NEWS CONFERENCE

PARSS joined with the Pennsylvania School Reform Network, the League of Women’s Voters and the Pennsylvania Campaign for Public Education at a press conference on Thursday, September 2, 1999. Joe Bard, Executive Director of PARSS spoke for the organization when he said:

"The data presented here today shows a trend, that has become a pattern, that has become a habit of this Governor in budget after budget: The failure to fund schools at a level where they can do their work on a level economic playing field. That habit has been endorsed by the General Assembly, as they have passed those budgets with only minor tinkering.

We are here today at the beginning of September because the budget development process of the Governor’s Office begins early in the fall, and the essence of that work is being unofficially unveiled long before the traditional February date. Those of us who believe that different priorities should be served are not asked our opinions, so we must, as it were, lob our messages over the castle wall.

Times are good in most areas of Pennsylvania these days. Our exhortations to do a better job for our children are not welcomed or easily accepted in these prosperous times. We cannot let this deter the effort to obtain more and better funding for public education. The affect of neglect shows itself slowly, and is not always easily discerned. That does not mean it isn’t happening.

Although the failure to adequately fund public education has an impact on all the students in our schools, and their families, it falls most heavily on those in rural and urban districts, where the concentrations of people with lower incomes are the greatest, and our continuing reliance on property taxes takes the greatest effort, but results in less money.

Ultimately, of course, all of Pennsylvania’s people will lose. There are treasures to be found at bargain basement prices, but consistent, high level results come from a concomitant high level investment that is maintained over time.

Only the insistence of voters on nothing short of that goal of excellence, and the actions of elected leaders with vision and courage can take us to that plane. Applications are now being accepted."

TWO CASES OF NOTE

Over the past two months, two cases challenging the funding systems in both New York and Pennsylvania have resulted in decisions impacting on the possible results in those cases. In both of these cases, the two largest cities in their states are claiming that the funding system is in direct contravention of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Both claim

that the state has been denying its children their constitutional rights to educational opportunity. In the New York case, the Justice Department in Washington has weighed in on the side of the plaintiffs by saying that this claim is valid under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the Philadelphia Case, which was rejected at the lower federal court level, had that decision overturned. The U.S. Court of Appeals said that the case should move forward and that the plaintiffs should get a chance to make their arguments at a trial. "Philadelphia argues that its students suffer educationally as a result of disparities in state funding. Among the effects are larger classes, cuts in and elimination of programs, shortages of textbooks, equipment, supplies and technology, run-down buildings, and too few counselors and psychologists." Sound familiar?

JOE SAYS

Over the last decade or so there have been some changes in the way public education is governed and administered that have been little commented on outside the groups most effected — school boards and superintendents. Actually, the roots of these changes go back some ways beyond that, but it always takes a while to be sure that you are seeing what you think you are seeing.

These changes are the increasing lack of stability of school boards and superintendents, and the altered job of the superintendent. By this I mean that board members tend to have much shorter tenures than in earlier times, are apt to come on the board for a single purpose, and are apt to resign in mid term, or not run again.

Superintendents, likewise, are serving for much abbreviated periods of time in a single district. The nature of the job also seems to have changed in that the employing boards may place greater value on obedience to their wishes than on a chief school officer’s leadership. This tends to bring people to the position that have different kinds of background and experience than we have seen before.

While it is possible to track data as to these phenomena (PSBA, for example, has a pretty good handle on board and superintendent turnover), the reasons for their occurrence is less quantifiable. This, of course, gives artistic license to unlicensed speculators like myself, although I think I am a close observer of the statewide education scene.

I believe these changes are happening for a combination of structural and societal circumstances. Among them are:

• The implementation of collective bargaining for public employees. This formally created a second hand TO meet what had heretofore been the school boards’ one hand clapping.

• The change from six-year to four-year board terms. With nine member boards the six-year term allowed for a 3-3-3 election pattern. Thus, while permitting significant change, the stability of the board was never at risk solely because of the possibility of having the majority changed every two years. A more wrong-headed revision to the school code may never have been put in place.

• Changing demographics. For example, there are many more people in Pennsylvania who are 65 or older than who have children in school. While all of these folks are not opposed to education, they do have different priorities. Also, there is a real disconnect between those who must pay for public education through property taxes and those being educated. Some of this may be due to age disparities, but some is due to the student populations’ increasing difference in class and race.

• The legacy of increased distrust and suspicion of government. Coupled with this, I suspect, is a high level of ignorance about the workings of representative democracy. Do we still teach civics?

