Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cheltenham SD presents special‑education gap data, flags SWIS interpretation and autism supports expansion
Summary
District special‑education staff reviewed state gap‑proficiency indicators, SWIS discipline referral counts, and expansion of autistic‑support classrooms supported by the Patton Autism Initiative; board members asked for disaggregated student counts (unique students vs. incidents) and more school‑level context.
District special‑education staff presented a layered report to the Educational Affairs Committee on indicators used in state reporting, discipline referrals, and supports for students with autism.
The presenter reviewed the state’s gap‑proficiency indicator (the difference in PSSA proficiency rates between the general student population and students with IEPs). For example, the presenter said Cheltenham’s 4th‑grade ELA gap was 38.8% in one year and improved to 29.9% for a different cohort, noting that the state average and district targets differ across cohorts and that some 2024–25 targets remain pending calculation.
On discipline and the district’s SWIS (PBIS) referral system, staff cautioned that incident‑level data can be misleading if presented as unique‑student rates. Board members flagged a chart that showed a high share of referrals coming from students with IEPs; a district analyst reported that for one building the 55% figure represented 36 unique students and that a small number of students account for a disproportionate share of incidents (one student had 27 minor referrals). Staff said they will pair SWIS incident data with unique‑student counts and intervention histories to avoid incorrect conclusions.
Staff described the district’s work with the Patton Autism Initiative (TAI). The district now has seven elementary autistic‑support classrooms receiving monthly TAI consultant fidelity checks, internal coaching and quarterly supervisor meetings. Presenters highlighted professional development efforts (three‑day boots for paraeducators and monthly internal coaching), the use of verbal‑behavior approaches across classrooms and collaborations with nearby districts to borrow successful practices.
A student spotlight showed an elementary student who increased inclusion with general education peers from 20% to 51% of the day after three years of intensive programming. Administrators said paraeducator training, increased push‑in from related service providers (speech, OT), and planned PLCs for autistic‑support staff are next‑year priorities.
Board members asked whether autistic‑support classrooms are fully staffed and where new classrooms will be located. Staff said two elementary schools currently have two AS classrooms, two have one, and the district is planning rooming and staffing as registrations finalize; Cheltenham Elementary will reduce fifth‑grade sections from five to four to free space for an additional autistic‑support classroom.
Administrators emphasized that SWIS and special‑education data must be read together and committed to providing disaggregated analyses (unique‑student counts, referral frequencies and intervention tiers) to clarify patterns shown in public dashboards.
