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.

LYNN: Minimum Budget Requirement -- Repeal or Leave in place?

An editorial in the Norwich Bulletin raised an issue that I had not heard of before, but which should interest anyone worried about schools, taxes, and how to survive the economic downturn. It sounds like a dull topic, but the details are so easy to explain and comprehend, that I think we can all get behind this one.

The State of Connecticut has a law on its books that requires towns to fund their schools at or above the same level that they did in the prior year. This is called the "minimum budget requirement." I couldn't believe that this was true, so I looked it up. Indeed, it is true and I even found a opinion from the CT General Assembly's Office of Legislative Research explaining the entire thing. It doesn't get any more official than that.

Interested readers should read the entire thing, but for my purposes, the last sentence is the most critical:

"The effect of the current MBR is to prohibit towns from reducing education budgets in FY 10 and FY 11 below their FY 09 levels. By law, the penalty for failing to meet the MBR is a reduction in the town's ECS grant for the subsequent fiscal year equal to twice the amount of the shortfall."

In plain English, this means that your town CAN NOT reduce how much it spends on education next year. By force of law, it is prohibited. The penalty is equal to twice whatever the town cut from the education appropriation.

Some lawmakers are suggesting that the MBR should be repealed. The Norwich Bulletin would keep the MBR as it is. Their reasoning? Connecticut schools have the worst achievement gap in the nation, so we shouldn't allow towns to cut spending.

I really don't follow the reasoning. It is true that CT does have the worst achievement gap in the nation. But basically, the Norwich Bulletin would argue that since schools have done a poor job with the money we gave them, we should continue to give them at least the same amount. The logic is a little fuzzy.

Here's my opinion on the matter, and I believe it to be perfectly consistent with a liberal philosophy.

The MBR discourages efficiency and innovation. No town has the incentive to do a better job, to reduce cost, to figure out how to do more with less. By the State's mandate, towns must appropriate the same amount next year, no matter how much more efficient or creative they become.

For example, imagine a couple of rural towns that offer a handful of advanced classes. They could offer more classes at a lower cost by harnessing the power of collaboration and technology. If they jointly paid a single teacher and used teleconferencing and the internet, they could broaden the academic course offerings and lower cost. But the MBR would penalize them for doing it.

Small districts could share expensive administrative personnel -- has anyone wondered why ever single school district needs a curriculum director? Sharing these types of resources would save money and could improve results. But the MBR prohibits it.

Finally, public school enrollment is steadily declining and some school districts are seeing big drops in their student enrollment. The MBR would require them to continue funding the schools at the same level, no matter how many students leave the district.

The MBR should be repealed.