me & ct - cher€¦ · me & ct •master’s in ed psych from uconn (a very long time ago)...

7/17/2019

1

School Finance Myths and Realities -The State of School Funding Across the States and Why it Matters

Me & CT• Master’s in Ed Psych from UCONN

(a very long time ago) Spent most of my time touring

w/UCONN Jazz Ensemble

• In first course of my doctoral program (before I knew I was even in a doctoral program), wrote my first paper on CT School Finance (1990s)

• Frequently conspire with UCONN Professor Preston Green

• Testified in CCJEF v. Rell on behalf of plaintiff districts

7/17/2019

2

Themes (from the book)• Money matters!

• Money translates primarily to human resources Trade-off between quantity and wage There are no magical substitutes Tech-based solutions? Public district, charter and private schools allocate resources largely the same! Running multiple systems in a common space induces inefficiency

• School spending has not grown out of control for decades! During bad times, school spending stagnates or even declines But during good times, at least in recent cycles, spending doesn’t rebound

• School spending varies substantially across states! For a variety of reasons Some states have really thrown public schooling under the bus

Core Principles1. Proper funding is a necessary condition for educational

success: Competitive educational outcomes require adequate resources, and improving educational outcomes requires additional resources.

2. The cost of providing a given level of educational quality varies by context: Equal educational opportunity requires progressive distribution of resources, targeted at students and schools that need them most.

3. The adequacy and fairness of education funding are largely a result of legislative policy choices: Good school finance policy can improve student outcomes, whereas bad policy can hinder those outcomes.

7/17/2019

3

Core concepts• Equity of Nominal (Dollar) Inputs And neutrality with respect to local wealth

• Equity of “Real Resources” Requires adjusting dollar inputs for the price of

comparable resources (competitive wages)

• Equal Opportunity (to achieve a given outcome level) Requires considering that certain children under certain

circumstances require more resources than do others to achieve common outcomes

• Equal Opportunity to Achieve Adequate Outcomes Sets a specific outcome bar to equal opportunity

Money matters myths!• Clouds of doubt

Weak correlation between spending and outcomes? More thorough statistical analysis finds otherwise!

• The Long Term Trend Spending has doubled and performance is flat?

But a) spending hasn’t doubled and b) performance isn’t flat!

AND, more thorough statistical analysis finds otherwise!

• International Comparisons We spend more than any other nation (in the world, ever!) and get little, by comparison, in return?

Just no!

Spending figures most frequently cited simply not comparable (do not cover comparable range of costs/services)

Numerous other relevant factors invariably left out of comparisons.

• How money is spent matters more than how much? But, if you don’t have it, you can’t spend it!

(assumes flexibility in trade-offs between staffing quality/quantity)

LAUSD Class Size / Teacher Wage problem

7/17/2019

4

The “Long Term Trend”The specious claim that school spending has risen dramatically over time coinciding with virtually no change in student outcomes

THE GRAPH!

7/17/2019

5

7/17/2019

6

https://www.educationnext.org/could-disappointing-2017-naep-scores-due-to-great-recession/

What the research actually tells us

• Recent national school finance studies (Jackson et al., Lafortune & Rothstein, Candelaria& Shores) Substantial and sustained state school finance reforms have led to improved short term and

long term student outcomes The funding increases which led to improved student outcomes generally led to a) smaller

class sizes and b) more competitive teacher wages Studies of recession era cuts are revealing short run declines in student outcomes

• State specific school finance reform studies (MI, MA, KS, VT, CA) Several state specific longitudinal studies have revealed positive effects of increased funding

on student outcomes, from test scores to graduation rates

• Resources that matter for student outcomes cost money Smaller class sizes matter More competitive teacher compensation matters High Quality pre-school programs matter

• Recent overview from Matt Barnum: https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2018/12/17/does-money-matter-education-schools-research/

7/17/2019

7

ACTUAL Long Term National Trends & Cycles

$5,3

32

$5,2

29

$5,4

17

$5,5

95

$5,6

83

$6,0

66

$6,3

83

$6,7

56

$7,2

15

$7,5

42

$7,8

61

$8,1

28

$8,5

14

$8,9

48

$9,4

51

$10,

043

$10,

277

$10,

381

$10,

384

$10,

398

$10,

493

$10,

787

$11,

159

$11,

523

$11,

960

$6,7

48

$6,5

29

$6,5

07

$6,3

88

$6,4

71

$6,5

81

$6,6

00

$6,6

16

$6,7

99

$6,7

38

$6,8

39

$6,8

31

$6,9

52

$7,0

38

$7,1

90

$7,3

49

$7,3

63

$7,2

90

$7,1

76

$7,1

03

$7,0

59

$7,1

35

$7,0

01

$7,0

47

$7,1

46

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Per

Pu

pil

Sp

end

ing

Year

Nominal and Adjusted Per Pupil Spending

Nominal Adjusted for Labor Costs

Recession (but housing/ property values continue to grow)

RecessionTech Boom Recovery?Recession

Note: *Education Comparable Wage Index (http://bush.tamu.edu/research/faculty/Taylor_CWI/)Source: Baker et al., School Funding Fairness Data System.

7/17/2019

8

4.34

%4.

14%

4.03

%4.

03%

3.89

%3.

82%

3.82

%3.

70%

3.77

% 3.91

%3.

98%

3.98

%4.

02%

4.13

% 4.30

%4.

21%

4.26

%4.

16%

4.21

%4.

19%

4.15

%4.

18%

4.25

%4.

22% 4.36

%4.

49%

4.52

%4.

51%

4.47

%4.

42%

4.46

%4.

55%

4.80

%4.

57%

4.25

%4.

04%

4.01

%3.

92%

3.88

%3.

88%

3.00%

3.20%

3.40%

3.60%

3.80%

4.00%

4.20%

4.40%

4.60%

4.80%

5.00%

1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012

Sh

are

of P

erso

nal

In

com

e

Year

Direct Expenditure on Education as a Percent of Personal Income(E027) Elem Educ-Direct Exp

Suggested Citation: State & Local Government Finance Data Query System. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/slf-dqs/pages.cfm. The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. Data from U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, Government Finances, Volume 4, and Census of Governments (Years). Date of Access: (05-Jul-19 08:37 PM)

5.73 5.75 5.

78

5.74

5.88

6.03

6.17 6.19

6.30

6.30

6.25

6.24

6.37 6.

40

6.34

6.49

6.42

6.25

6.24

6.23

6.24 6.

26 6.29

6.29

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Tea

cher

s pe

r 10

0 P

upi

ls

Year

Teachers per 100 Pupils


Recession

Tech Boom

Recovery?

www.schoolfinancedata.org

7/17/2019

9

78.6%

77.9% 79.0%

79.6% 80.6%

83.1% 84.1%

82.4% 83.3%

84.6%

82.0%

82.6%

82.4%

82.6%

83.9%

88.5%

87.2%

86.9%

85.4%

80.9%

78.8%

78.1%

76.3%

76.5% 77.4% 78.3%

76.4%

75.9% 77.0%

77.2%

78.5%

80.1%

78.8%

78.4%

78.1%

77.2%

77.2%

74.0%

76.0%

78.0%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Teacher wages as % of all college graduate wages

Year

RATIO OF TEACHER WEEKLY WAGES TO COLLEGE‐EDUCATED NONTEACHER WEEKLY WAGES

Notes: "College graduates" excludes public school teachers, and "all workers" includes everyone (including public school teachers and college graduates). Wages are adjusted to 2015 dollars using the CPI‐U‐RS. Data are for workers aged 18–64 with positive wages (excluding self‐employed workers). Nonimputed data are not available for 1994 and 1995; data points for these years have been extrapolated and are represented by dotted lines (see Appendix A for more detail).


RecessionTech Boom

Recovery?

