Pa. GOP lawmakers question Philly school district’s spending

Republican state lawmakers questioned the Philadelphia School District’s management and spending Monday, bringing in an analyst from a libertarian think tank who suggested the district needed to make budget cuts rather than increase its funding.

The hearing — which also featured testimony from a Philadelphia mother about her struggles securing special education services from the district — came as state budget negotiations pick up and, with them, debate over school funding.

Christian Barnard, assistant director of education reform for the Reason Foundation, told lawmakers that Philadelphia was “one of the highest-funded large school districts in the state” since the pandemic, thanks in part to an infusion of federal COVID-19 relief money.

The district has disproportionately spent that new money on facilities and administrative, nonteaching positions, Barnard said. He also said the district had one of the highest debt ratios among large school districts nationally.

Meanwhile, enrollment in close to half of district schools has dropped by 20% since the pandemic, Barnard said — suggesting the district should be consolidating its facilities as it faces a fiscal cliff.

State Rep. Martina White (R., Philadelphia) said she was “deeply concerned” by Barnard‘s testimony and hoped to work with district officials. A lawyer who advocates for education funding, meanwhile, cast doubt on Barnard‘s analysis after the hearing.

Philadelphia schools are underfunded by more than $1 billion, under a formula lawmakers adopted in response to a 2023 landmark Commonwealth Court ruling that found Pennsylvania’s school funding system unconstitutional. The formula calculates what each district should be spending to adequately educate students based on its needs — including students living in poverty and English language learners — and how much districts can afford to contribute in local revenues, based on the wealth of their communities.

Barnard, who noted academic gains made by lower-spending states, said he was “very skeptical that a billion more dollars is going to make any kind of difference” for Philadelphia students.

That reasoning flies in the face of evidence presented during the school funding trial, said Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, senior attorney with the Public Interest Law Center, which represented districts and other plaintiffs who sued the state over inadequate funding and the inability of poorer districts to raise enough money through local property taxes.

Contrary to Barnard‘s characterization of Philadelphia as “one of the highest-funded” districts, Urevick-Ackelsberg quoted from Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer’s ruling, which said that Philadelphia “is a low-wealth, high-need, high-effort, low-spending district.”

The district spent about $24,000 per student in 2023-24, ranking 134th out of 500 Pennsylvania districts, according to state data. (Near the top of the list: New Hope-Solebury at $39,000, and Lower Merion at $37,000.)

Looking at what Philadelphia spends relative to its needs, however, the district is the 27th-lowest-spending of 500 districts, Urevick-Ackelsberg said.

While noting he had not seen Barnard‘s testimony, Urevick-Ackelsberg said, “It doesn’t sound like someone too familiar with the data or too familiar with the School District of Philadelphia.”

Philadelphia school officials did not participate in Monday’s hearing, which was held at Community College of Philadelphia. But they submitted written testimony emphasizing progress over the last two years, including increases in regular attendance and improved test scores.

“We have also stabilized our finances and made targeted investments,” Superintendent Tony B. Watlington Sr. and school board president Reginald Streater said in the statement, describing bond ratings upgrades. They said the district had spent $1.1 billion in federal pandemic aid on curriculum upgrades; the construction of three new schools and other facilities projects; and the addition of 350 “school-based positions to support the academic and social-emotional needs of our students.”

In response to Barnard’s statements, a district spokesperson said that “budgets and staffing allocations are adjusted annually based on school enrollment.”

Some Republican lawmakers said Barnard‘s testimony reflected problems with Pennsylvania’s school funding.

“We don’t have an adequacy gap, especially based on the data presented today. What we have is an honesty gap,” said Rep. Barb Gleim (R., Cumberland), adding that the school funding ruling “never had a dollar amount attached to it.”

Rep. David Rowe (R., Union) said as budget season progresses, lawmakers need to ensure “we are properly funding all educational options — whether it’s government schools, whether it’s school choice options.”

Urevick-Ackelsberg noted that Republicans did not appeal the Commonwealth Court ruling; lawmakers then passed the adequacy formula, which deemed schools underfunded by $4.5 billion, “with bipartisan majorities.”

“The rest of this is just theater,” he said.