Pennsylvania has one of the worst, most inequitable school funding arrangements in the nation. The legislature has fiddled and done nothing, allowing wide disparities to remain.
But today the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of permitting a trial on funding inequities. This is a big win for districts who are desperately underfunded.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Thursday opened the door to a lawsuit by the William Penn School District and others asking courts to remedy wide funding disparities among school districts, breaking with decades of precedent dismissing such challenges.
Courts “must take great care in wading deeply into questions of social and economic policy, which we long have recognized as fitting poorly with the judiciary’s institutional competencies,” Justice David Wecht wrote in the majority opinion.
But “it is fair neither to the people of the Commonwealth nor to the General Assembly itself to expect that body to police its own fulfillment of its constitutional mandate.”
The court’s opinion — joined by four justices and accompanied by two dissenting opinions — does not resolve the William Penn lawsuit.
But it enables a trial court to hear arguments in the case, which contends that Pennsylvania’s school-funding system violates the state constitution’s guarantee of a “thorough and efficient system” of education, and its equal-protection provision. Commonwealth Court had dismissed the suit, which lawyers for the plaintiffs said Thursday they would now seek to expedite.
Pennsylvania’s school-funding system has long been a subject of complaint, with some of the widest spending gaps in the country between low- and high-poverty districts and heavy reliance on property taxes to fund schools.
In the William Penn School District — which has some of the highest tax rates in the state, but spends less per pupil than nearby Lower Merion — “we are moving ahead,” a jubilant Jane Harbert, superintendent of the district, said Thursday. “I have to tell you, it just bring tears to my eyes that we’re allowed to go further with this. We’re fighting a battle not just for William Penn but for the whole state of Pennsylvania.”
The first person she called with the news, Harbert said, was former superintendent Joseph Bruni, who spearheaded the suit. In an interview, he said he had waited a long time for this.

While I strongly support a more equitable funding system for America’s public schools, I am not optimistic about this Pennsylvania case.
The Supreme Court has not been favorable to funding equity.
Since there is no fundamental right to an education. (Ruled by the SCOTUS in the case of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 1973) , the chances of providing equity is not promising.
see
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1332
LikeLike
See this documentary on NatGeo on Tuesday
http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/mainlinesuburbanlife/news/inequities-of-technology-in-william-penn-school-district-vs-lower/article_89db95de-a4c6-5ae2-acfb-d6e793693ccc.html
LikeLike
Read this story and weep. Two schools, 15 miles and worlds apart!
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/homepage-feature/item/99093-two-schools-15-miles-and-worlds-apart?linktype=hp_impact
LikeLike
More shame!
http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20170101_In_William_Penn_schools__a_season_of_struggle_with_no_end_in_sight.html
LikeLike
My mistake, the digital divide program was broadcast on 26 Sept. You can see it on youtube at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBAkCgDD-BE
LikeLike
Pennsylvania is also known for generous charter reimbursement rates that depletes public school budgets and leaves host districts in dire straits. Lots of these rules were created by the Corbett administration which was in the pocket of the charter lobby.http://www.mcall.com/opinion/white/mc-bw-pennsylvania-charter-schools-20170712-story.html
LikeLike
Needed this! Thanks, Diane.
Good for former Superintendent Bruni. 👍
LikeLike
Pennsylvania should be taking the first step in a court of law to resolve school funding issues. However, if the pursuit of justice in school funding in Ohio means anything for other states, don’t look for any simple solution.
About twenty years ago, Bill Phillis, working with The Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding, brought a case before the Ohio Supreme Court. The Coalition represented hundreds of school districts and was named after a student, Nathan DeRolph. Now known as the DeRolph case, it came before the Ohio Supreme court four times until 2002, when the court just gave up. At issue was the obscene difference in funding of public schools caused by an overreliance on property taxes. You can read about the case and the political football games around it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeRolph_v._State
The latest “solution” in Ohio comes from Andrew Brenner, vice chairman of the House Education Committee, and proud member of ALEC. Brenner, who has called public education socialism, complains that “Taxpayers in the suburban school districts have had it with subsidizing failed urban schools.” “We can no longer afford to increase our taxes so that we can have them redistributed to failed schools.”
His solution is “to create a new system of funding schools where the state pays a specified amount per student that each student may use to attend the public or chartered nonpublic school of the student’s choice, without the requirement of a local contribution.”
The full text of his universal voucher bill, HB 102, may be a template for other states. The voucher proposal is surrounded by unrelated issues and so far appears to be stalled in the Finance committee. But here are key provisions, “subject to the approval of the electors of this state. HB 102 is designed to:
—replace locally levied school district property taxes with a statewide property tax and require recipients of certain tax exemptions to reimburse the state for such levy revenue lost due to those exemptions;
— increase the state sales and use tax rates and allocate additional revenue to state education purposes
—repeal school district income taxes;
—require the Treasurer of State to issue general obligation bonds to refund certain school district debt obligations;
—create a new system of funding schools where the state pays a specified amount per student that each student may use to attend the public or chartered nonpublic school of the student’s choice, without the requirement of a local contribution;
—eliminate the School Facilities Commission;
—eliminate the Educational Choice Scholarship Pilot Program, Pilot Project Scholarship Program, Autism Scholarship Program, and Jon Peterson Special Needs Scholarship Program;
—eliminate interdistrict open enrollment;
—require educational service centers to transport students on a countywide basis; and
—permit school districts to enter into a memoranda of understanding for one district to manage another.
I hope that this bill never sees the light of day, but others are in the works in Ohio, among them a voucher proposal called an “ Opportunity Scholarship Program,” H.B. 200 – School Choice.
Sponsored by Representative Kyle Koehler, H.B. 200, offers scholarships to non-public schools. Some of the conditions are spelled out in detail. For example Sec. 3310.13. (A) says: “A chartered nonpublic school may charge any student who receives an opportunity scholarship up to the difference between the amount of the scholarship and the regular tuition charge and uniformly imposed fees of the school. Each chartered nonpublic school may permit such an eligible student’s family to provide volunteer services in lieu of cash payment to pay all or part of the amount of the school’s tuition not covered by the scholarship paid.
The bill sets up an elaborate system for creating and managing the “education savings account” of each student attending a chartered nonpublic school with an opportunity scholarship.” The bill also allows for any excess in a student’s account to be held in reserve for use in postsecondary education. I hope that the legal team in Pennsylvania is keeping an eye on other proposals for funding beyond the case at hand.
LikeLike