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Some lawmakers are suggesting that the MBR should be repealed.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.