Motion for the Ameerican Civil Liberties Union Amicus Curiae to Allow Oral Argument
Public Court Documents
January 11, 1972
4 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Record: Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut No. SC 15255, 1995. a5b2009b-a146-f011-8779-7c1e5267c7b6. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/23db6b46-b218-4869-8cdb-5a254f6370ef/record-supreme-court-of-the-state-of-connecticut-no-sc-15255. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
A
SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
RECORD
Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford
Supreme Court No. SC 15255
MILO SHEFF ET AL.
Y.
WILLIAM A. O’NEILL ET AL.
Plaintiffs’ Appeal From Superior Court.
4
Hon. Harry Hammer, Judge
Hon. Bruce W. Thompson, Judge
Hon. Robert Satter, Judge
Hon. Robert H. Hale, State Trial Referee
Hon. Thelma A. Santos, Judge
Appearances:
For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:
Moller, Horton & Shields, P.C. Richard Blumenthal,
Martha Stone and Attorney General
Philip D. Tegeler, Connecticut Bernard F. McGovern,
Civil Liberties Union Foundation Martha Watts Prestley,
John Brittain, UConn School Carolyn K. Querijero and
of Law Gregory T. D’Auria,
Wilfred Rodriguez, Neighborhood Assistant Attorneys General
Legal Services
Pro Hac Vice:
Marianne Engelman Lado, Theodore M. Shaw and Deans D. Parker, NAACP Legal
Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
" Sandra Del Valle, Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc.
Christopher A. Hansen, Senior Staff Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation, Inc.
Cc Bass oo :
ABLE OF CONTENTS
No. Item
Page
i. Docket Entries 1
2. Revised Complaint 16
3. Revised Answer 48
4. Reply to Special Defenses 70
5, Motion to Strike 72
6. Memorandum of Decision on Motion to Strike 76
1. Motion for Summary Judgment 93
8. Memorandum of Decision on the Defendants’ 96
Motion for Summary Judgment
9. Memorandum of Decision 108
10. Plaintiffs’ & Defendants’ Revised Stipulations 180
of Fact
11. Plaintiffs’ Revised Proposed Findings of Fact 219
12 Defendants’ Revised Proposed Findings of Fact 291
13. Finding 233
14 Judgment File 361
15. Appeal Form 366
16. Docketing Statement 368
17. Transfer Letter 372
18 Preliminary Statement of Issues (Plaintiffs’) 373
19. Preliminary Statement of Issues (Defendants’) 375
036091¢7 S i MISC DECLARATORY JUDGMENT K:
Cv 89
SHEFF CHNRTEARD | 04-28-89
vs. SUPPL NOT ON TRLST
O'NEILL AEPL NON PRIV,
PRO SE PARTIES If 0 TT TPR Ei PARTIES
MARIANNE LADO PRO HAC VICE 18 ALFRED A. LINDSETH PRO HAC V 61
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND . 0 to ICE
99 HUDSON STREET Hhnto 02 999 PEACHTREE STREET NE «01
MEW YORK, NY 10013 .03 ATLANTA, GA +02
HELEN HERSHXOFF QUT OF STATE 19 30309 «03
ATTORNEY
AMERICAN CIVIL LIB. UN. «01 | AAG PERNEREWSKI 085078
132 WEST 43 ST. «02 WILLIAM A. O'NEILL GOVERNOR 50
NEW YORK, NY 10036 «03 91-11-26
RONALD ELLIS PRO HAC VICE 20 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 51
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND «D1 91-11-26
99 HUDSON STREET «02 ABRAHAM GLASSMAN BOE MEMBER 52
NEW YORK, NY 10013 .03 91-11-26
SANDRA DEL VALLE PRO HAC VIC 21 WALTER A. ESDAILE BOE MEMBER 53
E 91-11-26
PUERTO RICAN LEGAL FUND +01 WARREN J. FOLEY B80E MEMBER 54
99 HUDSON STREET «02 91-11-26
NEW YORK, NY 10013 «03 RITA HENDEL BOE MEMBER 55
JA-0002A 05/01/95 1
MOLLER H E S PC 038478 | 91-11-26
MILO SHEFF PPA 01 JOHN MANNIX B80FE MEMBER 56 89-04-28 91-11-26
WILDALIZ BERMUDEZ PPA 02 JULTA RANKIN BOE MEMBER 57 89-04-28 91-11-26
PEDRO BERMUDEZ PPA 03 GERALD N. TIRDZZI COMMISSION 58 89-04-23 ER & MEMBER OF BOE
EVA BERMUDEZ PPA 04 91-11-26
89-04-28 FRANCISCO L. BORGES TREASURE 59 OSKAR M, MELENDEZ PPA 05 R STATE OF CT.
89-04-28 91-11-26
WALESKA MELENDEZ PPA 06 EOWARD J. CALDWELL COMPTROLL 60 89-04-28 ER STATE OF CT.
MARTIN HAMILTON PPA 07 91-11-26
89-04-28
DARRYL HUGHLEY PPA 08 1 AAG JR WHELAN 085112 89-04-28 WILLIAM A. O'NEILL GOVERNCR 50 JEWELL HUGHLEY PPA 09 89-06-01
89-04-28 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 51
JA-0002A 05/01/95 2
DAVID We HARRINGTON PPA 10 | 89-06-01
89-04-28 ABRAHAM GLASSMAN BOE MEMBER 52
MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON PPA 11 89-06-01
89-04-28 WALTER A, ESDAILE BOE MEMBER 53
JOSEPH LEACH PPA 12 89-06-01
89-04-28 WARREN J. FOLEY BOE MEMBER 54
RACHEL LEACH PPA 13 89-06-01
£9-04-28 RITA HENDEL BOE MEMBER 55
ERICA CONNOLLY PPA 14 89-06-01
89-04-28 JOHN MANNIX BOE MEMBER 56
TASHA CONNOLLY PPA 15 89-06-01
89-04-28 JULTA RANKIN BOE MEMBER 57
16 89-06-01
bl hal pea GERALD N. TIROZZI COMMISSION 58
NEIIMA BEST PPA 17 ER £& MEMBER OF BOE
89-04-28 89-06-01
JANELLE HUGHLEY 22 FRANCISCO L. BORGES TREASURE 59
93-01-29 R STATE OF CT.
89-06-01
JA-0002A 05/01/95 3
0360974)
MISC DECLARATORY JUDGMENT @ 05-30-89
Me. SYDNE 061506 EDWARD Je. CALDWELL COMPTROLL 60
MILD SHEFF PPA 01 ER STAYE OF CTY,
89-04-28 B9=-06=01
WHILDALIZ B8ERMUDEZ PPA 02
89-04-28 AAG BF MCGOVERN 085230
PEDRO BERMUDEZ PPA 03 WILLIAM A. O'NEILL GOVERNOR 50
89-04-28 91-11-20
EVA BERMUDEZ PPA 04 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 51
89-04-28 91-11-20
OSKAR M, MELENDEZ PPA 05 ABRAHAM GLASSMAN BOE MEMBER 52
B9-04-28 91-11-20
WALESKA MELENDEZ PPA 06 WALTER A, ESDAILE BOE MEMBER 53
89-04-28 91-11-20 i
MARTIN HAMILTON PPA 07 WARREN J. FOLEY BOE MEMBER 54%
89-04-28 91-11~20
DARRYL HUGHLEY PPA 08 RITA HENDEL BOE MEMBER 55
89-04-28 91-11-20
JEHELL HUGHLEY PPA 09 JOHN MANNIX BOE MEMBER 56
89-04-28 91-11-20
JA-0002A 05/01/95 4
DAVID W. HARRINGTON PPA 19 JULIA RANKIN BOE MEMBER 57
89-04-28 91-11-20
MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON PPA 11 GERALD N., TIR0ZZI COMMISSION 58
89-04-28 ER & MEMBER OF B(QE
JOSEPH LEACH PPA 1:2 91-11-20
89-04-28 FRANCISCO L. BORGES TREASURE 59
RACHEL LEACH PPA 13 2 STATE DF CT,
B9-04-28 91-11-20
ERICA CONNOLLY PPA 14 EOWARD J. CALDWELL COMPTROLL 60
89-04-28 ER STAYE OF CT,
TASHA CONNOLLY PPA 15 91-11-20
89-04-28
LISA LABQOY PPA 16! ReA. HEGHMANM 100091
89-04-28 VICTORIA A HEGHMANN 52
NETIIMA BEST PPA 17 93-04-30
89-04-28 BEATRICE M HEGHMANN 63
93-04-30
J.CeBRITTAIN 101153
MILO SHEFF PPA 01 | AAG MW PRESTLEY 406172
JA-0002A 05/01/95 5
89-04-28 WILLIAM A. O'NEILL GOVERNOR 50
WILDALIZ BERMUDEZ PPA 02 92-07-10
89-04-28 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 51
PEDRO BERMUDEZ PPA 03 92-07-10
89-04-28 ABRAHAM GLASSMAN BOE MEMBER 52
EVA BERMUDEZ PPA 04 92-07-10
89-04-28 WALTER A. ESDAILE BOE MEMBER 53
OSKAR M., MELEMDEZ PPA 05 92-07-10
89-04-28 WARREN Je. FOLEY BOE MEMBER 54
WALESKA MELENDEZ PPA 06 92-07-10
89-04-28 RITA HENDEL BOE MEMBER 55
MARTIN HAMILTON PPA 07 92-07-10
89-04-28 JOHN MANNIX BOE MEMBER 56
DARRYL HUGHLEY PPA 08 92-07-10
89-04-28 JULIA RANKIN BOE MEMBER 57
JEWELL HUGHLEY PPA 09 92-07-10
89-04-28 GERALD N. TIR0DZZI COMMISSION 58
DAVID He. HARRINGTON PPA 10 ER & MEMBER OF BOE
89-04-28 92-07-10
JA-0002A 05/01/95 6
0360977 S & MISC DECLARATORY JUDGMENT % 05-30-89
MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON PPA 11; FRANCISCO L. BORGES TREASURE 59
89-04-28 R STATE OF CT.
JOSEPH LEACH PPA 121 92-07-10
» 89-04-28 | EDWARD J. CALDWELL COMPTROLL 60
RACHEL LEACH PPA 13 | ER STATE OF CT.
89-04-28 92-07-10
ERICA CONNOLLY PPA 14
89-04-28
TASHA CONNOLLY PPA 15 |
89-04-28 -
LISA LABOY PPA 16
[ 89-04-28
NETIMA BEST PPA 17
89-04-28
M.B.ALISBERG 102157
MILO SHEFF PPA 01
89-04-28
WILDALIZ BERMUDEZ PPA 02
*®
JA-0002A 05/01/95 7
89-04-28
PEDRO BERMUDEZ PPA 03
89-04-28
EVA BERMUDEZ PPA 04 i
® 89-04-28 |
OSKAR M. MELENDEZ PPA 05
89-04-28
WALESKA MELENDEZ PPA 06
89-04-28
MARTIN HAMILTON PPA 07
A9-04-28
DARRYL HUGHLEY PPA 08 |
» 89-04-28
JEHELL HUGHLEY PPA 09 |
89-04-28 :
DAVID We. HARRINGTON PPA 10
89-04-28
MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON PPA 11
89-04-28 i
®
JA-0002A 05/01/95 8
JOSEPH LEACH PPA 12
89-04-28
RACHEL LEACH PPA 13
89-04-28
ERICA CONNOLLY PPA 14
® 89-04-28
TASHA CONNOLLY PPA 15
89-04-28
LISA LABOY PPA 16
89-04-28
NETIMA BEST PPA 17
89-04-28
: ) P.D.TEGELER 102537
MILO SHEFF PPA 01
89-04-28
WILDALIZ BERMUDEZ PPA 02
89-04-28
PEDRO BERMUDEZ PPA 03
\ JA-0002A 05/01/95 9
020097 ily MISC DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 3 05-30-89
89-04-28 1 _—
EVA BERMUDEZ PPA 04
89-04-28
OSKAR M. MELENDEZ PPA 05
89-04-28
WALBSKA MELENDEZ PPA 06
89-04-28
MARTIN HAMILTON PPA 07
89-04-28
DARRYL HUGHLEY PPA 08
89-04-28
JEWELL HUGHLEY PPA 09 |
89-04-28 i
DAVID HW. HARRINGTON PPA 10
89-04-28
MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON PPA 11
89-04-28
JOSEPH LEACH PPA 12
89-04-28
JA-0002A 05/01/95 10
RACHEL LEACH PPA 137 SES
89-04-28
ERICA CONNOLLY PPA 14
89-04-28
TASHA CONNOLLY PPA 15
89-04-28
LISA LABOY PPA 16
89-04-28
NETIMA BEST PPA 17
89-04-28
We RODRIGUEZ 302827
MILO SHEFF PPA 01 |
89-04-28
WILDALIZ BERMUDEZ PPA 02
89-04-28
PEDRO B8ERMUDEZ PPA 03
89-04-28
EVA BERMUDEZ PPA 04
JA-0002A 05/01/95 11
89-04-28
OSKAR M. MELENDEZ PPA 05
89-04-28
WALESKA MELENDEZ PPA 06
89-04-28
MARTIN HAMILTON PPA 07
89-04-28
DARRYL HUGHLEY PPA 08
89-04-28
JEWELL HUGHLEY PPA 09
89-04-28
DAVID W. HARRINGTON PPA 10
89-04-28
MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON PPA 11
89-04-28
JOSEPH LEACH PPA 12
89-04-28
RACHEL LEACH PPA 13
89-04-28
JA-0002A 05/01/95 12
ERICA CONNDLLY PPA 14
89-04-28
TASHA CONNOLLY PPA 15
89-04-28
LISA LABOY PPA 16
B9-04=-28
NETIMA BEST PPA 17
89-04-28
EN
EN
|
E
o
3
D
I
|
[9 o
To
¢)
0
0
h
e
r
e
(©
)
C
I
I
C
I
N
h
o
O
N
G
N
N
D
O
D
104-0
03-21-89
113-00
2-14-30
114-00
02-14-99
119-09
NI=23~3)
PTE
PTF
GRNTD 07-31-89
DFD
ine] -
Le LL. TQ APDEAR
1D~ 31=89
NADER 11=21=29
Lay
GINYID 12-07-39
CRY
ORDER 12-94-89
NSEL ADDE AR
NTD 02-14-90
.
SHE
AFFIDAVIT
MOTINDN FOR (ORDER
THOMPSON,
MOTION TO STRIKE
MEMORANDUM
MOTINN FOR PERMISSION FOR DUTY
HAMMER, J.
D8JELTION TO MOTION TD
ION TO MOTION
STATEMENT
MOTION FOR ORDER
HAMMER, J.
MOTION FOR DRDER
FILE WITH
LAW CLERKS
HAMMER, J,
REPLY
MOTION
HALE, R.
AFFIDAVIT
MEMNR AND
L,
/01795
V NINETLL
iA-00073A
J
DF STAYE
STRIKE AND
FOR PERMISSION FOR QUT OF STATE
120-00
“o7- 9% 9)
125-00
07-05-90
126-00
07=17~90
CRY
PTE NOTICE OF FILING OF DISCOVERY REQUEST
PTE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW
APPEARANCE
DED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY
AITH MOTION FR D1SCLOSURE/PRODUE TION
LAW CLERKS
ORNER 03-1930 HAMMER, J.
PTF NOTICE OF FILING OF DISCOVERY REQUEST
DED DISCLOSURE AND PRODUCTION
DED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
DFO ANSWER AND SPECIAL DEFENSE
DF) NOTICE
DED DISCLOSURE AND PRJODUCTIDCNM
DED NOTICE OF FILING OF INTERROGAYORIES
PYF REPLY TO. SPECIAL DEFENSE
CLAIM FOR TRIAL L157
PYF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY
WITH MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE/PRODUCTION
PTF NOTICE
STATUS INTERMED APPEAL
SUPERIDR 05/01/95
SHEFF V DINEILYL
A OMOEA
uRA-uUuuvoAm
131-00 PYF OBJECTION TN INTERROGATORIES
09-24-90
132-00 DED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
10-15-99
* 10-22-99) ~
133-00 OFD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY
10-26-90 WITH MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE/PRODUCTION
GRNTD 10-26-90 HAMMER, J.
134-00 PYLE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME YO COMPLY
10-31-99 WITH MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE/PRCDUCTION
%.:11~07=90
135-00 PTF NOTICE DOF RESPONSES TO INTERRBNGATNRIES
10~31=90
135- OFD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME RE
11-28-90 DISCOVERY MOTION OR REQUEST P3 (HB
137-C0 PYF NOTICE OF FILING OF DISCOVERY REQUEST
11-30-99
138-00 PIE MOYION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY
12-10-90 WITH MOTION FOR DISCLNSURE/PRODUCTION
139~ PYF O8JECTION TO INTERROGATORIES
12-10-30
140-09 DFD REQUEST FDR ADMISSION PB-238
12-03-90
141-00 OFD OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORIES
12-0399
142-00 DFD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
12-03-30 x
143-00 DFD NOTICE OF FILING OF DISCOVERY REQUEST
12=03~33
143-50 DFD MOYION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME RE
12-21-90 DISCOVERY MOTION OR REQUEST P83 CHB
144-00 PYF NOTICE
01=15+9}
LV KEY POINT STATUS INTEOMED ADPCAL
29... HAIEQRD SUPERIOR 05/01/95
DN D35° 09 77S SHEFF Y O'NEILL
IA-GO03A
Le MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
GRNTD 01-23-91 HAMMER, J.
145-10 CRY ORDER ENTERED
01-23-91 ORDER 01-23-91 HAMMER, J. -
146-00 PTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME RE
01-30-91 DISCOVERY MOTION OR REQUEST P8 CHB
« 02-06-91
147-00 PTF NOTICE
02-19-91
148-00 DFD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY
04-29-91 WITH MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE/PRODUCTION
x 05-06-91
153-00 DAD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
% 07-23-91 DEND 02-24-92 HAMMER, J.
150-00 DEN MEMORANDUM
07-08-91
151-00 DED MEMORANDUM
07-93-91
152-00 PTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
07-26-91 GRNTD 07-26-91 HAMMER, J.
153-09 PTF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
09-03-91.
% 09-10-91
154-00 oTE AMENDED COMPLAINT
09-20-91
155-00 PTE MOTION TO CITE ADDITIONAL PARTY
09-20-91 :
x 09-27-91
156-00 PTF AFFIDAVIT
09-20-91.
157-09 PTF AFFIDAVIT
09-20-91
153-00 PTE AFFIDAVIT
09-20-91
CY KEY POINT STATUS INTERMED APPEAL
89 HARTFORD SUPERIOR 05701795
0 035 09 77 S SHEFF V DYNEILL
~~ AEE
VAP REA F
A
A
159-00 PTF MEMORANCUM
07-20-31
160-00 DFD MEMORANDUM
11-05-91
161-00 DYF MOTION FOR (ORDER
21-10-92
* 01-11-92
152-00 PTF MEMORANDUM
01-10-91
1 3 Oa 33 CRY MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION
ORDER 02-24-92 HAMMER, J.
164-00 OFD WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
2-23-62
165-00 PTE MOTION FOR PERMISSION FOR JUTY OF STATE
03-10-92 COUNSEL TO APDCAR
GRNTD 03-05-92 HAMMER, J.
165-00 DED MOTION FOR ORDER
D3=24~32
i 0D3-31~92
1567-00 PYF MOTION FCR ORDER
Q4-01=92
x 04-08-92
163-00 PTF MEMORANDUM
04-01-92
163-590 LRT ORDER
04~103=92
ORDER 04-19-92 HAMMER, J.
169-900 DFD MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE -
NS~18-92 PR SEL:231 -
170-00 PIF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY
04-30-92 WITH MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE/PRCDUCTION
17100 PTF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY
05-29-92 WITH MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE/PRODUCTION
1712-00 CRT ORDER ENTERED
0p-10-92
DRDER 06-10-92 HAMMER, J.
KEY POINT STATUS INTERMED APPEAL 3
HARTFORD SUPERIOR 05/01/95
35.0977 5 SHEFF V OINEILL
-3002A
173-00 WIT STIPULATIDN »
06-10-92
174-00 CRT ORDER
N6E=-10-92
ORDER 06-10-92 HAMMER, J.
175-00 PTF MEMORANDUM »
06-12-92
176-00 CRT FILE WITH
N7-08-92
GRNTD 07-08-92 HAMMER, J.
177-00 DFD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ®
07-14-92
* 07-21-92
178-00 PTF REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDMENT
07-27-92 AND AMENDMENT
179-00 DFD MATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
07-31-92 “
% 08-07-92
179-50 DED AMENDMENT
N8=12=-92
182-00 PTF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TD COMPLY
18-14-92 WITH MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE/PRODUCTIODN he
% 08-21-92
131-00 DFD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY
08-17-92 WITH MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE/PRIODUCTION
% 0R=24-92
182-00 PTF CBJECTION TO EXTENSION OF TIME MOTION
08-20-02 ®
183-00 DFD MOTION FOR ORDER (OF COMPLIANCE -
N8=-26-92 PB SEC 231 i
184-00 DFD MEMORANDUM
0B=26-G2 @
185-00 OFD MOTION FOR ORDER
08-27-92
* 09-03-92
186-00 CRY ORDER
N9-02-92 »
NRDER 09-02-92 HAMMER, J.
CY KFY POINT STATUS INTERMED APPEAL 6
89 HARTFORD SUPERIOR 05/01/95
ON 036 09 77 S SHEFF Vv O'NEILL
IR=OOnaA »
» 127-09 OFD MOTION FOR ORDER
09-93-92
x 09-10-92
188-00 DFD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
09-30-92
x 10-07-92
® 189-09 TE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
10-01-92
% 10-08-92
190-00 DFO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
10-01-92 * 10-08-92
° 191-00 PTF MOTION TO COMPEL
10-05-92
% 10-12-92
192-00 DED MOTION FOR PERMISSION FOR OUT NF STATE
10-05-92 COUNSEL TO APPEAR
% 10-12-92
193-00 PTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY
® 10-16-92 WITH ¥OTION £0? DISCLOSURE/PRODUCTION
194-00 ED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY
10-15-92 WITH MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE/PRODUCTION
© 10-22-92
195-09 OFD IBJECTION TO MOTION
® 19-24-92
« {1-62-93
195-00 DFD 0SJECTION TO INTERROGATORIES
10-26-92
197-00 PTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME RE
» 10-29-92 DISCOVERY MOTION OR REQUEST PB CHB
11-04-92
198-00 DFD REPLY
11-23-92
199-00 PTF MOTION FOR PERMISSION FOR OUT OF STATE
» 11-19-92 CQUNSEL TD APPEAR
GRNTD 11-19-92 HAMMER, Jo
200-00 DEN MEMORANDUM
11-16-92
200-10 PTF MEMORANDUM
® 11-16-92
CY KEY ONOTINT STATUS INTERMED APPEAL 7
89 HARTFOR0 SUPER [OR 05/01/95
DN 036 09 77 S SHEFF V O'NEILL
NC PIVENTY A
2850-20
11-16~92
20030
N1=213=93
200-490
01-13-93)
200-50
01-20-93
200= 930
01-27-33
201-09
31-27-93
231-15
Dl=27-93
201-20
31-37-93
201-390
D1-28-93
201-40
D1~-23=-93%
NT STATUS
PIF
DFD
NRNER 01-13-93
DFD
PTF
PTF
DFD
NFD
DFD
DED
PTF
GRNTD 01-28-93
PTF
PTE
GRNTD 01-23-93
PTF
PTF
5
SHE
STIPULATION
D3JECYION TO MOTIDN
HAMMER, J.
DISCLOSURE GF EXPERT WITNESS
REQUEST TO AMEND COMPLAINT/AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT
ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
NAJ=CT INN
Q8JECT ION
N3JECT ION
REQUEST TO AMEND COMPLAINT/AMENDMENT
HAMMER, J.
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTY
HAMMER, J.
AMENDMENT
REQUEST TO AMEND COMPLAINT/AMENDMENT
V.OINETLL
Fn: tm pn pe a
JArUUL OMA
291-19
N2-25-933
202-00
N4-03
203-00
04-01
204-00
4-19-33
205-00
04-19
-93
-933
-93
PTF
PTF
D¥D
PYF
AREF
PTF
DEN
DFD
DFD
PTF
CRMYD 07-09-33
PIF
DFD
DED
COUNSEL TO APPAR
IER
RINR
YMED APP
AMENDED COMPLAINT
REPLY TO SPECIAL OEFENSE
ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
MOTION FOR
BRIEF
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
MOTION TO INTERVENE
MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM
MOTION FOR
MOTION FOR
ARIEF
MOTION FOR
ARYIEF
BRIEF
MOTION FOR
EAL
05/01/95
EXTENSION OF YO: FILE
EXTENSION OF
EXTENSION OF TIME
HAMMER, Je.
PERMISSION FOR OUT OF STATE
VY -O'NEILL
AE
HET PAVE
212-75 OFD WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION
12-14-93
212-80 PTF BRIEF
31-31-94
212-85 PTF BRIEF
01-31-94
212- DFD BRIEF
01-31-94
213-00 DFD MEMORANDUM
05-26-94
214-00, or PTE REQUEST TO AMEND COMOLAINT/AMENDMENT
215-00 DFD OBJECTION TO REQUEST TOD REVISE
10-14-94
% 10-21-94
216-00 DED N8JECTICN TO REQUEST TO AMEND
10-17-94
x 10-24-94
216-50 PTF AMENDED COMPLAINT
11-23-94
217-00 PTF REPLY TO SPECIAL DEFENSE
11-28-94
218-00 DEN AMSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
11-28-94
219-09 TRIAL COMPLETED-DECISION RESERVED
11-30-94
11-30-94 - HAMMER, Je
220-00 WIT AFFIDAVIT
12-27-94
221-09 DTF WAIVER-GENERAL
03-27-95
221-10 PTF STIPULATION
03-27-95
CV KEY POINT STATUS [INTERMED AOPEAL 10
89 HARTFORD SUPERIOR 05/01/95
DN 036 09 77 S SHEFF V DUNEILL
222-99 CRT MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
04-12-95
ORDER 04-12-95 HAMMER, J.
223-0 JUDGMENT AFTER COMPLETED TRIAL TN THE
04-12-95 COURT FOR THE DEFENDANT (S)
04-12-95 HAMMER, J, _
224-00 DFO MOTION FOR ORDER
04-25-95
* 05-02-95
225-00 PTF APPEAL TO APPELLATE COURT
04-27-95
224-00 PTF MOTION FOR PERMISSION FOR QUT OF STATE 74-27-95 COUNSEL TN APPEAR
GRNTD 04-27-95 SANTOS, J.
K=Y POINT STATUS INTERMED APPEAL
HARTFORD SUDERTOR 05701795
35 n9 77 S SHEFF V J'NEILL
11
NO. CV 89-0360977S
MILO SHEFF, ET AL. SUPERIOR COURT
VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/
NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD
WILLIAM A. O’NEILL, ET AL. NOVEMBER 23, 1994
REVISED COMPLAINT
1. This complaint is brought on behalf of school children in the
Hartford school district, a great majority of whom -- 91 percent -- are
black or Hispanic, and nearly half of whom -- 47.6 percent -- live in
families that are poor. These children attend public schools in a
district that is all but overwhelmed by the demand to educate a student
population drawn so exclusively from the poorest families in the
Hartford metropolitan region. The Hartford school district is also
racially and ethnically isolated: on every side are contiguous or
adjacent school districts that, with one exception are virtually
all-white, and without exception, are middle- or upper-class in
socioeconomic composition.
2. This complaint is also brought on behalf of children in
ar % —-— i
suburban school districts that surround Hartford. Because of the
racial, ethnic, and economic isolation of Hartford metropolitan school
_
districts, these plaintiffs are deprived of the opportunity to
associate with, and learn from, the minority children attending school
®
ith the Eartford school district.
3. The educational achievement of school children educated in
lene Hartford school district is not, as a2 whole, nearly as great as
®
that of students educated in the surrounding communities. These
disparities in achievement are not the result of native inability: |
lpoor and minority children have the potential to become well-educated,
H
e
cut, by tolerating
las do any other children. Yet the State of Connect Y
|
Ischool districts sharply separated along racial, ethnic, and econcmic
|lines, has deprived the plaintiffs and other Eartford children of thelr’
. rights to an eguzl educational cppeortunity, and to a minimally adequate
education -- rights to which they are entitled under the Connecticut
Constitution and Connecticut statutes.
® 4. The defendants and their predecessors have long been aware of
the educational necessity for racial, ethnic, and economic integration
in the public schools. The defendants have reccgnized the lasting harm
® inflicted on poor and minority students by the maintenance of isolated
urban school districts. Yet, despite their knowledge, despite treln:
: Constitutional and statutory obligations, despite sufficient legal
® tools to remedy the problem, the defendants have failed to act
effectively to provide equal educational opportunity to plaintiffs and
other Eartford schoolchildren.
®
- -
J
|
Legislative or the Executive branch. Under Connecticut’s constitut
|
5. Equal educational opportunity, however, is not a matter of
|
sovereign grace, to be given or withheld at the discretion of the
| on,
it is a solemn pledge, 2 covenant renewed in every generation between
the people of the State and their children. The Connecticut
Constitution assures to every Connecticut child, in every city and
ortunity to education as the surest means by which to
| y : ‘ d >
phage his or her own future. This lawsuit is brought to secure this
basic constitutional right for plaintiffs and all Connecticut
|
i
Ibrings this action as his next friend... Ee
schoolchildren.
A. PLAINTIFFS
6. Plaintiff ¥ilo Sheff is = fourteen-vear-old black child. Ee
resides in the city of Eartford with his mother, Elizabeth Sheff, who
is enrolled in the eighth
grade at Quirk Middle School.
2. ©Plaintiff wildaliz Bermudez is a ten-year-old Puerto Rican
-
child. She resides in the City of Hartford with her parents, Pedro and
-~ A
—
Carmen Wilda Bermudez, who bring this section 2s. her next friend. She
is enrolled in the fifth grade at Kennelly School.
I
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Plaintiff Martin Hamilton is a thirteen-year-old black
child. He resides in the City of Hartford with his mother, virginia
i ~Pertillary who brings this action as his next friend. He is enrolled
in the seventh grade at Quick Middle School.
13. [Withdrawn.]
14. Plaintiff Janelle Hughley is a 22-year-old black child. She
resides in the city of Hartford with her mother, Jewell Hughley, who
brings this action as her next friend.
® ) @ .
*
15. 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.
16. Plaintiff Lisa Laboy is an eleven-year-old Puerto Rican
ichild. She resides in the City of Hartford with her mother, Adria »
Laboy, who brings this action as her next friend. She is enrolled in |
lene £ifth crads. at Burr School. |
|
|
17. ©Plaintiff David William Harrington is a thirteen-year-old | “-
White child. He resides in the City of Eartford with his parents, |
Karen and Leo Harrington, who bring this action as his next frieand. He |
lis enrolled in the seventh grade at Quirk Middle School. | »
;
]
18. Plaintiff Michael Joseph Earrington is a ten-year-old white
lenila. Ee resides in the City of Eartford with his parents, Xaren and
Iteo Earrington, who bring this action as his next friend. Ee is -
enrolled in the fifth grade at Noah Webster Elementary School.
19. ©Dlaintiff Rachel Leach is a ten-year-old white child. She
resides in the Town of West Hartford with her parents, Eugene Leach anc
Xathleen Frederick, who bring this action as her next friend. She is
I Ar waa -
enrolled in the fifth grade at the Whiting Lane School.
®
*
-5-
*
20. ©Plaintiff Joseph Leach is a nine-year-old white child. Ee
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 the Whiting Lane School.
51. Plaintiff Erica Connolly is a nine-year-old white child.
She resides in the City of Hartford with her parents, Carcl Vinick and
Tom Connolly, who bring this action as her next friend. She is
enrolled in the fourth grade at Dwight School.
52. Plaintiff Tasha Connolly is a six-year-old white child. She
resides in the City of 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.
22a. Michael Perez is a fifteen-year-old Puerto Rican child. ie
resides in the City of Hartford with his father, Danny Perez, Who
brings this action as his next friend. Ee is enrolled as a sophomore
at Hartford Public High School.
22b. Dawn Perez is a thirteen-year-old Puerto Rican child. She
resides in the city of Hartford with her father, Danny Perez, Who
brings this action as her next friend. She is enrolled in the eighth
rade at-Qmirk Middle School.
23. Among tne plaintiffs are five black children, seven Puerto
fl . .
° hd Nd
Rican children and six white children. At least one of the children
|
lives in families whose income falls below the officizl poverty line;
five have limited proficiency in English; six live in single-parent
|
|
families.
B. DEFENDANTS
24. Defendant William O0’Neill or his successor is the Governor
's€ the State of Connecticut. sursuant to C.G.S. §10-1 and 10-2, with
the advice and consent of the General Assembly, he is responsible for
appointing the members of the State Board of Education and, pursuant to
lc.G.s. §10-4(p), is responsible for receiving a detailed stztement of
the activities of the board and an account of the condition of the
public schools and such other information as will assess the true
lcondition, progress and needs of public education.
25. Defendant State Board of Education of the State of
|
IConnecticut (hereafter nthe State Board!" or 'the State Board of
| rt
Education’) is charged with the overall supervision and control ©
educational interest of the State, including elementary and secondary
education, pursuant to C.G.S. §10-4.
56. “Defendants Ebraham Glassman, A. Walter Esdaile, wWarrel J.
Foley, Rita Eendel, John Mannix, and Julia Rankin, oT their successors
‘are members of the State Board of Education of the State of
Connecticut. Pursuant to C.G.S. §10-4, they have general supervision
and control of the educational interest of the State.
-] —-
Tirozzi or his successor is the
l
|
|
|
f
i
°*
all monies by the State.
27 Defendant Gerald N.
Commissioner of the Education of the State of Connecticut and az member
~f tha State Board of Education. Pursuant to C.G.S. §§l0-2 and 10-32,
he is responsible for carrying cut the mandates of the Board, and is
lsc director of the Department of Education {(hersafiexr "the state
Department of Education! or ''the State Department").
28. Defendant Francisco L. Borges or his successor is Treasurer
the State of Connecticut. Pursuant to £22 o2 the
Connecticut Constitution, he is
Ee is also the custodian of certain
educational funds of the Connecticut State Board of Education, pursuant
to C.G.5. 5810-11.
29. Defendant J. Edward Caldwell or his successor is the
Comptroller of the State of Connecticut.
§24 of the Connecticut Constitution and C.G.S. §3-112, he
responsible for adjusting and settling all public accounts and
II
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. A SEPARATE EDUCATION
30. School children in public schools throughout the State of
Connecticut, including the city of Hartford and its adjacent suburban
‘communities, are largely segregated by race and ethnic origin.
31. Although blacks comprise only 12.1% of Connecticut’s
'school-age population, Hispanics only 8.5%, and children in families
below the United states Department of Agriculture's official 'Ypoverty
ine only 9.7% in 1986, these groups comprised, as of 1987-88, 44.9%,
44.9%, and 51.4% respectively of the school-age population of the
Hartford school district. The percentage of black and Hispanic
(nereatter "minority") students enrolled in the Hartford City schools
has been increasing since 1981 at an average annual rate of 1.5%.
32. The only other school district in the Hartford metropolitan
area with a significant proportion of minority students is Bloomfield,
|
which has a minority student population of 69.9%.
»
33. The school-age populations in all other suburban school
districts immediately adjacent and contiguous to the Hartford school
®
district, (hereafter "the suburban districts), by contrast, are
overwhelmingly white. An analysis of the 1987-88 figures for Hartford,
Bloomfield, and each of the suburban districts (excluding Burlington,
a : eh :
jvaich has a joint school program with districts outside the Hartford
|
| metropolitan area) (reveals the following comparisons by race and ethnic |
| |
|origin: |
bd Total School Pop. %¥ Minority |
| |
|Hartford 25,058 90.5 |
|Bloomfield 2,555 69.9 |
RAEELEELEEEEEELES
| Avon 2,068 3.8 |
® | Canton 1,189 2.2 |
|East Granby 666 2.3
| Bast Hartford 5,905 20.8
East Windsor 1,267 8.5 |
Ellington 1,855 2.3
| Farmington 2,608 Tn’
® |Glastonbury 4,463 5.4
Granby 1,528 3.5
Manchester 7,084 31.1
Newington 3,801 6.4
Rocky Hill 1,807 5.9
Simsbury 4,039 5.5
\ South Windsor 3,648 9.3
suffield 1,772 4.0
Yernon 4,457 6.4
- | gest Hartford - 7,424 15.7
Wethersfield 2,997 3.3
Windsor 4,235 30.8
» Windsor Locks 1,642 4.0
®
-10-
.
34. Similar significant racial and ethnic disparities
~haracterize the professional teaching and aéninistrative staffs of
Hartford and the suburban districts, as the following 1986-87
comparisons reveal:
|
|
|
Staff % Minority
FEartford 2,044 33.2%
Bloomfield 264 13.8%
he ve Je Jk Je Je Je Je dk Je Je Jk dk Jk kk
Avon 379 3.1%
Canton 108 0.0%
mast Granby 57 1.8%
Fast Eartford 517 0.6%
East Windsor 102 4.9%
'Fllington 164 0.6%
Farmington 202 1.0%
Glastonbury 344 2.0%
Granby 131 0.8%
Manchester 537 "7
Newington 310 1.0%
Rocky Eill 154 0.8%
Simsbury 317 1.9%
South Windsor 294 1.4%
Suffield 143 0.7%
Vernon 366 03%
West Hartford 605 3.5%
Wethersfield 263 2.1%
Windsor 331 5.4%
Windsor Locks : 140 0.0%
B. AN UNEQUAL EDUCATION
35. Hartford schools contain a far greater proportion of
- a = - Th i es
students, at all levels, from backgrounds that put them 'at risx' ok
lower educational achievement. The cumulative responsibility fer
educating this high proportion of at-risk students places the Eartford
public schools at a severe educational disadvantage in comparison with
the suburban schools.
-11-
36. All children, including those deemed at risk of lower
edueation achievement, have the capacity to learn if given a suitable
® education. Yet because the Hartford public schools have an
extraordinary proportion of at-risk students among their student Er they operate at a severe educational disadvantage in
a addressing the educational needs of all students -- not only those who
are at risk, but those who are not. The sheer proportion of at-risk
students imposes enormous educational burdens on the individual
students, teachers, classrooms, and on the schools within the City of
Eartford. These burdens have deprived both the at-risk children and
all other Hartford schoolchildren of their right to an equal
® educational opportunity.
37. An analysis of 1987-88 data from the Eartford and suburban
ldistricts, employing widely accepted indices for jdentifying at-risk |
students -- including: (i) whether a child’s family receives benefits
under the Federal Aid to Families with Dependent children program, (a i
measure closely correlated with family poverty): (ii) whether a child
has limited english proficiency (hereafter np"); or (iii) whether a
child is from a single-parent family, reveals the following overall
bid ° —- ee. >
comparisons:
% on AFDC % LEP % Sql. Par. Fam.*
|IEartford 47
Avon 0
Bloomfield 4
Canton l.
East Granby 1
7 ® East Eartford
% on AFDC % LEP X% Sql. Par, Fam.*
Fast Windsor 3.56 25 8.3
Ellington 0.5 0.3 Ze?
Farmington 0.7 4+7 14.0
Glastonbury 1.5 1.4 10.0
Granby 0.6 0.0 5.5
Manchester 3.4 2+5 7.9
Newington 1.2 8.2 5.5
Rocky Eill 0.6 7 +5 13.4
Simsbury 02 1.4 7-6
South Windsor 0.4 4.4 8.4
suffield 0.8 2.31 8.4
Vernon 6.2 0... 9 13.5
west Rartford 2.0 7:3 10.9
Wethersfield 3.2 0.8 9.6
windsor vo 12.5 34.2
windsor Locks 3.3 2.3 13.4
* (Community-wide Data)
38. raced with these severe education burdens, schools in
Fartford school district have been unable to provide educational
opportunities that are substantially equal to those received by
schoolchildren in the suburban districts.
3g. As a result, the overall achievement of schoolchildren
the Eartford school district -- assessed by virtually any measures
educational performance -- is substantially below that of
schoolchildren in the suburban districts.
ar * Le 25 —
-13-
the
:
21
40. One principal measure of student achievement in Connecticut
is the Statewide Mastery Test program. Mastery tests, administered to
every fourth, sixth, and eighth grade student, are devised by the State
Department of Education to measure whether children have learned those
skills deemed essential by connecticut educators at each grade level.
41. The State Department of Education has designated both a
"mastery benchmark! -- which indicates a level of performance
reflecting mastery of all grade-level skills -- and a "remedizl
benchmark! —- which indicates mastery of "essential grade-level
skills." See C.G.S. §10-l4n {b}~-{C).
42. Eartford schoolchildren, on average, perform at levels
significantly below suburban schoolchildren on statewide Mastery
Tests. For example, in 1988, 34% (or 1-in-3) of all suburban sixth
graders scored at or above the "mastery benchmark" for reading, yet
only 4% {or l1-in~-235) of Eartford schoolchildren met that standard.
While 74% of all suburban sixth graders exceed the remedial benchmark
on the test of reading skill, no more than 41% of Eartford
in
schoolchildren meet this test of nessential grade-level skills.”
other words, fifty-nine percent of Eartford sixth graders ars reading
- i WE -—
below the State remedial level.
®- '®
*
*®
43. An analysis of student reading scores on the 1988 Mastery
| Test reveal the following comparisons:
% Below 4th Gr. % Below 6th Gr. % Below 8th Gr.
Remedial Bnchmk. Remedial Bnchmk. Remedial Bnchmk. “
Eartford 70 59 57 |
\ de de J de Je Je de de Kk
| Avon 9 6 3
| Bloomfield 25 24 16
| Canton 8 10 2 SE
| 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 3 13
| Granby is 14 17
| Manchester 22 1s 317
| 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 is 15 1x
| Wethersfield 18 12 14
| Windsor 26 i7 23
| Windsor Locks 25 16 17 ¢
®
we ei i a
i *
®
-15-
[
® @®
®
44. An analysis of student mathematics scores on the 1988 Mastery
Test reveals the following comparisons:
gi % Below 4th Gr. % Below 6th Gr. % Below 8th Gr.
Remedial BnchmX. Remedial BnchmX. Remedial Bnchmk.
Hartford 41 42 57
|| J J J Je Je Jk dk Jk Jk %k
PY avon 4 2 3
IBloomfield 6 23 18 :
Canton 3 8 .
[East Granby 10 7 6 |
iEast Eartford 14 19 19 |
lEast Windsor 2 9 19
® [Ellington 10 8 4 !
{Farmington 3 5 3 |
tGlastonbury 6 8 2
lGranby 3 12 31
IManchester 8 315 11
Newington 3 6 ¥
Rocky Hill 5 4 14
[J |simsbury 5 5 3
south Windsor 8 10 8
Ilsuffield 31 13 8
vernon 8 9 12
west Eartford 8 9 7
{Wethersfield 6 i! 6
® Windsor 32 13 26
Windsor Locks 2 7 14 :
45. Measured by the State’s own educational standards, tien, 2
majority of Hartford schoolchildren are not currently receiving even a |
®
nminimally adequate education.”
Jl. - 46. _Qther measures of education achievement reveal the same
pattern of disparities. The suburban schools rank far ahead of the
| Sos
"
Eartford schools when measured by: the percentage of students wko
remain in school to receive a high school diploma versus the percentage
»
-16-—
/
3
:
® xe
/
»
“
of students who drop out; the percentage of high school graduates who
enter four-year colleges; the percentage of graduates who enter any
program of higher education; or the percentage of graduates who obtain
Ld
° ° °
(3 ° ° °®
full-time employment within nine months of completing thelr schooling.
47. These disparities in educational achievement between the
Hartford and suburban school districts are the result of the
education-related policies pursued and/or accepted by the defendants,
:
Ld a
°
.
°
id . .
|
including the racial, ethnic, and socloeconomlc isolation of the
|
|
Hartford and suburban school districts. These factors have already
oe
adversely affected many of the plaintiffs in this action, and will, in
|
the future, inevitably and adversely zffact the education of others.
|
|
I
48. The racial, ethnic, and economic segregation of the Eartford
: ; vo |
and suburban districts necessarily limits, not only the equal @
educational opportunities of the plaintiffs, but their potential |
; : |
employment contacts as well, since a large percentage Ox all emplcyment
growth in the Eartford metropolitan region is occurring in the suburban ®
districts, and suburban students have a statistically higher rake of
success in obtaining employment with many Eartford-area businesses.
19. Public school integration of children in the Eartford »
“re gen : = on i + x]
metropolitan region by race, ethnicity, and econcmic status would
significantly improve the educational achievement of poor and minority
*»
J
-17-
children, without diminution of the education afforded their majority
lsencoinates. Indeed, white students would be provided thereby with the
positive benefits of close associations during their formative years
with blacks, Hispanics and poor children who will make up over 30% of
Connecticut’s population by the year 2000.
C. THE STATE’S LONGSTANDING KNOWLEDGE OF THESE INEQUITIES
50. For well over two decades, the state of Connecticut, through
lits defendant O’Neill, defendant State Board of Education, defendant
Tirozzi, and their predecessors and successors, have been aware of:
(1) the separate and unequal pattern of public school districts in the
state of Connecticut and the greater Hartford metropolitan region; (ii)
the strong governmental forces that have created and maintained
racially and economically isolated residential communities in the
Hartford region and (iii) the consequent need for substantial
educational changes, within and across school district lines, to end
this pattern of isolation and inequality.
51. In 1965, the United states Civil Rights Commission presented
a report to Connecticut’s Commissioner of Education which documented
the widespread existence of racially segregated schools, both between .
- - — Rr.
—
urban and suburban districts and within jpndividual urban school
districts. The report urged the defendant State Board to take corrective acticn. None of the defendants or their predecessors took
appropriate action to implement the full recommendations of the report.
-
—
\
52. In 1965, the Hartford Board of Education and the City Council
hired educational consultants from the Harvard School of Education who
concluded: (i) that low educational achievement in the Hartford
schools was closely correlated with a high level of poverty among the
student population; (ii) that racial and ethnic segregation caused
educational damages to minority children; and (iii) that = plan should
Ibe adopted, with substantial redistricting and interdistrict transfers
funded by the State, to place poor and minority children in suburban
schools.
53, In 1966, the Civil Rights Commission presented a formal
request to the governor, seeking legislation that would invest the
rate Board of Education with the authority to direct full integration
of local schools. Neither the defendants nor their predecessors acted
lto implement the request.
54. In 1966, the Committee of Greater Hartford Superintendents
proposed to seek a federal grant to fund a regional educational
advisory board and various regional programs, one of whose chief aims
would be the elimination of school segregation within the metropolitan
| region.
VE
55. In 1968, legislation supported by the civil Rights Commission
was introduced in the Connecticut Legislature which would have
authorized the use of state bonds to fund the construction of racially
integrated, urban/suburban neducational parks,' which would have been
-19~-
® Hy) @ ( / )
located at the edge of metropolitan school districts, have had superior
PY acadenic facilities, have employed the resources of local universities,
and have been designed to attract school children from urban and
suburban districts. The Legislature did not enact the legislation.
PS 56. In 1968, the defendant State Board of Education proposed
legislation that would have authorized the board to cut off States :
funéing for school districts that failed to develope acceptable plans
|
for correcting racial imbalance in local schools. The proposal offered |
»
|
State funding for assistance in the preparation of the local plans. |
|
|The Legislature &id not enact the legislation.
! 57. Xn 1969, the Superintendent of the Hartford School District
® |
jsalisd for a massive expansion of "project Concern," 2 pilot program |
|
i begun in 1967 which bused several hundred black and Hispanic children
from Eartford to adjacent suburban schools. The Superintendent argued |
® : : :
3 v-
that without a program involving some 5000 students —--— one quarter of
: ‘ 3 :
Zartford’s minority student population == the city of Hartford could
neither stop white citizens from fleeing Hartford to suburban schools |
nor provide quality education for those students Who remained. Project
| concern was never expanded beyond an enrollment of approximately 1,300
s Wm bs
students. In 1988-89, the total enrollment in Project Concern was no
od
1 12 din
more than 747 students, less than 3 percent of the total enrollment 1
the Hartford school system.
®
®
\
:
*
\
.
™
a
r
”
58. In 1969, the State Legislature passed a Racial Imbalance Law,
requiring racial balance within, but not between, school districts.
C.G.S. §10-226a et seg. The Legislature authorized the State
Department of Education to promulgate implementing regulations. C.G.S.
§10-226e. For over ten years, however, from 1969 until 1980, the
Legislature failed to approve any regulations to implement the statute.
59. From 1970 to 1982, no effective efforts were made by
defendants fully to remedy the racial jsolation and educational
inequities already previously jdentified by the defendants, which were
growing in severity during this period.
60. In 1983, the State Department of Education established a
committee to address the problem of "equal educational opportunity" in
the State of Connecticut. The defendant board adopted draft guidelines
in December of 1984, which culminated in the adoption in May of 1986,
of a formal Education Policy Statement and Guidelines Dby the State
Board. The Guidelines called for a state system of public schools
under which "no group of students will demonstrate systematically
different achievement based upon the differences -- such as residence
or race or sex -- that its members brought with them when they entered
an > eer. TL —
school." The Guidelines explicitly recognized ''the benefits of
residential and economic integration in [Connecticut] as important to
the quality of education and personal growth for all students in
Connecticut."
-21-
gl. In 1985, the state Department of Edcuation established an
Advisory Committee to Study Connecticut’s Racial Imbalance Law. In an
interim report completed in February of 1986, the Committee noted the
"strong inverse relationship between racial imbalance and quality
education in Connecticut’s public schools." The Committee concluded
that this was true "because racial imbalance is coincident with
poverty, limited resources, low academic achievement and a high
incidence of students with special needs." The report recommended that
the State Board consider voluntary interdistrict collaboration,
| expansion of magnet school programs, metropolitan districting, or other
| "programs that ensure students the highest quality instruction
I possible.
€2. In January, 1588, a report prepared by the Department of
Education’s Committee on Racial Equity, under the supervision oZ
® defendant Tirozzi, was presented to the state Board. Entitled 13
J eport on Racial/Ethnic Equity and Desegregation in Connecticut’s
-
Public Schools," the report informed the defendant Board that |
® Many minority children are forced by factors related to economic
development, housing, zoning and transportation to live in poor
urban communities where resources are limited. They often have
-i« - available to them fewer educational opportunities. Of equal
significance is the fact that separation means that neither they
nor their counterparts in the more affluent suburban school
® districts have the chance to learn to interact with each other, as !
they will inevitably have to do as adults living and working in 2
multi-cultural society. Such interaction is a most important
element of quality education.
Report at 7.
63. In 1988, after an extensive analysis of Connecticut’s Mastery
Test results, the State Department of Education reported that "poverty,
as assessed by one indicator, participation in the free and reduced
lunch program .- - » [is an] important correlate[] of low achievement,
and the low achievement outcomes associated with these factors are
intensified by geographic concentration." Many other documents
available to, or prepared by, defendant State Board of Education and
the State Department of Education reflect full awareness both of these
6 4 In April of 1989, the State Department of Education issued a
report, "Quality and Integrated Education: Options for Connecticut,"
in which it concluded that
[r]acial and economic isolation have profound academic and
affective consequences. Children who live in poverty -- a burden
which impacts disproportionately on minorities -- are more likely
to be educationally at risk of school failure and dropping out
before graduation than children from less impoverished homes.
Poverty is the most important correlate of low achievement.
belief was borne out by an analysis of the 1983 Connecticut
Mastery Test data that focused on POVEILY « + + The analysis
also revealed that the low achievement outcomes associated with
poverty are intensified by geographic and racial concentrationss
This
feport, at“1.
65. Turning to the issue of racial and ethnic integration, the report put forward the findings of an educational expert who had been
commissioned by the Department to study the effects of integration:
[T]he majority of studies indicate improved achievement for
minority students in integrated settings and at the same time
offer no substantiation to the fear that integrated classrooms
-23=
® »
®
impede the progress of more advantaged white students.
Furthermore, integrated education has long-term positive effects
* on interracial attitudes and behavior . . . .
Id.
66. Despite recognition of the "alarming degree of isolation” of
® poor and minority schoolchildren in the City of Hartford and other |
| urban school systems, Report at 3, and the gravely adverse impact this |
| isolation has on the educational opportunities afforded to plaintiffs
® | and other urban schoolchildren, the Report recommended, and the |
| defendants have announced, that they intend to pursue an approach that
| would be "voluntary and incremental." Report, at 34.
° | 66a. In January of 1993, in response to this lawsuit, defendant |
Governor Lowell Weicker, in his annual state of the state address, |
called on the legislature to address '"[t]lhe racial and economic |
|
jsolation in Connecticut’s school system,' and the related educational |
. inequities in Connecticut’s schools.
|
66b. As in the past, the legislature failed to act effectively |
in response to the Governor’s call for school desegregation |
$ initiatives. Instead, a voluntary desegregation planning bill was
wu GAO CR i
J
“3A
®
[
® ®
*
»
passed, P.A. 93-263, which contains no racial or poverty concentration
goals, no guaranteed funding, no provisions for educational
enhancements for city schools, and no mandates for local compliance. 9
E. THE STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE EFFECTIVE ACTION
67. The duty of providing for the education of Connecticut
school children, through the support and maintenance of public schools, | 9
has always been deemed a governmental duty resting upon the sovereign |
} “State.
| oe
68. The defendants, who have knowledge that Hartford
schoolchildren face educational inequities, have the legal obligation
| under Article First, §§1 and 20, and Article Eighth, §1 of the
| Connecticut Constitution to correct those inequities. ®
69. Moreover, the defendants have full power under Connecticut
statutes and the Connecticut censtitution to carry out their
constitutional obligations and to provide the relief to which @
plaintiffs are entitled. C.G.S. §10-4, which addresses the powers and |
duties of the State Board of Education and the State Department of
Education, continues with §10-4a, which expresses "the concern of the @
-l ~state (1y-that each child shall have . . . equal opportunity to receive
J
|
|
»
-0 Bu
*
ar
a suitable program of educational experiences.'" Other provisions of
state law give the Board the power to order local or regional remedial
planning, to order local or regional boards to take reasonable steps to
comply with state directives, and even to seek judicial enforcement of
its orders. See §10-4b. The Advisory Committee on Educational Equity,
established by §10-4d, is also expressly empowered to make appropriate
recommendations to the Connecticut State Board of Education in order
"to ensure equal educational opportunity in the public schools.”
70. Despite these clear mandates, defendants have failed to take
corrective measures to insure that its Hartford public schoolchildren
receive an equal educational opportunity. Neither the Hartford school
district, which is burdened both with severe educational disadvantages
and with racial and ethnic isolation, nor the nearby suburban
districts, which are also racially isolated but do not share the
educational burdens of a large, poverty-level school population, have
been directed by defendants to address these inequities jointly, to
reconfigure district lines, or to take other steps sufficient to
eliminate these educational inequities.
= Ne IY
-2 6m
71. [Withdrawn.]
72. Deprived of more effective remedies, the Hartford school
district has likewise not been given sufficient money and other
resources by the defendants, pursuant to §10-140 or other statutory and
constitutional provisions, adequately to address many of the worst
impacts of the educational deprivations set forth in 9923-27 supra.
The reform of the State’s school finance law, ordered in 1977 pursuant
to litigation in the Horton Vv. Meskill case, has not worked in practice;
adequately to redress these inequities. Many compensatory
services that might have mitigated the full adverse effect of the
constitutional violations set forth above either have been denied to |
|
the Hartford school district or have been funded by the State at levels!
that are insufficient to ensure their effectiveness to plaintiffs and |
other Hartford schoolchildren.
IV. LEGAL CLAIMS
|
FIRST COUNT
|
73. Paragraphs 1 through 34 are incorporated herein DY reference.
ority and non-minority
74. Separate educational systems for min
students are inherently unequal.
ar
= 4 .-
—
75. Because of the de facto racial and ethnic segregation between
‘Eartford and the suburban districts, the defendants have failed to
provide the plaintiffs with an equal opportunity to 2 free public
a Xo
| aefendants and resulting in serious harm to the plaintiffs, the
Jeducation as required by Article First, §§1 and 20, and Article Eighth,
§1, of the Connecticut Constitution, to the grave injury of the
plaintiffs.
