sheff

From the LWVCT WEBsite, modified:
Sheff v. O'Neill AGREEMENT REACHED...2008 version.

Background (click above left); new wrinkle
LATEST REPORT WITH OCT. 2012 DEADLINE LOOMING...
http://www.ctmirror.org/story/14609/increased-reimbursements-pay-getting-state-closer-desegregating-hartford-schools

Sheff started it, and JEF went further
Group Ups The Ante In Education Lawsuit With High- Powered Law Firm
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Christine Stuart | May 16, 2012 12:50pm

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy may have signed what supporters are calling a sweeping education reform bill Tuesday, but its 185-pages don’t begin to touch upon how the state finances all of its public schools.

That thorny issue is expected to be dealt with by the legislature next year or a court in 2014, the year the education adequacy lawsuit is scheduled to go back to trial.

The Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding sued the state back in 2005 alleging that under the state’s Constitution, not only are students entitled to a public education but they also are entitled to one that works, one that assures them, at minimum, an adequate education. The state Supreme Court agreed in a 4-3 decision in 2010, which sent the case back to the trial court.

In an effort to convince the state of Connecticut to settle the lawsuit out of court, the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding has upped the ante by acquiring the pro bono services of a prestigious New York law firm with deep pockets.

Earlier this week, the organization announced that Debevoise & Plimpton LLP will take over as chief legal counsel. Yale Law School’s Education Adequacy Project will continue its pro bono involvement with the case, but instead of being the lead law firm it continue in a supporting role.

And, after guiding the case to a Supreme Court victory, Yale doesn’t mind taking a back seat.

“We are delighted that Debevoise & Plimpton, one of the nation’s leading law firms, has agreed to join this vital lawsuit,” Yale Law School Dean Robert C. Post said. “The students of the law school’s Education Adequacy Project have litigated this case since it was filed in 2005, and we are grateful for the participation of Debevoise as the case moves into the trial stage.”

One of Debevoise & Plimpton’s most talented litigators, Helen Cantwell, a graduate of Harvard Law School, asked her firm for the case.

“I am extremely excited about this opportunity to lead such an important case,” Cantwell, a Greenwich native, said in a press release. “The CCJEF lawsuit will allow us to fight for the improved capacity of Connecticut’s public schools to ensure equal educational opportunity for all students, whether poor, minority, immigrant, handicapped, or gifted.”

The Attorney General’s Office, which is defending the state, welcomed the new firm.

“We welcome Debevoise & Plimpton to this important case and look forward to a constructive and cordial working relationship,” the office said in an email.

But Dianne Kaplan deVries, executive director of the Connecticut Coalition of Justice in Education Funding, called it a “huge new development” in the case.

“With the formidable resources and litigation expertise of Debevoise & Plimpton and the continuing invaluable work of the Yale Law School Education Adequacy Project students, CCJEF now has the Dream Team,” deVries said. “The timing is perfect. The state’s broken school finance system is widely acknowledged by state and local policymakers, yet it remains unfixed.”

In the meantime, the Education Cost Sharing Task Force created by Malloy, who was one of the first plaintiffs in the lawsuit when he was mayor of Stamford, is expected to make their recommendations on how to change the formula in October. The group was formed back in 2011.

Early Childhood Education Blog Post (Part II) – Are Jepsen and Malloy wrong on this issue
What? Wait! Blog
Jon Pelto
November 17, 2011

Two days ago I posted a blog entitled Forget Race to the Top: Connecticut’s Education Policy Takes a Terrible Tumble in which I took Attorney General George Jepsen and Governor Dannel Malloy to task for seeking to carve out early childhood education from the definition of what Connecticut’s children have a Constitutional right to receive.

The responses I received on the blog and via email were thoughtful and substantive. Some highlighted the actual Constitutional wording and others pointed out the lack of available funds to pay for added costs of including early childhood education as a Constitutional requirement.

I’d like to respond by urging readers to return, for a moment, to the spring of 1977 when, in the case of Horton v. Meskill, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that Connecticut’s system of school financing was unconstitutional.

Connecticut was one of the first states in the country where the courts stepped in to say that a child’s right to an education was so fundamental that state governments must act to ensure that school financing systems “provide a substantially equal educational opportunity.”

Since Connecticut’s school were funded primarily through local property taxes, there were huge disparities between towns when it came to funding schools and the Court said that the funding situation violated the equal access rights that all of Connecticut’s children have a right to.

The Court went on to say that while the legislature must address the school funding issue it made it clear that how it was addressed was a matter for the legislative branch and not the courts.

In the ensuing years the legislature adopted and refined the Guaranteed Tax Base (GTB) school funding formula to try and address the funding disparity issue.

Almost twenty years later, the Supreme Court addressed Connecticut’s school funding system in the case of Sheff v. O’Neill. Although this case dealt more with segregation, the underlying issue was how best to address the right Connecticut children had to an education. The Teacher Enhancement Act, the Education Cost Sharing Formula and various desegregation measures were all related to the state’s ongoing duty to provide appropriate educational opportunities.

This extraordinary saga took on added importance in the 2010 case of Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v Rell when the Supreme Court ruled that the state actually had a Constitutional obligation to provide students with “an education suitable to give them the opportunity to be responsible citizens able to participate fully in democratic institutions, such as jury service and voting… [and] to progress to institutions of higher education, or to attain productive employment and otherwise contribute to the state’s economy.”

As a result of this vital ruling, the legislature must face the fact that not only must it adopt a funding formula that removes disparities in resources but it must ensure that children have access to a quality education that will provide them with the knowledge and skills necessary to be “productive citizens”.

This now brings us to Jepsen and Malloy’s effort to carve out early childhood education from the definition of what type of education students must be provided.

While there are certainly some short-term budget implications of keeping early childhood education within the definition this isn’t about this bi-annual budget, or the next or even the one after that.

State government has been required to address its duty to properly fund its education system since 1977. Now, 34 years later, the process is still in flux and will be for the next 34 years.

George Jepsen and Dan Malloy have the opportunity to frame that debate for decades to come. Early childhood education has proven to be one of the most important factors when it comes to later educational success. While money alone doesn’t make a system successful, it is clear that a successful education system must include an early education component.

The motion to remove early childhood education was neither necessary nor appropriate.

While it is certainly appropriate to look to the wording of the State Constitution, the truth is that if Connecticut has a Constitutional duty to provide children with a quality and successful educational experience, it will need to ensure that children will have access to early childhood education programs.

Jepsen and Malloy would claim that they are the most pro-education elected officials who have ever held their respective offices.

Their legal action undermines those claims because this truly isn’t about what happens during their tenure but how Connecticut develops over the next 50 years.

And thus I return to my conclusion that this was the wrong move, at the wrong time and their motion should be withdrawn before it does permanent damage.

Charter Schools to the Rescue! Really?
Wait! What? Blog
Jon Pelto
November 18, 2011

Connecticut’s new Education Commissioner, Stefan Pryor, is an unapologetic fan of charter schools. As reported in the CTMirror, Pryor recently toured the Amistad Academy, the New Haven-based charter school that he helped create when he worked in New Haven.

His message: The Amistad Academy is an extraordinary success. He added that Connecticut’s present school funding system serves as a “barrier” to opening more charter schools and that he is promising to change that.

Pryor and other charter school advocates claim that the Amistad Academy and other charter schools provide a measurably better education than do public schools and are engaged in an all out lobbying and public relations campaign to change the way Connecticut funds its schools, shifting scarce resources from our public schools to the charter schools.

Putting aside, for the moment, the evidence that some charter schools get better results because they are “creaming off the highest performing students” and therefore naturally have slightly higher test schools, there is a much more profound and important question.

Universally recognized as one of the most important Supreme Court rulings in the history of the United States, the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka declared that segregated schools are fundamentally and inherently unconstitutional.

The case overturned the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson in which the U.S. Supreme Court, in all its racist glory, claimed that state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students were acceptable.

The Brown v. Board of Education case helped create the civil rights movement of the 1960s by determining that in this country “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The time had finally come. Separate and unequal schools were illegal and even separate but equal schools were illegal.

In the last 55 years this case has had a profound impact on educational policy and American society.

The Connecticut Supreme Court went even further. When one of the attorneys in the famous Sheff desegregation case said, “the state has an obligation to provide great, racially diverse schools,” Connecticut’s Supreme Court agreed and ordered the legislature to take definitive action to reduce racial isolation in the state’s urban public schools.

Many of those who have clamored for charter schools, including Connecticut’s new Education Commissioner, have claimed that charter schools would be an important mechanism for reducing racial isolation.

Just last year the president of Achievement First, one of the largest nonprofit corporations in the charter school business, with over 20 charter schools in New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island, told Connecticut legislators that they were ready to open a new charter high school in Hartford that would provide a racially integrated education. This comes from the organization whose Connecticut charter schools are among the most racially isolated in the state.

The Connecticut State Department of Education collects data from all public, charter and magnet schools and annually publishes Strategic School Profiles. Those reports shed light on how, virtually across the board, Connecticut’s charter schools are failing to reduce racial isolation.

In Bridgeport, where the public school body is 91.4% minority, Achievement First’s Bridgeport Academy is 98.7% minority.

Bridgeport’s other two major charter schools are also more racially isolated than the city’s schools. The Bridge Academy’s student body is 99.2% minority and Park City Prep is 98.8%.

Connecticut’s capitol city of Hartford has a school system that is 92.6% minority and, once again, the charter schools in the city are even more racially isolated. Achievement First’s Harford Academy and the Jumoke Academy’s student body are both 99.5% minority.

And finally, in New Haven, where the commissioner portrayed the Amistad Academy as an extraordinary success, the public schools have 86.9% minority populations while Achievement First’s Amistad Academy is far more racially isolated with 98.1% of students being minority. Achievement First’s other New Haven charter school, Elm City College Prep, comes in even with 98.9% minority.

The Connecticut State Department of Education’s School Profile Reports reveal that virtually all of Connecticut’s charter schools are providing an educational environment that is more racially isolated than the public schools systems that they were designed to help.

Interestingly, the statistic is true for most but not all charter schools. For example the Common Ground School in New Haven, is successfully providing a more racially diverse learning environment with 81.9% minority compared to the City’s 86.9% number.

As charter schools and their advocates push even harder for more taxpayer funds so they can open more charter schools, State Education Commissioner Pryor will play a vital role as the State Department of Education acts on seven new charter school applications that would create spaces for another 1,600 students.

Meanwhile simply pointing to standardized test scores and claiming they prove charter schools are better is not only simplistic but also a completely false exercise. Like New Haven’s public schools, the Achievement First charter schools in New Haven failed to meet the state’s required improvement goals.

Furthermore and far more importantly, when it comes to the vital and constitutionally mandated issue of reducing racial isolation, Connecticut’s charter schools are taking the state in exactly the wrong direction.

Officials: Efforts to reduce racial isolation need overhaul
Jacqueline Rabe, CT MIRROR
December 8, 2010

The state is still falling far short of compliance with a court order to reduce the racial isolation of Hartford's largely black and Hispanic school population, and advocates say drastic changes will be needed to avoid further legal action.

"State officials need to take this court order much more seriously. If they continue down the same path they will not meet the requirements. They need to do something drastic, and soon," said Martha Stone, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Scheff vs O'Neill lawsuit. That lawsuit led to the 1996 the state Supreme Court order to desegregate Hartford schools.

The State Department of Education reported this week just over one quarter of Hartford's 21,713 minority schoolchildren now attend integrated magnet, charter, technical, agricultural or suburban schools - well short of the 35 percent target. By October 2012, the state must have 41 percent of minority students attending integrated schools or provide 80 percent of those students that want to leave their local schools with the opportunity to do so.

The Hartford Board of Education estimates that currently 62 percent of students that want to leave their schools have the opportunity to do so. The SDOE does not calculate that figure.

"It's a very complicated problem to untangle," Education Commissioner Mark McQuillan told the city school board Tuesday night. "This could rest with the Supreme Court deciding what we have to do... A court-ordered solutions might not render the best set of solutions."

Sheff story

Hartford and state school officials discuss flagging efforts to reduce racial isolation in city schools

Since the court order, the state's emphasis - and its money - have mainly gone to building magnet schools with specialty themes such as performing arts or environmental sciences in hopes of attracting a racially-diverse student population. The state has spent almost $1 billion building these schools. But education leaders and lawmakers are now rejecting that approach, calling it too expensive as the state faces multi-billion deficits in the coming years.

"We have received as much benefit as we are going to get from building magnet schools," said Sen. Thomas P. Gaffey, D-Meriden and co-chairman of the legislature's Education Committee. "We are not going to build our way into compliance."

Gaffey and McQuillan both say in order to get the state in compliance, enrollment of Hartford students into suburban schools needs to explode. There are currently 1,300 Harford students enrolled in suburban schools compared to the nearly 4,200 city minority students enrolled in magnet schools. To comply with the court order, 3,500 additional students need to be enrolled in an integrated school, either in Hartford or a nearby district by October 2012. But increasing enrollment in magnet schools cannot be a solution without building new schools. There are 14,500 students on wait lists to enroll in Hartford's 12 magnet schools right now, Hartford Superintendent Steven Adamowski said.

Adamowski told McQuillan Tuesday night that sending students to suburban schools to comply with the court order would be "detrimental" to the education provided in Hartford.

"For us to send another 3,500 out of our district, you can only imagine what the impact will be," he said, estimating six or seven schools would need to close and several hundred teachers and staff would be shed.

Ada M. Miranda, Hartford's school board chairwoman, also does not support expanding the number of students sent to suburban schools through the Open Choice Program.

"It works against what we are trying to accomplish," she told McQuillan. "Why does Hartford have to loose kids?... Parents seem to like having more opportunities, but the dilemma is we want to keep our kids."

But McQuillan and Gaffey say the state is quickly approaching a deadline to comply, and spending millions to build more magnet schools cannot be an option, so the focus has to be on finding students a spot in suburban schools.

The problem is suburban districts have been slow to accept these students, often blaming the lack of space or insufficient reimbursements from the state for these students. The state currently reimburses suburban districts $2,500 for each student Hartford student they enroll. McQuillan and the State Board of Education are proposing increasing that amount up to $6,000 per student for districts that enroll more students.

