Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
____________________________
S.C. 19768
____________________________
________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................................ v
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .......................................................... vi
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.............................................................1
ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................1
I. Educational Adequacy Requires College And Career Readiness.........................2
II. Connecticuts Charter Public Schools Are Achieving Notable Success
In Neighborhoods Where Many Traditional Public Schools Are
Struggling..............................................................................................................5
A. Connecticuts Staggering Achievement Chasm Persists. ...........................5
B. Charter Public Schools Can Close The Achievement Gap. ........................7
C. Irrational State Laws And Policies Threaten Charter Public
Schools Ability To Continue Providing Their Students A High-
Quality Education And Prevent Them From Serving More
Children. ................................................................................................... 10
III. Expanding Charter Public School Opportunities For Connecticut
Families Must Figure Prominently In Any Remedy. ............................................ 14
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 15
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Statutes
Constitutional Provisions
Other Authorities
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)
FES, Schools are for Kids: Why Public Charter Schools Must Be Fairly
Funded After CCJEF,
http://www.fightforfairnessct.org/paper ........................................................................ 1, 2
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)
Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 21st Century Skills, Education &
Competitiveness: A Resource and Policy Guide,
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_
education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf ..................................................................... 3
iv
STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF AMICI CURIAE
considered as part of any remedy the General Assembly crafts to comply with the trial
v
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
access to quality education in Connecticut and elsewhere. They include the Connecticut
Coalition for Achievement Now, Families for Excellent Schools, the Northeastern Charter
Schools Network, Achievement First, and several prominent charter public school leaders
and Connecticut families listed in the Appendix attached hereto (collectively, the
achievement gap and give all children, including those in high-need communities, access to
excellent public schools, including charter public schools and magnet schools. In
furtherance of these goals, ConnCAN promotes the establishment of a better and more
equitable educational funding system in Connecticut that facilitates public school choice,
promotes innovation, ensures that students with greater learning needs receive the
additional financial aid they require, and treats all public students fairlywhether they
to ensure that every child attends an excellent school. FES advances this goal by building
coalitions between schools, families, and allies and running campaigns that change
educational policy.
1 No counsel for any party wrote this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel nor a party
contributed to the cost of the preparation or submission of this brief.
vi
The Northeast Charter Schools Network (NECSN) is a membership and advocacy
organization for charter public schools in Connecticut and New York. NECSNs mission is
to support and expand the high-quality charter public school movement in both states.
NECSN advances this goal by fighting to close the funding gap between charter public
schools and traditional district schools in the state legislatures and by providing support
public schools serving approximately 11,600 students in Connecticut, New York, and
educational opportunity for all of Americas children, regardless of race or economic status.
Achievement First schools provide students with the academic and character skills they
need to graduate from top colleges, succeed in a competitive world, and serve as the next
achievement gap and ultimately serving as a proof point that it is possible to do so at scale,
inspiring broader reform. Several of Achievement Firsts organizational leaders and on-site
principals have signed onto this amici curiae brief as well. See Appendix A.
Proposed amici also include a group of parents and guardians of students in the
Connecticut public school system, who are personally and deeply concerned with the
quality of Connecticuts education system, the laws and policies identified by the trial court,
and the artificial barriers to school choice that the State has erected, which limit the
Appendix A.
vii
In light of their shared goal of improving public education in Connecticut, all of the
amici have a significant interest in this case. In its decision below, the trial court catalogued
the many ways in which Connecticuts inequitable education system deepens the persistent
and staggering achievement gap between rich and poor students. To remedy these
constitutional violations, the trial court ordered the General Assembly to devise a new
method for allocating educational funding, end[] the abuses that in some places have
left children rising from elementary school to high school without knowing how to read,
write, and do math well enough to move up, and replace the irrational statewide system
of evaluation and compensation for educational professionals. Appx., A522, A539, A541.
