MVRHS Principal Sara Dingledy deserves praise for standing up and speaking her mind in front of the high school committee this week, asking to please find a way to compromise on the turf debate.
She spoke for the school staff and students, and also for the Islanders who are fed up with this ongoing battle, and want it to end. It was a proverbial mic drop at Monday’s meeting.
To stand up to her own governing board took courage, which is what the Island needs at this time.
In her comments Monday, Dingledy urged the committee to turn their attention to a much larger and much more significant project: the overhaul of the school building.
Replacing a school building is a once-in-a-generation project that will be costly and important; Islanders will want all the help they can get to fund it. With the state’s help, they will get that. But the project will need a clear message from voters if they want that aid, and the turf debate, as it has in the past, threatens to derail those plans.
As it stands now, the committee can proceed with building a synthetic turf field based on a recent court decision — if it moves through the Martha’s Vineyard Commission and other proper channels — even though the Oak Bluffs planning board has filed an appeal of that decision. If the planning board wins its appeal, it’s unclear what would happen to the turf field if it were to be built in the interim; meanwhile, the Oak Bluffs health board is considering its own temporary ban on all artificial turf fields as a means of rebuffing the school committee’s efforts and preserving the Island’s drinking water. And voters are four town meetings have made their remarks clear that they don’t like how the field is proceeding.
Aside from addressing the building project, the principal told the committee on Monday that staff morale at the high school has been suffering, with the school getting clumped together in the eyes of the public with the school committee’s decisions as the debate plays out in the media.
School committees, and governing boards in general, are the leadership of their institutions. If they make unpopular decisions, that is reflected on the staff. If they cling to a project no-holds-barred, they bring the school’s staff down with them.
The clearest example of this came at town meeting season in May. Voters, right or wrong, were frustrated with a school committee bent on pursuing the turf debate through the courts and spending taxpayer money to do so. Using their only actionable recourse available, voters held the school’s budget ransom, hoping to force the hand of the school committee to drop its legal battle.
As voiced by teachers on town meeting floor last year and Dingledy on Monday, that had educators wondering if funding would come through for some programs.
Yet the turf debate rages on, and educators are worried again that their budgets will be the subject of another political debate as we head into town meeting season.
Most recently, and what seemed to prompt Dingeldy’s comments on Monday, there’s been a lack of transparency. Three days before Christmas, a demolition permit was filed at Oak Bluffs town hall for the high school’s athletic field, a preliminary step in launching the field project. The demo permit was filed despite the school not having funding to complete the project.
Dingledy said that she was not made aware of the plan. She sent an email to staff when news broke — two weeks after the permit was filed — explaining that she had nothing to do with it. A high school principal not being informed that plans are in the making for her school’s field to get ripped up is a bad look.
When transparency is compromised, morale suffers; the workforce suffers. There’s potential for attrition, and hiring staff — already difficult on an Island — can be impacted. Most importantly, there’s an impact on the quality of education.
The best thing that the school committee can do as it enters the planning stages for a building overhaul, and with morale weighing in, is to put the turf debate in their rearview window. School committee members have the opportunity to step up and be leaders. They can very easily drop their plans for a synthetic field, and get us out of this mess. By agreeing to grass, a new track could be built with relatively minor permitting.
A pro-turf advocate might argue, Well, Oak Bluffs and the two members who voted to appeal the decision could drop their lawsuit, and their concerns about PFAS; and the health board in Oak Bluffs could drop its proposal for a temporary moratorium on turf fields; and the up-Island voters could drop their concerns as well.
But those decisions are out of the hands of the school committee. They can do what they can control, though, and say, Enough. Already.
Yes- drop the Plastic Turf. build a track . Repair the fields.
It’s time.
Beka, how about, stop your fight against the turf field. Then we can move on. There is no scientific reason not to, other than, you don’t want it. No proof has been documented anywhere that this field will harm anything. The principal asked that the school committee come together. That may mean that Mr. Lionette and Mr. Manter should step in line and support the decisions of their board. You don’t see it that way because they support your side of the debate. This is why the committee is fractured. The defunding of the school budget was both the responsibility of Mr. Lionette an Mr. Manter, they were irresponsible because they are the ones who started that in their towns. Why don’t they stand up, admit they were wrong, and apologize for putting our kids education and new building at risk? That would go a long way towards bringing this island together and then our kids can get the new turf field and track they deserve, and a new school. How about that?
https://ecori.org/proliferation-of-pfas-plastic-pollution-continues-dangerous-trend/
The above link is an example of delayed science of many products we thought were safe , I have no doubt that plastic turf will one day be a part of that list . Heck- I’m old enough to remember when people smoked on planes, that would be ubsurd today!
Up until a few days ago many people thought drinking bottled water was monitored, safe and filtered from contamination- not the case . Bottled water is loaded with micro plastics .
We don’t yet know the negative health affects we may all face from plastic proliferation , but this proposed plastic field is part of the problem and we should be cautious.
We may not have an alternative product for a track- we agree there . But 2+ acres of unnecessary plastic that presides outside in the elements and on a protected water zone is unacceptable to me and lots of other people . The school commitee is proposing to bring a product that we have never had at our schools and we have a sustainable alternative in natural grass. The Feds are now encouraging Green Schools Buildings!
Environmentalists like me will continue to fight against the unsustainable and unnecessary plastic and chemicals that are polluting every corner of our planet . People alot smarter than me are warning us that the time to take action is now . Environmental literacy is a prerequisite for any Federal , State or local goverment body. These school are funded by taxpayers who can also decide not to fund . I think that is what Ms. Dingledy is saying.
Patrick– There is a bigger picture here that few have mentioned.
You state that ” No proof has been documented anywhere that
this field will harm anything” . I disagree. Just the fact that
500,000 pounds of plastic, rubber and a few other things
has to be manufactured, transported and presumably “recycled”
is detrimental to the very environment that we exist in.
And just for starters, covering the ground with a plastic
field will kill millions of insects, worms and other “lower”
life forms that most people couldn’t care less about.
But they are an important part of our ecosystem.
They will be harmed. To say that this field will not
harm “anything” clearly shows your complete disregard for
environmental issues, and the value of all life forms.
That’s the bigger picture,Patrick. Think about it.
Yes, drop the GMO grass seed, chemical fertilizers, chemical pesticides, chemical herbicides, diesel fumes from the mowing machines, and sucking lots of water out of the ground.
It’s time.
Hi Albert- great ideas !
Check this out https://www.turi.org/Our_Work/Community/Athletic_Playing_Fields
We would be smart to collaborate with
UMASS Lowell where they lead the charge to make toxic everyday chemicals a thing of the past. If we achieve all grass fields for MVRHS , we as a community will have to pay a lot of attention to the amount of chemicals present , especially on a protected water zone . MVRHS is also working towards an electric bus fleet, thanks to the hard work of the transportation sub-commitee . I don’t see why large Mowers cannot also be fuel free.
Dear Beka;
Grass turf 100%.
Dirt! The kids need dirt!
It’s tired and true! Eat worms!
– right?
It’s Just silly to think plastic is ok.
Your voice is heard!
Thank you.
Principal Sara Dingledy’s brave and eloquent statement to her school committee showed real leadership. Her words should be welcomed by all islanders on both sides of the turf debate.
Like Sara, I am agnostic as to the surface of the field, if and when it ever gets built. But there is no money to build it. The voters have said no more taxpayer money on the turf project. And the committee is continuing — as recently as the January 8 meeting — to play fast and loose with Massachusetts law governing private donations.
To the high school committee: Listen to your principal and follow the law. That is not a lot to ask of you. Indeed, it is what you were elected to do.
Let’s build a new high school and make the playing field part of that project. That both makes sense and is an approach that islanders can get behind.
It is well documented what the role of the school committee is: Budget, Policy and Superintendent.
The school committee has provided budget to the educators. The test scores have not improved. The facilities (read budget) are the purview of the school committee. It’s amazing that a project that is free to the taxpayers going forward gets so much negative press. Sure. Roll it into the MSBA project and tack on an additional 20M or so. Nobody will ever flinch. Perhaps you should find out how much of that 20M or so is reimbursable before spouting off. MSBA likely does not build athletic fields. Like turf, don’t like turf, whatever. But the bold principal better start showing educational scores improve for the budget she asks for and receives from voters and should be holding herself accountable to the school committee instead of trying to dump those failures on the school committee over a facility upgrade. You are applauding this?
“It’s amazing that a project that is free to the taxpayers going forward gets so much negative press.”
Who is paying for it?
“But the bold principal better start showing educational scores improve”
The way to improve the quality of the scores is to improve the quality of the students, parents, teachers and voters.
Should the Superintendent and Principal be fired? Department Heads?
Where will better be found? The schools have a high turnover rate.
Ever wonder why the turnover rate is so high? Doubt it’s the budget. Pretty nice place to live overall. Housing is indeed tight but off island salaries are significantly less than here so it is a little relative. If morale is low because of a little small town controversy we have serious problems. Maybe people should really ask this question and look hard at the admin. Are they part of the controversy? Fanning the flames? Morale usually reflects management. Management usually blames it on external factors. According to the MVC it has to be private donors. Who cares who pays for it. Why does it always have to be looked at as a nefarious party and not just some donor who wants good things for students.
Relatively speaking the turnover rate is not high.
We the people voted for the the current committee members.
Nationwide the average teacher turnover rate is ~17%.
You claim that the Island teacher turnover rate is high.
Is it more than the national average?
The joy of unsubstantiated claims?
Did the school committee follow the law when accepting donations this past week? You seem to infer they did not. Please state clearly if they followed the law. No more lawyer wording. You are not agnostic to the surface or you would stop the threats to vote down a budget for a project that is slated to be free to your voters. You clearly state there is no money for this project. Do you support the principal’s budget for education? Your both sides of the fence are confusing!
Vicki, you just added another $12M dollars to the tax payer’s bill. Believe me, if this field has to go to grass, it will no longer be a privately funded project, it will become a burden on the tax payer. Those donors will waive good bye, I would. We already know the Field Fund (Tower Foundation) won’t donate a dime. They had their chance and threw it back in the face of the school committee, you wonder why the school committee doesn’t trust them, they have done nothing but increase the money the taxpayers have had to pay to defend their FEAR campaign. That will be $500k down the drain.
The Field Fund only pulled out when the admin refused, at the last minute, to commit to grass fields over a meaningful time frame that would justify the investment. They will do the same good work they now do for other healthy island grass fields our kids play on,
which are improving every year. Meanwhile, tax payers have already been hit up for hundreds of thousands for the so called “free” plastic option. I speak as the mother of two varsity athletes who played at MVRHS and the former secretary of the PTSO.
I am sorry Geraldine but your assessment of why the Field Fund pulled out is inaccurate. The school, by law, can not restrict the use of public land. The Field Fund was told that but they wouldn’t budge, and pulled out. The ask of the Field Fund was an ask that was illegal. But then again, when has it been beyond the Field Fund to ask a public entity to do something illegal? Does the chair of the planning board come to mind? A Field Fund guy. He knew what he was doing was illegal, his lawyer told him so, twice. IMO, if the Field Fund was so sure that the grass fields that they were going to install and maintain would work, why did they need the 10 year grass field commitment? Don’t you think that if the fields were working that the school would have been thankful and keep them going? They would only have needed to go with the synthetic field if the grass didn’t work. The Field Fund must have known that there was a high likelihood that the grass would fail. So, make the school continue with them even when they couldn’t fulfill their promise or if the Field Fund decided to step away after a year or two. The reason the school has had to pay the hundreds of thousands for “free” plastic is because the Field Fund forced MV@Play out with their promise for “free” grass, so the school, in good faith, went with the Field Fund, well that didn’t happen did it. Good thing the school didn’t sign that commitment. Lastly, when is the Field Fund going to tell us what they used on the Oak Bluffs School field? You know, the field with increased PFAS levels. My guess is the fertilizer they used contained PFAS but they didn’t take the time, or money, to test it before they put it on the field. Show us those results please.
Waiting for all the Board of Health members to start going after the amount of plastic used in drinking water and septic systems. Or are they picking and choosing based on personal feelings and not science? PS. There is no science showing plastic is bad in potable water systems or septic.
How does septic deal with plastic?
Does it just fill up with it?
Or does it just go into the groundwater.
Plastic pollution is a menace worldwide. Plastics are now found in every environment on the planet, from the deepest seas to the atmosphere and human bodies.
Scientific evidence describing harm to the environment and humans is growing. Hence, the United Nations has resolved to negotiate a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution.
Comments are closed.