Notice of Response to Plaintiffs' Fourth Request for Production of Documents

    CcvV89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. 

Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

AT HARTFORD 

ve. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants JULY 15, 1992 

LL
] 

o
e
 

e
e
 

[1
] 

(1
) 

L 
1]

 
e
d
 

LL
] 

e
e
 

[1
] 

L 
LJ

 
[1
] 

  

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
  

Plaintiffs give ‘notice that on July 13, 1992, they served 

Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories on the defendants by service 

upon their counsel. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

w PP EK 
Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

  

Wesley W. Horton Wilfred Rodriguez 

Moller, Horton, & Rice Hispanic Advocacy Project 

90 Gillett Street Neighborhood Legal Services 

Hartford, C7 06105 1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

Julius L. Chambers John Brittain 

Marianne Engelman Lado University of Connecticut 

Ronald L. Ellis School of Law 

NAACP Legal Defense & 65 Elizabeth Street 

Educational Fund, Inc. Hartford, CT 06105 

99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

  
  
 



  

- 2 - | 

Helen Hershkoff Ruben Franco 

John A. Powell Jenny Rivera | 

Adam S. Cohen Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

American Civil Liberties and Education Fund | 

Union Foundation 99 Hudson Street 

132 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10013 | 

New York, NY 10036 
| 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs | 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

This is to certify that one copy of the foregoing has been mailed 

postage prepaid to John R. Whelan and Martha M. Watts, Assistant | 

Attorneys General, MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman Street, Hartford, CT 

7 vo aes 

£1 
06105 this /2 day of July, 1992. 

  

Philip D. Tegeler 

    
 



      

: » 

Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

AT HARTFORD 

Vv. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants JULY 15, 1892 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
° 

00
 

oo
 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
  

You are requested pursuant to §§220 and 223 of the Connecticut 

Practice Book to respond to the following interrogatories thirty days 

of service of this Request. Service shall be made at the office of 

plaintiffs’ counsel, Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 32 

Grand Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106. 

I. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 

1. If the information requested does not exist exactly in the 

frm requested, please provide information which most closely 

corresponds to the information sought by this particular document 

request. 

2. As used herein: 

a. "Surrounding Communities" means the towns of Avon, 

Bloomfield, Canton, East Granby, East Hartford, East Windsor, 

Ellington, Farmington, Glastonbury, Granby, Manchester, Newington, 

Rocky Hill, Simsbury, South Windsor, Suffield, Vernon, West Hartford, 

Wethersfield, Windsor, and Windsor Locks. 

  

 



      

b. "Surrounding Communities" means the school districts in 

each of the surrounding communities. If data requested does not exist 

on the "district" level, please provide for the surrounding 

communities. 

ITI. INTERROGATORIES 

1. Please list, by title, year, and number, all "Research 

Bulletins" issued by the Connecticut Department of Education, 1965 to 

the present. 

2. Identify, by author, title, and date, each document or 

document excerpt attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. (Plaintiffs 

also request full copies of each of these documents in their Fifth 

Request for Production.) 

3. State the total number of children receiving the free and 

reduced lunch program in Hartford and each of the surrounding 

districts. 

  

  

 



  

4. State the total number of children living below the poverty 

level in Hartford and each of the surrounding districts. 

  
5. State the total number of children receiving aid to dependent 

children (ADC) in Hartford and each of the surrounding districts. 

  

6. State the total number of Spanish language dominant children 

in Hartford and each of the surrounding districts. 

7 State the total number of children receiving special 

education services in Hartford and each of the surrounding districts.     
 



      

8. State the total number of children on a full time equivalent 

basis (FTE) receiving special education services in Hartford and each 

of the surrounding districts. 

9. State the total grant amount for special education 

reimbursement for Hartford and the surrounding districts for the years 

1983-1990 (data missing from Exhibit 4, attached to defendants’ July 

8, 1991 Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment). 

10. State the total grant amount for transportation 

reimbursement for Hartford and the surrounding districts for the years 

1983-1990 (data missing from Exhibit 4, attached to defendants’ July 

8, 1991 Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment). 

  

    

 



      

11. State the total special education budget for Hartford and 

each of the surrounding districts for the years 1983-1990. 

Wesley W. Horton 
Moller, Horton, & Rice 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Julius L. Chambers 
Marianne Engelman Lado 
Ronald L. Ellis 
NAACP Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

BY: 

Respectfully Submitted, 

WL Gai? 
Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 

Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

  

Wilfred Rodriguez 
Hispanic Advocacy Project 
Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

John Brittain 

University of Connecticut 
School of Law 

65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

  

 



  

  - 5m 

Helen Hershkoff Ruben Franco ! 
John A. Powell Jenny Rivera 

Adam S. Cohen Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

American Civil Liberties and Education Fund 

Union Foundation 99 Hudson Street 

132 West 43rd Street . New York, NY 0013 | 
| 

New York, NY 10036 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

This is to certify that one copy of the foregoing has been mailed 

postage prepaid to John R. Whelan and Martha M. Watts, Assistant   
Attorneys General, MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman Street, Hartford, CT | 

: 7H 
06105 this /% day of July, 1992. 

A 4 
  

Philip D. Tegeler 

    
 



  

<< 

E+ 
HH 
mM 
H 
i 
a & 

[1985 ROM ar, 
sate BOARS 0 

EPA ov] 

State of Connecticut 

william A. O'Neill, Governor 

Board of Education 

Abraham Glassman, Chairman 

James J. Szerejko, Vice Chairman 

A. Walter Esdaile 

Warten J. Foley 

Dorothy C. Goodwin 

Rita L. Hendel 

John F. Mannix 

Julia S. Rankin 

Humberto Solano 

Norma Foreman Glasgow (ex officio) 

Commissioner of Higher Education 

Gerald N. Tirozzl 

Commissioner of Education 

Frank A. Altlerl 

Deputy Commissioner 

Finance and Operations 

Lorraine M. Arohson 

Deputy Commissioner 

Program and Support Services 

| [ves nee | 
FOREWORD 

Policy Is difficult to create. Information, knowledge, judgment and a great 

deal of time are required to create good policy. The State Board of Educa- 

tion often seeks the advice and direction of committees as it formulates educa- 

tional policy for the stale. Committees are able and willing lo give complex 

educational Issues the close atiention and long hours of study they merit. 

Another advantage of committees is that the representation of many consti 

tuencles results in recommendations that take Into account the diversity ol 

Connecticul's schools and students. 

| wish lo express my sincere thanks to all the Connecticut citizens who served 

so devotedly during the past two years on the seven ad hoc advisory com- 

mittees lo the State Board of Education. Their thoroughness In researching 

the Issues, thelr thoughtful analyses and deliberations, and the astuleness of 

thelr recommendations are invaluable contributions to the betterment of 

education in Connecticul. 

The combined results of the committees’ work, summarized In this booklet, 

far exceed my expectations In 1984 when | presented and the Board adopted 

Connecticut's Challenge: An Agenda for Education Equity and Excellence. 

We hoped lo set the stage for a busy year of commitiee meetings in which 

ideas and lssues would be debated, bul no one could have anticipated the 

zeal with which members would respond to the charges given them. 

All of the commitiees were charged to consider topics in the Instructional 

realm, related to what we teach and how and when we teach it. The topics 

for study were: 

® Aduk Education 

® Basic Skills 

@ Course Offerings and Graduation Requirements 

® Early Childhood Education 

® Services to Handicapped Infants and Toddlers 

@® Teacher Certification 

@ Vocational Education 

 



    

Forerunners of the current commitiee reports also deserve recognition for 

having laid the groundwork for the more recent activities. Among them are 

the Professional Development Councils Recommendations Related to 

Ensuring Professional Competence (1982); the report of the Distinguished 

Citizens Task Force on Quality Teaching (1983); the report of the Commit- 

{ee on Standards and Procedures for the Approval of Teacher Preparation 

Programs (1984); and the report of the Governor's Commission on Equity 

and Excellence in Education, titled Teachers for Today & Tomorrow (1985). 

The roadmap, charted by representatives from every area of the state, Is here 

10 be followed. This broad participation in determining the future of educa- 

tion In Connecticut Is fitting, since every resident has a stake In the public 

schools as elementary and secondary school students, as parents, as parii- 

cipants in adult education and retraining, and as shareholders In the state's 

economy and quality of life which we all enjoy. Through our joint efforts, 

we will achieve equity and excellence in our public schools. 

ly 
Gerald N. Tirozzd 

N Commissioner of Education 

INTRODUCTION 

As a result of Initiatives proposed in Cornineclicut’s Challenge: An Agenda 

For Educational Equity and Excellence (1984), the State Board of Education 

appointed seven ad hoc advisory commitiees. Approximately 200 individuals 

representing public and private organizations and businesses from all regions 

of the state served as members of the committees. One or more State De- 

partment of Education staff members served as liaison to each of the 

commitiees. 

The committees were asked lo develop lindings and recommendations con- 

cerning: Adult Education; Basic Skills; Course Offerings and Graduation 

‘Requirements; Early Childhood Education; Services lo Handicapped Infants 

and Toddlers; Teacher Certification; and Vocational Education. 

All committees reported thelr findings and recommendations to the Board 

in 1985. Some recommendations, those requiring only Stale Board of Educa- 

tion action, have already been implemented. Others require legislative action 

and are Included among the Board of Education's recommended legislation 

for consideration during the 1986 session of the General Assembly. 

This booklet presents, for each of the commitiees: 

® the challenge that generaled the study; 

® the charge lo the committee: 

® a summary of the commitiee’s findings: 

® is recommendations; . 

® a status report on actions taken (prior lo November 15, 1985) 

to implement the recommendations, and 

® a listing of the members of each commitiee and ts staff 

Naison(s). 

This publication Is intended as a tribute to the nearly 200 citizens of Connecti: 

cut who devoted valuable time to studying the Issues assigned to them and 

formulating responsible recommendations for future actions lo improve 

education in Connecticut. 

Additionaldnformation about the advisory committee reporis and proposed 

legislative actions may be obtained from the State Department ol Education's 

Public Information Office. 

 



EXHIBIT B 

  

MINORITY IMBALANCE IN CONNECTICUT PUBLIC. SCHOOLS 
  

SOURCE -QF DATA 

In May, 1966, at the request of the (then) Connecticut Cammission on Civil Rights, 

the State Department of Education completed a racial census of the public schools, 

the first ever taken in Connecticut. .. sccond consus was taken in 1967 , Lut tabu- 

lation of the data by schools is not yet completed, so the May, 1966, census is 

the source used for this report. No action which would very significantly alter 

the town profiles presented here has been taken in the interim. 

NEGROES AND PUERTO RICANS 
  

In the 1966 tally, teachers were asked to indicate the number of white and of non- 

white students in their classes. A "don't know" column was also included, but 

entries throughout the state was insignificant. 

A separate tally of Spanish-speaking students was requested of the teachers. These 

are primarily Puerto Rican children. In the over-all tally, these children were 

counted either as white, as non-white, or some as one, some as the other. There 

is no way to tell, It has been estimated that about 20% of Puerto Ricans in the 

United States classify themselves as Negroes. 

A rather careful examination of the reports for schools with which staff members 

of this Commission are quite familiar reveals that the Spanish-speaking students 

for the most part must have been included in the count of white students. To 

ignore this would be to underestimate the problems of minority imbalance in Connec- 

ticut schools. 

For example, Barnard Brown School in the heart of Hartford's North End enrolls 

about 1000 children, nearly half of whom are non-white and wore than half of 

whom are Spanish-speaking. A very small percentage of the children in Barnard 

Brown School are non-Spanish-speaking white chi.dren. To regard Barnard Brown 

School as a well integrated school because half of its students are Puerto Ricans 

would be unrealistic. 

Therefore, we have noted the number of non-white and the number of Spanish-speaking 

students in each school and have added them together to arrive at the number of 

minority group children in that school. While this method may slightly over- 

estimate the minority percentages in a few schools, the error is insignificant 

for our purpose, which is not so much to arrive at an exact count of the minority 

group students in the public schools as to present a picture sufficiently accurate 

to permit various remedies to be considered realistically. 

In the nineteen school systems considered in detail here, there are about 10,000 

students classified as non-white and about 5,000 students classified as Spanish- 

speaking. The maximum error would involve about 1000 students who may be included 

in both the non-white and the Spanish-speaking count. 

The number of "Negro" students reported in the 1967 census is 49,560—8% of the 

students in Connecticut public schools. No mention of Spanish-speaking or Puerto 

Rican students was made in the 1967 questionnaire. Again it is uncertain how they 

were classified. 

 



  

MINORITY IMBALANCE AMONG TOWNS 
  

In 1966, 35 towns and 1 regional high school reported no non-white or Spanish- 

speaking students. Most of these towns were rural, but Darien and Thamaston 

were among them, as were the fairly populous suburbs, Easton ard Middlebury. 

The 19 towns summarized here reported a total non-white and Spanish-speaking en- 

rollment of approximately 45,000. Not included in this group were New Britain 

(for which breakdowns by school were not available from the State Department of 

Education, but which reparted a N-W & S enrollment of approximately 1,500) and 

Bloomfield (which had not submitted figures but for which we estimate at least 

500 NW & S students). The totzl N-W & S enrollment for these 21 towns was approxi- 

mately 47,000. 

  

  

The remaining 113 towns in the state reported a total N-W & S enrollment of fewer 

than 3,000 students. Fifty-two of these towns reported fewer than 10 NW & S 

students. Only 16 reported more than 50 N-W & S students, and of these only 3 

had more than 100, 

Thus, the total mumber of N-W & S students in Comecticut public schools in the 

spring of 1966 was in the neighborhood of 50,000, We believe that approximately 

5,000 Spanish-speaking students should be added to the 1967 census to give a 

comparable figure for 1967. 

MINORITY IMBALANCE IN METROPOLITAN REGIONS 
  

Gross minority imbalances exist within the metropolitan regions of the state. 

For all but political purposes, for example, Ansonia, Shelton, and Derby form 

one city, yet the figures for these towns are: 

N-W & S Students 
  

Ansonia L43 
Derby 38 

i Shelton 1 9 

Similarly, for the Bric eport area the figures are: 

N-W & S Students 
  

Bridgeport 7,916 
Stratford 576 
Trucbull 62 

Pairfield 60 

Easton 0 

As a final example, the situation in Waterbury and its contiguous towns, is: 

N-W & S Students 
  

Waterbury 3,540 
Naugatuck 81 
Watertown L3 
Cheshire 14 
Plymouth 12 
Wolcott 12 
Prospect 10 

 



  

         

  

a 

hools is heavily concentrated in 

e minority school population 

distribution of the total public 

ited as follows: 

ittending the various grades in 

New london New Britain 
  

L1% L9% 
27% 23% 
21% 19% 

100% 1002 

ps of young adults who are 
disproportionately large 
lower elementary grades, 

can only intensify problems 

bls in the immediate future 
segregate both schools and 

pup students is a significant 
e high school ‘population, but 

oup school population is also 

ES 

imbalanced schools those schools 

y groups students that the town 

ee cities having a minority student 

have designated schools with more 

tire town at each school level as 

ese schools Class 3 schools, 

Class 3 schools in 16 Comecticut 
imbalanced schools, 60 of which - 
from New Britain, Bloomfield, and 
re would probably be no more than 
lic schcols. 

    

-l- 

ferences can be made: 

students in Connecticut urban public schools 

iroportionate nucber of such students. 

ance at the junior and senior high school 

ly by redistricting. 

