Mask Mandates, Covid Testing, and Vaccine Clinics: Mass. Education Dept. Guidance for Schools

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

On July 30, 2021 the Massachusetts school commissioner, Jeffrey C. Riley, released a memorandum entitled “DESE/DPH COVID-19 Guidance for Districts and Schools: Fall 2021.”  In the memorandum Commissioner Riley makes several recommendations for schools.  His recommendations include:

  1. mandating masks for all children in grades K to 6 as well as unvaccinated students in grades 7 to 12.
  2. Implementing diagnostic and screening tests for unvaccinated students and staff,
  3. Implementing contact tracing and quarantine protocols for unvaccinated students and staff, and
  4. Hosting on-site vaccination clinics during either summer orientation or the start of classes.

These recommendations, according to Riley, are made in light of recent updates to the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) “Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools.”  Both Mr. Riley’s memorandum and the CDC guidance will be a topic of discussion for school committees throughout the state this month. 

What follows is a summary of the proposed policies as well as some ways parents can protect their kids from the unnecessary physical and emotional harm that may result from these policies.

Risk to Children

Both the education department and the CDC acknowledge that COVID-19 is not a significant threat to children.

In Mr. Riley’s memorandum he states

[E]ven for those students not yet vaccinated, the apparent risk of COVID-19 to children remains small.

This statement is followed by four citations to highly credible sources confirming that the virus is not a serious threat to kids.  (The sources cited were from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the CDC, and the New England Journal of Medicine.)

Likewise, the CDC acknowledges that children are less susceptible to COVID-19.

[M]ultiple studies have shown that transmission rates within school settings…are typically lower than—or similar to—community transmission levels.  See Page 4 of the CDC guidance.

At least one study by the CDC was summarized as follows:

Data from China suggests that pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases might be less severe than cases in adults and that children (persons aged <18 years) might experience different symptoms than adults.

These scientific findings are blatantly obvious to anyone who has active and social children.   

If COVID-19 is not a serious threat to our children’s health, why would we subject them to the highly intrusive and disruptive recommendations of Commissioner Riley and the CDC?

Mask Mandate

The commissioner’s memorandum “strongly recommends that all students in kindergarten through grade 6 wear masks when indoors.”  In addition, the education department, “strongly recommends that unvaccinated staff in all grades, unvaccinated students in grade 7 and above, and unvaccinated visitors wear masks indoors.”

Challenges to Governor Baker’s mask mandate were unsuccessful in court.  For example, see Delaney v. Baker, US District Court Civil Action No. 20-11154-WGY. 

However, there are significant differences between the governor’s mask order case and the proposed school mask mandate.  1. The state of emergency which was the authoritative basis for the original mask mandate is over; and 2. The proposed school mandate is imposed on only unvaccinated children, even though the CDC acknowledges that vaccinated people can contract and spread the virus.

(According to the CDC guidance, “fully vaccinated people get infected [breakthrough infections], even with the Delta variant” and “preliminary evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people who are infected with the Delta variant can be infectious and can spread the virus to others.” See Page 5 of the CDC guidance.)

So a new legal challenge could legitimately be made against any school district that imposes the recommended mask requirement.

A less costly and more practical way to challenge such a mandate is simply to go to your next school committee meeting and tell the members that you don’t want masks imposed on your kids.  If you can’t make the next meeting, call or email each of the members and give them a piece of your mind.

If they don’t listen, vote them out.

COVID-19 Testing

More troubling than the mask mandate is the proposed testing procedures recommended by the education department and the CDC. 

Commissioner Riley recommends:

COVID-19 testing – Districts and schools are highly encouraged to maintain or establish a robust plan for COVID-19 testing in schools, including both diagnostic testing and screening (pooled) testing for students and staff.

Testing would be done using BinaxNOW, a swab inserted into the back of the child’s nose.  The CDC recommends that such testing be conducted weekly on at least 10% of unvaccinated students whenever the “community transmission” rate is at “moderate, substantial, or high levels.”  The CDC defines “moderate community transmission” as at least 10 COVID cases per 100,000 persons—in other words .001% of the general population.

So, in a town like mine, which has only 16,000 people, just 2 cases of COVID in the general population would trigger the burden of weekly testing for our students.

All parents must understand that they have the legal right to refuse the use of such testing on their children.  (See Felder v. Children’s Hospital Corp., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 620, as well as 243 Code Mass. Regs. § 2.07(26) and M.G.L. c. 208, § 31.)

Furthermore, a school cannot share a child’s records (including medical records) without a parent’s consent.  See 20 U.S. Code § 1232g Family Education and Privacy Rights.

Parents opposed to these measures, should write to their child’s school and superintendent and state in no uncertain terms that your child is not to be tested.

The CDC even acknowledges the parent’s rights to informed consent.  The last section of their guidance states:

Testing should be conducted with informed consent from the person being tested (if an adult) or the person’s parent or guardian (if a minor), consistent with applicable state laws related to consent. Informed consent requires disclosure, understanding, and free choice, and is necessary for teachers, staff (who are employees of a school) and students’ families, to act independently and make choices according to their values, goals, and preferences.

Additionally,

Consider distributing consent forms with the other paperwork for returning to school and making them easily accessible.

Finally, the CDC recommends that such testing should focus more on older students rather than the young.

The burden of testing is likely to be higher for younger children and therefore screening testing may be more feasible and acceptable for older children and adolescents.

Again, the vaccinated are excluded from these tests even though the CDC acknowledges that they can contract and spread COVID.

Contact Tracing and Quarantine Protocols

Commissioner Riley and the CDC both suggest implementing contact tracing and quarantine protocols.  The CDC proposes that those unvaccinated students who have come within a few feet of an infected person, a “close contact,” should be removed from school for 14 days regardless of negative test results.

The guidance states,

Close contacts who are not fully vaccinated should be referred for COVID-19 testing. Regardless of test result, they should quarantine at home for 14 days after exposure. 

Commissioner Riley prefers to implement a highly intrusive “test and stay” protocol. 

Under test and stay, asymptomatic close contacts will have the option to remain in school and be tested daily with BinaxNOW for at least 5 days.  Vaccinated staff and students are exempt from quarantine.

Forcing students to stay home after they test negative for COVID is unreasonable and contradictory to the existing contagious disease statute (M.G.L. c. 71, § 55) which states that a child exposed to an infectious disease must be readmitted to school upon the presentation of “a certificate from the board of health or its duly appointed agent that the danger of conveying such disease by such child has passed.”

Vaccine Clinics

Most alarming of all, is Commissioner Riley’s recommendation that schools institute on-site vaccine clinics.

We urge all schools…to host an on-site vaccination clinic during summer orientation events or when classes begin. A DPH-approved mobile vaccination provider, including clinic staff and vaccination administrators, will be provided free of charge.

There is not much detail about these mobile clinics in either Riley’s memo or the CDC guidance.  However, parents have the right to informed consent before their children can be treated with any vaccine.

If you object to exposing your child to the vaccine, it’s important that you let the school know immediately in writing.

If you have questions or need help, email me at justin@jrmccarthy.com

House Bill Seeks to Ban Tackle Football for Grades 7 and Below

Photo by Gerardo Vazquez Garcia on Pexels.com

A bill has been introduced in the Massachusetts house of representatives seeking to eliminate tackle football for children in grades 7 and below.

Bill H.2007 states,

No child in grade seven or under shall play, practice, or otherwise participate in organized tackle football; provided however, that nothing within this section shall prohibit children in grade seven or under from playing, practicing, or otherwise participating in any form of football which does not involve tackling.

The bill proposes a fine of $2,000 for the first violation and a $5,000 fine for the second violation. It would also impose a fine of $10,000 “if the violation results in serious physical harm to any participant or participants.”

The senate has concurred with the bill and the proposed legislation has been submitted to the committee on public health for further study and investigation. See H.5090.

Now Is Not the Time to Change School Vaccine Laws

Photo by Aaron Johnson on Pexels.com

The last thing anyone wants is another article about COVID-19.  I’m tired of reading them and I’m reluctant to write one.  But I feel the need to speak out on behalf of my children and other parents who share my beliefs.

Two bills have been presented in our state legislature seeking to amend or replace the state’s current school vaccine law.

The current law (M.G.L. c. 76, § 15) is plainly worded and easy for any parent to understand.  A child must be immunized against certain common diseases (e.g., measles, polio, tetanus, etc.) before attending school.  The statute provides two exemptions.  First, a child is exempt if his or her doctor certifies that the child’s health would be endangered by vaccination.  Second, a child is also exempt if his or her parent states in writing that vaccination conflicts with the family’s religious beliefs.

House Bill H.2411 would amend the current statute by deleting, in its entirety, the religious-belief exemption.  A separate senate bill (S.1517) seeks to completely replace the existing statute with a new series of laws that should concern all parents.

The proposed senate bill, entitled “An Act promoting community immunity”, would greatly expand the scope of the existing immunization law which currently applies to only schools.  If enacted, the bill would impose immunization requirements on almost every childhood group activity: day cares, preschools, recreational camps, etc. 

It would eliminate the narrowly defined diseases that the existing law covers and, instead, authorize the Department of Public Health to choose what vaccinations are needed on an ad hoc basis.

It seeks to replace the straight-forward exemption criteria with a convoluted bureaucratic application process which gives the public health department authority to deny religious-belief exemptions.    

Finally, it turns child programs into data collection agencies.  All of the groups covered by the proposed law must collect and report immunization data to the Department of Public Health on a regular basis.  If a program has a higher than average rate of unvaccinated participants, it will be targeted by public health officials as an “elevated risk program.”  Such programs must then disseminate “elevated risk” notices to their participants and may be subjected to “outreach” efforts by health officials.

Thus, the overall purpose of the proposed law is to tighten or eliminate exemptions, expand government power, and generally make life difficult for those who are unwilling to submit to the state’s agenda.  It’s also glaringly obvious that these proposed laws are laying the groundwork to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations in schools and most other youth activities.

At what point is the COVID fear and hysteria going to stop?  I believe that it’s time to draw the line when it comes to our children.  If you are a parent who is unwilling to subject your child to a highly potent, hastily prepared vaccine, then I’m asking you to speak out against these bills.

Contact your state representative and tell him or her to reject H.2411.  Likewise, tell your state senator that you oppose S.1517.  Lastly, make it known to the governor himself that he should veto these bills or any version of them that appears on his desk for approval.

On behalf of your children, it’s time to speak up.