Out of the Courts, Into the Legislature

P o l i c y B r i e f N o . 1 0Octobe r 1998

by richard c. sederby richard c. sederdirector of education studies, rppidirector of education studies, rppi

RPPI l 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400 l Los Angeles, CA 90034 l 310-391-2245RPPI l 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400 l Los Angeles, CA 90034 l 310-391-2245

Out of the Courts, Into the LegislaturePennsylvania School Finance

RPPI Reason Public Policy Institute

RPPIThe Reason Foundation is a national re-search and educational organization thatexplores and promotes the twin values ofrationality and freedom as the basic un-derpinnings of a good society. Since 1978,the Los Angeles-based foundation has pro-vided practical public policy research,analysis, and commentary based upon theprinciples of individual liberty and respon-sibility and limited government.

about RPPI

contents

about the author

Reason Public Policy Institute (RPPI), a di-vision of the Reason Foundation, fusestheory and practice to influence public poli-cies. The Institute's research draws uponeconomics, science, and institutional analy-sis to critique public policies and advancenew policy ideas in a variety of policy ar-eas, including education, infrastructure andtransportation, the environment, urbanland use and local economic development,social services, and privatization and gov-ernment reform. To that analysis, the Insti-tute brings a political philosophy that sup-ports rule of law, marketplace competition,economic and civil liberty, personal re-sponsibility in social and economic inter-actions, and institutional arrangementsthat foster dynamism and innovation.

The Reason Foundation is a tax-exempt edu-cational organization as defined under IRScode 501(c)(3). The Reason Foundation nei-ther seeks nor accepts government fund-ing, and is supported by individual, founda-tion and corporate contributions. Nothingappearing in this document is to be con-strued as necessarily representing theviews of the Reason Foundation or its trust-ees, or as an attempt to aid or hinder thepassage of any bill before any legislativebody.

Photos used in this publication are Copyright© 1996. Photodisc, Inc. Copyright © 1998.Reason Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Richard C. Seder is the director of education studies for the Reason Public Policy Institute, a national public policyresearch organization. Mr. Seder has done extensive work in the area of quantitative and qualitative research on thestructure of educational systems; school choice programs; accountability issues; and the impact of expenditures onstudent achievement. Before joining RPPI, Mr. Seder worked as a research assistant to the executive director for theCato Institute in Washington, D.C., where he assisted in a study analyzing the relationship between public and privatepost-secondary institutions in three states. Prior to that, he was the recipient of a Charles G. Koch Fellowship throughthe Center of Market Processes examining the effects of immigration on the U.S. economy. Additionally, Mr. Seder hasserved as a project director for the Allegheny County School System in Pennsylvania, where he conducted extensive research on 43public school districts. Mr. Seder holds a Masters of Science in Public Policy and Management from the Heinz School at Carnegie MellonUniversity in Pittsburgh as well as a double bachelors degree in Government and Economics from Beloit College in Wisconsin.

1EquityLawsuit

1Major Com-ponents ofPARSS Ruling

Pennsylvania’sFunding Formulas

2Pennsylvania’sFunding Future

7Endnotes

9

11

Equity LawsuitEquity LawsuitEquity LawsuitEquity LawsuitEquity Lawsuit

The Pennsylvania Association of Rural andSmall Schools (PARSS) filed suit against

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1991claiming that the legislature failed in providinga “thorough and efficient” system of educa-tion. Their claim was based solely upon dis-parities in expenditures between school dis-tricts. Judge Dan Pellegrini handed down hisdecision on July 9, 1998 that the case was non-judiciable, that because all school districts thattestified indicated that children in their districtswere receiving an adequate education, theCommonwealth was not in violation of consti-tutional provisions calling for a “thorough andefficient” system of public education. The courtnoted that all matters dealing with school fi-nance are political matters and therefore arein the jurisdiction of the legislature.

The court’s ruling mirrored previous court rul-ings challenging the Pennsylvania school fi-nance system. Earlier in 1998, the Common-wealth Court ruled similarly in Marrero v. Com-monwealth of Pennsylvania that the Common-wealth was in compliance with the state con-stitution and that matters such as these fallinto the hands of the General Assembly.1 Inthis case, the Philadelphia School Districtbrought suit against the Commonwealth claim-ing that the funding system systemically dis-criminated against the school district.

The constitutionality of the Pennsylvania schoolfinance system was challenged once before andwas heard before the Pennsylvania SupremeCourt. In this case, plaintiffs sought equalized fund-ing across school districts. The court ruled that itwas unable to judicially define what constituted a“normal program of educational services.”2

Major Components ofMajor Components ofMajor Components ofMajor Components ofMajor Components ofPPPPPARSS Ruling: Concen-ARSS Ruling: Concen-ARSS Ruling: Concen-ARSS Ruling: Concen-ARSS Ruling: Concen-tration on Inputstration on Inputstration on Inputstration on Inputstration on Inputs

A. Disparities in SpendingA. Disparities in SpendingA. Disparities in SpendingA. Disparities in SpendingA. Disparities in Spending

Arguments against the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania centered on disparities in ex-

penditures among school districts. PARSS andits school finance experts contended that as longas differences in spending per child existed be-tween school districts, the Commonwealth wasnot meeting its constitutional obligation to pro-vide a “thorough and efficient” system of edu-cation.

In comparing the per-pupil instructional expen-ditures between the five percent of school dis-tricts with the lowest property wealth againstthe five percent of school districts with the high-est property wealth, the statistical extremes,there was close to a $1,700 per child differencein spending for school year 1993-94 as pre-sented in the case (Figure 1).

$0 $1000 $2000 $3000 $4000 $5000

Pittsburgh

Philadelphia

State

Poor

Rich

REGULAR PROGRAMS INSTRUCTION EXPENDITURESPER PUPIL (1993�1994)

figure 1Source: Judge Pellegrini Decision Memorandum, p. 48.

$4,069.79

$3,618.85

$2,523.51

$2,880.59

$2,372.82

pennsylvania school finance

Reason Public Policy Institute82

PARSS and its experts equated the $1,700spending difference to $1,700 less units ofeducation received by the students in thosepoorer districts.

The Commonwealth countered this argumentby stating that comparing the bottom five per-cent and top five percent is comparing statis-tical extremes. When all school districts werecompared, there were per-pupil instructionalspending variations between districts withsimilar property wealth characteristics, but theaverage per-pupil instructional expendituresbetween districts of differing property wealthwere not as extreme as PARSS made it ap-pear. Only in the wealthiest (by property)school districts was there a large difference inthe mean per-pupil instructional expenditurescompared with the state as a whole (Figure2).

However, when cost-of-living differences arefactored into district expenditures — takinginto account different housing costs as devel-oped by the Panel on Poverty and Family As-sistance at the National Research Council —

differences in school district spending withinsimilar property-wealth districts is smaller;the differences in school district spendingamong various property wealth districts issmaller; and there is tremendous overlap inspending among the various school districts,including the most property-wealthy districts(Figure 3).

B. Local Spending PrioritiesB. Local Spending PrioritiesB. Local Spending PrioritiesB. Local Spending PrioritiesB. Local Spending Priorities

Comparing differences in expendituresamong school districts is problematic. A high-spending school district does not necessarilyhave a higher “quality” educational programjust because of its higher overall expendi-tures. The plaintiffs in this case argued thatlower spending equated with a lower-qualityeducation.

Judge Pellegrini concluded that the quality ofeducation was not directly related to spend-ing levels. While more available funds al-lowed for more spending options, JudgePellegrini concluded that setting spendingpriorities at the local level determined the

ACTUAL INSTRUCTIONAL EXPENSE (1993�94):SPENDING PER PUPIL

figure 2Source: Judge Pellegrini Decsion Memorandum, p. 54.

OutliersRange of values within 2 deviations

MeanRange of values

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

School Districts by Property Value Deciles

OutliersRange of values within 2 deviations

MeanRange of values

pennsylvania school finance 13

variation in educational programs (curricu-lum, class size, textbooks, facilities, technol-ogy) among school districts. Judge Pellegrinistated that “conditions in one representativedistrict cannot be applied to another becauseeach school district has different priorities: onedistrict may place a greater emphasis onschool facilities than on school books and com-puters; another places emphasis on retain-ing the best possible staff causing them notto spend as much on facilities.“3 Therefore,spending decisions made by one school dis-trict were not generalizable across school dis-tricts with similar characteristics much lessacross the 501 school districts in the Com-monwealth.

