Category: Student Posts

Sheff v. O’Neill Complaint of 1989: Striving for Educational Equality

Posted on Author Bianca

Bianca Brenz

Under the Connecticut Constitution and Connecticut Statutes, all school-aged children in Connecticut are entitled to equal educational opportunities no matter their race, ethnicity, or class background. The Sheff v. O’Neill complaint of 1989 specifically pointed out that the state was not holding true to its constitution. Instead of having the opportunity to their right to equal education, the Sheff plaintiffs (and other Hartford schoolchildren alike) were being deprived of an equal education to suburban school-aged children. The Sheff plaintiffs argued that poor and minority students living in Hartford were isolated from suburban and upper class students based on their racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences. Simply put, both of these groups of students were being deprived of a cultural and social education by being isolated from each other. The Sheff plaintiffs argued in favor of integrating suburban and urban students so that lessons might be learned from one another that could positively affect their work experiences in the future.

The plaintiffs on this case were made up of seventeen schoolchildren (5 Black, 6 Puerto Rican, and 6 White). Representing them were their parents, Elizabeth Sheff (one child), Pedro and Carmen Wilda Bermudez (three children), Oscar and Wanda Melendez (two children), Virginia Pertillar (one child), Rosetta Hughley (two children), Denise Best (one child), Adria Laboy (one child), Karen and Leo Harrington (two children), Eugene Leach and Kathleen Fredrick (two children), and Carol Vinick and Tom Connolly (two children). With a common goal to provide their children with equal educational opportunities, the plaintiffs of the Sheff v. O’Neill case went forward with the lawsuit against Governor William O’Neill, the State Board of Education (7 members), the Commissioner of Education of the state of Connecticut, the Treasurer of Connecticut, and the Comptroller of the state of Connecticut. The Sheff plaintiffs claimed that the above listed defendants were not doing their job in giving children in the Hartford Public Schools district an equal educational opportunity, and saw that these underprivileged children were not given an adequate chance to merely perform at grade level on the Connecticut Mastery Test. (Sheff Complaint)

Up Close and Personal with Plaintiff Concerns

Elizabeth Horton Sheff, the primary plaintiff involved in this case expressed that wanting to be part of this case as a way to stand up for her community. In an Interview Sheff said, “I’m fully committed to ensuring that there is access to quality, integrated education for those people who want it… Sheff is voluntary, you don’t have to participate” (Sheff Interview). Personal experiences made the decision for Sheff to be a plaintiff in this case difficult. Often Sheff’s friends and family were offended by the case and thought they did not need to be “sitting next to white kids” (Sheff Interview). To Sheff, however, it was much broader than a black student sitting next to a white student, it was also learning in an integrated environment with students who were very different while still learning the same things.

Sheff USE
Statmement by Elizabeth Horton Sheff
(Source: Candace Simpson Interview)

In an interview, Denise Best expressed her experiences with the Hartford School System. Her daughter Neiima Best had been “deemed gifted” but would have had to attend a school where “only 11% of the children were reading on grade level” (Best Interview). In wanting the best for her child, Denise Best took a stand on bettering her child’s education through joining the Sheff movement.

Analyses taken from 1987-88 have shown that of the approximately 25,000 students in the Hartford Public School district, 90.5% of them are in the ethnic minority. Other suburban school districts ranged from approximately 2-30% in minority students. Interestingly the percentage of minority staff was significantly higher in the Hartford Public Schools District (approximately 33%) than surrounding suburban school districts (approximately 0-5%). Data from the same period also showed fewer racial and ethnic minorities held teaching positions in the suburban school districts compared to Hartford. These statistics supported the plaintiffs’ argument that racial isolation (or segregation) pervaded the school system at all levels.

Ultimately, the reasons for the 1989 Sheff complaint were the state’s inadequate efforts to provide equal educational opportunities to school-aged children living in impoverished circumstances and single-family households. Furthermore, Sheff plaintiffs argued that the state did not provide these students with a minimally adequate education due to their race, ethnicity, and to a certain extent, their geographical location (a poor city).

