Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Stipulation of Fact

    §.C.:15255 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPREME COURT 

Plaintiffs 

yo STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants MAY 26, 1995 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ 
STIPULATIONS OF FACT! 
  

  

1. Plaintiff Milo Sheff is a fourteen-year old black child. 
He resides in the city of Hartford with his mother, Elizabeth Sheff, 

who brings this action as his next friend. He is enrolled in the 
eighth grade at Quirk Middle School. 

2. Plaintiff Wildalize Bermudez is a ten-year-old Puerto 
Rican child. She reside in the City of Hartford with her parents, 
Pedro and Carmen Wilda Bermudez, who bring this action as her next 
friend. She is enrolled in the fifth grade at Kennelly School. 

3. Plaintiff Pedro Bermudez is an eight-year-old Puerto Rican 
child. He resides in the City of Hartford with his parents, Pedro 
and Carmen Wilda Bermudez, who bring this action as his next friend. 
He is enrolled in the third grade at Kennelly School. 

4. Plaintiff Eva Bermudez is a six-year-old Puerto Rican 
child. She resides in the City of Hartford with her parents, 
Pedro and Carmen Wilda Bermudez, who bring this action as her next 
friend. She is enrolled in kindergarten at Kennelly School. 

5. Plaintiff Oskar M. Melendez is a ten-year-old Puerto Rican 
child. He resides in the Town of Glastonbury with his parents, 
Oscar and Wanda Melendez, who bring this action as his next friend. 
He is enrolled in the fifth grade at Naubuc School. 

6. Plaintiff Waleska Melendez is a fourteen-year-old Puerto 
Rican child. She resides in the Town of Glastonbury with her 
parents Oscar and Wanda Melendez, who bring this action as her next 
friend. She is a freshman at Glastonbury High School. 

      1 All proposed stipulations are as of the date of trial. 

  

 



  
    

-iD 

7. Plaintiff Martin Hamilton is a thirteen-year-old black 
child. He resides in the City of Hartford with his mother, Virginia 
Pertillar, who brings this action as his next friend. He is 
enrolled in the seventh grade at Quirk Middle School. 

8. Plaintiff Janelle Hughley is a 2 year-old black child. 
She resides in the City of Hartford with her mother, Jewell Hughley, 
who brings this action as her next friend. 

9. Plaintiff Neiima Best is a fifteen-year old black child. 
She resides in the City of Hartford with her mother, Denise Best, 
who brings this action as her next friend. She is enrolled as a 
sophomore at Northwest Catholic High School in West Hartford. 

10. Plaintiff Lisa Laboy is an eleven-year-old Puerto Rican 
child. She resides in the City of Hartford with her mother, Adria 
Laboy, who brings this action as her next friend. She is enrolled 
in the fifth grade at Burr School. 

11. Plaintiff David William Harrington is a thirteen-year-old 
white child. He resides in the City of Hartford with his parents 
Karen and Leo Harrington, who bring this action as his next friend. 
He is enrolled in ‘the seventh grade at Quirk Middle School. 

12. Plaintiff Michael Joseph Harrington is a ten-year-old 
white child. He resides in the City of Hartford with his parents 
Karen and Leo Harrington, who bring this action as his next friend. 
He is enrolled in the fifth grade at Noah Webster Elementary School. 

13. Plaintiff Rachel Leach is a ten-year-old white child. She 
resides in the Town of West Hartford with her parents Eugene Leach 
and Kathleen Frederick, who bring this action as her next friend. 
She is enrolled in the fifth grade at Whiting Lane School. 

14. Plaintiff Joseph Leach is a nine-year-old white child. He 
resides in the Town of West Hartford with her parents Eugene Leach 
and Kathleen Frederick, who bring this action as his next friend. 
He is enrolled in the third grade at Whiting Lane School. 

15. Plaintiff Erica Connolly is a nine-year-old white child. 
She resides in the City Hartford with her parents Carol Vinick and 
Tom Connolly, who bring this action as her next friend. She is 
enrolled in the fourth grade at Dwight School. 

16. Plaintiff Tasha Connolly is a six-year-old white child. 
She resides in the City Hartford with her parents Carol Vinick and 
Tom Connolly, who bring this action as her next friend. She is 
enrolled in the first grade at Dwight School. 

  

 



  
    

17. Michael Perez is a fifteen-year-old Puerto Rican child. He 
resides in the City Hartford with his father, Danny Perez, who bring 
this action as his next friend. He is enrolled as a sophomore at 
Hartford Public High School. 

18. Dawn Perez is a thirteen-year-old Puerto Rican child. She 
resides in the City Hartford with her father, Danny Perez, who bring 
this action as her next friend. She is enrolled in the eighth grade 
at Quirk Middle School. 

19. Among the plaintiffs are five black children, seven Puerto 
Rican children and six white children. At least one of the children 
lives in families whose income falls below the official poverty 
line; five are limited English proficient; six live in single-parent 
families. 

20. Defendant William O'Neill or his successor is the 

Governor of the State of Connecticut. 

21. Defendant State Board of Education of the State of 
Connecticut (hereafter "the State Board" or the State Board of 
Education") is charged with the overall supervision and control 
of the educational interest of the State, including elementary and 
secondary education, pursuant to C.G.S. §10-4. 

22. Defendants Abraham Glassman, A. Walter Esdaile, Warren 
J. Foley, Rita Hendel, John Mannix, and Julia Rankin were, at one 
time, the members of the State Board of Education and these 
individuals have been succeeded by others as members of the State 
Board of Education. 

23. Defendant Gerald N. Tirozzi or his successor is the 
Commissioner of Education for the State of Connecticut. 

24. Defendant Francis L. Borges or his successor is the 
Treasurer of the State of Connecticut. 

25. Defendant J. Edward Caldwell or his successor is the 
Comptroller of the State of Connecticut. 

26. Ninety-two percent of the students in the Hartford schools 
are members of minority groups. (Tables 1 and 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
31, 38; Natriello p. 82; Pils’ Ex. 85 p. vii) 

27. African Americans and Latinos together constitute more 
than 90%, or 23,283, of the 25,716 students in the Hartford public 
schools (Pls’ Ex. 219 at 2). 

28. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 21.6 will 
be members of minority groups. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

  

  

 



      

29. Hartford has the highest percentage of minority students 
in the state. (Natriello p. B82; Table 1, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 31) 

30. In 1991-92, fourteen of Hartford's twenty-five elementary 
schools had less than 2% white enrollment. (Defs’ Exs. 23.1-23.25) 

31. As of 1990, eighteen of the surrounding suburbs had less 
than 10% minority population, ten of the surrounding suburbs have 
less than 5% minority population, 18 out of the 21 suburbs have less 
than 4% Black population, and 12 towns have less than 2% Black 
population. (Pls’ Ex. 137 atl, 7; Pls’ Ex. 138; Steahr pp. 99-101) 

32. Some of Connecticut's school districts, including 
Hartford, serve higher percentages of African American and Latino 
students than others. 

33. In 1986, 12.1% of Connecticut’s school age population was 
black and 8.5% was Hispanic. 

34. 1987-88 figures for total school population and percent 
minority for the towns listed below are: 

Total School Pop. ¥ Minority 

Hartford 20,058 90.5 
Bloomfield 2:55%5 69.0 
Avon 2,068 3.8 
Canton 1,18° 3.2 
East Granby 666 2.3 
East Hartford 5,905 20.6 
East Windsor 1,267 8.5 
Ellington 1,855 2.3 
Farmington 2,608 7.7 
Glastonbury 4,463 5.4 
Granby 1,528 3.5 
Manchester 7,084 11.2) 
Newington 3,801 6.4 
Rocky Hill 1,807 5.9 
Simsbury 4,039 6.5 
South Windsor 3,648 9.3 
Suffield 1,772 4.0 
Vernon 4,457 6.4 
West Hartford 7,424 15.7 
Wethersfield 2,997 3.3 
Windsor 4,235 30.8 
Windsor Locks 1,642 4.0 

35. Sixteen suburbs have less than 3% Latino enrollment. 
(Pls’ Ex. 85 pp. 18-21) 

  

 



      

36. As of 1991-92, two districts, Hartford and Bloomfield, had 
more than five percent African Americans and Latinos on their 
professional staffs. (Defs’ Exs. 14.1-14.22) 

37. During the 1980s, Hartford experienced the largest 
increase of the non-white population -- an increase of 21,499 
persons -- of all the towns in the Hartford metropolitan area. 
(Defs’ Ex. 1.3) 

38. In 1992, there were seven suburban school districts with 
a minority enrollment in excess of 10%, namely: 

    

% minority enrollment % increase between 1980 & 1990 

1. Bloomfield 83.5% 32.4% 
2. East Hartford 38.1% 27.3% 
3. Windsor 36.9% 15.7% 
4. Manchester 19% 12.8% 
5. West Hartford 17.2% 10.7% 
6. Vernon 11.6% 7.8% 
7. East Windsor 10.3% 4.1% oe 

(Calvert pp. 33-35; Defs’' Ex. 2.6 Rev., 2.7 Rev.). 

39. In 1963, 36.3% of the students in the Hartford public 
schools were African-American. (Pls’ Ex. 19, p. 30 (Table 4.1.14)) 

40. In 1992, African-American students in the Hartford public 
schools made up 43.1% of the total student population, an increase 
of 6.8% from 1963. {(Defs’ Ex. 2.6 and 2.12)) 

41. In 1963, there were 599 Latino students in the Hartford 
public schools. (Pls’ Ex. 19, p. 30 (Table 4.1.14) 

42. By 1992, there were 12,564 Latino students in the 
Hartford public schools -- an increase of 1,997.5%. (Defs’ Ex. 2.15) 

43. From 1963 to 1992, the African-American student population 
in the Hartford public schools increased from 9,061 to 11,201, an 
increase over that period of 23.6%. (Defs’ Ex. 2.12) 

44. From 1980 to 1992, the African-American student population 
in the Hartford public schools decreased from 12,393 to 11,201, a 
decrease of 9.6% over that period. (Defs’ Ex. 2.12) 

45. The Harvard Study correctly projected the decline in 
Hartford's African-American student population, the only significant 
minority group in Hartford in 1965, but failed to predict the 
massive influx of Latino students, primarily of Puerto Rican 
ancestry. (Defs’ Ex. 13.2, p. 2; Gordon pp. 98-99) 

  

 



    

46. From 1980 to 1992, African-American student population in 
the 21 suburban towns increased by 62.5% from 3,925 to 6,380. (Defs’ 
BX. 2.12) 

47. During the 1980s, Hartford experienced the greatest out 
migration of white residents, with a net out migration of 18,176. 
{Defs’ Ex. .1.3) 

48. According to a study prepared for the Governor's 
Commission between 1985 and 1990, there was a "significant increase 
in the percentage of minority students in the five major 
metropolitan areas studied: Bridgeport, New Haven, 
Bloomfield/Hartford, Norwalk/Stamford, New London, and the towns 
nearby.” (Pls! Ex. 73 at 4) 

49. Sixty-three percent of the students in the Hartford school 
system participate in the free and reduced lunch program. (Pls’ Ex. 
219; Table 2, Pils’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

50. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 14.8 will 
be participating in the free and reduced lunch program. (Table 2, 
Pls’ Bx. 163 at. 38) 

51. Thirteen percent of all children born in the city of 
Hartford are at low birth weight, 13% are born to drug-addicted 
mothers, and 23% are born to mothers who are teenagers. (Table 2, 
Pls’ Ex. 163 'at 38) 

52. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 3 will have 
been born at a low birthweight, 3 will have been born to drug 
addicted mothers, and 5.4 will have been born to teen mothers. 
(Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 1563 at 38) 

53. More than sixty-four percent of the parents of Hartford 
school age children with children under eighteen are single parent 
households. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

54. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 15.1 will 
come from single parent households. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

55. A single parent home is an indicator of a disadvantage for 
students. (Natriello p. 71) 

56. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 9.5 will 
come from families where the parents have less than a high school 
education. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

57. Fifty-one percent of Hartford students are from a home in 
which a language other than English is spoken. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 
163 at 38)    



    

58. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 12 will 
come from a home in which a language other than English is spoken. 
{Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

53. Students with limited English proficiency have more 
difficulty succeeding in school. (Natriello p. 84) 

60. Fifteen percent of the Hartford population and 41.3% of 
the parents with school age children have experienced crime within 
the year. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

61. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 3.6 will 
have been a victim of crime and 9.7 will live in a household that 
has experienced crime within the year. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
38) 

62. Twenty-eight percent of Hartford elementary students do 
not return to the same school the next year. (Natriello p. 78; Pls’ 
Ex. 163 at 27) 

63. Fifteen of the 21 surrounding districts have less than 10% 
of their students on the free and reduced lunch program. (Pls’ Ex. 
163 p. 153) 

64. Hartford’s rate of poverty is greater than the rate among 
students in any of the twenty-one surrounding districts. (Pls’ Ex. 
163 at 152 and Figure 33, at 153: Rindone p. 121) 

65. Hartford found itself last in comparison to the twenty-one 
surrounding communities in 1980 on every single socio-economic 
indicator, and it remained in last place ten years later in 1990. 
(Rindone p. 110; Defs’ Ex. 8.1 and 8.2) 

66. The median family income of every suburb of the combined 
suburban area, except East Hartford and Windsor Locks, has more than 
doubled during that ten year period from 1980-1990 and the median 
income of a Hartford family increased 42% during that period. 
(Defs’ Exs. 8.1 & 8.2) 

67. The percentage of students in Hartford who live in homes 
where a language other than English is spoken is higher than in any 
surrounding community. (Figure 34 (as modified, see Natriello, p. 
177), Pls’ Ex. 163 at 154) 

68. The Hartford Public Schools serve a greater proportion of 
students from backgrounds that put them "at risk" of lower 
educational achievement than the identified suburban towns and, as 
a result, the Hartford Public Schools have a comparatively larger 
burden to bear in addressing the needs of "at risk" students.        



      

69. "At risk" children have the capacity to learn and "at 
risk" children may impose some special challenges to whichever 
school system is responsible for providing these children with an 
education. 

70. Some Of the indicia of "at risk” students include (i) 
whether a child's family receives benefits under the Federal Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children program, (a measure closely 
correlated with family poverty); (ii) whether a child has limited 
english proficiency (hereafter "LEP"); or (iii) whether a child is 
from a single-parent family. (Defs’ Revised Answer 137) 

71. There are some differences between Hartford Public School 
students taken as a whole and suburban students as a whole in some 
of the surrounding communities in terms of the number who drop out 
before graduation, who enter four year colleges and other programs 
of higher education, and the number of others who obtain full-time 
employment within nine months of graduation. 

72. The drop out rate for Hartford schools is greater than for 
Connecticut public schools in general. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 142-145) 

73. In 1988, fewer than 30% of Hartford students attended four 
year colleges in the October following graduation while over 52% of 
students statewide did. For 1991, 31% of Hartford students did 
while 51% of students statewide did. {Pls’' ‘Ex. 163 at 146, 147; 
Natriello p. 172) 

74. In 1988, statewide, 71.9% of students attended college 
following graduation while 57% of Hartford students did so. (Pls’ 
Ex. 163 at 146) 

75. The negative impact of poverty on student achievement is 
acknowledged and controlled for by social-scientists in their 
studies on student achievement. (Crain pp. 102-103, Vol. 35, p. 76) 

76. Hartford schools serve a greater proportion of students 
from backgrounds that put them "at risk" of lower educational 
achievement than the identified suburban towns. (Defs’ Revised 
Answer 35) 

77. As a result, Hartford has a comparatively larger burden to 
bear in addressing the needs of "at risk" children. (Defs’ Revised 
Answer 35) 

78. Social problems more common to students in Hartford than 
to students in the suburbs, which have been shown to have a direct 
negative impact on student development, are children with low 
birthweight, children born to mothers on drugs, children born to 
teenage mothers, children living in poverty, children from single 

  

 



    

parent households, children with parents with limited formal 
‘education, children living in substandard housing, children from 
homes where little English is spoken, children exposed to crime and 
children without an employed parent. (Pls’ Ex. #163, Table 2, p. 28) 

79. When Hartford children who are afflicted by poverty enter 
kindergarten, many of them are already delayed one and one-half to 
two years in educational development. (LaFontaine p. 132; Cloud p. 
86; Montanez-Pitre pp. 11, 41; Negron p. 81) 

80. Socio-economic status (SES) encompasses many factors 
relating to a student’s background and family influences that affect 
a child’s orientation toward and skill in learning. (Armor I pp. 
138-140; Armor II pp. 11-12) 

81. The gap between the SES of children who live in Hartford 
and the SES of children who live in the 21 suburbs has been 
increasing, (Natriello, pp. 114-116; Defs’ Ex. 8.1,'8.2) 

82. By 1909, all but fifteen school districts in the state 
were consolidated at the town level so that school district 
boundaries except for the fifteen districts were contiguous with 
town boundary lines. (Collier pp. 28, 39, 66) 

83. The consolidation of school boundaries in 1909 had nothing 
to do with the race of Connecticut students. (Collier, p. 66) 

