Newton will give parents a choice between sending children to school two mornings a week or having them learn entirely online this fall, after the School Committee voted 7-2 Friday in favor of the flexible model.
Share your thoughts in comments.
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
This error message is only visible to WordPress admins
Error 403: Requests from referer https://village14.com are blocked..
Domain code: global
Reason code: forbidden
I’m not thrilled and I don’t love how NPS handled the process, but I think it’s “fine.” There are some very loud voices only wanting virtual for all, but I think most parents are comfortable with the hybrid. My biggest concerns aside from safety are equity and the mental health of our kids so I’d like to see how they continue to address that.
As a parent of a NPS student, I know NO one who is completely happy with anything. Our family will try the hybrid, knowing it isn’t perfect. As a HUGE supporter of public education, I am feeling like I should look at private school, which I have never said in my entire life.
My biggest issues is that high school kids will be exposed to the most people, as will those teachers.
The health assessment is something I have been doing forever. I wake up and feel like yuck, I don’t go to work or school. However, by saying that is one of the tools, is a bit unrealistic. Everyone knows someone who goes to work and school sick. (I am only a little sick.). However, if a kid misses their only two half days in school, I believe that kid will pretend to be healthy just to attend those two half days.
I feel like the masking policy isn’t strong enough.
I also feel like the political climate in the US has made testing a bad thing. If you test, the numbers of infection increase. If NPS did a twice a week test model like Tufts, then the number of super spreader events could be reduced. I understand that testing costs money and Newton isn’t in a position to fund testing. But this is the black hole of our country. Not enough tests. (I scheduled one and it took FOUR days for a scheduler to call me back, and then the first available test was five days after that.)
But while not perfect and I don’t think any plan would ever be perfect, I am going to have my family try it. And if we need to switch, we take the 3-4 weeks for outsourcing (again, I cringe while typing this).
But there is NO plan that would satisfy all parents.
Right now I know parents who want:
Full remote
Full in person with sports
Weeks on and weeks off (instead of the M/Tu and Th/F options)
Dedicated days for grades to meet peers
Remote with access to some days
Older kids remote; younger kids in person
I’m appalled by the lack of input from teachers and school nurses. The health of the adults in the school buildings is also important and needs to be taken into account.
(N.B. I do not have school age children)
Please read, in full, this open letter from our NTA president.
Dear Superintendent Fleishman, Mayor Fuller, Chairperson Goldman, and members of the School Committee:
I am writing this open letter to vehemently protest the recent approval by the School Committee of an immediate return, on September 16, of all students and staff to in person learning under a hybrid A/B/C model.
In approving Dr. Fleishman’s “Return to Learning” plan, you fail on all counts to support and protect the students and parents of the Newton Public Schools community, and you must retract that decision.
Under normal circumstances, our fine educators make whatever you ask of them work, however poorly conceived. They rise to the occasion. What the community sees is not your failure but their success.
This is different. Your plan puts the entire Newton Public Schools community in harm’s way. You are rushing us into the schools before the district is ready, because you fear conditions will not permit us to do so later. Your logic is: “Get those kids in the buildings before flu season begins, because then it won’t be possible.” You think: “Students and teachers have this one opportunity to build a connection in person. It’s urgent we not waste it.” You really are so naive as to think this is a good strategy. It is a devastatingly shallow and dangerous logic.
We demand that you accept our proposal for a phased, careful, and safe reentry. Our plan offers what yours does not: a sustainable, consistent educational experience for all students this coming school year.
We share with you here, and with the public, a synthesized presentation of the proposal we have put on the table during negotiations. Rather than enumerate the failings of your plan, I will let it stand in contrast to ours, and let the Newton community be the judge.
August 16, 2020
You have failed too, by any reasonable standard, to work collaboratively with the Newton Teachers Association as a bargaining partner.
We sent you a highly detailed information request in early July that would allow us to assess the efficacy of your health and safety efforts. To date we have still not received a reply. If you cannot answer our questions about health and safety, then how can you open the schools?
We presented you a proposal for reopening in mid-July. Almost none of that found its way into your “Return to Learning” plan. In negotiations we have consistently opposed an immediate A/B/C hybrid reopening, yet you unilaterally decided to open in an A/B/C hybrid model. In spite of the fact that this was on the negotiation’s table, we learned of your decision at the same time as our members, when David sent an email to staff sharing his recommendation. Moreover, in a transparent effort to mislead our members about the role the NTA had played in that decision, in that email, David cited elements that his plan shared with ours.
The School Committee’s constant reference to the role of the planning teams in creating its plan is the final charade. Just yesterday, one member of that team texted me furiously that she felt gaslighted by the district. None of the major, and most controversial, decisions found in the district’s plans were made on those teams, yet they are regularly cited as evidence of “educator input.”
