In a terse one sentence decision, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided to affirm the Commonwealth Court order that interpretation of the "thorough and efficient" clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution is not within their jurisdiction - that is PARSS v. Ridge is non-justifiable. In a similar case, relating to Philadelphia, Marrero, the court decided in the same manner. This means that the only method of changing the funding system in Pennsylvania is through the legislative process.

Joe Bard, Executive Director of PARSS said, "We have always known that whatever the court’s order would be, it would always fall on the legislature’s shoulders to create a new system. We have been working in that direction with the urban and suburban schools for the past three years. Certainly, we would have favored a positive decision from the court, but that was not to be."

In 1991, PARSS also filed a petition with the federal district court under the 14th amendment. PARSS’ Board will now decide whether to continue along those lines, having exhausted petitions to the state courts, or to concentrate its efforts in getting legislation changed.

PARSS thanks all of the wonderful people who have seen them through this case for the past nine years. The PARSS general membership agreed to go forward with this case at their annual meeting in March of 1990. Since then, they have been represented by the law firm of Pepper Hamilton and Sheetz, attorneys, Bridget Montgomery, Fred Speaker (who has since passed away) and Tom Schmidt, who has been the lead attorney. We thank our presidents Russell Roper (Pen Argyl), Lanny Ross (Northern Bedford County), Woody Sites (Donegal) and our Executive Directors, Dave Kirkpatrick, Dawson Detwiler and Joe Bard.

PARSS promises that this is just the beginning of the battle and we will not stop our efforts until there is quality education for ALL children in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

On October 7, 1999, the House and Senate Education Committees held a rare joint session to look at the current system of funding public education in the Commonwealth. Both chairpersons, Senator James Rhoades and Representative Jess Stairs provided a broad program to begin discussions about how the legislature might change and improve the current system.

John Myers, former researcher from the National Conference of State Legislatures began the program with a national view of what a good funding system might look like, current trends across the nation and two systems, Wyoming and Ohio, one an adequacy model and the other based on "uniform base cost figure and a set of adjustments for cost pressures beyond the control of districts." Mr. Myers was one of the architects of the NCSL Report of 1992, which showed Pennsylvania to be one of the most inequitable systems in the country.

The second part of the program highlighted the day to day needs of an urban, rural and suburban school district in our Commonwealth. Dr. Van Cain of the Camp Hill School District talked about the increased pressures of his suburban district to provide more services to his students. "As with rural and urban schools, we find ourselves in a position of having to fund more and more of our education expenses at the local level. Where the state once funded these expenses at 50%, they now fund them at 35%." Special education expenses have increased over the last four years from $500,000 per year to $1,200,000. Camp Hill is a small borough with little possibility of expansion. The needs of the district now fall almost entirely on the shoulders of local taxpayers.

Dr. Jack Van Newkirk, longtime superintendent of the York City Schools has testified many times about the need to change the system. Specific attention should be paid to those districts whose student populations require additional resources because of their poverty, transience, English as a second language and other problems. He is proud of the efforts that his students and the community are making however, "Can a school district be all things to all students without the required resources?"

Mr. Bill Nichols of Corry in rural Northwest Pennsylvania declared " But, our board, district and staff is at their max- no more trimming or cutting without seriously impacting other programs. We know that we need to prepare students to compete in a global society in the 21st century and we know that we must bring about additional changes. We also recognize reality- change takes time, energy and money. New programs - better test scores take time, energy and money. I have the message, our Board has the message, our teachers have the message, but please understand that my message here today is that we must have additional state reimbursement on a consistent basis to be competitive and to move forward."

Mr. William Hughes, President of the Keystone Research Center followed with a history of school funding in Pennsylvania. "The history of school funding demonstrates that a main concern of our forefathers was providing an educated citizenry to ensure a successful democracy." These tenets found their way into every epoch in our history. If education is a building block of democracy, than we must follow the vision of our ancestors. He discussed the earliest efforts on the part of the colony in the late 1600’s to begin public schools to the current funding scheme, which he says, is not a system anymore, but additional funds placed on a grand fathered system called ESBE ( which no longer exists). His conclusions ask the question "In school funding and in public policy, more generally, legislators have to ask themselves a basic question: do they favor one Pennsylvania or two? Do we want to reinvigorate our commitment to equal opportunity? Or do we want to drift further toward a new feudalism?. . . This legislature must raise the level of funding in the poorer areas of our state, so that all children, no matter where they reside, receive a quality education."

PARSS, PLUS AND ASDEE then presented their school funding system. Dr. Arnold Hillman, advisor to PARSS introduced the panel, Dr. John DeFlaminis of Radnor, Dr. Jim Goodhart of the Pa. League of Urban Schools and Dr. William Hartman, Pennsylvania State University, nationally known school finance expert. Dr. DeFlaminis recounted how the wealthier school districts in the state realized that they were a part of a total statewide system that was responsible for ALL the children. If there were students in poor parts of the state who were lacking in resources to provide an adequate education, then they should be concerned and work with those who were opting for a change. He pointed out ,that his district could be run so much more efficiently without many of the mandates from Harrisburg. A study had been done by the Pennsylvania Economy League showing that there were well over 900 mandates in the school code and state regs, not related to health and safety, that applied to school districts. He proffered a plan to make his kind of school district autonomous from these mandates.

Dr. Hillman then explained the first tier, in what is being called the "Fair Chance Act." That Tier would provide a base amount of money equal to 80% of the median instructional expense per student. That would give each school district in the state a base of adequate funds.

Dr. Jim Goodhart of PLUS described the second tier as a state/local partnership. It would be the other 20% of the median instructional expense per student times the districts aid ratio. Therefore, if the district had a .50 aid ratio, then the state would provide half of the funding for the 20% and the district would provide the other 50%.

Dr. William Hartman had the most complicated job. Tier 3 is the Difficulty of the Educational Task. There are those districts or parts of districts that need additional help. The plan uses the work of Dr. William Cooley from the University of Pittsburgh (since retired) who has developed and shown that academic success can by diminished by a combination of three factors, poverty, single family and the education level of the community - not separately, but in tandem. Dr. Hartman has created an index for each district in the state that would provide from 5% to 20% of the median instructional expense per student depending on where each fell on the index.

Dr. DeFlaminis then explained that the fourth tier is up to the local district. It may use its own resources to augment those from the state.

The result of this system, had it been in effect in the 1997-98 school year, would have been to raise state support of all expenditures from 40 to 80%. It would reduce all local taxes by an average of 70% and require a 2% increase in the state personal income tax. In a questioning session that followed, Senator Rhoades said that "I will insist on a corresponding property tax reduction. This would give a break to the senior citizens in my district and across the state." Dr. Paula Hess said that the end of the court case means that there is more of an impetus to do something (according to Ed. Week). All we’ve really talked about is special education, but we lost sight of overall school funding.

The ASAP group, an organization of all school groups, was represented by David Helfman from PSEA, Stinson Stroup from PASA, Jay Himes from PASBO and Tom Gentzel from PSBA. The group described 10 criteria for a subsidy funding system - student equity, taxpayer equity, adequacy, fiscal neutrality, responsibility, state/local partnership, responsiveness, stability, accountability and efficiency. They believe that all students in the state should have equal opportunity to participate in quality education programs. The quality of a student’s education should not depend upon the district in which he/she is educated or the wealth of the local community.

On October 1, 1999, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that only the General Assembly can fix Pennsylvania’s grossly unfair school funding system. On November 16, 1999, thousands of Pennsylvanians will come to Harrisburg to urge the General Assembly to create a system that gives every student a fair chance to learn, and every public school a fair chance to teach, something that the most resource-ladened public schools already provide for their students.

The day will feature a news conference and the introduction of a new funding proposal, information sessions about other proposals, such as PARSS, PLUS ASDEE and how-to tips for finding and talking with legislators. For more information, visit the PSRN website at www.psrn.org or call the Pennsylvania School Reform Network at 717-238-7171.

Over the past number of years, school reformers have offered many solutions to the alleged problems of public education. As the number of solutions has diminished, a core of rational approaches has remained to help us deal with the needs of 21st century schools. These solutions center about establishing standards — for student achievement, for workers, for businesses —as a way of producing positive ends.

Proponents of this movement begin with clear rigorous performance standards. Only when schools set explicit learning results, will students, teachers and administrators have clear accountability results.

Many professional organizations have made progress in developing standards that should govern the actions of teachers and administrators. The work of the Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLIC) seems to have come to the forefront and is being adopted, in many forms, by state agencies across the country. ISLIC has issued a comprehensive set of standards that, accompanied by a test, will be used for licensure in some states. Although no formal adoption of such practices has taken place in Pennsylvania, we believe the Department of Education is considering the ISLIC standards.

We believe that most school leaders accept the idea of standards. The implications for daily practice may, however, not be immediately clear.

• How will leadership standards affect principals on the job?

• Are standards a symbolic commitment to quality – like strategic plans – or can they serve as a concrete guide to daily decision-making?

Theoretically, the essence of standards-driven education is accountability, not just to fix responsibility, but to generate significant data for school improvement. We are in agreement with this general concept. However, practitioners in the real world know all too well that poorly designed and supported accountability systems will do more "blame-fixing" than data driving. Principals and others are willing to accept the

responsibilities inherent with any accountability system, but the design must provide authority to affect change.

Accountability issues tied to standards apply equally to academic standards and leadership standards. Regardless of the model adopted and used, everyone involved should be clear about the purpose and scope of the standards.

• Will standards be used to evaluate newly hired staff or will they apply to everyone?

• Will they determine rewards and sanctions?

• Will they be used in making decisions about professional development?

