July 20, 2020

Dr. Rick L. Robins, Superintendent

Canyons School District
9361 S. 300 East
Sandy, UT 84070

Members of the Canyons Board of Education

Nancy Tingey
Amber Shill
Steve Wrigley
Monte L. Millerberg
Clareen Arnold
Amanda Oaks
Chad Iverson

Via Email

Dear Dr. Robins and members of the Canyons Board of Education:

We are writing to address the Canyons Recommendations for School Opening (the “Plan”)
that the Canyons School District (“District”) proposed, and the School Board approved, on July 14,
2020. As teachers in the District, we will be on the front lines when schools reopen full time to
approximately 35,000 students and 1,850 teachers. We are dedicated educators who miss our
students and we look forward to getting back into our classrooms. However, a return to in-person
learning must be done safely for all—including teachers. We believe that the limited measures the
District has adopted to protect our school communities are fundamentally inadequate to address
the hazards presented by COVID-19. We ask that you address the list of questions provided in this
letter, originally presented on July 14, and reevaluate how to ensure this Plan protects teachers in
compliance with health guidelines and the Utah Occupational Health and Safety Administration
statute and applicable regulations.
The current Plan approved by the School Board requires reopening all District schools on a
full-time schedule with all students present, as well as options for participation in alternative on-
line learning if students or parents have concerns regarding risk.1 Other than resigning by July 21,
2020 without penalty (a point that simply reinforces the existence of real risk), teachers have no
such options. Put simply, we understand that the Plan only provides for the following limited
protections to teachers, while leaving specific mitigation plans to each school:
● Practice physical distancing, while recognizing it is “not feasible for most classrooms”;
● Provision of two cloth face coverings for teachers, and a requirement that students wear
masks with limited exception; (this mandate has since been updated by the governor to
include no less than eight instances where face masks are not “required.”)2
● Face shields upon request;
● Latex gloves upon request;

1
During the Board meeting, the District indicated that it anticipated that the majority of students—more than 70%
of registered students—would return to in-person learning.
2
Utah State Public Health Order. Updated July 17, 2020.

1
 ● Plexiglass installed in “high contact” areas (but not all classrooms);
● Cleaning supplies available;
● Hand sanitizer provided in all classrooms and offices;
● Increase in “cleaning efforts” by janitorial staff, including use of hospital grade disinfectants
on a “more frequent basis”;
● Contact tracing plans.
Under this Plan, we will be teaching up to 40 students without the ability to practice
effective social distancing, in enclosed classrooms with limited ventilation, for hours at a time—
with only a cloth mask, and if requested, a face shield for protection. If implemented under these
circumstances, the protections in the Plan do not comport with Center for Disease Control (“CDC”)
guidelines for reopening schools or the very recommendations for mitigating risk developed by the
consultants on which the District relied in developing the Plan. A five-day per week in-person
schedule with these limited protections also raises questions regarding the District’s obligation to
its employees under the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Act and applicable regulations. 3
I. The Risk of Returning to Full-Time, In-Person Learning Remains Substantial
The District relied on a June 2020 paper by the Leavitt Partners that assessed COVID-19
“hotspots” based on the potential for COVID-19 to exceed health system capacity.4 As set forth in
the paper, as of June 15 Salt Lake County was close to the top quartile for active cases, with a
prevalence of above 250 people per 100,000 residents (1.1% to 5% and the top quartile), but with a
growth rate of only 0.5% to 0.90%, and a low predicted burden on the overall health care system.
Based on these data, Salt Lake County was designated as “not a current concern” for burdening the
health-care system; however, these data are fluid and prior to June 15, the County had been
designated as both a “watch” and a “warming” area.5 And while Salt Lake County continues to be
designated as “not a current concern” for purposes of health system capacity, numerous of the
counties surrounding it—including Summit (Hotspot), Davis, Tooele, and Wasatch (Watch)—are a
current concern.6 Even if one assumes that Salt Lake County will not return to a higher risk
designation, it is impossible to view Salt Lake as an isolated case of arguably lower risk in light of
trends in the surrounding counties and the State’s open enrollment policies.
Moreover, the White House Coronavirus Task Force recently characterized Utah as one of
18 states in the “red zone” for new cases (119,000 new cases per 100,000 population) and the
“yellow zone” for test positivity (with a rate of 7.33% and increasing).7 Indeed, Salt Lake County
had the highest number of new cases in the State over the last three weeks. In light of this “very