66.0%

66.1%

66.5%

66.1%

66.2%

66.2%

66.4%

66.3%

65.9%

65.8%

65.0%

64.0%

63.1%

62.3%

62.1%

61.5%

62.0%

61.8%

61.0%

60.6%

60.4%

59.7%

59.1%

15.0%

15.4%

15.7%

15.9%

17.6%

17.2%

16.8%

16.9%

17.0%

17.1%

17.8%

18.6%

19.3%

19.6%

20.0%

20.4%

21.1%

20.8%

21.2%

21.5%

21.7%

22.1%

22.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

% of Curren

t Sp

ending

Year

Long‐term trends on salaries and benefits as percentage of current spending

Salaries & Wages Benefits Combined % Current Spending

7/17/2019

10

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

% DIFFERNCE OVER

PRIOR YEA

R

YEAR

VOLATILITY OF TAX REVENUES BY SOURCE

Property tax Sales tax Income tax

Sources: State and Local Government Finance Data Query System, The Urban Institute–Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/slf-dqs/pages.cfm; US Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, Government Finances, Vol. 4, and Census of Governments (1990–2014)


Recession

Tech Boom

Recovery?

Interstate Variation

7/17/2019

11

Evaluating School Finance SystemsEffort: All else being equal, more effort is better, particularly for states with less capacity. Conversely, however, states with larger economies may not require as much effort as states with smaller economies.

Adequacy: In light of widespread agreement that educational outcomes in the U.S. must improve, we assert, as a general principle, that allocating more resources to schools is better. However, states should also provide resources to schools that are commensurate with achieving common outcomes or improvement toward those outcomes.

Progressivity: States’ allocation of resources should be progressive -–i.e., districts serving more high-needs students should receive more revenue. The optimal degree of progressivity, however, might depend on factors such as the amount of inequality of education outcomes (for example, states with large achievement gaps might allocate resources more progressively)

Dude, look at that scatterplot!Love this stuff!

He’s at it again Jazzman!

You’re telling me? Glad I’m done with

that Ph.D!

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

Arizona

Florida

Haw

aii

Idah

o

Tennessee

North Carolin

a

Nevada

Colorado

Marylan

d

California

South Dakota

Massachusetts

Indiana

Oklah

oma

Virginia

Washington

Utah

Orego

n

Connecticut

Michigan

New Ham

pshire

Missouri

Illinois

Alabam

a

Wisconsin

Louisiana

Montana

Maine

Ken

tucky

Kan

sas

Texas

Minnesota

Delaware

Mississippi

Arkan

sas

Pen

nsylvan

ia

Geo

rgia

South Carolin

a

Ohio

Rhode Island

New M

exico

Iowa

West Virginia

North Dakota

Nebraska

New Jersey

Vermont

New York

Alaska

Wyo

ming

Fiscal Effort 2016

Share of GSP Share of Income

7/17/2019

12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Arizona

Oklah

oma

Colorado

Geo

rgia

Kan

sas

Washington

New Ham

pshire

North Carolin

a

Texas

Virginia

District of Columbia

Utah

Missouri

Orego

n

Alabam

a

Indiana

South Carolin

a

Minnesota

Tennessee

Louisiana

Ken

tucky

Arkan

sas

Connecticut

Wisconsin

Delaware

Illinois

Nebraska

New M

exico

Marylan

d

Mississippi

Michigan

Nevada

Massachusetts

Florida

California

Ohio

West Virginia

Idah

o

Alaska

Maine

South Dakota

Iowa

North Dakota

Vermont

Haw

aii

New Jersey

New York

Wyo

ming

Pen

nsylvan

ia

Montana

Rhode Island

Teacher Wage Competitiveness

Age 25 Age 35 Age 55

AL

AK

AZ

ARCACO

CT

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

INIA

KS

KY

LA

MEMD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MOMT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PARI

SC

SDTN

TX

UT

VT

VAWAWV

WI

WY

R² = 0.4189

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

$30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000 $55,000 $60,000 $65,000 $70,000

State & lo

cal reven

ue per pupil*

State GDP per capita

State GDP and revenue

Note: *Per-pupil revenue projected for districts with more than 2,000 pupils, average population density, average labor costs, and 20% of children in poverty.Source: Baker et al., School Funding Fairness Data System

7/17/2019

13

AL

AK

AZ

ARCACO

CT

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

INIA

KS

KY

LA

MEMD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MOMT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PARI

SC

SDTN

TX

UT

VT

VAWA WV

WI

WY

R² = 0.3343

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% 5.00% 5.50%

State & lo

cal reven

ue per pupil*

Effort ratio

Fiscal effort and revenue

Note: *Per‐pupil revenue projected for districts with more than 2,000 pupils, average population density, average labor costs, and 20% of children in poverty.

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FLGA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MOMT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PARISC

SD

TNTX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

R² = 0.3935

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

$5,000 $7,000 $9,000 $11,000 $13,000 $15,000 $17,000 $19,000 $21,000

Teachers per 100 pupils**

Current spending per pupil*

Spending and staffing ratios

Notes: *Current spending per pupil projected for districts with more than 2,000 pupils, average population density, average labor costs, and 20% of children in poverty. **Teachers per 100 pupils projected for districts with more than 2,000 pupils, averagepopulation density, average labor costs, and 20% of children in poverty.Source: Baker et al., School Funding Fairness Data System

7/17/2019

14

AL

AK

AZ

ARCA

CO

CTDE

DC

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MAMI MNMS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC ND

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TNTXUT

VT

VA

WAWV

WI

WY

R² = 0.317

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

$5,000 $7,000 $9,000 $11,000 $13,000 $15,000 $17,000 $19,000 $21,000

Teacher salary parity (age 45)**

Current spending per pupil*

Spending and teacher salary competitiveness

Notes: *Teacher wage as % of non-teacher wage at same age, degree level, hours per week & weeks per yearSource: Baker et al., School Funding Fairness Data System

National Education Cost ModelMeasuring State Funding Against an Outcome Goal

7/17/2019

15

Inefficiency

Spending

CostMeasured Student

Outcomes

Student Population

Input PricesStructural/Geographic Constraints

Efficiency Controls:

Fiscal capacity, competition, &

public monitoring

Inefficiency

Spending

CostMeasured Student

Outcomes

Student PopulationInput Prices

Structural/Geographic Constraints

Efficiency Controls:

Fiscal capacity, competition, &

public monitoring

Economies of Scale (Size)Population Sparsity

Regional Wage Variations

Social ContextPoverty (Concentration & Density)

Individual NeedLanguage ProficiencyDisability

7/17/2019

16

Current spending (2013-2015) as % of “cost” of achieving national average outcomes (red = lower, green =

higher)

Current outcomes (2013-2015) with

respect to national average outcomes

(red = lower, blue = higher)

AL

AZAR

CA

CO

CT

DEFL

GA

ID IL

INIAKS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MTNE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

NDOH

OK

OR

PA RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WIWY

‐0.06

‐0.04

‐0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

‐$8,000 ‐$6,000 ‐$4,000 ‐$2,000 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000

Outcome Gap

Spending Gap

Funding and outcomes relative to national average (middle‐poverty quintile)

Source: Data from Baker et al., The Real Shame of the Nation

7/17/2019

17

Focus on Connecticut & Massachusetts!

Districts (and kids) that never got a chance!

7/17/2019

18

“Relative” Funding Matters

2017 Census Fiscal Surveystate_district Enrollment Poverty Ratio Revenue Ratio Screwedness Index

Connecticut,_NEW BRITAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 10065 241.6% 72.2% 3.34

Massachusetts,_Lowell 14567 266.5% 83.0% 3.21

Pennsylvania,_Reading SD 17482 226.1% 75.2% 3.01

Connecticut,_BRIDGEPORT SCHOOL DISTRICT 21040 251.6% 83.8% 3.00

New York,_BRENTWOOD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT 20013 198.8% 69.0% 2.88

California,_Franklin‐McKinley Elementary 10735 219.5% 76.2% 2.88

Pennsylvania,_Allentown City SD 16611 226.5% 81.1% 2.79

Michigan,_Lansing Public School District 10999 241.5% 86.6% 2.79

Tennessee,_Shelby County 111403 234.5% 84.3% 2.78

Arizona,_Alhambra Elementary District 13102 222.8% 80.2% 2.78

Illinois,_Waukegan CUSD 60 16591 201.7% 73.4% 2.75

Arizona,_Cartwright Elementary District 17940 201.4% 77.6% 2.59

Wisconsin,_Kenosha School District 21825 156.2% 61.9% 2.52

Missouri,_ST. LOUIS CITY 28270 223.0% 89.7% 2.49

California,_Alum Rock Union Elementary 11624 213.7% 86.3% 2.48

South Carolina,_Sumter 01 17136 212.3% 88.3% 2.41

Arizona,_Glendale Elementary District 13144 184.6% 77.5% 2.38

New Jersey,_Paterson Public School District 28899 173.7% 73.9% 2.35

New Hampshire,_Manchester School District 14219 188.6% 80.5% 2.34

New Jersey,_Elizabeth Public Schools 27954 198.3% 85.6% 2.32

Michigan,_Dearborn City School District 20674 193.6% 84.1% 2.30

Connecticut,_WATERBURY SCHOOL DISTRICT 18907 178.9% 78.2% 2.29

New York,_UTICA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 10311 186.1% 83.3% 2.23

Michigan,_Warren Consolidated Schools 14355 191.0% 86.7% 2.20

Connecticut,_DANBURY SCHOOL DISTRICT 11351 146.1% 67.9% 2.15

So, how is it, that a state that…

a) is wealthy enough to put up relatively little effort, and

b) still achieve relatively high average spending, and

c) have outcomes that compare favorably with the top nations in the world,

…can still have some of the most “screwed” public school districts in the nation?

7/17/2019

19

7/17/2019

20

7/17/2019

21

Why some districts are more “screwed” than others

Racial DisparitiesDoes Race Still Matter in State School Finance Systems?

7/17/2019

22

-0.100

-0.080

-0.060

-0.040

-0.020

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

Ratio of district pct. in poverty, 5-17 to labor market

Pct. Hispanic Pct. Black, not Hispanic

Reg

ress

ion

Coe

ffic

ien

t

Difference in Dollars per Pupil Relative to a) Labor Market Mean, or

b) Predicted Cost of National Mean OutcomesNational (Controlling for Grade Range Distribution) 2014-2016

State & Local Revenue Current Spending Spending Relative to "Adequacy"

All else equal, districts with greater Latinx enrollment shares have lower relative

revenue per pupil

-0.0

08

0.09

1***

0.12

8***

-0.0

71**

*

0.16

1***

-0.0

06

-0.0

10

-0.1

15**

*

-0.2

31**

*

-0.2

73**

*

-0.4

77**

*

-0.4

43**

*

-0.2

91**

*

-0.2

09**

*

-0.1

37**

*

-0.1

89**

*

0.30

6***

0.01

4

-0.1

30*

-0.1

03**

*

0.02

8

0.19

7***

0.20

7***

0.09

0***

-0.800

-0.600

-0.400

-0.200

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

Reg

ress

ion

Coe

ffic

ien

t

Difference in Dollars per Pupil Relative to Labor Market Mean

Ratio of district pct. in poverty, 5-17 to labor market Pct. Hispanic Pct. Black, not Hispanic

A handful of states have especially pronounced disparities in revenue in relation to Latinx population shares

7/17/2019

23

-2.8

14**

*

-1.5

64**

*

-2.0

97**

*

-2.4

94**

*

-2.4

28**

*

-4.4

26**

*

-5.8

96**

*

-3.6

32**

*

-1.2

17**

*

-0.3

77**

*

-0.1

49**

*

-0.7

61**

*

-0.3

75**

*

0.18

2***

-0.0

68

0.02

0

0.35

1***

0.08

0

-0.3

73**

*

-0.1

42**

*

0.12

1**

0.51

9***

0.78

3***

0.56

9***

-7.00

-6.00

-5.00

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

Reg

ress

ion

Coe

ffic

ien

tDifference in Spending Relative to Cost of National Average

Outcomes

Adjusted Poverty % Hispanic % Black

Relative Revenue Spending Relative to “adequacy” goal (national mean)

7/17/2019

24

Connecticut

7/17/2019

25

$8,8

03

$8,6

61 $8,9

34

$8,6

83 $9,0

23

$8,8

68

$8,9

35

$8,6

38

$8,7

35

$8,6

57

$8,6

03

$8,6

69

$8,8

68 $9,2

88

$9,4

67

$9,7

04 $10,

085

$10,

102

$10,

148

$10,

191

$10,

163

$10,

616

$10,

306

$10,

288

$10,

345

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

$12,000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Cos

t A

dju

sted

per

Pu

pil S

pen

din

g

Year

Current Spending per Pupil (Adjusted for Competitive Wages) for Connecticut School Districts by Poverty Quintile

1-Lowest

2-Low

3-Middle

4-High

5-Highest

Average

The highest poverty districts went from first, to last in

funding over the past decade.

The highest poverty districts are heavily dependent on

state aid.

7/17/2019

26

In low poverty districts, local support continues to climb

steadily.

Over the past 20 years, Connecticut school

spending has gone from progressive to regressive (and is now at its most regressive point ever!)

7/17/2019

27

7/17/2019

28

7/17/2019

29

7/17/2019

30

Spending Equal Opportunity* & Outcome Index O

utc

ome

Inde

x

National Mean

Cost of achieving national mean

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

Connecticut Massachusetts New Jersey Connecticut Massachusetts New Jersey

Total State & Local Personal Income

Sh

are

of F

amil

y In

com

e

State

Taxes as a Share of Family Income for Non-Elderly Taxpayers

Lowest 20% Second 20% Middle 20% Fourth 20% Next 15% Next 4% Top 1%

https://itep.org/whopays/

7/17/2019

31

A Devastating RulingCCJEF v Rell 2018

2018 Ruling (CCJEF v. Rell)Applying the Campaign I criteria that Justice Palmer had adopted,[13] the trial court specifically found that (1) "[t]he plaintiffs [have not] proved by a preponderance of the evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt, that the state's schools lack enough light, space, heat, and air to permit children to learn," (2) "the plaintiffs have not proved by a preponderance, and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a systemic problem that should spark a constitutional crisis and an order to spend more on [desks, chairs, pencils and reasonably current textbooks]," and (3) "the plaintiffs have plainly not met their burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Connecticut lacks minimally adequate teaching and curricula, nor have they proved it by a preponderance of the evidence."[14] Accordingly, the court held that the Campaign I criteria were satisfied.

7/17/2019

32

2018 Ruling (CCJEF v. Rell)The trial court then concluded, however, that, notwithstanding its conclusion that the state had satisfied the Campaign I criteria set forth in Justice Palmer's controlling opinion, the state's educational system would not satisfy the requirements of article eighth, § 1, unless the state "deploy[ed] in its schools resources and standards that are rationally, substantially and verifiably connected to teaching children." The trial court apparently derived this standard from Justice Palmer's statements that the state's educational programs and policies would be unconstitutional if they were "so lacking as to be unreasonable by any fair or objective standard"; Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell, supra, 295 Conn. at 321, 990 A.2d 206 (Palmer, J.,concurring in the judgment); and that the state must operate "within the limits of rationality." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 336, 990 A.2d 206 (Palmer, J.,concurring in the judgment). The trial court reasoned that this rationality standard could not be the same as the low "[r]ational basis" standard for determining the constitutionality of legislative acts; State v. Long, 268 Conn. 508, 535, 847 A.2d 862

2018 Ruling (CCJEF v. Rell) We conclude that all of the plaintiffs have standing. We also conclude that the trial court properly held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the state's schools do not satisfy the Campaign I criteria, which is the controlling constitutional standard under Justice Palmer's concurring opinion in Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. We agree with the defendants, however, that the trial court went on to improperly apply a constitutional standard of its own devising after concluding that the state's schools satisfied the controlling Campaign I criteria. Finally, based on the factual findings of the trial court, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the educational system in this state violates the equal protection provisions of the state constitution by failing to ensure that the poorer school districts had funding that is substantially equal to the wealthier school districts.

