Linn R-2 Superintendent Dena Smith addressed the issue brought up by letters sent to school districts from the office of Attorney General Eric Schmitt on Dec. 7 concerning the decision of Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green’s ruling that a law giving local health departments the ability to issue public health orders, like mask mandates, was unconstitutional.

Smith told the board that they are now required to review the Safe Return to In-Person Instruction and Continuity of Services Plan every six months.

“The board does need to adopt the plan,” said Smith. “One of the things, in light of the Cole County case that was recently decided on, was that we had to revise the plan and the administrative team and the two district nurses met last Thursday to talk about this and going forward what are we going to do.”

Smith reminded the board that district policy 2680 regarding communicable diseases is already in place.

“It’s actually based on state statute,” said Smith in reference to Missouri state statute 167.191, which notes that children with contagious diseases are not to attend school. 

— The statute reads: “It is unlawful for any child to attend any of the public schools of this state while afflicted with any contagious or infectious disease, or while liable to transmit such disease after having been exposed to it. For the purpose of determining the diseased condition, or the liability of transmitting the disease, the teacher or board of directors may require any child to be examined by a physician, and exclude the child from school so long as there is any liability of such disease being transmitted by the pupil.  If the parent or guardian refuses to have an examination made by a physician at the request of the teacher or board of directors, the teacher or board of directors may exclude the child from school.  Any parent or guardian who persists in sending a child to school, after having been examined as provided by this section, and found to be afflicted with any contagious or infectious disease, or liable to transmit the disease, or refuses to have the child examined as herein provided, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not less than five nor more than one hundred dollars.” 

“That’s what board policy 2860 is based on,” said Smith. “When we met last week, the recommendation of the admin team and the district nurses was that we follow our board policy. That’s also the recommendation from our school attorney. That’s also the recommendation from our insurance carrier.”

Smith explained that parents have three options if their child was considered close contact: they may keep their child home from school for 10 days, utilize the state’s Test-to-Stay option, and a new option, in which a student stays home for the first five days, at which time if they test negative, they can return to school on day seven.

“So there’s three different options there for kids and parents who are close contacts,” said Smith. “We’ve had some in the last couple of weeks. We’ve had quite a few who’ve chosen the Test-to-Stay option and we’ve had some who have chosen to just be excluded from school for the full 10 days. Parents are given that option and then they are capable of making that decision. So that is our recommendation. That is what is in the plan at this point.” 

Board member Tye DeCramer asked if Test-to-Stay at school starts immediately.

“Yes, the day we are notified that somebody tests positive and we get their close contacts we test them that day,” said Smith. “That’s day one. We try to test them on day three and day five. Sometimes, it ends up being day four and day six or something like that. It just has to be three times within that first seven days. As long as they test negative each of those times they can stay in school with a mask.”

Smith went on to say if it is an in-home close contact, those individuals are excluded from school for 10 days due to the higher likelihood of infection.

“So if someone’s kid tests positive in the class everybody in the class can test to stay in school then?”  DeCramer asked. “That’s what you’re saying?”

“Yes,” Smith replied. “And the parents have to sign to allow us to test them. Which, so far, hasn’t been a problem. I want to say we’ve done 30 Tests-to-Stay in the last week.”

“I’m not hearing anything very controversial there,” board member Dr. Shawn Strong said. “What’s controversial about that? Anything?”

“The only thing controversial is when the attorney general put out his statement it made it sound as if schools could not do anything; you can’t mask, you can’t test, you can’t exclude from school … you can’t do anything and that’s not the case,” said Smith. “We still have a board policy and there’s still a state statute we have to follow. The only thing the court case in Cole County said was that the health department cannot issue those mandates. We can.”

“But if we don’t want to, we don’t have to anymore; essentially,” said Dr. Strong.

“You don’t,” Smith said, adding the insurance provider indicated that the district will be covered as long as Linn R-2 is not showing willful negligence. “If you’re not following your board policy and state statute, you’re probably going to be found willfully negligent and insurance wouldn’t cover that.”

DeCramer asked if there have been any complaints to the school about the Test-to-Stay policy.

“Yeah, we got people complaining because immediate family had to stay home,” said High/Middle School Principal Jeff Jacques.

“Some people just don’t like it,” said Smith.

“You do the test option … and then your kid stays and has to wear a mask, right? Anybody upset about that?” DeCramer asked.

“I haven’t heard any complaints,” Smith said.

“What’s the biggest complaint you’re getting?” DeCramer asked.

“(The) biggest complaint is (from) immediate family because they can’t test to stay,” answered Jacques. “The big thing is what the attorney general’s statement was. Now, these people don’t understand and say ‘you can’t do that.’ Yes, we can, here’s our policy. We can still say that.”

“It’s a lot of misperception about that court case,” said Smith.

Board member Mark Baker asked why the policy included a part requiring students to ride the same bus to and from school and not being allowed to ride home with a fellow student on a different bus.

“That’s been in there since the plan was put in place,” said Smith, adding that with an increase in cases now, the policy reduces the number of students that have to be tested as close contacts since they are not interacting with students on different buses.

Baker wanted to know where the idea came from and Smith told him that part of the policy was added by the admin team last year.

“I suggest that we strike this from there because I don’t know of another school district that has this rule and it’s not convenient for families,” said Baker. “It’s not best for kids. There are a lot of kids that need to go somewhere for after-school care that we do not offer as a school district.”

“So did we add this because of COVID?” Dr. Strong asked.

“It was COVID,” DeCramer answered. “This was the second school year we’re doing it.”

“If it was truly COVID-related, I’d say we’re probably getting close to a point where we can remove it,” said Dr. Strong.

“This is one of the most common complaints I’ve received since becoming a school board member and I don’t see much benefit,” said Baker.

“If we were going to remove it, my recommendation would be that they still only get on one bus in the morning and one bus in the afternoon, not switching all about because been it’s been a huge safety benefit for us as well,” Smith said.

“I agree,” said Baker.

The Safe Return to In-Person Instruction and Continuity of Services Plan was approved unanimously after changing the bus policy to allow a student could ride one bus in the morning and another in the afternoon.