Salisbury Township SD plans co-teaching pilot, weighs modular classrooms and library enclosure funded from land‑sale proceeds

Administrators at the Salisbury Township School District’s Operations & Finance Committee meeting on June 12 outlined a push to expand co‑teaching in elementary grades, add one new autistic‑support classroom, and move forward on a set of facilities projects that could be paid for from land‑sale proceeds.

The district’s facilities and instructional leaders told the committee they are launching a co‑teaching pilot next year that pairs a general‑education teacher with a special‑education teacher (or instructional aide) in selected classrooms, and that teachers have volunteered to participate. Lynn, the presenter, said the model is meant to increase inclusion and allow special‑education staff to spend more time in a single classroom rather than piecemeal across multiple rooms. “Teachers have volunteered to do this this year,” Lynn said.

Administrators also proposed facility work at Salisbury Elementary. The administration recommended enclosing three small‑group spaces in the school library and adding doors to allow cafeteria access to restrooms. The committee was told the district would use land‑sale proceeds as the funding source; the transcript referenced $1,370,000 in land‑sale funds being available for such projects. Andrew, the architect/contractor introduced from Dewey, presented an all‑in budget for renovating a single pod (one floor) at roughly $664,000 and an estimate of $2,500,000 for six full‑size modular classrooms with bathrooms; a three‑classroom configuration was estimated at $1,900,000 to show scale.

Administrators described the next steps and timing: staff would ask the board to approve the project scope so the district can have Dewey prepare bid documents (targeting design work by September and bids by November) and, if approved, complete work in summer 2025. Bill, who manages facilities, said some smaller work such as cafeteria door replacement might be accelerated using interest earned on the land‑sale funds.

Special‑education programming was discussed alongside facilities. The district plans to add an autistic‑support classroom next year (these classrooms were described in the presentation as capped at eight students); administrators said the current count is five confirmed students and that the classroom is financially break‑even at expected enrollment, while also addressing regional placement shortages.

The committee discussed alternatives to modular expansion and whether new classroom space could be created by reconfiguring existing pods. Administrators cautioned that converting space can yield fewer net classrooms than expected because intervention rooms must be preserved, and they flagged the recurring cost of staffing any additional full‑time classrooms.

The committee did not take a binding vote; administrators said they prefer to bring a formal action to the full board for approval. If the board authorizes the work at an upcoming meeting, staff would proceed with design and a competitive bid process.

Why it matters: the proposals combine instructional change (co‑teaching and more in‑district special‑education capacity) with capital investments that would be financed using district land‑sale proceeds and interest; they affect classroom assignments, summer construction schedules and recurring staffing costs.