Plaintiffs' Amended Responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories
Public Court Documents
February 21, 1991

40 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Plaintiffs' Amended Responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, 1991. a518d298-a346-f011-877a-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/72d9de05-1463-4bc5-b09a-5f7f3d6a0c3a/plaintiffs-amended-responses-to-defendants-first-set-of-interrogatories. Accessed July 29, 2025.
Copied!
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 12, 1991 90 00 00 09 ©0 96 09 90 00 Se 86 0 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: Plaintiffs have not brought this case to challenge the constitutionality of specific historical actions of the state. Rather, 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. As in Horton v. Meskill, the Sheff case claims that the present system of public education is unconstitutional. Defendants’ state action argument in the present case would be equivalent to arguing in the Horton case that the state did not "cause" differences in wealth, tax burden, and educational need among different school districts! Nonetheless, if defendants persist in this line of argument, and if the court does not eliminate this issue prior to trial, plaintiffs are prepared to rebut defendants’ claims that the state did nothing to cause or contribute to school segregation or that the state is not "responsible for" existing school boundaries that exacerbate segregation. In fact, defendants have taken numerous actions that have “caused” or "contributed to” 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. 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 seq. 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 §10-22la. 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 tnterscholastic 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 of 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, 1989) (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. See, e.qg., Waterbury Teachers Association v. Furlong, 162 Conn. 390, 294 A.2d 546 (1972). 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 1909.1 Prior to 1909, there was no state requirement that town and school district lines be the same, and many school districts crossed town lines.2 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. 1 In prior legislation, the state had authorized towns to consolidate school districts within their borders (1854), and had prohibited the establishment of any additional school districts (1866). d See, e.q., 2nd Annual Report of the Board of Commissioners of the Common Schools, (Hartford, 1840); Annual Report of the Superintendent of the Common Schools for 1847 (Seth Beers); Annual Report of the Superintendent of the Common Schools, 1955; Stiles, History of Ancient Wethersfield, V.I. (1904, reprinted 1974) p. 370; Litchfield and Hoyt, History of the Town of Oxford, (1960); See Also F. W. Beers, Atlas of New York and Vicinity Including Fairfield County, Connecticut (1867); F. W. Beers and Ellis and G.G. Soule, Atlas of New Haven County (1868); Atlas of New London County (1868) ; County Atlas of Litchfield (1874); County Atlas of Middlesex, Connecticut (1974); Backer and Tilden, Atlas of Hartford City and County (Hartford, 1896); School Districts of the Town of Hartford (1902). Even iA 1909, although Connecticut's black population was very small, the pattern of black migration and racially identifiable housing was already established. By 1909, roughly 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: Professor Collier will testify that two to three segregated black schools were established in Hartford between 1811 and 1859; that until after the civil war, black students were permitted to attend no public high school in Connecticut; and that there is evidence that there is evidence that black students in the 19th century were often held up to scorn and ridicule in those instances in which they attended white schools. It was not until 1867 that state law abolished "official” segregation of public schools. 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, this option was denied to the City of Hartford for fifteen years, from 1969 to 1985, during the most rapid period of growth in school minority concentration, by operation of a state statute, C.G.S. §10-39.3 There is AB ERE tutional basis for the legal requirement that town and school district boundaries be coterminous. Nor is there any practical basis for the requirement. 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 no funding for urban/suburban interdistrict programs in regular education until after the present lawsuit was announced. 3 See Memorandum from Commissioner dated ‘ The state requires, pursuant to-C.G.S.- §10-184, that school-age children attend public school 1 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 1in the district wherein such child resides.” | ‘Defendants have enforced this statute to 0 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. Defendants, 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 (spring 1985). Plaintiffs will also present historical evidence that prior to the adoption of C.G.S. §10-184, school children in Connecticut often crossed district lines to obtain education [ INSERT--find Sebok document]. -ll = d. From approximately 1954 to the present, the State Department of Education and the State Board cf... --... . 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 fifty new schools in virtually all-white communities, representing over ____% of the total school capacity in the region.4 Through stipulation or testimony, plaintiffs will provide the court with a list or map of schools built, by year, grade level and number of students, along with a table, map or other graphic representation of the increasing racial segregation of Hartford area schools over time. e. 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. [MARIANNE LADO] 4 Discovery Exhibit ( Source: DOE reports and H.C. Planning Associates Survey -- Set of Document Production). & - 10 = f. The state’s adoption and implementation of the-"Racial Imbalance” law and requlations has contributed to and authorized racial segregation in Hartford schools. (MARIANNE LADO] 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, up to 1986.° 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 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 5 Sources for this section include Horton v. Meskill, 31 Conn. Sup. 377, 332 A.2d 113 (1974); I1d., 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 (13985); Supreme Court Record in previous case, Nos. 12499-12502. were able to provide a substantially wider range and high qualify. 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. This system was to be phased in over five years from 56% funding in 1979-80 to 100% funding in 1983-84. In 1980, the state amended the 1979 act to postpone current year funding for special education for one year, saving the state $9,000,000. This had ar Adverse impact on property-poor towns. In 1981, the state reduced the 1981-82 phase-in from 78% to 72%, saving the state $63,000,000. In 1982, the state reduced the 1982-83 phase-in from 89% to 81% and again postponed special education reimbursement for one year, saving the state $44,900,000. In 1983, the state reduced the 1983-84 phase-in from 100% to 90% and again postponed special education reimbursement for one year, saving the state $83,000,000. The state also mandated the use of 3-year-old rather than 2-year-old data. This change made the data more obsolete but saved the state $23,000.000. In 1984; the state reduced the 1984-85 phase- in from 100% to 95%, saving $21,000,000. The 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. - A. a The state has contributed to racial and economic segregation in housing. Residential segregation is 2 complex process that is strongly influenced by the actions of federal, state, and local government in the areas of housing policy, transportation, land use regulation and educational policy. Residential segregation is also influenced by the actions and policies of private realtors and landlords who are subject to regulation by the state. Individual choices also play a role in the process. The process of residential segregation can also be influenced and attenuated by effective actions at all levels of government. Plaintiffs are not claiming in this lawsuit that any of the state's housing actions are unconstitutional. Any such claims are expressly reserved. However, it cannot be denied that the state has played an important causal role in the process of residential segregation in the Hartford region. Plaintiffs will - 15 = describe, through expert testimony, some of the ways that the state of Connecticut has contributed to residential segregation. (Plaintiffs’ investigation is ongoing and is subject to amendment in a timely fashion.) Plaintiffs testimony on these issues may include but will not be limited to the following areas: Location of Assisted Housing: Approximately 73% of Hartford-area assisted 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 40 years. On information and belief, these units were racially segregated by town when initially occupied and have remained segregated to the present. In contrast, elderly assisted housing is located predominantly in the suburbs. 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. These actions have included the construction and expansion of I-91, the construction and/or expansion of Route I-84, Route 2, and Route — -i3 Bi 44, the reduction in light rail/commuter rail capacity, and the. - _ rejection of various mass transit proposals by the state DOT. These patterns are consistent with well documented historical patterns in metropolitan areas throughout the Northeast. Affirmative Marketing: In its administration 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 enforcement 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 7 In the pending case of East Hartford v. Papandrea, this statute is being used by a suburban Public Housing Authority to exclude out-of-town federal rental certificates. «17 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 conte ibited. 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. For example, in 1980, the office of the attorney general interpreted C.G.S §§8- 39(a) and 8-40 to limit the use of federal rental subsidies to the municipality where the certificates were issued. Also, in its own administration of the state-subsidized rental assistance program (RAP), the state has placed a large share of Hartford- area RAP certificates in the City of Hartford.8 Finally, on information and belief, in its own administration of the federally-funded Section 8 certificate and voucher programs, the state has failed to take sufficient steps to seek out suburban housing opportunities, and has placed an increasing share of 8 [list data] Hartford area rental Section 8 certificates and vouchers “in the=— City of Hartford.’ Residency Preferences: The state has officially permitted the use of residency preferences by suburban public 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 scheme 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, assisted low and moderate income housing. As a matter of law, zoning and land use regulation is solely a state power, which Connecticut delegates to municipalities. As a matter of practice, until very recently, the state of Connecticut has essentially “looked the other way” as exclusionary local ordinances forseeably multiplied throughout the state. Up until 1988, the legislature consistently resisted efforts to reform exclusionary zoning, in spite of frequent calls 9 [list data] for reform. In addition, various state agencies promoted the . .. - status quo in zoning and land use through the planning process, and the state may have also encouraged exclusionary land use—- patterns through its system of funding local sewer construction. Plaintiffs will present evidence of the state’s failure to act to remedy -the exclusionary zoning practices for which it was directly responsible. & * =o | * * * 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. 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 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. - 00 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] 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 A 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. YT Since at least-1965, when the United States Civil Rights Commission reported to Connecticut's ‘Commissioner of Education, defendants have had uonledge 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 EI to. _take- comprehensive or Ey wR 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 recommendations was required by the State Constitution. These reports and recommendations may include but are not limited to the following: 23 - a. United States-Civil-Rights Commission, Report to-- -.. Connecticut’s Commissioner of Education (1965); b. Center for Field Studies, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Schools for Hartford {Cambridge,—— ———~=—=== Mass.: Harvard University, 1965); c. "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). d. 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). e. Committee of Greater Hartford School Superintendents, Proposal to Establish a Metropolitan Effort Toward Regional Opportunity (METRO) (1966); f. Legislative Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, Plan for the Creation and Funding of Educational Parks (Hartford, December, 1968); g. Task Force, Regional Advisory Committee for ths Capitol Region, "The Suburbs and the Poverty Problems of Greater Hartford,” (Hartford, September 30, 1968); h. 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); i. 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); k. 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, 1963); Edward A. Lehan, Executive Secretary to the Hartford City Manager, Report on Racial CHRPOBTELOR of Hartford Schools to the State Board of Education (Hartford, 1969); Joint Committee of the Hartford Board of Education and the Human Relations Commission, Rartford, Report, (July, 1969); == grins Rant City of Hartford, "Community Development Action Plan: Education 1971-1975," (Sept. Y, 1579); ; Hartford Board of Education, "Reconisnded 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); "State Board of Education Policy Statement on Equal Educational Opportunity,” Connecticut State Board of Education, (Hartford, October 27, 1986); "Report on Racial/Ethnic Equity and Desegregation in Connecticut's Public Schools,” Connecticut State Department of Education (1988); and "Quality and Integrated Education: Options for Connecticut,” Connecticut State Department of Education (1989). 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 CHTIAYER (0 DE rapIOTSEETOPaTE; Lesourts teachers, bus stop aides). The State has also failed to take ap- propriate steps to increase the numbers of children PETELITIPACING over and above the approximately 750+ 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 opportunity and a meaningful integrated experience for some urban and suburban children: a. 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 Children. 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) - 0 g. Gable, Thompson, Iwanicki,The Effects of Voluntary : ~ Desegregation on Occupational Outcomes, The Vocation al Guidance Quarterly, 230-239 (1983) h. Gable, R.and Iwanicki, E. The Longitudinal Effects of a Voluntary School Desegregation Program on the Basic Skill Progress of Participants. 1 Metropolitan Educa- tion 65. Spring, 1986. igh Gable, R.; Iwanicki, E. Project Concern Evaluation. - October, 1986. - : : j. Gable, R. and Iwanicki, E.; Final Evaluation Report 1986-87 Hartford Project Concern Program (December 1987) k. Gable, R. and Iwanicki, E. Final Evaluation Report 1988- 89 Hartford Project Concern Program (Nov. 1989) 1. 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. 1985 n. Table 5 Project Concern 1973-1989 Number of Project Concern Students from Sending Districts, (Defs’. Answer to Plaintiffs Motion for Production 1l3(a)) In addition, Plaintiffs’ evidence at trial may include but will not be limited to 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 up to and including 1986 (see response to Interrogatory 1). “3%. - In regard to questions 5 a, b, and c, 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 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; - 38 iw 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 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; 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; 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; 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. 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 - 30 = 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 pibite selene. differ sharply from students in the suburban schools by. a umber of relevant measures, such as and whether a child is from a single-parent family. Plaintiffs have not, at this point, alleged that one specific criterion or indicator Aust 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 -3Y'u 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.] 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’ -iD 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.) 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; -: 33 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 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. TTT = : : : 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 of the date of this response, plaintiffs are compiling data and information on disparities and inequities in "educational outputs” and other measures of achievement or educational quality among Hartford and the surrounding districts, including but not limited to the following areas of comparison: dropout rates and percentage of students receiving a diploma; PSAT and SAT scores; college attendance; employment outcomes; and career and life outcomes. At the present time, plaintiffs’ investigation and analysis of these categories has not been completed. Plaintiffs are also exploring other social, economic and psychological measures. 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); --35- 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). — a RT GS RE i a Se "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.) 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 142 of the Complaint may be inaccurate. Plaintiffs have -'36 = 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, 1990. See Plaintiffs’ Tdentification of xpert Wi tne 8S8E§ Pursuant to Practice Book, §220 (D) (January 15, 1991); athe] fuels : incorporated herein by reference. In addition, 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. Additiondexpert witnesses will be identified as set out in the parties* December --——-:d= - 37 « 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) 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 analyze the data for each compilation and/or analysis; and 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 - 38 = with thé Yaw, 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 planning research and 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. (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. gt 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. PLAINTIFFS, MILO SHEFF, ET AL 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