DN Editorial: Your property-tax hike: How will it help the schools ... and why don't you have a say?

WHILE YOU WILL soon be paying about $50 a year more in property taxes to support the schools - based on a hike of 3.85 percent on the average tax bill of $1,261 - at least you know what you'll be getting for that money, right?

Wrong. The school district and City Council meet today to hammer out the details on how the district will spend the $53 million that Council approved on Thursday with a combination of increases to the property tax, metered-parking tax and money from the city's fund balance. At least the public's voice will be heard on what the priorities should be, right?

Wrong again. The mayor, the district and Council have generally identified four priorties - yellow school buses, full-day kindergarten, accelerated schools and reduced class sizes - and while the public has had a chance to weigh in on education in the past few weeks, reactions have been primarily limited to those menu items.

And while we would support those choices, too - especially accelerated schools, which provide an effective second chance for students who have dropped out or who are lacking sufficient credits for graduation - we must despair again at the process by which big decisions and directions get determined without formally polling the people who will be paying the bill.

The process of dealing with the School Budget Crisis, version 2011, was rushed and full of drama both real and false: A few days after the mayor sounded the alarm about the elimination of full-day kindergartern, Superintendent Ackerman made a deal with the state to retain it.

The district's budget problems have been known for a while, but full public discussion of them was put on hold until after the May primary. And while the mayor has always talked about education, it's only been recently that he's talked about the city spending $100 million more of its money on it.

Governing by emergency leads to false choices at worst, and limited choices at best. For example, should $53 million be used exclusively for retaining as many teaching jobs as possible? While Council has questioned Ackerman's expansion of her signature Renaissance Schools initiative at the sacrifice of other things, isn't it worth noting that last week Harrity, one of those Renaissance schools, made double-digit gains in Math and reading on the PSSA, and showed a marked decline in the number of students performing below basic?

After all, performance is an important factor to consider when deciding what to cut. We don't think taxpayers are scared of tough choices, even if one means paying $50 more a year. We just want to be part of the process, and that process should occasionally feel less like an ambulance ride. Meanwhile, while the city waits for how the state may amend its cuts to the district now that the city has stepped up, we hope that serious attention also is paid to the School Reform Commission. Gov. Corbett finally filled the fifth seat, and made a strong choice with Pedro Ramos, former head of the school board prior to state takeoever. Ramos, a well-regarded lawyer who serves on many local boards and is a product of the public-school system, should add serious depth to the bench. His appointment, which relies on confirmation, should also be an opportunity for the governor to consider other changes to make the SRC more effective. Fiscal and management oversight of the district is hugely complicated; do five unpaid professionals with full-time jobs provide the right structure? Right now, looking at the $629 million hole that the district finds itself in, the answer is clearly no. *