SECOND COUNT
76. Paragraphs 1 through 72 are incorporated herein by reference.
77. Separate educational systems for minority and non-minority
students in fact provide to all students, and have provided to
plaintiffs, unequal educational cpportunities.
2-8. Because of the racial and ethnic segregation that exists
Hh
fu }
4
| (D
(0
)
ct
(9)
defendants have discriminated against the plaintiffs and have
provide them with an equal opportunity to a free public education as
po I =
required by Article First, §§1 and 20, and Article Eighth, SI of -
re ah (D
Connecticut Constitution.
|
COUNT TEIRI gu
incorporated herein by reference.
( fu x 79, Paragrapk 1 through. .72
son
80. The maintenance by the defendants of 2a public school district
in the city of Eartford: (i) that is severely educationally
~
disadvantaged in comparison to nearby suburban school districts; (i1)
that fails to provide Eartford schoolchildren with educational
oppertunities equal to those in suburban districts; and (iii) that
DD
falls to provide a majority of Eartford schoolchildren with a minimally
adequate education measured by the State of Connecticut’s own standards
all to the great detriment of the plaintiffs and other Eartford
schoolchildren -- violates Article First, §§1 and 20, and ‘Article
Eighth, §1 of the connecticut Constitution.
FOURTH COUNT PY
8l. Paragraphs 1 +hrough 72 are incorporated herein by
82. The failure of the defendants to provide to plaintiffs =n
other Hartford schoolchildren the equal educational ©
which they are entitled under Connecticut law, including §10-42,
which the defendants are obligated to ensure have been provided,
violates the Due Process Clause, Article First,
Connecticut Constitution.
RELIET
WEEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs res)
request this Court to:
] Enter a declaratory judgment
a. that public schools in the grester Eartford metropclitan
region, which are segregated de facto by race and ethnicity,
jo X
inherently unequal, to the injury of the plaintiffs,
ars
in violaticn cf
Article First, §§1 and 20, and Article Eighth, §1 of +he Connecticut
Constitution;
-29-
b. +hat the public schools in the greater Hartford
metropolitan region, which are segregated by race and ethnicity, do not
provide plaintiffs with an equal educational opportunity, in violation
of Article First, §§1 and 20, and Article Eighth, 81, of the
Connecticut Constitution;
c. that the maintenance of public schools in the greatsr
Tartford metropolitan region that are segregated by economic statutes
severely disadvantages plaintiffs, deprives plaintiffs of an egual
educational opportunit and fails to provide plaintiffs with a
; di od -
w
n
w
n
}=
|
minimally adequate education =-- all in violation of Article First,
land 20 and Article Eighth §1, and C.G.S. §10-42; and
@. that the failure of the defendants to provide the
|schoolchildren plaintiffs with the equal educational opportunities to
which they arc entitled under Connecticut law, including §l0-12,
violates the Due Process Clause, Article First, §§8 and 10, of the
Connecticut Constitutien.
2. Issue a temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction,
enjoining defendants, their agents, employees, and SUCCeSSOIS in office
-
from failing to provide, and ordering them to provide:
-r Se vi bc. Viger —
a. plaintiffs and those similarly situated with an
integrated education;
~-30-
® »
| »
*
b. plaintiffs and those similarly situated with equal
educational opportunities;
cz. plaintiffs and those similary situated with a minimally *
adeguate education;
3. Assume and maintain jurisdiction over this action until such
time as full relief has been afforded plaintiffs; ®
4. Award plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; and
5. Award such other and further relief as this Court deems |
| oe
necessary and proper.
PLAINTIFFS, MILO SHEFF, ET AL.
wb f MI —
| WesleY [W 7. Hortdn
|
MOLLER, HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C.
| 90 Gillett Street |
| Hartford, CT 06105
fi 22-8338
| oe
/ :
RE sop |
/ schoo ot OF CONNECTICUT
School of Law : »
65 Elizabeth Street
r ge : — Hartford, CT 06103
Moa tho hres
Martha Stone ®
CCLU
32 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06106
»
TL ERA
RA A bi ET To
oy AT FS
: ’ ” Le ~-
~
Philip D. Tegeler
CCLU
32 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06106
/
!
ES "ae
Helen Hershkoff
Adam S. Cohen
ACLU
132 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
Ls WE a
PEE, fo
Marianne Engelman Lado
Theodore Shaw
Dennis D. Parker
NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013
4
I ITT
; te rd
/ 7 ol 7 ?
< { JF f A " Fi Lod An Wi
‘Sandra Del Valle
Puerto Rican Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013
: ; 7
Wilfred Rodriguez( [
NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL SERVICES
1229 Albany Avenue
Hartford, CT 06102
\
i
ii
te
Vv. : AT HARTFORD
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, ET Al. :
CV 89-03609775
SUPERIOR COURT MILO SHEFF, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF |
: HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN
Defendants : NOVEMBER 25, 1994
REVISED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT
For their answer to plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended
Complaint dated February 26, 1993 the defendants offer the 1
|
following:
1: With respect to paragraph 1 the defendants have no
knowledge regarding the first sentence since this reflects the
intention of the plaintiffs. The remainder of the paragraph is
admitted only insofar as it alleges that there is a relatively
© high concentration of children from poor families and black and
+ Latino students in Hartford public school as opposed to the
‘public schools in most of the contiguous or adjacent school
‘districts. Otherwise the paragraph is denied.
A
}
2. With respect to paragraph 2 the defendants have no
LJ knowledge regarding the first sentence since this reflects the
intention of the plaintiffs. The remainder of the paragraph is |
denied.
|
®
4 3. With respect to paragraph 3 the defendants admit only
| that Hartford students as a whole do not perform as well on the
state Mastery Test as do the students as a whole in some
[J ; Cs :
surrounding communities and that poor and minority children have
' the potential to become well-educated. Otherwise the paragraph
is denied.
® |
: 4. Paragraph 4 is admitted only insofar as it alleges that
| the defendants have recognized that society benefits from racial,
° ethnic, and economic integration and that racial, ethnic and
| economic isolation may have some harmful effects, but the
paragraph is otherwise denied.
® k 5. Paragraph 5 is denied except insofar as it encompasses
‘recognized principles of constitutional law.
am } i. no
® £
|
| -2-
|
|
.
hl
II. PARTIES |
A.» PLAINTIFFS ae
6-12. Paragraphs 6 through 12 are admitted.
!
| 13. Paragraph 13 has been withdrawn and requires no »
| answer.
i 14-23. Paragraphs 14 through 23 are admitted.
.
1 B. DEFENDANTS
: 24. Paragraph 24 is admitted insofar as it alleges that
{William O'Neill or his successor is the Governor and insofar as ®
Hit correctly describes the legal responsibilities of the Governor
under the mentioned statutes, but is otherwise denied.
’
x 55, Paragraph 25 is admitted.
| 26. Paragraph 26 is admitted insofar as it alleges that Che
named individuals were, at one time, the members of the State *
Sian Board of Education and insofar as it alleges that these
i ¥
|
*
| -3 =
@
® »
»
individuals have been succeeded by others as members of the State |
® Board of Education. The paragraph is also admitted insofar as it |
alleges that the State Board of Education as a whole has
responsibilities as defined by law. |
® l
} 27. Paragraph 27 is admitted insofar as it alleges that
|cerald N. Tirozzi or his successor is the Commissioner of
| Eaucation and insofar as it correctly describes the legal
. i responsibilities of the Commissioner under the mentioned
statutes, but is otherwise denied.
PY i 28. Paragraph 28 is admitted insofar as it alleges that
Francisco I.. Borges or his successor is the Treasurer and insofar
is it correctly describes the legal responsibilities of the
® Treasurer under the law, but is otherwise denied.
| 29. Paragraph 29 is admitted insofar as it alleges that J.
‘Eaward Caldwell or his successor is the Comptroller and insofar
» las it correctly describes the legal responsibilities of the
conproliel under the law, but is otherwise denied.
gE] | Sea -
®
|
| -4-
.
*
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
|
A. A SEPARATE EDUCATION | ®
|
| 30. Paragraph 30 is denied insofar as it alleges that
|
H
: i]
\lschool districts in the state are “segregated by race and ethnic
i.
origin.” It is admitted only insofar as it alleges that some
school districts, including Hartford, serve higher percentages of
African American and Latino students than others, but is
? : ®
‘otherwise denied.
31. Defendants admit that in 1986 12.1% of the school
‘population was black and 8.5% was Hispanic. Since the defendants ®
are not aware of the sources of the other figures presented in
‘paragraph 31 or the methods used by the plaintiffs to develop
‘those figures the defendants lack sufficient knowledge Or ®
‘information to form an opinion as to the truth of the other
‘matters contained in this paragraph and leave plaintiffs to their
proof. The defendants note that the court has received into 3
evidence the Minority Students and Staff Report for 1986-87 and
| ®
| Se
|
!
|
oe
»
®
the defendants admit that the numbers contained in that report
» are accurate. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 119. |
32. Paragraph 32 is denied. |
® | 33. Paragraph 33 is denied except that the figures for |
total school population and percent minority for the towns which
are listed are admitted.
» :
34, Paragraph 34 is denied except that the number of staff
lin the listed towns for the 1986-87 school year is admitted.
| Furthermore the minority percentages are admitted, except for the
® percentages given for West Hartford and Wethersfield. The
"correct percentage for West Hartford is 1.8% and the correct
pevcentage for Wethersfield fe 1.9%) The defendants wish to note
* that the Minority Student and Staff Report for 1986-87 has been
admitted into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 119 and the
defendants admit that the numbers contained in that report are
» | accurate.
I
i -%-
H ;
* ]
B. AN UNEQUAL EDUCATION
35. Paragraph 35 is denied except insofar as it alleges
that the Hartford schools serve a greater proportion of students from backgrounds that put them “at risk” of lover educational
|
lachievement than the identified suburban towns and that, as a
result, Hartford has a comparatively larger burden to bear in
{ : :
addressing the needs of ”at risk” children.
} 36. Paragraph 36 is denied insofar as it alleges that
Hartford school children are being denied the right to equal
ieducational opportunity. The paragraph is admitted insofar as it
alleges that ”at risk” children have the capacity to learn and
{insofar as it alleges that “at risk” children may impose some
‘special challenges to whatever school system is responsible for
providing these children with an education. Otherwise the
paragraph is denied.
! 1
37. Paragraph 37 is admitted insofar as it identifies some
indicia of ”at risk” students and insofar as the figures listed
TT
{
ii
|
{
i
|
|
i
|
| |
|
| !
]
i
®
in this paragraph are consistent with the figures reported in
eo Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 120. Otherwise the paragraph is denied.
38. Paragraph 38 is denied.
| |
* l 39. Paragraph 30 is admitted only insofar as it alleges
! that Hartford students as a whole do not perform as well on |
measures of achievement like the State Mastery Test as do the
» ‘students as a whole in some surrounding communities. Otherwise
the paragraph is denied.
40. Paragraph 40 is admitted except insofar as it attempts
” to characterize the purpose of the Mastery Test. The purposes of
the Mastery Test are accurately described in the Mastery Test
reports found in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 290-308 and, to the extent
® tehat the plaintiffs’ description of the Mastery Test differs, it
‘is denied.
° 41. Paragraph 41 is admitted only insofar as it is
consistent with the description of the levels of performance on:
a - y — a
|
» |
I
| =
o |
» .
1.
|
. . . . . . |
the Mastery Test described in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 290-308.
Otherwise the paragraph is denied.
ey
42. Paragraph 42 is admitted insofar as it alleges that i
ll Hartford students as a whole do not perform as well on the State
Mastery Test as do the students as a whole in some surrounding *
| communities. The particular performance levels of Hartford and
| suburban children as alleged in this paragraph are admitted only
insofar as the figures appear in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 297, 2938 °
‘and 299. Otherwise the paragraph is denied.
43. Paragraph 43 is admitted insofar as the figures which
| appear in this paragraph are identical to figures found in »
i Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 297, 298 and 299. Otherwise the paragraph
ig. denied.
: ; : : »
44. Paragraph 44 is admitted insofar as the flgures which
appear in this paragraph are identical to figures found in
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 297, 298 and 299. Otherwise the paragraph
ih LJ
1s denied.
SARI i; % Ling 00 —
|
*
| =2=
|
|
1
®
45. Paragraph 45 is denied insofar as it alleges that
Hartford children are not receiving an education which satisfies
the requirements of the constitution. The paragraph is admitted insofar as it alleges that the defendants are not satisfied with
the performance of Hartford school children as a whole or of any
|
|
|
i
i
i
iichildren who perform below the mastery level.
{|
46. Paragraph 46 is admitted only insofar as it alleges
1]
1
‘that there are some differences between Hartford students taken
ias a whole and students as a whole in some of the surrounding
| communities in terms of the number who drop out before
graduation, the number 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. Otherwise
the paragraph is denied.
+
1s
id
47. Paragraph 47 1s denied.
| 48. The defendants lack the knowledge and information
necessary to form a conclusion as to the truth of the allegation
§ — —
' contained in paragraph 48 and leave plaintiffs to their proof,
-10-
except insofar as the paragraph alleges or implies that the
plaintiffs are being denied an equal educational opportunity,
which is denied.
| | 49. Paragraph 49 is admitted insofar as it alleges that
I
improved integration of children by race, ethnicity and economic
i!
iigstatus is likely to have positive social benefits, and insofar as
it alleges that such integration in the schools is not likely to
‘have a negative effect on the students in those schools.
‘Otherwise the paragraph is denied.
Ce THE STATE’S LONG-STANDING KNOWLEDGE OF THESE INEFOUITIES
50. Paresgraph 50 1s admitted only insofar as lt alleges
‘that state officials have, for some time, been aware of a trend
{py which the percentage of Latino students in the Hartford Public
‘Schools has been increasing while the percentage of white
students has been decreasing. Otherwise the paragraph is denied.
51. Paragraph 51 is admitted insofar as it alleges the
existence of the_1965 United State Civil Rights Commission
¥
-11-
report. The document speaks for itself, therefore the defendants
do not admit plaintiffs’ characterization of that document. The
last sentence of this paragraph is denied insofar as it suggests
that the defendants failed to take any appropriate action to || address the concerns voiced in that report.
1
g 52. Paragraph 52 is admitted insofar as it alleges that in
11965 the Hartford Board of Education and the Hartford City
council commissioned and received a report prepared by
| consultants affiliated with the Harvard School of Education. The
! content of that report speaks for itself and the defendants do
not admit plaintiffs’ characterization of the contents of that
report.
4
i
i
' 53. Paragraph 53 is admitted insofar as it alleges that the
civil Rights Commission recommended legislation which was not
‘adopted. Any other implications of the paragraph are denied.
54. Paragraph 54 is admitted insofar as it alleges that a
{committee of Greater Hartford Superintendents prepared
-12-
are denied.
55. Paragraph 55 is admitted insofar as Legislature did not adopt legislation in 1968
i
licreation of neducation parks.” Otherwise the
"sufficient knowledge or information as to the
‘alleged and leave plaintiffs to their proof.
56. Paragraph 56 is admitted insofar as
Legislature did not adopt legislation in 1963
provisions described in the paragraph.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4. Any other implications of the paragraph
it alleges that the
providing for the
defendants lack
truth of the matter
ir ‘alleges that the
which contained the
57. The defendants admit that the number of children
participating in Project Concern has declined over time but deny
"the accuracy of the specific numerical figures presented in
paragraph 57. The defendants also admit that the Superintendent
of Schools in Hartford called for an expansion of Project
| concern. Otherwise the paragraph is denied.
58. Paragraph 58 is admitted.
| -13-
|
|
[3]
!
i
!
|
|
|]
:
}
|
:
i
° |
i
|
|
|
59. Paragraph 59 is denied. |
]
° |
60. Paragraph 60 is admitted.
61. Paragraph 61 is admitted.
» 1
62. Paragraph 62 is admitted.
| 63. Paragraph 63 is admitted.
» , :
64. Paragraph 64 1s admitted.
65. Paragraph 65 is admitted.
Ad 66. Paragraph 66 is admitted insofar as it alleges that the
‘defendants have announced that they intend to pursue a “voluntary
and incremental” approach toward the problem of de facto
® | socioeconomic, racial and ethnic isolation in urban schools,
‘including Hartford, in accordance with the mentioned report.
Otherwise the paragraph is denied.
° |
H 66a. Paragraph 66a is denied.
He
® I
|
i -14-
%
66b. Paragraph 66b is admitted only insofar as it alleges
that the 1993 General Assembly passed a public act known as P.A.
93-263; all other allegations contained therein are denied.
E. THE STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE EFFECTIVE ACTION
y 67. Paragraph 67 is admitted insofar as it accurately
{describes the role of the state in education under the law, but
1s otherwise denied.
; 63. Paragraph 63 is admitted only insofar as it alleges
1
that the defendants must carry out their respective
responsibilities in accordance with the State Constitution.
Otherwise the paragraph is denied.
i
i
69. Insofar as the plaintiffs claim, in paragraph 60, that
the defendants have the power “to provide the relief to which
{
‘plaintiffs are entitled”, the defendants lack sufficient
‘knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this
fi
i
matter because the plaintiffs have failed to identify the
spegific remedial action they are seeking. To the extent that
i
I -15-
* »
»
|
the plaintiffs are seeking orders which require that the |
® defendants redraw school district lines, disassociating the |
school districts from the individual municipalities they serve, |
or which would require the defendants to force children to attend |
® |school in districts other than the district in which their
parents live, vote and pay taxes, these defendants have no such
powers. The remainder of the paragraph is admitted insofar as it
w lcorrectly describes provisions of the law, but is otherwise
denied:
70. Paragraph 70 is denied. Specifically defendants deny
1d the implication that appropriate steps have not been taken to
|address the various problems identified in the paragraph 1n
‘accordance with the Constitution and laws of this state.
» :
d 71. Paragraph 71 has been withdrawn and requires no answer.
73, Paragraph 72 is'denled.
.
|
N |
|
| =16+
| FT FR srk
° |
» .
hk
IV. LEGAL CLAIMS
*
FIRST COUNT
73. Defendants’ responses to Paragraphs 1 through 34 are |
incorporated herein by reference in response to Paragraph 73. »
| |
il
3 74; Paragraph 74 is admitted only insofar as it alleges
i that state mandated segregation of educational systems Fox
: A
“minority and non-minority students would violate the equal
protection provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions.
The paragraph is denied insofar as it alleges that educational
1 ystems are inherently unequal when a de facto concentration of ®
minority and/or non-minority students exists and it is denied
| insofar as it implies that the defendants have created segregated
educational systems for minority and non-minority students. ®
I 75. Paragraph 75 is denied.
1
f »
BR Chl I - Th" =
I
1 *
| -17-
4
®
*
SECOND COUNT
»
26. Defendants’ responses to Paragraphs 1 through 72 are |
incorporated herein by reference in response to Paragraph 76. |
PY l
1 77. Paragraph 77 is denied in that the defendants do not
‘maintain separate educational systems for minority and
'non-minority students. The paragraph is also denied insofar as it
® i
alleges that the defendants have provided the plaintiffs with
unequal educational opportunity within the meaning of the law.
» 78. ‘Paragraph 78 is denied.
THIRD COUNT
® 79. Defendants’ responses to Paragraphs 1 through 72 are
‘incorporated herein by reference in response to Paragraph 79.
80. Paragraph 80 is denied.
®
MIR a Se -
. !
i -18-
» |
.
|
FOURTH COUNT
|
®
81. Defendants’ responses to Paragraph 1 through 72 are |
incorporated herein by reference in response to Paragraph 81.
!
I 82. Paragraph 82 is denied. PS
i RELIEF
With regard to plaintiffs’ prayer for relief, the defendants ®
‘deny that plaintiffs are entitled to any of the fcrms of relief
which they are seeking.
SPECIAL DEFENSES \
FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
83. The court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because *»
‘the action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity in
that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the
Constitution has been violated and this suit 1s not otherwise »
Senos authorized by ley,
i
| i hd
i wl] Ow
|
|
*»
»
[
SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
* |
84. By operation of the doctrine of stare decisis any claim i
being made by the plaintiffs that the defendants have failed to
finance the Hartford school system in a manner which is
® consistent with the Constitution (see, especially, Complaint
172) is foreclosed. See Horton v. Meskill, (Horton TIT), 195 Conn.
24 (1985)
®
THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
85. All or part of the matters raised by the plaintiffs in
* ‘their Complaint are matters which rest exclusively within the
province of the General Assembly by operation of Article Eighth,
Section 1 of the Constitution. By reason of the doctrine of
® ‘separation of powers the Court has no jurisdiction to decide upon
“or make orders with regard to these matters.
FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
® |
86. To the extent that the plaintiffs are asking the Court
f to” impose affirmative obligations on the defendants which would
® |
| -20-
|
A
il
i
° |
require legislative action to carry out, the Court lacks the
authority to grant the relief requested because to do so would
violate the principles of separation of powers. FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE |
! 87. To the extent the plaintiffs complain about matters
llwhich are committed by law to the discretion of the City of
i
i 1
Hartford or the Hartford Board of Education or any of the
suburban cities, towns, or school boards, the court does not have
"jurisdiction over the matter because of the plaintiffs’ failure
ito join necessary parties.
SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
88. Plaintiffs have failed to establish a cognizable cause
'of action in that they have not proven that state action is a
Hi
direct and sufficient cause of the conditions about which they
{
1
| t |
i
|
are complaining.
-2 1-
® »
PX
®
i
SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
° |
89. Plaintiffs have failed to establish a cognizable cause |
of action because the state has taken reasonable and appropriate |
° Steps to address the educational problems identified in |
plaintiffs’ complaint and the court may order nothing further.
FOR THE DEFENDANTS
* | RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
! ATTORNEY GENERAL
Bernard F 'VMEGovern, Jr. - 085230
\ssistan Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06105
Tel. 566-7173
, AH V7
“gern “M. Vn aL 40617
yAssistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
* 1 Hartford, Connecticut 06105
| Tel. 566-7173
® 1 By: /
i
H -22-
Al
A
W
oe
A
l
J
O
K
N
E
Y
S
eo
F
I
A
T
E
O
R
E
Y
C
C
E
OB
th
y
8c
S
1
8
)
H
I
HB
J
i
l
ce
M
O
L
L
E
R
,
H
O
R
T
O
N
&
S
H
I
E
L
D
S
,
P.
C.
S
I
R
E
JU
RI
S
NO
.
38
47
/8
Qo
G
I
L
NO. CV 89-0360977S
MILO SHEFF, ET AL. SUPERIOR COURT
VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/
NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD
WILLIAM A. O’NEILL, ET AL. NOVEMBER 28, 1994
REPLY TO SPECIAL DEFENSES
The allegations of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth
and Seventh Special Defenses are denied.
PLAINTIFFS,
: I 1 rd
13 J/31 9, 4~T—-
By EN Var oo
Wesley 'W Horton
MOLLER, HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C.
90 Gillett Street
RBartford, CT 06105
(203) 522-8338
John Brittain
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT
School of Law
65 Elizabeth Street
Bartford, OT 06103
Martha Stone
Rp = Philip D. Tegeler
CCLU
32 Grand Street
Bartford, CT .06106
Helen Hershkoff
Adam S. Cohen
ACLU
132 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
Theodore Shaw
Dennis D. Parker
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013
Sandra Del Valle
Puerto Rican Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013
Wilfred Rodriguez
NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL SERVICES
1229 Albany Avenue
Hartford, CT 06102
JU
RI
S
NO
.
38
47
/8
eo
A
I
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
AT
L
A
W
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to the
following counsel of record on November 28, 1994:
Bernard McGovern, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105 o
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
CI
0
6
1
0
5
«
(
2
0
3
)
5
2
2
-
8
3
3
8
©
a
7)
Q
pou |
Re
>
w
od
=
@]
—
[=
Q
>=
c
w
-
od
[@]
3
A
; FI.
AM AAT x
Wesley W. Horton
90
G
H
I
E
T
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
A * .
|
®
NO. CV. B89-~0360977S
MILO SHEFF, et al SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ®
HARTFORD
V.
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al AUGUST 21, 1989
*
MOTION TO STRIKE
Pursuant to Practice Book §§ 151-155 the defendants hereby
3
| move that the plaintiffs' entire Complaint be stricken because it °
t
| fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
®
be granted for the following reasons:
|
1. ‘The plaintiffs causes of action are predicated on the
®
existence of a judicially enforceable right where no such
right exists;
Pl : »
2. The plaintiffs fail to allege state action which
violates the Constitution or a fallure to satisfy the
limited affirmative obligation in Article Eighth, Section 1;
®
3. The plaintiffs fail to allege a sufficient causal
®
| C Ge (CoG “XY Nope ‘ i} le RAS SEAN Wy | LEE SC alle 1 prin tb
. ’\ fy ' i f | ?
Cono cs He Sst { \ \ x Fr I tk Uy | el io A fh
A 2s 2} > ¥ ol
»
connection between school district lines and the injury
which they assert;
4. The plaintiffs do not have a cause of action under the
due process or equal protection clauses of the Constitution
because the existence of school districts which coincide
with municipal boundaries does not create an impermissible
classification or Smpair a fundamental right, and, in any
event, there is adequate justification for the State's
system of local control over education.
The legal authority for the defendants' positions is set
forth in detail in the Memorandum which is being filed along with
this motion.
WHEREFORE, the defendants ask that the plaintiffs’ Complaint
be stricken for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
BY:
FOR THE DEFENDANTS
CLARINE NARDI RIDDLE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
(ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL)
Od 1 py,
J R. WHELAN
ssistant Attorney General
cKenzie Hall
J10 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Tel: 566-3696
ie =
jit ea Y- es 1
‘/ : Ti A TR a
SUSAN T. PEARLMAN
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CYT 06105
Tel: 566-3696
0; od UL 4 JU Ln
DIANE W. WHITNEY
Assistant Attorney Genere
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Tel: 566-3696
ath J filo fo
HEATHER J. WILSON 17
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Telephone: 566-8282
‘ORDER
Upon due consideration the foregoing motion is hereby ORDERED:
GRZeN$8D/ DENIED.
By the Court
La S HIE 6 gly
DX
ou =
is it): . ARNG 40 AYES
NO. 360977
MILO SHEFF, ET AL : SUPERIOR COURT
VS. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD-
NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, ET AL MAY 13, 1990
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
ON
THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE
This declaratory judgment action has been brought by
seventeen public school students, including fifteen black,
Puerto Rican, and white children who are Hartford residents
and who are enrolled in various city schools, and two white
children who attend an elementary school in West Hartford. The
defendants named in the complaint are the governor, the state
board of education and its individual members, the state
commissioner of education, the state treasurer and the state
comptroller.
PER
(pectic) cr eis
$a
Oo) y18¥bB iY
HY 8 A3K-CUDALHVYH
ct} { 13:35 ¢ as HGS
a3 ei HI4NS
wh 25 391436
AACE.
The complaint (930) states that schoolchildren throughout
Connecticut, "including the City of Hartford and its adjacent
suburban communities, are largely segregated by race and ethnic
origin." lt alleges (4436,38) that Hartford public schools,
because they have such a high proportion of students who are
"at risk" of lower educational achievement, "operate at a severe
educational disadvantage [which imposes upon them] enormous
educational burdens [which have made them unable] to provide
educational opportunities that are substantially equal to those
received by schoolchildren in the suburban districts.”
The plaintiffs also assert (45) that "[m]easured by the
State's own educational standards . . ., a majority of Hartford
schoolchildren are not currently receiving even a 'mintmally
adequate education.’ They allege (450) that "£Jor well over
two decades", the state of Connecticut, acting through the
defendants and their predecessors, have been aware of "the
separate and unequal pattern of public school districts” in
the state and in the greater Hartford metropolitan area, "the
strong governmental forces that have created and maintained
racially and economically isolated residential communities in
the Hartford region; and . . . the consequent need for sub-
stantial educational changes, within and across school district
lines, to end this pattern of isolation and inequality."
a
e
”
The plaintiffs claim (468) that the defendants "have the
legal obligation under Article First, $§l1 and 20, and Article
Eighth, §1 of the Connecticut constitution" to correct these
longstanding "educational inequities" in the Hartford school
system, and that (969) they also have the power under the state
constitution and state statutes "to carry out their constitutional
obligations and to provide the relief to which plaintiffs are
entitled." They assert, nevertheless (470), that neither the
Hartford school districts nor the nearby suburban districts "have
been directed by defendants to address these inequities jointly,
to reconfigure district lines, or to take other steps sufficient
to eliminate these educational inequities.”
The first count of the complaint (9473-75) alleges that
"[s]eparate educational systems for minority and non-minority
students are inherently unequal [and that because] of the de factc
racial and ethnic segregation between Haritond and the suburban
districts, the defendants have failed to provide the plaintiffs
with an equal opportunity to a free public education as required
by Article First, §§S1 and 20, and Article Eighth, $1, of the
Connecticut Constitution . . .". The second count (4977-78)
states that because of "the racial and ethnic segregation that
)
exists between Hartford and the suburban districts, perpetuated
by the defendants . . . the defendants have discriminated
against the plaintiffs" and have failed to provide them with an
equal opportunity to a free public education as required by the
three state constitutional provisions referred to in the first
count.
The third count (480) alleges a violation of the same state
constitutional guaranties based on the maintenance by the
defendants of a public school district in the city of Hartford
that is "severely educationally disadvantaged" in comparison to
the suburban school districts, that fails to provide its
schoolchildren with educational opportunities equal to those in
suburban districts, and that fails to provide a majority of its
students with a "minimally adequate education" based on the
state's own standards. The fourth count (%82) claims that the
failure of the defendants to provide Hartford schoolchildren with
equal educational opportunities pursuant to state statutes
violates their due process rights under article first, §§8 and
10, of the state constitution.
The defendants have moved to strike the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
because, first, the plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable;
second, unconstitutional state action has not been alleged;
third, the plaintiffs have not alleged any causal connection
between school district lines and educational performance; and
fourth, the existence of school districts which coincide with
town boundaries does not violate state constitutional standards.
The purpose of a declaratory judgment action is to secure
an adjudication of rights where there is "an actual bona fide
and substantial question or issue in dispute or substantial
uncertainty of legal relations which requires settlement between
the parties +. . .v. Practice Book §390(b); Connecticut
Association of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Worrell, 199
Conn. 609, 613. The requirement that there must be a "substantial
controversy" or "uncertainty of legal relations" between the
parties means that there must be a sufficient practical need for
the determination of the question or issue involved and that
need must be determined in the light of the particular circum-
stances in each case. Kiszkiel v. Gwiazda, 174 Conn. 176, 181.
An action for a declaratory judgment is a particularly
appropriate vehicle for litigating otherwise Justiciable contro-
versies concerning constitutional rights and the constitutionality
of state legislative or executive action. Maloney v. Pac, 183
conn. 313,323. The advantages of the procedure in determining
the constitutionality of the state's system for financing public
education under the same state constitutional provisions relied
upon by the plaintiffs in this case were fully stated by our
Supreme Court in Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 626-28.
A complaint seeking a declaration of the plaintiff's
constitutional rights will be stricken on procedural grounds
where the rights and jural relations of the parties have been
conclusively determined by previous decisions of our Supreme
Court and the complaint does not set forth any substantial
question or issue which has not been previously determined and
that requires settlement; Trubek v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 633, 635;
or where it is apparent from the complaint that the rights of "the
parties are so clear that there is no uncertainty or dispute
as. to.them. Hill v. Wright, 128 Conn. 12, 15. However, the
trial court may not refuse to render a declaratory judgment where
all the procedural requirements for that form of relief have
been met, and in a case where no factual issues are in dispute,
the Supreme Court will itself determine the legal issues,particu-
larly if they are of considerable public importance. Larke v.
Morrissey, 155 Conn. 163, 169.
The defendants' first ground for their motion to strike is
that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted because the plaintiffs' causes of action "are
predicated on the existence of a judicially enforceable right
where no such right exists." The case which they cite in
support of this claim is Pellegrino v. O'Neill, 193 Conn. 670,
in which a declaratory judgment action seeking to have the
financing of the state judicial system declared unconstitutional
was dismissed as nonjusticiable because it was a "political
question" which could not be adjudicated without violating the
principle of aanca tion of powers.
The defendants argue that the plaintiffs "rely primarily":
on article eighth, §1 of the state constitution which provides that
"[tlhere shall always be free public elementary and secondary
schools in the state. The general assembly shall implement this
principle by appropriate legislation." They claim that the
second sentence of that section is "the kind of 'textually
demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a
coordinate political department' which is the benchmark for
judicial deferral to the legislative process", as stated in
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 at 217 (1962).
4 *
2,
|
|
»
!
The fact that the legislative branch is given plenary
authority over a particular governmental function does not
insulate it from judicial review to determine whether it has
. chosen "a constitutionally permissible means of implementing
that power." Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha,
462 U.S. 919, 940-41 (1983). "[T]lhe legality of claims and
o conduct is a traditional subject for judicial determination”,
and such adjudication may not be avoided on the ground of
nonjusticiability unless the particular function has been
® assigned "wholly and indivisibly" to another department of
government. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. at 245-46 (Douglas, J.,
goncurringy. |
® "Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed
by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether
the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been
® committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional
interpretation", and is therefore a judicial responsibility.
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. at 211. In making this threshold
» determination of justiciability, the court must construe the
particular constitutional provisions upon which the plaintiff
relies in his complaint. See, e.g. ,Baker v. Carr, 369: U.S.
» 186, 194 n.15 (1962) (Fourteenth Amendment); Powell v. McCormack,
® =B=
®
195 U.8. 486.550 (1969) (Art. IT, 83); 1:N.9.'V. chadhs, 1600.5. ®
919, 940 (1983) (Naturalization Clause and Necessary and Proper
Clause); Pellegrino v, O'Neill, 193 Conn. 670, 681 {Conn. Const.
art. Vv §2). *®
The plaintiffs' complaint in this case invokes three separate
clauses of the state constitution and asks the court to construe
them together. They are, in addition to the education clause »
(article eighth, §l1), the equality of rights clause, article
first, §1, and the equal protection clause, article first,
§20, which prohibits "segregation or discrimination” in the ®
exercise of civil and political rights.
The defendants, in asserting their claim of nonjusticiability
based only the education clause, are asking the court to find
&®
that the plaintiffs are seeking an adjudication of a "political
question" because that clause constitutes a "textually demon-
strable” constitutional commitment of the plaintiffs' claims .
to the legislative branch. This court, however, will not, and
indeed, cannot, conduct the "delicate exercise in constitutional
interpretation” required of it when such an issue is raised, where
»
the defendants' claims are based on a "constitutional text" of
their own choosing.
“®
9.
»
It should also be noted that the plaintiffs in Horton v.
Meskill, 172 Conn. 613 (Horton l) claimed that the then-existing
system of financing public education in Connecticut violated the
same state constitutional provisions which the plaintiffs rely
upon in this case and that the court (Parskey, J.) ruled
against the defendants in that case on the issue of justiciabil-
ity. ‘Horton v. Meskill,*3}1 Conn. Sup. 377, 389. Moreover,
Horton I held that the statutory financing system of public
education was not tappRoDEiate legislation within the meaning
of the applicable state constitutional provisions; 172 Conn. at
649: and that it did not provide "the substantially equal
educational opportunity for all Connecticut public school
children that the Connecticut constitution requires." Horton v.
Meskill, 195 Conn. 24, at 27.
The question of justiciability is one of subject matter
jurisdiction; ASL Associates v. Zoning Commission, 18 Conn. App.
542, 545; and may be raised at any time. McGee v. Dunnigan,
138 Conn. 263, 268. In Pellegrino, despite the fact that the
plurality found that the subject matter of that action was non-
justiciable, the two dissenting members of the Court wrote
«l=
|
that in their view "the plaintiffs should not be deprived of the |
opportunity that was afforded to the Plaintiffs in [Horton 1},
to make an evidentiary showing that the legislature has violated
the constitution", and cautioned against prejudging the issue of
justiciability "in the abstract” without a full hearing on the
plaintiffs' claims, however "novel and complex" the constitutional
questions might be. Pellegrino v. O'Neill, 193 Conn. 670, 689,
692-93 (Peters, J., dissenting).
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that based upon
the factual allegations of the complaint which the court must
accept as true for the purposes of this motion, the plaintiffs
have stated a justiciable claim because their pleadings present
a "substantial question or issue in dispute . . . which requires
settlement between the parties." Practice Book §390(b); see
Ld. at 590.
The defendants' second ground for their motion to strike, as
stated In their brief (p.: 22), is that “the plaintiffs' complaint
should be stricken because it fails to allege state action which
violates the constitution or a failure to satisfy the limited
affirmative olbigation in article eighth, section 1." They
argue (p.25) that the plaintiffs "are attempting to convert the
prohibitions of the State due process and equal protection
li
| 9 |
b
| |
®
provisions into vehicles for regulating or mitigating the non-
governmental forces which have created the concentration of
. minority and 'at risk' students in Hartford."
The defendants acknowledge (p.27) that article eighth,
§1 "imposes a limited affirmative duty on the State [which]
Lg could be enforced . . . by alleging only a failure to act.”
However, they argue that the extent of that duty "is to have a
system of free public elementary and secondary schools for the
Ld children of this State.”
The defendants' argument, in effect, would have the court,
at this stage of the case, rule as a matter of law that article
® eighth, §1 requires only "free education”, and that "appropriate"
legislation is, in the words of Justice Loiselle's dissent in
Horton I, "legislation which makes education free." 172 Conn.
® at 658 (Loiselle, J., dissenting)... It should be noted, however,
that Justice Loiselle went on to state that there was no claim
made in that case "that education in Connecticut is not meaning-
® ful or does not measure up to standards accepted by knowledgeable
leaders in the field of education.” Id. at 659.
The plaintiffs counter the defendants' argument with the
® claim that when the three constitutional provisions upon which
lw
®
» ,
they rely are construed together, they impose an affirmative
obligation upon the state to provide all of its public school
students with a "substantially equal educational opportunity."
They also assert that their complaint sufficiently alleges
"that in fact segregated schools deprive children of a sub-
stantially equal educational opportunity [and] that racial,
ethnic and economic isolation combine to deny them that
opportunity.”
In testing the sufficiency of a complaint for declaratory
relief, the question is not whether the plaintiff is entitled
to the declaratory relief he seeks in accordance with the theory
he states, but rather, ‘it is whether he is entitled to a
declaration of rights at all under the allegations of his
complaint. 22A Am. Jur. 2d, Declaratory Judgments §215. At
this stage of the proceedings, the sole question for the court
is "whether the allegations entitle them to make good on their
claim that they are being denied [their constitutional rights}.
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 oat at 341 (1960).
The question of whether or not the state's action or
failure to act rises to the level of a constitutional violation
goes to the merits of this action because it constitutes a
"bona fide and substantial question or issue in dispute . . .
*13=
| Ex (1.
® | which requires settlement between the parties by way of
the declaratory judgment which the plaintiffs seek. A motion
to strike may not be utilized as a device for the determination,
e | AS a matter of law in advance of trial,of how that issue should
be resolved. See Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. Vv.
Williamson, 153 Conn. 345,347.
A The third ground of the defendants' motion to strike is that | the plaintiffs have failed to allege "a sufficient causal connectH
| ion between school district lines and the injury which they
® | assert." They also cite Milliken v. Bradley, 418.U.8. 717 (1984)
| for the proposition that "[ulnless school district lines were set
in the first instance with the intent or expectation that they
® would bring about some constitutionally significant harm, it
cannot be said that a sufficient causal connection exists
between the school district lines and that harm to support a
PY constitutional attack on the lines". Defendants' Brief, p.33.
| Where a motion is made to strike a declaratory judgment
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
PY granted, the court is not concerned "with the truth of the
allegations, that is, the ability of petitioners to sustain
their allegations by proof." Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S.
® 339 at 341 (1960). Moreover, state courts in local school
fy
*
»
desegregation cases are not limited to authority derived from the | *
United States Constitution but, rather, "they are free to in-
terpret the Constitution of the State to impose more stringent
restrictions" in the operation of their public school systems. ,
Bustop, Inc. v. Board of Education, 439 U.S. 1380,1382
(Rehnquist, Circuit Justice 1978).
The fourth and final ground for the defendants' motion is “
that "{tlhe plaintiffs do not have a cause of action under the
due process or equal protection clauses of the Constitution
because the existence of school districts which coincide with
municipal boundaries does not create an impermissible classifi-
cation or impair a fundamental right, and, in any event, there
is adequate justification for the State's system of local control ®
over education." They acknowledge in their reply brief (p.16)
that this claim "reach[es] to the heart of the plaintiffs’ equal
protection claims", but argue (p.20) that if the allegations ®
of the plaintiffs' complaint, "taken (as they must) with the
legislative record which the defendants have called to the
Court's attention, cannot sustain a finding that the State
has violated the constitution, a trial on the merits will be ’
nothing more than a meaningless exercise.”
®
= 15
®
Where the court is asked only to rule on the sufficiency of
the factual allegations of the complaint to justify relief
should they be proved at trial, it is inavpropriate for the
court to consider the constitutional claims stated therein
prior to trial. See United States v., Mississlippl, 380 U.S.
128, 143 (1965). The fact that the defendants argue that the
plaintiffs are "bound to lose" on the merits of their con-
stitutional claims in a declaratory judgment action does not
change the rule in such actions that "[tlhe merits of the
constitutional issues presented need not and should not be
addressed at this stage of the proceedings." Tooley v. O'Connell,
253 'N.W. 24 335 at 340 (Wis. 1977).
The soundness of the rule that the existence of an actual
controversy is all that is required for a litigant to obtain a
hearing on his application for a declaratory judgment is rein-
forced in cases where the parties disagree as to the factual
issues raised in the complaint and "their briefs are replete
with contentions respecting the weight to be given those facts
Stalnaker v.
in determining their respective rights . . .
McCorgary, 223 P,24 738,741 (Kan. 1950). The statutes and rules
governing declaratory judgments were not intended to permit the
court "to prejudge matters which might become material in deter-
mining the propriety or justice of the relief sought", and this
is particularly true where constitutional claims affecting the
public interest are raised. Hyde Park Dairies, Inc. v. City of
Newton, 209 P.2d 221 at ‘224 (Kan. 1949).
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion to strike
the plaintiffs’ complaint is denled.
=Y7~
Cv 89-0360977S
MILO SHEFF, et al SUPERIOR COURT
J.D. HARTFORD/
Plaintiffs NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD
Va
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al
Defendants July ‘8, 1991
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to P.B. § 378 et. seq. the defendants mcve for
summary judgment in the above captioned case. The defendants
maintain that there is no dispute as to the material facts upon
which this motion is predicated and that judgment should be
entered as a matter of law in favor of the defendants and against
the plaintiffs because the state has not engaged in conduct which
violates the state constitution and because there is no judicial
remedy available to the plaintiffs. More specifically:
1. The plaintiffs rights under the constitution have not
been violated in that the conditions about which the plaintiffs
complain are not the products of state action.
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED (P.B. § 380);
NO TESTIMONY REQUIRED
Cog bls ied Me WX © oon \ I Sop & gh A gs A ‘Nh
—~ : f 3 ; kt {
Corp onion Loe re Clad ond G2 Acantal EL i vn.
ART Tn i
mi C.. - v £: LL. > 1
& ) a »
»
2. The plaintiffs rights under the constitution have not been
violated in that the state has satisfied any affirmative ®
obligation which arises out of the constitution.
3. The question of how best to address the conditions about
which the plaintiffs complain is not justiciable. »
WHEREFORE, the defendants seeks judgment in their favor and
against the plaintiffs.
*
FOR THE DEFENDANTS
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
| Bernard F. MCGovern, Jr. »
Assistant/ Attorney General
By: 7, 4 He I
Johr-R. Whelan
As hstant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06105 °
Telephone: 566-3694 i
ts i 12 li / / 0% fone
ne W. Whitney
Assistant Attorney Genera}
110 Sherman Street .
Hartford, Connecticut 06105
Telephone: 566-7173
ORDER
The foregoing motion for summary judgment is hereby: (FEL ~<{
GRANBED/DENIED
BY THE COURT
LA G41 7 » Xa on § N | {
# 4 f
br TA A / eg
4 peo” ASSISTANT CLERK
(3 Fo Aidt ho + :
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed,
postage prepaid on Juyl, 1991 to the following counsel or
record:
John Brittain
University of Connecticut
School of Law
65 Elizabeth Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Wilfred Rodriguez
Hispanic Advocacy Project
Neighborhood Legal Services
1229 Albany Avenue
Hartford, CT 06112
Philip Tegeler
Martha Stone
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union
32 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06106
4
NO. 360977
MILO SHEFF, ET AL. : SUPERIOR COURT
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ®
Vv. HARTFORD-NEW BRITAIN
AT HARTFORD
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, ET AL. : FEBRUARY 24, 1992
x
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
ON THE
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT s
The defendants have moved for summary judgment in this
case claiming that there is no dispute as to the material facts -»
and that judgment should be entered as a matter of law in their
favor because "the state has not engaged in conduct which
®
violates the state constitution and because there is no
judicial remedy available to the plaintiffs.”
®
ape To
5 Whadan ARE
|. Mater ®
fepurts Guid) Deis
" 34 Gh > - :
: 03 ®
Ta SA
They make three specific claims in support of their
motion:
1. The plaintiffs' constitutional rights have not been
violated because the conditions alleged in their complaint are
not the products of state action.
2. The .plaintiffs’ constitutional rights have not been
violated because "the state has satisfied any affirmative
obligation which arises out of the constitution.”
3. The controversy is not justiciable.
This court, in its memorandum of decision dated May 18,
1990, on the defendants' motion to strike, considered the first
of the foregoing claims in the context of that motion at pages
11 through 14, and ruled that at least at that stage of the
proceedings the plaintiffs were entitled to a full hearing on
the merits of their claims. The plaintiffs assert that the
court should not reconsider that issue because the law of the
case has been established by the court's prior decision.
"New pleadings intended again to raise a question of law
which has been already presented on the record and determined
adversely to the pleader are not to be favored." Wiggin v.
Federal Stock & Grain Co., 77 Conn. 507 at 516. Where a matter
has previously been ruled upon by a judge in the same case, he
may treat that decision as the law of the case and should
hesitate to change his own ruling if he is of the opinion that
it was correctly decided, "in the absence of some new or
overriding circumstance." Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86, 99.
The principal factual basis for the defendants' claim
that proof of some type of state action is an indispensable
element of the plaintiffs' constitutional claims is an
affidavit of Gerald L. Tirozzi, a former commissioner of
education for the state of Connecticut, which states that with
the exception of regional school districts, "existing school
district boundaries have not been materially changed over the
last 80 or so years." He also asserts that no child in this
State, to his knowledge, has ever been assigned to a school
district in this State on the basis of race, national origin,
socio-economic status, or status as an "at risk" student, and
that children have always been assigned to particular school
districts exclusively on the basis of their city or town of
residence.
The plaintiffs argue that the requirement of "state
action" is not a prerequisite for the establishment of their
constitutional claims because they have alleged "de facto"
rather than "de jure" racial and economic segregation. The
theory of their case as they state it in their brief (p. 5) is
that they are seeking relief from "the harms that flow from the
present condition of racial and economic segregation that in
fact deprives Hartford area school children of their right to
equality of educational opportunity [and that] the intent of
the defendants is therefore immaterial."
Public schools are creatures of the state, and whether
the condition whose constitutionality is being attacked is
"state-created or state—-assisted or merely state-perpetuated
should be irrelevant" to the determination of the
constitutional issue. Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver,
Colorado, 413 U.S. 189, 227 (1973). Educational authorities on
the state and local level are so significantly involved in the
control, maintenance and ongoing supervision of their school
systems as to render existing school segregation "state action”
under a state's constitutional equal protection clause.
® - W
Crawford v. Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles, 551
P.24 28, 36 {Cal. 1978).
The defendants' claim, as stated in their brief (p. 50),
that "direct and harmful state action is necessary to support
claims under the education provision in Article VIII, §1 of the
state constitution", is based on the Supreme Court's recent
decision in Savage v. Aronson, 214 Conn. 256, which upheld the
constitutionality of the action of the commissioner of income
maintenance in reducing the period of eligibility for families
on AFDC from 180 to 100 days. One of the claims made by the
plaintiffs in that case was that their children's
constitutional rights to equal educational opportunity would be
violated because of the harmful effect upon them of frequent
school transfers. Jd. 286.
The Court's response to this argument was that the
children's hardship was a result of the "difficult financial
circumstances they face, not from anything the state has done
to deprive them of the right to equal educational opportunity."
Justice Glass in his dissent (p. 288) stated that the majority
had apparently adopted the state's argument that it was not
responsible for the consequences of poverty.
The United States Supreme Court has also stated in the
public housing context that "the Constitution does not provide
judicial remedies for every social and economic ill." [Lindsey
v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 at 74 (1972). 1It has acknowledged,
however, that although public education is not a right
guaranteed by the Constitution, it is nevertheless not merely
some governmental "benefit" indistinguishable from other forms
of social welfare legislation. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202,
221-22 (1982).
It is also important to recognize that the plaintiffs in
this case have raised an issue that was not decided in Horton
v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, namely, whether the state's
constitutional obligation under its Education Clause imposes
requirement of a specific substantive level of education" in a
particular area of the state. See Abbott v. Burke, 575 A.2d
359 at 368 (N.J. 1990). In order to rule on the plaintiffs’
claims, therefore, the court must more particularly define "the
scope and content of the constitutional provision[s]" upon
which the plaintiffs rely. Id. 367.
For the foregoing reasons, as this court stated in its
ruling on the defendants' motion to strike, the question of
whether or not the state's action or failure to act rises to
the level of a constitutional violation goes to the merits of
this case because it constitutes a "bona fide and substantial
question or issue in dispute ... which requires settlement
between the parties ..." by way of the declaratory judgment
which the plaintiffs seek. Practice Book §390(b).
The defendants' second claim in support of their motion
is that "the state has satisfied any affirmative obligation
which arises under the constitution." They point to the
"undisputed fact" that the plaintiffs have been unable in the
course of pretrial discovery to disclose "any distinct
affirmative act, step or plan which, if implemented, would have
sufficiently addressed the conditions about which the
plaintiffs complain."
They also argue that despite the complexity of the
problems reflected by the plaintiffs' inability to offer any
alternative approaches that would pass constitutional muster,
the general assembly has adopted, and the defendants have
implemented, a great number of programs "specifically designed
to assist the Hartford public schools ... in their effort to
meet the special needs of urban children who are largely
members of minority groups, often poor, and, in large numbers,
'at risk'". Defendants' Brief, p. 61. They have submitted a
large amount of data furnished by the department of education
(Exhibits 3 and 4) describing the various state and
interdistrict programs that have been developed to address
these problems.
The materials furnished by the defendants tend to show
that the objectives of these programs are being met and are
having a positive effect on the problems that they were
designed to address. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, have
submitted counteraffidavits from Hartford area school
administrators who state that in their opinion the state's
efforts have been ineffectual and that the fiscal and
statistical data in the defendants' affidavits are inaccurate
and misleading.
Although the defendants acknowledge that Article VIII,
§1, imposes an affirmative obligation on the state to provide
free public elementary and secondary education and also makes
education a fundamental right, they claim that it cannot be
construed either alone or in conjunction with the equality of
rights clause (article first, §1), and the equal protection
clause (article first, §20), to impose a specific obligation on
the general assembly to address the problems of which the
plaintiffs complain in any way other than it deems appropriate
in its legislative judgment. The defendants' argument, in
essence, is that what is "appropriate legislation" within the
meaning of the Education Clause may be determined by the courts
only where it involves the funding of the state's educational
system but they may not constitutionally impose a requirement
of a specific substantive level of education.
The state's arguments in this case are much the same as
those made in Abbott v. Burke, 575 A.2d 359% (N.J. 1990), to
justify a ruling by the state commissioner of education that
his department's funding and administration of the Public
School Education Act, which that court had found to be
constitutional in prior cases "assured a thorough and efficient
education" as required by the state constitution. Id. 365.
The court reversed the commissioner's ruling on the ground that
"[tlhe proofs compellingly demonstrate that the traditional and
prevailing educational programs in these poorer urban schools
were not designed to meet and are not sufficiently addressing
the pervasive array of problems that inhibit the education of
poorer urban children." Id. 363.
The New Jersey Supreme Court stated in Abbott that the
constitutionally mandated educational opportunity was not
limited to "expenditures per pupil, equal or otherwise, but
[was] a requirement of a specific substantive level of
education." Id. 368. It should also be noted that the opinion
makes reference to the failure of the so-called "effective
schools" programs in both New Jersey and Connecticut to fully
achieve their goals. Id. 404-405 n.38.
The defendants' restrictive views as to the permissible
scope of judicial inquiry into the state's constitutional and
statutory responsibilities in the field of public education
bring to mind the views of the lone dissenting Justice in
Horton I, who took the position that the constitution requires
only "legislation which makes education free." Horton v.
-10-
Meskill, 172 Conn. 615 at 658. Nevertheless, in his dissenting
opinion, he acknowledges that a minimal substantive level of
education may be constitutionally required in that "[a] town
may not herd children in an open field to hear lectures by
illiterates [but] there is no contention that such situations
exist, or that education in Connecticut is not meaningful or
does not measure up to standards accepted by knowledgeable
leaders in the field of education." Id. 639.
The plaintiffs in this case have alleged that they have
been deprived of a "minimally adequate education" and are
therefore entitled to a judicial determination of whether the
constitution requires a particular substantive level of
education in the school districts in which they reside.
The defendants' final claim that the conditions of which
the plaintiffs complain are not justiciable was thoroughly
briefed and argued on the defendants' motion to strike, and the
court's reasons for rejecting that claim are fully stated at
pages 7 through 11 of the court's memorandum.
The court will treat that portion of its decision on the
motion to strike as the law of the case because "it is of the
-11-
opinion that the issue was correctly decided" and the
defendants' argument is repetitive. Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn.
86, 99. "Parties cannot be permitted to waste the time of
courts by the repetition in new pleadings of claims which have
been set up on the record and overruled at an earlier stage of
the proceedings." Hillyer v. Borough of Winsted, 77 Conn. 304
at 306.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the defendants’
motion for summary judgment is denied.
-12-
® 03 »
CV89-0360977S
a | MILO SHEFF, ET AL. : SUPERIOR COURT
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
VS. EARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN
AT HARTFORD
® WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, ET AL. : APRIL 132, 1593
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
| This declaratory judgment action was brought on
|
|
®
H April 28, 1989 by seventeen named plaintiffs, including 1
i " = . [3 * * :
4 fifteen black, Hispanic and white public school students who :
il
;
H lived in Hartford and who were attending various elementary |
“ ¥ : oii
! schools, middle schools and high schools in the Hartford |
|
.
| :
i public school system, as well as two white children who :
1
|
4 : : : : : = i
i lived with their parents in the town of West Hartford and |
Hi
® i : ei i
¥ were enrolled in one of its elementary schools. The
i i
¥ defendants named in the original complaint were the
RS I LRT TL ET |
¥ : : : a : .
i incumbent governor, William A. O'Neill, or his successors in
. i 3
. . . - . -
that office, the state board of education, its individual
oie . ; : |
| members, the state commissioner of education, who was then |
|
|
’
Gerald N. Tirozzi, the state treasurer and the state
® |
comptroller, as well as their successors in those offices.
i
| < i140
®
| 99, ns 0 J] 34
° (ed
P
E
a
The complaint ({ 30) states that school children
throughout Connecticut, njncluding the City of Hartford and
its adjacent suburban communities, are largely segregated by
race and ethnic origin." It alleges (99 36, 38) that
Hartford public schools, because they have such a high
proportion of students who are "at risk" of lower
educational achievement, "operate at a severe educational
disadvantage [which imposes upon them] enormous educational
burdens [which have made them unable] to provide educational
opportunities that are substantially equal to those received
by schoolchildren in the suburban districts."
The plaintiffs also assert (§ 25) that "[m]easured by
the State's own educational standards . . . a majority of
Hartford schoolchildren are not currently receiving even a
‘minimally adequate education.’"™ Paragraph 50 of the
original complaintTalleged that " [flor well over two~"
decades, the State of Connecticut, through [the defendants]
and their predecessors, have been aware of: (i) the
separate and unequal pattern of public school districts in
the State of Connecticut and the greater Hartford
metropolitan region; (ii) the strong governmental forces
that have created and maintained racially and economically
isolated residential communities in the Hartford region; and
(iii) the consequent need for substantial educational
changes, within and across school district lines, to end
this pattern of isolation and inequality."
The plaintiffs claim ({ 68) that the defendants "have
the legal obligation under Article First, §§ 1 and 20, gud
Article Eighth, § 1 of the Connecticut Constitution" to
correct these neducational inequities" in the Hartford
school system, and that ({ 69) they also have the power
under the state constitution and state statutes "to carry
out their constitutional obligations and to provide the
relief to which plaintiffs are entitled." They assert,
nevertheless (9g 70), that neither the Hartford school
district nor the nearby suburban districts "have been
directed by defendants to address these inequities jointly,
to reconfigure district lines, or to take other steps
sufficient to eliminate these educational inequities.”
The plaintiffs’ legal claims as stated in the first
count (gg 73-75) are that "[s]eparate educational systems
for minority and non=mirmority students are inherently
unequal [and that because] of the de facto .racial-and ethnic
segregation between Eart ford and the suburban districts, the
defendants have failed to provide the plaintiffs with an
equal opportunity to a free public education as required by
Article First, §§ 1 and 20, and sroicle Eighth, § 1, of the
Connecticut Constitution, to the SYave injury of the
plaintiffs." The second count (Y{ 76-78) states that
n [s]eparate educational systems for minority and non-
minority students in fact provide to all students, and have
provided to plaintiffs, unequal educational opportunities
* n ®
[and that because] of the racial and ethnic segregation that
exists between Hartford and the suburban districts,
perpetuated by the defendants and resulting in serious harm
to the plaintiffs, the defendants have discriminated against
the plaintiffs and have failed to provide them with an equal
opportunity to a free public education as required by [the
three state constitutional provisions referred to in the
first countl.”
The third count (9 79-80) claims that the same state
constitutional guaranties have been violated by the
defendants because they have maintained a public school:
district in the city of Hartford that is "severely
educationally disadvantaged" in comparison to the suburban
school districts, that fails to provide its schoolchildren
with educational opportunities equal to those in suburban
SLEEP EES, BA that falls to provide a majority of its
students with a "minimally adequate education" based on the
state’s own standards. The fourth Count (§ 81-82) claims
that the failure of the defendants to provide Hartford
schoolchildren with equal educational opportunities pursuant
to state statutes violates their due Pros rights under
Article ng $8 8 and 10, of the state constitution.
The defendants moved to strike the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted
because, first, the plaintiffs’ claims were not justiciable;
second, unconstitutional state action had not been alleged;
third, the plaintiffs had not alleged any causal connection
. : between school district lines and educational performance;
and, fourth, the existence of school districts which
coincide with town boundaries did not violate constitutional
» standards. The court, in its memorandum of decision on the
motion, Sheff wv. O'Neill, 1. Comm. Lu Bote. £40, 842 (1330),
noted that the plaintiffs in this case were relying on the
same state constitutional provisions that were invoked by
the plaintiffs in Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615 (1877)
(Horton I), in their successful challenge by way of a
declaratory judgment action to the constitutionality of the
state's system for financing public education.
The issue of justiciability raised by the defendants as
the first ground for their motion to strike was based on the
plurality opinion in Pellegrino v. O'Neill, 193 Conn. 670
(i984), which upheld the dismissal by the trial court
| of a declaratory judgment action challenging the
constitutionality of the state’s financing of the judicial
system because it was a "political question which could not
be adjudicated by judicial authority without violating the
principle of separation of powers." 1d., at 674. This
court rejected the defendants’ argument in support of their
motion in part because of Judge Parskey’s ruling in favor of
the plaintiffs on the question of justiciability at the
trial court level in Horton I, 31 Conn. Sup. 377, 383
(1974), but more particularly, in reliance on the
" [jlurisprudential prudence" counselled by then Associate
Justice Peters in the Pellegrino dissent in which she stated
that "the plaintiffs should not be deprived of the
opportunity that was afforded to the plaintiffs in Horton v.
Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 376 A.2d 359 (1977), to make an
evidentiary showing that the legislature has violated the
state constitution . . ." and cautioned against prejudging
the igsue of justiciability "in the abstract” without.a full
hearing on the plaintiffs’ claims, however "novel and
complex" the constitutional questions might be. Pellegrino
v, O'Neill, supra, 193 Conn. 68%, 692-33 (Peters, J.,
dissenting).
The second and third grounds for the motion to strike,
which were the basis for the defendants’ arguments that this
court rule as a matter of law on the issues of state action
4d CIUSATIioH, were a4l50 rejected 5 an ETtLéEmpt to obtain a
premature judicial determination of those disputed issues
contrary to the general rule that the standard for testing
the sufficiency of a complaint for declaratory judgment "is
not whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaratory
relief he seeks in accordance with the theory he states, but
rather, it is whether he is entitled to a declaration of
rights at all under the allegations of his complaint.”
Sheff v. O'Neill, supra, 1 Conn, L.. Rptr., 643. The fourth
and final argument made by the defendants in support of
their motion to strike, which was that an immediate ruling
on the defendants’ claim that the existence of school
districts which coincide with town boundaries does not
violate the state constitution would avoid a "meaningless"
trial on the merits, was also rejected on the ground that it
would be "inappropriate" for the court to consider or to
decide any of the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims prior to
trial. 1d., (citing United States v. Mississicopi, 3850 U.S.
128,:143 41965) ).
The defendants filed their answer to the plaintiffs’
complaint on June 27, 1990 after the court's denial of their
motion to strike, and also asserted seven special defenses
based on both jurisdictional and substantive grounds. Their
response to the first of the five introductory paragraphs of
the complaint which states that the Hartford public schools
are "all but overwhelmed" by the demands made upon them to
sducate the disproportisnately Large umber of poor and
minority students in a school system that is "racially and
ethnically isolated” from the adjacent school districts, was
that the paragraph was admitted "only insofar as it alleges
that there is a relatively high concentration of children
from poor families and black and Rishanic students" in the
Hartford public schools compared to the public schools in
most of the twenty-one towns surrounding Hartford.
They admit in paragraph 3 of their answer that Hartford
students "as a whole do not perform as well on the State
Mastery Test as do the students as a whole in some
surrounding communities and that poor and minority children
have the potential to become well-educated", but deny the
plaintiffs’ claim that the state, "by tolerating school
districts sharply separated along racial, ethnic, and
economic lines, has deprived the plaintiffs and other
Hartford children of their [constitutional and statutory]
rights to an equal educational opportunity, and to a
minimally adequate education . . . ." They also admit (9 4)
that "society benefits from racial, ethnic, and economic
integration and that racial, ethnic and economic isolation
may have some harmful effects", but deny that they have
failed to act effectively to provide equal educational
opportunity to plaintiffs and other Hartford schoolchildren”
as alleged by the plaintiffs.
It is also undisputed (9§ 33) that for the 1987-88
School yeaYy Hartford's total school population ©f 25,058 was
the highest of all the towns in the metropolitan area and
‘that the next largest school district in terms of enrollment
was West Hartford with 7,424 students. The percentage of
black and Hispanic students in the Harcford school system
for that school year was 90.5%, totlowed by Bloomfield and
Windsor with 69.9% and 30.8%, respectively.
The defendants admit ({ 35) that the Hartford schools
serve a greater proportion of students from backgrounds that
put them "at risk" of lower educational achievement than the
suburban school districts and that Hartford therefore has a
"comparatively larger burden to bear in addressing the
needs" of those children. They also acknowledge ({ 36,
Answer to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint,
April 1, 1993) that such children have the capacity to learn
*» and that although they impose "some special challenges" to
the particular school system that is responsible for their
education, neither the at risk children in Hartford nor
PY their fellow students have been deprived of their right to
an equal educational opportunity because of the additional
"enormous educational burdens" that may have thereby been » imposed upon the teachers and students of the Hartford
schools as alleged by the plaintiffs.
It should be noted at this point in the court’s review of the pleadings that the plaintiffs’ "Statement of Facts"
i
| (designated as Part III of the complaint, 99 30-72) is
|
-T—— —divided into four sections; the first of which "(Section A, i
99 30-34), entitled "A Separate Education", contains the
factual allegations upon which they base their claim that
Hartford area public schools are "inherently unequal"
because they are segregated de facto by race and ethnicity,
and the second (Section B, {§ 35-49), Whose title is "An
Unequal Education", states the factual basis for their
claims that they have been deprived of an equal opportunity
to a free public education ({ 78), a minimally adequate
education (§ 80), and their due process rights {9.82)..to
| equal educational opportunities under state law. The third
section (99 50-66), entitled "The State’s Longstanding
Knowledge of These Ineguities", gives a chronological
account of various federal, state and local governmental
reports, studies and recommendations dealing with the
growing problem of racial segregation in the schools which
begins in 1965 with a United States civil rights commission
report to the state’s education commissioner (§ 51), and
ends in April, 1989, the month in which this action was
commenced, with a report issued by then Commissioner Tirozzi
{(Tirozzi IT).
The assertions made by the plaintiffs in paragraphs
S1-66 constitute the factual underpinnings for the
allegations made in paragraph 50 of the original complaint,
which were quoted earlier in this opinion, and which can be
fairly summarized as stating that the defendants have long
been aware Of the conditions that gave rise to this~action:
It should be noted, however, that the plaintiffs’ srizinal
claim that the state had a "role in segregated housing
patterns" (Plaintiffs’ Request for Leave to Amend Complaint,
July 21, 1992, Record item #178) as suggested by the
references made in the original complatnt to "social
policies pursued and/or accepted by the defendants" (9 27),
"the strong governmental forces that have created and
maintained racially and economically isolated residential
communities" (§ 50), and their failure "to afford meaningful
racial and economic integration of housing within school
10
o
S
A
=
=
zones and school districts" ( 71), were deleted at the
request of the plaintiffs in order to limit their proof to
"the important educational issues that are at the core of
this case." Record item %178, supra.?!
The defendants’.answer generally admits the existence
and authenticity of all the reports, studies and
recommendations referred to in paragraphs 51-66, but denies
(¢ 51) that the defendants nfailed to take any appropriate
action to address tke—comcerns" voiced in those reports as
alleged by the-plaintiffs. As to paragraph 50 which
generally &ITeges they were aware of the conditions
complained of over a long period of time, they admit only
that "state officials have, for some time, been aware of a
trend by which the percentage of [minority] students in the
Hartford Public Schools has been increasing."
= - The defendants admit-that-recommendations for’
legislation made by the state civil rights commission in
1966 which the plaintiffs allege would have given the State
Board of Education (SBE) authority over school integration
a 53) were not adopted by the legislature and that a
legislative proposal made by the commission in 1968 which
would have provided for the creation of "educational parks"
(¢ 55) was not enacted into law as well. They also admit
The court notes that paragraph 50 as it appears in
both the Consolidated Amended Complaint (February 26,
1993, Record item #201.70) and the Revised Complaint
(November 23, 1994, Record item #217) was not corrected
to conform to the amendment. ;
- 11
(¢ s8) that although the Racial Imbalance Law, General
Statutes § 10-226a et seqg., was passed in 1969 and the
legislature authorized the SBE to promulgate implementing
regulations, the legislature failed to approve any
regulations to implement the statute until 1980.
The defendants deny the paragraph of the complaint
({ 59) alleging that from 1970 to 1382 "no effective
efforts" were made by the defendants "fully to remedy the
racial isolation and educational inequities . . . which were
growing in severity during this period." They admit
paragraphs 60 through 66 in which the plaintiffs identify
and quote from various reports and policy statements issued
by the SBE from 1983 to 1989 during the tenure of the
defendant Tirozzi as condiesioler. beginning with a "Policy
Statement on Equal Edadak ional Opportunity” (9 60,
Platuriefe’TExhibit—43)? in which the board stated that it —
"supports racial integration in Connecticut’s schools and
also recognizes the benefits of residential and economic
integration in our state, as important to the quality of
education and personal growth for all students in
Connecticut.” |
The next report referred to in the complaint (§ 61) was
filed with the SBE on February 5, 1986 (PX 42) by an
advisory committee to study the state’s Racial Imbalance Law
27rial exhibits hereafter will be designated "PX"
for plaintiffs’ exhibits and "DX" for defendants’
exhibits.
12
and noted (p. 14) that the reason minority children in the
larger urban school districts did not perform well on
statewide academic proficiency tests was "because they are
poor and often extremely deprived, not because they are
minority", and also indicated in its summary (p. 18) that
"the board may wish to consider one or more of the following
initiatives: programs that ensure students the highest
quality instruction possible, voluntary interdistrict
collaboration, expansion of magnet school programs and
metropolitan districting."
Another policy statement that is identified and quoted
in part in the complaint ({ 62) was one prepared by the
committee on racial equity for the SBE- in January, 1988,
entitled "A Report on Racial/Ethnic Equity and Desegregation
in Connecticut’s Public Schools" (Tirozzi I), which noted
PX 50, p. 8) that "achieving the goals—of school -
desegregation and equal educational opportunity will require
a major rethinking of Connecticut’s public education
system." The four recommendations made in the report
(pp. 711, 18, 19) were that first, the state endorse the
concept of "collective respoasibilicy”, second, that
substantial financial incentives be made available to school
districts "that plan and implement voluntary interdistrict
programs and advance desegregation, racial balance and
integrated education", third, that the Department of
Education (DOE) provide technical assistance for the
- 13
NM »
| 2\
development and implementation of desegregation plans, and
fourth, that the DOE "undertake broad-based planning with
other agencies concerned with housing, transportation and
other factors that contribute to segregation in the public
schools, to find ways to counteract adverse influences on
integration."
Paragraph 63 of the complaint refers to another report
issued by Tirozzi in December, 1388, entitled "Poverty and
the Department of Education" (PX 59), which is described as
"an extensive analysis of Connecticut’s Mastery Test
results" and quotes one of its findings (PX 59, p. 4)-to the
effect that poverty as measured by one indicator, that of
student participation in the free and reduced lunch program,
has an irpertant correlation with low achievement, and that
the low achievement outcomes associated with thar factor are
intensified by geographic concentration The preface to the
report states that "[o]lf U.S. cities with the highest child
poverty rates, Hartford ranks second, New Haven sixth and
Bridgeport eighth", and some of the other findings stated in
the body of the report (p. 2) are that " [e]very other child
in Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport wives in poverty,
[that the] fastest growing segment of Connecticut’s
population living in poverty is children under the age of
five [and that such children are] more likely to be
educationally at risk of school failure and dropping out
|
|
22
before graduation than children from less impoverished
homes."
The remaining paragraphs of the third section of the
complaint ({{ 64-66) concerning the state’s "longstanding
knowledge" of the existence of the conditions which are the
subject of this action refer to and quote from a report
issued in April of 1589 (Tirozzi II), entitled "Quality and
Integrated Education: Options for Connecticut" (PX 60,
pp. 1, 3, 34) which’noted that the initisl. report of
January, 1988 (Tirozzi I), "documented an alarming degree of
isolation" of poor and minority children in Hartford, and
generally reaffirmed the findings that had been made as a
result of the prior departmental studies. Paragraph 66
asserts that despite the state’s "recognition of . . . the
gravely adverse impact this isolation has on the educational
‘opportunities afforded to plaintiffs ard other urban
schoolchildren" the report stated (p. 34) that " [tlhe
actions recommended in this report are voluntary and
incremental", and the defendants "have announced, that they
intend to pursue [that] approach . . ."
The concluding section of the Slate ists’ statement of
facts which is captioned "The State’s Failure to Take
Effective Action", as it appears in the original complaint
(9 67-72), states (J 68) that it is the defendants’ duty
under the equal protection and education clauses of the
state constitution "to correct [the] educational inequities
5
[that] Hartford schoolchildren face" and (§ 69) that zhey
thave full power ,. . . to carry our their constituticrzl
obligations and to provide the relief to which plaintiffs
are entitled." As to the latter allegation, the defexdants’
answer leaves the plaintiffs to their proof "because the
plaintiffs have failed to identify the specific remed:izl
action they are seeking [and to] the extent that the
plaintiffs are seeking to redraw school district lines,
disassociating the school districts from the individuzl
municipalities they serve, or they are seeking to require
children to attend sahoel in districts other than the
district in which their parents live, vote and pay taxes,
these defendants have no power to carry this out."
The last of the factual allegations of the complzint
(9 72) challenges the adequacy of the state’s funding cf the
Tcompensatory or remedial services remulred by the Hartford
school district to meet the educational. needs of its
students and raises an additional and independent
constitutional claim that the legislative changes made in
the statutory school financing system in response to
Horton I have not been sufficient to redress the educational
inequities that allegedly exist in Hartford. The defendants
deny the plaintiffs’ factual and legal claims in their
answer, and in their second special defense (] 84), they
assert that the decision in favor of the state on that issue
in Horton v. Meskill, 195 Conn. 24 (1985) (Horton III)
16
| . 12M »
|
precludes them from raising it in this action by reascn of
the operation of the doctrine of stare decisis.
Four of the six other special defenses interposed by
» ao: the defendants raise essentially Jurisdictional issues as
follows, first (§ 83), that the doctrine of sovereign
immunity bars this action because the plaintiffs have failed
| to plead facts sufficient to establish a constitutional
violation, second ({ 85), that matters of educational policy
are committed exclusively to the General Assembly by article
eighth, § 1 of the state constitution, third ({ 8s), that
any judgment or order of the court that imposes affirmative
obligations on the defendants requiring legislative implementation would violate the principle of separation of
powers, and fourth (§ 87), the court lacks jurisdiction
because of the plaintiffs’ failure to join the city of
= Hartford or its board of education—or-any ofthe suburban
towns or their school boards as necessary parties to this
action, "{tlo the extent the plaintiffs complain about
matters which are committed by law" to the discretion of
those municipalities or their boards of education. The
sixth special defense (] 88) challenges the legal
sufficiency of the complaint pebduse the "[pllaintiffs have
failed to allege . . . state action as a direct and
sufficient cause of the conditions about which they are
complaining [and paragraph 89, the seventh special defense,
asserts that] the state, as a matter of law, has taken
3.7
|
|
|
|
|
.—
——
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
reasonable and appropriate steps to address the educational
problems identified in [the] plaintiffs’ complaint and the ®
court may order nothing further."
In accordance with the court’s scheduling crder after
its decision on the motion to strike, the pleadings were .
closed, and the parties then proceeded with discovery by way
of interrogatories in order to narrow the factual issues for
trial by resolving those that were essentially undisputed. ®
Thereafter, on July 8, 1991, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on their claims that, first, it
was indisputable that the state had satisfied whatever ®
affirmative duty was required of it under the constitution,
second, the court's prior decision on the issue of state
action should be reconsidered in the light of the ®
intervening decision by the Supreme Court in Savage Vv.
=~ TAronson, 214 Conn. 256 (1990), and the affidavit by thew
commissioner Tirozzi filed in support of the motion as to ®
that issue, and third, that the question of justiciability
had been wrongly decided in favor of the plaintiffs by the
court on the state’s motion to strike.
ait *
The Tirozzi affidavit stated that with the exception of
Yeglonal school districts, existing school district
boundaries had not been materially changed in over eighty
years, and that to his knowledge no child in Connecticut had
ever been assigned to a school district in this state on the
basis of race, national origin, socioeconomic status, or .
18 2
status as an "at risk" student, and that children have
always been assigned to particular school districts on the |
| basis of their town of residence. The plaintiffs argued in
| their brief in opposition to the motion (Record item #158,
| pp. 5-6) that proof of state action is not a necessary
element of liability where de facto segregation is claimed
because "it is the present condition of racial segregation
LJ in the region’s schools that violates the Connecticut
Constitution as a matter of law, and the harms that flow
} from the present condition of racial and economic
®: I segregation that in fact deprive Eartford area
schoolchildren of their right to equality of educational
opportunity [and the] intent of the state defendants is
therefore immaterial."
The defendants’ memorandum in support of the motion
(Record item #150, p. 50) stated that Savage v. Aronson,
supra, ‘214 Conn. 256, "established that direct and harmful
state action is necessary to support Slatns under the
education provision in Article VIII, 9 1, as well as claims
under the equal protection provisions of the state
constitution [and that the court in chat case] rejected
claims snide [the education clause] which are strikingly
similar to the claims being made by the plaintiffs in the
present case.” In Savaae, the trial court had found that
the action of the department of income maintenance in
terminating emergency housing for families receiving Aid to
19 |
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) "and offering as an
alternative only group shelter housing distant from the New
Haven area, where [their children] have been attending
school, would violate their state constitutional right to
education because of. the harmful effect upon them of
frequent school transfers." Ya, 286.
The majority opinion in Savage acknowledged " [t]he
undoubted hardship imposed upon the children of these
plaintiffs from the lack of affordable housing near the
schools where they are now being educated", but concludad
neverthelegs that their hardship rssulted "from the
difficult financial circumstances they face, not from
anything the state has done to deprive them of the right to
equal educational opportunity." I4., 287. The court's
rejection of the plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims
‘was also based on its finding that their-financial-
circumstances, "which are the root cause of thelr inability
to obtain permanent’ homes, have not been produced by any
state action, an essential requirement for invocation of the
due process clauses of both our federal and state
constitutions." I4., 284. |
The defendants’ claim that summary judgment should
enter because state action of some kind must be found to
exist before the constitutional issues raised by the
plaintiffs may be considered, was rejected in part because
of the court’s prior ruling that they were entitled to a
20 -
full hearing on the merits of their claims. Sheff v.
O'Neill, 42 Conn. Sup. 172, 173 41932). The court's
memorandum of decision also noted that an issue that had
neither been raised nor addressed in Horton I was present in
this case, namely, whether the state’s constitutional
obligation to educate its schoolchildren required that a
specific substantive level of education be provided to them,
and the court was therefore required to define the scope and
content of the constitutional provisions relied upon by the
plaintiffs as was done by the New Jersey Supreme Court in
Abbott vv, Buwles 575 37.24 359, 367-68 (N.J. 1880).
Id. 178"
The court also relied on the Abbott decision as the
basis for rejecting the defendants’ claim that the evidence
submitted in support of their motion established that the
state had satisfied its affirmative-constitutional duty by
enacting "appropriate legislation" to deal with the problems
of urban school districts and to address the special needs
of their students because, as stated by the New Jersey court
in Abbott, the scope of the judicial inquiry is not limited
to the state’s funding of its school districts but extends
as well to the question of whether or not the state was
providing a "minimally adequate education" for the children
in the Hartford public schools as alleged by the plaintiffs.
Id., 177-78. With respect to the defendants’ request that
the court reconsider its prior decision in favor of
21 5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
justiciability, the court declined to do so and treated that
ruling as the law of the case because the issue had been
correctly decided, and that in any event, the defendants’
argument was repetitive. Id., 178-73.
After the court’s denial of the motion for summary
judgment and the assignment of the case for trial in
December of 1992, the court determined that the issues of
liability and remedy would not be bifurcated and that
evidence would be received as to the relief sought by the
plaintiffs, without prejudice, however, to the rights of
interested parties to be heard at a separate remedial
hearing, if necessary, should the plaintiffs prevail on
their constitutional claims. See Horton III, supra,
195 Conn. 46. Thereafter, ovar the course of thirty-five
trial days beginning December 16, 1592 and ending
February 26, 1933, approximately one thousand-exhibits were
introduced in evidence and the testimony of fifty-eight
witnesses was received including the deposition testimony of
four witnesses which were offered in evidence and admitted
as full exhibits.
The plaintiffs, in their opening argument (Transcript,
December 16, 1992, pp. 8-9), stated that their
constitutional claims in this case were even stronger than
those advanced successfully by the plaintiffs in Horton I,
namely, that education was a fundamental right and that
every child has the right to an equal educational
af 22
.
opportunity under the state constitution, because Article
First, $1 20:c0f the constitution "expressly prohibits both
segregation as well as discrimination [and that] de facto
segregation is a form of segregation." The thrust of the
defendants’ argument (pp. 27-28) was that this was "not a
school desegregation case [because there] is no past or
present segregation to undo [nor was there any] evidence of
wrongdoing on the part of the state [and that, on the
contrary the] evidence [would] show the state has made
serious efforts and is a leader in attempting to address
these very serious prcblems."
The depositions that were admitted into evidence had
all been taken by the plaintiffs, and the persons deposed
were the defendant Tirozzi (PX 494), who had served as state
commissioner of education from July 1, 1983 to October 1,
1991, Vincent Ferrandino (PX 493), who succeeded him as
commissioner, John Mannix (PX 495) who was chairman of the
state board of education when he gave his testimony on
October 1, 1992, and Robert Margolin (PX 506), an employee
of the DOE since 1967 who had held various administrative
positions and was serving as deputy commissioner of
education at the time of his retirement in 1991. The
plaintiffs’ claim that the testimony of cach of the
deponents should be treated by the court as an admission
against the state was denied, and after the court had ruled
on the defendants’ objections to some of the questions, the
23
—
—
—
©
§ —
CE
—
4
0
.
6
§
+
—
—
Ao
i
o
depositions were markad and admitted into evidence as
plaintiffs’ exhibits without objection.
Margolin testified (PX 506, supra, pp. 6-7) that in
1978 he became director of the division that monitored the.
racial imbalance law and that he also worked on Tirozzi I in
addition to his responsibilities for administering the
interdistrict cooperative grant program and other voluntary
grant programs to racially balance school populations. From
the time he assumed the directorship in 1978 and became
directly involved in the administration of the racial
imbalance law, the department was aware of the racial
isolation of the urban school systems (pp. 13-16), and after
the regulations were adopted in 1980, enforcement actions
were taken against Middletown and Norwalk "and about half a
dozen other towns [but we] were frustrated because we knew
- we couldn’t stop the trend that was developing . . . and we
(had) no way of controlling that."
Margolin’s personal opinion was that the only long term
solution to the problem of interdistrict racial imbalance
"would be to move to some sort of required/ mandatory
process" (p. 23), but his view was not shared by the SBE or
by the commissioner who believed that the more practical
approach would be to pursue voluntary means in the form of
"enticements" to school districts. He also stated (p. 32)
that he felt that the interdistrict cooperative grant
program was not sufficient to address the racial isolation
7 24
and poverty concentration of the schoolchildren in Hartford,
® that {(p. 42) Tirozzi I went beyond mere statistics and had
"very firm recommendations" and that Tirozzi II did not add
anything to the earlier report. A : He stated further in the course of his deposition
(p. 48) that the state’s primary responsibility is "to
ensure that our kids learn [even in a] negative setting
[although] it’s not fair to call Hartford a negative setting
i
i
|
of 0]
| [because there’s] some outstanding education going on there
| ." He also referred (pp. 48-50) to the "Governor's
® | Commission on Quality and Integrated Education" which was
I appointed in 1990 "to elevate the responsibility out of the
state Department of Education [because] it was a multi-
® faceted problem that education in itself could not resolve",
but that the commission’s report, in his opinion, did not
A {8 ‘accomplish the goals set for it because ‘although it was a
® ; "good effort" it was "all compromise."
The direct examination concluded with a question put to
him as to whether children in Hartford were receiving a
. minimally adequate education as defined by plaintiffs’
counsel (pp. 55-56) as "education that gives a child a
chance of leading a successful adult life . . ." His
. response was (pp. 55-58) that, in general, the majority of
them were receiving at least that level of education, even
though as a group, the mastery test results showed that many
of them were performing below the remedial level, and he
*
ge 25
|
»
also stated that the tests "were never intended to be the
sole source to measure student performance."
The Tirozzi deposition, which was taken by the
plaintiffs on September 18, 1992, began with counsel’s
statement (p. 4) that the questions put to him would be
based on his expertise and experience during the time that
he served as state commissioner of education, and on the
"long history you’ve had in urban education." He stated in
response to the first series of questions (pp. 9-10) that
students in the Hartford public schools are racially
isolated and are likely to become more isolated in the
future, and that a total or "holistic" education for both
white and minority schoolchildren involves interracial and
multiethnic exposure to each other and interaction between
them because racial and ethnic isolation has negative
----=gffects on both groups.
During his tenure as commissioner from 1983 to 19391,
the department and the state board were aware of the harmful
effects of racial segregation, and because the filing of
annual reports on the racial composition of all school
districts was required under the racial imbalance law, he
"would have to assume" (pp. 11-12) that the Governor as well
as anyone else would have been aware of the conditions of
racial isolation that existed in the state’s largest urban
school districts. He also stated that the problems of those
districts were compounded by the fact that minorities who
26
——
=
ae
S
—
S
—
live in the inner cities are disproportionately poor and
because studies have shown that "the real correlation with
academic achievement is socioeconomic class [and that] being
poor ‘in and of itself is a significant problem in
schools.” 14.
In response to the question of what efforts the state
had made to address the problem of racial segregation in the
public schools during his tenure, Tirozzi stated (pp. 14-18)
that the most important were the interdistrict cooperative
program grants "which was two or three million dollars that
was available to allow districts on a voluntary basis to
develop a number of plans to move students across district
lines [in which we] had more than 100 districts
participating in that effort during my last year, developing
plans on a cooperative basis." With respect to the
financial needs of the cities, he cited-the 1986 educational
enhancement stihl ndramatically raised teachers’
salaries" and which permitted the hiring of a substantial
number of them, with the great majority going to Hartford,
New Haven and Bridgeport, so that class sizes in. those
cities could be reduced and in order to permit the poorest
urban school districts to recruit and retain teachers at
salaries that would be at least comparable to, if not higher
than, the salary levels in the suburban districts.
1d., 15-18.
27
Tirozzi also referred to the priority school district
program (p. 16) which was initially funded at three million
dollars "to drive more dollars to cities [and stated that
just] about every one of the grants we had was equalized so
that more dollars went to the poorer communities; again, the
major beneficiaries would have been the cities." He stated
later in his testimony (p. 84) that "in our school funding
formula, we were the first and may still be the only one
that factors in our mastery test scores as one of the
proxies for need, and it is driven when students do not meet
what we call the remedial standard.”
When Tirozzi was questioned about the first
recommendation in his initial report, which endorsed the
concept of "collective responsibility”, he stated
(pp. 35-36, 98-99) that it was misunderstood at the time by
many people to mean mandatory student assignment when it
actually only mandated "corrective action" plans to
eliminate racial imbalance with the threat of state
intervention only if "the voluntary approach [proved] to be
ineffectual.” PX 50, p. 11. The ¥ecornsndasion was not
implemented at that time because there was no express
statutory authority for chat -kind of interdistrict planning
process (pp. 100-04) and the SBE, although it may have
agreed with the report in principle, decided that because of
the strong negative public reaction to the coercive elements
of the report, the best thing to do was to encourage
28
discussion, "to let people feast (and express] their
feelings", and .thereafter, Tirozzl personally spent almost a
year going around the state and "talking anywhere anyone
would listen to me."
Wherever he went across the state he found that
"voluntary, cooperative approaches" would generate public
support, "but nowhere (did he find] there would be a
commitment to mandating that we move in that
direction . . ." {p. 125), and after he reported his
conclusion to the board that the mandatory aspects of
Tirozzi I were "negating the rest of the report", the
decision was made to eliminate them from the concept of
ncollective responsibility" in Tirozzi II. Id. In his
opinion (p. 136), the recommendations in the second report
had a significant impact due to "the availability of fairly
substantial state monies at the time", and the fact that the
issues were being discussed by the public and by planning
groups, and that although he would "like to see things go
faster" (pp. 137-38), progress in dealing with "such a major
issue in our society" could be only "incremental" because of
what he termed the "political realizies” of local control
and autonomy, as well as the problems of "[h]ousing,
unemployment [and] poverty." -
Tirozzi stated on redirect examination (pp. 157-60)
that because of the strong negative response to the
mandatory aspects of Tirozzi I, and what he believed to be
29
E
—
|
—
—
—
—
S
p
e
'
the very positive reaction to Tirozzi II based on the fact
that so many districts across the state expressed their
interest in the voluntary planning process, his opinion had
changed, and he felt that voluntary approaches could bring
about a meaningful level of integration and that "even the
General Assembly could accept" legislative proposals along
those lines. He suggested two areas in which such
legislation could have a "dramatic impact”, first, bv
changing the school funding formula to encourage the
movement of children across town lines, and, second, by
adjusting the BLagR'S proportional share of school
construction costs so as to reward districts that build
schools closer to their borders.
He was also asked earlier in his direct examination
(pp. 92-93) to explain the way he would structure an
— TTiftégrdtion plan and what elements would have to be included
in order to minimize the level of "white flight!, and stated
that he "would do everything in [his] power to develop
voluntary measures" because "local communities [are not]
going todo it . . . of thelr own volition", and that he
would use the "carrot" approach to provide enough financial
incentives and resources to make it "extremely attractive"
for people to participate, as well as "sticks", by way of
disincentives, to make it less desirable not to do so,
because v[i]t’'s incredible what the power of money can
do . ..." He also stated that in the first report
30
—
S
—
ee
od
ee
Se
ee
em
en
(PX 50, p. 12), as part of the suggested implementation of
the collective responsibility concept, five groupings of
suburban school districts contiguous and adjacent to New
Haven (Figure 3), New London (Figure 4), Bridgeport
(Figure 5S), part ford and Bloomfield (Figure 6), and
Waterbury (Figure 7) were proposed, based in part on the
distances involved, because (pp. 93-94) "(tlhe farther the
parents feel their children are . . ." from their
residential communities, the jess likely it is that a
regional plan will succeed.
Tirozzi stated (p. 95) that his opinion about white
flight was based on his experience in the 1960's as a
teacher in the New Haven school system when that city
"started its own forced busing" before the racial imbalance
jaw was passed in 1963. In his opinion, "the fact that New
Haven aggressively pushed rhe- issue and actually forced, had
forced busing, it was non-negotiable, I think drove a.
significant number of whites from the city." id.
It can reasonably be assumed from this particular
portion of his testimony and the fact that his resume states
(PX 478, Pp. 2) that he was a teacher 5 the sheridan Middle
School £000 1962 to 1965 and its principal from 1968 to
1969, that Tirozzi was referring to the plan adopted by the
New Haven board of education on July 7,.1964 which was
upheld by the trial court in a decision filed on
July 8, 1965 and reported in Guida v. Board of Education,
31
a= —
26 Conn. Sup. 121 (319%65). The plan, entitled ‘Proposals for
promoting equality of educational opportunity and dealing
with problems of racial imbalance’, called for the pairing
of Sheridan Junior High School, which served a predominantly
white area and another junior high school which was a
predominantly minority school, into one attendance zone and
also provided "that all seventh grade pupils in the entire
sone attend one school and all eighth grade pupils in the
area attend the other [thereby requiring the] bussing [sic]
of some pupils . . . and as a result the racial imbalance in
the area was equated to a certain extent." Id., 122.
The court held in the Guida case that the plan did not
violate General Statutes § 10-15% (now codified as § 10-15c¢)
because "it [excluded] no one from any school and [had] no
tendency to foster or produce racial segregation orice ol
13.7123. It also held that the plan’s adoption” and
implementation were within "the extensive powers enjoyed by
boards of education [and that there was] no constitutional
prohibition on the board against taking into account... .
the factor of racial imbalance." Id., 123-24.
He also testified (pp. 53-54) that it was his belief
that the enhancement of city schools would have to be an
essential part of any integration plan, and that the state
General Statutes (Rev. to 1964) § 10-15 provided in
pertinent part that " [tlhe public schools shall be open
to all children over six years of age without
discrimination on account. of race or color . . .
32
I
| ®
| had already taken some "very positive steps", particularly
* with respect to teachers’ salaries following the enactment
of the educational enhancement act, SO that the highest |
salaries in the state were being paid to teachers in the |
* larger urban districts. Ee pointed out, however, that
|
.
|
providing support services such as teacher aides, school :
|
|
psychologists and social workers "of high quality and
sufficient number" was a particularly acute problem in the
cities because of the disproportionately large number of
children with special educational needs, but on the other
state" can be found in urban districts such as Hartford.
|
| hand, "some of the best special education classes in the
|
| 14., 54-55.
|
|
Tirozzi was then asked a series of questions
(pp. 63-69) based on the research findings of a number of
"the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses ‘in the fields of education
and sociology who later testified at the trial, including
Jomills Braddock of the University of Miami, Robert Crain of
Columbia University, Mary Kennedy of Michigan State
University, William Trent of the University of Illinois and
Charles Willie and Gary Orfield of fatvazd University. His
answer to each question was that he was aware of the
- particular research and agreed with its conclusions that
| 1) school segregation tends to perpetuate segregation in
adult life, 2) a consideration of the benefits of
| integration should include its effects on long term
33
education and career outcomes as well as academic
achievement, 3) academic performance of white students is
not detrimentally affected by integration, 4) academic
achievement is improved when integration begins in the early
grades, 5) white and black students from integrated schools
are more likely to have close friends of the other race,
6) integrated elementary school and high school experiences
are associated with integrated college experiences,
7) students from integrated schools are more likely to work
in an integrated environment and in integrated neighborhoods
as adults, and 8) achievement scores of all students decline
as the proportion of poor children increases and the poverty
concentration of a school is in itself a cause of lowered
pratt
achievement.
Tirozzi also stated (pp. 81-82) that one important
standard that he would use in determining whether a group of
students was receiving a minimally adequate education would
be the Connecticut mastery testing program, which "clearly
represents what we believe all students should know [when
they reach] the fourth, sixth and eighth grade in critical
subject areas like reading, mathematics, language arts and
writing." He also referred to "Connecticut’s Common Core of
Learning" (PX 45a), a policy statement issued by the SBE in
January, 1987, as representing what the state expects its
high school graduates to know, but stated that it was a
34
BE
i nseries of expectations" rather than a "formal assessment”
® : of what that knowledge should be.*
In response to the question (pp. 83-84) of how he would
use the mastery test results to determine whether a
® minimally adequate education was being provided, and the
question (p. 84), "(i]s the remedial standard [prescribed by
the testing program] the standard below which you would
® : define a student as not receiving a minimally adequate
education?", he replied that the purposes of the tests were
to inform districts so that they could improve their
® i programs, correct deficiencies, and plan for the future, as
well as to provide the basis for the disbursement of funds
| to the districts that were not performing at or above the
® | remedial standard. His answer to the second question
| (pp. 84-86) concerning the use of the remedial standard as a
particular district was that the remedial standard was a
.
i "second standard" that had to be created "for the purpose of
the grant" to determine which school systems required
® additional funding in order to improve the achievement of
the students with the "greatest need", and a district that
® 4u [T]he Common Core of Learning has been developed
neither as a state mandate nor as a condition for
graduation. It provides a statement of high expectations
needed for all Connecticut students to become educated
citizens. It is also offered as a catalyst for school
improvement. The framers of this document view it as a
beginning, one that will change in response to new
® demands and challenges." (PX 45a, p.4)
35
had a "high percentage who met the standard . . . would mean
[that it was] doing well, and a low percentage would mean
[it was] not doing well .. . ..."
Tirozzi also stated (pp. 88-89) that he could not
define the term "equal educational opportunity" in the legal
sense, but that as an educator, and based only on the
Connecticut mastery test results, he would conclude that
children in the cities and the poorer communities throughout
the state, including Hartford, were not "receiving the same
level of education as some of the other communities." He
also expressed his opinion (p. 90) as an educator, and again
using only the test results as the standard, that the
children in Hartford who fell below the remedial standard
were not receiving "a minimally acceptable education." .
Ferrandino’s testimony (PX 493) covered the period from
. — —— ——t—
"His appointment as education commissioner if June, 13832 to
October 1, 1992 and October 6, 1992, the dates on which his "-
deposition was taken, and the personal opinions that he
expressed about the issues in this case were generally
consistent with those that had been offered by Tirozzi in :
his deposition, including whether he sored with some of the
factual claims and conclusions asserted in the plaintiffs’
complaint that had not been expressly admitted or denied by "-
the defendants in their answer. He testified (pp. 23-25)
that as a part of his reorganization of the DOE after he had
assumed the commissionership, he had established an office ®
36
of urban and priority school districts in order to
concentrate the resources of the department on the problems
of the cities, and more specifically, to improve the
achievement of the students in the three largest urban
districts because (p. 25) "I don’t think the results that we
have attained in working with the cities have been the kind
of results that we would like to see [and that student]
achievement was really the bottom line for us", and that
their budgetary options and legislative agenda "needed to be
focused on how that activity would enhance student
achievement."
It was his opinion (pp. 86-87) that a mandated regional
plan would not resolve the problems of racial and economic
isolation and would be very likely to generate a negative
reaction because of the "strong history in this state of
local entra of education [and the] very strong attachment
to the local school system" and based also on his own
personal experience as a principal of a regional high school
and later, as superintendent of a regional school district
[Ferrandino resume, PX 499), that the limited
regionalization that occurred in the 1950" s was accomplished
only because of the financial and economic incentives that
it offered to the smaller communities in the state. In
response to a later question (p. 117) asking his opinion as
to which would be "the more reasonable and better approach
to achieve the goals of integration . . .", he stated that
" 37
IUD |
the more voluntary the process, the greater the chance for
its success because it would be the result of the i *
cooperative efforts of all the interested parties and the
governmental entities involved in the process.
| Ferrandino was asked at a later point in his deposition i
(pp. 131-39) to give his personal opinion as to whether he
agreed with certain paragraphs of the complaint which had
been denied, at least in part, by the state in its answer, @
and said that he agreed that the Hartford schools contain a
(T
r
nfar greater proportion of students at all levels, from
| backgrounds that put them ‘at risk’ of lower educational | »
achievement [and that the] cumulative responsibility for |
educating this high proportion of at-risk students places |
[those schools] at a severe educational disadvantage in ®
comparison with the suburban schools." Complaint,
paragraph 35: He stated that he also agreed that n{alll
: children, including those deemed at risk of lower ; -
educational achievement, have the capacity to learn if given
a suitable education [but] because the Hartford public
schools have an extraordinary proportion of at-risk students
among their student populations, they doevats at a severe
educational disadvantage in addressing the educational needs
of all students -- not only those who are at risk, but those
who are not [and that the] sheer proportion of at-risk
students imposes enormous educational burdens on the
38
individual students, teachers, classrooms, and on the
schools within the [city] of Hartford." 1Id4., paragraph 3s.
In response to the question of whether he agreed that
" [t]hese burdens have deprived both the at-risk children and
all other Hartford schoolchildren of their right to an equal
educational opportunity . . ." as alleged in the last
sentence of paragraph 36, he stated (p. 133) that his
personal definition of that term, as an educator, was that
"an equal educational opportunity is one whereby the
students in Hartford are provided with the level of
‘resources, the level of competence in terms of instruction - 4
an ongoing systematic program that is similar to that of
other communities in the state." His answer to the question
was (pp. 132-33) that he believed that "the program, the
curriculum that is being offered in Hartford does provide
[under his definition] dn equal educational opportunity to
that of other students in other school systems around the
state. ?
He also explained. (pp. 146-48) that, for the purpose of
analyzing the mastery test results, all the districts in the
state were classified by "educational Seiarende group" based
on the size of the community and its student population as
well as the various needs of their students, and that
Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven constituted one of the
groups even though Hartford’s performance was lower than the
other two. He stated that the testing program was not
39
designed to be used comparatively but was intended to
provide information about individual students and programs
for the local school district. Id.
Mannix, who had been a member of the SBE for nine and
Cria~halE years at the time he gave his deposition (PX 495),
was questioned about the mastery tests and testified (p. 17)
that the present testing system was better than the previous
one because it was created by Connecticut teachers based on
this state's own educational goals, and he felt that it was
the "consensus on the board that it’s a valuable tool in
judging the outputs of the school systems." He also stated
(pp. 12-18) that "schooling", whether or not it takes place
in an integrated setting, was only one component of a 2
quality education, and that whether or not such an education
was acquired by a particular student depended to a great
extent on the physical, social and economic environment in
which the child lived as well as whether the family unit of
which the child was a part was a positive influence in texms
of educational performance and achievement.
After he had stated (p. 30) that he supported the
plaintiffs’ position in this case, and s125 asked what he
thought should be done to address the problems which gave
rise to this action, he said (pp. 22-24) that integration in
the fullest sense could be achieved only by building
affordable housing in the suburbs in order "to break up the
ghettos in the cities . . .", and by making urban schools
40
* oe
more attractive in order to "bring back the white population
iL rid ntoehe cities. . ..." On the other hand (p. 28),
he was not inclined to change town boundaries unless "it
became absolutely necessary under some conditions I can’t
envision at this point . . .", and also stated (pp. 20-21)
that he was opposed to busing to achieve integration, even
though as a town selectman in Wilton he was in favor of
busing children from Bridgeport as part of a Project Concern
program in 1966 or 1967 and he felt that the program "helped
us
those children who came into Wilton
The first witness called by the plaintiffs was David
Carter, president of Eastern Connecticut State University
and former co-chairman of the governor's commission on
quality and integrated education, and the commission's
report (PX 73) entitled "Crossing the Bridge to Equality and
Excellence: A Vision of Quality and Integrated Education
STt should be noted in this connection that the
scope of the authority of a local board of education over
interdistrict agreements for Project Concern programs was
determined by this court in Murrav v. Egan, 28 Conn. Sup.
204 in 1969, when it enjoined the Milford board of
aldermen from holding a non-binding "so-called advisory
referendum", on the renewal of a Project Concern
agreement with New Haven because it was "the concern oF
the board of education alone." Id. 205. The court held
that the only provision for testing public sentiment on
such an issue was by means of a petition as provided in
§ 10-238 of the General Statutes, and that it was within
the sole discretion of the board to make its own
determination which "might include, in some substantial
measure, consideration of the humanitarian aspects of the
proposal and the availability to the board of facilities
and staff in Milford, as well as its exercise of reason
and judgment." Id. 206-07.
41
for Connecticut" was introduced in evidence as a plaintiffs’
exhibit. The transmittal letter to Governor 0O’Neill dated
December 31, 1990 states that the report was "the
culmination of 17 months of research, consultation and
discussions with state and national education experts,
Connecticut’s citizens, students, teachers, administrators,
public officials and state agency personnel."
Although the report was unanimously adopted, the letter
refers to a difference of opinion between those members who
favored mandatory approaches to achieving quality integrated
education and those who felt that mandates were beyond the
governor's charge to the commission or that such approaches
were ineffective, and asks the incumbent governor and
Governor-elect Weicker "to recognize that strong arguments
supporting both options have been advanced by Commission
members and Connecticut citizens at’ public hearings held -
across the state." It also states that "|[wle now realize
that no set of educational strategies can fully address the
myriad social issues that produce inequality and undermine
education . . .", that "[s]ubstance abuse, hunger, parental
neglect, crowded and substandard housing and inadequate
employment opportunities disproportionately attack minority
children in our state and divert them from educational
oprorcunity . .", and that "[ulnless other elements of
society and other institutions actively share with education
the responsibility for addressing and remedying these
- 42
—
conditions, not even the best of strategic education plans
can succeed."
The introduction to the commission’s report stated that
"Connecticut has long acknowledged an affirmative
responsibility to desegregate its public schools and to
guarantee educational equality for all students", and then
gave examples of " [t]he state’s history of affirmative
achievement" beginning in 1966 with Project Concern which
was "designed to promote voluntary desegregation" of urban
schools and was "one of this country’s first voluntary
interdistrict transfer programs", followed by the racial
imbalance law in 1969, the inclusion in the state school aid
formula of the number of children from low-income families
in 1979, and thereafter in 13583, factoring into the formula
the number of students who score below the remedial standard
in order to address "the needs’ of “urban school districts",
state funding for magnet schools to improve "the overall
quality of education while reducing racial isolation",
Tirozzi I in 1988 and Tirozzi II in 1989, and since 1988,
the "competitive interdistrict cooperative grant program on
educational programs that provide coporsuniies for
integration . . ." The report also includes "An Open Letter
to the People of the State of Connecticut” by Governor
O'Neill in which he stated that "[m]lany of our students are
isolated in schools that are either largely middle class and
white or largely poor and non-white . . .", that much could
43
be learned from the experience of other states in seeking to
achieve the "twin goals of quality and integration [but at]
the same time Connecticut’s answers will be particular to
Connecticut, reflecting our special circumstances, history
and heritage."
Carrer acknowledged that the governor’s charge to the
commission was "indeed to examine voluntary and or
cooperative measures or approaches" (Carter, 1/37-38)°% and
that there was no discussion about mandatory measures until
"the last two [or] three meetings, where it became very
clear that there were some who felt that voluntary was not
enough [and] as a result of coming to grips with the
totality of the problem, started to believe that something
needed to be done and something needed to be done urgently.”
Id. He also stated that "there's still a question mark on
“thé legislative will", and referred to am article that he
wrote about Brown Vv. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
(Brown II), in which he used the term "dynamic gradualism"
in the same sense as "all deliberate speed" was used in
Brown II to mean that "there was a great deal of motion but
very little movement . . ." Id., 55-56.
The rather imprecise phrase, "all deliberate speed",
which Carter equated with "dynamic gradualism", was
The trial testimony of a witness will first be
identified by name, then by the volume of the transcript,
numbered from 1 through 35, for each day of the trial,
followed by the page or pages of the transcript at which
the testimony appears.
44
articulated by the Supreme Court in Brown II as the remedial
standard for the desegregation of school districts based on
the holding of Brown I that "[sleparate educational
facilities are inherently unequal”, Id., 495, but after ten
years it was found to be unworkable because of "the open and
violent resistance which Brown was encountering in the
South." L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, § 16-18,
p. 1489 (24 EG. 1988). In Griffin v. County School Board,
377 U.S. 218 (1964), which reached the Supreme Court after
the Virginia General Assembly repealed the state’s
compulsory attendance 1aws and made school attendance a
matter of local option, the Court stated "that the issues
here imperatively call for decision now [because the] case
has been delayed since 1851 by resistance at the state and
county level, by legislation, and by lawsuits [and that
there] has been entirely too much deliberation and not
enough speed in enforcing the constitutional rights which we
held [in Brown I] had been denied Prince Edward County Negro
children." Id., 229.
The same theme sounded by Carter of "too much
deliberation and not enough speed" on the part of the state
in dealing with the growing and festering problems of the
Hartford school district were echoed by William Gordon, an
expert on school desegregation planning, in the course of
his testimony on rebuttal (34/87-88), when he stated that
45
——
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
"
t
t
—
—
—
ce
—
"(w]e used to take ‘deliberate speed’ and use it this way:
we would say that the school systems want to be very
deliberate and the plaintiffs want some speed, and neither
one has occurred, really." His answer was given in response
to a question which referred to the statement, ‘[s]low and
steady wins the race’, made by Christine Rossell, one of two
desegregation planners called by the defendants, who favored.
an incremental approach to desegregation remedies. Id., 87.
In the course of his examination by the court after his
rebuttal testimony, Gordon also stated that "Connecticut’s
efforts have not risen to thes level of action" (id., 84) and
made reference to the opinions he had stated in his direct
examination that Connecticut "has been a leader [only] in
studying [this problem] exhaustively" (13/8), and that it
had not taken any "‘significant steps’ toward solving the
problem of racial isolation". Id. He also stated that
based on his experience with eighty desegregation plans
since 1967 he had never encountered "a metropolitan
desegregation plan that was put into place without a Court
order (12/3119.)
Gordon also stated (12/157-59) that he had prepared a
diagram (PX 288) in the form of a time line showing the
continued increase in the Sinsrity population from 1963,
when the number of minority students in Hartford was only
forty-three percent of the total enrolment, on which he had
entered and identified some of the various reports and
46
®
documents allegad in the pleadings as well as those that had
been introduced in evidence by the plaintiffs and marked PX
1 through 89. He also testified (13/83-85) that in his
opinion the desegregation planning process mandated by the
federal courts after-a finding of de jure sigteustion could
be successfully pursued in the Hartford region even though
there were additional complicating factors because of the
substantial Hispanic population and the special language
programs that would therefore be required, and because the
planners would also have to deal with the problems of
poverty in addition to those of race and ethnicity.
In the course of his cross-examination he stated
(13/89-90) that although he had no legal expertise in shis
area, many of the cases he had worked on such as those in
Kansas City, Missouri; Dayton and Cleveland, Ohio; and
Benton Harbor, Michigan, were cases of de facto segregation,
which he defined as segregation "that has occurred because
of the activity of government officials operating outside of
a legal parameter that makes them segregate youngsters, they
do it by their actions in using their authority as state
officials." He also stated (13/189-50) that in almost all
of his cases the school districts were counties rather than
municipalities, although he recalled that one of his cases
in Pennsylvania, which he thought began in 13980 and was
47
still going on,’ involved five separate municipal school
systems.
In the course of his cross-examination as a rebuttal
witness Gordon stated (34/74) that he "never questioned the
commitment of this state to desegregation; it’s a question
of what they've done." He also stated (34/86) that
Connecticut’s long term study of the problem "borders more
on purposeful discrimination” than merely a matter of its
having ignored the problem.
Gordon stated (13/72-74) that in his opinion,
Tirozzi IT "retreats completely from Tirozzi I [and] goes
purely to voluntary strategies [although it] does propose
interdistrict cooperation grants for planning and
implementation and curriculum innovation." It was his
opinion that because the report apparently abandoned the
" "strong role that the state would take in it", that it had
thereby abandoned the concept of "collective
responsibility", and was therefore not "a meaningful or
effective set of recommendations" to address the problems of
racial isolation.
He also referred in his testimony £0 the resolution
cPedting the governor's commission on quality and integrated
education after this action had been filed, and the fact
Gordon was apparently referring to the Hoots V.
Commonwealth of Pennsvlvania litigation which began with
Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 820
(W.D. Pa. 1971) ("Hoots I") and continued through "Hoots
XIV" reported at 703 F.2d 722 (3d Cir. 1983).
48
Tend ae 2 |
that the governor’s charge precluded the commission from
® recommending any kind of "mandatory planning processes."
Id., 74-77. He described the report, however, as being
"important" because its findings were similar to those in a the Harvard report (PX 1), but also stated that it entailed
a high level of funding because "if you have no stick the
only thing you can do is put out a bigger carrot, and that’s
. | pretty much what it does." |
| It was also his opinion that the report’s i
| recommendations would not be sufficient to address the |
| |
® problem of racial isolation in the Hartford schools, because |
| although "[tlhey would go towards it they certainly wouldn't |
: do it." 1Id., 77. Ee agreed that the proposals contained in |
PY | the report for such things as "school grants, pre-school |
| programs [and] technology links [were] all things that are !
| good to have in schools, but they really don’t address
® : desegregation. i. 13.
Gordon was also asked (13/82) to state his
"reaction . . . as an expert in educational equity and
® desegregation planning" to the "State of the State Message
for Connecticut" that had been delivered by incoming
Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. on January 6, 19393, the
* eleventh day of the trial, and the day before Gordon began
his testimony. After the text of the speech had been
admitted as a full exhibit (PX 90), Gordon stated that it
»
| 49 y i
¥
:
acknowledged "the harms of segregation [and] the state's
responsibility oo 7..." Id.,: 83.
The Governor began his address by stating that despite
such positive aspects of the state’s educational system as
the highest teacher salaries and the best teacher to pupil
ratio in the nation, and the fact that it was one of the
"top five" states in per pupil spending, "there are two
Connecticuts when it comes to the education of our children,
Connecticuts separated by racial and economic divisions.
There is a Connecticut of promise, as seen in its suburbs,
and a Connecticut of despair as seen it its poverty-stricken
cities." (PX 30, 4-5.) After citing the statistical data
showing the concentration of poverty in the state’s largest
cities, the Governor went on to state that " [tlhe racial and
economic isolation in Connecticut’s school system is
indisputable [and that whether] this segregation came about
through the chance of historical boundaries or economic
forces beyond the control of the state or whether it came
about through private decisions or in spite of the best
educational efforts of the state, what matters is that it is
here and must be dealt with." Id., 7. |
He then proceeded to outline legislative proposals for
six educational regions, the development by each region of a
five year plan proposed by local and regional representative
groups to reduce racial isolation, and "to provide all
students with a quality, integrated learning experience",
50
and emphasized the fact that "([llocal decisions and local
involvement will guide the process." 1Id., 9-11. In
response to the court’s question later in his testimony,
Gordon stated that "the governor [has] certainly identified
the problem very clearly" and that it would put him in a
"difficult position" if he were to have to give his opinion
as to whether the solution the Governor had proposed should
be implemented (13/166).
David Armor, of the Institute for Public Policy at
George Mason University, a sociologist, testified as an
expert witness for the state on the correlation between
race, poverty and academic achievement. He stated (32/98)
that it was his opinion that it is the socioeconomic status
of school children that influences academic performance and
that explains the reduction "almost by half [of the]
achievement gap between black and white students nationally"
between 1970 and 1990, that "[v]irtually none of the gain
can be attributed to school desegregation", and that he
disagreed (32/19) with the contrary opinion expressed by the
plaintiffs’ witness, Gary Orfield, professor of education
and social policy at Harvard University, that "it makes no
sense to separate race and poverty" even if it were
analytically possible to do so.
