Background of the Case

Who’s Who? William A O’Neill: Governor of CT (Defendant) Milo Sheff (4th grader) & 16 other children

(Plaintiffs)

1989-Lawsuit is filed: Sheff et al claim that segregated schools are inferior & violate constitutional rights to an equal education

1992-Case begins

Plaintiff’s Arguments

Inequity in schools Poor conditions

Field trips allow students out of the city for the first time

Property taxes fund schools Property taxes are higher in high income

areas Schools are receiving unequal funding based

on socio-economic status

Defendant’s Arguments

Suburban schools are becoming more integrated

Integration plans involved complicated, expensive bussing plans

Ruling 1995-Justice Hammer rules in favor of the state

saying officials are not obligated to correct educational inequities without proof that the government helps foster racial isolation

1995-Plaintiff’s file appeal

Appeal

1995-State Supreme Court hears appeal case

1996-Justice Ellen A Peters overturns Hammers ruling We will read the text

from her decision

What’s being done?

1997- Legislature passes “An act concerning educational choices and opportunities” to improve the state of suburban schools See the provisions set in Peters’ decision

1998 Plaintiffs file motion for a court order to get the state to actively adhere to the ruling Court ruled it is too soon to order

2002 Supreme Court Judge Aurigemma holds hearings on the progress of Sheff