Funding, charters, pensions drive school debates

By Marjorie Neff

While the vigorous debate over Philadelphia's public schools is vitally important, it relies heavily on the same old saws that have allowed the funding crisis to go on for so long. We must shift the discussion.

First, the debate about whether charters are good or bad is a red herring. The real issue is how to fund charter and public schools in a fair and equitable way. Many advocate a marketplace where charters and public schools compete and parents are informed about their options. That only works if funding one does not disadvantage the other. Such is not the case in Philadelphia.

The School District suffers a loss of thousands of dollars each time a student leaves for a charter, adding to the deficit and resulting in additional cuts to traditional public schools. These reductions cause more people to wonder about the stability of the district and look for alternatives, thus accelerating the problem.

Some suggest the district reduce costs more quickly to make up for declining enrollment. But in recent years, the district has undertaken multiple school closings, mass layoffs, building sales, and cuts to administrative and support services. The notion that cuts alone can offset an inequitable charter funding formula is simply wrong.

If charters and district schools were equitably funded, one could argue that only the quality of the school should be considered, and that parents should be able to enter the marketplace and make an educated choice about which school their children attend. Unfortunately, cost is a major factor, and competition in the marketplace can only exist when there is level playing field, with all parties held to the same standards and outcomes. Until the loss of funds to charters schools is reversed, district schools will continue to be disadvantaged and the budget crisis will worsen.

Second, the state's share of school funding has declined significantly. Some in Harrisburg note that Philadelphia receives a slightly greater percentage of state funds relative to enrollment than other districts. While this is true, it distorts reality. Philadelphia educates more children from low-income backgrounds than any other district. More than 80 percent of Philadelphia students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, almost twice the statewide average of 43 percent. A high concentration of poverty comes with added costs.

While surrounding districts rely primarily on property taxes to make up the difference in costs and state funding, Philadelphia has a relatively small property-tax base and so relies on an amalgam of business, liquor, sales, and cigarette taxes, resulting in a regressive, patchwork approach to school funding.

Until we have a fair funding formula that adequately accounts for the needs of Philadelphia's children, including the higher levels of poverty, special-needs children, and English-language learners, the funding crisis will continue to worsen.

Third, we need meaningful school pension reform. When pension payments grow and revenue does not, cuts have to be made elsewhere. Meaningful solutions to this problem must involve a combination of identifying another funding source for state pension funds, decreasing the costs and liabilities of the system, and examining hybrid pension options for new hires.

These three problems are inter-related and require a comprehensive solution. We need to stop viewing this crisis in terms of charters, unions, management, and school boards as being good or bad, or deluding ourselves into thinking that corporations and partnerships will solve the problem. We must focus instead on a cost-based, fair funding formula, charter funding reform, and pensions.

The children of Philadelphia deserve it.