Pa.’s school funding decision doesn’t mean starting from scratch. Here’s what could change.

Pennsylvania’s method of paying for public schools is unconstitutional, a Commonwealth Court judge ruled this week, finding that the state hasn’t given children in lower-wealth communities a “meaningful opportunity” to succeed in their educations.

But the decision — long awaited in the landmark court challenge, which was filed in 2014 and went to trial in November 2021 — doesn’t mean Pennsylvania’s existing school-funding formula will be thrown out.

What it does mean is that the state is going to have to step up with more money, say lawyers for the plaintiffs — who, barring appeals, now have the weight of a court ruling to press their case.

Here’s how school funding currently works in Pennsylvania, and what might change as a result of the new ruling:

The state’s public schools receive a mix of federal, state, and local funding. But more than half of the money spent on public education in Pennsylvania comes from local taxes — a larger share than most other states. That leaves poorer school districts at a disadvantage, because they have less wealth to tax. Even taxing residents at higher rates raises far less money than wealthier districts, said a number of plaintiff districts, including Delaware County’s William Penn.

As a result, there are wide disparities in what the state’s 500 school districts spend.

Matthew Kelly, an assistant professor at Penn State, testified on behalf of plaintiffs during the more than three-month trial that Pennsylvania has one of the country’s largest spending gaps between wealthy and poor districts, with the poorest quintile spending about $12,000 per student, while the wealthiest spend about $20,000 per student — a weighted calculation based on student needs.

» READ MORE: Landmark Pa. school funding case decided: The state’s system is unconstitutional

Poorer districts do generally get more money from the state than wealthier districts, thanks in part to Pennsylvania’s school funding formula. But that hasn’t compensated for the gaps.

Like many states, Pennsylvania has a formula that is weighted to provide more state funding to school districts with students that have greater needs — including students living in poverty and English language learners. It also takes into account a district’s ability to raise local taxes.

The funding lawsuit wasn’t challenging the formula. But the case did raise questions around its application.

» READ MORE: What to know about the landmark Pa. school funding case decision

When the current formula was adopted in 2016, it only applied to that year’s increase in the state education budget. Had the state taken all the money it gives to public schools each year and run it through the new formula, it would have meant a significant redistribution of money — and cuts for many school districts across the state.

The formula has been used for every subsequent budget increase — meaning it applied to around 20% of the more than $7 billion the state awarded last year in its main subsidy to public schools. In its past two budgets, the state has also created a separate pot of money specifically for the 100 poorest districts. But school leaders in poorer districts say the increases haven’t come nearly fast enough.

Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer’s decision — which found that Pennsylvania had violated both its constitutional clause ensuring a “thorough and efficient” system of education, and the equal protection rights of students in lower-wealth communities — didn’t prescribe a response. Instead, she left it to the legislature and governor to come up with a solution.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say the answer isn’t simply redistributing existing money, which would be “like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic,” said Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, a lawyer with the Public Interest Law Center, paraphrasing one of the superintendents he represented in the case. It’s “a zero-sum game,” he said, if “the only way for one district to have a reading specialist is to take it from another.”

Instead, Urevick-Ackelsberg said, the pie needs to be bigger.

During trial, Kelly, the Penn State professor, testified that Pennsylvania’s schools are underfunded by $4.6 billion or more, updating a calculation from a past study commissioned by lawmakers.

Jubelirer said in her decision she wasn’t persuaded that $4.6 billion was what was required, given that the original study was conducted 18 years ago. But she did “accept the overarching principle that more equitable resources, whether monetary or otherwise, are needed.”

How the governor and lawmakers might proceed isn’t clear. Gov. Josh Shapiro — who filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in his former role as attorney general — delivers his first budget next month.

Republican lawmakers, who lost their majority in the House but currently control the Senate, fought the case and resisted more sweeping investments in education proposed by former Gov. Tom Wolf.

On Wednesday, House Republican Leader Bryan Cutler said the decision was “disappointing, but not surprising,” accusing the judiciary of enacting policy that “political allies cannot achieve in the General Assembly.”

“There’s going to have to be some process by which the court and petitioners are satisfied the system is constitutionally compliant,” Urevick-Ackelsberg said. He said a “reasonable estimation” is needed of what it will cost to give all kids access to a “comprehensive, effective, and contemporary system” of education — the standard articulated in the decision.

Urevick-Ackelsberg also noted the judge’s citation of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that paved the way for the case to be heard, stating that education should not “jostle on equal terms with nonconstitutional considerations” in the state budget process. In other words, because the right to education is guaranteed under the state constitution, it takes precedence over other funding needs.

“It’s a before and after kind of moment for education in Pennsylvania,” he said.

Staff writers Kristen A. Graham and Gillian McGoldrick contributed to this article.