Embedded Files
Last month, a judge ruled that the Pennsylvania School funding system was unconstitutional. The story broke headlines nationally and even more so in the Philadelphia school community. The decision came with a nearly 800-page document, containing testimonies, details on budget and finances, and legal jargon. Masterman was mentioned in the document as an example regarding academic criteria for admission and high scores on standardized tests. Notably, saying “SDP does not provide increased funding to Masterman to achieve these results.” The long-standing lawsuit has nuance and complexity beyond the “simplicity” of the verdict.
This case was brought by the Education Law Center, the Public Interest Law Center, and O’Melveny & Myers against the Pennsylvania Department of Education. These three law firms represented six petitioner school districts (William Penn SD, Panther Valley SD, The SD of Lancaster, Greater Johnstown SD, Wilkes-Barre Area SD, and Shenandoah SD), a number of parents and students, and two statewide organizations: the NAACP and the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools.
As Margie Wakelin, an Education Law Center lawyer on this case, said: “It's not just a problem where Lancaster City Schools are underfunded. It's not just a problem that Panther Valley Schools are underfunded. But this is a problem for all schools.” Despite only six school districts petitioning, the problem of underfunding can be seen in school districts across Pennsylvania.
Interestingly, the Philadelphia SD is not one of the petitioning districts despite being the poorest big city in America with noticeably underfunded schools. The Philadelphia SD gained independence from the state government in 2018 when the Board of Education—which are the leaders of the school district—was formed. When the case began and the petitioners first started suing the state of Pennsylvania, the School District of Philadelphia was still part of the state and could not be a petitioner. Although the district itself couldn’t petition, employees of the district could be witnesses. These witnesses, who aligned themselves with the petitioners, included former superintendent Dr. Hite. His testimony was integral to the case of the petitioners, and he himself was and still is dedicated to the issue of Philadelphia schools’ lack of resources.
In the case, the judge found that there was simply not enough money to be passed around fairly across all the districts. Wakelin stated, “she [Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer] found that there was not enough money for all districts so that there needed to be more money. Maybe not for all districts, but… the total amount needs to be more.” This problem ties in more with the issues of taxation in cities like Philadelphia and the inequality that comes from property tax funded districts.
After tackling the issue of actually acquiring adequate funds comes the second part of this verdict that covers the distribution of funding. Essentially, the document isn’t ordering for a redistribution of current funds, but a change in how much funding there actually is, as well as the distribution of that money in a way that doesn't fail the education of the state, students and families, as it has in the past.
Page updated
Report abuse