Mask Policy in Middletown Schools

Recently, Patch reported on steps taken by the Middletown BOE to undermine Governor Murphy’s mask mandate for K-12 schools. The MTPS BOE will soon vote to “accept an individual or parental testimonial letter as evidence that wearing a mask inhibits an individual’s health . . .” thus bypassing further verification by independent parties, such as school physicians and disability services.

NJ’s Executive Order (EO) 251 states that “it is necessary to enforce a uniform masking policy in schools for students.” Yet an affirmative vote by the MTPS BOE will undermine the “uniformity” of EO 251. The EO also states that schools “must maintain a policy regarding mandatory use of face masks by staff [and] students . . .” Again, the MTPS workaround may not pass legal muster, as it ignores the word “mandatory” and makes compliance with EO 251 optional. Additionally, the EO also warns that “no municipality . . . shall enact or enforce any order, rule, regulation, ordinance, or resolution which will or might in any way conflict with any of the provisions of this Order.” Yet, the MTPS workaround was specifically designed to conflict with EO 251. It’s important that all members of the MTPS BOE carefully read EO 251 and understand that “penalties for violations of this Order may be imposed under, among other statutes, N.J.S.A. App. A:9-49 and -50.”

And while the legality of the Middletown BOE’s workaround is questionable—at best—members of the community nevertheless remain divided on EO 251. Many who oppose the Order cite the lower mortality rates of children as their primary form of support. And while it’s true that children suffer fewer symptoms than adults, recent data from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) shows that, “as of August 12, over 4.41 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic. Over 121,000 cases were added the past week, a continuing substantial increase” (16 Aug 2021). The statistics that imply that children don’t get COVID are clearly dated, as is the evidence that children don’t get sick: “Among states reporting, children ranged from 1.6% - 3.5% of their total cumulated hospitalizations, and 0.2% - 1.9% of all their child COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization” (16 Aug 2021). So, the question now becomes: is the benefit of not wearing masks in schools worth the risk?

Currently, the CDC says “no,” as reflected in its most recent guidance: “Due to the circulating and highly contagious Delta variant, CDC recommends universal indoor masking by all students (age 2 and older), staff, teachers, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status” (5 Aug 2021). The AAP, WHO, and an overwhelming majority of global medical professionals also recommend masking students, particularly during periods of high contagion, which Monmouth County is currently experiencing. As of August 22, the CovidActNow dashboard classifies Monmouth County as “high risk,” with an infection rate of 1.1 and a daily case rate of 28.4 per 100,000.

However, there remains a small, but vocal, group of medical professionals that don’t support the recommendations of the CDC, AAP, and WHO. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the CDC, WHO, and AAP are professional organizations, and, as such, they represent the consensus of experts in the field. Parents who care about the health of their children will always seek multiple opinions regarding a diagnosis, and they will, most likely, trust the majority over the outlier. Is COVID-19 really any different than any other medical issue?

Thus far, the Middletown School District has provided no clear scientific support for the safety of the proposed EO 251 workaround. Additionally, the BOE, led by President Joan Minnuies, has recently (as of July 2021) limited public participation in their meetings by no longer allowing remote or asynchronous options for comments, a move which skews the debate and has disenfranchised many members of the Middletown community. The last few BOE meetings have made it clear that the vocal, anti-mask crowd will show up in full force to in-person forums, whereas those who prefer to follow CDC guidelines may be leery of showing up to in-person meetings for a variety of reasons. This slanting of the public discussion is likely a result of deliberate moves taken by Minnuies and the recently elected slate of “Putting Children First” candidates (Tobacco, Capone, and Heffernan, all of whom have vowed to get schools open no matter what). In addition to shutting down remote and asynchronous participation options, MTPS has made no effort to uniformly gather feedback from the community. In the past, the District has surveyed parents on their preference concerning minor matters, such as vacation days in the academic calendar, yet, thus far, MTPS has failed to survey the community on the important issue of masking. A petition that questions the BOE’s recent moves regarding the proposed workaround is quickly gathering signatures, a point which should alert BOE members to the views of those on the other side of the masking debate.

Another important point of concern with MTPS’s proposed workaround is the complication of quarantining close contacts of students who were diagnosed with COVID-19. The recently updated quarantine guidelines listed in NJ’s Health and Safety Guidance is dependent upon masking and the risk levels in the community: “High (orange) exposed close contacts should be excluded from school for 14 days. Moderate or Low (yellow or green) exposed close contacts should be excluded from school for 10 days (or 7 days with negative test results collected at 5-7 days)” (20 Aug 2021). But, to reduce learning deficits incurred by online learning due to quarantining, NJ now allows this exemption: “In the K–12 indoor classroom setting, the close contact definition excludes students who were within 3 to 6 feet of an infected student where both the infected student and the exposed student(s) correctly and consistently wore well-fitting masks the entire time” (20 Aug 2021). In short, MTPS’s workaround will undoubtedly result in a greater number of students being quarantined, as both parties need to properly wear masks to avoid quarantine.

Yet, despite the very real danger of learning loss due to quarantining, many parents continue to oppose masks in schools. Those that support MTPS’s proposed workaround emphasize the importance of personal freedom and choice. They argue that parents, not the school or the state, should be in charge of these decisions. If parents want to protect their own children, they can instruct their kids to wear masks. Yet this viewpoint demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how COVID-19 is transmitted. Despite the worrying warning labels on non-medical grade masks (these labels are used as a proactive measure to prevent lawsuits), it has been well documented that non-medical grade masks offer benefits to both the wearer and to those in close proximity. Yet scientific research has shown masks to be more efficient at stopping the spread of COVID at the source. In other words, if both parties wear well-fitting masks, the risk of contagion drops significantly. So the argument “you do you, and I’ll do me,” fails on a scientific level when it comes to COVID-19. This point is evidenced in a MMWR article, which states that “masks substantially reduce exhaled respiratory droplets and aerosols from infected wearers and reduce exposure of uninfected wearers to these particles” (19 Feb 2021). The word “substantially” indicates the importance of mask wearing as a way to protect others. Caring for others is a fundamental pillar of character education, so it seems strange that the BOE would reject this important “teachable moment” in favor of their support for a policy that is not substantiated by high-quality scientific research.

In addition to arguing that mask mandates impede personal freedom, many parents believe that masks may cause psychological harm to their children. But the argument that masks are a form of “child abuse” is highly offensive to survivors of real trauma. In fact, the American Psychological Association (APA), which is the largest professional organization for psychologists, makes no mention of adverse psychological effects due to masking on their COVID-19 resource page. Instead, their page (which features many photos of people wearing masks) offers support for those who are suffering with long-haul COVID and those who have lost loved ones, as both unfortunate situations produce real trauma. In an AAP article titled “How COVID Attacks the Brain,” science reporter Kirsten Weir interviews Robert Stevens, who is a physician in the ICU at Johns Hopkins Medicine. Stevens states, “there’s documented evidence that patients who are hospitalized with moderate and severe COVID-19 experience a range of neurological, cognitive, psychological, and psychiatric symptoms . . . Virtually all the COVID-19 patients I’ve treated in the ICU have delirium” (1 Nov 2020). With an increasing number of children being hospitalized and experiencing long-haul COVID, this observation should be highly concerning to parents everywhere.

Nevertheless, many people continue to be controlled by their unsubstantiated fear of masks. Unfortunately, there’s an abundance of retracted research papers, predatory journals, and partisan news sites that offer misinformation to support people in their quest to ignore the pandemic. One such paper commonly cited about the dangers of CO2 inhalation has since been retracted from JAMA, yet that doesn’t stop people from citing it as a source to support their anti-mask views. Fortunately, Johns Hopkins offers this useful page on “Myths about Masks and Other Coronavirus Facial Coverings” (22 July 2020). Additionally, FactCheck.Org, which is a project of The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, offers this recent update to debunk misinformation associated with face masks: “Numerous lab studies, for example, show that high-quality, well-fitting masks can partially block exhaled respiratory droplets, which are thought to be the primary way the virus spreads—and may offer some protection to the wearer. In one CDC study, N95 respirators performed the best in preventing the spread of particles from a simulated cough—blocking 99% of the particles—while medical masks blocked 59% and a cloth mask blocked 51%” (13 Aug 2021). Of course, masks are made of different materials and fit does matter, but research has shown a clear benefit to masking. It’s important that all members of the public maintain an open mind and work to develop their information literacy skills on scientific subjects so they can urge MTPS to make informed decisions.

EO 251 recognizes that there are students who have legitimate reasons for not being masked. This is not a point of debate. The real debate is this: Should otherwise healthy children be able to opt-out of masking simply by citing a specific “medical” reason that is not independently verified? Is the freedom of the children who wish to opt-out worth more than the safety of those who prefer to follow CDC recommendations? How many children have to be hospitalized for the MTPS BOE to feel that masks are “worth the trouble”? Is one hospitalized student enough? What about ten? How many cases of long COVID in MTPS children are enough to warrant the small sacrifice of mask wearing on the part of most students?

This is a question that the Middletown BOE needs to answer before August 24th, which is when the vote is scheduled. There is, however, one major point of agreement that should give everyone hope: All parents want what is best for their children. Of course one cannot predict what will happen in the 2021-2022 academic year, but the majority of medical professionals advise schools to err on the side of caution. MTPS now has the difficult job of balancing conflicting opinions, even if the scientific consensus on the subject is clear.