HARRISBURG, Pa. - Education advocates are asking the state Supreme Court to hear their challenge to the state's school funding system. The state has filed papers asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit filed a year ago by parents and school districts.

Briefs from the legislature and the governor's office say school funding decisions are not a matter for judicial review.

Maura McInerney, senior staff attorney at the Education Law Center, disagrees.

"It's clearly not a political question and in fact a majority of states have considered these school funding cases and have rejected arguments that it presents a political question," says McInerney.

The lawsuit says the state has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to adequately fund schools, and the current funding system violates the constitution's equal-protection clause.

Pennsylvania has the widest gap between funding for rich and poor school districts of any state in the nation. In past lawsuits, the court has said it couldn't decide if funding was adequate to meet educational standards because there was no way to assess whether students were meeting those standards.

McInerney says that's no longer the case.

"In 2015 it's clear that we do have judicially manageable standards," says McInerney. "We have mechanisms to assess how children are doing in school, what their academic outcomes are."

McInerney also points to a state study conducted in 2007 that found school funding fell far short of being adequate to meet academic standards set by the Legislature.

If the court determines the state has failed to meet its constitutional obligations, then McInerney believes it must order the state to adopt a system that will fulfill that mandate.

"A system that will maintain and adequately support public education across the Commonwealth," she says. "A system based on student need that would adequately fund all students to meet state standards."

The Supreme Court is expected to schedule oral arguments in the case in 2016.


get more stories like this via email

A conflict between federal child labor regulations and those passed by the Iowa Legislature has increased the number of businesses fined for hiring children to do dangerous jobs.

The U.S. Department of Labor recently imposed a $171,000 fine against an Iowa company for illegally employing school-age child under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Peter Hird - the secretary-treasurer of the Iowa Federation of Labor - said at the behest of several Iowa businesses, the state lowered the standards for hiring children, to help stem a post-pandemic labor shortage.

"Some employers got fined," said Hird. "They said they were following Iowa law, but the federal law supersedes the Iowa law, so they were getting fined by the federal Department of Labor. Plenty of people were warning the Legislature that that could happen before they passed those laws."

Federal officials fined Qvest, a Sioux City Pork Processing contractor, for employing 11 children to perform dangerous overnight work cleaning equipment at its pork processing plant.

Federal law forbids employing children under 18 in dangerous jobs in meat and poultry processing plants.

Hird said Iowa employers pushed for a rollback in state regulations in 2023, as part of a national trend among certain businesses hiring child labor to fill in the gaps where it can't find adult employees.

He said organized labor pushed back against the changes.

"We also have human trafficking going on," said Hird. "We've seen it in Iowa on construction sites, and now we're seeing it in meat packing plants where kids are showing up to work with school backpacks, but some employers are saying they don't know that they were kids."

Hird said the Biden administration has prioritized going after businesses who employ children, but he said he is concerned that the incoming Trump administration might be inclined to side with businesses on the issue.

"Obviously, we want employers who are or employing these kids to get caught if they're doing illegal activity," said Hird. "Typically, the last time around, the Trump administration's Department of Labor wasn't quite as vocal about child labor."

Dental decay rates for Kentucky children age 2-5 are far higher than the national average, according to new data from the University of Kentucky's College of Dentistry.

The survey screened more than 6,000 kids across more than 100 counties.

Dr. Pam Stein, professor of dental science at the University of Kentucky and the study's co-author, said the highest levels of tooth decay were found in children attending rural Head Start facilities and among Black children in Jefferson County.

"In some regions of Kentucky, the rate of decay was over 50%," Stein reported. "To have that much decay at that young of an age is really distressing, especially when you think about the long-term impact."

The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry recommends kids see a dentist when the first tooth appears or no later than their first birthday. Tooth decay leads to pain, school absenteeism, difficulty concentrating in school and painful eating, which often leads to poor nutrition. Left untreated, cavities can trigger tooth abscesses, meningitis and other serious, potentially life-threatening diseases.

Stein emphasized the worst tooth problems were found in Head Start programs in rural counties. She stressed it is important staff and dental providers meet with Head Start parents to pinpoint and address barriers including finances, transportation, or lack of education about oral health, preventing children from receiving needed care.

"Just an open discussion about, what is it that makes it difficult for you to get your child the professional help that they need," Stein explained. "Also, what is it that makes it difficult for you to provide the oral care that they need at home?"

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, half of U.S. children age 6-9 have had at least one cavity in their baby or permanent teeth and one in 10 kids age 12-19 have at least one untreated cavity. Kids in low-income households are twice as likely to have cavities compared with kids from higher-income households.

Childhood sexual abuse survivors will benefit from amendments to legislation pending in the Illinois Senate.

House Bill 222 would revise three parts of the existing Illinois Antitrust Act. Supporters say the measure will protect more child abuse survivors.

One change will mean if a survivor can prove the alleged abuser committed childhood abuse, the court will automatically assume the abuse was harmful to the survivor.

Attorney Larry Disparti with the Disparti Law Group said the important legislation means survivors will not have to relive their ordeal in a courtroom.

"The significance of that is abuse survivors don't have to provide or try to present further evidence of the trauma," said Disparti. "Once the sexual abuse has been shown or proven by a preponderance of the evidence, you don't have to now go to another step and prove that you've had trauma from it."

Another amendment removes blame often placed on the abuse survivor should they choose to file a civil lawsuit against their abuser.

Disparti said he often sees an abuser's attorney claim the survivor's actions or decisions encouraged the abuse - even as children. He called this tactic "horrible for the victim to experience."

The Children's Advocacy Centers of Illinois reports that nearly 294,000, or 1 in 10 children, will be sexually abused by their 18th birthday.

Experts says the trauma often experienced in childhood sexual abuse makes it difficult for survivors to speak publicly as adults and defend themselves.

Many survivors have delayed memories of their abuse and do not understand the psychological and physical impact.

Disparti said his office has received hundreds of calls asking about abuse survivor rights and what the process entails. He admited a few are reluctant to move forward in the legal process.

"It's a really big deal," said Disparti. "A lot of times this is so much shame. If they're older now most of the people in their lives, spouses, kids, don't have any idea, right? This never happened to them. And so, it's, it's a really tough thing for victims to come forward with."

Additional wording in HB 222 will also mean the law cannot assume an abuse survivor was aware they were being abused when the crime was occurring.