School personnel must decide how performance and progress will be measured. Current administrative evaluation procedures are seldom aligned to standards, leaving principals with little guidance.

Educators must be ready to ask, "How will we recognize that this standard is being met? What are the indicators?"

Schools must inform the public about any accountability system, the results, and the improvements that are anticipated. Most parents and community

members have little awareness of leadership standards and how their children might benefit.

Policy makers and school personnel must always be mindful that rigorous standards do not mean rigidity. One-size fits all thinking fails to recognize the diversity and individuality of today’s leadership cadre. Although there is a clear research link between good principals and quality schools, there is no particular leadership behavior producing a particular learning improvement. There is no "right" way to develop an accountability system.

However, state driven standards for principals must evolve from a process that is initially driven by practitioners and then shared with the larger community. We would recommend that a broadly based task force of principals, superintendents and other educators be convened by the Department of Education to develop measurable standards focusing on the role of the principal as the change leader of the school in the 21st century. The standards need to integrate existing and emerging technology into a comprehensive plan to foster the concept of lifelong learning among all citizens of the Commonwealth.

The initial draft of the task force should be shared with educational leaders, representatives of business and industry, and members of the communities in a number of regional meetings around the state. A questionnaire should be developed to be distributed, so that responses, in combination with the reactions from regional meetings will produce a series of recommendations that will be considered by the task force for inclusion in the elaborated standards.

The recommended process – or any open process – must have at its foundation, the understanding that accountability is realistic and productive only when it is measurable and accompanied by appropriate authority to affect change.

Modeled on the ISLIC standards for administrators, standards may look similar to the following with each standard further defined in three categories:

1) What does the principal need to know?

2) What are the principal’s beliefs and values?

3) How to we know that the principals can achieve these standards?

The principal engages the school community in developing and maintaining a student centered vision for education, which forms the basis for school goals and guides the preparation of students as effective, lifelong learners in a pluralistic society.

The principal uses a knowledge of teaching and learning in working collaboratively with the faculty and staff to implement effective and innovative teaching practices, which engage students in meaningful and challenging learning experiences.

The principal promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe and orderly learning environment.

The principal works with the school community to review data from multiple sources to establish challenging standards, monitor programs and foster the continuous growth of all students.

The principal works collaboratively with the school faculty and staff to plan and implement professional development activities that promote and lead both individual and organizational growth and lead to improved teaching and learning.

The principal uses an understanding of the culture of the community to create and sustain mutually supportive school-community relations.

The principal demonstrates honesty, integrity, and fairness to guide school programs in an ethical manner.

The Department of Education has reversed its four year old policy of not distributing the PSSA tests to private and parochial schools. It sent out a memo in September saying that the October 13th was the deadline for signing up. Of the 3066 private and religious schools in the Commonwealth, 25 have signed up. The low response rate from some parochial schools was attributed to the late notice from the state, not other issues. According to a spokesperson from the Catholic Conference, it was just too late to begin with the PSSA’s.

One of the local parochial schools in the Harrisburg area said that it could comply with the requirements of the test, including public disclosure, but is concerned that the school would then have to teach what the state wanted. However, it would not rule out the chance of doing it in the future. Many private schools said that they are just not ready to jump into the program without some additional scrutiny. According to some schools, they already have a testing program that is national in nature and in some cases dovetails with their own goals as an educational institution.

Those who believe that vouchers have no place in public education agreed that the private institutions should be availed of these tests and have them recorded publicly if public funds are involved. In a conversation with Tim Potts, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania School Reform Network, he said, "Parents are making more and more choices about their children’s education and without this information they cannot make informed choices. For all the millions of dollars spent on private and parochial schools, some measure of accountability or student achievement is the least the taxpayers should get."

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association has joined with PARSS in supporting the Secretaries’ Principles. In January of this year, all of the living Secretaries of Education and all the former acting Secretaries presented a four part statement that was stimulated

by the grassroots Campaign for Public Education.

At its annual conference, PSBA

added the Secretaries Principles to its legislative agenda for the coming year. It resolved that:

• The Commonwealth is responsible for ensuring a school funding system that provides quality education to all children in the Commonwealth.

• That the Commonwealth must

provide the majority of funding for public education and replace the educational system’s reliance on local property taxes as the dominant source of education funding.

• That the Commonwealth should budget for success in public education by closing the resource gap between and among school districts and ensure that all students have equal access to a quality education regardless of where they live.

• That the Commonwealth should invest in school achievement efforts that are effective in improving student achievement and have the support of parents, educators and communities.

The Pennsylvania Educational Leadership Foundation and the Pennsylvania Association of Elementary and Secondary Principals is offering a book directed at school administrators, pupil personnel staff, special education directors and those who have responsibility for these programs. The cost for this book entitled "Federal Statutes and Regulations for Special Education" is available for $29.95 and $6.50 shipping and handling. The book is also on CD. Please call the Principal’s Association for additional information on how to get this publication. The number is 717-732-4999.