Memo of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Material (Part Two) with Certification

    CV 89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, et al SUPERIOR COURT 

J.D. HARTFORD/NEW 
Plaintiffs NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD 

Vo 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al 

Defendants July 8, 1991 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS 
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUPPORTING MATERIAL 

(PART TWO) 

  

  

  

The exhibits which follow are offered in support of the 

defendants' motion for summary judgment.   
  

   



  

PART TWO - SUPPORTING MATERIAL 

Exhibit 1; Plaintiffs' Amended Responses to 
Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, February 19, 

1991 (44 pages) 

Exhibit 2; Plaintiffs' Objection to 
Interrogatories, September 20, 1990 (4 pages) 

Exhibit 3; Affidavit of Gerald N, TPirozzi (2 

pages) 

Exhibit 4; Affidavit of Robert Brewer (2 pages) 
with attachment (148 pages)   

Exhibit 5; Affidavit of Elliot Williams (2 pages) 
| with four attachments (5, 6, 11 and 22 pages 

respectively) 

Exhibit 6; Affidavit of G. Donald Perree, Jr. {2 
pages) with two attachments (2 and 9 pages 
respectively) 

Certification   

       



      

Jy E Lisl il rr 

Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

Vv. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. AT HARTFORD 

Defendants FEBRUARY 19, 1991 

( 
1]

 
[ 

1]
 

L 
1]

 
LL
] 

LL
] 

o
e
 

“
e
 

Ll
] 

L 
2]

 
L 

LJ
 

L 
1]

 
\a
d 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ 
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
  

  

PAST VIOLATIONS: AFFIRMATIVE ACTS 
  

1. Please identify each and every affirmative act by the 

defendants, their predecessors, or any other state officer, 

agency or other body which the plaintiffs will claim at trial 

violated the State Constitution. For each such act provide the 
date the act occurred, the person, agency or other body 
responsible for the act, and any and all information the 
plaintiffs will claim that person, agency or other body had or 

should have had at that time which would have apprised them of 
the consequences of that act. 

  

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES 1, 2, 3, 4: 
  

As plaintiffs have repeatedly maintained, it is the present 

condition of racial segregation 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 

  

   



      

segregation that in fact deprive Hartford area school children of 

their right to equality of educational opportunity. 

Defendants have claimed that the requisite “state action” is 

not present here, because, as they argue, the state has taken no 

affirmative steps to cause segregation. As plaintiffs have tried 

to impress upon the court, the state's argument has no basis in 

law. The state controls public education, and the state has an 

affirmative duty to guarantee equal educational opportunity. The 

extensive involvement of the state satisfies every standard of 

state action of which plaintiffs are aware. 

Nonetheless, if defendants persist in this line of argument, 

plaintiffs are prepared to show that defendants have taken 

numerous actions that have “caused” or “contributed to” 

segregation, and that defendants are responsible for existing 

school boundaries that exacerbate segregation. Taken together, 

in whole or in part, these actions by the state can be said to be 

unconstitutional to the extent that they have led to or have 

contributed to the unconstitutional system of racial and economic 

segregation and the concomitant harm that flows from that system. 

A summary of plaintiffs’ proof on these points is set out below, 

as best as can be determined at this stage of the case. 

Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or supplement their 

responses. 

  

  

 



      

a. Defendants are legally responsible for the 

creation, maintenance, approval, funding, 

supervision and control of public education. 

  

  

  

Defendants discharge a broad range of statutory 

obligations that demonstrate their control over and 

responsibility for Connecticut's system of public education. 

Defendants provide substantial financial support to schools 

throughout the State to finance school operations. See §§10-262, 

et seg. They also approve, fund, and oversee local school 

building projects, see §§10-282, et seq., and reimburse towns for 

student transportation expenses. See §10-273a. 

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. It prepares courses of study and curricula 

for the schools, develops evaluation and assessment programs, and 

conducts annual assessments of public schools. See id. The 

Board also prepares a comprehensive plan of long-term goals and 

short-term objectives for the Connecticut public school system 

every five years. See id. 

Defendants exert broad control over school attendance 

and school calendar requirements. They establish the ages at 

which school attendance is mandatory throughout the State. See 

§10-184. They determine the minimum number of school days that 

public schools must be in session each year, and have the 

  

 



      

authority to authorize exceptions to this requirement. See §10- 

15. They also set the minimum number of hours of actual school 

work per school day. See §10-16. In addition, defendants 

promulgate a list of holidays and special days that must be 

suitably observed in the public schools. See §10-29a. 

Defendants are directly involved in the planning and 

implementation of required curricula for the State's public 

schools. They promulgate a list of courses that must be part of 

the program of instruction in all public schools, see §10-16Db, 

and they make available curriculum materials to assist local 

schools in providing course offerings in these areas. See id. 

Defendants impose minimum graduation requirements on high schools 

throughout the State, see §10-221a, and they exercise supervisory 

authority over textbook selection in all of the State's public 

schools. See §10-221. In addition, defendants require that all 

public schools teach students at every grade level about the 

effects of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, see §10-19, and that they 

provide students and teachers with an opportunity for silent 

meditation at the start of every school day. See §10-16a. 

Defendants exert broad authority over the hiring, 

retention, and retirement, of teachers and other school 

personnel. They set minimum teacher standards, see §10-145a, and 

administer a system of testing prospective teachers before they 

are certified by the State. See §10-145f. Certification by 

  

 



      

defendants is a condition of employment for all teachers in the 

Connecticut public school system. See §10-145. All school 

business administrators, see §10-145d, and intramural and 

interscholastic coaches hired must also be certified by 

defendants. See §10-149. Defendants also prescribe statewide 

rules governing teacher tenure, see §10-151, and teacher 

unionization, see §10-153a, and maintain a statewide teachers’ 

retirement program. See §10-183c. 

Defendants supervise a system of proficiency 

examinations for students throughout the State. See §10-14n. 

These examinations, provided and administered by the State Board 

of Education, test all students enrolled in public schools. See 

id. 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. Defendants also promulgate 

procedures for the discipline and expulsion of public school 

students throughout the State. See §10-233a et seq. 

Defendants also exert broad authority over language of 

instruction in public schools throughout the State. They mandate 

that English must be the medium of instruction and administration 

in all public schools in the State. See §10-17. But they also 

require local school districts to classify all students according 

to their dominant language, and to meet the language needs cf 

bilingual students. See §10-17f. Defendants require each school 

  

 



  

implementing a program of bilingual education for the first time 

to prepare and submit a plan for implementing such a program to 

the State Commissioner of Education. See id. 

The Connecticut Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that 

public education is, in every respect, a responsibility of the 

state.’ See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to 

Respondents’ Motion to Strike (November 9, 1983) (pp. 7-15). 

While certain aspects of administration are delegated to local 

districts, such delegation is only at the pleasure of the state, 

and in no way diminishes the state's ultimate duty to provide 

public education. Plaintiffs will present evidence of the 

history of state control over local education in Connecticut 

through their expert historical witness, Professor Christopher 

Collier. 

b. The state requires, pursuant to C.G.S. §10-240, that 

school district boundaries be coterminous with municipal 

boundaries. 

  

  

  

The requirement that town and school district boundaries 

be coterminous was imposed by the state in 1909. Prior to 1909, 

there was no state requirement that town and school district 

lines be the same, and many school districts crossed town lines. 

Since 1909, there has been no change in school district 

boundaries in the Hartford region, even as those school districts 

became increasingly segregated. Thus, the state-imposed system 

of coterminous town and school district boundaries served as a       
 



      

legal template on which the pattern of school segregation was 

laid out. 

Even in 1909, although Connecticut’s black population 

was very small, the pattern of black migration and racially 

identifiable housing was already becoming established. By 1909, 

consis 92% of Connecticut blacks were living in the cities. 

Thus, restriction of school districts to city boundaries had the 

foreseeable impact of limiting black access to suburban schools. 

The modern pattern of school segregation also traces its 

foundations to a system of official segregation in the 19th 

century. 

The only exception to the requirement of coterminous 

town and school district boundaries is where two or more 

districts voluntarily enter into a regional school district with 

state approval, pursuant to C.G.S. §10-39 et seq. However, 

regionalization requires voluntary suburban participation. 

There is no constitutional basis for the legal 

requirement that town and school district boundaries be 

coterminous. Nor is there any practical basis for the 

requirement. Indeed, the requirement, as applied to the Hartford 

metropolitan area, operates to maintain a system of racial and 

economic segregation. School districts throughout the United 

States are organized on other than a town-by-town basis. In 

Connecticut, intertown arrangements have been approved, 

  

 



      

encouraged, or mandated by the state, in the areas of sewer, 

water, transportation, and education. In the area of education, 

the state has established regional vocational-educational 

schools, and has encouraged interdistrict cooperative 

arrangements among suburban communities in special education 

programs. However, since 1954, with the exception of Project 

Concern, which the state has failed to adequately fund (see 

response to Interrogatory 5), the state provided little or no 

funding for urban/suburban interdistrict programs in regular 

education until after the present lawsuit was announced. 

c. The state requires, pursuant to C.G.S. §10-184, 
that school-age children attend public school 
within the school district wherein the child 
resides. 

  

  

  

  

Pursuant to C.G.S. 10-184, parents are required to send 

their children seven and over and under sixteen to a school “in 

the district wherein such child resides." Defendants have 

enforced this statute to prevent children living in the city of 

Hartford from attending school in suburban districts. For 

example, in 1985, four parents living in Hartford sent their 

children across town lines to the Bloomfield school system in 

order to secure an integrated and minimally adequate education 

for their children. The State, with the knowledge that the 

system of education these children were receiving was better in 

Bloomfield, employed the criminal process and had the parents 

  

 



  

arrested for larceny pursuant to C.G.S. 53a-119. See State Vv. 
  

Saundra Foster, et al. (spring 1985). 
  

Plaintiffs will also present historical evidence that 

prior to the adoption of C.G.S. §10-184, school children in 

Connecticut, and particularly, in the Hartford region, often 

crossed district lines to obtain education. 

d. From approximately 1954 to the present, the State 
Department of Education and the State Board of 
Education have engaged in a massive program of new 
school construction and school additions or 
renovations in Hartford and the surrounding 
communities, with direct knowledge of the 
increasing segregation in Hartford area schools. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

By 1954, defendants were well aware of the growing 

pattern of racial segregation in education and its alleged harm 

to black children. Between 1954 and the present, defendants 

approved and funded the construction of over ninety new schools 

in virtually all-white suburban communities, representing over 

50% of the total school enrollment in the region. [Source: H.C. 

Planning Associates Survey and local reports] During the same 

time period, defendants financed a major expansion of school 

capacity within the increasingly racially isolated Hartford 

school district.       
 



    

The state's adoption and implementation of the "Racial 

Imbalance” law and requlations has contributed to and 

authorized racial segregation in Hartford schools. 

  

  

  

1. Public Act 173, "An Act Concerning Racial Imbalance 

in the Public Schools” codified as §10-226a-e was passed in July 

1969, requiring "racial balance” among schools within individual 

districts. The state adopted the intra-district racial imbalance 

law with knowledge that segregation was increasingly an inter- 

district phenomenon. As the minutes of a meeting of the 

Legislative Committee on Human Rights and Opportunities on 

December 5, 1969 reflect, by 1969 it was well established that it 

was no longer possible to remedy the problem of racially and 

economically segregated schools by desegregating or balancing 

city schools, where minorities were already in the majority. To 

mandate only intra-district desegregation was to get the suburbs 

off "scot free.” (at 1). By 1969, the state was aware of the 

multiple reports, including those that gave rise to Project 

Concern in 1966, that concluded that racial and economic 

isolation was an inter-district problem that demanded an inter- 

district remedy. The state was well aware that solutions 

restricted by town boundaries would only burden urban areas and 

plague them with further racial polarization. 

2. The State Board of Education's delay, from 1569 

until 1980, in the adoption of regulations to implement the state 

racial imbalance law required by C.G.S. §226e foreseeably    



      

contributed to racial and ethnic segregation of the schools. In 

September, 1969, racial imbalance regulations were prepared and 

presented to the State Board of Education. School districts were 

notified and the State Board declared its intent to adopt the 

regulations. At a time when urban areas were racially polarized, 

these Actions also notified non-minorities living in the city of 

Hartford that desegregation of their schools was imminent. By 

delaying the adoption of the controversial regulations, the 

state's white citizens were given ample time to find alternative 

arrangements for the schooling of their children. 

Although time was of the essence and the racial 

composition of city schools were rapidly changing, in March, 1970 

after public hearings held in Hartford, the proposed regulations 

were rejected. From 1971 to 1975 nothing was done to correct the 

problem. Not until 1976 were efforts even renewed to draft 

regulations in compliance with the mandate of §10-226. 

In May, 1977, the State Board of Education adopted a 

Policy and Guidelines for the development of regulations, in 

accordance with the Board's stated belief that segregated schools 

could not provide truly equitable learning opportunities. 

Defendants had knowledge of both the inter-district nature of 

segregation in the Hartford area and the continuing fast pace of 

change in the racial composition of schools in the city of 

Hartford. Nevertheless, no regulations were adopted in 1977. 

  

 



      

-tD 

Significantly, the ethnic distribution of the 

student population changed markedly during the state’s delay. 

From 1970 to 1980, the white student population in city schools 

decreased dramatically, while the non-white population increased. 

while the trend toward increasing racial isolation within the 

city of Hartford had been clear in 1969, the concept of an intra- 

district remedy had quickly become irrelevant. 

3. In April, 1980, more than ten years after the 

passage of the racial imbalance law and long after school 

desegregation within the city of Hartford might have had meaning, 

the state prepared and adopted gacial inbatuncs regulations. The 

regulations established that a school was "imbalanced” if its 

minority enrollment was more that 25 percentage points above or 

below the district-wide proportion of minority students in that 

grade range. 

As the State has itself reported, "the statute and 

regulations have always placed a heavy burden on those school 

districts having large minority student enrollments.” State 

Department of Education, "A Report Providing Background 

Information Concerning the Chronology and Status of Statutes, 

Regulations and Processes Regarding Racial Imbalance in 

Connecticut Schools” (January, 1984), at 1. Not only did the 

passage of the racial imbalance law and delay in promulgation of 

its regulations contribute to racial, ethnic, and economic 

  

 



      

“13 = 

segregation in the Hartford metropolitan area, but enforcement of 

the racial imbalance law, with its punitive measures for racial 

imbalance, places an undue and unfair burden on Hartford and 

other urban school districts with high proportions of African 

American and Latino students, while releasing suburban districts 

from their responsibility to ensure equity and racial balance. 

In addition, as the State further reported in 1984, "as the 

overall percentage of minority students in the three largest 

cities continues to grow, the concepts on which the statute is 

predicated become questionable.” Id. 

Hartford was one of the seven urban districts found 

by the State Board of Education in 1979 to be in violation of the 

racial imbalance law. In March, 1981, the Equal Education and 

Racial Balance Task Force, established by the Hartford Board of 

Education to assist in the development of a plan to comply with 

the new law, not only arrived at a plan but also recommended 

changes in the racial imbalance law and regulations to make them 

applicable and workable in the City of Hartford. In April, 198}, 

Hartford's plan to correct racial imbalance within the school 

district was approved by the State Board of Education. In June, 

1981, over eleven years after the passage of the racial imbalance 

law, defendants began to monitor the Hartford schools for 

compliance with the law. In 1988, the State Department again 

notified the Hartford schools that Kennelly and Naylor, with 

  

 



      

HEV 

minority enrollments of 38.2% and 32.9% respectively, were, by 

definition, racially imbalanced, since they were more than 25 

percentage points below the city-wide average of 90.5%. Yet, as 

the Hartford public schools stated in its "Alternate Proposal to 

Address Racial Imbalance,” "[i]t is clear that the establish ed 

detinition of racial balance 18 meaningless for the city of 

Hartford. As long as the boundaries of the attendance district 

of the Hartford schools is 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.” "Alternate Proposal,” (1988) at 6. (The 

Alternate Proposal was approved by the state.) 

f. The state has further contributed to segregation by 
authorizing and/or requiring payment of transportation 
costs by local districts for students attending private 
schools, and by reimbursing local districts for said 
costs. 

  

  

  

  

l. Pursuant to C.G.S. §10-281, the state requires 
school districts to provide transportation to 
private nonprofit schools and provides reimbursement 
for expenses incurred by the district in providing 
this transportation. 

Pursuant C.G.S. §10-281, the state requires school 

districts to provide transportation to a private nonprofit school 

in the district whenever a majority of the students attending the 

private school are residents of Connecticut and provides for the 

reimbursement of expenses incurred by districts providing this 

transportation. Plaintiffs intend to produce evidence that the 

  

 



      

“19 = 

implementation of this law by defendants caused and contributed 

to increased racial, ethnic, and economic concentration in the 

Hartford metropolitan area, in violation of the Connecticut 

Constitution. 

Since 1971, the state has required districts to 

provide transportation to private schools when a majority of 

students live in the district. P.A. 653 §§1,2. Defendants have 

implemented and enforced this statute with direct knowledge of 

its segregative effect. In 1971, the relative percentages of 

African American and Latino group enrollment in the public and 

non-public schools in the Hartford area were enormously 

different. In essence, defendants not only supported a private 

school system that, through its admissions policies, effectively 

excluded the poor, but also subsidized the transfer of white 

school children out of the public school system and into these 

private schools at the same time that intra-district 

desegregation of the public schools was planned. 

In 1974, the state expanded the mandate of §10-281, 

requiring districts to provide transportation for students at 

private schools when a majority of students attending the schools 

are from Connecticut, versus from the particular district. P.A. 

74-257 §1. Defendants implemented this expansion, thereby 

subsidizing the transfer of white students out of the Hartford 

public schools, with a full awareness of its discriminatory 

  

 



      

effect. Defendants continue to require and subsidize the 

transportation of students to non-public schools in the Hartford 

metropolitan area. 

2. Pursuant to §10-280a, the state permits school 
districts to provide transportation to private 
nonprofit schools in other districts and, between 
1978 and 1989, provided reimbursement for expenses 
incurred for transportation to contiguous districts 
within Connecticut. 

From 1978 through 1989, pursuant to §10-280a, the 

state also reimbursed school districts in the Hartford area for 

transportation of students to private schools in contiguous 

Connecticut districts, thus facilitating the attendance of a 

predominantly white, relatively well-off group of students at 

non-public schools. The state adopted §10-280a in 1978 with 

knowledge of the problem of segregation in Connecticut’s urban 

areas and awareness of the damage to be incurred to the 

desegregation process by the flight of these schoolchildren to 

  

private schools. See e.g., 21 S. Proc., Pt. 5, 1978 Sess., PP- 

1916 (Sen Hudson). 

g. The state contributed to racial and economic 
segregation, and unequal, inadequate educational 
conditions by establishing and maintaining an unequal 
and unconstitutional system of educational financing. 

  

  

  

  

Until 1979 the principal source of school funding came 

from local property taxes, which depended on the wealth of the 

town. This principal source was supplemented by the state by a 

$250 flat grant principal, which applied to the poorest and the 

  

 



      

«17 i 

wealthiest towns. There was great wealth disparity which was 

reflected in widely varying funds available for local education 

and consequently widely varying quality of education among towns. 

The property-rich towns through higher per pupil expenditures 

were able to provide a substantially wider range and higher 

quality of education services than property-poor towns even as 

taxpayers in those towns were paying higher taxes than taxpayers 

in property-rich towns. All this was happening even though the 

state had the non-delegable responsibility to insure the students 

throughout the state received a substantially equal educational 

opportunity. Thus prior to 1979, the system of funding public 

education in the state violated the state constitution. 

In 1979, the state adopted a guaranteed tax base to 

rectify in part the financing inequities. Subsequent delays 

between 1980 and 1985 in implementing the 1979 act and the 

unjustified use of obsolete data made the formula more 

disequalizing and exacerbated disparities in per pupil 

expenditures. These conditions denied students their rights to 

substantially equal educational opportunities under the state 

constitution. [Sources for this section include Horton v. 
  

Meskill, 31 Conn. Sup. 377, 332 A.2d 113 (1974); 1d., 172 Conn. 

615, 376 A.2d 359 (1977); Supreme Court Record in previous case, 

(No. 8127); Horton v. Meskill, 195 Conn. 24, 486 A.2d 1099 
  

(1985); Supreme Court Record in previous case, Nos. 12499-12502) 

  

 



      

h. The state has contributed to racial and economic 

segregation in housing. 
  

Plaintiffs are not claiming in this lawsuit that any of 

the state’s housing actions are unconstitutional. Any such 

claims are expressly reserved. However, the state has played an 

important causal role in the process of residential segregation 

in the Hartford region, and plaintiffs will describe, through 

expert testimony, some of the ways that the state of Connecticut 

has contributed to segregated housing patterns. Plaintiffs’ 

testimony on these issues may include but will not be limited to 

the following areas: 

Location of Assisted Housing: At least 73% of 
  

Hartford-area subsidized family housing units are located in the 

City of Hartford. The state has played a direct role in the 

creation, funding, approval, siting, or administration of many of 

these units over the past 46 years. 

Transportation: During the same time period, the 
  

state has engaged in a series of transportation decisions that 

have increased “white flight” from Hartford, limited minority 

access to employment opportunities, and exacerbated racial and 

economic residential segregation in the Hartford region. 

Affirmative Marketing: In its adminityation of 

state housing programs, the state has failed to monitor and 

enforce affirmative marketing plans for state-funded suburban 

housing developments, including, on information and belief, 

  

 



      

failure to require affirmative marketing during initial 

occupancy, failure to provide adequate numbers of staff to 

monitor and enforce affirmative marketing requirements, failure 

to conduct surveys of racial occupancy, and failure to require 

affirmative marketing plans until 1988. 

Statutory Barriers: The state has provided suburban 
  

towns with veto power over state-subsidized projects through 

C.G.S. §8-120, which prohibits the Connecticut Housing Authority 

from developing new housing, including Section 8 developments, in 

any municipality without a finding of need or approval by the 

local governing body of the municipality, and through C.G.S. §§8- 

39(a) and 8-40, which prohibit local housing authorities from 

constructing, rehabilitating or financing a housing development 

in a neighboring municipality without that municipality's 

permission. 

  

Rental Assistance: Another way in which the state 

has contributed to residential segregation through its 

administration of state housing programs is through its 

administration and oversight of state and federal rental 

assistance programs, and its failure to permit or encourage such 

certificates to be used in a portable manner to permit 

certificate holders to cross municipal lines. 

  

Residency Preferences: The state has officially 

permitted the use of residency preferences by suburban public 

  

 



      

-_.20 ~- 

housing authorities, including certain PHAs in the Hartford area. 

Residency preferences have a discriminatory impact in white 

suburban communities, limiting the access of low income minority 

residents to suburban housing opportunities and suburban schools. 

  

Exclusionary Zoning: The state has been repeatedly 

advised of the discriminatory and exclusionary effects of its 

system of planning, zoning and land use laws and regulations, 

which have permitted local governments to erect zoning and other 

land use barriers to the construction of multifamily housing, 

rental housing, manufactured housing, and subsidized low and 

moderate income housing. 

| * %* %* * * 

At the present time, plaintiffs are continuing to 

investigate actions taken by defendants that have contributed to 

the constitutional violations set out in the Complaint. 

Plaintiffs’ investigation is ongoing and is subject to amendment 

in a timely fashion. At this time, except as set out above, 

plaintiffs have not completed investigation as to what specific 

“information [defendants]...had or should have had” at particular 

times which would have "apprised defendants of the consequences 

of particular actions.” Plaintiffs’ position is that although 

proof of such “notice” is not necessary for plaintiffs to 

prevail, nonetheless the increasing racial and economic 

segregation in area schools was obvious, and numerous reports and 

  

 



      

EE, | 

studies put the state on notice of the problems and possible 

causes and solutions. See response to Interrogatory 5. Further 

details in response to this interrogatory will be provided in a 

timely fashion, in advance of trial. 

2. Please identify each and every affirmative act by the 
defendants, their predecessors or any other state officer, agency 
or other body which the plaintiffs will claim at trial caused the 
conditions of racial and ethnic isolation in the Hartford Public 
Schools and/or the identified suburban school districts. For 
each such act provide the date the act occurred, the person, 
agency or other body responsible for the act, and any and all 
information the plaintiffs will claim that person, agency or 
other body had or should have had at that time which would have 
apprised them of the consequences of that act. 

  

RESPONSE: [Please see response to Interrogatory 1] 

3. Please identify each and every affirmative act by the 
defendants, their predecessors or any other state officer, agency 
or other body which the plaintiffs will claim at trial caused the 
condition of socio-economic isolation in the Hartford Public 
Schools and/or the identified suburban school districts. For 
each such act provide the date the act occurred, the person, 
agency or other body responsible for the act, and any and all 
information the plaintiffs will claim that person, agency or 
other body had or should have had at that time which would have 
apprised them of the consequences of the act. 

  

RESPONSE: [Please see response to Interrogatory 1] 

4. Please identify each and every affirmative act by the 
defendants, their predecessors or any other state officer, agency 
or other body which the plaintiffs will claim at trial cause the 
concentration of "at risk” children in the Hartford Public 
Schools. For each such act provide the date the act occurred, 
the person, agency or other body responsible for that act, and 
any and all information the plaintiffs will claim that person, 
agency or other body had or should have had at that time which 
would have apprised them of the consequences of that act. 

  

RESPONSE: [Please see response to Interrogatory 1] 

  

 



      

-a 

PAST VIOLATIONS: OMISSIONS 
  

5. Please identify each and every affirmative act, step, or 
plan which the plaintiffs will claim at trial the defendants, 
their predecessors, or any other state officer, agency or other 
body were required by the State Constitution to take or implement 
to address the condition of racial and ethnic isolation in the 
Hartford Public Schools and the identified suburban school 
districts, but which was not in fact taken or implemented. For 
each such act, step, or plan provide the following: 

a) The last possible date upon which that act, step or 
plan would necessarily have been taken or 
implemented in order to have avoided a violation 
that the Constitution; 

b) The specific details of how such act, step or plan 
should have been carried out, including (1) the 
specific methods of accomplishing the objectives of 
the act, step or plan, (2) an estimate of how long 
it would have taken to carry out the act, step, or 
plan, and (3) an estimate of the cost of carrying 
out the act, step or plan; 

c) For Hartford and each of the identified suburban 
school districts, the specific number and percentage 
of black, Hispanic and white students who would, of 
necessity, have attended school outside of the then 
existing school district in which they resided in 
order for that act, step or plan to successfully 
address the requirements of the Constitution. 

RESPONSE: As set out in the Complaint, defendants’ failure to 

act in the face of defendants’ awareness of the educational 

necessity for racial, ethnic, and economic integration in the 

public schools, defendants’ recognition of the lasting harm 

inflicted on poor and minority students concentrated in urban 

school districts, and defendants’ knowledge of the array of legal 

tools available to defendants to remedy the problem, is violative 

of the State Constitution. Plaintiffs challenge defendants!’ 

  

 



      

failure to provide plaintiffs with the equal educational 

opportunities to which the defendants were obligated to ensure. 

Since at least 1965, when the United States Civil Rights 

Commission reported to Connecticut's Commissioner of Education, 

defendants have had knowledge of the increasing racial, ethnic, 

and economic segregation in the Hartford metropolitan area and 

the power and authority to remedy this school segregation. Not 

only did defendants fail to take comprehensive or effective steps 

to ameliorate the increasing segregation in and among the 

region's schools, but defendants also failed to provide equal 

access to educational resources to students in the schools in the 

Hartford metropolitan area. Such resources include, but are not 

limited to, number and qualification of staff; facilities; 

materials, books, and supplies; and curriculum offerings. 

Specifically, plaintiffs may present evidence at trial of 

the many reports and recommendations presented to Defendants 

which documented the widespread existence of racial, ethnic, and 

economic segregation and isolation among the school districts and 

which proposed or endorsed remedial efforts to eliminate such 

segregation. Plaintiffs will not necessarily claim that if 

implemented, the specific programs and policies offered in such 

reports and recommendations would have been sufficient to address 

the constitutional violation. Neither will plaintiffs 

necessarily claim that any one particular recommendation was 

  

 



      

-' 24 - 

required by the State Constitution. These reports and 

recommendations may include but are not limited to the following: 

a. United States Civil Rights Commission, Report to 
Connecticut's Commissioner of Education (1965); 

Center for Field Studies, Harvard Graduate School 
of Education, Schools for Hartford (Cambridge, 
Mass.: Harvard University, 1965); 
  

"Equality and Quality in the Public Schools,” 
Report of a Conference Sponsored Jointly by the 
Connecticut Commission on Civil Rights and the 
Connecticut State Board of Education,” (1966). 

Request by the Connecticut Civil Rights Commission 
to the Governor (request that the Governor take a 
stand against de facto segregation and publish a 
statement on the drawbacks of de facto segregation 
in the schools) (1966). 

Committee of Greater Hartford School 
Superintendents, Proposal to Establish a 
Metropolitan Effort Toward Regional Opportunity 
(METRO) (1966); 

Legislative Commission on Human Rights and 
Opportunities, Plan for the Creation and Funding of 
Educational Parks (Hartford, December, 1968); 

Task Force, Regional Advisory Committee for the 
Capitol Region, "The Suburbs and the Poverty 
Problems of Greater Hartford,” (Hartford, September 
30, 1968); 

Irving L. Allen and J. David Colfax, Urban Problems 
and Public Opinion in Four Cities (Urban Research 
Report No. 14, Community Structure Series No. 3; 
Storrs, Conn.: University of Connecticut, 1968); 

  

  

Walter R. Boland, et al., De Facto School 
Segregation and The Student: A Study of the 

  

  

Schools in Connecticut's Five Major Cities (Urban 
  

Research Report No. 15, Community Structure Series 
No. 4; Storrs, Conn.: University of Connecticut, 
1968); 

  

 



      

- 25 4 

Educational Resources and Development Center, The 
School of Education and Continuing Education 
Service, University of Connecticut, A Study of 
Urban School Needs in the Five Largest Cities of 

  

  

Connecticut (Storrs, Conn.: University of 
  

Connecticut, 1969); 

Edward A. Lehan, Executive Secretary to the 
Hartford City Manager, Report on Racial Composition 
of Hartford Schools to the State Board of Education 
(Hartford, 1969); 

Joint Committee of the Hartford Board of Education 
and the Human Relations Commission, Hartford, 
Report, (July, 1569); 

City of Hartford, "Community Development Action 
Plant: Education 1971-1975,” (Sept. 1, 1870); 

Hartford Board of Education, “Recommended Revision 
in School Building Program,” (May 18, 1970); 

Local Government: Schools and Property, “The 
  

Report of the Governor's Commission on Tax Reforms, 
Submitted to Governor Thomas J. Meskill Pursuant to 
Executive Order 13 of 1972,” (Hartford, 

Connecticut, December 18, 1972); 

Commission to Study School Finance and Equal 
Educational Opportunity, Financing Connecticut 
Schools: Final Report of the Commission (Hartford, 

  

  

Conn., January, 1975); 

Equal Education and Racial Balance Task Force, 
appointed by the Hartford Board of Education, 
"Advisory Report,” (Hartford, March, 1981); 

Connecticut State Department of Education, "A Report 
Providing Background Information Concerning the 
Chronology and Status of Statutes, Regulations and 
Processes Regarding Racial Imbalance in Connecticut'’s 
Public Schools,” (February 6, 1986); 

Connecticut State Department of Education, “The Issue of 
Racial Imbalance and Quality Education in Connecticut's 
Public Schools,” (February 5, 1986); 

  

    

 



  

-*20 im 

u. “State Board of Education Policy Statement on Equal 
Educational Opportunity,” Connecticut State Board of 
Education, (Hartford, October 27, 1986); 

v. "Report on Racial/Ethnic Equity and Desegregation 
in Connecticut'’s Public Schools,” Connecticut 
State Department of Education (1988); and 

w. “Quality and Integrated Education: Options for 
: Connecticut,” Connecticut State Department of 

Education (1989). 

Xx. Governor's Commission Report 1990. 

In addition to the recommendations and reports set out 

above, the State failed to adequately supplement the funding of a 

known successful integration program, Project Concern, beginning 

in 1980 when federal funding cutbacks and Hartford Board of 

Education cutbacks forced a reduction in the numbers of children 

participating in the program and in the numbers of staff hired to 

service these children (e.g. paraprofessionals, resource 

teachers, bus stop aides). The State has also failed to take ap- 

propriate steps to increase the numbers of children participating 

over and above the approximately 730+ students now enrolled in 

the program, despite knowledge that receiving school districts 

would increase their participation if the State provided funding. 

The following studies and documents, among others, have repeated- 

ly demonstrated to the Defendants that Project Concern is one of 

a number of programs to successfully provide an equal educational       
 



      

0 

opportunity and a meaningful integrated experience for some urban 

and suburban children: 

a. 

b. 

Mahan, Thomas W. The Impact of Schools on Learning: 
Inner-City Children in Suburban Schools. 
  

  

Mahan, Thomas W. Project Concern 1966-1968, A Report on 
the Effectiveness of Suburban School Placement for 
  

  

Inner-City Youth (1968). 
  

Ninety-First Congress, Second Session on Equal Education 
Opportunity. “Hearing Before the Select Committee on 
Equal Educational Opportunity of the United States 
Senate.” 1970. 

Connecticut State Department of Education, "Reaction to 
Racial Imbalance Guidelines for Hartford Public 
Schools.” April 20, 1970. 

State Board of Education Minutes (Capital Region 
Planning Agency Endorses the Expansion of Project 
Concern) January 7, 1970. 

Gable, R. and Iwanicki, E., A Synthesis of the 
Evaluation Findings from 1976-1980 (May 1981) 

Gable, Thompson, Iwanicki, The Effects of Voluntary 
Desegregation on Occupational Outcomes, The Vocational 
Guidance Quarterly 31, 230-239 (1983) 

  

  

Gable, R.and Iwanicki, E. The Longitudinal Effects of a 
Voluntary School Desegregation Program on the Basic 
Skill Progress of Participants. 1 Metropolitan 
Education 65. Spring, 1986. 

  

  

  

  

Gable, R. and Iwanicki, E., Project Concern Evaluation. 

Gable, R. and Iwanicki, E., Final Evaluation Report 
1986-87 Hartford Project Concern Program (December 
1987) 
  

Gable, R. and Iwanicki, E., Final Evaluation Report 
1388-89: Hartford Project Concern Program (Nov. 1989) 

  

  

  

 



      

l. Crain, R., et al., Finding Niches: Desegregated 
Students Sixteen Years Later, Rand Reports, (1985); 
revised 1990 

  

  

m. Crain, R., et al., School Desegregation and Black 
Occupational Attainment: Results from a Long Term 

Experiment; (1985). 

  

  

  

n. "Project Concern Enrollment 1966-1990,” (Defs’ Response 
to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production, 13(b)). 

o. Iwanicki, E., and Gable, R., Almost Twenty-Five Years of 
Project Concern: An Overview of the Program and Its 
Accomplishments, (1990) (and sources cited therein) 
(Defs’ Response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for 
Production, 12 (g). 

  

  

  

In addition, Plaintiffs’ evidence at trial may include 

but will not be limited to testimony and reports demonstrating 

defendants’ failure to eliminate exclusionary zoning and housing 

policies; defendants’ failure to promote integrated housing in 

the Hartford region; and defendants’ failure to establish a 

constitutional system of educational financing (see response to 

Interrogatory 1). | 

In regard to questions 5 a, b, and ¢, as set out in 

Defendants’ Interrogatory 5, Plaintiffs have not determined and 

are, at least at this time, unable to estimate the "last possible 

date” upon which individual actions, steps, or plans would 

necessarily have had to have been implemented in order to have 

avoided violation of the State Constitution, nor do plaintiffs 

concede the relevance of such an inquiry. Likewise, plaintiffs 

are not required to specify which methods would have cured the 

constitutional violation at particular moments in time, how long 

  

 



      

29 

such methods would have taken to implement, or the cost of 

implementation. Such questions, including the number and 

percentage of African American, Latino, and white students who 

may seek to attend school outside of the boundaries of the city 

of Hartford, are issues which plaintiffs expect would be 

addressed by plaintiffs’ expert witnesses on desegregation 

remedies after a determination is made by the court as to the 

state's liability. 

6. Please identify each and every affirmative act, step or 

plan which the plaintiffs will claim at trial the defendants, 

their predecessors, or any other state officer, agency or other 

body were required by the State Constitution to take or implement 

to address the condition of socio-economic isolation in the 

Hartford Public Schools and the identified suburban school 

districts, but which was not in fact taken or implemented. For 

each such act, step or plan provide the following: 

a) The last possible date upon which that act, step or 

plan would necessarily have been taken or 

implemented in order to have avoided a violation of 

the Constitution; 

b) The specific details of how such act, step or plan 

should have been carried out including, (1) the 

specific methods of accomplishing the objectives of 

the act, step or plan, (2) an estimate of how long 

it would have taken to carry out the act, step or 

plan, and (3) an estimate of the cost of carrying 

out the act, step or plan; 

c) For Hartford and each of the identified suburban 

school districts, the specific number and percentage 

of poor, middle, and/or upper class students who 

would, of necessity, have attended school cutside of 

the then existing school district in which they 

resided in order for that act, step, or plan to 

successfully address the requirements of the 

Constitution; 

  

 



      

30 = 

d) The specific criteria which should have been used to 
identify those students who would, of necessity, 
have attended school outside the then existing 
school district in which they resided, so that the 
concentration of students from poor families in 
Hartford Public Schools would be low enough to 
satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. 

RESPONSE: Please see response to Interrogatory 5. Plaintiffs 
  

have not, at this point, alleged that one specific criterion or 

indicator must be used to identify students who “would, of 

necessity” be transferred to another school district. As stated 

in the Complaint, rates of family participation in the federal 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children program is widely 

accepted as a measure closely correlated with family poverty. 

Participation in the federal school lunch program is also an 

index of poverty status. 

7. Please identify each and every affirmative act, step or 
plan which the plaintiffs will claim at trial the defendants, 
their predecessors, or any other state officer, agency or other 
body were required by the State Constitution to take or implement 
to address the conditions created by the concentration of "at 
risk” children in the Hartford Public Schools but which were not 
in fact taken or implemented. For each such act, step, or plan 
provide the following: 

a) The last possible date upon which that act, step or 
plan would necessarily have been taken or 
implemented in order to have avoided a violation of 
the constitution; x 

b) The specific details of how such act, step or plan 
should have been carried out including (1) the 
specific methods of accomplishing the objective of 
the act, step or plan, (2) an estimate as to how 
long it would have taken to carry out the act, step 
or plan, and (3) an estimate of the cost of carrying 
out the act, step or plan; 

  

 



      

“31 im 

c) The specific number and percentage of "at risk” 
Hartford students who would, of necessity, have 
attended school outside of the existing school 
district in which they resided in order for that 
act, step or plan to successfully address the 
requirements of the Constitution. 

d) The specific criteria which should have been used to 
identify those students who would, of necessity, 
have attended school outside the then existing 
school district in which they resided so that the 
concentration of "at risk” students in Hartford 
Public Schools would be low enough to satisfy the 
requirements of the Constitution. 

RESPONSE: Please see response to Interrogatory 5. As set out in 
  

the Complaint in this action, all children, including those 

deemed at risk of lower educational achievement, have the 

capacity to learn if given a suitable education. Yet, the 

Hartford public schools operate at a severe educational 

disadvantage in addressing the educational needs of all students, 

due in part to the sheer proportion of students who bear the 

burdens and challenges of living in poverty. The increased need 

for special programs, such as compensatory education, stretches 

Hartford school resources even further. As also stated in the 

Complaint, the demographic characteristics of the students in the 

Hartford public schools differ sharply from students in the 

suburban schools by a number of ‘relevant measures, such as 

poverty status, whether a child has limited English proficiency, 

and whether a child is from a single-parent family. Plaintiffs 

have not, at this point, alleged that one specific criterion or 

  

  

 



      

indicator must be used to identify students who "would, of 

necessity” be transferred to another school district. 

CURRENT OR ONGOING VIOLATIONS 
  

8. Using the 1987-88 data as a base, for Hartford and each 
of the identified suburban school districts please specify the 
number and percentage of black, Hispanic and white students who 
must, of a necessity, attend school in a location outside of the 
existing school district in which they reside in order to address 
the condition of racial and ethnic isolation which now exists in 
accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. 

RESPONSE: Objection [Please see plaintiffs’ objection to 

Interrogatory 8, Plaintiffs’ Objections To Interrogatories, Filed 

September 20, 1990, attached hereto.] 

9. Using the 1987-88 data as a base, for Hartford and each 
of the identified suburban school districts please specify the 
number and percentage of poor, middle and/or upper class students 
who must, of necessity, attend school outside of the existing 
school district in which they reside in order to address the 
condition of socio-economic isolation which exists in Hartford 
and the identified suburban school districts in accordance with 
the requirements of the Constitution. Also identify the specific 
criteria which must be used to identify the pool of poor Hartford 
students from which those students who would be required to 
attend schools outside of the existing district in which they 
reside must be chosen so as to address the condition of socio- 
economic isolation in accordance with the requirements of the 
Constitution. 

RESPONSE: Objection [Please see plaintiffs’ objection to 

Interrogatory 9, Plaintiffs’ Objections To Interrogatories, Filed 

September 20, 1990, attached hereto. ] 

  

 



  

-i33 im 

10. Using the 1987-88 data as a base, identify the number 
and percentage of "at risk” children in the Hartford Public 
Schools who must, of necessity, attend school at a location 
outside the existing Hartford School District lines in order to 
address the concentration of "at risk” children in the Hartford 
Public Schools in accordance with the requirements of the 
Constitution. Also identify the specific criteria which must be 
used to identify the pool of Hartford students from which those 
who would be required to attend schools in the suburban school 
districts must be chosen so as to address the concentration of 
"at risk” children in the Hartford Public Schools. 

RESPONSE: Objection [Please see plaintiffs’ objection to 
  

Interrogatory 10, Plaintiffs’ Objections To Interrogatories, 

Filed September 20, 1990, attached hereto. ] 

MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION 
  

11. Please identify each and every statistic the 
plaintiffs’ will rely on at trial to support any claim they 
intend to make that the educational “inputs” (i.e. resources, 
staff, facilities, curriculum, etc.) in the Hartford Public 
Schools are so deficient that the children in Hartford are being 
denied a “minimally adequate education.” For each such fact 
specify the source(s) and/or name and address of the person(s) 
that will be called upon to attest to that statistic at trial. 

RESPONSE: [Please see response to Interrogatory 13.] 

12. Please identify each and every statistic, other than the 
results of the Mastery Test, which the plaintiffs will rely on at 
trial to support any claim they intend to make that children in 
Hartford are being denied a "minimally adequate education” 
because of the educational "outputs” for Hartford. For each such 
fact specify the source(s) and/or name and address of the 
person(s) that will be called upon to attest to that statistic at 
trial. 

RESPONSE: [Please see response to Interrogatory 14.]       
 



      

- 34 

EQUAL EDUCATION 

13. Please identify each and every category of educational 

“inputs” which the plaintiffs will rely on at trial in their 

effort to establish that the educational “inputs” in Hartford are 

not equal to the educational “inputs” of the suburban school 

districts. For each such category identify each and every 

statistical comparison between Hartford and any or all of the 

suburban school districts which the plaintiffs will rely on to 

show the alleged inequality. For each such comparison identify 

the source(s) and/or name and address of the person(s) that will 

be called upon to attest to the accuracy of that statistical 

comparison at trial. 

  

RESPONSE: As of the date of this response, plaintiffs are 

compiling data and information on disparities and inequities in 

"educational inputs” and resources among Hartford and the 

surrounding districts. This data may include, but may not be 

limited to comparisons in the following areas: 

a. Facilities -- data may include, but may not be 
limited to comparisons of the condition and size of 
school buildings, the condition and size of school 
grounds, overcrowding and school capacity, 
maintenance, the availability of specific 
instructional facilities and physical education 
facilities, and special function areas (e.g. types 
of counselling, libraries); 

b. Equipment and Supplies; 

c. Personnel -- data may include, but may not be 
limited to comparisons of student teacher ratios, 
teaching staff characteristics, and non-teacher 
staff number and characteristics; 

d. Curriculum -- data may include, but may not be 
limited to comparisons of course offerings, 
textbooks and course levels, and special programs; 

e. Extracurricular Opportunities; and 

  

 



      

Ne Lope 

f. School experience -- data may include, but may not 

be limited to comparisons of counselling services, 

disciplinary rates, absentee rates, retention 

rates, tardy rates, and the concentration of 

poverty. 

At the present time, plaintiffs’ investigation and analysis 

of these categories has not been completed. The data and 

information concerning disparity in “inputs” upon which 

plaintiffs rely is equally available to defendants. 

Nevertheless, plaintiffs will disclose such information in a 

timely manner prior to trial. 

14. Please identify each and every category of educational 

"outputs” other than the Mastery Test, which the plaintiffs will 

rely on at trial in their effort to establish that the 

educational “outputs” in Hartford are not equal to the 

educational “outputs” of the suburban school districts. For each 

such category identify each and every statistical comparison 

between Hartford and any one or all of the suburban school 

districts which the plaintiffs will rely on to show the alleged 

inequality. For each such comparison identify the source(s) 

and/or name and address of the person(s) that will be called upon 

to attest to the accuracy of that statistical comparison at 

trial. 

RESPONSE: As listed in plaintiffs’ response to Interrogatory 18, 
  

Professor Robert Crain is expected to testify to the following 

areas of comparison: the likelihood of (1) dropping out of high 

school; (2) early teenage pregnancy; (3) unfavorable interactions 

with the police; (4) college retention; (35) working in private 

sector professional and managerial jobs; (6) interracial contact, 

occupationally and otherwise; and (7) favorable interracial 

attitudes. Plaintiffs are also compiling data and information on 

  

 



      

$36 = 

disparities and inequities in other measures of achievement or 

educational quality among Hartford and the surrounding districts, 

including but not limited to percentage of students receiving a 

diploma; PSAT and SAT scores; employment outcomes; and career and 

life outcomes. At the present time, plaintiffs’ investigation 

and analysis of these and other categories have not been 

completed. Plaintiffs have not yet identified who will present 

analyses of such data at trial, other than those experts listed 

in plaintiffs’ response to Interrogatories 18 and 19. Plaintiffs 

will disclose such information in a timely manner prior to trial. 

OTHER 

15. Please identify each and every study, other document, 
or information or person the plaintiffs will rely upon or call 
upon at trial to support the claim that better integration will 
improve the performance of urban black, Hispanic and/or socio- 
economically disadvantaged children on standardized tests such as 
the Mastery Test. 

RESPONSE: As set out in the complaint, racial and economic   

isolation in the schools adversely affects both educational 

attainment and the life chances of children. The studies, 

documents, information, and persons upon whom the plaintiffs will 

rely at trial may include, but are not limited to information 

listed in the response to Interrogatory 19 and the following: 

Crain, R.L., and Braddock, J.H., McPartland, J.M., "A 
Long Term View of School Desegregation: Some Recent 
Studies of Graduates as Adults,” 66 Phi Delta Kappan 
259-264 (1984); 

  

 



      

-3n . 

Crain, R.L., and Hawes, J.A., Miller, R.L., Peichert, 
J.R., "Finding Niches: Desegregated Students Sixteen 
Years Later,” R-3243-NIE, Rand (January, 1985); 

Crain, R.L., and Strauss, J., “School Desegregation and 
Black Occupational Attainments: Results from a Long- 
term Experiment,” Reprinted from CSOS Report No. 359 
(1985); 

Levine, D.U., Keeny, J., Kukuk, C., O'Hara Fort, B., 
Mares, K.R., Stephenson, R.S., "Concentrated Poverty 

and Reading Achievement in Seven Big Cities,” 11 Urban 
Review 63 (1979). 

"Poverty, Achievement and the Distribution of 
Compensatory Education Services,” National Assessment 
of Chapter 1, Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement, U.S. Dept. of Ed. (1986); 

"Report on Negative Factors Affecting the Learning 
Process," Hartford Board of Education (1987); 

Connecticut State Department of Education (various 
reports, past and present, including but not limited to 
reports on racial, ethnic, and economic segregation, 
racial balance, school resources, and educational 

outcomes). 

See also reports listed in Plaintiffs’ Identification of 
Expert Witnesses Pursuant to Practice Book §220 (D) (January 
15, 1991), attached hereto. 

  

16. Please identify each and every study, other document, 
or information or person the plaintiffs will rely upon or call 
upon at trial to support the claim that better integration will 
improve the performance of urban black, Hispanic and/or socio- 
economically disadvantaged children on any basis other than 
standardized tests. 

RESPONSE: [Please see response to Interrogatory 15.] 
  

  

 



      

«*38 = 

17. Please describe the precise mathematical formula used 
by the plaintiffs to compute the ratios set forth in paragraph 42 
of the complaint. 

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs recognize that the computation set out in 

942 of the Complaint may be inaccurate. Plaintiffs have 

indicated their willingness to discuss stipulation as to 

aggregate city vs. suburban mastery test scores. 

EXPERT WITNESSES 
  

18. Please specify the name and address of each and every 
person the plaintiffs expect to call as an expert witness at 
trial. For each such person please provide the following: 

a) The date on which that person is expected to 
complete the review, analysis, or consideration 
necessary to formulate the opinions which that 
person will be called upon to offer at trial; 

b) The subject matter upon which that person is 
expected to testify; and 

c) The substance of the facts and opinions to which 
that person is expected to testify and a summary of 
the grounds for each opinion. 

RESPONSE: On January 15, 1991, the plaintiffs disclosed their 

initial list of expert witnesses anticipated to testify at trial, 

pursuant to Practice Book §220 (D), as modified by this Court'’s 

Order of October 31, 1990 and the parties’ Joint Motion for 

Extension of Time to Disclose Expert Witnesses filed December 3, 

1980. See Plaintiffs’ Identification of Expert Witnesses 

Pursuant to Practice Book §220 (D) (January 15, 1991); attached 

hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 1In addition, 

  

 



      

i 39 - 

plaintiffs have identified other possible witnesses who may 

testify at the trial in this action, but whose analyses are not 

sufficiently complete to respond to defendants’ interrogatory or 

to confirm whether plaintiffs expect to call such witnesses. 

Additional expert witnesses will be identified as set out in the 

parties’ December 3, 1990 Joint Motion, as they become available. 

DATA COMPILATIONS 
  

19. In the event the plaintiffs intend to offer into 
evidence at trial any data compilations or analyses which have 

been produced by the plaintiffs or on the plaintiffs’ behalf by 

any mechanical or electronic means please describe the nature and 

results of each such compilation and/or analysis and provide the 
following additional information. 

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

£) 

g) 

The specific kind of hardware used to produce each 
compilation and/or analysis; 

The specific software package or programming 
language which was used to produce each compilation 
and/or analysis; 

A complete list of all specific data elements used 
to produce each compilation and/or analysis; 

The specific methods of analyses and/or questions 
used to create the data base for each compilation 
and/or analysis; 

A complete list of the specific questions, tests, 
measures, or other means of analysis applied to the 
data base to produce each compilation and/or 
analysis; 

Any and all other information the defendants would 
need to duplicate the compilation or analysis; 

The name, address, educational background and role 
of each and every person who participated in the 
development of the data base and/or program used to 

  

 



      

- 40 = 

analyze the data for each compilation and/or 

analysis; and 

h) The name and address of each and every person 

expected to testify at trial who examined the 

results of the compilation or analysis and who 

reached any conclusions in whole or in part from 

those results regarding the defendants’ compliance 

with the law, and, for each such person, provide a 

complete list of the conclusions that person 

reached. 

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs may offer into evidence compilations and 
  

analyses including but not limited to analyses of data on the 

educational and long-term effects of racial, ethnic, and economic 

segregation. In addition, plaintiffs may offer into evidence 

compilations and analyses on other elements of plaintiffs’ case, 

including the disparity in resources between Hartford and the 

suburban schools. Plaintiffs are still compiling and analyzing 

data drawn from the following sources and will provide more 

detailed information in such research when it is available. Such 

information will be provided in a timely fashion, in advance of 

trial. 

The data sets which form the basis for the analyses of the 

educational and long-term effects of racial, ethnic, and economic 

segregation include, but will not be limited to the following: 

(1) The National Longitudinal Survey of Labor Force 

Behavior -- Youth Cohort, an annual survey 

sponsored by the U.S. Departments of Labor and 

Defense of 12,686 young persons throughout the 

United States. Data available and used in this 

research begins in 1979 and extends through 1987. 

  

 



      

- 41 

(2) The National Survey of Black Americans, a national 

survey of 2,107 African Americans who are 18 years 

of age or older. The survey was designed and 

conducted by the survey Research Center, Institute 

for Social Research at the University of Michigan. 

Data was collected between 1979 and 1980. 

(3) The High School and Beyond Study, a national 

longitudinal probability sample of more than 58,000 

1980 high school sophomores and seniors. Surveys 

were conducted in 1980, 1982, 1984, and 1986. 

(4) The National Longitudinal Survey of Employers, a 

national probability sample of 4,087 employers. 

Surveys were conducted in the 1970's. 

Further sources of data are set out in Plaintiffs’ 

Identification of Expert Witnesses Pursuant to Practice Book §220 

(D), served on January 15, 1991, and incorporated herein by 

reference. 

With respect to defendants’ questions a-d, at this time, 

plaintiffs’ counsel are aware that some experts conducted 

regression analyses using SPSS software on IBM computers. Beyond 

this, plaintiffs are currently unable to specify the kind of 

hardware used to produce each analysis, the specific software 

package used, the complete list of specific data elements used; 

and specific methods of analysis. Plaintiffs will provide such 

information in a timely fashion as it becomes available to the 

plaintiffs, in advance of trial. 

  

 



      

- 43 = 

MISCELLANEQUS 

20. For each of the above listed interrogatories please 

provide the names and address of each person who assisted in the 

preparation of the answer to that interrogatory and describe the 

nature of the assistance which that person provided. 

RESPONSE: Objection. [See plaintiffs’ Objection to 
  

Interrogatory 20, Plaintiffs’ Objections to Interrogatories, 

Filed September 20, 1990.] Without waiving their objection, 

plaintiffs respond that the responses to the foregoing 

interrogatories were prepared by counsel in consultation with 

experts identified in Plaintiffs’ Identification of Expert 

Witnesses Pursuant to Practice Book §220 (D), served on January 

15, 1991, as well as additional experts to be identified pursuant 

to the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Disclose 

Expert Witnesses filed December 3, 1990. 

  

 



  

- 43 - 

PLAINTIFFS, MILO SHEFF, ET AL 

HAVE LAD or 2 A br ad 
  

MARIANNE ENGELMAN LADO PHILIP D. TEGELER 

RONALD ELLIS CONNECTICUT CIVIL LIBERTIES 

NAACP Legal Defense & UNION FOUNDATION 
Educational Fund, Inc. 32 Grand Street 

99 Hudson Street Hartford, CT 06106 
New York, NY 10013 (203) 247-9823 
(212) 219-1900 Juris No. 102537 
Pro Hac Vice 

MARTHA STONE WESLEY W. HORTON 

CONNECTICUT CIVIL LIBERTIES MOLLER, HORTON & 

UNION FOUNDATION FINEBERG, P.C. 

32 Grand Street 90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 Hartford, CT 06105 
(203) 247-9823 (203) 522-8338 
Juris No. 61506 Juris No. 38478 

WILFRED RODRIGUEZ JOHN BRITTAIN 

HISPANIC ADVOCACY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT 

Neighborhood Legal Services SCHOOL OF LAW 
1229 Albany Avenue 65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT? 06102 ; Hartford, CT 06105 
(203) 278-6850 (203) 241-4664 
Juris No. 302827 Juris No. 101153 

ADAM S. COHEN "JENNY RIVERA 

HELEN HERSHKOFF PUERTO RICAN LEGAL 

JOHN A. POWELL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 99 Hudson Street 

UNION FOUNDATION New York, NY 10013 

132 West 43rd Street (212) 219-3360 
New York, NY 10036 Pro Hac Vice 
(212) 944-9800 
Pro Hac Vice       
 



  

  

    

STATE OF CONNECTICUT) 

} HARTFORD July 8, 1990 
COUNTY OF HARTFORD 

AFFIDAVIT   

Being duly sworn I, Diane W. Whitney, counsel for the 
defendants in the matter of Sheff v. O'Neill, CV 89-03609778, do 
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of 
Plaintiffs' Amended Responses to Defendants' First Set of 
Interrogatories dated February 19, 1991 which was received by the 
defendants. 

  

i. UL ( liu At La 
  

Diane W. Whitney 7 

? : i 
Sybscribed and sworn to before me this of day 

of ( Jobe) , 1991. rT 
5 

/, / 

1 '/ Le 

    

z 
  

Befnard Paes vern, Jr. 
Commissigh€r of the Superior Court 

  

 



  

eo 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
FI
NE
BE
RG
, 

P. 
C.

 
90
 
GI

LL
ET

T 
ST

RE
ET

 
® 

H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06
10
5 

© 
(2

03
) 

52
2-

83
38

 
e 

JU
RI
S 

NO
. 

38
47
8 

eo 
TE
LE
FA
X 

72
8-

04
01

 

  

ror TB 

Cv89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, ET AL SUPERIOR COURT 

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

WILLIAM A. O/NEILL, ET AL : SEPTEMBER 20, 1990 

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORIES 
  

Pursuant to §228 of the Connecticut Practice Book, the Plaintiffs 

herewith object to the following interrogatories dated July 13, 1990: 

8. Using the 1987-1988 data as a base, for Hartford and each of 
the identified suburban school districts please specify the number and 
percentage of black, Hispanic and white students who must, of a 
necessity, attend school in a location outside of the existing school 
district in which they reside in order to address the condition of 
racial and ethnic isolation which now exists in accordance with the 
requirements of the Constitution. 

OBJECTION: Defendants’ interrogatory seeks information from 
plaintiffs in regard to the specific remedy that plaintiffs seek if they 
prevail in this lawsuit. To that extent, defendants do not seek 
information relating to the liability phase but the remedial phase of 
this lawsuit. Plaintiffs object on the grounds that such information is 
premature, and beyond the scope of the lawsuit at this present time. 

  

9. Using the 1987-88 data as a base, for Hartford and each of the 
identified suburban school districts please specify the number and 
percentage of poor, middle and/or upper class students who must, of 
necessity, attend school outside of the existing school district in 
which they reside in order to address the condition of socio-economic 
isolation which exists in Hartford and the identified suburban school 
districts in accordance with requirements of the Constitution. Also 
identify the specific criteria which must be used to identify the pool 
of poor Hartford students from which those students who would be 
required to attend schools outside of the existing district in which 
they reside must be chose so as to address the condition of 
socio-economic isolation in accordance with the requirements of the 
Constitution. 

OBJECTION: See objection to Interrogatory 8. 
  

  

   



  

e 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

: 
M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
FI

NE
BE

RG
, 

P. 
C.
 

90
 
GI

LL
ET

T 
ST
RE
ET
 

e 
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06

10
5 

e 
(2

03
) 

52
2-
83
38
 

e 
JU
RI
S 

NO
. 

38
47
8 

ee 
TE

LE
FA

X 
72

8-
04

01
 

  

A Using the 1987-88 data as a base, identify the number and 
percentage of "at risk" children in the Hartford Public Schools who 
must, of necessity, attend school at a location outside the existing 
Hartford School District lines in order to address the concentration of 
"at risk" children in the Hartford Public Schools in accordance with the 
requirements of the Constitution. Also identify the specific criteria 
which must be used to identify the pool of Hartford students from which 
those who would be required to attend schools in the suburban school 
districts must be chosen so as to address the concentration of "at risk" 
children in the Hartford Public School.s : 

OBJECTION: 
  See objection to Interrogatory 8. 

20. For each of the above listed interrogatories please provide 
the name and address of each person who assisted in the preparation of 
the answer to that interrogatory and describe the nature of the 
assistance which that person provided. 

OBJECTION: 
  

To the extent it requires the disclosure concerning 
experts who will not testify at trial, it is not provided for under P.B. 
§220(A) (1). 

PLAINTIFFS, MILO SHEFF, ET AL 

MARTHA STONE 

CONNECTICUT CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 
FOUNDATION 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 
(203)247-9823 
Juris No. 61506 

PHILIP D. TEGELER 

CONNECTICUT CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION 

32 Grand Street 

Bartford, CT 06106 
(203)247-9823 

Juris No. 102537 

OER TR   
LJ 

WESLEY W. HORTON 
MOLLER, HORTON & 

FINEBERG, P.C. 

90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

(203)522-8338 

Juris No. 38478 

WILFRED RODRIGUEZ 

HISPANIC ADVOCACY PROJECT 

Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
BRartford, CT 
(203)278-6850 

Juris No. 

06102 

302827 

  

 



  

eo 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

90
 
GI
LL
ET
T 

ST
RE
ET
 

¢ 
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06
10
5 

* 
(2

03
) 

62
2-
83
38
 

© 
JU

RI
S 

NO
. 

38
47
8 

* 
TE

LE
FA

X 
72

8-
04

01
 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
FI

NE
BE

RG
, 

P. 
C.
 

MARIANNE LADO 
RONALD ELLIS 

NAACP Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 
(212)219-1900 
Pro Hac Vice 

HELEN HERSHKOFF 

ADAM S. COHEN 
JOHN A. POWELL 
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION 

132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

(212)944-9800 

Pro Hac Vice 

  

JOHN BRITTAIN 

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT 

SCHOOL OF LAW 

65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
(203) 241-4664 

Juris No. 101153 

JENNY RIVERA 

PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 

AND EDUCATION FUND 

99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

  
 



  

  
    

STATE OF CONNECTICUT) 

) HARTFORD July 8, 1991 
COUNTY OF HARTFORD 

AFFIDAVIT   

Being duly sworn I, Diane W. Whitney, counsel for the 
defendants in the matter of Sheff v. O'Neill, CV 89-0360977S, do 
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of 
Plaintiffs' Objection to Interrogatories dated Septanber 20, 19990 
which was received by the defendants. 

9 
br / / 3 / 4 L, 

ALLL Wr (A 

  

   

  

  

Diane W. Whitney 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this Lf day 
of ( WA iye1991., 

  

  

Be¥nard F. AM Ting Ir. 
the Superior Court Commissio 

  
 



CV 89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al SUPERIOR COURT 
Plaintiffs J.D. HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

AT HARTFORD 
V. 

= WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al 

= Defendants June 19, 1991 

AFFIDAVIT OF GERALD N. TIROZZI 
  

I, Gerald N. Tirozzi, being over the age of 18 and of sound mind after 
having been duly sworn do hereby depose and say the following: 

1. | have been an educator in the State of Connecticut since 1959. 
During my career | have served as a teacher, administrator, and, from 
1977 to 1983, | served as Superintendent of Schools for the New Haven 
Public Schools. 

2. Since 1983, | have served as Commissioner of Education for the 
State of Connecticut. Through my work as Commissioner and my 
previous experience as an educator in the State of Connecticut | have 
developed a degree of advanced knowledge and expertise regarding the 
operation of our state system of education including knowledge 
regarding the history of education in Connecticut. 

3. Presently and going back through most of history, school districts in 
Connecticut have shared their boundaries with the town or towns 
served by the district. 

4. With the exception of regional school districts created pursuant to 
Chapter 164, Part Ill of the Connecticut General Statutes or by Special 
Act of the General Assembly, existing school district boundaries in 
Connecticut have not been materially changed over the last 80 or so 
years. Specifically the school district boundaries of the 21 districts 
identified as being part of the metropolitan Hartford area in the above 
captioned case have not been altered in any material way over the last 
80 or so years. 

5. To my knowledge, no child has ever been assigned or confined to a 
school district in Connecticut on the basis of his or her race, national 
origin, socio-economic status, or status as an "at-risk" student, i.e., 
limited English proficient, single parent family or family receiving 
AFDC. At the present time and as far back in history as | know, the 
State of Connecticut has always assigned children to particular school 
districts based exclusively on their city or town of residence.  



  

The foregoing statements are true and accurate to the best of my 

knowledge and belief. = 

; fs He 
iant 

i 

     

    

   

  

  e this / 7 7/# day of Li Subscribed and sworn to befg 

1991. 

  

JCommidsioner of the 
Superior Court 

Moh A 4, ModE 
rsa NY) 

 



  

  

    

CV 89-038603775 

MILO SHEFF, et al | SUPERIOR COURT 
J.D. HARTFORD/NEW 

Plaintiffs NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD 

Vie 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al 

Defendants r 1591 

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT BREWER 
  

1, Robert Brewer, being over the age of 18 and of sound mind, 

after having been duly sworn do hereby depose and say the 
following: 

l. 1 am the Bureau Chief for the Bureau of Grants Processing of 
the Connecticut State Department of Education. Part of my 
responsibilities are to supervise the gathering and storage of 
data and information regarding the dispersal of state funds to 
local school districts and the expenditure of those funds. 

2. At the request of the Office of the Attorney General I and my 
staff have generated the attached material consisting of 148 
pages. This material was generated by computer from computer 
records maintained by the Connecticut State Department of 
Education. 

3. The data and information which accompanies this affidavit is 
derived from data and information which is collected, and 
maintained by the Connecticut State Department of Education in 
the normal course of business. 

4. The data and information used to prepare the analyses in the 
accompanying material is relied on by the Department of Education 
for the purposes of carrying out its business and is true ani 

accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

  

   



  

  

    

The foregoing points and statements are true and accurate to the 
best of my knowledge and belief. 

of 

  
rh 

—— 
  

Robert Brewer 

Affiant 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 

May   ’ 1991, 

ie   
No-btrppeaimaia1-+-@ /COMMissioner of the 
Superior Court 

  

 



  

ATTACHMENT 1 
CONNECTICUT STATE EPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REPORT DATE 

BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 04/22/91 

  

SHEFF V. O’NEILL 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL REQUEST OF 9/25/89 

UPDATED TO INCLUDE 1989-90 

ITEM 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1889-90 

AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP (ADM) YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 
SPECIAL ED REIMBURSEMENT % YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 
TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENT % YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION REIMBURESMENT % YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 
TOTAL STATE AID REPORT YES YES ¥ES YES YES YES YES 
EERA - PUBLIC YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 
EERA - NON PUBLIC YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 

BILINGUAL YES YES . YES YES YES YES YES 
INTER DIST COOP - - - 0 0 YES YES 
SPECIAL ED CURRENT FUNDED GRANTS NO YES YES YES YES YES YES 
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT : - - - YES YES YES YES 
TEACHER EVALUATION - - - - YES YES - 
CAREER INCENTIVE - - ~ - YES YES - 
IMPLEMENTATION . - - - - YES r 

{BINED PROF DEVELOPMENT - Higa - YES YES YES - 
mi NIMUM AID - . - YES YES YES - 
SALARY AID - - - YES YES YES - 
GENERAL AID - - - YES Ye2 YES 
TPR AID | - - YES YIS YES - 
COMBINED SALARY AID - - - YES YES YES ” 
EDUCATION EQUALIZATION - GTB YES YES YES YES YES YES - 
EDUCATION EQUALIZATION - ECS - - - - - - Ti YES 
¥OC ED EQUIPMENT 0 0 XES YES YES YES YES 
YOC ED EQUIPMENT - OIC - 0 0 0 0 0 0 
EERA - PROJECT CONCERN YLS YES YES YES YES YES YES 
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION GRANTS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 
COMBINED SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION GRANTS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A YES YES 
TELECOMMUNICATION | - - - YES YES 0 YES 
EXTENDED DAY KINDEGARTEN - - - - YES YES YES 
SUMMER SCH INCENTIVE - - YES YES YES YES YES 
YOUNG PARENTS . - - YES YES YES YES YES 
PRIMARY MENTAL HEALTH - . - 0 YES YES YES 

DROPOUT PREVENTION - - - - YES YES * 
STATE MATCH YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 
PRIORITY SCH DIST ; - YES YES YES YES YES YES 
STATE SCH BREAKFAST - - ke YES YES YES YES 

YES DATA AVAILABLE. 
NO DATA NOT AVAILABLE. 

GRANT NOT IN EFFECT FOR THIS YEAR. 
V GRANT IN EFFECT BUT NO PAYMENTS RECEIVED IN THAT YEAR FOR THE SELECTED TOWNS. 
N/A NOT APPLICABLE. 
¥ DROPOUT PREVENTION CONSOLIDATED INTO PRIORITY SCHOOL DISTRICT GRANT BEGNNING IN 1989-90. 

 



@ a Pase A 

ATTACHMENT 11 
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

  

REPORT DATE 
SHEFF. .V. O’NEILL 04/12/91 

LISTING OF DATA SOURCES 

1. Overall District Budget, 1983-84 Line 43, Col 6. 
(Source: ED001) 1984-85 Line 43, Col 6. 
(Report: Total State Aid Per Pupil) 1985-86 Lines 30, 76, 122, Col 

minus Line 122, Col 1. 

1986-87 © Lines 30, 76, 122, Col 5 

minus Line 122, Coll. 
1987-88" Lines 30, 76, 122, Col 3 

minus. Line 122, Col 1. 

1988-89" Lines 1 thru 4, Col 2 

minus Line 114, Col 1, 

1388-90 Lines 1 thru 4, Col 2 

minus Line 114, Col 1. 

wn
 

2. Grant Amounts. : Unless otherwise noted are 
(1983-84 thru 1989-90) from SDE Payment Records. 

3. Excess Costs & Agency Placement. Grant per Pupil uses only 
(1986-87 thru 1989-90) those special education students 

that generated that particular grant. 

4. Combined School Building Projects. Grant per Pupil uses only 

Average of 1983-81 thru 1989-9C ADM. 

5. EERA Project Concern. Grant amounts supplied by 
(1983-84 thru 1985-86) Division of Education Support Services. 

Note: For all other reports Grant Amounts per SDE pavment records 
and the ADM is used to calculate Grant Per Pupil. 

 



  

TOWN 

NAME 

HARTFORD 

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 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

ADM 
1977-78 

27,681.00 

2,170.00 

3,588.00 

1,700.00 

1,019.00 

9,797.00 

1,780.00 

2,215.00 

3,067.00 

5,596.00 
1,827.00 
9,198.00 
5,849.00 
2,236.00 
5,481.00 
4,560.00 
1,988.00 
6,290.00 
9,603.00 
4,811.00 
4,953.00 
3,025.00 

118,234.00 

EXCEPT AS NOTED, ALL THE PER PUPIL FIGURES IN THE ATTACHED 

REPORTS USE THESE FIGURES AS THE DIVISOR. 

BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP (ADM) 

AS DEFINED IN SECTION 10-261(a)(2) OF THE C.G.S. 

1977-78 thru 1982-83 

1978 

27,165. 

2,256. 

3,498. 

1,636. 

922. 

9,203. 

1,778. 

2,134. 

2,910. 

5,565. 

1,851. 

8,890. 

5,669. 

2,171. 

-5,355, 

4,353. 

1,980. 

5,932. 

9,091. 

6,545. 

G,769. 

2,707. 

116,405. 

ADM 
-79 1979 

26,696. 

2,229. 

3,352. 

1,533. 

840. 

8,663. 

1,675. 

2,109. 

2,778 

5,390 

1,792 

8,477 

5,443, 
2,121. 
5,129. 
4,149. 
1,921 

5,590. 

8,644. 
G,232 

PEL OL 

6,584, 

2,544. [aay Io J 

109,697. 

ADM 

-80 

54 

00 

00 

50 

50 

08 

00 

00 

.12 

.56 

.50 

.50 

00 

00 

17 

00 

.50 

76 

1980 

25,950. 

2,246. 

3,186. 

1,453. 

814. 

8,173. 

1,606. 

2,096. 

2,638. 

5,195. 

1,753. 

8,108. 

5,128. 

2,043, 

4,846. 

3,986. 

1,865. 

105,513. 

ADM 

-81 1981 

25,0064. 

2,160. 

3,065. 

1,405. 

770. 

7,763. 

1,453. 

1,983. 

2,536. 

5,015. 

1,690. 

7,665. 

4,802. 

2,011. 

4,573. 

3,796. 

1,747: 

100,553. 

ADM 

-82 

96,988. 

i 

J 

 



  

TOWN 

NAME 

HARTFORD 

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 

1983 

26,279 

2,070. 

2,711. 

1,239. 

677. 

7,074. 

1,310. 

1,887. 

2,395. 

4,795. 

1,564. 

7,163. 

6,277. 

1,886. 

4,396. 

3,518. 

1,677. 

94,516. 

ADM 
-84 

.85 

00 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP (ADM) 

AS DEFINED IN SECTION 10-261(a)(2) OF THE C.G.S. 

1983-84 thru 1989-90 

ADM 

1984-85 

26,228.63 

2,064.50 

2,647.50 

1,211.11 

682.00 

6,803.83 

1,257.47 

1,857.50 

2,392.45 

4,664.17 

1,520.00 

7,059.50 

4,029.00 

1,841.50 

4,269.86 

3,428.50 

1,643.00 

4,797.50 

A 

1985- 

26,577. 

2,058 

2,673. 

1,180. 

664G. 

6,409. 

1,259. 

1,856. 

2,413. 

46,617. 

1,589. 

6,946. 

3,899. 

1,803. 

6,130. 

3,648. 

1,627. 

91,879. 

DM 

86 

75 

.50 

25,033. 

2,135. 

1986 

2,604 

1,192 

685, 

6,081 

1,297. 

1,838 

2,520. 

G7 

1,587. 

7,032. 

3,857. 

4,606 

1,821 

$4,128. 

3,538 

1,713. 

ADM 

-87 

67 

00 

.50 

.83 

00 

.50 

10 

.50 

38 

00 

25 

00 

.50 

26 

.50 

00 

9 2,457. 

1987 

25,652 

2,095. 

2,566. 

1,199. 

683. 

5,915. 

1,306. 

1,874. 

2,581. 

4,706. 

1,524. 

6,951. 

3,890. 

1,826. 

4,010. 

3,637. 

1,735. 

EXCEPT AS NOTED; ALL THE PER PUPIL FIGURES IN THE ATTACHED 
EGS ACE THEE FICLDES AS -THE NIVISUR, 

ADM 

-88 

.87 

00 

1988 

25,248. 

2,064. 

2,511. 

},227. 

686. 

5,787. 

1,282. 

1,896. 

2,640. 

4,659. 

1,487. 

6,786. 

3,834. 

1,848. 

3,922. 

3,675. 

1,756. 

91,780. 

ADM 

-89 

PRELIMINARY 
ADM 

1989-90 

25,279. 

2,055. 

2,667. 

1,250. 

685. 

5,705. 

1,300. 

1,858. 

2,774. 

4,661. 

1,468. 

6,765. 

3,870. 

1,862. 

3,886. 

3,694. 

1,762. 

4,268. 

91,836. 

b 
C
y
 

 



  

TOWN 

NAME 

HARTFORD 

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 

COMBINED SUBURBS 

(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

SPECIAL ED 

SUPPORT 7% 

1983- 84 

SPECIAL ED 

SUPPORT 7% 

1984- 

67. 

33. 

G0. 

SPECIAL EDUCATION STATE SUPPORTED PERCENTAGES 

85 

1983-84 thru 1989-90 

SPECIAL ED SPECIAL ED 

SUPPORT 7% SUPPORT 7% 

1935-86 1986-87 

67.14 66.90 

33.33 32.86 

41.67 61.43 

48.57 49.52 

64.29 43.33 

50.48 51.90 

52.14 54.52 

57.62 58.10 

32.86 36.76 

39.29 38.81 

49.52 49.29 

53.81 51.19 

G47.62 47.86 

48.10 68.10 

40.00 40.00 

46.43 45.24 

60.71 60.48 

58.33 53.81 

37.14 37.38 

44.76 42.62 

2.86 62.3 

60.29 40.249 

45.48 45.48 

SPECIAL ED 

SUPPORT 7“ 

1987- 

67 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

88 

.86 

32. 

-71 

.00 

.05 

«39 

.38 

.67 

14 

SPECIAL ED 

SUPPORT XZ 

1988-89 

66.463 

33.10 

41.90 

49.76 

64.76 

52.38 

55.71 

59.52 

33.81 

40.00 

48.81 

52.86 

48.57 

44.05 

39.05 

67.14 

62.62 

60.48 

37.62 

63.57 

41.19 

39.52 

45.95 

SPECIAL ED 

SUPPORT 7% 

1989- 

GG. 

90 

.86 

.29 

2
G
 

 



    

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 

AVON 

BLOOMFIELD 

CANTON 

EAST GRANBY 

EAST HARTFORD 

EAST WINDSOR 

ELLINGTON 

FARMINGTON 

GLASTONBURY 

GRANBY 

MANCHESTER 

NEWINGTON 

ROCKY HILL 

SIHSBURY 

SOUTH WINDSOR 

SUFFIELD 

VERMON 

WEST HARTFORD 

WETHERSFIELD 
WINDSOR 

WINDSOR LOCKS 

COMBINED SUBURBS 

(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION 
SUPPORT 7% 

1983- 86 
SUPPORT 7% 

19846- 85 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

TRANSPORTATION STATE SUPPORTED PERCENTAGES 

1983-84 thru 1989-90 

SUPPORT 7 

1985- 

52. 

23. 

31. 

38. 

34. 

G90. 

G2. 

G7. 

22. 

29. 

Z9. 

a3. 

37. 

28. 

30. 

36. 

30. 

G8. 

27. 

34. 

32. 

30. 

35 

86 

.G8 

SUPPORT 7% 

1986- 

35 

87 

.90 

.86 

.G8 

SUPPORT % 

1987- 88 
SUPPORT 7% 

1988-89 
SUPPORT 

1989- 90 

4 

Ne 
Ch 
> 

(a



  

TOWN 

NAME 

HARTFORD 

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 

COMBINED SUBURBS 

(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION 
SUPPORT 

1983- 84 
y SUPPORT Z 

1986- 

77 

q3 

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION STATE SUPPORTED PERCENTAGES 

85 

.38 

.81 

50. 

56. 

71 

1983-84 thru 1989-90 

SUPPORT 7% SUPPORT 7 

1985-86 1986-87 

77.14 76.90 

63.33 42.86 

51.67 51.43 

58.57 59.52 

54.29 53.33 

60.48 61.90 

62.14 66.52 

67.62 68.10 

62.86 44.76 

69.29 48.81 

59.52 59.29 

63.81 61.19 

57.62 57.86 

58.10 58.10 

50.00 50.00 

56.43 55.24 

50.71 50.48 

68.33 68.81 

47.14 47.2 

54.76 52.62 

52.86 52.3 

50.24 50.2 

55.48 55.48 

SUPPORT Z% 

1987 - 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

88 

SUPPORT 7 

1988- 89 
SUPPORT Z% 

1989-90 

74.52 

43.81 

51.19 

58.81 

57.86 

63.81 

63.33 

69.76 

644.76 

49.29 

59.29 

65.24 

60.71 

58.57 

50.24 

57.38 

53.10 

70.24 

68.57 

54.05 

52.14 

52.62 

56.90 

hw 
G 
8 

N 

 



CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

TOTAL STATE AID PER PUPIL 
(Excluding School Construction & Adult Education) 

PAGE § REPORT DATE: 
04/15/91 

TOWN TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 
STATE AID 
1983-84 

58,822,453 
800,791 

2,234,890 
1,155,866 

596,093 
7,698,780 
1,714,343 
2,663,695 
1,089,490 
2,884,067 
1,418,845 
7,649,341 
4,230,693 
1,561,661 
2,785,886 
3,394,233 
1,394,622 
6,297,986 
4,308,148 
2,462,537 
3,570,661 
1,598,782 

TOTAL STATE 
AID PER 
PUPIL x 

2,622.69 
386.86 
824.38 
932.28 
879.84 

1,088. 
1,307. 
1,295. 

454, 
601. 
906. 

1,042. 
889. 
827. 
633, 
964. 
831. 

1,274. 
579. 
151. 
880. 
843. 

OVERALL 
DISTRICT 

BUDGET xx 

95,106,736 
7,059,870 

11,601,266 
4,678,381 
2,721,119 

27,141,789 
4,750,509 
6,124,856 
9,458,516 

14,039,548 
5,018,163 

22,471,285 
15,873,176 
6,944,470 

14,211,287 
11,970,809 
6,019,865 

16,927,066 
32,946,993 
12,731,565 
13,835,795 
6,663,792 

STATE Al D AS A 
PERCENTAGE OF 
OVERALL 

61 
11 
19. 

BUDGET 

.85 

.34 
26 
71 
+91 
“57 

TOTAL 119,913,463 366,296,856 

COMBINED SUBURBS 61,091,010 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

251,190,120 

Total State Aid Per Pupil equals Total State Aid divided by 
Average Daily Membership (C.G.S. 10-261(a)(2)). 

Overall District Budget defined as Total Current Expenditures 
reported by districts to SDE excluding School Construction and Adult 
Education on End of Year School Report (EDCO1). 

 



CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

   
REPORT DATE: PAGE 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

TOTAL STATE AID PER PUPIL 
(Excluding School Construction & Adult Education) 

TOTAL TOTAL STATE OVERALL STATE AID AS A 
TOWN TOWN STATE AlD AID PER DISTRICT PERCENTAGE OF 
CODE NAME 1984-85 PUPIL 3 BUDGET xx OVERALL BUDGET 

64% HARTFORD 61,263,956 2,527.75 106,574,607 57.47 
4 AVON 865,283 23.22 7,732,575 11.19 

11 BLOOMFIELD 2,618,890 989.19 12,800,447 20.466 
23 CANTON 1,290,585 1,065.62 5:213,483 26.76 
40 EAST GRANBY 697,842 1,023.23 2,906,183 24.01 
63 EAST HARTFORD 8,501,229 1,249.48 28,933,528 29.38 
G7 EAST WINDSOR 1,837,659 1,461.39 5,103,817 36.01 
68 ELLINGTON 2,711,488 1,459.75 6,658,366 60.72 
52 FARMINGTON 1,022,767 27.50 10,364,078 9.87 
54 GLASTONBURY 2,977,036 661.03 15,668,321 19.25 
56 GRANBY 1,695,636 1,115.55 5,683,696 30.92 
77 MANCHESTER 7,864,823 1,114.08 24,709,123 31.83 
94 NEWINGTON 4,694,575 1,115.56 17,019,091 26.61 

119 ROCKY HILL 1,615,342 877.19 7,952,091 20.31 
128 SIMSBURY 2,982,873 698.59 15,838,497 18.83 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 3,661,923 1,068.08 12,671,260 28.90 
139 SUFFIELD 1,443,578 878.62 6,783,620 21.28 
146 VERNON 1,233,435 1,507.75 15,954,620 65.34 
155 WEST HARTFORD 6,552,361 619.62 34,765,303 13.09 
159 WETHERSFIELD 2,982,571 964.22 13,732,440 21.72 
166 WINDSOR 4,058,159 1,010.75 15,405,667 26.34 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 1,651,168 916.30 6,942,217 23.78 

TOTAL 128,003,179 379,012,530 

COMBINED SUBURBS 66,759,223 976.20 272,437,923 24.50 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

* Total State Aid Per Pupil equals Total State Aid divided by 
Average Daily Membership (C.G.S. 10-261(a)(2)). 

¥xX Overall District Budget defined as Total Current Expenditures 
reported by districts to SDE excluding School Construction and Adult 
Education on End of Year School Report (ED0O1). 

 



CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

   
REPORT DATE: pace 10 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

TOTAL STATE AID PER PUPIL 
(Excluding School Construction & Adult Education) 

TOTAL TOTAL STATE OVERALL STATE AID AS A TOWN TOWN STATE AID AID PER DISTRICT PERCENTAGE OF CODE NAME 1985-86 PUPIL x BUDGET xx OVERALL BUDGET 

6% HARTFORD 60,701,785 2,469.79 113,598,246 53.44 4 AVON 885,989 630.41 8,733,294 10.14 11 BLOOMFIELD 3,141,675 1,175.12 13,796,947 22.77 23 CANTON 1,633,016 1,383.62 5,709,076 28.60 40 EAST GRANBY 845,864 *1,272.83 3,117,484 27.13 43 EAST HARTFORD 9,170,547 1,430.70 30,413,934 30.15 47 EAST WINDSOR 1,764,086 1,600.60 5,676,769 32.21 48 ELLINGTON 3,111,149 1,675.81 7,293,791 62.65 52 FARMINGTON 1,073,377 666.66 10,970,452 9.78 54 GLASTONBURY 3,674,382 795.72 17,260,904 21.31 56 GRANBY 2,026,419 1,273.62 6,117,444 33.09 77 MANCHESTER 8,512,672 1,225.42 26,715,365 31.86 94 NEWINGTON G,76446,276 1.216.779 18,298,432 25.93 119 ROCKY HILL 1,972,713 1,094.13 8,814,742 22.38 128 SIMSBURY 6,000,062 968.32 16,615,047 26.07 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 4,330,412 1,255.65 14,167,064 30.57 139 SUFFIELD 1,591,135 977.66 7,385,380 21.54 166 VERNON 6,925,744 1,513.33 17,256,764 60.13 155 WEST HARTFORD 5,124,645 694.51 37,003,389 13.85 159 WETHERSFIELD 3,507,121 1,154.89 14,627,182 23.98 164 WINDSOR 3,852,548 958.35 16,649,538 23.14 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 1,519,306 888.48 7,582,959 20.04 

TOTAL 136,106,923 407,584,203 

COMBINED SUBURBS 73,405,138 1,090.69 293,985,957 26.97 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

* Total State Aid Per Pupil equals Total State Aid divided by 
Average Daily Membership (C.G.S. 10-261(a)(2)). 

¥% Overall District Budget defined as Total Current Expenditures 
reported by districts to SDE excluding School Construction and Adult 

" Education on End of Year School Report (EDOO1). 

 



CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

   
REPORT DATE: pace || 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

TOTAL STATE AID PER PUPIL 
(Excluding School Construction & Adult Education) 

TOTAL TOTAL STATE OVERALL STATE AID AS A 
TOWN - TOWN STATE AID AID PER DISTRICT PERCENTAGE OF 
CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL x BUDGET x OVERALL BUDGET 

66 HARTFORD 65,355,644 2,610.70 126,974,706 51.47 
4 AVON 988,908 663.19 9,831,091 10.06 

11 BLOOMFIELD 3,636,418 1,318.65 15,280,603 22.48 
23 CANTON 1,849,285 1,550.33 6,063,436 30.50 
40 EAST GRANBY 858,052 1,252.63 3,468,927 24.74 
63 EAST HARTFORD 10,760,408 1,769.37 32,947,659 32.66 
G7 EAST WINDSOR 2,103,328 1,621.56 5,953,347 35.33 
48 ELLINGTON 3,748,161 2,038.71 8,557,806 463.80 
52 FARMINGTON 1,202,557 6477.13 12,440,844 9.67 
54 GLASTONBURY 3,890,541 844.95 19,429,568 20.02 
56 GRANBY 2,276,097 1,634.21 6,854,678 33.21 
77 MANCHESTER 8,942,299 Y,271.61 20,157,708 29.65 
96 NEWINGTON 5,095,932 1,321.22 20,641,645 26.93 

119 ROCKY HILL 2,262,712 1.23Y.24 9,936,674 22.57 
128 SIMSBURY 6,178,459 1,012.16 18,260,162 22.88 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 4,557,651 1,288.02 15,810,204 28.83 
139 SUFFIELD 1,764,414 3,030.01 8,156,714 21.63 
146 VERNON 8,078,079 1,781.67 19,495,318 61.4644 
155 WEST HARTFORD 5,556,005 768.68 60,660,781 13.67 
159 WETHERSFIELD 3,770,330 1,266.08 16,208,337 23.26 
164 WINDSOR 6,482,867 1,084.00 18,652,338 24.03 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 1,653,245 989.67 8,019,615 20.62 

TOTAL 146,789,192 53,581,961 

COMBINED SUBURBS 81,633,748 1,207.79 326,607,255 26.93 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

* Total State Aid Per Pupil equals Total State Aid divided by 
Average Daily Membership (C.G.S. 10-261(a)(2)). 

¥%X Overall District Budget defined as Total Current Expenditures 
reported by districts to SDE excluding School Construction and Adult 
Education on End of Year School Report (EDO001). 

