Draft of March 1999 Testimony

    TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

DATE: 

NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THE COVER SHEET) 6 

COMMENTS: 

IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THE NUMBER OF PAGES INDICATED ABOVE, 

PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT 212\965-2200. 

  

FAX COVER SHEET 

John Brittain 860/570-5242 
Sandy DelValle 516/496-7934 
Juan Figueroa 212/431-4276 
Chris Hansen 212/549-2651 
Wes Horton 860/728-0401 
Marianne Engelman Lado 212/802-5968 
Willy Rodriguez 860/541-5050 
Martha Stone 860/570-5256 
Phil Teleger 860/728-0287 
Elizabeth Sheff 860/527-3305 

Dennis Parker 

Draft of March 1999 Testimony 

March 4, 1999 

PLEASE REVIEW AND LET ME KNOW YOUR COMMENTS BY 
  

TOMORROW, (FRIDAY, MARCH 5TH.) THANKS. 
  

 



      

Draft of March 1999 Testimony 

The Plaintiffs in Sheff v. O'Neill respectfully submit this statement to express their concern and   

frustration with the State of Connecticut's continuing failure to adequately address the unconstitutional 

racial and ethnic isolation in the Hartford metropolitan area. 

As you know, this week we received the most recent decision in Sheff v. O ‘Neill from the Superior 

Court. We are now studying the decision and considering our options. We want to be clear from the 

outset, however, that with all respect to the court, we vehemently disagree with the court’s conclusions. 

The court put stock in good faith and promises. The time for promises has long since past. We need 

results. Compliance with the Supreme Court requires that goals be defined and measures be identified that 

have a realistic chance of achieving those goals. 

As detailed in the record in this case, the children of Hartford have been waited long enough. As 

you know, as early as 1966 a team from Harvard made a series of recommendations to overcome the 

racial isolation of the Hartford schools. Since that time, there have been a plethora of statewide 

commissions, committees, forums, processes and panels devoted to the question. And there has been no 

shortage of ideas, some of which have been piloted now for years, even decades. The groundwork was 

laid before the Supreme Court decision in July, 1996. That decision, therefore, required more. As the 

Court stated nearly three years ago, "the system of public education in Hartford and the Hartford region 

deprives plaintiffs’ schoolchildren of the right to a substantially equal educational opportunity based on 

racial and ethnic isolation and segregation and exists in the Hartford Public Schools and among school 

districts in the Hartford region." Noting both the severity of the constitutional violation and the decades- 

long history of repeated studies and ineffective programs, the Supreme Court issued a clear and 

unequivocal directive to the State defendants to "put the search for appropriate remedial measures at the 

top of the respective agendas" and insisted that this be done "in time to make a difference before another 

generation of children suffers the consequences of a segregated Public School education." Hopeful that 

MAR B4 *99 13:38 LDF PAGE. B2 

  

o Dennis D. Parker LDF Fax: 914-941-2855 Voice: 914-941-2855 To: Diane Simmons at: NAACP Legal @® Page 2 of 6 Thursday, March 04, 1999 2:22:41



    

@® Dennis D. Parker LDF Fax: 914-941-2855 Voice: 914-841-2855 To: Diane Simmons at: NAACP Legal "® Page 3 of 6 Thursday, March 04, 1999 2:23:29 

the Supreme Court's straightforward and unambiguous mandate would spur the State to take steps to deal 

effectively with the unconstitutional condition of the educational system, the plaintiffs waited patiently 

for legislation which would, finally, reverse the pattern of increasing racial and ethnic isolation in the 

Hartford Metropolitan area. 

Instead, the plaintiffs watched with mounting frustration as racial and ethnic isolation increased - 

in Hartford alone, the minority population, which accounted for 90% of student enrollment at the time the 

Sheff lawsuit was filed, increased to 94% minority by the 1997-98 school year. In the face of these rising 

levels of racial and ethnic isolation, plaintiffs watched as the State re-presented slightly modified versions 

of existing programs which had already proven unsuccessful at reducing racial and ethnic isolation. 

Convinced that there was nothing in the State's legislative response which promised to remedy 

unconstitutional racial and ethnic isolation, the plaintiff availed themselves of their right under the 

Supreme Court opinion to return to the Superior Court for vindication of their constitutional rights. 

