Revised Complaint

    NO. CV 89-03609778 

MILO SHEFF, ET AL. SUPERIOR COURT 

VS. 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/ 

NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A. O’/NEILL, ET AL. NOVEMBER 23, 1994 

REVISED COMPLAINT 
  

1. This complaint is brought on behalf of school children in the 

Hartford school district, a great majority of whom -- 91 percent -- are 

black or Hispanic, and nearly half of whom -- 47.6 percent -- live in 

families that are poor. These children attend public schools in a 

district that is all but overwhelmed by the demand to educate a student 

population drawn so exclusively from the poorest families in the 

Hartford metropolitan region. The Hartford school district is also 

racially and ethnically isolated: on every side are contiguous or 

adjacent school districts that, with one exception are virtually 

all-white, and without exception, are middle- or upper-class in 

socioeconomic composition. 

2. This complaint is also brought on behalf of children in 

suburban school districts that surround Hartford. Because of the 

racial, ethnic, and economic isolation of Hartford metropolitan school 

  

 



  

districts, these plaintiffs are deprived of the opportunity to 

associate with, and learn from, the minority children attending school 

with the Hartford school district.   3. The educational achievement of school children educated in 

‘lthe Hartford school district is not, as a whole, nearly as Feat as 

that of students educated in the surrounding communities. These 

disparities in achievement are not the result of native inability: 

poor and minority children have the potential to become well-educated, 

as do any other children. Yet the State of Connecticut, by tolerating 

school aimtvicts sharply separated along racial, ethnic, and economic 

lines, has deprived the plaintiffs and other Hartford children of their 

rights to an equal educational opportunity, and to a minimally adequate 

education -- rights to which they are entitled under the Connecticut 

cohshi bution and Connecticut statutes. 

4. The defendants and their predecessors have long been aware of 

the educational necessity for racial, ethnic, and economic integration 

in the public schools. The defendants have recognized the lasting harm 

inflicted on poor and rion ty students by Lhe maintenance of isolated 

urban school districts. Yet, despite their knowledge, despite their 

constitutional and statutory obligations, despite sufficient legal 

tools to remedy the problem, the defendants have failed to act 

effectively to provide equal educational opportunity to plaintiffs and 

other Hartford schoolchildren.   
  

 



  

  

5. Equal educational opportunity, however, is not a matter of 

sovereign grace, to be given or withheld at the discretion of the 

Legislative or the Executive branch. Under Connecticut’/s constitution, 

ijt is a solemn pledge, 2 covenant renewed in every generation between 

he people of the State and their children. The Connecticut 

Constitution assures to every Connecticut child, in every city and 

town, an equal Sppertinliy to education as the surest means by which to 

shape his or her own future. This lawsuit is brought to secure this 

basic constitutional right for plaintiffs and all Connecticut 

schoolchildren. 

II. PARTIES 

A. PLAINTIFFS 
  

6. ©Plaintiff Milo Sheff is a fourteen-year-old black child, Ee 

resides in the city of Hartford with his mother, Elizabeth Sheff, who 

brings this action as his next friend. Ee 1s enrolled in the eighth 

grade at Quirk Middle School. 

7. Plaintiff wildaliz Bermudez is a ten-year-old Puerto Rican 

child. she resides in the City of Hartford with her parents, Pedro and 

carmen Wilda Bermudez, who bring this action as her next friend. She 

is enrolled in the fifth grade at Kennelly School.   
  

 



  

  

  

8. Plaintiff Pedro Bermudez is an eight-year-old Puerto Rican 

child. He resides in the City of Hartford with his parents, Pedro and 

Carmen Wilda Bermudez, who bring this action as his next friend. He is 

enrolled in the third grade at Kennelly School. 

9. Plaintiff Eva Bermudez is a six-year-old Puerto Rican child. 

She resides in the City of Hartford with her parents, Pedro and Carmen 

Wilda Bermudez, who bring this action as her next friend. She is 

enrolled in Kindergarten at Kennelly School. 

10. Plaintiff Oskar M. veleudeZ is a ten-year-old Puerto Rican 

child. He resides in the Town of Glastonbury with his parents, Oscar 

and Wanda Melendez, who bring this action as his next friend. He is 

enrolled in the fifth grade at Naubuc School. 

11. Plaintiff Waleska Melendez is a fourteen-year-old Puerto 

Rican child. She resides in the Town of Glastonbury with her parents, 

Oscar and Wanda Melendez, who bring this action as her next friend. 

She is a freshman at Glastonbury High School. 

12. Plaintiff Martin Hamilton is a thirteen-year-old black 

child. He resides in the City of Hartford with his mother, Virginia 

Pertillar, who brings this action as his next friend. He is enrolled 

in the seventh grade at Quick Middle School. 