 



CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

   
REPORT DATE: I PAGE 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

TOTAL STATE AID PER PUPIL 
(Excluding School Construction & Adult Education) 

TOTAL TOTAL STATE OVERALL STATE AID AS A TOWN TOWN STATE AID AID PER DISTRICT PERCENTAGE OF CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL 3 BUDGET x OVERALL BUDGET 
64 HARTFORD 87,616,576 3,615.47 143,609,941 61.01 4 AVON 1,064,603 508.16 10,936,741 9.73 11 BLOOMFIELD 3,824,569 1,490.48 17,204,110 22.23 23 CANTON 2,247,067 1,873.88 6,866,117 32.74 40 EAST GRANBY 1,007,750 1,676.40 3,851,125 26.17 43 EAST HARTFORD 11,702,093 1,978.21 35,947,058 32.55 47 EAST WINDSOR 2,837,066 2,171.88 6,780,057 491.84 G8 ELLINGTON 6,169,621 2,213.61 9,874,542 92.02 52 FARMINGTON 1,334,301 516.88 14,753,838 9.04 54 GLASTONBURY 4,400,795 935.11 22,632,715 19.62 56 GRANBY 2,651,749 1,739.14 8,070,152 32.86 77 MANCHESTER 11,178,374 1,607.99 364,207,837 32.68 94 NEWINGTON 6,020,888 1,567.56 21,938,484 27.44 119 ROCKY HILL 2,733,647 1,497.07 10,932,866 25.00 128 SIMSBURY 4,512,655 1,125.28 20,349,075 02.18 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 5,059,369 1,390.99 18,103,968 27.95 139 SUFFIELD 2,281,434 1,314.95 9,128,741 26.99 146 VERNON 30,131,272 2,298.64 22,375,219 45.28 155 WEST HARTFORD 6,914,479 962.10 63,932,988 15.74 159 WETHERSFIELD 6,020,358 1,337.37 17,671,475 22.75 169 WINDSOR 5,120,774 1,204.60 20,792,404 24.63 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 31,923,379 1,160.76 9,014,810 21.34 

TOTAL 182,732,619 508,772,263 

COMBINED SUBURBS 95,116,043 1,416.17 365,162,322 26.05 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

* Total State Aid Per Pupil equals Total State Aid divided by 
Average Daily Membership (C.G.S. 10-261(a3(2)). 

¥%X Overall District Budget defined as Total Current Expenditures 
SDE excluding School Construction and Adult 
School Report (EDO0O1). 

reported by districts to 
Education on End of Year 

 



CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

   
PAGE B33 REPORT DATE: 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

TOTAL STATE AID PER PUPIL 
(Excluding School Construction & Adult Education) 

TOTAL TOTAL STATE OVERALL STATE AID AS A 
TOWN TOWN STATE AID AID PER DISTRICT PERCENTAGE OF 
CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL Xx BUDGET x OVERALL BUDGET 

64 HARTFORD 98,850,187 3,915.04 148,610,300 66.52 
4 AVON 1,191,270 577.17 12,359,872 9.64 

11 BLOOMFIELD 4,784,169 1,905.28 18,807,965 25.44 
23 CANTON 2,553,062 2,075.33 7,812,753 32.68 
60 EAST GRANBY },131,523 1,649.45 5,423,331 25.58 
63 EAST HARTFORD 14,453,397 2,497.35 37,557,686 38.48 
G7 EAST WINDSOR 3,355,626 2,616.86 7,260,103 66.22 
G8 ELLINGTON 5,696,692 2,899.10 10,993,432 50.00 
52 FARMINGTON 1,662,065 621.85 16,464,672 9.99 
54 GLASTONBURY 5,801,958 1,245.29 25,836,872 22.46 
56 GRANBY 3,192,532 2,166.80 9,138,050 36.94 
77 MANCHESTER 13,803,956 2,033.96 36,537,725 37.78 
94 NEWINGTON 6,999,099 1,825.24 23,353,152 29.97 

119 ROCKY HILL 2,871,800 1,553.58 12,265,858 23.641 
128 SIMSBURY 5,050,485 1,287.65 22,610,967 22.54 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 6,235,098 1,696.39 20,556,452 30.33 
139 SUFFIELD 2,712,067 1,566.02 10,390,763 26.10 
146 VERNON 12,689,994 2,991.86 25,067,534 50.62 
155 WEST HARTFORD 7,883,101 1,072.56 69,035,244 16.08 
159 WETHERSFIELD 4,742,320 1,584.86 19,276,818 26.60 
166 WINDSOR 5,659,063 1,287.06 23,258,641 23.47 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 2,067,458 1,259.88 10,099,356 20.467 

TOTAL 212,966,922 551,497,548 

COMBINED SUBURBS 114,116,735 Y.715.22 402,827,248 28.32 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

%* Total State Aid Per Pupil equals Total State Aid divided by 
Average Daily Membership (C.G.S. 10-261(a)(2)). 

¥%X Overall District Budget defined as Total Current Expenditures 
reported by districts to SDE excluding School Construction and Adult 
Education on End of Year School Report (ED001l). 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 14 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

TOTAL STATE AID PER PUPIL 
(Excluding School Construction & Adult Education) 

TOTAL TOTAL STATE OVERALL STATE AID AS A 
TOWN TOWN STATE AID AID PER DISTRICT PERCENTAGE OF 

NAME 1989-90 PUPIL x BUDGET xx OVERALL BUDGET 

HARTFORD 108,465,797 4,290.72 166,646,404 65.09 
AVON 1,189,305 578. 13,786,392 8.63 
BLOOMFIELD 4,887,264 1,980. 20,542,050 23.19 
CANTON 2,646,591 2,115. 8,256,484 32.05 
EAST GRANBY 1,202,298 1,755, 4,897,913 .55 
EAST HARTFORD 164,459,488 2,534, 40,934,725 . 32 
EAST WINDSOR 3,623,629 2,631. 7,922,240) vol 
ELLINGTON 5,899,874 3,174. 12,283,173 .03 
FARMINGTON 1,635,570 589. 18,861,419 .67 
GLASTONBURY 6,017,729 1,290. 29,103,416 .68 
GRANBY 3,377,712 2,299. 9,912,348 .08 
MANCHESTER 15,462,236 2,285. 492,225,779 62 
NEWINGTON 7,459,839 1,927. 26,001,9C9 .69 
ROCKY HILL 3,065,487 1,666. 13,545,303 63 
SIMSBURY 5,133,307 1,320, 24,339,305 .09 
SOUTH WINDSOR 7,068,289 1,913. 23,296,663 . 36 
SUFFIELD 3,098,117 1,757. 11,571,154 77 
VERNON 15,458,137 3,168. 27,154,520 «56 
WEST HARTFORD 8,214,885 1,103. 53,635,416 ‘32 
WETHERSFIELD 4,937,997 1,691, 21,180,890 31 
WINDSOR 5,899,884 1,382. 25,867,269 .81 
WINDSOR LOCKS 2,269,800 1,409. 10,773,679 07 

TOTAL 229,273,295 612,736,412 

COMBINED SUBURBS 120,807,498 ‘ 446,090,008 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Total State Aid Per Pupil equals Total State Aid divided by 
Average Daily Membership (C.G.S. 10-261(a)(2)). 

Overall District Budget defined as Total Current Expenditures 
reported by districts to SDE excluding School Construction and Adult 
Education on End of Year School Report (ED0O01). 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE IZ 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - PUBLIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1983-84 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 564,352 23.24 70.48 
4 AVON 1,125 0.83 0.22 

11 BLOOMFIELD 20,442 7.54 2.55 
23 CANTON 2,632 2:12 0.33 
40 EAST GRANBY 1,627 2.40 0.20 
43 EAST HARTFORD 45,446 6.4642 5.68 
47 EAST WINDSOR 7,874 6.01 0.98 
48 ELLINGTON 6,681 3.549 0.83 
52 FARMINGTON 4,164 1.74 0.52 
54 GLASTONBURY 5,902 1.23 0.74 
56 GRANBY 4,692 2.87 0.56 
77 MANCHESTER 30,282 4.24% 3.78 
94 NEWINGTON 16,098 3.76 2.01 

119 ROCKY HILL 3,332 1.77 0.42 
128 SIMSBURY 2,274 0.52 0.28 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 10,190 2.90 1.27 
139 SUFFIELD 4,671 2.67 0.56 
166 VERNON 23,7463 4.80 2.97 
155 WEST HARTFORD 13,604 1.83 1.70 
159 WETHERSFIELD 8,225 2.5] 1.03 
164 WINDSOR 15,650 3.86 1.95 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 7,693 3.95 0.94 

TOTAL 800,699 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 236,347 3.36 29.52 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE [6 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - PUBLIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1984-85 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 819,823 33.84 68.26 4 AVON 5,295 2-59 0.49 11 BLOOMFIELD 23,158 8.75 1.93 23 CANTON 8,209 6.78 0.68 40 EAST GRANBY 2,292 3.36 0.19 43 EAST HARTFORD 75,0642 11.03 6.25 47 EAST WINDSOR 13,372 10.63 1.1] 48 ELLINGTON 8,252 4.646 0.69 52 FARMINGTON 6,619 2.77 0.55 54 GLASTONBURY 13,317 2.87 1.11 56 GRANBY 6,226 4.10 0.52 77 MANCHESTER 51,277 1.26 4.27 96 NEWINGTON 13,583 3.37 1.13 119 ROCKY HILL 5,045 2.76 0.42 128 SIMSBURY 8,205 1.92 0.68 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 12,980 3.79 1.08 139 SUFFIELD 11,162 6.79 6.93 146 VERNON 41,662 8.68 3.47 155 WEST HARTFORD 24,5462 3.34 2.06 159 METHERSFIELD 13,524 6.37 3.13 166 WINDSOR 27,155 6.91 2.31 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 9,731 5.40 0.81 

TOTAL 1,201,071 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 381,248 5.57 31.74 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 7 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - PUBLIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1985-86 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 905,170 36.83 71.30 
4 AVON 3,870 1.88 0.30 

11 BLOOMFIELD 27,979 10.47 2.20 
23 CANTON 2,962 2.51 0.23 
40 EAST GRANBY 1,472 2.22 0.12 
43 EAST HARTFORD y 84,918 13.25 6.69 
47 EAST WINDSOR 11,675 9.27 0.92 
48 ELLINGTON 7,242 3.90 0.57 
52 FARMINGTON 7,875 3.26 0.62 
54 GLASTONBURY 11,4466 2.48 0.90 
56 GRANBY 2,878 1.8] 0.23 
77 MANCHESTER 53,983 1.71 4.25 
96 NEWINGTON 9,826 2.52 0.77 

119 ROCKY HILL 4,587 2.54 0.36 
128 SIMSBURY 5,207 1.26 0.41 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 11,219 3.25 0.88 
139 SUFFIELD 7,605 4.67 0.60 
146 VERNON 35,316 2.22 2.78 
155 WEST HARTFORD 28,896 3.92 2.28 
159 WETHERSFIELD 14,138 6.66 1.11 
164 WINDSOR 21,660 5.39 1.71 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 9,616 5.62 0.76 

TOTAL 1,269,540 99.99 

COMBINED SUBURBS 364,370 5.41 28.70 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | & 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - PUBLIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 1,452,081 58.01 15.97 
4 AVON 4,949 2.52 0.26 

11 BLOOMFIELD 35,525 13.64 1.86 
23 CANTON 4,059 3.40 0.21 
40 EAST GRANBY 1,321 1.93 0.07 
43 EAST HARTFORD 108,372 17.82 5.67 
47 EAST WINDSOR 15,556 11.99 0.81 
48 ELLINGTON 9,141 4.97 0.48 
52 FARMINGTON 8,687 3.4645 0.45 
56 GLASTONBURY 14,708 2.19 0.77 
56 GRANBY 3,538 2.23 0.19 
77 MANCHESTER 66,097 9.40 3.46 
96 NEWINGTON 12,655 35.28 0.66 

119 ROCKY HILL 5,549 3.05 0.29 
128 SIMSBURY 6,585 1.60 0.34 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 15,528 3.82 0.71 
139 SUFFIELD 10,045 5.86 0.53 
146 VERNON 45,889 10.12 2.40 
155 WEST HARTFORD 36,154 6.87 1.89 
159 WETHERSFIELD 18,192 6.01 0.95 
164 WINDSOR 27,316 6.61 1.43 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 11,485 6.88 0.60 

TOTAL 1,911,432 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 459,351 6.81 26.03 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



GC 
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | 1 

06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - PUBLIC 

   
TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 1,571,117 61.25 73.38 
4 AVON 7,337 3.50 0.34 

11 BLOOMFIELD 38,724 15.09 1.81 
23 CANTON 7,078 5.90 0.33 
40 EAST GRANBY 4,282 6.26 0.20 
43 EAST HARTFORD 104,672 17.69 4.89 
47 EAST WINDSOR 13,438 10.29 0.63 
48 ELLINGTON 8,663 4.50 0.39 
52 FARMINGTON : 7,566 2.93 9.355 
564 GLASTONBURY 26,613 5.23 1.15 
56 GRANBY 8,160 5.35 0.38 
77 MANCHESTER 77,803 11.19 3.63 
9¢ NEWINGTON 27,594 7.09 1.29 

119 ‘ROCKY HILL 1,677 4.20 0.36 
128 SIMSBURY 12,087 3.01 0.56 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 25,208 6.935 1.18 
139 ‘SUFFIELD 12,051 6.95 §.56 
146 VERNON 56,642 12.85 2.65 
155 WEST HARTFORD 48,965 6.67 2.29 
159 WETHERSFIELD 21,160 7.04 0.99 
164 WINDSOR 38,356 9.062 1.79 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 17,978 10.85 0.84 

TOTAL 2,140,951 99.99 

COMBINED SUBURBS 569,834 8.48 26.62 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT ‘DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE x0 

06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - PUBLIC 

TOWN TOWN " GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 1,883,894 76.61 76.71 
4 AVON 6,948 3.37 0.28 

11 BLOOMFIELD 40,000 15.93 1.63 
23 CANTON 7,633 6.05 0.30 
40 EAST GRANBY 4,337 6.32 0.18 
43 EAST HARTFORD 102,361 17.69 9.17 
47 EAST WINDSOR 14,300 11.15 0.58 
48 ELLINGTON 2,515 5.02 0.39 
52 FARMINGTON 7,863 2.98 0.32 
54 GLASTONBURY 26,467 5.25 1.00 
56 GRANBY 8,749 5.88 0.36 
77 MANCHESTER 78,711 11.60 3.21 
94 NEWINGTON 27,863 1.27 1.13 

119 ROCKY HILL 8,382 4.53 0.34 
128 SIMSBURY 9,916 2.53 0.40 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 22,769 6.19 0.93 
139 SUFFIELD 13,095 7.66 0.53 
146 VERNON 53,707 12.66 2.19 
155 WEST HARTFORD 51,599 7.02 2.10 
159 WETHERSFIELD : 21,766 7.21 0.89 
166 WINDSOR 42,376 9.99 1.73 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 15,754 9.60 0.64 

TOTAL 2,455,805 100.01 

COMBINED SUBURBS 571,911 8.60 23.29 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - PUBLIC 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD 1,955,809 77.31 IB. 
AVON 6,223 3.03 
BLOOMFIELD 36,329 22 
CANTON 6,527 v2 
EAST GRANBY 3,910 «41 
EAST HARTFORD 97,873 «15 
EAST WINDSOR : 164,056 JB1 
ELLINGTON 10,111 .44 
FARMINGTON 8,920 ‘22 
GLASTONBURY 23,716 
GRANBY 9,143 
MANCHESTER 77,076 
NEWINGTON ; 25,744 
ROCKY HILL 6,942 
SIMSBURY 9,270 
SOUTH WINDSOR 21,629 
SUFFIELD 11,794 
VERNON 49,604 
WEST HARTFORD 52,100 
WETHERSFIELD 21,934 
WINDSOR : 41,290 
WINDSOR LOCKS 15,124 

TOTAL 2,505,124 

Po
d 

(6
 

J 
a)

 
V
O
N
N
=
O
O
N
U
I
N
W
O
A
O
A
U
I
T
W
U
D
I
O
 

N
U
D
 

o
 

O
H
O
N
H
F
H
O
O
O
O
H
U
W
O
O
O
O
D
O
W
O
O
D
®
 

pd
 

io
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 549,315 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

nN
 

—
 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE > 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - NONPUBLIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1983-84 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 61,222 1.70 87.462 
4 AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 1,640 0.23 3.48 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 1,262 0.18 2.68 
94 NEWINGTON 621 0.10 0.89 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 1,598 0.32 3.39 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 589 0.18 1.25 
164 WINDSOR 621 0.10 0.89 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 47,153 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 5,531 0.08 12.58 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 3 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PKOCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - NONPUBLIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1984-85 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 61,895 2.55 86.71 
4% AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 2,642 0.36 3.42 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
56 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 1,884 9.27 2.64 
94 NEWINGTON 977 0.24 1.37 

119: ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 1,745 0.36 2.44 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 2,442 0.79 3.42 
164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS ; 0 0 0 

TOTAL 71,385 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 9,490 0.14 13.29% 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE oy 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - NONPUBLIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1985-86 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 149,167 6.07 96.35 
4 AVON 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 
23 CANTON 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 3,014 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 
56 GRANBY 0 
77 MANCHESTER 1,319 
96 NEWINGTON 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
9 
0 
0 

9 

   

[
=
X
]
 

oo
 

Na
l 

~
J
 

pd
 

oo
 

—
 

\O
 

oo
 

[0 
¢] 

ul
 

128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
139 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 
155 WEST HARTFORD 
159 WETHERSFIELD 1,31 
164 WINDSOR 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 

TOTAL | 154,81 

o
 

O
O
:
 

O
O
O
O
 

O
0
O
0
O
:
 
O
O
O
O
:
 

O
O
O
O
 

lo
 

WN
 

0.85 

C
O
:
 

O
O
O
O
 

O
0
O
O
0
O
O
D
:
 
O
O
O
O
:
 

O
O
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 5,652 0.08 3.65 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE x5 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - NONPUBLIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 82,422 3.29 91.92 
4 AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 3,747 0.62 4.18 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 1,748 0,25 1.95 
94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 1,748 0.58 1.95 
164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 89,665 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 7,263 0.11 8.08 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE LG 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - NONPUBLIC 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
NAME . 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD 92,885 3.62 94.75 
AVON 0 
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 

TOTAL 98,029 

oo
 

O
O
 

O
O
O
O
 

O
0
O
D
:
 
D
O
O
D
:
 

O
O
O
O
 

oH
 

WN
 

nN
 

—
 

=
)
 

nN
 

DO
 

oo
 

nN
 

—
 

Pd
 

DN
 

oN
 

C
O
O
 

—
 

dd
 

oD
 

WN
 

oo
 

WN
 

x
 

o
 

O
O
:
 

O
C
O
O
0
O
O
O
D
:
 
O
O
O
O
:
 

O
O
O
O
 

o
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 5,144 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE hy, 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - NONPUBLIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 76,274 2.94 94.81 4 AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 1,478 0.26 1.89 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 1,478 0.22 1.89 964 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 

139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 1,109 8.37 1.42 164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 78,339 100.01 

COMBINED SUBURBS 4,065 0.06 5.19 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 2% 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING i 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - NONPUBLIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 71,782 2.84 90.76 
4 AVON 

11 BLOOMFIELD 
23 CANTON 
40 EAST GRANBY 
43 EAST HARTFORD 1,71 
47 EAST WINDSOR 
48 ELLINGTON 
52 FARMINGTON 
54 GLASTONBURY 
56 GRANBY 
77 MANCHESTER 1,28 
94 NEWINGTON 

119 ROCKY HILL 
128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
139 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 
155 WEST HARTFORD 3,439 0.46 6.35 
159 WETHERSFIELD 860 0.29 1.09 
166 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 79,089 100.00 

   

o
 

Ww
 

Q
 

N
 

oo
 

O
0
0
 

O
0
0
O
0
0
D
:
 
O
O
0
0
0
D
 

O
O
O
O
 

Pt
 

0
 

[-
 63 

O
0
0
 
O
0
O
0
O
O
V
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
O
O
O
o
O
 

O
O
O
O
 

O
O
0
:
 

O
D
O
O
O
D
O
O
 
O
O
O
O
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 7,307 0.11 9.24 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.007. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: BILINGUAL EDUCATION 

TOWN GRANT PERCENTAGE 
NAME 1983-84 OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD 703,409 99.51 
AVON 0 
BLOOMFIELD 0 
CANTON 0 
EAST GRANBY 0 
EAST HARTFORD 0 
EAST WINDSOR 0 
ELLINGTON 0 
FARMINGTON 0 
GLASTONBURY 0 
GRANBY 0 
MANCHESTER - 3,488 0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

7 

nD
 

0
 

NEWINGTON 
ROCKY HILL 
SIMSBURY 
SOUTH WINDSOR 
SUFFIELD 
VERNON 
WEST HARTFORD 
WETHERSFIELD 
WINDSOR 
WINDSOR LOCKS 

TOTAL 706,89 

O
O
O
O
 

O
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
D
:
 
O
O
O
O
 
O
O
O
O
D
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 3,488 0.49 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

PAGE 9 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: BILINGUAL EDUCATION 

TOWN GRANT PERCENTAGE 
NAME 1984-85 OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD 761,165 100.00 
AVON 0 
BLOOMFIELD 0 
CANTON 0 
EAST GRANBY 0 
EAST HARTFORD 0 
EAST WINDSOR 0 
ELLINGTON 0 
FARMINGTON 0 
GLASTONBURY 0 
GRANBY : 0 
MANCHESTER 0 
NEWINGTON 0 
ROCKY HILL 0 
SIMSBURY 0 
SOUTH WINDSOR 0 
SUFFIELD 0 
VERNON 0 
WEST HARTFORD 0 
WETHERSFIELD 0 
WINDSOR 0 
WINDSOR LOCKS 0 

5 TOTAL 761,16 

C
O
O
 
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
L
O
O
O
O
D
O
O
L
O
O
O
D
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

PAGE 30 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE > 

    
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: BILINGUAL EDUCATION 

TOWN TOWN GRANT PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1985-86 OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 859,657 100.00 
4 AVON 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 
56 GLASTONBURY 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 
164 WINDSOR 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 

TOTAL 859,657 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: BILINGUAL EDUCATION 

TOWN GRANT PERCENTAGE 
NAME 1986-87 OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD ’ 100.00 
AVON 0 
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 

TOTAL 

C
O
O
 
O
O
D
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
D
O
O
D
 

COMBINED SUBURRS 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION : PAGE 373 

06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: BILINGUAL EDUCATION 

TOWN TOWN GRANT PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1987-88 OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 944,385 100.00 
4 AVON 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 
564 GLASTONBURY 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 
9¢ NEWINGTON 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 
164 WINDSOR 0 | 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 

TOTAL : 944,385 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: BILINGUAL EDUCATION 

TOWN GRANT PERCENTAGE 
NAME 1988-89 OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD 1,005,554 100.00 
AVON 0 
BLOOMFIELD 0 
CANTON 0 
EAST GRANBY 0 
EAST HARTFORD 0 
EAST WINDSOR 0 
ELLINGTON 0 
FARMINGTON 0 
GLASTONBURY 0 
GRANBY 0 
MANCHESTER 0 
NEWINGTON 0 
ROCKY HILL 0 
SIMSBURY 0 
SOUTH WINDSOR 0 
SUFFIELD 0 
VERNON 0 
WEST HARTFORD 0 
WETHERSFIELD 0 
WINDSOR 0 
WINDSOR LOCKS 0 

4 TOTAL 1,005,55 

O
0
0
 
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
D
O
D
O
O
D
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

PAGE 34 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 35 

06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: BILINGUAL EDUCATION 

TOWN TOWN GRANT PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1989-90 OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 955,634 100.00 
4 AVON 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 
9¢ NEWINGTON 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 
164 WINDSOR 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 

TOTAL 955,634 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: INTERDISTRICT COOPERATION 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER 
NAME 1986-87 PUPIL 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

oO
 

(
f
l
a
n
 

fl
ee
 

Je
n 

Jo
n 

Jo
o 

Je
w 

No
o 

Jo
m 

Ne
m 

Ne
o 

He
n 

Ne
o 

Ne
o 

Ne
w 

Ne
e 

Ne
m 

Mo
we
 
No

e 
No

o 
N=
) 

C
O
O
 
O
0
0
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

PAGE 3 6 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

C
O
O
 
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
 
O
O
D
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

oO
 

oo
 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 37 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: INTERDISTRICT COOPERATION 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 0 0 0 
% AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SJUFFIElD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0.00 

COMEINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 28 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: INTERDISTRICT COOPERATION 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD 30,000 1.19 - 50.00 
AVON 0 
BLOOMFIELD 0 
CANTON 0 
EAST GRANBY 0 
EAST HARTFORD 0 
EAST WINDSOR 0 
ELLINGTON 0 
FARMINGTON 0 
GLASTONBURY 0 
GRANBY 0 
MANCHESTER 0 
NEWINGTON 30,000 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

O
O
O
O
 
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
D
 

ROCKY HILL 
SIMSBURY 
SOUTH WINDSOR 
SUFFIELD 
VERNON 
WEST HARTFORD 
WETHERSFIELD 
WINDSOR 
WINDSOR LOCKS 

TOTAL 60,00 

O
C
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
D
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
D
:
 
O
O
O
O
 
O
D
O
O
O
O
D
 

[e
m 

en
 

No
w 

J 
cn 

J 
an 

J 
cn 

| 
cs

 
Nf 

coo
 N

o]
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 30,000 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 3 a9 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: INTERDISTRICT COOPERATION 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 114,927 4.55 32.17 
4 AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 122,118 49.49 36.18 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 30,000 5.26 8.40 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 11,553 2.48 3.23 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
94 NEWINGTON 32,633 8.38 9.08 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 66,254 6.21 12.95 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
166 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 357,285 100.01 

COMBINED SUBURBS 242,358 3.64 67.83 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE U0 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: AGENCY PLACEMENT GRANTS 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1984-85 PUPIL OF TOTAL 
64 HARTFORD 137,736 N/A 26.48 4 AVON 0 N/A 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 38,629 N/A 6.87 23 CANTON 0 N/A 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 N/A 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 73,299 N/A 135.03 47 EAST WINDSOR 7,883 N/A 1.40 . 48 ELLINGTON : 79,764 N/A 14.18 52 FARMINGTON 0 N/A 0 54 GLASTONBURY 16,353 N/A 2.9} 56 GRANBY : 0 N/A 0 77 MANCHESTER 31,000 N/A 5.51 94 NEWINGTON 32,111 N/A 5.71 119 ROCKY HILL 8,885 N/A 1.58 128 SIMSBURY 5,062 N/A 0.90 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 47,764 N/A 8.49 139 SUFFIELD 12,421 =o N/A 2.21 146 VERNON 35,878 N/A 6.38 155 WEST HARTFORD 15,850 N/A 2.82 159 WETHERSFIELD 52 N/A 0.01 166 WINDSOR 19,900 N/A : 3.54 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 N/A 0 

TOTAL 562,567 100.02 

COMBINED SUBURBS 424,831 N/A 75.52 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

N/A - Not Available. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE LL 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: EXCESS COST & AGENCY PLACEMENT GRANTS 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1985-86 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD : 597,016 N/A : 46.61 
4 AVON 4 N/A 0.00 

11 BLOOMFIELD 17,827 N/A 1.39 
23 CANTON 4,888 N/A 0.38 
40 EAST GRANBY 8,898 N/A 0.69 
43 EAST HARTFORD 141,944 N/A 11.08 
47 EAST WINDSOR 17,242 N/A 1.35 
48 ELLINGTON 62,326 N/A 4.87 
52 FARMINGTON 14,4683 N/A 1.13 
54 GLASTONBURY 23,459 N/A 1.83 
56 GRANBY 759 N/A 0.06 
77 MANCHESTER 45,585 N/A 3.56 
96 NEWINGTON 66,119 N/A 3.60 

119 ROCKY HILL 13,149 N/A 3.03 
128 SIMSBURY 105,562 N/A 8.24 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 66,117 N/A 3.60 
139 SUFFIELD 20,793 N/A 1.62 
166 VERNON 23,661 N/A 1.83 
155 WEST HARTFORD 24,332 N/A 1.90 
159 WETHERSFIELD 41,609 N/A 5.25 
164 WINDSOR 25,417 N/A 1,98 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 N/A 0 

TOTAL 1,280,990 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 683,974 N/A 53.39 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

N/A - Not Available. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE L > 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: EXCESS COST & AGENCY PLACEMENT GRANTS 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL x OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 670,200 9,855.88 37.00 
4 AVON 605 0 0.03 

11 BLOOMFIELD 27,358 5,671.60 1.51 
23 CANTON 100 100.00 0.01 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 78,6482 7,868.20 4.33 
47 EAST WINDSOR 62,051 7,008.50 2.32 
48 ELLINGTON 147,238 10,517.00 8.13 
52 FARMINGTON 23,149 11,574.50 1.28 
54 GLASTONBURY 80,490 11,498.57 4.66 
56 GRANBY 28,917 12,229.25 1.60 
77 MANCHESTER 66,952 5,612.67 3.59 
964 NEWINGTON 846,422 14,070.33 4.66 

119 ROCKY HILL 39,551 71,910.20 2.18 
128 SIMSBURY 135,197 16,899.63 7.66 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 114,788 14,348.50 6.36 
139 SUFFIELD 7,632 7,632.00 0.42 
146 VERNON 99,566 9,051.45 5.50 
155 WEST HARTFORD 59,725 8,532.14 3.30 
159 WETHERSFIELD 54,634 10,926.80 3.02 
166 WINDSOR 47,4491 9,483.20 2.62 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS : 4,795 1,598.33 0.26 

TOTAL 1,811,293 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 1,141,093 9,509.11] 63.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

¥ For this report Grant Per Pupil is based on those participating 
Special Education pupils responsible for generating the grant. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 43 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: EXCESS COST & AGENCY PLACEMENT GRANTS 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL x OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 1,001,865 11,926.96 36.07 
4 AVON 10,079 5,039.50 0.36 

11 BLOOMFIELD 41,619 20,809.50 1.50 
235 CANTON 41,198 20,599.00 1.48 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 63,729 7,081.00 2.29 
47 EAST WINDSOR 62,684 8,954.86 2.26 
48 ELLINGTON 123,200 12,320.00 4.44 
52 FARMINGTON 38,508 19,254.00 1.39 
54 GLASTONBURY 135,212 16,901.50 6.87 
56 GRANBY 53,019 10,603.80 1.9) 
77 MANCHESTER 90,7463 11,342.88 3.2? 
94 NEWINGTON 59,232 9,872.00 2.13 

119 ROCKY HILL 5,526 2,763.00 0.20 
128 SIMSBURY 181,770 22,121.25 6.54 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 129,822 16,227.75 G.67 
139 SUFFIELD 23,662 11,751.00 0.84 
146 VERNON 234,843 21,349.36 8.4646 
155 WEST HARTFORD 257,259 32,157.38 9.26 
159 WETHERSFIELD 39,182 6,550.33 1.91 
164 WINDSOR 184,393 30,732.17 6.664 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 2,777,345 99.99 

COMBINED SUBURBS 1,775,480 15,852.50 63.93 

3% 

(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

For this report Grant Per Pupil is based on those participating 
Special Education pupils responsible for generating the grant. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: EXCESS COST & AGENCY PLACEMENT GRANTS 

GRANT PERCENTAGE 

PAGE f-4 
REPORT DATE: 

04/15/91 

TOWN GRANT PER 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBU 
(EXCLUDING HA 

RBS 
RTFORD) 

1988-89 

903,264 
0 

79,623 
53,618 
1,746 

102,009 
19,123 

162,823 
56,6414 

205,487 
52,998 

205,809 
57,897 
21,919 

241,952 
183,663 
29,826 

191,867 
210,860 

3,144 
45,543 
1,920 

2,829,505 

1,926,241 

PUPIL x 

11,885. 
0 

15,924. 
53,618. 
1,766. 
9,273. 
4,780 

16,282. 
27,207. 
36,2647 
13,249. 
11,433 
164,474, 
4,383 

48,390. 
20,607. 
9,942. 

15,988. 
35,143. 
3,144, 

11,385. 
1,920. 

17,198. 

05 

60 
00 
00 
55 

«15 
30 
00 

.83 
50 

.83 
25 

.80 
40 
00 
00 
92 
33 
00 
75 
C0 

OF TOTAL 

31.92 
0 

No
] 

O
H
O
N
O
A
H
F
O
O
O
O
N
N
H
N
H
U
N
I
O
W
O
 

=
A
)
 

0
 

oN
 

02
] 

¥ For this report Grant Per Pupil is based on those participating 
Special Education pupils responsible for generating the grant. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



    

  

PORT DATE: 
04/23/91 

9. NAME : 

r—~ TOWN 

* 

119 
128 
132 
139 
146 
155 
159 
164 
165 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBURBS 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

   

  

GRANT 
1989-90 

872,765 
2,761 

119,494 
16,929 
16,680 
82,800 
20,846 

198,646 
104,334 

264,026 
62,232 

214,700 
91,602 

0 
248,924 
159,843 
149,724 
168,954 
308,860 
32,3172 
66,157 
53,834 

3,316,489 

2,443,724 

PUPIL * 

9,697. 
2,761. 

19,915. 
16,929. 
8,340. 

16,560. 
6,948. 

22,071, 
52,167. 

33,003. 
20,744. 

17,891, 
22,900. 

0 
62,23}. 
19,980. 
37,431. 
12,068. 
51,476. 
10,790. 
11,026. 
6,729, 

22,419. 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSI 

GRANT PER 

49 

Aah GRANTS EXCESS COST & AGENCY 

PAGE 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

2 

—
_
—
O
W
O
W
U
L
D
B
D
 

J
O
N
 

~
J
W
U
L
O
N
O
N
W
O
O
 

(V
o 

O
 

~
J
 

w
 

For this report Grant Per Pupil is based on those participating 
Special Education pupils responsible for generating the grant. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

“32 
.08 
.60 
.32 
.50 
.50 
53 
.99 
15 

.96 

.88 

.47 

.76 

.00 
5] 

82 
. 5] 
.09 
3] 
.98 
.99 
.62 

. 99 

.b8 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 46 06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

TOWN TOWN GRANT ‘GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 91,619 3.66 37.55 % AVON 3,256 1.53 1.33 
11 BLOOMFIELD 6,672 2.56 e/13 
23 CANTON 3,446 2.89 1.41 
40 EAST GRANBY 1,595 2.33 0.65 43 EAST HARTFORD 17,206 2.83 7.05 47 EAST WINDSOR 3,747 2.89 1.54 
48 ELLINGTON 6,241 3.39 2.56 52 FARMINGTON 4,037 1.60 1.65 54 GLASTONBURY 8,112 1.76 3.32 56 GRANBY 4,159 2.62 1:70 77 MANCHESTER 17,797 2.53 1:29 94 NEWINGTON . 9,221 2.39 3.78 119 ROCKY HILL 4,604 2.53 1.89 128 SIMSBURY 7,633 1.25 3.135 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 8,124 2.30 3.33 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 

146 VERNON 14,039 3.10 5:15 155 WEST HARTFORD 13,6436 1.81 5.51 159 WETHERSFIELD 7,105 2.35 2.91 164 WINDSOR 8,604 2.08 5.53 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 3,357 2.01 1.38 

TOTAL . 294,010 99.99 

COMBINED SUBURBS 152,391 2.26 62.65 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



    
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 47 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 187,637 1.3) 37.23 
4 AVON 6,362 3.04 1.26 

11 BLOOMFIELD 13,087 5.10 2.60 
23 CANTON 7,033 5.86 1.40 
40 EAST GRANBY 3,286 4.81 0.65 
43 EAST HARTFORD 34,151 5.17 6.78 
47 EAST WINDSOR 8,042 6.16 1.60 
48 ELLINGTON 32,176 6.50 2.42 
52 FARMINGTON 7,803 3.02 1.55 
54 GLASTONBURY : 16,024 3.40 3.18 
56 GRANBY 8,373 5.49 1.66 
77 MANCHESTER 36,863 5.50 2.31 
94 NEWINGTON 19,181 6.93 3.81 

119 ROCKY HILL 9,401 5.15 1.87 
128 SIMSBURY 14,784 3.69 2.93 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 16,273 6.67 3:23 
139 SUFFIELD 7,501 6.32 1.49 
146 VERNON 29,063 6.59 5.717 
155 WEST HARTFORD 27,568 3.76 5.47 
159 WETHERSFIELD 14,748 6.91 2493 
164 WINDSOR 17,633 4.15 3.50 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 7,072 6.27 1.40 

TOTAL 504,061 100.04 

COMBINED SUBURBS 316,424 4.71 62.77 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE H-5 06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

6% HARTFORD 183,357 7.26 36.746 4 AVON 6,806 3.30 1.36 11 BLOOMFIELD 13,373 5.353 2.68 235 CANTON 6,867 5.59 1.38 40 EAST GRANBY 3,365 4.91 0.67 43 EAST HARTFORD 36,692 5.99 6.95 47 EAST WINDSOR 7,587 5.92 1.52 48 ELLINGTON 12,560 6.62 2.52 52 FARMINGTON 8,269 35:13 1.66 564 GLASTONBURY 17,076 3.67 3.62 56 GRANBY 8,017 5.39 1.01 77 MANCHESTER 36,792 5.42 1.37 96 NEWINGTON 18,598 4.85 S.73 119 ROCKY HILL 8,328 4.51 1.67 128 SIMSBURY 14,822 3.78 2.97 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 17,314 6.71 3.47 139 SUFFIELD 7,824 4.45 1.57 146 VERNON 28,755 6.78 5.16 155 WEST HARTFORD 27,317 3.72 5.47 159 WETHERSFIELD 14,183 6.74 2.84 166 WINDSOR 16,465 3.88 3.30 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 6,649 6.05 1.33 

TOTAL 499,016 99,99 

COMBINED SUBURBS 315,659 4.76 63.26 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE bt 0 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 70,664 2.80 35.68 
4 AVON 2,807 1.37 1.642 

11 BLOOMFIELD 4,953 2.01 2.50 
23 CANTON 2,674 2.14 1.35 
40 EAST GRANBY 1,559 2.28 0.79 
43 EAST HARTFORD 13,678 2.40 6.91 
47 EAST WINDSOR 2,880 2.21 1.45 
48 ELLINGTON 5,001 2.69 +52 
52 FARMINGTON 3,508 1.26 1.77 
56 GLASTONBURY 6,772 1.45 3.62 
56 GRANBY 3,076 2.09 1.55 
77 MANCHESTER 15,216 ero> 1.68 
96 NEWINGTON 7,761 2.00 35.91 

119 ROCKY HILL 3,786 2.03 1.9) 
128 SIMSBURY 6,097 1.57 3.08 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 6,869 1.86 3.47 
139 - SUFFIELD 3,218 1.83 1.62 
146 VERNON 10,982 2.59 5.54 
155 WEST HARTFORD 11,188 1.50 5.65 
159 WETHERSFIELD 5,614 1.92 2.83 
164 WINDSOR 6,871 1.6) 3.67 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 2,913 1.81 1.47 

TOTAL 198,067 99.99 

COMBINED SUBURBS 127,403 }.91 64.32 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 50 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: TEACHER EVALUATION GRANTS 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD 73,900 2.88 : 68.13 
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 

oN
 

-
 No
] 

Ba
l 

et
 

O
O
 

O
O
O
O
 
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
 

oN
 

WN
 

on
 

(=
= 

R0
3 

Re
m 

Je
w 

Ne
on
 

No
w 

J 
wo 

J 
coo

 
Wo
n 

J 
co 

J 
oe
 

J 

oH
 

QQ
 

Q
O
:
 
O
O
O
O
 
O
O
O
O
O
D
 

TOTAL : 108,475 

COMBINED SUBURBS 34,575 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 5 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: TEACHER EVALUATION GRANTS 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD 0 
AVON 0 
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 

TOTAL : 73,518 

C
o
e
 

Y
e
 
e
w
w
w
 

e
e
 

E
Y
 

Cy
 
Cy

 
CY

 
S
N
O
A
N
D
P
O
O
-
N
 

o
b
h
O
N
D
N
 

—
 

N
W
 

on
 
S
E
E
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 73,518 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

LJ 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

   
REPORT DATE: Pace 5 JL 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: CAREER INCENTIVE GRANTS 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 73,900 2.88 66.05 
4 AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 5,154 2.01 6.61 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 13,450 2.27 2.02 
47 EAST WINDSOR 3,167 2.62 2.83 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 6,311 1.34 5.64 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
96 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139. SUFFIELD 2,954 1.70 2.64 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
164 WINDSOR 6,945 1.63 6.21 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 111,881 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 37,981 8.57 33.95 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: 

04/15/91 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBU 
(EXCLUDING HA 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: CAREER INCENTIVE GRANTS 

GRANT GRANT PER 
1988-89 PUPIL 

0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 

1,294 1.89 
0 0 
0 0 

4,796 2.53 
0 0 
0 0 

3,298 2.22 
14,518 2.14 

0 0 
3,703 2.00 

0 0 
6,609 1.74 

0 0 
0 0 
0 0.00 
0° 0.00 
0 0 

2,785 1.70 

36,803 

RBS 36,803 0.55 
RTFORD) 

PAGE 5 3 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE SH 06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: TEACHER EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION 
TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 500,748 19.83 61.17 4 AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 96,743 16.37 ¥1.57 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 34,301 18.09 6.19 52 FARMINGTON 22,582 8.55 2.76 56 GLASTONBURY 46,635 10.01 5.70 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 96 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 76,602 10.15 9.11 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 164 WINDSOR 64,966 10.60 5.49 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 
TOTAL 818,577 99.99 

COMBINCD SUBURBS 317,829 6.78 38.83 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION pace 55 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

   
* GRANT NAME: COMBINED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT x 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

6G HARTFORD 91,619 3.66 37.55 
4 AVON 3,256 1.53 1.33 

11 BLOOMFIELD 6,672 2.56 2.73 
23 CANTON 3,466 2.89 1.41 
40 EAST GRANBY 1,595 2.33 0.65 
43 EAST HARTFORD 17,206 2.83 7.05 
47 EAST WINDSOR 3,767 2.89 1.54 
48 ELLINGTON 6,241 5.39 2.56 
52 FARMINGTON 4,037 1.60 1.65 
54 GLASTONBURY 8,112 1.76 5.32 
56 GRANBY 4,159 2.62 1.70 
77 MANCHESTER 17,797 2.53 1.29 
94 NEWINGTON 9,221 2.59 3.78 

119 ROCKY HILL : 4,604 2:55 1.89 
128 SIMSBURY 7,633 1.85 5.13 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 8,124 2.30 3.33 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 14,039 3.10 5.15 
155 WEST HARTFORD 13,436 1.81 5.5) 
159 WETHERSFIELD : 7,105 2.35 2.91 
164 WINDSOR ‘ 8,604 2.08 3.53 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 3,357 2.01 1.38 

TOTAL : 244,010 99.99 

COMBINED SUBURBS 152,391 2.26 62.45 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

¥ In 1986-87 the Professional Development Grant was the only grant 
in effect in this catergory. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



® ® 
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 5 (© 

   
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: COMBINED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 3 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 335,437 13.07 46.30 
4 AVON 6,362 3.04 0.88 

11 BLOOMFIELD 18,241 7.11 2.52 
23 CANTON 7,033 5.86 0.97 
40 EAST GRANBY 3,286 4.81 0.45 
43 EAST HARTFORD 61,051 10.31 8.43 
47 EAST WINDSOR 11,209 8.58 1.55 
48 ELLINGTON 16,972 9.06 2.36 
52 FARMINGTON 10,876 4.21 1.50 
56 GLASTONBURY 28,646 6.08 3.95 
56 GRANBY 8,373 5.49 1.16 
77 MANCHESTER 36,863 5.50 5.09 
96 NEWINGTON 19,181 4.93 2.65 

119 ROCKY HILL 9,401 5.15 1.30 
128 SIMSBURY 16,784 3.69 2.06 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 16,273 G.497 2.25 
139 SUFFIELD 10,455 6.02 1.44 
146 VERNON 29,063 6.59 4.01 
155 WEST HARTFORD 27,568 3.76 3.81 
159 WETHERSFIELD 16,748 4.91 2.04 
1664 WINDSOR 51,523 7.41 4.35 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 7,072 6.27 0.98 

TOTAL 726,617 100.01 

COMBINED SUBURBS 388,980 5.79 53.70 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

¥ Combined Professional Development Grant includes the following grants: 

Professional Development, Teacher Evaluation, and the Career Incentive Grant. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE z7 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: COMBINED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD 684,105 27.09 47.91 
AVON 6,806 .30 
BLOOMFIELD 18,527 .38 
CANTON 9,637 .85 
EAST GRANBY 5,953 .69 
EAST HARTFORD 129,435 «36 
EAST WINDSOR 7,587 .92 
ELLINGTON 51,657 .24 
FARMINGTON 30,851 .68 
GLASTONBURY 63,711 .68 
GRANBY 14,613 .B3 
MANCHESTER 65,828 10 
NEWINGTON 26,153 .82 
ROCKY HILL 15,734 «51 
SIMSBURY 20,645 258 
SOUTH WINDSOR 30,132 19 
SUFFIELD 10,778 13 
VERNON 40,202 .48 
WEST HARTFORD 101,919 .87 
WETHERSFIELD 19,991 .68 
WINDSOR 61,6431 .48 
WINDSOR LOCKS 12,219 .45 

TOTAL 1,427,914 

= 
= 

PN
) 

AN
 
=
~
]
 

(
=
)
 

N
O
O
N
A
N
 
O
O
N
O
D
O
U
T
O
O
N
O
 

VO
 

OO
 
O
D
L
H
S
N
I
N
O
N
H
E
M
F
A
R
A
N
W
O
O
V
O
O
O
 

Pd
 

<
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 743,809 | 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

($y
) 

N
 

¥ Combined Professional Development Grant includes the following grants: 

Professional Development, Teacher Evaluation, Career Incentive, 
and the Teacher Evaluation Implementation Grant. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.007. 

