Abington School District officials presented results from student, staff and parent surveys along with program measures Wednesday and said the data show progress at the elementary level but continuing social-emotional learning (SEL) and safety concerns at the secondary level.

The presentation to the Abington Board of School Directors summarized a district equity audit and multiple measures that inform SEL and climate work, including Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) school climate surveys, teacher screening (Student Risk Screening Scale, SRSS) and teacher-rated assessments tied to the Second Step curriculum. “The Abington School District is committed to the social, emotional, and behavioral development of our students,” Director of Pupil Services Dr. Robert Rosenthal said during the presentation.

The report matters because the survey and screening results drive staffing, professional development and direct student interventions the district plans to sustain and expand next year. The district is incorporating restorative practices, PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports), counselor-delivered tier 2 groups and partnerships with outside providers into its next steps.

District presenters said elementary student climate scores were slightly higher than state averages: total 3.2; SEL 3.4; student support 3.1; safe school 2.9 (on a 1–4 scale). Middle school averages remained close to the state: total 2.5; SEL 2.3; student support 2.6; safe school 2.6. High school scores were slightly higher than last year but still near state average (district total 2.7; SEL 2.4; student support 2.8; safe school 2.8). Staff ratings at elementary buildings were higher than state averages (total 3.3; SEL 2.9; student support 3.5; safe school 3.5), presenters said.

Leaders emphasized that screening data identify a relatively small share of students who require targeted interventions. Teacher-completed SRSS universal screening showed most students in the low-risk range (roughly 78–91 percent, depending on grade for internalizing behaviors; 83–90 percent low risk for externalizing behaviors) and 2–7 percent in the high-risk ranges, district staff said. “When students fall in the high risk range, we provide interventions,” Dr. Rosenthal said, describing building core-team review of high- and moderate-risk cases and matching interventions to need.

Presenters flagged advanced-tier programming (tier 2 and tier 3) as an area for improvement. Staff PBIS self-assessments suggested consistent tier-1 practices in many elementary buildings but identified gaps in tier-2/3 delivery, prompting steps to expand counselor-led small groups, individualized behavior plans, and use of intervention-management tools (LinkIt Intervention Manager and SWIS school-wide information system).

Restorative practices were central to the year’s work: two restorative-practices coaches supported more than 450 restorative sessions for over 300 students and the district reported a 74 percent nonrecidivism rate for students who participated in restorative practices as an alternative to traditional discipline. District staff said middle- and high-school restorative activity is sometimes undercounted in Skyward (the student information system) and they plan to improve data capture next year.

The district described partnerships and grants that supported the work. Montgomery County Health and Human Services secured a roughly $1,000,000, three-year Bureau of Justice Administration grant for violence-prevention work across partner districts; the district also continued Project AWARE and collaborations with the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit and local mental-health partners (Aldersgate, Child and Family Focus, CHOPS). Presenters noted universal tenets for next year: maintain Second Step for K–5, continue counselor-delivered tiered interventions, expand proactive circles and restorative practices K–12, and refine data systems to monitor fidelity and outcomes.

Board members asked about links between climate measures and achievement; district staff said core teams review climate alongside academic data but the district does not yet perform formal statistical analyses tying specific climate-scale results to achievement outcomes. Board members also asked about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs); the district said pupil-services staff incorporate ACEs information in evaluations and individualized plans when relevant but ACEs are not part of universal screening because teachers are not always aware of those histories.

District leaders said the climate findings have been used to revise the comprehensive plan submitted to PDE for 2025–28 and to prioritize professional development – trauma-informed practice training, restorative-practices coaching, and tier-2 interventions – for 2025–26.

Looking forward, the administration said it will continue midyear reviews at each building, track implementation fidelity, and report updates to the superintendent’s committees on climate and equity.

The presentation included an equity audit summary; Dr. Carmen Lasseng and other presenters said interviews and focus groups included nearly 600 people from schools, the administration building and transportation staff and that the audit’s recommendations will inform future action steps and professional development.

District officials urged continued parent and community outreach so SEL and climate efforts can be reinforced at home and in community settings.