3
Utah Code Ann. § 34A-6-103(f)(ii) (definition of “employer” to include “school district in the state”); 34-A-102
(purpose of the Utah OSHA is to “preserve human resources by providing for the safety and health of workers”). In
light of the recognized hazards associated with COVID-19 and transmissibility in enclosed spaces, the Plan, if
implemented, appears to violate the general duty clause requirements of the Utah Occupational Health and Safety
Act and potentially other OSHA regulations, including failure to conduct a personal protective device hazard
assessment. Utah Code Ann. § 34A-6-201(1)(a); 429 C.F.R. § 1910.132(d)(1).
4
“COVID-19 Hotspots,” Leavitt Partners (June 2020).
5
Indeed, as the Paper states, “the data we present will quickly become dated.” Id. at 1.
6
Available at http://covid19.torchinsight.com.
7
As included in the article, “Exclusive: White House document shows 18 states in coronavirus ‘red zone’” Center
for Public Integrity (July 16, 2020), available at https://publicintegrity.org/health/coronavirus-and-
inequality/exclusive-white-house-document-shows-18-states-in-coronavirus-red-zone-covid-19/.

2
concerning trend,” the Task Force report recommends decreasing gathering limit to 10 people and
to encourage individuals participating in large social gatherings to get tested. The risk of long-term
health impacts or even death to students, teachers, and staff upon school reopening is real. Opening
schools full-time when cases are climbing and nearly 1-in-4 teachers are at high risk8 requires us to
participate in a social and epidemiological experiment that even members of the Board concede
may well result in casualties.9 It is not appropriate to ask teachers to sacrifice their health or their
well-being when the District and the Board have not taken appropriate action to determine
whether the risks have been adequately mitigated.
II. The District’s Plan Is Not Consistent with CDC Guidelines for Reopening Schools or the
Seven Situational Characteristics Considered by the District for Mitigating Risk
A return to full-time, in-person learning fails to account for CDC guidelines or, more
importantly, the recommendations of a consultant on which the State and the District relied when
developing reopening options.
According to CDC guidelines, a school district is “at risk” when it is conducting “full sized, in-
person classes, activities, and events. Students are not spaced apart, share classroom materials, and
mix between classes and activities.” A full-time, in-person reopening, in which the District
recognizes that social distancing is not possible, is a recipe for increased transmissibility—
particularly where airborne, aerosol transmission appears to be a primary driver for spread of
COVID-19.10 Outside the difficulties associated with ensuring masks are worn in classrooms, it will
be extremely difficult for schools to consistently police masks and social distancing in crowded
hallways between periods.
The CDC also emphasizes that ventilations systems should operate properly, and plans
should increase circulation of outdoor air as much as possible. Although the Plan makes mention of
increasing airflow and ventilation (see page 28), there are no specific remedies to mitigate the
acknowledged lack of airflow in classrooms and hallways.
Finally, the CDC specifically calls for the installation of physical barriers where it is difficult
for individuals to remain 6 feet apart. The Plan states that barriers will be installed in offices and
counseling areas, but does not contemplate widespread use of barriers.

8 “How Many Teachers Are at Risk of Serious Illness If Infected with Coronavirus?” Kaiser Family Foundation
(July 10, 2020), available at kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/how-many-teachers-are-at-risk-of-
serious-illness-if-infected-with-coronavirus/.
9 Steve Wrigley – Canyons District School Board Member (July 14, 2020) “May we have casualties? I hope not.

But we may. But we’ll have casualties any way we go with this. We’ll have casualties if we go online. We’ll
have casualties if we hold off. There will be consequences around every position. With that, I’m fine to move
forward with the motion.
10 “The Coronavirus Can Be Airborne Indoors, W.H.O. Says,” New York Times (July 9, 2020), available at

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/health/virus-aerosols-who.html.

3
 The District also considered recommendations from the Leavitt Partners to develop
recommendations for opening, a point referenced several times during the Board meeting.
Specifically, the District considered the seven situational characteristics describing low and high-
risk behaviors for opening a business or in this case, a school.11 Those seven characteristics are:
1. movement;
2. duration;
3. proximity;
4. group size;
5. respiratory output;
6. touch; and
7. congestion.
In each of the seven characteristics, the Plan results in high-risk behaviors that increase the
risk of transmissibility.
Movement: In terms of movement, the Leavitt Partners state that high risk characters are those
“where movement is unrestrained or uncontrolled, and people can wander in space frequently
intermingling.” In response, the Plan recommends:
● Stagger or limit transitions to support contact tracing and minimize interactions with
multiple groups;
● increase time for transitions;
● minimize and monitor congregation of students;
● provide cups or alternative procedures to minimize use of water fountains when at all
possible.12