 



    
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 5§ 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: MINIMUM SALARY GRANT 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE - 

CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL | 

6% MWARTFORD 110,738 6.62 28.68 
& AVON 13,051 6.11 3.38 | 

311 BLOOMFIELD 6,400 1.69 1.14 
23 CANTON 37,196 31.18 9.63 | 
40 EAST GRANBY 2,555 3.73 0.66 
&3 EAST HARTFORD 760 0.12 0.20 A 
6&7 EAST WINDSOR 19,304 14.88 5.00 

48 ELLINGTON 42,182 22.94 10.92 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 11,190 2.63 2.90 
56 GRANBY 38,058 23.98 9.86 
77 MANCHESTER 31,3464 4.66 8.12 
94 NEWINGTON 5,090 1.32 1.32 

119 ROCKY HILL 1,369 0.75 0.35 
128 SIMSBURY 361 0.08 0.09 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 18,460 5.22 4.78 
139 SUFFIELD 1,920 73,42 0.50 
146 VERNON 30,825 6.80 7.98 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD : 6,784 1.58 1.24 

164 WINDSOR 5,203 1.26 1.35 

165 WINDSOR LOCKS 7,339 4.39 1.90 

TOTAL 386,109 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 275,371 4.08 71.32 

(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE £549 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: MINIMUM SALARY GRANT 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 112,150 6.37 24.79 
4 AVON 13,051 6.23 2.88 

11 BLOOMFIELD 4,500 Y.15 0.99 
23 CANTON 29,211 249.36 6.46 
40 EAST GRANBY 2,555 3.74 0.56 
43 EAST HARTFORD 760 0.13 0.17 
47 EAST WINDSOR 28,470 21.79 6.29 
68 ELLINGTON 36,587 19.52 8.09 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 11,490 2.44 2.54 
56 GRANBY 79,7009 52.28 17.62 
77 MANCHESTER 47,600 6.85 10.52 
94 NEWINGTON 6,361 1.63 1.41 

119 ROCKY HILL 1,369 8.75 0.30 
128 SIMSBURY 696 D.12 0.11 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 18,460 5.08 4.08 
139 SUFFIELD 1,816 1.05 0.40 
146 VERNON 30,825 6.99 6.81 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 9,712 3.23 2.15 
164 WINDSOR 5,203 1.22 1.15 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 12,062 7.28 2.67 

TOTAL 452,387 99.99 

COMBINED SUBURBS 340,237 5.07 75.21 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE ¢ C 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: MINIMUM SALARY GRANT . 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 112,716 G.66 28.55 
& AVON 13,051 6.32 3.31 

11 BLOOMFIELD 4,600 1.75 1:11 
23 CANTON 264,179 19.69 6.13 
60 EAST GRANBY 2,555 5.72 0.45 ! 
43 EAST HARTFORD 760 0.13 0.19 
47 EAST WINDSOR 19,798 15.44 5.02 
48 ELLINGTON 33,958 17.91 8.60 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
56 GLASTONBURY 11,190 2.40 2.83 
56 GRANBY 67,511 45.40 17.10 
77 MANCHESTER 23,800 3.51 6.03 
96 NEWINGTON 6,361 1.66 1.61 

119 ROCKY HILL 1,369 0.74 0.35 
128 SIMSBURY 34] 0.09 0.09 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 18,660 £.02 G.68 
139 SUFFIELD 1,760 1.00 0.45 
146 VERNON 20,550 4.86 £.21 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 13,215 6.62 3.35 
166 WINDSOR B62] 1.28 1.37 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 13,339 8.13 3.38 

TOTAL 394,734 100.01 

COMBINED SUBURBS 282,018 4.24 71.48 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 10C.00%. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: 
04/15/91 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBU 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: 

RBS 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

SALARY AID 

GRANT 
1986-87 

1,524,198 
5,103 

35,941 
58,171 
12,198 

389,645 
129,968 
211,877 

5,656 
19,870 
91,019 

619,457 
70,515 
646,351 
18,441 

115,608 
1,970 

515,224 
9,055 

92,116 
83,907 
22,273 

3,902,543 

2,378,345 

GRANT PER 
PUPIL 

35. 27 

pase (| 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

39. 

Pr
d 

0
 

oN
 

oo
 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00’. 

fa
 

0
 

O
N
N
O
W
O
N
O
M
M
F
O
N
O
O
U
I
N
V
L
V
O
~
O
O
 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE C x 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

. GRANT NAME: SALARY AID 

TOWN TOWN 
GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE ) 

CODE NAME 
1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 
35,056,119 119.13 38.47 

& AVON 
10,222 4.88 0.13 

11 BLOOMFIELD 
121,209 67.24 1.53 

23 CANTON 
116,672 97.30 1.47 

40 EAST GRANBY 24,520 35.87 0.31 

43 EAST HARTFORD 781,372 132.089 9.84 

47 EAST WINDSOR 295,012 225.84 »all 

48 ELLINGTON 
424,607 226.52 5.35 

52 FARMINGTON 
11,330 6.39 0.14 

56 GLASTONBURY 
39,801 8.46 8.50 

56 GRANBY 
182,494 *-119.69 2.30 

77 MANCHESTER 
875,707 125.97 11.02 

94 NEWINGTON 
141,789 36.44 1.78 

119 ROCKY HILL 129,097 70.70 1:63 

128 SIMSBURY 
36,938 9.21 0.46 

132 SOUTH WINDSOR 232,001 63.78 2.92 

139 SUFFIELD 
15,964 9.20 0.20 

146 VERNON 
1,032,563 236.27 13.00 

155 WEST HARTFORD 18,137 2.47 0.23 

159 WETHERSFIELD 
184,934 61.52 2+3% 

166 WINDSOR 
168,540 29.65 212 

165 WINDSOR LOCKS 446,846 27.06 0.56 

TOTAL 
7,943,874 

100.00 

COMBINED SUBURES 4,887,755 2.77 £1.53 

(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: 
04/15/91 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBU 
(EXCLUDING 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100. 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

GRANT 

RES 

BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

NAME : 

HARTFORD) 

SALARY AID 

GRANT 
1988-89 

4,580,318 
15,325 

157,150 
174,843 
36,718 

1,171,016 
424,980 
636,484 
16,986 
59,67] 

273,513 
1,299,619 

212,304 
193,428 
55,379 

347,609 
23,934 

1,547,786 
27,192 

277,050 
252,447 
67,119 

11,850,871 

{1,270,553 

GRANT PER 
PUPIL 

109 “28 

PAGE 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

38.65 

pt
 

pe
d 

oO
 
O
N
N
O
W
O
N
O
K
F
O
N
O
O
U
I
W
N
O
V
O
 

M
R
D
 

0
 
~
 

fo
 

<<
 

on
 

—
 

Ww
 

19
2]

 

00°. 

 



: 

  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE (4 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: GENERAL AID 

TOWN TOWN GRANT x GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 5,054,933 201.93 63.65 
& AVON 45,928 21.51 0.58 

11 BLOOMFIELD 129,763 49.82 1.63 
23 CANTON 51,716 63.36 0.65 
&0 EAST GRANBY 29,206 62.64 0.37 
6&3 EAST HARTFORD 303,805 49.96 3.83 
47 EAST WINDSOR 50,149 38.66 0.63 
48 ELLINGTON 71,970 39.15 0.91 
52 FARMINGTON 50,908 20.20 0.64 
54 GLASTONBURY 178,834 38.84 2.25 
56 GRANBY 60,661 38.22 0.76 
77 MANCHESTER 574,964 81.76 7.24 
94 NEWIRGTON 181,999 47.19 e.29 

119 ROCKY HILL 80,294 64.08 1.01 
128 SIMSBURY 165,972 60.20 2.09 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 145,758 61.19 1.84 
139 SUFFIELD 71,730 61.87 0.90 
146 VERNON 189,336 91.76 2.38 
155 WEST HARTFORD 81,494 10.98 1.03 
159 WETHERSFIELD 186,748 6).72 2.35 
164 WINDSOR 157,990 38.20 1.99 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 77,885 66.62 0.98 

TOTAL 7,942,043 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 2,887,110 42.82 36.35 

¥ Includes payments made under Sections 4 & 6 of P.A. 86-1. 

(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.0C%. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE ( 5 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: GENERAL AID ' 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 

CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 WARTFORD 2,095,349 81.68 29.18 

& AVON 91,994 43.91 1.28 

11 BLOOMFIELD 259,526 101.14 3.61 

23 CANTON 103,432 86.25 1.44 

&0 EAST GRANBY 58,412 85.46 0.81 

43 EAST HARTFORD 607,611 302.72 8.46 

47 EAST WINDSOR 100,297 76.78 1.40 

48 ELLINGTON 143,940 16.79 2.00 

52 FARMINGTON 101,968 39.50 1.642 

54 GLASTONBURY 358,206 16.11 4.99 

56 GRANBY 121,32] 19.57 1.69 

77 MANCHESTER 549,050 78.98 1.65 

94 NEWINGTON 363,998 93.56 5.07 

119 ROCKY HILL 160,589 £7.95 2.249 

128 SIMSBURY 332,442 82.940 4.63 

132 SOUTH WINDSOR 291,516 80.15 6.06 

139 SUFFIELD 143,676 82.81 2.00 

146 VERNON 378,672 85.92 5.27 

155 WEST HARTFORD 165,233 22.24 227 

159 WETHERSFIELD 282,791 96.07 3.94 

166 WINDSOR 315,980 74.33 6.460 

165 WINDSOR LOCKS 155,778 94.01 2:37 

TOTAL 7,179,773 99.98 

COMBINED SUBURES 5,084,424 75.70 70.82 

(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.007. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: 
04/15/91 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBU 
(EXCLUDING HA 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: 

RBS 
RYFORD) 

GENERAL AID 

GRANT 
1988-89 

3,143,024 
137,922 
389,289 
155,148 
87,619 

911,416 
150,446 
215,911 
152,876 
537,040 
181,982 
823,575 
545,997 
240,883 
498,414 
437,274 
215,407 
568,009 
244,727 
424,186 
473,970 
233,654 

10,768,769 

7,625,745 

GRANT PER 
PUPIL 

127 

bd
 
bd
 
e
d
 

ed
 

bd
 

od
 

Pd
 
Pd

 
bd
 
fd

 
fd
 

fd
 

fd
 

fe
d 

fd
 

L
E
D
 
W
H
N
=
N
W
D
N
N
 

= 
U
n
 

N
H
E
W
U
W
U
N
O
N
O
N
=
N
W
U
M
 

N
W
S
I
 

114. 

.48 

.82 

.03 
+36 
ay 
.48 
+82 
.88 
.89 
27 
. S57 
“5 
39 
3 | 
B87 
.97 
.63 
92 
.o0 
.16 
75 
739 

62 

PAGE 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

29. 

0
 

~
 

oO
 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

OO
 

N
P
 

U
W
N
U
V
I
N
D
 
D
N
V
 

D
R
)
 

0
0
 

= 

GC 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE (7 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: TEACHER-PUPIL RATIO 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 1,000,000 39.95 100.00 
& AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
60 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
56 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 1,000,000 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE CE 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: TEACHCR-PUPIL RATIO 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 
64 HARTFORD 2,000,000 77.96 100.00 G AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 56 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 96 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 246 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 2,000,000 100.00 

COMEINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE (9 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: TEACHER-PUPIL RATIO 

TOWN TOWN : GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 3,000,000 118.82 100.00 
& AVON 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 
23 CANTON 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 
§3 EAST HARTFORD 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 
56 GRANBY 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

  

119 ROCKY HILL 
128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
139 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 
155 WEST HARTFORD 
159 WETHERSFIELD 
166 WINDSOR 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 

TOTAL 3,000,00 

O
C
O
O
0
O
D
O
D
O
D
O
D
D
O
D
O
D
O
O
D
O
D
O
O
O
D
O
O
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
0
O
 

O
O
O
O
 
D
O
O
O
O
D
O
D
O
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
 

COMBINED SUBURES 0 0.00 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

% Combined Salary Aid includes the following grants: 

(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Minimum Aid, Salary Aid, General Aid, and Teacher Pupil Ratio Aad. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.007. 

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 70 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: COMBINED SALARY AID ¥ » 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 

CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 7,689,869 307.19 58.12 

& AVON 64,082 30.01 0.48 

11 BLOOMFIELD 170,104 65.31 1.29 

23 CANTON 147,083 123.31 1.11 

40 EAST GRANBY 43,959 64.18 0.33 

43 EAST HARTFORD 694,210 114.15 5.25 

47 EAST WINDSOR 199,421 153.174 1.51 

48 ELLINGTON 326,029 177.33 2.46 

52 FARMINGTON 56,564 22.44 0.43 

54 GLASTONBURY 209,894 45.59 1.59 

56 GRANBY 189,738 119.55 1.43 

77 MANCHESTER 1,025,765 145.87 1.15 

94 NEWINGTON 257,604 66.79 1.95 

119 ROCKY HILL 145,994 80.15 1.10 

128 SIMSBURY 184,754 64.75 1.40 

132 SOUTH WINDSOR 279,826 79.08 2.11 

139 SUFFIELD 81,620 67.64 0.62 

146 VERNON 735,385 162.20 5.56 

155 WEST HARTFORD 90,549 12.20 0.68 

159 WETHERSFIELD 283,648 93.74 2.14 

164 WINDSOR 247,100 59.75 1.87 

165 WINDSOR LOCKS 107,497 64.34 0.81 

TOTAL 13,230,695 99.99 

COMBINED SUBURES 5,540,820 82.18 41.88 

  

 



    

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 71 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: COMBINED SALARY AID x 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

6% HARTFORD 7,263,618 283.14 41.33 
& AVON 115,267 55.02 0.66 

11 BLOOMFIELD 385,235 150.13 2.19 
23 CANTON 249,315 207.91 1.42 
4&0 EAST GRANBY 85,487 125.07 0.49 
63 EAST HARTFORD 1,389,743 2346.94 7.91 
47 EAST WINDSOR 423,779 3246.41 2.41 
48 ELLINGTON 605,134 322.83 3.44 
52 FARMINGTON 113,298 43.89 0.64 
54 GLASTONBURY 409,497 87.01 2.33 
56 GRANBY 383,524 251.54 2.18 
77 MANCHESTER 1,472,357 211.80 8.38 
94 NEWINGTON 512,148 131.63 2:91 

119 ROCKY HILL 291,055 159.40 1.66 
128 SIMSBURY 369,876 92.23 2.10 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 541,977 149.01 3.08 
139 SUFFIELD 161,456 93.06 0.92 
1466 VERNON 1,462,060 327.18 8.20 
155 WEST HARTFORD 181,370 26.71 1.03 
159 WETHERSFIELD 677,437 158.82 2.72 
164 WINDSOR 489,723 115.20 AR 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 212,678 128.35 1.21] 

TOTAL 17,576,034 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 10,312,416 153.54 58.67 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

¥ Combined Salary Aid includes the following grants: 

Minimum Aid, Salary Aid, General Aid, and Teacher Pupil Ratio Aid. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: 
04/15/91 

* 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBU 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

GRANT 

RBS 

BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

COMBINED SALARY AID x NAME : 

(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

GRANT 
1988-89 

10,836,058 
166,298 
550,839 
354,170 
126,892 

2,083,192 
595,224 
886,353 
169,862 
607,901 
523,006 

2,146,994 
764,662 
435,680 
554,134 
803,343 
241,101 

2,136,345 
271,919 
716,651 
731,838 
314,112 

26,014,374 

15,178,316 

GRANT PER 
PUPIL 

429. 
80. 

219. 
288. 
184. 
359, 
664. 
467. 
64. 

130. 
551. 
316. 
199. 
235. 
141. 
218. 
137. 
503. 

317. 
e958. 
372. 
19}. 

228. 

Combined Salary Aid includes the following grants: 

14 

PAGE ~7 0 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

G1. 
0.64 
12 
«36 
.49 
.01 
.29 
.G1 
85 

OO
 
H
N
N
H
O
D
O
W
N
F
N
O
N
N
O
W
N
D
O
=
~
N
 

—
 

oO
 

(0
, 

@
 

Minimum Aid, Salary Aid, General Aid, and Teacher Pupil Ratio Aid. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

65 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 73 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: EDUCATION EQUALIZATION r 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 

CODE NAME 1983-84 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 MHARTFORD 46,556,454 1,917.49 51.36 

& AVON 505,350 2644.13 0.56 

11 BLOOMFIELD 1,343,621 495.62 1.48 

23 CANTON 847,533 683.59 0.94 

60 EAST GRANBY 428,089 631.87 0.47 

43 EAST HARTFORD 5,795,867 819.27 6.39 

47 EAST WINDSOR 1,229,459 937.82 1.36 

48 ELLINGTON 1,848,283 979.48 2.04 

52 FARMINGTON 663,143 268.45 0.71 

54 GLASTONBURY 2,026,787 422.61 2.26 

56 GRANBY 1,051,352 671.90 1.16 

77 MANCHESTER 5,555,560 1717.16 6.13 

94 NEWINGTON 3,174,178 742.06 3.50 

119 ROCKY HILL 1,094,023 579.92 1.2] 

128 SIMSBURY 2,070,524 470.95 2.28 

132 SOUTH WINDSOR 2,665,172 757.47 2.94 

139 SUFFIELD 944,594 563.10 1.04 

146 VERNON 6,967,469 1,805.15 5.48 

155 WEST HARTFORD 2,443,816 328.58 2.79 

159 WETHERSFIELD 1,666,665 508.36 1.84 

164 WINDSOR 2,583,356 636.92 2.85 

165 WINDSOR LOCKS 1,200,785 633.16 1.32 

TOTAL 90,662,080 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 44,085,626 627.67 48.64 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

  

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE J 06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: EDUCATION EQUALIZATION 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1984-85 PUPIL OF TOTAL 
6% HARTFORD 48,113,702 1,985.82 49.95 & AVON 513,119 250.98 0.53 11 BLOOMFIELD 1,642,991 620.58 1.71 23 CANTON 928,199 766.40 0.96 40 EAST GRANBY 503,430 138.17 8.52 43 EAST HARTFORD 6,203,757 911.80 6.464 47 EAST WINDSOR 1,349,461 1,073.16 1.40 48 ELLINGTON 2,081,799 1,120.75 2.16 52 FARMINGTON 601,903 251.58 0.62 54 GLASTONBURY 2,079,697 447.81 2.1% 56 GRANBY 1,269,235 835.02 1.32 77 MANCHESTER 5,796,555 821.10 6.02 94 NEWINGTON 3,406,053 845.38 3.54 119 ROCKY HILL 1,155,084 627.25 1.20 128 SIMSBURY 2,265,814 530.465 2.35 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 2,899,460 845.69 5.01 139 SUFFIELD 960,646 584.69 1.00 146 VERNON 5,669,185 1,181.70 5.89 155 WEST HARTFORD 2,624,673 357.24 2.72 159 WETHERSFIELD 2,094,415 677.09 2-12 lé4 WINDSOR 2,918,049 126.79 2.03 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 1,242,856 689.71 1.29 

TOTAL 96,320,083 93.99 

COMBINED SUBURBS 48,206,381 706.91 50.05 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: 
04/15/91 

GRANT NAME: EDUCATION EQUALIZATION 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBURBS 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

GRANT 
1985-86 

494,938,233 
526,313 

2,096,471 
1,222,065 

614,798 
6,667,041 
1,284,341 
2,399,244 

621,000 
2,653,343 
1,554,089 
6,266,016 
3,662,174 
1,397,287 
2:965,979 
3,645,162 

994,770 
5,293,122 
3,112,804 
2,496,631 
2,159,514 
1,109,653 

98,080,050 

53,141,817 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT PER 
PUPIL 

1,828. 
255. 
784. 

1,035. 
925. 

1,040. 
1,019. 
1,2%2. 

257. 
574. 
977. 
902. 
939. 
774. 
117. 
998. 
611. 

1,154. 
421. 
822. 
686. 
648. 

789. 61 

PAGE 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

45.82 
0.54 

OO
 
H
A
N
N
W
U
O
D
H
W
H
H
E
W
O
R
=
N
O
N
O
N
O
 

M
A
)
 

~
 

Ww
 

—t
 

o
O
 

w ra — [o2)
 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

72 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE = L 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: EDUCATION EQUALIZATION 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 WARTFORD 39,770,535 1,588.68 43.08 & AVON 517,500 2642.39 0.56 
11 BLOOMFIELD 2,057,665 790.04 2.23 
23 CANTON 1,223,302 1,025.55 1.33 
6&0 EAST GRANBY 594,236 867.50 0.64 
43 EAST HARTFORD 7,312,885 1,202.48 1.92 47 EAST WINDSOR 1,354,163 1,043.99 1.47 48 ELLINGTON 2,525,138 1,373.48 2.74 
52 FARMINGTON 598,938 237.64 0.65 54 GLASTONBURY 2,694,710 541.80 e170 56 GRANBY 1,492,334 940.35 1.62 77 MANCHESTER 5,694,761 181.37 5.95 94 NEWINGTON 3,580,352 928.27 3.88 119 ROCKY HILL 1,401,826 769.60 1.52 128 SIMSBURY 2,920,427 707.42 3.16 

132 SOUTH WINDSOR 3,237,382 914.90 3.51 
139 SUFFIELD 1,030,458 601.55 1.12 146 VERNON 5,330,328 1,175.63 5.77 
155 WEST HARTFORD 3,278,956 441.84 5.55 
159 WETHERSFIELD 2,250,412 143.75 2.44 
164 WINDSOR 2,791,167 674.93 3.02 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 1,056,364 632.34 1.14 

TOTAL 92,313,839 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 52,543,304 779.30 56.92 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE "7 7 04/15/91 ‘BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: EDUCATION EQUALIZATION 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 60,704,853 2,366.40 51.10 & AVON 511,125 2643.97 0.43 11 BLOOMFIELD 2,048,520 798.33 1.72 23 CANTON 1,464,355 1,221.16 1.23 40 EAST GRANBY 666,195 974.68 0.56 43 EAST HARTFORD 2,225,707 1,221.49 6.08 47 EAST WINDSOR 1,739,398 1,331.58 1.46 48 ELLINGTON 2,617,083 1,3%6.15 2.20 52 FARMINGTON 598,363 231.80 0.50 54 GLASTONBURY 2,586,089 549.51 2.18 56 GRANBY 1,628,038 1,067.74 1.37 77 MANCHESTER 6,854,338 985.99 5-77 96 NEWINGTON 9,156,916 1,068.46 5.50 119 ROCKY HILL 1,712,055 937.60 1.44 128 SIMSBURY 2,980,195 763.14 2.51 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 5,395,557 9353.55 2.86 139 SUFFIELD 1,338,219) 721.30 1.13 146 VERNON 6,263,743 1,416.62 5.26 155 WEST HARTFORD 3,947,566 37.86 3.32 159 WETHERSFIELD 2,227,914 741.11 1.88 164 WINDSOR 2,923,813 699.56 2.50 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 1,166,599 7046.04 0.98 

TOTAL 118,786,632 g9g.98 

COMBINED SUBURBS 58,081,779 864.77 68.90 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00... 

 



  

REPORT DATE: 
04/15/91 

CONNECTICU 
BUR 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBURBS 

(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding 

T STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: EDUCATION EQUALIZATION 

EAU OF 

6 

GRANT 
1988-89 

5,765,438 
514,625 

2,575,014 
1,579,092 

704,416 
8,461,145 
2,031,552 
3,366,002 

620,412 
3,340,976 
1,913,303 
8,426,476 
4,609,534 
1,570,457 
3,095,480 
3,994,995 
1,637,395 
7,859,465 

4,507,900 
2,598,166 
3,097,280 
1,182,828 

133,449,981 

6 7,686,543 

GRANT PER 
PUPIL 

2,604. 
249. 

1,025. 
1,286. 
1,026. 
1,461. 
1,584. 
1,774. 

234. 
117. 

1,286. 
1,241. 
1,202. 

849. 
789. 

1,086. 
932. 

1,852. 
613. 
868. 
130. 
720. 

1.81%, 33 

PAGE "J 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

49.28 

N
H
N
 

H
W
A
 
=
N
O
N
H
O
O
 

=
O
 

(,
) 
o
 

0
 

Na
) 
O
N
 

= 
WW
 

WN
 

nN
 

wm
 

oO
 

~
 

nN
 

total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE "79 

  

REPORT DATE: 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: EDUCATION EQUALIZATION 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 83,775,081 3,316.00 48.55 
§& AVON 684,328 333.01 0.40 

11 BLOOMFIELD 3,266,516 1,323.82 1.89 
23 CANTON 2,020,259 1,615.12 Pe 
60 EAST GRANBY 868,717 1,268.20 0.50 
43 EAST HARTFORD 11,018,832 1,931.26 6.39 
47 EAST WINDSOR 2,755,162 2,118.02 1.60 
48 ELLINGTON 6,667,404 2,500.62 2.69 
52 FARMINGTON 825,836 297.70 0.48 
54 GLASTONBURY 4,126,576 885.24 2.39 
56 GRANBY 2,616,516 3,781.23 1.52 
77 MANCHESTER 11,800,302 1,764.32 6.84 
96 NEWINGTON 5,616,035 1,450.85 3.25 

119 ROCKY HILL 2,096,413 1,125.89 1.21 
128 SIMSBURY 3,813,847 981.37 2.21 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 5,590,050 1,513.28 3.24 
139 SUFFIELD 2,103,603 1,193.53 1.22 
146 VERNON 10,562,313 2,486.42 65.12 
155 WEST HARTFORD 4,994,911 671.02 2.83 
159 WETHERSFIELD 3,661,716 1,185.87 2.01 
164 WINDSOR 6,346,524 1,018.69 2:52 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 1,564,302 971.07 0.91 

TOTAL 172,555,263 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 88,780,162 1,333.89 51.45 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE §C 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: VOC EDUCATION EQUIPMENT GRANT 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME : 1983-84 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 0 0 0 
% AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
7 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
96 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE a 
06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: VOC EDUCATION EQUIPMENT GRANT 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1984-85 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 0 0 0 
4 AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HAPTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.007. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: 
04/15/91 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBU 
(EXCLUDING HA 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: VOC EDUCATION EQUIPMENT GRANT 

GRANT GRANT PER 
1985-86 PUPIL 

0 0 
0 0 
0 0 

17,091 16.48 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 

14,853 2.14 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 

16,841 6.88 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 

7,689 1.86 
0 0 

56,274 

RBS 56,274 0.84 RTFORD) 

PAGE § 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

30.3 

(
=
N
—
 

J 
O
o
o
o
 

o
O
0
O
O
 

o
 

100.00 

100.00 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 300.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

GRANT PER 
PUPIL 

4.646 

6.88 

o
 

Hn
 

O
O
O
O
:
 

O
O
 

Ba
) 

Ne
) 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: VOC EDUCATION EQUIPMENT GRANT 

TOWN TOWN GRANT 
CODE NAME 1986-87 

6% HARTFORD 111,549 
% AVON 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 17,927 
23 CANTON 0 
&0 EAST GRANBY 0 
4&3 EAST HARTFORD 27,304 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 
56 GRANBY 48,029 
77 MANCHESTER 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 46,091 
128 SIMSBURY 18,841 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 
146 VERNON 60,045 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 51,889 
166 WINDSOR 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 33.312 

TOTAL 416,987 

COMBINED SUBURBS 303,438 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

PAGE & 3 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

26.88 

4.32 

o
 

on
 

O
O
O
O
:
 

O
O
 

un
 

0]
 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE JH 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: VOC EDUCATION EQUIPMENT GRANT 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME : 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 MARTFORD 0 
& AVON 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 
23 CANTON 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 40,205 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 
56 GLASTONBURY 0 
56 GRANBY 0 
77 MANCHESTER 88,011 12.66 68.64 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

6 

  

O
O
O
O
 0
 

[o
} 

O
0
0
 

0
0
:
 
O
O
O
O
 O
 

(0 
o] 

, 
22 

J 

31.36 

(e
n 

No
m 

J 
ow 

J 
co 

J 
cn
 

94 NEWINGTON 
119 ROCKY HILL 
128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
139 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 
155 WEST HARTFORD 
159 WETHERSFIELD 
164 WINDSOR 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS (a

m 
Na
m 

No
w 

J 
om

 
Ha
w 

No
n 

J 
an 

Jf 
an 

J 
on 

J 
an
) 

O
O
O
O
 

O
D
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
0
O
 

TOTAL 128,21 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 128,216 1.91 100.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.007. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE Fr 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS FROCESSING » 

GRANT NAME: VOC EDUCATION EQUIPMENT GRANT 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME. 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64% HARTFORD 112,023 4.44 21.13 
& AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 30,017 11.95 5.66 
23 CANTON 164,777 12.04 2.79 
&0 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 16,038 8.46 5.02 
52 FARMINGTON 43,720 16.56 8.25 
54 GLASTONBURY 17,722 3.80 3.34 
56 GRANBY 58,810 39.55 11.09 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
94 NEWINGTON 49,770 12.98 9.39 

119 ROCKY HILL 47,926 25.93 9.04 
128 SIMSBURY 39,826 10.15 7.5] 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
1%9 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 52,315 17.48 9.87 
164 WINDSOR 47,309 11.15 8.92 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 530,253 100.01 

COMBINED SUBURBS 418,230 6.2% 78.87 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equsl 100.00. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE §( 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: VOC EDUCATION EQUIPMENT GRANT 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 0 0 0 
& AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0.00 0.00 
. 23 CANTON 0 0 0 

40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
56 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0.00 0.00 
96 - NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 43,681 11.82 26.60 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
1466 VERNON 64,827 15.26 39.48 
155 WEST HARTFORD 55,704 7.48 33.92 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
166 WINDSOR 0 0.00 0.00 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 164,212 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 164,212 2.47 100.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00... 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE ¥ / 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 
GRANT NAME: VOC EDUCATION EQUIPMENT - OIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1984-85 PUPIL OF TOTAL 
64 HARTFORD 0 0 0 6 AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 60 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 166 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

04/15/91 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: VOC EDUCATION EQU 

TOWN 
GRANT 

NAME 
1985-86 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

o
 
C
O
C
O
 

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
 

COMBINED SUBURLS 
0 

(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may Nn 

pace §§ 

IPMENT - OIC 

GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
PUPIL OF TOTAL 

0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 

0.00 

ot equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 59 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: VOC EDUCATION EQUIPMENT - OIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 0 0 0 
& AVON ; 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
640 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
6&3 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.60 0 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE ap 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: VOC EDUCATION EQUIPMENT - OIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 0 0 0 
& AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
7 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY #H1LL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
164 WINDSOR : 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE oy 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: VOC EDUCATION EQUIPMENT - OIC 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

646 HARTFORD 0 0 0 & AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 96 NEWINGTON. 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0. 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 166 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD): 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equzl 100.00. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: VOC EDUCATION EQUIPMENT - OIC 

Pace & 2 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

NAME 1989-90 PUPIL 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

o
 

C
O
O
 
O
0
O
0
O
0
D
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
D
O
O
O
 

C
O
O
 
O
D
O
 
D
D
D
 

O
D
O
O
O
O
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

e
e
 

= 
l
=
 

fe
 

Y=
 

Yo
 
R
Y
 

Ne
 

Ye
 

N
N
 

= 
X=
 
R
=
 

= 
N=
 
T
=
 

cd
 

o
 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE G3 04/15/91 ' BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - PROJECT CONCERN 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1983-84 PUPIL OF TOTAL 
6% HARTFORD 258,720 10.66 100.00 4 AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 96 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 166 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 258,720 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURES 0 0.00 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 9 4 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 
GRANT ‘NAME: E.E.R.A - PROJECT CONCERN 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1984-85 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 MARTFORD 479,286 19.78 100.00 4 AVON 0 
11 BLOOMFIELD 0 
23 CANTON 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 
56 GRANBY 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

6 

  

119 ROCKY HILL 
128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
139 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 
155 WEST HARTFORD 
159 WETHERSFIELD 
166 WINDSOR 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 

TOTAL 479,28 

C
O
O
 
O
0
O
0
D
O
D
O
O
O
O
D
O
D
O
D
O
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
 

C
O
O
 
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE Gs 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - PROJECT CONCERN 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1985-86 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

6% HARTFORD 448,672 18.25 100.00 
4 AVON 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 
23 CANTON 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 
63 EAST HARTFORD 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 
56 GRANBY 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 
96 NEWINGTON 0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 

  

19 ROCKY HILL 
28 SIMSBURY 
32 SOUTH WINDSOR 
39 SUFFIELD 
46 VERNON 
55 WEST HARTFORD 

159 WETHERSFIELD 
164 WINDSOR 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 

TOTAL 648,47 

C
O
O
 

O
0
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
D
O
D
D
O
D
O
D
O
D
O
D
O
O
D
D
O
D
O
O
O
 

je
m 

en 
Re

n 
Je

n 
Je

o 
Jn
 

Je
m 

Jo
n 

J 
en 

No
n 

Na
n 

Ne
w 

Ne
w 

Ne
on
 
Ne

m 
No

n 
Ne

o 
Ne

mo
 
Ne
 

J 
eo 

¥ 
=n 

] 

100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 64 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - PROJECT CONCERN 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 457,884 18.29 100.00 
§& AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
&0 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119° ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 457,884 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: : CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 7 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - PROJECT CONCERN 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 486,566 18.97 100.00 
& AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
60 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 

~ 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
56 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY BILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
166 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
166 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 686,566 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE Q& 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - PROJECT CONCERN 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 485,205 19.22 100.00 & AVON 0 0 0 
11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
640 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
96 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
166 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 485,205 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00, 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 99 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 
GRANT NAME: E.E.R.A - PROJECT CONCERN 

TOWN TOWN GRANT | BRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 
66 HARTFORD 495,914 19.62 100.00 4 AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 . 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 495,914 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURDS 0 0.00 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: 
04/15/91 

3% 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBU 
(EXCLUDING HA 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECTS 

GRANT PER 

GRANT NAME: 

RBS 
RTFORD) 

GRANT x 
1983-84 

1,304,983 
189,387 
59,480 
14,850 
33,549 

267,100 
50,398 
43,329 

401,871 
124,435 
11,080 

645,784 
59,310 

759,874 
134,267 
230,112 
58,491 

144,817 
236,894 
91,528 

229,730 
54,467 

5,145,736 

3,840,753 

Includes Principal and Interest payments. 

PUPIL 

53. 
91 

54. 

15 
.49 
.94 
95 
52 
76 
.44 
.96 
.74 
35 
.08 
G1 
«B87 
.80 
.54 
.40 
.87 
. 30 
.85 
.92 
.64 
+72 

68 

pace | 00 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

25. 

—
 

a
 

J 
~
 

oD
 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

oo
 
H
O
=
D
N
-
E
L
A
N
D
O
D
E
N
O
N
N
O
O
U
I
O
O
N
 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 1a 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECTS 

TOWN GRANT x GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
NAME 1984-85 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

* 

HARTFORD 
‘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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBU 
(EXCLUDING HA 

1,312,555 
181,778 
66,683 
6,683 

32,009 
188,017 
49,678 
41,664 

389,082 
123,523 
10,741 

615,226 
31,348 

692,281 
115,384 
223,099 
57,860 

142,607 
232,719 
178,645 
200,074 
53,569 

4,945,285 

RBS 3,632,730 
RTFORD) 

Includes Principal and Interest payments. 

26. 
.68 
. 95 
.14 
.65 
.80 

Pd
 

oo
 

~
 

WN
 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.007. 

H
D
O
D
W
D
N
=
D
O
A
N
D
O
N
O
N
N
O
W
O
 

O
W
 

54 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | ( 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECTS 

TOWN TOWN GRANT x GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1985-86 PUPIL OF TOTAL 
66 HARTFORD 1,500,494 61.05 29.92 G AVON 174,169 84.61 3.47 11 BLOOMFIELD 116,621 43.62 2.33 23 CANTON 5,573 6.72 0.11 40 EAST GRANBY 30,470 45.85 0.61 43 EAST HARTFORD 234,432 36.57 4.68 47 EAST WINDSOR 48,958 38.87 0.98 48 ELLINGTON 20,6459 11.02 0.41 52 FARMINGTON 355,157 147.13 7.08 546 GLASTONBURY 121,480 26.31 2.642 56 GRANBY 82,012 51.60 1.64 77 MANCHESTER 590,614 84.99 11.77 94 NEWINGTON 26,267 6.74 0.52 119 ROCKY HILL 679,532 376.89 13.55 128 SIMSBURY 116,663 27.71 2.28 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 194,500 56.40 3.88 139 SUFFIELD 5,686 3.49 0.11 146 VERNON 122,168 26.69 2.46 155 WEST HARTFORD 238,775 32.36 46.76 159 WETHERSFIELD 126,830 61.77 2.53 166 WINDSOR 193,660 48.17 3.86 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 32,452 18.98 0.65 

TOTAL 5,014,570 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 3,516,076 52.21 70.08 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

¥ Includes Principal and Interest pavments. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 
-~ 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 3 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECTS 

TOWN TOWN GRANT x GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 1,616,812 646.59 31.52 
4 AVON 181,479 85.00 3.54 

11 BLOOMFIELD 111,267 62.72 e.17 
23 CANTON 6,463 3.74 0.09 
40 EAST GRANBY 28,500 91.61 0.56 
43 EAST HARTFORD 176,485 29.02 3.4644 
47 EAST WINDSOR 48,238 37.19 0.94 
48 ELLINGTON 18,794 10.22 0.37 
52 FARMINGTON 362,769 136.00 6.68 
54 GLASTONBURY 231,624 50.30 4.52 
56 GRANBY 144,002 90.74 2.81 
77 MANCHESTER 571,392 81.25 11.14 
96 NEWINGTON 21,186 5.49 0.41 

119, ROCKY HiLlL 647,721 355.60 12.63 
128 SIMSBURY 1,125 0.27 0.02 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 131,571 37.18 2.56 
139 SUFFIELD 33,529 19.57 0.65 
146 VERNON 60,010 8.82 0.78 
155 WEST HARTFORD 179,741 26.22 2.50 
159 WETHERSFIELD 243,600 80.5) 4.75 
164 WINDSOR 326,124 78.38 6.32 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 31,554 18.89 0.62 

TOTAL 5,129,986 100.02 

COMBINED SUBURBS 3,513,174 52.11 68.43 

* 

(EXCLUDING HA RTFORD) 

Includes Principal and Interest payments. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | O04 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECTS 

TOWN TOWN GRANT x GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 1,536,306 59.89 32.22 % AVON 192,379 91.83 4.04 11 BLOOMFIELD 109,605 42.71 2-30 23 CANTON 95,056 79.27 1.99 G0 EAST GRANBY 7,591 31.1) 0.16 63 EAST HARTFORD 177,950 30.08 3.73 G7 EAST WINDSOR 50,405 38.59 1.06 G8 ELLINGTON 17,169 9.16 0.36 52 FARMINGTON 298,186 115.51 6.25 54 GLASTONBURY 62,121 8.95 0.88 56 GRANBY 137,420 80.13 2.88 77 MANCHESTER 544,839 78.37 11.43 94 NEWINGTON 16,106 6.14 0.34 119 ROCKY HILL 606,649 332.23 12.72 128 SIMSBURY 163,035 60.65 3.42 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 56,721 15.59 1.19 139 SUFFIELD 52,6418 30.21 }. 10 146 VERNON 38,869 8.82 0.82 155 WEST HARTFORD 205,883 28.05 6.32 159 WETHERSFIELD 158,314 52.66 3.32 164 WINDSOR 251,156 59.08 5.27 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 9,574 5.78 0.20 

TOTAL 6,767,752 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 2,231,645 68.11 67.78 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

¥ Includes Principal and Interest payments. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | ( 5 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECTS 

TOWN TOWN : GRANT x GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

6% HARTFORD 1,672,878 66.26 27.45 4 AVON 176,459 84.52 2.86 11 BLOOMFIELD 180,770 71.99% 2.97 235 CANTON 90,894 74.03 1.49 40 EAST GRANBY 6,051 8.82 0.10 43 EAST HARTFORD 307,698 53.17 5.05 47 EAST WINDSOR 316,668 2646.95 5.20 48 ELLINGTON 15,544 8.20 0.26 52 FARMINGTON 285,796 108.23 4.69 54 GLASTONBURY 96,126 20.63 1.58 56 GRANBY 130,837 87.98 2.15 77 MANCHESTER 610,124 89.90 10.01 94 NEWINGTON 11,025 2.88 0.18 119 ROCKY HILL 639,346 345.87 10.49 128 SIMSBURY 286,836 73.13 6.71 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 85,324 48.58 1.40 146 VERNON 335,426 79.08 5.50 155 WEST HARTFORD 253,828 34.54 6.17 159 WETHERSFIELD 165,596 55.34 2.72 164 WINDSOR 420,357 99:11 6.90 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 8,677 5.29 0.14 

TOTAL 6,094,260 100.02 

COMBINED SUBURBS 4,421,382 66.4646 72.55 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

¥ Includes Principal and Interest pavments. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECTS 

PAGE [0 ¢€ 
REPORT DATE: 

04/15/91 

3% 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBURBS 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

GRANT x 
1989-90 

2,183,484 
340,835 
141,722 
87,481 
4,511 

621,545 
319,697 
137,340 
287,035 
194,351 
124,250 

1,057,920 
289,756 
610,137 
218,771 
39,600 
44,828 

766,481 
1,351,843 

162,551 
388,260 
57,454 

9,209,852 

7,026,368 

Includes Principal and Interest payments. 

GRANT PER 
PUPIL 

86.37 
165.86 

.44 

.94 
59 
.88 
ol 
.90 
.47 
+69 
.58 
.38 
.86 
.68 
29 
72 
.63 
13 
61 
.68 
.99 
67 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

23. 

-
 

bt
 

<
 
O
L
H
D
O
O
O
N
O
N
W
H
 

I
R
N
 
W
W
D
 

O
O
 

W
W
 

[)
 

oo
 

~
 

on
 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%.  



RE 

%* 

% %k 

PORT DATE: 
04/22/91 

GRANT NAME: COMBINED SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECTS 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 1, 
AVON ¥, 
BLOOMFIELD 
CANTON 
EAST GRANBY 
EAST HARTFORD ¥, 
EAST WINDSOR - 
ELLINGTON 
FARMINGTON 2, 
GLASTONBURY 
GRANBY 
MANCHESTER 4, 
NEWINGTON 
ROCKY HILL 4, 
SIMSBURY 1, 
SOUTH WINDSOR 
SUFFIELD 
VERNON , 
WEST HARTFORD 2, 
WETHERSFIELD y, 
WINDSOR 2, 
WINDSOR LOCKS 

TOTAL 40, 

COMBINED SUBURBS 29, 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

GRANT 
* 

127,532 
434,486 
186,148 
305,000 
142,681 
173,227 
884,042 
294,299 
359,896 
933,660 
640,342 
635,699 
454,998 
635,540 
033,881 
875,603 
338,134 
570,378 
699,743 
127,064 
007,361 
247,747 

307,441 

179,929 

GRANT P 
PUPIL 

63. 
98 
43. 
35, 
29. 
40. 
98, 
22, 

133, 
28. 
59. 
85, 
6, 

359. 
35. 
3s, 
28. 
49 
52. 
52 
69 
20. 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
BUREAU OF GRANTS roc 

ER 
wk 

84 
.18 
24 
87 
95 
50 
07 
52 
19 
56 
61 
22 
45 
65 
97 
11 
38 
47 
20 

.19 
«25 
67 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

nN
 

O
P
N
O
W
O
M
N
N
—
~
—
 

a
o
d
 
N
U
V
O
N
D
O
D
 
=
 

.b1 

. 56 

.95 

. 76 
35 
.40 
.19 
73 
.85 
«32 
.59 
.50 
13 
. 50 

. 5b 

. 84 

.90 

.70 

.80 

.98 

.61 

.00 

. 39 

Total School Construction Grant Payments 1983-84 thru 1989-90. 
Grant Per Pupil equals Combined Grant divided by the 
Combined ADM 1983-84 thru 1989-90. 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%.  



