As we learned in the national debate of 2009-10, health care will not become a right in the foreseeable future. How much of a stretch is necessary to understand public education is headed down the same path?
Only four decades ago, Gov. Milton Shapp’s goal was “free higher education for all Pennsylvania citizens.” The liberal Democrat wanted a new state income tax to help pay for scholarships for bona fide residents to any state school of higher learning. Shapp never was able to make the income tax graduated (higher earners paying a higher percentage) and he finally ran out of time.
Fast forward 40 years from Shapp’s time: Forget free higher education for bona fide residents. In 2011, we as a commonwealth are struggling to provide a solid 12-year education. Former Democrat Gov. Ed Rendell fought for funds to pay for pre-kindergarten education, wanting to directly compete with China, India and other rapidly developing nations.
Under new Republican Gov. Tom Corbett five-days-per-week Kindergarten has become an option.
Progress was also being made on equal distribution of financial responsibility for public education between the state and the local school districts. Until the November election the goal in Pennsylvania had been to raise state funding for public education to 50 percent of the cost. Republicans had been less enthusiastic, but episodes of outright resistance were seldom and muted.
During the eight years of reign by Democrat Ed Rendell, state funding of public education moved from 35 percent to almost 40.
What does percentage of funding underwritten by state taxes have to do with the quality of education? Poorer districts rely more heavily on state funding in order to provide a quality education to their students. The state uses its increased share to equalize the playing fields between wealthy and poor districts.
Decreased state funding, as proposed by Corbett, has the opposite effect. Preliminary school budgets adopted this month already indicate expected results. Wealthy districts are more likely to rely on attrition to meet reductions in personnel budgets. School districts with leaner tax bases are looking at teacher furloughs, larger class sizes, elimination of social and sports activities, even going without new text books.
Such disparity is predictable because wealthier school districts depend less on state funding (as a percentage). Less reliance on a source of funds means a reduction of that source will hurt less.
No surprise, Corbett denies reduction of access to a quality education by poor people is either one of his targets or will be collateral damage. His answer to that criticism is “vouchers.” Basically this is a program where parents who believe the public education in their home district stinks can get state grants to help pay for their kids to attend school outside their district of residence.
Voucher proponents claim the system will encourage competition among school districts to provide better educations than their neighbors.
Vouchers, however, leave the picture murkier because Republicans aren’t united in how to kickoff the system in PA. Corbett, in his first budget message almost three months ago, said the state can only afford a modest program now. He sees funds only stretching to cover the lower income families in the first year. A smaller start-up would have little impact on competition and quality.
Such a meager beginning does not satisfy some GOP legislators, however, who are more worried about the 2012 elections. By extending eligibility to more moderate income families these lawmakers envision even Republican voters able to use vouchers. In addition, a large scale voucher program aids denial that the entire funding scheme as detailed in Corbett’s budget will destroy public education.
Could state Republicans find a better way to destroy the teachers’ unions and rein in education costs? Maybe, but, aside from vouchers, no one is looking. The Democrats, as traditional with the “out” party in Harrisburg, naps on the sidelines.
Subscribe