13. [Withdrawn.] 

14. Plaintiff Janelle Hughley is a 2-year-old black child. She 

resides in the city of Hartford with her mother, Jewell Hughley, who 

brings this action as her next friend.    



  

15. Plaintiff Neiima Best is a fifteen-year-old black child. 

She resides in the City of Hartford with her mother, Denise Best, who 

brings this action as her next friend. She is enrolled as a Scotus 

at Northwest Catholic High School in West Hartford. 

16. Plaintiff Lisa Laboy is an eleven—year—-old Puerto Rican 

child. She resides in the City of Hartford with her mother, Adria 

Laboy, who brings this action as her next friend. She is enrolled in 

the fifth grade at Burr School. z 

17. Plaintiff David William Harrington is a thirteen-year-old 

white child. He resides in the City of Hartford with his parents, 

|Raren and Leo Harrington, who bring this action as his next friend. He 

is enrolled in the seventh grade at Quirk Middle School. 

18. Plaintiff Michael Joseph Harrington is a ten-year-old white 

child. He resides in the City of Hartford with his parents, Karen and 

Leo Harrington, who bring this action as his next friend. He is 

enrolled in the fifth grade at Noah Webster Elementary School. 

19. Plaintiff Rachel Leach is a ten-year-old white child. She 

resides in the Town of West Hartford with her parents, Eugene Leach and 

Kathleen Frederick, who bring this action as her next friend. She is 

enrolled in the fifth grade at the Whiting Lane School.   
  

 



  

    

20. Plaintiff Joseph Leach is a nine-year-old white child. He 

resides in the Town of West Hartford with her parents, Eugene Leach and 

Kathleen Frederick, who bring this action as his next friend. He is 

enrolled in the third grade at the Whiting Lane School. 

21. Plaintiff Erica Connolly is a nine-year-old white child. 

She resides in the City of Hartford with her parents, Carol Vinick and 

Tom Connolly, who bring this action as her next friend. She is 

enrolled in the fourth grade at Dwight School. 

22. Plaintiff Tasha Connolly is a six-year-old white child. She 

resides in the city of Hartford with her parents, Carol Vinick and Tom 

Connolly, who bring this action as her next friend. She is enrolled in 

the first grade at Dwight School. 

22a. Michael Perez is a fifteen-year-old Puerto Rican child. He 

resides in the city of Hartford with his father, Danny Perez, who 

brings this action as his next friend. He is enzoliad as a sophomore 

at Hartford public High School. 

22b. Dawn Perez is a thirteen-year-old Puerto Rican child. She 

resides in the City of Hartford with her father, Danny Perez, who 

brings this action as her next friend. She is enrolled in the eighth 

grade at Quirk Middle School. 

  

 



  

23. Among the plaintiffs are five black children, seven Puerto 

bican children and six white children. At least one of the children 

lives in families whose jncome falls below the ofzlcial poverty line; 

Five have limited proficiency in English; six live in single-parent 

families.   B. DEFENDANTS 
  

24. Defendant William 0/Neill or his successor is the Governor 

~f the State of Connecticut. pursuant to C.G.S. §10-1 and 10-2, with 

the advice and consent of the General Assembly, he is responsible for 

hopolnbing the members of the State Board of Education and, pursuant to 

C.G.S. §10-4(b), is responsible for receiving a detailed statement of 

the activities of the board and an account of the condition of the 

public schools and such other information as will assess the true 

condition, progress and needs of public education. 

25. Defendant State Board of Education of the state of 

Connecticut (hereafter nthe State Board!" or nthe State Board of 

Education’) is charged with the overall supervision and control of 

educational interest of the State, jncluding ‘elementary and secondary 

education, pursuant to C.G.S. §10-4. 

26. Defendants Abraham Glassman, A. Walter Esdaile, Warren J. 

Foley, Rita Eendel, John Mannix, and Julia Rankin, or their succesSOrLS 

‘are members of the State Board of Education of the state of 

‘connecticut. Pursuant to C.G.S. §10-4, they have general supervision 

and control of the educational interest of the State. 

= 
-T -   

  

 



    

27. Defendant Gerald N. Tirozzi or his successor is the 

Commissioner of the Education of the State of Connecticut and a member 

of the State Board of Education. Pursuant to C.G:S. §§10-2 and 10-3a, 

he is responsible for carrying out the mandates of the Board, and is 

also director of the Department of Education (hereafter '"the state   
Department of Education' or "the State Department"). 

28. Defendant Francisco L. Borges or his successor is Treasurer 

of the State of Connecticut. Pursuant to Article Fourth, §22 of the 

Connecticut constitution, he is responsible for the disbursements of 

all monies by the State. He is also the custodian of certain 

leducational funds of the Connecticut State Board of Education, pursuant 

ko CuGeS. §10-11l. 

29. Defendant J. Edward Caldwell or his successor is the 

Comptroller of the State of Connecticut. Pursuant to Article Fourth, 

§24 of the Connecticut Constitution and C.G.S. §3-112, he is 

responsible for adjusting and settling all public accounts and demands. 

  
  

 



  

  
11x 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 
  

A. 2A SEPARATE EDUCATION 
  

30. School children in public schools throughout the State of 

Connecticut, including the city of Hartford and its adjacent suburban 

communities, are largely segregated by race and ethnic origin. 

  31. Although blacks comprise only 12.1% of Connecticut’s 

school-age population, Hispanics only 8.5%, and children in families 

below the United States Department of Agriculture’s official "poverty 

line" only 9.7% in 1986, these groups comprised, as of 1987-88, 44.9%, 

44.9%, and 51.4% respectively of the school-age population of the 

Hartford school district. The percentage of black and Hispanic 

(hereafter '"minority") students enrolled in the Hartford City schools 

has been jrcrsasing since 1981 at an average annual rate of 1.5%. 

32. The only other school district in the Hartford metropolitan 

larea with a significant proportion of minority students is Bloomfield, 

which has a minority student population of 69.9%. 

  
  

 



  

  

    

33. The school-age populations in all other suburban school 

districts immediately adjacent and contiguous to the Hartford school 

district, (hereafter "the suburban districts"), by contrast, are 

overwhelmingly white. 2An analysis of the 1987-88 figures for Hartford, 

Bloomfield, and each of the suburban districts (excluding Burlington, 

which has a joint school program with districts outside the Hartford 

metropolitan area) (reveals the following comparisons by race and ethnic 

  

  

origin: 

Total School Pop. % Minority 

Hartford 25,058 90.5 

Bloomfield 2,555 69.9 

J Je Je de Jo Je Jk Je de de dk ke kk kk 

Avon 2,068 3.8 

Canton 1,189 3.2 

East Granby 666 2.3 

East Hartford 5,905 20.6 

East Windsor 3,267 8.5 

Ellington 1,855 2.3 

Farmington 2,608 7.7 

Glastonbury 4,463 - 5.4 

Granby 1,528 3.5 

Manchester . 7,084 11.1 

Newington 3,801 6.4 

Rocky Hill 1,807 5.9 

Simsbury 4,039 3 6.5 

South Windsor 3,648 9.3 

Suffield di 2,772 4.0 

Vernon : 4,457 6.4 

West Hartford : 7,424 . 15.7 

Wethersfield 2,997 3.3 

Windsor 4,235 : 30.8 
4.0 

Windsor Locks 1,642 

  

 



  

34. Similar significant racial and ethnic disparities 

characterize the professional teaching and administrative staffs of 

Hartford and the suburban districts, as the following 1986-87   
comparisons reveal: 

  Staff % Minority 

Hartford 2,044 33.2% 

Bloomfield 264 : 13.6% 

de Je Je Je Je dk de de dk J de Kk Kk de de ok 

Avon 179 1.31% 

Canton 108 0.0% 

East Granby 57 1.8% 

Fast Hartford 517 0.6% 

Fast Windsor 102 4.9% 

Ellington 164 0.6% 

Farmington 201 1.0% 

Glastonbury 344 2.0% 

Granby 131 0.8% 

Manchester 537 1.7% 

Newington 310 1.0% 

Rocky Hill . 154 0.6% 

Simsbury 317 oe 1.9% 

South Windsor 294 1.4% 5 

Suffield 143 0.7% 

Vernon 366 0.5% 

West Hartford 605 3.5% 

Wethersfield 263 2.1% 

Windsor 331 5.4% 

Windsor Locks 140 0.0% 

B. AN UNEQUAL EDUCATION 
  

35. Hartford schools contain a far greater proportion of 

students, at all levels, from backgrounds that put them nat risk of 

lower educational achievement. The cumulative responsibility for 

educating this high proportion of at-risk students places the Hartford 

public schools at a severe educational disadvantage in comparison with 

the suburban schools.   
  

 



  

36. All children, including those deemed at risk of lower 

education achievement, have the capacity to learn if given a suitable 

education. Yet because the Hartford public schools have an 

extraordinary proportion of at-risk students among their student 

populations, they operate at a severe educational disadvantage in 

addressing the educational needs of all students -- not only those who   
are at risk, but those who are not. The sheer proportion of at-risk 

students imposes enormous educational burdens on the individual 

students, teachers, classrooms, and on the schools within the City of 

Hartford. These burdens have deprived both the at-risk children and 

all other Hartford schoolchildren of their right to an equal 

educational opportunity. 

