4) develop proposals to recruit and retain minorities in the teaching 
profession; 

(5) develop proposals for both interdistrict and intradistrict programs 
to promote quality and integrated education; and 

(6) review current state aid programs to ensure support for proposed 
integration programs." 

Finally, the Governor asked the Commission to report its recommendations by 
December 31, 1990. 

Defining Quality and Integrated Education 

The Commission immediately faced the need to define "quality and 
integrated education". It found help in reports and studies on early 
desegregation efforts but found as well that the earliest desegregation 
campaigns, which emphasized physical desegregation, occasionally failed to 
provide a quality and integrated education for all students. In addition, the 
Commission members agreed that what many observers characterize as second 
generation school desegregation plans, which focus on "equal treatment and 
equal access" within schools, also fell short of quality and integrated 
education. Ultimately, the Commission concluded that a "quality and 
integrated education" should expose students to an integrated student body and 
faculty and a curriculum that reflects the heritage of many cultures. It 
should also provide all students with equal opportunities to learn and to 
achieve equal educational outcomes. 

  

1 On these points, see Reseqregation of Public Schools: The Third 
Generation, A Report on the Condition of Desegregation in America's Public 
  

  
  

Schools, the Network of Regional Desegregation Assistance Centers, June 1989 
and “Desegregation: Can We Get There From Here", Phi Delta Kappan, September 
1990 

  

 



  

Growing Racial Isolation 

From this definition, the Commission set out to determine whether 
Connecticut students had the opportunity to obtain a "quality and integrated 
education”. The Commission soon found that the goal of "quality and 
integrated education" is currently blocked by increasing racial isolation. 

The majority of Connecticut's students remain isolated from daily 
educational contact with students of other races and ethnic groups. Over 80 
percent of the State's minority students cluster in just 16, or 10 percent, of 
the districts. Seven of these districts accommodate over 60 percent of our 
minority students while 140 other districts are more than 90 percent white. 

When social class and income levels compound the factors of racial ethnic 
difference, a bleak picture of inequity emerges. Most poor children live far 
away from rich children, and all too many of Connecticut's African-American, 
Hispanic, and recent immigrant children are poor. They are separated because 
of the inextricable relationship, that generally exists in our society between 
race and family wealth. But for the young people separateness, for whatever 
reason, encourages suspicion and hostility based on appearances. 

From a national perspective, most African-Americans and Hispanic children 
live in the large urban districts, where they are heavily concentrated and 
face severe segregation and inequality. The trends are toward more and more 
severe racial and class isolation in inner-city schools. 

From an educational perspective, this means that the metropolitan 
community is becoming a "house divided against itself," and one wonders 
whether it can endure permanently half minority and half white, half middle 
class and half poor, half connected to the growing sectors of knowledge and 
job opportunities and half struggling against high odds to teach students 
basic reading and mathematics skills, only to see terrifying percentages of 
them lost from a high school system that too often leads nowhere even for 
those who survive. 

Racial isolation has increased and continues to increase in Connecticut. 
According to a study prepared for the Commission, the past five years have 
seen a significant increase in the percentage of minority students in 
Connecticut's five major metropolitan areas: Bridgeport, New Haven, 
Bloomfield/Hartford, Norwalk/Stamford, New London and the towns near by. Only 
small increases have appeared in other areas of the state. Meanwhile, between 
1984 and 1989 the number of white students declined sharply as a result of the 
1970s' "baby-bust" generation. During the next ten years, the numbers of both 
white and minority students will almost certainly increase in absolute numbers 
while the percentage of minority students will increase somewhat, although 
less than in the previous five years. 

In the five major metropolitan areas (urban center and surrounding 
communities) just mentioned, the percentage of minority students seems 
destined to remain stable for grades K through 5 during the next ten years. 
In the middle grades, Bridgeport and Norwalk should remain stable with regard 
to the percentage of minority students, while the percentage of minority 
students will increase slightly in Hartford and New Haven. The New London 
area projects the greatest growth in the percentage of minority students in 
the middle grades. 

 



  

Meanwhile, the effects of currently declining enrollments, particularly 
declining white enrollments, will occur at the high school level. The : 
percentage of minority students in grades 9 through 12 increased significantly 
between 1984 and 1989 and will continue to increase over the next ten years. 
The New Haven area will probably lead, increasing from 28.0% in 1989 to 35.2% 
in 1999. Hartford will increase from 27.4% minority in 1989 to 32.7% in 
1999. Bridgeport will see smaller increases, from 31.1% in 1989 to 33.8% in 
1999. 

The school districts in the rural areas of Connecticut currently 
accommodate few, if any, minority students, and they will see little, if any, 
increase over the next decade unless the trend is reversed. 

Schools and school districts, however, are not the cause of increasing 
racial and other isolation in our state. The Commission cannot ignore the 
fact that such isolation, whatever its original causes, is now fundamentally 
imbedded in the larger issue of poverty and lack of opportunity in employment, 
housing, health and transportation which all aspects of our society have a 
shared responsibility to address. 

Educational isolation certainly tends to reinforce the effects of inequity 
on the attitudes and achievement of our future citizens. But our children, 
schools and school districts cannot be expected alone to solve issues that 
adults remain unwilling even to address meaningfully. Opportunity and 
integration are societal imperatives, not just imperatives for schools. 

The Commission particularly associates racial and ethnic isolation with 
existing housing patterns, finding a significant relationship between the 
concentration of minority students and the occurrence of publicly assisted 
housing. When one compares the 14 communities with the highest percentage of 
minority students (all of them over 25 percent) with the 14 communities with ; 
the highest percentages of assisted housing, one finds 9 communities on both 
lists--an unsurprising correlation, given the current equation between 
minority status and Tow incomes. The 1989 Blue Ribbon Housing Commission 
fully documented the need for more housing affordable to moderate and 
low-income families, and this Commission notes that affordable housing in 
suburban and rural communities could increase the diversity of their student 
populations. In particular, affordable housing in the outer suburbs and rural 
communities could help integrate schools where interdistrict programs with 
urban schools present long-distance transportation problems. 

Although encouraged by Connecticut's new regional housing compacts, the 
Commission foresees that our society may not soon succeed in undoing all the 
consequences of poverty and inequity. We also recognize that the State has a 
fundamental interest and perhaps greater ability to influence public education 
to mitigate the damages racial and other isolation is inflicting on all of us 
as a society. 

 



  

One way to reduce the impact of housing patterns might be to amend the 
traditional school registration policies of the local school districts (i.e., 
attending the school nearest your place of residence) by encouraging (and 
allowing) attendance at the school nearest the place of employment of the 
parent or guardian. Many jobs still remain in the central metropolitan areas 
and while the environmental benefits of car pooling and alternate means of 
transportation are being emphasized, an additional benefit would be the impact 
on the integration numbers in the central (or core) cities and towns; not to 
mention the advantage of having a parent closeby the school in case of 
emergencies and for increasing participation in the ongoing life and community 
of the school (See Finding #4). 

The school would need to offer a full-day program with a latch-key 
recreational and educational enhancement (museum visitations, arts, music, 
games, study times, remedial and homework assistance) component. Since 
employment and child care are already a cost factor in employment, the program 
could be supported by user fees. 

Thus, most of our findings and recommendations address issues of 
education. However, the Commission strongly feels that educational 
opportunity cannot be addressed in isolation and that every aspect of public - 
policy in every region of our state should be linked in the cooperative 
enterprise of removing barriers to achievement and the common ground that 
strengthens us all as a society. 

Lack of Minority Faculty 

The Commission also found that few students enjoy exposure to an 
integrated faculty, another important aspect of a quality and integrated 
education. Minority group members represent 6.3 percent of the certified 
school staff, compared to almost 25% percent of the student enrollment, and 
that gap too has been increasing. At the same time, "(M)inority teachers were 
more heavily concentrated in the five large cities than minority students 
are. The large cities employed 70.6 percent of the minority group teachers; 
the small towns, just over one percent" (Minority Student and Staff Report, 
SBE, 1989). 

Multicultural Curriculum 

Also missing from the education of many Connecticut public school students 
is the chance to study a curriculum that reflects the heritage of many 
cultures. Numerous national educators note that the curricula currently in 
use, reflect mainly European history and culture and tend to slight the . 
histories, contributions and cultures of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. To 
operate effectively and empathetically in a global economy, our students need 
to understand the perspectives and concerns of others. Our curriculum should 
acknowledge and value both our shared core culture and the unique cultural 
backgrounds of the many groups that contribute to our country and the world. 

