Not an expert in this subject matter but this seems like it would have massive implications for the state... anyone who knows more want to chime in on what this means and where we go from here?

https://whyy.org/articles/pennsylvania-school-funding-lawsuit-waiting-ruling/

An article from last month about some more details on this.

I would agree, a person living in Reading, PA or Wyomissing, PA should have the same education options. They are literally 5 minute apart, and a world apart in education.

This is pretty cool. Is the state now forced to change the funding method?

None of this matters much until the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania weighs in.

Swarthmore and Chester...

The ruling will be appealed, and will probably have to go to the State Supreme Court. Even then, the immediacy of implication will likely depend on lawmakers and local governments.

The county system in Maryland seemed to be a lot more equitable than the district system in PA.

I wonder if this change could impact the housing market long term as people wouldn't be trying to cram into certain districts.

And even then. Lots of states have gone through this (I have personal memories of Ohio going through it while I lived there and continuing on long afterwards). Because any budget/taxation changes have to come through the legislature and I know of no state court that was able to compel a state legislature to fundamentally change how it funds something (since ostensibly the courts and legislatures are equally powerful and it could easily result in a constitutional crisis if the courts tried to hold the legislators in contempt of court).

Throwing more money at a district doesn’t always solve the problem.

There are very many poorly performing districts that spend much more per pupil than do their better performing neighbors.

Can you link some?

This suit is about inequality in school funding. So, it's specifically addressing schools that are underfunded.

Also, these instances you mentioned are rare. In most cases, higher funding results in higher achievement. A large amount of higher spending but "lower achievement" is due to IEPs and the case of places like Philly it has to do with admin bloat which based on their budget should have the highest per pupil spending but the money doesn't get there.

Per pupil spending also doesn't account for family socioeconomic status, which is the greatest predictor of educational achievement, but SES does define neighborhoods and school districts.

Modern day segregation.

Check your local schools. Are they spening money on teachers or on LED signs out front?

Nobody said anything about throwing money at it

Just look at all of the school districts founded shortly after the Brown v Board ruling of 1954.

You're oversimplifying, by looking at funding in per-pupil amounts. That ignores the fact that districts with many high-poverty families have higher numbers (and proportions) of students that require learning-support services. Students from well-off families need less intensive resources to be academically successful. In other words, it's cheaper to educate rich kids.

It’s literally a lawsuit about school funding.

[deleted]

And it always will be because you aren’t asking the school to manage a whole host of issues that are based outside its walls.

It doesn’t change the fact that more and more money into a school system doesn’t always remedy the problems that system suffers from. Because the school can only do so much.

Does this mean that eventually PA schools can no longer be funded by property taxes?

https://www.witf.org/2023/02/07/judge-deems-pennsylvanias-school-funding-system-unconstitutional/

A non-paywalled article. Clearly the better moral outcome, glad the judge agreed it was also a better legal outcome.

That's because they've taken all the coal from the ground.

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

Mine is writing blank checks to PR firms and Republican operatives to defend them against discrimination lawsuits

Yes

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

Take a few of your nearby districts and look up their enrollment, budget and performance figures.

Many of the big spenders on a per student basis are in medium to large suburban schools with good performance but some are also in large or small urban schools with not so great performance.

How that money is spent is the big difference between them.

some of the poorest schools in a district have the best resources

So no? It was just another conservative fantasy?

Even in the case of IEP's and ability to provide what those students need there's almost no oversight on how much some of these districts may/can spend arriving at a plan which will best serve that child.

An insane, surreal amount is frequently spent actually litigating with parents. That's billable hours, TAX dollars spent by some districts, parents shell out ridiculous amounts to access their legally mandated education. Not all districts choose to do this.

Our district here in upper Dauphin county PA is notorious for it. Laid off 2 teachers citing "budget" during just ONE case where more than their salaries was spent on lawyers. State allows it. Next district over? Nope. Evaluates, provides what is required.

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

Christ, you can literally look up every single district in the state and do the math.

Have at it-

https://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/Teachers-Administrators/School%20Finances/Finances/Summary%20of%20AFR%20Data/AFR%20Data%20Summary%20Level/Finances%20AFR%20Expenditures%202020-2021.xlsx

That’s a gross simplification. Allentown had to beg and borrow every year to get more funding because they were woefully, shamefully deficient. The funding formula needs a complete overhaul.

