Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
York City SD budget preview: administrators outline staffing asks and dependence on Ready‑to‑Learn grant
Summary
Superintendent and cabinet reviewed the district's proposed 2025–26 budget priorities, noting several grant dependencies (Ready to Learn, governor remediation funds), proposed staffing additions across departments and a 1 percent millage placeholder pending state budget action.
Superintendent Dr. Barry told the committee on May 12 that the district is preparing a proposed 2025–26 budget that includes staffing and program requests spread across special education, academics, buildings and grounds, student services and technology, and that several items are contingent on state grant funding.
Dr. Barry said the district is treating three funding categories separately in the plan: the Ready to Learn block grant (a state proposal the administration hopes will cover several items), the general fund, and school‑based access (special‑education Medicaid/billing) revenues. She cautioned that the Ready to Learn funding is not yet secured and that if the grant does not materialize, some items will be returned to the general fund or cut.
Highlights from the administration's listed priorities and clarifying figures presented to the committee: - Special education: the department seeks additional teachers and paras (Miss Manning requested 10 autistic‑support teachers in an ideal plan; the administration proposed adding four special‑education teachers and three paraprofessionals in the presented budget framework). A special‑education coach and a supervisor from Access were also listed as needs. - Office of academics: continued MTSS and curriculum supports, expansion of "first 10" preschool services to additional schools, adding a curriculum supervisor to support ELD/ELA work, and making a teacher‑on‑special‑assignment for unified arts permanent. - Talent management and networks: the budget includes network leads and talent‑management coaches intended to triage school needs, coordinate recruitment and provide on‑site supports; the three network positions were presented as part of a broader $540,000 figure for all three (the administration said the $540,000 is the bundled cost and would be divided proportionally if only one position were funded). - Buildings and grounds: the administration proposed three additional full‑time custodians and anticipates needing a plant operator for any new building; roofing work at William Penn High School (gym and the F section) was described as funded by a mix of capital funds and governor remediation reimbursement money ("braided" funds). - Transportation and business office: a proposal included one additional bus driver to support activities and athletic events.
Budget mechanics and other items: Dr. Barry said the administration included a 1 percent millage increase placeholder in the proposed budget model because the state budget has not yet been finalized; she framed the placeholder as a conservative step while grant outcomes are uncertain. The administration also identified the school‑based access program as an opportunity to increase billed Medicaid reimbursement for services.
Board members asked for clarity on contract amounts for several service agreements and raised process questions about policy changes; Dr. Barry and cabinet members said they would supply missing cost details for specific contracts prior to the board vote. The committee did not adopt the budget at the meeting; administration sought permission to post a proposed budget to the website for public comment after further review.
No formal votes occurred during the session.