 



  

Unequal Educational Opportunities 

Despite Connecticut's commitment to provide equal educational opportunity 
for all of its students, the Commission found inequalities persisting, 
particularly for those in urban schools. For example, a significant 
under-representation of minority students exists in higher level courses while 
overrepresentation of minority students can be found in remedial classes. 

While the State maintains no data on the diversity of students enrolled in 
advanced placement courses, its information on the number of students taking 
advanced placement examinations show that of the 3,202 high school students, 
minority and non-minority, who took the examination in 1988-89, only 282, or 
8.2 percent, were minority students. The report What Americans Study (Policy 
Information Report, Education Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey) examines 
differences in course taking by race. Nationally, "African-American 1987 
graduates... continued to lag substantially behind white graduates in advanced 
mathematics courses". For example 65.9 percent of white 11th graders had 
taken geometry compared to 46.0 percent of African-American 11th graders. 

  

Moreover, minority students are overrepresented in such remedial classes 
as Chapter 1. In 1987-88, Chapter 1 was 47 percent non-minority and 53 
percent minority, almost double the minority percentage statewide. Even when 
broken down by type of community (TOC), the minority percentage in Chapter 1 
remained higher than the percentage of each minority group in each TOC. 

Other indicators suggest that Connecticut's minority students have yet to 
receive full equal educational opportunities. For example, the widespread use 
of tracking and ability grouping persists, despite the compelling studies that 
show these practices inhibit student achievement, particularly for minority 
students. Additional recent research questions the benefits of tracking even 
for its so-called benefited students. Tracking may include retaining students 
in lower grades, which flies in the face of research showing that students 
retained in early grades tend, sooner or later, to become dropouts. 

Recent reports on educational outcomes for poor and minority students 
question the effectiveness of such current practices as ‘tracking, ability 
grouping and grade retention. For example, in Education That Works: An 
Action Plan for the Education of Minorities, one can read that: 

  

  

In the first few days of school, judgments are made about 
children in the classroom. Some children, it is decided, 
are advanced, some are average, and some are behind, and so 
the grouping and tracking begin. In most school systems in 
our nation, this decision effectively seals the child's 
fate, sometimes for life. Students classified as slow 
almost never catch up and school rapidly becomes a forum 
for failure, not an arena for success. By the time these 
children are in middle schools, tracking intensifies and 
options begin to close. Minority children are liable to be 
placed in non-academic tracks because they do not fit the 
stereotypical, middle-class images our present educational 
system holds up as ideal (such as fluency in English, 

 



  

Ld 

highly educated parents, and supportive out-of-school 
experiences). What many need is an enriched program to 
compensate for the lack of these assets. Students must not 
only hear that "all children can learn," they must feel 
that they are truly valued and that they can achieve 
academic success. This includes the valuing of their 
culture and language and the appreciation of their 
individual talents, essential ingredients for heightened 
self-esteem. 

A second study reported in Better Schooling for the Children of Poverty: 
Alternatives to Conventional Wisdom also addresses the issue of ability 
grouping or tracking. It notes that "conventional wisdom" places "an emphasis 
on disadvantaged learners' lack of information and intellectual facility". 
According to the report, ability grouping is a problem because "low achieving 
students tend to become permanently segregated in these groupings or tracks. 
To make matters worse, determinations of 'low-achievement' are not necessarily 
reliable, which means that students' academic abilities can be misdiagnosed. 
This happens all too often when ethnic or linguistic features (e.g., dialect 
speech or limited English proficiency) are misinterpreted as signs of low 
ability....Furthermore, segregation in lower-track groups carries with it a 
visible stigma that contributes to certain students being labeled 'dummies', 
not to mention the more limited curricula that are sometimes offered such 
groups". 

  

  

The report also goes on to say that "because the evidence is mixed on the 
efficacy of ability grouping for low achievers, teachers should consider a 
variety of alternative arrangements" and it suggests that teachers use 
“heterogeneous grouping such as cooperative and team learning and more 
flexible and temporary ability-grouped arrangements". 

Gap Between Non-Minority and Minority Achievement Scores 

The nation and Connecticut's future depends on whether we provide a 
quality education for all students, rich and poor, minority and non-minority. 
The Commission found the same trend throughout the country evident in 
Connecticut: the achievement of non-minority students exceeds that of 
minority students right from the start, and the gap widens as students 
progress from kindergarten to twelfth grade. For example, the results of the 
1987 Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) for grade 4, 6, 8 show substantial gaps in 
achievement between minority and non-minority students. At the fourth grade 
level, 74 percent of the white students met the composite remedial standard, 
but only 36 percent of African-American fourth graders and 32 percent of 
Hispanic fourth graders met this standard. Similarly, 31 percent of white 
fourth graders met the mastery standard, while only 6 percent of 
African-American students and 5 percent of Hispanic students met this higher 
standard. Similar disparities appeared on the sixth and eighth grade mastery 
tests. In addition, students whose dominant language was other than English 
were three times more liable to fall short of the remedial standards, and 
students who were in the free or reduced lunch program were almost twice as 
likely to fall short of the standards. 

 



  

The achievement gap between minority and non-minority students may be 
attributable in part to the widely held view that "natural ability, rather 
than effort, explains achievement" (American's Choice: High Skills or Low 
Wages, the Report of the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce). 
  

The impact of this "belief" is that: 

we communicate to millions of students every year, 
especially to low-income and minority students, that we do 
not believe that they have what it takes to learn. They 
then live up to our expectations, despite the evidence that 
they can meet very high standards under the right 
conditions. : 

Meanwhile, other nations, our business competitors, point to hard work as 
the road to achievement. Hard work still applies here: We do little to serve 
poor children by letting down standards under the pretext of equal educational 
opportunity. We serve them best by raising expectations while building 
schools where they can meet these expectations. 

Public Attitudes Toward Integration in Public Schools 

During its deliberations, the Governor's Commission on Quality and 
Integrated Education commissioned the Institute for Social Inquiry at the 
University of Connecticut to conduct a public opinion survey to determine 
statewide attitudes toward integration. The majority of respondents gave 
generally high marks to the Connecticut public schools, and those respondents 
with children in public school rated the schools even higher than those 
without public school children. 

When asked to list the most important factors in choosing a school, those 
surveyed focused on such "quality-related" issues as the number and quality of 
teachers and the breadth of programs. For example, enrichment programs 
received the highest rating: they were seen as "positive" by 94 percent of 
the respondents. “Small classes with individual attention from teachers" 
followed closely (92 percent). In third place the respondents ranked the 
value of keeping students in schools in the same town where they lived (83 
percent). Issues of racial balance came fourth. Seventy percent of all 
respondents rated "making sure there was a good mix of racial backgrounds" and 
“having teachers from a variety of racial backgrounds" as either positive or 
very positive factors. Daycare programs and early childhood education also 
emerged as positive factors. Seventy percent saw before and after school 
daycare as positive while 61 percent said pre-school programs would be an 
attraction were they choosing a school. 

 



  

The general attitude toward integration proved positive, and when asked if 
more should be done “to integrate schools in your community," those in favor 
(42 percent) easily outnumbered those opposed (18 percent). (The remaining 40 
percent either considered no change necessary or didn't know.) There was also 
strong support for doing more “to integrate schools throughout the state" with 
54 percent calling for more such efforts. At the same time voluntary efforts 
were favored over mandatory programs, 39 to 17 percent. The respondents also 
strongly favored beginning integration efforts in the elementary schools (80 
percent). 

Those surveyed recognized a certain quality in integrated schools. Seven 
in ten agreed that "making sure a school is racially and culturally mixed 
improves the quality of education for all students". Over 60 percent agreed 
that "children who go to a one-race school will be at a disadvantage when they 
grow up and must live and work in our multiracial society." Two-thirds agreed 
that "if more children went to racially mixed schools, we would have less of a 
problem with racial prejudice". 

When asked whether or not they supported "busing of minority and white 
students to achieve school integration" the respondents rejected the practice 
five to three, but when the survey linked the concept of quality schools to 
the concept of busing, the percentage of favorable responses increased to 
one-half. "Busing" clearly remains an unpopular concept. 

Apparently, the public sees a distinction between busing to achieve racial 
balance as one thing and integration as another, even though the terms have 
often been used interchangeably. Busing and racial balance connote moving 
children from school to school to achieve some numerical goal or to meet some 
administrative need. Integration, on the other hand, suggests positive, 
productive interaction between students of different races and cultures: 
"Racial balance" does not contribute to quality education; "integration" 
does. According to the survey director, "The public sees little value in 
achieving numerical balance which may not help education and which treats 
students as members of classes." 

 



  

THE FINDINGS 

Following its research into the dimensions of racial isolation in 
education in Connecticut and nationally, the Commission developed the 
following five findings: 

(1) BEducational opportunity cannot be addressed in isolation and every 
aspect of public policy in every region of the state should be linked 
in the cooperative enterprise of removing barriers to achievement and 
of promoting the common ground that strengthens us all as a society. 

(2) A quality education requires an integrated student body and faculty 
and a curriculum that reflects the heritage of many cultures. 

(3) Every student can learn at high levels from a quality and integrated 
education. 

(4) A need exists for communities to appreciate and support public 
education, and for family members and others in the community to 
involve themselves in the education of Connecticut's youth. 

(5) Every educator must be trained to teach both a diverse student 
population and a curriculum that incorporates and honors the diverse 
cultural and racial heritages. 

(6) Connecticut needs to attract and employ minority educators. 

For each of its findings, the Commission established a goal, indicators of 
success, and recommendations for achieving the goal. Each finding is 
discussed separately in the following sections of this Report. 

10 

 



  

FINDING 1 

The Commission's first finding is that we cannot ignore the underlying 
causes of isolation and inequity in our schools and hope meaningfully to 
improve quality and integrated education. Meaningful action is needed in 
every region of the state honestly to recognize disparities and join in a 
shared effort to help ourselves by helping each other overcome the inequities 
which deny us the fullest measure of our potential in our communities, regions 
and State. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 
  

The Commission recommends that the communities in each and every region of 
the State shall join in a cooperative effort over the next year to identify 
and assess present barriers such as poverty, education, employment, housing, 
health and transportation which perpetuate inequity, isolation and the lack of 
greater integration. Each region must then develop and commit to a 
cooperative plan of community and regional action with triennial evaluation 
and progress reporting. 

Regions could be identified by reference to regional planning agencies or 
regional educational service centers. Existing regional authorities or newly 
designated regional representatives would be designated for this purpose. 
State agencies, regional planning agencies and regional educational service 
centers would cooperatively provide administrative support and other technical 
assistance as required. Failure of any community to participate in this 

. process could jeopardize some or all State funding for the community. 

FINDING 2 

Having concluded that a quality education requires an integrated student 
body and faculty and a curriculum that reflects the heritage of many 
cultures, the Commission's concomitant goal is to maximize the number of 
students who receive a quality education, increasing the number who do so 
significantly each year. 

The integration of our young learners implies our hope for a more 
harmonious new century than the one now drawing to a close. We know hatred, 
prejudice, and racism when we see it, and we see it all around us. We also 
know fellowship, tolerance, and mutual respect when we see it, and examples 
abound in our daily lives: the widespread acceptance by young people of a 
multi-ethnic culture in music, sports, and style; the absence of prejudice 
among young children who come together for play or pre-school activities. 

11 

 



  

The Commission believes that each school's student population should 
reflect the majority-minority ratio of the students in its region. The 
Commission further believes that the goal of quality and integration will be 
achieved when each school provides an integrated learning environment 
reflected or demonstrated in most or all of the following seven ways: 

(1) Educational goals and the school environment must welcome and 
accommodate integrated education, 

(2) The curriculum should impart an expectation that all students will 
become successful learners, 

(3) The curriculum, both written and informal, should be multicultural, 
reflecting the heritage of many cultures, 

(4) Instructional materials and library collections too must mirror the 
heritage of many cultures, 

(5) In appraising the education of all our children, we must use 
appropriate assessments, 

(6) Schools should supplement a multicultural environment with 
complementary assembly programs, field trips, etc, and 

(7) The school leadership must remain open and responsive to constructive 
proposals from staff, parents, and their organizations. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 
  

First, the Commission recommends that the State Board of Education develop 
guidelines for an integrated and multicultural school environment by June 
1992. Each school district should then develop its own local standards, 
consistent with State guidelines while reflecting local diversity. These 
standards would identify those characteristics of the school environment that 
create a multicultural school, including the content of the curriculum and the 
teaching perspectives, the instructional procedures and styles, and the 
general organization of the schools. 

Second, the Commission recommends that the State Board of Education review 
the State's racial balance law and regulations in the light of the 
Commission's recommendations and the experiences of school districts 
implementing the law. 

Third, the Commission recommends that the State legislature create and 
expand and then fund a continuum of educational experiences in the new 
integrated environment. A continuum of State funding programs would allow 
local school districts to formulate local integration projects that reflect 
local needs and that build on local strengths. The recommended programs 
follow here in outline form: 

12 

 



  

I. Interdistrict Transfers 
  

The Commission recommends creation of a new Interdistrict Transfers Grant 
Program. The State legislature should establish a State grant program for 
interdistrict transfers based on Project Concern, but accommodating two-way 
transfers. Students currently participating in Project Concern would be 
"grandfathered" into the new program, which would make these seven 
contributions: 

(1) It would establish a separate interdistrict grant to underwrite 
tuition and transportation aids (Project Concern is currently funded 
through the compensatory education grant program). 

(2) It would set a target for increased student participation each year 
beginning with the fiscal year FY92-93. 

(3) It would invite parents to apply to include their children; however, 
only those children whose transfer promises to enhance the cultural 
diversity of the receiving school may participate. 

(4) It would allow the sending school district to continue to count the 
student as part of its enrollment and pay tuition to the receiving 
district. For example, tuition based on a percentage of the 
district's the per pupil expenditures or a percentage of the 
district's state education aid per pupil. 

(5) It would require the State pay the receiving school district a grant 
based on per pupil expeditures. 

(6) It would require the State pay the sending school district 100 
percent of the costs of transportation in excess of $400 per pupil; 
the State would pay the normal aid percentage for the first $400 of 
costs, and the maximum excess costs grant would be $1000 per pupil. 

(7) It would require the local districts to announce the number of net 
seats available for interdistrict transfers (the net equaling 
incoming minus outgoing). When the number of applications exceeds 
the number of seats available, districts shall use a lottery to 
determine which students will attend. No screening criteria may be 
applied. 

II. Interdistrict Cooperative Grant 
  

The Commission recommends expansion of the Interdistrict Cooperative 
Grant. Thirty-six grant proposals were submitted for 1991-92. The proposals 
involved over 100 districts and the total funding requested was $2 million. 
Because of limited funding, however, only 27 programs were awarded grants, and 
they received only 63 percent of the amount requested. State funding limits 
forced the reduction of many of these programs, some of which are in their 
third year of funding and have student waiting lists. 

13 

 



  

The State should limit grants under this program to activities during the 
regular school year and to (a) planning for full-year programs (with a two 
year limit on planning grants) or (b) short-term or part-time student 
programs. Joint programs involving at least one district that has less than 
15 percent minority students should receive preference, and the State 
legislature should increase funding to $2 million in 1991-92 and to $3 million 
in 1992-93. Over the long term, the legislature needs to provide sufficient 
funding to ensure the continuation of effective programs. 

III. Summer School Grant 
  

The Commission recommends expansion of the Summer School Grant, which 
served 12,000 students in 17 local programs at a total funding level of $1 
million in 1990-91. The State Board of Education has requested $1 million for 
1991-92. We recommend that the legislature increase funding by $1 million per 
year for two years. We further recommend that the grant program be limited to 
(1) interdistrict integrated programs, (2) full day programs, (3) programs 
that run for at least 20 days, and (4) programs that combine remedial and 
enrichment activities. The summer program should also include a follow-up 
component that would allow students and teachers to reinforce understandings 
and relationships they established during the summer. 

IV. Pre-School Programs 
  

The Commission recommends the creation of regional integrated pre-school 
programs. The Commission's public opinion survey indicated significant 
support for these programs. By a wide margin, in fact, those polled believed 
that integration should begin in the elementary grades. In addition, research 
into the effects of the Head Start Program documents significant gains from a 
year of quality pre-school for children whose family incomes or medical status 
placed the child at risk of school failure. 

The Commission recommends that a special grant program be established to 
fund the operation of at least three model regional integrated pre-school 
programs, and it recommends that the State school construction laws be amended 
to provide State aid for either the construction or renovation of buildings to 
accommodate integrated pre-school programs and day care programs. All school 
districts should be eligible for this aid. 

