Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West York Area School District approves 2026–27 budget, moves 20 full‑time aides to part‑time amid public outcry
Summary
After extended public comment and board debate, the West York Area School District approved its 2026–27 final budget on a 6–3 roll call. The plan moves 20 full‑time paraprofessional positions to part‑time—eliminating benefits for most—while keeping an $18 million capital project separate from operating funds.
The West York Area School District Board of Directors voted 6–3 to approve the 2026–27 final budget after a lengthy public‑comment period in which parents and special‑education aides urged the board to preserve full‑time positions and health benefits.
The approved budget carries an estimated $1.1 million deficit, according to directors’ statements during the meeting, and includes a proposal to convert 20 full‑time paraprofessional positions to part‑time, which administrators say reduces initial operating costs by about $419,000. Board members explained that capital funds for an approximately $18 million facilities project cannot legally be used to cover operating salaries.
Why it matters: Support staff and aides provide day‑to‑day services for students with disabilities and English‑language learners; parents and staff warned the changes risk higher turnover, weaker IEP implementation and potential legal exposure if required services are not sustained.
Multiple speakers gave direct testimony opposing the staffing change. "Where is your evidence to substantiate the claim the district determined services can continue to be provided effectively within a reduced workday?" asked Aaron Vega, a life‑skills paraprofessional and parent. Julie Haynes, a 36‑year former special‑education teacher, told the board, "The facilities do not make the district what it is. The people do." Marian Null warned that "these lawsuits can cost into the millions" if services are reduced and families seek legal remedies.
Board debate focused on two competing pressures: protecting student supports and maintaining the district’s financial stability. Director Gettys, who outlined the budget rationale, said the draft reflects a $1.1 million deficit and that some staff moves follow county‑wide staffing trends; she noted there are 10 full‑time vacancies that the district believes could accommodate many affected employees. "When our savings is running out," Gettys said, "there's one method that we turn to and that's furloughs." Director Deerdorf and others stressed that capital reserves for infrastructure cannot be redirected to operating expenses.
Proponents of the budget argued delaying difficult choices would likely force deeper cuts later, possibly including furloughs of professional staff. Director Shaw said that, while the cuts were painful, the board must act to prevent a worse outcome next year. President Rice framed the vote as a fiduciary responsibility: "We have to make votes based off what we know in the budget," he said.
The roll call was recorded: Gettys (yes); Schop/Shop (no); Harlacer (yes); Herman (no); Deerdorf (yes); Dugan (no); Shaw (yes); Vice President H (yes); President Rice (yes). The motion carried 6–3.
What the budget does not do: It retains the $18 million capital project (including HVAC and infrastructure items in addition to field work) on the capital side; board members repeatedly said capital funds cannot be used to cover operating salaries. Administrators also proposed measures to reduce future operational pressures, including pursuing grant opportunities, maximizing charter‑funding recovery, and appealing property assessments to grow revenue.
Next steps: The district will implement the staffing model and rely on building principals to create daily schedules intended to preserve IEP compliance; administrators said they will monitor services and make adjustments if required. Several directors and union representatives asked for greater transparency on vacancies, agency staffing usage and the process for filling open full‑time positions.
Funding and scale: Directors cited roughly $76 million in district revenues and described the $419,000 initial savings as about 0.55% of the operating budget. The board said the district still faces structural funding constraints tied to state and federal funding dynamics.
The meeting moved on to other agenda items after the budget vote, including approval of a homestead/farmstead resolution and a school‑related trip.
