ShareThis Page
Tax Dollars

School funding formulas questioned in study

Debra Erdley
| Monday, March 5, 2018, 9:45 a.m.

It's budget time in Pennsylvania and that typically means we're in for more than a few arguments about education funding.

Those complaining that public education is getting short shrift in the Keystone State need look no further than NPR's Morning Education to find support for their position.

A study by the Education Trust that analyzed state and local support for the poorest and wealthiest schools districts in every state found Pennsylvania ranked next to Mississippi in terms of how far support the poorest districts ranked below that for the wealthiest schools. The difference: the poorest schools received about 11 percent less per student than the wealthiest schools.

That puts Pennsylvania well behind places like Utah, where the poorest schools get about 15 percent more than the wealthiest, and Minnesota, where poor schools received about 11 percent more in state and local support than wealthy districts. Of course, we're no where near as bad as Illinois, which shorts its poorest districts nearly 30 percent more than their wealthiest counterparts.

The state's perennial debate over education funding could get interesting this year.

The Education Trust study comes as the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools and several other groups prepare to argue their case for a more equitable funding formula before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

Debra Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 412-320-7996 or or via Twitter @deberdley_trib

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me