Sheff vs. O’Neill Settlements (2003, 2008).
Background: In 1989, Milo Sheff, then a fourth grader, and 17 other children, filed a lawsuit through their parents, addressing the inequalities within Hartford’s segregated schools. The lawsuit’s goal was to give the children in Hartford an equal educational opportunity. Finally, after years of deliberating, a decision was made; in 1996 the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3, in favor of Sheff. The court stated that the separation of suburban students and Hartford students violated the segregation clause in the Connecticut Constitution and ruled that the state was obligated to provide equal educational opportunity for all students. With that, the court urged the State to find ways to promote desegregation, but without any specific goals or timetables.
To learn more about the Sheff case, click below to watch an oral history video interview of Elizabeth Horton Sheff, one of the plaintiffs in the case.
Sheff vs. O’Neill 2003: After the ruling in 1996, the Sheff plaintiffs were dissatisfied; they saw no real change or efforts done by the state officials. As a result, the Sheff plaintiffs filed a proposal in 2000 and in 2003 a legal settlement was declared. The settlement had a timetable of four years, and it called for 30% of Hartford minority
January 23rd, 2003. Hartford Courant
students in reduced-isolation settings, which are schools with fewer than 75% minority students. Another goal of this settlement was that the Project Choice program, a voluntary transfer program for Hartford students to attend schools in the suburbs, would have 1,600 students enrolled by 2007. One outcome of the settlement was that 22 magnet schools, which are public schools with themes and an application system, were created. These schools were created to attract a diverse body of students; however, the racial composition in these magnet schools varied immensely. While some of the magnet schools met the criteria of fewer than 75% minority students, others had too few or too many minorities. Additionally, many of the minority students of these magnet schools were not even Hartford residents; they were instead residents of the surrounding suburban towns. Even though there was an increase in magnet schools during this time, the main goals were not met of the settlement; only 17% of Hartford minority students were in reduced-isolation settings and only 1,070 students were enrolled in Project Choice.
Sheff vs. O’Neill 2008: Since the goals were not met in the first settlement in 2003, another settlement was negotiated. This time a focus was made on the percent of students applying to go to a reduced-isolation school rather than just looking at the percent of students enrolled in reduced-isolation schools. With that, two goals were created; a goal of 80 percent of Hartford students applying to go to a reduced-isolation school would be able to and a goal of 41 percent of minority students from Hartford would be enrolled in a reduced-isolation school. Both goals did not have to be met; however, the goal was that one was met. In addition to this, the settlement included a descriptive plan for schools such as magnet schools and those schools that participated in Project Choice to follow. The due date for these settlement goals was the 2012-2013 academic school year.
Actual and Legal Process toward Sheff I & Sheff II Goal, 2003-2013 Chart – Data Source: Dougherty et al. “Sheff v O’Neill: Weak Desegregation Remedies,” Figure 5.1, p. 111; Thomas. “State Falls Short on School Desegregation Requirements | The Connecticut Mirror.”
Update on Progress of 2008 Settlement: The 2008 settlement goal of 41% minority students from Hartford being enrolled in a reduced-isolation school was not met by the 2012-2013 due date; only 37% minority students from Hartford were enrolled in a reduced-isolation school. Because they did not meet the goal, state officials and the Sheff plaintiffs will be meeting to negotiate a new settlement. The date and goals of this new settlement have not been set yet.
Learn more:
Dougherty, Jack, Wanzer, Jesse, Ramsay, Christina. “Sheff v. O’Neill: Weak Desegregation Remedies and Strong Disincentives in Connecticut, 1996-2008.” In From the Courtroom to the Classroom, edited by Claire Smrekar and Ellen Goldring, 103-127. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Education Press, 2009.
“Sheff Movement.” Sheff Movement: Quality Integrated Education for All Children, n.d. http://www.sheffmovement.org/index.shtml.
Mozdzer, Jodie. “Sheff Vs. O’Neill: A Timeline.” Courant.com, n.d. http://www.courant.com/news/education/hc-sheff-oneill-timeline-flash,0,105112.flash.
Thomas, Jacqueline. “State Falls Short on School Desegregation Requirements | The Connecticut Mirror.” CT Mirror, November 15, 2012. http://www.ctmirror.org/story/18223/state-falls-short-school-desegregation-requirements
Works Cited:
Connecticut Superior Court. “Sheff Vs. O’Neill Stipulation and Order (Phase I, 2003).” Archival Documents, January 22, 2003. http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp_archives/20.
Connecticut Superior Court. “Sheff Vs. O’Neill Stipulation and Proposed Order (Phase II, 2008).” Archival Documents, April 4, 2008. http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp_archives/19.
Dougherty, Jack. “part 4: challenges of desegregation & choice.” On The Line, October 18, 2011.http://ontheline.trincoll.edu/preview-chapter/part-4/.