[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6063887,"mediaKeyId","3261348-1a5246a5c436af9d2602e72e2c3aa2a8","parentId",3261348,"title","Board discusses continuous glucose monitoring, agrees 504 teams should handle individual accommodations","audioSeconds",632,"startMs",11047000,"endMs",11679000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3261348-1a5246a5c436af9d2602e72e2c3aa2a8&start=11047&end=11679","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3261348-1a5246a5c436af9d2602e72e2c3aa2a8/thumbnail_11047000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6063887/Pennsylvania/Board-discusses-continuous-glucose-monitoring-agrees-504-teams-should-handle-individual-accommodations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6063887-58abf9df919f2b448d5e71aad6d1da80/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447800&Signature=buHZhLtVYT-NIMQGoU4YhkdV17sMEOcHOht-rPp0kdE8MNC5u5d-VCgQ8eoPoYTYa8x2rU71dbmjMpmA~mZSLnuKE22ur-kKvk4SG6X9ryAHR9zp77Qj9kWqlm1FuoVjRPr1glBQz0f5Z0ovEgmwLwmVFvdM1fZ6lmf51oJoJDqsf3kZpYPjh8Di8l0G-gAjqCf76KUS~eOV5JZwrQXEcR~HjtQuKz~G2W82eVCkZ53DRyN3ieFKgNUOzLca6YiCS3LqR9wVI5tA6~EOrgHdPbyBBJvheqyL8rWbzZ6uMUtXedrm-ghEhUHRHbEPyHijXR2tiWAjz9sdV2AOevxBVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Delaware Valley School District","date","2025-05-10T20:53:49.437Z","article","Board members discussed requests from families for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) accommodations during Thursday’s work session and reiterated that individualized medical accommodations are handled through the district’s 504 process.

Trustees described prior presentations to the board and said the district's nurses and 504 teams already manage many diabetes accommodations. \"I think this is one of those instances where I have to separate my roles … the 504 team … it's an individual based on need,\" Board Member Mandy Colville said.

Trustees and staff agreed on key points: a medical practitioner must document that a specific accommodation (such as continuous remote monitoring) is medically necessary for the student; the 504 team then reviews and implements appropriate accommodations; and parents should have direct contact paths to the school nurse and the home school to enable quick responses when a student’s device indicates a problem.

\"If the team agrees that it should go in the 504, then it would be ...\" a board member said, summarizing the process. Several trustees asked administration to follow up with parents and to ensure school nurses' contact information is available; staff confirmed there are existing accommodations for diabetic students and that the district's nurses and teams handle them on an individual basis.

Board members also asked for staff to revisit the earlier presentations and to summarize current district procedures and liability protections for school nurses; trustees said they would consider whether any additional district-level guidance was needed after the 504‑team process and further consultation with counsel and nursing staff.

No policy change was adopted at the work session; trustees left the matter to the 504 process and directed staff to follow up with families as needed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","DVSD May 2025 Work Session","oneSentenceSummary","Trustees discussed requests from parents for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) accommodations in school; trustees and staff agreed such accommodations should be handled case‑by‑case through 504 teams with medical documentation and that staff will follow up with parents and nurse contacts.","taxTitle","Delaware Valley SD, School Districts, Pennsylvania","taxId",60569,"location","Pennsylvania","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6063892,"Delaware Valley board debates OCR agreement and proposed resolutions on sex, delays vote while seeking federal clarification",1931,10554000,12485000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3261348-1a5246a5c436af9d2602e72e2c3aa2a8&start=10554&end=12485","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3261348-1a5246a5c436af9d2602e72e2c3aa2a8/thumbnail_10554000.jpg","/articles/6063892/Pennsylvania/Delaware-Valley-board-debates-OCR-agreement-and-proposed-resolutions-on-sex-delays-vote-while-seeking-federal-clarification","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6063892-a531aa4341a054b77aa7931d49f841d8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447800&Signature=H3fnedfdw9NqzFg1bKnF21sQG5X-zQ5I6FuhptfzNTGabX-rcDK2bG7y-1WcQpzg0UxcxmqFpLcwnUIVVMBzw6t21k3IU1VikC-SmLPze3AihzSahStLpu6q2IF6-WbfqjSwL~rdxjLoZwUJSA~VyaD3u1LN~khEo9YrHGZrMF-mO2Riqsggm2ibCP3tUILrFmYD-E7P4hKOyTBubbZx9SpaxdSKjMB7P4nqhNIG4PmKuieASNiqP62TlXhE824QIc4W5drWNzFI-BQxBFLfT2oktuqsCS5eqeYr0pIambkpip99BJSMCBb91ZFuT5xFKV9cc0vFTrR1ipUngcj7Rw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Board members spent a prolonged portion of Thursday’s work session debating two proposed resolutions: one calling for the district to cease compliance with a prior Office for Civil Rights (OCR) agreement and a second asserting that the district’s policies should recognize only two biological sexes and restrict access to certain spaces accordingly.

Trustees and several attorneys who attended the meeting cautioned against immediate unilateral action. \"You cannot unilaterally just decide to disengage,\" one board attorney said, summarizing counsel’s view that the district cannot simply revoke an OCR resolution without following the appropriate processes and obtaining written confirmation from federal authorities.

Trustees described the district as an \"anomaly\" that still has an OCR agreement without a sunset clause. Some board members wanted to move quickly, citing concerns from parents about girls feeling unsafe in bathrooms and locker rooms. \"We did hear fathers who told us … their daughters were afraid to use their bathrooms and their locker rooms,\" a trustee said.

Other trustees urged patience and a legal path: \"We sent a letter 40 days ago … we said that we would wait 90 days,\" Board President Christine Agron said. The majority position at the meeting was to continue the existing plan: staff and counsel will seek clarification from OCR and related officials and send follow‑up letters to named recipients in hopes of obtaining a written release or direction. Trustees asked counsel to target additional recipients (trustees discussed sending letters to state and federal officials by name) rather than broad \"to whom it may concern\" correspondence.

No vote was taken on the two proposed resolutions at the work session. Several trustees said they would consider bringing the resolutions to the May 15 agenda for a public vote if the board directs it, but most members preferred to await the written federal response and additional legal guidance first.

Board counsel and administration noted the district faces legal tradeoffs: counsel warned the board that lawsuits could be filed by either side depending on the action the board takes, and that federal case law and OCR processes are factors trustees must weigh. Trustees asked counsel to send additional letters to named federal and state officials and to report back to the board before the next meeting.

The debate highlighted the tension trustees said they face between protecting student privacy and safety and complying with existing federal agreements and case law; the board did not change district policy during the work session.","Board members considered two trustee resolutions challenging a prior Office for Civil Rights (OCR) resolution and asserting a biological‑sex policy; attorneys advised the board to seek formal OCR clarification and trustees agreed to wait for written guidance and to send follow‑up letters.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6063897,"Board reviews public‑comment policy after solicitor cites Miller v. Goggin and Sunshine Act provisions",421,5672000,6093000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3261348-1a5246a5c436af9d2602e72e2c3aa2a8&start=5672&end=6093","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3261348-1a5246a5c436af9d2602e72e2c3aa2a8/thumbnail_5672000.jpg","/articles/6063897/Pennsylvania/Board-reviews-publiccomment-policy-after-solicitor-cites-Miller-v-Goggin-and-Sunshine-Act-provisions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6063897-483d2bc47d236c2d7b8dc6565c354d19/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440072&Signature=ldVUoX-n5p-Apq1AvrTj0Z4O5Y7foa60Tz6ddLwHBmNK5ESs4PFt6cHmaM2sViuXNV5kvS0kY3qnt0ru168PGGqragnou2I6SQJJdPbbz-ZbxmM-XRoxXjftAlQae9MaJfTJNCwn55KpSq9OilGB62Hedcojc6Q~BZZwFpvattMFpG8q-zkXXRV-sBnbk9JlxIrOAKpbuDPrTtzkGznJa6VIsNZRW7T9l29ISvxrR6wXApXLeGN6TekQfGcTSZebI0YdyFAwDTGxqpgEQp9BgbUQY8Cpn-dIBf~LeKRZlO~JNNcHpxz0FM0~jgj8rSHixmUMZZfSFqmvoUXtanRlhA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Delaware Valley School District board placed Policy 903 (public participation at board meetings) on first review Thursday and heard a legal summary about limits on public comment.

\"Miller versus Goggin,\" an attorney said during the meeting, \"confirms that our policy is totally valid\" when a school district places reasonable, content‑neutral restrictions (time limits, requiring a municipality/county of residence rather than a full address) in a limited public forum.

The board's solicitor and other trustees also discussed Section 710.1 of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, which they read as permitting a governing body to provide a reasonable opportunity at advertised meetings for residents or taxpayers of the political subdivision to speak. One trustee questioned whether \"taxpayer\" could be read broadly, but the solicitor said case law supports restricting public comment to residents of the district when the forum is limited to conducting school business.

Attorney McIntyre told trustees he would e‑mail the Miller v. Goggin decision and a shorter \"head notes\" summary to the board. \"It confirms that our policy is totally valid,\" he said, recommending the board review the case before final action. The board did not adopt policy changes; the item remained at first review for additional discussion at future meetings.

Trustees also confirmed other policies — changes to gifted education and Title I parent‑involvement policies — were at second review and would appear on the May 15 voting agenda with no recommended changes.

The board emphasized the difference between residents and broader categories of taxpayers or state residents, and several trustees asked staff to prepare additional materials before a final vote on Policy 903.","During first review of Policy 903 (public participation), the board discussed case law and the Sunshine Act's residency/taxpayer limits; legal counsel said the district's current policy is constitutionally valid but agreed to circulate the Miller v. Goggin decision to trustees.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6063902,"Delaware Valley presents 2025–26 draft budget; board debates 2.74% tax proposal and alternatives",4963,6136000,11099000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3261348-1a5246a5c436af9d2602e72e2c3aa2a8&start=6136&end=11099","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3261348-1a5246a5c436af9d2602e72e2c3aa2a8/thumbnail_6136000.jpg","/articles/6063902/Pennsylvania/Delaware-Valley-presents-202526-draft-budget-board-debates-274-tax-proposal-and-alternatives","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6063902-e76872ffd6e39de143e324acc845f893/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440072&Signature=EirLUx3FRB1pnZlOg0uEb0jOKpFNM1yteYhHcq0iBLwTEk67gAucJkRB986qJW7A5ErNsNvAR64W-7ziqbl6SZ2rP6ifqvnfwAyLlO6RTEOPzf7Mp~zjQx~08bmlpIKjaMAXvbnAUqK6fdr-0W~3HLXpnjaYy2FASaoCTtBQRx2vdOXI0jR4LOTW9~h1DrLeWog9EX-D~Z6rM-KDHD1z0S89XEutr-RFACJyJkzEw-ANawojm40Q~ZCT7O-TryG~3GHSjJ-ewK4jT1QWaGdJ4oXDkn3QkM7YCJDNzKqGMZ7k~G3LtJznIv58KAuyjFHCOV8SXxyziVG4cdV07IUYzA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delaware Valley School District finance staff presented the proposed final 2025–26 budget at the board work session Thursday, showing projected revenues and expenditures that, in the current draft, would be balanced with a proposed real-estate tax increase of 2.74 percent.

The proposal includes an estimated shortfall in the draft and a set of adjustments the administration said reflected board feedback from earlier meetings. \"We tried our best to take notes of the comments from the board … and make changes and adjustments to what you had already heard,\" a staff presenter said during the presentation.

The budget presentation highlighted revenue and expenditure drivers: projected enrollment trends (the presentation used a 1.5% growth factor for projections), reductions in some capital and professional-development requests, a proposed reduction of one middle-school physical-education teaching position through attrition, and a planned move of roughly $200,000 from the general fund into capital for certain technology equipment. Staff also flagged cyber‑school enrollment increases and noted the district’s deliberate approach to hedging annualization of recent enrollment trends.

Board members focused on the budget’s remaining uncertainties and the political choices the district must make. \"My comment is I think the 2.74 is too low,\" Board Member Jack Fisher said, asking the board to consider increasing the starting request to avoid having to raise taxes later. Fisher and others discussed adding roughly $550,000 (about 1 percentage point) to the proposed increase to create a 3.74% starting point; staff computed that moving to 3.74% would raise the net tax increase on a median homestead from about $14 to roughly $33.88 after state property‑tax relief, based on the numbers in the presentation.

Other members urged caution. \"I'd like to stick to our original plan and wait for a response,\" Board President Christine Agron said, referring to other pending state and federal funding questions that the budget assumes but does not yet finalize. Several trustees asked staff for follow-up information on specific line items — including the calculation behind a $375,000 reduction in interest income, recent telecom contract costs, the drivers behind variances in \"other purchased services,\" and the district's assumptions about cyber‑school reimbursements — before the board takes a final vote.

The presentation also described instructional changes tied to the budget: the district is proposing a new elective, \"digital media and design,\" with startup equipment costs shown in the capital plan; a restructuring of an existing writing course into a creative‑writing offering (no added cost); and several textbook adoptions that will be made available for public review at local libraries and at the Dingmans campus before final approval.

Finance staff outlined the statutory timeline: the proposed final budget must be placed on public display for 30 days and the district's schedule calls for a proposed final adoption vote on May 15 and final adoption on June 17. \"By school code and by law, you have to put a budget on display to the public, and it has to be out there for 30 days,\" staff told the board.

Board members gave staff direction to provide the further detail requested and to prepare the proposed final budget for public display. Several trustees said they wanted additional outreach to explore cost reductions (utilities, insurance, purchased services) and asked staff to update specific assumptions before next week’s meeting.

The board did not adopt a final budget at the work session; staff said the proposed final adoption would appear on the May 15 agenda and that the administration will post the draft budget for a 30‑day public display period per the school code.

The presentation included several numeric items and risk flags that staff and trustees said will remain under review, including pending state and federal budget decisions (including proposed cyber‑school funding changes) and utility cost projections. Trustees directed staff to return with a short list of targeted follow‑ups before the May 15 meeting.","District business staff presented a proposed 2025–26 final budget showing a projected shortfall and a draft 2.74% real-estate tax increase; board members debated raising the initial proposal to 3.74% and asked staff for follow-up before next week’s adoption vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board discusses continuous glucose monitoring, agrees 504 teams should handle individual accommodations

Delaware Valley board debates OCR agreement and proposed resolutions on sex, delays vote while seeking federal clarification

Board reviews public‑comment policy after solicitor cites Miller v. Goggin and Sunshine Act provisions

Delaware Valley presents 2025–26 draft budget; board debates 2.74% tax proposal and alternatives