National Scores Continue To Decline Post Pandemic

In 2024, students in grades 4 and 8 demonstrated lower reading performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress compared to 2022. While math scores showed no change among 8th graders and saw a modest improvement among 4th graders, both groups continued to score below pre-pandemic levels.

An in-depth look at reading scores highlights increasing concerns across the United States, as proficiency levels have stagnated or worsened, despite the allocation of billions in federal funding intended to address learning loss from school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. The charts below illustrate the ongoing declines in reading performance among 4th and 8th-grade students.

In 2024, 31% of 4th-grade students and 30% of 8th-grade students achieved reading proficiency. By comparison, in 2015, proficiency levels were at 36% for 4th graders and 35% for 8th graders. This represents a ~14% decline in reading proficiency at both grade levels over the past decade, with no clear signs of recovery.

How Does Pennsbury Reading Score Compare To National Trends?

During the January School Board Meeting, Pennsbury presented its Annual Achievement Report to both the Board and the public. The administration’s presentation appeared to emphasize a more favorable narrative, glossing over the challenges currently facing classrooms. The charts, carefully curated by the administration, relied on post-COVID pandemic data, seemingly in an effort to obscure the full extent of the struggles. However, as demonstrated by national assessments, comparing post-pandemic data to pre-pandemic test scores is essential to accurately gauge the scope of learning loss.

Pennsbury’s 4th-grade reading proficiency has declined by 11% over the past decade, decreasing from 77.9% in 2015 to 69.3% in 2024. While this decline is less severe than the national average of a 13.9% drop since 2015, and may suggest slightly better performance relative to nationwide trends, it still reflects a troubling double-digit decrease in achievement. Any suggestion of this being “good news” is questionable, as such significant declines are far from encouraging.

The 8th grade reading proficiency scores highlight serious concerns about Pennsbury’s efforts in the aftermath of the pandemic. For context, the 4th graders who took the test in 2024 were in kindergarten during the 2020 school closures, while the current 8th graders were in 4th grade at the time—making them particularly reliant on the federal funding allocated to school districts for tutoring and other interventions to help students regain grade-level proficiency. Pennsbury’s reading proficiency scores have declined by 14.8%, dropping from 76.7% in 2015 to 65.3% in 2024. Notably, this decline surpasses the national average, which fell by 14.2% over the same period, indicating a faster rate of decline in Pennsbury’s performance. Deeper concerns present themselves when compared to PA State averages which show a decline of 10% compared to 14.8% decline over the past decade.

Although there is no national assessment for high school reading proficiency, Pennsylvania’s Keystone testing provides a crucial glimpse into the challenges facing Pennsbury. The data highlights a troubling trend of declining proficiency as students near graduation. Between 2015 and 2024, Pennsbury’s reading proficiency plummeted from 90.8% to 74.4%, reflecting a dramatic 18% decline. By contrast, state-level scores experienced a 13.2% decrease during the same period, underscoring that Pennsbury is falling behind other Pennsylvania districts in recovering from the impacts of the pandemic.

What Is Pennsbury’s Strategy For Reading Proficiency Turnaround?

The reality is, there seems to be a lack of attention or concern from the Pennsbury administration and School Board regarding these declining metrics. Federal funds have been squandered on overpriced Promethean Interactive TV Displays, which are primarily beneficial for Elementary and Special Education students but have been installed in every Pennsbury classroom. Additionally, the School Board approved a six-figure expenditure on state-of-the-art classroom video cameras intended to support virtual learning, yet these cameras are absent from most classrooms.

The Policy Committee, under Jeannine Delwiche’s leadership, has squandered significant human resources and taxpayer money pursuing Title IX changes they knew were unlikely to become law. Now, the same committee is expending substantial time and funds resisting updates to its DEI and Transgender policies, effectively playing a high-stakes game with the Federal government over $3.4 million in funding intended to enhance reading proficiency. Meanwhile, they advocate for a $270 million new high school building, claiming it will boost learning outcomes—despite academic research indicating that 4th-grade reading proficiency is the most critical factor in academic achievement.

The Pennsbury administration and School Board might take a page from Louisiana’s playbook, a state that has achieved remarkable progress in education. Since 2019, Louisiana has been the only state in the nation to see improvements in both reading and math proficiency, climbing from 50th to 16th place in reading proficiency rankings. What’s the secret behind Louisiana’s success? Hint: It’s not costly equipment, progressive political agendas, or brand-new facilities. The key lies in returning to the fundamentals—focusing on Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic.

The post Pennsbury Reading Proficiency Scores Plummet, Exceeding National and State Level Declines first appeared on Pennsbury411.

What Are Title I Funds?

Title I funds are federal financial assistance provided to schools and school districts with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families. These funds aim to close the achievement gap by supplying additional resources to schools that need them the most. Distribution of Title I funds is based on the number of low-income students in a school or district. Schools with at least 40% of students from low-income families are eligible for school-wide programs. Title I funds can be utilized for various purposes, including:

• Engaging parents and families in their children’s education
• Providing additional instructional support
• Hiring additional teachers and staff
• Implementing programs to improve academic achievement
• Supporting professional development for teachers
• Purchasing instructional materials and technology

What Are IDEA Funds?

