Pennsylvania school board elections, 2015

• Election trends
  • Competitiveness
  • Incumbency advantage
  • Data table
• Spotlight districts
  • Allentown City School District
  • Scranton School District
• Survey responses
  • Top priorities
  • Ranking the issues
  • Positions on the issues
• State profile
  • Academic performance
  • Dropout rate
• See also
  • References

2016 → ← 2014

2015 School Board Elections

School Board Elections by State

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Elections Information

Election dates • 2015 elections • Candidate filing dates • Finance reporting • Poll opening and closing times

A total of 18 Pennsylvania school districts among America's largest school districts by enrollment held elections for 91 seats on November 3, 2015.

Here are several quick facts about Pennsylvania's school board elections in 2015:

• The largest school district by enrollment with an election in 2015 was Pittsburgh School District with 26,292 K-12 students.
• The smallest school district by enrollment with an election in 2015 was Parkland School District with 9,263 K-12 students.
• Central Dauphin School District had the most seats on the ballot in 2015 with six seats up for election.
• Scranton School District had the fewest seats on the ballot in 2015 with three seats up for election.

The districts listed below served 238,994 K-12 students during the 2012-2013 school year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Click on the district names for more information on the district and its school board elections.

2015 Pennsylvania School Board Elections
District	Date	Seats up for election	Total board seats	Student enrollment
Allentown City School District	11/3/2015	5	9	16,966
Bethlehem Area School District	11/3/2015	5	9	14,300
Central Bucks School District	11/3/2015	5	9	19,814
Central Dauphin School District	11/3/2015	6	9	10,946
Council Rock School District	11/3/2015	5	9	11,426
Downingtown Area School District	11/3/2015	5	9	11,915
Erie City School District	11/3/2015	5	9	11,908
Hazleton Area School District	11/3/2015	5	9	10,429
Lancaster School District	11/3/2015	5	9	11,174
North Penn School District	11/3/2015	5	9	12,650
Parkland School District	11/3/2015	5	9	9,263
Pennsbury School District	11/3/2015	6	9	10,434
Pittsburgh School District	11/3/2015	4	9	26,292
Pocono Mountain School District	11/3/2015	4	9	9,814
Reading School District	11/3/2015	6	9	17,651
Scranton School District	11/3/2015	5	9	9,881
Upper Darby School District	11/3/2015	5	9	12,449
West Chester Area School District	11/3/2015	5	9	11,682

Trends in Pennsylvania school board elections

See also: School boards in session: 2015 in brief

The 2015 school board elections in Pennsylvania's largest school districts attracted a similar average number of candidates per seat on the ballot compared to the overall average number of candidates who ran per seat up for election in the largest school districts across the United States in 2015. The elections in Pennsylvania saw a smaller percentage of unopposed seats compared to the percentage of seats that were unopposed nationwide. Newcomers fared better in Pennsylvania's elections. They won 47.25 percent of the seats on the ballot, compared to the 40.77 percent of school board seats they won across the country.

The following sections analyze competitiveness and incumbency advantage in Pennsylvania's school board elections. All 18 of the state's largest school districts held primary elections in 2015. The elections were partisan, meaning candidates ran with a political party designation.

Details of the data discussed here can be found in the table below.

Competitiveness

In 2015, Pennsylvania's largest school districts attracted an average of 1.77 candidates per seat on the ballot. This was slightly higher than the average of 1.72 candidates who ran per seat in elections held in the largest school districts nationwide. A total of 31.87 percent of the seats on the ballot in Pennsylvania were unopposed. This was a lower percentage than the 35.97 percent of seats that were unopposed in the country as a whole.

Incumbency advantage

See also: School board incumbency analysis: 2015 in brief

In 2015, 84.21 percent of incumbents who ran for re-election in Pennsylvania school districts retained their seats. A total of 57 of the 91 incumbents whose terms were up for re-election ran to keep their seats, and 48 of them won. Twenty-two of those incumbents ran unopposed; the other 26 winners defeated challengers to win additional terms.

A total of 82.66 percent of incumbents kept their seats in school board elections across the country in 2015, and 40.45 percent of them ran unopposed. The map below details the success rates for incumbents who ran in the 2015 school board elections that were held in the largest school districts by enrollment in the U.S.

The map above details the success rates of incumbent who ran to retain their school board seats in the largest school districts in each state. States depicted in gray did not hold school board elections.

Data table

The table below displays the statistics for school board elections in Pennsylvania's largest school districts in 2015.

Pennsylvania school board elections, 2015
Year	Total	Incumbents
Seats up	Candidates	Candidates/ seat	Unopposed seats	% unopposed	% seats won by newcomers	Sought re-election	Unopposed	Retained	% retained
2015	91	161	1.77	29	31.87%	47.25%	57	22	48	84.21%

Spotlight districts

Interested parties poured money and influence into Scranton School District and Allentown City School District in 2015. The Scranton School District experienced a two-week teachers' strike that brought the president of the American Federation of Teachers to Scranton to speak at a rally. Candidates for Allentown City School District's Board of Directors were supported by a political action committee set up by the Allentown mayor, which became the center of an FBI investigation.

Allentown City School District

Despite most candidates running in both parties' primaries as a result of cross-filing, partisan lines were clearly drawn in the 2015 primary election for school board. Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski, along with State Reps. Michael Schlossberg (D-22) and Peter Schweyer (D-132), created a political action committee called Citizens for a Better Allentown to support candidates running for the five open school board seats and three open city council seats. The candidates supported by the PAC were Elizabeth Martinez, Audrey Mathison, Marc Telesha and Charlie Thiel. All of the candidates supported by the PAC were identified as Democrats.

Incumbents Ce-Ce Gerlach, Scott Armstrong and Robert Smith were not endorsed by the PAC. Armstrong and Smith identified as Republicans, but Gerlach identified as a Democrat. All three incumbents have had disagreements with the mayor in regard to his Neighborhood Improvement Zone project, which promoted downtown revitalization through tax incentives.

Armstrong had the following response to the news that he was not being supported by the PAC:

“	The mayor controls the city, now he wants to control the school district? Pawlowski is supporting those people because he can get exactly what he wants from them.	”
—Scott Armstrong, 2015,

Smith told reporters that he did not take it personally, and Gerlach gave no comment regarding the situation.

Three of the candidates endorsed by Citizens for a Better Allentown won nominations and advanced to the general election. Elizabeth Martinez and Audrey Mathison both won a nomination in the Democratic primary. Charlie Thiel won nominations in both primaries. Marc Telesha did not advance to the general election.

Shortly after the primary election, the FBI began an investigation into Mayor Pawlowski and his involvement with potentially unlawful city contracts. A local developer pleaded guilty in September 2015 to contributing to the mayor's PAC in exchange for contracts from the city.

Since the FBI investigation began, the PAC was shut down and the candidates who were previously supported by the PAC received no more funds. A local political consultant who allegedly supplied the information to the FBI that led to the indictment of the developer shut down his office and moved out of his house the day after the FBI issued subpoenas to people within the city. As of October 2015, the mayor had not been charged with any crime.

Scranton School District

Over 900 teachers and education professionals in the Scranton School District officially went on strike on September 25, 2015, after multiple failed negotiations between the school board and the Scranton Federation of Teachers. Salary increases and health benefits were the most contentious points of the negotiations.

The district had presented a plan that added more instructional time to the school day. The plan also included an increase in salary level for all teachers starting in January with no retroactive payment for current teachers. The salary level increase would make up for the higher deductibles in the provided healthcare plans.

Teachers protested in front of the school administration building on October 5, 2015. They carried in boxes of signed petitions calling for a fair contract for Scranton teachers. They also chanted, "What's fair for one is fair for all, 2.5 percent for all." This was in reference to the contract of the district superintendent, Dr. Alexis Kirijan, which stipulates that she receive automatic 2.5 percent annual raises. Kirijan started her job as superintendent in July 2015. She commented on the strike during the protests outside of her office.

“	Any decisions that are being made per the teachers contract, those decisions are not being made solely by me. I work for the board of education. We are trying to do the right things for the right reasons. Our budget can only stretch so far. We stretched the budget beyond what we could possibly comfortably do, to get teachers a contract that could be satisfactory to them, but it’s not. The school district is broke. You really can’t give what you don’t have. I’m here to straighten out the financial situation in the district, not make it worse.	”
—Dr. Alexis Kirijan, Scranton School District Superintendent,

The strike lasted two weeks and ended on October 13, 2015. The district agreed to give the teachers and paraprofessionals salary increases based on years of service starting in January. They also will receive retroactive payment for the time they worked under an expired contract. The union agreed to the higher healthcare deductibles and a start date for the salary increases of January 1, 2016.

Survey responses

See also: Ballotpedia's school board candidate survey

Ten of the 157 candidates running for a school board seat in Pennsylvania's largest school districts in the 2015 elections responded to Ballotpedia's school board candidate survey. The following sections display their answers to questions about top priorities and education issues.

Top priorities

When asked what his top priorities would be if elected, Robert Smith, incumbent on the Allentown City School District Board of Directors, stated:

“	Decrease the drop out rate. Every student counts, and sometimes its tests, trouble at home, we need to do everything possible to make sure every student gets a diploma. Students may not want to go to college, but they need that diploma even if they decide college is not for them, they may go right into work force in a technical carrier which is outstanding too. I have been on board 12 years, most experienced candidate in race, the next board will also have to do a super attendant search, and replace top three leadership positions.	”
—Robert Smith (2015)

Mark Smith

The top priorities of Mark Smith, challenger for a seat on the Allentown City School District Board of School Directors, were:

“	Community relations and the insulation of the teacher/student relationship	”
—Mark Smith (2015)

Basilio Bonilla

When asked what his top priorities would be if elected, Bethlehem Area School District Board of Directors incumbent Basilio Bonilla stated:

“	If re-elected my top priority will be working to balance out growing budget with minimal tax increase. It will also be my goal to create a district wide tax rebate program for our senior citizens.	”
—Basilio Bonilla (2015)

Karen Beck Pooley

Karen Beck Pooley, winner of a seat on the Bethlehem Area School District Board of Directors, said the following were her top priorities:

“	High quality public schools are the most important investment we make in our neighborhoods and in our children. My main priority is simply to ensure that all Bethlehem Area School District schools continue to be key community assets and that all Bethlehem Area School District students graduate well equipped for whatever educational or employment opportunities they will tackle in life.	”
—Karen Beck Pooley (2015)

Thomas Thomasik

When asked what his top priorities would be if elected, Thomas Thomasik, winner of a seat on the Bethlehem Area School District Board of Directors, stated:

“	Balancing the budget and backing full day kindergarten!	”
—Thomas Thomasik (2015)

Karen Smith

The top priorities of Karen Smith, winner of a seat on the Central Bucks School District Board of Directors, were:

“	Focus on students first: Our decisions will prioritize developing the whole child; using best practices in education to maintain academic rigor while returning to a broad-based educational approach, including the arts, technology and physical education. Emphasize transparent decision making: We will require transparency and a culture of open dialogue and collaboration in the decision making process, particularly in regards to fiscal management and reporting. We will always be aware that the school board represents you. We will seek out, respect and value input from students, teachers, staff, community members, and best practices from other school districts in our decision making. Provide strong fiscal responsibility: As parents and taxpayers in Central Bucks, we support decision making that puts our students first and considers the financial limits of our community's taxpayers. The district’s trend of cutting programs and raising taxes while maintaining undisclosed and generous surpluses is unacceptable. We will remain watchful of district finances and demand honest reporting to protect our students and taxpayers. Increase and improve communications: We will promote significant changes to the district's communication methods, increasing the frequency of communication as well as the types of communication methods used, in order to ensure an open dialogue in our community. Support exemplary leaders: We will seek out and support district leadership who have a clear vision for the future of Central Bucks, who will search for and implement leading edge educational approaches, who value the opinions of all stakeholders in the decision-making process, who are honest and transparent communicators and who embrace a positive whole child educational approach.	”
—Karen Smith (2015)

