Chapter II

Equal Educational Opportunity Obligations and Measures

The state's obligations and goals regarding public elementary and secondary education are outlined in the Connecticut constitution, the general statutes, and several key court decisions. Policies to guide implementation of these education mandates have been adopted by the state board of education. Major legal requirements and state board policies related to school finance matters are described in this chapter.

The central issue in the school finance lawsuit that led to Connecticut's current funding system was resource equity and equal educational opportunity. In the Horton v Meskill cases (1977 and 1985), the state supreme court found the state's reliance on the local property tax base to fund educational programs, without regard to disparities in town wealth, violated the constitutional mandate to provide "substantially equal educational opportunity" to all children. Further, education aid provided by the state did not offset the advantages of wealthy communities to spend at higher levels, which are associated with higher quality education, at lower tax rates than poorer towns.

The court based its findings of educational inequities on consideration of a number of measures of disparities both in distributing and raising revenues for education. The program review committee examined many of the same measures to determine the status of resource equity and equal educational opportunity under subsequent school finance reforms, particularly the Education Cost Sharing grant program. Committee findings concerning student resource equity measures and the goal of equal educational opportunity are presented in this chapter. Measures of tax effort considered by the court along with taxpayer equity issues are discussed in Chapter VI.

Constitutional Provisions

Education is only briefly addressed in the state constitution. Article eighth, section 1 establishes the principle of free public and elementary schools in the state and requires the General Assembly to implement it by appropriate legislation. This provision has been interpreted to establish a fundamental right to education. In addition, the Connecticut Supreme Court combined other provisions of the state's constitution, notably its guarantee of equal rights and equal opportunity, with the right to education that serve to further define the state's constitutional responsibility.

State Statutes

Details on public education standards, programs, and funding mechanisms are contained in Title 10 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Under the statutes, responsibility for providing and funding elementary and secondary education is delegated to the towns, through school districts. An oversight role is reserved for the state board of education and its administrative arm, the state education department. Local and regional boards of education must maintain good public schools and provide an appropriate learning environment for their students. Under the supervision and control of the state board, local and regional boards are required to implement the education interests of the state, which are defined in statute to include but not be limited to:

• each child having equal opportunity to receive a suitable program of educational experiences;
• each district financing at a reasonable level such an educational program;
• each district providing educational opportunities for students to interact with students and teachers from other racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds to reduce isolation; and
• statutory mandates pertaining to education.

No state revenues are earmarked by law for public educational purposes at present. State funding for elementary and secondary is appropriated each budget cycle and provided to towns through a variety of statutory grant programs that support instructional costs, school construction, student transportation, and equalization of resources among districts. By law, towns can only levy a property tax to support education and all other expenses. School districts are fiscally dependent on towns and have no separate financial authority.

Case Law

The courts have provided direction to the General Assembly in implementing its constitutional mandate with regard to educational finance. Two major lawsuits have had a considerable impact on the way the state approaches education, though only one directly involves the issue of the distribution of state money. A third pending case also has the potential to impact state funding of primary and secondary education.

Horton v. Meskill. In the first of these cases, Horton v. Meskill, the Connecticut Supreme Court established the basic principle that guides the state's approach to educational finance when it declared that significant disparities in school expenditures result in impermissible disparities in educational opportunity.

The Horton case actually comprises three separate decisions (172 Conn. 615 (1977), 187 Conn. 187 (1982), and 195 Conn. 24 1985)). The first (1977) and the third (1985) decisions focused on the distribution of state aid for education, while the second (1982) involved a procedural issue that denied several towns the ability to intervene in a lawsuit filed subsequent to Horton I.

When the initial suit was filed about 70 percent of school funds came from local governments, while 20 to 25 percent came from the state and 5 percent from the federal government. The state dispersed some money through a few categorical grants, but the majority of state aid was distributed through a flat $250 per-pupil grant to each town.

Funds raised by municipalities came primarily from the local property tax. The court found a significant factor in determining the amount a municipality spent or is able to spend on education depended on the amount of taxable property in each town. When the court examined the dollar amount of taxable property per pupil in each town, it found a wide disparity in the yield per pupil (that is the value of taxable property divided by the number of pupils), ranging from $20,000 per pupil to about $170,000.

Thus, in property-poor towns, taxpayers paid higher tax rates, yet generated comparatively smaller tax revenues and spent less on education. In property-rich towns, less tax effort (lower rates) generated more money for education. For example, the court noted average per pupil operating expenditures in the poorest towns were 35 percent less that the richest, while the average net mill rate in the poorest towns was 2 ½ times that of the richest towns.

The court concluded the financing system ensured more funding went to children in property-rich towns than to children in property-poor towns regardless of educational need. This allowed property-rich towns to offer a wider range and higher quality of educational services. The court asserted there is a direct relationship between the breadth and quality of education and per pupil expenditures because many elements of a quality education (such as course offerings, special education accommodations, teaching resources, teacher to student ratios, etc.) require higher per pupil expenditures. The court found property-poor municipalities cannot afford to spend the same amounts property-rich towns can, on a per pupil basis, and the state's flat per-pupil grants had little equalizing effect in affording property-poor towns a meaningful choice as to the educational programs to be offered.

By combining article first, sections 1 and 20 (equality of rights and equal protection) of Connecticut's Constitution with article eight, section 1 (free public schools), the court affirmed the Superior Court's finding that the state's method of financing education, relying on the local property tax base without regard to the disparity in the ability of the towns to finance an educational program and with no equalizing state support, violated the constitutional mandate to provide "substantially equal educational opportunity" to its children through free public schools.

The court, in essence, required the state to allocate governmental support for education in such a way as to offset any significant disparities in the financial ability of municipalities to finance local education through the property tax. Thus, the court implied state funding of education should not be designated to benefit all towns equally, as through a flat grant.

The court did not believe it was its responsibility to fashion an acceptable public school financing system and left that duty to the General Assembly. It noted, though, that a remedy need not require all towns to spend the same amount for the education of each student nor would it require the loss of local control.

In Horton III (1985), the school funding distribution formula adopted by the General Assembly, called the Guaranteed Tax Base (GTB), and amendments to that formula in response to Horton I were challenged. In it's Horton III ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court established a new, three-step test to determine if the educational financing formula met the state's constitutional obligation. This test required:

1. The plaintiffs make a prima facie showing that disparities in educational expenditures are more than minimal in that the disparities continue to jeopardize the plaintiffs' fundamental right to an education. All parties conceded in this proceeding that the evidence before the trial court demonstrated the continued significant disparities exist in the funds that local communities spend on basic public education;

2. If they made that showing, the state had to justify these disparities as incidental to the advancement of a legitimate state policy. The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with the trial court's findings that an adequately funded GTB was an acceptable response to the problem of disparate local education expenditures, its five-year phase-in assured an efficient use of educational resources, and a number of factors beyond the state's control tended to increase some of the discrepancies, such as property values increasing more rapidly in wealthier communities; and

3. If the justification was acceptable, the state must show that continuing disparities were not so great as to be unconstitutional. Relying on the trial court's finding that the effect of the GTB was to narrow significantly disparities in the ability of local communities to finance local education, the court concluded that the remaining disparities did not undermine the basic policy of equalizing state support.

Consequently, the court upheld the Superior Court's decision that the GTB was constitutional. However, it determined the lower court did not use the proper standard in determining if subsequent amendments to the GTB were constitutionally valid and the lower court failed to allow all interested parties an opportunity to be heard on the question of remedies. The court returned the case to back to the Superior Court for further hearings and judgment.

The court also agreed with the lower court's judgment on several other issues, including:

• the system of distributing categorical grants (special education, transportation, and school construction) was constitutional because the plaintiffs could not show they "impinge on the fundamental right to a substantially equal education;" and
• rejected the plaintiffs' request to require the state to provide 50 percent of overall educational expenditures as the only constitutionally adequate response.

Sheff v. O'Neill (238 Conn. 1 (1996)). The Horton decisions dealt specifically with school financing, whereas the Sheff case involved the concentration of racial and ethnic minority school children within the Hartford school system. Relying on similar constitutional provisions as Horton (article first, section 20 and article eighth, section 1), the Connecticut Supreme Court found the existence of "extreme racial and ethnic isolation in the public school system deprives schoolchildren of a substantially equal educational opportunity." Although, one count by the plaintiffs' did allege disparities in educational resources, the court did not evaluate the constitutionality of the claim because the plaintiffs did not contend that the distribution of state aid was unconstitutional.

Johnson v. Rowland. This case was filed in 1999 and does not yet have a trial date. The plaintiffs, seven schoolchildren from East Hartford, Seymour, Meridan, New Britain, Hamden, and Bridgeport, complain that the state, by not fully funding the Educational Cost Sharing formula, the state's primary educational aid program, is not fulfilling its constitutional mandate. The suit argues that various changes made to the formula, such as the cap on the growth of any municipality's grant, the stop-loss provisions, and the failure to increase the foundation, have served to undermine the equalizing effect of the formula.

State Board of Education Policies

The State Board of Education outlines its goals and priorities for education in the state comprehensive plan for education, which it is required by statute to prepare every five years and update annually. This document guides development of all board policies including its budget requests and legislative proposals.

Five statutory goals adopted in 1997 in response to the Sheff v O'Neill Supreme Court decision are the foundation for the state plan and board policies. The goals, as set forth C.G.S. Section 10-4p, are:

• to achieve resource equity and equality of opportunity;
• to increase student achievement;
• to reduce racial, ethnic, and economic isolation;
• to improve effective instruction; and
• to encourage greater parental and community involvement in all public schools.

Under the current comprehensive plan, Greater Expectations: Connecticut's Comprehensive Plan for Education 2001-2005, the board's overall policy is to ensure all Connecticut students achieve standards of excellence, no matter what community they reside in or what challenges they face. In a February 1998 position statement, the board defined equal educational opportunity, required under C.G.S. Section 10-4, as:

student access to a level and quality of programs and experience which provides each child with the means to achieve the standard of an educated citizen defined by Connecticut's Common Core of Learning.¹

The board further stated evidence of equal educational opportunity is the participation and achievement of each student in challenging educational programs regardless of factors such as family wealth, race, sex, or town of residence.

In the area of school finance policy, the board supports increasing the state's share of education costs and reducing reliance on local property tax revenues as a way to reduce inequities among districts. The board's goal is to achieve equal state-local share of the total cost of public schools within the life of the current five-year plan or shortly thereafter. Among the financing actions forwarded by the board in the current plan are:

• more systematic increases in state equalization funding (the ECS grant);
• continued growth in targeted aid for children most in need;
• more state aid to mitigate the impact of rising special education costs on local districts; and
• continued financial commitment to school construction and renovation projects.

Measures of Equal Educational Opportunity

Resource equity has traditionally been assessed by measuring disparities in per pupil expenditures. Initially, school finance litigation focused on spending measures that indicated horizontal equity (e.g., equal spending for equally situated students) and later expanded to include measures of vertical equity (e.g., differential spending based on differing needs) and fiscal neutrality (e.g., no systematic relationships between a district's wealth and educational spending). Most recently, a few states have begun to develop measures of educational adequacy (e.g., funding sufficient to produce specified levels of achievement) but these efforts are still in very preliminary stages. Whatever approach is taken to assessing equity, values are involved in the choices made about the type of equity (student or taxpayer) examined, the principles applied (horizontal, vertical, etc.), and the even statistical measures used.

Much of the analysis in the Horton case focused on per pupil spending differences and horizontal equity measures. To a lesser extent, variation in other types of inputs (teachers, textbooks, etc.) was also examined while other measures of educational quality were discussed in concept. Committee findings regarding the current status of the court's expenditure measures followed by an assessment of selected other resource measures referenced in the Horton decisions are presented below.

Expenditure Measures

In the Horton cases, the Connecticut Supreme Court employed several commonly used statistical measures of disparity to compare educational expenditures among towns. The three main statistics used to measure education finance equity -- the 95:5 ratio, the McLoone Index, and the coefficient of variation -- are examined below for selected years between 1974 and 1999. The measures should be considered together because each evaluates different aspects of spending variations. It is also important to keep in mind none of the measures consider adequacy of spending, but only reflect funding distribution.

Ratio 95:5. This measure is calculated by dividing the net current expenditures per pupil for the 95^th percentile town (i.e., the ninth highest Connecticut town as measured by Equalized Net Grand List wealth per pupil) by the 5^th percentile town (i.e., ninth lowest town). Thus, increasing values means greater disparity.

Analysis. Figure II-1 shows disparity as measured by this ratio has declined since the Horton case was filed. The percentage gap has closed from 87 percent in 1974 to 29 percent in 2000. While dramatic improvement in this ratio has occurred over the 25-year time span, in the most recent years it has stabilized around the 30 to 35 percent range.

Characteristics of measure. This measure compares a high town to a low town but avoids extreme or outlier amounts. The measure will decrease in response to equal dollar additions but not equal percentage additions in both towns. A significant limitation of this measure is that it only compares two towns and does not reflect changes in the other 167 towns.

McLoone Index. This index is a measure of variation of the towns' expenditures below the median town (i.e., the town at the middle). The index measures from zero to one, and the closer the index is to one the smaller the disparity. This is calculated by summing the per pupil expenditures of the 84 towns in Connecticut below the median and dividing it by the sum of 84 times the median per pupil expenditure - that is the amount those towns would have spent if they all spent the median amount.

Analysis. Figure II-2 shows the index improved since 1974 going from .881 to .931 in 2000. The index in the late 1990's shows variation with a high in 1997 of .943 to low in 1998 of .928.

• The total amount of aid increased 33 percent -- from $1.5 billion in 1996 to just over $2.0 billion in 2000.
• ECS grant represents nearly 67 percent of the $2 billion distributed to towns.
• Categorical and construction grants increased 60 and 160 percent respectively over the five-year time period, while ECS increased by 8 percent.
• Categorical and construction grants increased as a share of state aid since 1996: categoricals from eight to 13 percent and construction from 10 to 19 percent.
• ECS grant as a share of state aid has declined from 82 percent to 67 percent.

Characteristics of measure. If the focus of the finance system is to raise the lower spending towns, this measure is suitable because it focuses on the range of towns below the median. On the other hand, it does not account for the variability of spending above the median or among the entire range of spending. This measure is not responsive to equal percentage changes in towns below the median but does change in response to equal dollar amounts below the median.

Coefficient of Variation. This is a statistical measure that indicates how widely expenditures vary around the average. The closer the coefficient is to zero, the lesser the disparity among the towns.

Analysis. As shown in Figure II-3, the coefficient of variation has declined since 1974 from .18 to .122 in 2000 - indicating decreasing disparity.

Characteristics of measure. An advantage of this measure is that it is calculated based on expenditures in all towns by comparing each expenditure to the average. The measure will change in response to equal dollar additions in all towns but does not respond to equal percentage changes in all towns.

Expenditure trends. Table II-1 presents a comparison of expenditures per pupil for the high, mean, and low spending towns for selected years between 1974 and 2000.

• Both the highest and the lowest spending towns' expenditures edged closer to the statewide average. The high town's spending was 55 percent greater then the mean in 1974 and was 40 percent greater in 2000. The low town was 34 percent lower than the mean in 1974 and 20 percent in 2000.
• The ratio of the highest to the lowest spending town decreased from 2.33 to 1.76 - meaning the difference between high town spending and low town spending was reduced from 133 percent to 76 percent.

In summary, the analysis of education expenditure measures produced the following findings.

• All statistical measures indicate disparity in educational expenditures has declined over the last 26 years and that the state has made significant progress in this area since 1974.

_ The 95:5 ratio dropped from 87 percent in 1974 to 29 percent in 2000.

_ The McLoone Index has improved from .881 in 1974 to .931 in 2000.

_ The coefficient of variation declined since 1974 from .18 to .122 in 2000.

• However, the spending measures show little variability in the late 1990s, perhaps indicating the funding system as currently configured and supported has reached its maximum level of equity.

Other Resource Equity Measures

Per pupil expenditure is the primary but not the only measure used by the court and others to determine how well the state is meeting the goal of resource equity. In the Horton decision, the court found the criteria for evaluating quality of education include:

• size of classes;
• training, experience, and background of teaching staff;
• materials, books, and supplies;
• school philosophy and objectives;
• type of local control;
• test scores as measured against ability;
• degree of motivation and application of the students; and
• course offerings and extracurricular activities.

Further, the court found wealthier districts had a "substantially wider range and higher quality educational services" in such areas as: course offerings; special services; library and other resources; and ratios of teacher to students, specialist teachers to students, guidance counselors to students, and other similar relationships.

Recent data compiled by the state education department related to the court's education quality criteria were examined to begin to assess the current degree of variation among districts in a number of these areas. Detailed district expenditure information and key indicators of resource equity and student achievement regularly collected and reported by SDE are summarized below. In general, the selected indicators have been tracked for less than 10 years so long term trends since the Horton decision cannot be identified.

It is important to note that unlike the total per pupil expenditure data discussed above, the detailed resource and achievement information summarized below is compiled primarily on a school district rather than town basis.² Measures are generally available by district, type of district (PK-12, elementary, regional secondary) and educational reference group (ERG) -- the department's system for classifying districts according to multiple demographic measures.

ERGs were designed to allow comparisons of nine groups of districts with similar socio-economic and student need characteristics.³ At present, all 166 public school districts are grouped into nine ERGs, A through I, with A including 12 of the wealthiest communities in the state and I comprised of the seven poorest large cities. In the following analysis, averages for the selected indicators by ERG were used as a proxy for comparing districts by relative wealth. Comparisons between ERG A and ERG I were highlighted to simulate the 95^th and 5^th percentile wealthiest towns analysis presented in the preceding expenditure discussion.

Allocation of resources. Each year the state education department collects district level expenditure data by two broad types of cost categories - major function (e.g., instruction, pupil support, school-based and general administration, plant services, buildings and debt service, and transportation) and major object (e.g., salaries, benefits, supplies, equipment, tuition, purchased services). SDE function and object data were examined to try to develop a general picture of district spending patterns and produced the following findings.

• Overall, the data show the bulk of school district budgets -- about two-thirds on average -- is allocated for costs that support direct instruction of students, i.e., salaries and benefits of regular and special education classroom teachers and classroom materials, supplies, and equipment.
• There is a wide range in the per pupil spending on major functions and objects even among the same type of district. The least variation among full-grade (prekindergarten to 12) district spending patterns was in the two largest (excluding tuition) categories of costs -- the instructional program function and the salaries budget object.
• In terms of budget function, for the 110 prekindergarten to grade 12 districts in FY 00:

_ the difference between the highest and lowest per pupil spending for the two primary education budget functions, instructional program and pupil support, was substantial -- over $3,144 and $1,168, respectively; and

_ the greatest variation in spending by function was in the building and debt service category (from $140 to $5,129 per pupil in FY 00). This is not unexpected given the great diversity of the size, scope, and age of school construction projects among districts.

• In terms of FY 00 spending by budget object for the prekindergarten to grade 12 districts:

_ the difference between the minimum and maximum amounts spent per pupil for the two primary education budget objects associated with instruction -- salaries and employee benefits -- was also significant -- $3,578 and $1,117, respectively; and

_ the largest dollar differences for any budget object, with a range of $47,070 in FY 00, were in tuition costs per pupil placed out of district, mirroring the broad spectrum of special student needs among districts.

Many factors are associated with the variation in spending patterns among districts, from the district's wealth to its size in terms of enrollment and geography, the number, age and condition of school buildings, administrative structure (centralized or decentralized), and needs of the student population. More extensive analysis is needed to determine how much disparity is due to a town's ability to support educational services versus other district characteristics. Looking at spending patterns by ERG, however, resulted in the following observations.

• For the main categories of education budgets - instructional program, pupil support, plant services, and salaries and employee benefits -- the two top and bottom ERGs (A and B, and H and I, respectively) had the highest per pupil expenditures in FY 00.
• Per pupil spending in ERGs A and I are both above the average for full grade districts for all but three categories, school-based administration, benefits, and instructional equipment. (See Figures II-4 and II-5, below.)
• Overall, ERG I per pupil expenditures were greater than ERG A spending in all but four cost categories (the functions support and school-based administration and the objects employee benefits and instructional supplies).

The fact that spending levels by category for ERG A and ERG I are both above average in nearly every case indicates the impact of directing state aid to the neediest districts. The high expenditures in ERG I also probably reflects the legislature's recent emphasis on improving the performance of priority school districts with additional resources from targeted state grants.

Input measures. As part of a statutory mandate to measure disparities and monitor progress toward the state's goal of resource equity and equality of opportunity, the state education department gathers information on a number of input measures considered critical to education quality. Five of the key resource indicators tracked by the state board of education -- students per certified staff, students per computer, the percentage of school facilities rated good or better, the percentage of kindergarteners with preschool experience, and the number of advanced placement course examinations taken per 1,000 high school students -- are summarized in Table II-2.

The program review committee found in just the three-year period covered in the table there have been statewide improvements in each area.

• On average, since 1996:

_ student to staff ratios are lower;

_ more computers are available to students;

_ the portion of school facilities rated as good or better is larger;

_ a greater percentage of children enter kindergarten with preschool experience; and

_ more high school students are participating in advanced placement courses

• Further, while gaps between the minimum and maximum values are fairly large, they decreased between 1996 and 1999 for three measures -- student to staff ratio, student to computer ratio, and facility quality.

Analysis of the key resource indicators by ERG also showed improvement across all groups on each measure over the past three years. In most cases, the two top ERGS (A and B) tended to rank the highest on all measures although in 1999, a mid-level ERG (E), had the lowest ratios of student per staff and student per computer. As Figure II-6 shows, the top and bottom ERGs (A and I) were fairly close on two indicators but there were substantial differences between them on three others. Specific results are noted below.

• Among the ERG groups, differences in average student to staff ratios were relatively small; the number of students per certified staff only ranged from 10.8 to 12.4 in 1999. Further, the ratio for the bottom ERG was lower (by 0.2) than the statewide average as well as the ratio for the top ERG.
• On average, the student to computer ratio statewide dropped 30 percent (from 7.4 to 5.2) between 1996 and 1999. Gaps among ERGs also decreased; the number of students per computer in ERG I, while highest for all groups, was only 0.5 higher than the ERG A ratio.
• While the condition of school facilities improved across all ERG groups, the bottom ERG still lags below the others in percentage rated good or better (54 percent versus 66 percent on average).
• Disparities among ERGs in the portion of kindergarteners with preschool experience diminished, but the gap between the top and bottom groups remains large. Statewide, about three-quarters of kindergarteners attended preschool while nearly all have in the top ERG and just over half have in the bottom ERG.
• Participation in advanced placement examinations was much higher in the top two ERGs than in all other groups. For the bottom ERG in 1999, the number of exams taken per 1,000 students was about half the statewide average and just 21 percent of the rate of the top ERG.

Two additional input measures considered important to education quality but not included as the board's key resource indicators were examined. State education department data on hours of instruction per year and class size for 1996 and 2000 are summarized in Table II-3.

Like the key resource indicators, there has been improvement on both of these measures over time; on average, instruction time increased for the elementary and high school levels and class sizes at both levels were slightly smaller. Gaps between the minimum and maximum values are large - more than 100 hours in instructional time and over 10 students in class size for both levels for 2000. Variations between the top and bottom ERGs, as shown in Figures II-7 and II-8, were much less dramatic.

• Differences between ERG A and ERG I in average hours of instruction per year were relatively small in 2000. Both groups were slightly lower than the state average in high school instructional time and ERG A exceeded ERG I by only three hours. Elementary instructional time for the bottom ERG was just five hours below the state average and 22 hours less than the top ERG, which was the highest for all groups.
• Class sizes were also fairly close for ERGs A and I. The average high school class size was less than the state average for both the top and bottom groups (although the smallest class sizes for elementary and for secondary schools occurred in the mid-level ERG E). ERG I did have the highest elementary level class size but exceeded ERG A by less than one and the state average by just over one.

Outcome measures. The key indicators used by the state board to track progress toward equal educational opportunity include outcome as well as input measures. District level data on the board's five measures of student performance, which are based on a broad range of standardized tests results - fourth grade reading scores, sixth grade math scores and eighth grade writing scores from the Connecticut Mastery Tests (CMTs), science scores from the 10^th grade Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT) and total scores from the national Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) -- are summarized in Table II-4. Committee observations follow.

• There was very little change in test scores over the three year period. In general, small gains were made by ERG I and several other lower ERGs while performance indicators for the higher ERGs remained fairly stable between 1996 and 1999.
• Differences between minimum and maximum values for each measure were large, with the high ranging from about 40 percent up to 65 percent greater than the low for 1999.
• Examining student performance measures by ERG showed the indicators were always best for ERG A and worst for ERG I. For all measures except SAT scores, the measures rose steadily moving from the bottom to the top group.
• In 1999 ERG A was about 30 percent higher than ERG I for four student performance measures and 25 percent higher for the remaining one (CAPT Science). State averages also exceeded the bottom ERG measures (by about 16 to 24 percent) for all five key performance indicators. (See Figures II-9 and II-10, below.)

• board tracks two additional outcome measures, drop out rates and percentage of students pursing higher education as key indicators. Analysis of data on these measures, summarized in Table II-5, shows:
• the top ERGs were also best on these outcome indicators and there are large difference, between the ERG A and ERG I;
• in 1999, the drop out rate in the bottom ERG, although steadily improving over time, was more than twice that of any other group; and
• in 1999, the ratio of students pursuing higher education in ERG A was 30 percent higher than ERG I. However, two groups (E and G) had percentages lower than the bottom ERG.

In summary, analysis of measures of resource equity other than per-pupil spending resulted in the following findings.

• Spending patterns of the top and bottom ERGs, which represent the wealthiest and poorest districts in the state, are similar; both generally spend above the state average across major cost categories.
• Indicators of staff and equipment resources (i.e., ratios of staff to student, student to computer, and class size) are also fairly close for the top and bottom ERGs but disparities in input measures related to facility condition and student characteristics (i.e., preschool experience, and participation in advanced courses) are large.
• The gap between the top and bottom ERGs on all outcome measures is substantial. ERG I is below the state average for each indicator of student performance as well as for the portion of graduates pursing higher education. Its drop out rate is also well above that of any other group.

Recommendation

The information and analysis presented above show several trends. Spending disparities, especially between the wealthiest and poorest communities have greatly diminished with the advent of school finance reforms that increased and equalized state aid to towns. Targeted aid for the neediest communities in the state also seems to have narrowed district differences on several key education input indicators. In contrast, there has been substantially less progress made in reducing variation in student performance and other outcome measures.

Whether the current trends are satisfactory and at what point the measures show an acceptable level of equity has been achieved, however, are judgments for the legislature and the courts to make. As the analysis highlights, assessing the success of the school finance system in meeting the goal of resource equity and equal educational opportunity requires evaluation of a range of measures and probably the development of new indicators. Continued monitoring of resource and performance indicators is critical to accountability.

Much of the resource equity information developed for this section is prepared and published by the state department of education in its statutorily required planning documents, annual school profiles, and yearly reports on the condition of education and education expenditures. Some data, most notably the expenditure disparity statistics, are not regularly compiled or reviewed. In addition, while the state board has chosen to develop key indicators of resource equity as part of its planning mandates, there no is statutory requirement to establish and report on specific performance measures in this area.

The program review committee believes policymakers should be well aware of the state's progress toward equal education opportunity since it is a constitutional matter as well as the subject of ongoing litigation. To ensure this occurs, the committee recommends:

the state board of education, in a format developed in consultation with the legislature's education committee, submit to the governor and the General Assembly each year by January 1, an analysis of key performance measures of resource equity and equal education opportunity. The measures should include but not be limited to generally accepted school finance equity statistics, specifically the 95:5 ratio, the McLoone Index, and the coefficient of variation, and indicators of instructional program quality such as student-to-staff ratio, class size and instructional hours, teacher quality, adequacy of equipment and facilities, and student achievement, such as standardized test results and post-graduation pursuits.

In addition, a fiscal impact statement shall be prepared for any bill related to the education cost sharing grant and shall include at a minimum an analysis of the impact of the bill's provisions on three school finance equity statistics, the 95:5 ratio, McLoone Index and coefficient of variation, calculated using the most recently available fiscal year data.

Under the committee recommendations, the status of disparities in educational resources among districts will be regularly reviewed and reported to the legislature, using consistent and generally accepted measures. The positive step taken by the state board in establishing key indicators to track resource equity progress is formalized and expanded to include legislative participation in the selection of meaningful measures. Policymakers and the public will also have a better idea of whether equalization goals are advanced or impeded by changes to the ECS grant before final action is taken on pending education finance bills.

¹ The common core of learning is a reference document adopted by the board that describes the skills, knowledge, and aspects of character necessary for employment, further education, and becoming a productive member of society. In essence, it is what a Connecticut high school graduate should know and be able to do as a result of participating in the entire K-12 school experience.

² There are currently 166 public school districts in Connecticut, 17 of which are regional and serve from two to six towns. Overall, 102 communities are single town prekindergarten through grade 12 districts, 47 towns operate their own elementary schools and participate in one of the eight regional secondary districts (or pay to send their high school students to another public secondary system), and 20 towns operate no schools but are part of regional districts (and may also tuition students to other systems) .

³ The current ERGs were created in 1996 and are based on the following factors: median family income; percentage of children with at least one parent with a BA or higher degree; percentage of children's parents with executive, managerial, and professional occupations; portion of children receiving AFDC in 1994; percentage of children living with a single parent or in a nonfamily household; percentage of children whose families speak a language other than English at home; and weighted district enrollment. According to SDE, the ERGs will be revised based on 2000 census data by 2005.

Return to Table of Contents