Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IamSauerKraut t1_j7ncqne wrote

Reply to comment by alexp8771 in Landmark Pa. school funding case decided: The state’s system is unconstitutional by Hashslingingslashar

Districts are required to fund their local schools. Reducing property taxes to nothing would violate their mandate. And the Commonwealth's Constitution.

2

caribou16 t1_j7o4ywg wrote

Then I'm confused what is changing. Because don't they already have this mandate that is being ignored, which is why we are in this current state?

2

IamSauerKraut t1_j7pe1i1 wrote

The mandate is to fund. And they do. The court case is about how that is being accomplished or not accomplished. Most of the funding in most districts is provided thru a combination of property taxes and earned income taxes (aka EIT). Because of inequities in wealth or thru the luck of locations, some districts have greater ability to leverage property taxes and the EIT into an outstanding public school education for their students. Lower Merion, for instance. On the other end are districts such as Steelton and Chester.

Yesterday's ruling addresses the inequities in funding.

2

Hillbl3 t1_j7phsih wrote

Nothing is changing, yet. This ruling just puts the state assembly on notice that they need to fix it. It also, maybe, opens the state up to liability for continuing to fail to provide for this constitutional guarantee. Unfortunately the judiciary doesn't have a lever it can pull to force the legislature to actually do it's fucking job and in the end it will be up to the voters to decide to hold the assembly accountable or not. In other words: don't hold your breath.

1

PermissionToConnect t1_j7oco3y wrote

what would the state do if they dont

1

IamSauerKraut t1_j7peb7k wrote

The "state" likely would seek a court order to 1) force the district to do what it must and/or, 2) appoint a receiver.

2