Although this letter from president of the Newton Teachers Association has been included in a comment below, it deserves its own thread. It starts this way:
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.
I don’t want to summarize beyond that for fear of leaving out anything. Sorry, but the hyperlinks in the letter don’t seem to work in the version I have. If anyone has them, please add as a comment.
And we trust this group to teach our children science and statistics?
2.9 daily cases per 100,000.
1.05% positivity rate.
This is not something to be afraid of in Newton this week. Maybe things change and we have to adapt.
And no, I would not be going back to school if our metrics looked like Revere’s. But they don’t.
@Donald Ross – different people have different levels of risk tolerance. That doesn’t mean they don’t understand science and statistics. Furthermore, we don’t know what the rates are going to look like once colleges reopen. Many of us are underwhelmed with BC’s plans – and they are in Newton.
Teachers are only being allowed to chose to teach remotely if they or someone they live with are high risk. If they are the only nearby family to a high risk parent who needs help but not live-in, their choices are to teach in person and not see that parent or else take unpaid leave.
BTW, I’m a statistician working on infectious disease clinical trials. I do not believe teachers’ concerns show any ignorance about science and statistics.
If I were a teacher I wouldn’t go in either. The offices where I work as a consultant are all closed and everyone is remote. Regardless, if the schools open, they’ll be closed down in weeks, it will cause a surge in cases, guaranteed.
@Meredith
I agree that no person should feel obligated to do a job that puts them at any health risk that they are uncomfortable with.
If they want to choose unemployment or a different line of work, nobody is stopping them. This pandemic is a buffet of bad choices. Plenty of essential workers have faced the same dilemma for months (and many of them have opted out).
I agree with anybody who says that we don’t know what the future looks like. There may be a surge in cases in the fall – in which case I would fully support pivoting to an all-remote model.
But today? A rate of 2.9:100,000 means that in a sold out Fenway Park, one person per day is testing positive. And that person Is more likely than not to experience mild or no symptoms.
I am not in any way denying the potential for COVID-19 cases to rebound and cause many more deaths. It might happen and we should be prepared to respond accordingly.
Donald, have you been in any of the school buildings? During one of the zoom school Committee meetings, NPS said that not all windows open, nor could we expect all windows to open. While we have a low positivity rate now, most people aren’t in buildings as old as Ward School currently. I would like to see documentation of an HVAC company evaluation’s of the each school building.
Here’s a link to the NTA’s proposal
https://www.newteach.org/nta-proposal
I am entirely sympathetic toward the teachers and staff and very concerned about how college students returning here will impact community infections. I also note that late guidance from both DESE and the Gov. strongly suggested that schools in communities with low numbers, absent extenuating circumstances, should return to full in person education. It was rather unfortunate that DESE and Governor Baker rolled out that guidance days before final reopening plans were due. No matter what the decision, there will be dissatisfied constituencies. And while I fully understand that job of the president of the NTA, this letter is unpersuasive. Demanding that the vote be retracted is political theatre. He had an opportunity to carefully and thoughtfully lay out the objections without resorting to insults. It’s unfortunate for the membership that he wasted what was likely his best opportunity to speak for the members.
It’s good to write a letter when you are angry and get out what you want to say. It’s smart to put that letter aside and then write the letter you want others to read.
@LisaP
Was it not political theatre to release the options to the school Committee hours before they were being asked to vote on them? What about the the parents input? No input required apparently, like it or lump it. What was presented could have been done so months ago, and could of got public input. Shame on NPS!
@Simon-
I don’t know. I certainly wouldn’t want to receive the information with 2 days to a response deadline. The date was moved back, but it certainly put the pressure on. Was it intentional? Given the number of unanswered questions, and that the administration is still planning I doubt it. I suspect that a lot of people have been putting in enormous hours to pull information together in a far less than perfect situation. But to respond by demanding that the committee immediately retract the vote is just silly. Mike Zilles knows that’s not going to happen; the school committee knows that’s not going to happen. I understand he’s posturing but that can be done persuasively. Not so here.
You can’t use a global ( or statewide) statistic with respect to a specific event. Common sense leads me to think that the odds of a superspreader event in a classroom ( which typically has very poor ventilation, no windows, etc.) are much higher than a other typical events, t perhaps for a crowded nightclub.
The opening of in person classroom events will inevitably lead to a spike, which will shut the whole thing down again.
It stinks, but, I believe that’s the most likely scenario. The teachers have every right to be concerned for theirs and their families safety.
Big decisions like these really need to be made after proper planning.
So where does this go from here? The School Committee, relying upon the guidance received from the city’s HHS experts and the state’s experts, adopted a plan that they judged to be sensible and prudent given the low rate of community presence of the virus. The NTA, relying on other factors, disagrees. If the NPS concedes the issue and starts with all-remote learning, the chance that it will eventually move to hybrid is small. The converse, though is possible. If they start with the hybrid plan, it is relatively easy to move to all-remote if the need arises.
What I don’t see is a path to reconciliation of these views as things now stand. And one has to ask, given the strong language of the NTA letter, whether the union is considering some kind of job action to put pressure on the city. That would be illegal. How would such an action–or even the threat of it–be perceived by the community as a whole? LisaP, given the quick concessions made by the School Committee in contract negotiations when a job action was threatened, can we be so sure they would not concede here? With that history and the language the School Committee rapidly agreed to in the April 1 MOA, why wouldn’t the NTA feel they would do likewise here?
While I don’t question concerns about the safety of the hybrid approach, I don’t hear people generally–but especially the Mayor, Superintendent, and School committee members–publicly making the case about the important social and educational setbacks to the children by not being with others in school. They need to squash the kind of point made just above here that to equate this plan–with all of its protections–with being in a crowded nightclub is not right and ignores countervailing child welfare concerns.
That being said, the state could make the whole process more palatable if they provided an investment in regular individual or pooled testing with quick turn-arounds so any presence of the disease could be detected very quickly.
As a NPS teacher for over twenty years, I am appalled by the actions NTA is taking. My colleagues have received calls from NTA encouraging a strike if SC doesn’t change their stance to fully remote. I hope the community supports the SC and encourages them not to give in.
This is the seventh installment of an ongoing campaign intended to demonize teachers and their union; Paul Levy is the author of How a Blog Held Off the Most Powerful Union in America.
My upcoming book, The Highlanders: How a Cheap Blog Was Used to Turn a Wealthy, Liberal, Under-Taxed City Against Its Teachers in Less Than a Year (and How the Same Strategy Can Work for You), will provide step-by-step instructions on how to successfully execute the “agnostic post, toxic comment” strategy we see above, which astute readers may recall from earlier installments of the campaign, most notably Matt Hills: Very tough choices ahead for Newton Public Schools.
As usual, you can bet your bottom dollar that those most vocal about risking the lives of teachers and their loved ones will be the absolute last ones to take any risks with their own health. My upcoming chapter “The Chickenhawks” explores this phenomenon and draws parallels to other events of the last 60 years; it will also evaluate the inevitable, postmortem “intelligence failure” excuse which will be cleverly adapted for the Newton audience in late-2020/early-2021.
Paul,
Excellent Post. I was speaking to a Superintendent of a nearby school district this weekend who has defaulted to remote with the plan to move to hybrid later in the fall based on what the covid situation is at that point. With the currently low covid case numbers and positivity rates in Mass, I asked them what the criteria would be to move to hybrid. The answer was “That’s a good question.” While I understand the concern with going back to in person classes, since the NTA has insisted on a phases approach based on metrics, I would like to hear what their proposed metrics would be for Newton to move from remote to hybrid.
@Newton Teacher,
You are brave for sharing that. Thank you.
@Paul Levy,
I suspect that the current process of negotiating with NTA is subject to, shall I say, more sunshine than when the MOA was signed off on back in April. Here we have had not only a full public vote by the entire committee, but the SC was under a deadline now passed to submit the plan to DESE. I don’t think there’s any way of putting that cat back in the bag no matter how much NTA objects. Perhaps I’m being naive, but the plan is what it is.
Yes, the teachers could attempt an illegal strike… at great cost and risk of termination, loss of benefits, retirement, etc. But as threats go, it is a loser because they will either be ordered back to work by a judge or face termination. Hardly the outcome they seek.
Sadly this entire situation is awful and it is going to stay awful for a long time.
LOL. It’s anonymous hearsay from someone who has never commented here before.
To start with, the planning should have included teachers and nurses. Period. No HHS and state experts know the conditions of the schools, including space and ventilation, as well as the people who work in them. The sharpness of the NTA letter reflects the reaction to this exclusion, which was disrespectful plus showed a lack of understanding that the teachers have important knowledge about things that need to be taken into account.
Boston has just pushed back school opening by a couple of weeks and other districts are starting fully remote for the first couple of weeks. I think that’s a smart move, given that we have good reason to expect rates of infection to worsen once the college students arrive from badly hit states and start gathering together. We don’t know how bad the impact will be, but should have a better idea mid-September.
Meredith – when the state shut down the restaurants, did they consult with the bus boys and dishwashers?
They didn’t because it was a public health decision, so they consulted the State’s doctors and scientists.
Same here.
Back to science. The Time of London reports, based on well-respected epidemiologist Mark Woolhouse, “There has been no recorded case of a teacher catching the coronavirus from a pupil anywhere in the world,”
@Meredith,
I didn’t get to listen to all of the SC meetings (they were quite long), but I seem to recall that there was data related to each room in every building. Frankly, it sounded to me as though the administration got fairly deep into the weeds relative to facilities. I would think that the school maintenance staff would actually be the people with the most knowledge as to what functions, where and how well. I’d want to hear from people who can speak to the whole building, not just the space they know.
As for input from teachers, isn’t that the role of the union? I’m not sure where school nurses come in, though I suspect they are under the umbrella of HHS. But regardless of representation, has their input been excluded? I know that several SC members reported receiving hundreds of emails, and I would expect a fair number came from staff.
Meredith, with respect, we are the third hardest hit state in the country and one of the worst places in the world for virus deaths as a percentage of population. At this point we can’t do any worse than we’ve already done.This idea that young healthy people coming from other states is going to ruin our great response is simply laughable.
If teachers are worried about catching the virus from college kids that best thing they could do for themselves is to avoid college kids. Not kindergartners.
I’m typically a big supporter of the NTA, but not on this issue. If we shouldn’t have any in person teaching with our low numbers right now, then when? It could be years before we have a vaccine. We could never have a vaccine. If we can have half the kids in a classroom with masks and social distancing, we should. I’m not even worried about the academic component, I’m worried about long-lasting mental health effects from children being home 24/7. Not everyone can afford to form a pod.
Mmq,
The timing of in-classroom teaching is quite obvious.
If Biden wins, then November. Else, “some other time”
Let me be blunt:
Hybrid is worthless. It is 2 half days a week. How do you do zoom learning for first and second graders? IEPs will continue to be ignored to a huge degree. Socialization is huge for kids, isolation has real negative side effects.
This hybrid process just insures no one is happy. Teachers and staff still at risk. Kids still not getting educated. And shutdowns to follow as soon as there is an outbreak during the winter.
I feel for the teachers/administrators/staff. I feel for my kids. And I feel for the parents, especially the ones who work two jobs and can’t home school their kids. I feel for the IEP and 504 kids who will be left further behind.
A vaccine is further away than we think. Even if one magically appears by January, it won’t be distributed and effective for months, and not everyone will take it. I’m not even sure I would take it at this point, and I’m a big believer in vaccines.
So where does that leave us? Nowhere. Slogging through months of poor education, overworked parents, stressed out kids, and an even greater societal divide between folks with money and/or time, and folks without either one.
Y’all can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. Hybrid is a bedazzled pig of a plan. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
And yes, I’m being negative, and no, I don’t have a plan or better solution.
@fignewtonville
We are on the exact same page on this one!
@Patrick Moriarty – I’m stunned that you are comparing teachers to busboys and dishwashers!
@Jeffrey Pontiff – absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Furthermore, by now there have been outbreaks that included both adults and school kids in schools in a variety of countries. There is not way to determine the direction of contagion of every one of those cases.
@Lisap – you asked “As for input from teachers, isn’t that the role of the union?” It would be if they’d been allowed to participate in the planning. From what I understand, they were excluded.
@Craig – you wrote “we are the third hardest hit state in the country.” This is absolutely not currently true. Our rates of hospitalizations, positive tests, etc. are way lower than those in places like Arizona and Florida. Why do you think Gov. Baker has placed quarantine requirements on visitors from most other states? As to “If teachers are worried about catching the virus from college kids” – that’s an absurd statement. The concern is college kids bringing the coronavirus into the community when they go to stores or restaurants or in-person classes where they’re teachers (who are community members) can get infected. Community spread isn’t limited to catching the virus from the person who originally brings it from out of state.
Reminder to those quoting “scientists” at me. I’m a scientist working in infectious disease clinical trials. Some scientists are providing excellent advice. Some are not (to put it kindly). Currently, the ones saying it’s safe to restart school are in the minority. Others are saying the hybrid model is the least safe.
@Meredith – Why? Are those not employees familiar with the operations of their organization?
