upon population are deemed general legislation and are specifically authorized by our state Constitution. See Pa. Const, art. Ill, § 20; DeFazio, 562 Pa. at 436, 756 A.2d at 1105. Here, the Legislature found that some urban municipalities in Pennsylvania and elsewhere are attempting to solve the seemingly intractable problems facing their school districts by adopting mayor-led models of control and remediation. In our view, the Legislature could reasonably have believed that social issues interrelated with education, such as crime, poverty, and a weak tax base, are more severe in urban school districts than in rural ones, and sufficiently so to warrant special treatment under the EEA. See generally Danson v. Casey, 33 Pa.Cmwlth. 614, 624 & n. 13, 382 A.2d 1238, 1243 & n. 13 (1978) (<HOLDING>), affd 484 Pa. 415, 399 A.2d 360 (1979); Abbott
recognizing application of sovereign immunity to school districts holding that a 50 rule used by the secretary of education to evaluate applications for impact aid by local school districts was not subject to the notice and comment procedures of the apa because it was an interpretive rule describing the agencys view of the meaning of a statute holding agreement to pay for education expenses after high school not vague holding that pennsylvanias judicial districts are entitled to immunity from suit under the eleventh amendment recognizing the financial plight of urban school districts and the fact that municipal services in such areas cost more than in rural areas citing comment pennsylvanias state aid to education formula a goal of uniform equalized education 30 pitt lrev 41 196869