Each November, in accordance with state statute, the Connecticut General Assembly's Office of Fiscal Analysis produces a Fiscal Accountability Report. According to statute, the report must explain: (1) the level of spending changes from current year spending allowed by consensus revenue estimates, (2) any changes to current year spending necessary because of “fixed cost drivers,” and (3) the total change to current year spending required to accommodate fixed cost drivers without exceeding current revenue estimates.
Sheff v. O'Neill is a school segregation case that began in 1989 when a group of city and suburban parents argued that public schools in Hartford were segregated, underfunded, and denied students in the Hartford area their constitutional right to an adequate and equal education due to the disparities in the distribution of funding and resources between communities of color in Hartford and the adjacent, majority white suburbs. This resource details the 1996 Connecticut Supreme Court ruling in the case, as well as the stipulated agreements and proposed settlement that followed.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled a lower court erred in dismissing claims filed in 2005 by the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding. CCJEF filed suit on behalf of students and families, contending the state’s failure to properly fund public schools inadequately prepares students for higher education and employment opportunities. The Court held the state constitution requires "public schools provide their students with an education suitable to give them the opportunity to be responsible citizens able to participate fully in democratic institutions, such as jury service and voting, and to prepare them to progress to institutions of higher education, or to attain productive employment and otherwise to contribute to the state's economy." The decision allows plaintiffs to continue to pursue their suit that the state has failed to adequately fund its lowest-performing schools.
Connecticut Supreme Court ruling holding that the right to education in Connecticut is so basic and fundamental that any intrusion on the right must be strictly scrutinized. The Court said that public school students are entitled to equal enjoyment of the right to education and a system of school financing that relied on local property tax revenues without regard to disparities in town wealth, and that lacked significant equalizing state support, was unconstitutional. Connecticut Supreme Court also held the creation of a constitutional system for education financing is a job for the legislature and not the courts.