Can PA Create a Lifeline for a Great, Quality Education?

According to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, “We have to make sure every kid has access to a great education,” (Josh Shapiro HQ. 2023, January 30, email). His chief of staff Dana Fritz stated the Shapiro administration will “ensure every child receives a quality education,” (Hall, 2022). Combined this means every child should have access to and receive a great, quality education. I agree!

(Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash) Prior to the ruling by Commonwealth Court Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer that Pennsylvania’s school funding system is unconstitutional and must be reformed, advocates for private school choice proposed policies that would shift funding to individuals through “Lifeline” and “Opportunity” scholarships, education savings accounts, and other school choice subsidy initiatives. In this piece I argue that any school choice subsidy or school funding policies must explicitly state their goals and expected outcomes and include measures to determine their success. This is significant because existing PA policies, like the PA Educational Improvement and Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit programs, have failed dramatically to incentivize student migration from public to private schools and they lack evidence that education is improving; yet the scholarship credits have grown exponentially, and much faster than the tax credit program that supports Educational Improvement Organizations. The education landscape in Pennsylvania is vast and uneven. Legislation that purports to address education access and quality has been proposed (e.g. HB2169) with a memorandum that sounds encouraging, “We know a high-quality education is the foundation for the American Dream. Yet, thousands of Pennsylvania students are denied that opportunity simply because their ZIP code confines them to some of the lowest-achieving district schools in the state,” (HB2169, 2022). This proposed legislation claims to “send an educational lifeline to the thousands of Pennsylvania students trapped in our lowest-performing schools,” (HB2169, 2022). As written, this legislation will fall far short of its purpose as described in the memorandum. HB2169 is designed to increase income inequality and it specifically prevents the collection of data that are essential for the assessment of educational quality. Constituents across the state seek support for Lifeline Scholarships. However, if any subsidy scholarships are truly going to provide a lifeline to the students most in need – those who wish to enroll in a private school but lack the family resources to do so – the scholarship legislation must be modified to achieve the ends it purports to address. The Lifeline Scholarship proposed in HB2169 will not achieve the goal of ensuring that every student has access to and receives a great, quality education. Here’s why: 1. Freedom to choose is different than able to choose (Anderson, 2023). School Choice is aptly named because in PA, private schools get to choose their students rather than students choosing their school. The proposed legislation is not designed to increase the number of students with the greatest academic or income needs to enroll in a private school. Like the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) and Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit (OSTC or EOSTC) legislation, this legislation lacks guidelines to ensure the students most in need can access the funds. The EITC and OSTC programs demonstrate that students already enrolled in private schools benefit the most from these new funding sources, and families that are not already connected to a private school have little chance of making the switch for many reasons (Ambrose, 2019). 2. Lack of evidence that this will improve education. Education outcomes must be part of the data collection and reporting to improve education. The Independent Fiscal Office (2022) cannot reliably assess the educational impact nor the economic impact of the state’s EITC/OSTC program due to a lack of data. The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) reports “little is known about the characteristics of students who participate in various choice options, what factors prompt students to exit their zoned schools for choice schools, and whether students who attend choice schools are more likely to make non-structural school moves,” (PDE, 2021, p. 2). Any future legislation to improve education must include data collection to measure its effectiveness and efficiency. Otherwise, taxpayers and legislators will be equally unable to make informed decisions about the quality of private schools and the economic impact of these scholarships. 3. Does Not Track the Economic Impact on Private School Costs. The PA Legislative Budget and Finance Committee has recommended that new legislation have clearly stated goals, measures against which the goals can be evaluated, and data collection to assess programs against their goals (Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, 2010, p. S-9) for the existing school subsidy program. This guideline should apply to any future education or school subsidy legislation to assess the educational and economic impact of the program. Lifeline scholarship legislation should track private school capacity, cost to enroll, and enrollment in all private schools within a reasonable radius of eligible public school boundaries compared to the capacity, cost to enroll, and enrollment of other private schools across the state. The likely effect of reduced personal costs of attending (families receive a subsidy therefore they can use their income for other things) is increased tuition and fees (to fill other gaps and needs of the school, like higher wages). When tuition rises with subsidies, barriers to access for lower income families increase. Without tracking, the economic impact of this legislation will be hidden. 4. Wealthier families gain the most. PA is among the most generous in the USA for participation in existing tuition subsidy supplement programs (EITC/EOSTC). By not limiting participation, the Commonwealth is primarily moving wealth from public schools to families that are already paying for this service (private school). For years, advocates have promoted school choice in the Commonwealth as a means to help poor kids escape failing public schools. Lifeline Scholarships will likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year or more. The estimated grant amount would be $6697 for students without special needs, and 191,000 students are expected to be eligible (Miller, 2022). If the goal is to assist low-income families, income limits should be implemented. 5. All Taxpayers Paying for Private Education. Lifeline Scholarships would shift wealth from areas of the state with stronger public school systems into the pockets of individual families living near low performing schools through the statewide average funding formula. Wealth is already being shifted to these same areas through the EITC/OSTC program; by reallocating additional dollars without income eligibility requirements this program risks further exacerbating the income inequality already experienced across the state. 6. Shifting Wealth – Increasing Inequality. Currently, much of the funding allocated through the EITC/EOSTC programs is clustered in the urban centers, areas that include the lowest performing schools in the Commonwealth including Philadelphia, Allentown, and Pittsburgh. Lifeline Scholarships with unrestricted income limits for participation will likely replace EITC/EOSTC awards with larger scholarships going to families already enrolled in private schools and increasing the amounts of EITC/EOSTC awards for participating recipients who do not live within the lowest performing schools’ catchment areas. This will shift more EITC/OSTC scholarship dollars to private school enrolled students elsewhere. 7. Impact on Public Schools. If the legislation does not address educational quality, there is no way to ensure improved educational outcomes for those receiving the scholarships or to assess the impact of the scholarships on those remaining in public schools. 8. Unlikely to rein in education costs. Local taxpayers will need to fill gaps created by the loss of state funding as comparable educational savings have not been documented over the period that the EITC/EOSTC has been in place. Pennsylvanians should learn from the investment in the primary school choice subsidy program, the EITC/EOSTC. Any new legislation should seek to ensure: · Goals are explicit and measurable with appropriate data collection required. · Educational improvement is measured to protect vulnerable families from fraud and to ensure that taxpayer funds are being used efficiently. · Mechanisms to assist the students most in need are embedded to facilitate their access to the program. · Income limits are employed to focus the funds on families for whom the funds will make the difference between their ability to pay for a private education, thereby helping to ensure access for the most vulnerable and helping to contain private school enrollment costs. · “School choice” shifts from the schools choosing their students to giving families the informational, financial, and equity means to choose the best learning environment without facing discrimination in the application and enrollment processes.