In the course of his testimony Armor stated the
conclusions that he had reached as the result of a study
that he had made of the disparities in the test scores
51
between Hartford and the suburban towns in order to
determine "the role of racial segregation in causing those
differences" (32/17) insofar as it related to the
plaintiffs’ claims that they were being deprived of an equal
educational opportunity. The conclusions that he reached as
a result of his analysis were (32/94-95) that racial
composition did not have any statistically significant
effect on achievement scores and that the differences in
educational outcomes could be explained by the "extremely
different" levels of the socioeconomic status of the
children in the respective school systems and that his
findings were consistent with similar studies conducted by
other reseaTchdiy.
Christine Rossell, a professor of political science at
Boston University, an expert witness called by the state,
testified (26B/31-34) that it was her opinion based on the
research she has done using a data base of six hundred
school districts throughout the country and her experience
in designing desegregation plans, that mandatory student
reassignment plans to achieve racial balance, whether
intradistrict or interdistrict, are insefsstive methods of
achieving integration, whether they are mandated by racial
imbalance laws or by Court order. Under her analysis, one
of the principal problems with using racial balance as the
measure of integration is that it fails to take into account
the decrease in white enrolment that her studies have shown
52
—
—
=
—
—
a
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
takes place both before and after a plan is put into effect.
Id. 34.
The divergent and apparently irreconcilable opinions of
the expert witnesses whose testimony has just been
summarized, it should be noted, relate only to remedy, and
very much like the controversy between the parties which is
the subject matter of this action, they do not reflect any
serious disagreement between them as to the goals which they
seek to achieve, but differ only as to the most effective
means of working towards those goals. For example, the
"carrot and stick" approach now advocated by Rossell, as she
stated in her testimony, has changed and developed over the
years based on her experience in desegregation planning® on
the national level in much the same way that Tirozzi’s views
changed in the course of his tenure as education
Sifer resume (DX 5.0, pp. 7-8) indicates that she was
a "[m]ember of the Citywide Coordinating Council of
Boston, 1976-77, a fifteen member body appointed by Judge
W. Arthur Garrity to monitor school desegregation and
minority sub-committee representation. [She] was on the
working sub-committee which helped develop and train the
nine parent-citizen community district councils in
Boston." Judge Garrity’'s decision in that case eniotned
the Boston School Committee from failing to comply with
the Massachusetts racial imbalance law which was adopted
in 1965, four years before Connecticut enacted similar -
legislation. Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F. Supp. 410
(D. Mass. 1974). The District Court’s judgment was
affirmed in Morgan v. Hennigan, 509 F.2d 580 (1st Cir.
1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963 (1975), by the Court of
Appeals which noted in its opinion that "the istrict
court gave the most deliberate and sensitive attention to
this traumatic issue [and] we cannot fail to be aware of
the unrest that attends any moment when change in old
approaches is at last mandated by court decree." Id.,
538.
53
é @®
| ol
commissioner on the state level as he explained in the
course of his deposition testimony.
At this point, the court's review of the salient
evidence having been completed, it should be noted that
although the plaintiffs’ argument has been that this case,
at least in terms of the legal issues that it raises, is
virtually a perfect analog of Horton I, it differs in one
significant respect in terms of the nature of the target
against which the constitutional challenge is directed.
Reference will be made as well to the legislature’s response
to Governor Weicker’s proposals which the plaintiffs’ claim
is similar, both qualitatively and quantitatively, to its
response to the trial court’s judgement in favor of the
plaintiffs in Horton, and the reasons that prompted the
court’s reconsideration of the question of justiciability.
EY Judge Rubinow’s decision at the trial court level in
Horton I, supra, 31 Comm. Sup. 377, was that "the system of
financing public schools in this state" was
unconstitutional. Id., 378. . That ‘"system” was consistently
referred to by the court throughout the opinion as one that
was based on numerous "duty-delegating statutes", "statutory
programs", a "method of raising funds [that is] the result
of legislation", a "statutory system", and the declaratory
judgment itself that was rendered in the case was expressly
stated to be "that General Statutes §§ 10-240 and 10-241"
were unconstitutional. I4,, 382, 385, 391.
54
The Supreme Court, in its opinion in Horton I, stated
that "the present system of financing public education in
Connecticut [is] principally embodied in §§ 10-240 and
10-241 of the General Statutes", and that the state
distributes funds "pursuant to legislation providing for a
flat grant Ev yoreon 1, supra, 172 Conn. 621. The
court also affirmed the trial court’s post-judgment
supplemental finding that the legislative response to its
decision in increasing the flat grant by the use of lotter
proceeds was ‘miniscule and not significant’, and therefore
that it had failed to remedy the constitutional violation
that had previously been found to exist. Id., 636-38.
The claims made by the plaintiffs in this case are
distinguishable from those in Horton I in that they are not
challenging the constitutionality of any particular statute
“or legislative classification but rather what they describe
28 a "present condition of racial segregation" that exists
in the Hartford area schools (Record Item #159, Pp. 5-6).
Nevertheless, the response that was fashioned by the General
Assembly to the issues that have been raised by this case as
a result of the initiatives proposed by ‘the Governor at the
opening of the legislative session wi11 be briefly reviewed.
On June 28, 1993, which was also the date on which the
defendants’ post-trial brief was filed, Public Act No. 93-
263, (now codified as General Statutes §§ 10-264a to 10-
264b) entitled "An Act Improving Educational Quality and
55
Tr rinteractive telecommunications; (iil): reduce
® > ®
Diversity" was signed by the Governor. It provided a
timetable beginning on January 15, 1934 for the convening of
local and regional "forums" for the purpose of developing
regional "education and community improvement plans" which
were to be voted on by each of eleven regions in the state.
Under what has now been codified as § 10-264a(3), an
"Education and Community Improvement Plan" is defined as
follows:
(3) ‘Education and community improvement
plan’ or ‘plan’ means (A) a voluntary cooperative
interdistrict or regional plan to (i) improve the
quality of school performance and student outcomes
through initiatives which may include, but are not
limited to, magnet schools and programs,
interdistrict schools and programs, regional
vocational-technical schools, regional vocational-
agricultural programs, interdistrict student
attendance including school choice, charter
schools, early childhood education and parent
education, summer school, extra-curricular
activities, student community service, paired
schools, teacher and administrator exchange and
barriers to opportunity including, but not limited
to, poverty, unemployment and the lack of housing
and transportation; (iii) enhance student
diversity and awareness of diversity or (iv)
address the programmatic needs of limited English
proficient students with quality limited English
proficient and bilingual programs or (B) a
voluntary local plan for purposes of section
10-264f. (C) Each such plan shall provide equal
opportunity for all students, including such
additional services as may be necessary to ensure
meaningful participation in a program. (D)
Notwithstanding any provision of the general
statutes to the contrary, the commissioner of
education may grant waivers of specific state
statutory or regulatory mandates upon application
of one or more local or regional boards of
education, provided (i) requests for such waivers
are included in a plan and (ii) such waivers are
consistent with the educational interests of the
State, :
56
On December 16, 1993, the date originally scheduled for
final arguments in the case, the court itself raised the
issue of justiciability by reason of the enactment of the
statute, and thereafter, briefs were filed on the
jurisdictional jssue.by the parties, and a group of law
professors also filed a brief as amici curiae in support of
the plaintiffs’ position. The court subsequently ruled that
it would be in the interest of judicial economy tO decide
the question of justiciability in the context of all the
evidence in the case and in accordance with the dissenting
opinion in Pellegrino v. O’Neill, supra, 133 Conn. 693.
The issue of justiciability was revisited by the court
because of its concern about the last three considerations
stated in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186,217 (1962), namely,
"the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent
- resolution without expressing lack of the respect due
coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for
unquestioning adherence to a political decision already
made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious
pronouncements by various departments on one question."
That concern, however, has been resolved by the court in
favor of justiciability pecause those considerations
"reflect a ‘prudential’ view" and the facts and
circumstances of this case justify that conclusion. Fonfara
v. Reapportionment Commission, 222 Conn. 166, 185 (1992).
57
The court’s ruling is also based on the fact that some
of the issues raised in this case are similar to those in
school finance cases where justiciability is almost
invariably found. McDaniel v. Thomas, 285 S.E.2d 156, 157
(Ga. 1981). Although there are other issues and the remedy
sought by the plaintiffs qo far beyond those ordinarily
present in those cases, they involve, at least in part, the
allocation of resources to meet the "constitutional
imperative" of educating children. Board of Education,
Levittown Union Free School District, Nassau Countv v.
Nvauist, 443 N.Y.S.2d 843, 854 (App. Div. 1981),
For the foregoing reasons as well as for those stated
as the basis for the court’s prior rulings which are
incorporated herein by reference, the court finds that the
controversy between the parties is justiciable.
The court directed counsel for the plaintiffs to amend
the complaint to allege the passage of Public Act 263 and to
articulate the effect, if any, that the legislation might
have on their claims of law. The plaintiffs then filed a
request to amend by adding proposed paragraphs 66a and 66b,
and after the state’s objection to the Yegusst was overruled
the state filed its ghsnded answer.
Paragraph 66a of the revised complaint dated
November 23, 1994, which was denied by the defendants,
states that in January of 1993, "in response to this
lawsuit, defendant Governor Lowell Weicker, in his annual
58
state of the state address, called on the legislature to
address ‘ [tlhe racial and economic isolation in
Connecticut’s school system,’ and the related educational
inequities in Connecticut’s schools." Paragraph 66b, which
is admitted by the defendants only insofar as it alleges the
passage of the public act, states that "[als in the past,
the legislature failed to act effectively in response to the
Governor's call for school desegregation initiatives [and
instead], a voluntary desegregation planning bill was
passed, P.A. 93-263, which contains no racial or poverty
concentration goals, no guaranteed funding, no provisions
for educational enhancements for city schools, and no
mandates for local compliance."
In the introduction to their reply brief dated
August 16, 1993, the plaintiffs refer to the "commonality"
of the interests of the parties in this case, particularly
as reflected in the deposition testimony of Tirozzi,
Ferrandino, Margolin and Mannix, as well as in Governor
Weicker’'s message to the legislature. They go on to state
that the first of the major legal issues that must be
addressed by the court is, as they put it, "the nature of a
state action requirement."
The issue of whether state action exists under the
facts and circumstance of this case was first raised by
the defendants in their motion to strike, and was denied
at that time as being premature, and
Covert d Q@2F5
Recuud AHA Sugh Cd 7
“Hing, HA,
LES" dn
was again raised by the defendants in their motion for
summary judgment on the ground that state action of some
kind must be found to exist before the constitutional issues
raised by the plaintiffs in the complaint may be considered,
and again denied by this court because, "the question of
whether or not the state’s action rises to the level of a
constitutional violation goes to the merits of the present
case. ..." Sheff, supra, 42 Conn. Sup. l76,
Professor Lawrence Tribe, in his treatise, American
Constitutional Law, states in his introduction to chapter 18
entitled "The Problem of State Action", that:
[n]early all of the Constitution’s self-executing,
and therefore judicially enforceable, guarantees
of individual rights shield individuals only from
government action. Accordingly, when litigants
claim the protection of such guarantees, courts
must first determine whether it is indeed
government action -- state or federal -- that the
litigants are challenging.
Tribe, supra, American Constitutional Law, p. 1688 (2d Ed.
1988).
Therefore, the issue of whether state action exists under
the facts and circumstances of this case must now be
addressed in the light of all the relevant evidence that has
been offered on that question in the course of the trial.
Christopher Collier, a professor of hiscory at the
University of Connecticut and the officially designated
state historian for Connecticut, was called as a witness by
the plaintiffs and testified (16/53) that education in
Connecticut "has always been under the full control of the
Cove d Q
Cectd. CICS J Lor. Cyd £0
{NE ut,
Ale
LEB
colony or the state government." He also stated that in his
opinion the "public policy [of the state and colony] from
the inception of our system [has been that it is] essential
for our form of government that all students receive an
equal educational opportunity." . I1d., 54.
He also traced the history of race relations in this
state and noted that "it’s no coincidence that the first
civil rights commission in the United States was established
in Connecticut in 1942 [because it was] Clearly the result
of the disparities that were then very apparent" with
respect to employment and housing. Id., 45-46. In thie
connection, an exhibit offered into evidence which was
issued in 1961 by the Connecticut commission on civil rights
(PX 502,°p+ 2) offers the following account of civil rights
legislation after 1942:
Connecticut’s record of activities designed
to give Negroes equality with whites spans more
SAT than a century. Prior to the Civil War, the
. oo abolitionist movement had many supporters in
NNR re ie Connecticut. Soon after the Civil War, the state
: L legislature desegregated all public schools. The
: state constitution was amended in 1876 to
Nala Vie SN eliminate the requirement that voters be white.
ry TT iIn 1905 the fiver public accommodations law
Ni ad 2 declared illegal racial discrimination in hotels,
Ata te Gk restaurants, transportation facilities, and places PI Nos nmi t Of amusement. In 1936, discrimination in
® Neha leh employment in the state service was outlawed. In
NRE Pega, p, 1983 the state Inter-racial Commission was
: created, and the Governor was authorized to
CR. Noghean appoint ten Commissioners with powers to
Wy ' investigate employment opportunities, violations
= dle , of civil liberties, and related matters. In 1947,
(ED a Fair Employment Practices Act empowered the
¥ ie us : ~p { Inter-racial Commission to proceed against
x SARs ey employers, employment agencies, or unions who
Ra engaged in discriminatory practices based on race,
yA
61
[Qu vediid gas, 5 foa/rs |
religion, or national origin. Discrimination in
public housing projects was declared illegal in
1949. In 1951 the legislature changed the name of .
the agency to the Commission on Civil Rights, to
make clear that the Commission was not concerned
exclusively with discrimination based on race or
color. In 1953 the Public Accommodations Act was |
extended to cover all establishments offering ~
| goods or services to the public. 2nd again the : 9
legislature, in 1959, extended the Public
Accommodations Act into the area of private
housing prohibiting discrimination in the sale or
rental of a housing accommodation which was one of ;
five or more contiguous units under the control of
one owner or.agent. In 198) the Jlegliglature
extended the coverage to three or more units.
The cumulative record of Connecticut civil
| rights legislation in the area of race relations
> probably represents a maximum of progress toward
equal opportunity between whites and Negroes | ®
k achieved by any of the Northern sgtateg. The
issues of school desegregation and voting rights,
which are paramount in the struggle for Negro i
rights in the deep South today, were resolved in
Connacticut within a decade after the close of the
Civil War. »
Collier also stated that with respect to education,
HT "IBTlacks were always permitted to go to the district
| schools [and he had) not found any case, except one »
: |
| ephemeral one, in which blacks were not permitted to go [to] |
the district schools." He also noted that for all practical
purposes de jure segregation in the schools has never »
existed except that the City of HarEford "had this black
school, Pearl Street School, and they passed an ordinance
requiring black kids to go to the black school [and ®
thereafter the] General Assembly met within weeks" and
repealed the ordinance, "so there’s only been de jure
*
a
segregation in Connecticut for a matter of weeks, and that
only in: one'place." Id., 48.
The "ephemeral" episode of de jure segregation
mentioned by Collier is described in greater detail in a
section of a Connecticut Bar Journal article? entitled "De
Jure Segregation in Hartford", which states that:
In 1868, the General Assembly passed a one
sentence amendment to the Education Law which
provided for open enrollment without regard to
race or color. The history of that amendment
(which is still on the books as part of section
10-15 of the Connecticut General Statutes) goes
back at least to 1830. In that year the General
Assembly passed a Special Act which brought the
doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ to the Hartford
school system:
RESOLVED BY THIS ASSEMBLY, that the
first school society in the town of
Hartford, be, and they are hereby
empowered to cause a school to be kept
within said society, exclusively for
colored children.
By 1868, the paternalistic tenor of the 1830 law
had deteriorated. In the spring of 1868, a town
meeting was held at Hartford to discuss the
question as to
whether white children shall be forced
to mix and miscegenate with negroes in
the schools.
The Hartford Courant of the day reported the text
of the ordinance passed by that town meeting:
[I]t should not be lawful for any of the
colored children residing therein (in
five of the town’s attendance districts)
to attend upon or be educated in any of
the schools of said districts, but it
R. Marcin, Nineteenth Century De Jure School
Segregation in Connecticut, 45 Conn. B.J. 394, 397-
28 (1971) (footnotes omitted).
63
pe
¥ Jobs AEN Ae
5. ALI
fem foo + 5/ba/o = 7}
shall be the duty of said children to
attend said Pearl Street colored School.
To their credit the members of the General
Assembly responded to the ordinance adopted at
that Hartford town meeting by quickly passing
Connecticut’s open enrollment law.
In the course of Collier’s cross-examination, counsel
for the state (16/69) asked him whether "the kind of de jure
segregation that was under review in (Brown I) existed in
the state of Connecticut [only] in Hartford, for a matter of
weeks, if at all." His answer was that de jure segregation
of ‘blacks "was never a state policy in Connecticut." Id.
Collier also stated that "the maintenance of the town
district system" was the most important factor that
contributed to the "present segregated conditions" in the
urban gchoolg. Id., 53. During his cross-examination he
stated that the law enacted in 1909 that consolidated most
of the school districts in the state based on town
boundaries "was a positive thing for the quality of
education in Connecticut", that the legislation "had nothing
fo do with race whatsoever" and that it was "not a product
of any discriminatory motive on the part of the General
Assembly or the people of Comnecticuts. . .." vs 66,68.
Justice William O. Douglas was the principal and most
consistent proponent of the view that strict constitutional
liability, that is, liability without fault, should be
imposed on local and state governments for conditions of
segregation that arose from demographic, social and economic
64
lai) (Po ated fos
® 7
forces that were not within te direct control because
"there is no constitutional difference between de jure and
de facto segregation, for each is the product of state
actions or policies." Reveg v. School District No. .1, 413
U.8. 189, 216.,:{(1972) '{Douglas, J., concurring). “His concurring opinion in Keyes adopts the language of=~Judge
Wisdom in United States v. Texas Education Agency, 467 F.2d
848, 863-64 (5th Cir. 1972), that "[w]hen school
authorities, by their actions, contribute to segregation in
education, whether Dy causing additional segregation or
maintaining existing segregation, they deny to the students
equal protection of the laws."
Justice Douglas also quoted with approval Judge
Wisdom’s further statement in the Texas Education Agency
case that "[w]e need not define the quantity of state
® participation which is a prerequisite to a finding of
constitutional violation [because] the necessary degree of
state involvement is incapable of precise definition and
® must be defined on a case-by-case basis.” Id. Douglas also
stated in the Keyes concurrence that any attempt to
differentiate between de facto and de jure segregation would
® be an exercise in futility because the manifestations of
state participation that are often described as "de facto"
are "only more subtle types of state action that create or :
» maintain a wholly or partially segregated school system."
Id.
65 ¢ :
: ACCC rrr
» : 4 whl
S fay G3)
2207 [Py
[ Covrecind Ta iy 5 Joa)? 5. =X do A
° I |
Douglas repeated his views on de facto segregation in
his dissenting opinion in Milliken v, Bradlev, 418 U.S. 717,
781 (1974) when he stated that "there 1s so far as the
school cases go no constitutional difference between
de facto and de jure segregation [and that each] school
board performs state action [in the constitutional sense]
when it draws the lines that confine it to a given area,
when it builds schools at particular sites or when it
allocates students." He also noted, however, that " [i]t is
conceivable that ghettos develop on their own without any
hint of state action [but] since Michigan by one dsvice or
another over the years created black school districts and
white school districts, the task of equity is to provide a
unitary system for the affected area where, as here, the
State washes its hands of its own creations." Id., 762.
It should also be noted that prior to Keves, Justice
Douglas, acting as Circuit Justice, denied a preliminsxy
injunction against the modification of a racial imbalance
plan for a California high school district, and acknowledged
that "the precise contours of de jure segregation" had not
vet been drawn by the Supreme Court. Gomperts v. Chase, 404
U.S. 1237, 1238 (1971). He stated that unlike other
California counties where dual systems had been maintained
for many years, "[slo far as I can tell, a different history
has prevailed in San Mateo County, or at least it is not’
apparent from this record that California’s earlier dual
i 66
school system shaped the existing San Mateo school system."
34., 12389.
The "more subtle" types of state action in that case,
which apparently raised some questions in his mind as a fact
finder at the trial court level, included the following
offers of proof: the construction of a freeway effectively
isolated blacks in the area, state planners were responsible
for the black community around the school, the
discriminatory racial policies of realtors licensed by the
state and by state-chartered banks as well as "residential
segregation, fostered by state enforced restrictive
covenants [which] resulted in segregated schools." Id. He
then concluded that "[wlhether any of these factors add up
to de jure segregation in the sense of that state action we
—
condemned in [Brown I] is a question not yet decided." Id.
- Justice Douglas then raised what he referred to as
"another troublesome question", namely, the remedy that
should be provided under equal protection analysis where the
state is found not to be "implicated in the actual creation
of the duzl system.” 1I1d., 1239. He answered his own
question by stating that the only constitutionally
appropriate "solution" in a situation where minority schools
are not qualitatively equal to white schools would be to
design "a system whereby the educational inequalities are
shared by the several races." Id., 1241.
67
9 ® i
The preliminary injunction that was denied by Justice
Douglas in Gomperts, supra, 404 U.S. 1237, had previously
seen denied by the District Court for the Northern District
of California in Gomperts v. Chase, 329 F. Supp. 1192 (N.D.
Cal. 1971), based on that court's conclusion that " [t]he
most that can be said for plaintiffs’ showing is that the
district has not moved as rapidly and effectively to adjust
racial imbalance as plaintiffs would like [but this]
involves no constitutional deprivation." 1Id., 1196. The
court also stated that [if school boards are permitted, as
they are, to do nothing to cure racial imbalance which is
the product of a neighborhood plan impartially administered,
it would be self defeating to hold" that the board cannot
constitutionally take curative action [and if] neutrality is
not unconstitutional, certainly action designed to cure undesirable imbalance is not, even though it may fall short
of its geal.” Id. Finally, another expression of Douglas's views can be
found in his dissent from the Supreme Court’s affirmance,
without opinion, of Spencer v. Kudier, 326 F. Supp. 1235,
1237 (D. N.J. 1971), aff'd 404 U.S. 1027 (1972), in which
the plaintiffs claimed that because the New Jersey statutes,
subject to certain exceptions, required that school district
boundaries be coterminous with municipal boundaries, racial
balance became "mathematically impossible in many districts,
thus providing unequal educational opportunities.” 1d.,
C rectal = 68 :
Levi Sr V. Cyt. :
(a2 1s ny Lye.
| A Nf al.
1237. The court held that the statutes set a reasonable
standard "especially in light of the municipal taxing
authority", the challenged statutes were "unitary in nature
and intent and any purported racial imbalance within a local
school district results from an imbalance in the population
of that municipality-school district [and that racially]
balanced municipalities are beyond the pale of either
judicial or legislative intervention." Id., 1240.
The District Court decision stated that Brown I never
required anything more than a unitary school system even
though some later federal cases held that a constitutional
violation "might result from a mers passive refusal to
redistrict unreasonable boundaries." Id., 1241. The court
held that school district lines based on municipal
boundaries were reasonable so long as they were not designed
or intended to foster segregation. Id.
The Svencer decision relied principally on the
Yeritical distinction" drawn in Swann v. Charlotte-
Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971), "between
those states which have a history of dual school systems and
a separation of the races which has continued through
\Ereedom of-chotce! and ‘geographical zoning’ plans which
create the illusion of conforming to law, and those wherein
so-called ‘de-facto’ segregation results from housing
patterns and conventional drawing of school district zones."
Id., 1242. The District Court also noted that the New
69
Jersey statutes were approved by the legislature on
September 18, 1953, some eight months before Brown I, which
was decided or May 17, 13954. Id.
The Spencer opinion concluded by stating that racial
imbalance caused by housing patterns within the
: municipality-school districts were not "susceptible to
federal judicial intervention." Id., 1243. "The New Jersey
Legislature has by intent maintained a unitary system of
public education, albeit that system has degenerated to
extreme racial imbalance in some school districts;
nevertheless the statutes in question as they are presently
constituted are constitutional." Id.
Tn his dissent from the Court’s judgment affirming the
district court’s opinion in Spencer, supra, Justice Douglas
stated that the lower court had rejected the plaintiffs’
claims that they were entitled to redistricting, a remedy
that the Supreme Court had already found to be appropriate
in voting rights cases; Revnolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533
(1964); and to which the plaintiffs should be entitled
because " [tlhe right to education in the environment of a
multi-racial community seems equally fundamental." Spencer
v. Kugler, 404 U.S. 1027, 1028 (1672). «In the alternative,
he stated, they were entitled either to an "appropriate
racial balance" so that educational opportunity should not
be determined by race, or to compensatory educational
programs "to correct for the inferior schooling given
70
minority students", but the proposed remedial approaches
were rejected by the District Court’s "finding refuge in ge
facto segregation." Id.
In a lengthy footnote to his dissent, Douglas quoted
from a statement made at a Senate Subcommittee hearing by
the United States Commission on Civil Rights in 1970 that
"there is probably little substance to the concept of
de facto school segregation.® I&., 1025-30 n.l. The
Commission also stated that the federal government "has a
moral as well as legal responsibility to undo the
segregation it has helped to create and maintain [because
there] is no statute of limitations by which government in
its many forms can be exonerated from its past misdeeds or
relieved of its current obligations." Id. |
The court, as the finder of fact in this case,
concludes from its review of all--the evidence which has been
presented in the course of these proceedings that the
plaintiffs have not established any of what Justice Douglas
described as the "more subtle" types of state action that
are ordinarily presumed in "de facto segregation" cases,
including more specifically the factors of residential
segregation, as well as attendance zone boundaries, which
are exclusively the statutory duty of local boards of
education under § 10-220 of the General Statutes. The court
also finds in accordance with the holding of Spencer v.
Xuoler, supra, ‘366 F. Supp. 1240, that *[rlacially balanced
7% :
municipalities are beyond the pale of either judicial or
legislative intervention." Id., 1240. The court therefore
finds that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that "state
irect and sufficient cause of the conditions”
~~ action is a d
which are the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ complaint as
alleged in the defendants’ sixth special defense, and Ent
accordingly the constitutional claims asserted HY the
plaintiffs need not be addressed.
For the foregoing reasons, judgment is entered in favor
/ Los hd lela
Harry Hampgler
Judge © he Superior Court
of the defendants.
Coca HHL Suph Cut
{ rechd pafes SUB (tg
Jer
Wa i108 2 Aon,
LBL ile.
72
S.C. 15255
MILO SHEFF, et al. , SUPREME COURT
Plaintiffs :
vs : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. :
Defendants 3 JUNE 6, 1995
PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’
REVISED STIPULATIONS OF FACT!
1 The parties are in agreement with all stipulations (1-256)
contained herein. The parties are also in agreement with headings
I and VI. Because the parties were unable to agree as to headings
II-V, each side has submitted in this document its own proposed
heading for each respective section.
The parties are in agreement on all subheadings. The
subheadings correspond with the same subheadings in the parties’
proposed findings of fact.
Unless otherwise stated, all proposed stipulations are as of
the date of trial.
IT.
111.
Iv.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION OF PARTIES (Stipulations 1-25).........:.
PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING:
DOES RACIAL AND ETHNIC ISOLATION IN THE HARTFORD
SCHOOL, SYSTEM VIOLATE ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND
DEFENDANTS’ HEADING:
HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS PROVEN THAT THE STATE HAS
VIOLATED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES, THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OR THE EDUCATION ARTICLE OF THE STATE
A. THE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE
AND "ETHNICITY (Stipulations 26-38)... euvsvcesns
B. TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE
AND ETHNICITY (Stipulations 39-62)... ives.
PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING:
DO THE INADEQUACIES OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM
DENY PLAINTIFFS A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION UNDER
ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST,
SECTIONS 1 AND 207" (Stipulations 63-112)... inncsn
DEFENDANTS’ HEADING:
HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS PROVEN THAT THEY HAVE BEEN
DENIED THEIR RIGHTS TO A FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION
UNDER THE EDUCATION ARTICLE OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION? (Stipulations 63«112).. cv rernnsvsso
PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING:
DOES THE RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION
AND POVERTY CONCENTRATION COUPLED WITH DISPARITIES
IN RESOURCES AND OUTCOMES VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT
TO EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES UNDER ARTICLE
EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, SECTIONS 1 AND
DEFENDANTS’ HEADING:
HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS PROVEN THAT THE STATE HAS
VIOLATED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES, THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OR THE EDUCATION ARTICLE OF THE STATE
13
13
VI.
witli
A. STUDENTS’ SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS IN HARTFORD
METROPOLITAN AREA SCHOOLS (Stipulations 113-
VERSE Ole ae LCE SE
C. INTEGRATION AND ITS EFFECTS (Stipulations
LL ER CN SI Ne TR
F. DISPARITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
{Stipulations 154-202)... iceneinsssseddenssins
PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING:
HAS THE STATE BEEN INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING RACIAL,
ETHNIC, AND ECONOMIC SEGREGATION, UNEQUAL EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES, AND LACK OF A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE
EDUCATION; DOES THE STATE HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY
TO ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES; AND HAS THE STATE FAILED TO
DEFENDANTS’ HEADING:
HAS THE STATE BEEN TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION TO
ADDRESS RACIAL, ETHIC, AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISOLATION
AND EDUCATIONAL UNDERACHIEVEMENT OF URBAN CHILDREN
A. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION HISTORICALLY
(SLIipR1BLIioNs 203«220) vo dv evsivrrtvninnsvnvevs’s
B. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION TODAY
{SLIipRIALIioNS 221=251) cv vcnnevessnnemossiovinies
STEPS TOWARD INTEGRATION (Stipulations 252-256).....
13
16
17
28
28
30
30
34
I. DESCRIPTION OF PARTIES
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.
9% 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.
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.
ll. 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.
156, 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.
22a 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.
11. PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING:
DOES RACIAL AND ETHNIC ISOLATION IN THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM
VIOLATE ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, SECTIONS
1 AND 207?
DEFENDANTS’ HEADING:
HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS PROVEN THAT THE STATE HAS VIOLATED THE
FQUAT, PROTECTION CLAUSES, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OR. THE
EDUCATION ARTICLE OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION?
A. THE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION - OF STUDENTS BY RACE. AND
ETHNICITY
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; Pls’ 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. (Batriello p. 82; 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 at 1, 7; Pls’ Ex. 138; Steahr pp. 929-101)
32. In 1991, sixteen suburbs had less than 3% Latino
enrollment. (Pls’ Ex. 85 pp. 18-21)
33. Some of Connecticut’s school districts, including
Hartford, serve higher percentages of African American and Latino
students than others.
34. In 1986, 12.1% of Connecticut’s school age population was
black and 8.5% was Hispanic.
35. 1987-88 figures for total school population and percent
minority for the towns listed below are:
Total School Pop. % Minority
Hartford 25,058 80.5
Bloomfield 2,555 69.0
Avon 2,068 3.8
Canton 1,189 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 11.1
Newington 3,801 6.4
Rocky Hill 1,807 5.9
Simsbury 4,039 645
South Windsor 3,648 9.3
Suffield Y,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
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. As of 1990, fourteen of the state’s 166 school districts
are home to 30 percent of the state’s total student population, 77
(replacement page, June 7, 1995)
percent of the minority student population and 81 percent of the
children receiving AFDC benefits. (Pls’ Ex. 77 at 8)
38. In 1992, there were seven suburban school districts with
a minority enrollment in excess of 10%, namely:
$ minority enrollment % increase between 1980 & 1990
l. Bloomfield 83.5% 32.4%
2. East Hartford 38.1% 27.3%
3. Windsor 36.9% 15.75
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%
(Calvert pp. 33-35; Defs’ Ex. 2.6 Rev., 2.7 Rev.).
B.. TRENDS IN. THE DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE AND
ETHNICITY
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 1863. (Defs’ Ex. 2.6 and 2.12))
41. In 1963, there were 599 Latino students in the Hartford
public schools. (Pls’ Ex. 19, ps. 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. 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 752)
46. The Harvard Study correctly projected the decline in
Hartford’s African-American student population, the only significant
minority group in: Hartford in 1965, but falled to predict the
massive influx of Latino students, primarily of Puerto Rican
ancestry. (Defs’' Ex. 13.2, p. 2; Gordon pp. 98-99)
47. From 1980 to 1992, African-American student population in
the 21 suburban towns increased by 62.5% from 3,925 to 6,380. (Defs’
Ex. 2.12)
48. During the 1980s, Hartford experienced the greatest out
migration of white residents, with a net out migration of 18,176.
{(Defs’ Ex. 1.3)
49. 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)
50. 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’' "Bx. .73 at 4)
51. In 1991, "the State Board: of Education predicted that
enrollment of minority students is projected to increase from 24.3
percent in 1989 to 30.9 percent of the public school population by
2005. Hispanic students are expected to be the predominant minority
group (13.7 percent of the total school enrollment) by 2004. (Pls’
Ex. 77 at 7)
52. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 138, based on U.S. Census data, is an
accurate summary of African-American population in Hartford and
surrounding towns, from 1940 to 1990.
53. 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)
54. By 1940, African-Americans had declined to 1.2% of the
state’s population. (Collier p. 41; Steahr pp. 78-80.)
55. The greatest percentage increase in Hartford's African-
American population was between 1950-1960. (Steahr p. 79)
55. There was no significant latino population of primarily
Puerto Rican ancestry in Connecticut until the late 1960's. (Morales
PP. 29-30)
57 Since 1970, the African-American population has been
increasing ‘in many towns around ‘Hartford, particularly in
Bloomfield, Manchester, Windsor and West Hartford. (Steahr p. 38)
58. 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)
590. Since 1980, total student enrollment in the combined 21
suburban school districts has declined. (Defs’ Ex. 2.4)
50. 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)
651. 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 50)
62. 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.
III. PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING:
DO: THE INADEQUACIES OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL, SYSTEM DENY
PLAINTIFFS A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION UNDER ARTICLE EIGHTH,
SECTION: 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, SECTIONS 1 AND 20? (Stipulations
63-112)
DEFENDANTS’ HEADING:
HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS PROVEN THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED THEIR
RIGHTS TO A FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION UNDER THE EDUCATION ARTICLE
OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION? (Stipulations 63-112)
63. 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, pps 76-78;:7.21, pD. 883A; 7.18, 72.19; 7.20)
64. Under the ECS formula, the Hartford public schools
received for the 1950-91 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. 83-834)
85, 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. 83-833)
66. 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-«83A)
67. 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. 11-11lA)
68. 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 ip.37; Defs’ Ex. 7.21, p. 11-114)
69. 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 p.
37; Defs’ Bx. 7:21, pp. 11-11A)
70. 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
as much total state ald per pupil in 1991-92. (Defs’ Ex. 7.1, p.1l1;
Defs’ Ex. 7.21, Dp. 114)
71. 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. 11-113)
72. 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’ Ex. 7.1, pp. 11-113)
73. In 1890-91, overall per pupil expenditure in Hartford were
$7,837 and $7,282 per pupil in the 21 combined suburban school
districes,.: (Defs’ Bx. 7.1, DD. 3A, 11)
74. 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. 3a, 11)
75. 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
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)
16. During the 1990-91 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)
77. 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)
78. In 1992, 88.5% of Hartford teachers had at least masters
degrees or their equivalents, i.e., bachelors degrees plus 30
graduate school credits. (Keaveny pp. 7-8, 12)
79. Hartford's teacher-student ratio improved from the 1988-
1989 school year to 1989-1990 by 2.2 teachers per thousand students
while the suburban town’s combined increase was 0.9 teachers per
thousand students. (Natriello pp. 46-48)
80. During that period, the state’s overall teacher-student
ratio declined. (Pls’ Ex. 163, Table 5, Panel B, p. 56; Natriello
p. 54)
81. 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. 3.5)
82. Class sizes in Hartford are comparable to class sizes in
the 21 suburban school districts and throughout the state. (Pls’
Ex. 163, Table 6, Panel B, p. 5%: Defs’' Ex. 2.38; Calvert pp. 124~-
125; Natriello pp. 56-57)
~10 =
83. 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)
84. Hartford teachers are dedicated to their work. (Haig pp.
113-114; Neumann-Johnson p. 18)
85. Hartford has 1.26% fewer general elementary teachers and
has 4% fewer contact specialist teachers than the statewide average,
and 6.1% more special education teachers than the statewide average.
{Natriello at 103; Table 3, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 49)
86. In 1891, 94% Of Hartford administrators had at least
thirty credits of education beyond their masters degrees. (Keaveny
p- 14)
87. 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)
88. 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)
89. Hartford schools have some special programs for enhancing
the education of poor and urban children. (Haig p. 63; LaFontaine
pp. 134-135)
90. 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)
91. 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)
92. Hartford offers eligible needy students in all its schools
a free and reduced-price lunch program. (Senteio p. 22)
93. Hartford’s school breakfast and school lunch programs are
paid for entirely by state and federal funds. (Senteio p. 22)
94. 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)
95. The number of Spanish-dominant children eligible for
bilingual education. in Hartford from 1985 to 1930 has been as
follows:
1985-86 4,225
1986-87 4,517
1987-88 2,622
1988-89 4,773
1989-90 4.696
{Defs’ Ex. 12.26 at 2)
06. In 1990-91 school year, Hartford’s bilingual education
program served approximately 6,000 students per year. (Marichal p.
11)
S97. 82% "of the students served by Hartford’s bilingual
education program in 1990-39) were Hispanic. (Defs’ Ex. 13.5 at 5)
93. in. 1988-89 school year, 42.5% of the state’s bilingual
education students were in Hartford. (Defs’' Bx. 12.24 at 5)
939. In 1989-90, Connecticut’s bilingual education programs
served 12,795 students, a 5.1% increase over 1988-89; 94% of the
program participants were dominant in Spanish. (Defs’ Ex. 13.6 at
5)
100. 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)
101. Eight of Hartford’s 31 school buildings were found in a
space utilization study to require "significant attention." (Pls’
Bx. 153 pp. 5~10 = 5-11)
102, Hartford's reimbursement rate for school building or
renovation projects has been considerably higher than the
reimbursement rate for the 21 suburban districts. (Defs’ Ex. 7.21
PP. 3A-3D; Defs’ Ex. 12.27; lemega p. 18)
103. In 1992, Hartford voters approved the issuance of
$204,000,000 in bonds for school building expansion and improvement.
{Sentelo p. 37)
104. 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)
105. From the 1989-90 school year to the 1990-91 school year,
the Hartford Board of Education increased its per pupil expenditures
for library books by 2.67 times and its library books per school
building by 2.73 times... (Defs’ Ex. 7.12)
106. 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)
107. From 1980 to 1892,-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)
108. 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)
109. There has been no known independent study to determine
whether it has been necessary for the Hartford school district to
pay higher employee fringe benefits to attract and to retain
qualified teachers and administrators. (Natriello p. 63)
i110, Resources are applied somewhat differently in the
Hartford public schools than in many of the 21 suburban school
districts because of the different needs of Hartford students.
(Pls’ Ex. 493; Ferrandino Deposition pp. 133-134)
111. Because of fiscal constraints, the West Hartford school
district has eliminated over the past three years its gifted and
talented students program, its foreign language program in its
elementary schools and its home economics program in its middle
schools. (Lemega pp. 13-15)
112. The West Hartford school district, which in 1992 received
6.7% of its financing from the state, had its state funding reduced
by 50% ($5,200,000) over the prior three years. (Lemega p. ll)
0 ae
IV. PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING:
DOES THE RACIAL AND ETHNIC AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION AND POVERTY
CONCENTRATION COUPLED WITH DISPARITIES IN RESOURCES AND
OUTCOMES VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO EQUAL EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES UNDER ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE
PIRST, SECTIONS 1 AND 207
DEFENDANTS’ HEADING:
HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS PROVEN THAT THE STATE HAS VIOLATED THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OR THE
EDUCATION ARTICLE OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION?
A. STUDENTS’ SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS IN HARTFORD METROPOLITAN
AREA SCHOOLS (Stipulations 113-149)
13, Sixty-three percent of the students in the Hartford
school system participate in the free and reduced lunch program.
(Pls’ ‘Ex. 219; Table 2, ‘Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38)
114. 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. 183 at 35)
1159. 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’ Bx." 163 at 38)
115. 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. 163 at 38)
117. 35.6 percent of the housing units in Hartford require the
occupants to spend 30% or more of their household income on housing
costs. (Table. 2, Pls’ Ex. 263 at 38)
118. Forty percent of the children in Hartford are living with
parent(s) with no labor force participation. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163
at 38)
119. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 9.4 will
be from a family in which the parent(s) do not participate in the
labor force. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38)
120. 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)
~14%.=
121. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 15.1 will
come from single parent households. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38)
122. A single parent home is an indicator of a disadvantage
for students. (Natriello p. 71)
123. 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)
124. Fifty-one percent of Hartford students are from a home in
which a language other than English is spoken. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex.
183 at 38)
125. 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. 1863 at 38)
1256. Students with limited English proficiency have more
difficulty succeeding in school. (Natriello p. 84)
127. Economic status of parents is a predictor of schooling
difficulty. (Natriello:.p. 65)
128. 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)
129. 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)
130. 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)
131. Hartford has the lowest stability rate (percentage of
students who return to the same school as the prior year) at the
elementary level in comparison to other districts. (Natriello II p.
6)
132. It is more difficult for students who come from a
community with a high crime rate to do well in school. (Natriello
pp. 85-86)
133. A high proportion of Hartford students live in housing
with high crime rates. (Morris p. 140; Griffin p. 84)
=15 =
134. Over thirty-five percent of the Hartford households
reside in dwellings which the United States Commerce Department
would characterize as inadequate housing. (Natriello p. 77; Pls’
Ex. 163 at 26)
135. Fifteen of the 21 surrounding districts have less than
10% of their students on the free and reduced lunch program. (Pls’
Bx.%163 p. 153)
136. Hartford’s rate of poverty is greater than the rate among
students in any of the twenty-one surrounding districts. (Pls’ Ex.
163 ar 152 and Figure 33, &t 153; Rindone p. 121)
137. 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’ Fx. 8.1-and 8.2)
138. 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)
139. 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)
140. 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 37)
141. 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.
(Def’s Revised Answer 135)
142. "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.
16m
143. 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)
144. 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)
145. 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)
146. 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)
147. 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)
148. 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.
149. The drop out rate for Hartford schools is greater than
for Connecticut public schools in general. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 142-
145)
C. INTEGRATION AND ITS EFFECTS (Stipulations 150-153)
150. Improved integration of children by race, ethnicity and
economic status is likely to have positive social benefits. (Defs’
Revised Answer 49)
15]. Integration in the schools is not likely to have a
negative effect on the students in those schools. (Defs’ Revised
Answer 149)
152. The defendants have recognized that society benefits from
racial, ethnic, "and economic integration and that racial, ethnic,
and economic isolation has some harmful effects.
153. Poor and minority children have the potential to become
well-educated. (Defs’ Revised Answer 3)
F. DISPARITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
(Stipulations 154-204)
154. 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))
155. The present mastery testing system is better than the
previous one because it was created by Connecticut teachers based on
this state’s own educational goals. It was the consensus of the
state board of education that it is a valuable tool in judging the
outputs of the school system. (Mannix; -Ple’ Bx. 495 p. 17:
Memorandum of Decision 46)
1586. After Vincent Ferrandino became Commissioner of the
Department of Fducation, as part of his reorganization of the
department, he established an office of urban and priority school
districts in order to concentrate the resources of the department on
the problems of the cities, and more specifically, to improve the
achievement of the students in the three largest urban districts.
(Ferrandino, Pls’ Ex. 493 p. 25; Memorandum of Decision 36-37)
137. The CMT was first administered in the fall of 1985. (Pls’
Ex. 290)
158. 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;
Cc. 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;
£. improved assessment of suitable equal educational
opportunities.
(Defs’ Ex. 12.13)
—
BS a
159. The CMT measures mathematics, reading and writing skills
in the 4th, 6th, and 8th grades. (Pls’ Ex. 290-309)
160. The CMT is one measure of student achievement in
Connecticut.
161. 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)
162. 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
differences in performance that are the product of differences in
the socioeconomic status of the students in the two groups. (Defs’
Ex. 10.1; "“Plynn pp. 151-153, 183; Armor p. 21; Crain pp. 78-79;
Natriello pp. 22-23)
163. 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)
164. Hartford public schools attempt to administer the CMT to
every eligible student in the school system. (Nearine p. 73)
165. 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 13)
165.
The following figures concerning reading scores on the
13988 CMT are admitted to the extent that they are identical to
figures found in Pls’ Ex. 297,
Hartford
*khkhkkkkhkhkhkhkx*k
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
Windsor Locks
%$ Below 4th Gr.
Remedial Bnchmk
298 and 299:
% Below 6th Gr.
Remedial Bnchmk
% Below 8th Gr.
Remedial Bnchmk
70 5%
57
|
167. 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 1}
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
168. 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. 297-293)
169. Levels of performance on the Mastery Test are accurately
described in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 290-308. (Defs’ Revised Answer
41)
170. In addition to the mastery and remedial standards
required to be established by law, the State Board of Education has
established for the CMT in the areas of Mathematics, of reading
(Degrees of Reading Power [DRP]) and of writing statewide
achievement goals. (Defs’ Ex. 12.16 p. 4, Grade Four Test Results
Booklet)
171. These statewide achievement goals represent high
expectations and high levels of achievement for Connecticut
students. (Defs’ Ex. 12.16 p. 4)
172. The statewide achievement goals as set by the State Board
of Education are:
a. In mathematics, all students must master 22 out of 25
objectives tested.
b. In reading, a student must achieve a score of 50 with 70%
comprehension in a Degree of Reading Power Unit.
C. . In writing, a student must score a total holistic score of
7 ona scale of 2:to 8. “(Defs’' Ex. 12.16 p. 4)
Percentage of Students Te ro waht State Goals and Remedial
Standards
for Math on the CMT
4th Grade 6th Grade 8th Grade
State Remed. | State Remed. | State Remed
Goals Stand. | Goals Stand. | Goals Stand
Hartford 80 41 94 42 89 41
Avon 17 1 37 2 23 1
Bloomfield 32 8 81 14 76 13
Canton 15 4 kg 3 48 0
East Granby 28 4 49 2 47 6
East Hartford 38 13 72 10 54 6
East Windsor 29 10 56 6 65 4
Ellington 30 3 64 5 55 4
Farmington 17 5 36 4 27 0
Glastonbury 30 8 55 6 43 3
Granby 17 > 61 Y 4 38 5
Manchester 19 4 55 7 62 11
Newington 26 4 67 6 54 7
Rocky Hill 23 3 54 8 46 6
Simsbury 16 1 40 2 28 1
South Windsor 27 4 52 4 52 3
Suffield 19 5 56 7 59 2
Vernon S32 4 55 8 57 6
West Hartford 25 8 55 8 44 5
Wethersfield 25 5 64 6 49 2
Windsor 38 10 58 11 57 9
Windsor Locks 31 4 62 15 57 1}
® » CS @
i
|
1991-92 | .
Percentage of Students Failing to Meet State Goals and Remedial
Standards
for the DRP on the CMT
4th Grade 6th Grade 8th Grade ®
State Remed. | State Remed. | State Remed
Goals Stand. | Goals Stand. | Goals Stand
Hartford 86 64 80 62 76 55 »
Avon 34 10 17 7 15 4
Bloomfield 53 23 AE 27 44 26
Canton 24 10 18 11 20 5 »
East Granby 32 9 27 18 22 10
East Hartford 57 31 34 17 25 7
East Windsor 41 19 18 8 26 5
Ellington 33 11 22 6 23 6 »
Farmington 29 11 15 6 8 2
Glastonbury 36 14 23 1l 17 6
Granby 32 8 24 10 18 6
Manchester 35 12 23 10 S37 18 .
Newington 35 11 33 14 24 10
Rocky Hill 25 12 23 1> 23 8
Simsbury 27 5 12 3 10 4 »
South Windsor 30 9 23 9 27 10
Suffield 36 9 23 7 15 3
Vernon 33 10 27 12 28 9
West Hartford 34 16 21 1} 21 10 *
Wethersfield 28 10 28 11 25 10
Windsor 48 21 34 17 32 13
Windsor Locks 42 17 39 18 32 17 .
_24
Percentage of Students Parlin oo odes State Goals and Remedial
Standards
for the Holistic Writing Sample on the CMT
4th Grade 6th Grade 8th Grade
State Remed. | State Remed. | State Remed
Goals Stand. | Goals Stand. | Goals Stand
Hartford 95 31 97 37 82 15
Avon 2.3 0 83 2 50 0
Bloomfield 84 10 90 11 80 11
Canton 87 10 70 6 63 1
East Granby 88 12 56 2 35 2
East Hartford S91 12 88 22 76 3
East Windsor 78 7 90 10 67 8
Ellington 89 4 77 5 6S 2
Farmington 76 6 83 3 44 0
Glastonbury 82 7 87 10 59 2
Granby 76 6 87 9 47 3
Manchester 86 9 86 15 78 6
Newington 91 11 90 21 82 7
Rocky Hill 90 8 90 20 68 2
Simsbury 81 7 88 10 65 1
South Windsor 19 5 79 9 68 4
Suffield 82 7 86 6 59 0
Vernon 84 4 89 10 76 4
West Hartford 80 9 85 10 42 1
Wethersfield 86 il 84 13 83 6
Windsor 9) 15 84 15 72 6
Windsor Locks 93 10 77 10 87 11
173. Defendants are not satisfied with the performance of 1 @
Hartford school children as a whole or of any children who perform :
below the mastery level. (Defs’ Revised Answer 145)
174. Hartford fourth graders mastered an average of 16.5
objectives on the CMT math test while fourth graders in the 21
surrounding communities averaged from 21.3 to 23.3. (Figure 59, *
Pls’ Ex. 153 at 193)°
175. 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! Ex. 163 at 199) oS
136. 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 81,
Pls’ Ex. 183: 2t 201)
*
1327. 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’ Ex. 163. at 203)
178. 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 623,
Pls’ Ex. 163. at:204)
179. 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’ Ex. 163 at 206)
180. 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. (Figure 65, Pls’ ®
Bx. 163 at 207)
121, 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’
Bx. 163 at 208)
*
182. 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’
Ex. 163 at 209)
w
2 Stipulations numbers 174-185 are based on 1991-92 mastery
test scores. Stipulations numbers 186-191 are based on 1992-93
mastery test data.
i183. Hartford fourth graders mastered an average of 4.1
objectives on the CMT holistic writing test while fourth graders in
the 21 surrounding communities averaged from 4.7 to 5.5. (Figure
68, Pls’ Ex. 1583 at 211)
184. 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
89, Pls’ ‘Ex. 163 8€ 212)
185. 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)
186. 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)
187. 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)
188. 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)
189. Hartford fourth graders mastered 3.1 language arts
objectives while children in surrounding communities mastered from
5.8 to 7.7. (Pls! Reply Brief Ex. J)
190. Hartford sixth graders mastered 4.7 language arts
objectives while children in surrounding communities mastered from
7.3 to 5.7... (Pils’ Reply Brief Ex. K)
191, Hartford eighth graders mastered 5.4 language arts
objectives while children from surrounding communities mastered from
6.6 t0- 9.7. (Pls’ Reply Brief Ex. L)
192. 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)
193. 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)
194. 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)
195. 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)
196. From 1987 to 1991, Hartford sixth graders mastered from
4.4 to 5.3 of the 11 language arts objectives, while the statewide
averages was from 7.4.to 8.1. (Figure BB, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 99)
197. 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. (Figure 9, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 101)
198. 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).
159. Hartford students score the lowest on the SAT when
compared to the performance of students in the surrounding
districts. (Figures 79 and 80, Pls’ Ex. 1863 at 225-2267 Natrisllo
ITP. 32)
200. 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.
201. 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)
202. In 1988, statewide, 71.9% of students attended college
following graduation while 57% of Hartford students did so. (Pls’
Ex. 163 at 146)
Vv. PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING:
HAS THE STATE BEEN INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND
ECONOMIC SEGREGATION, UNEQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, AND
LACK OF A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION; DOES THE STATE HAVE AN
AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES; AND HAS THE STATE
FAILED TO ACT TO REMEDY THESE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES?
DEFENDANTS’ HEADING:
HAS THE STATE BEEN TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ADDRESS RACIAL,
ETHNIC, AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISOLATION AND EDUCATIONAL
UNDERACHIEVEMENT OF URBAN CHILDREN IN POVERTY?
A. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION HISTORICALLY
203. During the Eighteenth Century, the General Assembly of
the State of Connecticut assigned the responsibility for providing
education to parishes, or ecclesiastical societies, the boundaries
of which were not generally coterminous with town boundaries.
(Collier p. 19)
204. At the end of the Eighteenth Century, state funds for
education were channeled to independent entities called school
societies, the boundaries of which were at first coterminous with
parishes. (Collier p. 20)
205. During the first half of the Nineteenth Century, the
General Assembly of the State of Connecticut assigned responsibility
for providing education to approximately 1,600 small corporate
entities called districts, the boundaries of which were not
generally coterminous with towns. (Collier p. 21)
206. Districts in the Nineteenth Century had their own school
committees and were delegated the power to tax, hire teachers and
establish textbooks, among other things. (Collier at 61)
207. During the second half of the Nineteenth Century and the
first decade of the Twentieth Century, the General Assembly of the
State of Connecticut passed legislation to encourage the
consolidation of districts under the auspices of towns in order to
improve the condition of the schools. (Collier pp. 27-28, 39)
208. 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)
209. The consolidation of school boundaries in 1909 had
nothing to do with the race of Connecticut students. (Collier, p.
66)
(replacement page, June 7, 1995)
211
2310. With the exception of regional ‘school districts and
school districts in 15 towns and cities not consolidated in 1909,
existing school district boundaries have not been materially changed
in over 80 years. (Tirozzi Affidavit; Memorandum of Decision 18;
Collier pp. 28, 39, 66)
211. 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. (Tirozzi Affidavit
attached to Defs’ Motion for Summary Judgment { 4)
212. Since 1909, public school children have been assigned to
particular school districts on the basis of their residence.
({Tirozzi Affidavit, 9 5; Collier, p. 22,28, 32)
213. The schools in Hartford continued under a district system
until approximately 1940, which system consisted of three separate
districts within the Hartford town boundaries. (Collier p. 29)
214. By 1941, the public school districts boundaries for
Hartford students had become by law coterminous with the Hartford
town boundaries. (Collier, p. 29)
215. By 1951, all public school districts boundaries except
for regional districts in the state were coterminous with town
boundaries. (Collier, p. 29)
2146. 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
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.)
217. 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. 403)
218. 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)
219. The state intervened to save Project Concern, a program
in which minority Hartford children attend suburban schools, when
the Hartford Board of Education voted to withdraw from the program
in early 1980s. (LaFontaine pp. 124-125; Calvert p. 128)
220. 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)
B. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION TODAY
221. The State Board of Education administers a grant program
pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §l10-17g 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. 353)
222. 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. 160A)
223. The General Assembly provides substantial financial
support. to schools throughout the “State to finance school
operations. See §§10-262f, et seq.
224. The General Assembly provides reimbursement to towns for
student transportation expenses. See §10-273a.
225. 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.
226. The State Board of Education prepares a comprehensive
plan for elementary, secondary, vocational, and adult education
every five years. See id.
227. The General Assembly has established the ages at which
school attendance is mandatory throughout the State. See §10-184.
228. 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.
229. The General Assembly has set the minimum number of hours
of actual school work per school day. See §10-16.
230. The General Assembly has promulgated a list of holidays
and special days that must be suitably observed in the public
schools. See §10-29a.
231. The General Assembly has promulgated a list of courses
that must be part of the program of instruction in all public
schools, see §10-16Db
2322. 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.
233. The General Assembly has imposed minimum graduation
requirements on high schools throughout the State, see §10-221a.
234. 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.
235. 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.
236. 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.
237. 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.
238. 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.
239. Certification by the State Board of Education is a
condition of employment for all teachers in the Connecticut public
school system. See §10-145.
240. All school business administrators must also be certified
by the State Board of Education. See §10-145d.
241. The General Assembly has directed the State Board of
Education to specify qualifications for intramural and
interscholastic coaches. See §10-149.
242. The General Assembly has promulgated laws governing
teacher tenure, see §10-151, and teacher unionization, see §10-153a.
243. The General Assembly has created a statewide teachers’
retirement program. See §10-183b, et seq.
244. 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.
245. Mastery examinations annually test all students enrolled
in public schools in the fourth, sixth, eighth and tenth grades.
See id.
246. 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
‘jurisdictions. See §10-233a et seq.
247. 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.
248. 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.
249. 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.
250. The General Assembly has required all local and regional
school boards to file strategic school profile (SSP) reports on all
schools under their jurisdiction. (§10-220(c).
251. « Connecticut’s SSP program is one of the most extensive
such programs in the country. (Rindone p. 83)
VI. STEPS TOWARD INTEGRATION
252. The state has instituted an ongoing action against the
City of Waterbury and its officials to enforce the provisions of the
state racial imbalance law (Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-226a et seg. in the
Waterbury school district). (Williams p. 46)
253. 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)
254. 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."
255. Many court ordered desegregation plans developed by
court-appointed experts have had to be redesigned to attempt to
achieve diversity and educational goals. (Willie p. 102)
256. Some court-ordered desegregation plans have remained
under court jurisdiction for over twenty years. (Gordon pp. 62-64)
33
Respectfully Submitted,
BY: Man Vine Shan
Martha Stone #61506
Connecticut Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
32 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 247-9823
BY: i
Wesley Horton #38478
Moller, Horton & Shields, P.
90 Gillett Street
Hartford, CT 06105
(203) 522-8338
of
BY: \
Joh” Brittain #101153
University of Connecticut
School of Law
65 Elizabeth Street
Hartford, CT 06105
(203) 241-4664
Philip D. Tegeler #102537
Connecticut Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
32 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 247-9823
Theodore Shaw
Dennis Parker
Marianne Lado
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013
(212) 219-1900
C.
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: J]
Bernard McGovérn
Martha ts Prestley
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Rartford, CT 06105
(203) 566-7173
26, L975”
ORDFER
For good cause shown J agp Stipulation is hereby
Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Revised Stipulations of Fact
NOTICE SENT: June 28, 1995
® MOLLER, HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C.
MARTHA STONE
PHILIP D. TEGELER
JOHN BRITTAIN
WILFRED RODRIGUEZ
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL
® BERNARD F. MCGOVERN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
MARTHA WATTS PRESTLEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
GREGORY T. D’/AURIA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
CAROLYN K. QUERIJERO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
MARIANNE ENGELMAN LADO
THEODORE SHAW
LJ DENNIS D. PARKER
SANDRA DEL VALLE
CHRISTOPHER A. HANSEN
S.C. 15255
MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPREME COURT
Plaintiffs
Vv. STATE OF CONNECTICUT
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al.
Defendants 3 JUNE 6, 1995
PLAINTIFFS’ REVISED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT!
y 4
1 All proposed findings are as of the date of the trial in
this case, unless otherwise noted. References are to plaintiffs’
exhibits introduced in evidence at trial, as set out in plaintiffs’
Second Revised List of Trial Exhibits (revised March 3, 1993).
References to the trial transcript are listed by witness name for
all witnesses. See Appendix for index to transcript dates.
TABLE OF CONTENTS?
DOES RACIAL AND ETHNIC ISOLATION IN THE HARTFORD
SCHOOL SYSTEM VIOLATE ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND
A. THE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE
AND ETHNICITY
TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE
AND ETHNICITY
RACIAL AND ETHNIC SEGREGATION ADVERSELY AFFECTS
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND RACIAL
INTEGRATION HAS POSITIVE EDUCATIONAL AND LONG
TERM BENEFITS
DO THE INADEQUACIES OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM
DENY PLAINTIFFS A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION UNDER
ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST,
A. THE HARTFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE INADEQUATE
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
STUDENTS
Staffing and Curriculum
Textbooks and Instructional Supplies
Library Books and Periodicals
Equipment
Plants and Facilities
Bilingual Education
Special Needs Programs
The Effects of Recent Budget Cuts
Cumulative Effects of Deficient Resources
2 pursuant to paragraph 2 of the June 1, 1995 letter from
Deputy Chief Clerk, Michele Angers, the headings and subheadings in
this document correspond to the headings and subheadings contained
in the joint stipulation submitted by plaintiffs.
= {t=
®
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
B. EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES FOR HARTFORD'S STUDENTS
ARE DEFICIENT AND WORSENING. «certs vsssnnsones 18 ®
1. Connecticut Mastery Pests. «ii rv irnssnsvnns ans 18
2. Metropolitan Achievement TesiS. «ic vise sroraoe 20
3 ob RR RC Sn LE CIR SR RE A 21
.
4. Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAP)... cv cerimvnsvcsns 21
5. Graduation and Drop-Out RaltesS...i.e«.vesisins vine 22
IV. DOES THE RACIAL, ETHNIC AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION AND
POVERTY CONCENTRATION COUPLED WITH DISPARITIES IN »
RESOURCES AND OUTCOMES VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO
EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES UNDER ARTICLE
EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, SECTIONS 1
AND 202. ais suri rr tte re ree ea vies alive 22
A. STUDENTS’ SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS IN HARTFORD -
MEPROPOLITAN ARER SCHOOLS . «vs's vv vs via so swansea sis 22
B. RACIAL AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION ARE CLOSELY
LINKED IN HARTFORD. cee «+ tin nin vin n sus ossvnnas snes 24
C. INTEGRATION AND ITS BEPPRCTS «vs sion voninns vininise 25 A
5 INADEQUACIES OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM..... 28
E. INTERDISTRICT COMPARISONS DEMONSTRATE ENORMOUS
DISPARITIES IN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES BETWEEN
HARTFORD AND SUBURBAN SCHOOLS. + sss vas sss 0nsevs 28 .
1... Staffing. and Curriculum... .. cic svn nvinennens 29
2 Pupil. and. Instructional Services... cvs vosnns 30
3. Textbook and Instructional Supplies............ 30 PS
4. Library Books and Periodicals. vss iivivei ven 30
5. BOUIDMONIE . evs vinnie t+ vinn nition vs siinims dais wis on vie vit 31
6. Plants and PacilitiesS. .. sv vrs ssc invininasssnmes 32
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISPARITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES. vcs ovs ese
CoMecticut Mastery Tess. viv. vos sone v dione sesso
Credits EaIrNOQe. «sc tcv eves veces tsvoeiviess seine aves
Scholastic Aptitude Test SCOresS. ssc s eves vosvs
Craduation and Drop-0ut Rates. ves cv vesrsvsvsssn
Patterns of Post-Secondary Education and Work
iL I ho PE Sn ENG CE NO Na IPN
HAS THE STATE BEEN INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING RACIAL,
ETHNIC AND ECONOMIC SEGREGATION UNEQUAL EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES, AND LACK OF A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE
EDUCATION, DOES THE STATE HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY
TO ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES, AND HAS THE STATE FAILED TO
A.
B.
STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION HISTORICALLY....
STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION TODAY +: cv vv tvs ns
THE STATE HAS BEEN AWARE OF THE HARMS OF RACIAL
AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION IN THE SCHOOLS AND THE
SERIOUS INEQUITIES FACING CITY SCHOOLCHILDREN,
AND HAS REPEATEDLY FAILED TO TAKE ACTION TO
ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS. svi ov valisine sv vvnvsvminin vin wale ss
Defendants Have Admitted that Racial Segregation
1S HarmBUl. oie ei Woe itins naitarrinmvns sas voaieinsis ene
Defendants Have Long Been Aware That
Concentration of Poverty Has a Harmful Impact
On the EFAUucCational ProCeSS... ses ssniassvtonsesnse
Defendants Have Been Aware of the Other Severe
Educational Inequities Facing Schoolchildren in
the City of Hartford Including Disparities in
Student Resources and OutCOMEeS .. «cv eet veeeseeces
The Defendants Have Been Aware of Feasible
Remedies and Have Failed to Act Over a 30-Year
PE OQ vcs stints ssn ns vv eet ad wi ane eee a aos aE. a
PAGE
32
32
34
34
35
35
35
35
36
38
38
38
39
41
Vi.
VII.
- 1 =
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5. Defendants’ Existing Interdistrict Programs
Are Inadequate to Address the Inequities.......
6. The State Has Defined the Concepts of Equal
Educational Opportunity and Minimally Adequate
Education and Has Failed to Comply with Its Own
DEE NL EL ONS 5 ys vina sy sts es has ate anise eats ates sn a
STEPS TOWARD INTEGRATION. «vc civiessonssnnssnsseovnsvons
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE NOT REBUTTED BY DEFENDANTS’
EVIDENCE. voce vis va sass vse vin ssnnn sinensosone sn five sie sree
PAGE
49
50
53
58
® EFEX »
II. DOES RACIAL AND ETHNIC ISOLATION IN THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM
VIOLATE ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, SECTIONS
1 AND 207?
A. THE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
1. The majority of Connecticut’s students remain isolated from
daily educational contact with students of other races and ethnic
groups, (Pls! Ex. -73 at .3)
2. While 25% of the public school enrollment in Connecticut is
minority children, almost 80% of that minority enrollment is
concentrated in the thirteen urban school districts of the State.
{(Pls’' "Ex. 82 at 8)
ie Connecticut ranks among the ten highest states for
intensity of school segregation for Hispanic students, and exhibited
the most rapid increase in Hispanic school segregation in the 1980s.
{(Orfleld p. 16; Pls’ Ex. 457)
4. Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 101-123 and 85 (Minority Students and
Staff Reports) were prepared by the Connecticut Department of
Education and include accurate summaries of the number and percent
of minority students and staff in Hartford and the surrounding
districts, from 1968 through 1992.
5. Few students enjoy exposure to an integrated faculty. The
large cities employ 70.6% of the minority group teachers; the small
towns, just over 1%. 0 (Pls’ Ex. 73 at 6)
6. Plaintiffs’ exhibits 209-289 (Strategic School Profiles)
accurately summarize educational and demographic data for Hartford
and surrounding towns, as well as for individual schools in those
districts.
B. TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE AND
ETHNICITY
7. Racial isolation has increased and continues to increase
throughout Connecticut. (Pls’ Ex. 73 at 4)
8. Hartford reported the greatest numerical growth in its
African American, Latino and Asian populations. (Defs’ Ex. 1.3)
9. Most suburban towns have had insignificant gains in Black
and Latino population. (Pls’ Exs. 85, 127, 138; Steahr at 99-101)
10. Although a few suburbs have seen increases in minority
population over the past ten years, this development has not
ameliorated the increasing racial isolation of Hartford students.
(Pls’ Exs. 85, 127, 138)
11. The racial isolation of the Hartford schools continues to
increase, and shows no signs of reversing. (Pls’ Ex. 126, 130)
Wo tat
12. The vast majority of suburban towns also continue to
remain segregated. (Pls’ Exs. 126, 130)
C. RACIAL AND ETHNIC SEGREGATION ADVERSELY AFFECTS
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND RACIAL INTEGRATION HAS
POSITIVE EDUCATIONAL AND LONG TERM BENEFITS.
13. As the United States Civil Rights Commission noted in
1967, racial isolation in the schools "fosters attitudes and
behavior that perpetuate isolation in other important areas of
American. life.” (Pls’ Ex. 11 at 110)
14. Dr. Jomills Braddock is an expert in equity and social
justice in the areas of education and employment, who testified that
racial and ethnic segregation has long-term adverse effects on all
students attending isolated schools. (Braddock pp. 8, 18)
15. Dr. Braddock based his testimony on a series of studies
that he conducted on the long-term effects of school desegregation
and employment outcomes in post-secondary institutions and in
employment settings. (Braddock p. 8)
16. Dr. Braddock based his testimony on longitudinal studies
examining the relationship between attending a segregated elementary
school and the likelihood of attending a segregated college.
(Braddock pp. 9-11)
17. Dr. Braddock’s testimony was also based on longitudinal
studies of the links between attending a segregated elementary
school and later working in a segregated workplace. (Braddock pp.
11-12)
18. Dr. Braddock’s testimony was also based on his research on
the participation patterns among student subgroups in school
activities and the impact of these patterns on long and short term
student outcomes. (Braddock p. 16)
19, Individuals from different backgrounds tend to avoid
interactions with one another unless they have prior contact.
{Braddock p. 18)
20. Early segregation experiences in school tend to perpetuate
themselves leading to segregation in later life for African
Americans, Latinos and whites. (Braddock pp. 18, 21)
21. Opportunities for children of different groups to interact
tends to lead to integrated workplaces, integrated schools,
integrated neighborhoods, and mixed-race friendships. (Braddock p.
20)
22. Students who experience racial diversity early in life are
more likely to favorably experience racial diversity later. (Trent
p. 61)
23. Minority students are often excluded from the employment
networks which are essential for success in later employment and
other beneficial life outcomes. (Braddock p. 22)
24. Desegregated experiences allow minorities to break down
systemic barriers to equal opportunity, provide access to important
networks and overcome the stigma sometimes associated with minority
institutions. (Braddock p. 22)
25. Some of the documented long-term benefits of desegregation
include: (1) access to useful social networks of job information;
(2) socialization for entrance into "non-traditional" career lines
with higher income returns; and (3) development of interpersonal
skills useful in interracial contexts. (Defs’ Ex. 12.25 at 18-19)
26. Racial isolation in the Hartford area will perpetuate
itself over the students’ life cycles as they pursue employment and
other adult outcomes. (Braddock p. 31)
27. Dr. William Trent is an expert in the sociology of
education, who testified about studies he had conducted using
national longitudinal databases that illustrate long-term impacts on
students in racially segregated and economically isolated school
situations. (Trent pp. 11-15)
28. Dr. Trent based his testimony on analyses of the High
School and Beyond, a national survey sponsored by the United States
Department of Education, and the National Longitudinal Survey of the
Youth Labor Force Cohort (Parnes), sponsored by the United States
Department of Labor. (Trent pp. 15-18)
29, The methodology of Dr. Trent’s study was sound and
consistent with professional standards. (Trent pp. 27-31)
30. Dr. Trent’s analysis demonstrated that, for all students,
regardless of racial or ethnic group, and independent of the
individual socio-economic status of students, as the racial and
ethnic isolation of a school increases, there is a statistically
significant negative impact on later employment in an integrated
workforce. (Trent pp. 77-78; Pls’ Ex. 481-CC, DD, EE, FF)
31. As racial diversity in school increases, there is a
significant positive effect on later employment in an integrated
workforce. (Trent pp. 69-70, 77-78)
- 4 =
32. Dr. Robert Crain is an expert in school desegregation,
urban politics and research methods.” (Crain p. 7)
33. Dr. Crain testified about the result of his study of
Project Concern, a small one-way interdistrict busing program
established in the Hartford area in 1966. (Crain pp. 15-17)
34. Defendants’ experts agreed that Dr. Crain work is of a
high order of methodological clarity and meets high methodological
standards. (Armor I p. 99; Rossell 1I at 82)
35. The Project Concern study demonstrates that there are
long-term harmful effects resulting from segregated education. (Pls’
Ex... 386 pp. 12, 55-57; Pls’ - Ex. 387 pp. 26-29)
36. Segregation has harmful effects in African-American
students’ likelihood of dropping out from high school and dropping
out-of college. (Pls’' Ex. 386 pp. 14, 19, 25-26,.64-67; Crain pp.
32, 40)
375 The effect of racial desegregation on long term
educational attainment is large when compared to the effect of
differences in family background. Regression analysis demonstrate
that family background differences cannot explain the effects of
racial desegregation on long-term educational attainment. (Pls’ Ex.
386 pp. 25)
38. Segregation has additional long-term harmful effects on
African Americans, including a decrease in the likelihood of having
useful contacts with whites later in life. African Americans from
segregated school settings are less likely to have positive social
contacts with whites later in life. (Pls’ Ex. 386 pp. 27-30; Crain
at 32, 48-50)
39. Even after controlling for self-selection bias and for
socioeconomic status, including such factors as mother’s education,
home ownership, the number of parents in the home, and number of
siblings, the Project Concern study found that segregation has
harmful effects on high school dropout rates and college retention
rates and that desegregation experience has positive effects.
(Crain at 44; Pls’ Ex. 386 pp. 64-67)
40. The Project Concern study demonstrates that the harmful
results of school segregation include increased likelihood of early
female childbearing, increased likelihood that African American
students will experience difficulties with their social environment
in college, and decreased likelihood that African American women
will look for housing in integrated settings later in life. (Crain
at ‘53; Pls’ Ex. 387 pp. 26-29)
41. The Project Concern study demonstrates that school
segregation adversely affects the occupational aspirations of
African American students and their own perceptions of their chances
for promotion. (Crain at 60-62; Pls’ Ex. 387 pp. 24-25)
42. The Project Concern study also demonstrates that school
segregation has harmful effects on students’ long-term occupational
attainment. (Crain at 33; Pls’ ‘Ex. 387 p. 26)
43. The Project Concern study also demonstrates that
segregated students are more likely to work in the public sector
than the private sector. African Americans with segregated
schooling who did work in the private sector were more likely to be
in relatively low level jobs. (Crain at 33, 58-60; Armor I at 147;
Pls’ Ex. 387 pp. 13, 34)
44. Dr. Crain controlled for the effects of students’
individual socioeconomic status in his study of Project Concern.
Dr. Trent also controlled for the effects of students’ individual
socioeconomic status in his analysis of the high school and beyond
and PARNES data. (Armor I at 22)
45. Desegregation research demonstrates that there is a
positive effect of desegregation on academic achievement, which is
more significant when integration begins in the earlier grades.
{Slavin p. 72)
46. The evidence shows that all children benefit from a
diverse educational background.’ (Pls’ Ex. 60 p. 1; Defs’ Ex. 12.5;
Pls! Ex. 50D." 7)
47. Even a high quality instructional program cannot achieve
maximum levels of excellence if provided in a racially or ethnically
isolated environment. (Pls’ Ex. 82 at 8)
48. There are benefits to reducing racial and ethnic
segregation that are not measured by academic achievement tests,
including the benefit of improving knowledge of one another in a
multi-cultural society. (Armor I pp. 142-143)
49. School segregation has a generational effect in that
children who go to school in a segregated environment are more
likely to live in a segregated community in the future. (Armor I p.
146)
50. Segregation inflicts a sense of isolation on Hartford
children. (Neuman-Johnson II p. 14)
239
6 -
51. Suburban children are unprepared to deal with the demands
of a multicultural world. (Neuman-Johnson II pp. 15-17; Dudley pp.
129-133)
52. The self-esteem of Hartford school children is damaged
when they are separated from the rest of society and they perceived
a whole other "world that doesn’t belong to [them]." (Hernandez pp.
42, 64)
53. In his 1993 speech to the Connecticut Legislature,
defendant Governor Weicker admitted that "by exposing all of our
students to a diverse world, in which they will spend their
lifetimes, we enrich them and better prepare all of them for
success." - (Pls' Ex. 90)
III. DO THE INADEQUACIES OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM DENY
PLAINTIFFS A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION UNDER ARTICLE EIGHTH,
SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, SECTIONS 1 AND 20?
A. THE HARTFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE INADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL
RESOURCES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF STUDENTS.
54. Defendants have officially stated that, "those who need
more must receive more" (Pls’ Ex. 39 at 1).
55. The Hartford public schools lack the resources necessary
to provide their students with an adequate education, given the
needs of the students. (Natriello p. 98; Natriello II pp. 52-63;
Pls’ Ex. 163 at 79) There are serious and sustained deficiencies.
{Pls’ Ex. 163 at 265; Natriello- II pp. 52-63)
56. Students in Hartford need more, not less educational
resources, because their experiences are often reduced and they
bring so many divergent needs to the classroom. (Negron p. 74;
Griffin, p. 86; Hernandez p. 43)
57. Educationally disadvantaged students need more educational
resources than the "average" student -- they need smaller classes,
more one-on-one attention, more special programs, and more followup
in the home and community, just to begin the learning process. In
attempting to provide additional resources to these children,
resources and attention are necessarily diverted from regular
education. (Pls’ Bx. 479 at $912: Pls’ Ex. 494 at 70-77)
58. Students from such homes are more likely to drop out and
less likely to have necessary parental support than students from
two parent homes. (Natriello p. 71)
59. Students whose parents have less education are less likely
to succeed because the parents are less likely to be able to help
with homework, and less likely to advocate for and manage their
children’s education. This also makes such students more difficult
for teachers. (Natriello pp. 73-74)
60. Latino children often enter the system unable to speak
clearly in English or Spanish. (Montanez p. 11; Hernandez p. 36)
61. One of the main mental health issues children in Hartford
face is chronic depression. (Negron p. 71)
82. Because many of the students witness so much crime and
violence in their neighborhoods (Morris p. 140), they come to school
with high levels of anxiety, as one teacher explained, "not ready to
learn." (Montanez p. 12)
63. A great number of students suffer from low self-esteem and
poor social skills as a result of poverty and isolation. (Montanez
Pp. 13; Morris: p. -139; Noel p. 25; Davis p. 86)
64. In one elementary school, there were three attempted
suicides in the last three years. (1Id.)
65. Teachers must divert energies from instruction to deal
with the high number of mental health needs of the students before
any meaningful teaching can occur. (Montanez pp. 12, 14)
66. For most single parent families, resources are limited.
Parental involvement with the schools or assistance with homework
often is non-existent. (Cloud p. 96; Noel p. 28, Hernandez p. 38)
87. When there is inadequate housing, students are
disadvantaged by not having quiet places to study and by not having
stable housing. (Natriello p. 76)
68. When there is inadequate housing, students move more and
mobility strains the ability of the schools to provide adequate
education. (Natriello pp. 76-77)
89. The problems created by inadequate housing can be
overcome, but Hartford does not have the resources to do so.
(Natriello p. 81) :
70. Students may come to school wearing inadequate clothing.
(Montanez p. 13; Griffin p. 84; Carso p. 91)
71. The Hartford schools have large numbers of special-needs
students who require extra resources to educate. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at
41)
72. Many children lag behind as much as two to three years at
the time they enter school, causing additional challenges to
classroom instruction. (Montanez p. 11)
23. Many children enter school at five or six years old
suffering from severe developmental and speech delays. (Montanez p.
11; Negron p. 66; Defs’ Ex. 2.18 p. 1)
74. Some can’t form a sentence, understand cognitively how to
ask a question or describe items, and articulate with appropriate
vocabulary. (Cloud p. 99; Hernandez p. 35)
75. Hartford’s school children are not receiving a successful
start to their school career. During the 1980s, between a fifth and
a fourth of all of Hartford’s kindergarten students were retained.
(Defs’ Bx. 2.18 p. 5)
76. The Hartford school system has been forced to spend a
disproportionate share of its resources on social workers, guidance
counselors, psychologists, nurses, security officers, and programs
made necessary by the special needs of Hartford students. (Senteio
Pp. 19)
77. The fact that 18% of the population receives special
education services places "an inordinate burden on the school in
order to address those youngsters, and the services those youngsters
need in order to move the youngsters from a special education
program into a mainstream program." (Haig at 67)
78. Hartford spends a tremendous amount on bilingual education
and special education transportation. Id. at 20. When looking at
the regular program expenditure per pupil, Hartford "fell down" to
a rank of "a hundred and thirty-third" in a total of one hundred
sixty-five school districts. (Kennelly at 107)
79. Hartford is forced to spend a disproportionate amount on
fire and police protection and other municipal services, straining
local tax revenues. (Defs’ Ex. 6.3 pp. 9, 72-74, 79)
80. Although the gross amount of money spent per pupil in
Hartford does not appear out of line with other Connecticut
communities, the conclusion that adequate resources are being
expended is unwarranted given the greater needs of Hartford's
students and the manner in which the money is spent. (Natriello pp.
97-101; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 156-164)
81. Hartford schools are "not adequate" and "not sufficient."
(LaFontaine I pp. 124, 146; LaFontaine II p. 145; Senteio p. 24;
Senteio p. 19)
82. Hartford "lacks the resources it needs to provide a
quality education.” (Wilson p. 25)
83. The "enormously high levels of Hartford’s disadvantaging
characteristics" directly impede the educational process.
{Natriello I pp. 89, 90-91)
84. The concentration of problems in Hartford require
educational resources greater than those needed to respond to more
advantaged students. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 44; Natriello pp. 92-94)
85. Over time, there has been no improvement in the
deficiencies in Hartford’s educational system. (Natriello II p. 60)
86. With sufficient resources, schools can make a difference
in addressing the problems children bring to the schools.
{Natriello p. 85)
1. Staffing and Curriculum
87. The number of first year teachers is twice the statewide
average (Natriello at 106), leaving the most inexperienced group of
teachers to confront "the most challenging groups of students in the
Connecticut public school system." (Natriello at 107; Table 4, Pls’
Ex. 163 at 53)
88. Valid requests for additional teachers and other staff are
routinely rejected because of lack of resources. (Shea p. 131)
89. The Hartford schools lack an adequate staff of nurses,
guidance counsellors, psychologists and social workers. The
available staff cannot adequately address emotionally troubled
students’ problems and help them to succeed in school and afterward.
(Cloud pp. 21-93; LaFontaine I p. 129; Griffin p. 86; Hernandez p.
46; Dickens pp. 154-55; Negron pp. 67, 71, 81; LaFontaine p. 129)
90. The Hartford system also lacks a sufficient number of
speech therapists. (Cloud p. 92; Hernandez p. 47)
91, Many Hartford schools offer only limited programs in
physical education, music, and art. (Hernandez p. 45; Cloud p. 104)
92. Given the overwhelming number of problems students bring
into the classroom, the staffing composition is insufficient. See
Wilson at 6-19.
93. The high concentration of poor children in Hartford
schools places enormous demands on Hartford administrators (Forman
pp. 14-16), who spend large amounts of time on non-instructional
matters, leaving no time to assist faculty with professional
development. (Pitocco pp. 64-66)
2. Textbooks and Instructional Supplies
94. Hartford does not have sufficient resources to spend on
textbooks to meet the educational needs of its regular education or
bilingual education students. (Carso p. 101; Noel p. 28; Negron p.
73; Marichal pp. 20-21)
95. The Hartford school system has only half of the statewide
average funding to spend on textbooks and instructional supplies.
(Pls’ Ex. 163 at 63; Natriello at 118)
96. Textbook appropriation has been reduced by 26-27% over the
last few years. (Haig p. 62)
97. Hartford principals report that there are entire areas of
the curriculum for which they do not have textbooks. (Natriello pp.
199-20)
98. Hartford principals report that they cannot phase in new
textbooks as needed, but will have to wait until the next decade to
complete the process of replacing necessary, new textbooks.
(Natriello pp. 119-120)
99. Many teachers fill the gap with books that they buy with
their own money. (Montanez p. 20; Anderson p. 119)
100. Some teachers reuse books that were made to be used in
one year and then discarded. (Anderson p. 117)
101. Many students have to share textbooks. (Montanez pp. 19-
20)
102. Studies show that the failure to provide textbooks has an
adverse effect on learning. (Natriello pp. 118-19)
103. Failure to provide needed textbooks presents an even more
acute problem in a community such as Hartford where poverty prevents
many parents from replacing or substituting materials. (Natriello
PP. 120-21)
3 Library Books and Periodicals
104. The library collections of the Hartford public schools
were studied by a district committee in 1989. (Pls’ Ex. 186) Using
the American Library Association’s standards for school media
programs, the committee found that the number of books per pupil in
the collections of ‘the Hartford Public Schools was 10.96,
substantially below the recommended minimum standard of 17.32 books.
(Pls’' Ex. 186 at Table 11; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 69)
105. The libraries lack an adequate supply of periodicals,
computer materials, microform and microfiche, and non-print media.
(Pls’ Bx. 163 at 69)
106. Of Hartford’s 31 schools, only one met the minimum
standard for periodicals, only one met the minimum standard for
microfiche and microfilm materials, only one met the minimum
standard for computer materials, only seven met the minimum standard
for video tape materials, and only 10 met the minimum standard for
non-print materials such as films, filmstrips, and audio tapes.
{Pls’ Ex. 163: at 69)
107. The committee found that only three of Hartford's thirty-
one schools had library collections that met the minimum recommended
standard. (Pls? “Ex. 186 at 2; Pls'-Ex. 163 at £9; Negron p. 73;
Montanez pp. 20-21; Davis pp. 75-76)
108. Hartford school libraries have collections that are
extremely old. (Cloud p. 84; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 69; Pls’ Ex. 395 at 2)
109. Most of Hartford’s school libraries are physically
substandard and cannot even accommodate a full class of students.
(Wilson pp. 10-11; Griffin p. 91)
110. The libraries are lacking important media equipment, or
the equipment they have is broken. (Wilson p. 11)
111. Library books and periodicals are particularly important
in a community such as Hartford where many parents are unable to
supply such materials in the home. (Natriello p. 126)
4, Equipment
112. The high schools have insufficient, old, and non-
functioning equipment in the life management, technology education,
science and business departments. (Griffin pp. 86-87, 89; Davis p.
77)
113. The budget for equipment for the science program at
Hartford Public High School is $804 or less than $0.50 per student,
an amount which is inadequate. (Natriello p. 129)
114. There are substantial inadequacies in the availability of
computers and teacher training in computers. (Wilson pp. 15-16, 22,
25)
9 232) .®
= 13 .
115. Computer literacy is increasingly important in schools.
{Natrlello p. 127)
116. The school district’s goal is to have eight computers per
classroom, but it does not even have one computer per classroom
today. (Wilson p. 15; Haig p. 60)
117. Hartford lacks the funds to repair computers. (Wilson
pp. 15-16)
118. Many classrooms have out-of-date maps. (Wilson pp. 21-22)
119. Other inadequacies in educational equipment, include lack
of furniture (Carso pp. 103-04), lack of high school laboratory
experiences (Davis p. 79; Griffin pp. 89-90), and inadequate art
supplies (Cloud p. 90).
120. The chronic lack of supplies in Hartford classrooms has
8 detrimental effect on teacher "effectiveness." (Pitocco p. 74)
121. The lack of functioning equipment causes extreme
frustration for the most motivated students and teachers. (Davis p.
17)
122. Some Hartford teachers spend hundreds of dollars of their
own money to provide basic instructional supplies for their classes.
(Carso pp. 101-02; Anderson p. 122; Pitocco p. 74; Neuman-Johnson p.
8)
; Plants and Facilities
123. The Hartford schools are seriously overcrowded. Hartford
elementary schools operate at 133% of preferred capacity, the middle
schools at 106% and the high schools at 107%. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 75)
124. There are approximately 123 portable classroom units in
use in Hartford. (Senteioc p. 16; Pls’ Ex, 163 at 75)
125. Throughout the system, rooms are being used as general-
purpose classrooms that were not intended for such use. (Senteio p.
17; Neumann-Johnson I p. 160)
126. Many Hartford elementary schools do not have separate
cafeterias. (Senteio p. 17)
127. In many schools, specialized art and music classrooms are
unavailable because of lack of space. (Senteio p. 18; Anderson pp.
120-121)
128. Of Hartford's twenty six elementary schools, only four
‘meet all state codes. (Senteio p. 16)
129. Some Hartford elementary schools have no outside
playground space. (Montanez p. 17; Negron I p. 70; Cloud pp. 81,
85)
130. The space where the children play is without any
playground equipment. (Cloud p. 91)
13]. In several schools, gymnasium space is inadequate or
unavailable. (Cloud p. 83; Montanez pp. 16-17)
132. Many of the district’s schools are in need of serious
repair. (Senteio p..-16; Cloud p. 81; Pls’ Ex. 153, pp- 5-11,
"Hartford Public Schools Space Utilization Study 1991-2001," Defs’
Exs. 2.24, 2.27; Calvert pp. 83-85)
133. Hartford is frequently forced, for budgetary reasons, to
defer major maintenance, such as roof repair, until the problem
becomes critical (Senteio pp. 14-15; LaFontaine I pp. 134).
134. Some of the substandard physical conditions at Hartford
schools include peeling paint, leaky roofs, antiquated bathrooms
without doors on the stalls or toilet paper, broken sinks, rusty
water, broken windows, and faulty electrical systems. {Cloud pp-
81, 103; Montanez p. 18; Carso p. 112; Hernandez p. 44)
135. The 1992 bonding proposal addressed only one phase of
Hartford's serious building needs. (Haig at 62)
6. Bilingual Education
136. In 1989-90 districts reported approximately 984 full-time
equivalent (FTE) staff members in bilingual education programs, 16
fewer than in 1988-89; nine fewer teachers and 6.5 fewer aides.
(Defs’ Ex. 12.24 at 5)
137. From 1990 to 1993, there were no evaluations of the
bilingual program. (Marichal p. 32)
138. In a grant submitted to the United States Department of
Education in November 1991, the State Department of Education
acknowledged that the State was limited in its ability to
appropriately evaluate bilingual education programs. (Pls. Ex. 438
Pp. 24)
139. In 1990-91, 8% of the bilingual program students were
designated as needing special education and 19% were considered
"mobile." “(Defs. Ex. 13.6 at 15)
140. The vast majority of these students are enrolled in a
program for native Spanish speakers. (Marichal p. 12)
141. Because of fiscal constraints, fifty percent of the
students who are limited English proficient are combined with
students who are in a bilingual program, creating increased stress
on the teachers. (Marichal pp. 16-17)
142. The Hartford bilingual education program has insufficient
funding to purchase up-to-date and appropriate texts and other
instructional materials. (Marichal pp. 20-21)
143. Some bilingual students are using books from the 1950s.
(Marichal p. 21)
144. There is insufficient money available for bilingual
teacher training. (Marichal p. 20)
145. The Hartford bilingual program has only about one full-
time administrator per 70 teachers (Marichal p. 32), as compared
with a 1987 Task Force report which recommended one full-time
administrator with qualifications in bilingual education or ESL for
every 15 to 29 teachers. (Marichal p. 32)
146. The state-wide ratio of administrators to program staff
was l1l-to-76.3, as compared to 1-to-72.5 the previous year. The
ratio ranges from 1-to-8.3 in Danbury to 1-to-139 in Hartford, where
3.5 administrators oversee the work of 351 teachers, 67 teacher
aides, 62.5 support staff, and 2.5. clerks." (Defs’ Ex. 12.24 at 7)
147. Many principals have no training in bilingual education,
making it difficult to adequately supervise the bilingual teachers.
(Marichal p. 33)
148. Between 30 and 35 percent of Hartford’s bilingual
students are currently testing at remedial levels. (Marichal p. 29)
149. Remedial services for students deemed limited English
proficient do not meet the need. Additional bilingual remediation
is needed to enable eligible students to receive remedial services
in their native language. (Marichal p. 29; Defs’ Ex. 2.18 p. 22)
150. The needs of remedial students in bilingual programs in
the upper elementary grades are also not being met. (Pls’ Ex. 439
Pp. 3)
151. There is an insufficient alternative program for
bilingual children who have high mobility. (Marichal p. 29)
X52. There is insufficient funding for monitoring and
evaluation of the needs of children in the bilingual program.
(Marichal p. 53)
153. A 1987 task force that reported to the Commissioner of
Education advised that $947 in state funding per pupil should be
spent to implement state-mandated bilingual programs. (Marichal p.
22)
154. The current state contribution for bilingual programs to
Hartford is about $190 per pupil -- only 20 percent of the
recommended level (Marichal p. 22; Pls’ Exs. 48, 416).
155. The state contribution to bilingual education in 1989-90
was $2.2 million, or 4.4% of the estimated total program
expenditures. This figure is 1.6% lower than the total amount
reported in 1988-89. On average, the state contributed $169 for
each child in a bilingual education program, $14 less than in 1987-
88. -(Defs’ Bx. 13:6 ar 5)
156. Districts reported that ‘local’ funds (including
Education Const Sharing funds) continued to support most of the
program costs (837.2 million, or 75.2%). Punding from other state
and federal sources (Special Education, Chapter 1, etc.) was $10.1
million, or 20.4%." (Defs’ Ex. 12.24 at 5)
157. The proportion of funds accounted for by state bilingual
education program grants to local districts has dropped since 1985.
In 1985-86 it was 5.5%, in 1986-87 it was 5.3%, and in 1987-88 it
was 4.8%. (Defs’ Ex. 12.24 at 6)
158. Funding for the Hartford bilingual program has remained
generally constant, despite inflation and rising student enrollment
(Marichal p. 26).
159. The differential cost (cost specific for Hartford's
bilingual education program) for bilingual education in Hartford is
about 8680 per pupil, which is about four times the state
contribution to bilingual education programs in Connecticut. (Pls.
Ex. 443 p. 11)
y A Special Needs Programs
160. Pre-school programs are important for preparing poor
children to succeed in elementary school (Dickens pp. 150-51)
161. Only 600 out of 2,300 four year olds receive preschool
(Slavin 'p. 36).
162. Educational programs for special needs children like the
"Success for All" program have proven successful in educating
special-needs students (Slavin pp. 14, 22).
163. The Success for All program has never been implemented in
Connecticut. (Slavin p. 20)
164. Several successful but now defunct programs that helped
to address the special needs of Hartford students: the Bridge
Program (Senteio p. 14), the "Abracadabra" program (Wilson pp. 16-
17), the HESI program (Wilson p. 19), the Higher Horizons program
(Wilson p. 18), and a special teacher training program for new
teachers (Wilson p. 10). These programs were eliminated due to lack
of funding. «(Wilson pp. 16-19)
165. Hartford's few special needs programs affect only a very
small proportion of the total numbers within the Hartford system.
Hartford has been consistently unable to expand or sustain such
programs. (Wilson pp. 18-19)
166. The Comer program is a school development program in
limited use in the Hartford school system which has proven very
successful in mitigating the effects of poverty which interfere with
children’s educational success. (Haig at 63-64)
167. The Comer program is present in only seven of thirty-
three schools. Haig at 63-64.
168. The Comer Program has not been expanded due to staffing
cuts and other fiscal constraints. (Haig at 63-64)
169. The Family Resource Center is established in only one
school in Hartford, and is a model for schools serving large number
of disadvantaged children. (Defs’ Br. p. 96)
170. The Family Resource Center is funded by the State
Department of Human Resources and offers an array of school based
services including adult education, day-care, adolescent improvement
programs and parenting school training. (Defs’ Br. p. 96)
171. Programs such as Family Resource Centers assist students
by providing pre-school remediation for health and other problems
which adversely affect the ability of students to learn once they
begin school. (Negron at 81-2)
172. The Family Resource Center is "severely strapped" because
of state funding. (Negron at 81.)
173. The Classical Magnet program at Quirk includes only 115
students out of 1,417 total (Calvert at 110-111).
8. The Effects of Recent Budget Cuts.
174. The deficiencies of the Hartford school system have been
exacerbated by budget cutbacks. In the 1992-93 school year, while
Hartford administrators asked for an additional 90 position, 108.7
staff positions were cut, including 40 teachers, and a wide range of
support positions, including nurses and other health staff, social
workers and psychologists, administrators, and custodians. (Pls.
Ex. 423; Kennelly pp. 63-66)
175. In the same year, over one million dollars in non-staff
budgetary cuts were made, including reductions in planned
maintenance expenditures, after-school programs, athletics, and
textbook acquisition. (Pls’ Ex. 424)
176. Similar, but less severe cuts, were made in 1990 and 1991
one of which have been restored. (Kennelly pp. 71-73)
177. Hartford's reading programs have lost all 31 reading
consultants in the system (Senteio p. 14; Haig p. 60). As a result,
no one is available to test students or determine their reading
level or the appropriate reading instructional materials for them
(Carso p-105; Montanez p. 22).
178. The Hartford School District has had to eliminate needed
guidance counsellor positions, which prevented the Hartford schools
from providing the kind of day-to-day guidance, categorization of
students, and career guidance that they should provide (Dickens pp.
153-154; Noel p. 31-32; Haig: p. 60).
179. Cuts in administrative staff have also created
difficulties in coordination (Griffin p. 89) and supervision (Haig
p. 60; Shea pp. 121, 128).
180. The loss of teaching staff limits the options available
to students (Shea p. 123).
181. The loss of paraprofessionals interferes with the ability
of teachers to individualize instruction (Shea p. 124).
182. Custodial cuts mean that grass grows higher and graffiti
stays up longer (Shea p. 125).
183. The bilingual and ESOL programs have suffered a reduction
of six English as a Second Language teachers, a reduction since the
early 1980s from seven to three bilingual testers (Marichal pp. 23-
24), a reduction in bilingual speech-language clinicians (Pls’ Ex.
441 p. 8), and Spanish remediation positions (Pls’ Ex. 441 p. 15).
184. In deciding which programs to preserve and which to cut,
the administration has been compelled to choose the least among all
evils. (Wilson pp. 9-23)
185. Cuts have come in the wake of reduced state funding in
the amount of $600,000 (Kennelly at 63; Pls’ Ex. 423)
186. The school system does not have the resources to meet the
academic needs of their students. (Morris at 141; Senteio at 26)
9. Cumulative Effects of Deficient Resources
187. Over a cumulative career of a student, inadequate
textbooks, educational supplies, and other educational resources
begin to erode the quality of the educational program, making it
more difficult for students to learn and more difficult for teachers
to teach (Natriello I pp. 132-33; Table 10, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 380).
188. Dr. Natriello stated one "must look beyond some of the
surface level aggregate data," and "move down to the program level,"
to evaluate educational resources (Natriello p. 132)
189. In every category which reflects the important
programmatic resources, i.e. textbooks and instructional supplies,
library books and periodicals, equipment, and plant operation, the
average Hartford expenditures are substantially below the average
statewide expenditures of the twenty-one districts in the region.
(Pls". Ex. 163, p. 79; Natriello 11 p. 12).
190. The resources in the Hartford school district are
severely deficient across grade levels, and across subjects, and the
gap remains constant with no indication of improvement. (Natriello
II p. 20)
B. EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES FOR HARTFORD'S STUDENTS ARE DEFICIENT
AND WORSENING.
1. Connecticut Mastery Tests
191. The Connecticut Mastery Test can be used to evaluate
whether a school or district is providing a minimally adequate
education. (Pls’ Ex. 494 pp. 82-84)
192. The Connecticut Mastery Test is a high quality, criterion
referenced test that provides an important indicator of quality of
education. (Natriello pp. 136-140)
193. The Connecticut Mastery Tests (CMT) are the state’s own
measure of the quality of education in the state (Allison p. 79;
Pls’ Ex. 163 at 255-260).
194. Mastery tests are the "best measure" of student
‘achievement. (Ferrandino Deposition, Pls’ Ex. 494, p. 37 )
195. The consensus on the state board is that the CMT is a
valuable tool in judging the outputs of the school systems. (Mannix
Deposition, Pls’ Ex. 495, p. 17)
196. Proficiency testing "can be a starting point for a
broader assessment of educational equity and quality." Joint
Committee on Education, 1978 session, p. 479, March 22, 1978.
197. The CMT was intended to be used to "give the state a type
of instrument that it can use in a very positive way to truly assess
the educational condition of the state and in turn, to divert our
resources accordingly." Testimony of Tirozzi, Joint Committee on
Education, 1984 Session, p. 12 (February 27, 1984).
198. When the CMT program was expanded to 10th grade in 1990,
the role of the test in evaluating educational performance was
generally acknowledged. (See Joint Committee on Education, 1990
Session, pp. 814, 815-16, 838-39 (March 16, 199%90).)
199. Exhibits A-O attached to Pls’ Reply Brief are an accurate
update of Dr. Natriello’s original charts on pp. 85, 87,.89,:97, 99,
101, 198-99, 201, 203-04, 206, 251, 253-54 of his report with the
92-93 data already introduced at trial.
200. Substantial numbers of Hartford students are not able to
master substantial numbers of the CMT objectives. (Natriello p.
147)
201. For 1992, Hartford fourth graders mastered 15.8
mathematics objectives, sixth graders mastered 16.7, and eighth
graders mastered 18.1, showing no significant improvement from prior
years. (Natriello p. 144; Pls’ Ex. 503)
202. Hartford’s average numbers of mathematics objectives
mastered were lower at all three grade levels in 1992-93 than they
were three years before, in 1989-90. (For 1992-93 figures, see Pls’
Ex. A-C;3 for 1989-90 figures, see Pls’ Ex. 300, p. 70; Pls’ Ex.
301, p. 78; and Pls" Bx. 302, p. 77.)
2023. In 1992, Hartford fourth graders mastered 3.1 of 9
language arts objectives, sixth graders mastered 4.7 of 11
3 Exhibits A-I are exhibits, created by Dr. Natriello and
attached to the Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief. They are based on 1992-93
Mastery Test data which was introduced at trial as Pls’ Ex. 512 a-c.
objectives, and eighth graders mastered 5.4 of the 11 objectives.
Exhibits D-F.
204. In 1992, Hartford fourth graders mastered 3.1 language
arts objectives, and sixth and eighth graders showed no significant
change either. (Natriello p. 149-50; Pls. Ex. 503)
205. The percentage of Hartford students failing to meet state
goals extend beyond subgroups of minority students or students in
poverty... (Pls’ Ex. 163. at 260)
206. In the fourth, sixth, and eighth grades, 58% of
non-minority students in Hartford fell below the state goal for
math, 47% for reading, and 84% for writing. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 260
and Figure 101 at 261)
207. In the fourth, sixth, and eighth grades, 81% of the
non-poor (free and reduced lunch) students in Hartford fell below
the state goal for math, 70% for reading, and 89% for writing.
(Pls’ Ex. 163 at 261-262 and Figure 102)
208. Large numbers of Hartford students are not able to meet
the remedial standards on the CMT. (Exhibits M-0; Pls’ Ex. 163 at
251-254, Figures 95-97)
209, Percentages of Hartford students not meeting remedial
standards have also increased since the previous year in fourth
grade mathematics and holistic writing and sixth grade mathematics.
(Exhibits M-0O, Figures 95-96 to Pls’ Reply Brief; Pls. Ex. 163, pp.
251-253, Figures 95-96)
210. 72% of students in the fourth grade (up from 64% the year
before) 67% of sixth graders (up from 62%) and 57% of eighth graders
(up from 55%) are not able to reach the bare minimum levels of
performance in reading. (Exhibits M-0, Figures 95-97 to Pls’ Reply
Brief; Pls’ Ex. 163, pp. 251-54, Figures 95-97.)
211. Connecticut Mastery Test scores for Hartford and the
surrounding districts (1985-1993) are accurately set out‘ in
plaintiffs’ exhibits 290-309, and 512.
2. Metropolitan Achievement Tests
212, Results from the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT)
indicate by the 10th grade, the average Hartford student performs
2.0 grades below grade level on the math section of the test (Pls’
Ex. 163 at 125). On the language section, the average Hartford 10th
grade student performs 1.7 grades below grade level (Pls’ Ex. 163 at
127). On the reading section, the average Hartford student performs
2.9 grades below grade level (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 128).
213. Defs. Ex. 13.10 shows that Hartford students are "falling
farther and farther behind grade level" in all three areas measured
by the MAT as they progress from second to tenth grade. (Nearine,
pp. 136-37; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 124-35; Natriello p. 161)
214. Hartford students who were in the same school for two
consecutive administrations of the MAT fell further behind grade
level in reading in seven of the eight grade levels studied.
(Nearine, pp. 139-40; Defs’ Ex. 13.11). Defs. Ex. 13.11 shows
similar results in mathematics (five of eight grades) and language
(six of the eight grades).
215. Tables 1, 3, and 5 of Defs. Ex. 2.34 show that in each of
the years from 1989 to 1992, Hartford tenth graders had lower NCE
results than Hartford first graders in each of the three areas
tested. In the language area, the difference between the first
grade NCE and the tenth grade NCE in 1992 was 18.8 points. The
overall school system average NCE scores were lower in 1992 than
they were in 1989 in all three categories tested.
216. The Hartford 1991 MAT NCE scores were lower than the 1990
scores recorded in Exs. 13.13 and 13.14 (Nearine, p. 146).
21%. Hartford students tend to fall significantly further
behind national norms on the MAT by grade 9 than in grade 2.
(Nearine, p. 143)
3. SABE
218. The Spanish Assessment of Basic Education (SABE)
demonstrates by the eighth grade, Hartford students taking this test
are 2.0 grades below their grade placement levels in the mathematics
portion (Pls. Ex. 163 at 136).
219. In the reading section, 8th grade students fall below the
grade placement levels by 3.1 grades (Pls. Ex. 163 at 138).
220. Bilingual education program students’ gains are not
processing adequately in either English or Spanish in mathematics in
grades 7 and 8. (Defs’- Ex. 13.6 at 11)
221. In each instance, the test shows Hartford students
. falling farther and farther behind as they progress through the
Hartford schools. (Natriello pp. 163-64)
4. Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)
222. The average score of Hartford students on the SAT
mathematics section was 354; only 2% scored above 600. The average
score on the verbal section was 314; only 0.2% scored above 600.
(Pls’ Ex. 163 at 140)
5%. Graduation and Drop-Out Rates
223. The dropout rate is a key indicator of the condition of
education. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 141)
224. Approximately one-third of the students in the Hartford
high schools drop out. This is a substantial drop out problem.
(Natriello p. 169; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 142-143; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 144-45,
Table 12)
225. Of those Hartford students who were ninth graders in
1987, only 36% stayed until the end of high school and graduated.
(Natriello p. 169-70; Table 12, Pls’ Ex. 1563 at 144)
226. Hartford has inadequate programs to help prevent students
from dropping out (Shea p. 118).
27. Fewer than 30% of Hartford students attend four year
colleges in the October following graduation. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 146)
IV. DOES THE RACIAL, ETHNIC AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION AND POVERTY
CONCENTRATION COUPLED WITH DISPARITIES IN RESOURCES AND
OUTCOMES VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO EQUAL EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES UNDER ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE
FIRST, SECTIONS 1 AND 20?
A. STUDENTS’ SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS IN HARTFORD METROPOLITAN
AREA SCHOOLS
228. Over 16,000 children in the city live in poverty, giving
Hartford the sixth highest child poverty rate among America’s 200
largest cities. (Pls’ Ex. 456; Orfield I pp. 18-19)
229. Dr. Gary Natriello is a professor of Sociology and
Education at Teachers’ College, Columbia University, who prepared an
extensive report on the resources available in the Hartford School
District and other Connecticut school districts. Dr Natriello is an
expert in the provision of educational services to children.
(Natriello pp. 43-49; Pls’ Ex. 162)
230. The methodology of Natriello study was sound and
consistent with professional standards. (Pls’ Ex. 163; Natriello
Pp. 51-53).
231. The data on which the Natriello study was based consisted
primarily of reports by defendants and entirely of official reports
by governmental bodies. (Pls’ Ex. 163; Natriello pp. 51-53, 70)
232. Much of the data on which the Natriello study relied,
including Exhibits 208, 216, 217, 219 and 227 was stipulated to.
(Natriello p. 70)
233. The Natriello study accurately reports facts about the
schools in Hartford, neighboring communities, and the state.® (Pls’
Ex. 163; Forman pp. 40-42)
234. Sixty-three percent of Hartford’s students receive free
and reduced lunch. As a result of the methodology used by Hartford
schools, this statistic may underestimate the percentage of students
participating in the free and reduced lunch program. (Natriello p.
67)
235. Health factors such as being born with low birth weight,
being born to a mother on drugs at birth or being born to a teen
mother has been correlated with later educational and cognitive
difficulties, student health, student attendance and student
performance. (Natriello I p. 63)
236. Many children in Hartford are born to teenage mothers.
A high proportion of these teens are in school themselves and are
ill-equipped to take care of a newborn. (Noel p. 30)
237. In a community with low employment rates, students do not
learn the value of education. (Natriello pp. 87-89)
238. A high proportion of Hartford students live in poor
housing, including doubled-up quarters in the projects, and
frequently move. (Griffin p. 84; Negron p. 64)
239. Hartford principals report high levels of student
mobility in the schools. (Natriello pp. 80-81)
240. Hartford had the lowest percentage (72%) of elementary
students who have attended a particular school for at least one year
which causes instability for the students and additional burdens on
staff. In the suburban districts, the percent ranges from 78.9 to
97%. (Natriello ‘Il pp. 6-7; Figure 35,.Pls’' Ex. 163 at 135)
241. Many children in the bilingual program have had
interrupted schooling, having been exposed to many different
curricula. (Marichal p. 15)
4
With the exception of Table 4.
242. The effect of poverty in Hartford is highlighted by the
wealth of the surrounding towns, giving the Hartford region one of
the highest rates of city-suburban income disparity in the nation.
{Pls’ Exs. 531,532; Figure 33, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 153: Natriello p.
1717)
243. While median family income in the suburbs has more than
doubled, Hartford’s has risen only $10,000 during the ten year
period from 1980-1990. (Rindone at 120)
244. While the percent of families below the poverty level
decreased from 1980-1990, in eighteen of the twenty-one suburban
towns, ‘it not only increased .in. Hartford, but the increased
percentage differential was greater than in all of the other towns.
(Defs’ Ex. 8.2; Rindone at 119-21)
245, Hartford’s poor are getting poorer in comparison to
surrounding communities. (Pls! Ex. 163 at 152 ‘and ‘Figure 33, at
153; Rindone p. 121). In all six areas of indicators of disadvantage
(economic status, family composition, parent educational attainment,
minority status, limited English proficiency, parent labor force
participation) the gap between Hartford and the suburbs has actually
widened during ten year period from 1980-1990. (Rindone at 110-14;
Natriello p. 151, Table 13; Defs’' Ex. 8.1)
246. The presence of indicators of disadvantaging
characteristics in Hartford is much more likely than in Farmington,
Glastonbury, and West Hartford. In all cases, the indicators are at
least double in Hartford. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 149 and Table 13 at 151;
Natriello p. 175)
247. The largest differences in disadvantaging characteristics
between Hartford and the three surrounding communities of
Farmington, Glastonbury and West Hartford are in the areas of free
and reduced lunch (63% Hartford and less than 10% in the three
surrounding communities), minority group membership (92% Hartford
and less than 15% in the three surrounding communities), and parent
labor force participation (40% unemployed in Hartford, less than 3%
in the three surrounding communities). (Natriello p. 176; Table 13,
Pls’ Ex. :163 ‘at 151)
B. RACIAL AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION ARE CLOSELY LINKED IN
HARTFORD
248. Hartford exhibits "an extraordinarily strong
relationship" between race and economic segregation. (Orfield I pp.
24, 20-25)
249. In his 1993 speech to the Legislature, defendant Governor
Weicker admitted that "the racial and economic isolation in
Connecticut’s school system is indisputable.” (Pls’ Ex. 90)
250. A large number of elementary schools are severely
isolated by both class and race. (Pls’ Ex. 513)
251. The State Department of Education has also confirmed the
"joint concentration of both low economic status and minority
enrollment" in Connecticut schools. {(Pls’ Ex. ‘56 at 317) For
example, for fourth grade students statewide, "[t]he schools with
over 80% of their students in the free/reduced lunch category also
had over 80% of their students in minority categories." Id.
252, The high concentration of poverty in the schools is
closely linked to extreme racial segregation in the schools, which
heightens the detrimental impacts of poverty concentration on Black
and Latino students. (Pls’ Ex. 56 at 37)
253. Defendants have admitted that "the combined incidence of
poverty, racial isolation and limited English proficiency presents
major challenges to the provisions of equal educational
opportunities, particularly for children in our urban communities."
(Pls’ Ex. 77 at'7)
Ce. INTEGRATION AND ITS EFFECTS
[See also Section II.C. which is also incorporated herein.]
254. Every student can learn at high levels from a quality and
integrated education. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 11)
255. A quality education requires an integrated student body
and faculty and a curriculum that reflects the heritage of many
cultures, (Pls’ Bx. 73, at 11)
256. The socioeconomic status of individual children and the
concentration of poor children within the schools are
distinguishable concepts. (Crain II at 68, 69)
257. The socioeconomic status of individual children and the
concentration of poor children within the schools each affect the
educational and long-term achievement of students. (Crain II at 68,
69)
258. The independent effect of the concentration of poverty
within the schools can be measured controlling for the effect of
individual factors such as student socioeconomic status or student
race. . {Crain at 69; Armor 1 at 155)
259. It is important to separate out: the effects on
educational achievement of individual characteristics from
community-wide factors, such as school segregation or the quality of
schooling. (Armor I at 21)
260. Difference in individual socioeconomic status and the
concentration of poverty in the schools ‘are both factors in
explaining differences in student performance. (Kennedy pp. 16, 26-
28, 30-31, 70)
251. *he. high concentration of poor children in a school
adversely affects student achievement. (Kennedy pp. 16, 70; Armor
p. 148)
262. Dr. Kennedy is an expert in educational research methods
and program evaluation. (Kennedy at 2-8)
263. Dr. Kennedy has written two reports to the United States
Congress on the effectiveness and on the funding distribution of
Chapter I, the federal compensatory education program designed to
help school districts that serve large concentrations of poor
children. (Kennedy at 6, 9)
264. Dr. Kennedy's testimony was based, in part, on a report
she produced for Congress on the distribution of poor children
across schools, districts, and states, and the relationship between
poverty and achievement. (Kennedy at 11)
265. The methodology of the Kennedy study was sound and
consistent with professional standards. (Pls’ Ex. 419)
266. The Chapter I study was based on a number of data bases,
including the panel study of income dynamics (PSID) developed by the
University of Michigan in the Institute for Social Research, the
Sustaining Effects Study developed by Systems Development
Corporation and the High School and Beyond Database, developed by
the National Center of Education Statistics at the United States
Department of Education. (Kennedy at 12-13)
267. The Chapter I study measured the effects of the
concentration of poverty by calculating the percent of students in
a given school whose families are poor. (Kennedy at 23)
268. School composition, i.e. the percent of poor children
attending a particular school, is related to student achievement.
(Kennedy at 16)
269. The concentration effect is not limited to students who
are themselves poor but to other students in the school as well.
(Kennedy at 26)
270. Achievement levels of both poor and non-poor students are
lower in high poverty concentration schools. (Kennedy pp. 26-28)
271. The concentration of poverty has adverse effects on
achievement levels over and above the effects of family poverty.
{Kennedy ‘at 27, 31; Pls’ Ex. 508b)
272. The negative effect of the concentration of poverty on
student achievement is found even when indicators of individual
socioeconomic status such as mother’s level of education, the number
of siblings and family poverty are controlled. (Kennedy at 30-31,
75)
273. The effects of the concentration of poverty on student
achievement may be underestimated because poverty concentration has
a high correlation with the child’s starting level of achievement.
(Kennedy at 78)
274. Dr Kennedy performed a statistical analysis to control
for such individual variables as the mother’s education, the family
poverty, the student’s gender, whether the mother worked outside the
home, the number of siblings and whether the family language was
English, and found that poverty concentration still had a
significant effect on students’ achievement at virtually every grade
level. (Kennedy pp. 30-31)
275. The effect of the concentration of poverty was a part
from and larger than the effect of the students’ individual poverty.
{Pls’ ‘Ex. 508b)
276. The disparity in achievement between schools with a high
concentration of poor students and schools with a lower percentage
of poor students widens as the children continue through school.
(Kennedy at 30)
277. Economic isolation has negative implications for the long
term educational attainment of Latino and Puerto Rican students and
is consistent with the negative impact of the concentration of
poverty experienced by African American and white students. (Pls’
Ex. 481-J; Trent pp. 50, 59, 75)
278. The concentration of problems in Hartford have a negative
effect on the ability of students to learn even above the effect of
each individual item. (Natriello pp. 92-94)
279. The effects of high concentration of poverty of
disadvantaged students in a school district can be eliminated by
changing the concentration of disadvantaging characteristics along
with efforts that address the problems through special programs.
(Natriello 111 p. 175)
280. Reductions in poverty concentration can positively affect
student achievement (Orfield I pp. 59-60).
281. Independent of individual socioeconomic status, the
concentration of poor students in the schools has negative
consequences for the educational attainment of Latino, African
American, and white students. (Pls’ Exs. 481J, K, O; Trent at 50,
56-59, 75-76)
282. Independent of the socioeconomic status of the individual
students, the concentration of poor students in the school has
negative consequences for the occupational attainment of students
across ethnic groups, including Puerto Ricans, Latinos generally,
and African Americans. (Pls’ Ex. 481C; Trent at 34, 36, 38, 40, 74)
283. Independent of the socioeconomic status of the individual
student, for African American students, the concentration of poor
students in the school has negative consequences for future income.
{Pls’ Ex. 481g; Trent at 45, 75)
284. Independent of the socioeconomic status of the individual
students, the concentration of poor students in the schools has
negative consequences for the likelihood of developing positive co-
worker relations across racial lines. (Pls’ Ex. 481lv)
D. INADEQUACIES OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM
[See Section III.A., which is incorporated herein. ]
E. INTERDISTRICT COMPARISONS DEMONSTRATE ENORMOUS DISPARITIES
IN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES BETWEEN HARTFORD AND SUBURBAN
SCHOOLS.
285. Disparities in educational resources between Hartford and
the suburbs represent yet another layer of inequity facing Hartford
school children who are already burdened by racial and economic
isolation (Orfield 1 p. 138).
286. The State Board of Education has stated that progress in
achieving equal educational opportunity can be measured by comparing
resources available to resources needed. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 233-33;
Pls’ Ex. 39; Pls’ Ex 43; Natriello II at 41-42)
287. Hartford students are receiving fewer resources in
relation to their needs than students in surrounding districts.
{Pls’ Ex. 163 at 233)
288. The concentration of "at-risk" children in Hartford
classrooms overwhelms the normal teaching process (Dudley pp. 126-
27; Anderson p. 113). In comparison, the education process can be
conducted with relative ease in non-poverty-concentrated schools
{(Pitocco pp. 65-66; Dudley. p. 128; Pls’ Ex. 494 at 61-62).
289. Although Hartford’s net expenditures per pupil appear
relatively high, when the net current expenditures per "need
student" of Hartford and the surrounding suburbs is compared,
Hartford ranks fifteenth among the twenty-two Hartford area
districts and 69th among all school districts in Connecticut,
leaving Hartford at a disadvantage compared to other school
districts in the area.
(Pls’ Ex. 163 at '157,.161; Natriello II pp..-8,-10
290. Many of the budget comparisons between Hartford and
surrounding communities understate the disparities since they look
at overall budget and ignore the greater needs of the Hartford
students. (Natriello II pp. 9-10)
1. Staffing and Curriculum
291. It costs the Hartford school district more money to hire
and retain staff than it does in the surrounding districts. (Pls'
Ex. 163 at 178 and Figure 49; Natriello 11 pp. 17-18)
292. Greater personnel costs in the Hartford schools as
compared with suburban districts are not a result of differences in
the quantity of staff available, or of lower class sizes. (Pls’ Ex.
163 at 55, 58; Natriello p. 111, 115)
293. Greater personnel costs in the Hartford schools are a
result of higher salaries, but those higher salaries do not mean
greater resources for the students. Hartford is spending more but
purchasing less. (Natriello p. 115)
294. All but two of the 22 surrounding districts have greater
percentages of teachers trained as mentors, assessors and
cooperating teachers. (Figure 40, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 167; Natriello II
p. 14)
295. Hartford has many fewer teachers trained as mentors,
assessors, or cooperating teachers (11.5%) than other Connecticut
districts (18.6% statewide). (Table 4, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 53)
296. Hartford does not have more teachers, instructional
specialists, counselors, social workers, administrators, or
certified staff per pupil than the 22 surrounding districts.
(Figures 41-45, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 169-73; Natriello II p. 15-16)
297. All of the 22 surrounding districts have substantially
higher percentages of teachers with masters degree than Hartford.
(Pls’ Ex. 163 at 165 and Figure 39 at 166; Natriello II p. 13)
298. In the middle schools, Hartford has fewer hours of
instruction than twenty of the twenty-one surrounding districts.
(Figure 47, Pls’ Ex. 183 at 176; Natriello II pp. 16-17)
299. In the high schools, Hartford has fewer hours of
instruction than all of the surrounding districts, with three
districts offering over 11% more instructional time than Hartford.
(Figure 47, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 176; Natriello 11 pp. 16-17)
300. All but one of the high schools in the three comparison
communities offers more language instruction than any high school in
Hartford and that one high school offers more language instruction
than two of the three Hartford high schools. (Natriello II at 20;
Pigure 50, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 182.)
2. Pupil and Instructional Services
301. Hartford offers fewer hours of instruction than the state
average, a disparity that in the high school years amounts to a
difference of 905 hours versus 970. (Table 8, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 67;
Natriello p. 122)
302. Expenditures for purchased personnel services that are
not part of payroll (such as teaching assistants, medical doctors,
curriculum consultants, therapists and psychologists) are
dramatically lower in Hartford than in other districts in the region
and lower than the state-wide average. {Natriello II 'p. 18:
Natriello p. 116-17; Pls’ Bx. 163 at 63; Table 14, Pls’ Ex. 163 at
164; Natriello 11, pp. 11-12, 18)
303. Because the time spent on instruction does make a
difference in learning, Hartford students are disadvantaged by the
Hartford schools compared to other students in the state and in
surrounding communities. (Natriello p. 122)
3. Textbook and Instructional Supplies
304. Over the three years from 1988-89 through 1990-91,
Hartford spent an average of $78 per pupil on textbooks and
instructional supplies as compared to the state-wide average of $148
during the same time period. The twenty-two surrounding districts
spent an average of $159 per pupil, over twice as much as spent by
Hartford. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 164, Table 14; Natriello II pp. 11-12)
4. Library Books and Periodicals
305. Hartford spent an average of $5 per pupil on [library
books and periodicals] over the three year period from 1988-91, and
the twenty-two surrounding districts spent, on average, $18 for the
three years -- a "dramatic difference" (Neuman-Johnson II pp. 6-7;
Griffin pp. 90,97; Wilson p. 10-12).
306. Hartford's expenditures on library books and periodicals
was also less than 1/3 of the state-wide average. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at
68)
307. The Hartford figure is less than 28% of the average of
the 22 surrounding communities. (Natriello II pp 11-12, 21)
308. According to the Connecticut State Department of
Education, Bureau of Grants Services, over a five year period from
1986-87 through 1990-91, there was a wide disparity in expenditures
for library books and materials between Hartford and the suburbs
with Hartford acquiring an average of 4 books per pupil and the
suburbs acquiring 16 or four times that amount. (Pls’' Ex. 163 at
70)
309. Failing to spend sufficient money on library books and
periodicals has a cumulative effect over years, causing increasingly
less adequate libraries. (Natriello p. 126; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 68)
5. Eguipment
310. Hartford spent less on equipment ($25) than the statewide
average ($91) or than the three comparison communities ($109-115) or
than the 22 surrounding communities ($97). (Natriello II pp. 11-12;
Table 14, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 164)
311. Hartford lacks foreign language laboratory facilities in
comparison to Glastonbury, West Hartford and Farmington. (Natriello
I1 pp.-19, 20)
312. For the three year period beginning 1988-89, average per
pupil expenditure for equipment, meaning items with an expected
useful life of more than one year, was $25 for Hartford and the
statewide average was over $90. Hartford thus had less than 28% of
the average state expenditures. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 71; Natriello p.
127)
313. Hartford students have substantially less access to
computers than students in the three comparison communities and
elsewhere in the state with, for example, 17.7 K-6 elementary
students per computer statewide and 45.8 students per computer in
Hartford. (Table 9, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 72, 184-189; Natriello p. 127;
Natriello II pp. 22-23)
314. Dr. Natriello observed many fewer computers in Hartford
than in Glastonbury. (Natriello p. 128)
6. Plants and Facilities
315. Hartford spent less on plant operations ($162) than the
statewide average ($266) or than the three comparison communities
(3201-300) or than the 22 surrounding communities ($272).
{Natriello 11 p. 11-12, 23; Table 14, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 164)
316. Hartford schools have fewer specialized facilities such
as art rooms, auditoriums, cafeterias, gymnasia and music rooms than
the three comparison communities. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 191 and Figures
55-58 at 192-195)
317. For the three year period beginning 1988-89, Hartford
expenditures on plant operations were only 60.8% of those spent
statewide. - (Natriello p. 129; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 74)
318. For 1990-91, per pupil expenditures for plant operation
and maintenance in the Hartford schools were $79 or more than 10%
less than the average amount spent statewide. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 75)
319. For 1990-91, per pupil expenditures for land, buildings
and debt service were $210 in Hartford but the average was $351
statewide. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 75)
F. DISPARITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
1. Connecticut Mastery Tests
320. Hartford performance levels are uniformly and
substantially below average performance levels of students in all
other districts (Natriello II pp. 26, 29).
32); Hartford students perform less well, in many cases
substantially so, than students statewide in all four CMT subjects,
in every subarea, on every objective, on each grade level, and for
all five years of testing. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 123-24; Natriello, p.
156)
322. The disparities between CMT scores of Hartford students
and those statewide, by the eighth grade, understates the
differences because many more of the Hartford eighth graders will be
older than their normal peer group. (Natriello pp. 153-54)
323. The disparities between CMT scores of Hartford students
and those statewide understates the differences because many more
Hartford students do not take the test. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 117-124)
324. Given the deficits in resources in Hartford, it is not
surprising that there are deficits in outcomes. (Natriello p. 173)
325. The Hartford school system ‘is not able to produce
outcomes comparable to statewide results. (Natriello p. 142-43)
326. The State Board of Education has stated that outcomes
should not depend on a child’s race, sex or place of residence.
{(Pls’ Bx. 163 at 233, 247, Pls’ Ex. 39; Pls’ Ex. 43: Natriello II at
43)
327. Hartford students who took the Connecticut Mastery Test
in math uniformly mastered fewer objectives than did the students in
the surrounding districts. (Pls” ‘Ex. 163 at 197-201 and Figures
59-61, Exhibits G-I; Natriello II at 27)
328. In 1992, Hartford students at all three grades also
scored substantially lower on the CMT math test than the statewide
average. (Exhibits A-C)
329. This pattern of poorer achievement on the CMT by Hartford
students 1s essentially the same for the reading and writing
portions of the test. (Natriello 1I pp. 27-29; Exhibits J-L)
330. In 1992, Hartford students at all three grades also
scored substantially lower on the CMT language arts test than the
statewide average. (Exhibits D-F)
331. In comparison to the surrounding twenty-one districts,
Hartford students scored the lowest average number of objectives
mastered in both mathematics and language arts in all three grade
levels (Pls’ Reply Brief, Exs. G-L; Revised Natriello Report,
Figures 59-64; Natriello 11 p. 29)
332. Hartford students scored in the lowest range of average
scores on the CMT in all grades in math, in all grades in language
arts, in all grades in DRP, and in two of the three grades in
holistic writing. (Figures 83-94, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 235-46; Natriello
II, p. 44-48)
333. Data from the 1992 mastery test scores show that Hartford
students’ performance on the CMT in comparison to the state average
actually declined from the previous year in the number of
mathematics objectives mastered, (Exhibit A, Fourth grade- Figure 1;
Exhibit B, Sixth Grade- Figure 2;) and the number of language arts
objectives mastered (Fourth Grade- Figure 7; Exhibit D, Sixth Grade-
Figure 8Y.5
334. The DRP (Degrees of Reading Power) portion of the CMT
measures the ability of students to read and understand material at
various levels. (Natriello p. 149)
335, Hartford fourth, sixth and eighth graders consistently
performed at levels significantly below the statewide average in the
DRP portion of the CMT test from 1987 to 1992, (Figures 13-15, Pls’
Ex. 163 at 107-09; Natriello pp. 150-51; Pls’ Ex. 503)
336. The Holistic Scores portion of the CMT measures written
products on the basis of their overall quality. (Pls’' Ex. :163uat
110)
337. Hartford fourth, sixth, and eighth graders consistently
performed at levels significantly below the statewide average in the
Holistic Scores portion of the CMT test from 1987 to 1992. (Pls’
Ex. 163 at 110-13 and PFPigures 16-18; Pls’ Ex. 503)
2. Credits Earned
338. Hartford students consistently earn fewer credits than
most of their suburban counterparts: (Pls' Ex. 163 at 214-223;
Natriello If p. 30-32).
330. Hartford students earn fewer credits than the state
average, especially in courses for college credit. (Table 8, Pls’
Ex. 163 at«67; Natriello pp. 123-28)
340. Only 2.4% of Hartford’s students earn college credits in
high school courses for college credit. In the surrounding suburbs,
as many as 43.7% of the students earn these credits, and the lowest,
East Granby, has a rate more than three times that of Hartford.
(Pls’' Fx.-163 at 222, Pilg. 77)
341. The credits earned comparisons overstate Hartford's
success because they ignore the higher dropout rate in Hartford.
(Pls’ Ex. 163 at 214; Natriello Il pp. 29-30)
3. Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores
342. Hartford students do substantially worse on the SAT than
other Connecticut students (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 140).
343. The differences between statewide SAT scores and Hartford
SAT scores understates the actual differences given the percentage
of students who take the test. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 141)
4. Graduation and Drop-Out Rates
344. The drop-out rate for Hartford schools is substantially
greater than for Connecticut public schools in general. (Pls’ Ex.
163 at 142, 144, 145)
345. Approximately 640 Hartford students dropped out in 1992
compared to only about 23 students dropping out of West Hartford's
high schools (Shea p. 117).
346. Graduation rates for Blacks and Hispanic students
statewide are significantly lower than for white students. In fact,
generally the graduation rate for white students has steadily
increased, whereas the rates for Black and Hispanic students have
fluctuated. (Pls’' Ex..- 77 p. 27)
347. Connecticut’s total 77.7% graduation rate (the proportion
of ninth graders who graduate from high school) ranked among the
highest in the nation. The graduation rate for Black students
(62.2%) and Hispanic students (51.1%) continue to be "unacceptably
low” and below the rate of white students (82.5%). (Pls’ Ex. 79 p.
33; Pls’ Ex. 84 p. 8)
5 Patterns of Post-Secondary Education and Work Activities.
348. Hartford students were more likely than students
statewide to be unemployed after graduation. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 147)
349. Hartford has the highest number of graduates neither
employed or in higher education (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 230, Fig. 82).
Vv. HAS THE STATE BEEN INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING RACIAL, ETHNIC AND
ECONOMIC SEGREGATION, UNEQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, AND
LACK OF A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION, DOES THE STATE HAVE AN
AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES, AND HAS THE STATE
FAILED TO ACT TO REMEDY THESE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES?
A. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION HISTORICALLY
350. The duty of providing for the education of Connecticut
school children, through the support and maintenance of public
schools, has always been deemed a governmental duty resting upon the
sovereign state. (Defs’ Rev. Answer 167)
351. The statutory mission of the State Board of Education is
the responsibility to ensure that each child shall have an equal
opportunity to receive a suitable program of educational
experiences. (Defs” Ex. 3.1 p. 2)
352. Christopher Collier, a professor of history at the
University of Connecticut and the official State Historian for the
state of Connecticut, is an expert in Connecticut and American
history. -(Pls’ Ex. 284; Collier p. 2~6)
353. Since the time of its founding as a colony, under the
auspices of Massachusetts, the towns have not been autonomous.
{Collier pp. 7,53)
354. During the course of Connecticut history, the State of
Connecticut has delegated authority to towns, societies and
districts to administer education but the control of education and
policymaking has always remained with the State. (Collier pp. 24-
25)
355. Throughout most of Connecticut’s history, the state has
delegated administrative responsibility for education to entities
other than the towns. (Collier p. 54)
356. By the late Nineteenth Century more than two hundred
school districts crossed town lines; most of these districts
contained one school, which was within walking distance of student's
homes. (Collier p. 22)
357. During the early Nineteenth Century, there were separate
public schools for Black children in the state of Connecticut,
including two schools for African American children in Hartford.
(Collier at 47)
358. Even after districts were consolidated, many of
Connecticut’s public school students crossed town lines to attend
high schools. (Collier pp. 31, 40)
359. In the 1930s, the state established a system of regional
high schools to meet the needs of students in rural areas. These
regional high schools crossed town lines. (Collier p. 30)
360. Students in the Hartford metropolitan area crossed
district lines to attend public high school in Hartford. (Collier
pp. 40-41)
B. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION TODAY
361. The state requires school district lines be coterminous
with town boundaries (C.G.S. § 10-240).
362. The state requires that children attend school within the
school district where they reside (C.G.S. § 10-184).
363. The maintenance of the system whereby school district
lines are coterminous with towns contributes to the racial and
ethnic segregation of students within the schools. (Collier at 53)
364. Between 1950 and 1980, defendants approved and funded the
construction of over 100 new schools in virtually all-white suburban
communities, representing over 50% of total enrollment in the
Hartford region (Pls’' Exs. 158, 150, ‘151, 112)
365. Between 1950 and 1980, defendants also funded a major
expansion of school capacity in the increasingly racially
concentrated and poverty concentrated schools in the Hartford school
districk (Id.)
366. Defendants have extensive approval authority over new
schools built, and have reimbursed local districts for between 50%-
B0% of total construction costs. (Brewer p. 182; Gordon pp. 133,
135-36; Pls’ exs. 142, 143, 160)
367. Defendants have continued to approve funding and oversee
the construction or expansion of segregated single district schools
since 1980 (see Pls’ Exs. 142, 143, 160; §§510-282, et seq.).
368. State school construction policies and zoning regulations
also contribute to the racial and ethnic segregation of students
within the schools. (Collier at 53)
369. Residential segregation has occurred, at least in part,
as a result of discriminatory treatment of African Americans,
including discriminatory treatment by public officials. (Collier at
45)
370. Defendant State Board of Education has "general
supervision and control [over] the educational interests of the
state," §10-4, and exercises broad supervision over schools
throughout the State.
371. Defendants require students who do not meet State
standards to continue to take the examinations until they meet or
exceed expected performance levels. See id.
C. THE STATE HAS BEEN AWARE OF THE HARMS OF RACIAL AND
ECONOMIC ISOLATION IN THE SCHOOLS AND THE SERIOUS
INEQUITIES FACING CITY SCHOOLCHILDREN, AND HAS REPEATEDLY
FAILED TO TAKE ACTION TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS.
1. Defendants Have Admitted that Racial Segregation is
Harmful.
372. Defendant Commissioner Vincent Ferrandino and former
Commissioner Gerald Tirozzi acknowledged the harms of racial
segregation (Pls’' Ex. 493 at: 35, 39, 138-139; Pls’ Ex. 494 at ll-
12%.
373. Commissioner Tirozzi admitted that both he and the State
Board of Education had been aware of the harmful effects of racial
segregation during his tenure as Commissioner (Pls’ Ex. 494 at 1l1-
12; Williams pp. 81-82)
374. Commissioner Ferrandino agreed that racial and economic
integration would improve educational achievement in Hartford (Pls’
Bx. 493 at 138-139).
375. The State of Connecticut has stated that "segregation is
educationally, morally and legally wrong" (Defs’ Ex. 12.5; Pls’ EX.
50).
376. The state has found that "a multicultural environment is
an irreplaceable component of quality education" (Defs’ Ex. 12.29;
Pls’ Ex. 60), which benefits both minority and non-minority students
alike. (Defs! Ex. 12.5).
377. The Governor's Commission found that the goal of "quality
and integrated education" currently is blocked by increasing racial
isolation. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 3)
2. Defendants Have Long Been Aware That Concentration of
Poverty Has a Harmful Impact on the Educational Process.
378. In 1989, the Department of Education acknowledged the
effect of poverty concentration on achievement and other educational
outcomes, concluding that "low achievement outcomes associated with
poverty are intensified by geographic and racial concentrations.
(Pls' Ex. 60 at 1; Orfield I -p. 59; Orfield 11 pp. 117, 121.122,
124-26; Pls’ Bx. 493 at 36; Pls’ Ex. 494 at 58, 67-69)
379, Numerous other of defendants’ own internal documents
admit the harmful effects of poverty concentration. (Pls’ Ex. 70 at
17; Pls’ Ex. 455)
380. The former commissioners of the State Department of
Education acknowledged harmful effects of poverty concentration.
(Pls’ Ex. 493 at 36, 40; Pls’ Ex. 494 at 67-69)
381. Defendant Ferrandino stated, "[w]e believe that by
breaking down racial isolation and by eliminating the concentrations
of poverty we should see improved student achievement." (Defs’ Ex.
514; Williams pp. 81-82)
3. Defendants Have Been Aware of the Other Severe Educational
Inequities Facing Schoolchildren in the City of Hartford
Including Disparities in Student Resources and Outcomes.
382. Defendants acknowledged in a report entitled "Report of
the Governor, Measuring Connecticut’s Progress Toward Meeting The
National Bducation Goals,” October 2, .1991 (Pls. Ex. 79) that:
a. "[w]lhen compared by income level, the CMT results show
significant performance differences. Students in poverty conditions
(i.e., very poor and poor students) are experiencing severe academic
deficiencies as compared to all other students.” (p. 12)
b. "The CMT results by race/ethnicity continue to show
large differences between white and minority students. The largest
differences are in the percentage of white students scoring at or
above the goal and the percentages of black and Hispanic students
scoring at or above the goal." (p.12) See also p. 34.
c. As to the performance on the National Assessment of
Education Progress (NAEP) in mathematics, "Connecticut students from
disadvantaged urban areas had average scores (237) significantly
lower than their national counterparts (249). This seems to reflect
the concentration of poverty in Connecticut’s cities, which include
two of the poorest communities in the nation." (p. 15)
ad; As to performance on the NAEP, "[m]any more white
students reached relatively high levels of performance compared with
black and Hispanic students. For example, while 23 percent of white
students in Connecticut were proficient in the understandings
expected of eighth graders, 3 percent of black students and 2
percent of Hispanic students were proficient in these
understandings." (p. 15)
e. "White students accounted for 83 percent of the
Connecticut SAT test-takers and outscored all other racial/ethnic
groups on the verbal test. Asian Americans outscored all other
groups on the mathematics test." (p. 17)
383. Defendants have been aware of the widening gap between
1987 and 1990 in the performance level of minority and nonminority
students in the mastery tests:
a. In a report entitled "Meeting the Challenge 1990/91
(Pls’ Ex. 77 p.62), defendants acknowledged that the "differences in
performance on the Ct. Mastery Test between white and minority
students failed to narrow between 1987 (the baseline year for
collection of data by race/ethnicity) and 1989.
b. "In a report entitled "Indicators of Success" issued by
Defendant State Board of Education in 1992, (Pls’ Ex. 84) defendants
acknowledged that the "differences in performance on the Connecticut
Mastery Test between white and diverse students widened between 1989
and 1950." {(p. 7)
384. Defendant Commissioner of Education acknowledged that
"student achievement in urban settings is not on the level of
student achievement statewide and is showing no sign of closing the
gap." These trends from 1992 mastery test data indicated that they
exist in each content area and are evident both in relation to the
statewide goal and the remedial standard. (Pls’ Ex. 512d)
385. Defendants acknowledged that there are "clear differences
in the graduation rate by race, with the rate for black and Hispanic
students significantly lower than that for white students." (Pls’
Ex. 77 p. 27: Pls’ Ex. 79 p. 10) They have acknowledged that these
rates are "unacceptably low." (Pls’ Ex. 79)
386. In 1991, defendants acknowledged that "the relative low
achievement of students in urban communities is a growing concern."
(Pls! Ex. 77 at viii)
387. Defendants have also acknowledged that there are "notable
disparities in the number of minority and nonminority students who
pursue further education after high school." (Pls’ Ex. 77 pp. 28-
29; Pls’ Bx. 74 pp. 2-4)
388. Despite Connecticut’s commitment to provide equal
educational opportunity for all of its students, the Governor’s
Commission found inequalities persisting, particularly for those in
urban schools. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 6)
389. The Governor’s Commission observed that a significant
underrepresentation of minority students exists in higher-level
courses while overrepresentation of minority students can be found
in remedial classes. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 6)
390. The Governor's Commission also found that "other
indicators suggest that Connecticut’s minority students have yet to
receive full equal educational opportunities. For example, the
widespread use of tracking and ability grouping persists, despite
the compelling studies that show these practices inhibit student
achievement, particularly for minority students." (Pls’ Ex. 73, at
7)
391. Defendants had knowledge from the strategic school
profiles submitted by each school district to the State Department
of Education as mandated by C.G.S. §10-220(c), of the disparities
between Hartford and the surrounding communities in instruction
time, and in expenditures for textbooks and instructional supplies,
library books and periodicals, equipment, plant operation. (Pls’
Exs. 208-289)
3902. In his January 6, 1993 address, defendant Governor
Weicker acknowledged: "If you are poor, if you are a minority, and
if ‘you: live in one «of our cities, you start: the game at a
disadvantage. While you are born with an equal capacity to learn,
the odds are you will go to a school with fewer resources and with
a greater proportion of at-risk students." (Pls’ Ex. 90)
4. The Defendants Have Been Aware of Feasible Remedies and
Have Failed to Act Over a 30-Year Period.
393. Beginning in the mid-1960s, up to the present, the state
has been repeatedly reminded of the harmful effects of racial and
economic isolation on schoolchildren in Hartford and other cities,
and urged to take strong action. (Gordon II pp. 79-81)
394. During this time, the state was well aware of the growth
in racial and economic isolation in the Hartford schools. (Gordon
I p. 129; passim)
395. The state documented increasing racial isolation on an
annual basis.” (Pls’ BExs. 6; 101-123; Gordon.1-p. 132)
396. The documentation of racial and economic isolation in
Connecticut schools in the 1960s was thorough and comprehensive.
(Pls! Bx."17,-18, 19, 20)
397. Defendants have been on notice that the Hartford Public
School System is a segregated system which will continue to exist
until metropolitan remedies are developed to reduce this isolation.
(Pls’ Ex. 36 at 24)
398. The state has been aware at least since the 1960s that
the use of district lines exacerbated the racial and ethnic
isolation in the Hartford area. (Pls’' Ex. 16 p. 2)
389. The 1965 report, Schools for Hartford, prepared by the
Harvard Graduate School of Education (Pls’ Ex. 1), was the first
report to fully document the growing problem of racial isolation in
the Hartford schools.
400. The "Harvard Report" projected increasing racial
concentrations in the Hartford schools in future years if strong
steps were not taken to promote integration. (Pls’ Ex. 1)
401. The Harvard Report also explicitly focused on the problem
of high poverty concentration in the Hartford schools (Gordon II p.
14).
402. The Harvard report also described the educational harms
that result from segregation (Pls’ Ex. 1 at 10).
403. The Harvard Report contained a feasible interdistrict
proposal that would have significantly alleviated the growing
problem of school segregation at the time it was proposed (Gordon II
Pp. 14-15).
404. In January of 1966, the Connecticut Commission on Civil
Rights urged the State Board of Education to respond to the growing
problem of "de facto" school segregation in Connecticut. (Pls’ Exs.
7a & 7C)
405. The Connecticut Commission pointed out that "[t]here is
evidence that Negro children show improved academic performance in
integrated school situations” (Pls’ Exs. 7a & 7c).
406. In 1966, the Civil Rights Commission presented a formal
request to the governor, seeking legislation that would invest the
State Board of Education with the authority to direct full
integration of local schools which was not adopted. (Defs’ Rev.
Answer 53)
407. In 1966, the Committee of Greater Hartford
Superintendents prepared a federal grant to fund a regional
educational advisory board and various regional programs, one of
whose chief aims would be the elimination of school segregation
within the metropolitan region. (Defs’ Rev. Answer 54)
408. The State Board of Education in December 1966 stated that
"the high concentration of minority group children in urban schools
produces special problems in providing quality education. Isolation
and lack of exposure to the mainstream of American society make it
difficult for these children to achieve their full educational
potential" (Ple’ Ex. 8).
4009. The 1967 Governor’s Conference on Human Rights and
Opportunities included a recommendation for interdistrict
educational parks, and interdistrict transportation to promote
school desegregation (Pls’ Ex. 12b).
410. In 1968, legislation supported by the Civil Rights
Commission was introduced in the Connecticut legislature which would
have authorized the use of state bonds to fund the construction of
racially integrated, urban/suburban "educational parks." (Defs’
Rev. Answer f55)
411. The interdistrict "educational park," was prepared as a
formal legislative proposal in January 1969 by the Legislative
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (Pls’ Ex. 21), but the
educational parks bill died in Committee (Gordon 46-47).
412. In 1968, the legislature did not pass legislation,
proposed by the defendant State Board of Education, that would have
authorized the board to cut off state funding for school districts
that failed to develop acceptable plans for correcting racial
imbalance in local schools. The proposal offered state funding for
assistance in the preparation of the local plans. (Defs’ Rev,
Answer 956)
413. In 1969, the Hartford superintendent of schools called
for an expansion of Project Concern to 5000 students (Gordon II p.
26). This recommendation was never implemented (Gordon 26).
414. In 1969, the legislature passed the Racial Imbalance Act,
an intradistrict desegregation law that legislators knew would have
no impact on interdistrict desegregation. (Gordon II p. 49)
415. The Racial Imbalance law was not even implemented until
ll years later when the legislature finally passed regulations.
{Gordon 11 p. 51)
416. The delay in passing regulations to implement the racial
balance law was due in large part to political resistance. (Pls’
Ex. 50 at~7)
417. While the Racial Imbalance law may successfully address
racial balance within certain districts, it cannot be used
successfully in «cities such as Hartford where the minority
population is high. '.(Pls’ Ex. 493, pp. 108-09; Pls’ Ex. 495, pp.
31-32; Pls’ Ex.1494, pp. 25.)
418. During the 1980s, in a series of detailed research
reports, defendants readily admitted (as they had in the first and
second Tirozzi reports) the harms of racial and economic isolation
and the glaring inequities between Connecticut’s urban and suburban
schools. (See Pls’ Exs. 56, 59, 69, 70).
419, In April of 1981, in its first report to the state Board
of Education summarizing its efforts to "comply" with the Racial
Imbalance Act, Hartford emphasized the need for a metropolitan
solution. (Pls’ Ex. 36 at 24)
420. In 1983, the state Department of Education established a
committee to address the problem of "equal educational opportunity”
in the State of Connecticut. The defendant board adopted draft
guidelines in December of 1984, which culminated in the adoption in
May of 1986, of a formal Education Policy Statement and Guidelines
by the state board. The Guidelines called for a state system of
public schools under which "no group of students will demonstrate
systematically different achievement based upon the differences --
such as residence or race or sex -- that its members brought with
them when they entered school." The Guidelines explicitly
recognized "the benefits of residential and economic integration in
[Connecticut] as important to the quality of education and personal
growth for all students in Connecticut." (Defs’ Rev. Answer Y60)
421. In 1985, the "Advisory Committee to Study the State’s
Racial Imbalance Law and Regulations" urged the State Board of
Education "to declare that racially segregated schools are a barrier
to quality and equality of opportunity in education.” The
Committee called for increased payments for interdistrict plans,
magnet schools, and educational parks, and endorsed the Cambridge
controlled choice approach, a combination of voluntary and mandatory
student assignment. (Pls’ Ex. 42 at 1)
422. In 1986, the Committee acknowledged the "strong inverse
relationship between racial imbalance and quality education in
Connecticut’s public schools" (Pls’ Ex. 42 at 1).
423. In January 1988, the Committee on Racial Equity of the
Connecticut Department of Education presented its Report on
Racial/Ethnic Equity and Desegregation in Connecticut’s Public
Schools. (Pls! Ex. 50)
424. The January 1988 report was commonly referred to as the
"Tirozzi Report," after then-commissioner, and defendant, Gerald
Tirozzi (hereinafter "Tirozzi 1"). (Pls’ Ex. .50)
425. In the Tirozzi I report, defendants admitted that
"segregation is educationally, morally, and legally wrong." (Pls’
Ex. 50 at~=])
426. The report also informed the defendant Board that
Many minority children are forced by factors related to
economic development, housing, zoning, and transportation
to live in poor urban communities where resources are
limited. They often have available to them fewer
educational opportunities. Of equal significance is the
fact that separation means that neither they nor their
counterparts in the more affluent suburban school
districts have the chance to learn to interact with each
other, as they will inevitably have to do as adults living
and working in a multi-cultural society. Such interaction
is a most important element of quality education.
Report at 7. (Defs’ Rev. Answer 162)
427. The Tirozzi I report documented the increasing
segregation, and poverty concentration in Connecticut schools, and
the growing numbers of minority students throughout the state.
(Pls’ ‘Ex. 50 at 1-7)
428. Defendants admitted in 1988 that "Connecticut’s efforts
to date have not been able to provide the state’s minorities with an
integrated environment that fully nurtures learning, and predicted
that segregation would continue to increase without appropriate
action. "(Ple! Ex. 50 at 8, 10)
429. Defendants have been aware of a variety of desegregation
techniques that could have been used to expand school integration.
(Pls’ Ex. 50 at 8-10)
430. The Tirozzi I report recommended a desegregation strategy
for the Hartford region based on the 22 towns in the plaintiffs’
complaint plus’ a portion of a regional school district in
Burlington, which is not included in plaintiffs’ complaint. (Pls’
Ex. 50 at 16)
431. The Tirozzi I report is a clear acknowledgment of the
pressing need for mandatory interdistrict school integration, and an
admission that meaningful desegregation may not be achieved solely
through voluntary cooperation of local districts. (Gordon II p. 11)
432. The Hartford district stated in a 1988 report to the
state, "[a]s long as the boundaries of the attendance district of
the Hartford schools [are] coterminous with the boundaries of the
city, no meaningful numerical balance can be achieved, and it would
be an exercise in futility to develop proposals to seek racial
balance" {(Pls’' Ex. 53. at 6).
433. For over five years, the state has acknowledged the
deficiencies in inner city bilingual programs, but has failed to
implement its own recommendations. (Marichal pp. 33-34)
434. In March, 1987, the Bilingual Education Legislation
Review Task Force issued a report which included 52 recommendations
in six areas. (Pls’ Ex. 48) The state has not implemented some of
the most important recommendations including those in the area of
funding, certification, evaluation. (Marichal pp. 33-34)
435. A Bilingual Education Program Evaluation Report issued by
the Connecticut State Department of Education in March, 1989,
acknowledged that additional state funds were crucially needed in
bilingual education programs for staffing, teacher training, program
evaluation, and curriculum development if programs were to "operate
effectively." (Pls’ Ex. 442 p. 52)
436. In 1992, another report, "Connecticut’s Limited-English-
Proficient Students: A Neglected Resource" (Pls’ Ex. 86), detailed
continuing state failure to address the needs of bilingual students.
Among the problems identified were:
a. Almost 2,400 bilingual students (15%) were not even in
programs;
b. There was no special provision in the state statutes to
protect the rights of LEP students;
Ch There was no state funding to school districts for
providing language assistance programs to LEP students;
d. Preservice training was not required for teachers in the
bilingual programs;
e. No in-service training or course work was required;
f. The cultural and linguistics wealth of LEP students was not
being recognized and was infrequently included in districtwide
curricula;
g. LEP students did not always have the access to supplemental
services or programs that English-proficient students had;
h. There was reduced state funding available for bilingual
programs ;
i. The State failed to conduct the required annual evaluations
of the bilingual program.
{Pls’ Ex. 86 at 2-3, 12, 14). See also Pls’ Ex. 440,
437. In 1992, the State Department of Education failed to
follow the recommendation to develop a Spanish version of the
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT). (Defs’ Ex. 12.24 at 31)
438. The State Board of Education voted to adopt the
recommendations in this report (Pls’ Ex. 86).
439. On September 20, 1989, Governor William A. O'Neill
announced the establishment of the Governor's Commission on Quality
and Integrated Education. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 35; Pls’ Ex. 77 at 8)
440. On December 31, 1990, the co-chairs delivered the report
to Governor O’Neill. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 42)
441. In their report to the Governor, the Commission co-chairs
indicated that Commission members "feel a sense of urgency to reduce
racial and economic isolation, a problem the enormity of which grows
alarmingly with every passing moment." (Pls’ Ex. 73)
442. The Governor's Commission was not empowered to recommend
any mandatory solutions (Gordon II p. 75; Pls’ Ex. 66a; Carter p.
38%.
443. A number of members of the Governor’s Commission were of
the opinion that voluntary approaches are unlikely to be adequate
and have sought to have the report include mandates. (Pls’ Ex. 73)
444. In 1990, the Governor’s Commission on Quality and
Integrated Education Reported that "when social class and income
levels compound the factors of racial or ethnic difference, a bleak
picture of inequity emerges. Most poor children live far away from
rich children, and all too many of Connecticut’s African-American,
Hispanic, and recent immigrant children are poor. They are
separated because of the inextricable relationship that generally
exists in our society between race and family wealth." (Pls’ Ex.
73,.at:3)
445. The Governor's Commission concluded that "a quality and
integrated education should expose students to an integrated student
body and faculty and a curriculum that reflects the heritage of many
cultures. It should also provide all students with equal
opportunities to learn and to achieve equal educational outcomes."
(Pls Bx. 73, at 3)
446. The Commission stated that a student’s achievement should
not be affected by "such irrelevant factors as race, ethnicity,
gender, residence, and wealth." (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 19)
447. The defendant State Board of Education specifically voted
to "support" the final report of the Governor’s Commission on
Quality and Integrated Education and directed the Commissioner "to
take the necessary action in response to the recommendations
included in the report.” (Pls’' Ex. 75)
448. The Commission’s recommendations included creation of a
new Interdistrict Transfers Grant Program based on Project Concern,
but accommodating two-way transfers. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 14)
449. The Commission's recommendations also included a separate
interdistrict grant to underwrite tuition and transportation aids
and set a target for increased student participation in Project
Concern each year beginning with the fiscal year 1992-93. (Pls’ Ex.
73, at 14)
450. The Commission also recommended expansion of the
Interdistrict Cooperative Grant. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 15)
451. A number of other interdistrict recommendations were
included in the Governor's Commission Report. (Pls’ Ex. 73)
452. Defendants have accepted "responsibility...to move ahead
...to pursue the [Governor's] Commission’s recommendations and the
resources that will be required to implement them." (Pls’ Ex. 77 at
73)
453. The Governor's Commission recommended a goal for each
school district to attain an integrated faculty. To achieve this,
the Commission urged Connecticut to (a) increase the number of
minorities graduating from teacher preparation programs in the
state; (b) recruit minority teachers from out-of-state; (c) retain
minority teachers in the profession; and (d) regionalize the
recruitment and retention of minority teachers. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at
26)
454. The ultimate recommendations of the Commission were not
sufficient to address the problems of racial isolation in the
Hartford area (Gordon 11 p. 77).
455. No significant progress has been made on any of the
Governor's Commission recommendations (Gordon II p. 77; Carter p.
29, 41, 558; Williams pp. 122-124).
456. In a 1992 report, the Connecticut Association of Boards
of Education and The Connecticut Association of Public School
Superintendents urged that "Connecticut must come to grips with the
racial and economic segregation which is reflected in its
municipalities and school systems. There really are two
Connecticuts and the needs of children in urban areas are all the
more immediate and severe because of the isolation which exists."
(Pls’ Bx. 81 at 10)
= 49 -
5S « Defendants’ Existing Interdistrict Programs Are Inadequate
to Address the Inequities.
457. The state’s limited interdistrict grant program does not
effectively address the racial and ethnic isolation and poverty
concentration of the Hartford school system (Williams pp. 94-97,
119-121; Allison, pp. 29-30, 36-54; Carroll, pp. 17-19, 21-22, 30,
41-42).
458. Only two small interdistrict education programs, other
than Project Concern, exist to serve Hartford students during the
school .year (Pls’ Exs. 325-333; Williams p. 101).
459. The "Building Blocks" Montessori program, although
planned for 200, has attracted only 35, 20 of whom are from Hartford
(Pls’ Ex. 515; Williams p. 115).
460. The Greater Hartford Academy of the Performing Arts, a
half-day program, has only 43 Hartford students participating (Pls.
Ex. 516; Williams p. 116; Forman pp. 44-47).
461. Inclusive Of Project Concern, only 838 -0of 26,000
students, or 3.26% of the entire Hartford student body, participates
in any interdistrict program (Williams p. 119).
462. Project Concern was established in 1966 as a result of
the Harvard Study, with one of its major goals to "desegregate the
schools" {Carroll p. 6; Pls’ Ex. 373).
463. Project Concern has continued to suffer from severe
cutbacks for the last ten years. (Carroll p. 10)
464. Project Concern enrollment is at its lowest in fifteen
years in numbers of participating students, and number of
participating districts, (Pls’ Ex. 368; Carroll pp. 9-11).
465. Project Concern enrollment reached an all-time high in
1978 at 1,175 (Carroll p. 10). It is now only 680 students (Carroll
P- 11).
466. Reductions in staff and transportation have further
impeded both the goals of the Project Concern program and its
expansion (Carroll pp. 17-19; 22).
467. Outreach efforts into the Latino community to increase
the 8% Latino participation rate in Project Concern have been
thwarted due to lack of adequate staff (Carroll pp. 17-18).
AY Tl
468. Significant populations such as special education
students and bilingual students continue to be excluded from Project
Concern (Carroll pp. 18; 33).
469. Project Concern has not provided enough of a critical
mass of minority students in the suburban schools to alleviate their
racial isolation: (Carroll p. 30).
470. Public Act 93-263 includes no commitment of state monies
to fund any plans.
471. Public Act 93-263 contains no provisions requiring racial
goals or goals relating to deconcentration of poverty within a
school, school system, or region; no provisions requiring housing
integration measures, and no guaranteed funding for educational
enhancements for the city schools.
472. Under P.A. 93-263, if a regional plan passes, there are
no mandates requiring implementation of a plan at the conclusion of
the process.
473. Any town can refuse to participate in the plan under P.A.
93-263, without sanctions. (House Proceedings, May 27, 1993, Rep.
Wyman, pp. 349, 351)
474. A plan, even if approved, is funded only after a
competitive grant process. (C.G.S. §10-264e)
475. An amendment to Public Act 93-263 was introduced on
behalf of the Black and Puerto Rican caucus of the legislature which
would have addressed some of the inadequacies of the 1993 law but
the amendment was subsequently withdrawn. See LLCO No. 2193
Amendment by Rep. Hyslop.
6. The State Has Defined the Concepts of Egual Educational
Opportunity and Minimally Adequate Education and Has Failed
to Comply with Its Own Definitions.
476. Under various state guidelines, Hartford students are not
receiving an equal educational opportunity. (Natriello “11 p. 43,
63, 86; Pls' Ex. 163 at 247, 266)
477. In 1984, the State Board of Education set out the first
official definition. of the state’s obligation to provide equal
educational opportunity. In "Guidelines for Equal Educational
Opportunity” (Pls’ Ex. 39, adopted October 3, 1984), the Board
defined equal educational opportunity as "the right of every
Connecticut child to be provided with the educational experiences
necessary to ensure that his or her intellectual ability and special
talents are developed to the fullest." In the Guidelines, the Board
stated that "equity...does not mean an equal distribution of
resources; rather, it implies that those who need more must receive
more".
478. In 1986, the State Board of Education refined its
definition of equal ‘educational opportunity, in its "Policy
Statement on Equal Educational Opportunity" (Pls’ Ex. 43, adopted
May: 7,:1986):
"Equal educational opportunity" means student access to a
level and quality of programs and experiences which
provide each child with the means to achieve a commonly
defined standard of an educated citizen.
This goal will require resource allocations based upon
individual student needs and sufficient resources to
provide each child with opportunities for developing his
or her intellectual abilities and special talents to the
fullest.
Evidence of equal educational opportunity 1s the
participation of each student in programs appropriate to
his or her needs and the achievement by each of the
state’s student sub-populations (as defined by such
factors as wealth, race, sex or residence) of educational
outcomes at least equal to that of the state’s student
population as a whole.
* * * * *
While equal educational opportunity is a dynamic concept,
certain elements emerge as critically important to schools
and students. Access to educational opportunities, staff
and material resources, program offerings, assessment of
student outcomes, remedial education and funding are major
elements of equal educational opportunity, elements that
must interact in systematic ways. In a broad sense,
progress in...equal educational opportunity can be
measured by the reduction of inter-district, intra-
district and inter-pupil disparities in educational
opportunities as defined by these six elements.
(Pls’ Ex. 43 at 1).
479. In its 1986 "Policy Statement," the State Board also
recognized the importance of racial integration [in Connecticut's
schools], as important to the quality of education and personal
growth for all students in Connecticut. (Pls’ Ex. 43 at 1).
480. The Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated
Education also concluded that "a quality education requires an
integrated student body and faculty and a curriculum that reflects
the heritage of many cultures" (Pls’ Ex. 73 at ll; Pls’ Ex. 163 at
249)
481. Former Commissioner Gerald Tirozzi admitted that children
in Hartford are not receiving equal educational opportunity, based
on the state’s definition. . (Pls’ Ex. 494 at 89)
482. Former Commissioner Ferrandino agreed that Hartford
students’ performance was substantially below that of schoolchildren
in the suburban districts on several measures of educational
achievement (Pls’ Ex. 493 at 136-137), and that the state is making
insufficient efforts to address the racial and economic isolation of
the school children in Hartford. : (Pls’ Ex. 493 p. B84)
483. Dr. Elliott Williams, Chief of the Office of Urban and
Priority School Districts for the State Department of Education,
admitted that Hartford’s schoolchildren are not receiving an equal
educational opportunity. (Williams pp. 86, 88-89)
484. Defendant John Mannix, former Chairperson of the State
Board of Education, admitted that it is "generally accepted on the
State Board of Education" that a "suitable education experience" and
an: "equal educational opportunity” are not now provided to
Hartford’s students nor have they been for "a number of years."
Pls’ Ex. 495, pp. 33-34.
485. Most other witnesses agreed that students in Hartford are
not receiving an equal educational opportunity (Natriello II pp. 43,
50, 52) (Cloud. p. 105; Noel p. 46; LaFontaine pp. 146, 151; Carter
pp. 18, 22-25; Hernandez p. 49; Montanez p. 28; Davis p. 89; Pitocco
p. 84)
486. An adequate education can be defined as one that "help[s]
to prepare students to participate in adult society" by making them
"productive members of the work force, the labor sector, and . . .
. participants in the civic processes of the society" (Natriello II
p. 64).
487. The Common Core of Learning (Pls’ Ex. 45) is a "series of
expectations" representing "what we expect a citizen should know"
{Pls’ Ex. 494 at 83, 82).
488. The Common Core of Learning forms the basis for the
mastery testing program (Pls’ Ex. 493 at 38).
489. The Common Core of Learning was officially adopted on
January 7, 1989 as the State Board's "standard of an educated
citizen" and its "policy on the skills, knowledge, and attitudes
that are expected of Connecticut’s public secondary school
graduates" (Pls’ Ex. 45).
490. Former Commissioner Tirozzi agreed that, based on the
mastery test data, Hartford students are not receiving a minimally
adequate education. (Pls’ Ex. 494 at 90)
491. Hartford is not providing a minimally adequate education
for its bilingual education students (Marichal p. 35).
492. Hartford students are not receiving a minimally adequate
education. (Natriello 11 p. 65)
VI. STEPS TOWARD INTEGRATION
493. A court-ordered planning process to address the specific
components of a remedy is common in desegregation cases. (Gordon
III at 24-29; Orfield at 44-47)
494. A desegregation plan will not work unless it has "teeth"
in it. (Gordon 11 at 84, 125-1256)
495. Any plan designed to remedy conditions of segregated and
unequal education in the Hartford area must be "metropolitan wide"
to be effective. (Orfield p. "32, 33; willie pp. 41, 42, 49; Gordon
Il p. 14;::-Pls’ Ex. 82 p. 8)
496. An intradistrict approach is not enough to achieve the
elimination of racial, ethnic, and economic isolation. (Defs’ Br.
D. 13)
497. Defendants agree with the need for a multi-district
solution. (Pls’ Ex. 493, FPerrandino Dep.,. pp. B85, 151, 165; Pls’
Ex. 494, Tirozzi Dep., p. 144; Pls’ Ex. 323, Mannix Dep., pp. 32-33;
Mannix Dep. p.:25; Pls’: Ex. 506, p. 60; Pls’ Ex. 73, p. 5; Pls’ Ex.
506; Margolin Dep. p. 60)
498. Stability as well as academic improvement have been
achieved with metropolitan desegregation plans in other areas of the
country (Orfield I pp. 46-48; Orfield II pp. 142-43).
499. Relying solely on voluntary participation by educational
authorities in planning for desegregation will not work;
participation by local districts must be required. (Gordon II p.
125; Orfield at 33)
500. Only one major city in the nation has adopted a
desegregation plan without a court order. (Orfield at 31)
501. Reduction of racial segregation and poverty concentration
is one of the primary goals to be accomplished in a remedial plan.
See, Pls’: Ex. 494, Tirozzi Dep., DP. 55; Pls’ Ex, 493, Ferrandino
Dep., p- 139. See Calvert pp. 62-63.
502. The plan must contain numerical goals to reduce the
concentration of poor students in individual schools. (Gordon II p.
B4; Orfield I pp. 30, 35, 43, 55; Willie at 22-23; Kennedy p. 42;
Slavin p. 29; Haig p. 66-67)
503. School desegregation plans must contain racial goals to
measure the accomplishment of racial balance. (Gordon II p. 149;
Orfield I p. 30; Green v. New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968);
Connecticut Racial Imbalance Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-226D)
504. Each school’s student population should reflect the
racial ratios of the students in its region. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 13)
505 An educational equity plan should address issues of
student assignment, faculty and staff assignment, curriculum,
transportation, extracurricular activities and school facilities to
accomplish the ultimate goal of the elimination of racial
identifiability in every school (Gordon II p. 149).
506 Effective schools can make a difference in the
educational outcomes of children regardless of their socioeconomic
background. {(Orfield YI, Dp. 133). See Pls’ Ex. 493, Ferrandino
Dep., pp. 850-51, "131, 148: Pls’ Ex. 494, Tirozzi Dep.,: p. 91;
Williams at 31,83:-Pls' Ex. 506, p. 59; Pls’ Ex. 73, Finding #3, p.
13.
507. Expenditure of additional funds on schools with high
concentrations of poverty has positive effects on student
performance. (Kennedy at 57)
508. Defendants Ferrandino and Tirozzi both support
controlled-choice plans. {Pls® Fx, 493, p. 51; Pls’ Ex. 494, p.
383
509. A subcommittee of the Governor's Commission, in its
report entitled "Critical Components of Integration Plans,"
advocated two-way student transfers, available at all grade levels.
Pls’ Ex. 66g.
510. Every educator must be trained to teach both a diverse
student population and a curriculum that incorporates and honors the
diverse cultural and racial heritages. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 11; Orfield
1:Pp.~31=32, 37)
511. Teachers and administrators must be knowledgeable about
issues relating to Puerto Rican culture and heritage and the
implications of the combination of poverty and ethnicity into the
Classroom. (Pls! Ex. 73 Dp. 24; Morales at 51)
512. Connecticut must increase the number of minorities
graduating from teacher preparation programs in the State of
Connecticut. (Pls’' Ex. 78)
513. The curriculum in desegregated schools must be adapted to
adequately address the diversity -- racially, ethnically and socio-
economically -- of the students in the Hartford metropolitan region.
(Gordon 11 .p.. 113)
514. Special education, gifted, advanced placement, academic
and vocational offerings must be designed so that no racial or
economic group is discriminated against. (Gordon II p. 113)
515. There must be careful planning in order to insure the
continued provision of bilingual education in desegregated schools.
(Marichal p. 36)
516. A critical mass of bilingual students are needed in a
particular school so as not to create too much dispersement.
(Marichal p." 36)
517. Two-way bilingual programs are often effective.
(Marichal p. 36)
518. A metropolitan education plan should include two-way
transfers at every grade level with effective and equitable
transportation. (Orfield I p. 38; Pls’ Ex. 66g) ;
519. A metropolitan education plan must include educational
enhancements for Hartford schools (Gordon II p. 113; Orfield I pp.
51-53; Haig p. 06):
520. Educational enhancements are defined as programs which
set a minimum floor for achievement of every child and which improve
the overall achievement of all children. (Slavin pp. 13-14)
52). Defendants concur with the necessity of including
educational enhancements as a part of any remedy. (Pls’ Ex. 493;
Perrandino Dep. p..153; Pls’ Ex. 5056 p. 63)
522. A one-to-one early intervention tutoring program such as
"Success for All" could be easily and quickly replicated in Hartford
(Slavin pp. 37-38).
