And let's set aside the fact that most of the "some" live in Democratic areas and most of the "others" in Republican ones. Let's just focus on fairness.
The Associated Press last week reported that schools in Philly, Reading and York lost more than 10 times the money per pupil as schools in Bucks County, Chester County or suburban Pittsburgh.
The extreme example: Philly lost $1,309 per pupil; Council Rock School District, Bucks County, lost $75 per pupil.
Even if you think that's good, you can't think it's reasonable.
"I cannot discern any rational policy underlying the state funding of schools," says the Philly schools' chief business officer, Michael Masch, a past state budget secretary.
Overall, if to a lesser extent, AP findings statewide are similar: The poorest 150 districts lost an average of $581 per pupil; the wealthiest 150 lost an average of $214 per pupil.
The reason for this disparity always is explained as follows: Poor districts get more, so obviously they lose more when cuts are made.
But if poor districts get more aid in years without cuts - because they qualify for it under the state's own formula - why should they disproportionately suffer when cuts are imposed?
The question is especially relevant because most districts have millions of dollars in reserve accounts to soften cuts, and poorer districts such as Philly do not.
I ask House Education Committee Chairman Paul Clymer, R-Bucks County, why the cuts are the way they are. "I really don't know," he says.
I ask state Education Secretary Ron Tomalis. He says: "The cuts are where the money is," and because of how state formulas work, "I don't think you could make it fairer . . . there's no easy way to do this."