________________________________________________________

SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
____________________________

S.C. 19768
____________________________

CONNECTICUT COALITION FOR JUSTICE IN EDUCATION FUNDING INC., ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
M. JODI RELL, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
____________________________

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

____________________________

*GABRIELLE LEVIN JOSHUA S. LIPSHUTZ

JURIS NO.: 426316
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 PARK AVENUE, 48TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10166-0193
TEL: (212) 351-3901
FAX: (212) 351-5301
EMAIL: glevin@gibsondunn.com
PRO HAC VICE PENDING
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5306
TEL: (202) 955-8217
FAX: (202) 530-9614
EMAIL: jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE

ADVOCATES FOR EDUCATIONAL CHOICE

________________________________________________________
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................................ v
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .......................................................... vi
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.............................................................1
ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................1
I. Educational Adequacy Requires College And Career Readiness.........................2
II. Connecticuts Charter Public Schools Are Achieving Notable Success
In Neighborhoods Where Many Traditional Public Schools Are
Struggling..............................................................................................................5
A. Connecticuts Staggering Achievement Chasm Persists. ...........................5
B. Charter Public Schools Can Close The Achievement Gap. ........................7
C. Irrational State Laws And Policies Threaten Charter Public
Schools Ability To Continue Providing Their Students A High-
Quality Education And Prevent Them From Serving More
Children. ................................................................................................... 10
III. Expanding Charter Public School Opportunities For Connecticut
Families Must Figure Prominently In Any Remedy. ............................................ 14
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 15

i
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)
Cases

Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Educational Funding, Inc. v. Rell,

295 Conn. 240 (2010).................................................................................................. 2, 3

Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66aa .................................................................................................. 1

Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66bb(a)(1) ....................................................................................... 12

Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66bb(a)(2) ....................................................................................... 12

Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66bb(d)(8) ....................................................................................... 14

Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66bb(e) .............................................................................................. 1

Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66bb(f)............................................................................................... 1

Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66ee(c)(1)........................................................................................ 12

Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66ee(d)(1) ................................................................................. 10, 12

Constitutional Provisions

Conn. Const., Art. Eighth ...................................................................................................... 2

Other Authorities

Anthony P. Carnevale & Stephen J. Rose, The Economy Goes to College:

The Hidden Promise of Higher Education in the Post-Industrial Service
Economy (Georgetown Univ. Ctr. on Educ. and the Workforce 2015),
https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/
EconomyGoesToCollege.pdf ....................................................................................... 3, 4

Conn. Smarter Balanced Assessment Exam Results,

http://www.necharters.org/2015_16_connecticut_sbac_exam_results ............................ 8

ConnCAN, Quick Facts: Public Charter Schools in Connecticut,

http://webiva-downton.s3.amazonaws.com/
696/6d/b/2911/ConnCAN_2015_Charter_School_Quick_Facts.pdf ................................ 7

CSDE Biennial Report on the Operation

of Charter Schools in Conn. 2014.................................................................. 7, 13, 14, 15

CSDE Bureau of Grants Management, 2015-16 Net Current Expenditures per

Pupil, http://ctschoolfinance.org/assets/uploads/files/per-student-spending-
2015-16.pdf ................................................................................................................... 11

ii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)

CSDE Conn. Ed. at a Glance,

http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do ........................................................................ 10

CSDE CT School Day SAT, 2015-16,

http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do .......................................................................... 6

CSDE Growth Model Annotated Presentation (Oct. 2016) ................................................... 8

CSDE Public School Enrollment, 2015-16,

http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do ........................................................................ 11

CSDE Smarter Balanced Assessments, 2015-16,

http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do .................................................................. 5, 6, 8

CSDE Smarter Balanced Growth Report, 2015-16,

http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do ...................................................................... 8, 9

Dan Goldhaber & Roddy Theobald, Assessing the Determinants and

Implications of Teacher Layoffs (Natl Ctr. for Analysis of Longitudinal Data
in Educ. Research, Working Paper 55, 2010) ............................................................... 10

Eric A. Hanushek et al., Why Public Schools Lose Teachers,

39(2) J. Hum. Resources 326, 328 (2004) .................................................................... 10

Executive Office of the President, Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the

Economy (Dec. 2016),
https://obamawhitehouse.
archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/Artificial-Intelligence-
Automation-Economy.PDF .............................................................................................. 4

FES, Schools are for Kids: Why Public Charter Schools Must Be Fairly
Funded After CCJEF,
http://www.fightforfairnessct.org/paper ........................................................................ 1, 2

Hanushek et al., Education and Economic Growth, Education Next

(Spring 2008) ................................................................................................................... 3

Mathematica Policy Research, Understanding the Effect of KIPP as it Scales:

Volume I, Impacts on Achievement and Other Outcomes,
http://www.kipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/kipp_scale-up_vol1-1.pdf ................. 13

NECSN, 2015-16 and 2016-17 Conn. Charter School Fact Sheets,

http://www.necharters.org/fact_sheets .......................................................................... 14

Nicole Gorman, Charter School Debate Persists in Connecticut, Education

World (Dec. 28, 2016) ................................................................................................... 10

iii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)

Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 21st Century Skills, Education &
Competitiveness: A Resource and Policy Guide,
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_
education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf ..................................................................... 3

iv
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF AMICI CURIAE

1. Whether the trial court erred in determining the applicable constitutional

standard for adequacy of educational resources.

2. Whether the availability and sustainability of charter public schools must be

considered as part of any remedy the General Assembly crafts to comply with the trial

courts order to make Connecticuts education spending and policies rationally,

substantially, and verifiably connected to teaching children.

v
 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici are a diverse group of individuals and organizations focused on improving

access to quality education in Connecticut and elsewhere. They include the Connecticut

Coalition for Achievement Now, Families for Excellent Schools, the Northeastern Charter

Schools Network, Achievement First, and several prominent charter public school leaders

and Connecticut families listed in the Appendix attached hereto (collectively, the

Advocates for Educational Choice). 1

The Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN) is a New Haven-

based education advocacy group that strives to close Connecticuts worst-in-the-nation

achievement gap and give all children, including those in high-need communities, access to

excellent public schools, including charter public schools and magnet schools. In

furtherance of these goals, ConnCAN promotes the establishment of a better and more

equitable educational funding system in Connecticut that facilitates public school choice,

promotes innovation, ensures that students with greater learning needs receive the

additional financial aid they require, and treats all public students fairlywhether they

attend a charter public school, a magnet school, or a traditional district school.

Families for Excellent Schools (FES) is a non-profit organization whose mission is

to ensure that every child attends an excellent school. FES advances this goal by building

coalitions between schools, families, and allies and running campaigns that change

educational policy.

1 No counsel for any party wrote this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel nor a party
contributed to the cost of the preparation or submission of this brief.

vi
 The Northeast Charter Schools Network (NECSN) is a membership and advocacy

organization for charter public schools in Connecticut and New York. NECSNs mission is

to support and expand the high-quality charter public school movement in both states.

NECSN advances this goal by fighting to close the funding gap between charter public

schools and traditional district schools in the state legislatures and by providing support

services to help charter public schools operate more efficiently.

Achievement First is a network of 32 non-profit, college-preparatory, K to 12 charter

public schools serving approximately 11,600 students in Connecticut, New York, and

Rhode Island. Achievement Firsts mission is to deliver on the promise of equal

educational opportunity for all of Americas children, regardless of race or economic status.

Achievement First schools provide students with the academic and character skills they

need to graduate from top colleges, succeed in a competitive world, and serve as the next

generation of community leaders. Achievement First is focused on continuing to close the

achievement gap and ultimately serving as a proof point that it is possible to do so at scale,

inspiring broader reform. Several of Achievement Firsts organizational leaders and on-site

principals have signed onto this amici curiae brief as well. See Appendix A.

Proposed amici also include a group of parents and guardians of students in the

Connecticut public school system, who are personally and deeply concerned with the

quality of Connecticuts education system, the laws and policies identified by the trial court,

and the artificial barriers to school choice that the State has erected, which limit the

potentially life-altering educational opportunities available to Connecticuts students. See

Appendix A.

vii
 In light of their shared goal of improving public education in Connecticut, all of the

amici have a significant interest in this case. In its decision below, the trial court catalogued

the many ways in which Connecticuts inequitable education system deepens the persistent

and staggering achievement gap between rich and poor students. To remedy these

constitutional violations, the trial court ordered the General Assembly to devise a new

method for allocating educational funding, end[] the abuses that in some places have

left children rising from elementary school to high school without knowing how to read,

write, and do math well enough to move up, and replace the irrational statewide system

of evaluation and compensation for educational professionals. Appx., A522, A539, A541.

Accordingly, the trial courts decision wouldif upheld by this Court and

implemented by the General Assembly in a meaningful waystrengthen the Connecticut

education system and ensure that students have access to the excellent public education

opportunities they need and deserve. It would also provide the General Assembly with a

rare opportunity to amend and correct Connecticuts laws and policies governing the

funding of charter public schools, policies that effectively prohibit highly successful charter

public school operators, including amici, from opening, expanding, and serving students

within the State of Connecticut.

viii
 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Amici adopt the Statement of Facts from the joint brief of the Plaintiffs.

ARGUMENT

The decision below shines a much-needed light on the illogical, inequitable, and

unconstitutional manner in which Connecticuts education system treats its most vulnerable

students. As the court held, Connecticut has, without any rational (let alone, compelling)

basis, left rich school districts to flourish and poor school districts to flounder, depriving

countless children in Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven and elsewhere of their fundamental

right to education. Appx., A453. Charter public schools, however, have bucked this

pattern, achieving college and career readinessthe touchstone for meaningful

educational adequacyfor vast numbers of low-income and minority students in the

State. 2

Nevertheless, charter public schools in Connecticut face unique obstacles that do

not apply to traditional public schools. Most notably, Connecticuts charter public schools

receive thousands of dollars less in per-pupil funding than traditional district schools,

amounting to, for example, an annual deficit of nearly $32 million in 2014-2015, even

though charter public schools serve similar at-risk student populations as do certain district

schools. See FES, Schools are for Kids: Why Public Charter Schools Must Be Fairly

2 A charter public school is a public, nonsectarian school established under a charter,

organized as a nonprofit entity, and operated independently of a local or regional board
of education. See Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66aa. There are two main types of charter
public schools in Connecticut: (1) a state charter public school that must be approved by
the Connecticut State Board of Education (SBE); and (2) a local charter public school,
which is a former traditional public school or part of a converted traditional public school
that must be approved by the SBE and the local or regional board of education. See
Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66aa, 10-66bb(e), (f). This brief focuses on state charter public
schools, which are far more common in Connecticut than local charter public schools.

1
Funded After CCJEF, http://www.fightforfairnessct.org/paper. Moreover, Connecticuts

General Assembly must make a politically motivated choice each and every year to decide

whether to appropriate funding to charter public schools at all. These unsustainable

policies deter the expansion of high-quality charter public schools and even threaten the

very existence of charter public schoolsschools that are helping students escape the

cycle of poverty, illiteracy, unpreparedness, and incarceration holding back so many of their

peers.

Charter public schools therefore must be considered an integral part of any solution

designed to remedy the grave constitutional problems the trial court identified, so that these

promising school options can expand the scope of educational opportunity to as many

students as possible throughout the State and help resolve the deep educational disparities

cited in the trial courts ruling. By encouraging the growth of charter public schools with a

track record of success, in conjunction with other reform efforts, Connecticut can ensure

that every child is able to exercise her constitutional right to an adequate education.

I. Educational Adequacy Requires College And Career Readiness.

The trial court in this case held that the fundamental right to education enshrined in

the Connecticut Constitutiona right recognized by this Court in Connecticut Coalition for

Justice in Educational Funding, Inc. v. Rell, 295 Conn. 240 (2010) (Rell)requires public

schools to provide students with little more than a roof over their heads and the most basic

of physical necessities. See Appx., A461-462, 474-478. The court reached this conclusion

by adopting the concurring opinion of Justice Palmer, who the trial court believed would

not even find a constitutional adequacy violation unless the irrationality point had been

reached. Appx., A461-462. In the trial courts view, this standard requires only minimally

adequate physical facilities and classrooms, access to minimally adequate

2
instrumentalities of learning such as desks, chairs, pencils, and reasonably current

textbooks, and access to minimally adequate teaching of reasonably up-to-date basic

curricula such as reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies, by sufficient

personnel adequately trained to teach those subject areas. Appx., A467.

Respectfully, the trial court was mistaken in reaching this conclusion. Although a

constitutionally adequate education is not necessarily a perfect one, Rell, supra, 295

Conn. 320 (plurality opn.), decades of empirical research, historical developments in the

labor market, and the daily experiences of thousands of Connecticuts students make clear

that, at minimum, students must be given access to educational resources that actually

prepare them for college and successful careers later in lifei.e., to be college and career

ready. See id., 314-315 (plurality opn.) (a constitutionally adequate education must

leave Connecticuts students prepared to progress to institutions of higher education, or to

attain productive employment and otherwise contribute to the states economy).

Indeed, in this modern technological era, critical thinking and problem solving are

essential to both a childs success and the success of the broader economy. See

Hanushek et al., Education and Economic Growth, Education Next (Spring 2008);

Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 21st Century Skills, Education & Competitiveness: A

Resource and Policy Guide, http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_

education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf. A number of changes in the post-industrial

economy, particularly the shifted emphasis away from jobs in the manufacturing sector and

towards service-oriented jobs, all point toward the increasing importance of education

with postsecondary education as the capstonein the nations post-industrial economy.