.ance is particularly acute in Hartford 

. 3/L, of the minority students attend 8 

1000 children apiece on the average. These 

ranging from 89% to 98% of their student 

‘or the various cities given on Sheet 3 

jle their N-W and S enrcllzents are relatively 

eveloping Negro neighborhoods illustrative of 

year adopted a plan whereby Negro students 

hool to the extent that white children from 

rans fer to Newhall, Twenty-five white students 

i students were assigned to other schools. 

tterns, announced plans to close its "Class 3" 

rity children out of that school upon the 

ied by this Commission as utilizing housing 

sf their minority populations. The fact that 

percentages larger at the high school than at 

ce this oelief. 

~f Education experienced hard pressure from 

zate Nathaniel Ely School, new elementary 

roject and 87% non-white. The school was 

shildren were bused, and later developments: 

additional minority children. Figures are 

jeet 18: indicates the changes that have 

3s 1 school now, but had 9 in 1963. It has 

., in 1963. In both years, it had 2 Class 3 

sb with its junior high schools. 

munity tension over the districting for its 

3 ago. Desegregationists finally prevailed, 

well-integrated high scheols. 

, size of its minority imbalanced schools at 

slementary schools, each having a school 

N-W & S, enroll a total of 4,872 students 

.. Hartford is also unique among Connecticut 

:¢ at the high school level. 

 



Be 

Project Concern, the pilot regional approach to the education of minority children, 

while of great potential valua, obviously has made no dent in Hartford's problems 
of minority imbalance, since only about 300 children have been involved. 

  

REPORT ON WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 
  

Sheet #23, reprint of an article received on January 3, shows that White Plains 

has adopted a policy similar to Norwalk's, is satisfied with it, and that in 

general this policy is to maximize the number of Class 2 schools as defined in 

this study and eliminate Class 3 schools. 

 



  

4 -— 
— a — . 

} > i : 
. 

ey 
; 

Te : rare 

Class 1 schools are schools in which the percentage of non-white 

and Spahish-speaking students 1s less then one-half the percentage of 

such students Ain a1] the schools of the same grade levels in the city. 

Class 2 schools are schools in which the percentage of non-white 

and Spanish-speaking students is more than one-half and less than twice 

the percentage of such students in all the schools of the same grade levels 

in the city. 
| 

Class 3 schools are schools in which the percentage of non-white 

and Spanish-speaking students is more than twice the percentage of such 

students in all the schools of the same grade levels in the city. 

For example: 

Town X has 3 elementary schools, which have a total percentage of 

non-white ‘and Spanish-speaking of 20%. 

School A has 3% non-white and Spanish-speaking enrollment. 

School B has 22% non-white and Spanish-speaking enrollment. 

School C has 65% non-white and Spanish-speaking enrollment. 

By the definitions above, any school with less than 10% non-white 

and Spanish-speaking enrollmen would be a Class 1 school. Any school 

with more than 10% and less than 40% non-white and Spanish-speaking 

enrollment would be Class 2. Any school with more than 407% non-white 

and Spanish-speaking enrollment would be Class 3. 

. Therefore: 
School A is a Class 1 school, 

School B is a Class 2 school, 

and School C is a Class 3 school. 

For cities with a student population with 30% or more non-white 

and Spanish-speaking, the classifications becomes 

Class 1 schools are schools in which the percentage of non-white 

and Spanish-speaking is less than two-thirds the percentage of such students 

in 211 the schools of the same grade levels in the city. 

Class 2 schools are schools in which the percentage of non-white 

and Spanish-speaking is more than two-thirds and less than one and one- HW: 

half times the percentage of such students in all schools of -the same 

grade levels in the city. 

AQ. 

Class 3 schools ire schools in which the percentage of non-white 

and Spanish-speaking 1s more than one and one-half time the percentage 

of sich students in all the schools of the same grade levels in the city. 

Certain school systems are run on an 8-4 basis; others on a 6-3-3; 

and still others on a 6<2-4, Please note these variations on the headings 

of the columns. 
uw" stands for "non-white"; "SP" stands for n3panish-speaking". 

Rew data from the Connecticut State Department of Education, 

Research Bulletin #1, Series 1966-67. -