Breaking News – Connecticut Income Tax collections down $450 million from anticipated amount

Connecticut’s economy continues to be in deep trouble.  While unemployment is technically down, the way the economy is changing means lower income tax revenue for the state of Connecticut.

Some Connecticut residents have simply given up looking for work.  Others have taken jobs that pay well below what they used to earn and still other are working in part-time consulting work as opposed to full-time jobs.

Together these changes mean Connecticut’s tax picture is in deep trouble.

As Keith Phaneuf of the CT Mirror explained today;

Plummeting state income tax collections are experiencing their worst decline since the last recession, falling $450 million below anticipated levels for April.

The impact of this decline in revenue not only means Connecticut will face a budget deficit this year, but the revenue shortfall for the next two years will be much more severe than previously estimated.   The 3.6 billion deficit projected over the next biannual budget will grow by $500 million next year and $600 million the year after.

The state will now be facing a $4.5 billion gap between projected revenue and projected expenses.

As CT Mirror wrote, the new numbers mean that the state will probably

Close its third successive fiscal year in deficit;

And deplete its $235.6 million emergency budget reserve.

It increases the risk that state government might have to borrow to cover operating costs for the first time in eight years — even though it still hasn’t paid off nearly $1 billion in operating debt from the last recession.

Read more about this breaking story at: CT tax revenue in free fall, adding $1.1B in red ink for next 2 years

Malloy’s claim that Connecticut enjoys a budget surplus for this fiscal year is a blatant lie…

Late last week the Hartford Courant headline read, State Projects Surplus For Current Fiscal Year.  Governor Dannel Malloy’s administration bragged that they state budget would end up with a $19.7 million surplus this year.

As with previous year, Governor Malloy has falsely claimed the state budget is in much better condition than it really is.

The dark clouds were already evident.

Already last month, the non-partisan Office of Fiscal Analysis projected that the current fiscal year deficit would be at least $45 million and Comptroller Kevin Lembo pegged the shortfall on April 3 at $44.6 million.

But last week, according to the monthly letter sent by Malloy’s administration to Comptroller Kevin Lembo, “Personal income tax collections are currently running within acceptable ranges relative to our target…”

Now, just days later, we learn that Malloy’s claim about income tax receipts are false.

In a stunning report in the CT Mirror;

New reports show dramatically eroding state income tax receipts that could expand the deficit in the next two-year budget by more than $500 million while depleting existing reserves.

Although six more days remain before analysts complete their review of April income tax receipts, the new numbers also raise the prospect state government may have to borrow to balance the current budget — the first time Connecticut has had to do so in eight years.

The CT Mirror adds;

The legislature’s nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis notified the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee on Monday that April receipts are running $267 million below the level anticipated in this fiscal year’s adopted budget.

[…]

In other words, if the early returns hold, and if April receipts are down 20 percent or $267 million, that probably would prompt analysts to reduce expected revenues for each of the next two fiscal years by a similar amount, or more than $500 million for the upcoming biennium.

In a rare commentary included with Monday’s report, nonpartisan analysts said it appears that a “pessimistic scenario” that is related to the last state budget is playing out.

Finances, unless adjusted, are on pace to run $1.7 billion in deficit in 2017-18, and $1.9 billion in the red in 2018-19, according to Malloy’s administration, for a combined biennial shortfall of $3.6 billion.

[…]

If the April income tax estimates hold, the worst-case deficit forecast from the Malloy administration would approach $2 billion in 2017-18 and $2.2 billion in 2018-19.

To restate the seriousness of the situation, while the Malloy administration is claiming that April tax receipts are within “acceptable ranges,” they are actually far off what was projected in the budget.

If the actual situation holds true, Connecticut will be facing a major budget deficit this year and a biannual budget shortfall that could reach or even exceed $4.4 billion over the next two years.

The reality is that tax increases will be necessary.

The question is whether Connecticut’s elected officials will continue to overtax middle and lower income Connecticut residents or whether state government will finally start to require that the state’s wealthy pay their fair share in taxes.

Malloy’s austerity budget a disaster for Connecticut…

Governor Dannel Malloy is blasting the legislature for talking about additional revenue to help fund critically important services.

Although Malloy’s budget relies on increasing taxes for poor and middle-class families and shifting $400 million onto the backs of local property taxpayers, he is claiming that the solution to Connecticut’s fiscal crisis is his budget plan.

Malloy’s continued refusal to ensure the rich are paying their fair share means poorer and middle income families are suffering on both the tax and expenditure side of the budget.

As CT Voices explains;

The Governor’s Budget would reduce the Earned Income Tax Credit, remove parents from HUSKY A, eliminate property tax support for the lower and middle classes, keep young children out of  Care 4 Kids funded child care, and cut municipal aid to 141 towns. Statewide, proposed cuts to the EITC and the property tax credit are equal to a tax increase of $93 for low-income families and $157 for middle-income families.

CT Voices adds;

Many of the Governor’s cost-savings proposals target the same groups of low- to middle-income families.

For example, a single mother with two children making $30,000 per year would lose her health insurance, be unable to enroll her children in Care4Kids, and could see a tax increase of $93. A single parent working for $12 per hour with a child would also lose her health insurance at the same time the state restricts her access to child care and increases her taxes.

In response to the Governor’s outrageous budget proposal, some Connecticut legislators are talking about increasing the tax rate on high income earners in Connecticut.

Remember, in Connecticut, the poor pay about 12% of their income in state and local taxes, the middle class about 10% of their income in state and local taxes and the rich only pay about 5.5% of their income in state and local taxes.

Connecticut has created a regressive tax structure that unfairly hurts lower and middle income families.

It is time for Connecticut’s legislators to stand up to Malloy’s bullying tactics and move forward with a tax reform proposal that will not dump the burden on lower and  middle income families while shifting even more onto the backs of local property taxpayers.

For more about some of the tax proposals – good and bad – read;

CT Newsjunkie:  Finance Committee Explores Abundance of Revenue Ideas As Deadline Nears

Beware the new Connecticut legislative plan to channel even more public funds to charters

In a new piece published in the Stamford Advocate, education columnist and advocate Wendy Lecker reveals a stunning new proposal that would force taxpayers to give Connecticut’s charter schools even more scarce public funds.  Governor Dannel Malloy already gives Connecticut’s charter school more than $110 million a year and this year, while proposing the deepest cuts in state history to public schools, Malloy unveiled a plan to increase that amount by about 10 percent.  However, a group of Democrats in the Connecticut General Assembly want to divert even more public funds to these privately owned, but publicly funded entities.

As Wendy Lecker explains;

Using the Betsy DeVos playbook, Norwalk Sen. Bob Duff and East Hartford Representatives Jason Rojas and Jeffrey Currey are pushing major changes to Connecticut’s school funding system, concocted by the charter front group, the Connecticut School Finance Project; in order to funnel money directly from school districts to privately run charter schools.

Currently, public school districts pay for the cost of education from: a state allocation, ostensibly calculated under Connecticut’s school funding formula, the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) formula; local funding, i.e. the local share; and some federal funds.

Charter schools are considered independent school districts, authorized and overseen by the state. Local communities have no say over the operation of charters within their borders. Charters are exempt from many requirements, such as having all certified teachers and serving all grade levels. Thus, it is logical that districts should not pay local dollars to charters. Charters are funded through a separate state funding stream, and receive federal and private funds.

However, the Connecticut School Finance Project proposal will now have local districts paying for these privately run charters. For every child attending a charter school, a local district will lose a portion of its ECS allocation equal to about 25 percent of its local per-pupil share. Charter schools will receive an ECS allocation that will cover the rest of its funding. So charters will get more state funding than the local school district, plus local districts will now pay them an additional penalty for each charter school student. As charters expand, districts will lose more.

The DeVos team used this strategy in Michigan. They instituted a system where money intended for public schools flowed to charters. They then fought for explosive charter growth. This toxic combination decimated budgets and schools of Michigan’s poorest cities, such as Detroit.

Worse still, this proposal fails to fund Connecticut schools adequately. A foundation aid formula, like ECS, is only adequate if its components are: i.e., the foundation amount, the amount necessary to educate one child with no special needs; and the weights that adjust the foundation amount for different needs, like students living in poverty, English Language Learners and students with disabilities.

This proposal’s foundation amount is not based on any assessment of the cost of education in Connecticut. Instead the proposed foundation amount is supposedly derived from average spending in other states — a ludicrous way to estimate the cost of education here. The proposal does not even consider spending on operating expenses, i.e. the expenses needed to run a district. It only considers spending on a narrow selection of expenses they call “core instructional costs.” It is no wonder the foundation amount this group proposes is lower than Connecticut’s foundation amount back in 2007-08.

The proposed student need weights are also not based on the actual additional cost of serving needy students. The 30 percent poverty weight is less than half of what experts say is needed to educate poor students. The proposal omits additional weighting for students living in severe poverty, who are costlier to serve. Why? Because charters tend to serve students who are less poor than their host public school districts. If the formula does not differentiate, then charters are rewarded for continuing to ignore the most disadvantaged.

The proposed ELL weight is a ridiculous 10 percent — only one-tenth of what it necessary to fund education for these students. It will particularly harm districts with large and growing populations of ELL kids. However, charters routinely under-serve ELL students, so a low weight means they will not get penalized financially for continuing this practice.

This proposal removes special education funds from the ECS allocation. For a group claiming its aim is a “unified” formula for all students, why omit students with disabilities? Special education is the thorniest cost to deal with when privatizing schools. Removing it clears the way for charter expansion.

And though some districts stand to gain this year (especially Duff’s, and Rojas’ and Currey’s), the proposal reduces the state share of funding for our poorest districts.

Even proponents admit this proposal woefully underfunds Connecticut schools. The group acknowledges that the ECS formula is currently underfunded by more than $600 million. Realistic estimates conclude that the total shortfall is over $1.5 billion.

Yet this proposal plans to increase school funding by only $320 million — over six years! And there is no mechanism to increase state funding as costs rise.

Raiding public school funds to favor privately run charters, that serve less than 2 percent of Connecticut students, is not equity. It will leave our neediest students with less.

You can read and comment on the full article at: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Wendy-Lecker-A-new-plan-to-channel-local-funds-11058087.php

Malloy eliminates all state funding for Connecticut’s Regional Educational Service Centers (RESCs)

At a time when school districts must be expanding their efforts to cooperate regionally, Governor Dannel Malloy’s new budget eliminates state funding for a vital and successful regionalization operation – the Regional Education Service Centers.

The six Regional Education Service Centers (RESCs) provide Connecticut communities and school districts with a wide variety of important cooperative services that save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. While most of the costs are picked up by the districts, the state of Connecticut provides about $600,000 a year to support these critically important networks.

The RESCs develop and manage a wide variety of cost-effective, high quality programs including efforts to regionalize special education services, professional development, minority teacher recruitment, English language learner efforts, transportation and a myriad of other programs.

To eliminate RESC’s would be disastrous for Connecticut’s schools, so it is important to see Malloy’s budget scam for what it is – simply dumping responsibility to fully fund the Regional Education Service Centers onto the backs of local taxpayers.

The situation leaves Connecticut students, parents, educators, school districts and taxpayers in a losing situation.

If Malloy’s proposal is adopted it will mean towns will have to pick up the tab for the RESCs translating into program cuts in the home districts or higher local property taxes.

As the RESC’s explain on their website;

Regional Educational Service Centers (RESCs) were created more than 30 years ago by legislative mandate to help districts communicate and collaborate. Some years later, a formal Alliance of Connecticut’s six RESCs was established. RESCs are public education agencies whose main purpose is to “furnish programs and services” to Connecticut’s public school districts. RESCs’ cost efficient, cooperative efforts have saved money for Connecticut school districts and have enabled schools to expand services beyond what they could have accomplished alone. Each RESC is:

  • Locally governed by member boards of education
  • Cost effective in delivering programs and services to school districts
  • Committed to helping local school districts improve teaching and learning
  • Responsive to local needs and interdistrict opportunities
  • Flexible in creating, adapting, or eliminating programs

The RESC Alliance works with the Departments of Children & Families, Corrections, Education, Mental Health & Addiction Services, Mental Retardation, Public Health, Social Services and Board of Education & Services for the Blind (BESB) and Workforce Investment Act (WIA) on statewide issues and projects such as Technology Training, Beginning Educator Support Training, and Early Reading Success. RESCs are also instrumental in obtaining federal grants and funding. As Connecticut’s “First Stop” in education, RESCs keep districts abreast of new mandates and best practices through:

Cost effective and competent management in a public context

High value programs for a reasonable public expenditure

Dependable delivery system

Strong communication network with local school systems and communities

Successful implementation of legislatively assigned tasks

Thirty years successfully developing vital services and Malloy simply eliminates the funding.

Charter schools pose financial risk to municipalities by James Mulholland

The charter school industry is proposing a change to Connecticut’s school funding system to require that local communities hand over local funds to subsidize charter schools attended by local students.  The “money follows the child” funding system leaves local public schools without the resources necessary to ensure children have access to a comprehensive education.  In this piece, first published in the CT Mirror, educator and education advocate James Mulholland examines this latest money grab by the charter schools.

Mulholland writes;

In  December of last year, the Connecticut Department of Education issued a request for proposals for new charter schools – the first time in nearly three years.  As the state grapples with a budget disaster and Gov. Dannel Malloy continues to propose changes that would dramatically change the way Connecticut pays for education, the state should refrain from opening any new charter schools and freeze the funding of existing ones.

Moody’s credit rating service has warned of the fiscal risks to municipalities posed by charter schools.  In its 2013 report, Charter Schools Pose Growing Risk for Urban Public Schools, Moody’s concluded that a rise in charter school enrollment, “is likely to create negative credit pressure on school districts in economically weak urban areas.”

According to Michael D’Arcy, one of two authors of the report, “A small but growing number of traditional public districts face financial stress due to the movement of students to charters.”

As urban areas such as Hartford teeter on the brink of bankruptcy, lowered bond ratings could have a devastating effect on already dire budgetary circumstances.  Gov. Malloy is proposing a new municipal accountability system for cities and towns facing severe fiscal difficulties.  The proposal includes a multi-tiered ranking system for communities that could lead to greater state oversight of local budgets and limit annual property tax increases for the cities and towns deemed most at risk.

Under the proposal, a municipality could be assigned to one of the first three tiers if it has a poor fund balance or credit rating.  Bridgeport and Stamford have resisted the state’s efforts to open charter schools in their cities.  In 2015, the State Board of Education unanimously approved the application of the Stamford Charter School for Excellence despite the fact that the Stamford Board of Education voted 7-1 to urge the state to deny the application.  The state of Connecticut may very well force cities to accept a charter school that may adversely affect its credit rating in the future.

Moody’s recently reiterated its belief about the adverse effects of charter schools this past November when Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly rejected legislation that would have increased the state’s cap on charter schools.  Moody’s warned Boston and three other Massachusetts cities that passage of a ballot measure to expand charter schools could weaken their financial standing and ultimately threaten their bond ratings.

Nicholas Lehman, an assistant vice president at Moody’s, warned that passage of the referendum would be a “credit negative” for the cities.  Moody’s responded to Massachusetts voters’ rejection of the plan with a “credit positive” and reiterated that the history of charter schools shows they drain money from city education budgets.

Connecticut currently provides funding in excess of $100 million per year to operate 24 charter schools, 10 of which are managed by six management companies.  These companies charge a management fee of approximately 10 percent of the amount they receive from the state.

“If we saw fees of 10 percent or less, that would be reasonable,” says Robert Kelly, who oversees charter schools at the education department.  In part, these fees are used to duplicate administrative services such as payroll and human resources, which are already provided by the districts in which charter schools operate.  It seems particularly wasteful at a time when the state is looking to regionalize municipal services.

While cities and towns have seen their education funding slashed, Connecticut’s charter management companies have seen their coffers overflow. Last year, the State Board of Education increased charter school enrollment by 4 percent for the current school year. While the enrollment increase cost the state an additional $4.1 million, funding for traditional public schools was cut by $51.7 million and regional magnet schools, opened to help desegregate city schools, had budget cuts totaling $15.4 million

The diversion of millions of dollars from traditional public schools is one reason the New England Conference of the NAACP and the Massachusetts Lawyer’s Committee filed a motion against the effort to lift the cap on the number of charter schools in Massachusetts.  It was the belief of Juan Cofield, president of the New England Conference of the NAACP, that “setting up a separate system is destructive to the notion of providing the best education for all students.”

Connecticut should not continue to pursue charter schools as a means to meet the educational needs of its children.  The financial risk to our cities and towns is just too great.

You can read and comment on the original piece at: http://ctviewpoints.org/2017/02/13/opinion-james-mulholland-2/

Malloy’s proposed state budget slashes aid to Connecticut’s public schools

Call it devastating, draconian or simply a vicious attack on Connecticut’s children, parents, educators and public schools, the governor who has consistently worked to undermine and privatize public education, since taking office in 2011, has now proposed a new state budget that destroys Connecticut’s already failing constitutional requirement to adequately fund its public schools.

In an effort to avoid raising state taxpayers and maintain the state’s system of coddling the rich from paying their fair share income taxes, Governor Dannel Malloy has called for shifting $407 million in teacher retirement payments to cities and towns in the first year of his proposed budget, an amount that would increase to $420.9 million in the second year of the biannual budget plan.

In addition, rather than appropriately fund Connecticut’s education grants, Malloy’s budget plan seeks to redirect existing state aid for public schools to Connecticut’s poorer towns by slashing grants to wealthier and middle income communities.

Overall, 31 Connecticut communities would see an increase in aid while 138 towns would get less state funds, with many towns getting significantly less state education funding.

Making the situation far worse, Malloy’s budget plan allows most towns to redirect what education aid they will receive away from their public schools.  Rather than requiring towns to maintain their school budgets, Connecticut communities could use what aid they receive to pay for non-education expenditures.

Together these two developments will produce devastating cuts to education programs across Connecticut.

In his effort to pinpoint which communities win and which lose, Malloy is also proposing a significant change to the way in which poverty is defined, a factor that drives how much money towns get under Connecticut’s education formulas.

Presently, poverty is based on the number of students who qualify for free or reduced-priced meals in each community.  But Malloy’s proposal would replace that system with the number of people who participate in the state’s health insurance plan for children, called Husky A.

The system appears to be designed to help Hartford and a handful of other towns, but raises significant equity issues.  Daniel Long, an expert with Connecticut Voices for children explained,

“The concern is that you would underestimate poverty.”

Speaking with Long, the CT Mirror added,

“Long said that in other states that have shifted to using Medicaid to measure poverty, ‘it was used as a tool to lower who is counted.’ By using the number who qualify for free or reduced-price meals, the state is ‘erring on the side of providing that additional aid.’”

When examining the list of “winners and losers” in Malloy’s plan, the governor’s strategy becomes evident.  The CT Mirror notes,

Hartford, which is facing the possibility of insolvency, is one of the biggest winners in the governor’s proposed budget. Hartford stands to gain $38.1 million in state aid next year, a 17 percent increase. Nearly $12.2 million of that would come from education grants, though it will be up to Bronin and his City Council to decide whether to send it to the struggling city schools. 

Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin, Malloy’s former legal counsel, was the Greenwich native who moved to Hartford and was elected to the city’s top executive position last year.

Meanwhile, opposition to Malloy’s plan was swift with many towns announcing that his proposal would lead to massive cuts to public schools and large property tax increases in the majority of Connecticut communities.

In addition, a spokesperson for The Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education, the plaintiffs in the CCJEF V. Rell school funding lawsuit condemned Malloy’s plan for moving the state in exactly the wrong direction when it comes to properly funding Connecticut’s public schools.

 “These proposed new cuts in state educational support underscore the need for judicial action to ensure that state government meets and does not retreat from its state constitutional responsibilities,” said James J. Finley, principal consultant to CCJEF and an expert witness in the case.

While Malloy has claimed that his plan was designed to take from the rich and give to the poor, the state’s middle income communities are among the hardest hit by Malloy’s funding scheme.

For example, Groton would lose $14.1 million in state aid and Milford would lose $12.1 million.  Other towns hit hard by Malloy’s budget plan include Wallingford, Glastonbury and Fairfield, but dozens of towns would face cuts in state aid that were such that it would lead to massive cuts in local school programs and major property tax increases.

As the lobbyist for Connecticut’s small towns decried,

 “The governor’s proposed changes to ECS and special education funding, coupled with his proposal to require towns to pick up one-third of the cost of teacher pension costs, will make it impossible for small towns to fund education without staggering increases in local property taxes.”

Malloy’s disastrous education proposal includes more money for charter schools

While it remains unclear whether Governor Dannel Malloy’s new education funding scheme includes a “money follows the child formula” that would force local districts to use local tax dollars to subsidize the privately owned and operated charter schools in their communities, the Governor’s budget does shovel even more state taxpayer funds to the charter school industry.

In addition to providing more than $111 million a year to Connecticut’s charter schools, Malloy’s plan adds $11 million in state funds so that charter schools can expand enrollment and $10 million more to increase the per pupil amount charter schools collect from the state.

Malloy, like newly sworn-in Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, has been a consistent supporter of efforts to privatize public education by turning over scarce public resources to charter schools despite the fact that these schools discriminate against Latino students, students who need help learning the English language and students who require special education services.

With 137 of Connecticut’s school districts would be losing education aid under Malloy’s new funding proposal, and all towns would take a massive hit due to his effort to shift $400 million of teacher pension payments directly onto local taxpayers, it is especially galling to see Malloy’s plan pump’s even more money into the charter school industry.

Check back for more about the new funding formula as it becomes available

News Flash – Malloy moves to undermine teachers, public schools and property taxpayers yet again!

