Cherry Hill Township Board of Education reviews communication practices

Every school meeting tells families something about district leadership. In a training session, the Cherry Hill Township Board of Education reviewed how its conduct, visibility at school events and even the appearance of school buildings communicate with the public. The trainer distinguished internal from external communication and said social media makes timely, consistent updates more important. She described teachers, bus drivers and other staff as part of that effort, alongside the superintendent and Board of Education members.

The trainer recommended a central place for district information, brief texts or emails for timely updates, and face-to-face conversations for complex questions. She urged the Cherry Hill Township Board of Education to consider language access and hearing and visual impairments, explain unfamiliar terms and respond promptly to community inquiries when possible. During a crisis, she said, regular updates can limit speculation, though accuracy still matters. She cited an approach of sending updates every 20 minutes; the Board of Education did not adopt that as a policy.

Public meetings brought their own questions. The trainer said the Board of Education president should speak for the Cherry Hill Township Board of Education, while the superintendent speaks for the district. She called for consistent public-comment rules and said classroom or bus concerns should go through staff channels. Board of Education members discussed how the district’s advisory panel and key communicators program recruit participants and support outreach. The trainer offered to share sample communication plans for the Cherry Hill Township Board of Education to review and adapt.

The Cherry Hill Township Board of Education opened public comment with rules for respectful speech and a three-minute limit per speaker. Speakers were told a timer would be visible, with a 15-second cue. The Board of Education said it would alternate between in-person and online speakers. Two residents spoke before the comment period closed.

An in-person speaker questioned the number of goals presented for the Cherry Hill Township Board of Education’s retreat. The speaker criticized language about academic success and the way district discipline goals described groups of students, including Black and Hispanic students and students with IEPs. When the speaker used insulting language, the Board of Education asked for respectful comments. The speaker separately disputed a claim about a $1.8 million grant said to have been discussed in June.

An online speaker challenged the Cherry Hill Township Board of Education’s goals for fiscal stewardship and belonging. The speaker said taxes had risen, school funding remained inadequate and families involved in special education felt unsupported. The speaker urged Board of Education members to read those families’ comments online. The public comment period ended without a response to either speaker’s claims.