Plaintiff's Revised Proposed Findings of Fact

    ® » 

  

S.C. 15255 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPREME COURT 

Plaintiffs 

v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants JUNE 6, 1995 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ REVISED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT! 
  

SAH 
id 

v 

pr 

~~ 
- 18 

i 

. 2 

-t = i 2 ~ $ 
rd Li Ps 

FN ~~ 75 

=~" LA 
Z Co Of rd 

gl Pr <H 

<2 nH 
~~ 

  

1 All.proposed findings are as of the date of the trial in 
this case, unless otherwise noted. References are to plaintiffs’ 
exhibits introduced in evidence at trial, as set out in plaintiffs’ 
Second Revised List of Trial Exhibits (revised March 3, 1983). 
References to the trial transcript are listed by witness name for 
all witnesses. See Appendix for index to transcript dates.       
 



  

IX. 

III, 

TABLE OF CONTENTS? 
  

DOES RACIAL AND ETHNIC ISOLATION IN THE HARTFORD 
SCHOOL SYSTEM VIOLATE ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND 

A. THE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE 
AND EHR CI BY sch rn crit rats vo rave snininnieinis Seen ei 

TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE 
AND EP HN ICT IY. erin ns sd brine ntinin am sininininidie sion votes 

RACIAL AND ETHNIC SEGREGATION ADVERSELY AFFECTS 
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND RACIAL 
INTEGRATION HAS POSITIVE EDUCATIONAL AND LONG 
ERY BENE I DS cv cs tt tii vad univ n aie se sninies se sobeinivin 

DO THE INADEQUACIES OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM 
DENY PLAINTIFFS A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION UNDER 
ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, 

A. THE HARTFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE INADEQUATE 
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF 
UWE ie Se IE Rr IRN lS ee SE el 

Staltfing and Curr ICU uM. , su. sivive vin dinninie consis 

Textbooks and Instructional Supplies........... 

Library Books and Periodicals......c.ci i ivveneves 

ogee Ln RENE A SR GN CRED a a 

Plants. and Facilities. i uss sess vecvednnce sve 

Bllingual  EAuC aE ON, overs nese tin ces tied rte nies 

Special Needs Programs, «sve cess scence se vise 

The Effects of Recent Budget CutS.......... sve 

Cumulative Effects of Deficient Resources...... 

      Deputy Chief Clerk, Michele Angers, the headings and subheadings in 
this document correspond to the headings and subheadings contained 
in the joint stipulation submitted by plaintiffs. 

2 Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the June 1, 

PAGE 

18 

1995 letter from 

  

 



- 11 0. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
  

EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES FOR HARTFORD'S STUDENTS 
ARE DEFICIENT AND WORSENING 

Connecticut Mastery Tests 

Metropolitan Achievement Tests 

4. Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) 

5. Graduation and Drop-Out Rates 

DOES THE RACIAL, ETHNIC AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION AND 
POVERTY CONCENTRATION COUPLED WITH DISPARITIES IN 
RESOURCES AND OUTCOMES VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO 
EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES UNDER ARTICLE 

EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, SECTIONS 1 

STUDENTS’ SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS IN HARTFORD 
METROPOLITAN AREA SCHOOLS 

RACIAL AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION ARE CLOSELY 
LINKED IN HARTFORD 

INTERDISTRICT COMPARISONS DEMONSTRATE ENORMOUS 
DISPARITIES IN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES BETWEEN 
HARTFORD AND SUBURBAN SCHOOLS 

Staffing and Curriculum 

Pupil and Instructional Services... 

Textbook and Instructional Supplies 

Library Books and Periodicals.... 

Equipment 

Plants and Facilities.        



- iii - 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
  

DISPARITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Connecticut Mastery Tests 

Credits Earned 

Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores 

Graduation and Drop-Out Rates 

Patterns of Post-Secondary Education and Work 
Activities 

HAS THE STATE BEEN INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING RACIAL, 
ETHNIC AND ECONOMIC SEGREGATION UNEQUAL EDUCATIONAL 
OPPORTUNITIES, AND LACK OF A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE 
EDUCATION, DOES THE STATE HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY 
TO ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES, AND HAS THE STATE FAILED TO 

A. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION HISTORICALLY.... 

B. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION TODAY 

THE STATE HAS BEEN AWARE OF THE HARMS OF RACIAL 
AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION IN THE SCHOOLS AND THE 
SERIOUS INEQUITIES FACING CITY SCHOOLCHILDREN, 
AND HAS REPEATEDLY FAILED TO TAKE ACTION TO 
ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS 

Defendants Have Admitted that Racial Segregation 
is Harmful 

Defendants Have Long Been Aware That 
Concentration of Poverty Has a Harmful Impact 
on the Educational Process 

Defendants Have Been Aware of the Other Severe 
Educational Inequities Facing Schoolchildren in 
the City of Hartford Including Disparities in 
Student Resources and Outcomes 

The Defendants Have Been Aware of Feasible 
Remedies and Have Failed to Act Over a 30-Year 
Period        



  
    

- iv - 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
  

PAGE 

5. Defendants’ Existing Interdistrict Programs 
Are Inadequate to Address the Inequities....... 49 

5. The State Has Defined the Concepts of Equal 
Educational Opportunity and Minimally Adequate 
Education and Has Failed to Comply with Its Own 
DE RN EL ONE ie sev ivin vais nsninnsnideinie ss Nininseees 50 

VI. STEPS MOWARD INPECRATTION. «ove einen ever vin vnnsenssns 53 

VII. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE NOT REBUTTED BY DEFENDANTS’ 
EV ID COR oe eee ec inieiansvisine tis anbsinoninmanedosewnnesvisades 58 

  

 



  
    

II. DOES RACIAL AND ETHNIC ISOLATION IN THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM 
VIOLATE ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, SECTIONS 
1 AND 20? 

A. THE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY 

1. The majority of Connecticut’s students remain isolated from 
daily educational contact with students of other races and ethnic 
groups. (Pls’ Ex, 73 at 3) 

2. While 25% of the public school enrollment in Connecticut is 
minority children, almost 80% of that minority enrollment is 
concentrated in the thirteen urban school districts of the State. 
{(Pls’ Ex. B82 at 8) 

3. Connecticut ranks among the ten highest states for 
intensity of school segregation for Hispanic students, and exhibited 
the most rapid increase in Hispanic school segregation in the 1980s. 
(Orfield p. 16; Pls’ Ex. 457) 

4. Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 101-123 and 85 (Minority Students and 
Staff Reports) were prepared by the Connecticut Department of 
Education and include accurate summaries of the number and percent 
of minority students and staff in Hartford and the surrounding 
districts, from 1968 through 1992. 

5. Few students enjoy exposure to an integrated faculty. The 
large cities employ 70.6% of the minority group teachers; the small 
towns, just over 1%. (Pls’ Ex. 73 at 6) 

6. Plaintiffs’ exhibits 209-289 (Strategic School Profiles) 
accurately summarize educational and demographic data for Hartford 
and surrounding towns, as well as for individual schools in those 
districts. 

B. TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE AND 
ETHNICITY 

si. Racial isolation has increased and continues to increase 
throughout Connecticut. (Pls’ Ex. 73 at 4) 

8. Hartford reported the greatest numerical growth in its 
African American, Latino and Asian populations. (Defs’ Ex. 1.3) 

3. Most suburban towns have had insignificant gains in Black 
and Latino population. (Pls’ Exs. 85, 127, 138; Steahr at 99-101) 

10. Although a few suburbs have seen increases in minority 
population over the past ten years, this development has not 
ameliorated the increasing racial isolation of Hartford students. 
(Pls’ Exs. 85, 127, 138) 

11. The racial isolation of the Hartford schools continues to 
increase, and shows no signs of reversing. (Pls’ Ex. 126, 130) 

  

 



  
    

12. The vast majority of suburban towns also continue to 
remain segregated. (Pls’ Exs. 126, 130) 

C. RACIAL AND ETHNIC SEGREGATION ADVERSELY AFFECTS 
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND RACIAL INTEGRATION HAS 
POSITIVE EDUCATIONAL AND LONG TERM BENEFITS. 

13. As the United States Civil Rights Commission noted in 
1967, racial isolation in the schools "fosters attitudes and 
behavior that perpetuate isolation in other important areas of 
American life.” '(Pls’ Ex. 11 at 110) 

l4. Dr. Jomills Braddock is an expert in equity and social 
justice in the areas of education and employment, who testified that 
racial and ethnic segregation has long-term adverse effects on all 
students attending isolated schools. (Braddock pp. 8, 18) 

15. Dr. Braddock based his testimony on a series of studies 
that he conducted on the long-term effects of school desegregation 
and employment outcomes in post-secondary institutions and in 
employment settings. (Braddock p. 8) 

16. Dr. Braddock based his testimony on longitudinal studies 
examining the relationship between attending a segregated elementary 
school and the likelihood of attending a segregated college. 
(Braddock pp. 9-11) 

17. Dr. Braddock’s testimony was also based on longitudinal 
studies of the links between attending a segregated elementary 
school and later working in a segregated workplace. (Braddock pp. 
11-12) 

18. Dr. Braddock’s testimony was also based on his research on 
the participation patterns among student subgroups in school 
activities and the impact of these patterns on long and short term 
student outcomes. (Braddock p. 16) 

18. Individuals from different backgrounds tend to avoid 
interactions with one another unless they have prior contact. 
(Braddock p. 18) 

20. Early segregation experiences in school tend to perpetuate 
themselves leading to segregation in later life for African 
Americans, Latinos and whites. (Braddock pp. 18, 21) 

21. Opportunities for children of different groups to interact 
tends to lead to integrated workplaces, integrated schools, 
integrated neighborhoods, and mixed-race friendships. (Braddock P-. 
20) 

  

 



  
    

22. Students who experience racial diversity early in life are 
more likely to favorably experience racial diversity later. (Trent 
p. 61) 

23. Minority students are often excluded from the employment 
networks which are essential for success in later employment and 
other beneficial life outcomes. (Braddock p. 22) 

24. Desegregated experiences allow minorities to break down 
systemic barriers to equal opportunity, provide access to important 
networks and overcome the stigma sometimes associated with minority 
institutions. (Braddock p. 22) 

25. Some of the documented long-term benefits of desegregation 
include: (1) access to useful social networks of job information; 
(2) socialization for entrance into "non-traditional" career lines 
with higher income returns; and (3) development of interpersonal 
skills useful in interracial contexts. (Defs’ Ex. 12.25 at 18-19) 

26. Racial isolation in the Hartford area will perpetuate 
itself over the students’ life cycles as they pursue employment and 
other adult outcomes. (Braddock p. 31) 

27 Dr. William Trent is an expert in the sociology of 
education, who testified about studies he had conducted using 
national longitudinal databases that illustrate long-term impacts on 
students in racially segregated and economically isolated school 
situations. (Trent pp. 11-15) 

28. Dr. Trent based his testimony on analyses of the High 
School and Beyond, a national survey sponsored by the United States 
Department of Education, and the National Longitudinal Survey of the 
Youth Labor Force Cohort (Parnes), sponsored by the United States 
Department of Labor. (Trent pp. 15-18) 

29. The methodology of Dr. Trent’s study was sound and 
consistent with professional standards. (Trent pp. 27-31) 

30. Dr. Trent’s analysis demonstrated that, for all students, 
regardless of racial or ethnic group, and independent of the 
individual socio-economic status of students, as the racial and 
ethnic isolation of a school increases, there is a statistically 
significant negative impact on later employment in an integrated 
workforce. (Trent pp. 77-78; Pls’ Ex. 481-CC, DD, EE, FP) 

32. As racial diversity in school increases, there is a 
significant positive effect on later employment in an integrated 
workforce. (Trent pp. 69-70, 77-78)   
 



  
    

- 4 

32. Dr. Robert Crain is an expert in school desegregation, 
‘urban politics and research methods. (Crain p. 7) 

33. Dr. Crain testified about the result of his study of 
Project Concern, a small one-way interdistrict busing program 
established in the Hartford area in 1966. (Crain pp. 15-17) 

34. Defendants’ experts agreed that Dr. Crain work is of a 
high order of methodological clarity and meets high methodological 
standards. (Armor I p. 99; Rossell II at 82) 

35. The Project Concern study demonstrates that there are 
long-term harmful effects resulting from segregated education. (Pls’ 
Ex. 386 pp. 12, 55-57; Pls’ Ex. 387 pp. 26-29) 

35. Segregation has harmful effects in African-American 
students’ likelihood of dropping out from high school and dropping 
out of college. (Pls’ Ex. 386 pp. 14, 19, 25-26, 64-67; Crain pp. 
32, 40) 

37. The effect of racial desegregation on long term 
educational attainment is large when compared to the effect of 
differences in family background. Regression analysis demonstrate 
that family background differences cannot explain the effects of 
racial desegregation on long-term educational attainment. (Pls’ Ex. 
386 p.:25) 

38. Segregation has additional long-term harmful effects on 
African Americans, including a decrease in the likelihood of having 
useful contacts with whites later in life. African Americans from 
segregated school settings are less likely to have positive social 
contacts with whites later in life. (Pls’ Ex. 386 pp. 27-30; Crain 
at 32, 48-50) 

39. Even after controlling for self-selection bias and for 
socioeconomic status, including such factors as mother’s education, 
home ownership, the number of parents in the home, and number of 
siblings, the Project Concern study found that segregation has 
harmful effects on high school dropout rates and college retention 
rates and that desegregation experience has positive effects. 
(Crain at 44; Pls’ Ex. 386 pp. 64-67) 

40. The Project Concern study demonstrates that the harmful 
results of school segregation include increased likelihood of early 
female childbearing, increased likelihood that African American 
students will experience difficulties with their social environment 
in college, and decreased likelihood that African American women 
will look for housing in integrated settings later in life. (Crain 
at 53; Pls’ Ex. 387 pp. 26-29) 

  

 



    

41. The Project Concern study demonstrates that school 
Segregation adversely affects the occupational aspirations of 
African American students and their own perceptions of their chances 
for promotion. (Crain at 60-62; Pls’ Ex. 387 pp. 24-25) 

42. The Project Concern study also demonstrates that school 
segregation has harmful effects on students’ long-term occupational 
attainment. (Crain at 33; Pls’ Ex. 387 p. 26) 

43. The Project Concern study also demonstrates that 
segregated students are more likely to work in the public sector 
than the private sector. African Americans with segregated 
schooling who did work in the private sector were more likely to be 
in relatively low level jobs. (Crain at 33, 58-60; Armor I at 147; 
Pls’ Bx. 387 pp. 13, 34) 

44, Dr. Crain controlled for the effects of students’ 
individual socioeconomic status in his study of Project Concern. 
Dr. Trent also controlled for the effects of students’ individual 
socioeconomic status in his analysis of the high school and beyond 
and PARNES data. (Armor I at 22) 

45. Desegregation research demonstrates that there is a 
positive effect of desegregation on academic achievement, which is 
more significant when integration begins in the earlier grades. 
{Slavin p. 72) 

46. The evidence shows that all children benefit from a 
diverse educational background. (Pls’ Ex. 60 p. 1; Defs’ Ex. 12.5; 
Pls’ Ex. 80.p. 7) 

47. Even a high quality instructional program cannot achieve 
maximum levels of excellence if provided in a racially or ethnically 
isolated environment. (Pls’ Ex. 82 at 8) 

48. There are benefits to reducing racial and ethnic 
segregation that are not measured by academic achievement tests, 
including the benefit of improving knowledge of one another in a 
multi-cultural society. (Armor I pp. 142-143) 

49. School segregation has a generational effect in that 
children who go to school in a segregated environment are more 
likely to live in a segregated community in the future. (Armor I p. 
146) 

50. Segregation inflicts a sense of isolation on Hartford 
children. (Neuman-Johnson II p. 14)    



  
    

51. Suburban children are unprepared to deal with the demands 
of a multicultural world. (Neuman-Johnson II pp. 15-17; Dudley pp. 
129-133) 

52. The self-esteem of Hartford school children is damaged 
when they are separated from the rest of society and they perceived 
a whole other "world that doesn’t belong to [them]." (Hernandez pp. 
42, 64) 

53. In his 1993 speech to the Connecticut Legislature, 
defendant Governor Weicker admitted that "by exposing all of our 
students to a diverse world, in which they will spend their 
lifetimes, we enrich them and better prepare all of them for 
success." (Pls’ Ex. 90) 

ITI. DO THE INADEQUACIES OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM DENY 
PLAINTIFFS A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION UNDER ARTICLE EIGHTH, 
SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, SECTIONS 1 AND 20? 

A. THE HARTFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE INADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL 
RESOURCES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF STUDENTS. 

54. Defendants have officially stated that, "those who need 
more must receive more” (Pls’ Ex. 39 at 1). 

55. The Hartford public schools lack the resources necessary 
to provide their students with an adequate education, given the 
needs of the students. (Natriello p. 98; Natriello II pp. 62-63; 
Pls’ Ex. 163 at 79) There are serious and sustained deficiencies. 
(Pls’ Bx. 183 at 265; Natriello 11 pp. 62-63) 

56. Students in Hartford need more, not less educational 
resources, because their experiences are often reduced and they 
bring so many divergent needs to the classroom. (Negron p. 74; 
Griffin, p. 86; Hernandez p. 43) 

57. Educationally disadvantaged students need more educational 
resources than the "average" student -- they need smaller classes, 
more one-on-one attention, more special programs, and more followup 
in the home and community, just to begin the learning process. In 
attempting to provide additional resources to these children, 
resources and attention are necessarily diverted from regular 
education. (Pls’ Ex. 479 at 12; Pls’ Ex. 494 at 70-77) 

58. Students from such homes are more likely to drop out and 
less likely to have necessary parental support than students from 
two parent homes. (Natriello p. 71) 

59. Students whose parents have less education are less likely 
to succeed because the parents are less likely to be able to help 

  

 



  
    

with homework, and less likely to advocate for and manage their 
children’s education. This also makes such students more difficult 
for teachers. (Natriello pp. 73-74) 

60. Latino children often enter the system unable to speak 
clearly in English or Spanish. (Montanez p. 11; Hernandez P.. 36) 

61. One of the main mental health issues children in Hartford 
face is chronic depression. (Negron p. 71) 

62. Because many of the students witness so much crime and 
violence in their neighborhoods (Morris p. 140), they come to school 
with high levels of anxiety, as one teacher explained, "not ready to 
learn." (Montanez p. 12) 

63. A great number of students suffer from low self-esteem and 
poor social skills as a result of poverty and isolation. (Montanez 
P. 13; Morris p. 139; Noel p. 23; Davis p. 85) 

64. In one elementary school, there were three attempted 
suicides in the last three years. (Id.) 

65. Teachers must divert energies from instruction to deal 
with the high number of mental health needs of the students before 
any meaningful teaching can occur. (Montanez pp. 12, 14) 

66. For most single parent families, resources are limited. 
Parental involvement with the schools or assistance with homework 
often is non-existent. (Cloud p. 96; Noel p. 28, Hernandez p. 38) 

67. When there is inadequate housing, students are 
disadvantaged by not having quiet places to study and by not having 
stable housing. (Natriello p. 76) 

68. When there is inadequate housing, students move more and 
mobility strains the ability of the schools to provide adequate 
education. (Natriello pp. 76-77) 

63. The problems created by inadequate housing can be 
overcome, but Hartford does not have the resources to do so. 
(Natriello p. 81) 

70. Students may come to school wearing inadequate clothing. 
(Montanez p. 13; Griffin p. 84; Carso p. 91) 

71. The Hartford schools have large numbers of special-needs 
students who require extra resources to educate. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
41) 

  

 



  
    

72. Many children lag behind as much as two to three years at 
;the time they enter school, causing additional challenges to 
classroom instruction. (Montanez p. 11) 

73. Many children enter school at five or six years old 
suffering from severe developmental and speech delays. (Montanez p. 
11; Negron p. 65; Defs' Ex. 2.18 p. 1) 

74. Some can’t form a sentence, understand cognitively how to 
ask a question or describe items, and articulate with appropriate 
vocabulary. (Cloud p. 99; Hernandez p. 35) 

75. Hartford’s school children are not receiving a successful 
start to their school career. During the 1980s, between a fifth and 
a fourth of all of Hartford’s kindergarten students were retained. 
{Pefs’ Ex. 2.18 D.''S) 

75. The Hartford school system has been forced to spend a 
disproportionate share of its resources on social workers, guidance 
counselors, psychologists, nurses, security officers, and programs 
made necessary by the special needs of Hartford students. (Senteio 
P. 19) 

77. The fact that 18% of the population receives special 
education services places "an inordinate burden on the school in 
order to address those youngsters, and the services those youngsters 
need in order to move the youngsters from a special education 
program into a mainstream program." (Haig at 67) 

78. Hartford spends a tremendous amount on bilingual education 
and special education transportation. Id. at 20. When looking at 
the regular program expenditure per pupil, Hartford "fell down" to 
a rank of "a hundred and thirty-third" in a total of one hundred 
sixty-five school districts. (Kennelly at 107) 

79. Hartford is forced to spend a disproportionate amount on 
fire and police protection and other municipal services, straining 
local tax revenues. (Defs’ Ex. 6.3 pp. 9, 72-74, 79) 

80. Although the gross amount of money spent per pupil in 
Hartford does not appear out of line with other Connecticut 
communities, the conclusion that adequate resources are being 
expended is unwarranted given the greater needs of Hartford's 
students and the manner in which the money is spent. (Natriello Pp. 
97-101; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 156-164) 

81. Hartford schools are "not adequate" and "not sufficient." 
(LaFontaine I pp. 124, 146; LaFontaine II p. 145; Senteio p. 24; 
Senteio p. 19) 

  

 



  
    

-lig 

: 82. Hartford "lacks the resources it needs to provide a 
‘quality education." (Wilson p. 25) 

83. The "enormously high levels of Hartford's disadvantaging 
characteristics" directly impede the educational process. 
{Natriello I pp. 89, 90-91) 

84. The concentration of problems in Hartford require 
educational resources greater than those needed to respond to more 
advantaged students. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 44; Natriello pp. 92-94) 

B85. Over time, there has been no improvement in the 
deficiencies in Hartford's educational system. (Natriello II p. 60) 

86. With sufficient resources, schools can make a difference 
in addressing the problems children bring to the schools. 
(Natriello p. 95) 

1. Staffing and Curriculum 

87. The number of first year teachers is twice the statewide 
average (Natriello at 106), leaving the most inexperienced group of 
teachers to confront "the most challenging groups of students in the 
Connecticut public school system." (Natriello at 107; Table 4, Pls’ 
Ex. 163 at 53) 

88. Valid requests for additional teachers and other staff are 
routinely rejected because of lack of resources. (Shea p. 131) 

89. The Hartford schools lack an adequate staff of nurses, 
guidance counsellors, psychologists and social workers. The 
available staff cannot adequately address emotionally troubled 
students’ problems and help them to succeed in school and afterward. 
(Cloud pp. 91-93; LaFontaine I p. 129; Griffin p. 86; Hernandez Pp 
46; Dickens pp. 154-55; Negron pp. 67, 71, 81; LaFontaine p. 128) 

20. The Hartford system also lacks a sufficient number of 
speech therapists. (Cloud p. 92; Hernandez p. 47) 

91. Many Hartford schools offer only limited programs in 
physical education, music, and art. (Hernandez p. 45; Cloud p. 104) 

92. Given the overwhelming number of problems students bring 
into the classroom, the staffing composition is insufficient. See 
Wilson at 6-19. 

93. The high concentration of poor children in Hartford 
schools places enormous demands on Hartford administrators (Forman 
Pp. 14-16), who spend large amounts of time on non-instructional   
 



  
    

“10 - 

matters, leaving no time to assist faculty with professional 
‘development. (Pitocco pp. 64-66) 

2. Textbooks and Instructional Supplies 
  

94. Hartford does not have sufficient resources to spend on 
textbooks to meet the educational needs of its regular education or 
bilingual education students. (Carso p. 101; Noel p. 28; Negron p. 
73; Marichal pp. 20-21) 

95. The Hartford school system has only half of the statewide 
average funding to spend on textbooks and instructional supplies. 
(Pls’ Ex. 163 at 63; Natriello at 118) 

96. Textbook appropriation has been reduced by 26-27% over the 
last few years. (Haig p. 62) 

97. Hartford principals report that there are entire areas of 
the curriculum for which they do not have textbooks. (Natriello PP. 
199-20) 

98. Hartford principals report that they cannot phase in new 
textbooks as needed, but will have to wait until the next decade to 
complete the process of replacing necessary, new textbooks. 
(Natriello pp. 119-120) 

99. Many teachers fill the gap with books that they buy with 
their own money. (Montanez p. 20; Anderson p. 119) 

100. Some teachers reuse books that were made to be used in 
one year and then discarded. (Anderson p. 117) 

101. Many students have to share textbooks. (Montanez pp. 19- 
20) 

102. Studies show that the failure to provide textbooks has an 
adverse effect on learning. (Natriello pp. 118-19) 

103. Failure to provide needed textbooks presents an even more 
acute problem in a community such as Hartford where poverty prevents 
many parents from replacing or substituting materials. (Natriello 
Pp. 120-21) 

3. Library Books and Periodicals 
  

104. The library collections of the Hartford public schools 
were studied by a district committee in 1989. (Pls’ Ex. 186) Using 
the American Library Association’s standards for school media 
programs, the committee found that the number of books per pupil in 
the collections of the Hartford Public Schools was 10.96, 

  

 



  
    

lO ah 

substantially below the recommended minimum standard of 17.32 books. 
'(Pls’ Bx. 186 at Table 11; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 69) 

105. The libraries lack an adequate supply of periodicals, 
computer materials, microform and microfiche, and non-print media. 
(Pls’ Ex. 163 at 69) 

106. Of Hartford’s 31 schools, only one met the minimum 
standard for periodicals, only one met the minimum standard for 
microfiche and microfilm materials, only one met the minimum 
standard for computer materials, only seven met the minimum standard 
for video tape materials, and only 10 met the minimum standard for 
non-print materials such as films, filmstrips, and audio tapes. 
(Pls’ Ex. 163 at 69) 

107. The committee found that only three of Hartford’s thirty- 
one schools had library collections that met the minimum recommended 
standard. (Pls? Ex. ‘186 at '2;- Pls’ Ex. 163 at 69; Negron P.473; 
Montanez pp. 20-21; Davis pp. 75-76) 

108. Hartford school libraries have collections that are 
extremely old. (Cloud p. 84; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 69; Pls’ Ex. 395 at 2) 

10S. Most of Hartford’s school libraries are physically 
substandard and cannot even accommodate a full class of students. 
(Wilson pp. 10-11; Griffin p. 91) 

110. The libraries are lacking important media equipment, or 
the equipment they have is broken. (Wilson p. 11) 

111. Library books and periodicals are particularly important 
in a community such as Hartford where many parents are unable to 
supply such materials in the home. (Natriello p. 126) 

4. Equipment 
  

112. The high schools have insufficient, old, and non- 
functioning equipment in the life management, technology education, 
science and business departments. (Griffin pp. 86-87, 89; Davis p. 
77) 

113. The budget for equipment for the science program at 
Hartford Public High School is $804 or less than $0.50 per student, 
an amount which is inadequate. (Natriello p. 129) 

114. There are substantial inadequacies in the availability of 
computers and teacher training in computers. (Wilson pp. 15-16, 22, 
25)   
 



  
    

- 1 

115. Computer literacy is increasingly important in schools. 
4{Natriello p. 127) 

116. The school district’s goal is to have eight computers per 
classroom, but it does not even have one computer per classroom 
today. (Wilson p. 15; Haig p. 60) 

117. Hartford lacks the funds to repair computers. (Wilson 
pp. 15-16) 

118. Many classrooms have out-of-date maps. (Wilson PP. 21-22) 

119. Other inadequacies in educational equipment, include lack 
of furniture (Carso pp. 103-04), lack of high school laboratory 
experiences (Davis p. 79; Griffin pp. 89-90), and inadequate art 
supplies (Cloud p. 90). 

120. The chronic lack of supplies in Hartford classrooms has 
a detrimental effect on teacher "effectiveness." {Piltocco p. 74) 

121. The lack of functioning equipment causes extreme 
frustration for the most motivated students and teachers. (Davis p. 
77) 

122. Some Hartford teachers spend hundreds of dollars of their 
own money to provide basic instructional supplies for their classes. 
(Carso pp. 101-02; Anderson p. 122; Pitocco p. 74; Neuman-Johnson Pp. 
8) 

5. Plants and Facilities 
  

123. The Hartford schools are seriously overcrowded. Hartford 
elementary schools operate at 133% of preferred capacity, the middle 
schools at 106% and the high schools at 107%. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 75) 

124. There are approximately 123 portable classroom units in 
use in Hartford. (Senteio p. 16; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 75) 

125. Throughout the system, rooms are being used as general- 
purpose classrooms that were not intended for such use. (Senteio p. 
17; Neumann-Johnson I p. 160) 

126. Many Hartford elementary schools do not have separate 
cafeterias. (Senteio p. 17) 

127. In many schools, specialized art and music classrooms are 
unavailable because of lack of space. (Senteio Pp. 18; Anderson pp. 
120-121) 

  

 



  
    

-Y35e 

128. Of Hartford’s twenty six elementary schools, only four 
‘meet all state codes. (Senteio p. 16) 

129. Some Hartford elementary schools have no outside 
playground space. (Montanez p. 17; Negron I p. 70; Cloud pp. 81, 
85) 

130. The space where the children play is without any 
playground equipment. (Cloud p. 91) 

131. In several schools, gymnasium space is inadequate or 
unavailable. (Cloud p. 83; Montanez pp. 16-17) 

132. Many of the district’s schools are in need of serious 
repair. {Senteio p. 16; Cloud p. 31; Pls’ Ex.’ 153, Pp. 5-11, 
"Hartford Public Schools Space Utilization Study 1991-2001," Defs’ 
Exs. 2.24, 2.27; Calvert pp. 83-85) 

133. Hartford is frequently forced, for budgetary reasons, to 
defer major maintenance, such as roof repair, until the problem 
becomes critical (Senteio pp. 14-15; LaFontaine I pp. 134). 

134. Some of the substandard physical conditions at Hartford 
schools include peeling paint, leaky roofs, antiquated bathrooms 
without doors on the stalls or toilet paper, broken sinks, rusty 
water, broken windows, and faulty electrical systems. (Cloud pp. 
81, 103; Montanez p. 18; Carso p. 112; Hernandez p. 44) 

135. The 1992 bonding proposal addressed only one phase A 
Hartford's serious building needs. (Haig at 62) | 

6. Bilingual Education 
  

136. In 1989-90 districts reported approximately 984 full-time 
equivalent (FTE) staff members in bilingual education programs, 16 
fewer than in 1988-89; nine fewer teachers and 6.5 fewer aides. 
(Defs’ Ex. 12.24 at 5) 

137. From 1990 to 1993, there were no evaluations of the 
bilingual program. (Marichal p. 32) 

138. In a grant submitted to the United States Department of 
Education in November 1991, the State Department of Education 
acknowledged that the State was limited in its ability to 
appropriately evaluate bilingual education programs. (Pls. Ex. 438 
p. 24) 

139. In 1990-91, 8% of the bilingual program students were 
designated as needing special education and 19% were considered 
"mobile." (Defs. Ex. 13.6 at 15) 

  

 



  
    

- 14. 

140. The vast majority of these students are enrolled in a 
‘program for native Spanish speakers. (Marichal p. 12) 

141. Because of fiscal constraints, fifty percent of the 
students who are limited English proficient are combined with 
students who are in a bilingual program, creating increased stress 
on the teachers. (Marichal pp. 16-17) 

142. The Hartford bilingual education program has insufficient 
funding to purchase up-to-date and appropriate texts and other 
instructional materials. (Marichal pp. 20-21) 

143. Some bilingual students are using books from the 1950s. 
{Marichal p. 21) 

144. There is insufficient money available for bilingual 
teacher training. (Marichal p. 20) 

145. The Hartford bilingual program has only about one full- 
time administrator per 70 teachers (Marichal p. 32), as compared 
with a 1987 Task Force report which recommended one full-time 
administrator with qualifications in bilingual education or ESL for 
every 13 to 29 teachers. (Marichal p. 32) 

146. The state-wide ratio of administrators to program staff 
was 1l-to-76.3, as compared to 1-to-72.5 the previous year. The 
ratio ranges from l1-to-8.3 in Danbury to 1-to-139 in Hartford, where 
3.5 administrators oversee the work of 351 teachers, 67 teacher 
aides, 62.5 support staff, and 2.5 clerks." (Defs’ Ex. 12.24 at 7) 

147. Many principals have no training in bilingual education, 
making it difficult to adequately supervise the bilingual teachers. 
{Marichal p. 33) 

148. Between 30 and 35 percent of Hartford’s bilingual 
students are currently testing at remedial levels. (Marichal p. 29) 

149. Remedial services for students deemed limited English 
proficient do not meet the need. Additional bilingual remediation 
is needed to enable eligible students to receive remedial services 
in their native language. (Marichal p. 29; Defs’ Ex. 2.18 Pp. 22): 

150. The needs of remedial students in bilingual programs in 
the upper elementary grades are also not being met. (Pls’ Ex. 439 
P. 3) 

151. There is an insufficient alternative program for 
bilingual children who have high mobility. (Marichal p. 29) 

  

 



  
    

- {8:. 

152. There is insufficient funding for monitoring and 
evaluation of the needs of children in the bilingual program. 
{Marichal p. 53) 

153. A 1987 task force that reported to the Commissioner of 
Education advised that $947 in state funding per pupil should be 
spent to implement state-mandated bilingual programs. (Marichal Pp. 
22) 

154. The current state contribution for bilingual programs to 
Hartford is about $190 per pupil -- only 20 percent of the 
recommended level (Marichal p. 22; Pls’ Exs. 48, 416). 

155. The state contribution to bilingual education in 1989-90 
was $2.2 million, or 4.4% of the estimated total program 
expenditures. This figure is 1.6% lower than the total amount 
reported in 1988-89. On average, the state contributed $169 for 
each child in a bilingual education program, $14 less than in 1987- 
88. ‘(Defs’ Ex. 13.6 at 5) 

155. Districts reported that ‘local’ funds (including 
Education Const Sharing funds) continued to support most of the 
program costs ($37.2 million, or 75.2%). Funding from other state 
and federal sources (Special Education, Chapter 1, etc.) was $10.1 
million, or 20.4%. (Defs’ Ex. 12.24 at 5) 

157. The proportion of funds accounted for by state bilingual 
education program grants to local districts has dropped since 1985. 
In 1985-86 it was 5.5%, in 1986-87 it was 5.3%, and in 1987-88 it 
was 4.8%. (Defs’ Ex. 12.24 at 6) 

158. Funding for the Hartford bilingual program has remained 
generally constant, despite inflation and rising student enrollment 
{Marichal p. 26). 

158. The differential cost (cost specific for Hartford’s 
bilingual education program) for bilingual education in Hartford is 
about $680 per pupil, which is about four times the state 
contribution to bilingual education programs in Connecticut. (Pls. 
Ex. 443 p. 11) 

7. Special Needs Programs 
  

160. Pre-school programs are important for preparing poor 
children to succeed in elementary school (Dickens pp. 150-51) 

161. Only 600 out of 2,300 four year olds receive preschool 
(Slavin p. 36). 

  

 



  
    

16 im 

162. Educational programs for special needs children like the 
. "Success for All" program have proven successful in educating 
‘special-needs students (Slavin pp. 14, 22). 

163. The Success for All program has never been implemented in 
Connecticut. (Slavin p. 20) 

164. Several successful but now defunct programs that helped 
to address the special needs of Hartford students: the Bridge 
Program (Senteio p. 14), the "Abracadabra" program (Wilson pp. 16- 
17), the HESI program (Wilson p. 19), the Higher Horizons program 
(Wilson p. 18), and a special teacher training program for new 
teachers (Wilson p. 10). These programs were eliminated due to lack 
of funding. (Wilson pp. 16-19) 

165. Hartford's few special needs programs affect only a very 
small proportion of the total numbers within the Hartford system. 
Hartford has been consistently unable to expand or sustain such 
programs. (Wilson pp. 18-19) 

166. The Comer program is a school development program in 
limited use in the Hartford school system which has proven very 
successful in mitigating the effects of poverty which interfere with 
children’s educational success. (Haig at 63-64) 

167. The Comer program is present in only seven of thirty- 
three schools. Haig at 63-64. 

168. The Comer Program has not been expanded due to staffing 
cuts and other fiscal constraints. (Haig at 63-64) 

169. « The Family Resource Center is established in only one 
school in Hartford, and is a model for schools serving large number 
of disadvantaged children. (Defs’ Br. p. 96) 

170. The Family Resource Center is funded by the State 
Department of Human Resources and offers an array of school based 
services including adult education, day-care, adolescent improvement 
programs and parenting school training. (Defs’ Br. p. 96) 

171. Programs such as Family Resource Centers assist students 
by providing pre-school remediation for health and other problems 
which adversely affect the ability of students to learn once they 
begin school. (Negron at 81-2) 

172. The Family Resource Center is "severely strapped" because 
of state funding. (Negron at 81.) 

173. The Classical Magnet program at Quirk includes only 115 
students out of 1,417 total (Calvert at 110-111).   
 



  

      

iY 

8. The Effects of Recent Budget Cuts. 
  

174. The deficiencies of the Hartford school system have been 
exacerbated by budget cutbacks. In the 1992-93 school year, while 
Hartford administrators asked for an additional 90 position, 108.7 
staff positions were cut, including 40 teachers, and a wide range of 
support positions, including nurses and other health staff, social 
workers and psychologists, administrators, and custodians. (Pls. 
Ex. 423; Kennelly pp. 63-66) 

175. In the same year, over one million dollars in non-staff 
budgetary cuts were made, including reductions in planned 
maintenance expenditures, after-school programs, athletics, and 
textbook acquisition. (Pls’ Ex. 424) 

176. Similar, but less severe cuts, were made in 1990 and 1991 
one of which have been restored. (Kennelly pp. 71-73) 

31373. Hartford’s reading programs have lost all 31 reading 
consultants in the system (Senteio p. 14; Haig p. 60). As a result, 
no one is available to test students or determine their reading 
level or the appropriate reading instructional materials for them 
(Carso p 105; Montanez p. 22). 

178. The Hartford School District has had to eliminate needed 
guidance counsellor positions, which prevented the Hartford schools 
from providing the kind of day-to-day guidance, categorization of 
students, and career guidance that they should provide (Dickens pp. 
153-154; Noel p. 31-32; Haig p. 60). 

179. Cuts in administrative staff have also created 
difficulties in coordination (Griffin p. 89) and supervision (Haig. 
p. 60; Shea pp. 121, 128). 

180. The loss of teaching staff limits the options available 
to students (Shea p. 123). 

181. The loss of paraprofessionals interferes with the ability 
of teachers to individualize instruction (Shea p. 124). 

182. Custodial cuts mean that grass grows higher and graffiti 
stays up longer (Shea p. 125). : 

183. The bilingual and ESOL programs have suffered a reduction 
of six English as a Second Language teachers, a reduction since the 
early 1980s from seven to three bilingual testers (Marichal Pp. 23- 
24), a reduction in bilingual speech-language clinicians (Pls’ Ex. 
441 p. 8), and Spanish remediation positions (Pls’ Ex. 441 p. 15). 

  

 



  
    

=18 

184. In deciding which programs to preserve and which to cut, 
the administration has been compelled to choose the least among all 
evils. (Wilson pp. 9-23) 

185. Cuts have come in the wake of reduced state funding in 
the amount of $600,000 (Kennelly at 63; Pls’ Ex. 423) 

186. The school system does not have the resources to meet the 

  

academic needs of their students. (Morris at 141; Senteio at 26) 

9. Cumulative Effects of Deficient Resources 

127. Over a cumulative career of a student, inadequate 
textbooks, educational supplies, and other educational resources 
begin to erode the quality of the educational program, making it 
more difficult for students to learn and more difficult for teachers 
to teach (Natriello I pp. 132-33; Table 10, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 80). 

188. Dr. Natriello stated one "must look beyond some of the 
surface level aggregate data," and "move down to the program level," 
to evaluate educational resources (Natriello p. 132) 

189. In every category which reflects the important 
programmatic resources, i.e. textbooks and instructional supplies, 
library books and periodicals, equipment, and plant operation, the 
average Hartford expenditures are substantially below the average 
statewide expenditures of the twenty-one districts in the region. 
(Pls’ Ex. 163, p. 79; MNatriello II p. 12}. 

190. The resources in the Hartford school district are 
severely deficient across grade levels, and across subjects, and the 
gap remains constant with no indication of improvement. (Natriello 
I1X.p. 20) 

B. EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES FOR HARTFORD'S STUDENTS ARE DEFICIENT 
AND WORSENING. 

1. Connecticut Mastery Tests 

191. The Connecticut Mastery Test can be used to evaluate 
whether a school or district is providing a minimally adequate 
education. (Pls’ Ex. 494 pp. 82-84) 

192. The Connecticut Mastery Test is a high quality, criterion 
referenced test that provides an important indicator of quality of 
education. (Natriello pp. 136-140) 

193. The Connecticut Mastery Tests (CMT) are the state’s own 
measure of the quality of education in the state (Allison p. 79; 
Pls’ Ex. 163 at 255-260). 

  

 



  

- 10 "u 

194. Mastery tests are the "best measure" of student 
achievement. (Ferrandino Deposition, Pls’ Ex. 494, p. 37 ) 

195. The consensus on the state board is that the CMT is a 
valuable tool in judging the outputs of the school systems. (Mannix 
Deposition, Pls’ Ex. 495, p. 17) 

196. Proficiency testing "can be a starting point for a 
broader assessment of educational equity and quality.” Joint 
Committee on Education, 1978 session, P. 473, March 22, 1978. 

197. The CMT was intended to be used to "give the state a type 
of instrument that it can use in a very positive way to truly assess 
the educational condition of the state and in turn, to divert our 
resources accordingly." Testimony of Tirozzi, Joint Committee on 
Education, 1984 Session, p. 12 (February 27, 1984). 

198. When the CMT program was expanded to 10th grade in 1990, 
the role of the test in evaluating educational performance was 
generally acknowledged. (See Joint Committee on Education, 1990 
Session, pp. 814, 815-16, 838-39 (March 16, 1990).) 

199. Exhibits A-O attached to Pls’ Reply Brief are an accurate 
update of Dr. Natriello’s original charts on pp. 85, 87, 89, 97, 99, 
101, 198-99, 201, 203-04, 206, 251, 253-54 of his report with the 
92-93 data already introduced at trial. 

200. Substantial numbers of Hartford students are not able to 
master substantial numbers of the CMT objectives. (Natriello p. 
147) 

201. For 1992, Hartford fourth graders mastered 15.8 
mathematics objectives, sixth graders mastered 16.7, and eighth 
graders mastered 18.1, showing no significant improvement from prior 
Years. (Natriello p. 144; Pls’ Ex. 503) 

202. Hartford’s average numbers of mathematics objectives 
mastered were lower at all three grade levels in 1992-93 than they 
were three years before, in 1989-90. (For 1992-93 figures, see Pls’ 
Ex. A-C;3 for 1989-90 figures, see Pls’ Ex. 300, p. 70; Pls’ Ex. 
30), p. 78; and Pls’ Ex. 302, p. 77.) 

203. In 1992, Hartford fourth graders mastered 3.1 of 9 
language arts objectives, sixth graders mastered 4.7 of 11 

      3 Exhibits A-I are exhibits, created by Dr. Natriello and 
attached to the Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief. They are based on 1992-93 
Mastery Test data which was introduced at trial as Pls’ Ex. 512 a-c. 

  

 



  
    

-20 = 

objectives, and eighth graders mastered 5.4 of the 11 objectives. 
Exhibits D-F. 

204. In 1992, Hartford fourth graders mastered 3.1 language 
arts objectives, and sixth and eighth graders showed no significant 
change either. (Natriello p. 149-50; Pls. Ex. 503) 

205. The percentage of Hartford students failing to meet state 
goals extend beyond subgroups of minority students or students in 
poverty. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 260) 

206. In the fourth, sixth, and eighth grades, 58% of 
non-minority students in Hartford fell below the state goal for 
math, 47% for reading, and 84% for writing. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 260 
and Figure 101 at 261) 

207. In the fourth, sixth, and eighth grades, 81% of the 
non-poor (free and reduced lunch) students in Hartford fell below 
the state goal for math, 70% for reading, and 89% for writing. 
(Pls’ Ex. 163 at 261-262 and Figure 102) 

208. Large numbers of Hartford students are not able to meet 
the remedial standards on the CMT. (Exhibits M-0O; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
251-254, Figures 95-97) 

209, Percentages of Hartford students not meeting remedial 
standards have also increased since the previous year in fourth 
grade mathematics and holistic writing and sixth grade mathematics. 
(Exhibits M-O, Figures 95-96 to Pls’ Reply Brief; Pls. Ex. 163, Pp. 
251-253, Figures 95-96) 

210. 72% of students in the fourth grade (up from 64% the year 
before) 67% of sixth graders (up from 62%) and 57% of eighth graders 
(up from 55%) are not able to reach the bare minimum levels of 
performance in reading. (Exhibits M-0, Figures 95-97 to Pls’ Reply 
Brief; Pls’ Ex. 163, pp. 251-54, Figures 95-97.) 

211, Connecticut Mastery Test scores for Hartford and the 
surrounding districts (1985-1993) are accurately set out in 
plaintiffs’ exhibits 290-309, and 512. 

2. Metropolitan Achievement Tests 
  

212, Results from the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) 
indicate by the 10th grade, the average Hartford student performs 
2.0 grades below grade level on the math section of the test (Pls’ 
Ex. 163 at 125). On the language section, the average Hartford 10th 
grade student performs 1.7 grades below grade level (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
127). On the reading section, the average Hartford student performs 
2.9 grades below grade level (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 128). 

  

 



  
    

S31 - 

213. Defs. Ex. 13.10 shows that Hartford students are "falling 
farther and farther behind grade level” in all three areas measured 
‘by the MAT as they progress from second to tenth grade. (Nearine, 
PP. 136-37; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 124-35; Natriello Pp... 161) 

214. Hartford students who were in the same school for two 
consecutive administrations of the MAT fell further behind grade 
level in reading in seven of the eight grade levels studied. 
(Nearine, pp. 139-40; Defs’ Ex. 13.11). Defs. Ex. 13.11 shows 
similar results in mathematics (five of eight grades) and language 
(six of the eight grades). 

215. Tables 1, 3, and 5 of Defs. Ex. 2.34 show that in each of 
the years from 1989 to 1992, Hartford tenth graders had lower NCE 
results than Hartford first graders in each of the three areas 
tested. In the language area, the difference between the first 
grade NCE and the tenth grade NCE in 1992 was 18.8 points. The 
overall school system average NCE scores were lower in 1992 than 
they were in 1989 in all three categories tested. 

216. The Hartford 1991 MAT NCE scores were lower than the 1990 
scores recorded in Exs. 13.13 and 13.14 (Nearine, p. 146). 

2172. Hartford students tend to fall significantly further 
behind national norms on the MAT by grade 9 than in grade 2. 
(Nearine, p. 143) 

3. SABE 

218, The Spanish Assessment of Basic Education (SABE) 
demonstrates by the eighth grade, Hartford students taking this test 
are 2.0 grades below their grade placement levels in the mathematics 
portion (Pls. Ex. 163 at 136). 

219. In the reading section, 8th grade students fall below the 
grade placement levels by 3.1 grades (Pls. Ex. 163 at 138). 

220. Bilingual education program students’ gains are not 
processing adequately in either English or Spanish in mathematics in 
grades 7 and 8. (Defs’ Ex. 13.6 at 11) 

221. In each instance, the test shows Hartford students 
falling farther and farther behind as they progress through the 
Hartford schools. (Natriello pp. 163-64) 

4. Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) 
  

222. The average score of Hartford students on the SAT 
mathematics section was 354; only 2% scored above 600. The average 

  

 



  
    

Ry dy 20 

score on the verbal section was 314; only 0.2% scored above 600. 
-(Pls’ Bx. 163 at 140) 

1 Graduation and Drop-Out Rates 
  

223. The dropout rate is a key indicator of the condition of 
education. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 141) 

224. Approximately one-third of the students in the Hartford 
high schools drop out. This is a substantial drop out problem. 
{Natriello p. 169; Pls’ Bx. 163 at 142-143; Pls’ Ex. 183 at 144-45, 
Table 12) 

225. Of those Hartford students who were ninth graders in 
1987, only 36% stayed until the end of high school and graduated. 
(Natriello p. 169-70; Table 12, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 144) 

226. Hartford has inadequate programs to help prevent students 
from dropping out (Shea p. 118). 

227. Fewer than 30% of Hartford students attend four year 
colleges in the October following graduation. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 146) 

IV. DOES THE RACIAL, ETHNIC AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION AND POVERTY 
CONCENTRATION COUPLED WITH DISPARITIES IN RESOURCES AND 
OUTCOMES VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO EQUAL EDUCATIONAL 
OPPORTUNITIES UNDER ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE 
FIRST, SECTIONS 1 AND 20? : 

A. STUDENTS’ SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS IN HARTFORD METROPOLITAN 
AREA SCHOOLS 

228. Over 16,000 children in the city live in poverty, giving 
Hartford the sixth highest child poverty rate among America’s 200 
largest cities. (Pls’ Ex. 456; Orfield I pp. 18-19) 

229. Dr. Gary Natriello is a professor of Sociology and 
Education at Teachers’ College, Columbia University, who prepared an 
extensive report on the resources available in the Hartford School 
District and other Connecticut school districts. Dr Natriello is an 
expert in the provision of educational services to children. 
(Natriello pp. 43-49; Pls’ Ex. 162) 

230. The methodology of Natriello study was sound and 
consistent with professional standards. (Pls’ Ex. 163; Natriello 
PP. 51-53).   
 