The ratio of Actual Instructional Expendituresto Total Expenditures shows varying spend-ing decisions. Table 1 shows that differentdistricts allot different percentages of fundsto instructional programs as determined bytheir local spending priorities. Figures 2 and3 also illustrate spending variations amongsimilarly situated school districts.

If school districts were making uniform spend-ing decisions, we could expect state rankings

not to change between total expenditures andactual instructional expenditures on a per stu-dent basis. Chartiers Valley School District,which ranks 30th in the state in terms of totalexpenditures, drops to 96th in the state anddevotes only 54.4 percent of its total expendi-tures to instructional expenditures. On the otherhand, Mount Lebanon School District movesfrom 106th in the state in total expenditures to43rd by devoting nearly 75 percent to actualinstructional expenditures. Again, the amountspent does not necessarily reflect the “quality”of education and does not take into account dif-ferent student populations served. Instead, thistable is intended to illustrate the varying spend-ing priorities among school districts.

Judge Pellegrini’s decision included the ex-ample of Southeast Delco School District, whichillustrates the sorts of spending decisions madeat the local level. PARSS argued that poorerschool districts could not afford textbooks.From school year 1993-94 to school year 1994-95, the average teacher’s salary increased by14 percent. During the same period, expendi-tures for books and periodicals used for in-struction declined by 48 percent. Inadequatetextbooks do not result from inadequate re-

COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT (1993�94):PRICE-ADJUSTED TOTAL SPENDING PER PUPIL

figure 3Source: Judge Pellegrini Memorandum, p. 55.

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

School Districts by Property Value Deciles

Reason Public Policy Institute84

sources. Rather, in this case, less spending ontextbooks reflected local spending priorities.

C. Equally Efficient?C. Equally Efficient?C. Equally Efficient?C. Equally Efficient?C. Equally Efficient?

PARSS and its finance experts stated that “sta-tistically all school districts were presumed tobe equally efficient of inefficient in their spend-ing. As a result, one dollar spent on educationcan be considered equal to one unit of educa-tion.”4

In addressing this issue, Judge Pellegrini re-verted back to Pennsylvania’s previous schoolfinance case where the Pennsylvania Su-preme Court stated:

[E]xpenditures are not the exclusive yardstickof educational quality, or even educationalquantity. It must be obvious that the sametotal educational and administrative expendi-tures between two school districts does notnecessarily produce the same educational ser-vice. The educational product is dependent onmany factors including the wisdom of the effi-ciency and the economy with which the avail-able sources are utilized.5

Not only did the Pennsylvania Supreme Courtrecognize the differences in spending priori-ties among districts, the court also recognizedthat school districts are not equally efficientin their use of available funds. The court rec-ognized that, in the case of Danson, equalspending across districts will not necessarilylead to equal student outcomes. Hawai’i, forexample, has a single, state school districtwith generally equal per pupil spending acrossthe district. Yet, with equal funding, studentoutcomes vary. This is most likely due to therelative efficiency with which each school uti-lizes its resources (e.g., quality of teachers)and by the differing learning styles (phonicsversus whole language) and needs of stu-dents.

Another indication that districts are notequally efficient can be inferred in the statis-tical relationship between school districtspending and selected student outcomes (i.e.,standardized test scores, dropout rates, etc.).Several studies have been done across thenation to determine the statistical relation-ship between inputs (spending) and outcomes.Few have found a positive statististically sig-

table 1

Allegheny, Chartiers Valley 9,548.72 30 5,196.15 96 54.4%

Allegheny, Mt. Lebanon 8,016.50 106 5,982.88 43 74.6%

Allegheny, Pittsburgh 10,374.43 15 6,583.82 23 63.5%

Philadelphia, Philadelphia 7,180.00 226 4,285.77 262 59.7%

Delaware, SE Delco 7,581.93 153 4,923.43 124 64.9%

Dauphin, Susquehanna Twnshp 6,469.13 400 4,242.52 288 65.6%

Bucks, Neshaminy 9,325.51 35 7,243.95 8 77.7%

Berks, Wilson 8,013.39 107 5,244.50 92 65.4%

ACTUAL INSTRUCTIONAL EXPENDITURES/WEIGHTEDADM / TOTAL EXPENDITURES

Total Expen-diture

StateRank

AIE/WADM

Source: Selected Expenditure Data for Pennsylvania Public Schools, 1996–97, PA Depart-ment of Education, June 1998.

