1. Magnet and Charter Schools:
What Your District Must Know and How We All Can Get Along
Melinda B. Kaufmann
Zachary D. Schurin
Mark J. Sommaruga
November 15, 2019

2. The Growth of Charter Schools in Connecticut
Legislation permitting establishment of charter schools first enacted in 1996;
As of the school year there were a total of 24 charter schools serving more than 9,500 students;
Since 1999, at least six state charter schools have closed;
In the State of Connecticut expended $108,537,000 on charter schools;
The growth of charter schools in CT mirrors the growth of charter schools nationally.

3. The Growth of Magnet Schools in Connecticut
The first interdistrict magnet school in Connecticut, the Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts, began operating as an interdistrict magnet school in 1989;
Now, there are approximately 86 full-time and 1 part-time interdistrict magnets operating in the State;
Exponential growth in state spending on magnet school grants.

4. Charter Schools Bridgeport Hartford Manchester New Haven New London
Achievement First Bridgeport Academy
Capital Preparatory Harbor School
Great Oaks Charter School
New Beginnings Family Academy
Park City Prep Charter School
The Bridge Academy
Hartford
- Achievement First Hartford Academy Inc.
- Jumoke Academy
Manchester
Odyssey Community School
New Haven
Amistad Academy
Booker T. Washington
Common Ground High School
Elm City College Preparatory
Elm City Montessori School (local charter)
Highville Charter School
New London
Interdistrict School for Arts and Communication
Norwalk
Side by Side Charter School
Norwich
Integrated Day Charter School
Stamford
Stamford Academy
Stamford Charter School for Excellence
Trailblazers Academy
Waterbury
Brass City Charter School
Winsted
Explorations Charter School

5. Full Time Magnet Schools
Avon
Reggio Magnet School for the Arts
Bloomfield
The Metropolitan Learning Center for Global and International Studies
Big Picture High
Bridgeport
Six-to-Six Magnet School
Danbury
Western CT Academy of International Studies Elementary Magnet School
Danielson
Quinebaug Middle College
East Hartford
East Hartford-Glastonbury Elementary Magnet School
International Magnet School for Global Citizenship
Two Rivers Magnet Middle School
Connecticut IB Academy
Enfield
Public Safety Academy
Civic Leadership High School
Groton
Marine Science Magnet High School of Southeastern Connecticut
Hamden
Wintergreen Interdistrict Magnet
Metropolitan Business High School
Hyde Leadership School
Hartford
Betances Early Ready Lab
Betances STEM Magnet School
Breakthrough Magnet, North
Breakthrough Magnet, South
Capital Preparatory Magnet School
Classical Magnet School
CREC Montessori Magnet School
Environmental Sciences at Mary Hooker
Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts Middle School
Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts – Full Day
Hartford Magnet Trinity College Academy
Hartford Pre-Kindergarten Magnet School
Kinsella Magnet School of Performing Arts
Montessori Magnet at Annie Fisher

6. Full Time Magnet Schools
Hartford
Montessori Magnet at Batchelder
Noah Webster Micro-Society Magnet
Sports and Medical Sciences Academy
STEM Magnet at Annie Fisher
University High School of Science and Engineering
Manchester
Great Path Academy at MCC
Meriden
Thomas Edison Magnet Middle School
New Britain
Academy of Science and Innovation
New Haven
Barnard Environmental Magnet School
Beecher School
Benjamin Jepson Magnet School
Betsy Ross Arts Magnet School
Cooperative High School – Interdistrict Magnet School
Cordlandt V.R. Creed Heath and Sport Sciences High School
Davis 21st Century Magnet Elementary School
Engineering – Science University Magnet School
High School in the Community
Hill Regional Career High School
John C. Daniels
King-Robinson Magnet School
Mauri-Sheridan Magnet School
Metropolitan Business Academy
New Haven Academy
Ross-Woodward School
West Rock Authors Academy
ACES Education Center for the Arts
Norwich
Three Rivers Middle College Magnet School
Rocky Hill
Academy of Aerospace and Engineering Elementary
South Windsor
International Magnet School of Global Citizenship

7. Full Time Magnet Schools
Stamford
Rogers International Magnet School
Strawberry Hill at Ext. of Rogers International
Academy of Information Technology & Engineering (A.I.T.E.)
Trumbull
Regional Center for the Arts
Waterbury
Maloney Interdistrict Magnet School
Rotella Interdistrict Magnet
Waterbury Arts Magnet School (Middle)
Waterbury Arts Magnet School (High)
New London
Nathan Hale Arts Magnet
New London Visual and Performing Arts Magnet School
Science & Technology Magnet Southeastern Connecticut
Winthrop STEM Elementary Magnet School
Regional Multicultural Magnet School
Norwalk
Center for Global Studies
Waterbury
-- Rotella Interdistrict Magnet School
-- Waterbury Arts Magnet School
Waterford
Dual Language & Arts Magnet Middle School
The Friendship School
West Hartford
University of Hartford Magnet School
Wethersfield
Discovery Academy
Willimantic
Arts at the Capitol Theater Magnet School (ACT)
Windham
Charles H. Barrows STEM Academy
Windsor
Academy of Aerospace and Engineering

8. Part Time Magnet Schools
Hartford
Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts
New Haven
ACES Educational Center for the Arts
Trumbull
Regional Center for the Arts
Academy for the Performing Arts
Willimantic
Arts at the Capitol Theater

9. A Turning Point…. Sheff v. O’Neill
Sheff v. O’Neill, 238 Conn. 1 (1996): The Connecticut Supreme Court finds that the Connecticut Constitution gives all school-aged children the right to a “substantially equal educational opportunity…that is not substantially impaired by racial and ethnic isolation.”
The Court directed the legislature and executive branch to remedy the problem of racial and ethnic isolation in certain districts.
In response, the General Assembly passed 1996 legislation that provided state funding for interdistrict magnet schools as ways to break down racial, ethnic and economic isolation.

10. Charter Schools

11. What is a Charter School?
Under Connecticut law, a charter school is defined as a “public, nonsectarian school” that is:
Established under a charter granted by the State Board of Education;
Organized as a nonprofit entity;
A public agency for purposes of FOIA; and
Operated independently of any board of education and in accordance with the terms of its charter and state law.

12. Types of Charter Schools
Local Charter Schools -- A public school -- or part thereof that is converted into a charter school -- that is approved by both the local or regional board of education and the State Board of Education. Only one local charter school at the moment – Elm City Montessori in New Haven.
State Charter Schools -- A “new” public school approved (i.e. granted a “charter”) by the State Board of Education.

13. Powers and Responsibilities of Charter Schools
Under Connecticut law, state and local charters:
Have the power to sue and be sued;
Have the power to purchase, receive, hold and convey real and personal property for school purposes;
Have the power to borrow money.
A “charter” is defined as a “contract between the governing council of a charter school and the State Board of Education that sets forth the roles, powers, responsibilities and performance expectations of each party to the contract.”

14. Charter School Governance
Each charter school is run by a “governing council;”
The governing council must at least include:
Teachers and parents/guardians of students enrolled in the school;
The chairperson of the local or regional board of education of the town in which the charter school is located – or – the chairperson’s designee provided that the designee is a member of the board of education or the superintendent of schools (or superintendent’s designee) for the district;
FOIA requirements apply to charter schools (plus additional website posting requirements).

15. Statutes that Apply to Charter Schools
Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-66dd(b)(1) “charter schools shall be subject to all federal and state laws governing public schools.” See Board of Education of Hamden v. State Board of Education, 278 Conn. 326, (2006).
However, charter schools may seek the waiver of certain state legal requirements.

16. Formation of Charter Schools
Different process depending if school will be a “local” or “state” charter school;
Local charter schools must be approved by the local or regional board of education and tentatively approved by the State Board of Education;
State charter schools must be tentatively approved by the State Board of Education.

17. Formation of Charter Schools
A hearing is held on the proposed charter in the district in which the charter school will be located:
Local charter application hearings held by local or regional BOE;
State charter application hearings held by State BOE in applicable school district.
Following tentative approval, State Board must provide copy of initial certificate of approval and summary of comments from public hearing to General Assembly’s Education and Appropriations Committees;
General Assembly may appropriate funds to charter school;
If funds are appropriated initial certificate of approval becomes effective.

18. The Application Process – State Charters
State charter applications are submitted to the State Board of Education and filed with the local or regional BOE.
The State Board of Education is then required to:
Hold a hearing on the application in the school district in which the charter school is to be located;
Solicit and review comments from the local or regional BOE and local and regional BOEs for school districts that are contiguous with the proposed host district;
Vote on a complete application within 90 days of receipt of the application.
Majority State BOE vote necessary for approval.

19. The Application Process – Local Charters
Local charter school applications are submitted to the local or regional BOE.
The local or regional BOE then:
Reviews the application;
Convenes a public hearing on the application;
Surveys teachers and parents to determine if there is sufficient interest;
Votes on the application within 75 days of receipt.
Majority BOE vote necessary for approval.
State BOE then votes on application within 60 days of receipt from local or regional BOE.

20. The Application Process
Applications to the Commissioner must include a description of the following:
The mission, purpose and any specialized focus of the proposed school;
The interest in the community for the proposed school;
School governance and procedures for the establishment of a governing council;
The financial plan for operation of the school;
The educational program, instructional methodology and services to be offered to students;

21. The Application Process
Applications to the Commissioner must include a description of the following:
The number and qualifications of teachers and administrators to be employed at the school;
The organization of the school in terms of ages, grades and estimated enrollment;
Student admission criteria and procedures;
Means of assessment of student performance that includes state mastery examinations;
Procedures for teacher evaluation and professional development;

22. The Application Process
Applications to the Commissioner must include a description of the following:
Provision of school facilities, transportation and student health and welfare services;
Procedures to encourage involvement by parents and guardians;
Procedures to document efforts to increase racial and ethnic diversity of staff;
Five-year plan to sustain maintenance and operation of school;
Student recruitment and retention plan;
Plan to share student learning practices and experiences with host local or regional BOE;
Charter management organization (“CMO”) information where CMO will perform management services.

23. State Board Application Review
The State Board must give preference to charter school applicants:
Whose primary purpose is to serve certain student populations including:
Students with a history of low academic performance;
Students who receive free or reduced school lunch;
Students with a history of behavioral and social difficulties;
Students identified as requiring special education;
Students who are English language learners; or
Students of a single gender.

24. State Board Application Review
The State Board must also give preference to charter school applicants:
Whose primary purpose is to improve the academic performance of an existing school that has been consistently substandard;
That will serve students who reside in a priority school district;
That will serve students who reside in a district in which 75% or more of students are members of minority groups;
That demonstrate highly credible and specific strategies to attract students from the student groups listed above;
That, in the case of state charters, the applicant is an institution of higher education.

25. State Board of Education Application Review
Along with the preferences listed in the previous slide, the State Board of Education must always consider:
The effect of the proposed charter school on the reduction of racial, ethnic and economic isolation in the region in which it is to be located;
The regional distribution of charter schools in the state;
The potential of over-concentration of charter schools within a school district or in contiguous school districts;
The state’s efforts to close the achievement gap; and
Comments made at the public hearing regarding the proposed charter school.

26. Charter Renewals
Charters can last up to five years; trend towards shorter periods.
Annual reporting requirements; possible audits; SDE postings.
Upon application for a charter renewal, the State Board of Education may deny an application if:
There has not been sufficient student progress;
The governing council has not been sufficiently responsible or has misused public funds;
The school has not been compliant with the terms of its charter or applicable laws and regulations;
The school’s efforts have been insufficient to attract diverse population; or
The governing council has not provided evidence that it has communicated with the local or regional board of education to share learning practices and experiences.

27. Enrollment Caps for State Charters
State charter schools are ordinarily subject to enrollment caps:
No more than 300 students for K – 8th grade schools;
No more than 250 students for all other schools; or
No more than 25% of enrollment of the school district in which the state charter school is located, whichever is less.
An exception to these caps may be granted for state charter schools found by the State BOE to have a demonstrated record of achievement.

28. Admission Lotteries
When children seeking enrollment outnumber available seats in a state or local charter school, the school must hold a lottery to determine which prospective students will be allowed to enroll:
Siblings of enrolled students may be given preference.

29. Charter School Funding
State charter schools are paid per-pupil grants by the SDE:
$11,250 per student for the fiscal year and each year thereafter.
Special start up grants and bond money may be available
Charter schools may receive federal funds for the education of children attending public schools in accordance with federal law and regulations
Charter schools also may receive private donations, especially if the school is managed by a §501(c)(3)/non-profit corporation
Is this enough? literally-starving-for-state-funds-says-school-leader/

30. Local Charter School Funding
Local and regional boards of education are responsible for the financial support of a local charter school at a level that is at least equal to the per-pupil cost for the BOE two fiscal years ago, multiplied by the number of students attending such local charter school in the current fiscal year.
The State Board of Education may approve, within available appropriations, a per-student grant to certain local charter schools of up to $3,000 per-student.

31. Student Transportation
The local or regional board of education of the school district in which the charter school is located shall provide transportation services for K-12 students of the charter school who reside in such school district (subject to reimbursement from state transportation grants) unless the charter school makes other arrangements for transportation;
Any such board of education may (but not shall) provide transportation services to a student attending a charter school outside of the district in which the student resides and, if it elects to provide such transportation, shall be reimbursed via state transportation grants for the reasonable costs of such transportation;
Transportation for Pre-K students? See Board of Education of Hamden v. State Board of Education, 278 Conn. 326 (2006). May not be required.

32. Collective Bargaining Issues
Certified employees employed by a local or regional board of education shall be entitled to a 2 year leave of absence, without compensation, in order to be employed in a charter school.
At any time during or upon the completion of such a leave of absence, such an employee may return to work in the school district in the position in which he/she was previously employed or in a comparable position.
Query: can such employees acquire tenure with the charter school?

33. Collective Bargaining Issues
Certified staff of local charter schools are members of the local BOE teacher and administrator bargaining units, but the applicable CBA’s may be modified.
Certified staff at state charter schools may form unions, but typically follow the pay scale of the residing district.
Unclear if non-certified charter school staff have collective bargaining rights at all.
Such employees may be permitted to unionize under Municipal Employees Relations Act (“MERA”) or National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) but no case law precedent to date.

34. Charter Schools and Special Education
Is a charter school a “local educational agency” for purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and State special education statutes?
What are the responsibilities of the student’s local or regional sending district versus the responsibilities of the charter school? 1. Convene PPT-sending district
2. Implement IEP-charter school
3. Pay for the reasonable additional costs-sending district
What happens when there is a dispute regarding special education services? Can a charter school be a party to a due process hearing? See Student v. Winchester BOE (2010).
Section 504 responsibility? Up in the air?

35. 2015 Reforms (via Public Act 15-219)
Reforms (enacted following high-profile scandal at Jumoke Academy) include the following:
Governance council members must complete responsibilities and best practices training;
Charter schools must adopt anti-nepotism and conflict of interest policies;
Governance council members, CMO members and contractors doing work with charter schools must submit to DCF abuse and neglect registry and criminal records history checks;
Schools must submit audits annually (to be posted on SDE website);
State charter approvals must include academic and organizational performance goals that include performance indicators and metrics for evaluation; schools must report annually on progress;
State Board Education must approve “material changes”;
FOIA: any contract with CMO must provide that all CMO records related to the administration of the charter school are subject to disclosure.

36. MAGNET SCHOOLS

37. What Are Magnet Schools?
Under Connecticut law, a magnet school generally means an “interdistrict magnet school program”.
An “Interdistrict Magnet School Program” means a program that does the following:
Supports racial, ethnic and economic diversity;
Offers a special and high quality curriculum, and;
Requires students to be enrolled to attend on at least a half-time basis.

38. What Are Magnet Schools?
Generally, all interdistrict magnet schools must be operated in conformance with the same laws and regulations applicable to the public schools (notwithstanding the specialized curriculum often present at these schools).
Only certain entities are eligible to receive grants from the State Department of Education in order to operate interdistrict magnet school programs.

39. Magnet School Operating Grants
Applications:
Every year interdistrict magnet school programs are required to apply to the Commissioner of the State Department of Education (“SDE”) for state operating grants.
In assessing grant applications the Commissioner of the SDE is required to consider:
Whether the program offered by the school is likely to increase student achievement;
Whether the program is likely to reduce racial, ethnic and economic isolation;
The percentage of student enrollment from each participating district;
The proposed operating budget and sources of funding for the interdistrict magnet school.

40. Magnet School Operating Grants
Generally the grant for interdistrict magnet schools operated by a local or regional BOEs is $7,220 per-student who is not a resident of the town or region and $3,060 per-student who is a resident of the town or region.
Generally the grant for interdistrict magnet schools operated by regional educational service centers is $8,058 per-student as long as the RESC enrolls less than 55% of the school’s students from a single town. Grants to a RESC that operates magnet schools varies depending on the percent
of students from a single town.

41. Magnet School Operating Grants
Generally the grant for Sheff magnet schools operated by a local or regional BOEs is $13,315 per-student who is not a resident of the town or region and $3,060 per-student who is a resident of the town or region.

42. Participating Districts
School districts can voluntarily elect to “participate” in a magnet school.
Participating districts enter into written agreements with magnet schools to cover items like enrollment/student spaces and tuition amounts.

43. Non-Participating Districts
After accommodating students from participating districts in accordance with any enrollment agreements, an interdistrict magnet school operator that has unused student capacity may then enroll directly into its program any interested student.
The local or regional board of education “otherwise responsible” for educating such student shall contribute funds to support the operation of the interdistrict magnet school in an amount equal to the per-student tuition, if any, charged to participating districts.
There are special lottery enrollment procedure for interdistrict magnet programs opened pursuant to the Sheff stipulation and order.

44. Direct Enrollment
By May 15 of each year, each interdistrict magnet school operator shall provide written notification to any school district that is “otherwise responsible” for educating a student who resides in the school district and will be enrolled in an interdistrict magnet school under the operator's control for the following school year.
This written notification gives local and regional BOEs an estimate of the number of students it would be otherwise responsible for who are expected to attend the magnet school.

45. Magnet School Tuition
RESCs operating interdistrict magnet schools may charge local and regional BOEs an amount equal to the difference between (a) the average per-pupil expenditure of the magnet school for the prior fiscal year, and (b) the amount of the per-pupil state subsidy/grant plus any revenue from other sources calculated on a per-pupil basis.
If a district fails to pay the tuition, the Commissioner may withhold the amount of the unpaid tuition from the equalization grant received pursuant to C.G.S. §10-262i.

46. Magnet School Tuition
Hartford owned and operated magnet schools are prohibited from charging tuition to local and regional boards of education by statute.
Other districts operating magnet schools may only charge tuition to local and regional boards of education if they are granted permission from the Commissioner of Education and must request that permission at least one year in advance.
If a district fails to pay the tuition, the Commissioner may withhold the amount of the unpaid tuition from the equalization grant received pursuant to C.G.S. §10-262i.
Magnet schools may not charge tuition to local and regional boards of education for preschool. Parents may be charged tuition for preschool in accordance with a wealth-based sliding scale.

47. Stratford BOE v. Bridgeport BOE
Case was brought by Stratford and other districts after the Commissioner of Education approved Bridgeport’s request to charge student’s home school districts tuition of $3,000 per student
As to the districts’ claims that the Commissioner improperly applied the statutes’ criteria in approving the tuition and other challenges to the statute itself, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction over these claims because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies

48. Stratford BOE v. Bridgeport BOE
The plaintiff districts also claimed that Bridgeport would improperly comingle these funds with the City’s general funds and that the City would be unjustly enriched
In the alternative, they claimed that Bridgeport was guilty of civil theft by overstating the tuition needed to operate the magnet schools
The Court found that as to these claims the plaintiff also had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies
The plaintiffs should have filed a C.G.S. §4-176 petition prior to commencing the litigation
In May of this year, the Court granted summary judgment on the claims of the sole remaining plaintiff, a taxpayer, finding there was no evidence of comingling funds or misappropriation of funds

49. Magnet Schools and Special Education
Conn. Gen. Stat. § l(h)(1) provides that in the case of a student identified as requiring special education, the school district in which the student resides shall:
Hold the planning and placement team meeting for the student and invite representatives from the interdistrict magnet school to participate in such meeting; and
Pay the interdistrict magnet school an amount equal to the difference between the reasonable cost of educating the student and the sum of the amount received by the interdistrict magnet school for the student pursuant to [the state per-pupil grants] and amounts received from other state, federal, local or private sources calculated on a per-pupil basis.
The sending school district will then be eligible for state special education reimbursement grants under Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-76g.

50. Magnet Schools and Section 504
Conn. Gen. Stat. § l(h)(2) provides that in the case of a student identified as disabled under Section 504, the school district in which the student resides shall:
Pay the interdistrict magnet school an amount equal to the difference between the reasonable cost of educating the student and the sum of the amount received by the interdistrict magnet school for the student pursuant to [the state per-pupil grants] and amounts received from other state, federal, local or private sources calculated on a per-pupil basis.
Does not answer the question as to who must hold the Section 504 meetings.

51. Magnet Schools and Special Education/Section 504
If a student requiring special education attends an interdistrict magnet school on a full-time basis, the interdistrict magnet school is responsible for ensuring that the student receives the services mandated by the student's individualized education program and/or 504 Plan whether such services are provided by the interdistrict magnet school or by the school district in which the student resides.

52. Magnet Schools and Special Education
How can local and regional BOEs comply with this statutory obligation?
Are these “unilateral placements”?
A. v. Hartford Board of Education/New Britain Board of Education
The Court held that both the magnet school and the home school were jointly responsible for the alleged failure hold a PPT to discuss whether the magnet school was an appropriate placement and to use the due process procedures to resolve any impasse on this issue.
Compare with charter schools (Student v. Winchester Board of Education).
What is the “reasonable cost of educating” a special education student in the magnet school setting?

53. Transportation Grants for Magnet Schools
Local and regional districts are obligated to provide the same kind of transportation services to resident children enrolled in interdistrict magnet school programs within the district as those that are provided to children in the district’s other public schools;
However, local and regional districts are not required to provide transportation services for students who wish to attend “out of district” magnet schools.

54. Transportation Grants for Magnet Schools
Even though they are not required to do so, some districts elect to provide transportation services to students attending out-of-district magnets, because the SDE provides grants to districts that choose to provide such transportation.
Local and regional districts are eligible for $1,300 per student.
Districts assisting the State to meet its goals pursuant to the Sheff v. O’Neil stipulation and order are eligible for $2,000 per student. These grants are provided within “available appropriations”.

55. Controversy – The Future of Connecticut Magnet Schools
Sheff v. O’Neill
Robinson v. Wentzell
Connecticut Parents Union v. Wentzell

56. The Sheff Saga Continues
In December of 2013, an agreement was reached to extend the stipulation and order by an additional year. The extension required the state to expand interdistrict magnet school programs.
This stipulation also defined “reduced isolation” to exclude all minorities except for those who identify themselves as any part Black or Hispanic
This stipulation was extended until June 30, 2017

57. The Sheff Saga Continues
On May 30, 2017 the Sheff plaintiffs filed for a temporary injunction after a new stipulation was not reached and the state sought to decrease the reduced isolation percentage from 25% to 20%.
Judge Berger denied the State’s request and extended the stipulation while the parties conducted discovery.
Discovery appears to have been completed but a trial date on the plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction has not yet been scheduled.

58. Robinson v. Wentzell Filed in February 2018
The plaintiffs are a group of Hartford parents who claim they are unable to get their children into Hartford area magnet schools
The plaintiffs allege the 75%/25% enrollment policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by favoring non-minority students and reducing the number of seats available in magnet schools for minority students
The plaintiffs also allege that the way the lottery for seats is run violates the Equal Protection Clause by alleged actions such as favoring students from towns with higher non-minority populations

59. Robinson v. Wentzell
The Federal Court denied the State and the Sheff plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the complaint on its face
The Court held that “because magnet school programs that fail to integrate risk losing funding, as measured by whether there are more than 75% black and Hispanic students enrolled in a school, the policy is facially discriminatory”
Strict scrutiny, therefore, applies

60. Robinson v. Wentzell Under strict scrutiny, the State must show that
1. its actions were taken achieve a compelling state interest, and
the policy at issue was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
The Court found that it could not determine at this stage of the litigation whether the policy at issue was narrowly tailored and declined to answer the question as to whether there was a compelling state interest.

61. Connecticut Parents Union v. Wentzell
The plaintiff is a group called the Connecticut Parent Union whose stated mission is to ensure that “neither race, zip-code, nor socioeconomic status is predictor of a child’s success.”
Addresses the non-Sheff magnet schools in the state and the charter schools
Similar to Robinson v. Wentzell, the plaintiff alleges that the state statutes and regulations that required that no more than 75% of the students in a magnet school be either black or Hispanic violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution
The state has filed a motion to dismiss and oral arguments on the motion are scheduled for early December

62. FORECAST
These three cases are likely to change the face of magnet schools in Connecticut over the next several years

63. A Different Kettle of Fish:
The State-Wide Interdistrict Public School Attendance Program (“Open Choice”)

64. Open Choice
“Open Choice” is a program that allows urban students to attend public schools in nearby suburban towns. The purpose of the program is to:
Improve academic achievement;
Reduce racial, ethnic and economic isolation or preserve racial and ethnic balance; and
Provide a choice of educational programs.
The program operates in the Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport and New London regions and is supervised and managed by the RESCs in each of the applicable regions.

65. Open Choice
“Receiving districts” are eligible for grants from the SDE depending upon the number of out-of-district students who attend school in the district. The program provides grants on a sliding scale from $3,000 to $8,000 per Open Choice student.
There is no cost to parents.

66. Open Choice
Open Choice grant funds are dispersed to the municipality, but the municipality must make the funds available to the local or regional BOE;
Transportation is administered by the RESC and paid for by the State;
Open Choice was one of the methods by which the State hopes to end racial and ethnic isolation pursuant to the mandates of Sheff v. O’Neill

67. The Future Are magnets and charters succeeding? How can we tell?
Conflicts with local and regional districts? Special education? Transportation? Student records?
What are the roles and responsibilities of suburban districts with respect to magnets and charters? What are the roles and responsibilities of urban districts with respect to magnets and charters?
Can we all learn from the best practices of these schools?
Cooperative entities?

68. Questions????????

69. Our Education Law Blog…

70. Melinda B. Kaufmann Mark J. Sommaruga Zachary D. Schurin Website:
Pullman & Comley, LLC
90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel:
Fax:
Mark J. Sommaruga
Pullman & Comley, LLC
90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel:
Fax:
Zachary D. Schurin
Pullman & Comley, LLC
90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel:
Fax:
Website: