ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Education funding formula unaddressed

| Saturday, Jan. 28, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

In the editorial “Smoke & taxes: Philly schools cash in,” the Tribune-Review correctly assumes laughter; however, it's not the belly laugh the writers imagine.

First, funds raised by the tax result only from cigarettes purchased in Philadelphia; it is not borne by taxpayers throughout the state. The hold=harmless “floor” of $58 million should hopefully rarely fall to the state, but for this year, it projects to be a maximum of $4 million to $8 million.

The Tribune-Review unfortunately did not defend taxpayers and address the byzantine basic education funding formula in Pennsylvania, which level-funds school districts with dwindling enrollment. By some estimates, nearly $1 billion in state education funding is distributed for students who are no longer there.

Pittsburgh currently receives funding based on the 40,000 students it had in 1993, as opposed to the 24,190 students it educates today. As a result, Pittsburgh receives $6,030 per student in basic state aid as opposed to Philadelphia's $5,246 per student.

If the new fair-funding formula was utilized, Pittsburgh would receive nearly $70 million less from the commonwealth, whereas Philadelphia's students are currently losing out on nearly $320 million a year.

I am in complete agreement with the folly of “sin taxes” to fund schools, and I will happily trade our cigarette-tax subsidy for your funding-formula subsidy any day.

Uri Monson


The writer is chief financial officer of the School District of Philadelphia.

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