Advocates who fought for and won a historic court ruling declaring Pennsylvania’s education funding system unconstitutional said Thursday that they’re ready to go back to court if state lawmakers and Gov. Josh Shapiro fail to make a significant down payment on a solution.

The Pennsylvania Schools Work campaign, a coalition that advocates  for adequate and equitable school funding, said it has asked Shapiro to allocate $2 billion to allow the state’s 412 inadequately funded school districts to begin improvements to instruction and student services.

That initial investment must be followed by an additional $1 billion each year for four years until the gap between what the school districts receive from the state now and the amount required for a constitutionally adequate education is eliminated, representatives of the coalition said.

The unveiling of the proposal came a week before the Basic Education Funding Commission’s deadline for a report on inequity in Pennsylvania public schools, following three months of hearings last year.

Deborah Gordon Klehr, executive director of the Education Law Center, said members of the commission, which includes members of each legislative caucus and the administration, are at a critical juncture where they can advance a transparent and evidence-based plan for a new funding system.

If they choose not to respond to the Commonwealth Court’s order from nearly a year ago, “it will take state officials right back to the court that has already ruled that the system is fundamentally broken,” Klehr said.

“As the attorneys for the school districts, families and organizations that brought this case we are prepared to go back to court to uphold the rights of those communities,” Klehr said. “We cannot accept a plan that is politically convenient but fails our students.”

In a Feb. 7, 2023, that capped a decade of litigation, Commonwealth Court President Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer found that the state’s reliance on local property taxes to fund education means students in poorer communities have fewer opportunities in school. That is at odds with the state Constitution’s requirement for the Legislature to pay for a “thorough and efficient system of public education,” Jubelirer said.

Testimony in hearings before the Basic Education Funding Commission largely tracked that in the before Jubelirer in 2022. In cities and townships across the state, members heard from educators, advocates, students and an economist who laid bare the depth and breadth of the crisis.

Matthew Kelly, a Penn State professor who analyzed the state’s school funding system, testified that the shortfall is about $6.2 billion or about 20% of what the state currently spends each year.

Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center, said that number was determined by examining the schools that are succeeding as measured by the state’s own goals and targets and what they are actually spending.

“From there, you can have a baseline number for what every school district in the commonwealth should have if they want to have the same success, and that number is $6.2 billion,” Urevick-Ackelsberg said.

Donna Cooper, executive director of Children First, noted that 2024 will be a politically volatile year with elections for the president and Pennsylvania lawmakers. Those bargaining Pennsylvania’s budget this year will face an additional challenge as pandemic-era federal aid that has been used to supplement education funding expires.

Shapiro acknowledged the challenge he will face in striking a compromise in spending, Cooper noted.

“I’m very mindful of the Commonwealth Court decision and that we need to have more equity in our system. I’m also very mindful that someone has to pay for that,” Shapiro told The Associated Press in a recent .

Cooper cited by the Pennsylvania Policy Center that shows voters are aware of the education funding disparity and support increasing spending to correct it. Among 1,274 likely voters, 69% said they believe that public schools require more money. And about two-thirds said they believe the state should do more to ensure schools are sufficiently and equitably funded, the polling shows.

“So this is not just something esoteric that happened in the state courts. It’s the actual experience that Pennsylvania voters have,” Cooper said. She noted that while the economic impact is more pronounced in urban districts, a majority of those surveyed shared the opinion that schools need better funding whether they were in urban, suburban or rural areas and regardless of whether they live in a Republican or Democratic legislative district.

“Voters are very aware of what’s going on at a pretty high level,” Cooper said.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Pennsylvania Capital-Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kim Lyons for questions: info@penncapital-star.com. Follow Pennsylvania Capital-Star on and .

That’s what Shenandoah Valley School District Superintendent Brian Waite says he needs to properly serve his students. His school system is in one of Pennsylvania’s poorest regions with 80% of Shenandoah Valley’s roughly 1,200 students economically disadvantaged. 

