The Saucon Valley School Board voted 7-2 in favor of its return-to-school plan at the July 28 virtual meeting, offering students and parents a choice between in-person and remote/online plans while forgoing a ‘hybrid’ option similar to those offered by other local districts, including Bethlehem.

Before the plan was officially presented, however, several concerned parents, teachers and residents joined the meeting to offer criticisms and suggestions amid the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. The full plan was posted online as a link on the meeting agenda several days before the meeting and is available on the district’s website.

Cameron Fowler, a teacher at the high school, was concerned that if more than half of students are present in school at once, there might not be enough room for social distancing. She gave an example of chairs placed at opposite ends of a four foot table in a classroom that she observed and indicated that this would mean that students would be four feet apart at most, rather than the CDC-recommended six feet.

Mark Salgado, a district resident, criticized the size and makeup of the pandemic team, which according to the presentation consists of Superintendent Dr. Craig Butler, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Kristine Rosenberger and two district nurses, Maryellen Prager and Sue DeSmet. Salgado said that among the several other districts whose plans he has investigated, the average membership of their respective teams were 14 members, and the smallest team had nine.

He was also concerned about the protocol for students who newly show symptoms throughout the school day, saying the plan “parades middle school students halfway through the building to the nurse if they have a fever,” past the cafeteria and administrative offices. He also asked if there were any guidelines for students who don’t comply with masks and if quarantine-related absences would be considered ‘excused.’

Lastly, he inquired why the aforementioned ‘hybrid’ plan, which involves students physically attending school for only a few days a week and receiving online instruction on the others, was ruled out early in the process. If spending more time going over the plan is necessary, he said, it would be reasonable to push the opening back, as Saucon’s school year is slated to start at least a week earlier than many other local districts. He said he believes the plan needs more thought. “Let’s give it some more time, do the best we can,” Salgado said.

Next to comment was Deanna Mangiarnacia, a self-described “single working mom of a first-grader” in the district, who said she moved to Hellertown several years ago in large part because of the great reputation of the district. She asked if daycares would continue to be part of the ‘courtesy stops’ that school buses currently make and indicated that she heard from “somebody at the transportation center” that this service was going to be discontinued, which she said would leave 43 kids to walk from the Children’s Learning Center on Main Street nearly a mile up Walnut Street to the district campus. This concern was not addressed during the course of the meeting.

Janine Bonham, a district resident, agreed with Salgado, saying “this plan needs rethinking.” She echoed his concern that the pandemic team was too small and that there was not enough input from other folks. “There’s just not enough information out there for us to be making a decision,” she said. She has two daughters in the district and has yet to submit her decision.

She also said she was disappointed in the lack of a ‘hybrid’ plan such as those offered by Parkland, Bethlehem and other local districts. She said she had experienced teaching in a hybrid system for seven years, describing it as “a great model that works” and lamented that it wasn’t even a possibility for parents to look at.

Butler then presented the first portion of the plan. “Well over a dozen individuals” had input, Butler clarified, not just the four cited by Salgado. Volunteer staff and faculty will now be taking temperatures upon entry, he said, which is a change from the tentative plan presented at the last meeting, which relied on parents and students self-monitoring.

“Building principals have done a terrific job making sure that physical distancing is held up” inside classrooms, Butler said, as he described how he “got a tape measure myself and from (one) center of body to (another) center of body was six feet” at a table like the one previously referenced by Fowler.

Rosenberger then presented the Teaching and Learning portion of the plan, providing details on the remote/online option in particular. The schedule will follow the same schedule as the in-person school day, she said, and teachers will essentially be offering a live, interactive broadcast of their classes for online students, which students are expected to attend and interact with. She also detailed what might happen under a return to the ‘red phase’ of statewide restrictions, saying that online instruction for all students would be different and more comprehensive than it was in the spring.

Butler then took the reins of the rest of the presentation. He further explained the remote/online option of instruction, saying, “we have made a decision to separate the remote students from the in-person students. We will be establishing a standalone class… it will be a separate entity from the in-person classrooms.” He also offered his thoughts on the lack of a ‘hybrid plan,’ saying, “I did not feel (it) offered the students the best possible education. It created more problems than it solved and was not a preferred option on the parent survey. I think it would have compromised the students’ experience and education.”

He said he believed Governor Tom Wolf “clearly challenged us to bring students back to school. I would have my own grandchildren in this school under this model.” He continued, “I’m very proud of the team who has put this together. We have done our very best to seek input from stakeholders.

“I am very confident that this plan to bring students back is solid, is going to work (and) treats our students and family members with the utmost respect. In contacting the 13 districts in the IU, every district is bringing students back in person… I heard of three other districts who are bringing students back in the very same manner that we have presented to you this evening. I stand wholeheartedly behind this plan.”

Board members had several concerns about and critiques of the plan as presented. Edward Andres asked if students could remove their masks if they are physically distanced six feet apart other than when eating or drinking. Butler replied by talking about ‘mask breaks,’ which he said might be allowable with at least six feet of distance, students not talking and only for 10 minutes or less. As of the current plan, these are not allowed.

Andres replied by describing the plan as “more restrictive than the state guidelines,” which allows students to remove masks if they are six feet apart. Butler characterized the mask breaks as a “compromise” or “middle ground” and might be possible, he said.

There were several concerns about other details of the plan, such as parking lot procedures at drop-off and pickup. Elementary school Principal Michael Sakelarides and middle school Principal James Deegan both said traffic will inevitably get somewhat backed up at their respective schools and advised parents to plan for it to take some time.

Sandra Miller expressed concern about processing students through temperature taking and maintaining distancing at the beginning of the school day. Cedric Dettmar added, “we need to actually start to see what works and what doesn’t work,” and reminded his colleagues that fine-tuning aspects of the plan will be necessary.

Tracy Magnotta asked if the entire district would be notified if a student were to test positive for the virus. Butler replied that only those who might be affected would be contacted, to which Magnotta asked how it would be determined who was potentially affected. Butler said it would be students who are in and around the COVID-positive student.

Magnotta continued to express concern over how the district would determine which students may have crossed paths with the afflicted student in hallways and other common areas. Board President Dr. Shamim Pakzad proposed that the district have a formal agreement with medical experts to make these determinations, because such decisions are not appropriate for untrained administration to make.

Board Vice President Susan Baxter asked about students and families who might have traveled out of state and whether there would be any quarantine requirements. Pakzad reminded the board that there are 22 states from which the Pa. Department of Health recommends returning visitors self-quarantine for a minimum of 14 days, and Butler said that language addressing that issue could be added.

Miller suggested postponing the vote in order to provide more time to discuss and alter the plan. The deadline to adopt the plan is before instruction begins, Butler added, although there was only one more board meeting scheduled before that date, Aug. 11.

Shawn Welch said he believes the board needs to adopt an initial plan, and Michael Karabin agreed, saying “we need to have something solid on paper saying ‘this is the direction we’re going.’” Magnotta indicated that she would vote against the plan because she believes that there is not a sufficiently clear communication policy in the event of a COVID-positive child in the classroom. The motion ultimately passed with Andres and Magnotta voting ‘no.’

The Athletic Re-Socialization Plan was reauthorized until the next board meeting, Aug. 11, as the first vote last month was only valid through Aug. 9. Athletic Director Robert Frey gave some details about PIAA plans for athletes, noting that different sports may see different levels of restrictions and modifications. Pakzad and Baxter both expressed concerns that the athletic plan and school plans are not coordinated and offer different guidelines. “How are we going to make requirements less than they are in the classrooms?” Baxter asked.

Next up was the Return to Marching Band Plan. Similar to her concerns about the athletic plan, Baxter asked whether the plan was congruent with the return to school plan, which was affirmed. The plan passed unanimously with little further discussion.

Before the meeting adjourned, a few more district residents joined to offer their thoughts. Alicia Kichline said, “There are people out there who don’t believe this is real and they will send their children to school with a high temperature.”

Lastly, district math teacher James Colbert reminded the board that many southern states were opening schools during the first week of August. The nation is going to have a first-hand look at what happens, he said, urging the board and administration to closely follow developments in those districts to help inform their plan and any modifications that might need to be made.