State Department of Education staff presented a detailed review of Hartford Public Schools’ fiscal and programmatic operations and recommended a set of next steps intended to protect high‑quality magnet programming while addressing district‑wide fiscal stress.

Legal and finance presenters opened with Sheff v. O’Neill as the governing constitutional context and summarized the department’s comparative analysis of per‑pupil funding among Hartford and peer magnet operators (e.g., CREC, Goodwin). ‘‘Based on the methods we used, Hartford lags behind peer operators,’’ legal staff said, noting that differences in funding mechanisms (ECS/local funding vs. magnet operating grants and tuition for non‑board operators) required careful accounting.

The analysis presented several findings: per‑pupil budgeted operating funding showed a modest magnet advantage in 2019 (presenter cited roughly $644 per pupil) that widened by 2024 under the department’s calculations; ECS/local per‑pupil figures also showed material differences (the presenter cited more than a $5,000 gap in one comparison). Presenters acknowledged methodological caveats — including centralized cost adjustments, enrollment shifts, and nominal vs. real (inflation‑adjusted) comparisons — and noted the analysis used available accounting records and a theoretical comparison table where necessary.

Staff described structural challenges in Hartford: a multi‑year enrollment decline with several schools under 30% utilization, about half the district below roughly two‑thirds utilization, and a set of 34 forensic audit recommendations previously produced by Public Works LLC. The department said it has assembled interdisciplinary teams to monitor magnet fund utilization, special education delivery and fiscal operations and will continue monthly reporting on progress.

The presenters recommended three coordinated actions:

1) A comprehensive utilization and feasibility analysis to identify under‑utilized buildings and consolidation options to reallocate resources to instruction;

2) State Board‑level funding parameters to ensure both neighborhood and magnet schools are funded to deliver high‑quality programming consistent with the Sheff‑era obligations, subject to annual monitoring and SDE oversight; and

3) An assessment of the FY25/FY26 impact of the new equity‑based budget framework so the board can set stable parameters informed by two years of implementation data.

Board members pressed on whether the analysis presumes the district’s pre‑2019 allocations were correct or whether the equity‑based framework might be restoring balance; staff said the department’s legal obligation is to ensure funding supports high‑quality magnet programs under Sheff and that the recommended analyses would provide comparative statewide benchmarks and operational context.

The department also described on‑going remediation in Hartford’s special education operations (IEP compliance reduced from 255 non‑compliance findings in June 2025 to 129 at the time of the meeting), and listed corrective actions and family interviews intended to improve special education delivery.

The presentation concluded with a pledge of ongoing oversight, cooperation with the mayor and Hartford Public Schools, and the possibility of further board actions if collaboration stalls.