  

- 03 

231. The data on which the Natriello study was based consisted 
‘primarily of reports by defendants and entirely of official reports 
by governmental bodies. (Pls’ Ex. 163; Natriello pp. 51-53, 70) 

232. Much of the data on which the Natriello study relied, 
including Exhibits 208, 216, 217, 219 and 227 was stipulated to. 
(Natriello p. 70) 

233. The Natriello study accurately reports facts about the 
schools in Hartford, neighboring communities, and the state.? (Pls’ 
Ex. 163; Forman pp. 40-42) 

234. Sixty-three percent of Hartford’s students receive free 
and reduced lunch. As a result of the methodology used by Hartford 
schools, this statistic may underestimate the percentage of students 
participating in the free and reduced lunch program. (Natriello p. 
67) 

235. Health factors such as being born with low birth weight, 
being born to a mother on drugs at birth or being born to a teen 
mother has been correlated with later educational and cognitive 
difficulties, student health, student attendance and student 
performance. (Natriello I p. 63) 

236. Many children in Hartford are born to teenage mothers. 
A high proportion of these teens are in school themselves and are 
ill-equipped to take care of a newborn. (Noel p. 30) 

237. In a community with low employment rates, students do not 
learn the value of education. (Natriello pp. 87-89) 

238. A high proportion of Hartford students live in poor 
housing, including doubled-up quarters in the projects, and 
frequently move. (Griffin p. 84; Negron p. 64) 

239, Hartford principals report high levels of student 
mobility in the schools. (Natriello pp. 80-81) 

240. Hartford had the lowest percentage (72%) of elementary 
students who have attended a particular school for at least one year 
which causes instability for the students and additional burdens on 
staff. In the suburban districts, the percent ranges from 78.9 to 
97%. (Natriello II pp. 6-7; Figure 35, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 155) 

241. Many children in the bilingual program have had 
interrupted schooling, having been exposed to many different 
curricula. (Marichal p. 15) 

      * With the exception of Table 4.   
 



    

242. The effect of poverty in Hartford is highlighted by the 
wealth of the surrounding towns, giving the Hartford region one of 
‘the highest rates of city-suburban income disparity in the nation. 
(Pls’ Exs. 531, 532; Figure 33, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 153; Natriello Pe 
177) 

243. While median family income in the suburbs has more than 
doubled, Hartford’s has risen only $10,000 during the ten year 
period from 1980-1990. (Rindone at 120) 

244. While the percent of families below the poverty level 
decreased from 1980-1990, in eighteen of the twenty-one suburban 
towns, it not only increased in Hartford, but the increased 
percentage differential was greater than in all of the other towns. 
(Defs’ Ex. 8.2; Rindone at 119-21) 

245. Hartford's poor are getting poorer in comparison to 
surrounding communities. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 152 and Figure 33, at 
153; Rindone p. 121) In all six areas of indicators of disadvantage 
(economic status, family composition, parent educational attainment, 
minority status, limited English proficiency, parent labor force 
participation) the gap between Hartford and the suburbs has actually 
widened during ten year period from 1980-1990. (Rindone at 110-14; 
Natriello p. 151, Table 13; Defs’ Ex. 8.1) 

246. The presence of indicators of disadvantaging 
characteristics in Hartford is much more likely than in Farmington, 
Glastonbury, and West Hartford. In all cases, the indicators are at 
least double in Hartford. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 149 and Table 13 at 151: 
Natriello p. 175) 

247. The largest differences in disadvantaging characteristics 
between Hartford and the three surrounding communities of 
Farmington, Glastonbury and West Hartford are in the areas of free 
and reduced lunch (63% Hartford and less than 10% in the three 
surrounding communities), minority group membership (92% Hartford 
and less than 15% in the three surrounding communities), and parent 
labor force participation (40% unemployed in Hartford, less than 3% 
in the three surrounding communities). (Natriello p. 176; Table 13, 
Pls’ Ex. 163 at 151) 

B. RACIAL AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION ARE CLOSELY LINKED IN 
HARTFORD 

248. Hartford exhibits "an extraordinarily strong 
relationship" between race and economic segregation. (Orfield I pp. 
24, 20-25)    



  
    

Pe 

249. In his 1993 speech to the Legislature, defendant Governor 
‘Weicker admitted that "the racial and economic isolation in 
‘Connecticut’s school system is indisputable." (Pls’ Ex. 90) 

250. A large number of elementary schools are severely 
isolated by both class and race. (Pls’ Ex. 513) 

251. The State Department of Education has also confirmed the 
"joint concentration of both low economic status and minority 
enrollment” in Connecticut schools. {Pls’' Ex.. 56iat 37) For 
example, for fourth grade students statewide, "[t]he schools with 
over 80% of their students in the free/reduced lunch category also 
had over 80% of their students in minority categories." id. 

252. The high concentration of poverty in the schools is 
closely linked to extreme racial segregation in the schools, which 
heightens the detrimental impacts of poverty concentration on Black 
and Latino students. (Pls’ Ex. 56 at 37) 

253. Defendants have admitted that "the combined incidence of 
poverty, racial isolation and limited English proficiency presents 
major challenges to the provisions of equal educational 
opportunities, particularly for children in our urban communities." 
(Pls’ Bx. 77 at 7) 

C. INTEGRATION AND ITS EFFECTS 

[See also Section II.C. which is also incorporated herein. ] 

254. Every student can learn at high levels from a quality and 
integrated education. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 11) 

255. A quality education requires an integrated student body 
and faculty and a curriculum that reflects the heritage of many 
cultures. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 11) 

256. The socioeconomic status of individual children and the 
concentration of poor children within the schools are 
distinguishable concepts. (Crain II at 68, 69) 

257. The socioeconomic status of individual children and the 
concentration of poor children within the schools each affect the 
educational and long-term achievement of students. (Crain II at 68, 
69) 

258. -The independent effect of the concentration of poverty 
within the schools can be measured controlling for the effect of 
individual factors such as student socioeconomic status or student 
race. (Crain at 69; Armor I at 155) 

  

 



  
    

~126 ‘iw 

259. It 1s important to separate out the effects on 
educational achievement of individual characteristics from 
community-wide factors, such as school segregation or the quality of 
schooling. (Armor I at 21) 

260, Difference in individual socioeconomic status and the 
concentration of poverty in the schools are both factors in 
explaining differences in student performance. (Kennedy pp. 16, 26- 
28, 30-31, 70) 

261. The high concentration of poor children in a school 
adversely affects student achievement. (Kennedy pp. 16, 70; Armor 
p. 148) 

262. Dr. Kennedy is an expert in educational research methods 
and program evaluation. (Kennedy at 2-8) 

263. Dr. Kennedy has written two reports to the United States 
Congress on the effectiveness and on the funding distribution of 
Chapter I, the federal compensatory education program designed to 
help school districts that serve large concentrations of poor 
children. (Kennedy at 6, 9) 

264. Dr. Kennedy's testimony was based, in part, on a report 
she produced for Congress on the distribution of poor children 
across schools, districts, and states, and the relationship between 
poverty and achievement. (Kennedy at 11) 

265. The methodology of the Kennedy study was sound and 
consistent with professional standards. (Pls’ Ex. 419) 

266. The Chapter I study was based on a number of data bases, 
including the panel study of income dynamics (PSID) developed by the 
University of Michigan in the Institute for Social Research, the 
Sustaining Effects Study developed by Systems Development 
Corporation and the High School and Beyond Database, developed by 
the National Center of Education Statistics at the United States 
Department of Education. (Kennedy at 12-13) 

267. The Chapter I study measured the effects of the 
concentration of poverty by calculating the percent of students in 
a given school whose families are poor. (Kennedy at 23) 

268. School composition, i.e. the percent of poor children 
attending a particular school, is related to student achievement. 
(Kennedy at 16) 

269. The concentration effect is not limited to students who 
are themselves poor but to other students in the school as well. 
(Kennedy at 26)   
 



    

270. Achievement levels of both poor and non-poor students are 
‘lower in high poverty concentration schools. (Kennedy Pp. 26-28) 

271, The concentration of poverty has adverse effects on 
achievement levels over and above the effects of family poverty. 
(Xennedy at 27, 31; Pls’ Ex. 508b) 

272. The negative effect of the concentration of poverty on 
student achievement is found even when indicators of individual 
socioeconomic status such as mother’s level of education, the number 
of siblings and family poverty are controlled. (Kennedy at 30-31, 
75) 

273. The effects of the concentration of poverty on student 
achievement may be underestimated because poverty concentration has 
a high correlation with the child’s starting level of achievement. 
(Kennedy at 78) 

274. Dr Kennedy performed a statistical analysis to control 
for such individual variables as the mother’s education, the family 
poverty, the student’s gender, whether the mother worked outside the 
home, the number of siblings and whether the family language was 
English, and found that poverty concentration still had a 
significant effect on students’ achievement at virtually every grade 
level. (Kennedy pp. 30-31) 

275. The effect of the concentration of poverty was a part 
from and larger than the effect of the students’ individual poverty. 
(Pls’ Ex. 508b) 

276. The disparity in achievement between schools with a high 
concentration of poor students and schools with a lower percentage 
of poor students widens as the children continue through school. 
(Kennedy at 30) 

277. Economic isolation has negative implications for the long 
term educational attainment of Latino and Puerto Rican students and 
is consistent with the negative impact of the concentration of 
poverty experienced by African American and white students. (Pls’ 
Ex. 481-3; Trent pp. 50, 59, 75) 

278. The concentration of problems in Hartford have a negative 
effect on the ability of students to learn even above the effect of 
each individual item. (Natriello pp. 92-94) 

279. The effects of high concentration of poverty of 
disadvantaged students in a school district can be eliminated by 
changing the concentration of disadvantaging characteristics along 
with efforts that address the problems through special programs. 
(Natriello III p. 175)    



  
    

-28 

280. Reductions in poverty concentration can positively affect 
‘Student achievement (Orfield I pp. 59-60). 

281. Independent of individual socioeconomic status, the 
concentration of poor students in the schools has negative 
consequences for the educational attainment of Latino, African 
American, and white students. (Pls’ Exs. 481J, K, 0; Trent at 50, 
56-59, 75-76) 

282. Independent of the socioeconomic status of the individual 
students, the concentration of poor students in the school has 
negative consequences for the occupational attainment of students 
across ethnic groups, including Puerto Ricans, Latinos generally, 
and African Americans. (Pls’ Ex. 481C; Trent at 34, 36, 38, 40, 74) 

283. Independent of the socioeconomic status of the individual 
student, for African American students, the concentration of poor 
students in the school has negative consequences for future income. 
(Pls’ Ex. 481g; Trent at 45, 75) 

284. Independent of the socioeconomic status of the individual 
students, the concentration of poor students in the schools has 
negative consequences for the likelihood of developing positive co- 
worker relations across racial lines. (Pls’ Ex. 481v) 

D. INADEQUACIES OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM 

[See Section III.A., which is incorporated herein. ] 

E. INTERDISTRICT COMPARISONS DEMONSTRATE ENORMOUS DISPARITIES 
IN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES BETWEEN HARTFORD AND SUBURBAN 
SCHOOLS. 

285. Disparities in educational resources between Hartford and 
the suburbs represent yet another layer of inequity facing Hartford 
school children who are already burdened by racial and economic 
isolation (Orfield I p. 138). 

286. The State Board of Education has stated that progress in 
achieving equal educational opportunity can be measured by comparing 
resources available to resources needed. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 233-33; 
Pls’ Ex. 39; Pls’ Ex 43; Natriello II at 41-42) 

287. Hartford students are receiving fewer resources in 
relation to their needs than students in surrounding districts. 
(Pls’ Bx. 163 at 233) 

288. The concentration of "at-risk" children in Hartford 
classrooms overwhelms the normal teaching process (Dudley pp. 126- 
27; Anderson p. 113). In comparison, the education process can be 

  

 



  
    

  

- 2G 

conducted with relative ease in non-poverty-concentrated schools 
(Pitocco pp. 65-66; Dudley p. 128; Pls’ Ex. 494 at 61-62). 

289. Although Hartford’s net expenditures per pupil appear 
relatively high, when the net current expenditures per "need 
student" of Hartford and the surrounding suburbs is compared, 
Hartford ranks fifteenth among the twenty-two Hartford area 
districts and 69th among all school districts in Connecticut, 
leaving Hartford at a disadvantage compared to other school 
districts in the area. 

{(Pls’ Px. 163. at 157, 161; Natriello IT pp. 8, 10 

290. Many of the budget comparisons between Hartford and 
surrounding communities understate the disparities since they look 
at overall budget and ignore the greater needs of the Hartford 
students. (Natriello II pp. 9-10) 

l. Staffing and Curriculum 
  

291. It costs the Hartford school district more money to hire 
and retain staff than it does in the surrounding districts. (Pls’ 
Ex. 163 at 178 and Figure 49; Natriello II pp. 17-18) 

292. Greater personnel costs in the Hartford schools as 
compared with suburban districts are not a result of differences in 
the quantity of staff available, or of lower class sizes. (Pls’ Ex. 
183 at 55, 58; Natriello p. 111, 115) 

293. Greater personnel costs in the Hartford schools are a 
result of higher salaries, but those higher salaries do not mean 
greater resources for the students. Hartford is spending more but 
purchasing less. (Natriello p. 115) 

294. All but two of the 22 surrounding districts have greater 
percentages of teachers trained as mentors, assessors and 
cooperating teachers. (Figure 40, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 167; Natriello II 
p. 14) 

235. Hartford has many fewer teachers trained as mentors, 
assessors, or cooperating teachers (11.5%) than other Connecticut 
districts (18.6% statewide). (Table 4, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 53) 

296. Hartford does not have more teachers, instructional 
specialists, counselors, social workers, administrators, or 
certified staff per pupil than the 22 surrounding districts. 
(Figures 41-45, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 169-73; Natriello II p. 15-16) 

297. All of the 22 surrounding districts have substantially 
higher percentages of teachers with masters degree than Hartford. 
(Pls’ Ex. 163 at 165 and Figure 39 at 166; Natriello II p. 13)   
 



  
    

30 

298. In the middle schools, Hartford has fewer hours of 
instruction than twenty of the twenty-one surrounding districts. 
-{Pigere 47, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 176; Natriello II pp. 16-17) 

299. In the high schools, Hartford has fewer hours of 
instruction than all of the surrounding districts, with three 
districts offering over 11% more instructional time than Hartford. 
(Figure 47, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 175; Natriello II pp. 16~17) 

300. All but one of the high schools in the three comparison 
communities offers more language instruction than any high school in 
Hartford and that one high school offers more language instruction 
than two of the three Hartford high schools. (Natriello II at 20; 
Figure 50, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 182.) 

2. Pupil and Instructional Services 
  

301. Hartford offers fewer hours of instruction than the state 
average, a disparity that in the high school years amounts to a 
difference of 905 hours versus 970. (Table 8, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 67; 
Natriello p. 122) 

302. Expenditures for purchased personnel services that are 
not part of payroll (such as teaching assistants, medical doctors, 
curriculum consultants, therapists and psychologists) are 
dramatically lower in Hartford than in other districts in the region 
and lower than the state-wide average. {(Natriello 11 .p. 18; 
Natriello p. 116-17; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 63; Table 14, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
164; Natriello 1X, pp. 11-12, 18) 

303. Because the time spent on instruction does make a 
difference in learning, Hartford students are disadvantaged by the 
Hartford schools compared to other students in the state and in 
surrounding communities. (Natriello p. 122) 

3. Textbook and Instructional Supplies 

304. Over the three years from 1988-89 through 1990-91, 
Hartford spent an average of $78 per pupil on textbooks and 
instructional supplies as compared to the state-wide average of $148 
during the same time period. The twenty-two surrounding districts 
spent an average of $159 per pupil, over twice as much as spent by 
Hartford. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 164, Table 14; Natriello II pp. 11-12) 

4. Library Books and Periodicals 

305. Hartford spent an average of $5 per pupil on [library 
books and periodicals] over the three year period from 1988-91, and 
the twenty-two surrounding districts spent, on average, $18 for the   
 



  
    

  

-: 31 

three years -- a "dramatic difference" (Neuman-Johnson II pp. 6-7; 
Griffin pp. 90, 97; Wilson p. 10-12). 