Accordingly, the trial courts decision wouldif upheld by this Court and
education system and ensure that students have access to the excellent public education
opportunities they need and deserve. It would also provide the General Assembly with a
rare opportunity to amend and correct Connecticuts laws and policies governing the
funding of charter public schools, policies that effectively prohibit highly successful charter
public school operators, including amici, from opening, expanding, and serving students
viii
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Amici adopt the Statement of Facts from the joint brief of the Plaintiffs.
ARGUMENT
The decision below shines a much-needed light on the illogical, inequitable, and
unconstitutional manner in which Connecticuts education system treats its most vulnerable
students. As the court held, Connecticut has, without any rational (let alone, compelling)
basis, left rich school districts to flourish and poor school districts to flounder, depriving
countless children in Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven and elsewhere of their fundamental
right to education. Appx., A453. Charter public schools, however, have bucked this
State. 2
not apply to traditional public schools. Most notably, Connecticuts charter public schools
receive thousands of dollars less in per-pupil funding than traditional district schools,
amounting to, for example, an annual deficit of nearly $32 million in 2014-2015, even
though charter public schools serve similar at-risk student populations as do certain district
schools. See FES, Schools are for Kids: Why Public Charter Schools Must Be Fairly
1
Funded After CCJEF, http://www.fightforfairnessct.org/paper. Moreover, Connecticuts
General Assembly must make a politically motivated choice each and every year to decide
policies deter the expansion of high-quality charter public schools and even threaten the
very existence of charter public schoolsschools that are helping students escape the
cycle of poverty, illiteracy, unpreparedness, and incarceration holding back so many of their
peers.
Charter public schools therefore must be considered an integral part of any solution
designed to remedy the grave constitutional problems the trial court identified, so that these
promising school options can expand the scope of educational opportunity to as many
students as possible throughout the State and help resolve the deep educational disparities
cited in the trial courts ruling. By encouraging the growth of charter public schools with a
track record of success, in conjunction with other reform efforts, Connecticut can ensure
that every child is able to exercise her constitutional right to an adequate education.
The trial court in this case held that the fundamental right to education enshrined in
the Connecticut Constitutiona right recognized by this Court in Connecticut Coalition for
Justice in Educational Funding, Inc. v. Rell, 295 Conn. 240 (2010) (Rell)requires public
schools to provide students with little more than a roof over their heads and the most basic
of physical necessities. See Appx., A461-462, 474-478. The court reached this conclusion
by adopting the concurring opinion of Justice Palmer, who the trial court believed would
not even find a constitutional adequacy violation unless the irrationality point had been
reached. Appx., A461-462. In the trial courts view, this standard requires only minimally
2
instrumentalities of learning such as desks, chairs, pencils, and reasonably current
curricula such as reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies, by sufficient
Respectfully, the trial court was mistaken in reaching this conclusion. Although a
constitutionally adequate education is not necessarily a perfect one, Rell, supra, 295
Conn. 320 (plurality opn.), decades of empirical research, historical developments in the
labor market, and the daily experiences of thousands of Connecticuts students make clear
that, at minimum, students must be given access to educational resources that actually
prepare them for college and successful careers later in lifei.e., to be college and career
ready. See id., 314-315 (plurality opn.) (a constitutionally adequate education must
Indeed, in this modern technological era, critical thinking and problem solving are
essential to both a childs success and the success of the broader economy. See
Hanushek et al., Education and Economic Growth, Education Next (Spring 2008);
Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 21st Century Skills, Education & Competitiveness: A
economy, particularly the shifted emphasis away from jobs in the manufacturing sector and
towards service-oriented jobs, all point toward the increasing importance of education
Anthony P. Carnevale & Stephen J. Rose, The Economy Goes to College: The Hidden
3
Promise of Higher Education in the Post-Industrial Service Economy (Georgetown Univ.
content/uploads/EconomyGoesToCollege.pdf.
