Here’s a link to the Working Groups presentation to the School Committee
The High School Working Group presented their recommendations to the School Committee last night. I’m sure that many watched as I did. I wanted to briefly list out what I heard and observed from the meeting with my follow-on questions. It would be great to hear what others think. Hopefully these will all get addressed over the next few days. Basically, the recommendation was to return to a partial in person model for term 3 – end of JAN (if Covid conditions allow). This would allow time for a new survey, teacher training, etc. However, the number of days in person was still in flux. Using 6 foot spacing, space constraints, and the numbers of students requesting in person, it may well be that a student may only have a couple days in person every other week. Without a change to the 6 foot recommendation, more available space, etc. then the idea that our students would be in class 2 days per week every week is a misconception.
My questions and observations in no particular order:
1) Why was this not a dedicated meeting all to itself? The working group came on too late in the evening for a good discussion and adequate questions.
2) Why weren’t key assumptions listed up front – the 6 foot separation, the available space, etc. This matters. Maybe the 6 foot assumption won’t change, but should it be discussed at least? Maybe the available space is a given, but perhaps there are other alternatives (using more tents, trailers, unutilized schools for an entire grade)? It’s past time to be thinking “out of the box”.
3) There was no discussion of metrics (positivity rate/Commonwealth scoring for Newton)) that would guide decisions for in person vs. remote and when to pivot. There was no mention of any testing protocols, temperature checks on entering school, etc. Should there have been?
4) 2 “cohorts” would maximize in school learning in a hybrid model. Mayor Fuller asked exactly the right question as to how do we get to 2 cohorts, vs. more? Unfortunately, Ruth Goldman quickly answered stating that this would be determined by the number of students wanting to learn in person. I’d have strongly preferred to hear from our professionals to get a more informed discussion of any levers that would impact this. Ruth’s comments prevented this from happening.
5) Why would Wednesdays always be remote? Is this due to cleaning? Could this be done overnight to create more capacity?
6) Why so slow to implement? Do we need to resurvey? Can anything be done to compress the implementation timeline?
7) A lot was made about the pace of learning being slower (less material covered) under in person vs. remote. Henry Turner (NNHS principal) gave a thoughtful answer, but I’d have liked to hear more discussion about this and the reasons why?
8) Will there be a Program Manager assigned to deliver the model on schedule (like in a for profit business), or, will this be left solely to our busy HS staff? Might a person like this (or even a team of people) be helpful?
I got the impression (I may be wrong) that this was the first time the Mayor and others may have seen this presentation. Granted, the time frames were short and our staff is also busy running the schools steady state. Yet, I wondered if the proposal had been “pressure tested” so that questions like mine here were anticipated and covered in advance? Our School Committee and Administration has a huge credibility problem with the public. They need to do a better job of explaining pros and cons and anticipating what parents will want to know. I appreciate that we’re moving in the right direction now, but it still seems that there’s plenty of room for improvement across the board.
Michael- I had exactly the same impressions. I had actually spoken with the Mayor earlier in the afternoon as part of her office hours and she didn’t seem to be aware of the exact recommendations. My impression is that this was the first time for at least some of the SC members to hear the plan.
There are only so many ways to bring kids back (couple of days/week, alternating full weeks, or full time) so I was never sure why it took so long for the working group to develop a plan. What I did not expect, though, and I think did not get anywhere the attention it should have is the number of cohorts. Looking at other districts, I always see two cohorts and I always assumed that would be the same for Newton. Newton, however, plans to have three or most likely four cohorts. Basically this means that students on average will be in school one day a week (with four cohorts, students attend two consecutive days every two weeks). From the first week in January to the end of the school year there are about 19 weeks of school, excluding vacations. That means students would have about 19 or twenty days out of a 170 day school year in person. To say the least, it is underwhelming. It’s basically the same as the summer plan which was for two half days per week, though there was never any mention of four cohorts at that time.
The Mayor asked what could be done to get it to two cohorts and Ruth Goldman chimed in to say there is nothing that can be done. Again, I don’t understand the “can’t do” attitude. Excuses about staffing and space at this point are just that, excuses. Using Goldman’s logic, this means that next year may be the same given that any vaccine will not have been administered widespread and there will still be social distancing
I agree presenting it at 8:30 after the elementary school presentation, coupled with the fact they had a caucus meeting at 6:00 doesn’t capture one’s attention. Just like a 90 minute class for students is too long, starting a presentation at 8:30 in the evening, 2.5 hours into a meeting loses people. I left the meeting dejected and am not sure what more parents can do. I would give serious consideration to moving out of Newton, but my child is currently a junior so it doesn’t make sense. Help!!!
I think the 6 foot assumption as well as the Wednesdays-closed-for-cleaning assumptions need to be subject to critical analysis. Both are driving capacity limitations at the schools.
Is anyone aware of any research that shows 6 feet is safer than 3 feet (or 4 feet or 5 feet)? DESE has OK’d 3 feet of space. Recent research showed that in enclosed spaces, COVID droplets can travel much more than 6 feet (I think the paper said up to 60). So the key here is wearing masks. There is not some invisible force shield that blocks all droplets at 6.01 feet. But given how much 6 feet has been driving decisions … I would really like to see a data-driven, scientific approach to answering this question. The answers I’ve been given are circular ones like “well at 6 feet you’re not a ‘close contact'”. ?!?
If Wednesdays are indeed for cleaning… what about the research that COVID is *not* transmitted off surfaces? Turns out lysoling your groceries was probably not needed. So then is this “deep cleaning” really needed? To echo Michael’s comment – even if yes, why not do it at night?
I was concerned that a presentation of this importance (reflecting a lot of hard work by many thoughtful and committed people) was not included in advance in the posted materials for this meeting. That left most School Committee members and all of the public with little or no chance to digest the background and conclusions and have a more fruitful discussion.
I’ve noticed this problem before, at other School Committee meetings, where recommendations from the administration about serious matters (like the earlier re-opening proposals) arrived in real time during the meeting.
It is best practice for governing bodies to receive staff and working group recommendations well in advance of a meeting.
By the way, here’s an excellent article on the school issue from Aaron Carroll: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/opinion/schools-closing-covid.html
I wanted to add one more observation to my list. Has anyone ever seen the Administration’s calculation as to how many students and staff either High School can hold using the 6 foot separation assumption? I have not.
I started thinking about this in terms of Newton North. According to the architect, NNHS has 413,000 square feet…classrooms, common space, etc. I believe that this houses roughly 2100 students and 300 or so staff under normal circumstances.
The other night the HSWG mentioned anywhere from 2-4 student cohorts depending upon how many families opt for in person learning…and we know that this will be most. So roughly speaking, does this mean that the Administration feels that only 500 or so students can be in the building at the same time with the 6 foot separation? That seems low?
When I was last in the building for a parent’s night a year ago and sat in a typical classroom I saw fairly large rooms, maybe 20 to 25 desks spaced roughly 2 to 3 feet apart. So if the spacing is doubled to 6 feet, you cut capacity in half => and this implies 2 cohorts, but not more.
I may be looking at this wrong, I’ve no idea. But I’d love to see not just the assumptions, but also the work that leads to the conclusions. It’s truly important and it should not be “top secret”!
There’s a paywall on the article that Paul Levy refers us to just above. Here’s the text of that article for those who can’t access it.
Opinion
Are We Seriously Talking About Closing Schools Again?
That’s exactly the opposite of what we should be doing right now.
By Aaron E. Carroll
Contributing Opinion Writer
Nov. 17, 2020
As the surge of coronavirus infections in the United States becomes undeniable, many leaders throughout the country are reacting by calling for closures. Bizarrely, they almost always seem to focus on schools first. That’s exactly the opposite of what they should be doing.
