FASD Feedback

08/25/2026

🖍️ WELL… THE CRAYONS SURVIVED THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING.

After Monday night’s meeting, we went back and did exactly what we encourage everyone to do:

Check the district’s own policies.

Because there was A LOT said about curriculum, textbooks, consumables, academic standards, Board oversight, information requests and whether Board members are getting too far “into the weeds.”

And after a recent community post broke some of these terms down using crayons🤣, it seems only appropriate to keep the crayons out. 🖍️

First, we were told:

“The content standards are our curriculum.”

Except FASD Policy 105 defines curriculum as a “series of planned instruction” coordinated and implemented to achieve specific knowledge and skills.

The same policy then says district curriculum is to be designed to give students the opportunity to achieve Pennsylvania academic standards.

In other words:

🖍️ Academic standards = what Pennsylvania expects students to know.

🖍️ Curriculum = the planned instruction designed to get them there.

Those things are related.

They are not the same thing.

And FASD’s policies distinguish them.

Then came the discussion about textbooks, curriculum materials, digital resources and consumables.

Here again, the crayons survive.

FASD Policy 105 separately refers to curriculum and curriculum materials.

Policy 105.1 separately refers to “curriculum, instructional materials and assessment techniques.”

Policy 109 separately addresses resource materials.

Policy 108 separately addresses textbooks.

Why does that matter?

Because these words aren’t interchangeable simply because all of them are involved in teaching.

And we have a perfect real-life FASD example.

In 2023, the district approved a six-year K–8 math purchase for approximately $240,619 that included:

consumable textbooks + digital courseware + manipulatives + professional development.

It also approved approximately $119,978 for English grades 7–12, including:

hardback textbooks + consumable Language Practice books + an online eBook.

One purchase.

Multiple different kinds of instructional materials.

That was the entire point of the original crayons discussion.

Then Monday night we heard:

“We don’t use textbooks.”

Except FASD has Policy 108 titled Adoption of Textbooks, the Board has statutory/policy responsibilities for textbook adoption, and the district approved hardback English textbooks as part of that 2023 purchase.

Perhaps what was intended was:

“We don’t rely exclusively on traditional hardback textbooks anymore.”

That would make sense.

But that’s very different from “we don’t use textbooks.”

And now we arrive at our favorite crayon. 🖍️

A significant amount of Monday night’s discussion centered around why anyone would care about the age of textbooks.

We heard explanations that old books can still contain useful information. That’s absolutely true.

We heard that teachers may only pull portions from older books. Also entirely possible.

We even heard that Pennsylvania’s academic standards themselves can be older than some textbooks.

Okay.

But then we opened FASD Policy 108.

And there it was:

“Textbooks with copyright dates more than five years old shall be reviewed annually for their continuing suitability.”

Read that again.

MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OLD = REVIEWED ANNUALLY FOR CONTINUING SUITABILITY.

That does NOT mean a six-year-old textbook is bad.

It does NOT mean an old textbook must automatically be replaced.

It means FASD’s own policy specifically makes the age of textbooks relevant.

So when a Board member was asking about textbooks that may be 10, 20 or even 30 years old, the appropriate policy question wasn’t:

“Why does the age matter?”

The question should have been:

Have textbooks more than five years old been reviewed annually for continuing suitability as required by Policy 108?

And if they are no longer “textbooks” and are instead being retained only as supplemental resource materials, that’s fine too.

But Policy 109 addresses those.

And guess what Policy 109 says?

A listing of resource materials shall be made available for the information of parents, professional staff, BOARD MEMBERS and students.

🖍️🖍️🖍️

Which brings us to perhaps the strangest part of the entire meeting.

There was a lengthy argument over whether a Board member’s request for information about classes, textbooks/materials, quantities and ages was so “overly burdensome” that the Board should limit what administration had to provide.

The Board ultimately voted to limit that individual information request.

And to be fair:

Their policy DOES give the collective Board authority to do that.

Policy 002.1 allows the Board to limit an individual member’s request when the collective Board determines it is overly burdensome or meets certain other criteria.

