Change in COVID-19 data results in delay in MUSD plans

Menifee Union School District board members discuss their options regarding a return to traditional learning.

By Doug Spoon, Editor

Constantly changing state guidelines and a discouraging report from Riverside County health officials Tuesday led Menifee Union School District administrators to scramble in a response before its late afternoon board meeting.

Rather than announcing a more detailed school reopening plan in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, administrators and board members expressed frustration in the message they received from the state and county on Tuesday. The message was that Riverside County appears headed in the wrong direction in its attempt to reopen.

As a result, the action taken by the board left the district in distance learning mode for an undetermined amount of time. Board members voted 4-1 to skip a hybrid model transition to traditional learning – but no one knows when that will take place. And, depending on new developments, the hybrid model could be reconsidered in the future.

Bottom line: Nothing has really changed, and virtually everyone is frustrated.

“This is extremely disappointing,” board member Kyle Root said. “I know there are thousands of families in this district who would be on board [with reopening]. At what point do we decide to make a move and make the state chase us down?”

That led to a discussion among board members and interim superintendent Gary Rutherford, who is in his last week on the job before Dr. Jennifer Root (no relation to Kyle) takes over. Rutherford, who admittedly scrambled to revise his presentation after a conference call with county officials, had just presented the board with two options:

-- Continue to offer distance learning until it is safe to return to a traditional model (with safety enhancements).

-- Table the decision and continue to push for guidance from county and state agencies and continue to research successful models.

Board members Kenyon Jenkins and Reg Bennett said they saw little difference between the two options, because neither guarantees a return to traditional learning any time soon and things seem to change week to week. But before any motion was made, Root’s question about the impact of reopening against state guidelines generated some discussion.

While acknowledging that the board had the power to make that decision, Rutherford listed as possible unintended consequences the “risk of literal exposure from the virus, and exposure to physical and financial losses and litigation, should there be an outbreak.”

Rutherford referred to Tuesday’s announcement by county public health officer Dr. Cameron Kaiser that the county’s COVID-19 case rate has risen above 7 percent per 100,000, meaning it is sliding back into the criteria for the most restrictive purple recovery tier. According to the announcement, the county was allowed to remain in the red tier for one more week to determine whether the case rate can be lowered once again.

Complicating matters, there has been no clear guidance from the state about what color tier allows a return to traditional learning. The state Office of Education website states that “using health data, schools can reopen for in-person instruction once their county has been in the Substantial (red) tier for at least two weeks.” But Rutherford said he was told by county officials the last two days that this guideline – like so many others – may no longer be true.

“We were originally told when we got to the orange tier, we could go back to school,” Rutherford said. “But the guidance the last couple days is they’re not even sure that would be allowable.

“I asked, ‘Where [what level] do all the school districts fit?’ They said schools are probably most like civic groups, which can increase capacity at the orange tier. So I asked, ‘Does that mean we have the green light when we get to orange.?’ The answer was no.”

Root did not give up on his attempt to force discussion about defying state orders.

“Let’s be honest,” he said. “The marks keep changing for sending almost 11,000 students back to the classroom. I like a return to campus. Do we need a motion to contact legal about this? To the folks watching tonight, I know a lot of you support a return. I encourage you to pack this room next meeting and to pack the Board of Supervisors meeting.

“If we don’t make a move, we’re not going back to school this year.”

That remains to be seen, but there certainly wasn’t anyone painting a positive picture in Tuesday’s meeting. Although no one else vocally supported Root’s suggestion, the majority of board members felt they needed to take some sort of action to show the public they sought to move forward.

To them, that meant choosing the first option rather than one that asks them to table the action.

“I don’t think we should table this,” board member Bob O’Donnell said. “We need to give families direction that we’re making a decision now. If something better comes up later, we can address this again. If we table it, we’ll spend every meeting talking about the same thing, over and over.”

O’Donnell made a motion to approve the first option and Root seconded. Board president Jackie Johansen was the only no vote, saying she feared that approving a move straight from distance learning to traditional learning when allowed sends a message to parents that a hybrid model will no longer be considered at all.

“I would hate that, without solid guidance, we’re ruling out any kind of hybrid model,” Johansen said. “If the decision comes that we can’t go back to traditional learning until COVID is totally gone, we don’t have another plan.

“It seems like in our survey, people voting against hybrid did so because of negative things they heard that were urban myths. Not having a hybrid option might make it impossible to work with some of those families who are in total desperation. Maybe their kids are home alone … they need something to help them.”

Other board members responded by saying there was no reason they couldn’t reconsider a hybrid model, depending on the circumstances.

Rutherford reported the results of a survey of parents and district employees about the preferred method of return. He said the district received 6,220 responses – 58.4 percent of total enrollment. Of that number, 80 percent of parents and 68.5 percent of employees said they favored a return to traditional learning when it’s safe to do so.

The question is, when is it considered safe?

“Eighty percent said to return when safe,” Rutherford said. “When is that? It appears that a large percentage think that means today. But I can’t tell you for sure what percentage of that 80 percent is ready for that now.

“If we were talking about nail salons, gyms and restaurants, I could give you more guidance than we’re getting for education.”

Some parents were critical of MUSD on social media platforms Tuesday night, pointing out that districts in Murrieta and Temecula have announced plans to begin hybrid learning in the next 2-3 weeks. Rutherford indicated he believed that Tuesday’s developments could change that, however.

“Those districts that had announced specific dates for a return, they’re scrambling now,” he said.

Rutherford said that district officials don't know exactly how many parents want their students to remain in distance learning – even though 20 percent indicated that in the survey. He said parents will be asked to register either for a move to traditional learning or a stay in distance learning for the rest of the school year.

Based on those numbers, changes must be made in order to accommodate the split, he said.

“Once we have registration, we’ll know how to assign staff,” he said. “There will be impact requiring class reorganization. If we have 20 percent sign up to remain in distance learning, that’s 100 teachers who will have to come out of classrooms to teach that. [On-campus] classes will shrink by 20 percent, but we’ll have to balance those classes. There’s no assurance students will stay with the same teacher, or be in the same class at the same school. Our goal is to make it as least disruptive as possible, but there will be changes.”

Rutherford also referred parents to the district’s Reopening Handbook, available on the district website and here. It outlines plans for health and safety precautions planned when students return to school. In the current plan, employees are required to wear masks but there is no requirement for students to do so.

One of Johansen’s concerns was the number of families who have pulled their students from the district to enroll them in charter schools or elsewhere – some even moving out of California. That results in reduced funding from the state.

“There’s a large number of students who have left the district,” she said. “About 500 to 600 have walked away. I describe it as we’re hemorrhaging students. This week was our largest loss.

“I don’t want to sit up here months from now and decide what cuts we’ll have to make. As we continue to hemorrhage students, we’ll have some very difficult decisions to make about what gets cut.”

The one bright spot in the issue was the district's announcement that a return to small-group class instruction for special needs students will begin in a three-week phased program beginning Oct. 19. Classes for "moderate to severe" needs students will be held across seven campuses with a maximum of 16 in each class, including adults.

Classroom instruction for "mild to moderate" needs students will be held in five classes across three campuses. The start date for that is yet to be determined.