In short, rather than work collaboratively with educators, you have chosen instead to put your efforts into creating the appearance of having worked collaboratively.
Once your plans were “complete,” in order to convince educators it is safe to return to the schools en masse on September 16, you brought in two medical experts to assuage their fears.
On Thursday, August 13, Drs Rochelle Walensky and Ashish Jha answered questions from our members. I do not doubt their medical expertise, but clearly they land on one end of the spectrum of medical opinion on whether it is safe to open schools. Dr. Jha said so himself in an interview with Jake Auchincloss that was taped in June: “I have to tell you, in the public health world, in the spectrum of most public health experts, I am on one end about being aggressive about trying to open up schools. Most of my public health colleagues think I am too aggressive, they think I am being too optimistic…”
Dr. Jha may be optimistic and aggressive, but he hit the nail on the head when he led off by saying that “we have to get this right.” And he seemed honestly interested in feedback on how we get young people in schools to follow social distancing protocols consistently. So are we.
Dr. Walensky presented herself as a tough pragmatist who gets things done, and she clearly thinks if the medical professionals under her supervision can be made safe, and made to feel safe, then so can educators. She may know doctors and their patients, but what she doesn’t know about educators and their students is a lot.
Yet despite their expressions of urgency that schools should open immediately in September, the irony is that their attempts to persuade us to do so actually bolsters the NTAs case that schools should first open remotely and then phase in in-person learning.
Their characterization of the medical professions evolving response to the pandemic is the key. They are not counting on a perfect vaccine to come riding in on a white horse to save us from the pandemic. They believe the battle against this pandemic will be won by increments. This late fall and early winter, they anticipate important breakthroughs in efforts to mitigate the impact of the virus: more accurate, cheaper, and faster testing, better therapies, and other “guardrails” against this virus’s spread and deadly effect.
They think we will likely be fighting this pandemic for at least this coming school year, and quite possibly the next. In their judgment, children can’t afford to be out of school that long. For this reason, they say, we need to learn to live with this pandemic, and this means opening schools to in person learning.
Our proposal addresses precisely this concern. We offer a careful, measured reentry plan, emphasizing safety, and the ability to sustain our efforts while offering children a consistent educational experience. It allows the NPS to make better use of these coming guardrails, particularly faster testing, in conjunction with quarantining and contract tracing.
Dr. Jha is correct: We have to get this right. And this means our efforts cannot be about getting kids back in the schools as soon as possible, fearing later we may not be able to do so at all. It means our efforts must be about getting kids and teachers back in school safely, and keeping them there, safely.
Retract your decision. Provide Newton’s fine educators a safe opportunity to offer our students the consistent, high quality educational experience this community has come to expect. We do not have room to learn from failure here.
Sincerely yours,
Michael J. Zilles
President, Newton Teachers Association
MMQC, I’m not sure how many parents are comfortable with hybrid. I think most, like myself, have huge concerns about the hybrid. I do know that many are being forced into selecting hybrid, since it is the only option that will allow your kids to stay with their grade peers and school class. All students opting out of the hybrid are being placed into this black hole called the distant learning academy, which is poorly defined, may or may not be taught by some Newton teacher, and will not reunite with your child’s class, even if the hybrid students end up being sent home.
The Newton Teachers Association is justifiably furious and I share their concerns and rage with this terrible process.
I had no idea that students who do not participate in this hybrid plan at school opening will be barred from “stay[ing] with their grade peers and school class. All students opting out of the hybrid are being placed into this black hole called the distant learning academy, which is poorly defined, may or may not be taught by some Newton teacher, and will not reunite with your child’s class, even if the hybrid students end up being sent home.”
If this is indeed the “choice” parents face, it is more like blackmail. Listen to the teachers!
I think we should have gone with the State of Massachusetts’ guidance.
As the parent of a junior at South, I feel that there is no right or wrong answer as to whether to pick remote or hybrid. I believe parents need to make their own choice based on what is best for their children and their family. The school administration needs to ensure that there are protocols in place to minimize the risk of transmission and protect high risk teachers. Based on all the information I have at this point, I support the decision by the school committee to start the school year with the hybrid plan while also having an all remote option for those who are not comfortable having there children take part in the hybrid plan.
The distance learning academy option segregates all participating students from their peers, the vast majority of whom will likely participate in the hybrid option. I resent the Plan’s choice to split the student body into these two groups, thereby exacerbating the isolation that DLA students are already experiencing since the pandemic emerged. This is a stressful choice foisted upon parents and children alike in families who either have immunocompromised members or remain unconvinced about the safety/viability of the hybrid option. It has the ultimate effect of marginalizing this segment of the community. It is unclear to me why those choosing online-only instruction can’t instead access in-person “hybrid” classes through Zoom or a similar conferencing application, and have teachers respond to online questions at designated times.