Now that the state's education funding system has been declared unconstitutional by the courts, a lot of work will need to happen to ensure that every child - including those who choose to remain in public schools - will have access to and receive a great, quality education. These guidelines provide a fundamental starting point for legislators.

References:

Ambrose, J. K. (2019). Purpose, Policy, Politics and Power: Analysis of the Pennsylvania Educational Improvement Tax Credit Program Indiana University of Pennsylvania. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6520/e665e6e9453de9b9eb6aafe4419b713b82b8.pdf

Anderson, E.S. (2023, January 22). Examining the underpinnings and pitfalls of school choice. LancasterOnline [column] https://lancasteronline.com/opinion/columnists/examining-the-underpinnings-and-pitfalls-of-school-choice-column/article_30126cfa-981f-11ed-a757-2f0b1cff327c.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share

Hall, P. (2022, December 1). Shapiro names longtime aide Dana Fritz as chief of staff. Pennsylvania Capital Star. https://www.penncapital-star.com/blog/shapiro-names-longtime-aide-dana-fritz-as-chief-of-staff/

House Bill 2169; Regular Session 2021-2022. (PA, 2022). https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/bill_history.cfmsyear=2021&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=2169

Independent Fiscal Office. (2022, January 24). Presentation to the Performance-Based Budget Board: Annual Tax Credit Reviews Mixed-Use Development Brewers’ Coal Refuse Energy and Reclamation Educational. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. http://www.ifo.state.pa.us/download.cfm?file=Resources/Documents/TC_Board_Hearing_Jan_24_2022.pdf

Legislative and Budget Finance Committee. (2010, June). Pennsylvania's Tax Credit Programs. http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/Resources/Documents/Reports/382.pdf

Miller, J. (2022). House Committee on Appropriations Fiscal Note. HB2169 PN3059. House of Representatives of Pennsylvania. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/FN/2021/0/HB2169P3059.pdf

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2021, June). Full Report: Evidence on Characteristics of School Choice Participants and Effects of School Choice on Mobility in Pennsylvania. https://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/Data%20and%20Statistics/Research%20and%20Evaluation/Evidence%20on%20Characteristics%20of%20School%20Choice%20Participants%20and%20Effects%20of%20School%20Choice%20on%20Mobility%20in%20Pennsylvania.pdf

Pennsylvania Department of Education, Data Quality Office. (2022, April 14). Private and NonPublic Schools Enrollment 2020-2021. https://www.education.pa.gov/DataAndReporting/Enrollment/Pages/PrivateNPEnrRpts.aspx