84. With the exception of regional school districts which have 
been created by the voluntary action of towns pursuant to Chapter 
164 of the General Statutes or predecessor statutes, and the fifteen 
school districts mentioned above, no school district boundary has 
been materially changed since 1909. (Aff. of Gerald Tirozzi 
attached to Defs’ Motion for Summary Judgment ("Tirozzi Affidavit"), 
1 4) 

85. Since 1909, public school children have been assigned to 
particular school districts on the basis of their residence. 
(Tirozzi Affidavit, YY 5; Collier, p.. 22, 28, 32) 

86. By 1941, the public school districts boundaries for 
Hartford students had become by law co-terminous with the Hartford 
town boundaries. (Collier, p. 29) 

87. By 1951, all public school districts boundaries except for 
regional districts in the state were co-terminous with town 
boundaries. (Collier, p. 29) 

88. No child has been intentionally assigned to a public 
school or to a public school district on the basis of race, national 
origin or socioeconomic status or status as an "at risk" student    



      

99. In 1969, the General Assembly passed a Racial Imbalance 
Law, requiring racial balance within, but not between, school 
districts. Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-226a et seq. The General 
Assembly authorized the State Department of Education to promulgate 
implementing regulations. Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-226e. The General 
Assembly approved regulations to implement the statute in 1980. 

100. The number of children participating in Project Concern 
has declined over time. In 1969, the Superintendent of Schools in 
Hartford called for an expansion of Project Concern. (Defs’ Rev. 
Answer 157) 

101. At the direction of the General Assembly, Connecticut has 
developed a statewide testing program, the Connecticut Mastery Test 
("CMT"), and a statewide system of school evaluation, the Strategic 
School Profiles ("SSP"). (Rindone pp. 80-81; Nearine p. 65; Conn. 
Gen. Stat. §10-14n and §10-220(c)) 

102. The CMT was first administered in the fall of 1985. (Pls’ 
Ex. ..290) 

103. The State Board of Education has stated that the goals of 
the CMT are: 

a. earlier identification of students needing remedial 
education; 

b. continuous monitoring of students in grades 4, 6, and 
8; 

C. testing of a more comprehensive range of academic 
skills; 

d. higher expectations and standards for student 
achievement; 

e. more useful achievement data about students, schools, 
and districts; 

f. improved assessment of suitable equal educational 
opportunities. (Defs’' Ex. 12.13) 

104. The CMT measures mathematics, reading and writing skills 
in the 4th, 6th, and 8th grades. (Pls’ Ex. 290-309) 

105. The CMT is one measure of student achievement in 
Connecticut. 

106. Standardized test scores alone do not reflect the quality 
of an education program. (Natriello pp. 11, 189; LaFontaine p. 140; 
Nearine p. 16; Negron pp. 15-16; Shea p. 140) 

107. The differences in the performance between two groups of 
students cannot solely be attributed to differences in the quality 
of education provided to those groups without taking in account   
 



  
    

- 30 a 

except for very brief period in 1869 when the City of Hartford 
attempted to assign students to schools on the basis of race, which 
practice was halted by the General Assembly. (Collier p. 48; Tirozzi 
Affidavit, ) 

89. There was no significant Latino population of primarily 
Puerto Rican ancestry in Connecticut until the late 1960's. (Morales 
pp. 29-30) 

90. At the start of this century, the African-American 
population was approximately 3% of the state’s total population and 
remained at or below that level for the first half of this century. 
(Steahr pp. 78-79) 

91. By 1940, African-Americans had declined to 1.2% of the 
state’s population. (Collier p. 41; Steahr pp. 78-80.) 

92. Each town in the 21 town area surrounding Hartford, as 
described by the plaintiffs in their amended complaint has 
experienced an increase in non-white population since 1980. (Steahr 
P. 29) 

93. Since 1980, total student enrollment in the combined 21 
suburban school districts has declined. (Defs’ Ex. 2.4) 

94. The greatest percentage increase in Hartford's African- 
American population was between 1950-1960. (Steahr p. 79) 

95. Since 1970, the African-American population has been 
increasing in many towns around Hartford, particularly in 
Bloomfield, Manchester, Windsor and West Hartford. (Steahr Pp. 38) 

96. In Hartford, there has been a numerical increase in the 
African-American population, which is due to an increase in births 
over deaths and not to in-migration. (Steahr p. 61) 

97. State officials have, for some time, been aware of a trend 
by which the percentage of Latino students in the Hartford public 
schools has been increasing while the percentage of white and 
African American students has been decreasing. (Defs’ Revised 
Answer 150) 

98. According to a 1965 study commissioned by the Hartford 
Board of Education and the Hartford City Council and prepared by 
consultants affiliated with the Harvard School of Education (the 
"Harvard Study"), the rapid increase of non-white student population 
in Hartford in the 1950's and early 1960's would not continue. 

. (Defs’ Ex. 13.2, p. 2; Defs’ Rev. Answer 152)   
 



  
    

2:12 

differences in performance that are the product of differences in 
the socioeconomic status of the students in the two groups. (Defs’ 
Ex. 10.1; Flynmnipp. 151-153, 183; Armor p. 21; Crain pp. 78-79; 
Natriello pp. 22-23) 

108. In addition to poverty, among other reasons, Hartford 
students may score lower on the CMT than the state average (1) 
because many Hartford students move among Hartford schools and/or 
move in and out of the Hartford school district, and (2) because 
many Hartford students are still learning the English language. 
(Shea p. 140; Nearine pp. 68-69; Negron pp. 15-16) 

109. Hartford Public Schools students as a whole do not 
perform as well on the Connecticut Mastery Test ("CMT) as do the 
students as a whole in some surrounding communities. (Defs’ Rev. 
Answer 913) 

110. The following figures concerning reading scores on the 
1988 CMT are admitted to the extent that they are identical to 
figures found in Pls’ Ex. 297, 298 and 299: 

  
    

% Below 4th Gr. % Below 6th Gr. Below 8th Gr. 

Remedial Bnchmk Remedial Bnchmk Remedial Bnchmk 

Hartford 70 59 57 
*kkkkkkhkkkk 

Avon 9 6 3 
Bloomfield 25 24 16 
Canton 8 10 2 
East Granby 12 4 9 
East Hartford 38 30 36 
East Windsor 17 10 15 
Ellington 25 14 13 
Farmington 12 3 10 
Glastonbury 15 i3 11 
Granby 19 14 17 
Manchester 22 15 17 
Newington 8 15 12 
Rocky Hill 13 10 24 
Simsbury 9 5 3 
South Windsor 9 13 16 
Suffield 20 10 15 
Vernon 15 18 20 
West Hartford 19 15 11 
Wethersfield 18 12 14 
Windsor 26 17 23 
Windsor Locks 25 16 17 

  

 



  
    

3, Sy by IM 

111. The following figures concerning mathematics scores on 
the 1988 CMT are admitted to the extent that they are identical as 
figures found in Pls’ Ex. 297, 298 and 299: 

% Below 4th Gr. % Below 6th Gr. % Below 8th Gr. 
Remedial Bnchmk Remedial Bnchmk Remedial Bnchmk 

Hartford 41 42 57 

Avon 4 2 3 

Bloomfield 6 21 18 
Canton 3 8 5 
East Granby 10 7 6 
East Hartford 14 19 19 
East Windsor 2 9 19 
Ellington 10 8 4 
Farmington 3 5 3 
Glastonbury 6 8 2 
Granby 3 12 11 
Manchester 8 15 1 

Newington 3 6 7? 
Rocky Hill 5 4 14 
Simsbury 5 5 3 
South Windsor 8 10 8 
Suffield 11 13 8 
Vernon 8 9 12 
West Hartford 8 9 7 
Wethersfield 6 8 6 
Windsor 12 13 26 
Windsor Locks 2 7 14 

112. Public school students in Bloomfield, a middle class 
town with an 85.5% minority population, produced CMT test scores 
that were higher than several other suburban towns. (Crain pp. 90- 
91; Pls’ Ex. 297-299) 

113. Levels of performance on the Mastery Test are accurately 
described in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 290-308. (Defs’ Revised Answer 
141) 

114. Defendants are not satisfied with the performance of 
Hartford school children as a whole or of any children who perform 
below the mastery level. (Defs’ Revised Answer 145) 

115. Hartford fourth graders mastered an average of 16.5 
objectives on the CMT math test while fourth graders in the 21 

E
E
 

—
 

  
 



      

--14 = 

surrounding communities averaged from 21.3 to 23.3. (Figure 59, 
Pls’ Bx. 163 at 198)2 

lls. Hartford sixth graders mastered an average of 17.1 
objectives on the CMT math test while sixth graders in the 21 
surrounding communities averaged from 23.7 to 30.7. (Figure 60, 
Pls’ Bx. 183 at 199) 

117, Hartford eighth graders mastered an average of 17.8 
objectives on the CMT math test while eighth graders in the 21 
surrounding communities averaged from 24.2 to 32.5. (Figure 61, 
Pls’ Ex, 163 at 201) 

118. Hartford fourth graders mastered an average of 3.3 
objectives on the CMT language arts test while fourth graders in the 
21 surrounding communities averaged from 5.9 to 7.7. (Figure 62, 
Pls’ Bx. 163 at 203) 

119. Hartford sixth graders mastered an average of 4.8 
objectives on the CMT language arts test while sixth graders in the 
21 surrounding communities averaged from 7.5 to 9.8. (Figure 63, 
Pls’ Ex. 163 at. 204) 

120. Hartford eighth graders mastered an average of 5.3 
objectives on the CMT language arts test while eighth graders in the 
21 surrounding communities averaged from 7.6 to 9.8. (Figure 64, 
Pls’ Bx. 163 at 206) 

121. Hartford fourth graders mastered an average of 37 
objectives on the CMT DRP test while fourth graders in the 21 
surrounding communities averaged from 46 to 56. (Pigure 65, Pls’ 
Bx. 163 at. 207) 

122. Hartford sixth graders mastered an average of 46 
objectives on the CMT DRP test while sixth graders in the 21 
surrounding communities averaged from 55 to 67. (Figure 66, Pls’ 
Ex. 163 at 208) 

123. Hartford eighth graders mastered an average of 53 
objectives on the CMT DRP test while eighth graders in the 21 
surrounding communities averaged from 60 to 74. (Figure 67, Pls’ 
Bx. 163 at 209) 

124. Hartford fourth graders mastered an average of 4.1 
objectives on the CMT holistic writing test while fourth graders in 

  

2 Stipulations numbers 115-26 are based on 1991-92 mastery 
test scores. Stipulations numbers 127-32 are based on 1992-93 
mastery test data.   
 



      

gy 

the 21 surrounding communities averaged from 4.7 to 5.5. (Figure 
68, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 211) 

125. Hartford sixth graders mastered an average of 3.9 
objectives on the CMT holistic writing test while sixth graders in 
the 21 surrounding communities averaged from 4.5 to 6.2. (Figure 
69, Pls’ Bx. 163 at 212) 

126. Hartford eighth graders mastered an average of 5.1 
objectives on the CMT holistic writing test while eighth graders in 
the 21 surrounding communities averaged from 5.1 to 6.7. (Figure 
70, Pls! ‘Ex. 163 at 213) 

127. Hartford fourth graders mastered 15.8 math objectives 
while children in surrounding communities mastered from 20.9 to 
23.5. (Pls’ Reply Brief Ex. G) 

128. Hartford sixth graders mastered 16.7 math objectives 
while children in surrounding communities mastered from 23.7 to 
30.4. (Pls’ Reply Brief Ex. H) 

129. Hartford eighth graders mastered 18.1 math objectives 
while children from surrounding communities mastered from 20.6 to 
31.6. (Pls’' Reply Brief Ex. I) 

130. Hartford fourth graders mastered 3.1 language arts 
objectives while children in surrounding communities mastered from 
5.8. t0 72.7. (Pls’ Reply Brief Bx. J) 

131. Hartford sixth graders mastered 4.7 language arts 
objectives while children in surrounding communities mastered from 
7.3 t0. 9.7. (Pls' Reply Brief Ex. XK) 

132. Hartford eighth graders mastered 5.4 language arts 
objectives while children from surrounding communities mastered from 
5.6 0 8.7. (Pls' Reply Brief Ex. IL) 

133. From 1987 to 1991, Hartford fourth graders mastered from 
15.9 to 16.5 of the 25 mathematics objectives while the statewide 
average was from 20.4 to 21.2 objectives. (Figure 1, Pls’ Ex. 163 
at 85) 

134. From 1987 to 1991, Hartford sixth graders mastered from 
16.9 to 18.3 of the 325 mathematics objectives while the statewide 
average was from 23.7 to 24.7 objectives. (Figure 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 
at 87) 

135. From 1987 to 1991, Hartford eighth graders mastered from 
17.6 to 19.3 of the 35 mathematics objectives while the statewide 
average was from 25 to 25.8. (Figure 3, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 89)   
 



    

136. From 1987 to 1991, Hartford fourth graders mastered from 
3.2 to 3.5 of the 9 language arts objectives, while the statewide 
average was from 6.2 to 6.3. (Figure 7, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 97) 

137. From 1987 to 1991, Hartford sixth graders mastered from 
4.4 to 5.3 of the 11 language arts objectives, while the statewide 
average was from 7.4 to 8.1. (Figure 8, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 99) 

138. From 1987 to 1991, Hartford eighth graders mastered from 
4.7 to 5.4 of the 11 language arts objectives while the statewide 
average was from 7.7 to 8.4. (Pigure 9, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 101) 

139. In 1991, Hartford students took the SAT test at a lower 
rate than students elsewhere in the state -- 56.7% of Hartford 
students, compared to a statewide average of 71.4% (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
141). 

140. Hartford students score the lowest on the SAT when 
compared to the performance of students in the surrounding 
districts. (FPigures 79 and 80, Pls’ Ex. 183 at 225-226; Natriello 
1X p. 32) 

141. In 1991, the average math score of Hartford graduates on 
the SAT was 354 out of 800 and the average score of graduates in the 
next lowest scoring district, Bloomfield, was 411; (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
225, Fig. 79); in the verbal section, the average score of Hartford 
graduates was 314 out of 800 and the average score of graduates in 
the next lowest scoring district, East Hartford was 390. 

142. The purpose and effect of the state’s principal formula 
for distributing state aid to local school districts (the Education 
Cost Sharing formula ("ECS") embodied in Conn. Gen. Stat. §§10- 
262f, 10-262g, 10-262h) is to provide the most state aid to the 
neediest school districts. (Brewer pp. 37, 85, 157-162; Defs’ Ex. 
7.1, pp. 716-78; 7.23, p. 83A; 7.18, 7.19;.7.20) 

143. Under the ECS formula, the Hartford public schools 
received for the 1990-91 school year $3,497-per pupil in state 
funds; the average per pupil grant to the 21 suburban school 
districts was only $1,392 in state funds. (Brewer p. 85; Defs’ Ex. 
7.21, pp. 83-833) 

144. Under the ECS formula, the Hartford public schools 
received for the 1991-92 school year $3,804 per pupil in state 
funds; the average per pupil grant to the 21 suburban school 
districts was only $1,321 in state funds. (Brewer p. 85; Defs’ Ex. 
7.21, pp. 83-83A) 

145. The increase in state aid to Hartford under the ECS 
formula from 1990-91 to 1991-92 was $307 per pupil; the decrease in    



    

the average ECS formula grant to the 21 suburban school districts 
from 1990-91 to 1991-92 was $71 per pupil. (Brewer p. 85; Defs’ Ex. 
7.21, pp. 83-834) 

146. In terms of total state aid for the 1990-91 school year 
(the sum of all state education aid including the ECS formula aid), 
Hartford received $4,514 per pupil; the average amount of total 
state aid to the 21 suburban school districts was $1,878 per pupil. 
(Brewer p. 37; Defs’' Ex. 7.21, pp. 11-113) 

147. In terms of total state aid for the 1991-92 school year, 
Hartford received $4,915 per pupil; the average amount of total 
state aid to the 21 suburban school districts was $1,758 per pupil. 
(Brewer p.37; Defs! Ex. 7.21, p. 11-113) 

148. The increase in Hartford's total state aid from 1990-91 
to 1991-92 was $401 per pupil; the decrease in average total state 
aid to the 21 suburban school districts was $120 per pupil (Brewer 
Pp. 37; Defs’! Ex." 7.21, pp. 11-11iA) 

143. Hartford received 2.4 times as much total state aid per 
pupil as the 21 suburban school districts in 1990-91 and 2.8 times 
48 much total state aid per pupil in 1991-92. (Defs’ Ex. 7.1, p.l}1; 
Defs’ Fx. 7.21, Dp. 113) 

150. In 1990-91, the Hartford school district received 57.6% 
of its total funding from state aid and 60.49% thereof in 1991-92. 
(Brewer p. 37; Defs’ Ex. 7.1, pp. 11-11A) 

151. In 1990-91, the 21 suburban school districts received an 
average of 25.8% of their total funding from state aid and 23.99% 
thereof in 1991-92. (Brewer p. 37; Defs’ Bx. 7.1, pp. 11-113) 

152. In 1990-91, overall per pupil expenditure in Hartford 
were $7,837 and $7,282 per pupil in the 21 combined suburban school 
districts. (Defs!' Ex. 7.1, pp. 3a, 11) 

153. In 1991-92, the overall per pupil expenditure in Hartford 
was $8,126 compared to an average of $7,331 per pupil in the 21 
combined suburbs. (Defs’ Ex. 7.1, pp. 33, 11) 

154. Under the category of "net current expenditures per need 
student," a calculation in which the Hartford public school student 
count is increased by an artificial multiplier of one-quarter 
student for each Hartford public school student on Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children (AFDC) and by one-quarter student for each 
Hartford public school student who in the preceding school year 
tested below the remedial standard on the CMT, i.e., each AFDC 
student and CMT remedial student is counted as 1.25 students and 
each student who is both on AFDC and a CMT remedial student is    



      

18 - 

counted as 1.5 students, Hartford’s per pupil spending for the 1990- 
"1991 school year was fifteenth among the school districts in the 
twenty-two town area. (Natriello, Vol. 93-94; PX 163, pp. 158-162) 

155. During the 1390-91 school year, the total professional 
staff per 1,000 students was 89.4 in Hartford and 88.8 in the 
combined 21 suburban school districts. (Defs’ Ex. 8.5) 

156. During the 1991-92 school year, the total professional 
staff per 1,000 students in Hartford was 86.5 and 85.1 in the 21 
combined suburb school districts. (Defs’ Ex. 8.5) 

157. During the 1990-91 school year, Hartford had 77 classroom 
teachers per 1,000 students and the 21 combined suburban school 
districts had 75.9. (Defs’ Ex. 8.8) 

158. The Hartford public schools have high quality classroom 
teachers and administrators. (Pls’ Ex. 163 (table 4); Keaveny p. 15; 
LaFontaine p. 131; Wilson pp. 9, 28-29; Negron p. 7; Pitocco p. 70; 
Natriello p. 35) 

159. Hartford teachers are dedicated to their work. (Haig pp. 
113-114; Neumann-Johnson p. 18) 

160. In 1991, 94% of Hartford administrators had at least 
thirty credits of education beyond their masters degrees. (Keaveny 
p. 14) 

161. Hartford teachers have been specially trained in 
educational strategies designed to be effective with African- 
American, Latino, inner city and poor children. (Haig p. 94; 
LaFontaine p. 132; Wilson p. 10) 

162. Hartford's elementary schools have a curriculum that is 
standardized from school to school designed to ameliorate the 
effects of family mobility, which affects Hartford children to a 
much greater extent than suburban children. (LaFontaine p. 162) 

163. Hartford schools have some special programs for enhancing 
the education of poor and urban children. (Haig p. 63; LaFontaine 
pp. 134-135) 

164. Hartford has an all-day kindergarten program in some of 
its elementary schools for children who may be at risk of poor 
educational performance. (Calvert pp. 10-13; Negron p. 68; Montanez- 
Pitre pp. 34, 48; Cloud pp. 79, 88, 113) 

165. Hartford has a school breakfast program in each of its 
elementary schools. (Senteio p. 50; Negron p. 66; Montanez-Pitre P-. 
4-2; Morris p. 158; Neumann-Johnson p. 24) 

  

 



    

166. Hartford offers eligible needy students in all its 
schools a free and reduced-price lunch program. (Senteio p. 22) 

167. Hartford's school breakfast and school lunch programs are 
paid for entirely by state and federal funds. (Senteio p. 22) 

168. The Hartford school district has several special programs 
such as the Classical Magnet program, which the first named 
plaintiff attends, and the West Indian Student Reception Center at 
Weaver High School. (E. Sheff p. 194; Pitocco pp. 88-89) 

169. Hartford’s school buildings do not meet some requirements 
regarding handicapped accessibility, but no buildings are in 
violation of health, safety, or fire codes. (Senteio p. 44) 

170. In 1992, Hartford voters approved the issuance of 
$204,000,000 in bonds for school building expansion and improvement. 
{(Senteio p. 37) 

171. Under 1991-92 state reimbursement rates, the state will 
reimburse Hartford for more than 70% of the cost of its school 
building expansion and improvement project. (Defs’ Ex. 7.21, p. 3A) 

172. From 1980 to 1992, Hartford spent approximately $2,000 
less per pupil on (a) pupil and instructional services, (b) 
textbooks and instructional supplies, (c) library books and 
periodicals, and (d) equipment and plant operations than the state 
average for these items. (Defs’ Ex. 7.9; Brewer p. 142) 

173. From 1980 to 1992, the Hartford school district paid its 
employees $2,361 more per pupil in employee benefits than the state 
average. (Defs’ Ex. 7.9; Brewer p. 143) 

174. From 1988-91, Hartford spent $240 more per pupil than New 
Haven and $300 more per pupil than Bridgeport on employee fringe 
benefits. (Brewer p. 143) 

175. When demographic conditions continued to change in the 
1980s, the General Assembly passed diversity legislation such as the 
Interdistrict Cooperative Grant Program, Conn. Gen. Stat. §10- 
74d, and several special acts designed to promote diversity by 
funding interdistrict magnet school programs. (Defs’ Ex. 3.2 - 3.7, 
3.9; 7.1, pp. 36-40; 7.2, p. 404) 

176. The Interdistrict Cooperative Grant Program began in 1988 
with a $399,000 appropriation, which by 1992 had increased to 
$2,500,000. (Williams pp. 76-77) 

177. The state intervened to save Project Concern, a program 
in which minority Hartford children attend suburban schools, when    



      

“50 - 

the Hartford Board of Education voted to withdraw from the program 
‘in early 1980s. (LaFontaine pp.,124-125; Calvert p. 128) 

178. During the 1980s, the State Department of Education was 
reorganized to concentrate on the needs of urban school children and 
on promoting diversity in the public schools. Defs’ Ex. 3.1, 3.8) 

179. The State Board of Education administers a grant program 
pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-17g to assist school districts 
including Hartford which are required by law to provide a bilingual 
education program. (Defs’ Ex. 7.1, pp. 28-35; 7.21, p. 35a) 

180. The State Board of Education administers under Conn. 
Gen. Stat. §§10-266p - 10-266r a Priority School District program 
for towns in the state with the eight largest populations, including 
Hartford, to improve student achievement and enhance educational 
opportunities. (Defs’ Ex, 7.1, pp. 154-160; 7.21, p. 1603) 

131. The General Assembly provides substantial financial 
support to schools throughout the State to finance school 
operations. See §§10-262f, et seq. 

182. The General Assembly provides reimbursement to towns for 
student transportation expenses. See §10-273a. 

183. The State Board of Education prepares courses of study 
and curricula for the schools, develops evaluation and assessment 
programs, and conducts annual assessments of public schools. See 
§10-4. 

184. The State Board of Education prepares a comprehensive 
plan for elementary, secondary, vocational, and adult education 
every five years. See id. 

185. The General Assembly has established the ages at which 
school attendance is mandatory throughout the State. See §10-184. 

186. The General Assembly has determined the minimum number of 
school days that public schools must be in session each year, and 
has given the State Board of Education the authority to authorize 
exceptions to this requirement. See §10-15. 

187. The General Assembly has set the minimum number of hours 
of actual school work per school day. See §10-16. 

188. The General Assembly has promulgated a list of holidays 
and special days that must be suitably observed in the public 
schools. See §10-29a. 

  

 



      

WELT, J 

189. The General Assembly has promulgated a list of courses 
‘that must be part of the program of instruction in all public 
schools, see §10-16b 

190. The General Assembly has directed the State Board of 
Education to make available curriculum materials to assist local 
schools in providing course offerings in these areas. See id. 

191. The General Assembly has imposed minimum graduation 
requirements on high schools throughout the State, see §10-221la. 

192. The General Assembly directed the State Board of 
Education to exercise supervisory authority over textbooks selected 
by local boards of education for use in their public schools. See 
§10-221. 

193. The General Assembly has required that all public schools 
teach students at every grade level about the effects of alcohol, 
tobacco, and drugs, see §10-19. 

194. The General Assembly has directed local boards of 
education to provide students and teachers who wish to do so with an 
opportunity for silent meditation at the start of every school day. 
See §10-16a. 

155. The General Assembly has directed the State Board of 
Education to set minimum teacher standards, and local board of 
education to impose additional such standards. See §10-145a. 

196. The General Assembly has directed the State Board of 
Education to administer a system of testing prospective teachers 
before they are certified by the State. See §10-145f. 

197. Certification by the State Board of Education is a 
condition of employment for all teachers in the Connecticut public 
school system. See §10-145. 

198. All school business administrators must also be certified 
by the State Board of Education. See §10-145d. 

199. The General Assembly has directed the State Board of 
Education to specify qualifications for intramural and 
interscholastic coaches. See §10-149. 

200. The General Assembly has promulgated laws governing 
teacher tenure, see §10-151, and teacher unionization, see §10-153a. 

201. The General Assembly has created a statewide teachers’ 
retirement program. See §10-183b, et seq. 

  

 



      

- 23. 

202. The General Assembly has directed the State Board of 
‘Education to supervise and administer a system of proficiency 
examinations for students throughout the State. See §10-14n. 

203. Mastery examinations annually test all students enrolled 
in public schools in the fourth, sixth, eighth and tenth grades. 
See id. 

204. The General Assembly promulgated procedures setting forth 
the process by which local and regional boards of education may 
discipline and expel public school students under their jurisdic- 
tions. See §10-233a et seq. 

205. Except as provided in §§10-17a and 10-17f, the General 
Assembly has mandated that English must be the medium of instruction 
and administration in all public schools in the State. See §10-17. 

206. The General Assembly has required local school districts 
to classify all students according to their dominant language, and 
to meet the language needs of bilingual students. See §10-17f. 

207. The General Assembly has required each local and regional 
board of education to implement a program of bilingual education in 
each school in its district with 20 or more students which dominant 
language is other than English. See id. 

208. The General Assembly has required all local and regional 
school boards to file strategic school profile reports on all 
schools under their jurisdiction. (§10-220(c). 

209. Improved integration of children by race, ethnicity and 
economic status is likely to have positive social benefits. (Defs’ 
Revised Answer 149) 

210. The defendants have recognized that society benefits from 
racial, ethnic, and economic integration and that racial, ethnic, 
and economic isolation has some harmful effects. 

211. Integration in the schools is not likely to have a 
negative effect on the students in those schools. (Defs’ Revised 
Answer 149) 

212. Poor and minority children have the potential to become 
well-educated. (Defs’ Revised Answer 13) 

213. The Defendants have announced that they would pursue a 
"voluntary and incremental approach toward the problem of de 
facto socioeconomic, racial and ethnic isolation in urban schools, 
including the Hartford Public Schools. 

  

 



  
    

- 23 

Respectfully Submitted, 

| oN hoa Stora 
Martha Stone #61506 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 
(203) 247-9823 

ar of J 
Wesley W[,/ = 738478 
Moller, seus & Shields, P.C. 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
(203)-522-8338 

  

  

  

BY: 

82d Brittaim™%103 153 
University of Connecticut 

oe School of Law 
65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
(203) 241-4664 

  

  

BY: Pho Jege (eps 
  Philip D. Tegeler #102537 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 
32 Grand Street 
Bartford, CT 06106 
(203) 247-9823 

  

 



      

- 24 a 

Theodore Shaw 

Dennis Parker 

Marianne Lado 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

Sandra Del Valle 

Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

Christopher Hansen 
American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 
(212) 944-9800 

Wilfred Rodriguez #302827 
Hispanic Advocacy Project ~ 
Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: 
  

Befnard Mc@ovérn 
Martha Wat/ts/Prestley 
Assistd Attorney General 
MacKenzie Hall 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
(203) 566-7173