How old are Pennsylvania’s school buildings? A new state survey is trying to find out 38%

By Ethan Young29%

7/23/2026, 5:26:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.7% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 659 faulty-reasoning hits from 558 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44% and a BS Rank of 38% (13,628 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 62.30% of the article peer group.

For the first time, Pennsylvania will inventory the thousands of public school facilities throughout the state to better assess the extent of aging and unsafe buildings. 
Educators have long raised concerns that deteriorating school conditions threaten student safety and impede learning  but understanding the scope of the problem has been difficult. 
Included in this year’s $50.8 billion budget deal, and effective in 2027, the Pennsylvania Department of Education will be required to collect information about school facilities, including the age and renovation history of buildings as well as their capacity and square footage. 
Democratic State Rep. 
Elizabeth Fiedler, who represents South Philadelphia and was the initial sponsor of the bill, said the legislation will allow state funding for facilities repairs to be used more efficiently. 
Some school districts already track this information, Fiedler said, but not all do. 
Having that information in a centralized location, she said, will allow for a “better understanding big picture of what we’re facing and figure out where we should be allotting our very limited school facilities dollars.” 
The state has allocated $200 million in funding for public school facilities improvements in recent budget cycles. 
While her initial bill also called for the creation of a public school facility advisory committee, Fiedler said the inventory requirement represents an important first step. 
“The people who spend Monday through Friday all day long in those same schools, they know what the problems are,” Fiedler said. 
“They’re tired of having to find work-arounds and deal with them. 
We need to invest more money. 
I think that part is plain and simple.” 
Students attending school in Philadelphia have faced leaking roofs, mold, asbestos, and inadequate cooling systems. 
The Philadelphia school board voted in April to approve a controversial $3 billion facilities plan that would close 17 schools and renovate nearly 200 others over the next decade. 
The average age of a school building in the Philadelphia district is 75. 
That problem is not unique to Philadelphia. 
In Pittsburgh  where the average building is nearly 90 years old  the school board similarly approved a facilities plan this spring that would close 12 schools in a move district leaders hope will help address the older school buildings. 
Statewide, the first round of school facility information will be collected by the education department through an online form by the end of 2027, and then every five years after that. 
Public school districts as well as cyber charter, charter, and career and technical schools will be required to submit information. 
“This information will enable lawmakers and the administration to evaluate the condition of public school facilities, identify collective needs of our public schools, and further support the investments needed to ensure healthy and safe learning environments,” a spokesperson for the state education department said. 
Aaron Chapin, president of the Pennsylvania State Education Association, said the state’s largest teachers union was proud to work alongside lawmakers in creating the inventory system. 
“We encourage school districts to partner with the Department of Education to provide the information needed so that the commonwealth can address school facility equity in a fair and timely way,” he said in a statement. 
Ethan Young is an intern with the Pennsylvania Legislative Correspondents’ Association. 
He can be reached at ethanmyoung@gmail.com. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.3%Ethan Young: 1.1%Inquirer.com: 2.1%Confirmation Bias9.3%This article: 5.4%Ethan Young: 3.1%Inquirer.com: 1.0%Anchoring Bias5.4%This article: 10.0%Ethan Young: 1.8%Inquirer.com: 2.5%Availability Heuristic10.0%This article: 1.3%Ethan Young: 0.6%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic1.3%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.5%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Ethan Young: 0.8%Inquirer.com: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias1.4%This article: 14.2%Ethan Young: 6.9%Inquirer.com: 5.0%Framing Effect14.2%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 1.2%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Ethan Young: 3.7%Inquirer.com: 2.7%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 1.1%Ethan Young: 1.9%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Pessimism Bias1.1%This article: 16.7%Ethan Young: 9.6%Inquirer.com: 5.7%Negativity Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.9%Inquirer.com: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 1.9%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.8%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Ethan Young: 1.5%Inquirer.com: 1.2%In-Group Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Ethan Young: 1.9%Inquirer.com: 4.4%Halo Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 1.2%Inquirer.com: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.9%Ethan Young: 3.6%Inquirer.com: 2.3%Appeal to Authority3.9%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 2.4%Inquirer.com: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.4%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.3%Ethan Young: 0.6%Inquirer.com: 3.3%Hasty Generalization1.3%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.5%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.3%Inquirer.com: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.0%Ethan Young: 2.4%Inquirer.com: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion3.0%This article: 7.9%Ethan Young: 0.5%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Begging the Question7.9%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 1.5%Inquirer.com: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.7%Ethan Young: 1.1%Inquirer.com: 2.1%Anecdotal2.7%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 1.3%Inquirer.com: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.7%Ethan Young: 0.3%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Middle Ground4.7%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.6%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.3%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.9%Ethan Young: 0.5%Inquirer.com: 1.3%Unattributed Quote7.9%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.3%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.2%Ethan Young: 0.8%Inquirer.com: 4.4%Biased Writer Voice5.2%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.1%Inquirer.com: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 6.5%Ethan Young: 0.4%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Young: 1.2%Inquirer.com: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

558 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers38%attributed speech346writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Fiedler • 29 words • 100.0% coverageElizabeth Fiedler • 13 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Fiedler • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Fiedler • 26 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Fiedler • 22 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Fiedler • 11 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Fiedler • 6 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Fiedler • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageAaron Chapin • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Chapin • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Aaron Chapin

100%flagged-word coverage
62 attributed words29% of attributed speech55% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Politically Left Leaning B+58.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Aaron Chapin: 58.1%58.1%Unattributed Quote-12.7 ptsWriter: 12.7%Aaron Chapin: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.