Memo from Tegeler to Ellis with Reply Brief Discussion Outline

    Me 5 

    - r, 
Connecticut 32 Grand Street 203/247-9823 William Olds 

Civil Liberties Union Hartford, CT 06106 203/728-0287 Fax Executive Director 

   



  

DISCUSSION OUTLINE: TOPICS TO BE ADDRESSED IN SHEFF REPLY BRIEF 

I. FACT ARGUMENTS 
  

The parties agree on many of the central issues 
  

- Hartford is racially and economically isolated 
ro segregation is educationally harmful 
- poor children need more resources 
-- etc. 

Mastery tests are a valid means of making comparisons among 

school districts, and assessing quality of educational 

programs. 

  

  

  

- based on common core of learning (depositions) 
- legislative history of CMT legislation [RESEARCH] 
—— DOE has routinely used CMTs for comparison among 

districts & assessment of educational programs (cite to 
documents) (Rindone cross) 

-— use of test data in other states [RESEARCH] 

Defendants have not spent sufficient sums of money to meet the 

needs of Hartford schoolchildren 
  

  

—— More needs to be spent 
- non continuity in funding 
-— municipal overburden (Levin documents) 
-- Connecticut spends very little on reducing conditions of 

isolation 

Connecticut is not a leader in voluntary desegregation 
  

ie [GORDON DIRECT AND REBUTTAL, ORFIELD, CARROLL] 

The Hartford region has not "naturally" deseqregated 
  

——— population patterns extremely segregated (Steahr, Rabin 
document) 

— racial isolation has been increasing in the Hartford 

district (documents) 

Conditions in the Hartford schools have become worse since the 

case was filed. 
  

  

-- increasing segregation 
— continued achievement declines 
-—— budget cuts 

 



  

II. 

JIl. 

The desegregation planning bill [adopted by] the Connecticut 
  

legislature does not respond to the problems identified in 
  

this case. 
  

The bill does not address poverty concentration in the 
city schools 
The bill does not address the racial isolation of the 
city schools; no numerical goals are included 
The bill includes no educational enhancements 
The timetable is too long 
The plan includes no goals by which to judge the design 
or success of a plan 
[ORFIELD, GORDON, OTHERS] 

Metropolitan desegregation, combined with educational enhance- 
  

ments for inner city schools, can be successful in achieving 
  

integration and improving educational outcomes (schools make 
  

a difference) 
  

examples of successful plans; long term stability 
critiques of Rossell data, analysis 
[CRAIN, ORFIELD REBUTTAL] 

LEGAL ARGUMENTS 
  

Respond to state’s arguments 
  

(no state action) 
- defendants are legally responsible for education 
— history of state control (Collier) 
(no "particular level of education" required) 
(no obligation to cure social ills -- Savage) 

Additional Discussion of Other States’ Decisions 
  

Kentucky 
Texas 

New Jersey 

[NOTE: Alabama decision was eliminated from plaintiffs’ 
original post-trial brief] 

TRANSCRIPTS TO BE REVIEWED 
  

Review cross examination of all Defendants’ witnesses: 

David Armor 
Robert Brewer 

Lloyd Calvert 

 



  

- Donald Ferree 

- John Flynn 
—— John Hubert 
-——— Jack Keaveny 
— Douglas Rindone 
— Christine Rossell 
—— Thomas Steahr 

- Elliot Williams 

outline main points of rebuttal testimony of Crain, Gordon, 

Orfield