Yesterday, in a landmark decision, the Commonwealth Court determined that the system for school funding in Pennsylvania based on the value of taxable property is unconstitutional. The Court determined that education is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Constitution and students who reside in school districts with low property values and incomes are deprived of the same opportunities and resources as students who reside in school districts with high property values and incomes. As such, students attending low-wealth school districts are being deprived of equal protection of the law.
While the Commonwealth Court’s decision is a staggering review of Pennsylvania’s school funding landscape, it remains to be seen how this case will change the educational funding formula. It is important to note that the Commonwealth Court did not proffer a remedy, instead calling on the executive and legislative branches to come up with a solution.
Which is how we got here in the first place.
This case has been more commonly known as the “School Funding Case” and meandered its way through appeals and a full trial, beginning in 2014. Most notably, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that the constitutionality of the system for school funding in Pennsylvania is a justiciable issue and allowed this case to proceed – a stark reversal for Pennsylvania, where previous school funding constitutional challenges were largely unsuccessful due to rulings that such a question was a legislative responsibility, not a judicial one.
The Commonwealth Court issued findings and conclusions on several issues that were implicated in this case:
- Concluded that the Education Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution requires that every student receive a meaningful opportunity to succeed academically, socially, and civically, which requires that all students have access to a comprehensive, effective, and contemporary system of public education.
- Found that the Education Clause was “clearly, palpably, and plainly violated because of a failure to provide all students with access to a comprehensive, effective, and contemporary system of public education that will give them a meaningful opportunity to succeed academically, socially, and civically.”
- Determined that the Education Clause was violated because there are wide achievement gaps on state assessments between students who attend schools in low-wealth districts and their peers who attend school in a more affluent district.
- Found that there are significant deficiencies between low-wealth districts and their more affluent counterparts in funding, courses, curricula and programs, staffing, facilities, and instrumentalities of learning.
- Concluded that the right to public education is a fundamental right explicitly and/or implicitly derived from the Pennsylvania Constitution based on the plain language of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the history of the Education Clause.
Finally, by applying the Equal Protection Clause analysis, the Commonwealth Court concluded that there is no compelling government purpose, nor any rational basis, for the disparities identified between low-wealth school districts and their more affluent counterparts.
According to the 786-page Opinion, the Court challenged the Executive and Legislative branches to work with the Petitioners, a series of economically challenged school districts, rural school districts, parents and the NAACP, to solve the school funding issue. According to the Court, “[T]herefore, it seems only reasonable to allow Respondents, comprised of the Executive and Legislative branches of government and administrative agencies with expertise in the field of education, the first opportunity, in conjunction with Petitioners, to devise a plan to address the constitutional deficiencies identified herein.” The Court points to other jurisdictions, including South Carolina, Ohio, and Kentucky, to support its approach of determining that funding is inadequate and leaving the solution to the Executive and Legislative branches.
It is important for charter school leaders, advocates, educators, parents, and students to have a seat at the table on behalf of charter funding over the next few months as the system of education funding is reshaped. The decision highlights (1) that approximately 40% of students residing in the School District of Philadelphia attend charter schools, which when totaled in Philadelphia alone is four times greater than the next largest school district in Pennsylvania; and (2) approximately 10% of students across the Commonwealth attend charter schools.
The Commonwealth Court emphasized that “money does matter, and economically-disadvantaged students and historically underperforming students can overcome challenges if they have access to the right resources that wealthier districts are financially able to provide.” Many of the Commonwealth’s charter schools and cyber charter schools serve students from low-wealth school districts. It is crucial that charter schools also receive the necessary funding that its students are entitled to under the law and crystalized by this decision. If funding is increased for low-wealth school districts as mandated by the Commonwealth Court’s decision, it is imperative that charter schools also benefit from additional per-pupil funding – as they too serve these disadvantaged students, with little fanfare and relentless criticism. Any increases should flow from the school district to the charter school because as the Court stated—money matters.
Likewise, private and religious schools should also take note that school choice advocates are framing this opinion as a win for the school choice movement – which appears to be a harbinger for an expanding conversation to include private and religious schools which have long been an important part of Pennsylvania’s educational fabric, serving thousands of students like their public-school counterparts.
If you have any questions regarding the Pennsylvania School Funding Case decision as the Executive and Legislative branches devise a new education funding system, please contact Patricia A. Hennessy, Esquire, or your Pennsylvania Barton Gilman Education Law attorney.