So we’re not going to claim they violated that provision when their own policy gives them that authority.

But here’s the part we shouldn’t skip.

That exact same policy begins by saying:

“In order to effectively fulfill its responsibilities, the collective Board must have timely, accurate and detailed information…”

It also specifically recognizes an individual Board member’s right to request information they believe is necessary to make informed decisions.

That’s not the same thing as managing employees.

Asking a teacher how to teach a math lesson? Management.

Directing an administrator how to perform their job? Management.

Asking what instructional materials the district owns, whether there are enough for students, how old the textbooks are, and whether required reviews have occurred?

That’s information.

And FASD’s policies repeatedly assign the Board actual responsibilities involving curriculum, planned instruction and textbooks.

Then we had another disagreement over whether a committee chair even had authority to call the Planning Committee meeting.

So we checked that too.

Policy 006:

“Standing committee meetings may be called at any time by the committee chairperson, with proper public notice…”

Well.

That one’s pretty straightforward. 🖍️

Then came the discussion over Robert’s Rules, Board policy, supermajorities, a Google search and whether the vote restricting the information request actually passed.

Policy 006 says:

“All motions shall require for adoption a majority vote of those school directors present and voting, except as provided by statute or Board procedures.”

The policy then specifically lists matters requiring special voting thresholds.

We do not see limiting an individual Board member’s information request among them.

So ironically, the whole “five out of eight is a supermajority” debate appears to have been unnecessary.

The motion had five votes.

Under the ordinary voting rule in Policy 006, that appears to have been enough.

But here’s what we can’t stop thinking about.

Earlier in the meeting, during public comment, a district resident said:

“The public shouldn’t have to reconstruct that picture one Right-to-Know request at a time.”

Later in that very same meeting, the Board debated whether one of its own members should essentially have to rely on information available through a public-records request rather than receive the full information she requested for committee oversight.

That is a much bigger conversation than textbooks.

It is about governance.

It is about oversight.

It is about who gets information.

And ultimately, it is about transparency.

We don’t expect nine elected Board members to agree.

We don’t expect administration to say yes to every request.

We don’t expect taxpayers to understand every complicated educational decision.

But we absolutely expect questions to be answered with facts.

And if somebody asks a question that seems unreasonable?

Open the policy.

If somebody says the Board shouldn’t be looking at something?

Open the policy.

If somebody says the age of textbooks doesn’t matter?

Open the policy.

Because the more time spent reading these things, the clearer one thing becomes:

🖍️ The crayons aren’t the problem.

Sometimes we just need to read the directions printed on the box.

📝

000 School Board

08/19/2026

💡QUICK CLARIFICATION: Curriculum vs. Textbooks vs. Consumables

I’ve received several messages following the Planning Committee discussion, and I think part of the confusion is that we’re using several education terms interchangeably when they don’t actually mean the same thing.

Curriculum is not simply the textbook.

Curriculum is essentially the what, when and how of what students are expected to learn. Textbooks, teacher manuals, workbooks, online programs and other instructional materials are resources used to teach that curriculum.

Then there is another important distinction:

Consumable materials are things students use up or write in and that generally need replaced — workbooks, practice books, certain student editions, lab/activity materials, etc.

Non-consumable materials are intended to be reused — traditional textbooks, teacher editions, classroom sets, manipulatives, etc.

Digital resources can be another category entirely, often involving annual or multi-year licenses/subscriptions.

Normally, getting hung up on terminology wouldn’t matter much. But when we’re discussing district budgets, purchasing, replacement cycles and the age of instructional materials, terminology matters a LOT.

If a budget says we’re spending $X on “curriculum,” what exactly did we purchase?

Was it curriculum development? New textbooks? Annual consumable workbooks? Teacher materials? Digital licenses? Supplemental resources?

And when we’re told materials are 20 or 30 years old, which materials? A reusable textbook? The underlying instructional program? Teacher editions? Something else?

None of those answers automatically means something is good or bad spending. But they’re very different things — and taxpayers and board members need enough detail to understand the difference.

So I think we need to start defining the terms before we start debating the dollars.

08/19/2026

Popping this back to the top of your to do list! The more data points we have, the more facts we can share!

This is a community effort to help document historical classroom sizes across Central, Sandycreek, and Victory Elementary Schools. We are collecting information about number of classrooms per grade, approximate students per classroom, teacher names, and combined classrooms. This is NOT an official d...

08/18/2026

👀 AFTER THREE SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS MONDAY NIGHT, I KEEP COMING BACK TO ONE QUESTION:

Have we asked the people actually doing the work?

Monday night included meetings of the Planning Committee, Operations Committee and the full Board Work Session.

Across those meetings, the Board discussed curriculum, textbooks, screen time, academic proficiency, classroom capacity, staffing reductions, school consolidation, construction, borrowing and potentially closing Victory Elementary.

Those are HUGE conversations.

And after listening to all three meetings — and hearing perspective from someone who actually works with curriculum and instructional materials — I think taxpayers need more information before conclusions are drawn or major decisions are made.

📚 CURRICULUM & TEXTBOOKS

There was considerable discussion about textbook copyright dates, including materials reportedly 20 or even 30 years old.

That’s worth investigating.

But are those books actually being used?

An old textbook remaining on a district inventory is very different from an old textbook being used as the current curriculum.

Before judging curriculum based on an inventory list, I would like to know:

• Which listed textbooks are actually being used for daily instruction?

• Which are obsolete materials sitting in classrooms, cupboards or storage because they haven’t formally been removed?

• What is the currently adopted curriculum for each grade and subject?

• Does every student have the physical, consumable and/or digital materials required by that curriculum?

• Are teachers purchasing or finding supplemental materials themselves because district-provided resources are insufficient? If so, what are they buying, why, and how much are they personally spending?

There also seemed to be some confusion about “consumables” versus “online” curriculum.

Consumables can be student workbooks and materials that children write in and therefore must be replaced.

Online access can give a teacher digital lesson materials, presentation slides, assessments, activities and other instructional resources.

So seeing “online” on a curriculum inventory doesn’t necessarily mean a child is sitting in front of a Chromebook for that instruction.

Let’s establish what those categories actually mean before drawing conclusions from them.

📏 DOES THE CURRICULUM MEET PA STANDARDS?

Rather than Board members independently printing hundreds of pages of Pennsylvania standards and attempting to compare them against individual materials, there seems to be a much simpler oversight question:

Can administration provide the Board and public with the curriculum-to-Pennsylvania-standards alignment documentation for each currently adopted program?

If the concern is standards alignment, let’s look directly at the documentation and determine whether there are actual gaps.

📊 PROFICIENCY MATTERS — BUT SO DOES CONTEXT

Of course we want every Franklin student proficient or advanced.

But one percentage doesn’t tell the entire educational story.

When evaluating achievement, I’d like to see proficiency alongside:

• student growth
• subgroup performance
• attendance
• special education populations
• economically disadvantaged populations
• chronic absenteeism
• year-to-year trends

Students don’t arrive in classrooms under identical circumstances.

Academic accountability absolutely matters. But we need enough information to determine why an outcome is occurring before deciding that curriculum, teachers or instructional practices are the cause.

⸻

🏫 THEN WE GET TO FACILITIES.

Operations discussed several possibilities involving Victory Elementary, including repairing Victory, closing it and building an addition at Sandycreek, or closing Victory and redistributing elementary grades/students among existing facilities.

That raises another very important distinction:

Building capacity is not the same thing as educational capacity.

A spreadsheet may say a classroom can accommodate a certain number of children.

But what does that classroom actually need to accommodate?

Intervention groups? Instructional aides? Special education services? Mobility needs? Reading and math support? Sensory needs? Equipment? Storage? Different developmental needs by grade?

Before choosing a consolidation scenario, taxpayers should be shown the actual educational model.

For each option, I’d like to see:

• How many students would be assigned to each building, grade and classroom?

• What would the average AND maximum class size be?

• Which teaching, aide, intervention, special education, therapy, administrative and support positions could be eliminated or left unfilled through attrition?