@Meredith,
Thanks for the response. I reviewed the Power Point which Zilles referenced; it is my understanding that it is a summary of what NTA presented to the district, and while just a summary there is certainly some overlap between the plan that was adopted and what NTA proposed. The power point also noted areas where NTA’s suggestions were not adopted. Hence, I concluded that their input was received and reviewed as part of the overall process. Also, as there doesn’t appear to be any updated MOA, I would infer that negotiations are still underway.
The last page of the power point identifies specific areas where NTA believes that negotiations must continue. If that is so, then – as Paul Levy noted in his post above, it is difficult to imagine a path forward to reconciliation and continued negotiations with the stance set forth by Zilles.
@Meredith
In your professional opinion, how long is it likely to take for development and deployment of a vaccine that has equivalent efficacy to what we have currently achieved with social distancing (2.9 daily cases per 100,000 and 1.05% positivity rate)?
My bet (acknowledging that you know far more about this than I do) is that it is likely a multi-year effort to achieve these outcomes via vaccine. And I would prefer that my 8 year old not be sent off to high school with a second grade education.
If the argument was: look case rates are down, but we have these crazy BC kids moving back into the neighborhood, and we just want to make sure that doesn’t upset the apple cart before we go back to school, I could understand that. But if – based on science – we don’t think it’s safe to go back to school with the current case rates…when will it be safe? What will the metrics be when we feel OK?
If we’re waiting for total eradication…I don’t think we’ll see that in any of our lifetimes.
@Meredith, because we already killed off our most vulnerable at a rate that is double Florida and triple Arizona, our deaths have now tailed off. However in order for us to achieve our shameful death stats, we very obviously had case rates before widepsread, extensive testing that were many, many times higher than the states you hate so much.
The store clerk that you are worried about exposing to covid via a healthy college kid has already been exposed many times over.
Until there is a vaccine, every change in opening status and every movement of people throughout the country will bring certain risks. Cancelling education for the entire state due to college kids that likely already had and recovered from covid (college kids have been hanging out in groups for MONTHS all over the country) is simply insane.
Anyway, you lost and the teachers union lost. Our kids are going to school.
I have significant concerns about the NPS ventilation plan, and NPS’s dismissal of the potential for safe outdoor teaching and/or learning as an alternative to risky indoor teaching/learning.
The ventilation plan is inadequate, with no verification/validation plan. Indoor CO2 measurements are an inexpensive and simple way to test for stale air. If NPS is confident in its plan it should buy several of these handheld CO2 meters and allow teachers to test room air. The MA Dept of Public Health and OSHA have guidelines for acceptable levels of CO2. I have a handheld meter I can loan to any teacher or the teacher’s union.
A good alternative is outdoor teaching/learning, or at least an outdoor learning option for students, but the NPS seems to dismiss surmountable challenges. The FAQ for the hybrid model states:
“Are you considering any options for increased time outdoors – outdoor classrooms, outdoor snack and/or lunch?
Yes. The Newton Public Schools rented outdoor canopies as multi-purpose spaces for this fall. We anticipate the spaces will be used for mask breaks, snacks, and movement breaks. It is more difficult to move actual instruction outside given allergies, classroom materials, and WiFi. However, the canopies will be useful to give students space to move outdoors.”
While students with allergies should have choices about what the best learning environment is, students & families with concerns about indoor COVID transmission should also be able to choose where to learn from. Students safely distanced outdoors could concurrently connect to indoor classrooms via zoom. WIFI boosters are easily installed. Parking can be shifted to open lots; walking and biking can reduce parking demand; and parking lot solar canopies can provide rain/sun cover as needed. Umbrellas, folding beach chairs, and rain gear will also help. Parent chaperones could help with outdoor classrooms.
“Schools beat earlier plagues with outdoor classes. We should, too.”:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/nyregion/coronavirus-nyc-schools-reopening-outdoors.html
Nathan, I love your creative ideas.
I completely agree with Nathan.
To those asking about time to an effective vaccine, the answer is I don’t know – might be a few months, might be much longer (I work in HIV, which hasn’t managed it in decades of searching). But I also know we’re also looking for effective treatments, and I’m hopeful that will bear fruit.
@Craig – (1) I don’t hate any states. I am very concerned about the high rates of COVID-19 in several. (2) We certainly have not “killed off” all our vulnerable citizens – that’s obvious by continuing high rates of contagion in some places in MA (see the state infection map for those colored red or yellow).
Yes, it’s possible it won’t be safe for most of this school year. I know the current situation sucks, but I’m not willing to bet staff and student and family lives on rushing to reopen before it’s safe.
@ NewtonTeacher: While I respect that you have a different point of view, and appreciate you sharing it, the public should also know that you are very much in the minority and certainly don’t speak for most educators. Survey results showed that 80% of us in the NTA membership prefer a safe, remote start with phased return to the buildings. I also disagree with you completely re: encouraging the SC “not to give in.” That language feeds into a false and unnecessary antagonistic relationship between the leadership and those who serve Newton’s children. This isn’t about pitting teachers vs. parents, or School Committee vs. union. With all due respect to the general anti-union stance of Mr. Pontiff, Mr. Levy, or anyone else on this blog, I think many people somehow conceive of “The Union” as some grand entity separate from the individuals who comprise it – educators who have their families, some in Newton itself (at least those who can afford to live here; I rent an apartment in Newtonville).
We have our own at-risk family members who help take care of our kids, and whom (in my case) we’d put at great risk. The us vs. them mentality is poisonous, and regardless of what people think about the semantics of the NTA open letter, this is fundamentally about safety for students and staff, and using common sense.
@Craig: I would argue we’re all losing, and students especially so.
@Meredith: thank you for making it clear that there is not in fact consensus around school reopening among medical and scientific experts, despite some claims I’ve seen to the contrary. While I thank Dr. Wallensky and Dr. Jha for taking the time to present to us, they, like many other folks who have posted on this blog, have made false comparisons between their own workplaces and schools.
They are greatly respected experts in their fields, and rightfully so. But NPS educators are experts in our fields and actually understand our own buildings and student behavior. The doctors stated that proper mask wearing is the answer; I’ve taught adolescents for over 15 years, 13 at NNHS, and know that this unfortunately isn’t reality. I think the most accomplished epidemiologists in the world would have to understand that educators might take issue with the basic premise of a presentation advocating for school reopening predicated on ventilation being up to par, students fully complying with wearing masks and social distancing at all times.
