Pocketbook issues drive heated contests in school board races | TribLIVE.com
Westmoreland

Pocketbook issues drive heated contests in school board races

Deb Erdley
1167401_web1_web-vote2

A controversial building project, questions about assessment appeals and a long-stalled teachers’ contract are among the issues driving public engagement in heated school board races in Tuesday’s primary.

It’s not unusual for school board ballots to draw few candidates and scarce attention from voters. Given that candidates in such races can and often do cross-file on the Democratic and Republican ballots and that the posts are unpaid, they are rarely seen as a jumping-­off point for those seeking higher office.

That cuts both ways, said David Chambers, chair of the political science department at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

“It’s both a blessing and a curse. The blessing is you don’t have to worry about that label. Absent a label, many people don’t know what you stand for. Then it becomes based on issues, which might be a good thing in every election,” he said.

Without hot-button issues and the possibility of political gain, however, it’s often tough to recruit candidates to run in contested races for school board, said Gerald Shuster, a University of Pittsburgh professor of political rhetoric and longtime participant in local politics.

Races like those in the Burrell, New Kensington-­Arnold, Southmoreland and Penn-Trafford school districts, where 12 candidates for 12 seats face no opposition, are the norm.

In one Burrell School District race with two seats open, Thomas Deiseroth is the sole candidate on the ballot.

“Sometimes, it’s almost as though you have to go to the cemetery,” Shuster said.

But that isn’t the case this spring in several districts with crowded ballots where primary campaigns have become heated contests.

In the Franklin Regional School District, where the school board last year approved a $54 million plan to renovate the Sloan Elementary School and build a new one nearby on Sardis Road, 13 candidates are running to fill six seats.

A prolonged negotiation for a new teachers’ contract has split the Mt. Pleasant community and drawn 12 candidates seeking five school board seats.

And in Hempfield, where the district challenged assessments on several residential properties last year, 11 candidates stepped up to vie for five seats.

“When this happens, the driver for the most part is local economics, pocketbook issues,” Shuster said.

“Each one of the issues have been trigger issues in the past that literally reached into people’s pocketbooks and spurred interest in the race. When that happens, more people will vote and more people will run,” Chambers said.

Those issues are felt more keenly in Pennsylvania than in some states because, while the per-student cost for public education here is higher than the national average, the state’s share of the bill for public education — about 37 percent, compared with 47 percent on average elsewhere — is among the lowest in the nation. That leaves local property owners to pick up a larger share of school costs.

When public concern focuses on economic issues, it can spur candidates to step forward with creative ideas to improve public schools within the confines they face, said Susan Spicka, a Shippensburg school board member who also is CEO of Education Voters of PA, a statewide nonprofit public education advocacy group.

While that may be the case, yet another factor could be driving political engagement in local races this year, Penn State political science professor Michael Berkman speculated.

“This is a period of high political engagement,” Berkman said. “We saw a record number of political candidates in 2018. It could be that it filtered down, that people are energized and they see that school boards are an important place to start.”

Deb Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Deb at 724-850-1209, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.