CCJEF Decision and Its Potential Impact On New Britain
By Sharon Beloin Saavedra | PRESIDENT OF NEW BRITAIN BOARD OF EDUCATION; MEMBER OF THE CCJEF STEERING COMMITTEE at September 15, 2023 | 7:45 pm | Print
Sitting in the court room last Wednesday listening to the Judge read his decision in legalize speak was a head spinning culminating moment for me. CCJEF vs Rell was filed in Nov. 2005 the same month I was elected to the Board of Education.
This lawsuit, the people connected to it and I have shared 11 years of hope and challenges together. The premise of this case was based on the question of the adequacy and equity of public education and the constitutionality of its funding system. CCJEF argued that the State needed to adopt a funding formula that reflected the actual cost of meeting the learning needs of all students and preparing them for success post high school graduation. The State legislature has not utilized a funding formula for many years now. Instead, for a few years they adopted a policy of hold harmless – no one got more and no one got less (flat funding). Then they moved to several years of arbitrary increases – political jockeying and trade making. Elected folks demonstrating to their constituencies that they did indeed bring something back to their district. The problem with this strategy as the Judge pointed out is that it lacked reason and was irrational. He cited last year’s reallocation of $5 million away from impoverished school districts to wealthier communities as an example of being irrational.
In the end the Judge concluded that the State’s funding of education is adequate however its distribution of those funds is so irrational as to be unconstitutional. “To keep its promise of adequate schools for all children, the state must rally more forcefully around troubled schools. It can’t possibly help them while standing on the sidelines imposing token statewide standards. And while only the legislature can decide precisely how much money to spend on public schools, the system cannot work unless the state sticks to an honest formula that delivers state aid according to local need.” The Judge went on to say “children have a judicially enforceable right to principles governing our schools that are reasoned, substantial and verifiably connected to teaching.”
In his wide ranging decision, Judge Moukawsher blasted the State for its failure to adopt rational and reasoned education policy thus concluding:
- The state’s responsibility for education is direct and non-delegable: it must assume unconditional authority to intervene in troubled school districts;
- Spending must follow a formula influenced by school needs and good practices;
- State must define elementary and secondary education objectively;
- State must link the terms of educators’ jobs with things known to promote better schools;
- State must end arbitrary spending on special education that has delivered too little help for some and educationally useless services to others.
The court has given the state 180 days to submit a plan for review.
What all of this will mean for the children of New Britain remains to be seen – an honest formula that takes into consideration student need (poverty, English language learners, special education, and town wealth) should bring additional dollars to our education system to address a variety of instructional needs and student supports (social workers, guidance counselors, reading interventionists, para educators, special area teachers, enrichment, smaller class size, health and wellness, extended day and extended year, family capacity). We currently live in a state where all children are required to achieve universal standards (Common Core) but do not enjoy/have access to universal tools for success. We cannot simply legislate standards without deploying the necessary resources to achieve those standards. We must acknowledge that all things are not equal and that many of our children come to school with needs so great that they are not emotionally or physiologically ready to engage the learning process or they begin their academic career several levels behind their suburban counterparts. Every school district has a different baseline and a varied demographic of learners with individual stories and realities. We must examine student need as the driving force for change. In addition to the broken funding system the court has ordered the State to develop a constitutionally adequate definition of what an elementary and secondary education is. He pointed to the mass of children performing below grade level and yet being promoted every year. He called into question the acquisition (or lack there-of) foundational skills taught at the elementary level and mastery poor high school diplomas.
The next 180 days are absolutely critical to the future of education here in our state. Who we have at the table representing us in crafting the remedies to this court order is of major importance.
The Connecticut State Constitution Article Eight reads: “There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state. The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation.”