My walks around Newtonville would indicate that many adults struggle with this, and we’re assuming middle schoolers will do better? This is magical thinking. And we’re trusting NPS that the buildings will be fine? I’m lucky to be at ten-year old NNHS, as opposed to some of my colleagues that work in substandard facilities with little ventilation. Even in our wonderful building, many classrooms are missing window cranks and bathrooms that regularly lack adequate soap, paper towels, and toilet paper.
NPS cherry picked specialists who support their position as opposed to bringing in anyone with an opposing point of view; indeed, Dr. Jha has been quite forthcoming in saying many of his colleagues think he’s too optimistic, and is on one end of the spectrum)
Educators work with actual (young and developing) human beings. They’re awesome and I love them, but we can’t reasonably expect them to always do the right things, a reality check the students reps repeatedly tried to give the SC despite being ignored.
Re: surveys –
Newton parents understandably struggled with the NPS survey, given the vague promises, minimal information, and impossible choices you’ve been given. I and I’m sure all NPS educators certainly empathize as we’re struggling with our own survey, and those same issues, as well.
The NPS HR staff survey is due today at 5pm, and I have yet to receive a response to my email inquiry. In the spirit of fostering informed understanding and discussion of the issues involved, I’m posting the content of that email below.
As of now, while students and families can opt out of in-school education, we effectively cannot. If signing up to teach remotely in the DLA was an option granted to us (…it wasn’t…), I’d sign up in a heartbeat, as would many of my colleagues. In that case, high school students would have their actual teachers – qualified, professional teachers – instead of the outrageous outsourcing (at the high school level) and unknowns families currently face.
Transparency has been sorely lacking in the school reopening process and I think the community should be aware of what is really being asked of staff (excerpts of survey copied at the bottom).
Please also read press releases and reports about this process with a very, very critical eye. For instance, Mayor Fuller laid out the following claims in her 8/14 newsletter (my responses follow):
– “[We’re] making accommodations for our teachers and staff…” Only if we ourselves are high risk for COVID-19, not if we have vulnerable family members with whom we don’t reside, which describes many educators’ situations.
– “The educators at the Newton Public Schools and the Newton School Committee adopted this model” …No, we most certainly did not…some administrators does not = “educators.” 80% of educators were in favor of starting remote with a sensible, phased return. Teams of educators worked hard only for NPS to present a plan that bore very little resemblance to what they put together.
– “…Paying close attention to the input of our families, teachers and students” No, they did not. No one has responded to any of my messages, other than one message I received back from the SC Chairperson saying “I’m going to punt this one over to the NPS team since I’ve been on email for way too many hours today with parent emails.” It’s painfully evident which stakeholders matter, and follow-up…I never heard back from anyone else. Moreover, educators on planning committees had nothing to do with the actual hybrid model that NPS recommended and that the SC approved on Friday. From a colleague who was actually on one of these committees:
-“I feel like the work we did on the academic committee is so divorced from the plans that have been proposed. There were sub-committees for instructional design, learning template, executive function skills, SEL support, community building and advisory, communication procedures, feedback/grading, and extracurriculars. We were working under the assumption that these procedures we created would be applicable in any model – remote, hybrid, or in-person. But I don’t see much of this work in the final Return to Learn Blueprint. We did NOT have a hand in any of the operational and safety plans or in the decision about the different DLA and hybrid models. We also did NOT have a hand in crafting the schedule at all – only giving feedback on different proposed models. Earlier in July, we evaluated completely different schedules. We only saw and gave feedback for the final hybrid schedule on the last day we met, and the overall sentiment was that there were major issues with it, especially with the live afternoon sessions. If I recall correctly, the “Delta’s” column for that was far longer than the “plusses” we had. And yet that is the model they went with! Argh!
– “Extensive health and safety policies and procedures will be in place in the school buildings…” We have no guarantees or specifics on anything, just vague promises. Mandatory testing? Contract tracing? Independent assessment of HVAC systems in every school building? No answers.
– “Let’s be supportive of each other in the days ahead as empathy and kindness will be an essential antidote to the anxiety and trepidation…” Our anxiety and trepidation will be alleviated not by platitudes and comforting words, but by competent leadership, administrative transparency, and demonstrable commitment to student and staff safety.
I hope people will continue to demand answers and not be fooled by the nice-sounding yet meaningless words, disingenuous claims, and often blatant mischaracterizations.
I can certainly understand it if families look at the situation and say “Well, it’s not great, but the kids need to be back in school for social-emotional connection and some in-person education HAS to be better than remote.” I empathize 100%, but would encourage you to check out both what I’ve written previously (https://village14.com/2020/08/11/open-letter-to-nps-from-newton-teacher/) and a colleague’s excellent presentation as to why the NPS hybrid model is pedagogically unworkable and unsound (https://www.loom.com/share/3b416984c45f4e21b141ee4bbb03c648?fbclid=IwAR25RX0D2neZ27J_wYa5FU8tDMLboz7jU6EgojcZsGOYB11VZVp5Sd4DGW4).
Here’s a plan that actually makes some sense: https://www.brookline.k12.ma.us/cms/lib/MA01907509/Centricity/Domain/25/PSB%202020-21%20Reopening%20Blueprint%20FINAL.pdf
Contrast Interim (and former Newton) Superintendent Jimmy Marini’s explanation with the one we’ve received.
——————————————————–
To the NPS Leadership, Human Resources Department, and School Committee,
While I fully plan on answering your “Return to Learn Fall 2020 Staff Inquiry” by Tuesday 5pm 8/18, I’m struggling with it because the options as currently presented are insufficient and the language of the survey itself is problematic. I’m glad HR is interested in obtaining essential information about childcare. However, the rest of the survey neglects the myriad needs and concerns that faculty and staff have continued to raise in this process:
The language seems to imply that faculty/staff are either “ABLE” or “UNABLE” to come to work, without recognizing that many of us, while physically able ourselves, are unable to because of external circumstances. The manner in which the survey is written denies the reality of numerous environmental factors that contribute to our “ability” to return to the buildings. In other words, it should be a question of possibility, not “ability.”
Given the way the survey is written, faculty and staff are being forced to make the impossible decision of either taking care of our loved ones and losing a paycheck, or maintaining our paycheck and being unable to care for those for whom we are responsible. The Unpaid Leave “option” would be untenable for most faculty/staff during normal times, but during a pandemic, it is unthinkable.
For example, although the “Unable” option is provided, the parenthetical language is exclusionary of people like me, who take care of at-risk family members who do not currently reside with us, but for whom we care regularly. The current occupancy of our household should not be considered as a factor, because it is irrelevant to the obligations we have. NPS employees should have the same accommodations as anyone who currently resides with a compromised family member. Please consider revising to state “…a family member for whom I must provide care” and eliminate the residential qualification.
