Defendants' Amended Disclosure of Expert Witnesses

    NO. CV=-89-0360977 8 

MILO SHEFF, ET AL. 

Plaintiffs 

SUPERIOR COURT 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

-
e
 

V. 3 HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

: AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A, O'NEILL, ET AL. : JULY 15, 1992 

Defendants 

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES 
  

Pursuant to the order of the court establishing a schedule 

for disclosure of expert witnesses, employees and consultants 

expected to present testimony at trial, the defendants offer the 

following amended list and disclosure. This disclosure is 

provided in lieu of the defendants' disclosure dated May 15, 

1992, 

The defendants wish to emphasize that the particular facts 

and opinions which will be offered by the witnesses listed below 

are not the only facts and opinions which the witnesses may offer 

  
at trial. The defendants expect to supplement their disclosure | 

after the plaintiffs have fully and finally answered the 

defendants’ first. set of . interrogatories and requests for 

  

 



  

      

  

    

product ion and the defendants have had an opportunity to consider 

and prepare whatever response may be appropriate to claims made 

by the plaintiffs in response to that discovery. Defendants also 

expect to supplement this list with additional names and 

additional information as work now in progress and work to be 

undertaken after the plaintiffs fully and finally answer the 

  

defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production 1s 

completed. 

X, Christine Rossell, Ph.D. (Expert Witness) Boston 

University, 232 Bay State Road, Boston, Massachusetts 02215: 

Dr. Rossell is a Professor of Political Science at Boston 

University. 

Professor Rossell is expected to testify that the State of 

Connecticut is responding appropriately to the educational 

conditions in the Hartford area by encouraging and funding 

voluntary integration and compensating poor school districts for 

their poverty. 

  

  
 



  

Professor Rossell will also testify regarding the benefits   of the voluntary measures which the state has undertaken versus 

mandatory desegregation plans.   
| Professor Rossell will base her testimony on her scholarly 

research of the following at least: 

I 1. the evolution of school desegregation; 

2. national school desegregation trends; 

3. measuring the effectiveness of school desegregation; 

4. the relative merit of voluntary and nandatory school 

|i desegregation plans; 

5.. white flight as a function of desegregation;   
b. the effectiveness of specific approaches to 

i desegregation; i.e., freedom of choice, majority-to-minority 

transfer, controlled choice, magnet schools, etc.; 

|| 7. netropoiitan-based desegregation plans; 

8. State of Connecticut policies and programs to encourage 

voluntary desegregation including a comparison of those programs 

| “and policies to programs and policies in other states. 

    

 



    

  

    

Among ‘other things, Dr. Rossell. will rely on her ‘work 

entitled The Carrot or the Stick for School Desegregation Policy, 
  

Temple University Press, 1990. Dr. Rossell's resume has been 

provided to plaintiffs as Exhibit 19(a) of defendants' response 

to plaintiffs' fourth request for production. 

David Armor, Ph.D. (Expert Witness) 5006 Klingle Street, 
  

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20031: 

Dr. Armor 1s currently Visiting Professor, Rutgers 

University; Consultant, American Institutes for Research; and 

President, National Policy Analysts. 

Dr. Armor is principal investigator for a grant to write a 

treatise On ;irace, education 38nd the. courts; co-principal 

investigator on a naticnal study of magnet schools; and an 

associate investigator “on a project that is conducting. case 

studies of school?districts with school choice policies. 

Dr. Armor 1s expected to testify: 

  
  

 



  

    

  

    

1, that research has demonstrated no significant 

and consistent effects of desegregation on Black 

achlevement; 

2. that most of the differences in performance on 

the CMT between Hartford and suburban pupils can 

be attributed to differences in family background 

characteristics and especially socioeconomic 

status; 

3. that for most people personal preference, not 

private discrimination or governmental actions, 

determines where people live. 

Dr. Armor may also testify on other topics. 

Dr. Armor will base his testimony on his scholarly analysis 

of the -esearch literature in each area on which he will focus as 

well as his own originalistudies including his study of the CMT 

results and the results of a survey of Hartford area 

At this time Dr. Armor has not finally completed his analysis of 

residents. 

  

  

 



  

    

    

the CMT results or the survey results. His conclusions 1n regard 

to these aspects of his work are preliminary. 

Dr. aArmor's resume has been provided to the plaintiffs as 

Exhibit 19(b) to defendants' response to plaintiffs' fourth 

request for production. 

Gl
 3" Dr. Donald Ferree (Expert Witness) Institute for 

  

Sccial Inquiry, Roper Center for Public Opinion, P. O. Box 440, 

Storrs, Connecticut. 'Uol268: 

Dr. Ferree is the Associate Director of the ‘Institute for   
Social Inquiry, University of Connecticut. Dr. Ferree's resume | 

has been provided as Exhibit 19(3) to defendants’ response to 

plaintiffs' fourth request for production. 

Dr. Ferree is expected to testify regarding proper methods 

and prccedures for conducting a public opinion poll to ascertain | 

the attitudes of Connecticut residents and/or groups of | 

Connecticut residents. He is expected to present and explain the 

results of a survey conducted by the Institute for Social Inquiry 

 



  

    
  

  

    

at the request of the Governor's Commission on Quality and 

Integrated Education. The results to that survey are summarized 

in the "attachment ‘tc Exhitit 6 in support of the defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment. In addition he will present the 

results of a follow up on tne survey done for the GCQIE designed 

to specifically assess the attitudes of African Americans and 

Latinos living in Connecticut's urban. centers. The results of 

that follcw up survey show the following; 

a. Urban minorities do not see a necessary link between 

integration and quality of education. 

b. Urban minorities do not believe it is impossible to have 

quality education without integration. 

c. Urban minorities hold values which are in conflict with 

the goal of achieving better racial and ethnic balance for 

balance sake including the values of "keeping children 1in the 

same town they live in", "making sure your children are NOT in a 

small racial minority", "children should normally go ‘to the 

schools closest to their homes", and "parents should always have 

the. final choice of where their children go to, school”, 

  
  

  

 



  

    

    

d. Urban minorities overwhelmingly agree that "it 1s more 

innportant’ to improve ithe QUALITY ‘of schools that minority 

children 0 to than it 1s to get racial balance in the schools". 

e. While urban minorities feel that more should be done to 

integrate the schools in their community and schools throughout 

the state, they are closely divided on the question of whether 

those efforts should be voluntary or mandated by the state. 

4, Pr. Douglas Rindone (DOE Consultant) C/O State |   

Department ot Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, 

Connecticut 061006: 

Dr. Rindone is not expected to offer opinion testimony as an | 

expert witness. Instead he may provide testimony regarding the | 

development, implementation and analysis of the CMT and CMT | 

results. The specific analysis of CMT results which will be | 

described by this witness have been provided to the plaintiffs in | 

Exhibit 16(f) of defendants' response to. plaintiffs’ first | 

request for production, Exhibit 18(d) of defendants' response to | 

  

 



  

    

    

  

plaintiffs' second request for production, and Exhibit 10(c) of 

defendants' response to plaintiffs' third request for production. 

Dr. Rindone is also expected to note questions which have 

been raised regarding the effectiveness of the CMT in measuring 

the performance of students with limited English proficiency and 

how this problem might influence the overall CMT test results for 

a school district with high concentrations of LEP students. Dr. 

Rindone is also expected to note the variety of viewpoints in the 

education profession about the use and misuse of test results 

like the CMT results. He will also discuss the variety of 

viewpoints in the education profession regarding the use of 

testing as a measure of the quality of education being provided | 

to children. The various viewpoints which Dr. Rindone will note | 

will not necessarily be his own. 

Dr. Rindone is also expected to present comparisons between | 

Hartford and the 21 towns which have been identified as suburban | 

towns for the purpose of this case derived from data in the | 

possession of the state department of education. These 

  

    

 



  
  

  

  

comparisons are expected to include, but may not be limited to, 

the following areas; various socioeconomic indicators, student 

attendance, staff cost per pupil, professional staff per pupil, 

classroom teachers per pupil, support staff per pupil, teachers’ 

salaries, and gross CMT scores. 

Finally, Dr. Rindone will discuss and may present copies of 

school district profiles being developed by the Department of 

Education pursuant to the requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. 

Section 10-220c. 

Die Dr. William .Congero (DOE = Consultant) c/o State 
  

Department of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, 

Connecticut 06106: 

Dr. Congero is not expected to offer opinion testimony as an 

expert witness. Instead he may provide testimony regarding the | 

development, implementation and analysis of the CMT and CMT | 

results. The specific analysis of CMT results which will be 

described by this witness have been provided to the plaintiffs in 

Exhibit 16(f) of defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ first |   
  

  

 



  

request for production, Exhibit 18(d) of defendants' response to 

plaintiffs' second request for production, and Exhibit 10(c) of   
| defendants' response to plaintiffs' third request for production. 

Dr. Congero is also expected to note questions which have   
| been raised regarding the effectiveness of the CMT in measuring   | the performance of students with limited English proficiency and   how this problem might influence the overall CMT test results for 

a school district with high concentrations of LEP students. pr,’ | 

Ccngero is also expected to note the variety of viewpoints in the | 

education profession about the use and misuse of test rouilts 

like thie CMT results. He will also discuss the variety of | 

viewpoints in the education profession regarding the use of 

testing as a measure of the quality of education being provided 

to children. The various viewpoints which Dr. Congero will note 

will not necessarily be his own. 

6. Dr. Peter Behuniak (DOE Consultant) c/o State Department 
  

of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06106: 

| 
i 

1 

| 
-11- | 

! 

    
 



  

  
  

    

Dr. Behuniak is not expected to offer opinion testimony as 

an expert witness. Instead he may provide testimony regarding 

the development, implementation and analysis of the CMT and CMT 

results. The specific analysis of CMT results which will be 

described by this witness have been provided to the plaintiffs in 

Exhibit 16(f) of defendants! response. to plaintiffs’ ‘first 

request for production, Exhibit 18(d) of defendants’ response to 

plaintiffs' second request for production, and Exhibit 10(c) ‘of 

defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ third request for production. 

Dr. Behuniak is also expected to note questions which have | 

  
been raised regarding the effectiveness of the CMT in measuring | 

the performance of students with limited English proficiency and 

how this problem might influence the overall CMT test results for 

a school district with high concentrations of LEP students. Dr. 

Behuniak is also expected to note the variety of viewpoints 1n | 

the education profession about the use and misuse of test results | 

like the CMT results. He will also discuss the: variety of 

viewpoints in the education profession regarding the use of | 

testing as a measure of the quality of education being provided 

-12- 

  

 



  

  
  

  
{ 
i { 
{ 

{   

to children. The various viewpoints which Dr. Behuniak will note 

will not necessarily be his own. 

7. Dr. Elliot Williams (DOE Consultant) c/o State 
  

Department of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, 

Connecticut 06106: 

Dr. Williams is not expected to offer opinion testimony as 

an expert witness. Instead Dr. Williams will provide information 

regarding existing and planned programs promoting interdistrict 

cooperation and improving integration. Specifically Dr. Williams 

will describe and verify the accuracy of the information found in 

Exhibits 3(x-z) to the defendants' response to plaintiffs’ second 

request for production. 

8. Dr. Robert Brewer (DOE Consultant) c/o State Department 
  

of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06106: 

Dr. Brewer is not expected to offer opinion testimony as an 

expert wltness. Instead . Dr.» Brewer will: offer testimony 

regarding state grants to local school districts generally and 

-13- 

  
  
  

 



  

the State's financial ‘contribution to the school districts 1in 

what the plaintiffs have described as the Hartford area in   
oi particular. Dr.. Brewer will attest to the accuracy of the     intormation found in Exhibits 4(ee) and 7 of defendants' response 

toc plaintiffs' second request for production. 

I Dr. Brewer is also expected to attest to the accuracy of 

1 data showing how Hartford's spending on ‘students in regular 

education compares with other districts in the state.   
9. Dr. Peter Prowda (DOE Consultant) c/o State Department 
  

of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06106: 

Dr. Prowda is not expected to offer opinion testimony as an 

i expert witness. Instead Dr. Prowda will offer testimony 

| regarding the analysis of comparative rates of absenteeism 

provided to the plaintiffs as Exhibit 7(a) of the defendants’ 

response to plaintiffs' first request for production. 

  -14- 

  

  
 



    

    

1G, Dr. Theodore Sergi (DOE Consultant) C/O: State 
  

Department of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, 

Connecticut Ool06: 

Dr. Sergi is not expected to offer opinion testimony as an 

expert witness. Instead Dr. Sergi will offer testimony regarding 

the background, implementation and effectiveness of the state's 

priority schooli district grant. program, Dr, Sergi's testimony 

will include an explanation of the analysis found in Exhibit 

4(ff) of defendants' response to plaintiffs' second request for | 

production. 

  

12. Dr. Thomas Breen (DOE Consultant) c/o State Department | 

of Education, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06106. 

Dr. Breen is not expected to offer opinion testimony as an 

expert witness. Instead Dr. Breen will offer testimony regarding 

the racial and ethnic composition of schools and school districts | 

throughout the state. He is also expected to focus on the racial | 

and ethnic composition of the schools in Hartford and those towns | 

which plaintiffs have identified as "suburban" communities for |   
  

  

 



    

  

  

the purpose. of this suit. Among other things Dr. Breen 1s 

expected tc verify the accuracy of the information contained in 

Exhibits 4(a) and 18(a-x) of defendants' response to plaintiffs’ 

fourth request for production. He will also verify the accuracy 

of data used by some of defendants' expert witnesses to analyze 

and compare the racial and ethnic composition of the schools 1n 

Hartford and the "suburban" communities. 

  

13. Mr. Lloyd Calvert (Expert Witness) c/o Office of the 

Attorney General, 110 Sherman Street, Hartford, Connecticut 

06105: 

Mr. Calvert is the former Superintendent of Schools in West 

Hartford, Trumbull and Windsor and former Assistant | 

Superintendent of Schools in Hartford. He 1s now serving as | 

educational consultant to the Office of the Attorney General in | 

regard to the Sheff v., O'Neill case. Mr. Calvert's resume has | 
  

been provided to the plaintiffs as Exhibit 19(c) to defendants’ 

response to plaintiffs' fourth request for production. 

  
 



  

Mr. Calvert is expected to testify regarding the racial and 

ethnic composition of the Hartford public schools and certain 

trends regarding the racial and ethnic composition of the 

Hartford public schools in comparison to the 21 school districts   
which plaintiffs have chosen to designate as suburban school 

districts. Tables and data which Mr. Calvert will present rely   
on will be disclosed to the plaintiffs when they are in final   
form. 

Mr. Calvert will also testify regarding the state's efforts 

I! to address the needs of disadvantaged and urban children since   
the 1920's as evidenced in records of the State Board of 

Education and his own work and experience. 

Mr. Calvert is also expected to testify regarding his 

investigation of programs in the Hartford public schools 

including his observations regarding the way in which the 

programs offered by the Hartford public schools are designed to | 

meet the special needs of the population being served, special 

approaches being undertaken in the Hartford public schools, and 

  
-17-     

  
 



  

    

  
  

  

the attitudes and concerns of those who are serving children in 

the Hartford public schools. He 1s also expected to describe 

his involvement in and observation of 1interdistrict initiatives 

in the Hartford area. 

Finally Mr. Calvert will discuss some of the practical 

problems which would be faced if an attempt were made to reassign 

pupils to different schools in the Hartford area based upon their 

race, national origin, socioeconomic status, or "at risk" status. 

His testimony will be based, in part, on his examination of 

current enrollment in the Hartford public schools and other 

schools in the area. 

Mr. Calvert's work and study in the above noted areas has 

nct been ccmpleted at this time. 

14. Dr, Thomas E. Steahr, (Expert witness) c/0 College of   

Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Connecticut, Box | 

U-22, Room 318, 1376 Storrs Road, Storrs, CT 06269-4021, 

-18- 

  

 



  

  

  

  

  

Dr. Steahr is presently serving as a full professor in the 

Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics of the 

University of Connecticut. Further details regarding his 

background and experience can be found in Exhibit 19(e) to the 

defendant's response to plaintiffs’ fourth request for 

production. 

Dr. Steahr is expected to offer testimony regarding 

demographic patterns and trends in Connecticut generally and in 

the area which the plaintiffs have defined as the suburban 

Hartford area in particular. His testimony is expected to focus 

on the following facts and opinions: 

1. Based upon an analysis of census data, vital statistics, 

and State Department of Education records regarding the racial 

and ethnic composition of public schools in the Hartford area, it 

appears that the general population and the K-12 pupil 

populations of that area which has been defined by the plaintiffs 

as "suburban Hartford" are becoming more diverse; l1.e., 

individuals from traditionally recognized minority groups are 

-19- 

  

  

  
  

  

 



  

    

    

  

locating and attending school in the suburban towns at an 

1nCreasing rate. 

= The steady increase in the growth of the minority 

population in the towns which have been identified as suburbs of 

Hartford ‘runs counter. to the notion that people from these 

minority groups are "trapped" in Hartford because of their race 

or national origin. 

3. There has been a significant change in the composition 

of the "minority" population in Hartford. The evidence suggests 

a net out migration of African Americans and a significant 

increase in the Hispanic or Latino population. 

4, Concentrations of people of similar ethnic backgrounds 

in particular areas or towns is a natural phenomena which can and 

does occur without government promotion or sponsorship. 

  

Bie The concentration of African American and Hispanic or 

Latino citizens in Hartford and other urban areas of the state 

which is present today was not clearly foreseeable in the early 

-20- 

 



  

1500s given the limited information which was available at that 

time and the uncertainties of making these kinds of predictions 

even under the best of circumstances.   The testimony and opinions which Dr, Steahr is expected to 

of fer will be grounded on his many years of study and research in   
the area. of demographics “and particularly his study of 

demographic patterns in the State of Connecticut. He will also 

rely on his analysis of census bureau data, data regarding vital 

statistics maintained by the State Department of Health Services | 

| and data obtained from the State Department of Education 

regarding the racial and ethnic composition of schools in the   
Hartford area. Tables and charts which Dr, Steahr is preparing 

will be provided to the plaintiffs when they are in final form. 

lo. Patricia Downs, Connecticut Department of Housing, 505 | 
  

| Hudson Street, Hartford, CT. 

Ms. Downs is the Director of Policy and Planning for the 

Department of Housing. 

-21-     

 



    

  

  

Ms. Downs is not expected to offer opinion testimony. 

Rather, she will provide testimony regarding the mechanism for 

State funding of housing for low and moderate income families, 

including selection criteria. She is also expected to testify as 

to current and future plans and policies of the State of 

Connecticut with respect to housing for low and moderate income 

families. 

  
   



FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

wy. VW 

. V/A - TTS 085112 

S Ee Attorney General 
0 Sherman Street 

Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
Tel: 566-7173 

  
    

CERTIFICATION 
    

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed 
postage prepaid to the following counsel of record on 

pit Mew 15, 1992: 

John Brittain, Esq. 
University of Connecticut 
School of Law 
65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Wilfred Rodriguez, Esq 
Hispanic Advocacy Project 
Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Aveznue 
Hartford, CT: 06112 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
Martha Stone, Esq. 
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 
32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

  

   



    

  

  

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

Ruben Franco, Esq. 

Jenny Rivera, Esq. 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund 

99 Hudson Street 
l4th Floor 
New York, NY 10013 

Julius L. Chambers, Esq 
Marianne Lado, Esq. 
Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell, Esq. 

Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 
Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 
American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 

ork, RY 10036 

Ap ed, 
Johh R. Whelan 
Asgistant Attorney General 

   

  

-24-—