Plaintiffs' and Defendants Revised Stipulations of Fact

    @ SN 

  

5.C..15255 

  

‘MILO SHEFF, et al. : SUPREME COURT 

Plaintiffs 

Vv. - STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants $ JUNE 6, 1995 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ 
REVISED STIPULATIONS OF FACT! 
  

  

  

] The parties are in agreement with all stipulations (1-256) 
contained herein. The parties are also in agreement with headings 

I and VI. Because the parties were unable to agree as to headings 

II-V, each side has submitted in this document its own proposed 

heading for each respective section. 

The parties are in agreement on all subheadings. The 

subheadings correspond with the same subheadings in the parties’ 

proposed findings of fact. 

Unless otherwise stated, all proposed stipulations are as of 
the date of trial.     
  

 



    

ORDER 
  

2%, 1995 

foregoing, Stipulation is hereby 
For good cause shown J aged 

- 

  

   



Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Revised Stipulations of Fact 

  

NOTICE SENT: June 28, 1995 
MOLLER, HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C. 
MARTHA STONE 
PHILIP D. TEGELER 
JOHN BRITTAIN 
WILFRED RODRIGUEZ 
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL 
BERNARD F. MCGOVERN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
MARTHA WATTS PRESTLEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
GREGORY T. D’/AURIA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
CAROLYN K. QUERIJERO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
MARIANNE ENGELMAN LADO 
THEODORE SHAW 
DENNIS D. PARKER 
SANDRA DEL VALLE 
CHRISTOPHER A. HANSEN 

 



SO A5285 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPREME COURT 

vs. STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. JUNE 27, 1885 

EI. NDING 
  

Pursuant to:this Court's Order of May 1%, 1995 that the 

trial court review any filings relating to factual issues 

other than the parties’ stipulation of facts and proposed 

findings of fact that it may find helpful, the court 

incorporates herein by way of introduction to its findings 

certain amendments to the complaint that were made by the 

plaintiffs prior to trial for the purpose of narrowing the 

gcope of their offer of proof, as well as a representation 

made by counsel for the plaintiffs at the time of final 

argument relating to the defendants’ claim that the court 

lacks jurisdiction because of the plaintiffs’ failure to 

join the Hartford area towns and school districts as 

necessary parties in this action. 

I. 

On July 21, 1992, the plaintiffs filed a request to 

amend paragraphs 47 and 50 of their original complaint, and 

to delete paragraph 71 in its entirety, because "the state’s 

“yoke in segregated housing patterns 1s not a necessary part 

or 
of Their affirmative case . . . and they wish to eliminate 

LZ Mir 
any ambiguity in the pleadings that may be relied on by the 

~
—
 

 



ethnic and socioeconomic balance in the school districts of 

the Hartford metropolitan area. (Trent, 7/134; Gordon, 

13/149-151) 

  

158. Mandatory student reassignment plans to achieve 
racial balance, whether intradistrict or interdistrict, are 
ineffective methods of achieving integration, whether they 
are mandated by racial imbalance laws or by court order. 
(Rossell, 26B/34) 

159. Proposed solutions to the problems of racial, 
ethnic and economic isolation which rely on coercion and 
which fail to offer choices and options either do not work 
or have unacceptable consequences. (PX. -398, Pp. 8; Tirozzi, 
PX 494, pp. 82-93) 

160. Moreover, reliance on coercive measures alone, 
without providing quality education and maintaining it at 
the appropriate levels throughout the region, do not seem to 
work and fail to produce the outcomes that are educationally 
desirable. (Foster, 21/158-61) 

161. Integration in its fullest and most meaningful 
sense can only be achieved by building affordable housing in 
suburban areas in order to break up the inner city ghettos, 
and by making urban schools more attractive for those who 
live outside the city. {Tirozzi, PX 494, p. 34; Mannix, 

PY 495, po. 22-23) 

/ 7 / 
A / vd 

4 7 
Z- 7 yt Cg 

: / 
Harry Hammer 

Trial Judge 
\V. 

  

28 

 



  

Substituted pg. 28 for Findings dated June 27, 1995 

NOTICE SENT: June 28, 1995 
MOLLER, HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C. 
MARTHA STONE 
PHILIP D. TEGELER 
JOHN BRITTAIN 
WILFRED RODRIGUEZ 
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL 
BERNARD F. MCGOVERN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
MARTHA WATTS PRESTLEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
GREGORY T. D’/AURIA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
CAROLYN K. QUERIJERO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
MARIANNE ENGELMAN LADO 
THEODORE SHAW 
DENNIS D. PARKER 
SANDRA DEL VALLE 
CHRISTOPHER A. HANSEN 

 



07/05/95 13:00 T203 241 7666 U OF CT LAW SCHL @oo3 

  

  

  

VE rT! 

Judge Calls 

Poverty Root 

Of School Ills 
By GEORGE JUDSON 

HARTFORD, June 27 — Expand- 

ing on a ruling he issued in April, a 
state judge sald today that poverty, 
not segregation, was the cause of the 
poor performance of students in the 

Hartford schools. 
The finding came in a lawsuit 

seeking to integrate the city's . 

schools with those of its suburhs — a 

case that has already been appealed 

- to the State Supreme Court, 

The fact that Hartford's school- Re 

children, the poorest and most ra- 

cially segregated in Connecticut, 

achieve the state's lowest scores on 

standardized tests reflects the disad- + 
vantages of family poverty rather 

than the quality of their schools, 

wrote the Superior Court judge, Har- 

ry Hammer. 
“Hartford should not be consid- 

ered a negative setting for education 

in that the state is still meeting its 

primary responsibility of educating 

its schoolchildren, and there is some 

outstanding education going on its 

schools,” Judge Hammer wrote. 

The judge had already ruled 

against the plaintifls in the case, of 
known as Sheft vs. O'Neill, declaring - | 
that they had failed to prove that the 

state was responsible for the segre- 

gated conditions in Hartford's 

schools, 
Since the state had not caused the 

conditions, he wrote, he had no rea- 

son to consider the plaintiffs’ const- 
tutional argument that segregation 

by race and class, regardless of how 
it came about, denied children an 
equal educational opportunity. 

Black and Puerto Rican children 

make up 92 percent of Hartford's 

24,000 students, two-thirds of whom 

live in poverty.. Their scores on 

standardized tests are the lowest in 
the state, 

Today, in ndditionat findings re- 

quested by the Supreme Court, . 
Judge Hammer not only repeated 

his concligion that the state was not 

at fault, but suggested that Hart. 

ford's schools were doing as well as 

any schools could, considering the 

Sativa background of their stu- 

ents. 

  

He rejected the arguments uf civil 

rights lawyers for the plaintiffs that 

Hartford's last-place rank on Con- 

necticut’s standardized tests, far be- 
luw average scores in nearby sub- 

orbs, proved the failure of its 
schools. 

“The disparity in test scores does 

: not indicate that Hartford is doing an 

inudequate or a poor job in educating 

its students or that its schools are 

failing,” Judge Hammer wrote, Yhe- 

cause the predicted scores based 

upon the relevant socioeconomic fac- 

ors are about at the levels that one 

would expect.” 
The judge alsa appeared to reject 

the civil rights lawyers’ proposed 

solution to the concentration of poor 

children in Hartford: combining the 

city's schools with those in 2} sur- 

rounding communities. He agreed 

with lawyers for the state that court- 

ordered schoo) integration is either 

“ineffective” or has “unacceptable 

consequences.” 

The only way to achieve meaning- 

ful integration, he wrote, was fo 

break up segregated housing pat- 

terns by building affordable housing 

in suburbs, which is beyond his 

scope, and by making Hartford 

schools more attractive to people 
who live outside the city. 

The state, he said, was already 

pursuing policies intended to im- 

prove schools in Hartford and other 

cities and to promote voluntary inte- 

gration measures between school 

districts. 

Lawyers for both sides will now 

prepare briefs for the Supreme 

Court; oral arguments before the 

court are expected in September or 

October, 

Today Attorney General Richard 

Biumenthal said Judge Hammer's 

new findings “very significantly 

srrengthen and support the state's 

argument that Connecticut has met 

and continues to meel its obliga- 

tions." 

  

 



07/05/95 13:00 T203 241 7666 

: Har7 ford Courant” 

Phainiises in“the landmark Sheff vs. O'Neill 
sschool desegregation case being reviewed by the 
istate Supreme Court appear to be backtracking 
=0h a promise to attack de facto segregated hous- 
“ing next. 
* - Their reluctance is understandable; they may 
“rit want to divert focus from the Sheff case. 

-~ Eyentually, however, the issue of housing 

oriust receive similar attention. Where children 
“live determines where they go to school. Inte- 
-grate the neighborhood, and you integrate the 
rgchools. 
£ If only it were that simple. Zoning restric- 

rtions, such as large lot sizes and preference for 
¢smgle-family dwellings, have kept suburbs pri- 
marily the province of the prosperous, Mortgage 

lending practices, though improving, tend to fa- 
vor traditional middle-class families. 
2” Affordable housing initiatives have helped a 
Fstnall number of low-income people own or rent 

' thomes in the suburbs. More often than not, 
though, affordable housing proposals draw pro- 
test. Mention multifamily development especial- 
«Ij; and you're likely to hear the same rhetoric: 
B= 

Ld 

Housing linked to schoo 

U OF CT LAW SCHL 

7// g§5° A/c 
l diversity 

“We don’t want low-income projects (read: urban 
problems and minorities) in our town.” : 

In Connecticut, where a wide chasm sepa- 
rates the rich from the poor, the route out of the 

impoverished cities is strewn with roadblocks 

‘that must be removed. As long as there are large 

pockets of poverty, the well-to-do will continue to 

flee the cities. tr 

Although falling real-estate prices have 
opened the suburbs to economic and racial diver- 
sity somewhat, the public mood shows signs of 
swinging away from advances of the past few 
decades. : 

Towns had the opportunity to fashion volun- 
tary strategies for integrating schools. Most re- 
fuged to adopt them. The state’s school racial 
balance law hag now been put on hold for two 

years. A fast-track zoning appeals process de- 

signed to facilitate affordable housing was nar- 
rowed in the past session of the Legislature. 
Affirmative action is under attack. 

This is no time to backtrack on civil rights. 
Sheff II would keep the critical issue of housing 
diversity on the front burner. 

[dood 

 



  

07/05/95 13:01 

  
  

  

T203 241 76686 U OF CT LAW SCHL 

    

Pump House Gallery 

  

  

hey came, Lhey saw, they 
WOre pum 
Tt was the 10th anniversary 

of Lhe Pump House Gallery, the 
owned art gallery in Bushnell 
and about 100 people came to cele- 
brate Thursday night. 

It was a crystal-clear night, with 
jazz, plenty of wine, and big cocktail 
shrimp while they ivi B oy 

They're a 2 { 
pe who oe the arte and 
love the A d they appreciate 
Pa alle y they Ja they 

ve t to i 
The dl igh dg! when 

United Technologies Corp, award. 
td a grant of $100,000 to the pus 

nell Park Foundation. It nade ca 
tal improvements and then h d 
it over to the city to run. 

“This gallery is a ugh urban 
gallery, the lilecs of which we don't 
see in other cities,” said Tony Bre- 
scia, Pump House board member. 
“Cities don't typically own art 

ene. 

“We have almost lost it.” he said. 
“As soon as the budget is discussed, 
the gallery is [endangered]. We've 
done fund-raising in recent years ro 
add money tn what the yay ys." 

Earlicr in the day, Hartford poet 
Lonnie Black had just read his poel- 
ry in the Pump House co .He 
was backed up by African 

“Hey, Lonuie, did you see The 
Advocate today?” asked Judy 
Green, director of the ArtWorks 
Gallery. "Tt said you were the major 
force behind Northeast magazine, It 
#7 J are it, baby. May I touch 

What would Northeast Editor 
Lary Rloom say ahout that? 

Brescia, who is also senior re: 
glonal manager for the Hartford re- 
gion of the state Department of Eco- 
nomic Developmenl, was 
conunenting on the di of 
ple wha were at the gallery party. 

Black responicdled that iA wighed 
there were morc. 

"Geez, Lonnie, give it a rest. 
We've got everything but Klin- 
gong," Brescia paid. “Take tha 
whole diversity less seriously und 
write more limericks,” 

Vivisn Zoe, director of the Lutz 
Children’s Museum in Manchester, 
was once a director of lhe Pump 
House and said that the gallery “has 
been in jeopas every year, 
“People art is a fill, al- 

though the city and state are g getting 
beyond that,” she said, “It hos the 
potential to attract people to the 
au 

oy tion Councilwoman Varomi. 
ca Airey-Wilson was there — May- 
or Mika was on vacation in SL 

Maarten — and she intends to pro- 
mata the gallery. 
Phnom lunch functions have 

acked,” she said, 1) says that 
igen who work downtown utilize 
it. R: There ought to be events here 
several times a week." 

Ajrey=Wilson said she plans to 
tall to the department of parks nnd 
recreation about getting more 
groups to use it for fund-raisers. 

Ag for the upcoming council race, 

5 Sourani, 
“Wilson, a Republican, 150 

jus er party is “taking a wait-and- 
see amirude and letting the Demo- 
cratx fight it out. 

“The Democrats are falling all 
over each other, su many wanting to 
run,” she said. “I'm impressed.” 

As for whe may challenge the 
wiayor, Airey-Wilson said: “I'll be 
rE best Mike. He's brottght up 
the energy level in the B= The 
Republicans will 

ra were there to suppo gallery 
and to spread the good word on 
Keney Park, specifically irs 10th an 
pd and Family Day, Aug. 10 

Se ya a show people huw 
beautiful io Nise said 
“A lptof Aid kh of Weaver High 
School have such fond memories.” 

She tokl how as a boy, Hartford 
lawyer Gerry Roisman went to the 
Keney Park stable with a friend and 
Took TWO Bama which they rode 
through the park. 

“And on Sunday afternoons, it 
had the best J ickup basketball 
games,” she said. "We want to bring 
people back to that memory.” 

Christie, who is vents coording- 
profess wy musics ofthe 
‘Friends of Rant Park, was galling 
pins prumoling Keney, He also had 
kind words about the Pump House 
Gallery. 
“Art is what Hartford is made of,” 

he said, “This is an experience peo- 
ple ghould try ta have. [ think the 
Pump House needs to be marketed 
mare. Ld 

Christie said that instead of trying 
to get suburbanites to come into the 
city, “the community frst has to 
embrace it." 

“No one talks about the people 
here,” he said, "Let them take 
ownership, 5 
» He would like to see the Pump 
yi Est i yous people and 

Hhars m 5 my gut i! feeling,” he said. 
“They do a better job when they're 
volved.” 

: Varsha — a satya) wurke! 
as gtate Department of Men 
LIsalth, lives in Windsor and is an 
&Vid Supporter of te city. 
“People from the suburbs think 

Lhat entertainment i= going to the 
"Enfield mall * Mason said. I 
tel) them what [ go to in the city — 
much less that Tlet my children take 
the bus here — they look at me like 
I'm half out of my gourd.” 

Mason works with the Windsor 
Youth Theater and plans to bring 
members of that group into Hart- 

ford this summer for Shakespeare 
in the park 

She plans to wear a pre-Raphael- 
ite costume, put some niedieval cov- 
€r an a cahbla, lemonade and 

biscuits and put on a tea party. 

Jeff Stewart, economic develops’ 
ment agent at the state Depaiimnbhe 
of Tranzportation, described Rus 
nell Park as Sion, Sonera Rast 
of Harford." He noted that it was 
designed by Frederick Law Olm- 
stead, who is from Hartford and 
who designed many famous parks 
including New York's Central {Park 
and Boston's park a, known 
as the Emerald Ne 

Two weeks ago, ot and oth- 
er park advocates like Sandy Par- 
isky started a group called the Hart- 
ford Olmstead Park Alliance. He 

   

   
marks milestone 

TY he Jus ihe get) + wh 

suid that Olmstead is buried in Hart- 
ford, 

“Yeah, he's buried in Carrie Sax- 
on Perry's hat,” Brescia qui 

Actually, Stewart said, Olmstead 
ix butied in the old north cemetery 
on Main Srreer, the alliance 

  

ng friends ph the gallery 
hat he has _— interne working 
for him ul ecunumiv fevelopment       

ou ae TE BY to contact Bette 
Midler to see if she's interested in 
sponsoring it," he said. “She loved 
Sophie Tucker most.” 

Brescia came v with tha ides 
when he was ul QVC vendor 
show, the air co! was Off, 
and he said ha “was crazed.” 

“The interns asked, ‘What do we 
do next?” he =aid. “And I said: 
Sophie" 

Parisky thinks the tributes to 
Olmstead and Tucker are long 
av 
“Hartford often neglects its 

own," he said, “Often, people don’t 
get discovered until they move 

“Laiishy Is viee president of 3 president uf tie 
Parisky 1 a Hariford public 
policy on firm, He is also a 
atfous] udviser For the National 

     
   

   

    

de Seale that the failure 
Jeni 8 could nut be blamed on 

segregated schools, Poverty was the 
cause, 

“The Jade alg | that poor kids 
cannot a good edics- 
tion," B AME “Twill build in a 

or: $e sw 

bs Dead hen I sir 
nell Park, I sé8 the multiracial, il 
tiethnic, multi-income S poopie Bit- 

    

afl 

time, that's Sh Ba having. 
sodiety.” 

nity all on the i, was 
ati gall is loging its 
vonne Wars. She is leaving vol. 
.y, but after wat she da- 

  

thers were too many g 
votes. Said aan “] knew I 
couldn't work with them. 
“They said I'm a militant snd 

have a with ‘white malcs,” 
she "Harris will sll be workin 
in cultural affair in the parks an 
recreation departmeit. 
  

Palvicia Seremet 1s a business writer 
Jor The Courant, 

doos 

 



07/05/95 13:02 ©'203 241 76686 U OF CT LAW SCHL : 008 

  

  

H ap 1 Lord Ueur ant 
ER 

Education: 

Does it lift 
the poor? 
Sheff findings challenge 
belief in schools’ impact: 

By ROBERT A. FRAHM A 
Courant Staff Writer 

For America’s poor, its immigrants, its 
downtrodden, public schools always have 
seemed a ticket out of pavers. 

But a Connecticut judge challenged that 
pular belief last week when he outlined 

#5 findings in a landmark school desegre- 
gation cage known as Sheff vs, O'Neill 

Judge Harry Hammer said that because of 
the stubborn effects of poverty, the children 
in ‘Hartford's troubled public schools — 
where academic performance is the worst in 

the state — are doing about as well as can be 

expected. ; 

The judge, elaborating on a ruling he 
issued two months ago, said there are no 

educational strategies that can fully ovér- 
come problems such as hunger, drug abuse 
or parental neglect and that court-ordered 
desegregation could produce more harm 
than good. 
Hammer, a Superior Court Jude from 

Vernon, found, in effect, that children fail 
not hecause they attend unequal or segre- 
gated schools, but because they are poor. 

His interpretation not only outraged 
plaintiffs, it struck a nerve among some 
educators. 

“It's about as strikingly negative a set of 
findings as I have ever seen in school deseg- 
regation,” said Harvard University Profes- 

sor Gary Orfield, who was a witness for the 
plaintifts. 
"Eddie Davis, superintendent of Hartford's 
24,000-student system, said; “We have al- 
ways believed education could bring you 
out of poverty, If we ever lose that as'a 
fundamental bellef, we will never change 
anything in this country.” 

Most students in Hartford public schools 
are black or Hispanic, and many are poor. In 
Connecticut and across the nation, test re- 
sults show a close correlation with family 
income. Usually, the lower the income, the 
lower the score. : 

The judge’s findings rekindled a debate 
that has been simmering for years in aca- 
demic circles and even among teachers in 
Hartford’s own classrooms. The debate 
dates at least from 1966, when sociologist 
James 5S. Coleman issued a controversial 
national study saying that a child's home 
background has a greater effect on achieve- 
meni than the quality of his school.   
 



07/05/95 13:02 T203 241 7666 

Sheff findings ch 
vy 

‘Continued from Page 1 

~.It i§ possibly the most vexing 
' question in American education to- 
ga Can schools overcome the ¢rip- 
pling effects of poverty? 
Hammer's bleak answer to that 

question came as a serious blow to 
plaintiffs, who have ed that 
only a court desegregation order 
can reduce the disparity between 
schools in Hartford and those in its 

Jowre affluent, mostly white sub- 

BFbs. 
Civil .rights advocates found 

Hammer's findings discouraging, 
jugt as they did recent U.S. Supreme 
Court rulings attacking school de- 
Yégregation in Kansas City, Mo., af- 
ffffative action and racially drawn 
voting districts, said Theodore M. 

"Sithw, associate" director of the 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which 
Aas provided counsel in the Sheff 

e. 

“The troubling thing about where 
.are in the Sheff case,” he said, 

“is that it comes in the broader con- 
text of a national failure of will to do 
anything . . . about the problems of 
race and poverty." 

The right facts 
The case, now under review by 

the state Supreme Court, has been 
watched closely nationwide and 
could alter the shape of Connecti- 
cut’s cily and suburban school 
boundaries. 

Some of the key testimony on 
which Hammer based his findings 
came from David J. Armor, a re- 

searcher who says it is poverty, not 
racial segregation, that is the root of 
the achievement gap. 

“I'm pleased [the judge] sees the 
facts the way I do,” said Armor, a 
professor at George Mason Univer- 
sity in Virginia and a well-known 
critic of court-ordercd desegrega- 
tion. 

Armor, who once was elected to 
the Los Angeles school board on an 
anti-busing platform and held gov- 
ernment research jobs as an ap- 
pointee of President Reagan, esti- 
mates he has testified in at least 30 
school desegregation cases. 
Armor contends that many courts 

have issued desegregation orders 
on the theory “that school segrega- 
tion of any type causes harm to 
minority children, especially black 
children [and] harms their self-es- 
teem, their educational processes.” 
That theory, he said, is wrong, 

“The thesis in the Sheff case is 
that any segregation — even if it 
comes by private choices of individ- 
uals in housing patterns -- also pro- 
duces the same harm. . .. There is 
absolutely no evidence for that.” 

As for the cause of poor achieve- 
ment, he said, “we come back to 
poverty, cducational differences 
and other family differences,” in- 
cluding child-rearing practices. The 
achievement gap already exists by 
the time a child reaches kinder- 
garten, he said. 

Armor's views, however, are at 
odds with those of a number of ex- 
perts who testified on behalf of the 
plaintiffs. Among them is Otfield, 

U OF CT LAW SCHL 

the Harvard professor who has writ- 

ten numerous reports on desegre- 
gation, 
Most research, Orfield said, 

rally, on average, there 

Although Armor and others have 
said that court o cause whites 
to flee from schoo icts, Orfield 
disagrees. 

He concedes there is some white 

flight under mandalury busing 
plans but says 
est city-subur 

also 

some of the larg- 
ordered 

search methods 
conclusions. 

“He tends to look at effects and 
gay they're too small to count. Oth- 
ers look at it and say they're big,” 
Orfield said. “That's what the de- 
bate is like." 

urin fhe tal in 1993, ale 
t “preposterous an 
deeply offensive” to s that 
public education has ad sot on a 

  

[@ooT 

 



07/05/95 13:03 

ing most of the arguments made by 
Orfield and others on behalf of the 
plaintiffs. 

Education as a vehicle 
Among his findings, Hammer 

cites a 1990 report by a state com- 
mission, which said schools alone 
cannot fully overcome problems 
such as drug abuse, hunger, poor 
housing or unemployment. 
‘That report, however, should not 

be interpretéd to suggest that 
schools have no role to play in ad- 
dressing poverty, said David G. 
Carter, president of Eastern Con- 
necticut State University and the 
ep ghainaan of the Sanson, 
which was appomted by former 
Gov. William A. O'Neill. 

“If we have learned 
from Brown vs. Board of Education, 
it is that education provides a vehi- 
cle for individuals to move beyond 
where they are,” Carter said, refer- 
ring to the 1954 U.S, Supreme Court 
ruling that struck down state-sanc- 
tioned school tion. 

According to studies done by the 
U.S. rmment, the achievement 
gap between black and white stu- 
dents narrowed somewhat during 
the 1970s and 1980s. In part, that 
may be the result of more maney 
and effort targeted loward poor 
children, some experts believe, 
Although poverty remains a 

strong influence on achievement, 
“there are a number of examples of 
schools that have been successful in 
helping [poor] children reach stan- 
dards meny have assumed poor 

T203 241 76686 U OF CT LAW SCHL 

THE HARTFORD COURANT: Tuesday, July 4, 195 AD 

in schools’ effect 0 
children are not capable of meet- 
ing," said Thomas W. Payzant, as- 
sistant secretary for elementary and 
secondary education with the U.S. 
Department of Education. 

“The problem is, they are here 
and there and few in number,” he 
said. 

Payzant said, however, there is 
compe evidence to suggest that 
poor children are likely to perform 
better in middle-class schools than 
in mostly low-income schools. 

The damaging effect of high con- 
centrations of poor children in 

_ schools is a central argument in the 
Sheff case, and it is acknowledged 
7 Hammer in one of his findings. 
gvertheless, (he judge agreed with 

Armor and other witnesses who 
said that court-ordered desegrega- 
tion does not work. 

That view is also held by Diane 
Ravitch, a former U.S. assistant gec- 

of education in the Bush ad- 
ministration. If suburban parents 
were asked to send their children to 
city schools they perceived as infe- 
rior, “they would all leave the public 
school system and go to private 
schools,” she said. 

The only school system that has 
significantly closed the achieve- 
ment gap between students of dif- 
ferent races and social classes is the 
Catholic school system, said Ra- 
vitch, now a researcher at New York 
University. In that system, she said, 
adults, including parents, create 

schools with specific expectations, 
rules of behavior and academic 
standards for all students. : 

But, she said, “I can’t think of a 
strategy a court could order that 
would make public schools operate 
like Catholic schools.” 

Ap ruled this year that the 
state has no obligation to integra 
schools. He issued last week's find- 
ings at the request of the state Su- 
preme Court. The high court is ex- 
pected to hear arguments in the fall. 

The plaintiffs will try to counter 
Hammer by ing that many of 
his findings are Conflicting Or erTd- 
neous. or 

For example, Hammer's fin : 
Artord are ac 

finding showing that Hartford 
spenss much less than the state av- 
erage on oks, lib books 
and equipment, said John C. Brit- 
tain, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. 

Even Attorney General Richar 
Blumenthal, who ig defending th 

findings, conceds 
tent problems o 
worrisome. 

“There is absolutely no question 
the state needs to do more to imn- 
prove the quality and diversity o 
education,” he said last week. 

“There is nothing in these find- 
ings that minimizes that moral apd 
social obligation. It Shun says the 

ation.” 

FX] 

city chools are 

stale has met its legal o 

   



  

S.C. 15255 

  

‘MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPREME COURT 

Plaintiffs 

v. | STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants JUNE 6, 1995 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ 
REVISED STIPULATIONS OF FACT! 
  

  

    1 Tne parties are in agreement with all stipulations (1-256) 
contained herein. The parties are also in agreement with headings 
I and VI. Because the parties were unable to agree as to headings 
II-V, each side has submitted in this document its own proposed 
heading for each respective section. 

The parties are in agreement on all subheadings. The 
subheadings correspond with the same subheadings in the parties’ 
proposed findings of fact. 

Unless otherwise stated, all proposed stipulations are as of 
the date of trial.   
  

 



    

wile 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DESCRIPTION OF PARTIES (Stipulations 1-25) 

PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING: 

DOES RACIAL AND ETHNIC ISOLATION IN THE HARTFORD 

SCHOOL SYSTEM VIOLATE ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND 

DEFENDANTS’ HEADING: 

HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS PROVEN THAT THE STATE HAS 
VIOLATED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES, THE DUE 
PROCESS CLAUSE OR THE EDUCATION ARTICLE OF THE STATE 

A. THE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE 

AND ETHNICITY (Stipulations 26-38) 

TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE 
AND ETHNICITY (Stipulations 39-62) 

PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING: 

DO THE INADEQUACIES OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM 
DENY PLAINTIFFS A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION UNDER 
ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, 
SECTIONS 1 AND 20? (Stipulations 63-112) 

DEFENDANTS’ HEADING: 

HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS PROVEN THAT THEY HAVE BEEN 
DENIED THEIR RIGHTS TO A FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION 
UNDER THE EDUCATION ARTICLE OF THE STATE 
CONSTITUTION? (Stipulations 63-112) 

PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING: 

DOES THE RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION 
AND POVERTY CONCENTRATION COUPLED WITH DISPARITIES 
IN RESOURCES AND OUTCOMES VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT 
TO EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES UNDER ARTICLE 
EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, SECTIONS 1 AND 
207 vein sebswessesens 

DEFENDANTS’ HEADING: 

HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS PROVEN THAT THE STATE HAS 
VIOLATED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES, THE DUE 

PROCESS CLAUSE OR THE EDUCATION ARTICLE OF THE STATE    



  
    

VI. 

- 3% 

A. STUDENTS’ SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS IN HARTFORD 

METROPOLITAN AREA SCHOOLS (Stipulations 113- 
ER A TERR ER EINER VR ISR STU She TO NI ESS Ea 

Ce INTEGRATION AND ITS EFFECTS (Stipulations 
UR TR TE RE WRG PR PE CMa ioe SE 

FP. DISPARITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 
(SEIDUIALIONS 154-202) cits nina vianvoneseonsnsesse 

PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING: 

HAS THE STATE BEEN INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING RACIAL, 
ETHNIC, ECONOMIC SEGREGATION UNEQUAL EDUCATIONAL 
OPPORTUNITIES, AND LACK OF A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE 
EDUCATION, DOES THE STATE HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY 
TO ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES AND HAS THE STATE FAILED TO 

DEFENDANTS’ HEADING: 

HAS THE STATE BEEN TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION TO 
ADDRESS RACIAL, ETHIC, AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISOLATION 
AND EDUCATIONAL UNDERACHIEVEMENT OF URBAN CHILDREN 

A. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION HISTORICALLY 
(SLIpUIatIons 203-220) vviiviviesersnseenisaseens 

B. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION TODAY 

(SripR1ALIOoNS 220-251). sect nind onan ssine sin 

STEPS TOWARD INTEGRATION (Stipulations 252-256)..... 

13 

16 

17 

28 

28 

30 

30 

34 

  

 



    

DESCRIPTION OF PARTIES 

l. Plaintiff Milo Sheff is a fourteen-year old black child. 
He resides in the city of Hartford with his mother, Elizabeth Sheff, 
who brings this action as his next friend. He is enrolled in the 
eighth grade at Quirk Middle School. 

2. Plaintiff Wildalize Bermudez is a ten-year-old Puerto 
Rican child. She reside 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. 

3. 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. 

4. 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. 

5. Plaintiff Oskar M. Melendez 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. 

6. 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. 

7 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 Quirk Middle School. 

8. 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. 

9. 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 
sophomore at Northwest Catholic High School in West Hartford. 

10. 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. 

11. Plaintiff David William Harrington is a thirteen-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 seventh grade at Quirk Middle School. 

12. 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. 

13. 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 Whiting Lane School. 

14. 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 Whiting Lane School. 

15. Plaintiff Erica Connolly is a nine-year-old white child. 
She resides in the City 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. 

16. Plaintiff Tasha Connolly is a six-year-old white child. 
She resides in the City 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. 

17. Michael Perez is a fifteen-year-old Puerto Rican child. He 
resides in the City Hartford with his father, Danny Perez, who bring 
this action as his next friend. He is enrolled as a sophomore at 
Hartford Public High School. 

18. Dawn Perez is a thirteen-year-old Puerto Rican child. She 
resides in the City Hartford with her father, Danny Perez, who bring 
this action as her next friend. She is enrolled in the eighth grade 
at Quirk Middle School. 

18. Among the plaintiffs are five black children, seven 
Puerto Rican children and six white children. At least one of the 
children lives in families whose income falls below the official 
poverty line; five are limited English proficient; six live in 
single-parent families. 

20. Defendant William O’Neill or his successor is the 
Governor of the State of Connecticut. 

21. Defendant State Board of Education of the State of 
Connecticut (hereafter "the State Board" or the State Board of 
Education") is charged with the overall supervision and control 

  

 



  
    

of the educational interest of the State, including elementary and 
‘secondary education, pursuant to C.G.S. §10-4. 

22. Defendants Abraham Glassman, A. Walter Esdaile, Warren 
J. Foley, Rita Hendel, John Mannix, and Julia Rankin were, at one 
time, the members of the State Board of Education and these 
individuals have been succeeded by others as members of the State 
Board of Education. 

23, Defendant Gerald N. Tirozzi or his successor is the 
Commissioner of Education for the State of Connecticut. 

24. Defendant Francis L. Borges or his successor is the 
Treasurer of the State of Connecticut. 

25: Defendant J. Edward Caldwell or his successor is the 
Comptroller of the State of Connecticut. 

II. PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING: 

DOES RACIAL AND ETHNIC ISOLATION IN THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM 
VIOLATE ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, SECTIONS 
1 AND 207? 

DEFENDANTS’ HEADING: 

HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS PROVEN THAT THE STATE HAS VIOLATED THE 
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OR THE 
EDUCATION ARTICLE OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION? 

A. THE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE AND 
ETHNICITY 

26. Ninety-two percent of the students in the Hartford schools 
are members of minority groups. (Tables 1 and 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
31, 38; Natriello p. B82; Pls’ Ex. 85 p. vii) 

27. African Americans and Latinos together constitute more 
than 90%, or 23,283, of the 25,716 students in the Hartford public 
schools (Pls’ Ex. 219 at 2). 

28. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 21.6 will 
be members of minority groups. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

29. Hartford has the highest percentage of minority students 
in the state. (Natriello p. 82; Table 1, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 31) 

30. In 1991-92, fourteen of Hartford's twenty-five elementary 
schools had less than 2% white enrollment. (Defs’ Exs. 23.1-23.25) 

  

 



      

31. As of 1990, eighteen of the surrounding suburbs had less 
‘than 10% minority population, ten of the surrounding suburbs have 
less than 5% minority population, 18 out of the 21 suburbs have less 
than 4% Black population, and 12 towns have less than 2% Black 
population.  (Pls’ Ex. 137 at 1, 7; Pls’ Bx. 138; Steahr pp. 99-101) 

32. In 1991, sixteen suburbs had less than 3% Latino 
enrollment. (Pls’ Ex. 85 pp. 18-21) 

33. Some of  Conmnecticut’s school districts, including 
Hartford, serve higher percentages of African American and Latino 
students than others. 

34. In 1986, 12.1% of Connecticut’s school age population was 
black and 8.5% was Hispanic. 

35. 1987-88 figures for total school population and percent 
minority for the towns listed below are: 

Total School Pop.% Minority 

Hartford 20,058 90.5 
Bloomfield 2.555 69.0 
Avon 2,068 3.8 
Canton 1,189 3.2 
East Granby 666 2.3 
East Hartford 5,905 20.6 
East Windsor 1,267 8.5 
Ellington 1,855 2.3 
Farmington 2,608 Pe? 
Glastonbury 4,463 5.4 
Granby 1,528 3.5 
Manchester 7,084 it.1 
Newington 3,801 6.4 
Rocky Hill 1,807 5.9 
Simsbury 4,039 6.5 
South Windsor 3,648 9.3 

Suffield 1,772 4.0 
Vernon 4,457 6.4 
West Hartford 7,424 15.7 
Wethersfield 2:997 3.3 
Windsor 4,235 30.8 
Windsor Locks 1,642 4.0 

36. As of 1991-92, two districts, Hartford and Bloomfield, had 
more than five percent African Americans and Latinos on their 
professional staffs. (Defs’ Exs. 14.1-14.22) 

37. As of 1990, fourteen of the state’s 166 school districts 
are home to 30 percent of the state’s total student population, 77 

  

 



  
    

percent of the minority student population and 81 percent of the 
children receiving AFDC benefits. (Pls’ Ex. 77 at 8) 

38. In 1992, there were seven suburban school districts with 
a minority enrollment in excess of 10%, namely: 

  

  

%$ minority enrollment %_increase between 1980 & 1990 

l. Bloomfield 83.5% 32.4% 
2. East Hartford 38.1% 27.3% 
3. Windsor 36.9% 15.7% 
4. Manchester 19% 12.8% 
5. West Hartford 17.2% 10.7% 
6. Vernon 11.6% 7.8% 
7. East Windsor 10.3% 4.1% 

(Calvert pp. 33-35; Defs’ Ex. 2.6 Rev., 2.7 Rev.). 

B. TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY RACE AND 
ETHNICITY 

39. In 1963, 36.3% of the students in the Hartford public 
schools were African-American. (Pls’ Ex. 19, p. 30 (Table 4.1.14)) 

40. In 1992, African-American students in the Hartford public 
schools made up 43.1% of the total student population, an increase 
of 6.8% from 1963. (Defs’ Ex. 2.6 and 2.12)) 

41. In 1963, there were 599 Latino students in the Hartford 
public schools. (Pls’ Ex. 19, p. 30 (Table 4.1.14) 

42. By 1992, there were 12,564 Latino students in the 
Hartford public schools -- an increase of 1,997.5%. (Defs’ Ex. 2.15) 

43. From 1963 to 1992, the African-American student population 
in the Hartford public schools increased from 9,061 to 11,201, an 
increase over that period of 23.6%. (Defs’ Ex. 2.12) 

44. From 1980 to 1992, the African-American student population 
in the Hartford public schools decreased from 12,393: t0.11,201, a 
decrease of 9.6% over that period. (Defs’ Ex. 2.12) 

45. According to a 1965 study commissioned by the Hartford 
Board of Education and the Hartford City Council and prepared by 
consultants affiliated with the Harvard School of Education (the 
"Harvard Study"), the rapid increase of non-white student population 
in Hartford in the 1950’s and early 1960's would not continue. 
(Defs’ Ex. 13.2, p. 2; Defs’ Rev. Answer 152) 

  

 



    

46. The Harvard Study correctly projected the decline in 
Hartford's African-American student population, the only significant 
minority group in Hartford in 1965, but failed to predict the 
massive influx of Latino students, primarily of Puerto Rican 
ancestry. (Defs’ Ex. 13.2, p. 2; Gordon pp. 98-99) 

47. From 1980 to 1992, African-American student population in 
the 21 suburban towns increased by 62.5% from 3,925 to 6,380. (Defs’ 
Bx.:2.12) 

48. During the 1980s, Hartford experienced the greatest out 
migration of white residents, with a net out migration of 18,176. 
(Defs’ Bx. 1.3) 

49. During the 1980s, Hartford experienced the largest 
increase of the non-white population -- an increase of 21,499 
persons -- of all the towns in the Hartford metropolitan area. 
{Defs’ Ex. 1.3) 

50. According to a study prepared for the Governor's 
Commission between 1985 and 1990, there was a "significant increase 
in the percentage of minority students in the five major 
metropolitan areas studied: Bridgeport, New Haven, 
Bloomfield/Hartford, Norwalk/Stamford, New London, and the towns 
nearby."  (Pls’' Ex. 73 at 4) 

51. In 1991, the State Board of Education predicted that 
enrollment of minority students is projected to increase from 24.3 
percent in 1989 to 30.9 percent of the public school population by 
2005. Hispanic students are expected to be the predominant minority 
group (13.7 percent of the total school enrollment) by 2004. (Pls’ 
Ex, 77: at. 7) 

52. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 138, based on U.S. Census data, is an 
accurate summary of African-American population in Hartford and 
surrounding towns, from 1940 to 1990. 

53. At the start of this century, the African-American 
population was approximately 3% of the state’s total population and 
remained at or below that level for the first half of this century. 
(Steahr pp. 78-79) 

54. By 1940, African-Americans had declined to 1.2% of the 
state’s population. (Collier p. 41; Steahr pp. 78-80.) 

55. The greatest percentage increase in Hartford’s African- 
American population was between 1950-1960. (Steahr p. 79)    



    

56. There was no significant Latino population of primarily 
Puerto Rican ancestry in Connecticut until the late 1960's. (Morales 
pp. 29-30) 

57. Since 1970, the African-American population has been 
increasing in many towns around Hartford, particularly in 
Bloomfield, Manchester, Windsor and West Hartford. (Steahr p. 38) 

58. Each town in the 21 town area surrounding Hartford, as 
described by the plaintiffs in their amended complaint has 
experienced an increase in non-white population since 1980. (Steahr 
Pp. 29) 

59. Since 1980, total student enrollment in the combined 21 
suburban school districts has declined. (Defs’ Ex. 2.4) 

60. In Hartford, there has been a numerical increase in the 
African-American population, which is due to an increase in births 
over deaths and not to in-migration. (Steahr p. 61) 

51. State officials have, for some time, been aware of a 
trend by which the percentage of Latino students in the Hartford 
public schools has been increasing while the percentage of white and 
African American students has been decreasing. (Defs’ Revised 
Answer 50) 

62. In 1969, the General Assembly passed a Racial Imbalance 
Law, requiring racial balance within, but not between, school 
districts. Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-226a et seq. The General 
Assembly authorized the State Department of Education to promulgate 
implementing regulations. Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-226e. The General 
Assembly approved regulations to implement the statute in 1980. 

III. PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING: 

DO THE INADEQUACIES OF THE HARTFORD SCHOOL SYSTEM DENY 
PLAINTIFFS A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION UNDER ARTICLE EIGHTH, 
SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE FIRST, SECTIONS 1 AND 20? (Stipulations 
63-112) 

DEFENDANTS’ HEADING: 

HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS PROVEN THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED THEIR 
RIGHTS TO A FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION UNDER THE EDUCATION ARTICLE 
OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION? (Stipulations 63-112) 

63. The purpose and effect of the state’s principal formula 
for distributing state aid to local school districts (the Education 
Cost Sharing formula ("ECS") embodied in Conn. Gen. Stat. §§10- 
262f, 10-262g, 10-262h) is to provide the most state aid to the    



  
    

neediest school districts. (Brewer pp. 37, 85, 157-162; Defs’ Ex. 
+1, DPD. t36=78; 7.2), p. 83A; 7.18, 7.19::7.20) 

64. Under the ECS formula, the Hartford public schools 
received for the 1990-91 school year $3,497-per pupil in state 
funds; the average per pupil grant to the 21 suburban school 
districts was only $1,392 in state funds. (Brewer p. 85; Defs’ Ex. 
7.21, pp. 83-83A) 

65. Under the ECS formula, the Hartford public schools 
received for the 1991-92 school year $3,804 per pupil in state 
funds; the average per pupil grant to the 21 suburban school 
districts was only $1,321 in state funds. (Brewer p. 85; Defs’ Ex. 
7.21, pp. 83-83A) 

66. The increase 1in state aid to Hartford under the ECS 
formula from 1990-91 to 1991-92 was $307 per pupil; the decrease in 
the average ECS formula grant to the 21 suburban school districts 
from 1990-91 to 1991-92 was $71 per pupil. (Brewer p. 85; Defs’ Ex. 
7.21, pp. 83-83A) 

67. In terms of total state aid for the 1990-91 school year 
(the sum of all state education aid including the ECS formula aid), 
Hartford received $4,514 per pupil; the average amount of total 
state aid to the 21 suburban school districts was $1,878 per pupil. 
{Brewer p. 37; Defs’ Ex. 7.21, pp. 11-113) 

68. In terms of total state aid for the 1991-92 school year, 
Hartford received $4,915 per pupil; the average amount of total 
state aid to the 21 suburban school districts was $1,758 per pupil. 
(Brewer .p.37; Defs’ Ex. 7.21, p. 11-113) 

69. The increase in Hartford’s total state aid from 1990-91 to 
1991-92 was $401 per pupil; the decrease in average total state aid 
to the 21 suburban school districts was $120 per pupil (Brewer p. 
37; Defs’ Ex. 7.21, pp. 11-11lA) 

70. Hartford received 2.4 times as much total state aid per 
pupil as the 21 suburban school districts in 1990-91 and 2.8 times 
as much total state aid per pupil in 1851-92, (Defs’ Ex. 7.1, p.1l1; 
Defs’ Bx. .7.21, Pp. 113) 

71. In 1990-91, the Hartford school district received 57.6% of 
its total funding from state aid and 60.49% thereof in 1991-92. 
{Brewer p. 37; Defs’' Bx. 7.1, pp..11-11A) 

72. In 1990-91, the 21 suburban school districts received an 
average of 25.8% of their total funding from state aid and 23.99% 
thereof in 1991-92. (Brewer p. 37; Defs’ Ex. 7.1, pp. 11-11A) 

  

  

 



  
    

73. In 1990-91, overall per pupil expenditure in Hartford were 
:$7,837 and $7,282 per pupil in the 21 combined suburban school 
districts. (Defs’ Ex. 7.1, pp. 3A, 11) 

74. In 1991-92, the overall per pupil expenditure in Hartford 
was $8,126 compared to an average of $7,331 per pupil in the 21 
combined suburbs.  (Defs’ Bx. 7.1, pp. 34, 11) 

75. Under the category of "net current expenditures per need 
student," a calculation in which the Hartford public school student 
count is increased by an artificial multiplier of one-quarter 
student for each Hartford public school student on Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children (AFDC) and by one-quarter student for each 
Hartford public school student who in the preceding school year 
tested below the remedial standard on the CMT, i.e., each AFDC 
student and CMT remedial student is counted as 1.25 students and 
each student who is both on AFDC and a CMT remedial student is 
counted as 1.5 students, Hartford's per pupil spending for the 1990- 
1991 school year was fifteenth among the school districts in the 
twenty-two town area. (Natriello, Vol. 93-94; PX 163, pp. 158-162) 

74. During the 1990-91 school year, the total professional 
staff per 1,000 students was 89.4 in Hartford and 88.8 in the 
combined 21 suburban school districts. (Defs’ Ex. 8.5) 

17. During the 1991-92 school year, the total professional 
staff per 1,000 students in Hartford was 86.5 and 85.1 in the 21 
combined suburb school districts. (Defs’ Ex. 8.5) 

78. In 1992, 88.5% of Hartford teachers had at least masters 
degrees or their equivalents, i.e., bachelors degrees plus 30 
graduate school credits. (Keaveny pp. 7-8, 12) 

79. Hartford’s teacher-student ratio improved from the 1988- 
1989 school year to 1989-1990 by 2.2 teachers per thousand students 
while the suburban town’s combined increase was 0.9 teachers per 
thousand students. (Natriello pp. 46-48) 

80. During that period, the state’s overall teacher-student 
ratio declined. (Pls’ Ex. 163, Table 5, Panel B, p. 56; Natriello 
p. 54) 

81. During the 1990-91 school year, Hartford had 77 classroom 
teachers per 1,000 students and the 21 combined suburban school 
districts had 75.9. (Defs’' Ex. 8.6) 

82. Class sizes in Hartford are comparable to class sizes in 
the 21 suburban school districts and throughout the state. (Pls’ 
Ex. 163, Table 6, Panel B, p. 59; Defs’ Ex. 2.38; Calvert pp. 124- 
125; Natriello pp. 56-57) 

  

 



  
    

=10 = 

83. The Hartford public schools have high quality classroom 
teachers and administrators. (Pls’ Ex. 163 [table 4]; Keaveny p. 15; 
LaFontaine p. 131; Wilson pp. 9, 28-29; Negron p. 7; Pitocco p. 70; 
Natriello p. 35) 

84. Hartford teachers are dedicated to their work. (Haig pp. 
113-114; Neumann-Johnson p. 18) 

85. Hartford has 1.26% fewer general elementary teachers and 
has 4% fewer contact specialist teachers than the statewide average, 
and 6.1% more special education teachers than the statewide average. 
{(Natriello at 103; Table 3, Pls’ Ex. 183 at 49) 

86. In 1991, 94% of Hartford administrators had at least 
thirty credits of education beyond their masters degrees. (Keaveny 
Pp. 14) 

87. Hartford teachers have been specially trained in 
educational strategies designed to be effective with African- 
American, Latino, inner city and poor children. (Haig p. 94; 
LaFontaine p. 132; Wilson p. 10) 

88. Hartford’s elementary schools have a curriculum that is 
standardized from school to school designed to ameliorate the 
effects of family mobility, which affects Hartford children to a 
much greater extent than suburban children. (LaFontaine p. 162) 

89. Hartford schools have some special programs for enhancing 
the education of poor and urban children. (Haig p. 63; LaFontaine 
pp. 134-135) 

90. Hartford has an all-day kindergarten program in some of 
its elementary schools for children who may be at risk of poor 
educational performance. (Calvert pp. 10-13; Negron p. 68; Montanez- 
Pitre pp. 34, 48; Cloud pp. 79, 88, 113) 

91. Hartford has a school breakfast program in each of its 
elementary schools. (Senteio p. 50; Negron p. 66; Montanez-Pitre p. 
4-2; Morris p. 158; Neumann-Johnson p. 24) 

92. Hartford offers eligible needy students in all its schools 
a free and reduced-price lunch program. (Senteio p. 22) 

93. Hartford’s school breakfast and school lunch programs are 
paid for entirely by state and federal funds. (Senteio p. 22) 

94. The Hartford school district has several special programs 
such as the Classical Magnet program, which the first named 
plaintiff attends, and the West Indian Student Reception Center at 
Weaver High School. (E. Sheff p. 194; Pitocco pp. 88-89) 

  

 



  
    

<ll.- 

95. The number of Spanish-dominant children eligible for 
‘bilingual education in Hartford from 1985 to 1990 has been as 
follows: 

1985-86 4,225 
1986-87 4,517 
1987-88 4,622 
1988-89 4,773 
1989-90 4.696 

(Defs’ Ex. 12.26 at 2) 

96. In 1990-91 school year, Hartford’s bilingual education 
program served approximately 6,000 students per year. (Marichal p. 
11) 

97. 92% of the students served by Hartford’s bilingual 
education program in 1990-91 were Hispanic. (Defs’ Ex. 13.6 at 5) 

98. In 1988-89 school year, 42.5% of the state’s bilingual 
education students were in Hartford. (Defs’ Ex. 12.24 at 5) 

99. In 1989-90, Connecticut’s bilingual education programs 
served 12,795 students, a 5.1% increase over 1988-89; 94% of the 
program participants were dominant in Spanish. (Defs’ Ex. 13.6 at 

>) 

100. Hartford's school buildings do not meet some requirements 
regarding handicapped accessibility, but no buildings are in 
violation of health, safety, or fire codes. (Senteio p. 44) 

101. Eight of Hartford’s 31 school buildings were found in a 
space utilization study to require "significant attention." (Pls’ 
Ex. 153 pp. 5-10 -~ 5-11) 

102. Hartford's reimbursement rate for school building or 
renovation projects has been considerably higher than the 
reimbursement rate for the 21 suburban districts. (Defs’ Ex. 7.21 
pp. 3A-3D; Defs’ Ex. 12.27; Lemega p. 18) 

103. In 1992, Hartford voters approved the issuance of 
$204,000,000 in bonds for school building expansion and improvement. 
{Senteioc p. 37) 

104. Under 1991-92 state reimbursement rates, the state will 
reimburse Hartford for more than 70% of the cost of its school 
building expansion and improvement project. (Defs’ Ex. 7.21, p. 3A) 

105. From the 1989-90 school year to the 1990-91 school year, 
the Hartford Board of Education increased its per pupil expenditures 

  

 



      

-3 

for library books by 2.67 times and its library books per school 
building by 2.73 times." (Defs’ Bx. 7.12) 

106. From 1980 to 1992, Hartford spent approximately $2,000 
less per pupil on (a) pupil and instructional services, (b) 
textbooks and instructional supplies, (c¢) library books and 
periodicals, and (d) equipment and plant operations than the state 
average for these items. (Defs’ Ex. 7.9; Brewer p. 142) 

107. From 1980 to 1992, the Hartford school district paid its 
employees $2,361 more per pupil in employee benefits than the state 
average. (Defs’ Ex. 7.9; Brewer p. 143) 

108. From 1988-91, Hartford spent $240 more per pupil than New 
Haven and $300 more per pupil than Bridgeport on employee fringe 
benefits. (Brewer p. 143) 

109. There has been no known independent study to determine 
whether it has been necessary for the Hartford school district to 
pay higher employee fringe benefits to attract and to retain 
qualified teachers and administrators. (Natriello p. 63) 

110. Resources are applied somewhat differently in the 
Hartford public schools than in many of the 21 suburban school 
districts because of the different needs of Hartford students. 
(Pls’ Ex. 493; Ferrandino Deposition pp. 133-134) 

111. Because of fiscal constraints, the West Hartford school 
district has eliminated over the past three years its gifted and 
talented students program, its foreign language program in its 
elementary schools and its home economics program in its middle 
schools. (Lemega pp. 13-15) 

112. The West Hartford school district, which in 1992 received 
6.7% of its financing from the state, had its state funding reduced 
by 50% ($5,200,000) over the prior three years. (Lemega p. 11) 

  

 



  
    

=13 - 

IV. PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING: 

DOES THE RACIAL AND ETHNIC AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION AND POVERTY 
CONCENTRATION COUPLED WITH DISPARITIES IN RESOURCES AND 
OUTCOMES VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO EQUAL EDUCATIONAL 
OPPORTUNITIES UNDER ARTICLE EIGHTH, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE 
FIRST, SECTIONS 1 AND 20? 

DEFENDANTS’ HEADING: 

HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS PROVEN THAT THE STATE HAS VIOLATED THE 
EQUAL. PROTECTION CLAUSES, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OR THE 
EDUCATION ARTICLE OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION? 

