John Baer: Could 'stashed' funds help Pa. schools in crisis?

I'M NEITHER a product of nor an apologist for public education. I understand how expensive and ineffective it can be. And urban education's worse, plagued by poverty, uninvolved parents, unyielding unions and overpaid administration.

But a close look at proposed state cuts to the Philadelphia School District and poorer districts suggests disproportionate targeting for suffering. And a look at money that most districts keep tucked away in special accounts suggests that maybe big cuts aren't really needed. (More on that later.)

For Philly, I know the political argument: It got everything under homeboy Democrat Ed Rendell; it's time to face reality under fiscally responsible Pittsburgh Republican Tom Corbett.

Plus, of course, there's no money. (More on that later.)

So, Philly faces a $629 million gap and proposes cutting its $3.1 billion budget to $2.7 billion by axing half (410) of its administrative folks, ending athletics, bagging gifted and language programs, slicing security and more.

Three weeks ago, that gap was $465 million but, hey, you know how gaps grow. Maybe some of this is bluff. It's hard to take cost-cutting too seriously when Superintendent Arlene Ackerman gets $348,000 a year (nearly double the governor's salary) with six-figure bonuses on top of that.

Nobody's worth that kind of scratch for that job. She's making more than the president of the United States.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the city wouldn't be a better place if suddenly 167,000 juveniles had less education and more free time.

But I digress.

As to disproportionate impact, House Democratic Appropriations Committee data say that districts with higher poverty are smacked harder per pupil than districts with lower poverty.

For example, the per-pupil cut in the Chester-Upland School District in Delco is $2,633; $1,480 in York; $1,438 in Philly. But the per-pupil cut in Upper Dublin in Montco is $97; $84 in Lower Merion; $76 in Radnor.

A Department of Education spokesman says that the state funding formula always gives more to less-affluent districts; so when cuts are made those districts feel them more deeply.

But if the formula is designed to protect poorer districts when there aren't cuts, why does it punish them when there are? And shouldn't it be tweaked toward fairness when cuts are needed?

Also, Philly schools seem to have a pretty good answer to the oft-heard argument that throwing money at public education doesn't work.

District finance boss Michael Masch offers data showing that student achievement climbed from 24 percent proficiency in reading/20 percent proficiency in math to 56 percent and 50 percent, respectively, during Rendell's reign as guv.

The steady rise in scores from 2002 to 2010 mirrors a steady rise in funding.

Maybe it's coincidence.

Speaking of money, a provision in the state school code (no doubt written by the education lobby) allows districts to squirrel away "unreserved" funds, essentially "rainy-day" funds.

The most recent figures (for 2009; new figures are due in a few weeks) show that all but 16 of the state's 500 districts socked away tons of tax dollars, in some cases tens of millions of tax dollars.

Examples: Downingtown, $38 million; Lower Merion, $33 million; Central Bucks, $27 million. Oh, and Pittsburgh has $75 million.

The statewide total is $2.7 billion.

(Philly has nothing; in fact it's $40 million in the hole.)

This isn't money locked into capital projects. There's a "reserved" fund for that. This is money that comes with "no legal obligation" on how it's spent, according to an Education Department spokesman.

So these funds can be used for just about anything. They grew by $1 billion under Rendell. Doesn't that suggest that all the money he squeezed out of the Legislature wasn't needed statewide? Or that lawmakers padded their own districts as the price for passing Philly funds?

And doesn't it dictate that the vast majority of districts forego whining about cuts, threatening layoffs and even thinking about raising taxes?

Maybe it's time to look at this distribution or give back some of the dough.

When I raise this with House Education Committee Chairman Paul Clymer, R-Bucks County, he initially says, "That's not a bad idea . . . maybe we should do a hearing." But a little later, he calls to say that he prefers Corbett's idea of freezing teacher salaries statewide to save $400 million.

The 13 districts in Bucks County have "unreserved" funds totaling $121 million.

Senate Education Chairman Jeff Piccola, R-Dauphin County, did not return calls on the subject.

The 10 districts in Dauphin County have funds totaling $50 million.

I'm certain that every district with "unreserved" funds argues need. Just as the Legislature argues that it needs its $188 million reserve fund. But these are tax dollars gathering interest. Question is: Whose interest do they serve?

Send email to baerj@phillynews.com.

For recent columns, go to

www.philly.com/JohnBaer. Read Baer's blog at www.philly.com/BaerGrowls.