V. Magnet Schools 
  

\ 

The Commission recommends that school districts and parents work to ensure 
that each child has an opportunity to attend an integrated regional magnet 
school or to participate in an interdistrict program in a school with a 
diverse student body. The Commission recommends that the State, in 
partnership with local school districts, establish sufficient regional magnet 
programs to guarantee space for each child who chooses to learn in an 

14 

 



  

integrated school. The Commission also recommends that the “State develop 
standards for the operation of regional magnet schools that address, at least, 
the following ten concerns: 

(1) a rigorous high quality academic program, 
(2) an academically diverse student body, 
(3) the racial composition of the student body, 
(4) the racial composition of the staff, 
(5) a multi-cultural curriculum, 
(6) staff training that accommodates cultural diversity, 
(7) admission procedures, retention patterns, and student 

discipline, 
(8) community involvement in the magnet school planning, 
(9) parent awareness, commitment and involvement, and 
(10) participation of bilingual and special education students 

The Commission recommends that the State amend the school construction 
laws to provide generous funding for the construction, renovation and/or 
leasing of buildings to house regional magnet schools. The Commission further 
recommends that the State amend school construction laws to provide funding 
for the construction, renovation or leasing of buildings for magnet schools on 
both public and private college campuses. 

The Commission recommends that the State Board of Education examine the 
idea of establishing satellite elementary magnet schools on the sites of large 
businesses. It also recommends that school districts form regional 
partnerships to plan and operate magnet schools, that the regional education 
service centers assume responsibility for the structure and support of these 
regional planning efforts, and that the State help underwrite the planning and 
operating of these magnet schools. The public opinion poll showed strong 
support for integration at the elementary level. 

The Commission's study of school expansion and replacement needs revealed 
a pending need for substantial elementary school construction in Bridgeport, 
Hartford, New Haven, New London and Stamford-Norwalk areas. There appears, 
however, to be no widespread need for new middle and high school classrooms. 
Meanwhile, the need for new elementary classroom space presents an Spportunity 
for the establishment of regional magnet schools. 

The Commission recommends that the State Board of Education instruct the 
Educational Equity Study Committee to develop specific legislative proposals 
for entitlement grants to fund these regional magnet schools while 
incorporating the concept of State and regional partnership. The Equity 
Committee should address (1) school construction grants, (2) magnet planning 
grants, (3) operating grants for the extra costs of magnet schools, and (4) 
transportation grants. The Commission recommends that the State Board of 
Education ask the Educational Equity Study Committee to develop a grant 
program to assist districts with more than 25% minority students to develop 
and implement intradistrict magnet schools. 

The Equity Committee should also develop specific legislative proposals 
for the new interdistrict transfer grant and the pre-school grant and related 
changes in the school construction laws and regulations. The Equity Committee 
should begin meeting in the Spring of 1991 and transmit a preliminary report 
to the State Board of Education by January 1992. 

15 

 



  

Fr A Ear ie ee A move 4 ” ET Be ed of dX Wr S25 Se a a 

VI. State Vocational Technical Schools 
  

The Commission recommends that the State expand the outreach programs of 
its vocational-technical schools. To ensure that the State's existing 
regional magnet school system, the regional vocational-technical schools, 
remain a model of diversity in staff, students, and curriculum, the Commission 
recommends that the State fund special outreach programs targeted to currently 
underrepresented groups. The Commission further recommends that the State 
expand the seventh grade summer exploratory programs and target currently 
underrepresented groups. The Commission recommends funding for these 
proposals for Fiscal Year 1991-92 at $300,000. 

VII. Technology for Integration 
  

The Commission recommends the use of technology such as computer 
networking, interactive television, and distance learning to foster links 
between urban and suburban districts and between urban and rural districts. 

VIII. Non-Traditional Approaches: 
  

Recognizing that traditional solutions may only yield traditional results, 
the Commission recommends that the State determine the desirability of 
establishing non-traditional approaches to achieving integration. 

IX. Priority School District Grant 
  

The Commission recommends that the State significantly increase funding 
for the Priority School District programs. 

FINDING 3 

The Commission's third finding is that all students can learn at high 
levels with a quality and integrated education. The goal for each school in 
Connecticut is to maximize each and every student's learning so as to help all 
students become productive and responsible members of a pluralistic society. 
We will have achieved this goal when 

(1) A student's achievement is no longer affected by such irrelevant 
factors as race, ethnicity, gender, residence, and wealth; 

(2) These irrelevant factors no longer limit a student's access to 
educational programs; 

(3) Each school offers appropriate educational opportunities to maximize 
student learning; 

16 

 



  

(4) all students graduate with an education best preparing them to be a 
productive, responsible, and effective adult; and 

(5) all students are exposed to both cognitive and experiential education 
ensuring their understanding of and appreciation for our society's 
racial, ethnic and cultural diversity. 

This goal agrees with those in several other recent reports and with the 
first goal of the National Governor's Association: "By the year 2000 all 
children will start school ready to learn." The report goes on to say that 

In preparing young people to start school, both the federal 
and state governments have important roles to play, 
especially with regard to health, nutrition, and early 
childhood development. The Federal Government should work 
with the states to develop and fully fund early 
intervention strategies for children. All eligible 
children should have access to Head Start, Chapter One, or 
some other successful preschool program with strong 
parental involvement. Our first priority must be to 
provide at least one year of preschool for all 

- disadvantaged children. 

In support of its goal the National Governor's Association developed the 
following three objectives: 

“(1) All disadvantaged and disabled children will have access to high 
quality and developmentally appropriate preschool programs that help 
prepare children for school. 

(2) Every parent in America will be a child's first teacher and devote 
time each day helping his or her preschool child learn; parents will 
have access to the training and support they need. 

(3) Children will receive the nutrition and health care needed to arrive 
at school with healthy minds and bodies, and the number of low 
birthweight babies will be significantly reduced through enhanced 
prenatal health systems." 

17 

 



RECOMMENDATIONS 
  

  

First, the Commission agrees that a strong beginning is critical to 
success in school, and to ensure that all students come to school ready to 
learn, the Commission recommends that school districts, in cooperation with 
appropriate State and local agencies: 

(1) provide through the appropriate health department staff, 
preventive health care programs at all schools where there is a 
significant percentage of low income students; 

(2) provide school breakfast and school lunch programs in all 
schools with a significant percentage of low income students; and 

(3) provide at least one year of preschool for all at-risk students. 

Second, given these concerns, the Commission recommends that the State 
work with local school districts to develop and promote alternatives to 
tracking and ability grouping. 

Third, to ensure that all districts provide the appropriate range of 
programs and maintain appropriate class sizes, the Commission recommends that 
the Educational Equity Study Committee review current state aid programs to 
ensure that these programs favor those schools and districts with the greatest 
financial needs and those students with the greatest educational needs. The 
range of educational programs at a school or district must be sufficiently 
broad, deep, and diverse to maximize and enrich the education of every 
student. Class size and student faculty ratios should, moreover, reflect 
educational policy rather than the limits of school or district wealth. The 
Educational Equity Study Committee should report its finding and proposed 
legislation to the State Board of Education by January 1992. 

Fourth, to improve the effectiveness of our educational system and 
encourage all students to learn at the highest levels possible, the Commission 
supports (1) current State efforts to restructure its testing programs to 
include more performance assessments, including items based on the Common Core 
of Learning; and (2) State and local school district plans to report annually 
on students and educational outcomes by school and district. : 

18 

 



  

FINDING 4 

The Commission's fourth finding is the need for our local communities and 
the State to appreciate and support public education and for family members 
and other community members to increase their involvement in the education of 
Connecticut's youth. The Commission is disturbed by an apparent erosion of 
community support for public education in recent years, and it formulated two 
goals in response to this concern: 

(1) Communities must come to understand the full value of public 
education in our society and economy and actively support it. 

(2) All adult family members and other community members must increase 
their involvement in the education of Connecticut's youth. 

The Commission suggests that educators, parents, community and business 
leaders all have a role to play in communicating to our children, in 
particular, and to the entire community, the critical importance of getting 
the best education possible. Those who would remain competitive in the global 
economy require a well-educated work force: “No nation has produced a highly 
qualified work force without first providing its workers with a strong general 
education". We will have achieved these two goals when: 

(1) the State, the cities, the school districts, and the whole community 
recognize the necessity of an educated population and work 
cooperatively to support public education; 

(2) parents and guardians (a) adequately prepare their children for 
school (that is, make certain they are housed, are clothed, and 
maintain good health practices); (b) emphasize the importance of 
education and maintain a positive attitude toward school; (c) follow 
their children's progress in school by attending school orientation, 
information and training sessions; and 

(3) each school offers an outreach program designed to involve all 
members of the community. : : 

RECOMMENDATIONS 
  

First, the Commission recommends that local school districts, in concert 
with parents and community and business leaders, develop long-term educational 
outcomes for their students. The community should also specify those 
education skills they consider essential for their community. 

Second, the Commission recommends that local school districts and 
community leaders work together to develop an information program that 
promotes a clearer understanding of the strong direct connection between a 
well-educated work force and a competitive economy. 

19 

 



  

Third, the Commission recommends that parents and educators work closely 
together to keep all students engaged in a rigorous program of learning from 
the elementary grades through the high school years. Such a partnership is 
critical if we are to ensure that all children are prepared to meet the 
challenges of the 21st century. 

Fourth, to help parents become effective partners with teachers in . 
supporting and monitoring their children's educational programs, the 
Commission recommends that parents and educators together plan and implement a 
program of parent orientation and training. The purpose of these programs 
would be (1) to inform parents about their children's program of studies, and 
(2) to share with parents the latest and best information on how children 
learn and how parents can help their children learn. The Commission 
recommends that schools and parents set goals for parent involvement in their 
children's education. 

Fifth, working with the larger community, the Commission recommends that 
local school districts develop outreach programs to encourage local 
businesses, community agencies (for example, the social service centers, day 
care centers, and churches), and the elderly to become involved in their 
community's schools. 

(1) by contributing financially to school activities, to such 
complementary educational resources as libraries: 

(2) by becoming tutors, oral historians, instructors or helpers in school 
activities, either during the regular school day or as part of the 
after-school or seasonal activities; 

(3) by visiting classrooms and illustrating for students the skills 
required in a particular line of business--holding out the hope, 
meanwhile, that a child may gain employment in that business with the 
appropriate educational preparation; and 

(4) in every case possible, encourage local businesses to hire and train 
neighborhood students for either summer or year-round positions. 

20 

 



  

FINDING 5 

The Commission's fifth finding is that Connecticut educators must be 
trained to teach both a diverse student population and a curriculum that 
incorporates the heritages of diverse cultural and racial groups. Our goal 
must be to familiarize our teachers with the skills and knowledge necessary 
for teaching a diverse student population and curricula that embrace 
multicultural understanding. 

Most of us are brought up conditioned to be ethnocentric, to believe that 
our culture is both different and better. This is particularly true when a 
cultural group lives in relative isolation. Our country has been strengthened 
from the first by cultural differences and is becoming ever more diverse. All 
‘humankind, in fact, now lives in a world where groups are becoming 
increasingly interrelated, less and less isolated. Accordingly, we must all 
learn about other cultures. 

As our most valuable human investment, children, most of all, deserve a 
strong foundation of ethnic diversity and cultural pluralism throughout the 
curriculum. Cultural pluralism means that each person, regardless of group 
identification, enjoys an inherent claim to respect, dignity and rights. 
Cultural pluralism also implies that no one cultural style enjoys an inherent 
precedence over another. Our country and our state then act unfairly by 
imposing a curriculum in language arts, history and the arts that 
disproportionately reflects a white, European culture. Nevertheless, A Study 
of Book-Length Works Taught in High School English Courses found that: 
  

“A summary of the titles required by 30 percent or more of the public 
schools compares the results in 1988 with those 25 years earlier. Of the 
27 titles that appear in 30 percent or more of the schools, 4 are by 
Shakespeare, 3 by Steinbeck, and 2 each by Twain and Dickens. Only two 
women appear on the list--Harper Lee and Anne Frank-- and there are no 
minority authors." 

The author concludes that there are "...fundamental questions about the nature 
of the literary and cultural experiences that students should share, as well 
as the degree of differentiation that is necessary if all students are to be 
able to claim a place and an identity within the works that they read. The 
debates also involve fundamental pedagogical questions about the most 
effective means to help all students develop an appreciation for and 
competence in the reading of literature." 

As our nation becomes more culturally diverse and the need grows for our 
people to appreciate and understand different cultures, educators must develop 
learning experiences and environments that preserve and illustrate, with a 
sense of gratefulness and appreciation, each group's contribution to the 
richness of the entire society. 

An amalgamation of approaches--enhancing, for example, the teacher 
preparation programs, eliminating materials that contain bias, supportive 
administrators, integrating the entire curriculum, and ongoing programs that 
promote interaction among students--would strengthen and enliven our school 
system and encourage it to serve all of our students beneficially and equally. 

21 

 



  

But such a fundamental change in our public school curriculum requires a 
concomitant change in teacher preparation. The Commission concludes, 
therefore, we will have achieved this goal only when each educator has been 
trained to teach both a diverse student population and a curriculum that 
incorporates the heritages of diverse cultural and racial groups. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 
  

First of all, we must change our teacher preparation programs to include 
the following six training elements: 

(1) Future teachers must acquire the skills to effectively teach in a 
diverse student environment. All teacher preparation programs 
should require a comprehensive urban teaching experience. 

(2) Future teachers must be able to develop and teach a multicultural 
curriculum, and teacher preparation programs should require a course 
of study in multicultural education. 

(3) To attain an appreciation for cultures other than their own, 
teachers should become proficient in a second language. Programs 
should include the study of the language itself, the history, 
literature and culture of our country. 

(4) Immersion being the smoothest path to understanding a different 
culture, teacher preparation programs should encourage foreign 
exchange programs. 

(5) The Permanent Advisory Council on the Teaching Profession should 
prepare now to incorporate multicultural education into the 
certification and recertification regulations. 

(6) The current certification regulations should be revised to reflect 
the new teacher preparation requirements for a student exchange 
experience, a second language proficiency, courses on student 
diversity and the multicultural curriculum. 

Second, educators already in the work force must enjoy the same 
opportunity for training as the individuals in teacher preparation programs. 
Accordingly, the Commission recommends that (a) the Connecticut Department of 
Education use funding and regulations to encourage multicultural education 
training for all professional educators; (b) with its Celebration of 
Excellence program as a model, the Department of Education fund exemplary 
curriculum projects which incorporate diversity and educate about prejudice; 
and (c) the teacher preparation programs centers in the Connecticut State 
University system be used to develop the programs recommended. 

22 

 



  

Third, additional funding should be made available to implement the 
following three programs: 

(1) Institutions of higher education should hire faculty members with 
experience in developing multicultural curriculum for its teacher 
preparation programs. 

(2) Institutions of higher education should plan a series of workshops 
designed to incorporate the multicultural curriculum concept into 
the professional development experience of all teachers. 

(3) Institutions of higher education should provide teacher and student 
exchange grants and establish a study abroad center for students in 
teacher preparation programs. 

As we do so often when our society faces problems, again we ask our 
schools to address the issue within our children's educational experiences. 
The concern this time is for cultural diversity; the request this time, 
however, is fraught with complexity and emotion. Multicultural education 
already exists, at least rhetorically; but the Commission can find few 
examples of it flourishing in the classroom. Several studies confirm that the 
principle requirement for the success of this type of program is teacher 
awareness. Slavin states, "to train teachers to foster interracial 
interaction, teacher workshops should be focused not on understanding 
intergroup relations, but on specific teaching methods that that promote 
student interaction." 

Fourth, the Commission recommends that centers be established at which 
teachers and administrators would be able to satisfy their professional 
development requirements (continuing education units - CEUs) by participating 
in workshops. Centers would be funded by a State grant. 

23 

 



  

FINDING 6 

The Commission found that there are too few minority educators in the 
State of Connecticut, and its recommended goal is for the State to begin 
immediately to increase the number of minority educators. 

Today, only 6 percent of the 37,000 full-time professional staff in the 
State's public schools are members of minority groups. One hundred and one 
districts (61%) have less than one percent minority staff. Sixty-five of 
these districts have no minority teaching staff. Of particular concern is the 
low number of minority professionals in the area of special education as 
reflected in A Plan to Increase Minority Participation At All Levels in the 
Special Education Profession. 
  

  

Meanwhile, minority boys and girls comprise almost 25% of the student 
population, and projections indicate that as the minority student population 
increases, the number of minority teachers will decrease. Too rarely do 
minority youngsters find the adult role models they need in their school 
buildings. But white students miss out too. If we want to inculcate in our 
children the value and importance of diversity, the lesson must start in the 
classroom. In addition, the low number of minority teachers deprives the 
profession itself of the valuable enrichment that comes from a diverse mix of 
teachers and administrators and their approaches to issues in instruction and 
curriculum. However, if we take no steps to reverse the trend, by 2020 "the 
average child will have only two minority teachers--out of about 40--during 
his or her Kindergarten through twelve school years. And this 
under-representation will be worse at the college level." 