My husband worked in administration there. Those kids were severely penalized for lack of stable funding. I hope this ruling begins to remedy this.

This is how New Jersey got an income tax. After the Abbott decision in 1973, the state was ordered to find funding other than property taxes for poor school districts. Hence, a brand new income tax in 1976. And nobody's ever complained about public schools in Camden, Trenton or Newark now that those cities are showered in money.

And NJ has the best public schools in the country. Go figure. Lots of reasons for that though.

[deleted]

Do your work to confirm your guess? Nah.

More resources, better schools.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/29/upshot/money-race-and-success-how-your-school-district-compares.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/05/in-wealthier-school-districts-students-are-farther-apart/481041/

https://www.chalkbeat.org/2019/8/13/21055545/4-new-studies-bolster-the-case-more-money-for-schools-helps-low-income-students

Coatesville school district is one of the worst in the state. With all the tax money going to the Charterer Schools, as the kids don’t attend the local public schools. It will be interesting to see how this decision impacts that district, and if will lower the current property taxes at all.

They are “facts” without context.

Are you accounting for the overall budget? Number of students? Legacy costs? Buildings? Charter school costs? Allentown had to get money from the state otherwise they’d be insolvent because the property taxes would leave them millions short. Even when they raise them based on the maximum amount allowed, they still cannot close the budget. There’s nothing left to cut. It’s a mess.

Again, you’re over-simplifying and have very little idea of what goes into a school budget.

Pittsburgh Public spends almost double the amount per student as does the large, 2nd or 3rd ring suburban districts around it.

Those districts are filled with wealthy people that is true. They have a huge tax base to draw from, but they pale in comparison the to non-residential tax base available to the City.

So if double isn’t enough to over come the disparity, is triple? Quadruple?

What’s the magic number?

This very issue came up across the Commonwealth when a well-meaning group marketed the current system as the best that could make it thru the legislature.

This ruling will be appealed to SCOPA and the current funding scheme will continue until they rule because the legislature is too busy chasing their tails and litterboxes to give a shit (pun intended).

Hershey and Steelton.

Mainheim/Hempfield Township and SDOL (one of the plaintiffs in this case).

Camp Hill and Harrisburg.

Lower Merion and Norristown/Philly/UpperDarby/fill in the blank

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.

All 501+ of them, right?

>In most cases, higher funding results in higher achievement.

Lower Merion, for instance?

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.”

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

Absolutely matters.

The ruling will be appealed. Appeal has to be filed w/in 30 days.

Allentown SD, imho, needs to be placed into receivership. Same with a few others.

It’s an apples/oranges comparison - that money is making up for shortfalls that rich suburban districts do not have. Poor students need more resources just to get to parity.

You were probably hoodwinked by stuff like this:

https://pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/allegheny-institutes-fake-news-doesnt-change-the-facts-many-low-performing-schools-in-allegheny-county-are-underfunded/

“Last month, the Allegheny Institute analyzed the 43 Allegheny county school districts in a policy brief, arguing that “the very worst-performing school districts are not being shortchanged for resources … all but one of the seven very best performing and top-ranked districts spent less than the state average and far less than the average for the weakest performing … [nine] districts.” John Haulk, Institute President and the brief’s author, concludes by impugning the truthfulness of those who advocate for more school funding. “It is time for some honesty from those who continually claim in most vociferous terms that school funding is unfair and that more money is needed,” he wrote.

This kind of analysis and rhetoric might be a good way to get attention, but when one looks closely, it becomes clear that the Allegheny Institute is presenting the issue of school funding in a very misleading way. The Institute came to the conclusion that high-performing districts in Allegheny County spend less than their peers by ignoring the differing needs of districts. The findings of the state’s bi-partisan Basic Education Commission provide some valuable context. After the commission reviewed both extensive testimony from Pennsylvania educators and national research, they confirmed a common sense reality: not all students cost the same to educate. English Language Learners need more help and support than the average student. Students who grow up in poverty come to school less prepared than students who do not, and face additional challenges as well. Unsurprisingly, not all districts have the same percentage of higher costing students.

