Findings

    S.C. 15255 

| MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPREME COURT 

| VS. STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

| WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. JUNE 27, 1995 

FINDING 
  

  Pursuant ‘to this Court’s Order of Mav 11, 1995 that the   
trial court review any filings relating to factual issues 

other than the parties’ stipulation of facts and proposed 

findings of fact that it may find helpful, the court 

incorporates herein by way of introduction to its findings | 

certain amendments to the complaint that were made by the 

plaintiffs prior to trial for the purpose of narrowing the 

scope of their offer of proof, as well as a representation 

i made by counsel for the plaintiffs at the time of final 

argument relating to the defendants’ claim that the court 

lacks jurisdiction because of the plaintiffs’ failure to 

join the Hartford area towns and school districts as 

necessary parties in this action. 

Hl 3. 

On July 21, 1992, the plaintiffs filed a reguest LO 

amend paragraphs 47 and 50 of their original complaint, and 

to delete paragraph 71 in its entirety, because "the state’s 

role in segregated housing patterns is not .a,pecessary part 

| of their affirmative case . . . andithey wish to eliminate 
[i + =3 Bi 

| Vio] 
i any ambiguity in the pleadings thd, may” be relied on by the 

~ 

| 
| 

| 
| 
i 
i 
} 
| - : b 
| A £2117 

|   
 



  

  
l 

| § 
1 

| 
1 
| 
\ 
| 

{ 

i | defendants to divert the [clourt’s attention from the 

i important educational issues that are at the core of this 

| 
cage." (Plaintiffs’ Request for Leave to Amend Complaint, 

| July 21, 1992, Record item #178.) 

[1 
Hi 
} 

| 
| 

| educational achievement between Hartford and the suburban 

bh i'd 
i! 
1 
Bt 

Paragraph 47, which had alleged that the digparities in 

school districts were the result of the "educational and 

social policies pursued and/or accepted by the defendants,” 

was amended to allege only that the disparities were the 

result of the defendants’ "education-related policies". 

The plaintiffs’ request also proposed to change 

paragraph 50 of theycomplain: to read that the defendants 

had long been aware of "the racially and economically 

segregated population patterns in the Hartford 

region . .:.", in place of The original allegation that they 

had long been aware of "the strong governmental forces that 

have created and maintained" those population patterns.‘ 

Paragraph 71 of the complaint, which was deleted in its 

entirety, had alleged that the defendants and their 

predecessors had "failed to take action to afford meaningful 

racial and economic integration of housing within school 

zones and school districts in the Hartford metropolitan 

region [and that these] failures have contributed to the 

  

paragraph 50 as it appears in both the Consolidated 
| Amended Complaint (February 26, 1993, Record item #201.70) 

| 
{ 
| 

| H 

and the Revised Complaint (November 23, 1994, Record item 

#217) were not changed to conform to the 1292 amendment. 

2 

  

  

 



  

isolation of poor and minority students within the Hartford 

School District.” 

131. 

Prior to hearing the final arguments of counsel, the 

court asked the defendants whether they would be pursuing 

the jurisdictional issue which they had raised in their 

fifth special defense which asserts that "[t]o the extent 

that the plaintiffs complain about matters which are 

committed by law to Che discretion of the City of Hartford 

or the Hartford Board of Education or any of the suburban 

cities, towns or school boards, the court does not have 

jurisdiction '. .". because of the plaintiffs’ failure Co 

join necessary parties." (Transcript, November 30, 1994, 

pp. 15-19.) Counsel for the plaintiffs then acknowledged in 

response to a question from the court that the plaintiffs 

were making no claims by way of the pleadings, or through 

evidence that had been offered at the trial, that there were 

any acts or omissions on the part of the city of Hartford or 

its board of education, or onrthe part of the twenty-one 

other towns referred to in the complaint or of their boards 

of education, that constituted a violation of the 

plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Id. 

 



  

  

  

Pursuant ‘to ‘this Lourt’s Oyder of May 11,1995 the 

trial court’s findings on the disputed facts disclosed in 

the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties are 

as follows: 

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND? 
  

3: Education in Connecticut has always been under the 
It control of the colony or the state government, and the 
} public policy of the stare and colony from the inception of 
| our system of education has been that it is essential to the 

| perpetuation of our form of government that all students 
receive an equal educational opportunity. (Collier, 16/54)% 

2. Connecticut has always been a leader in the field 
of education and had the highest literacy rate in the 
country, if not in the world, in the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries, and even when the quality of its 
educational system declined sharply in the 1840's, 
Connecticut still maintained the highest literacy rate in 
the United States. 

3. In the seventeenth century, the Puritan or 
ji Calvinist view about the government's duty to provide a 
| proper education was that education was perceived to be a 

| public responsibility rather than a matter of personal 
| preference or choice. 

4. The tradition of local control in this state goes 
back to the early eighteenth century when the responsibility 
for education was taken away from the towns and given to the 

  

‘The court’s findings numbered one through twenty-five, 
unless otherwise indicated, are based on the testimony of 
Christopher Collier (Transcript Volume 16, January 14, 
1993), a professor of history abt the University of 
Connecticut and the officially designated State Historian 
for the state of Connecticut. He testified in the course of 
the plaintiffs’ case-in-chief and was the only trial witness 
who testified as an expert on Connecticut history. 

‘Where the trial testimony of a witness is cited, the 
name of the witness will be given, followed by the volume of 
the transcript numbered from one through thirty-five for 
each day of the trial, followed by the page or pages of the 
transcript at which the testimony appears. 

4   

 



  

  
parishes or ecclesiastical societies within the towns to 
such an extent that it was said at the time that there was a 
school within a mile of every student in the state. 

5. In the mid-eighteenth century there were about 
sixteen hundred such districts in the state that were 
carrying out the educational function at the local level and 
school districts kept getting smaller in the ensuing years. 

5. In the late nineteenth century, disparities in the 
quality of education between rural and urban school systems 
developed because urban districts were the only ones 

| permitted by law to establish high schools and because those 
districts had a broader tax base. 

7: In an effort to reduce these disparities and to 
| meet its commitment to provide equal educational opportunity 

for all students, the state devised a funding formula under 
which less money was paid per student as the number of 
students increased so that rural schools received much more 

| per student and urban schools were paid much less. 

8. Thereafter, as a result of persistent attempts to 
give the state full control over all high schools, a bill to 

that effect was passed by both houses of the legislature in 
1933, but was vetoed by the governor. 

g. The first regional high school in the state was 
authorized by a special act passed in 1936 and thereafter 
general legislation was enacted which encouraged the 

| building of regional high schools. 

