Do the Winners Appeal? Plaintiff Superintendents Falter in Education Funding Victory Dance.

The Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPSS) is having some second thoughts about the plaintiff association’s victory whoops in Wednesday’s education funding decision. Joseph J. Cirasuolo, Ed.D. (they do love their suffixes in education), executive director of CAPSS, sent a worried memo to members on Thursday. It does not set forth the talking points of winners. It is the first stirrings of an organization that realizes its claims do not match reality. The poor wretches must have spent Wednesday night slogging through the sloppy decision searching for an island of thought in that sea of musings and nonsense. They did not like what they found.

Winning plaintiffs do not appeal. Yet there it is in the memo below. There has been no order for what the plaintiffs wanted: billions more money. An appeal may be required to because “some of the judge’s apparent rulings go beyond the scope of the case before him.”  And there’s no $2 billion a year.

There is also this: “An apparent ruling that would require the State not to program for children whose special needs are so severe that education cannot materially influence the quality of their lives.” The superintendents and their fellow plaintiffs must be wondering what they have wrought. Under the equivalent of an education eugenics order, their future may be with conferences on “How to Deny Disabled Students an Education”. Don’t expect many to put that on their resumes. With Wednesday’s victory whoops and preposterous declarations of virtue fading, this may be their lasting legacy.

Expect more plaintiffs to start contemplating what “victory” means.

Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:58 AM
Subject: CCJEF Decision
9/8/16

As I’m sure you know by now, the judge in the CCJEF Trial announced his decision yesterday.  He did so in an opinion that is approximately 250 pages long and that took him over two hours to read, word by word, from the bench.
CAPSS staff with assistance from attorneys and the staff of the lobbying firm that CAPSS has retained will examine the opinion in detail.  At this point, however, it seems apparent that the decision has the following major components.

1.      A ruling that it is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the state to have a public education financing system that is NOT based on the amount of money it takes to provide every child equitable access to an adequate educational program.  CCJEF argues that such a system is unconstitutional and the judge seemed to disagree with this argument.

2.      A ruling that the present system for funding public education in CT is unconstitutional because it is irrational.  The judge gave the State 180 days to submit to the plaintiffs in the case a system that is rational.

3.      An apparent ruling that the State has to develop a system for requiring students to actually demonstrate that they have mastered specified content and skills before being awarded a high school diploma and a requirement that there be an State graduation exit exam established for this purpose.

4.      An apparent ruling that TEVAL be revamped so that compensation is based on the results of TEVAL.

5.      An apparent ruling that would require the State not to program for children whose special needs are so severe that education cannot materially influence the quality of their lives.

These components were articulated in a context in which the judge expressed his opinions on a number of educational matters.

It is difficult to predict accurately at this time what will happen next for the following reasons.

First of all, we will have to learn whether either party in the case will appeal any aspect of the decision.  A portion of the appeal may well be based on a contention that some of the judge’s apparent rulings go beyond the scope of the case before him.

Second, we will have to determine what aspects of rulings will serve as supporters of CAPSS public policy objectives such as the implementation of mastery-based personalized learning and which are contrary to CAPSS positions such as the imposition of a requirement that all students pass a high school exit exam before being allowed to graduate from high school.

As these and other considerations unfold, I will keep you informed.

If you have questions in the meantime, please get back to me.

Joseph J. Cirasuolo, Ed.D.
Executive Director
CT. Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPSS)