Small Changes to Town Education Budgets May Be Possible

A bill that would allow for a very limited reduction in town education budgets has a potential of passing this year. The change is incredibly small, and not nearly enough to give towns control over their budgets, but it is a start.

The Bill is "AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING EDUCATION" and is numbered 6385.

It would allow towns to reduce their education budgets IF they have declining enrollment. For every kid that their enrollment is reduced by, the town can reduce its budget by $3,000.

Connecticut has a very strange system of budgeting. Towns have little control over many aspects of spending, and this is a particularly insidious state law that has no justification. Whatever a town spends on education in one year, it is required to spend AT LEAST that much the next year. This is called the  "Minimum Budget Requirement" and I've blogged about it in the past.

In a town such as Granby, the change would permit (not require) that the town COULD reduce spending on education by about $120,000 as we see about a 30 student decline in enrollment year-to-year. That will probably never happen, as we have been increasing our expenditures every year despite significant drops in student population (in the current year, 46 fewer students attended than the year before, and 79 fewer students attend the Granby Schools than they did just 3 years ago).

But don't expect any drops in budgeting as a result. The Board always has a way of making sure every dollar (and then some) is spent regardless of how many students we have. In fact, despite enrollment declines, the actual amount budgeted next year will likely grow, not shrink. This is true across the State -- towns typically budget more than required -- much more. In these difficult economic times, towns are proposing budgets of 1%, 2%, even 5% more than last year for education.

Even if Bill 6385 passes the legislature and is signed by Governor Malloy, the impact will be very small. Few towns are likely to reduce their education budget, and the new law would only apply to the next two fiscal years.

So why am I such a fan of removing the MBR, if I think it will have almost no impact? Because as a basic principal, I think towns should be able to control their spending. Parents and tax payers are not interested in destroying public schools. But it is also the people on the ground and in the schools that can best determine what their budget needs are. Does a playground need to be rebuilt this year? Did we have unusually large expenses last year that are not recurring? A drop in the number of special education students? An increase in bus routes?

School districts and towns need to be able to respond to changing conditions without a mechanical requirement that any increased cost in any particular year not become a permanent cost in the budget for every year after.

Bill 6385 is a small step in the right direction. Complete repeal of the law would be better.

Kindergarten Age Change Supported By Gov. Malloy

During this brief time when both Rosemary and I are overwhelmed by life's little challenges, I read this piece in the CT Mirror: Malloy: Raise Kindergarten Age

For those of you unfamiliar with the long running age cut-off debate in Connecticut, a quick recap. If your child will turn five before January 1, he or she can start school in September at the age of four. Not surprisingly, many people take advantage of this option and sent their four year olds to kindergarten, and others hold them back and start them when they are five. Anecdotally, it seems more boys are held back and more wealthy kids -- those parents that can afford an extra year of day care will hold back the immature four year old.

I've been down this road twice -- I have two kids that were born near the end of the year. Daycare expense is only one of the many issues that go into the decision. Parents know their own children better than anyone and are probably in the best position to decide if little Susie or little Johnny need an extra year to "grow."

Still, the proposal makes sense, mostly because I don't think there's another state out there that allows such young children to start kindergarten as Connecticut does. And as hard as it is to send any child off to college, sending a 17 year old off to college can give many parents pause. As a state, our kids may do better in the long run if they are five when they start school and 18 when they start college.

If the proposal goes through, I hope the State Board of Education gives strong support and encouragement to towns to make acceleration for advanced students a clear policy. The four year old start policy has been a positive thing for bright kids that are able to keep up with their older peers. Hopefully, changing the start date will give towns the incentive they need to accelerate kids, when appropriate.