In Connecticut, a child’s ZIP code still determines more about their education than their talent or effort ever will. Recent polling shows that voters overwhelmingly support increased state investment in K-12 education to address funding inequities between school districts.
My mom, a fourth-grade teacher in a well-resourced suburban district, sees this inequity every time a new student arrives from an underfunded urban community. I’ve seen it too while working as a substitute paraprofessional in her district. Bright, capable kids come in years behind–not because they lack ability, but because they never received consistent intervention support.
Students arrive in suburban classrooms through different paths. Some come through Open Choice, a state program that allows students from cities to attend public schools in nearby suburbs. The goal is to expand opportunity. But in reality, the program reaches only a small share of eligible students and does nothing to improve the underfunded schools those students leave behind.
For many students, Open Choice ends up highlighting the inequity rather than solving it. Equal access shouldn’t depend on leaving your community. Others move on their own, but they carry the same gaps when they arrive: they can decode words but can’t comprehend them, or they know procedures but not concepts. These are gaps that come from years of under-resourced classrooms.
Connecticut’s school funding model is designed to produce these disparities. Only 36% of school funding comes from the state, one of the lowest shares in the country – a reality underscored in recent debates over funding reform proposals. With such a low state contribution, local property taxes determine the quality of a child’s education.
This is why some suburbs can spend over $25,000 per student, while cities like Bridgeport or Hartford struggle to reach $17,000 –a gap that has widened as districts brace for further cuts. These inequities become increasingly more harmful when federal funding is unstable.
This year, the Trump administration froze $53.6 million in federal education grants, and the districts losing the most are the ones already struggling to meet basic needs. This issue resurfaced in recent debates about Governor Lamont’s K-12 funding priorities.
- Bridgeport lost $3.8 million
- New Haven and Waterbury each lost nearly $3 million
- Hartford lost $2.7 million
Wealthier districts can manage these cuts; poorer districts have no safety net and are left exposed.
These disparities fall hardest on districts with the highest concentration of students of color and low-income families. This deepens the racial and economic divides that already exist in Connecticut. Wealthier, largely white suburbs can offer smaller class sizes, stable intervention programs, and updated materials. Many urban districts simply cannot.
This isn’t just an education problem. It’s a workforce problem. Connecticut employers already struggle to find workers with the skills needed for today’s economy. The Connecticut Business and Industry Association has warned that the state does not have a sufficiently prepared workforce. Educational inequality doesn’t just harm students, it weakens the state’s talent pipeline and limits economic mobility – ultimately affecting every taxpayer.
These gaps extend beyond the classroom. They affect graduation rates, college access, long-term earnings, and statewide economic strength.
Research shows that targeted intervention can produce up to a full grade level of academic growth in a single year. I’ve witnessed students flourish with consistent support in the classroom. When those supports aren’t available, students begin their educational lives disadvantaged to their peers in wealthier districts.
Fixing this won’t happen with small adjustments. Connecticut must reduce its reliance on local property taxes and fully modernize the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) formula so that it reflects the real cost of educating students. This has been at the center of Connecticut education coverage for years because the need for reform is so widely recognized.
Other states demonstrate what strong funding reform can achieve. In Massachusetts, the Student Opportunity Act dramatically increased state funding for high-need districts. New Jersey’s School Funding Reform Act similarly redirected resources to low-income communities helping reduce gaps tied to local property wealth.
Connecticut has begun discussing similar ideas – including proposals to accelerate the ECS phase-in and rework how districts are funded. But the state has yet to commit to the level of reform these improvements require.
A fair funding system requires:
- Stronger funding weights for English learners, special education students, and high-poverty districts
- Tying funding to inflation
- Increasing the state’s share of total school funding
- Guaranteeing baseline staffing–interventionists, paraprofessionals, and reading support–in every district
These are not extras. They are fundamental conditions for equitable education.
We cannot claim to value equity while maintaining a funding system that guarantees inequality. If state leaders are serious about giving every child a fair chance, they must overhaul school funding now.
The research is clear. The disparities are clear. And the solutions are already on the table.
Lawmakers must prioritize passing a reformed ECS formula, increasing the state’s contribution to K-12 education, and ensuring that every district has the staff and resources necessary – regardless of ZIP code.
Connecticut likes to call itself a leader in education. Now it’s time to prove it.
Sydney Marshall is a sophomore at Connecticut College studying government with a minor in psychology.