Defendants' Disclosure of Expert Witnesses

    NO. CV-89-0360977 S 

MILO SHEFF, ET AL. 2 : SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs, : 

: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
: HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 
: AT HARTFORD. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, ET AL., : 

Defendants. : OCTOBER 5, 1992 

DEFENDANTS ' DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES 
  

Pursuant to the order of the court establishing a schedule 

for disclosure of expert witnesses the defendants offer the 

following disclosure. This disclosure is provided in lieu of the 

defendants' disclosure dated July 23, 1992. 

' The defendants wish to emphasize that the particular facts 

and opinions which will be offered by the witnesses listed below 

are not the only facts and opinions which the witnesses may offer 

at trial. Because the plaintiffs refused to cooperate in the 

defendants' early efforts to take the depositions of the 

plaintiffs' experts, because the plaintiffs have produced experts 

at depositions who Have not completed their work, because of the 

late identification of some of the plaintiffs’ experts, and 

missive p. Zz 

 



  

  

Professor Rossell will also testify regarding the benefits 

of the voluntary measures which the state has undertaken versus 

mandatory desegregation plans. 

Professor Rossell will base her testimony on her scholarly 

| research of the following at least: 

l. the evolution of school desegregation; 

2. national school desegregation trends; 

3. measuring the effectiveness of school desegregation; 

4. the relative merit of voluntary and mandatory school 

desegregation plans; 

white flight as a function of desegregation; 

6. the effectiveness of specific approaches to 

desegregation; i.e., freedom of choice, majority-to-minority 

transfer, controlled choice, magnet schools, etc.; | 

7. metropolitan-based desegregation plans; 

8. State of Connecticut policies and programs to encourage 

voluntary desegregation including a comparison of those programs 

and policies to programs and policies in other states. 

 



  

Among other things, Dr. Rossell will rely on her work 

. entitled The Carrot or the Stick for School Desegregation Policy, 

  

    

  

| Temple University Press, 1990. Dr. Rossell's resume has been 

provided to plaintiffs as Exhibit 19(a) of defendants' response 

to plaintiffs’ fourth request for production. 

  
rE David Armor, Ph.D., 5006 Klingle Street, N.W., 

washington, D.C. 20011: 

DE Armor is currently Visiting Professor, Rutgers 

University; Consultant, American Institutes for Research; and 

President, National Policy Analysts. 

Dr. Armor is principal investigator for a grant to write a 

treatise on race, education and the courts; coprincipal 

investigator on a national study of magnet schools; and an 

associate investigator on a project that is conducting case 

studies of school districts with school choice policies. 

Dr. Armor is expected to testify: 

-lw 

 



  

1, that research has demonstrated no significant and 

consistent effects of desegregation on Black achievement; 

  

  

2. that most of the differences in performance on the CMT 

between Hartford and suburban pupils can be attributed to 

differences in family background characteristics and especially 

socioeconomic status; 

3. that the CMT scores for Hartford when looked at in 

comparison to the CMT scores for suburban school districts do not 

support the conclusion that the quality of the educational 

program being provided in Hartford is significantly different 

than quality of the educational program being provided in the 

suburban districts when those scores are considered with 

appropriate controls for differences in the backgrounds of the 

students, particularly differences in socioeconomic status; 

4. that for most people in the Hartford area personal 

preference determines where they live. 

 



  

  

  

  

  

Dr. Armor is continuing his work in regard to the topics 

noted above and may be prepared to offer additional opinions .and 

conclusions at the time of trial. 

Dr. Armor will base his testimony on his scholarly analysis 

of the research literature in each area on which he will focus as 

well as his own original studies including his study of the CMT 

results and the results of a survey of Hartford area residents. 

Dr. Armor's resume has been provided to the plaintiffs as 

Exhibit 19(b) to defendants' response to plaintiffs’ fourth 

request for production. 

3. G. Donald Ferree, Institute for Social Inquiry, Roper 
  

Center for Public Opinion, P. O. Box 440, Storrs, Connecticut 

06268: 

Mr. Ferree is the Associate Director of the Institute for 

Social Inquiry, University of Connecticut. Mr. Ferree's resume 

has been provided as Exhibit 19(d) to defendants’ response to 

plaintiffs’ fourth request for production. 

 



  

    

Mr. Ferree is expected to testify regarding proper methods 

i and procedures for conducting a public opinion poll to ascertain 

the attitudes of Connecticut residents and/or groups of 

|| Connecticut residents. He is expected to present and explain the 

results of a survey conducted by the Institute for Social Inquiry 

' at the request of the Governor's Commission on Quality and 

Integrated Education ("GCQIE"). The results of that survey are 

summarized in the attachment to Exhibit 6 in support of the 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In addition he will 

present the results of a follow up on the survey done for the 

GCQIE designed to specifically assess the attitudes of African 

Americans and Latinos living in Connecticut's urban centers. The 

results of that follow up survey show the following; 

a. Urban minorities do not see a necessary link between 

integration and quality of education. 

b. Urban minorities do not believe it is impossible to have 

quality education without integration. 

