The Reason Foundation is a national re- search and educational organization that explores and promotes the twin values of rationality and freedom as the basic un- derpinnings of a good society. Since 1978, the Los Angeles-based foundation has pro- vided practical public policy research, analysis, and commentary based upon the principles of individual liberty and respon- sibility and limited government.

Reason Public Policy Institute (RPPI), a di- vision of the Reason Foundation, fuses theory and practice to influence public poli- cies. The Institute's research draws upon economics, science, and institutional analy- sis to critique public policies and advance new policy ideas in a variety of policy ar- eas, including education, infrastructure and transportation, the environment, urban land use and local economic development, social services, and privatization and gov- ernment reform.To that analysis, the Insti- tute brings a political philosophy that sup- ports rule of law, marketplace competition, economic and civil liberty, personal re- sponsibility in social and economic inter- actions, and institutional arrangements that foster dynamism and innovation.

The Reason Foundation is a tax-exempt edu- cational organization as defined under IRS code 501(c)(3).The Reason Foundation nei- ther seeks nor accepts government fund- ing, and is supported by individual, founda- tion and corporate contributions. Nothing appearing in this document is to be con- strued as necessarily representing the views of the Reason Foundation or its trust- ees, or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before any legislative body.

Photos used in this publication are Copyright \u00a9 1996. Photodisc, Inc. Copyright \u00a9 1998. Reason Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

research organization. Mr. Seder has done extensive work in the area of quantitative and qualitative research on the structure of educational systems; school choice programs; accountability issues; and the impact of expenditures on student achievement. Before joining RPPI, Mr. Seder worked as a research assistant to the executive director for the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., where he assisted in a study analyzing the relationship between public and private post-secondary institutions in three states. Prior to that, he was the recipient of a Charles G. Koch Fellowship through the Center of Market Processes examining the effects of immigration on the U.S. economy. Additionally, Mr. Seder has

served as a project director for the Allegheny County School System in Pennsylvania, where he conducted extensive research on 43 public school districts. Mr. Seder holds a Masters of Science in Public Policy and Management from the Heinz School at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh as well as a double bachelors degree in Government and Economics from Beloit College in Wisconsin.

Small Schools (PARSS) filed suit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1991 claiming that the legislature failed in providing a \u201cthorough and efficient\u201d system of educa- tion. Their claim was based solely upon dis- parities in expenditures between school dis- tricts. Judge Dan Pellegrini handed down his decision on July 9, 1998 that the case was non- judiciable, that because all school districts that testified indicated that children in their districts were receiving an adequate education, the Commonwealth was not in violation of consti- tutional provisions calling for a \u201cthorough and efficient\u201d system of public education. The court noted that all matters dealing with school fi- nance are political matters and therefore are in the jurisdiction of the legislature.

The court\u2019s ruling mirrored previous court rul- ings challenging the Pennsylvania school fi- nance system. Earlier in 1998, the Common- wealth Court ruled similarly in Marrero v. Com- monwealth of Pennsylvania that the Common- wealth was in compliance with the state con- stitution and that matters such as these fall into the hands of the General Assembly.1In this case, the Philadelphia School District brought suit against the Commonwealth claim- ing that the funding system systemically dis- criminated against the school district.

The constitutionality of the Pennsylvania school finance system was challenged once before and was heard before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In this case, plaintiffs sought equalized fund- ing across school districts. The court ruled that it was unable to judicially define what constituted a \u201cnormal program of educational services.

Pennsylvania centered on disparities in ex- penditures among school districts. PARSS and its school finance experts contended that as long as differences in spending per child existed be- tween school districts, the Commonwealth was not meeting its constitutional obligation to pro- vide a \u201cthorough and efficient\u201d system of edu- cation.

In comparing the per-pupil instructional expen- ditures between the five percent of school dis- tricts with the lowest property wealth against the five percent of school districts with the high- est property wealth, the statistical extremes, there was close to a $1,700 per child difference in spending for school year 1993-94 as pre- sented in the case (Figure 1).