The legal document that I analyzed was the 2013 Sheff settlement, the most recent settlement in a case that dates back to 1989. The document begins by acknowledging the original Sheff v. O’Neill decision. It briefly describes the 2003 and 2008 settlements pertaining to the case. The document notes that this new settlement pertains to the 2013-14 school year, although all parties are aware that efforts will need to continue beyond this date (June 30, 2014) to further reduce racial, ethnic, and economic isolation in Hartford public schools.
Next, the document highlights two changes in definition from the phase II stipulation:
1) Existing Magnet Schools are inter-district Magnet Schools that are in operation during the 2012-13 school year.
2) School districts outside Sheff region will participate in Sheff-related school choice programming through the Regional School Choice Office and students attending such schools/programs are to be counted towards the compliance goal.
Section III deals with new changes to goals and performance. When the goals of the 2003 settlement weren’t met, the parties renegotiated in 2008. They created two new goals:
1) Accommodate at least 80% of Hartford minority students wishing to attend reduced-isolation schools.
2) Enroll at least 41% of minority students from Hartford in a reduced-isolation school.
The 2013 settlement maintains these two goals, stating that one or the other (80% demand 0r 41% overall) must be achieved during this one year extension period. The rest of the document is dedicated to highlighting the steps that are being taken to ensure that the benchmark is met. I Will briefly outline this plan.
A) CT State Dept. Of Ed (SDE) is to provide funding for the creation of four new magnet schools and the expansion of one magnet school (Montessori)
B) Global Experience Magnet School, Wintonbury Each Childhood Magnet School and CT International Baccalaureate Academy will be turned into “Sheff” magnets and expand their enrollment of Hartford minority students.
C) Some existing Sheff magnet schools will improve their capacity to enroll Hartford resident students.
D) Participating technical high schools will expand their seat capacity
E) SDE will promote applications for new charter schools in the Sheff region and make the Charter Schools Operations report readily available to the plaintiffs. Basically, SDE is saying they’ll make it easier to apply for the creation of new Sheff charter schools.
F) “Enrollment Management Plans” must now be submitted for schools that SDE anticipates might be in non-compliance with the desegregation standard for the 2013-14 school year. Also, the plaintiffs will be provided with copies of the EMP.
G) There are some major modifications to Open Choice. First, the per pupil operating grant for Open Choice school districts that exceed 4% participation is increased to $8,000. $750,000 is to be allocated to provide grants to local or regional boards of education for costs related to Open Choice Enrollment. SDE states that they’re willing to work with regions whose participation rate is lower than their capability. SDE is also willing to conduct a study on Open Choice retention rates. Finally, when Open Choice seats are unfilled, Hartford residents on the waiting list for magnet schools will be offered a placement.
A good portion of the rest of the document deals with SDE taking steps to make sure the plan is carried out. They want to hire someone full time to act as a director and oversee the implementation of the Phase II Stipulation. SDE is also seeking to make all this information more readily available to those who could take advantage of it through a new marketing campaign with HPS and CREC.
The conclusion of the settlement basically states that SDE must provide the plaintiffs with reports on the academic performance of HPS and non-HPS students participating in Open Choice.
Interestingly, it states that the plaintiffs reserve the right to contest the defendants method of calculating “demand”. Also, the defendants must pay the cost of the plaintiffs experts that they hire to convene to study the demographics of the Sheff region and the socio-economic make up of the suburban population.
Discussion Questions:
1. Which aspects of the 2013 settlement will be most effective at increasing the number of Hartford-resident minority students attending reduced-isolation schools?
2. Is the settlement specific enough to engender progress leading to reaching the benchmark in the next year or is the plan too vague to be truly effective?
3. What aspects do you feel are missing from the 2013 settlement?