10. The limited regionalization that took place in the 
1950's was accomplished only because of the financial and 
economic incentives that were offered by the state to the 
smaller communities and it reflected the strong historical 
influence of local control and attachment to the local 
school system on state educational policy. (Ferrandino, 
PX. 493, pp. 88-87)" 

11. The population increase in the rural and suburban 
areas of the state after World War II was the principal 
reason for the dramatic increase in the construction of new 
school buildings in those areas during that period in 
addition to the fact that the need to promote quality 
education in those school systems was a very significant 
factor in the process of regionalization which was also 
taking place during the post-war period. 

  

*Trial exhibits hereafter will be designated "PX" for 
plaintiffs’ exhibits and "DX" for defendants’ exhibits. 

5 

  

 



  

  
  12. ‘The history of public education in Connecticut 
justifies the conclusion that although there are 
deficiencies from time to time in its delivery of quality 
education, the state’s educational system compares favorably 
with almost every other state in the country. 

13. The only manifestation of de jure segregation 
either at the state or local level in Connecticut since the 
Civil War occurred in Hartford in the spring of 1868 when an 
ordinance was adopted that required black children to go to 
a specially designated "colored" school located on Pearl 
Street in that city. 

14. The General Assembly met within weeks after the 
city’s attempt to segregate its school children and 
nullified that action by adopting Comnecticut'’'s open 
enrollment law which is now codified, in substantially the 
same language, as § 10-15c of the General Statutes and 
requires that public schools be open to all children without 
discrimination on account of race, creed or color. 

15. At about the same time, the legislature also 
enacted the "free school" law which abolished tuition so 

that all children regardless of economic status, as well as 

race, would have access to a free public education. 

16. In the post Civil War era, this state's strong 
policy of opposition to de jure segregation as reflected in 
its 1868 open enrollment law was not unusual, and in that 

respect Connecticut was not in advance of other states at 
the time, particularly New York, Massachusetts, and the 
other New England states. 

17... Connecticut's cumulative record of civil rights 
legislation dealing with racial discrimination during the 

| period from 1905 to 1961 represented the most progress 
toward equal opportunity achieved by any of the northern 
states up to that time. (PX 502, pp. 1-2) 

18. Racial discrimination in hotels, restaurants, 

trangportation facilities, and places of amusement was 

prohibited under the state’s public accommodations law which 
was first enacted in 1905, and discrimination in public 
employment was outlawed in 1936. Id. 

19. The first civil rights commission in the Unired 
States was Connecticut’s Inter-racial Commission which was 
created in 1943 and was empowered to investigate employment 
opportunities, violationg of civil liberties, and related 

matters. 14. 

  

  
 



  

  
20. In 1947, a fair employment practices act was 

enacted which empowered the Inter-racial Commission to 
proceed against employers, employment agencies or unions who 
engaged in discriminatory practices based on race, religion, 
or national origin, and discrimination in public housing 

projects was declared illegal in 1949. Id. 

21. The public accommodations act was expanded in 1953 
to cover all establishments offering goods and services to 
the public, and in 1959, its coverage was further extended 

to include private housing by prohibiting discrimination in 
the sale or rental of a housing accommodation by anyone 
owning five or more contiguous units, and by anyone owning 
three or more units under a law passed in 1961. Id. 

22. The single most important factor that contributed 
to the present concentration of racial and ethnic minorities 
in Hartford was the town-school district system which has 
existed since 1909, when the legislature consolidated most 
of the school districts in the state so that thereafter town 
boundaries became the dividing lines between all school 
districts in the state. 

23. The passage of that law was designed to improve 
the quality of education on a statewide basis by involving 
the state more fully in all aspects of education at a time 
when the demographic patterns which began in the 1940's and 
resulted in the high concentration of minorities in the 
cities could not have been predicted. 

24. The 1909 legislation, which was adopted in the 
face of strong opposition from local districts, but was, in 

retrospect, a positive step in the improvement of the 
quality of education in the state, was not racially 
motivated in any sense nor was it a product of any 
discriminatory motive or purpose on the part of the state or 
of any local governmental units or of the people of this 
state. 

e5. Article Eighth'§S 4 of the Connecticut constitution 
relating to the School Fund was taken verbatim from the 1818 
constitution because the 1965 constitutional convention was 
a very conservative body that made only those changes that 
had to be made in order to comply with the legislative 
reapportionment mandates of the federal courts and it was 
extremely reluctant to change anything that did not have to 
be changed. 

 



  

  

  
II. THE STATE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE RACIAL, ETHNIC AND 

SOCIOECONOMIC ISOLATION OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM 

AND THE STATE'S RESPONSE TO THOSE CONDITIONS AND TO THE 

  

  

  

EDUCATIONAL UNDERACHIEVEMENT OF THE CHILDREN WHO ATTEND 
  

THE HARTFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 
  

A. THE STATE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE RACIAL, ETHNIC AND 
  

SOCIOECONOMIC ISOLATION OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM. 
  

26. The racial and ethnic composition of the towns in 
the Hartford metropolitan area and the unpredictable and 
dynamic patterns of change over the past thirty years were 
the result of powerful social and demographic forces 

i generated by the collective exercise of personal geographic 
| preferences over which the state had no control. (Armor, 

32/129; 8teahy, 23/76, 107-12) 

27. A variety of factors, including differential birth 
and immigration rates, differential usage of private 
schools, and the differential flow of white and minority 
families to the suburbs has led to increased racial 
isolation in the schools of the major cities in this stare. 
(DX 12.23,"9. 2) 

28. The dramatic increase in school construction in 
Hartford area suburban towns that took place in the 1950's 

- was the result of the movement of population from the city 
to the suburbs and the post-war baby boom. (Calvert, 
36/126-27) 

29. During that same period, Hartford was not 

experiencing the same degree of enrollment growth that was 
| occurring in the suburban communities, particularly those 
immediately surrounding the city. 1d4., 128. 

30. These trends continued during the 1960's, but at a 

somewhat reduced rate. Id., 128-29. 

31. In Hartford during that period, the Hartford 
Public High School was replaced when the school site was 

| taken by the gtate in order to construct I-84. Id. 

32. In the 1970's there was increased school 
construction in Hartford which included the replacement of 
the old Bulkeley and Weaver High Schools and the building of 

| elementary schools in the north end of Hartford because of 
Ii the growth in population in that area. 14. 

33. The Quirk and Fox Middle Schools were built in 

| Hartford in the 1970's as a part of the board of education’s 
policy of integrating its students at an earlier grade level 
than high gchecl.. I4., 130; PX 1, ppb. 15-16; DX 13.2, ©. 7. 

8 

  

 



Ad » | 

  

34. The construction of new elementary schools in the 
center and north end of Hartford during that period was 
necessary in order to replace school buildings in the city 

| that had outlived their usefulness and also because there 
' was continuing enrollment growth in the central and northern 

sections of the city and a corresponding decline in the 
school age population in the south end. I4.,.130-33, 

    
i 35. The school district makes the initial selection of 
| the site and the state plays no part in the site selection 
| process and can only limit the amount of its reimbursement 
i to the district where the acreage or the size of the 
i building exceeds maximum standards. (Brewer, 28/16; 

| Gordon, 13/101-02) 

| 36. In Connecticut, as in other states, the local 

| school districts decide when and where a new school will be 
lH built and whether or not existing schools should be replaced 
ll or closed. (Gordon, 13/103-04) 

37. The state has made no effort to influence the site 
| selection process on the local level, and as long as the 

| building meets code requirements and environmental 
| protection regulations, the state defers to the decision of 

the local district and gives its approval. (Brewer, 28/180) 

38. The defendants have not created or maintained 
| racially or economically segregated population patterns nor 
| have they failed to take action against segregated housing 
I patterns as originally alleged in the complaint. (Finding, 
it Part 1) 

39. There have been no acts or omissions on the part 
| of the city of Hartford or of ics board of education, or on 

the part of the twenty-one other towns referred to in the 
complaint or of their boards of education, that have 

| violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. (Finding, 

| Pare IT) 

40. Local control and the tendency to favor 
neighborhood schools has never manifested itself in the form 
of open resistance by local school districts in Connecticut 
to the state’s racial imbalance law, as it did in 
Massachusetts in the 1970's. (Foster, 21/157-60; Rossell, 

26B/32-34) 

41, No school district in the state has violated the 
open enrollment law since its enactment in 1868, unlike 

| other states such as New Jersey, where dual school systems 
|| apparently existed in parts of the state as recently as 
| 1947. (Collier, 16/48; see also Booker v. Board of 

Educarion, 212 A.24-1, 15 (N.J. 1965) (Hall, J., concurring 

| in part and dissenting in part.)) 

34 

  

  

S 

 



  

  

    

THE STATE'S RESPONSE TO THE RACIAL, ETHNIC AND 

SOCIOECONOMIC ISOLATION OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM 

AND TO THE EDUCATIONAL UNDERACHIEVEMENT OF THE CHILDREN 

WHO ATTEND THE HARTFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 

  

  

  

  

42. Students in the Hartford schools are racially 
isolated and are likely to become more isolated in the 
future. (PX 494, pp. 9-10) 

43. There is a strong inverse relationship between 
racial imbalance and quality education in Connecticut’s 
public schools because racial imbalance is coincident with 
poverty, limited resources, low academic achievement and a 

high incidence of children with special needs. (PX 42, 

D. 1) 

44. Education in its fullest sense for both white and 
minority school children involves interracial and 
multiethnic exposure to each other and interaction between 
them, because racial and ethnic isolation has negative 
effects on both groups. 1d. 

45. Connecticut has long acknowledged an affirmative 
responsibility to desegregate its public schools and to 
guarantee educational equality for all students. (PX. 73) 

46. Connecticut is one of only seven states that 
voluntarily spend their own funds exclusively on 
desegregation programs or efforts to relieve racial 
imbalance without being ordered to do so by a court. 
(DX 5.2; Rossell, 26B/47) 

47. In this state, funds are provided for such things 
as multicultural training programs and new multicultural 
courses, teacher workshops, interdistrict magnet schools and 
school construction. (Rossell, 26B/48) 

48. Since 1966, the state has provided both financial 
support and technical assistance for one of this country’s 
first voluntary interdistrict transfer programs, Project 
Concern, which was designed to promote voluntary 
desegregation among schools in urban metropolitan areas. 

(PX 73) 

49. Project Concern and METCO in Boston may be the 
only voluntary state-initiated interdistrict desegregation 
programs in the country that have been in continuous 
operation for over twenty-five years and which have been 
funded continuously during that period, at least in part, by 
the state. {Crain, 10/72-74)   

  

  

 



  

50. In 1964, one year prior to the enactment by 
Massachusetts of its racial imbalance law and five years 
before a similar law was passed in Connecticut, the New 

Haven board of education adopted a school pairing plan for 
the purpose of reducing racial imbalance in its school 

| ‘system and in the interest of promoting equality of 
1} educational opportunity. (PX 494, p. 95; see also Guida v. 
|! Board of Fducation, 26 Conn. Sup. 121 (1968)) 

  
  

  

51. The plan was upheld by this court (Devlin, J.) as 
| being a proper exercise of the local board’s duty to 
maintain a sound educational system and afford equal 
educational opportunities to its students. Id.     

| 52. Connecticut’s racial imbalance law which was 
|| passed in 1969 represented a significant attempt to address 
| the problems of racial imbalance at a time when none of 

Connecticut’s cities had more than sixty percent minority 
student enrollment. {PX S50, pb. 7) 

53. The state board of education (SBE) proceeded to 
draft and approve regulations within six months of the 
passage of the racial imbalance law in July of 19659. 
(PX 37) 

54. The regulations review committee rejected the 
regulations partly in response to strong public opposition. 
Id. 

55. In November of 1979, the SBE, prior to the 

adoption of the regulations in April of 1280, found that 
Hartford, Meriden, New Britain, Norwalk, New Haven, 

Stamford, and Stratford had racially imbalanced schools. 
14. 

56. At the same time, the education commissioner cited 

five Hartford schools for being racially imbalanced, and 
li upon the adoption ©f the regulations, the plans for Meriden, 
|| Norwalk, New Britain, Stamford, Stratford, Hartford and New 

Haven were approved by the SBE. Id. 

57. The city of Waterbury, which had previously 
entered into a consent decree in a federal enforcement 

|! proceeding which was commenced in 1969; see United States 

' va. Board of Education of Waterbury, £05 F.24 573 (2nd Cir. 
1979); was the subject of further enforcement proceedings 
commenced by the state in May of 1985 under the racial 
imbalance law and regulations, and in January of 1988 the 
state commenced an action against the board in which it 
sought a court order by way of mandamus to require the | 
implementation of a plan to correct the racial imbalance | 

| which existed in some of its schools. 

