Mandatory In-School Suspensions: Costs and Benefits

Read her lips: No new unfunded mandates.

That's what Democratic Lt. Gov.-elect Nancy Wyman told the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities recently. Considering there are already 1,203 unfunded mandates on the books, the lobbying group welcomed the news. But it might be too little, too late.

"Unfunded mandates have been a bone of contention for some time," said Chris Fryxll, press secretary for state Rep. John Frey, a Republican who represents Ridgefield in the 111th House District. "If we're going to talk about no new unfunded mandates why not re-visit some of the old?"

And of all the unfunded mandates, it's the newly effective in-school suspension mandate that has legislators across Connecticut raising Cain.

It's a classic case of good intention versus costly implementation. Effective July 1, schools must keep suspended students on the premises rather than send them home. That means a teacher and a separate room are needed.

"That's probably the most onerous one of the unfunded mandates," said state Rep. John Hetherington, a Republican who represents parts of New Canaan and Wilton in the 125th House District.  

The mandate stems from a concern that suspended students went home to either empty houses or unsafe neighborhoods. As such, legislators from the state's urban areas tended to favor the mandate. 

"I can understand that, it's a legitimate concern. But it's a significant demand on the school budget," Hetherington told Patch. 

If a student gets suspended for one day, or for 10 days, that equals one room and one staff member. 

Instead, Hetherington thinks each town and city should decide on where to suspend students. He favors assisting municipalities that deem in-school suspension necessary through educational cost sharing.

When the legislation was first proposed, school districts across the state bristled. That was the result of a lot of misinformation about the policy, said Abby Anderson, executive director of the Bridgeport-based Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance.

"The unions and the Connecticut Boards of Education went absolutely out of their minds about it," Anderson said. "I'd be absolutely shocked if it really impacted schools like New Canaan and Wilton." 

Implementation of the mandate was postponed for two years, until school districts no longer outright opposed the mandate. 

Districts do have latitude on how to implement it. And anecdotal evidence suggests the suspension rate has decreased and grades have increased as a result, said state Sen. Bob Duff, who represents Norwalk and part of Darien in the 25th Senate District.

"Many of us are sympathetic to the fact that suspension was a 10-day vacation," Duff said. "If the choice is being in the classroom or watching Jerry Springer – I'm speaking as a student now, not a state senator – the choice is obvious. Now students have to be accountable."

But whether schools aren't suspending students because they simply lack the resources isn't clear. Moreover, no one has calculated the cost of the mandate.

Jonathan Steinberg, a Democrat and state Rep.-elect for the 136th House District, covering part of Westport, said he favors the mandate but understands why towns took issue.

"Towns don't like being told what to do by Hartford," he said. "One size fits all statutes don't work. What works for one community might not work for all."

That's exactly the point, according to Hetherington.

"We ought to look into these mandates and sunset some of them," he told Patch. "Whenever you say you're going to impose a requirement on a school or a town there are costs."

So when Wyman told CCM, which represents 144 municipalities, that she and Gov.-elect Dan Malloy plan to slow the pace of unfunded mandates legislators were as satisfied as they were skeptical.

"We need to be realistic – Wyman like many incoming officials – said they're going to be mindful of these things," Duff said. "But if someone says no unfunded mandates, that's foolish, that's not going to happen."

And with the state budget in shambles municipalities, CCM predicts municipalities across the state will bear more of the burden, not less.

Even so, Steinberg said he doesn't think in-school suspension costs as much as some might believe. 

"It does require a special room, but most schools have adequate facilities," he said. "You know it's interesting, with special-ed students we seem to go out of our way to integrate the kids into the classroom. But with troublesome kids we tend to isolate them." 

According to Anderson, students across the state miss 250,000 school days annually because of suspension. And two-thirds of those students were suspended for minor offenses such as talking back. The second leading reason for suspension in Connecticut schools is truancy. 

"At the heart of the policy is the idea to keep kids engaged in school," Anderson said.