Category: web-essay-2016

In July of 1996, the Sheff coalition of Black, White, Puerto Rican, city and suburban plaintiffs finally heard the  Supreme Court ruling, seven years after the initial complaint was filed in 1989. The court ruled, in favor of the plaintiffs, that it was unconstitutional for the State of Connecticut to allow the de-facto racial segregation of public schools to continue.  This was a significant win in the courts for the movement, but what they did not win was a real life solution since the decision ultimately did not specify a remedy or timetable for the State to dismantle this segregation (Sheff Movement).

When Elizabeth Horton Sheff and the other plaintiffs heard the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling in their favor in July 1996, they were initially joyous in their civil rights victory. Seven long years after the case was filed in 1989, the state’s highest court proclaimed that Connecticut had violated the equal education rights of Hartford minority students by maintaining segregated school districts. But in the two decades that have passed since this courtroom victory, the implementation plan has reached only half of its goal. Elizabeth Horton Sheff and the remaining plaintiffs currently stand at a difficult point. On one hand, they praise the state for creating over 45 interdistrict magnet schools that would not have existed without pressure from the case. On the other hand, they criticize the state for halting the creation of more magnets. Furthermore, some critics of magnet school inequity blame the Sheff movement for creating new disparities. This essay conveys the stories of multiple plaintiffs to capture their different ideas and insights on the case since their initial courtroom victory.

Elizabeth Horton Sheff, the leading plaintiff of the Sheff vs. O’Neill case was a parent plaintiff on behalf of her son Milo. Milo was 10 years old and in fourth grade at Annie Fisher Elementary School in Hartford, when the lawsuit was originally filed against the state. Following the 1996 court decision, and subsequent legislative action, the Greater Hartford region saw a significant increase in public magnet schools that began with 2, and as of 2016, has risen to 48. These magnet schools are the single biggest accomplishment of the Sheff coalition, and a source of pride for Elizabeth Sheff.

Every day, Elizabeth Horton Sheff carries the honor, and the burden, of being the lead plaintiff, and the most recognizable public face in the fight for integrated schooling in the Hartford region. She has been conscientious of her role as a spokesperson for the integration cause that came as a result of the landmark case. In an interview with Trinity College students, she expressed this awareness and stated that, “you got to be real careful of what you say” when reflecting on a off-hand joke made to the press after an event (Sheff 9). Parents thank her for the work she has done, and are grateful to have their children enrolled in a magnet school or open choice. On the other hand, with only 41% of Hartford students enrolled in “reduced isolation settings” as of 2013, the fight for educational equity is far from over for Elizabeth Sheff.

Elizabeth pushes for larger scale implementation of integrated schooling through her dedicated involvement with the Sheff Movement. Through this fight, she encounters critics of the movement, from the Hartford community, who believe that these remedies have done more harm than good. She continues to be dedicated to the Sheff movement’s goal of racially integrating schools, despite the burdens this fight has brought on her. She continues to endure now that her children are grown, although they never had the opportunity to experience or benefit from the newly developed magnet school system, which would never have existed were it not for this case.

Legislation passed in 1997, a year after the ruling in favor of the Sheff plaintiffs,  established funding for a number of new Magnet schools. Brand new buildings for themed schools began cropping up in and around the City of Hartford and were intended to draw white suburban families into the city. The development of these schools increased the number of children in the State who were learning in racially integrated environments. While this was a significant win for the Sheff movement, plaintiffs were disheartened that, “a lot of the students in Hartford don’t have the opportunities to get into the magnet schools and so that’s still – we’re not living up to the full potential of what the Sheff case was all about” (Bermudez 8).

Wildaliz and Eva Bermudez, the youngest of the Sheff plaintiffs, were 14 and 9 when the court ruled in their favor in 1996. While the outcomes of racially integrated school programs are seen as predominantly positive, plaintiffs, such as the Bermudez sisters, have concerns that the remedies do not go far enough to provide high quality experiences for all Hartford students. As Hartford residents, they were able to witness, first hand, the changes that were occurring to the school systems in and around Hartford. Although Eva reflected positively on her experiences as a high school student in various magnet and Hartford district schools, most of the improvements made were mostly seen in the experiences of their younger siblings.  They appreciated opportunities for their siblings to attend well-resourced, magnet school. However, they were disappointed that they did not have as many opportunities to experience more of those changes for themselves, because the case took so long to be decided, and the remedies that followed were slow to be realized (Bermudez 7).

