Towne Square: Greene County School Consolidation

The intent of this article is to build a foundation of accurate information on the authority, process, pros and cons, and resources available to start an earnest dialogue for K-12 grade school district consolidation in Greene County.

School property taxes consume an average of 66% of the total tax burden for Greene County property owners. As our population continues to decline and education expenses increase, it makes sense to invest time, energy and funding to analyze, evaluate and provide recommendations toward stabilizing or potentially reducing school district costs. If you think economic diversification is complicated, wait until you start untangling school consolidation.

There are three taxing bodies in Greene County. Elected officials of these three bodies: Township/Borough Supervisors, County Commissioners, and School Board of Directors operate independently, not hierarchically.

School consolidation is a School Board of Directors issue. The authority lies with the individual school districts to initiate and explore consolidation through feasibility studies. The Pennsylvania General Assembly provides the legislative framework for such actions.

The Pennsylvania School Code provides a general outline of the procedural steps for school districts to follow when contemplating or pursuing a merger. Section 2-224 of the School Code empowers the Board of Directors of any two (or more) school districts to adopt a resolution for merger. The resolution must only be adopted by majority vote, and it must substantially outline the areas to be combined.

Once a resolution is adopted, the districts must file an Application for Approval with the Pennsylvania Secretary of Education at which time the Application shall be placed on the agenda of the State Board of Education. Once the Application is on the State Board’s agenda, the Board shall review and approve the Application, as it deems appropriate.

Alternatively, the Board may permit or request other interested parties to file objection(s) to the Application. In the event the Board does not approve the Application, the Application is returned to the requesting districts for resubmission once any Board recommendations are addressed.

When an application is ultimately approved, the State Board of Education directs the Secretary of Education to issue a certificate – officially creating the new district. The certificate details the district name, constituting components, classification, and effective date of operation. Once merged, Pennsylvania statute provides that all property, indebtedness, and obligations of the former districts become the property, indebtedness, and obligations of the newly constituted district. Thus, any creditor rights which existed against any of the former districts are preserved against the new district.

Beginning in the 1960’s, Pennsylvania was subject to a state-wide effort to reduce the number of school districts and saw a steep decline from 2,277 districts down to 669. This event was repeated in the 1970’s when the number dropped an additional 168 districts to 505, and then ultimately to 501.

In 2009, when former Governor Rendell suggested consolidating Pennsylvania’s school districts from 501 to 100, the idea got a lot of attention. Rendell had lawmakers form a commission to study the plan, and report back ways to make it happen. Since then, efforts to encourage school districts to consolidate have been met with little success, with only one consolidation completed.

The following pros and cons are summaries of recent articles discussing school consolidation. There are many more, I only list the most prevalent in local discussions.

Financial Efficiency and Cost Savings

Fiscal responsibility is a significant driver behind consolidation discussions. Combining schools can reduce redundant administrative roles, transportation costs, and facility maintenance expenses.

• Administrative savings: One larger school can operate more efficiently instead of paying for multiple superintendents, principals, and support staff,
• Better purchasing power: Consolidated schools can negotiate better contracts for supplies and technology due to higher volume.
• Lower facility upkeep costs: Operating one new or modernized building is often cheaper than maintaining several aging structures.
Enhanced Educational Offerings – Small schools often struggle to provide a full range of Advanced Placement (AP) courses, career and technical education programs, athletics, arts, and clubs due to limited staff and resources.
• More AP and elective courses: Larger schools can justify offering more varied classes, such as foreign languages, STEM electives, or specialized arts programs.
• Expanded extracurricular activities: Students can choose from a wider array of sports, clubs, and leadership opportunities, fostering greater engagement.

The Cons: Concerns and Challenges of Consolidation

Despite these potential benefits, consolidation carries significant drawbacks that concern many.

Loss of Community Identity

Perhaps the most emotional and heartfelt concern revolves around the loss of local identity and tradition. Nothing is harder to kill than a school mascot.

• Loss of school spirit and tradition: Long-standing mascots, colors, and rivalries may disappear, erasing cherished memories and diminishing community pride.
• Reduced local engagement: Residents may feel less connected to a distant, consolidated school, leading to lower parental involvement and support.
Longer Commutes for Students
Consolidation often means closing neighborhood schools and transporting students greater distances. In our geographically diverse terrain, this can result in lengthy bus rides.
• Student fatigue: Longer days on the bus can impact students’ ability to participate in after-school activities, complete homework, and maintain a healthy school-life balance.
• Increased transportation costs: While some costs decrease, districts may see higher fuel and vehicle maintenance expenses.

Upfront Costs and Logistical Hurdles

While consolidation is often billed as a money-saver, it can require significant upfront investment to build new facilities, upgrade transportation systems, and harmonize curricula.

• Construction and transition funding: New or renovated buildings, along with necessary technology and infrastructure upgrades, can be costly.
• Short-term disruption: The transition period may involve confusion, adjustment issues, and temporary drops in academic performance.

As previously mentioned, the Central Valley School District is the only Pennsylvania school district to have successfully completed a voluntary merger since the 1960s. The district is the product of a merger between the prior Center Area and Monaca School Districts. Preliminary merger discussions began in 2005. The process involved an advisory committee, numerous public meetings, community outreach programs, and two separate feasibility studies. After four years of work, the 2009-2010 school year marked the start of the merged district.

There are two resources I recommend reading to more fully understand the process and potential outcomes of school consolidation. The Pennsylvania School Boards Association, Education Research and Policy Center published a Report called Merger/Consolidation of School Districts: Does it Save Money and Improve Student Achievement.

Additionally, the Pennsylvania School Boards Association published a proposed School District Consolidation Checklist that consists of 14 pages of recommendations which direct school districts and communities through data collection and analysis. It is detailed and thought provoking as to the complexity of school district consolidation.

In summary, the authority to consolidate K-12 schools rests with the School Board of Directors. The process is defined by the Pennsylvania School Code. Thorough analysis, feasibility studies, and public meetings will determine the potential outcome and recommendations. Even after initial agreements, this process takes a long time to implement.