Seldom is heard…

As the mother told her emotional story of concern, the Middlesex Board of Education, its attorney, superintendent and other administrators looked on. 

The woman’s child had enjoyed attending school, she said while fighting back tears, but no longer does due to staffing changes.

“If your eight-year-old came home to you crying, ‘I don’t want to go to school,’ after she loved going to school, you would be up here crying yourself,” the mother told the board.

When she finished, the mom received no response from the school officials in front of her. It was just on to the next speaker.

It’s been moving in this direction for the last few months – growing distrust in the school board, its top administrator and others in leadership positions. They seem baffled on how to address it.

When teachers are working under the terms of an expired contract, it’s expected that they won’t be happy campers and will make that point known. That’s the case here, as the Middlesex Education Association (MEA) and board head for another mediation session.

Using the board’s March 19 meeting as a barometer, the unease stretches beyond MEA members. The union unrest is likely contributing to community perceptions about the district overall. 

But it’s more than that. Parents are miffed about unfilled staff positions and the reassignment of a popular principal. Also, consider the following.

The board amended its policy last week regarding public comments. It states that audience members are “legally responsible and liable” for their comments. It further states that comments must be directed at the presiding board member. 

“No participant may address or question board members individually,” it reads. 

The same night, an audience member asked why the staff’s direct email addresses are not posted on the district web site, and why the correspondence that staff receives apparently gets copied to the superintendent.

Control of audience comments. Control of emails. It can lead one to suspect the real goal is attempted control of the narrative.

Another parent gave a scathing critique of one district school’s leadership. That spurred a rebuke from the board’s vice president. The VP echoed the policy change, reminding the critic that she, not the board, is “liable” for her comments.

It was an apparent reference to the prospect of litigation if the principal in question objects to the harsh public review. 

What a mess. The board is lawyering up in the middle of audience comments. The board’s constituents haven’t been blameless. A few have waged war using social media.

Even if you don’t typically follow the district’s goings-on, you can see this is all problematic. It’s going to require leadership to fix. A board member or members need to walk into the superintendent’s office, close the door and say, “We need to do things differently.”

Is that even possible? It’s easy to be skeptical. A majority of the board carries conflicts of interest because they belong to another educational union or have a family member in the MEA. Maybe these conflicts place them in an awkward position in terms of questioning the superintendent and legal counsel.

Perhaps board members have been brainwashed into thinking they’ll be found guilty of an ethics violation every time they utter a discouraging word. Fear can be another control tool.

They should fear not. 

In school ethics complaints, the burden of proof rests with the complainant. The state School Ethics Commission’s records from 2024 show it’s not easy to prove allegations against board members.

The commission issued 57 decisions last year statewide, according to its website. Among those, 45 complaints were found to contain insufficient facts to support a guilty finding, or were dismissed outright. There were only four reprimands, two censures and one suspension.

The guilty findings tended to be for serious infractions. One related to a board member threatening a superintendent over a special education matter involving their own child. Another had a superintendent making decisions related to her spouse’s compensation as a teacher in the same district.

Inside – Middlesex found no cases of board members being sanctioned simply for commenting at public meetings.

Board members, it’s time to speak up and be open about the district’s problems, without mentioning any confidential information. Maybe, in the case of the Middlesex schools, an ethics complaint for commenting publicly and pushing for change would be viewed as a badge of honor, as opposed to something to be embarrassed about. 

Reminder

Subscribe to Inside – Middlesex. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. It is absolutely free.

Visit Inside – Middlesex on our new Facebook page.