Parents and teachers press Saugus board after 5-year-old left aftercare; unions and staff demand faster behavior responses

A stream of parents, teachers and union leaders pressed the Saugus Union School District governing board on Nov. 18 for faster, clearer actions after an unmonitored aftercare incident in which a 5-year-old wandered off campus and was found a mile away.

"Our 5 year old son, Oliver, walked out of his North Park Elementary aftercare program, pushed open an unsecured gate, and traveled alone for 1 mile," parent Bridal Epstein told the board, describing the Nov. 4 incident. He said staff later told his wife their son was present in aftercare and that substitutes were working that day. "The only reason we are not planning a funeral or still possibly searching for our missing child tonight is blind luck and not because the people we trusted to protect them were doing their job," he said.

Why it matters: The public-comment period focused on immediate safety and whether district procedures for aftercare, gate security, staff head counts, and substitute training are adequate. Teachers’ unions presented survey data suggesting widespread staff injuries and frequent severe incidents; the behavior-council draft — presented later in the meeting — addresses classroom strategies but prompted criticism that it emphasizes preventive (tier 1) measures while many incidents require more intensive (tier 2/3) responses.

Union and staff testimony: Representatives from the Saugus Teachers Association and CSEA said their survey of 225 members found large numbers reporting physical incidents: "91 say they have been hit, 79 kicked, 22 bitten, 153 screamed at," the STA speaker said during remarks. The unions told the board that the district must comply with Ed. Code and labor law requirements for workplace-violence reporting and timely interventions.

Board and staff response: Board members repeatedly asked for clarity about specific, near-term steps. President Garibay read board bylaws for public comment, then later asked Superintendent Hawkins for status reports. Hawkins said school staff and specialists (school social workers, BCBAs, and school psychologists) are being deployed and that some students in crisis are already receiving individualized plans and interventions. She acknowledged the district’s frustration and said some cases require one-on-one specialist work that takes time.

Behavior-council draft and debate: District staff presented an initial draft of the behavior council’s recommendations, categorizing 'must do' and 'may do' practices drawn from PBIS, Capturing Kids’ Hearts, Conscious Discipline and Character Strong. Board members and public speakers criticized the draft for focusing on universal, schoolwide practices instead of the intensive, individualized interventions teachers say are needed now. "Tier 1 isn't the issue," Trustee (functional label used in meeting) said; "Tier 3 is the issue. Our teachers are getting bit, kicked, things thrown at them."

Requests and next steps: Trustees asked staff for several concrete deliverables: (1) a redacted sample of 2–4 behavior intervention plans to demonstrate what specialists implement in classrooms; (2) a fiscal summary of behavior-council spending in 2025 and projected costs for 2026 (training, substitute backfill, outside consultants); and (3) options and cost estimates for increasing site-based behavioral staffing (for example, adding behavior aides or a behaviorist at each school). Superintendent’s staff agreed to provide a timeline and budgetary information and said they will prepare a presentation on behavior plans for the board.

Votes and procedural outcomes: While the meeting included routine consent votes and a funding resolution, no formal districtwide policy change on behavior was adopted at the Nov. 18 meeting. Board members directed staff to return with the requested documentation and samples and signaled willingness to consider budget shifts or targeted hires depending on cost and feasibility.

What’s next: The board scheduled follow-up items in near-term agendas and asked district staff to provide the requested redacted plans and a budget projection so trustees can decide whether to reallocate resources for more intensive behavioral supports.