Correspondence from Lado to Trent Re: Armor Study; from Ellis to Zawacki Re: Rossell Deposition

    il i 

Contributions are 

deductible for U.S. 
income tax purposes. (NAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares its 

commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 30 years a separate 
Board, program, staff, office and budget. 

National Office W 

Suite 1600 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 99 Hudson Street 

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. New York, N.Y. 10013-2897 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-759: 

September 30, 1992 

William T. Trent, PhD 
EPS, 368 Education Building 
University of Illinois 
1310 South Sixth Street 
Champagne, IL 61820 

Dear Bill: 

Enclosed please find materials related to David Armor’s study 
of the relationship between socio-economic background and perform- 
ance on sixth-grade mastery tests in the Hartford, Connecticut 
metropolitan area. These materials include the following items: 

i. "Hartford Area Achievement Study: Socio-Economic Indicators," 
a one-page chart presented as a draft of a trial exhibit; 

2% "Hartford Area Achievement Study: Actual Reading vs. Predicted 
from SES," a one-page chart presented as a draft of a trial 

exhibit; 

3. "Hartford Area Achievement Study: Actual Math vs. Predicted 
from SES," a one-page chart presented as a draft of a trial 

exhibit; 

4. "Hartford Area Achievement Study: Black Socio-Economic 
Indicators," a one-page chart presented as a draft of a trial 
exhibit; 

5. "Hartford Area Achievement Study: Actual Reading vs. Predicted 
from SES," a one-page chart presented as a draft of a trial 

exhibit; 

6. "Hartford Area Achievement Study: Actual Math vs. Predicted 
from SES," a one-page chart presented as a draft of a trial 

exhibit; 

7 "Hartford Area Achievement Study: Black 6th Grade Reading," a 

one-page chart presented as a draft of a trial exhibit; 

8. "Hartford Area Achievement Study: Black 4th Grade Reading," a 

one-page chart presented as a draft of a trial exhibit; 

Regional Offices 

The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is not part Suite 301 Suite 208 

of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 

  

1275 K Street, NW 315 West Ninth Street 

Washington, DC 20005 Los Angeles, CA 90015 

(202) 682-1300 (213) 624-2405 
Fax: (202) 682-1312 Fax: (213) 624-0075



  

9. "Grade 6: Full Sample, Blacks," three pages of data from the 
study, containing information on method of analysis; 

10. "Achievement Analysis for Hispanics, Full Sample," four pages 
of data from the study, containing information on method of 
analysis; 

11. "Analysis for Grade Six, Blacks Only," five pages of data from 
the study, containing information on method of analysis; 

12. "Analysis for Grade Four, Blacks Only," six pages of data from 
the study, containing information on method of analysis; and 

13. "Table 2 of Q 17, Controlling for Race," six pages of data. 

If needed, additional information on the Connecticut Mastery 
Tests is available. I will also be able to send you a copy of 
David Armor’s deposition as soon as it is transcribed. 

Thank you for agreeing to review the data. It will be 
important for plaintiffs to obtain a thorough understanding of this 
study. I will try to reach you on Tuesday, October 6 to discuss 
this project. 

Sincerely, 

LEE a 
Marianne Engelman Lado 

MEL: ja 
Enclosures 

cc: Ron Ellis v 

 



  

46 JANUARY, 1985 195 Conn 24 
  

Horton v. Meskill 
  

education is owed to the students, not the municipali- 
ties.” (Emphasis in original.) Id., 195. We referred also 
to our established case law that generally forbids munic- 
ipalities, because they are creations of the state, from 
challenging the constitutionality of the state’s laws. 
Id., 196. We concluded that the interests of the munic- 
ipalities could reasonably be protected by having a 
bifurcated trial. Although the municipalities were pre- 
cluded “from participating on either side in the court's 
consideration of the constitutionality of the present 
legislative financing system,” they could play a role in 
proceedings “to aid the court in determining appropri- 
ate relief in the event the legislative financing system 
is found to be unconstitutional.” Id., 198. Guided by 
this holding, the trial court agreed to hold a bifurcated 
hearing with respect to all the interested parties. The 
court stated that it would first determine whether the 
current legislation was constitutional. Thereafter, in 
the event that the legislation were found to be uncon- 
stitutional, it would determine, after a separate 
remedial hearing, what relief should be ordered to rem- 
edy the situation. 

In light of this commitment to full participation by 
all of the parties in the remedial judgments that would 
ensue if the statutes at issue were found to be constitu- 
tionally defective, further trial court consideration of 
all aspects of their validity is desirable. Our decision 
in Horton I gave to the trial court, and to the litigants 
at trial, only limited guidance about the precise con- 
stitutional test by which to measure access to substan- 
tially equal educational opportunities. It may well be 
that additional hearings will help to sharpen the diffi- 
cult substantive judgments that will have to be made. 
In litigation that raises constitutional issues that have 
systemic implications for the operation of government, 
it is appropriate for a trial court to pursue a joint con- 
sideration of right and remedy. See Gaines v. Manson, 

{ 

wo 

i 

  

  

  

  

  

   



  

  

a
 

T
A
 

SO
L 

S
H
 
E
A
A
 

  

195 Conn 24 JANUARY, 1985 47 

Horton v. Meskill 

194 Conn. 510, 519-20, 481 A.2d 1084 (1984). Postpone- 

ment of final adjudication on the merits is particularly 

appropriate when the relief that the plaintiffs seek is 

a mandatory or a negative injunction. As in cases in 

which courts are asked to fashion an equitable remedy 

for racial discrimination in education, where fundamen- 

tal rights are similarly at issue, equitable principles 

require a balance of three factors: the nature and the 

scope of the constitutional violation, the plaintiff's right 

to meaningful relief, and the interests of state and local 

authorities in managing their own affairs. Milliken v. 

Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 279-81, 97 S. Ct. 2749, 53 L. 

Ed. 2d 745 (1977). Our own cases have similarly 

acknowledged that a court, in the exercise of its dis- 

cretion to frame injunctive relief, must ‘balance the 

competing interests of the parties” to assure that the 

relief it grants is *“ ‘compatible with the equities of the 

case’ ’’; Dukes v. Durante, 192 Conn. 207, 225, 471 

A.2d 1368 (1984); and takes account of the possibility 

  

  

of “embarrassment to the operations of government.” 

CEUI v. CSEA, 183 Conn. 235, 248-49, 439 A.2d 321 

(1981). Remand is therefore required to determine 

whether the challenged statutes are unconstitutional 

and to frame whatever orders for equitable relief may 

be appropriate. 

There is error on the appeals; the judgments of the 

trial court are set aside and the cases are remanded 

for further proceedings in accordance with this opin- 

ion; there is no error on the cross appeals. 

In this opinion the other judges concurred. 

  

 



  

AN =Z7 7) 

Build schools for more than one district 
Cities and towns should back proposed legisla- 
tion giving them bonuses for building schools with 

their neighbors. 
State Education Commissioner Vincent L. 

Ferrandino has recommended that municipalities 

building interdistrict schools be reimbursed at 
higher rates for construction costs than those 

building schools by themselves. 
Municipalities are eligible for up to 80 per- 

cent state reimbursement on a sliding scale. Un- 
der the plan to be sent to the Legislature, however, 

towns and cities building schools separately would 

risk getting reduced state aid. 
The goal is to encourage cooperation, econo- 

mies of scale — and voluntary solutions to the 

racial and economic isolation that plagues cities. 
Cities such as Hartford, which is planning a mas- 

sive school-building project, could develop pro- 
grams with suburbs by building schools near town 
lines. Mr. Ferrandino has also suggested transpor- 

tation bonuses for towns that develop integration 

plans. 
Mr. Ferrandino’s plan arrives only weeks be- 

fore the scheduled beginning of a trial to force 
Hartford and its suburbs to desegregate. 

Although Mr. Ferrandino’s initiative may not 
solve all the problems in the court case, it would 
enable cities and towns to assume greater control 
over desegregation plans and avoid court-imposed 

solutions. 
If enacted, the bonus system is likely to have a 

greater effect as time passes and towns need new 

schools to accommodate increased enrollments and 

to replace aging buildings. State projections show 
the student population increasing from 490,000 this 
year to 590,000 by 2002. Of the state’s 988 public 
schools, 285 were built before 1940, including 35 

built in the 1800s. The 1990s are likely to be a 
decade of school construction, which should be cou- 
pled with a drive teward regional cooperation. 

  

 



   
J ® ®/ 

National Office J ef, / 
/ / 

A A Suite 1600 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 99 Hudson Street 

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. New York, N.Y. 10013-2897 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592 

September 30, 1992 

Ms. Betty Zawacki 
18 Paper Chase Drive 
Farmington, CT 06032 

Re: Deposition of Christine Rossell 

Dear Ms. Zawacki: 

Enclosed please find photocopies of the relevant pages from 
the exhibits identified for the above deposition. As per the 
agreement between counsel, only the cover page and pages 
specifically referred to should be included with the deposition. 

Exhibit 18 ("White Flight. . ."), pages 48, 49 
Exhibit 19 ("Magnet Schools. . ."), page 305 
Exhibit 20 ("Policy Alternatives. . ."), pages 212, 213, 219, 

220 

Exhibit 21 ("Applied Social Science. . ."), pages 74, 75, 87 
Exhibit 22 ("Estimating. . ."), page 225 

Also please note that Exhibit 16 ("Boston Desegregation. . .) was 
not in my briefcase when I left and may be with the exhibits which 
you have. Only page 39 was referred to. If you have that exhibit 
please send it to me so I can photocopy the appropriate page and 
retain the balance of the document. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

Ronald L. Ellis 
RLE /mgw 
Encls. 

Regional Offices 

Contributions are The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is not part Suite 301 Suite 208 
deductible for U.S. of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 1275 K Street, NW 315 West Ninth Street 
income tax purposes. (NAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares its Washington, DC 20005 Los Angeles, CA 90015 

commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 30 years a separate (202) 682-1300 (213) 624-2405 
Board, program, staff, office and budget. 4 Fax: (202) 682-1312 Fax: (213) 624-0075