[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6304830,"mediaKeyId","2453243-b186bbacb0df034f99aef39ea2aab454","parentId",2453243,"title","Finance committee debates use of grant dollars and consultants; district defends coaching, responsive-classroom work","audioSeconds",1956,"startMs",2554000,"endMs",4510000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2453243-b186bbacb0df034f99aef39ea2aab454&start=2554&end=4510","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2453243-b186bbacb0df034f99aef39ea2aab454/thumbnail_2554000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6304830/Pennsylvania/Finance-committee-debates-use-of-grant-dollars-and-consultants-district-defends-coaching-responsive-classroom-work","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6304830-fb448f5ac6323e108a01ef87d906e1cd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771162868&Signature=fYwGxqMjUL7g6zbJ06X6PIw~4K007HUCFci9ZtMvy370hnapFgnwSLOPe3SCrZ0s1w5ICthgdtRV5FEnn3mWV8-lBcrH9aF9GREdbLoInpjBROKaLuTLP-LlxGY0Jnsjk7q7uH5~rDvgwfYvHsoB8u8rgt6NTpwxLvTWeoXn7jqQRljkrAjzXga6qpA3iiTrF8Ea4oB-~u55nZ666wCiKsBGR5pk23xvB6UayGXboprAJwpzl6gdVpzp3DRO~Z7rK4xiIE5sMLKj632Hh8B667YOMKPIySK7pceft0fdS8gCjmV3CDBXmC~VvTOhub9954fSljyG3HvdsQLuayMkiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-02-25T13:22:20Z","article","Board members and staff spent a significant portion of the Finance Committee meeting discussing grant-funded consultants, district consultant procurement and the goals of specific contracts such as the work with consultant Lindsay Lynch.

One board member asked for an explanation of when and why the district hires outside consultants and whether grant funds used for consultants could alternatively pay for staff or other services. “I just would love an explanation of how the coaching ... is decided,” the board member said when referencing a roughly $50,000 line for individualized coaching.

Steve, staff member, explained that the contract for Lindsay Lynch has been funded through grants and what the district calls CCEIS — an early-intervention allocation used in this case to address a stated disproportionality in special-education placements. Steve said the district introduced responsive-classroom work, fidelity checks and executive coaching as a multi-year effort and reported that, “we've actually exited disproportionality for this population,” language he characterized as recent.

Staff described how grant restrictions shape allowable expenditures. The Ready to Learn state grant is roughly $136,000 and can be used in about 21 categories, staff said; Title funds (Title I, II, III, IV) were described with specific examples: Title I supports literacy specialists and interventionists, Title II is often used for professional development, and Title III supports multilingual-learner summer programs. Staff provided headline grant amounts in the meeting materials: Title I approximately $398,000 and Title II approximately $70,000; staff said a portion of Title II funds (about $19,000 in a current example) is passed through to nonpublic schools that request the funds for eligible services.

On billing and revenue related to medical services, staff said the district bills the state for medical-assistance reimbursement through a process that includes medical-access logs and external reviews; staff also confirmed the district bills private insurance in some cases when an IEP and eligibility permit it.

On procurement and oversight, staff said the district generally uses quotes and formal RFPs for larger engagements and that multi-year contracts are re-bid when appropriate. Sherry, staff member, said that consultants returning in subsequent years would be brought back to the board for vote and that auditors and other services have gone through formal RFP processes.

Board members repeatedly asked for more transparency on consultant spend and outcome measures. One member requested a broader list of consultants and clearer evaluations of what the district considers successful outcomes. Staff said there are examples where consultants produced system savings — for example, scheduling and organizational-consulting work that likely reduced staffing needs — and that some consultant arrangements are designed specifically to build internal capacity rather than to be ongoing, permanent hires.

