Plaintiffs' Fourth Request for Production of Documents

    Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. 

Plaintiffs : SUPERIOR COURT 

7. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
: HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

WILLIAM BA. O'NEILL, et al. : AT HARTFORD 

Defendants : MARCH 25, 1991 

  

  

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

You are requested pursuant to §227 of the Connecticut 

Practice Book to produce the following documents for inspection 

and copying within thirty days of service of this- Request. Said 

production shall be made at the office of plaintiffs’ counsel, 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 32 Grand Street, 

Hartford, Connecticut 06106. | 

Y. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 

1. If the documents requested do not exist exactly in the 

form requested, please produce those documents which do exist 

which most closely report the information sought by this 

particular document request. 

2. If any document is withheld under a claim of privilege, 

identify each document for which the privilege is claimed, and 

the particular request for which such document is responsive, by 

supplying the following information: 

  

  

  

 



    

    

the date(s) the document was created and/or sent or 

received; 

Db. ‘the author(s), including thelr titles; 

c. the addresses, including their titles; 

ad. the identity and title of each recipient of a copy 

of the document; 

e. a summary description of the subject and contents of 

the document; 

f. the nature of the privilege claimed; 

g. the basis on which the privilege is claimed; 

h. the name, title and address of each person who 

currently possesses the original and/or a copy of such document. 

3. If your response to any request is that a particular 

document is not in your possession, custody or control, describe 

in detail the effort you made to obtain and identify who has 

control of the document, as well as the location of the document. 

4. Should you claim that any particular request is beyond 

the scope of permissible discovery, please specify in detail each 

and every ground on which your claim rests. 

5. As used herein: 

a. “Document,” “documents,” or any other form of these 

words means any written, recorded, typewritten or graphic matter 

of whatever kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, and 

any tangible thing. which, in whole or in part, conveys 

information requested which is in the possession, custody or   

  

  

 



  

  

    

    

control of the defendants whether produced, reproduced, or stored 

On paper, cards, tapes, charts, film, microfilm, computer storage 

devices or any other dediut or device. The term includes, but is 

not limited to: correspondence; memoranda; notes; reports; files; 

books; records; contracts; agreements; telegrams and other 

communications sent or received; charts; graphs; records of 

accounts; worksheets; workpapers; minutes, notes, sundries and 

other written records or recordings of or relating to any 

conference, meeting, visit, interview or telephone conversation; 

bills, statements, invoices and other records of any obligation 

or expenditure; affidavits, deposition transcripts, transcripts 

of testimony; legal pleadings and briefs; statements; interviews 

and records of conversations; microfilm, microfiche; and disks, 

films, tapes and other sources from which information can be 

obtained or by means of which information can be stored. In 

addition, “document” shall mean all non-identical copies of any 

document, whether the copy is non-identical because it is a 

"draft,” because of alterations, attachments, blanks, comments, 

notes, underlining, or because of some other reason. A document 

with handwritten or typewritten notes, editing, or other marks is 

not and shall not be deemed identical to one without such notes, 

marks, etc.; 

By. "Surrounding Communities” means the towns of Avon, 

Bloomfield, Canton, East Granby, East Hartford, East Windsor, 

Ellington, Farmington, Glastonbury, Granby, Manchester, 

  

a
m
e
s
 

s
e
c
a
 

oe
r 

eur 
reg

 
ti
on
 
e
p
e
e
 
sb
 

ee
 

= 

  

  
 



  

    

    

Newington, Rocky Hill, Simsbury, South Windsor, Suffield, Vernon, 

West Hartford, Wethersfield, Windsor, and Windsor Locks. 

c "DOE” refers to the State Department of Education, 

the State Board of Education, the Commissioner of Education, and 

all of their staff and consultants. | 

d. "Inspection and copying” shall mean that for any 

file of documents so identified, plaintiffs seek to review the 

entire file of documents prior to identifying specific documents 

to be copied. 

II. DOCUMENTS REQUESTED 

1. All documents which show 1) the percentage of students 

from the Hartford school system and from the “surrounding 

communities” who are from categories a-g below and 2) which 

demonstrate that any of the factors listed in a-g have an adverse 

effect on educational performance of students from the Hartford 

school system: 

a. Children from families where substance abuse is a 

problem; 

b. Children from families where one or more family 

member suffers from mental disease or illness; 

C. Children who have parents who themselves have a 

history of low educational attainment (e.g. no high school 

diploma); 

d. Children who have received inadequate prenatal care; 

e. Children who have received inadequate health care; 

  

  

  

  

  

 



  

  

    

    

£. Children who have been influenced by or participate 

in criminal activity; 

Gg» Children who are left alone for more than three 

hours per weekday. 

2 All documents which demonstrate the rate of growth on 

the Connecticut Mastery test of at-risk students in Hartford and 

of at-risk students in the surrounding school districts. 

3. All "empirical” studies which you deem “not sufficiently 

reliable” in your answer to Plaintiffs’ First. Set of 

Interrogatories no. 18. 

4. ED 152 Racial Survey System Summary for Hartford and 

surrounding communities. 

5. All documents which describe the written work objectives 

of the Mastery Test Program. 

6. All current EEO analyses of Mastery Test data. 

7 All analyses of mastery test data indicated in 

Memorandum of January 31, 1990 attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

B. All documents which show the numbers of students from 

Hartford and surrounding communities receiving diplomas without 

meeting the requirements of graduation. 

9. PIP goals and objectives and MIP for each full-time and 

part-time employee and consultant in DOE Data Collection and 

Analysis Unit. 

10. Current School/Staff Report (more recent than 1988). 

1). DOE Minimum Standards for art and music. 

  

  
 



  

    

    

12. Fiscal Year 1992-93 DOE Budget, budget options, budget 

reductions. 

13. Documents which show monies allocated for recruitment 

of minority teachers from 1980 - present. 

14. DOE pamphlet “Data Collection Procedures Relating to 

Public Elementary and Secondary Institutions of Education in 

Connecticut.” 

15. All documents which show class size by grade and school 

for Hartford and surrounding communities. 

16. Regional Magnet Planning Report and proposal for 

funding written in or around 1979-1980 which included a foreign 

language magnet program. 

17. Original report relating to race equity issues issued 

by Education Equity Study Committee which was not made part of 

final report and minutes of Education Equity Study Committee 

relating to race equity issues. 

18. All documents which show number and percentage of black 

and Latino students from 1930 to the present in the Hartford 

school system and surrounding communities. 

19. Copies of resumes of all defendants’ experts listed in 

Defendants’ Letter dated March 15, 1991. 

20. Copies of ED-027 Regional Schools Pupil Data Report for 

Hartford and surrounding communities. 

21. Copies of ED-098 Civil Rights Survey for Hartford and 

surrounding communities.   
  

 



  

    

    

22 Copies of ED-158P Public High School Graduate Follow- 

up for Hartford and surrounding communities. 

23. Copies of ED-229 Bilingual Education Grant Application 

for Hartford and surrounding communities. 

24. Copies of ED-230 LEA Bilingual Education Evaluation for 

Hartford and surrounding communities. 

25. Copies of ED-322 Grant Application for Regional Special 

Education Facility for Hartford and surrounding communities. 

26. ED 101 Civil Rights Survey -- School System Summary and 

ED 102 Civil Rights Survey -- Individual School Report for 

Hartford and surrounding communities. 

27 All policy statements concerning educational quality 

adopted by the State Board of Education since 1968. 

28. All correspondence to and from Hartford Board of 

Education and State Department of Education, and all internal 

memoranda of DOE relating to the joint committee formulated in 

1990 to explore partnership options between Hartford Board of 

education and DOE. 

29. All state funding comparisons, staff/program 

comparisons, and socio-economic student data comparisons referred 

to in September 25, 1989 Memo attached hereto as Exhibit B. {(1E 

any documents have been previously provided to plaintiffs, 

responsive to this request, please identify.) 

30. All documents which support your Response to 

Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories no. 8.   

