Category: Student Posts

Sheff vs. O’Neill Stipulation and Proposed Order (Phase II, 2008)

Posted on Author Alexander Conaway

On April 4, 2008 the Sheff v. O’Neill Stipulation and Proposed Order was discussed in order to meet the goals that would decrease racial, ethnic, and economic isolation in Hartford public schools. Originally these goals were set in Phase 1 of the stipulation, however failed in June of 2007. As new ideas were set in order to change Hartford Public Schools, the first goal was to “increase the number of Hartford resident minority students in a reduced isolation education setting” (5). Starting from the 2008-2009 school year continuing through the 2013-2014 year, it was goal that at least 80% of the demand of minority students were placed into those settings. In order to reach those specific goals Voluntary Interdistrict Programs were designed to reduce desegregation. Such programs include magnet, charter, vocational, technical and open choice schools that “Hartford minority students shall have readily available opportunities to submit an approved application for placement” (6).

The state had set up a goal measurement plan by reviewing the requests of seats in Voluntary Interdistrict Programs by minority students of Hartford in April of the third year then again in November of the fourth year. If less than 65% of seats for minority students are not met then the State along with the Regional School Choice Office will make slight changes to the Comprehensive Management Plan. The CMP itself contains many goals, which include academic and social support services for participating students, summer programs, and most importantly the opportunity for students to enjoy their education in nonracially isolated schools (10-12). Established by the State, the Sheff Office was responsible to create, develop and oversee the CMP as well as monitor and strategize for the progress of reducing isolation of the Hartford minority students; also known as “Sheff programing”, which include opening and expanding new inter-district and magnet schools (12-13). In order to recognize the status of Phase II both parties agreed upon quarterly meetings and annual conferences to discuss any updates, obstacles or achievements that have been made.

Discussion Questions

  1. How is Phase II different from the previous stipulations that have failed in the past?
  2. How can reduction in racial isolation effect student performance?
  3. Is a five year plan enough time to implement all of the stipulations goals?

 

 

Sheff v. O’Neill July 1996 Dissenting Opinion

Posted on Author Karen T. Taylor

In the spring of 1995, a Superior Court judge refuses to hold the state of Connecticut responsible for remedying educational inequality between Hartford students and their suburban counter parts. In the summer of 1996, the State Supreme Court overrules the 1995 trial court verdict. The vote was 4-3 in favor of the Sheff plaintiffs. The dissenting opinion dissects key points of the cases and makes a strong argument for the state of Connecticut.

The Sheff case argued inequality in three specific areas. They sought to balance adequate education, educational opportunity, and racial/ethnic concentration. According to the report, the majority reconstructed the plaintiffs’ argument. Although they claim that the Sheff plaintiffs are not entitled to any constitutional protections for their claims, the 1996 dissenting opinion of the Sheff case acknowledges “the urgency of finding an appropriate remedy for the plight of Hartford’s public schoolchildren” (46). The dissenting opinion is in agreement with the trial court which found that poverty (not concentration of race or ethnicity) was the cause of educational inequality for Hartford schoolchildren.

In the report, the dissenting opinion also found that the court unfairly reworked the plaintiffs’ claims to give them a victory. In The Children of Room E4, Eaton says that Justice Borden takes issue with the majority’s argument consolidation, as well (Eaton, 180). In fact, “The plaintiffs expressly disavowed at trial any claim that their constitutional rights had been violated by any acts or omissions on the part of the city of Hartford or its board of education, or on the part of the twenty-one surrounding suburban towns or their boards of education” (146).

Discussion Questions:

1. The dissenting opinion is that the majority created a new legal argument for the plaintiffs. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

2. What do you feel were the causes of educational disadvantage described in the Sheff case and why?

3. In the report, it discusses the use of the state mastery test results as a tool for measuring educational inequality between Hartford and suburban schoolchildren. Do you feel that standardized tests are an accurate tool for measuring student achievement? What do or don’t they measure?

“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? 

Scheff 2008 Settlement

Posted on Author Emily Meehan

On April 4, 2008 defendants and plaintiffs of the lawsuit Scheff vs. O’neil met to discuss plans to increase progress in “reducing racial, ethnic, and economic isolation in Hartford Public Schools until June 2013” (1).  Due to the failure of Stipulation 1 in 2007, the court held this settlement to introduce Stipulation II.

This second Stipulation contained new goals to reduce educational isolation in Hartford.  The first goal was to increase the number of Hartford minority students placed in reduced isolation settings.  A reduced isolation setting is an “educational setting with reduced racial, ethnic, and economic isolation”(3).  Simply put, the goal of the Stipulation was to desegregate the schools.

A second goal was to create a five-year plan.  At the end of 5 years, 80% of the demand for Hartford minority students needing seats in reduced isolation settings was to be met.    To achieve this goal, the state would provide sufficient resources needed to implement “Voluntary Interdistrict Programs”, which are tools to reduce racial, ethnic, and economic isolation.  An example of such tools may be a Magnet School.

A problem with previous stipulations was that the goals were not met by the end of the allotted time period.  To try and prevent this from happening, this Stipulation set forth goal measurement plans.  For example, in April of the year three the state would examine the need for seats in reduced isolation settings by minorities.  Next, in November of year 4, the state would evaluate waiting lists for voluntary interdistrict programs, and evaluate how many programs meet this demand.  If the original goal of 80% was not met in 5 years, this party would reconvene (6).  The Stipulation also set up benchmarks to ensure that progress was being made.  For example, after year one 19% of the total goal needed to be met.  Guidelines for calculating these percentages, and monitoring success were also established (6).

To accomplish these goals, the party announced the implementation of a few programs.  The first program is the Comprehensive Management Plan which was designed to oversee all Voluntary Interdistrict Programs.  Goals of the program included, the CMP must establish and track annual strategic targets of progress, it must contain a process for evaluating demand for each Voluntary Interdistrict Program, and include training programs for all teachers within the Scheff Region (8).  In total there were 21 objectives for the CMP that acted as statements guide lining the duties of the plan.

A goal that stuck out to me was one that stated,  “The CMP shall ensure that there are clearly defined opportunities for students to enjoy a continuous K-12 education in reduced isolation settings”(10).  I thought this was interesting because it is a goal that is created to ensure the long-term well-being of individuals, not just entire school districts.

Discussion Questions:

1  Do you believe that this plan covers all the bases or do you think there are gaps in the Stipulation?

2  Is the CMP an adequate way to evaluate progress of the schools?

3 How does this differ from previous Stipulations and how might these differences prevent this Stipulation from failing?

Lumpkin v Dempsey 1970 complaint

Posted on Author Ambar Paulino

The Lumpkin v Dempsey 1970 complaint is a legal document that outlines school segregation complaint which was filed by Mae Willie Lumpkin, Barbara Henderson, Mary Diaz and Helen Vernell Johnson against John Dempsey, the Governor of Connecticut.  The plaintiffs, Lumpkin, Henderson, Diaz, and Johnson argued that their children were not receiving equal educational opportunities when compared to the opportunities suburban children had. The plaintiffs used the Fourteenth amendment in the United States Constitution and also the 1965 education amendment on the Connecticut constitution to back the disputed claims up. Dated on February 20th, 1970, this legal document puts forth the details behind the lawsuit action. The plaintiffs claimed that John Dempsey did not exercise his right to use his powers as supreme chief officer of the state of Connecticut to provide an equal education for all minority children enrolled in Hartford schools.

On the other hand, the defendants and his/their attorneys argued that it would be unconstitutional to attempt to desegregate schools by the plaintiff’s means due to the fact that it is dependent on the votes of citizens living in Hartford, Windsor and West Hartford (three bordering neighborhoods they planned to integrate). However, votes would have been skewed due to the fact that each town mentioned in the document were either suburbanized (had very little minority enrollment percentages) or heavily urbanized (majority of enrolled students are considered of Hispanic/African American descent). The plaintiffs of the court asked for a more structured school system, in where children would be required to attend “zone schools”, and for state officials like Mr. Dempsey to practice their power in a positive way, whereas ultimately abolishing the unintentional segregation that they found alarming.

To my own knowledge, the Sheff v. O’Neill 1989 case was the first one of its’ kind. In her book, The Children in Room E4, author Susan Eaton makes a small reference about the Lumpkin v. Dempsey case, one that I overlooked myself. On page 79 Eaton states, “Connecticut-most like Northern and Midwestern states and unlike much of the post-Brown South- had established each town or city as a separate school district and required students to attend school where they lived…numerous schools within Hartford, the lawyers had pointed out, had minority group enrollments “in excess of 90 percent.” Eaton points out the fact that the lawsuit was left untouched after three years.  She parallels this one lawsuit to many lawsuits before she goes on to introduce the 1986 Sheff v. O’Neill case.

 

Discussion Questions:

  1. Do you think that it would have been fair to have residents from Hartford, Windsor and West Hartford vote the decision for integration of schools?
  2. Why do you think the complaint was left untouched after 1973?
  3. How does this complaint compare to the Sheff v. O’Neill case? How does it differ? What was the determining factor of the success of one case, versus the failure of the other?