Anthony P. Carnevale & Stephen J. Rose, The Economy Goes to College: The Hidden

3
Promise of Higher Education in the Post-Industrial Service Economy (Georgetown Univ.

Ctr. on Educ. and the Workforce 2015) at 24, https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-

content/uploads/EconomyGoesToCollege.pdf.

While [y]oung people born into families in the right neighborhoods with the best

schools gain preferred access to postsecondary institutions and fields of study that put

them first in line for jobs with the most formal and informal training as well as the most

powerful and flexible technology, their poorer, predominantly minority peers too often fall

behind. Carnevale & Rose, supra, at 25. Increased automation will exacerbate this trend.

According to a recent White House report, 44% of workers with less than a high school

degree hold jobs made up of highly automatableand thus replaceabletasks, while only

1% of people with a bachelors degree or higher hold such jobs. See Executive Office of

the President, Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy (Dec. 2016),

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/Artificial-

Intelligence-Automation-Economy.PDF. Thus, a constitutional promise that fails to give

students a practical opportunity to succeed in this post-industrial world is hollow and

antiquated.

In fact, the outcome reached herethat Connecticuts level of funding is minimally

adequate, but its allocation is irrationaldemonstrates the unworkability of a constitutional

standard untethered to college and career readiness. While the States funding allocation

exacerbates many of the problems that the trial court identified, these problems also stem,

in part, from misguided notions of adequacy in school districts that serve at-risk

populations. Thus, even if the General Assembly allocates increased funding to these

struggling districts, the absence of any adequacy standard that asks whether that funding is

4
actually improving college and career readiness all but guarantees that the State will repeat

its transgressions and consign thousands of students to illiteracy and missed opportunity.

II. Connecticuts Charter Public Schools Are Achieving Notable Success In

Neighborhoods Where Many Traditional Public Schools Are Struggling.

A. Connecticuts Staggering Achievement Chasm Persists.

As the trial courts extensive factual findings and other official state data

demonstrate, many traditional public schools serving at-risk students have struggled to

provide an adequate education to the States most vulnerable students and instead have

widened the States pernicious achievement gap. Indeed, Connecticuts test results reveal

alarming statistics about low-income students math and reading skills. Appx., A485. For

instance, [w]hile less than 1 in 10 students in many of the states richest communities are

below the most basic reading levels ..., nearly 1 in 3 students in many of the states poorest

communities cant read even at basic levels. Appx., A486 (emphasis added); see also

Appx., A487 (2014-15 Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) Consortium results), A487-

488 (2013 and 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress results), A500-501

(2012 and 2013 PSAT and SAT results), A554-623 (tables displaying test data).

Recent testing data released after the close of trial confirms these alarming trends.

For example, on the 2015-16 SBAs, only about 3 of 10 African-American (31.3%) or

Hispanic (33.2%) students met or exceeded expectations in English Language Arts (ELA)

compared to nearly 7 of 10 (68.5%) white students. See Conn. State Dept of Ed. (CSDE)

SBAs, 2015-16, http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do. Similarly, whereas only about 2 of

10 African-American (17.6%) or Hispanic (21.2%) students met or exceeded expectations

in Math, more than 5 of 10 white students (56.9%) did so. See id. And while 7 of 10

(70.3%) and 6 of 10 (59.1%) students ineligible for free or reduced price meals met or

5
exceeded expectations in ELA and Math, respectively, only 3 of 10 (33.1%) and 2 of 10

(20.8%) of their low-income peers did. Id.

These gaps persist on college entrance exams intended to gauge college and

career-readiness. For instance, results from the 2015-16 SATwhich the State

administered to all high school students for the first time as an official assessmentshow

that nearly 8 of 10 white students (77.4%) were ready for college-level work in ELA, but

fewer than 4 of 10 African-American (36.4%) or Hispanic (39%) students were ready. See

CSDE, CT School Day SAT, 2015-16, http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do. Whereas 5

of 10 white students (49.9%) were ready for college-level Math, less than 2 of 10 African-

American (12.4%) and Hispanic (15.5%) students were similarly prepared. Low-income

districts like Bridgeport register even worse performance90% and 70.8% of Bridgeport

students were not ready for college-level work in Math or ELA, respectively. See id.

Furthermore, while many at-risk communities boast high or rising high school

graduation rates, those rates are not an apt measure of college or career readiness. See

Appx., A508, A604. There is significant [p]ressure to give out more high school diplomas,

and the states system allows local school districts to give in to it by adopting standards

loose enough to permit unready students to graduate. Appx., A604. The Bridgeport

School District Superintendent, for instance, painfully but readily confessed at trial that a

functionally illiterate person could get a Bridgeport high school degree. Appx., A501. As a

result, more than 70% of impoverished students in the states public higher education

system must be taught basic literacy and numeracy skills. Appx., A600; see also A574-

575.

6
 Thus, on virtually every measure of student achievementstudent test scores,

college and career readiness, and college successConnecticuts education policies

guarantee that for thousands of Connecticut students there is no elementary education,

and without an elementary education there is no secondary education. Appx., A508.

B. Charter Public Schools Can Close The Achievement Gap.

While many traditional public schools in Connecticuts at-risk communities have

struggled, charter public schools serving the same communities have thrived. In a study

released by the State Department of Education in 2014, for example, the CSDE

commended charter public schools for their demonstrated [] ability to work towards closing

the achievement gap for student bodies that are made up predominantly of students of

color and from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. CSDE Biennial Report on

the Operation of Charter Schools in Conn. 2014 (2014 Biennial Report) at 1. The State

further recognized that charter public schools have outperformedoften by sizable

marginstraditional schools serving the same or similar communities. 3 As the State

explained, city resident students who attend charter [public] schools outperform students in

the city public schools in reading and mathematics, and have achieved at or above

proficiency at a greater rate than city public school students in both subject areas. Id. at

11.

3 For the 2015-16 school year, 85% of the students enrolled in Connecticuts charter
public schools were African-American or Hispanic and 70% were low-incomein
excess of the statewide average for each student group. See ConnCAN, Quick Facts:
Public Charter Schools in Connecticut, http://webiva-downton.s3.amazonaws.com/
696/6d/b/2911/ConnCAN_2015_Charter_School_Quick_Facts.pdf.

7
 In another study released in 2015, the CSDE again concluded that charter public

schools significantly outperform many traditional schools in several crucial educational

metrics, including the percentage of middle school students who score proficient or at

goal in mathematics and reading. According to the CSDE, middle school students

benefit[] more from public charter schools both in terms of performance gains and absolute

gap closure at Proficient as well as Goal on [math and reading] .... CSDE, March 2015,

Evaluating the Academic Performance of Choice Programs in Connecticut at 19.

Connecticuts most recent data shows similarly strong results. For instance, on the

2015-16 SBAs, 82% and 71% of charter public schools outperformed their host districts in

ELA and Math, respectively. See NECSN, 2015-16 Conn. SBA Exam Results,

http://www.necharters.org/2015_16_connecticut_sbac_exam_results; see also CSDE

SBAs, 2015-16, http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do. Recent data on student growth

i.e., the change in achievement over timeconfirms this trend. For example, 15 out of the

16 (93.75%) charter public schools for which growth data is available achieved student

growth rates and targets exceeding their host districts in either ELA or Math. 4 See CSDE

Smarter Balanced Growth Report (SBGR), 2015-16, http://edsight.ct.gov/SAS

Portal/main.do. And students at 10 (62.5%) of the charter public schools achieved higher

growth rates than their host districts in both subjects. Id. Some achieved the highest

growth rates in the entire State for students in poverty.

4 [G]rowth rate refers to the percentage of students meeting their respective growth
targets and the percentage of target achieved refers to the average percentage of the
growth target achieved by all students at each school. See CSDE Growth Model
Annotated Presentation, at 9 (Oct. 2016).

8
 The school-specific data on charter public schools demonstrates their potential to

prepare Connecticuts students for the demands of the 21st century. Achievement First, for

example, has achieved remarkable success. In 2016, for the seventh year in a row, 100%

of Achievement Firsts senior class was accepted to college, with 59% accepted to a More

Selective or Most Selective college. According to the States 2015-16 SBGR, 49.5% and

59.5% of students at Achievement Firsts Bridgeport Academy met their growth targets in

ELA and Math, respectively, whereas only 31% and 29.1% of their peers in the Bridgeport

School District did so. See CSDE SBGR, 2015-16, http://edsight.ct.gov/SAS

Portal/main.do. What is more, the average percentage of the growth target that

Achievement Firsts Bridgeport students achieved in both subjects68.8% and 77.8%far

outpaced the districts numbers (54.6% and 50.9%). Id. 5

This success, in large part, is because charter public schools and their employees

are held accountable for student outcomes. Charter public schools operate on a strictly

provisional basis subject to continuous review and re-authorization every two to five years

by the SBE, which examines each schools student achievement record, community

support, adherence to laws and regulations, and other factors before deciding whether to

renew or even revoke a charter. And charter public school teachers and leaders are

5 Although Achievement First is notable for its consistent achievement, other charter
public schools have realized similar successes. For example, the average percentage
of growth target achieved at Park City Prep in Bridgeport was 70.8% in ELA and 77.1%
in Math, compared to the districts corresponding figures (54.6% and 50.9%). See
CSDE SBGR, 2015-16, http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do. Other schools with
similarly impressive Math achievement growth relative to their host districts were The
Bridge Academy in Bridgeport (70.3% compared to 50.9%), Side By Side Charter
School in Norwalk (75.4% compared to 58.6%), and Highville Charter School in New
Haven (67.9% compared to 63.5%). See id.

9
recognized and rewarded for excellent work, provided support to improve, and swiftly

dismissed if they do not improve. This, in turn, helps boost teacher effectiveness and avoid

merit-blind, seniority-only based decisionmaking. See Eric A. Hanushek et al., Why Public

Schools Lose Teachers, 39(2) J. Hum. Resources 326, 328 (2004); Dan Goldhaber &

Roddy Theobald, Assessing the Determinants and Implications of Teacher Layoffs 2, 3, 15

(Natl Ctr. for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Educ. Research, Working Paper 55, 2010).

In exchange for this heightened accountability, charter public schools are given more

flexibility than traditional district schools when setting their school calendars (e.g., freedom

to have longer school days and years), curricula, and educational programming.

C. Irrational State Laws And Policies Threaten Charter Public

Schools Ability To Continue Providing Their Students A High-
Quality Education And Prevent Them From Serving More Children.

Despite charter public schools proven ability to help narrow the achievement gap,

only 24 such schools operate in the entire State, serving only 1.7% of the student

populationone of the lowest rates nationwide. See Nicole Gorman, Charter School

Debate Persists in Connecticut, Education World (Dec. 28, 2016); see also CSDE, Conn.

Ed. at a Glance, http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do. This stems from two State-

imposed constraints that hinder the growth and operation of charter public schools.

First, charter public schools receive significantly less in per-pupil funding than

traditional public schools, requiring administrators to do more with less, threatening charter

public schools ability to keep their doors open, and deterring charter public school

networks from expanding into and within Connecticut. At most, charter public schools

receive only $11,000 per child from the State every year (roughly $3,000 of which is subject

to withholding by the State, see infra at 12). See Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66ee(d)(1). This

10
figure has remained constant for several years even though the average statewide per-

pupil expenditure has increased to $16,000 and per-pupil expenditures in urban centers

where most charter public schools operateare much higher. See CSDE, Bureau of

Grants Management, 2015-16 Net Current Expenditures per Pupil,

http://ctschoolfinance.org/assets/uploads/files/per-student-spending-2015-16.pdf (Hartford

$19,304 per pupil; New Haven $18,246 per pupil; Bridgeport $14,327 per pupil).

For Achievement First Bridgeport Academy, this massive per-pupil funding gap

equates to roughly $3.3 million less in annual funding, an example of a school being

unfairly punished for its success. See CSDE Public School Enrollment, 2015-16,

http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do. To make up for these deficits (which, for

Achievement First, amounted to $3,327 per student in the most recent school year), charter

public schools are forced to depend on uncertain philanthropy each year. And they are not

always successful: Over the last year alone, deficits forced Achievement First to cut

between one and three teachers and staff members per school, make cost-conscious

changes to employees healthcare coverage, and make other painful choices and

reductions across school budgets.

Second, the process by which these public funds are allocated to charter public

schools is both cumbersome and unpredictable, further hindering charter public school

operation, stymying growth, and deterring charter public school networks from expanding to

serve more of the States most vulnerable children. Unlike traditional public schools, which

automatically receive per-pupil funding for each student they enroll, charter public schools

are forced to depend on the shifting whims of the General Assembly to provide them with

the support necessary to keep their doors open. Every year, the General Assembly must

11
decide whether to appropriate funding to charter public schools, irrespective of whether

those schools have a proven track record of success. See Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-

66bb(a)(2).

Even if a charter public school operator receives an initial certificate of approval from

the SBE, the General Assembly has ultimate authority to prevent charter public school

growth through the purse strings. See Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66bb(a)(1). In April 2015, for

example, the Appropriation Committee refused to allocate sufficient funding to open both

Capitol Harbor Prep Charter School and the Stamford Charter School for Excellence, even

though both schools had received approval from the SBE the previous year. Based on the

SBEs approval, Capitol Harbor Prep had conducted a lottery for the 250 slots it assumed it

would be able to offer. But because of Connecticuts irrational laws and policies, charter

public school operators and hundreds of students were left in limbo for months until the

Governors office finally convinced the General Assembly to restore the schools funding.

And when a charter school operator does obtain an initial certificate and the General

Assembly appropriates funds for it to open, further barriers remain. Although State charter

public schools are theoretically entitled to $11,000 every year for each student enrolled in

such school, Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66ee(d)(1), this sum is paid out in installments and the

fourth installment is made within available appropriations and may be adjusted for each

student on a pro rata basis. Id. (emphases added). As a result, even properly

credentialed charter public schools are at risk of receiving only three-quarters of that sum

a mere $8,250in annual per-pupil funding from the State. See id., 10-66ee(c)(1).

As a result of these policies, not even operating, fully completed charter public

schools are safe. Because the General Assembly may refuse to provide necessary support

12
to them in any given yearregardless of the academic performance of those schools and

regardless of whether they have satisfied the stringent accountability standards necessary

to obtain charter re-authorizationcharter public school operators are constantly caught in

the cross-hairs of the uncertain political process. Therefore, students who attend charter

public schools are left not knowing whether their schools will even exist the following year.

In recent years, three schoolsAncestors Community High School (Waterbury), Charter

Oak Preparatory Academy (New Britain/Hartford), and Cross Cultural Academy of Arts and

Technology (Hartford)had to close and relinquish their charters to the SBE, at least in

part, due to insufficient funds to operate the program. 2014 Biennial Report at 3.

In practice, these barriers to growth severely limit the ability of high-quality charter

public schools to enter and expand in Connecticut. Rather than opening high-quality

charter public schools in Connecticut, where the General Assembly might refuse to support

them for any (or no) reason at all, charter public school operators are forced to focus on

more hospitable states. Indeed, while Achievement First is opening new schools in New

York and Rhode Island, it is not currently opening new schools in Connecticut due to the

inequitable, insufficient, and uncertain funding that charter public schools receive from the

State. Other charter public school operators with a track record of providing high-quality

education in the northeast are also conspicuously absent from Connecticut. Knowledge Is

Power Program (KIPP), for example, a nationally renowned charter public school

network, 6 operates thirteen schools in New York, five schools in Pennsylvania, sixteen

6 A multi-year study conducted by Mathematica Policy Research found that KIPP

elementary, middle, and high schools have positive, statistically significant, and
educationally meaningful impacts on various measures of student achievement. See
Mathematica Policy Research, Understanding the Effect of KIPP as it Scales: Volume I,

13
schools in Washington, D.C., two schools in Maryland, five schools in Massachusetts, and

eleven schools in New Jersey. Uncommon Schools, another well-regarded and highly-

successful charter public school operator, operates thirty schools in New York, fifteen

schools in New Jersey, and four schools in Massachusetts. But neither KIPP nor

Uncommon Schools operates any schools in Connecticut.

These policies, in turn, effectively prevent Connecticut families from reaping the

benefits that high-performing charter public schools have to offer. According to the CSDE,

the number of charter public school seats is not yet keeping up with the demand. 2014

Biennial Report at 1. Thousands of Connecticut students languish on charter public school

waitlists each year. Indeed, in 2012-2013, 4,273 studentsa number equal to 66% of all

students currently enrolled in Connecticut charter public schoolswere wait-listed for

charter public schools. 2014 Biennial Report at 9. In subsequent years, the number

soared even higher, approaching 6,000. See NECSN, 2015-16 and 2016-17 Conn. Charter

School Fact Sheets, http://www.necharters.org/fact_sheets. And because the number of

students wishing to attend charter public schools exceeds the number of spots available,

charter public schools resort to a lottery systema cruel game of chanceto fill the limited

spaces that are available. Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-66bb(d)(8).

III. Expanding Charter Public School Opportunities For Connecticut

Families Must Figure Prominently In Any Remedy.

The trial court ordered the State to fix its irrational funding system, the irrational

system of evaluation and compensation for educational professionals, and the abuses

Impacts on Achievement and Other Outcomes, at xiv, http://www.kipp.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/09/kipp_scale-up_vol1-1.pdf.

14
that in some places have left children rising from elementary school to high school

without knowing how to read, write, and do math well enough to move up. Appx., A452,

A522, A539, A541. Over the past two decades, charter public schools have demonstrated

unparalleled success preparing Connecticuts students for their colleges and careers, in the

face of these and other obstacles. Charter public schools would be able to bring this

success to thousands more of Connecticuts students, if only funding equity and certainty

were achievable. See 2014 Biennial Report at 9 ([T]he rate of future expansion is

dependent on legislative support.). It is thus imperative that the availability and

sustainability of charter public schools be considered and strengthened by any remedy that

the General Assembly crafts when rewriting Connecticuts education system.

CONCLUSION

Amici urge this Court to clarify that educational adequacy requires college and

career readiness; recognize the critical role that charter public schools canindeed,

mustplay in remedying the constitutional violations identified by the trial court; and permit

the General Assembly to correct and amend Connecticuts laws and policies governing the

unequal and uncertain funding of charter public schools, so that all Connecticut children

have access to a fair, equitable, and meaningful education.

15
 APPENDIX A

Achievement First Leaders and On-Site Principals

Dacia Toll, co-CEO and President, Achievement First *

Emily Banks, Principal, Achievement First Hartford High
Morgan Barth, Principal, Achievement First Amistad High
Benjamin Cruse, Principal, Achievement First Summit Middle
Robert Hawke, Principal, Elm City College Prep Middle
Andrew Poole, Principal, Elm City College Prep Elementary
Katie Poynter, Principal, Amistad Academy Middle
Kerri-Ann Thomas, Principal, Achievement First Hartford Academy Elementary

Parents of Connecticut Students

Hartford Bridgeport

Lauri Andrews Amanda Campbell

Quehonna Binion Kadisha Coates
Dahlia Bryan Aisha Guitierrez
Veronica Collazo Chris James
India Jones Moneisha Lee
Teena ONeil Jessica Martinez
Carmen Rivera Chris Mercer
Terri Ann Walker Latefiah Moore
Debbie Wilson Jean Morris
Ahmad Moubinaid
New Haven Aisha Rodriguez

Tosha Harvin
Dean Howard
Theresa Mende
Marcey Moore
Chantel Whitehead

* In her official and individual capacity.

 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies, pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book

sections 62-7 and 67-2, that on February 14, 2017:

1. A copy of the electronically submitted brief has been delivered electronically

to the last known e-mail address of each counsel of record for whom an e-mail address has

been provided; and

2. The electronically submitted brief and the filed paper brief have been

redacted or do not contain any names or other personal identifying information that is

prohibited from disclosure by rule, statute, court order or case law; and

3. The brief being filed with the appellate clerk is a true copy of the brief that was

submitted electronically;

4. The brief complies with all applicable rules of appellate procedure; and

5. A copy of the brief has been sent to each counsel of record and to any trial

judge who rendered a decision that is the subject matter of the appeal, in compliance with

section 62-7 at the following addresses:

The Honorable Thomas G. Moukawsher

Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford
95 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Tel.: (860) 548-2700
Fax.: (860) 548-2711

Joseph Rubin, Esq., Joseph.Rubin@ct.gov

Beth Z. Margulies, Esq., Beth.Margulies@ct.gov
Eleanor May Mullen, Esq., Eleanor.Mullen@ct.gov
Darren P. Cunningham, Esq., Darren.Cunningham@ct.gov
John DiManno, Esq., John.DiManno@ct.gov
Cynthia Courtney, Esq., Cynthia.Courtney@ct.gov
State of Connecticut
Office of the Attorney General
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
Tel.: (860) 808-5318
Fax.: (860) 808-5387

Joseph P. Moodhe, Esq., jpmoodhe@debevoise.com

Megan K. Bannigan, Esq., mkbannigan@debevoise.com
David B. Noland, Esq., dbnoland@debevoise.com
Olivia Cheng, Esq., ocheng@debevoise.com
Emily A. Johnson, Esq., eajohnson@debevoise.com
Gregory P. Copeland, Esq., gpcopeland@debevoise.com
Christel Y. Tham, Esq., cytham@debevoise.com
Edward Bradley, Esq., ebbradle@debevoise.com
Cara A. Moore, Esq., camoore@debevoise.com
Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022
Tel.: (212) 909-6000
Fax.: (212) 909-6836

David N. Rosen, Esq., drosen@davidrosenlaw.com

David Rosen & Associates, PC
400 Orange Street
New Haven, CT 06511
Tel.: (203) 787-3513
Fax.: (203) 789-1605

Amicus Curiae: David Kent, Esq., David.Kent@ct.gov

Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
450 Columbus Boulevard, Suite 2
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel.: (860) 808-5318
Fax.: (860) 808-5387

Nancy B. Alisberg, Esq., Nancy.Alisberg@ct.gov

Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities
60B Weston Street
Hartford, CT 06120
Tel.: (860) 297-4397
Fax.: (860) 566-8714

Samuel Bagenstros (PHV), Esq., Sbagen@gmail.com

625 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48104