It was nice to see the comments from several of you over the weekend. Hopefully it’s just the beginning, and more of you will see something in one or more of the comments that you would like to discuss. I am happy to answer factual questions if I can, and expand on earlier posts where you have expressed interest. But it will be great if the discussion evolves among you readers—so feel free to respond to any of the reader comments as well as the main posts. Agree or disagree as you see fit—but respectfully would be best.

For starters let me offer a little feedback to a few of the submitters:

To T.C. and Senior Citizen who both expressed concerns about the impact of Minimum Budget Requirement (MBR) provision on ECS funding:

I think you have hit on one of the potentially most problematic components of the new ECS program. I get it that that town tax bases have been overburdened for many because of ECS under funding, and that given a very large ECS increase, the MBR rules could help reduce that burden in some towns. (See February 15^th posting) My concern is that after a $180 (11%) million increase in 2007-08, the ECS growth for 2008-09 drops to $80 (4%) million. And if the financial position of the state does worsen going into the next biennium, what then? Will the ECS increase shrink as it has during past fiscal crises?

It certainly doesn’t make sense to allow almost half of new ECS aid to go for tax relief if the increase ends up being 4% or less over the next few years. I still think the first 4 or 5% of any year’s ECS increase should go to education and the option of tax relief should be limited to some portion of any increase in excess of that percentage.

I have seen one or two local appropriations passed in the last few days and plan to create an illustration of how ECS and the MBR for 2008-09 compare to the actual school budget increase. Look for a Thursday posting.

To Retired from DRG 1 (DRG = District Reference Group, a cluster of towns with similar socio-economic characteristics used to summarize data in various statistical reports compiled at the State Education Department): You are correct that each local board of education is charged with maintaining schools that satisfy the “educational interests of the state.” Section 10-218 of the Connecticut General Statutes lists local boards’ duties with regard to this requirement and Sections 10-4a and 10-4b assign responsibilities to the State Board to ensure that this is carried out. Because school boards are financially dependent on their respective towns to appropriate school budgets, towns are ultimately a party to any claim that insufficient funds have been provided for the board to execute its duties under 10-218. The former Minimum Expenditure Requirement (MER) and current Minimum Budget Requirement (MBR) have been the most commonly used standard by the state to determine that a local board has been provided sufficient resources to satisfy the “educational interests of the state”. So long as the minimum funding is provided, a town has met its obligation.

It is conceivable, but quite rare, for a complaint of a 10-4a violation to be brought before the State Board where the minimum funding requirement has been met, but a claim is made that the minimum is insufficient to provide all mandated services to the level required by law—such as minimum hours or days of school, special education, and so on.