District Budget Planning: 2026-2027

The elementary academic interventionists were added in 2022-2023 and middle school math interventionists were added the following year, all using temporary federal pandemic relief funds (ESSER). While the hope at the time may have been to sustain the positions, the current fiscal picture makes it untenable. 

Student outcome data show mixed early results. In some cases, students receiving intervention support met MTSS plan goals at higher rates, and internal Star assessments showed modest but inconsistent improvements. There has been no measurable difference in statewide PSSA outcomes as determined by initial district level analysis using comparison groups. Similar analysis of middle school math state assessment growth showed no consistent statistically significant improvements in the first year of implementation. These data were considered alongside enrollment trends and long‑term sustainability in forming the district’s recommendations. 

Eliminating world language offerings at the middle school would make SDoL ineligible to retain IB Middle Years Programme authorization. The district would also save money on IB authorization fees, but the amounts are too small to have yet been included in budget projections. 

Student course-taking patterns further informed this recommendation. Data show that more than half of ninth graders take no world language at all in the freshman year. Of those who do, most ninth graders who take Spanish enroll in the entry-level course, despite having three years of Spanish in middle school. On average, only 20-30% of students who enroll in Spanish take entry level honors or advanced Spanish courses. 

An effective MTSS framework does not rely solely on designated Tier 2 and Tier 3 positions; it depends first and foremost on the strength, consistency, and responsiveness of Tier 1 core instruction. In this approach, MTSS is a shared responsibility across instructional staff rather than a siloed intervention system operating separately from the classroom. The district’s focus is on ensuring that all students receive strong, research‑based instruction while targeted supports are delivered through flexible, data‑informed practices. 

Key elements of this model include:  

• Strengthening the role of instructional coaches in working alongside teachers to analyze student data, plan instruction, and refine instructional strategies 

• Building teacher capacity to differentiate instruction and provide targeted supports during core instructional time 

• Implementing consistent data cycles and progress monitoring to identify student needs early and adjust supports promptly 

• Leveraging flexible grouping, scheduling, and collaborative team structures to provide additional instructional time and support when needed 

The recommendation regarding instructional staffing was informed by a combination of enrollment trends and student performance data, with particular attention paid to outcomes for students with documented MTSS plans. This analysis reflects a balance of fiscal responsibility and instructional integrity, with a continued commitment to an MTSS framework that is proactive, inclusive, and grounded in strong classroom instruction. 

The district values the role social workers play in supporting students’ academic, social, emotional, and behavioral needs. Currently, the district employs three special education social workers, each aligned to a different level of the organization—elementary, middle, and high school—to ensure expertise and coordination across grade spans. 

Because of the number of students with disabilities served and the district’s multiple school locations, special education social workers work closely with school‑based social workers to deliver services. This collaborative model provides overlapping supports and ensures students receive timely assistance, but it also results in a level of redundancy in an area where the district is already comparatively well staffed. 

Under the proposed budget adjustments, which include the reduction of three special education social worker positions, the district would continue to maintain a strong overall social work presence. Based on the October 1, 2025 enrollment count, the district’s student‑to‑school‑social‑worker ratio would be approximately 487:1, the fifth‑lowest ratio among 174 Pennsylvania districts reporting school social worker staffing data. This ratio remains lower than those of Pittsburgh, York, Harrisburg, and Allentown. 

For additional context, national and statewide ratios are significantly higher. Social Work Today reports a national average of 1 social worker for every 2,106 students, and no state currently meets the staffing guidelines recommended by the National Association of Social Workers. In Pennsylvania, PSEA estimates a statewide ratio of 3,416:1. Connecticut appears to have the lowest ratio in the country, at approximately 580:1, which is still higher than the ratio the district would maintain under the current proposal. 

Taken together, these data points reflect the district’s intent to preserve robust student support services while making difficult budget decisions. 

We have been attacking this problem for several years, starting as far from the classroom as possible. Our administration, which encompasses our central office staff in departments such as Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, human resources, IT, communications, and finance, has been reduced by nearly 10% over the past two years. We are proposing further reductions that will reduce administrators by 20% since 2023. 

After our proposed adjustments, our total teaching and other student-facing positions, including support staff, will be higher than they were in 2020. 

The superintendent’s compensation is established through a multi‑year employment contract that is negotiated between the superintendent and the Board of School Directors and approved at a public Board meeting. Once approved, the contract is a legally binding agreement. 

Like all employment contracts—including collective bargaining agreements with employee groups such as the teachers’ union—the district is obligated to honor the terms of the superintendent’s contract for its duration. The Board cannot unilaterally change compensation outside the contract without mutual agreement. 

When the contract is initially negotiated, compensation is informed by regional and statewide market data for comparable school districts, as well as the size and complexity of the district. The Board’s role is to balance the need to attract and retain qualified leadership with its responsibility to maintain the district’s long‑term financial stability. 

During periods of financial difficulty, the district must manage budget challenges within the constraints of existing contractual obligations while planning responsibly for future contract decisions. 

Yes. The district is proposing a reduction of its administration by 20% since 2023, as noted above. The district has also discussed the possibility and potential impact of salary freezes within leadership roles as part of its broader efforts to manage the budget shortfall. As with other cost‑containment measures, this option must be evaluated carefully in light of legal, operational, and long‑term considerations. 

Most administrators are part of Leadership Team Lancaster (LTL) and are covered by an Act 93 Agreement. While Act 93 agreements are not collective bargaining agreements, they are nonetheless formal agreements that establish compensation structures and expectations. The district is cautious about making unilateral changes to these agreements due to equity concerns and potential impacts on recruitment and retention. 

In addition, the majority of LTL members are principals, assistant principals, and instructional supervisors—12‑month positions that require teaching certification, substantial experience, and often advanced degrees. Maintaining appropriate salary differentiation between teaching and administrative roles is necessary to ensure qualified educators continue to pursue leadership positions. 

Several LTL roles are compensated at or below entry-level teaching salaries. A blanket salary freeze would disproportionately affect these employees. Additionally, the potential savings from freezing salaries for the small number of remaining senior administrators would be limited and one‑time in nature and would not meaningfully address the district’s long-term cost drivers. 

The district continuously reviews how technology is used across grade levels, including in early elementary settings. It is important to clarify how iPads are currently provided and used for younger students. 

The district does not purchase iPads for Pre‑K, kindergarten, or first grade. There is no direct cost associated with iPads at the Pre‑K level, and kindergarten devices are typically redistributed from higher grades rather than newly purchased. The district does not begin purchasing new iPads specifically for students until grade two. 

The district also does not purchase applications or software targeted to Pre‑K, kindergarten, or first‑grade instruction. When devices are used at these levels, their use is limited and supplemental, guided by instructional best practices and developmental considerations. Technology is intended to support—not replace—hands‑on learning and direct teacher interaction. 

The district employs a comprehensive, ongoing process to evaluate technology use with a focus on instructional value, operational necessity, and cost efficiency. This work is led by the Office of Technology in collaboration with a technology planning committee and other departments. 

Some technology capacities are required by the state rather than optional district initiatives. Pennsylvania mandates electronic administration of statewide assessments, requiring the district to test thousands of students within limited windows. A one‑to‑one device model supports this requirement far more efficiently than shared labs or carts. While testing is only one use of devices, it is a non‑negotiable obligation. 

From an instructional perspective, 1:1 access supports consistent integration of digital curriculum, timely feedback, student collaboration, and continuity of learning during flexible instructional days when needed. 

At the same time, the district has aggressively pursued cost containment. During the 2025–26 school year, technology services and software agreements were reviewed to eliminate underutilized tools, consolidate systems, and leverage negotiated pricing. 

Taken together, the district has identified approximately $700,000 in recurring annual technology savings through infrastructure efficiencies, contract renegotiations, software consolidation, and extended device lifecycles—while maintaining instructional, operational, and testing requirements. 

The salary projection error did not create the district’s structural deficit. That challenge existed prior to the error, as expenses have exceeded revenues for multiple years. As noted by the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials, the misprojection delayed—but did not cause—the need for corrective action. 

The staffing reductions under consideration are driven by the underlying structural imbalance rather than the projection error itself. 

Pennsylvania’s Act 1 Index is a limit set each year by the state that controls how much a school district can raise property taxes without special approval. The index is based on factors such as inflation and wage growth and is different for each school district. 

If a school board wants to increase property taxes at or below the Act 1 Index, it may do so as part of its normal budget process. If the board wants to increase taxes above the index, it must either receive voter approval through a public referendum or qualify for specific state-approved exceptions, such as certain special education or pension cost increases. 

Because of the Act 1 Index, school districts often cannot quickly raise large amounts of additional local revenue, even when expenses increase. 

The district’s multi‑year strategy focuses on correcting a structural imbalance between recurring expenses and recurring revenues while protecting core instructional programs and essential student supports. This challenge reflects long‑term trends and requires sustained, phased action rather than one‑time fixes. 

Key components include: 

• Aligning staffing and programs with enrollment trends: Enrollment has declined by more than 10% since 2017, while staffing increased over that period. 

• Containing recurring cost growth: Particularly in benefits, special education, transportation, utilities, and other fixed expenses. 

• Using reserves responsibly: Stabilizing operations so fund balance can be reserved for emergencies rather than ongoing spending. 

• Pursuing operational efficiencies: Including service consolidation, technology savings, and internal process improvements. 

• Planning over multiple years: Using projections to avoid short‑term decisions that create future instability. 

 Together, these elements form a financial recovery strategy intended to gradually close the gap between revenues and expenditures and ensure long‑term sustainability. 

The only construction projections underway are the close-out of the new Burrowes Elementary School, which students began occupying in January, and the high school stadium, for which financing was already secured and completion is required for usability. 

The final projects in Phase IV of the district’s master facilities plan, which were announced as part of the Modernize, Rightsize, Optimize campaign, have not yet started. While the district already has financing in place for the consolidated elementary school, the board could reconsider any of these projects for future cost savings. 

Declining enrollment is a key factor in long‑term facilities planning, but decisions about closures, consolidations, or property sales require careful analysis. 

The district routinely reviews enrollment trends, building capacity, programmatic needs, and operating costs. Before recommending any closure or consolidation, criteria include instructional impact, transportation considerations, student access and equity, cost effectiveness, and long‑term flexibility. 

Because such decisions are complex and irreversible, they are not made in response to a single budget year. Instead, they require further study, community engagement, and formal Board action. Any potential recommendations will be communicated publicly through a transparent process.