Cheltenham School District presents special-education progress, diagnostic results, and staffing updates
Summary
District leaders told the school board they have expanded supports (BCBAs, RBTs), rolled out I-Ready/SuccessMaker/iLit pilots, and seen improved parent-survey responses, while board members pressed for clarity on diagnostic completions, seclusion vs. restraint reporting, and program rollout timelines.
Dr. Cantrell told the Cheltenham School District board on a special-education update that the district has adopted a districtwide framework to improve consistency and continuity of services for students with disabilities across seven schools. “We are proud to present the progress we've made thus far,” Dr. Cantrell said as the presentation opened.
The presentation outlined three primary areas of support—learning, emotional life skills and autistic support—and described alignment of intervention programs to curriculum, ongoing professional development for staff and increased on-site coaching. District staff described new and expanding resources that include district-based and contracted board-certified behavior analysts (BCBAs), registered behavior technicians (RBTs) at the high school, and sensory rooms at several buildings.
Supervisors reported the district’s use of multiple supplemental programs: I-Ready for reading and math diagnostics and interventions in some buildings, Magnetic Foundations and Magnetic Reading for early-grade literacy, Phonics for Reading for grades 3–8, SuccessMaker for high-school math and iLit for high-school reading. The high-school supervisor said the supplemental programs are designed for roughly 20 minutes per session and are “supplemental to the general-education curriculum.”
District staff presented fall and winter diagnostic-completion rates and changes between diagnostics. Examples cited by presenters: Cheltenham Elementary fall reading completion about 62% (math ~50%), Glenside fall reading 86% (math ~63%), and after the winter diagnostic several buildings showed higher completion rates—Myers reading 86% and math 88%, and Wincoke reading 95% and math 90%. Presenters noted some data anomalies (for example, teacher onboarding affected Elkins Park fall data) and emphasized that incomplete teacher setup earlier in the year had depressed some fall figures.
Officials highlighted positive shifts in student-level categories between the fall and winter diagnostics: the number of students completing math diagnostics increased and several grade-level cohorts showed small increases in students at or above grade level. At the same time, presenters said a small number of students still have not completed required diagnostics (the winter diagnostic still had about 23–35 students incomplete in some reports) and that the district is working to reduce the population of students three or more grade levels below.
Board members pressed staff on whether diagnostic data are lagging measures or actively informing instruction. The district said it is a combination of both and that the district will continue partner check-ins with I-Ready and targeted professional development so teachers use the data to plan instruction and small-group work.
The presentation also covered behavioral supports and safety reporting. Dr. Cantrell reminded the board that, under Board Policy 113.2, “Anytime seclusion is used in Cheltenham School District, it must be reported to the office of special education.” Board members sought clarification about seclusion versus restraint: staff said the board report focused on seclusion incidents, while restraints are recorded separately and are submitted to the state through compliance monitoring; staff agreed to provide restraint data to the board on request.
Family engagement was another focus. The district shared parent-survey comparisons showing improvements across several items: parents reporting they are equal partners in planning rose from 71% to 80; reports that IEP accommodation and modification discussions took place rose from 91% to 94; and parents reporting they had been asked about how well special-education services met their child’s needs rose from 49% to 74. Presenters reported the prior survey had 143 respondents and the latest 118.
Public commenters and board members asked about staffing and retention for paraprofessionals. District staff said turnover this year has been low and highlighted programs to support paraprofessionals, including a paraeducator handbook and state-required competency pathways for paraprofessionals who lack an associate degree.
On gifted screening, the district noted a move from the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT3) to the Naglieri General Abilities measure (NAG) and the Kaufman Assessment Battery (KABC) as part of efforts to obtain a “richer set of data” and reduce bias in screening. Board members asked that staff report back with disaggregated results by demographic group.
The meeting ended with expressions of appreciation for the work and a motion to adjourn moved by Pam Henry and seconded by Liam O'Hare.
What happens next: staff said they will continue diagnostic completion efforts, follow up with I-Ready partners and provide requested restraint reporting to the board; the district also said further data on gifted screening results will be analyzed and reported.