37. An analysis of 1987-88 data from the Hartford and suburban 

districts, employing widely accepted indices for identifying at-risk 

students =-- including: (i) whether a child’s family receives benefits 

under the Federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, (a 

measure closely correlated with family poverty): (ii) whether a child 

has limited english proficiency (hereafter NLEPY) ; or (iii) whether a 

child is from a single-parent family, reveals the following overall 

comparisons: 

  

  

% on AFDC LEP Sql. Par. Fam.¥* 

Hartford 47.6 40.9 51.0 

Avon 0.1 1.9 6.8 

Bloomfield 4.1 3.1 12.0 

Canton : 1.2 1.6 8.8 

East Granby 1.1 0.2 10.1 

East Hartford 7.2 9.8 19.7   
  

 



    

o\
° 0 ol
 

55
 

d Q o\
° on
) = d
 

o\
? 0n
 

0 j=
 

rd
 ol H : * 

  

  

  

Ww
 

. 

N un
 

Fast Windsor 

Ellington 

Farmington 

Glastonbury 

Granby 

Manchester 

Newington 

Rocky Hill 
Simsbury 

South Windsor 

suffield 

Vernon 
west Hartford 

wethersfield 

windsor 

windsor Locks 

Oo
 

. 

N
W
 

® 

:
:
 
6
&
4
 

n
N
 
u
o
 

L]
 

LJ S
W
 

H
P
 

N
u
n
 

O 
¢«
 

© 
0
°
 

[-
 

LJ 

A 
N
O
A
V
U
R
E
B
E
O
O
R
U
O
L
O
O
O
N
W
 

O
N
O
 

®
O
N
 

pa
   

P
P
 

W
W
M
O
W
W
E
R
E
R
A
E
U
L
N
W
L
O
 

_"
 

2, 
N
N
O
N
O
N
 
K
P
 

» 

W
N
W
N
O
a
n
O
O
O
O
K
H
W
O
K
H
O
o
 

¢
 

W
U
L
H
E
 
O
N
O
®
N
O
G
O
N
»
O
 

R
a
 
V
O
o
O
W
o
m
n
o
n
N
W
w
w
 

® 
» 

4 

P
P
 

* (Community-wide Data) 

38. Faced with these severe education burdens, schools in the 

Hartford school district have been unable to provide educational 

opportunities that are substantially equal to those received by 

schoolchildren in the suburban districts. 

39. As a result, the overall achievement of schoolchildren in 

the Hartford school district -- assessed by virtually any measure of 

educational performance —-— is substantially below that of 

schoolchildren in the suburban districts. 

-13-   
  

 



  

40. One principal measure of student achievement in Connecticut 

is the Statewide Mastery Test program. Mastery tests, administered to 

every fourth, sixth, and eighth grade student, are devised by the State 

Department of Education to measure whether children have learned those 

skills deemed essential by Connecticut educators at each grade level.   41. The State Department of Education has designated both a 

"mastery Benchmark" —-— which indicates a level of performance 

reflecting mastery of all grade-level skills -- and a "remedial 

benchmark!" —- which indicates mastery of nessential grade-level 

skills.n See C.G.S. §10-14n (b)=-(c) . 

42. Hartford schoolchildren, on average, perform at levels 

significantly below suburban schoolchildren on statewide Mastery 

Tests. For example, in 1988, 34% (or 1-in-3) of all suburban sixth 

graders scored at or above the mESEeTY benchmark" for reading, yet 

only 4% (or 1-in-25) of Hartford schoolchildren met that standard. 

While 74% of all suburban sixth graders exceed the remedial benchmark 

on the test of reading skill, no more than 41% of Hartford 

schoolchildren meet this test of "essential grade-level skills." In 

other words, fifty-nine percent of Hartford sixth graders are reading 

below the State remedial level. 

-14- *)       
 



  

    

43. An analysis of student reading scores on the 1988 Mastery 

Test reveal the following comparisons: 

    

  

% Below 4th Gr. % Below 6th Gr. % Below 8th Gr. 
Remedial Bnchmk. Remedial Bnchmk. Remedial Bnchmk. 

