Doctor Pimentel, a district staff member, reviewed the district’s Continuous School Improvement (CSI) framework and how it informs school‑level targets. The CSI model the district uses is a cyclical four‑step process — root‑cause analysis, vision setting, action planning and impact review — and the district is aligning school goals to Pennsylvania’s statewide interim targets and a locally calculated “2033 goal” trajectory.

Pimentel explained the district’s approach to targets: state interim targets for all schools provide a statewide marker, and the district computes school‑specific year‑by‑year goals using each school’s baseline and the gap to the 2033 target. He said the district has used CSI training since 2023–24, launched one CSI team per school in 2024–25 and is increasing team activity this year with the goal of moving from isolated teams to schoolwide practice.

Principals from the district’s elementary schools then presented school‑level analyses and action plans.

Cheltenham Elementary (presented by Ms. Jannad) reported a decline in third‑grade PSSA reading proficiency tied in part to teacher turnover and substitute coverage (two of four third‑grade teachers changed during the year). The school’s priorities include: a whole‑school book study to support consistent instructional approaches, a station‑rotation model and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) strategies for tier‑1 instruction, teacher common‑planning time expanded to one hour per session, one‑to‑one PBIS data meetings with teachers, and a Beyond‑the‑Bell tutoring program targeting grades 2–4 with up to 12 students receiving two weekly tutoring sessions.

Glenside (presented by Dr. Robinson) described a strategy of “deepening” high‑impact practices already in use rather than introducing new initiatives. The school cited structured literacy, regular progress monitoring and clearly scheduled tier‑2 and tier‑3 opportunities. Robinson emphasized teacher collaboration, shared assessments and use of custom walk‑through forms to align observation data across administrators.

Myers (presented by Mr. Lytle) highlighted inclusive practices and a rapid demographic shift: he reported a large increase in English‑language‑learner enrollment (the presentation said the ELL population rose substantially since 2021–22) and noted special‑education enrollment increases. Myers’ plan prioritizes exposing all students to grade‑level standards while simultaneously remediating prerequisite skills, coordinated MTSS meetings, clearly defined collaborative roles for general and special education staff, and schedule design that preserves grade‑level instruction while providing targeted intervention time.

WinCoat (presented by Mr. Taylor) reported gains in mathematics after focusing last year’s CSI work on fact fluency and number sense; the school has strengthened data ownership among staff, codified small‑group instruction time in the master schedule, and is building MTSS and PBIS supports to address behavioral referrals. Taylor said student perception data drove changes to recess staffing and the inclusion of Playworks programming; the school also hired additional male staff for recess to provide positive adult representation during unstructured time.

Across schools common themes included a focus on intellectual engagement in tier‑1 instruction, structured small‑group (tier‑2) instruction, frequent progress monitoring, teacher collaboration time, and using multiple measures of student learning and perception to inform interventions. Principals described a set of monitoring tools — FastBridge, i‑Ready, common assessments, PBIS/MTSS data and classroom walk‑throughs — that will be used to track progress. Several principals noted that some science and fifth‑grade historic data were not presented because of assessment transitions and the Elkins Park school closure, respectively.

No formal board votes were taken on CSI items during the meeting; principals presented plans and staff will continue with school‑level implementation and progress reporting.