Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell, No. HHD-CV-05-4019406-S (Conn. Sup. Ct. September 7, 2016)
National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) data, cited in Sept. 7, 2016 story in the New York Times by Elizabeth Harris: Judge, Citing Inequality, Orders Connecticut to Overhaul
Its School System.
3
School district expenditure totals for the most recent year available (SY14-15) were retrieved from CSDEs 2014-15 Net School Expenditures Per Pupil dataset and from CT School
Finance Projects Expenditures for Connecticut Schools of Choice dataset. Total expenditures funded by public revenue streams (total expenditures less contributions) were identified
and calculated at the per pupil level.
4
Public revenue streams funded a weighted average of $12,524 per pupil in charter expenditures during SY14-15, $3,980 less than the weighted host district average of $16,504 per
pupil. Combined, this per pupil shortfall added up to a gap of $31,985,140 during SY14-15.
5
Public revenue streams funded a weighted average of $12,231 per pupil in charter expenditures in Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven during SY14-15, $4,604 less than the weighted
host district average of $16,835 per pupil. Combined, this per pupil shortfall added up to a gap of $28,748,511 during SY14-15.
1
As Connecticut engages in a long-overdue statewide debate about how to establish equity in our schools, this paper
presents clear evidence to policymakers that public charter schools must receive fair funding as part of any plan to
comply with the courts ruling in CCJEF v. Rell.
PERCENT OF ENROLLMENT
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Charters
30%
20%
10%
0%
STUDENTS OF COLOR
LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
Within these communities, charter schools enroll at-risk students at a rate slightly higher than their host districts
87 percent of students at charter schools are Black or Hispanic and 71 percent are low-income. This means charter
schools not only serve Connecticuts neediest districts they serve many of the neediest students in these
districts.
Students receiving free or reduced price lunches in SY15-16 were considered low-income in this analysis. These designations were retrieved from CSDEs Free/Reduced Lunch dataset.
40%
35%
30%
Host Districts
25%
Charters
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
ELA
MATH
7
CDSEs SBAC datasets tracking the performance of All Grades Combined in SY14-15 and SY15-16 were retrieved and used in this analysis. Students scoring at Level 3 or above were
considered at grade level.
Charter school students scored at grade level in math at a rate 39 percent higher than their district school peers.
29 percent of charter school students scored at grade level in math
21 percent of host district students scored at grade level in math
Charter school students scored at grade level in ELA at a rate 31 percent higher than their district school peers.
43 percent of charter school students scored at grade level in ELA
33 percent of host district students scored at grade level in ELA
Overall, Connecticuts charter schools improved more than twice as much as host districts
in both ELA and math last year. 8
Charters improved 5.1 points in math and 5.3 points in ELA
Host districts improved 2.3 points in math and 2.5 points in ELA
Host Districts
2%
Charters
1%
0%
ELA IMPROVEMENT
MATH IMPROVEMENT
Charters have had their most profound impact in three of Connecticuts poorest cities: Bridgeport, New Haven, and
Hartford. In these cities which account for 80 percent of charter school students in the state charter school
students score at grade level in math at twice the host-district rate, and charter school students score at grade level in
ELA at a rate 58 percent higher than their host district peers.
8
Based on CSDEs Smarter Balanced 2015-16 Preliminary Results dataset, which adjusted 2014-15 assessment data to allow year-to-year performance comparisons. Because the
adjusted data included scoring data but not participation figures, test taker totals were retrieved from ocial SY14-15 and SY15-16 results to calculate weighted improvement averages
for the charter school and host-district groupings.
40%
35%
30%
District
25%
Charters
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
BRIDGEPORT
HARTFORD
NEW HAVEN
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
Host Districts
$10,000
Charters
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
The vast majority of this lost funding hurts students in three of Connecticuts cities. Charter schools in Bridgeport,
Hartford, and New Haven receive just 76 percent as much per pupil as their host districts in public funding an
average shortfall of $4,604 per student. This shortfall adds up to $28.7 million in lost support -- funds that
would enable the best schools in these districts to make an even bigger dierence in Connecticuts poorest
communities.
9
This calculation analyzed expenditures for all charters with public data for SY14-15, meaning both state and local charter schools were included. Local charter schools, of which there
are two, receive substantially more local funding than their state counterparts. With local charter schools excluded, the charter-funding gap expands to $4,140 per pupil.
10
Re-occuring operating expenditures funded by public dollars were analyzed for this report. Construction-related spending and spending funded by philanthropic contributions were not
included.
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
Districts
$12,000
Charters
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
BRIDGEPORT
HARTFORD
NEW HAVEN