In a brazen move that will undermine local public education and increase taxes at the local level, Governor Dannel Malloy announced today that his new proposed budget will dump a major portion of the state’s obligation to fund the teacher’s retirement system onto the back of local towns and taxpayers, all while cutting the most important middle income relief program.

Malloy’s tactics would require Connecticut’s cities and towns to make drastic cuts to local education and increase local property taxes in order to make up the cost shift of $407.6 million in FY 2019 and $420.9 million in FY 2019.  His plan would also end the property tax credit designed to help middle income families who are already facing high local tax burdens.

In an article entitled, Malloy would bill towns for teachers’ pensions, cut middle-class tax credit, Keith Phaneuf of the Connecticut Mirror explains;

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said Friday his proposed budget would shift $407.6 million, nearly one-third of the cost of municipal school teachers’ pensions, onto cities and towns next fiscal year…

[…]

Malloy also said the two-year budget he will present Wednesday to the General Assembly would propose eliminating the $200 property tax credit within the income-tax system, costing nearly 875,000 middle-class households as much as $105 million per year based on nonpartisan analysts’ estimates.

More on this breaking story can be found at – http://ctmirror.org/2017/02/03/malloy-would-bill-towns-for-teachers-pensions-hints-at-cut-to-middle-class-income-tax-credit/

and at CT Newsjunkie – http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/malloy_proposes_shifting_one_third_of_teacher_retirement_costs_to_towns/

Massachusetts said NO to more charter schools, Connecticut should as well

At the same time that Governor Dannel Malloy is instituting the deepest cuts in Connecticut history to Connecticut’s public schools he is diverting more than $110 million dollars a year in taxpayer funds to Connecticut’s privately owned and operated charter schools.

Malloy and his operatives now want to expand this outrageous money grab with a plan to increase the number of charter schools in Connecticut and implement a new funding proposal that would see an additional $40-$50 million a year diverted to the private corporations that own Connecticut’s existing charter schools.

Connecticut’s elected and appointed officials should take a deep pause and look to Massachusetts for an indication of what happens when a state adopts this so-called “money follows the child” funding system.

Last November the charter school industry in the Bay State tried to push through a state-wide ballot initiative that would have allowed more charter schools to be opened in the Commonwealth.

To fund their effort the charter school industry pumped more than $24 million dollars into their political campaign.

The cash came from large corporate education reform “dark money” groups that refuse to release the names of their donors, wealthy hedge fund owners, Massachusetts corporations and out-of-state contributors including the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  (See Wait, What? post Charter School Industry raised more than $24 million in 2016 record breaking defeat In Massachusetts).

But in this case, the massive outpouring of money couldn’t buy the outcome of the election as parents, educators and taxpayers successfully pushed back against those who seek to privatize public education in the United States.  On Election Day, 62 percent of voters cast their ballots against the measure and only 38 percent in favor of the provision.

Barbara Madeloni, President of the Massachusetts Teachers Assocation, summed up the significant victory saying;

 “It’s really clear from the results of this election that people are interested in public education and value that.”

Madeloni added,

“There should be no conversation about expanding charters until the Legislature fully fund our public schools.”

Media coverage of the Massachusetts ballot initiative explained the outcome noting,

“The opposition could not match the “Yes on 2” campaign on television advertisement spending. But the “no” camp had the support of prominent Democrats, including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh. And it mobilized a sprawling field operation, with hundreds of teachers and liberal activists reaching an estimated 1.5 million voters statewide over the course of the campaign.”

In Massachusetts, voters realized that the charter schools were diverting scarce taxpayer funds away from local public school because Massachusetts already utilizes what is called a “money follows the child” school funding formula.  This funding system means that,

“When students leave traditional public schools for charters, they take thousands of dollars in state aid with them. And opponents focused heavily on this financial strain, raising the specter of cuts to arts education, transportation, and other services at the schools that serve the vast majority of students.”

Connecticut’s charter school advocacy groups have recently proposed just such a system for Connecticut and it is very likely that Malloy, an advocate of privatizing public education, will adopt their proposal as his own when he issues his proposed state budget next week.   See the Wait, What? Post of January 26, 2017 entitled Connecticut – Beware the charter school industry’s proposed new school funding scheme.

The question now is whether the state legislature will do Malloy’s bidding or actually step forward and do what is best for Connecticut’s students, parents, educators, public schools and taxpayers.

Stay tuned!