Perkiomen Valley administrators recommend moving grade 5–6 to West and 7–8 to East; parents raise transportation and special‑education concerns

Perkiomen Valley School District administrators recommended shifting fifth‑ and sixth‑grade students into a dedicated 5–6 center at Middle School West and placing seventh‑ and eighth‑grade students together at Middle School East, saying the change would address space pressures in elementary schools and create new instructional and extracurricular opportunities.

The proposal, presented to the community by district principals and staff, was framed as a recommendation administrators have submitted to the school board; the board is scheduled to consider the matter in April or May. Ryan Marsh, principal of Evergreen Elementary School, told the meeting, “This is not a final decision. This is not a decision administrators make. The board would make that decision.”

Administrators said the plan grew from concerns about limited classroom and provider space at three of the district’s four elementary schools and from an effort to make better use of under‑used capacity at the two middle school campuses. Middle School West principal Ryan Creedon described West as having “space that can be used more efficiently and more productively,” and said a 5–6 center would expand offerings such as technology education, family and consumer science, and co‑curricular clubs to younger students. Middle School East principal Dave D’Andrea and Amy Sachs, an administrator with high‑school responsibilities, likewise highlighted opportunities to consolidate grade‑level staff, align instructional time and increase consistent teacher collaboration at the middle level.

Administrators also presented operational details they have studied. Kartik Ganesh, the district’s chief information officer who helps coordinate transportation, described route mock runs for two of the farthest neighborhoods and said the district’s “threshold for student transportation is about 45 minutes,” adding that his team’s test runs produced runs of roughly 30–35 minutes from several outlying stops to West in the morning. He said the district plans smaller buses for long‑distance runs—“29 seater rather than a 72 seater”—and a three‑tier start schedule that would, in draft form, set East and the high school to 7:50 a.m.–2:30 p.m. and West to 8:15 a.m.–2:45 p.m. to reduce overall ride times and create tiered bus availability.

Administrators provided several transition and student‑support proposals intended to reduce disruption if the plan is adopted: individual IEP/504 transition checklists, spring visit days to receiving buildings, targeted social‑emotional supports and orientation events, and plans to “tap into” current faculty and staff expertise to develop schedules and staffing. They also cited earlier facility and architectural studies and said they are updating capacity analyses to reflect changes in special‑education classrooms and district practice since the last study.

Parents and district residents at the meeting urged administrators to share more raw data and to consider alternatives. Concerns focused most sharply on transportation and special‑education safety and continuity. Several parents said actual rides from Collegeville and Skippack already take 45 minutes or longer depending on traffic; one parent, Stephanie Carey, told the meeting her 4‑year‑old has type 1 diabetes and said placing medically vulnerable students on longer or specialized rides raised safety and equity concerns. Another parent who uses specialized transportation described anxiety about driver continuity and the effect of longer rides on therapy schedules and after‑school activities.

Community commenters asked for detail on class sizes and policy references; board president Laura White read typical class‑size ranges from district policy during the meeting (kindergarten–grade 2: 18–21; grades 3–4: 23–24; grades 5–6: 25–27). Several parents requested more transparent publishing of the planning documents, mock route videos and the updated capacity study; administrators said January slide decks and related materials are posted on the district website and BoardDocs and promised additional, clearer communication and a newsletter follow‑up.

Administrators stressed that three‑tiered transportation, dedicated smaller buses for outlying neighborhoods, and individualized IEP transition planning are integral parts of their plan. They acknowledged uncertainties: the board must act to approve any realignment, staffing changes may be required, and some parents said the plan feels “backwards mapped” — a solution presented before the community has seen full supporting data.

If the board approves the recommendation, administrators said they will work with teachers, special‑education staff and transportation providers to refine schedules, routes and supports and to phase transition activities across the spring and summer. The district has not yet adopted any changes; a formal board decision is expected in April or May.

Proponents say the realignment would concentrate like grades, free elementary rooms for provider spaces, and increase opportunities for earlier exposure to electives and co‑curricular activities; opponents say the plan shifts burdens to specific neighborhoods, lengthens student commutes and risks service continuity for students with IEPs. Administrators and board members said they will continue community meetings and invited parents to the public board meeting on Monday for further comment.