Q: What was the case, William Penn et al. v. PA Dept. of Ed. et al., about?

A: The case was brought by six school districts, parents, and two statewide organizations against legislative leaders, state education officials, and the governor. They are represented by the Education Law Center, Public Interest Law Center, and the firm O’Melveny. The petitioners contended that the current school funding system does not provide enough money to ensure all students receive a thorough and efficient education as required by the Pennsylvania Constitution and that lack of funding negatively harms students in low-wealth districts in violation of the Constitution’s equal protection provisions. They further argued that these disparities disproportionately affect low-income students, English learners, and students of color, who are concentrated in the lowest-wealth school districts.

Q: What did the Court decide?

A: The Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s current school funding system is unconstitutional and must be reformed. Specifically, the Court found that the school funding system violates that Education Clause of our state Constitution because it fails to ensure that “every student receives a meaningful opportunity to succeed academically, socially, and civically which requires that all students have access to a comprehensive, effective, and contemporary system of public education.”

Second, the Court ruled that public education is a “fundamental right” and “the current system of funding public education has disproportionately, negatively impacted students who attend schools in low-wealth school districts.” The Court found that the wide disparities in school resources between high-wealth and low-wealth districts are not justified by any governmental interest, and therefore the current system violates the Equal Protection provisions of our state Constitution.

Q: What did the Court find the state was not providing children?

A: The Court identified basic elements of a comprehensive, effective, and contemporary system of public education that the state was denying students: sufficient numbers of qualified teachers and other professionals (counselors, reading and math specialists, tutors, social workers, etc.), a rigorous curriculum and the student supports necessary to take advantage of it, adequate facilities, and instrumentalities of learning—books, supplies, and equipment like microscopes and computers—and preschool.

Q: What does the decision mean and how will it be implemented?

A: The decision means that the General Assembly must take steps to change the school funding system so that it comes into compliance with the Constitution. The Court ordered the state legislature, the governor, and education officials to begin working along with petitioners on a new system that provides additional funding that is a distributed in a way that ensures all children, regardless of the wealth of their community, can receive a comprehensive effective public education that prepares them for today’s world.

Q: Did the Court tell the legislature how to create a new school funding system?

A: No, but it provided clear requirements and guardrails. As in other school funding cases, the decision leaves it up to the General Assembly to create a constitutionally compliant school funding system, pursuant to the deficiencies laid out by the decision. However, the decision clearly spells out the specific problems that must be remedied in low-wealth districts.

For example, the decision says that these districts “lack the inputs that are essential elements of a thorough and efficient system of public education – adequate funding; courses, curricula, and other programs that prepare students to be college and career ready; sufficient, qualified, and effective staff; safe and adequate facilities; and modern, quality instrumentalities of learning.”

Q: Did the Court actually find there was insufficient funding, or some other problem?

A: Insufficient funding. As explained above, the Court found school districts were lacking the basic educational resources children need. And the Court found that the General Assembly knows this to be the case, holding that “the Costing Out Study, the subsequent calculation of adequacy targets and shortfalls, the BEF Commission, the Fair Funding Formula, and the Level Up Formula, all credibly establish the existence of inadequate education funding in low-wealth districts like Petitioners, a situation known to the Legislature.”

Q: Does the Court’s ruling apply to all public schools or only the districts and parents who brought the case?

A: The decision applies to the entire school funding system. The Court held that the entire system is unconstitutional and therefore “any plan devised by Respondents at the Court’s direction will have to provide all students in every district throughout Pennsylvania, not just Petitioners, with an adequately funded education…”

Q: Does the ruling mean that high-wealth districts will have money taken away?

A: No. The Court specifically noted that in the petitioners’ case “there is nothing ... which would remove funding from any other entity.”

Q: Does the decision require an increase in local taxes?

A: No. This case is about the state’s responsibility to fund public education. In fact, the Court emphasized that low-wealth districts often have higher tax rates and struggle to raise enough revenue from local sources to meet the greater needs of their students. This must be remedied by providing additional funding from the state.

Q: Did the Court conclude that re-allocating current funding through the Fair Funding Formula would solve the problem?

A: No. In fact, the decision quotes a superintendent who testified that simply ending hold harmless is “sort of like rearranging ... the deck chairs on the Titanic” because the total amount of funding is inadequate. Read more here.

Q: Can the state afford to increase school funding?

A: Yes. Right now, the state is expected to end the year with a budget surplus of about $7 billion or more, as well as a rainy day fund of $5 billion. Long-term, investing money in education will have a financial payoff to the state when Pennsylvania starts to graduate substantially more students who are capable, self-sufficient citizens. Similar investments have improved educational outcomes in other states.

Q: Does the decision support school vouchers?

A: No. The Court’s decision explains that all students have a fundamental right to a public education and our Constitution requires that all students have access to a thorough and efficient system of public education.

Q: Does the decision support the expansion of charter schools?

A: No. The Court found that there was no evidence that students in charter schools fared better than students in district schools and cited evidence that students in cyber charter schools in particular fared worse. The Court also noted that charter schools impose stranded costs on school districts.

Q: What has happened in other states where courts have found a school funding system to be unconstitutional?

There have been many successful school funding cases where legislatures have created plans and allocated additional significant resources in compliance with a court's decision and created a more equitable and effective public school system.

Q: Why is this case important?

A: The legislature must now heed the Court’s order and take the necessary steps to ensure that every child has access to the comprehensive, contemporary, and effective public education that the Pennsylvania Constitution demands. Doing so will change the future for millions of families, so that children are no longer denied the education they deserve.

Q: Why did school districts and parents sue state legislative leaders and other state officials?

A: Hundreds of thousands of students across the state – including in Philadelphia – lack basic educational supports and services. Students go without functioning school libraries, up-to-date textbooks and curriculum materials, reasonable class sizes, guidance counselors, nurses, career and technical education, college prep classes, academic tutoring programs, and more. And despite the tireless efforts of dedicated school leaders, teachers, support staff, and parents, the diminishing resources in too many of our schools prevent many Pennsylvania students from meeting academic standards set by the state.

The state legislature has an obligation to ensure that every student – not only those living in select zip codes – receive the basic resources they need. However, our state provides a smaller share of funding for education than almost all other states. This causes districts across Pennsylvania to be overly reliant on local funding and has created gross disparities between rich and poor school districts. Pennsylvania has one of the widest funding gaps between low-wealth and high-wealth districts in the country. A typical high-wealth school district spends $4,800 more per student than a typical low-wealth school district, and that gap has been growing.

The Public Interest Law Center, the Education Law Center of Pennsylvania, and O’Melveny have joined together to file a lawsuit on behalf of six school districts, several parents, and two statewide organizations against legislative leaders, state education officials, and the governor. We are asking for a court order that will force the legislature to comply with the state constitution and ensure that all students receive access to a high-quality public education.

Q. Who is responsible for ensuring high-quality education?

A: The state constitution makes the General Assembly responsible for ensuring a thorough and efficient system of public education. A thorough and efficient public education system must ensure that all students have access to a quality education that provides essential resources to enable all students to meet state standards and participate meaningfully in the economic, civic, and social life of their communities. This system should drive additional dollars to the students with the most significant needs.

The state has consistently failed to meet this basic responsibility and continues to do so. In fact, it does not even assess how much money is needed. Consequently, across the state, in urban and rural communities alike, the state is not providing our schools with the necessary resources and tools principals and teachers need to educate our children for the Pennsylvania of the 21st century.

Our lawsuit seeks to create a long-term solution to the inadequacy and inequity of our current system.

Q: What are our legal claims?

A: There are two claims. First, the state has a legal obligation under the PA Constitution to “provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education” for all students.

A “thorough and efficient” public education is one that is adequately supported, comprehensive, and effective so that all of Pennsylvania’s children have the opportunity to meet state academic standards.

The state has set academic standards that define what is required for a “thorough and efficient” public education, but it has failed to maintain and support the system with enough funding to ensure that every school district has the essential resources for students to meet those standards.

Second, the current method of funding has resulted in significant resource disparities that discriminate against students living in districts with low property values and incomes. This irrational funding disparity violates the Equal Protection provisions in our state constitution because children in low-wealth districts are being denied the opportunity to receive an adequate education, while their peers in high-wealth districts are receiving a high-quality education.

Q: Who is bringing this case?

A: Plaintiffs in the case include:

Six school districts: William Penn School District, the School District of Lancaster, Panther Valley School District, Greater Johnstown School District, Shenandoah Valley School District, and Wilkes-Barre Area School District. All of these districts have a high proportion of children in poverty and are unable to raise enough money through local property taxes to make up for the lack of adequate state funding.

The Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools, a group of approximately 150 small and rural school districts and 13 Intermediate Units across PA.

The NAACP Pennsylvania State Conference, an organization dedicated to ensuring the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and eliminating race-based discrimination.

Families whose children attend under-funded and under-resourced schools in the Philadelphia, William Penn, Greater Johnstown, and Wilkes-Barre school districts.

Q: Who is being sued?

