by Mark Despotakis, PMEA Advocacy Council Chair

In the late summer/early fall, PMEA reached out to all candidates running for Governor of Pennsylvania as well as the Pennsylvania US Senate race. To our surprise, we did not receive the level or participation as we did in the previous election cycle.  We have provided a list of questions posed to candidates and responses from the candidates that answered at the bottom of this article.

You will note that no major party candidate in either race responded to our questions.  Again, that is surprising based on the previous election cycle.  In lieu of their response, we are going to provide an analysis of where the major party candidates stand on issues relevant to PMEA members.  Please note, in any analysis, there is more information available on what an incumbent has already done in office.  Effort has been made to share available and relevant information.

At the bottom of this page, you can also see exactly what will appear on the ballot in your location.

GOVERNOR’S RACE

If you’ve been following the race between Governor Tom Wolf (D) and former State Senator Scott Wagner (R), you know that education has come up quite a bit.

Governor Wolf has campaigned on the education record of his first term and additions to education funding that have come with that record. Many would argue that when Wolf entered office, he inherited a political hot potato when it came to K-12 education. There were issues of a lack of funding (mainly a cut of around one billion dollars) that many blame on the Corbett administration. Some argue this wasn’t an actual cut based on the source of the money.  Without delving into the policy weeds, the reality is that schools opened the 2011-2012 school year with one billion dollars less than they did the previous year. Wolf campaigned on restoring these cuts and essentially did that.  But, it’s important to point out a few facts.

1. He didn’t do it alone – he had to have the support of the Republican controlled General Assembly.
2. It took four years of incremental increases and all of the funding did not go directly to the Basic Education Formula, which is the pot of money that would have the most direct impact on music programs.
3. Wolf also did not sign every budget into law. Wagner makes this point in an effort to paint Wolf as not actually supporting those increases.  However, budgets become law without the signature of the Governor as long as it is not vetoed within ten days.

Another notable education policy during Wolf’s first term is the implementation of a new funding formula.  The complex formula aims to distribute funding to all of Pennsylvania’s school districts in an equitable way.  Again, it’s important to note that Wolf did not create and implement this formula himself.  It came after the extensive work of a special funding commission and a vote of the General Assembly.

The devil is in the details.  While there was uniform praise for the formula in principle, there have been some complaints about how the formula is implemented.  In an effort to not shock some school districts and provide them a funding level vastly different from their previous year allocation, the formula is incremental and only applies to “new” money added to the state Basic Education Funding subsidy.  Some argue the plan is inefficient because of the small amount of “new” money going into the formula – which currently is under 10% of the roughly $6 billion spent on the Basic Education Funding subsidy.

Wolf made headlines in August after a report by WHYY-FM quoted Wolf as saying the state needs “a fair funding formula for all dollars going into public education.”

Wolf has not made any statements that he wanted to move the current funding formula and immediately implement it for all schools but has said he supports the current implementation of the formula and continued increases to education funding. Wolf’s staff says he would support using the funding formula for all state basic education money only if there is enough money in the system to make sure no district is harmed – though there has been no specific clarification on what dollar amount they think that would be.

Wolf did propose raising state taxes on sales and personal income and implementing a severance tax on natural gas drilling as ways to increase education funding during his first term. While those proposals never came to fruition, they would likely be proposals in a second Wolf term.

Wagner attacked Wolf for the comments arguing that an immediate implementation of the formula for all state funding to schools would cause drastic reductions in funding for many districts including many rural ones.

Wolf has not stated how much he would propose raising education funding if he is re-elected or how he would raise more for any increases but rather points to his record of raising education funding and that he would continue to fight for more funding.

Another major education policy issue that came about during Wolf’s first term was the passage of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).  While the law isn’t directly impacted by the Governor – it is indirectly impacted. The law is enacted in Pennsylvania by the Department of Education (PDE) with Secretary Pedro Rivera leading that implementation.  PMEA has worked with PDE staff to ensure music and arts are a part of the implementation of the state ESSA plan – especially in the Title IV, Part A funding stream. While PDE has not implemented every one of our recommendations, they have been very responsive to our comments and suggestions.

On the other side of the ticket, Wagner has also made education a key issue in his campaign. Wagner’s plan is to add an additional $1 billion of education funding for all of our schools without raising taxes. This $1 billion increase will be comprised of an increase of $700 million into the basic education funding and two new block grants of $150 million each.

Wagner proposes to add this money to the budget without raising taxes.  Many see that as political rhetoric and easier said than done.  Citing “belt-tightening” as one of the ways to add money to the education pot, Wagner has even cited solving the problem by consolidating the number of coffee pots in state offices based on how many half full pots are emptied out each night, and eliminating unused computers and their software licenses.

Other ways Wagner proposes funding education spending is the privatization of the sale of alcohol, lease the liquor wholesale system, slash corporate welfare “that has no positive economic impact,” and reform the welfare system.

One of the block grants Wagner proposes is similar to the Race to the Top grants that came at the federal level during the Obama administration.  The grants would be awarded to school districts “that use evidence-backed reforms to implement curricula that will ensure high school graduates are college and career ready. Evidence-based reforms can include STEM based-programs, cooperative learning curricula, and job readiness beyond college prep.”  The other block grant would direct money toward highly rated teachers.

Wolf and Wagner have sparred over Wagner’s proposal and if Wagner’s numbers truly add up as a viable way to increase spending without a new income source.

It’s also notable that during the primary, Wagner said he believes the state spends “enough money” on schools but now that we’re into the general election season, Wagner has changed that position.

As a general foundation for his whole budget strategy, Wagner says he will implement zero-based budgeting which calls for a line by line justification of each expense the state makes.

Wagner also would propose eliminating property taxes levied at the school district level and shifting that funding source to an increase in the state sales and personal income tax.  This is not a new proposal as it has floated around Harrisburg before including a bill co-sponsored by Wagner. If this change would be enacted, Harrisburg would control the flow of nearly all dollars going to school districts.

Unfortunately, without answers to PMEA’s questions, it is hard for us to analyze was a Wagner PDE would look like – especially when it comes to ESSA implementation.

US SENATE RACE

Providing some analysis of the US Senate race between incumbent Senator Bob Casey (D) and challenger Rep. Lou Barletta (R Pa-11) is a little tougher since most of the policy impacting music and arts education in Pennsylvania comes from the state government.  However, we do have some information that’s relevant.

The most impactful piece of education policy from the federal level is the re-authorization of the federal law impacting education – the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 – recently known as No Child Left Behind and known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in current form.  ESSA became law in late 2015 with both Casey and Barletta voting for passage.

Casey had a major role in shaping the law as a member of the Senate HELP (Health, Labor, Education and Pension) Committee. Casey’s office was influential in crafting the “well-rounded” provision of the law which is the new name for core academic subjects.  Not only is well-rounded the new name, it now also includes music as a named subject in federal law.  That is extremely significant for a variety of reasons, but mainly because of funding opportunities opened up for music programs in Title I and Title IV of the law. Casey has also been supportive of increasing Title IV funding in the law – which PMEA and NAfME has advocated for as well.

Barletta also voted to pass ESSA in 2010.  He focused on the value of the 21^stCentury Community Learning Centers provision of ESSA which reauthorizes federal funding for after school programs and the flexibility of funding ESSA offers states and school districts.

All candidates for Governor and US Senate were sent a set of questions from PMEA.  Here are those questions and the responses we received.

Candidates for Governor

1) Research reveals strong correlations between quality music education in school and academic achievement, healthy social development, and preparation for the 21st century workplace. What is your position on the importance of maintaining strong music education in Pennsylvania schools? What role would you play in encouraging school districts to give music the same support as other subjects?

Ken Krawchuk Libertarian for Pennsylvania Governor:It’s time to end the one-size-fits-none approach to setting curriculum, especially where it comes to the arts.  Under the Libertarian plan for Pennsylvania’s schools, parents would be empowered to choose any government school for their child, and the funding which would have gone to the local school would follow the child to the school of the parent’s choice.  That way good schools would get more funding and grow, while poor schools would lose enrollments and be shut down.  So for the same educational dollar, we can improve education in Pennsylvania.

That said, it would not be up to politicians or bureaucrats to decide if any given subject would or would not be taught; rather, it would be up to the parents.  If they believe that music, arts, sports, or whatever is important, they’ll choose the school that caters to their desire.  Arguments over funding this program over that one would no longer be necessary.  In the end there would be exactly what the parents want, and it’s their opinion that is most important.  As governor, I’ll work to support the parents, not special interests or the unelected Board of Education in Harrisburg.

2) New federally passed legislation, The Every Student Succeeds Act, gives much educational control back to the states and also lists music as a “well-rounded” subject. What are your thoughts on how Pennsylvania will continue to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act?

Ken Krawchuk Libertarian for Pennsylvania Governor:In general, I oppose federal meddling when it comes to any Pennsylvania policy, including education.  I also oppose Harrisburg meddling, and would work to end it as described in the previous answer.  It should be up to the parents to choose—or not choose—a school for their children that follows the federal diktats.

3) In current economic times, school districts have to make tough budgetary decisions. In some instances, music and the arts are the first programs cut from a school district budget. What will you do to encourage school districts to adequately fund music and arts programs?

Ken Krawchuk Libertarian for Pennsylvania Governor:Please see my response to question #1 above.  It would be up to the parents to encourage school districts, and history shows their overwhelming support for programs beyond the “three R’s”.

4) Charter schools are often listed as a major concern among public school districts. Originally designed to be schools where new and innovative teaching practices are implemented, charters are now a widespread alternative to public schools. What is your stance on charters, how they are funded and how they are held accountable?

Ken Krawchuk Libertarian for Pennsylvania Governor:Not meaning to be repetitive, but please see my response to question #1 above.  I do not plan to be any sort of a dictator implementing what I believe to be done, or cave in to any special interests and force on Pennsylvania what they think needs to be done.  Once parents are empowered to choose schools, rather than seeing their children forced into a given school by geography, instead there would be the ultimate accountability: being accountable to the parents.

Candidates for US Senate

1) Research reveals strong correlations between quality music education in school and academic achievement, healthy social development, and preparation for the 21st century workplace. What is your position on the importance of maintaining strong music education in Pennsylvania schools? What role would you play in encouraging school districts to give music the same support as other subjects?

Neal Gale Green Party Candidate for US Senate:I would speak out on maintaining a strong music curriculum throughout Pennsylvania schools and support legislation to direct federal funding to underwrite such curricula, especially where current funding has forced a reduction in music classes to unsustainable levels. I believe music has an enduring, positive impact on childhood development, enhancing a student’s appreciation of all academic disciplines as well as their sense of self in the world. 

2) New federally passed legislation, The Every Student Succeeds Act, gives much educational control back to the states and also lists music as a “well-rounded” subject. What are your thoughts on the role of the federal government and the US Department of Education in public education? And what is your position on funding made available from the federal level through this federal legislation?

Neal Gale Green Party Candidate for US Senate: I believe the Federal government has a significant role to play in supporting our public education system, pre-school through college. I agree with the goals of the ESSA, requiring self-direction from the states, and providing funding for acceptable plans. I am concerned, however, with the current Dept of Education leadership’s plans to shift public funding to a voucher system that would take money away from some of our public schools. 

3) In current economic times, school districts have to make tough budgetary decisions. In some instances, music and the arts are the first programs cut from a school district budget. What will you do to encourage school districts to adequately fund music and arts programs?

Neal Gale Green Party Candidate for US Senate:I would offer legislation to more adequately fund our public schools across the country, so that school districts don’t have to make such draconian decisions, leaving our students under-educated. I would stress to educators that music and arts are not secondary attributes in life, and certainly should not be considered as such in our educational planning. 

4) Charter schools are often listed as a major concern among public school districts. Originally designed to be schools where new and innovative teaching practices are implemented, charters are now a widespread alternative to public schools. What is your stance on charters, how they are funded and how they are held accountable?

Neal Gale Green Party Candidate for US Senate:I believe charter schools still have a place in the public school system, provided they remain within the stream of public funding and don’t become vouchered out of reach of any of our students. And as with much of our public school funding, funding for charter schools falls into the trap of scarcity thinking. We have become used to regarding the available monies for all school budgets as competing within the education system. And therefore we always come up short and consequently, must cut programs. Often this falls heaviest on the districts with the least resources. I believe education should be at the top of our priorities and rather than find ways to continually reduce our educational goals, we need to rethink where we are spending our money. I will support the re-allocation of monies in the federal budget from military expenditures to educational needs.