Letter: Look for Facts in Bias Incidents

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

The May 13, 2024, article entitled "'The Roof is Caving In': Mount Greylock School Committee Hears Details of Bias Incidents." If reported accurately, and if I interpreted the article correctly, Mr. Dravis brought to light some extremely troublesome issues. If prejudice is occurring routinely in our schools and elsewhere in town, especially in those institutions under the auspice of town governance, a clearly reasoned plan must be created and implemented.

Also troubling in the article was "… the meeting also features some of the most frank commentary to date from district administrators about the shortcomings of the preK-12 district's efforts to address the problem." There are other quotes from the district leadership that indicated that as Superintendent McCandless said, "We are really just trying to find mechanisms that actually work. We have invested a great deal of money into this work, and as evidenced tonight by the things people didn't want to be saying because they're living in pain at home-the things we're doing aren't working."

Was any conclusion reached that indicated the next step? It seemed that some believed adding additional DEI efforts were in order. It seemed that others believed we should rethink the whole DEI movement.

Might the next step in addressing the prejudice "crisis" be to look for facts? Narratives are extremely important, and should be taken very seriously, but a closer investigation that values the facts of the alleged incidents might reveal different and/or additional perspectives.



Is there anyone who can argue that DEI is not a controversial approach to combatting intolerance? Is there anyone who can argue it has not furthered divisions in our community? It is difficult to judge because so many people are silent. How do we know what the community thinks? What they value?

Might we use our current confusion and frustration to revisit how DEI was introduced to the town? Was there an attempt to calmly encourage discussion with townspeople who questioned (not even challenged) the principles and strategies inherent in DEI before those principles were put into place ? Were there clearly stated MEASURABLE goals shared with townsfolk that could serve as a basis now as to how we should go forward? Taxpayers are, after all, are expected to pay the bills.

No question that mistakes have been made and by many people on all sides of the tolerance issue. Let us try to correct those mistakes and move on to create a tolerant and flourishing community.

Donna Wied
Williamstown, Mass.

 

 

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Mount Greylock School Committee OKs Updated Policy on Seclusion, Restraint

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Mount Greylock School Committee recently approved an updated policy on time-outs, seclusion and the physical restraint of students.
 
The policy is based on updated state regulations that came down last winter. Superintendent Joseph Bergeron told the panel at its August meeting that his office waited on recommendations from the Massachusetts Association of School Committees that were released in May and ran the proposed changes past the district's legal counsel.
 
That timing — and an expectation from the commonwealth that districts have the updated policy in place for the start of the 2026-27 academic year — led to an expedited process for the School Committee, which did not do a first read with a vote at a subsequent meeting as is its practice.
 
"Policy JKAA speaks to the ways the school district and our procedures shall abide by the updated state regulations," Bergeron said. "We're not going to have a lot of leeway.
 
"Nothing about the way we interact with our students on a day-to-day basis is being shifted by this."
 
For example, the commonwealth does not allow schools to use "seclusion," or, "the involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room or area, with or without adult supervision," except some extreme cases, like when, "when student behavior poses an imminent threat of assault, or imminent serious physical harm to self or others, but only if safeguards are accounted for," the updated policy reads.
 
"From the state's perspective and my perspective, the idea of locking a child in a room without adult supervision is something we've never done," Bergeron said. "And it's something the state wants to make explicitly that nobody ever does."
 
View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories