The national nonprofit broke down the results of its , which describes trends in state funding to schools in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. in a recent .

“In order to be fair, school funding must be both adequate and equitable,” said Danielle Farrie, Education Law Center research director. “So this means that states provide an overall level of funding that’s sufficient to provide all students with the resources that they need to meet state standards, and that the funding should be distributed so that students in poverty receive more.”

One of the most concerning report findings is the decline in funding to schools with high rates of children from low-income families, compared to schools with more affluent populations, Farrie said. States are progressive if high-poverty schools receive at least 5% more funding in state money than those in more affluent areas. States that do the opposite are labeled regressive. States have a flat distribution of funding if the amount is similar on both sides.

In 2023, 17 states were labeled progressive, reversing a decade-long increase of progressive states that peaked at 28 in 2022. 

Utah was the most progressive state, funneling 60% more funding per-pupil to high-poverty districts than others The most regressive state was Connecticut, which provided 19% less money to high-poverty districts. 

The analysis, which focused on state dollars amid an influx of federal COVID-relief funding,  also found that most states maintained or at least slightly increased per-pupil funding levels from 2022 after adjusting for inflation.

“This is a dramatic departure from the previous year, when high inflation rates basically wiped out most of the nominal per-pupil funding increases in most states,” Farrie said.

Some states experienced significant funding boosts. From 2022 to 2023, California increased its per-pupil funding by 19%. Washington, D.C., and Hawaii jumped 15% while Michigan moved up by 13%. 

The Education Law Center credited California’s positive gains to its more than a decade ago. Even so, school districts have recently called for more state funding as teachers unions have demanded better pay and working conditions. Seven superintendents signed an in February to advocate for “more stable, adequate and predictable funding from the state.”

“Rising housing costs, inflation and everyday living costs are affecting educators and classified staff across California,” the letter says. “Many are making difficult personal choices simply to remain in the profession or continue serving their communities.”

The largest funding loss from 2022 to 2023 was in Louisiana, which declined by 8%, moving its ranking in how well schools are funded from 25th in the nation to 38th.

Overall, 22 states fund their schools above the national average of $17,853 per student. New York is the top state at $29,440, followed by Vermont, Washington, D.C., New Jersey and Connecticut. The lowest state funding level comes in Idaho, which provides $11,085 per student.  North Carolina, Utah, Arizona and Nevada fund at similar levels. 

“In North Carolina, our funding is grossly inadequate, and it’s been the subject of lawsuits,” said Kris Nordstrom, senior policy analyst at the , in the webinar. “It’s inequitable for all student groups and it’s been that way, sadly, for a long time.”

North Carolina has been under fire for more than 30 years because of inadequate school funding. Lawsuits eventually led to the creation of a remedial plan in 2022 for the state to better fund public schools, but it was after appeals were filed to stop payments to districts. The case has since been under the advisement of the North Carolina Supreme Court, which has yet to issue a ruling.

“I think our anticipation is that if we ever do get a ruling that it won’t be a good one,” Nordstrom said. “Our school funding continues to be flat or decreasing once you account for the additional costs facing schools. So it’s pretty bleak.”

The Education Law Center also ranked states based on their funding efforts, which compares funding levels against each state’s gross domestic product. North Carolina is at the bottom of the ranking, providing $12,193 when its GDP per capita is $58,639. The top state is Vermont, which gives schools $27,067 per-pupil while its GDP per capita is $54,318. 

“Obviously in North Carolina, you’ve seen our school funding effort plummet,” Nordstrom said. “But in almost every state, school funding has decreased since before the Great Recession. So the money exists in our economy to provide much more robust funding for schools than we currently are.”

Advocates who fought for and won a historic court ruling declaring Pennsylvania’s education funding system unconstitutional said Thursday that they’re ready to go back to court if state lawmakers and Gov. Josh Shapiro fail to make a significant down payment on a solution.

The Pennsylvania Schools Work campaign, a coalition that advocates  for adequate and equitable school funding, said it has asked Shapiro to allocate $2 billion to allow the state’s 412 inadequately funded school districts to begin improvements to instruction and student services.

That initial investment must be followed by an additional $1 billion each year for four years until the gap between what the school districts receive from the state now and the amount required for a constitutionally adequate education is eliminated, representatives of the coalition said.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

The unveiling of the proposal came a week before the Basic Education Funding Commission’s deadline for a report on inequity in Pennsylvania public schools, following three months of hearings last year.

Deborah Gordon Klehr, executive director of the Education Law Center, said members of the commission, which includes members of each legislative caucus and the administration, are at a critical juncture where they can advance a transparent and evidence-based plan for a new funding system.

If they choose not to respond to the Commonwealth Court’s order from nearly a year ago, “it will take state officials right back to the court that has already ruled that the system is fundamentally broken,” Klehr said.

“As the attorneys for the school districts, families and organizations that brought this case we are prepared to go back to court to uphold the rights of those communities,” Klehr said. “We cannot accept a plan that is politically convenient but fails our students.”

In a Feb. 7, 2023, that capped a decade of litigation, Commonwealth Court President Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer found that the state’s reliance on local property taxes to fund education means students in poorer communities have fewer opportunities in school. That is at odds with the state Constitution’s requirement for the Legislature to pay for a “thorough and efficient system of public education,” Jubelirer said.

Testimony in hearings before the Basic Education Funding Commission largely tracked that in the before Jubelirer in 2022. In cities and townships across the state, members heard from educators, advocates, students and an economist who laid bare the depth and breadth of the crisis.

Matthew Kelly, a Penn State professor who analyzed the state’s school funding system, testified that the shortfall is about $6.2 billion or about 20% of what the state currently spends each year.

Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center, said that number was determined by examining the schools that are succeeding as measured by the state’s own goals and targets and what they are actually spending.

“From there, you can have a baseline number for what every school district in the commonwealth should have if they want to have the same success, and that number is $6.2 billion,” Urevick-Ackelsberg said.

Donna Cooper, executive director of Children First, noted that 2024 will be a politically volatile year with elections for the president and Pennsylvania lawmakers. Those bargaining Pennsylvania’s budget this year will face an additional challenge as pandemic-era federal aid that has been used to supplement education funding expires.

Shapiro acknowledged the challenge he will face in striking a compromise in spending, Cooper noted.

“I’m very mindful of the Commonwealth Court decision and that we need to have more equity in our system. I’m also very mindful that someone has to pay for that,” Shapiro told The Associated Press in a recent .

Cooper cited by the Pennsylvania Policy Center that shows voters are aware of the education funding disparity and support increasing spending to correct it. Among 1,274 likely voters, 69% said they believe that public schools require more money. And about two-thirds said they believe the state should do more to ensure schools are sufficiently and equitably funded, the polling shows.

“So this is not just something esoteric that happened in the state courts. It’s the actual experience that Pennsylvania voters have,” Cooper said. She noted that while the economic impact is more pronounced in urban districts, a majority of those surveyed shared the opinion that schools need better funding whether they were in urban, suburban or rural areas and regardless of whether they live in a Republican or Democratic legislative district.

“Voters are very aware of what’s going on at a pretty high level,” Cooper said.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Pennsylvania Capital-Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kim Lyons for questions: info@penncapital-star.com. Follow Pennsylvania Capital-Star on and .

That’s what Shenandoah Valley School District Superintendent Brian Waite says he needs to properly serve his students. His school system is in one of Pennsylvania’s poorest regions with 80% of Shenandoah Valley’s roughly 1,200 students economically disadvantaged. 

Waite was glad Gov. Josh Shapiro acknowledged the longstanding inequity in the state’s education funding formula during his budget address earlier this month. But Shapiro’s proposed isn’t enough, Waite said, nor what he and others were hoping for when they successfully sued the state over the formula.