For faculty/staff in positions like mine, why does the survey not include an option for us to teach remotely those students whose families are opting for remote education? Why is there no reference to the Distance Learning Academy?
Where is the option for faculty/staff who have childcare issues and a family member who is high risk? Will they be forced to choose between those options?
Despite the SC’s approval of the hybrid plan proposed, this faculty/staff survey does not take into account concerns about safety protocols, current status of building ventilation, mask and PPE policy, testing and tracing. I can imagine that just as many parents would feel uncomfortable answering the survey sent to them because of inadequate information that prevents informed decision-making, so too would many of my NPS faculty/staff colleagues feel uncomfortable answering this survey as written.
Last, given the concerns about a lack of transparency expressed during the past week’s SC office hours and multiple meetings, how and when do you plan on publicizing the content of this survey in anonymous, aggregate form?
While I appreciate the intent of the survey and the need to gather this information, it is unreasonable to expect NPS staff to make this critically important decision, not even knowing if it’s in fact binding, with such limited information. I still responded to the survey, but these concerns need to be addressed, and quickly, if NPS is expecting responses by Tuesday 8/18. Revising the survey appropriately and giving clear, precise responses to faculty and staff questions is the least the district could do after excluding us from the process and (with the exception of those few who acknowledged and took seriously the concerns of parents, students, and staff) continuing to ignore and dismiss our concerns.
Best,
David Bedar
History Teacher, NNHS
From NPS HR survey:
“The Newton Public Schools School Committee voted to approve the Hybrid Model in our Return to Learn plan. Are you ABLE or UNABLE to return in-person this fall? Please note that if you select that you are UNABLE you will be required to provide additional documentation and/or information. *
ABLE
ABLE (I am not at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 and do not live with a family member with increased risk) but I do not currently have childcare.
ABLE, but for personal reasons I am officially requesting an Unpaid Leave for the 20-21 SY pursuant to the CBA. I understand that approval of my request is not guaranteed.
UNABLE (because I, or a family member with whom I reside, am at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19)
Why are you unable to return in-person this fall? Please select all that apply. (Please note that if you have increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 or reside with a family member that has increased risk you must also complete and submit the following form to Human Resources, with supporting medical documentation. NPS Accommodation Request form: https://drive.google.com/…/1BckXjo-4xhFRpm22oBihvfWOnc…/view
I have a medical condition or am age 65 or older that puts me at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 as defined by the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/…/n…/people-with-medical-conditions.html)
I reside with a family member who has a medical condition that puts them at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 as defined by the CDC. (Please note that this is distinct from being a caretaker but not residing with a family member with increased risk)”
It’s really odd to be accused of an anti-union stance, David Bedar. One can disagree with a union without being “anti-union.” Likewise, one can agree with a union without be “pro-union.”
I can’t think of anything I’ve said with regard to the issue of re-opening the schools that is indicative of animosity towards the NTA. In particular, I have been clear, for example, about the need to protect at-risk teachers when the MOA is signed. Meanwhile, I have been publicly very supportive of the school nurses union in their contract negotiation.
On this thread, above, I’ve offered an analysis of the possible negotiation posture of the parties. Read it again and tell me what is “anti-union” in that summary.
The family is the one challenged here, and the proposed structure fails to address families that NEED to send their kids to school for family income needs. The School Department and the Adminstration acknowledge this need, as they have a proposed plan to accomodate only the children of teachers by allowing their children to go to school fulltime so that the teachers can work in peace? What about the families that would like the same accomodation? Let the science rule here, there is little to no Covid in Newton and the basic fact that the Newton Schools were open up until the 2nd week of March. The period of time that was deemed the worst leading up to the peak, and still there were no Covid positives?
Families that have to work should be offered the same accomodations as the teachers, so that they too can keep their jobs. There is no additonal Covid unemployment funds going into September!!
OMG, too funny.
The hybrid plan is a travesty because the plan is incomplete and is pedagogically problematic (see my post at https://village14.com/2020/08/11/nps-plans-only-the-fully-remote-model-is-complete/).
The NPS SC has voted to risk the health and lives of students and their families and also teachers and their families for ZERO curriculum instruction. This information came out at the Friday Aug 14 SC meeting during the Q&A before the SC vote. One of the student representatives asked an excellent question about how teachers will conduct afternoon remote instructional sessions when half the students (cohort A) had instruction in the morning and half (cohort B) did not. In response, Toby Romer (Asst Supt for Secondary Ed) said that teachers would be able to conduct the afternoon remote instruction because both cohorts would be in the same place since the morning sessions will be devoted to community building. In other words, the plan is to NOT cover curriculum in the morning in-person sessions. That may be the best use of in-person time for elementary students, but it most definitely is not for high school students.
Based on my understanding of the epidemiological models (I am a social scientist, not a medical scientist), I think it very unlikely that NPS is going to be able to stay in the hybrid model for more than two or four weeks, when I expect that there will be too many students and teachers who cannot come in due to quarantine or that one or more deaths will occur. I pray it’s the former rather than the latter, but the decision to go forward with such an incomplete plan is, in my opinion, criminally irresponsible.
The DLA option is even worse, because it is nonexistent. There is a lot of language about goals and hopes and expectations and nothing substantive about what it will be. And as teacher David Bedar says above, NPS is not offering teachers the option to teach in DLA, so it almost certainly ensures that students who opt for it will get stuck with commercial vendors. (Romer mentioned Edgenuity, which has bad reviews online.)
I fully agree with the NTA’s objections, and I would support a teacher strike. I believe they have ample cause.
@Melissa Brown,
By statute in Massachusetts, public employees are not allowed to strike nor are they allowed to encourage the illegal action of engaging other public employees to engage in a strike. Period. I expect any coordinated union action in that direction would be met by swift legal intervention.
Well, that wasn’t my most concise post. So, here is the actual language of the statute with a link:
Section 9A: Strikes prohibited; investigation; enforcement proceedings
Section 9A. (a) No public employee or employee organization shall engage in a strike, and no public employee or employee organization shall induce, encourage or condone any strike, work stoppage, slowdown or withholding of services by such public employees.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter150e/Section9a#:~:text=Section%209A%3A%20Strikes%20prohibited%3B%20investigation%3B%20enforcement%20proceedings,-Section%209A.&text=(a)%20No%20public%20employee%20or,services%20by%20such%20public%20employees.
@Lisap: I’m not a public employee.
I’m expressing my personal opinion that the teachers’ union is morally justified to strike.
@Melissa Brown,
Understood. And I am stating the plain legal conclusion – based upon Massachusetts law — that it is unlawful for Newton public school teachers to strike. Further, under the statute I referenced, it is also unlawful for the NTA to encourage its members to strike.
