The October 21 meeting of the Mattapoisett School Committee was held to confront mounting frustration on the part of citizens on two related fronts: There is a crisis of faith with the Old Rochester Regional School District’s lack of transparency where it concerns a full, in-person learning plan for the 2020-21 academic year; there are those who simply believe the coronavirus pandemic is not something that should prevent normal, everyday, full attendance.
Mattapoisett parent Stephanie Clark led off by summarizing the current predicament often alluded to by residents –the inability to recover the lost learning of 2019-20 to meet current standards and deal with collateral financial hardships in families with two working parents.
“After being in the hybrid model for over five weeks, these issues are not being remedied, and it feels as if it is getting worse. We come to you because we see our children as not progressing and we need to be provided a concrete plan for the near future,” she said.
After hearing from several residents in the October 21 meeting, committee members requested a date when ORR Superintendent of Schools Mike Nelson would roll out a plan for incremental changes to the hybrid learning model in order to accelerate in-person learning opportunities for Grades K-6 and the district’s most vulnerable learners.
Nelson reported back at Monday’s regularly scheduled Mattapoisett School Committee meeting that he has shared with all the ORR District school committees his COVID-19 dashboard, together with key indicators, and on a weekly basis will do so with the community at large. On Friday, October 30, he will send out what he called “reasonable feasibility information” to the public, “options for more in-person (learning) opportunities” and “what a full return to school could look like.”
During the summer, the state had asked for three distinct return-to-school plans: fully remote, hybrid, and full in-person. The state requested a priority on the in-person model. While the vast majority of schools across the state began with a hybrid model, fully remote and in-person models were to remain at the ready should the state alter course.
Only an hour prior to the October 21 meeting, Mattapoisett and Rochester were recategorized by the state into the red (high-risk) category. On Sunday morning, Nelson would announce a fifth positive COVID-19 case in Tri-Town schools; this one at ORR. In his press release, he stated that schools were to remain on course into the current week per the recommendation of the Mattapoisett Board of Health and acknowledged an expected uptick in the number of cases.
“Unfortunately, the data and information currently in the last few days is not very good, but we’re still willing and open and would like to do whatever we can to do as much as possible to have as many students as possible in the school building as long as it can be done with equity and safety,” said Mattapoisett School Committee Chairperson Jim Muse, adding that there is no set equation of data factoring together that would “create a tripwire” and trigger a decision to change over to a full, in-person learning model. “It does not exist. We take all of the information, we absorb it, and then we vote as a committee.”
In the October 21 meeting, committee member Shannon Finning buttressed citizens’ frustrations by saying that, despite requests on three separate occasions, she had not seen in writing an in-person return-to-school plan. Pointing to that as the cause, she identified herself as a lone dissenter when the August 6 vote to approve the reopening plan was taken.
“I am heartened by the key indicators that Mr. Nelson rattled off during his remarks, but hope they will be provided to our community in writing for review,” said Finning. “I believe our community deserves to have a specific timetable established and shared for what an in-person plan requires. Allow us to be part of the solution; parents, educators, community members and more.”
Earlier in the meeting, Muse responded to a resident’s accusation that ORR administration had no intent to prepare an in-person return-to-school plan, saying that all three plans were submitted to the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), which they approved with no comments or suggestions for change.
“The school committee heard this information, had public meetings on this and voted to go with the hybrid plan for the number of reasons that are currently proven to be advantageous, given the fact that we have had a COVID case in our school and we are now a community that’s in the red (high-risk category),” said Muse.
Noting Finning’s request, committee member Carly Lavin clarified that her request was for feasible changes to the hybrid plan. Muse reiterated that, as long as the COVID-19 pandemic persists, a full in-person plan cannot be implemented.
Before the October 21 meeting was adjourned, Finning told Muse, “I think we have the responsibility as a committee not for you to dismiss an in-person plan, but that one would be brought to the committee for the committee to vote on and make a decision.”
“With respect, Dr. Finning, I’m not dismissing it; I’m not dismissing anything,” answered Muse. “But this was discussed in our initial vote and it was discussed in the initial plan and, should there be an ability to do that, that could happen. But I think we would be better served to do what you said, which would be to look at timelines and look at incremental opportunities to improve the situation.”
While some parents on the call, including Joint School Committee member Frances Kearns, say their children are thriving on the hybrid learning model, others are considering an unconventional outlook, including area professionals.
Dr. Mike Grossman, a Mattapoisett parent in the October 21 Zoom meeting, quoted statistics from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) addressing age group percentages of both fatalities and cases of severe illness as a result of COVID-19. He interpreted the statistics as suggesting that the coronavirus is far less a threat than public education strategy – at least locally – has indicated.
“The risk of the virus killing you is exceptionally, exceptionally low,” he said. “The risk of it making you very sick is exceptionally low, and this has unprecedented social engineering relative in the United States to this risk in the history of our country, and these are statements of fact. Please access the website.”
Grossman is not alone. In her statement, Clark had referenced recent articles from Brown and Harvard professors recommending that students at low risk be back in school full time. The recommendation came with a warning that the social, emotional, and nutritional risks of not being in school are greater than any risk posed by the coronavirus. “We’ve never been told the specific reasons why we can’t do this,” she said.
As an actuary who researches data and assesses risk management as a profession, Lavin took a measured approach.
“Bringing children back is the best [scenario]; there’s no doubt there. I personally felt like I heard themes of stability, equity, safety, and that’s beyond COVID, in my opinion. I think there’s also safety in terms of – I would be hard pressed to think we’re going to put the school layout out in public forum. That is just not a safe thing for us to do,” she said. “I mention that because I’m asking for continued trust in this committee that we are taking all these things in and that, when we can be fully transparent, you will get it. When you can’t, I ask you to reach out to us as you have to have those conversations.
“I think it would be detrimental for us to go back full in-person today, but I do think we should be moving forward with how do we get significant incremental value for the students at greatest risk. (Going back full time) would jeopardize the stability.”
Lavin asked Nelson to take as much as possible from his stakeholder engagement survey and add to the data that would help the committee make decisions.
Mattapoisett School Committee
By Mick Colageo