Regional and Statewide Organizations Urge Support for Education Funding
(HARRISBURG) Eighteen regional and statewide organizations have endorsed a joint
statement with recommendations to Governor Rendell and the General Assembly about
education funding in the 2004-05 state budget.
The Joint Statement is endorsed by the following organizations:
The Education Policy and Leadership Center
Center for Greater Philadelphia
Good Schools Pennsylvania
League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania
Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Pennsylvania
Mon Valley Education Consortium
Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools
Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators
Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials
Pennsylvania Council of Churches
Pennsylvania Federation of Teachers
Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children
Pennsylvania PTA
Pennsylvania School Boards Association
Pennsylvania School Reform Network
Pennsylvania State Education Association
Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth
Philadelphia Education Fund
Joint Statement Concerning State Education Funding for 2004-2005
February 26, 2004
Today, the House Appropriations Committee will discuss with representatives of
the Pennsylvania Department of Education the Governor's proposals for education
funding for 2004-05. Next week, the Senate Appropriations Committee will conduct
a similar hearing. As the debate about education funding for the next fiscal
year begins in earnest, we join together to offer several observations and
recommendations.
First, we want to express our appreciation to Governor Rendell for his leadership
in proposing significant public education funding initiatives last year for the
2003-04 state budget. We also want to express appreciation to those members of
the General Assembly who supported the education funding increases accomplished
in the 2003-04 state budget, especially those who also cast votes to provide the
increased revenues necessary to settle the budget debate with the education
funding increases included.
As we look toward the debate about education funding for fiscal year 2005, it is
important now to assess the condition of state education funding in the
Commonwealth. Pennsylvania remains one of the lowest ranking states in the
country when state share of K-12 education costs is measured. Also, the state
appropriation for K-12 public education measured as state dollars per student
falls several hundred dollars below the national average, and thousands of
dollars per student below some neighboring states.
This low level of state support for K-12 public education means that an
exceptionally large share of K-12 costs is left to be borne by local taxpayers.
Consequently, Pennsylvania is overly dependent upon property taxes to support
public schools, to an extent far greater than the national average. In other
words, low state support for school districts results in higher property taxes.
Furthermore, this system of relatively low state funding for public schools and
the subsequent relatively high dependency on local property taxes means that
funding available to support the education of children in 501 different school
districts depends a lot on the wealth of each of the districts. This results in
great disparities among the 501 school districts, disparities so great that
Education Week again in 2004 gives Pennsylvania a D- grade for equity and
a ranking of 48th among the states.
In addition, although there are promises for state funding for pre-school programs
to be included in the FY2005 state budget, it is fact that at this moment
Pennsylvania remains one of only nine states in the country that has not
appropriated state funds to support pre-school programs.
As the budget debate for fiscal year 2005 moves forward, we urge the General
Assembly and Governor Rendell to consider the following recommendations:
The General Assembly should appropriate at least $15 million for
Supplemental Head Start grants during the next fiscal year and should
appropriate at least $34 million for tutoring.
We applaud the commitment that has been made by the Governor and the General
Assembly to support this initial level of funding. These proposed
appropriations represent modest but important dedicated investments in
programs that can affect the academic performance of students.
The General Assembly should appropriate at least $250 million for the Accountability Block Grant Program.
This level of funding honors the $175 million commitment made by the Governor
and General Assembly in December for this new initiative, and expands that
commitment within the anticipated revenues to be realized by the Commonwealth
during the next fiscal year. The new initiatives available through this
appropriation will support instructional programs that assist students to
achieve the academic proficiencies expected by the No Child Left Behind Act
and Pennsylvania's academic standards.
If school districts are to be encouraged to undertake the program initiatives
suggested by the Accountability Block Grant Program, it also is crucial that
the Governor and General Assembly express their intent to maintain this
additional funding to help financially sustain these initiatives in the
future. Otherwise, school officials and local taxpayers understandably will
fear that districts will be left holding the financial "bag" for such
initiatives that might be eventually abandoned by the state.
The General Assembly should appropriate at a minimum the
Governor's proposal for a modest increase in the line item for basic education
subsidy totaling 2.5% or $105.2 million.
In fact, this modest increase in state support for school districts largely
will be consumed by the state-mandated increase in school district payments
to the School Employees Retirement System. The increase in payments will
amount to more than $65 million in the next fiscal year.
