Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Hillbl3 t1_j7n6a7k wrote

Reply to comment by midnight9215 in Landmark Pa. school funding case decided: The state’s system is unconstitutional by Hashslingingslashar

No, it means that all the school taxes collected must be shared equitably across all districts.

10

IamSauerKraut t1_j7nc9r6 wrote

Not exactly.

Applies to the state funding formula, passed in 2016.

Pennsylvania passed the Fair Funding Formula in 2016, which decides financial allocations across the state’s 500 school districts [new funding dollars, only] . The new system only applies to new funds and uses outdated population numbers. In practice, this hurts schools in the eastern half of the state, which are growing, and keeps money in western school districts, which are shrinking

In the order, Cohn Jubelirer does not outline how the Legislature should distribute education funding, saying the court is in “uncharted territory with this landmark case.”

10

Hillbl3 t1_j7nfuku wrote

The opinion makes a pretty significant point of addressing the relevance of all the inputs in the educational system. Most notably in the conclusion where it is written:

>The findings regarding inputs, such as funding, courses, curricula and programs, staffing, facilities, and instrumentalities of learning, demonstrate manifest deficiencies between low-wealth districts, such as Petitioner Districts, and their more affluent counterparts. Educators credibly testified to lacking the very resources state officials have identified as essential to student achievement, some of which are as basic as safe and temperate facilities in which children can learn. Educators also testified about being forced to choose which few students would benefit from the limited resources they could afford to provide, despite knowing more students needed those same resources. The effect of this lack of resources shows in the evidence of outcomes, which also must be considered to determine if the system is “thorough and efficient” and to give effect to the phrase “to serve the needs of the Commonwealth.”

So from where exactly do you draw the conclusion that this part of the discussion was just for funsies and the eventual remedy will only require reforms to the state funding formula?

4

alexp8771 t1_j7n75zw wrote

What is preventing individual districts from lowering their property taxes to nothing?

2

IamSauerKraut t1_j7ncqne wrote

Districts are required to fund their local schools. Reducing property taxes to nothing would violate their mandate. And the Commonwealth's Constitution.

2

caribou16 t1_j7o4ywg wrote

Then I'm confused what is changing. Because don't they already have this mandate that is being ignored, which is why we are in this current state?

2

IamSauerKraut t1_j7pe1i1 wrote

The mandate is to fund. And they do. The court case is about how that is being accomplished or not accomplished. Most of the funding in most districts is provided thru a combination of property taxes and earned income taxes (aka EIT). Because of inequities in wealth or thru the luck of locations, some districts have greater ability to leverage property taxes and the EIT into an outstanding public school education for their students. Lower Merion, for instance. On the other end are districts such as Steelton and Chester.

Yesterday's ruling addresses the inequities in funding.

2

Hillbl3 t1_j7phsih wrote

Nothing is changing, yet. This ruling just puts the state assembly on notice that they need to fix it. It also, maybe, opens the state up to liability for continuing to fail to provide for this constitutional guarantee. Unfortunately the judiciary doesn't have a lever it can pull to force the legislature to actually do it's fucking job and in the end it will be up to the voters to decide to hold the assembly accountable or not. In other words: don't hold your breath.

1

PermissionToConnect t1_j7oco3y wrote

what would the state do if they dont

1

IamSauerKraut t1_j7peb7k wrote

The "state" likely would seek a court order to 1) force the district to do what it must and/or, 2) appoint a receiver.

2

Hillbl3 t1_j7n8fue wrote

Seeing as my crystal ball is broken, I guess you'll have to ask the state assembly what their plan is.

1

divacphys t1_j7nbr5q wrote

This is my great. I do not trust the state Republicans to care about education. There's a very real possibility this leads to less funding overall. Instead of providing poorer schools more money, they'll just reduce the amount of money euchre schools have.

1