Guest blogger Lesley DeNardis is an Associate Professor of
Political Science at Sacred Heart University, a member of the Hamden Board of
Education, and a former UNH Professional in Residence in Economics and Public
Administration. She can be contacted at denardisl@sacredheart.edu. The issues
she addresses in this contribution are to be found in greater detail in her
forthcoming 2013 book: Who’s Minding the Gap?: Institutions, Ideas, and
Interests Shaping Education Policy in Connecticut.
Let’s face
it. Education mandates are not the first
words that come to mind when we raise the subject of the regulatory state. What often springs to mind are burdensome
requirements on businesses that impede economic growth. Rolling back the regulatory state usually
calls for some type of deregulation aimed at fostering growth in the private
sector. Yet, education mandates, a
stealth form of taxation that fly under the radar, present just as much a threat
to economic competiveness and growth for Connecticut.
Connecticut
watchers already know that the Constitution state is among the most highly
regulated environments for business. The
Tax Foundation ranked Connecticut 40th among states in terms of
business tax climate. (www.taxfoundation.org). What may have escaped most people’s attention
is the fact that education regulations comprise the largest single source of
regulation in Connecticut. An estimated
eighty percent of new mandates each legislative session are in the area of
public education. These regulations passed down from the state legislature in
the form of mandates to local school districts are one of the largest cost
drivers for school districts and are arguably just as much a drag on the
economy as business regulation. In fact,
the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, the leading business
interest group in Connecticut, identified unfunded education mandates as a
looming economic problem in Connecticut.
In a 2006 survey http://www.cbia.com/newsroom/Surveys/State_Mandate_Survey.htm,
the CBIA found that among the myriad problems facing municipalities, local
officials identified unfunded education mandates as the most problematic. Unfunded mandates burden local school budgets
and contribute to property tax increases creating an overall unfriendly
business climate in Connecticut. Relief
from education mandates should be part and parcel of any education reform
package.
What should be done?
A little known
law passed in 1977 requires the Connecticut state legislature to sunset laws
that are deemed obsolete. The main
thrust of the law was to allow legislators to weed out obsolete regulations. Despite the passage of this law, the CGA has
only conducted sunset review once over the last thirty years. Every five years the legislature decides to
postpone sunset review. The result –
thousands of state laws are still on the books which may no longer be necessary
and may be unduly burdensome. Education
policy was not included in this original legislation which has been all but
ignored by the CGA. Another route to
review has been taken by our neighbors to the south and provides an example of
a proactive approach. The Governors of New
York and New Jersey have empanelled commissions to conduct regulatory review of
education mandates. The work of the
commission has just been completed and the recommendations are being acted upon
by their respective state legislatures.
Some inroads
into this problem were made a few years ago when Governor Rell commissioned a
panel to study mandate relief. The work
of the commission culminated in proposed legislation “An Act Providing Relief
to Municipalities” during the 2009 legislative session which would have
required a two thirds vote of the legislature to approve any new mandate and a
section dealing with binding arbitration reform. Unfortunately, the bill did not pass the
state legislature. The Connecticut
General Assembly should revive the commission’s recommendations and act
favorably upon them.
In addition
to periodic reviews of existing regulation, a similar process should be
undertaken before any new mandates are proposed. Legislators ought to ask whether the intended
rule or regulation actually addresses the issue at hand. For example, as part of the education reform
package passed by the Connecticut General Assembly in 2010, the state mandated new
high school graduation requirements that added 2-3 more courses for a high
school student to graduate. This mandate
imposes costs on the school district in the form of hiring additional
teachers. It is of dubious value since
it is based on the perception that more courses translate into better prepared
or more knowledgeable high school graduates.
The measure drew sharp criticism from local superintendents of schools
when they questioned the intrinsic educational merit of more courses and the
attendant costs. There were many such
regulations that were part of the heralded 2010 and 2012 education reform
packages. Greater consultation and input
from local officials should be solicited to determine whether the goal of a
mandate might be better accomplished in another fashion. While many of these goals may be laudable,
they have imposed increased costs on school districts in order to be
implemented. Public input and consultation with local
educators and officials would have found a different and perhaps more cost
effective path.
Unfunded
education mandates have caused school district budgets to skyrocket in recent
years. Tackling these stealth taxes will
be one way to foster greater economic competitiveness. Connecticut should embrace mandate relief a
as one part of a multifaceted attempt to address its fiscal woes and become
more economically competitive.
denardisl@sacredheart.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment