Rose A.
Professor Walkup
Ethics K215
28 April 2003

Sheff vs. O’Neill: The Business of Education

Introduction and Purpose

It has been nearly a half-century since the United State Supreme Court, in its 1954 Brown V. Board of Education ruling, declared that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. The court stated:

In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to
            succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.  Such an

opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which

must be made available to all on equal terms. (U.S. Supreme Court)

At the time the Supreme Court made its ruling, the inequalities in public education were based on race.  Today, those inequalities are based on both race and economics.

With that in mind, the purpose of this paper is threefold:

·        First, to examine the history and outcome of the Sheff vs. O’Neill case.  Elizabeth Horton Sheff, on behalf of her son Milo, filed the suit on the basis that students in Hartford Public Schools “were racially, ethnically, and economically isolated,” which resulted in unequal educational opportunities guaranteed by the Connecticut State Constitution.

·      Second, to answer this question: Do race, economic factors, and residence determine the quality of public school education they receive?

·      Third, to offer a solution based on what I have learned in the numerous sociology courses I have taken, various discussions on the subject of integration and segregation in which I have participated, articles relating to the case, and my own understanding and interpretation of the problems posed by the Sheff vs. O’Neill case.

The Problem

Connecticut is not unique in the fact that institutional racism and segregation exists within its educational system. What makes the state unique, however, is that despite the severe discrepancies of per pupil spending throughout its 166 districts, Connecticut consistently ranks in the top three states, in the country, with the highest standardized test scores.

That fact points out the inequalities within Connecticut’s public educational system.  In other words, the superior education available to children who reside in the state’s wealthier counties can in effect skew the results for the entire state.

            A fallacy brought to light by Sheff V. O’Neill is that on the surface it appears the trend of segregation within Connecticut’s schools has only recently occurred. (The suit was filed in 1989 and the original ruling wasn’t overturned until 1996.)

            In reality, Connecticut has a long history of segregation in its public school system that dates back to the Civil War era when the Hartford city council voted to segregate schools.  Although the proposal was struck down by the legislature, it wasn’t until 1909 when the legislature developed school districts with town lines that to this day remain unchanged.

            This internal colonialist perspective on segregation and equality still exists today. In all likelihood, this would serve as an explanation as to why Connecticut has done little to effectively address the problems and arrive at clear objectives and goals that would result in long-term solutions to desegregation and integration within its school districts.

            It is too easy to get caught up in the “blame game” and address the issues of what has and hasn’t been done to remedy the situation. Those issues should be left to the judicial and political machinery.  Sadly, the State Judicial and Political systems, the Board of education, all 166

Connecticut school districts, the federal government, and the Sheff plaintiffs themselves offer no clear vision about how to remedy the injustices within the current system.

            Perhaps such a vision does not exist.  Short of a detailed court order, a complete federal and state education-funding overhaul, total compliance by all school districts, and/or forced busing any, expectations of reaching an equitable and comprehensive integration plan remain light years away.

            Overall, state records show that for K-12 education State funding

for Sheff-related programs has grown more than six times since

fiscal year 1995-96, from $ 26. 3 million to almost $ 164 million.

But the growth in spending for these programs has slowed in the

last two fiscal years and annual appropriations have been below

levels recommended by the State Board of Education (SBE)

since 1999. (Lohman and Shepard 1)

While the state dramatically increased the budget after the Sheff ruling, spending has dropped for each consecutive year.  Furthermore, the money the state did spend on Sheff related programs (specifically, the construction of interdistrict magnet schools and the open choice programs) did little to desegregate Hartford’s school.

            Though it seems that any action taken by the state, short of forced busing or a complete change in districting, would have shown dramatic improvements in integration, the initial increases in spending may have been more wisely spent expanding and repairing schools in areas with the greatest minority populations. In fact, since the Sheff suit was filed, the minority population in the Hartford public school system has risen by two percent (Bass 3).

Inter-district magnet schools are an important tool in improving education and offer diversity.  However, such schools are expensive to operate and do not reach enough children.

            If Connecticut had spent as much money in expanding and repairing schools in the areas with the greatest segregation problems as it invested in magnet schools, the state would have given a greater variety of children a chance at a better education, not just a select few.

This is not a short-term approach to the segregation problem, but if improvements were made, in the long run it would have increased education levels, making it easier to attract students through the open choice program. Also, it would be easier to hire and retain quality instructors from diverse backgrounds and therefore provided a better education for every student.

The Solution

Looking at the big picture, the segregation problem in urban areas cannot be addressed as simply an education problem.  The segregation problem results from a culmination of factors, all of which have an effect on education.  Such factors as poverty, affordable housing, crime, and transportation all must be taken into consideration as part of a comprehensive plan not only to improve our cities but also to improve education.

The way to approach a solution to the problems posed in the Sheff V. O’Neill case is to look at education as a business.  In reality, education is a business--with the investment being our children’s futures.

First, the most crucial aspect of opening a new business is its location.  To build in a decent centralized location, where the largest customer base would be reached, is critical.

For the state that means reducing poverty, cleaning up urban areas, and possibly redrawing or reducing district boundaries.

Second, an array of innovative products and services must be offered which, in essence, is what a magnet school accomplishes.  The idea is to take the most popular and successful programs magnet schools offer and implement them in the public schools. Such a plan would also include adjustments toward national education standards in expanding and implementing a curriculum that educates students in the areas of racial and ethnic diversity.

Ideally, in business terms, recruiting the brightest and most talented individuals to work for your business is paramount.  Those individuals would share a sense of passion, vision, and creativity.  In turn, they would bring their own unique qualities to the business and thus improve the chances for achievement and success.

The same can be said for education.  To attract a diverse and highly qualified educational workforce means that salaries, benefits, and incentive programs for teachers must be taken into account. It would also increase the incentives toward attracting and maintaining highly qualified teachers over the long term.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the reason why so many businesses fail in the first few years of operation is because of poor financial planning. Education is no different.  To achieve educational success there must be clearly defined goals and a commitment to providing better opportunities for all children.

Financially speaking, all parties—local, state, and federal—should work in conjunction to make investments in education a priority.  What is needed is a strong commitment to working together for fair and consistent ways of education funding to improve the quality of all schools.

Conclusion

On January 2, 2003, the 14-year-old Sheff V. O’Neill case was settled.   In the settlement the State agreed to a 45 million dollar plan to be rolled out over a period of four years to increase racial integration in Hartford schools.

Essentially, the city of Hartford, the State of Connecticut, virtually every public school system across the United States, and the Federal government should consider changing the current funding scheme.  The vast gaps in the amount of money being provided to certain districts and public schools in wealthy areas that already have attained high levels of academic success is both unacceptable and unfair.

Absolutely no school should be penalized or lose funding for showing improvement, which is exactly what can and does happen because of the way the current funding system operates.

In the article, “Closing the School Gap,” William Symonds writes:

Right now is hardly a good time to talk about extra money, given yawning

federal and state deficits. But just as separate-but-equal schools held back

generations of black children, so too will today's funding inequities hold

back poor children--a disproportionate number of whom are nonwhite…

But without sweeping change, performance will continue to depend as

much on where children live as on their ability and effort. (3)

This country’s leaders and citizens need to face reality.  Money is the single factor that can be directly rooted to all of the world’s current social problems.  Many people in this country

believe that economic prosperity and its pursuit is what the United States was founded on and still continues to rely heavily on today.  To others, economic prosperity qualifies as our nation’s greatest resource.

Children are not only our future but also our greatest national resource.  We must unequivocally commit financially to investing in their education: For in the long run, our future depends on our nation’s children.

In Savage Inequalities Jonathan Kozol makes a profound and disturbing observation about our nation’s children and the current state of education.  Let us be ever mindful of his memorable words:

We are children only once; and after those few years are gone, there is no

second chance to make amends.  In this respect, the consequences of

unequal education have a terrible finality.  Those who are denied

cannot be “made whole” by a later act of government. (180)

Works Cited

Bass, Carole “The Iron Sheff” Fairfield Weekly 8 December 2002.
<http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/articles/ironsheff.html>

Kozol, Jonathan Savage Inequalities New York Crown Publishers, Inc. 1991.

Lohman, Judith and Alan Shepard “Sheff V. O’Neill Response K-12 Programs” Connecticut General Assembly 7 December 2002.
<http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2002/olrdata/ed/rpt/2002-R-0107.htm>

Symonds, William C. “Commentary: Closing the School Gap.” BusinessWeek Online 27 March 2003.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_41/b3803105.htm>

U.S. Supreme Court “Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka” FedWorld.gov 16 April 2003          http://www.fedworld.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?waisdocid=50185815651+3+0+0&waisaction=retrieve