• 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

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."

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."

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.

[Please read the rest of this article at the CT POST website]

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 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)."

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."

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.

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.

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.

      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.

               [Please read the rest of this article at the Hartford COURANT website]

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.

                [Please read the rest of this article at the Hartford COURANT website]

                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:

              [Please read the rest of this article at the Hartford COURANT website]