Plaintiffs' Second Amended Responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories

    Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 
AT HARTFORD 

Vv. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants AUGUST 24, 1992 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ 

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
  

  

INTRODUCTION 
  

The amended interrogatory responses that follow are in response 

to this Court’s Order of June 18, 1992 directing plaintiffs to 

respond more fully to Interrogatories 11, 12, 13, and 14. At that 

time, the Court found plaintiffs’ other responses to be 

substantially complete, but directed plaintiffs to supplement 

certain responses if necessary where new information or documents 

had come to plaintiffs’ attention. 

The responses that follow are respectfully submitted in 

anticipation of a favorable ruling on Plaintiffs’ Request for Leave 

to Amend the Complaint, dated July 21, 1992, which has not been 

opposed by defendants. The purpose of plaintiffs’ proposed 

amendment to the complaint was to eliminate any references to the 

state’s role in contributing to housing segregation in the Hartford 

region through its policies and actions in the areas of housing, 

 



  

land use and transportation. As plaintiffs have stated, Sheff v. 
  

O'Neill is an education case, and housing evidence is not necessary 
  

for plaintiffs to prevall. In accordance with plaintiffs’ proposed 

amendment, all references to housing have now been removed from the 

responses to interrogatories 1-71 "If plaintiffs’ motion to amend 

the complaint is not granted, plaintiffs will immediately amend 

these responses. 

The responses that follow do not constitute a pretrial 

memorandum or summary of plaintiffs’ proof. They are answers to 

specific questions posed by defendants, which do not necessary 

reflect plaintiffs’ entire planned presentation of their case. 

These responses are also supplemented by the detailed descriptions 

of expert testimony provided by plaintiffs in their Final 

Identification of Expert Witnesses (August 17, 1992) (attached 

hereto), and by the depositions of plaintiffs’ experts. 

Plaintiffs reserve the right to further supplement or amend these 

responses in a timely manner prior to trial. 

      1 1f, however, defendants seek to prove at trial that the state 

did not contribute to housing segregation, plaintiffs would be 

prepared to present extensive rebuttal testimony on the issue, both 

through expert witnesses and through documentary evidence, along the 

lines set out in plaintiffs’ February 19, 19391 responses to 

interrogatories 1 and 5. 

  

 



      

PAST VIOLATIONS: AFFIRMATIVE ACTS 
  

1. Please identify each and every affirmative act by the 

defendants, their predecessors, Or any other state officer, agency 

or other body which the plaintiffs will claim at trial violated the 

State Constitution. For each such act provide the date the act 

occurred, the person, agency or other body responsible for the act, 

and any and all information the plaintiffs will claim that person, 

agency or other body had or should have had at that time which 

would have apprised them of the consequences of that act. 

  

2. Please identify each and every affirmative act by the 

defendants, their predecessors or any other state officer, agency 

or other body which the plaintiffs will claim at trial caused the 

conditions of racial and ethnic isolation in the Hartford Public 

Schools and/or the identified suburban school districts. For each 

such act provide the date the act occurred, the person, agency Or 

other body responsible for the act, and any and all information the 

plaintiffs will claim that person, agency or other body had or 

should have had at that time which would have apprised them of the 

consequences of that act. 

  

3. Please identify each and every affirmative act by the 

defendants, their predecessors or any other state officer, agency 

or other body which the plaintiffs will claim at trial caused the 

condition of socio-economic isolation in the Hartford Public 

Schools and/or the identified suburban school districts. For each 

such act provide the date the act occurred, the person, agency Or 

other body responsible for the act, and any and all information the 

plaintiffs will claim that person, agency or other body had or 

should have had at that time which would have apprised them of the 

consequences of the act. 

  

4. Please identify each and every affirmative act by the 

defendants, their predecessors or any other state officer, agency 

or other body which the plaintiffs will claim at trial cause the 

concentration of "at risk" children in the Hartford Public Schools. 

For each such act provide the date the act occurred, the person, 

agency or other body responsible for that act, and any and all 

information the plaintiffs will claim that person, agency or other 

body had or should have had at that time which would have apprised 

them of the consequences of that act. 

  

 



      

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES 1, or 3, 4: 
  

As plaintiffs have repeatedly maintained, it is the present 

condition of racial segregation in the region’s schools that 

violates the Connecticut Constitution as a matter of law, and the 

harms that flow from the present condition of racial and economic 

segregation that in fact deprive Hartford area school children of 

their right to equality of educational opportunity. 

Defendants have claimed that the requisite "state action" 1s 

not present here, because, as they argue, the state has taken no 

affirmative steps" to cause segregation. But as this Court has 

recognized, the state controls public education, and the state has 

an affirmative duty to guarantee equal educational opportunity. 

This extensive involvement of the state in education satisfies the 

requirement of state action. In addition, plaintiffs will show 

that defendants have repeatedly failed to take appropriate steps to 

remedy the problem of segregation and unequal educational 

opportunity. Defendants have also taken numerous actions that have 

wcaused" or "contributed to" segregation, and are also responsible 

for existing school boundaries that exacerbate segregation. Taken 

together, in whole or in part, these actions by the state can be 

said to be unconstitutional to the extent that they have led to or 

have contributed to the unconstitutional system of racial and 

economic segregation and the concomitant harm that flows from that 

system. 

  

 



      

a. Defendants are legally responsible for the creation, 

maintenance, approval, funding, supervision and 

control of public education. 

  
  

  

  

  

Defendants discharge a broad range of statutory obligations 

that demonstrate their control over and responsibility for 

Connecticut’s system of public education. Defendants provide 

substantial financial support to schools throughout the State to 

finance school operations. See §§10-262, et seg. They also 

approve, fund, and oversee local school building projects, see 

§§10-282, et seqg., and reimburse towns for student transportation 

expenses. See §10-273a. 

Defendant State Board of Education has "general supervision 

and control [over] the educational interests of the state,” §10-4, 

and exercises broad supervision over schools throughout the State. 

It prepares courses of study and curricula for the schools, 

develops evaluation and assessment programs, and conducts annual 

assessments of public schools. See id. The Board also prepares a 

comprehensive plan of long-term goals and short-term objectives for 

the Connecticut public school system every five years. See id. 

Defendants exert broad control over school attendance and 

school calendar requirements. They establish the ages at which 

school attendance is mandatory throughout the State. See §10-184. 

They determine the minimum number of school days that public 

schools must be in session each year, and have the authority to 

authorize exceptions to this requirement. See §10-15. They also 

  

 



      

set the minimum number of hours of actual school work per school 

day. See §10-16. In addition, defendants promulgate a list of 

holidays and special days that must be suitably observed in the 

public schools. See §10-29a. 

Defendants are directly involved in the planning and 

implementation of required curricula for the State’s public 

schools. They promulgate a list of courses that must be part of 

the program of instruction in all public schools, see §10-16b, and 

they make available curriculum materials to assist local schools in 

providing course offerings in these areas. See id. Defendants 

impose minimum graduation requirements on high schools throughout 

the State, see §10-22la, and they exercise supervisory authority 

over textbook selection in all of the State’s public schools. See 

§10-221. In addition, defendants require that all public schools 

teach students at every grade level about the effects of alcohol, 

tobacco, and drugs, see §10-19, and that they provide students and 

teachers with an opportunity for silent meditation at the start of 

every school day. See §10-1l6a. 

Defendants exert broad authority over the hiring, 

retention, and retirement, of teachers and other school personnel. 

They set minimum teacher standards, see §10-145a, and administer a 

system of testing prospective teachers before they are certified by 

the State. See §10-145f. Certification by defendants is a 

condition of employment for all teachers in the Connecticut public 

 



      

school system. See §10-145. All school business administrators, 

see §10-145d, and intramural and interscholastic coaches hired must 

also be certified by defendants. See §10-149. Defendants also 

prescribe statewide rules governing teacher tenure, see §10-151, 

and teacher unionization, see §10-153a, and maintain a statewide 

teachers’ retirement program. See §10-183c. 

Defendants supervise a system of proficiency examinations 

for students throughout the State. See §10-14n. These 

examinations, provided and administered by the State Board of 

Education, test all students enrolled in public schools. See id. 

Defendants require students who do not meet State standards to 

continue to take the examinations until they meet or exceed 

expected performance levels. See id. Defendants also promulgate 

procedures for the discipline and expulsion of public school 

students throughout the State. See §10-233a et seg. 

Defendants also exert broad authority over language of 

instruction in public schools throughout the State. They mandate 

that English must be the medium of instruction and administration 

in all public schools in the State. See §10-17. But they also 

require local school districts to classify all students according 

to their dominant language, and to meet the language needs of 

bilingual students. See §10-17f. Defendants require each school 

implementing a program of bilingual education for the first time to 

  

     



      

prepare and submit a plan for implementing such a program to the 

State Commissioner of Education. See id. 

The Connecticut Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that 

public education is, in every respect, a responsibility of the 

state. See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to 

Respondents’ Motion to Strike (November 3, 1989) (pp. 7-15). While 

certain aspects of administration are delegated to local districts, 

such delegation is only at the pleasure of the state, and in no way 

diminishes the state’s ultimate duty to provide public education. 

Plaintiffs will also present evidence of the history of state 

control over local education in Connecticut through their expert 

historical witness, Professor Christopher Collier. 

b. The state requires, pursuant to C.G.S. §10-240, that school 

district boundaries be coterminous with municipal 

boundaries. 

  

  

  

The requirement that town and school district boundaries be 

coterminous was imposed by the state on most towns in 13083. Prior 

to 1909, there was no state requirement that town and school 

district lines be the same, and many school districts crossed town 

lines. Since 1909, there has been no change in school district 

boundaries in the Hartford region outside the City of Hartford, 

even as those school districts became increasingly segregated. 

Thus, the state-imposed system of coterminous town and school 

district boundaries served as a legal template on which the pattern 

of school segregation was laid out. 

  

 



      

Even in 1909, although Connecticut’s black population was 

very small, the pattern of black migration and racially 

identifiable housing was already becoming established. By 1909, 

roughly 92% of Connecticut blacks were living in the cities. Thus, 

restriction of school districts to city boundaries had the 

foreseeable impact of limiting black access to suburban schools. 

The segregative effect of maintaining such coterminous town and 

school district boundaries became increasing obvious in the 1940s, 

50s, and 60s. 

The only exceptions to the requirement of coterminous town 

and school district boundaries included certain towns (like 

Hartford) where the 1909 legislation specifically permitted 

continuation of separate districts within the town, and towns where 

two or more districts voluntarily entered into a regional school 

district with state approval, pursuant to C.G.S. §10-39 et seg. In 

the context of rural and suburban school districts, such 

regionalization has been actively encouraged by the state. 

There is no constitutional basis for the principle of local 

control or the legal requirement that town and school district 

boundaries be coterminous. Nor is there any practical or 

historical basis for the requirement. Indeed, the requirement, as 

applied to the Hartford metropolitan area, operates to maintain a 

system of racial and economic segregation. School districts 

  

 



      

throughout the United States are organized on other than a town-by- 

town basis. 

Historically, intertown school districts, and intertown 

student assignments were common in Connecticut. In the area of 

education, the state has also established regional vocational- 

educational schools, and has encouraged interdistrict cooperative 

arrangements among suburban communities in special education 

programs. However, since 1954, with the exception of Project 

Concern, which the state has failed to adequately fund (see 

response to Interrogatory 5), the state provided little or no 

funding for urban/suburban interdistrict programs in regular 

education until after the present lawsuit was announced. 

In Connecticut, intertown arrangements have also been 

approved, encouraged, or mandated by the state, in the areas of 

sewer, water, and transportation. 

c. The state requires, pursuant to C.G.S. §10-184, that 

school-age children attend public school within the 

school district wherein the child resides. 