“We are grateful for every dollar of funding we receive,” the superintendent said. “But the final budget must be larger to meet the urgency of this moment. The size of the proposed budget increases are not the down payment we need to provide the quality public education guaranteed in the state constitution — and to begin to plan out a system that gives our kids what they deserve.”

Likewise, the attorneys who fought on behalf of his district and five others across the state — alongside parents and other plaintiffs, including the Pennsylvania NAACP — said the governor’s plan “does not do enough to meet the standard set by our state constitution.” 

The comments came a month after Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer issued a 786-page decision ruling Pennsylvania’s school funding formula unconstitutional after the long-running litigation. She found the stark disparities in student outcomes between high- and low-wealth districts were directly related to the vast difference in resources made available to them.

A spokesman from the governor’s office told ����Ӱ�� that no one could predict allocations beyond this budget cycle, but that the current proposal “is not the final step” in addressing school funding inequity. 

Shapiro is asking for an additional $103.8 million for special education programs and $100 million for school safety and security grants. His proposal also includes $100 million to reduce and remediate environmental hazards in schools and a more than $60 million increase in higher education funding.

Attorneys from the Education Law Center-PA, The Public Interest Law Center and O’Melveny & Myers LLP said in a statement that this year’s increases to the basic education fund are .

Last year’s education budget, the attorneys noted, included a $225 million supplement for the 100 most underfunded school districts. These so-called Level Up monies prioritized those districts for the past two years. 

“This proposal also takes a step backward: while last year’s budget provided additional support for the Commonwealth’s most deeply underfunded districts through the Level Up program, this one does not,” the lawyers said in a joint statement. 

Waite, the Shenandoah Valley superintendent, said his students have waited long enough. The district’s English learner population has more than tripled in the past 15 years and classroom teachers of other disciplines are stretched thin.

“I have math teachers in the secondary level teaching more than one content area in the same classroom: Honors Trigonometry and Algebra II in one class — with geometry and trigonometry in another,” he said.

Many of the district’s rooftop exhaust fans and HVAC systems date back to 1982. It is also in need of masonry work on retaining walls, sidewalks and outdoor stairways, some of which are disintegrating and have not been upgraded in decades.

Susan Spicka, executive director for Education Voters of Pennsylvania, founded in 2008 to promote a pro public education agenda with the public, said she recognizes the enormity of creating a fair funding formula but wished to see a far bigger number in this latest budget proposal: She lamented that it did not appear to prioritize those school systems most in need. 

“For two years, the Legislature and governor, on a bipartisan basis, recognized we need to target money to the neediest districts,” she said. “To see he took a step backward was really strange, and very disappointing. That supplement has really made a very big difference in those school districts.”

Shapiro’s office, which at first insisted that Level Up funding was in the budget, did not respond to later pushback from critics.

The new governor addressed head-on Judge Jubelirer’s “call to action” in his recent budget announcement.

“Her remedy was for us to get around the table and come up with a solution that ensures every child has access to a thorough and efficient education,” he said of the judge’s decision. “While theoretically there’s still time left to file an appeal, all indications are that Judge Jubelirer’s ruling will stand. And that means we are all acknowledging that the court has ordered us to come to the table and come up with a better system, one that passes constitutional muster. I’m ready to meet you there.”

The budget will require approval from a Republican-control Senate and . The Legislature is required to approve the budget by June 30. 

A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday ruled the state’s school funding formula unconstitutional, noting it leaves poor districts unable to afford the teachers, counselors, curriculum and building repairs necessary to meet students’ needs  — and keep them safe. 

After an eight-year legal battle, Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer’s decision came down resoundingly on the side of the families, school districts and advocates who sued for more money. She found the stark disparities in outcomes between students in high- and low-wealth districts were directly related to the vast difference in resources made available to them by a state funding formula reliant on local property taxes.

