BLOG: Urban vs. Rural: A Pennsylvania Problem

It always seemed to me that Pennsylvania tends to pick fights with itself. In this fight, fists clench and faces writhe more when certain bills come up in the state legislature. Pennsylvania’s political make-up is regarded as a capital “T,” with the southwest and southeast corners containing a massive amount of the population. The central, northwest, and northeast are more rural and sparsely populated.

Allegheny and Philadelphia counties are like these two old aunts that call you up for help, and when their seemingly exhaustive request produces ambivalence, they stress their history and tradition as forces that tie you into helping. These two centers were once much bigger economic centers for our state. Industry was booming, people lived in the city, paid taxes in the city, and spent money in the city. When people began moving out to the more spacious suburbs, a move complimented by their ability to get around more easily with their car, city populations decreased. In order to make up for this exodus, property and wage taxes in the cities went up, in turn forcing more people out.

But this is nothing new; this is something we all learned in high school history classes. Most academics call this “suburbanization,” and it's created a rift that is an overarching specter in most budget and funding discussions in PA. Our diverse state has diverse views and while we move forward with one particular fight, the one over school vouchers, we enter into a realm where most citizens’ views are dictated by geography. The score to be kept, however, resides in opportunity.

A typical complaint from rural townies is that their tax money is eaten up in the social programs used in urban areas to help the impoverished or undernourished there. Now school choice advocates are receiving a scrutinizing look from fiscal conservatives, who claim any school choice program will more often benefit those in urban areas, while rural areas are left out. This certainly appears to be the case, but that goes with any program. The more populous an area, the more people there are to take advantage of any program.

But apart from pure population number, the proposal may stand to benefit urban areas more based on geography than simply the number of impoverished people. Low-income parents reside throughout our state and all should be treated the same under the program, but the choice in schools is not equal across the state. Not everyone has ready access to alternative schools.

Take Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. These cities have some of the most underperforming schools, and also some of the best, in the state. The Julia R. Masterman school is one of the best high schools in Philadelphia and the state, pumping out Ivy League students every year. Other schools in North and West Philly are so impoverished that their numbers fall far short of adequate, and not anywhere near Masterman’s.

The range of schools is wide in Philadelphia, much like the diversity of the city, where there are extremely wealthy and extremely poor people. But these people do live and mix in the same city, despite all ideas of mutual seclusion. Those with less travel through the parts where there is more, and those with more gander through the parts of the city where there is less. Both sides may not show it, but they are equally aware of the other’s circumstances. Thus, a low-income family from North Philly does indeed see the discrepancies in her child’s school and Masterman. A tax credit for this family is extremely attractive, and they know the opportunities that come with enrollment at Masterman. They’ve seen the school, they know the future of the students who graduated from them. Plus, its only a few subway stops from where their son or daughter is currently going to school.

Now, consider you’re in rural Pennsylvania. Consider a rural educational experience in the Northwest part of the state. If you live in these parts, you’ll notice a few things different than that of the southwest or southeast. That is, that each town has its own school district.  Most school districts contain one elementary, middle, and high school. Most students go from Northwest Elementary, to Northwest Middle School, to Northwest High School. Towns are spread out, people are spread out, and therefore a land area half the size of Philadelphia has only one school for each level of schooling. So small is the population in these areas that besides very small parochial schools, no private schools exist, and mostly everyone attends public school.

Within these small schools, it’s almost a guarantee that the people you learned your alphabet with are the ones you graduate high school with. This is because of school choice, or lack thereof, in these areas.

In Erie County, the nearest schools worth seeking out a tuition voucher for are Cathedral Prep, Mercyhurst Prep, or Collegiate Academy, all located in the city of Erie. Were a person from rural Erie County to gain benefit of a voucher, driving to their new school would be a half-hour’s drive. There are no trains or buses to take. Any family with an income that gains them eligibility into the voucher program most likely cannot afford the daily drive into a new school. The costs of gas, time, and wear and tear on a car are brutal in the state’s northwest, which receives Buffalo-type weather. Going to a subpar school a few miles away may be more economical, even with the vouchers helping with tuition.

In more rural areas, the distances are wider, and the options smaller. Not everyone has Masterman, or one nearly on par with Masterman, within reasonable travel distance. Therefore, when we speak impediments to choice, we need to talk geography along with income.

But so the argument continues. In the more rural areas, the choice is less, while on the other hand, the tremendous number of students vying for a spot in the best schools in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh can make enrollment equally unattainable.

Whether you’re in a rural, suburban, or urban area, the impediment to passage of a Senate Bill 1, or any bill of similar merit, is that the bill is costly. Most people, with the exception of parents seeking a tuition subsidy, can see little benefit in the bill. Considering that most Pennsylvanians are constantly seeking alleviation from property taxes, which fund schools, the notion that the state is spending additional general funds on vouchers is unappealing.

Senate Bill 1 is certainly up for debate over which students, from Erie to Philadelphia, will more likely benefit. But no one has to make a choice. None of us at least. The bill will live and die on whether those state legislators believe it will be fiscally responsible to approve an expensive bill while other areas of the budget get drastically cut.

In the end, we all agree on giving students a choice, but are unsure on whether its worth the costs.

But it's always best to remember where you’re at.