In a post-trial brief filed Wednesday evening, petitioners in Pennsylvania’s historic school funding lawsuit argue that the state legislature’s current school funding system violates the State Constitution in two ways: by failing to provide a high-quality education to every child, and by discriminating against students in low-wealth school districts. The brief expands on the legal arguments heard in Commonwealth Court during the four-month trial, which concluded with closing statements on March 10, 2022.
“The Constitution demands the provision of a high-quality, contemporary education for every child in the Commonwealth,” the brief reads. “In today’s terms, that means the General Assembly must provide all children the resources necessary to graduate as capable, engaged citizens, ready to succeed in college and in family-sustaining careers.”
Instead, petitioners argue, hundreds of thousands of students in Pennsylvania are denied this opportunity because the state legislature’s inadequate state funding has left poor communities unable to afford to provide basic educational resources in schools. An analysis of state data performed for petitioners during trial found that the poorest Pennsylvania school districts—serving a disproportionate share of students who need more support, such as students in poverty and English learners—have nearly $8,000 less per student to spend than wealthy districts when student need is taken into account.
“The results of this are clear,” the brief reads. “Almost as many students fail to reach proficiency as those who meet it. Students who graduate from public high schools regularly fail to enroll or graduate from a two or four-year college. And Pennsylvania has opportunity and achievement gaps — by zip code, race, and family income — as large as any state in the nation. It is not supposed to work this way.”
The solution petitioners are seeking, they write, “could not be more basic. The General Assembly must provide children the safe, modern buildings, books and technology, and sufficient professional staff that every party agrees will enable students to succeed. And the General Assembly must ensure that the education funding system does not discriminate against children from low-wealth districts.”
In the comprehensive brief, petitioners also address the arguments made by legislative respondents during trial and in their post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law. In that May 2 submission, legislative leaders argued that the State Constitution’s education clause only requires “an opportunity to obtain a standard basic public education,” which does not include “non-instructional” support services, and that the court should not consider educational results and disparities in educational outcomes when determining whether or not the current school funding system is constitutional.
Petitioners counter that respondents’ standard education does not account for differences in individual student need, pointing out that many students require additional support to be able to access the same educational opportunity. “In reality, research and experience demonstrate that the level and type of inputs necessary to give a student access to education must be defined by that student’s needs,” the brief reads.
In addition, ignoring deep disparities in educational results would not paint a full picture of the public education system maintained by the legislature. “Legislative Respondents’ proposed standard describes a system that will pass constitutional muster so long as it provides students certain ‘standard basic’ ‘instrumentalities of learning’ even if those instrumentalities are not actually sufficient to provide students with the ‘standard basic’ skills they need—such as the ability to read and write,” the brief reads.
The brief also notes that the legislative respondents “take the position that schools that provide extracurricular activities, school counselors, or truancy staff are squandering funds,” although the legislature itself has funded those services and found that they improve academic outcomes.
Respondents in the case will file post-trial briefs on July 1, followed by a reply brief from petitioners on July 15. Commonwealth Court will hold oral argument on the legal issues on July 26 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3001 of the Pennsylvania Judicial Center in Harrisburg. The court’s decision could come several months after the July 26 oral argument.