Press Release
In Education Debate, Let’s Fund Students not Districts
For Immediate Release
Commonwealth Foundation
Contact: 717-671-1901
In Education Debate, Let’s Fund Students not Districts
Current System Favors Shrinking Districts at Growing Districts' Expense
December 4, 2014, HARRISBURG, Pa.—In the ongoing state education funding debate, a common refrain is that more money will solve all problems. But Pennsylvania already spends $14,600 in total funding per student—nearly $3,000 more than the national average. How can even more money be the answer?
It isn’t. There’s a smarter solution: Assigning funds based on the needs of individual students—no matter their ZIP code—promises to fix the current system’s flaws without breaking the bank. This approach is known as weighted student funding (WSF).
Today, at the state Basic Education Funding Reform Commission’s hearing in East Stroudsburg, Nathan Benefield, vice president of policy analysis for the Commonwealth Foundation, will offer testimony that points to a severe flaw in the current funding system—the misnamed “hold harmless” provision—and highlights WSF as an alternative.
“‘Hold harmless,’ which guarantees that a district receives no fewer state dollars than it did the previous year regardless of enrollment changes, has been remarkably unfair to growing school districts across the state,” Benefield commented. “The problem is now so severe that districts with declining enrollment receive more than three times the state funding per student than growing districts.”
Indeed, Commonwealth Foundation research shows that state aid per student in the 20 fastest-growing districts since 1996 was just over $3,000 in 2012-13. For the 20 fastest-shrinking districts, state aid per student was nearly $10,000.
20 Fastest Growing PA Districts 1996-2013 |
|||
District |
County |
Growth |
2013 State |
Garnet Valley |
Delaware |
119% |
$2,877.47 |
Perkiomen Valley |
Montgomery |
89% |
$2,826.65 |
South Fayette Township |
Allegheny |
86% |
$2,698.31 |
Spring-Ford Area |
Montgomery |
83% |
$2,764.82 |
Pine-Richland |
Allegheny |
74% |
$2,686.28 |
New Hope-Solebury |
Bucks |
61% |
$2,777.26 |
Central York |
York |
60% |
$2,555.85 |
Oxford Area |
Chester |
56% |
$4,538.11 |
Avon Grove |
Chester |
53% |
$4,340.74 |
Daniel Boone Area |
Berks |
53% |
$4,282.96 |
Mars Area |
Butler |
52% |
$3,217.76 |
Lower Moreland Twn |
Montgomery |
48% |
$2,888.73 |
Kennett Consolidated |
Chester |
47% |
$2,842.80 |
Jim Thorpe Area |
Carbon |
45% |
$2,885.29 |
Central Bucks |
Bucks |
45% |
$2,401.97 |
Tredyffrin-Easttown |
Chester |
44% |
$2,211.83 |
Owen J Roberts |
Chester |
41% |
$3,120.39 |
Peters Township |
Washington |
40% |
$2,608.30 |
Wilson |
Berks |
39% |
$2,784.51 |
Northeastern York |
York |
38% |
$4,602.52 |
Average Top 20 |
|
59% |
$3,095.63 |
20 Fastest Shrinking PA Districts 1996-2013 |
|||
District |
County |
Growth |
2013 State |
McGuffey |
Washington |
-30% |
$7,979.42 |
Sullivan County |
Sullivan |
-30% |
$6,208.08 |
Southeastern Greene |
Greene |
-31% |
$11,399.85 |
Warren County |
Warren |
-31% |
$7,881.19 |
Jeannette City |
Westmoreland |
-32% |
$9,242.87 |
Ligonier Valley |
Westmoreland |
-32% |
$5,611.11 |
Susquehanna Community |
Susquehanna |
-32% |
$10,778.41 |
Union |
Clarion |
-32% |
$11,529.47 |
Punxsutawney Area |
Jefferson |
-32% |
$9,524.06 |
Austin Area |
Potter |
-32% |
$11,885.68 |
Galeton Area |
Potter |
-33% |
$7,903.20 |
Cranberry Area |
Venango |
-33% |
$8,525.50 |
Farrell Area |
Mercer |
-33% |
$12,197.76 |
Marion Center Area |
Indiana |
-34% |
$10,288.15 |
Northern Potter |
Potter |
-35% |
$10,904.21 |
Allegheny-Clarion Valley |
Clarion |
-35% |
$11,479.26 |
Purchase Line |
Indiana |
-35% |
$12,383.83 |
Johnsonburg Area |
Elk |
-36% |
$11,175.29 |
Salisbury-Elk Lick |
Somerset |
-39% |
$9,555.59 |
Cameron County |
Cameron |
-39% |
$10,600.96 |
Average Bottom 20 |
|
-33% |
$9,852.69 |
In contrast, the WSF approach is far more flexible to changes in student enrollment.
Benefield continued:
“State funds should follow the student, not be locked into a district. Weighted student funding provides a baseline per-pupil amount to all students, which would be increased for individual students based on their learning needs. For example, low-income students, English-language learners, those changing school districts, and other criteria could be used to allocate funding where it’s needed most.
“Ultimately, transitioning away from ‘hold harmless’ and instituting weighted student funding—as states like Rhode Island and Hawaii have done to great success—would correct much of the inequality inherent in the current system, better serve students’ unique needs, and avoid asking taxpayers for more money.”
Nathan Benefield and other Commonwealth Foundation experts are available for comment. Please contact us at 717-671-1901 to schedule an interview.
# # #
For more information, please contact our director of media relations for the Commonwealth Foundation at 717-671-1901 or media@commonwealthfoundation.org.
The Commonwealth Foundation transforms free-market ideas into public policies so all Pennsylvanians can flourish.