Bruce E. Douglas, executive director of the regional organization that manages the Open Choice program that sends students to suburban schools as well as numerous magnet schools, said the answer to desegregate schools is obvious.

"Open choice is cheaper. The state has wrongly chosen to pay for magnet schools at the expense of spending more money to incentivize suburban schools. This $2,500 reimbursement does not cover the costs for these suburban districts, it has to be increased," he said.

And if the $6,000 reimbursement education leaders are proposing is not enough of an incentive for districts to begin accepting more or any students, McQuillan wants state lawmakers to grant him the authority to require districts accept more students.

"We need more tools to get into compliance. This is one of them," he said.

That proposal is supported by Gaffey, whose committee will consider it in the upcoming legislative session that begins in January.

"The reality is if you want to solve this dilemma then the commissioner of education has to have that type of power," he said. "This is not going to be solved by just looking for volunteers to open up slots in their schools. Finding the money to provide incentives to them is not likely."

Stone said she hopes lawmakers decide soon what to do, because the current approach is not working.

"They have the freedom to choose how they are going to get into compliance. What they don't have the freedom to do is to continue down this path that will keep them in noncompliance," she said.

New federal rule complicates desegregation efforts
Robert A. Frahm, CT MIRROR
September 7, 2010

On an enrollment form at Hartford's Classical Magnet School, seventh-grader Elisa Laureano's mother lists Elisa's race as white but also checks a box categorizing her ethnicity as "Hispanic." So is Elisa white? Hispanic? Both?

For Classical Magnet, it's a $4 million question.

Under a federal rule that takes effect this year, students can identify themselves in multiple racial and ethnic categories. Critics say the rule could upset a variety of race-related programs, from measuring academic achievement to ensuring civil rights compliance.

Deschines, Alexis 9-7-10 3x2

Alexis Deschenes: 'It feels good to identify myself as both races'

One immediate impact in Connecticut is that the rule complicates the process of determining whether schools such as Classical meet the racial balance standards in the court-supervised desegregation settlement of the Sheff vs. O'Neill desegregation case.

Schools throughout the region take their official census on Oct. 1, and depending on how the question is resolved, some could lose their magnet status - and a financial lifeline from the state.

"We have a problem," said Classical Principal Tim Sullivan. "It could be a game-breaker for us."

If Classical--hailed as a model in the regional desegregation effort--were to fall below the required quota of white students, it could lose up to $4 million in state magnet school grants and be forced to send suburban students such as Elisa, who is from West Hartford, back to schools in their hometowns, Sullivan said.

The state could wind up back in court if it fails to meet the standards established in the desegregation settlement. That settlement grew out of a 1996 state Supreme Court ruling ordering Connecticut to desegregate Hartford's mostly black and Hispanic public schools.

Classical is one of about two dozen magnet schools in the Hartford region created to help meet the court order. The schools, featuring specialty themes, are designed to draw racially mixed student bodies from Hartford and the city's predominantly white suburbs.

Under the Sheff agreement, white students must make up at least 25 percent of a magnet school's enrollment. (The minimum is 20 percent for some newer magnet schools that have been granted a grace period to meet the goal.)

But, under the new federal regulation, who counts as white?

Seventeen-year-old Alexis Deschenes, a senior at Classical Magnet, checked two boxes on her enrollment form this year.

"I listed myself as white and black," said Alexis, whose father is white and mother is black. "It feels good to identify myself as both races rather than just choosing one," she said.

Alexis lives in East Hartford and has attended Classical since seventh grade. "I love it here," she said. "I wouldn't be anywhere else." Until now, she had been classified as white on the school rolls.

As America grows increasingly diverse, many people - among them President Obama - can claim mixed ethnic or racial heritage. At schools such as Classical, multiracial students are common.

"On the surface, Classical looks like it's a diverse school," Sullivan said. But depending on how strictly or loosely the state categorizes students, Classical's white population could be as low as 21 percent or as high as 44 percent, he said. Last year, while Classical was still in a grace period under the Sheff agreement, the official percentage was just under 24 percent.

For the first time this year, students across the state are being asked to identify themselves in one or more of five racial groups: Black, white, Asian, American Indian or Alaskan native, and Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. In a separate question, they are asked whether or not they are Hispanic, considered an ethnic but not a racial category.

The new rule allows students "to more accurately reflect their racial and ethnic background by not limiting responses to only one racial or ethnic category," the U.S. Department of Education says in a policy memo.

The regulation could have far-reaching implications beyond those in the Sheff case.

"It's going to produce all kinds of chaos. This is just one of the examples," said Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA and a nationally recognized proponent of school desegregation. Orfield and other civil rights leaders have opposed the rule, saying it will make it difficult or impossible to conduct research or monitor civil rights compliance.

"It's going to make data impossible to compare," he said. "It doesn't relate very well to actual social reality. . . . It's a terrible mistake."

The identification of students in multiple racial categories could require schools to rethink the reporting of racial data on matters such as graduation rates, test performance, and college attendance rates, for example.

"All of those things have traditionally been reported with a simple definition. That all can change," said Tom Murphy, a spokesman for the State Department of Education. "It's really going to be an interesting challenge."

Bruce Douglas, executive director of the Capitol Region Education Council, oversees several magnet schools, most of them in suburban towns near Hartford. The CREC-operated schools have been able to meet the quotas under the Sheff plan, and Douglas said he has no problem with the new federal rule.

"This allows families to identify every aspect of who they are," he said. "I think it's a good thing."

However, at Classical and several other magnet schools located in Hartford and operated by Hartford Public Schools, officials have had to scramble to attract enough white students.

Lawyers for the Sheff plaintiffs said they have discussed the new racial classification rules among themselves but have not yet met with state officials to establish guidelines for measuring compliance with the Sheff settlement.

If the two sides cannot agree, the matter could wind up before a judge.

Sullivan, the Classical principal, applauds the intent of the new federal rule. "It allows students not to have to deny part of their heritage," he said. "They can acknowledge what they really are."

But, he wonders, how will the state decide who they really are?

"This is a tough one," he said.

DESEGREGATION BENCHMARKS
Student Count In Question: Sheff Plaintiffs File Motion To Have Special Master Take Over From State
Hartford Courant
By STEVEN GOODE
December 12, 2009

HARTFORD —

The plaintiffs in the Sheff desegregation lawsuit are alleging that the state is out of compliance with the court-ordered agreement and are seeking to appoint a special master to take over its administration.

In a motion filed in Superior Court Friday, attorneys representing the plaintiffs say the state has failed to reach a court-ordered benchmark of teaching 27 percent of the city's minority students in a racially diverse setting this school year.

The stipulation was part of a 2008 agreement between the plaintiffs and the state in the landmark Sheff decision. The state Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that city children attending Hartford public schools were racially, ethnically and economically isolated in violation of the state's constitution.

The motion filed Friday contends that the state Department of Education's claim that it has met the 27 percent goal depends, in part, on improperly counting 521 Hartford minority students who attend Naylor Elementary School as learning in a diverse setting.

If those students are counted, the percentage of city minority students learning in more diverse classrooms is 27.3 percent. But the plaintiffs claim that those students shouldn't count toward the goal, resulting in a compliance rate of 24.9 percent.

At issue is whether the state can classify Naylor as an Open Choice school and take advantage of a 5 percentage point variance that would put the district in compliance with the Sheff agreement. Open Choice allows city students to enroll in suburban schools.

The state has claimed that Naylor can qualify as an Open Choice school by counting 11 suburban students who have chosen to attend the school. But 10 of those 11 students are minorities, which the complaint argues actually increases racial isolation at the school rather than decreases it.

The complaint also claims that only those 11 students coming from the suburbs could be classified as Open Choice students, not the 521 minority students who live in the city.

The motion seeks the appointment of a special master who would oversee and ensure compliance with the Sheff decision.

A special master could also compel the state legislature to increase funding for programs that reduce racial and ethnic isolation, such as increased funding for Hartford-run magnet schools and more money to suburban districts participating in the Open Choice program.

State Department of Education spokesman Tom Murphy said Friday that, as was the case initially with Hartford-run magnet schools, Naylor experienced an increase in minority enrollment from the suburbs.

But Murphy said that through marketing and showing that Hartford neighborhood schools such as Naylor provide a quality education, he expected future enrollment to bring in more non-minority students from the suburbs and reduce racial isolation further.

"We think the plaintiffs need to be flexible on this issue," Murphy said. "If we don't have money, we need flexibility."

Wesley Horton, an attorney for the plaintiffs, declined to comment Friday, pending a hearing on the motion.

Copyright © 2009, The Hartford Courant

Sheff Parties Ask Legislators To Approve Settlement
By ARIELLE LEVIN BECKER | Courant Staff Writer
April 16, 2008

Representatives from both sides of the state's 19-year-old Sheff v. O'Neill school desegregation lawsuit on Tuesday urged lawmakers to embrace the latest proposed settlement, saying it stands the best chance yet of achieving what earlier efforts have not: desegregating Hartford schools.

"We signed this agreement because we believe it could be done," said Dennis Parker, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union and one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, testifying before the legislature's education committee. "We recognize it involves hard work but we are willing to put in that hard work."

The proposed settlement, reached earlier this month, outlines measures that include building magnet schools in Hartford-area suburbs and expanding the number of slots for Hartford students in suburban public schools, racially integrated preschools and technical and agricultural high schools. It would also streamline the application process to magnet schools, improve transportation and support for Hartford students attending schools in other districts, and give the plaintiffs a role overseeing the desegregation efforts.

If it's successful, by the time the settlement expires in 2013, at least 80 percent of Hartford students who seek places in a racially integrated school will have them.

The proposed accord would replace a 2003 settlement, which expired last summer far short of its goals. The new proposal doesn't spell out how to achieve the new goals, but requires officials to create a comprehensive plan by Nov. 30, and specifies many items that must be included.

"There is no moment to be lost if we're to implement this by December," state Education Commissioner Mark K. McQuillan said, urging approval of the plan.

Lawmakers offered a mixed reception.

Committee co-chairman Rep. Andrew M. Fleischmann, D- West Hartford, noted that Tuesday's hearing was far less contentious than ones held last summer on an earlier settlement proposal, which legislators ultimately refused to ratify. Fleischmann said he is optimistic about the new proposal.

State Sen. Thomas P. Gaffey, D- Meriden, the committee co-chairman, said the proposal had a more reasonable chance of success than previous efforts, but said he was "chagrined" that officials have not yet offered projections on the cost of the settlement.

Others expressed skepticism.

State Sen. John W. Fonfara, D-Hartford, said the settlement continued mistakes of a decade ago, shortly after the state Supreme Court ordered Hartford's schools to be desegregated.

Back then, he said, the experts charged with developing the desegregation effort split into two camps: one that wanted to focus on reducing racial isolation, and one that sought to improve student performance. The camp focused on racial isolation seemed to have won, Fonfara said. He questioned whether it was worth continuing to spend money with the same focus.

"This was about the quality of the schools and what kids in Hartford, particularly minority kids, receive, and I don't see those kids benefiting," he said.

Parker disagreed "fundamentally," he said.

The proposed settlement, like earlier efforts, is designed to improve education while also reducing racial isolation, he said. "We have never and do not now accept the proposition that it is an either-or," he said.

The exchange brought to a head a theme raised by several legislators, who suggested that the efforts to desegregate Hartford schools had not focused sufficiently on raising student achievement or determining whether the efforts were improving education or simply, in the words of state Rep. Deborah W. Heinrich, D-Madison, "moving kids around."

Parker and McQuillan disputed the notion, and argued the settlement was designed to both reduce racial isolation and raise student achievement.

Reader's note: Avon and Farmington flipped (correction to Courant map published April 5, 2008)

Path To Integration
Hartford Courant
April 5, 2008

Build magnet schools in Hartford suburbs
Improve existing magnet schools
Expand openings for Hartford schoolchildren in suburban schools
Common application for magnet schools
Improve transportation
By 2012, at least 80 percent of Hartford students seeking spots in racially integrated schools must be accommodated

Deal Reached In School Lawsuit; Desegregation Fight In Hartford Dragged On For 12 Years
By Associated Press
Published on 4/5/2008

Hartford (AP) — A tentative settlement was reached Friday in the long-standing school desegregation lawsuit that for 12 years has sought to remedy the racial isolation in Hartford schools.

The question of whether the city's schools must be desegregated was settled by the landmark state Supreme Court Sheff vs. O'Neill ruling in the case in 1996, but the high court left it to the Sheff plaintiffs and the state to figure out how to do it.

The latest deal requires the state to develop a detailed plan to address racial disparity, including more magnet schools in Hartford suburbs and an increase in the number of spots available in suburban schools for Hartford students.

The agreement also requires that at least 80 percent of Hartford students who want to attend integrated schools be accommodated by 2012.

The settlement must be approved by a state judge and the General Assembly.

“This is a watershed day in our ongoing efforts to ensure that all of Hartford's children are afforded their constitutional right to a quality integrated education,” said Dennis Parker, Director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program and an attorney in the case.

Parker said that for the first time in 12 years, the state must follow a detailed framework to assure racial balance.

Others involved in negotiating the agreement included lawyers with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. and Center for Children's Advocacy.

The original case was brought in 1989 on behalf of Milo Sheff, who was then a 10-year-old student in Hartford's Annie Fisher School. Following the 1996 Supreme Court ruling, the case landed back in lower courts after plaintiffs complained over a lack of progress.

The two sides reached an agreement on a four-year plan in 2003: It was left largely to Hartford to implement the terms of the settlement by building magnet schools and sending students to suburban schools through the “Open Choice” program.

However, the numerical goals of the 2003 agreement specifying levels of integration were not met and after the accord expired last year, the plaintiffs returned to court.

“Equal opportunity to a quality, integrated education is a fundamental right and for the first time there is a clear structure in place for the state to follow to ensure that no child is denied that right,” Parker said.

Schools Chief Makes A Pitch; Adamowski Seeks Regional District
By RACHEL GOTTLIEB FRANK | Courant Staff Writer
November 15, 2007

A regional school district that would craft and run interdistrict schools could be an effective way to diminish the racial and economic isolation of Hartford's schoolchildren, the city's superintendent of schools, Steven Adamowski, testified Wednesday.

The existence of 166 local and regional school districts in 169 towns has had the effect of segregating minority children, he said in the final day of testimony at Superior Court in Hartford in the landmark Sheff v. O'Neill desegregation case.

"All the poor students are bottled up in one place. It is essentially the reason we have the Sheff case," said Adamowski, whose city is now party to the case.

Adamowski testified that he has offered a series of suggestions to state education officials, including the creation of a regional school district for the 22 towns that are subject to the Sheff litigation. Such a district would spend state funds to create and operate magnet schools and interdistrict programs under its own school board. It would not replace existing school boards and school districts, but function alongside them.

"I'm very concerned we have no takers in the suburbs for magnet schools," he said, speaking after his testimony. A regional district should have enough authority to build new schools anywhere within the 22 towns, including Hartford, he said.

In 1996, the state Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs in the Sheff case had proved their case that Hartford schoolchildren were being denied an equal education because of racial and economic isolation. The plaintiffs have now returned to Superior Court, after a settlement before the Connecticut legislature broke down, to try to speed up integration efforts. The city's schools today, the plaintiffs said, are more segregated than they were when the case was first filed in 1989.

In his testimony, Adamowski endorsed some of the recommendations of the plaintiffs' witnesses, saying it is critical that the state develop a master plan to map out its integration efforts. The plaintiffs sought to underscore the need for such a plan through their witnesses and in cross-examination of state witnesses.

Adamowski's call for an independent regional district received a lukewarm reception from state education officials.

State Education Commissioner Mark McQuillan said that the idea has merit, but that it would take a long time for it to take shape and begin working. "It would take a long time to develop the political will in that many communities for a plan like that," he said.

McQuillan who says that making progress on desegregation is urgent said he's concentrating now on the establishment of a joint office between the state, the Hartford school district and the Capitol Region Education Council, which runs several magnet schools.

But Adamowski testified that he had asked the state to assign a full-time employee to work in the office, but in the end the state decided to support a part-time position.

Tom Murphy, a spokesman for the state Department of Education, said that the regional council serves a similar function to that of the regional school district proposed by Adamowski because it can build magnet schools in any of the towns that it serves.

One of the Sheff plaintiffs' expert witnesses suggested that the council be assigned contracts to develop, manage and market all magnet schools that are part of the desegregation effort. But Adamowski opposes such a plan. Based on test-score data, he said, "there is no superiority of CREC schools. I see no basis for CREC being the manager for magnet schools," he said.

He testified, however, that there should be a centralized overseer of integration efforts. "The appointment of a special master would be absolutely necessary to carry out the original Sheff decision."

Wednesday's session completed the bulk of the hearing. Judge Marshall K. Berger Jr. has told the attorneys that he will set a date for closing arguments in the coming weeks.

Day 4 In Sheff Case Reveals Rift
By RACHEL GOTTLIEB FRANK | Courant Staff Writer
November 10, 2007

Testimony by the state's education commissioner on the fourth day of a hearing on the Sheff vs. O'Neill desegregation lawsuit revealed a testy relationship between Hartford's superintendent of schools and the state Department of Education over state efforts to quicken the pace of desegregation.

The Sheff lawsuit, filed in 1989, resulted in an order by the state Supreme Court in 1996 to end the racial, ethnic and economic isolation of Hartford's minority students. The court left it to the state and the plaintiffs to decide how to do that. Now the plaintiffs say desegregation efforts have fallen short, and they are in Superior Court appealing for help.

State Education Commissioner Mark McQuillan on Friday summarized an exchange of letters that began last summer between him and Superintendent Steven Adamowski in which McQuillan asked Hartford to submit documents showing why several of the city's magnet schools didn't have enough white students and how the district intended to remedy the problem.

"This was a repeated plea that went out," McQuillan testified, and the state was threatening to withhold millions of dollars if those documents weren't submitted by Oct. 1.

In letters back to McQuillan, the commissioner testified, Adamowski challenged the state's authority to withhold funding.

"I wrote back to say we really do have the authority to withhold funds," McQuillan said

In time, he said, Adamowski set conditions for the release of the documents that the state was seeking. One condition was the reform of the lottery system used to admit students to magnet schools. In Adamowski's opinion, the lottery system for admission to interdistrict magnet schools is illegal in the wake of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the use of race for the assignment of students to schools, McQuillan said.

"He continued to come back to me to say it was the state's responsibility to develop a new lottery system," McQuillan testified. Finally, he said, Adamowski took the position that until he saw a new lottery system he would not release enrollment plans sought by the state.

McQuillan testified that he believes the lottery, which is run by the Capitol Region Education Council (CREC), is fair.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision released in June forbids schools from enrolling children strictly on the basis of race and threatened many voluntary desegregation plans throughout the nation. But at the time of the ruling,, experts said they believed it would have little effect on school desegregation efforts in Hartford. The key difference, legal experts said, is that the magnet schools and school choice plans that are a central piece of the Sheff efforts do not single out students by race. Rather, the plans attempt to achieve racial balance by selecting students based on where they live.

In the dispute between McQuillan and Adamowski, the state ultimately withheld $4.6 million from Hartford because the city did not submit the enrollment plans that the state demanded.

Another point of tension between McQuillan and Adamowski is the development of a joint office between the state, Hartford and the CREC to implement desegregation programs.

Since he took office last January, McQuillan testified, he has reorganized his office and created a special division to concentrate exclusively on Sheff mandates. The joint office between the state, Hartford and CREC is a separate office he is attempting to create. But Adamowski made clear to McQuillan that he thought the state should take the lead role in implementing integration efforts.

Throughout the hearing on the status of the desegregation projects under the Sheff ruling, Hartford's lawyer has pushed the point that it is the state - not Hartford - that is the defendant in the case, so the state should be responsible for all costs and implementation.

Before McQuillan was called as a witness for the state, Robert Genuario, secretary of the state Office of Policy and Management, testified about some of the funding dedicated to desegregating Hartford's schools, including $4.9 million in the state budget this year and $9.9 million in next year's budget. The money is earmarked for the development of new charter schools, expanding the Open Choice program through which city students enroll in suburban schools, funding interdistrict cooperative programs and operations of the joint office between Hartford, the state and CREC.

John Rose, Hartford's lawyer, asked Genuario if there was money dedicated to make up for lost taxes when the city buys private property for use as a school and whether the state was paying for all the staff in the magnet schools opened in Hartford as part of the integration efforts.

Genuario said that the state assists with salaries for staff through its main grant for education called the Education Cost Sharing Grant, and he pointed out that schools never pay taxes.

Spotty Sheff Enforcement
By RACHEL GOTTLIEB FRANK | And MAGDALENE PEREZ Courant Staff Writers
November 9, 2007

Over the years the state has helped develop a comprehensive plan to desegregate Hartford's schools, spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the efforts, appealed to suburban districts to open their schools to city students and offered training to suburban districts to help city students succeed, state witnesses testified Thursday in the Sheff vs. O'Neill desegregation case.

But cross-examination of those witnesses in Superior Court in Hartford revealed that shifts in management have resulted in spotty results and murky accountability since 2003, when the plaintiffs in the Sheff lawsuit reached a compromise agreement with the state on integration goals.

During those years, changes in oversight included five state education commissioners, multiple reorganizations of the state Department of Education, four Hartford superintendents, a transition from state control over Hartford schools to local control and the creation and disbanding of a magnet school office in Hartford.

The lawsuit, filed in 1989, resulted in an order by the state Supreme Court in 1996 to end the racial, ethnic and economic isolation of Hartford's minority students. The court left it to the state and the plaintiffs to decide how to do that, and sent the case back to Superior Court for monitoring. Now, 11 years later, the plaintiffs say desegregation efforts have fallen short, and they are in Superior Court appealing for help.

Marcus Rivera, a consultant for the state education department, testified that he helped Hartford create a plan for integration that included developing magnet schools, improving all of Hartford's schools and sending city students to suburban schools. After Hartford's school board approved the plan, the state left it to the city to implement it, he said.

But during his cross-examination of state witnesses Thursday, the city's lawyer, John Rose, pointed out that Hartford is not a defendant in the Sheff lawsuit and therefore not responsible for carrying out its mandate.

After his testimony, Rivera said he isn't sure how much of the plan he helped create was carried out, though he believes some of it was.

Some of the testimony suggested the state is not entirely to blame for failure to reach Sheff goals to enroll specific numbers of Hartford minority students in suburban schools through the Open Choice program. Rivera said that Hartford hasn't always cooperated.

For example, Rivera said, when there were openings in suburban schools for kindergartners and first-graders, then-Education Commissioner Betty Sternberg asked then-Hartford Superintendent Robert Henry to include information about the vacancies in a letter to Hartford parents that the district was required to send anyway as part of the federal No Child Left Behind law.

Henry refused to include information about the vacancies, Rivera said, telling the state, "We really would not like to have these letters go out because we want to keep all Hartford students in Hartford."

Under cross-examination by Sheff lawyer Martha Stone, Rivera said the state did not take it upon itself to send the letter to parents.

"What we were not able to do is get information into the hands of all parents that this was a choice open to them," Rivera said.

Stone pressed the point that the state had repeatedly made participation in desegregation efforts voluntary by asking districts to help, but never setting benchmarks for individual districts to meet.

When the state realized it would fall short of its requirement to place 1,600 Hartford minority students in suburban schools - last year 1,070 students were enrolled in the Open Choice program - Sternberg wrote a letter to superintendents "strongly encouraging" them to open more seats, Rivera said.

The July 2006 letter said that 469 new students must be added to the Open Choice program - a total of 18 in each of the 27 school districts governed by the Sheff compromise - to reach the state's ordered obligation of placing 1,600 students in the program by 2007.

Each district has decided to heed or ignore that recommendation on its own terms, Rivera said. While some districts have renewed seats for Hartford students, others have not opened a single new seat in years.

Schools: A Shift Of Views On Sheff; Case Returns To Court Amid New Skepticism
By RACHEL GOTTLIEB FRANK | Courant Staff Writer
November 5, 2007

A decade after the state Supreme Court ordered the desegregation of schools across Greater Hartford in the landmark Sheff v. O'Neill case, the goal of integration remains elusive.

Magnet schools, the cornerstone of the state's plan to bring together white children and children of color using voluntary incentives, have fallen short. Hartford's schools still have a population that is predominantly black, Hispanic and poor. Now, as the Sheff plaintiffs head back to court Tuesday to demand the state make good on its assurances, advocates of integration are facing increasing skepticism on the part of both state lawmakers and city officials over both the cost - and value - of continuing down the same path.

Tensions that have long remain hidden are now erupting, opening up a new and potentially contentious chapter in the effort to desegregate schools in and around Hartford.

"It's breaking out in the open now," said John Brittain, a former Sheff lawyer. "The current spat with the Hartford school system exposes the fragility of the infrastructure of the Sheff v. O'Neill process."

Lawyers for the Sheff plaintiffs declined to say what they will seek in court. The latest effort at compromise between the state and the plaintiffs - which failed to win legislative approval - called for the state to spend $112 million over the next five years to expand the array of magnet, charter and vocational-technical schools. But one attorney said now that the issue is heading back to court, the plaintiffs won't be constrained by the compromises that they have agreed to in the past.

"There's new thinking we'll be presenting at the trial," said Matthew Colangelo, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund who is representing the plaintiffs in the Sheff v. O'Neill lawsuit.

"We're saying it's been 11 years and not enough progress has been made and we think it's time for the court to get involved."

Forced Integration?

The question of whether the city's schools must be desegregated was settled by a state Supreme Court order in 1996, though the court left it to the Sheff plaintiffs and the state to figure out how to do it. The state and the plaintiffs finally reached an agreement on a plan in 2003, and it was left largely to Hartford to implement its terms by building magnet schools and sending students to suburban schools through the state's "Open Choice" program.

The guiding principle of those efforts has been to make desegregation voluntary - sidestepping the politically explosive prospect of forcibly moving children from one school to another. But the effectiveness of this approach is now being questioned.

"The notion that we're going to get a better result by voluntary programs is ridiculous," said state Sen. Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden, co-chairman of the legislature's education committee. "We need to shift away from the model of remedy that the state has been pursuing for years. The district is as racially isolated today as it was 10 years ago. It suggests you need to do something different."

Gaffey advocates giving the education commissioner more statutory authority to enforce broad participation by area towns. The best way to satisfy the court order, he said, probably would be to expand the Open Choice program, through which Hartford students enroll in suburban schools. This would give the commissioner power to order reluctant towns to open their doors to more students from Hartford.

"How open Open Choice is, is really debatable," Gaffey said, conceding that towns won't like being strong-armed into admitting more Hartford kids and that getting any major changes through the General Assembly would be difficult.

Hartford School Superintendent Steven Adamowski bluntly told the State Board of Education recently that it isn't fair Hartford has borne the brunt of making integration happen, while suburban participation remains optional. As it stands, the state is withholding $4.6 million from the city-run magnet schools for failing to enroll enough white students, and won't release that money until the city submits a plan outlining its plan for a remedy. If the state doesn't release the money, Adamowski said, the district will have to begin laying off staff at the four magnet schools that don't meet the quota.

Adamowski told the State Board of Education and the education commissioner that a regional approach is needed. He strongly encouraged them to create a system of rewards and punishments to get the region's many "fiefdoms" to work with Hartford in developing models for integrated schools that are different from the traditional magnet school model.

But while there are growing questions about the effectiveness of voluntary solutions, the state will likely argue in court against involuntary participation, said Education Commissioner Mark K. McQuillan. "This state has historically and fervently relied on local control," he said.

That devotion aside, he said, programs that are entered into voluntarily are more likely to work.

"People will invest more of their energy and time to carry it out," McQuillan said. "Let's try voluntary measures now. If that fails then we may have to take more drastic measures that people may not want."

McQuillan said he wants to expand the Open Choice program and to press for the development of magnet schools in the suburbs. He conceded that the assumption that suburban youngsters would be drawn to magnet schools run by Hartford was mistaken. By locating schools in the suburbs, officials said, the state could address the perception of some parents that Hartford schools are not safe.

"Suburban parents have some trepidation about sending their children into the inner city. Whether it's perceived or accurate, we are aware of it," said Tom Murphy, spokesman for the state Department of Education. "Having several schools in suburban communities as a choice will give an opportunity to allay those concerns."