A. STUDENTS’ SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS IN HARTFORD METROPOLITAN 
AREA SCHOOLS (Stipulations 113-149) 

113. Sixty-three percent of the students in the Hartford 
school system participate in the free and reduced lunch program. 
(Pls’ Bx, 219; Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

114. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 14.8 will 
be participating in the free and reduced lunch program. (Table 2, 
Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

115, Thirteen percent of all children born in the city of 
Hartford are at low birth weight, 13% are born to drug-addicted 
mothers, and 23% are born to mothers who are teenagers. (Table. 2, 
Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

116. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 3 will 
have been born at a low birthweight, 3 will have been born to drug 
addicted mothers, and 5.4 will have been born to teen mothers. 
{Table 2, Pls’ Ex.:183 at 38) 

117. 35.6 percent of the housing units in Hartford require the 
occupants to spend 30% or more of their household income on housing 
costs. {Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 263 at 33) 

118. Forty percent of the children in Hartford are living with 
parent(s) with no labor force participation. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 
at 38) 

119. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 9.4 will 
be from a family in which the parent(s) do not participate in the 
labor force. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

120. More than sixty-four percent of the parents of Hartford 
school age children with children under eighteen are single parent 
households. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

  

 



  
    

«14d - 

121. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 15.1 will 
.come from single parent households. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

122. A single parent home is an indicator of a disadvantage 
for students. (Natriello p. 71) 

123. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 9.5 will 
come from families where the parents have less than a high school 
education... (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

124. Fifty-one percent of Hartford students are from a home in 
which a language other than English is spoken. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 
163 at 38) 

125. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 12 will 
come from a home in which a language other than English is spoken. 
{Taple 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 318) 

126. Students with limited English proficiency have more 
difficulty succeeding in school. (Natriello p. 84) 

127. Economic status of parents is a predictor of schooling 
difficulty.  (Natriello p. 653) 

128. Fifteen percent of the Hartford population and 41.3% of 
the parents with school age children have experienced crime within 
the year. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 38) 

129. In an average Hartford class of 23.4 students, 3.6 will 
have been a victim of crime and 9.7 will live in a household that 
has experienced crime within the year. (Table 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
38) 

130. Twenty-eight percent of Hartford elementary students do 
not return to the same school the next year. (Natriello p. 78; Pls’ 
Ex. 183 at 27) 

131. Hartford has the lowest stability rate (percentage of 
students who return to the same school as the prior year) at the 
elementary level in comparison to other districts. (Natriello II p. 

6) 

132. It is more difficult for students who come from a 
community with a high crime rate to do well in school. (Natriello 
pp. 85-86) 

133. A high proportion of Hartford students live in housing 
with high crime rates. (Morris p. 140; Griffin p. 84) 

  

  

 



  
    

~15"~ 

134. Over thirty-five percent of the Hartford households 
reside in dwellings which the United States Commerce Department 
would characterize as inadequate housing. (Natriello p. 77; Pls’ 
Ex. 163 at 26) 

135. Fifteen of the 21 surrounding districts have less than 
10% of their students on the free and reduced lunch program. (Pls’ 
Ex. 163 p. 153) 

136. Hartford's rate of poverty is greater than the rate among 
students in any of the twenty-one surrounding districts. (Pls’ Ex. 
163 at 152 and Figure 33, at 153; Rindone p. 121) 

137. Hartford found itself last in comparison to the twenty- 
one surrounding communities in 1980 on every single socio-economic 
indicator, and it remained in last place ten years later in 1990. 
{(Rindone p. 110; Defs’ Ex. 8.1.and 8.2) 

138. The median family income of every suburb of the combined 
suburban area, except East Hartford and Windsor Locks, has more than 
doubled during that ten year period from 1980-1990 and the median 
income of a Hartford family increased 42% during that period. 
(Defs’ Pxs. 8.1 5 8.2) 

139. The percentage of students in Hartford who live in homes 
where a language other than English is spoken is higher than in any 
surrounding community. (Figure 34 (as modified, see Natriello, p. 
177), Pls’ Fx. 163 at 154) 

140. Some of the indicia of "at risk" students include (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 "LEP"); or (iii) whether a child is 
from a single-parent family. (Defs’ Revised Answer 137) 

141. The Hartford Public Schools serve a greater proportion of 
students from backgrounds that put them "at risk" of lower 
educational achievement than the identified suburban towns and, as 
a result, the Hartford Public Schools have a comparatively larger 
burden to bear in addressing the needs of "at risk" students. 
(Def’s Revised Answer 35) 

142. "At risk" children have the capacity to learn and "at 
risk" children may impose some special challenges to whichever 
school system is responsible for providing these children with an 
education. 

  

 



      

S16 - 

143. The negative impact of poverty on student achievement is 
acknowledged and controlled for by social-scientists in their 
studies on student achievement. (Crain pp. 102-103, Vol. 35, p. 76) 

144. Social problems more common to students in Hartford than 
to students in the suburbs, which have been shown to have a direct 
negative impact on student development, are children with low 
birthweight, children born to mothers on drugs, children born to 
teenage mothers, children living in poverty, children from single 
parent households, children with parents with limited formal 
education, children living in substandard housing, children from 
homes where little English is spoken, children exposed to crime and 
children without an employed parent. (Pls’ Ex. #163, Table 2, p. 28) 

145. When Hartford children who are afflicted by poverty enter 
kindergarten, many of them are already delayed one and one-half to 
two years in educational development. (LaFontaine p. 132; Cloud p. 
86; Montanez-Pitre pp. 11, 41; Negron p. 81) 

146. Socio-economic status (SES) encompasses many factors 
relating to a student’s background and family influences that affect 
a child’s orientation toward and skill in learning. (Armor I pp. 
138-140; Armor II pp. 11-12) 

147. The gap between the SES of children who live in Hartford 
and the SES of children who live in the 21 suburbs has been 
increasing. (Natriello, pp. 114-116; Defs’ Ex. 8.1, 8.2) 

148. There are some differences between Hartford Public School 
students taken as a whole and suburban students as a whole in some 
of the surrounding communities in terms of the number who drop out 
before graduation, who enter four year colleges and other programs 
of higher education, and the number of others who obtain full-time 
employment within nine months of graduation. 

149. The drop out rate for Hartford schools is greater than 
for Connecticut public schools in general. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 142- 
145) 

C. INTEGRATION AND ITS EFFECTS (Stipulations 150-153) 

150. Improved integration of children by race, ethnicity and 
economic status is likely to have positive social benefits. (Defs'’ 
Revised Answer 49) 

151. Integration in the schools is not likely to have a 
negative effect on the students in those schools. (Defs’ Revised 
Answer 149) 

  

 



  
    

152. The defendants have recognized that society benefits from 
‘racial, ethnic, and economic integration and that racial, ethnic, 
and economic isolation has some harmful effects. 

153. Poor and minority children have the potential to become 
well-educated. (Defs’ Revised Answer 13) 

F. DISPARITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 
(Stipulations 154-204) 

154. At the direction of the General Assembly, Connecticut has 
developed a statewide testing program, the Connecticut Mastery Test 
("CMT"), and a statewide system of school evaluation, the Strategic 
School Profiles ("SSP"). (Rindone pp. 80-81; Nearine p. 65; Conn. 
Gen. Stat. §10-14n and §10-220(c)) 

155. The present mastery testing system is better than the 
previous one because it was created by Connecticut teachers based on 
this state’s own educational goals. It was the consensus of the 
state board of education that it is a valuable tool in judging the 
outputs of the school system. (Mannix::5Pls’/. Bx.i495  p. 17; 
Memorandum of Decision 46) 

1556. After Vincent Ferrandino became Commissioner of the 
Department of Education, as part of his reorganization of the 
department, he established an office of urban and priority school 
districts in order to concentrate the resources of the department on 
the problems of the cities, and more specifically, to improve the 
achievement of the students in the three largest urban districts. 
(Ferrandino, Pls’ Ex. 493 p. 25; Memorandum of Decision 36-37) 

157. The CMT was first administered in the fall of 1985. (Pls’ 
Ex. 290) 

158. The State Board of Education has stated that the goals of 
the CMT are: 

a. earlier identification of students needing remedial 
education; 

b. continuous monitoring of students in grades 4, 6, and 8; 
C. testing of a more comprehensive range of academic skills; 
d. higher expectations and standards for student achievement; 
e. more useful achievement data about students, schools, and 

districts; 
£. improved assessment of suitable equal educational 

opportunities. 

(Defs’ Ex. 12.13) 

  

 



      

13 = 

159. The CMT measures mathematics, reading and writing skills 
in the 4th, 6th, and 8th grades. (Pls’ Ex. 290-309) 

160. The CMT is one measure of student achievement in 
Connecticut. 

161. Standardized test scores alone do not reflect the quality 
of an education program. (Natriello pp. 11, 189; LaFontaine p. 140; 
Nearine p. 16; Negron pp. 15-16; Shea p. 140) 

162. The differences in the performance between two groups of 
students cannot solely be attributed to differences in the quality 
of education provided to those groups without taking in account 
differences in performance that are the product of differences in 
the socioeconomic status of the students in the two groups. (Defs’ 
Ex. 10.12 Plynn pp. 151-153, 183; Armor p. 21; Crain pp. 78-79; 
Natriello pp. 22-23) 

163. In addition to poverty, among other reasons, Hartford 
students may score lower on the CMT than the state average (1) 
because many Hartford students move among Hartford schools and/or 
move in and out of the Hartford school district, and (2) because 
many Hartford students are still learning the English language. 
(Shea p. 140; Nearine pp. 68-69; Negron pp. 15-16) 

164. Hartford public schools attempt to administer the CMT to 
every eligible student in the school system. (Nearine p. 73) 

1565, Hartford Public Schools students as a whole do not 
perform as well on the Connecticut Mastery Test ("CMT) as do the 
students as a whole in some surrounding communities. (Defs’ Rev. 
Answer 13) 

  
 



    

166. The following figures concerning reading scores on the 
1988 CMT are admitted to the extent that they are identical to 
figures found in Pls’ Ex. 297, 298 and 299: 

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

  
  

Hartford : 57 
*khkkhkkkkkhkkikk 

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 

  

  

 



    

167. The following figures concerning mathematics scores on 
the 1988 CMT are admitted to the extent that they are identical as 
figures found in Pls’ Ex. 297, 298 and 299: 

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

Remedial Bnchmk Remedial Bnchmk Remedial Bnchmk 
Hartford 41 42 57 
  

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 

ND
 

_
-
 

f
t
 

[a
] 

N
N
O
 
O
H
F
H
F
O
U
I
M
N
W
O
D
W
R
A
W
O
N
 

S
E
O
 
W
O
 

BH
 

be
te

s 
yy
 
- 

N
W
O
W
O
V
W
W
O
V
W
O
U
I
E
U
I
N
 

0 
U
W
I
 

H
N
 

=
 

12 

6 
26 
14 

=
 

=
 

168. Public school students in Bloomfield, a middle class 
town with an 85.5% minority population, produced CMT test scores 
that were higher than several other suburban towns. (Crain pp. 90- 
91; Pls’ Ex. 237-298) 

169. Levels of performance on the Mastery Test are accurately 
described in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 290-308. (Defs’ Revised Answer 
141) 

170. In addition to the mastery and remedial standards 
required to be established by law, the State Board of Education has 
established for the CMT in the areas of Mathematics, of reading 
(Degrees of Reading Power [DRP]) and of writing statewide 
achievement goals. (Defs’ Ex. 12.16 p. 4, Grade Four Test Results 
Booklet) 

17}. These statewide achievement goals represent high 
expectations and high levels of achievement for Connecticut 
students. (Defs’ Ex. 12.16 p. 4)   

    

 



    

172. The statewide achievement goals as set by the State Board 
‘of Education are: 

a. In mathematics, all students must master 22 out of 25 
objectives tested. 

b. In reading, a student must achieve a score of 50 with 70% 
comprehension in a Degree of Reading Power Unit. 

