A recent viewpoint on Connecticut’s education budget has highlighted increased support for districts suggested that meaningful progress has been made in funding the system. There is truth in that. Districts are receiving additional dollars this year, that support provides important limited short- term relief. But to ensure we are advocating effectively for students, it is important to clarify how that funding is structured, because the structure determines what happens next. This is offered not as criticism, but as a clarification so that we are all working from the same understanding. At the center of Connecticut’s school funding system is the ECS formula, which determines how state aid is allocated. It’s supposed to ensure adequacy and equity across districts. In the current budget, the ECS formula has not been changed, the foundation amount remains unchanged, and basic ECS funding for most districts, including Bridgeport, is effectively flat. The state’s own analysis makes clear that ECS funding levels do not reflect a policy change or additional funding beyond what towns are already entitled to under existing law. This is important. While funding has increased this year, the formula that determines funding has not. The additional funding districts are receiving in fiscal year 2027 is real, but it is not coming from the ECS. Instead, it comes from a one-time supplemental grants that exist outside the formula. These grants were calculated based on what districts would receive AS IF the ECS foundation amount were increased to $13,087. Unfortunately the foundation amount itself was not adjusted in statute. The state has demonstrated what funding might look like at a higher foundation level, and that has created confusion and false hope. The $13,087 figure represents a level at which districts like Bridgeport begin to see meaningful improvement over past funding when applied through the formula. That level exists only in a temporarily, not as a commitment. Bridgeport provides a clear example of how this works in practice. For the coming fiscal year, ECS funding remains roughly $212.8 million, while the increase of approximately $15 million comes entirely from supplemental funding outside the formula. That funding is temporary, exists and is not protected by the formula’s hold harmless provisions. As a result, if underlying conditions shift, such as changes in student enrollment, or if supplemental funds are reduced, districts may not simply see flat funding. They may experience real declines in available resources from one year to the next. The budget also has language for fiscal year 2028, indicating a $152.2 million increase in ECS funding, an amount that would support keeping the foundation level of $13,087. It is not a year over year increase, it is on the ECS amount not the supplemental. Furthermore, that same analysis notes that further legislative action is required for funds to be distributed. Setting that uncertainty aside, there is another important point to understand. If those dollars are appropriated and distributed in a manner similar to the current supplemental approach, they would maintain today’s funding level rather than move meaningfully beyond it. In other words, the proposed increase would replicate the current “as if $13,087” environment. It would not, on its own, create sustained growth. In a period of rising costs, maintaining current levels still amounts to effective flat funding. At the same time, districts are managing financial pressures that are not temporary. In Bridgeport, those include approximately $15 million in escalating mandated costs, including special education, transportation, and contractual increases, as well as approximately $10 million in one-time stabilization funding that is unlikely to recur. Together, these factors create roughly a $25 million gap heading into FY 2028. This gap exists before accounting for any restoration of prior cuts or additional programmatic needs. The one-time funding is meaningful and helped reduce, but not eliminate, possible additional cuts this year. But if the current situation is seen as more than it is, then the urgency to address underlying issues diminishes. The central issue remains that Connecticut has increased funding without permanently changing the system that determines how funding works. Understanding that allows for a more productive conversation about what comes next. That conversation should focus on structural changes, including a permanent adjustment to the ECS foundation amount, ensuring that funding flows through the formula rather than outside it, and creating a system where funding growth is predictable and sustainable. Connecticut has taken an important step by demonstrating what higher funding levels could look like. The question now is whether those levels will be made permanent, predictable, and part of the formula itself. Without structural change, districts like Bridgeport will continue to face uncertainty year after year. Clarifying that reality is not about disagreement. It is about making sure we are focused on the work that still needs to be done. Joseph Sokolovic is Vice Chair of the Bridgeport Board of Education. The views expressed here are solely his own. ...read more read less