A: The leaders of the House and Senate, the Secretary of Education and Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and the Governor. They are called “indispensable parties” under the law because they each play a role in any remedy that may be fashioned by the court. Legally they all must be included in the lawsuit.

Q: What are you asking for in the lawsuit?

A: The state legislature should provide the state funding necessary so that every student can receive a quality public education, whether or not they live in a wealthy community that is able to raise the needed funds with local taxes.

We are asking for substantial new investments in state funding for public education, distributed based on need, so that local wealth whether or not Pennsylvania students receive a quality public education.

At trial, school districts and parents are asking the court to:

(1) Declare that our current system of funding our schools does not comply with the state constitution, and

(2) Order the state legislature, the Governor, and the Department of Education to create and maintain a new “thorough and efficient” school funding system that allows all students to receive the quality education they deserve, and that does not discriminate against low-wealth school districts.

The specific details of this new system will be up to the state legislature to determine, under the oversight of the court order. We are not seeking a specific dollar amount or method of funding schools— though it is clear that redistribution of current inadequate state funds will not solve this problem and provide the funding students need. Currently, the state legislature does not even calculate, let alone seek to provide to every community, the resources that students need to be able to reach state standards.

As part of our case, we asked Penn State professor Matt Kelly to run the numbers for an adequate funding benchmark that is written in state law. He found that Pennsylvania public schools are collectively short by at least $4.6 billion of what they would need to provide an adequate education to all students, before taking into account special education needs and facility upgrades.

This kind of investment is achievable, and will make a difference. A $4.6 billion investment in recurring state funds, over time, would be a 14 percent increase in our Commonwealth’s overall state and local revenue for K-12 education.

School funding lawsuits in other states that have spurred more state revenue for public schools have reduced inequality and led to better academic and life outcomes for students. A 2015 study of 28 states found that, for children from low-income families, increasing per-pupil spending yields large improvements in educational attainment, wages and family income. They saw reductions in the annual incidence of poverty when those students reached adulthood. We need only cross the Delaware River into New Jersey to see an example of what state investment can achieve in public schools. After a court order led to significant school finance reform, New Jersey, serving a majority of students of color, ranks second in the nation in achievement and graduation rates.

Q: What is the current status of the case?

A: Trial took place in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court beginning November 12, 2021 and lasted for nearly four months. Post-trial proceedings, including filing of briefs on the legal issues in the case, concluded on July 26, 2022.

On February 7, 2023, Commonwealth Court Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer ruled that Pennsylvania’s school funding system is unconstitutional and must be reformed.

In a 786-page decision, the court found that “All witnesses agree that every child can learn. It is now the obligation of the Legislature, Executive Branch, and educators, to make the constitutional promise a reality in this Commonwealth.” Read more about the decision here, and in the FAQs above.

Q: What happened previously in the case?

In November 2014, we filed suit in Commonwealth Court. Commonwealth Court initially dismissed the case in April 2015, saying that courts cannot get involved in school funding issues. We appealed and in September 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the claims in the case are subject to judicial review. It returned the case to Commonwealth Court for further proceedings.

State officials have attempted to have the case dismissed before trial several times. In May 2018, Commonwealth Court overruled the state’s preliminary objections to the lawsuit. In August 2018, Commonwealth Court dismissed a claim by Senate President Pro Tempore Scarnati that the adoption of a fair funding formula in 2016 rendered our case moot. In our briefs contesting this claim, we found that state funding available for classroom expenses had actually decreased since we filed the lawsuit in 2014, and gaps between low- and high-wealth districts had grown.

In December 2018, Commonwealth Court ordered the parties to follow a set schedule for exchanging information to ensure that the case proceeds in a timely and efficient manner before trial. Since December 2018, the court has issued several additional briefing orders. The parties have been completing the various steps in the court’s briefing and trial scheduling orders: fact discovery, taking and defending depositions, interviewing and preparing witnesses, and meeting with experts who prepared and then submitted reports to the court. In summer 2020, the parties completed the extensive pre-trial phase known as discovery, when each party was gathering evidence to support their case through documents, witness statements, and other means. Over the course of the discovery process, the parties completed more than 70 depositions. In September and October 2020, the parties exchanged multiple expert reports and rebuttals.

Q: Even if the court rules in your favor, isn’t it the legislature that ultimately must decide to allocate the money?

A: Yes. The legislature has the power to fix this problem now, but so far, they have failed. A court ruling will compel the legislature to do what it has been unwilling to do.

Q: How do you know that money will really make a difference?

Research shows that when it comes to student achievement, funding matters quite a bit. Numerous studies show that when more funding is allocated and targeted to schools based on student needs, student performance improves. The studies also show important benefits of increased resources for students that need them like economic growth, and reductions in unemployment and social service programs.

