The States Education Problem

Nick Vicoli

The education crisis that has afflicted the state of Pennsylvania over the past decade or
so has been both well-documented and closely scrutinized. The inequity between districts in the
state is a sizeable problem, as is the extreme segregation that the more urban districts are
faced with. At a more local level, Philadelphia schools are plagued with the Citys ballooning
pension problem and the increasing economic burden placed on them as a result of the
expansion of more and more charter schools (though this can be observed at a state level), as
well as featuring one of the more racist dispersions of music programs in the state. This report
hopes to further explain the irresponsible educational policies/standards set by the State, and by
the City of Philadelphia, while at the same time exploring possibly viable solutions to these
issues.

To first understand the problems that School Districts in the state face, one must first
understand the policies that the State has implemented with regards to district funding. Perhaps
the clearest culprit that can be identified is the fact that Pennsylvania is one of 14 states
nationwide that regressively funds its schools. Regressive funding is the practice of providing
less money to districts that feature a higher concentration of students who live in poverty, and
by providing a smaller amount of money to students who need it the most (students who live in
poverty do, in fact, require higher per-pupil spending than those who are well off) the State is
effectively eliminating the educational opportunities available to those students who live in
poorer communities. Whenever a district is regressively funded, the onus falls on the localities
where the district is located to provide the rest of the funds necessary for said district to
function, which, of course, takes the form of property taxes. Naturally, richer localities are able to
more adequately fund their districts, while poorer communities, though they pay a higher
percentage of their earnings in taxes, struggle to provide appropriate funds for their schools.
Consider the fact that the state of Pennsylvania contributes the fifth lowest amount of revenue to
the public school districts in the state, and the statistic that states that Pennsylvania has some
of the most extreme wealth disparity between school districts in the country suddenly makes
quite a bit of sense. This leads to the extreme economic inequity and wealth disparity observed
in State school districts. With these issues also comes a dangerous, antagonistic relationship
between suburban and metropolitan schools, the result of which is that those living in suburban
districts may view city public schools as beneath them, and, at the very least, dissuades all
thoughts from their minds about the potential integration of city schools using suburban students
(parents are far less receptive to that idea, essentially).

What is even more sinister about the wealth disparity between the States school districts
is the racial composition of those districts. A 2013 study by Richard Rothstein found that, today,
some schools are in fact more segregated than they were 40 years ago, which is pretty
shocking considering the state of race relations of the country in the 70s(though they arent very
much better right now, as it is). When one also understands that heavily concentrated minority
(Hispanic and African-American) communities are more likely to be impoverished than their
white counterparts, the segregation takes on a socioeconomic identity, and begins to
discriminate against both race and class, though the two often walk hand in hand. Another
crippling blow to schools in heavily impoverished districts is that the amount of quality teachers
is either very few or negligible, because teachers would rather not work in schools that cant
confidently pay a yearly salary for their employees. Studies have shown that when students are
taught by respected educators, and when there are more of those educators to go around,
achievement, across the board, rises. Yet when there exists a suburban school district that is
more reputable and has the ability to pay a teachers salary more than a city school district does
and the two are relatively close, geographically speaking, to one another, teachers will go with
the first option almost always. Clearly, segregation is the most difficult hurdle to clear in order to
finally equalize the states public schools. This is where Fair Funding comes into play.

Fair Funding is the belief that, when a state is writing their school funding formula, they
must take into account factors like a students level of poverty among other, more specific items,
in order to ensure that all students receive a fair share of the budget, and that poorer districts
are on the receiving end of more funds. Pennsylvania recently adopted a new funding formula
that does indeed work to make sure that funds are more adequately and equally distributed
across the board, and though that is a step in the right direction, it still only affects new funds
raised by the state, which is a rather tiny number when compared to the rest of the existing
education budget. Interestingly enough, studies have also shown that just increasing
expenditures to poorer districts may not be enough to increase achievement, and this can be
explained for a few reasons. One is that, when money is not spent correctly, it is not particularly
useful. It has already been discussed that good teachers usually have very positive effects on
students in any classroom, but that it is moderately to very difficult to hire teachers to teach in
schools that are in poorer neighborhoods. This creates a lack of positive teachers in these
schools, and thus reinforces the brutal cycle that is all too common in poorer schools. Having
higher class sizes combined with less experienced teachers, along with students who are mired
in poverty, is a bad combination to foster academic growth. Another reason that simply throwing
money at these schools is not the most useful tactic is that, in some schools that lie in poorer
districts, being perceived as being smart or intelligent is frowned upon. This belief is
perpetuated throughout all levels of these schools, and academic achievement is, unfortunately,
stunted. Fair Funding, though a very good idea in principle, serves as only an alternative option
to integration (which should be the ultimate goal of Pennsylvania School Districts), and,
sometimes, increased expenditures may not be very useful at all.

