Researcher: JM Page 1 4/22/24
OLR Bill Analysis
sHB 5212
AN ACT CONCERNING EDUCATION FUNDING.
SUMMARY
This bill makes significant changes to four major education funding
grant programs for (1) interdistrict magnet schools, (2) regional
agricultural science and technology centers (i.e., “vo-ag centers”), (3)
Open Choice enrollment, and (4) state charter schools.
The bill eliminates, beginning with FY 25, the existing magnet school
and vo-ag center grants, and beginning with FY 26, the existing Open
Choice grant, and replaces them with new grants under the choice
program, which the bill creates (§ 1).
It uses a two-year phase-in period to fully implement the new grants.
For FY 25, the new grants for magnet schools and vo-ag centers are
partially phased-in and beginning in FY 26 they are fully implemented.
For the Open Choice Program, the new grant is fully implemented
beginning FY 26 (there is no change to current law for the grant in FY
25) (§ 1).
Under the bill, 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 the Open Choice
inter-district school attendance program. The choice program also
creates a grant for any magnet school operated by an entity that is not a
board of education, such as an independent institution of higher
education (§ 1).
The bill uses student need weightings in the choice program grants
that mirror existing law’s weighting for education cost sharing (ECS)
grants and charter school grants. This gives additional weight for
students eligible for free or reduced-priced meals or free milk (FRPM) 2024HB-05212-R000598-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 2 4/22/24
or designated as an English language learner. By doing this, these grants
give added funding for students that meet those criteria (§ 1).
Also beginning in FY 26, the bill generally prohibits magnet schools
and vo-ag centers from charging tuition to the towns that send students
to them. It keeps the limit on tuition for FY 25 that magnet schools and
vo-ag centers can charge at no more than 58% of the tuition charged for
FY 24 (§§ 3, 4 & 6).
Under existing law, the per-student state charter school grant
increases for FY 25 but will not be fully funded. The bill requires the
grant to be fully funded beginning with FY 26 (§ 5).
The bill adds a cost-of-living increase, starting in FY 27, 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 (§§ 1 & 5).
Finally, the bill requires the State Department of Education (SDE), by
June 30, 2024, and by each February 1 after that, to calculate and give
estimates to the relevant operators or towns for the new grants. It creates
a similar estimate requirement for SDE regarding ECS and state charter
school grants (§ 2).
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2024, except that the provisions on SDE’s
duty to calculate grant estimates and vo-ag grants for FY 24 are effective
upon passage.
§ 1 — NEW CHOICE PROGRAM GRANT S
Beginning with FY 25, the bill annually provides choice program
grants for vo-ag centers and two different interdistrict magnet school
grants, based on who operates the magnet school. Beginning in FY 26, it
provides choice program grants for school districts participating in the
Open Choice program.
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 2024HB-05212-R000598-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 3 4/22/24
interdistrict enrollment program that allows students in urban centers
to attend school in suburban districts and vice versa.
Under the bill, 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. By law, an inter-
district magnet school (i.e., magnet school) must (1) enroll no more than
75% of its students from the same district with at least 25% coming from
other districts; (2) maintain an enrollment that meets state standards for
a reduced-isolation setting; (3) support racial, ethnic, and economic
diversity; and (4) enroll students who are at least half time.
Grant Student Weights
For choice program grants, the bill creates a grant formula that
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 uses 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 those students
count as 130 students for grant purposes. 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. The bill partially
implements the new grant in FY 25 and fully implements it beginning
in FY 26.
FY 25 Grant. For FY 25, the new amount the magnet operator or vo-
ag center receives must be (1) the grant they would receive with the FY
24 grant method (current law) using FY 25 enrollment plus (2) 42% of
the difference between the fully funded new grant (see below for FY 26)
and the amount they would have received if using the FY 24 method. 2024HB-05212-R000598-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 4 4/22/24
FY 26 Grant. Beginning with FY 26 and for each following year, a
magnet operator or vo-ag center must get a grant that is the sum of the
(1) sending town adjustment factors for each sending town added
together and (2) number of in-district students for the choice program
multiplied by the applicable per-student grant (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 the (1) foundation amount multiplied by a town’s
total need students for the fiscal year before the grant payment year and
(2) resulting product divided by the number of a town’s resident
students. The “total revenue per pupil” is the sum of the (1) per-pupil
amount of state grants for FY 24; (2) tuition received for choice students
for FY 24; and (3) where appropriate, tuition received for children in a
regional educational service center (RESC)-operated preschool program
at a magnet school 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 the new grants:
1. the “foundation” amount is $11,525, which is the same as in ECS
law, with an annual adjustment (based on the percent increase in
inflation or personal income) beginning in FY 27 for magnet
school operators that are not a board of education (see below);
2. “total need students” is a student poverty weighting (as under
ECS law) of (a) 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” is generally the number of students in a town 2024HB-05212-R000598-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 5 4/22/24
enrolled in its public schools at the town’s expense as of October
1 of each year (as under the ECS law);
4. “resident choice program students” is the number of part-time
and full-time students of a town enrolled or participating in a
particular choice program; and
5. “out-of-district student” is a student (a) enrolled or participating
in a choice program operated or maintained by a local or regional
board of education and (b) who does not reside in the town or a
member town of the local or regional board.
Non-Board of Education Magnet Schools
For this grant, a magnet school operator is an entity that is (1) not a
board of education (presumably, this includes 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.
The bill partially implements the new grant in FY 25 and fully
implements it beginning in FY 26.
FY 25 Grant. Under the bill, a magnet school operator that is not a
board of education is entitled to a grant for FY 25 that is (1) the grant
amount they would receive with the FY 24 grant method (current law)
using FY 25 student enrollment plus (2) 42% of the difference between
the fully funded new grant (see below) and the amount they would have
received using the FY 24 method with the FY 25 enrollment.
The bill includes a specific hold harmless provision for FY 25 grants
for operators that are not boards of education. Under the bill, if the FY
25 grant plus the tuition received by the operator is less than the total
revenue per student for FY 24, then the operator receives a hold
harmless grant that is the sum of (1) the new grant as calculated above
and (2) the difference between (a) total revenue per pupil for FY 24 and
(b) the new grant plus tuition.
FY 26 Grant. Under the bill, starting in FY 26, these operators are 2024HB-05212-R000598-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 6 4/22/24
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 operator received for the total revenue
per pupil for FY 24 (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
need 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 (see
BACKGROUND) . 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 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 identified as English language
learners.
The bill includes additional student weighting for magnet schools
that help the state meet its obligations under the Sheff v. O’Neill
desegregation decision and related agreements or orders (see
BACKGROUND). This additional weighting is reduced over a six-year
period from 30% to 20%, as shown in the table below.
Table: Additional Weighting for Students Attending Sheff Magnets
FY
Weighting
Percentage
25 & 26 30%
27 28%
28 26%
29 24%
30 22%
31 and beyond 20%
2024HB-05212-R000598-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 7 4/22/24
Foundation Annual Adjustments Starting in FY 27 for Magnet
Schools. Starting in FY 27, the bill adds a foundation cost-of-living
increase for magnet school operators that are not a local or regional
board of education, in years when there is an increase in income or
inflation.
For FYs 25 and 26 the foundation is $11,525 (the current ECS
foundation amount). For FY 27, the foundation is $11,525 plus any
annual percent increase in personal income or inflation, whichever is
greater. For FY 28 and each following year, the foundation is the
previous year’s amount adjusted by the annual percent increase in
income or inflation, whichever is greater.
For this calculation, an “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 an “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 26, any receiving district that accepts
students in the Open Choice program is entitled to a grant in the amount
of the sum of the sending town adjustment factor for each sending town.
§ 2 — CHOICE PROGRAM, ECS, AND CHARTER SCHOOL G RANT
ESTIMATES
The bill requires SDE, by June 30, 2024, to calculate and give the
relevant operators or towns estimates for the following grants for the
next fiscal year (FY 25):
1. each choice program grant the bill establishes (SDE must notify
each local and regional board of education and inter-district
magnet school program operator that is not a local or regional
board of education),
2. ECS grants (SDE must notify each town), and 2024HB-05212-R000598-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 8 4/22/24
3. charter school grants (SDE must notify the fiscal authority for
each school).
The bill also requires SDE to annually prepare the estimates by
February 1 for the choice program and charter school grants, and by
December 31 for the ECS grants.
For each of these calculations, SDE must calculate the estimates for
the next fiscal year using data collected during the current one.
§§ 3 & 4 — MAGNET SCHOOL GRANT PROGRAMS AND TUITION
Beginning with FY 25, the bill eliminates the current per-student
magnet school grants and replaces them with the grants created in the
bill (see § 1). Under current law, a magnet school generally receives a
$3,060 state 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 2023,
the legislature added a provision, beginning in FY 25, that instead sets
these amounts as the minimum per-student grant amounts, which
allows SDE to increase the grants within available appropriations.
In addition to repealing the $3,060 grant for host district students, the
bill repeals all the magnet school grants shown in the following table for
students from sending districts.
Table: Magnet School Grants Repealed Under the Bill
Type of Magnet Bill § Current Law Minimum Amount
for Sending Students
Non-Sheff host magnet 3(c)(1) $7,227
Non-Sheff RESC magnet with less
than 55% enrollment from one town
3(c)(3)(A) 8,058
Non-Sheff RESC magnet with 55% or
more of enrollment from one town
3(c)(3)(B) 7,227
Sheff host magnet 3(c)(3)(F) 13,315
RESC magnet enrolling less than 60%
of its students from Hartford (i.e.,
Sheff magnet)
3(c)(3)(D)(i) 10,652
RESC magnet enrolling less than 50%
of its students from Hartford (i.e.,
Sheff magnet)
3(c)(3)(D)(ii) 8,058
(for half of the non-Hartford
students enrolled over 50% of 2024HB-05212-R000598-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 9 4/22/24
Type of Magnet Bill § Current Law Minimum Amount
for Sending Students
total enrollment)
10,652
(for all the other students)
Magnet operated by independent
institution of higher education and that
meets certain criteria (Goodwin
University)
3(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 3(c)(3)(H) 65% of 8,058 (the grant for
RESC magnets with less than
55% from a single town)
The bill eliminates the requirement that magnet school programs
operating at least half-time, but at less than full-time, receive a grant
equal to 65% of what a full-time program would receive. (The bill’s
provisions on choice grants (§ 1) treat half-time students the same as
full-time students.)
By law and unchanged by the bill, the total grant SDE pays to a
magnet school operator must not exceed the aggregate of the operator’s
reasonable operating budget, less revenue from other sources, and SDE
must make these grants within available appropriations.
Tuition Ban and Exception to the Ban
Under current law, beginning in FY 25, magnet school operators can
charge up to 58% of the FY 24 tuition to the towns that send students to
the magnets for grades kindergarten to 12. (For FY 24, as in earlier years,
tuition was determined as the difference between the (1) average per
pupil expenditure for the magnet school for the previous year and (2)
total per pupil grant amount received from the state and any other
revenue from other sources on a per pupil basis.)
Under the bill, magnet school operators can charge up to 58% of the
FY 24 tuition to the towns that send students to the magnets only for FY
25. Beginning in FY 26, they are generally barred from charging tuition
(see exception, below). This applies to all magnet operators (i.e., (1) local
or regional boards of education; (2) RESCs; (3) independent higher 2024HB-05212-R000598-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 10 4/22/24
education institutions; (4) the Hartford school district operating the
Great Path Academy on behalf of Manchester Community College, and
(5) any third-party, nonprofit corporation the education commissioner
approves).
Beginning with FY 27, the bill allows any magnet school operator that
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
school board 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 starts charging tuition, it must
notify SDE about 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 on the tuition
charged and submit it to the Appropriations and Education committees
by January 1.
Magnet Preschool Tuition Charged to Parents
Currently, RESC magnets (both in and outside the Sheff region) may
charge FY 24 tuition of up to $4,053 to parents or guardians of children
attending preschool, but they cannot charge tuition to any parent or
guardian with a family income at or below 75% of the state median
income. Beginning in FY 25, current law limits the tuition amount to no
more than 58% of the tuition charged during FY 24. The bill keeps the
58% limit in FY 25, and entirely bans tuition charged to parents
beginning in FY 26. 2024HB-05212-R000598-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 11 4/22/24
The bill creates the same tuition provisions mentioned above (58%
tuition limit for FY 25, ban on charging tuition in FY 25 to any family
below 75% of the state median income, and tuition ban for following
years) for an independent higher education institution or an approved
nonprofit operating a preschool as part of a magnet school.
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.
§ 5 — CHARTER SCHOOL GR ANT INCREASES
The bill requires the per-student state charter school grant to be fully
funded beginning with FY 26. By law, the grants go to the charter
school’s governing authority. Starting with FY 27, the bill adds a
foundation cost-of-living adjustment for the charter school grant that is
the same adjustment for magnet operators that are not boards of
education. (In Connecticut there are state and local charter schools. Only
state charter schools get a direct grant from the state. Local charters, of
which there is only one, are funded as part of the local board of
education budget.)
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)
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
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. Total charter need 2024HB-05212-R000598-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 12 4/22/24
students includes the weighting for FRPM and English learner status.
Grant Increases
The current (FY 24) per-student grant for charter school governing
authorities is the foundation amount plus 36.08% of its charter grant
adjustment. Under current law, the per-student grant for FY 25 and each
following year is the foundation plus 56.7% of the charter grant
adjustment.
The bill leaves the grant unchanged for FY 25, but for FY 26 and each
following year it makes the per-student grant for each charter school the
foundation multiplied by the total charter need students.
Foundation Annual Adjustments. Starting in FY 27, the bill adds a
foundation cost-of-living increase for state charter school governing
authorities based on an annual percent increase in personal income or
inflation, whichever is greater (using the same method for non-board of
education magnet school annual adjustments in § 1).
§§ 6-8 & 10 — VO-AG CENTER GRANTS AND TUITION
Beginning with FY 25, the bill repeals the current $5,200 per-student
state grant minimum for vo-ag centers and replaces it with the vo-ag
choice grant the bill creates (§ 1). It 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, up to 59.2% of the
foundation ($11,525) used for ECS, resulting in a maximum tuition of
$6,823. Beginning with FY 25, current law prohibits a vo-ag center from
charging tuition that is more than 58% of the amount a vo-ag center
charged in FY 24.
Beginning with FY 26 and for the following years, the bill generally
bans a vo-ag center from charging tuition to a sending district. It keeps
the law’s provision that allows charging tuition for special education
students but only if, and in the amount, the cost exceeds the state grant
received for the student under the bill. 2024HB-05212-R000598-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 13 4/22/24
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 make available (1) at least the same number of seats as 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, either the agreement number or the average number who
enrolled in ninth grade in the last three years.
The bill also (1) repeals the requirement for 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.
For vo-ag grants under current law, the bill removes the requirement
that they be within available appropriations for FY 24.
§ 9 — ELIMINATING CURRENT OPEN CHOICE GRANT SCHEDULE
Beginning in FY 26, the bill replaces the current Open Choice grant
schedule with the grant the bill creates (§ 1). It keeps current law’s Open
Choice grants in place for FY 25.
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 gives a per-student grant to school
districts that receive Open Choice students.
Under current law, the grant minimum ranges 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 at
least $3,000 per student if Open Choice students are less than 2% of its
student population and the 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.
Beginning with FY 26, the bill relatedly repeals the additional $2,000 2024HB-05212-R000598-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 14 4/22/24
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 (see BACKGROUND).
BACKGROUND
Related Bill
sHB 5416, favorably reported by the Education and Appropriations
committees, includes a requirement for SDE to annually give each town
an estimate of its ECS grant for the next fiscal year.
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 Change of Reference - APP
Yea 45 Nay 0 (03/06/2024)
Appropriations Committee
Joint Favorable Substitute
Yea 52 Nay 0 (04/04/2024)