District Reference Groups (DRGs)

The CSDE used seven variables to determine the original DRGs in 2006, with each variable being based on families with children attending public school. The School and State Finance Project used the same variables — updated with the most recent available data — to determine the updated 2023 DRGs. These variables include:

• Income - Median Household Income
• Education - Percentage of parents with a bachelor’s degree or higher
• Occupation - Percentage of students with parents aged 16 or older, employed, and holding jobs in executive, managerial, and professional specialty occupations
• Family Structure - Percentage of students living with families without a wife or husband present or in non-family households
• Poverty - Percentage of students from families with incomes eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals
• Home Language - Percentage of students whose families speak a language other than English at home
• District Enrollment - Gross enrollment for the local public school district

Connecticut has an almost equal number of white and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) students. However, by and large, Connecticut's school districts do not represent this diverse student population. Instead, the segregation across Connecticut's cities and towns has a direct impact on the racial and economic makeup of Connecticut's school districts. Most students in Connecticut attend a district where more than 75% of the students are white, or a district where more than 75% of the students are BIPOC.

Districts with higher percentages of BIPOC students also tend to serve students with greater needs. However, the districts serving these students often do not receive equitable funding that reflects the needs of their students. This has resulted in districts with greater needs, and more students of color, spending less per student. While districts with higher percentages of white students spend more per student despite serving students with fewer learning needs.

Although the DRGs provide a way for district leaders and policymakers to make comparisons between districts, they fail to account for the experience of students, and the barriers that lead to, and exacerbate, disparities in education opportunities and outcomes. The DRGs are part of the picture in understanding education in Connecticut but must be complemented with an understanding of segregation, resources, staffing, and outcomes.

Approximately 58% of all education funding in Connecticut comes from local property taxes, making it the most significant source of revenue for school districts. However, the value of taxable property, as well as community wealth, varies greatly across Connecticut's municipalities.

As a result, a system has been created where it is easier for wealthier, property rich communities to raise revenue from property taxes — and in turn fund their local public schools — than it is for less affluent or economically disadvantaged communities. Neighboring towns or cities with similar student populations can spend vastly different amounts per student due to the reliance on local property taxes to fund municipal services, such as public education.

For every Connecticut school district, the largest expense is its personnel, including salaries and benefits for teachers, administrators, and staff. However, staffing levels vary across districts, leading to differences in class sizes and access to crucial support services, which can affect a student’s educational success and well-being.

The ability to attract and retain highly-qualified educators also differs greatly across the state and is in large part the result of significant funding disparities between districts. In general, wealthier communities are able to offer higher paying salaries and greater resources to teachers, which frequently leaves less affluent districts with greater staffing shortages and/or less experienced, under-resourced staff.

Student performance is impacted by a number of different factors, including, but certainly not limited to, how much funding a district receives and how a district uses its funding and resources to support students and their learning needs. Analyzing the DRGs and their associated data reveals vastly different experiences for students. Students in wealthy, suburban communities, which are predominantly white and feature higher-funded schools, tend to perform better on standardized tests. While students in less affluent, predominately urban communities, which serve the majority of Connecticut's BIPOC students and feature historically underfunded schools, tend to perform well below their peers.

Since Connecticut's education system relies so greatly on funding from local property tax revenue, some towns may struggle to support their schools adequately, which can impact the experience and resources available to students and their success inside and outside of the classroom. Research has shown that increasing investment in K-12 education — especially in areas that are economically disadvantaged — improves student outcomes, benefits the state overall, and helps close the opportunity gap. However, it is important to note that school performance is only one indicator for student outcomes, and many other factors can contribute to the overall success and achievement of students.

Grouping school districts, like DRGs, is a complex task due to the diverse nature of Connecticut’s districts. These systems provide a means for district leaders and policymakers to make comparisons but often fall short in considering the individual experiences of students and the barriers that contribute to educational disparities. DRGs offer only one look at the complex education system in Connecticut and must be complemented with an understanding of segregation, district spending, staffing, and student outcomes. By considering these factors, decision-makers can begin addressing the challenges in education and ensuring equitable opportunities and outcomes for all students.

To improve the effectiveness of the DRGs classification system, several recommendations should be considered:

1. Account for Overlapping Variables: This system should account for overlapping variables that exhibit strong correlations to avoid redundancy and provide a more accurate reflection of district characteristics. For example, income and occupation are highly correlated, and including both variables may be duplicative.
2. Center Student Experience: This system should place a greater emphasis on data that directly pertains to the educational experiences of students, rather than solely relying on community or family attributes.
3. Include Small Districts: Efforts should be made to include data that is more readily available and applicable to smaller districts, ensuring they are not disadvantaged (or not included) in the grouping process.
4. Simplify the Classification System: Simplifying the grouping structure by reducing the number of groups and eliminating the ranking of districts can lead to a more straightforward and equitable system. This would align with the broader goal of providing a quality education to all students while addressing disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes.