Steelton‑Highspire SD outlines $4.55M deficit, proposes $3.55M in cuts and targeted furloughs; April 8 vote planned

The Steelton‑Highspire SD administration told the board it is confronting an approximately $4.55 million budget deficit and proposed a package of changes meant to reduce the gap by about $3.55 million, leaving a targeted shortfall near $1.0 million.

Administration presentation: Director/administrators reviewed enrollment‑and‑staffing comparisons (using an October 1 point‑in‑time), special education audit findings and a staffing‑optimization plan. The district reported special education enrollment at about 19.3% (the presenter cited a state average of 20.7) and described higher local counts of students with autism, emotional disturbance and intellectual disability; staff said the district added learning‑support and life‑skills classes to respond to demand.

Proposed cuts and furloughs: Administration listed proposed professional furloughs and position reductions that it said would yield personnel savings of roughly $1.6 million and, combined with contract and operational adjustments, get $3.55 million in savings. Positions identified in the presentation included: one junior/senior high science teacher; one elementary instructional coach; one elementary transition teacher; approximately 10 paraeducators (eight elementary, two high‑school); one PCA; two in‑school‑suspension coordinators; reductions in a student services/special‑education office headcount (from five to four) and a business‑office reduction (five to four). The presentation also proposed eliminating or reducing certain contracts (including substitute‑teacher contracting in favor of two part‑time in‑house supervisors) and shifting some business‑office payroll to the cafeteria fund where allowed.

Special education audit and program implications: The administration summarized PDE special‑education audit results, said most corrective items had been signed off, and recommended optimizing in‑house programming to reduce tuition placements (the presenter estimated out‑placement tuition payments as a minimum of about $34,000–$35,000 per student per year). Staff stressed any program changes must preserve Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and recommended building a continuum of services that could allow some students to be served in‑district rather than by costly placements.

Security contract and other cost pressures: Administrators highlighted a 30% increase in the Swatara Township SRO contract — from roughly $117,000 in 2024 to about $152,000 this year — and said they had requested backup and justification from Swatara Township. They also discussed the legal and operational steps required if the district were to consider forming its own school police force.

Revenue and one‑time items: Staff noted a negotiated one‑time cell‑tower payment of $317,000 expected next July and said they would submit a Department of Community and Economic Development grant for up to $5 million to address high‑school HVAC needs; they cautioned that grant awards are contingent and do not change structural deficits until realized.

Timetable and next steps: Administration proposed targeting April 8 for the vote on proposed professional furloughs to meet statutory timing, said it would provide a proposed final budget on May 6 and target final adoption on June 17. The presenter said adjustments to the list before April 8 are possible if the administration demonstrates economically feasible alternatives (for example, if in‑district programs can be created to bring students back from placements).

Voices from the room: PCA Sonisha Folcher (self‑identified) asked specifically how removing PCAs from autism classrooms would affect students who are 'pushed out' into general‑education classes and whether the district would maintain supports from Patton and the intermediate unit; administration said Patton and IU involvement is being scheduled and that the district is attempting to balance program integrity with fiscal constraints. Board members asked for more documentation and asked staff to circulate all backup materials ahead of the April 8 vote.

What the board did: The board did not vote on furloughs at the meeting; staff set the April 8 target for the formal vote and said the list could be adjusted if the board is presented with feasible program alternatives prior to that date.