Democratic lawmakers grandstanding and passing the buck on education cuts

School funding in Pennsylvania is an arcane property-tax based system long criticized by just about everyone. There are many repurcussions for all invloved and seem to be few, if any, good things about the system. Districts have unequal funding since property taxes are based on local millage rates. Some of the poorest, worst-performing school districts in the state share a border with some of the wealthiest and best. The students from the poor districts are stuck in failing schools despite being a stone's throw from successful ones. Taxpayers are held hostage by school board decisions and demands of unions, no matter how incompetent or unreasonable. People buy houses and pay them off, owning the home outright only to lose them to the county if they can't afford tax increases over which they have little to no control.


These aren't the only problems, nor are they new problems. But the state's current budget crisis has brought an entirely new dimension to light. After 8 years of Ed Rendell's utter incompetence as Governor, Pennsylvania has a $4 billion deficit. Rendell increased spending by about 40% over his tenure but none of that money appears to have been spent wisely. We lead the nation in bad roads and structurally deficient bridges. Our public transportation systems and schools lack dedicated funding. All we have to show for Fast Eddie's frivolous spending are crony contracts and overpaid politicians.


We've run out of money and our state is in worse shape in many areas than ever before. What passed for leadership from Rendell has been a complete failure in every sense, catapulting Pennsylvania into the bottom in many categories. Bring in Tom Corbett, barely sworn in as our new Governor, and his attempts to bring some fiscal sanity back to the Keystone state. Corbett actually increased state spending on education to the tune of $240 million. But temporary federal stimulus funds for education are no more, meaning that schools are getting $900 million less total. The Governor and the state legislature have no authority to force the federal government to hand out stimulus money to schools and did all they could by increasing education funding despite a $4 billion shortfall.


Sidebar: All school districts were well aware that the federal stimulus money was a temporary payout which would end in 2010. They only received the money for two school years, which means they knew damn well not to make any big or permanent changes that their budgets could not support after the stimulus funds were gone. They had no reason to believe these emergency programs would continue. They could easily have parceled out the windfall carefully so as to not spend it all immediately or they could have allocated the funding in ways in which it wouldn't be too sorely missed after it ended.

In addition, less than 30% of eligible Pennsylvania schools applied for federal grant money available to them for the current school year. And they are all well aware of the state's budget crisis. Yet they aren't taking any responsibility for their own fiscal mismanagement or poor planning. Instead they're laying sole blame on the Governor's administration. Corbett is being excoriated for not simply taxing an additional one billion dollars out of Pennsylvania's citizens in order to indulge the whims of school administrators and reward their bad behavior with stimulus funds.


It's lunacy, pure and simple. But just when we all assumed it couldn't get any more ridiculous, some do-nothing Democrats in the state legislature are trying to get school districts to sue Corbett for discrimination. Our arcane system of funding education primarily via property taxes means that some schools receive significantly less funding than others. The schools collecting less in property taxes depend much more heavily on the state budget's direct funding of education. Thus, poorer schools are losing more money without the federal stimulus funds than wealthier districts in more affluent areas.


Our schools certainly have some serious and immediate problems as a result -- an inequitable and questionable funding system, subpar adminstrative and leadership, and immediate funding needs, just to name a few -- but none of these are the fault of our new Governor, nor will they be solved in a courtroom. The suggestion to sue his administration reveals complete ignorance on the part of these state representatives. They clearly don't understand how our state funds education, nor do they seem to care. They are putting all taxpayers at risk of having to come up with a billion dollars that we don't have should the suit succeed (although under the circumstances, such a lawsuit would be so frivolous that seems highly unlikely). It's the lowest form of pandering on the parts of Rep. Bill Kortz and Marc Gergely.


Kortz and Gergely aren't truly concerned about education or else they would be proposing new ways to fund all schools equally. Both men are grandstanding with this hare-brained scheme to encourage school districts to sue taxpayers right into the poorhouse. It's nothing but cheap political scheming: Blame the GOP and if you say it enough times, these dumb voters will believe it, despite the fact that it's not true. Voters need to contact Kortz and Gergely to request their funding proposals. It will be interesting to see what they have to offer constituents besides cheap political shots and pandering, if they have anything else to offer. 

Arguments against school vouchers don't make sense

Debate is raging in Pennsylvania over whether or not we should allow school vouchers. There are good arguments for vouchers, most importantly that they get students out of failing schools. Public schools, as a virtual monopoly, have little incentive to improve. After all, they still receive tax dollars no matter how many children in their districts attend private schools. This means school districts are receiving the same or even increased funding via property taxes even as enrollment drops. The competition angle is important because it means that schools will be forced to improve in order to attract more students.


Currently, many parents pay twice, once through taxes to fund public schools and again as tuition to their kid's school, if they can afford to do so. If they can't afford tuition or acquire scholarships, their children are stuck with a substandard education. Critics contend that if parents don't like a school district they should move. That seems like an undue hardship for most people and it's a surprising attitude from the liberal crowd indeed. These people claim that a $24 state-issued ID card every 4 years is an undue hardship for voters but they expect parents to uproot their families from the communities they love when the schools aren't good enough. That's ludicrous. People have roots in their communities, churches, family and friends, homes they love; They shouldn't have to walk away from all of those things and more simply to receive an adequate public education.


Americans shouldn't have to shoulder myriad expenses simply so their children can learn. Just consider the many effects: Longer commutes to work, family, religious services, preferred grocery stores and friends; Unnecessary closing costs or rent deposits on new housing; Moving expenses and other details to numerous to mention. Moving is a complete upheaval of your entire life. We pay a hefty premium in property taxes here in Pennsylvania and deserve decent schools for the money we spend. The system should work for us, not the other way around. It's never acceptable for our lives to revolve around what's convenient or preferred for the government-run system we are funding. The argument that we should bend to the system instead of being served by it is dangerously ignorant.


Voucher opponents are also ignoring the many benefits to communities from school choice. It will not only help people stay in their neighborhoods and be a more cohesive community but it also helps communities thrive. Private schools benefit the entire community, not just their own students. They perform community service, pick up litter, plant flowers, paint storefronts, hold clothing and food drives and many other helpful services. More students means more hands to work and more families to donate goods. Many schools or their affiliated religious institutions offer daycare, before- and after-school programs, activities, groups to join and sports. More students means more money to sponsor activities. Those little church festivals and school carnivals bring outsiders into the community who spend money. People put quarters into parking meters, visit local restaurants, buy gas and shop in an area they normally wouldn't have traveled to but for attending a scout meeting, dance recital or little league game. Depriving parents of school choice doesn't end with children receiving substandard educations. It also keeps communities depressed.


Another popular argument against vouchers is that it's tax money funding private organizations. This argument is invalid because tax money funds all types of private organizations both directly and indirectly. Tax breaks and incentives to businesses, including oh-so-popular "green" initiatives, is one very obvious means of such funding. But another one that voucher critics never acknowledge is that our state and local governments outsource most things. Lots of our local and state tax dollars go to private companies, as government is mostly bureaucratic and has little true productivity. Tax money is used to pay private contractors to design, build and maintain our infrastructure; It's used to pay private doctors, nurses and hospitals to treat people on Medicaid; It's used to pay consultants to make decisions on whether or not we should change parking rates, revise our public transportation system or create a storwater authority.


Tax money funds critical miltary supplies to protect our soldiers, all made by private firms. It funds private practice social workers, home health workers, psychologists and others in the human services field. It's also handed out in grants to private organizations that help children, the elderly, victims of abuse, people with mental and physical disabilities and for employment incentives with private companies. This is done because government has found it more expedient and efficient to contract with professionals in a given field than to employ such professionals. Education can not reasonably be held to a different standard than treating our ill, building our bridges, caring for our disabled or any other service coordinated by our bureaucrats.


If a person opposes school vouchers than they must also oppose every other aspect of outsourcing in our government. If private schools are too biased, too exclusive, not accountable enough to teach our children, then private contractors and medical professionals can't reasonably be up to the required standards of building our roads or caring for our sick. If private schools can't be trusted to educate our kids then we can't give private employers incentives for hiring displaced workers or making environmentally-focused changes. We utilize the private sector in every aspect of our government except education.


Public schools will see a decrease in funding but will have less students to educate. Very few of their costs are fixed, generally just electricity and heat. Most costs are tied to number of students so fewer students means they don't need as many books and supplies, fewer lunches to prepare and serve, lower water bills, fewer teachers and administrative personnel. Increasing funding to poor-performing schools has not led to improvements so decreasing funding won't hurt the schools; If there were a correlation between dollars spent and performance, we wouldn't be having this debate because our public schools would all be stellar. There is no rational or logical reason to continue holding students hostage to failing schools.

Less than 29% of eligible PA schools sought federal funding

Despite endless whining about a lack of funding, the vast majority of eligible Pennsylvania schools didn't bother to apply for available federal funding. One hundred forty-one schools throughout the state were eligible yet only 40, or less than 29%, applied for funding. Pennsylvania Education Secretary Ron Tomalis criticized school leaders for ignoring opportunities to improve.

“There are far too many Pennsylvania students who are trapped in failing schools, and far too many adults who are unwilling to advocate and pursue meaningful change on their behalf,” Tomalis said. “I find it extremely disturbing that 71.6 percent of eligible schools chose not to engage in an initiative to improve the educational opportunities for their students."

Is it ever about the voters?

I often wonder if any of our public officials are truly pursuing office to help the will of the people come to fruition. There may be fewer in Pennsylvania than some other places but they're not unicorns; Surely a few do exist. The problem is, I'm having great difficulty finding them. Time after time in local elections, we appoint new judges who've never practiced law. We have district justices with no college education. We have representatives on the state & local level who've never held a job (outside of their lavishly compensated elected positions). How can they possibly make the best decision for Pennsylvanians when they know nothing of the struggles of the working class, have no idea how to run a business or create jobs, and have only a void where the voters have experience?