  

  

  

Pursuant to C.G.S. §10-184, parents are required to send 

their children seven and over and under sixteen to-'a school "in the 

district wherein such child resides.” Defendants have enforced 

this statute to prevent children living in the city of Hartford 

from attending school in suburban districts. For example, in 1985, 

four parents living in Hartford sent their children across town 

lines to the Bloomfield school system. The State, with the 

  

  
 



  

knowledge that the system of education these children were 

receiving was better in Bloomfield, employed the criminal process 

and had the parents arrested for larceny pursuant to C.G.S. §53a- 

119. See State v. Saundra Foster, et al. (spring 1985). This 
  

statute continues to be enforced in the Hartford area. In 

contrast, plaintiffs will present historical evidence that school 

children in Connecticut, and particularly in the Hartford region, 

often crossed district lines to obtain education. 

d. From approximately 1954 to the present, the State 

Department of Education and the State Board of 

Education have engaged in a massive program of new 

school construction and school additions or 

renovations in Hartford and the surrounding 

communities, with direct knowledge of the increasing 

segregation in Hartford area schools. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

By 1954, defendants were well aware of the growing pattern 

of racial segregation in education and its alleged harm to black 

children. Between 1954 and the present, defendants approved and 

funded the construction of over ninety new schools in virtually 

all-white suburban communities, representing over 50% of the total 

school enrollment in the region. During the same time period, 

defendants financed a major expansion of school capacity within the 

increasingly racially isolated Hartford school district. [Sources 

include H.C. Planning Associates Survey.]       
 



      

e. The state’s adoption and implementation of the "Racial 

Imbalance" law and regulations has contributed to and 

authorized racial segregation in Hartford schools. 

  

  

  

  

public Act 173, "An Act Concerning Racial Imbalance in the 

public Schools" codified as §10-226a-e was passed in July 1969, 

requiring "racial balance" among schools within individual 

districts. The state adopted the intra-district racial imbalance 

law with knowledge that segregation was increasingly an inter- 

district phenomenon. As is reflected throughout the legislative 

history of the Racial Imbalance Act and related legislation, by 

1969 it was well established that it was no longer possible to 

remedy the problem of racially and economically segregated schools 

by desegregating or balancing city schools, where minorities were 

already in the majority. (See, for example, the minutes of a 

meeting of the Legislative Committee on Human Rights and 

Opportunities on December 5, 19639.) To mandate only intra-district 

desegregation was to get the suburbs off "scot free." (Minutes at 

1). By 1969, the state was also aware of the multiple reports, 

including those that gave rise to Project Concern in 1966, that 

concluded that racial and economic isolation was an inter-district 

problem that demanded an inter-district remedy. The state was well 

aware that solutions restricted by town boundaries would only 

burden urban areas and plague them with further racial 

polarization. 

 



      

- Be 

The State Board of Education’s delay, from 1969 until 1980, 

in the adoption of regulations to implement the state racial 

imbalance law required by C.G.S. §226e also foreseeable contributed 

to racial and ethnic segregation of the schools. In September, 

1969, racial imbalance regulations were prepared and presented to 

the State Board of Education. School districts were notified and 

the State Board declared its intent to adopt the regulations. 

Although time was of the essence and the racial composition 

of city schools were rapidly changing, in March, 1970 after public 

hearings held in Hartford, the proposed regulations were rejected. 

From 1971 to 1975 nothing was done to correct the problem. Not 

until 1976 were efforts even renewed to draft regulations in 

compliance with the mandate of $10-226. 

In May, 1977, the State Board of Education adopted a Policy 

and Guidelines for the development of regulations, in accordance 

with the Board's stated belief that segregated schools could not 

provide truly equitable learning opportunities. Defendants had 

knowledge of both the inter-district nature of segregation in the 

Hartford area and the continuing fast pace of change in the racial 

composition of schools in the city of Hartford. Nevertheless, no 

regulations were adopted in 1977. 

At a time when urban areas were racially polarized, these 

actions also notified non-minorities living in the city of Hartford 

that desegregation of their schools was imminent. Instead of 

|   
 



      

- ¥4 

quickly implementing racial integration, the state’s delay in 

adopting the controversial regulations gave white parents in 

Hartford ample time to find alternative arrangements for the 

schooling of their children in private schools and in school 

districts outside of Hartford. 

Significantly, the ethnic distribution of the student 

population changed markedly during the state's delay. From 1970 to 

1980, the white student population in city schools decreased 

dramatically, while the non-white population increased. While the 

trend toward increasing racial isolation within the city of 

Hartford had been clear in 1969, the concept of an intra-district 

remedy had quickly become irrelevant. 

In April, 1980, more than ten years after the passage of 

the racial imbalance law and long after school desegregation within 

the City of Hartford might have had meaning, the state prepared and 

adopted racial imbalance regulations. The regulations established 

that a school was "imbalanced" if its minority enrollment was more 

that 25 percentage points above or below the district-wide 

proportion of minority students in that grade range. 

As the State has itself reported, "the statute and 

regulations have always placed a heavy burden on those school 

districts having large minority student enrollments." State 

Department of Education, "A Report Providing Background Information 

Concerning the Chronology and Status of Statutes, Regulations and 

  

  
 



      

- T5 

Processes Regarding Racial Imbalance in Connecticut Schools" 

(January, 1984), at 1. Not only did the passage of the racial 

imbalance law and delay in promulgation of its regulations 

contribute to racial, ethnic, and economic segregation in the 

Hartford metropolitan area, but enforcement of the racial imbalance 

law, with its punitive measures for racial imbalance, places an 

undue and unfair burden on Hartford and other urban school 

districts with high proportions of African American and Latino 

students, while releasing suburban districts from their 

responsibility to ensure equity and racial balance. In addition, 

as the State further reported in 1984, "as the overall percentage 

of minority students in the three largest cities continues to grow, 

the concepts on which the statute is predicated become 

questionable." Id. Indeed, in such cities as Hartford, the 

underlying promise of the Racial Imbalance Act was "questionable" 

from the outset. 

Hartford was one of the seven urban districts found by the 

State Board of Education in 1979 to be in violation of the racial 

imbalance law. In March, 1981, the Equal Education and Racial 

Balance Task Force, established by the Hartford Board of Education 

to assist in the development of a plan to comply with the new law, 

not only arrived at a plan but also recommended changes in the 

racial imbalance law and regulations to make them applicable and 

workable in the City of Hartford. In April, 1981, Hartford’s plan 

 



      

to correct racial imbalance within the school district was approved 

by the State Board of Education. In June, 1981, over eleven years 

after the passage of the racial imbalance law, defendants began to 

monitor the Hartford schools for compliance with the law. In 1988, 

the State Department again notified the Hartford schools that 

Kennelly and Naylor, with minority enrollments of 38.2% and 32.9% 

respectively, were, by definition, racially imbalanced, since they 

were more than 25 percentage points below the city-wide average of 

90.5%. Yet, as the Hartford public schools stated in its 

"Alternate Proposal to Address Racial Imbalance" (1988), "[i]t is 

clear that the established definition of racial balance is 

meaningless for the city of Hartford. As long as the boundaries of 

the attendance district of the Hartford schools is coterminous with 

the boundaries of the city, no meaningful numerical balance can be 

achieved, and it would be an exercise in futility to develop 

proposals to seek racial balance." "Alternate Proposal," (1988) at 

6. The "Alternate Proposal" was approved by the state. 

£. The state has further contributed to segregation bv. 

authorizing and/or requiring payment of transportation 

costs bv local districts for students attending private 

schools, and by reimbursing local districts for said costs. 

  

  

  

  

1. Pursuant to C.G.S. §10-281, the state requires school 

districts to provide transportation to private 

nonprofit schools and provides reimbursement for 

expenses incurred by the district in providing this 

transportation. 

Pursuant C.G.S. §10-281, the state requires school 

districts to provide transportation to a private nonprofit school 

  

 



      

“XT 

in the district whenever a majority of the students attending the 

private school are residents of Connecticut and provides for the 

reimbursement of expenses incurred by districts providing this 

transportation. The implementation of this law by defendants 

caused and contributed to increased racial, ethnic, and soononis 

concentration in the Hartford metropolitan area, in violation of 

the Connecticut Constitution. 

Since 1971, the state has required districts to provide 

transportation to private schools when a majority of students live 

in the district. P.A. 653 §§1, 2. Defendants have implemented and 

enforced this statute with direct knowledge of its segregative 

effect. In 1971, the relative percentages of African American and 

Latino group enrollment in the public and non-public schools in the 

Hartford area were enormously different. In essence, defendants 

not only supported a private school system that, through its 

admissions policies, effectively excluded the poor, but also 

subsidized the transfer of white school children out of the public 

school system and into these private schools. 

In 1974, the state expanded the mandate of §10-281, 

requiring districts to provide transportation for students at 

private schools when a majority of students attending the schools 

are from Connecticut, versus from the particular district. P.A. 

74-257 §1. Defendants implemented this expansion, thereby 

subsidizing the transfer of white students out of the Hartford 

  

 



      

public schools, with a full awareness of its discriminatory effect. 

Defendants continue to require and subsidize the transportation of 

students to non-public schools in the Hartford metropolitan area. 

2. pursuant to §10-280a, the state permits school 

districts to provide transportation to private 

nonprofit schools in other districts and, between 1978 

and 1989, provided reimbursement for expenses incurred 

for transportation to contiguous districts within 

Connecticut. 

From 1978 through 1989, pursuant to §10-280a, the state 

also reimbursed school districts in the Hartford area for 

transportation of students to private schools in contiguous 

Connecticut districts, thus facilitating the attendance of a 

predominantly white, relatively well-off group of Hartford students 

at non-public schools. The state adopted §10-280a in 1978 with 

knowledge of the problem of segregation in Connecticut’s urban 

areas and awareness of the damage to be incurred to the 

desegregation process by the flight of these schoolchildren to 

private schools. See e.g., 21 S. Proc., Pt. 5, 1978 Sess., pPpP- 
  

1916 (Sen Hudson). 

g. The state contributed to racial and economic segregation, 

and unequal, inadequate educational conditions by 

establishing and maintaining an unequal and 

unconstitutional system of educational financing. 

  

  

  

  

Until 1979 the principal source of school funding came from 

local property taxes, which depended on the wealth of the town. 

This principal source was supplemented by the state by a $250 flat 

grant principle, which applied to the poorest and the wealthiest 

  

 



      

lO se 

towns. There was great wealth disparity which was reflected in 

widely varying funds available for local education and consequently 

widely varying quality of education among towns. The property-rich 

towns through higher per pupil expenditures were able to provide a 

substantially wider range and higher quality of education services 

than property-poor towns even as taxpayers in those towns were 

paying higher taxes than taxpayers in property-rich towns. All 

this was happening even though the state had the non-delegable 

responsibility to insure the students throughout the state received 

a substantially equal educational opportunity. Thus prior to 1979, 

the system of funding public education in the state violated the 

state constitution. 

In 1979, the state adopted a guaranteed tax base to rectify 

in part the financing inequities. Subsequent delays between 1980 

and 1985 in implementing the 1979 act and the unjustified use of 

obsolete data made the formula more disequalizing and exacerbated 

disparities in per pupil expenditures. These conditions denied 

students their rights to substantially equal educational 

opportunities under the state constitution. See, Horton v. 
  

Meskill, 31 Conn. Sup. 377, 332 A.2d 113 (1374); Xd., 172 Conn. 

615, 376 A.2d 359 (1977); Supreme Court Record in previous case, 

(No. 8127); Horton v. Meskill, 195 Conn. 24, 486 A.2d 1099 (1985); 
  

Supreme Court Record in previous case, Nos. 12499-12502. The 

effects of these longstanding funding disparities continue to be 

  

 



      

felt today particularly in deteriorating, oversized and inadequate 

physical facilities. 

* * * * * 

With regard to the "information [defendants]...had or should 

have had" at particular times which would have "apprised defendants 

of the consequences of particular actions,” plaintiffs’ position is 

that although proof of such "notice" is not necessary for 

plaintiffs to prevail, the increasing racial and economic 

segregation in area schools was nonetheless obvious, and numerous 

reports and studies put the state on notice of the problems and 

possible causes and solutions. See, generally, response to 

Interrogatory 5S. 