306. Hartford’s expenditures on library books and periodicals 
was also less than 1/3 of the state-wide average. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
68) 

307. The Hartford figure is less than 28% of the average of 
the 22 surrounding communities. (Natriello II pp 11-12, 21) 

308. According to the Connecticut State Department of 
Education, Bureau of Grants Services, over a five year period from 
1586-87 through 1990-91, there was a wide disparity in expenditures 
for library books and materials between Hartford and the suburbs 
with Hartford acquiring an average of 4 books per pupil and the 
suburbs acquiring 16 or four times that amount. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
70) 

309. Failing to spend sufficient money on library books and 
periodicals has a cumulative effect over years, causing increasingly 
less adequate libraries. (Natriello p. 126; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 68) 

5. Equipment 

310. Hartford spent less on equipment ($25) than the statewide 
average ($91) or than the three comparison communities ($109-115) or 
than the 22 surrounding communities ($97). (Natriello II pp. 11-12; 
Table 14, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 154) 

311. Hartford lacks foreign language laboratory facilities in 
comparison to Glastonbury, West Hartford and Farmington. (Natriello 
I1°pp. 19, 20) 

312. For the three year period beginning 1988-89, average per 
pupil expenditure for equipment, meaning items with an expected 
useful life of more than one year, was $25 for Hartford and the 
statewide average was over $90. Hartford thus had less than 28% of 
the average state expenditures. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 71; Natriello Pp. 
127) 

313. Hartford students have substantially less access to 
computers than students in the three comparison communities and 
elsewhere in the state with, for example, 17.7 K-6 elementary 
students per computer statewide and 45.8 students per computer in 
Hartford. (Table 9, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 72, 184-189; Natriello P3127; 
Natriello II pp. 22-23) 

314. Dr. Natriello observed many fewer computers in Hartford 
than in Glastonbury. (Natriello p. 128) 

  

 



    

6. Plants and Facilities 
  

315. Hartford spent less on plant operations ($162) than the 
statewide average ($266) or than the three comparison communities 
($201-300) or than the 22 surrounding communities (3272). 
(Natriello II p. 11-12, 23; Table 14, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 164) 

316. Hartford schools have fewer specialized facilities such 
as art rooms, auditoriums, cafeterias, gymnasia and music rooms than 
the three comparison communities. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 191 and Figures 
55-58 at 192-195) 

317. For the three year period beginning 1988-89, Hartford 
expenditures on plant operations were only 60.8% of those spent 
statewide. (Natriello p. 129; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 74) 

318. For 1990-91, per pupil expenditures for plant operation 
and maintenance in the Hartford schools were $79 or more than 10% 
less than the average amount spent statewide. {(Pls’ EX. 163 at 75) 

319. For 1990-91, per pupil expenditures for land, buildings 
and debt service were $210 in Hartford but the average was $351 
statewide. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 75) 

F. DISPARITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

l. Connecticut Mastery Tests 
  

320. Hartford performance levels are uniformly and 
substantially below average performance levels of students in all 
other districts (Natriello II pp. 26, 29). 

321, Hartford students perform less well, in many cases 
substantially so, than students statewide in all four CMT subjects, 
in every subarea, on every objective, on each grade level, and for 
all five years of testing. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 123-24; Natriello, p. 
156) 

322. The disparities between CMT scores of Hartford students 
and those statewide, by the eighth grade, understates the 
differences because many more of the Hartford eighth graders will be 
older than their normal peer group. (Natriello Pp. 153-54) 

323. The disparities between CMT scores of Hartford students 
and those statewide understates the differences because many more 
Hartford students do not take the test. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 117-124) 

324. Given the deficits in resources in Hartford, it is not 
surprising that there are deficits in outcomes. (Natriello Pp. 173)    



    

S330 

325. The Hartford school system is not able to produce 
outcomes comparable to statewide results. (Natriello p. 142-43) 

326. The State Board of Education has stated that outcomes 
should not depend on a child’s race, sex or place of residence. 
(Pls’ Ex. 163 at 233, 247, Pls’ Ex. 39; Pls’ Ex. 43; Natriello II at 
43) 

327. Hartford students who took the Connecticut Mastery Test 
in math uniformly mastered fewer objectives than did the students in 
the surrounding districts. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 197-201 and Figures 
59-61, Exhibits G-I; Natriello II at 273 

328. In 1992, Hartford students at all three grades also 
scored substantially lower on the CMT math test than the statewide 
average. (Exhibits A-C) 

329. This pattern of poorer achievement on the CMT by Hartford 
students is essentially the same for the reading and writing 
portions of the test. (Natriello II pp. 27-29; Exhibits J-L) 

330. In 1992, Hartford students at all three grades also 
scored substantially lower on the CMT language arts test than the 
statewide average. (Exhibits D-F) 

331. In comparison to the surrounding twenty-one districts, 
Hartford students scored the lowest average number of objectives 
mastered in both mathematics and language arts in all three grade 
levels (Pls’ Reply Brief, Exs. G-L; Revised Natriello Report, 
Figures 59-64; Natriello II p. 29) 

332. Hartford students scored in the lowest range of average 
scores on the CMT in all grades in math, in all grades in language 
arts, in all grades in DRP, and in two of the three grades in 
holistic writing. (Figures 83-94, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 235-46; Natriello 
II, p. 44-48) 

333. Data from the 1992 mastery test scores show that Hartford 
students’ performance on the CMT in comparison to the state average 
actually declined from the previous year in the number of 
mathematics objectives mastered, (Exhibit A, Fourth grade- Figure 1; 
Exhibit B, Sixth Grade- Figure 2;) and the number of language arts 
objectives mastered (Fourth Grade- Figure 7; Exhibit D, Sixth Grade- 
Figure 8).5 

  

        
 



  
    

- 3% = 

334. The DRP (Degrees of Reading Power) portion of the CMT 
‘measures the ability of students to read and understand material at 
various levels. (Natriello p. 149) 

335. Hartford fourth, sixth and eighth graders consistently 
performed at levels significantly below the statewide average in the 
DRP portion of the CMT test from 1987 to 1992. (Figures 13-15, Pls’ 
Ex. 163 at 107-09; Natriello pp. 150-51; Pls’ Ex. 503) 

336. The Holistic Scores portion of the CMT measures written 
products on the basis of their overall quality. (Bis’ Bx. 163 at 
110) 

337. Hartford fourth, sixth, and eighth graders consistently 
performed at levels significantly below the statewide average in the 
Holistic Scores portion of the CMT test from 1987 to 1992. (Pls’ 
Ex. 163 at 110-13 and Figures 16-18; Pls’ Ex. 503) 

2. Credits Earned 
  

338. Hartford students consistently earn fewer credits than 
most of their suburban counterparts (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 214-223; 
Natriello II p. 30-32). 

339. Hartford students earn fewer credits than the state 
average, especially in courses for college credit. (Table 8, Pls’ 
Ex. 163 at 67; Natriello pp. 123-26) 

340. Only 2.4% of Hartford's students earn college credits in 
high school courses for college credit. In the surrounding suburbs, 
as many as 43.7% of the students earn these credits, and the lowest, 
East Granby, has a rate more than three times that of Hartford. 
{Pls’ Ex. 183 at 222, Fig. 77) 

341. The credits earned comparisons overstate Hartford’s 
success because they ignore the higher dropout rate in Hartford. 
(Pls’ Ex. 163 at 214; Natriello II pp. 29-30) 

3. Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores 
  

342. Hartford students do substantially worse on the SAT than 
other Connecticut students (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 140). 

343. The differences between statewide SAT scores and Hartford 
SAT scores understates the actual differences given the percentage 
of students who take the test. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 141)   
 



  
    

  

-38:~ 

4. Graduation and Drop-Qut Rates 
  

344. The drop-out rate for Hartford schools is substantially 
greater than for Connecticut public schools in general. (Pls’ Ex. 
163 at 142, 144, 145) 

345. Approximately 640 Hartford students dropped out in 1992 
compared to only about 23 students dropping out of West Hartford's 
high schools (Shea p. 117). 

346. Graduation rates for Blacks and Hispanic students 
statewide are significantly lower than for white students. In fact, 
generally the graduation rate for white students has steadily 
increased, whereas the rates for Black and Hispanic students have 
fluctuated. (Pis’ Ex. 77. p. 27) 

347. Connecticut’s total 77.7% graduation rate (the proportion 
of ninth graders who graduate from high school) ranked among the 
highest in the nation. The graduation rate for Black students 
(62.2%) and Hispanic students (51.1%) continue to be "unacceptably 
low" and below the rate of white students (82.5%). {(Pls’ Ex. 79 p. 
33; Pls’ Ex. 84 p. 3B) 

5. Patterns of Post-Secondary Education and Work Activities. 
  

348. Hartford students were more likely than students 
statewide to be unemployed after graduation. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 147) 

349. Hartford has the highest number of graduates neither 
employed or in higher education (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 230, Fig. 82). . 

V. HAS THE STATE BEEN INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING RACIAL, ETHNIC AND 
ECONOMIC SEGREGATION, UNEQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, AND 
LACK OF A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION, DOES THE STATE HAVE AN 
AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES, AND HAS THE STATE 
FATLED TO ACT TO REMEDY THESE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES? 

A. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION HISTORICALLY 

350. The duty of providing for the education of Connecticut 
school children, through the support and maintenance of public 
schools, has always been deemed a governmental duty resting upon the 
sovereign state. (Defs’ Rev. Answer 167) 

351. The statutory mission of the State Board of Education is 
the responsibility to ensure that each child shall have an equal 
opportunity to receive a suitable program of educational 
experiences. (Defs’ Ex. 3.1 p. 2) 

  

 



  
    

36% 

352. Christopher Collier, a professor of history at the 
‘University of Connecticut and the official State Historian for the 
state of Connecticut, is an expert in Connecticut and American 
history. (Pls’ Ex. 284; Collier p. 2-6) 

353. Since the time of its founding as a colony, under the 
auspices of Massachusetts, the towns have not been autonomous. 
(Collier pp. 7, 53) 

354. During the course of Connecticut history, the State of 
Connecticut has delegated authority to towns, societies and 
districts to administer education but the control of education and 
policymaking has always remained with the State. (Collier Pp. 24- 
25) 

355. Throughout most of Connecticut’s history, the state has 
delegated administrative responsibility for education to entities 
other than the towns. (Collier p. 54) 

356. By the late Nineteenth Century more than two hundred 
school districts crossed town lines; most of these districts 
contained one school, which was within walking distance of student’s 
homes. (Collier p. 22) 

357. During the early Nineteenth Century, there were separate 
public schools for Black children in the state of Connecticut, 
including two schools for African American children in Hartford. 
(Collier at 47) be EE 

358. Even after districts were consolidated, many of 
Connecticut’s public school students crossed town lines to attend 
high schools. (Collier pp. 31, 40) 

359. In the 1930s, the state established a system of regional 
high schools to meet the needs of students in rural areas. These 
regional high schools crossed town lines. (Collier p. 30) 

360. Students in the Hartford metropolitan area crossed 
district lines to attend public high school in Hartford. (Collier 
pp. 40-41) 

B. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION TODAY 

361. The state requires school district lines be coterminous 
with town boundaries (C.G.S. § 10-240). 

362. The state requires that children attend school within the 
school district where they reside (C.G.S. § 10-184).   
 



  
    

  

- 37 - 

; 363. The maintenance of the system whereby school district 
lines are coterminous with towns contributes to the racial and 
ethnic segregation of students within the schools. (Collier at 53) 

364. Between 1950 and 1980, defendants approved and funded the 
construction of over 100 new schools in virtually all-white suburban 
communities, representing over 50% of total enrollment in the 
Hartford region (Pls’ Exs. 156, 150, 151, 112) 

365. Between 1950 and 1980, defendants also funded a ma jor 
expansion of school «capacity in the increasingly racially 
concentrated and poverty concentrated schools in the Hartford school 
district (Jd.) 

366. Defendants have extensive approval authority over new 
schools built, and have reimbursed local districts for between 50%- 
80% of total construction costs. (Brewer p. 182; Gordon Pp. 133, 
135-356; Pls’ exs. 142, 143, 160) 

367. Defendants have continued to approve funding and oversee 
the construction or expansion of segregated single district schools 
since 1980 (see Pls’ Exs. 142, 143, 160; §§10-282, et seg.). 

368. State school construction policies and zoning regulations 
also contribute to the racial and ethnic segregation of students 
within the schools. (Collier at 53) 

369. Residential segregation has occurred, at least in part, 
as a result of discriminatory treatment of African Americans, 
including discriminatory treatment by public officials. (Collier at 
45) 

370. 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. cat 

373. 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. 

  

  

 



  
    

= "318 - 

C. THE STATE HAS BEEN AWARE OF THE HARMS OF RACIAL AND 
ECONOMIC ISOLATION IN THE SCHOOLS AND . THE SERIOUS 
INEQUITIES FACING CITY SCHOOLCHILDREN, AND HAS REPEATEDLY 
FAILED TO TAKE ACTION TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS. 

l. Defendants Have Admitted that Racial Segregation is 
Harmful. 
  

  

372. Defendant Commissioner Vincent Ferrandino and former 
Commissioner Gerald Tirozzi acknowledged the harms of racial 
Segregation (Pls! Ex. 493 at 35, 39, 138-139: Pls’ Ex. 494 at 1l~ 
12). 

373. Commissioner Tirozzi admitted that both he and the State 
Board of Education had been aware of the harmful effects of racial 
segregation during his tenure as Commissioner (Pls’ Ex. 494 at 11- 
12; Williams pp. 81-82) 

374. Commissioner Ferrandino agreed that racial and economic 
integration would improve educational achievement in Hartford (Pls’ 
Ex. 493 at 138-139), 

375. The State of Connecticut has stated that "segregation is 
educationally, morally and legally wrong" (Defs’ Ex. 12.5; Pls’ Ex. 
50). 

376. The state has found that "a multicultural environment is 
an irreplaceable component of quality education" (Defs’ Ex. 12.29; 
Pls’ Ex. 60), which benefits both minority and non-minority students 
alike. (Defs’ Ex. 12.5). 

377. The Governor's Commission found that the goal of "quality 
and integrated education" currently is blocked by increasing racial 
isolation.  (Pls’ Bx. 73, at 3) 

2. Defendants Have Long Been Aware That Concentration of 
Poverty Has a Harmful Impact on the Educational Process. 
  

  

378. In 1989, the Department of Education acknowledged the 
effect of poverty concentration on achievement and other educational 
outcomes, concluding that "low achievement outcomes associated with 
poverty are intensified by geographic and racial concentrations. 
(Pls’ Ex. 60 at 1; Orfield XI p. 59; Orfield II PP. 117, 121-122, 
124-26; Pls’ Ex. 493 at 36; Pls’ Ex. 494 at 58, 67-69) 

379. Numerous other of defendants’ own internal documents 
admit the harmful effects of poverty concentration. (Pls’ Ex. 70 at 
17; Pls’ Ex. 455) 

  

 



  
    

  

- 39 - 

380. The former commissioners of the State Department of 
Education acknowledged harmful effects of poverty concentration. 
(Pls’ Ex. 493 at 36, 40; Pls’ Ex. 494 at 67-69) 

381. Defendant Ferrandino stated, "[w]e believe that by 
breaking down racial isolation and by eliminating the concentrations 
of poverty we should see improved student achievement." (Defs’ Ex. 
514; Williams pp. 81-82) 

3. Defendants Have Been Aware of the Other Severe Educational 
Ineguities Facing Schoolchildren in the Citv of Hartford 
Including Disparities in Student Resources and Outcomes. 

  

  

  

382. Defendants acknowledged in a report entitled "Report of 
the Governor, Measuring Connecticut’s Progress Toward Meeting The 
National Education Goals," October 2, 1991 (Pls. Ex. 79) that: 

a. "[w]hen compared by income level, the CMT results show 
significant performance differences. Students in poverty conditions 
(i.e., very poor and poor students) are experiencing severe academic 
deficiencies as compared to all other students.” (p. 12) 

b. "The CMT results by race/ethnicity continue to show 
large differences between white and minority students. The largest 
differences are in the percentage of white students scoring at or 
above the goal and the percentages of black and Hispanic students 
scoring at or above the goal." (p.l12) See also p. 34. 