Edward Tate

When asked what his top priorities would be if elected, Edward Tate, winner of a seat on the Council Rock School District Board of Directors, stated:

“	My top priority is to ensure sufficient support for our academic programs by ensuring sound financial management.	”
—Edward Tate (2015)

Leslie Rothberg

Leslie Rothberg, challenger for a seat on the Council Rock School District Board of Directors, stated the following as her top priorities:

“	I intend to focus on bringing down the cost-per-student by utilizing the empty seats in certain buildings and filling them to capacity. This will create more efficient use of resources throughout the district. I also plan to improve current technological advances that can be integrated into the classrooms.	”
—Leslie Rothberg (2015)

Matthew Henry

The top priorities of Matthew Henry, challenger for a seat on the Pocono Mountain School District Board of Directors, were:

“	My four priorities are as follows: 1). Have a Quality Education to offer to the Students 2). Have a good Balanced Curriculum for students and teachers to work with 3).Maintain and Lower Taxes, work with the board and district to make sure taxes will stay the same and never go up. 4).Establish a Level of Transparency so that the people we are representing will know what is going on.	”
—Matthew Henry (2015)

Brian M. Dietzler

When asked what his top priorities would be if elected, Brian M. Dietzler, winner of a seat on the Upper Darby School District Board of Directors, stated:

“	As a School Director, it would be my top priority to simply do my best to understand exactly what our school leaders, faculty, and staff need to best serve our students, and then work collaboratively with my fellow Directors, of ANY political party or background, to scrutinize our policy, procedures and purse to provide that support. My ten years and counting in the classroom is invaluable to this, and I will share my experiences and insight heavily. At the same time, I will evaluate the propositions and needs with regards to honoring the financial trust of our constituents when approving or questioning items put before the Board. Lastly, it has gotten almost out of hand how much our hands are continually being tied by state and national government. I plan to work hard to work with our state and national leaders to make sure Upper Darby gets a fair shake for the sake of our students.	”
—Brian M. Dietzler (2015)

Ranking the issues

The candidates were asked to rank the following issues by importance in the school district, with 1 being the most important and 7 being the least important. This table displays the candidates' average rankings as well as the highest and lowest rankings for each issue.

Issue importance ranking
Issues	Average ranking	Highest ranking	Lowest ranking
Expanding arts education	3.40	1	7
Expanding career-technical education	3.40	2	7
Balancing or maintaining the district's budget	3.50	1	7
Improving college readiness	4.40	2	6
Closing the achievement gap	3.30	1	6
Improving education for special needs students	4.10	2	5
Expanding school choice options	5.90	1	7

Positions on the issues

The candidates were asked an additional 10 short answer and multiple choice questions regarding significant issues in education. Links to those responses can be found below.

• Robert Smith survey responses
• Mark Smith survey responses
• Karen Smith survey responses
• Thomas Thomasik survey responses
• Karen Beck Pooley survey responses

• Basilio Bonilla survey responses
• Edward Tate survey responses
• Leslie Rothberg survey responses
• Brian Dietzler survey responses
• Matthew Henry survey responses

State profile

Demographic data for Pennsylvania
	Pennsylvania	U.S.
Total population:	12,791,904	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	44,743	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	81.6%	73.6%
Black/African American:	11%	12.6%
Asian:	3.1%	5.1%
Native American:	0.2%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.1%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	6.4%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	89.2%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	28.6%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$53,599	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	15.9%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Pennsylvania. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania voted for the Democratic candidate in five out of the seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, three are located in Pennsylvania, accounting for 1.46 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Pennsylvania had one Retained Pivot County and two Boomerang Pivot Counties, accounting for 0.55 and 8.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More Pennsylvania coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Pennsylvania
• United States congressional delegations from Pennsylvania
• Public policy in Pennsylvania
• Endorsers in Pennsylvania
• Pennsylvania fact checks
• More...

