Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and students urge Whitehall-Coplay School District to pause charter student transit change
Summary
Multiple parents, students and residents urged the Whitehall-Coplay School Board to pause a policy shifting charter students age 12 and older to public-transit passes, citing long commutes, safety concerns, and IEP accommodation needs.
Dozens of parents, students and residents told the Whitehall-Coplay School Board on July 27 that a recent policy change requiring charter-school students age 12 and older to use public‑transit passes would create unsafe and unreasonable commutes.
"For my son, this commute would be approximately 2 hours," said Lori Cover during the public‑comment period, describing multiple transfers, an early start and walking along roads without sidewalks. Several parents asked the board to pause implementation for students with individual education plans and to publish a safety analysis before the change takes effect. "We're asking the board to pause implementation for students with IEPs," said Pablo Mora, who added the district should "keep safe district transportation in place while individualized reviews are completed."
Speakers cited route‑planner analyses, extended daily travel times and potentially hazardous walking segments. Resident Guy Pascarella described a trip‑planner result that he said would put his daughter on a commute exceeding "two hours and 30 minutes," and urged the board to rescind the decision and reinstate district-operated buses for affected charter students. Parents also pressed for transparency about whether transportation funding would be reallocated and how exceptions would be processed.
Board members heard concerns from middle‑school students and special‑education families, but took no formal action to reverse the policy during the meeting. A board member who voted against the measure told attendees they had voted in favor of safety for these students. The board did not announce an immediate vote to pause; families asked the district to hold a public discussion with affected households and to explain the assessment and cost calculations that led to the cutoff at age 12.
The public‑comment exchanges and demands for an exception process mark the central unresolved question from the meeting: whether the district will implement case‑by‑case reviews for students with disabilities and how it will communicate any safety analysis or funding changes to families.