Parent plaintiffs, Carol Vinick and Tom Connolly, lived in Hartford at the start of the Sheff lawsuit, but moved to West Hartford around the time of the 1996 court ruling. In 1989, at the time the lawsuit was filed, they were satisfied that their children were receiving a quality, integrated education in their Hartford Public Schools. Their motivation for involvement in the case was to improve the experiences for all Hartford children. When they moved to West Hartford in the mid-90’s, due to increased gang violence, their children were approaching Junior high school. Carol was “shocked by the inequities,” and was struck by the resources that the students had in the West Hartford schools such as “a dictionary for every kid in the class” (Vinick 5:15). This first hand exposure to vastly different worlds likely encouraged their ongoing commitment to the Sheff movement for 25 years and beyond.

Carol and Tom convey a political and activist mindset that brings them to the issues of racial and economic disparity on a national level. Tom talks about the Sheff movement with a sense of outrage that “Hartford is the 4th poorest, per capita…city in the country, in the richest state in the union” (Connolly 9:49). Tom expresses concerns on a broader level that are exemplified in the Sheff Movement, which demands equity and justice through the scope of education, and has moved far too slow in the eyes of these plaintiffs.

For parent plaintiff, Eugene Leach, whose family represented the only White and suburban demographic at the time the Sheff case was filed in 1989, his involvement was the result of a lifelong engagement with civil rights. Leach, a professor and U.S. historian, was a civil rights activist early on and participated in the March on Washington in 1963, at 19 years old. (Leach 4). Leach and his wife, Kathy Frederick moved from Hartford to a diverse part of West Hartford in the early 80’s, when their daughter was 2, and they were expecting their son (Leach 6). His motivation for being involved in the case and the subsequent movement was rooted in the belief that, “desegregation…is something that is done on behalf of the civic good of the community” (Leach 3). This belief in social justice for the greater good, rather than personal benefit is likely why Leach has remained a consistent supporter of the cause of desegregation. He is committed to staying the course and believes that, “deep social reform means moving mountains that do not move at all quickly, that you were to some degree talking about generational change, change that occurs literally over the course of generations” (Leach 10).

During the 2012-13 school year, the State of Connecticut reported that, through the implementation of Magnet Schools and Open Choice, the stated goal set forth in the 2013 stipulation agreement was met, and 41% of students were enrolled in “reduced [racial] isolation settings” (Sheff Movement). While a considerable improvement over the de-facto racial isolation experienced by Hartford students prior to Sheff, many plaintiffs are discouraged that the remaining 59% of Hartford students continue to be subject to conditions of extreme racial and economic isolation. This awareness of so many children being left behind while the magnet schools continue to pop up around the city is not the only concern of Sheff plaintiffs. The lack of a diverse teaching force and the drain of families from neighborhood schools are among the criticisms of the current status of the desegregation remedies.

There are criticisms from some plaintiffs that there has not been enough done to ensure a diverse teaching force that would be reflective of the student demographics. This was an important goal originally set forth when the group of plaintiffs originally formed. Denise Best, a Black Hartford resident and parent plaintiff for the Sheff case, is adamant that teachers should come from or live in the community.  Best believes that, “Far too often, our children are not nurtured the way that they would be if the teachers lived in the community…my ideal would be that teachers taught in their towns where they lived, children went to school, to the neighborhood school” (Best 9). The Bermudez sisters also expressed that providing educational environments that are comfortable for students of color, and provide culturally responsive pedagogy is an important component of improving educational experiences for Hartford students. They are disheartened that “…we have the majority of the teachers in the school system that are white and don’t represent the students that live in Hartford” (Bermudez 8).

