Defendants' Amended Disclosure of Expert Witnesses

    NO. CV-89-0360977 S 

MILO SHEFF, ET AL. 3 SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

’ JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

Y. : HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

: AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A, O'NEILL, ET AL. : May 15, 1892 

Defendants 

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES 
  

Pursuant to the order of the court establishing a schedule 

for disclosure of expert witnesses, employees and consultants 

expected to present testimony at trial, the defendants offer the 

following amended list and disclosure. This disclosure is 

provided in lieu of the defendants' disclosure dated March 15, 

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. The defendants expect to supplement their disclosure 

after the plaintiffs have fully and finally answered the 

defendants' first set of interrogatories and requests for 

  
 



  

  
    

production and the defendants have had an opportunity to consider 

and prepare whatever response may be appropriate to claims made 

by the plaintiffs in response to that discovery. Defendants also 

expect to supplement this list with additional : names ° and 

additional information as work now in progress and work to be 

undertaken after the plaintiffs fully and finally answer the 

defendants' interrogatories and requests for production is 

completed. 

1. Christine Rossell, Ph.D, (Expert Witness) Boston 
  

University, 232 Bay State Road, Boston, Massachusetts 02215: 

Dr. Rossell 1s a Professor of Political Science at Boston 

University. 

Professor Rossell is expected to testify that the State of 

Connecticut is responding appropriately to the educational 

conditions in the Hartford area by encouraging and funding 

voluntary integration and compensating poor school districts for 

their poverty. 

  
 



      

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: 

1. 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; 

5. white flight as a function of desegregation; 

6. the effectiveness of specific approaches to 

desegregation; 1i.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. At this 

time Dr. Rossell has not finally completed her work in this 

  

 



      

regard. Her conclusions as to this aspect of her work are 

preliminary. 

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. 

  

2. David Armor, Ph.D. (Expert Witness) 5006 Klingle Street, 

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20011: 

Dr. Armor 1s 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; co-principal 

investigator on a national study of magnet schools; and an 

associate investigator on a project that 1s conducting case 

studies of school districts with school choice policies. 

  
 



Dr. Armor 1s expected to testify: 

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 for most people personal preference, not 

private discrimination or governmental actions, 

determines where people live. 

Dr. Armor may also testify on other topics..   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 certain survey results. At this time Dr. Armor has        



      

not finally completed his analysis of the CMT results or the 

survey. His conclusion in regard to these aspects of his work 

are preliminary. 

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

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

request for production. 

3. Dr. G. Donald Ferree (Expert Witness) Institute for 
  

Social Inquiry, Roper Center for Public Opinion, P. O. Box 440, 

Storrs, Connecticut: 06268: 

Dr. Ferree 1s the Associate Director of the Institute for 

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

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

plaintiffs’ fourth request for production. 

Dr. Ferree is expected to testify regarding proper methods 

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. The results to that survey are summarized 

in the attachment to Exhibit 6 in support of the defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment. 

4, Dr. Pasquale Forgione (former DOE Consultant) c/o State 
  

Department of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, 

Connecticut 06106: 

Dr. Forgione is not expected to offer opinion testimony as 

an expert witness. Instead he will provide testimony regarding 

the development, implementation and analysis of the CMT and CMT 

results. The specific analysis of CMT results which will be 

described by this witness have been provided to the plaintiffs in 

Exhibit 16(f) of defendants' response to plaintiffs' first 

request for production, Exhibit 18(d) of defendants' response to 

plaintiffs' second request for production, and Exhibit 10(c) of 

defendants' response to plaintiffs' third request for production. 

  
 



  

  
    

Dr. Forgione is also expected to note questions which have 

been raised regarding the effectiveness of the CMT in measuring 

the performance of students with limited English proficiency and 

how this problem might influence the overall CMT test results for 

a school district with high concentrations of LEP students. Dr. 

Forgione is also expected to note the variety of viewpoints in 

the education profession about the use and misuse of test results 

like the CMT results. He will also discuss the variety of 

viewpoints 1in the education profession regarding the use of 

testing as a measure of the quality of education being provided 

to children. The various viewpoints which Dr. Forgione will note 

will not necessarily be his own. 

5. Dr. Douglas Rindone. (DOE Consultant) o¢/o State 
  

Department of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, 

Connecticut 06106: 

Dr. Rindone is not expected to offer opinion testimony as an 

expert witness. Instead he may provide testimony regarding the 

development, implementation and analysis of the CMT and CMT 

  

  
 



      

results. The specific analysis of CMT results which will be 

described by this witness have been provided to the plaintiffs in 

Exhibit 16(f) of defendants' response to plaintiffs' first 

request for production, Exhibit 18(d) of defendants’ response to 

plaintiffs' second request for production, and Exhibit 10(c) of 

defendants' response to plaintiffs' third request for production. 

Dr. Rindone 1s also expected to note questions which have 

been raised regarding the effectiveness of the CMT in measuring 

the performance of students with limited English proficiency and 

how this problem might influence the overall CMT test results for 

a school district with high concentrations of LEP students. Dr. 

Rindone is also expected to note the variety of viewpoints in the 

education profession about the use and misuse of test results 

like the CMT results. He will also discuss the variety of 

viewpoints in the education profession regarding the use of 

testing as a measure of the quality of education being provided 

to children. The various viewpoints which Dr. Rindone will note 

will not necessarily be his own. 

  
 



      

Ea Dr. William Congero (DOE Consultant) c/0 State   

Department of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, 

Connecticut 06106: 

Dr. Congero 1s not expected to offer opinion testimony as an 

expert witness. Instead he may provide testimony regarding the 

development, implementation and analysis of the CMT and CMT 

results. The specific analysis of CMT results which will be 

described by this witness have been provided to the plaintiffs in 

Exhibit 16(f) of defendants' response . to plaintiffs' first 

request for production, Exhibit 18(d) of defendants' response to 

plaintiffs' second request for production, and Exhibit 10(c) of 

defendants' response to plaintiffs' third request for production. 

Dr. Congero 1s also expected to note questions which have 

been raised regarding the effectiveness of the CMT in measuring 

the performance of students with limited English proficiency and 

how this problem might influence the overall CMT test results for 

a school district with high concentrations of LEP students. Dr. 

Congero is also expected to note the variety of viewpoints in the 

-10- 

  
 



    

education profession about the use and misuse of test results 

like the CMT results. He will also discuss the variety of 

viewpoints in the education profession regarding the use of 

testing as a measure of the quality of education being provided 

to children. The various viewpoints which Dr. Congero will note 

will not necessarily be his own. 

7. Dr. Peter Behuniak (DOE Consultant) c/o State Department 
  

of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06106: 

Dr. Behuniak is not expected to offer opinion testimony as 

an expert witness. Instead he may provide testimony regarding 

the development, implementation and analysis of the CMT and CMT 

results. The specific analysis of CMT results which will be 

described by this witness have been provided to the plaintiffs in 

Exhibit 16(f) of defendants' response to plaintiffs' first 

request for production, Exhibit 18(d) of defendants' response to 

plaintiffs’ second request for production, and Exhibit 10(c) of 

defendants' response to plaintiffs' third request for production. 

   



      

Dr. Behuniak is also expected to note questions which have 

been raised regarding the effectiveness of the CMT in measuring 

the performance of students with limited English proficiency and 

how this problem might influence the overall CMT test results for 

a school district with high concentrations of LEP students. Dr. 

Behuniak is also expected to note the variety of viewpoints in 

the education profession about the use and misuse of test results 

like the CMT results. He will also discuss the variety of 

viewpoints in the education profession regarding the use of 

testing as a measure of the quality of education being provided 

to children. The various viewpoints which Dr. Behuniak will note 

will not necessarily be his own. 

8. Br. Elliot Williams (DOE Consultant) c/o State 
  

Department of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, 

Connecticut 06106: 

Dr. Williams is not expected to offer opinion testimony as 

an expert witness. Instead Dr. Williams will provide information 

regarding existing and planned programs promoting interdistrict 

-12- 

  

 



      

cooperation and improving integration. Specifically Dr. Williams 

will describe and verify the accuracy of the information found in 

Exhibits 3(x-z) to the defendants' response to plaintiffs' second 

request for production. 

9. Dr. Robert Brewer (DOE Consultant) c/o State Department 
  

of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06106: 

Dr. Brewer is not expected to offer opinion testimony as an 

expert witness. Instead Dr. Brewer will offer testimony 

regarding state grants to local school districts generally and 

the state's financial contribution to the school districts in 

what the plaintiffs have described as the Hartford area in 

particular. Dr. Brewer will attest to the accuracy of the 

information found in Exhibits 4(ee) and 7 of defendants' response 

to plaintiffs' second request for production. 

Dr. Brewer 1s also expected to attest to the accuracy of 

data showing how Hartford's spending on students in regular 

education compares with other districts in the state. 

-13- 

  
 



      

10. Dr. Peter Prowda (DOE Consultant) c/o State Department 
  

of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06106: 

Dr. Prowda is not expected to offer opinion testimony as an 

expert witness. Instead Dr. Prowda will offer testimony 

regarding the analysis of comparative rates of absenteeism 

provided to the plaintiffs as Exhibit 7(a) of the defendants’ 

response to plaintiffs' first request for production. 

