Landmark Opinion Finds Public School Funding Inadequate

Continued from page 11

Staffing levels, according to the Court, are hampered by turnover, attrition, and frozen salaries.28 Specialized professionals like guidance counselors, social workers, nurses, psychologists, reading specialists, librarians, and instructional aides are staffed at “an insufficient quantity to actually meet students’ needs, or [are] funded through outside sources of one-time [emergency COVIDrelief] funds, which districts have been cautioned against using for such purposes.”29

According to the Court, the large class sizes presented by the Petitioners “undermine student success.”30 Rejecting the legislature’s evidence of student-teacher ratio and studentpersonnel ratio as “misleading,” the Court found that studentteacher ratios include non-regular classroom teachers where there are few students, and it chose instead to accept the Petitioners’ evidence of classroom size.31

The Court’s findings regarding facilities were particularly striking, if not surprising. Drawn from the Petitioners’ case, the Court paints a compelling picture of makeshift classrooms in hallways, closets, and basements, insufficient restrooms to serve the population, schools without functioning heat and air conditioning, crumbling concrete, desks under electrical boxes, leaking roofs, lead paint, mold, asbestos, non-potable water, and falling masonry.32

Even textbooks, the most fundamental of school supplies, are not up to par in the Petitioner districts. Schools lack enough of them to give each student one, forcing them to share, and those they have are severely outdated. Bill Clinton is still president in some, and they list countries which no longer exist.33 Technology like Chromebooks have been donated or purchased with temporary funds which, once the funds run out, the districts have no resources to maintain.

Poverty Is Not An Indicator Of Ability

Perhaps much of this could be forgiven if low-income schools were still turning out students prepared to excel after graduation, but the Court’s review of data compiled from PSSAs and Keystone Exams (two standardized tests Pennsylvania students take on a yearly basis) show significant achievement gaps between students who attend low-income districts as compared to those in more affluent districts.34 One fact stands out in this section, even amongst the parade of failings – “[b]ecause of these existing gaps, the Department set lower goals in its ESSA Plan for future achievement for children of color than it set for children who did not fall into a subgroup.”35

The Court considered disproven the argument, often only advanced in whispers, that maybe certain students simply cannot reach high academic goals. To the contrary, the Court highlighted and accepted the Petitioners’ data which showed that students from low-income families who attend affluent districts outperform their peers in less wealthy districts by sixteen to twenty percent.36

“[H]istorically underperforming students in high-wealth districts outperform their peers in low-wealth districts, 45.1% to 25.2%.”37 The Court was clear and emphatic in the meaning of these statistics – “money does matter, and economicallydisadvantaged students and historically underperforming students can overcome challenges if they have access to the right resources that wealthier districts are financially able to provide. . . . In short, these statistics confirm what numerous witnesses testified as to: every child can learn, regardless of individual circumstances, with the right resources, albeit sometimes in different ways.”38

The Court also articulated what it believes to be the cause of these unacceptable conditions without hesitation – “[l]owwealth districts across the state are forced to make [ ] difficult decisions because, although the Education Clause imposes a duty on the General Assembly to maintain and support a thorough and efficient system of public education . . . the system is heavily dependent on local tax revenue, which the lower wealth districts cannot generate like their more affluent counterparts.”39 It seems that a happy byproduct of this decision will be reform of the property tax system which has imposed such a burden on so many across the Commonwealth.

Public Education Is A Fundamental Right

Having found that the Commonwealth is violating the Education Clause, the Court then turned to the Petitioners’ Equal Protection claims. A matter of first impression, the Court found that the Education Clause created a right to a public education in the students, not just a duty on the part of the Commonwealth. In light of the history and text of the Clause, the Court found for the first time that the right to a public education is a fundamental right either explicitly or implicitly derived from the Pennsylvania Constitution.40 Accordingly, alleged “impingement” on the right should be evaluated under strict scrutiny.41

The Court found the legislature’s justification of the current funding scheme – “promot[ing] local control” – unpersuasive.42 Precedent has already established that “the need for local control cannot relieve the General Assembly of its exclusive obligation under the Education Clause,” and the Court used precedent from another jurisdiction to explain that “to alter the state financing system to provide greater equalization among districts does not in any way dictate that local control must be reduced. . . . Second . . the notion of local control was a ‘cruel illusion’ for the poor districts due to limitations placed upon them by the system itself . . . Far from being necessary to promote local fiscal choice, the present system actually deprives the less wealthy districts of the option.”43

Unable to raise tax dollars themselves, poor districts face the proverbial “Hobson’s choice,” despite the state’s extensive mandates governing public education.44 Local power, according to the Court, is meaningless without funding.45 The Court found that the state has transferred “the majority” of its obligations onto the local districts. In the absence of a compelling reason therefore, the Court found that the Commonwealth is violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Notably, even applying