  

 



      

iY 

PAST VIOLATIONS: OMISSIONS 
  

5. Please identify each and every affirmative act, step, Or 

plan which the plaintiffs will claim at trial the defendants, their 

predecessors, or any other state officer, agency or other body were 

required by the State Constitution to take or implement to address 

the condition of racial and ethnic isolation in the Hartford Public 

Schools and the identified suburban school districts, but which was 

not in fact taken or implemented. For each such act, step, or plan 

provide the following: 

a) 

b) 

Cc) 

RESPONSE: 

The last possible date upon which that act, step or 

plan would necessarily have been taken or implemented 

in order to have avoided a violation that the 

Constitution; 

The specific details of how such act, step or plan 

should have been carried out, including (1) the 

specific methods of accomplishing the objectives of the 

act, step or plan, (2) an estimate of how long it would 

have taken to carry out the act, step, or plan, and (3) 

an estimate of the cost of carrying out the act, step 

or plan; 

For Hartford and each of the identified suburban school 

districts, the specific number and percentage of black, 

Hispanic and white students who would, of necessity, 

have attended school outside of the then existing 

school district in which they resided in order for that 

act, step or plan to successfully address the 

requirements of the Constitution. 

As set out in the Complaint, defendants’ failure to act 

in the face of defendants’ awareness of the educational necessity 

for racial, ethnic, and economic integration in the public schools, 

defendants’ recognition of the lasting harm inflicted on poor and 

minority students concentrated in urban school districts, and 

defendants’ knowledge of the array of legal tools available to 

defendants to remedy the problem, is violative of the State 

Constitution. Plaintiffs challenge defendants’ failure to provide 

  
  
 



  

plaintiffs with the equal educational opportunities to which the 

defendants were obligated to ensure. 

Since ‘at least 1965, defendants have had ample knowledge of the 

increasing racial, ethnic, and economic segregation in the Hartford 

metropolitan area and the power and authority to remedy this school 

segregation. Not only did defendants fail to take comprehensive or 

effective steps to ameliorate the increasing segregation in and 

among the region’s schools, but defendants also failed to provide 

equal access to educational resources to students in the schools in 

the Hartford metropolitan area. Such resources include, but are 

not limited to, number and qualification of staff; facilities; 

materials, books, and supplies; and curriculum offerings. 

Specifically, plaintiffs may dresent evidence at trial of the 

many reports and recommendations presented or available to 

Defendants which documented the widespread existence of racial, 

ethnic, and economic segregation and isolation among the school 

districts and which proposed or endorsed remedial efforts to 

address segregated and unequal education. Plaintiffs will not 

necessarily claim that if implemented, any specific programs and 

policies offered in such reports and recommendations would have 

been sufficient to address the constitutional violation, or that 

any one particular recommendation was required by the State 

Constitution. These reports and recommendations may include but 

are not limited to the following:       
 



      11. 

- 3 

Center for Field Studies, Harvard Graduate School of 

Education, Schools for Hartford (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 

University, 1965) 

  

Connecticut Commission on Civil Rights, 1964-1965 Annual 

Report to the Governor (September, 19653). 

Report of the Massachusetts State Board of Education 

Advisory Committee on Racial Imbalance and Education, 

"Because it is Right -- Educationally" (April, 1963) 

"Equality and Quality in the Public Schools," Report of a 

Conference Sponsored Jointly by the Connecticut Commission 

on Civil Rights and the Connecticut State Board of 

Education, (May 24, 1966). 

"The Distribution of Non-Whites in the Public Schools of 

Connecticut," Connecticut State Department of Education, 

May 24, 1966. 

1966 Correspondence between Connecticut Commission on Civil 

Rights and State Board of Education 

a. "Commission’s statement on school desegregation” 

(1/13/66) reported in March 1966 Civil Rights Bulletin. 
  

b. 12/7/66 Response by Board of Education 

c. 12/8/66 response from Civil Rights Commission to State 

Board of Education (included in Nov.-Dec. 1966 Civil 

Rights Bulletin) 

Committee of Greater Hartford School Superintendents, 

Proposal to Establish a Metropolitan Effort Toward Regional 

Opportunity (METRO) (1966) 

James S. Coleman, et al., Equality of Educational 

Opportunity (United States Department of Health, Education 

and Welfare, Office of Education, 1966) 

United States Commission on Civil Rights, "Racial Isolation 

in the Public Schools." (February, 1967) 

Governor’s Conference on Human Rights and Opportunities: 

Summary and Agenda for Action (Hartford, March 30-31, 

1967). 

June 1967 letter and Statement of Policy Proposed by NAACP 

to the State Board of Education. 

  

 



  

- 24 - 

12. June 29, 1967 "Policy Statement of the Connecticut State 

Board of Education.” | 

13. "Local Policies on Racial Isolation in the Public Schools,” | 

(Research Bulletin #1, 1967-68) (State Department of | 

Education, September, 1967) 

14. "Minority Imbalance in Connecticut Public Schools" (State 

Department of Education, Circa, 1967) 

15. Irving L. Allen and J. David Colfax, Urban Problems and 

Public Opinion in Four Cities (University of Connecticut, 

1968). 

  

  

16. Irving L. Allen et al., "The Effects of Community Structure 

on School Decisions: The Sources and Consequences of De 

Facto School Segregation in Five Connecticut Cities," 

(University of Connecticut, December, 1968). 

  
17. Walter R. Boland, et al., De Facto School Segregation and 

The Student: A Study of the Schools in Connecticut's Five 

Major Cities (Institute of Urban Research, University of 

Connecticut, December, 1968). 

  

  

  

18. Educational Resources and Development Center, The School of 

Education and Continuing Education Service, University of 

Connecticut, A Study of Urban School Needs in the Five 

Largest Cities of Connecticut (University of Connecticut, 

1969) | 

  

  

19. Stetler, Henry G., Changes in Racial Composition and De 

Facto Segregation in Pupils in Public Schools in Five | 

Connecticut Cities, 1963-1967 (Institute of Urban Research, | 

University of Connecticut, January, 1963) | 

  

  

  

20. Report of the Joint Committee of the Hartford Board of 

Education and the Hartford Civil Rights Commission 

Concerning Charges of Racism at Weaver High School (July 7, 

1969) 

21. Minutes of the Legislative Committee on Human Rights and 

Opportunities (December 5, 1969) (and other legislative 

history of Racial Balance Act). 

292. Connecticut State Department of Education, "Racial Balance 

and Regionalization" (12/29/69)     
 



  

- 08 

23. Complaint, Lumpkin v. Meskill, Civ. No. 13716 (February 20, 

1970) 

24. City of Hartford, "Community Development Action Plan: 

Education 1971-1975," (Sept. 1, 1970) 

  25. Local Government: Schools and Property, "The Report of the 

Governor's Commission on Tax Reforms, Submitted to Governor 

Thomas J. Meskill Pursuant to Executive Order 13 of 1972," 

(Hartford, Connecticut, December 18,1972) 

  

26. Commission to Study School Finance and Equal Educational 

Opportunity, Financing Connecticut Schools: Final Report 

of the Commission (Hartford, Conn., January, 1975) 
  

  

27. 1978 correspondence between Representative Boyd Hines and 

members of the Connecticut School Finance Advisory Panel. 

28. Connecticut State Board of Education, "A Plan for Promoting 

Equal Educational Opportunity in Connecticut" (January, 

1979)   29. Edythe Gaines, "Advancing Equal Educational Opportunity and 

Access to Quality Integrated Education in The Public 

Schools of the State of Connecticut" ("A Critical Issues 

Paper prepared for the Connecticut State Board of 

Education) (circa 1980) 

30. Equal Education and Racial Balance Task Force, (appointed 

by the Hartford Board of Education), "Advisory Report: 

Policy and Planning Implications” (Hartford, March, 1981) 

31. Connecticut State Department of Education, "A Report 

Providing Background Information Concerning the Chronology 

and Status of Statutes, Regulations and Processes Regarding 

Racial Imbalance in Connecticut’s Public Schools." (Jan. 

1984) : | 
  

32. "Guidelines for Equal Educational Opportunity,” (adopted by 

State Board of Education, October 3, 1984). 

33. "Connecticut’s Challenge: An Agenda for Educational Equity 

and Excellence" (Final Report, 1985) | 

34. "Interim Report of the Advisory Committee to Study the 

State’s Racial Imbalance Law and Regulations," State 

Department of Education (June 4, 1985) § 

      
 



      

35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

39. 

40. 

41. 

42. 

43. 

44. 

45. 

46. 

47. 

- 2p ie 

Connecticut State Department of Education, "The Issue of 

Racial Imbalance and Quality Education in Connecticut’s 
Public Schools," (February 5, 1986) 

"State Board of Education Policy Statement on Equal 
Educational Opportunity," Connecticut State Board of 

Education, (included in circular letter c-15, October 27, 

1986) 

Interim Report, Racial Equity Committee, State Department 

of Education (submitted to the State Board of Education, 

May 5, 1987). 

Memo from Ben Turner to Commissioner Tirozzi re: "Racial 

Equity Committee -- Status Report" (May 18, 1987) 

"Negative Factors Affecting the Learning Process" (Hartford 

Board of Education, December, 1987) 

"Report on Racial/Ethnic Equity and Desegregation in 

Connecticut’s Public Schools," Connecticut State 

Department of Education (January, 1988) 

Background and Discussion Paper on School Racial/Ethnic 

Balance (Hartford Public Schools, April, 1988). 

Gerald Tirozzi: Report on Three Perspectives on the 

Educational Achievement of Connecticut Students (September 

7, 1988) 

Janet Ward Schofield, "Review of Research on School 

Desegregation’s Impact on Elementary and Secondary School 

Students" (December 8, 1988) (Connecticut Department of 

Education) 

Gerald Tirozzi, "Poverty and the Department of Education,” 

a Report to the Governor’s Human Services Cabinet 

(December, 1988) 

Connecticut’s Common Core of Learning, Connecticut State 

Board of Education (adopted January 7, 1989) 

State Board of Education Policy Statement on Equal 
Educational Opportunity (adopted May 6, 1989) 

"Quality and Integrated Education: Options for ; 

Connecticut," Connecticut State Department of Education 

(1988). 

  

 



      

48. 

49. 

50. 

51. 

52. 

53. 

27 i 

Governor’s Charge to the Commission on Quality and 

Integrated Education (1989). 

"Education and Poverty in the Archdiocese of Hartford", 

Office of Urban Affairs, January 1990. 

"Background and Discussion Paper on School Racial/Ethnic 

Balance: Update (Hartford Public Schools, April, 1990). 

Gerald Tirozzi, "Special Connecticut Mastery Test Research 

Report: Students at Risk Academically" (May 2, 1990) 

Report of the Governor's Commission on Quality and 

Integrated Education, (December, 1990). 

"Proposed Integration/Desegregation/Racial Balance Bills in 

Connecticut, 1981-1991" (prepared by CCLU, 1991) 

In addition to the recommendations and reports set out above, 

the State failed to adequately supplement the funding of a known 

successful integration program, Project Concern, beginning in 1980 

when federal funding cutbacks and Hartford Board of Education 

cutbacks forced a reduction in the numbers of children 

participating in the program and in the numbers of staff hired to 

service these children (e.g. paraprofessionals, resource teachers, 

bus stop aides). The State has also failed to take appropriate 

steps to increase the numbers of children participating, despite 

knowledge that receiving school districts would increase their 

participation if the State provided funding. In recent years, the 

program has actually decreased in number of children participating, 

and in the number of suburban districts participating. The 

following studies and documents, among others, have repeatedly 

demonstrated to the Defendants that Project Concern is one of a 

  

 



      

20 

number of programs to successfully provide an equal educational 

opportunity and a meaningful integrated experience for some urban 

and suburban children: 

a. Mahan, Thomas W. The Impact of Schools on Learning: 

Inner-City Children in Suburban Schools. 
  

  

Mahan, Thomas W. Project Concern 1966-1968, A Report on 

the Effectiveness of Suburban School Placement for Inner- 

City Youth (1968). 

  

  

  

Ninety-First Congress, Second Session on Equal Education 

‘Opportunity. "Hearing Before the Select Committee on Equal 

Educational Opportunity of the United States Senate.” 

1970. 

Connecticut State Department of Education, "Reaction to 

Racial Imbalance Guidelines for Hartford Public Schools." 

April 20, 1970. 

State Board of Education Minutes (Capital Region Planning 

Agency Endorses the Expansion of Project Concern) January 

7. 1970. 

Gable, R. and Iwanicki, E., A Synthesis of the Evaluation 

Findings from 1976-1980 (May 1981) 

Gable, Thompson, Iwanicki, The Effects of Voluntary 

Desegregation on Occupational Outcomes, The Vocational 

Guidance Quarterly 31, 230-239 (1983) 

  

Gable, R.and Iwanicki, E. The Longitudinal Effects of a 

Voluntary School Desegregation Program on the Basic Skill . 

Progress of Participants. 1 Metropolitan Education 65. 

Spring, 1986. : 

  

  

  

Gable, R. and Iwanicki, E., Project Concern Evaluation. 

October, 1986. 
  

Gable, R. and Iwanicki, E., Final Evaluation Report 1986-87 

Hartford Project Concern Program (December 1987) 
  

Gable, R. and Iwanicki, E., Final Evaluation Report 1988- 

89: Hartford Project Concern Program (Nov. 1989) 
  

  

  
 



      

-liDe 

l. Crain, R., et al., Finding Niches: Desegregated Students 
Sixteen Years Later, Rand Reports, (1985); revised 1990 

    

  

m. Crain, R., et al., School Desegregation and Black 
Occupational Attainment: Results from a Long Term. 

Experiment; (1985). 

  

n. "Project Concern Enrollment 1966-1990," (Defs’ Response to 
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production, 13(b)). 

o. Iwanicki, E., and Gable, R., Almost Twenty-Five Years of 
Project Concern: An Overview of the Program and Its 
Accomplishments, (1990) (and sources cited therein) (Defs’ 
Response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production, 12 

(9). 

The state’s failure to act is also reflected in its inability 

  

  

to implement recent proposals for desegregation, interdistrict 

cooperation, educational enhancement and other programs recommended 

by former Commissioner Tirozzi, the State Department of Education, 

the Governor’s Commission, the Capitol Region Education Council, 

and others. These and other failures to act upon the 

identification of these problems and failure to implement specific 

programs to remedy the effects of a separate and unequal school 

system are covered in detail in the testimony and documents 

produced at the depositions of Elliott Williams, John Allison and 

Doug Rindone. 

In regard to questions 5 a, b, and ¢c, as set out in Defendants’ 

Interrogatory 5, Plaintiffs have not determined the "last possible 

date" upon which individual actions, steps, or plans would 

necessarily have had to have been implemented in order to have 

avoided violation of the State Constitution, nor do plaintiffs 

  
 



      

- 30% 

concede the relevance of such an inquiry. Likewise, plaintiffs are 

not required to specify which methods would have cured the 

constitutional violation at particular moments in time, how long 

such methods would have taken to implement, or the cost of 

implementation. Such questions, including the number and 

percentage of African American, Latino, and white students who may 

seek to attend school outside of the boundaries of the city of 

Hartford, are issues which plaintiffs expect would be addressed by 

plaintiffs’ expert witnesses on desegregation remedies after a 

determination is made by the court as to the state’s liability. 

6. Please identify each and every affirmative act, step or 

plan which the plaintiffs will claim at trial the defendants, their 

predecessors, or any other state officer, agency or other body were 

required by the State Constitution to take or implement to address 

the condition of socio-economic isolation in the Hartford Public 

Schools and the identified suburban school districts, but which was 

not in fact taken or implemented. For each such act, step or plan 

provide the following: 

a) The last possible date upon which that act, step or 
plan would necessarily have been taken or implemented 
in order to have avoided a violation of the 
Constitution; 

b) The specific details of how such act, step or plan 
should have been carried out including, (1) the 
specific methods of accomplishing the objectives of the 
act, step or plan, (2) an estimate of ‘how long it would 
have taken to carry out the act, step or plan, and (3) 
an estimate of the cost of carrying out the act, step 
or plan; 

c) For Hartford and each of the identified suburban school 
districts, the specific number and percentage of poor, 
middle, and/or upper class students who would, of 
necessity, have attended school outside of the then 
existing school district in which they resided in order 

  

 



      

for that act, step, or plan to successfully address the 

requirements of the Constitution; 

d) The specific criteria which should have been used to 

identify those students who would, of necessity, have 
attended school outside the then existing school 

district in which they resided, so that the 

concentration of students from poor families in 

Hartford Public Schools would be low enough to satisfy 

the requirements of the Constitution. 

RESPONSE: Please see response to Interrogatory 5. Because of the 
  

concurrence of racial and economic isolation in the Hartford area. 

Many of the recommendations listed above apply to low-income 

families as well. Plaintiffs have not, at this point, alleged that 

one specific criterion or indicator must be used to identify 

students who "would, of necessity" be transferred to another school 

district. As stated in the Complaint, rates of family 

participation in the federal Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children program is widely accepted as a measure closely correlated 

with family poverty. Participation in the federal school lunch 

program is also an index of poverty status. For a further 

discussion of plaintiffs’ proof as it relates to poverty status, 

see response to Interrogatories 11 & 13, infra. 

7. Please identify each and every affirmative act, step or 

plan which the plaintiffs will claim at trial the defendants, their 

predecessors, or any other state officer, agency or other body were 

required by the State Constitution to take or implement to address 

the conditions created by the concentration of "at risk" children 

in the Hartford Public Schools but which were not in fact taken or 

implemented. For each such act, step, or plan provide the 

following: 

a) The last possible date upon which that act, step or 
plan would necessarily have been taken or implemented 

  

 



      

in order to have avoided a violation of the 

constitution; 

b) The specific details of how such act, step or plan 
should have been carried out including (1) the specific 
methods of accomplishing the objective of the act, step 
or plan, (2) an estimate as to how long it would have 
taken to carry out the act, step or plan, and (3) an 
estimate of the cost of carrying out the act, step or 
plan; 

c) The specific number and percentage of "at risk" 
Hartford students who would, of necessity, have 
attended school outside of the existing school district 
in which they resided in order for that act, step or 
plan to successfully address the requirements of the 
Constitution. 

d) The specific criteria which should have been used to 
identify those students who would, of necessity, have 
attended school outside the then existing school 
district in which they resided so that the 
concentration of "at risk" students in Hartford Public 
Schools would be low enough to satisfy the requirements 
of the Constitution. 

RESPONSE: Please see response to Interrogatory 5. As set out in 
  

the Complaint in this action, all children, including those deemed 

at risk of lower educational achievement, have the capacity to 

learn if given a suitable education. Yet, the Hartford public 

schools operate at a severe educational disadvantage in addressing 

the educational needs of all students, due in part. to the sheer 

proportion of students who bear the burdens and challenges of 

living in poverty. The increased need for special programs, such 

as compensatory education, stretches Hartford school resources even 

further. As also stated in the Complaint, the demographic 

characteristics of the students in the Hartford public schools 

  

  
 



      

~ 3% - 

differ sharply from students in the suburban schools by a number of 

relevant measures, such as poverty status, whether a child has 

limited English proficiency, and whether a child is from a single- 

parent family. Plaintiffs have not, at this point, alleged that 

one specific criterion or indicator must be used to identify 

students who "would, of necessity" be transferred to another school 

district. For a further discussion of educational risk factors, 

see response to Interrogatories 11 and 13, infra. In addition, a 

number of the reports listed in response to interrogatory 5 include 

specific references to students who are at risk academically. 

  

 



      

“ih 

CURRENT OR ONGOING VIOLATIONS 
  

8. Using the 1987-88 data as a base, for Hartford and each of 

the identified suburban school districts please specify the number 

and percentage of black, Hispanic and white students who must, of a 

necessity, attend school in a location outside of the existing 

school district in which they reside in order to address the 

condition of racial and ethnic isolation which now exists in 

accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. 

RESPONSE: Objection [Please see plaintiffs’ objection to 
  

Interrogatory 8, Plaintiffs’ Objections To Interrogatories, Filed 

September 20, 1990.] 

9. Using the 1987-88 data as a base, for Hartford and each of 

the identified suburban school districts please specify the number 

and percentage of poor, middle and/or upper class students who 

must, of necessity, attend school outside of the existing school 

district in which they reside in order to address the condition of 

socio-economic isolation which exists in Hartford and the 

identified suburban school districts in accordance with the 

requirements of the Constitution. Also identify the specific 

criteria which must be used to identify the pool of poor Hartford 

students from which those students who would be required to attend 

schools outside of the existing district in which they reside must 

be chosen so as to address the condition of socio-economic 

isolation in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. 

RESPONSE: Objection [Please see plaintiffs’ objection to 
  

Interrogatory 9, Plaintiffs’ Objections To Interrogatories, Filed 

September 20, 1990.] 

10. Using the 1987-88 data as a base, identify the number and 

percentage of "at risk" children in the Hartford Public Schools who 

must, of necessity, attend school at a location outside the 

existing Hartford School District lines in order to address the 

concentration of "at risk" children in the Hartford Public Schools 

in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. Also 

identify the specific criteria which must be used to identify the 

pool of Hartford students from which those who would be required to 

attend schools in the suburban school districts must be chosen so 

  
 



  

-i35- 

as to address the concentration of "at risk" children in the 

Hartford Public Schools. 

  

RESPONSE: Objection [Please see plaintiffs’ objection to 

Interrogatory 10, Plaintiffs’ Objections To Interrogatories, Filed 

September 20, 1990.] 

      
 



      

36 im 

MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION 
  

11. Please identify each and every statistic the plaintiffs’ 

will rely on at trial to support any claim they intend to make that 

the educational "inputs" (i.e. resources, staff, facilities, 

curriculum, etc.) in the Hartford Public Schools are so deficient 

that the children in Hartford are being denied a "minimally 

adequate education." For each such fact specify the source(s) 

and/or name and address of the person(s) that will be called upon 

to attest to that statistic at trial. 

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs will rely on a set of statistics that can be 

used to characterize the social and economic conditions of the 

Hartford community and/or the students who attend the Hartford 

Public Schools. These statistics fall in nine broad areas. 

In the area of economic status, plaintiffs will present 

statistics on the proportion of families with children under the 

age of 18 who are below the poverty level. These data will be 

drawn from the 1990 U.S. Census. 

In the area of family composition, plaintiffs will present data 

on the proportion of single parent households. These data will be 

drawn from the 1990 U.S. Census. 

In the area of parental educational background, plaintiffs will 

present data on the proportion of adults age 25 and older in the 

city of Hartford who have less than a high school education. These 

data will be drawn from the 1990 U.S. Census. 

In the area of health, plaintiffs will present statistics 

indicating the proportion of babies born at low birthweight in the 

city of Hartford, the proportion of babies born to mothers who have 

  

 



      

=:37 - 

illegal drugs in their systems at the time of the baby’s birth, and 

the proportion of babies born to teenage mothers. Each of these 

statistics will be taken from reports of the Hartford Health 

Department. 

In the area of housing, plaintiffs will present data on the 

proportion of inadequate housing units in the City of Hartford. 

These data will be drawn from the Comprehensive Housing 

Affordability Strategy (CHAS) needs assessment conducted for the 

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

In the area of minority status, plaintiffs will present data on 

the proportion of individuals in the City of Hartford who are 

members of a minority racial or ethnic group. These data will be 

drawn from the 1990 U.S. Census. 

In the area of language proficiency, plaintiffs will present 

data on the proportion of homes in the City of Hartford in which a 

language other than English is spoken and in which individuals 

reported that they did not "speak English very well." These data 

will be drawn from the 1990 U.S. Census. 