  

  

 



  

    
31. Complete report for the Governor's Commission by of H. 

|! C. Chung regarding school facilities data including tables and 

| charts. 

32 Number of portable classrooms used in Hartford and 

surrounding communities. 

Respectfully Submitted, |, 

4 1 

BY: Mean Mec fame 
Martha Stone 

Philip D. Tegeler 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

  

  

    Attorneys for Plaintiffs   
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

This is to certify that one copy of the foregoing has been 

mailed postage prepaid to John R. Whelan and Diane W. Whitney, 

Assistant Attorney Generals, MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman Street, 

Hartford, CT 06105 this 25th day of March, 19%1. 

[Moy Fhe Sera 
  

Martha Stone 

      
 



ri pA EXHIBIT A 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

      
MEMORANDUM ; 

10: John Whelan 

Assistant Attorney General 

FROM: Pascal D. Forgione, RF ’ 

Director 3 
Division of Research, Evaluation and Assessment 

TT — 566-2201 rs 

SUBJECT: Sheff v. 0'Neill/Data Request ™ 

- 

  

- 

DATE: Janyary 31, 1890 _ nT 
  

Our meeting has been set for Friday, February 2, 1990, at 8:30 am in Room 338, 

State Office Building. I and the Mastery Test staff will assist you in 
displaying the formats for the analyses that we will generate vis-a-vis 
Hartford and suburban districts. There. are so many ‘possibilities (see 
attached sheet for the extensive listing of potential Mastery Test indicators -- 
--— in addition, there are the time, district, [separate or combined] or school 

variables to be considered). We also have strong cautions regarding the 
interpretations you put forward regarding the Hartford student performance. 
My: office has not done any "within district" analyses 1o date. We have 

focused on statewide and Type of Community (TOC) analyses e.g., large cities = 
T0C 1, etc, We will advise you of several analyses that presently are 

underway and then we will design the schema of Mastery Test data that you will 

wish us to prepare. 

POF:arj 

Enclosure 

eC: SColt Wn 
Mark Stapleton, Esq. 

Paula Yellman 

Doug Rindone - 

Peter Behuniak 
William Congero 

fsbunra | Reserve 

Box 2219 ° Hartford, Connecticut 06145 Program 

An Foal Onportunity Frnlover 

 



AlIACHMENT E : ! Eb an tai a Sa 

Connecticut Mastery Test Indicators 

  

Percent of studénts in need of Remediation 

Mathematics (Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8) 

Writing (Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8) 

Reading (Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8) 

Percent Below Standard on One Test (Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8) 

Percent Below Standard on Two Tests (Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8) 

Percent Below Standard on Three Tests (Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8) 

Percent of students below the Composite Remedial Index 
Grade 4 

Grade © . 
Grade 8 : 

Average number of Objectives Mastered 

Mathematics (Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8) 

Language Arts (Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8) 

Average Writing Score (Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8) 

Average Reading Score in DRP Units (Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8) 

Percent of Students above Mastery levels 

Mathematics —-80% of objectives mastered (Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8) 

Writing —holistic score of 6 (Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8) 

Reading 

Grade 4 (50 DRP Units) 

Grade 6 (56 DRP Units) 

Grade 8 (62 DRP Units) 

Language Arts —-80% of objectives mastered (Grade 4, Grade 6. Grade 8) 

Percent of Students Meeting Composite Mastery Index 

Grade 4 

Grade 6 

Grade 8 

Percent of students mastering all objectives in Mathematics and Language Arts 

and Meeting Mastery Standards (or other higher standard) in Writing and 

Reading. — State Board Distinguished Students - 

Grade 4 

Grade 6 

Grade 8 

 



* ® EXHIBIT B 
  

  

TO? Department of Education 

CT Hale em Sp Aes 
FROM: John rR. WHEL Ary 

Fp LL pp a MT General 

folate W. Whitney 
!/assistant Attorney General 

  

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill: Data Request: State Funding 

Comparisons 

DATE: September 25, 19893 

  

Except as specified data should be provided 

for the most recent 5 years, i.e. back to the 1983-84 school 

year, unless the program has been in existence for less than 5 

years. We may want to expand the number of years 

after we see the preliminary results and we will certainly want 

to update this material as information on future years 

becomes available. 