IDEA funds are provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to support special education and related services for children with disabilities. These funds ensure that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) tailored to their individual needs. IDEA funds can be used for various purposes, including:

• Supporting transitional services after educational services are complete
• Providing individualized instruction for students with disabilities
• Offering related services such as occupational therapy and speech therapy
• Purchasing assistive technology
• Conducting professional development training
• Developing and implementing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)

Where Is Pennsbury At With Compliance?

The answer is that we have no clue. Despite calls at committee meetings and action board by community members to come into compliance and revise its policies, Pennsbury administrators and the School Board have refused to respond to and address public concerns about complying with the Executive Orders. In contrast, when the Biden Administration proposed Title IX changes that were challenged in the courts, injunctions were issued to block those Federal guidelines from implementation, and those changes were eventually pulled by the Biden Administration prior to leaving office.

The Title IX changes were initiated by Biden on April 19, 2024, with the expectation that school districts would implement these changes by August 1, 2024. Discussion around these changes began at the very first Policy Committee meeting chaired by School Board member Jeannine Delwiche on May 9, 2024. Discussions around these Title IX changes begin at 5:50 of the May audio file below:

May Policy Committee Audio

The Policy Committee continued its discussions about implementing the new Title IX guidelines at the June Policy Committee meeting held on June 13, 2024. During this meeting, it was discussed that the Pennsylvania School Board Association (PSBA) would issue new guidelines to update Policies 103 and 104. Notably, on June 11, 2024, just two days prior to this Policy Committee meeting, it made nationwide news that the first court challenge to the Title IX changes by the Attorney General of Texas resulted in an injunction against the Biden Administration’s implementation in Texas. Discussions around these Title IX changes begin at 20:55 of the June audio file below:

June Policy Committee Audio

During the August 1, 2024, Policy Committee meeting, it was noted that they had received the update from PSBA and that a Solicitor review of the updates was in process. Committee Chair Jeannine Delwiche shared that the changes went into effect on the day of their meeting. However, Delwiche did not mention the injunctions by six district circuit courts that spanned across 22 states. On August 5, 2024, the injunctions expanded to a seventh district circuit court covering 26 states. Additionally, Delwiche failed to share that on July 2, 2024, Moms For Liberty had won an injunction that would have direct impacts on Pennsbury. Discussions around these Title IX changes begin at 5:00 of the August audio file below:

August Policy Committee Audio

The conversations around Title IX changes continued at the next Policy Committee held on September 12, 2024. On the Agenda, changes to Policy 103 and 104 were presented for a first read. Public comment centered around why the District was moving forward with making changes that had been repeatedly blocked across the country due to their unconstitutionality for sidestepping Congress. After the completion of Public Comment, Committee Chair Jeannine Delwiche invoked her desire to push forward with the Title IX changes while delivering a public statement that Pennsbury had the authority to move forward because “school districts follow local law”. Discussions around these Title IX changes begin at 18:00 with Delwiche’s statement at 26:30 that incorrectly states injunctions don’t apply to Pennsbury which can be heard in the September audio file below:

In the September Policy Committee meeting, a motion and vote were held to approve the First Reading of the policy changes, sending them to the full School Board for consideration. At the subsequent October meeting, the Committee again voted to approve the Second Reading of these changes to the full School Board for consideration. However, the November Policy Committee meeting was abruptly cancelled. During the November 21, 2024 Action Meeting, Donna Ahrens faced criticism for her centrist stance on Gay Pride Flags. Since then, the Title IX changes have not been revisited.

What Can The Community Do To Encourage Compliance

Educational institutions have responded differently to the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders. Some have confirmed their compliance, others their non-compliance, while some continue not being transparent about whether DEI will be effectively removed by March 21, 2025. Pennsbury falls into the “not being transparent” category, as they have not communicated their plans to their constituents. The lack of proactive efforts, as seen with Title IX, suggests that Pennsbury may not comply, potentially risking $3.4M in federal funds.

On March 1, 2025, the Federal Government launched a new portal on the Department of Education’s website. This portal allows concerned citizens to report violations of DEI elimination compliance to the Department of Education and the Office for Civil Rights, initiating investigations against educational institutions receiving federal funds. If you are concerned about DEI persisting in the classroom and want Pennsbury to comply with federal laws, you can submit your complaint at https://enddei.ed.gov
.

The post Pennsbury Still Mum On Executive Order Compliance Despite Guidance By DOE first appeared on Pennsbury411.

Ongoing Complaints Go Unaddressed

Despite our efforts to highlight these incidents, the Pennsbury School Board has consistently refused to investigate or take action. There has been no mention of these issues during the Policy and Personnel Committee meetings chaired by Jeannine Delwiche, whose focus remains on progressive-leaning ideologies. Recently, we informed the Pennsbury community about the mysterious departure of the well-regarded Director of Special Education Regina Rausch, as well as the contract extension and promotion of Dr. Cherrissa Gibson. We have submitted at least six emails of concern from contributors to PSD411 to our School Board. However, the only responses we have received have been from Solicitor Erin Aronson, who has denied the allegations. Below is a recent email detailing concerns about promotion and job posting practices, which have led to dissatisfaction among district employees.

RTKs Unveil Discord Behind The Scenes

Upon receipt of this latest whistleblower, PSD411 contributors put forward RTKs to determine the veracity of the last workplace hostility complaint. The specific email sent to Administrative staff by Dr. Smith was requested along with the new hiring procedures noted by the whistleblower. The following RTK response was received from the District exposing the latest tumult in the Administrative building. As asserted in the whistleblower, Smith was challenged by staff over hiring processes and a lack of transparency for which he addresses in the opening paragraph and then shares an attachment with a revised formal hiring process document.

Revised Hiring Procedures Present Concerns

According to the Administrative Interview Procedures, the District has confirmed that the document was last revised in January 2025. Unfortunately, we are unable to discern the exact changes made. However, the document provides insight into Pennsbury’s hiring process for new staff. The process follows a relatively rigid format dictated by the Director of Human Resources, leaving little opportunity for interviewers to get to know the candidates. The District’s inflexible vision is strongly imposed on potential candidates, including their stance on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

The process also outlines how the Interview Team is formed, with the Director of Human Resources dictating which questions can be asked. Notably, Equity Liaisons are included in the Interview Team for all hiring circumstances. Candidates are scored on a rubric by the Interview Team based on their responses. For those unfamiliar, Equity Liaisons are assigned to each school building as DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) implementation overseers and receive an annual stipend of $2,841.40. One prominent member of the Equity Liaison Team is Pennsbury Teachers’ Union President Nicole Pierce, who recently negotiated a highly favorable contract through 2031, ensuring a minimum of 2.75% salary increases regardless of national cost of living adjustments.

The revision of these hiring procedures appears to have taken place on January 10, 2025, which directly conflicts with the Executive Order eliminating DEI at institutions receiving federal taxpayer funds, enacted by President Trump on January 20, 2025. PSD411 previously reported that Pennsbury stands to lose $3.4 million in federal funding if it doesn’t update and remove references to DEI in all of its internal policies, including hiring practices and curriculum. Pennsbury has until March 21, 2025, to implement updated policies that remove DEI and to suspend all contracts with outside vendors or risk forfeiture of federal funds.

The post Pennsbury Hiring Practices Under Fire For Favoritism and Discrimination first appeared on Pennsbury411.

Did The School District Misrepresent The Metrics Again?

In recent years, we’ve discovered that Pennsbury’s data analysis can be misleading, attempting to polish the reputation of a once highly respected school district. Instances include censoring a community member who tried to address incorrect data and being caught red-handed altering students’ ethnicity classifications. This has made it difficult to trust any numbers being presented. Does anyone genuinely believe that disciplinary incidents decreased by 65% in just one year? In that same presentation, Pennsbury also released the PSSA and Keystone scores.

As you review the PowerPoint presentation above, you’ll notice that Pennsbury’s performance appears on their face quite impressive. The district continues to outperform state averages, which include Philadelphia’s scores and thus drags down the overall metrics. However, the district’s baseline comparison only goes back to 2022, when PSSA scores were still significantly affected by COVID-19 and had not yet recovered. Although Pennsbury possesses pre-COVID data, they consciously chose not to use it as a baseline. Let’s delve into the reasons behind this decision by Superintendent Tom Smith and his Administrative staff.

Comparing Against Pre-Covid Data Tell Different Story

Our team at PSD411 meticulously investigated Pennsbury’s Board Docs to reveal the true numbers by downloading past Annual Achievement Report presentations. We accessed public record data going back to 2017 to evaluate Pennsbury students’ performance on standardized testing, specifically the PSSA test scores. When we examine these baselines across a longer date range, a very different narrative emerges.

PSSA English Test Scores

PSSA scores in English have significantly dropped since COVID-19 and have yet to recover. Previously, proficiency scores typically averaged in the mid-to-upper 70% range, but they have now fallen to the mid-to-upper 60% range. Even more concerning is that 2024 test scores declined in 5 out of 6 grade levels compared to 2023. In two grade levels, 6th and 8th grade, Pennsbury students recorded their lowest scores since 2017. Remarkably, Pennsbury students performed better in English during asynchronous virtual learning than they did in the classroom last school year.

PSSA Mathematics Test Scores

PSSA Math test scores have been one of the few bright spots at Pennsbury, though the District has historically lagged in Math compared to other subjects. Consequently, improving these scores was somewhat easier since the initial metrics were already low. While proficiency levels in English hover closer to 70%, Pennsbury middle school students have typically been below 50% proficiency annually in Math. During COVID, proficiency levels declined to the mid-20% range but have since rebounded to pre-pandemic norms. For 8th grade, students raised their proficiency score to 38%, but this still classifies Pennsbury at a “Below Basic” designation by the Department of Education.

PSSA Science Test Scores

PSSA Science test scores present a slightly different picture compared to the metrics for English and Math. The state only tests Science proficiency at the 4th and 8th grade levels. For 4th graders, proficiency scores remained steady during COVID and consistently exceeded 90%, earning Pennsbury an “Advanced” designation. The concerning aspect is the significant decline in scores from 4th to 8th grade. During COVID, 8th grade scores plummeted to the lower-50% range but have since rebounded to the lower-60% range in 2024. Pre-COVID, proficiency scores typically hovered in the upper-60% range. While these Science metrics are solid compared to state averages, the data reveals that Pennsbury students drop from an “Advanced” designation in 4th grade to a “Proficient” designation by 8th grade.

What Is The District Doing About The Poor Scores?

If you watched the January 16th Action Board Meeting, you’ll see that very little is being done. Instead of focusing on improving the learning environment for students, Board Members Jeannine Delwiche and Donna Petrecco defended their political attacks on fellow Board Member Donna Ahrens. Delwiche, with the support of her spouse, even tried to portray herself as the victim. After the presentation of standardized test scores and disciplinary data, the Board remained relatively quiet, not asking many questions or challenging the data. When elected representatives don’t show much concern about declining test scores, it sends a message to Pennsbury administrators that education doesn’t matter. It doesn’t seem that the Gay Pride Flags that Delwiche and Petrecco aggressively support in every classroom are doing much to improve educational testing scores.

Below is the YouTube stream from the meeting, click to play and it will take you directly to the Annual Achievement Report presentation at the meeting and how the Board questioned the Pennsbury administrators.

The post Pennsbury’s Standardized Testing Scores Continue Its Struggle To Rebound first appeared on Pennsbury411.

Which Executive Orders Impact Pennsbury?

In the past week, the Trump Administration issued over 200 Executive Orders aimed at reversing policies from the Biden Administration. These orders will significantly impact the American education system, requiring schools to adhere to new Federal mandates or risk losing their Federal funding. Even if schools forfeit their funds, they must still comply with all related Federal mandates. The following are three Executive Orders that conflict with Pennsbury policy that will need to be addressed to avoid forfeiting $3.4M in funding that will have to be recouped in local property tax increases.

Gender Ideology Reversal

Trump rescinded an executive order from former President Joe Biden that directed federal agencies to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which applied to all laws prohibiting sex discrimination. In the 2020 case, a 6-3 ruling affirmed that discrimination against LGBTQ individuals is considered sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The new Executive Order aligns with the Supreme Court ruling and existing Title VII language, stating that the U.S. government will only recognize a person’s sex assigned at birth, limit the definition of “male” or “female” to their reproductive cells, and potentially withhold federal funding from programs acknowledging transgender individuals or “gender ideology.”

The new Executive Order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government” on the White House website, mandates the removal of any transgender policies enacted by school districts. Schools are instructed to reverse these policies within 120 days or risk losing federal funding.

Dismantling of DEI Programs

Last week, Trump issued an Executive Order to implement the language of the Dismantle DEI Act, which is expected to pass in Congress soon. This Order reverses Biden’s Executive Orders from his first day in office that expanded diversity training across the Federal government, created Diversity departments in all Federal agencies, and authorized significant grants for DEI and related social policies in school districts. A study by Parents Defending Education found over $1B in federal grants aimed at integrating DEI into the American education system.

The new Executive Order, titled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing” on the White House website, mandates the removal of any transgender policies enacted by school districts. Schools are instructed to reverse these policies within 60 days or risk losing federal funding.

Assisting ICE in Illegal Immigrant Deportations

The Trump administration issued an Executive Order titled “Protecting The American People Against Invasion,” which focuses on the immediate deportation of illegal immigrants. The order mandates that the Federal government and any grantee receiving Federal funding must “faithfully execute the immigration laws against all inadmissible and removable aliens, particularly those aliens who threaten the safety or security of the American people.” Many interpret this to mean that even school districts must comply with the Executive Order and assist in enforcing immigration laws.

Administrators at Central Bucks School District in Doylestown, PA, have proactively started addressing their policies and informing the community about their obligations to comply with Federal law. Superintendent Steve Yanni has sent a communication to this effect. However, no such communication has been issued by Pennsbury, and there are no indications that Pennsbury is preparing any internal procedures to handle these Executive Orders, despite emails from PSD411 members to Pennsbury Solicitor Erin Aronson of Eastburn & Gray which have not received a response.

Will Pennsbury Comply Or Fight The Executive Orders?

Over the past two months, the actions of the Pennsbury “Mean Girls” and their attacks on Board Member Donna Ahrens for presenting a centrist viewpoint on Gay Pride Flags and other political symbols in the classroom have raised concerns about Pennsbury’s compliance. Board Members Jeannine Delwiche, Donna Petrecco, and Linda Palsky have clearly stated their political positions on Gender Ideology and DEI. At the December 2024 board meeting, the Bucks County NAACP showed strong support for a new contract for Dr. Cherrissa Gibson, which removed “Equity” from her job title but included “equity” in her job requirements and performance evaluation.

We will find out shortly if the Pennsbury School Board intends to comply with these new laws or forfeit the $3.4M in funding it receives annually from the Federal Government that is significantly earmarked to supporting Special Education.

The post Could Pennsbury Face $3.4M Federal Funds Forfeiture Due To White House Executive Orders? first appeared on Pennsbury411.

New Metrics Show Huge Decline in Discipline

During the Superintendent Report segment of the meeting, Tom Smith introduced the 2024 Annual Data Portfolio presentation, which was then handed over to Teri Ricci and Beth Aldridge. The presentation included underwhelming standardized test results that showed slight declines and had not yet recovered to pre-COVID levels. SAT combined scores also dropped to their lowest level in comparative period of 2019 to 2024. The Administration then addressed a major point of contention: the Discipline metrics. They highlighted extraordinary improvements, with a stunning year-over-year 68% decline in Days of Suspension at High School for the first marking period. The Middle School buildings saw a similar major decline of 34% in Days of Suspension

Questions arise about the feasibility of such a significant decline, as research data often indicate that such results may be driven by changes in reporting that lead to false positives. This is particularly likely when policy changes occur that influence the reporting of disciplinary incidents. During their presentation, district officials mentioned a few contributing factors but provided limited details on each factor’s impact. The highlighted slide below suggests that a collaborative approach between staff and students, combined with the implementation of Restorative Practices concepts, were key policy changes that contributed to the improvement.

Pennsbury Whistleblowers Alert Of False Data

As is customary within the Pennsbury Administration, whistleblower outreaches are made to inform vocal members of the public about concerns to address with the School Board. On January 24, 2025, the latest whistleblower outreach to members of PSD411 brought shocking allegations that the data is “fudged.” In the email shared below, the whistleblower claims that Pennsbury altered the length of suspensions for certain types of infractions to manipulate the numbers. These allegations align with the data presented, which showed a 68% decline in Days of Suspensions while there was only a 54% decline in the number of students suspended at the High School. The whistleblower also alleges that some incidents, such as fights, were not reported to fuel the lower numbers.

What Are Restorative Practices?

Restorative Practices in schools focus on creating a positive and inclusive school culture by fostering strong relationships, mutual respect, and a sense of community. These practices encompass a range of activities and approaches designed to engage students proactively and address conflicts when they arise. The goal is to shift the focus from punitive measures to restorative actions that promote understanding, accountability, and healing within the school community.

By employing Restorative Practices, schools aim to reduce the reliance on exclusionary discipline methods such as suspensions and expulsions. These practices encourage students to take responsibility for their actions, understand the impact of their behavior on others, and actively participate in resolving conflicts. For example, restorative circles allow all parties involved in a conflict to share their perspectives and work together to find a mutually agreeable solution. This collaborative approach helps build empathy and strengthens relationships among students and staff

Implementing Restorative Practices has been shown to reduce disciplinary incidents and improve the overall school climate. Research indicates that schools using these practices see a decrease in exclusionary discipline, a narrowing of racial disparities in disciplinary actions, and an increase in positive student behavior. Additionally, Restorative Practices can lead to improved academic outcomes, as students spend more time engaged in learning and less time out of the classroom due to disciplinary actions. Educators also benefit from a more supportive and collaborative environment, allowing them to focus on teaching and fostering student growth.

The YouTube video below was discovered in an RTK response submitted by Pennsbury, seeking communications related to their Restorative Practices efforts. The video highlights the shift made by Pennsbury, which has led to lower disciplinary numbers by simply embracing students with a “Love Sandwich”. These Restorative Practices concepts in the video are related to efforts at the Philadelphia School District, which recently came under scrutiny within the Biden Administration’s financial grants through the Department of Education.

What Happens If Restorative Practices Are Poorly Implemented

When Restorative Practices are implemented incorrectly or with bad intent to misrepresent discipline metrics, it undermines trust among students, staff, parents, and the broader community. Stakeholders rely on transparent and honest reporting to understand the true state of the school’s environment. Manipulating data for the sake of appearances can lead to a loss of credibility and integrity, making it difficult for future initiatives to gain support and cooperation.

If Restorative Practices are not genuinely integrated into the school’s culture and are instead used superficially to manipulate metrics, they will fail to address the underlying issues causing disciplinary problems. Without authentic efforts to foster understanding, accountability, and healing, conflicts and negative behaviors are likely to persist or even escalate. This can result in a cycle where disciplinary incidents are hidden rather than resolved, ultimately worsening the school’s climate.

Students and staff may feel disillusioned if they perceive that Restorative Practices are being used as a façade rather than as a meaningful approach to building a positive school culture. This can lead to a lack of engagement, morale decline, and a sense of injustice. Moreover, students who might benefit from genuine Restorative Practices miss out on opportunities for personal growth and improved relationships. The long-term consequences could include higher dropout rates, increased absenteeism, and overall disengagement from the school community.

The post Did Restorative Practices Really Lower Pennsbury Discipline Levels? first appeared on Pennsbury411.

The atmosphere was thick with tension as the Pennsbury community voiced their concerns, accusing Liberal Board Members of misconduct and rallying behind Board Member Donna Ahrens, who advocated for a centrist approach to Gay Pride Flags in classrooms. Typically, Pennsbury School Board meetings see a sparse attendance of about 6 or 7 people once the Board and Administration’s use of children as pawns concludes. However, this meeting saw an unusual turnout, with around 30 people staying until the end. The public comment session was the longest since September 2021, during the lead-up to the First Amendment lawsuit.

What Led Up To Attacks On Ahrens?

For the past two months, the Liberal bloc members of the Pennsbury School Board have repeatedly targeted Donna Ahrens for her comments at the November 21st school board meeting. Ahrens questioned why Pennsbury allows political symbols in classrooms, which she believes violates Policy 321. She expressed concerns about any political symbols in the classroom, not just Gay Pride Flags. Ahrens also mentioned that employees felt pressured to display such symbols and that some constituents were worried that the presence of a Gay Pride Flag in a classroom might influence perceptions of a teacher’s character. She emphasized that the only flag that should be in a classroom is the American Flag. Instead of calling for the removal of the Gay Pride Flag, Ahrens proposed a middle ground solution, such as a display case for political symbols representing any club or group at Pennsbury.

RTKs revealed that Ahrens faced immediate backlash from her fellow Board Members following her public comments. She was accused of releasing confidential information, being insensitive to LGBTQ concerns, and lacking an understanding of children’s needs. Additionally, a Board Member’s spouse shamed her for receiving applause from community opponents of the School Board. This was followed by harsh prepared statements from Board Members Jeannine Delwiche, Donna Petrecco, and Linda Palsky, as well as criticism from known Liberal political activists outside the community, targeting Ahrens for not aligning with the Democratic Party’s stance on these issues.

Ahrens Unleashes On Her Fellow Board Members

Following a series of passionate public comments where speakers criticized the Liberal bloc of the School Board for various issues, including Gay Pride Flags, Identity Politics, and a lack of focus on children’s needs, the meeting transitioned to the voting segment. Several items were pulled after public concerns were raised about the Board’s rubber-stamping of items and lack of oversight. These included the approval of a new turf field at Walt Disney without a review of potential health concerns and funding for student registrations for a DECA competition for the Business Club. A video replay of Pennsbury School Board comment can be found in the YouTube video below:

Ahrens initiated the Board Discussion by reading her prepared statement, condemning the Liberal bloc of the School Board for what she perceived as personal attacks on her character. She first addressed Donna Petrecco, responding to her veiled assertions that Ahrens, not being a parent, lacked an understanding of children. Ahrens then turned to Delwiche, urging her to stop politicizing the Board and to respect the will of the people, citing polls that show the vast majority of Americans support removing political symbols from classrooms.

Ahrens then addressed Michael Celec, Delwiche’s husband, regarding his email that called for her censure and questioned her integrity for receiving applause from Delwiche’s opponents in the community, suggesting they were Ahrens’ “pet exception.” Ahrens reminded Celec that these individuals are her constituents and that she has a responsibility to listen to their concerns. Notably, Celec was the final public comment speaker, promoting his YouTube page, which features videos targeting Pennsbury School Board meetings and attacking private citizens for their perceived “unkind” communications with Pennsbury Board Members. It should also be noted that Celec had left the meeting room before Ahrens’ comments addressing his email communication.

Ahrens then turned her attention to Palsky, asserting that her comments misrepresented her stance on Gay Pride Flags. She firmly addressed Palsky, stating, “Don’t base your narrative on words that you put into my mouth.” Ahrens emphasized that such harmful narratives do not benefit the children in the Pennsbury School District.

Pennsbury “Mean Girls” Defend Their Misconduct

Despite Ahrens’ prepared statements, both Donna Petrecco and Jeannine Delwiche defended their actions. Petrecco claimed that her email and public comments were not intended to diminish Ahrens’ understanding of children due to her not being a parent. Delwiche shifted the focus to Pennsbury community members who opposed her policies, including tampon dispensers, transgender policies, the implementation of Title IX changes recently ruled unconstitutional, and her refusal to remove DEI policies. Delwiche also misrepresented her involvement with the Bucks County NAACP, suggesting she was merely a volunteer, despite LinkedIn references showing active membership by herself and her husband since her election to the Pennsbury School Board. She further claimed a physical incident against her husband during the meeting, although Falls Township Police, present in the room, took no action as the incident did not rise to such claims. Upon adjournment of the meeting, not captured on video, multiple members of the community asked for answers as to how Delwiche’s husband entered the Pennsbury Administration Building on January 9, 2025, despite heightened security measures implemented by the School Board in November 2024.

The post Ahrens Rebuffs Pennsbury “Mean Girls” Attacks, Calls For Non-Partisan Governance first appeared on Pennsbury411.

What Is All The Fuss Over The Contract?

