CT ECS

1. CT ECS WHAT IT MEANS TO HARTFORD BY NANCY COLE DEBORAH O’DONNELL ALFRED SOUZA III

2. ECS: UNDERFUNDED FROM THE START THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT HAS NEVER FULLY MET ITS RESPONSIBILITY IN ASSUMING 50% OF THE COST TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE AND SUITABLE EDUCATION FOR ALL STUDENTS

3. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION FLAWS • ECS FUNDING HAS NEVER CONSIDERED COST ADEQUACY STUDIES OR “POWER OF THE DOLLAR” ENTITIES SUCH AS THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX • ECS CONTINUALLY USES INAPPROPRIATE AND OUTDATED DATA • ECS DOES NOT CONSIDER A TOWN’S ABILITY TO RAISE FUNDS TO OFFSET UNDERFUNDING BY THE STATE • ECS FAILS IN TERMS OF BOTH EQUITY AND ADEQUACY. IT DOES NOT DISTRIBUTE FUNDS EQUITABLY NOR DOES IT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL COST FOR AN ADEQUATE EDUCATION

4. ECS: A MODEL UNDER FIRE • KEY COMPONENTS OF THE MODEL • AID RATIO & TOWN WEALTH • FOUNDATION LEVEL • THE CAP

5. HARTFORD: CRISIS COMPONENTS • AID RATIO AND TOWN WEALTH • STATE GUARANTEED WEALTH LEVEL (SGWL) WAS PROPOSED TO BE 2 TIMES MEDIAN TOWN WEALTH • THE SGWL HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 1.55 TIMES MEDIAN TOWN WEALTH • THIS RESULTS IN LESSER STATE GRANTS AND MINIMAL TOWN FUNDING

6. HARTFORD: CRISIS COMPONENTS CONTINUED • FOUNDATION LEVEL • MEAGER PERCENTAGE INCREASES HAVE NOT KEPT UP WITH ACTUAL INCREASES IN EDUCATIONAL COST • THE ECS FOUNDATION LEVEL CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS SERIOUSLY UNDERCUTTING THE FUNDS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE EDUCATION

7. HARTFORD: CRISIS COMPONENTS CONTINUED • THE CAP • THE ECS CAP FURTHER PREVENTS THE ECS MODEL FROM ACHIEVING EQUITY • THE ECS CAP PREVENTS TOWNS FROM RECEIVING THE FULL AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT THE CURRENT FORMULA STATES THEY SHOULD RECEIVE

8. RECOMMENDATIONS • PARTICIPATE IN THE CCJEF LAWSUIT • ADVOCATE FOR: • USE OF CURRENT DATA • A “PHASE-IN” MODEL THAT ULTIMATELY RESULTS IN FULL FUNDING ACCORDING TO BOTH EQUITABLE AND ADEQUATE CRITERIA MEASURES • INCLUSION OF EFFICIENCY MEASURES • CREATE AND MAXIMIZE COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN TOWNS/DISTRICTS • CONSIDER TOWNS’ ABILITY TO RAISE FUNDS • NO CAP!!