Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dayton Public Schools requests $2 million for Challenger Center upgrades as curriculum budget jumps
Summary
Chief Academic Officer Takisha Sheehy told the school board the curriculum, instruction and professional development budget for FY26 would rise largely because of capital work at the Challenger Center and increased instructional supplies; board members pressed for more detail and a separate accounting line for the center.
Chief Academic Officer Takisha Sheehy told the Dayton Public Schools Board of Education on March 11 that the district’s curriculum, instruction and professional development budget request for fiscal 2026 would rise sharply, driven primarily by a capital request to upgrade the Challenger Center and higher non-payroll costs for instructional materials and professional development.
Sheehy said the department requests 12.5 full-time equivalent positions and a projected payroll of $1,400,000 and non-payroll spending of $7,300,000 for FY26, compared with the current-year staffing of 15.5 FTEs, $1,700,000 in payroll and $3,700,000 in non-payroll. “We decreased our full-time staff, which takes our salary down $325,976.84,” Sheehy said. “And our total non-payroll request is increased by 3,500,000.”
The largest single capital ask is for the Challenger Center, which Sheehy said would require a $2,000,000 build-out to meet National Challenger Center specifications and to repair aging spaces. Sheehy also listed $225,000 for choir-room repairs at Stivers and a $34,653.73 capital request included in the non-payroll totals. “We are at the 30 year anniversary right now, and it has not had any updates or upgrades,” she said of the Challenger Center. “Working with the National Challenger Center, we plan to upgrade our Challenger Center.”
Why it matters: Board members said the Challenger Center has districtwide reach and that an explicit, separate line item would make it easier for the board and the public to track spending and outcomes. Board member Mr. Lacey asked for a separate line item; Sheehy and Director of Finance agreed they could provide that. Board members also pressed for more detail about what portion of the $2.1 million estimate would be contractor work versus in-house labor.
Board questions focused on funding sources and program impact. Mr. Walker asked whether the staff reductions were layoffs; Sheehy said the positions would be funded by federal grants rather than the general fund and that no employees would be laid off from the district payroll as a result of the change. “Those individuals will be funded out of federal funds,” Sheehy said. Board members asked for a breakdown of how much of the increased supplies request represents physical books versus consumables or online resources; Sheehy said much of the increase reflects a move away from multi‑year payment plans and toward one- to two-year contracts plus a push for consumables tied to implementation support and coaching.
Board direction and next steps: The board asked administration to provide (a) a separate line item for the Challenger Center within the curriculum budget; (b) a detailed capital timeline and scope for the Challenger Center build-out; and (c) a clearer accounting of the sources of funding (general fund versus federal grants) that will cover the shift of several positions off general-fund payroll. Sheehy said the department could provide the requested breakdown and additional documentation of contract terms for instructional materials.
Members who spoke on the item included Takisha Sheehy, Doctor Lawrence and board members Mr. Walker and Mr. Lacey.
