Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Fourth Request for Production of Documents

    CV 89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, et al SUPERIOR COURT 

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

V. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al 

Defendants May 22, 1991 

DEFENDANTS 'RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FOURTH REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 
OF DOCUMENTS 
  

  

For their response to the Plaintiffs' Fourth Request for 

Production of Documents dated March 25, 1991 the defendants offer 

the following: 

1. All the documents which show 1) the percentage of 

students from the Hartford school system and from the 

"surrounding communities" who are from categories a-g below and 

2) which demonstrate that any of the factors listed in a-g have 

an adverse effect on educational performance of students from the 

Hartford school system: 

a. Children from families where substance abuse is a 

problem; 

b. Children from families where one or more family members 

suffer from mental disease or illness; 

  
 



      

  

  

c. Children who have parents who themselves have a history 

of low educational attainment (e.g. no high school diploma); 

d. Children who have received inadequate prenatal care; 

Children who have received inadequate health care; 

f. Children who have been influenced by or participate in 

criminal activity; 

g. Children who are left alone for more than three hours 

per weekday. 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not have any documents which 

contain the specific information requested by the plaintiffs. 

Sociological and other research data which demonstrate that 

children in poor urban areas are more likely to suffer from one 

or more of these conditions than children in wealthier   communities and research data which notes a correlation between 

these kinds of problems and reduced educational performance is as 

easily accessible to the plaintiffs as it is to the defendants 

through appropriate professional research. To the extent that   
plaintiffs are seeking sociological and other research data which 

has not been developed by or on behalf of the defendants the 

    

  

 



  

defendants OBJECT to this request as unduly burdensome and 

vexatious. 

2. All documents which demonstrate the rate of growth on 

the Connecticut Mastery test of at-risk students in Hartford and 

of at-risk students in the surrounding school districts. 

RESPONSE: See Exhibits 16(e) and 16(f) in response to 

request number 16 of Plaintiff's First Request for Production of     Documents and Exhibit 4 (ff) in response to request number 4 of 

Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents. 

3. All "empirical" studies which you deem "not sufficiently] 

reliable" in your answer to Plaintiffs' First Set of 

Interrogatories no. 18. | 

RESPONSE: OBJECTION: The request is incomprehensible in 

i view of defendants' response to question 18 of Plaintiffs' First 

Set of Interrogatories. Defendants maintain that there are no 

empirical studies that "conclusively establishes that racial 

|! integration by itself will improve standardized test scores." 

4. ED 152 Racial Survey System Summary for Hartford and 

surrounding communities.       
 



  

    

  

  

RESPONSE: See Exhibits 4(a)-(b). 

5. All documents which described the written work 

objectives of the Mastery Test program. 

RESPONSE: OBJECTION: The term "written work objective" is 

not sufficiently clear to allow the defendants to identify 

material responsive to this request. Without waiving the right 

to interpose further objection, (for instance, objection to the 

disclosure of answer keys and the like) the defendants are 

providing plaintiffs with Exhibit 5(a) in an effort to be 

responsive to this request. 

6. All current EEO analyses of MasterY Test data. 

RESPONSE: See Exhibit 6(a) for the only analysis done by 

  

the defendants using EEO subgroups to date (Also see Exhibit 

22(a) in response to request number 22 of Plaintiffs' First 

Request for Production of Documents for related material). 

7. All analyses of mastery tests data indicated in 

Memorandum of January 31, 1990 attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

  
  

  

  

 



    

  

  

      

RESPONSE: OBJECTION: All analyses of Mastery Test data 

performed by the defendants at 

which will not be offered into 

attorney work product which is 

analyses which will be offered 

the request of defense counsel 

evidence in this case constitute 

exempt from disclosure. All 

into evidence have been and will 

be turned over to the plaintiffs in response to plaintiffs’ 

earlier requests for production. See e.g. Exhibit 18(d) in 
  

response to request 18 of Plaintiffs' Second Request for 

Production of Documents. 

8. All documents which show the numbers of students from 

Hartford and surrounding communities receiving diplomas without 

meeting the requirements of graduation. 

RESPONSE: No students receive diplomas without meeting the 

requirements for graduation so 

documents. 

the defendants have no such 

9. PIP goals and objectives and MIP for each full-time and 

part-time employee and consultant in DOE Data Collection and 

Analysis Unit. 