…

hen the amount of money spent by districts in 2016-17 for current spending (the very same figure used by the Institute) is divided by the state’s calculation of the number of weighted students each district had that year, the outcomes are very different.

The average district in the state spends $12,812 per weighted student, and every one of the seven high performing districts identified by the Institute is spending well above that figure. Their average spending per weighted student was $15,602, or almost three thousand dollars above the average. As for the nine lowest performing districts identified by the Institute, only two were spending below the state average, but their average of $13,523 was more than $2,000 per weighted student less than the average for high performing districts. Indeed, all low performing districts cited by the Institute were spending below the average amount per weighted student for the high performing districts, except for Pittsburgh and Wilkinsburg. South Fayette was the only high performer spending less than the average for the low performers.

Another issue with the Institute’s methodology is its decision to compare Allegheny school district spending with the state average. This is not entirely appropriate because Allegheny districts face higher costs than many more rural counties. But comparisons between Allegheny County’s districts using the county average spending as a baseline reveal the same funding disparities. The county’s average current spending per weighted student is $14,512. Using that as a base, only two of the seven hjgh performing districts highlighted by the Institute spent less than average, and only three of the nine low performing districts spent more. All in all, there appears to be a real correlation between having low resources and poor academic performance.

South Fayette SD, a high performing district with low per weighted student spending, is the only real outlier highlighted by the Institute’s analysis. It would indeed be worth looking at how this district accomplishes so much, but one outlier does not refute the fact that the 42 other districts in Allegheny County have markedly different experiences. It should be noted that South Fayette is among five districts in the state with the lowest weights added on to the base attendance—less than four percent. This means that South Fayette has relatively few students that require additional support. It may be that South Fayette looks more cost effective because it is relatively cheaper to educate the average student there and the weights for the more expensive students are not big enough to really reflect their additional cost.”

[deleted]

You raise a great point with charter schools. Time to address that 800 lb pile of poo in the school house.

Article does not say much about Judge CJ's ruling. Let's see if an in-depth analyis is provided after folks have a chance to read that monster of a document.

Receivership isn’t going to help it. Have you seen the state’s track record when it comes to schools in receivership? It’s awful. Plus, if I remember correctly, there’s no cap on raising taxes to get funding. The school board doesn’t get a vote- it’s all in state hands.

Yes I understand how needs of students from different backgrounds are different.

It still comes down to a question of just how different? In my example PPS is spending almost twice as much per student as the next 3 biggest districts in the area. If you combine those 3 they have almost the same enrollment as PPS but only 58% the revenue.

Should PPS be spending 3x? Is that enough?

No one can ever seem to answer what the figure is.

Over the past decade or so PPS has increased taxes, revenue and spending all while it’s enrollment has been in steady decline. They added something like 100 administrator positions in that time as well.

The funding mechanisms are broken, but so are many of these districts. It’s good money after bad until they fix how these districts operate.

PA Capital-Star article from today: https://www.penncapital-star.com/education/pa-court-declares-k-12-public-school-funding-system-unconstitutional/

[deleted]

Sitting through multiple board meetings to learn the details? I’m not going to sit here and say ASD does everything perfectly, because not even close. But when you have a district that uses a school building that was built in the Grant administration, it’s apples to oranges.

Not seeing any reference to the ruling on the twitter feed of @ CommCofPA

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?

>The school board doesn’t get a vote- it’s all in state hands.

The school board does not run the schools, the admins do. School boards vote on what the admins bring before it. A Receiver is not the best answer to all issues, but for Allentown? Yah. Needed.

[deleted]

Once it goes into receivership, it’s in State hands.

The school board does run the district. The superintendent cannot by a pencil is the school board doesn’t approve it. The board has to act as a majority, but it holds the power. Smart admins don’t bring issues to the board vote until they know they have the votes. The board has only one employee— the superintendent. That’s who they hire (and fire) to carry out their vision. But, again, they cannot act individually, only in majority. Taxes? The administration can make recommendations, but the board has to vote. During my time in ASD, the board definitely did what it wanted.

