William Penn School District finance staff presented a preliminary plan at a budget advisory meeting to balance the 2025–26 budget that relies on a proposed 5.9% property‑tax increase and an assumed $2 million reduction in cyber‑charter tuition if state lawmakers enact cyber‑charter reform.

Dr. B. Coates, district finance presenter, said the district developed multiple scenarios and is “trying to address a $6,200,000 gap,” and that the balanced budget shown in the presentation depends on both the tax increase and the projected $2,000,000 reduction in cyber‑charter tuition. “If this does not happen,” he said, “this whole entire budget goes out the window.”

The nut graf: the district must adopt a balanced budget by law before the June 30 deadline. Because state aid and cyber‑charter reform remain uncertain, the finance team presented contingency scenarios showing how different combinations of tax rate and state action would change the deficit and the scale of program cuts needed.

Most important facts and numbers
- The district presented four scenarios comparing new positions vs. no new positions and with/without a tax increase; variances ranged from roughly $6.0 million to $14.0 million in earlier slides.
- The presentation targeted closing a $6,200,000 shortfall through a mix of revenue assumptions and spending reductions.
- The “balanced” scenario shown assumes a 5.9% tax increase and a $2,000,000 reduction in cyber‑charter tuition, producing a budget figure presented as about $135,000,577.46 in revenues under that scenario.
- If the district keeps rates flat (0% increase) and the cyber‑charter reform does not occur, the presentation showed a projected deficit of roughly $5,000,000 and identified likely reductions to transportation, specials (art/music), and athletics.
- The homeowner impact example shown: on a $150,000 assessment, a 5.9% increase equals about $23.33 per month; a 3.9% increase equals about $15.42 per month. The presenter noted homestead/exemption rules could reduce the homeowner burden further.

Planned and proposed expenditure adjustments described
- Eliminated the Lakeside contract (no dollar line item attributed in the meeting for that single removal).
- Adjusted charter‑school tuition projections.
- Reduced some supplemental pay lines and other line items including debt service, cited as producing roughly $1,600,000 in decreases.
- Special education: the district is proposing to outsource special‑education leadership services to the Delaware County Intermediate Unit (DCIU). Under that partnership the DCIU would provide a chief director of special education and student services and an additional special‑education supervisor; the district said this leverages recommendations from a Chester County Intermediate Unit (CCIU) audit and would produce roughly $596,000 in savings after accounting for resignations/retirements and other departmental savings.
- Technology/PLC changes: the executive director of personalized learning and technology position has been eliminated in the district’s projection; responsibilities for the PLC (the district’s virtual program) were described as moving to the chief of schools and technology oversight shifting under the chief of operations with DCIU support on technical services. The district cited an estimated $228,000 in IT savings from vacancies and the executive‑director elimination.
- Vacancy and retirement savings: the presentation counted 24 current vacancies that could be held (projected savings about $1,800,000) and listed seven retirements that could be avoided or not filled for a projected $576,000 in savings. The district said it reviewed each school to avoid removing staff that would create class sizes of about 40 or eliminate required special‑education classes.
- Instructional facilitators: the proposal reduces elementary instructional facilitators from 10 to 5 in projections; the presentation tied that change to a net $648,000 increase in certain staffing costs after other schedule adjustments were accounted for.

Special‑education and compliance concerns raised in public comment
Several teachers, program leaders and union representatives urged caution about cuts to special‑education capacity and school‑based supports.
- Andrea Fink, president of the William Penn Education Association, said the cuts to instructional facilitators were made without union input and invoked the collective‑bargaining contract: “This violates our contract, article 54, site based decision making,” she said, urging the board to consider alternatives to removing half of the elementary facilitators.
- Dr. Corey Haley, school administrator for the PLC program, raised concerns that the PLC has grown to 176 students and that elimination of the executive director role could prompt families to seek charter options; he asked what would be outsourced and what the cost would be. The administration said the consolidated PLC leadership responsibilities would be assigned to the chief of schools and that the DCIU would continue technology support. Exact outsourcing contract amounts were not given in the meeting.
- Several attendees asked how the district will preserve services and keep students enrolled if staff reductions remove locally valued supports (for example, field trips and expanded PLC offerings). The district replied it expects leadership teams to maintain programs and that schedules and staffing models for 2025–26 are under discussion with the union.

Board and staff directions, next steps and timeline
- The administration described the May 27 meeting as the planned preliminary budget presentation to the board and stated the board must approve a balanced budget by the statutory June 30 deadline. The presenter said the document shown is preliminary and will change as state revenue figures and other inputs arrive.
- The administration directed staff to continue refining numbers and to post follow‑up materials; a board member requested a prioritized list of positions/activities to restore if additional revenues arrive, and the administration agreed to provide that listing to the board.
- The district launched an education‑advocacy page with talking points, a contact form, and sample letters for contacting state legislators and the governor. The superintendent urged community advocacy to press for state aid that the district’s adequacy litigation calculated as an $28.9 million gap (the superintendent described the district’s legal victory and the multiyear plan the state proposed to address the gap).

What was not decided
- No formal vote or final budget adoption occurred at this meeting. The board had not yet approved outsourcing contracts or specific staffing eliminations; the meeting recorded a set of recommended/contingent changes and requested further detail to be supplied to the board before final votes.

Ending — what to watch for
The board is scheduled to present the recommended budget to the public on May 27 and must adopt a balanced budget by law by June 30. The district will post follow‑up documents and breakdowns; administration asked the public to use the district’s 2025–26 budget email and the advocacy page to submit questions and comments.