Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and advocates press Cherry Hill board over preschool expansion, special‑education supports and transparency
Summary
During two public‑comment periods about the tentative budget, dozens of residents urged transparency on cuts and expressed concern that preschool expansion, busing and growing special‑education costs are contributing to the district’s shortfall; advocates asked the board to protect co‑teaching supports and avoid increasing class sizes for inclusion classrooms.
Dozens of community members at the March 24 Cherry Hill Board of Education meeting urged the board and administration to provide clearer details on proposed cuts, to protect special‑education supports and to reconsider the scope of the district’s preschool expansion amid a sharply tighter budget.
Multiple speakers — parents, PTA leaders and advocacy groups — told the board they appreciate early‑childhood education but questioned whether the preschool expansion is financially sustainable. Several public commenters (including Jeff Potowitz and Christina Musso) said busing and administrative costs for preschool add materially to general‑fund expense; one speaker cited a district slide shown by the administration indicating about $1.8 million from the general fund for preschool in 2026–27 and asked for a multi‑year projection.
Advocates for students with disabilities, including the president of the Cherry Hill Special Ed PTA, urged the board not to reduce co‑teaching support or instructional aides and to include push‑in students in class caps. Representatives of parent groups — including CPAG and Cherry Hill Fair Funding — asked board members to pursue redistricting or enrollment‑balancing options and to be transparent about which programs comprise the $8 million in non‑personnel reductions and the estimated staffing reductions.
The Cherry Hill Education Association thanked the board and administration for collaboration but emphasized that health‑benefit and transportation cost increases are out of local control and encouraged community advocacy to state lawmakers. Several public commenters urged the board to prioritize cuts at administrative levels before classroom staff.
Board and administration responses: Superintendent Dr. Morton said the administration performed an exhaustive 0‑based review and that many staffing reductions will be captured through attrition and vacancies; he also said specifics tying positions to cuts cannot be discussed publicly because of personnel privacy. Board members acknowledged public concerns and pledged further engagement ahead of the April public hearing.
The public response sets a sharp local political context as the board advances the tentative budget and prepares for final adoption in late April.