The Broader View

End insert
(Source: sheffmovement.org)

The Sheff movement was one that was widely known across the country as the breakthrough in educational equality. The goal of integrating urban and suburban schools was felt throughout the country; however, the Sheff v O’Neill complaint was the starting point for this revolution of magnet schools and the Project Choice program. The Sheff movement set out to, through winning this case, prepare children to live in a society and country that is ethnically, economically, and socially diverse. To Sheff plaintiffs, their children would become prepared through learning in an integrated setting, mixed with urban and suburban students, to take on life.

 

 

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/).

Lauren A. Wetzler. Yale Law & Policy Review , Vol. 22, No. 2 (Spring, 2004), pp. 481-524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40239617

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/).

Sheff Movement: Quality Integrated Education for All Children. About Sheff v. O’Neill. http://www.sheffmovement.org/index.shtml.

Sheff v. O’Neill complaint (Connecticut Superior Court 1989). Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford, Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu)

 

Learn More:

Harrington, Leo and Karen. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill (with video) by Anique Thompson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, June 27, 2011. Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

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/).

Avoiding Plagiarism

Posted on Author Bianca

Step 0: Original text: Select what you believe to be the most important passage from Susan Eaton’s book.

  • “In Sheff v. O’Neill, 19 schoolchildren and their families sued the state of Connecticut, arguing that the racial, ethnic, and class segregation that characterized their schools failed to deliver the equal educational opportunity promised in the state’s constitution” (Eaton, XIII).

Step 1: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word.

  • In Sheff v. O’Neill, 19 schoolchildren and their families sued the state of Connecticut, arguing that the racial, ethnic, and class segregation that characterized their schools failed to deliver the equal educational opportunity promised in the state’s constitution.

Step 2: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, without copying it word-for-word.

  • Arguing that racial, ethnic, and class segregation was the reason their schools failed, 19 schoolchildren and their parents sued the state of Connecticut in the Sheff v. O’Neill case.

Step 3: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, with a citation to the original source (using any academic citation style). Remember, even if you include a citation, paraphrasing too closely is still plagiarism.

  • 19 schoolchildren and their parents sued the state of Connecticut because they “[argued] that the racial, ethnic, and class segregation that characterized their schools failed to deliver the equal educational opportunity promised in the state’s constitution” (Eaton, XIII).

Step 4: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, with a citation to the original source.

  • Because educational inequality in the school systems was so evident, a large number of Connecticut residents sued the state of Connecticut in an effort to make way for, not only racial and ethnic, but also class equality throughout the school systems.

Step 5: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, supplemented with a direct quotation of a key phrase, plus a citation to the original source.

 

  • In an effort to eliminate the educational inequality within the school systems, “19 schoolchildren and their families sued the state of Connecticut, arguing that the racial, ethnic, and class segregation that characterized their schools failed to deliver the equal educational opportunity promised in the state’s constitution” (Eaton, XIII).

 

Work Cited:

Eaton, Susan. The Children in Room E4. New York: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2006. Print.

Avoiding Plagiarism!

Posted on Author Savahna Reuben

Step 0:

“Over the years, I’ve come to understand why so many people in this story keep the faith and keep up the fight. Hearing my accounts of the Sheff battle, many friends have wondered if the continuing effort is “worth it.” I’m confident that my readers will answer that question for themselves.”

– Eaton, Susan E. “The Children in Room E4.” Introduction. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin of Chapel Hill, 2007. xi. Print.

Step 1:

Over the years, I’ve come to understand why so many people in this story keep the faith and keep up the fight. Hearing my accounts of the Sheff battle, many friends have wondered if the continuing effort is “worth it.” I’m confident that my readers will answer that question for themselves.

Step 2:

Throughout the years, I’ve come to realize the reason that so many people in this story keep believing  and keep fighting. Hearing the stories of the Sheff battle, a lot of friends have wondered if the constant effort is “worth it.” I’m sure that my readers will be able to realize the answer to that question for themselves.

Step 3:

Throughout the years, I’ve come to realize the reason that so many people in this story keep believing and keep fighting. Hearing the stories of the Sheff battle, a lot of friends have wondered if the constant effort is “worth it.” I’m sure that my readers will be able to realize the answer to that question for themselves[1].

Step 4:

Eaton states in the introduction of her book, that through her research of the Sheff movement, she has a deeper understanding of why the citizens of the Hartford community continue to endure a lengthy battle in the Sheff vs. O’Neill ordeal. By examining anecdotes from the movement, Eaton suggests that many of her peers question whether or not the tedious Sheff struggle is worth the fight. However, she concludes that she strongly believes that her book will bring that answer to life for the reader[2].

Step 5:

Eaton states in the introduction of her book, that through her research of the Sheff movement, she has a deeper understanding of why the citizens of the Hartford community continue to endure a lengthy battle in the Sheff vs. O’Neill ordeal. By examining anecdotes from the movement, Eaton suggests that many of her peers question whether or not the tedious Sheff struggle is worth the fight [3]. However, she concludes that she strongly believes that her readers “will be able to realize the answer to that question for themselves” (pg. ix).

 

[2] Eaton, Susan E. “The Children in Room E4.” Introduction. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin of Chapel Hill, 2007. xi. Print.

 

[3] Eaton, Susan E. “The Children in Room E4.” Introduction. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin of Chapel Hill, 2007. xi. Print.

Avoiding Plagiarism

Posted on Author Emily Heneghan

Step 0: Original Text: “Since the first Sheff trial ended in 1993, scholars across the nation have quietly produced evidence rather decisively documenting the harms of segregation and the benefits of policies and programs that connect racially and economically isolated families to the mainstream. Were John Brittain and Wes Horton only now starting to argue Sheff v. O’Neill in trial court, they might very well be able to make a surer, simpler case.

Before considering this research, it’s useful to acknowledge that “desegregation” represents not merely a “policy” or set of political choices but an aspiration, a moral vision of an inclusive, cohesive society. School desegregation, in particular, is not and never was sold but its advocates merely as the most effective “treatment” for increasing test scores. Evidence, however, does strongly suggest that reducing concentrated poverty—segregation’s ever-present attendant—might in fact contribute to higher achievement.”

Step 1: Plagiarize: It’s useful to acknowledge that “desegregation” represents not merely a “policy” or set of political choices but an aspiration, a moral vision of an inclusive, cohesive society.

Step 2: Plagiarize: Prior to contemplating this research, it is important to recognize that “desegregation” does not simply just signify a “policy” or political decisions but an aspiration, a moral apparition of an all-encompassing, unified society.

Step 3: Plagiarize: Instead of decisively recording the dangers of segregation, scholars throughout the nation have given evidence to the advantages of policies and plans that unite racially and economically segregate families to the mainstream (Eaton, 343).

Step 4: Properly Paraphrase: Susan Eaton speaks about how segregation is not something we should simply look at as a set of political decisions but as a future goal in which our society is completely unified across all racial and economic differences (Eaton, 343).

 Step 5: Properly Paraphrase: Although some people would argue that advocates for school desegregation assert that integration would be the most important element for increasing test scores, Eaton says that this is not the claim being made here. Instead Eaton argues that there is evidence that “strongly suggest that reducing concentrated poverty—segregation’s ever-present attendant—might in fact contribute to higher achievement” (Eaton, 343).

Work Cited:

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

 

 

Avoiding Plagiarism

Posted on Author Alexander Conaway

Step 0: Original text: Elementary, middle, and high schools with large proportions of racial minority and poor children are far more likely to employ underqualified, uncertified teachers, and new teachers at such schools are less likely to stick around long enough to get good at their jobs.

Step 1: Plagiarize: Elementary, middle, and high schools with large proportions of racial minority and poor children are far more likely to employ underqualified, uncertified teachers, and new teachers at such schools are less likely to stick around long enough to get good at their jobs.

Step 2: Plagiarize: Schools with large proportions of  minority and poor children are likely to employ underqualified, uncertified teachers, and new teachers at such schools are less likely to stick around long enough to become good at their jobs.

Step 3: Plagiarize: Schools with large proportions of  minority and poor children are likely to employ underqualified, uncertified teachers, and new teachers at such schools are less likely to stick around long enough to become good at their jobs (Eaton, 240).

Step 4: Properly paraphrase: Susan Eaton, author of The Children in Room E4,
suggests that schools that have a high population of racially minority students and students of poverty, will hire new faculty that have little experience teaching (Eaton,240)

Step 5: Properly paraphrase: Susan Eaton, author of The Children in Room E4,
suggests that schools that have a high population of racially minority students and students of poverty, will hire new faculty that have little experience teaching. The text states, “High-poverty schools are more prone to neglect and interruption of work on curriculum and teaching methods” (Eaton, 240).

Work Cited:

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