The Upper Merion Area School Board approved another confidential student settlement agreement during its regular business meeting Monday night, bringing the number of such agreements identified by Upper Merion Area Spotlight to 40 since September 2021.

The agreement passed by a 6-1 vote with one abstention, although there was some confusion during the meeting over whether the final tally should be recorded as 6-1 with one abstention or 6-2. Directors Gary Ledebur and Nicole Sallustio were the two Board members who did not vote in favor.

During the discussion, Ledebur raised concerns about the district’s continued use of settlements and said the agreements have cost UMASD more than $2 million. He did not specify during his comments what period of time that figure covered.

Ledebur said he believes the district is heading down an increasingly costly path by continuing to settle these matters and suggested it may be time to begin fighting some of the lawsuits instead.

The public Board records identify the agreements by student number but generally do not disclose their dollar amounts or the specific services covered by each agreement.

Spotlight reviewed School Board records from September 2021 through August 2026. Student numbers have been partially redacted.

The Oct. 2, 2023 Board record contains a discrepancy between the student number listed in the action and the student number listed in the accompanying background.

A 2025 investigation by The Philadelphia Inquirer examined special-education settlements across all 62 school districts in Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery counties and found that the agreements can represent millions of dollars in spending.

Radnor Township School District reported 76 settlements totaling nearly $6 million between September 2021 and August 2024. Coatesville Area School District reported 18 settlements totaling about $460,000. Tredyffrin/Easttown, Central Bucks and Haverford each reported more than $5 million in settlements during that three-year period.

Some individual agreements were substantial. Pennsbury School District agreed to pay $767,000 over five years for one student to attend private school, while three other Pennsbury agreements cited by the newspaper ranged from $300,000 to $400,000.

Unionville-Chadds Ford had agreements including $121,000 for tuition and services at a residential treatment school in Utah and $200,000 for a Connecticut boarding school serving students with ADHD and dyslexia.

The money involved in these agreements does not necessarily represent a direct payment to a family. The Inquirer found that settlement funds can be used for private-school tuition, compensatory education, tutoring, therapy, residential placements and other educational services. Some settlements can also include attorneys’ fees.

Another important distinction is that the amount authorized under an agreement may not ultimately be fully spent. Some compensatory-education funds, for example, may be held by a district and used only when families submit qualifying expenses.

The Inquirer also found significant disagreement over why these settlements occur. Parents and advocates interviewed for the investigation argued that settlements can resolve an individual dispute without addressing broader problems within a school district. District officials and attorneys said settlements can provide individualized solutions while avoiding the expense and uncertainty of prolonged due-process litigation.

There is also an important distinction between the Inquirer’s investigation and Spotlight’s review of UMASD records. The Inquirer specifically examined special-education settlements. Upper Merion’s public agendas describe the agreements tracked by Spotlight as confidential student settlement or release agreements. The publicly available records reviewed so far do not establish that every Upper Merion agreement falls into the same category examined by the Inquirer.

The Board recognized Directors Jason Jones, Tiffany Cherry and Jenn Lyons for five years of service on the Upper Merion Area School Board.

Another major financial issue came into clearer focus Monday night when Business Administrator Michael Keeley provided additional information about property assessment appeals.

According to Keeley, the district faced 66 appeals involving more than $600 million worth of properties during the 2025-26 cycle.

Those appeals ultimately resulted in a reduction of approximately 25% in the taxable assessed value of the properties involved.

Keeley said those reductions translated into more than $3 million in annual tax revenue lost by the district.

The 25% figure does not mean the district lost 25% of all of its property-tax revenue.

Instead, it refers to the properties involved in those assessment appeals.

In simple terms, a property owner can challenge the assessed value used to calculate property taxes. If the assessment is reduced, the property owner pays taxes based on the lower value.

Because UMASD receives property-tax revenue based on those assessed values, a successful reduction also reduces the amount of money the school district receives from that property.

So when Keeley referred to more than $600 million worth of properties and a roughly 25% reduction, he was describing the portion of the district's tax base involved in those appeals — not a 25% reduction in the district's overall tax collections.

And unless those assessments later increase, the impact is not necessarily limited to one year. A lower taxable assessment can continue producing lower annual tax revenue in future years.

The district is already facing another group of appeals for 2026-27.

Keeley said there are currently 47 appeals involving approximately $41 million worth of properties, which could result in more than $300,000 in annual tax revenue loss for the district.

The figures offered Monday night provide additional context for why property assessment appeals are closely watched by school districts. While individual property owners have the right to challenge their assessments, reductions across a large number of high-value commercial and residential properties can have a significant cumulative effect on the district's tax base.

During public comment, a resident also raised questions about cameras being installed on district school buses.

The resident asked about the technological capabilities of the cameras and whether individuals who have access to the footage are required to undergo specific background checks.

The district told the resident it would provide additional information.

The questions could take on additional significance amid broader local discussion about camera and surveillance technology, including automated license plate reader systems.

The school-bus camera service is provided through a third-party contractor, raising additional questions that could include what information the system collects, who can access the footage, how long footage is retained and what screening requirements apply to individuals with access.

Those questions were not answered during Monday night's meeting, but were promised to be followed up on.

You can watch the school board meeting HERE.

Enjoying the Spotlight? Don't stop here.

The best local stories come from the community. Have something that deserves the Spotlight? Email us at [email protected]

Thank you for reading,

Corey