Not Just a Philly Thing: Adressing Inequities in School Funding Across Pennsylvania
By Gregory Jordan-Detamore & Dylan Washington
In late 2007, a Costing Out Study was released. It was commissioned by the state to find out how much money is needed to give all students in Pennsylvania an adequate education, broken down by school district. It took into account factors such as poverty, English language learners, and cost of living. The results were not surprising, but nonetheless were very important.
For example, it found that about 19 out of every 20 districts in the state are underfunded, some by quite significant amounts. Across PA, there are great disparities in school funding. There is perhaps no better example than in Southeastern PA. In this small region, there are districts, such as Lower Merion and Jenkintown, that have significantly more money (per student) than districts such as Philadelphia, Upper Darby, and Reading. For example, according to the costing-out study, Lower Merion spends $17,184 per student, while it needs $12,211. Reading, on the other hand, spends $7,458 per student, while it needs $13,896.
The average school district in PA only has about 80% of the money it needs, and Philadelphia only has about 70%.
These numerical disparities translate directly into disparities that can plainly be seen. Districts with a lot of money can have smaller class sizes, better buildings, more counselors and teachers, better resources, and more services for English language learners and special education students. Underfunded districts, on the other hand, suffer.
Because school funding is largely dependent on property taxes, school districts in wealthier areas tend to have better schools, as they can collect more money. Meanwhile, school districts in poorer areas tend to have struggling, underperforming schools.
Armed with the results of the costing-out study, education organizers across the state worked very hard last year to push for an increase in school funding, distributed equitably according to need. Governor Rendell’s budget incorporated many of these principles, and with some modifications, was passed a year and a half ago. There were school funding increases across the state. Philadelphia, for example, got about $50 million. Rendell did not want that to be the end, though. He pushed for a six-year plan to increase school funding. Legislators made a commitment to follow through on the six year plan, but continued organizing will be essential to making sure that they follow through on their commitment.
Last year, our school funding campaign involved creating a Community Account booklet to distribute to elected officials and others. The booklet included stories from students, parents, teachers, and others about how last year’s school funding increase was helpful to their schools.
In the Community Account, Some students shared stories about getting to experience Advanced Placement classes for the first time at their school, or having more books in their classrooms. Several elementary school parents shared stories about their children getting more personalized attention now that class size has been reduced at their school. Teachers talked about how increased funding had been well spent to bring more technology into the classroom. The idea of the Community Account was to show legislators that the increase in funding is working, and to make a case for more.
For this school year, we we not as fortunate. School districts did not get the increases that they had hoped for; on the other hand, though, there was still an increase in funding due to stimulus money. It is important to note, however, that this funding only lasts for two years. We still need increases in funding from the state. That is the basis of this year’s school funding campaign.
Where We Are Going
Our school funding campaign this year is based on the understanding that underfunding is truly a statewide problem that needs a statewide strategy. The Costing Out Study released in 2007 showed that the vast majority of Pennsylvania school districts are not getting enough funding to educate their students properly. That means that lack of qualified teachers, crowded classes, and too few resources for English Language Learners are not just problems for students in Philadelphia. These are problems that most of our peers across the state are also facing every day in their schools.
With this in mind, Philadelphia Student Union members are working to connect to other students in rural and suburban school districts in Pennsylvania. We are making connections with other youth organizations, churches, school officials and even parents. By meeting with students from other places and sharing with each other about the conditions in our schools, we have been able to make more students aware of the way education funding works and why we need to organize around it. By doing this, we are beginning to build a network of young people who are actively involved in fighting for equitable school funding.
Our goal of a statewide youth network that can demand equitable funding is very important because we know that Philadelphia students can not be effective alone. Legislators need to be hearing from people in rural towns, big cities and the suburbs about the importance of the new school funding formula. We know that this kind of statewide pressure can only happen when students across the state come together and organize around school funding. The future of our education depends on it.
This article was originally published in Philadelphia Student Union's bi-annual newsletter, The Union Rep. You can download a full pdf of the Winter 2010 edition here.
All of MMPs Feeds
