Following a decision by a Superior Court
judge, soon to be reviewed by the state's Supreme Court, that the Democratic Party constructed system was unconstitutional, Malloy
was moved to radically alter state funding of education in Connecticut, and the
Democratic product was made more progressive. “On average,” Fox news reported, “22.24
percent of municipal expenditures are funded with revenue from the state.
The 54 non-alliance towns with a greater reliance on state funding, above the
22.24 percent statewide average, will receive a portion their Fiscal Year 17
ECS [Education Cost Sharing] grant, and the 85 municipalities that have a lower reliance on state funding
will receive no ECS grant.”
Malloy cut state education funding to zero in 85
municipalities, presumably “rich” municipalities, and moved those funds to presumably
“poor” municipalities. By way of
comparison, UConn state funding was cut only 18 percent. In Connecticut, the poor
municipalities include Connecticut’s three large cities, long-time Democratic
bastions, such as Hartford, now on the brink of declaring bankruptcy,
Bridgeport and New Haven. State education funding permits the party in power in
the General Assembly to favor their own voting blocks.
Now, it so happens that Hartford, under the unreformed system, was given more money by the
state in education funding than, say, New Canaan, swimming in wealth. So it is
not strictly true that the apportioning of state education funding favored all
rich towns at the expense of all poor towns – which would be the case if
educational funding were supported entirely through property taxes. Were that
the case, Hartford would have declared bankruptcy decades ago. The state of
Connecticut off-sets, through compensating tax grants, revenue lost by the state’s
larger cities, because some properties are tax exempt, which is one reason why
per pupil expenditure is greater in Hartford, a poor community, than New Canaan,
a rich community.
If one considers the distribution of educational tax
dollars, the present system, fashioned by a Democrat dominated General
Assembly, is not unconstitutionally inequitable. If one considers the
educational product, however, Connecticut’s public school educational system is
dramatically inequitable: test scores of students graduating from New Canaan
High School are much higher than the test scores of students graduating from
Hartford’s public school system. New Haven, of course, boasts that its Amistad Academy,
which draws from the same pool of students as New Haven’s public schools,
scores higher than New Canaan and graduates from colleges a slightly higher
number of students than New Canaan. Successful charter schools in Connecticut
are under financed by 17 percent, a financing gap written into the statutes
that created the state’s charter school system.
Successful charter schools such as the Amistad Academy are living rebukes to failing public school systems in Connecticut’s larger cities.
Underfinanced, they produce a superior educational product and challenge the
notion that students in inner-city public schools cannot succeed because their
social situations are disruptive – which, of course is true. Many studies show
a causal connection between the successes in school of African American boys in
particular and the presence of working fathers in households. Many other
studies show that success in public school is not determined principally by
pupil expenditures. Catholic parochial schools in cities spend far less per
pupil than public schools, and the success rate in parochial schools is far
more impressive. St. Augustine, Hartford's last Catholic school, closed several
months ago, and Achievement First, which runs several successful charter
schools in Connecticut’s inner cities, including Amistad Academy, will be
opening no more new charter schools in the state because the state shorted successful
charter schools by 17 percent.
Connecticut’s problems are largely political; the worst kind
of party politics snakes through nearly all Democratic policy prescriptions.
Democrats do not want to surrender their voting advantage among state union
workers or among party activists in the state’s larger cities. That is why a
bailout for Hartford rather than bankruptcy proceedings, which would clear the decks
for more broadly . . .
To read the rest of Don's commentary, visit his blog, "Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State".
No comments:
Post a Comment
Authors of comments and posts are solely responsible for their statements. Please email MiddletownInsider@gmail.com for questions or concerns. This blog, (and any site using the blogger platform), does not and cannot track the source of comments. While opinions and criticism are fine, they are subject to moderator discretion; slander and vile attacks of individuals will not to be tolerated. Middletown Insider retains the right to deny any post or comment without explanation.