Social distancing in schools is prudent, but the non-N-95 "face coverings" mandated for Massachusetts schoolchildren will be redundant, ineffective, and may result in significant and unnecessary harm to the kids, especially the most vulnerable with certain disabilities. Here's why:

Eliminating non-verbal communication, such as facial expressions, is detrimental to even typical kids' development. The common scientific understanding is that a majority (55%) of interpersonal communication is through facial expressions, 38% is tone of voice, and only 7% is verbal (words).  Many children have neurological differences (disabilities) that make it a real challenge to read facial expressions and tone even when these are not obstructed with masks. For them, obstructing faces and muffling voices with masks will be an even more severe impediment to social, emotional and academic development.  Also, a recent study showed that that one in five children in China showed depressive symptoms after coronavirus quarantine (https://bit.ly/2AZzEul)   While that study doesn't link the depression specifically to mask wearing, it seems obvious that forced mask wearing can't help with that. 

The data shows that children's risk of serious illness from Covid19 is extremely low; the problem is they can spread the disease to older adults and those with underlying health conditions.  But the non-N-95 masks the the kids will be required to wear all day will be largely redundant with social distancing with respect to the droplets, and will be largely ineffective at preventing the spread of smaller particles.  The same set of rules (https://bit.ly/3dS8e7Y) that make masks mandatory for kids also dictates a 12-student maximum class size and 6-foot distancing at all times.  Areosolized particles from respiration are small enough to float beyond six-feet, but it is unclear whether those carry enough virus to be infectious.  Regardless, cloth and paper masks and bandannas do little or nothing to filter those--only N-95/KN-95 masks help much with such small airborne particles.  The fact that such masks are expensive, in short supply, and not made for child-sized faces would be an argument for not reopening the schools at all just yet, or for holding all classes outside, not for putting potentially contagious kids into a room together with healthy kids for six hours a day with ineffective masks.

One other thing: A puzzling omission from the order is daily screening at the schoolhouse door.  This would be an simple way to keep sick kids home.  Regardless of false positives and negatives, it would obviously help somewhat in preventing transmission. False positives would keep some kids home unnecessarily on occasion, but that isn't a good reason not to add the extra measure of protection.

Covid-19 is a serious, highly contagious, and sometimes deadly disease, especially for the elderly and those with underlying health problems.  But the state should not just issue every intrusive and burdensome restriction it can think of just to be on the safe side.  Each restriction must be rational in light of the very latest data, and the benefits in terms of safety must outweigh the costs.