The committee did not take a new vote on consultant contracts at the meeting; staff said they will return with additional documentation, including the district’s federal funds detail and the audit’s federal schedule (CIF A) as requested.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Great Valley School District Finance Committee Meeting - February 24, 2025 at 7:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Board members pressed staff for more detail on grant-funded consultants and district-funded consultants. Staff described grant restrictions, pass-throughs to nonpublic schools, and how a contract with Lindsay Lynch and responsive-classroom work was used to address disproportionality.","taxTitle","Great Valley SD, School Districts, Pennsylvania","taxId",55563,"location","Pennsylvania","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6304835,"Great Valley Finance Committee reviews first look at 2025–26 budget; cautious revenue assumptions tied to Act 1 index",1762,234000,1996000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2453243-b186bbacb0df034f99aef39ea2aab454&start=234&end=1996","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2453243-b186bbacb0df034f99aef39ea2aab454/thumbnail_234000.jpg","/articles/6304835/Pennsylvania/Great-Valley-Finance-Committee-reviews-first-look-at-202526-budget-cautious-revenue-assumptions-tied-to-Act-1-index","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6304835-c25a4c1c22252fc9173718bdb4f19c5c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771162868&Signature=E55MMyO8qzkBObfoUkhFSPtg5667J8WI0FihfTufnsIQ~4O5zwSpSGG625oivBJX65~nf0npnUIC4fjoxoZi~dc67zBrkFN4JPOSGqEXFLyqr3IZjagcgkYoTob46ulg7Q3oWGrVulL3HDos6BJMoyWuVq8Np9ry6DDomD9rZHLzRUQIF8xEakWCYcjzylIyMeozGDt00ZpkIguDJ54gICn8lz8LvtGer5eyE8uXZupXPGj9Y8KOQmspsIrKXnF4vUr9fUZG7ZPPZWnd1plUtI2HCEiDt6S~WSerW1zwmTVlSNOsLsLvTulyeiVUhzmbb09B-1XctQ0bx-4IOkYv5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sherry, staff member, told the Great Valley School District Finance Committee that the administration’s “first look” at the 2025–26 budget assumes conservative revenue estimates and follows the board’s October resolution to remain within the Act 1 index.

The presentation said the district is working with an October 31 snapshot of assessed real-estate values that fell from $4,283,000,000 on July 1 to $4,266,000,000 on Oct. 31; the administration used a conservative planning figure of $4,273,000,000 for the 2025–26 budget. Sherry said the district’s current millage is 24.37; applying the Act 1 index at 4% would raise the millage to about 25.35.

Why it matters: the district is treating the October valuation as an early indicator and deliberately lowered its assessed-value estimate for planning. That conservative approach affects projected tax revenue, which is a large portion of the district’s operating funds and therefore shapes personnel and program decisions.

Key numbers and schedule presented by staff include: the district budget projection based on the first-look scenario; a budget adoption timeline that calls for a preliminary budget vote by April 21, 2025, a final board vote on June 2, 2025, and a state submission deadline of June 30, 2025. Sherry said the presentation shows a balanced first-look budget under the 4% Act 1 assumption but warned staff will continue to “sharpen our pencils” and examine line items before the preliminary vote.

On collection assumptions and exemptions, the administration said it uses a conservative tax-collection rate of 97% for budgeting even though current collections run roughly 99%. The presentation also flagged the Homestead/Farmstead tax exemptions and a small senior-citizen reduction the board adopted last year as items that reduce net real-estate tax receipts; staff said those are tracked on separate line items.

Staff also gave preliminary local-tax receipts for interim and transfer taxes — interim taxes were projected at about $1.3 million and current real-estate transfer taxes at about $2.7 million — and noted that investment earnings and other locally generated revenue remain subject to market conditions.

State and federal revenue lines: staff described basic education funding as essentially flat in the current model and explained that some state accounting changes shifted items between the “basic education” line and the “state shared contribution” line. Federal funds were discussed broadly: staff reported that roughly 1.2% of the district’s budget is federal dollars when all federal sources are included; excluding IDEA pass-throughs, federal funds make up less than 1% of the total. Staff said IDEA and medical-assistance reimbursement (a State drawdown tied to SBAP student-based claims) are expected to remain available.

The committee set a follow-up schedule: staff will return with updated revenue and expenditure figures at future finance meetings in March, April and May, and the administration warned that projections will be refined as closer-to-July‑1 assessed value and collection data become available.","Finance Committee received a first-look 2025–26 budget presentation, including conservative real-estate valuation estimates, a possible millage increase tied to the Act 1 index, and calendar dates for preliminary and final budget adoption.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Finance committee debates use of grant dollars and consultants; district defends coaching, responsive-classroom work

Great Valley Finance Committee reviews first look at 2025–26 budget; cautious revenue assumptions tied to Act 1 index