But how. can we as a State reverse these trends? The Commission finds that 
minority graduation rates from four-year institutions remain 
disproportionately low, and some questions follow from this fact: how can we 
increase the numbers of minority people entering and graduating from our 
colleges and universities when they meet fewer and fewer college educated 
minorities in their earlier schooling? How can we attract minorities into the 
profession of teaching when they can find fewer and fewer minority colleagues 
there? And, how do we retain those who enter the teaching profession when 
other professions actively beckon? 

The key is to put in place a comprehensive, thoroughly integrated State 
plan involving the entire education system. The Commission will consider the 
goal achieved when each school district has an integrated faculty. The 
objectives will require Connecticut to (a) increase the number of minorities 
graduating from teacher preparation programs in the State; (b) recruit 
minority teachers from out-of-state; (c) retain minority teachers in the 
profession; and (d) regionalize the recruitment and retention of minority 
teachers. 

24 

 



  

RECOMMENDATIONS 
  

First, we absolutely must increase the number of minorities graduating 
from teacher preparation programs in the State of Connecticut. The Department 
of Higher Education has initiated a program to recruit and retain minorities 
in higher education throughout the State, and although we appear to be doing 
better, an under-representation of minority students persists in four-year 
institutions generally and in teacher preparation programs specifically. To 
increase the latter, we must increase the former. It is as simple as that. 
To attract Connecticut's young minority students to Connecticut colleges and 
universities, the State should, in the Commission's view, adopt the following 
six strategies: 

(1) Identify minority teachers to serve as role models who agree to work 
with interested minority students in selected districts. These 
teachers would serve as mentors, providing their students with 
guidance and leadership as they prepare to enter college. 

(2) Work with such other programs as Career Beginnings, CONNCAP, Upward 
Bound and Day of Pride to guide minority students toward higher 
education. The Connecticut Collegiate Awareness Program (CONNCAP) 
and Upward Bound are consortia between a college and a local school 
system that identify junior high school minority students who 
demonstrate college potential. The programs provide support and 
enrichment opportunities to students in anticipation of college. 
These programs convince young students with academic ability that 
they can succeed in college. CONNCAP provides academic enrichment 
and exposes students to a campus -environment. A number of similar 
programs already exist, and they should all be encouraged and 
expanded. 

(3) Establish among parents a positive impression of teaching as a 
profession. Parents have a strong influence on a student's 
schooling and career choice, and part of any student program should 
be a segment for parents. 

(4) Encourage partnerships between selected school districts and nearby 
colleges to help minority students continue on to college and 
succeed. After establishing a formal association between its high 
schools and higher education, the State should also make sure the 
students receive individual attention at the time of their admission 
and enrollment. 

(5) Establish a minority scholarship program to ensure that academically 
qualified Connecticut African-American and Hispanic students have an 
opportunity to attend college. Colleges that participate in the 
program would agree to grant minority scholars compensatory aid 
commensurate with their financial needs. 

25 

 



  

(6) Create a magnet high school for those students expressing interest 
in the teaching profession and link this school formally with one or 
more colleges. Such a magnet school could provide field trips to 
institutions with teacher training programs, and its students could 
participate in seminars with college students. 

Second, the Commission urges the State to encourage young minority 
students in its colleges and universities to enter the teaching profession by 
(a) establishing local programs to arouse interest in the teaching profession 
as early as middle school in districts with a significant minority student 
population. The Future Teachers of America was once popular in middle and 
high school, and this type of program acquainted youngsters with the benefits 
of a teaching career; (b) providing minority students with teaching 
internships in districts with significant minority student populations. High 
school students should receive stipends to participate in summer school 
programs for elementary students where they could serve as teacher aides and 
where they could observe peer teaching practices in the classroom. Such a 
summer program would give high school students a preliminary understanding of 
the profession through teaching experience. 

Third, the Commission recommends the following four strategies to retain 
minority students in the teacher preparation programs: 

(1) Provide scholarships to minority students enrolled in teacher 
preparation programs. Needy Connecticut African-Americans and 
Hispanics who enroll in a full-time undergraduate teacher 
preparation program at an accredited degree-granting institution of 
higher education in the State should receive grant funds to defray 

~ their financial needs. The grants could require the recipients to 
return to a specific region or district to teach. The Norwalk 
Public Schools has established the "Vectron Scholar Program," which 
awards a four-year scholarship to a Connecticut university for a 
student who agrees to teach in the Norwalk Public Schools for four 
years after graduating. 

(2) Encourage partnerships between community colleges and teacher 
preparation institutions to develop a new route to teacher 
certification that includes two years at a community college and two 
years at a teacher preparation institution. A number of excellent 
cooperative programs already exist between community colleges and 
four-year institutions. Developing a formal partnership would link 
the two institutions so that the community college would become a 
natural recruiting ground for the four-year institution. Such a 
partnership would also present young students with an awareness of 
the opportunities for education beyond the community college. 

(3) Adopt the academic and counseling support programs presently used 
for college athletes as a model to support minority students 
enrolled in teacher preparation programs. Students often feel 
overwhelmed by their college assignments. Assistance with the 
development of personal discipline and good study habits can lead 
directly to a successful college experience. 

26 

 



  

(4) Expand the Teaching Opportunities for Paraprofessional Program to 
assist paraprofessionals to become certified teachers. Teacher 
aides have already made their interest in education evident by 
working in our public schools. They represent a potential worthy of 
special attention. Under the current program, paraprofessionals 
work in a school one-half year and take courses in a teacher 
preparation program the other half year. They remain, however, on a 
full-time salary and are reimbursed for their academic expenses 
after successful completion of the semester. This program presently 
exists in several urban districts where minority paraprofessionals 
are greatest in number, and it should be expanded. 

Fourth, Connecticut must continue to recruit minority teachers from 
out-of-state. The Commission recognizes that several years will pass before 
the State can reap the benefits of any in-state teacher preparation minority 
recruitment program. Therefore, strengthening the current effort to recruit 
out-of-state makes sense in the short run to increase the number of minority 
teachers in the State. To recruit out-of-state teachers successfully, the 
Commission recommends that Connecticut: 

(1) develop comprehensive and systematic recruitment strategies. To 
compete with other states recruiting the same individuals, 
Connecticut should launch a sophisticated advertising campaign, ease 
the application process, allow for flexibility in the administration 
of the CONNCEPT and CONNTENT tests for out-of-state applicants, 
initiate a computer data base of applicants, establish a formal 
interview process; and 

(2) streamline certification requirements and develop deciprocity 
agreements between states to promote the out-of-state recruitment 
process. 

The Connecticut Department of Education should also study the possibility 
of assisting the districts and regional education service centers to recruit 
minority teachers from out-of-state. : 

Fifth, Connecticut must initiate incentives that encourage the retention 
of minority teachers. Connecticut's record on recruiting minority teachers, 
especially from out-of-state, has so far been poor. Its record for retaining 
these teachers is even worse. The State needs programs designed to retain 
minority teachers once they begin to practice here. The following three 
strategies would help: 

(1) Connecticut should establish partnerships with out-of-state colleges 
and universities serving predominantly minority populations. Few 
recruitment campaigns enjoy success without individuals on campus 
willing to help. Establishing a relationship with these colleges 
that encourages its staff to act as liaison would be most beneficial. 

(2) Connecticut should establish a program to assist African-Americans 
and Hispanics who become full-time teachers or hold professional 
positions with a Connecticut public elementary or secondary school 
or any accredited college or university in the repayment of their 
educational loans. 

21 

 



  

(3) Connecticut should establish a mentoring program to help acclimate 
the new minority teacher professionally and socially. New 
Connecticut residents often have difficulty locating the services 
they need and a professional colleague willing to acquaint the new 
teacher with Connecticut's educational system along with the 
neighborhood housing, shopping, religious services and social 
services would relieve much of a newcomer's anxiety. 

Sixth, the Commission recommends the regionalization of its minority 
teacher recruitment and retention efforts. Presently, individual districts 
recruit out-of-state to obtain minority teachers. More often than not, these 
districts not only find themselves competing with other districts in other 
states, they find themselves competing with their Connecticut neighbors. The 
costs associated with out-of-state recruitment are high; the success rate is 
low. 