County, School District StateRank

Ratio

15

nificant relationship between spending andstudent outcomes.6 The commonwealth’sschool finance expert examined the relation-ship between district spending and studentscores on the 1991 statewide Testing for Es-sential Learning and Literary Skills (TELLS)test. When controlling for socioeconomic sta-tus and student ability, he found no signifi-cant relationship between spending and stu-dent performance on tests. Put very simply,spending more money does not necessarilyequate to higher student achievement.

PPPPPennsylvaniaennsylvaniaennsylvaniaennsylvaniaennsylvania�s School�s School�s School�s School�s SchoolFunding FormulasFunding FormulasFunding FormulasFunding FormulasFunding Formulas

In reviewing Pennsylvania’s school financeprogram, one cannot help but notice the

changing nature in which the commonwealthfunds public elementary and secondary edu-cation. Since school year 1991-92, Pennsyl-vania has changed the way it has funded pub-lic schools five times.

A. ESBE Formula (1983-84 toA. ESBE Formula (1983-84 toA. ESBE Formula (1983-84 toA. ESBE Formula (1983-84 toA. ESBE Formula (1983-84 to1991-92)1991-92)1991-92)1991-92)1991-92)

The amount of aid received by school districtsunder the Equalized Subsidy for Basic Educa-tion (ESBE) was determined by: an aid ratio(MV/PI ratio) which is determined as a mea-sure of a district’s wealth— total market valueof property and personal income of residents;the district’s weighted average daily mem-bership (WADM);7 and the Factor of Educa-tional Expense (FEE), the maximum amounta district could receive per student—deter-mined to be $2,250 by the General Assemblyin 1991-92. A school district received the to-tal of its MV/PI ratio multiplied by the FEE,multiplied by the district’s WADM.

The ESBE formula also took into account fac-tors such as sparsely populated districts, dis-tricts with large populations of children fromlow incomes, and districts with above aver-age tax efforts yet considered low wealth. TheESBE formula focused on equity and was de-signed to send a higher proportion of statefunds to districts with the least wealth.

B. Funding Freeze (1992-93)B. Funding Freeze (1992-93)B. Funding Freeze (1992-93)B. Funding Freeze (1992-93)B. Funding Freeze (1992-93)

The General Assembly suspended the use ofthe ESBE formula for educational funding forelementary and secondary schools and allot-ted school districts the same amount of fundsas they received in school year 1991-92.

C. Foundation Equity SupplementC. Foundation Equity SupplementC. Foundation Equity SupplementC. Foundation Equity SupplementC. Foundation Equity Supplement(1993-95)(1993-95)(1993-95)(1993-95)(1993-95)

Under the foundation approach, each schooldistrict was required to make a minimum localtax effort of 19.5 mills on the 1990 market valueof property. The minimum expenditure levelper student in every district was $3,875 forschool year 1993-94 and increased to $4,700per student for school year 1994-95. However,each school district was guaranteed to receiveat least the same amount of funds as it re-ceived in the previous school year under thefrozen ESBE formula.

The foundation approach also included supple-ments for poverty, district growth, and limitedrevenue availability. Districts were also guar-anteed a minimum increase in funding withthe poorest districts (those with aid ratios ofgreater than 0.700) receiving a 1.5 percentminimum increase, those with ratios between0.500 and 0.700 receiving a 1.25 percent in-crease, and all others receiving a minimum 1percent increase. Included in the foundationapproach were three funding supplements:

pennsylvania school finance

constantly changing formulas forconstantly changing formulas forconstantly changing formulas forconstantly changing formulas forconstantly changing formulas forfunding causes confusionfunding causes confusionfunding causes confusionfunding causes confusionfunding causes confusion

Reason Public Policy Institute86

poverty, growth, and the limited revenuesource supplements.

Under the poverty supplement, districts with35 percent or more of students from familiesreceiving Aid to Families with Dependent Chil-dren (AFDC) received $100 per ADM (1993-94) and increased to $120 per ADM (1994-95).

The growth supplement, designed to aid dis-tricts with rapidly growing student populations,allotted $400 per ADM for districts with 4.5percent growth, $225 per ADM for districtswith less than 4.5 percent growth.

