By Matt DeSantis, Staff Writer
Equal education is the bedrock of equality in general, allowing for children from impoverished backgrounds to raise themselves as high as their more fortunate peers. This equality only exists where students are afforded the same opportunities and quality of education as other schools. These opportunities are born through adequate funding and support of our public schools, whether they reside in the most destitute neighborhoods or upscale developments. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania consistently ranks among the bottom of states in regards to equality in public school funding.[1] In order to address this inequality, there must be changes to how schools are allocated their funding. As in most states, Pennsylvania funds its schools in three ways: federal grants through the Department of Education, state allocations outlined in the annual budget, and property taxes levied on the local level.
Federal funding is the smallest piece of the education pie, totaling approximately 10% of a school’s funding.[2] The current administration has pursued a policy of reducing education funding and the total budget of the Department of Education.[3] This reduction disqualifies an increase in this category as a viable option for school funding. Along the same lines, the state’s budget includes allocations for public schools that, while increasing from last year, remain too small to adequately combat the inequality and general lack of funding.[4] Although the state contributes nearly half of the public education budget, the policies that direct the funding to its destinations have been criticized for having an unfair impact on poor and minority communities.[5] Our state’s constitution mandates that the state ensures that a “thorough and efficient system of public education” is available, but its contributions only make that system accessible for certain students in certain neighborhoods.[6]
The final, and largest, portion of school funding is derived from property taxes that school districts are authorized to levy on the residents of that district.[7] The rates of these taxes are capped by statute, preventing districts with poorer residents from raising as much revenue as wealthier districts.[8] Barring a sudden, drastic increase to allocations from the state, the answer to a dearth of funding comes in the form of legislative changes to the property tax system. Two viable alternatives have been presented by lawmakers in various jurisdictions, in addition to the stop gap measure of raising the existing rate caps.
Pennsylvania Senator David Argall proposed a bill that would revoke authorization for the levying of property taxes and replace it with the ability to invoke a myriad of other taxes, such as through income, sales, and hotel.[9] These taxes would not be effective until a referendum was called and the residents approve the proposed tax.[10] A major drawback to this plan is that it would limit the rates in the same way the property tax rates were capped, resulting in the same disparity that was seen before despite the increased number of revenue sources.[11] This is an attractive idea for those who prefer to see school funding remain in the hands of local residents and local districts.
On the other hand, multiple other states have begun to move in a different direction to combat their own education funding problems. Rather than eliminate the property tax, states like Indiana, Arizona, and California have decided to administer it on the state level rather than local. All policies and rates are equal across the state, while the tax is paid to and distributed by the legislature.[12] Proponents contend this simultaneously places the entire issue in more experienced and capable hands while protecting it from being used as a political bargaining tool because the funds are already earmarked for education. The incentives for wealthier individuals to chase lower tax rates are removed, and problems are more easily spotted and solved from a central location. Detractors would point out that this removes power from the hands of the local residents and eliminates one of the larger duties of the district school boards.
When it comes to education, Pennsylvania can move to a more locally focused funding plan or a more state-focused plan, but whichever direction seems more enticing, movement is necessary. Only through the equalization of our public school system and the recognition of education’s importance for the future of our children, state, and nation, can we ensure that the American Dream remains attainable for all.
Sources
[1]Chute, Eleanor, Pennsylvania schools lead in unequal funding, data show, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 14 Mar 2015, http://www.post-gazette.com/local/2015/03/14/Pennsylvania-schools-lead-in-unequal-funding-data-show/stories/201503140060.
[2] NASBO, “State Expenditure Report.”
[3] Bendix, Aria, Trump’s Education Budget Revealed, The Atlantic, 16 Mar 2017.
[4] [4] http://www.education.pa.gov/teachers%20-%20administrators/school%20finances/education%20budget/pages/default.aspx#tab-1
[5] Education Law Center of Pennsylvania, Money Matters in Education Justice: Addressing Race and Class Inequities in Pennsylvania’s Public School System, March 2017.
[6] Pa. Const. Art. 3 § 14.
[7] 53 Pa. C. S. § 6924.301.1
[8] Id.
[9] S.B. 76, 201st Pa. Congress, 2017-2018 Session, June 6, 2017.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-112912.aspx
