FASD Feedback

10/07/2026

📝 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE RECAP: “SHOW THE WORK.”

Monday night’s Operations Committee meeting covered nearly three hours of discussion about facility repairs, financing, enrollment, Victory Elementary, and how Franklin Area School District moves forward.

There was a lot to unpack — but one comment during public participation may have summed up the entire evening best.

Victory parent Laurie Hanna asked the district to:

“Show your work.”

And honestly, that is where the conversation appears to be heading.

For months, the public discussion surrounding the elementary buildings has largely been framed around several big scenarios and equally big numbers.

Monday night, some of those numbers finally started getting broken apart.

🏫 THE $20 MILLION VICTORY NUMBER IS NOT ONE PROJECT

The September presentation listed approximately $20.18 million in estimated ECM costs for Victory under the scenario that maintains all three elementary schools. FASD 9-21-26 Presentation Template.pdf

But there is an important distinction.

Those numbers were preliminary planning estimates.

The district’s facilities assessment itself explains that its pricing assumes broad/full system replacements — essentially maximum-cost scenarios — and specifically says project scopes can be reduced to meet the district’s actual needs and budget.

Monday night, that discussion finally became much more specific.

The committee talked about:

• replacing the Victory roof
• identifying which plumbing actually needs replaced
• possibly abandoning plumbing that has not been used for years instead of replacing it
• right-sizing the water-treatment system
• looking at restroom options near the cafeteria
• addressing accessibility concerns
• determining which projects are urgent and which can reasonably wait

That is significantly different from treating $20 million as one all-or-nothing repair bill.

🏠 THE VICTORY ROOF APPEARS TO HAVE BROAD SUPPORT

One of the clearest areas of agreement was the Victory roof.

Committee members discussed it as a high-priority project because moisture is already present within the roofing system and delaying repairs could create additional damage.

There is also some important history here.

In April 2024, the FASD Board approved an application for a $2.96 million Public School Facility Improvement Grant for replacement of the Victory roof and water system. 2023-2025 combine compressed-compressed.pdf

At Monday’s meeting, it was stated that the previous grant application was DECLINED.

That raises a simple documentation question:

Can the application and final agency determination be shared so the public understands what was requested, what happened, and whether another funding opportunity may exist?

💰 THE TEN PRICING QUESTION MAY FINALLY GET TESTED

Another lengthy discussion centered around pricing from The Efficiency Network (TEN).

Some board members expressed concern that TEN’s pricing could be higher than what the district could obtain through another project-delivery method.

Others pointed out that TEN’s pricing includes more than equipment and construction — including design, engineering, project management, commissioning and other services.

Rather than continuing that debate indefinitely, the committee discussed getting a genuinely comparable price.

That seems reasonable.

If another firm prices the same scope with the same services and the numbers are similar, the question largely gets answered.

If the numbers are significantly different, then the board has something important to investigate.

Either way:

Show the work.

💵 WHAT ABOUT THE $10 MILLION BOND?

Administration repeatedly expressed urgency about moving forward with approximately $10 million in borrowing, citing construction inflation, interest rates and project timelines.

As the discussion continued, an important distinction emerged:

Waiting does not necessarily mean the district can never borrow the money.

It could mean a later borrowing date, a different construction timeline, and potentially different financing and construction costs.

Before a decision of that size is made, it would be helpful to see a simple comparison prepared by the district’s financial professionals:

Borrow now vs. borrow later

Including:

• interest rate
• annual debt payment
• total interest
• issuance costs
• required project timeline
• construction/inflation assumptions
• consequences of waiting

That would allow the board — and taxpayers — to understand exactly what the “window” is and what it costs.

📊 $22,000 PER VICTORY STUDENT?

Another number presented Monday night was approximately $22,000 per Victory student, compared with lower per-student figures at the other buildings.

That may ultimately be a meaningful metric.

But before comparing it, the calculation needs to be explained.

What is included?