I’m almost convinced that there are people in Newton hoping that there will be an outbreak in NPS so they can pat themselves on the back for being anti-in-person. MA daycares and summer camps have been operating for months and safely. Look right here in Newton at our local daycares, the Y, and Boys and Girls Club.
I also have a feeling that goalposts will continue to be moved. A few weeks ago when our numbers were at about 2% people were saying that we can’t reopen with numbers like that. Now our numbers have declined, but that still isn’t good enough. We can’t have kids stay home for years. We don’t know when this will end. It might not be eradicated in our lifetimes.
I’d be horrified if we reopened at full capacity. But we can’t keep the kids all virtual indefinitely. We’d be scarring a generation. We need to reopen our schools in some form. The science supports this.
Also – for people who say that kids won’t really be socializing because of the distance, I know many parents who sent their kids to camps, myself included, whose kids had fulfilling social interactions including sports and games even masked and socially distanced.
Lisap, you are right about the law with regard to public employees and work actions, but the goal here would be unlikely to take a work action so much as to threaten it. Look back to November 2019 for an example. See https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2019/11/12/newton-teachers-union-having-conversations-about-striking-amid-contract-negotiations. And, if it does come to a work action, see the mild slap on the wrist applied to the Dedham teachers when they went on strike, and note how many elected officials praised the union for its actions.
But let’s think more broadly about the overall situation at this point. While the state and the School Committee have favored a partial reopening of the schools, based on the science and their desire to allow parents some chance to go back to work, you don’t hear much from either the state or local elected officials framing the issue in a way that is compelling.
Meanwhile others, like the NTA and some parents, tend to emphasize the risks of the hybrid plan. In a public discussion of risk, the downsides always seem more compelling than the upsides. What you don’t hear much about in this situation are the social and educational risks to the children of not attending school.
Further, the wealthier people in the city have already started to make alternative plans for their children so the parents can do their work. Some have nannies. Many are hiring part-time teachers and other specialists to offer educational enhancement to their children. A large number are “podding” with similarly situated families in their neighborhoods. Having made those arrangements, they have become divested from the issue. Meanwhile, those families with fewer resources and options sit waiting for the City to make its final plan so they can figure out how to manage their days and make a living. If they are lucky, they have a grandparent available to help out.
So, there is a social justice issue that’s been hiding in the background. Do we set aside our best judgment as to what is best for children and working families, or do we engage in a low-risk strategy that will tend to aggravate the learning gap between wealthy and less wealthy? At other times, Newton officials and the public have made clear their desire to reduce achievement gaps based on socio-economic status. Here, our public officials and advocates have been silent on exactly that issue.
“Do we set aside our best judgment as to what is best for children and working families, or do we engage in a low-risk strategy that will tend to aggravate the learning gap between wealthy and less wealthy?”
If “we” want to do what’s best for children and working families, I think one should ask them, rather than claim to speak for them:
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/if-opening-schools-is-about-equity-why-arent-we-listening-to-those-most-impacted-a1ca6fab8506
The impacts of disease are amplified in families living with other forms of insecurity, and putting their children and households at greater risk of contracting COVID-19.
As for the gaps that will be exacerbated in Newton itself – I’d recommend you go back and listen to what Tamika O. had to say about the “equity” of the NPS/SC plan.
@MMCQ: I am shocked that you think there could be anyone “hoping that there will be an outbreak in NPS so they can pat themselves on the back for being anti-in-person.” You say, “We need to reopen our schools in some form. The science supports this.” I think you are mistaken, based on my own reading of the science and based on the recommendations of medical science experts that I have listened to and read. Instead, I think that the science strongly indicates that the type of return that NPS is planning will bring higher transmission rates, and higher transmission rates will necessarily increase the risks for serious illness and deaths.
Too many people are confused about the science. There has been so much fake news in this country, starting from the tobacco companies funding bad studies to undermine public confidence in the scientific studies showing that smoking causes cancer. The fossil fuel companies have similarly promoted fake news to undermine the scientific evidence showing anthropogenic climate change. Now we routinely have fake news about CoVid19 transmission, and because of Trump’s pressure, it’s not clear that current CDC guidelines for reopening schools are actually adequate (https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/07/28/democratic-lawmakers-probing-whether-cdc-guidelines-reopening-schools-were-influenced-by-political-pressure/).
To see the perspective of people worried about the safety of the NPS hybrid plan, consider just one basic part of the means for controlling the transmission. At the SC meeting on Aug 14, Ruth Goldman emphasized that the doctors they brought in to speak to staff said that with social distancing, mask wearing, testing, and contact tracing, it is possible to control the transmission of the virus. But NPS is only proposing to do two of those four things, so NPS is not actually following the advice of its self-admittedly optimistic and aggressive medical advisors. This failure is just one reason that I think this particular hybrid model is a disaster waiting to happen, especially when you add to it the many concerns about poor ventilation and the extent to which social distancing and mask wearing will/can actually be enforced.
@Paul Levy: You are right that equity is an issue for serious concern. But equity is a concern in the hybrid model too, as SC member Tamika Olszewski pointed out when she explained her vote against beginning with that hybrid model. She was not silent! And she had too many concerns over the proposed NPS hybrid model to allow her to vote for it as the way to start the school year.
Sadly, most SC members either did not take her concerns sufficiently seriously or else they think that by some miracle the NPS administrative teams that worked so hard for four months yet left many fundamental things unaddressed (such as the Distance Learning Academy) are going to somehow be able to resolve all those gaps in the next four weeks. Every single one of the SC members who voted for hybrid said that they trust/expect NPS to resolve the many remaining problems before Sept 16. But those expectations are not realistic.
Guys,
Before anyone wears their keyboard out, let’s remember that this issue has been decided and is over. We are going back to school. Strikes are illegal. The public health authority has given guidance and the democratic committee has voted. See you in a few weeks!
Donald and Paul,
What goes on in Newton stays in Newton. The virus isn’t confined by town, city, county, or state lines.
Michael and Dave,
Paul is not inviting unions over for drinks, dinner, and dessert in front of a fire on Saturday night. His history and actions speak to this.
Paul stated, “And one has to ask, given the strong language of the NTA letter, whether the union is considering some kind of job action to put pressure on the city. That would be illegal.” Is there is glitch seeing that this could conceivably fall under working conditions? Lastly, Paul, what are your feelings about corporations? They lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, deceive, act immorally, and the list in marathon long. They do whatever they fancy. Do you take umbrage with the fact that this great nation is a corpocracy?
The HR department sent out a survey to NPS employees who are essential caregivers for family members but do not live in their household in an untenable situation. The solution is quite obvious. Simply change the wording in the 4th section of the survey (listed above under UNABLE) from “… with whom I reside…” to “…or a family member for whom I must provide essential caregiving…”.
You then take the cohort of teachers and staff in this category and put them into the DLA. The DLA then has a cohort of strong NPS teachers and it can be developed into a robust program using much of the summer committee work.
The parents would then choose the model best suited for their families, without feeling like they are being shunted aside, neglected, or worse, de facto being forced into the hybrid when their families cannot safely choose this plan. As we all know, many students live with people in high risk categories and these families are experiencing extreme anxiety over this choice/decision.
There is no reason for this level of anxiety, confusion, and rising anger. Develop two robust arms, taught by two cohorts of NPS teachers. Do it now and end the angst that’s gripping the Newton Public Schools.
@ David Bedar: There has been an email circulating in the community that I would like your comment on. It is addressed from the president of NTA to its members. The email begins by thanking members for attending the high school debriefing session. Then this paragraph:
A word of caution. There were a number of members who were urging we engage in a collective action: that when the district asks members to report whether they will need accommodations or leave this fall, that we ALL report we are at high risk for returning to in school instruction.
The email goes on to urge members not to take this course, but I’m curious how prevalent this type of attitude / behavior is among members.
David and Melissa, I was not addressing racial issues. I was talking about what we already see happening between people with different levels of wealth in Newton, irrespective of race. In essence, you are arguing that the phenomenon I see happening doesn’t rise to a high enough level of concern that it should affect how the schools reopen. We clearly disagree.
As I listened to Tamika’s thoughtful presentation, I found it focused a lot on the Metco program, about 400 students out of almost 13,000 in the district. She made some excellent points, and they deserve attention and additional planning by the NPS. We can disagree on whether they are sufficiently difficult to solve that the entire school population should be on a remote basis rather than a hybrid basis.
As I look at the article cited by David citing attitudes on this issue among low income people and Black and Latinx people, I see those are based on statewide, not Newton, surveys correlated to race and income. There is a smaller percentage of total population in Newton that are of lower income than in the state as a whole, and also a smaller percentage of Black and Latinx. Whether they would have the same opinions as the article presents is not known.
Sorry – shouldn’t write late at night. The first lin should have read “The HR department sent out a survey to NPS employees that put those who are essential caregivers for family members but do not live in their household in an untenable situation.”
I don’t actually see the relevance of surveys conducted in June when NPS is presently conducting the most important survey right now – asking families to choose among the plans. In short order, the district will have real numbers to work with. How many families are willing to send children to school on a hybrid plan will no longer be an academic exercise. We may see that there are very few families willing to do so, or that a great many choose in person education.
@Paul Levy,
I’m not sure how Dedham serves as a bench mark and not just a one off. When last I checked, 70% of responding school districts intend to offer hybrid education. A small number (those in red zones per the Commonwealth’s map) are choosing full remote and there were still some districts whose plans weren’t reported. Organized union action – particularly in a large district- could lead to similar actions in other districts, especially if supported statewide by the Mass Teachers Union. I wouldn’t be willing to bet on a tap on the wrist in that case, but JMHO.
Lastly, I fully agree that teachers who are essential caregivers for vulnerable family should have the option to teach remotely. The city should drop the qualifier of shared residence.
Thank you, Lisap. It’s simply horrifying that the system is requiring educators to make this choice. Do they not realize that employees juggle personal and professional responsibilities all the time? The game changed is a pandemic that would present people from carrying out these responsibilities when there’s an alternative that would enable every Newton student is taught by a Newton teacher.
@Paul:
Please don’t mischaracterize my position. What I am saying—and I understood Tamika Olszewski to be saying it too—is that there is a greater health and safety equity risk for lower-wealth people forced to send their kids to NPS’s incomplete and currently inadequate plan. One SC member, I think it was Margaret Albright, referred on Aug 14 to seeing “if it works”—meaning if the hybrid plan works. Talk about an inequitable experiment! I’ve sat on university human-subjects review committees reviewing research studies conducted with human beings, and no committee I sat on would have approved this experiment!
The inequity to health and life does not exist if the entire district is fully remote. There are inequities in the fully remote plan, many due to access to technology, but NPS actually made substantial efforts to address that access. I think the inequity to health and life is more immediately pressing than the inequities in the fully remote model.
As for your apparent fear that if NPS were to go fully remote then wealthier parents will pull their kids out of the district in favor of privately hired teachers for small “pods,” I don’t share your view that pods will educate as well as public schools, even with the public schools working fully remotely.
I think the misguided idea that parents are qualified to determine a full-year academic curriculum and to hire and manage one or more teachers to carry out that curriculum comes from a stereotype that still circulates widely in the US of teachers as moms working a secondary job on the side to supplement a husband’s primary income. Because US public school teachers for many generations were women, there has long been a presumption that “anyone” can do their jobs. This is sexism, and we need to be anti-sexists as well as anti-racists.
Teaching is hard work requiring professional training. In my opinion, pods are very unlikely to produce strong educational programs because teachers who are certified and experienced in that training already have jobs in public or private schools. The inequities you are raising have already happened: parents and teachers who had the means to migrate to private schools have already done it over the summer. But the kind of inequity from the wealthiest parents sending their kids to private school has always been an issue in Newton.
@Lisap:
That so-called survey is political theatre. Parents were supposed to “choose” the hybrid option—which is the default learning model for the district as chosen by the superintendent & SC—or we were supposed to “choose” to commit our student for at least a month, and according to remarks at the SC meeting probably for at least an entire semester, to a completely unknown and as-yet-unplanned program. That’s not choice; it’s a political ploy to be able to claim to the NTA that so many parents “chose” hybrid.
And the communication tactics used to pressure parents were particularly offensive. The NPS FAQs sent to parents about the survey imply that parents who failed to respond to the survey would have their student unenrolled by NPS. After several consultations, I am sure that such unenrollment is not legal, but the implied threat makes clear the kind of retaliation that NPS administration is willing to inflict to pretend that most parents actually want hybrid.
So when you read Fleishman touting whatever numbers he gets for hybrid, remember that those numbers were coerced and thus cannot be reasonably viewed as accurately reflecting parental choice. If Fleishman really wanted to know parental preferences, he could have sent out a survey the day he released the models and asked our preference in a non-binding way. Fleishman didn’t do it that way, so it’s clear that the NPS central administration is really not interested in knowing parental preferences. It’s a ploy.
Teachers unions can’t strike in Mass? Legal, schmeagal
https://www.enterprisenews.com/news/20191025/dedham-teachers-go-on-strike-state-says-its-illegal
So they pay some fines. What tf good is a union if you can’t go on strike anyways.