  

  
 



  

    

  

  
  

RESPONSE: See Exhibits 9(a)-(c). To the extent that the 

plaintiffs are requesting access to information which has been 

redacted from these exhibits the defendants OBJECT as the 

information which has been redacted from these exhibits is 

confidential personnel information which is of no relevance to 

this suit. 

10. Current School/Staff Report (more recent than 1988). 

RESPONSE: See Exhibit 10(a). 

11. DOE Minimum Standards for art and music. 

  
| 
| 

| 

| 

| 
| 

RESPONSE: The defendants have no "minimum standards for art] 

and music." Curriculum guidelines are attached as Exhibits 

l1(a)-(b). 

12. Fiscal Year 1992-93 DOE Budget, budget options, budget 

reductions. 

RESPONSE: The items requested do not exist at this time. 

13. Documents which show monies allocated for recruitment 

of minority teachers from 1980-present.  



  

    

    

RESPONSE: See Exhibits 13(a)-(c) and Exhibit 3(h) in 

response to request number 3 of Plaintiffs' Second Request for 

Production of Documents regarding state sponsored programs 

designed for this purpose. Defendants do not have records 

regarding monies allocated by local school districts for 

recruitment of minority teachers. 

14. DOE pamphlet "Data Collection Procedures Relating to Public 

Elementary and Secondary Institutions of Education in 

Connecticut." 

RESPONSE: See Exhibit 14 (a). 

15. All documents which show class size by grade and school] 

for Hartford and surrounding communities. 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not collect this data. Without 

making any representations regarding the accuracy of the data, 

the defendants offer Exhibit 15(a) in response to this request. 

16. Regional Magnet Planning and Report proposal for 

funding written in or around 1979-1980 which included a foreign 

language magnet program. 

  

    
 



RESPONSE: Defendants are unable to locate and have no 

knowledge of the existence of any documents which meet this 

description. 

  17. Original report relating to race equity issues issued   
by Education Equity Study Committee which was not made part of   final report and minutes of Education Equity Study Committee 

relating to race equity issues. 

RESPONSE: No such report was ever prepared by the Education 

Equity Study Committee, therefore the defendants have no 

documents which are responsive to this request. | 

| 

| 

18. All documents which show number and percentage of black 

and Latino students from 1930 to the present in the Hartford 

school system and surrounding communities. 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not have any such documents for 

years prior to 1966. See Exhibit 18(a)-(w) for years subsequent 

t0:1966. 

19. Copies of resumes of all defendants' experts listed in 

Defendants' letter dated March 15, 1991. 

     



  

  

  

  

  
2 § 

Hi 
33 
| 
| 

RESPONSE: See Exhibit 19(a). 

20. Copies of ED-027 Regional Schools Pupil Report for 

Hartford and surrounding communities. 

RESPONSE: No such documents exist for Hartford and the 

surrounding communities. 

21. Copies of ED-098 Civil Rights Survey for Hartford and 

surrounding communities. 

RESPONSE: The information collected by way of ED-098 is not] 

collected from school districts or towns. The form is completed 

by each program which is funded. Programs are not required to   serve children in any particular town so there is no way to 

separate out ED-098 Civil Rights Survey forms for Hartford and 

the surrounding communities. A description of the ED-098 is 

enclosed as Exhibit 21(a). Records relating to specific programs) 

can be made available for inspection upon request. 

22. Copies of ED-158P Public High School Graduate Follow-up 

for Hartford and surrounding communities. 

RESPONSE : See Exhibit 22(a) 

  

 



  

    

    
i 

i 
i tH 
fl 
H i 
i! 
i 

{| 
1] i 

23. Copies of ED-229 Bilingual Grant Application for 

Hartford and surrounding communities. 

RESPONSE: See Exhibit 23(a). Note that none of the 

surrounding communities receive this grant. 

24. Copies of ED-230 LEA Bilingual Education Evaluation for 

Hartford and surrounding communities. 

RESPONSE: See Exhibit 24(a). Note that none of the 

surrounding communities receive this grant. 

25. Copies of ED-322 Grant Application for Regional Special 

Education Facility for Hartford and surrounding communities. 

RESPONSE: See Exhibit 25(a). 

26. ED 101 Civil Rights Survey - School System Summary and 

ED 102 Civil Rights Survey -- Individual School Report for 

Hartford and surrounding communities. 

RESPONSE: Those Survey Forms which the defendants were able 
| 

to locate in their records are included as Exhibits 26(a)-(j).   
 



  

    

  

  

27. All policy statements concerning educational quality 

adopted by the State Board of Education since 1968. 

RESPONSE: In a letter dated October 11, 1990 plaintiffs’ 

counsel was advised that the minutes of all State Board of 

Education meetings taking place between 1965 and 1975 were 

available for inspection by plaintiffs' counsel in accordance 

with the procedures outlined in that letter. This offer stands 

and is extended to cover all meetings taking place after 1975 up 

to the present. (Also see Exhibit 11(c) in response to question 

11 of Plaintiffs' Third Request for Production). To the extent 

that the plaintiffs are asking the defendants to identify 

specific policy statements included in those minutes which 

concern "educational quality" the defendants OBJECT because they 

are unable to distinguish policy statements which relate to 

"educational quality" from those which do not. In the 

alternative the defendants would state that all of the policy 

statements and resolutions of the Board of Education relate, in 

one way or another, to educational quality. 

28. All correspondence to and from Hartford Beard of 

Education and State Department of Education, and all internal 

=11=   
 



  

  

  

  

    

memoranda of DOE relating to the joint committee formulated in 

1990 to explore partnership options between Hartford Board of 

Education and DOE. 

RESPONSE: See Exhibit 28(a). 

  

29. All state funding comparisons, staff/program 

comparisons, and socioeconomic student data comparisons referred 

to in September 25, 1989 Memo attached hereto ae Exhibit B. (1f 

any documents have been previously provided to plaintiffs, 

responsive to this request, please identify.) 

RESPONSE: OBJECTION: All such analyses performed by the 

defendants at the request of defense counsel which will not be 

offered into evidence in this case constitute 

product which is exempt from disclosure. All 

be offered into evidence have been or will be 

plaintiffs in response to plaintiffs' earlier 

  

attorney work 

analyses which will 

turned over to the 

requests for 

production. (See e.g. Exhibit 4 (ee) in response to question 4 

of the Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents. | 

An updated version of this exhibit is enclosed.) 

he Sn 

 



  

    

    

30. All documents which support your Response to 

Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories no 8. | 

RESPONSE: All documents which have been identified to date 

have been turned over to the plaintiffs in response to earlier 

requests for production of documents. Any new documents which 

are discovered will be added to the Geen which have already 

been provided. 

31. Complete report for the Governor's Commission by of 

(sic) H.C. Chung regarding school facilities data including 

tables and charts. 

RESPONSE: In a letter to plaintiffs' counsel dated October |   11, 1990 defendants agreed to make material regarding the work 

done by H.C. Planning available for inspection and copying. This | 

offer stands with the caveat that the defendants cannot make any | 

documents which are in the exclusive possession of H.C. Chung 

a/k/a H. C. Planning available for inspection or copying. 

32. Number of portable classrooms used in Hartford and 

surrounding communities. | 

~33- | 

 



  

RESPONSE: The defendants do not have any reliable 

information which would be responsive to this request since 

Hartford and the surrounding communities are not required to 

report the existence or number of portable classrooms in use. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS     
RD NIA 

IL / ; 0 hi) 
I pal "R. a 
| /Agsistant Attorney General 

{ ¥10 Sherman Street 

AMartford, Connecticut 06105 
Tel Phas 566-3696 /) 

0 LLL nie 
Diane W. Whitney 
Assistant Attorney Generat/] 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, Connecticut 06105 

  

  

   
  

CERTIFICATION 
  

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, 

postage prepaid on a, 2 r 1991 to the following counsel or 

/ { 

record: 
| | 
|   
il 

John Brittain | 
University of Connecticut 
School of Law 

65 Elizabeth Street 

Rartford,:CT.06105 

Wilfred Rodriguez 
Hispanic Advocacy Project 

    1 -14-   

 



  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  

Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

Philip Tegeler 
Martha Stone 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

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

Jenny Rivera, Esq. 
Ruben Franco, 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. 
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 

   —
—
,
 

  

\ 
Johyi’ R. Whelan 
Asgistant Attorney General 

i} /