Reinventing how to fund schools in state

Rising per-pupil costs and declining and changing student enrollments cry out for new approaches.

T he combination of declining school enrollments and Connecticut’s continuing fiscal problems cry out for a serious discussion and re-evaluation of how government provides for the education of children and pays for it.

Though fewer students are attending public schools, the cost of education continues to climb in almost every community, as well for the state. A recent state Department of Education report documented a 5.5 percent decrease in public school enrollment over the last decade from roughly 578,000 students to 546,000 students.

Over roughly the same period, found an independent study conducted for the state — “Connecticut Fiscal Comparisons” — the per capita cost for education in Connecticut rose from $2,808 in 2002 to $3,413 in 2012, the last year for which comprehensive data was available. That is a 22 percent increase in the per capita cost of education, which citizens pay for through their ever-higher local property taxes and a multitude of state taxes.

The “Fiscal Comparisons” study found that the only steeper percentage increase was for public welfare programs, increasing from $1,241 to $1,801 per capita over the same period, a 45 percent jump.

These patterns are related. For while school enrollments are decreasing, students from poor families are increasing as a percent of the student population. The rate of students qualifying for freeor reduced-price meals in Connecticut public schools jumped from 27 percent to 37 percent during the last 10 years.

Lower-income families are having more children than are affluent families, and young professionals are leaving the state in pursuit of career opportunities.

This trend will accelerate, as documented in a Day story April 3 on U.S. Census data that forecasts a nearly 10 percent decline in school-age children in the state from 2010 to 2025. Some of our region’s most affluent communities will see the biggest drops in school-age children, including 34 percent in Old Lyme, 33 percent in North Stonington and 32 percent in East Lyme, according to the Census estimates.

Meanwhile Norwich, an urban area in which three out of four students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches because they come from low-income families, expects to see a slight increase in students. In that city the superintendent of schools has warned of substantial teacher layoffs unless the city hikes taxes to support higher costs for educating special education students and increased health insurance fees.

These state trends call for government at all levels to move past business as usual.

The state, which pays about 43 percent of education costs, should both increase that percentage to reduce the reliance on local property taxes and tie that increased aid to promoting regional cooperation.

While no one can deny there are advantages to neighborhood schools, including reduced transportation and greater parental and community involvement, it is also true that schools in this state spend more on school administration due to the lack of county or other regional organizational structures.

The state also contributes substantially to local school construction, in many communities paying the majority of the cost. It can use this aid to encourage building schools that serve larger regions and lower per pupil costs.

Connecticut should expand its support for magnet and charter schools, which have shown success in diversifying student enrollments. By drawing students from a wide area, they serve as de facto regional schools.

The state should pick up a greater share of special-education costs. The current system penalizes schools for having a good reputation for providing quality special education. Such school systems can attract more families with these special-needs children and experience spikes in the local cost of education. Urban schools in particular get a disproportionate share of special-education students and the resulting expense.

The bottom line is that changing demographics call for a serious policy discussion about providing public education in the 21st century. The target of such a policy discussion should be to achieve the complimentary goals of controlling per student costs, diversifying student bodies racially and economically, providing quality education more efficiently and paying for special education more fairly.