Academic performance

Education terms
For more information on education policy terms, see this article.
School board elections portal Glossary of education terms School choice on the ballot Education on the ballot

See also: Public education in Pennsylvania

NAEP scores

See also: NAEP scores by state

The National Center for Education Statistics provides state-by-state data on student achievement levels in mathematics and reading in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The chart below presents the percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade students that scored at or above proficient in reading and math during the 2012-2013 school year. Compared to three neighboring states (Maryland, New York, and Ohio), Pennsylvania had the highest percentage of eighth grade students score at or above proficient in math.

Percent of students scoring at or above proficient, 2012-2013
	Math - Grade 4	Math - Grade 8	Reading - Grade 4	Reading - Grade 8
Pennsylvania	44%	42%	40%	42%
Maryland	47%	37%	45%	42%
New York	40%	32%	37%	35%
Ohio	48%	40%	37%	39%
United States	41%	34%	34%	34%
Source: United States Department of Education, ED Data Express, "State Tables"

Graduation, ACT and SAT scores

See also: Graduation rates by groups in state and ACT and SAT scores in the United States

The following table shows the graduation rates and average composite ACT and SAT scores for Pennsylvania and surrounding states during the 2012-2013 school year. All statements made in this section refer to that school year.

In the United States, public schools reported graduation rates that averaged about 81.4 percent. About 54 percent of all students in the country took the ACT, while 50 percent reported taking the SAT. The average national composite scores for those tests were 20.9 out of a possible 36 for the ACT and 1,498 out of a possible 2,400 for the SAT.

Pennsylvania schools reported a graduation rate of 85.5 percent, highest among its neighboring states.

In Pennsylvania, more students took the SAT than the ACT, earning an average SAT score of 1,480.

Comparison table for graduation rates and test scores, 2012-2013
State	Graduation rate, 2013		Average ACT composite, 2013		Average SAT composite, 2013
	Percent	Quintile ranking**	Score	Participation rate	Score	Participation rate
Pennsylvania	85.5%	Second	22.7	18%	1,480	71%
Maryland	85%	Second	22.3	21%	1,483	73%
New York	76.8%	Fourth	23.4	26%	1,463	76%
Ohio	82.2%	Third	21.8	72%	1,635	17%
United States	81.4%		20.9	54%	1498	50%
**Graduation rates for states in the first quintile ranked in the top 20 percent nationally. Similarly, graduation rates for states in the fifth quintile ranked in the bottom 20 percent nationally. Sources: United States Department of Education, "ED Data Express" ACT.org, "2013 ACT National and State Scores" The Commonwealth Foundation, "SAT scores by state, 2013"

Dropout rates

See also: Public high school dropout rates by state for a full comparison of dropout rates by group in all states

The high school event dropout rate indicates the proportion of students who were enrolled at some time during the school year and were expected to be enrolled in grades nine through 12 in the following school year but were not enrolled by October 1 of the following school year. Students who have graduated, transferred to another school, died, moved to another country, or who are out of school due to illness are not considered dropouts. The average public high school event dropout rate for the United States remained constant at 3.3 percent for both school year 2010–2011 and school year 2011–2012. The event dropout rate for Pennsylvania was lower than the national average at 2.2 percent in the 2010-2011 school year, and 2.8 percent in the 2011-2012 school year.

See also

Pennsylvania	School Boards	News and Analysis
Public education in Pennsylvania List of school districts in Pennsylvania	School board elections, 2015 List of school board elections in 2015 Candidate filing deadlines, 2015 Campaign finance deadlines, 2015	Incumbency no guarantee of success in Nov. 3 school board elections (November 6, 2015) What happened in Nov.'s top board elections? (November 4, 2015)