Education

CF’s work in education focuses on promoting opportunity and improving children’s lives though incentive-based reforms.  Instead of repeating the failed attempts to reform education through new rules or additional funding, such reforms use competition to improve education.   Incentive-based reforms include providing choice within the public school system through charter schools and cyber schools, providing families with private school options through vouchers or tax credit-funded scholarships, and measuring and rewarding success in education for both schools and teachers.   Only when parents have are able to choose the best school for their child, have an abundance of educational choices and ample information, and schools are forced to compete for students will we provide the best education to Pennsylvania’s youth.




Recent Issues

Pennsylvanians Deserve True Fairness

DECEMBER 11, 2014 | Commentary by BOB DICK

Everyone deserves an equal opportunity to pursue success in our state. While Gov.-elect Wolf's intentions echo this noble sentiment, many of his proposals fall far short of his vision.

Teachers' Unions: The Common Roadblock to Reform

DECEMBER 9, 2014 | Commentary by JAMES PAUL

From Philadelphia to York to the Pittsburgh suburbs, parents and taxpayers are looking to improve public education without breaking the bank. But there’s a common roadblock standing in their way: Teachers’ unions are consigning students to some of the worst-performing schools in the state—all to retain their iron grip on power.

School Funding Reform & Weighted Student Funding

Testimony of Nathan Benefield, Vice President of Policy Analysis, and James Paul, Senior Policy Analyst

DECEMBER 4, 2014 | Testimony by NATHAN BENEFIELD, JAMES PAUL

Pennsylvania's education system is not underfunded, but it certainly is broken and irrational. Only by implementing a Weighted Student Funding model—and following the lead of other states who have moved toward a smarter funding method—can the commonwealth construct a more efficient and effective system to fund a first-class education for all of its students.





Recent Blog Posts

Harmed by “Hold Harmless”

DECEMBER 15, 2014

There are few more egregious examples of political doublespeak than Pennsylvania’s “hold harmless” provision for state education funding.

Hold harmless guarantees each school district receives no fewer state education dollars than it received the previous year—regardless of changes in district enrollment. This may sound appealing in theory, but it is actually quite problematic in practice. While the policy ostensibly exists to prevent school districts from being harmed by reduced funding, it has, in fact, brought real harm and inequity to hundreds of districts across the commonwealth.

Consider that during the 2012-13 school year, state revenue per student in Pennsylvania's 20 fastest-growing districts was slightly more than $3,000. In contrast, state revenue per student among those districts with the largest decreases in enrollment was nearly $10,000. Put another way, school districts with declining enrollment received more than three times the state funding per student than growing districts.

20 Fastest Growing PA Districts 1996-2013

District

County

Growth

2013 State
Revenue Per Student

Garnet Valley

Delaware

119%

$2,877.47

Perkiomen Valley

Montgomery

89%

$2,826.65

South Fayette Township

Allegheny

86%

$2,698.31

Spring-Ford Area

Montgomery

83%

$2,764.82

Pine-Richland

Allegheny

74%

$2,686.28

New Hope-Solebury

Bucks

61%

$2,777.26

Central York

York

60%

$2,555.85

Oxford Area

Chester

56%

$4,538.11

Avon Grove

Chester

53%

$4,340.74

Daniel Boone Area

Berks

53%

$4,282.96

Mars Area

Butler

52%

$3,217.76

Lower Moreland Twn

Montgomery

48%

$2,888.73

Kennett Consolidated

Chester

47%

$2,842.80

Jim Thorpe Area

Carbon

45%

$2,885.29

Central Bucks

Bucks

45%

$2,401.97

Tredyffrin-Easttown

Chester

44%

$2,211.83

Owen J Roberts

Chester

41%

$3,120.39

Peters Township

Washington

40%

$2,608.30

Wilson

Berks

39%

$2,784.51

Northeastern York

York

38%

$4,602.52

Average Top 20

59%

$3,095.63

20 Fastest Shrinking PA Districts 1996-2013

District

County

Growth

2013 State
Revenue Per Student

McGuffey

Washington

-30%

$7,979.42

Sullivan County

Sullivan

-30%

$6,208.08

Southeastern Greene

Greene

-31%

$11,399.85

Warren County

Warren

-31%

$7,881.19

Jeannette City

Westmoreland

-32%

$9,242.87

Ligonier Valley

Westmoreland

-32%

$5,611.11

Susquehanna Community

Susquehanna

-32%

$10,778.41

Union

Clarion

-32%

$11,529.47

Punxsutawney Area

Jefferson

-32%

$9,524.06

Austin Area

Potter

-32%

$11,885.68

Galeton Area

Potter

-33%

$7,903.20

Cranberry Area

Venango

-33%

$8,525.50

Farrell Area

Mercer

-33%

$12,197.76

Marion Center Area

Indiana

-34%

$10,288.15

Northern Potter

Potter

-35%

$10,904.21

Allegheny-Clarion Valley

Clarion

-35%

$11,479.26

Purchase Line

Indiana

-35%

$12,383.83

Johnsonburg Area

Elk

-36%

$11,175.29

Salisbury-Elk Lick

Somerset

-39%

$9,555.59

Cameron County

Cameron

-39%

$10,600.96

Average Bottom 20

-33%

$9,852.69

A new policy brief from Temple University's Center on Regional Politics finds that Pennsylvania’s education funding system is out of sync with the rest of the nation.

While 11 other states provide a hold harmless guarantee to school districts, no other state in the nation also guarantees districts with declining enrollment a share of new education revenues.

Not only do Pennsylvania school districts retain baseline funding levels—regardless of student enrollment and student need—but declining enrollment districts are guaranteed a portion of new education revenues. The authors describe this practice as “hold harmless plus.”

Hold Harmless

My colleague Nate Benefield and I recently offered testimony to the Basic Education Funding Commission, where a large portion of our remarks focused on transitioning away from hold harmless in favor a weighted student funding (WSF) model.

Currently, if a Pennsylvania student moves from one district to another, state funding does not follow the child to her new school.

Above all else, a weighted model would distribute funds that truly follow each child. WSF also accounts for individual student need by providing additional dollars for low-income and English language learners.

The Funding Commission presents an important opportunity to establish a funding formula that is equitable, rational, and transparent. The first step for lawmakers should be to phase out hold harmless, once and for all.

posted by JAMES PAUL | 10:30 AM | Comments

Audio: Could Charter Conversion be in York City's Future?

DECEMBER 10, 2014

York City School District—financially distressed and second-to-last in the state in student achievement—may be in for some much-needed change in the coming weeks. After two years of obstruction from the local school board and teachers’ union on more modest measures, the state has finally petitioned for receivership of the troubled district.

Tomorrow, there will be a hearing in York to help inform a judge’s decision to grant the state’s receivership petition. If granted, all of York's district schools will be converted into to charters—one of only a few districts in the country to take such a step.

Today, CF's James Paul joined The Gary Sutton Show on WSBA 910 to provide background on how we got here, who has been blocking other attempts at reform, and what this all could mean for York city students and families.

Listen to a portion of the show below and read James’ recent op-ed “Is Second Worst Good Enough for York Students?” for more.

The Gary Sutton Show airs daily on WSBA 910AM in the York area.

Follow Commonwealth Foundation’s SoundCloud stream for more of our audio content.

And for mobile listening, get the SoundCloud iPhone and Android apps.

posted by JOHN BOUDER | 03:30 PM | Comments

More Choice on the way to Philadelphia?

DECEMBER 9, 2014

Tens of thousands of Philadelphia students languishing on charter waiting lists have reason to hope. For the first time in seven years, the School District of Philadelphia will consider applications from new charter schools.

This week the district is receiving presentations from 40 applicants who will make the case for additional educational options. A second set of hearings are scheduled in January where applicants will be reviewed and questioned by district officials. Ten of the 40 proposed schools have an explicit focus on the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields.

What prompted Philadelphia to break its seven-year charter lock-out? Tucked away in the recent cigarette tax legislation was a provision requiring the district to accept annual applications from new charter schools.

Seemingly endless wait lists—combined with the 62,500 students currently enrolled in brick and mortar charter schools—are evidence of the sector’s popularity in Philadelphia. Enrollment in district-run schools has sharply declined over the last decade as more families opt for schools of choice.

On the whole, Philadelphia charter schools are performing well. The average city charter school outperformed the average city district school in 2012-13. What’s more, an analysis by Philadelphia School Partnership reveals that the charter sector is succeeding in serving low-income students: Of the 17 city schools with passing State Performance Profile scores and enrollment of least 80 percent economically disadvantaged students, 12 are run by charter operators.

Given their immense popularity, long waitlists, and encouraging performance, it’s a shame that new charter schools have been locked out of the application process for so long—but it's no surprise. Granting school districts the power to authorize a new charter school is like asking McDonalds to green-light the construction of a new Wendy’s next door. Establishing a high quality statewide authorizer in the commonwealth would be a marked improvement over the current policy. 

It remains to be seen whether any new charters will be approved, but at least there's a chance for more children to find better, safer schools.

posted by JAMES PAUL | 11:00 AM | Comments



Media contact:
media@commonwealthfoundation.org

(O) 717-671-1901

Who are We?

The Commonwealth Foundation is Pennsylvania's free-market think tank.  The Commonwealth Foundation transforms free-market ideas into public policies so all Pennsylvanians can flourish.