Don’t get me wrong. With cases climbing to levels we haven’t seen before, we need to restrict our physical interactions. But we should do so rationally and in an evidence-based manner. We should figure out what poses the greatest danger and act accordingly, instead of automatically asking schoolchildren to bear the brunt of the pain.
We should not be having large weddings. We should not be going to public events. We should not be eating indoors at restaurants. We should not be drinking indoors at bars. These are the activities responsible for a vast majority of transmissions, and these should be the focus of our initial interventions.
Schools are different. Cases have definitely been more common in school-age children this fall. But when schools do the right things, those infections are not transmitted in the classroom. They’re occurring, for the most part, when children go to parties, when they have sleepovers and when they’re playing sports inside and unmasked. Those cases will not be reduced by closing schools.
It’s not even clear how some areas derive their thresholds for closing schools. Some places, like New York City, have declared that schools might close if positivity rates reach 3 percent. Other areas have much higher thresholds, like 10 percent. Some have none at all.
None of this is based on statistical modeling or science. Positivity rates are affected by testing rates as much as by prevalence of infection, and no one should be under the illusion that we’re identifying the majority of cases through our testing of symptomatic people. To do that, we’d need to engage in random-sample asymptomatic testing as well. Until then, we need to use a variety of signals, including analyses of who is getting infected and where.
The playbook for keeping schools as safe as possible has been understood for many months. First, classrooms need to be less dense, so that students are sitting at least six feet apart at all times. Some classrooms may not be able to accommodate this, but there are often other school spaces that can be used for learning, like auditoriums and libraries. Vacant hotel ballrooms, office buildings, gyms and theaters could even be converted into temporary classrooms.
Second, class start and end times need to be staggered so students aren’t bunched together in the halls. Likewise, schools need to make sure students eat apart, and certainly are not confined to one lunchroom.
Third, students need to be universally masked. Before anyone says that kids will refuse this, as a pediatrician and a father I can assure you that at some point in their lives, children also refuse to wear pants. They’ll learn.
Finally, we need to recognize that some teachers are at higher risk than others, and be thoughtful in how we protect them. We need to invest in rapid, repeated testing schemes to provide an added layer of protection. Many colleges and universities have figured this out.
Following this playbook will require billions of dollars from the federal government, but the costs are well worth the investment. Education is hugely important. Unfortunately, our schools are not, for the most part, prepared to deliver high quality educational content online. Kids are also social animals and need safe in-person interactions for their mental health and development.
Schools are necessary for the economy as well. If they are not open, many parents cannot work, even if they’re doing so from home.
Closing schools also exacerbates social and economic disparities. In some cities, especially in poorer areas, as many as one in three children didn’t — or couldn’t — take part in online learning when schools across the country were closed in the spring. Students who fall behind will have an incredibly difficult time catching up. They will be less likely to graduate, with enormous, lifelong consequences.
There may come a time when the pandemic has become so unmanageable that we need to close everything, including schools. (This was the case when I argued that closures were necessary back in March.) But schools are essential, and should be treated as such. When we prioritize, they should be among the last things to close. Almost everything else should be put on pause first. This is what Europe is doing. No one can explain why, once again, the United States is choosing its own path.
Because schools are not the major cause of the problem, shutting them down won’t do enough on its own to slow the spread of the disease. When — not if — businesses are forced to shutter temporarily in the near future, we can tide them over with money, and we absolutely should. When schools are closed, however, handing students a check will not replace what they’ve lost.
American adults have failed in almost every way imaginable in this pandemic. None of it is kids’ fault. When we try and fix this latest mess, let’s put their needs first.
The Boston Globe reported today that the state, via a federal program, will be making rapid antigen Covid tests to public school systems that meet six technical criteria. The testing is intended to be used for any student or staff that exhibit any Covid symptoms. Anyone who tests positive will them be required to have the more accurate (and time consuming) molecular test administered.
I hope the NPS can meet the requirements for this program. It would go a long way to reassuring parents and staff that any outbreaks can be quickly identified and controlled rather than spreading quickly and widely.
