Mar 18, 2023 5 min read

As a child in New Jersey, I attended a neighborhood elementary school. Most of the students walked to and from school, creating short cuts through yards and wood lots whenever possible. As postwar baby boomers, our classes were large and filled with promise. We grew up and learned next to our best friends and neighbors.

The regional high school I attended was a shock to my young system. Thirteen elementary schools fed into one large high school. The student body was 95% white and Protestant. It took me well over a year to become adjusted to the immense campus. The bus rides to and from the front door were 45 minutes. For after-school sports and other activities, bus rides were at least 90 minutes. Through four years of high school, I never came to know many of the students in my class.

Much different was the education of my spouse, who attended classes and taught for over 30 years in the Washington School District. The elementary schools were in neighborhoods, with one, nearby central high school. In the 1970s, the elementary schools were integrated via busing and later consolidated into one campus. The high school provided a diverse learning experience, helping its students prepare for a world filled with people who did not all look or think alike.

Today, living in East Washington, I think about these different learning environments in reviewing the public schools of Washington County. There are a number of rating agencies that grade the quality of education of each school district. Not surprisingly, Peters Township, Canon-McMillan and Trinity Area School Districts are at the top of the list. All three receive high marks for teaching and academics. The Washington School District only receives a high rating for diversity.

To provide some other comparisons, Peters Township has an enrollment of 1,326 in grades 9-12, is ranked seventh within the commonwealth, has a minority enrollment of 8%, and 6% of its students are economically disadvantaged. In contrast, Washington High School’s enrollment is 422, it is ranked 345th within Pennsylvania, the total minority enrollment is 49%, and 93% of students are economically disadvantaged.

With this degree of disparity, one would assume that the Washington School District would receive more funds than Peters to help its disadvantaged students catch up to their wealthy neighbors. Unfortunately, the reality is the opposite. In Pennsylvania, we have created a school funding system where the students who need the most get the least because of where they live.

According to the Pennsylvania Education Law Center, our school funding system shortchanges students of low-wealth school districts. Fifty percent of the state’s Black students and 40% of Latino students attend schools in the lowest-wealth districts. Overall, 86% of Pennsylvania’s students attend underfunded schools.

The reason for this gross inequality is simple. The low share of school funding coming from the commonwealth causes deprivation. Pennsylvania contributes 38%, while the national median for state funding is 47%. Accordingly, local wealth based on higher property taxes determines whether students get adequate teachers, counselors, nurses, librarians, reading specialists, STEM labs, art and music, and extra help for students who need it. This inequality leads to an absence of opportunity, resulting in lower graduation rates and fewer students earning degrees.

Last month, after an eight-year court battle, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court finally recognized that a two-tiered funding system of the haves and the have-nots was unacceptable for the children of our state. In a lengthy opinion of almost 800 pages, the court held that the state’s funding of public education falls woefully short and violates students’ constitutional rights. If the opinion stands and is implemented, there will be billions of dollars in additional annual support to equalize public education in Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, the opinion is long on platitudes and short on specifics. While it concludes, “It is now the obligation of the legislature, executive branch, and educators to make the constitutional promise a reality in this commonwealth,” it does not outline how educational funding should be raised or distributed. My fear is that without appropriate pressure, action could be delayed for decades.

The solutions are not that complicated and New Jersey offers a detailed road map for Pennsylvania. Each year, New Jersey prepares an “adequacy budget calculation” with a baseline of what it would cost to educate one student. This base, per-pupil amount considers many factors, including salaries, supplies and inflation. After the budget is determined, the question becomes how much each school district will pay. Our neighboring state developed a formula that determines local share based on district property values and the total income of each districts’ residents. Once the local share cost is computed, the state provides the difference in equalization aid. This system has provided quality public education for all of New Jersey’s students for many years.

My hope is that the solution for equality in Pennsylvania education does not include merging long-standing smaller school districts into larger ones. Washington School District is a unique institution that plays an important role in building a strong community. The students benefit from community support, and the school in turn fosters connections among neighbors and encourages civic participation. Moreover, the tradition of “Prexie Pride” in sports and among alumni would be lost forever.

Washington and other small school districts should be permitted to remain intact, but with the adequate funding all students deserve and our state constitution demands.

Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.