More power to our “essential workers”, who, unlike police and fire fighters, didn’t volunteer for a job with life threatening consequences. Of course, then there’s the school shootings they have to worry about – but still.
Teachers want to strike? I say go for it and I’ll support them. Opening the schools is just beyond common sense. It’s going to endanger everyone. We can survive another sucky year or even 2. We will survive. Many thousand WONT survive if we do something dumb and open up the Petri dishes of infections that are our public schools.
Just to follow up, we can’t even get rid of HEAD LICE in our elementary schools ( believe me I picked a LOT of nits out of kids hair).
And we think the corona virus isn’t going to spread like crazy?
I’ve got some hydrocllorooxy whatever it is I can sell you…
@Melissa Brown,
You’ve written that you work in biostatistics I believe, and yet you also have taken issue with the pedagogical soundness of the district’s plans. You also suggest, and I am paraphrasing, that parents who opt out don’t have the wherewithal to create an educationally sound program for their children (though I would note that to home school, parents are required to submit a plan to the district for review and approval, and for years there has been a robust home schooling community.) Since you’ve been very clear about your background which is quite impressive but in the social sciences, I’m curious what you base your pedagogical criticisms upon?
And no, I don’t believe that students can be unenrolled if parents fail to respond to the placement survey. The district may make the assignment for the parent, and it would make sense that the default would be in school.
@Rick Frank-
Yes, saw that. Legal schmeagle isn’t a doctrine I’m familiar with. I can’t condone or encourage illegal actions which may well result in people losing their jobs, benefits and retirement. If a majority of parents share the view that sending their children to school is too risky, insufficient, confusing, etc., we may see a much smaller in person cohort. And presumably, that would mean classrooms that are less than ideal may be avoided and perhaps outdoor teaching would be a reality.
Firstly, I am an NPS teacher and I do not feel comfortable on this particular forum sharing my name. I don’t think that matters in the message I want to send.
I just wanted to share that there is a Facebook group made of newton teachers and parents that is sharing information. It’s called Parents, Educators, NPS Staff and Students in Support of Newton Schools. There’s a lot of first person information there and you can ask people directly if you have questions about Mike Zilles’ email and why he is so passionate in his response. You can also talk to other parents about making the hard choice between hybrid and remote. I encourage you to check it out and share it with other parents so that we can all share accurate information.
Teachers who were on committees this summer are sharing first hand accounts of how their work and input was, in fact, largely ignored. I can tell you first hand that Dr. Fleishman told teachers at an information session a week before the school committee voted that he believed they would likely vote for a remote learning plan and had consistently been sending the message all summer that remote was likely the plan. The day of the vote, he sent an email to all faculty and staff saying that he was, in fact, going to advocate for a hybrid model and proceeded to attach a lengthy (clearly worked upon for weeks) document outlining a hybrid model that largely ignored the well thought out and (in my opinion as an educator, a better) hybrid plan that was presented by the NTA. This plan laid out by Dr. Fleishman was presented as having the weight of the NPS behind it, when in reality it was created by a select few people with little input from teachers.
The NTA plan was made by teachers however and accounted for many of the safety and logistical issues for staff and students that the NPS one has not addressed. Furthermore, the NTA has been asking safety and protocol questions since July in the form of formal requests through the bargaining table, google forms during NPS/NTA general meetings, and email. None of those questions have ever been answered nor are they addressed in the plan released by NPS.
As an educator, the continued lack of input we have had is scary. The fact that it is being presented as if we have had that input is scary. The lack of response to our concerns and questions is scary. The fact that we have had to fill out a survey asking if we are can teach in person or not and the survey itself only asked are you healthy to teach or not, and not which mode are you able to do and what concern do you have, is scary.
We have a hybrid schedule that makes no sense for students or teachers or in light of the safety protocols needed. We have no idea what students and educators will look like in-person or remotely because these are all still “being worked out” and plans will be made “by each individual building administration.” When? How? They’ve had months to find these solutions and at the final hour, still have none.
The union isn’t arguing so vehemently because we like to argue and are selfish. We’re arguing because we fear for the safety of every person entering the schools and connected with the schools. We fear the lack of transparency and the lack of progress on these matters. And it is frankly very typical of NPS and the school committee. It has come to be expected.
Watch the school committee meeting and see how they are unable to answer the most basic question about their plans from the community.
Join the Facebook group and ask questions to teachers or talk to other parents about your choices in hybrid vs remote.
@NPS Teacher,
As I’m sure you know, the Governor rolled out his traffic-colored map of the state days before the SC was to vote. Similarly, DESE issued additional guidance which, in keeping with statements by the Governor, suggested that communities that were green should return to in person education absent mitigating circumstances. Do you think that had an impact upon the superintendent’s recommendations to the school committee?
@Lisap. Yes, I’m sure it did. I’m also sure, having experience with him for many years, that this is typical and an attempt to avoid conflict as long as possible instead of being up front with his thoughts or his actions. And DESE also said that it’s okay to have three feet of space between desks when there is no medical proof that it is safe. And we all know that there is pressure to open schools because of the economy. Everything with a grain of salt.
However, let’s say it’s all in good faith. That still doesn’t address all of the other things listed above that are leading to teacher, student, and parent uncertainty and distrust. This includes the lack of answers to the hundreds of questions asked by teachers throughout the months, the lack of transparency and communication to parents and to teachers, the lack of progress on coming to up with plans given the amount of time these committees have had to meet, the exclusion of teacher voices some of whom were even on some of those committees, the lack of basic understanding of how a school schedule should be set up to benefit learning, the lack of explanation of why the well thought out NTA models were ignored in favor of this model, and many more things that are continuing to come to light, including a survey from the BIPOC of Newton Facebook group (that includes many students) saying they feel this hybrid model is bias. (Again, you can go and read there if you’re interested).
Ultimately, I’m left to wonder why the superintendents offices and the school committee cannot answer our questions. It seems like there is a lot of faith in the school committee and the superintendents office, yet not in the people who are with Newton children every single day, the teachers. Even teachers who are willing to come in to teach a hybrid model are upset. The fact that teachers, experts in their field, have been essentially shut out of the planning, have no answers and no way to plan, and been presented with a hybrid model that makes no sense and makes the job of students and teachers harder should be red flags for everyone, even people who want kids in school buildings. The lack of clarity on safety protocols, even as simple as “does our HVAC ACTUALLY work”, does not make teachers feel confident. This is typical of the superintendent and school committee- to say one thing to teachers and then do another. It’s troubling. I think that can at least be understandable to anyone.