I never said a new building would fix inequity. There are a plethora of factors that go into budget and achievement. Properly funding the district would go a long way to helping children achieve. It’s not properly funded now, and you’d be hard pressed to find anyone to agree that it is.

Parent engagement is vitally important. So is proper funding. Both things can be true.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Not sure I'm following. School districts in PA already existed before desegregation, and many/most localities ignored the 1881 state law banning segregation in schools. When 1954 rolled around we see school districts splintering, often along racial and economic lines and a ton of new school districts pop up.

Get ready for them to shrug and triple your property taxes. "There's nothing else we can do, the money has to come from somewhere..."

Meanwhile, it goes to the charter school that also charges tuition you can't afford, even before paying your usurious property taxes.

> The county system in Maryland seemed to be a lot more equitable than the district system in PA.

Absolutely. It also has a handy side-effect of keeping teacher wages low since nobody wants to travel a full county over to negotiate a raise.

I was shocked when I moved to PA to see teachers make a lot more with a lower cost of living.

I brought up old buildings as a factor. Updated facilities won’t solve the problem, but it will move the needle. The money goes into many different pots for the whole educational experience.

Here’s why I brought up old buildings. No a/c. How many days did ASD have to call off school because it was too hot to have those kids in the buildings? Newer facilities and districts don’t have that interruption. Installing a/c units (if it can be done) is ridiculously expensive. That’s a problem of equity. Poverty doesn’t just hit you over the head. It’s a death of a thousand cuts.

The problem is, PA already has a too-high (or, at least, too regressive) income tax, and many municipalities have multiple layers (county, city, local, "occupational privilege", that sort of thing).

It's a lot like employee pay, actually.

You can guarantee poor performance by paying too little. But beyond a certain point, more pay does not create better performance.

When finding that inflection point is a matter of politics & ideology, you might as well give up and go drinking. And no, I do realize that it's NOT actually a matter of politics and ideology, that data can show where that point is. But nobody in charge is ever going to listen to that data, so...

> Receivership isn’t going to help it.

In that case just disband the district entirely and give the parents full vouchers.

This will never reduce property taxes, but it will increase taxes somewhere else.

Same thing w/ Oil City and Franklin (this is a joke)

500+ school districts with 500+ superintendents and administrative staff. Maybe some wide-scale consolidation is in order.

[deleted]

You have a link to the ruling?

Hbg has 1 high school; CD has 2. Folks I know in that district think the 2 schools do not have the same resources.

This is excellent for students and education in general in PA. School funding based on local taxation keeps the rich rich and the poor poor.

So, let’s do this— adequately fund ASD and then reevaluate. Let’s see what issues still exist and work on solutions from there. Money doesn’t fix all problems, but it will certainly help eliminate a bunch of them.

>The school board does run the district.

As a former SB member, no. The SB does not run the district. The SB may make most large financial decisions, but the day-to-day operations are squarely in the hands of the admin.

Your example is an Allegheny Institute fantasy, though - Pittsburgh isn’t spending double per student. They are spending lots on a large number of disadvantaged students.

I’m not going to get mad about imaginary numbers. You can’t fairly compare a large school district with lots of special needs/disadvantaged kids vs a rich, white suburban school by just dividing by the number of students. Some students cost vastly more to educate - those are much, much rarer in the suburbs.

Trying to boil it down to a percentage is just one problem with your approach. You’re looking at Pittsburgh’s needs vs rich suburbs and not considering ANY of the structural differences between who those districts serve and what they do.

All in the name of cutting money for education - something we definitely don’t need.

The magic number is whatever it takes to give EVERY student a quality education.

Yeah I think it depends on what regions youre comparing. Their starting salary tends to be higher, but places like Baltimore have a lower max, which is why they struggle to retain teachers. DMV area is comparable to Philly and the burbs.

But being better than Maryland doesn't say much since PA teacher salaries aren't much to write home about but definitely not the worst in the country thanks to our unions.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Schools and school districts existed in PA prior to 1954. Indeed, if memory serves, there were more than 1,000 districts at one point. Some towns had shared buildings but the "districts" as we know them today were reduced to the current number (more or less), but that did not occur until about 1960. The current DOE setup occurred around 1970. Some of today's districts have more than 1 high school. 3 have none.

Hbg does have its issues, that is true.

How do you improve parent engagement? And to what level? How do you measure it so it’s equitable to other districts? I sure hope you don’t need funds to do it.

Or you could just make funding equal across districts because making kids do more with less just because you can is cruel to say the least.

But nobody in the comments suggested throwing money at anything.

[deleted]

I misspoke. They set the vision, but, yes, the admin does the day-to-day. If they don’t like how the superintendent does it, then remove them. They just removed one.

Oh yeah I was probably to broad in my statement. Education system of rural PA underwent a major overhaul during that era. I was referring more to centers of black Pennsylvanians and how desegregation caused school districts like York City which were already consolidated to be fractured.

And then all of the union people crawled away.

How many school districts today in the city of York?

Owen J and Pottstown

https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20230207/214401-587md2014--memorandumopinionfiled(feb.7)reduced.pdf

One main district and 3 that carved out the "desirable" sections. If I remember correctly two of them were established within 2 years of Brown.

One of them was almost completely within the city's district before it splintered.

Where do the kids go? They tried a version that in Michigan (where I am now). They disbanded the district and divided the kids up into neighboring districts. Those districts were NOT happy. They did it once and only once. Charter schools? Those scores aren’t any better. Plus, a lot of those kids return when the parents when they realize what they’re really getting. I wish I had the numbers for that handy.

You have a viable solution of increasing funding to improve outcomes but don’t want to because it won’t solve all problems. It should be a multi-tiered response that includes an increase of funding to an equitable level.

[deleted]

I never said education funding should be cut.

You mind telling me what the percent of IEP students is in PPS versus say- the overall for Pennsylvania?

Since the need is so substantial certainly that IEP figure should be off the charts right?

What exactly do you think the plaintiffs are looking for here? Less money?

Don't know, it's behind a pay wall. What does it say?

tyvm... oh, sheetttt... they werent kidding when they said almost 800 pages.

That's being said there's no reason to not fix this problem to help SOME districts. An imperfect STEP to a solution is better than doing nothing because the step doesn't fix the whole problem

The lawsuit is about reworking the pa school funding mechanism. Hopefully to direct more money to schools that do not have the benefit of a wealthy tax base- that’s the “more money” part.

My point is doing more of the same just with more money probably isn’t going to get better results.

There are broken districts. There is a state intervention program to deal with that, but it doesn’t do a very good job. Like Act 47 for municipalities, many that go in never come back out.

What does the article say they want?

I’m saying fund them equitably for the services they have to provide. How much of the per pupil funding does to debt service? Building maintenance? Special services? How much actually reaches the classroom/student and not legacy costs?

You keep saying “parent engagement” but are not offering one measurable metric besides what some teacher friend told you? That’s not policy, that’s platitudes. There are real, tangible things that can be targeted with increased funding. Money cannot fix everything, but it’s a start to just get them on a level playing field. You don’t even want to do that. I don’t even know what you want other than not adequately find schools for “reasons”. If there was an actual, successful way to increase parent engagement, you don’t think schools would have done that by now? Seriously? Equitable funding is an evidence-based lever they can pull— hence the court case.

good read, thanks for sharing! although I wonder whether the legislature would enact a tax-ceiling before they would enact any equitable laws to redistribute that wealth.

I also wonder about teacher wages, but I suppose that's probably beside the point.

online gambling/lottery revenue + legalized weed tax money = no more funding issues. you're welcome!

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?

PA needs a property tax overhaul

PA needs to charge estate taxes

Charter schools are an abomination. They completely ruined Philly

what would the state do if they dont

the 3 vices of the apocalypse

This! I have always said this! I have been teaching for nearly 25 years. We do not need 500 school districts or five hundred administrators.

We also are too heavy with other admins who need secretaries and what not.

Also, the rules and guidelines for special education need to be looked at. We can make them more efficient.

We waste so much money on paperwork and testing.

Let me teach, in the words of Nick Siriani—-I know what the fuck I’m doing.

The state department of ed has waste too…n the da to be looked at.

[deleted]

What charter schools is PA charge tuition? Can you name one? Cause that is not how Charter schools works in PA.

No. It would freeze/reduce property taxes to a defined level.

Next. They have a developed a rather complicated mathematical formula that distributes a new Earned Income Tax. The formula is based on household income and some other factors and is distributed unequally to districts based on those factors.

This idea has been around for a long time.

The average property owner would not less in property taxes and more in earned income taxes - almost making it a “wash”.

This with high income would pay significantly more.

Being a Reno graduate is no joke. At least, not a joke a Reno graduate would understand.

Pennsylvania does charge estate tax. For any amount. The rate changes based on relatedness to the decedent. Children pay less than your buddy you willed your boat to.

EDIT: Pa Department of Revenue website regarding Inheritance (Estate) tax.

Philly's schools were a disaster before charter schools existed.

[deleted]

[deleted]

And what exactly does this mean for us? I dmt really understand what this is trying to say. Anyone able to link more info so I can takes look later?

Flat Income Taxes are by nature, regressive.

Why not look at the court case? They proved to the judge that inequitable funding directing harms kids.

I’m honestly not interested in changing your mind. I’ve asked you numerous times about your metric for parent engagement. You’ve ignored it and then ask me to prove myself? You’re clearly not arguing in good faith.

Have the day you deserve, sir. :)

So Shapiro supported it as AG and will appeal it as Governor? Am I understanding that correctly? If so, why?

[deleted]

Not to be that guy but I know for a fact my local school district keeps more old school buildings open than necessary and that they blow an inordinate amount of their budget on repairs for those buildings. They have too few students in each school but parents are emotionally attached to the high schools they graduated from and won’t let them close for consolidation efforts. It’s also a very low ranking school district. I don’t believe showering money on the school system will improve the education of students here.

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.

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

People hate charter schools for some reason on Reddit. Don't bother

IMO the estate tax should be changed to factor in the amount or the tax bracket of the recipient but yes, it does change based on your relationship.

Yes but the GOP has claimed that a marginal tax rate violates the PA constitution 🙄

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.

Flat income taxes are by nature, flat.

Yeah, that's interesting. I didn't know about districts specifically like that. I wonder if a county model would remedy the fact that moving away from the hyper localized format we have would allow for outside influences to make a better financial decision.

Yes, but you have to consider the source. This is part of the same organization that has strongly hinted though their stacked SCOTUS that things like non-white, non-landowning people and women probably shouldn't vote, since it wasn't "original" to the U.S. Constitution.

They're fascist plutocrats who will justify literally anything to put their hands deeper in your pockets or strengthen their power over you. If they told me the sky was blue and I was to get free tacos for life, I'd wonder what they were hiding up there and assume the tacos were poisoned so they could sell me the antidote.

Yeah, the whole issue is that the siphon off money from the public school without needing to meet the same standards.

Though there is something to be said about having CEO/Superintendents.

Everyone pays the same percentage, how is that not fair? It treats everyone equally.

I worked against them in the House for 5 years so I am painfully aware of their bullshit.

[deleted]

Which differences stand out the most?

If you make $1,000,000 per year you still have $969,300 to live on.

If you make $15,080 per year you have $14,617 to live on.

Hopefully you can see that at the lower income level. the tax has more of an impact on one's living standard than at the higher income levels. I would have no problem living on $900,000; $14,600 not so much.

Thus the classic definition of a regressive tax - more impact on a lower income person's life than a higher income person.

A recent proposal by a certain faction in Congress to scrap the Federal Income tax and replace it with a 30% sales tax is a Smash And Grab for the Wealthiest Folks who were ever Chauffeured around the Planet Earth.

I guess my question is if the current model is “unconstitutional” what is a “constitutional” model? And does this actually improve children’s education or is this simply more political maneuvering?

Yeah

Coatesville has some funding issues due to Charter schools like you say, but its a stretch to say its one of the worst in the state. Coatesville's problems have always been overstated both in the local press and Chester County residents for decades. Keep in mind Chester County is the most affluent real estate tax base in PA, so Coatesville is often unfairly compared against those districts. Hopefully that changes with this ruling.

Why aren’t the parents send their kids to the public schools then? I am a coatesville resident of 5 years and every child in my neighborhood goes to Collegium. Would like to understand how my analysis is a stretch and how Coatesville is the unfair exception…

The Auditor General came in a few years ago to clean house. People were fired, some had charges pursued against them, and in ‘22 the AG declared that the audit was finished.

So they got rid of a lot of the obvious crooks, but they didn’t do anything about the incompetence that is rampant in that district. Speaking as someone who contracts services to the district, it’s still a mess. They went from being barely concealed crooks to being obsessed with cost cutting and savings, but did nothing to address the actual educational, security, or behavioral problems that are running wild in the district.

2 things of note from my experience in auditing PA school districts for 6 years:

• Whenever the schools have excess funds beyond budget at year end it's common for them to commit it to future capital improvements, so the funds are locked going forward only for a new school....or in a lot of cases a new Football Stadium...it's always a Football Stadium

• I think the schools in lower income areas also have a higher percentage of parents put their kids in Charter Schools instead. This costs those districts extra because the school district must provide the Charter School with the Per Student funding it receives from the government, and must provide transportation for that student too and from the Charter School which can often be far commutes.

This eliminates any "economy of scale" benefits the school may realize in providing the same benefits to a larger group of students. Any efficiencies developed to decrease per student costs are null when you have to pay the full per student cost over to the Charter School now and also additional costs in transportation.

But they'll make sure it trickles down!

So the data show that in PGH area the poor performing districts already spend more than higher performing districts. So, exactly how are they underfunded?

I dont see whats wrong with attempting to give students equal educational opportunities regardless of where they live in the state. Is one example of a districts misnamgement enough evidence to say that there shouldn't be more equitable funding in public education?

Edit: I haven't read enough on this particular law suit and the proposed changes I do know that PA was (maybe still is) the state with the greatest disparity in quality of public education. Something needs to change.

I think a lot of families hear all the bad press and I certainly don't blame families for wanting to do that. My neighborhood is about half and half. That said the grass isn't always greener... I know two other families that have switched from Collegium back to Coatesville this year. The one family was getting some serious bullying going on with their teen in Collegium high school. I'm not going to say the same doesn't happen at Coatesville, but I feel the staff is equiped to handled this because of the negative press the district has to endure regularily.

Academically kids that will perform well in Coatesville will do so because they have the support of their parents. And for those kids they were going to be college bound whichever district they went to. One example, Coatesville robotics club hosted the regional competition and advanced to the state competition this year so things like that are looking up for the district in that regard.

We have teacher shortages, but like many other districts experienced after the pandemic. They're as good as or better than any district in the area in my opinion. Also being a public school they have a hard requirement to have a PA State Teacher Certification. I don't believe all Charter school teachers have this requirement including Collegium.

In any case... Yes, Coatesville definitely suffers from funding shortfalls due to the Charter school formula, and hopefully this helps with that. Since the CASD school district has a disproportionate amount going to Collegium/Avon Grove as you've pointed out... the district suffers moreso due to economy of scale problems (i.e overhead of running multiple school systems, higher mileage bussing, etc.) and has had to raise real estate taxes as a result. We all suffer for that regardless of our choice of where to send our kids.

Thank you for the added insight. I am on the side of cutting out the Charter schools all together, the continued tax hike to accommodate the fraud of paying the Charter schools over sending kids to the public school is choking the real estate potential for the area. I can’t justify staying here any longer if taxes continue to rise, it’s theft the amount we are charged, $8k alone for larger homes in the area.

I wish the kids would go to CASD, if it’s as thriving as you have pointed out. I’m unsure if the press is the sole factor why parents are not sending them there, additionally no one in the state seems to be doing anything about CASD if the problems are also due to economy of scale. It’s so obvious something is not right there, and we just all continue to be ok with each hike.

> I am on the side of cutting out the Charter schools all together, the continued tax hike to accommodate the fraud of paying the Charter schools over sending kids to the public school is choking the real estate potential for the area.

Yeah I'm in that camp. Charter schools always sounded like a band-aid type solution anyway. Instead of fixing the problems we're just choking the already failing school of funds and exporting them to another school where nothing stops them from eventually having the same problems of poor management, corruption, poor teachers over time.

Also I always felt like charter kind of robbed that sense of community public schools give.

Again never blamed anyone for wanting to send their kids there, but as a society I feel like this is not the most efficient use of our tax dollars.