While both Ricci’s and Gibson’s contracts were up for Board approval, community dissent focused solely on the Gibson contract due to its promotion to Assistant Superintendent—a title not held by any other Human Resource leader in Bucks County. This contract would make her the highest-paid Human Resource leader in the county, despite lacking comparable experience. In comparison, Council Rock pays Ronnie Spring a base salary of $170,000, Central Bucks’ newly hired Robert Freiling receives $160,000, and Neshaminy’s Kelly Kozik earns $147,000. Each of these individuals has more work experience and equivalent educational achievements, as confirmed by their LinkedIn profiles.

The Gibson contract will increase her annual base pay plus a guaranteed doctoral stipend to $173,938, with annual increases significantly exceeding the cost of living adjustment (COLA). By the end of the contract, her base pay will exceed $200,000. The contract includes retroactive pay for the newly created, unbudgeted position, dating back to July 1, 2024. Additionally, the agreement guarantees an annual $500 contribution to a Section 125 plan and a $10,000 annual contribution to her 403(b) Retirement Plan. In total, Gibson’s annual direct compensation, retroactive to July 1, 2024, is now $184,438 to oversee Human Resources.

Public concerns around Gibson’s contract extension and promotion centered around her past involvement in violating the civil rights of Pennsbury resident Doug Marshall which led to a First Amendment lawsuit filed by the Institute For Free Speech, a subsequent federal injunction against Pennsbury to block further civil rights violations during public comment and a massive settlement of the case for $300,000. Additionally, residents expressed that the new contract will be in direct contradiction to new federal laws and Executive Orders that will go in place on January 20, 2025. Below is a segment of public comment featuring Robert Abrams’ statement about the contract:

What Legal Risks Did The Board Expose The Community To?

The contention lies in the fact that while the term “equity” was removed from the job title, the underlying contract language still details the role of overseeing the DEI program, which was approved in May 2021 and led to the Marshall v. Amuso lawsuit. Much of the controversy surrounding the DEI program stems from Dr. Cherrissa Gibson’s doctoral dissertation, which utilized Pennsbury student disciplinary and school lunch data but excluded records for Asian American, Native American, and Mixed Race students because they weren’t deemed “historically marginalized.”

Currently, in Congress, the Dismantle DEI Act moved out of the House Committee on November 20, 2024, for a vote. Additionally, Trump has declared that on his first day, he will put an end to DEI programs within America’s schools. The bills state that any school found to be deploying DEI in the classroom or within professional development of staff will forfeit all federal funds received. For Pennsbury, this would amount to $3.4 million in annual revenues, which the District would need to cover through local taxpayers, given they would still be subject to federal compliance for Special Education students even if not financially funded.

During Abrams’ public comment, he warned the Board of the consequences of moving forward with a contract that they know will likely be legally invalidated on January 20, 2025. Abrams also alerted the Board to a Pennsylvania law called “Surcharge,” which oversees the accountability of officials for misuse of public funds. If it is determined that Board Members displayed willful misconduct in administering their fiduciary duties to the Pennsbury community, any financial losses related to the approved contract could make the seven Board Members who voted in favor personally liable for the $3.4 million in lost federal revenues, any legal costs should their liability insurance provider refuse the claim, and any increases in liability insurance premiums due to another legal incident. Details about Surcharge are provided in the PDF below:

The post New Contract and Promotion For Cherrissa Gibson Faces Public Scrutiny first appeared on Pennsbury411.

As reported here in recent weeks, Ahrens presented a moderate, center-left position regarding politicized symbols inside schools, specifically pointing out the Gay Pride Flag. At the November 21, 2024, meeting, Ahrens received thunderous applause from the audience, only to have Board President Joanne Steere bark at the attendees for silence for applauding a statement she personally disagreed with. What was so upsetting? Ahrens dared to present a middle-ground solution that was inclusive to all students while removing symbolism in the classroom that activists had hijacked.

You can view the exchange between the Board Members’ attack on Ahrens from its starting point in the YouTube video below:

The attacks began when Jeannine Delwiche requested an opportunity to make a prepared statement. After taking the floor, Delwiche defended her misconduct on the Policy Board for not proactively starting the process to remove elements referencing Diversity and Equity, which will become unlawful on January 20, 2025. While Delwiche attempted to lead the charge in recent months to proactively introduce policy changes addressing Title IX changes recently rescinded by the Biden Administration, she appears to have unilaterally decided that defiance to Trump’s expected efforts to eliminate DEI programs will not be afforded the same proactivity.

Delwiche then pivoted to her progressive rhetoric, claiming that the removal of Gay Pride symbols in classrooms is a violation of the First Amendment, despite similar actions happening nationwide without legal repercussions. Delwiche’s bold legal threats display a clear misunderstanding of the law, as any symbols that could disrupt educational operations are not protected under the First Amendment, as determined in Tinker v. Des Moines. In that 1969 case, the Supreme Court ruled that First Amendment rights are not absolute inside a school building if they infringe upon the rights of others attempting to obtain their education.

Delwiche then cited debunked academic research produced through government grants handed out by Democrats and veered down the path of how she will protect our kids blindly, despite being the only Board member without children, without concern for the legal consequences her prepared statement may have caused for Pennsbury taxpayers.

