Third in a series
In addition to the loss of federal stimulus money, what has further muddied the understanding of public school funding in Gov. Tom Corbett's proposed 2012-13 budget is a change that lumps what were four separate line items into one, known as the Student Achievement Education Block Grant (SAEBG).
SAEBG, which represents a majority of state funding for school districts, includes line items for basic education, pupil transportation, nonpublic and charter school pupil transportation, and school employees Social Security.
In the current school year, those four items separately amount to $6.49 billion in state funding, said Tim Eller, press secretary for the state Department of Education (DOE). In 2012-13, the proposed total is $6.51 billion, an increase of about $21.8 million, or less than one-half percent.
Eller said the additional $21.8 million is applied to the latter three items, not the basic education funding, which remains at $5.34 billion.
The key issue for local school administrators lies in the transportation portion.
Old formula worked
For decades, districts have been reimbursed for busing based on a formula that superintendents say works. On a statewide average, the pupil transportation subsidy covers about half of a school district's transportation costs.
In his proposed budget, Corbett is moving transportation money into the SAEBG funding stream. Superintendents worry that any increase to the block grant will not be enough to keep up with rising costs. By combining all of the funding streams, a small percentage increase to the grant could be enough to keep up with one of the now-separate line items, but not all three, superintendents fear.
Eller acknowledged with the block grant, districts are not being reimbursed for actual transportation expenditures. But he believes local school officials will come to understand and benefit from it.
First, it eliminates some mandates. For example, districts now must report a long list of details in their transportation formula, things like the VIN numbers of vehicles, the miles traveled and maintenance records. They won't have to do that under the new structure, and that should mean considerable time saved, Eller said.
By combining the line items, districts also no longer have to report any extra money they may have left from one of the four line items. Eller said such flexibility will allow districts to "drive the additional savings" to where they are needed in a district's budget.
"They know the best way to divvy out the dollars," he said.
Line Mountain Superintendent Dave Campbell said he has no qualms about combining the separate line items into a block grant - with the exception of transportation reimbursement.
"That's a concern. I don't like that arbitrary number," he said. "The formula has worked."
Districts can control costs for salaries and programs by scaling back, but Line Mountain's transportation costs are plagued by rising fuel costs each year, as well as fluctuating student enrollment in the district's 158 square miles.
"For a rural area like us, I don't know how we can control it more," he said.
He said the mandate relief, meanwhile, is welcome.
'Not realistic'
Eller said the $21.8 million budget increase is partly a reflection of the state giving more to public schools because of higher gas prices. It also reflects additional Social Security reimbursement, he said.
Stephen Curran, business manager at Shamokin Area, said the notion of increased flexibility is simply the state's way of justifying its changes. Superintendent James Zack added, "I guess in theory if you eliminate busing you can use the money for something else. That's not realistic."
(Coming Wednesday: Managing rising pension costs has been a critical issue since 2001, and it's still a critical part of the school funding issue.)