In 1989, Black, white and Latino parents sought to transform academic outcomes for students in Hartford and end racial, ethnic and economic segregation in Connecticut schools.
Alleging that the state had denied Hartford students the constitutional right to an equal education, the families filed Sheff v. O’Neill, the landmark civil rights lawsuit that would solidify Connecticut’s school choice system.
Thirty-five years later, as Hartford Public Schools weathers yet another budget crisis, many question whether Sheff and its subsequent settlements have done enough to move the needle on educational achievement and integration, and whether the city and its students are better or worse for it.
In the last month the Hartford City Council has eyed Sheff, passing two resolutions that seek more clarity on the case and its impact.
“I think if you went around town, you’d get mixed reports from people as to whether they think the overall impact of the Sheff v. O’Neill case has been a net positive or a net detriment to the city of Hartford,” said Councilman John Gale at the meeting where the resolutions passed. “I’m calling for us to perhaps get some metrics on that.”
The first resolution, sponsored by Gale, calls on Connecticut “to study the effects of the state’s implementation of the Sheff case and the advisability of change.”
The second, introduced by Councilwoman Maly Rosado, invites Elizabeth Horton Sheff, the civil rights activist and named plaintiff in the case, to speak before the council and offer “insights on the progress made since the Sheff v. O’Neill decision and to discuss further steps that can be taken to enhance educational equity in Hartford.”
The resolutions come two years after Connecticut finally settled the Sheff case following decades of litigation.
The historic agreement promised to meet the demand for school choice by adding 2,737 seats for Hartford students in magnet programs and surrounding districts. The state also committed to boosting financial incentives for suburban schools that participate and increasing annual funding for choice magnet schools by $32 million by 2032.
But while many praise the settlement for expanding educational opportunities for Hartford students, many others criticize the agreement for placing a financial burden on an already underfunded district.
Under current funding models, when students leave their district to attend a magnet program, the receiving district sets the tuition fees. The state pays a portion and the student’s home district makes up the rest.
Council President Shirley Surgeon said the most recent budget cycle prompted the council’s recent resolutions concerning Sheff as the city grappled with paying increased tuition costs for school choice programs while passing a spending plan that could cut hundreds of positions in the district.
“We always think that the suburban district is a lot better than ours,” Surgeon said. “I think we have a lot of issues in the city, but we also have a school district who wants to educate our kids the best way we know how.”
“I need to get more educated on the issue so in partnership with the school district we can go up to the state Capitol, (and) talk to the legislators (about) how we think it’s affecting us and what are the changes that need to happen,” Surgeon said. “But before you can talk to them, you need to know what you’re talking about.”
Then and now
When litigants filed Sheff in 1989, 90.5% of the student population in Hartford was either Black or Hispanic and 47.6% were poor according to the original complaint.
The demographics in Hartford stood in stark contrast to its neighbors: The complaint noted that “On every side are contiguous or adjacent school districts that, with one exception, are virtually all white, and without exception, are middle- or upper-class in socioeconomic composition.”
At the time, the complaint said 59% of sixth-graders in Hartford read below the state remedial level.
In 1992, when Sheff went to trial, the Courant reported on testimony from one Hartford principal who said that after persistent leaks in his school “a ceiling collapsed, covering a floor with decayed pigeon carcasses.”
“The school has no doors on bathroom stalls…no gymnasium or auditorium… run(s) out of toilet paper by April or May,” the Courant wrote of the principal’s testimony. “We don’t have language arts books, we don’t have spelling books, we don’t have dictionaries for every youngster.”
When another witness took the stand days later, the Courant wrote that the retired teacher described Hartford as “Like living in a dark valley … Surrounded by these beautiful mountains, the suburbs.”
After “describing a young boy who lived in a crowded apartment and slept on the floor,” the Courant wrote that the witness asked the court, “What kind of sense of self-worth can you derive when that is the way you have to live?”
As a student during this period, Hartford Public Schools Superintendent Leslie Torres Rodriguez said the conditions that led to the Sheff case unfolded in her “periphery.”
“It just felt like a myopic experience in retrospect,” Torres-Rodriguez said.
More than 30 years later, Torres-Rodriguez said that when it comes to achievement, “there are still gaps for students,” and concentrations of poverty and need remain disproportionately elevated in the district.
