3. Background of the Case  Who’s Who?  William A O’Neill: Governor of CT (Defendant)  Milo Sheff (4 th 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

4. 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

6. Defendant’s Arguments  Suburban schools are becoming more integrated  Integration plans involved complicated, expensive bussing plans

7. 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

8. Appeal  1995-State Supreme Court hears appeal case  1996-Justice Ellen A Peters overturns Hammers ruling  We will read the text from her decision

9. 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