Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Graduation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cheltenham SD reports interim Act 158 graduation numbers; district below state-required threshold
Summary
District presenters told the Educational Affairs Committee that 329 of about 421 Class of 2026 students have completed an Act 158 pathway; interim percentages (about 78–82%) fall short of the state's 95% reporting expectation. Board members asked for disaggregated cohort and IEP cross-tabs and final numbers after the state's October 1 reporting deadline.
Cheltenham School District officials on Thursday reported interim graduation pathway figures under Pennsylvania’s Act 158, telling the Educational Affairs Committee that the district remains well below the state’s 95% threshold for pathway completion.
A district presenter said the Class of 2026 shows 329 students of roughly 421 have completed one of the state’s approved pathways. The presenter gave a breakdown: 108 students through Keystone attainment, 68 through a Keystone composite, 4 through the career and technical education (CTE) pathway, 25 through alternate assessments and 111 through the evidence‑based pathway. The presenter said 91 students had not completed a pathway and five students were nonreporting (students assigned to child‑accounting buildings and not physically in district buildings).
The presenter said an earlier tally put the district at 78.3% pathway completion, and a later update raised that interim figure to about 81.7%. By contrast, the presenter noted, state reporting expects districts to meet or exceed a 95% pathway completion rate when final numbers are submitted.
Board members pressed for more granular data. One board member asked how the district classifies students assigned to “CAB” (child accounting buildings) and whether students with individualized education plans are overrepresented in particular pathways. The presenter said CAB designates students the district must account for even when they are not physically in district buildings (for example, students on virtual learning or placed at youth centers) and explained that pathway assignment follows an ordering rule: if a student satisfies multiple pathways, Keystone‑based results are recorded first and other pathways are used only when Keystone criteria are not met.
On the evidence‑based pathway, the presenter said the category intentionally bundles diverse evidence (dual‑enrollment grades, service‑learning projects, industry‑recognized credentials, letters of full‑time employment or military enlistment) so that students who do not pass Keystone exams can still demonstrate readiness. The presenter said counselors and teams are documenting evidence earlier in students’ careers to avoid last‑minute rushes before graduation.
Administrators told the committee that interim figures can change through summer coursework and other updates, and that the district’s official reporting deadline to the state is October 1. The board requested cohort disaggregation and a cross‑tabulation showing how many students with IEPs earned graduation through each pathway; presenters said they would provide more detailed breakdowns and post final numbers after the state submission.
The committee did not take any new formal action on graduation policy; presenters emphasized this was an interim report and that staff would return with the requested disaggregations and the final submission.
