The Shikellamy and Shamokin school districts are on par with Valley schools in spending per student, but both districts fall short of their Valley and statewide counterparts in reading and math proficiency.

Their shortcomings, backed by state studies, can be attributed to larger groups of low-income families, special education pupils and a transient population pulling students in and out of schools.

For Shikellamy, it translates into 40 percent of the students coming from low-income households and 5 percent from transient families, who make up the 55 percent of Sunbury housing occupied by renters.

“One of the things we’ve had trouble with is getting some parents to understand the importance of education,” Shikellamy Superintendent Alan Lonoconus said. “Only about 81 percent of district residents have a high school diploma, so we’re looking at 20 percent who may not see the value in it. In addition, we only have 12 percent of residents who have gone on to earn a bachelor’s degree or higher.”

Shamokin’s numbers are also dominated by a growing at-risk population, highlighted by 62 percent of the student population that is economically disadvantaged.

“Just because we have a high number of economic disadvantaged students doesn’t mean they can’t achieve,” Shamokin Superintendent James Zack said. “It means they achieve at different rates. The hardest skill — learning how to walk — you can’t expect every child to learn within the first nine months.

“Some do and some don’t. In school, you have 180 days to learn the material and that’s it. Part of the problem is we don’t have enough time to get it all done.”

Both districts performed just below the state average in the recent Pennsylvania System of School Assessment’s (PSSA) reading and math tests, while a majority of Valley districts excelled.



Doing more with less

Although 12 area school districts met Adequate Yearly Progress — having at least 56 percent of students reach proficiency in math and 63 percent reach proficiency in reading — some seem to be doing more with less.

Even though it spends $2,000 less on each student than most districts in the state, Mifflinburg has seen its pupils outperform their counterparts, including many in neighboring Valley districts that spent between $7,230 and $9,348 in 2004-05.

Some districts in Pennsylvania spent up to $20,221 but, on average, the figures hovered near $10,000.

Mifflinburg’s achievement while spending $7,961 — far less than the state says is needed to adequately educate students — is an anomaly, according to Pennsylvania education officials.

In fact, four Valley districts are bucking the trend by getting proficient results on student budgets roughly $4,000 less than the recommended adequacy level.

“Districts facing the greatest challenges in improving academic performance are those that also tend to be the most underfunded in terms of per-pupil spending,” said Michael Race, a state Department of Education spokesman. “Almost 70 percent of students testing below proficiency are in schools that spend about $2,000 below the state adequacy level.”

Mifflinburg Superintendent Barry Tomasetti said there is no secret to the success.

“We’re very fortunate to have dedicated teachers who take the success of their students personal,” Tomasetti said. “Parents play a big part too. We have parents who show great interest in their children and work with us to ensure their children are getting the best education possible.”

A strong focus in the classroom also plays a role, Tomasetti said.

“Over the past year, principals and teachers have developed an attitude for the student that they’re here to learn,” Tomasetti said. “When the students walk into school, they know it’s time for business.”

Last fall, the state’s Costing-Out Study reported that districts need to spend at least $12,057 per student — based on 2005-06 figures — for them receive the education they need to meet state academic standards, which are assessed though PSSA testing.



Parts to the spending formula

The student budget formula includes costs of teacher salaries, class materials, curriculum programs and anything directly associated with learning. Transportation, food and debt service costs are not included, Race said.

The study revealed that, in reality, districts spent an average $9,512 per student in 2005-06. Race said those figures have increased slightly with inflation, but the disparity remains.

Valley districts fell within the 94 percent of 501 Pennsylvania districts that spend below what was recommended. In fact, Valley districts continue to spend less than the state average and are about $3,000 below the adequacy level.

However, Race said help is on the way.

“We know from the study that as the funding adequacy drops, the percentage of students below grade-level rises,” Race said. “This trend is a major reason why (Gov. Edward Rendell) pushed for a school funding formula that aims to level the fiscal playing field.”

Race said the state new education funding formula will drive more money to districts identified in the Costing-Out Study as needing additional resources to help struggling students. The goal is to distribute funds more equitably to poor and overtaxed communities over the next six years.

“We adjusted for inflation and started with a base amount allocated for each student, then additional money being given to areas that tend to need greater resources like economic disadvantage and special education groups,” said Race, adding that the formula takes into account enrollment figures, student poverty and regional cost differences.

“We moved away from the old mind set that if you just throw money at a problem it will go away. We wanted to target the investment, instead of just putting money into the education system that ends up increasing administrative salaries. We want to see student achievement.”

Some of the added resources districts can use the money for include additional tutoring, teacher training and implementing pre- and all-day kindergarten programs. Other proposals include incentives for teachers and principals to work in failing schools and money to help reduce class sizes.

The formula does not include costs of transportation or food and nutritional programs, which are budgeted separately by the state, according to Race, adding, “When you talk about basic subsidies, it’s the education costs of teaching that goes on in the classroom.”



More funds equal more chances

The new funding formula is good news for local districts, such as Shikellamy and Shamokin, which have high populations of at-risk students.

Additional funding will result in more opportunities to help struggling students, Lonoconus said.

“We control less than 20 percent of our budget to target on impacting the classroom,” said Lonoconus, adding that a bulk of a district’s budget goes to salaries, building maintenance and utilities. “The real challenge is how you use that 20 percent. Make one mistake, and you can offset all of the work you did.”

Zack, the Shamokin superintendent, agrees.

“The more money you have, the more programs you can initiate,” Zack said. “Part of the problem is there is nowhere near the kind of money available to make those necessary changes to really benefit the students. Having $1,000 or $2,000 or $3,000 more per student isn’t going to do it.”

Zack said it takes a lot of money to hire additional teachers so a district can reduce classroom sizes or even simply implement a summer tutoring program.

“You need more money to do it right, but you also have to focus on what works best,” Zack said. “You don’t want to spend money just to spend money. You need to spend it on what is worthwhile.”

Zack said there is light at the end of the tunnel despite the financial challenges many districts face. It comes down to the commitment of the faculty and support of the administration to keep student progress on track, he said.

“It’s not necessarily a program or a certain kind of strategy but the dedication of teachers that make the difference,” Zack said. “If you look at the salary scale here — our starting salary is $27,000 and some neighboring districts are at $40,000 — you have to have the kind of person who is dedicated to handle the challenges we face.

“Financially, there is always a struggle. With the economy in bad shape, you can’t burden the taxpayers. There will be tough decisions to make, but we got to do what is best for the kids.”

n E-mail comments to jnorth@dailyitem.com.