Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flexible Instruction Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cheltenham SD board reviews state-required Flexible Instruction Plan; no vote taken
Summary
At a regular board meeting, district presenters reviewed the state-required Flexible Instruction Plan (FIP) that allows up to five flexible instructional days and outlined application timing, required components and implementation questions. Board members raised calendar, equity and policy-language concerns; final approval is planned at a later meeting.
The Cheltenham School District board heard an overview of the state-required Flexible Instruction Plan at its meeting. Presenters said the three-year plan, which allows the district to use up to five flexible instructional days per school year for closures or remote instruction, opens for application April 1 and is due June 1. "It is a state required form that you must do if you're gonna close school and have a remote learning time," a presenter said.
The presentation described required elements for the application: notification procedures for parents, students and staff; attendance rules and documentation; a mix of synchronous and asynchronous learning options; and exemplar lesson plans that the district must submit. The presenter said administrators and teachers are preparing Google Classroom links and materials in advance so instruction can continue during remote or flexible days.
Board members pressed for details about calendar impacts and equity. Daniel Schultz asked whether invoking flexible instructional days would effectively eliminate traditional snow days or change the calendar end date. Presenters said districts retain discretion about when to use flexible days and noted the state has moved from a strict days-based requirement to an hours-based standard (referenced in the presentation as a 990-hour requirement for elementary), which provides more scheduling flexibility. The presenter said the district plans to complete the application by the end of spring break and bring it to the main board meeting for formal approval.
Several board members asked whether the district has policy or administrative regulations to guide when to use synchronous versus asynchronous instruction on a flexible day. Presenters replied that application guidelines do not require the district to specify exact timing rules; local policy or administrative regulations are the appropriate venue for those details. One board member urged the policy committee to consider clear guidance to address concerns about equity and learning loss, particularly for students with special needs.
No formal action on the Flexible Instruction Plan was taken that evening. The board approved unrelated meeting minutes and later adjourned by voice vote. The administration said it will return with the completed application and a request for board approval at the next main meeting.
The board additionally opened a brief public-comment period; one caller described Google Classroom as an active, regularly updated resource that helps maintain continuity with in-class learning when remote instruction is needed.
