Scope of Study
Connecticut Public School Finance System
In Connecticut, local control of public schools is well established, but state government has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that children receive equal access to educational opportunities. In 1977, the Connecticut Supreme Court held the system of financing elementary and secondary education, which relied primarily on local property tax revenues without regard to disparities in town wealth and lacked significant equalizing state support, was unconstitutional (Horton v. Meskill).
Subsequently, the legislature enacted a series of reforms aimed at equalizing the ability of municipalities to provide students with adequate educational opportunities. In general, the state increased school funding and weighted its distribution toward Connecticut's less wealthy municipalities. Over the last two decades, the state's share of funding public elementary and secondary schools ranged from a low of approximately 32 percent to a high of nearly 46 percent. In FY 00, the state's share was about 43 percent.
The two main conduits of state funding for local school operating costs are the formula-based Education Cost Sharing (ECS) Grant and about two-dozen categorical grants that target assistance for specific educational purposes. The state also provides grants for local school construction projects and funds the teacher retirement system.
Area of Focus
The study will evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the system for funding public elementary and secondary education in light of the state's legal obligations and policy goals with respect to educational and taxpayer equity. The initial phase will analyze the funding gap between wealthy and poor school districts and how state funding policies affect the size of the gap. Subsequent phases of the study will analyze how municipalities are held accountable for meeting the educational and fiscal requirements set forth by the state, and examine alternative sources of financing the system.
Areas of Analysis
The first four areas of analysis presented below constitute the initial phase and will be the primary focus of the study. The other two areas will be covered as time permits and may not be taken up until 2002.
1) Determine the state's goals and legal obligations to finance elementary and secondary education.
a) What are the state's obligations under the Constitution and statutes?
b) What are the state's obligations under court decisions (Horton, Sheff)?
c) What are the goals adopted by State Board of Education?
2) Identify all types of state funding for elementary and secondary education and the factors that determine the level and distribution of state money.
a) What types of educational funding does the state provide to municipalities?
b) How much and to whom is the money distributed under each type?
c) What factors under each type determine the level and distribution of state support?
3) Determine the extent to which the current funding system meets the state's policy goals and legal obligations relating to equity.
a) What is the relationship between each of the factors that comprise the equalization formula (ECS) and the state's legal obligations and policy goals?
i. How are the factors determined and measured?
ii. How has the formula changed over time?
iii. What is the relationship in theory and practice between the factors (e.g., student need, local fiscal capacity, foundation level) and the amount and distribution of money?
d) What are the relationships between supplemental funding (categorical, construction, and teacher retirement) and the state's legal obligations and policy goals?
i) What impact does this funding have on resource equity goals?
e) What changes could make the current equalization formula and supplements more effective in achieving state resource equity goals?
4) Determine if Connecticut's school finance system treats taxpayers equitably.
a) What are the state's policies and goals with respect to taxpayer equity?
b) How does the education financing system affect taxpayers in different towns?
5) Determine the extent to which the state system for financing elementary and secondary education provides for financial and performance accountability.
a) What mechanisms are in place to assure an appropriate level of local participation is maintained?
b) What is the relationship between the current financing system and educational performance goals?
c) What are the alternatives for linking the state's financial support with performance outcomes?
6) Identify alternative revenue sources to finance elementary and secondary education in Connecticut.
a) What new or existing revenue sources could be used to pay the state share of educational costs?
b) What new or existing revenue sources could be used to pay the municipal share of educational costs?