Thus, the State should devote special consideration to the regional effort 
developed by the Capitol Region Education Council (CREC) in 1988. With the 

- assistance of a small interdistrict grant from the Department of Education, 
approximately twenty districts have pooled funding and staff to recruit and 
retain minority professionals. Participating districts target vacancies for 
which the program can recruit. A coordinated recruiting strategy includes 
posters, brochures and advertisements, all distributed to specifically 
targeted locations throughout the East and Southeast. Individual members 
represent the program at conferences, job fairs and on-campus recruitment 
efforts. CREC has also begun to establish linkages between local schools and 
colleges with a teacher preparation programs . A committee has begun to 
identify and support promising minority students with an interest in 
teaching. The program encourages the formation of Future Teachers of America 
organizations in the participating districts. A group of teachers has 
volunteered as a "support system" for applicants who come to Connecticut for 
interviews and later offer new recruits information about the education system 
and the area. 

A regional effort like the above is cost effective and establishes a 
critical mass of vacancies for comprehensive recruitment. Such partnerships 
should appear throughout Connecticut, relying on the regional education 
service centers (RESC's) as the logical coordinating arm. 

The Commission, therefore, recommends that the State distribute small 
grants to each RESC to establish such a program using CREC as their model. 

28 

 



  

é | ® 
CONCLUSION 

In addressing the "quality" component of a "quality and integrated 
education,” Connecticut has positioned itself well for the coming century. We 
have already listed the specific attributes, skills and understandings we 
expect of our high school graduates in the Connecticut Common Core of 
Learning, and we 1ist them in the language of "demonstrated student 
performance." Connecticut's Common Core of Learning speaks of "intellectual 
curiosity,” "moral and ethical values," and "responsibility and 
self-reliance," among other attitudes and qualities. It also lists such basic 
competencies as "reading, writing and speaking," "quantitative skills," and 
“reasoning and problem solving." It also specifies understandings and 
applications in “the arts," "science and technology," and other key 
disciplines. 

Having articulated what we expect from students, we can focus on 
results--demonstrated outcomes--rather than talking merely about student 
"exposure" and teacher "coverage." These expectations are more than just 
goals for our brightest students; they also reflect a common core that implies 
“the highest expectations for each child." 

But with our sights now on these essential educational results, we are 
concerned about great numbers of students--mainly from low-income, minority 
neighborhoods, but also from the most affluent of our suburban towns--who fail 
to achieve them in the schools they attend. 

Our educational system has thankfully placed such superficial and 
diversionary but divisive issues as forced busing behind it. But as the 
formation of this Commission signals, educational inequities persist, 
including the isolation of the majority of Connecticut's students from daily 
classroom contact with students of other races and ethnic groups. It is time 
for all of us to break down the barriers that remain in our school districts, 
in our communities, in our schools and classrooms, and in our hearts. 

When differences in class and income compound racial and ethnic 
differences, a clearer picture of the persistent inequity emerges. As our 
Commission notes, children who are poor rarely live near children who are 
rich, and all too many of Connecticut's African-American and Hispanic children 
and the children of our recent immigrants are poor. They are separate more 
because of income, really, than the color of their skin. But it amounts to 
practically the same thing. Overcoming this deeply ingrained pattern of 
separateness will require initiative based on the following four humanitarian 
principles: 

(1) Understanding antecedents. Students must first explore the social 
and economic roots of prejudice to overcome them. Thus, our schools 
should continually celebrate the positive contributions and cultural 
richness of diverse ethnic groups. 

  

29 

 



  

(2) Renewing values. We overcome inequity best by rejecting the forces 
majorities traditionally use to oppress minorities. The remedy 
usually lies in reversing those forces. As Martin Luther King said, 
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate 
cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." 

  

(3) Building community. In the search for quality and integrated 
education, the Commission found no substitute for children of 
different backgrounds working and learning together in the classroom. 

  

(4) Inviting action. Students will learn in concert most freely when 
they are "drawn together" rather than "pushed together." When 
welcoming parental and professional incentives stand forth, 
integration will become a voluntary fact. 

  

The Commission accepts the view that a quality and integrated education is 
an empowering education. We serve well the vital interests of our minority 
students by making our schools better places for all students. If they are 
truly to serve students of all ethnic groups, our school districts, 
administrators and teachers must reshape the way they help our children 
learn. Connecticut's investment in quality and integrated education must 
be--and will be--a smart investment. We cannot afford to sell our students 
short: they must do better than just get by, better than just stay in school, 
better than just graduate. Some 700,000 functionally illiterate students 
graduate each year from the high schools in this country, palpable proof that 
a high quality education for every child remains a distant dream. 

Educational renewal for equity and excellence is, in practical terms, the 
ounce of prevention that can save us billions in future dependency and bring 
us billions more in future productivity. But more important, it is also a 
matter of right and justice. The Commission challenges Connecticut to educate 
our children to find pride and a sense of well-being in all our neighborhoods 
and to help bring self-respect and productivity into all sectors of society. 

Finally, this Report suggests several ways to address the issue of quality 
and integrated education, but many more ways exist. The Commission members, 
therefore, urge the legislature, our educational agencies, and our local 
schools to push the initiative beyond these five findings and the accompanying 
recommendations. : 

We believe Connecticut can lead the Nation in addressing the issues of 
quality and integrated education, and we commend to our leaders the challenge 
Robert Kennedy borrowed by way of paraphrase from the Rabbi Hillel: ®If not 
us, who? If not now, when? If not here, where?" 

15930 

30 

 



Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated Education 

  

Report of Activities 
September 20, 1989 through December 13, 1990 

September 20, 1989 

Governor O'Neill announced the appointment of the Governor's Commission on 
Quality and Integrated Education. 

October 2, 1989 

Commission co-chairs, Dr. David G. Carter and James P. Sandler, met with 
the leadership of five community foundations to request financial support 
for the Commission from the foundations. 

October 12, 1989 

The Commission held its first meeting reviewing the charge given by the 
-— Governor and discussing a tentative agenda and workplan. The Commission 
= reviewed current state and local initiatives promoting integration and the 
: two reports on integration issued by the department. The Commission also 

reviewed the report on the impact of desegregation on students prepared by 
Dr. Janet Schofield. 

October 23, 1989 

The Commission issued two Request for Proposals (RFPs) for consultants to 
assist the Commission. One RFP was for a demographic and architectural 
study of public school construction in Connecticut. The second RFP was 
for a person or group to act as a consultant to the Commission providing a 
national perspective on integration and quality education. 

October 26, 1989 

The Commission held an organizational workshop to review a proposed 
meeting schedule, to discuss a possible subcommittee structure and to 
discuss the hiring of two consultants to assist the Commission. 

31 

 



* » 
Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated Education 

Report of Activities 
September 20, 1989 through December 13, 1990 

  

November 9, 1989 

The Commission held its second meeting and heard reports on organizational 
matters. The Commission agreed on a subcommittee structure with three 
subcommittees: one focusing on school construction, a second focusing on 
school programs, and the third focusing on the recruitment and retention 
of minority teachers. The group received a status report on the two RFPs 
for consultants. Dr. Pascal Forgione reviewed department reports on: a) 
student enrollment projections, and b) minority students and staff for the 
Commission. 

November 21, 1989 

The three subcommittees held their initial organizational meetings. They 
discussed their areas of focus and workplans. 

December 7, 1989 

Two of the subcommittees held meetings. The school construction 
subcommittee interviewed representatives from H.C. Planning Consultants, 
Inc. and Tai Soo Kim Associates (one of the groups responding to the 
RFPs). The interdistrict/intradistrict program. Subcommittee heard a 
report on Project Concern. —— 

December 19, 1989 

The Commission held its third meeting. This meeting was devoted to 
choosing the two consultant groups that will work with the Commission and 
prepare studies for the Commission. The Commission received five (5) 
responses to each of its two RFPs. The Commission discussed these 
responses and voted to contract with: a) H.C. Planning Consultants, Inc. 
for the demographic and school construction study; and b) The McKenzie 
Group to provide consultant services to the Commission. . 

January 2, 1990 

The Commission received word that a partnership of five community 
foundations would provide $100,000 to support the work of the Commission. 
The five community foundations are: 

The Hartford Foundation for Public Giving; 
The New Haven Foundation; 
The Bridgeport Area Foundation; 
The Fairfield Foundation; and 
The Pequot Foundation (New London). 

32 

 



Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated Education 
Report of Activities ) 

September 20, 1989 through December 13, 1990 

  

January 4, 1990 

The Commission held its fourth meeting. Dr. Maree Sneed from the McKenzie 
Group attended the meeting. The Commission, led by Dr. Sneed, 
brainstormed on potential findings concerning racial isolation, quality 
education and integration. The Commission also discussed a draft outline 
of the structure of the Commission's final report. The Commission 
postponed its discussion of Project Concern and Connecticut's alternative 
schools to a future meeting. 

