Fully Fund Our Schools

This is a good essay, and I mostly agree -- at least in principle.

But, I recommend the author take a harder look at Bill 5798. While clause (1) will indeed "fully fund ECS by 2022 and increase the weight of poverty and English language learners," it is possible that changes resulting from clauses (2) and (3) may undo some or all of that increase, at least for New Haven.

Clause (2) revives a long-standing effort by the state's charter school boosters to roll regular public schools, charters and magnets into one unified weighted-student funding formula, putting all school types into direct competition for funding. Clause (3) prevents magnet, agricultural and technical schools from charging tuition.

The model Garrett cites was designed by School + State Finance Project, formerly CT School Finance Project, an organization that has long pushed for a single formula. I could not determine whether the effects of those two clauses have been incorporated in the projection, but I don't think so.

It's conceivable that, now or in future years, the 10% increase shown for New Haven could be offset by losses elswehere: by a money-follows-the-child single formula that sends ECS money to charter schools, by losses in the magnet grant subsequent to this restructuring, or by loss of tuition for Sound School.

There is just no reason to slip clauses (2) and (3) into this otherwise reasonable effort at full funding.

Not sure how you've connected HB 6187 to funding ECS. The bill's purpose says it is to make a one time payment of $500 to individuals who suffered hardships and were laid off due to Covid 19 from March 15, 2020 to Dec. 31, 2020. Did you cite the wrong bill, or were you mislead?

If education in the state of CT instead of being funded by individual towns and cities property taxes, was instead fully funded by the state on a per pupil basis, with the necessary extra funding for students with special/specific needs, then the burden of disparity in mill rates and in educational funding could be shouldered equitably. Smaller communities could regionalize to maximize their bang for the buck and instead of paying for duplicate and separate services could combine together for better use of the funds.

The wording I used in reference to HB6187 was changed a little from what I submitted. Here is what I originally wrote. "Hamden's delegation, Robyn Porter, Mike D'Agostino, and Josh Elliott introduced HB6187, a change in the tax structure that would increase taxes on the rich that would be necessary to fully fund ECS." HB6187 has been promoted as the peoples' recovery. I think students need to be considered in this recovery as well.
Martin Looney has a bill to tax homes valued in excess of $300,000. It's up to lawmakers to determine how to fund ECS. I'm just pointing out their obligation to fund it. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2021/TOB/S/PDF/2021SB-00171-R00-SB.PDF

As far as The School + State Finance Project is concerned, I am not signing on to a single formula and I am not advocating for their policy. The data on a fully-funded ECS model is not easy to come by and they had the data.

Heather C.: Smaller communities already regionalize schools. In our area, the Amity District provides consolidated middle and high senior high school for Woodbridge, Orange, and Bethany, and Haddam and Killingworth share schools. New Haven, with its plethora of small, magnet schools is probably the most unconsolidated and inefficient district in the state. Today New Haven has twelve senior high schools, not counting the state technical schools. When the city's population was 160K, it had only three (Boardman, Commercial, and Hillhouse) all on one campus at York Square.

Garrett's opening statements are false. Majority white districts get relatively little ECS. A town by town break down is here:

http://ctschoolfinance.org/assets/uploads/files/Town-Education-Funding-Comparisons-Lamont-Budget.pdf

Note, Hamden gets $27 million, while Branford (with a substantial ELL & minority student population) gets $2 million, Woodbridge $500K. New Haven gets $155 million while Hartford gets over $200 million.
Moreover, ECS was not intended to allocate funds based on race, but on a town's wealth. Many rural communities have low-income populations and little tax base. Horton v. Meskill, the original school funding case, was based on then rural Bolton's poverty. A town's ability to fund itself is based on its tax base, which is determined by how well it manages its land. Hamden and New Haven have high taxes because they allowed their industrial and commercial tax base to atrophy while welcoming high-cost low-income housing. Milford, Branford, Wallingford, and North Haven have all aggressively sought industrial and commercial development to support their multi-family housing. Woodbridge has a high, but stable mill rate because, while it has little commercial and no industrial tax base, it has no high cost multi-family housing, so the residential properties it has pay their own way.

1644- I'm talking about per pupil funding from the state exclusively to fund public education. So cities and towns don't have to depend on property taxes for educational funding. The dollars would follow the child. In cities and large towns with large numbers of students and special/specific needs students, those municipalities would have the sufficient number of dollars from the state to fund sports and arts and the staffing, faculties and infrastructure in their current systems. In the other small towns and rural areas besides the Haddam- Killingworth and Woodbridge- Bethany-Orange, communities would need to regionalize and consolidate their current individual school systems to instead shared educational systems to have the necessary sufficient funds for their educational systems. It would reduce mill rates and the need for separate and duplicate public school systems and lead to more regionalized cost sharing for services for smaller and more rural towns.