In addition to concerns about teacher demographics, Best is critical that despite the improvements that have been made to educational experiences in Hartford, there are too many students who do not have the opportunity to receive a high quality education. While she sees the changes that have been made through the development of a magnet schools system as positive, she points out the consequences to “neighborhood schools” that occur when the most motivated families are filtered out. She has an appreciation that there are more options for Hartford families, but also believed that “we can have a neighborhood school that works well” (Best 12). For Best, these concerns about the implementation of desegregation practices may be why she has pulled away from the Sheff movement and dedicated herself to causes in the effort to best support her community (Best 9).

The fight for educational equity is complicated and messy. The goal of racial integration and equitable funding often creates splits among advocates. After 25 long years, the Sheff plaintiffs have moved in many different directions. Some remain vigilantly supportive of the movement and its goals. Others are committed to the cause of racial integration, but have concerns about its implementation. Some have remained in the city, while others have moved out of the area. For some of the plaintiffs, community activism did not end with their involvement with the Sheff case. While maintaining vigilant support to the Sheff movement, Elizabeth Sheff also went on to be on the Hartford City Council from 1991-1995 and from 1999-2001 (University of Hartford) where she “was voted down more than Carter Cod Liver Pills, but I made it my point to stand for justice” (Sheff 9). She also continued to be actively engaged in her church community and Hartford community because she was able to continue working on issues of social justice (Sheff 10).

For Wildaliz and Eva, their experiences in the Sheff trial and subsequent educational movement initiated them into the activist mindset at a very early age. Now they are adults who continue to reside in Hartford and support the Sheff movement. Wildaliz was voted into the Hartford City council in 2016 and is serving her first term as of this writing (Hartford.gov). The younger sister, Eva, works as a political and union organizer in the city of Hartford (Bermudez 15).

Over the years, Denise Best pulled away from the Sheff movement to pursue other community interests that hold significant meaning to her through her job at the Christian Activities Council as the Coordinator of Comprehensive Community Development. She took this new position after retiring from Trinity College in 2009, where she was the Director of Graduate Studies and Special Academic Programs (Best 13). Best now hopes that “new blood” can be brought into the Sheff integration movement in order to continue the fight, of which she has been a part since the trial’s beginning in 1989 (Best 13).

So much has changed in the decades since the Sheff case was first filed. Now in 2016, the demographics of the greater Hartford region are very different from 1989. Through individual economic upward mobility, people of color are able to move out of the city and into the inner ring suburbs. As this occurs, white individuals and families move further from the city to the outer ring suburbs: The continuation of “white flight” that left the city of Hartford in extreme racial isolation in the first place (Sheff 11).The implications of these changes are that in the effort to fulfill the obligations of the Sheff lawsuit, implementation of integrated schooling must change with the times, and white families will need to be brought in from communities much farther than before.

The fight for equitable educational opportunities through remedies that integrate public schools in the Hartford Region has been long and arduous for the plaintiffs. An extensive system of magnet schools has been created in and around the city in the effort to create integrated learning environments for students. This is a significant step towards dismantling the deeply entrenched de-facto racial segregation that plagues cities and schools in the State of Connecticut.  Some plaintiffs have remained committed to the Sheff Movement with hope for greater changes in the future. Others have moved away from the movement due to life changes, fatigue, or due to concerns over the unintended consequences of the integration policies. There have been great strides in the region, but many plaintiffs agree that it does not go far enough to address the injustices of inequitable education, and for many, the fight continues to the present day.

Work Cited:

Bermudez, Wildaliz and Eva. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill school desegregation by Anique Thompson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, June 30, 2011. Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

Best, Denise, Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill (with video) by Anique Thompson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, August 10, 2011. Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

“History of Sheff v. O’Neill,” Sheff Movement, 2014, Date Accessed 16 April 2016. (http://www.sheffmovement.org/history-2/)

Leach, Eugene. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill, with video, by Anique Thompson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, June 7, 2011. Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

Sheff, Elizabeth Horton. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill (with video) by Candace Simpson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, July 28, 2011.Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

“Timeline.” Sheff Movement. 2014. Date Accessed 16 April 2016. (http://www.sheffmovement.org/timeline/)

University of Connecticut Libraries Map and Geographic Information Center – MAGIC. (2012).Racial Change in the Hartford Region, 1900-2010. Retrieved from http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/otl/timeslider_racethematic.html.