  

c. As to the performance on the National Assessment of 
Education Progress (NAEP) in mathematics, "Connecticut students from 
disadvantaged urban areas had average scores (237) significantly 
lower than their national counterparts (249). This seems to reflect 
the concentration of poverty in Connecticut’s cities, which include 
two of the poorest communities in the nation." (p. 15) 

d. As to performance on the NAEP, "[m]any more white 
students reached relatively high levels of performance compared with 
black and Hispanic students. For example, while 23 percent of white 
students in Connecticut were proficient in the understandings 
expected of eighth graders, 3 percent of black students and 2 
percent = of Hispanic students were proficient in these 
understandings." (p. 16) 

e. "White students accounted for 83 percent of the 
Connecticut SAT test-takers and outscored all other racial/ethnic 
groups on the verbal test. Asian Americans outscored all other 
groups on the mathematics test." (p. 17) 

  

 



  
    

- 40 - 

383. Defendants have been aware of the widening gap between 
1987 and 1990 in the performance level of minority and nonminority 
students in the mastery tests: 

a. In a report entitled "Meeting the Challenge 1990/91 
(Pls’ Ex. 77 p.62), defendants acknowledged that the "differences in 
performance on the Ct. Mastery Test between white and minority 
students failed to narrow between 1987 (the baseline year for 
collection of data by race/ethnicity) and 1989. 

b. In a report entitled "Indicators of Success" issued by 
Defendant State Board of Education in 1992, (Pls’ Ex. 84) defendants 
acknowledged that the "differences in performance on the Connecticut 
Mastery Test between white and diverse students widened between 1989 
and 199047. (p.. 7) 

384. Defendant Commissioner of Education acknowledged that 
"student achievement in urban settings is not on the level of 
student achievement statewide and is showing no sign of closing the 
gap." These trends from 1992 mastery test data indicated that they 
exist in each content area and are evident both in relation to the 
statewide goal and the remedial standard. (Pls’ Ex. 512d) 

385. Defendants acknowledged that there are "clear differences 
in the graduation rate by race, with the rate for black and Hispanic 
students significantly lower than that for white students." (Pls’ 
Ex. 77 p. 27; Pls’ Ex. 79 p. 10) They have acknowledged that these 
rates are "unacceptably low." (Pls’ Ex. 79) 

386. In 1991, defendants acknowledged that "the relative low 
achievement of students in urban communities is a growing concern." 
{Pls’ Bx. .77 at viii) 

387. Defendants have also acknowledged that there are "notable 
disparities in the number of minority and nonminority students who 
pursue further education after high school." (Pls’ Ex. 77 pp. 28- 
29; Pls’ Ex. 74 pp. 2-4) 

388. Despite Connecticut’s commitment to provide equal 
educational opportunity for all of its students, the Governor’s 
Commission found inequalities persisting, particularly for those in 
urban schools.  (Pls’ ‘Bx, 73, at '$) 

389. The Governor’s Commission observed that a significant 
underrepresentation of minority students exists in higher-level 
courses while overrepresentation of minority students can be found 
in remedial classes. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 6) 

390. The Governor's Commission also found that "other 
indicators suggest that Connecticut’s minority students have yet to   
 



  
    

- ill 

receive full equal educational opportunities. For example, the 
‘widespread use of tracking and ability grouping persists, despite 
the compelling studies that show these practices inhibit student 
achievement, particularly for minority students." (Pls? Ex. 73, at 
7) 

391. Defendants had knowledge from the strategic school 
profiles submitted by each school district to the State Department 
of Education as mandated by C.G.S. §10-220(c), of the disparities 
between Hartford and the surrounding communities in instruction 
time, and in expenditures for textbooks and instructional supplies, 
library books and periodicals, equipment, plant operation. (Pls' 
Exs. 208-289) 

392, In his January 6, 1993 address, defendant Governor 
Weicker acknowledged: "If you are poor, if you are a minority, and 
if you live in one of our cities, you start the game at a 
disadvantage. While you are born with an equal capacity to learn, 
the odds are you will go to a school with fewer resources and with 
a@ greater proportion of at-risk students." (Pls’ Ex. 90) 

4. The Defendants Have Been Aware of Feasible Remedies and 
Have Failed to Act Over a 30-Year Period. 
  

  

393. Beginning in the mid-1960s, up to the present, the state 
has been repeatedly reminded of the harmful effects of racial and 
economic isolation on schoolchildren in Hartford and other cities, 
and urged to take strong action. (Gordon II pp. 79-81) 

394. During this time, the state was well aware of the growth 
in racial and economic isolation in the Hartford schools. (Gordon 
I p. 129; passim) 

395. The state documented increasing racial isolation on an 
annual basis. (Pls’ Exs. 6; 101-123; Gordon I p. 132) 

396. The documentation of racial and economic isolation in 
Connecticut schools in the 1960s was thorough and comprehensive. 
{Pls' Re. 17, 18, 19, 20) 

397. Defendants have been on notice that the Hartford Public 
School System is a segregated system which will continue to exist 
until metropolitan remedies are developed to reduce this isolation. 
(Pls’ Ex. 36 at 24) 

398. The state has been aware at least since the 1960s that 
the use of district lines exacerbated the racial and ethnic 
isolation in the Hartford area. (Pls’ Ex. 16 p. 2) 

  

 



  
    

AD. 

399. The 1965 report, Schools for Hartford, prepared by the 
‘Harvard Graduate School of Education (Pls’ Ex. 1), was the first 
‘report to fully document the growing problem of racial isolation in 
the Hartford schools. 

  

400. The "Harvard Report" projected increasing racial 
concentrations in the Hartford schools in future years if strong 
Steps were not taken to promote integration. (Pls’ Ex. 1) 

401. The Harvard Report also explicitly focused on the problem 
of high poverty concentration in the Hartford schools (Gordon II p- 
14). 

402. The Harvard report also described the educational harms 
that result from segregation (Pls’ Ex. 1 at 10). 

403. The Harvard Report contained a feasible interdistrict 
proposal that would have significantly alleviated the growing 
problem of school segregation at the time it was proposed (Gordon II 
pp. 14-15). 

404. In January of 1966, the Connecticut Commission on Civil 
Rights urged the State Board of Education to respond to the growing 
problem of "de facto" school segregation in Connecticut. (Pls’ Exs. 
72a & 7c) 

405. The Connecticut Commission pointed out that "[t]here is 
evidence that Negro children show improved academic performance in 
integrated school situations" (Pls’ Exs. 7a & 7c). 

406. In 1966, the Civil Rights Commission presented a formal 
request to the governor, seeking legislation that would invest the 
State Board of Education with the authority to direct full 
integration of local schools which was not adopted. (Defs’ Rev. 
Answer 153) 

407. In 1966, the Committee of Greater Hartford 
Superintendents prepared a federal grant to fund a regional 
educational advisory board and various regional programs, one of 
whose chief aims would be the elimination of school segregation 
within the metropolitan region. (Defs’ Rev. Answer 154) 

408. The State Board of Education in December 1966 stated that 
"the high concentration of minority group children in urban schools 
produces special problems in providing quality education. Isolation 
and lack of exposure to the mainstream of American society make it 
difficult for these children to achieve their full educational 
potential" (Pls’ Ex. 8).   
 



  
    

- 43 - 

409. The 1967 Governor’s Conference on Human Rights and 
‘Opportunities included a recommendation for interdistrict 
‘educational parks, and interdistrict transportation to promote 
school desegregation (Pls’ Ex. 12b). 

410. In 1968, legislation supported by the Civil Rights 
Commission was introduced in the Connecticut legislature which would 
have authorized the use of state bonds to fund the construction of 
racially integrated, urban/suburban "educational parks." (Defs’ 
Rev. Answer 55) 

411. The interdistrict "educational park," was prepared as a 
formal legislative proposal in January 1969 by the Legislative 
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (Pls’ Ex. 21), but the 
educational parks bill died in Committee (Gordon 46-47). 

412. In 1968, the legislature did not pass legislation, 
proposed by the defendant State Board of Education, that would have 
authorized the board to cut off state funding for school districts 
that failed to develop acceptable plans for correcting racial 
imbalance in local schools. The proposal offered state funding for 
assistance in the preparation of the local plans. (Defs’ Rev. 
Answer 56) 

413. In 1969, the Hartford superintendent of schools called 
for an expansion of Project Concern to 5000 students (Gordon II Pp. 
26). This recommendation was never implemented (Gordon 26). 

414. In 1969, the legislature passed the Racial Imbalance Act, 
an intradistrict desegregation law that legislators knew would have 
no impact on interdistrict desegregation. (Gordon II p. 49) 

415. The Racial Imbalance law was not even implemented until 
11 years later when the legislature finally passed regulations. 
{Gordon II p.. 51) 

416. The delay in passing regulations to implement the racial’ 
balance law was due in large part to political resistance. (Pls’ 
Ex. 50 at 7) 

417. While the Racial Imbalance law may successfully address 
racial balance within certain districts, it cannot be used 
successfully in cities such as Hartford where the minority 
population is high. (Pls’ Ex. 493, pp. 108-09; Pls’ Ex. 495, pp. 
31-32;.Pls’ ‘Ex. 494, pp. 25.) 

418. During the 1980s, in a series of detailed research 
reports, defendants readily admitted (as they had in the first and 
second Tirozzi reports) the harms of racial and economic isolation   
 



    

and the glaring inequities between Connecticut’s urban and suburban 
‘schools. (See Pls’ Exs. 56, 59, 69, 70). 

419. In April of 1981, in its first report to the state Board 
of Education summarizing its efforts to "comply" with the Racial 
Imbalance Act, Hartford emphasized the need for a metropolitan 
solution. (Pls! Ex. 36°at 24) 

420. In 1983, the state Department of Education established a 
committee to address the problem of "equal educational opportunity" 
in the State of Connecticut. The defendant board adopted draft 
guidelines in December of 1984, which culminated in the adoption in 
May of 1986, of a formal Education Policy Statement and Guidelines 
by the state board. The Guidelines called for a state system of 
public schools under which "no group of students will demonstrate 
systematically different achievement based upon the differences -- 
such as residence or race or sex -- that its members brought with 
them when they entered school." The Guidelines explicitly 
recognized "the benefits of residential and economic integration in 
[Connecticut] as important to the quality of education and personal 
growth for all students in Connecticut." (Defs’ Rev. Answer 160) 

421. In 1985, the "Advisory Committee to Study the State’s 
Racial Imbalance Law and Regulations" urged the State Board of 
Education "to declare that racially segregated schools are a barrier 
to quality and equality of opportunity in education.” The 
Committee called for increased payments for interdistrict plans, 
magnet schools, and educational parks, and endorsed the Cambridge 
controlled choice approach, a combination of voluntary and mandatory 
student assignment. (Pls’ Ex. 42 at 1) 

422. In 1986, the Committee acknowledged the "strong inverse 
relationship between racial imbalance and quality education in 
Connecticut’s public schools" (Pls’ Ex. 42 at 1). 

423. In January 1988, the Committee on Racial Equity of the 
Connecticut Department of Education presented its Report on 
Racial/Ethnic Equity and Desegregation in Connecticut’s Public 
Schools.  (Pls’ Ex. 50) 

  

  

  

424. The January 1988 report was commonly referred to as the 
"Tirozzi Report," after then-commissioner, and defendant, Gerald 
Tirozzi (hereinafter "Tirozzi I"). (Pls’ Ex. 50) 

425. In the Tirozzi I report, defendants admitted that 
"segregation is educationally, morally, and legally wrong." (Pls’ 
Bx. 50 atl) 

426. The report also informed the defendant Board that    



    

Many minority children are forced by factors related to 
economic development, housing, zoning, and transportation 
to live in poor urban communities where resources are 
limited. They often have available to them fewer 
educational opportunities. Of equal significance is the 
fact that separation means that neither they nor their 
counterparts in the more affluent suburban school 
districts have the chance to learn to interact with each 
other, as they will inevitably have to do as adults living 
and working in a multi-cultural society. Such interaction 
is a most important element of quality education. 

Report at 7. (Defs’ Rev. Answer 162) 

427. The Tirozzi I report documented the increasing 
segregation, and poverty concentration in Connecticut schools, and 
the growing numbers of minority students throughout the state. 
(Pls’ Ex. 30 at 1-7) 

428. Defendants admitted in 1988 that "Connecticut's efforts 
to date have not been able to provide the state’s minorities with an 
integrated environment that fully nurtures learning, and predicted 
that segregation would continue to increase without appropriate 
action. (Pls’ Ex. 50 at 8, 10) 

429. Defendants have been aware of a variety of desegregation 
techniques that could have been used to expand school integration. 
(Pls’ Ex. 50 at 8-10) 

430. The Tirozzi I report recommended a desegregation strategy 
for the Hartford region based on the 22 towns in the plaintiffs’ 
complaint plus a portion of a regional school district in 
Burlington, which is not included in plaintiffs’ complaint. (Pls’ 
Ex. 50 at 16) 

431. The Tirozzi I report is a clear acknowledgment of the 
pressing need for mandatory interdistrict school integration, and an 
admission that meaningful desegregation may not be achieved solely 
through voluntary cooperation of local districts. {Gordon II p. 11) 

432. The Hartford district stated in a 1988 report to the 
state, "[a]s long as the boundaries of the attendance district of 
the Hartford schools [are] coterminous with the boundaries of the 
city, no meaningful numerical balance can be achieved, and it would 
be an exercise in futility to develop proposals to seek racial 
balance" (Pls’ Ex. 53 at 6). 

433. For over five years, the state has acknowledged the 
deficiencies in inner city bilingual programs, but has failed to 
implement its own recommendations. (Marichal pp. 33-34)    



    

434. In March, 1987, the Bilingual Education Legislation 
‘Review Task Force issued a report which included 52 recommendations 
in six areas. (Pls’ Ex. 48) The state has not implemented some of 
the most important recommendations including those in the area of 
funding, certification, evaluation. (Marichal pp. 33-34) 

435. A Bilingual Education Program Evaluation Report issued by 
the Connecticut State Department of Education in March, 1939, 
acknowledged that additional state funds were crucially needed in 
bilingual education programs for staffing, teacher training, program 
evaluation, and curriculum development if programs were to "operate 
effectively." (Pls’ Ex. 442 p. 52) 

436. In 1992, another report, "Connecticut’s Limited-English- 
Proficient Students: A Neglected Resource" (Pls’ Ex. 86), detailed 
continuing state failure to address the needs of bilingual students. 
Among the problems identified were: 

a. Almost 2,400 bilingual students (15%) were not even in 
programs; 

b. There was no special provision in the state statutes to 
protect the rights of LEP students; 

Col There was no state funding to school districts for 
providing language assistance programs to LEP students: 

; d. Preservice training was not required for teachers in the 
bilingual programs; 

e. No in-service training or course work was required; 

f. The cultural and linguistics wealth of LEP students was not 
being recognized and was infrequently included in districtwide 
curricula; 

g. LEP students did not always have the access to supplemental 
services or programs that English-proficient students had; : 

h. There was reduced state funding available for bilingual 
programs; 

i. The State failed to conduct the required annual evaluations 
of the bilingual program. 

  

(Pls’ Ex. 86 at 2-3, 12, 14). See also Pls’ Ex. 440. 

437. In 1992, the State Department of Education failed to 
follow the recommendation to develop a Spanish version of the 
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT). (Defs’ Ex. 12.24 at 31)    



    

438. The State Board of Education voted to adopt the 
‘recommendations in this report (Pls’ Ex. 86). 

439. On September 20, 1989, Governor William A. O’Neill 
announced the establishment of the Governor’s Commission on Quality 
and Integrated Education. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 35; Pls’ Ex. 77 at 8) 

440. On December 31, 1990, the co-chairs delivered the report 
tO Governor O'Neill. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 42) 

441. In their report to the Governor, the Commission co-chairs 
indicated that Commission members "feel a sense of urgency to reduce 
racial and economic isolation, a problem the enormity of which grows 
alarmingly with every passing moment." (Pls’ Ex. 73) 

442. The Governor’s Commission was not empowered to recommend 
any mandatory solutions (Gordon II p. 75; Pls’ Ex. 66a; Carter p. 
38). 