1%. Dr. Theodore Sergi (DOE Consultant) c/o State 
  

Department of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, 

Connecticut 06106: 

Dr. Sergi 1s not expected to offer opinion testimony as an 

expert witness. Instead Dr. Sergi will offer testimony regarding 

the background, implementation and effectiveness of the state's 

priority school district grant program. Dr. Sergi's testimony 

will include an explanation of the analysis found in Exhibit 

4(ff) of defendants' response to plaintiffs’ second request for 

production. 

-14- 

  
 



      

12, Dr. Thomas Breen (DOE Consultant) c/o State Department   

of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06106. 

Dr. Breen is not expected to offer opinion testimony as an 

expert witness. Instead Dr. Breen will offer testimony regarding 

the racial and ethnic composition of schools and school districts 

throughout the state. He is also expected to focus on the racial 

and ethnic composition of the schools in Hartford and those towns 

which plaintiffs have identified as "suburban" communities for 

the purpose Of this suit. Among other things Dr. Breen is 

expected to verify the accuracy of the information contained in 

Exhibits 4(a) and 18(a-x) of defendants' response to plaintiffs 

fourth request for production. He will also verify the accuracy 

of data used by some of defendants' expert witnesses to analyze 

and compare the racial and ethnic composition of the schools in 

Hartford and the "suburban" communities. 

  

13. Mr. Lloyd Calvert (Expert Witness) c/o Office of the 

Attorney General, 110 Sherman Street, Hartford, Connecticut 

06105: 

-15- 

  
 



      

Mr. Calvert is the former Superintendent of Schools in West 

Hartford, Trumbull and Windsor and former Assistant 

Superintendent of Schools in Hartford. He 1s 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 plaintiffs have chosen to designate as suburban school 

districts. Tables and data which Mr. Calvert will rely on will 

be disclosed in response to the plaintiffs' earlier production 

requests when they have been prepared in final form. 

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

to address the needs of disadvantaged and urban children since 

-16- 

  
 



      

the 1920's as evidenced 1n records of the State Board of 

Education and his own work and experience. 

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 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 1s 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 

pupils to different schools in the Hartford area based upon their 

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

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

-17- 

  

 



      

current enrollment 1n the Hartford public schools and other 

schools in the area. 

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

not been completed at this time. 

14. Dr. Thomas E. Steahr, (Expert witness) c/o College of 
  

Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Connecticut, Box 

U-22, Room 318, 1376 Storrs Road, Storrs, CT 06269-4021. 

Dr. Steahr 1s presently 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. 

Dr. Steahr 1s expected to offer testimony regarding 

demographic patterns and trends in Connecticut generally and in 

the area which the plaintiffs have defined as the suburban 

-18- 

  
 



      

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, 

and 1t appears that the overall and K-12 pupil populations of 

that area which has been defined by the plaintiffs as "suburban 

Hartford" are becoming more diverse; 1i.e., individuals from 

traditionally recognized minority groups are locating and 

attending school in the suburban towns at an increasing rate. 

25 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 

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 

-19- 

  
 



        

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 natural phenomena which can and 

does occur without government promotion or sponsorship. 

Bs 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 

the eres 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 

-20- 

  
 



      

regarding the racial and ethnic composition of schools in the 

Hartford area. Tables and charts which Dr. Steahr is preparing 

will be provided to the plaintiffs when they are in final form. 

lo. Patricia Downs, Connecticut Department of Housing, 505   

Hudson Street, Hartford, CT. 

Ms. Downs 1s the Director of Policy and Planning for the 

Department of Housing. 

Ms. Downs is not expected to offer opinion testimony. 

Rather, she will provide testimony regarding the mechanism for 

State funding of housing for low and moderate income families, 

including selection criteria. She is also expected to testify as 

to current and future plans and policies of the State of 

Connecticut with respect to housing for low and moderate income 

families. 

-2]1- 

  

     



      

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

vi VY, 
Ys 

7 Sh    
  

By: \ A // J gi \ 

John R. Whelan - Juris 085112 
‘Asgistant Attorney General 
1Y0 Sherman Street 
Hartford, Connecticut 06105 

~ Tels. 566-7173 

CERTIFICATION 
  

This 1s to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed 
postage prepaid to the following counsel of record on 
May 15, 1992: 

John Brittain, Esq. 
University of Connecticut 
School of Law 

65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

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

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
Martha Stone, Esq. 
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 
32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

-22- 

  

 



      

Wesley W. Horton, Esq. 
Mollier, Horton & Fineberg, P.C. 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Ruben Franco, Esq. 
Jenny Rivera, Esq. 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
l4th Floor 
New York, NY 10013 

Julius L. Chambers, Esq 
Marianne Lado, Esq. 
Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell, Esq. 
Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 
Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 
American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 

New 4; rk, NY 10036, 

LLL 
John’ R. Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 

  

-23-