This letter to the editor was submitted to LebTown. Read our submission policy here.
Recent reporting and public discussion about the Lebanon County Career and Technology Center and the Lebanon School District’s position on the corrected Articles of Agreement deserve additional context. This issue should not be reduced to whether one district “wins” or “loses,” nor should it be framed in a way that overlooks the difficult compromise already reached by the county’s other school districts.
The corrected Articles of Agreement reflect a compromise funding formula that uses 50 percent Average Daily Membership and 50 percent market value, as calculated through State Tax Equalization Board figures. This approach recognizes both student participation and local property wealth, creating a more balanced way to share responsibility for the CTC across Lebanon County.
That is why the public deserves a fuller picture. The corrected agreement was a necessary attempt to move a difficult countywide issue forward among districts with very different financial realities. When Mr. Grumbine was quoted as saying he feels Lebanon is holding the process hostage, I understood that concern because I have felt that way as well. One district’s refusal to move forward now affects every other district and the students who depend on the CTC.
As a school board president, I believe the most important question is whether this decision serves students at ELCO and supports career and technical education opportunities for students across Lebanon County. Career and technical education gives students access to hands-on learning, industry-recognized skills, career pathways, and meaningful options after graduation. Supporting the CTC is not only about a funding formula; it is about protecting those opportunities for students in every part of our county.
I know firsthand how important strong career and technical education can be. My own experience with career and technical education helped lead me to a rewarding career in radiology, and I understand the lasting impact these opportunities can have on a student’s future.
In a countywide partnership, no district will get everything it wants. The corrected articles reflected shared responsibility rather than a perfect outcome for any one district. Lebanon’s rejection of them now places additional pressure on the entire CTC system.
It is also important to recognize that school districts do not operate from identical financial positions. Lebanon School District receives far more adequacy funding than ELCO: Lebanon received $6,358,810.85 in adequacy funding, while ELCO receives the minimum amount of $50,000. I agree with Mr. Grumbine that it is difficult to see how Lebanon can claim hardship when it receives the most adequacy funding in the county. An ADM-based formula alone would have been better for ELCO’s current financial constraints, yet ELCO still supported the 50/50 approach because it was a fairer countywide compromise.
Every district has a responsibility to its taxpayers, and ELCO takes that responsibility seriously. But after ELCO supported a compromise despite receiving far fewer state resources, Lebanon’s rejection of the corrected agreement has left the rest of the county waiting while the future of the CTC remains uncertain.
Students across Lebanon County deserve strong career and technical education programs, not months of uncertainty while one district considers leaving the countywide system to create its own career and technical education program. If Lebanon is now pursuing that path through town halls and what appears to be a new December deadline, the public deserves a clear and honest discussion about what that decision would mean for every student, every district, and the future of the CTC itself.
Rachel Moyer
ELCO School Board President
Pennsylvania School Boards Coalition Chair
