The Apparent Inequities in “Basic Education Funding” Policy Brief Compiled by Mars Research & Retrieval Services
June 9, 2006

The choice in formulas utilized by both Pennsylvania Department of Education, as well as, Governor Rendell’s administration for determination and allocation of the equal share of funding per-student funding from Mars Area School District, has cost taxpayers of the Mars Area School District millions of dollars through the years, only to be redistributed to taxpayers of other school districts across the Commonwealth. Those districts who have large property bases and high personal income are penalized in state funding and are exacerbated when experiencing growing pains such as districts similar to Mars Area and Seneca Valley school districts. As a result of both of these districts increasingly becoming more affluent through personal income and market value of real estate, the State refrains providing equitable funding.

The result? School districts not able to ascertain state revenues despite their own individual district needs, as well as, the meeting of state and federal mandates, to provide a quality education system, rely more heavily on the local support of their tax bases to fund education in their schools. Interestingly enough, the Governor has often made comments to the effect “ that no child should be denied a quality education because of their zip code” (meaning, where they live and often referring to the lower socio-economic school districts) yet, that is exactly what, is happening on the other side of the coin, so to speak….our students in Mars Area and Seneca Valley School Districts (just two examples) are being penalized because of where they are located demographically…..because of where their parents choose or choose not to reside….which trickles down to a zip code.

The chart below shows the numbers from the state’s PDE website for Mars Area School District’s Basic Education Funding (BEF)…I have formatted this chart to illustrate the apparent inequities depicting the year, the BEF allocation, the prior year’s average daily membership (ADM) which is the (student enrollment/actual or projections based on state data), the prior year’s BEF total divided by the prior year’s ADM showing the amount of funding per student, and the final percentage increase annually which demonstrates a percentage far below 5% per student funding in any given year for the MASD, in lieu of what the has been proposing in recent years.

Mars Area School District's Basic Education Funding

This chart shows the numbers from the state's PDE website for Mars Area School District's Basic Education Funding (BEF) for the year, the BEF allocation, the prior year's ADM (average daily membership) which is the student enrollment/actual or projections based on state data), the prior year's BEF total dividied by the prior year's ADM showing the amount of funding per student, and the final percentage increase annually which demonstrates a percentage far below the 5% per student funding. Compiled by: Mars Research & Retrieval Services

The following statement is from the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s Website and contained in the Governor’s Press Release pertaining to the 2006-2007 proposed education budget:

“Governor Rendell’s 2006-07 proposed Budget also builds on the successful investments of the last three years and provides record support to local school districts, including:”

.“A five-percent increase in the basic education subsidy, the largest increase since 1991.”

This budget strategically invests the “record basic education funding increase” by directing the most state resources to the communities with the greatest need and the least local wealth. So, when taxpayers read in the newspaper at the end of June into early July when the education and state budget have been approved, that the Governor has increased basic education funding at 5% …..you had better look at the facts beyond the illusion being portrayed, as illustrated in the above data chart. The proposed appropriation would increase 5%, although not all school districts would receive 5% more.

Seven of the Eight recommended increases in Basic Education Funding target less affluent school districts either directly or indirectly, and the eighth merely ensures all districts receive a minimum increase.

State government has applied this general approach consistently in recent years, but not to this extreme. The result? A noticeable funding increase per student for the poorest districts…..a baseline increase for the richest districts, along with their overall wealth, have enabled them to remain highest in funding per student….which again, it should be noted for analytical purposes that some of the highest funding per pupil expenses is again, these same lower-socio-economic school districts and not necessarily the more affluent based districts. That leaves the districts such as Mars and Seneca Valley School Districts to just name two of the middle stream to draw the short straw and fend for themselves through the support of the local taxpayers within their respective districts.

The bottom-line is this, the State expects the local taxpayers of these two school districts to fund themselves…..and they indicate that “we don’t need the funding” to the school officials of both school districts.

Compiled and Written by:
Kimberly D. Geyer
Mars Research & Retrieval Services
A copy of this policy brief is posted on : www.marrrservices.com
Click on Policy Issues link.
724-799-1195

>> Back to Policies