HARTFORD, Conn. (CN) — Licking its wounds from a court defeat in California, education advocates brought a federal complaint in Connecticut to take on a system that forces inner-city children into failing schools unless they win the charter school lottery.
Backed by Silicon Valley entrepreneur David Welch, Students Matter held a press call Wednesday afternoon in conjunction with the filing of a lawsuit against Gov. Dannel Malloy and other Connecticut officials.
The 71-page complaint says Connecticut has taken steps to prevent poor and minority children from having viable public school alternatives, and is knowingly depriving these students of educational opportunity "available to their more affluent and predominantly white peers."
With Bridgeport mom Jessica Martinez at the helm, the complaint also includes claims by a Hartford mom, a Bridgeport grandmother and a Bridgeport dad. All say it is unfair that the children in their care have been denied transfer to better-performing schools.
"These inner-city children are compelled to attend public schools that the state knows have been failing its students for decades — consistently failing to provide even a minimally adequate education," the complaint says.
Martinez specifically flags John Winthrop School, where her 13-year-old son is enrolled, as "an under-performing traditional district school."
"Martinez v. Malloy is about taking away barriers created by the state that prevent access to opportunity," Martinez said Wednesday. "It's about giving parents and communities an opportunity to demand the quality education our children deserve."
Josh Lipshutz, an attorney for the families with the powerhouse firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, detailed the problem in the press call.
"The state knows that this dichotomy exists, but it has taken actions that will force these students to attend failing schools," Lipschutz said.
Among several features of the Connecticut education system that the complaint takes aim is the 2009 moratorium on new magnet schools.
Gibson Dunn is also challenging the cap on charter school expansion and the per-student funding formula that limits the number of districts participating in Open Choice, a program by which city students attend suburban schools.
Ted Boutrous Jr., another attorney for the plaintiffs, noted during the press call that "it's particularly cruel what's being done to children" in Connecticut.
"It's like the dangling of these great schools that are within reach," Boutrous said. "They're there and instead the state erects these barriers to block access to them."
Gibson Dunn wants a federal judge to find that Connecticut is infringing on the federal constitutional rights of Connecticut children.
The case could, Boutrous noted, could call into question the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision San Antonio v. Rodriguez, which held that the federal constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to equal education.
It the plaintiffs' contention here that San Antonio v. Rodriguez cannot be reconciled with the developments of the past 40 years, and must not be used as an excuse to let states treat inner-city children as second-class citizens.
"It's one of the most fundamental attributes of our society," Boutrous said of education.
Historically, citizens have turned to the federal courts when states fail to protect the constitutional rights of citizens under their own constitutions and their own laws, Boutrous said, explaining why they chose to file the lawsuit in U.S. District Court.