The centerpiece of this year’s state budget is a historic $1.1 billion increase in funding to Pennsylvania’s K-12 schools, with a large chunk of that going to ensuring the state’s poorest schools are more adequately funded. The new spending is largely in response to a Commonwealth Court ruling that found Pennsylvania’s school funding system to be unconstitutionally inequitable.

But buried in the bill that lays out how to spend those funds are directions to send around $14 million to 11 specific school districts. That’s in addition to what they’re awarded through the new formula that determines state funding for underfunded Pennsylvania school districts. 

Each of the 11 school districts that received increased funds is represented exclusively by Democrats in the state House, including multiple members of the caucus’ leadership. Only three of the school districts are represented by Republicans in the Senate.

Beth Rementer, a spokesperson for House Democrats, said the 11 school districts were chosen because they were particularly impacted by a change to the new school funding formula insisted on by Republicans during budget negotiations. The Republican-favored funding formula meant hundreds of schools would receive less state money than in the version backed by Democrats. Republicans ultimately won that fight, and agreed to add additional funding for 11 school districts Democrats say they felt were most short-changed.

But an analysis by the Capital-Star found that, while the 11 school districts were more impacted than most by the proposed changes to the funding formula, other school districts represented by House Republicans were affected just as much, if not more, by that same policy decision. Yet they did not receive additional funds. 

If it was necessary to put additional funds toward those 11 school districts, that raises questions about how effective the new funding formula for Pennsylvania’s public schools actually is and whether it will ensure the required fairness across all 500 of the commonwealth’s districts.

“If you really think that it’s important to make adjustments for people who are hurt, you should make them for all of the people who were hurt,” said Michael Churchill, an attorney with the Public Interest Law Center that represented some of Pennsylvania’s school districts in the Commonwealth Court case. “They chose to fix it for those 11. But without fixing it for the rest. That’s not terribly sustainable.”

Three of the school districts that sued the state, represented by Churchill, were among the ones singled out for increased funds.

None of the 11 school districts that got an increase in funding received more than they would have in the Democrat-backed version of the funding formula, according to a Capital-Star analysis.

Several Democrats have blamed Republicans for refusing to back what they saw as a more equitable funding formula, and then failing to secure additional funds for the school districts most hurt by that.

“I wanna see every community and every kid and every school district get what they deserve, and that’s a high quality education,” said Rep. Dave Madsen (D-Dauphin), who represents Steelton-Highspire School District, which received additional funds. “If other communities felt they were not given what they feel they were owed, I would ask: What conversations did they have with their representative and what did their representative do to advocate for them.” 

But some Republicans have accused House Democrats of picking favorites among the state’s school districts.

“It’s very difficult to keep politics out of funding formulas of any kind, because it is ultimately elected officials who are voting on them,” said House Education Committee Minority chair Jesse Topper (R-Bedford). “It’s what makes sense by the numbers, but also, what gets you the votes.”

And school-funding advocates, who have spent decades pushing for a more equitable school funding formula, say the carve-outs are a sign that, despite the historic new investment and major steps forward, the legislative process is plagued by the same problems that, in part, contributed to educational inequities in the first place.

“This is the kind of system we’ve complained about in the past,” said Paul Socolar, the communications person for the Education Law Center. “Instead of figuring out a system that’s fair across the board, you do some earmarks.”

Gov. Shapiro signs 2024-25 Pennsylvania budget, calls it a ‘major victory’

The funding for the 11 school districts was negotiated and agreed upon by leaders of the House Democratic party and Senate Republican party, as well as Gov. Josh Shapiro’s office.

“The final budget agreement was the result of a thoughtful, considered negotiation with all leaders in both parties – one that builds on our progress to give every Pennsylvania student the freedom to chart their own course and the opportunity to succeed,” said Manuel Bonder, a spokesperson for Shapiro.

“The new formula based on Census data is transparent, justifiable, and accountable and will work to benefit schools across our entire commonwealth,” said Kate Flessner, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman (R-Indiana), who led negotiations for his caucus. “The 11 additional, one-time adjustments were for districts prioritized by House Democrats. The increased support as part of this year’s budget is a sincere effort to address the Commonwealth Court ruling.”

Buried in a code bill

The additional funding for the 11 school districts is outlined in the final pages of the 100 page bill that directs state education funding.

That includes the new formula that will determine the distribution of just over $500 million to underfunded school districts, in addition to the basic education funding formula

None of the 11 school districts is identified by name, but by a set of characteristics so narrow they could only describe one school district.

For example, the bill will send around $1 million to a school district in a class 2-A county that had an “average daily membership” of between 5,590 and 5,595 students in the 2021-2022 academic year. 

That description could only fit the William Penn School District in Delaware County, part of which is in the state House district of Speaker Joanna McClinton (D-Philadelphia).

In total, the 11 school districts would receive around $14 million in the coming year, or $128 million over nine years if future legislatures agree to continue the funding.

Three of the 11 school districts are represented in the state House by members of the Democratic caucus’ leadership, including McClinton, Majority Leader Matt Bradford (D-Montgomery) and Caucus Secretary Tina Davis (D-Bucks). 

Norristown Area School district, represented by Bradford, will receive almost $2 million.

Bristol Township School District, represented by Davis, is set to get about $1.6 million.

A fourth school district, Woodland Hills School District, will receive $444,000. It’s represented by Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa (D-Allegheny). 

A spokesperson for Costa did not respond to questions from the Capital-Star

Only three of the 11 schools are represented by Republicans in the state Senate.

Two of the three Republican Senators who had school districts they represent receive additional funds are committee chairs with staff who were more involved in negotiations over the budget and education funding plan than other rank and file members of their caucus. Appropriations chair Scott Martin (R-Lancaster) and Education chair Dave Argall (R-Schuylkill) represent the Lancaster and Wilkes-Barre school districts, respectively. 

A spokesperson for Argall referred questions to the Senate Majority leader. A spokesperson for Martin said, “additional funding for these 11 districts was identified as a top priority for House Democrats based on their calculations.”

Flessner, the spokesperson for Majority Leader Pittman, said in an email that a goal for their caucus was transparency. 

“Even in the case of the 11 districts which House Democrats singled out, the language was clearly outlined in the school code in a transparent manner,” Flessner wrote.

A divide over data

After Commonwealth Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s poorest school districts were unconstitutionally underfunded, the legislature was effectively given a mandate to come up with a solution.

Pa. court sides with plaintiffs in K-12 school funding case

The outcome is a funding formula for K-12 public schools that will result in $4.5 billion being invested explicitly into Pennsylvania’s poorest school districts over the next nine years.

But negotiations between Shapiro’s office, House Democrats and Senate Republicans almost derailed because of a disagreement over what data to use to measure student poverty in a given school district.

Local poverty levels are a key factor in the new funding formula. Generally, school districts with higher levels have a higher funding target. 

House Democrats wanted to use data on student poverty reported by the school districts themselves. Republicans wanted to use data collected in an annual survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Democrats and school funding advocates say the Census Bureau data can be inaccurate, and that school districts have much more knowledge about the families they’re reporting on. But Republicans raised concerns about a system that would have school districts controlling the data that would effectively determine a portion of their funding.

Ultimately, Republicans won that battle. But using the Census Bureau data resulted in hundreds of schools losing potential funds because of smaller reported poverty levels. It also resulted in the state aiming to spend $700 million less on poor school districts over nine years compared to what Democrats had hoped.

“The bottom line is this all comes from this misguided notion that school districts are making up their poverty data,” said Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, a senior attorney with the Public Interest Law Center. “All that stuff that school districts are counting are going in and calling kids poor when they’re not — it’s just crazy.”

The Pennsylvania Department of Education told the Capital-Star that school districts use numerous data points, like local enrollment in assistance programs such as Medicaid or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. It can be further informed by direct surveys.

Rep. Mike Sturla (D-Lancaster), who effectively authored the Democrat-backed funding formula using school district-collected data, said he suggested multiple compromises. One idea was to average the two datasets. Another was to use the census data for the first two years of distributing funds, then switch to the school district-reported data after lawmakers could shore up the reporting standards.

But Republicans, he said, wouldn’t budge.

“The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) even acknowledged their inability to ensure self-reported data was accurate,” Flessner told the Capital-Star. “Pennsylvania taxpayers are investing massive amounts in public education and the process of driving those dollars to school districts should be as clear as possible – for our Caucus there was no debate on this matter.”

So Democratic negotiators selected 11 school districts represented by members of their party that were particularly affected by the push to use census bureau data. Republican negotiators agreed.

“We funded our districts because they didn’t have a problem with cutting their districts,” said Sturla, who said he was not personally involved in that part of the negotiations. “[It] sounds really brutal and cruel, but we weren’t going to go to bat for their districts if they weren’t going to go to bat for their districts.”

The Lancaster School District, which Sturla represents, saw one of the largest decreases in adequacy funding when comparing the Republican and Democrat-supported plans. Without the increased funds, the data switch would have resulted in a roughly 80% drop in adequacy funding, and one of the largest per-student drops in funding of any district.

It also saw the largest funding increase of the 11 districts, at almost $2.7 million.

But other districts represented by House Republicans were impacted just as hard, or harder, by the data switch, and saw no additional funds. 

Take Uniontown Area School District in Fayette County. It lost around 84% of its potential adequacy funding, but received no special carve-out. It’s represented exclusively by Republicans in the legislature.

Shade-Central City School District in Somerset County lost all of its adequacy funding in the data switch. Though it’s a small school district and the total amount it lost out on is relatively small, it lost more potential dollars per student than any district. It’s also represented exclusively by Republicans.

Rep. Carl Metzgar (R-Somerset), who represents Shade-Central City School District, said in an email that he opposed the “picking of favorites by the Democratic majority.”

Metzgar also said that he preferred the use of Census Bureau data over the “unreliable” Department of Education data preferred by Democrats, even if Shade-Central City school district would have received less funds. “The new formula added that much needed stability so that districts could better budget year to year,” he wrote.

Lawmakers say they didn’t ask for funds

Sturla said that he never asked negotiators for increased funds for Lancaster alone. He says he pushed for a funding formula without carve-outs that would have increased funding to all school districts affected by using the Census Bureau poverty data.

“I hate doing formulas that you have to do that kind of stuff with, because then everybody goes, ‘oh, well why did they get special treatment,’“ Sturla said.

The funding formula he helped author as the chair of the Basic Education Funding Commission had no such carve-outs and used the Department of Education data collected by school districts. It passed the Democrat-controlled House, but wasn’t taken up in the Republican-led Senate.

Democratic staff involved in negotiations also said they did not consult with members of their caucus who represented the school districts ahead of time.

Rep. Regina Young, who represents parts of Philadelphia and Delaware counties, represents two school districts that were selected to receive additional funds, but said she wasn’t aware they were on the list of 11 districts until just before the final vote. 

Young also said that she had previously brought concerns about how the data switch would affect those districts to caucus leaders in both parties. She wondered if that’s why they were chosen.

“I think it’s one of those situations where the squeaky wheel gets the oil,” Young said.