Source: Kevin Maloney, CCM

For Immediate Release
Kevin Maloney (203) 710-3486

CCM publishes sixth and final issue bulletin in 2022 election campaign series — financing local public education

The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM) today (Wednesday, October 26) released its sixth and final issue bulletin in CCM’s 2022 election campaign series — financing local public education. 

This election season CCM has focused on bringing municipal issues to the forefront, with a particular focus on educating candidates and the public on specific issues impacting local government.

Throughout October, CCM released issue bulletins highlighting key state-local issues. Our goal is to inform the public and candidates about these issues so we can effectively work with policymakers and our partners to address and provide sustainable solutions. 

The bulletin series examined key Connecticut state-local issues. The bulletin being released today provides an overview on financing local public education. The first five bulletins in the series focused on CCM as the voice of municipalities, the property tax burden in Connecticut, important housing and economic development issues, key labor relations issues, and key infrastructure and transportation issues. 

Click on the following link -- https://youtu.be/EMDKY_rvtNo -- for the complete video message on financing local public education from Luke Bronin, Mayor of Hartford and President of CCM 

Click on this link to review the complete issues report -- https://www.ccm-ct.org/Portals/CCM/PDF/IssueBulletins/IssueBulletin_2022_Edu.pdf?ver=-ySBKYsM0xVL2mjZ3zLMpQ%3d%3d

“Towns and cities have a responsibility to nurture the growth of the next generation,” said Joe DeLong, CCM Executive Director and CEO. “There are challenges that must be addressed. Local lead-ers, and as the statewide association of towns and cities, we can make these issues paramount in the public debate to address those challenges and reach systemic change.”

Some key points from this newest CCM report include: 

• Part of understanding education finance and delivery is identifying some of the challenges that are faced. In particular, recognizing the distinction between local government and boards of education. Local government consists of your local legislative body – town or city council, Board of Selectman – who are responsible for general government responsibilities and administering the municipal budget. Further¬more, they are the sole authority in implementing property taxes on residents. 
• This is different than boards of education who func¬tion as agencies of the State in charge of implement¬ing the State’s educational interests within a specific town. Boards of education do not have the ability to generate their own revenue. They rely on the local government – largely utilizing property taxpayers – to fund their budget.
• The cost for public education in Connecticut exceeds $12.3 billion annually. With limited resources for outside financial assistance, municipal property tax¬payers fund a majority of those costs. The balance is provided largely by the state, followed by the federal government. 
• The principal mechanism for the state’s portion of education financing is the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grant. Originally, the ECS grant was formulat¬ed to provide a transparent and equitable methods for making education finance allocations. However, flaws in the formula and consistent underfunding has meant that state aid has not been aligned with local needs. If the state support is unreliable, towns and cities need to adjust by increasing property taxes. 
• The ECS grant also does not provide a stu¬dent-based approach to improve outcomes for all students. English learners, students who are eco¬nomically disadvantaged, and students navigating through their education in communities that experi¬ence concentrated poverty, all deserve to be funded at a level that makes a real and tangible difference. There are questions as to how well the ECS formula factors these needs.
• Statewide, special education costs exceed $2.4 bil¬lion – and continue to rise. Towns and cities pay for about 66% of those costs. Unforeseen demands for special education services too often result in local budget adjustments, supplementary appropriations, and other extraordinary measures. This is particularly troublesome in smaller towns, where the addition of even one special-needs student can decimate a budget. The Special Education Excess Cost grant, the State’s primary mechanism for funding special education, fails to ad¬dress these fluctuations. In addition, the grant only examines a town’s ability to pay and fails to consider the needs of students. This misguided approach not only impacts students, but also property taxpayers.
• Delivering and fostering a productive and financially responsible education system is not without challeng¬es and limitations. One such constraint on municipal¬ities is the MBR. This is a statutory requirement that the local government must appropriate to the local board of education, with limited exceptions, at least the same amount for education as it did the previ-ous year. In theory, it sounds reasonable. However, what about districts that see declining enrollment or utilize other cost savings measures? The MBR excep¬tions offer limited relief. MBR in its current form does not properly address these situations and prevents municipalities from achieving savings. This results in municipalities allocating more money than necessary to adequately fund their school districts, which plac¬es an additional burden on property taxpayers.
• Each year new additions are made to the curriculum. These are made without the funding to support the resources or staff to implement those new require¬ments. This places a strain on teachers beyond what they already are. 
• Beyond the traditional support of financing and providing quality education, towns and cities must contend with other considerations and challenges, including: funding for early childhood education, assisting in school readiness programs, and supporting vocational and agricultural schools 
• Town and city leaders must also provide a safe and healthy environment to learn. As student en¬rollment changes and technology needs grow, so do public expectations for quality schools – and there¬fore the need for new or renovating school infrastruc¬ture rises. This requires millions in bonding funds to support capital improvements to public schools. 

***

The purpose of this series of bulletins is to provide candidates for state office — and the public — with perspectives on the challenges facing Connecticut towns and cities, and provide viable solutions on matters of importance to local residents of our great state.