The state Supreme Court has denied a last-ditch effort by a coalition of parents, teachers and local officials to reconsider the court’s recent decision saying state spending on education meets constitutional standards.
The state says the Connecticut Supreme Court should decline to reconsider its recent decision upholding state spending on education as constitutionally adequate and reject a request from a coalition of parents, teachers and local municipal leaders to rehear the case.
Lawyers representing the coalition of parents, teachers and locally elected officials suing the state argue that the trial provided abundant examples of deficiencies in school districts. The coalition also asks the court to reconsider its conclusion that the state is not constitutionally responsible for paying to help students overcome societal deficiencies, such as poverty and other issues at home.
In a split decision that probably brings to a close a 12-year legal saga, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state is providing students in the state’s most impoverished school districts with the minimally adequate education the constitution mandates.
In both states spending on education has increased greatly over the last 25 years – with one key difference: Massachusetts tied increased state aid to ambitious reforms it credits with spurring remarkable advances in student achievement. Connecticut relied more heavily on local educators to use increased state aid to improve things. Second of three stories in a special report.
The Connecticut Supreme Court will hear arguments today in a once-in-a-generation lawsuit that could pave the way for major changes in how the state funds its public schools. Meanwhile, across the street, legislators and the governor are little closer to fixing the problems that prompted a scathing lower-court ruling more than a year ago.
The state’s public education system has reached a pivotal time. Click to read more stories in charts The Connecticut Supreme Court is set to hear arguments today in a landmark school-funding case. And with the state facing major projected deficits for the foreseeable future, it might take an order from the high court for much […]
Huge questions over how state aid for schools and state colleges ultimately will fare will be a critical focus of Democratic and Republican leaders as they grapple with reconciling their vastly different state budgets. Here are the critical differences in funding for schools and colleges that Democrats and Republicans must resolve.
How the state funds public schools is so messy and complicated that dozens of parents, educators, legislators, the governor, and a Superior Court judge have characterized the setup as broken. However, some of the criticism that regularly surfaces is based on skewed perceptions of reality.
In the absence of a state budget, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has spared Connecticut’s most impoverished communities from losing their largest education grants, but there are plenty of other lesser grants these towns rely on that will be decimated or scaled back under his executive orders.
Leaders at the state Capitol agree that changing how the state distributes public school aid is necessary – but that consensus quickly crumbles when specific changes are floated.
A plan backed by two Democratic legislative leaders to boost state spending for public schools by $53 million next year and shake up how the state funds charter and magnet schools is causing disagreements among members of their own party and with the leader of the state’s largest teachers union.
The Connecticut Supreme Court has denied the state’s unusual request that they speed up hearing arguments against a lower court’s controversial ruling that the state’s way of distributing school aid is irrational and unconstitutional.
Legislators express support for studying how much it actually costs to adequately educate children, especially those in poverty.
Connecticut’s attorney general wants arguments in eight weeks in an appeal of a lower-court’s controversial ruling that the state’s way of distributing school aid is irrational and unconstitutional.