According to data from the Connecticut State Department of Education, nearly 86% of Hartford Public Schools students are considered “high needs,” compared to a statewide average of 55%.
Over the last 10 years, the population of white students in the district has shrunk from a little over 12% in 2014 to under 7% this school year.
Today more than 85% of the district’s population identifies as Black or African American, or Hispanic or Latino — down just 5 percentage points below the minority population recorded in the lawsuit’s 1989 complaint.
Test scores compared to the state also remain abysmally low.
Last school year, just 11% of Hartford Public School students received a proficient score on the English language arts portion of the Smarter Balance Assessment, compared to a state average of 50% for public school students, according to data from the Connecticut State Department of Education.
During the same testing period, Hartford residents attending non-neighborhood schools outperformed their in-district peers but continued to trail state averages.
Across Connecticut, the percentage of students with a proficient ELA score at Sheff Magnet, open choice and public charter schools was 28%, 29% and 40% respectively. The percentage of Hartford residents who reached the same threshold within these schools was 19%, 23% and 36%, according to the data.
Torres-Rodriguez said the Sheff settlement has touched students with varying impact.
“Some of our students have had great experiences as a result of a choice ecosystem. Others that have had access have not,” Torres-Rodriguez said. “There are still many others that can’t have access.”
In 2023, a total of 6,864 Hartford residents applied for a spot at an out-of-district magnet, open choice or technical school for the current school year according to data shared by the State Department of Education. Ultimately 4,189 students received offers and 2,884 accepted a spot, but 2,675 remained on the waitlist.
According to data from Hartford Public Schools, 4,487 residents currently attend a magnet school within the district. A total of 7,756 residents attend neighborhood schools.
“(The system) has served many, many families and students well,” Torres-Rodriguez said. “And (then) there are all of the unintended consequences that many of us continue to, (and) I try to solve for and work through.”
For Torres-Rodriguez and many others in the district, the most pressing consequence is the Hartford Public Schools budget and its impact on students.
‘It certainly isn’t sustainable’
According to Torres-Rodriguez, payments for special education and Open Choice tuition now comprise 25% of the district’s expenses.
Torres-Rodriguez said these tuition costs have ballooned 197% since 2011, and are only expected to increase as more Open Choice seats become available to Hartford students and operating expenses at charter and magnet schools grow.
As fixed costs rise, Torres-Rodriguez said the concentration of high-need students in Hartford Public Schools presents other financial challenges.
She explained that wealthier towns with small high-need populations do not need to make the “trade-offs” that Hartford schools face as administrators choose between investing in student supports or advanced programming opportunities that may benefit a smaller number of students.
Torres-Rodriguez emphasized that the shortfalls in the state’s funding structures are “not just about Hartford Public Schools.”
As student needs increase across Connecticut, Torres-Rodriguez said that magnet schools are also starting to feel the pinch. Without a “rework” of the funding models, Torres-Rodriguez said she is uncertain of the viability of the current system.
“It certainly isn’t sustainable for Hartford Public Schools,” Torres-Rodriguez said. “And, you know what, I would question whether it’s sustainable for magnet operators (too).”
According to Lisa Hammersley, the executive director of the School and State Finance Project, “It’s not.”
Hammersley explained that funding from the state failed to keep pace with rising contractual obligations faced by magnet schools.
“We’re at the time where the state needs to recognize the fact that it’s broken,” Hammersley said. “While incremental progress has been made recently, what we’re seeing is just a culmination of all of the issues and all of the challenges that have been brushed to the side finally coming up and creating the fiscal crisis that Hartford and CREC magnets are facing.”
Coupled with the situation in Hartford, Hammersley said the loss of pandemic relief aid across the state has pushed nearly every district off a fiscal cliff and toward a financial reckoning.
“Everybody who looks at their financial situation has got to agree that the current funding system is broken and it’s unsustainable,” Hammersley said.
Now that Hartford has ushered the systemic inequities into the spotlight, Hammersley said the conversation must continue.
“Knowledge building is really the only way that people are going to understand that it’s not a Hartford Public Schools versus magnet schools versus Sheff agreement,” Hammersley said. “This is really just a time for serious reflection. What have we done? What is the system that we’ve created? And how can we fix it?”