This modest increase in state funding leaves little new state help for
districts to cover the normal increases in costs associated with payroll,
building operations, and educational materials. It ignores the huge increases
school districts are experiencing, like most other employers, for health
benefits for employees. Likewise, it ignores the costs experienced by school
districts to implement the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind
Act and related state-mandated regulations.
The General Assembly should appropriate at a minimum the
Governor's proposal for a modest increase in the line item for special
education totaling 2.5% or $22.6 million.
Since 1991, the state has shifted to school districts the responsibility for
almost one billion dollars per year for special education costs, a
responsibility that grows significantly each year, and disproportionately
since the state increase in funding almost annually results in a declining
share of special education costs paid by state funds.
We want to remind the members of the General Assembly that, until recently,
it was typical in almost every year for the education funding levels proposed
by the governor, both Republicans and Democrats, to be considered the starting
point for budget negotiations. Almost inevitably, the General Assembly
provided the leadership to increase the funding levels above those initially
suggested by the governor.
The General Assembly should provide the leadership for additional
education funding for the FY2005 Budget, above the levels proposed by the
Governor, especially if the revenue projections for the Commonwealth for the
remainder of this fiscal year and for FY2005 improve beyond what is forecast
by the Governor's February 3 budget message.
Additional funding should be prioritized for the three line items pertaining
to basic subsidy, special education, and the Accountability Block Grants.
Every school district will incur additional expenses to implement the
requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and related state
regulations. Many states are acting to determine the costs associated with
the implementation of NCLB and the additional investments likely to be
incurred to accomplish the student proficiency objectives of the law.
Currently, Pennsylvania has made no apparent effort to calculate these costs
for the state's 501 school districts. These are additional costs that should
be considered as the General Assembly determines its obligations for K-12
funding next year and in future years.
The General Assembly should adopt a joint resolution directing the Legislative
Budget and Finance Committee to conduct a study to determine the
administrative costs to school districts and PDE associated with the
implementation of NCLB as well as the annual level of school district spending
per student that typically will be required to accomplish the student
proficiency goals established by NCLB and state regulations pertaining to
academic standards and assessments.
It appears possible that the General Assembly will be asked to consider the
adoption of new statutory language that would require school districts,
under certain conditions, to obtain voter approval for increases in a district
budget or its taxes. Such a referendum proposal ignores the impact of
inadequate state funding for school districts and perpetuates the inequitable
status quo. Such a proposal also threatens the adequacy of educational
opportunities for students in many school districts at the very time federal
and state policymakers are demanding resources be invested to enable every
child to accomplish rigorous academic proficiencies.
If state policy will continue to require school districts to enable every
student to accomplish the rigorous academic proficiencies expected by state
standards and assessments, and if state policy is going to encourage districts
to invest more in pre-school activities, full-day kindergarten programs,
smaller K-3 class size, professional development for staff, and interventions
for struggling students, it is not reasonable to suggest that every district
will maintain spending and taxes within an artificial limit suggested by an
index figure that lawmakers might choose to reference in law, but which
ignores serious existing problems of educational resource inequity and
inadequacy.
The General Assembly and Governor Rendell should oppose any suggestion to
establish a referendum requirement for school district budgets or taxes.
There are several criteria that will help all of us determine whether the
2004-05 education budget represents progress.
As the General Assembly and the Governor work to establish a budget for state
support for public education during the 2004-05 fiscal year, the Governor,
members of the General Assembly, and all who observe this process should
apply the following criteria concerning the education funding budget:
Will the level of state funding in 2004-05 result in an increase in the share
of K-12 education costs funded by the state?
Will the level of state funding in 2004-05 reduce the dependency of
school districts on real property taxes to fund public education in
Pennsylvania?
Will the distribution of state funding in 2004-05 to schools districts
reduce the financial resources gap that exists between the richer and poorer
school districts in the Commonwealth?
Will the distribution of state funding in 2004-05 prioritize or otherwise
target educational programs and practices that are more likely to improve
student achievement?
Will the level and distribution of state funding for education in 2004-05
move Pennsylvania measurably closer to the point where all schools in all
districts will have the financial resources adequate to implement the
provisions and accomplish the objectives of the federal No Child Left Behind
Act and related state statutes and regulations?
Will the 2004-05 state budget for education and any related statutory
changes move Pennsylvania closer to adopting and implementing a state
education funding system that is based on sound principles including equity,
adequacy and predictability?
