Wayne Brookhart | Opportunities for education reform are ‘limitless’

Wayne Brookhart | Opportunities for education reform are 'limitless'  TribDem.com

Wayne Brookhart | Opportunities for education reform are ‘limitless’

Wayne Brookhart | Opportunities for education reform are ‘limitless'

The Importance of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Introduction

The lines in the sand have been drawn. Urban versus rural, small versus large, conservative versus liberal. Those lines will be erased and redrawn several times over the next several months.

As the largest and most expensive full-time state legislature in the United States descends upon Harrisburg for serious budget deliberations, uncertainties abound.

Gov. Josh Shapiro advocated for unprecedented spending levels in his annual winter budget address, while more conservative lawmakers urge fiscal restraint in these tumultuous fiscal times.

Education Funding and SDGs

As the legislature debates how to slice up the approximately $48 billion pie, education funding will once again be at the forefront of discussions.

The lawmakers may feel an increased sense of urgency as an abnormally large number face challenges to their seats in the November general election.

Motivation to score political and fiscal wins and to return home to begin campaigning in earnest may hasten the talks.

Governor’s Stance on Public Funds Reallocation

The governor’s strong stance on the reallocation of public funds into tuition vouchers for private schools brings public versus private and extended school choice back into the spotlight of the budget battles and becomes one of those moving lines in the sand. The governor took a nominal political risk with his advocacy of vouchers, typically opposed by teachers’ unions.

The greater risk was long-term, as his successful run for governor saw him opposed by hard-right conservative Doug Mastriano, whose extreme positions were non-starters for labor unions. Simply put, the political landscape was perfect for Shapiro to step into the voucher debate.

His independent views resonated with the electorate and Mastriano was not electable.

Shapiro also wades into the other end of the choice battle this year through his proposal to limit payments to privately run but publicly financed charter schools.

Compliance with Court Ruling

The state’s 500 public school districts will also watch intently to determine the extent to which the legislature and Shapiro move toward compliance with a 2023 court ruling by Commonwealth Court Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer mandating that the state fix a broken funding system.

In her 768-page ruling, she stated that the General Assembly has deprived students in districts with lower property values of the same resources and opportunities as those in wealthier ones.

Resolution and Funding Changes

“Opportunities for reform are virtually limitless,” she wrote in her ruling. Past legislatures and governors have touted fairness in reallocation proposals, but most have been exposed as political grandstanding rather than true common-sense fiscal reform.

The ruling by Jubelirer left the resolution to the governor, the legislature and the districts who filed the suit, which included Wilkes-Barre Area, Shenandoah Valley, Lancaster City, Greater Johnstown, Panther Valley and William Penn.

The timeline for compliance with the order of the judge appears to be open-ended, and evidence exists that the governor and legislature will take an incremental approach to resolution, as the governor’s $1.3 billion increase to the Basic Education Funding line item of the state budget heavily favors more impoverished districts, but falls far short of achieving equity as defined in the court ruling.

Impact on Districts

Pennsylvania public school wealth is measured by aid ratio, a complicated formula based on a combination of the income of residents in a district as well as the combined sales value of all properties.

The higher the first number after the decimal, the poorer the district. Mount Carmel and Shamokin have aid ratios of .8185 and .8055, meaning they are among the poorest districts in Pennsylvania. Shikellamy and Milton are not far behind.

These four districts stand to be the greatest beneficiaries of the Jubelirer decision.

Lewisburg and Danville, with almost identical ratios of .4032 and .4080, respectively, stand to gain the least. Aid ratios for all districts statewide can be found on the Pennsylvania Department of Education website.

Conclusion

Politicians will lobby for money in their own districts while also staying within party lines, and the governor will commit a signature to the final product provided his campaign pledges are met. Despite a mandate to complete a state budget before July 1, the debates often continue into July and sometimes further.

Funding changes are now a mandate and reform is imminent. The time may have come when fiscally challenged school districts are prioritized over wealthy districts and student needs drive discussions.

Poor districts struggle to staff nursing, guidance and reading specialist positions and teacher shortages hit them first and hardest. The archaic state system in conjunction with the heavy reliance on property taxes as a mechanism for funding schools needs an overhaul.

That day seems to have arrived thanks to the Commonwealth Court judge. Poorer districts should receive more, and school choice will increase in Pennsylvania if the final budget is adopted in tandem with the vision of the governor and the edict of the judge.

Wayne Brookhart is a retired superintendent and current Danville Area School District board member.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators in the Article

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

  • SDG 4: Quality Education
  • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The article primarily focuses on education funding and the need for equity in resource allocation among different school districts. This aligns with SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. Additionally, the article highlights the disparities between wealthier and poorer districts, indicating a concern for reduced inequalities (SDG 10).

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

  • SDG 4.5: Eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, and children in vulnerable situations.
  • SDG 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status.

The article does not explicitly mention these targets, but it implies the need for equal access to education for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background or district of residence. This aligns with SDG 4.5. The focus on addressing funding disparities and prioritizing poorer districts also reflects the aim of SDG 10.2.

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

  • Indicator for SDG 4.5: Proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in primary, secondary, and tertiary education.
  • Indicator for SDG 10.2: Proportion of population living below the national poverty line, disaggregated by age, sex, disability, and location.

The article does not explicitly mention these indicators. However, it discusses the disparities between districts with different aid ratios, which can be used as a proxy for measuring the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds (SDG 4.5). Additionally, the focus on poorer districts and the need for equitable funding can be linked to measuring the proportion of population living below the poverty line in those districts (SDG 10.2).

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

SDGs Targets Indicators
SDG 4: Quality Education 4.5: Eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, and children in vulnerable situations. Proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in primary, secondary, and tertiary education.
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status. Proportion of population living below the national poverty line, disaggregated by age, sex, disability, and location.

Copyright: Dive into this article, curated with care by SDG Investors Inc. Our advanced AI technology searches through vast amounts of data to spotlight how we are all moving forward with the Sustainable Development Goals. While we own the rights to this content, we invite you to share it to help spread knowledge and spark action on the SDGs.

Fuente: tribdem.com

 

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.