523. Early intervention for developmentally delayed children
and children from low-income families is generally recognized to be
beneficial. (Pls' Ex. 77 at 2)
524. Preschool preparation assists in enriching a child's
cognitive, social, emotional and health development, and gives poor
children a chance at an even start when they enter school. (Pls’
Bx. 77-at 2)
525. When compared to children from low-income families who
did not attend high-quality early intervention programs,
participants from quality early childhood education programs have
greater school success (e.g., better grades, less need for special
education services), increased future employability, decreased need
for public welfare assistance, and decreased criminal activity later
in life. (Pls’' Bx. 79 atl)
526. Drop-out prevention programs, and Upward Bound programs
are examples of the types of programs which could be used in upper
grades. (Orfield I p. 52)
527. Specific educational enhancements cited with approval by
Commissioner Ferrandino include family resource centers (Pls’ EX.
493, p. 90), summer school programs {Id. at 112), and preschool
programs for at-risk students (Id. at 124).
528. Educational enhancements recommended by the Governor's
Commission include summer school programs (Pls’' Ex. 73, p. 15),
preschool programs (id. at 16, 20), school breakfast and lunch
programs (id. at 20), and technological innovations such as computer
networking, interactive television, and long distance learning (id.
at 18).
529. Educational enhancements alone cannot achieve positive
results. They must be implemented in combination with a plan to
reduce racial and economic isolation (Slavin pp. 37-38).
530. A metropolitan plan should include upgrading the physical
facilities and curricula in inner city schools (Willie pp. 48, 49).
531. Housing, economic development, transportation and labor
all impact segregation and all have roles to play in fostering
integration. ' (Pls’ Ex. 78)
532. The health needs of students should be considered in a
metropolitan education plan (Orfield I p. 54).
533. Housing initiatives should be included as part of the
remedy. See Pls’ Ex. 494; Tirozzi Dep. p. 34; Tirozzi Dep. pp. 14,
39-40, 49-50, 135; Pls’ Ex. 493; Ferrandino Dep. p. 161; Pls’ Ex.
495; Mannix Dep. p. 22.
534. Commissioner Ferrandino expressed support for providing
low income rental certificates for Project Concern families as a
means of promoting integration. (Pls’ Ex. 493 p. 161).
535. The Governor's Commission stressed the need for housing
integration initiatives to help solve the problems of school
segregation by recognizing the link between racial and ethnic
isolation and housing patterns, finding "a significant relationship
between the concentration of minority students and the occurrence of
publicly assisted housing" (Pls’ Ex. 73 at 5), and concluding that
"affordable housing could help integrate schools in the outer
suburbs and rural communities where interdistrict programs with
urban schools now present long-distance transportation problems."
(Pls’' ‘Ex. 73 at 5)
536. The need for integrated school construction has been
acknowledged by defendants, see Pls’ Ex. 494, Tirozzi Dep., pp. 159-
60; Ferrandino Dep., pp. 42-44; see Margolin Dep., p. 60.
537. A court-ordered planning process to address the specific
components of a remedy is common in desegregation cases. See Gordon
III, pp. 24-29; Orfield 1, pp. 44-47.
538. Past experiences with interdistrict school desegregation
demonstrate that a court-ordered planning process can successfully
define the interests of all parties and lead to successful results.
{Gordon 111 p. 24)
539. For the planning process to succeed, the court must set
firm timetables (Orfield I p. 44; Gordon I p. 85).
540. In order to insure that the plan is successful, it is
important to have a group of experts, independent of the school
authorities, assess the plan and report directly to the Court and
the parties (Orfield I pp. 50-51; Pls’ Ex. 455).
541. Some courts have chosen to appoint a panel of experts to
design a desegregation plan. Bradley v. Milliken, 345 F. Supp. 914,
916-17 (E.D. Mich. 1972), Board of Education v. Dowell, 375 F.2d 158
(10th Cir. 1987).
542. Other courts have ordered the submission of plans by both
parties at the outset, with a remedial hearing to follow. Armstrong
v. O'Connell), ‘463 ‘FP. Supp. 1295, 1310 (E.D. Wis. 1973); Evans Vv.
Buchanan, 379 fF. Supp. 1218, .1224 (D, Del. 1974); Bradley 'v.
Milliken, 345 F. Supp. 914 (E.D. Mich. 1972); Conley v. Lake Charles
Sch. Bd, 303 F. Supp. 394,.399 (W.D. La. 1969)
e 331, ®
=:50 'o
543. Still others require defendants, in the first instance,
to devise a specific and detailed plan within a short period of
time. Davis v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 498 F. Supp. 580,
588 (M.D. La. 1980) (45 days); Penick v. Columbus Bd. of Fduc,, 429
F. Supp. 229, 267-68 (S.D. Ohio 1977) (90 days); Alvarado v. El Paso
Independent School District, 426 F. Supp. 575, 613-14 (W.D. Tex.
1976) (3 months); Quality PBducation for All Children, Inc. v. School
Board, 362 F. Supp. 985, 1002-03 (N.D. 111. 1973) (6 months).
544. As an alternative to requiring the submission of plans by
the parties, some courts have appointed a special master to design
a plan. See Hart v. Community School Board, 383 F. Supp. 699, 762-
67 (E.D.N.Y. 1974); Swann Vv. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Pducation, 306 FPF. Supp. 1281, 1313 (W.D.N.C. 1969); Reed v. Rhodes,
422: F. Supp. 708, 797 (R.D. Ohio 1976}.
545. The educational components of a plan must be carefully
monitored to insure that academic progress is actually being
achieved (Orfield I p. 50).
546. The state’s financial hard times are responsible for the
fact that more money has not been appropriated to the interdistrict
cooperative grant program. (Defs’ Br. p. 13)
547. A metropolitan education plan could be developed in three
to six months (Willie p. 47; Gordon 11 p. 157; Orfield I p. 61).
VII. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE NOT REBUTTED BY DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCES
548. The defendants have failed to demonstrate their
contention that the individual socioeconomic status explains
virtually all of the difference in academic achievement between
Hartford and: its ‘suburban school «districts. (DPefs’ Proposed
Findings 27, 29)
a. Dr. Armor’s paper was not publishable, because the data is
inadequate and the methodology not rigorous. (Crain II at 73)
bh. Dr. Armor’s conclusions about the impact of the
socioeconomic status of students on their achievement is based on a
mathematical formula that factored in but did not control for the
impact of the concentration of poverty in the schools. (Armor I at
142, 154; Crain at 60)
6 By the selection of particular points to be included in this
section, the plaintiffs do not concede that any claims not mentioned
in this section are rebutted by the defendants.
Cc. Some of the variables Dr. Armor used in his study to
represent individual socioeconomic status -- such as the percentage
of single parent families and the levels of education and income in
a community -- are actually indicators of the concentration of
poverty. (Armor I at 155)
d. Contrary to Dr. Armor'’s conclusion attributing differences
in educational achievement to individual socioeconomic status, his
study of the differences in educational achievement between Hartford
and the suburbs measures, in part, the effects of the concentration
of poverty and the quality of the school program. (Crain at 67)
e. Dr. Armor acknowledged that a community level measure of
poverty could have a greater effect than an individual measure of
socioeconomic status. (Armor pp. 159-60)
f. In fact, defendants’ lead counsel at trial, John Whelan,
admitted on the record that "Dr. Armor did no analysis nor did he
testify about the effects of poverty concentration.” (Orfield 11 at
152)
g. In rebuttal to Dr. Armor’s testimony and research,
Professor Gary Orfield from the Hartford Graduate School of
Education, bluntly characterized the views as "preposterous and
deeply offensive" that public education has no effect on a child’s
learning achievement and everything is determined by the wealth and
education of the child’s parents. Professor Orfield found Dr.
Armor’s position "stunning...both in terms of social science and in
terms of the whole tradition of public education in this country."
{(Orfield II at 115-15)
549. Defendants have failed to demonstrate their contentions
that "changes in the demographic composition of Hartford and the 21
surrounding suburban towns have occurred because of individuals’
choices about their residences," and "the state has not taken any
action which would encourage any individuals to choose any racially
imbalanced residential settings," in that:
a. defendants’ counsel at trial correctly stated that
"defendants put on no testimony in their defense on the issue of
housing." (Orfield II at 152)
b. defendants’ reliance on Steahr’s testimony mischaracterizes
his testimony in which he merely refers to the geographic clustering
of certain ethnic groups in the state. (Steahr at 67)
c. Dr. Armor’s brief testimony on personal preferences does
not support defendants’ claimed findings, and it was based on
exhibits that were explicitly not offered to on the issue of the
state contribution to housing segregation. (Armor I at 129, 131)
Accordingly, plaintiffs were not permitted to provide full rebuttal
testimony on this point. (Orfield II at 148-152)
550. Defendants’ proposed finding number 1 that Connecticut
has been a leader in public education misstates Professor Collier’s
testimony, in which in fact he stated that during the nineteenth
century, Connecticut was a leader in terms of its high literacy
rate. (Collier p. 23)
551. The defendants have failed to demonstrate that
Connecticut has been a leader in affording equal educational
opportunity to public school students in Hartford. To the contrary,
the evidence has shown that Connecticut has been aware of the harms
of racial, ethnic, and economic isolation in the schools, and the
serious inequities facing city schoolchildren, and it has failed to
take action to address the problem. (See Plaintiffs’ Proposed
Pindings of Fact, Sections 11, III, IV, V)
Respectfully Submitted,
BY: No NN rh
Martha Stone #61506
Connecticut Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
32 Grand Street
Bartford, C7 06106
(203) 247-9823
7 oi ee
BY: ()l ; =
John/ Brittain #101153
University of Connecticut
av School of Law
V 65 Elizabeth Street
Hartford, CT 06105
(203) 241-4664
- 61
)
/
BY: LMI 1 Ny
BY:
Wesley W. Horton #38478
Moller, Horton & Shields, P.C.
90 Gillett Street
Hartford, CT 06105
(203) 522-8338
oL, Je SW
Philip D. Tegeler #102537
Connecticut Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
32 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 247-9823
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
APPENDIX
® 256
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESS TESTIMONY
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESSES
NAME
John Allison
(Executive Director,
Capital Region Education
Council)
Jean Anderson
(Teacher, Betances School)
JoMills Braddock
(Professor of Sociology,
University of Miami)
Mary Carroll
(Director,
Project Concern)
Don Carso
(Principal;
McDonough School)
David Carter
(President, Eastern
Connecticut State
University)
Diane Cloud
(Teacher, Milner School)
Christopher Collier
(Connecticut State
Historian)
DATE
January 7
December 23
December 22
January 15
December 17
December 16
January 15
January 14
Al
PAGES
2-111
107-135
5-118
79-151
79-123
January 5 Dr. Robert Crain 1
February 26 IX
(Professor of Sociology
and Education, Teachers
College, Columbia
University)
Eddie Davis December 21
(Principal, Weaver High
School)
Alice Dickens December 18
(Assistant Superintendent,
Hartford Public Schools)
Clara Dudley January 14
(Teacher, Hopewell School,
Glastonbury)
Jeff Forman January 27
(Senior Assistant to the
Superintendent, Hartford
Public Schools)
Badi Foster January 27
(former Vice President for
Targeted Selection and
Development, AETNA)
William Gordon I January 7
January 8 i
IXY February 25
(Professor of Educational
Leadership, Wayne State
University)
Yvonne Griffin January 14
(Teacher, Hartford High
School)
A2
4-170
6-113
67-111
148-166
117-147
112-181
112-162
3-168
17-94
81-116
| é
Josiah Haig
(Superintendent, Hartford
Public Schools)
Gladys Hernandez
(Teacher, Barnard-Brown
School)
Mary Kennedy
(Professor and Director,
National Center for
Research on Teacher
Learning)
Cathy Kennelly
(Director of Financial
Management, Hartford
Public Schools)
Hernan Lafontaine I
IT
(Former Superintendent,
Hartford Public Schools)
Eugene Leach
(Plaintiff Parent)
Adnelly Marichal
(Coordinator of Bilingual
Education, Hartford
Public Schools)
Richie Montanez
(Principal, Hooker School)
Julio Morales
(Professor, UConn School
of Social Work)
January 20
December 21
January 12
December 18
December 22
January 12
January 27
January 22
December 23
January 20
A3
57-135
32-65
2211}
55-112
120-180
111-148
98-110
—.
289
Freddie Morris December 23
(Principal, Wish School)
Gary Natriello I December 30
II December 31
111 January 6
(Associate Professor of
Sociology and Education,
Teachers College, Columbia
University)
Edna Negron I December 16
IT December 17
(Principal, Betances
School)
Norma Neuman-Johnson I December 29
1X December 30
(Teacher, McDonough School)
Brad Noel December 17
(Former Guidance
Counselor, Weaver
High School)
Gary Orfield I January 28
: IY February 26
(Professor of Political
Science, Harvard University,
Graduate School of Education)
Virginia Pertillar
(Plaintiff Parent)
January 22
Robert Pitocco December 23
(Principal, Suffield
High School; Former
Assistant Principal,
Newington and Weaver
High Schools)
Ad
136-161
43-177
5-69
2-191
60-83
5-18
153-163
6-42
19-78
6-158
114-170
57-106
Charlie Senteio December 18 5-54
(Deputy Superintendent,
® Hartford Public Schools)
‘John Shea December 18 113-145
(Assistant Superintendent,
Hartford Public Schools)
Elizabeth Sheff January 6 192-195
(Plaintiff Parent)
A Milo Sheff January 12 148-151
(Plaintiff)
Robert Slavin January 21 2-83
® (Principal Research
Scientist and Co-
Director, Early and
Elementary Program,
Johns Hopkins University)
Dr. William Trent December 29 9-150
(Professor, Department
of Educational Policy
Studies, Johns Hopkins
University)
Dr. Charles Willie January 13 2-131
(Professor of Education
and Urban Studies,
Harvard University,
® Graduate School of
Education)
Mary Wilson December 21 5-31
(Administrator of
» Curriculum and Staff
Development, Hartford
Public Schools)
AS5
B
o
S
e
R
o
@
%
S.C..15255
*
MILO SHEFF, ET Al. : SUPREME COURT
¥.
WILLIAM A. O’NEILL, ET AL. 3 JUNE: 6, 1995
*
DEFENDANTS’ REVISED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
I
*
The following are proposed findings of fact submitted in
addition to the facts contained in the parties’ revised joint
stipulation of facts and submitted pursuant to the order of the *
| Supreme Court dated May 11, 1995: %/
|
{ H
a ®
3 Have The Plaintiffs Proven That The State Has Violated
The Equal Protection Clauses, the Due Process Clause Or
: The Education Article Of The Connecticut Constitution?
*
j
|
|
|
| 1/ Each proposed finding of fact is based on the evidence ®
; presented, and therefore the circumstances prevailing, at
the time of trial - December 1992 through February 1993.
| RAL
HEN i he Say
i
Forty A | :
3a o WN .
bad SAY 4
| vi WOW Y
Cl ht Vad a
pi at ANS
EY
@
1. Trends In The Distribution Of Students
By Race And Ethnicity.
1. The African-American population patterns in the 22 town
region during this century have been dynamic and unpredictable.
(Steahr, Vol. 23, pp. 20-21, 80-81; DX 1.14)
3. The percentage of African-American residents in
Hartford has declined from 88% in 1970 to 65% in 1980 to 638% in
1990 to 63.7% in 1992. (Steahr, Vol. 23, pp. 35-37; DX 2.13)
3. Between 1970 and 1980, the African-American population
in the 21 suburban towns increased by 141.1% and by 74.4% between
1980. and 1990. (DX 1.4)
4. From 1980 to 1990, the Latino population in the 21
suburban towns increased by 128.8% and the Latino student
population grew by 122.2%. (DX 1.5)
5 There have been significant increases in Latino
population in East Hartford, Manchester, West Hartford, Vernon
and Windsor. (Steahr, Vol. 23, p. 40)
2. The Current Distribution Of Students By
Race And Ethnicity
6. There is no professionally agreed upon standard for
racial, ethnic and socio-economic balance in schools which can be
applied to schools in Hartford and the 21 suburban towns.
(Carter, Vol. 1, pp. 33-34; Senteio, Vol. 3, pp. 51;
Martinez-Pitre, Vol. 6, pp. 45-46; Trent, Vol. 7, pp. 81, 134;
Natriello, Vol.:1l, p. 144; Allison, Vol. 12, pp. 72-75, Gordon,
Yol. 13, pp... 149; Vol. 14, pp. 76-79; LaFontaine, Vol. ‘14, Pp.
114-120; Haig, Vol. 18, pp. 113)
7 Changes in the demographic composition of Hartford and
the 21 surrounding suburban towns have occurred because of
individuals’ choices about their residences. (Steahr, Vol. 23,
O- 67; Armor, Vol.“32, p. 129; DX 11.21-11.25)
3. The state has not taken any action that would encourage
any individuals to choose any racially imbalanced residential
i’ settings. (Armor, Vol. 32, p. 129)
3. Students’ Socio-Economic Status In
Hartford Metropolitan Area Schools.
9. Racial isolation and the condition of students living
in poverty can and do exist as separate conditions. (Rossell,
vol. 27, Pb. 56-58; Armor, Vol. 32, p. 19)
10. Individual socioeconomic status (”SES”), primarily
poverty, has the largest impact on lack of student achievement
when measured for large groups of students. (Natriello, Vol. §,
PP. 64-65; Armor, Vol. 32, p. 21; Crain, Vol. 35, p. 76)
11. To understand the quality or effectiveness of a
particular educational program, the effects of the disadvantages
that students bring to school with them to that program must be
separated from the effects of the particular educational progran.
(Natriello, Vol. 11, pp. 8,:9, 22-23, 89, 91; Crain, Vol. 35, pp.
79-80)
12. None of the plaintiffs’ witnesses conducted a study in
which they reviewed the quality of the educational programs
offered in Hartford by separating the effects of the
' disadvantages that Hartford’s students bring with them to school
from the effects of the particular educational programs in
»
Hartford. (Natriello, Vol. 11, pp. 8,9, 22-23,.89, 91; Crain,
Vol. 35, .pp. 79-30; Trent, Vol. 7, p. 100, "118-22; Kennedy, Vol. °
14, p- 74)
13. Differences in SES are the primary factor in explaining
the differences in student performance on the CMT across the »
state. (DX 12.14, pp. ¥, vi; PX 59, p.. 5; Halg, ¥ol. 18, p. 95)
14. If two groups of students that are equal inall
.
respects except that one group has a larger percentage Of
students with ”at risk” factors such as low birth weight babies
and mothers on drugs at birth, the group with a larger percentage
: ; The "
with ”at risk” characteristics will perform more poorly 1n an
educational sense than the group with a smaller percentage of
those students with ”at risk” characteristics. (Natriello, Vol.
11, Pp. 4-5) hd
15. Virtually all of the differences in performance between
| students in Hartford and students in the 21 suburban school ®
|| districts on the CMT are attributable to differences in SES and
|
Rd
i 8
“*
to the background factors that SES represents. (Armor, Vol. 32,
pp. 30, 93-94)
16. Virtually. all of the differences in the rate of
attendance at four year colleges between Hartford students and
the students of the 21 suburban school districts are attributable
to SES and to the background factors that SES represents.
(Armor, Vol. 32,:pp. 30, 23-94)
17. ‘When SES factors are taken into account, CMT and other
standarized test scores for Hartford students and for suburban
students, as groups, do not establish any inequality of programs
between Hartford and the suburban schools. (Armor, Vol.” 32, p.
94-95)
18. Studies of Project Concern which controlled for
SES-related background factors have not shown that Project
Concern students, African-American Hartford students who attended
school in suburban school districts, have had any greater
"academic achievement than they would have had, had they remained
in Hartford public schools. {DX 13.19, pp. 26-27, DX 13.20, Dp.
87)
19. When measured with appropriate controls for SES-related
background factors, Project Concern had no statistically
significant effect on Project Concern students dropping out of
high school, on the number of years they completed in college, on
their later life incomes, or on their contact with whites.
{Crain, Vol. 10, pp. 75-77,..105-108, 128-133)
20. The amount of time a student spent in Project Concern
had no significant bearing on the student’s academic achievement.
(Armor, Vol. 32, Pp. 117-119; DX 11.26 (Tables 4 and 5))
21. The only group of Project Concern students who
demonstrated better academic performance than students in
Hartford schools are those students who volunteered for Project
Concern, and who finished their educations in the suburban school
district regardless of the amount of time spent in the suburban
school district, reflecting a phenomenon known as “self-selection
i blas.? > (DX 11.26, Tables 3 and 5)
22. No study has shown that students who finished their
educations in Project Concern would not have done as well
academically, if those students had remained in the Hartford
public: schools. (Crain, Vol. 35, p..103)
23. 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, Vol. 11, pp. 114-116; DX 8.1, 8.2)
24. Despite the increasing SES gap between children who
live in Hartford and in the suburbs, the gap in CMT scores as
petween Hartford’s children and the CMT scores of children
statewide is not getting any larger. (Natriello, Vol. 11, pp.
114-116)
4. Disparities In Educational Outcomes.
25. Among other things, Hartford students 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, Vol. 3, p. 140;
Nearine, Vol. 24, pp. 68-69; Negron, Vol. 2, pp. 15-16)
26. The primary purpose of the Strategic Schools Profiles
(#SSP”) is (1) to make school districts accountable for
compliance with their legal requirements and (2) to be a vehicle
for school-based improvement. (Rindone, Vol. 29, pp. 80-81)
27. Because the newness of the SSP program, the
Commissioner of Education has instructed school superintendents
not to use SSP data to make comparisons between their district
and other districts or between schools in their district and
schools. in other districts. (Rindone, Vol. 29, pp. 81, 146-147)
28. The CMT was not developed to compare or to contrast
student performance in one school district with student
performances in other districts. (Nearine, Vol. 24, p. 65; DX
12.16, p. 20; PX 290-308)
*
29. The CMT measures a relatively narrow part of students’
® achievement. (PX 493; Ferrandino Deposition, p. 37; Natriello,
Vol. 11, D+ 189)
30. The rate of Hartford public school students who
*
participate in the CMT is higher than the participation rate of
other large cities in the state. (Nearine, Vol. 24, p. 73)
® 31. Once Hartford students start school, they make academic
progress from year to year. (Natriello, Vol. 11, p. 80;
LaFontaine, Vol. 5, p. 152; Nearine, Vol. 24, pp. 114-117)
® : : : Sid
32. While changing the racial composition of a school alone
may have some social benefits, it will have no beneficial effect
on educational achievement. (Armo¥, Vol. 31, p. 120; Slavin,
od Vol. 20, pp. 71-73; Rossell, Vol. 27, p. 63; DX 12.25)
33. The difference in academic achievement between
® African-American and white students, as statistically measured on
a nationwide basis, has declined every year for the past forty
| 3
¥
®
i -10-
®
»
years and is projected to disappear in approximately thirty
years. (Rossell, Vol. 27, p. 63) *
34. The nationwide closing of the gap between
African-American and white student achievement is due to the
continual improvement in the socio-economic status of »
African-American status as a group. {(Rossell, Vol. 27, p. 63)
35. There is no empirical evidence about the effect of
»
changing the racial composition of schools on the educational
achievement of Latino students of Puerto Rican ancestry.
(Morales; Vol. 18, pp. 47-49; Crain, Vol. 10, p. 99; DX 12.25, p.
»
13; PX 58, p. 19)
36. There are no reliable studies that establish the
plaintiffs’ claim that a concentration of poor children in a ®
school as distinguished from the impact of poverty on the
academic achievement of an individual poor student, has an
additional adverse affect on the overall academic achievement of ®
all children, both poor and non-poor (the plaintiff’s claimed
»
A -11-
.
so-called "concentration effect”). (Kennedy, Vol. 14, pp. 75-76;
Natriello,sVol. 11, p. 25-26)
37. The section of Dr. Mary Kennedy’s report on the federal
Chapter I program from 1984 to 1986 dealing with “the
concentration effect” was researched and written by a Dr. David
Meyers of the Decision Research Corporation, who concluded that
poverty concentration by itself did not have a “large effect” on
academic achievement. (Kennedy, Vol. 14, pp. 75-76)
38. In judging the effectiveness of a school, student
learning is a more important measure than achievement. (Kennedy,
Yol. 4, p77)
39. Attending a high poverty concentration school does not
have a statistically significant effect on the rate of learning
when measured with appropriate controls for SES. (Kennedy, Vol.
14, OD, 78=80;iPX 419,.p. 22, 24; PX'163, Dp. 132-(Fig. 29))
40. There has been no study done as to whether Hartford’s
i CMT or other standardized test scores showed any separate
-12-
® 205 »
"concentration effect” beyond the effect of individual SES
differences. (Natriello, Vol. 11, pb. 25-26, 164)
41. Any “concentration effect,” if it in fact exists, can
be offset by program measures. {(Natriello, Vol. 11, op. 175-176;
Kennedy, Vol. 14, p. 59)
B
Have The Plaintiffs Proven That They Have
Been Denied Their Rights To A Free Public
Education Under The Education Article Of The
State Constitution?
42. Hartford’s staffing patterns are consistent with the
needs of its students. (Natriello, Vol. 11, pb. 34)
43. The Hartford public schools’ classroom teachers and
administrators are as well qualified in terms of education and
experience as are teachers and administrators in the 21 suburban
school districts. (Keaveny, Vol. 25, p. 15; LaFontaine, Vol. 14,
DP. 131; Wilson Vol. 4, Pp. 9, 28-29; Negron, Vol. 2, pb. 7;
Pitoceo, Vol. 6, p. 70; Natriello,"Vol. 11, Dp. 35)
-13-
44. The first year teachers whom the Hartford school
district has been hiring have been performing well. (Wilson,
Vol. 4,:p: 9)
45. Some Hartford schools offer their students a more
comprehensive array of health services designed to address the
greater health problems of disadvantaged children than is offered
in suburban schools. (DX 23, 14; Griffin, Vol. 11, p. 107;
Negron, Vol. 2, pp. 10-12; Montanez-Pitre, Vol. 6, pp. 11, 42-43)
46. Hartford offers a comprehensive bilingual educational
program and English as a second language (“ESL”) program for
students whose second language is Spanish or for students who
come from homes in which languages other than English and Spanish
are spoken. {(LaFontaine, Vol. .5, p. M27, Nol. 14, Pp. 132;
Marichal, Vol. 20, pp. 11-12; PX 439%, p. 5)
47. No suburban district offers any such program as large
and as comprehensive as Hartford’s bilingual education program or
ESL program. (Marichal, Vol. 20, p. 60)
-14-
48. Hartford public schools offer special programs directed
to the specific needs of its students such as programs delivered
in Portuguese and Spanish for students to retain their native
languages, the history of African-Americans, the history of
Puerto Rico, Latin American studies and key parts of the business
education program delivered in Spanish. (Calvert, Vol. 30, pp.
4-5, Pitocco, Vol. 6, Pp. 88-89)
49. Hartford has preserved its gifted and talented program,
when many other districts including West Hartford have been
forced by budgetary constraints to eliminate their programs.
(Senteio, Vol. 3, p. 32; Lemega, Vol. 29, p. 12)
50. Suburban school districts have been forced to make
substantial reductions in their programs for fiscal reasons.
(Pitocco, Vol. 6, pp. 87-88; Lemega, Vol. 29, pp. 11-18)
51. Because of fiscal constraints, the West Hartford school
district has eliminated over the past three years its computer
' program in its middle schools, non-statutorily mandated
counselling and speech therapy, its career and vocational
-15-
* (Gov »
counselling program, and full-day kindergarten in all but three
schools. (Lemega, Vol. 29, pp. 13-15)
52. Since 1989 the West Hartford school district has
eliminated 20 full-time equivalent teaching positions and 5.5
full-time equivalent administrative positions. (Lemega, Vol. 29,
Pei 16)
53. Hartford’s 31 school buildings do not differ
substantially from school buildings in the 21 suburban school
district in terms of key facilities. (DX 8.13)
54. Hartford’s school buildings are generally well
maintained. (PX 153,: 5-1, 5-2; Calvert, Vol. 30, pp. 29, 67, 74)
55. The state has never turned down a request from Hartford
for state reimbursement for a school construction, expansion or
renovation project. (LaFontaine, Vol. 5, pp. 171-172; Brewer,
Vol. 28, ps. 20)
56. Decisions about the location of school buildings and
' about whether to start, to delay or to postpone a construction or
-16-
renovation project are made exclusively by local officials.
(LaFontaine, Vol. 5, p. 172; Brewer, Vol. 28, pp. 15-16)
57. In terms of net current expenditures per pupil for
1990-91, Hartford ranked as the third highest spending district
in the area, with only Bloomfield and Wethersfield spending more.
{Natriello, Vol. 11, pp. 92-93)
58. The Hartford school district’s relatively lower
spending in the areas of (a) pupil and instructional services,
(b) textbooks and instructional supplies, (c) library books and
periodicals, and (d) equipment and plant operations has resulted
from decisions of the Hartford Board of Education to allocate its
resources to other areas, particularly school employee fringe
benefits. (DX 7.9, p. 1; Brewer Vol. 28, pp. 142-143)
50. If the Hartford school district had pald the ‘state per
pupil average in employee fringe benefits from 1980 to 1992, it
| would have had sufficient funds over that period to cover the
! differentials in the categories of (a) pupil and instructional
services, (b) textbooks and instructional supplies, (c) library
-17-
®
books and periodicals, and (d) equipment and plant operations.
@® (Brewer, Vol. 28, p. 142; Natriello, Vol. 11, p. 62)
60. There are no significant differences in the mean ages
and the mean experience levels among the teaching and
®
administrative staffs of Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport.
(Brewer, Vol. 28, pp. 43, 146-147; PX 427)
PY 61. No independent study has been done to determine whether
it has been necessary for the Hartford school district to pay
higher employee fringe benefits to attract and to retain
® qualified teachers and administrators. (Natriello, Vol. 11, p.
63)
62. From the 1989-90 school year to the 1990-91 school
® year, the Hartford Board of Education almost tripled its per
pupil and per school expenditures for library books. (DX 7:12)
63. Hartford spends sufficient funds on textbooks and
®
supplies to make the basic learning materials available to its
® H
-18~-
¢
students and teachers. (Negron, Vol. 1, pb. 73; Calvert, Vol. 31,
Pp. 94-95, 102)
64. Across-the-board differences in spending do not
generally have an effect on student outcome measures. (Kennedy,
65. There is no definition of “equal educational
opportunity” accepted uniformly by educators and social
scientists. (See Davis, Vol. 5, pp. 88-89; Anderson, Vol. 6, p.
123; Pitocco, Vol. 6, pp. 33-84; Braddock. Vol. 5, p. 28; Crain,
Vol. 10,.p. 70; Willie, Vol. 15, p. 35; Natriello, Vol. 12, p.
128; PX 493, Ferrandino Deposition, pp. 132-133)
66. Hartford public school students are provided with a
level of resources and a level of competent instruction in an
ongoing systemic program that is similar to that of other
communities in the state. (PX 493, Ferrandino Deposition, pp.
132-1337 Calvert, Vol. 30, pp. 4, 119)
2,/0
¢
67. A student in Hartford public schools receives an
1 education of a quality that gives him or her the chance to lead a
successful adult life. (PX 506, Margolin Deposition, pp. 55-56;
PX 493, Ferrandino Deposition, p. 134)
. 68. There is no professionally accepted definition of a
"minimum adequate education” or “substantive minimum level of
education.” (LaFontaine, Vol. 14, pp. 139-140)
®
®
J
® i
]
i
» !
| a
*
®
C.
»
Has The State Been Taking Appropriate Action To
Address Racial, Ethnic and Socio-economic
Isolation And Education Underachievement Of Urban
Children In Poverty
R
1. State Involvement In Education Historically.
69. Connecticut has always been a leader in the field of
public’ education. . (Collier, Vol. 16, pp. 23, 71-72) »
70. The quality of public education in Connecticut has
improved continuously over the past 200 years. (Collier, Vol.
-
16, pp. 9-10, 23, 56-57)
71. As late as 1979, state officials believed that
intradistrict racial balancing could achieve student racial ®
diversity in Hartford and in other cities. (Allison, Vol. 12, p.
12)
| 2. State Involvement Today. : ®
#
-2]1-
-
72. Connecticut is one of only three states in the country
to pass voluntarily legislation requiring racial balance within
school districts (Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-226a et seq.) (Rossell,
Vol. 263, Pp. 5%)
73. Connecticut is one of only seven states in the country
that voluntarily has appropriated state funds to promote racial
and ethnic diversity in its schools. (Rossell, Vol. 26B, p. 44)
74. No state has a racial balance law that requires
interdistrict balancing. {Rossell, Vol. 26B, p. 61)
75. The Interdistrict Cooperative Grant Program has
maintained its appropriation at a time when most other state
education grant programs have suffered cuts in funding because of
the state’s difficult fiscal circumstances during the latter
1980s and 1990s. (Allison, Vol. 12, p. 28; Williams, Vol. 25,
Pp. 76=77)
-22-
76. Interest by school districts in the Interdistrict
Cooperative Grant Program has grown significantly since its
inception. (Williams, Vol. 24, pp. 58-60)
77. The state funds education in such a way as to give
districts like Hartford, which serve a high proportion of
students who come from impoverished backgrounds and, as a whole,
have relatively lower achievement scores, funds in excess of
wealthier districts whose students, as a whole, have higher
achievement scores so as to eliminate the poorer, lower achieving
districts’ initial disadvantage and put such districts on an even
footing with wealthier, higher achieving districts. (Rossell,
Vol. 26B, pp. 40-42: DX 5.1)
78. Connecticut’s formula for reimbursement for special
education costs gives Hartford a higher reimbursement rate than
the 21 suburban school districts and thereby makes Hartford’s
ability to meet the needs of its special education students
comparable to the burden of the suburban school districts. (DX
7:43)
-23-
®
D.
®
The Problems Associated With Racial, Ethnic, And
Socio-economic Conditions And Educational
Underachievement Presented In This Action Are Matters
For the General Assembly
®
1. Integration And Its Effects.
79. State education leaders have taken the position that
° student diversity is promoted most effectively by voluntary
programs and measures. (PX 494, Tirozzi Deposition, pp. 154-156;
PX 493, Ferrandino Deposition, pp. 86-87)
® 80. Voluntary measures are more effective than mandatory
measures in achieving successful long term racial and ethnic
diversity in schools. (Rossell, Vol. 26B, pp. 26-28; Vol. 27, p.
® 33; PX 493, Ferrandino Deposition, p. 117; DX 5.4 - 5.12)
81. Voluntary measures to achieve racial and ethnic
diversity are preferred by parents of all races and national
9 | origins. (Ferree, Vol. 25, p. 165; Rossell, Vol. 27, pp.
172-1737 DX 4.1, Dp. 11=12; DX 42, pp. 11-13)
i
* i
-24-
®
*
82. To the extent that there is any measurable positive
impact on academic achievement from implementation of plans to ‘
promote diversity in schools, voluntary plans or programs work
better than mandatory plans or programs. {(Armoy, Vol. 32, p.
121; PX 58, p. 2)
*
83. When courts in some parts of this country started to
issue orders against school systems that were segregated by law
on the basis of race, social scientists believed that such »
court-ordered desegregation of schools would improve the academic
achievement of African-American students. (Armor, Vol. 33, p.
83) ®
84. Studies done by social scientists on the effects of
court-ordered desegregation have not shown any significant
academic improvement in African-American students. (Slavin, Vol. ®
19, pp. 7X¥=73; Armor, Vol. 33, p..83; PX 58, Schofeld Report, p.
10-19; PX 455, Orfield Report on San Francisco’s Desegregation
consent Decree, .-pp. 1, 5, 30) ®
2B
,
®
85. There is virtually no statistical evidence on the
[ impact of desegregation court orders on the academic achievement
of Latino students. (PX.58, Schofield Report, pp. 10, 19-20)
86. The Boston public schools’ student population was 64%
. : ;
white, 30% African-American and 6% other, when the federal
court’s desegregation plan was implemented in 1970, and by 1975,
it was 49% white, 39% African-American and 12% other groups.
® (Willie, Vol. 15, pp. 108-109)
87. At the time of this trial, the Boston public schocls’
® student population was 20% white (Willie, Vol. 15, p. 109;
Rossell, Vol. 27, Pp+ 13, 17-138)
88. Under a court-ordered desegregation plan for the St.
® Louis school district based on de jure segregation, the transfer
of 13,500 African-American students from the city to the suburban
schools left the white enrollment in city schools one percentage
® |. point higher than it was twelve years earlier, before the plan
was implemented. (Orfield, Vol. 22, pp. 76-80)
® |
-26-
®
89. Restructuring the educational systems of Hartford and
the 21 surrounding suburban school districts alone will not
overcome the socio-economic problems that inhibit the academic
achievement of poor urban children. (Carter, VOI. 1, p. 51;
Oorfield, Vol. 22, p. 54; Calvert Vol. 30, pp. 121, Vol. 31, pp.
20-21,141-142)
2. Steps Toward Integration.
90. Social programs that make it possible for poor families
to raise their socio-economic status are what help poor children
raise their level of academic achievement. (Armor, Vol. 32, p.
121; ‘Natriello, Vol. 11, Pp. 6=7)
91. There is no agreement as to how best to apply the
state’s resources in order to overcome or ameliorate the effects
of ”at risk” disadvantages on these students’ educational
performance. (Natriello, Vol. 11, Pp. 6)
92. With limited resources, the best and most economical
| way to address ”at risk” factors that impede educational
-27 =
performance is to prevent such “at risk” factors from developing
in the first place. (Natrielle, Vol. 11, p. 7)
93. Forty-six percent of Hartford students who started
Project Concern between 1966 and 1971 left Project Concern and
returned to the Hartford school systen. (Armor, Vol.: 32, p...105;
DX. 11.26 “(Table 1))
94. Some Hartford students are performing on the highest
end of the performance scale on the MAT. (Nearine, Vol. 24, Dp.
96)
The following are proposed findings of fact, drawn
exclusively from the contents of the memorandum of decision dated
April 12, 1995, which support the trial court’s judgment.
1. No child in Connecticut has ever been assigned to a
school district in this state on the basis of race, national
origin, socio-economic status, or status as an ”at risk” student.
Rather, children have always been assigned to particular school
districts on the basis of their town of residence. (Tirozzi
Affidavit; MOD 18-19)
2. A majority of the children in Hartford are receiving at
least a “minimally adequate education,” as defined by the
plaintiffs, even though as a group, the mastery test results
showed that many of them were performing below the remedial level
since those tests were never intended to be the sole source of
measure student performance. (Margolin Deposition, PX 506
pp.55-58; MOD 25-26)
3 Minorities who live in the inner cities are
disproportionately poor. Studies have shown that the real
correlation with academic achievement is socioeconomic class:
being poor in and of itself is a significant problem in schools.
{(Tirozzi, P% 494, pp.11-12; MOD 26)
4. The state made several efforts to address the problem
| of racial isolation in the public schools during Gerald Tirozzi’s
| tenure as Education Commissioner. The most important included
|
the interdistrict cooperative program grants, which made two to
three million dollars available to allow districts on a voluntary
basis to develop a number of plans to move students across
district lines. More than 100 districts participated in that
effort during his last year, developing plans on a cooperative
basis. Also, the 1986 educational enhancement act dramatically
raised teachers’ salaries and permitted the hiring of a
substantial number of teachers, with the great majority going to
Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport. Class sizes in those cities
were reduced and the poorest urban school districts were able to
recruit and retain teachers at salaries at least comparable to,
if not higher than, the salary levels in the suburban districts.
{Tirozzi, PX 494, PP.15-16; MOD 27)
5s Also, the priority school district program, was
initially funded at three million dollars to drive more dollars
to cities. The grants were equalized so that more dollars went
to the poorer communities. Connecticut was the first, and may
i gtill be the only, state that factors in our mastery test scores
|| as one of the proxies for need, and it is driven when students do
®
not meet what is called the remedial standard. (Tirozzi, PX 494,
D-16; MOD 22) ®
6. The concept of “collective responsibility,” which
Tirozzi endorsed, was misunderstood by many people to mean
mandatory student assignment when it actually only mandated ®
"corrective action” plans to eliminate racial imbalance with the
threat of state intervention only if the voluntary approach
proved to be ineffectual. (PX 50, p.l1; Tirozzi, PX 494, ®
pp.35-36, 98-99; MOD 28) The recommendation was not implemented
at that time because there was no express statutory authority for
that kind of interdistrict planning process and the State Board »
of Education (”SBE”) decided that because of the strong negative
public reaction to the coercive elements of the report, the best
thing to do was to encourage discussion. (Tirozzi, PX 494, ®
Pp.100~04; MOD 28)
: 7s Commissioner Tirozzi found that voluntary, cooperative
{i
| approaches to integration would generate public support, but
| mandatory approaches would not. He reported to the State Board
| »
| -31-
*
i
| if
{i
that the mandatory aspects of Tirozzi I were negating the rest of
the report and the decision was made to eliminate them from the
concept of ”collective responsibility” in Tirozzil II. (Tirozzi,
PX 494, p.125; MOD 29)
84 In Tirozzi’s opinion, the recommendations in his second
report had a significant impact due to the availability of fairly
substantial state monies at the time, and the fact that the
issues were being discussed by the public and by planning groups.
(Tirozzi, PX 494, p.136; MOD 29) Although he would have liked to
see things improve faster, progress in dealing with such a major
issue in our society could be only incremental because of the
political realities of local control and autonomy, as well as the
problems of housing, unemployment and poverty. (Id. pp.+137-38;
MOD 29)
9, Commissioner Tirozzi’s preference for mandatory
measures to achieve racial diversity changed after he came to
believe that voluntary approaches could bring about a meaningful
level of integration and that even the General Assembly could
-32-
accept legislative proposals along those lines. He suggested two
areas in which such legislation could have a “dramatic impact”:
(1) by changing the school funding formula to encourage the
movement of children across town lines; and (2) by adjusting the
state’s proportional share of school construction costs to reward
districts that build schools close to their borders. (Tirozzi PX
494, p.157-60; MOD 30)
10. Commissioner Tirozzi was of the opinion that the fact
that the New Haven School system in the 1960s had aggressively
pushed integration and actually forced busing drove a significant
number of whites from the City. (Tirozzi, PX:494, p.%95; MOD 31)
11. The state had already taken some very positive steps in
enhancing city schools, particularly with respect to teachers’
salaries, so that the highest salaries in the state were being
paid to teachers in the larger urban districts. While the cities
have a disproportionately large number of children with special
educational needs, some of the best special education classes in
-33=
»
the state can be found in urban districts such as Hartford.
® | (Tirozzi, PX 494, p.54-55; MOD 32-33)
12. The more voluntary the process, the greater chance for
its success. (Ferrandino, PX 493, p.117; MOD 37-40)
®
13. The program that is being offered in Hartford does
provide an equal educational opportunity in the educational sense
- comparable to that which students in other school systems
receive. (Ferrandino, PX 493, p.132-33; MOD 39)
14. For the purpose of analyzing the mastery test results,
® all the districts in the state were classified by “educational
reference group” based on the size of the community and its
student population as well as the various needs to their
» students. Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven constituted one of
the groups even though Hartford’s performance was lower than the
other two. The testing program was not designed to be used
[J comparatively, but was intended to provide information about
Vidi vidual students and programs for the local school district.
| (Ferrandino, PX 493, pp.146-48; MOD 39-40)
o
LJ
15. The present mastery testing system is better than the
previous one because it was created by Connecticut teachers based
on this state’s own educational goals. It was the consensus of
the state board of education that it is a valuable tool in
judging the outputs of the school system. (Mannix, PX 495, p.17;
MOD 46)
16. Integration in the fullest sense may be achieved only
by building affordable housing in the suburbs in order to break
up the ghettos in the cities. (Mannix, PX 495, pp.22-24; MOD
40-41)
17. No set of educational strategies can fully address the
myriad social issues that produce inequality and undermine
education. Substance abuse, hunger, parental neglect, crowded
and substandard housing and inadequate employment opportunities
disproportionately attack minority children in our state and
divert them from educational opportunity. Unless other elements
| of society and other institutions actively share with education
| the responsibility for addressing and remedying these conditions,
!
|
{
1
=35=
|
ly 5
v
|
BE
ts
|
not even the best of strategic education plans can succeed. (PX
73; MOD 42-43)
18. The state’s history of affirmative achievement in
school racial diversity began in 1966 with Project Concern, which
was “designed to promote voluntary desegregation” of urban
schools and was "one of this country’s first voluntary
interdistrict transfer programs.” This was followed by: the
racial imbalance law in 1969; the inclusion in the state school
aid formula of the number of children from low-income families in
1979; in 1989, factoring into the formula the number of students
who score below the remedial standard in order to address “the
needs of urban school districts”; state funding for magnet
schools to improve “the overall quality of education while
reducing racial isolation”; Tirozzi I in 1988 ‘and Tirozzi 11 in
1989, and since 1988, the “competitive interdistrict cooperative
grant program on educational programs that provide opportunities
+ for integration”. (PX 73; MOD 43)
-36-
19. It is the socioeconomic status of school children that
influences academic performance and explains the reduction almost
by half of the achievement gap between black and white students
nationally. Virtually none of the gains in black achievement can
be attributed to school desegregation. {Arnor, Vol. 32, p.19;
MOD 51)
20. Racial composition does not have any statistically
significant effect on achievement scores. The differences in
educational outcomes can be explained by the extremely different
levels of the socioeconomic status of the children in the
respective school systems. (Armor, Vol. 32, DPp.94-95; MOD 52)
21. Mandatory student reassignment plans to achieve racial
balance, whether intradistrict or interdistrict, are ineffective
methods of achieving integration, whether they are mandated by
racial imbalance laws or by Court order. One of the principal
problems with using racial balance as the measure of integration
is that it fails to take into account the decrease in white
'. enrolment that studies have shown takes place both before and
-37-
22
after a plan is put into effect. (Rossell, Vol. 26B, p.34; MOD
52-53)
22. After Vincent Ferrandino became Commissioner of the
Department of Education, as part of his reorganization of the
department, he established an office of urban and priority school
districts in order to concentrate the resources of the department
on the problems of the cities, and more specifically, to improve
the achievement of the students in the three largest urban
districts. (Ferrandino, PX 493, p.25; MOD 36-37)
23. A mandated regional plan will not resolve the problems
of racial and economic isolation and will very likely generate a
negative reaction because of the strong history in this state of
local control of education and the very strong attachment to the
local school system. (Ferrandino, PX 493, pp.86-87; MOD 37)
24. The limited regionalization that occurred in the 1950s
. was accomplished only because of the financial and economic
incentives that the state offered to the smaller communities in
' the state. (Ferrandino, PX 493, pp.86-87; MOD 37)
-38-
25. The cumulative record of Connecticut civil rights
legislation in the area of race relations represents the most
progress toward equal opportunity between whites and Negroes
achieved by any of the Northern states. (PX 502, p.2; MOD 61-62)
26. Blacks were always permitted to go to the district
schools and he had not found any case, except one ephemeral one,
in which blacks were not permitted to go to the district schools.
For all practical purposes de jure segregation in the schools has
never existed except that the City of Hartford had this black
school, Pearl Street School, and they passed an ordinance
requiring black kids to go to the black school and thereafter the
General Assembly met within weeks and repealed the ordinance.
Thus, there has only been de jure segregation in Connecticut for
a matter of weeks, and that only in one place. (Collier, Vol.
16, D.48; MOD 62-63)
27. The law enacted in 1909 that consolidated most of the
school districts in the state based on town boundaries was a
| positive thing for the quality of education in Connecticut. The
|
|
{
{
|
|
i
legislation had nothing to do with race whatsoever and that it
was not a product of any discriminatory motive on the part of the
General Assembly or the people of Connecticut. (Collier, Vol. 16,
pp.66, 68; MOD 64).
28. De jure segregation of blacks was never a state policy
in Connecticut. (Collier, Vol. 16, 69; MOD 64)
29. From the court’s review of all the evidence presented
at trial, the plaintiffs have not established any of what Justice
William O. Douglas described as the ”more subtle” types of state
action that are ordinarily presumed in “de facto segregation”
'. cases, including more specifically the factors of residential
segregation, as well as attendance zone boundaries, which are
exclusively the statutory duty of local boards of education under
§ 10-220 of the General Statutes (MOD 71)
30. Racially balanced municipalities are beyond the pale of
| either judicial or legislative intervention. (MOD 71-72)
-40-
|
il
I;
H
J
|;
|
31... The plaintiffs have failed to prove state action as a
direct and sufficient cause of the conditions that are the
subject matter of the plaintiff’s complaint. (MOD 72)
-471-
BY:
DEFENDANTS
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
et M g£Govern, Jr,
oe a Atkorney General
Juris 23
110 s fs5230 Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06105
Tel. 566-7173
Luin itt nl V ]
Martha Watts Prestley
Assistant Attorney ory
Juris 406172
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06105
Tel. 566-7173
-42-
»
S.C. 15255
MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPREME COURT
vs. STATE OF CONNECTICUT 9
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. JUNE 27,7 1995
FI NDTINLDG ®
Pursuant to:this Court’s Order of May 11, 1995 that the
trial court review any filings relating to factual issues °
other than the parties’ stipulation of facts and proposed
findings of ‘fact that it may find: helpful, the court
incorporates herein by way of introduction to its findings ;
certain amendments to the complaint that were made by the
plaintiffs prior to triel for the purpose of narrowing the :
scope of their offer of proof, as well as a representation
made by counsel for the plaintiffs at the time of final y
argument relating to the defendants’ claim that the court
lacks jurisdiction ‘because of the plaintiffs’ failure to
join the Hartford area towns and school districts as .
necessary parties in this action.
I. .
On July 21, 1992, the plaintiffs filed a request CO
amend paragraphs 47 and 50 of their original complaint, and
to delete paragraph 71 in its entirety, because "the state’s a
nls, in segregated housing patterns is not a necessary part
Siro, of their affirmative cage . . . and they wish to eliminate
er ambiguity in the pleadings that may be relied on by the .
Tat . . ; = eT Aa
Pity Saf gy idy
Si fo bd Had yon ' hap dis
deli
{
defendants to divert the [clourt’s attention from the
important educational issues that are at the core of this
case." (Plaintiffs’ Request for Leave to Amend Complaint,
July 21, 1992, Record item #178.)
paragraph 47, which had alleged that the disparities in
educational achievement between Hartford and the suburban
school districts were the result of the "educational and
social policies pursued and/or accepted by the defendants,
was amended to allege only that the disparities were the
result of the defendants’ "education-related policies".
The plaintiffs’ request also proposed to change
paragraph 50 of the complaint to read that the defendants
had long been aware of "the racially and economically
segregated population patterns in the Hartford
region . . ."%, in place of the original allegation Chat they
had long been aware of "the strong governmental forces that
have created and maintained" those population patterns.’
Paragraph 71 of the complaint, which was deleted in its
entirety, had alleged that the defendants and their
predecessors had "failed to take action to afford meaningful
racial and economic integration of housing within school
zones and school districts in the Hartford metropolitan
region [and that these] failures have contributed to the
paragraph 50 as it appears in both the Consolidated
Amended Complaint (February 26, 1993, Record item #201.70)
and the Revised Complaint (November 23, 1994, Record item
#217) were not changed to conform to the 1992 amendment.
2
isolation of poor and minority students within the Hartford
School District.”
11.
Prior to hearing the final arguments of counsel, the
court asked the defendants whether they would be pursuing
the jurisdictional issue which they had raised in their
fifth special defense which asserts that "[t]o the extent
that the plaintiffs complain about matters which are
committed by law to the discretion of the City of Hartford
or the Hartford Board of Education or any of the suburban
cities, towns or school boards, the court does not have
Jurigdiction . .. because of the plaintiffs’ failure to
join necessary parties." (Transcript, November 30, 1994,
Pp. 15-19.) Counsel for the plaintiffs then acknowledged in
response to a question from the court that the plaintiffs
were making no claims by way of the pleadings, or through
evidence that had been offered at the trial, that there were
any acts or omissions on the part of the city of Hartford or
its board of education, or on the part of the twenty-one
other towns referred to in the complaint or of their boards
of education, that constituted a violation of the
plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. 14d,
Pursuant to this Court's Order of May 11, 1995 the
trial court’s findings on the disputed facts disclosed in
the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties are
as follows:
I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND?
1. Education in Connecticut has always been under the
control of the colony or the state government, and the
public policy of the state and colony from the inception of
our system of education has been that it is essential to the
perpetuation of our form of government that all students
receive an equal educational opportunity. (Collier, 16/54)
2 Connecticut has always been a leader in the field
of education and had the highest literacy rate in the
country, if not in‘the world, in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, and even when the quality of its
educational system declined sharply in the 1840's,
Connecticut still maintained the highest literacy rate in
the United States.
3. In the seventeenth century, the Puritan or
Calvinist view about the government’s duty to provide a
proper education was that education was perceived to be a
public responsibility rather than a matter of personal
preference or choice.
4. The tradition of local control in this state goes
back to the early eighteenth century when the responsibility
for education was taken away from the towns and given to the
2The court’s findings numbered one through twenty-five,
unless otherwise indicated, are based on the testimony of
Christopher Collier (Transcript Volume 16, January 14,
1993), a professor of history at the University of
Connecticut and the officially designated State Historian
for the state of Connecticut. He testified in the course of
the plaintiffs’ case-in-chief and was the only trial witness
who testified as an expert on Connecticut history.
3Where the trial testimony of a witness is cited, the
name of the witness will be given, followed by the volume of
the transcript numbered from one through thirty-five for
each day of the trial, followed by the page or pages of the
transcript at which the testimony appears.
4
parishes or ecclesiastical societies within the towns to
such an extent that it was sald at the time that there was a
school within a mile of every student in the state.
5. In the mid-eighteenth century there were about
sixteen hundred such districts in the state that were
carrying out the educational function at the local level and
school districts kept getting smaller in the ensuing years.
6. In the late nineteenth century, disparities in the
quality of education between rural and urban school systems
developed because urban districts were the only ones
permitted by law to establish high schools’ and because those
districts had a broader tax base.
7. In an effort to reduce these disparities and to
meet its commitment to provide equal educational opportunity
for all students, the state devised a funding formula under
which less money was paid per student as the number of
students increased so that rural schools received much more
per student and urban schools were paid much less.
8. Thereafter, as a result of persistent attempts to
give the state full control over all high schools, a blll to
that effect was passed by both houses of the legislature in
1933, but was vetoed by the governor.
9. The first regional high school in the state was
authorized by a special act passed in 1936 and thereafter
general legislation was enacted which encouraged the
building of regional high schools.
10. The limited regionalization that took place in the
1950's was accomplished only because of the financial and
economic incentives that were offered by the state to the
smaller communities and it reflected the strong historical
influence of local control and attachment to the local
school system on state educational policy. (Ferrandino,
PX 493, pp. 86-87)"
11. The population increase in the rural and suburban
areas of the state after World War II was the principal
reason for the dramatic increase in the construction of new
school buildings in those areas during that period in
addition to the fact that the need to promote quality
education in those school systems was a very significant
factor in the process of regionalization which was also
taking place during the post-war period.
“Trial exhibits hereafter will be designated "PX" for
plaintiffs’ exhibits and "DX" for defendants’ exhibits.
5
/
\
13.. The history of public education in Connecticut
justifies the conclusion that although there are
deficiencies from time to time in its delivery of quality
education, the state’s educational system compares favorably
with almost every other state in the country.
13. The only manifestation of de jure segregation
either at the state or local level in Connecticut since the
Civil War occurred in Hartford in the spring of 1868 when an
ordinance was adopted that required black children to go to
a specially designated "colored" school located on Pearl
Street in that city.
14. The General Assembly met within weeks after the
city’s attempt to segregate its school children and
nullified that action by adopting Connecticut’s open
enrollment law which is now codified, in substantially the
same language, as § 10-15c of the General Statutes and
requires that public schools be open to all children without
discrimination on account of race, creed or color.
15. At about the same time, the legislature also
enacted the "free school" law which abolished tuition so
that all children regardless of economic status, as well as
race, would have access to a free public education.
16. In the post Civil War era, this state’s strong
policy of opposition to de jure segregation as reflected in
its 1868 open enrollment law was not unusual, and in that
respect Connecticut was not in advance of other states at
the time, particularly New York, Massachusetts, and the
other New England states.
17. Connecticut’s cumulative record of civil rights
legislation dealing with racial discrimination during the
period from 1905 to 1961 represented the most progress
toward equal opportunity achieved by any of the northern
states up to that time. (PX 502, pp. 1-2)
18. Racial discrimination in hotels, restaurants,
transportation facilities, and places of amusement was
prohibited under the state’s public accommodations law which
was first enacted in 1905, and discrimination in public
employment was outlawed in 1936. Id.
19. The first civil rights commission in the United
States was Connecticut’s Inter-racial Commission which was
created in 1943 and was empowered to investigate employment
opportunities, violations of civil liberties, and related
matters. Id.
