School funding: Never ‘enough’ |

School funding: Never ‘enough’

In the run-up to another state budget showdown in Harrisburg, Gov. Tom Wolf and his educratic acolytes are demanding more money for public schools. State lawmakers likely will provide it, too, though probably less than what Mr. Wolf wants. But it still won’t be “enough,” critics will wail.

For all the factitious factoids about state education spending, the reality from the federal government and even the nation’s largest teachers union is that Pennsylvania far outspends most states — and by a comfortable margin.

Based on state Education Department figures, school spending set a new record in 2014-15 at $27.4 billion, amounting to $15,854 per pupil. That’s 10th in the nation, according to the U.S. Department of Education. In 2014 the National Education Association ranked Pennsylvania sixth nationwide in per pupil revenue, according to the Commonwealth Foundation.

Even amid the pension hardships of 2013-14 to 2014-15, when payments “surged” by $500 million, Pennsylvania school districts still managed to bank an additional $200 million in reserves, according to the think tank.

This is not to suggest that school pensions are sustainable. They’re not. The state’s stubborn reliance on defined-benefit plans should have gone out with Instamatic cameras and flash cubes.

More to the point, simply pumping additional money into “education,” because pols and ‘crats say so, is unbridled foolishness.

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.