   



  

  
| 
| 
| 

| 
| 
| 

  

  

Cc. Urban minorities hold values which are in conflict with 

the goal of achieving better racial and ethnic balance for 

balance sake including the values of "keeping children in the 

same town they live in", "making sure your children are NOT in a 

small racial minority", “children should normally go to the 

schools closest to their homes", and "parents should always have 

the final choice of where their children go to school”. 

d. Urban minorities overwhelmingly agree that "it is more 

important to improve the QUALITY of schools that minority 

children go to than it is to get racial balance in the schools”. 

e. While urban minorities feel that more should be done to 

integrate the schools in their communities and schools throughout 

the state, they are closely divided on the question of whether 

those efforts should be voluntary or mandated by the state. 

Mr. Ferree will also attest to the appropriateness and 

reliability of the survey which was conducted under his 

supervision and which forms the basis for the conclusions reached 

 



  

by Dr. Armor in regard to the influence of personal preference on 

| 

| 
i 

  

where people reside in the Hartford area. 

4. Mr. Lloyd Calvert , c/o Office of the Attorney General, 
  

110 Sherman Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06105: 

Mr. Calvert is the former Superintendent of Schools in West 

: Hartford, Trumbull and © Windsor and former Assistant 

Superintendent of Schools in Hartford. He is now serving as 

educational consultant to the Office of the Attorney General in 

|'regard to the Sheff v. O'Neill case. Mr. Calvert's resume has 
  

been provided to the plaintiffs as Exhibit 19(c) to defendants’ 

response to plaintiffs’ fourth request for production. 

Mr. Calvert is expected to testify regarding the racial and 

ethnic composition of the Hartford public schools and certain 

trends regarding the racial and ethnic composition of the 

Hartford public schools in comparison to the 21 school districts 

which have been designated as suburban school districts for the 

purposes of this case. 

 



  

  

  

  

Mr. Calvert will also testify regarding the state's efforts 

to address the needs of disadvantaged and urban children since 

the 1920's as evidenced in records of the State Board of 

Education and his own work and experience. This will include some 

information regarding where Connecticut stands in relation to 

other states. 

Mr. Calvert is also expected to testify regarding his 

investigation of programs in the Hartford public schools 

including his observations regarding the way in which the 

programs offered by the Hartford public schools are designed to 

meet the special needs of the student population being served, 

special approaches being undertaken in the Hartford public 

schools, and the attitudes and concerns of those who are serving 

children in the Hartford public schools. He is also expected to 

describe his involvement in and observation of interdistrict 

initiatives in the Hartford area. 

Finally Mr. Calvert will discuss some of the practical 

problems which would be faced if an attempt were made to reassign 

10 

 



  

  

    

pupils to different schools in the Hartford area based upon their 

race, national origin, socioeconomic status, or "at risk" status. 

His testimony will be based, in part, on his examination of 

current enrollment in the Hartford public schools and other 

schools in the area. 

Mr. Calvert's work and study in the above noted areas is 

continuing and he may offer additional observations and opinions 

at trial. 

5.. Dr. Thomas E. Steahr, College of Agriculture and Natural 
  

Resources, University of Connecticut, Box U-22, Room 318, 1376 

Storrs Road, Storrs, CT 06269-4021. 

Dr. Steahr is currently serving as a full professor in the 

Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics of the 

University of Connecticut. Further details regarding his 

background and experience can be found in Exhibit 19(e) to the 

defendant's response to plaintiffs’ fourth request for 

production. 

-ll~ 

 



  

    

Dr. Steahr is expected to offer testimony regarding 

demographic patterns and trends in Connecticut generally and in 

' the area which the plaintiffs have defined as the suburban 

Hartford area in particular. His testimony is expected to focus 

on the following facts and opinions: 

1. Based upon an analysis of census data, vital statistics, 

and State Department of Education records regarding the racial 

and ethnic composition of public schools in the Hartford area, it 

appears that the general population and the K-12 pupil 

populations of that area which has been defined by the plaintiffs 

AR "suburban Hartford" are becoming more diverse; i.e., 

individuals from traditionally recognized minority groups are 

locating and attending school in the suburban towns at an | 

increasing rate. 

2. The steady increase in the growth of the minority 

population in the towns which have been identified as suburbs of 

Hartford runs counter to the notion that people from these 

«lw 

 



  

minority groups are "trapped" in Hartford because of their race 

or national origin. 

3. There has been a significant change in the composition 

{of the "minority" population in Hartford. The evidence suggests 

  

a net out-migration of African Americans and a significant 

increase in the Hispanic or Latino population. 

4. Concentrations of people of similar ethnic ‘backgrounds 

in particular areas or towns is a common phenomena in the State 

of Connecticut and elsewhere. 

2 The concentration of African American and Hispanic or 

Latino citizens in Hartford and other urban areas of the state 

which is present today was not clearly foreseeable in the early 

1900s given the limited information which was available at that 

time and the uncertainties of making these kinds of predictions 

even under the best of circumstances. 

The testimony and opinions which Dr. Steahr is expected to 

offer will be grounded on his many years of study and research in 

-}3= 

 



  

  

  

the area of demographics and particularly his study of 

demographic patterns in the State of Connecticut. He will also 

rely on his analysis of census bureau data, data regarding vital 

statistics maintained by the State Department of Health Services 

and data obtained from the State Department of Education 

regarding the racial and ethnic composition of schools in the 

Hartford area. 

6. Michael B. Levin, Vice President and Research Director, 
  

Connecticut Policy and Economic Council, Inc., 21 Lewis Street, 

Hartford, Connecticut 06103. 

Mr. Levin's resume is being provided to the plaintiffs 

as Exhibit 19(f) of defendants' response to plaintiffs’ fourth 

request for production. 

Mr. Levin is expected to testify regarding the 

favorable treatment afforded over the years by the General 

Assembly and state policy makers to the major cities in the state 

in terms of revenue assistance and policy decisions. Mr. Levin's 

-14- 

 



  

testimony will include a description of the favorable treatment 

afforded to the City of Hartford. 

  | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 

  

Mr. Levin's testimony will be based on his extensive 

experience in and study of various aspects of public policy and 

planning and government analysis. He will also base his 

testimony on his first hand knowledge of the legislative and 

policy making processes in the State of Connecticut over the last 

ten or more years, and CPEC studies conducted under his 

direction, with particular emphasis on the March 1982 study 

entitled Municipal Expenditures in Connecticut, 1980-90 and the 
  

annual reports on municipal budgeting and revenues entitled 

Connecticut Municipal Budgets. 
  

7. John T. Flynn, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, University of 
  

Connecticut, School of Education, Department of Educational 

Psychology, Box U-64, 249 Glenbrook Rd., Storrs, CT 06268. 

Dr. Flynn's vitae is being provided to the plaintiffs as 

Exhibit 19(g) to defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ fourth 

request for production. 

«lS 

 



  

  

  

    

Dr. Flynn is expected to offer the following opinions at 

ii trial: 

1. The quality of an educational program cannot be 

assessed without considering three conceptually distinct 

components: antecedents, operations, and outcomes. 

2. In any attempt to evaluate an educational program it is 

essential that there be controls for student antecedent 

characteristics. These controls are necessary because 

educational outcomes may be circumscribed by certain antecedent 

characteristics regardless of the nature of the program itself. 

3. Ecological variables such as community, environment, 

family status, socioeconomic status, educational level of 

parents, etc. will directly affect the learning of children, 

irrespective of the specifics of an educational program. 

4. Deriving evaluative inferences regarding educational 

programs solely from CMT statistics will result in spurious 

“16 oy 

 



  

  

  

. inferences or conclusions about the effectiveness of educational 

' programs. 

5. Any attempt by the plaintiffs to say that CMT results 

.. demonstrate that poor educational programming produced or caused 

i lower test scores for selected districts is unjustified and 

scientifically spurious. 

Dr. Flynn will base his opinions on his extensive 

'| experience, background and training in psychometrics, his review 

| of the development, administration, and results of the CMT, and 

 



  

  

  

    

his knowledge of the characteristics of and differences between 

student populations being served by various school districts in 

Connecticut. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Lf Nile 
     : R. Whelan - Juris 085112 

Assistant Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street 

artford, Connecticut 06105 
Tel: 566-7173 

  

110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, Connecticut 06105 

Tel: 566-7173 

-l GQ 

 



  

  

CERTIFICATION 
  

This is to certify that. a copy of the foregoing was mailed | 

postage prepaid to the following counsel of record on October 5, 

  

111982: 

: John Brittain, Esq. Wilfred Rodriguez, Esq. 

. University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project 

i School of Law : Neighborhood Legal Services 

'| 65 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 
| Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, CT 06112 | 

| Philip Tegeler, Esq. Wesley W. Horton, Esq. 

| Martha Stone, Esq. Moller, Horton & 

'| Connecticut Civil Fineberg, P.C. | 

'| Liberties Union ° 90 Gillett Street | 

'| 32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06105 | 

| Hartford, CT 06105 

'| Ruben Franco, Esq. Julius L. Chambers, Esq. 

|| Jenny Rivera, Esq. Marianne Lado, Esq. | 

'| Puerto Rican Legal Defense Ronald Ellis, Esq. i 

| and Education Fund NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 

ii 99 Hudson Street Education Fund, Inc. 

| lath Floor 99 Hudson Street | 

| New York, NY 10013 New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell, Esq. 

Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 
Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 

American Civil Liberties Union 

132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

  

~10=