  

  

| 11 

    
 



  

  

  
88. The court file in that case ig still active, and 

in accordance with a supplemental order entered by the court 
(Maloney, J.) concerning the construction of a new 
interdistrict magnet school in the south end of Waterbury, 
the Waterbury board of education continues to file regular 
reports with the court. Connecticut State Board of 
Education vs. Waterbury Board of Education, CV-88-341471S 
  

  

(Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford; see 

algo Spec. Sess., May 1992, No. 82-3 § 31). 

59. Connecticut is one of only three states that have 
voluntarily adopted legislation with self-imposed specific 
goals for the purpose of reducing racial imbalance and 

| promoting integration in their school districts. (Rossell, 
268/57; DX 5.3) 

60. No state in the country has a racial imbalance law 
that requires interdistrict balancing. (Rossell, 26B/61) 

61. The claim of the plaintiffs (Complaint, 9 55) that 
the proposed educational parks bill was an appropriate 
legislative effort to reduce imbalance and promote 
integration at the time that it was rejected by the General 

| Assembly is not supported by the evidence because the 
plaintiffs’ principal desegregation planning expert did not 
know whether such a proposal would have been a viable 
remedial option at that time in the Hartford area, and he 

also acknowledged that educational parks have never been 
included in a court-ordered desegregation plan based on the 
approximately one hundred school desegregation cases in 
which he had participated. (Gordon, 13/127, 131) 

62. At the time of the hearing conducted by the human 
rights and opportunities committee of the legislature on the 

| proposed educational parks bill on February 7, 1969 (Exhibit 
22(e), pp. 78-79), Medill Bair, who was the Hartford 
superintendent of schools at the time, referred to Public 

Act No. 523 that had been enacted in 1965 to provide state 
aid for educationally and economically disadvantaged 
children as the first of ‘its kind in the nation, and stated 
that many of its features were thereafter incorporated into 
Title I (later Chapter I) of the federal Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 which was enacted six months 

later. 

63. At the hearing conducted on the educational parks 
| bill, Bair algo referred to Public Act 35 which had been 

| passed in 1967, and which was the original funding statute 

for interdistrict Project Concern contracts, as another law 
that had made this state a "pacesetter" for similar state 
and national legislation. Id. 

12 

  

  

  
 



  

64. Beginning in 1979, Connecticut’s method for 
financing public schools has taken into account the needs of 

'! urban school districts by including in the aid formula the 
i number Of children from low income famllies, and in 1989, a 

| weighting factor based on the number of students who score 
| below the remedial standard on the state’s mastery tests was 

added to the school aid formula. (PX 73) 

65. Since 1970, the state, recognizing that magnet 

schools and the programs that they offer tend to improve the 
overall quality of education while reducing racial 
isolation, has given technical assistance to intradistrict 

i magnet schools and the legislature has also authorized 
special bond funding for the construction or renovation of 

i buildings to house interdistrict magnet schools. Id. 

66. The most significant action taken by the state to 
address the problem of racial, ethnic and socioeconomic 
isolation in the state’s largest urban public school systems 
during Gerald Tirozzi'’s tenure as education commissioner 
from 1983 to 1991 was the interdistrict cooperative grants 
program, which allowed school districts to develop a number 
of plans to move students across district lines, and during 
his last year as commissioner more than one hundred 
districts throughout the state participated in the 
development of such plans on a cooperative basis. (PX 494, 

| pp. 14-18) 

67. The 1986 educational enhancement act addressed the 
financial needs of the cities by raising teachers’ salaries 
dramatically so that Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport 
were able to recruit and retain teachers at salaries 
comparable to, 1f not higher than, the salary levels offered 
by suburban districts, thereby permitting class sizes to be 
reduced in those cities. Id. 

68. The priority school district program which was 
initially funded at three million dollars was intended to 

| penefit the urban school districts and almost all of the 

grants were equalized so that the poorer communities 
received the greatest financial benefit. Id. 

69. Connecticut was the first state to factor the 
mastery test results into its school aid formula as one of 
the measures of a school district’s financial need and where 
students do not meet the remedial standards required under 
the testing program additional funds are made available. 
14. 34. 

70. On September 20, 1989, a commission on quality and 
integrated education was appointed by Governor O'Neill 
pursuant to the second Tirozzi report’s recommendation whose 

13 

  

 



  

  

  

  
members were selected on a statewide basis and included 
legislators, corporate and community leaders, members of 
local school boards, parents, educators, and scholars, who 
were charged with developing ways to promote quality and 
integrated education in this state. (PX 73) 

71. The governor’s charge to the commission was to 
examine voluntary and cooperative measures or approaches and 
there was no discussion about mandatory measures until the 
last few meetings when some of the members felt that time 
was of the essence because of the conditions that the 
commission had found existed, and that therefore the 
voluntary or incremental approach would only delay the 
remediation of those conditions. (Carter, 1/37-38) 

72. The commission’s report which was filed on 
December 31, 1990, included "An Open Letter to the People of 

the State of Connecticut" by the governor in which he stated 
that many students in the state’s educational system were 
isolated in schools that were either largely middle class 
and white or largely poor and non-white, and that much could 
be learned from the experience of other states in seeking to 
achieve the "twin goals of quality and integration [but at] 
the same time Connecticut’s answers will be particular to 
Connecticut, reflecting our special circumstances, history 
and heritage." (PX 73) 

73. The transmittal letter to the governor stated that 
a number of the members of the commission were of the 
opinion that voluntary approaches were unlikely to be 
adequate and felt that the report should include mandates, 
while other members believed that mandates were beyond the 
charge of the commission or that mandatory approaches were 
not effective, and requested that both Governor O'Neill and 
Governor-elect Weicker recognize that "strong arguments 

supporting both options have been advanced by Commission 
members and Connecticut citizens at public hearings held 
across the state.” Id. 

74. The transmittal letter also stated that 
"[e]lducation cannot shoulder the burden of social change by 
itself [and we] now realize that no set of educational 
strategies can fully address the myriad social issues that 
produce inequality and undermine education [because 
substance] abuse, hunger, parental neglect, crowded and 

substandard housing and inadequate employment opportunities 
disproportionately attack minority children in our state and 
divert them from educational opportunity." Id. 

75. The commission also noted in its transmittal 
letter that it recognized that the state was confronting a 
serious budget problem and that while some of its 

14 

 



  

    
recommendations would not require funding, that others 

would... 14. 

76. The fact that more progress was not made in 
pursuing the objectives outlined in the commission’s report 
was not the result of any lessening of the commitment of the 
department of education (DOE) to continue to pursue issues 
of racial equity, diversity, and the needs of disadvantaged 
children. (Williame, 25/77) 

77. The creation of the office of urban and priority 
school districts in 1992 by Commissioner Ferrandino was an 
effort to focus on some of the deficiencies that exist 

| within the state’s urban school systems with particular 
reference to their depressed standardized test scores. 4. 

i pep. 21,147, 

75... The first Tirozzi report, which endorsed the 
concept of "collective responsibility", was misunderstood at 
the time it was issued to mean mandatory student assignment 
in spite of the fact that it mandated only "corrective 
action" plans to eliminate racial imbalance with the threat 
of state intervention only if the voluntary approach proved 
to be ineffectual. (PX 494, pp. 35-36, 98-99) 

79... After Tirozzi reported back to the SBE, the board 

decided that because of the strong negative public reaction 
to the coercive elements of Tirozzi I, it would be advisable 
to encourage public discussion and thereafter, in accordance 

\ with the SBE’'s direction, Tirozzi discussed the matter with 

educators, administrators and local officials throughout the 
state in the course of the following year. Id., 100-04. 

80. As a result of Tirozzi’'s recommendations after his 
statewide discussions, the SBE concluded that progress in 
dealing with social issues of such complexity could only be 
incremental because of the "political realities" of local 
control and autonomy, and because educational initiatives 
alone could not adequately address or appropriately resolve 
the problems of housing, unemployment and poverty. Id., 
136-38. 

81. The strong negative response to what appeared to 
be the coercive aspects of the first Tirozzi report, and the 

i positive public reaction to the second report's voluntary 

i 

i! 

3d | 
Hi | 

{i 
| ii 

[I 

i! 

I 

approach, indicated that a meaningful level of integration 
could best be achieved in this state by means of a 
cooperative, noncoercive planning process. Id., 155-60. 

82. Practical and appropriate legislative educational 
initiatives that could lead to a meaningful level of 
integration should include first, changes in the school 

5 

  

 



  
funding formula to encourage the movement of children across 
town lines, and second, the adjustment of the state’s 
proportionate share of school construction costs so as to 
give financial inducements to districts that build schools 
cloger to their borders, Id.   83. On January 6, 1993, the eleventh day of the trial, 

Governor Weicker, in his message to the legislature (PX 90, 

Pp. 4-5), noted the positive aspects of Connecticut’s 
educational system, such as the fact that the state had the 
highest teacher salaries and the best teacher-student ratio 
in the nation as well as one of the highest rankings among 
the states in per pupil spending. 

  
84. He also acknowledged that the racial and economic 

isolation in the state’s school system was "indisputable" 
and whether it had come about "through the chance of 
historical boundaries or economic forces beyond the control 
of the state or whether it came about through private 
decisions or in spite of the best educational efforts of the 
state, what matters is that it is here and must be dealt 
with. 14... 

85. He then proceeded to outline legislative proposals 
for six educational regions, the development by each region 
of a five year plan proposed by local and regional 
representative groups to reduce racial isolation, and "to 
provide all students with a quality, integrated learning 
experience", and emphasized the fact that "[l]ocal decisions 
and local involvement will guide the process." 1d4., 9-11. 

86. On June 28, 1993, Public Act No. 93-263, (now 

codified as General Statutes §§ 10-264a to 10-264b) entitled 
"An Act Improving Educational Quality and Diversity" was 
signed by the governor. The Act provided a timetable 
beginning on January 15, 1994, for the convening of local 
and regional "forums" for the purpose of developing regional 
"education and community improvement plans" which were to be 
voted on by each of eleven regions in the state. 

87. Thereafter, the plaintiffs, at the direction of 

the trial court, amended the complaint® to state that 
Governor Weicker, "in response to this law suit . . . called 

on the legislature to address ‘' [tlhe racial and economic 
isolation in Connecticut’s school system,’ and the related 

educational inequities in Connecticut’s schools." 

  

>The Revised Complaint dated November 23, 1994 (Record 

item 201.70) incorporated the amendments as paragraphs 66a 
ii and 66b and is the operative complaint that is referred to 
| in these findings unless otherwise indicated. 

16 

   



  

88. Paragraph 66b stated that "[a]l]s in the past, the 
legislature failed to act effectively in response to the 
Governor's call for school desegregation initiatives [and 
instead], a voluntary desegregation planning bill was 
passed, P.A. 93-263, which contains no racial or poverty 

concentration goals, no guaranteed funding, no provisions 

for educational enhancements for city schools, and no 

mandates for local compliance." 

17 

  

  
 



  

III. DOES THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM PROVIDE THE PLAINTIFFS 

WITH A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION UNDER THE EQUAL 

PROTECTION AND EDUCATION CLAUSES OF THE STATE 

CONSTITUTION? 

  

  

  

  

89. Historically, racial or ethnic minority group 
| membership has been associated with being educationally 

' disadvantaged because members of those groups have failed to 
succeed in schools at the same levels as most members of the 

majority group. {PX 163, pp. 27-28) : 

90. The generally poorer academic performance of black 
and Hispanic youngsters is explained for the most part by 
the social and economic conditions under which their 
families live." 18., 28. 

91. Two other explanations that have been given, 
first, the failure of the schools to offer a program that is 
sensitive to the cultural background of minority youngsters 
and second, the patterns of institutional discrimination in 
the schools that reflect historical patterns of social 
discrimination in the larger society, are not applicable 
under the facts of this case to the Hartford public schools. 
(Natriello, 11/181-82) 

92. It is poverty and not race that is a principal 
causal factor in lower educational achievement. (Kennedy, 

14/74) 

93. The problems of the Hartford schools are 
compounded by the fact that minorities in the inner cities 
are disproportionately poor and the real correlation with 
academic achievement is socioeconomic class rather than 
race, and being poor in and of itself is a significant 
problem in the schools. {PX 494, pp. 11-12) 

94. The reason that children who live in poverty do 
not do well in statewide academic testing is because they 
are poor and disadvantaged and not because they are an 
ethnic or racial minority, because poor minority children 
exhibit the same patterns as those of their poor white 
counterparts, and poverty is the strongest predictor of poor 
academic achievement. (PX 42, p. 14) 

95. National studies have shown that the concentration 
of poverty may have adverse effects on achievement levels 
over and above the effects of family poverty. (Kennedy, 

14/27-31) 

96. In the report of his study of the Hartford school 
system, although Gary Natriello did not state any conclusion 
with respect to the presence of a separate "concentration 

18 

 



  

  
  effect" in Hartford beyond the effect of individual 

! sociceconomic status differences (Natriello, 11/25-26, 164), 

| the defendants’ analysis of the test scores acknowledges 

} 

i 
i 

| 
| 
| 
{ 

| 

| 

| that a higher concentration of students at risk may affect 1 
Il achievement, and that "[i]lncreases in the concentration of 

students of low economic status within schools seem to be 

agsociated with disproportionately higher incidences of 
ll academic need.” (PX 70,.p. 17) 

97. It is the socioeconomic status of school children 
that influences academic performance and that helps to 
explain the reduction almost by half of the achievement gap 
between black and white students nationally between 1970 and 
1990. (Armor, 32/958) 

98. The level of achievement that should be attained 

i by the students in a particular school district cannot be 
| assessed or determined without considering the conditions 

that exist in that district which tend to hinder or inhibit 
academic attainment, and examples of such factors would 
include mobility, limited English proficiency and 
socioeconomic status. (Nearine, 24/68-70) 

99. If two groups of students that are equal in all 
| respects except that one group has a larger percentage of 
students with "at risk" factors such as low birth weight 
babies and mothers on drugs at birth, the group with a 
larger percentage of those characteristics will perform more 

| poorly in an educational sense than the group with a smaller 
| percentage of those characteristics. (Natriello, 11/4-5) 

100. To understand the quality or effectiveness of a 
| particular educational program, the effecte of the 

. disadvantages that students bring to school with them to 
that program must be separated from the effects of the 
particular educational programs. (Natriello, 11/8-9, 22-23, 
89-91; Crain, 35/79-80) 

101. The plaintiffs’ witnesses, with the exception of 
| Gary Orfield, agreed that it is important to separate the 
effects of poverty from the effects of racial isolation and 
that there are ways in which the separate effects of poverty 
and racial isolation can be measured statistically. (Armor, 

32/19) 

102. Natriello’s report considered the disadvantages 
that Hartford students bring with them to school in his 
review of the quality of educational programs offered in 
Hartford, but he did not separate the effects of those 

disadvantages from the effects of the particular educational 
programs in Hartford that he was assessing. (Natriello, 
11/8-9, 22-23) 

1s 

  

  

 



  

  

  
103. The two purposes served by the state mastery tests 

are First, the results inform districts so that they can 
improve their programs, correct deficiencies and plan for 
the future, and second, they provide the basis for the 

disbursement of funds to the districts that do not perform 
at or above the remedial standard. (PX 494, p. 84) 

104. The mastery testing program was not designed to be 
used for purposes of comparison, but was intended to provide 
information about individual students and programs for the 
use of local school districts so that they could improve 
their own particular educational programs. (PX 493, 

pp. 146-48) 

105. An equally important purpose of the testing 
program is to trigger remedial services to the students that 
need them. (Natriello, 11/189) 

106. Connecticut mastery test results should not be 
seen as primarily caused by either the educational delivery 
system or by racial imbalance or isolation in the schools 
because the results could be importantly related to many 
other factors which have not been considered. {DX 310.1) 

107. It is inappropriate to use the Connecticut mastery 
test data to draw conclusions about the quality of education 
in Hartford, unless the effects of important variables such 
as socioeconomic status, early environmental deprivations 
and diminished motivation to succeed academically, are taken 

into account. (Flynn, 31/153-55; DX 10.1) 

108. Among the variables that have to be considered in 
analyzing the Hartford test scores are the number of 
students with limited English proficiency in the district 
and the extraordinary mobility of its student population, 
both of which are significant factors that contribute to the 
depressed test scores of Hartford school children. 
(LaFontaine, 14/141-42) 

109. As important as the Connecticut mastery test is, 
it is always desirable to consider as many perspectives and 
indicators as possible in an effort to fairly assess the 
academic progress of students at risk, because the academic 
success of students is multifaceted, and therefore, it is 

best measured by using multiple indicators at different 
points in time so as to provide a more complete 
understanding of the achievement of students at risk. (PX 

70, 05 17) 

110. The state mastery tests were never intended to be 
the sole source of measuring student performance. 
(Margolin, PX 506, p/ 58) 

20 

  

 



  

  
  

  

111. The use of state mastery test data does not 
provide the necessary information to conclude that 
educational instructional services in urban schools are 

inferior to those in suburban school districts. PX 10.1) 

112. The DOE advises against comparing scores among 
school districts because it is impossible to identify how 
the average student in each school system has performed 
without knowing average scores and standard deviations in 
addition to other factors that may affect any such attempted 
comparisons. (DX 12.16, p. 20) 

113. It is an abuse of the purposes of the testing 
program to use the test scores as the basis for comparing 
the quality of education between schools or school systems. 
(LaFontaine, 14/140) 

114. An analysis of the 1987 Connecticut mastery test 
results conducted by the DOE reported that poverty as 
measured by student participation in free and reduced lunch 
programs wag a major contributing factor in the disparity in 
academic performance between students in Hartford, New Haven 
and Bridgeport and those in the rest of the state. (PX 59, 

p. 49 

115. Any social scientist examining test score 
differentials would have to take socioeconomic status into 

account before coming to a conclusion. (Armor, 32/23) 

116. Virtually all of the differences in performance 
between Hartford students and those in other towns, as well 

as differences in college attendance, can be explained by 
differences in socioeconomic status and the background 
factors that sociceconomic status represents. (Armor, 
32/30-32, 94-95) 

117. It is inconsistent with the purposes of testing to 
use collective test scores as the basis for comparing 
outcomes between school districts without taking into 
consideration the various factors and variables that combine 
to create the particular level of test result. (LaFontaine, 

14/139) 

118. The purpose of the remedial standard was to have a 
standard available for the purpose of state funding to 
determine which school systems required additional financial 
assistance in order to improve the achievement of the 
students in those districts that had the greatest need. 
(PX 494, pp. 84-86) 

119. Although the socioeconomic status of Hartford’s 
children declined between 1980 and 1990 and the 

21 

  

 



    concentration of poverty has increased during that time, the 
i differences in test scores between Hartford’s children and 

  

  

| those of children throughout the state are not getting any 

| larger.  Matriello, 11/114-18) 

120. Hartford’s teachers are no less qualified than 
| teachers in the suburban school districts. (Natriello, 
| 11/35; LaFontaine, 14/131) 

121. Hartford teachers are very committed and dedicated 
| to providing a quality education for their students. 

ii (Dudley, 16/147) 

122. Hartford’s teacher training program is based on 
| the "effective schools" concept which is specifically 
|! directed to the needs of urban and minority children. 

(LaFontaine, 14/131-32) 

123. Hartford should not be considered as a negative 
setting for education in that the state is still meeting its 

| primary responsibility of educating its school children and 
there is some outstanding education going on in its schools. 
(PX 506, p. 48) 

124. Some of the best special education classes in the 
| state can be found in the Hartford city schools, (PX 494, 

| pp: 54-55) 

125. The Hartford public schools offer .academic 
| programs that are sufficient Co meet the basic educational 

needs of all its students and also provide other programs 
that are required to meet the special needs of its 
economically disadvantaged students. (Calvert 30/4-9, 
119-21) 

126. Hartford public school students are provided with 
a level of resources and the level of instruction and an 
ongoing systematic program that is similar to that of other 
communities inthe state. (PX 493, pp: 132-33) 

127. There 1s no professionally accepted definition of 
| the terms "minimally adequate education" or "substantive 

| minimum level of education." (LaFontaine, 14/139-40) 

128. The conclusion reached by Natriello in his report 
(PX 163, pp. 231 through 264) entitled "A Descriptive Study 
of the Educational Resources of the Hartford Public Schools 
and Disparities with Other Districts”, that students in the 
Hartford public schools were not receiving a minimally 
adequate education was based on the assumptions that the 
mastery test data is an appropriate basis from which to 
assess the quality of education in Hartford, and that the 

22  



  

  
test scores may also be used as the basis for comparing the 

| quality of education between schools or school systems. 
| (See Finding Nos. 102, 104-11, supra.) 

129. His conclusion was also based on three state 
| documents which "provide an indication of evolving state 
standards and goals requiring quality education" as follows: 

| "Guidelines for Equal Educational Opportunity of Connecticut 
| State Board of Education” (PX 39), "Policy Statement on 
| Equal Educational Opportunity" (PX 43), and the report of 
| the governor's commission on quality and integrated 
education. (PX 73) 

| 130. His report also referred to the "Common Core of 
| Learning" as the most current and comprehensive statement of 
'| goals for Connecticut education which could be used as 
|| "benchmarks" against which to judge the performance of the 
I! Hartford public schools. ~ Id., pp. 231, 263. 

131. The Common Core of Learning (PX 45) cannot be used 
to measure whether students are receiving a minimally 
adequate education because it consists of a series of 
expectations rather than a formal assessment of what 
students actually know. (PX 494, pp. 82-83) 

132. Despite the fact that the collective mastery rest 
results show that many of the students in the Hartford 
schools are performing below the remedial level, they are 
receiving at least a minimally adequate education in the 
sense that a minimally adequate education is one that gives 

i a child a chance of leading a successful life. (PX 506, 

1. op. 85=88) 

  

  

 



  DOES THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM PROVIDE EQUAL 

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE PLAINTIFFS UNDER THE 

EQUAL PROTECTION AND EDUCATION CLAUSES OF THE STATE 

CONSTITUTION? 

  

  

  

  

133. Equal educational opportunity is a progressive and 
dynamic concept which may change or may need to be changed 
because educators constantly seek improvement in educational 
standards in the face of changing conditions. (Natriello, 

11/128) 

134. The SBE defined "equal educational opportunity" in 
a policy statement that it adopted in May 7, 1986 (PX 43) as 
"student access to a level and quality of programs and 
experiences which provide each child with the means to 
achieve a commonly defined standard of an educated citizen." 

135. "Connecticut’s Common Core of Learning" (PX 45a) 
was adopted by the SBE on January 7, 1987 "as its standard 
of an educated citizen" and of what it believed "ought to be 
the outcomes of education in the public schools." 

136. The Common Core of Learning is a statement of 
ambitious goals and high expectations (PX 163, p. 263) and 
was intended to be a catalyst for school improvement rather 
than a state mandate or a standard for assessing the quality 
of education in a particular school system. (PX 494, 

Pp. 82-83) 

137.In addition to the fact that the state's 
definition of equal educational opportunity in terms of an 
"educated citizen" is a long range goal rather than a formal 
assessment of what academic skills and knowledge high school 
graduates should have, it is not a useful measure of 

educational quality because it also includes student 
attributes and attitudes which cannot be assessed, such as 

self-concept, motivation and persistence, responsibility and 
self-reliance, intellectual curiosity, interpersonal 

relations, sense of community, and moral and ethical values. 
(PX 163, D.. 263) 

138. If the existing state educational policy goal that 
"no group of students will demonstrate systematically 
different achievement based upon the differences . . . that 
its members brought with them when they entered school" 
(PX 39, 43) were to be applied as a standard for access to 
equal educational opportunity, such a standard could not be 
met until the students in all school districts were 
performing at the same level, a goal that has never been 
attained by any existing educational system. (Natriello, 

11/136,.:142)   

 



  

    
| i 

| 

| 
{1 

139. Hartford and its surrounding towns are scoring at 

the level that one would expect if the dramatic differences 

between them in poverty levels are taken into account, and 

therefore, the test score data does not permit conclusions 

or inferences to be drawn that an equal educational 

opportunity is not being provided. (Armor, 32/94-95) 

140. The disparity in test scores does not indicate 

| that Hartford is doing an inadequate or a poor job in 

1 educating its students or that its schools are failing, 

because the predicted scores based upon the relevant 
| socioeconomic factors are about at the levels that one would 

| expect when adjustments are made for those differences. Id. 

141. Teachers and educational administrators have no 

. control over where their students live or the conditions 

' under which they live nor can they be expected to attend to 
their physical and psychological health needs and although 

i educators in the lmmer cities must deal with at least some 

{ of those problems, they are not in a position to address, 
| much less to remedy, the disadvantages that they bring with 
them when they enter the educational system. (Calvert, 

31/121) 

142. There are no educational strategies or initiatives 
that can fully deal with the complex social issues that 

i produce inequality and undermine education because substance 
| abuse, hunger, parental neglect, crowded and substandard 
| housing and inadequate employment opportunities 

td 

"disproportionately attack minority children in our state 
and divert them from educational opportunity." (PX 73) 

143. An equal opportunity in the educational sense of 
that term is being provided to the children of a particular 
school district if they are provided with the level of 
resources, competence in terms of instruction and an ongoing 
systematic program that is gimilar {© that of other 
communities in the state, and under that definition.the 
educational programs and curriculum that are being offered 
in Hartford provide equal educational opportunity to its 
students. {(Ferrandino, PX'493, pp. 132-33) 

25 

  

  
 



  

    | 

| 

| 

i 

| | 
HB 
| 
| { 

ii 

Vv. THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE REMEDY. 
  

144. The plaintiffs have brought this action to obtain 

Judicial relief from allegedly ineffective or belated 

| legislative action and inaction in the face of 

recommendations from the executive branch that appropriate 

action be taken to remedy the conditions which are the basis 

for their complaint. (Carter, 1/55; Allison, 12/24-26) 

145. More specifically, the plaintiffs seek to have the 

court direct the Hartford school district and the twenty-one 

suburban school districts "to address these inequities 

Jointly {andl ito reconfigure district lines, or to take 

other steps sufficient to eliminate these educational 

l} inequities.” {Complaint 9% 720) 

146. The present racial, ethnic and socioeconomic 

| concentration and isolation of the school children in the 

| Hartford public school system on the basis of their 

| residence is principally the result of social and 

demographic patterns of change that have occurred over the 

past thirty years in the Hartford metropolitan area. 

(Findings No. 26 through 28, supra) 

147. The single most important factor, other than the 

|. demographic changes that took place during that period, was 

the action taken by the legislature in 1909 to consolidate 

| the then-existing school districts in the state so that town 

boundaries would eventually become the dividing lines 

| between all of the school districts in the state. (Finding 

| No. 22, supra) 

148. The boundaries of the Hartford public school 

district became coterminous with the Hartford town 

ll boundaries in 1941. (See Revised Stipulation of Facts, 

June 6, 1995, 4 214.) 

  

149. In order to deal effectively with the issues of 

racial, ethnic and economic isolation that have been raised 

in this action, and their impact on educational outcomes, 

school district lines would have to be redrawn. (Foster, 

21/132, 149-150) 

150. Connecticut’s responses to the racial, ethnic and 

economic isolation of the public schools in Hartford and in 

| other major cities of the state, as stated in the report of 

the governor's commission on quality and integrated 

education (Finding #58, supra), must be "particular to 

Connecticut reflecting our special circumstances, history, 

and heritage." {PX 73) 

26 

  

 



  

    
151. The findings that have been made in parts I 

| through part IV herein establish that over the course of the 
last thirty years, the public policy of this state as 
reflected in the legislation that has been enacted to 
maintain and enhance educational quality, and to address the 
racial, economic and ethnic imbalance and isolation of its 

urban schools, has been to rely upon voluntary and 
cooperative action by town-school districts. Id. 

152. The relief requested by the plaintiffs in this 
case includes the integration of the public schools in the 
greater Hartford metropolitan region for the purpose of 
eliminating economic, as well as racial and ethnic 
isolation. (Complaint, Request for Relief, § 1c, p. 30) 

153. The principal witness called by the plaintiffs to 
state an opinion as to the appropriate remedy, and the 

1 nature and scope of judicial relief, stated that the 
desegregation planning process mandated by the federal 
courts following a finding of de jure segregation could be 
effectively applied to remediate the conditions of racial, 
ethnic and economic isolation that exist in the Hartford 

| metropolitan area. (Gordon, 13/83-85) 

154. Gordon acknowledged that the remedial planning 
process would be more complicated in this case because of 
the fact that the remedy sought by the plaintiffs would 
include economic, as well as racial and ethnic, 

interdistrict desegregation measures. Id. 

155. Although there is general agreement that 
conventional educational approaches are inadequate to 
address the special problems of the urban poor, in the 
opinion of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, "schools can 

| make a difference" in the sense that the problems of poverty 
can be appropriately addressed by the public schools 1f they 
had sufficient resources to deal with the disadvantaging 
characteristics that poor children bring with them. 
(Slavin, 19/78-81; Natriello, 8/95) 

156. Their opinions are clearly inconsistent with the 
| unanimous and apparently undisputed finding of the 

. governor's commission on quality and integrated education 
that there were no educational strategies or initiatives 
that could fully deal with the larger issues of poverty, 
unemployment, housing, health, substance abuse, hunger, 

parental neglect, and crowded and substandard housing. 
(Carter, 1/51; PX 73, p.+5; Finding No. 70, supra) 

157. There are no existing standards or guidelines that 
educators, social scientists or desegregation planners can 
offer or recommend in order to achieve the proper racial, 

27 

  

  

  
 



  

ethnic and socioeconomic balance in the school districts of 

the Hartford metropolitan area. (Trent, 7/134; Gordon, 

13/149-151) 

158. Mandatory student reassignment plans to achieve 

racial balance, whether intradistrict or interdistrict, are 

ineffective methods of achieving integration, whether they 

are mandated by racial imbalance laws or by court order. 

(Rossell, 26B/34) 

159. Proposed solutions to the problems of racial, 

ethnic and economic isolation which rely on coercion and 

which fail to offer choices and options either do not work 

or have unacceptable consequences. (PX 398, p. 8; Tirozzi, 

PX 494, pp. 92-93) 

160. Moreover, reliance on coercive measures alone, 

without providing quality education and maintaining it at 

the appropriate levels throughout the region, do not seem to 

| work and further produce the outcomes that are educationally 

desirable. (Foster, 21/158-61) 

161. Integration in its fullest and most meaningful 
sense can only be achieved by building affordable housing in 
suburban areas in order to break up the inner city ghettos, 
and by making urban schools more attractive for those who 
live outside the city. {(Tirozzi, PX 494, p. "34; Mannix, 

PX 495, pp. 22-23) 

/ / 

// 7/ 
ods pin rnd Lz 

Ph x74 4 YA 2 

Harry Hammer 
Trial Judge 

vd 

  

28 

| 

| 

| 
i 

| 

| 
{ 
| 
| { 
i 

  

 



NOTICE SENT: june 27, 1995 
MOLLER, HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C. 
MARTHA STONE 
PHILIP D. TEGELER 
JOHN BRITTAIN 
WILFRED RODRIGUEZ 
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL 
BERNARD F. MCGOVERN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
MARTHA WATTS PRESTLEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
GREGORY T. D’/AURIA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
CAROLYN K. QUERIJERO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
MARIANNE ENGELMAN LADO 
THEODORE SHAW 
DENNIS D. PARKER 
SANDRA DEL VALLE 
CHRISTOPHER A. HANSEN 
CLERK, HARTFORD J.D. (CV389-03609775)