January 14-16, 1990 

The co-chairs of the subcommittee on Minority Recruitment and Retention, 
Mrs. Christina Burnham and Mr. Henry Kelly, attended the fourth annual 
conference on Recruitment and Retention of Minorities in Teacher Education 
at the University of Kentucky. 

January 16, 1990 

The Commission members attended a press conference announcing the $100,000 
funding of the Commission's work by a partnership of five community 
foundations. The press conference was held at the Sound School, a magnet 
marine science high school in New Haven. Tours of the school were 
available to the Commission members. After the press conference, the 
Commission heard a presentation by the Connecticut Education Association 
(CEA). The CEA showed a video and talked about the activities the CEA is 
pursuing to call attention to the need for quality and integrated 
education in Connecticut. After the presentation, the subcommittees held 
brief meetings. 

February 1, 1990 

The Commission held its fifth meeting. The Commission members reviewed 
the "findings" developed at the January 4th meeting and proposed a series 
of new "finding" statements. It was determined that the "findings" would 
be treated as the problems for which the Commission must find solutions. 
The Commission discussed at length the definition of quality education and 
whether one can obtain a quality education without an integrated student 
body and faculty. 

33 

 



é » 

Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated Education 
Report of Activities 

September 20, 1989 through December 13, 1990 

  

March 1, 1990 

The Commission held its sixth meeting. Representative Naomi Cohen and 
Senator Kevin Sullivan, Co-Chairs of the Education Committee for the 
General Assembly, asked the Commission to add to the Commission's charge a 
review of the current "racial imbalance" statutes and to make 
recommendations for change. The Commission agreed to review the current 
statutes and determine if any changes are needed. Dr. Maree Sneed 
presented a short history of desegregation. A presentation on Project 
Concern was given by Mary Carroll of the Hartford Public Schools, Maureen 
Bojko from the CT Department of Education and John Allison from the 
Capitol Region Education Council. Thom Brown from the CT Department of 
Education gave a presentation on magnet schools in Connecticut. 

March 8, 1990 

The Co-chairs of the Commission meet with G. Donald Ferree of the 
Institute for Social Inquiry to discuss commissioning a public opinion 
poll for the Commission. 

March 20, 1990 

The Commission held a workshop to edit the "findings" and to group them 
into no more than 10 to 12 topics. 

March 25-27, 1990 

Three members of the Commission, Carol Duggan, Deborah Willard and Michael 
Helfgott, and one staff member, Carol Rocque, went to St. Paul, Minnesota 
and Milwaukee, Wisconsin to visit the school districts and to hear about 
the efforts of the two school districts to integrate their schools. In 
Milwaukee they met Dr. Robert Peterkin, Superintendent of Schools. 
Milwaukee is operating under a court settlement agreement involving 
Milwaukee and 23 suburban communities. In St. Paul, they met with Dr. 
David Bennett, Superintendent of Schools. (Dr. Bennett was in Milwaukee 
when the court settlement was reached.) St. Paul has an extensive school 
choice program to integrate its schools and is a leader in implementing 
multicultural education in all its schools. 

34 

 



  

Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated Education 
Report of Activities 

September 20, 1989 through December 13, 1990 

March 30, 1990 

Dr. James Banks, Professor of Education at the University of Washington, 
Seattle spoke to the Commission and guests on "The Nature of Multicultural 
Education". Professor Banks is internationally known for his work in 
social studies education and in multicultural education. 

The Co-chairs, working with the co-chairs of the Interdistrict - 
Intradistrict Programs subcommittee and staff, reviewed the first draft of 
the public opinion poll developed by the Institute for Social Inquiry and 
made suggestions for changes. 

April 5, 1990 

The Commission held its seventh meeting. The Commission discussed the 
revised “findings” and agreed to vote on the "findings" at the May 
meeting. A brief report was given regarding the presentation of Dr. James 
Banks on March 30, 1990. Ms. Sneed then facilitated a discussion on 
interdistrict transfer programs and whether the Commission wishes to 
recommend and support the use of such programs to integrate schools in 
Connecticut. Although the consensus was that a voluntary interdistrict 
transfer program would be included in our final report, there were 
concerns expressed about a number of issues relating to interdistrict 
transfers. The Co-chairs reported on their progress on the development of 
the public opinion poll. 

The Co-chairs reviewed the second draft of the public opinion poll and 
agreed to make suggestions for questions to be cut from the draft. 

April 19 - May 7, 1990 

May 

The Institute for Social Inquiry conducted the public opinion poll 
interviewing 750 adults by phone. 

10, 1990 

The Commission held its eighth meeting. The Commission heard a 
presentation by Dr. David Hornbeck. Dr. Hornbeck, former Maryland State 
School Superintendent, has been instrumental in developing the new 
Kentucky school reform program. He outlined the major components of the 
new program. 

35 

 



  

Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated Education 
Report of Activities 

September 20, 1989 through December 13, 1990 

  

June 7, 1990 

The Commission held its ninth meeting. The Commission voted to adopt a 
set of 5 "findings": 

every student can learn at high levels. 
in Connecticut, equal educational opportunity does not yet exist. 
the quality of education is enhanced by diversity. 
there is a need for greater parental involvement in schools. 
too few educators are prepared by life experience or by 
professional training to teach a diverse student population and 
manage cultural diversity in the classroom. 

N
W
N
 

The executive directors from the six regional education service centers 
reported on regional cooperative efforts by their RESCs. 

The Commission discussed a draft of the first chapter of its final 
report. The subcommittee on minority recruitment and retention presented 
its draft recommendations. 

July 10, 1990 

The Commission held its tenth meeting. The Commission heard a report by 
G. Donald Ferree on the results of the April public opinion survey. The 
Commission also received a report on enrollment trends 1989-1999 by 
Dr. Hyung Chung of H.C. Planning Associates. 

Four superintendents spoke to the Commission on school integration issues 
and options. 

August 22, 1990 

The Commission held its eleventh meeting. The Commission heard a panel 
presentation by five members of local boards of education. The board 
members discussed current integration efforts in their local districts. 
The Commission discussed, at some length, the strengths and weaknesses of 
voluntary vs. mandatory integration programs. The Commission members 
agreed that their charge limited their study to voluntary approaches to 
integration. : 

September 6, 1990 

The Commission held its twelfth meeting. The Commission members discussed 
the impact of housing patterns on school desegregation. The Commission 
members discussed a draft of their finding goals and recommendations. The 
Commission agreed to carry their discussion over to the next meeting. 

36 

 



Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated Education 
Report of Activities 

September 20, 1989 through December 13, 1990 

  

October 4, 1990 

The Commission held its thirteenth meeting. The Commission members 
discussed revisions to their draft report. The Commission also agreed, 
tentatively, to hold public hearings in mid-November. 

November 7, 1990 

The Commission held its fourteenth meeting. The members continued 
reviewing and revising their preliminary draft report. The members agreed 
to reschedule their public hearings to early December to allow more time 
for public notice of the hearings and for the public to review their 
preliminary report. 

15930 

317 

- TN RN HT NY RN GR ZT YT 

 



  

FOUNDATION SUPPORT TO THE COMMISSION 

The New Haven Foundation The Hartford Foundation 
70 Audubon Street 85 Gillett Street 
New Haven, CT 06510 Hartford, CT 06105 

Pequot Community Foundation Bridgeport Area Foundation 
P.0. Box 769 270 State Street 
New London, CT 06320 Bridgeport, CT 06604 

Fairfield Country Cooperative Foundation 
5 Landmark Square 
Stamford, CT 06901 

CONSULTANTS TO THE COMMISSION 

Dr. Hyung Chung, President Donald Ferree 
H.C. Planning Consultants, Inc. Institute for Social Inquiry 
397 Fairlea Road UCONN -- Box U-164 
Orange, CT 06477 341 Mansfield Road 

Room 421 
Storrs, CT 06269-1164 

Dr. Maree Sneed 
The McKenzie Group 
Columbia Square 
555 13th Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20004 

STAFF SUPPORT FROM | 
THE CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO THE COMMISSION 

Joan M. Martin Kathleen Frega 
Project Coordinator Assistant to the Commissioner 

for Public Information 
Carol S. Rocque 
Assistant to the Commissioner Elliott Williams 
for Policy Race Equity Consultant 

Janet D'Onofrio 
Secretary 

1593D 

38 

BS a SS AR Ab a2 LEA SL tS Be A He PP A RD SA LA SRE RAS a V