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE [CX 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: TELECOMMUNICATION INCENTIVE 

  

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 7,500 0.30 35.97 
4 AVON : 

11 BLOOMFIELD 
23 CANTON 
40 EAST GRANBY 
43 EAST HARTFORD 
47 EAST WINDSOR 
48 ELLINGTON 
52 FARMINGTON 
56 GLASTONBURY 
56 GRANBY 
77 MANCHESTER 1,95 
94 NEWINGTON - 

119 ROCKY HILL 
128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
139 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 
155 WEST HARTFORD 11,400 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 
164 WINDSOR 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 

TOTAL 20,850 100.00 

oo
 

Nn
 

00
] 

0
 

O
O
O
O
 
O
O
D
O
C
O
D
O
D
O
O
O
D
O
D
O
O
O
D
 

C
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
:
 
O
O
O
O
 
O
O
O
O
D
 

WW
 

wm
 

ed
 

C
O
O
:
 

O
O
O
O
 

O
D
:
 

O
O
O
O
 
O
O
O
O
D
O
D
O
 

54 54.68 

[e
n 

en
 

J 
an 

COMBINED SUBURBS 13,350 0.20 646.03 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE [04 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: TELECOMMUNICATION INCENTIVE 

  

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 
69 HARTFORD 4,800 0.19 16.61 % AVON 
11 BLOOMFIELD 
23 CANTON 
40 EAST GRANBY 
43 EAST HARTFORD 
47 EAST WINDSOR 
48 ELLINGTON 
52 FARMINGTON 
54 GLASTONBURY 
56 GRANBY 
77 MANCHESTER 8,10 
94 NEWINGTON 

119 ROCKY HILL 
128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
139 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 
155 WEST HARTFORD 
159 WETHERSFIELD 
166 WINDSOR 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 

o
 

(e
m 

le
m 

Je
m 

Ho
m 

Ho
w 

Nm
 

Ne
w 

¥ 
co
 
N=
 

X 

[—
 

O
O
O
:
 

O
C
O
O
O
D
O
:
 

O
O
O
O
 

O
D
O
O
O
 

17 28.03 

C
O
O
 
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
D
D
O
O
D
O
O
D
O
D
O
O
O
D
 

[=
 

Ne
m 

J 
on 

ll 
an 

Jf 
ou 

No
n 

] 

—
 

oN
 

18 55.36 J oo
 

o
 

o
o
 nN
 

[=
= 

Nl 
am 

Nl 
a 

TOTAL 28,900 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 24,100 0.36 83.39 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

- Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.003. 

 



‘REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | / (0 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 
GRANT NAME: TELECOMMUNICATION INCENTIVE 

  

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER . PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 
4 AVON 

11 BLOOMFIELD 
23 CANTON 
40 EAST GRANBY 
43 EAST HARTFORD 
47 EAST WINDSOR 
48 ELLINGTON 
52 FARMINGTON 
54 GLASTONBURY 
56 GRANBY 
77 MANCHESTER 
94 NEWINGTON 

119 ROCKY HILL 
128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
139 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 
155 WEST HARTFORD 
159 WETHERSFIELD 
164 WINDSOR 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 

TOTAL 

oO
 

C
O
C
O
 
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
D
O
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
D
 

=
=
=
 

Re
 

Ye
 

Je
 

Jo
 

Jo
m 

No
m 

No
w 

No
w 

Ne
w 

Ne
m 

Ne
o 

Ne
w 

Ne
 

We
e 

Ke
 

Ro
o 

No
m 
N
=
 

C
O
O
 
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
D
O
O
D
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
®
 

oO
 

oO
o 

<y
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE ) // 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: TELECOMMUNICATION INCENTIVE 
TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 0 0 0 4 AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 60 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 5 GLASTONBURY 16,000 3.43 64.32 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 7,877 1.16 31.66 94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 164 WINDSOR 1,000 0.23 4.02 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 
TOTAL 264,877 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 264,877 0.37 100.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00:.. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: EXTENDED DAY KINDERGARTEN 

pace | / & 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL 

HARTFORD 111,954 6.36 AVON 0 
BLOOMFIELD 19,822 7.72 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 

TOTAL 186,261 

o
 

Lo
m 
N
o
n
 

J 
on

} 

O
O
O
O
 

O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
D
 

15
) 

nN
 

fo
 

©
 

Sa
} 

~
 

oo
 

O
O
O
:
 
O
O
O
O
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 72,307 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

OF TOTAL 

60.76 

10.76 

C
O
O
 

O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
D
O
 

Q
Q
 

[o
m 

J 
an 

J 
om 

) 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE [13 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: EXTENDED DAY KINDERGARTEN 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 146,307 5.79 49.38 4 AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 30,000 5.18 10.12 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 30,000 11.36 10.12 54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 94 NEWINGTON 30,000 7.82 1.22 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 60,000 8.16 20.25 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 296,397 99.99 

COMBINED SUBURBS 150,000 2.25 50.62 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



i 

  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 114 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: EXTENDED DAY KINDERGARTEN 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 119,587 4.73 55.11) 4 AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 22,500 3.94 10.37 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 37,500 13.52 17.28 54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 94 NEWINGTON 37,400 9.66 17.24 © 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 166 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 216,987 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 97,400 1.46 44.89 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE ¥ 5 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: SUMMER SCHOOL INCENTIVE 

  

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1985-86 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 59,111 2.61 100.00 %& AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 56 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 166 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 59,11] 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00... 

 



  

REPORT DATE: 
04/15/91 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBU 
(EXCLUDING HA 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: SUMMER SCHOOL INCENTIVE 

GRANT GRANT PER 
1986-87 PUPIL 

846,376 3.37 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 

19,987 4.84 
0 0 
0 0 

41,598 9.17 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 

145,961 

RBS 61,585 0.91 RTFORD) 

pace [1G 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

57.81 

C
O
O
 
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
D
 

13.69 

o
o
 

28.50 

[e
m 

No
m 

J 
on 

J 
on
] 

100.00 

42.19 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION pace [17 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: SUMMER SCHOOL INCENTIVE 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 86,935 3.39 58.11 
4 AVON 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 
23 CANTON 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 
56 GRANBY 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 

6 

  

119 "ROCKY HILL 
128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
139 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 62,66 
155 WEST HARTFORD 
159 WETHERSFIELD 
164 WINDSOR 
165 WINDSCR LOCKS 

TOTAL 149,59 

O
O
O
O
 

O
0
O
O
o
O
O
o
O
O
C
O
L
O
O
D
O
D
O
D
O
D
O
D
D
D
 

C
O
O
 

O
0
O
O
0
O
O
o
D
C
D
O
L
O
D
O
L
O
O
L
O
D
O
L
O
D
O
O
O
D
O
O
D
 

14.22 41.89 

[=
= 

on
 

Na
n 

J 
ce 

) 

O
0
0
 O
 

100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 62,661 0.93 41.89 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: 
04/15/91 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBU 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE / Lf BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: SUMMER SCHOOL INCENTIVE 

GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

75,596 2.99 61.12 

O
C
O
O
0
O
O
D
O
0
O
O
D
O
O
D
O
O
D
O
O
O
O
D
O
O
D
O
O
D
O
 

C
O
O
 
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
C
D
O
O
D
O
O
O
D
O
D
O
O
O
 

11.34 38.88 

O
C
C
 

(e
n 
o
n
a
n
 

J 
an 

| 

RBS 48,090 0.72 38.88 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to roundi ng total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 119 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: SUMMER SCHOOL INCENTIVE 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD 1.94 53.34 
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 

TOTAL 91,775 

oH
 

0)
 

O
 

un
 

o
 

’ 

(o
n 

Je
m 

Je
m 

Je
m 

J 
co 

Ne
m 

Ra
w 

Ja
n 

Je
m 

No
oo

 
Wo

o 
J 

eo
 
Wo

n 
JW 

oo
 
Wo

m 
Wo

m}
 

C
O
O
 
O
0
O
0
C
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
L
O
O
D
 

C
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
o
O
L
D
O
O
®
 

oH
 

Nn
 

0]
 

nN
 

o
o
w
u
m
 

se
e 

3 
oe 

J 
com

 J
 

ow
n 

S
O
O
 

COMBIKED SUBURBS 42,825 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | 2C 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 
GRANT NAME: YOUNG PARENTS PROGRAM 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1985-86 PUPIL OF TOTAL 
64 HARTFORD 17,341 0.71 100.00 G4 AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 60 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 56 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 96 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 166 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 17,341 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE / pi 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: YOUNG PARENTS PROGRAM 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 25,940 1.04 63.36 
& AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 
23 CANTON 15,000 12.58 36.64 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
96 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 40,940 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 15,000 0.22 36.64 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE / 22 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: YOUNG PARENTS PROGRAM 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 30,328 1.18 100.00 & AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 68 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 - SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WVWETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 30,328 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION : PAGE 23 06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: YOUNG PARENTS PROGRAM 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 26,679 1.06 100.00 4% AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 @0 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 159 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 166 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 26,679 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE / >4 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: YOUNG PARENTS PROGRAM 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD 21,000 0.83 58.33 AVON 0 
BLOOMFIELD 0 
CANTON 0 
EAST GRANBY 0 
EAST HARTFORD 0 
EAST WINDSOR 0 
ELLINGTON 0 
FARMINGTON 0 
GLASTONBURY 0 
GRANBY 0 
MANCHESTER 0 
NEWINGTON 0 
ROCKY HILL 0 
SIMSBURY 0 
SOUTH WINDSOR 0 
SUFFIELD 0 
VERNON 15,000 
WEST HARTFORD 0 
WETHERSFIELD 0 
WINDSOR 0 
WINDSOR LOCKS 0 

0 TOTAL 36,00 

O
O
O
O
 
0
C
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
D
 

WN
 

O
C
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
:
 
O
C
O
O
O
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
 

(e
m 

Ne
m 

J 
oo 

J 
cn 

COMBINED SUBURBS 15,000 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: PRIMARY MENTAL HEALTH 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER 
NAME 1986-87 PUPIL 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL OO
 
O
0
0
 

O
O
O
O
O
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
®
 

O
O
O
O
 

O
D
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

PAGE | 25 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

C
O
O
 
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
D
D
O
O
O
O
O
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

o
 
o
 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | pa 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: PRIMARY MENTAL HEALTH 

   
TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 
4 AVON 

11 BLOOMFIELD 
23 CANTON 
40 EAST GRANBY 
43 EAST HARTFORD 
47 EAST WINDSOR 
48 ELLINGTON 
52 FARMINGTON 
54 GLASTONBURY 
56 GRANBY 
77 MANCHESTER 
964 NEWINGTON 

1194.ROCKY HILL 
128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
139 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 
155 WEST HARTFORD 
159 WETHERSFIELD 
164 WINDSOR 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 

TOTAL : 5,50 

C
O
O
 
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
o
O
O
D
O
O
L
O
D
O
O
L
O
O
O
O
 

(5
) 

$4
] 

oo
 

51 100.00 

O
O
O
O
 

O
0
0
 

O
O
O
O
 
O
D
O
O
L
O
D
O
O
L
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
 

oO
 

(=
= 

Ne
m 

J 
con

 
J 

can 
Bl
ow
 

J 
on 

J
s
 

Ne
m 

J 
eo 

J 
co 

J 
com

 
cn
 

Wo
n 

J 
a 

J 
ee 

Wo
 

Ne
on
 
We
m 

Nm
 

Wo
 

We
e 

| 

C
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
 

100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 5,500 0.08 100.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | & 7 04/15/91 "BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 
GRANT NAME: PRIMARY MENTAL HEALTH 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 
4% AVON 

11 BLOOMFIELD 
23 CANTON 
40 EAST GRANBY 
43 EAST HARTFORD 
47 EAST WINDSOR 
48 ELLINGTON 
52 FARMINGTON 
54 GLASTONBURY 
56 GRANBY 
77 MANCHESTER 
96 NEWINGTON 

119 ROCKY HILL 
128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
139 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 
155 WEST HARTFORD 
159 WETHERSFIELD 
1664 WINDSOR 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 

TOTAL 7,00 

  

C
O
O
 
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
 

~
 

-
 oo
 

oJ
 

0
 

o
 100.00 

O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
:
 
O
O
O
O
 

oo
 
O
O
O
O
 

D
O
D
O
 
O
0
O
D
O
O
O
D
O
O
L
O
O
L
O
O
O
D
 

(e
n 

Ne
o 

Ne
w 

N
o
 

No
n 

J 
om 

} 

100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 7,000 0.11 100.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | > 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: PRIMARY MENTAL HEALTH 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 
% AVON 

11 BLOOMFIELD 
23 CANTON 
40 EAST GRANBY 
43 EAST HARTFORD 
47 EAST WINDSOR 
48 ELLINGTON 
52 FARMINGTON 
54 GLASTONBURY 
56 GRANBY 
77 MANCHESTER 
94 NEWINGTON 

119 ROCKY HILL 
128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
139 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 
155 WEST HARTFORD 
159 WETHERSFIELD 
1664 WINDSOR 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 

TOTAL 8,50 

   

O
C
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
D
 

(0 
] 

(9
) 

oo
 

30 100.00 

O
O
O
O
 

O
D
O
:
 
D
O
O
D
 

O
O
O
O
O
O
D
 

<<
 

C
O
 
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
D
O
0
O
O
0
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
D
 

(=
= 

Ne
 

J 
ow 

J 
con 

Nf 
cm 

J 

100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 8,500 0.13 100.00" 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE [ 29 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: DROP OUT PREVENTION PROGRAM 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER . PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 74,829 2.92 78.77 %& AVON 0 
11 BLOOMFIELD 0 
23 CANTON 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 20,165 3 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 
56 GRANBY 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 
964 NEWINGTON 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 
; 0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

   

(=
F 

N
J
 

G1 21.23 

128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
139 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 
155 WEST HARTFORD 
159 WETHERSFIELD 
164 WINDSOR 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 

O
O
O
O
 
O
O
0
O
D
O
O
0
O
D
D
O
O
O
O
O
D
:
 
O
O
O
O
 

C
O
O
 
O
0
O
0
O
D
O
D
O
O
O
D
O
O
O
 

TOTAL 96,994 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 20,165 0.30 21.23 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 30 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING : 

GRANT NAME: DROP OUT PREVENTION PROGRAM 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD 89,795 3.56 76.75 AVON 0 
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 

TOTAL 

o
o
o
 o
 

oH
 

O
C
O
O
0
O
O
0
:
 

O
C
O
D
 
O
O
O
O
O
D
O
D
:
 

O
O
O
O
 

o
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equzl 100.00:. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 13 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: .DROP OUT PREVENTION PROGRAM 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1989-90 PUPIL ~ OF TOTAL 
64 HARTFORD 0 0 0 4 AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 56 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS C 0.00 0 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | 3 

04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: CHILD NUTRITION STATE MATCH 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1983-84 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 MHARTFORD 182,146 7.50 39.19 
& AVON 10,168 4.91 2.19 

11 BLOOMFIELD 15,886 5.86 3.4642 
23 CANTON 4,855 3.92 1.04 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 22,095 3.12 4.75 
47 EAST WINDSOR 5,856 4.47 1.26 
48 ELLINGTON 9,190 4.87 1.95 
52 FARMINGTON 12,594 5.26 2.71 
54 GLASTONBURY 22,622 4.72 4.87 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 29,697 4.16 6.39 
94 NEWINGTON 13,569 3.17 2.92 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 15,329 3.49 3.30 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 13,248 3.17 2.85 
139 SUFFIELD 6,552 3.91 1.41 
146 VERNON : , 19,613 3.97 4.22 
155 WEST HARTFORD 38,427 5.17 8.27 
159 WETHERSFIELD 16,456 5.02 3.54 
164 WINDSOR 16,799 4.14 S.61 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 9,682 5.11 2.08 

TOTAL 466,784 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 282,638 6.02. 60.81 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 1:33 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: CHILD NUTRITION STATE MATCH 

   
TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1984-85 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 182,025 7.51 38.47 
4 AVON 9,832 4.86 2.10 

11 BLOOMFIELD 15,111 5.71 5.19 
23 CANTON 5,010 4.14 1.06 
60 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 27,569 4.05 5.83 
47 EAST WINDSOR 5,878 49.67 1.24 
48 ELLINGTON 8,585 G.62 1.81 
52 FARMINGTON 12,643 5.28 2.67 
54 GLASTONBURY 23,101 6.97 4.88 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 30,267 4.29 6.40 
964 NEWINGTON 14,532 3.61 ; 3.07 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 15,817 3.70 3.349 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 13,504 3.949 2.85 
139 SUFFIELD 6,743 4.10 1.42 
146 VERNON 19,735 6.11 4.17 
155 WEST HARTFORD 40,710 5.54 8.60 
159 WETHERSFIELD 16,191 5.23 3.4642 
164 WINDSOR 16,6493 6.11 3.49 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 9,366 5.20 1.98 

TOTAL 473,212 99.99 

COMBINED SUBURBS 291,187 6.26 é).53 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | 34% 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: CHILD NUTRITION STATE MATCH 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1985-86 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 185,054 7.53 38.36 
4 AVON 10,087 4.90 2.09 

11 BLOOMFIELD 14,040 5.25 2.91 
23 CANTON 5,250 6.45 1.09 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 

- 43 EAST HARTFORD 31,764 6.96 6.58 
@7 "EAST WINDSOR 5,580 6.43 1.16 
48 ELLINGTON 9,214 6.96 1.91 
52 FARMINGTON 13,363 5.54 2.77 
56 GLASTONBURY 23,783 5.15 4.93 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 30,711 4.42 6.37 
94 NEWINGTON 15,438 3.96 3.20 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 16,757 S57 3.06 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 14,990 4.35 3.11 
139 SUFFIELD 6,280 3.86 1.30 
146 VERNON 18,269 3.99 3.79 
155 WEST HARTFORD 43,877 5.95 9.09 
159 - WETHERSFIELD 15,208 5.0] 315 
166 WINDSOR 15,6465 3:85 S21 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 9,312 5.45 1.93 

TOTAL 482,642 100.01 

COMBINED SUBURBS 297,388 6.62 61.64 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION pace | 3 5 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 
GRANT NAME: CHILD NUTRITION STATE MATCH 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 
64 HARTFORD 176,990 7.07 39.36 4 AVON 10,391 4.87 2.31 11 BLOOMFIELD 15,584 5.98 3.47 23 CANTON 5,262 4.41 1.17 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 6,537 1.07 1.45 47 EAST WINDSOR 5,415 4.17 1.20 48 ELLINGTON 8,971 4.88 1.99 52 FARMINGTON 13,974 5.54 3.13 54 GLASTONBURY 26,361 5.29 5.642 56 GRANBY | 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 28,6404 4.06 6.32 96 NEWINGTON 16,018 4.15 3.56 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 12,164 2.95 2.70 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 16,170 © 4.57 3.60 139 SUFFIELD 6,882 6.02 1.53 166 VERNON 18,892 6.17 4.20 155 WEST HARTFORD 44,101 5.94 9.81 159 WETHERSFIELD 15,100 6.99 3.36 166 WINDSOR 15,443 3.73 3.43 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 9,059 5.642 2.01 

TOTAL 449,718 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 272,728 4.06 60.64 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal -100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE § 3% BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: CHILD NUTRITION STATE MATCH 

GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 

04/15/91 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBURBS 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

GRANT 
1987-88 

171,290 
9,997 

16,000 
5,315 

0 
31,917 
5,491 
8,478 

14,725 
26,115 

0 
28,488 
17,299 

0 
12,459 
18,185 
8,098 

20,346 
45,015 
14,659 
15,797 
9,088 

678,762 

307,472 

PUPIL OF TOTAL 

.68 35.78 
e.09 
3.34 
1.11 

0 
6.67 

5 
H
W
W
O
 
D
W
N
 

Pd
 

po
n 

[8
 

Ba
l 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00.  



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE ] 3 7 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: CHILD NUTRITION STATE MATCH 

GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 

04/15/91 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBURBS 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

GRANT 
1988-89 

167,932 
9,433 

16,296 
5,097 

0 
32,031 
5,502 
8,226 

13,928 
24,303 

0 
26,6489 
18,637 

0 
12,770 
19,596 
8,822 

19,892 
43,772 
15,882 
16,96) 
8,667 

474,236 

306,304 

PUPIL 

m
a
a
a
n
 

Ww
 

OF TOTAL 

.65 35.41 
1.99 
3.44 
1.07 

0 
6.75 

NO
 
H
U
W
W
O
D
=
D
N
 

0
 

(= 
8 

No
 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 135 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: CHILD NUTRITION STATE MATCH 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 169,221 6.69 36.36 4 AVON 9,103 6.43 1.96 11 BLOOMFIELD 16,399 6.65 3.52 23 CANTON 5,248 4.20 1.13 < 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 31,032 5.44 6.67 47 EAST WINDSOR 5,371 4.13 1.15 48 ELLINGTON 7,528 4.05 1.62 52 FARMINGTON 12,976 4.68 2.19 + 54 GLASTONBURY 22,555 4.84 4.85 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 23,690 3.50 5.09 94 NEWINGTON 19,382 5.01 4.16 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 12,6437 3.20 2.67 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 19,107 5.17 6.11 139 SUFFIELD 8,012 4.55 1.72 146 VERNON 19,913 6.69 4.28 155 WEST HARTFORD 66,207 5.949 9.50 .159 WETHERSFIELD 13,512 4.63 2.90 164 WINDSOR 17,309 4.06 Ile 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 8,413 5.22 1.81 

TOTAL 465,415 100.01 

COMBINED SUBURBS 296,194 4.45 63.64 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | 35 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: PRIORITY SCHOOLS DISTRICTS 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1984-85 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 447,000 18.45 100.00 
& AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 467,000 100.00 

COMDINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | 4C 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: PRIORITY SCHOOLS DISTRICTS 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1985-86 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 476,200 19.29 100.00 & AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 96 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 674,200 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



2 » 

  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE 4] 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: PRIORITY SCHOOLS DISTRICTS 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1986-87 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

66 HARTFORD 505,859 20.21 100.00 4 AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 0 0 0 23 CANTON 0 0 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 43 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 9. 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 56 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 96 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 166 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS: 0 0 0 

TOTAL 505,859 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 0 0.00 0.00 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | 4 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: PRIORITY SCHOOLS DISTRICTS 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE CODE NAME 1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 
649 HARTFORD 531,015 20.70 91.96 4 AVON 0 0 0 11 BLOOMFIELD 46,420 18.09 8.04 23 CANTON 0 0 0 40 EAST GRANBY 0 go 0 G63 EAST HARTFORD 0 0 0 47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 54 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 56 GRANBY 0 0 0 77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 96 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 146 VERNON 0 0 0 155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 166 WINDSOR 0 0 0 165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 577,635 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 46,6420 0.69 8.04 (EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: PRIORITY SCHOOLS DISTRICTS 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

HARTFORD 527,856 20.91 72.04 
AVON 0 
BLOOMFIELD 80,935 32.23 11.05 
CANTON 0 
EAST GRANBY 0 
EAST HARTFORD 123,897 21.41 16.91 
EAST WINDSOR 
ELLINGTON 
FARMINGTON 
GLASTONBURY 
GRANBY 
MANCHESTER 
NEWINGTON 
ROCKY HILL 
SIMSBURY 
SOUTH WINDSOR 
SUFFIELD 
VERNON 
WEST HARTFORD 
WETHERSFIELD 
WINDSOR 
WINDSOR LOCKS 

TOTAL 732,688 

o
 

@
 

o
o
 

(=
 
N
=
 

(e
m 

No
w 

No
n 

J 
eo 

J 
con 

No
 

J 
cos

 
J 

con
 

lo
on
 

No
w 

J 
co 

J 
en 

J 
oe 

J 
com 

No
o 

We
m 

O
O
O
O
 
O
O
0
C
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
D
O
O
O
O
O
 

O
C
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
L
O
O
L
O
D
O
O
O
 O
O
 

COMBINED SUBURES 204,832 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE | 44 04/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: PRIORITY SCHOOLS DISTRICTS 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1989-90 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 628,219 24.85 77.82 
4 AVON 0 0 0 

11 BLOOMFIELD 43,086 17.46 5.34 
23 CANTON 0 0 0 
40 EAST GRANBY 0 0 0 
43 EAST HARTFORD 135,942 23.83 16.84 
47 EAST WINDSOR 0 0 0 
48 ELLINGTON 0 0 0 
52 FARMINGTON 0 0 0 
564 GLASTONBURY 0 0 0 
56 GRANBY 0 0 0 
77 MANCHESTER 0 0 0 
94 NEWINGTON 0 0 0 

119 ROCKY HILL 0 0 0 
128 SIMSBURY 0 0 0 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 0 0 0 
139 SUFFIELD 0 0 0 
146 VERNON 0 0 0 
155 WEST HARTFORD 0 0 0 
159 WETHERSFIELD 0 0 0 
164 WINDSOR 0 0 0 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 0 0 0 

TOTAL 807,247 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 179,028 2.69 22.18 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

A ® 
REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: STATE SCHOOL BREAKFAST 

TOWN GRANT GRANT PER 
NAME 1986-87 PUPIL 

HARTFORD 59,774 2.39 
AVON 
BLOOMFIELD 
CANTON 
EAST GRANBY 
EAST HARTFORD 
EAST WINDSOR 
ELLINGTON 
FARMINGTON 
GLASTONBURY 
GRANBY 
MANCHESTER 7,05 
NEWINGTON 
ROCKY HILL 
SIMSBURY 
SOUTH WINDSOR 
SUFFIELD 
VERNON 
WEST HARTFORD 
WETHERSFIELD 
WINDSOR 
WINDSOR LOCKS 

TOTAL 66,83 

00 

pt
 

C
O
O
 
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
N
O
O
O
D
O
D
O
O
D
O
O
O
O
O
 

O
C
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
D
0
:
 

C
O
O
O
L
 
O
O
L
O
O
O
O
 

COMBINED SUBURBS 7,057 0.10 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

pace | 45 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

89.44 

[=
= 

Je
m 

Je
m 

Je
o 

Na
m 

Jo
m 

No
w 

No
w 

J 
= 

¥ 

10.56 

[e
n 

Ja
n 

Ho
n 

J 
on 

Ne
w 

No
o 

J 
an 

Na
n 

J 
an 

J 
oe

] 

100.00 

10.56 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: 

04/15/91 

TOWN 
NAME 

HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBU 
(EXCLUDING HA 

Due to roundi 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION pace / Y#L 
BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: STATE SCHOOL BREAKFAST 

GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
1987-88 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

82,163 3.20 85.96 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 

6,385 1.08 6.68 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 

7,037 1.01 7.36 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 

95,585 100.00 

RBS 13,422 0.20 14.046 
RTFORD) 

ng total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



REPORT DATE: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PAGE [47] 
e 06/15/91 BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: STATE SCHOOL BREAKFAST 

TOWN TOWN GRANT GRANT PER PERCENTAGE 
CODE NAME 1988-89 PUPIL OF TOTAL 

64 HARTFORD 98,316 3.89 80.04 
4 AVON 

11 BLOOMFIELD 
23 CANTON 
40 EAST GRANBY 
43 EAST HARTFORD 
G7 EAST WINDSOR 
48 ELLINGTON 
52 FARMINGTON 
54 GLASTONBURY 
56 GRANBY 
77 MANCHESTER 14,35 
94 NEWINGTON 

119 ROCKY HILL 
128 SIMSBURY 
132 SOUTH WINDSOR 
1359 SUFFIELD 
146 VERNON 
155 WEST HARTFORD 
159 WETHERSFIELD 
164 WINDSOR 
165 WINDSOR LOCKS 

   

0
0
0
0
 

pt
 

oo
 

[—
] 

on
 

~
d
J
 

od
 

~J
 

oN
 

oo
 

nN
 

00
] 

J 

O
O
O
O
 0
:
 
O
O
O
O
 

11 11.68 

(a
 

Wa
n 

Ne
ws

 
Na

m 
No
m 

Jl 
en 

Na
n 

No
o 

J 
om 

J 
ce 

Jo
m 

Ne
w 

J 
com

 
J 

aoe
 

J 
co 

J 
om 

] 

O
O
O
O
 

O
0
O
O
0
O
0
 
D
O
D
O
 

O
O
O
O
 

C
O
O
 
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
 

TOTAL 122,833 100.00 

COMBINED SUBURBS 24,517 0.37 19.96 
(EXCLUDING HARTFORD) 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00%. 

 



   
REPORT DATE: 

06/15/91 

TOWN 
NAME 

~ HARTFORD 
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 

TOTAL 

COMBINED SUBU 
(EXCLUDING HA 

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

BUREAU OF GRANTS PROCESSING 

GRANT NAME: STATE SCHOOL BREAKFAST 

GRANT GRANT PER 

1989-90 PUPIL 

107,959 4.27 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 

6,457 1.13 
0 

0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 

6,762 1.00 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 

121,178 

RBS 13,219 0.20 

RTFORD) 

pace | 4§ 

PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 

89.09 

wm
 
0
0
0
0
 

0
0
0
0
0
 

33 

w
 

um
 

(00
) 

O
O
O
O
 

O
O
O
0
O
0
O
-
 

100.00 

10.91 

Due to rounding total of percentages may not equal 100.00. 

 



  

CV 89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, et al 
SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs J.D. HARTFORD/ 
NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD 

V. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al 

Defendants , 1991 

AFFIDAVIT OF ELLIOTT WILLIAMS 
  

I, Elliott Williams, being over the age of 18 and of sound mind, after having been duly 

sworn do hereby depose and say the following: 

1. 1 am employed as an Associate Educational Consultant for the State Department of 

Education and have been so employed since March 11, 1988. 

2. One of my responsibilities as an Associate Consultant to the State Department of 

Education is to oversee the State Department of Education's interdistrict cooperative 

grant program authorized by Connecticut General Statutes 10-74d. 

3. Attached to this affidavit are four documents describing the kinds of interdistrict 

cooperative programs which were reviewed and funded by the State Department of 

Education. 

4. These attached documents were prepared in the normal course of business and are 

maintained by the State Department of Education in the normal course of business. They 

were not prepared for, or in anticipation of, the above captioned litigation. 

 



  

The foregoing statements and the information contained on the attachments to this 
affidavit are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

    liott Williams 
Affiant 

SEstrbayan sworn to before me this a, day 
of © 1991. 

LA 

/ of) ? 
/ i / ~ / 

Lec nn” Ado IEC bea” 
Notary Public/Commissioner of the 

/ Superior Court : 
’ Vad - 

Se (pr rrem ie 

  

  

  

2d / : , Za 

AL, AL , & 37, 4g Cpl ie Er Lot 

 



——wrns ee ’, o 

1989-90 INTERDISTRICT COOPERATIVE GRANT 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING     
  

  
  

  

  

  

    

  

  

  

“8 of! 
‘Participating! §# of : : # of Yrs ! Summer/ !' Grant Award : At Applicant +_Districts !Students ' Grades ' P/I Grant ! Sch Yr °! Req./Neqotiated ACES (Area Cooperative Educational Services) :Cheshire - ! Pst : School ! ! : v ‘Purpose: To plan a comprehensive interdistrict !Naugatuck ! T80 1 180! . year ! year 1.27.29! 21,983 ‘educational program in the visual and performing Waterbury 1 : : P 4 : . : :arts beyond those presently being offered in each ‘Wolcott, Reg ! : 1 - e : . ‘of the seven (7) cooperating school districts. District #15 : : ! : : : :The program will provide educational and social ‘Reg Dist #16 ! : : : - - : ropportunities for students of high interest and ‘ACES : : A : : 3 2 ‘talent through quality instruction. ' : : : ' § co 4 ‘ACES ‘New Haven, W.! : } : ! : : : :To implement a long-term strategy for planning, Haven, Orange! TBO ! T80 : Ist : School ! 29,810 ! 29,810 2. :designing, evaluation and disseminating inter- ‘Woodbridge ! - : ! year ! ‘ . jstrict programs addressing racial/ethnic issues. !Hamden, North' : : : -1 ! : 
‘Haven, East ! 3 : : : 4 4 : ‘Haven, Derby ! : : : : 4 : : ‘Milford : : : : 4 : : ' :Ansonia, Sey-! : ! : : : y ! smour, Bethany! : : bo : : ‘ ‘ ‘Wallingford : ) : - 3 : - ‘North Bran- : a : : ! . & 
rford, ACES ) A ! : : SRR ‘Bloomfield ‘Bloomfield ! 1800 ! K-4 : Ist year ! Summer !' 69,116 ' 41,864 ° To provide a voluntary interdistrict summer school'West Hartford! ! 5-8 : | : : : : 3. experience for students from West Hartford and : 4 ! 9-12 ' ' 4 Bloomfield who need to repeat a course, earn a : ! ' : 4 : : ‘credit, or enhance their knowledge. ! : ! : : : 4 ‘Bloomfield : : : : : : + : :Project BAACDA is a Joint effort of four school ‘Bloomfield . 600 ! K-12 ! Ist year ! School 10,000 ! 55,000 / ‘districts. [It is designed to provide inter-racial!tast Granby : : | ! year : . *+ linterdistrict educational programs at'a neutral !Simsbury : : : : : : : site (Univ. of Hartford) which will provide a ‘West Hartford! : : 1 : : : :s0lid educational experience. : : : : : : ~ : @ cocoon ‘Bridgeport ! 90 ! 6-8 ! 2nd Yr. ! School ! 34,811" 34,817 ! mrogram Goal: This program will serve 90 students'Trumbul]l : - - I ! year ! : : 5. from three communities. Its focus will be to ‘Monroe : : : : : . : develop a cross cultural respect and appreciation ! : : : - : : : through shared learning and recreational experi- : : : - : ' : ‘ences. Enrichment programs will include Science, ! : - : : : : : ‘Mathematics and Social Studies. 4 : : Py dy maa! ‘Bridgeport ‘Bridgeport ! 30 ! 9-12 !(88-89 P) ! School ' 10,000 ' 10,000 y ‘To implement a mode) interdistrict education ‘Fairfield : : 189-90 { ! year : : 6. ‘program in the performing arts. Five collaborat- 'Monroe : : : ! : : : ring school districts initiated the program which 'Stratford ' 4 ' J ; - 4 .has dance as 3 Focus. ! Trumbull ' : ! y : 2 : 

ation % 
: ermined 

Er = 

 



1989-90 INTERDISTRICT COOPERATIVE GRANT 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING      

of 

  
  

        

        

  

      

  

  

    

‘Participating! # of + # of Yrs ! Summer/ ! Grant Award ; h 1. Applicant :_ Districts 'Students ' Grades ° P/1 Grant ! Sch Yr Req./Neqotiated -! . “7.0L ‘Bridgeport ! ' ' ' Program Goal: To provide support to the regional 'Fairfield + 600 !Pre K-12! 1st year ' School °° 30,000 ¢ 30,000 ‘planning team consisting of 13 district represent-!Westport : : : P 1 “year at : ! 
ratives and to plan an interdistrict early child- ‘Darien, Stam-! ! : : . . 

: hood magnet school for five school districts and ‘ford, Green- ! : : : - : 4 
six hundred (600) students to be located in ‘wich, Weston ! : : : : 3 : ‘Bridgeport. ‘Wilton, Trum-! ' : : !bull, Norwalk! ' ' ' ; 4 : : 

!New Canaan ' ' ' - ' : : ‘Monroe ' ' ! 4 : ; : 
‘Easton : y ' ' : Or MY g ‘CES: To implement a training of trainers model Bridgeport ! 850 ! K-12 (88-89 P) ! School ! 170,000 !' 10,000 “for individuals trained (1988-89) in the "World of Fairfield : 189-90 1 ! year : ' 

‘Difference® Program, and to expand the (prejudice 'Westport : : : : : ' s ‘reduction) training beyond those provided in 1988-'Darien, Stam-' : : 2 : : :89. CES would also like to implement an inter- !ford, Green- ! : y : : : ‘disciplinary "Sister Classes" program with the ‘wich, Weston ! ' : ‘ : A ) regional Maritime Center as the focal point. ‘Wilton, Trum-! : : 3 | i : 
!bull, Norwalk! : ' ' : 4 ; : 
!New Canaan ! ' : : : ; : 
!Monroe ' 4 ' ' ! 4 , ! 
‘Easton ' ! : ) . : — East Hartford !25 Schoo) ! Planning’ ! 1st year ! ' bee , 9. ‘Purpose: To apply a system approach to the plann-'Districts in-* regional! 18D . P : 180 : 30,000 * 30,vuu ; :ing/program design process; Educational System ‘cluding: . ' . - : : : ‘Planning. This process involves field-based pro- 'Bloomfield ! : : : ; : : 

‘blem solving through forums, meetings, and dis- ‘Manchester . : : : : - : 
‘cussions all of which include school personnel. ‘Windsor : : : - : 2 : ‘The objectives of the ten-month planning process 'Hartford : : : : : : dre to generate educationally sound projects that ! . : : i ! twill reduce the isolation of students. ! ! ! : . : ot aad ‘Hartford ‘Hartford :Yr 1 - 30! Pre K !(88-89 P) ! School ‘ 70,000 ® 70,000 ‘Purpose: To implement a magnet interdistrict ‘West ‘Yr 2 - 60! Age 3 ! 89-90 | year : 

] (}Hlontessori program for Early Childhood. The ‘Hartford Yr 3 - 90! : : ! I -program planning occurred in 1988-89 and is : Yr 4 -120! : - : ! ‘designed to serve minority and non-minority chilg-' : : . : : : | :ren and parents in an urban and suburban commun- : 4 4 : : : ‘ity. The 1st year of the project will be re- : : 1 : : : :stricted to children age three. ) ! i : : : ere i ‘Learn ‘East Lyme : 24,000 Pre K - !(B8-89 P) ! School 53,929! 53,09 11 Purpose: To continue the activities of three Groton, Led- ! regional! 12 ! 89-90 P/1! year ! : ‘area action teams focusing on three major areas: ‘yard, Mont- ! : : g - 3 ‘Magnet, Early Childhood and Interdistrict pro- ‘ville, New ! : s : : : ‘grams. These areas were identified as part of the!lLondon, North! : : : : !strategic planning efforts of the Regional Task !Stonington : : : . : ‘Force in 1988-89. A second objective 1s to ‘Preston ' . . : - } : establish a Multicultural Learning Center to pro- ‘Project Learn® : : : : : ; * - vide resources and professional development for !Salem, Ston- ! : : : : : ; educators and to serve as a clearing house for new'ington ! | ! ! : : | pg wet hs EERIE a a a ol, bo. ee ey 2 enilill 
  

 



1989-90 INTERDISTRICT COOPERATIVE GRANT 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING     
  

  

  

         

  

  

  

    
  

if! ‘Participating! # of '! # of Yrs ! Summer/ ! Grant Award 4 
Aunts: Wit Applicant +_ Districts ‘Students ! Grades ! P/l Grant ' Sch Yr ! Req./Neqotiated 

!Newington 125 school : : A ! ! - : 
: Purpose: To provide a summer school experience ‘districts in-! 180 '! 5-8 !(e8-89 P) ! Summer ! 170,000 ! 32,433 
2. 'for 180 middle school students, half from the city'cluding: ‘ ' 89-90 1 !' year ! ' 

‘and half suburban. The areas of instruction are: ‘Bloomfield ! : : - - : 
'1) science and math; 2) leadership training; ‘Hartford - : i : : : 
*3) cultural arts. Each program will have a re- !Manchester s : : - : 4 : 
‘creational component using urban resources. ‘West Hartford! : . : : : , 
. ‘Windsor : : : ! : : ! 
‘Newington !Newington : : - - ' : i 
‘Purpose: The proposed program is designed for ‘Hartford $30 Jif ! 1st year ! School ! 44,400 ! ; 
!implementation and will combine 250 suburban : : : : | ! year ! : ! 
cchildren with 30 urban children in 12 all day : : : ' : : : : 

fndergarten classes. Total class size will be no! A : THD ALZX*% L - 1 
greater than 20. All children in the program will! : : 1 Gh . mt Xo PVIPOOTL. TCR 
‘attend school five days cach week for a full : : : - 4 : : : 
'school day of six hour per day. : : 4 ! : : : : 
‘Reqion #10 ‘Avon, Canton ! : : : : : : 
rPurpose: To implement a staff development program!Granby, East ! 9,819 ! K-12 * Ist year ! School ! 17,600 ; 
for 1100 staff members in seven (7) towns. The ‘Granby : : : 1 ! “year } : : 
ridentified subject areas are: physical education, 'Suffield : : : : : : 
‘special education, art, music. Quality integrated'Plainville : oaxsan0] RECOMMENDED * =" ) LL amine 
‘education is not a focus of this program. "Region 10 ! ' ' GE AT ian ee 
‘RESCUE © ‘Bethel, Dan- ! : : : . : ’ 
‘Purpose: To provide an integrated educational ‘bury, Book- ! 1,100 ! 5th ! 2nd year ! School ! 69,070 '! 69,070 

‘experience, throughout the school year, for ‘field, Easton! ! Grade ! I ! ‘year : : 
13. ‘elementary school students located in the twelve 'New Fairfield! : : : : - : 

'(12) school districts which make up. the greater New Milford ! : : ! : . : 
‘Danbury area. These experiences are designed to !Newton, Redd-! : : : : ! : 
‘promote multicultural understanding, and encourage'!ing, Ridge- : : : - : : 
‘an interest in science, mathematics and the arts. 'field, Reg 12! : : a : : 
: ‘Reg 15, Sher-! . . : : - ; 

‘man : : : ] ) : : 
@.. ' Trumbull : : - : : : : 

‘Purpose: To conduct a planning process to design '€Easton, Mon- ! TBD ' 7180 T80 ! School ! : 
‘and develop a regional Alternative Education ‘roe, Fair- ! ] : ! year ! : 
‘Program for drug involved/at risk students that 'field, Strat-! : . : : : " 
'would meet identified needs including: Education ‘ford y v 32 oNOT RECOMMENDED *** me od ioneosocctmtth F cooitles cathien onset 
‘substance use, family interaction, recreation and 'Bridgeport ! ' 3 s : : 
:vocational needs. : : : : : : : 

ation 

ermined ’ 

   



1989-90 INTERDISTRICT COOPERATIVE GRANT APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING        of ! 
Participating! # of . h! Applicant r_ Districts 'Students ‘Westbrook 
Clinton 4. -Purpose: To further develop successful inter- ‘New Haven : ‘cultural learning experiences piloted in 1968-89 ‘Westbrook by the Clinton, New Haven and Westbrook Schoo) : ‘Districts. To accomplish the above, the applicant! ‘proposes a program consisting of three components: ‘1) a one semester urban/suburban soctia) studies : course which will fnvolve 120 students; 2) a three! ‘day urban/suburban exchange that will involve 120 ! ‘to 240 students in ful) day trips which will focus! ron class visits and discussions; 3) a two-day ex- ! ‘change involving 640 urban/suburban elementary ‘students in a serfes of communications exchanges. Each program will consist of 50% majority and 50% A S :minority students. 

: ‘West Hartford 
‘Hartford ‘Purpose: To undertake Planning to establish a ‘West Hartford Magnet Immersion School to be located within the ‘Glastonbury 19. ‘city of Hartford, involving a University, and ' serving equal numbers of city and suburban ‘minority and non-minority students. The planning ‘process will also focus on the development of a ccurriculym for such a program. The three school ‘superintendents will be responsible for overall ‘project direction. 

: |6. ‘Windham 
‘Windham ‘Purpose: The goal of this program is to improve !Norwich ‘minority students opportunities for success in 3 ‘school by: 1) enhancing schoo) climate in the - ‘areas of multicultural education and intergroup : relations, and 2) providing expanded student : ‘support services which will promote integration : 

[|] 

: 
' 

- # of Yrs !' Summer/ 
+ P/1 Grant ! Sch Yr 

: Grant Award [] 

' (} 

[} 

[] 

Req./Neqotiated 
] 

  
  
  

950 1st year ! Schoo) 50,000 50,000 
I 

    
  

I
W
 
I
m
o
 

m 
I
E
 

I
W
 

I
E
 

I
B
 

O
E
 

I
D
 

P
t
 

C
E
 
t
e
 

e
m
 

s
w
 

o
m
 

e
m
 

s
m
 

80-120 
P 

30,000 

    

180 School 
year 

. 2nd year 62,402 bL2,40/ 
| 

‘into mainstream programming, reduction of racial ‘isolation, and prevention of at-risk student 

' 

' 

' 

' 

 ] 

‘ 
|) 

' 
' 

: 

1 

. 
[] 

‘ 
' 

' 

! 

' 

: 

' 

[] 

' 
X 
; 
' 
' 
; 
' 
; 
| 

' 

' 

' 

' 

! ‘behaviors. 

: 

‘S
m 

o
>
 

I
>
 

o
e
 

s
w
 

o
w
 

- 
d
d
 

E
L
 

E
L
 

E
T
 

N
Y
 

I
Y
 

JI
T 

N
T
 

TE
T 

r
y
 

p
u
 
a
a
y
 

IT
E 
t
o
e
 

s
o
 

I
>
 
I
 

I
>
 

P
B
 

I
E
 

T
E
 
I
 
t
e
m
 

. 
. 

. 

‘ 
‘ 
: 
[] 

[} 

[] 

: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

A 
: 

: 
: Ist year ! Schoo) 

] 

] 

A 
' 
‘ 
' 
: 
: 
| 

: 
! 

' 

' 

: 
[} 

; 
! 

' 
' ' 
' ‘ 
‘ ‘ 
‘ ‘ 

: : 
: : 
: : 

' : 
: ; 
: ! 
] 

' 
' ' 
: P year : 

[|] 
] 

‘ ' 
' ' 
' ‘ 
' ' 
‘ ‘ 
' : 
i : 
' ‘ 

: ‘ 
[|] 

[] 

: I 
[] 

' 

1 ! 

C
T
 

I
B
 

e
m
 
>
 

t
e
r
e
 

t
e
 

t
e
 

t
e
 
t
o
f
 

t
e
 

t
e
 

e
c
 

oe
m 

se
m 

o
m
 

o
w
 

  ration 

.ermined 

 



CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EOUCATION 

1989-90 INTERDISTRICT COOPERATIVE GRANT 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING 

? : Participating! # of : : # of Yrs ' Summer/ ! Grant Award £5 Applicant :_Districts ‘Students °! r_P/1 Grant ! Sch Yr !' Reg./Negulialed : ‘Waterbury 
‘Wolcott : . : ‘Purpose: To determine the feasibility of develop-!Region 15 ring a regional performing arts magnet program. It!Cheshire 

‘1s anticipated that approximately 150-200 students !Naugatuck ‘in grades 9-12 will participate in programs !Region 16 focusing on Dance, Theater and Music. ‘Watertown ' 
' Ld 

* 

  

150-200 * ! 1st year ! School ! 30,000 
: : P + year 

  

****WITHOREW PROPOSAL**** 
[) [J 

. 

J 
. 

] 
. 

[] 
. 

|] 
. 

[] 
. 

[|] 
.   | 

itation 

‘termined 

Total amount of funds available for grant: 
$ 339,000 

100,000 
$1,039,000 

Total Number of Districts submitting proposals 20 
Total Number of Districts recommended for funding 16 

Amount remaining if all recommended programs were funded: 
$1,039,000 
-_154,108 

$ 284,892 

   



  

   

  

    

    

  

  

‘the sister classes at the Maritime Center project. !Wilton 
A program funded by an fnterdistrict grant. {Trumbull 
: : !Norwalk 

RT Pace hn : : %1-w Sopplertoby Participating! # of ! *# of Yrs ! Subs} Grant Award ; : NE Applicant Districts !Students ' Grades ' P/] Grant ! Sch Yr !_Req./Neqotiated ° 
ACES #1 ‘ACES, Hamden ! Staff !" K-12 ! st yr P * School 20,295 ! Rie . Purpose: Develop a plan of action to broaden ‘West Haven ! Develop-! ] ' ' ' ' educational and cultural experiences of teachers, !Woodbridge ! ment : : : : : students and parents to reduce prejudice on an in-! : : : : : : terdistrict level by creating three interdistrict : : : : : ! : committees - materials developed will become a ! : ! : : 4 : : part of a resource library for participating : : ' : - : ' J districts. 

: : ! : : : : : Bloomfield #2 Development of a multicultural ‘Bloomfield ! 80 ! 9-12 ¢ p ' School tst7o00  1\Q 2 54 pilot program with inputs from 15 high school and ‘East Granby ! . : - 3 : university students and fifteen parents, teachers, '!Simsbury : : : ! - : ' administrators and University of Hartford faculty. !West Hartford : : 1 : - - The planning process will also be designed to ' : : ! : : 4 heighten multicultural) awareness. B80 high school ! : : . - : A students from four districts and their parents : : : - : : 4 ] along with 10 administrators will participate in ! ! : : 4 : : : the program designed by the planning committees, : : g : : : 4 ‘Bridqcport #3 ‘Bridgeport ' 20 + 9-12 P t School ! 367660 !')q 254 ‘Purpose: Plan a mode) program for students in- ‘Fairfield initially! - : : g $1 : ‘terested and talented in teleconmunications by {Monroe : : 1 : : : : forming a collaborative of regional (5 adjacent Stratford : : 1 : ' - : districts) educators, parents and pupils. Objcct-!Trumbul}l : : : ! . ! :ives of the program will focus on promoting mutual! 3 ! ‘ ‘ : : sensitivity, respect and cooperation. ! : : : : ' | ‘CES #4 Planning/Regional Summer School ‘Bridgeport :Planning ! 4-12 ! P ! Summer ! ale JE CPT : Purpose: To design a regional f{nterdistrict :Fairfield !Potent- °! i : : A 4 3 'summer school program for Jui) implementation. !Greenwich ally : 4 ge : 4 ‘A profile of existing regional summer school needs !Norwalk 1.500 : : 4 : : ‘will be developed and used to design a program for'Darfen : : : : : : : two urban and 2 suburban districts for at least !New Canaan °°! : : : : : - 200 middle and/or high school students. The ‘Ridgefield ! ' ' ! 4 ! L10€nIy cation of otenticd ccliege university Wilton . : : ; : : : rresou-ces and sites 1s .23v0 2n chlective. _ !Weston ! : : ! - ry. oe ' ! 
{Monroe : : 4 : : : w 
!Trumbul) : : ! ' ! ' : ! 
Westport : : : ' : : ! ! 
‘Stamford : : : : : : : ‘CES #5 (Maritime Center Project) Bridgeport ! 300 ! K-12 1 ! School ! 70,000 §. I!Purpose: To develop a network of previously Fairfield - : 1 ! I : : trained teachers in the World of Difference pro- ‘Westport ga : : ! : ) 4 :gram for purposes of providing support as they !Darien i 1 1 : : : =. ‘respond to request to train in each other's ‘Greenwich : : : : : : : ‘communities. A second objective would allow an ‘Stamford s : : H : : : ‘additional 300 more students to become involved in!Weston ! : : ! ' : - : ' ! : 3d : : «3 : : ! ' ' : ; ; | : ' 

: ' : : : 
pit: ¢ :New Canaan _ 
  

 



‘Order of! ‘Participating! # of '! fof Yrs ! Sumer/ ! . Grank 

  

  

  

  

  

  

J 
® 

! 
° 

| ' 
.+_Finfsh ! Applicant Districts !Students ! Grades ! P/I Grant ! Sch Yr ' Req i. 

: 4 ICES #6 ‘Bridgeport ! 200 ! 6,7,48 ! p ! School !B6-tH0 ! ‘Purpose: To use theater arts to develop commun- 'Fairfield ] ! : : ! ' :icatfon skills among middle school students in the'Trumbull ! ! : ig ATHY ' region. Students from both urban and suburban 'Wilton ! ' ! ! $9 | ! .2school districts will be integrated on an equal Weston y= ! ' §’ ' : footing. 'New Canaan ! ! ' ' ' : : ‘Stamford ' ' ' 4 ' 
: : 'Norwa 1k ' ! ' ' ' : ! ! ‘Monroe ! ' ' ' ' : : ‘Stratford ' ' ' 4 in 4 ‘CREC 17 124 Districts ! 50.4 "9410 | ! Sunmer ! 24,130 gi : c Purpose: To provide 9th and 10th grade students !including: : : : : : 4 Considered!from urban and suburban districts an opportunity !Bloomfield : ! ! : : ‘to participate in leadership training program in !Hartford ! : : : ' : ! !which seamanship 1s the focus. The Mystic Seaport!Windsor : : : : ! y ! ‘will be the site of the program. Other topics Manchester ! ! 1 : : : : 'a) stereotypes; b) peer pressure; c) conflict !Avon : - : : ity y ' :resolution; d) social responsibility. Yr : : : ! a 1 rd ‘CREC #8 Enhance Project Concern Monroe Service. ! K-12 1 1st yr ! School '~b4=bt9 ! : Purpose: [Enhance Project Concern by providing !Easton 'Avail to ! : AY 3 : i : :staff development, college counseling, and in- ‘Ridgefield ‘all 750 °°! : : 38,12. ! : ‘creased parental involvement. Also offer T.A. to 'Hartford : : : : : : os ‘other areas in the state interested in starting a !Canton - : : : : 2 : ‘similar program. ‘Farmington ! : : : : - : : : "!Glastonbury ! - : : : 4 ! : - !Granby ! ' ! s . ' : : 'Manchester ! . ! ! ! ' : ' !Newington 1 1: : : 4 

! - : Plainville ) o 23 : ! ! ! ' ! 'Simsbury ! : ! ! ' w® 
: !'South Kindsor! : ; ' : 

: Suffield ! : - : : 
: - 3 West Hartford! 2 ' : , s ! : Wethersfield ! : ! ! A 
: 5 REC HY 136 Districts ! N/A ' N/A ! I ! School !~3dpHye ! 
- Purpose: To increase the number of minority including : - ! : 1.» 
: ‘tcachers applying to the service area of CREC by ‘Hartford : : : : 2035 
: a) job fairs; b) advertising, interviewing and : : : . : gy : 
: ‘recruiting in one metro. area of the country; . 1 : : : : : 
: 'c) building credibility for hiring by offering : i : ' : : 4 
: ‘positions. : : . ! : ! aay 
: :CREC_#10 '35 Districts ! N/A ' N/A ! P ! School ! 25.12% 
: 41 ‘Purpose: Planning that will lead to school con- 'all of CRECs 3 ! Develop ! ! 

_Considered!struction site recommendations for CREC's service 'service areas!’ !Recommenda-! 2 
. area activities: a) gather data; b) develop Vist : ‘tions : : 

[} |] 

} [} 

J 

' of concerns; c¢) recommendations for incentives to 
: 'improve community acceptance. 
    0/1 

 



   
of! 

  

  
  
  

    

  
    

  
  

  
  

‘tive kindergarten program designed to foster 
‘understanding and appreciation of country and city! 
environments and resources and to advance effect- 
‘ive communication. Activities include: 
‘a) student exchange; b) art and music exchanges; 
‘c) photograph, letter and audio visual exchanges; 
+d) city - country family picnic. : 

‘Participating! # of ! : # of Yrs ! Summer/ ' Grant Award 14 Applicant :__Districts !'Students ' Grades ° P/1 Grant ! Sch Yr ! Req. /Negotiated “!CREC MM ‘Bloomfield ! 36 '!4,5,8 1 ! School ! 16,148 ! . ‘Purpose: Professional development on an inter- ‘East Hartford' teachers! ' - ' '  !district basis to deepen awarcness of the re- !Manchester ! : : : - : “lationship of attitudes and behaviors on the !South Windsor! - ' : : ; : ‘development of stereotypes and classroom bias. !Vernon ! : : : : : ‘Also to learn ways to infuse multicultural per- !Windsor ! : } : : ! _:spectives into curricular areas. : : : : : ! : !LASTCONN #12 *EASTCONN : 0 ! 3rd 11st Pp : 1 26,345 ! ‘Purpose: To develop curriculum materials which !LEARN y : : : : : ‘will tell the story of the immigrants in the Windham : : : ! : : textile industry through the preservation of the !Norwich : ' 3 ! ! ' history (from 1870 to present) and their economic !New London ! - : : : ’ ‘and social integration into the American society ! : : : s : : ‘by using: a) available museum historic archival ! : ' ! : ! : ‘materials; b) developing model lesson plans for ! . : ' 3 ! ! the 3rd grade; c) develop teacher quide. 1 y 3 : : . : od ‘Glastonbury #13 (Sister School) ; :Glastonbury ! 340 ! K-S : Ist year ! School '!'31g4860~ ‘Ness ‘Purpose: To increase students appreciation of ‘Hartford ! directly! : - ! : ‘ethnic backgrounds and multicultural differences : : : ' 1 : ‘while providing an integrated academic environ- 1 : : : : : : ‘ments. A network between urban/suburban parent ! 1 ! : 1 : : ‘groups would also be cstablished. The program : : : : : : 1 will involve 340 students and provide cultural ? 1 | . : ! : exchange programs for the entire student bodies of! : - 1 : : : +both schools. : - : : : : : ‘Hartford #14 ‘Hartford 3) 30 : Pre K !1 Planning !' School 105000 |! Purpose: To recruit, train, and place at least two!West Hartford! $V Imp w/ : ; 19,927 ‘teachers and two teacher aides as core staff in ! . !supplement ! 1 ‘the interdistrict Montessori Early Childhood Lg : : ! : program in the 1989-90 school year. This will 1 - 1 ! ‘allow the district to begin offering day care and ! : : ' ‘educational services to 30 urban and suburban ' ' ' ' ‘tnree-year olds through extended day programs in ! : ! : 189-90. : ! : ! ‘Litchfield £15 ‘Litchfield 50 ! KDG Ist 1 ! School 17,000 ‘Purpose: To implement an interdistrict coopera- !Hartford 25 + 25 ! : 
[] [} 

: ; 
; : 
: ' 
: ‘ 
' / 

: 

|) 
LJ 

' 
Ld 

# 

J 
Ld 

J 
. 

|) 
LJ 

J 
hd 

' 
» 

1} 
. 

’ 
LJ 

[J 
Ld 

' 
Ld 

’ 
Ld 

’ 

’ 
LJ 

’ 
Ld 

I
 

I
®
 

I
®
 

I
»
 

'
®
 
®
 

'
®
 
'
 
‘
t
e
j
 

'
r
®
 

1
»
 

'
®
 

'
@
®
 

I 
@ 

  

b § 

   



if!     
Applicant 

!Participating! 
! Districts !Students 

! § of Yrs ! Summers ! 
!_P/1 Grant ! Sch Yr   Manchester £16 

  

Purpose: Focus on understanding diversity in the 
:5 communities by creating a Vinkage between urban 
:and suburban schools to share programs, projects, 
‘resources, and curricular innovations. 
:gram would also use a telecommunications 

‘Bloomfield 

‘Glastonbury 
‘Hartford 
!Manchester 

'South Windsor 

‘costing $26,000 to facilitate student, and student! 
‘teachers, teacher contact. 

’ 
» 

’ 
e 

8 
» 

J 
LJ 

' 
LJ 

Grant Award 
!_Req./Negotiale: 
  

  ‘Meriden £17 
  

Purpose: To plan an interdistrict cooperative 
‘summer program for students in grades 4-8 to 
‘reduce racial {solatfon. 
‘prepared by the project manager in collaboration 
‘with an advisory committec will establish summer 

A goal for summer will be 
‘cognitive abilities 
priorities. 

interaction. 

A planning document 

to develop 
as wcll as promote pcer 

No 

District 
Named 

  ‘Hiddlctown £18 
  

‘Purpose: To provide resources for the planning 
!and development of an integrated summer school 
‘program for early adolescents in the four town 
‘area. Activities would include: 
‘ities for social interaction: (b) 
‘programs that enhance multicultural and racial 
‘understanding. 

(a) opportun- 

Middletown 

!Cromwel) 
Portland 
!Reg District 
HE 1k 

Projected 

! 
] 

' 

' 
‘ 
' 
' 

: 

: 

3 

! 

! 

: 

: 

- 
LJ 

  {New Haven £19 
  

Purpose: To expand a program (the center for in- 
‘ternational studies) in which Russian, Chinese & 
:Japanese languages as well as the country's 
‘cultural and history will provide the focus of 
"study. Students will also participate in an in- 
-terdisciplinary multicultural program which draws 
‘upon their own cir1tmal, 1inguistic, and ethnic 

Travel to Russia, China and Japan 
'1s planned for the summers of 1990 and 1991. 

‘backgrounds. 

District #5 
‘Branford 
!Clinton 
!East Haven 

Hamden 

!North Maven 

‘Wallingiora : 
Westbrook 

West Haven 
[| 

0 

' 
L 

J 
Ld 

0 
LJ 

’ 
LJ 

J) 
Ld 

J 
* 

’ 
Ld 

’ 
» 

0 
Ld 

0 
ps 

J 
Ld 

4 
« 

1) 
* 

’ 
- 

  Norwalk £20 
  

‘Purpose: Plan programs that increase opportuni- 
‘ties for teachers, students and parent interaction 
‘and diminish racfal and cultural $solation by: 
‘a) developing strategies for intercommunity 
‘collaborative planning; b) 
‘Interaction opportunities; c) 
appropriate professional development activities. 

identifying student 
identifying 

Norwalk 
Weston 

Westport 
Wilton 

' 

’ 
. 

0 
. 

’ 
LJ 

J 
» 

# 
Ld 

|) 
. 

' 

’ 
LJ 

[) 

’ 
LJ 

' 
Ld 

’ 
LJ 

J 
[J 

[J 
LJ 

1) 
. 

! 
Ld 

0 
LJ 

’ 
LJ 

J 
Ld 

J 
LJ 

1} 
LJ 

J 
LJ 

3 
Ld 

[J 
* 

} 

. 

' 
. 

' 
LJ 

|) 

J 

! 
. 

J 
» 

1} 
LJ 

|) 
" 

|) 
. 

' 
LJ 

’ 
. O

E
 

I 
® 

I
S
 

I
S
 

I
S
 

I
S
 

I
»
 
I
B
D
®
 

‘
=
>
 

1st yr P 

I
®
 

I
 
I
 

I
W
 
I
 

I
e
 

I
E
 

|t
® 

r
e
 

s
e
 

se
 

‘
®
t
 

r
e
 
1
 
e
r
 

r
e
 
I
 

  

    

4927 

| |



   
Participating! 

Districts 
  Norwich g21 

To allow cducational and cultural ex- 
‘periences to be shared through the use of computer 
‘technology and have support help through their 

The theme of the project: 
‘development social interaction and cultural 

Students in each district will visit 
reach other twice during the year. 

  

‘teachers. 

‘awareness. 

‘Norwich 

‘Windham 

  ‘Plainville g22 

To plan a developmentally appropriate, 
‘full-day model for an early childhood inter- 
‘district school in which a multi-cultural program 
for children in kindergarten through 2nd grade 

The program will serve 180 
one small, suburban, 

  

will be a focus. 
‘children from two districts: 
predominantly caucasian district; the other a 
‘medium urban, majority non-white, priority school 
‘district. 

"Plainville 

'New Britain 

  ‘Rescue £23 

‘Purpose: - To execute the state objectives of the 
‘original grant in an improved manner by expanding 
‘the design of the teacher gencrated interdistrict 

To secure supplemental in- 
'structional resources to help each member of the 
‘teacher pairs prepare his/her students for the 
rexchange activitics and to establish specific 
‘student learning outcomes concerning multi- 
‘cultural/racial awarencss. 
J 

‘exchange activitics. 

!Bethel 

‘Brookfield 

!Danbury 
Easton 

!New Fairfield 

New Milford 

!Newtown 

!Redding 

‘Reg #12 (3) 

Ridgefield 
‘Req #15 (3) 
  ‘Rescue f24 

(Students meet 

‘Reg Dists - 
To improve students' and teachers’ skill! #1, #12. £25 

rin working cooperatively with those of differcn: 
‘culturals and backgrourds to produce a final pro- 
duct; to improve student writing by helping them 
‘to write clearly, concisely and persuasively and 
+10 encourage cooperation and collaboration among 
‘participating school districts. 

‘Canaan 
‘Cornwall 
!Sharon 
‘Kent 

!Salisbury 
!North Canaan 
‘Waterbury 

M
O
I
M
I
I
®
 

I
B
 

I
D
 

I
D
 

I
S
 

I
D
 

I
D
 

I
S
 

I
D
 

I
D
 
I
I
D
 

I
D
 

I
D
 

I
D
 

I 
I 

I
d
 

SI
 

O
W
 
I
W
 

0 
00
0 

O
a
 

0a
» 

0a
m 

Oe
m 

© 

  !Southington #25 

Provide students with science learning 
‘opportunities and enhance middle/junior high 
‘school teachers' understanding of science subjects!Southington 
by working with university professors. 
‘of minority students and girls is encouraged). 
'Saturday mornings for 25 students and 5 teachers. 

      ‘Farmington 
!New Britain 

‘Plainville 

(Selection!Wolcott 
5 LJ 

C
E
D
 

I
E
D
 
I
 
I
 

I
S
 

I
D
 

I
W
I
|
I
®
 

I
W
 
0
 
I
 

V
I
»
 

¢
@
 

o 
=
 

  

  

Grant Award 

Rcq./Neqot iat 

! Summer/ ! 
!'Students ! P/1 Grant 

  

t 
~ 
© 

| 

T
E
 
I
B
I
S
 

I
O
 

I
O
 

I
D
 

I
D
 

I
D
 

I
D
 

I
D
 

I
D
 

I
D
 

I
T
B
e
®
 

I
D
 
I
 
I
 
I
 
®
t
 

s
t
 

oo
» 

=
 

t
o
 

s
w
l
r
e
 
1
 

't
® 

r
@
 

t
®
 

r
e
 

r
®
 

V
E
 

t
w
 

- 
IT

E 
I
W
 

I
H
 

se
 

'@
® 

oo
 

Saturdays! 
I
E
 

I
E
 

I
®
 

I
D
 

I
D
 

1
H
 

I
S
 

|
I
®
 

I
®
 
I
 

I
S
 

I
1
®
 

I
®
 

I
o
 

I
®
 
I
D
|
o
w
 
0
 

o
e
 

I
H
 

I
®
 
I
 

I
D
 
0
 

I
®
 

T
O
 

I
W
|
o
a
d
 
I
 
I
 

O
E
D
 

d
e
 
0
 

0 
@®
 

‘
t
e
 
=
 

O
E
 

I
®
 

I
D
 

I 
I
B
 

I
D
 

I 
W
|
I
®
 

I
B
 

I
D
 

I
D
 

I
 

to
 
@ 

.



CUNNLLITILUI SIAIL ULPARIMENI UF LDUCAILILUN 

1989-90 INTERDISTRICT COOPERATIVE GRANT ' 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING - t 

  

.. Participating! # of 
. Applicant ; !_ Districts !Students 

West Hartford #27 : 1 
Purpose: To establish an interdistrict committee ! Howto © : 
of educators, parents & community representatives ! : 

# of Yrs ! Summer/ ! Grant Award ' 

P/1 Grant ! Sch Yr Req./Neqotiated ' 

oe 
Grades 

  

  

information will assist in the development of 
quality integrated education programs. : 

Yorn 2, improve minority students' opportu- Neneh 

er ns or eer a prin. Le uri, 
'b) offering professional development opportunities: |, indham 

which will accomplish the following: a) identify '\yjest NRRTFaD Lb Yr Popes! Bp 000 
expectation for middle schools (student perfor- 3 1 ' ' J 
mance); b) examine and inform professionals and ! Harner community members about the concept of conse- ' ] JOO ? AE" W 
quences for schools which achieve or fail to : ) An Y 
achieve expected outcomes. It is hoped that this ! igi 

} 

[] 

  

X
O
 

EL 

Soo NK-wz *14,190 for mainstream classroom teachers. A major ob- : Sen Y 'Jective of the program is to provide translation gM : av Y 
‘interpreter services to parents and staff in each xn) 
‘building and for the district as a whole. The 
‘professional development component will also be 
‘offered to teachers in three school districts 
who have similar nceds. 
' 
. 
  

’ 

J 
. 

’ 

’ 
. 

i 

’ 

' 

J 
- 

] 

J 
. 

1} 
LJ 

' 
[3 
[J 

} 

J 
. 

1} 
. 

’ 

' 
. 

1] 

' 

J} 
. 

J 
° 

' 

0 
* 

' 
. 

[J 

' 

[J 

' 

' 

|) 
. 

! 

J 

' 

' 

J) 
. 

|) 
. 

J 

|) 

J 
. 

’ 
. 

' 

|) 
M 

LJ 
. 

J 
. 

J 
. T

W
 

I
M
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

P
W
 

I
E
 

C
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
D
 

C
W
 

T
W
 

C
W
 

I
W
 
P
D
E
 

CE
D 

P
W
 

I
W
 

C
W
 
I
 

T
W
 

T
W
 

I
W
 

T
W
 

I
W
 
I
D
|
O
W
 

T
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

C
W
 

I
W
 

C
W
 
I
 

I
W
 

S
W
 

o
W
 

. 

' 

J 

' 

! 

' 

[J 

1) 

' 

[J 

' 

LJ 

[] 

1] 

' 

! 

LJ 

LJ 

J 

L] 

' 

! 

' 

' 

' 

J 

! 

J 

' 

' 

J 

|) 

J 

J 

J 

J 

LJ 

' 

J 

' 

' 

J 

I
 

0
0
 
I
 

1 
© 

I
D
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
D
 

I
D
 

I
S
 

I
W
 

P
W
 
0
 

P
T
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
W
 

I
D
 

I
W
 
I
W
C
 

I
 

CE
D 

IE
D 
0
 

I
 

IU
D 

O
W
 

O
E
 

I
m
 

C
W
 
C
O
W
 

I
 

P
W
 

O
W
 
I
 

v
w
 

S
W
 

s
e
 

CE
D 

SE
B 

PE
D 

CA
D 

CE
D 

TE
D 

VE
D 

CE
D 

OE
D 

P
W
 

VE
D 

P
W
 

CE
D 

OE
D 

O
W
 

O
E
 

P
W
 

O
E
 

O
W
 

LE
D 

P
W
 
C
W
I
I
W
 

O
E
 

O
W
 

O
W
 

o
w
 

1 
. 

| 
. 

' 
. 

' 

' 
. 

| 
. 

J 
. 

' 
. 

| 
. 

! 

' 
. 

J 
. 

J 
. 

' 
M 

J 
. 

J 
. 

' 
. 

J 
. 

J 
. 

’ 
. 

' 
. 

 



   

  

  
  

  

  

139U 91 INILKUIDIKIL] LUUPLKALLYL GKANI 5 i 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING 

2:5) x A wf M LOUCATIUN SERVICES CENTERS — Status 

in ‘Participating! # of : ! # of Yrs ! Summer/ ! Grant Award : » ne Applicant and Title Districts !Students ! Grades ! P/I Grant ' Sch Yr :_ Req./Neqotiated ! J ‘ACES (Area Cooperative Educational Services) ! Hamden 'Approx ! K-8 90-91 P  Sch/Yr 120,000 1° 12,688 +... + INIERDISIRICT SCHOOL FOR SUCCESS: PREPARING ! ACES 300 : : : ' : : I. * SIUDENIS FOR TOMORROW ' ' ' ' J ' : 4 ‘Purpose: It is proposed that an interdistrict : ‘ ! : $ + ! ’ ‘team of administrators, RESC personnel, teachers, ! - : ' : ! : : rcommunity members and parents be established to : } : 4 ' : - 4 ‘develop plans tor the design and operation oft a : ’ : : ' : 3 : 'multidistrict, racially/culturally diverse, ’ : : : : 4 : : ‘science/technology magnet school. lhe population ! : ‘ 4 $ ’ : : ‘to served will be students, ages 5-14, ot varying ! 3 : 3 : : : : ‘ability and socioeconomic levels trom both large ! : . : : : : : -urban and suburban communities. : : ' ! : ' ‘ : ‘In order to validate the assumption that all $ 3 4 ! ' : - : rchildren can learn, this school's philosophy, : ' - 3 : 4 ‘mission and mode of operation will be based on the' : : : : : HD : @ coin a uniiied, multiracial/cultural ' ' ' ; ; ‘curriculum; continuous progress/personalized vs : 3 : ! $ 1 : ’ ‘selt directed learning; extensive use ot student °' : : ' ‘ : 4 y support services and neighboring business/cultural® 4 : : ‘ 3 : 2 ‘resources; and teachers in the role of learning : : : 3 ' 3 : ‘facilitators whose professional deve lopment is an ! : 3 : ’ 3 : ’ integral part ot the school day. : ! ‘ : : : yaa ] ae : ‘ACLS (Area Cooperative Educational Services) 1 ‘670 ! 6-12 ‘89-90 P Sch/Yr 188,196 1 55.952 TTDI. + GREAILR WATERBURY EDUCATIONAL ARTS PROGRAM ‘Cheshire : : 90-91 1 1 : ' : ‘Purpose: In order to facilitate the integration !Naugatuck : : - : ’ 4 : y 2 ot urban and suburban students, the interdistrict 'Plymouth ' ' ‘ ! : : . ‘committee agreed to establish three (3) regional !Region #15 : : - : : 1 : ‘programs in the visual and pertorming arts to ‘Region #16 ’ ' , : : ’ ‘etlect approximately 670 students of high interest!Thomaston ! : ' . : : : ‘and talent in the creative arts area. ‘Waterbury : ' : : ' : : ‘The interdistrict committee has developed a common'Watertown : : : ’ 3 : : ‘integrating core ol the program (theatre) to ‘Wolcott ' ] : 1 ‘ 3 : ‘assist integrating various types ol music (Jazz, 'ACES : ' ‘ : 4 : : ‘choral, etc.), visual arts (painting, sculpture, ' : : . : : : ‘etc.). As a result, along with integrating - ' ' ' : : - ) ‘students, the program(s) seek to integrate the : : ' : , : 4 : ‘programs in both the visual and performing arts : . : » ! . : : :through the medium ot theatre. : : : : : : i 3s   

tation 

.ermined 

 



SEE weenie WARNER UE LULA SI 
1990-9) INTERDISTRICT COOPERATIVE GRANI APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING 

"ROM EDUCATION SERVICES CENTERS 

  

          

  

    
    

Status “of! 
‘Participating! # of : * # ot Yrs ' Summers Grant Award 

ht mea Applicant 
: Districts !Students : Grades ! P/I Grant ! Sch Yr: Req. /Negotiated 

'CREC (Capitol Region Education Council) ‘Harttord ! BU ! K-12 189-90 | 'Sch/yr 118,000 141.419 - 

3 * ENHANCE PROJECT CONCERN 
:Canton : : 90-9) : : - 

: ‘Purpose: To increase an understanding of cultural Farmington . ! , ' : : 
‘ditterences and appreciation ofl the urban child :Glastonbury ! . : : ? : 
‘through in-service training and curricular tools !Granby : - ’ ’ : : 
:which speak to ethnicity. Also to increase aware-!Manchester ‘ ' : : ! : 
‘ness and understanding ot Project Concern through !Newington . » : : : : 
‘dissemination ot factual materials; written and ‘Plainville - : : Yooyg : 
raudio. 

Simsbury ' y , - ' : 
: 

‘South Windsor! : : : : ' 
: 

‘Suttield : : - : : : 
: 

‘W. Harttord : : } : - 
Leah as 

‘Wethersfield ! iy : : LL a 
‘CREC (Capitol Region Education Council) ‘Harttord up to 150! 4-8 90-91 | 'Sch/Yr 112,291 !Nol 
: SATURDAY ACADEMY 

: and : : : ‘Recomm - 
‘Purpose: Students wi || meet on Saturdays through-!twenty-f ive 

‘mended 
‘out the Academic year tor exposure, exploration, :surrounding ‘appreciation and multidisciplinary classes in the 'school ‘pertorming arts (dance, drama, music). Classes ‘districts ‘will meet trom 9 a.m to I p.m. The Saturday ' ‘program will be staf ted by professional pertorming! arts teachers trom the area. : ‘CREC (Capitol Region Education Council) ‘Avon, ! CENTER FOR REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND ACTION!Berlin, ‘Purpose: A Center for Regional Educational Policy!Bloomt feild, rand Action will provide an on-going developmental ‘Bolton, ‘process with a research capacity and public torum !Canton, ‘Will provide a considered approach to the problem !Cromnwel |, ‘ot racial balance through voluntary interdistrict ‘'f. Granby, ‘prugrams in the region's public schools. It will 'E. Harttord, ‘provide the communication, data, planning and ‘Entield, ‘policy base to develop interdistrict programs. ‘Farmington, [] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

1] 
[] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

; 
‘Glastonbury, ! 

[] 

: 
4 

4 
[] 

’ 

; 
[] 

[] 

: 
! 

[] 

[] 

: 
' 

' 

' 

’ 

[] 

' [] 

[] (] 

U-91 1 'Sch/Yr 89,540 ‘Not 
‘Rec om - 

‘mended 
[] 

  
    

126,000 

' 
!Granby, - 
!Manchester : 
!New Britain ' 
!New Harttord - 
‘Newington : 
Plainville 1 
‘Portland : 
‘Region #10 : 
!Rocky Hil ' 
‘Simsbury ' 
!S. Windsor : 
!Suttield ' 
Tolland : . 
‘W. Harttord ' 
‘Wetherst field : 
‘Windsor, : 
‘Windsor Locks 

J 
. 

' 
. 

[J 
. 

[J 
. 

’ 
. 

|] 
. 

LJ 
. 

' 
d 

[J 
. 

L] 
. 

L] 
. 

’ 
. 

[] 
. 

L] 
. 

LJ 
. 

' 
M 

J 
. 

J 
. 

[) 
. 

[] 
. 

J 
M 

[|] 
. 

[J 
. 

} 
. 

. 

. 

| 
. 

[| 
. 

[J 
. 

| 
. 

' 
. 

} 
. 

' 
. 

[J 
. 

. 

. 

] 
o 

[} 

[ 

[ 
. 

J 
. 

' 
. 

. 

J 
. 

[J 
. 

J 
° 

' 
. 

] 
. 

L] 
. 

' 
. 

' 
. 

[} 
. 

LJ 
. 

J 
. 

] 
. 

J 
. 

[J 

[] 
. 

[] 
® 

4 
. 

[] 
° 

’ 
. 

' 
. 

' 
. 

[] 
. 

J 
. 

J 
. 

. 
. 

' 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
» 

[] 
. 

] 
. 

J 
. 

[] 
. 

. 
° 

[] 
.   

 



ToT sre MLE ARIELINE UL LUULAL LUN 
1990-9) INTLRDISIRICT COOPERATIVE GRANT 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING 

    
    

+ LOUCALIUN SERVICES CENTERS 

Status 2 
‘Participating! # of : : # ot Yrs ! Sunmer/ ! Grant Award : 

! Applicant and Title Districts !Students ! Grades + P/1 Grant ! Sch vr —+__Req./Negotiated 
'EASICONN (Fastern Conn. Reg. Educa. Serv. Center) 'EASICONN 180 © 9-10 '90-91 I  'Sen/Y¥r 182,060 ' 52,049 [] [] 

  
  

    

! WURLD HISIORY HUMANITIES COURSE '£.0. Smith : : : - : ' : : 

‘Purpose: To promote quality integration education!High School °! ' 1 : : : : : 

/y. +by means ol a new world history humanities course Parish Hil) ’ (Budget Mod. necessary)! : : 

‘tor ninth and tenth grade students. [It wij} ‘High School H ‘ ! : ' : 

‘achieve this goal, tirst by teaching these ‘Windham ‘ ’ : : ! : : 

‘students about the contributions of ail races and !Manchester : ' : : : : 

‘nationalities to the common tund oft human Culture 'Bolton 3 : : : : : : 

‘and about the interaction and interdependence of ‘East Harttord' : ! ‘ ' y : 

‘the world's peoples; and, second, by bringing ' : : : ? : 3 y 

‘students trom rural, suburban, and inner city 4 : - ! } : : 

‘schools together to tind mutual understanding : : : : ' ’ y : 
:through the things they share. The project's : : : : : : } : 

rinitial objective will be to implement this course! 4 ! ' ' ' ‘ : 

‘through statt deve lopment , experimental field y 
. : ' ’ : 2 

@ to museums, and reqular cable networking : ! : : 4 - : ! 

_.dinong participating schools. : LAN AE - yoo IIE, 00 RL Sie 
‘LEARN (245) 

‘East Lyme : 450 ‘Prek-3 'Bu8-849 p 'Sch/yr 90,000 ! 51,096 
* SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT TASK FORCE FOR !Groton 4 ! 189-90 pP/1 : ' ! 
: RACIAL/ETHNIC EQUITY 

‘Ledyard 4 : 90-91 | : : : : 

“%. !To implement programs through the cooperative ‘Montville ' ! ' 4 4 : ! 

eftort of ten districts and a RESC to reduce -New London 3 3 : : 3 : : 
'racial/etnic isolation in the schools. ‘N Stonington ! : ! : : : : . 

The objective is to expand the cooperative mini ‘Preston 4 : H ! + - 4 
‘magnet program initiated in FY 89-90 to expand ‘Salem ' ' 4 : ' : : 

‘the multicultural resource center and to finalize !Stonington ' : - : 4 : : 

‘Lhe early childhood magnet school plan. (designed'Watertord s . : y ! : : 

tor 50 Kindergarten students and projected open ‘Project Learn! : : , : : : 
tin 1990. 

: : : : : : ' : : 
‘RESCUE (242) 

!Bethe| ‘ : :88-89 | 'Sch/vr 189,902 ! 57.034 
*  PROJECI DISCOVERY 

‘Brook! ield ‘ : 89-90 | 4 : 3 
: The discovery project 1s designed to promote ‘Danbury 4 ' 190-91 | y . ! : 

bh. ‘quality education and to build awareness of ‘taston/Redding y - y : : 

‘Cultural and racial diversity among elementary ‘New Fairtield!® : : ’ : : : 
‘students by means of cross either through a :New Mildtord : : ’ : ’ s 
Saturday school in Math/Science and the arts at !Newton ) 3 : ’ ' ' ! 

@: Connecticut State University or through !Sherman 4 ' ' y + : , 
riwenty-two sets of paired class exhange activities!Ridgel teld y : : : : 4 ’ 
‘between Danbury and suburban Sth grades in the : , ' ’ ' : ' ‘ 

eleven surrounding communities. : 3 : : 3 : : ]     

 



LUNNLLILILUT SIAIE DLPARIMEN] UF LUDUCAIL LUN 
1990-91 INTERDISIRICT COOPERATIVE GRANT 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING 

  

  

  

  

  

  

lighting, sound). : 
  

  

  CES (Cooperative Educational Services) ‘Bridgeport 89,769 600 ‘Pre K-5 '89-90 P 42,993 v REGIONAL EARLY CHILDHOOD MAGNET SCHOOL ‘Fairtield 90-9) P/I -22,000 9. Purpose: Planning/Implementation !Monroe 67,769 CES would like to continue to plan to establish an'!Strattord 
interdistrict, early childhood magnet school tor Trumbull 
tive school districts and approximately 600 : 
students to be located in the largest urban area 
in the RESC region; to implement a pilot a 
regional early childhood programm as part of Head- 
start in 1990-91; specific objectives to be im- 
plemented; and develop and refine a comprehensive 
early childhood program. 

{ EDUCATION SERVICES CENTERS 
Status 

: !Participating' # of ! # ot Yrs ! Summer/ ' Grant Award ' Loam __Applicant and Title :_Districts !'Students ! Grades ! P/1 Grant !' Sch Yr +. _Reyq./Negotiated :CREC (Capitol Region Education Council) ‘Bloomfield ! 40 ! 8-12 190-91 1 'Sch/Yr 18,122 : S.453 : MULTICULTURAL SHARING AND TRIBUTES 'Harttord ] ‘ 4 : : - 5 7 ‘Purpose: The planning of a one-week residential !'West Hartford® 4 : - ’ : : ‘program promoting multicultural sensitivity and 'Windsor . : : : : : : ‘leadership skills through the integration of NCCJ ! (plus at : : : : : : : ‘human relations training with the multimedia : least 2 more!" : 4 : : : : :tribute progress. Tributes are multimedia presen-! to be : : : : : } : tations pioneered by Eve Soumerai at a local high ! specitied : : : : : ! :school. ! later) : - . - ! : : The National Conterence of Christians and Jews : : . - : : : 2 :(NCCJ) has piloted tributes to Dona Felisa Rincon ! ' : : : : : : the former mayor of San Juan and to Langston : : : : 3 1 : : ‘Hughes (Whiting Lane Elementary School and Hart- ! ] : s 3 : 4 ‘ford Public High School, 1990). ! ] : : 3 : $ : RS ‘Tributes are being recognized as an educational y : 1 3 3 : ’ ; :tool with the potential to achieve long-term y ‘ : ' ? ‘ : 2 ‘changes. Tributes promotes cooperation between : : ! ‘ ? ! - ’ ‘students in a school community; provides students ! 3 ' ! 3 : ' ‘With role models trom ditterent vocations and 4 : ! ' ' ' : : ‘cultural heritages; enables students to experience! : ! , ' 3 ' ' :a sense ol individual worth and selt esteem; y ) 3 y : $ - ; :breaks down students' stereotypes. : : ae Sn dao TL ARE Ee ‘CES (Cooperative Educational Services) ‘Bridgeport ! 100 ‘Middle !90-91 | Summer $90,000 : b6l,4)2 - WHO ARE WEY? SHARING DIVERSITY THROUGH THE ARTS Trumbull | : ! School ! ! and '-8,000 : ‘ 8. 'The planning lor "Who Are WEY?": Summer and Follow!Greenwich : ' = : 'Sch/Yr 82,000 ' : ‘UP-Sharing Diversity Through the Arts has resulted'Monroe ' ' : 4 : : ‘in a three-phase theater arts program for up to ‘Westport ’ ' : ) : ; +100 middle school students in at least six !Norwa lk } : : ‘ : : ‘communities. The three phases are spring !New Canaan ‘ : ‘ ‘ . : ‘planning, a summer two-week residential program ‘Stamtord : y : 3 ! ’ ‘at an area university, and tall tollow up : : : 4 4 ' : ‘sessions. There are parallel training activities 4 : : 3 ’ : tor teachers oft these students who will work with ! y : 2 : ’ : them in all three phases, including the summer ' : : ‘ $ 4 4 residency. . : ! : y : : . Over the summer, students and many of their ! ’ ' : : ’ ’ teachers will participate in a wide variety ol 4 ' : ) + : : arts experiences and training, including drama/ ) : : : : - ; theater, dance/movement, music (sound and rhythm),! : : : ' : ’ writing, painting and drawing, and the technical : : : . g arts (lighting, sound and rhythm), writing, ? : ' 1 , : painting and drawing, and the technical arts : ' ' : : : 
L] ] 4 [] 

i ie 
: : : : 
' . 
| 

: : 
: : 
: : : : ‘ ‘ 
: ; 
| fe

w 
is
mi
om
 

sn
 

vo
 

se
 

su
 

ve
 

vw
 

sw
 

ve
 

3 

t
w
 

wm
 

Sw
 

we
 
e
v
 

N 4 9 ] ¢ 
O
E
P
 

O
E
 

I
B
D
 

O
O
 

I
B
 

I
B
 

I
E
 

L
E
 

C
®
 

s
w
 

I
E
m
i
i
e
 

t
®
 

o
>
 

P
E
 
I
 

I
H
 

I
B
 

I
E
 

I
E
 

I
E
 

I
E
 

C
E
 

I
T
E
 

T
E
 

I
E
 

P
E
 

C
E
 

| 

  
wer ws ————— en wv see— . 

