Transcript School Financing In Pennsylvania

School Financing In
Pennsylvania
Equitable, adequate, and predictable public education
funding for all students of PA
Historical Perspective



Public education in PA started in 1776
The State’s share of funding for public
education increased from 20% in 1794 to
55% in the 1975.
The State’s share of funding for public
education has decreased since 1975 to the
current average of about 32%
Today’s Funding System


Inherently inequitable and inadequate
Student education is greatly influenced by zip
code
District
South Allegheny
2002-2003: 52%
Proficient in
Reading
Oxford Area 20022003: 52%
Proficient in
Reading
2003-2004
Expenditure
per ADM
$7,974
$8,156
District
Upper Saint Clair
2002-2003: 84%
Proficient in
Reading
Phoenixville 20022003: 73%
Proficient in
Reading
2003-2004
Expenditure
per ADM
Difference
$2,358
$10,332
$12,512
$4,356
The Haves and Have-Nots
2002-03 Major Subsidies per Student by Tax Effort and Proficiency Targets
Incl: Basic, Special Ed, Voc Ed, Performance Grants, and Read-to-Succeed Dollars per ADM
(Not Show n: Top 5 Taxing Districts--in Poconos)
100%
Low Tax, High Proficiency
High Tax, High Proficiency
90%
S out h S i de
80%
B a l dwi n- Wht hl
S hnk sv l - S t ony c r k
PROFICIENCY
2003-04 % Proficient (Reading)
We a t he r l y
N or t hga t e
2008-09 AYP Rdng
Target=63%
70%
A v on Gr ov e
N e sha mi ny
60%
P ot t sgr ov e
Fl e e t wood A r e a
B l ue R i dge
50%
S ayr e Ar ea
S c r a nt on
B nsl m Twp
C oa t e sv i l l e
A ust i n A r e a
M or r i sv i l l e
40%
Wdl nd H i l l s
P i t t sbur gh
N or r i st own
A l l e nt own
30%
Wi l k i nsbur g
S E Delco
R e a di ng
20%
S t e e l t on- H i ghspi r e
P hi l a de l phi a
Wm P e nn
B r i st ol Twp
TARGET AREA
Many of these districts are
not w ell-served by existing
distribution system.
H a r r i sbur g
C he st e r - U pl a nd
10%
D uque sne
Low Tax, Low Proficiency
High Tax, Low Proficiency
median=3.12%
0%
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
TAX EFFORT
2002-03 Household School Taxes as % of PI
Width of bubbles: 2002-03 Level of "Major Subsidy" (Basic, Special, Vocational, Performance Grants, and Reading) per 2002-03 ADM.
Green: greater than $4,091 per pupil (HIghest 125 districts). Red: less than $1,944 per pupil (Low est 125 districts).
0.06
0.07
National Context




44 out of 50 states have experienced school
finance litigation
Most litigation is based on adequacy
Requires determining cost of adequate
education
In PA - PARSS lawsuit, court put issue back
in hands of legislature
Our Plan for
Pennsylvania
“Education, then, beyond all other
devices of human origin, is the great
equalizer of the conditions of man, the
balance-wheel of the social
machinery.” – Horace Mann
Basic Education




Central distribution of resources equally to local
education agencies on a per pupil basis
Base funding per pupil determined by cost of
preparing students to proficient/advanced on PSSA
test.
We looked at the avg. expenditure, adjusted for
inflation, and compared to data on achievement and
McCozzi adequacy model
Based funding per pupil to be provided by PA is
$11,180 in 2007-2008.
Weighting
Base funding shall be weighted as follows
o
o
o
o
o
Regular Ed.
1.0 x baseline
Limited English Proficiency
1.1 x baseline
Poverty
1.2 x baseline
(qualify for free and reduced lunch)
Alternative Education
1.5 x baseline
Special Education
excess cost
Charter and Cyber Schools



Charters will be funding using same formula,
but shall assume – transportation,
construction, benefits, etc..
Charters will be monitored for adverse
selection bias as it relates to LEP, Poverty,
Alternative Ed, and Special Ed
Cyber Charters will have base funding
determined by separate calculation
Transportation & Construction

Keep current subsidy models for
transportation and Construction
Sources of Revenue




This model focuses on distribution, not
sources of State revenue
We assume that the tax revenue is centrally
collected and distributed – radical idea!
Local school boards may levy additional
taxes for local needs
Grants are separate from basic funding
Governance

Creation of Educational Equity Panel to:



Annually Review adequacy of base funding
Annually determine base funding rate for following
year
Determine formula for Cyber Charters
Educational Equity Panel







PA League of Urban
Schools
PARRS
PA Chamber of Commerce
PTA
PSEA
Majority Chair of the House
Education Committee
Minority Chair of the House
Education Committee








Majority Chair of Senate
Education Committee
Minority Chair of Senate
Education Committee
Governor
Secretary of Education
PSBO
PASA
PSBA
PaFT
Ongoing Concerns….



Is adequacy enough? Should equity be the
real goal?
Should wealthier districts be allowed to
create/perpetuate the gap between haves
and have nots by funding additional
programs?
Should school district consolidations be
encouraged to minimize disparities?
Implementation &
Accountability
Two Approaches

Legislation in House and Senate to enable taxing
and distribution authorities and authorize the
Educational Equity Panel

Amend the PA constitution



Legislation in House and Senate
Passed in two consecutive sessions
Voted on during public election
Amend PA Constitution
“ 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 and shall
appropriate funds that ensure the adequate,
equitable and predictable resources to enable
each child to reach state standards.”
Opportunities & Obstacles
There appears to be public support for
increasing school funding
There are proposals in the legislature for the
state to increase its financial support for local
school districts. Do you favor or oppose this?
2005
2004
2003
80%
76%
Favor
74%
14%
16%
Oppose
15%
6%
Don't know
8%
11%
0%
20%
2003, 2004, and 2005 Mansfield University Public Mind Survey
40%
60%
80%
100%
Opportunities & Obstacles


Mobilize a grass-roots, state-wide coalition
Must be sustained for several years
“The test of our progress is not whether we add
more to the abundance of those who have
much; it is whether we provide enough for
those who have too little.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
Our Team







William Bray
Christine Hakes
Carey Harris
William Harst
Amy Stewart
James Testerman
Jennifer Waltz