Opinion: SC Ignores Survey Policy Mandate, Eyes Public Input Cuts

More than 20 years ago, the federal government enacted a "Protection of Pupil Rights" law that governs public school surveys in an effort to protect student privacy and parent rights. Districts are also required to create a school policy based on the law.

Many Massachusetts public schools have since complied with the survey law, including at least 40 members of Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC) based on its online policy manuals. Medfield is not among them. (MASC even made it easy for districts by creating a model policy.)

A case of misplaced priorities

The survey law compliance deadline set by U.S. Department of Education has long passed, yet Medfield School Committee still does not have the federally mandated policy in place.

The missing policy is especially surprising during a busy 2022-23 school year of student surveying. For example, the Panorama survey is currently underway, and the MetroWest Adolescent Health Survey and MCAS-embedded VOCAL survey will soon follow (among others).

It appears that despite needing to close a critical gap by adopting MASC's student survey policy, Medfield School Committee has become hyper focused on dismantling public input at its meetings instead.

Other missing or outdated Medfield School policies

Below are examples of other model school policies that MASC has deemed important (and have been readily adopted by numerous districts across the Commonwealth), but are either missing from the Medfield manual, or in need of significant updating:

1. Prohibited Electronic Messaging by School Committee Members (BHE) to ensure transparency and comply with Open Meeting Law. (Non-existent in Medfield policy manual.)

2. Security Cameras in Schools (ECAF) to protect student, teacher and visitor privacy. (Non-existent in Medfield policy manual, even though the district also adopted license plate readers a number of years ago, according to Superintendent Jeffrey Marsden. ACLU has also expressed concern about Medfield's lack of a security camera/license plate reader policy.)

3. Domestic Violence Leave (GBGE) -- as of 2014, this leave became mandatory for staff under Massachusetts law. (Non-existent in Medfield policy manual.)

4. Meal Charges (EFD) to ensure parents/guardians are aware of school lunch enrollment and payment requirements/restrictions, their rights to refunds, and other details. (Non-existent in Medfield policy manual despite a class-action lawsuit filed against MySchoolBucks, the Medfield vendor that handles lunch payments, which elevated the need for a policy.)

5. Non-Custodial Parent Rights (KBBA) to document and secure guardian rights within the district -- especially with regard to student records. (Non-existent in Medfield policy manual.)

6. Public Right to Know (KDB) to confirm that School Committee supports the rights of citizens to request public information from the district, and to ensure the request is acted upon "fairly, completely and expeditiously." (Current Medfield policy is outdated and does not reflect MASC model policy, MA Public Records Law, or address failure of school officials to comply with requests under the law. As a result, Medfield citizens have been forced to file one or more appeals with the Secretary of State.)

Any shift in Medfield policy priorities is costly to taxpayers

• In 2018, Medfield voters approved $10,500 in total to cover three years of payments to MASC for its policy review/updating services to conclude in June 2021 (records show the payments to MASC were made). However, the project is still ongoing at an underdetermined additional cost to taxpayers and no new deadline stated for completion.

• Records also show that Medfield taxpayers have paid MASC $28,400 in membership dues over the last three years so that our School Committee could avail itself of its various services and support.

• In addition to MASC fees, Medfield School Committee has paid an outside law firm thousands of dollars for policy review and updating services in response to a 2018 U.S. Department of Education Civil Rights complaint and investigation that found our district's non-discrimination policies to be out of compliance (that doesn't include other policy services).

• A year earlier (2017), this author e-mailed the Medfield School Committee chair with concerns about noncompliant school policies, including ones related to non-discrimination. When the e-mails were ignored, this author relayed her concerns to School Committee at its May 15, 2017 meeting (recording link here). It wasn't until the federal investigation more than a year later that School Committee finally took policy concerns seriously and approved long-overdue changes.

Moving forward with action

The agenda for the Jan. 12, 2023 Medfield School Committee meeting now indicates that votes have been "postponed" on the 2nd reading of the proposed draft of policies that govern public comment at meetings (BEDH and BEDH-E). However, we know from experience the push to silence citizens will eventually resurface.

We need our School Committee to permanently abandon any changes to the current Public Participation policy and focus its efforts on adopting and/or updating our more important district policies. Please take a moment to e-mail Medfield School Committee to make that request.

It's time we fix school policies that are broken, not break policies that have been working well in Medfield for decades.

(This earlier Patch article provides additional references, including links to current and proposed policies.)