 



LUNNLLTILUT STATE UDLPARIMLNI OF LDUCAI ION 
1990-91 INTERDISIRICT COOPERATIVE GRANT 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING    

M LDUCATION SERVICES CENTERS 
Status 

  

  

  
  

: ‘Participating! # ot : ! # ot Yrs ! Summer/ !' Grant Award J di iene ADP iCANE :_Districts !Students ! Grades ' P/I Grant ! Sch Yr! Req. /Negotiated ! 'LRIC (Capitol Region Education Council) ‘Avon, 100,000 ! K-12 189-90 | 'Sch/Yr 128,196 y- 11.80) * RECRUIT MINORITY TEACHERS ‘Avon, Berlin ! : ‘90-91 1 : : : : ‘Purpose: The interdistrict (34 LEAs) cooperative 'Bolton ! 3 : 4 ’ : : retfort 1s spearheaded by a Steering Committee of 'Bristol ‘ : ! : - - 1 ‘representatives trom local school districts, ‘Canton - ' : ! : : : U. ‘higher education, the State Department of :Cromwe | | : : : 1 ! : ‘Education and a teacher union. Included in the ‘E. Granby ? : : : : : : ‘Steering Committee's responsibilities are: getting't. Harttord ! : : ’ ) : ‘school boards to commit to the need; generating ‘E. Windsor ! ' : 4 : 3 \ : 100 teaching slots tor minorities over the next 5 !Ellington : ! : : : : 2 ‘years; recruiting minorities for 1991-1992. ‘Enfield : : - , : : : : !Farmington ! 4 : : : : : : ‘Glastonbury ! : : : : : : - !Granby : 3 ! 3 - : : a : ‘Hart land : : : : : { 4 : ‘Manchester : - - : : 4 : - !New Britain ! : : . : . y : ‘New Harttord ! : : ' ' ! ! : !Newington : : ) : : : 4 : ‘Plainville : ' y : : : : : ‘Portland : : : : : ) 4 : ‘Region #10 4 : y y y : ! ' ‘Rocky Hill ) ; : ’ : 3 : : ‘Simsbury : : : : 3 : : ! !Somers A ' : 4 ' : 4 : ‘Southington ’ ! ! : : : : ‘South Windsor! : : : : : : 3 !Suttield : ‘ y : : : : - ‘Tolland : : : : : . : : ‘Vernon 3 . : : : : ’ : ‘West Hartlord! : ! ' : ; : ! ‘Wethersfield ! 4 y ’ y . : - ‘Windsor ‘ : : : : ! ! a ‘Windsor Locks! . ] : in . he PY rCREC (Capitol Region Education Council) ‘Glastonbury !180,000 !' 7-)12 90-91 | 'Sch/Yr '19,866 132,603 ! © INTEGRATED, INIERDISIRICT, INTERDISCIPLINARY, !Granby : : : : : : ; | | * INTERACUIVE, INSTRUCTION !Simsbury : : : : $ 4 : ‘Purpose: To create an interdistrict partnership ‘south Windsor! : : . : : : ‘among nine school districts and a Regional ‘Entield : : 2 : - : ! ‘Educational Service Center (RESC), with the ‘Southington ! : 3 1 : - : ‘purpose ol tormulating strategies tor enhancing 'Hartiord 4 ' 4 : 4 - : rinterdisciplinary instruction and multi-cultural ‘Manchester : : : ‘ ' ? 2 appreciation among Grade 7-12 students and their ‘Somers : : : : : : : ‘parents. : ' ' ' : : : : ‘To plan tor integration of computer-based : : - : ! : : 2 ‘telecommunications into interdisciplinary, multi- ! : : 3 : gy : cultural learning units to tacilitate and enhance ! - : : } : : : :communication and’ supplement interaction among ] : : : : : : : ‘students and teachers from different school : i : : ! : : - ‘districts. uy ' ' : : : : : ‘1o broaden teachers’ vision about the potential : 1 : 4 : J : : : ‘of. technology and telecommunications, and to in- ! : : : : : : : © .crease their sell-confidence and skills in the use! : ! 4 : ! ' : of _injtially untamiliar teaching technologies. ! : 4 4 ! y. H '   

 



1990-91 INILRDISIRICT COOPERATIVE GRANI 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING 

JM EDUCATION SERVICES CENTERS 
Status 

‘Participating! # ol : * # ot Yrs ! Sunmer/ Grant Award ’ CCR Applicant and Title :_ Districts !Students !' Grades :_P/1 Grant ! Sch Yr :__Req./Negotiated CLS (Cooperative Educational Services) ‘Greenwich 115-90 1-8 Summer 122,636 ‘Not SPACE CAMP (SUMMER SCHOOL) ‘Stamford : ' 'Recom- The outcome of that planning process is the pro- !Darien 
‘mended posed design for a two week summer enrichment !New Canaan program lor ninety (90) 2th and 8th graders trom °°! the four districts. The program site {is an area ! 

university branch campus located within the urban ! 
district. The planning team identified Rocketry- ! 

] 

L] 

  

  

    

Aerospace as a curriculum-based enrichment theme which would highly motivate and engage students 
while not providing an advantage to any individual’ or_ygroup of students. : : CES (Cooperative Educational Services) 112,500 STATEWIDE PROTOTYPE FOR A REGIONAL MULTICULTURAL !Bridgeport !students ESUURCE CENTER 

Trumbull | 1500 @ This implementation project provides tor'Fairtield ‘teachers 1.7" the deve lopment ol a statewide prototype tor a ‘Wilton !6 RESC's regional Multicultural Resource Center which can 'New Canaan : serve as a clearinghouse tor exemplary programs !Stamtord - and provide the kinds of human and material ‘Westport : resources necessary tor training and technical ‘Monroe : assistance requested. Staft members from the {Norwalk , other five RESC's will be aftorded the opportunity'!larien ! to shadow the development ot the Center with the !Weston : 
) 

[] 

] 

‘ 

®
t
 

se
 

c
w
 

e
m
 

t
e
 

e
w
 

e
m
 

  
  

[} 
. 

‘ 
. 

‘ 
. 

J 
. 

’ 
. 

' 
. 

J 
. 

’ 
. 

’ 

’ 
. 

’ 

L] 

L] 80,103 1 44.473 + 
'-10.000 

70.103 

hope that successful elements can ultimately be ‘Greenwich throughout the state. The Multicultural Resource !Ridgetield Center serves as the umbrella tor both student and'!Network of stalt development projects including an inter- ‘Regional Ed. district journalism course tor 35 students, !Serv. Centers continuation of the Sister Classes project : 
involving 500 students, expansion of the Anti- ' 
Detamation League's exemplary “World of y 
Ditterence® prejudice-reduction curriculum and : 
stall development model, and development of a : mode | protocol tor urban-suburban teacher : 

S
R
 

C
E
 

I
E
 

I
E
 

CE
 

IE
 
C
B
E
 

LE
 

C
D
 

IS
 

TE
 
B
I
E
 

IE
 

CE
 

I
E
 

Ie
 
E
t
e
 

se
 

se
 

  
  

xChanges. : @: (Eastern Connecticut Regional Educational'EASICONN 
Educational Service Center) ‘Windham SPECIAL EDUCATION APPROACHES FOR HISPANIC ‘Columbia 

ADOLESCENTS ‘Lebanon Purpose: The deve lopment and pilot testing of an ‘Region #8 

‘ 

' 

: 
[] 

! 
[] 

; 
! 

4 
! Through J 

' 
; 

appropriate special education program for Spanish !'Region #11 : 
[] 

[] 

4 

' 
[] 

4 

y 

! 

: 

: 

: 
[] 

[] 

‘Special 
‘Lduction ! 

speaking adolescents which emphasizes integration 'Region #18 into a school setting, the community as a whole !Ashtord 
and the transition from school to meaningful ‘Willington 
employment. Planning will include the following !Plaintield 
ictivities: specific objectives to be implemented; !K1) ingly 
identity and collect Jntormation on "promising ‘Griswold 
practices” that exist for this population around ‘Colchester 
the state and country; identify and purchase : 
lppropriate assessment and instructional materials! 
for a Spanish speaking special education popu- : 

lations and provide staff development to the en- ! 
tire secondary program staff in the needs of a : 
lon fnglich speaking special educa jon.population. t,o Gb. co Chan 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

J 
. 

[] 
. 

' 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

] 
. 

‘ 
. 

J 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

. 

. 

[] 
. 

J 
. 

' 
® 

[] 
. 

[J 

‘ 
. 

[} 
° 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

} 
. 

[] 
° 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[J 
. 

[] 
. 

[| 
. 

é 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 

[] 
. 

[} 
. 

0 
° 

[] 
. 

[|] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
. 

[] 
* 

LJ 

LJ 

-
 

C
E
 

r
e
 

r
e
 

d
e
 

c
e
 

t
e
 

v
e
 

r
e
 

i 
*
®
 

c
s
 

c
m
 

 



CUNNLLI LLU LIATL ULPAKIMENI UF LODUCAT LUN 
1990-91 INTERDISTRICT COOPERATIVE GRANT 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING 

    
JM LOCAL/REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

Status 

  
  

  

] 

; 
[] 

‘ 

! 

! 

' 

! 

4 

! 

' 

' 

L] 

: 
' 

‘South Windsor! : 
‘Sut tield : 4 
‘West Harttord! y 
‘Wethersfield ! 3 

[] 

‘ 
: 

: 
' 
! 
[] 

‘ 
' 

: 
[] 

’ 

[] 

¢ 

' 

' 

' 

U 

J 

(} 

| 

' 

  

34! ‘Participating! # ot ! : # ot Yrs ! Summer/ !' Grant Award eS Applicant Districts !Students ! Grades !' P/I Grant ' Sch Yr !__Req./Negotiated ‘Wetherstield (159) ‘Avon * 18D Prek-12 '89-90 | 'Sch/Yr $38,390 ‘Not + 10 ADVANCE QUALITY INTEGRATED EDUCATION ‘Berlin : . 90-91 | : : 'Recom- ‘The RESC involved will attempt to decrease racial :Bloomt {eld ‘ . : . ‘mended ‘isolation of students by implementing the ‘Canton . ! : : ‘following activities: a) increase communication ‘Cromwell | : : : among the aftected parties b) conduct tield-based ‘East Harttord! : : ‘problem solving through forums €) coordinate the ‘East Windsor °! : : ‘implementation of programs in the metropolitan ‘Ellington : : : ‘regions d) expand a present program to more ‘Enfield 3 ! : : 
‘students e) disseminate intormation about ‘Farmington : 3 ‘programs and serve as clearinghouse on programs ‘Glastonbury ! ! ‘that promote voluntary activities. !Granby ‘ ' : 

‘Harttord ' : ‘Went through East Harttord in 89-90 (some Program) ‘Manchester : : - : 
‘Newington : : 
‘Plainville ' H 
‘Rocky Hill ! : 
‘Simsbury : - 

[] 

[] 

: 
‘Windsor 4 ' XS 
‘Windsor Locks : ny oS L3. ‘Windham (163) ‘Windham 180 K-12 'Sch/Yyr 65,730 41,699 . + IMPROVING SCHOOL CLIMATE AND PROMOTING Norwich !150 statt 

: : INTEGRATED EDUCATION ‘Columbia : ‘To improve the opportunity tor success tor ‘Manstield 
‘minority students in the region by providing ‘Rocky Hill 
‘workshops in: a) multicultural education and : 

: intergroup relations b) statt training in : 
! :practices related to second language learners , 

:C) prevention of at-risk behaviors. Two seminars ! 
‘tor teachers and two fro students. Interdistricts’® 

. 

' 
. 

] 
. 

‘ 
. 

’ 
. 

[] 
. 

' 
» 

’ 

[] 
. 

J 
. 

LJ 
. 

} 
. 

[} 
. 

’ 
. 

J 
. 

LU 
. 

‘ 
. 

' 
. 

[] ’ 
. 

} 
. 

J 
. 

J 
. 

1) 
. 

[] 
. 

[J 
. 

J 
. 

[J 
. 

J} 
. 

[] 
. 

] 
. 

1) 
. 

‘ 
. 

J 
. 

’ 
. 

t
®
 

I 
® 

e
o
 
t
I
 

tm
 

sm
 

se
 

tw
 

o
m
 

  

:1s an alter thought. (program interdistrict with °' 5 pe :invitations being offered to districts with s 
: similar concerns. 3 

tation 

termined 

 



17. 

Xs 

I 4. 

    

LKDISTKICT COUPLRATIVE GRANI 

  

APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING 

  

Dunes bmp. UJ A 

School Year lmple. 63.44% 

  

  

Implement a plan (Devqloped with ICG tunds) tor ‘Fairtield 
:an interdistrict vide trainin . The 

   

  

       

{UM LQCAL/REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICIS 
Status 

i? :Participating! # of ! : # oft Yrs ! Summer/ ! Grant Award . GE Aan Applicant r_Districts !Students ' Grades ' P/I Grant ° Sch Yr! Req./Neyotiatea ! ‘Bloomtield (11) PRIDE ‘Bloomtield $1500 K-12 12. yrs. 1 ! sch/yr 90,000 1 5).09 :The purpose 1t to engage 40 teachers across four ‘East Granby ! : : : : : rdistricts in joint planning and program imp lement-!Simsbury ' ' : : : : :tation which will assist in tacilitating more ‘West Harttord! : ! ! ‘ : ‘creative responses to quality integration. And : : : : : 3 2 :engage participation of 00 parents and over 1000 : : : ! ' : ‘students in the program. 15 School will be 3 - : : ! ' ! _sinvolved. 
: ho ! 1a ! N ‘ Clete i ‘Bloomfield (11) :Bloomt {eld 12000 K-12 '2 yrs. | ! Sunmer !89,752 : 65,600 ! : - COLLABORATIVE SUMMER SCHOOL ‘West Harttord! : : . ‘ ? ax ! The purpose of this program is to provide a six ! : ' 4 ‘ : ! : :week high school and a four week morning and : : ' ) : : : : :atternoon elementary/middle school summer school ! ' : 3 : ' : . ‘program tor students who need to earn a credit, 3 $ : ’ , : ! : or enhance their learning through enrichment : : ’ ‘ ! : : : ractivities: a) enroliment will be proportionate ! : : ! ! ’ ) ‘lo the area served b) provide students to plan and! : ’ 1 : y ’ : rcarry out socfalization activities c) to provide ! - : : : : : - ‘in-service training tor the statt on cultural : : 4 : ’ : : : racial and ethnic diversity. : : : : : do ae a ‘Bridgeport (015) ‘Bridgeport ! 130 : 10-12 !89-90 °P !Sch/Yr $90,000 : - : REGIONAL VIDEO TRAINING PROJECT :Easton-Redding : :90-91 | : : : 

‘ [] [] [] : ; : 
; : 

    

:activities tor the piipt pr ‘Strat 

  

   140 students b) provide sportation (R NV. !Trumbul | 
‘studio c) produce and broadcast a series ot inter-! 
‘district student "magazine tormat® video produc- ! 
tions (Poss College Credit) : 

         

      

    

!Arts into a second level of Dance, and to !Strattord 
‘introduce a jazz/computer music component. The Trumbull 
‘program also provides various ethnic and racial : 
‘groups ol adjoining districts the enviroment to : 

b
a
d
d
 

d
d
 

B
d
 

R
L
 

R
L
 

B
T
 

EY
 J

 
I
Y
 

ET
 

IT
 

WY
 
R
I
 
r
n
 : : 

[] [] 

: : 
: : : ‘Bridgeport (015) ‘Bridgeport 90 6-8 23rd. yr. I !Sch/Yr 132,951 : 20,904 : EXPLORATION INC/IRI-TOWN Trumbull | : 1 - : :To maintain an interdistrict science, math, ‘Monroe ’ : : : ‘enrichment program and initiative a social studies! : $ : 3 studies program tor grades 6-8. In which the : : 1 ' 4 :elforts to combat racial fears and socioeconomic ! : ’ : : bases will be a focus. Yin y Re SRR en rl a : ‘Bridgeport (015) ‘Bridgeport 55 10-12 '80-89 Pp !Sch/yr 90,000 * 57,096 * REGIONAL CENTER FOR THE ARTS ‘Fairtield 189-90 1 3 Purpose: To expand the Regional Center for the ‘Monroe 90-91 | ! 

[] [] 

‘ 
; 
' 

H 
:deve lop acquaintenceships and mutural inters. ‘ 

to
e 

sm
 

e
m
 
o
s
m
 

  

ation 

ermined . 

   

    

   



LUNE LILLE SAE ULIPAKIMEND UL LUULAT LUN 
1990-91 INILRDISIRICY COUPLRATIVE GRANT 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING    

ROM LOCAL/REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS 
Status 

  
  

  

  
  

‘with comunity members to generate on-going 
:support tor quality integrated education. 
  

  

of! 
:Participating'! # ot ' : #4 ol Yrs ! Summers ! Grant Award A Pte bn _____ Applicant !__Districts ‘Students ' Grades *_P/1 Grant !' Sch Yr :__Req./Negotiated ‘Glastonbury (U%4) ‘Glastonbury *' 1150 ! K-6 189-90 | 'Sch/Yyr $11,500 : 1.296 + CLARK/HOPEWELL SISTER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE K-6 ‘Harttord : : 190-91 I : 3 - 3 ‘To increase the understanding and appreciation of : ! - } : , : 19. ‘ethnic diversity throughout the two school commu- ° : ! : : : : : ‘nities by sharing programs projects and resources. : : : - : : 3 ‘Joint stalt development seminars are also planed. ! : : hi : - : :Opportunities tor collaborative planning will be ' : : : : : _:scheduled throughout the school year. : 4 i ig } iy ple Te ‘Glastonbury (U54) :tast Hartford! 5586 'K-5 90-9) Pp !Sch/Yr 10,000 ' 5.344 2 : PLANNING GRANT FOR URBAN/SUBURBAN MAGNET :Glastonbury . ‘ : ’ f ‘Planning activities which deal with Governance ’ : : . ) : 20. 'issues as well as curriculum development, and 3 $ - 1 : : ‘parent/community participation. Understanding of ! : - ? - ’ ‘the dynamics ol a culturally diverse classroom 1 : 3 : 2 8 rand school and an appreciation ot 1ts value is 3 . : -? : talso a focus. ’ 3 : 

: ‘Superintendents and stafts will also interact ! : 3 
2 [} } ’ 

[] : : ‘Harttord (064) ‘Hartford 90-91 (3U) Pre K '88-89 P Sch/Yr 190,000 57,0496 : INTERDISTIRICT MONTESSORI PROGRAM ‘West ‘ ‘89-90 P/I 2]. ‘Establish a pre-K-6 magnet interdistrict elemen- ' Harttord . 90-9) | ‘tary school serving Hartford and West Harttord; : : 
‘ 

‘lo address racial isolation and segregation in the 
‘central area. The montessori approach will be 
‘used; academic and social needs will be addressed. 
:Private sector tunds are also being sought. - LJ 
. 

[] 
. 

[J 
. 

[] 
o 

’ 

. 

. 

[] 
° 

J 
. 

’ 
. 

J 
. 

L] 
. 

] 
. 

[] 
. 

[J 
. 

[J 
. 

' 

. 

. 

J 
. 

’ 
° 

[J 
. 

[J 
. 

[] 
. 

    

|] 

[] 

|] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

90 Sunmer'47,255 ' 38,149% 
1] [] 

. 
[] 

[] 

[] 

[] 

1] 

[] 

[] 

  

    

: ‘ ' : 
‘ ‘ ‘ 
: : : Middletown (083) ‘Middletown : 60 ? ! * SUMMER MAGNE] PROGRAM ‘Cromwel | 3 ' 90-91 | - : To broaden and enrich the social and educational !Portland + : : 1 : - 22. ‘experiences of the participants by providing ‘Regional Sch.! : : 4 : academic and leadership experiences. Also to ! Dist. #123 : ’ ' ‘ : : ‘develop interpersonal skills, and require problem ® : 3 4 ! : : :solving and decision making. Activities include: 1 : } ’ : : ‘a) great hollow wilderness program b) group parti-! 3 : : ] : ! , ‘cipation/decision making c) program will be - : ! ' ' ' : ‘preceded by a week-long statt training program/ : : ! ’ ! ’ pe ‘focus on self-esteem and communication cont lict ) , 3 s : - : : —:Management. Receive planning tunds in FY 89-90. ° $ : 4 : BS a :New Britain (089) ‘New Britain '2,500 9-12 90-91 P Sch/yr 120,000 ‘Nol : + DISTANCE LEARNING CONSORTIUM OF CENTRAL CONN. Plainville ' 1 : : : ‘Recom- 1 ‘To plan all aspects of how to implement an ‘Farmington 4 : : 4 : ‘mended : ‘interactive distance learning consortium among : : : : - : : : ‘three central Connecticut towns. 3 ‘ ' ’ ' ' 4 : :Note: No mention of Quality Inteqrated Education.’ : : : ! : 1 

'q 
‘ntat ion g 
etermined 

: 

 



MAIL LL ANU DNL UL IVIL UT LUULA LUN 

1990-91 INTERDISIRICT COOPERATIVE GRANT 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING 

"ROM- LOCAL/REGIONAL SCHOOL DISIRICITS 
Status 

   
    

  

  

  

  

  

ol! ‘Participating! # ot ‘ * # ol Yrs ! Sunmer/ ! Grant Award . Joly tienen i Applicant Districts ‘Students ! Grades ! P/I Grant ! Sch Yr! Req./Negotialed : New Haven (093) !Amity Reg. #5' 236 ! 0-12 89-90 1 !Sch/Y¥r  'SU,LUU *' 57,09 NEW HAVEN-YALE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES !Brantord : : 90-91 | : : ? ‘By September 1990 approximately 150 students ‘Choate-Rose ! : : : : : representing the metropolitan area's racial, ! mary ' ! . ! ! : ‘ethnic, linguistic and socio economic population ‘East Haven ! : : : : : 24 ‘Will be enrolled in the program/Monday - Thursday !Hamden public! : : : : : * and B86 students will be enrolled in a Saturday ‘Hamden Hall ! ' 1 : 2 : ‘program of history and culture of East Asia and {Hopkins : ' : : { : ‘Rusia . Students will also participate in an ‘New Haven : $ . : ! : rinterdisciplinary multicultural program which ‘Notre Dame : : ! ' : : rdraws upon their own cultural linguistic, and ‘Wallingford ! : . : - : :and ethnic backgrounds. Westbrook : ' : ' : ‘ EE a ‘West Haven : : 3. Rha Ok QR EE si ‘Newington (094) ‘Harttord 25 1-12 90-91 | 'Sch/Yr 165,500 ‘Not ! HARTFORD AREA ALLIED HEALTH OCCUPATIONS ‘Glastonbury '!S trom : , : : ‘Recom- :To provide a magnet program in allied health ‘Wetherfield ‘each - y . ’ rmended ‘occupations at St. Francis Hospital. The ‘Farmington ‘district ! : , : , :districts involved need funds to cover the cost ‘Newington : : : : ! 2 ‘of providing transportation. Activities include: ! : : 4 : : a) two-hour course each day in allied health : : : : 4 , : 'b) clinical experiences in dental clinic in : ) - - ' , : ‘hospital dietician, hospital engineering, - + : : : ‘ : : laboratory technician and physical therapy. ] : : : ' : > ‘Equal number of students trom each area (low mino-! y : : : : : :rity count/little contact). 3 Yi : ow 1 Soa Hn ; !Newington (094) 125 CREC 1300 ' 5-9 ‘88-09 !Sch/Yr  '68,347 ' 53,000 ° 3 : PROJECT EQUAL (LOCATION QUIRK MIDD. SCHOOL) district ' : :89-90 | : > 2 : To provide quality educational that promote including : : 90-91 | : : : : ; ‘multicultural understanding by implementing the ) : 3 : : ' : 24. ‘tollowing: a) teacher inservice to work with : : $ - : - :diverse student body b) science/mathematics ' 1 ! . ? 4 : ‘program for 90 students c) leadership development ! ! : 3 y : : ‘tor 6U middie school students d) cultural arts ] ' 3 3 : 1 $ ‘program tor 150 students will acquaint students 3 - ] 1 : ' , With major cultural and arts institutions in : : ' ‘ ' : : ® ‘Hartford. Second year oft summer pgoram. : : : : 5 : Ge Yon aN g Plainville (110) Plainville : 180 ! K-2 90-91 vp Sch/¥r 120,000 ! 12,684 * EARLY CHILDHOOD INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL ‘New Britain !(49 H.S.)! : : : : ‘To develop a mode! for serving children all day ‘ : : 1 $ ' : : 25. 'in order to meet the needs of children whose : : - : - : i : ‘parents are working or attending school or : : : : : - : ‘training program - unique features: a) poss - : : ' : : : :location/High school students with elementary 3 d ' : } : ’ ‘students/positive role models d) high school : : : : : : - : ‘students could otter services to participating : - ‘ : : : :tamilles. Second year of planning. : : : : : EIN Sh ng 
entation . 

' ctlermined 

 



Tote Meena) Ul LUULAY LUN 1990-91 INILRDISIRICY COOPERATIVE GRANT 
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDED RANKING 

  

    

        

  

        

      
    
    

  

  

  

  

    

:began in FY 89-90 and to identity and test 
‘strategies for assessing school and student ‘progress toward these expectations. This will :be accomplished in quarterly meetings of the 
!advisory committee and by work groups established ‘to develop these expectations and consequences. :Consequences are tor school performance rather than the current practice of holding student 
:accountable. 

ROM.LOCAL/REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

Status ot! 
-Participating! # of 4 * # ot Yrs ! Summers Grant ‘Award } 

sh ! Applicant ‘Districts ‘Students ! Grades ' P/I Grant !' Sch Yr_'_ Req./Hegotidled 
rie Southington (131 

‘Bristol ! 200 *1&8 '89-90 | !Sch/Yr $38,500 ! 24,424 
76 * PARINERS IN SCIENCE 

‘Farmington : : 90-9) 1 : : : 
" 'a) To provide two cycles ot tive (9) Saturday ‘New Britain : 3 ! ‘ : ) 
‘morning science and math workshops tor 100 !Meriden : : 4 : ! ! : 
‘students and 1) teachers b) identity and éncourage:Southington ! 3 - : : : . 
‘minority and female students with an interest Wolcott 3 : ' ‘ ’ ' : 
‘potential in science to participate €) university ! y ! y 3 : ’ J 
‘protessors will work with the students d) engage ! 1 ' ’ : ’ y ' 
‘activities designed to promote the acceptance of ! 4 : + : y 3 : 
‘diversity. Selection of Minority students 1s : 4 1 : : , : y 
rincouraged. 

: 1 : : : a A ST Te 
‘Westbrook (154) ‘Westbrook ‘1,670 ! 3-8 :89-90 I  !Sch/¥r 188,834 ' 56,356 RR a 
!  URBAN/SUBURBAN COOPERATIVE ‘Clinton : 10-12 90-91 | , : - ) 

27. 'To promote Intercultural learning experiences not !New Haven ! J ' : ! : 4 
‘available to students within their respective : ‘ ' ! 3 s : ' : 

a :communities by: 3) discuss issues inherent in : : : 1 : : : : 
rdetacto racial and ethnic 1solation b) enable ' 3 : 4 : y : 4 
‘urban and suburban educators to discuss student 1 : : : 3 3 : : 
:needs and design cooperative projects c) providing! : ! ' : : ! ! 
‘three classes in urban/suburban studies involving ! : : : : - : : 
:45 urban students and 45 suburban students d) pro-! ' : 4 : ' : 
‘vide student exchange involving 1580 students in! : ' : 4 4 ! ’ 
grades 3 - 8, and 10 as part of an educational : 4 : ' ' ' ' : 

‘program. 2nd. year of program. > y : 1a he yl SET : ; 
West Hartford (155) 

‘Harttord 180-120 Pre-K-K '89-90 p !Sch/yr 20,000 ! 12,648 2 2 
: © MAGNET IMMERSION SCHOOL ‘West Harttord!initialiy!initial-'90-9] P : : ; 
28, :Second year ot planning is necessary to turther ‘Glastonbury '500 ‘ly : : : ; 

‘develop plans to establish the magnet immersion : ‘eventual-! ' + : ; 
school in Harttord and to complete the tollowing: ! ‘ly ! : 4 : 
:a) immersion curriculum b) establish criteria for 3 , : 

: : 
‘site location C) governance and control d) expand ! ' : 

: 
‘the relationship with the Participating college : 4 ' 

: 
‘e) design and implement 4 parent and public : ' : 

: : 
rawareness campaign. 

’ : 120 LA a i 
‘West Harttord (155) 

!Harttord ‘approx K-8 89-90 Pp Sch/Yr 35,000 !Not : 
: PERFORMANCE -BASED, CONSEQUENCE-DRIVEN SCHOOLS ‘West Harttord'9,900 90-91 p/I ‘Recom- : 

, To complete deve lopment of common expectations : y 
2 

L] 

] 

L] 

[] 

: : 
: ‘ ‘ 

, ‘ 
: : ‘ ‘ 
V V 

: : : ‘mended [] 
[] 

: : : : : ‘ ‘ 
: : : : 

: : :   ntation 

etermined 

 



Connecticut State Department of Education 
Division of Education Support Services 

INTERDISTRICT COOPERATIVE GRANT PROGRAM 1990-91 

Interim Reports 

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the interim evaluations submitted to the 
State Department of Education in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Interdistrict 
Cooperative Grants. For FY 1990-91, 27 programs were funded, five planning and twenty 
two(22) implementation. The total amount of funds appropriated for distribution was 
$1,039,000. 

Examples of interdistrict cooperation included: recruitment services, magnet school planning, 

sharing instructional programs, designing Regional Multicultural Resource Center, 

transportation and plant facilities. 

A review of the summary evaluations indicated: 

a) Program objectives are being met. 

b) All implementation and planning schedules are being keep. 

Cc) Fifteen (15) districts are participating in the five planning programs. 

d) 114 districts are participating in the twenty-two (22) implementation 

grants. 

e) All RESC are participating. 

f) Thirteen districts are participating in four (4) or more programs. 

ga) West Hartford is actively involved in eight programs. 

h) Eight Regional Districts are participating. 

i) Programs are serving large numbers of students. 

 



    
"pin oe vee 

Participating 
Districte 
  

RW=st Hartford 
Hartford 
Glastonbury 

Interdistricyt CooFerative Grant Program FLANNING GRANTS 1990-91 

a
 

Burpase af praojecy 

A. To review and complete the Kindergarten and first grade curriculum guides, 

B. To davelop a Public relations Plan and design a framework fOr. the information Packet. 

C. To davelop Criteria for 
Student entrance into the Program. 

2nd Year Planning 

Stats Derartment Of Education 
\ 

WEST HARTFORD /MAGNET IMMERSION 

- , 
« ~ <Q - 

Al. Spanish immersion curriculum for Kingerdarten and grade 1 was develop=d. Aa. Curriculum for magnet immersion iS under review, 
A3. Major goals for two-way immersion Programs have bes=n developed. 

“Bl. Subcommittee €Stablished to work on 

B2. Several Sites are under consideration. 63. Information Packet for Public/completed contact has bean Mada with Trinity College and crec for possible involvement. i.e. finding an 

B49. A communications network has been 

 



  

Interdistrict Cooperative Grant Frogram 
PLANNING GRANTS 1990-91 

@::iciraring 

—Aistricts eurgnse af Project 

v 

®Glastonbury 1. TO develop a multicultural 
East Hartford 

1992. 

2. Planning will deal with 

goverance issues as well as 

curriculum development. 

®lst Year Planning 

  

interdistrict school for 

grades K-49 by Septermbar of 

cA ar a, 8 CPR 

State Department of Education 

FLANNING GRANT FOR URBAN/SUBUREAN MAGNET 

Steps Taken Towards Project Implementation 

Al. 

A. 

A3. 

Ag. 

AS. 

AB. 

A. 

Eoth Boards of Education have expressed 
their support for tha concept. . 
DeveloFed and submitted a 
three hundred thousand dollar grant 
proposal. 
The magn2t school thzm2 has been 
identifi=d. 

Tima linas through September 1992 has 
bean developed. 
Parent/Community survey, to determine 

inter=st, was developed and 
administered. 
Parent/Community meetings were held to 
discuss program and disseminate 
information. 
Tha recruitment of interested teachers 
is in progress. 
Daveloped and conducted a public 

relations campaign. a 
Developed a "Friends of the Magnet School" 
network to raise interest and support 
for the project.



  

Participating 

CES 
Ansonia 

Darby 

East Haven 
Hamden 

North Haven 

Orange 

Seymour 
West Haven 
Woodbridge 

Interdistrict Cooperative Grant Program PLANNING GRANTS 1930-91 

Burpnse nf projecy 

i. Jo design a model far an 
interdistrice, raciallyy/ 
Culturally integrated sCience magnet school for 300 students. 

2. Since the Submission of this grant, two more districts have joined the Planning effort. 

3. The PUTPOSe is now to have a regional plan with magnets 
that would complemant each 
other and allow for students to cross district lines in both directions. 

4. Th2 proposed POFUlation to ba served will be Students, ages S-14, of varying ability and Socioeconomic lavels from ’ bOth urban and suburban 
Committees. 

%lst vear Planning 

State Department of Education 

INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL FOR SUCESS 
PREPARING STUDENTS FOR TOMORROW 

Al, 

A2. 

A3. 

Aq. 

AS. 

AG. 

a7. 

/ 

The planning committee consists of 20 members 
Si% planning meet ings have occurred. Parent Survey was designed and 
distributed. Results caused slight Changes in forms. 
8) characteristics Of quality 

education to be reflected in any magnet school in the ACES region. The development Of a staffing Plan is an ongoing Process. ; The regional aPPToach has bean accepted. (An effort to involve New Haven is {n Progress.) 
Three districts have chosen Sites for the magnat schools. 
4) Hamdan, CT 
b) North Haven, CT 
C) Woodbridge, cr 
Visits to magnaet schools are 
taking place. 

Representing Nine districts. 

Grant 

amount 

$12,685 

 



  

Participating 

¥Flainville 
ie %® New Britain 

  

Interdistrict Coop2rative Grant Program PLANNING GRANTS 1990-91 

urpase af Project 

1. To initiate a develormentally dPPropriate education in an 

I ~~. ENE fie LE £8 © CY TO AEE 

State Derartment of Education 

EARLY CHILDHOOD INTEGRATED DAY SCHOOL 

Second Year of Flanning 
Al. integrated environment for 5-8 

Yy2ar olds. (app 
180 children. 

e\
 

2. The Program will address the 

roximately 

heterogeneous skills and 
abilities of young children 
and the needs of Culturally 
and linguistica 
Students. 

*2nd Year Planning 

lly diverse 

‘A2, 

A3. 

_A4. 

AS. 

Steering committee has met three (3) 
. times, 

All subcommittee Farticipants have 
been chosen. : 
Three year implementation schedule 
has been completed. 2 
The focus of the school has been 
estab lished. 

Curriculum philosophy has been 
agreed upon. 
3ite has been recommanded. 
Staffing pattern Proposed. 
Staff training process. 
The family's role in the 
Frogram and training 
Neads constitute a 
component. 

Grant 

amount. 

$12,688



State Department Of Education 

  

Interdistrjicy Cocrerat ive Grant Frogram 
FLANNING GRANTS 1990-931 

THE 1-5 PLANNING PROJECT 
CREC 

Participating 
: 

: 

x 
Grant 

—Districsg 
BUrpase af projoecy 

£ s 

Caount 

( %CREC 
l. To overcome racials/ethnicy 

al. Planning Committee 
with Frerresentat 

jveg 12,6053 

Glastonbury 

Cultura) Stereotypeg 
dnd biageg 

from 10 districts 
has bezn established. 

Granty 
by breaking down racija) 

A2. Four training Sessions, with an average 

(EW Jimsbury 
isolation, 

Promoting saj¢- 
Of 29 teachers ¢rom Participating 

South Windsor 
esteem ang fostering 

Student 
districts, 

have OCCurred 

Enfialg 

and faculty group relationships. 
AS. Two Special meetings o¢ technology 

( BS Sou thington 

Coordinators 
regarding 

Hart¢org 

: 
telecommunicat 

ons were held. 

Manchester 
; 

: 

Aq, Teachers, 
administrators, 

library 

C Somers 

media Personnel 
ang Computers technology coordinators 

( 

activities to €nhance current instruction jin the Engligh 

2. To provide Flanning Project Literature Curriculum, 

9 

Participants with Professionaj 

® 
®lst Year Planning 

 



State Department Of Education 

  

Interdistrict CooFrerative Grant Program FLANNING GRANTS 1220-91 

MULTICULTURAL SHARING AND TRIBUTES 

Farticipating 

Grant 

Districts g 
. Burganse Of Ernjecy 

, 
fa) : = bd 

amount 

®CREC 
}. Establish a broad basgd Al. A ten membar Planning Committee 

$5,158 

EloomfFielyg 
Planning Committza, 

reprasenting Hartford, West Hartford 

Hartford 

and Windsor was established ang Six 

Wast Hartford 

Planning dates have been agreed upon. 

Windsor 

a. Fefinement and evaluation o¢ A(283) Fifth-grade Class at Whiting Lane 

i 
the tribute Process via an 

Elementary School in West Hartford 

: 
‘ ddditional interdistrict tribute. worked with drama and musical groups from Hartford Public High Schoo) to 

s. Selection of an on-going 
Present ga tribute to Dona Felisa Rincon. 

residential Program which could A(283) a modified tribute format was testey. 

maximize the benefits Of the 
490 hours Will be SUfficient. 

Program 

Multicultural awareness and leadership 

4. Design o¢ a tribute format that d2ve lopment training will be Components 

could integrate well with the : Of the revised format. 

Selected residential Program. A4. A serijeg Of meetings o¢ the Nationa} 
, 

Conf=rence o¢ Christians and Jews, Inc 

5S. Promote COoFeration betwesan 
CREC and Equal stags m2mbersg (Summer 

Students from different SChool Program) resulted in 4 decision to 

Communities. 3 
incorporate the Tribute Program into tha Equal Program. 

6. Provida Students with role models ¢rom differant vocations ang Cultural heritages. 
®» 

7. Bread down Student : Stereotypes. 

%1st vear Plan/Implementat jon 

. 

. 

 



  

articipating Number of 

Fridgeport 

  

State Department Of Education Interdistrict Coop2rative Grant Program IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 1330-31 

INTERDISTRICT EARLY CHILDHOOD MAGNET SCHOOL Grade : Re gars 

PreK-s l1. To €stablish an interdistrict, early Childhood magnet school 

dPPTOX imately 500 Students to be located in Bridgeport. 

2. Develop State legislation for the renovation o¢ the school and grant Proposals for federal SUPPOIt, 

3. Secure funds to deyelop aPPropriate architectual SPeCifications for the renovation of the School, 
4. To seek aPpProval from the Various VOE, of the magnet concept "s to - 2 

*One Year Planning 
¥One Year Planning 

: eh 
Al. The Early Childhood Magnet School Committee was established. 

A3. CES conference (May 1, 1991) to 

‘Aq. The coordinator o¢ the Project has received 

 



State Derartmant Of Educasjon 
Interdistrict CooFerative Grant Frogram 

: 

® 

IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 1330-31 

  

SOUTHEASTERN CT. TASK FORCE ON R/E EQUITY 

Farticipating Number of Grade 

Grant 

—Districtg Earticipansg Levels Object jyeg 

Evidence a¢ Accomp) ignmen; 
A Gmaung 

*Project Learn 4s Students Flanning A. To voluntarily address racial Al. Magnet SChoo} advisory Committiag : 37,035 

East Lyme a5 parents Fra-K-s isolation in OUr schools by 
m2t 14 times July-danvary 20-91 

Groton 22 BOF Pg 
developing 4 magnet S8Choo1 AR. Fresentations have teen given to 

Ledyard Participants Imp. for the region to give 
the BDE of each district. 

Montville 

Students a 3lobal multi- 
A3. Five districts. have aPProved the 

New London 

Cultural Perspective SO they 
magnet d2sign and will Participate, 

North Stonington 
€an function in a Pluralistic Two districts are pending and one 

Freston 

SOCiety. 

district Save partial aPpProval. 

Salem 

; Ad. Possible Sites have peen Chosen. 

ington . 
B. To establish g Multicultural) 

NO decision ust. 

erford X 
resource center, 

Aas, Staffing training Needs and Fatterns 

Project Learn 

have pean d2velopad. 

-C. To establish CoopPerative as, Curriculum focus has been determined. 

exChange Program. 
AT. Governance o¢ the school was agreed 

: 
od UFon. 
AB. The task force Submitted a Proposal “r to the Magnat School Assistance Program/federa) Program. Bl. Materials ¢or the resource center are being targeted. 
B2. 6&0 items have been ordered for thea Center. 

Cl. 45 second and third gradars from ten 

Program, (Other aCtivities have been Plannayd. ) 

*0One vear Planning ® Two vears Planning/impiemzntiat jon 

: 

 



State D2partment of Education 

  

Interdistricy Cooperative Grant Frogram . 
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 1230-91 

. 
CLARK/HOPEWELL SISTER SscHooL PROGRAM 

Particirating Number o¢ Grads 

‘Grant 

—0istricsg Barticipanig Levelq Object jypg 

Evidence n¢ accamp)icppen; 
Amount 

“Glastonbury 400 K-68 A. To Cultivate a long term 
Al. Faculties from both SChools met 

$7,296 

Hartforg 

friendship and Partnarship 
in Hartford to: plan for greatar 

between the Students, Stafe¢ 
involvement and to inCrease the 

and Community or both SChool 
number o¢ t2acharg and studants 

districtg. 

Farticipating in the Project 100 teachers and parentg 

8. To increase the Understanding : Participating in the meting. 

ph 
; 

and dPPTraciation Of 2thnic A. The executive boards of both 

x 
and racial diversity, 

SChools' PTO's met in the ¢faj} to organize g joint task force that will oversee tha Program. 

holiday tree that was later donated to the Wadsworth Museum's festival Of trees, (Received Coverage in the Hartford Courant) ¥2nd vear Implementation 
. 

 



State Oepartmant Of Education 

  

Interdistrict COOF2rative Grant Program IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 1290-31 

CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 

Farticipating Number of Grade 

Grant 

—Districsg Earticipansg Levels Object jysg 

Evidence af accamp) jepmeny 
amoung 

    

   

*N2w Haven 165 10the Aa. Instruction in the language, A-1. Language intensive Program meets $57,036 

Eethany 
12th history ang Culture of China, Monday through Thursday afternoon 

Orange 

Japan and Russ ia. 
from 2:00 pm until 9:15 pn. 

Woodbridge 

j 
East Haven 

B. Promotion Of voluntary 
A-2. Saturday Seminar meets from 9:30 am 

Hamden 

integration Of minority 
until 11:30 am. Focus is on Russian 

d1lingforg 
and Non-minority Students; ~ A-3, In the summer o¢ 1920 nine Students 

@:. 
‘ 

: 

went to the Soviet Union, six to 

C. Region-wide Programming 
Jaran and ¢ouyr to China. 

involving urban public, . A-4q., Student Farticipation has increasey 

Suburban PUbLiC, private 
from 98 students in 1990 to 165 

. 
and parochia) 8§Choo1lsg 

in 129), 
fB~1. Tha 2thnic breakdown ¢op 90-91 schoo] ' Year is as follows: 

  

a) White 6 
b) Black 49 
€) Hispanic i" 
d) Asian 11 

Cl. The enrollment breakdown 
- 

is as follows: . 
New Haven Fublic 89 Suburban Public 77 Frivate oq Parochial 16 

-» 
¥2nd vear Implementation 

 



State Department of Education 

  

Interdistricyt Cooperative Grant Frogram IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 1290-91 

bi 
World History Humanities Courses 

    

v 

EASTCONN 

. 

Participating Number o¢ Grade 

S 
Grant 

—Districig Barticipansig Levels Qhject jysqg 
Esidence of Accomp) ishmens 

Qmaung 

*EASTCONN 

oo 

Manchester 
2-10 1. . TO Promote Quality integrated Four classes hava been helgq (9am-12: 20pm) $52,053 

East Hartford 

by means Cf 3 new world 
on two occasions and from Pam-1pm on 

Chaplin 

history humanities course for two oCCasions. 

Windham 

9th and 10th grade Students. 
. 

. 

Storrs 
; 

Evaluation report 

@®: Smith) 
2. Examine different Cultures . 4. high attendance and leve] 

. 
and Civilizations Systematically, Of Participation b. staf¢ Perceptions o¢ the program 

y. Understand the ways in which 
are uniformly POSitive 

different ethnic groups in contact influence ®€ach other; ot 

  

q. Examine the literature, art and music of major Civilizations. 

