School Committee: August 28, 2020

Transcript machine-generated with Whisper speech recognition (the source video has no caption track). No speaker labels; proper names and dollar figures occasionally misheard. Click any timecode to jump to that moment in the source video.

0:06 I will call us to order at 9.03 a.m. Sarah, since we have so many people, I’d like to motion for public comment if anybody wants. Okay, so I’ve got a motion for public comment. Anyone want to know? Second the comment, second. Okay, so David seconded, so I’ve got a motion and a second. Any thoughts on that before we move to vote? I mean, no one may comment, I just thought we have a crowd, we should offer it. So I’ll roll call vote. Sarah Gold, yes. David Harris, yes. Sarah Fox, yes. Emily Barron, yes. And Megan Taylor, just rejoining, she might be having internet issues today. So, all right, but I’m going to have Megan abstain on that. So we’ve got 4-0-1. So if anyone would like to make public comment, please raise your hand. All right, Catherine Martin. Yes, good morning,

1:43 Catherine Martin, 29 West Shore Drive. I had the, I read the manual of understanding briefly this morning. And my guess is you’re probably going to answer most of the questions during your meeting, but I did want to just in case put some things out there. So I just had some questions. It looks like in that memorandum of understanding, it looks like an HVAC consultant was going to be used to do some of the testing on the systems, but I did also notice that there were going to be carbon dioxide testing and humidity testing, and I wanted to confirm that industrial hygienists would be completing those. I know that in the past we’ve had Clustin O’Neill on, who did the testing at the Ebelich School prior to the transition, and I wanted to make sure that some of those tests would be completed by an industrial hygienist as the parent who has opted into the hybrid plan. I think a lot of the concerns that were raised with the teachers are concerns that parents would have. And then I also wanted to talk about the process, if some of these tests come back where mitigation is needed, the timeframe for getting the mitigation done so that we can hit these dates for our early learners as well as the October 5th date. And then some of the verbiage in there was, it seemed a little loose to me, like we jointly decide if we needed UV lights for things, or there was kind of some open-ended items where it wasn’t clear who was going to make the

3:16 decisions on which filters were going to be used or the ultraviolet light provisions if they were needed. And I’d like it to be made clear if the recommendation comes from either the HVAC consultant or the industrial hygienist that those mitigations are put in place. And it’s not just, well, then the district will presidivorate on that. But that is what our professionals recommend. And I noticed that that wasn’t written into the agreement. So I thought that was a little bit of a loose end there. But again, just things that you probably questions, I’m sure that committee members probably had reading this as well, but just in case, wanted to put out there in the beginning. Again, I was quite familiar with the Fosse and O’Neill report for Evelith being on the building committee. So I know that you are going to have struggles with the humidity in that building because the testing on that, if I recall correctly, was not stellar. So really kind of more interested in hearing how you’re going to mitigate things that come up from these consultants. And just kind of wondering why this wasn’t done three or four weeks ago. So thank you very much for your time. Bye-bye. Katie. Patrick Noonan. Hi there. I just had a real quick question. I hope we’ll get raised in the discussion. It’s in the MOU. It says there are, quote, no unresolved issues other than the HVAC issues that are discussed. And I’m curious if that’s about teachers returning to the buildings or

4:48 the broader MOU in general that will allow hybrid to start and to make the modifications to the collective bargaining agreement. And if there are open issues of like, you know, not to get into the details, but just high level, what are those topics? Thank you. Patrick, anybody else want to make public comment? They could raise their hand, but there was one move forward. I don’t see anybody raising their hands. So John, would you like to start? Sort of introducing the MOA? Sure. We’ve been working very collaboratively with MEA on probably about 16 different reopening provisions that they wanted to address, ranging from cleaning protocols to staff meetings and the calendar and really making good progress on those. And when we got to the meeting on Monday, the executive board raised that the HVAC issue was an issue for them, that they worried the membership wouldn’t approve the larger MOA for that one piece. So we decided that we would develop a temporary or provisional or an initial MOA that specifically

6:24 dealt with the HVAC issues. And so I can say the superintendent’s list has been lighting up with this exact issue across districts about teachers returning in person or being able to do the professional development remotely, and many of them are hinging on HVAC questions in districts. So I drew up the MOA, had it run by John Foskett, and then MEA voted last night to approve this. And really, it’s an interim measure that staff who do not feel comfortable returning to their building would have the opportunity to do our professional development work remotely next week and the week after as we attend to the audits on air quality and the things that are outlined in the MOA. I think that it is a nice piece to represent that we are continuing to work collaboratively with MEA and the relationship that we enjoy with them. And so process-wise, like anything, COVID, this is not ideal. We had to post a school committee meeting that we weren’t sure would even happen because if the MEA had voted last night not to approve it, then there would be no need to meet. But obviously, when we post a meeting, people are wanting documentation and information about the

7:58 meeting, but it’s hard to produce information that is not yet finalized. So I get that there might be some concerns with process, but I am pleased that MEA voted to approve this. And I would ask the committee to support that decision and allow educators the opportunity to do PD remotely who are waiting for the HVAC information to come back. And Todd Bloodgood has scheduled with Fusin O’Neill to come in and do that work in addition to automated building systems. He believes that they may begin today, but if not, definitely Monday and Tuesday, and hopefully the turnaround on any mitigation issues. And certainly, I can’t speak to what those might be and what the timeframe for mitigation would be if we don’t know what they are. I will say most of the stuff that I’m seeing on the superintendent’s list is that these audits or the air quality information coming back are not resulting in districts having to do major mitigation issues. They’re more of affirmation that the buildings are safe to return to. But I can’t predict the future, so I don’t know what those will be, but I do know that they may start today and definitely Monday and Tuesday of next week. So with that, I would ask the committee to support the memorandum of agreement, and I’m happy to answer any questions. So one piece that I just want to point out quickly before we move forward towards emotion is that in the discussions over

9:36 the past couple of days with the Board of Health and the lead nurse and myself and Dr. Bucky, we are going to allow teachers to be in their classrooms without their masks on as long as they are alone or with a member of their immediate family. So if they are teaching remotely, when we get towards September 14th, they will be able to be in there unmasked. I think that that issue came up as we were discussing the mask policy last week and just sort of needed a little bit of clarity around that. All right, so in order to start the discussion, I’ll ask for a motion to approve the memorandum of agreement between the Marblehead School Committee and the Marblehead Education Association, which will get us through to September 14th. So moved. Second moved.

10:38 Second. Emily second. All right, so I’m sure there’s a few questions or comments. I do have a few questions, comments, concerns. My primary one is the language, at least the way I read it was that yes, they can work remotely, but that the agreement actually saying after this, they give up any right to other concerns. That’s the way I read it is once this is done, they’re mandated back in the building. And that’s still to me, I still have concerns with during the point where they’re teaching remotely, making them teach in a classroom remotely. Some teachers may want to and that I think they should be allowed to. But if a teacher is teaching remotely and doesn’t have students in their room, it is my feeling that the less people we mandate in buildings, the more success we’ll have with getting students back. If I could ask for some just some clarification. I don’t think this memorandum is a discussion about whether or not teachers are required to be in the classroom for remote teaching or not. It’s about the period

12:15 leading up to now through September 14th and the educators being in their classrooms to prepare for the remote learning. Yes, but I’m trying to clarify because the language I read read that they can choose up until the air quality testing is done. And once the air quality testing is done, they can no longer choose. They have to be in the building. So I just want clarification on that. I think that’s accurate in line with the commissioner’s expectation that remote learning teachers are doing remote learning from their classrooms. Certainly that second paragraph in the MOA addresses people that might have medical issues or ADA concerns and we’re working with a number of teachers to provide them remote learning options if they have a documented reason for wanting to teach remotely. But the general expectation is that staff who can should return to the building to be doing remote teaching and learning. Right, so that piece if I could, Sarah Gold, so that’s the piece where it says, whereas absent a reasonable accommodation based on ADA and so forth. And you are in fact working with Joan and any professional in the district that has this need to make sure those accommodations can be met. That is correct. So is that for someone

13:54 who only has a documented ADA applicable reason for them themselves or if they have a documentation of a family member or if they simply don’t feel safe are they allowed to teach remotely? I just need this clarification. Sure Sarah, I think that’s those are great questions and I am working with each individual circumstance and you would be, I’m sure no one would be surprised, the complexity and the personal nature of many of the circumstances. And so getting documentation is an initial piece but ADA also provides that if you can make reasonable accommodations that bringing the staff member back, providing additional PPE, giving them a separate workspace, addressing concerns that the documented reason raises. I think it’s important that teachers are in classrooms, that educators are back in the buildings, particularly if we’re going to be bringing children back into the buildings for the hybrid model. So we’re working with each individual situation in its context and providing reasonable accommodations but just someone saying I don’t feel comfortable coming into the building, the expectation is that they would return to work. My thought on this is the goal is to get students back in the buildings as soon as possible for everybody. When students are in the building, teachers need to be in the building.

15:30 You can’t have a student without a teacher. Every person in a building that is not there facilitating students being there, to me, that could do their job remotely is actually adding to the risk of an outbreak like we’re seeing at Vets that could that would keep students from getting in the building. So I see it working adversely to keeping students in the building. I think the more people we can facilitate working remotely who are not directly working with a student at that given time actually are working against getting students back in and that’s one concern. And then also, you know, these are professionals and for some reason I feel like we’ve had this shift where we kind of are telling teachers, whereas we’re not telling any other professional, that although you can perform your duties from home, we don’t trust you. And I have a big problem with that. And we’re not saying that with words, but our message is making them feel that way. I have to totally object to that. How should I characterize it? I’ve seen all the news stories. I’ve seen teachers from different districts, Boston and other things asserting that. And I’ll leave that to John and the work that’s been done with with Joan Miller and the teachers and the teachers want to be back in their classroom. Sarah, nobody has any lack of trust or respect for teachers in the classroom. And I just have to respectfully disagree with that. That is

17:06 absolutely not my feeling. And I think John and Joan would say the same thing. It’s, I think, part of our, and one little caveat that’s a little bit different from remote learning as we’ve read with the reentry plan. There’s a lot of opportunities where we’re trying to allow parents and students to come and meet the teachers and understand what it will look like when they come back to school, that this is more of a remote learning and jump in here, John, but it’s a remote learning transition plan. So the eighth graders that have never been to the high school will be able to understand and hopefully go to the high school in those couple of weeks to see what it looks like. Or the sixth graders going to vets that didn’t have that move up day, or a third grader that’s never been to village school can go to the classroom with their parent and understand what it’s going to be like. And if the teachers aren’t there, we don’t have that opportunity for those kinds of engagements to take place. So I think our plan is definitely the right plan and is not about lack of trust. I think it’s based on the plan that Superintendent Bucky and Joan and the teachers have worked out to get the students back into school. And I do think that there are other sectors where there’s an expectation to be at work as well.

18:37 You know, I think we’ve seen this quite a bit. And again, I would echo David’s thoughts that this is not about not trusting teachers. I know that that’s obviously a narrative and that that’s always a narrative with teachers. And it’s a real shame when that narrative comes up and that there is at points this general distrust of professionals. And, you know, I don’t think that anyone on this board feels that way. But I don’t think that bringing people back in at this point is about not trusting them. I would just say I think that this memorandum of agreement speaks directly in opposition to that, that we are trusting our teachers by providing this provision of being able to work remotely. And in absence of this agreement, all educators would be required to come back on Monday. So this agreement actually provides us the flexibility to allow them to work remotely if they don’t feel comfortable coming back. And in my work with Joan, I get the sense that most of our educators do want to come back. But adding this piece prevents Monday from being a mandate. Everybody has to be back in the building. So supporting the MOA would address some of those concerns.

20:10 Yeah, I think, John, that’s a really good point. That’s kind of how I read it too. You know, this is from my perspective, if this is a concern from our teachers, then we absolutely should be addressing it and making sure that we’ve got those provisions in place in order for them to feel comfortable coming back. And I think my understanding is that it was passed by the MEA last night. So, you know, I’m in support of backing their decision and your decisions up as well. So would passing this preclude future negotiations of the MEA to work remotely during periods of teaching remotely? I would not think so, no. Okay, that’s all that’s really all I needed to know. So we’re not taking that off the table. And because like I said, I do think the more people in buildings when they’re not direct contact with students is actually lessening the chances of keeping students in for the long haul. I think it’s important to note that we will have another MOA that comes to us at some point very soon. That this addresses getting people back into the buildings in as efficient way as possible come Monday. And then after these things are completed, these tests are completed, then, you know, the conversation will continue based on those results and we will have another MOA. That is correct. So if I could, for purposes of people listening

21:51 and for my understanding, that would be the third paragraph. Whereas the parties wish to memorialize their understanding about certain aspects of the reopening of the school year in a more detailed memorandum of agreement to be finalized prior to the start of the school year for students on September 14th, 2020. Correct. And unrelated to that, the last paragraph that I appreciate that as John has explained it and in working with the MEA, that we’ve been able to collectively do all of the work that’s been done over the last weeks and months to bring us to this point. That the last paragraph states, staff who want to return in person to work prior to the inspection are welcome to return. And all parties acknowledge that the period of August 31st until September 11th is considered contractual workdays. And so I really appreciate that. And so with that understanding, I hope we will be able to address the professionals that have concerns. As Katie Martin stated, also some parents that

23:22 may have concerns. Just these tests will certainly provide hopefully some assurances for parents in addition. While this is a memorandum of agreement with the teachers, it will provide some additional information to parents. But I also appreciate that this agreement allows staff who want to come in on Monday, they’re welcome to come in on Monday. And I think for the most part, while we know the new school project is addressing the two oldest schools in the district that remain, Coffin and Eveleth, that with some of the other facilities, I’m hopeful and confident that we won’t have too many challenges to be able to meet the requirements of this agreement. Now, to follow up on what David just said, when the report comes in, because a lot of parents are, these are questions we’ve been getting emails about air quality from parents. I did a search through my email since the beginning of July. So I think parents are interested in it as well. Will the reports from Fuson O’Neill or whoever we use go up on the website for people to see? And will there also be with that a list of what suggested remediations are being done, when and which ones are not? I would think that when the reports come in, we will make them

24:58 available to the public. I think that it’s important to note that there is no sort of move or feeling to bring people into unsafe buildings. And so if there is something identified in the report, we would not hide that information. We would make that available and be very transparent about how we are remediating that. And if that has to affect when people are in the building or how we bring people back, we’re going to do the right thing. No, and I think that’s really important to say because although that may have been your practice at all times, there is concern because it hasn’t always been our practice to release those reports. So I think that’s really important for people to hear that that’s your practice and it never occurred to you that there would be any other way. I just think that we just need to be aware of the history and that wasn’t obvious to people. Right. I really appreciate that. And I guess we I apologize for continuing to read from the document, but that brings to the second to the last paragraph that I also really appreciate where it says the parties acknowledge that the independent inspections are being scheduled. The superintendent, the chair, the executive board, including the president, director of facilities and the director of the board of health and each building principal have conducted a walkthrough at each school addressing questions about air quality temperatures and working conditions.

26:30 So I want to recognize the awesome work that’s been done by everybody prior to this MOU, prior to as John said, we’re all in this together and we’re not looking to just bring people back and not take appropriate steps. So I really appreciate that opening line of the second to the last paragraph as well. I think Emily has been trying to say Emily, do you want to jump in? I just wanted to say kind of to continue that that this is obviously was requested that we do all this testing. So it just shows that we are taking the teachers into consideration and trying to support them and make it as safe as possible because we will understand what needs to be done once all these tests are done. And we’re just trying to make the buildings as safe as possible for the teachers and for our students when we bring them back. So I think that’s really important to remember. That’s why this document came to us because that’s what the teachers wanted and that’s what we’re doing to make them feel more comfortable in the buildings. And if they don’t want to come in, we’re saying that’s fine. So I think it shows that we’re trying to work with the teachers and fully support their needs and requests. So I just want to just keep that on the front of everybody’s mind that we’re doing this in collaboration with the teachers

28:01 and working with them. I will say that the speed of which all of this happens is almost impossible for us to keep up with. Not that I’m not trying in earnest to do this work, but Todd did let me know this morning that the MERV 13 filters have arrived and they are being installed. So two steps forward, one step back. I don’t know what the analogy is, what the work is being done and at a speed. I will say, again, I just can’t reiterate enough the positive working relationship that we have with MEA. As I read the superintendents list and hear some of the stories of the contentious and vitriolic and nasty kind of us against them, that has not been my experience here. We have been shoulder to shoulder doing this work. And that’s why I think this MOA is so important because it validates the cooperative nature that we have. And so again, I would just ask for your support. All right. Does anybody have any last things before I call for a vote? All right. Then I will call for a roll call vote. Sarah Gold, yes. David Harris, yes. Sarah Fox, yes. Emily Barron, yes. And Meghan Taylor, yes.

29:35 All right. Our motion passes with the MOA passing five to zero. Thank you. To Arlonne. And that brings us to that was it for our meeting. So short and sweet this morning. I will adjourn us at 9.33. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. Thanks, John, for your work and Joan as well.