While these concepts are theoretically useful, they are simply not practical. How can a middle
school or a high school effectively stagger or minimize student interactions when schools with
student populations in excess of 2,000 are changing classes, interacting at lunch or during free
periods, and participating in after-school activities?
Duration: The second situation characteristic of the Leavitt Partners plan addresses the duration of
time that people are in the same shared space. The Leavitt Partners state that being in an enclosed
setting for longer than 15 minutes constitutes a higher risk characteristic when opening a
business. School classes, by their very nature, are hours in duration. The Plan makes no
accommodation for reduced class-time for regularly scheduled classes (such as a staggered or split
schedule approach).13
Proximity: The Leavitt Partners state that businesses that open where people are less than 6 feet
apart is to be considered a higher risk characteristic. In the original plan distributed by the District
to administrators, the District attempted to address this factor in order mitigate risk. The plans,
dated on May 21 and June 4, called for a split schedule as long as the State and Salt Lake County

11 “Understand the Coronavirus & Situational Characteristics” Leavitt Partners 2020. See attached.
12
“Understand the Coronavirus & Situational Characteristics” Leavitt Partners 2020. Pages 7 and 8
13
“Understand the Coronavirus & Situational Characteristics” Leavitt Partners 2020. Pages 7 and 8

4
remain in yellow or above. The final Plan, however, jettisoned the split schedule—even as the
number of cases in Utah climbed.14
When answering a question from Ms. Oaks (“Are our class sizes are too big to meet the
Levitt Partner guidelines”), the superintendent, Dr. Rick Robins, conceded that distancing under the
Plan simply isn’t possible:
“There is not a district in the state that will be able to comply with distancing.
There is no way physically, in the parameters of our classroom, to achieve 6-foot
distancing with all students. If that is the recommendation that we go forward, that
will require a split schedule. There is no way around that. To reduce the number
of students to achieve physically distancing we will need to go to a split schedule.
To reduce the number of students to achieve physical distancing we will move to
a split schedule. That’s … that’s the reality. We cannot achieve physical distancing
in the way our schools are built, and have been built. We cannot achieve 6-feet
between each person, and comply with that.”
Respiratory Output: This risk factor can be classified as low or high risk based on how people
breathe in their workspace. The only time the Plan alludes to risks associated with respiratory
output is on page 28: “Courses deemed higher risk include situations where students and/or
teachers are in close proximity for more than 15 minutes, involve high respiratory output, involve
large group size, or when movement is unrestricted.” These risk factors can be found in every
classroom in the District, yet the only class specifically referenced in Plan regarding respiratory
output is choir. Moreover, the Plan does not address the recommendations that schools and school
districts “explore limiting and/or canceling nonessential assemblies, recitals, dances, etc. or
reschedule as virtual gatherings, and to hold multiple sessions of the same assembly with smaller
groups.”15
Touch: The Leavitt Partners also deal with the aspect of touch – namely how people engage with
objects or fixtures in the space. This was a topic that was specifically referenced by the president of
CEA, Erika Bradshaw, in her remarks to the Board. During her time, Ms. Bradshaw asked about the
cleaning of manipulative toys in kindergarten classrooms. In order to be a low risk characteristic,
the Leavitt Partners require that people interact minimally with each other or with objects in the
space. The Leavitt Partners state that individuals can contract the virus simply by touching
droplets from an infected person that may have landed on an object in their space.
For something to be considered a higher risk characteristic, the Leavitt Partners state
“people frequently interact with each other or touch objects in the space.” This is every classroom,
in every elementary school, in the country. In response, the District passes the responsibility to
custodians nine times, bus drivers and those in transportation twice, food service staff once, and by
stating that cleaning supplies will be available to employees through their supervisor. The District
does not build in time (split schedule) to allow teachers to mitigate the risk, and simply places the
burden on the already overburdened custodial employees and teachers with full classes in their
rooms.16

14
“Understand the Coronavirus & Situational Characteristics” Leavitt Partners 2020. Pages 7 and 8
15
“Understand the Coronavirus & Situational Characteristics” Leavitt Partners 2020. Pages 5, 7, and 9
16
“Understand the Coronavirus & Situational Characteristics” Leavitt Partners 2020. Pages 5, 7, 9, and 10

