Colin McNickle: The Penn Hills predicament | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Colin McNickle: The Penn Hills predicament

Colin McNickle
1257097_web1_Penn-Hills-Town-Hall--4-
Penn Hills School District Superintendent Nancy Hines speaks at a town hall meeting June 3 to discuss the district’s proposed financial recovery plan.

The Penn Hills School District finds itself in dire financial straits. And it now must execute a state-overseen financial recovery plan. A significant tax increase and layoffs are possible.

But had taxpayers been given the direct oversight they deserve, the situation might be different, say two researchers at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.

It was in January that Penn Hills joined five other Pennsylvania school districts in recovery. Under Act 141 of 2012, the district met the criteria of a decreasing fund balance, running a deficit in three consecutive years and a 10%-plus delinquent tax collection rate.

“Much of the district’s financial difficulties are traced to the construction of new schools,” remind Eric Montarti, research director of the Pittsburgh think tank, and Hannah Bowser, a research assistant there.

Those projects primarily are blamed for Penn Hills’ current $172 million debt.

District officials expected the new physical plant would entice students to return from charter and parochial schools. That never happened. In fact, from the 2008-09 school year to 2018-19, in-house enrollment fell by 32 (from 4,972 to 3,360) while charter school enrollment increased from 479 to 833 (a 73% jump).

“Clearly district residents with school-age children are looking for something besides new buildings,” Montarti and Bowser say.

Penn Hills’ school taxes did not rise during the construction period. But they have risen five consecutive years since a downward adjustment for the 2013 court-ordered countywide reassessment. And a variety of other district metrics are not flattering.

Outstanding bond principal is higher than a county peer group. Per-pupil spending was second highest (at $21,145 in 2017-18); growth in that category was third highest in the same period.

Additionally, Penn Hills spends more than the Pennsylvania average on per-pupil total spending and higher than the commonwealth’s average for instruction costs and support services.

And as so often is the case, that higher spending has not translated into higher academic achievement. As but one example, the number of Penn Hills eighth-graders performing at the PSSA’s proficient or advanced level in language arts was a paltry 35.7%. The state average for 2017-18 was 61.5%.

The recovery plan and the district’s 2019-20 budget go before the school board for a June 24 vote. The recovery plan calls for Penn Hills to “change how it does business, how it compensates its workforce, how it educates its children, and how it charges taxpayers to do so.”

Up to 55 staff furloughs, a real estate tax increase in excess of 6% and program cuts are on the budget table.

“As we have recommended previously, increases to existing taxes should be subject to approval by taxpayers in a referendum,” Montarti and Bowser note.

“Perhaps Penn Hills voters could have set the district on a different path if they had been given the chance for an up-or-down vote on school construction based on a clear explanation of the purported benefits backers envisioned,” the researchers conclude.

Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy and can be reached via email.

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.