Under the limited revenue source supplement,districts with aid ratios of greater than 0.700that did not receive any other forms of supple-ment received $77.50 per ADM.

D. Flat Increase (1995-96)D. Flat Increase (1995-96)D. Flat Increase (1995-96)D. Flat Increase (1995-96)D. Flat Increase (1995-96)

Districts received a three-percent increaseper ADM from the state during 1995-96. Twosupplements aided school districts: minimumincrease (four percent for districts with aidratios of greater than 0.700, two percent fordistricts with aid ratios of between 0.500 and0.700, and one percent for districts with aidratios of below 0.500); and small district assis-tance ($95 per ADM for any school district withan aid ratio of 0.500 and greater and ADM of1,500 or fewer). State expenditures for basiceducation totaled nearly $3.4 billion.

E. No Increase (1996-97)E. No Increase (1996-97)E. No Increase (1996-97)E. No Increase (1996-97)E. No Increase (1996-97)

From 1996-97, there was no increase in theamount of state aid to school districts regard-less of change in district characteristics (wealthor student populations). Total expenditures forpublic education — local and state funds forall functions — totaled $13.747 billion.

PPPPPennsylvaniaennsylvaniaennsylvaniaennsylvaniaennsylvania�s School�s School�s School�s School�s SchoolFunding FutureFunding FutureFunding FutureFunding FutureFunding Future

Judge Pellegrini determined that thePARSS case was non-judiciable, consis-

tent with Marrero (1998) and Danson (1979),that found that matters involving school fund-ing are issues left to the legislature. Educa-tion is a state function that is locally adminis-tered by school districts. The legislature, there-fore, has the responsibility of structuring aneducation system that is understood by thecitizens of Pennsylvania and the school dis-tricts, while being accountable to systemstakeholders such as parents and taxpayers.

A. Consistency and ContinuityA. Consistency and ContinuityA. Consistency and ContinuityA. Consistency and ContinuityA. Consistency and Continuity

The volatile nature of state funding from 1991to the present makes it difficult for school dis-tricts to plan into the future. The uncertaintyinherent in the current system may lead dis-trict boards and administrators to focus solelyon near-term investments rather than on long-term planning. Also, interviews with schooldistrict board members and administratorsgenerated many different answers whenasked to describe the state funding system.8

When compared to the various fundingmechanisms used by the state, all responseswere correct in one form or another, but somewere incorrect at the particular point in time.

Constantly changing formulas for fundingcauses confusion. Pennsylvania’s legislatorsshould decide on a funding mechanism (con-tinuance with ESBE base or through the de-velopment of a new funding system) and staywith it. Consistency and continuity areneeded in order for the public to better un-derstand how their schools are funded andfor district personnel to better plan into thefuture.

�content or subject knowledge seems�content or subject knowledge seems�content or subject knowledge seems�content or subject knowledge seems�content or subject knowledge seemsnot be central to the selection process�not be central to the selection process�not be central to the selection process�not be central to the selection process�not be central to the selection process�

pennsylvania school finance 17

B. AdequacyB. AdequacyB. AdequacyB. AdequacyB. Adequacy

In Marrero, the Commonwealth Court ruledthat “this court is likewise unable to judiciallydefine what constitutes an ‘adequate’ educa-tion or what funds are ‘adequate’ to supportsuch a program. These are matters which areexclusively within the purview of the Gen-eral Assembly’s powers...9 ”

While not a single school district administra-tor testified to having inadequate resourcesto provide an educational program in thePARSS case, the General Assembly would bewise to investigate and determine best-prac-tices benchmarks regarding costs. The ESBEformula tried to approximate the cost of pro-viding an education. However, since then themethod in which Pennsylvania funds its pub-lic schools has followed expenditures-drivenand flat-increase models without best prac-tices benchmarking. Understanding the rela-tive costs of providing an education and thevarious equity considerations (e.g. low-in-come families, sparse populations, etc.) willprovide a basis from which to allocate funds,while letting individual districts decide howbest to serve their student populations.

C. AccountabilityC. AccountabilityC. AccountabilityC. AccountabilityC. Accountability

One way of assuring that districts pursue edu-cational programs appropriate for their stu-dent populations is by developing an account-ability system that works in conjunction withthe finance system. To date, school districtshave not been held accountable for the fundsbeing spent on behalf of the public. Pennsyl-vania does not need to create a statewidecurriculum to thoroughly assess the perfor-mance of school districts. Establishing cleargoals and objectives, through objective stateacademic standards or through performanceassessments, and allowing districts the flex-

ibility to meet those goals and objectives asthey see fit would solidify the public educationsystem in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania contin-ues to revise its standards in the core subjectsof math and English.