McQuillan said he thinks that six or seven magnet schools run by suburban towns could work, focusing on young children in grades pre-K through 3. Parents who would otherwise pay to send their preschool-aged children to day care would find the offer of an all-day public preschool school program particularly enticing, McQuillan said.

Hartford Pulls Back

Beyond the question of how to make desegregation happen is a broader problem: Officials are growing more vocal about the burden Sheff presents - and even questioning the value of its goals. In a presentation to the State Board of Education on ways Hartford is working to close the achievement gap between urban and suburban children, Adamowski questioned the very premise of the Sheff lawsuit.

"There is no research to suggest that minority students will do better by sitting next to a white student," he said.

The original lawsuit, filed in 1989, asserted that the racial segregation of Hartford schools violates the state's constitution. Adamowski's comment resonated with some, including Hartford school board member Andrea Comer, who believes it is demeaning to assume that children of color need to share a classroom with white students in order to learn well. But it drew a sharp response from some advocates of desegregation.

"We're disappointed that it's 2007 and the superintendent wants to debate whether it is a bad thing for Hartford's minority children to be taught in racially segregated schools," Colangelo said.

"As a social science matter, the answer has been clear for decades," Colangelo said. As a legal matter, he said, the case was settled years ago.

In his presentation to the state board, Adamowski outlined a strategy for improving the city's schools that does not specifically address the court's order, although the Hartford school board's new policy for redesigning failing schools directs the superintendent to "give consideration" to the Sheff goals of reducing racial and economic isolation.

"This is high stakes for the state," Murphy said. "The superintendent's reform package has not connected Sheff with the strategies for improvement. We've got to find some common ground."

In the past, Hartford's superintendents have publicly embraced the lead position in fulfilling the requirements of the Sheff lawsuit, even if they grumbled behind the scenes about cost. Adamowski's public arm's-length posture from both the state and the tenets of the court order represent a dramatic shift in the landscape. Lawmakers are also asking questions about the direction of desegregation efforts.

Legislative leaders this summer didn't put the $112 million plan to expand magnets up for a vote in part because they questioned the effectiveness of the approach, and in part because Hartford's mayor and superintendent urged rejection until the state develops a more comprehensive plan to integrate schools.

On the eve of the case's return to court, Mayor Eddie A. Perez, chairman of the school board, lobbed his pitch into the arena, saying that while the city remains committed to the Sheff goals, the state shouldn't dump the burden on Hartford.

"The state wants to monitor us and have us implement Sheff. We want them to implement Sheff and we will assist them," Perez said. "It can't just be Hartford's burden."

Sheff Case Returns To Court
School Desegregation Issue Had Been Stuck In The State Legislature
By ROBERT A. FRAHM | Courant Staff Writer
July 6, 2007

The struggle to desegregate Hartford's public schools is back in court.

Plaintiffs in the Sheff v. O'Neill case filed a legal motion Thursday, saying they will wait no longer for the legislature to approve a tentative agreement that would require the state to take aggressive new measures to reduce racial isolation in Hartford's public schools.

A 4-year-old settlement in the long-running case failed to reach its goals and expired last week. The state and the Sheff plaintiffs reached a tentative agreement in late May that would establish new goals and extend the settlement, but the legislature so far has not approved the extension.

The proposed extension calls on the state to spend millions of dollars more over the next five years to subsidize magnet schools, charter schools and other programs designed to bolster integration.

The legislature, which received the settlement as its regular spring session was coming to a close, is expected to take up the issue in a special session later this month.

"Time is wasting, and kids are not being properly educated," Wesley W. Horton, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said after filing a motion asking the courts to enforce a 1996 state Supreme Court ruling ordering the state to reduce racial isolation in Hartford's mostly black and Hispanic schools.

The motion, filed before Superior Court Judge Marshall K. Berger Jr., is the latest step in a legal case that began 18 years ago and led to a 2003 court-approved settlement designed to expand opportunities for Hartford students to enroll in racially integrated magnet schools and predominantly white suburban schools.

That settlement set a target calling for 30 percent of Hartford students to be enrolled in racially integrated schools by this year, but the effort has fallen short.

A recent study by Trinity College researchers reported that only 9 percent of the city's students attend schools that have enough white students to qualify as racially integrated under the Sheff agreement. At the same time, enrollments at many of Hartford's schools, including some magnets, remain almost entirely black and Hispanic.

The Trinity report found that magnet schools, instead of drawing white suburban children into the city, have been more popular among black and Hispanic suburban families. It also found that previous gains under a program allowing city children to enroll in suburban schools have stagnated.

Thursday's legal motion would have little effect if the legislature approves the tentative settlement, but lawmakers said they will need more time to review the proposed settlement before voting later this month.

"We received this settlement ... less than 48 hours before the adjournment of the regular session" in June, said state Sen. Thomas Gaffey, co-chairman of the legislature's Education Committee. "To expect the General Assembly to take this up when we're grappling with the state budget in that short a time frame is absolutely unreasonable."

Among the lawmakers' concerns, according to Gaffey, is the poor track record of the original settlement. "There has been very little progress at reducing racial isolation in Hartford's schools," he said. "What is the evidence we're going to be any better off?"

Gaffey, D-Meriden, said he plans to schedule a hearing to review questions about the Sheff proposal, including whether it complies with last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling prohibiting schools from assigning students to schools on the basis of race.

Although the goal of the Sheff settlement is to reduce racial isolation, officials have said the Sheff programs are not affected by the Supreme Court's ruling because students are selected for schools based on where they live, and are not singled out by race.

Gaffey also said lawmakers want to know why Hartford officials did not sign on to the latest tentative agreement.

Although Hartford plans to comply with the terms of the Sheff agreement, officials decided not to sign because of the cost of busing students and building new magnet schools under the original agreement, Hartford Corporation Counsel John Rose said. Under the original settlement, the state paid the bulk of the cost, but Hartford also spent millions of dollars, he said.

If the city had received guarantees that those costs would be covered completely by the state under the new tentative settlement, "we would have signed off," he said. "That's really what it's about."

Although the court allowed city officials to take part in settlement negotiations, the settlement was between the plaintiffs and the state. The city could have signed on, but its approval was not required.

A Losing Battle, So Far; Report: Reality Spoils Racial Balancing Act
By ROBERT A. FRAHM, Courant Staff Writer
June 13, 2007

An agreement hailed four years ago as a way to end the overwhelming racial isolation in Hartford's public schools has failed, a new independent review of the landmark Sheff v. O'Neill school desegregation case says.

Trinity College researchers will issue a report today showing in stark numbers how little progress has been made toward creating magnet schools that draw a mix of white and non-white students, or toward getting the city's mostly black and Hispanic student population into mostly white suburban schools.

The report shows that magnet schools, instead of drawing white suburban children into the city, have been more popular among black and Hispanic suburban families. It also found that gains under a program allowing city children to enroll in suburban schools have ground to a halt.

"This is sad news," said Jack Dougherty, a Trinity professor who, along with two students, compiled a report showing that the key Sheff strategies to reduce racial isolation in Hartford's schools have come up short.

Shifting population patterns also have complicated efforts to balance schools by race. The report documents dramatic changes in many of Hartford's suburbs, including substantial growth in the number of non-white students since the Sheff case was filed in 1989. Several towns - Windsor, Manchester and East Hartford among them - have seen dramatic increases in their non-white student populations over the past two decades.

"When the Sheff case was filed ... it was clear that people thought of Hartford as a minority city and the suburbs as predominantly white," said Dougherty, director of Trinity's educational studies program.

"That model from 1989 doesn't fit nearly as well now as it did then."

The report says a 2003 court-approved settlement in the Sheff case will fall far short of its goals when it expires this month.

State officials last week announced a tentative agreement with the Sheff plaintiffs to take aggressive new measures to speed the pace of integration. A proposed extension of the 2003 agreement calls on the state to spend millions of dollars more over the next five years to subsidize magnet schools, charter schools and other programs designed to bolster integration.

That tentative agreement, which also sets new racial quotas, requires approval by the legislature and the courts.

A crucial piece of the earlier agreement revolved around magnet schools, where officials hoped that specialty themes, such as arts or technology, would attract white suburban children into the city, joining black and Hispanic children from Hartford.

Instead, the magnets have been especially popular among families from towns such as Bloomfield, Windsor and East Hartford, where non-white students now make up a substantial majority of the school-age population.

White families have been less enthusiastic about the magnets, with parents complaining about delays in the construction of new buildings, problems with busing and even a lack of sports programs. The city's struggles with crime, including a spate of shootings last summer, along with Hartford's troubled history of sub-par public schools, also have undermined recruiting.

Although a few magnets, including several older, well-established regional schools run by the Capitol Region Education Council, have attracted racially mixed student bodies, many others remain mostly black and Hispanic, the report shows.

Sheff plaintiffs won a state Supreme Court ruling in 1996 and reached a settlement with the state in 2003 establishing a court-approved goal: enrolling 30 percent of Hartford's schoolchildren in racially integrated schools by this year.

But Dougherty, along with Trinity students Jesse Wanzer and Christina Ramsay, reported that only 9 percent of the city's schoolchildren attend schools that have enough white students to qualify as racially integrated under the Sheff agreement.

Even under a rule allowing the state to include children who attend recently created magnet schools that have not yet reached the minimum quota of white children, only 17 percent of Hartford children count toward the Sheff goal, the report said.

The report also found that a long-running school choice program that allows Hartford parents to send their children to mostly white suburban schools is well short of its goal of 1,600 children.

Enrollment in the program flattened out at 1,070 children this year, the report said. That is only one more than the program had a year ago and below the 1,175 students enrolled in 1979 in Project Concern, the predecessor of the current choice program.

In some suburbs, enrollment in the choice program has declined over the past decade. Farmington, for example, enrolled 94 Hartford children this year, down from 108 a decade ago, the report said. The decline occurred mainly because the town's overall growth during the 1990s left limited space in its schools, said Superintendent Robert M. Villanova. As space problems ease, the town expects to take in more children in the program, he said.

Sheff supporters lament the slow rate of progress in both the magnet school and the choice programs, contending that state officials have not provided sufficient support. In addition, they cite problems with busing and long delays in plans for building new magnets.

"It has taken too long for [magnet] schools to be constructed," said city Councilwoman Elizabeth Horton Sheff, whose son, Milo, was the lead plaintiff in the landmark desegregation case.

"You can't blame parents for being nervous, not having a permanent place for their schools," she said.

A not unrelated matter...
How fair is the state's tax system? It's the rich against the poor
By: Keith M. Phaneuf, Journal Inquirer
Analysis
04/14/2007

HARTFORD - When majority Democrats in the state legislature unveiled their new budget Thursday, they reopened a debate that hasn't been joined at this level in 16 years.

The issue: Is Connecticut's income tax fair, and should wealthier households pay higher rates?

Democrats, who won potentially veto-proof, two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate this year gave their answer Thursday, unveiling a sweeping plan to shift more than $1 billion in tax burdens onto households earning more than $190,000. At the same time, they want to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax breaks to those earning less than $190,000.

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, whose own budget plan maintains a relatively flat income tax and seeks an across-the-board hike, didn't say this week whether she would support asking the wealthy to pay a higher rate. She said she would wait until legislative fiscal analysts report on the proposed tax hikes next week.

But Democratic lawmakers, sensing an advantage, pressed hard for an answer Friday.

"I'm really shocked that the governor's idea of 'unconscionable' is a middle-class tax break," said House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford. "We're asking those who make more to pay a bit more. There's fairness in that. ... Why wouldn't the governor want to have that."

Rell did call it "unacceptable" and "unconscionable" for Democrats to propose a $37 billion budget for the next two fiscal years that adds almost $650 million to her proposal.

Democrats say their tax plan would raise about $790 million in new revenue, but the governor said she fears it would require closer to $1 billion. Rell's budget plan seeks $660 million more from residents next year.

House Majority Leader Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, said neither Rell nor anyone else should be surprised by the Democrats' plan. It mirrors concepts they have been talking about for years but lacked the votes to implement - until this year.

Democrats 'stronger, ready'

"We've run into governors who have been in the way," Donovan said, referring to Rell and her predecessor and fellow Republican, John G. Rowland. "This year we're stronger and ready to take on the challenge."

The "challenge" Donovan refers to is the current state income tax, which treats most residents largely the same, regardless of income.

State government, which enacted an income tax in 1991, employs just two rates. The first $10,000 on income from most individuals, and the first $20,000 from most couples is taxed at 3 percent. All income above that is taxed at 5 percent, regardless of how wealthy a household is.

The new plan retains the initial 3 percent increment and sets five more tiers. The income parameters for individuals were unavailable Thursday but generally are about 53 percent of those for couples.

The new rates for couples under the Democratic proposal are:

* 4.75 percent for income between $20,001 and $100,000.

* 5 percent for income between $100,001 and $150,000.

* 5.5 percent for income between $150,001 and $200,000.

* 6.25 percent of income between $200,001 and $250,000.

* 6.95 percent for income above $250,000.

A preliminary analysis shows that couples earning $190,000 or less would see their state income taxes go down.

Another middle-class break

These changes alone would bring an estimated $900 million net bonus into the state's coffers. Democrats then would devote $300 million of that to increase the property-tax credit within the income-tax system from $500 to $1,000, giving middle-class households another break. Families earning more than $190,000 per year are ineligible to claim the property tax credit.

Democrats have tried to revise the income tax before. They tried to add third tax bracket repeatedly between 2001 and 2003, but Rowland vetoed all of those attempts.

Those proposals were far less sweeping than the plan unveiled this week. They generally targeted only households earning more than $1 million and were nicknamed the "millionaires' tax." They imposed only a modest rate hike and devoted all the dollars to new spending without providing any tax cuts for middle-income families.

Some Democrats say a progressive system always was the vision they had for the state income tax when it was enacted in 1991 under then-Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. After a nearly nine-month battle, a tax was approved. But liberal Democrats, who wanted the progressive income tax, had to compromise with the more-conservative Weicker, who would support only a flat tax.

If this year's Democratic plan is adopted, it wouldn't be the first time the state ordered an income-related tax change aimed primarily at the wealthy.

Another part of the 1991 compromise was the end of separate state taxes on capital gains and on dividends and interest - levies that were designed primarily to tap wealthy households with large amounts of investment income. The capital gains tax was 7 percent, and the levy on dividends and interest reached as high as 14 percent. Once the income tax was enacted, investment income was rolled into new system and taxed at the flat rate, which was 4.5 percent in 1991.

Liberal 'Holy Grail'

"A progressive income tax has been the Holy Grail of the liberal movement since time began," said former state Rep. Jonathan Pelto, a Mansfield Democrat who backed the income tax. Liberal Democrats grudgingly accepted the compromise of a flat income tax because the alternative was to continue to rely too heavily on a state sales tax that didn't provide enough revenue.

"Any income tax was better than a sales tax," Pelto said. "But I think many legislators always wanted to revisit it."

Weicker was replaced in 1995 by Rowland, who left office in July 2004 and was succeeded by Rell. More than a decade of Republican governors has meant that backers of a progressive income tax have had to bide their time - until now. Having won 107 of 151 seats in the House and 24 of 36 in the Senate, Democrats now feel they have the muscle to force a new debate on the income tax.

Pelto said Rell won't long be able to avoid telling the public which tax philosophy she favors.

"She has already said we are going to need to raise taxes, and she wants to raise it for everyone," he said. "The Democrats have responded that we agree taxes need to be raised, but we are going to protect" the middle class.

"This isn't a debate over whether to raise taxes," Pelto said. "It's about who should pay more."

Downside: volatility

One downside to a progressive income tax is that it makes state revenues more volatile. A tax that relies more heavily on investment income from wealthy households is subject to the economic highs and lows of the stock market.

Even with the current, largely flat income tax, state government lost more than $1 billion in tax revenue tied to investments when the recession hit in 2002-03. The result was more than 2,500 state employee layoffs and an income tax increase on everyone.

Sen. Louis C. DeLuca of Woodbury, the leader of the Senate's Republican minority, said he fears Democratic lawmakers would use big revenues from boom times to launch new programs that couldn't be sustained when the inevitable economic crash hits.

"When you base your budget on high-income earners, the people who invest, you're setting yourself up for a problem down the line because you know you're going to have those dips in the market," DeLuca said, predicting that a progressive tax would prompt more wealthy families to leave the state.

Democrats "don't want to believe that money is mobile," the Republican leader said.

©Journal Inquirer 2007

A review of Sheff, 2006..click here to see the full story - or read an excerpted version below.

A DECADE OF HALF MEASURES: 10 years after a Hartford mother and son forced city schools to integrate, progress has dragged
Stan Simpson, The Hartford Courant
July 23, 2006

Eugene Leach couldn't help himself. He's a historian after all.

Our conversation was about Sheff vs. O'Neill - the landmark Hartford school desegregation court ruling that is 10 years old this month. The Trinity College history and American studies professor took me back to 1848 and the writings of abolitionist Frederick Douglass, one of his favorite 19th century authors and orators. Douglass had been lamenting the construction of a new school in Bath, N.Y., with taxpayers' dollars. It was going to be for whites only. He believed segregated schools were unbecoming and shortsighted.

"It will be an important point gained if we secure this right," Douglass wrote. "Let colored children be educated and grow up side by side with white children, come up friends from unsophisticated and generous childhoods together and it will require a powerful agent to convert them into enemies and leave them to prey upon each others rights and liberties."

Those thoughts 158 years ago are as profound today - and as difficult to attain. The Sheff plaintiffs are once again haggling with the state, urging more progress in the desegregation of Hartford schools. A decade after the court's decision that Hartford's schools would be integrated voluntarily, the 24,000-student school district remains 95 percent black and Latino, and most of the students are poor. While some city students now have better opportunities to be educated, most continue to languish in substandard public schools.

The problem is that these students' futures are subject to the luck of the draw - or the school lottery, in this case. And, as the kids might say, that sucks.

"I'm where Douglass was in 1848," said Leach, who is white and a parent-plaintiff in the Sheff suit. "I haven't changed my fundamental belief that what the country professes is equality. And equality means open doors for integrated education and open opportunity for integrated education."

The state Supreme Court ruling on Sheff was national news. That the state was deemed responsible for de facto segregation, even thought it didn't cause it, was a largely contrarian notion. The verdict came seven years after the suit was filed in 1989 and one year after Superior Court Judge Harry Hammer had ruled in the state's favor. Still, even with the trumping Supreme Court edict - which suggested no remedy - the plaintiffs had to return to court three times in arguing that the state was not complying.

A settlement was finally hatched in 2003, in which both sides agreed that the state would build eight new magnet schools over four years at a cost of about $45 million per year. A separate program, called Open Choice, was established to increase the number of suburban-school slots available to city students from 1,000 to 1,600. The goal was to have 30 percent of the Hartford students in integrated schools by 2007.

The state has fallen way short on all of these goals. Its administrators have blamed construction delays and problems finding suitable building sites. Only two magnet schools are in new buildings, with others in various stages of planning. Of the 1,600 suburban-school seats available to Hartford students, only 1,062 have been filled. Educators say increases in suburban populations have made fewer of those seats available. Other observers suggest that political will is also a factor.

With the 2007 deadline approaching on the settlement, my assessment of the 1996 verdict is that it is one fraught with frustration and anticipation. After all these years, Sheff, much to the plaintiffs' chagrin, gets a grade of "Incomplete" - just a notch above an F.

"If you go back to the overall goal of reducing racial isolation and economic isolation, not much has changed in that regard," said Eddie Davis, the recently retired Danbury schools chief. He was the Hartford school superintendent in 1996.

"It's great to see the theme schools that are beginning to spring up around the Hartford area, and yet they have attracted a very small number of white students," he said. "If you had not been here 10 years ago and didn't know about the Sheff lawsuit, you'd see very little evidence that there was a lawsuit and that the plaintiffs prevailed..."

Frustration over the implementing integration is equally high. It reached a point where John Brittain - the attorney who helped the plaintiffs win their case and became one of the most prominent faces of the Sheff case - started having second thoughts.

If meaningful change couldn't happen even with a state Supreme Court ruling, Brittain fumed, maybe he should have agitated more for quality neighborhood schools instead of integrated ones. Though still an advocate for integration, Brittain says generations of young urban children have been sacrificed while integration efforts lag.

"I don't think integration is dead, but certainly it's in the intensive care unit," said Brittain, now the chief counsel and senior deputy director of the Washington, D.C.-based Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "And it's certainly losing its enthusiasm among the intended beneficiaries of communities of color. ... The Sheff vs. O'Neill decision largely has met the same fate as its fore-parent, Brown v. the Board of Education, in the long delay and difficulty in implementation."

Fifty-two years after the landmark Brown decision ruled segregated schools were illegal, America's public schools are re-segregating at a pace comparable to the 1950s.

Stanley Battle, a former administrator at Eastern Connecticut State University, now is president of Coppin State University, a historically black university in Baltimore. Coppin also oversees a largely minority K-12 public school system, which is beginning to show academic strides because of the schools-university partnership.

Battle said he's long past pining for integration to improve urban education, though he sees the value of diverse classrooms.

"We talk about integration, but we practice segregation. Let's be honest,"' Battle said. "So, if we're so hell-bent on saying one thing and doing another, let's at least be honest about making sure that the schools are at the highest quality, that we have certified and top-notch teachers, that we have good equipment, partnerships and relationships with universities, the private sector and businesses to encourage children to stay in school."

African-Americans and Latinos represent 22 percent of Connecticut's total population but 75 percent of its prison population. Of the states 18,000 prison inmates, 75 percent don't have high school diplomas. In many states, including Connecticut, there are more black men in prison than in universities. And while Connecticut has some of the finest public schools in the country, it has the nation's widest academic-achievement gap between African-American and Latino students and their white peers.

"We have to find different paradigms to make sure that we don't have a legacy of children who are totally ignorant," said Battle.

"The state has not met the goal of the settlement and has not honored the ruling from the Supreme Court," said Hartford City Councilwoman Elizabeth Horton Sheff. Her son, Milo, now a rapper, is the plaintiff for whom the case is named. "While minimal progress has been made, the state is not fully committed to the desegregation of our schools."

The state is asking for patience, saying that building eight new schools in four years is an ambitious undertaking.

"What's complicated is trying to find sites that are available for school buildings in a city like Hartford, where the city is fairly justified in being reluctant to give up land that could be taxable," said Jack Hasegawa, the state Department of Education's bureau chief for educational equity. "And the city's school-building stock is pretty well used up..."

Better accountability to measure progress needs to be agreed upon. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been pumped into these desegregation initiatives, including money for pre-school and literacy education. Martha Stone, a lead-plaintiff attorney, said a mechanism to measure progress will be among the items the Sheff team will be seeking in its next round of talks.

That lack of measurement has raised the eyebrows of some third-party observers.

"It's surprising to me in all the talk of school accountability lately that there's no legal mechanism to make sure that the quality of the academic achievement is under consideration," said Jack Dougherty, associate professor of education at Trinity College. Dougherty, along with other local professors, has been researching Sheff's impact. He said his research indicates that the state is overstating the percentage of Hartford students who qualify to be counted toward compliance with the Sheff settlement. The state's estimate is 23.5 percent; Dougherty's research shows it's 14 percent.

The negotiations should also talk about significantly increasing the percentage of city students to be integrated. The current 30 percent goal means more than two-thirds of the Hartford kids are left behind. More incentives are also needed for suburban schools to open slots for city kids. If the Sheff goal is to be achieved, Open Choice can't be offered in name only.

House votes to OK settlement 87-60. Next stop, Senate (not necessary for confirmation).
Legislators Approve Sheff Settlement; House Votes 87-60 For Integration Plan
February 26, 2003
By ROBERT A. FRAHM, Courant Staff Writer

The landmark settlement in a school desegregation case against Connecticut survived challenges to its cost and its educational merit as it won final approval in the state
legislature Tuesday.

The House of Representatives voted 87-60 to approve the out-of-court settlement in the Sheff vs. O'Neill case, an agreement that includes plans for eight new integrated
magnet schools in Hartford over the next four years. Some legislators objected to the estimated $135 million price for the plan, which also calls for expansion of a
suburban school choice program for Hartford children, but the House could not muster enough votes to block the agreement.

"It was a good day," said Philip Tegeler, one of the lawyers for plaintiffs in the 14-year-old case, which sought to reduce racial segregation in Hartford's mostly black and
Hispanic public schools. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called the vote "a historic victory for Connecticut's children," saying it would help the state make "significant, solid steps toward diversity and perhaps become a national model."

The Senate could still debate the agreement today, but a vote would be no more than symbolic. Under state law, the settlement automatically takes effect unless both
houses of the legislature reject it by a three-fifths margin no later than today, the final deadline for a vote. In the House, the most vehement objections came from
lawmakers representing towns outside of Hartford. Their opposition to spending millions on renovating or building new schools in the capital city came against the backdrop
of a deepening state budget crisis.

The legislature is trying to close a $650 million budget gap this year and a projected $1.5 billion gap next year - a crisis that threatens every area of state supported
programs, including public schools. An analysis done for the legislature estimates the settlement would cost $45 million in operating funds and $90 million for construction
over four years. "The settlement does little but renovate buildings at the expense of every other town in the state," said state Rep. Toni Boucher, R-Wilton.

The agreement calls for at least 30 percent of Hartford's schoolchildren to be integrated into magnet schools or suburban schools by 2007, up from about 10 percent now. Tuesday's vote fell largely along partisan lines, with most Democrats supporting the settlement and most Republicans opposing it. "We will leave behind 70 percent of the children," said state Rep. Robert W. Heagney, R-Simsbury. "This isn't a solution. It's simply a patch."

State Rep. Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, said the money would be better spent trying to close an academic achievement gap that finds black and Hispanic students
trailing whites in towns such as Norwalk. "Not one nickel of that money is going to help kids read better or write better or compute better," Cafero said. He added that the Sheff case could be the first of many coming from other communities where schools are heavily populated by black and Hispanic schoolchildren. "What's to stop ... parents in towns like Bridgeport or New Haven from bringing the same kind of lawsuit, hoping to achieve the same kind of result?" he said.

The Sheff plaintiffs had gone back to court a year ago, accusing the state of dragging its feet in complying with a 1996 state Supreme Court ruling ordering the state to
desegregate Hartford's schools. Superior Court Judge Julia L. Aurigemma had been scheduled to make a ruling until the two sides reached a settlement last month.

"I think it's a good first step," state Rep. Kenneth P. Green, D-Hartford, said after Tuesday's vote. He said the settlement marks the first time that a plan includes specific provisions for measuring progress toward racial integration. As for the cost, Green said, "Education is an expensive endeavor. ... If we don't educate our children, what is the cost in prisons? What is the cost in mental health services? In not having a workforce?"

Sheff Deadline: 2007
SETTLEMENT: A Four-Year Effort Begins To Help Undo Hartford's School Segregation
January 23, 2003 by ROBERT A. FRAHM, Courant Staff Writer

After 14 years of court battles, political maneuvering and heated public debate, the two sides in Connecticut's historic Sheff vs. O'Neill school desegregation case signed a four-year truce Wednesday. Now comes the hard part.

The agreement between the plaintiffs and the state already is being hailed as a national model for voluntary school integration, but its success or failure will hinge largely on whether Hartford can attract hundreds more white suburban children into the city to attend proposed new magnet schools. A key provision of the agreement is the creation of eight new magnet schools in or near Hartford over the next four years - something both sides see as essential to changing a stubborn, longstanding pattern of racial segregation in schools in Connecticut's capital city.

Hartford public schools, where more than 90 percent of students are black or Hispanic, remain as segregated today as they were when the Sheff lawsuit was filed in 1989.
Under the proposed settlement, the state for the first time would establish specific goals for increasing the number of Hartford children attending integrated magnet schools
or enrolling in suburban schools under a voluntary transfer program.

The inclusion of specific goals and timetables was a key objective for plaintiffs, but the plan - which depends upon parents making voluntary choices - falls short of the
original vision of the plaintiffs, which included the possible redrawing of boundary lines between city and suburban school districts. Even if the goals are met, 70 percent of the city's children would remain in mostly segregated schools.

"Is it the vision we started with 14 years ago? No. Is it a giant step forward? Yes," said Elizabeth Horton Sheff, the mother of lead plaintiff Milo Sheff. "It's a good thing. This isn't the end of it. We'll come back and we'll see where we are in four years."

About 10 percent of Hartford's schoolchildren currently attend integrated magnet schools or enroll in suburban schools under a voluntary choice program, but the new
agreement calls for raising that figure to 30 percent - or about 7,000 students - by 2007, a challenging target.

"Implementing this [settlement] ... is probably harder than agreeing to it," state Education Commissioner Theodore S. Sergi said moments before he and other officials
signed the agreement in a room packed with TV cameras, reporters and plaintiffs. The plan calls for the state to spend an additional $45 million over the next four years to help operate the new magnet schools, and to expand a program, called Open Choice, allowing Hartford parents to enroll their children in predominantly white suburban schools.

The state now spends about $65 million a year on magnet schools and other programs to promote racial integration. If it wins the approval of the state legislature, the
settlement would resolve at least for four years a case that led to a state Supreme Court ruling in 1996 saying that racial isolation in Hartford schools violated the rights of
schoolchildren to an adequate education.

Following that ruling, the state spent hundreds of millions of dollars on magnet schools and other programs to promote integration, but the Sheff plaintiffs returned to
court last spring, saying those programs were making only minimal progress. The issue has been before Superior Court Judge Julia L. Aurigemma, who also will have to approve the settlement.

Wednesday's agreement also includes state funding for additional after-school and summer exchange programs for city and suburban schoolchildren.

Gov. John G. Rowland, who announced the agreement Wednesday, predicted the legislature would approve it. "I think there will be almost unanimous support for it," he
said. The plan could involve the use of existing buildings, renovation of some classrooms or the construction of new school buildings - something Rowland estimated could
cost as much as $200 million in state bond funds over several years. He called it a good decision, saying the state did not want to leave the matter to the courts.

In addition to doubling the number of city children voluntarily enrolling in suburban schools, the settlement calls for roughly tripling the number in integrated magnet schools by 2007. "We have a lot of work to do," Sergi, the education commissioner, said. "We have a very good chance of meeting that target, but it will be difficult."

In Hartford, where public schools have struggled to overcome a reputation as being among the worst in the state, skeptics believe magnet schools will be a difficult sell to suburban parents. Nevertheless, educators point to the popularity of magnet schools such as the Breakthrough Magnet School and Montessori School in Hartford and the Metropolitan Learning Center in Bloomfield.

At the University of Hartford Magnet School, more than 1,000 Hartford children and about 900 suburban children are on waiting lists, said Bruce Douglas, executive director of the Capitol Region Education Council, which runs that school and eight other magnet programs in greater Hartford. "There is definitely a great demand" for magnet programs, he said. State officials also cite the success of magnet programs in New Haven, a mostly black and Hispanic school system that draws hundreds of suburban students to city schools.

"There is every reason to believe Hartford can replicate our success," said Edward Linehan, supervisor of New Haven's magnet programs. Parents have choices to enroll in more than 20 of New Haven's 48 public schools. Among those are eight magnet schools and one regional vocational agriculture school drawing about 1,100 students from the suburbs. To attract parents, "there has to be no question about the quality of instruction in reading, writing, arithmetic," Linehan said. "If it's a high school, you have to have strong electives."

The agreement comes as schools in many states are becoming increasingly segregated. A Harvard University study released this week says that a growing number of black and Latino students nationwide are attending schools consisting mainly of minority groups while white students are increasingly likely to attend schools that have few minorities.

Gary Orfield, a Harvard professor who led the study, said the Sheff agreement is a compromise that "really expands opportunity for some of the kids in Hartford, but leaves
most of them behind."

"It's not the final solution," he said. "The issue will come back."

As officials signed the agreement Wednesday, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said, "At a time when many are doing less to reduce racial isolation, we will do more."

State Rep. William Dyson, D-New Haven, called the agreement "a noble undertaking" but said many questions remain. The agreement may resolve the Hartford case but does not directly address problems of racial isolation and poverty elsewhere, he said.

"How do you deal with it in the context of all the other towns that have the same problems?" he said. "What do you say to Bridgeport? What about Waterbury?"

In Hartford, however, the families who filed the case in 1989 were clearly pleased even though the matter took more than a decade to reach Wednesday's resolution. One of the plaintiffs, Neiima Best, was 11 years old when the case was filed. She is 25 now, a college graduate and the mother of three children. "I knew when I got involved, she probably would not benefit personally," said Denise Best, her mother. Now Denise Best has a granddaughter who is on waiting lists at two different magnet schools in Hartford but has not been selected so far.

"Hopefully, this plan will benefit her," she said.

Now the New York Times is on the case!
Poverty in a Land of Plenty: Can Hartford Ever Recover?
By PAUL ZIELBAUER (Monday, August 26, 2002 front page with picture of Colt Building)
"Hartford's descent reflects the conundrum of Connecticut, which has a split economy of affluent suburbs and floundering cities..."

Monday, December 09, 2002 - 3:41:54 AM MST
Diversity in schools muddled; Big cities can't match gains made in suburbs
By LINDA CONNER LAMBECK lclambeck@ctpost.com
HARTFORD - Five years after the state launched efforts to comply with a state Supreme Court order to reduce racial isolation in public schools, most suburban districts are
more diverse, but urban districts remain as segregated as ever.

In 2001-02, 133 out of 166 school districts showed increases in the percent of minority students over the 1996-97 school year, according to the strategic school profiles each district submitted to the state. Another 30 districts showed declines in their minority population. Three stayed the same.

But in city school systems, where high concentrations of minorities prompted the filing of the landmark Sheff vs. O'Neill desegregation lawsuit 13 years ago, the situation has not improved. In both Bridgeport and New Haven schools, the minority percentages are higherin 2001-02 than they were five years earlier. Both have populations of racial minorities bordering 90 percent. In Hartford, the target of the Sheff case, the population of racial minorities has declined marginally, from 95.2 to 94.2 percent.

State education officials are in the process of compiling a report on efforts to reduce racial, ethnic and economic segregation. It is due in January. Information already provided by districts on strategic profiles, however, suggest an abundance of voluntary interdistrict programs and schools, diversity training and student swapping is going on both in the cities and the suburbs. But some say the increasing suburban diversity has as much if not more to do with immigration and pursuit of the American dream than efforts taken by the school systems.

"It's a little of both," said Thomas Murphy, a state Department of Education spokesman. "We're seeing more participation in magnet schools as well as housing patterns that reflect some migration of middle class minority families out to the suburbs." Others caution that a diverse district doesn't ensure diverse schools.

"Students don't attend districts, they attend schools. It's not uncommon to see a rapid increase in suburban segregation if districts aren't careful," said Gary Orfield, a Harvard University professor and desegregation expert who has testified on behalf of the Sheff plaintiffs. According to Orfield, the whole population of Connecticut, and much of the nation, is being driven by immigration and a growing diversity.

The net result is a swelling minority population in formerly all-white suburbs, while the cities remain segregated because middle-class black and Hispanics leaving the cities are being replaced by poor immigrants or no one at all.

Statewide, school diversity has increased to about 30 percent. Numbers on the strategic profiles show towns adjacent to big cities are seeing the biggest increases in minority students. Stratford's minority student population grew from 25.5 to a reported 32.4 percent in five years. Supt. of Schools Ray O'Connell thinks it's even higher than that this year.

He also challenged Orfield's contention that suburban minorities might be kept segregated.

On the contrary, Stratford has several magnet programs that O'Connell said have helped increase diversity at all schools. Also, the graduates of some elementary schools have been redirected to make sure there is diversity at the middle and high school level in the north end of town. Where Bunnell High School used to have a 4 percent minority population, more than a quarter of the student body are now minorities.

"Any school that will serve as a microcosm of the broader society is preparing kids for the real world," said O'Connell. It was a lack of diversity coupled with appalling conditions in Hartford Public Schools that led the state Supreme Court in 1996 to rule that the racial segregation that existed between urban and suburban districts was unconstitutional.

The court ruled segregation was denying urban and suburban students the kind of education to which they were entitled. The court ordered the imbalance corrected but suggested neither a timetable nor blueprint for correcting the situation. The state has wrestled with the issue ever since, but not as earnestly as the Sheff plaintiffs would
like. Twice plaintiffs have gone back to court to ask the state be pressured to move faster. This time, the two sides have also been meeting privately to negotiate a settlement without benefit of the judge.

This week, Commissioner of Education Theodore S. Sergi said the two sides are still close and still meeting. "I'm still optimistic and hopeful. Other than that, I can't say anything more," he said. Every year, the state mandates that districts report what they are doing to promote diversity. It requires them to increase their efforts annually.
Some districts are increasing their diversity by accepting city students through the Project Choice open enrollment program. Four of Easton's 55 minority students, for instance, are from Bridgeport.

Many districts list their contribution of students to state-funded charter schools as promoting diversity. However, statistics show some charter schools are as segregated as their host community. Racial minorities make up 96.6 percent of Bridge Academy in Bridgeport. At Amistad Academy in New Haven, 96.4 percent of the students are racial minorities. Ansonia, which has seen a steady increase in its minority population, said its biggest contribution to diversity thus far has been to open new schools.

"Before this, many students attended schools that lacked libraries, gyms, cafeteria, and technology and were not racially balanced," Ansonia officials point out. Now they are. Other districts admit diversification remains a challenge.

"There are relatively few minority children who attend the Seymour Public Schools, which prevents intradistrict activities," officials there wrote. The district reports more inter-district activities than ever, but says increases in enrollment have hindered efforts to participate in Project Choice. Of 2,874, students, 262, or 9.1 percent of Seymour students were racial minorities in 2001-02. A third of those were Asian.

Asians also account for a large percentage of minority students in Darien, Easton, Orange, and Trumbull. By the state's definition, minority students include black, Hispanic, Asian American and American Indian students. Orfield, the Harvard professor, said Asians should be excluded from minority counts.

"Asians are not segregated. They're the most integrated population in the country. Putting Asians in there is really very misleading, I think," Orfield said. Census figures, however, suggest Asians are one of the fastest growing minorities in the state.

Settlement Possible In School Desegregation Suit
2:38 PM EDT,October 9, 2002
By ROBERT A. FRAHM, The Hartford Courant

The two sides in Connecticut's landmark school desegregation lawsuit could be closing in on a settlement as negotiations reach a critical stage, officials said today.

Parties in the Sheff vs. O'Neill case will meet again next week to try to reach a deal that could lead to a significant expansion of magnet schools and urban-suburban
student transfer programs in the Hartford region.

“We're at a make-or-break point,” Mark Stapleton, the state Department of Education's chief legal officer, said as the state Board of Education held a brief closed meeting Wednesday morning to get an update on negotiations. “We're getting close to a decision on whether a deal is feasible.”

The settlement talks, which began earlier this year, are the first serious out-of-court discussions aimed at resolving the dispute since the case was filed 13 years ago.

Six years ago, the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sheff plaintiffs and ordered the state to reduce racial imbalance in Hartford's mostly black and Hispanic public schools. However, the plaintiffs returned to court two years ago and again earlier this year to contend that the state legislature has not done enough to comply with that
ruling.

The state has spent millions of dollars in recent years building new racially integrated magnet schools in the Hartford region and throughout Connecticut, but black and Hispanic children continue to make up the overwhelming majority of students in Hartford and other major cities.

Superior Court Judge Julia L. Aurigemma was expected to rule on the case as early as this fall, but the two sides are expected to ask her for another extension of a deadline to file legal briefs while settlement talks continue. Although neither side will discuss details of the talks publicly, the negotiations are centered around a proposal by plaintiffs to create new integrated magnet schools in Hartford and open additional spots in suburban schools for city children over the next four years.

Aside from the potential cost of building new schools, the two sides are believed to be discussing matters such as deadlines, enrollment goals and transportation arrangements.

“We went into this with a 50-50 shot” of reaching an agreement, state Education Commissioner Theodore S. Sergi said after briefing the state Board of Education on the talks. “I still think there is [an even chance], and we're close.”

While officials remain hopeful, there is no guarantee that the matter will not wind up back in Aurigemma's courtroom.

“If something is going to happen, it's going to happen soon,” said Dennis D. Parker of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a lawyer for the Sheff plaintiffs. “I'd like to think we can come up with something. We've exchanged a couple of proposals. I'm not going to say there isn't some distance between us because there is.”

The Sheff case surfaced two weeks ago as an issue in the governor’s race when gubernatorial challenger Bill Curry said the dispute could be resolved easily over lunch. Gov. John G. Rowland shot back that Curry’s remark “shows the lack of depth and understanding of the significant problems we're facing in . . .urban education.”

Decision expected in the Fall, according to the Greenwich TIME June 28, 2002.
The Sheff v. O'Neill case went back to court on April 16th. Although there is a State position, and have been active at times in the past, the State League currently does not have a specialist in this area. Help is needed to mobilize the community around this issue.

The CCLU has taken the lead in pulling together like-minded groups. The next planning date for Sheff v. O'Neill had been set for March 20th, at 6:00 p.m. at the CCLU Offices, 32 Oak Street. It is reported on the LWVCT WEBsite that in all likelihood there will be a town hall meeting on Sheff v. O'Neill on April 3rd or 4th and a candlelight vigil on April 15th at the State Capitol the day before Sheff v. O'Neill goes back to court.

The LWVCT WEBsite advises for "...more info you can call Teresa Younger at 247-9823, ext. 219 (Executive Director, CCLU)."

Sides Seek Sheff Pact; Serious Talks In School Desegregation Case
July 13, 2002 - By RACHEL GOTTLIEB, Courant Staff Writer

For the first time in the 13-year history of the Sheff vs. O'Neill school desegregation case, lawyers for both sides are holding serious negotiations aimed at settling the landmark case.

The state and the plaintiffs announced Friday that they are seeking an extension of the deadline to file legal briefs until after Labor Day to give them time to negotiate for a
settlement. They said they expect Superior Court Judge Julia L. Aurigemma to grant the extension. While there is no guarantee the state and the plaintiffs will be able to agree on a way to end the case and the segregation that the state Supreme Court in 1996 ruled is unconstitutional, the announcement said they will take July and August to try to craft a resolution. This twist in the case, now in its third round of hearings, was startling because both sides have been far apart for more than a decade.

Aurigemma, reached at her home Friday, said she had not yet received a motion requesting an extension. "They said it might be coming."

Aurigemma, who ruled three years ago that the state was proceeding as it should and granted more time for it to comply with the state Supreme Court's desegregation
order, had asked both sides for suggestions on how she should rule. She indicated in court that she may not simply go with one side or the other, saying "It may well be
the court doesn't believe the [Sheff] plan is the way to go or adopting the state's plan of leaving things the way they are is the way to go."

The question itself, she said, could be seen as gentle prodding for the two sides to work out a compromise. "Have I encouraged them?" she said, repeating a question put to her. "I probably did." Rather, she later clarified, "I didn't encourage them to settle. I just asked for suggestions." Then she laid out what both sides were facing. "If I
decided I wanted to take a middle ground, I might be out on my own and that wouldn't be a good idea. If the plaintiffs and the state can find a way to live with a resolution, that would be excellent," Aurigemma said. "It would be a good thing for everyone."

There were talks about a settlement before the lawsuit was filed in 1989, said John C. Brittain, who was a principal lawyer for the plaintiffs in the first round of the case but who has shifted to being more of an informed observer since moving to Texas to teach law. The difference now, Brittain said, is both sides have shown their stamina and fully aired their legal theories, and judges have ruled on those theories. "The parties have once again seen each other naked, so to speak," Brittain said from Texas.

"The plaintiffs realistically know that the state is not going to do as much as they want no matter how hard they push. But the state knows the plaintiffs won't go away no matter how slowly they proceed," said Brittain, explaining that settlement discussions began around two weeks ago. Neither side will say precisely what is being negotiated.
But in the latest hearings on the long-running case, hearings that began in April, the plaintiffs outlined for the first time a remedy to end racial isolation of Hartford
schoolchildren that they could accept.

By this September, six years after the 1996 court order, the state will have 37 interdistrict magnet schools and 13 charter schools aimed at reducing that racial isolation. But
the Sheff plaintiffs returned to court this year to argue the state still was not moving quickly enough to comply with the order and that Hartford's schools were as segregated as ever. The plaintiffs' plan, drafted by Leonard B. Stevens, a national consultant who has worked on desegregation cases in cities around the country, calls for a gradual but dramatic increase in the number of slots for Hartford students in integrated magnet schools.

Currently, just under 1,200 minority children - about 5 percent of Hartford's student body - attend magnet schools or suburban schools through the state's Open Choice program, formerly known as Project Concern. Plaintiffs argued for an increase to about 6,900, or 30 percent, by 2005. By then, according to Stevens' plan, more than 3,000 white suburban students would be enrolled in Hartford magnet schools.

The plan would cost tens of millions of dollars. One estimate in a legal deposition for the case put construction costs for the magnet schools - which the state pays for fully - at $87 million. The state also helps to pay for magnet school operations. Brittain predicted that Aurigemma will approve a settlement quickly if one is put before her and that the plaintiffs may ask her to put her approval in the form of an order to give the agreement more legal heft. Then, it could require legislation, he said, particularly
since any agreement is likely to require money.

"It's too soon to say what will be the outcome. It could be nothing," Brittain said. "But it's encouraging."

Town mulls joining school race suit
By Neil Vigdor - Staff Writer for the Greenwich TIME
June 28, 2002

Greenwich has two weeks to decide whether to ally itself with four other Connecticut communities and a conservative think tank in the high-profile Sheff v. O'Neill school desegregation case.

Brookfield, Shelton, Middlebury and Beacon Falls, with the financial backing of the Hartford-based Yankee Institute for Public Policy Inc. and several private donors, plan to file a brief in state Superior Court later this summer to oppose the mandatory establishment of magnet schools and busing programs for desegregation.

The Board of Selectmen heard overwhelming public support for joining the fray yesterday at Town Hall, but decided to defer its decision until July 11. "I think it would very much be in the interest of Greenwich and its citizens," said William Tell Jr., a retired local attorney who is a member of the Yankee Institute's board of directors.

Desegregation is of particular importance to Greenwich, which was forced to convert Hamilton Avenue School into a magnet institution last fall after the state discovered a racial imbalance there. The school's 53-percent minority enrollment had exceeded the district-wide total of 22 percent. The state Supreme Court's 1996 ruling in Sheff v. O'Neill prompted the state to make racial imbalances of 25 percent or more illegal.

Elizabeth Horton Sheff, whose son Milo is the lead plaintiff in the 13-year-old case, is pressing her case in state Superior Court in New Britain. The plaintiffs have argued that the state is not cooperating with the Supreme Court order and are demanding stricter enforcement of the ruling.

Tell argued that suburban communities such as Greenwich would be forced to foot the bill for the establishment of magnet schools in Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport.

"That's the first place that it's going to hit," said Tell, who assured the board that the cost of participating in the brief would be minimal.

The mandatory busing of minority students to suburban schools also would financially harm communities such as Greenwich and possibly violate their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Tell said, adding, "Our view was that it would be a costly mistake not to present that issue."

Federal, state and local governments cannot make laws that help one group at the expense of another under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Republican Selectman Peter Crumbine endorsed Tell's proposal before the group met behind closed doors to discuss the issue. Crumbine said he favors local control of schools. Richard Bergstresser and Penny Monahan, the other two selectmen, did not comment publicly on the proposal.

State Rep. Lile Gibbons, R-150th District, told the board that she will seek advice from the General Assembly's legal counsel before the group votes. The former school board chairman said she supported the idea of the town getting involved and was comforted that other communities took the lead.

"I don't think Greenwich wants to be the Lone Ranger out there, but now we'll at least be one of five," Gibbons said.

Board of Estimate and Taxation Chairman Peter Tesei was one of several others who spoke in favor of the measure.

A ruling in Sheff v. O'Neill could come as early as the fall, and many observers believe the case could make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

06/27/02 10:31
School Vouchers Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court in Cleveland Case
By Greg Stohr

Washington, June 27 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court said Cleveland's tax-funded school vouchers don't violate the constitutionally required separation of church and state. The landmark ruling creates a legal road map for voucher advocates elsewhere.

The 5-4 court rebuffed arguments that 99 percent of the students using the vouchers, worth up to $2,250 per year, attend religious institutions. More than 4,000 students take part in the elementary-school program, the largest of its kind.

``The Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion,'' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court.

The ruling may jump-start efforts to set up ``school choice'' programs in other communities and at the federal level, where the Bush administration is a supporter. Proponents say their efforts have bogged down in part because of constitutional uncertainty. Aside from Cleveland, vou chers are now used only in Florida and Milwaukee.

The justices overturned a lower court conclusion that the Ohio program amounts to an illegal subsidy for religious instruction. Lower courts had issued conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of vouchers.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy joined the majority opinion. Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter dissented.

The cases are Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1751; Hanna Perkins School v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1777; and Taylor v. Simmons- Harris, 00-1779.

Sheff Plaintiffs Present New Concept...
Consultant Says Suburban Kids Are Favored So Far
April 17, 2002
By ROBERT A. FRAHM, Courant Staff Writer

NEW BRITAIN -- Many of the magnet school openings sought by minority parents in Hartford are going instead to black and Hispanic families from the suburbs, a school
desegregation expert testified Tuesday.

As a result, Hartford is not getting the full benefit of a 1996 state Supreme Court ruling ordering the legislature to reduce racial isolation in the city's public schools, Leonard B. Stevens said. Several regional magnet schools "are not operating at peak effectiveness as instruments of desegregation," Stevens testified in the latest hearing in the Sheff vs. O'Neill school desegregation case.

Stevens, a Florida-based consultant, was the opening witness as plaintiffs appeared before Superior Court Judge Julia L. Aurigemma to contend that the state has not moved quickly enough to comply with the court order.

Stevens, who has worked on desegregation cases in Cleveland, Milwaukee and other cities, outlined a plan that could open new spots in attractive magnet schools or in
suburban schools to thousands more children in Hartford over the next four years. The Stevens plan is the first remedy ever outlined in such specific detail by the plaintiffs in the case, filed 13 years ago to reduce racial isolation in Hartford's mostly black and Hispanic public schools.

The plan avoids controversial measures such as mandatory busing, but urges a gradual expansion of magnet schools and of a voluntary program allowing Hartford children to enroll in predominantly white suburban schools. The plan is the centerpiece of strategy for the Sheff lawyers, who will emphasize its voluntary nature and its similarity to existing state programs as they urge Aurigemma to follow its blueprint.

"You will see how unradical our proposals are," lawyer Wesley W. Horton told Aurigemma during opening arguments.

However, the state, represented in court by Assistant Attorney General Ralph Urban, is expected to attack the Stevens plan and to insist that the legislature, not the court, should pursue efforts to fulfill the court desegregation order. "Real, measurable progress has been made," Urban told Aurigemma, citing the legislature's approval of several new magnet schools, the expansion of a voluntary program allowing Hartford children to enroll in suburban schools, and a state takeover of the troubled Hartford
school system.

"Are we satisfied? Of course not. More needs to be done, more is being done, and more will be done," Urban said. But, he added, "We must avoid top-down solutions."

The Sheff case rests on the argument that the state's efforts - particularly the magnet schools and the voluntary urban-suburban transfer program - reach only a small
proportion of Hartford students, about 5 percent of the student body. The Steven's plan would raise that figure to 30 percent within four years. In addition to calling for construction of additional magnet schools, Stevens says that the existing magnet schools should reserve more of their openings for Hartford children.

He said, for example, that the Metropolitan Learning Center enrolls more minority students from suburban towns than it does from Hartford even though more than 240 black and Hispanic students from Hartford are on a waiting list for the regional magnet, which moved into a new $32 million building in Bloomfield last fall.

"That's a very slow way" of going about desegregating Hartford, Stevens said.

The plaintiffs offered no specific figures Tuesday on how much their plan would cost, but Stevens said the state could offset some of the cost simply by shifting state aid
among districts, allowing the money to follow students to whatever schools they choose to attend. During cross-examination, however, Urban said the plan could affect the way millions of dollars are spent and asked Stevens who would be in charge of how the plan is financed.

"Is there anything in your plan that anybody gets to vote on?" Urban asked.

"The answer is no," Stevens replied. "The plan is in the hands of the court."

Racial Balance Remains An Issue State Supreme Court To Review New Plan To Integrate Schools
April 15, 2002
By ROBERT A. FRAHM, Courant Staff Writer

When civil rights activists accuse the state in court this week of failing to comply with a school desegregation order, they will cite the plight of parents like Hartford's Shari Miller.

Miller wants her daughter, Chelsea, who turns 5 this week, to attend kindergarten at the racially integrated University of Hartford Magnet School this fall, but Chelsea's chances are remote.

In the six years since the state Supreme Court ordered the legislature to reduce racial isolation in Hartford's public schools, Connecticut has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on new magnet schools, but those schools remain out of reach for many, including Chelsea.

The $21.5 million university magnet school, which opened last year, has nearly 1,700 applicants for fewer than 50 openings next fall. Chelsea, who is biracial, is on a waiting list.

"I don't anticipate her getting in this year," Shari Miller said. "Probably not next year, either."

When plaintiffs in the historic Sheff vs. O'Neill case return to court Tuesday, they will present a plan that could open new spots in attractive magnet schools or in suburban schools to thousands more children in Hartford. Miller is among the witnesses expected to testify in the case.

The new plan - relying on strictly voluntary choices for parents - is the first remedy ever outlined in such detail by plaintiffs in the case, which was filed 13 years ago to reduce segregation in Hartford's mostly black and Hispanic public schools.

The plan avoids controversial measures such as mandatory busing or reconfiguration of urban-suburban school district boundary lines. Instead, it proposes a vast increase in the number of children moving voluntarily between Hartford and its predominantly white suburbs.

Most magnet schools have long waiting lists, leaving families in Hartford and its suburbs to hope their children will be selected in annual lotteries.

The Sheff plan would be the most ambitious school choice program ever tried in Connecticut, requiring the creation of several new magnet schools - and a price tag reaching into the tens of millions of dollars.

The plan calls for more money and sets enrollment goals, but its central approach - the expansion of magnet schools and of a voluntary program allowing Hartford children to enroll in suburban schools - is the same path the state already has begun.

"Now the argument is more about the speed and the degree and the resources rather than the nature of the solution," said state Education Commissioner Theodore S. Sergi.

Whether the Sheff proposal will become part of a court order is a central question as hearings begin Tuesday in New Britain Superior Court before Judge Julia L. Aurigemma. She is the same judge who ruled two years ago that the state was proceeding properly and needed more time to comply with the state Supreme Court order.

Sergi and other state officials again are expected to testify that the state is meeting its obligation with the millions of dollars it has spent on magnet schools, the voluntary urban-suburban choice program, and various after-school and summer programs to reduce segregation.

Though the plaintiffs' plan relies on the kind of voluntary approaches already used by the state, many state lawmakers vehemently oppose the prospect of direct intervention by the courts.

"I continue to believe the court would be reluctant - as Connecticut courts have always been reluctant - to engage in the process of legislating a remedy," said state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin B. Sullivan, D-West Hartford.

House Minority Leader Robert M. Ward, R-North Branford, said he favors an expansion of school choice programs "to create opportunities for all kids, but particularly for kids in urban schools." But, he added, "I think the legislature should be the one making the decision - not the court."

The hearings are scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Tuesday and are expected to run at least two weeks. A ruling could be months away. Whatever the outcome, an appeal to the state Supreme Court is likely.

Just under 1,200 black and Hispanic children, or roughly 5 percent of Hartford's student body, now attend racially integrated magnet schools or suburban schools. The Sheff plan would increase the number gradually to about 6,900, or 30 percent, by the 2005-06 school year.

The four-year plan was created by Leonard B. Stevens, a national consultant who has worked on desegregation cases in Cleveland, Milwaukee and several other school systems over the past 25 years.

Stevens' proposal also calls for:

Full state funding of regional magnet schools. Those schools now rely on a combination of state funds and tuition from participating local school districts. Magnet school officials say they are running deficits under the existing funding arrangement.
Additional money to help Hartford convert several of its public schools to magnets designed to enroll city and suburban children.
A provision allowing parents, not school districts, to determine who gets into magnet schools or the urban-suburban choice program. Under current rules, suburban districts can decide whether they have room to accept city students and whether they will provide tuition for their own students to attend magnet schools.

The stakes in the Sheff case are high - $87 million in construction costs alone, by one estimate - as the legislature and Gov. John G. Rowland struggle with budget constraints. No solution is expected before Chelsea Miller starts kindergarten in the fall.

Shari Miller said she missed a deadline to apply for the Montessori Magnet School in Hartford but has put her daughter's name into lotteries for another magnet school and for the city-suburban choice program. She is thinking, too, about a parochial school, but the tuition would be steep, she said. If those options are unavailable, Chelsea will attend Hartford's Batchelder School in her neighborhood even though her mother is concerned about class sizes, the curriculum and the school's overwhelming racial imbalance.

Members of minority groups accounted for 94 percent of Batchelder's students this year, up from 90 percent in 1996, the year of the state Supreme Court ruling.

On Sheff v. O'Neill...from outside source...
SUNDAY: School integration remains stalled. MONDAY: The Learning Corridor. TUESDAY: What it will take.
Integration: No Quick Answers - #1

Hartford Courant Editorial
August 12, 2001

                Five years after the landmark Sheff vs. O'Neill decision, the
                report card on classroom integration would have to say
               "Incomplete."

                The most substantial progress toward meeting that goal has
                occurred outside the parameters of Sheff vs. O'Neill. Housing
                patterns have changed in the Hartford region. The number of
                minority students in suburban towns has increased. In
                Wethersfield, for example, minorities now make up about 13
                percent of the enrollment in town schools.

                Still, the fact remains that most students in Connecticut's
                cities continue to attend segregated schools. In Hartford,
                more than 95 percent of the students are Hispanic, African
                American or Asian.

                Although there have been promising initiatives - notably
                magnet schools - the state's response to the Sheff decision
                has yet to result in substantial school integration. It probably
                will take many more years for that to happen.

                In a series of three editorials beginning today, The Courant
                will examine models for urban-suburban integration and
                suggest steps to bring Connecticut closer to compliance
                with the Supreme Court's directive.

                One hindrance in the quest for integration is the absence of
                a clear vision of what compliance with the Sheff mandate
                would entail. The court set no goals or timetables. And the
                plaintiffs did not put forth their own yardstick to measure
                success.

                One certainty is that so-called forced busing, presided over
                by judges-turned-school-superintendents, will not work. In
                previous decades, the judiciary's assumption of direct
                responsibility in running schools often proved to be a
                disaster, and the federal courts have wisely abandoned it as
                a remedy. Voluntary solutions are the preferred way. They
                are likely to be slow moving and expensive, but less costly
                in many ways than the busing alternative.

                The long and tortuous Sheff journey began in 1989, when the
                parents of 17 city and suburban children in the Hartford area
                sued the state. During the trial, witnesses described a
                Hartford school system on the verge of collapse, with
                buildings in disrepair, a lack of textbooks and supplies and
                abysmal student achievement. Educators testified in
                depressing detail about the twin effects of poverty and racial
                isolation.

                Superior Court Judge Harry Hammer was not swayed,
                however. He concluded that the state had not created school
                segregation and, therefore, had no obligation to end it.

                After the state Supreme Court reversed Judge Hammer's
                ruling in 1996, Gov. John G. Rowland and the legislature
                created the Educational Improvement Panel to find a
                solution. The panel made many useful suggestions, but at
                the present rate of implementation, it will take decades to
                bring about significant school integration.

                Meanwhile, the Sheff plaintiffs continue to express
                frustration. They have returned to court twice, once in 1998
                and again last December. After their first trip, Superior Court
                Judge Julia L. Aurigemma ruled that the state was making
                sufficient progress by promoting magnet schools and other
                voluntary programs. The current motion will be argued later
                this year.

                A workable voluntary solution must have two major
                components: vastly improving the quality of Hartford schools
                and creating a system that gives urban and suburban
                students far more choice of where they go to school. Even
                the plaintiffs acknowledge that suburban families will not
                enroll their children in Hartford schools as long as they view
                them as educationally deficient and unsafe.

                Hartford's schools haven't held great attraction for suburban
                parents. After many years of failed leadership at the board of
                education, the state assumed direct responsibility by
                appointing trustees to run the school system.

                The trustees' most important decision was the appointment
                two years ago of Superintendent Anthony S. Amato, a
                no-nonsense New York City school administrator. He was
                given control and told to improve student performance. At the
                time, Hartford students had the worst test scores in the
                state. Mr. Amato vowed to change that.

                He's kept his promise. The superintendent has emphasized
                reading and math and helped create a sense of excitement
                and achievement among teachers and students. Hartford is
                no longer last in test scores.

                Because of his position, Mr. Amato can play a key role in
                finding a solution to Sheff, a court decision he accepts but
                does not embrace. With missionary zeal, Mr. Amato is
                pushing for educational excellence for city schoolchildren.
                For him, integration is a secondary concern.

                The superintendent's emphasis on high-quality education is
                commendable, but his vision must include learning in an
                integrated environment.

                Teaching students in segregated schools, even if those
                schools are academically excellent, still deprives them of an
                integral part of a first-class education. Learning in an
                integrated environment is necessary to thrive in an ethnically
                and racially diverse country and world. That's true for
                students attending mostly white suburban schools as well
                as for students at mostly minority urban schools.

A Magnificent Magnet - #2
Hartford Courant Editorial
August 13, 2001

Despite the lack of progress in integrating Hartford schools, The Learning Corridor next to Trinity College offers a sterling example of what's possible. Some have suggested that the answer to the state Supreme Court's Sheff vs. O'Neill integration directive might be to clone the corridor and sprinkle 10 more such complexes around the capital city.

Located on a 16-acre campus between Broad and Washington streets, the corridor is home to four magnet schools that eventually will draw 1,600 students from Hartford and two dozen suburban towns. The magnet, or lure, for parents is the promise of academic excellence in integrated settings. The corridor opened only last September, so it is too early to measure educational achievement. However, the schools are offering students challenging courses in a clean and safe environment.

Included are two specialized high schools, a middle school and an elementary Montessori school. One high school, the Greater Hartford Academy of Math & Science, showcases integrated education at its best. The school enrolled about 150 students last September, a number projected to double in the next three years.

                One-third of the first class came from Hartford, two-thirds
                from 12 suburban towns. The racial-ethnic breakdown is half
                white and half African American, Hispanic and Asian
                American. Notably, the school has achieved the kind of
                diversity envisioned in the Sheff lawsuit.

                Top-notch instructors, including several college professors,
                teach advanced courses such as endocrinology, astronomy,
                robotics, bio-ethics and molecular genetics.

                One drawback is that the academy is a half-day school.
                Students spend the rest of the time at their home high
                school studying English, history and other non-science
                courses. Converting the academy to a full-day high school
                should be a priority. It's wasteful for students to spend half a
                school day in Southington, for example, and half in Hartford.

                The second high school is the 16-year-old Greater Hartford
                Academy of the Arts, which moved from its home in a former
                funeral parlor into breathtaking new facilities at The Learning
                Corridor. The school's commitment to quality integrated
                education was on display in the spring when a diverse cast
                of students from more than a dozen towns put on a dazzling
                performance of "Oklahoma."

                Of the school's 250 students this past year, 200 came from
                more than 40 cities and towns outside of Hartford. The
                racial-ethnic mix was: white, 75 percent; African American,
                16 percent; Hispanic, 9 percent. Enrollment is expected to
                grow to 320 this fall.

                The two high schools and the Montessori school are run by
                the Capitol Region Education Council, which also will take
                over management of the middle school beginning this fall.

                CREC has achieved a good record of building and running
                magnet schools that draw students across town lines.
                However, the regional agency has been struggling financially
                and sending out alarms that it cannot continue to expand the
                magnet programs without substantial new state aid. CREC
                has no revenue source of its own, and depends on the state
                and participating towns for money.

                "Landlord" magnet schools such as those in New Haven
                receive money from the local school budget because they
                are part of the city school system.

                CREC's newest magnet school, at the University of Hartford,
                offers another striking example of what can happen when
                schools hold out the promise of innovative integrated
                education.

                The school, which will open Sept. 4, received more than
                1,400 applications for 276 slots in grades K-3. Half the
                students will come from Hartford and the remainder from
                Avon, Bloomfield, Farmington, Simsbury, Wethersfield and
                West Hartford.

Magnets succeed because they offer a variety of courses not
typically found in regular schools.

This fall, CREC will manage eight magnet schools in the
metropolitan area, including five in Hartford.

                It is significant that not a single magnet is run by the
                Hartford public school system, which only recently has
                embraced the concept.

                One problem is that the city's school system has had so
                little credibility that most suburban parents probably wouldn't
                send their children to a magnet under Hartford's control.

                Hartford School Superintendent Anthony S. Amato is
                properly devoting his energies to turning around the city's
                ailing public schools. He plans a gradual transition to
                magnets. He will require that each elementary school adopt
                a magnet theme by next spring (science, language and the
                environment are possibilities). City students then will be
                offered a choice of which Hartford public school to attend.
                Over the next few years, some of those magnets will open
                their doors to suburban students.

                At the same time he tries to overhaul city schools, Mr.
                Amato would do well to take a closer look at the success of
                The Learning Corridor. It is the bright star in Connecticut's
                magnet school galaxy. With the support of the state,
                neighborhood groups, CREC and the city of Hartford, new
                magnet complexes can - and should - be built in other parts
                of the city.

                Magnet schools are in a position to offer the best education
                possible to all the region's children - and to meet the
                constitutional mandate set by the Supreme Court.                 .

Link Education, Integration - #3

Hartford Courant Editorial
August 14, 2001

                It has now been 12 years since several Hartford and
                suburban parents alleged in state court that students in the
               city and region receive an inferior education in segregated
                public schools in violation of the state Constitution.

                It has been five years since the state Supreme Court agreed
                with the plaintiffs and ordered the governor and legislature to
                come up with a plan to integrate the school systems of
                Greater Hartford.

                Although there has been progress, the core issue is
                unchanged: Hartford schools remain as racially segregated
                as ever, even while several suburbs have seen increases in
                their enrollment of students from minority groups because of
                changing residential patterns.

The Supreme Court understood that change will not occur
overnight. That's why it set no timetable.

                Further, a consensus exists that coercion would be
                unacceptable. So-called forced busing in other parts of the
                country has not produced desirable results. The best hope
                for breaking the back of segregation is to sell parents and
                students on the idea that integration and educational
                excellence must enter into a partnership. One cannot fully
                thrive without the other in a diverse society.

Here is what it will take:

Committed leadership.

                A major reason for the molasses-like pace of school
                integration is a lack of committed leadership. It's as if
                elected and appointed officials have not read the Supreme
                Court's opinion. The governor, key legislative and suburban
                officials, as well as Hartford's mayor, manager, city council,
                school trustees and superintendent have for the most part
                ducked the high court's ruling in the Sheff vs. O'Neill case.

Expanded magnet schools and sufficient funding.

                Magnet schools in Greater Hartford are run by the Capitol
                Region Education Council, which alerted legislators in the
                spring that it faced a $5.6 million deficit for the fiscal year
                that began July 1. As CREC noted, it makes little sense for
                the state to have spent $200 million to build magnets, but
                then scrimp on operating money. In the recently adopted
                state budget, the General Assembly appropriated $2.8
                million to offset a portion of the deficit.

                In a letter to legislative leaders, CREC had asked a
                compelling question: "Is Connecticut committed to magnets
                as a means to incite regional cooperation, improve quality,
                extend choice, enrich programs and achieve a widely
                accepted response to Sheff vs. O'Neill?"

                Under the current funding formula, the state gives CREC an
                average of $4,700 per student, less than half of what it costs
                to educate each child. Towns must pay another $2,000 for
                every student they send to a magnet school. Some towns
                have refused to participate because they don't want to pay.

                Towns shouldn't have the option of refusing to send students
                who want to attend the schools. To lessen the burden on
                individual towns, however, the amount they are required to
                pay should be capped at $1,000 per student.

                It costs more than $10,000 per year to educate each magnet
                school enrollee. The state, which has primary responsibility
                for implementing Sheff, should pay 90 percent of that cost.

Expansion of the Open Choice program, which is
described in the editorial below.

Continued efforts to improve Hartford schools.

                Earlier this year, two Hartford schools, Simpson-Waverly and
                Kennelly, became the first urban elementary schools in the
                state to win accreditation, after a rigorous two-year review.
                Standardized test scores at both schools have risen
                significantly in recent years.

Increased funding for inter-district programs.

                State Education Commissioner Theodore S. Sergi had
                requested $14.7 million for the fiscal year that began July 1
                for a variety of programs that bring city and suburban
                students together for activities in science, music and other
                fields. Gov. John G. Rowland slashed more than $2 million
                from the request, although the legislature restored a small
                portion of the money.

                Mr. Sergi deserves credit for wanting to expand these
                programs so they eventually will accommodate half the
                state's 270,000 elementary and high school students.
                Although the exchange visits are not an alternative to
                magnets and school integration, they are a worthwhile piece
                of a broader response to Sheff.

                Although the Sheff decision was directed at Greater Hartford,
                it has implications for cities across the state that are not
                under court order. Mr. Sergi is on the right track by
                responding to racial isolation statewide.

An Attack on Hartford's social ills.

                Hartford is one of the nation's poorest cities and is
                surrounded by some of the state's wealthiest communities.
                Hartford also has one of the highest rates of teen births in
                the nation, as well as the country's highest percentage of
                unmarried mothers.

                As numerous witnesses in the Sheff lawsuit testified, social
                factors involving unstable families and unsafe neighborhoods
                have a profound effect on school achievement.

                It would be a dangerous illusion, therefore, to think that the
                answer to Sheff lies only in classrooms. Urban schools will
                become integrated only as part of a package that includes
                vibrant, safe, integrated neighborhoods of families drawn by
                good schools and an array of cultural and civic attractions.

                The challenges in honoring the court's broad mandate in
                Sheff vs. O'Neill are huge. But so is the potential for payoffs.
                The nation's wealthiest state should aspire to become the
                most successful in providing a first-class education in
                integrated classrooms.

                No one should lose sight of the goal - and value - of having
                children of all races learning together in excellent schools. It
                can be done. It must be done.

For the whole collection of LWV of Weston WEBpage articles and links on the subject of Affordable Housing, click HERE.