Next up, Mean Girl #2, unelected appointee and major Democratic campaign fundraiser Donna Petrecco, took the floor to bully Ahrens while sharing more debunked academic research. Petrecco opened by defining which types of students are “safe” at school and which are not, effectively determining at her discretion who is bad and who is good. Petrecco then gave a history lesson on the origins of the Gay Pride Flag but failed to address how the symbolism has changed in recent years to political activism. Petrecco took old research related to decades-old cultural diversity programs and attempted to apply this research to today’s weaponized DEI programming, which has been shown to create escalated hate and division among teenagers and young adults. The latest research studies from the University of Michigan and Rutgers University have provided insight into the harm this weaponization has caused our youngest minds.

Ahrens then responded to the bullying Mean Girls who had vowed to protect students from bullying by clarifying the mischaracterizations. Ahrens exposed the targeted hate she has received via email from a fellow Board Member, the spouse of another Board Member, and two local residents known as political activists. She then shared a range of feedback from residents supporting the removal of the Pride Flags due to their politicization in school buildings.

Linda Palsky then closed out the Mean Girls’ monologues with a meandering statement that was difficult to understand due to vocal issues she sustained from an argument with constituent Joanne Mastriani on election day in 2021. Palsky plodded forward with false assertions of her role as a Board Member and invented new responsibilities for herself as Committee Chair of the Facilities Committee.

Ahrens then again addressed the mischaracterizations made by the progressive Mean Girls. She shared her experiences of door-knocking and the feedback she received from her constituents before the meeting was adjourned.

Nothing like seeing the “No Place For Hate” folks discussing their allegiance to their progressive activism cause to stop bullying in our school by bullying their colleague for having a moderate Democrat’s viewpoint. Right To Know requests (RTKs) have been submitted to obtain the negative email communications sent to Donna Ahrens and will be revealed upon their receipt.

The post Progressive “Mean Girls” Attack Donna Ahrens At Latest Pennsbury School Board Meeting first appeared on Pennsbury411.

How Did Pennsbury Get Themselves Into This Predicament?

For years, the Pennsbury School District has been embroiled in complaints and lawsuits related to discrimination based on sexual orientation and race, issues that existed before and have persisted despite the launch of the DEI program. These lawsuits have been documented by LevittownNow.com concerning EEOC complaints and by the Bucks County Courier Times concerning an Mixed Race LGBTQ student. You can read the detailed stories at the following links:

LGBTQ Lawsuit: https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/news/local/2023/05/11/pennsbury-school-district-target-of-discrimination-lawsuit-by-student/70205749007

Dorsey and Morrett EEOC Lawsuits: https://levittownnow.com/2020/02/18/two-former-admins-file-lawsuits-against-pennsbury-claim-discrimination/

Shaffer EEOC Lawsuit: https://levittownnow.com/2020/07/15/third-former-pennsbury-administrator-sues-district/

At the onset of the DEI program, the district had approximately 2.3% of its employees as people of color, despite the student demographic being 24% people of color. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Department of Education issued Disproportionality warnings to Pennsbury due to the overrepresentation of African American students in Special Education programs. The district publicly expressed concerns about what it perceived as an unbalanced level of punishment for students of color, particularly regarding detentions and suspensions.

The Cherrissa Gibson Dissertation

Pennsbury administrator Dr. Cherrissa Gibson embarked on her doctoral studies after being hired as an Assistant Principal at Pennsbury in 2013. In July 2020, Gibson was promoted to the newly created role of Director of Equity, Diversity, and Education, shortly after earning her doctoral degree in K-12 school leadership from Gwynedd-Mercy University. Her dissertation, titled “Social Emotional Learning Through A Cultural Lens,” was approved and accepted. A copy of the dissertation can be reviewed below:

After a protracted Right-to-Know (RTK) battle, which included an appeal to the Open Records Office to compel Pennsbury to release the requested records, it was confirmed that the data set used in the dissertation originated from Pennsbury. The Open Records Office, in its final determination, ordered the district to recreate the dataset they claimed was destroyed. Keep in mind, the Pennsbury School District wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars in an aggressive but fail effort to not hand over anonymized data.

Referring back to the dissertation, readers should examine PDF page 75 (printed page 63) of the research study. It is noted that in the study’s construct, Dr. Gibson excluded 13% of Pennsbury’s student discipline and lunch program data. The reason for the deletion was that Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Mixed Race individuals were not considered “historically marginalized” minorities. This omission significantly altered the findings in her dissertation, which subsequently became the foundation of Pennsbury’s current Equity Policy.

Upon receiving the data, Pennsbury resident Tim Daly conducted a similar assessment, including all of the student data. His results significantly differed from Gibson’s dissertation. Daly’s analysis indicated that Pennsbury’s discipline issues were more related to socioeconomic status than race. Interestingly, the data revealed that a poor White student was more likely to receive a disciplinary referral than an affluent African American student. It also showed that Mixed Race students were punished significantly more than other Ethnicity groups. Based on US Census data from 2020, 88% of Mixed Race kids have one parent that is White Caucasian.

The post The Origins of Pennsbury’s DEI Program first appeared on Pennsbury411.