CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

Lawmakers Look At Loosening Local Funding Requirements Amid Declining School Enrollment

by | Mar 19, 2015 6:12pm () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Education, Taxes, State Capitol

Elizabeth Regan photo House Speaker Brendan Sharkey wants to change a state law that restricts local school districts from decreasing their spending — regardless of enrollment decreases — in order to receive the same amount of state funding.

“In just about every school district in the state of Connecticut, enrollments have declined over the last five years,” said Sharkey, D-Hamden, citing state Education Department data.

On the other hand, local education spending has gone up.

In Sharkey’s district, enrollment decreased by 3.28 percent in 2014 while expenditures rose by 6 percent. In other communities like Essex the disparity was even greater. That town saw a 14.33 percent decline in its student body while its expenditures went up by 8 percent.

“There is a complete disconnect between enrollment and expenditures on education. Part of what is driving that is the MBR,” Sharkey said of the “minimum budget requirement” statute.

Connecticut’s MBR statute requires each school district to budget the same amount for education as it did in the previous fiscal year. Under the current regulations, the state can assess a penalty in its funding for districts that spend less than their previous year’s education budget by more than half of 1 percent.

And officials say that the penalty would be levied at a 2-to-1 ratio, meaning that if a town cut its budget by $50,000 and breaks the one-half of 1 percent threshold, the state could penalize the town by cutting $100,000 from its education grant.

The Education Committee’s new bill, H.B. 7019, would allow municipalities to dip 3 percent below the minimum budget requirement, if necessary, instead of remaining within one-half of 1 percent. Currently, towns can request a waiver, but under the new legislation no waiver would be required. A district facing more significant enrollment declines would have the option to petition the state Education Department to recoup 50 percent of the net current expenditures per student, according to the bill.

Currently, schools serving fewer students than they did the previous year may qualify for partial relief at a rate of $3,000 for each empty seat, according to the Education Department — but the credit maxes out at half of 1 percent of the prior year’s budget.

“Guess how many school districts in our state have actually done that in the last several years?” Sharkey asked legislators. “Answer: none.”

The department’s spokesman, Kelly Donnelly, confirmed that she is not aware of any municipalities that have submitted requests for a reduction in MBR calculations because of declining enrollment.

Sharkey told the committee he would recommend reconsidering the 3 percent threshold, which he said is still low. But he acknowledged the proposed threshold is “workable and probably responsible” when it comes to ensuring that students’ prospects for a quality education are not compromised by voters who don’t want to pay more taxes.

Essex Board of Education Chairman Lon Seidman testified that the current requirement guarantees a difficult discussion when he presents the school board’s spending plan to the Board of Finance.

“I will have to explain to them that because we are making responsible reductions to our budget due to enrollment declines, the MBR mandate requires us to leave in at least $45,000 we would have otherwise reduced,” he said. “Due to the compounding nature of this mandate, I will also need to inform them that we could see this number climb to as much as as $320,000 in five years. That figure is nearly 5 percent of our projected education spending in 2020.”

While many districts bring up unfunded state mandates and increasing contractual obligations as the driving force behind rising budgets, Seidman said the Essex school board was able to craft a lean spending plan this year. He credited the reduction of two full classroom positions, a portion of an administration position, and a decline in the number of special education students. The district also has regionalized many services and sought opportunities for energy savings, he said.

According to Sharkey, situations like the one in Essex exemplify the current paradox in minimum budgeting.

“It doesn’t do much good to create efficiencies in our programs for our local school boards if they can’t decrease their budgets accordingly to reflect the savings,” Sharkey said. “Some of that should get filed back into the education budget for our kids, but some of it can actually be realized in property tax relief, frankly.”

Education Committee co-Chairwoman Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, said it’s important for the state to be flexible in balancing the needs of students with the ability of taxpayers to fund those needs.

“I have a district that’s high performing and has had enrollment decline and would like relief from the MBR,” she said, “but I also have districts where there is that chronic fight every year between our certain taxpayer groups and our education system and it’s really hard to really have the people behind that level of funding for our education system.”

The bill would eliminate the minimum budget requirement completely for the top 10 performing schools as identified by the Education Department.

Sharkey recommended expanding that figure to the top 10 percent of excelling districts.

Rep. Gail Lavielle, R-Wilton, told Sharkey she is familiar with the needs of schools that perform well, such as Wilton and Westport, and those that don’t, such as Norwalk. She said exempting the top performers from the minimum budget requirement benefits the whole state.

“Contrary to what people think, it’s not giving them something special. It’s actually freeing up resources for the districts that need them,” Lavielle said.

Sharkey said the minimum budget requirement is “is hurting us fundamentally and we have to recognize that there’s a new world that we’re facing.”

Tags: , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |


(6) Archived Comments

posted by: art vandelay | March 19, 2015  8:11pm

art vandelay

I can’t believe the Democrats are actually thinking about this.  It’s about time.  Too many people living in their homes on fixed incomes are being forced out due to minimum education requirements.  It’s about time.

posted by: LE 2015 | March 19, 2015  8:29pm

This is actually a good idea.

posted by: NoNonsense | March 19, 2015  9:57pm

This is a GREAT idea! It’s about time! The education budget keeps going up, up, up year after year, and the percentage of the total budget for education keeps going up and up and up. And as a result, even if the general government side of the budget gets cut or stays the same, the property taxes go up and up and up. It’s simply not sustainable. Something’s gotta give!

posted by: Biff Winnetka | March 19, 2015  11:55pm

Driving a stake through the heart of the school district minimum budgeting requirement is long overdue.

More power needs to be de-centralized back down to the municipality level.

Oh…and maybe let’s take a look at WHY school enrollment is declining across the state.  Has anyone in Hartford taken a look at the Census data for CT?  The state is bleeding people.  Anyone care to address THAT elephant in the room?

posted by: dano860 | March 20, 2015  8:09am

Overdue, long overdue!
With declining student population in a large number of small towns this only makes sense.
The next thing that the State should do is review all the applications that they receive for remodeling and new construction with an eye towards consolidation those towns with neighboring towns. Especially if the schools are all within a 5 mile radius of each other too.
We have a town with fewer than 300 students in the high school that really needed to send them to other area schools that have the capacity. Instead we are spending $15M to rebuild a shabby school into a a less shabby school. Of course the State is on the hook for 70% of the cost so that makes it O.K. If the town was made to fund the whole thing it would have never happened. They would have consolidated with the three towns that are actively seeking more students. Again all of the optional schools are within a 5 mile radius of the one being modified.

posted by: justsayin | March 20, 2015  11:53am

Is anyone else concerned that this is a revaltion? just get it done.

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages