CDC Travel Advisory and WCHD Recommendations

On Tuesday I shared a message out to all of you that we were excited about our new interim middle school principal and that we were following the WCHD recommendations to have students who travel observe a 14-day quarantine.

Yes, it’s Saturday morning…but this couldn’t wait. We are changing our stance on the travel advisory and I want to share why. This decision comes after several days of conversations – both internally and with frustrated parents who have been advocating for their children.

Most, if not all, of my messages have the words, “we’re following the WCHD guidance.” That is simply because we do not possess the expertise that is public health – especially in a pandemic. As we have seen over this time period the guidance has shifted and morphed as changes took place because there were new understandings. We have learned a lot and put strong mitigation measures in place to increase the safety in our schools.

When the travel advisory was introduced half of our students were in a remote learning format. Then the holidays arrived and we held off returning to our secondary schools until February 1 because of the guidance at the time, the high virus transmission rate, and the potential post-holiday spike in transmissions. This week we have our entire district back in some form of in-person learning – and that feels really good. It’s not the same as 5 days a week good, but it’s a whole lot better than not at all. I realized we had not fully shared our stance to apply the 14-day travel quarantine with the entire district. Mrs. Christiana had shared some information in two of her weekly updates (November and January) because her students were attending in person. The return of students and a few inquiries and initial conversations encouraged me to include the information in my message on Tuesday.

As I reflect on the conversations this week, and particularly the ones from yesterday and today, our decision to follow the recommended 14-day travel quarantine was because of our desire to keep our school community safe – our students, staff, and families. It was about ensuring – as best we could – our school environment would be safe. I’ve stated several times schools haven’t been multipliers of the virus and I am proud of the protocols we’ve put in place and how well our students have followed those protocols. As I reflect, I know the perception of safety for families and staff members weighed on the decision to apply the travel advisory quarantine for students who traveled out of state – but likely wouldn’t have been able to fully articulate it at the time. I’ve learned reflection can be powerful if I slow down and take the time to actually reflect.

There have been families who came forward and asked about the implications of traveling before their trip and then engaged in the quarantine on their return. One inquiry I received this week asked about families who had traveled but didn’t share and had sent their children to school right after they returned. My response was that if we were aware, we would ask them to quarantine, too, because it helps keep everyone safe. All Washingtonians were asked to abide by that advisory. I understand there are differences of opinion. Part of our challenge throughout all of this has been to default to safety with the help of the experts – and the knowledge there are typically as many who appreciated my response as those who would be frustrated by it.

Many times – when policies are in question or if it is a policy someone disagrees with – I’m asked what other districts are doing. The reopening of schools is a good example. There are districts who made decisions to go back faster and, different than we did – just as there are some who have not moved as quickly. A district’s context matters. There are differences in funding, building capacity, staffing experience, support staff, and substitute availability, and so on. In this case, there are some districts that are not addressing the 14-day travel quarantine. Others are only applying it if a family comes forward, but not if they receive information a student was out of the state. None of this feels good. It is not our business to investigate a student or family’s travels – nor is sustainable for us to continue to enlist the health department about a recommendation that is not enforceable. It is based on the honor system and individuals’ willingness to isolate themselves from others. Along the way – our desire to make things as safe as they could be we found ourselves trying to apply a standard that is not our area of influence.

Internal conflict continued to build for me this week. For those families who traveled and don’t come forward – we simply would never be aware. They would continue to attend school normally and perhaps not become sick. However, there may well be instances where families engage in activities like a crowded Super Bowl party, for instance, that is far more precarious than traveling to destinations where the transmission rates are lower than in Whatcom County. It is for these reasons I would not promote a separate MSD policy calling for a shortened or alternative quarantine for those who travel. It simply does not make sense.

The purpose is still the same. We care deeply about our students, staff, and families and want our schools to be safe. I want people to follow the advisory. More than that, I want people to trust our work in our schools. We have strong protocols. All students will continue to follow the same protocols of wearing a mask, attestations, social distancing, washing hands, and using hand sanitizer. If a student shows they have symptoms – whether they traveled or not – we will initiate the protocols we have established. If we receive a notification from the WCHD a student has been identified as a close contact, we will initiate the protocols we have established. The bottom line is we know what to do if a student is sick at school.

I am still learning. I let the desire to protect our district and ensure a safe return for everyone cloud our larger purpose. I welcome feedback and we will be continuing to engage with those of you who have helped me recognize where we were so we can move forward on this issue.

Thank you,

James