State data suggests a link between the two.

A report issued in late March by Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children outlines a positive correlation between school spending and student performance.

Researchers based the study on estimated adequacy targets, which measure the amount of money expected to ensure children can meet Pennsylvania’s academic standards.

According to the report, adequacy is achieved when school districts are able to provide the resources necessary to help students reach their educational potential. The idea is to level the playing field by taking into consideration district size, wealth, enrollment, poverty and local tax effort among other factors that reflect student and community needs.

This graph shows the number of eighth grade students who scored ‘proficient’ and ‘advanced’ on PSSA math evaluations over the past 10 years. JCSD results are blue, MCSD results are red and the Pennsylvania state average is orange.

Last year, Pennsylvania policymakers adopted a statewide funding formula to address existing disparities between school districts. Though the change did increase funding for small and rural districts, PPC’s report states public education funding remains inadequate.

The report mentions Mifflin County School District by name because nearly 83 percent of eighth grade students did not meet proficiency in math, based on 2015 Pennsylvania System of School Assessment scores.

“The answer is yes, there’s a definite correlation between school funding and achievement,” MCSD Superintendent James Estep said.

But there are a number of factors to consider, he said.

Within the past few years, Pennsylvania policymakers have revamped the PA Core Standards, or achievement targets, for public school students. That change, by itself, meant curriculum was no longer aligned with academic standards.

Estep said reviewing and reworking programs of study happens more quickly for districts with the money available to accelerate change.

“When (policymakers) roll something out abruptly like that, with that kind of change, districts are then playing catch-up to adjust their curriculum to align more with the new assessment,” he explained.

Estep said some schools hardly skipped a beat.

More affluent urban districts have the resources to spend money and revamp curriculum quickly, he said. Rural school districts, like Mifflin County, “can’t just shell out that kind of money.”

Trends in student proficiency follow Estep’s assessment of the effect funding has on achievement.

Student proficiency on the state level remained steady or increased between 2005-10, according to PSSA results in third grade reading and eighth grade math — the same measures referenced in PPC’s report. Those numbers started falling in 2011, with drastic drops in 2014 and 2015.

Estep said MCSD administrators were pleasantly surprised when the state passed its funding formula last year, resulting in an additional $700,000 compared to the previous year.

The budget proposal for this year looks to provide increased funding again, Estep said, but it also cuts transportation subsidies. Any new dollars are unlikely to make up for the cut and still cover increasing costs of the Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System.

Estep said he doesn’t blame everything on funding, but he attributes about 75 percent of the problems faced by small, rural districts to funding and equity.

Juniata County School District Superintendent Keith Yarger did not provide comment.

Attempts by The Sentinel to contact the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators and Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials were unsuccessful as of press time Monday evening.