Today’s special report takes an unflinching look at Columbia Borough School District’s financial picture.
It’s bleak, but bleak isn’t the same as hopeless.
An array of solutions is available to policymakers. Some options require change at the local or county level. Others can happen with legislative action.
If there’s political will for change, the prospects for Columbia’s children can brighten.
Here are a few options to put on the table.
Option 1: merger
This option assumes the single-borough Columbia district is too small to be fiscally sustainable and should combine with one or more neighboring districts.
A consolidation in Pennsylvania happened as recently as 2009. Two small Beaver County districts voluntarily merged to form the 2,400-student Central Valley School District.
Columbia board president Tom Strickler said Columbia’s board has discussed consolidation. “I am not against it. It has to be a positive for our kids and staff,” he said
But Columbia would need a partner. It doesn’t have one.
Taking on Columbia’s problems, said Hempfield superintendent Brenda Becker, “would exacerbate the problems already occurring” in Hempfield. Mike Leichliter, Penn Manor’s superintendent, said, “It would be a drain on our residents’ resources.”
Another possibility is the Legislature could decide 500 Pennsylvania school districts is too many and force districts like Columbia to merge.
“I don’t really see that happening,” said state Rep. David Hickernell, whose legislative district includes Columbia. He’s probably right. Gov. Rendell in 2009 proposed wholesale consolidations. It went nowhere.
So, if merger is a solution for Columbia, it’s one that’s not ripe.
Option 2: property tax reform
This option assumes Columbia would get adequate funding and would no longer have to tax property owners more than any other Lancaster County district.
A bill to eliminate school property taxes is gaining traction in the Legislature. It would replace the property tax with higher state taxes — a 7 percent sales tax and a 4.34 percent personal income tax.
The bill, however, doesn’t say how the state would distribute the money. And that’s the rub.
Property tax elimination would be a boon to Columbia property owners, but high-poverty schools may not get the extra dollars needy students require.
Another worry is state tax revenue drying up during a recession. That happened in 2009. It’s hard to run schools on seesawing revenue streams. The property tax, by comparison, is steady and practically recession proof. It also taps businesses for revenue.
Jim Buckheit of the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators believes the property tax should be kept as part of a mix of taxes.
The good news about tax reform? There’s a broad consensus that Pennsylvania leans too heavily on property taxes to fund schools.
The trick is finding the right balance.
Option 3: inclusionary housing
This option assumes that other municipalities will open their doors to more affordable housing because Columbia has more than its fair share.
“Communities of high poverty are always going to have a hard time paying for schools and other critical services,” said Janis Risch of Building One Pennsylvania. She advocates regional enactment of inclusionary zoning with new developments providing a set number of affordable units.
What happens when low-income students are no longer concentrated in the same schools but instead are a minority in mixed-income schools? Urban planner David Rusk said they tend to blossom. Economic integration, in fact, works better than other reforms in improving test scores of low-income students. He said it works even better when low-income kids live in the same neighborhoods as better-off classmates.
Better housing policies, of course, take years, even decades, to have an impact. This solution has promise, but even if enacted today it wouldn’t help Columbia for a long time.
Option 4: fair state funding
The Legislature sends extra money to Columbia and other high-poverty districts, but it’s not enough. The state’s share of the cost of K-12 instruction, on a statewide average, is about 35 percent. Other states pay closer to half.
“We’re not asking Pennsylvania to be an innovator,” said Michael Churchill of the Public Interest Law Center. “We’re asking it to be in line with the rest of the country.”
The Legislature in 2008 committed to a six-year plan of providing adequate funds to the neediest schools. Politics didn’t decide the winners. A carefully vetted formula did.
Districts like Columbia — with high local taxes and with lots of students who are poor, don’t speak English and have learning disabilities — started to do better. But in 2010, the formula was canned, and it was back to politics as usual.
“The easiest (solution) is to put the 2008 formula in place,” said Donna Cooper of Public Citizens for Children and Youth. “That’s what Columbia should be pushing.”
Hickernell, however, says not so fast.
“The costing-out study’s intentions were good,” he said, “but I don’t think the dollars were ever really going to be there, particularly in this economy.”
Option 5: do nothing
This is the default option, of course. If we fail to act, if we fail to pursue a workable solution, then we’ve chosen Option 5.
If we choose Option 5, then we’ve decided either that the people of Columbia are on their own and don’t need our help or we’ve decided that Columbia is a lost cause and not worth our time.
We don’t recommend the default option.
Columbia’s students have hopes and dreams. They want to succeed and be contributors.
And strong, amply funded public schools are their way forward. Public education, in the words of Hempfield’s Becker, is the great equalizer.
Turning Columbia around won’t happen quickly.
But if thoughtful, committed people come together, study the issues and work with a sense of urgency toward solutions, we’re confident better days lie ahead.
We believe there can be a rising tide both for Lancaster County’s historic town beside the river and for its children.
Lancaster Online.Com – June 29, 2014 – Read article online