Based solely upon my reading of the Connecticut Mirror’s article on the last meeting of Gov. Lamont’s Blue Ribbon Commission on K-12 Education, one thing became abundantly clear: the governor’s hired expert is trying to reframe inequity as a management problem rather than a funding problem.

During the meeting, Marguerite Roza warned that some districts may “drag their feet” in responding to enrollment declines and could “get themselves in financial trouble.” She also argued that the real “villain” is declining birth rates and made suggestions ranging from mandated budget reserve requirements and mandatory budget projections to state intervention when districts face fiscal distress.

But before even entertaining stronger oversight, financial controls, or state takeovers, we should ask a more fundamental question: Why are we so eager to scrutinize the spending decisions of districts that have significantly less money to spend in the first place?

Connecticut is one of the wealthiest states in the country. It has been historically one of the most segregated by race and income and remains so today.

This results in wild fluctuations in spending.  For example, Bridgeport spends thousands of dollars less per student than Fairfield. Stamford spends substantially less per pupil than nearby Darien. Similar patterns exist when comparing Hartford and its suburbs, New Haven and neighboring towns, as well as Waterbury and much wealthier districts nearby.

These disparities are not occurring between states hundreds of miles apart. They exist right across the street.

Yet whenever districts have to advocate for more money,  the conversation changes. The blame shifts to local boards of education.

Imagine — one district gets thousands of dollars less per student than a district right across the street. Then concentrate higher levels of poverty in that district. Add much larger populations of English Language Learners. Add a pinch of newcomer students who require intensive language-acquisition supports.  Add a spoonful of higher concentrations of students requiring special education services.  Fold in half of pound of rising transportation, labor, and operational costs.  Let the mixture set in a cool dark place for 13 years and you have a recipe for disaster — one which our students must eat regardless of it’s nutritional value or the ability to keep from vomiting from the rot.

Then act surprised when the district experiences financial stress. Blame local leadership for the chef’s recipe that put education on life support.

That is not a serious analysis of educational finance and thankfully some on the commission pushed back directly.

Lisa Hammersley pushed back when Roza suggested that district comparisons reveal inefficiencies. She pointed out that districts serving different student populations cannot be meaningfully compared without accounting for factors such as multilingual learner populations and other student needs.

She was absolutely right. Districts serving immigrant students require family language specialists and additional instructional support. These services cost more money per pupil, not less. When accounting for spending one must look to need.

A district serving larger special education populations faces similarly significant obligations. Those costs are not inefficiency. They are the cost of serving students with severe needs.

What makes the discussion especially frustrating is that many urban districts have already done exactly what critics say they should do.

New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker reminded the commission that his district has already closed four schools and reduced staff. His argument was not that management doesn’t matter. His argument was that districts can make painful reductions year after year and still face structural financial problems when funding fails to keep pace with need.

That matters because districts cannot cut their way out of a funding gap forever. Bridgeport has cut all librarians. We cannot solve underfunding through efficiency. You certainly can’t compare outcomes while ignoring resource and demographic disparities.

Connecticut’s ECS formula foundation amount has been frozen since 2013.  Advocates such as myself have argued for years that education has lost hundreds of millions in today’s dollars while the state’s demands have continued to grow.

Connecticut continues to rely too heavily on property taxes to fund education. This after several lawsuits found this to be discrimination. Zip code remains one of the strongest indicators educational resources. And this brings us back to the central flaw in this premise.

Before lawmakers entertain intervention or accountability from others, they must first confront their own culpability, and be accountable for their shortcomings.

Of course districts should be accountable for spending, but the real question is whether accountability can be separated from equity. Districts cannot budget their way out of chronic disinvestment.

Connecticut’s real challenge is not getting districts to spend smarter.  It’s making certain that students are funded fairly regardless of where they live.

I feel this group of hardworking dedicated individuals were set up to fail as an election year ploy. I am sure after seeing the results of the last meeting that the commission will make some good recommendations.  My fear is that as soon as the election is over those recommendations will sit on a shelf gathering dust for the next 13 years.

Joseph Sokolovic is a resident of Bridgeport.