BCT Editorial – 5/22/07

This page was last updated on May 28, 2007.

Failing grade; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 22, 2007.

As you will read below, positions taken in this editorial appear inconsistent with Times positions expressed in other editorials.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The focus on property tax relief has diverted attention from the real issue - the failure of state government to hold up its end when it comes to financing public education.

“The following lowlights of state lawmakers and governors shirking their responsibilities come courtesy of the Education Law Center, the Education Policy and Leadership Center and Good Schools Pennsylvania. Ron Cowell, president of EPLC, politely calls them ‘systemic weaknesses.’

“Read ‘em and remember in November.

· Pennsylvania ranks among the bottom nationally when it comes to state share of school costs: in 2004-05, the state share of school costs funded by the state budget amounted to 36 percent. Nationally, the average is closer to 50 percent paid by state governments, the level in Pennsylvania in the 1970s.

· The amount of state appropriations on a per-pupil basis also lags the national average by several hundred dollars per student and lags neighboring states by as much as $2,500 per student.

· Because of insufficient state funding, public education in Pennsylvania is excessively dependent on local wealth and local taxes, with the result that the quality of educational opportunity for children varies widely.

· Nationally, about 29 percent of school district revenues come from local property taxes. In Pennsylvania, 44 percent of school district revenues come from property taxes, making Pennsylvania excessively dependent on property taxes as a result of inadequate state support.

· There is a $10,259 gap between what the highest and lowest spending school districts in Pennsylvania spend per pupil on current expenditures. The highest spending district spent $18,064 per student in 2004-2005; the lowest only $6,991. This translates into a $276,825 gap per classroom of 25 students.

· Many of the poorest school districts have the highest tax rates, yet still do not have adequate levels of funding to ensure a high-quality education is available to students.”

[RWC] If you believe this editorial is about education quality, congratulations, you’ve been fooled. According to the same source (Standard & Poor’s) used in “Two-way street,” PA students fall into the “expected performance zone” for all proficiency tests.

The real purpose of the editorial is to lobby for increased state taxpayer funding of government-operated K-12 schools. At no point in this editorial does it argue lower local taxpayer funding should offset increased state taxpayer funding. In other words, this editorial is about increasing state taxes. Unlike other areas of this editorial, this position is consistent with other editorials that attempted to tell us we’re not already overtaxed. “No excuses” and “Ohio envy” are two examples.

“One more outrage can be added to the list: the state’s funding formula for special education, which has no basis in reality.

“Basically, the state estimates how many special-needs children a school district should have and funds it according to that guess. If a district has more special-needs children or the expense of educating these children exceeds the state’s subsidy, the commonwealth doesn’t help defray the added costs. Local property owners must pick up the tab.

“State lawmakers repeatedly have acknowledged this flaw for years - and done nothing.

“When it comes to holding up the state’s end of funding public education in Pennsylvania, they’ve been shirking their responsibilities for decades. It’s time to start holding them accountable for their inaction.

“The failures cited above are a good checklist to use when you vote next year.”

[RWC] This editorial implies “poor” school districts are inadequately funded and don’t get enough state taxpayer dollars. This appears to contradict an editorial of just two days ago, “Two-way street.” It also runs counter to Times editorials advocating local control, like “Go slowly” (2/15/07).

When it presented a case against eliminating local school property taxes, “Go slowly” noted, “If property taxes are eliminated and statewide sales and/or income taxes are used to offset the loss of revenue, Harrisburg is going to want to call the shots.” This editorial, however, asserts state taxpayers don’t pay enough for public schools, yet more state taxpayer dollars means less local control.

While trying to make a case on a different issue, “Two-way street” provided examples showing “poor” school districts tend to get far more federal and state tax dollars than districts with a better tax base. In the two examples used, both the “poor” and “rich” school districts spent the same per student, yet local taxpayers of the more affluent districts paid far more of the bill. This means “poor” school districts get more than their fair share of federal and state taxpayer dollars and this contradicts a premise of this editorial.

Here’s yet another example “Two-way street” could have used.

The Aliquippa and Center Area school districts are within a couple of miles of each other. Aliquippa, the “poor” district, spent $10,908/student ($8,695 for instruction) in 2004 while Center, the district with a better tax base, spent only $8,385 ($5,126 for instruction). Yes that’s correct; Aliquippa spent 69% more on instruction than did Center! Aliquippa taxpayers paid only 32% of their bill while Center taxpayers footed 65% of their bill.

Now let’s go to the editorial’s implication that “high-quality education” is a function of spending, contradicted by an editorial of less than four months ago.

“No quick fix” (2/6/07) led off with, “Schools are a direct reflection of the children, families and communities they serve and the teachers who are charged with educating these children.” and concluded with, “However, it is a reminder that no managerial or administrative silver bullet will solve the problems facing underachieving schools. In the end, it comes down to teachers, children, families and communities being committed to education. Everything else is window dressing.” The editorial noted that even with an additional $91 million thrown at the schools under study, they did no better than the other schools in the study district (Philadelphia).

Let’s return to the Aliquippa and Center example.

Using the implied logic in the editorial (funding = “high-quality”), Aliquippa students received a 69% better education than Center students. Using the source (Standard & Poor’s) used in “Two-way street,” data shows spending does not equal quality (or at least outcome), as noted in “No quick fix.” In proficiency tests, only 39.4% (reading) and 44.3% (math) of Aliquippa students met proficiency standards while those figures for Center students were 78.5% and 82.3%, respectively. Therefore, despite spending 41% less per student for education than Aliquippa, twice as many Center students met proficiency standards. For context, statewide proficiency results were 71.6% and 74.5%, respectively. Further, Aliquippa didn’t meet the annual yearly progress (AYP) goals of the No Child Left Behind Act while Center did.

Op-ed inconsistencies like these tend to be the result of positions based on political calculations and/or unsound underlying economic, political, and social principles.