c. In writing, a student must score a total holistic score of 
7 ona _scale of 2 to 8. (Defs’' Bx, 12.16 p. 4) 

   



  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

    
  

  

  

  

  

    
  

  

  

  

  

  

    
  

  

  

» » 
=23 =» 

1991-92 
Percentage of Students Failing to Meet State Goals and Remedial 

Standards 

for Math on the CMT 

4th Grade 6th Grade 8th Grade 

State Remed. | State Remed. | State Remed 
Goals Stand. | Goals Stand. | Goals Stand 

Hartford 80 41 94 42 89 41 

Avon 17 1 37 2 23 1 

Bloomfield 32 8 81 14 76 13 

Canton 15 4 44 > 48 0 

East Granby 28 4 49 2 47 6 

East Hartford 38 13 72 10 54 6 

East Windsor 29 10 56 6 65 4 

Ellington 30 7 64 5 55 4 

Farmington 17 5 36 4 27 0 

Glastonbury 30 8 55 6 43 3 

Granby 17 3 61 7 38 5 

Manchester 19 4 55 7 62 11 

Newington 26 4 67 6 54 7 

Rocky Hill 23 3 54 8 46 6 

Simsbury 16 1 40 2 28 1 

South Windsor 27 4 52 4 52 3 

Suffield 19 5 56 7 59 2 

Vernon 32 4 55 8 57 6 

West Hartford 25 8 55 8 44 5 

Wethersfield 25 5 64 6 49 2 

Windsor 38 10 58 1 57 9 

Windsor Locks 31 4 62 15 57 3}                         
 



  

  

  

  

      
  

  

  

  

  

      
  

  

  

  

  

  

      
  

  

  

                

“23 - 

1991-92 
Percentage of Students Failing to Meet State Goals and Remedial 

‘Standards 
for the DRP on the CMT 

4th Grade 6th Grade 8th Grade 

State Remed. | State Remed. | State Remed 
Goals Stand. | Goals Stand. | Goals Stand 

Hartford 86 64 80 62 76 55 

Avon 34 10 17 7 15 4 

Bloomfield 51 23 52 27 ih 26 

Canton 24 10 18 il 20 5 

East Granby 32 9 27 18 22 10 

East Hartford D7 31 34 17 29 7 

East Windsor 41 19 18 8 26 5 

Ellington 33 11 22 6 23 6 

Farmington 29 11 15 6 8 2 

Glastonbury 36 14 23 11 YZ 6 

Granby 32 8 24 10 18 6 

Manchester 35 12 23 10 37 18 

Newington 35 11 33 14 24 10 

Rocky Hill 25 12 a3 12 23 8 

Simsbury 27 5 12 3 10 4 

South Windsor 30 S 23 9 27 10 

Suffield 36 9 23 7 15 3 

Vernon 33 10 27 12 28 g 

West Hartford 34 16 21 11 21 10 

Wethersfield 28 10 28 11 25 10 

Windsor 48 21 34 17 32 13 

Windsor Locks 42 17 39 19 Se 17 
      
  

  

   



  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

    
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

® » 
Mey LA 

1991-92 
Percentage of Students Failing to Meet State Goals and Remedial 

Standards 
for the Holistic Writing Sample on the CMT 

4th Grade 6th Grade 8th Grade 

State Remed. | State Remed. | State Remed 
Goals Stand. | Goals Stand. | Goals Stand 

Hartford 95 31 97 37 82 5 

Avon 73 0 83 2 50 0 

Bloomfield 84 10 90 11 80 11 

Canton 87 10 70 6 63 1 

East Granby 88 12 56 2 35 2 

East Hartford 91 12 88 22 76 3 

East Windsor 78 1 90 10 67 8 

Ellington 89 4 77 5 65 2 

Farmington 76 6 83 3 44 0 

Glastonbury 82 7 87 10 59 2 

Granby 76 6 87 9 47 3 

Manchester 86 9 86 15 78 6 

Newington 91 11 90 21 82 7 

Rocky Hill 90 8 90 20 68 2 

Simsbury 81 7 88 10 65 l 

South Windsor 19 5 79 9 68 4 

Suffield 82 7 86 6 59 0 

Vernon 84 4 89 10 76 4 

West Hartford 80 9 85 10 42 1 

Wethersfield 86 11 84 13 83 6 

Windsor 91 13 84 1S 72 6 

Windsor Locks 23 10 77 10 87 11                           
 



  
  

3. a 

173. Defendants are not satisfied with the performance of 
Hartford school children as a whole or of any children who perform 
below the mastery level. (Defs’ Revised Answer 145) 

174. Hartford fourth graders mastered an average of 16.5 
objectives on the CMT math test while fourth graders in the 21 
surrounding communities averaged from 21.3 to 23.3. {Figure 59, 
Pls’ Ex. 163 at 198)2 

1795. Hartford sixth graders mastered an average of 17.1 
objectives on the CMT math test while sixth graders in the 21 
surrounding communities averaged from 23.7 to 30.7. (Figure 60, 
Pls’ Ex. 183 at 199) 

176. Hartford eighth graders mastered an average of 17.8 
objectives on the CMT math test while eighth graders in the 21 
surrounding communities averaged from 24.2 to 32.5. (Figure 61, 
Pls’ ®x. 163 at 201) 

177. Hartford fourth graders mastered an average of 3.3 
objectives on the CMT language arts test while fourth graders in the 
21 surrounding communities averaged from 5.9 to 7.7. (Figure 62, 
Pls’ Bx. 163 at 203) 

178. Hartford sixth graders mastered an average of 4.8 
objectives on the CMT language arts test while sixth graders in the 
21 surrounding communities averaged from 7.5 to 9.8. {(FPigure £63, 
Pls’ EX. 163 at 204) 

179. Hartford eighth graders mastered an average of 5.3 
objectives on the CMT language arts test while eighth graders in the 
21 surrounding communities averaged from 7.6 to 9.8. (Figure 64, 
Pls’ Ex. 183 at 205) 

180. Hartford fourth graders mastered an average of 37 
objectives on the CMT DRP test while fourth graders in the 21 
surrounding communities averaged from 46 to 56. (Figure 65, Pls’ 
Fx.,»163 at 207) 

181. Hartford sixth graders mastered an average of 46 
objectives on the CMT DRP test while sixth graders in the 21 
surrounding communities averaged from 55 to 67. (Figure 66, Pls’ 
Ex. 163 at 208) 

182, Hartford eighth graders mastered an average of 53 
objectives on the CMT DRP test while eighth graders in the 21 
surrounding communities averaged from 60 to 74. (Figure 67, Pls’ 
Ex. 163 at 209) 

2 Stipulations numbers 174-185 are based on 1991-92 mastery 
test scores. Stipulations numbers 186-191 are based on 1992-93 
mastery test data.       
 



  
    

«26. = 

183, Hartford fourth graders mastered an average of 4.1 
objectives on the CMT holistic writing test while fourth graders in 
the 21 surrounding communities averaged from 4.7 to 5.5. (Figure 
68, Pls' Bx. 163 at 211) 

184. Hartford sixth graders mastered an average of 3.9 
objectives on the CMT holistic writing test while sixth graders in 
the 21 surrounding communities averaged from 4.5 to 6.2. (Figure 
659, Pls’ Ex: 163 at 212) 

185. Hartford eighth graders mastered an average of 5.1 
objectives on the CMT holistic writing test while eighth graders in 
the 21 surrounding communities averaged from 5.1 to 6.7. (Figure 
70, Pls’ Ex. 163 aL 213) 

186. Hartford fourth graders mastered 15.8 math objectives 
while children in surrounding communities mastered from 20.9 to 
23.5. (Pls' Reply Brief Ex. G) 

187. Hartford sixth graders mastered 16.7 math objectives 
while children in surrounding communities mastered from 23.7 to 
30.4. (Pls’ Reply Brief Ex. H) 

188. Hartford eighth graders mastered 18.1 math objectives 
while children from surrounding communities mastered from 20.6 to 
31.6. (Pls’ Reply Brief Ex. I) 

139. Hartford fourth graders mastered 3.1 language arts 
objectives while children in surrounding communities mastered from 
5.8 t0. 7.7. (Pls’ Reply Brief Ex. J) 

190. Hartford sixth graders mastered 4.7 language arts 
objectives while children in surrounding communities mastered from 
7.3. t0 9.7.  (Pls' Reply Brief Ex. K) 

191, Hartford eighth graders mastered 5.4 language arts 
objectives while children from surrounding communities mastered from 
6.6 to 9.7. (Pls’ Reply Brief Ex. L) 

192. From 1987 to 1991, Hartford fourth graders mastered from 
15.9 to 16.5 of the 25 mathematics objectives while the statewide 
average was from 20.4 to 21.2 objectives. (Figure 1, Pls’ Ex. 163 
at 85) 

193. From 1987 to 1991, Hartford sixth graders mastered from 
16.9 to 18.3 of the 325 mathematics objectives while the statewide 
average was from 23.7 to 24.7 objectives. (Figure 2, Pls’ Ex. 163 
at 87) 

194. From 1987 to 1991, Hartford eighth graders mastered from 
17.6 to 19.3 of the 35 mathematics objectives while the statewide 
average was from 25 to 25.8. (Figure 3, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 89) 

  

 



  
    

  

Rok by in 

195. From 1987 to 1991, Hartford fourth graders mastered from 
3.2 to 3.5 of the 9 language arts objectives, while the statewide 
average was from 6.2 to 6.3. (Figure 7, Pls’ Bx. 1863 at 97) 

196. From 1987 to 1991, Hartford sixth graders mastered from 
4.4 to 5.3 of the 11 language arts objectives, while the statewide 
average was from 7.4 to 8.1. (Figure 8, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 99) 

197. From 1987 to 1991, Hartford eighth graders mastered from 
4.7 to 5.4 of the 11 language arts objectives while the statewide 
average was from 7.7 to 8.4. (Figure 9, Pls’ Ex. 163 at 101) 

198. In 1991, Hartford students took the SAT test at a lower 
rate than students elsewhere in the state -- 56.7% of Hartford 
students, compared to a statewide average of 71.4% (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
141). 

199. Hartford students score the lowest on the SAT when 
compared to the performance of students in the surrounding 
districts. {Figures 79 and 80, Pls’ Bx, 163 at 225-226; Natrriello 
II pp. 32) 

200. In 1991, the average math score of Hartford graduates on 
the SAT was 354 out of 800 and the average score of graduates in the 
next lowest scoring district, Bloomfield, was 411; (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 
225, Fig. 79); in the verbal section, the average score of Hartford 
graduates was 314 out of 800 and the average score of graduates in 
the next lowest scoring district, East Hartford was 390. 

201. In 1988, fewer than 30% of Hartford students attended 
four year colleges in the October following graduation while over 
52% of students statewide did. For 1991, 31% of Hartford students 
did while 51% of students statewide did. (Pls’ Ex. 163 at 146, 147; 
Natriello p. 172) 

202. In 1988, statewide, 71.9% of students attended college 
following graduation while 57% of Hartford students did so. (Pls’ 
Ex. 163 at 146) 

  

   



  
    

=28 

¥v. PLAINTIFFS’ HEADING: 

HAS THE STATE BEEN INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING RACIAL, ETHNIC, 
ECONOMIC SEGREGATION UNEQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, AND 
LACK OF A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION, DOES THE STATE HAVE AN 
AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES AND HAS THE STATE 
FAILED TO ACT TO REMEDY THESE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES? 

DEFENDANTS’ HEADING: 

HAS THE STATE BEEN TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ADDRESS RACIAL, 
ETHNIC, AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISOLATION AND EDUCATIONAL 
UNDERACHIEVEMENT OF URBAN CHILDREN IN POVERTY? 

A. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION HISTORICALLY 

203. During the Eighteenth Century, the General Assembly of 
the State of Connecticut assigned the responsibility for providing 
education to parishes, or ecclesiastical societies, the boundaries 
of which were not generally coterminous with town boundaries. 
(Collier p. 19) 

204. At the end of the Eighteenth Century, state funds for 
education were channeled to independent entities called school 
societies, the boundaries of which were at first coterminous with 
parishes. (Collier p. 20) 

205, During the first half of the Nineteenth Century, the 
General Assembly of the State of Connecticut assigned responsibility 
for providing education to approximately 1,600 small corporate 
entities called districts, the boundaries of which were not 
generally coterminous with towns. (Collier p. 21) 

206. Districts in the Nineteenth Century had their own school 
committees and were delegated the power to tax, hire teachers and 
establish textbooks, among other things. (Collier at 61) 

207. During the second half of the Nineteenth Century and the 
first decade of the Twentieth Century, the General Assembly of the 
State of Connecticut passed legislation to encourage the 
consolidation of districts under the auspices of towns in order to 
improve the condition of the schools. (Collier pp. 27-28, 39) 

208. By 1909, all but fifteen school districts in the state 
were consolidated at the town level so that school district 
boundaries except for the fifteen districts were contiguous with 
town boundary lines. (Collier pp. 28, 39, 66) 

2009. The consolidation of school boundaries in 1909 had 
nothing to do with the race of Connecticut students. {Collier, p. 
66) 

  

 



  
    

  

<205. 

210. With the exception of regional school districts and 
school districts in 15 towns and cities not consolidated in 1909, 
existing school district boundaries have not been materially changed 
in over 80 years. (Tirozzi Affidavit; Memorandum of Decision 18; 
Collier.pp. 28, 39, 66) 

211. With the exception of regional school districts which 
have been created by the voluntary action of towns pursuant to 
Chapter 164 of the General Statutes or predecessor statutes, and the 
fifteen school districts mentioned above, no school district 
boundary has been materially changed since 1909. (Tirozzi Affidavit 
attached to Defs’ Motion for Summary Judgment 4) 

212. Since 1909, public school children have been assigned to 
particular school districts on the basis of their residence. 
{Tirozzi Affidavit, 9 5; Collier, p. 22,23, 32) 

213. The schools in Hartford continued under a district system 
until approximately 1940, which system consisted of three separate 
districts within the Hartford town boundaries. (Collier p. 29) 

214. By 1941, the public school districts boundaries for 
Hartford students had become by law coterminous with the Hartford 
town boundaries. (Collier, p. 29) 

215. By 1951, all public school districts boundaries except 
for regional districts in the state were coterminous with town 
boundaries. (Collier, p. 29) 

216. No child has been intentionally assigned to a public 
school or to a public school district on the basis of race, national 
origin or socioeconomic status or status as an "at risk" student 
except for very brief period in 1869 when the City of Hartford 
attempted to assign students to schools on the basis of race, which 
practice was halted by the General Assembly. (Collier p. 48; Tirozzi 
Affidavit.) 

217. When demographic conditions continued to change in the 
1980s, the General Assembly passed diversity legislation such as the 
Interdistrict Cooperative Grant Program, Conn. Gen. Stat. §10- 
74d, and several special acts designed to promote diversity by 
funding interdistrict magnet school programs. (Defs’ Ex. 3.2 - 3.7, 
3.9; 7.1, pp. 36-40; 7.2, p. 4038) 

218. The Interdistrict Cooperative Grant Program began in 1988 
with a $399,000 appropriation, which by 1992 had increased to 
$2,500,000. (Williams pp. 76-77) 

219. The state intervened to save Project Concern, a program 
in which minority Hartford children attend suburban schools, when 
the Hartford Board of Education voted to withdraw from the program 
in early 1980s. (LaFontaine pp. 124-125; Calvert p. 128) 

  

 



      

“30 - 

220. During the 1980s, the State Department of Education was 
reorganized to concentrate on the needs of urban school children and 
on promoting diversity in the public schools. (Defs’ Ex. 3.1, 3.8) 

B. STATE INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION TODAY 

221. The State Board of Education administers a grant program 
pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-17g to assist school districts 
including Hartford which are required by law to provide a bilingual 
education program. (Defs’ Ex. 7.1, pp. 28-35; 7.21, p. 353A) 

222. The State Board of Education administers under Conn. 
Gen. Stat. §§10-266p - 10-266r a Priority School District program 
for towns in the state with the eight largest populations, including 
Hartford, to improve student achievement and enhance educational 
opportunities. (Defs’ Ex. 7.1, pp. 154-160; 7.21, p. 1603) 

223. The General Assembly provides substantial financial 
support to schools throughout the State to finance school 
operations. See §§10-262f, et seq. 

224. The General Assembly provides reimbursement to towns for 
student transportation expenses. See §10-273a. 

225. The State Board of Education prepares courses of study 
and curricula for the schools, develops evaluation and assessment 
programs, and conducts annual assessments of public schools. See 
§10-4. 

226. The State Board of Education prepares a comprehensive 
plan for elementary, secondary, vocational, and adult education 
every five years. See id. 

227. The General Assembly has established the ages at which 
school attendance is mandatory throughout the State. See §10-184. 

228. The General Assembly has determined the minimum number of 
school days that public schools must be in session each year, and 
has given the State Board of Education the authority to authorize 
exceptions to this requirement. See §10-15. 

229. The General Assembly has set the minimum number of hours 
of actual school work per school day. See §10-16. 

230. The General Assembly has promulgated a list of holidays 
and special days that must be suitably observed in the public 
schools. See §10-29%a. 

231. The General Assembly has promulgated a list of courses 
that must be part of the program of instruction in all public 
schools, see §10-16b   
 



  
    

  

-3Y in 

232. The General Assembly has directed the State Board of 
Education to make available curriculum materials to assist local 
schools in providing course offerings in these areas. See id. 

233. The General Assembly has imposed minimum graduation 
requirements on high schools throughout the State, see §10-221la. 

234. The General Assembly directed the State Board of 
Education to exercise supervisory authority over textbooks selected 
by local boards of education for use in their public schools. See 
§10-221. 

235. The General Assembly has required that all public schools 
teach students at every grade level about the effects of alcohol, 
tobacco, and drugs, see §10-19. 

235. The General Assembly has directed local boards of 
education to provide students and teachers who wish to do so with an 
opportunity for silent meditation at the start of every school day. 
See §10-16a. 

217. The General Assembly has directed the State Board of 
Education to set minimum teacher standards, and local board of 
education to impose additional such standards. See §10-145a. 

238. The General Assembly has directed the State Board of 
Education to administer a system of testing prospective teachers 
before they are certified by the State. See §10-145f. 

238. Certification by the State Board of Education is a 
condition of employment for all teachers in the Connecticut public 
school system. See §10-145. 

240. All school business administrators must also be certified 
by the State Board of Education. See §10-145d. 

241. The General Assembly has directed the State Board of 
Education to specify qualifications for intramural and 
interscholastic coaches. See §10-149. 

242. The General Assembly has promulgated laws governing 
teacher tenure, see §10-151, and teacher unionization, see §10-153a. 

243. The General Assembly has created a statewide teachers’ 
retirement program. See §10-183b, et seq. 

244. The General Assembly has directed the State Board of 
Education to supervise and administer a system of proficiency 
examinations for students throughout the State. See §10-14n. 

245. Mastery examinations annually test all students enrolled 
in public schools in the fourth, sixth, eighth and tenth grades. 
See id. 

  

 



  
    

32 = 

246. The General Assembly promulgated procedures setting forth 
the process by which local and regional boards of education may 
discipline and expel public school students under their 
jurisdictions. See §10-233a et seq. 

247. Except as provided in §§10-17a and 10-17f, the General 
Assembly has mandated that English must be the medium of instruction 
and administration in all public schools in the State. See §10-17. 

248. The General Assembly has required local school districts 
to classify all students according to their dominant language, and 
to meet the language needs of bilingual students. See §10-17f. 

249. The General Assembly has required each local and regional 
board of education to implement a program of bilingual education in 
each school in its district with 20 or more students which dominant 
language is other than English. See id. 

250. The General Assembly has required all local and regional 
school boards to file strategic school profile (SSP) reports on all 
schools under their jurisdiction. (§10-220(c). 

251. Connecticut’s SSP program is one of the most extensive 
such programs in the country. (Rindone p. 83) 

VI. STEPS TOWARD INTEGRATION 

252. The state has instituted an ongoing action against the 
City of Waterbury and its officials to enforce the provisions of the 
state racial imbalance law (Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-226a et seg. in the 
Waterbury school district). (Williams p. 46) 

253. The number of children participating in Project Concern 
has declined over time. In 1969, the Superintendent of Schools in 
Hartford called for an expansion of Project Concern. (Defs’ Rev. 
Answer 157) 

254. The Defendants have announced that they would pursue a 
"voluntary and incremental approach toward the problem of de 
facto socioeconomic, racial and ethnic isolation in urban schools, 
including the Hartford Public Schools." 

255. Many court ordered desegregation plans developed by 
court-appointed experts have had to be redesigned to attempt to 
achieve diversity and educational goals. (Willie p. 102) 

256. Some court-ordered desegregation plans have remained 
under court jurisdiction for over twenty years. (Gordon pp. 62-64) 

  

 



  
    

  

=334 

Respectfully Submitted, 

a A Vs Slat 
Martha Stone #61506 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 
32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 
(203) 247-9823 

  

BY: [lod Z / Le 
Wesley Horton #38478 
Moller, "Horton & Shields, P.C. 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
(203) 522-8338 

  

    

  

J 

   
BY: \ . 

Joh” Brittain #101153 
Aniversity of Connecticut 

School of Law 
65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
(203) 241-4664 

ww: JPL Fr 
Philip D. Tegeler #102537 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 
32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 
(203) 247-9823 

  

  

Theodore Shaw 
Dennis Parker 
Marianne Lado 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

  

 



  
    

234 - 

Sandra Del Valle 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund 
99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

Christopher Hansen 
American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 
(212) 944-9800 

Wilfred Rodriguez #302827 
Hispanic Advocacy Project 
Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CP? 06112 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

  

/ 27") 
/ / = 

BY: / 
Bernard MdGovérn 
Martha ts Prestley 
Assistant Attorney General 
MacKenzie Hall 
110 Sherman Street 
Rartford, CT 06105 
(203) 566-7173 

  

 



  

1 
v4 ln / 
N ) nau Shar be