Researcher: JM Page 1 4/13/23
OLR Bill Analysis
sHB 5003
AN ACT CONCERNING EDUCATION FUNDING IN CONNECTICUT.
SUMMARY
The bill makes significant changes to five major education funding
grant programs: (1) Education Cost Sharing (ECS), (2) interdistrict
magnet schools, (3) regional agricultural science and technology centers
(i.e., “vo-ag centers”), (4) Open Choice enrollment, and (5) state charter
schools.
The bill changes the statutory schedule for ECS grant increases.
Under the bill, towns that the ECS grant formula currently underfunds
are fully funded sooner than under current law, by FY 25 rather than by
FY 28. It maintains (1) the scheduled ECS reductions for overfunded
towns and (2) a minimum of at least the previous year’s ECS grant for
any alliance district town.
The bill eliminates, beginning with FY 25, the existing magnet school,
vo-ag center, and Open Choice grant programs and replaces them with
new grants under the choice program, which the bill creates.
The choice program grant provides funding for local or regional
boards of education (i.e., “school boards”) that operate a magnet school,
a vo-ag center, or host students through Open Choice interdistrict
school attendance program. The bill also creates a separate grant for any
magnet school operated by an entity that is not a board of education,
such as an independent institution of higher education.
The bill uses student need weightings in the choice program grants
and the non-board of education magnet school grants that mirror the
weighting used in existing law for ECS and charter school grants:
additional weight for those eligible for free or reduced priced meals or
free milk (FRPM), or designated as an English language learner. So, 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 2 4/13/23
these grants give added funding for students that meet those criteria.
Also beginning in FY 25, the bill generally prohibits magnet schools
and vo-ag centers from charging tuition to the towns that send students
to magnet schools or vo-ag programs. The bill specifies that the new
grant must give at least an amount of state funds that is equal to what a
magnet school operator or vo-ag center received in FY 24, both from the
state and from tuition from sending districts (i.e., a “hold harmless”
provision).
Under existing law, the per-student state charter school grant
increased in FY 23. The bill requires additional increases for FYs 24 and
25, with state charters receiving full funding in FY 25.
The bill adds a cost-of-living increase, starting in FY 26, for the
foundation amount used to calculate grants for non-board of education
magnet schools and state charter schools based on an annual percent
increase in personal income or inflation, whichever is greater.
It requires the State Department of Education (SDE), annually
starting by February 1, 2024, to calculate and give to the relevant
operators or towns certain estimates for the various grants under the
bill.
The bill also:
1. creates a commission to study various educational issues
including (a) funding for local school districts, charter schools,
and magnet schools as provided under the bill; (b) the alliance
district plan process; and (c) charter school grade expansion (§
11);
2. explicitly places charter schools under the educational interests
of the state law that includes a complaint process if a party
believes the school is not meeting the educational interests of the
state (§§ 12 & 13); and
3. renames and revises the alliance district program (renamed
educational reform districts and legacy alliance districts) (§§ 14- 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 3 4/13/23
16).
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2024, except the provisions on (1) changing
to the ECS funding schedule, increasing the charter school grant, and
placing charter schools under the educational interests of the state are
effective July 1, 2023, and (2) SDE’s duty to calculate estimates of the
choice grants and creating the commission are upon passage.
§ 1 — ECS GRANT SCHEDULE
By law, the ECS grant has a multi-year schedule with incremental
increases for towns that are underfunded and incremental decreases, or
years with no change in funding, for overfunded towns.
When determining ECS grant increases or decreases, the formula
uses a town’s “grant adjustment,” which is the absolute value of the
difference between a town’s ECS grant amount for the previous year
and its fully funded grant amount. So, for underfunded towns, the grant
adjustment is the amount needed to be fully funded; for overfunded
towns, it is the amount the town is funded in excess of its fully funded
grant.
Under current law, underfunded towns receive ECS funding
increases in each of FYs 24-27 and are fully funded in FY 28. Under the
bill, these towns receive the existing scheduled increase for FY 24 (the
previous year’s amount plus 20% of its grant adjustment). In FY 25, the
bill begins fully funding these towns each year, rather than giving the
previous year’s amount plus a certain percentage of its grant
adjustment.
Under the bill, the scheduled ECS reductions for overfunded towns
are not changed and towns that are alliance districts, if overfunded,
continue to be funded at the same level. (Beginning in FY 25, the bill
renames alliance districts, as “legacy alliance districts” and “educational
reform districts” (see §§ 14-16, and BACKGROUND).)
Some towns are overfunded due primarily to the years when the state
froze the level of funding for all towns even when some towns’ student
enrollment dropped. A town with declining enrollment generally 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 4 4/13/23
receives less funding when the formula is updated with new enrollment
figures.
§ 2 — CHOICE PROGRAM GRANTS
Beginning with FY 25, the bill annually provides choice program
grants for vo-ag centers, the Open Choice program, and two different
interdistrict magnet school grants, based on who is operating the
magnet school. The state’s vo-ag centers serve high school students from
multiple sending towns and provide an agricultural career education in
addition to the comprehensive high school education. Open Choice is
an interdistrict enrollment program that allows students in urban
centers to attend school in suburban districts and vice versa.
One magnet school grant is for school board-operated magnets and
the other is for operators that are not school boards, such as an
independent institution of higher education.
Grant Student Weights
For choice program grants, the bill creates the choice program grant
formula, which applies weights for certain students, such as whether the
students are (1) from families that qualify for FRPM or (2) English
language learners.
The weights increase the grant amounts for those students because
the grant amount is produced by multiplying the need student number
by the foundation number. For example, the bill provides for a 30%
weighting for student poverty (i.e., students that qualify for FRPM) for
each of these grants. If 100 students from a district qualify, then, for
grant purposes, those students count as 130 students. This increases the
grant as the weighted number becomes the new student number that is
multiplied by the foundation amount (see below).
Host Magnet and Vo-Ag Grants
Under the bill grants for the magnets operated by a school board (i.e.,
a host magnet) and vo-ag center use similar factors.
Beginning with FY 25, the magnet operator or the vo-ag center get
grants that are the sum of (1) the sending town adjustment factors for 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 5 4/13/23
each sending town added together and (2) the number of in-district
students for the choice program multiplied by the applicable per-
student grant amount (magnet or vo-ag). The sending town is the
student’s town of residence that would otherwise be responsible for
educating the student.
Sending Town Adjustment Factor. The sending town adjustment
factor is the number of the town’s resident choice program students
multiplied by the greater of the sending town’s (1) weighted funding
amount per pupil or (2) total revenue per pupil. The “weighted funding
amount per pupil” is (1) the foundation amount multiplied by a town’s
total need students for the fiscal year before the grant payment year and
(2) the resulting product is divided by the number of a town’s resident
students. The “total revenue per pupil” is the combined per-pupil
amount of state grants and tuition received for choice students for FY
24. This means the FY 24 amounts become the hold harmless minimum
for these grants.
Additional Definitions
Additionally, the bill defines the following terms for purposes of the
new grants:
1. the “foundation” amount is $11,525, which is the same as in ECS
law, although the bill includes an annual personal income or
inflation adjustment for magnet school operators that are not a
board of education, see below;
2. “total need students” means a (a) student poverty weighting (as
under ECS law) of 30% of students eligible for FRPM plus 15% of
any FRPM-eligible students above 60% of the total number of
resident students and (b) 25% of the number of students
identified as English language learners;
3. “resident students” means generally the number of students in a
town enrolled in its public schools at the town’s expense as of
October 1 of each year (as under the ECS law); and
4. “resident choice program students” means the number of part- 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 6 4/13/23
time and full-time students of a town enrolled or participating in
a particular choice program.
Non-Board of Education Magnet Schools
For this grant, a magnet school operator is defined as an entity that is
(1) not a board of education (presumably, this includes regional
educational services centers (RESCs)); (2) a nonprofit private institution
of higher education that has its main campus in the state; or (3) a third-
party nonprofit corporation that the education commissioner approves.
Under the bill, starting in FY 25, these operators are entitled to a grant
that equals the product of the foundation and its total magnet school
program need students, with the added requirement that the grant
cannot be less than the magnet operator received for the total revenue
per pupil for FY 24 (this is similar to the total revenue per pupil hold
harmless provision included in the “sending town adjustment factor”
mentioned above).