35. To bring Students from rural, Suburban, and inner City SChools together to find mutual under- 

®lst Year Implementation 

 



*Project and 
Farticipating 

*Eridgeporg 
Fairfislg 
Monroe 

Stratforg 
Trumbu]} 

State Derartment Of Education 
Interdistricy Cooperative Grant Program 

IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 1930-91 

REGIONAL CENTER FOR THE ARTS 
0) 

Numt.erpr Of Grade . ; Ls ] Qk. i ¢ 4 

- . 29 9-12 TO offer Students 
Thirty nine Students are involvey 

OFPOrtunitjeg to express in this Program. The breakdown jig as 

and dzvajlop theip Creative follows: . 
Potential to encourage 

8 Students Ethnicity Bridgeport 14 6 Black, 7 Hispanic 1 Caucasian Fairfieilg kf Bi Caucasiang Monroe 
Ss Cavcasians : : 1 Hispanic Stratforg : 7 Caucasians 

First Semester evaluations Trumbull} 
3 Cavcasiang 

indicate the following. 
eraction at urban Performance CPPOTtuUNit jes: 

and suburban Students gg ' @) Nine of the Nutcracker 

the most Success¢y]) aspact 
in Collaboration With the 

Of the Program. 
- 

t Theatre 

Mutual respect ang admiration jig "abundant" were aimeg at 
among the Students ang 

SChoo1} audience 
faculty, 

¥1 Year Planning 
Q Year Planning 

 



State D=partmant Of Sducation 

  

Interdigstricy CooFerative Grant Program 
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 1990-91 

WHO ARE WE» Sharing Diversity Through the Arts 

*Froject and 
Farticipating Number Of Grade 

: : Grant 

—Districrsg Barticipansg Lavelg Object jyeg 

Suidence af Accomp icnpeny 
Qmaung 

“CES 

6-8 
Eridgepoprt sa Students 

1. Students from both urban Al) 8&7 Students from, 7 districts 
$61,472 

Westport 18 teachers 
and Suburban SChoo] 

Participated. a, 
: 

Monrose 
White q2 

districts Will pe integrateq A2) 30 Students from two urtan area 

Trumeul) Hispanic 15 
on an £qual footing in the 

(Bridgeport & Norwalk) and 3s 

NOrwa 1k Black 7 
Program dnd dea] With issues Students from = Suburban 

Asian 3 
d5S50Ciated With raciaj 

Communities Successfy] yy 

isolation. 

Completed the Program 

R 
% 

2. To USe theatre arts to AS Orientation dCtivitijes and some 

to d2vealcp Communication 
follow-up activities took Place 

Skills among Middle SChoo} in each of the Sending SChools 

Students from Various Bl. Five Consulting artists worked 

racial ang Cultura) 
JWith ten teacherg to implement 

backgrounds 
"the Courses | B2. Ton stase members )jiyvey With the 

C. To dSSist Students to 
Studentg on the Univ, 

ident i¢y theip needy / 
Bridgaporg Campus during the two 

Parcept jong attributes; 
Wank Program. 

"to listen to otherg to BS, Program Staff hog discussions 

acknowledge and accept 
on a regular basis, With Students 

differences; to fing ways on issveg of diversity, 

; 

to Coorarate; through Cl. Parentg indicatag in a questionnaire 

the arts. 

that: 

districts, Cultures, and 

. ‘ ’ 
: 

: 2thnic backgrounds 

- 

. : 
: 

ca. Student art 2Xhibit took Place at 
the State Office Building in Hartforyg. 

C3. Student and teachers agreed jin 

ligt Year Summer Frogram 

. 

 



  

¥Froject ang 
Farticipating 

“RESCUE 
Danbury 
New Milford 
Newtown 
Rid32field 
Bethe] 
Re3ion 11s 
New Fairfioly 
Brookfield 
Brewster 
Redding 

  

State DeFrartment Of Education 
Interdistrict Cooperative Grant Program IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 1990-231 

PROJECT DISCOVERY Number o¢ Grade 
Levels 3 oe) 

1000 Students Sth 1... To Promote interest 
in SCi2ence, mathematics and the arts in a 
University s2tting among a Culturally diverse 

2. Provids OPFOrtunitiesg for Multicultural 2XChangsa 

from diffarent Communities Communitissg and backgrounds. 

S. Improve the Understanding and teaching about Cultural diversity and to Provide OPPOrtunities to develop skills to deal with diversity in a. POSitive way. 

%3rd vear Implementation 

ie Troe 
14) Saturday SChedule'sg 

Stat lished... March 2, 9, 16 and 23) ar 
16) Activities in Computer use electricity, biology ang Chemistry have bezn plannag. 1C) Aarts aCtivities will iNnClude: Fhotography, fO1lk dancing, Story telling and television Froduction. 

2A) 1000 5th grade Students havea attendeyg the "Kick Qf¢v meet ing. 
: 28) All eleven groupings will have urban & suburban Students. 2C) Students will Participate in various Cultural activities. 34) 60 @lementary S§Choo]) teachers Will attend Classag, 38) Teachers that Participated last yegp dicussed SuCCessesg With ney teachers, 3C) Teachers have bean traineg in the World at Difference and wil] attend COursasg dealing With Cultura) diversity,



  

State Department of Education Interdistrict Cooperative Grant Frogram IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 1920-91 : 

PARTNERS IN SCIENCE 

¥Froject and 
Participating Number o¢ Grade 

Levels Object jypg 
A a 

¥Southington 150 Students 6-12 A. Foster 4 working relation- lA. Evaluvationg indicate Success in 

Farmington 18 teachers 
Ship among Students and Students objectives. 

Meriden 

Staff from diverse 
Parent Survey d=sianed ang 

New Britain 
Communities. 

ddministered Students and Staff. 

Plainville 

cA. Students and staff from the 

Eristol 
B. Identify ang =NCourage Farticirating school districts 

Wolcott 0 
Minority ang female : are 2ngaged {n aCtivities 

: 

students with an interagt d2signed to Promote the 
and potential in science. acceptance o¢ diversity and an intaregt jin sCience. 

C. Give CCsu Professors an SA. ccsu Staff have Provided five 
OPPOTtuUNnity to Work with « (Ss) Saturday morning workshops 
Practicing Middle/Junior for (100) Students ang (11) 
High School educators. a” teachers. Five more sessions 

: 
are planned. : D. Enhance Middl2/uuniopr 44. Professional development 

High School and High 
OFFOTtunitiesg Provided by 

SChDO1 Teachers undar- businesses and industries. 
standing of State of the art scientific 

SA. Parent meeting hald/another 
technology and knowledge. Planned. : 

%2nd Year Implementation 

  

Grant 

Qmaung 

$24,424



  

*Froject and 
Participating 

%CES 

Trumbul} 

W2ston 

Fairfiqlg 

Wilton 

Stamforg 

Ridgefje)g 

Stratford 

Erid3yeport 

Greenwich 

Norwa 1k 
N=w canaan 
Monroe 

Darien 

  

Number of Grade 
Leve)lg 

= 1-12 World Of 
Difference 
637 teacharg 
traineg 
Bordar Crossing, Class - 4) high SChool students 

Sister Classeg 
Sth ang Sth 
grads 
NOorwa 1g: 
Students 
Stamforg. 66 
Students 
Darien: 207 
Students 
Teachers 9 
Principa). 6 
Asst, Supt. ] 
Trainers. 15 
Educators 

100 

¥a2nd year Implementation 

LJ 

MULTICULTURAL RESOURCE CENTER aT CES 

Suidence n¢ Accomp) icppeny 

Object jyeg 

5. Recruit and staff the 

MUlticultyraj Curriculum and sta¢e development 

B. Provide Community-pagay awareness §2SSions on issues related to integration, Prejudice reduction and Cultura) diversity. 

C. To SUPPOrt the Sister Project {Interdisciplinary and interdistricy Fro3gram integrating 
SCience, 
Cultura) 
language arts, sth and 6th grades, 

D. Provide World o¢ Difference training Sess iong on an interdistricy basic. 

3. Fifteen teacharsg traineyg in Prejudice .reduct jon five 

Seven Community-tagoy Sessions 
7 Community memberg dttendey these saven sessions. Seven different Organizatijong SFONsored these Programs. 

- A total o¢ 9235 —- Sth/6th grade Students, Nnin= teachers, 

Of the overal) urban FOPU lation 60/40.



  

State Department of Education 
Interdistrict Cooperative Grant Frogram IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 1220-91 *Froject and 

Farticipating Number o¢ Grade 
Levelg 

®CREC 
Planning K-12 Canton 
Commitige Farmington Memberg 15 Glastonbury Represent ing Granby Districts 12 Manchester ; : 

Newington 
Plainvi]je % Simsbury 

: SQuth Windsor 
Suffiely 
West Hartford 

*2nd Year Implementation. 

ENHANCE PROJVECT CONCERN 
CREC 

Child-through: 
a) in-saprvice 
b) curricular tools Which SP2ak with 2thnicity c) attitude dwarensss of “Otharg" 

To increase dwarenesgs and Understanding Of Project Concern through: 
a) disseminat jon of 

factual materia] b) dissemination Of audio and written materials for use in Staff 
davelopment 

; 

Grant 

Bidence ae Accomp) iengan; 
amning 13) Schoo] SuPerintendents have ° 
$11,414 

identif {ey OF Conferreg with thejip SChoo) Systems 2nchance Project Concern representatives. 1b) Regular meetings with SChoo 

.CREC Froject coordinators 1) Stace d2ve lopment Participants have been identified. 

e(a-b) workshop SChedu les 
three have keen 
estatlishay for 
disseminating 
information. 

2(a-b) To date, the “Enhance Project Concern 
Committee has developed 4 brochure and video ¢or distribution to each district. Workshops are SCheduled for March 4: 'S, 

21. 

 



RN PI LI ig cee 

State Department Of Education 

Interdistrict Cooperative Grant Program 
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 1990-91 

®Froject and 
Participating 

Grade 

Levels 

Number of 

tacticipantg 

RNewington/CrEC a7s 
Avon +10S over 8&9 

Carlin Selected-first- 
Bloomfield Coma enrollment 
Canton breakdown 
Cromwell A) suburbs 56% 
East Granby B) Hartford 44% 
East Hartford 
Ellington & 
Enfield 
Farmington 
Glastonbury 

Granby 

Hartford 

Manchester 

Newington 

Flainville 

ROCKY Hill 

CREC 

Simsbury 

3outh Windsor 

Suffield 
West Hartford 

Haethersfield 

Windsor 

Windsor Locks 

EQuAal (Summer) 20 days 
(Newington and GREC) 

Object ives 

4Ath-6th Al. Reduce the so0Cial/ethnic 
isolation of students 

Provide quality education 
SXpPeriences for students - 
that promote multi-cultural 

Prepare tedchers to work with 
8 diverse student body. 

Euidencs cf Accomplishaent 

al. 

Grant 
amount 

The rFroject brought 27s students $5,000 
together/an increase o¢ 108 ¢érom 
Previous year. 

Intal . LC 
    36% suburbs 47 S 92 
44% Hartford 

Total % 

AR. 

So 2 10 
understanding 

30.58 20.78% 37.10 5.62 

Evidenced in Teacher-Selection Criteria 
(experience, Sbility and talent) and the 
Curriculum guides for each class. 
Attention to the students academic 
enrichment and increased multi-cultural 
dwareness are evident in these guides. 
All Teachars, 20 in number and representative Of the student POPUlation, spoke 0¢ an 
increase {in Perception, skills and awareness There were 19 A.R.C. student teacher 
Participants and 3 student aides. 

3 

CREC students visited a total of 20 sites. 
Students also visited the neighborhoods of the Cultures they studies, including Italian, Irish, Native American, Puerto Rican, African American, Asian American West Indian, English, Garman and Eastern European 

% 1 Year Planning 
® 2 Year Implementation 

 



  

State Department of Education 

: Interdistrict Cooperative Grant Frogram 
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 1990-91 

Project and 
Participating Number of Grade 
—Districes 

Levels 

%CREC 1S districes K-12 1. All CREC contributes 
( Districts manpower to 

5 23 Districts Staff committees 
i Committed * 

(: Financial 

Support 
2. 

¢ 

( 3, 

( 

( 
4. 

C 

( 
. 

\ 2nd Year Implementation 

  

RECRUIT MINORITY TEACHERS 

Objectives 

TO increase the number of 
1991-92 minority 
applicants for teaching 
Positions in the schools 
Compared to 1990-91. 

To increase the actual 
number of minorities 
teaching in the schools 

oh 

To develop a recognizable 
Physical presence at . 
national job fairs. 

To implement a concerted 
advertising, interviewing 
and recruiting efforts. 

Evidence af Accoqplishaent 

l. The minority teacher recruiting Project 
has attracted a total of 60 applications 
to date for 1991-92. 
b) they are 6-8 inquiries Par day 

For 1990-91 three minority educators vere 
hired through this project. 
b) 19 committed vacancies from 12 of the 

Job fairs in which CREC recruiters 

Particirating districes 

will be represented: 
Conference of minority educators 
in Dallas, Texas; Washington D.C. 
Boston, MA; and Springfield, MA 

Two teams are conducting interviews 
and Campus visits in Philadelphia 
and Atlanta (Feb. 91) 
b) rerresentatives from nine (9) 

Hartford area school Systems wil) 

c) 

d) 

Particirate in interviewing 
studants from 12 historically 
black collegas. 
have shared information and 
and strategies with three other 
RESC 
Participating districts have 
contributed more than $20,000 
to this progranm. 

Grant 

amaunt 

$17,007



  

State Defrartmsnt of Education 

Interdistrict cooperative Grant Program 
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 1990-91 

*Project and 

  

ParticirFrating Number of Grade 
nistiricts Barticigants Leuels 

Hartford 20 students Age 3 
H2st Hartford Hartford 1S first 

W. Hartford S year 

#Blacks -- 12 

BHispanic -- § 

White -- 3 

%2 Years of Planning 
%1 Year Implementation 

  

QiECL ine 

3. To develop in each Child a 
Positive attitude towards 
SChool. 

2. TO help each child develo 
sal f-confidence 

8. TO assist each child in 
building a habit of 
concentration. 

q. Foster Curiosity, 
Persistence. 

initiative and 

INTERDISTRICT MONTESSORI FROGRAM 

Evidence af Accomplishment 

Al-A4 

Al-A4 

Teacher observations indicate pupil 
have made giant strides in area A1-a4. 

Teacher observations are largely 
anecdotal: happy to come to school, 
returns work to Proper shelf, 
students exhibit independance, 
Eelf-asteem independence and 
FPUPL1-pPUPil. 
Positive Interaction. 

Grant 

amaun 

$57,096



  

DISTRICT 
kc 
MIDDLETOWN 
Newington 
Bloomfield 

DISTRICT 

**Plajinville 
W. Hartford 
CES 
LEARN 

Hartford 
Bloomfield 
CES 
ACES 
ACES 
CREC 
Glastonbury 
CREC 
Westbrook 
Southington 
New Haven 
CREC 
Bridgeport 
EASTCONN 

RESCUE 
Glastonbury 
Windham 
CREC 
Bridgeport 

Summer Program 
Funded 

NAME OF PROJECT 
aring Uiversity Through The Arts 

Summer Magnet Program 
Project Equal 
Suburban Collaborative Summer School 

AMOUNT 
REQUESTED 

47.255 
64.634 
80,000 

Total 

FUND ING 
AT 82% 

38.749 
53,000 
65,600 

218,821 

Fund Programs Designed for Year Long Implementation at 63.44% 

NAME OF PROJECT 
  

Early Childhood 
Magnet Immersfon 
Regional Early Childhood Magnet 
S.E. Conn. Task Force Racial/Ethnic Equity 
Interdistrict Montessori Program 
Pride 
Regional Multicultrual Resource Center 
Preparing Students for Tomorrow 
Greater Waterbury Educational Program 
Multicultural Sharing and Tributes 
Clark Hopewell Sister School System K-6 
The 1-5 Planning Project 
Urban/Suburban Coop 
Partners in Science : 
Center for International Studies 
Enhance Project Concern 

- Regional Center for the Arts 
World History Humanities Course 
Project Discovery 
Urban/Suburban Magnet School 
Improve School Climate/Integrated Program 
Recruit Minority Teachers 
Exploration Inc 

$1,039,000 Amount Appropriated 
40,000 Amount Legislature Awarded to Windsor 

$999,000 Amount to be awarded to District/RESC 
Amount 998,961 Total Grant 

  

application. 

AMOUNT FUND ING 
REQUESTED AT 63.44% 

20,000 12,688 
20,000 12,688 
67,769 42,993 
90,000 57,096 
90,000 57,096 
90,000 57,096 
70,103 44,473 
20,000 12,688 
88,196 55,952 
8,122 5,153 

11,500 7,296 
19,866 12,603 
88,834 56,356 
38,500 24,424 
90,000 57,096 
18,000 11,419 
90,000 57,096 
82,060 52,059 
89,902 57,034 
10,000 6,344 
65,730 41,699 
28,195 17,887 

132,951 20,904 

Total 780,140 

**Remaining balance of 
$39.00 awarded Plainville, 

the highest rated 
Grant $12,688 

+$39.00 bonus = $12,727. 

D
i
v
 

j
a
w
t
v
a
c
s
 

 



  

CV 89-03690%775 

MILC SBIFF, ot al QUPEEION CCU L 
J.D. HARTFORD/NEW 

Plaintiffs NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD 

No 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al     
~ Defendants ry. 1991 

AFFIDAVIT OF G. DONALD FERREE, JR. 
  

1, G. Donald Ferree, Jr., being over the age of 18 and of sound 

mind, after having been duly sworn do hereby depose and say the 

following: 

1. I am the Associate Director of the Institute for Social 

Inquiry and I direct our survey research including Connecticut 

Poll. The Institute for Social Inquiry is affiliated with the 

University of Connecticut. 

23. In early 1990 1 was contacted by representatives of the 

Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated Education. As I 

understand it, this group is a task force set up by the Governor 

for the purposes of exploring ways to promote quality and 

integrated schools. 

17 3. On behalf of the Governor's Commission on Quality and 

| Integrated Education I was asked to conduct a public opinion poll 

'\ to ascertain the attitudes of Connecticut residents regarding 

| integration and quality education. 

4. Between April 19 and May 7, 1990 I and my staff conducted 

interviews for the requested survey. The survey was conducted in| 

accordance with generally accepted practices for conducting this 

type of survey. 

5. On or about July 10, 1990, I presented my findin3s to the 

Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated Education. My 

findings are summarized in the attached documents consisting of 

| 11 pages. 

       



  

    

    

6. To the best of my knowledge and belief the attached documents 

contain a true and accurate representation of the results of the 

survey which was performed for the Governor's Commission on 

Quality and Integrated Education. 

The foregoing points and statements are true and accurate to the 

best of my knowledge and belief. 

A reds Cr ttt 
  

G. Donald Ferree, Jr. 

Affiant 

subscribed and sworn to before me this 5+ day 

of NAL y 1991 
  

ra 

       

  

pe 

/] 2 . ( (fs 

; (Bre 
otary Public/Commissioneér of the 

Superior Court wi 

Be 

INES : leprif L (79 

  

  
 



   
Institute for Social Inquiry . Governor's Commission on 

'"Wniversity of Connecticut Quality and Integrated 
* Education 

July 10, 1990 

Overview of Survey Findings 

The Connecticut public believes that, on balance, improving the 

~ racidl and cultural mix in Connecticut schools would enhance the quality 
of education in the state and have a long-term positive impact on our 

multi-ethnic society. At the same time, it is clear that QUALITY of 
education for the individual student is paramount. Thus, support for 

any specific mear.s of improving racial balance depends very; much on the 

costs it might impose on values of quality and localism. "Busing" as a 

symbol remains troubling to many residents, probably because of its 

association with community conflict and a view of racial balance as a 

numerical affair, in which individual students are lost in a search for 

demographic balancing. 

These conclusions come from a survey of 750 randomly selected 

Connecticut adults conducted as part of the work of the Governor's 

Commission on Quality and Integrated Education. The Commission engaged 

the Institute for Social Inquiry at the University of Connecticut to 

design the instrument, administer the interviews, and analyze the data 

from this study. The aim of the survey was NOT to conduct a 

"referendum" on any specific potential program to enhance racial 

balance, but rather to explore the basic attitudes forming the public 

opinion context in which any program would have to be carried out. 

Following procedures used by ISI in some two hundred studies since 

1979, 750 randomly selected adults were identified and completed an 

approximately 12 minute long telephone survey between April 19 and May 7 

of this year. The results have a "margin of error" of about plus or 

minus 4%, for percentages around 50%. 

The public perceives present-day society as still "segregated" to a 

marked extent, and sees discrimination against blacks and other racial 

minorities as a serious and continuing problem, especially in the area 

of schooling and housing. This is true of both whites and those of a 

minority racial or ethnic grouping (referred to as "non-whites" for 

short), although the latter tends to take a more pessimistic view of 

what is happening. 

Education is important to Connecticut residents, and when they think 

of public education, QUALITY is foremost. Racial balance (and other 

racial concerns) as such occupy a low place on the priority list; 

factors directly related to the quality of education received by 

students are at the top. However, racial balance is not unrelated to 

the kind of education students get nor in the prepartion for life it 

affords, and this is perhaps the key finding of the study. 

Residents find a wide range of things to be positive for their 

schools, and a good racial mix IS among them, all other things being 

equal. On balance, the public thinks children (of both white and non- 

white backgrounds) benefit educationally, or at least are not harmed, by 

integration. They believe that a good racial and cultural mix among 

students AND faculty and administrators is a positiwe thing. Most 

 



   ® ® PAGE 2 

tellingly, perhaps, they endorse the idea that education integrated 

along racial lines will better prepare students for living and working 

in a multi-cultural society and that school integration will ameliorate 

relations between whites and non-whites in the larger society. 

Any particular plan for improving racial balance will NOT encounter 

opposition in itself, because balance (or at least a more diverse mix) 

is seen as a good. But there are concerns about quality to be 

addressed, and the twin basic values of localism and parental choice. 
~All things equal, the public endorses better racial balance, but all 

things equal it believes children should go to the closest school, and 
thinks parents should have the final say. There are a number of 

desiderata, INCLUDING racial balance, but going beyond it to include 

other values with which a given plan might be seen as being in conflict. 

The general climate concerning efforts to achieve "integration™ is 

positive, particularly if these efforts are voluntary, relying on 

inducements of quality, rather than mandatory and based solely on racial 

balance per se. There is, further, an openness to cooperative efforts 

between towns and districts, subject to the value of voluntary 

participation. This may be seen in the endorsement by a small majority 

of the principle of cross-district "magnet schools" which impinge on the 

local principle while emphasizing quality of education and parental 

choice. 

The key factor of quality and its relationship to racial balance is 

emphasized by the fact that a strong majority of whites AND non-whites 

felt that improving the quality of education at minority children's 

schools was more important than getting better racial balance. In 

general, racial balance is seen as enhancing quality, but if it comes to 

a choice, there is little doubt about the low priority accorded balance 

as such. 

Finally, despite the fact that most students now ride a bus, and that 

some measures, such as cross-district cooperation or magnet schools 

would require transporting students by bus, "busing" remains a 

problematic image for Connecticut residents. Asked baldly how they feel 

about "busing of minority and white children to achieve school 

integration”, most respondents--despite their earlier answers--oppose 

it. BUT, if they are assured that the students were bused to "quality 

schools™ in other neighborhoods, opinion is closely divided. 

What all this means is that racial balance is seen as tending to 

improve quality, and is a value so long as it does not harm quality. 

But it is primarily a means to an end. Where the public perceives it as 

pursued as an end in itself, especially if quality is therefore put at 

risk, support weakens or evaporates. 

Of course, public expectations about the impact of measures to 

improve racial balance, or its effect on quality cannot replace expert 

judgement about the costs and benefits of various courses of action. 

Nonetheless, it appears that, while there are certain barriers to plans 

for achieving racial balance, there is also a substantial reservoir of 

support. 

 



SPECIAL SURVEY #106 - GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON 

QUALITY AND INTEGRATED EDUCATION 

  

  

Summary of Initial Key Findings 

Introduction 
LJ 

> 

As part of its work, the Governor's Commission on Quality and 

Integrated Education commissioned the Institute for Social Inquiry at 

the University of Connecticut to conduct a public opinion survey 

intended to guage public attitudes to education, integration, and 

related issues ISI, working with Commission members, developed the 

questions, drew the sample, administered the actual survey, and has 

begun to analyze the results. In this work, the Institute utitlized 

essentially the same methods employed in some two hundred other 

Connecticut-wide studies conducted by ISI since 1979. 

The study has a "margin of error" of about plus of minus 4%. This 

means, for percentages around 50%, that had every adult resident been 

asked a question for which 50% of the sample fell in a given response 

category, there is only a one in twenty chance that the results for the 

entire population of adults would have been higher than 54% or lower 

than 46%. The "margin of error" shrinks for percentages much larger or 

smaller than 50%, but increases for subgroups smaller than the entire 

sample of 750, going up as the square root of the subsample size goes 

down. Thus, the "margin of error" for subgroups of around 250 is 

approximately plus or minus 7%. Interviews were conducted between April 

19 and May 7. 

What follows is an overview of some key initial findings from the 

study, on which analysis and consultation with the Commission is 

continuing. Ultimately, a full technical report, included final 

"marginals" for all questions for the full sample and selected 

subgroups, will be available and a copy of the data (protecting the 

identity of individual respondents) will be archived at the ISI- 

administered Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University 

of Connecticut for further analysis by interested researchers. 

Overall Descri ion 

As noted, the full sample represented adult residents from throughout 

the state, and its demographic characteristics approximate the full 

adult (eighteen or over) non-institutinnalized population. Of 

particular relevance to what follows are certain subgroups. Just under 

one third (242 persons) reported having at least one child 16 or under 

living with them, of whom the vast bulk (205 respondents) had a child 

currently in school. Just under nine in ten (660 respondents) were 

white. 

 



Background Attitudes 

- 

Public thinking about issues related to education and integration 

takes place against a backdrop of overall views of the racial situation 

in our country. To begin with, most residents live in a world which is 

at least partially "segregated". Three in four (76%) say that most, or 

almost ‘all of their personal friends are of the same race as they are, 

including four in ten who describe their social circle as "almost all of 

the same race as you". Among whites, nine in ten move in social circles 
mostly or entirely white, while six in ten minority residents would so 

describe themselves. 

The situation is somewhat different in other milieus in which persons 

find themselves. Just about half (48%) of all respondents say their 

workplace is mostly of their own race, including half of whites and one 

in four minority residents. While there is a fair amount of uncertainty 

about the racial makeup of the student body in the local schools, and 

even more about the staff, both tend to look somewhat more like the 

workplace, and less like the social circle of respondents. 

By comparison, when respondents were asked to reflect on "the schools 

you attended yourself when you were a child", more than eight in ten 

(82%) said that setting had been all or mostly of their own race. Thus, 

schools NOW are seen as more integrated in practice, while the social 

milieu of most respondents tends to be mono-racial. 

Three in four (77%) label "discrimination against Blacks and other 

minorities” as at least a "somewhat serious problem" today in the United 

States. Whites tend to view the situation as somewhat less pressing, 

with only one in four calling it "very serious”, which label was chosen 

by half of all non-white respondents. 

There is a good deal of difference among respondents as to whether 

discrimination is increasing, decreasing, or remaining roughly constant. 

Four in ten (42%) believe the situation is staying about the same, while 

one in three (232%) think it is improving, and one in four (22%) see a 

worsening. On balance, if they perceive a shift one way or the other, 

whites think things are getting better; non-whites think they are 

getting worse. 

There is a clear sense that housing patterns reflect a problem of 

discrimination, rather than simple individual choice. Half (47%) of all 

respondents believe minorities are discriminated against "in finding 

good housing”. one in three (32%) think they are fairly treated, and a 

handful (4%) chink members of minority groups are actually "favored". 

School Children 

One third of the sample reported having at least one child sixteen or 

younger at home. Of this group, the vast bulk had a child in school, 

with only about one in ten of them saying that their child(ren) went 

only to private schools. Six in ten (61%) of school parents reported 

their children use a bus (at least in part) to get to school, with the 

typical reported time on the bus being between 15 and 20 minutes.  



® i. olin 
~ » Most parents (three in four) report that they now have no choice 

about where to send their children to school, although one in five feel 

they have at least some degree of choice among public schools. Day care 

is a direct concern of just under one in four (22%) parents overall, and 
one in six (16%) among parents with children in school. Where daycare 

is provided, it tends to be either a sitter's home, or at a daycare 

center. 

   

Parents were asked to rate four factors as to their importance in 

choosing a place to live. Answers showed that--among the limited list-- 

overall quality of life in the community was paramount, followed by 

quality of the local public schools, and affordable housing. Ease of 

getting to work brought up the rear of this set of priorities. Overall, 

among the four, school quality was named as most important (alone or 

tied with another) by almost one in four (37%) and as least important by 

only about one in fifty (2%) respondents. 

It should be pointed out, however, that respondents were asked only 

to rank the importance of these factors against each other, not on an 

absolute scale. 

General School Perception 
  

Overall, when respondents were asked to use our standard four point 

rating scale (Vexcellent", "good", "fair", or poor"), the "public 

schools in your community" get reasonable, but not sterling marks. One 

in five rate them "excellent"; (21%), almost twice as many (38%) feel 

they are doing a "good" job; another one in five (22%) call their 

performance "fair"; only a handful (6%) think "poor" is more apt. 

Parents tended to be more willing to make a rating and to be somewhat 

more positive as well. 

When it comes to what respondents most and least liked about their 

schools, answers covered a wide gamut (and over half of non-parents 

failed to name anything). There was a general tendency, however, to 

focus in on quality-related issues, such as number and quality of 

teachers, breadth of program, and so on. Especially granted the fact 

that earlier race-related questions might have tended to overstate--if 

anything--the impact of this factor, it is noteworthy that racial 

matters scarcely appear as most salient EITHER positively or negatively. 

To guage the importance of various factors in impressions of the 

schools, interviewers asked respondents to suppose they had their choice 

of public schools for their children (or were advising a close friend 

about such a choice). They then presented ten attributes and asked, 

for each, if it would be "very positive" for parents, "somewhat 

positive, somewhat negative, very negative, or would no make a 

difference at all in the choice of school™. This made it possible 

examine both the balance (positive vs. negative) of each attribute and 

its "salience" (e.g. "very" vs. "somewhat" positive). 

Before turning specifically to the factors, some general observations 

are in order. First, NONE of the attributes mentioned was seen as 

negative on balance, and with one exception noted below, the fraction 

seeing each as even somewhat negative hardly exceeded one in ten. 

 



“ * xh 
Secondly, the priority of factors remains essentially undisturbed 

regardless of whether one uses simple balance, some sort of weighted 

rating of the four possibilities, or only the group which sees it as 

very positive. Thirdly, the perceptions of those actually parents are 

very similar to those who had no children at home and so would be giving 

advice. Finally, quality of education is central. This sounds an 

important theme that runs all through these data. 

   
Factors are discussed in order of their importance, which is not 

identical to their position in the questionnaire. 

At the top of the scale (using the positive perceptions as the 

criteria) came enrichment, "programs in special areas like computers, 

the arts or for gifted and talented students", seen as positive by over 

nine in ten (94%) respondents. Second came another Quality issue, 

"small classes with more individual attention from teachers", which 

almost as many (92%) labelled as positive. (If one looked solely at the 

proportion seeing each factor as "very important”, these two remain 

quite close but reverse position). 

Localism continues to be a virtue as well. Eight in ten (83%) 

labelled "keeping children in the same town they live in" as positive. 

If one considers only those factors which are "very positive", this 

rounds out the top three and other factors are clearly of lesser 

importance. 

It may come of something of a surprise that issues of racial balance 

come next. "Making sure there was a good mix of racial backgrounds" AND 

"having teachers from a variety of racial backgrounds" were named as 

positive by three in four (73%) among all respondents. If, as noted, 

one looks only "very positive ratings", these factors slip some, but 

good balance in the staff remains third, and student racial balance 

comes close behind. These considerations do not outweigh issues of 

individual quality--and we have not yet discussed whether they are seen 

as competing with quality or fostering it--but the key is that THEY ARE 

GOOD IN THEMSELVES. 

Two areas related to broadening the mandate of schools for younger 

children come next. Seven in ten (70%) see "daycare before and after 

regular school hours" as positive, and about six in ten (61%) so view 

"programs for children too young for kindergarten”. 

At the bottom of the priority ladder, although still viewed net 

positively, come three final factors. Each is interesting in itself and 

in comparison to the factors already discussed, each is labelled as 

positive by just over half (between 54% and 56%) of respondents 

generally. 

While keeping children in their home towns--and thereby close to 
home--was Quite positive, "having your child attend a school near or at 

your place of work™ was decidedly less so. Among parents this was the 

factor receiving the smallest number of (either "somewhat" or "very" 

positive mentions; if one looks only at the proportion saying this 

factor was "very positive", it was close to the bottom. 

The flip side of diversity may be a concern lest one's child be in a 

small minority. However, "making sure your children are NOT (emphasis 

in original) in a small racial minority" is not as positive as achieving 

 



   * * oe 
a good mix. Parents did tend to accord this factor a bit more 

importance than did non-parents, especially if one looks only at "very 

positive™ ratings. Still, the fact that this is relatively very low on 

the ladder may come as something of a surprise, especially granted that 

it is an "easy" way to voice concern about integration. 

The one area which had a notable number of people saying it was 

negative (although still leaving a net positive impression) was "giving 

children the chance to experience a different sort of community from the 
one they live in". Overall just over half (54%) saw this as a positive, 

but one in four (24%) felt it was negative. Using on the extreme 
ratings, this factor comes up at the bottom as well, although "very 

positive” was chosen by three times as many as chose "very negative” 

(24% compared to 8%) among all respondents. 

Integration "per se" 

At this point, the questionnaire turned more explicitly to issues 

directly related to integration of the public schools. To begin with, 

granted all the media attention to one or another facet of this matter 

over the past few years, it may be noteworthy that only half (47%) of 

the population claims to have "heard or read anything in the news about 

racial balance in Connecticut schools". Parents were scarcely different 

from non-parents. Perhaps this, coupled with earlier observations about 

quality, should remind one to be cautious about overestimating the 

salience of balance per se in the public mind. 

Respondents generally believe that any impact of integration itself 

ON MINORITY STUDENTS is positive. Half (52%) believe that racial 

integration "improves education for Blacks and other minorities", while 

only one in ten (10%) think it worsens their education. Three in ten 

(29%) see no difference. 

What about students from the majority? Fewer see an impact. One 

half (47%) of all respondents believe racial integration of the public 

schools makes no difference in either direction, but if there is an 

impact it is positive. Just under one in three (31%) think integration 

betters whites' education, twice as large as the group (15%) who believe 

it worsens it. 

An interesting comparison arises from racial background of 

respondent. Whites are clearly more convinced than those from minority 

groups that integration helps minority students. Non-whites are more 

convinced than whites that it helps white students. 

The general climate toward "integration" is positive. When 

respondents were asked whether more or less should be done "to integrate 

schools in your community”, one in four (25%) felt there should be no 

change, but those who believed more should be done (42%) outnumbered 

those who felt that less should be (18%) by more than two to one. As 

would be expected, non-whites were more eager than whites, but fewer 

than one in five (18%) of the latter group want to see reductions. 

However, a followup question makes another value clear. Those 

wanting at least a maintaining of current efforts (i.e., either feeling 

more should be done or that existing efforts were adequate) were asked, 

"should the efforts to increase integration be voluntary for parents or 

 



   A PAGE 6 
should the town require them?" Voluntary efforts were endorsed (39% 

compared to 17%) two to one. 

There is stronger support in principle for doing more "to integrate 

schools throughout the state of Connecticut". Just over half (54%) 

called for more effort, one in five (19%) wanted less, and the remainder 

(12%) felt no change was necessary. As before, parents are not very 

different from non-parents, and while minority respondents backed 
increased effort more strongly, respondents from the white majority 

clearly favored them on balance as well. 

Here again, though less strongly than when the focus was local, the 

voluntary dimension is important. By roughly a three to two margin (35X% 

compared to 21%) those wanting more or continued effort at the statewide 

level felt "efforts <should> be voluntary” rather than that "the state 
require these efforts". What both of these series suggest is that there 

is a good deal of potential support for new effort, but that much of it 

could be jeopardized as coercive aspects are seen as more apparent. 

Going along with this, and the earlier noted concern for localism, 

the jdea of "regional schools with special quality educational program-- 

so-called magnet schools--in order to achieve school integration" wins 

support by about a five to three (47%-30%) margin. Parents are at least 

as positive as non-parents, but there is a sharp racial difference. 

While both whites and non-whites favor this idea, non-whites are more 

clearly in support. 

One perhaps surprising result occurred in response to the question 

"do you think integration should begin with the elementary schools, 

middle or junior hight schools, or with high school". To be sure, a 

small group of just under one in ten (8%) volunteered the answer that no 

integration was needed at all, but the most common answer, voiced by 

fully eight in ten (80%) was that integration should begin at the 

elementary level. 

Efforts at integration are NOT seen by everyone as wholly new. While 

the largest group, some four in ten (40%) of all respondents, believes 

their town is not "involved in any voluntary programs to bring about 

school integration”, and almost as many (38%) do not know, just over one 

in five (22%) think their town is now doing something in this field. 

The level of professed non-awareness is much higher among non-parents 

than among parents, and somewhat higher among whites than it is among 

non-white respondents; the absolute size of the group which says their 

town is now doing something voluntary to achieve integration is constant 

across the demographic distinctions we have been examining. 

There are conflicting values at work here. Consistent with what we 

have earlier discussed, almost nine in ten (88%) agreed that "children 

should normally go to the schools closest to their homes", and two 

thirds (66%) strongly felt so. (Recall the earlier sense that housing 

discrimination is real and would affect the consequences of this 

principle for racial balance). While whites were more in favor of this 

idea than non-whites, the racial difference here is quite a small one. 

At the same time,.seven in ten (70%) agree that "making sure a school 

is racially and culturally mixed improves the quality of education for 

all students™. Four in ten (41%) strongly agree with this. Non-whites 

 



   % A PAGE 7 

are more convinced than whites, and the difference on this question is 
more clear than on the previous one. And of course these two values can 
well conflict. . 

A third value is endorsed with a strength midway between these two. 
Eight in ten (80%) agree at least somewhat that "parents should always 
have the final choice of where their children go to school", a sentiment 
that finds six in ten (60%) in strong agreement. Illustrating the power 
of the voluntary principle, non-whites are at least as supportive of 

this idea, and marginally more so. 

Almost two in three (63%) agree that "children who go to one-race 

schools will be at a disadvantage when they grow up and must live and 

work in our multi-racial society”, with four in ten (39%) strongly 

agreeing. As before non-whites are more convinced than whites but this 
“factual” dimension underscores a major argument for integration in the 
schools even if for non-directly-instructional purposes. 

This is furthered by results to the question whether "if more 

children went to racially mixed schools, we would have less of a problem 

with racial prejudice". Results were similar. Two thirds (68%) agreed, 

including four in ten (40%) who did so strongly. Racial patterns are 

similar as well. It should be noted that an even larger percentage, 

some eight in ten (78%) agreed with at least one of these notions of 

positive societal impact. 

The guality dimension, however, is vital. If results to this point 

have not made that clear, the immediately following question should. 

Three in four (74%) agreed that "it is more important to improve the 

QUALITY (emphasis in original) that minority children go to than it is 

to get better racial balance in the schools. Both white and minority- 

group respondents take similar stands. 

Achieving Racial Balance 

What all this means is that there are (partially conflicting) values 

at play here, and it is evident that racial balance is secondary to 

quality if they conflict, but is seen by many as complementing quality 

(both in terms of instruction and broader preparation for life). What 

of the schemes to achieve better balance for all the various purposes? 

First of all, the seriousness of the problem is perceived as less 

great than the more general problem of racial discrimination. Six in 

ten (61X) said, after being reminded that there was racial imbalance in 

SOME of the schools in Connecticut, that this represented at least 

somewhat of a problem. However, this group included only about one in 

seven (15X) who saw it as a serious problem. Non-whites were slightly 

more concerned than whites, but only a quarter of the former group (23%) 

thought it was very serious. 

On the other hand, three in four (73%) said that "if there IS racial 

imbalance in the schools in part of the state™, then "towns in the area 

<should> cooperate to solve the problem™. It should be noted that this 

question deliberated stressed cooperation and the idea that solutions 

OUGHT to transcend districts without keying specifically on the issue of 

voluntary vs. mandatory efforts. At the least, though, this represents 

a predisposition that if, empirically, there is racial imbalance, one's 

 



community should not take an "ostrich" approach to it. 

Support was lower when it came to another question. "Should the 
state government provide financial incentives to school districts to 

accept students from other districts for purposes of integration". On 
the one hand, this involves state involvement, and moreover--in a bad 

fiscal. time--financial (i.e., tax) involvement. On the other, it 
clearly at least hints at transporting students across district 
boundaries, which we have seen is not much of a positive value in 
itself. In any event, this idea is endorsed by a relatively lukewarm 
five to three (50% to 33%) margin, with non-whites notably more 

favorable. 

The last two substantive questions on the survey dealt explicitly 

with "busing™. When respondents were asked baldly "would you favor or 

oppose the busing of minority and white students to achieve school 

integration”, the public--which above has so often voiced support for 

some of the rationale for this step--turns it down by a five to three 

(54%-32%) margin. Non-whites narrowly favor it; whites clearly do not. 

The importance of quality is sharply underscored by a followup 

question, put to all those except the respondents who favored busing in 

the abstract. "If busing worked so that white children were bused to 

quality schools in minority neighborhoods and minority children were 

bused to quality schools in white neighborhoods, would you favor or 

oppose busing to achieve racial balance?" This results in a virtual 

tie, with just under half favoring busing (44%) a similar number (45%). 

opposing it, and one in eight (12%) saying it depended or otherwise not 

expressing an opinion. 

"Busing™ as a symbol is clearly not a positive one, conjuring up 

images of "court-ordered", conflict-fraught community conflict. It 

would certainly be a mistake to interpret these data to mean the public 

favors busing in and of itself. But the key is a means to desired ends. 

Comparing those who favor busing to those who oppose it yields a 

consistent picture. Those who favor it are more concerned with 

discrimination as a problem, and are sharply more likely to think 

minorities experience housing discrimination. 

The groups do NOT differ sharply on what is important in choosing a 

town to live, or in the ratings of the local schools, but those favoring 

busing do see racial balance as a more attractive factor than those who 

oppose busing, while the opposite pattern holds for the balance of 

"local" and "cosmopolitan" experiences. in experiencing other 
communities. Emphasizing the importance of busing as a means to an end, 

those favoring busing are much more likely to believe both education and 

overall race relations will be enhanced by racial balance, than those 
who oppose it. Further, they are more likely to favor efforts to 

achieve racial balance in general. 

On the value-related questions, those favoring and those opposing 

busing tend--on balance--to come down on the same side, but with clearly 

differing intensity. Thus, for example, both agree that children should 

go to the closest school AND that racial and cultural mixing improves 

education, but on the former question those opposed to busing take a 

much stronger view, while on the latter it is those who favor busing 

whose opinion is more onesided and sharply felt.  



» PAGE ¢o 

r'ris pattern continues when it comes to the seriousness of racial 

gubalance--both say it is a problem, but those favoring busing take it 

guch more seriously, and on the desirability of cooperative efforts to 

address a problem, which almost all of those who favor busing also 

support (91%) but which only six in ten (57%) of those who oppose busing 

J uel L aii 

"# 

do. AN 
Be Ne A. . Ke 

9. 
AR of this helps to make clear that racial balance is seen as a 

positive thing, which CAN enhance education (both narrowly and broadly 

defirfed). BUT achieving such balance has costs, which may conflict with 

other values. The public sees little value in achieving numerical’ 

balance which may not help education and which treats students as 

members of classes. "Busing”™ itself continues to have a severe image 

problem. Reception of any program will depend very much on how it 

balances these (at least partially conflicting) values, but there IS a 

potential broad support for responsible means for achieving "quality AND 

integrated” education. 

 



      

CERTIFICATION 
  

Thisi'ig to certify that .a copy of 

postage prepaid on July 8, 1991 to the 

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 045106 

Wesley W. Horton 
Mollier, Horton & Fineberg, P.C. 

90 Gillett Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

Jenny Rivera, Esq. 

Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 

14th Floor 

New York, NY 10013 

Julius L. Chambers 

Marianne Lado, Esq. 

Ronald Ellis, Esq. 

the foregoing was mailed, 

following counsel or 

  
 



    

NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 

Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell 

Helen Hershkoff 

American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

z. f i ft * Yr 

JSHA R. whelan 
/Agsistant Attorney General 

£8