*1 422 A.2d OF PITTSBURGH DISTRICT SCHOOL v. EDUCATION,
COMMONWEALTH,DEPARTMENT OF Aрpellant. Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of Argued 1980. May 21, 1980. July Decided 25, 1980. Aug. Reargument Denied *2 Stefanko, Robert J. Persifor Oliver, Jr., S. for Pittsburgh, appellant No. 80-3-488. Gen., A.
Phillip Asst. in No. Ayers, Atty. appellee 80-3-488. Levin,
Michael I. for amicus Harrisburg, curiae. Biester, Jr., Gen., Edward Weldon, G. Donna Atty. S. Asst. Gen., for Atty. in No. 80-1-72. appellants Diefenderfer, John Newtown, for in No. appellee 80-1-72. Oliver, Jr., Persifor Pittsburgh, S. Pittsburgh Dist. School Stevens, Newtown,
Paul L. for appellee Pennsbury School Dist. OF THE COURT
OPINION ROBERTS, Justice. the 1975-76 during
As of a teachers’ strike a result its Pittsburgh provided District of School year, appellee mandated by 173 of the students only 1949,Act of March Code of section 1501of the Public School At (1962). 15-1501 amended, 24 P.S. 10, 1949, whether, under section cross-appeals issue these Department Education 2502(d) of the appellant state basic instructional must compute appellee full occurred and a no strike had though Unlike the Common- provided. been of instruction had it may Court, we with the agree wealth less than a take into account that full instruction. *3 Formula The Subsidy
I. of the Public careful Proper requires analysis decision here 2502(d) of the Code formula. Code’s Section School provides: the first day July commencing the school
“For year [of thereafter, school district each and each school year 1968] of instruc- on account Commonwealth by shall be paid by to be determined an amount tion of the district’s the actual ratio times the aid multiplying or by daily membership average expense per weighted less, and by whichever ($550), five dollars hundred fifty for the district. membership average the weighted daily there- year each school For 1973-1974 and the school year the Common- paid by be after each school district shall an of the district’s pupils of instruction wealth ratio aid multiplying by amount to determined average per weighted expense times the actual instruction ($750), dollars fifty hundred or seven daily membership by whichever is less.” makes 2502(d) section for the school in question
Thus (1) three factors: product a district’s state average ratio,” “weighted (2) district’s “aid “actual the district’s (3) membership,” $750, membership” average daily expense per whichever is less.1 value market approximates factor “aid ratio”
The first vаlue of to the market district relative within a of property the Commonwealth.2 throughout in school districts property aid wealth, the lower the relative the district’s The greater and, hence, subsidy. the less ratio membership” average daily factor “weighted The second the district’s is defined as suggests, its name (WADM), as in manner re- “weighted” membership,” “average daily agreed It is pupils.3 levels of district the grade flecting strike where no in а district membership” “average daily is the district’s occurs of instruction and no reduction full 180 day year, over the together added enrollment aas Expressed “average.” to obtain an divided by in no reduction where formula, membership average daily follows: occurs is as of days the number 2502(a) in contained section in the version of 1. This formula is found 1974, 370, 26, 1974, This formula 2.§ of June P.L. Act 125 of Act 199, 1977-59, August P.L. Act of been amended Act has 13, 1979, 1979-41, 24 P.S. July 3. See § Act of 10 and Aсt § 25-2502(d) (Supp.1979). § Code, 2501(14) 24 P.S. section 2. “Aid ratio” is defined 0.2852, case, is not 25-2501(14) (Supp.1979). aid ratio in this dispute. infra See text. membership” average daily is contained “weighted 3. Definition of 25-2501(10.2) (Supp.1979). 2501(10.2) of the 24 P.S. § 2501(10.2) provides: Section “ average Membership’ (WADM). The Average Daily ‘Weighted *4 levels of daily membership in the various for all resident by weight multiplied for that level instruction shall be daily membership. average The weighted indicated to obtain the averаge weighted products shall be the sum of the daily membership so obtained average daily for the district. computing kinder- membership ratio shall include in the aid used secondary pupils.” garten, elementary and 2501(10.1), 24 P.S. dispute. Proper “weights” See § here are not Rather, Department’s means 25-2501(10.1) (Supp.1979). it is the days is which averaging where a strike reduces of called into however, membership,” is not “Average daily question. by infra text and n.5. defined the Code. See expense “actual instruction factor, the lesser of The third (AIE/WADM) daily membership” weighted average per Legislature’s willingness $750, reflects extent Districts spending per pupil.4 district spending subsidize “weighted average (as determined per pupil than $750 to their according will be subsidized membership”) more than Those spending instruction expenses. actual according to $750, however, $750 will be subsidized ceiling. formula, statе follows: in terms of
Stated = instruction expense per where AIE/WADM “actual = and WADM weighted average daily membership” “weighted membership.” average daily formula can best be
Operation understood. districts, four all by considering hypothetical equal wealth, which have membership equal illustration, For days of instruction. each of purposes an ratio” the four districts has “aid of 0.5 and a hypothetical of 1000. Each differs daily membership only spending, District pupil, spend- District No. 1 No. spending per $600 Average Daily Weighted Member- Expense per Instruction 4. “Actual 25-2501(11.1) (Supp. 2501(11.1),24 §P.S. ship” is defined following of “actual definition 1979). includes This definition expense:” Fund expense all General shall include “The actual services, transpor- except for health expenses those of the district instruction, outlay, service, capital tation, homebound debt collegеs institutes.” community and technical outgoing transfers ex- actual instruction definition disputed under this It is not infra text. provided. See days of instruction penses related to are