7/17/2019

33

The Road Ahead

Thoughts for CT School Finance• The state of school funding in CT

Average spending in Connecticut is relatively high Select districts are left out (more so than in most other states!) Districts serving predominantly Latinx populations are especially disadvantaged Even the magnet funding advantage for Hartford and New Haven has faded in recent

years

• The school funding formula needs a significant overhaul Recalibration to base figure associated with cost of achieving current desired outcome

goals More aggressive need-based targeting (derived by approach similar to ongoing Vermont

weighting study) Consideration of hard minimum local contributions to counteract disparities resulting

from “fiscal dependence” model

• How the courts blew it in CT Lower court ruling went off the rails, developed and applied its own legal standard and

going on numerous tangents High court just didn’t know what to do with that, except to merely overturn lower court

ruling because it developed and applied a standard not accepted in prior CT case law.

7/17/2019

34

Clouds of Doubt!2-Dimensional Social Science?

Money

Tes

t S

core

s

7/17/2019

35

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL GA HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KSKY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MIMN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NYNC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PARISC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VTVAWAWV

WIWY

y = -0.0098x + 1706.6R² = 0.0598

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

5000 7000 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000

Raw

SA

T s

core

s

Current spending per pupil

Figure 3.2The more a state spends on schools, the worse its students’ SAT

scores are

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FLGA HI

ID

IL

IN

IAKSKY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MIMN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NHNJ

NM

NYNC

ND

OHOK

OR

PARISC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VTVAWA WV

WIWY

y = -0.0058x + 1636.8R² = 0.0069

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000

Raw

SA

T s

core

s

Regionally cost-adjusted per-pupil spending

Figure 3.3After cost-of-living adjustments, education spending shows no

correlation to SAT scores

7/17/2019

36

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL GAHI

ID

IL

IN

IAKSKY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MIMN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NYNC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PARISC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT VAWAWV

WIWY

y = -368.67x + 1742.1R² = 0.8313

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Raw

SA

T s

core

s

Participation rate

Figure 3.4Participation rates and average SAT scores

International Comparisons?

https://t.co/p4dgJR48zC

7/17/2019

37

7/17/2019

38

AUS

AUT

BEL

CHL

CZEDNK

EST

FIN

FRA

DEU

GRC

HUN

ISL

ITA

KOR

LUX

NLD

POL

PRT

SVK

SVN

ESP

TUR

USA OECD average

EU21 average

10

15

20

25

30

35

40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140%

Cla

ss S

ize

(Pri

ma

ry)

Relative Wage 24 to 64 (Primary)

Class Size (Primary)

OECD (2014), Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en Table D2.1. Average class size, by type of institution and level of education (2012) & Table D3.2. Teachers' salaries relative to earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education (2012)

Low Wage/Large Class High Wage/Large Class

High Wage/Small ClassLow Wage/Small Class

AUS

AUT

CHL

CZE DNK

EST

FIN

FRADEU

GRCHUN

ISL

ITA

KOR

LUX

POL PRT

SVK SVN

ESP

TUR

USA

OECD average

EU21 average

10

15

20

25

30

35

40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140%

Cla

ss S

ize

(Lo

wer

Sec

on

da

ry)

Relative Wage 24 to 64 (Lower Secondary)

Class Size (Lower Secondary)

OECD (2014), Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en Table D2.1. Average class size, by type of institution and level of education (2012) & Table D3.2. Teachers' salaries relative to earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education (2012)

Low Wage/Large ClassHigh Wage/Large Class

High Wage/Small ClassLow Wage/Small Class

7/17/2019

39

7/17/2019

40

Linking Spending Disparities & Real Resources From 10 year old work (and blog post)

https://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/inexcusable-inequalities-this-is-not-the-post-funding-equity-era/

7/17/2019

41

7/17/2019

42

7/17/2019

43

CCJEF Testimony

Source: Page 71, Baker & Bifulco (Oct, 2011)

7/17/2019

44



7/17/2019

45


Source: Page 17, Baker Update (March, 2014)

7/17/2019

46



7/17/2019

47

Source: Page 79-81, Baker & Bifulco (Oct, 2011)


7/17/2019

48



me & ct - cher€¦ · me & ct •master’s in ed psych from uconn (a very long time ago)...

Documents