Resources

Sheff v. O'Neill is a school segregation case that began in 1989 when a group of city and suburban parents argued that public schools in Hartford were segregated, underfunded, and denied students in the Hartford area their constitutional right to an adequate and equal education due to the disparities in the distribution of funding and resources between communities of color in Hartford and the adjacent, majority white suburbs. This resource details the 1996 Connecticut Supreme Court ruling in the case, as well as the stipulated agreements and proposed settlement that followed.

In a 4-3 ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed in part, and affirmed in part, a 2016 ruling from Hartford Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher focused on Connecticut's school finance system. The Supreme Court ruled the way Connecticut allocates state education dollars, and how much the State spends on public education, is constitutional and does not violate Article Eighth § 1 of the Connecticut Constitution.

This issue brief from the Connecticut General Assembly's Office of Legislative Research summarizes Connecticut Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher's September 7, 2016 ruling in Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF) v. Rell. The issue brief details the case's history along with Judge Moukawsher's findings.

Hartford Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher ruled partially in favor of the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding in a lengthy, wide-reaching decision regarding Connecticut's school finance system. Judge Moukawsher found several parts of Connecticut's education system, including how the State distributes education aid, and gave the State 180 days to submit proposed changes to address the parts of Connecticut's education system that he found unconstitutional.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled a lower court erred in dismissing claims filed in 2005 by the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding. CCJEF filed suit on behalf of students and families, contending the state’s failure to properly fund public schools inadequately prepares students for higher education and employment opportunities. The Court held the state constitution requires "public schools provide their students with an education suitable to give them the opportunity to be responsible citizens able to participate fully in democratic institutions, such as jury service and voting, and to prepare them to progress to institutions of higher education, or to attain productive employment and otherwise to contribute to the state's economy." The decision allows plaintiffs to continue to pursue their suit that the state has failed to adequately fund its lowest-performing schools.