145 pupil, 3 per spending $900 District No. pupil, per ing $750 $1,050 Applying per pupil. 4 No. spending District is subsidy district’s formula, hypothetical each Code subsidy as follows: No. demonstrates, Districts though even
As this illustration each receives per pupil, No. 4 more than spent $750 $375,000. same subsidy fоllows: spending with compares Each district’s subsidy no more than spending $750 Districts No. 1 and No. Thus No. Districts same rate. receive at the per pupil, subsidy pupil, 4, however, per and No. more spending $750 decreasing a percentage receive a which amounts to of actual expenditures. “aid appellee no that district’s
In this case there is dispute question is a Nor is there any ratio” constant 0.2852. expense pеr weighted district’s “actual instruction figure is Because this average membership” daily $1080.29. formula $750, exceeds $750 purposes be employed. determination of proper centers controversy upon mem- average daily “average” purposes average arrive at the district would
bership. Appellee for the 173 sum enrollments dividing In terms days. provided, actually view formula, weighted average *6 is: membership its formula, district calculates appellee this
Using be 1975-76 membership average daily calculation, district appellee contends 71,113.396. this On $15,211,155, computed to a state subsidy entitled follows: hand, that appel- maintains
The the other Department, take membership must daily lee weighted average district’s 180 district appellee provided into account that divides the sum thus Department of instruction. The days actually 173 enrollments for thе 180 day Code section 1501’s not but provided days, formula Department’s compares mandate. The instructional as follows: with district’s formula appellee district’s Thus, Department, appellee to the according is 173/180th of the membership weighted average daily 68,359.131. to be 71,113.396, here agreed district’s figure membership, Depart- this weighted average On as follows: ment district’s appellee subsidy calculates History II. Procedural distriсt according paid appellee Department district appellee protested, but Department’s calculations $589,137, the differ- an additional claiming it is entitled to its calculation and at by ence between the arrived subsidy hearings, Secretary Following actually paid. that district, upholding appellee against ruled Department must take into calculation view that Department’s not did that district apрellee instruction. Court the Commonwealth appeal,
On considering erred the Department concluded The Com- 180 days district did not provide all however, that because held, monwealth Court distributed, Department could been already funds had district subsidy appellee additional not directed to pay to calculate future Thus it directed the seeks. as though appellee subsidies
instruction, it did not. even though *7 allowance, claiming the appeals by now Department
The for a in that subsidies directing Commоnwealth Court erred be calcu- 180 days providing for which have provided districts lated the same as subsidies district also appeals by days. Appellee 180 instructional should Court allowance, the Commonwealth maintaining sum due allegedly the Department pay have directed the school dispute. the The Supports Department Code III. Public School calculate a district’s subsi- Department may Whether the in in- reductions strike-related taking into account dy by addressed by any provision is not expressly structional days Indeed, Depart- factor the Public the of the Code. School reductions, “average daily such ment to correct employs in the Nor defined Code.5 is not membership,” specifically 25-2501(3), only provides 2501(3) 24 P.S. § 5. Section of the “ Membership’ computed Daily in accordance ‘Average that shall Superintendent procedure of rules as established with of Education)].” reject [(now Secretary we Thus of Public Instruction meaning” “plain of district’s contention averaging proper 2501(3) where a means somehow establishes strike has reduced power rules Department its to “establish note admits that We respect gives 2501(3) in no procedure” conferred under section any purposes strike-re- authority averaging device fashion expressly аppear anywhere to this question does the answer Public strikes. See authorizing teachers’ statutes 563, Act, 23,1970, Act P.L. of July § Relations Employe et (Supp.1979). 1101.101 seq. et P.S. seq., § however, Code, both as in its entirety, Read amended, strongly supports enacted and as recently lost as a that instructional position into First there is account. of a strike must be taken result in cases of for subsidy payments provision Code express disease, etc.” Sec contagious Closed on account of “Schools tion 2523 of the Code provides: or board of school directors county
“When board of any to area technical schools is respect with school directors or schools any to close compelled any of a school damage disease, the destruction contagious unable to otherwise, and therefor is fire or building by for the minimum tеrm school or schools open such keep of Public Instruc- act, this the Superintendent required by or all or board any to such school district may tion pay he deems appropriation its share of the annual State proper.” amended, 24 P.S.
Public Code of School § 18,1911, 309, Act of P.L. (1962). May 25-2523 See § § 14, 1970, (source 2523); January see also Act § Statutory Construction (1969) By 80. mandate *8 statute shall be construed Act, in a expressed “[e]xcеptions 1924. As the Secretary 1 to exclude all others.” Pa.C.S. § concluded here: when of subsection the this implication clear
“[t]he minimum for any statutory school is less than the year build- or school damage reason than destruction other Code forbids the disease, or the School contagious ings Schwartz, generally days B. Administrative of instruction. See lated Rather, averaging Department agrees, (1976). as the Law 58 the § by Legislaturе’s exclusively employed the device to be is determined generally statutory Tree Media See Rose reimbursement scheme. Instruction, 431 Pa. 244 of Public School District v. (1968). A.2d 754
149 the school all the paying from Secretary otherwise received.” would have to section 1501 supplements there are three Also of in- minimum days decreasing Code state-mandated “weather emergencies” 180 to from accommodate struction of 1979. Act emergency” “nuclear and 1978 minimum in- to 177 the 4, which decreased 1977— reduction of hours of (and alternatively permitted struction instruction), expressly provides: kindergarten, elementary approved private
“No or public school, or inter- school, vocational-technical or secondary which was closed unit program mediate and which makes a Emergency of Weather because of Edu- Secretary faith effort determined good seventy-sev- one hundred to for at least open cation keep basis hourly en or the (177) optional or reimburse- subsidy payments shall receive less to be entitled receive on than it would otherwise ments 1976-77.” account year 1501.1, 1, 1977, formerly Act of June P.L. P.S. § 1978-50, districts from Act which excused 15-1501.1. § from requiring or graduation graduating schedules changing pro- graduation, similarly students to return to school aftеr vides: fide a bona effort determined
“No district which makes one hundred of Education Secretary students graduating of instruction (180) days eighty or reimbursements shall receive subsidy payments receive than it would otherwise entitled of this provisions of the school 1977-78 because act.” 1501.2, 28, 1978, formerly
Act of P.S. April § 1979-7, upon a district’s depending 15-1501.2. Act which Nuclear Plant reduced from the Three Mile Island distance (and optional- to 174or the minimum basis), also hourly provides: reduction on an ly permitted kindergarten, or approved private elementary “No public school, or inter- school, vocational-technical secondary *9 instruction which was mediate unit closed program which makes Emergency of the and because Nuclear of Edu- Secretary faith effort as determined good least one hundred keep open seventy-four cation tо for at (178) days and hundred (174) seventy-eight one days basis of instruction above or the optional hourly shall reim- payments for receive subsidy otherwise be entitled to receive bursements it would 1978-79.” on account the school year Act of 1501.4. May to section 1501 same express carry These supplements that, in section except found implications Code forbids the Secretary “the School prescribed exigency, wоuld all district have from paying these reim- making received.” in Additionally, otherwise Code, 1501 of the bursement of section exceptions part a direct exists relationship makes clear that Legislature contained in day requirement between the established 180 formula contained section 1501 and the subsidy 2502(d). overriding, statutorily-mandated is the
Equally important not does intend a Assembly the General presumption “[t]hat It 1922(1). result that is ... unreasonable.” Pa.C.S. § that, strike and, indeed, cannot as a causes disputed not decrease, there proportional of instruction is a de to days crease in actual On expenses.6 however, the would be of the reading district furnishing strike-affected obliged pay it the same less than 180 instructional pays expense” 2501(11.1) defines “actual 6. Section of the Code to include: except expenses Fund those health “all Genеral services, service, outlay, transportation, capital homebound debt instruction, community colleges outgoing transfers technical institutes.” Undoubtedly expenses this defini- there under are certain included tion which will not be affected provided. the number of however, time, clear that At the is also actual same 2501(11.1) Legislature’s expenses are instruction view under section substantially related to *10 180 instructional and days spending a full providing districts district.7 appellee more than intend did not satisfied that the Legislature
We are awith full where subsidy to favor a strike-affected than the number re instruction it fewer of days provides of slightest trace law. There is not state quired by for less instruc the same give subsidy to legislative intent to afford an of intent tion, even a suggestion let alone Indeed, there is days. to less instructional incentive in the Only specific intent tо the contrary. clear legislative Legis discussed does the exceptions previously enumerated full receive a where subsidy a school district to permit lature re Strike-related provided. than 180 have been days among included' are not days ductions in instructional persuade us legislative provisions These exceptions. named be rejected. of the Code must reading district’s appellee part previous hypo- following example, from which borrows 7. The by a unaffected No. District No. thetical District illustrates. $1,050,000. instruction, spends days providing 180 strike and identical, day experiences a respects seven in all District No. other This in turn of a strike. as a result reduction $50,000 counterpart $1,000,000, spend less than its causes interpretation, No. 5’s District District No. 4. On district’s strike, 4’s, though no no subsidy equal No. would be District instruction, proportionally no reduced interruption spending had occurred: respective subsidies, compared respective with districts’ when These interpreta- spending, that the effect of demonstrate district: strike-affected tion to increase the rate of though only a full 180 No. has This even District occurs days. instructional determination is in harmo- contrast, the Department’s By deter- Department’s with the legislative judgment. ny districts less than a full 180 providing mination assures that fаvored, strike are as a result of a not of fair alloca- Legislature’s goal thus achieving we Hence provided. tion in relation to days Court and we rein- vacate the order of the Commonwealth Education.8 state order of the Secretary vacated order of Court Order the Commonwealth Education reinstated. Secretary *11 in which KAUFF- LARSEN, J., dissenting opinion files a MAN, J., joins.
LARSEN, Justice, dissenting.
I dissent. 2502(d) of the School Code applicа- The version of section ble to the case provides: instant the first of commencing July
“For the year day school [of thereafter, each school district and year each school 1968] on account of instruc- shall be the Commonwealth paid by be to determined by tion of an amount pupils the district’s aid times the ratio the market value/income multiplying average daily actual expense per instruction dollars which- ($550), five fifty or hundred membership by member- less, average daily is the weighted ever and by 1973-1974 for For the school ship the district. school district shall each thereafter each school year of of instruction the paid by Commonwealth to be determined multi- by the district’s an amount actual instruction expense ratio times the plying the aid seven hun- daily membership by per weighted average is less.” whichever ($750), dred dollars fifty formula prescribed by of the subsidy The critical portion membership”. Average daily this section is “average reading rejection district’s 8. In view of of our claim that the Common- we need not consider apply case. improperly its formula to this wealth failed to Court found to unnecessary the legislature which membership, of non-technical Code, is composed in the define School to their com- “according be construed words which should 1972, 6, of December Act usage.” mon and approved 1903(a). 3, Accordingly, No. Pa.C.S.A. § to mean be construed the should daily membership average for each the day school enrollment average the obvious reading effectuates Such a period. (before same of the statute-to purpose school district which ratio) aid for every application without regard per pupil1 more thаn spends $750 given expending number of specific 1921(a)of the Statuto- that sum-and is mandated 6,1972, supra, Act December Construction Act ry therefore, would, hold that I 1921(a).2 Pa.C.S.A. § subsidies when strikes receive reduced districts should not have them from prevented providing a different conclusion however, has reached The majority, distorting meaning the statute by “interpreting” “Average membership”, average daily membership. not the sum the enrollments is аccording the majority, of instruction divided by each day day each sum of the enrollments given, it If of 180.3 figure arbitrary instruction divided an *12 formula contained in to utilize the legislature wished which enforces the 180 day 2502(d) penalty section as 1501, it would have done so provision when it desired to has done in past expressly, See, e. 2519 and g., enforce other the Code. §§ parts 2552. problem per pupil, spends $750
1. than If a school presentеd not instant case does arise. interpretation object of all provides 2. That section that “[t]he the intention of is ascertain and effectuate construction statutes Assembly.” the General majority with school districts that will do 3. It is unclear what Presumably, arbi- more well, 180-day and other trary figure for these districts will be used subsidy allocations. unfair will occur in the distortions penal- that it majority opinion about the thing sad (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, аreas izes the citizens urban in two Erie, Scranton, suburbs) etc. and their Harrisburg, have to the paid which First, they the tax dollars ways. withdrawn; and are being for education Commonwealth up must be made second, this withdrawal shortage from taxes. is these local school It these citizens’ increasing this of unfair type least afford areas that can very urban “double taxation”. Court.
I the order Commonwealth would affirm KAUFFMAN, J., dissenting opinion. in this joins
Wagner, Jr., Appellant,
v. INDEMNITY COMPANY. NATIONAL Pennsylvania. Supreme Court May 1980. Argued Sept. 1980. Decided 19, 1980. Reargument Denied Dec.