Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact

    May 31 'S35 18:06 KONICA FAX 7208 » RP. 2 

§.C. 15288 

MILO SHEFF, ET AL. : SUPREME COURT 

Vv. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, ET AL. : MAY 25, 1995 

  

The following are proposed findings of fact submitted in 

addition to the facts contained in the parties’ joint stipulation 

of facts and submitted pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court 

dated May 11, 1995:1/ 

A 

The Plaintiffs Have Not Proven That The State Has Taken 
Any Actions Which Violate The Equal Protection Clause, 
the Due Process Clause Or The Education Article Of The 
Connecticut Constitution 

  

' 1/ Each proposed finding of fact is based on the evidence 
presented, and therefore the circumstances prevailing, at 
the time of trial - December 1992 through February 1993. 

 



    
lay 31 "SO 18:97 KUNICA FAX 728 

Pe J 

x. Connecticut has always been a leader in the field of 
public education. (Collier, Vol. 16, PP. 23, 71-72) 

2. The quality of publijc education in Connecticut has 
improved continuously over the past 200 years. (Collier, vol. 
16, pp. 9-10, 23, 56-57) 

3, The African-American population patterns in the 22 town 
region during this century have been dynamic and unpredictable. 
(Steahr, Vol. 23, pp. 20-21, 80-81; DX 1.14) 

4, The percentage of African-American residents in 
Hartford has declined from 88% in 1970 to 65% in 1980 to 68% in 
1990 to 63.7% in 1992. (Steahr, vol. 23, PP. 35-37; DX 2.13) 

5. Between 1970 and 1980, the African-American population 
in the 21 suburban towns increased by 141.1% and by 74.4% between 
1980 and 1990. (DX 1.4) 

6. From 1980 to 1990, the Latino population in the 21 
Suburban towns increased by 128.8% and the Latino student 

{Population grew by 122.2%. (DX 1.5) 
H 

 



May 31 95 10:07 KONICA FAX 728 

7s There have been Significant increases in Latino 
Population in East Hartford, Manchester, West Hartford, Vernon 
and Windsor. (Steahr, vol. 23, p. 40) 

8. There is no professionally agreed upon standard for 
racial, ethnic and socio-economic balance in schools which can be 
applied to schools in Hartford and the 21 suburban towns. 
(Carter, vol. 1, PP. 33-34; Senteio, Vol. 3, PP. 51; 
Martinez~Pitre, Vol. 6, PP. 45-46; Trent, vol. 7, PP. 81, 114; 
Natriello, vol. 11, p. 144; Allison, vol. 12, pp. 72-75, Gordon, 
Vol. 13, p. 149; vol. 14, pp. 76-79; LaFontaine, vol. 14, pp. 
114-120; Haig, Vol. 18, pp. 113) 

9. The Harvard Study correctly Projected the decline in 
Hartford’s African-American student population, the only 
significant minority group in Hartford in 1965, but failed to 
Pradist the massive influx of Latino students, primarily of 
Puerto Rican ancestry. (DX 13.2, p. 2} Gordon, Vol. 13, PP. 

Changes in the demographic composition of Hartford and 
ithe 21 surrounding suburban towns have occurred because of 
individuals’ choices about their residences, (Steahr, vol. 23, | 
'pP. 67; Armor, Vol. 32, p. 129; DX 11.21-11.25)  



May 31 95 10:08 KONICA FAX 720 

11. The state has not taken any action which would 

encourage any individuals to choose any racially imbalanced 
residential settings. (Armor, Vel. 32, p. 129) 

12. The primary purpose of the Strategic Schools Profiles 

(”S8P”) is (1) to make school districts accountable for 
compliance with their legal requirements and (2) to be a vehicle 
for school-based improvement. (Rindone, Vol. 29, pp. 80-81) 

13. Because the newness of the SSP program, the 

J Sonnissioner of Education has instructed school superintendents 
! how to use SSP data to make comparisons between their district 

and other districts or between schools in their district and 
schools in other districts. (Rindone, Vol. 29, PP. 81, 146-147) 

14. Connecticut’s SSP program is one of the most extenszive 

‘8uch programs in the country. (Rindone, vol. 

15. The CMT was not developed to compare or to contrast 

student performance in one school district with student 

performances in other districts. (Nearine, Vol. 

20; PX 290~308) 

| 
| 
Hi 
| 
: 

16. The CMT measures mathematics, reading and writing 

: skills in the 4th, 6th, and 8th grades. (px 290-309) I) 

; 

i i 

i 
bir  



    

May 31 ’95 18:89 KONICA FAX 720 

eso
l 

oh
 

17. The CMT measures a relatively narrow part of students’ 
achievement. (px 493; Ferrandino Deposition, p. 37; Natriello, 
Vol. 11, p. 189) 

18. The rate of Hartford public school students who 
participate in the CMT is higher than the participation rate of 
other large cities in the state. (Nearine, vol. 24, Pp. 73) 

19. Hartford public schools attempt to administer the CMT 
to every eligible student in the school system. (Nearine, vol 

24, p. 73) 

20. Individual socioeconomic status (7SgEs”), primarily 
‘poverty, has the largest impact on lack of student achievement 
when measured for large groups of students. (Natriello, vol. 8 [4 

PP. 64-65; Armor, Vol. 32, Pp. 21; Crain, Vol. 35, p. 76) 

21. To understand the quality or effectiveness of a 

particular educational program, the effects of the disadvantages (| 

that students bring to school with them to that program must be i 
t 

| separated from the effects of the particular educational program. 
| (Natriello, Vol. 11, pp. 8, 9, 22-23, 89, 91; Crain, Vol. 33, ‘pp. 
79-80) 

LI | 
‘ 

 



   May 31 'S5 10:89 KONICA FAX 720 

22. None of the plaintiffs’ witnesses conducted a study in 
which they reviewed the quality of the educational programs 

offered in Hartford by separating the effects of the 

disadvantages that Hartford’s students bring with them to school 

from the affects of the particular educational programs in 

Hartford. (Natriello, vol. 11, pp. 8, 9, 22-23, 89, 91; Crain, 

Vol. 35, pp. 79-80; Trent, vol. 7, p. 100, 118-22; Kennedy, vol. 

14, p. 74) 

¢3. Standarized test scores alone do not reflect the 

quality of an education program. (Natriello, Vol. 11, p. 11, 

189; Flynn, Vol. 31, p. 151; Lafontaine, Vol. 15, p. 140; 

Nearine, Vol. 2, p. 16; Negron, Vol. 2, pp. 15-16; Shea, Vol. 1. 

Pp. 140) 

24. Among other things, Hartford students score lower on 

the CMT than the state average (1) because many Hartford students 

- move among Hartford schools and/or move in and out of the 

Hartford school district, and (2) because many Hartford students N] 
di 

i 
. 

| are still learning the English language. (Shea, Vol. 3, P-140; Ii 
‘|Nearine, Vol. 24, pp. 68-69; Negron, Vol. 2, PP. 15-16) ¥ 

H 

 



   May 31 95 10:10 KONICA FAX 720 pe RP. 0
 

25. Differences in SES are the primary factor in explaining 

the differences in student performance on the CMT across the 

state. (DX 12.14, pp. v, vi; PX 59, p. 5; Haig, Vol. 18, p. 95) 

26. If two groups of students which are equal in all 

respects except that one group has a larger Percentage of 

students with “at risk” factors such as low birth weight babies 

and mothers on drugs at birth, the group with a larger percentage 

with #at risk” characteristics will perform more poorly in an 

educational sense than the group with a smaller Percentage of 

those students with ”at rigk~ characteristics. (Natriello, Vol. 

11, pp. 4-5) 

27. Virtually all of the differences in performance between 
students in Hartford and students in the 21 suburban school 

districts on the CMT are attributable to differences in SES and 

to the background factors that SES represents. (Armor, Vol. 32, 

PP. 30, 93-94) 

28. Virtually all of the differences in the rate of 

Jeni at four year colleges between Hartford students and 4 

the students of the 21 suburban school districts are attributable 

to SES and to the background factors that SES represents. 

. (Armor, Vol. 33, pp. 30, 93-94) 

 



    

May 31 "95 16:10 KONICA FAX 720 » P. 0 

29. When SES factors are taken into account, CMT and other 

standarized test scores for Hartford students and for suburban 

students, as groups, do not establish any inequality of programs 

between Hartford and the suburban schools. {drior, Vol. 22, p. 

94-95) 

30. Studies of Project Concern which controlled for 

SES-related background factors have not shown that Project 

Concern students, African-American Hartford students who attended 

school in suburban school districts, have had any greater 

academic achievement than they would have had, had they remained 

in Hartford public schools. (DX 13.19, pp. 26-27, DX 13.20, Go. 

87) 

31. When measured with appropriate controls for SES-related 

background factors, Project Concern had no statistically 

significant effect on Project Concern students dropping out of 

high school, on the number of years they completed in college, on 

| their later life incomes, or on their contact with whites. 
J: 
| (Crain, Vol. 10, pp. 75-77, 105-108, 128-133) 
{} 
3 

ji 32. Forty-six percent of Hartford students who started 
1 

“Project Concern left Project Concern and returned to the Hartford : 

-8chool system. (DX 11.26 (Table 1)) 
I 

i | 

-f - 

 



May 31 '95 18:11 ® KONICA FAX 728 

33. The amount of time a student spent in Project Concern 

had no significant bearing on the student’s academic achievement. 

(Armor, Vol. 32, pp. 117-119; DX 11.26 (Tables 4 and 5)) 

34. The only group of Project Concern students who 

demonstrated better academic performance than students in 

Hartford schools are those students who volunteered for Project 

Concern, and who finished their educations in the suburban school 

district regardless of the amount of time spent in the suburban 

 sohool district, reflecting a phenomenon known as "self-selection 

bias.” (DX 11.26, Tables 3 and 5) 

35. No study has shown that students who finished their 

‘educations in Project Concern would not have done as well 

| academically if those students had remained in the Hartford 

public schools. (Crain, Vol. 35, p. 103) 

36. When Hartford children who are afflicted by poverty 

enter kindergarten, many of them are already delayed one and 

one-half to two years in educational development. (LaFontaine, 

Vol. 5, p. 132; Cloud, Vol. 17, p. 86; Montanez-Pitre, Vol. 6, 

  pp. 11, 41; Negron, Vol. 1, p. 81)