SEGREGATION ANXIETY

By ELIZABETH GLEICK

THE DIFFICULTY FACING HARTFORD, Connecticut, is by now a familiar one: an inner-city public school system burdened by structural decay and besieged by the pathologies of urban poverty. But while money certainly seems in short supply, what is more troubling here is the isolation in which Hartford's students--94% of them African American or Hispanic, nearly 3 out of 4 poor, with a high school dropout rate more than three times the state average--find themselves: a sort of walled city, separated from less troubled suburbs by an invisible color line drawn not by law but by decades of white flight.

Though the Hartford schools may be mired in misery, the state has no obligation to rescue them through integration with the suburban systems. In a case that for six years has been closely followed by civil rights leaders and educators, the Connecticut Superior Court ruled last week that because the state did not create the segregation that now holds sway, it need not take measures to dismantle it. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case, Sheff v. O'Neill, who claim that the students are being denied the equal educational opportunity guaranteed by the state constitution, plan to appeal. "As we're ending the 20th century, it looks like de facto segregation will become the new segregation," says John Brittain, a University of Connecticut law professor and a lead attorneys for the plaintiffs. "It's 100 years after Plessy v. Ferguson, and we are still separate, still unequal."

What complicates Sheff v. O'Neill--which was filed in 1989 on behalf of 17 students--is that Connecticut, unlike many states, has tried to address the problems of its urban schools. In order to compensate for inequities in local property-tax revenues, the state has poured millions into the Hartford system, which now spends more per student--nearly $9,000--than almost any other district. The money, though, has not begun to make a difference; Hartford's student test scores consistently rank last in the state, and continue to fall. Says Hartford Mayor Michael Peters: "Does it make it a better education just because we get more money than somebody else? We have special needs in urban areas: bilingual education, special education. That's what drives the cost up."

While state attorney general Richard Blumenthal concedes that the situation is bleak, he insists that the state is actually on Hartford's side. "One of the ironies," Blumenthal notes, "is that Connecticut has been a leader in promoting racial balance by supporting measures such as magnet schools, school choice, charter schools. And there is more money in the state budget this year than in previous years for those kinds of measures." But reforming the system through such voluntary initiatives is "a very long, tedious process,'' says Mayor Peters. "In the meantime we're losing another half a generation of students.''

The quickest fix--though it is one most parents hate--would be to bus pupils across district lines, which the Supreme Court has limited except in cases of deliberate discrimination. But for now Hartford's students remain trapped in pockets of poverty, where no amount of money or reforms can overcome the obstacles to achievement. Nevertheless, Hartford city councilwoman Elizabeth Horton Sheff, whose son Milo gave his name to the school case when he was in the fourth grade, has been gratified by the response to the court's ruling. "People are concerned-even the state's lawyer said there was a problem. We've shaken the consciousness of a community. To me, that's a win.''

--Reported by Sophfronia Scott Gregory/New York

With reporting by Sophfronia Scott Gregory/New York