Author: Elaina Rollins

Five Minutes that Changed Connecticut: Simon Bernstein and the 1965 Connecticut Education Amendment

Posted on Author Elaina Rollins
Simon Bernstein circa 1965, the year of the Connecticut Constitutional Convention. SOURCE: Christopher Collier.
Simon Bernstein circa 1965, the year of the Connecticut Constitutional Convention. SOURCE: Christopher Collier.

Hartford lawyer and Democratic delegate Simon Bernstein stuck out from his political peers at the 1965 Connecticut Constitutional Convention. While the Democratic and Republican chairmen of the time were entrenched in a debate over the state’s unequal political representation system, Bernstein dared to dream a little bigger (Bernstein interview by Campbell 10). As a member of the Bloomfield Board of Education, Bernstein recognized that in 1965, Connecticut was the only state that did not guarantee its citizens a constitutional right to an education and thus decided to draft a new amendment to address this problem (9, 11). After days of being ignored by his Democratic Party superiors and then finally threatening to confront the media about his concerns, Bernstein’s request was met. Delegates at the 1965 Connecticut Constitutional Convention passed Bernstein’s amendment which guarantees free public education to every child, setting the stage for a series of prominent educational lawsuits, including Horton v. Meskill (1970), Sheff v. O’Neill (1989), and Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF) v. Rell (2005) (Bernstein interview by Campbell 11, 1; “CCJEF v. Rell Overview”).

The Man Behind the Amendment

Bernstein was born on January 17, 1913, in Hartford, Connecticut (Bernstein interview by Campbell 13; “Simon Bernstein). After graduating from Trinity College and Harvard Law School, he began his political career in Hartford as a lawyer and democratic alderman (Bernstein interview by Campbell 1, 13). During his time in Hartford, Bernstein served on the city’s Finance Committee and also actively participated in the 1940s Zionist movement, a political effort that sought to encourage local lawmakers to support Israel’s fight for its own state (Bernstein interview by Campbell 9; Bernstein Interview by Zaiman 3). In 1950, Bernstein moved to Bloomfield and was elected to the Bloomfield Board of Education (Bernstein interview by Campbell 1, 9).

In all of his political efforts, Bernstein proved he was not afraid to confront difficult issues that others were hesitant to address. For example, in 1947, Bernstein took on a legal case involving a racially restrictive covenant, a term used to describe real estate agreements that prohibit people of a specific race from occupying a piece of land. This covenant, in particular, limited a property sale in the West Hartford area to “non-Semitic persons of the Caucasian race” (Bernstein interview by Campbell 4). The Hartford Courant published an article about Bernstein on March 28, 1947, which wrote that Bernstein felt the covenant’s racially specific language was “against public policy” (“Bernstein Seeks End” 21). Bernstein eventually managed to get this phrasing erased from the original property agreement, making him the first person in Connecticut to successfully address a legal case of this kind (Bernstein interview by Campbell 8).

The Creation and Impact of the Education Amendment

One of the reasons why Bernstein’s peers at the 1965 Connecticut Constitutional Convention attempted to stifle his enthusiasm about an education amendment was because they were focused on only one task: revising the state’s system of political representation. Connecticut’s representation system needed to be fixed because of the 1964 United States Supreme Court ruling in Reynolds v. Sims (Collier 593). The Court found that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires state legislatures to apportion representatives based on each district’s population to ensure that all citizens are equally represented (“Reynolds v. Sims”). This “one man, one vote” law thus made Connecticut’s system – two representatives for every district – unconstitutional (Collier 591).

Because the sole purpose of the Convention was to align Connecticut’s representation system with Reynolds v. Sims, John Bailey, the influential and Democratic chairman, had no interest in seeing any proposals regarding schools (Collier 593). However, this did not stop Bernstein from voicing his concerns about Connecticut’s lack of a constitutional guarantee to education: “I was enough of a history student of law, a lawyer, to know that once a convention is called for the state or national, nothing is irrelevant,” Bernstein stated in an oral interview (Bernstein interview by Campbell 10). Rather than accept the legislature’s pre-planned agenda, Bernstein chose to challenge his political superiors.

In order to get the legislature’s attention, Bernstein repeatedly asked Bailey to consider his proposal and also threatened to discuss his frustration with the media. In the end, it was this threat that got Bernstein what he wanted: Bailey granted Bernstein a meager five minutes to draft a proposal in an effort to quickly return to the discussion on political representation. Bernstein’s amendment, which he scribbled onto a scrap of paper in order to make his five-minute deadline, is general because Bernstein believed the language of the Constitution should reflect overall principles and ideas (Bernstein interview by Campbell 11). It states that, “There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state. The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation” (Collier 591).

Bernstein was given only minutes to draft his proposal for what is now known today as the 1965 Education Amendment. SOURCE: Christopher Collier.
Bernstein was given only minutes to draft his proposal for what is known today as the 1965 Education Amendment. SOURCE: Christopher Collier.

Although the world “equal” is not explicitly written in the amendment, its inference has been used as a foundation for nationally recognized educational inequality lawsuits such as Horton v. Meskill (1970), Sheff v. O’Neill (1989), and Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF) v. Rell (2005) (Bernstein interview by Campbell 1; Collier 594; “CCJEF v. Rell Overview”). At the time of Horton v. Meskill, Connecticut supplied school districts with $250 per child, forcing states to rely heavily on local property taxes for additional funding. The Horton plaintiffs used Bernstein’s amendment to argue that this system was unconstitutional because it meant educational quality varied considerably from poorer to wealthier towns (Eaton 90-91). Sheff v. O’Neill used Bernstein’s amendment to prove that the extreme racial, ethnic, and economic isolation of the Hartford school district left its schoolchildren, and other suburban schoolchildren, with an insufficient education that the state was required to remedy (“Sheff v. O’Neill”). The CCJEF v. Rell lawsuit used the 1965 Educational Amendment to argue that Connecticut’s system for funding public schools is not only inadequate, but also disproportionately harms minority schoolchildren and their ability to participate in the democratic process, thrive in college, and reap the monetary rewards of intellectual success (“CCJEF v. Rell Overview”; “CCJEF v. Rell” by The Lawyers Committee).

After his years as a laywer, Bernstein served as a Connecticut Superior Court Judge for 27 years. He passed away on January 17, 2013 at his home in Sarasota, Florida at the age of 100 (“Simon Bernstein”). His contribution to Connecticut lives on through the 1965 educational amendment that continues to serve as a foundation for educational inequality lawsuits throughout the state.

Works Cited

  1. “Bernstein Seeks End of Restrictive Clauses.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): 21. Mar 28 1947. ProQuest. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.
  2. Bernstein, Simon. Interview by Jack Zaiman. Greater Hartford Jewish Historical Society Oral History Collection. Greater Hartford Jewish Historical Society, 1971. Web. 6 Oct 2013.
  3. Bernstein, Simon. Interview by Katie Campbell. “Oral History Interview on Connecticut Civil Rights.” Trinity College Digital Repository. Trinity College, 2011. Web. 4 Oct 2013.
  4. “CCJEF v. Rell.” The Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. <www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/site/documents/files/CCJEF-v.-Rell-Summary.pdf>.
  5. “CCJEF v. Rell Overview.” Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. <http://ccjef.org/ccjef-v-rell-overview>.
  6. Collier, Christopher. Connecticut’s Public Schools: A History, 1650-2000. Orange, CT: Clearwater Press, 2009. Print.
  7. Eaton, Susan E. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2007. Print.
  8. “Reynolds v. Sims.” Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 7 Oct 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0377_0533_ZS.html>
  9. “Simon Bernstein.” The New Haven Register. 30 May 2013. New Haven Register. Web. 7 Oct 2013.
  10. “Sheff v. O’Neill—Today in History.” ConnecticutHistory.org. CThumanities, n.d. Web. 7 Oct 2013. <http://connecticuthistory.org/sheff-v-oneill-today-in-history/>.

Avoiding Plagiarism

Posted on Author Elaina Rollins

Passage: “I think that children can overcome the stigma of poverty… But, what they cannot overcome is the stigma of separation. That is like a damned spot on their being… a spot that, no matter what success you have, you can’t wipe it out. And that’s what segregation does to children; they see themselves as apart and separate because of the language they speak, because of the color of their skin.” (Eaton 124)

Part 1: Minority children attending Hartford schools can overcome the stigma of poverty… But, what they cannot overcome is the stigma of separation.

Part 2: No matter the success Hartford schoolchildren may have, they will never be able to overcome the stigma of separation.

Part 3: Although Hartford schoolchildren are able to get over the stigma of poverty.. they cannot get over the stigma of separation (Eaton 124).

Part 4: Gladys Hernandez, a veteran schoolteacher, argues that the powerful and degrading effects of racial separation stay with a child forever (Eaton 124).

Part 5: Gladys Hernandez, veteran schoolteacher, believes in school desegregation because racial isolation causes students to “see themselves as apart and separate because of the language they speak, because of the color of their skin” (Eaton 124).

Work Cited:

Eaton, Susan E.. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2007. Print.

“Fair Housing At Its Worst” Report #2

Posted on Author Elaina Rollins

On February 15, 1974, Education/Instruccion published its second report in a series entitled “Fair Housing At Its Worst.” These reports investigated housing discrimination in Hartford by analyzing Connecticut’s violations of Title VIII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act. This report in particular discusses the ways in which real estate organizations verbally committed themselves to open housing practices, but then failed to fulfill their promises.

Education/Instruccion writes that although the 1968 Civil Rights Act had good intentions, “equal opportunity postponed is equal opportunity denied” (Education/Instruccion 16). For example, the US Department of Justice hired only 25 lawyers to address the entire nation’s legal issues regarding housing discrimination, leaving the Department extremely understaffed (16).

The report focuses on three major real estate organizations: The National Association of Realtors, Connecticut Real Estate Commission, and The Connecticut Housing Finance Authority. At the time, The National Association of Realtor’s marketing tagline was “America is talking and we’re listening” (18). However, despite this promising catchphrase, the Association failed to respond to Education/Instruccion when asked how they were meeting affirmative action requirements (19).

Education/Instruccion’s report also discusses the Connecticut Real Estate Commission, an organization that issues licenses to real estate brokers and salesmen. At the time, all of the Commissioners were white, male, and English-speaking (22). The Commission’s written regulations required salesmen to utilize minority groups and avoid any plans that might result in “discriminatory practices,” yet none of their education courses included any information about residential and racial patterns (21-22).

The report also points to the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) as another contributing factor toward housing barriers in Hartford. The CHFA’s job is to make financing a home more affordable for low-income buyers. However, Education/Instruccion wrote that the CHFA sees state requirements for opening housing as “nonchalant” regulations. At the time, none of the private sector CHFA members were black or Spanish-American, and not one employee was assigned to fulfill equal opportunity or affirmative action tasks (26).

Sources:

1. Kramer, Eward G. “Promises, Promises: A New Day for Open Housing.” NYLF21 (1975): 537.

I found this source on Google Scholar by searching “Hartford open housing” and limiting my search results to items released between 1970-1980. 

2. Peel, Norman D. “Racial Discrimination in Public Housing Site Selection.” Stanford Law Review. 23.1 (1970): 63-147. Print.

I found this source on JSTOR by searching “Connecticut Housing Finance Authority” and limiting my search results to items released between 1970-1980.

3. The Status of Equal Housing Opportunity: A Report of the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. Hartford: The Commission, 1978. Print.

I found this source on Trincoll.WorldCat.org by searching “Connecticut housing discrimination” and limiting my search results to items released between 1965-1980.

Discussion questions:

  1. Do you think real estate companies and organizations can successfully promote affirmative action and open housing policies if their own employees are predominantly, or all, white?
  2. Education/Instruccion writes that it is often real estate companies’ lack of action that creates housing barriers. What do you believe is more detrimental toward open housing: active attempts to build barriers or total lack of initiative to tear them down? 

“Sheff v. O’Neill Complaint”

Posted on Author Elaina Rollins

“Sheff v. O’Neill Complaint” is a legal complaint filed by ten-year-old Milo Sheff and seventeen other Hartford school children, all acting through their parents, which claims that the state of Connecticut has denied their right to an equal education, as is guaranteed to them in the state constitution. This complaint, filed on April 26, 1989, argues that not only has Connecticut tolerated school districts that are racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically segregated, but that the state has played a major role in creating and maintaing isolated residential communities. 

The plaintiffs identify the defendants as William O’Neill, Governor of the Connecticut, Gerald Tirozzi, Commissioner of Education of Connecticut, Franciso Borges, Treasurer of Connecticut, J. Edward Caldwell, Comptroller of Connecticut, and several members of the State Board of Education. 

The complaint begins with a statement of facts regarding the racial disparity between Hartford and its surrounding suburbs, citing that while the state’s population is made up of 12.1% black school-age citizens, 44.9% of the students in the Hartford school district are black. Sheff also cites statistics about single-parent households, children with limited English proficiency, and families receiving federal aid in order to argue that Hartford operates at a “severe educational disadvantage in addressing the needs of all students” (Sheff 11). 

Under the section titled “An Unequal Education,” the complaint cites the percentages of students in Hartford and 21 other suburbs who fall below the State Department of Education’s “mastery benchmark” level on the Statewide Mastery Tests. The data shows that Hartford students, on average, performed strikingly worse than suburban students. Sheff also insists that the integration of city and suburban schoolchildren would benefit all students, not only those in Hartford, because blacks, Hispanics, and poor children make up such a large part of the state population. 

The complaint offers numerous examples of Connecticut’s “longstanding knowledge of these iniquities,” as well as its “failure to take effective action” (16, 22). For example, Sheff points to exclusionary zoning as one of the most prominent housing barriers affecting Hartford schoolchildren’s education, arguing that Governor O’Neill and his predecessors “failed to take action to afford meaningful racial and economic housing within school zones” (Sheff 22). 

Generally, Susan Eaton’s description of the Sheff complaint reflects the original document’s text. She discusses test scores, overall school quality, and the benefits of school integration. One difference between her book and the actual legal complaint is that while The Children in Room E4 goes into great depth about the current state of Hartford education, using a vivid and touching narrative, the document spends much more time referencing past malfeasances the state had already committed in regards to ignoring educational inequality and obstructing any attempts to remedy the issue. 

Discussion Questions:

Do you agree with the decision to mainly choose plaintiffs who live in Hartford, or do you think this case could have benefitted from citing more students both inside and outside the city?

Sheff proponents face many criticisms from those who belief that while de jure segregation is wrong, de facto segregation should not be remedied by the government. Do you think Sheff could have predicted these criticisms and rewritten part of the complaint to address these concerns in advance?

Could Sheff have benefitted from a more specific definition of school integration?

Home and School Buying Simulation

Posted on Author Elaina Rollins

For this Home and School Buying Simulation I was given $30,000 in annual income, $2,000 for a down payment, no car, and no monthly debt. Through the use of an online mortgage calculator, I estimated that with my income I could afford to buy a house in the $77,000 to $102,000 range or rent an apartment for about $825 a month. Soon after I began my online house hunt on Zillow, I realized that my meager monthly allowance might secure me a good neighborhood, but not necessarily a good home. In East Hartford I could buy a 65-year-old house for nearly $90,000 with what looked like an endless amount of repairs. In West Hartford nearly all of the “homes” that fell into my price range were not actual homes, but actually empty plots of land.

Screen Shot 2013-09-05 at 4.06.59 PM
An empty land plot for sale in West Hartford as advertised on http://zillow.com

If I chose to purchase a two bedroom home in Bloomfield for $85,900 with a $2,000 down payment, a thirty year mortgage with a 4.25% interest rate would leave me with $412 in monthly payments. Although this number initially seemed small to me considering that my monthly income is $2,500, an online amortization table from Bankrate estimated I would pay $3,830 in interest after only one year. By the end of my thirty-year mortgage, that number would be nearly $65,000 – over two-thirds the actual cost of the home.

The economic burden these types of mortgages would undoubtedly put on my simulated family makes it seem as though I should at least be guaranteed a good school district. However, if I were to rent an apartment in the Manchester School District for $800/month, my children would either have to walk to a district school that underperformed in every subject when compared to the state, or instead take a bus to one of the nine inter-district schools in Hartford that showed positive test gains in 2012. Essentially, I would be paying to live in Manchester while simultaneously busing my children back to the neighborhood they just left. West Hartford public schools offered the most promising educational opportunities – schools with smaller class sizes, more teachers, and better test scores. But this was also the same neighborhood with nearly no homes or apartments in my price range.

The results of a school search on http://smartchoices.trincoll.edu which shows a variety of schools in Hartford (about 9 miles away from the original search location) that all show positive test score increases.
The results of a school search on http://smartchoices.trincoll.edu which shows a variety of schools in Hartford (about 9 miles away from the original search location) that all show positive test score increases.

With a $30,000 income and no transportation, I am not at all convinced that “life is better in the suburbs.” Sure, the suburbs are great for people with cars, stable jobs, and a comfortable amount of disposable income. But I expected my school search to be much easier. I anticipated I would see broken down houses and small apartments – and I was right.  However, I hoped my investment in the neighborhood would just be a sacrifice in return for better educational opportunities. If I were to choose a final house and school for this simulation, I would either have to choose a home in West Hartford at the top of my budget with access to better schools, or choose a more reasonably priced home in East Hartford, Mansfield, or Bloomsfield with hope that through the luck-of-the-draw my children would end up in promising schools.