• People, even in many rural communities, don’t know each other as they did some years ago. Transience and the need to find work outside the place where one resides accounts for some of this.

While this litany may, at least for me, provide some understanding, it does not provide answers. Solutions are there to be worked for, and most of us know that they aren’t rocket science. One thing I know for sure: we can’t turn the clock back to where it was in 1960. The changes needed can only be achieved, by reaching, not into the past, but into the future.

Too bad the Governor and General Assembly aren’t required to do strategic planning.

BLUE RIBBON SCHOOLS — WHO ART THEY?

I am sure that most of our rural school districts are aware of the Blue Ribbon Schools program which is sponsored by the federal Department of Education. School districts are able to nominate themselves by filling our rather large entrance document which is sent into our Department of Education. A national review panel takes a look at the document and then announces the winners of that year’s Blue Ribbon Schools. PARSS encourages more rural schools to apply, knowing full well that personnel and time are a great deterrent. Take a look at the full application on the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s website.

Want to know who wins the Blue Ribbon titles. PARSS has done a bit of research to bring you those answers in county order. Of the 136 Blue Ribbon Schools since 1983-84 the following are winners by county:

*Rural School District
**One Rural District

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE NUMBERS ARE WRONG???

During PARSS v. Ridge, the defendants referred to a set of statistics that were put out by the National Education Association about the education costs per child in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. These numbers have been used by many to show that Pennsylvania spends more money than most states in the nation. For the year 1997-98, using estimated date, NEA says that Pennsylvania ranks 8th in the nation in spending per child.

PARSS believes that it is difficult to compare those sorts of numbers from state to state. As an example, Pennsylvania has changed its manner of paying the employer's share of both Social Security and Retirement over the past number of years. Formerly, one half of the employer’s share was paid by the school district and the other share went from the State directly into those systems. That changed so that all of those expenses appear within a school district’s AFR as an expense. Other states do not handle it the same way.

Special education is different in the way it is funded in each state. In some states, the overwhelming number of dollars is paid directly by the state or intermediate service organization and does not appear in the school district expenses.

Differences in school construction and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Tax Anticipation Notes make it difficult for any research organization to make comparisons. Dividing the total number of school district expenditures by the ADMs in each state does not give you a true picture of expenditures.

SOME INTERESTING TIDBITS ABOUT HIGHER EDUCATION

With a bow to the House Appropriations Committee (D) for the following information:

• In 1997-98 Pennsylvania spent 1.7 billion state dollars for higher education, ranking us 9th in the nation.

• Pennsylvania ranks 47th in appropriations for higher education on a per capita basis. (97-98)

• Pennsylvania ranks fourth nationally in per capita state spending on higher education (96-97)

• Average tuition and fees for the 96-97 year rank Pennsylvania second for public four-year colleges, 11th for public two-year colleges and 9th for private four-year colleges.

• Pennsylvania ranks third in the nation in the number of higher education institutions.

• We rank 19th in the number of public two-year colleges.

• In 1986-87 90,457 degrees were awarded, according to the Department of Education. In 1996-97 that number had increased to 106,656 (14.6% greater).

One of the most popular parts of the PARSS website is the personal income average per school district and the map that we reproduce of all the districts in PA in our newsletter. All of the returns from each of the school districts are divided into the total income of that district. PARSS is now displaying the most current numbers (1997) from the Department of Revenue. The state average is $32,944.

As you might expect most rural areas are below that average. In 1979, the difference between the highest and lowest income averages between school districts was 345%, in 1997 it was 756%. The disparities continue to grow. Even with a robust economy, it appears that the lowest wages are being paid to folks living in rural areas. According to the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, in its Rural Perspectives July/August 1999 (speaking of the disparity in wealth, which is demonstrated by free and reduced lunch figures), "What does this data mean? First it shows that there continues to be an income disparity between the state’s wealthier urban areas and poorer rural areas. Sadly this inequity has a direct effect on one of the state’s most vulnerable populations — school-aged children."

PERSONAL INCOME FIGURES ARE ON WWW.EZONLINE.COM/PARSS
TAKE A LOOK AT THE NUMBERS!

SCHOOL DISTRICTS BELOW STATE AVERAGE

PERSONAL INCOME 1997

This map describes the number of school districts whose average personal income, according to the Department of Revenue, is above and below the average of $32,944. Note that almost all the school districts in rural Pennsylvania and most of the cities (they are the red blips among the white areas) are below the average. The disparity in income has grown dramatically since 1979.

STATE LEVELS – 1997

State Average = $32,944

Below State Avg (333)

Above State Avg (168)