Lehigh Valley school districts assess gains from Pennsylvania budget – The Morning Call

Report on Pennsylvania State Budget’s Impact on Lehigh Valley Educational Funding and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

The recent resolution of the Pennsylvania state budget impasse has resulted in a significant increase in funding for school districts in the Lehigh Valley. This report analyzes the financial implications of the new budget, with a particular focus on its alignment with United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The budget facilitates enhanced fiscal stability, promotes equitable resource distribution, and introduces reforms aimed at long-term financial sustainability in public education.

SDG 4: Enhancing Quality Education through Increased Investment

The state budget directly supports the objectives of SDG 4 by allocating substantial new resources to improve educational infrastructure and programs. The increased funding is a critical step toward ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education for all students in the region.

• Overall Funding Increase: The 17 school districts across Lehigh and Northampton counties will receive an average 8.1% increase in state funding.
• Restoration of Operations: The Allentown School District, which relies on the state for nearly 70% of its budget, can now restore full operations, lift spending restrictions, and pursue strategic educational priorities.
• Targeted Grants: Districts received higher-than-anticipated funds through specific streams designed to enhance educational quality.
  1. Salisbury Township School District received an additional $50,000 in its Ready to Learn Block Grant, contributing to a total of $61,572 above its budgeted state allocation.
  2. Northwestern Lehigh School District also gained an additional $50,000 from the Ready to Learn Block Grant.
• Investment in School Resources: The additional revenue allows districts to address rising operational costs, invest in capital improvements, and maintain essential educational programs, directly contributing to SDG Target 4.a, which calls for building and upgrading education facilities.

SDG 10: Reducing Inequalities in Educational Access and Funding

A core achievement of the budget is its contribution to SDG 10 by addressing funding disparities among school districts, thereby promoting equal opportunity and reducing inequalities of outcome.

• Equitable Distribution: The Allentown School District, a high-need area, is a primary beneficiary, receiving a $25.9 million increase in its state allocation. This represents the third-largest total dollar increase for any district in Pennsylvania, directly addressing historical funding inequities.
• Support for Special Education: The budget structure acknowledges the higher cost of specialized instruction, a key component of reducing inequalities. Current tuition rates highlight this disparity, which the new funding aims to support more effectively.
  • Allentown District: $30,168.29 per special education student vs. $13,597.82 per regular education student.
  • Bethlehem Area District: $30,693.22 per special education student vs. $15,276.46 per regular education student.
• Variable Impact: The percentage increases in funding vary across districts, from 2.6% in Northwestern Lehigh to 12.6% in Wilson Area, reflecting a targeted approach to distribute funds where they are most needed.

Fiscal Sustainability and Institutional Reform (SDG 16)

The budget introduces reforms to the cyber charter school funding formula, reflecting a move towards more effective and accountable institutions (SDG 16) and ensuring the long-term sustainability of educational financing.

• Cyber Charter Funding Reform: A new formula is expected to create future cost avoidance for school districts by allowing them to deduct expenses not incurred by cyber charters (e.g., maintenance) before calculating tuition payments.
• Projected Statewide Impact: This reform is projected to save school districts across Pennsylvania approximately $178 million in tuition payments, freeing up resources for core educational missions.
• Long-Term Stability: While district officials note that the changes may not result in immediate budgetary savings, they are recognized as a crucial step toward slowing the growth of charter school costs and establishing a more sustainable fiscal model for public education.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses issues related to education funding, equity, and institutional processes, which connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire text revolves around the allocation of state funds to public school districts to ensure their operational stability and ability to provide educational services. The article discusses “Basic education funding, special education funding and Ready to Learn Block Grants,” all of which are fundamental to achieving quality education for all students.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article touches upon reducing inequalities by highlighting how the state budget impacts various districts differently. The focus on Allentown receiving the “third largest bump in total dollars” suggests an effort to direct resources to higher-need areas. Furthermore, the reform of the “cyber charter funding formula” is an attempt to create a more equitable financial system among districts, addressing the “uneven impact” of the previous tuition payment structure.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article implicitly relates to this SDG by describing the functioning of public institutions. It details the state budget process, the role of the legislature in lifting an “impasse,” and the financial administration within local school districts. The actions of the “Pennsylvania Department of Education” and the financial reporting by district officials like the “Interim Chief Financial Officer” demonstrate the operation of effective and accountable institutions responsible for managing public funds for education.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Several specific SDG targets can be identified from the details provided in the article.

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education. The article’s focus on increased state funding for K-12 school districts, such as the “8.1% increase” for Lehigh and Northampton counties, directly supports the provision of free and equitable primary and secondary education. The funding enables districts to “maintain educational programs and supporting student needs.”
   • Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education… for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities. The article explicitly mentions “special education funding” and provides different, higher tuition rates for special education students attending cyber charters (e.g., “$30,168.29 for each special education student” in Allentown), demonstrating a financial commitment to ensuring access for students with disabilities.
   • Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all. The article states that increased state allocations provide “much-needed flexibility to… invest in capital improvements,” which directly aligns with this target of upgrading educational facilities.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard. The legislative change to the “cyber charter funding formula” is a policy action designed to correct a system that had an “uneven impact” on school districts, thereby promoting a more equitable distribution of financial burdens and opportunities.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article showcases this target in action through the detailed financial reporting from school districts. For instance, the Chief Financial Officer of Salisbury Township School District “reported that its basic education and special education funding came in very close to projections,” and that the district would receive “$61,572 above what was budgeted.” This demonstrates financial accountability and transparency at the local institutional level.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article is rich with quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress.

• Indicators for SDG 4 (Quality Education)

  The article provides numerous financial indicators related to government expenditure on education.

  • Total government expenditure on education: Specific dollar amounts are mentioned, such as Allentown’s “$275.9 million state allocation” and the “$25 million” increase from the last budget.
  • Percentage increase in funding: The article notes an “8.1% increase in state funding” for local districts and individual district increases ranging from “2.6% in Northwestern Lehigh to 12.6% in Wilson Area.”
  • Resource allocation for vulnerable students: The specific tuition rates for special education students (e.g., “$30,168.29” in Allentown vs. “$13,597.82” for regular education) serve as a direct indicator of financial resources allocated to support students with disabilities (Target 4.5).
  • Investment in infrastructure: The stated intention to “invest in capital improvements” is a qualitative indicator of progress towards Target 4.a.

• Indicators for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

  Indicators for this goal relate to policy changes and resource distribution.

  • Policy reform for equity: The implementation of the “newly implemented funding formula changes” for cyber charters is a clear policy indicator. The projected statewide savings of “$178 million” serves as a quantitative measure of this policy’s financial impact, aimed at creating a more equitable system.
  • Proportion of resources directed to high-need areas: The fact that Allentown, Philadelphia, and Reading received the largest bumps in total funding is an indicator of resource allocation intended to reduce inter-district inequalities.

• Indicators for SDG 16 (Strong Institutions)

  The article implies indicators related to institutional accountability.

  • Budgetary transparency and execution: The comparison between budgeted and actual state funds received by districts, such as Salisbury Township receiving “$61,572 above what was budgeted,” serves as an indicator of budget transparency and the effectiveness of public financial management (Target 16.6).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: mcall.com