The General Assembly is considering a new bill that would alter the balance of authority in Connecticut’s public schools by shifting final employment decisions away from locally elected Boards of Education and into the hands of an unelected arbitrator.
The proposal, HB 5218 — An Act Concerning Teachers — includes some reasonable provisions. Establishing a clear “just cause” standard for teacher discipline and expanding workers’ compensation protections for teachers injured by students are both constructive steps. These goals deserve support.
However, the bill goes further — and in doing so, it raises a fundamental concern about governance.
At its core, Connecticut’s education system has long relied on local control. This tradition reflects a broader American principle: decisions should be made as close to the people as possible. Local boards of education are elected, operate in public, and are directly accountable to parents and taxpayers in their communities. That structure ensures that policies reflect local priorities and that decision-makers can be held responsible at the ballot box.
HB 5218 would weaken that framework.
By making a neutral arbitrator’s decision binding in teacher termination cases, the bill effectively removes final authority from local boards. In practice, even after a board reviews evidence, holds hearings, and votes on a personnel decision, an arbitrator could override that outcome.
Consider a scenario in which a school district seeks to terminate a teacher for repeated misconduct or failure to meet professional standards. After reviewing the case, the elected board votes to uphold the termination. Under this bill, an arbitrator could reverse that decision and reinstate the teacher.
In that moment, the judgment of the community, expressed through its elected representatives, would no longer be final.
Supporters of binding arbitration argue that it promotes fairness and impartiality. That concern is understandable. But fairness does not require eliminating accountability. Local boards already operate within established legal frameworks, follow due process, and are subject to public scrutiny. Replacing their authority with that of an arbitrator risks reducing transparency and public input in the name of neutrality.
As a former member of the Milford Board of Education from 2019 to 2022, I saw firsthand the responsibility entrusted to local officials. When residents elected us, we were entrusted to listen, deliberate, and decide in the best interest of our community. Those decisions were not made lightly. They reflected careful consideration of policy, fairness, and the expectations of the people we served.
That is the essence of representative government: authority flows from the public, and elected officials are accountable for how they use it.
An arbitrator, no matter how qualified or well-intentioned, operates outside that framework of accountability. Their decisions are not subject to voter review, nor are they made within the same public-facing process. Over time, shifting authority away from elected boards risks eroding local governance, and concentrating decision-making power in less transparent forums.
There are also practical considerations. Expanding the role of binding arbitration could increase the number of disputes that escalate, raising costs for school districts and, ultimately, taxpayers. It may also lengthen the time required to resolve personnel matters, creating uncertainty for school systems.
This debate is not simply about employment procedures. It is about who governs local schools.
Final decision-making — whether related to budgets, curriculum, or personnel— has traditionally rested with locally elected officials for a reason. That structure promotes accountability, responsiveness, and public trust.
If the legislature wishes to strengthen due process protections, it can do so without removing final authority from local boards.
HB 5218, as written, moves in a different direction.
Lawmakers should amend the bill to preserve local control, maintain transparency, and uphold the principle of democratic accountability that has long guided Connecticut’s education system.
Andrew Fowler is Communications Specialist at Yankee Institute, a Connecticut-based public policy organization advancing practical solutions to keep our state affordable, livable, and workable. Learn more at YankeeInstitute.org.