The bill creates a formula for calculating total magnet school program
needs students that (1) counts full- and part-time students at the magnet
schools, (2) generally uses the ECS student weighting percentages, and
(3) includes a Sheff region additional student weighting. The foundation
component for this grant also has an annual cost-of-living factor that
potentially increases the foundation from one year to the next.
Student Weighting. The student need weighting reflects the ECS
formula weighting as follows: (1) student poverty weighting is 30% of
students eligible for FRPM plus an additional 15% of any FRPM-eligible
students above 60% of the total number of resident students and (2) a
25% weighting for the number of students who are identified English
language learners.
The bill adds additional student weighting for magnet schools that
are helping the state meet its obligations under the Sheff v. O’Neill
desegregation court decision and related agreements or orders (see
BACKGROUND) . This additional weighting is reduced over a six-year
period from an initial 30% to 20% as shown in the table below.
2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 7 4/13/23
Table: Additional Weighting for Students Attending Sheff Magnets
FY
Weighting
Percentage
25 30%
26 28%
27 26%
28 24%
29 22%
30 and beyond 20%
Foundation Annual Adjustments Starting in FY 26 for Magnet
Schools. The bill adds a foundation cost-of-living increase for magnet
school operators that are not a local or regional board of education,
based on the annual percent increase in personal income or inflation,
whichever is greater, starting in FY 26. For FY 26, the cost-of-living
adjustment is $11,525, adjusted by the appropriate annual percent
increase, and for FY 27 and each following year, it is the previous year’s
amount adjusted by the appropriate annual percent increase.
The bill uses the following statutory definitions for these terms:
1. “increase in personal income” is the compound annual growth
rate of personal income in Connecticut over the previous five
calendar years, using federal Bureau of Economic Analysis data;
and
2. “increase in inflation” is the increase in the consumer price index
for all urban consumers, for all items except food and energy,
during the prior year, using federal Bureau of Labor Statistics
data (CGS § 2-33a).
Open Choice Program
Under the bill, beginning in FY 25, any receiving district that accepts
students in the Open Choice program will be entitled to a grant in the
amount of the sum of the sending town adjustment factor for each
sending town.
§ 3 — ECS, CHOICE PROGRAM, AND CHARTER S CHOOL GRANT
ESTIMATES 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 8 4/13/23
The bill tasks SDE, starting by February 1, 2024, with annually
calculating and giving the relevant operators or towns estimates for the
following grants for the next fiscal year:
1. each choice program grant established under the bill (SDE must
notify each local and regional board of education and magnet
school program operator that is not a local or regional board of
education) and
2. fully funded ECS grants (SDE must notify each town).
The bill also requires SDE, annually starting by February 1, 2024, to
(1) calculate the product of the foundation and the total charter need
students for each state charter school fiscal authority for the next fiscal
year and (2) notify each fiscal authority of the result.
For each of these calculations, the bill requires SDE to calculate
estimates for the next fiscal year using data collected during the current
one.
§§ 4 & 5 — ELIMINATING CURRENT MAGNET SC HOOL GRANT
PROGRAMS AND TUITION
The bill eliminates, beginning with FY 25, the existing per-student
magnet school grants and replaces them with the grants created in the
bill (see § 2). Under current law, a magnet school generally receives a
$3,060 grant for each student from the district that hosts the school
(home district) and, depending on the type of magnet school, one of the
grants listed in the table below for students from sending towns. In
addition to repealing the $3,060 grant for host district students, the bill
repeals all the magnet school grants shown in this table for students
from sending districts.
Table: Magnet School Grants Repealed Under the Bill
Type of Magnet Bill § Current Law Amount for
Sending Students
Non-Sheff host magnet 4(c)(1) $7,227
Non-Sheff RESC magnet with
less than 55% enrollment from
one town
4(c)(3)(A) 8,058 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 9 4/13/23
Type of Magnet Bill § Current Law Amount for
Sending Students
Non-Sheff RESC magnet with
55% or more of enrollment from
one town
4(c)(3)(B) 7,227
RESC magnet that began
operations in the 2001-2002
school year and meets certain
other criteria (i.e., former Edison
Magnet in Meriden)
4(c)(3)(C)(ii) Maximum 8,344 (lower for some
students depending on certain
factors, such as where they live)
Sheff host magnet 4(c)(3)(F) 13,315
RESC magnet enrolling less than
60% of its students from Hartford
(i.e., Sheff magnet)
4(c)(3)(D)(i) 10,652
RESC magnet enrolling less than
50% of its students from Hartford
(i.e., Sheff magnet)
4(c)(3)(D)(ii) 8,058
(for half of the non-Hartford
students enrolled over 50% of
total enrollment)
10,652
(for all the other students)
Magnet operated by independent
institution of higher education
and that meets certain criteria
(Goodwin University)
4(c)(3)(E) 65% of the 10,652 grant for
students enrolled in both
semesters each year
32.5% of 10,652 for those
enrolled in one semester a year
Greater Hartford Academy of the
Arts
4(c)(3)(H) 65% of 8,058 (the grant for
RESC magnets with less than
55% from a single town)
The bill specifies that beginning with FY 25 magnet school operators
are entitled to the new grant as determined under the bill (see § 2).
Tuition Ban and Exception to the Ban
Starting in FY 25, the bill generally prohibits magnet schools from
charging tuition to the towns that send students to the magnets for
grades K to 12. This applies to all the magnet operators: (1) local or
regional boards of education; (2) RESCs; (3) independent higher
education institutions; and (4) any third-party, nonprofit corporation
the education commissioner approves.
Beginning with FY 26, the bill allows any magnet school operator that 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 10 4/13/23
is not a board of education (i.e., a RESC, independent higher education
institution, or approved nonprofit) to charge tuition to a sending town’s
board of education if the operator’s state grant under the bill is not
calculated using the foundation number adjusted for an increase in
personal income or inflation, as the bill requires. However, the tuition
cannot exceed the difference between the amount the operator would be
entitled to receive under the bill using the foundation adjustment
calculation and the amount they will receive. (The bill does not require
SDE to notify magnet school operators when the income/inflation
adjustment is not made, so it is unclear how they would know they are
authorized to charge tuition.)
Whenever one of these operators opts to start charging tuition, it
must notify SDE of the (1) per-student and total tuition charged for the
fiscal year, (2) total amount charged to each sending town, and (3)
school boards for the sending towns that were charged.
The bill requires SDE to annually develop a report of the tuition
charged and submit it annually to the Appropriations and Education
committees by January 1.
Magnet Students and ECS
Under the bill, magnet school students are counted in the town where
they reside for the student count for ECS grants, which codifies current
practice.
§ 6 — CHARTER SCHOOL GRANT INCREASES
The bill increases the per-student state charter school grant for FYs 24
and 25, with state charters receiving full funding in FY 25. By law, the
grants go to the charter school’s governing authority.
Charter Grant Factors
By law, the state charter grant has the same student need weighting
percentages with the same factors (FRPM and English learner status)
that are used in existing ECS law and in the bill for choice grants.
Under current law, the increase in the state grant is a percentage of a
school’s charter grant adjustment, which is the absolute value of the 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 11 4/13/23
difference between the (1) foundation ($11,525) and (2) charter full
weighted funding per student for the state charter schools under a
governing authority’s control for the school year.
The “charter full weighted funding per student” is a value calculated
as (1) the product of the total charter need students and the foundation,
divided by (2) the number of enrolled students under the charter school
governing authority’s control for the school year.
Grant Increases
The current (FY 23) per-student grant for charter school governing
authorities is the foundation amount plus 25.42% of its charter grant
adjustment. Under the bill, the per-student grant is:
1. for FY 24, the foundation plus 36.08% of its charter grant
adjustment and
2. for FY 25 and each year after, the product of the foundation and
the school’s total charter need students (i.e., full funding under
the formula).
Foundation Annual Adjustments Starting in FY 26 for Charter
Schools. The bill adds a foundation cost-of-living increase for charter
school governing authorities based on an annual percent increase in
personal income or inflation, whichever is greater, starting in FY 26 and
for each following year (this is the same method for non-board of
education magnet school annual adjustments in § 2).
§§ 7-9 — ELIMINATING CURRENT VO-AG CENTER GRANTS AND
TUITION
Beginning with FY 25, the bill repeals the current $5,200 per-student
state grant for vo-ag centers and replaces it with the vo-ag choice grant
the bill creates (§ 2). The bill also repeals related supplementary grants
for vo-ag centers ranging from $60 to $500 per student.
Under current law, a vo-ag center can charge the sending towns
tuition for the students they send to the program, but it caps tuition at
59.2% of the foundation ($11,525) used for ECS, resulting in a maximum 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 12 4/13/23
tuition of $6,823. The bill prohibits a vo-ag center from charging this
tuition starting July 1, 2024. However, it maintains a current provision
that allows tuition for educating special education students but only if,
and in the amount, the cost exceeds the state grant received for the
student under the bill.
The bill repeals the requirement that a sending district provide
students in their district an equivalent number of seats from one year to
the next to enroll in the vo-ag program. Current law requires the
districts to (1) make available at least the same number of seats as stated
in any written agreement or, in the absence of one, the average number
enrolled over the last three years and (2) specifically for each ninth-
grade class, make available either the agreement number or the average
number who enrolled in ninth grade in the last three years.
The bill also (1) repeals the mandate on districts that send students to
a vo-ag program to pay tuition and (2) specifies that for a town’s student
count for the ECS grant, a student enrolled in a vo-ag center is counted
in the town where the student resides, which codifies current practice.
§ 10 — ELIMINATING CURRENT OPEN CHOICE G RANT
SCHEDULE
Beginning in FY 25, the bill replaces the current Open Choice grant
schedule with the grant created in the bill (§ 2). Open Choice is a
voluntary inter-district attendance program that allows students
generally from the Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport districts to
attend suburban school districts, and vice versa, on a space-available
basis. SDE provides a per-student grant for school districts that receive
Open Choice students.
Under current law, the grants range from $3,000 to $8,000 per student,
with larger grants for districts that enroll a higher percentage of Open
Choice students. For example, a district receives $3,000 per student if
Open Choice students are less than 2% of its student population. The
grant amount increases incrementally until, at the highest amount, a
district receives $8,000 per student if Open Choice students are at least
4% of the student population. 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 13 4/13/23
The bill relatedly repeals the additional $2,000 per-student grant
given to receiving school districts for each out-of-district student who
resides in the Hartford region (i.e., the Sheff region) and attends school
in a receiving district under the program (see BACKGROUND).
§ 11 — COMMISSION TO STUDY EDUCATION FUNDING A ND
ACCOUNTABILITY MEASU RES
The bill creates the Building Educational Responsibility with Greater
Improvement Networks Commission to study various educational
issues including funding for local school districts, charter schools, and
magnet schools as provided under the bill (§ 2) and accountability
measures for alliance districts (educational reform districts and legacy
alliance districts, under the bill) and charter schools.
The commission study must be presented in two separate parts. The
first part examines school district, charter school, and magnet school
funding entitlements and must include, at a minimum:
1. the compensation, benefits, retention, and recruitment of
teachers, paraprofessionals, and social workers;
2. restrictions on the use of, and reporting requirements for, any
additional funds received under the bill, both ECS funds and the
new grants; and
3. optimal class sizes.
The second part of the study focuses on alliance districts and charter
schools.
For alliance districts, the study must, at a minimum, include an
analysis of how school boards develop alliance district plans and how
they are reviewed and approved by the education commissioner, and
recommendations for narrowing the focus of or replacing the plans. The
study must also consider the following:
1. possibly eliminating the withholding of a portion of an alliance
district’s ECS grant, 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 14 4/13/23
2. the feasibility of creating independent financial audits of the
expenditures under the entire budget of an alliance district’s
school board,
3. the feasibility of requiring alliance district school boards to hold
hearings on interventions and make annual evaluations of any
new programming established in the school district,
4. setting guidelines for the hiring of nonclassroom personnel, and
5. interventions that SDE may take in regard to the operations in
an alliance district.
For charter schools, the study must include, at a minimum:
1. the feasibility of a full grade expansion of existing charters,
including grade expansion;
2. an examination of the impact of moratoriums on any new charter
school approval, as well as new magnet school program
approval; and
3. a consideration of the duration of a charter’s validity and the
State Board of Education’s (SBE) standards used to determine
whether to renew a charter.
Task Force Membership
Under the bill, the education commissioner and the Office of Policy
and Management secretary, or their respective designees, are members.
The table below shows the 16 additional members, what authority
appoints them, and any required organizational affiliations.
Table: Task Force to Study Education Funding Membership and Appointing Authority
Appointing Authority
(Appointments)
Member Organization or Position
House speaker
(three)
• Connecticut Association of Public School
Superintendents representative
• Connecticut Council of Administrators of Special
Education representative
• RESC Alliance representative 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 15 4/13/23
Appointing Authority
(Appointments)
Member Organization or Position
Senate president pro
tempore
(three)
• Connecticut Association of Boards of Education
representative
• Special Education Equity for Kids representative
• Center for Children’s Advocacy representative
House majority leader
(three)
• Connecticut School Counselor Association
representative
• Connecticut Education Association representative
• Superintendent of an alliance district
Senate majority leader
(three)
• American Federation of Teachers-Connecticut
representative
• ConnCAN representative
• School and State Finance Project representative
House minority leader
(two)
• Connecticut Association of School Administrators
representative
• Connecticut Association of School Business Officials
representative
Senate minority leader
(two)
• Connecticut Charter School Association
representative
• Executive director of an agricultural science and
technology education center
Organizational Matters and Report Deadline
The bill requires all initial commission appointments to be made
within 30 days after the bill’s effective date and any subsequent vacancy
to be filled by the appointing authority. The House speaker and Senate
president pro tempore must select the chairpersons from among the
commission members.
The bill requires the chairpersons to schedule the commissioner’s first
meeting, which must be held within 60 days after the bill’s effective
date. The Education Committee’s administrative staff must serve as the
task force’s administrative staff.
The commission must submit the first part of its study, with findings
and recommendations, to the Education and Appropriations
committees by February 1, 2024. It must submit the second and final part
of the study to the Education Committee by January 15, 2025. 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 16 4/13/23
It terminates when it submits the last report or July 1, 2025, whichever
is later.
§§ 12 & 13 — CHARTER SCHOO LS AND THE EDUCATION AL
INTERESTS OF THE STATE
By law, charter schools are required to follow all federal and state
laws governing public schools, with limited exceptions. The bill
explicitly adds that state laws governing public schools includes the
educational interests of the state. It also allows complaints to be brought
to SBE in situations where a resident or a parent alleges the failure or
inability of a charter school to implement the educational interests of the
state. This complaint provision currently applies to local and regional
boards of education.
The existing exceptions allow (1) charter schools to seek an
enrollment lottery waiver from SBE to pursue a school that has a special
student body such as (a) students with a history of behavioral and social
difficulties, (b) English language learners, or (c) students of a single
gender and (2) the commissioner to waiver certain teacher certification
requirements for charter school staff.
Educational Interests of the State and Complaint Process
By law, the educational interests of the state include the requirement
to implement the educational state mandates and that each:
1. child must have equal opportunity to receive a suitable program
of educational experiences as prescribed in law;
2. school district must finance, at a reasonable level at least equal to
the minimum budget requirement required by state law, an
educational program designed to provide suitable educational
experiences; and
3. school district shall provide educational opportunities for its
students to interact with students and teachers from other racial,
ethnic, and economic backgrounds and may provide these
opportunities with students from other communities. 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 17 4/13/23
Complaints must be made to SBE in writing and SBE may initiate a
complaint on its own. If after an investigation, during which the school
board or charter school is given the opportunity to present its case, SBE
can require the school board or charter to develop and plan to address
the situation or take other reasonable steps.
§§ 14-16 — RENAMING THE ALLIAN CE DISTRICTS
Beginning in FY 25, the bill renames the alliance districts and revises
the alliance district program. The term “educational reform district”
replaces “alliance district” and the bill reduces the number of districts
with this designation from 36 to 20. Also, “legacy alliance district”
means a school district for a town that was designated as an alliance
district for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2013, to June 30, 2024,
inclusive. This means the legacy alliance districts include all the
educational reform districts and the 16 other districts that are no longer
designated alliance districts.
Under current law, an alliance district is a school district that is
among the towns with the 33 lowest accountability index (AI) scores as
calculated by SDE. Additionally, the law required the education
commissioner to designate 36 alliance districts for the five-year period
from FYs 23-27. (The additional three included were the three districts
that had been in the 33 lowest, but with the last AI scores, they were no
longer among the 33 lowest.)
The bill requires the education commissioner to designate as
educational reform districts the districts among the towns with the 20
lowest AI scores for two-year period, beginning with FY 25. It also
repeals the current definition of “educational reform district,” which is
an alliance district that is among the 10 lowest AI scores in the state.
Under this program, the comptroller withholds from an alliance
district town any increase in ECS funds that exceed the amount the town
received in 2012 (the year the program began). But, for districts
designated as alliance districts for the first time for FY 23, the
comptroller must withhold ECS funds over the FY 22 amount. The
comptroller transfers the money to the education commissioner to 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 18 4/13/23
withhold until she approves the district’s alliance district application
and plan to improve academic performance.
Under the bill beginning with FY 25 and for each following year, the
amount withheld for the 20 educational reform districts will be the
amount of ECS funds they are entitled to that exceed the amount the
town received in 2012. The 16 districts that are no longer designated as
alliance districts will not have funds withheld.
Existing law requires the alliance districts to spend their alliance
funds (1) according to the plan submitted with the application; (2) on
the minority candidate certification, retention, and residency program;
(3) on ECS spending requirements; and (4) for any other items allowed
under SDE guidelines.
The bill also allows a school district that has not been designated an
educational reform district, but is among the 50 towns with the lowest
AI scores, to request technical assistance or other interventions from
SDE in order to provide student academic support services.
Conforming Changes for ECS and PILOT Funds (§§ 15 & 16)
The bill makes conforming changes by making the same name change
to two laws that reference alliance districts (and otherwise keeps the
provisions unchanged):
1. the ECS funding provision that requires a town designated as a
legacy alliance district or an educational reform district to have a
minimum base aid ratio of 10%, guaranteeing a minimum amount
of aid; and
2. the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) provision for a town
designated as a legacy alliance district or an educational reform
district.
BACKGROUND
Related Bills
sSB 1028 (File 440), favorably reported out by the Education
Committee, sunsets one targeted magnet school grant. 2023HB-05003-R000575-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 19 4/13/23
sSB 1, favorably reported out by the Education Committee, removes
the five-year term on the alliance district designation and allows for the
designation of additional alliance districts.
Accountability Index Score
The “accountability index score” for a school district or an individual
school is the score resulting from multiple weighted measures that (1)
include the mastery test scores (i.e., the performance index score) and
high school graduation rates and (2) may include academic growth over
time, attendance and chronic absenteeism, postsecondary education
and career readiness, enrollment in and graduation from higher
education institutions and postsecondary education programs, civics
and arts education, and physical fitness (CGS § 10-223e(a)).
Sheff v. O’Neill State Supreme Court Decision
In this 1996 decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the
state had a constitutional obligation to remedy the educational
inequities in the Hartford schools caused by racial and ethnic isolation
(Sheff v. O’Neill, 238 Conn. 1 (1996)). The court ordered the state
legislature and the governor to craft a solution and legislation was
passed to create voluntary desegregation in Hartford by creating
magnet schools and using other programs, such as Open Choice.
Sheff Region
This region includes the school districts for the towns of Avon,
Bloomfield, Canton, East Granby, East Hartford, East Windsor,
Ellington, Farmington, Glastonbury, Granby, Hartford, Manchester,
Newington, Rocky Hill, Simsbury, South Windsor, Suffield, Vernon,
West Hartford, Wethersfield, Windsor, and Windsor Locks.
COMMITTEE ACTION
Education Committee
Joint Favorable Substitute
Yea 44 Nay 0 (03/24/2023)