443. A number of members of the Governor’s Commission were of 
the opinion that voluntary approaches are unlikely to be adequate 
and have sought to have the report include mandates. (Pls’ Ex. 73) 

444, In 1990, the Governor’s Commission on Quality and 
Integrated Education Reported that "when social class and income 
levels compound the factors of racial or ethnic difference, a bleak 
picture of inequity emerges. Most poor children live far away from 
rich children, and all too many of Connecticut’s African-American, 
Hispanic, and recent immigrant children are poor. They are 
separated because of the inextricable relationship that generally 
exists in our society between race and family wealth." (Pls’ Ex. 
73, at 3) 

445. The Governor's Commission concluded that "a quality and 
integrated education should expose students to an integrated student 
body and faculty and a curriculum that reflects the heritage of many 
cultures. It should also provide all students with equal 
opportunities to learn and to achieve equal educational outcomes." 
{Pis’ Bx, 73, at:3) 

446. The Commission stated that a student’s achievement should 
not be affected by "such irrelevant factors as race, ethnicity, 
gender, residence, and wealth." (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 19) 

447. The defendant State Board of Education specifically voted 
to "support" the final report of the Governor’s Commission on 
Quality and Integrated Education and directed the Commissioner "to 
take the necessary action in response to the recommendations 
included in the report." (Pls’ Ex. 75)    



  
    

448. The Commission’s recommendations included creation of a 
‘new Interdistrict Transfers Grant Program based on Project Concern, 
but accommodating two-way transfers. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 14) 

443. The Commission’s recommendations also included a separate 
interdistrict grant to underwrite tuition and transportation aids 
and set a target for increased student participation in Project 
Concern each year beginning with the fiscal year 1992-93. {Pls’ Ex. 
73, at 14) 

450. The Commission also recommended expansion of the 
Interdistrict Cooperative Grant. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 15) 

451. A number of other interdistrict recommendations were 
included in the Governor’s Commission Report. (Pls’ Ex. 733 

452. Defendants have accepted "responsibility...to move ahead 
-..to pursue the [Governor's] Commission’s recommendations and the 
resources that will be required to implement them." (Pls’ Ex. 77 at 
73) 

453. The Governor's Commission recommended a goal for each 
school district to attain an integrated faculty. To achieve this, 
the Commission urged Connecticut to (2) increase the number of 
minorities graduating from teacher preparation programs in the 
state; (b) recruit minority teachers from out-of-state; (c) retain 
minority teachers in the profession; and (d) regionalize the 
recruitment and retention of minority teachers. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 
26) 

454. The ultimate recommendations of the Commission were not 
sufficient to address the problems of racial isolation in the 
Hartford area (Gordon II p. 77). 

455. No significant progress has been made on any of the 
Governor's Commission recommendations (Gordon II p. 77; Carter p. 
29, 41, 558; Williams pp. 122-124). 

456. In a 1992 report, the Connecticut Association of Boards 
of Education and The Connecticut Association of Public School 
Superintendents urged that "Connecticut must come to grips with the 
racial and economic segregation which is reflected in its 
municipalities and school systems. There really are two 
Connecticuts and the needs of children in urban areas are all the 
more immediate and severe because of the isolation which exists." 
(Pls' Ex. 81 at 10) 

  

 



  
    

TY 

5. Defendants’ Existing Interdistrict Programs Are Inadequate 
to Address the Inequities. 
  

  

457. The state’s limited interdistrict grant program does not 
effectively address the racial and ethnic isolation and poverty 
concentration of the Hartford school system (Williams pp. 94-97, 
119-121; Allison, pp. 29-30, 36-54; Carroll, Pp. 17-19, 21-22 30, 
41-42). 

458. Only two small interdistrict education programs, other 
than Project Concern, exist to serve Hartford students during the 
school year (Pls’ Exs. 325-333; Williams p. 101). 

459. The "Building Blocks" Montessori program, although 
planned for 200, has attracted only 35, 20 of whom are from Hartford 
(Pis’ Ex. 518; Williams p. 115). 

460. The Greater Hartford Academy of the Performing Arts, a 
half-day program, has only 43 Hartford students participating (Pls. 
Ex. 516; Williams p. 116; Forman pp. 44-47). 

461. Inclusive of Project Concern, only 838 of 26,000 
students, or 3.26% of the entire Hartford student body, participates 
in any interdistrict program (Williams p. 113). 

462. Project Concern was established in 1966 as a result of 
the Harvard Study, with one of its major goals to "desegregate the 
schools" (Carroll p. 6; Pls’ Ex. 373). 

463. Project Concern has continued to suffer from severe 
cutbacks for the last ten years. (Carroll p. 10) 

464. Project Concern enrollment is at its lowest in fifteen 
years in numbers of participating students, and number of 
participating districts, (Pls’ Ex. 368; Carroll pp. 9-11). 

465. Project Concern enrollment reached an all-time high in 
1978 at 1,175 (Carroll p. 10). It is now only 680 students (Carroll 
Pp. 11). 

466. Reductions in staff and transportation have further 
impeded both the goals of the Project Concern program and its 
expansion (Carroll pp. 17-19; 22). 

467. Outreach efforts into the Latino community to increase 
the 8% Latino participation rate in Project Concern have been 
thwarted due to lack of adequate staff (Carroll pp. 17-18). 

  

 



  
    

“Bly 

468. Significant populations such as special education 
‘Students and bilingual students continue to be excluded from Project 
Concern (Carroll pp. 18; 33). 

469. Project Concern has not provided enough of a critical 
mass of minority students in the suburban schools to alleviate their 
racial isolation (Carroll p. 30). 

470. Public Act 93-263 includes no commitment of state monies 
to fund any plans. 

471. Public Act 93-263 contains no provisions requiring racial 
goals or goals relating to deconcentration of poverty within a 
school, school system, or region; no provisions requiring housing 
integration measures, and no guaranteed funding for educational 
enhancements for the city schools. 

472. Under P.A. 93-263, if a regional plan passes, there are 
no mandates requiring implementation of a plan at the conclusion of 
the process. 

473. Any town can refuse to participate in the plan under P.A. 
93-263, without sanctions. (House Proceedings, May 27, 1993, Rep. 
Wyman, pp. 349, 351) 

474. A plan, even if approved, is funded only after a 
competitive grant process. (C.G.S. §10-264e) 

475. An amendment to Public Act 93-263 was introduced on 
behalf of the Black and Puerto Rican caucus of the legislature which 
would have addressed some of the inadequacies of the 1993 law but 
the amendment was subsequently withdrawn. See LCO No. 8193 
Amendment by Rep. Hyslop. 

6. The State Has Defined the Concepts of Equal Educational 
Opportunity and Minimally Adequate Education and Has Failed 
  

  

to Comply with Its Own Definitions. 
  

476. Under various state guidelines, Hartford students are not 
receiving an equal educational opportunity. (Natriello II p. 43, 
63, 66; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 247, 266) 

477. In 1984, the State Board of Education set out the first 
official definition of the state’s obligation to provide equal 
educational opportunity. In "Guidelines for Equal Educational 
Opportunity" (Pls’ Ex. 39, adopted October 3, 1984), the Board 
defined equal educational opportunity as "the right of every 
Connecticut child to be provided with the educational experiences 
necessary to ensure that his or her intellectual ability and special 
talents are developed to the fullest." In the Guidelines, the Board   
 



  
    

stated that "equity...does not mean an equal distribution of 
‘resources; rather, it implies that those who need more must receive 
more". 

478. In 1986, the State Board of Education refined its 
definition of equal educational opportunity, in its "Policy 
Statement on Equal Educational Opportunity" (Pls’ Ex. 43, adopted 
May 7, 1986): 

"Equal educational opportunity" means 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. 

This goal will require resource allocations based upon 
individual student needs and sufficient resources to 
provide each child with opportunities for developing his 
or her intellectual abilities and special talents to the 
fullest. 

Evidence of equal educational opportunity is the 
participation of each student in programs appropriate to 
his or her needs and the achievement by each of the 
state's student sub-populations (as defined by such 
factors as wealth, race, sex or residence) of educational 
outcomes at least equal to that of the state’s student 
population as a whole. 

%* * * * * 

While equal educational opportunity is a dynamic concept, 
certain elements emerge as critically important to schools 
and students. Access to educational opportunities, staff 
and material resources, program offerings, assessment of 
student outcomes, remedial education and funding are major 
elements of equal educational opportunity, elements that 
must interact in systematic ways. In a broad sense, 
progress in...equal educational opportunity can be 
measured by the reduction of inter-district, intra- 
district and inter-pupil disparities in educational 
opportunities as defined by these six elements. 

(Pls’' Ex. 43 ar 1Y. 

479. In its 1986 "Policy Statement," the State Board also 
recognized the importance of racial integration [in Connecticut'’s 
schools], as important to the quality of education and personal 
growth for all students in Connecticut. (Pls’ Ex. 43 at 1).   
 



    

: 480. The Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated 
‘Education also concluded that "a quality education requires an 
integrated student body and faculty and a curriculum that reflects 
the heritage of many cultures" (Pls’ Ex. 73 at 11; Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
249) 

481. Former Commissioner Gerald Tirozzi admitted that children 
in Hartford are not receiving equal educational opportunity, based 
on the state's definition. (Pls’ Ex. 494 at 89) 

482. Former Commissioner Ferrandino agreed that Hartford 
students’ performance was substantially below that of schoolchildren 
in the suburban districts on several measures of educational 
achievement (Pls’ Ex. 493 at 136-137), and that the state is making 
insufficient efforts to address the racial and economic isolation of 
the school children in Hartford. (Pls’ Ex. 493 p. 84) 

483. Dr. Elliott Williams, Chief of the Office of Urban and 
Priority School Districts for the State Department of Education, 
admitted that Hartford’s schoolchildren are not receiving an equal 
educational opportunity. (Williams pp. 86, 88-89) 

484. Defendant John Mannix, former Chairperson of the State 
Board of Education, admitted that it is "generally accepted on the 
State Board of Education" that a "suitable education experience" and 
an "equal educational opportunity" are not now provided to 
Hartford's students nor have they been for "a number of years." 
Pls’ Ex. 495, pp. 33-34. 

485. Most other witnesses agreed that students in Hartford are 
not receiving an equal educational opportunity (Natriello II pp. 43, 
50, 52) (Cloud p. 105; Noel p. 46; LaFontaine pp. 146, 151; Carter 
pp. 18, 22-25; Hernandez p. 49; Montanez p. 28; Davis p. 89; Pitocco 
p. 84) 

486. An adequate education can be defined as one that "help[s] 
to prepare students to participate in adult society" by making them 
"productive members of the work force, the labor sector, and 
- participants in the civic processes of the society" (Natriello II 
p. 64). 

487. The Common Core of Learning (Pls’ Ex. 45) is a "series of 
expectations" representing "what we expect a citizen should know" 
{(Pls' Ex. 494 at ‘83, 82). 

488. The Common Core of Learning forms the basis for the 
mastery testing program (Pls’ Ex. 493 at 38). 

489. The Common Core of Learning was officially adopted on 
January 7, 1989 as the State Board’s "standard of an educated    



  
    

SE 

citizen" and its "policy on the skills, knowledge, and attitudes 
that are expected of Connecticut’s public secondary school 
graduates" (Pls’ Ex. 45). 

490. Former Commissioner Tirozzi agreed that, based on the 
mastery test data, Hartford students are not receiving a minimally 
adequate education. (Pls’ Ex. 494 at 90) 

491. Hartford is not providing a minimally adequate education 
for its bilingual education students (Marichal p. 35). 

492. Hartford students are not receiving a minimally adequate 
education. (Natriello II p. 65) 

VI. STEPS TOWARD INTEGRATION 

493. A court-ordered planning process to address the specific 
components of a remedy is common in desegregation cases. (Gordon 
IIT at 24-29; Orfield at 44-47) 

494. A desegregation plan will not work unless it has "teeth" 
in it. (Gordon II at 84, 125-125) 

435. Any plan designed to remedy conditions of segregated and 
unequal education in the Hartford area must be "metropolitan wide" 
to be effective. (Orfield p. 32, 33; Willie pp. 41, 42, 49; Gordon 
11-p. "14; Pls’ Ex.-82 p. 8) Sin AE % 

496. An intradistrict approach is not enough to achieve the 
elimination of racial, ethnic, and economic isolation. (Defs’ Br. 
P. 13) 

497. Defendants agree with the need for a multi-district 
solution. (Pls’ Ex. 493, Ferrandino Dep., pp. 85,:151, 165; Pils’ 
Ex. 494, Tirozzi Dep., p. 144; Pls’ Ex. 323, Mannix Dep., pp. 32-33; 
Mannix Dep. p. 25; Pls’ Ex. 506, p. 60; Pls’ Ex. 73, Pp. 3;.Pls’ Bx. 
506; Margolin Dep. p. 60) 

498. Stability as well as academic improvement have been 
achieved with metropolitan desegregation plans in other areas of the 
country (Orfield I pp. 46-48; Orfield II pp. 142-43). 

439. Relying solely on voluntary participation by educational 
authorities in planning for desegregation will not work; 
participation by local districts must be required. (Gordon II p. 
125; Orfield at 33) 

500. Only one major city in the nation has adopted a 
desegregation plan without a court order. (Orfield at 31)   
 



  
    

- 84. 

501. Reduction of racial segregation and poverty concentration 
1s one of the primary goals to be accomplished in a remedial plan. 
See, Pls’ Ex. 494, Tirozzi Dep., p. 55; Pls’ Ex. 493, Ferrandino 
Dep., p. 139. See Calvert pp. 62-63. 

502. The plan must contain numerical goals to reduce the 
concentration of poor students in individual schools. (Gordon II p. 
84; Orfield I pp. 30, 35, 43, 55; Willie at 22-23; Kennedy p. 42; 
Slavin p. 29; Haig p. 66-67) 

503. School desegregation plans must contain racial goals to 
measure the accomplishment of racial balance. (Gordon II p. 149; 
Orfield I p. 30; Green v. New Xent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968); 
Connecticut Racial Imbalance Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-226Db) 
  

504. Each school’s student population should reflect the 
racial ratios of the students in its region. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 133 

505. An educational equity plan should address issues of 
student assignment, faculty and staff assignment, curriculum, 
transportation, extracurricular activities and school facilities to 
accomplish the ultimate goal of the elimination of racial 
identifiability in every school (Gordon II p. 149). 

506. Effective schools can make a difference in the 
educational outcomes of children regardless of their socioeconomic 
background. (Orfield I, p. 138). See Pls’ Ex. 493, Ferrandino 
Dep., pp. 50-51, 131, 148; Pls’ Ex. 494, Tirozzi Pep., Dp. 91; 
Williams at 31, 83; Pls’ Ex. 508, p. 59; Pils’ Ex. 73, Finding #3, p. 
11. 

507. Expenditure of additional funds on schools with high 
concentrations of poverty has positive effects on student 
performance. (Kennedy at 57) 

508. Defendants Ferrandino and Tirozzi both support 
controlled-choice plans. (Pls! Ex, 493, p. 51; Pls’ Ex. 494, p. 
38). 

503. A subcommittee of the Governor's Commission, in its 
report entitled "Critical Components of Integration Plans," 
advocated two-way student transfers, available at all grade levels. 
Pls’ Ex. 66g. 

510. Every educator must be trained to teach both a diverse 
student population and a curriculum that incorporates and honors the 
diverse cultural and racial heritages. (Pls’ Ex. 73, at 11; Orfield 
I pp. 31-32, 37)   
 



  
    

= BS 

511. Teachers and administrators must be knowledgeable about 
‘issues relating to Puerto Rican culture and heritage and the 
implications of the combination of poverty and ethnicity into the 
classroom. (Pls’ Ex. 73 p. 24; Morales at 51) 

512. Connecticut must increase the number of minorities 
graduating from teacher preparation programs in the State of 
connecticut. (Pls’ Ex. 78) 

513. The curriculum in desegregated schools must be adapted to 
adequately address the diversity -- racially, ethnically and socio- 
economically -- of the students in the Hartford metropolitan region. 
(Gordon II p. 113) 

514. Special education, gifted, advanced placement, academic 
and vocational offerings must be designed so that no racial or 
economic group is discriminated against. (Gordon II p. 113) 

515. There must be careful planning in order to insure the 
continued provision of bilingual education in desegregated schools. 
(Marichal p. 36) 

516. A critical mass of bilingual students are needed in a 
particular school so as not to create too much’ dispersement. 
{Marichal p. 35) 

517. Two-way bilingual programs are often effective. 
(Marichal p. 36) 

518. A metropolitan education plan should include two-way 
transfers at every grade level with effective and equitable 
transportation. (Orfield I p. 38; Pls’ Ex. 66g) 

519. A metropolitan education plan must include educational 
enhancements for Hartford schools (Gordon II p. 113; Orfield YX pp. 
51-53; Haig p. 66). 

520. Educational enhancements are defined as programs which 
set a minimum floor for achievement of every child and which improve 
the overall achievement of all children. (Slavin PP. 13-14) 

521. Defendants concur with the necessity of including 
educational enhancements as a part of any remedy. (Pls’ Ex. 493; 
Ferrandino Dep. p. 153; Pls’ Ex. 506 p. 63) 

522. A one-to-one early intervention tutoring program such as 
"Success for All" could be easily and quickly replicated in Hartford 
(Slavin pp. 37-38).   
 



  

      

"58g 

523. Early intervention for developmentally delayed children 
and children from low-income families is generally recognized to be 
beneficial. (Pls’ Ex. 77 at 2) 

524. Preschool preparation assists in enriching a child’s 
cognitive, social, emotional and health development, and gives poor 
children a chance at an even start when they enter school. (Pls’ 
Ex. 77 at 2) 

525. When compared to children from low-income families who 
did not attend high-quality early intervention programs, 
participants from quality early childhood education programs have 
greater school success (e.g., better grades, less need for special 
education services), increased future employability, decreased need 
for public welfare assistance, and decreased criminal activity later 
in life.’ "(Pls’ Ex. 79 at 1) 

526. Drop-out prevention programs, and Upward Bound programs 
are examples of the types of programs which could be used in upper 
grades. ~ (Orfield I p. 52) 

527. Specific educational enhancements cited with approval by 
Commissioner Ferrandino include family resource centers (Pls’ Ex. 
433, p. 90), summer school programs (Id. at 112), and preschool 
programs for at-risk students (Id. at 124). 

528. Educational enhancements recommended by the Governor's 
Commission include summer school programs (Pls’ Ex. 73, p. 15), 
preschool programs (id. at 16, 20), school breakfast and lunch 
programs (id. at 20), and technological innovations such as computer 
networking, interactive television, and long distance learning (id. 
at 18). 

529. Educational enhancements alone cannot achieve positive 
results. They must be implemented in combination with a plan to 
reduce racial and economic isolation (Slavin pp. 37-38). 

530. A metropolitan plan should include upgrading the physical 
facilities and curricula in inner city schools (Willie pp. 48, 49). 

531. Housing, economic development, transportation and labor 
all impact segregation and all have roles to play in fostering 
integration. (Pls’ Ex. 78) 

532. The health needs of students should be considered in a 
metropolitan education plan (Orfield I p. 54). 

533. Housing initiatives should be included as part of the 
remedy. ee Pls’ Ex. 494; Tirozzi Dep. p. 34; Tirozzi Dep. pp. 14, 

  

 



  
    

-iB7 - 

39-40, 49-50, 135; Pls’ Ex. 493; Ferrandino Dep. DP. 161; Pls’ Ex. 
495; Mannix Dep. p. 22. 

534. Commissioner Ferrandino expressed support for providing 
low income rental certificates for Project Concern families as a 
means of promoting integration. (Pls’ Ex. 493 p. 161). 

535. The Governor's Commission stressed the need for housing 
integration initiatives to help solve the problems of school 
segregation by recognizing the link between racial and ethnic 
isolation and housing patterns, finding "a significant relationship 
between the concentration of minority students and the occurrence of 
publicly assisted housing" (Pls’ Ex. 73 at 5), and concluding that 
"affordable housing could help integrate schools in the outer 
suburbs and rural communities where interdistrict programs with 
urban schools now present long-distance transportation problems." 
(Pls’ Ex. 73 at 5) 

536. The need for integrated school construction has been 
acknowledged by defendants, see Pls’ Ex. 494, Tirozzi Dep., pp. 159- 
60; Ferrandino Dep., pp. 42-44; see Margolin Dep., Pp. 60. 

537. A court-ordered planning process to address the specific 
components of a remedy is common in desegregation cases. See Gordon 
111, pp. 24-29; Orfield I, pp. 44-47. 

538. Past experiences with interdistrict school desegregation 
demonstrate that a court-ordered planning process can successfully 
define the interests of all parties and lead to successful results. 
(Gordon III p. 24) 

5339. For the planning process to succeed, the court must set 
firm timetables (Orfield I p. 44; Gordon I p. 85). 

540. In order to insure that the plan is successful, it is 
important to have a group of experts, independent of the school 
authorities, assess the plan and report directly to the Court and 
the parties (Orfield I pp. 50-51; Pls’ Ex. 455). 

541. Some courts have chosen to appoint a panel of experts to 
design a desegregation plan. Bradley v. Milliken, 345 F. Supp. 914, 
916-17 (E.D. Mich. 1972), Board of Education v. Dowell, 375 F.2d 158 
{10th Cir. 1967). 

  

  

542. Other courts have ordered the submission of plans by both 
parties at the outset, with a remedial hearing to follow. Armstrong 
Y. D'connell, 463 FP. Supp. 1293, 1310 (B.D. Wis. 1979); Evans v. 
Buchanan, 379 F. Supp. 1218, 1224 (D. Del. 1974); Bradley v. 

  

  

  

Milliken, 345 F. Supp. 914 (E.D. Mich. 1972); Conley v. Lake Charles 
Sch. Bd, 303 F. Supp. 394, 399 (W.D. La. 1959)   
 



  

«i508 

543. Still others require defendants, in the first instance, 
to devise a specific and detailed plan within a short period of 
‘time. Davis v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 498 F. Supp. 580, 
588 (M.D. La. 1980) (45 days); Penick v. Columbus Bd. of Educ., 429 
F. Supp. 229, 267-68 (S.D. Ohio 1977) (90 days); Alvarado v. El Paso 
Independent School District, 426 F. Supp. 575, 613-14 (W.D, Tex. 
1976) (3 months); Quality Education for All Children, Inc. v. School 
Board, 362 F. Supp. 985, 1002-03 (N.D. Ill. 1973) (6 months). 

  

  

  

  

  

S544. As an alternative to requiring the submission of plans by 
the parties, some courts have appointed a special master to design 
a plan. See Hart v. Community School Board, 383 F. Supp. 699, 762- 
67 (E.D.N.Y. 1974); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of 
Education, 306 F. Supp. 1291, 1313 (W.D.N.C. 1969); Reed v. Rhodes, 
422 7, Supp. 708, 797 (N.D. Ohio 1976). 

  

  

  

  

545. The educational components of a plan must be carefully 
monitored to insure that academic progress is actually being 
achieved (Orfield I p. 50). 

546. The state’s financial hard times are responsible for the 
fact that more money has not been appropriated to the interdistrict 
cooperative grant program. (Defs’ Br. p. 13) 

547. A metropolitan education plan could be developed in three 
to six months (Willie p. 47; Gordon II p. 157; Orfield I p. 61). 

VII. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE NOT REBUTTED BY DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCES 

548. The defendants have failed to demonstrate their 
contention that the individual socioeconomic status explains 
virtually all of the difference in academic achievement between 
Hartford and its suburban school districts. (Defs’ Proposed 
Findings 27, 29) 

a. Dr. Armor’s paper was not publishable, because the data is 
inadequate and the methodology not rigorous. (Crain II at 73) 

b. Dr. Armor’s conclusions about the impact of the 
socioeconomic status of students on their achievement is based on a 
mathematical formula that factored in but did not control for the 
impact of the concentration of poverty in the schools. (Armor I at 
142, 154; Crain at 60) 

      6 By the selection of particular points to be included in this 
section, the plaintiffs do not concede that any claims not mentioned 
in this section are rebutted by the defendants. 

  

 



    

Cc. Some of the variables Dr. Armor used in his study to 
represent individual socioeconomic status -- such as the percentage 
of single parent families and the levels of education and income in 
a@ community -- are actually indicators of the concentration of 
poverty. (Armor I at 155) 

d. Contrary to Dr. Armor’s conclusion attributing differences 
in educational achievement to individual socioeconomic status, his 
study of the differences in educational achievement between Hartford 
and the suburbs measures, in part, the effects of the concentration 
of poverty and the quality of the school program. (Crain at 67) 

e. Dr. Armor acknowledged that a community level measure of 
poverty could have a greater effect than an individual measure of 
socioeconomic status. (Armor pp. 159-60) 

£. In fact, defendants’ lead counsel at trial, John Whelan, 
admitted on the record that "Dr. Armor did no analysis nor did he 
testify about the effects of poverty concentration." {Orfield II at 
152) 

g. In rebuttal to Dr. Armor’s testimony and research, 
Professor Gary Orfield from the Hartford Graduate School of 
Education, bluntly characterized the views as "preposterous and 
deeply offensive” that public education has no effect on a child’s 
learning achievement and everything is determined by the wealth and 
education of the child’s parents. Professor Orfield found Dr. 
Armor’s position "stunning...both in terms of social science and in 
terms of the whole tradition of public education in this country.” 
(Orfield II at 115-16) 

549. Defendants have failed to demonstrate their contentions 
that "changes in the demographic composition of Hartford and the 21 
surrounding suburban towns have occurred because of individuals’ 
choices about their residences," and "the state has not taken any 
action which would encourage any individuals to choose any racially 
imbalanced residential settings," in that: 

a. defendants’ counsel at trial correctly stated that 
"defendants put on no testimony in their defense on the issue of 
housing." (Orfield II at 152) 

b. defendants’ reliance on Steahr’s testimony mischaracterizes 
his testimony in which he merely refers to the geographic clustering 
of certain ethnic groups in the state. (Steahr at 67) 

€. Dr. Armor’s brief testimony on personal preferences does 
not support defendants’ claimed findings, and it was based on 
exhibits that were explicitly not offered to on the issue of the 
state contribution to housing segregation. (Armor I at 129, 131)    



  
    

- 50 = 

Accordingly, plaintiffs were not permitted to provide full rebuttal 
‘testimony on this point. (Orfield II at 148-152) 

550. Defendants’ proposed finding number 1 that Connecticut 
has been a leader in public education misstates Professor Collier’s 
testimony, in which in fact he stated that during the nineteenth 
century, Connecticut was a leader in terms of its high literacy 
rate... {Collier p. 23) 

551. The defendants have failed to demonstrate that 
Connecticut has been a leader in affording equal educational 
opportunity to public school students in Hartford. To the contrary, 
the evidence has shown that Connecticut has been aware of the harms 
of racial, ethnic, and economic isolation in the schools, and the 
serious inequities facing city schoolchildren, and it has failed to 
take action to address the problem. (See Plaintiffs’ Proposed 
Findings of Fact, Sections II, III, IV, V) 

Respectfully Submitted, 

BY: NM ce b I Ci Sha 

Martha Stone #61506 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 
32 Grand Street 
Bartford, C7 06106 
(203) 247-9823 

  

    BY: 
John/ Brittain 
  

  

#101153 
University of Connecticut 

// School of Law 
V 65 Elizabeth Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 
(203) 241-4664 

  

 



  
    

- Bim 

) 

/ 

; : : hi . td jC —— 

BY: “AA AT 
Wesley W. Horton #38478 
Moller, Horton & Shields, P.C. 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
(203) 522-8338 

  

BY: LG hi 
Philip D. Tegeler #102537 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 
(203) 247-9823 

  

Theodore Shaw 
Dennis Parker 
Marianne Lado 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

Sandra Del Valle 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

Christopher Hansen 
American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 
(212) 944-9800 

Wilfred Rodriguez #302827 
Hispanic Advocacy Project 
Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Bartford, CT 06112 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

  

 



  
    

“PED - 

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 
  

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed 

postage prepaid to Bernard McGovern, Martha Watts Prestley, 

Assistant Attorney Generals, MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman Street, 

Hartford, CT 06105, (203) 566-7173 this LC day of June, 1995. 

FA Fe Sia. 
  

Martha Stone 

  

 



 
 

APPENDIX 

 
 
 
 

 



  

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESS TESTIMONY 

PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESSES 

NAME DATE PAGES 

John Allison January 7 2-111 
(Executive Director, 
Capital Region Education 
Council) 

Jean Anderson December 23 107-135 
(Teacher, Betances School) 

JoMills Braddock December 22 5-118 
(Professor of Sociology, 
University of Miami) 

Mary Carroll January 15 3-76 
(Director, 
Project Concern) 

Don Carso December 17 79-151 
(Principal, 
McDonough School) 

David Carter December 16 2-59 
(President, Eastern 
Connecticut State 
University) 

Diane Cloud January 15 79-123 
(Teacher, Milner School) 

Christopher Collier January 14 2-80 
(Connecticut State 
Historian) 

Al       
 



* » | 

  

Dr. Robert Crain I January 5 4-170 | 
II February 26 6-113 | 

(Professor of Sociology 
and Education, Teachers 
College, Columbia | 
University) 

Eddie Davis December 21 67-111 
(Principal, Weaver High 
School) 

Alice Dickens December 18 148-166 
(Assistant Superintendent, 
Hartford Public Schools) 

Clara Dudley January 14 117-147 
(Teacher, Hopewell School, 
Glastonbury) 

Jeff Forman January 27 5-97 
(Senior Assistant to the 
Superintendent, Hartford 
Public Schools) 

.Badi Foster hh Fo “January 27 7 - 112-181 
(former Vice President for 
Targeted Selection and 
Development, AETNA) 

William Gordon I ~~ January 7 112-162 
IX January 8 3-168 
III February 25 17-94 

(Professor of Educational 
Leadership, Wayne State 
University) 

Yvonne Griffin January 14 81-116 
(Teacher, Hartford High 
School) 

A2       
 



  
    

Josiah Haig 
(Superintendent, Hartford 
Public Schools) 

‘Gladys Hernandez 
(Teacher, Barnard-Brown 
School) 

Mary Kennedy 
(Professor and Director, 
National Center for 
Research on Teacher 
Learning) 

Cathy Kennelly 
(Director of Financial 
Management, Hartford 
Public Schools) 

Hernan Lafontaine I 
II 

(Former Superintendent, 
Hartford Public Schools) 

Eugene Leach : 
(Plaintiff Parent) 

Adnelly Marichal 
(Coordinator of Bilingual 
Education, Hartford : 
Public Schools) 

Richie Montanez 
(Principal, Hooker School) 

Julio Morales 

(Professor, UConn School 
of Social Work) 

January 20 

December 21 

January 12 

December 18 

December 22 
January 12 

January 27 

January 22 

December 23 

January 20 

A3 

57-135 

32-65 

2-111 

55-112 

120-180 
111-148 

98-110 

4-56 

  

 



  
    

Freddie Morris 
(Principal, Wish School) 

-Gary Natriello I 
: 
III 

(Associate Professor of 
Sociology and Education, 
Teachers College, Columbia 
University) 

Edna Negron I 
IX 

(Principal, Betances 
School) 

Norma Neuman-Johnson I 
11 

(Teacher, McDonough School) 

Brad Noel 
(Former Guidance 
Counselor, Weaver 
High School) 

Gary Orfield I 
3 

(Professor of Political 

Science, Harvard University, 
Graduate School of Education) 

Virginia Pertillar 
(Plaintiff Parent) 

Robert Pitocco 

(Principal, Suffield 
High School; Former 
Assistant Principal, 
Newington and Weaver 
High Schools) 

December 23 

December 30 
December 31 
January 6 

December 16 
December 17 

December 29 
December 30 

December 17 

January 28 
February 26 

January 22 

December 23 

A4 

136-161 

43-177 
5-69 
2-191 

60-83 
5-18 

153-163 
6-42 

19-78 

6-158 
114-170 

57-106 

  

 



    

Charlie Senteio 
(Deputy Superintendent, 
Hartford Public Schools) 

"John Shea 
(Assistant Superintendent, 
Hartford Public Schools) 

Elizabeth Sheff 
(Plaintiff Parent) 

Milo Sheff 
(Plaintiff) 

Robert Slavin 

(Principal Research 
Scientist and Co- 
Director, Early and 
Elementary Program, 
Johns Hopkins University) 

Dr. William Trent 
(Professor, Department 
of Educational Policy 
Studies, Johns Hopkins 
University) 

Dr. Charles Willie 
(Professor of Education 
and Urban Studies, 
Harvard University, 
Graduate School of 
Education) 

Mary Wilson 
(Administrator of 
Curriculum and Staff 
Development, Hartford 
Public Schools) 

December 18 

December 18 

January 6 

January 12 

January 21 

December 29 

January 13 

December 21 

113-145 

192-195 

148-151