Economic Redistricting Results in 'De Facto' School Segregation

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

In the case of Sheff v. O’Neill, minority schoolchildren appealed a decision of the superior court, which found in favor of public officials on the school children’s claims that their de facto segregated public schools denied them their right to an equal, free and public education. In law, the term “de facto segregation” refers to segregation that occurs without an official action by government, but instead manifests from social, psychological or economic conditions. It is well established by both federal and Connecticut law that students have a fundamental right to education, which imposes an affirmative state obligation to provide substantially equal education opportunity.

The schoolchildren asserted that 14 of Hartford's 25 public schools were almost entirely minority and that this de facto racial segregation deprived them of an education equal to those of schoolchildren living in other school districts. The court found the question justifiable, or subject to trial and ruling by law, and held that state action, in terms of failing to remedy the inequalities, brought the public officials within the purview of the court. The court next found both Connecticut law, as well as its constitution, imposed on the legislature an affirmative constitutional obligation to provide the minority schoolchildren with an educational opportunity substantially equal to that enjoyed by other schoolchildren and that this obligation exceeded any based on the federal constitution. The court found that the initiatives undertaken by the public officials had not eradicated the significant disparities between school districts.

The court granted the minority schoolchildren declaratory judgment, an official legal determination by the court to resolve a legal uncertainty, on their claims but directed the trial court to retain jurisdiction to grant consequential relief to the state. “It matters little with respect to the quality of the education that the segregation was unintentional” said the court. “The fact that segregation exists as a result of the school districting statute requires the state to take remedial action to eliminate the constitutional violation of not providing these schoolchildren with an adequate education.”

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Sheff v. O'Neill, 238 Conn. 1, 678 A.2d 1267, 1996 Conn. LEXIS 239 (Conn. 1996)