® ( =f) »
20. In 1947, a fair employment practices act was
enacted which empowered the Inter-racial Commission to
proceed against employers, employment agencies or unions who
engaged in discriminatory practices based on race, religion,
or national origin, and discrimination in public housing
projects was declared illegal in 1949. Id.
21. The public accommodations act was expanded in 1953
to cover all establishments offering goods and services to
the public, and in 1959, its coverage was further extended
to include private housing by prohibiting discrimination in
the sale or rental of a housing accommodation by anyone
owning five or more contiguous units, and by anyone owning
three or more units under a law passed in 1961. Id.
59. The single most important factor that contributed
to the present concentration of racial and ethnic minorities
in Hartford was the town-school district system which has
existed since 1909, when the legislature consolidated most
of the school districts in the gtate so that thereafter town
boundaries became the dividing lines between all school
districts in the state.
23. The passage of that law was designed to improve
the quality of education on a statewide basis by involving
the state more fully in all aspects of education at a Lime
when the demographic patterns which began in the 1940's and
regulted in the high concentration of minorities in the
cities could not have been predicted.
24. The 1909 legislation, which was adopted in the
face of strong opposition from local districts, but was, in
retrospect, a positive step in the improvement of the
quality of education in the state, was not racially
motivated in any sense nor was it a product of any
discriminatory motive or purpose on the part of the gtare or
of any local governmental units or of the people of this
state,
25, Article Eighth § 4 of the Connecticut constitution
relating to the School Fund was taken verbatim from the 1818
constitution because the 1965 constitutional convention was
a very conservative body that made only those changes that
had to be made in order to comply with the legislative
reapportionment mandates of the federal courts and it was
extremely reluctant to change anything that did not have to
be changed.
@® 240 »
X,
II. THE STATE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE RACIAL, ETHNIC AND
SOCIOECONOMIC ISOLATION OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM
AND THE STATE'S RESPONSE TO THOSE CONDITIONS AND TO THE
EDUCATIONAL UNDERACHIEVEMENT OF THE CHILDREN WHO ATTEND
THE HARTFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
A. THE STATE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE RACTAL, ETHNIC AND
SOCIOECONOMIC ISOLATION OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM.
26. The racial and ethnic composition of the towns in
the Hartford metropolitan area and the unpredictable and
dynamic patterns of change over the past thirty years were
the result of powerful social and demographic forces
generated by the collective exercise of personal geographic
preferences over which the state had no control. (Armor,
32/129; 8teahr, 23/76,:107-12)
27. A variety of factors, including differential birth
and immigration rates, differential usage of private
schools, and the differential flow of white and minority
families to the suburbs has led to increased racial
isolation in the schools of the major cities in this state.
(OY 12.25,.p. 2)
28. The dramatic increase in school construction in
Hartford area suburban towns that tock place in the 1950's
was the result of the movement of population from the city
to the suburbs and the post-war baby boom. (Calvert,
30/126-27)
29. During that same period, Hartford was not
experiencing the same degree of enrollment growth that was
occurring in the suburban communities, particularly those
immediately surrounding the city. Id., 128.
30. ‘These trends continued during the 1960's, but at a
somewhat reduced rate. Id., 128-29.
31. In Hartford during that period, the Hartford
Public High School was replaced when the school site was
taken by the state in order to construct I-84. Id.
32. In the 1970's there was increased school
construction in Hartford which included the replacement of
the old Bulkeley and Weaver High Schools and the building of
elementary schools in the north end of Hartford because of
the growth in population in that area. Id.
33. The Quirk and Fox Middle Schools were built in
Hartford in the 1970's as a part of the board of education’s
policy of integrating its students at an earlier grade level
than high school.é 1d., *130;-PX'l, pp. 15-16; DX 13.2, p.. 7.
8
® 241 *
34. The construction of new elementary schools in the
center and north end of Hartford during that period was
necessary in order to replace school buildings in the cily
that had outlived their usefulness and also because there
was continuing enrollment growth in the central and northern
sections of the city and a corresponding decline in the
gchool age population in the south end. I4., 130-33,
35. The school district makes the initial selection of
the site and the state plays no part in the site selection
process and can only limit the amount of its reimbursement
to the district where the acreage or the size of the
building exceeds maximum standards. (Brewer, 28/16;
Gordon, 13/101-02) .
36. In Connecticut, as in other states, the local
school districts decide when and where a new school will be
built and whether or not existing schools should be replaced
or Closed, (Gordon, 13/103-04)
37. ~The gtate has made no-effort to influence the site
selection process on the local level, and as long as the
building meets code requirements and environmental
protection regulations, the state defers to the decision of
the local district and gives its approval. (Brewer, 28/180)
38. The defendants have not created or maintained
racially or economically segregated population patterns nor
have they failed to take action against segregated housing
patterns as originally alleged in the complaint, (Finding,
Part I)
39. There have been no acts or omissions on the part
of the city of Hartford or of its board of education, or on
the part of the twenty-one other towns referred to in the
complaint or of their boards of education, that have
violated the plaintiffs’! constitutional rights. (Finding,
Part 11)
40. Local control and the tendency to favor
neighborhood schools has never manifested itself in the form
of open resistance by local school districts in Connecticut
to the state's racial imbalance law, as it did in
Massachusetts in the 1970's. (Foster, 21/157-60; Rossell,
26B/32-34)
41. No school district in the state has violated the
open enrollment law since its enactment in 1868, unlike
other states such as New Jersey, where dual school systems
apparently existed in parts of the state as recently as
1947. (Collier, 16/48; see also Booker v, Board of
Pducation, 212 A: 2d'1, 15 (N.J.- 1965) (Hall, J., concurring
in part and dissenting in part.))
9
B. THE STATE'S RESPONSE TO THE RACIAL, ETHNIC AND
SOCIOECONOMIC ISOLATION OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM
AND TO THE EDUCATIONAL UNDERACHIEVEMENT OF THE CHILDREN
WHO ATTEND THE HARTFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
42. Students in the Hartford schools are racially
isolated and are likely to become more isolated in the
future. (PX 494, pp. 9-10)
43. There is a strong inverse relationship between
racial imbalance and quality education in Connecticut’s
public schools because racial imbalance is coincident with
poverty, limited resources, low academic achievement and a
high incidence of children with special needs. (PX 42,
2.1)
44. Education in its fullest sense for both white and
minority school children involves interracial and
multiethnic exposure to each other and interaction between
them, because racial and ethnic isolation has negative
effects on both groups. : 14.
45. Connecticut has long acknowledged an affirmative
responsibility to desegregate its public schools and to
guarantee educational equality for all students. {PX 73)
46. Connecticut is one of only seven states that
voluntarily spend their own funds exclusively on
desegregation programs or efforts to relieve racial
imbalance without being ordered to do so by a court.
(DX 5.2; Rossell, 26B/47)
47. In this state, funds are provided for such things
as multicultural training programs and new multicultural
courses, teacher workshops, interdistrict magnet schools and
school construction. (Rossell, 26B/48)
48. Since 1966, the state has provided both financial
support and technical assistance for one of this country’s
first voluntary interdistrict transfer programs, Project
Concern, which was designed to promote voluntary
desegregation among schools in urban metropolitan areas.
(PX 73)
49. Project Concern and METCO in Boston may be the
only voluntary state-initiated interdistrict desegregation
programs in the country that have been in continuous
operation for over twenty-five years and which have been
funded continuously during that period, at least in part, by
the state. (Crain, 10/72-74)
10
® 2473 ®
50... In 1964, one year prior to the enactment by
Massachusetts of its racial imbalance law and five years
before a similar law was passed in Connecticut, the New
Haven board of education adopted a school pairing plan for
the purpose of reducing racial imbalance in its school
system and in the interest of promoting equality of
educational opportunity. (PX 494, p. 95; see also Guida v,
Board of Education, 26 Conn. Sup. 121. {(1965}))
51. The plan wag upheld by this court: (Devlin, J.) ag -
being a proper exercise of the local board’s duty to
maintain a sound educational system and afford equal
educational opportunities to its students. Id.
52. Connecticut’s racial imbalance law which was
passed in 1969 represented a significant attempt to address @
the problems of racial imbalance at a time when none of
Connecticut’s cities had more than sixty percent minority
student enrollment. (PX'50, .p. 7)
53. The state board of education (SBE) proceeded to
draft and approve regulations within six months of the “
passage of the racial imbalance law in July of 1363.
(PX 37)
54." The regulationg review committee rejected the
regulations partly in response to strong public opposition.
14. *
55. In November of 1979, the SBE, prior to the
adoption of the regulations in April of 1980, found that
Hartford, Meriden, New Britain, Norwalk, New Haven,
Stamford, and Stratford had racially imbalanced schools.
1d. ®
56. At the same time, the education commissioner cited
five Hartford schools for being racially imbalanced, and
upon the adoption of the regulations, the plans for Meriden,
Norwalk, New Britain, Stamford, Stratford, Hartford and New
Haven were approved by the SBE. Id. ®
57. The city of Waterbury, which had previously
entered into a consent decree in a federal enforcement
proceeding which was commenced in 1969; see United States
ve, Board of Education of Waterbury, 605 F.2d 573 (2nd Cir.
1979); was the subject of further enforcement proceedings ®
commenced by the state in May of 1985 under the racial
imbalance law and regulations, and in January of 1988 the
state commenced an action against the board in which it
sought a court order by way of mandamus to require the
implementation of a plan to correct the racial imbalance
which existed in some of its schools.
11
»
. 24
58. The court file in that case is still active, and
in accordance with a supplemental order entered by the court
(Maloney, J.) concerning the construction of a new
interdistrict magnet school in the south end of Waterbury,
the Waterbury board of education continues to file regular
reports with the court. Connecticut State Board of
Education vs. Waterbury Board of Education, CV-88-341471S
(Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford; see
also Spec. Sess., May 1992, No. 92-3.8 31).
59. Connecticut is one of only three states that have
voluntarily adopted legislation with self-imposed specific
goals for the purpose of reducing racial imbalance and
promoting integration in their school districts. (Rossell,
26B/57; DX 5.3)
60. No state in the country has a racial imbalance law
that requires interdistrict balancing. (Rossell, 26B/61)
61. The claim of the plaintiffs (Complaint, § 55) that
the proposed educational parks bill was an appropriate
legislative effort to reduce imbalance and promote
integration at the time that it was rejected by the General
Assembly is not supported by the evidence because the
plaintiffs’ principal desegregation planning expert did not
know whether such a proposal would have been a viable
remedial option at that time in the Hartford area, and he
also acknowledged that educational parks have never been
included in a court-ordered desegregation plan based on the
approximately one hundred school desegregation cases in
which he had participated. (Gordon, 13/127, 131)
62. At the time of the hearing conducted by the human
rights and opportunities committee of the legislature on the
proposed educational parks bill on February 7, 1969 (Exhibit
22(e), pp. 78-79), Medill Bair, who was the Hartford
superintendent of schools at the time, referred to Public
Act No. 523 that had been enacted in 1965 to provide state
aid for educationally and economically disadvantaged
children as the first of its kind in the nation, and stated
that many of its features were thereafter incorporated into
Title I (later Chapter I) of the federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 which was enacted six months
later.
63. At the hearing conducted on the educational parks
bill, Bair also referred to Public Act 35 which had been
passed in 1967, and which was the original funding statute
for interdistrict Project Concern contracts, as another law
that had made this state a "pacesetter" for similar state
and national legislation. Id.
12
64. Beginning in 1979, Connecticut's method for
financing public schools has taken into account the needs of
urban school districts by including in the aid formula the
number of children from low income families, and in 1989, a
weighting factor based on the number of students who score
below the remedial standard on the state’s mastery tests was
added Lo the school aid formula. (PX 73)
65. Since 1970, the state, recognizing that magnet
schools and the programs that they offer tend to improve the
overall quality of education while reducing racial
isolation, has given technical assistance to intradistrict
magnet schools and the legislature has also authorized
special bond funding for the construction or renovation of
buildings to house interdistrict magnet schools. Id.
66. The most significant action Caken by the state to
address the problem of racial, ethnic and socioeconomic
isolation in the state’s largest urban public school systems
during Gerald Tirozzi’s tenure as education commissioner
from 1983 to 1991 was the interdistrict cooperative grants
program, which allowed school districts to develop a number
of plans to move students across district lines, and during
his last year as commissioner more than one hundred
districrte throughout the state participated in the
development of such plans on a cooperative basis. (PX 494,
pp. 14-18)
67. The 1986 educational enhancement act addressed the
financial needs of the cities by raising teachers’ salaries
dramatically so that Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport
were able to recruit and retain teachers at salaries
comparable to, 1f not higher than, the salary levels offered
by suburban districts, thereby permitting class sizes to be
reduced in those cities. Id.
68. The priority school district program which was
initially funded at three million dollars was intended to
benefit the urban school districts and almost all of the
grants were equalized so that the poorer communities
received the greatest financial benefit. Id.
69. Connecticut was the first state to factor the
mastery test results into its school aid formula as one of
the measures of a school district’s financial need and where
students do not meet the remedial standards required under
the testing program additional funds are made available.
14.,. 84;
70. On September 20, 1989, a commission on quality and
integrated education was appointed by Governor O'Neill
pursuant to the second Tirozzi report's recommendation whose
13
members were selected on a statewide basis and included
legislators, corporate and community leaders, members of
local school boards, parents, educators, and scholars, who
were charged with developing ways to promote quality and
integrated education in this state. (PX 73)
71. The governor's charge to the commission was to
examine voluntary and cooperative measures or approaches and
there was no discussion about mandatory measures until the
last few meetings when some of the members felt that time
was of the essence because of the conditions that the
commission had found existed, and that therefore the
voluntary or incremental approach would only delay the
remediation of those conditions. (Carter, 1/37-38)
72. The commission’s report which was filed on
December 31, 1990, included "An Open Letter to the People of
the State of Connecticut" by the governor in which he stated
that many students in the state’s educational system were
isolated in schools that were either largely middle class
and white or largely poor and non-white, and that much could
be learned from the experience of other states in seeking to
achieve the "twin goals of quality and integration [but at]
the same time Connecticut’s answers will be particular to
Connecticut, reflecting our special circumstances, history
and heritage." (PX 73)
73. The transmittal letter to the governor stated that
a number of the members of the commission were of the
opinion that voluntary approaches were unlikely to be
adequate and felt that the report should include mandates,
while other members believed that mandates were beyond the
charge of the commission or that mandatory approaches were
not effective, and requested that both Governor O’Neill and
Governor-elect Weicker recognize that "strong arguments
supporting both options have been advanced by Commission
members and Connecticut citizens at public hearings held
across the state." Id.
74. The transmittal letter also stated that
"[e]ducation cannot shoulder the burden of social change by
itself [and we] now realize that no set of educational
strategies can fully address the myriad social issues that
produce inequality and undermine education [because
substance] abuse, hunger, parental neglect, crowded and
substandard housing and inadequate employment opportunities
disproportionately attack minority children in our state and
divert them from educational opportunity." Id.
75. The commission also noted in its transmittal
letter that it recognized that the state was confronting a
serious budget problem and that while some of its
14
recommendations would not require funding, that others
would.’ Id.
76. The fact that more progress was not made in
pursuing the objectives outlined in the commission’s report
was not the result of any lessening of the commitment of the
department of education (DOE) to continue to pursue issues
of racial equity, diversity, and the needs of disadvantaged
children. (Williams, 25/77)
77. ‘The creation Of the office of urban and priority
school districts in 1992 by Commissioner Ferrandino was an
effort to focus on some of the deficiencies that exist
within the state’s urban school systems with particular
reference to their depressed standardized test scores. Id.,
Pp. 21, 147.
78. The first Tirozzi report, which endorsed the
concept of "collective responsibility", was misunderstood at
the time it was issued to mean mandatory student assignment
in spite of the fact.that it mandated only "corrective
action" plans to eliminate racial imbalance with the threat
of state intervention only if the voluntary approach proved
to be ineffectual. (PX 494, pp.’ 35-36, 98-99)
79. ‘After Tirozzi reported back to the SBE, the board
decided that because of the strong negative public reaction
to the coercive elements of Tirozzi I, it would be advisable
to encourage public discussion and thereafter, in accordance
with the SBE’s direction, Tirozzi discussed the matter with
educators, administrators and local officials throughout the
state in the course of the following year. Id., 100-04.
80. As a result of Tirozzi’s recommendations after his
statewide discussions, the SBE concluded that progress in
dealing with social issues of such complexity could only be
incremental because of the "political realities" of local
control and autonomy, and because educational initiatives
alone could not adequately address or appropriately resolve
the problems of housing, unemployment and poverty. Id.,
136-33,
81. The strong negative response to what appeared to
be the coercive aspects of the first Tirozzi report, and the
positive public reaction to the second report’s voluntary
approach, indicated that a meaningful level of integration
could best be achieved in this state by means of a
cooperative, noncoercive planning process. Id., 155-60.
82. Practical and appropriate legislative educational
initiatives that could lead to a meaningful level of
integration should include first, changes in the school
1s
funding formula to encourage the movement of children across
town lines, and second, the adjustment of the state’s
proportionate share of school construction costs so as to
give financial inducements to districts that build schools
closer to their borders. 1d.
83. On January 6, 1993, the eleventh day of the trial,
Governor Weicker, in his message to the legislature (PX 90,
Pp. 4-5), noted the positive aspects of Connecticut’s
educational system, such as the fact that the state had the
highest teacher salaries and the best teacher-student ratio
in the nation as well as one of the highest rankings among
the states in per pupil spending.
84. He also acknowledged that the racial and economic
isolation in the state’s school system was "indisputable"
and whether it had come about "through the chance of
historical boundaries or economic forces beyond the control
of the state or whether it came about through private
decisions or in spite of the best educational efforts of the
state, what matters is that it is here and must be dealt
with. "Ss Id. «7.
85. He then proceeded to cutline legislative proposals
for six educational regions, the development by each region
of a five year plan proposed by local and regional
representative groups to reduce racial isolation, and "to
provide all students with a quality, integrated learning
experience", and emphasized the fact that "[l]ocal decisions
and local involvement will guide the process." Id., 9-11.
86. On June 28, 1993, Public Act No. 93-263, (now
codified as General Statutes §§ 10-264a to 10-264b) entitled
"An Act Improving Educational Quality and Diversity" was
signed by the governor. The Act provided a timetable
beginning on January 15, 1994, for the convening of local
and regional "forums" for the purpose of developing regional
"education and community improvement plans" which were to be
voted on by each of eleven regions in the state.
87. Thereafter, the plaintiffs, at the direction of
the trial court, amended the complaint® to state that
Governor Weicker, "in response to this law suit . . . called
on the legislature to address ‘' [tlhe racial and economic
isolation in Connecticut’s school system,’ and the related
educational inequities in Connecticut’s schools."
The Revised Complaint dated November 23, 1994 (Record
item 201.70) incorporated the amendments as paragraphs 66a
and 66b and is the operative complaint that is referred to
in these findings unless otherwise indicated.
16
° 3 s
88. Paragraph 66b stated that "[als in the past, the
legislature failed to act effectively in response to the
Governor's call for school desegregation initiatives [and
instead], a voluntary desegregation planning bill was
passed, P.A. 93-263, which.contains no racial or poverty
concentration goals, no guaranteed funding, no provisions
for educational enhancements for city schools, and no
mandates for local compliance."
.
1 Hews “
17
III. DOES THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM PROVIDE THE PLAINTIFFS
WITH A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION UNDER THE EQUAL
PROTECTION AND EDUCATION CLAUSES OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION?
89. Historically, racial or ethnic minority group
membership has been associated with being educationally
disadvantaged because members of those groups have failed to
succeed in schools at the same levels as most members of the
majority group. (PX 163, pp. 27-28)
90. The generally poorer academic performance of black
and Hispanic youngsters is explained for the most part by
the social and economic conditions under which their
families live.” 1d., 28.
91. Two other explanations that have ben given,
first, the failure of the schools to offer a program that is
sensitive to the cultural background of minority youngsters
and second, the patterns of institutional discrimination in
the schools that reflect historical patterns of social
discrimination in the larger society, are not applicable
under the facts of this case to the Hartford public schools.
(Natriello, 11/181-82)
2," It is poverty and not race that is a principal
causal factor in lower educational achievement. (Kennedy,
14/74)
93. The problems of the Hartford schools are
compounded by the fact that minorities in the inner cities
are disproportionately poor and the real correlation with
academic achievement is socioeconomic class rather than
race, and being poor in and of itself is a significant
problem in the schools. (PX 494, pp. 11-12)
94. The reason that children who live in poverty do
not do well in statewide academic testing is because they
are poor and disadvantaged and not because they are an
ethnic or racial minority, because poor minority children
exhibit the same patterns as those of their poor white
counterparts, and poverty is the strongest predictor of poor
academic achievement. (PX 42, p. 14)
95. National studies have shown that the concentration
of poverty may have adverse effects on achievement levels
over and above the effects of family poverty. (Kennedy,
14/27-31)
96. In the report of his study of the Hartford school
system, although Gary Natriello did not state any conclusion
with respect to the presence of a separate "concentration
18
251 i»
effect" in Hartford beyond the effect of individual
socioeconomic status differences (Natriello, 11/25-26, 164),
the defendants’ analysis of the test scores acknowledges
that a higher concentration of students at risk may affect
achievement, and that "[i]lncreases in the concentration of
students of low economic status within schools seem to be
associated with disproportionately higher incidences of
academic need.” (PX 70, pp. 17)
97. It is the socioeconomic status of school children
that influences academic performance and that helps to
explain the reduction almost by half of the achievement gap
between black and white students nationally between 1970 and
1990. (Armor, 32/98)
98. The level of achievement that should be attained
by the students in a particular school district cannot be
assessed or determined without considering the conditions
that exist in that district which tend to hinder or inhibit
academic attainment, and examples of such factors would
include mobility, limited English proficiency and
socioeconomic status. (Nearine, 24/68-70)
99. If two groups of students that are equal in all
respects except that one group has a larger percentage of
students with "at risk" factors such as low birth weight
babies and mothers on drugs at birth, the group with a
larger percentage of those characteristics will perform more
poorly in an educational sense than the group with a smaller
percentage of those characteristics. (Natriello, 11/4-5)
100. To understand the quality or effectiveness of a
particular educational program, the effects of the
disadvantages that students bring to school with them to
that program must be separated from the effects of the
particular educational programs. (Natriello, 11/8-9, 22-23,
89-91; Crain, 35/79-80)
101. The plaintiffs’ witnesses, with the exception of
Gary Orfield, agreed that it is important to separate the
effects of poverty from the effects of racial isolation and
that there are ways in which the separate effects of poverty
and racial isolation can be measured statistically. (Armor,
32/19)
102. Natriello’s report considered the disadvantages
that Hartford students bring with them to school in his
review of the quality of educational programs offered in
Hartford, but he did not separate the effects of those
disadvantages from the effects of the particular educational
programs in Hartford that he was assessing. (Natriello,
11/8-9, 22-23)
19
® 55
103. The two purposes served by the state mastery tests
are first, the results inform districts so that they can
improve their programs, correct deficiencies and plan for
the future, and second, they provide the basis for the
disbursement of funds to the districts that do not perform
at or above the remedial standard. (PX 494, p. 84)
104. The mastery testing program was not designed to be
used for purposes of comparison, but was intended to provide
information about individual students and programs for the
use of local school districts so that they could improve
their own particular educational programs. (PX 493,
pp. 146-48)
105. An equally important purpose of the testing
program is to trigger remedial services to the students that
need them. (Natriello, 11/189)
106. Connecticut mastery test results should not be
seen as primarily caused by either the educational delivery
system or by racial imbalance or isolation in the schools
because the results could be importantly related to many
other factors which have not been considered. (D¥%-10.1)
107... It is inappropriate to use the Connecticut mastery
test data to draw conclusions about the quality of education
in Hartford, unless the effects of important variables such
as socioeconomic status, early environmental deprivations
and diminished motivation to succeed academically, are taken
into account. (Plynn,»31/153-55; D% 10.1)
108. Among the variables that have to be considered in
analyzing the Hartford test scores are the number of
students with limited English proficiency in the district
and the extraordinary mobility of its student population,
both of which are significant factors that contribute to the
depressed test scores of Hartford school children.
(LaFontaine, 14/141-42)
109. As important as the Connecticut mastery test is,
it is always desirable to consider as many perspectives and
indicators as possible in an effort to fairly assess the
academic progress of students at risk, because the academic
success of students is multifaceted, and therefore, it is
best measured by using multiple indicators at different
points in time so ’'as to provide a more complete
understanding of the achievement of students at risk. (PX
70, p+ 17)
110. The state mastery tests were never intended to be
the sole source of measuring stucsnt performance.
(Margolin, PX 506, .p. 58)
20
553) »
111. The use of state mastery test data does not.
provide the necessary information to conclude that
educational instructional services in urban schools are
inferior to those in suburban school districts. (DY 10,1)
112. The DOE advises against comparing scores among
school districts because it is impossible to identify how
the average student in each school system has performed
without knowing average scores and standard deviations in
addition to other factors that may affect any such attempted
comparigons.: (DX 12.16, p. 20)
113. It is an abuse of the purposes of the testing
program to use the test scores as the basis for comparing
the quality of education between schools or school systems.
(LaFontaine, 14/140)
114. An analysis of the 1987 Connecticut mastery test
results conducted by the DOE reported that poverty as
measured by student participation in free and reduced lunch
programs was a major contributing factor in the disparity in
academic performance between students in Hartford, New Haven
and Bridgeport and those in the rest of the state. (PX 59,
Dod)
115. Any social scientist examining test score
differentials would have to take socioeconomic status into
account before coming to a conclusion. (Armor, 32/23)
116. Virtually all of the differences in performance
between Hartford students and those in other towns, as well
as differences in college attendance, can be explained by
differences in socioeconomic status and the background
factors that socioeconomic status represents. (Armor,
32/30-32, 94-95)
117. It is inconsistent with the purposes of testing to
use collective test scores as the basis for comparing
outcomes between school districts without taking into
consideration the various factors and variables that combine
to create the particular level of test result. (LaFontaine,
14/139)
118. The purpose of the remedial standard was to have a
standard available for the purpose of state funding to
determine which school systems required additional financial
assistance in order to improve the achievement of the
students in those districts that had the greatest need.
(PX 494, pp. 84-86)
119. Although the socioeconomic status of Hartford's
children declined between 1980 and 1990 and the
21
concentration of poverty has increased during that time, the
differences in test scores between Hartford’s children and
those of children throughout the state are not getting any
larger. {(Natriello, 11/114-18)
120. Hartford's teachers are no less qualified than
teachers in the suburban school districts. (Natriello,
11/35; LaFontaine, 14/131)
121. Hartford teachers are very committed and dedicated
to providing a quality education for their students.
(Dudley, 16/147)
122. Hartford's teacher training program is based on
the "effective schools" concept which is specifically
directed to the needs of urban and minority children.
(LaFontaine, 14/131-32) :
123. Hartford should not be considered as a negative
getting for education in that the state is still meeting its
primary responsibility of educating its school children and
there is some outstanding education going on in its schools.
(PX 506, p. 48)
124. Some of the best special education classes in the
state can be found in the Hartford city schools. (PX 494,
pp. 54-55)
125. The Hartford public schools offer academic
programs that are sufficient to meet the basic educational
needs of all its students and also provide other programs
that are required to meet the special needs of its
economically disadvantaged students. (Calvert 30/4-9,
119-21)
126. Hartford public school students are provided with
a level of resources and the level of instruction and an
ongoing systematic program that is similar to that of other
communities in the state. (PX 493, pp. 132-33)
127. There is no professionally accepted definition of
the terms "minimally adequate education" or "substantive
minimum level of education." (LaFontaine, 14/139-40)
128. The conclusion reached by Natriello in his report
(PX 163, pp. 231 through 264) entitled "A Descriptive Study
of the Educational Resources of the Hartford Public Schools
and Disparities with Other Districts", that students in the
Hartford public schools were not receiving a minimally
adequate education was based on the assumptions that the
mastery test data is an appropriate basis from which to
assess the quality of education in Hartford, and that the
22
test scores may also be used as the basis for comparing the
quality of education between schools or school systems.
(See Finding Nos. 102, 104-11, supra.) : ®
129. His conclusion was also based on three state
documents which "provide an indication of evolving state
standards and goals requiring quality education" as follows:
"Guidelines for Equal Educational Opportunity of Connecticut
State Board of Education® (PX 39), "Policy Statement on
Baqual Educational Opportunity? (PX 43), and the repori of
the governor's commission on quality and integrated
education. {PX 73)
130. His report also referred to the "Common Core of
Learning" as the most current and comprehensive statement of
goals for Connecticut education which could be used as o
"benchmarks" against which to judge the performance of the
Hartford public schools. Id., pp. 231, 263.
131. The Common Core of Learning (PX 45) cannot be used
to measure whether students are receiving a minimally
adequate education because it consists of a series of @
expectations rather than a formal assessment of what
students actually know. (PX 494, pp. 82-83)
132. Degpitce the fact that the collective mastery test
results show that many of the students in the Hartford
schools are performing below the remedial level, they are A
receiving at least a minimally adequate education in the
sense that a minimally adequate education is one that gives
a child a chance of leading a successful life. {PX 506,
Pp. 55-58)
Re
.
hl
®
23
IV. DOES THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM PROVIDE EQUAL
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE PLAINTIFFS UNDER THE
EQUAL PROTECTION AND EDUCATION CLAUSES OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION?
133. Equal educational opportunity is a progressive and
dynamic concept which may change or may need to be changed
because educators constantly seek improvement in educational
standards in the face of changing conditions. (Natriello,
11/128)
134. The SBE defined "equal educational opportunity" in
a policy statement that it adopted in May 7, 1986 (PX 43) as
"student access to a level and quality of programs and
experiences which provide each child with the means to
achieve a commonly defined standard of an educated citizen."
135. "Connecticut'’s Common Core of Learning" (PX 45a)
was adopted by the SBE on January 7, 1987 "as its standard
of an educated citizen" and of what it believed "ought to be
the outcomes of education in the public schools."
136. The Common Core of Learning is a statement of
ambitious goals and high expectations (PX 163, p. 263) and
was intended to be a catalyst for school improvement rather
than a state mandate or a standard for assessing the quality
of education in a particular school system. (PX 494,
op. 82-583)
137. In addition to the fact that the state’s
definition of equal educational opportunity in terms of an
"educated citizen" is a long range goal rather than a formal
assessment of what academic skills and knowledge high school
graduates should have, it is not a useful measure of
educational quality because it also includes student
attributes and attitudes which cannot be assessed, such as
self-concept, motivation and persistence, responsibility and
self-reliance, intellectual curiosity, interpersonal
relations, sense of community, and moral and ethical values.
(PX 163, p. 263)
138. If the existing state educational policy goal that
"no group of students will demonstrate systematically
different achievement based upon the differences . . . that
its members brought with them when they entered school"
(PX 39, 43) were to be applied as a standard for access to
equal educational opportunity, such a standard could not be
met until the students in all school districts were
performing at the same level, a goal that has never been
attained by any existing educational system. (Natriello,
11/136, 142)
24
139. Hartford and its surrounding towns are scoring at
the level that one would expect if the dramatic differences
between them in poverty levels are taken into account, and
therefore, the test score data does not permit conclusions
or inferences to be drawn that an equal educational
opportunity is not being provided. (Armor, 32/94-95)
140. The disparity in test scores does not indicate
that Hartford is doing an inadequate or a poor job in
educating its students or that its schools are failing,
because the predicted scores based upon the relevant
socioeconomic factors are about at the levels that one would
expect when adjustments are made for those differences. Id.
141. Teachers and educational administrators have no
control over where their students live or the conditions
under which they live nor can they be expected to attend to
their physical and psychological health needs and although
educators in the inner cities must deal with at least some
of those problems, they are not in a position to address,
much less to remedy, the disadvantages that they bring with
them when they enter the educational system. (Calvert,
31/121)
142. There are no educational strategies or initiatives
that can fully deal with the complex social issues that
produce inequality and undermine education because substance
abuse, hunger, parental neglect, crowded and substandard
housing and inadequate employment opportunities
"disproportionately attack minority children in our state
and divert them from educational opportunity." (PX 73)
143. An equal opportunity in the educational sense of
that term is being provided to the children of a particular
school district if they are provided with the level of
resources, competence in terms of instruction and an ongoing
systematic program that is similar to that of other
communities in the state, and under that definition the
educational programs and curriculum that are being offered
in Hartford provide equal educational opportunity to its
students. {Ferrandino, PX 493, pp. 132-33)
25
V. THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE REMEDY.
144. The plaintiffs have brought this action to obtain
judicial relief from allegedly ineffective or belated
legislative action and inaction in the face of
recommendations from the executive branch that appropriate
action be taken to remedy the conditions which are the basis
for their complaint. (Carter, 1/55; Allison, 12/24-26)
145. More specifically, the plaintiffs seek to have the
court direct the Hartford school district and the twenty-one
suburban school districts "to address these inequities
jointly [and] to reconfigure district lines, or to take
other steps sufficient to eliminate these educational
inequities." (Complaint ¢ 70)
146. The present racial, ethnic and socioeconomic
concentration and isolation of the school children in the
Hartford public school system on the basis of their
residence is principally the result of social and
demographic patterns of change that have occurred over the
past thirty years in the Hartford metropolitan area.
{Findings No. 26 through 28, supra)
147. The single most important factor, other than the
demographic changes that took place during that period, was
the action taken by the legislature in 1909 to consolidate
the then-existing school districts in the state so that town
boundaries would eventually become the dividing lines
between all of the school districts in the state. (Finding
No. 22, supra)
148. The boundaries of the Hartford public school
district became coterminous with the Hartford town
boundaries in 1941. (See Revised Stipulation of Facts,
June 6," 1995, 9% 214.)
149. In order to deal effectively with the issues of
racial, ethnic and economic isolation that have been raised
in this action, and their impact on educational outcomes,
school district lines would have to be redrawn. (Foster,
21/132, 149-150)
150. Connecticut’s responses to the racial, ethnic and
economic isolation of the public schools in Hartford and in
other major cities of the state, as stated in the report of
the governor’s commission on quality and integrated
education (Finding #68, supra), must be "particular to
Connecticut reflecting our specizl circumstances, history,
and heritage." (PX 73)
26
1 3
151. The findings that have been made in parts I
through part IV herein establish that over the course of the
last thirty years, the public policy of this state as
reflected in the legislation that has been enacted to
maintain and enhance educational quality, and to address the
racial, economic and ethnic imbalance and isolation of its
urban schools, has been to rely upon voluntary and
cooperative action by town-school districts. Id.
152. The relief requested by the plaintiffs in this
case includes the integration of the public schools in the
greater Hartford metropolitan region for the purpose of
eliminating economic, as well as racial and ethnic
isolation. (Complaint, Request for Relief, § 1c, p. 30)
153. The principal witness called by the plaintiffs to
state an opinion as to the appropriate remedy, and the
nature and scope of judicial relief, stated that the
desegregation planning process mandated by the federal
courts following a finding of de jure segregation could be
effectively applied to remediate the conditions of racial,
ethnic and economic isolation that exist in the Hartford
metropolitan area. (Gordon, 13/83-85)
154. Gordon acknowledged that the remedial planning
process would be more complicated in this case because of
the fact that the remedy sought by the plaintiffs would
include economic, as well as racial and ethnic,
interdistrict desegregation measures. Id.
155. Although there is general agreement that
conventional educational approaches are inadequate to
address the special problems of the urban poor, in the
opinion of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, "schools can
make a difference" in the sense that the problems of poverty
can be appropriately addressed by the public schools if they
had sufficient resources to deal with the disadvantaging
characteristics that poor children bring with them.
(Slavin, 19/78-81; Natriello, 8/95)
156. Their opinions are clearly inconsistent with the
unanimous and apparently undisputed finding of the
governor’s commission on quality and integrated education
that there were no educational strategies or initiatives
that could fully deal with the larger issues of poverty,
unemployment, housing, health, substance abuse, hunger,
parental neglect, and crowded and substandard housing.
{Cartey, 1/51; PY 73. p.-5; Finding No. 70, supra)
157. There are no existing standards or guidelines that
educators, social scientists or desegregation planners can
offer or recommend in order to achieve the proper racial,
27
ethnic and socioeconomic balance in the school districts of
the Hartford metropolitan area. (Trent, 7/134; Gordon,
13/149-151)
158. Mandatory student reassignment plans to achieve
racial balance, whether intradistrict or interdistrict, are
ineffective methods of achieving integration, whether they
are mandated by racial imbalance laws or by court order.
(Rossell, 26B/34)
159. Proposed solutions to the problems of racial,
ethnic and economic isolation which rely on coercion and
which fail to offer choices and options either do not work
or have unacceptable consequences. {PX 398, “p. 8; Tirozzi,
PY 494, po. 92-93)
160. Moreover, reliance on coercive measures alone,
without providing quality education and maintaining it at
the appropriate levels throughout the region, do not seem to
work and fail to produce the outcomes that are educationally
desirable. (Foster, 21/158-61)
161. Integration in its fullest and most meaningful
sense can only be achieved by building affordable housing in
suburban areas in order to break up the inner city ghettos,
and by making urban schools more attractive for those who
live outside the city. (Tirozzl, PX 494, p. 34% Mannix,
® PX 495, op. 22-23)
/ £74 : /
ya /
» Ve At Corrie
Harry Hammer
Trial Jhdge
Substituted pg. 28 for Findings dated June 27, 1995
28
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
CV 89-0360977S
MILO SHEFF
144 Mark Twain Drive
Hartford, Connecticut
e
e
SUPERIOR COURT
WILDA BERMUDEZ
378 Hillside Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut
PEDRO BERMUDEZ
378 Hillside Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut
EVA BERMUDEZ ®
378 Hillside Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut
OSKAR M. MELENDEZ
23 Webster Lane
Glastonbury, Connecticut hd
WALESKA MELENDEZ
23 Webster Lane
Glastonbury, Connecticut
MARTIN HAMILTON -
82 Westland Street
Hartford, Connecticut
JANELLE HUGHLEY
161 Martin Street
Hartford, Connecticut Re
NEIIMA BEST i
12 Deerfield Avenue Aiaat
Hartford, Connecticut
LISA LABOY on Fie ry Ane [|
197 Bond Street he tae TO SY
Hartford, Connecticut
35:00
»
DAVID WILLIAM HARRINGTON
25 Windwood Road
° West Hartford, Connecticut
MICHAEL JOSEPH HARRINGTON
25 Windwood Road
West Hartford, Connecticut
RACHEL LEACH
® 51 Beverly Road
West Hartford, Connecticut
JOSEPH LEACH
51 Beverly Road
West Hartford, Connecticut
ERICA CONNOLLY
50 Tredeau Street
Hartford, Connecticut
TASHA CONNOLLY
- 50 Tredeau Street
Hartford, Connecticut
MICHAEL PEREZ
54 Tremont Street
Hartford, Connecticut
g DAWN PEREZ
54 Tremont Street
Hartford, Connecticut : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/
NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD
VS.
®
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, Governor
of the State of Connecticut
or his successor
Capitol Avenue
® Hartford, Connecticut
.
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
of the State of Connecticut
Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut
ABRAHAM GLASS,
State Board of Education
of the State of Connecticut
or his successor
Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut
A. WALTER ESDAILE
State Board of Education
of the State of Connecticut
or his successor
Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut
WARREN J. FOLEY
State Board of Education
of the State of Connecticut
or his successor
Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut
RITA HENDEL
State Board of Education
of the State of Connecticut
or her successor
Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut
JOHN MANNIX
State Board of Education
of the State of Connecticut
or his successor
Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut
JULIA RANKIN
State Board of Education
of the State of Connecticut
or her successor
Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut
GERALD N. TIROZZI, Commissioner
State Board of Education
of the State of Connecticut
or his successor
Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut
FRANCISCO L. BORGES, Treasurer
of the State of Connecticut
or his successor
Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut
J. EDWARD CALDWELL, Comptroller
of the State of Connecticut
or his successor
Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut APRIL 12, 1995
Present: Honorable Harry Hammer, Judge
JUDGMENT
This case, claiming declaratory and injunctive relief for the
failure of the defendants to provide the plaintiff schoolchildren with
their rights under Article First, §§1 and 20 and Article Eighth, §1 of
the Connecticut Constitution and Conn. Gen. Stats. §10-4a, came to
this Court on May 30, 1989 and thence to later time when the
defendants appeared and were heard as on file.
The Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that
state action is a direct and sufficient cause of the conditions which
are the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ complaint as alleged in the
defendants’ sixth special defense, and that accordingly the
constitutional claims asserted by the plaintiffs need not be
addressed.
Judgment is entered in favor of the defendants.
ey ve
/
: ing 2 /
fl
@ APPEAL - CiVIL : /
JD-SC-28 New 8-92 (Old JD-SC-10)
P.B. §§ 65, 4012, 4013, 4034 y Prepare on typewriter.
C.G.S. §§ 51-197, 52-470 2. Sign "Appeal" and "Certifica ow.
al court clerk with sufficient additional copies for
3. Submit in triplicate to the tri
TO SUPREME COURT each other counsel of record; serve copies on opposing counsel.
TO APPELLATE COURT 4. File a copy of the endorsed appeal form together with the papers required by
P.B. § 4013 with the Appellate Clerk.
NAME OF CASE (State full name of case as appears in judgment file)
. : i See Attached sheet
* Milo Sheff, et al. vi. William A. O'Neill, et al, | : for,
other parties
CAS SIEICATION CROSS JOINT AMENDED CONSOLIDATED STIPULATION FOR CORRECTED/AMENDED 0 (Specify)
APPEAL uw APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL RESERVATION APPEAL FORM
: TRIED TO TRIAL COURT LOCATION
COURT [] sury | Hartford
® TRIAL COURT JUDGE LIST ALL TRIAL COURT DOCKET NUMBERS
Hammer, J. Cv_89-0360977S
JUDGMENT FOR (Where there are multiple parties, specify any individual party(ies) for whom judgment may have been entered.)
[pantie KJ DEFENDANT [OTHER
TRIAL COURT [JUDGMENT DATE DATE FOR FILING APPEAL EXTENDED TO [DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ON ANY ORDER ON ANY MOTION WHICH
R ME! F T HISTORY 4/12/95 WOULD RENDER JUDGMENT INEFFECTIVE
CASE TYPE
* [Juuvenite EK] civiL: MajorMinor code M50 [JramiLy |] WORKERS COMPENSATION
[] HABEAS CORPUS [J oTtrER
[DATE CERTIFICATION GRANTED
For habeas corpus or zoning appeals indicate the date certification was granted:
APPE MY H-EC BY (Where there are multiple parties, specify the name of the individual party(ies) filing this appeal.)
- X1 PLAINTIFFS [| DEFENDANT [ ]oTHER
. who appeal
f FROM (the action which constitutes the final judgment): Judgment for defendants entered
APPEAL April. 12, 1995
IF TO SUPREME CCURT, STATUTCRY BASIS FCR THE APSEAL (C.G.S. § 51-199)
® § gg 8
BY (Signaturelof attorney pr Age pags ~~ I TELEPHONE NO. T1JURIS NC. {If applicabiz;
X 1522-8338 | 38478
TYPE NAME AND ADO#=SS OF PERSON SIGNING ASCVE (This is ycur appearance, see P.5. § 4023)
Wesley W. Horton, 90 Gillett Street, Hartford, CT 06105
"X" ONE IF APPLICABLE :
APPEARANCE Pursuant to P.B. § 4034, counsel who files this appeal shall te deemed to have appeared in addition to counsel of
® record who appeared in the triai court.
. NAME CF COU! L Al JURI i y
Pursuant to P.B. § €5 counsel! who files ite CENSE. ANDSUREND
® this appeal is aopearing in lieu of:
INDICATE WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ATTACHED BY PLACING AN *X" IN THE PROPER BOX(ES)
X] 1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES X | 4. DOCKET SHEETS (DS-1)/DCCKETING STATEMENT
TTACH] S 7A AT = J X 1 5 ATTACHMENTS |[X1 5 PRELIMINARY DESIGNATION OF PLEADINGS X15. STATEMENT FOR PREARGUMENT CONFERENCE
3. COURT REPORTER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/
CERTIFICATE RE TRANSCRIPT
NAME OF PERSON RECOGNIZED TC PROSECUTE IN THE AMCUNT OF $400 TELEPHCNE NO.
Jane Tedford Dube ah 228-4626
- ADDRESS OF PERSON NAMED ABOVE
RECOGNIZANCE| 71 Northam Road, Hebron, CT 06231
® SIGNED (C Jeu taking recogni 2X" proper box) | Comm. Sup. Count DATE SIGNED
AL oe cote. “3% |April 27, 1995
. | HEREBY CERTIFY HABA COPY HEREOF WAS SERVED ON |DATE + TSIGNED (Infividual counsej
CERTIFICATION | ALL COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES OF RECORD IN ACCOR i ae cou
(P.B. § 4012) DANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF P.8. § 4014 ON: 4/27/9 X
To be completed by trial courtclerk ~~. ¥
® Pl
V] Entry Fee Paid [a No Fees Required Security furnished: 3 Cash ¥ Bond
[] Record Fee Paid [3 Fees, Costs, and Security waived by Judge: Recognizance
(A.C. only)
SIGNED (Clerk of trial court) J "
(Judge) (Date) Sw AR pu Sigh PE Coli
® Kee #4820710 ARK CO
Additional Plaintiffs:
Wilda Bermudez
Pedro Bermudez
Eva Bermudez
Oskar M. Melendez
Waleska Melendez
Martin Hamilton
Janelle Hughley
Neiima Best
Lisa Laboy
David William Harrington
Michael Joseph Harrington
Rachel Leach
Joseph Leach
Erica Connolly
Tasha Connolly
Michael Perez
Dawn Perez
Additional Defendants:
William A. O’Neill’s successor Governor of the State of
Connecticut
State Board of Education of the State of Connecticut
Abraham Glassman, A. Walter Esdaile, Warren J. Foley, Rita
Hendel, John Mannix, Julia Rankin, or their successor members of
the State Board of Education of the State of Connecticut
Gerald N. Tirozzi, or his successor Commissioner of the
Board of Education of the State of Connecticut
Francisco L. Borges, or his successor Treasurer of the State
of Connecticut
J. Edward Caldwell, or his successor Comptroller of the
State of Connecticut
A.C.
{CV 89-03609778)
MILO SHEFF, ET AL. : APPELLATE COURT
VS.
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, ET AL. : APRIL 27, 1995
DOCKETING STATEMENT
Pursuant to P.B. §4013(a) (4), the plaintiffs state as follows:
(i) Plaintiffs:
Milo Sheff, 144 Mark Twain Drive, Hartford, CT
Wilda Bermudez, 378 Hillside Avenue, Hartford, CT
Pedro Bermudez, 378 Hillside Avenue, Hartford, CT
Eva Bermudez, 378 Hillside Avenue, Hartford, CT
Oskar M. Melendez, 23 Webster Lane, Glastonbury, CT
Waleska Melendez, 23 Webster Lane, Glastonbury, CT
Martin Hamilton, 82 Westland Street, Hartford, CT
Janelle Hughley, 161 Martin Street, Hartford, CT
Neiima Best, 12 Deerfield Avenue, Hartford, CT
Lisa Laboy, 197 Bond Street, Hartford, CT
David William Harrington, 25 Windwood Road, West Hartford, CT
Michael Joseph Harrington, 25 Windwood Road, West Hartford, CT
Rachel Leach, 51 Beverly Road, West Hartford, CT
Joseph leach, 51 Beverly Road, West Hartford, CT
Erica Connolly, 50. Tredeau Street, Hartford, CT
Tasha Connolly, 50 Tredeau Street, Hartford, CT
Michael Perez, 84 Tremont Street, Hartford, CT
Dawn Perez, 84 Tremont Street, Hartford, CT
Plaintiffs’ Counsel
Marianne Engelman Lado
Theodore Shaw
Dennis D. Parker
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013
A)
Sandra Del Valle ty 7
Puerto Rican Legal Defense; §, Educational Fund
99 Hudson Stredt: 1 ac bi
New York, NY 10013 °° FA
120g i
Christopher A. Hansen: oe i a I
ACLU ; VER or
132 West 43rd Stood l Tins
~~ i
New York, NY 10036
Martha Stone
Philip Tegeler
CCLU
32 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06106
John Brittain
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCHOOL OF LAW
55 Elizabeth Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Wilfred Rodriguez
Neighborhood Legal Services
1229 Albany Avenue
Hartford, Cr 06112
Wesley W. Horton
Moller, Horton & Shields, P.C.
90 Gillett Street
Hartford, CT 06105
(203) 522-8338
Defendants:
William A. O’Neill, Governor of the State of Connecticut, or his
successor
State Board of Education of the State of Connecticut
Abraham Glassman, A. Walter Esdaile, Warren J. Foley, Rita
Hendel, John Mannix, Julia Rankin, or their successor members of the
State Board of Education of the State of Connecticut
Gerald N. Tirozzi, or his successor Commissioner of the Board of
Education of the State of Connecticut
Francisco L. Borges, or his successor Treasurer of the State of
Connecticut
J. Edward Caldwell, or his successor Comptroller of the State of
Connecticut
: ; »
Defendants’ Counsel: Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General
Bernard McGovern, Asst. Attorney General
Martha Watts Prestley, Asst. Attorney General
PY STATE OF CONNECTICUT
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
(ii) None
® {1i1) Yes
(iv) Not Applicable
PLAINTIFFS, MILO SHEFF, ET AL.
By
WesIéy W. Horton
MOLLER, HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C.
90 Gillett Street
Hartford, CT 06105
® (203) 522-8338
Juris No. 38478
John Brittain
UCONN Law School
65 Elizabeth Street
® Hartford, CT 06105
Martha Stone
Philip D. Tegeler
CCLU
: 32 Grand Street
® Hartford, CT 06106
Christopher Hansen
ACLU -
132 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10013
@
Marianne Engelman Lado
Theodore Shaw
Dennis D. Parker
NAACP-LDF
99 Hudson Street
» New York, NY 10013
Sandra Del Valle
Puerto Rican Legal Defense
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013
271
Wilfred Rodriguez »
NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL SERVICES
1229 Albany Avenue
Hartford, CI 06102
»
*
.
*
-»
®
“
®
LJ
FS State of Connecticut is
OFFICE FOR APPEALS
® 231 Capitol Avenue
Francis J. Drumm, Jr. Drawer Z, Station A Supreme Court
Chief Clerk Hartford, Connecticut 06106 : Appellate Court
April 28, 1995
® AC 14635
Milo Sheff et al.
Ve.
William A. O’Neill et al.
* Dear Counsel:
Pursuant to §4023 of the rules of practice, the Supreme Court
has transferred the captioned Appellate Court appeal to itself.
The Supreme Court docket number assigned is SC 15255. Use only the
® Supreme Court number on all future filings. Briefing is in
accordance with P.B. §4071.
Your new case manager is Michele Angers. Her phone number is
566-2293,
®
. Assistant Clerk- -Appellate
Notice sent: April 28, 1995
Moller, Horton & Shields, P.C.
Martha Stone, C.C.L.U.
Philip D. Tegeler, C.C.L.U.
» John Brittain, UConn School of Law
Wilfred Rodriguez, Neighborhood Legal Services
Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General
Bernard F. McGovern, Assistant Attorney General
Martha Watts Prestley, Assistant Attorney General
Hartford Superior Court (CV890360977S)
» PAC
4 A : ( ka »
A.C, »
(CV 89-03609778)
M110 SHEFF, ET Al. : APPELLATE COURT
VS. : |
@
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, ET AL. : APRIL 27, 1995
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ISSUES
3 ° [J eo »
Pursuant to P.B. §4013(a) (1), the plaintiffs intend to raise the
following issues:
1. Did the court err in refusing to follow the construction of
: ®
Article First, §§1 and 20 and Article Eighth, §1 of the Connecticut
Constitution established in Horton v. Meskill, which held that the
state 1s required to assure to all of Connecticut’s public school
-
students an equal educational opportunity?
2s Did the court err in failing to recognize as "state action"
the state’s extensive involvement in public education in denying
: i»
plaintiffs’ claims of racial and ethnic segregation, unequal
educational opportunity and lack of a minimally adequate education?
3. Did the court err in failing to recognize that the state
-
constitution gives rise to an affirmative duty on the state to address
racial and ethnic segregation, unequal educational opportunity and -
lack of a minimally adequate education and that the state failed to
NM
act to remedy these constitutional and statutory deficiencies?
9 17
hn JLT
% 1 dy
: { lr vin ®
bo 4 74 dey
vy 7 ed 7 tf
J / 2 J LW; V
/ 1314 25S
@®
4. Did the admitted and undisputed evidence require the Court
as a matter of law to find that the students in the Hartford public schools are not receiving an equal educational opportunity?
PLAINTIFFS, MILO SHEFF, ET AL.
By A 177
We / Horton
MOLLER, HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C.
90 Gillett Street
Hartford, CT 06105
(203) 522-8338
® Juris No. 38478
John Brittain
UCONN Law School
65 Elizabeth Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Martha Stone
Philip D. Tegeler
CCLU
32 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Christopher Hansen
ACLU
132 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10013
% Marianne Engelman Lado
Theodore Shaw
Dennis D. Parker
- NAACP-LDF
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013
Sandra Del Valle
Puerto Rican Legal Defense
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013
® Wilfred Rodriguez
NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL SERVICES
1229 Albany Avenue
Hartford, CT 06102
‘S.C. 15255
MILO SHEFF, ET Al. : SUPREME COURT
| Vv.
WILLIAM A. O’NEILL, ET AL. : MAY 10," 1995
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES’/ PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Pursuant to P.B. §4013(a) (1) (A), the defendants-appellees
present for review the following preliminary counter statement of
|
| issues upon which the judgment may be affirmed:
|
1. Whether the court correctly held that the defendants
}
| have taken no action, legislatively or administratively, which
‘has caused the present racial and ethnic student composition of
| the Hartford public schools and, therefore, have not deprived the
plaintiff students of equal protection nor caused them to be
|
{
i
segregated or discriminated against on the basis of their races
i
or national origins nor denied them due process with respect to |
their rights under Art. VIII, §1, Constitution of Connecticut, to
a free public elementary or secondary education in violation of
Art. 1, 881, 20, or Art. I, $88, 10, Constitution of Connecticut?
56: HY 2s of | Au
|
| Lhe 307 (13449
: a 5 ony. LAID Si] g
RECCRD COPY 1 a
h
i
n
il
e
g
b
t
in
h
is
eh
At
on
A
m
n
Also pursuant to P.B. §4013(a) (1) (A), the
defendants-appellees present for review the following alternate
grounds upon which the judgment may be affirmed:
1. Vhether Art. I, §81, 8, 10 and 20 and Art. VIII, $1,
either separately or collectively, require no specific level of
racial, ethnic or socioeconomic integration in the state’s public
elementary and secondary schools nor a specific level of
educational achievement by students in those schools?
2. Whether, in the absence of any state action causing the
plaintiffs’ school assignments or their educational programs to
be based upon their races or national origins and when the
General Assembly has enacted and kept in force legislation which
assures for the plaintiffs substantially equal educational
expenditures in relation to all other public elementary and
secondary public school students in the state, the plaintiffs
have not been statutorily denied “equal educational opportunity”,
as that concept has been developed by this Court from the
provisions of Art. I, §§1, 20 and Art. VIII, S§S§1, 4, Constitution
of Connecticut?
3. Whether the plaintiffs’ claim that they are denied a
mminimum adequate education” or any particular educational
program, as they alleged they are entitled to under Art. VIII,
§1, Constitution of Connecticut, is nonjusticiable?
4, Whether the court lacks jurisdiction over the
defendants, all state officials, on the ground of sovereign
immunity, when the plaintiffs have failed to allege any specific
actions of the defendants which have deprived the plaintiffs of
any state constitutional rights and have failed to allege any
statute charged to the defendants’ administration, which statute
violates the Constitution of Connecticut?
5. Whether the court erred in denying the defendants’
motion to strike?
6. Whether the court erred in denying the defendants’
motion for summary judgment?
BY:
DEFENDANTS
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ve fsa Jr.
Assista {evorner General
Juris 08523
110 wins i Street
fagyord, Connecticut 06105
A
Assistant Attorney aon
Juris 406172
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06105
Tel. 566-7173
/ Dovid ne A : 2%