Except as otherwise indicated we would like the requested 

data for (1) Hartford, (2) Each suburban district listed 

in the complaint, and (3) a cumulative figure for all the 

suburban districts identified in the complaint. 

Except as otherwise provided when a "per pupil figure is 

called for this is arrived at by dividing the figure in 

question by the ADM (unadjusted). 

A. Total State Ald: 

1. Total dollars (excluding school construction 

and adult education) 

2. Dollars per pupil 

3. State percentage of overall district budget 

B. Compensatory Ed (EERA): § 8101 

1. ‘Total dollars 

2. State dollars per pupil 

Cc. Bilingual Education Grant: § 10-17g: 

1. Total # of eligible children 

 



  

<3 

2. Total dollar amount of grant to District 

D. Interdistrict cooperative program grants: § 10-74d 

1. Provide details about grants for cooperative 
programs involving Hartford or any of the suburban 
districts, including the names of participating 
districts and the amount of the grant 

E. Special plucation: § 10-76g: 

1. Percent of the total cost of special education 
reimbursed by the state - 

F. Miscellanedus Professional Development Grants: §§10- 155dd, 
10-155ee, 10-155ff, 10-155qgg: 

l. Total dollars (for each Yhant separately and all 
together) 

2. District's % of total dollars distributed in Hartford 
and suburbs (for each grant separately and all together) 

3. Dollars per pupil (for each separately and all together) 

G. Education Enhancement Act: 

  

Minimum Salary Grant: § 10-257b: 

Il. =Total dollars 

2. Districts % of total dollars distributed in 
Hartford and suburbs 

3. Dollars per pupil 

Salary Aid Grants § 10-257c: 
  

}. Total dollars 

2. District's % of total dollars distributed in 
Hartford and suburbs 

3. Dollars per pupil 

General Aid Grant §10-257d: 
  

1. Total dollars 

# District's $3 of total dollars distributed in 
Hartford and. suburb 

 



3. Dollars per pupil 

Teacher pupil ratio aid grant: 
  

e 5H Total dollars 

2. District's % of total dollars dsistributed in 

Hartford and suburbs 

3. Dollars per pupil 

All EEA dollars 
  

i. Total dollars 

2. District's % of total dollars distributed in Hartford and 

suburbs 

3. Dollar per pupil 

Equalization Grant (GTB/ECS) §§10-261 et seq: 

1. Total dollars 

2. Dollars per pupil 

Vocational Equipment Grants (cooperative) § 10-265b: 

1. Provide details about grants for cooperative 

programs involving Hartford or any of the suburban 

districts, including the names of participating 

districts and the amount of the grant 

Intercommunity cooperative transportation grants: 

10-226: 

1. Provide details about grants for cooperative 

programs including Hartford or any of the suburban 

districts, including the names of the participating 

districts and the amount of the grant 

Transportation Grants: § 10-2606m: 

1. Percentage of state reimbursement 

School Construction Grants: § 10-282 et seq’ 

1. Cummulate all school construction grants for 

(1) the last. 5 years, (2) the last 10 years, (3) 

the last 15 years, for Hartford and each suburb  



  

and for the suburbs as a whole, and list. For each 

5s, 10, and 15 year segment identify the state's percentage 

of the allowable costs. 

2. Compute a dollar per pupil ratio for each segment 

of years by dividing the total dollar amount by the average 

ADM for the years in question 

3. If possible quantify the school construction projects 

funded by the state in some other way; possibly by square 

footage of new and renovated construction projects. For 

example ‘it may be possible to compare Hartford and the 

suburbs by looking at how many square feet of new 

construction and renovation was done in Hartford as compared to the 

other districts during the past 5, 10 and 15 year periods. 

M. Miscellaneous grants: Please provide the total dollars to 

Hartford, each suburb and the suburbs as a whole for each of the 

following grants separately: 

Telecommunications grants § 10-4h 

Extended day Kindergarten § 10-16m 

Remedial Summer School § 10-74b 

Young Parents Program § 10-74c 

School Based Mental Health § 10-76u 

Teacher Career Incentive Grant § 10-155n 

Dropout Prevention Grants § 10-202f 
Free Lunch Program § 10-215Db 

Priority School District Grants § 10-266p et seq 

School Breakfast Program § 10-266w 

N. Please provide a chart showing the ADM (unadjusted) for 

Hartford, each suburban district, and the suburban districts as a 

whole for the last 15 years. 

 



Department of Education 

{lik 
opt R; 2 of 
as#istént Spd ne Bs 

Diane W. Whitney 
.’Assistant Attorney General 

110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
Telephone: 566-7140 

Sheff v. O'Neill: Data Request: Staff/Program Comparisions 
  

September 25, 1989 

  

Staff/student ratios 

1. For the last 5 years provide the student per staff 

ratio for (1) total professionals, (2) classroom teachers, 

(3) support staff, for Hartford, each suburb, and the 

suburbs as a whole 

2. Rank Hartford and suburbs from worst to best. 

Salary 

1. For the last 5 years provide the mean salary for 

Hartford, each suburb, and the suburbs as a whole. 

#2 Rank Hartford and suburbs from the worst to the 

best. 

Staff cost per pupil 

1. For the last 5 years provide the staff cost per pupil 

for Hartford, each suburb, and the suburbs as a whole. 

2 Rank Hartford and the suburbs from the worst to the 

best. 

Breadth of Programs 

1. We need to determine if there is some way to measure 

the breadth of the programs offered in Hartford in 

comparison to the suburbs. One way might be to measure 

the depth and variety of the types of teacher certificates 

held by district staff. We need to discuss whether this 

approach is feasible and whether there are other approaches.  



Depa Te Of Education 
’ Kd 

J. al | 77 
Joh { ‘an 
A BSS PES bsnl General 

7 

Diéne W. Whitney 
Assistant Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
Telephone: 566-7140 

Sheff v. O'Neill: Data Request: Socio-Economic/ 
Student Data Comparisons 
  

September 25, 1989 

  

A. Educational Attainment of Parents 

1. Is it possible to get specific data on the 
educational attainment of parents for Hartford 
and surrounding school districts or are we limited 
to educational attainment levels of the population 
as a whole as specified in TSDP. 

We are open as to the best way tO present a picture 
of the difference in the educational attainment of 
parents in Hartford as opposed to suburbs. 

We need references to nationally recognized research 
identifying and explaining the correlation between 
parental educational attainment and children's 
educational performance or attainment. 

Student Turnover 

1. For the past 10 years please provide data for Hartford, 
each suburb, and the suburbs as a whole showing: 

a) annual net change in # of students (using 10/1 
and 5/3 counts) 

b) annual % of change in students (using 10/1 and 
5/1 counts) 

Is it possible to produce better data about 
turnover to avoid the problem with the above figures’, 
i.e. the fact that these figures mask the turnover rate 
for leaving students who are replaced by new students 
between 10/1 and 5/1.  



  

J. We need references to nationally recognized research 
identifying and explaining the correlation between 
student turnover and educational performance. 

 



saver ferort 
  

  

Districts 
  

Total Dollars 

TOTAL STATE AID COMPARYE@PN 
FOR HARTFORD METROPOLITAN 
AREAL’ 

ITEN: 

1983-84 

$ of Overall 

District 

Budget 

Dollars Per Pupil 

  

Hartford 

  

Avon 

  

Bloomfield 

  

Canton 

  

East Granby 

  

East Hartford 

  

East Windsor 

  

Ellington 

  

Farmington 

  

Glastonbury 

  

Granby 

  

Manchester 

  

Newington 

  

Rocky Hill 

  

Simsbury 

  

South Windsor 

  

Suffield 

  

Vernon 

  

West Hartford 

  

Wethersfield 

  

Windsor 

  

Windsor Locks 

  

Combined suburbs 

  

  

1/ Excluding school construction and adult education grants.