Teachers?
Transportation?
Special education?
Administration?
Utilities?
Custodial expenses?
Maintenance?
Capital expenses?

And are shared district expenses allocated using the same methodology for every school?

Again:

Show the work.

👩‍🏫 ENROLLMENT IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN ONE TREND LINE

Long-term district enrollment has declined.

That deserves serious consideration.

But Monday’s meeting also revealed how quickly the picture becomes more complicated when looking building-by-building and grade-by-grade.

Victory, for example, currently has a kindergarten cohort significantly larger than its first-grade cohort.

Meanwhile, the district is also discussing possible redistricting to better balance class sizes among elementary schools.

PDE’s own enrollment projection materials caution that longer-term projections can become less reliable as actual births and student-retention patterns differ from projections. school district enrollment projections.pdf

A permanent facilities decision deserves a single reconciled dataset showing:

current enrollment, historical enrollment, projected enrollment, incoming cohorts, building capacity and geographic distribution of students.

🗂️ PERHAPS THE BIGGEST MISSING PIECE: A CAPITAL PLAN

One theme surfaced repeatedly throughout the meeting:

There is a tremendous amount of facility work ahead.

The high school needs work.

Sandycreek needs work.

Central needs work.

Victory needs work.

Some projects are already failing.

Others are approaching end-of-life.

Some can wait.

Some cannot.

The district has completed facility assessments and the Operations Committee has spent months walking buildings and prioritizing ECMs. In April, the committee specifically created a hierarchical list after touring all buildings.

The next step could be turning all of that information into a public multi-year Capital Improvement Plan.

Something as simple as:

PROJECT → PRIORITY → WHY → COST → FUNDING SOURCE → YEAR

That would make it much easier for the community and future boards to understand where the district is going — instead of reconsidering dozens of projects individually every few months.

WHERE THINGS SEEM TO STAND

Monday night did not resolve every question.

But the conversation did appear to move in an important direction.

Away from:

“Here are five scenarios. Pick one.”

And toward:

What actually needs repaired?
What can be redesigned?
What does it really cost?
What should happen first?
How should it be funded?

Those are questions worth answering.

And before decisions involving tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and the future of neighborhood schools are made, Laurie Hanna’s request is a pretty reasonable standard for everyone involved:

Show the work. 🧾📊

Committee Agenda:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zv8z5mfrA0_63hFr...

09/29/2026

📌 SEPTEMBER 28 FASD MEETING RECAP — OPERATIONS + FORMAL BOARD MEETING

If you only read the newspaper article from Monday night, you’ll get a good picture of the public comments and some of the tension in the room — but there was a LOT more discussed during both the Operations Committee meeting and the Formal Board Meeting.

Here are some of the biggest takeaways.

🏫 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE: THE FACILITIES NUMBERS GOT A MUCH CLOSER LOOK

The committee revisited the five elementary-school scenarios presented on September 21 and began breaking apart the projected “annual savings.”

One of the biggest discussions involved the $4.5756 million projected annual savings shown for Scenario #2 — closing Victory, expanding Sandycreek and moving Victory students there.

During Monday’s discussion, board members questioned several components of those calculations.

The district explained that the calculations included approximately $500,000 per year in tax increases for three years, money that would be moved into capital reserve/debt service. Board members pointed out that a tax increase is new revenue — not savings created by closing a school — and could be used under any scenario.

There was also discussion about a “half savings” or year-end surplus/carryover being transferred into capital reserve. Again, board members questioned whether that should be counted as savings attributable to consolidation.

Possible revenue from repurposing or leasing closed buildings was also included in some scenarios. Administration discussed numerous possibilities — community services, alternative education, mental-health services, early learning, daycare, sports, leasing space, medical services and other uses — but also acknowledged that some potential outside partners have not yet been approached.

So there was an important distinction made Monday night:

Staff reductions, avoided utility/maintenance costs and certain transportation reductions are projected expense savings.

Tax increases, transfers into capital reserve and hypothetical future building revenue are different kinds of financial assumptions.

That distinction matters when evaluating the headline savings figures.

The district’s own September presentation also describes the construction figures as preliminary estimates — not bids or final costs. FASD 9-21-26 Presentation Template.pdf

🚌 ACTUAL BUS ROUTES HAVE NOT YET BEEN DEVELOPED

The administration said Scenario #2 assumes the elimination of two buses at approximately $61,600 per bus.

However, actual routes have not yet been developed, because the district does not know which configuration the board will ultimately choose.

A committee member specifically said the district needs to model the actual routes — particularly for Pre-K and kindergarten students — even if doing so takes additional time.

That means the district currently has a projected transportation savings assumption, but we still do not have the actual proposed routes or resulting ride times.

🛠️ ANOTHER FACILITIES OPTION WAS PUT ON THE TABLE

Perhaps one of the most important discussions of the night was an alternative proposed by board member Garrett Lowman.

Rather than immediately undertaking one of the approximately $35–60+ million facilities scenarios, he suggested identifying and completing the highest-priority repairs first, then budgeting annually for phased HVAC and building maintenance.

Using the district/TEN figures, his preliminary list totaled approximately $8.4 million:

Central — about $142,000
Sandycreek — about $1.9 million
Victory — about $5.7 million
High School — about $689,000

He then suggested approximately $2 million annually for phased HVAC replacement, rather than replacing entire systems throughout a building at the same time.

The committee did not approve this proposal Monday night. Members said they wanted additional time to review it.

That is important because it introduces another question into this discussion:

Does maintaining three elementary schools require completing every item in the larger renovation estimates immediately, or can critical work be prioritized and other work phased over time?

The 2025 facilities assessment itself says its pricing assumes comprehensive/full-system replacement and represents essentially maximum potential costs, while noting that scopes can be reduced and customized to meet district priorities and budget constraints. 2025-04-16 - FASD Facilities Needs Assessment-compressed.pdf

💰 COMPETITIVE PRICING WAS ALSO QUESTIONED

There was a lengthy discussion about TEN, the ESCO/GESA process, Huckestein Mechanical and how large capital projects are priced.

Board members questioned whether some mechanical work could potentially be completed for less through broader competitive pricing and asked specifically about the scope and cost of boiler projects.

Administration explained that TEN uses prequalified contractors, follows public-school procurement requirements and considers factors beyond price such as bonding, prevailing wage, qualifications, safety and capacity.

No conclusion was reached that the district’s estimates are incorrect.

What was clear is that members want more information about scope of work, bidding and comparable pricing before accepting some of these estimates at face value.

⏸️ “WE SHOULD HIT THE BRAKES AND ANSWER PEOPLE’S QUESTIONS”

Another notable moment came when the committee discussed concerns raised by residents at the previous meeting.

A committee member said the district should “hit the brakes” and answer the questions people have presented.

Those questions include transportation, costs, building condition, community impact and other consequences of consolidation.

The committee did not make a final elementary-school recommendation Monday night.

⸻

🏛️ FORMAL BOARD MEETING

The Formal Meeting then brought many of those same questions into the full-board discussion.

Several residents spoke about Victory, transportation, class sizes, staffing, community impact and facility estimates.

Jena Matthews specifically questioned how staffing reductions through attrition would affect class sizes and teacher assignments, asking the district to show what projected classroom sizes would actually look like.

Charlie Smyth, a local plumbing contractor, asked for a more detailed breakdown of facility estimates — including plumbing, electrical, structural and site work — so the community can better understand what is actually included in the large project numbers.

Joe Hanna, a former board member, spoke about the importance of community elementary schools and the history of previous closure discussions.

And multiple speakers raised concerns about sending very young children significantly farther from home.

👩‍🏫 ATTRITION ALSO CAME UP AGAIN

Later in the formal meeting, the board discussed another personnel item and a member questioned the district’s broader reliance on attrition as a major source of projected savings.

The question was essentially this:

If future retirements and vacancies are expected to generate major savings under consolidation, what process determines whether a vacant position is eliminated, combined or simply refilled?

That is another piece of the staffing projections that still needs clarification.

📚 GARRETT LOWMAN LISTED SEVERAL STUDENT-IMPACT QUESTIONS

During board communication, Garrett Lowman said he was not advocating for Victory above the district’s other schools, but for retaining community schools generally.

He raised questions involving:

class sizes; staffing; counseling and student services; art, music, STEM and physical education; gymnasium capacity; extracurricular opportunities; transportation; family events; and community use of school facilities.

One specific exchange concerned gym space. The proposed Sandycreek expansion does not automatically mean additional gymnasiums are included, so the impact of placing more students into fewer buildings remains something that needs to be examined.

🌐 POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE DISTRICT

Alesha Hartsfield also raised the possibility of a proposed data center near the Scrubgrass facility.

She was clear that she was not endorsing the project, but said she wants the board to hear from a representative because potential employment, development or investment in that portion of the district could be relevant when considering long-term decisions affecting the Victory attendance area.

She also asked to hear directly from the Business Manager and Buildings & Grounds Director regarding which of the five facilities scenarios they believe is most workable from their professional perspectives.

⸻

❓AND THERE ARE STILL OTHER OPTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY MODELED PUBLICLY

This is something I think is worth watching closely as this process moves forward.

The district has spent significant time modeling five different building configurations, but we have not yet seen an equivalent comprehensive scenario that asks:

What if we keep the three elementary schools and aggressively attack costs and outside revenue elsewhere?

For example:

Cyber charter tuition/bringing students back to FFLA
Shared administrative services with another district or IU
Energy savings and possible solar grants
Additional state/federal grant opportunities
Transportation optimization without closing a school
Competitive procurement
District-wide attrition/vacancy review
Facility rentals and partnerships
Community/foundation fundraising for defined capital projects
Phased rather than wholesale facility replacement

That does not mean any one of those ideas would generate enough money to avoid consolidation.

It means they deserve to be quantified before anyone assumes they cannot.

The district has already documented significant cyber-charter costs historically; for example, its 2023 Finance Committee minutes reported approximately $1.3 million in outside cyber/charter tuition at that time. 2023-2025 combine compressed-compressed.pdf

So there are still financial questions outside the walls of the three elementary buildings that deserve examination too.

THE BOTTOM LINE FROM MONDAY NIGHT:

There was no final decision to close Victory.

There was no final recommendation from the Operations Committee.

Instead, Monday produced more detailed questions about:

• what actually constitutes annual savings
• what is new revenue versus expense reduction
• debt service
• tax assumptions
• staffing and attrition
• class sizes
• actual bus routes and ride times
• competitive project pricing
• phased renovation options
• building capacity and student services
• potential alternative savings and revenues

That may feel slower and messier than everyone would like — but these are exactly the details that need to be understood before the district makes a decision that could permanently change its elementary-school system.

I’ve shared the newspaper article below so everyone can also read the press coverage of Monday night’s meeting. It does a great job covering the public comments; this post is intended to fill in more of what happened during the actual board and committee discussions.

As decisions about the fate of Franklin Area School District’s elementary schools, particularly Victory Elementary, hang in limbo while the school board seeks more information about costs, parents are continuing

09/28/2026

📣 FASD BOARD MEETINGS — MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28

There are two public meetings tomorrow evening at the Franklin Jr./Sr. High School Library, and both are scheduled to be livestreamed/recorded by the district. 2026 09 28 Operations Committee Agenda.pdf

🏫 6:00 PM — OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

This meeting is focused almost entirely on the elementary facilities discussion:

• Anticipated Cost Savings & ECM briefing results
• Estimated annual savings/cost avoidance for the different scenarios
• Recommendations for 2026–27 and beyond
• Next steps and timeline
• Open Forum 2026 09 28 Operations Committee Agenda.pdf

This continues the discussion from September 21, when the district presented five elementary configurations ranging from maintaining all three schools to consolidation/new construction. The district noted that the figures presented were preliminary estimates, not bids or final costs.

📋 7:00 PM — FORMAL BUSINESS MEETING

A few items worth noting on the agenda:

• Nearly $7 million in General Fund bills, plus Capital Reserve and Construction Fund payments 2026 09 28 Formal Business Mtg Agenda.pdf
• First readings of several policies, including Policy 105 — Curriculum, School Calendar, Maintenance, Bullying/Cyberbullying and School Security Personnel 2026 09 28 Formal Business Mtg Agenda.pdf
• Approval of the elementary Title I Schoolwide Plans 2026 09 28 Formal Business Mtg Agenda.pdf
• A proposal to charge charter schools for student participation in FASD extracurricular activities and sports 2026 09 28 Formal Business Mtg Agenda.pdf
• IDEA special-education grant agreements totaling more than $538,000 2026 09 28 Formal Business Mtg Agenda.pdf

👉 Operations: 6:00 PM
👉 Formal Business Meeting: 7:00 PM
📍 Franklin Jr./Sr. High School Library

I’ll tag both events below and continue adding any meeting materials that are published.

Read the agendas, watch the discussion, and stay informed.

Presentations & Pipe Testing Report have been added to the website:

fasd facilities Needs Assessment

09/22/2026

📣 SEPTEMBER 21 FASD MEETING RECAP — A LOT HAPPENED.

Monday night included both a Special Board Meeting focused on the future of FASD’s elementary buildings and the regularly scheduled board meeting afterward.

If you weren’t able to watch both meetings, here is the biggest takeaway:

We finally have numbers attached to several elementary-school scenarios — but many of the details behind those numbers have not yet been presented publicly.

During the special meeting, administration presented five scenarios:

• Scenario 1 — Keep all three elementary schools: approximately $35.8 million in identified repairs/ECMs and no consolidation savings.

• Scenario 2 — Close Victory, expand Sandy Creek, keep Central K–5: high-end estimated construction/renovation cost of approximately $35.95 million, with approximately $4.5 million in estimated annual savings and roughly 19 positions consolidated through attrition.

• Scenario 3 — Close Victory; PreK–2 at Sandy Creek and grades 3–5 at Central: approximately $35 million, with approximately $3.5 million in estimated annual savings and roughly 14 positions consolidated.

• Scenario 4 — Close Victory AND Central and expand Sandy Creek for all PreK–5 students: approximately $49.635 million, with approximately $6.2916 million in estimated annual savings and roughly 25 positions consolidated.

• Scenario 5 — Close all three elementary buildings and construct a new approximately 115,000-square-foot PreK–5 building on the Sandy Creek property: approximately $66.775 million, with approximately $6.2916 million in estimated annual savings and roughly 25 positions consolidated.

The administration repeatedly emphasized that these are preliminary estimates — not bids — and that the staffing reductions are intended to occur primarily through attrition rather than termination.

But then came the questions.

Board members asked for the actual breakdown showing where the millions of dollars in projected annual savings come from — staffing, transportation, utilities, maintenance, operations, revenues, etc.

That breakdown was not presented Monday night.

One board member specifically questioned how approximately 25 consolidated positions could produce a projected $6.2916 million in annual savings and asked to see the remaining components that make up that number.

Administration said that information can be provided for the Operations Committee.

There were also questions about:

➡️ exactly which positions would disappear through attrition
➡️ projected class sizes
➡️ transportation and actual student ride times
➡️ the specific repairs included in the approximately $35.8 million “maintain all buildings” scenario
➡️ why certain previously estimated project costs changed
➡️ whether every ECM currently included is actually necessary
➡️ whether the fifth-grade-at-the-Jr./Sr.-High option received enough analysis before being deemed infeasible
➡️ differences between the general fund balance and capital reserves
➡️ whether taking on debt now is preferable to completing repairs over time
➡️ and what the educational impacts of each configuration would actually be.

One especially important clarification also came late in the special meeting.

A document referenced a “recommended direction” of developing one PreK–5 school at the Sandy Creek campus. Administration was directly asked whether that was its recommendation.

The response was no — administration stated that it was presenting research and data, and that choosing a scenario is ultimately the Board’s responsibility. Administration also agreed that the wording could be changed.

That distinction matters.

And then came the regular meeting.

Community members continued asking for the underlying financial analysis, projected class sizes, usable building capacities, educational impacts and alternatives before an irreversible decision is made.

The Board also discussed transparency, access to information, previous requests for curriculum information, the Sunshine Act, staffing positions, hiring and the need for board members to have the information necessary to make decisions.

Most importantly for what comes next:

When the Operations Committee’s next agenda was discussed, the Board identified getting the detailed breakdown of the projected savings numbers as a priority.

GOOD.

Because that is exactly where this conversation needs to go next.

This is not simply a question of:

“Which option has the biggest savings number?”

Before comparing these options responsibly, we need to understand how each number was built.

A $6.2916 million projected annual savings figure means very little by itself if the public and the Board cannot see the assumptions underneath it.

How much is staffing?

How much is transportation?

How much is maintenance?

How much is utilities?

What positions disappear?

What happens to class sizes?

What happens to bus routes?

What assumptions were made about enrollment?

What costs remain even after a building closes?

What transition costs are included?

And what changes if any of those assumptions are wrong?

Those aren’t “anti-consolidation” questions.

They aren’t “pro-consolidation” questions.

They are simply the questions that should be answered before tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are committed and the elementary structure of this district is changed for decades.

There was also something else encouraging Monday night:

Board members themselves were asking many of these questions.

Whatever anyone’s preferred outcome ultimately is, that is exactly what a governing board should be doing — questioning assumptions, asking for supporting documentation, comparing alternatives and making sure the numbers withstand scrutiny before making a decision.

📌 So our next step is simple: follow the data.

We will continue organizing the documents being released, comparing the numbers presented Monday night with the records already available, and posting information for the public as it becomes available.

And we will be watching very closely for that detailed savings breakdown at the next Operations Committee meeting.

Because now that we have the headline numbers, it’s time to see the math underneath them.

Stay informed. Ask questions. Read the documents. Watch the meetings.

This decision is too important for any of us to do otherwise.

09/22/2026

📂 FASD PUBLIC WORKING FOLDER

In an effort to keep information organized, accessible, and easy for the public to review, I’ve created a public working Google Drive folder for FASD-related records and documents.

This folder will continue to grow as records are received, reviewed, and organized. It may include things such as:

• Right-to-Know requests and responses
• District records and supporting documents
• Facilities and financial information
• Meeting materials
• Publicly available reports and data
• Other source documents relevant to ongoing discussions

A quick note: this is a working folder, so not everything inside will necessarily have a summary or explanation attached to it yet. Some documents are being shared simply so the original source material is available for anyone who wants to review it themselves.

Transparency works best when everyone has access to the same information. 🖍️📚

🔗 Public folder:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/137C1Qsudm8T7juGh_GH1URHASYCCihCf

I’ll continue adding and organizing documents as they become available.

09/21/2026

👀 Be Present. 👂🏼

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

09/19/2026

📣 MONDAY NIGHT: TWO FASD BOARD MEETINGS

We already have the event posted, but the agendas for Monday, September 21 are now available, so here is a breakdown of what is actually scheduled.

🏫 5:30 PM — SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
Franklin Jr./Sr. High School Library

The special meeting agenda is extremely short.

The Superintendent’s Report contains one item:

➡️ “Discuss Capital Projects.”

That is the only description provided on the agenda. It does not identify which capital projects will be discussed, what buildings are involved, whether specific options will be presented, or whether any recommendations will be made.

Given the ongoing public discussion surrounding district facilities and elementary buildings, this is certainly a meeting worth attending and listening closely to.

The special meeting agenda does not list a public-comment/recognition-of-visitors portion.

📋 7:00 PM — BOARD WORK SESSION
Franklin Jr./Sr. High School Library

The regular work session follows at 7:00 PM.

Unlike the special meeting, this agenda does include Recognition of Visitors, with public participation limited to five minutes per speaker.

Some of the notable items on the work-session agenda include:

• Superintendent’s Report — recognition as an Outstanding Visual Arts Community for 2025–26.

• Committee reports — Finance, Personnel, Operations, Planning, Governance, IU #6, PSBA/Legislative and Venango Technology Center.

• PSBA officer elections — including Franklin board member Tracey Leyda listed as the candidate for 2027 Section W1 Advisor.

• TEN district policies are up for first reading, including several that parents may want to pay attention to:
— Policy 102: Academic Standards
— Policy 105: Curriculum
— Policy 204.1: Virtual Attendance and Wellness Checks
— Policy 209: Health Examinations/Screenings
— Policy 246: School Wellness
— Policy 249: Bullying/Cyberbullying
— Policy 704: Maintenance
— Policy 803: School Calendar
— Policy 805.2: School Security Personnel
— Policy 822: AED/CPR

That Policy 105 — Curriculum is on this agenda may be especially interesting for anyone who has been following the recent conversations about curriculum, textbooks, instructional materials and district purchasing.

• IDEA funding — proposed approval of two pass-through grants through Riverview IU #6:
➡️ $532,359.87 in IDEA Part B funds
➡️ $6,552 in IDEA 619 funds

• Student Assistance Program — proposed agreement with Venango County Human Services/Family Service and Children’s Aid Society for SAP services during the 2026–27 school year.

• Pathways Adolescent Center — proposed education services/tuition agreement for day-student education.

• Charter-school extracurricular and sports fees — the agenda recommends allowing the district to charge charter schools fees for extracurricular activities and sports under the cited Pennsylvania law.

• Elementary School TSI / Title I Schoolwide Plans — the board is being asked to approve the elementary schools’ Targeted School Improvement/Title I Schoolwide Plans.

• Joint purchasing — proposed participation in the Allegheny Intermediate Unit Joint Purchasing Program for 2027–28, which is intended to provide opportunities for bulk purchasing and reduced procurement costs.

• Transportation — ratification of three Krise Transportation drivers, with effective dates of August 27, September 4 and September 17.

• Personnel — several food-service positions are listed, including employees at both Central and Victory Elementary, along with a maintenance employee, substitute approvals, supplemental coaching/advisor contracts and volunteers.

• Student matters — two Youngstown State University English Festival trips are proposed for students in grades 7–12, along with one confidential student disciplinary agreement.

• Executive Session — the agenda includes a motion to enter executive session for matters required to remain confidential.

📺 Both meetings are scheduled to be livestreamed and recorded by the district and posted to YouTube.

And remember: these are agendas — not minutes. They tell us what is scheduled to be discussed or considered, but they do not tell us what questions will be asked, what information will be presented, how extensive the discussion will be, or what ultimately happens Monday night.

👀 The one I will be watching especially closely is 5:30 PM.

When a special meeting is called and the entire substantive agenda consists of two words — “Capital Projects” — I think the community has every reason to show up, listen carefully, and hear the discussion firsthand.

📍 Franklin Jr./Sr. High School Library
📅 Monday, September 21
⏰ Special Board Meeting — 5:30 PM
⏰ Work Session — 7:00 PM

Upcoming meetings:
September 28 — Operations Committee, 6:00 PM
September 28 — Formal Business Meeting, 7:00 PM
October 26 — Planning Committee, 6:00 PM
October 26 — Work Session/Formal Business Meeting, 7:00 PM

Please continue to stay informed, ask questions, read the documents for yourselves, and participate in the process. Monday evening could give the community significantly more information about where the district is headed.

https://sites.google.com/students.fasd.k12.pa.us/franklin-area-school-district/school-board/boe-agendas