RBartford 70 59 57 

| de J Je de de de de de de : 

Avon 9 6 : 3 

"Bloomfield 25 24 16 

Canton 8 10 2 

East Granby 12 4 5 
East Hartford 38 30 36 

East Windsor 17 10 15 
(Ellington 25 14 13 
Farmington 12 3 10 
Glastonbury 15 13 11 

‘Granby 19 14 17 

Manchester 22 15 17 

Newington 8 15 32 

Rocky Hill 13 - 10 24 

Simsbury 9 5 3 

South Windsor a 13 16 

Suffield 20 10 15 

Vernon 15 18 20 

West Hartford 19 1s 11 

Wethersfield 18 32 14 

Windsor 26 17 23 

Windsor Locks 25 16 17 

  

 



  

  

44. An analysis of student mathematics scores on the 1988 Mastery 

Test reveals the following comparisons: 

    

  

% Below 4th Gr. % Below 6th Gr. % Below 8th Gr. 

Remedial Bnchmk. Remedial Bnchmk. Remedial Bnchmk. 

Hartford 41 42 57 

J J J J J Kk Kk Kk Jk k 

Avon 4 - 3 

Bloomfield 6 21 18 

Canton 3 8 5 

East Granby 10 7 6 

East Hartford 14 19 19 

East Windsor J 2 S 19 

Ellington 10 8 4 

Farmington 3 5 3 

Glastonbury 6 8 2 

Granby 3 12 11 

Manchester 8 1s 11 

Newington 3 6 7 

Rocky Hill 3 4 14 

Simsbury 5 5 3 

South Windsor . 8 10 8 

Suffield pK 33 8 

Vernon 8 9 i2 

west Hartford 8 9 7 

Wethersfield 6 8 6 

Windsor - 12 33 26 

Windsor Locks 2 7 14 

45. Measured by the State’s own educational standards, then, a 

majority of Hartford schoolchildren are not currently receiving even a 

"minimally adequate education." 

46. Other measures of education achievement reveal the same 

pattern of disparities. The suburban schools rank far ahead of the 

Hartford schools when measured by: the percentage of students who 

remain in school to receive a high school diploma versus the percentage 

i 
\ 

-16- :   
  

 



  

  

lof students who drop out; the percentage of high school graduates who 

enter four-year colleges; the percentage of graduates who enter any 

program of higher education; or the percentage of graduates who obtain 

full-time employment within nine months of completing their schooling. 

47 These disparities in educational achievement between the 

Hartford and suburban school districts are the result of the 

education-related policies pursued and/or accepted by the defendants, 

including the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic isolation of the 

Hartford and suburban school districts. These factors have already 

adversely affected many of the plaintiffs in this action, and will, in 

the future, inevitably and adversely affect the education of others. 

48. The racial, ethnic, and economic Sesragaiiion of the Hartford 

and suburban districts necessarily limits, not only the equal 

educational opportunities of the plaintiffs, but their potential 

employment contacts as well, since a large percentage of all employment 

growth in the Hartford metropolitan region is occurring in the suburban 

districts, and suburban students have a statistically higher rate of 

success in obtaining employment with many Hartford-area businesses. 

49. Public school integration of children in the Hartford 

metropolitan region by race, ethnicity, and ptononic status would 

significantly improve the educational achievement of poor and minority 

ee -17-   
  

 



    

children, without diminution of the education afforded their majority 

schoolmates. Indeed, white students WOuld be provided thereby with the 

positive benefits of close associations during their formative years 

with blacks, Hispanics and poor children who will make up over 30% of 

Connecticut’s population by the year 2000. 

    C. THE STATE’S LONGSTANDING KNOWLEDGE OF THESE INEQUITIES 

50. For well over two decades, the tate of Connecticut, through 

its defendant O’Neill, defendant State Board of Education, defendant 

Tirozzi, and their predecessors and Successors, have been aware of: 

(i) the separate and unequal pattern of public school districts in the 

State of Connecticut and the greater Hartford metropolitan region; (ii) 

the strong governmental forces that have created and maintained 

racially and economically isolated residential communities in the 

Hartford region and (iii) the consequent need for substantial 

educational changes, within and across school district lines, to end 

this pattern of 1sotation and inequality. 

51. In 1965, the United states Civil Rights commission presented 

a report to connenticut’s Commissioner of Education which documented 

the widespread existence of racially segregated schools, both between . 

urban and suburban districts and within individual urban school 

districts. The report urged the defendant State Board to take 

corrective action. None of the defendants or their predecessors took 

‘appropriate action to implement the full recommendations of the report. 

-   
  

 



  

    

52. In 1965, the Hartford Board of Education and the City Council 

hired educational consultants from the Harvard School of Education who 

concluded: (i) that low educational achievement in the Hartford 

‘schools was closely correlated with a high level of poverty among the 

student population; (ii) that racial and ethnic segregation caused 

educational damages to minority children; and (iii) that a plan should 

be adopted, with substantial redistricting and interdistrict transfers 

funded by the State, to place poor and minority children in suburban 

schools. 

53. 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 sohbols. Neither the defendants nor their predecessors acted 

to implement the request. 

54. In 1966, the Committee of Greater Hartford Superintendents 

proposed to seek 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. 

55. 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," which would have been 

  

 



  

  

located at the edge of metropolitan school districts, have had superior 

academic facilities, have employed the resources of local universities, 

and have been designed to attract school children Erem urban and 

suburban districts. The Legislature did not enact the legislation. 

56. In 1968, the defendant State Board of Education proposed 

  legislation that would have authorized the board to cut off State 

funding for sanval districts that sailed to develope acceptable plans 

for correcting racial imbalance in local schools. The proposal offered 

state funding for assistance in the preparation of the local plans. 

The Legislature did not enact the legislation. 

57. Tn 1969, the Superintendent of the Hartford School District 

called for a massive expansion of "Project Concerm,™ a pilot program 

begun in 1967 which pused several hundred black and Hispanic children 

from Hartford to adjacent suburban schools. The superintendent argued 

that without a program involving some 5000 students -- one quarter of 

.Hartford’s minority student population == the city of Hartford could 

‘neither stop white citizens from fleeing Hartford to suburban schools 

nor provide quality education for those students who remained. Project 

Concern was Sever expanded beyond an enrollment of approximately 1,500 

students. In 1988-89, the total enrollment jn Project Concern Was no 

more than 747 students, less than 3 percent of the total enrollment in 

the Hartford school system. 

-20-     
 



    

    

58. In 1969, the State Legislature passed a Racial Imbalance Law, 

requiring racial balance within, but not between, school districts. 

C.G.S. §10-226a et seg. The Legislature authorized the state 

Department of Education to promulgate implementing regulations. C.G.S. 

§10-226e. For over ten years, however, from 1969 until 1980, the 

Legislature failed to approve any regulations to implement the statute. 

59. From 1970 to 1982, - effective efforts were made by 

Qefendants Tully to remedy the racial isolation and educational 

inequities already previously identified by the defendants, which were. 

‘growing in severity during this period. 

60. 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 ie that its members brought with them when they entered 

school." The Guidelines explicitly recognized "the benefits of 

residential and ecdnomic integration in [Connecticut] as important to 

the quality of education and personal growth for all students in 

Connecticut.m 

  

 



  

    

  
61. In 1985, the State Department of Edcuation established an 

Advisory Committee to Study Connecticut’s Racial Imbalance Law. In an 

interim report completed in February of 1986, the Committee noted the 

"strong inverse relationship between racial imbalance and quality 

education in Conféntioutss public schools.' The Committee concluded 

that this was true "because racial imbalance is coincident with 

poverty, limited resources, low academic achievement and a high 

incidence of students with special needs.' The report recommended that 

the State Board consider voluntary interdistrict collaboration, 

expansion of magnet school programs, metropolitan districting, or other 

"programs tHat ensure students the highest quality instruction 

possible." 

82. In January, 1988, a report prepared by the Department of 

Education’s Committee on Racial Equity, under the supervision of 

defendant Tirozzi, was presented to the State Board. Entitled "A 

Report on Racial/Ethnic Equity and Desegregation in Connecticut’s 

Public Schools," the report 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 2s adults living and working in a 

multi-cultural society. Such interaction is 2a most important 

element of quality education. 

Report at 7. 

dl ¥ 

  

 



  

63. In 1988, after an extensive analysis of Connecticut’s Mastery 

Test results, the State Department of Education reported that "poverty, 

as assessed by one indicator, participation in the free and reduded: 

lunch program . . . [is an] important correlate[] of low achievement, 

and the low achievement outcomes associated with these factors are 

intensified by geographic concentration.’ Many other documents 

available to, or prepared by, defendant State Board of Education and 

the State Department of Education reflect full awareness both of these 

educational realities and of their applicability to the Hartford-area 

schools. 

64. In April of 1989, the state Department of Education issued a 

report, "Quality and Integrated Education: Options for Connecticut,” 

in which it concluded that 

[r]acial and economic isolation have profound academic and 

affective consequences. Children who live in poverty —-- a burden 

which impacts disproportionately on minorities —-- are more likely 

to be educationally at risk of school failure and dropping out 

before graduation than children from less impoverished homes. 

Poverty is the most important correlate of low achievement. This 

belief was borne out by an analysis- of the 1988 Connecticut 

Mastery Test data that focused on poverty . . . . The analysis 

also revealed that the low achievement outcomes associated with 

poverty are “intensified by geographic and racial concentrations. 

Report, at 1. 

65. Turning to the issue of racial and ethnic integration, the 

report put forward the findings of an educational expert who had been 

commissioned by the Department to study the effects of integration: 

es indicate improved achievement for 

tegrated settings and at the same time 

the fear that integrated classrooms 

[T]he majority of studi 
minority students in in 

offer no substantiation to   
  

 



  

impede the progress of more advantaged white students. 
Furthermore, integrated education has long-term positive effects 
on interracial attitudes and behavior . . . . 

66. Despite recognition of the "alarming degree of isolation" of 

poor and minority schoolchildren in the City of Hartford and other   urban school systems, Report at 3, and the gravely adverse impact this 

isolation has on the educational opportunities afforded to plaintiffs 

and other urban schoolchildren, the Report recommended, and the 

defendants have announced, that they intend 50 pursue an approach that 

would be "voluntary and incremental." Report, at 34. 

66a. In January of 1993, in response to this lawsuit, defendant 

Governor Lowell Weicker, in nis annual state of the state address, 

called on the Ledislabure to address "[t]he racial and economic 

| isolation in Connecticut’s school system," and the related educational 

inequities in Connecticut’s schools. 

66b. As in the past, the legislature failed to act effectively 

in response to the Governor’s call for school desegregation 

initiatives. Instead, a voluntary desegregation planning bill was 

—- 4     
 



  

  

    

passed, P.A. 93-263, which contains no racial or poverty concentration 

goals, no guaranteed funding, no provisions for educational 

enhancements for city schools, and no mandates for local compliance. 

E. THE STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE EFFECTIVE ACTION 
  

67. 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. 
/ 

68. The defendants, who have knowledge that Hartford 

schoolchildren face educational inequities, have the legal obligation 

under Article First, gs and 20, and Article Eighth, §1 of the 

Connecticut Constitution to correct those inequities. 

69. Moreover, the defendants have full power under Connecticut 

statutes and the Connecticut constitution to carry out their : : 

constitutional obligations and to provide the relief to which 

plaintiffs are entitled. C.G.S. §10-4, which addresses the powers and 

duties of the state Board of Education and the State Department of 

Education, continues with §10-4a, which expresses ''the concern of the 

state (1) that each child shall have . . . equal opportunity to receive 

- 5 

  

 



  

  

  

a suitable program of educational experiences.' Other provisions of 

state law give the Board the power to order local or regional remedial 

planning, to order local or regional boards to take reasonable steps to 

comply with state directives, and even to seek judicial enforcement of 

its orders. See §10-4b. The Advisory Committee on Educational Equity, 

‘established by §10-4d, is also expressly empowered to make appropriate 

recommendations to the Connecticut State Board of Education in order 

"to ensure equal educational opportunity in the public schools.” 

70. Despite these clear mandates, defendants have failed to take 

corrective measures to insure that its Hartford public schoolchildren 

receive an equal educational opportunity. Neither the Hartford school 

district, which is burdened both with severe educational disadvantages 

and with racial and ethnic isolation, nor the nearby suburban yi 

districts, which are also racially isolated but do not share the 

educational burdens of a large, poverty-level school population, have 

been directed by defendants to address these inequities jointly, to 

reconfigure district lines, or to take other steps sufficient to 

eliminate these educational inequities. 

-26= 

  

 



  

  

71. [Withdrawn.] 

72. Deprived of more effective remedies, the Hartford school 

district has likewise not been given sufficient money and other 

‘resources by the defendants, pursuant to §10-1l40 or other statutory and 

constitutional Fraviglons, adequately to address many of the worst 

impacts of the educational deprivations set forth in 4423-27 supra. 

The reform of the State’s school finance law, ordered in 1977 pursuant 

to litigation in the Horton V. Meskill case, has not worked in practice 
  

adequately to redress these inequities. Many compensatory or remedial 

services that might have mitigated the full adverse effect of the 

constitutional violations set forth above either have been denied to 

the Hartford school district or have been funded by the state at levels 

‘that are insufficient to ensure their effectiveness to plaintiffs and 

.other Hartford schoolchildren. | 

IV. LEGAL CLATIMS 
  

FIRST COUNT 
  

73. varagraphe 1 through 34 are incorporated herein by reference. 

74. Separate educational systems for minority and non-minority 

students are inherently unequal. 

75. Because of the de facto racial and ethnic segregation between 

lEartford and the suburban districts, the defendants have failed to 

provide the plaintiffs with an equal opportunity to a free public 

«37 ~     
 



  

  

  
leducation as required by Article First, §§1 and 20, and Article Eighth, 

§1, of the Connecticut Constitution, to the grave injury of the 

plaintiffs, 

SECOND COUNT 
  

76. Paragraphs 1 through 72 are incorporated herein by reference. 

77. . Separate educational systems for minority and non-minority 

students in fact provide to all students, and have provided to 

plaintiffs, unequal educational opportunities. 