For instance, a national study showed that for children from poor families, increasing per-pupil spending by 20 percent in all 12 school-age years increases family income by 52 percent.

The same report also showed that the effect of increasing school investments by 20 percent in all school-age years is enough to completely eliminate the family income gap between children from low-income families and those from high-income families.

In Pennsylvania, a 2011 study examined state standardized test scores between 2003-04 and 2010-11. In the 50 lowest-achieving districts, standardized test scores increased, on average, by 50 percent over the eight-year period – as education funding in those same districts increased by approximately 40 percent. More information on the effects of school funding on school performance in Pennsylvania can be found in the Education Law Center’s 2017 report, “Money Matters in Education Justice.”

This case, then, is about the state providing sufficient resources that students and schools need to enable districts to provide all students with an adequate education, including funding sufficient staff and effective programs students need in order to graduate and be prepared for higher education or employment.

Q: What about the Basic Education Funding Commission? Did the new funding formula solve this problem?

A: No. While the school funding formula adopted by the legislature in 2016 is certainly a step in the right direction, it does not come close to solving Pennsylvania’s education funding problem. The formula added new weights to certain district student populations, taking into account factors like poverty and percentage of English Language Learners, to guide the distribution of a portion of state education funding. But the formula, developed by the state legislature’s Basic Education Funding Commission, only recommended how funding should be distributed, not how much funding is needed to ensure adequacy. In other words, adoption of the school funding formula did not itself deliver any additional money for schools. Furthermore, a formula is only as good as the dollars sent through it. The formula only applies to increases in state funding over the 2014-15 baseline, a small fraction of the education budget—only 2% of Pennsylvania’s total education budget last year, or 11% of basic education funding. Focusing on distribution of funds without ensuring that those funds are adequate will not solve this crisis.

Anyone who doubts that low-wealth schools and their students are still suffering acutely from this state’s lack of investment need only to visit an underfunded school. The harm caused is obvious: crumbling buildings, overcrowded classes, and a lack of technology that lead the children of this Commonwealth to learn in conditions that belie their dignity and potential. Our filings in response to Senator Scarnati’s claim of mootness included affidavits from leaders in our petitioner districts, reporting how a lack of adequate funding has continued to deprive their students of support and resources that high-wealth districts take for granted. It is clear that any measures taken by the state legislature since we filed our lawsuit in 2014, including adopting a funding formula, have not addressed the reality of Pennsylvania’s inadequate and inequitable school funding system.

Q: What will be the impact of this lawsuit on property taxes?

A: In our suit, we highlight that, on average, taxpayers in low-wealth districts pay much higher property tax rates than taxpayers in high-wealth districts—and yet still have less money for students. This is one of the many disparities between low-wealth and high-wealth districts. Our case does not ask the court to eliminate property taxes, but does charge that this discrepancy is part of the Pennsylvania school funding system’s violation of the state constitution’s Equal Protection provisions. We are asking the court to fix these violations.

Q: If you win in Commonwealth Court, can’t state officials still appeal a court order?

A: Yes. An appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is a possibility, but we are hopeful the legislature will respond to the court’s order, look at the evidence, listen to their constituents, and fix the problem. The legislature does not have to wait for the courts to tell them to start addressing this crisis. They have the legal obligation to solve the school funding crisis and the power to do so right now.

Q: What can I do to help?

A: You have already taken the first step towards getting involved simply by becoming more informed! There are many ways that advocates can help us change the status quo for Pennsylvania school funding.

Increasing public understanding that Harrisburg is underfunding our schools is the most important step advocates can take. You can submit a letter to the editor or op-ed to your local newspaper. This helps build awareness in the community about the issue, as well as demonstrate that there is popular support for our lawsuit and increased funding for education from those who are informed. Additionally, you can ask your local school board, religious organization or other community groups to pass a resolution in support of the lawsuit’s goal of better state funding.

Finally, you can join the PA Schools Work campaign, a non-partisan coalition of dozens of organizations across the state dedicated to supporting students with full and fair funding for public schools. This campaign is entirely separate from our lawsuit, but the goals are the same: to ensure that Pennsylvania adopts and maintains an adequate and equitable system of school funding.

Remember, even before a final decision is reached in our case, the state legislature has the power to change the way we fund schools. Advocacy from the community has the power to help make that change happen. We must work on multiple fronts to address this issue. Every day the legislature delays solving this crisis – whether through political intransigence or legal objections -- is a day in which hundreds of thousands of students across the Commonwealth remain in grossly underfunded schools.