While [y]oung people born into families in the right neighborhoods with the best
schools gain preferred access to postsecondary institutions and fields of study that put
them first in line for jobs with the most formal and informal training as well as the most
powerful and flexible technology, their poorer, predominantly minority peers too often fall
behind. Carnevale & Rose, supra, at 25. Increased automation will exacerbate this trend.
According to a recent White House report, 44% of workers with less than a high school
degree hold jobs made up of highly automatableand thus replaceabletasks, while only
1% of people with a bachelors degree or higher hold such jobs. See Executive Office of
the President, Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy (Dec. 2016),
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/Artificial-
antiquated.
standard untethered to college and career readiness. While the States funding allocation
exacerbates many of the problems that the trial court identified, these problems also stem,
in part, from misguided notions of adequacy in school districts that serve at-risk
populations. Thus, even if the General Assembly allocates increased funding to these
struggling districts, the absence of any adequacy standard that asks whether that funding is
4
actually improving college and career readiness all but guarantees that the State will repeat
its transgressions and consign thousands of students to illiteracy and missed opportunity.
As the trial courts extensive factual findings and other official state data
demonstrate, many traditional public schools serving at-risk students have struggled to
provide an adequate education to the States most vulnerable students and instead have
widened the States pernicious achievement gap. Indeed, Connecticuts test results reveal
alarming statistics about low-income students math and reading skills. Appx., A485. For
instance, [w]hile less than 1 in 10 students in many of the states richest communities are
below the most basic reading levels ..., nearly 1 in 3 students in many of the states poorest
communities cant read even at basic levels. Appx., A486 (emphasis added); see also
Appx., A487 (2014-15 Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) Consortium results), A487-
488 (2013 and 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress results), A500-501
(2012 and 2013 PSAT and SAT results), A554-623 (tables displaying test data).
Recent testing data released after the close of trial confirms these alarming trends.
Hispanic (33.2%) students met or exceeded expectations in English Language Arts (ELA)
compared to nearly 7 of 10 (68.5%) white students. See Conn. State Dept of Ed. (CSDE)
in Math, more than 5 of 10 white students (56.9%) did so. See id. And while 7 of 10
(70.3%) and 6 of 10 (59.1%) students ineligible for free or reduced price meals met or
5
exceeded expectations in ELA and Math, respectively, only 3 of 10 (33.1%) and 2 of 10
These gaps persist on college entrance exams intended to gauge college and
career-readiness. For instance, results from the 2015-16 SATwhich the State
administered to all high school students for the first time as an official assessmentshow
that nearly 8 of 10 white students (77.4%) were ready for college-level work in ELA, but
fewer than 4 of 10 African-American (36.4%) or Hispanic (39%) students were ready. See
of 10 white students (49.9%) were ready for college-level Math, less than 2 of 10 African-
American (12.4%) and Hispanic (15.5%) students were similarly prepared. Low-income
districts like Bridgeport register even worse performance90% and 70.8% of Bridgeport
students were not ready for college-level work in Math or ELA, respectively. See id.
Furthermore, while many at-risk communities boast high or rising high school
graduation rates, those rates are not an apt measure of college or career readiness. See
Appx., A508, A604. There is significant [p]ressure to give out more high school diplomas,
and the states system allows local school districts to give in to it by adopting standards
loose enough to permit unready students to graduate. Appx., A604. The Bridgeport
School District Superintendent, for instance, painfully but readily confessed at trial that a
functionally illiterate person could get a Bridgeport high school degree. Appx., A501. As a
result, more than 70% of impoverished students in the states public higher education
system must be taught basic literacy and numeracy skills. Appx., A600; see also A574-
575.
6
Thus, on virtually every measure of student achievementstudent test scores,
struggled, charter public schools serving the same communities have thrived. In a study
released by the State Department of Education in 2014, for example, the CSDE
commended charter public schools for their demonstrated [] ability to work towards closing
the achievement gap for student bodies that are made up predominantly of students of
the Operation of Charter Schools in Conn. 2014 (2014 Biennial Report) at 1. The State
explained, city resident students who attend charter [public] schools outperform students in
the city public schools in reading and mathematics, and have achieved at or above
proficiency at a greater rate than city public school students in both subject areas. Id. at
11.
3 For the 2015-16 school year, 85% of the students enrolled in Connecticuts charter
public schools were African-American or Hispanic and 70% were low-incomein
excess of the statewide average for each student group. See ConnCAN, Quick Facts:
Public Charter Schools in Connecticut, http://webiva-downton.s3.amazonaws.com/
696/6d/b/2911/ConnCAN_2015_Charter_School_Quick_Facts.pdf.
7
In another study released in 2015, the CSDE again concluded that charter public
metrics, including the percentage of middle school students who score proficient or at
goal in mathematics and reading. According to the CSDE, middle school students
benefit[] more from public charter schools both in terms of performance gains and absolute
gap closure at Proficient as well as Goal on [math and reading] .... CSDE, March 2015,
Connecticuts most recent data shows similarly strong results. For instance, on the
2015-16 SBAs, 82% and 71% of charter public schools outperformed their host districts in
ELA and Math, respectively. See NECSN, 2015-16 Conn. SBA Exam Results,
i.e., the change in achievement over timeconfirms this trend. For example, 15 out of the
16 (93.75%) charter public schools for which growth data is available achieved student
growth rates and targets exceeding their host districts in either ELA or Math. 4 See CSDE
Portal/main.do. And students at 10 (62.5%) of the charter public schools achieved higher
growth rates than their host districts in both subjects. Id. Some achieved the highest
4 [G]rowth rate refers to the percentage of students meeting their respective growth
targets and the percentage of target achieved refers to the average percentage of the
growth target achieved by all students at each school. See CSDE Growth Model
Annotated Presentation, at 9 (Oct. 2016).
8
The school-specific data on charter public schools demonstrates their potential to
prepare Connecticuts students for the demands of the 21st century. Achievement First, for
example, has achieved remarkable success. In 2016, for the seventh year in a row, 100%
of Achievement Firsts senior class was accepted to college, with 59% accepted to a More
Selective or Most Selective college. According to the States 2015-16 SBGR, 49.5% and
59.5% of students at Achievement Firsts Bridgeport Academy met their growth targets in
ELA and Math, respectively, whereas only 31% and 29.1% of their peers in the Bridgeport
Portal/main.do. What is more, the average percentage of the growth target that
This success, in large part, is because charter public schools and their employees
are held accountable for student outcomes. Charter public schools operate on a strictly
provisional basis subject to continuous review and re-authorization every two to five years
by the SBE, which examines each schools student achievement record, community
support, adherence to laws and regulations, and other factors before deciding whether to
renew or even revoke a charter. And charter public school teachers and leaders are
5 Although Achievement First is notable for its consistent achievement, other charter
public schools have realized similar successes. For example, the average percentage
of growth target achieved at Park City Prep in Bridgeport was 70.8% in ELA and 77.1%
in Math, compared to the districts corresponding figures (54.6% and 50.9%). See
CSDE SBGR, 2015-16, http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do. Other schools with
similarly impressive Math achievement growth relative to their host districts were The
Bridge Academy in Bridgeport (70.3% compared to 50.9%), Side By Side Charter
School in Norwalk (75.4% compared to 58.6%), and Highville Charter School in New
Haven (67.9% compared to 63.5%). See id.
9
recognized and rewarded for excellent work, provided support to improve, and swiftly
dismissed if they do not improve. This, in turn, helps boost teacher effectiveness and avoid
merit-blind, seniority-only based decisionmaking. See Eric A. Hanushek et al., Why Public
Schools Lose Teachers, 39(2) J. Hum. Resources 326, 328 (2004); Dan Goldhaber &
(Natl Ctr. for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Educ. Research, Working Paper 55, 2010).
In exchange for this heightened accountability, charter public schools are given more
flexibility than traditional district schools when setting their school calendars (e.g., freedom
to have longer school days and years), curricula, and educational programming.
Despite charter public schools proven ability to help narrow the achievement gap,
only 24 such schools operate in the entire State, serving only 1.7% of the student
populationone of the lowest rates nationwide. See Nicole Gorman, Charter School
Debate Persists in Connecticut, Education World (Dec. 28, 2016); see also CSDE, Conn.
imposed constraints that hinder the growth and operation of charter public schools.
First, charter public schools receive significantly less in per-pupil funding than
traditional public schools, requiring administrators to do more with less, threatening charter
public schools ability to keep their doors open, and deterring charter public school
networks from expanding into and within Connecticut. At most, charter public schools
receive only $11,000 per child from the State every year (roughly $3,000 of which is subject
to withholding by the State, see infra at 12). See Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66ee(d)(1). This
10
figure has remained constant for several years even though the average statewide per-
pupil expenditure has increased to $16,000 and per-pupil expenditures in urban centers
where most charter public schools operateare much higher. See CSDE, Bureau of
http://ctschoolfinance.org/assets/uploads/files/per-student-spending-2015-16.pdf (Hartford
$19,304 per pupil; New Haven $18,246 per pupil; Bridgeport $14,327 per pupil).
For Achievement First Bridgeport Academy, this massive per-pupil funding gap
equates to roughly $3.3 million less in annual funding, an example of a school being
unfairly punished for its success. See CSDE Public School Enrollment, 2015-16,
Achievement First, amounted to $3,327 per student in the most recent school year), charter
public schools are forced to depend on uncertain philanthropy each year. And they are not
always successful: Over the last year alone, deficits forced Achievement First to cut
between one and three teachers and staff members per school, make cost-conscious
changes to employees healthcare coverage, and make other painful choices and
Second, the process by which these public funds are allocated to charter public
schools is both cumbersome and unpredictable, further hindering charter public school
operation, stymying growth, and deterring charter public school networks from expanding to
serve more of the States most vulnerable children. Unlike traditional public schools, which
automatically receive per-pupil funding for each student they enroll, charter public schools
are forced to depend on the shifting whims of the General Assembly to provide them with
the support necessary to keep their doors open. Every year, the General Assembly must
11
decide whether to appropriate funding to charter public schools, irrespective of whether
those schools have a proven track record of success. See Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-
66bb(a)(2).
Even if a charter public school operator receives an initial certificate of approval from
the SBE, the General Assembly has ultimate authority to prevent charter public school
growth through the purse strings. See Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66bb(a)(1). In April 2015, for
example, the Appropriation Committee refused to allocate sufficient funding to open both
Capitol Harbor Prep Charter School and the Stamford Charter School for Excellence, even
though both schools had received approval from the SBE the previous year. Based on the
SBEs approval, Capitol Harbor Prep had conducted a lottery for the 250 slots it assumed it
would be able to offer. But because of Connecticuts irrational laws and policies, charter
public school operators and hundreds of students were left in limbo for months until the
Governors office finally convinced the General Assembly to restore the schools funding.
And when a charter school operator does obtain an initial certificate and the General
Assembly appropriates funds for it to open, further barriers remain. Although State charter
public schools are theoretically entitled to $11,000 every year for each student enrolled in
such school, Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66ee(d)(1), this sum is paid out in installments and the
fourth installment is made within available appropriations and may be adjusted for each
student on a pro rata basis. Id. (emphases added). As a result, even properly
credentialed charter public schools are at risk of receiving only three-quarters of that sum
a mere $8,250in annual per-pupil funding from the State. See id., 10-66ee(c)(1).
As a result of these policies, not even operating, fully completed charter public
schools are safe. Because the General Assembly may refuse to provide necessary support
12
to them in any given yearregardless of the academic performance of those schools and
regardless of whether they have satisfied the stringent accountability standards necessary
the cross-hairs of the uncertain political process. Therefore, students who attend charter
public schools are left not knowing whether their schools will even exist the following year.
Oak Preparatory Academy (New Britain/Hartford), and Cross Cultural Academy of Arts and
Technology (Hartford)had to close and relinquish their charters to the SBE, at least in
part, due to insufficient funds to operate the program. 2014 Biennial Report at 3.
In practice, these barriers to growth severely limit the ability of high-quality charter
public schools to enter and expand in Connecticut. Rather than opening high-quality
charter public schools in Connecticut, where the General Assembly might refuse to support
them for any (or no) reason at all, charter public school operators are forced to focus on
more hospitable states. Indeed, while Achievement First is opening new schools in New
York and Rhode Island, it is not currently opening new schools in Connecticut due to the
inequitable, insufficient, and uncertain funding that charter public schools receive from the
State. Other charter public school operators with a track record of providing high-quality
education in the northeast are also conspicuously absent from Connecticut. Knowledge Is
Power Program (KIPP), for example, a nationally renowned charter public school
network, 6 operates thirteen schools in New York, five schools in Pennsylvania, sixteen
13
schools in Washington, D.C., two schools in Maryland, five schools in Massachusetts, and
eleven schools in New Jersey. Uncommon Schools, another well-regarded and highly-
successful charter public school operator, operates thirty schools in New York, fifteen
schools in New Jersey, and four schools in Massachusetts. But neither KIPP nor
These policies, in turn, effectively prevent Connecticut families from reaping the
benefits that high-performing charter public schools have to offer. According to the CSDE,
the number of charter public school seats is not yet keeping up with the demand. 2014
waitlists each year. Indeed, in 2012-2013, 4,273 studentsa number equal to 66% of all
charter public schools. 2014 Biennial Report at 9. In subsequent years, the number
soared even higher, approaching 6,000. See NECSN, 2015-16 and 2016-17 Conn. Charter
students wishing to attend charter public schools exceeds the number of spots available,
charter public schools resort to a lottery systema cruel game of chanceto fill the limited
The trial court ordered the State to fix its irrational funding system, the irrational
system of evaluation and compensation for educational professionals, and the abuses
14
that in some places have left children rising from elementary school to high school
without knowing how to read, write, and do math well enough to move up. Appx., A452,
A522, A539, A541. Over the past two decades, charter public schools have demonstrated
unparalleled success preparing Connecticuts students for their colleges and careers, in the
face of these and other obstacles. Charter public schools would be able to bring this
success to thousands more of Connecticuts students, if only funding equity and certainty
were achievable. See 2014 Biennial Report at 9 ([T]he rate of future expansion is
sustainability of charter public schools be considered and strengthened by any remedy that
CONCLUSION
Amici urge this Court to clarify that educational adequacy requires college and
career readiness; recognize the critical role that charter public schools canindeed,
mustplay in remedying the constitutional violations identified by the trial court; and permit
the General Assembly to correct and amend Connecticuts laws and policies governing the
unequal and uncertain funding of charter public schools, so that all Connecticut children
15
APPENDIX A
Hartford Bridgeport
Tosha Harvin
Dean Howard
Theresa Mende
Marcey Moore
Chantel Whitehead
to the last known e-mail address of each counsel of record for whom an e-mail address has
2. The electronically submitted brief and the filed paper brief have been
redacted or do not contain any names or other personal identifying information that is
prohibited from disclosure by rule, statute, court order or case law; and
3. The brief being filed with the appellate clerk is a true copy of the brief that was
submitted electronically;
4. The brief complies with all applicable rules of appellate procedure; and
5. A copy of the brief has been sent to each counsel of record and to any trial
judge who rendered a decision that is the subject matter of the appeal, in compliance with