Lydia Glenn

In Harrisburg, the trial determining how Pennsylvania funds their public education system finally reached an end on Thursday, March 10. 

This Commonwealth Court case, which was filed eight years ago, challenged the size and distribution of subsidies approved annually by the General Assembly. 

The case was filed by concerned parents and two larger organizations and brought in a dozen witnesses over a four month period. 

The plaintiffs, in this case the parents and organizations, claimed that the current system for money allocation denies the students the “thorough and efficient system of public education” mandated by the Pennsylvania Constitution. 

Top-ranking Republican leaders in the state House and Senate stated that the funding has been growing and is adequate. 

Attorney Katrina Robson, who fought for the plaintiffs remarked in her closing statement that the state constitution promises “the General Assembly would provide the funds necessary to support a system of education for all children that prepares them for college, career and civic success.” 

Her testimony contained descriptions of dilapidated and dangerous buildings, classrooms in windowless storage areas, overcrowding and a pattern of test results that show students in the poorer districts tend to lag far behind those in better-funded school districts. 

Robson told judge Renee Jubelirer, “sadly, as the facts in this case have shown, ensuring that those promises are kept has now fallen to the courts.” 

Robson also pointed out that Pennsylvania has one of the nation’s widest gaps in per-pupil spending from the richest to the poorest. 

“Money absolutely matters,” Robson told Judge Jubelirer. She stated that it matters when it comes to student achievement and then accused Republican legislative leaders of arguing innate differences among children translate into different results and suggesting struggling students do not take advantage of opportunities. 

“Suggesting that this disaster is because children ignore opportunities allows us to put their failure at their feet rather than the General Assembly’s,” Robson stated. She added that, “Black children, Latino children, low-income children” all have “the same natural work ethic. The same natural intelligence. The same hopes, the same dreams.” 

Tom DeCesar, who represents Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman, R-Centre, said that the state constitutional language requires a system that gives students an opportunity to obtain a core education. He then went on to say that the lawsuit seeks to guarantee certain outcomes that hinge on many factors, including the role of parents. 

DeCesar argued that the school failed to prove they get the most out of the funding they already receive and highlighted the districts’ spending on football field lights, technology, electives beyond core classes and offerings for the highest achieving students. 

“We cannot assume that all of the petitioner districts, let alone all of the districts across the commonwealth, are spending their money in the most optimal and efficient manner,” stated DeCesar. 

The defendants dismissed the reliability of comparisons among districts based on standardized test results, or that there is a direct relationship between spending and student learning. 

Patrick Northern, who is a lawyer for the House Speaker Byran Cutler, R-Lancaster, said that the case delves into a public policy debate that has been going on for decades. He said state residents can always vote out lawmakers if they conclude school spending levels are not sufficient. 

Northern urged Judge Jubelirir to rule that the plaintiffs did not prove that the current system is unconstitutional. 

As of now, Jubelirir has told parties they will have months to file briefs before oral argument on legal issues. It is highly likely that the losing party will appeal.