This story was compiled from Connecticut Mirror reports with contributions from The Newtown Bee Associate Editor John Voket. Shortly after the story went to press in the print edition, the State Attorney General's Office announced it would appeal the court decision outlined below. The BeeAccess the report on that development here, and in next week's print edition of .

When the late Dr Dianne Kaplan deVries helped organize the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF) 11 years ago to try and force the state to equitably and fairly fund education for all students - regardless of socioeconomic status - then Newtown First Selectman Herb Rosenthal saw merit in the community becoming a member along with colleagues including then Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy.

Mr Rosenthal, as well as town leaders who came after him, supported taxpayer funds being allocated to cover a proportional part of the expense to keep the effort going.

On September 7, Mr Rosenthal stood on the steps of Hartford's Superior Court building representing Newtown as one of its selectman, and as the CCJEF president, cautiously celebrating a sweeping landmark ruling that could change the way the state administers funding school districts, district building projects, and special education across its 169 towns and cities under current Governor Dannel Malloy and his successors.

In a broad indictment of how Connecticut supports its poorest schools, Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher ruled September 7 that the state's method for distributing education aid is "irrational and unconstitutional," while declining to second-guess the General Assembly on the ultimate level of state spending.

Judge Moukawsher said the plaintiffs failed to meet their high burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the quality of public education violates the state Constitution by the standards of minimum funding or the adequacy of instruction in the state's classrooms. But he gave them a victory on the question of how aid is distributed, special education is funded, and the standards to which students and teachers are held.

He handed the state, the plaintiffs, and General Assembly an ambitious five-point outline for action on revamping how teachers are evaluated and paid, special education students are evaluated and served, and more broadly, how the state directs $2 billion in annual state spending for local education, plus another $1 billion in reimbursements for school construction and renovations.

The coalition today includes the leaders of the two statewide teachers' unions, city mayors, superintendents, parents, and students.

The suit was initiated on behalf of the coalition by the Education Adequacy Project Clinic at Yale Law School, and its current contingent of attorneys are from Debavoise & Plimpton, a large law firm in New York City offering its services at no cost, Mr Rosenthal told The Newtown BeeGrand Theft Auto V when Lindsay Lohan claimed the company improperly cast her in its video game. during a September 13 interview. The firm has significant name recognition from representing high-profile clients such as prisoners being held without trial at Guantanamo Bay, and the producers of

Students at Yale Law School also assisted in building the case against Gov Malloy, his education commissioner, and the State Board of Education. The trial focused on schools in six of the worst-performing districts in Connecticut - Bridgeport, Danbury, East Hartford, New Britain, New London, and Windham.

CCJEF Suit Backstory

The state constitution requires the General Assembly to enact "appropriate legislation" to provide students with an education. The Connecticut Supreme Court, six-and-a-half years ago, ruled that the constitution also required a minimum threshold of quality for that education and that the education funding system be rational.

It did not, however, define the threshold, leaving that to be determined at trial.

Justice Richard Palmer wrote in his controlling opinion that, "The plaintiffs are not entitled to relief" unless they can show that the legislature's conception of a minimally adequate public education and its efforts to provide it are "unreasonably insufficient."

"Any less-demanding standard would give insufficient voice to the reasoned judgment of the legislature," Judge Palmer wrote. But, he concluded, "The phrase 'appropriate legislation' in [the constitution], does not deprive the courts of the authority to determine what is 'appropriate.'"

The state has formulas for distributing education aid that are designed to provide more help to poorer districts and those with more high-need students. Much of the case centered on how well - or rationally - the state has followed those formulas - or not.

In fact, Mr Rosenthal said the state has departed from its formula year after year. It has, for example, allowed towns to keep the same level of aid even when student enrollment shrank, student need fluctuated, or the value of taxable property increased. Increases had been given to ensure that every town received at least 55 percent of the funding it was entitled to under the formula.

In dollar figures, however, the state's lowest-performing, high-poverty districts are among the most underfunded if the state funding formula were to be followed. So Judge Rubin urged Judge Moukawsher to focus on the final product of the state's funding efforts rather than the messy political process that produces it.

Joseph Moodhe, the lead attorney representing the coalition suing the state, has said throughout the trial that districts are in desperate need of a funding system driven by student needs and arguing that, absent a clear mandate from the courts, the state will continue to send too little to high-poverty districts.

A 'Goal Realized'

Following the decision September 7, Mr Rosenthal stood before reporters and CCJEF supporters on the superior court steps, saying, "This case was brought to ensure that all Connecticut students receive adequate and equitable educational opportunities. With this decision, we are on a path to see that goal realized."

Still, the judge's refusal to order increased funding could mean that elements of the coalition will end up fighting over how the legislature should reapportion state aid.

"Unfortunately, the court declined to provide any remedy for the disparity in resources and revenue for students in the state's poorest communities - the essence and heart of the CCJEF litigation," said Sheila Cohen, president of the largest teachers' union, the Connecticut Education Association.

A spokesman for the office of Attorney General George Jepsen said it was reviewing the decision at presstime.

"We welcome the conversation this decision brings," said Gov Malloy, who has designated extra aid and oversight for needy districts. "We know that to improve outcomes for all Connecticut students and to close persistent achievement gaps, we need to challenge the status quo and take bold action. Since I took office, the state has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in education with an overwhelming share directed at supporting our students who need it the most."

Over nearly three hours, Judge Moukawsher read from the bench a carefully calibrated decision that made clear the limits of judicial intervention, while scolding the legislature for recently stripping $5 million in aid from some of the neediest school systems and giving it to comparatively wealthy communities.

Judge Moukawsher's 90-page decision will likely make education a major issue in the 2017 and 2018 legislative sessions, when lawmakers also are expected to struggle to balance the budget. House Minority Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby, warned against a legislative resolution in 2017.

"This [decision] does not make our jobs in the legislature any less problematic, which I am sure Judge Moukawsher, a former legislator, can appreciate," Rep Klarides said. "To assume that we can find a solution by next March, two months after the next session convenes, is not realistic based on how long this case has been argued."

Addressing Funding

As the suit developed, plaintiffs did not ask the judge to provide a solution, leaving that for "further legal proceedings."

"This request is insupportable," the state said in a reply brief. "The evidentiary phase of this trial is complete, both sides have rested, and there is no legal basis for this court to engage in 'further proceedings' regarding potential remedies."

Judge Moukawsher ordered the state to begin work on a new funding formula, while not mandating increased overall spending. In doing so, he gave deference to the state's position.

If remedies in an education case are constitutionally required, the Supreme Court has left no doubt "our courts should and will defer to the legislature, in the first instance, to provide those remedies," wrote the state, whose legal team was led by Associate Attorney General Joseph Rubin.

Even Mr Rosenthal acknowledged on the day of the decision, and several days later, that he did not see how Gov Malloy and the legislature would address the judge's myriad concerns without additional funding, despite Judge Moukawsher's pointedly saying the court had no authority to set funding levels.

Judge Moukawsher had not previously hinted how broadly he would rule, saying Attorney Rubin's argument got to the question of whether the court should "order relief to these six districts, or are you going to do something larger than this?"

On September 7, Judge Moukawsher looked far beyond the six districts, reciting the poor test scores from many of the 30 poorest school systems.

He also set off a minor stir in the audience when he said teacher salaries need to be linked to skills and pronounced current evaluations of teachers as a near-worthless exercise that judges 98 percent of teachers as competent. A smiling Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, a Republican, turned and made eye contact with a Democratic colleague, Waterbury Mayor Neil O'Leary.

Mayor Boughton praised the judge, saying the ruling insists upon nothing less than "a complete overhaul of the public education system in Connecticut. You're talking about a gargantuan shift in education policy in the state."

The Newtown Bee that he was glad to have played a role in what is shaping up to be a historical educational development, and he believes Newtown residents feel the same way.

Despite the many questions and decisions to come, Mr Rosenthal told

"This decision is good for all of us," he said. "Society benefits if all our children have the education and opportunity to compete in a global society."

Mr Rosenthal said if the eventual outcome of state actions reduces or even strips school funding from Newtown, it would have minimal impact because the community currently sees only about six or seven percent of its $70 million-plus school budget coming from Hartford.

At the same time, he said if it is determined that local property taxes are not the way to fund education, it would benefit many Newtown residents who contribute 60 to 70 percent of its annual school budget in the form of property taxation.

"Property tax [negatively] impacts a lot of young families, the elderly, the disabled, and those on fixed incomes because its simply based on the size of the property they either own, or in many cases inherited," he said, adding, "Equitable funding for education is not just a moral issue, it's also an economic issue," because communities with disproportionate funding have lower graduation rates, and see more residents incarcerated.

Mr Rosenthal said it is much more expensive to incarcerate someone than to provide them with a fair and equitable education.

Content in this story, except for select contributions from The Newtown Bee, originally appeared at CTMirror.org, the website of The Connecticut Mirror, an independent, nonprofit news organization covering government, politics, and public policy in the state.