5
Group Size: A higher risk characteristic of reopening a business consists of “[a] large group of
people from different households and different social circles.” According to the Plan, all school will
be reporting back to school on a full schedule, with the expectation that roughly 30% of students
will be attending online school or taking part in the hybrid model. Even with only 70% of the
students attending in-person classes on a full-time basis, Group Size will be a substantial risk
factor.17
Based on the reasoning of Dr. McKay Robinson, the existence of families from different
households and social circles is exactly why schools need to open. When questioned by Mr. Wrigley
about opening on a split schedule, Robinson replied “That is what it boils down to, it is an equity
issue.” In other words, a full-time, in-person schedule that accommodates all students is necessary,
in the District’s view, to account for 31% of the school population that have access and connectivity
issues. But there are other means of ensuring that these students have access to in-person
schooling without an immediate return to full-time, in-person schooling for all.
The District’s reasoning for opening need not be at odds with the recommendations of their
own consultants. If group sized cannot be easily controlled, the Leavitt Partners and the CDC both
recommended that businesses/school have staggered start times and flexible work schedules to
mitigate the treat of spread. According to the CDC, this will allow for smaller classes sizes, greater
distances between individuals, and according to the Leavitt Partners make it easier to perform
contact tracing.
Congestion: The Leavitt Partners state that congestion would be considered a higher risk
characteristic “because of the design of the space or the nature of the activity, people must gather
closely together at times.” Schools in Utah, by design or by circumstance, force students to gather
closely in halls, outside of rooms, in the cafeteria, or when entering and exiting at the beginning or
end of the school day. Indeed, changing of classes in middle and high schools is defined by
congestion.18
If the district were to go to a split schedule, the mitigating strategies identified in the Plan
could be met. Students could have an easier time following the appropriate floor markings, an
increase in transition time would no longer be necessary (more time only allow the students more
time to socialize in the halls), and staff would have the ability to monitor the higher congregation
areas of students.
III. Questions that Must be Answered Before Canyons Returns to Full-Time Instruction
Under the Plan
We believe that return to full-time, in-person school under the Plan will increase
substantially the risk of transmission in Canyons’ schools. To address our concerns, we request
responses to the following questions and statements:
1. Why does the District recommend that there be “No split schedules unless mandated by the
State Health Department?” The Plan states that this is an option if there is an outbreak –
why would we wait for an outbreak to occur?
a. We ask for a return to the split schedule format first proposed by the district on May
21, 2020. This schedule will minimize the risk posed to teachers and students and

17
“Understand the Coronavirus & Situational Characteristics” Leavitt Partners 2020. Pages 4, 7, and 9.
18
“Understand the Coronavirus & Situational Characteristics” Leavitt Partners 2020. Pages 7 and 10.

6
 allow the district plan to more closely resemble the recommendations of the CDC
and the Leavitt Partners.

2. How is it possible to maximize the “6 feet of distance between desks” when you also
acknowledge “it is not feasible”? For a class of roughly 40 students, in order to maintain the
6 feet on all sides, a room would be required to have roughly 1400 sq. feet of space.
a. What considerations have there been for the multitude of classrooms that use
tables in lieu of desks?
b. Why hasn’t the district outlined in the Plan the need for plexiglass in the classroom?
This is a recommendation of both the CDC and the Leavitt Partners as a way to
mitigate the risk of transmission in closed, poorly ventilated setting. This
requirement (in a full school schedule) must not only include plexiglass between
student-teacher, but also student-student.

3. The Plan states that “Each staff member will be provided two cloth face coverings.”
a. How did you determine what types of masks are appropriate? Has the district
conducted a hazard assessment to determine the most appropriate mask for the
current situation?
b. Are these “masks” going to have filters? Will there be options for N95 masks?

4. The Plan states that there will be a “[c]ampaign to use face coverings.”
a. What recourse will a teacher have if a student refuses to wear a mask in his or her
classroom?
b. Other than the public health order from the governor, what are the “specific unique
student circumstances” that would allow a student to not wear a mask? And if there
are health or anxiety concerns, why would such a student be eligible for in-person
learning?
c. Will a teacher be subject to disciplinary action if they refuse to allow a student who
will not wear a mask to enter his or her classroom?
d. Has the district considered extending their regulations to other student uses, such
as backpacks? The more surfaces for the virus to latch on to, the more cross-
contamination areas and potential to infect those around them.

5. The primary driver for a return to in-person school according to the District is equity, so
why does the Plan allow for large gatherings, including sporting events and practices, if
there is no contact tracing? Large gatherings consist of yelling, talking in a loud voice, and
breathing heavily in close proximation to one another and in gyms and auditoriums that are
not well ventilated. These are considered high-risk activities both by the CDC and the
Leavitt Group.

6. How is the District disincentivizing students from coming to school when sick? What
incentives will you be giving to reduce exchange of materials such as papers, or will you be
requiring teachers to use Canvas instead of handing out papers?

7. Why did the District reject temperature checks, which while not a panacea, are being widely
used as part of business reopening plans?

7
 8. How is the District accounting for the high percentage of young people who are
asymptomatic but still contagious?

9. Are you providing expert resources to schools, which the Plan tasks with developing their
own contact tracing programs? Have you developed a template for contact tracing for
middle schools and high schools with large student populations?
10. What measures will be put into place to assist employees should they require quarantine?
What will constitute a quarantine requirement?
Thank you for you for your consideration of the concerns articulated in this letter. Time is of the
essence. We would like confirmation that you have received the letter by the end of the business
day today, 4:00pm, and an acknowledgement that you are willing to update the plan to address the
questions and points addressed in this letter.

Sincerely,
Matthew Schilling, Alta High School