In the area of crime, plaintiffs will present data on the 

proportions of individuals and households with experience with 

crime in a single year. These data will be drawn from the crime 

statistics reports of the Hartford Police Department. 

In the area of labor force participation, plaintiffs will 

present data on the proportion of children under the age of 18 

  

 



      

living with one or both parents, neither of whom is participating 

in the labor force. These data will be drawn from the 1990 U.S. 

Census. 

Plaintiffs will also rely on a on a set of statistics that can 

be used to characterize the resources of the Hartford Public School 

System. These statistics fall into nine broad areas. 

In the area of staffing, plaintiffs will present statistics on 

the resources devoted to certified and non-certified staff and 

employee benefits in the Hartford Public Schools. These data will 

be drawn from annual reports on Connecticut Public School 

Expenditures prepared by the Connecticut State Department of 

Education. Plaintiffs will also present data on the 

qualifications, compensation, and teaching loads of staff in the 

Hartford Public Schools. These data will be drawn from the records 

of the Hartford Public Schools. 

In the area of pupil and instructional services plaintiffs will 

provide data on the resources devoted to such services in the 

Hartford Public Schools. These data will be drawn from annual 

reports on Connecticut Public School Expenditures prepared by the 

Connecticut State Department of Education. Plaintiffs will also 

present disaggregated data on elements in this resource category. 

The source for such disaggregated statistics will be the budget of 

the Hartford Public Schools. 

  

 



      

- 3G im 

In the area of textbooks and the curriculum, plaintiffs will 

present data on the resources devoted to the purchase of textbooks 

and instructional supplies in the Hartford Public Schools. These 

data will be drawn from annual reports on Connecticut Public School 

Expenditures prepared by the Connecticut State Department of 

Education. Plaintiffs will also present disaggregated data on 

elements in this resource category. The source for such 

disaggregated statistics will be the budget of the Hartford Public 

Schools. Plaintiffs will also present statistics on the curricular 

offerings of the Hartford Public Schools. The sources for these 

data will be the program descriptions of the Hartford Public 

Schools. 

In the area of library books, plaintiffs will present data on 

the resources devoted to the purchase of library books in the 

Hartford Public Schools. These data will be drawn from annual 

reports on Connecticut Public School Expenditures prepared by the 

Connecticut State Department of Education. Plaintiffs will also 

present data on the availability of library facilities in the 

Hartford Public Schools. The source of these data will be the 

records of the Hartford Public Schools. 

In the area of equipment, plaintiffs will present data on the 

resources devoted to the purchase of equipment in the Hartford 

Public Schools. These data will be drawn from annual reports on 

Connecticut Public School Expenditures prepared by the Connecticut 

  

 



      

SD 

State Department of Education. Plaintiffs will also present 

disaggregated data on elements in this resource category. The 

source for such disaggregated statistics will be the budget of the 

Hartford Public Schools. 

In the area of plant and facilities, plaintiffs will present 

data on the resources devoted to plant and facilities in the 

Hartford Public Schools. These data will be drawn from annual 

reports prepared by the Connecticut State Department of Education. 

Plaintiffs will also present data on existing facilities conditions 

in the Hartford Public Schools. These data will be drawn from a 

facilities needs assessment conducted for the Hartford Public 

Schools. 

In the area of purchased services, plaintiffs will present data 

on the resources devoted to purchased services in the Hartford 

Public Schools, including insurance, communications and other 

purchased services. These data will be drawn from annual reports 

prepared by the Connecticut State Department of Education. 

Plaintiffs will also present disaggregated data on elements in this 

resource category. The source for such disaggregated statistics 

will be the budget of the Hartford Public Schools. 

Plaintiffs may also present data on payment of tuition for 

Hartford students sent out of district; resources devoted to 

student transportation; data on student mobility; and discipline 

rates. 

  

 



      

- 41 - 

The extreme level of racial concentration and isolation in the 

Hartford district is a serious contributor to the state’s failure 

to provide a minimally adequate education. The level of isolation 

in Hartford is also exacerbated by the need factors identified 

above. Also, because of the high level of racial segregation in 

Hartford, the effect of the state’s failure to provide minimally 

adequate education falls sharply along racial lines. 

Where possible, data in each of these areas will be 

supplemented and updated with data drawn from the Strategic School 

Profiles prepared by the Connecticut State Department of Education 

and scheduled for public release in the fall of 1992. 

These statistics will be presented at trial primarily by Dr. 

Gary Natriello, Teacher College, Columbia University, 525 West 

120th Street, Box 211, New York, NY 10027. Plaintiffs will also 

rely on documentary evidence. Further information regarding this 

interrogatory may be sought at the time of Dr. Natriello’s 

deposition. 

12. Please identify each and every statistic, other than the 

results of the Mastery Test, which the plaintiffs will rely on at 

trial to support any claim they intend to make that children in 

Hartford are being denied a "minimally adequate education" because 

of the educational "outputs" for Hartford. For each such fact 

specify the source(s) and/or name and address of the person(s) that 

will be called upon to attest to that statistic at trial. 

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs will rely on a set of statistics that can be 

used to characterize the outputs of the Hartford Public Schools. 

These statistics fail into six broad areas. 

  

 



      

“ 42 = 

In the area of student grades, plaintiffs will present the 

distributions of grades for students in the Hartford Public 

Schools. These data will be drawn from the student records files 

of the Hartford Public Schools. 

In the area of the Connecticut Mastery Tests, plaintiffs will 

present data on the average performance of students in the Hartford 

Public Schools on the four areas covered by the mastery tests, 

mathematics, language arts, reading, and writing. Test data for 

the past five years for students in the fourth, sixth, and eighth 

grades will be presented. These data will be drawn from the annual 

reports prepared by the Connecticut State Department of Education. 

In the area of district-based tests, plaintiffs will present 

data on the average performance of students in the Hartford Public 

Schools on the Metropolitan Achievement Tests. These data will be 

drawn from the annual reports on testing prepared by the Hartford 

Public Schools. 

In the area of Scholastic Aptitude Scores, plaintiffs will 

present data on the average scores of Hartford Public School 

students on the subtests of the SAT and data on the proportion of 

Hartford students taking the tests. These data will be drawn from 

the files of the Hartford Public Schools. 

In the area of graduation and dropout rates, plaintiffs will 

present data on the dropout rate for students in grades 7-12 in the 

Hartford Public Schools. These data will be drawn from a 

  

 



      

AD fie 

memorandum from Commissioner Tirozzi to the Connecticut Board of 

Education and from annual reports prepared by the Guidance 

Department of the Hartford Public Schools. 

In the area of post-secondary education, plaintiffs will 

present data on the proportion of graduates from the Hartford 

Public Schools pursuing further education in the fall after 

graduation and the proportion of graduates who had entered 

four-year college in the fall after graduation. These data will 

be drawn from the High School Graduate Follow-Up Reports prepared 

by the Connecticut State Department of Education. 

Where possible, data in each of these areas will be 

supplemented and updated with data drawn from the Strategic School 

Profiles prepared by the Connecticut State Department of Education 

and scheduled for public release in the fall of 1992. 

These statistics will be presented at trial primarily by Dr. 

Gary Natriello, Teacher College, Columbia University, 525 West 

120th Street, Box 211, New York, NY 10027. Plaintiffs will also 

rely on documentary evidence. Further information regarding this 

interrogatory may be sought at the time of Dr. Natriello’s 

deposition.   
  
 



      

- 44 - 

EQUAL EDUCATION 

13. Please identify each and every category of educational 

"inputs" which the plaintiffs will rely on at trial in their effort 

to establish that the educational "inputs" in Hartford are not 

equal to the educational "inputs" of the suburban school districts. 

For each such category identify each and every statistical 

comparison between Hartford and any or all of the suburban school 

districts which the plaintiffs will rely on to show the alleged 

inequality. For each such comparison identify the source(s) and/or 

name and address of the person(s) that will be called upon to 

attest to the accuracy of that statistical comparison at trial. 

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs will rely on a set of statistics that can be 
  

used to characterize the social and economic conditions of the 

Hartford community and/or students and those same conditions in the 

communities represented by a subset of the suburban districts. The 

strategy is to present comparisons for as many of the areas 

identified in response to Question 11 as available data permit. 

The available data permit comparisons in seven of the nine broad 

areas identified in response to Question 11. 

In the area of economic status, plaintiffs will present 

statistics on the proportion of families with children under the 

age of 18 who are below the poverty level for both Hartford and a 

subset of the suburban districts. These data will be drawn from 

the 1990 U.S. Census. 

In the area of family composition, plaintiffs will present data 

on the proportion of single parent households in both Hartford and 

a subset of the suburban districts. These data will be drawn from 

the 1990 U.S. Census. 

  

 



      

- 45 - 

In the area of parental educational background, plaintiffs will 

present data on the proportion of adults age 25 and older in the 

city of Hartford and in a subset of the suburban districts who have 

less than a high school education. These data will be drawn from 

the 1990 U.S. Census. 

In the area of housing, plaintiffs will present data on the 

proportion of inadequate housing units in the City of Hartford pad 

in a subset of the suburban districts. These data will be drawn 

from the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) needs 

assessment conducted for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. 

In the area of minority status, plaintiffs will present data on 

the proportion of individuals in the City of Hartford and in a 

subset of the suburban districts who are members of a minority 

racial or ethnic group. These data will be drawn from the 1990 

U.S. Census. 

In the area of language proficiency, plaintiffs will present 

data on the proportion of homes in the City of Hartford and in a 

subset of. the suburban districts in which a language other than 

English is spoken and in which individuals reported that they did 

not "speak English very well." These data will be drawn from the 

1990 U.S. Census. 

In the area of labor force participation, plaintiffs will 

present data for the City of Hartford and the suburban distrjcts on 

  

 



      

a 

the proportion of children under the age of 18 living with one or 

both parents, neither of whom is participating in the labor force. 

These data will be drawn from the 1990 U.S. Census. 

Plaintiffs will also rely on a on a set of statistics that can 

be used to characterize the resources of the Hartford Public School 

System and three comparison groups. The first comparison group is 

the population of Connecticut Public School Districts. The second 

comparison group is the set of suburban districts surrounding 

Hartford. The third comparison group is a small subset of the 

suburban districts. The strategy is to present comparisons for as 

many of the areas identified for school resources in response to 

Question 12 as available data permit. These statistics fall into 

nine broad areas. 

In the area of staffing, plaintiffs will present statistics on 

the resources devoted to certified and non-certified staff and 

employee benefits in the: 1) Hartford Public Schools, 2) 

Connecticut Public School Districts statewide, and 3) the Suburban 

Public School Districts. These data will be drawn from annual 

reports on Connecticut Public School Expenditures prepared by the 

Connecticut State Department of Education. Plaintiffs will also 

present aga on the qualifications, compensation and teaching loads 

of staff in the: 1) Hartford Public Schools, 2) Connecticut Public 

School Districts statewide, and 3) the Suburban Public School 

Districts. These data will be drawn from the School Staff Report 

  

 



      

- a= 

prepared by the Connecticut State Department of Education and from 

the report on Teacher Salary Schedules prepared by the Connecticut 

Education Association. 

In the area of pupil and instructional services plaintiffs 

will provide data on the resources devoted to such services in: 1) 

the Hartford Public Schools, 2) Connecticut Public School Districts 

statewide, 3) the Suburban Public School Districts, and 4) the 

subset of the Suburban Public School Districts. These data will be 

drawn from annual reports on Connecticut Public School Expenditures 

prepared by the Connecticut State Department of Education. 

Plaintiffs will also present disaggregated data on elements in this 

resource category for: 1) the Hartford Public Schools and 2) the 

subset of the Suburban Public School Districts. The sources for 

such disaggregated statistics will be the budgets of the Hartford 

Public Schools and the budgets of the subset of the Suburban Public 

Schools. 