• What annual savings would those staffing changes actually produce?

• Have the building principals reviewed the proposed classroom configurations?

• Have classroom teachers reviewed them?

⸻

💰 SHOW US THE FULL MATH ON CLOSING VICTORY.

If closing Victory creates the savings necessary to finance construction elsewhere, then those savings become an extremely important part of this decision.

So show taxpayers:

• The true annual savings from closing Victory after staffing, transportation, utilities, maintenance and other changes are included.

• Expenses that would remain after closure — insurance, security, maintenance, demolition, environmental work, sale preparation or anything else.

• What happens to the property.

• How many years of operational savings would be necessary to offset the cost of an addition elsewhere.

And there was another option raised Monday that deserves an actual number:

What is the minimum investment required to safely keep Victory operating for another 5 years? What about 10?

That doesn’t mean installing temporary five-year building systems.

It means taxpayers should understand the cost of the alternative discussed at the meeting: repair failures and critical systems as necessary while building capital reserves for a larger future project.

⸻

💵 BORROWING CAPACITY ≠ AFFORDABILITY

One of the most important statements Monday night was essentially that the amount a district can technically qualify to borrow and the amount it can responsibly afford to repay are two very different numbers.

Exactly.

For each facilities option, taxpayers should see:

• Total project cost
• Amount financed
• Length of financing
• Estimated annual debt payment
• Expected annual operational savings
• Net annual cost after savings
• Tax increases necessary to support it
• When savings would actually begin
• What happens if enrollment continues declining

Then we can compare options honestly.

⸻

🧑‍🏫 AND THAT BRINGS ME BACK TO WHERE I STARTED.

Where are the educators in all of this?

Over the course of these meetings, there was discussion about:

• what teachers use
• what curriculum students receive
• screen time
• proficiency
• classroom capacity
• class size
• staffing reductions
• special services
• moving entire grade levels
• consolidating elementary schools

Yet I heard very little indicating that classroom educators have been formally included in this analysis.

That’s concerning — not because the Board shouldn’t ask questions.

They absolutely should. That’s their job.

But asking the people closest to the work should be part of finding the answers.

Architects can tell us square footage.

The Business Manager can tell us dollars and debt.

Administration can provide enrollment and staffing numbers.

Test results can tell us outcomes.

Teachers and principals can tell us what those numbers actually mean inside a classroom.

So perhaps the biggest taxpayer question coming out of all three meetings is this:

Before deciding what teachers need, what classrooms can accommodate, what curriculum is working, or what staffing can be reduced — has the Board formally asked the teachers and principals who work in those classrooms every day?

And if not:

Why not?

There are major decisions coming.

I don’t expect every answer to exist today.

But before taxpayers are asked to support tens of millions of dollars in construction, additional debt, repeated tax increases, school consolidation or significant changes to how our children are educated, we should expect those questions to be answered with data — and with meaningful input from the people who will actually have to make the plan work.

08/17/2026

📚 FASD SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS TONIGHT — AUGUST 17

There are THREE Franklin Area School District meetings tonight, beginning at 5 PM, followed by a Special Board Meeting tomorrow evening at 6 PM. If you're following district decisions, here’s the quick rundown of what’s on tonight’s agendas and what may be worth watching. 👀

📘 5:00 PM — Planning Committee

The committee will review curricular tools currently being utilized by the district. The agenda does not identify the specific programs or tools being reviewed.

Things worth listening for:
• What programs, platforms or instructional tools are currently being used?
• What do they cost?
• How is effectiveness and actual usage measured?
• Are there programs that overlap or are underutilized?
• Are any tools being added, replaced or eliminated?

🏗️💰 6:00 PM — Operations Committee

This may be the meeting to watch closely tonight.

The committee plans to finalize estimates/prices for different facility options, narrow or eliminate options and configurations, determine what additional cost/data research is needed, discuss a timeline for renovations and/or building projects, and discuss contacting a bond underwriter and bond counsel.

Taxpayer questions to keep in mind:

• What is the TOTAL estimated cost of each remaining option?
• What exactly is included — and excluded — from those estimates?
• What criteria are being used to eliminate options?
• What additional research/data is still needed?
• What would potential borrowing mean for district debt and taxpayers?
• What is the proposed timeline before any final decisions are made?

🏫 7:00 PM — Board Work Session

This agenda is much larger and includes several topics worth following.

🚌 Transportation: The Board will discuss approval of the 2026–27 transportation program, including bus routes, drivers and vehicles.

🚨 School Safety: Emergency Operation Plans for all district schools for 2026–27 are up for discussion/approval.

💰 Finances: The agenda includes discussion of the 2026–27 budget and cafeteria services.

👥 Support Staff: The agenda recommends NOT approving the ESPA #2 annual retention bonus for 2026–27.

There are also special education/service agreements, personnel changes, coaching contracts, volunteers and other regular district business.

📅 AND — Special Board Meeting Tomorrow

A Special Board Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 18 at 6 PM in the Franklin Jr./Sr. High School Library.

At this point, the materials provided for tonight do not state the purpose of tomorrow's Special Meeting. I’ll share/tag that meeting information once the agenda is available.

💡 Big things I'm watching tonight: facility project costs, potential borrowing/bond discussions, taxpayer impact, transportation changes, school safety, and anything that gives us an indication of what will be addressed at tomorrow's Special Meeting.

I’ll tag each meeting event below so anyone interested can follow along. 👇

Being informed doesn't mean being for or against something — it means knowing what is being discussed, what questions still need answered, and what decisions may ultimately affect our students, families and taxpayers.

Agendas saved in Google Drive but also on District Site: https://sites.google.com/students.fasd.k12.pa.us/franklin-area-school-district/school-board/boe-agendas

Watch the meetings live if you are unable to attend: https://www.youtube.com/

2026-27 BOE Agendas

07/22/2026

🏫 July 20 FASD Operations Committee Meeting Recap

The Operations Committee reviewed the district’s extensive pipe-testing report for Franklin Junior-Senior High School, Central Elementary, Sandy Creek Elementary, and Victory Elementary.

Overall, the results were more reassuring than expected. No tested system was classified as being in critical condition or requiring immediate emergency replacement.

✅ Central Elementary had the best overall pipe conditions.

✅ Sandy Creek Elementary and the Junior-Senior High School were generally found to have heating and domestic water systems in good condition. Some sanitary lines will need cleaning, flushing, hydro-jetting, or other preventive maintenance.

At the high school, some domestic water piping near the gym and locker-room areas should be considered for replacement during a future renovation. There is also an active leak being repaired in that general area.

⚠️ Victory Elementary had the most significant concerns.

At Victory:

• 40 of 79 pipe readings showed at least 25% wall loss.
• Some heating pipes showed between 30% and 49% wall loss.
• Four specific pipe locations were identified for replacement.
• The domestic water system was estimated to have approximately seven to ten years of useful life remaining.
• Portions of the underground sanitary system showed heavy sludge, debris, root intrusion, obstructions and significant deterioration.
• In some inspected locations, the bottom of the sanitary pipe appeared to be gone.

The engineers explained that Victory’s sanitary pipes may require a combination of cleaning, lining, rerouting or replacement. More investigation and pricing will be necessary before a specific plan can be recommended.

The committee requested cost estimates for the recommended work at every school, with particular attention to Victory. Those costs will be incorporated into the larger facilities assessment as the district considers future renovations, building projects and possible consolidation options.

The committee also requested classroom square footage and student-count information so any consolidation proposal can be evaluated based on the actual number of students who would be placed in each classroom—not simply the total square footage of each building.

Other discussion included:

• Sharing the complete testing report and photographs with the full board
• Developing high-resolution plans showing the testing locations
• Creating a districtwide preventive pipe-maintenance plan
• Prioritizing roofs and heating systems in future facility planning
• Reviewing academic, staffing, financial and bond scenarios alongside building options
• Confirming that asbestos-covered pipe insulation at the high school is not considered a danger while it remains encapsulated and undisturbed

No formal votes were taken.

The committee expects to continue discussing facility priorities, costs and possible options at its August 17 meeting.

Bottom line: The report was largely positive for Central, Sandy Creek and the Junior-Senior High School. Victory Elementary will require the most additional planning, investigation and likely corrective work.

The long-awaited results of extensive pipe assessments at Franklin Area School District’s educational facilities were presented Monday to the school board’s operations committee.

07/21/2026

📚 Franklin Area School Board Meeting Recap

The Franklin Area School Board held a combined work session and formal business meeting, with several important financial, policy and educational topics discussed.

💰 School Finance Training

The board scheduled a special school-finance training with the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials for Wednesday, August 12. Dinner is expected around 5:30 p.m., with the training scheduled from 6:00–8:00 p.m.

The presentation is expected to cover budgeting, district revenues and expenses, capital projects, construction and debt management. The district will also determine whether the training may be recorded.

🏢 LERTA Tax-Incentive Program Approved

The longest discussion of the evening involved a Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance, or LERTA, program for qualifying commercial properties within the City of Franklin.

Under the program, property owners will continue paying taxes on the property’s existing assessed value. Eligible taxes connected to new improvements may be temporarily exempted, with the exemption decreasing by 10% each year until the property reaches full taxation.

Supporters said the program could encourage businesses to invest, expand and create jobs locally. The board discussed reports that one company may potentially bring more than 100 jobs, although no guarantee, exact location, salary information or complete business plan was publicly presented.

Concerns included the limited information available before the vote and the fact that the program will apply to any qualifying commercial property within the designated City of Franklin area—not only the company currently considering an expansion.

The resolution passed without audible opposition. The board also discussed requesting five to ten cooperative-education positions for Franklin students if the proposed development moves forward.

💵 Bills and Financial Questions

The board approved approximately $2.67 million in general-fund bills for late June and another $1.51 million for July 1–16.

Questions were raised about:

▪️ Approximately $5,555 in legal fees
▪️ A combined $12,833 expense for girls’ wrestling and soccer
▪️ Whether the girls’ wrestling program is costing more than originally estimated
▪️ Approximately $205,000 in Sandy Creek mechanical repairs

Administration agreed to provide a breakdown of the wrestling and soccer expenses. Officials said the Sandy Creek project has required change orders as additional conditions, including asbestos, were discovered, but insurance has reportedly approved the changes so far.

💻 Chromebooks, Screen Time and Teaching

The board approved the district’s student handbooks and one-to-one Chromebook guidelines.

A lengthy discussion focused on whether students are spending too much time on computers and whether digital lessons or videos are replacing direct teacher instruction.

Administration said teachers are still responsible for initial instruction and that Chromebooks, videos and digital programs are intended to support teaching through practice, remediation and enrichment—not replace the teacher.

Families with concerns about a particular classroom were encouraged to contact the teacher and principal and follow the district’s chain of command.

The board also requested that the definitions of electronic devices be made consistent across the student handbooks and district policy.

🎓 Graduating With Honors

A question was raised about the handbook stating that, beginning with the Class of 2027, students must maintain the qualifying honors average after all 16 high-school quarters rather than 15.

Administration said the change had reportedly been included in previous handbooks and that affected students had been notified earlier. The district agreed to verify when the change was first communicated.

🏫 Additional Approvals

The board also approved:

▪️ $33,789 in new cafeteria tables for Central Elementary, paid from the food-service fund
▪️ A girls’ golf agreement
▪️ A special-education services agreement with Cranberry Area School District
▪️ A dual-enrollment agreement with Chatham University
▪️ Student participation at the October PASA-PSBA conference
▪️ Several personnel changes and new hires

Chatham dual-enrollment courses will cost $400 each, but the district said the McElhattan Foundation will pay the cost so students will not be charged.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:05 p.m.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EiG1SO86lOk4hdy9NEtiELPu5VhniRi9Xj3U4wipLHo/edit

An economic development incentive through tax assistance was unanimously approved by the Franklin Area School Board on Monday.