Researcher: JM Page 1 4/15/25
OLR Bill Analysis
sSB 1288
AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
SUMMARY
§ 1 — MAGNET SCHOOL ENROLLMENT STANDARDS FOR
OPERATING GRANTS AND MAGNET STUDENT RESI DENCY FOR
ECS GRANTS
Makes permanent (1) magnet school enrollment standards for operating grants and (2) magnet
school students counting in the town they reside in for ECS grant purposes
§ 2 — SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS AND OPEN CHOICE
Clarifies duties for receiving and sending districts participating in Open Choice for special
education students and students with 504 accommodations
§§ 3 & 4 — MAGNET SCHOOL CAPITAL EXPENSES GRANTS
Allows existing grant funds for magnet school capital expenses to be given to Goodwin
University Education Services in addition to RESCs
§ 5 — SHEFF REGION MAGNET SCHOOL TRANSPO RTATION
GRANTS
Changes the calculation for Sheff magnet school transportation grants by eliminating the per-
pupil grant calculation and the supplemental grants structure and instead basing the grants on
actual costs of transportation services
§ 6 — READING INSTRUCTION SURVEY REMOVAL
Removes the reading instruction survey requirement for K-3 teachers
§ 7 — UPDATES TO THE TEACHER EDUCATION A ND MENTORING
(TEAM) PROGRAM
Makes technical and conforming updates to the TEAM program
§ 8 — REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION PROVIDERS TO
PROVIDE BASE TUITION AND COSTS
Requires private special education providers to submit their base tuition and costs for services
for each school year by December 31 of the year before the services will be provided
BACKGROUND
SUMMARY
This bill makes numerous additions and changes to the education 2025SB-01288-R000699-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 2 4/15/25
laws, as described in the section-by section analysis that follows.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2025, except the sections on grants to
Goodwin University Education Services (i.e. Goodwin magnet schools)
are effective upon passage.
§ 1 — MAGNET SCHOOL ENROLLMENT STANDARD S FOR
OPERATING GRANTS AND MAGNET STUDENT RESI DENCY FOR
ECS GRANTS
Makes permanent (1) magnet school enrollment standards for operating grants and (2)
magnet school students counting in the town they reside in for ECS grant purposes
Enrollment Standards
The bill makes permanent the requirement that the education
commissioner consider whether a Sheff magnet school meets the
reduced-isolation (i.e. desegregation) enrollment standards required
under Sheff to award operating grants to the school. Sheff magnet schools
help the state meet its obligations under the Sheff v. O’Neill Connecticut
Supreme Court desegregation decision (see BACKGROUND ).
Under current law, the requirement expires by the end of FY 25. A
magnet school that does not meet the standards may still receive grants
if the commissioner (1) finds it appropriate to award a grant for an
additional year or years and (2) approves a plan to bring the school into
compliance with the standards.
For non-Sheff magnet schools, the bill makes permanent the
prohibition on the commissioner awarding a grant to any magnet that
(1) has more than 75% of the total school enrollment from one school
district (i.e. not enough out-of-district students attending) or (2) does
not have school enrollment that meets the education commissioner’s
magnet school enrollment standards for reduced isolation. Under
current law, this prohibition expires at the end of FY 25. As with the Sheff
magnets, the commissioner can continue grants if it is appropriate and
she approves a plan to bring the school into compliance.
The law sets minimum criteria for the commissioner to use in setting
the reduced isolation standards, including (1) at least 20% of a magnet
school’s enrollment must be reduced isolation students and (2) a 2025SB-01288-R000699-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 3 4/15/25
school’s enrollment may have up to 1% below the minimum percentage
if she approves a plan for the school to reach the 20% minimum or the
percent she established in the standards. It also requires the
commissioner to define “reduced isolation student.”
The act also makes permanent the commissioner’s authority to
impose a financial penalty on a magnet school that does not meet the
reduced-isolation standards for at least two consecutive years.
Specifically, the commissioner may impose the penalty on the school’s
operator or, after consulting with the operator, take other appropriate
steps to help the operator comply. Under current law, this authority
expires at the end of FY 25.
ECS Grants and Magnet School Students
The bill makes permanent counting a magnet school student in the
town where the student lives (rather than in the town that hosts the
magnet school) for education cost sharing (ECS) grant purposes. This
provision is set to expire at the end of FY 25, although it has already
been a long-time State Department of Education (SDE) practice.
ECS grants are per-student grants that depend on, among other
things, the number of resident students for a town. ECS is the largest
form of state education aid to school districts.
§ 2 — SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS AND OPE N CHOICE
Clarifies duties for receiving and sending districts participating in Open Choice for
special education students and students with 504 accommodations
The bill places certain duties on school districts that send or receive
Open Choice students who require special education services. Open
Choice is a voluntary interdistrict attendance program that allows
students from the Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Danbury, and
Norwalk school districts to attend suburban schools, and vice versa, on
a space-available basis. The state awards per-student grants to the
districts that receive Open Choice students.
The bill requires the sending district (district where the student
resides) to hold the planning and placement team (PPT) meeting for the
student and invite representatives from the receiving district to 2025SB-01288-R000699-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 4 4/15/25
participate in the meeting. By law and unchanged by the bill, the
sending district must pay the receiving district for the student’s special
education costs that exceed the state grant amount for the student. PPT
meetings are annual planning meetings held with parents and school
staff to plan services for special education students; the plan they agree
to is known as the student’s individualized education program (IEP).
The bill also requires the receiving district to ensure that out-of-
district students who require special education services receive the
services mandated by the student’s IEP regardless of whether the
services are provided by the sending or receiving district.
504 Accommodations
Under the bill, an Open Choice receiving district must ensure that a
student with a 504 accommodation plan (a plan pursuant to Section 504
of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973) receives the services required
under the plan and the receiving district bears the costs of providing the
services to the student. These accommodations often involve more time
for standardized tests, preferential seating (away from distractions),
assistive technology, and instructional adjustments (visual aids or
alternative methods of instruction).
§§ 3 & 4 — MAGNET SCHOOL CAPITAL EXPENSES GRANTS
Allows existing grant funds for magnet school capital expenses to be given to Goodwin
University Education Services in addition to RESCs
The bill amends two existing SDE bond authorizations for grants for
capital expenses at magnet schools. Under the current authorizations,
the grants may be given to regional educational service centers (RESCs).
The bill additionally allows grants to be given to magnet-school
operator Goodwin University Education Services.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage
§ 5 — SHEFF REGION MAGNE T SCHOOL TRANSPORTAT ION
GRANTS
Changes the calculation for Sheff magnet school transportation grants by eliminating the
per-pupil grant calculation and the supplemental grants structure and instead basing the
grants on actual costs of transportation services 2025SB-01288-R000699-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 5 4/15/25
The bill changes the calculation for transportation grants to magnet
schools that help the state meet its obligations under the Sheff v. O’Neill
desegregation court decision (see BACKGROUND). Under current law,
SDE awards (1) Sheff magnet school transportation grants, in an amount
equal to $2,000 per pupil, and (2) supplemental Sheff magnet school
transportation grants, within available appropriations.
Starting with FY 25, the bill eliminates the supplemental grant and
the per-pupil calculation and instead requires that Sheff magnet
transportation grant amounts equal the actual cost of transportation
services. Under the bill, the grant must be provided within available
appropriations and subject to a comprehensive financial review. By law,
unchanged by the bill, non-Sheff magnet school transportation grants are
calculated based on $1,300 per pupil.
Starting with FY 25, the bill also changes the payment schedule for
grants. Under current law, up to 95% of the grant must be paid by June
30 of that fiscal year based on documentation provided before May 31.
The bill (1) changes the date the remaining 5% is due from September to
November following the fiscal year’s completion and (2) additionally
specifies that 50% of the estimated transportation costs must be paid by
October 31 of the fiscal year.
Lastly, the bill makes technical and conforming changes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2025
§ 6 — READING INSTRUCTION SURVEY REMOVAL
Removes the reading instruction survey requirement for K-3 teachers
The bill removes the reading instruction survey requirement for
certified K-3 teachers. Under current law, local and regional boards of
education (“school boards”) must require their K-3 teachers to take a
biennial survey developed by SDE on reading instruction. SDE’s survey
identifies strengths and weaknesses of the teachers’ reading instruction
practice and knowledge on an individual, school, and district level.
Under current law, results from these surveys must be kept
confidential under the Freedom of Information Act. The bill ensures 2025SB-01288-R000699-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 6 4/15/25
that, with the survey requirement terminated, this confidentiality will
continue to apply to past results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2025
§ 7 — UPDATES TO THE TEACHER EDUCATION A ND MENTORING
(TEAM) PROGRAM
Makes technical and conforming updates to the TEAM program
The bill makes conforming updates to the TEAM program to align
with 2024 changes to the law on educator certification.
The TEAM program provides guided support to new teachers. Under
current law, teachers are eligible for a provisional educator certificate
when they complete the program.
PA 24-41 reduced the number of teacher certification levels from
three to two by eliminating the provisional level as of July 1, 2025
(existing certificates remain valid until expired). The bill makes
conforming changes to the TEAM law by replacing references to
“provisional educator certificate” with “professional educator
certificate” and specifying that these teachers also must meet the law’s
other requirements for professional educator certification.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2025
§ 8 — REQUIREMENT FO R SPECIAL EDUCATION PROVIDERS TO
PROVIDE BASE TUITION AND COSTS
Requires private special education providers to submit their base tuition and costs for
services for each school year by December 31 of the year before the services will be
provided
The bill requires that beginning July 1, 2025, any written contract
entered or amended between a school board and a private special
education provider (see BACKGROUND ) must require the provider to
submit a base tuition and cost for services to the school board for each
school year services are provided (according to the contract).
This submission must occur by December 31 of the year before the
services will be provided (which is prior to school boards’ budget
cycles). 2025SB-01288-R000699-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 7 4/15/25
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2025
BACKGROUND
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
(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 interdistrict magnet
schools and using programs such as Open Choice.
Special Education Services Contracts
The state reimburses school districts for special education costs that
exceed four and a half times the cost of educating a student in that
district (the exact level of reimbursement depends on the state
appropriation for the grant for that fiscal year). This reimbursement is
known as an excess cost grant.
By law, if a district pays a private provider for special education
services, the district must enter a written contract with the provider in
order for those services to be eligible for the excess cost grant.
COMMITTEE ACTION
Education Committee
Joint Favorable Substitute
Yea 32 Nay 12 (03/28/2025)