The Manheim Township School Board struck down Item 10b, a proposal that would extend the township’s red phase until January 18. The board has given the administration the authority to put its own plan in place. 

Item 10b would have called for all Manheim Township schools to switch to remote learning until January 18, the Monday following Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The proposal would have meant that all students would complete their second quarter of learning at home. 

By voting the item down, the school board has given the administrators the authority to draw up a new plan. Their tentative plan would have the high school return to the yellow phase until January 18 and reinstate the green phase thereafter. The plan is flexible and may be amended by the administration in case of a coronavirus flair-up. 

The board met to discuss the item on November 19 and voted it down 12:25 a.m. the next day. The vote was 2-7 against the bill, with only members JoAnn Hentz (D) and Curtis Holgate (D) voting in favor.

The item, which was proposed by Hentz, received both support and opposition from community members who spoke at the meeting. Many of those who spoke at the board’s public meeting, which was broadcast on YouTube, included parents, teachers and other concerned parties. 

Some of those who spoke in favor of the continued shutdown highlighted concerns with social distancing and the health of the school community. Alexandria Chitwood, a guidance counselor at the middle school who died due to COVID-19, was often mentioned. 

Among those who spoke was parent Nicole Vasquez, who pulled one of her children out of the district because of concerns for their health and safety. She supported the proposal to extend remote learning until January 18. 

“How many more teachers and staff have to die until you make decisions that show that you value their lives?” Vasquez said. 

Science teacher Allison Noecker said that one-fourth of the district’s teachers have a predisposed condition that would make fighting the coronavirus difficult for them. She asked the school board to keep in consideration that many people will go out and see relatives during the Thanksgiving break, which she believes will further spread the virus. 

Others who submitted comments in favor of the item were Lexi Matthews, a high school student, and Brian Booker, a social studies teacher at the middle school. Booker, whose grandmother passed due to COVID-19 and whose immediate family contracted the virus, echoed Noecker’s comments.

Those who opposed the item suggested that it would constrain parents too much and offer a lower quality of education. Some speakers said that online learning widens disparities between low- and high-income students. Others, like parent Lisa Boll fear that closing schools will negatively impact students’ mental health.

 A particular area of concern for some of those who spoke was the health of elementary school children, who depend on face-to-face interaction more than their older peers. Joni Lefever, who specializes in special education at the middle school, warned that extended remote learning would risk the education of students with disabilities or special needs. 

Some members of the community said that the proposal was a one-size-fits-all solution that would trap students and parents into one set plan. Board member John Smith pointed out that three elementary schools had seen no coronavirus cases yet, which he says is reason for them to keep their doors open.

“We cannot take a scorched-earth policy in order to deal with this challenge,” said John Sensenig, a parent of MTSD students. 

Other speakers indicated that the board’s decision to close down schools would constitute an overstep of its authority. Board member Stephen Grosh said that it was not his role to be a “super-parent” or “super-administrator.” Grosh voted against the item because he wanted to give parents more options. 

The item was not endorsed by the administration. When asked to give a comment, Superintendent Robin Felty said, “I do not feel that this is good for children.” 

Some of those who spoke warned against community division. April Weaver, a member of the board who voted against the item, called for members of the community to rally together in difficult times. She warned against laying the blame on any person’s feet. 

 “I want our community to understand that when — not if — things go poorly, that we can look at each other and ask each other how we can solve this problem instead of saying, ‘It’s your fault, it’s your fault’,” Weaver said. 

Correction: An earlier version misstated Item 10b’s return to face-to-face learning date as January 19. The correct date is January 18.