78. Because of the racial and ethnic segregation that exists 

between Hartford and the exbREbaY districts, perpetuated by the 

defendants and resulting in serious harm to the plaintiffs, the 

defendants have discriminated against the plaintiffs and have failed to 

provide them with an equal opportunity to a free public education as 

required by Article First, §§1 and 20, and Article Eighth, §1 of the 

Connecticut Constitution. 

THIRD COUNT 
  

79. Paragraph 1 through 72 are incorporated herein by reference. 

80. The maintenance by the defendants of a public school district 

in the City of Hartford: (1) that is severely educationally 

disadvantaged in comparison to nearby suburban school districts: (ii) 

that fails to provide Hartford schoolchildren with educational 

opportunities equal to those in suburban districts; and (iii) that 

. -28-   
  

 



    

fails to provide a majority of Hartford schoolchildren with a minimally 

adequate education measured by the state of Connecticut’s own standards 

-- all to the great detriment of the plaintiffs and other Hartford 

schoolchildren -- violates Article First, §§1 and 20, and Article 

Bighth, §1 of the connecticut Constitution.   FOURTH COUNT 
  

81. Paragraphs 1 through 72 are incorporated herein by reference. 

82. The failure of the defendants to provide to plaintiffs and 

other Hartford schoolchildren the equal educational opportunities to 

which they are entitled under connecticut law, including §10-4a, and 

which the defendants are obligated to ensure have been provided, 

violates the Due Process Clause, Article First, §§8 and 10, of the 

Connecticut Constitution. 5 

RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully 

request this Court to: | 

1. Enter a declaratory judgment 

a. that public schools in the greater Hartford metropolitan 

region, which ol segregated de facto by race and ethnicity, are 

inherently unequal, to the injury of the plaintiffs, in violation of 

Article First, §§1 and 20, and Article Eighth, §1 of the Connecticut 

Constitution; 

gO   
 



  

Db. that the public schools in the greater Hartford 

metropolitan region, which are segregated by race and ethnicity, do not 

  provide plaintiffs with an equal educational opportunity, in violation 

of Article First, §§1 and 20, and Article Eighth, §1, of the 

Connecticut Constitution; 

c. that the maintenance of public schools in the greater 

Hartford metropolitan region that are segregated by economic statutes 

severely disadvantages plaintiffs, deprives plaintiffs of an equal 

educational opportunity, and fails to provide plaintiffs with a 

minimally adequate education =-- all in violation of Article First, §§1 

and 20 and Article Eighth §1, and C.G.S. §10-4a2; and 

d. that the failure of the defendants to provide the 

schoolchildren plaintiffs with the equal educational opportunities to 

which they are entitled under Connecticut law, including §l0-4a2, 

violates the Due Process clause, Article First, §§8 and 10, of the 

Connecticut Constitution. 

2. Issue a temporary, preliminary .and permanent injunction, 

enjoining defendants, their agents, employees, and successors in office 

A 
~ 

from failing to provide, and ordering them to provide: 

a. plaintiffs and those similarly situated with an 

integrated education; 

30   
  

 



  

  

b. plaintiffs and those similarly situated with equal 

educational opportunities; 

c. plaintiffs and those similary situated with a minimally: 

adequate education; 

3. Assume and maintain jurisdiction over this action until such 

time as full relief has been afforded plaintiffs; 

4. Award plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; and 

5. Award such other and further relief as this Court deems 

necessary and proper. 

PLAINTIFFS, MILO SHEFF, ET AL. 

— 
  

Wesle . Hortdn 
MOLLER, HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C. 

90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

(20 22-8338 

  

Ph Brittaiw - 
IVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT 

School of Law 

65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06103 

  

Mor Hee Sha 
Martha Stone 

CCLU 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

     



  

  

  

  

  

HY Ceres 
Philip D. Tegeler 
CCLU 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Ao bcos 
  

Helen Hershkoff 

Adam S. Cohen 

ACLU 

132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

  

Marianne £ngelman Lado 
Theodore Shaw 

Dennis D. Parker 
NAACP Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

: WN 
  

Vsandra Del Valle 

Puerto Rican Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

Cons Sins edn ns in 
  

Wilfred Rodriguez (J ( ) 
NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL S ICES 

1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06102 

  
 



  

  

  

CERTIFICATION 
  

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed or hand- 

delivered to the following counsel of record on November 23, 1994: 

Bernard McGovern, Esq. 
Martha Watts Prestley, Esq. 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

RTS — 
  

“Wesley W. Horton