Pennsylvania Education Policy Fellowship Program 2006-2007

FUNDING PUBLIC EDUCATION WHAT’S FAIR AND EQUITABLE?

What Changes are Necessary to Make Pennsylvania’s System of Funding Public Education More Fair and Effective?

Prepared By: Dallas Hack Jacquelyn Kelly Thomas Lubben Joan Schanck Alan Vandrew Coy Vickers Jay Weaver Teresa Weaver 2

“THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF A THOROUGH AND EFFICIENT SYSTEM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE COMMONWEALTH.

” -Article III, Section 14 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 3

Timeline of Funding Public Education in PA

• 1831 - The Common School Fund Established • 1834 - Free School Act • 1895 - State’s First Compulsory Attendance Law • 1897 - State Funding System Incorporates # of Students • 1903 – State’s First Minimum Teacher Salary Enacted • 1923 – First Effort at Equalizing State Aid • 1930 to 1950 – State Share of Costs from 19% to 40% • 1957 – Formula Includes Actual Instructional Expense (AIE) 4

Timeline of Funding Public Education in PA

• Mid 1960’s to 1983 – State Aid would equal 50% of the median AIE per student (55% achieved in 1974/75) • 1983 – Equalized Subsidy for Basic Education (ESBE) enacted – 50% funding repealed • 1992 – ESBE Abandoned • Current – No Funding Formula – 07/08 School Districts receive an amount = to the 06/07 Basic Instructional Subsidy plus they could qualify for one or all of seven additional supplements: • Poverty, Foundation, Tax Burden, Growth, Small District Assistance, Limited English Proficiency, or Inflation Index Supplement 5

National Funding of Education for Fiscal Year 2005

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Nevada Pennsylvania Virginia Tennessee Iow a

State

Wyoming Kentucky West Virginia New Mexico Vermont Series1 6

State Revenue as % of Total District Budget

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Random School District

10 11 12 13 14 15 95/96 State Share of Revenue 04/05 State Share of Revenue 7

% of State Share of Revenue for an Representative District from 1992 to 2006 4 5 4 0 3 5 3 0 ' 9 2 ' 9 4 ' 9 6 ' 9 8 ' 0 0 ' 0 2 ' 0 4 ' 0 6

8

What’s Fair and Equitable?

Recommendation from Finance Group:

Weighted Student Funding (WSF)

a.k.a. Standards-Based Funding Formula 9

Overview of the Standards-Based Funding Formula

• Combines these two formulas: – PA ESBE (Equalized Subsidy for Basic Education) – MD formula implemented in “The Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act of 2002” 10

ESBE = Equalized Subsidy for Basic Education

The ESBE formula distributed funds to school districts based on the following: Per Pupil $ Amount X Number of Students X Districts Aid Ratio (Calculated Annually) Students were weighted for the calculation: Kindergarten = 0.5

Elementary =1.0

Secondary = 1.36

11

The Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act

• Law enacted in Maryland in 2002 as a result of the “Thornton” Commission Report which included a “costing out” study.

• Commission established to study MD’s school finance system because of low test scores and variation in educational quality.

• Determined per pupil foundation to achieve student success ($6,612 in 2002).

• Determined pupil weighting factors.

12

Standards-Based Funding Formula

Standards-Based Funding Formula = (A) Foundation Amount X (B) Weighted Pupils X (C) Aid Ratio

13

Components in Funding Formula for 2007/08 :

(A) Standards-Based Foundation Amount per Pupil = $ 7,785 (MD per pupil foundation amount adjusted for Act 1 “index” to 2007/08 ) (B) (C) Weighted Pupils: • • • • • Kindergarten = 0.5 or 1.0 (half or full day) Special Education = 1.17

Limited English Proficiency = 1.0

Economically Disadvantaged = 1.1

Students not enrolled in public School = 0.5 (Home, Charter, Cyber Students) Market Value/Personal Income Aid Ratio (Currently calculated annually – to determine the “wealth” of a district) 14

Education Funding

9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 5 Low est Aid Ratios 5 Middle Aid Ratios 5 Highest Aid Ratios 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Aid Ratio

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Basic Instruction Subsidy Standards Based Subsidy 15

Obstacles to Achieving Standards-Based Funding

• Push Back from Wealthy Districts • State Courts and Legislative Action • General Public’s Perception of Spending on Education • State Control vs. Local Control • Political Support for Tax Cuts not Increases • Accountability of All Involved 16

Accountability of State & Local Officials

• Substantially Increase the State’s Role • Make State Dollars Follow the Child According to Need • Ensure That Districts Allocate State and Federal Funds According to WSF • Encourage Districts to Allocate Local Funding According to the Principles of WSF • Include All Public School Options Fully Within the WSF Approach • Shower the Public with Data 17

The Goal of Public Education

• A population able to compete in the 21st century era of globalization • Achievable by effective education with adequate funding that must also be equitable • Our nation requires it • Our children deserve it 18