The members of Connecticut’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Education Funding deserve credit for their hard work. It’s an uphill battle.
For months, the commission has been digging into the mechanics of how education funding actually reaches students. The recent discussion around the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) formula demonstrates a willingness to confront issues that many have avoided for years.
As a Bridgeport Board of Education member representing the state’s largest and highest-need urban school district, the latest meeting of the commission left me encouraged, yet concerned that we may still be underestimating the magnitude of the challenges facing districts like Bridgeport.
The commission’s sample scenarios explored increasing the ECS foundation, expanding poverty weights, and adding a special education weight. More importantly, commissioners repeatedly returned to an important question, is it enough?
The question should not simply be whether Connecticut increases the ECS foundation from one number to another, but whether the foundation reflects the actual cost of educating a child in Connecticut today.
Let’s run the sample numbers through using my beloved City of Bridgeport and its 20,000 students. New Haven, Hartford, New Britain, New London, Waterbury, Meriden, and others, take note; many of your districts will be similarly impacted. Run your numbers.
In the 2027/2028 school year, Bridgeport faces an estimated $25 million loss of one-time revenue alongside approximately $15 million in recurring cost increases. That creates a $40 million structural need before any discussion of new programs or expanded services. $40 million over last year is break-even; we won’t even be able to purchase an additional pencil.
Under the commission’s model, Bridgeport would receive roughly $23 million in additional recurring ECS funding if all sample reforms were adopted. That helps substantially, but it still leaves a gap of nearly $17 million.
Districts like Bridgeport are fighting for the survival of public education amid rising special education costs, increased transportation expenses, runaway healthcare inflation, and labor contracts for our underpaid workforce.
Several commissioners questioned whether the foundation amount adequately reflects current costs, noting that distributing supplemental aid outside the ECS formula may simply codify existing structural funding issues rather than create meaningful new revenue. These are exactly the questions the commission should be asking.
Implementation is another pressing concern. Assuming the commission recommends a higher foundation amount, increased poverty funding, and additional special education support, this best-case scenario still leaves districts significantly short today. That reality becomes even more troubling if increases are phased in over several years. Bridgeport’s $40 million challenge is not being phased in, nor are rising special education, transportation, or healthcare costs. The bills arrive every day.
Legislative leaders responsible for balancing the state budget reminded commissioners that education spending competes with other priorities. That is where the commission needs to push back hardest. The commission’s task must be to first determine the overall fiscal needs of CT’s 500,000 students, not adhere to an artificial ceiling under today’s inequitable tax structure.
If Connecticut determines the current foundation amount is inadequate, equity should not become a long-term goal; it must become an urgency. A district cannot pay this year’s bills with funding promised in 2032.
Another issue deserves greater attention: how Connecticut measures a community’s ability to pay. The current ECS formula relies heavily on property wealth. Many municipalities today are property rich, but cash-poor. They have substantial grand lists on paper, yet struggle with high poverty, tax-exempt properties, aging infrastructure, and residents with limited income.
Commissioners discussed whether Connecticut should revisit the 70% property wealth and 30% income wealth weighting that drives ECS allocations. The ratio should be closer to a 50/50 split, if not totally inverted. An equity-based funding system must recognize the actual capacity of residents to support public education through local taxation.
Accountability is also critical. Taxpayers, families, educators, and policymakers deserve to know that education dollars are being spent wisely. Increased funding and accountability are not mutually exclusive responsibilities, but accountability cannot deflect the state’s responsibility to adequately fund our schools.
The tale of two Connecticut education systems cannot continue to be our story. We cannot celebrate the success of some while ignoring that high-need districts spend thousands less per pupil than wealthy communities, nor allow cost concerns to distract from the state’s moral and constitutional obligation to provide all children with an adequate education.
Ultimately, adequacy and equity must remain the guiding principles. Let the legislature figure out how to pay for it, either by dropping guardrails, reducing spending elsewhere, fixing the tax structure or any combination.
The Blue Ribbon Commission demonstrates a growing consensus that small adjustments over time are not enough. Free from the constraints of a poorly designed survey they did not create, and an expert they did not choose, the commission is asking the right questions and must come up with firm numbers that close the gap for all districts. Now the governor and legislature must accept the answers, even if they require us to invest more deeply in the students who need it most.
For Bridgeport and districts like it, the issue is not whether we can afford educational equity. The question is whether we can afford to continue as a society without it.
Joseph Sokolovic lives in Bridgeport.