In the area of textbooks and the curriculum, plaintiffs will 

present data on the resources devoted to the purchase of textbooks 

and instructional supplies in: 1) the Hartford Public Schools, 2) 

Connecticut Public School Districts statewide, 3) the Suburban 

Public School Districts, and 4) the subset of the Suburban Public 

Schools Districts. These data will be drawn from annual reports on 

Connecticut Public School Expenditures prepared by the Connecticut 

State Department of Education. Plaintiffs will also present. 

  

  

 



      

-iid i. 

disaggregated data on elements in this resource category for: 1) 

the Hartford Public Schools and 2) the subset of the Suburban 

Public School Districts. The source for such disaggregated 

statistics will be the budget of the Hartford Public Schools and 

the budgets of the subset of the Suburban Public School Districts. 

Plaintiffs will also present statistics on the curricular offerings 

of: 1) the Hartford Public Schools and 2) the subset of the 

Suburban Public School Districts. The sources for these data will 

be the program descriptions of the Hartford Public Schools and the 

program descriptions of the subset of the Suburban Public School 

Districts. 

In the area of library books, plaintiffs will present data on 

the resources devoted to the purchase of library books in: 1) the 

Hartford Public Schools, 2) Connecticut Public School Districts 

statewide, 3) the Suburban Public School Districts, and 4) the 

subset of the Suburban Public School Districts. These data will be 

drawn from annual reports on Connecticut Public School Expenditures 

prepared by the Connecticut State Department of Education. 

Plaintiffs will also present data on the availability of library 

facilities in: 1) the Hartford Public Schools and 2) the subset of 

the Suburban Public School Districts. The source of these data 

will be the records of the Hartford Public Schools and the records 

of the subset of the Suburban Public School Districts. 

  

 



  

-dg.. 

In the area of equipment, plaintiffs will present data on the 

resources devoted to the purchase of equipment in: 1) the Hartford 

Public Schools, 2) Connecticut Public School Districts statewide, 

3) the Suburban Public School Districts, and 4) the subset of the 

Suburban Public School Districts. These data will be drawn from 

annual reports on Connecticut Public School Expenditures prepared 

by the Connecticut State Department of Education. Plaintiffs will 

also present disaggregated data on elements in this resource 

category for: 1) the Hartford Public Schools and 2) the subset of 

the Suburban Public Schools. The sources for such disaggregated 

statistics will be the budget of the Hartford Public Schools and 

the budgets of the subset of the Suburban Public School District. 

In the area of plant and facilities, plaintiffs will present 

data on the resources devoted to plant and facilities in: 1) the 

Hartford Public Schools, 2) Connecticut Public School Districts 

statewide, 3) the Suburban Public School Districts, and 4) the 

subset of the Suburban Public School Districts. These data will be 

drawn from annual reports prepared by the Connecticut State 

Department of Education. Plaintiffs will also present data on 

existing facilities conditions in: 1) the Hartford Public Schools, 

2) the Suburban Public Schools and 3) the subset of the suburban 

public schools. These data will be drawn from reports on school 

expansion and replacement needs prepared for the Governor's 

Commission on Quality and Integrated Education by H.C. Planning       
 



  

-'B0 

Associates, Inc., from a facilities needs assessment conducted for 

the Hartford Public Schools, and from such assessments conducted 

for the subset of Suburban Public School districts. 

In the area of purchased services, plaintiffs will present data 

on the resources devoted to purchased services in: 1) the Hartford 

Public Schools, 2) Connecticut Public School Districts statewide, 

3) the Suburban Public School Districts, and 4) the subset of the 

Suburban Public School Districts. Included in these statistics are 

costs for insurance, communications and other purchased services. 

These data will be drawn from annual reports prepared by the 

Connecticut State Department of Education. Plaintiffs will also 

present disaggregated data on elements in this resource category 

for: 1) the Hartford Public Schools and 2) the subset of the 

Suburban Public School Districts. The source for such 

disaggregated statistics will be the budget of the Hartford Public 

Schools and the budgets of the sub set of the Suburban Public 

School Districts. Plaintiffs may also present data on resources 

devoted to payment of tuition and student transportation. 

Where possible, data in each of these areas will be 

supplemented and updated with data drawn from the Strategic School 

Profiles prepared by the Connecticut State Department of Education   and scheduled for public release in the fall of 1992. 

These statistics will be presented at trial primarily by Dr. 

Gary Natriello, Teacher College, Columbia University, 525 West       
 



      

- B84 - 

(5) working in private sector professional and managerial jobs; (6) 

interracial contact, occupationally and otherwise; and (7) 

favorable ‘interracial attitudes, as set out in response to 

Interrogatory 18. 

These statistics will be presented at trial primarily by Dr. 

Gary Natriello and Dr. Robert Crain, Teachers College, Columbia 

University, 525 West 120th Street, Box 211, New York, NY 10027. 

Plaintiffs will also rely on documentary evidence. Further 

information regarding this interrogatory may be sought at the time 

of Dr. Natriello’s and Dr. Crain’s depositions. 

  

 



      

-lBh 

OTHER 

15. Please identify each and every study, other document, or 
information or person the plaintiffs will rely upon or call upon at 
trial to support the claim that better integration will improve the 
performance of urban black, Hispanic and/or socio-economically 
disadvantaged children on standardized tests such as the Mastery 
Test. 

RESPONSE: As set out in the complaint, racial and economic 
  

isolation in the schools adversely affects both educational 

attainment and the life chances of children. The studies, 

documents, information, and persons upon whom the plaintiffs will 

rely at trial may include, but are not limited to information 

listed in the response to Interrogatory 19 and the following: 

Crain, R.L., and Braddock, J.H., McPartland, J.M., "A Long 
Term View of School Desegregation: Some Recent Studies of 
Graduates as Adults," 66 Phi Delta Kappan 259-264 (1984); 

  

Crain, R.L., Miller, R.L., Hawes, J.A., and Peichert, 
J.R., "Finding Niches: Desegregated Students Sixteen 
Years Later, Final Report on the Education Outcomes of 
Project Concern, Hartford, Connecticut," (Institute for 
Urban and Minority Education, Teachers College, June, 
1992); 

Crain, R.L., and Strauss, J., "School Desegregation and 
Black Occupational Attainments: Results from a Long-term 
Experiment," Reprinted from CSOS Report No. 359 (1985); 

Levine, D.U., EKeeny, J., EKukuk, C., O'Hara Fort, B., 
Mares, K.R., Stephenson, R.S., "Concentrated Poverty and 
Reading Achievement in Seven Big Cities," 11 Urban Review 
63 (1979). 

  

"Poverty, Achievement and the Distribution of Compensatory 
Education Services," National Assessment of Chapter 1, 
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Dept. 
of Bd. (15986); 

"Report on Negative Factors Affecting the Learning 
Process," Hartford Board of Education (1987); 

  

 



      

- BE 

Janet Ward Schofield, "Review of Research on School 

Desegregation’s Impact on Elementary and Secondary School 

Students" (December 8, 1988) (Connecticut Department of 

Education); 

Connecticut State Department of Education (various 

reports, past and present, including but not limited to 

reports on racial, ethnic, and economic segregation, 

racial balance, school resources, and educational 

outcomes). 

See also reports listed in Plaintiffs’ Final Identification of 

Expert Witnesses Pursuant to Practice Book §220 (D) (August 17, 

1992), attached hereto. 

  

16. Please identify each and every study, other document, or 

information or person the plaintiffs will rely upon or call upon at 

trial to support the claim that better integration will improve the 

performance of urban black, Hispanic and/or socio-economically 

disadvantaged children on any basis other than standardized tests. 

RESPONSE: [Please see response to Interrogatory 15.] 
  

17. Please describe the precise mathematical formula used by 

the plaintiffs to compute the ratios set forth in paragraph 42 of 

the complaint. 

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs recognize that the computation set out in 
  

paragraph 42 of the Complaint may be inaccurate. Plaintiffs have 

indicated their willingness to discuss stipulation as to aggregate 

city vs. suburban mastery test scores. 

  

 



      

87. - 

EXPERT WITNESSES 
  

18. Please specify the name and address of each and every 
person the plaintiffs expect to call as an expert witness at trial. 
For each such person please provide the following: 

a) The date on which that person is expected to complete 
the review, analysis, or consideration necessary to 
formulate the opinions which that person will be called 
upon to offer at trial; 

b) The subject matter upon which that person is expected 
to testify; and 

c) The substance of the facts and opinions to which that 
person is expected to testify and a summary of the 
grounds for each opinion. 

RESPONSE: See attached "Final Identification of Expert Witnesses"   

(August 17, 1992) (attached hereto). 

DATA COMPILATIONS 
  

19. In the event the plaintiffs intend to offer into evidence 
at trial any data compilations or analyses which have been produced 
by the plaintiffs or on the plaintiffs’ behalf by any mechanical or 
electronic means please describe the nature and results of each 
such compilation and/or analysis and provide the following 
additional information. 

a) The specific kind of hardware used to produce each 
compilation and/or analysis; 

b) The specific software package or programming language 
which was used to produce each compilation and/or 
analysis; 

c) A complete list of all specific data elements used to 
produce each compilation and/or analysis; 

d) The specific methods of analyses and/or questions used 
to create the data base for each compilation and/or 
analysis; 

  

  

 



  

vw BE i 

e) A complete list of the specific questions, tests, 
measures, or other means of analysis applied to the 
data base to produce each compilation and/or analysis; 

f) Any and all other information the defendants would need 
to duplicate the compilation or analysis; 

g) The name, address, educational background and role of 
each and every person who participated in the 
development of the data base and/or program used to 
analyze the data for each compilation and/or analysis; 
and 

h) The name and address of each and every person expected 
to testify at trial who examined the results of the 
compilation or analysis and who reached any conclusions 
in whole or in part from those results regarding the 
defendants’ compliance with the law, and, for each such 
person, provide a complete list of the conclusions that 
person reached. 

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs may offer into evidence compilations and 
  

analyses including but not limited to analyses of data on the 

educational and long-term effects of racial, ethnic, and economic 

segregation. In addition, plaintiffs may offer into evidence 

compilations and analyses on other elements of plaintiffs’ case, 

including the disparity in resources between Hartford and the 

suburban schools. 

The data sets which form the basis for the analyses of the 

educational and long-term effects of racial, ethnic, and economic 

segregation include, but will not be limited to the following: 

(1) The National Longitudinal Survey of Labor Force 
Behavior -- Youth Cohort, an annual survey sponsored 
by the U.S. Departments of Labor and Defense of 12,686 
young persons throughout the United States. Data 
available and used in this research begins in 1979 and 
extends through 1987. 3       
 



      

- 59 - 

(2) The National Survey of Black Americans, a national 
survey of 2,107 African Americans who are 18 years of 
age or older. The survey was designed and conducted 
by the survey Research Center, Institute for Social 
Research at the University of Michigan. Data was 
collected between 1979 and 1980. 

(3) The High School and Beyond Study, a national 
longitudinal probability sample of more than 58,000 
1980 high school sophomores and seniors. Surveys were 
conducted in 1980, 1982, 1984, and 1986. 

(4) The National Longitudinal Survey of Employers, a 
national probability sample of 4,087 employers. 
Surveys were conducted in the 1970's. 

Further sources of data are set out in Plaintiffs’ Final 

Identification of Expert Witnesses (August 17, 1992) (attached 

hereto). 

Detailed information regarding the study "Finding Niches" was 

recently provided to defendants in response to a subpoena of Dr. 

Robert Crain. 

Analysis conducted by Dr. William Trent and Dr. Marvin Dawkins 

that will form the bases, in part, of the testimony by Dr. Trent 

and Dr. JoMills Braddock employed regression analysis using SPSS 

Software on IBM compatible computers. 

Finally, a list of variables used by Dr. William Trent in the 

analysis of data sets (1), (3) and (4) above will be brought to his 

upcoming deposition in response to defendants’ subpoena. 

  

 



      

- 60 - 

MISCELLANEQUS 
  

20. For each of the above listed interrogatories 
provide the names and address of each person who assis 
preparation of the answer to that interrogatory and de 
nature of the assistance which that person provided. 

  

  
  

RESPONSE: Without waiving their objection, plaintiffs 

following: 

INTERROGATORY PERSONS WHO ASSISTED 

1-4 Counsel; Christopher Co 
5 Counsel; various expert 
6 Counsel 
7 Counsel 
8 Counsel 
9 Counsel 

10 Counsel 
11 Counsel; Gary Natriello 
12 Counsel; Gary Natriello 
13 Counsel; Gary Natriello 
14 Counsel; Robert Crain: 

Gary Natriello 
15 Counsel; Robert Crain; 
16 Counsel 
17 Counsel 
18 Counsel; various expert 
19 Counsel; Robert Crain; 
20 Counsel; Gary Natriello 

please 
ted in the 

scribe the 

state the 

llier 

witnesses 

William Trent 

witnesses 

William Trent 

  

 



      

PLAINTIFFS, MILO SHEFF, ET AL 

V/A 7 om 

«161 - 

y 2A < 
  

MARIANNE ENGELMAN LADO 

RONALD ELLIS 
NAACP Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 
(212) 219-1900 
Pro Hac Vice 

MARTHA STONE 

CONNECTICUT CIVIL LIBERTIES 
UNION FOUNDATION 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, Cr 06106 
(203) 247-9823 
Juris No. 61506 

WILFRED RODRIGUEZ 
HISPANIC ADVOCACY PROJECT 
Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06102 
(203) 278-6850 
Juris No. 302827 

ADAM S. COHEN 

HELEN HERSHKOFF 

JOHN A. POWELL 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 

UNION FOUNDATION 

132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 
(212) 944-9800 
Pro Hac Vice 

PHILIP D. TEGELER 

CONNECTICUT CIVIL LIBERTIES 

UNION FOUNDATION 

32 Grand Street 
Bartford, CT 06106 
(203) 247-9823 
Juris No. 102537 

WESLEY W. HORTON 

MOLLER, HORTON & 

RICE, P.C. 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
(203) 522-8338 
Juris No. 38478 

JOHN BRITTAIN 

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT 

SCHOOL OF LAW 
65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 068105 
(203) 241-4664 
Juris No. 101153 

RUBEN FRANCO 

KEN KIMMERLING 

SANDRA DEL VALLE 
PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 
(212) 219-3360 
Pro Hac Vice 

      

  

  

  

  
 



      

“ 9 

Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

Vv. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
4 HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

WILLIAM A. O’NEILL, et al. AT HARTFORD 

Defendants AUGUST 17, 1992 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ FINAL IDENTIFICATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES 
PURSUANT TO PRACTICE BOOK §220 (D) 
  

  

Pursuant to Practice Book §220(D), as modified by the Pretrial 

Order entered by the Court on April 10, 1992, the plaintiffs herein 

disclose their final list of expert witnesses anticipated to testify 

at trial, in response to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories. 

Plaintiffs have not included in this list any potential rebuttal 

witnesses. Also, plaintiffs have not listed any present or former 

state employees, appointees, or any defendants’ experts, who may be 

called upon to present expert testimony as adverse witnesses. 

  

Interrogatory 18. Please specify the name and address of each 
and every person the plaintiffs expect to call as an expert witness 
at trial. For each such person please provide the following: 

a. The date on which that person is expected to complete the 
review, analysis, or consideration necessary to formulate the opinions 
which that person will be called upon to offer at trial; 

b. The subject matter upon which that person is expected to 
testify; and 

c. The substance of the facts and opinions to which that person 
is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. 

  

  
 



  

  

RESPONSE: Experts whom the plaintiffs expect to call at trial are 
  

listed below, pursuant to Practice Book Section 220(D): 

Dr. Jomills Henry Braddock, If, Center for social 
Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, 3505 
North Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland, 21218. Dr. 
Braddock is expected to testify to (1) the adverse 
educational and long-term effects of racial, ethnic, and 
economic segregation; (2) the adverse effects of racial, 
ethnic, and economic segregation on the educational process 
within schools. Specifically, Dr. Braddock is expected to 
testify that school segregation tends to perpetuate 
segregation in adult life, that school desegregation helps | 
to transcend systemic reinforcement of inequality of 
opportunity, and that segregation affects the educational 
process within schools. In his testimony, the materials on 
which Dr. Braddock is expected to rely include. his 
published works, as well as research currently being 
conducted on the educational and long-term effects of 
racial, ethnic, and economic segregation by Dr. Marvin P. | 
Dawkins and Dr. William Trent. (See description below and 
in January 15, 1991 Identification of Expert Witnesses.) 
Dr. Braddock is expected to base his testimony on (1) 
Braddock, "The Perpetuation of Segregation Across Levels of 
Education: A Behavioral Assessment of the Contact- | 
Hypothesis," 53 Sociology of Education 178-186 (1980); (2) 
Braddock, Crain, McPartland, "A Long-Term View of School 
Desegregation: Some Recent Studies of Graduates as 
Adults." Phi Delta Kappan 259-264 (1984); (3) Braddock, 
"Segregated High School Experiences and Black Students’ 
College and Major Field Choices," Paper Presented at the 
National Conference on School Desegregation, University of 
Chicago (1987); (4) Braddock, McPartland, "How Minorities 
Continue to be Excluded from Equal Employment 
Opportunities: Research on Labor Market and Institutional 
Barriers," 43 Journal of Social Issues 5-39 (1987); and (5) 
Braddock, McPartland, "Social-Psychological Processes that 
Perpetuate Racial Segregation: The Relationship Between 
School and Employment Desegregation," 19 Journal of Black 
Studies 267-289 (1989). 

  

  

  

  

  

  

Christopher Collier, Connecticut State Historian, 876 
  

Orange Center Road, Orange, Connecticut, 06477. Professor 
Collier is expected to testify regarding (1) the historical 
and constitutional lack of autonomy of Connecticut towns 
and school districts and the history of state control over       
 



      

local education; (2) the historical development of the 
system of local school districts; (3) the existence and 
prevalence of school districts and student attendance 
patterns crossing town lines; (4) the origins and 
historical interpretation of the equal protection and 
education clauses of the 1965 Constitution. Professor 
Collier’s testimony may also address certain issues set out 
in responses 1l(a-e) in Plaintiffs’ Amended Responses to 
Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories (February 19, 
1991), and other matters discussed in his deposition taken 
on June 23, 19892, In his testimony, the materials upon 
which Professor Collier may rely will include numerous 
historical sources, including primarily but not limited to 
Helen Martin Walker, Development of State Support and 
control of FPducation in Connecticut (State Board of 
Education, Connecticut Bulletin #4, Series 1925-16); Keith 
W. Atkinson, The Legal Pattern of Public Education in 
Connecticut (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University 
of Connecticut, 1950); Annual Reports of the Superintendent 
of the Common Schools, 1838-1955; Jodziewicz, Dual Localism 
in 17th Century Connecticut, Relations Between the General 
Court and the Towns, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, 
William & Mary, 1974); Bruce C. Daniels, The Connecticut 
Town : Growth and Development, 1635-1790, Middletown 
Connecticut, Wesleyan University; Trumbull, Public Records 
of the Colony of Connecticut; Public Records of the State 
of Connecticut; Proceedings of the Constitutional 
Convention of 1965; the map collection at Sterling Memorial 
Library, including Beers’ Atlas of Connecticut (1868); 
Annual Reports of various local boards of education, and 
other documents referenced in Professor Collier’s deposi- 
tion. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Dr. Robert L. Crain, Professor of Sociology and Education, 
Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 West 120th 
Street, Box 211, New York, New York, 10027. Dr. Crain is 
expected to testify to the adverse educational and long- 
term effects of racial, ethnic, and economic segregation in 
the Hartford metropolitan area. Specifically, Dr. Crain is 
expected to testify that the effects of Project Concern 
participation for students in the Hartford metropolitan 
area have been to reduce the likelihood of (1) dropping out 
of high school, (2) early teenage pregnancy, and (3) 
unfavorable interactions with the police. Dr. Crain is 
expected to testify, further, that the effects of Project 
Concern participation for students ‘in the Hartford 
metropolitan area have been to increase (1) college 
retention, (2) the probability of working in private sector 

  

  

  

  
 



      

professional and managerial jobs, (3) the probability of 
interracial contact, and (4) favorable attitudes toward 
whites. In his testimony, Dr. Crain is expected to base 
his testimony on his published works and his analyses of 
Project Concern. Specifically, Dr. Crain is expected to 
rely on (1) Crain, Strauss, "School Desegregation and Black 
Occupational Attainments: Results from a Long-Term 
Experiment," Center for Social Organization of Schools, 
Report "No. 359 (1985); (2) Crain, Hawes, Miller, and 
Peichert, "Finding Niches: Desegregated Students Sixteen 
Years Later," Unpublished Manuscript, Institute for Urban 
and Minority Education, Teachers College (revised 1990); 
and (3) Gable, Thompson, Iwanicki, "The Effects of 
Voluntary Desegregation on Occupational Outcomes," The 
Vocational Guidance OQuarterly 230-239 (1983) and other 
reports. 
  

Dr. Mary Kennedy, Director, National Center for Research on 
Teacher Evaluation, Michigan State University, 513 Ardson 
Road, East Lansing, Michigan, 48823. Dr. Kennedy will 
testify about the relationship of family poverty and high 
concentrations of poverty to educational outcomes. 
Specifically, Dr. Kennedy will testify that two of the most 
important measures of poverty which have a strong relation- 
ship to educational outcomes are intensity of family 
poverty (measured by number of years of sustained poverty 
of the child and his family), and attendance at a school 
with a high concentration of poor children. Her 
conclusions show that: (1) Students are increasingly likely 
to fall behind grade levels as their families experience 
longer spells of poverty; (2) Achievement scores of all 
students -~ not just poor students - decline as the 
proportion of poor students in a school increases; (3) The 
relationship between school poverty concentration and 
school achievement averages is even stronger than the 
relationship between family poverty status and student 
achievement. In fact, non-poor students who attend schools 
with a high concentration of poor students are more likely 
to fall behind than are poor students who attend a school 
with a small proportion of poor students; and (4) Increases 
in the proportion of poor children in a school are 
associated with decreases in average starting achievement 
and even occasionally with decreases in learning rates over 
time. Dr. Kennedy's opinions are based on her research and 
that of others as contained in reports, including, but not 
limited to Kennedy, M.M., Jung, R.X., and Orland, M.E. 
(1986), Poverty, Achievement and the Distribution of 

  

  

  

  
 



      

Compensatory Education Services, U.S. Department of Education, 
1986. 
  

Dr. William Trent, EPS, 368 Education Building, University 
of Illinois, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champagne, Illinois, 
81820. Dr. Trent 1s expected to testify to the adverse 
educational and long-term effects of racial, ethnic, and 
economic segregation on Latinos, African Americans, and 
white Americans. Specifically Dr. Trent is expected to 
testify that economic school segregation has adverse long- 
term outcomes for Latinos, African Americans, and white 
Americans, that desegregation has beneficial results on the 
aspirations and expectations of Latino students and on 
their likelihood of working in interracial environments, 
and that white Americans who have experienced desegregated 
schools are more likely to work with and to have positive 
attitudes toward African American co-workers. Dr. Trent is 
expected to base his testimony on his published work and 
his analysis of data from (1) the National Longitudinal 
Survey of Labor Force Behavior -- Youth Cohort, an annual 
survey sponsored by the United States Departments of Labor 
and Defense of 12,686 young persons throughout the United 
States, with data available for 1979-1987; (2) the High 
School and Beyond Study, a national longitudinal 
probability sample of more than 58,000 1980 high school 
sophomores and seniors, conducted in 1980, 1982, 1984, and 
1386; and (3) the National & Longitudinal Survey of 
Employers, a national probability sample of 4,087 
employers, conducted in the 1970's. 

