Pa. needs funding formula |

Pa. needs funding formula

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association believes the state Basic Education Funding Commission’s proposed formula is a great step forward to adequate, equitable and fair school funding. The commonwealth is one of only three states in the nation without a funding formula for public education.

The time is now for a bipartisan effort to move the funding formula across the finish line and pass legislation putting it into place.

A formula will go a long way to help school entities develop their annual budgets. It will help with the equitable distribution of funding to alleviate the current disparities in how state dollars are allocated.

The proposed formula contains many elements PSBA has advocated — counting students consistently; student weights that consider district poverty levels, the number of “English Language Learners” in the district and local tax efforts, among others.

We have long advocated for a predictable and sustainable method for funding public schools. By implementing the proposed formula, school districts will have a greater degree of certainty on funding, allowing them to plan more accurately for the upcoming school year’s budget.

For the formula to work best, the state must continue to value the importance of investing in our schools and children by properly funding public education. We look forward to working with the General Assembly and governor’s office on this issue.

Nathan Mains


The author is the PSBA’s executive director.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.