Jubelirer said it is now up to the state to craft a more equitable system for its schoolchildren. Her ruling did not come with a timetable — though it did advise all relevant parties to do so at “the first opportunity” — nor a specific payment amount. Although Pennsylvania has since directed more money to its public schools, the plaintiffs had alleged districts were being underfunded by $4.6 billion a year.

“All witnesses agree that every child can learn,” the judge concluded at the end of her . “It is now the obligation of the Legislature, Executive Branch, and educators, to make the constitutional promise a reality in this Commonwealth.”

Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, a senior attorney with the Public Interest Law Center who represented the school districts, said the judge’s ruling marked an extraordinary moment. 

“This is an earthquake that will reverberate for the children of Pennsylvania for a long, long, long time,” he said.

Maura McInerney, legal director of the Education Law Center, another of the firms challenging the funding formula, called the ruling a clear and unequivocal victory for public school children across Pennsylvania. 

“The court ruled the right to an education is a fundamental right,” she said, adding it “found that nothing justifies the gross disparities between low-wealth and high-wealth school districts that we see across our state. We are excited and really enthusiastic about what will happen for the trajectory of the lives of schoolchildren in Pennsylvania.”

It’s unclear whether the decision will be appealed to the state Supreme Court. Patrick Northen, John Krill and Anthony Holtzman, three of the defendants’ attorneys, could not be reached for comment Wednesday. During the trial, they argued state lawmakers had met their constitutional obligations to provide an “adequate education” and questioned whether the plaintiff districts had directed their resources to meet the most serious student needs.

Pennsylvania’s school funding formula has long been considered among the nation’s most inequitable, with 38% coming from the state and 43% from local property taxes. That ratio ranks the Commonwealth 45th nationally, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. 

Jubelirer ruled local control — the notion that local communities decide on their own how much of their resources to devote to public education — was no excuse for the types of inequities described during the 49-day trial. 

The court proceedings involved dozens of witnesses — many from the six school districts that filed the lawsuit back in November 2014 — along with 1,700 exhibits that proved, in her opinion, poor districts were unable to meet students’ needs. 

Many students do not qualify for college-level Advanced Placement courses in high school because of an achievement gap that began in their elementary years that could not be corrected, administrators testified. 

A lack of space at one of William Penn’s elementary schools means art and music is taught in the basement in a room that has an opening to a sump pump. 

Makeshift classrooms have been set up inside hallways, closets and basements throughout these school systems. Many buildings are plagued by roaches, rodents, leaky roofs, lead paint, mold and asbestos. Some lack heat, air conditioning and potable water.

“It is evident to the Court that the current system of funding public education has disproportionately, negatively impacted students who attend schools in low-wealth school districts,” Jubelirer wrote. “This disparity is the result of a funding system that is heavily dependent on local tax revenue, which benefits students in high-wealth districts.” 

The evidence, she said, supported “the inescapable conclusion that these students are not receiving a meaningful opportunity to succeed,” adding that consistent achievement gaps for economically disadvantaged students was tantamount to a violation of the state Constitution’s equal protection clause.

She said, too, that the funding formula “does not adequately take into account student needs, which are generally higher in low-wealth districts.”

Jubelirer said the opposing side has not proven local control would be undermined by a more equitable funding system. 

“Local control could be promoted by providing low-wealth districts with real choice, instead of choices dictated by their lack of needed funds,” she wrote. 

The defendants told the court the state requires only a minimal basic education without regard to outcomes for students, which are influenced by several factors well beyond schools’ reach. They said, too, that the Commonwealth needs low-skill, low-wage labor. 

“I think there is a need for retail workers, people who crust,” said Krill, the lawyer defending then-Assembly Speaker Jake Corman, during the trial. “My point is, do these proficiency standards actually in any way imaginable serve the needs of the Commonwealth such as they should be mandatory across the board? I think the answer is no.” 

