May 25, 2011
TO: Honorable Members of the Pennsylvania
House of Representatives
FR: Education Law Center
Baruch Kintisch (215-238-6970 x 320,
bkintisch@elc-pa.org)
Sandy Zelno (412-255-6414,
szelno@elc-pa.org)
RE: Analysis of House Bill 1326 and Opposition to Repeal of Certain Act
1 Exceptions
The Education Law Center acknowledges
that Pennsylvania
faces tough choices to meet its obligations to taxpayers and to public
education. However, we believe that
House Bill 1326, repealing the exceptions to the Taxpayer Relief Act (Act 1),
will not allow either the state or school districts to meet their obligations
in a responsible manner. We respectfully
request that serious attention be given to several provisions of HB 1326 that
may harm the interests of vulnerable children and struggling schools.
The exceptions originally adopted in Act 1 were designed and carefully
limited to address particular, narrowly circumscribed situations where schools
have little or no control over the factors driving up costs. The Law Center
agrees that local tax increases must not result from careless spending, but the
exceptions currently in Act 1 do not allow this. We also agree that the Commonwealth is badly
in need of comprehensive reform of the property tax system, but eliminating the
Act 1 exceptions is neither a substitute nor a viable solution for this problem. In fact, HB 1326 will only further complicate
the current over-reliance on local taxes to fund public schools. Real property tax reform is a critical issue
that cannot be ignored, but the pending legislation does not provide such
reform and will only serve to further jeopardize the fiscal sustainability of
school districts and local governments.
In short, while the Law
Center shares the
frustrations of the bill’s sponsors about the unfair burden of property taxes, we
strongly believe that eliminating the Act 1 exceptions will only make things
worse for struggling schools and communities.
Our intent in this memorandum is to focus on a few of the exceptions now
contained in Act 1 that we feel deserve to be analyzed much more closely, and
retained or perhaps amended to confirm the true costs involved. Since this legislation would not take effect
until next year’s budget cycle for school districts, we encourage the House of
Representatives to hold additional hearings and consider alternative approaches
that can better address the underlying issues.
We would be pleased to work with you on this. The following provisions deserve this
attention:
CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES AND ALL STUDENTS
ARE HARMED BY HB 1326
The Act 1 exception for special education
costs should be maintained and not repealed.
·
This is
a reasonable exception and applies only to actual cost increases exceeding the
inflation index for students with disabilities enrolled in a school district
and in need of legally-mandated services and supports.
·
Federal
and state laws mandate that all children with eligible disabilities receive a
“free appropriate public education”— that is, special education and supportive services
based on individualized assessments and plans.
Special education services can be costly, and school districts have only
limited control and often cannot anticipate or plan for these costs. Elimination of this exception in Act 1 would
be a mistake. For example:
o
Families
can move into a school district and enroll children with significant and costly
disabilities.
o
Some
districts develop good reputations for quality special education programs and
become destinations for families in need.
o
Other
districts have high levels of poverty, often associated with
higher-than-average special education student populations.
o
The
budget for a small district can be severely impacted by just one child with
disabilities in need of expensive services in order to learn with her peers.
·
By repealing this Act 1 exception, HB 1326 would force districts
to make a choice between violating the special education laws or cutting
services for other students who do not have disabilities. A
school district’s failure to pay for and adhere to legal standards for special
education would violate state and federal law and could result in litigation
and legal fees. Maintaining the Act 1
exception for special education is the only fair way to give districts the
budget flexibility needed to make adjustments from year to year without
abruptly cutting programs, both for students with disabilities and for all
students.
·
It is
worth noting that another exception that would be eliminated by HB 1326 is for
“costs to implement a court order or an administrative order from a Federal or
State Agency.” A special education
dispute can result in an order from a Special Education Hearing Officer or a
judge that can be quite costly to implement.
Caught between a binding legal order and voter resistance, a school
district (and in some cases the Commonwealth) could be subject to expanded
liability, contempt citations, fines, and additional legal fees. Most importantly, the student and family
could encounter implementation delays or denial of needed services, harming the
child's opportunity to learn.
·
The
special education line item in the state budget has been flat-lined with no
increase for the last several years. And
the state's system for funding special education is broken, relying on an
inaccurate statewide average of student enrollment and not taking into account
the real programmatic needs of students with disabilities. Local school districts currently bear most of
the fiscal burden for special education, with the state and federal governments
contributing far less. The special
education exception in Act 1 needs to be maintained at least until the state
funding system for this area is reformed.
·
These
problems are not resolved by the Special Education Contingency Fund. The Fund provides limited state support for
the extraordinary special education program expenses of some school districts. Districts can apply to the Department of
Education to receive contingency funds to meet the extraordinary needs of an
individual child with significant disabilities who requires a highly
specialized program or services. The
state does not approve all applications and only partly funds most requests. The Contingency Fund has also been flat-funded
at 1% of the total statewide basic education appropriation and its use is
subject to many significant limitations.
For example, the cost of an “extended school year program” or the cost
of a residential private school placement for a child is not eligible for
payment through the Fund.
GROWING SCHOOL
DISTRICTS ARE HARMED BY HB 1326
The Act 1 exception for growing school
districts should be maintained and not repealed.
·
The Act
1 exception being repealed – Section 333(f)(2)(vii) – allows a school district
to raise property taxes without a voter referendum if growth in student
enrollment exceeds 7.5 percent over the last three school years and if the
increased revenue is needed to maintain the same per student level of
funding. This exception is reasonable and
should not be repealed. It does not allow
the higher property taxes to expand spending, but does allow school districts
to maintain the same per-student spending levels. Without this exception, the fast-growing school
districts will be forced to cut programs and increase class sizes—lowering the
very quality of the schools that attracted families to move to these
communities.
STUDENTS IN SCHOOLS ENACTING
MANDATORY REFORMS ARE HARMED BY HB 1326
The Act 1 exception for the local cost of
school improvements mandated by state and federal law (No Child Left Behind
Act) should be maintained and not repealed.
·
When a
public school fails to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) as defined by state
and federal law, the school must develop and implement a school improvement or
corrective action plan. The reforms must
address the existing achievement gaps, most commonly found for students with
disabilities, children living in poverty, and English language learners. Schools have no choice about this matter and
must continue to spend the resources needed to enact reforms until student
performance increases and the school makes AYP for two consecutive years. The state budget has sometimes contained line
items that partially support these reforms, but most costs are borne by the
local school district.
·
Repealing
the Act 1 exception as proposed by HB 1326 would make it even more difficult
for struggling schools to make needed improvements, especially at a time when
state support is being severely cut for student tutoring, academic remedial
programs, and other services benefiting children struggling in school.
·
There
is a strong accountability system for the expenditures made to implement school
improvement and corrective action plans, as these written plans are reviewed by
parents at each school and annually submitted to and approved by the PA
Department of Education.
SCHOOLS UNDER COURT AND
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS ARE HARMED BY HB 1326
The Act 1 exception for costs to implement
and fulfill a court order or an administrative order from a state or federal agency
should be maintained and not repealed.
·
School
districts commonly face litigation and the inevitable responsibilities of
implementing legally mandatory orders from courts and administrative
agencies. The costs associated with
these situations cannot always be anticipated or planned in an annually adopted
budget, and such costs often have a limited duration until remedies are fully
implemented. Nevertheless, schools must immediately
comply when faced with legal orders or face further penalties.
·
If forced
to seek a voter referendum to pay for the unexpected costs of a court or
administrative order, a school district could face a situation where it must
choose between honoring a negative vote by the public, not fully complying with
a legally-binding order, or cutting other educational programs to cover the
costs. This could lead to further legal
confrontations and complications.
·
The Education Law
Center has experienced this situation
in school districts throughout Pennsylvania,
on issues involving court or administrative orders for compliance with the laws
for homeless students, children in foster care, children with disabilities, and
others. These cases usually involve
highly vulnerable children, often with costly educational needs.
Thank you for your consideration.
released this week by the National Center on Education and the Economy concludes.