Penn Manor board to consider bringing two autistic‑support classrooms into district control

The Penn Manor School Board on Jan. 20 agreed to place a proposal on the Feb. 2 voting agenda that would bring two autistic‑support classrooms currently operated by the regional Intermediate Unit (IU) back under Penn Manor School District control.

Superintendent (speaking to the board) said the district’s obligation is unchanged by where a classroom sits: “If that student lives in Penn Manor, we are responsible for providing the free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment to them,” the superintendent said, framing the discussion around local accountability and continuity of services.

Administrators said the initial plan would bring two of seven IU‑run autistic‑support classrooms into district staffing, both at the elementary level. Teachers in those IU classrooms would be offered a right of first refusal to join Penn Manor staff; the district would add specialist roles including a BCBA (board‑certified behavior analyst) to develop behavior plans and a consultant/coach to structure classroom practice and train building staff.

The administration cautioned that first‑year costs may be roughly neutral while startup staffing and training are front‑loaded. The business manager offered a conservative projection that bringing three additional classrooms in year two could produce about $350,000 in savings; administrators said much of the financial benefit accrues in subsequent years once salaries and supports are locked in.

Trustees questioned staffing capacity, how many classrooms a BCBA or consultant can support, whether contractors could be used, and what metrics exist documenting when the IU cannot provide services. Administrators said that service gaps are student‑specific and not captured as a simple aggregate tally, but that bringing the classrooms into the district gives Penn Manor more control over program design and cost certainty.

Board member Lombardo framed the discussion in terms of the district’s mission: “I think the plan is a very good plan. I think that it’ll benefit the students more than anything else,” he said, while other trustees warned the move carries staffing risk and that year‑one cost neutrality should be weighed against the district’s ability to recruit specialized staff.

After extended discussion, a trustee moved and the motion was seconded to place the measure on the Feb. 2 voting agenda so the board can continue deliberation at the publicly posted retreat and vote formally at the upcoming meeting. The motion carried, 6–3. The item will be considered on the Feb. 2 voting agenda with additional data to be provided at the retreat and in the coming weeks.

Next steps: the administration will include the proposal on the Feb. 2 voting agenda and continue to collect cost detail and staffing plans for board review at the retreat and during the Feb. 2 meeting.