Waite was glad Gov. Josh Shapiro acknowledged the longstanding inequity in the state’s education funding formula during his budget address earlier this month. But Shapiro’s proposed isn’t enough, Waite said, nor what he and others were hoping for when they successfully sued the state over the formula.

“We are grateful for every dollar of funding we receive,” the superintendent said. “But the final budget must be larger to meet the urgency of this moment. The size of the proposed budget increases are not the down payment we need to provide the quality public education guaranteed in the state constitution — and to begin to plan out a system that gives our kids what they deserve.”

Likewise, the attorneys who fought on behalf of his district and five others across the state — alongside parents and other plaintiffs, including the Pennsylvania NAACP — said the governor’s plan “does not do enough to meet the standard set by our state constitution.” 

The comments came a month after Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer issued a 786-page decision ruling Pennsylvania’s school funding formula unconstitutional after the long-running litigation. She found the stark disparities in student outcomes between high- and low-wealth districts were directly related to the vast difference in resources made available to them.

A spokesman from the governor’s office told The 74 that no one could predict allocations beyond this budget cycle, but that the current proposal “is not the final step” in addressing school funding inequity. 

Shapiro is asking for an additional $103.8 million for special education programs and $100 million for school safety and security grants. His proposal also includes $100 million to reduce and remediate environmental hazards in schools and a more than $60 million increase in higher education funding.

Attorneys from the Education Law Center-PA, The Public Interest Law Center and O’Melveny & Myers LLP said in a statement that this year’s increases to the basic education fund are .

Last year’s education budget, the attorneys noted, included a $225 million supplement for the 100 most underfunded school districts. These so-called Level Up monies prioritized those districts for the past two years. 

“This proposal also takes a step backward: while last year’s budget provided additional support for the Commonwealth’s most deeply underfunded districts through the Level Up program, this one does not,” the lawyers said in a joint statement. 

Waite, the Shenandoah Valley superintendent, said his students have waited long enough. The district’s English learner population has more than tripled in the past 15 years and classroom teachers of other disciplines are stretched thin.

“I have math teachers in the secondary level teaching more than one content area in the same classroom: Honors Trigonometry and Algebra II in one class — with geometry and trigonometry in another,” he said.

Many of the district’s rooftop exhaust fans and HVAC systems date back to 1982. It is also in need of masonry work on retaining walls, sidewalks and outdoor stairways, some of which are disintegrating and have not been upgraded in decades.

Susan Spicka, executive director for Education Voters of Pennsylvania, founded in 2008 to promote a pro public education agenda with the public, said she recognizes the enormity of creating a fair funding formula but wished to see a far bigger number in this latest budget proposal: She lamented that it did not appear to prioritize those school systems most in need. 

“For two years, the Legislature and governor, on a bipartisan basis, recognized we need to target money to the neediest districts,” she said. “To see he took a step backward was really strange, and very disappointing. That supplement has really made a very big difference in those school districts.”

Shapiro’s office, which at first insisted that Level Up funding was in the budget, did not respond to later pushback from critics.

The new governor addressed head-on Judge Jubelirer’s “call to action” in his recent budget announcement.

“Her remedy was for us to get around the table and come up with a solution that ensures every child has access to a thorough and efficient education,” he said of the judge’s decision. “While theoretically there’s still time left to file an appeal, all indications are that Judge Jubelirer’s ruling will stand. And that means we are all acknowledging that the court has ordered us to come to the table and come up with a better system, one that passes constitutional muster. I’m ready to meet you there.”

The budget will require approval from a Republican-control Senate and . The Legislature is required to approve the budget by June 30. 

A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday ruled the state’s school funding formula unconstitutional, noting it leaves poor districts unable to afford the teachers, counselors, curriculum and building repairs necessary to meet students’ needs  — and keep them safe. 

After an eight-year legal battle, Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer’s decision came down resoundingly on the side of the families, school districts and advocates who sued for more money. She found the stark disparities in outcomes between students in high- and low-wealth districts were directly related to the vast difference in resources made available to them by a state funding formula reliant on local property taxes.

Jubelirer said it is now up to the state to craft a more equitable system for its schoolchildren. Her ruling did not come with a timetable — though it did advise all relevant parties to do so at “the first opportunity” — nor a specific payment amount. Although Pennsylvania has since directed more money to its public schools, the plaintiffs had alleged districts were being underfunded by $4.6 billion a year.

“All witnesses agree that every child can learn,” the judge concluded at the end of her . “It is now the obligation of the Legislature, Executive Branch, and educators, to make the constitutional promise a reality in this Commonwealth.”

Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, a senior attorney with the Public Interest Law Center who represented the school districts, said the judge’s ruling marked an extraordinary moment. 

“This is an earthquake that will reverberate for the children of Pennsylvania for a long, long, long time,” he said.

Maura McInerney, legal director of the Education Law Center, another of the firms challenging the funding formula, called the ruling a clear and unequivocal victory for public school children across Pennsylvania. 

“The court ruled the right to an education is a fundamental right,” she said, adding it “found that nothing justifies the gross disparities between low-wealth and high-wealth school districts that we see across our state. We are excited and really enthusiastic about what will happen for the trajectory of the lives of schoolchildren in Pennsylvania.”

It’s unclear whether the decision will be appealed to the state Supreme Court. Patrick Northen, John Krill and Anthony Holtzman, three of the defendants’ attorneys, could not be reached for comment Wednesday. During the trial, they argued state lawmakers had met their constitutional obligations to provide an “adequate education” and questioned whether the plaintiff districts had directed their resources to meet the most serious student needs.

Pennsylvania’s school funding formula has long been considered among the nation’s most inequitable, with 38% coming from the state and 43% from local property taxes. That ratio ranks the Commonwealth 45th nationally, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. 

Jubelirer ruled local control — the notion that local communities decide on their own how much of their resources to devote to public education — was no excuse for the types of inequities described during the 49-day trial. 

The court proceedings involved dozens of witnesses — many from the six school districts that filed the lawsuit back in November 2014 — along with 1,700 exhibits that proved, in her opinion, poor districts were unable to meet students’ needs. 

Many students do not qualify for college-level Advanced Placement courses in high school because of an achievement gap that began in their elementary years that could not be corrected, administrators testified. 

A lack of space at one of William Penn’s elementary schools means art and music is taught in the basement in a room that has an opening to a sump pump. 

Makeshift classrooms have been set up inside hallways, closets and basements throughout these school systems. Many buildings are plagued by roaches, rodents, leaky roofs, lead paint, mold and asbestos. Some lack heat, air conditioning and potable water.

“It is evident to the Court that the current system of funding public education has disproportionately, negatively impacted students who attend schools in low-wealth school districts,” Jubelirer wrote. “This disparity is the result of a funding system that is heavily dependent on local tax revenue, which benefits students in high-wealth districts.” 

The evidence, she said, supported “the inescapable conclusion that these students are not receiving a meaningful opportunity to succeed,” adding that consistent achievement gaps for economically disadvantaged students was tantamount to a violation of the state Constitution’s equal protection clause.

She said, too, that the funding formula “does not adequately take into account student needs, which are generally higher in low-wealth districts.”

Jubelirer said the opposing side has not proven local control would be undermined by a more equitable funding system. 

“Local control could be promoted by providing low-wealth districts with real choice, instead of choices dictated by their lack of needed funds,” she wrote. 

The defendants told the court the state requires only a minimal basic education without regard to outcomes for students, which are influenced by several factors well beyond schools’ reach. They said, too, that the Commonwealth needs low-skill, low-wage labor. 

“I think there is a need for retail workers, people who crust,” said Krill, the lawyer defending then-Assembly Speaker Jake Corman, during the trial. “My point is, do these proficiency standards actually in any way imaginable serve the needs of the Commonwealth such as they should be mandatory across the board? I think the answer is no.” 

Newly elected Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro filed an in May 2022 in support of the lawsuit back when he served as the state’s attorney general, writing that the defendants in the case wanted the court only to determine whether Pennsylvania’s education system provides students with the “opportunity” to obtain a constitutionally sufficient education. 

“But they ask the Court to read too little into the word ‘opportunity,’” he wrote. “The opportunity… is meaningless if the public education system cannot actually provide a thorough and efficient education to all students, regardless of socioeconomic background.”

Shapiro, in a statement released Wednesday, seemed to support his initial argument. 

“Creating real opportunity for our children begins in our schools, and I believe every child in Pennsylvania should have access to a high-quality education and safe learning environment, regardless of their zip code,” he said. “My Administration is in the process of reviewing the Commonwealth Court’s opinion and we are determining next steps.” 

Acting Attorney General Michelle Henry said her office is still in the process of thoroughly reviewing the lengthy opinion, “but we were gratified to learn today that the Court agreed with our position, paving the way for Pennsylvania lawmakers to come together to create a new system that works for all children and families.”

The case was filed by the William Penn, Panther Valley, Greater Johnstown, Wilkes-Barre Area and Shenandoah Valley school districts alongside the School District of Lancaster. It names parents, children,  the NAACP and the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools among the petitioners. 

The current lists of defendants, which has changed since the case was first filed, includes Gov. Shapiro, Secretary of Education Khalid N. Mumin, Senate President pro tempore Kim Ward and House Speaker Mark Rozzi. During the trial, the governor’s office and the state education department did not fight to counter the plaintiffs’ claims while the state legislative leaders did.

The Commonwealth Court initially dismissed the case, siding with the defendants by ruling school funding decisions are the responsibility of the legislature, not the judicial branch. The plaintiffs appealed to the state Supreme Court, which sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court in 2017 for trial.

Urevick-Ackelsberg said the state’s obligation to fix the system starts now, even if the case is again appealed to the state Supreme Court. “We are going to assume the General Assembly is going to follow the law. We will be back in court to enforce whatever we need to to make sure they do so.”

The attorney said he believes the issue will be addressed relatively quickly. School funding cases are notoriously known to drag on for years, even after those challenging the formulas prevail in court.

“Do we expect this to take years and years? No,” he said. “If there is an appeal, we will do everything in our power to make sure the ruling is not stayed … and we get to work right away.”

Beginning Friday and , the trial centers on a state funding system that relies heavily on local property taxes that plaintiffs allege provides inequitable state money to districts in areas with low property values and less personal wealth in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution’s equal-protection provision. The current system fails to meet the commonwealth’s obligation to provide students with a “thorough and efficient system of education,” their attorneys argue.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

The six districts who are suing will ask the Commonwealth Court in Harrisburg to declare Pennsylvania’s school funding system unconstitutional and order lawmakers to create a new one that directs more money to low-wealth districts. The non-jury trial of William Penn School District, et al. v. Pennsylvania Department of Education, et al., will include as many as 50 witnesses, who will present a dizzying array of statistics on school finance and its effects on student outcomes that could extend into January. 

“This trial is really important for children throughout the commonwealth who are going to finally get the opportunity to tell the story of how they have been deprived of the opportunity for an effective education that so many students in well-funded districts in the state have the opportunity for,” Michael Churchill, an attorney with the nonprofit Public Interest Law Center, explained during a press conference Wednesday. 

In addition to the six school districts, the lawsuit filed in 2014 is being brought by four parents,  the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools and the NAACP – Pennsylvania State Conference. Plaintiffs are represented by the Public Interest Law Center, the Education Law Center-PA and the law firm O’Melveny. 

Defendants include the Pennsylvania Department of Education, the speaker of the House, the president pro tempore of the state Senate and Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat. The defense has argued that the legislature, not the courts, maintains authority over school funding. 

“The question in this case is not whether Pennsylvania’s system of public education could be better,” Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman, a Republican, , adding that lawmakers regularly pass bills to improve schools. “But imperfect is not unconstitutional.”  

The case was previously dismissed by the Commonwealth Court, which agreed that school funding decisions are the responsibility of the legislature, not the judicial branch, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled the case must go to trial. 

“It is a mistake to conflate legislative policymaking pursuant to a constitutional mandate with constitutional interpretation of that mandate and the minimum that it requires,” Justice David Wecht wrote in a 2017 opinion for the court majority. 