  

Charles V. Willie, Ph.D., Harvard University, Graduate School of 
Education, Monroe C. Gutman Library, Cambridge, MA 02138. Dr. 
Willie is expected +o testify regarding the effects of 
segregated education on white and black children; the lack of 
equal educational opportunity in Hartford area schools; the 
educational benefits of diversity and racial integration; the 
need to restructure educational attendance patterns and/or 
districts to eliminate racial isolation and to enhance the 
quality of education, especially for nonwhite school children 
concentrated in racially and economically impacted areas; and 
the general options available to promote integration and racial 
equity. Dr. Willie is also expected to participate in testimony 
regarding a proposed remedy at the appropriate stage in the 
proceedings. 

  

Dr. Catherine E. Walsh, University of Massachusetts, 250 Stuart   

Street, Boston, MA 02116. Dr. Walsh is expected to testify at 

  

  

 



  

the appropriate stage of the proceedings, regarding a proposed 
remedy in this case. Such testimony may address the structure, 
instructional orientation, content and physical location of 
bilingual education; school-based management; curriculum 
restructuring; educational grouping of Latino students to 
promote integration while providing for the students’ needs; the 
relationship between language and literacy development and 
academic achievement for Latino students; and other remedial 
issues. Dr. Walsh’s testimony will be based upon her review of 
the available surveys and theoretical works regarding the 
functioning of bilingual programs and segregated and 
desegregated school systems, and on her own experience and her 
investigations into the functioning of the schools, school 
systems and bilingual programs of the Greater Hartford Area and 
other places, and on the results of investigations made by other 
expert witnesses in this case. 

Yale Rabin, 9 Farrar Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. Mr. 
Rabin will describe patterns of population growth by race 
and ethnicity and poverty status in the Hartford region in 
comparison with rates of growth of new school capacity in 
Hartford and the surrounding communities, 1954 to the 
present.! 

  

John Allison, Capitol Region Education Council, 599 
Matianuck Avenue, Windsor, CT 06095. Mr. Allison is 
expected to testify in detail regarding the matters set out 
in his affidavit dated September 19, 1991, attached as 
Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to 
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (September 20, 
1991). In general, Mr. Allison will testify regarding the 
state’s failure to act effectively to remedy the increasing 
racial and economic isolation of the Hartford schools; the 
limited scope of the state’s past and current efforts to 
promote integration; the inadequacy of purely voluntary 

  

      ! This final identification of expert witnesses is based on 
plaintiffs’ Proposed Amendment to Complaint, dated July 21, 1992, and 
anticipates that plaintiffs’ Proposed Amendment will be granted. If 
plaintiffs’ Proposed Amendment to the Complaint is not granted, 
plaintiffs’ Final Identification of Expert Witnesses should also 
include descriptions of the testimony of Ruth Price and Yale Rabin, 
as set out in Plaintiffs’ Second Identification of Expert Witnesses 
dated March 18, 15S1; Professor Terry Tondro, University of 
Connecticut School of Law, who would testify as to the state’s role 
in exclusionary zoning and local land use regulation; and other 
witnesses. 

  

  

  

 



      

measures to effectuate desegregation; and the other issues 
discussed in his deposition. The documents upon which Mr. 
Allison is expected to rely include those documents listed 
in Plaintiffs’ Amended Responses to Defendants’ First Set 
of Interrogatories (February 19, 1991), #5 as well as more 
recent documents relating to interdistrict school plans and 
desegregation proposals. Mr. Allison is also expected to 
participate in testimony regarding a proposed remedy in 
this case at the appropriate stage in the proceedings. 

Hernan LaFontaine, 181 N. Beacon St., Hartford, CT 06105. 
Mr. LaFontaine is expected to testify in detail regarding 
the matters set out in his affidavit dated September 19, 
1991, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in 
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

  

(September 20, 1991). In general, Mr. LaFontaine is 
expected to testify, based in part on his own observations 
as former Bartford superintendent, regarding the 
detrimental effects of racial and economic isolation of 
students in the Hartford Public Schools, the inadequacy of 
current state funding to address the special needs of the 
Hartford schools, and the need for greater racial and 
economic integration in the Hartford schools. Mr. 
LaFontaine is also expected to testify regarding the extent 
and effects of racial and economic isolation on latino 
students; the special needs of Spanish-dominant students 
and families; and the role of bilingual education. Mr. 
LaFontaine may also participate in testimony regarding a 
proposed remedy in this case at the appropriate stage in 
the proceedings. 

William M. Gordon, 148 Greenmount Boulevard, Dayton, OH 
45419. Dr. Gordon is expected to testify regarding the 
options for school desegregation presented to the state but 
not acted upon, 1954 to the present, and the historical 
context of those decisions, including the state’s awareness 
of increasing levels of school segregation in the Hartford 
region. Dr. Gordon may also testify, at the appropriate 
time, regarding options available to address the system of 
segregated education in the Hartford region. Dr. Gordon 
will rely, in part, on the documents listed in response to 
defendants’ interrogatory 5, in Plaintiffs’ Amended 
Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories. 

  

Dr. Gary Natriello, Professor of Sociology and Education, 
  

Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 West 120th St., 
Box 211, New York, NY 10027. Dr. Natriello is expected to 
testify regarding (1) demographic and social conditions in 

  

 



      

the Hartford community in relation to educational 
challenges faced by Hartford schools and students; (2) 
educational resources and programs currently available in 
the Hartford district to meet the educational needs of 
Hartford students; (3) comparison between resources and 
programs available in Hartford and in the surrounding 
districts; (4) examination of levels of educational 
achievement and attainment in Hartford and the surrounding 
districts; and (5) assessment of Hartford and the 
surrounding districts in relation to state educational 
standards and mandates, including the Connecticut Mastery 
Test. Specifically, Dr. Natriello is expected to testify 
that (1) the concentration of poor children and children 
who are otherwise educationally disadvantaged poses extreme 
challenges to performance of students and schools in the 
Hartford district; (2) the available resources and programs 
in the Hartford schools are not sufficient to meet the 
educational needs of Hartford students; (3) a significant 
disparity in educational programs and resources exists 
among Hartford and the surrounding districts, which is 
enhanced by the special demands placed on educational 
resources in the Hartford districts and by the level of 
student need that exists in the Hartford district; (4) 
there are significant disparities in achievement and 
attainment among students in Hartford and the surrounding 
communities; and (5) these disparities are inconsistent 
with state educational standards and mandates. Dr. 
Natriello is expected to base his testimony on his review 
of documents provided to plaintiffs in discovery; public 
documents obtained from Hartford, the Hartford public 
schools, and other local towns and school districts; and 
his own research on the education of disadvantaged students 
in urban settings. 

Marvy Carroll, director, Project Concern, 128 Westland, 
Hartford, CT. Ms. Carroll will testify about the history 
of the Project Concern program, the levels of school 
district participation, state and local funding sources, 
and the level of student and parent participation. She 
will further testify about the space needs of the program, 
transportation issues, composition and selection issues, 
and criteria for exclusion of students from the program. 
In addition, she is expected to testify about the extent of 
staffing, parent involvement, and in-service training. In 

her testimony, Ms. Carroll may rely on the following 

  

documents: budget documents outlining levels of funding for 
the program, including grant applications; Mahan, Thomas, 
Project Concern 1966-68: A Report on the Effectiveness of 
  

  

  

  

  
 



  

Suburban School Placement for Inner-City Youth (1968), 
documents furnished by Defendants to Plaintiffs’ First 

| 

  

Request for Production, nos. 12 and 13 and Plaintiffs’ 

Second Request for Production, no. 3. 

School Principals. Plaintiffs expect to call several 
Hartford school principals at trial to give both expert 
testimony and fact testimony based on their experience and 
observations in the schools. Expert testimony is 
anticipated to include opinions and observations regarding | 
the impact of racial, ethnic and economic isolation of | 
students in the Hartford public schools; the educational 
and social needs of elementary and secondary students 
attending Hartford public schools; the effects of student 
turnover; the effects of lack of educational resources on 
instruction; and the institutional and educational impacts 
of a student body that includes a high percentage of poor 
and educationally disadvantaged children. Principals 
identified as expert witnesses include Donald Carso, 
principal, McDonough School, 100 Wilson Street, Hartford, 
CT; Eddie Davis, principal, Weaver High School, 415 Granby, 
Hartford, CT; Richard Montanez; principal, Hooker School, 
200 Sherbrooke Avenue, Hartford, CT; and Edna Negron, 
principal, Betances School, 42 Charter Oak Avenue, 
Hartford, CT; Freddie Morris, principal, wish School, 350 
Barbour Street, Hartford, CT. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

Experts not Previously Disclosed 
  

Robert Slavin, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; 
Director of the Early and Elementary School Program at the 
Center for Research on Effective Schooling for 
Disadvantaged Students at Johns Hopkins University. Dr. 
Slavin may be called to testify about effective educational 
programs for public school children, and about educational 
programs that could be implemented in the Hartford-area | 
public schools to facilitate student achievement. If | 
called as a witness, Dr. Slavin will base his opinions on 
his own research and his review of literature on successful 
educational programs for children. Among the books and | 
articles that Dr. Slavin has authored or co-authored are: | 
Effective Programs for Students at Risk (Allyn & Bacon, | 

| 

  

  

1989); and Preventing Early School Failure (Allyn & Bacon, 
forthcoming.) 
  

ah Julio Morales, Professor and Dean, University of 
  

Connecticut School of Social Work. Professor Morales is 
expected to testify in regard to drop out rates and drop 

      
 



      

out studies conducted by him (Dropout Prevention Program 
Final Evaluation Report, 1988-1990). 

Hartford Public Schools Administrators: Plaintiffs expect 
to call administrators of the Hartford Public Schools to 
discuss the effects of racial segregation and high poverty 
concentration on Hartford students, teachers, and schools. 
These witnesses will also address the needs of Hartford 
students and inequities in educational resources and 
educational outcomes. Administrators who may be called at 
trial include Josiha Haig, Superintendent, Hartford Public 
Schools; Catherine Kennelly, Director of Financial 
Management; Alice Dickens, Assistant Superintendent for 
Support Programs and Services; Robert Nearine, Special 
Assistant for Evaluation, Research and Testing; John 
Hubert, researcher and evaluator; Antres Buford, former 
coordinator, Dropout Prevention Program; Charles Senteio, 
Deputy Superintendent; John Shea, Assistant Superintendent 
for School Sites; Jeffrey Forman, Special Assistant to the 
Superintendent for Planning and Development; Adnelly 
Marichal, Coordinator, Bilingual Department. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Plaintiffs may also seek to add an additional expert witness to 

this list in the near future, who could not be contacted at the time 

this list was due. 

In addition to the areas of testimony set out above, plaintiffs’ 

experts are also expected to interpret and comment on the testimony 

and research of other experts, including both plaintiffs’ and 

defendants’ experts. With respect to documents listed herein, 

plaintiffs have included some of the primary sources upon which these 

experts will base their opinions, but have not provided a 

comprehensive list of all documents reviewed or relied on. 

  
 



    
Wesley W. Horton 
Moller, Horton, & Rice 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Julius L. Chambers 
Marianne Engelman Lado 
Ronald L.. Ellis 
NAACP Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

Helen Hershkoff 

John A. Powell 
Adam S. Cohen 

American Civil Liberties 
Union Foundation 

132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 

Respectfully Submitted, 

WW) Spe 
  

Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 
32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

Wilfred Rodriguez 
Hispanic Advocacy Project 
Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

John Brittain 

University of Connecticut 
School of Law 

65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Ruben Franco 

Jenny Rivera 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

and Education Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

   



        

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

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

postage prepaid by certified mail to John R. Whelan and Martha M. 

Watts, Assistant Attorneys General, MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman 

”» 
Street, Hartford, CT 06105 this /7° day of August, 1992. 

V/A ae 
Philip D. Tegeler 

  

  

 



  

“682 = 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

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

hand-delivered to John R. Whelan and Martha M. Watts, Assistant 

Attorney Generals, MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman Street, Hartford, CT 

vid 
06105 this 2 day of August, 1992. 

WY 2. Zz 
  

Philip D. Tegeler