A week after New Haven’s mayor decried the inadequacy of state funding for local education, Hartford’s mayor came to the state Capitol office of House Speaker Matt Ritter to publicly offer thanks for the positive impact the recently adopted budget will have on his city.
“I come up to the Capitol very often to ask for things,” Hartford Mayor Arunan Arulampalam said.
“You’re nicer than some mayors,” Ritter said, smiling.
“My mom told me, taught me, that if you are willing to ask for something, you better say thank you when you get it, and we’re here to say thank you,” Arulampalam said.
Behind the political politesse is the challenge of urban mayors to advocate for immediate needs, while also playing the longer game of seeking structural changes in how Connecticut meets its constitutional responsibility of equitably funding public education.
“The state has an obligation, constitutionally, to fund public education with regard to equity, and we don’t. We just don’t,” said Joe DeLong, the executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities.
DeLong was not party to Elicker’s denunciation of Gov. Ned Lamont’s refusal to raise taxes and provide greater funding for education, nor the press conference Arulampalam sought to publicize some of the fiscal relief coming to Hartford. But he understands both points of view.
The state both increased funding for special education and accelerated by one year the commitment to fully funding the Education Cost Sharing formula, through which most state aid for local education flows.
For Hartford, that means $3.4 million more for special education and an additional $2.8 million in ECS money. There is an other $8 million in new funding for the city, including $1 million that will be matched for the city to once again employ 800 young people in summer jobs.
“It’s a significant investment in our youth. It’s a significant investment in violence prevention in our city. It has so many layers of impact, and we really appreciate the legislature coming through,” Arulampalam said.
Ritter, a Democrat from Hartford, had expressed annoyance last week at Elicker’s complaint. On Friday, the former city council leader said he understood Elicker’s larger frustrations with the inability of the General Assembly to make more dramatic changes in funding schools.
“I have a lot of respect for all the mayors. I know what a hard job it is,” Ritter said. “So this is not a knock or a dig at anybody. What I would say, though, is that incremental progress in the legislature is often what happens. And so the idea that a group can ask for a half a billion dollars in one year is just not practical.”
Urban legislators are not a majority in the the General Assembly, but both chambers are led by urban Democrats: Ritter in the House, and Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney of New Haven in the Senate.
DeLong said the notion of incremental change and progress is reasonable, but it must be viewed in a larger picture: The ECS formula has not been changed significantly since 2013, and inflation means that the state’s share of K-12 funding actually shrinks some years even as over spending goes up.
Connecticut’s 36% state share of financing public schools is one of the lowest in the U.S.
“I wish I could walk in the legislature and get $545 million in a new Educational Cost Sharing formula. We have to, as leaders, deal with the realities in front of us,” Arulampalam said.
Last week, as the New Haven Independent reported, Elicker blamed Lamont for the incrementalism.
“Gov. Lamont continues to say the state is providing ‘historic levels of support’ for education,” Elicker said. “However, the only thing ‘historic’ about the state’s K to 12 education funding is the ongoing record Connecticut is setting for not increasing the state’s allocation level of per student funding, which hasn’t increased from its stagnant amount of $11,525 since 2013. It is irresponsible for the state to continue to fund public schools at the same per pupil level as it did over a decade ago.”
On Friday, Elicker his criticism was not directed at the legislative leaders, whom he says were constrained by the governor’s refusal to consider higher taxes or spend more of the surplus funds now held as budget reserves or used to pay down debt and pension liabilities,
“We need to think big, and we need to act big,” Elicker said. “An unwillingness to raise taxes at the state level means raising them at the local level.”
