Tuesday, November 06, 2007
City Schools Lose Students, But Not Money
With all the talk that has been surrounding the City’s 2008 budget and the parking tax and the County’s 2008 budget and the drink and car rental taxes, the Pittsburgh Public Schools have decided to join in the party and submit their preliminary 2008 budget. The good news, if there is any, is that the schools aren’t proposing a tax increase, asking for new tax authority (like the County), or forestalling the reduction of any taxes (like the City was).
The schools actually have proposed reducing spending (by 0.5%) to $525 million. The schools’ budget dwarfs the City’s by about $100 million, and, like the City, is suffering from the population loss and the movement away from the City in its enrollment. This year’s enrollment is pegged at 28,265, which is down significantly from a decade ago. More importantly, the proposed budget and enrollment translates into per-student spending of $18,767.
So how is it possible for the schools to avoid new taxes and even make a small budget reduction? A lot of it is due to the state’s funding formula.
The superintendent notes the state isn’t punishing the school district for its poor performance. He mentions that state aid isn’t tied to enrollment, because, in his words, “that would be almost an Armageddon point for us”. But his comment points out the tragedy in state education funding. According to the complex Basic Education Funding formula, each district is entitled to the same amount it received in the prior year and then gets increases based on supplemental information such as poverty, growth, property values, and others. Thus even though the District’s enrollment continues to fall, their state appropriation continues to rise.
There is no incentive from the state to look to reduce the costs that come from a reduction in students. It is conceivable, if not probable, a district can encourage declining enrollment to pocket more state money than they need. Thus the current system actually rewards districts for losing students. This is something that needs to be rectified by the Legislature and quickly.
The schools actually have proposed reducing spending (by 0.5%) to $525 million. The schools’ budget dwarfs the City’s by about $100 million, and, like the City, is suffering from the population loss and the movement away from the City in its enrollment. This year’s enrollment is pegged at 28,265, which is down significantly from a decade ago. More importantly, the proposed budget and enrollment translates into per-student spending of $18,767.
So how is it possible for the schools to avoid new taxes and even make a small budget reduction? A lot of it is due to the state’s funding formula.
The superintendent notes the state isn’t punishing the school district for its poor performance. He mentions that state aid isn’t tied to enrollment, because, in his words, “that would be almost an Armageddon point for us”. But his comment points out the tragedy in state education funding. According to the complex Basic Education Funding formula, each district is entitled to the same amount it received in the prior year and then gets increases based on supplemental information such as poverty, growth, property values, and others. Thus even though the District’s enrollment continues to fall, their state appropriation continues to rise.
There is no incentive from the state to look to reduce the costs that come from a reduction in students. It is conceivable, if not probable, a district can encourage declining enrollment to pocket more state money than they need. Thus the current system actually rewards districts for losing students. This is something that needs to be rectified by the Legislature and quickly.
