Connecticut Supreme Court Case Summary

The landmark Sheff v. O’Neill Connecticut Supreme Court decision will have a dramatic effect on the state of education in the great state of Connecticut. The de-facto segregation of Connecticut public schools over several years has been a troubling trend that has ultimately led to the decision reached by the court. The low performance of schools in the Hartford area has been a concern of many parents and educators. A child’s education is the most valuable tool a child can receive to prepare themselves for the world. The people of Connecticut must recognize the impact that failing schools can have on the entire state. The people in the Connecticut General Assembly and yourself must act to ensure each child has a chance at fulfilling their God given talents. However, I do not believe the Connecticut Supreme Court was correct in saying that it is the
constitutional responsibility of the state to fix the Hartford school situation. Regardless, I propose bold ideas like Vouchers, new Magnet Schools, and accountability reforms to remedy past failures. First, is the court case itself. The Sheff v. O’ Neill case was a long process that took years to come to fruition. The namesake of the court case Milo Sheff was only in fourth grade when the lawsuit began. Today, he is almost out of high school (2). Additionally, Connecticut is now on its second governorship since Governor O’Neill left office. The court case revolved around the de-facto segregation of Hartford schools. The plaintiffs in the case pointed out that Hartford’s schools located in predominately white suburbs performed substantially better than inter-city minority majority schools. The plaintiffs argued that the segregation of race and wealth was causing Hartford schools to be inadequate. Hartford’s inner-city schools were failing in their duties to provide a minimally adequate and equal opportunity education as guaranteed in the Connecticut State Constitution. The state argued that it was not the responsibility of the state government to fix the segregation, because the segregation was caused by the voluntary movement of mostly white people to the suburbs from the inner-city. “White Flight” was not de jure segregation and therefore not the direct responsibility of the state to fix. Eventually, Superior Court Judge Henry Hammer ruled against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs could not establish the responsibility of the state in causing the segregation. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Connecticut Supreme Court and won on a 4-3 decision. The majority opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court was given by Justice Ellan Ash Peters. In her opinion she first established the importance of providing racial integration in schools. She wrote, “Because of the negative consequences of racial and ethnic isolation, a more integrated public schools system would likely be beneficial to all schoolchildren (9). She explains that an example of a negative consequence of segregated school districts is that do not allow students to experience “shared culture”. The idea of “shared culture” being the exchange of ideas from classmates of different backgrounds. This in turn is a vital education opportunity that Hartford students are being deprived from. Additionally, she established that there is great racial and income inequality in Hartford using evidence from the racial makeup of schools and their relative income levels. She noted, “A majority of children who constitute the public school population in Hartford come from homes that are economically disadvantaged (9).” Additionally, she stated, “… socioeconomic factors impair a child’s orientation towards skill in learning and adversely affect a child’s performance on standardized tests (9).” She also highlighted the poor performance of Hartford students on standardized tests in comparison with their peers. With Justice Peters establishing that there is racial segregation, economic segregation, inequality, and that these factors affect student performance the question becomes what is the responsibility of the state to remedy these problems. Justice Peters concedes that the state has worked to reduce inequalities by increasing state aid to low-income districts, but she believes that the state must do more to tackle segregation. She believes that the state is at fault for the segregation, because of two state statutes from 1945 and 1909 that drew the school district lines. She highlighted the 1909 districting saying it is, “… the single most important factor contributing to the present concentration of racial and ethnic minorities in the Harford public school system (9).” Ultimately, Justice Peters lays the blame at the feet of the state of Connecticut to fix Hartford schools segregation problem, because in her eyes their actions have led to problems seen in Hartford schools. However, Justice Borden disagrees with the majority and wrote the dissent.
First, Justice Borden stated the issues where he agrees with the majority. He agrees that Hartford schools are failing and that the situation is only getting worse. Furthermore, he agrees that failing schools are hurting the state’s economic future. Additionally, he adds, “I agree, furthermore, that racial and ethnic integration of our public schools would be beneficial for all children and society in general (13).” Justice Borden clearly identifies the problems with segregation, but he attacks the majorities constitutional reasoning behind their decision and “The majority has used this court’s power to interpret the constitution in order to mandate a vast and unprecedented social experiment (14).” Justice Borden does not see the tie between the state and the problems of de facto segregation. He noted that it will be difficult for the state to comply with the majority’s ruling, because they provided little guidance for the state. Additionally, the ruling strikes down much of the Connecticut school system that has been in place since
1909.