Melissa Brown is a Newton Public School parent
On Monday Aug 10, the NPS Superintendent presented to the School Committee two plans about how to start the school year whose first day is five weeks away. Here is the Powerpoint presentation from the meeting and here is the detailed ‘Return to Learn’ plan.
The SC is being pushed to vote (by Goldman and Fleishman who say the pressure comes from DESE) on Wed Aug 12 at 8 am about which plan to begin the school year. I urge the SC to vote to begin the school year fully remotely and to require NPS to develop a new hybrid plan that integrates the state-required individual option for fully remote learning in a way that individual students and teachers can easily move between models as they move in and out of quarantine.
At the SC meeting last night, the choice was portrayed as a distance learning plan (fully remote) versus hybrid plan (part in-person and part remote). But in fact, that characterization is misleading. The choice as presented is really:
1. a set of complete plans (for elementary, middle, and high schools) that is pedagogically sound as well as sustainable healthwise, financially, and with staff
versus
2. a set of incomplete plans that is pedagogically inequitable, risky healthwise, more costly (due to staffing, according to Fleishman), antagonizes staff, and unsustainable.
It is the distance learning plans that are complete. At least 10 people at the SC meeting either acknowledged that the hybrid plans are incomplete (Fleishman, Romer, Goldman, Ray-Canada, Prenner, Albright, Shields) or expressed such strong concerns about that incompleteness that they wanted to postpone the vote (Olszewski, Miller, one student representative).
Consider pedagogy. The complete distance learning plans provide ample direct instruction, teacher support of student independent work, and opportunities for student connections. They address equity issues in technology access by providing the same laptop technology for all students at the same grade level, providing wifi hotspots for students without internet access at home, and providing student training in use of the technology. It’s not the same as fully in-person instruction but it looks reasonable, as many teachers spoke up to say in the comments (it’s vastly better than the disastrous instruction of last spring).
The incomplete hybrid plans provide in-person instruction for half the students at a time in the mornings but leave the other half at home working “independently”—like they were last spring. There are shorter remote classes in the afternoon that all students take, but it will be very difficult for teachers to coordinate class instruction when half the students have already had instruction on a topic and half have not. But even more problematically, when students have to stay home because they’ve been quarantined, there is no way for them to access the in-person instruction.
With in-person instruction there will be exposures, so there will be teachers and students who must quarantine (the DESE rules say for at least 10 days). But NPS chose to develop a hybrid model where the students at home have no access to what is going on in the classroom. This decision makes their hybrid plan not only pedagogically poor but also unsustainable because of the certain disruption from quarantines. With students and teachers under quarantine—as has happened at other schools that attempted in-person learning models—education is disrupted.
DESE also requires school districts to offer parents the option of selecting a fully remote option for their own children, even if the district opens with a hybrid plan. NPS calls this option the Distance Learning Academy (DLA). But it was unable to say anything concrete about what this option would look like, except that they might use an external vendor for some or possibly all of the DLA classes, especially at the high school level.
Several SC members (Ray-Canada, Olszewski, Miller) expressed strong concern about the total lack of information about DLA before they vote and before NPS is asking parents to say what they (tentatively) plan to do. Whereas wealthy families can opt out to private schools or home schooling, lower wealth families who want or need remote learning are going to be forced either to pick a complete unknown likely to wind up with substandard pedagogy (like last spring) or else to risk health and safety by going to school. NPS is right to worry about an achievement gap, but it doesn’t seem to have considered that it may be adding to the illness and death gap.
Fleishman has talked multiple times about the need to be able to shift between the hybrid and distance plans. But when one SC member (Ray-Canada) asked how long the district would need—a weekend or a week—to shift between these plans, Fleishman gave a vague “not long” response. The failure to have a DLA plan and the decision for the remote half of students to have no access to the in-person classroom content are two halves of the same incredibly poor planning decision relating to shifting between models.
If NPS starts the school year with a hybrid plan, then students need to be able to shift to a distance plan—not only collectively (an entire school or even the whole district), but also individually—as people move in and out of required quarantines. If every in-person class also allowed distance students to remote in, then quarantine shifts would be less disruptive for everyone, and the DLA option would be to stay with the remote side for all classes. The absence of a DLA plan should be a deal breaker because it means that those under quarantine cannot learn or participate in the community.
And there are more areas where the hybrid plans are incomplete. When the SC members were asking questions, district administrators indicated that there are still significant issues to solve for the hybrid model on transportation, delivery of special education services, ventilation, access to drinking water, and safe eating areas.
A further area of planning that was not addressed all in the SC discussion is what metrics to use to decide that an entire school or the entire district should shift from the hybrid to the distance plan. Should NPS use infection rates, quarantine rates, or mortality rates? And how high should we allow those rates to go before shifting? The DESE guidelines are vague.
With all these issues unresolved in the hybrid plan at the point when a vote is needed, the most responsible decision is for the NPS School Committee to vote to begin the school year fully remotely—for reasons of pedagogy, public health, equity, labor relations, budget, and sustainability. The SC should also require NPS to develop a new hybrid plan that fully integrates the DLA for smooth transitions for individuals and schools as needed by quarantine regulations.
As a parent of a first-grader, this meeting was tough to watch.
The elementary school schedule seemed like something that maybe a 4th or 5th grader could manage, but seemed a mighty high mountain to climb for the younger kids.
On one hand, I’m sure that people involved have indeed spent a ton of time thinking through a lot these last few weeks. On the other hand, it feels like everyone at NPS thought in April and May that it was going to “just go away” when summer came around.
It’s going to be tough figuring out how to manage our careers when our kid is only in school, best case, two half days a week.
The hybrid plan as presented (students of all grades having the opportunity to spend 20% of their school time on campus) is the worst of both worlds: most of the risk, and little of the benefit.
Older kids (10+) can distance learn (because they are literate and therefore can learn independently) and should distance learn (because they superspread COVID). Distance learning will not work for K-2. There was no discussion as to why the Cambridge plan was ruled out (Grades K-3 80% time on campus and older kids Grades 4-12 distance learning), with the option of all kids to distance learn depending on family situations and special needs kids on campus.
For those who are interested, here is the link where you can download the documents presented by the superintendent to the school committee about both models for all grades: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1foqP3mOd9alzKpvleAC9h-a7RrdWtWK4
What was interesting today was that Gov. Baker was pushing districts with low positivity rates to return IN PERSON. I have thought he has done a great job, but that rate isn’t going to stay if we go back to school.
There are classrooms in the schools that have serious ventilation issues (windows don’t open or they are interior classrooms and have no windows).
As a high school parent, my kid can learn somewhat online, however the SEL for her is critical. My normally happy child has spent the spring inside, the summer with no overnight camp and been six feet away from friends outside. We have all seen teens hanging out in Newton Center, but not all teens have had a normal summer. My once normally happy child is showing signs of depression. And she is counting on some sort of in person learning. She will crumble. At this point, I will take advisory outside in tents for September. The kid needs something. While she doesn’t “need” to be in school, unlike a first grader, she has different needs as a teenager. And she is transitioning into high school and has normal anxiety about that, but even more anxiety about starting remotely and not meeting a teacher face to face, as she has done since she was in preschool.
I want to be creative and I want the teachers safe (because with all of these models, the teachers are the ones exposed to the most kids) and want something for each grade level that fits them and their family.
Many families have two working parents, or a single parent family that works out of the house. Two half days is in person is good, but I am concerned about the parent that can’t work from home. Does it come between a parent’s job and a child’s education? That is a no win situation.
There is no right solution here, but as a community we need to think creatively.
I just added the links to the post above – detailed plan and the Powerpoint presentation from Monday’s meeting
NewtonMon
Good point about depression. Is there any study to estimate what % of children will develop long term depression without school socialization…
For teens, I can imagine this to be very very high and this needs to be taken into account seriously.
I agree with Newton Mom about the need for high schoolers to be in school part of the time for their mental health. It is critical for them to make connections with adults and peers. This is normally a difficult time in their lives and they need to have relationships with people they trust. It is about much more than the academic aspect of learning. I understand that the online aspect is hard for the younger kids and their parents but I hate to see the needs of the high school kids get glossed over. The start of the year is particularly important for teachers to get to know their students. I have one child an incoming freshman who does well working independently and is a high achiever but even that child has struggled with change and the lack of human connection. At times that child has just broken down. That child has been social distancing and has done so realizing that it is an important sacrifice with the hope of being back in school in the fall. My other child is a junior and needs more support. I feel that child needs to be in school for at least part of the time so he/she doesn’t lose on some of the strides he/she has made and so he/she is prepared for college.
As far as the plans not being finalized there is a huge level of detail involved in these plans. I took this vote as a way to determine which way they are heading so that they can work on all those question marks. As far as the all distance learning option, on the hs level they need to let parents know where they are heading so that the parents can indicate what their intentions are for their children. Then they can dig in more on specifics. They will then need to determine what classes then need to be provided for that model and determine how they can meet those needs with staffing. Normally the hs scheduling is a huge task due to the breadth of opportunity at the hs level. I can’t imagine how difficult it is to figure it out now.
My son is in high school too and I know how difficult it has been for him to be remote. Even though the NPS fully remote plan does have ways for clubs to meet online, I know that it will be difficult.
But the way NPS has structured the incomplete hybrid model, it is going to create even greater isolation for students who are under quarantine, because NPS has made no provision for connecting students in the remote-option-during-hybrid. Indeed, even the students who are not quarantined will have no contacts during their at-home “independent work” time, according to the plans NPS released yesterday.
Because the science shows that 10-19 year olds transmit CoVid19 at a HIGHER rate than adults, NPS should expect many students under quarantine within a week or two. That failure to plan for quarantine and infection rates is deeply disturbing. People were talking about the remote-during-hybrid option as though at most 10 percent of students would select it. But they have failed to plan for what will happen to students’ learning and social-emotional well-being when students are required to be at home under quarantine.
The so-called hybrid model is not a model; there are too many crucial pieces that Fleishman and other senior administrators had to say “we’re working on it” when SC members asked them about the holes in their plans last night. If NPS can manage to get a complete hybrid model together before the Aug 24 SC meeting, then the SC could revisit their decision, but as currently proposed, the hybrid model is so incomplete that it’s not sustainable. Once enough students and staff are in quarantine, NPS will be forced to shut down.
I deleted a comment that contained a false and dangerous analysis of COVID. Village 14 will not be a platform for COVID denialism.
As an NPS teacher, I’m torn. I want you all to know that both plans pose many issues for teachers and that teachers also see many issues for kids. I think we all agree that a 7-hour kindergarten day for remote learning is not reasonable. I think we all worry that kids will be left behind in a remote learning setting. I think we all agree that the incomplete hybrid model leaves a lot to be desired in terms of logistics (how to move kids safely in the building), equity for teachers, and protocol (currently, they are saying if kids stay 6-ft apart, NO ONE is considered a “close contact” or would need to quarantine if someone in their class is sick).
Just know that there will be a lot of changes in whatever plan is decided because the only people who know what is going on are the people making the decisions. Then the union will negotiate things like that 7-hour kindergarten day and individual schools will need to come up with their protocols and plans to move kids in the building, and things will modify again.
The frustration you feel with the incomplete model and the “we’re working on” is something I feel too. They’ve had months to make decisions and still aren’t done, while teachers, the people who need to execute whatever the model ends up being, have not been able to plan anything yet. We’ve been waiting just like parents have. We haven’t had any time to work together to execute any new planning. We’re worrying about our families and our children. We’re worried about your children. We’re worried about doing a good job. And we have no answers either.
I’d personally love to be hybrid because it means getting to know students and it means I can focus on social-emotional work and antiracism work without the added layer of modified curriculum work. It actually makes my job a little easier. But it means a lot of procedures and protocols need to be put in place and followed that I’m not sure are actually reasonable to expect kids to do or have teachers be able to enforce. I know that remote will be significantly harder for kids and parents. It will be significantly more work for me with what feels like less learning and definitely less community for kids. I don’t know the best answer.
We aren’t miracle workers, but know that the teachers will be doing their best in whatever model we have with what little time we have to get ready. I really don’t want it to turn into parents versus teachers, especially if you feel like kids aren’t learning enough or are asked to do too much. We’re all going to need to support the kids and support each other.
Thank you NPS Teacher for your thoughtful comments