The AGSD administration recently asked the school board to sign a resolution opposing PA Senate Bill No. 2. So, what does the bill say and what does it mean for public education?

What is the PA Senate Bill No. 2 (SB 2) aka Education Savings Account Act?

The Pennsylvania Senate Bill No. 2 would set up education savings accounts (ESAs) for eligible students to apply toward tuition at private schools or other educational expenses such as textbooks and tutoring. The bill would require school districts to provide grant money in an ESA for all eligible students who live in the enrollment zone of the lowest 15% of schools in terms of student achievement (measured by combined math and reading scores from annual assessments) and who apply to the program. The program would be open to kindergarteners and first graders who live in the enrollment area of a low-performing school or to older students who’ve attended at least one semester of an under-performing school. The accounts could be renewed on a yearly basis. Students who apply for and receive an ESA must un-enroll from the public school.

The grant amount is based off the average state funding per pupil and is calculated for non-special education students as the total sum of state funds received by all schools less state funds for transportation divided by the statewide average daily membership. For special education students, this number is multiplied by a factor based on how the student is categorized.

What are the critics of the bill saying?

Critics call the bill a voucher system that uses taxpayer dollars to provide private education while defunding public education. They point to problems with ensuring accountability when the money is given to a private institution, because private schools are not required to follow the same accountability procedures for assessing achievement and reporting it. The bill does require some assessments of students in ESA programs, but stops short of mandating which standardized assessments should be used, rendering comparative analysis of student achievement difficult if not impossible.

Furthermore, critics note that although the authors of the bill claim that the intent is to provide families without the means more opportunity for school choice, the grants provided would not cover the full cost of private school tuition and therefore are unlikely to help families who cannot afford private school normally. The estimated amount of money that would be available to students is about $5,700 per year. Critics, instead, view the bill as being beneficial to wealthy families rather than to the middle or low-income families it purports to help.

Additionally, critics note that removing funding from struggling districts only damages them further. Critics point out that the bill does not solve any of the problems that lead to under-performance in school districts and suggest that money may be better spent addressing those causes rather than sending students away from public education. In essence, even if the bill helps a few students in a struggling district, it stands to hurt education overall, which could impact an even larger number of students. Indeed, a district may be required to pay more in ESA grant money than it actually receives from the state to educate that student, because the calculation for the grant is based off of a statewide average despite the fact that districts receive different levels of state funding. The Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) estimates that it could cost public schools $500 million across the state if SB 2 is enacted.

While the focus of the bill is on students in under-performing schools, some districts have questioned the notion that under-performance is a huge problem in the state since Pennsylvania public schools regularly score high on reading and math when compared to other schools nationally. Furthermore, national data has shown time and again that voucher programs do not improve student achievement.

A number of school districts have passed resolutions opposing the passage of SB 2 either for fear of how it may impact their budgets or for fear of what the implications of this legislation would be for public education more generally. Stroudsburg, whose school board unanimously approved a resolution to reject SB 2, cited that it threatened equal access to education for every child and that ESA programs are vulnerable to fraud. The bill only states that audits can be done optionally, but sets up no regular mechanism for monitoring the use of ESA funds.

What are the proponents of the bill saying?

Proponents of the bill see it as a way of creating school choice for families living in areas with low-performing schools. Unused funds, which can be spent on tutoring, textbooks, curricula and educational expenses beyond private school tuition, can be rolled over from year to year. At the end of a student’s K-12 career, the remainder of funds can be spent on higher education. Therefore, proponents point out that the ESA offers more flexibility than vouchers, which limit spending to private school tuition only.

While districts would lose a portion of state funding for students who opt into the ESA program, proponents point out that the districts can keep the local tax revenues associated with educating that child as the program only takes per pupil state funding.

How would this impact Avon Grove School District?

In order to be eligible for funding, the bill requires that applicants live in enrollment areas of under-performing schools (bottom 15%). Because AGSD students have performed well on standardized achievement tests, students living in the district are unlikely to qualify for the grant as the bill is currently written. However, if a student receives an ESA from a different district and then later moves into AGSD, that student would still be eligible to renew the ESA in the new district, thereby taking money from districts not identified as low-achieving.

More generally, the problem for AGSD is that this bill could open the door to future legislation that may broaden eligibility for what has been described as a voucher program. Indeed, the case of ESAs in Arizona suggests that this is a reasonable concern. The program in Arizona was similarly started to target those low-income students in under-performing school districts, but there are now efforts to expand that program to be available to all students in the state by 2022. If the PA program were to broaden, many school districts may find themselves losing money to the ESAs. Whenever a school district loses money it must cut programs, raise taxes, or do a mixture of both of these things. Indeed, South Fayette school district, which is a top performing district in the state, passed a resolution condemning the bill because they see doing so as taking a stand for public education even though the bill in its current form would not impact them.

References

AAUW State College Branch, Education Policy Committee. (2018, January 26). Trading accountability for flexibility. Retrieved from Centre Daily Times: http://www.centredaily.com/opinion/article196964339.html

Behrman, E. (2017, August 8). Critics say Education Savings Accounts proposed in Pa. are just vouchers by another name. Retrieved from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/education/2017/08/08/Education-savings-accounts-Pennsylvania-school-choice-vouchers-john-disanto-legislature-proposed-legislation/stories/201708080016

Berger, J. D. (2017, October 23). Letter: Senate Education Committee on SB 2, ESA voucher proposal. Retrieved from https://www.psba.org/2017/10/letter-senate-education-committee-sb-2-esa-voucher-proposal-oct-23-2017/

Edley, D. (2018, January 19). School districts snap back at latest subsidy proposal. Retrieved from TribLive: http://triblive.com/local/westmoreland/13200776-74/school-districts-snap-back-at-latest-subsidy-proposal

Martines, J. (2017, August 8). Education savings accounts could be coming to Pa. Retrieved from Trib Live: http://triblive.com/news/education/12599378-74/education-savings-accounts-could-be-coming-to-pa

Meyer, J. C. (2018, January 26). South Fayette School Board passes resolution to oppose voucher bill. Retrieved from The Almanac: https://thealmanac.net/news/south-fayette-school-board-passes-resolution-to-oppose-voucher-bill/article_83ac1df0-02ad-11e8-8438-e3a89fb7c346.html

Scott, A. (2018, February 4). Stroudsburg School Board rejects Senate Bill 2. Retrieved from Pocono Record: http://www.poconorecord.com/news/20180204/stroudsburg-school-board-rejects-senate-bill-2

Sears, A. (2017, December 17). School Voucher Bills Called a Bad Deal for PA Schools. Retrieved from Public News Service : http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2017-12-13/education/school-voucher-bills-called-a-bad-deal-for-pa-schools/a60619-1

Senate Bill No. 2. (2017, October 18). Retrieved from The General Assembly of Pennsylvania: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2017&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=0002&pn=1271

Weiss, G. (2018, January 26). Proposed school choice bill stirs debate in Pennsylvania. Retrieved from https://www.watchdog.org/pennsylvania/proposed-school-choice-bill-stirs-debate-in-pennsylvania/article_5ba85b14-02d2-11e8-a817-83c91c6c5808.html