University of Hartford. Elizabeth Horton Sheff. Speaker Bios. 2015. Accessed 15 April 2016.

http://www.hartford.edu/aboutuofh/empowering-change/speaker-bios/elizabeth-horton-sheff.aspx

Vinick, Carol and Tom Connolly. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill school desegregation by Alex Carter, for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, April 26, 2014. Available fromm the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://ctcollections.trincoll.edu/islandora/object/120002%3A197)

 

In 1985, four mothers were arrested for first degree larceny. They did not steal clothes from a store or valuables from another person’s home. They were arrested for stealing an education. In April of 1985, Saundra Foster, Elizabeth Brown, Claude Johnson, and Norma Wright were arrested for sending their children across district lines to attend school in Bloomfield, Connecticut. Foster, Brown, and Johnson resided in Hartford, and Wright resided in Windsor. However, because the Hartford women were arrested first, most of the media attention was focused on them and the city of Hartford. The parents felt that their children would receive a better education over in Bloomfield than in their home district. The Bloomfield Police Department decided to make examples of their situations, and arrested the mothers in hopes of discouraging other poor, black students of Hartford and other towns from jumping the school district dividing line. The arrests had a profound impact on the way people both in the city and the suburbs saw the inequality of Connecticut public education, setting the stage for the Sheff vs O’Neill case that would take place a few years later and would draw significant attention to the extent of school segregation in Connecticut. The arrests also drew attention to a larger civil rights issue, where poor women of color were unfairly targeted by the Bloomfield Police department when they attempted to provide a better education for their children.

Arrests Without Precedent: Prior Approach to District Jumpers

Prior to the 1985 arrests of Saundra Foster and the three other mothers, Bloomfield school board simply disenrolled any non-resident student found attending Bloomfield schools, without any involvement from the police departments. In 1985, it was reported that about 20 students were expelled from Bloomfield each year for being non-residents (Johnson). Dave Drury reported in the Hartford Courant, “Attorneys with the state Department of Education said they had never heard of a town seeking criminal sanctions in a school residence case.” (Drury). By deciding to arrest these Hartford and Windsor parents instead of simply having the Bloomfield School Board go through the traditional disenrollment process, the Bloomfield police sent a powerful message to parents of Hartford and other high-poverty cities: to attempt to provide a better education for your child by sending them to a different district than the one they live in is a dangerous move. The Bloomfield Police department turned a situation that could have been handled quietly and within precedent of Connecticut school districts, into a highly public scare tactic directed very clearly at poor parents.

The Charges: How Seeking an Education Became a Crime

The mothers were charged with first degree larceny. First degree larceny is a class B felony offence in Connecticut that could mean up to 20 years in prison and a fine of as much as $10,000 (Drury). Connecticut Penal law defines larceny as “intent to deprive another of property or to…wrongfully take, obtain, or withhold such property from an owner” (CT Penal Law). The questions then arise: who is the owner of a free public education? How is it possible to steal something guaranteed by law to be provided to you for no cost?

According to the Bloomfield police, each parent stole $4,001 of education services from Bloomfield education funds, which comes mostly from taxpayers, for their child. $4,001 is the per pupil spending reported by Bloomfield school district for the 1985,the eighth highest in the state for that year(Drury). The mothers were initially going to be charged with third degree larceny, a lesser crime; however, the police decided they would issue warrants for arrest on first degree larceny. Even though the value of money they deemed stolen didn’t alone qualify for this charge, Bloomfield police claimed the crime included an element of extortion which therefore pushed the charged up to the first degree.

Had these students attended the Hartford schools they were assigned to by their residency, they would have received 8% less per pupil spending than a child in Bloomfield (CPEC).  According to this logic, a free education is worth more in Bloomfield than in Hartford, and it would be a lower level criminal charge if, hypothetically, Bloomfield parents were to send their children to Hartford schools, stealing taxpayer money from Hartford parents. Any claims the education provided in Hartford and the education provided in Bloomfield is equal are hypocritical by Bloomfield’s rationale. These arrests hinged on putting a clear price on services rendered by schools, and that price was not equal.

Hartford and Bloomfield Responses

The arrests also sparked a discussion on what needed to be improved upon in Hartford schools to prevent more parents from feeling the need illegally send their children to a different school district. When Saundra Foster went to the police station after she learned of the warrant for her arrest, State Senator Frank D. Barrows, whose district included Hartford, went with her in support. Barrows stated to reporters that “the education system is deplorable in the city of Hartford” (Drury), justifying Foster’s choice to send her child to Bloomfield. However, Amando Cruz, the Hartford Public High School principal at the time, defended  Hartford Public Schools, and stated “To say that within an urban setting, in an urban school you can not achieve, that’s erroneous.” He went on to emphasize the support provided in Hartford schools, especially for students that may not receive all the support they require at home, and he went as far as to argue that children in Hartford could become even more successful than children being educated in the suburbs. Cruz stated, “You can see by our achievement scores we have progressed,” although it was unclear what scores specifically he was referring to and how those score compared to Bloomfield. He invited politicians like Barrows to come visit Hartford schools themselves and see what they were like before commenting on their quality (Mendoza and Saunders).

But clear problems in Hartford public schools were brought to light as a result of the publicity the Bloomfield arrests. Among other issues, such as the needs of children coming from such concentrated poverty overwhelming the school district, Dr. James Comer, a Yale psychiatrist and school reform advocate, discussed Hartford teachers’ lower expectations for poor students of color. He stated, “there are too many [teachers] that think low income minority group children cannot learn well” and went on to explain that many of these teachers “don’t understand the community they’re in” or “the learning problem from a developmental standpoint” (Mendoza and Saunders). The need for large scale education reform in Hartford became even more apparent because of the controversy caused by the arrests.

Bloomfield had its own response to the arrests of Saundra Foster and the other mothers of non-resident students, which demonstrated that even Bloomfield leaders realized that going through the arrest process instead of the disenrollment process had been a mistake. The Bloomfield Town Council and the Bloomfield Board of Education joined together to create a resolution outlining steps the school district could take in the future to deal with non-resident students before resorting to criminal proceedings. The steps they listed included were somewhat vague though, as the board listed general aims such as creating a more thorough system for checking residency and allotting money for the enforcement of enrollment policies (Drury).

All of these measures are commendable to a degree and would have been appropriate before Hartford mothers were arrested. The creation of this resolution demonstrated that the arrests were not regular or even necessary actions by the police. The Bloomfield response was an acknowledgment from Bloomfield leaders that a lapse in judgement had been made.

 

Further Implications: Bloomfield Arrests as a Civil Rights Issue

Att.M. Donald Cardwell, who represented Saundra Foster, argued that by using the arrest process instead of the disenrollment process, the Bloomfield police did not solve the problem of non resident students attending districts outside of their home town, but rather drew more attention to the unequal education system that caused the issue. Cardwell asks the question that most likely was brought to the minds of Hartford residents who heard about the case: “how does one steal free, public education?”  He goes on to outline the socioeconomic disparities in Connecticut public education, stating “when you educate the poor people in one group, the middle class people in another group, and the upper-class people in the other third group, something unfair is happening to the poor, to the children of the poor” (Mendoza and Saunders).

In 1985, the average income for families living in Hartford was $14,000, with nearly a third of the population living below the poverty line, while the average income for families living  in Bloomfield was almost double that. Many, like Mr. Cardwell, argued that disparities in education between these two towns was a colorblind issue, owing not to race but to the socioeconomic gap that existed between Hartford and Bloomfield. Gerald Terozzi, the Connecticut Commissioner of Education in 1985, expressed a similar sentiment, stating “this goes beyond the race issue. This is an economic issue, it’s rich and poor” (Mendoza and Saunders). However, many others recognized that the racial segregation that existed in Connecticut also plays a factor in the quality of education children are receiving. Children in Hartford are a majority children of color, and a long list of historically racist policies contributed to them being most heavily affected by poverty. It is this concentrated poverty brought about by a history of racism that led to Hartford schools having to meet the needs of so many poor students of color.

In addition, the 1985 arrests were not only an issue of race and class, but one of gender. This case also brought to light the fact that women, and specifically single mothers, are the ones primarily responsible for making education choices for their children. It was no coincidence that it was four women who were arrested for sending their children to Bloomfield. Single parents, the overwhelming majority single mothers, made up half of Hartford households in 1985 (Mendoza and Saunders). This is notable because it means that it was mostly poor women of color, a historically disadvantaged demographic on all fronts, that the Bloomfield police were specifically trying to target with their scare tactic of the arrest process. This pointed means of intimidation indicated a larger civil rights issue of poor people of color receiving unequal and inadequate access to educational opportunities. 

 

Works Cited

1945 MetroH School Expense Review. Rep. N.p.: CPEC, n.d. Print.

“Connecticut Shoplifting Laws – CT Larceny Penalties – Criminal Defense Lawyer.” Connecticut Shoplifting Laws – CT Larceny Penalties – Criminal Defense Lawyer. Web. 06 Apr. 2016.

Drury, Dave. “2 City Parents Are Charged in Residence Case.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1986) 2 Apr. 1985: AA1. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.

Drury, Dave. “2 Face Charges In Bloomfield School Dispute.”Hartford Courant 2 Apr. 1985: a1 and a8. Web. 24 June 2013

Drury, Dave. “Bloomfield Council Takes Up Residence Issue.”The Hartford Courant (1923-1986) 23 Apr. 1985: B3. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.

Johnson, Dirk. “QUALITY OF CITY SCHOOLS TESTED IN TRIAL ON RESIDENCY.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 11 May 1985. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.

William Mendoza and Anita Ford Saunders, “Jumping the Line,” The Public File (Hartford, CT:

Viacom Broadcasting, Inc., WVIT Channel 30, August 31, 1985

 

Why did Saundra Foster jump the line? In 1985, she and three other parents were charged with larceny for enrolling their children in Bloomfield, a suburban school district, where they did not legally reside. Foster, an African American single mother, was motivated to find a better school for her son, Trevor, a bright sophomore who liked going to Hartford Public High School (HPHS). However, Trevor struggled in school, not because the curriculum was difficult, but because it was too easy, which led him to get involved with “problems” at school, and eventually being referred to an alternative education center. ¹ At this point, Ms. Foster decided to take matters into her own hands and sent Trevor to Bloomfield to live with his cousin, a legal resident of Bloomfield. She claimed, “for a child like that to say that he is contemplating dropping out of school, it’s time to start thinking about alternatives”. ² By November 1984, Trevor transitioned well into Bloomfield High and even became a starting player in the boy’s varsity basketball team. ³ There was no record of him getting in conflict with peers or teachers and Ms. Foster believed “he was much better off in Bloomfield”. ⁴ Although Saundra Foster had to live apart from her son, the decision to jump the line proved to be beneficial for Trevor’s education.

The inevitability of city line jumpers

People referred to students like Trevor Foster, who live in one town but attend a school in another, “line jumpers”. Most cases of line jumping during the 1980s were in suburban districts and involved “students from Hartford… not from lily-white suburbs like Avon or Simsbury”. ⁵ Similarly, Saundra Foster and two other parents were arrested due to their legal residencies in Hartford. The numerous cases and common perception of Hartford students jumping the city-suburban line starkly contrast to the non-existing case of suburban students. Why did urban students want to leave the schools in their cities and attend those in suburban towns? Evidence suggests that Saundra Foster and others alike were drawn into suburban schools while pulling away from Hartford schools due to issues relevant to safety and discipline, academic expectations, and socioeconomic backgrounds of students. Reverend Jesse Jackson, an American civil rights activist and former presidential candidate, stated that Saundra Foster and the three other parents “have exposed a two-tier educational system”. ⁶ Likewise, Mendoza and Saunders (1985) mentioned that “Is Hartford providing its youth with a good education?” became a prominent question in this case.

Even before this case, there was much dissent over the unequal quality of education in urban and suburban schools.  ⁷ On one hand, State Commissioner of Education Gerald Tirozzi emphasized that “educational expectations are the same… you can receive just as good an education in Hartford”. ⁸ Likewise, Amando Cruz, principal of HPHS, claimed that the low achievement of urban schools was “erroneous” and that people should visit Hartford schools to find out for themselves that the “schools are effective and youngsters are warm”. ⁹ On the other hand, the many families that attempted to cross the city-suburban line told a very different story. In addition to Trevor Foster and the children of the other three parents who were arrested, nearly 100 students from other towns such as Hartford and New Britain attended Bloomfield High School around March 1985. ¹⁰ West Hartford also received numerous requests from non-residents, mostly from Hartford or New Britain, who wanted to send their children to into their suburban district. Mr. Calvert, Associate Superintendent of West Hartford schools, explained that “I get at least two a week…I have had parents come to me and cry”.  ¹¹

One key difference between city and suburban schools, in the eyes of many parents and educators, were safety and discipline. After his visit to Hartford public schools, Connecticut Senator Frank Barrows stated that “the education system is deplorable in the city of Hartford”. ¹² The “deplorable” condition of Hartford schools was also echoed by Saundra Foster’s attorney Donald Cardwell, who revealed that the presence of drugs was often mentioned by parents as a major problem that needed “rectifying at any cost”. ¹³ Moreover, Anthony Johnson, a child of one of the arrested parents, said he preferred Bloomfield High School because ”it’s less crowded” and there were fewer fights among students (in Bloomfield) than Hartford high schools. ¹⁴ Assistant Superintendent O’Donnell also expressed a similar sentiment that parents went to Bloomfield because they were “concerned about the discipline problem in city schools”. ¹⁵

A second key difference between city and suburban schools, mentioned by Saundra Foster, were the socio-economic background of students. ¹⁶ Commissioner Gerald Terozzi, who previously asserted that city-suburban school quality was the same, later revealed his concern over the “two Connecticuts”. ¹⁷ He stated that it’s not a race, but an economic issue in which “children of the poor need so many more resources,support service, so much more attention”. ¹⁸ In Hartford, one-third of the population lived below the poverty level and half of the households were headed by single parents. ¹⁹ Bloomfield, on the other hand, had an average family income almost double that of Hartford’s, single parenting and poverty were not major issues, and adults had a higher educational attainment. ²⁰ According to Attorney Cardwell, “something unfair” is happening when the poor, middle class, and the rich are educated in separately designated school districts. ²¹

The concentration of socio-economic disadvantage illustrated the need for more resources in Hartford for students to truly receive an equal education as their suburban peers. Dr. Comer stressed the importance of compensating for economic, social and other stresses that exist in urban areas by finding out the needs of low-income children. ²² If student needs are not addressed, students will not be able to “develop to a level that’s necessary to be successful in school”. ²³ Likewise, research suggests that the reduction of poverty related environmental stresses not only improves the overall well-being of students but also improves their ability to learn in schools. ²⁴ In 1985, Bloomfield spent approximately $4511 ²⁵ whereas Hartford spent $4216 ²⁶ per pupil. Although Hartford had more students with greater needs, it spent about 7% less per student than Bloomfield. This gap in resources suggests that students would have received a more adequate education in Bloomfield than in Hartford. Thus, it may not be surprising that approximately 700 Hartford students dropped out from school in 1983 while students like Trevor jumped the line into Bloomfield. ²⁷ 

Another difference between city and suburban schools, according to Saundra Foster, was expectations for learning. Foster believed that city schools such as Hartford Public High School and Weaver High school were geared toward students with special needs. ²⁸ For example, Trevor had already mastered the metric system in 7th grade but “couldn’t learn biology in 9th grade because the rest of the class didn’t know the metric system”. ²⁹ Therefore, students like Trevor, who had the full ability and willingness to learn, would have found the classroom boring and unengaging. Attorney Cardwell affirms Trevor’s experience by stating that “inferior educational atmosphere” were often mentioned by parents as a problem in Hartford schools. ³⁰ Dr. James Comer, a noted Yale psychiatrist and school reform advocate, suggested that too many teachers assumed that “low-income minority children cannot learn well”. ³¹ Considering the concentration of economic disadvantage in Hartford, Hartford school teachers could have displayed such low expectations onto their students. Research suggests that a teacher’s low expectations are harmful to students’ learning because he or she may use less advanced material and instructions. ³² Therefore, the low academic expectations of teachers further support Trevor’s experience of “remedial” education in HPHS. ³³

Saundra Foster also referred to the inferiority of overall academic achievements of students as another discrepancy between city and suburban schools. ³⁴ The achievement disparity between Hartford and Bloomfield was most clearly visible from test scores. According to the results from a 9th grade aptitude test in the Fall of 1984, 95.5% of Bloomfield students achieved a minimum or higher level of reading compared to 92.7% of Hartford students. ³⁵ Similarly, only 73.5% of Hartford students achieved a minimum or higher math level compared to 87.1% of Bloomfield students. ³⁶

Overall, Ms. Foster compared this unjust system to a deck of cards and stated “I just have to play them” because her son “should be able to go where he can get the best education”. ³⁷ By moving to Bloomfield, Trevor was a step closer to beating the odds of an unjust system with severe academic and socio-economic inequality. Just like any other student in Bloomfield but unlike any in Hartford, Trevor finally had the opportunity to receive a better quality education with access to challenging curriculum, high expectations, and peers conducive to a successful learning environment.

The continuing struggle for an education

The arrests of all four parents were dismissed two months after they were originally issued. However, Trevor had to withdraw from Bloomfield high school after his mother’s arrest because a newspaper article named him as one of the four students linked to the warrant applications. ³⁸ Trevor was stripped from his opportunity to receive a quality education and had no other alternatives besides Hartford Public Schools. Back in Hartford, Trevor was again referred to the alternative education center by the Board of Education. Ms. Foster did not want to send Trevor to an alternative education center neither before nor after moving him to Bloomfield because he “didn’t belong there”. ³⁹ However, she was constrained by her residency and was out of choices this time. Intensive newspaper coverage on the Foster family finally ceased, and there has yet to be a report of Trevor’s graduation.

Decades later, there continue to be countless Saundra Fosters who hope to rescue their children from under-performing schools and give them the best opportunity. For example, Tanya McDowell, a Connecticut mother, found herself arrested for enrolling her 5-year-old son A.J. at Norwalk’s Brookside Elementary School. ⁴⁰ A.J. had been enrolled in Connecticut’s Head Start program and was passionate about reading and science since an early age. McDowell researched her neighborhood school, the Thomas Hooker School in Bridgeport, but came to realize that the school had significantly lower CMT results than Brookside and thus concluded it didn’t meet the academic standards her son deserved. Although McDowell believed she had made the right decision for her child, she was sentenced to 5 years in prison, which included drug charges, and had to pay $6,200 to the city of Norwalk. ⁴¹

What other options do mothers like Saundra Foster and Tanya McDowell have? What can parents do if they can’t afford to move into an expensive district or buy a private education? While school district boundaries continue to divide children and their educational opportunities, recent educational policies have created choice programs to allow a selected number of students to cross district lines. Likewise, CT parents have the school choice system that allows urban and suburban students to choose their schools among a variety of options by entering a lottery. Parents like Saundra Foster are now able to legally enroll their children in suburban schools if they are lucky enough to win a spot through the lottery. However, this system may not fully prevent line-jumping because it does not guarantee enrollment in one’s first choice school and does not serve the most disadvantaged students. ⁴² Therefore, Connecticut not only needs to continue interdistrict magnet schools and programs like open choice but also address the socio-economic segregation between town lines to fully address the discriminatory barriers to a truly equal public education.