Newly elected Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro filed an in May 2022 in support of the lawsuit back when he served as the state’s attorney general, writing that the defendants in the case wanted the court only to determine whether Pennsylvania’s education system provides students with the “opportunity” to obtain a constitutionally sufficient education. 

“But they ask the Court to read too little into the word ‘opportunity,’” he wrote. “The opportunity… is meaningless if the public education system cannot actually provide a thorough and efficient education to all students, regardless of socioeconomic background.”

Shapiro, in a statement released Wednesday, seemed to support his initial argument. 

“Creating real opportunity for our children begins in our schools, and I believe every child in Pennsylvania should have access to a high-quality education and safe learning environment, regardless of their zip code,” he said. “My Administration is in the process of reviewing the Commonwealth Court’s opinion and we are determining next steps.” 

Acting Attorney General Michelle Henry said her office is still in the process of thoroughly reviewing the lengthy opinion, “but we were gratified to learn today that the Court agreed with our position, paving the way for Pennsylvania lawmakers to come together to create a new system that works for all children and families.”

The case was filed by the William Penn, Panther Valley, Greater Johnstown, Wilkes-Barre Area and Shenandoah Valley school districts alongside the School District of Lancaster. It names parents, children,  the NAACP and the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools among the petitioners. 

The current lists of defendants, which has changed since the case was first filed, includes Gov. Shapiro, Secretary of Education Khalid N. Mumin, Senate President pro tempore Kim Ward and House Speaker Mark Rozzi. During the trial, the governor’s office and the state education department did not fight to counter the plaintiffs’ claims while the state legislative leaders did.

The Commonwealth Court initially dismissed the case, siding with the defendants by ruling school funding decisions are the responsibility of the legislature, not the judicial branch. The plaintiffs appealed to the state Supreme Court, which sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court in 2017 for trial.

Urevick-Ackelsberg said the state’s obligation to fix the system starts now, even if the case is again appealed to the state Supreme Court. “We are going to assume the General Assembly is going to follow the law. We will be back in court to enforce whatever we need to to make sure they do so.”

The attorney said he believes the issue will be addressed relatively quickly. School funding cases are notoriously known to drag on for years, even after those challenging the formulas prevail in court.

“Do we expect this to take years and years? No,” he said. “If there is an appeal, we will do everything in our power to make sure the ruling is not stayed … and we get to work right away.”

The effort to get on the November 2022 ballot is just getting started, but such a statute would give parents “legal standing” before a judge to argue that districts should make better use of education dollars, said initiative spokesman Michael Trujillo, a veteran political strategist.

“Here’s a chance for parents to become effective policymakers on behalf of their children,” said Trujillo, who has long worked for former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a supporter of the initiative.

The move comes as parents across the country are vocally asserting their rights to influence the education agenda. Parents’ anger over school closures and controversial diversity and equity initiatives was considered a key factor in tipping the Virginia governor’s race in favor of Republican Glenn Youngkin.

The California initiative would be the third effort nationally to enshrine a child’s opportunity to receive a high-quality education in a state constitution. Supporters have launched similar campaigns in and . 

“Having that right in the constitution could be very helpful in addressing long-standing inequities in our educational system and closing opportunity gaps,” said Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, an Oakland-based advocacy organization. He added that “getting more dollars to kids of color and English learners has to be part of the equation.”

The California initiative, however, includes wording that would prohibit courts from issuing remedies that include “new mandates for taxes or spending.”

That restriction could be an obstacle to improving educational quality, said Jessica Levin, a senior attorney at the Education Law Center, based in New Jersey. 

“More funding would be the way to address many of the issues that the proponents of this initiative are purporting to want to fix,” she said. The center represented plaintiffs in , a 1998 New Jersey school finance case that led to far-reaching reforms, including universal preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds.

A from the center gives California a C for the level of per-student funding schools receive from state and local sources. But it grades the state a D on how much it spends on education as a percentage of overall economic activity — less than 3 percent.

State constitutions, Levin added, all include some “affirmative obligation” to provide students a public education, but courts have varied in how they interpret what that education should include.

Federal courts in recent years have also been asked to consider whether the U.S. Constitution should entitle children to an education. Last year, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer agreed to a $100 million settlement in a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case in which seven Detroit students argued their schools had failed to teach them to read.

On Nov. 1, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in in which 14 Rhode Island students argue their schools don’t provide civics education, leaving them unprepared to exercise their rights as citizens. 

‘There’s no remedy’

In California, David Welch, who waged a lengthy challenging state laws on teacher tenure and seniority, is behind the ballot initiative. That lawsuit, Vergara v. California, argued such provisions keep poor and minority students from having effective teachers. In 2016, the California Court of Appeals ultimately held that the attorneys for the nine student plaintiffs were unable to prove that state law controlled teacher assignments.

The state’s powerful teachers unions came out on top when the state supreme court declined to review the case. A ballot measure that aims to improve schools by making it easier to fire ineffective teachers would be certain to reopen that fight. Levin said the initiative “on its face” might sound appealing, but could be a way to once again go after teacher tenure and laws that  result in new teachers being the first to go when budgets are cut.

Trujillo said the initiative is not just an effort to revive Vergara. 

“W�󲹳� Vergara taught us is that there is a right to a free education,” he said, “but if you want to sue because of a reading gap, there’s no remedy.” 

Some experts say the measure, which would need roughly a million signatures by June to qualify, is vague and ignores the limitations districts face when the majority of their budgets are spent on salaries. Laura Preston, director of governmental affairs at F3Law, a California firm that handles education cases, said laws that require districts to negotiate budgets with teachers unions can limit flexibility to address students’ needs. 

Schools are also facing teacher shortages now and even superintendents are — not a time to discuss getting rid of teachers, she said.

The initiative is “so broad that we’re all trying to figure out what it means,” Preston said, calling the proponents “a bunch of people who don’t know how education works trying to reform education.”

‘A battle royale’ 

The effort to add the constitutional amendment isn’t the only California initiative likely to provoke a fight with the teachers unions. A venture capitalist is behind a measure to eliminate collective bargaining for public sector employees. The argues that unions “protect bad employees.”

A failed in 2012, but the prolonged school closures could have shifted some voters’ attitudes. Julia Koppich, an independent San Francisco-based researcher, said proponents could play on “unions being blamed for keeping schools closed longer than some parents thought they needed to be.”

Republicans tried to use parent frustration with school closings during the September election to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom, but were unsuccessful.

“I’m not sure if that anti-union, pandemic-specific anger is of the lasting variety,” Koppich said, but even so, “if this initiative is on the ballot, it will be a battle royale and an expensive one.”

Lisa Gardiner, a spokeswoman for the California Teachers Association said members “certainly believe that all students deserve a high-quality public education,” but that the union does “not take positions on — or even consider — ballot measures until they have qualified for the ballot.”

School closures are also fueling efforts to get two private school choice initiatives on the ballot. Now in the signature-gathering phase, both would create education savings accounts, of either $13,000 or $14,000 per year, that families could use for private and religious school tuition. 

“The pandemic required families to try alternatives,” according to . “Today more than 60 percent of families are interested in alternative learning options for their students beyond the traditional public school system.” 

State officials estimate the cost of the program would range from $4 billion to $7 billion, which “could be paid with reductions to funding for public schools and/or reductions to other programs in the state budget.”

The unions are also likely to oppose efforts to expand school choice in the state. Trujillo said he’s expecting a “well-funded” campaign to defeat the constitutional amendment guaranteeing a high-quality education if it goes before the voters. But he’s hoping that when proponents highlight smaller class sizes and higher pay for qualified teachers as possible results of the amendment, the unions might like what they hear. 

“Unions that want to oppose this are going to feel like they’re in upside-down land,” he said.