D. ProductivityD. ProductivityD. ProductivityD. ProductivityD. Productivity

In 1996-97, Pennsylvania spent $6,708 per stu-dent, ranking sixth in the nation and nearly$1,000 above the national average of $5,787.10

This represents a 20 percent increase in ex-penditures from 1986. Pennsylvania schoolsdevote 64.4 percent of expenditures (exclud-ing capital outlays and interest on debt) to in-struction, ranking ninth in the nation and abovethe national average of 61.7 percent.

Pennsylvania ranks in the top ten states in edu-cation spending, yet Pennsylvania studentsperform at or near the national averages onthe National Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP) math and reading tests. Twentypercent of fourth-grade students performed atleast at the “proficient” level, 48 percent at the“basic” level, and 32 percent at the “belowbasic” level on the 1996 NAEP math test.11 Thisranks 22nd in the nation. Thirty percent of fourth-graders scored at least at the “proficient” levelon the 1994 NAEP reading test, above the na-tional average of 28 percent.12

Students graduating from Pennsylvania highschools in 1994 enrolled in two and four-yearcolleges at a lower rate than the national aver-age, 57 percent compared to 62 percent.13

One explanation for such modest school pro-ductivity is the selectivity of Pennsylvaniaschool districts in hiring teachers. A recentstudy by Dr. Robert Strauss, from CarnegieMellon University, shows that “there is widevariation in the content knowledge test scoresamong Pennsylvania’s teacher preparation

spending more money does not necessarilyspending more money does not necessarilyspending more money does not necessarilyspending more money does not necessarilyspending more money does not necessarilyequate to higher student achievementequate to higher student achievementequate to higher student achievementequate to higher student achievementequate to higher student achievement

Reason Public Policy Institute88

programs. Given that passing scores are quitelow, around the 10th or 20th percentile andoften representing very low fraction of cor-rect, weighted scores, this means that there isa large pool of highly variable quality certifiedteachers from which districts make employ-ment decisions.”14 Strauss follows by criticiz-ing the hiring practices of some Pennsylvaniaschool districts. One criticism shows that “writ-ten hiring procedures are absent in about halfof the districts; content knowledge or subjectknowledge seems not be central to the selec-tion process.”15 Again, the quality of selectionprocess and subsequent quality of teachersvaried across school districts regardless of dis-trict wealth.

E. Governance and StructureE. Governance and StructureE. Governance and StructureE. Governance and StructureE. Governance and Structure

Finally, additional funding into the current edu-cational systems may not yield educationalimprovements without changing the structureand governance models in most of the 501school districts in Pennsylvania. Most districtscontinue to have centralized decisionmakingbodies (districts) with little decisionmaking atthe school site. In those districts that havesite-based management, many provide littleto no budget authority to the school site.16

Currently, above-average expenditures yieldaverage results, both in the elementary schoolyears and at the end of the K-12 schooling pe-riod. Changing the structure of decision-mak-ing in school districts requires a change in rolesand responsibilities. School districts mustcomply with state and federal regulations andmandates, at the same time ensuring thatschools are in compliance along with additionaldistrict regulations and mandates. A changein governance structure necessitates a changein school and district personnel functions.

District administrators, in a decentralized sys-tem, move from the role of compliance offic-ers to information providers and facilitators.Site-based management requires schools tomake decisions regarding budget allocations,staffing, training, curriculum development, etc.

With additional responsibility and authoritycomes additional accountability. The centraldistrict provides continuous information andfeedback to the school site. Effective devolu-tion of responsibilities requires informationsharing across the organization. This infor-mation should also be shared with parentsand the community to gauge the effective-ness of the schools.

Effective change of governance does not hap-pen overnight. Training of district and schoolpersonnel is required in order to understandnew roles and responsibilities. Governancechange also requires a change in teacher andadministrator preparation programs. Skillssuch as budgeting, scheduling, and curricu-lum development are needed by incomingteachers and administrators in order to meetthe needs of the changing organizations. Theroles and responsibilities of the state mustalso change, moving from regulators to infor-mation providers while holding school districtsaccountable.17 A change in school governancealso requires a change in other traditional in-stitutions such as collective bargaining agree-ments and purchasing of services such as foodservice and supplies. These decisions, typi-cally made at a level away from the schoolsite, should be reconsidered with new mod-els of governance.