The reason that Fair Funding is even being discussed rather than an integration plan is
because of the pivotal 1974 Supreme Court case Milliken v. Bradley. The case struck down the
proposed integration of Detroit public schools, which are notoriously racially segregated, with
students from the surrounding suburbs (which are also notoriously racially segregated, though
Im certain that one can easily surmise what race is heavily concentrated in the Detroit suburbs).
Essentially, the case ended the forced disegregation of city school districts with students from
suburban districts, and, as city school districts are incredibly segregated as it is, it has made it
much more difficult to desegrate those schools, both racially and socioeconomically. A later
decision was made in 1977 that stated that the state must, however, fund education programs in
Detroit, but only in Detroit (no interdistrict busing allowed). As was previously stated, sometimes
more funding dedicated to heavily segregated schools is not enough to make a positive
difference, however that is exactly what Milliken ii enforced (more funding to poorer schools
rather than integration). The trouble with this is, that, aside from the recently discussed barriers
that additional funding to poorer schools faces, is that integration is undoubtably a better
solution to acheiving education equality, for quite a few reasons. First, as James E. Ryan
dicusses in his 1999 article Schools, Race, and Money, having an integration plan that
promotes the tying of wealthier students to impoverished students works in theory, because the
parents of those wealthy students will want for the schools attended by their children to be
well-funded. This means, of course, that the poorer students at those schools will also have the
opportunity to attend a well-funded school, and their prospects at having a strong education will
increase. Studies have also shown that when socioeconomic integration is reached (which is
also, due to the policies and agenda this country has set for the last near 250 years, essentially
racial integration) students from poorer backgrounds improve markedly. They score higher on
standardized tests, they perform better in the classroom, they graduate at a much higher rate,
and they attend college at a much higher rate. Those results speak volumes about
socioeconomic integration. The same results cannot be found when poorer districts receive
more aid but still remain racially isolated. Sadly, this is now nearly impossible to acheive due to
the heavy racial and socioeconomic segregation of entire schools districts, and the
integration-blocking power of Milliken.

In the case of Philadelphia, many of the problems that plague the state can too be
observed in the Citys School District. Segregation is severe, and many of the schools in the
district are morbidly underfunded. Part of this issue stems from the pension crisis, which City
Council veteran Andre Del Valle has classified as one of the citys biggest problems, top five for
sure. As the next fiscal year for the school district approaches, the teachers pension plan
(PSERS) is slated to grow even faster than projected, and without state contribution to this fund,
of which there is none, schools will have much less money to work with. Yet what may be an
even bigger issue than this is the economic burden that Charter Schools place upon the rest of
the district. The district is slated to spend $894 million on charters next year, and by 2022, is
expected to be paying $1.2 billion annually, according to numbers from Councilwoman Helen
Gyms office. The issue is, that even as more and more money is poured into charters,
enrollment in them is slowing, while at the same time, enrollment in district public schools is
increasing. This leads to a misallocation of funds, and schools that may need more money dont
receive as much as they should. In addition to that, music programs in the school are horrifically
segregated, and, in many cases, completely non-existant. In the Councilwomans district alone,
there are eight schools that lack an instrumental music program, while in the far northeast,
specifically district 10, every school has an instrumental music program. In fact, schools with at
least a 1/3rd white population have access to either an intinerant music teacher or an
instrumental music program, and many of these schools have both of these programs. Perhaps
most startling is the fact that 19 of the 53 schools in the district that are 99% or more students of
color dont have a single itinerant music teacher. It is glaring that this is a race based issue, and
though the district has promised to add seven more music teachers to its payroll, more must be
done to ensure that all students have equal exposure to music education in their schools. Again,
I believe that integration is the optimal way to help remedy this issue, as, I explained earlier,
tying wealthier students fates with the fates of poorer students will lead to a lessening of the
disparities between schools music program. Yet integration seems to be a thing of the past, and
the State must look within itself to find a way to reintroduce it to the public sphere.

Many of the problems found in the States education policy can be seen in the issues
that the School District of Philadelphia faces, and stem from decades (more likely centuries) of
harmful racial segregation policies. Court decisions such as Milliken v. Bradley serve to further
widen the racial/socioeconomical divide between neighboring districts, and in turn, widen the
disparity of wealth between school districts in the state. I believe that that is also the reason that
schools in the Philly school district have such a variance when it comes to music programs in
them, and that integration is the silver bullet that can be used to vanquish these problems. Of
course, reintroducing integration programs will not be easy, however it will provide the biggest
payoff in reaching education equality for all students in the State.

Useful Links
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=5350881111161001250070120861170911220320
2007703503406207209412309210107410512611112209111706806511006005004910007712
2088093082023074073089092082122098111027027100011081098065091113104091&EXT=
pdf

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/06/how-funding-inequalities-push-poor-stud
ents-further-behind/395348/

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/homepage-feature/item/103907-in-some-philly-schools-yo
u-can-indeed-stop-the-music?linktype=hp_impact

http://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Education-Justice-Report.pdf

http://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ELC_schoolfundingreport.2013.pdf
(I mayve used more than just these links, in fact its really really probable).