Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 10 — EDUCATION AND CULTURE · Chapter 172 — Support of Public Schools. Transportation
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-266j (2025)

Intercommunity programs for disadvantaged children

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) For the purposes of this section: “Intercommunity programs for disadvantaged children” means educational programs or services designed to improve or accelerate the education of children whose educational achievement has been or is being restricted by economic, social or environmental disadvantages. “Receiving district” means the school district which accepts pupils from another school district in accordance with an agreement between it and one or more boards of education to provide an educational program for participating children which has been approved by the State Board of Education. “Sending district” means the school district responsible by law for the education of the children participating in such a program.

(b) Any local or regional board of education may make a binding written agreement with any other such board or group of such boards to implement intercommunity programs for children under this section. Such written agreement shall include mutually acceptable terms concerning, but not limited to, the tuition per child which shall be paid by the sending district to the receiving district.

(c) On and after July 1, 1998, the program established pursuant to this section for children residing in the Hartford school district shall operate in accordance with the provisions of section 10-266aa.

(1967, P.A. 611, S. 1–4; P.A. 78-218, S. 189; P.A. 79-128, S. 9, 36; P.A. 84-224, S. 1, 2; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 91-7, S. 6, 22; P.A. 95-226, S. 25, 30; P.A. 96-178, S. 3, 18; P.A. 97-247, S. 17, 27; 97-290, S. 5, 29; 97-318, S. 9, 12; June 18 Sp. Sess. P.A. 97-11, S. 54, 65; P.A. 98-168, S. 25, 26.)

History: P.A. 78-218 substituted “local” for “town” board of education in Subsec. (b) and deleted “town” with reference to school districts in Subsec. (c); P.A. 79-128 amended Subsec. (c) to delete reference to grants pursuant to Sec. 10-262 and to replace reference to lowest grant provided in said Sec. with reference to additional amount equaling $250 per pupil; P.A. 84-224 defined “intercommunity programs”, deleting reference to “special educational programs”, repealed definition of “economically disadvantaged children”, increased the grant award from $250 to $300 and repealed Subsec. (d) which had stated that provisions of Secs. 10-266c to 10-266e, apply to programs, grants and payments under section; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 91-7 amended Subsec. (c) to allow sending districts to receive grants pursuant to Sec. 10-74d; P.A. 95-226 amended Subsec. (c)(1) to increase the amount from $300 to $700 and (c)(2) to specify that funding be from the amount appropriated pursuant to Sec. 10-74d, and to change the amount from “one-half” of the cost to the “reasonable” cost, and added Subsec. (c)(3) re how to treat the number of children participating for purposes of certain counts and (c)(4) setting a cap on the total amount of the grants, effective July 1, 1995; P.A. 96-178 added Subsec. (d) re grants to receiving districts of $468 per participating child, effective July 1, 1996; P.A. 97-247 amended Subsec. (d) to provide that the local or regional board of education for the receiving district receive the grant and to require towns receiving funds to make such funds available to the local or regional board of education in supplement to any other local appropriation, other state or federal grant or other revenue to which the local or regional board of education is entitled, effective July 1, 1997; P.A. 97-290 amended Subsec. (d) to add provisions for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999, and fiscal years thereafter, effective July 1, 1997; P.A. 97-318 amended Subsec. (c)(1) to decrease the amount from $700 to $350 and amended Subsec. (c)(4) to decrease the amount from $900,000 to $700,000, effective July 1, 1997; June 18 Sp. Sess. P.A. 97-11 amended Subsec. (c) to delete changes enacted by P.A. 97-318, effective July 1, 1997; P.A. 98-168 added new Subsec. (c) re Hartford program and deleted former Subsecs. (c) and (d) re grants, effective July 1, 1998.

Cited. 187 C. 187; 195 C. 24.

Extension of agreement made by Milford board of education with New Haven board of education pursuant to section is within administrative discretion of Milford school board and Milford board of aldermen was enjoined from holding an advisory referendum on extension as this would be an unlawful expenditure of city funds. 28 CS 207. Violates Art. I, Sec. 20 and Art. VIII, Sec. 1 of Connecticut Constitution. 31 CS 377.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Secs. 10-266k and 10-266l. State grants for special educational programs and other municipal purposes. Agreements between private schools and urban school districts for education of disadvantaged children in public schools. Sections 10-266k and 10-266l are repealed.

(1969, P.A. 792, S. 1–4; 1972, P.A. 199, S. 1; P.A. 78-185, S. 2, 3; 78-218, S. 190; P.A. 86-333, S. 31, 32.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1969–1999 · leading case: Sheff v. O'Neill, 733 A.2d 925 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sheff v. O'Neill, 733 A.2d 925 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999). · cites it 2× “98-252, § 34; General Statutes § 10-266j, as amended by Public Act 98-168.”
Murray v. Egan, 256 A.2d 844 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1969). “Thereafter, a written agreement was entered into between the boards of education, pursuant to § 10-266j of the General Statutes, covering the academic year 1968-1969.”
Horton v. Meskill, 332 A.2d 113 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1974). “§§ 10-266j, 10-273a, 10-277. In addition, funds are available from the federal government in the form of special grants.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.