In total, plaintiff districts allege the state’s schools are being shortchanged $4.6 billion a year, said Maura McInerney, the legal director at the Education Law Center-PA. 

“Many of our witnesses will tell a common story about the impact of entrenched inequities in resources in low-wealth school districts,” she said. “That takes the form of overcrowded classrooms, antiquated science labs, nonexistent libraries and a lack of staffing in the school buildings as well as unsafe schools.”

The trial is one in a long history of similar school funding equity litigation that has found varying degrees of success. In neighboring New Jersey, in 1990 — nine years after the case was first heard in court — the Supreme Court and required lawmakers to direct more resources to low-income districts. The most recent high-profile example unfolded in Connecticut, where in 2016 lawmakers were ordered to completely reconfigure the state’s school funding system only for the Supreme Court to overturn the lower-court ruling two years later in a 4-3 split decision.

It is not the function of the courts “to create educational policy or to attempt by judicial fiat to eliminate all of the societal deficiencies that continue to frustrate the state’s educational efforts,” Connecticut’s then-Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers wrote in a 2018 opinion. 

Even in some states where courts have found education funding schemes unconstitutional, the road to resource equity has been an uphill battle. In New York, for schools to settle a legal battle that stretches back decades. In 2006, the state owed schools more money to provide students a “sound basic education,” but the 2008 recession undercut state efforts to bolster funding, which is only just now being addressed.

Meanwhile in North Carolina, on Wednesday to increase education funding by $1.7 billion. The issue stems from a 1994 funding equity lawsuit that alleged students in low-income communities weren’t offered the same educational opportunities as those in wealthier counties, claims the court agreed with three years later. More than two decades passed, however, before this week’s edict finally forced state lawmakers to come up with the money to fully satisfy the 1997 decision.

A supports the notion that increased school spending leads to better educational outcomes for students. 

In the Pennsylvania case, plaintiffs include the Johnstown School District where the middle school’s library remains locked because it lacks a librarian. In the Panther Valley School District, attorneys have blamed high teacher turnover on low pay and difficult working conditions, leaving the teachers who stay to manage increasingly large class sizes. In the Shenandoah Valley School District, a school psychologist works as an assistant principal. 

Overall, in Pennsylvania is distributed at the state level, meaning districts have to rely on local property taxes for a larger share at 43 percent. That ratio ranks the commonwealth 45th nationally, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. 

On average, Pennsylvania’s wealthiest districts spend $4,800 more per student than its poorest districts, according to the Education Law Center, and that per pupil gap grew by more than $1,000 over the last decade after factoring for inflation. 

While the state has increased education funding in recent years — and federal pandemic relief funding added an influx in new education money — the plaintiffs argue the disparities and funding levels remain unacceptable. 

Critics have maintained, however, that Pennsylvania schools are adequately resourced and the “state share” is meaningless. Jennifer Stefano, the vice president and chief strategist at the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative think tank, that Pennsylvania ranks within the top 10 nationally for overall education funding. 

“Total spending per student is thousands of dollars above the national average, thanks to ample state funding and local funding that is far above what most local taxpayers in the rest of the country provide,” Stefano wrote. “It’s only because of this outsized local tax haul that an objectively high state funding level can be made to look small — basic fractions.” 

But McInerney held that the state average funding is misleading. Pennsylvania is home to “many high-wealth communities and children are doing well in those communities,” she said. It’s the children in low-wealth areas, disproportionately youth of color, who are struggling. Half of the state’s Black students and 40 percent of its Hispanic students attend the 20 percent of school districts with the lowest wealth. Meanwhile, higher-income communities are able to raise more for schools through local taxes because they have a richer property tax base. 

“Pennsylvania has some of the largest gaps between low-wealth and high-wealth districts of anywhere in the nation and they also have some of the greatest disparities in academic outcomes,” she said. “For example, 94 percent of students graduate in four years at our high-wealth districts whereas in poor districts, that percentage is 74 percent.”