Connecticut education leaders give state lawmakers an earful
Danbury, Connecticut area educators have criticized state legislators in a meeting for passing laws without considering the cost to school districts. Superintendents and board members from six communities met with state lawmakers at a forum sponsored by the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education. They described laws that stymie recruitment of high-quality staff and regulations that squander teachers' time. The legislators urged the educators to flood lawmakers with concerns about laws. "I want to talk about unfunded mandates, especially the in-school suspension law," New Fairfield Superintendent Joseph Castagnola said. The law, which takes effect July 1, prohibits putting students out of school for misdeeds, and requires districts to dedicate staff and space to the issue. "It's a mandate. We have to fund it or be out of compliance. It's becoming more and more difficult to go to the taxpayers and squeeze and squeeze and squeeze," Castagnola said. Rep. David Scribner said the legislature wanted to help students but didn't look at the long-term impact on school districts. Ridgefield school board chairman Keith Miller suggested legislators solve individual problems they encounter instead of making laws that affect everyone. Danbury Superintendent Sal Pascarella said the high school reform proposal is another example of a change that would affect budgets. "It will affect contract negotiations, because it will require more time and more days. It would take more cash to do it and it will require more (science) labs," he said. Staffing is hurt by some state laws, the educators said. Teacher certification is more rigorous here than in other states and stops some recruits, while the pension plan holds back others. The state Department of Education regulation that schools carry the burden of proof when a parent and school staff disagree on a child's special education program was another issue. "We feel it's an incredible expense and time consuming to comply with the law, and Connecticut is the only state to have it," said Lyn Merrill, a Ridgefield school board member. "This takes time and money away from other students." She asked if the legislators could lean on the state Department of Education for change.
"We may have deferred to the state Department of Education to develop the regulations," Chapin said.
Dansbury News-Times, 1/18/08, By Eileen Fitzgerald
[Editor’s Note: Other states also have moved to undo the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling in Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005), that a Individualized Education Program (IEP) should not be presumed inadequate until proven otherwise. In that case, NSBA’s brief argued that one practical result of departing from the general legal principle that the party challenging the status quo bears the burden of proof is that schools may be forced to present general arguments that every aspect of the IEP is adequate without even knowing in advance what specific complaints the plaintiff has, so that they are unable to focus scarce resources on addressing those particular complaints. These resources include school staff members who must leave classrooms for the proceedings. Information on New York’s legislation, a summary of Schaffer, and NSBA’s brief are below.]
NSBA School Law pages on “anti-Schaffer” legislation
NSBA School Law pages on Schaffer v. Weast
NSBA brief in Schaffer v. Weast