Group answers common questions
Good Schools Pennsylvania offers the following common questions about Pennsylvania’s system for funding public education and the organization’s answers. Why is it the state’s responsibility to fix school funding?
It has always been up to the state to provide children with a quality education. Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states that “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.” This means that the state bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all of Pennsylvania’s children receive adequate schooling. Some have compared states’ responsibility for public education to the national government’s responsibility for defense – it is the highest priority for protecting our future.
The state claims that it is spending more and more on public education every year. Is this accurate?
State spending on public education has indeed increased every year under Gov. Tom Ridge. Unfortunately, it is buying less and less since that increase has been small – smaller, in fact, than the rate of inflation over the same period. In addition, the state has paid a decreasing share of the total costs of public education over the past two decades. Less than 20 years ago, the state contributed 50 percent of school funding. In Ridge’s first budget, the commonwealth contributed 36 percent of the total amount spent on K-12. In the most recent budget, the governor and the Legislature allocated about 34 percent. School districts are forced to make up the difference between what the state pays and the actual cost of educating children, often by increasing local property taxes to raise revenue. Because not every district can raise more money locally, gaps arise between what the richest districts and the rest of the state can afford.
Why not privatize schools or provide vouchers instead of putting more money into failing schools?
Whether you support or oppose vouchers, charters, privatization or any other type of market reform, they would at most only affect a very small segment of the population. Eighty-four percent of Pennsylvania’s children, more than 1.8 million, attend public schools, compared to about 330,000 in private schools. Even if there were vouchers, a full 80 percent of the state’s children (more than 1.7 million kids) would be in public schools. No matter how you feel about these other ideas, public education is the key to the future for the vast majority of the state’s children.
Why hasn’t the Legislature done anything about these issues yet if they’re so important?
There are two main reasons why the governor and state Legislature have not yet tackled school funding reform. The first is that they are not hearing that it’s a priority for average citizens, the voters who make up their constituency. The second reason is that they are not willing to invest more money in the status quo. We can solve that problem by demanding smart legislation, a law that combines crucial school funding reform with meaningful accountability for results. But legislators rarely ever increase spending without major public pressure. So the burden rests with us. If we want a better public school system for our children, it’s up to us to demand it from the Legislature.
Why not just do the same as one of the other states that have recently dealt with how their schools are funded?
Michigan, Vermont, Texas, Kentucky and other states all provide important lessons for Pennsylvania, and we should draw on these in developing the solution for our state. In future meetings, we’ll look at the impact of different funding approaches. Among the most popular is an increase in the state personal income tax, which would allow an average decrease in local property taxes by as much as two-thirds. No matter which approach or combination of approaches Pennsylvania chooses, the important thing is that the state must move to a system where the lion’s share of education funding comes from the state.
Does equity mean that some school districts lose money while others gain it?
School funding reform is about expanding the pie so that all schools have access to the necessary resources. Under all of the current funding proposals, no district would receive less money from the state than it does now. Instead, these formulas aim to use a statewide tax base to increase resources where they are needed without depriving any districts of the support they rely on. Reducing funding for any school district violates the paramount goal that all schools be adequately funded. Well-funded, successful schools are models for the rest of the state.
One statewide revenue source that could be used to fund public education is the state sales tax. Is this a “regressive” tax?
When the state picks up a greater share of school funding costs, there are a number of sources that it can use. Among these are the personal income tax and the sales tax. Many states have a “regressive” sales tax, meaning that lower-income residents end up contributing a greater proportion of their wages than do higher-income residents. (The federal income tax, by contrast, is “progressive”: the higher the income, the higher the rate of taxation.) Pennsylvania’s sales tax is almost “flat.” For every income group, except a small segment of the poor, the effective tax rate is equal. This is because the state base of the sales tax is narrow – that is, it excludes many necessities such as food and clothing. As a result, the sales tax is not regressive across almost all income ranges; for the one group where it is regressive, some people argue that its effects are offset by existing subsidies and that legislation could be written so that it includes some reimbursement for the lowest-income groups.