Sheff v. O\u27Neill: Weak Desegregation Remedies and Strong Disincentives in Connecticut, 1996-2008

In 1996, as the Supreme Court and the nation were retreating from school integration, Connecticut\u27s judicial system was advancing with Sheff V. O\u27Neill. This chapter explores the case and it aftermath, as the judicial system stalled the process of desegregation and then explores and analyzes the results of Sheff I, a four year legal settlement that produced limited results. The case study continues on to explore the next legal remedy, Sheff II, and throughout, looks at our understanding of school desegregation policy by discussing what this voluntary plan has not yet achieved in Connecticut

Sheff v. O\u27Neill complaint (1989)

In this legal complaint filed by Elizabeth Horton Sheff and a coalition of Black, Puerto Rican, and White families in Hartford and nearby suburbs, plaintiffs argue that their children\u27s right to equal education, under the Connecticut constitution, is deprived. Plaintiff\u27s counsel includes John Brittain, Nancy Alisberg, Wesley Horton, Wilfred Rodriguez, Martha Stone, and Philip Tegeler

Race and Magnet School Choice: A Mixed-Methods Neighborhood Study in Urban Connecticut

This study combines spatial analysis and door-to-door interviews to explore how three factors – school quality, geography and neighborhood racial demographics – influence parents’ choices regarding magnet schools, a key part of the Sheff v O\u27Neill school desegregation remedy in the Hartford region

Oral History Interview on Sheff v. O\u27Neill (with video)

Eugene Leach (born 1944) recalls his activism to promote school integration in Greater Hartford with his involvement in the 1989 Sheff v O’Neill lawsuit, along with the lead plaintiffs Elizabeth Horton Sheff and Milo Sheff. He discusses his personal experience as a white suburban plaintiff parent during the case, his role as a Connecticut Civil Liberties Union board member, and public skepticism and political opposition he encountered. He reflects on the broader lessons of civil rights activism, which were influenced by his perspective as a professor of American Studies and history at Trinity College

Oral History Interview on Sheff v. O\u27Neill (with video)

Denise Best (born 1953) discusses her involvement as a plaintiff parent in the Sheff v. O’Neill school desegregation case in Hartford, Connecticut, and offers her reflections on the compromises required during the remedy phase. She describes her experience as a black woman growing up a racially diverse neighborhood in Boston, where she opposed busing for integration, and how her views changed after relocating to Hartford in 1980. She also recounts her reasons, as a mother and educator, for moving her daughter from a Hartford public school to a suburban private school, then to a suburban Catholic school. Best also discusses her connection to the Sheff lawyers through the ONE/CHANE organization, her work with the Hartford Police to eliminate drug dealing in her neighborhood, and being grandparent of children in magnet schools, her retirement from Trinity College and current role at the Christian Activities Counci

Magnet Schools: An Effective Solution to Sheff v. O\u27Neill?

Following the result of the Connecticut Supreme Court case Sheff v. O’Neill, Interdistrict Magnet Schools developed to foster excellence in academics and reduce racial, ethnic, or economic isolation. Magnet schools are a part of the voluntary solution to the Sheff case, responding by providing an integrated schooling opportunity. However, are magnet schools really an effective solution to Sheff v. O’Neill? This in-depth study analyzes Hartford area school enrollment data, the low percentages of students attending these magnet schools, racial compositions of sending and receiving districts and the Capitol Region Education Council (CREC). The report concludes that Connecticut must spend more money on the magnet school program to make it a viable solution to the Sheff case

A Visual Guide to Sheff v. O\u27Neill School Desegregation

This report, which includes maps, tables and text analysis, details the Sheff v. O’Neill school desegregation case. The report contains a brief chronology of the case, tables exploring the Sheff region by racial breakdown and magnet school attendance rates, and maps regarding racial composition of the 22 districts in the Sheff Region, locations of Magnet schools, and Hartford students enrolled in the Open Choice program. Throughout the report, the maps, tables and text analyze the Sheff standards and predict whether the Sheff goals will be met by June 2007. An excerpt also appeared in The Hartford Courant, Northeast Magazine, July 23, 2006. See also an updated version of this report, titled “Missing the Goal: A Visual Guide to Sheff v. O’Neill School Desegregation: June 2007” written by Jack Dougherty, Jesse Wanzer and Christina Ramsay