There is not a single model of governance thatis best for all school districts. Each district mustdevise a governance structure that best meetsthe local needs of its children. The change ingovernance must center on the goals and ob-jectives of educating children. School districtsmust see this as a continuous improvementproject, learning from past experiences andmaking adjustments as needed.

What is not known is the governance struc-ture that each school district will undertake tobetter educate the children of Pennsylvania.However, utilizing the existing managementsystems for school districts will most likely leadto increased investments through spendingwith no increase in student performance.18 ❖

endnote

s

19

1 Marrero v. Commonwealth of Pennsylva-nia, 709 A. 2d 956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).

2 Danson v. Casey, 484 Pa. 415, 399 A. 2d360 (1979).

3 Memorandum Opinion by Judge DanPellegrini, Filed July 9, 1998, p. 67.

4 Memorandum Opinion by Judge DanPellegrini, Filed July 9, 1998, p. 49.

5 Memorandum Opinion by Judge DanPellegrini, Filed July 9, 1998, p. 128, quotedfrom Danson, 484 Pa. At 427, 399 A.2d at366.

6 James S. Coleman, Equality of EducationalOpportunity, Volume I and II, United StatesDepartment of Health, Education and Wel-fare, 1966, Eric Hanushek, “The Econom-ics of Schooling: Production and Efficiencyin Public Schools,” Journal of EconomicsLiterature, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1141-1177.

7 Average Daily Membership is the sum ofthe district’s enrollment count for each dayof session divided by the number of daysin the school year. Weighted ADM is de-termined by assigning the relative cost ofeducating students at various stages oftheir education: half-day kindergarten isweighted as 0.5, full-time kindergartenand elementary school as 1.0, and second-ary students as 1.36.

8 Allegheny County Public Schools SystemsProject, H. John Heinz III School of PublicPolicy and Management, Carnegie MellonUniversity, August 1996-May 1997. Inter-views with school districts in AlleghenyCounty, Pennsylvania.

9 Marrero v. Commonwealth of Pennsylva-nia, 709 A. 2d 956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).

10 U.S. Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics, “Public El-ementary and Secondary Education Sta-tistics: School Year 1996-97,” July 1997.Figures are “current” expenditures, whichexclude spending for capital outlays andinterest on debt, and adjusted using the

National Center for Education Statistics“cost-of-education” index.

11 U.S. Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics, “NAEP 1996Mathematics Report Card for the Nationand the States,” February 1997.

12 U.S. Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics, “NAEP 1994Reading Report Card for the Nation andthe States,” January 1996.

13 National Education Goals Panel, “The Na-tional Education Goals Report: Building aNation of Learners,” November 1996, andU.S. Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics, “The Con-dition of Education,” June 1996.

14 Robert P. Strauss, Lori L. Bowes, Mindy S.Marks, and Mark R. Plesko, “Who ShouldTeach in Our Public Schools? Implicationsof Pennsylvania’s Teacher Preparation andSelection Experience,” paper for AmericanEducation Finance Association, March 10,1998, p. 26.

15 Robert P. Strauss, Lori L. Bowes, Mindy S.Marks, and Mark R. Plesko, “Who ShouldTeach in Our Public Schools? Implicationsof Pennsylvania’s Teacher Preparation andSelection Experience,” paper for AmericanEducation Finance Association, March 10,1998, p. 26.

16 Allegheny County Public Schools SystemsProject, H. John Heinz III School of PublicPolicy and Management, Carnegie MellonUniversity, August 1996-May 1997. Inter-views with school districts in AlleghenyCounty, Pennsylvania.

17 Pennsylvania School Boards Association,White Paper on Relief from Mandates,March 1997.

18 Allan Odden and Carolyn Busch, FinancingSchools for High Performance: StrategiesFor Improving the Use of Educational Re-sources, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco(1998), p. 22.

Reason Public Policy Institute [RPPI]3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400 l Los Angeles, CA 90034

310-391-2245 l 310-391-4395 [fax]www.reason.org