The Sheff plaintiffs believe strongly that none of the state's efforts to date, up to and including the 

Commission's January, 1999 Report Advancing Student Achievement and Curriculum, and Reducing 

Student Isolation, has reduced racial and ethnic isolation or promises to do so in the foreseeable future. 

The effects of this failure are enormous. Although, racial and ethnic isolation adversely effects all 

students, the results will be felt most sharply by African-American and Latino students who have 

historically suffered educationally. 

Plaintiffs submit that the evidence presented at the hearing tells a compelling and sobering story 

of the State's failure and urge that the legislature carefully review the trial transcript as a part of its 

evaluation of the Commissioner's report. 

At the September hearing, the plaintiffs presented evidence that the welter of educational programs 

which the state presented as a comprehensive response was neither comprehensive nor responsive to eh 

Supreme Court's mandate. Testimony showed that the programs embodied in the Commissioner's 

MAR B4 *99 13:38 LDF PAGE. B83 

 



oO Dennis D. Parker LDF Fax: 914-941-2855 Voice: 914-941-2855 To: Diane Simmons at: NAACP Legal Defense b Page 4 of 6 Thursday, March 04, 1999 2:24:16 

February, 1998 section of the five year plan entitled Achieving Resource Equity were, for the most part, 

new incarnations of programs which were in existence at the time of the Supreme Court's opinions which 

the Court itself had found to be inadequate. And the one wholly new program, charter schools, was one 

which, in its first year of operation, had resulted in the creation of only two new schools in the Hartford 

metropolitan area -- and these were racially identifiable. 

The plaintiffs faulted the state's response both for its ineffectiveness to date and for the 

unlikelihood that the programs would lead to significant reduction of racial isolation in the future. Based 

upon years of experience in educational administration and school desegregation cases, plaintiffs’ experts 

testified that the combined effects of the interdistrict cooperative grant programs, magnet schools, 

lighthouse schools and Project Choice, the highly touted version of Project Concern which actually falls 

far short of that program's success, and the aforementioned charter schools would be negligible in its effect 

on reducing racial isolation. 

Most significantly, each of the three, nationally recognized expert witnesses testified that the 

programs which the state described could not be described as a plan to reduce racial and ethnic isolation 

regardless of the educational desirability of some of the programs. These same experts agreed that a plan 

was vital to the successful reduction of racial and ethnic isolation. 

As our “Guidelines to an Effective Plan for Quality, Integrated Education” make clear, the 

plaintiffs did not advocate mandatory reassignment as the only alternative to the state’s approach. Let us 

emphasize: at no time have the Sheff plaintiffs argued that the Board of Education must adopt a 

mandatory reassignment plan. Instead, plaintiffs’ evidence showed that there were a number of 

indispensable elements which any successful plan must contain and that each of these essential elements 

were absent in the state's legislative response. Included among these were the existence of quantitative 

goals for the reduction of racial and ethnic isolation, timelines for achieving those goals and clear 

legislative procedures for dealing with the failure to achieve the goals set. Ironically, the evidence showed 

MAR B4 *99 13:39 PAGE. B4  



    

® Dennis D. Parker LDF Fax: 914-941-2855 Voice: 914-841-2856 To: Diane Simmons at: NAACP Legal ® Page 5 of 6 Thursday, March 04, 1999 2:25.04 

that the 1997 legislation (P.A. 97-290) seemed to depart from the example offered by the state's racial 

imbalance act which, whatever its shortcomings as a measure that applies only to intradistrict imbalance, 

does provide clear and enforceable guidelines to the school districts in the state as to what 1s expected of 

them. 

Instead of clear guidelines, the record shows that the state has substituted the vague and largely 

unenforceable obligation upon school districts to "provide educational opportunities for its students to 

interact with students and teachers from other racial, ethnic, and may provide such opportunities with 

students from other communities." (emphasis added). This obligation would be measured by the equally 

nebulous standard of "evidence of improvement over time." 

In addition to its vagueness, the chief fault of the state's set of programs is that it turns a deaf ear 

to the Supreme Court decision (indeed, the chief expert witness for the state flatly asserted that she felt that 

the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision was "wrong"). Nowhere in the opinion's frequent discussion 

of school enrollments does the Court suggest that "interracial contact" would be sufficient to satisfy 

constitutional mandates, particularly when, as is the case with the state's interdistrict grant programs, some 

of which are of only several days duration. Moreover, the state's legislative package, with its permissive 

language regarding exposure between different communities, fails to address the Supreme Court's 

recognition that the existence of firmly established town attendance boundary lines is at the heart of the 

constitutional violation. 

At the time of the hearing, the state, most notably through testimony of Commissioner Sergi, 

pointed to the Commissioner's upcoming January 1999 report as one which would contain further new 

initiatives designed to reduce racial and ethnic isolation. 

The Sheff plaintiffs are saddened to see that the January 1999 report Advancing Student 
  

Achievement and Curriculum, and Reducing Student Isolation brings nothing new to the table. 

Notwithstanding the high expectations that were created for it, the new report fails to describe even a 

MAR B4 *99 13:40 LDF PAGE. B85 

 



    

CB Dennis D. Parker LDF Fax: 914-941-2855 Voice: 914-841-2855 To: Diane Simmons at: NAACP Legal ® Page 6 of 6 Thursday, March 04, 1989 2:25.51 

single new program choosing instead to provide increased funding for the existing programs. Missing in 

all of the legislation is a clear, quantitative definition of what would constitute "reduction of racial and 

ethnic isolation". That absence creates the possibility, and indeed the likelihood, that despite the state's 

efforts, the Hartford School district will continue its steady movement toward become a substantially 

completely minority school district. Indeed, in his testimony, Commissioner Sergi allowed that were that 

to occur, he would not regard that as necessarily indicating that the state's efforts failed. 

We submit that such an approach mocks the Supreme Court's holding and denigrates the hard- 

fought constitutional rights of all students in the Hartford metropolitan area. When the Supreme Court 

instructed this body to create a remedy for racial and ethnic isolation, it entrusted it with the priceless 

constitutional rights of its youngest citizens. To date, the State of Connecticut has not discharged its 

obligations ad has left the rights and needs of many of its most vulnerable citizens unanswered. The 

Sheff plaintiffs urge that the problems be addressed and be addressed now, before another generation of 

children are damaged. 

MAR B4 *99 13:41 LDF PAGE. B6 

 



* Kk 1} CONFIRMATION REPORT *x AS OF MAR 4 ’99 10: PAGE. 1 

COMMAND #020 

  

DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS STATUS 
001 3/04 15:26 15164967934 C3--S 04”00 006 OK 
002 15:31 2124314276 EC--S 01748 006 OK 
003 15:33 2127304652 EC--S 08742 006 OK 
004 15:42 8607280401 EC--S 01748 006 OK 
005 15:44 212 802 5968 FEC--S 02”46 006 OK 
006 15:48 860 5709 5256 EC--S 01747 ©06 OK 
007 15:51 860 728 0287 EC--S 02”50 006 OK 
008 15:54 527 3305 EC--S 02723 006 OK 
009 15:57 860 570 5242 EC--S 02”23 006 OK 
010 16:00 203 541 5656 EC--S 02742 006 OK 

FAX COVER SHEET 

TO: John Brittain 860/570-5242 
Sandy Del Valle 516/496-7934 
Juan Figueroa 212/431-4276 
Chris Hansen 212/549-2651 
Wes Horton 860/728-0401 
Marianne Engelman Lado 212/802-5968 
Willy Rodriguez 860/541-5050 
Martha Stone 860/570-5256 
Phil Teleger 860/728-0287 
Elizabeth Sheff 860/527-3305 

FROM: Dennis Parker 

RE: Draft of March 1999 Testimony 

DATE: March 4, 1999 

NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THE COVER SHEET) 6 

COMMENTS: PLEASE REVIEW AND LET ME KNOW YOUR COMMENTS BY 
TOMORROW, (FRIDAY, MARCH STH.) THANKS. 
  

    

| 

IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THE NUMBER OF PAGES INDICATED ABOVE, 
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT 212\965-2200.