I have the same questions about the pace of learning. Why do they need to slow things down? Explanations that I have heard make no sense to me.
I’m increasingly focused on why we might need more than 2 cohorts? Does any other comparable school system already in hybrid/hyflex have more than 2 cohorts? What makes Newton different that we’d require more than 2? These are honest questions. If anyone else has inside knowledge please share it!
Michael, the reason given by a school administrator is that before the pandemic our high schools were very close to capacity, while our peer districts are not. My experience in the past is that when the administration makes comparisons, they often cherry-pick the peer. A second reason is the six foot rule. For example, Stoughton plan to go back in full with distancing of between 3 and 6 feet.
Thanks to Jeffrey Pontiff. In a SC email this week that focused on North the comment was made that 6 foot spacing only allows 12 students per classroom. This is the kind of info that I feel we need to dig deeper into. First, is the true? Second, how many classes exceed 24 students, and by how much? If the difference is one or two kids and the spacing average in a few cases drops to 5 feet, is that so awful? Also, are there other ways to address this?
For me, it comes down to attitude. We need focus on how to make two cohorts happen. Less is unacceptable. The SC/Administration approach still seems grudging and incredibly conservative, like they’re going down this path against their will. It needs to change.
I’m skeptical we ever open this year due to the latest Covid wave. But the SC/Administration’s credibility remains very low. We don’t yet know who will/won’t run for various open City positions next year, but it’s less than a year now until elections. People aren’t going to forget any of this when they vote. Newton needs a totally different attitude/approach from what we’ve seen since last summer. The current team has the skills, but where are their marching orders coming from?
Michael. From people who have looked at the geometry, I have heard that relaxing things to 5 feet of distancing makes an incredible difference. Of course there is no bright line. The SC is taking HHS 6 foot guidance as given. I don’t want to rehash things, but it is clear that the HHS recommendation was not based on the advice of physicians. In fact, it countered the advice of physicians who advocate 3 feet of distancing between students, and HHS has actively avoided admitting that this happened. It is a shame that our public officials have looked the other way, and have not given HHS any pushback for making a medical decision into a political one.
Next, I have heard that the current NPS plans do not re-allocate classes to classrooms based on size. Thus the largest class may be held in the median size classroom and the smallest class may be held in one of the largest classrooms.
Next, I have heard that the current NPS plan not only distances desks 6 feet apart, buy they also distance desks 6 feet apart from walls. This makes no sense to me.
Hopefully, some of these things will be rejiggered so we can have a few cohorts as possible.
Stoughton:
There was some online talk about the school committee meeting last week and the plans for returning to 5-day in-person classes in January. Dr. Marcus sent an update last night which presents this information more clearly. The plan will be for integrating the current in-person cohorts, while still having a full-remote option. Here’s what he wrote:
“IN-PERSON LEARNING
As you may have heard, the Governor and Commissioner of Education both expressed their wishes for schools to move toward full in-person learning. During the November 10th School Committee meeting, I presented a plan to shift into in-person learning. The School Committee ultimately voted to begin phasing in 5 day per week in-person learning mode starting the week of January 18th. This would replace the hybrid mode and Cohorts A and B would be combined. This will be implemented within DESE social distancing guidelines. We recognize that during this time, this may not be ideal for all families, so I am pleased to share that the remote option will still be available for families that choose it. The School Committee and I believe in the power of being in school, and we are excited to plan ahead for this shift!”
Jeffrey Pontiff’s comments are important. Even if you give up the fight on 6 feet vs less, the reports about spacing from walls, changing out classrooms to match needs, adding trailers….these are the differences between success and failure to achieve 2 cohorts. If the HSWG is less than transparent with a recommendation that we require 3 or more cohorts, then I hope the CC and others insert themself in the debate. It’s also a place where we need detailed and specific oversight from the Mayor. More than 2 cohorts is a failure for Newton. Less should be unacceptable.
Can I request to avoid a teacher (middle school) and does NPS have any policy regarding communicating via social media?
Hello, I have been following the developments of school opening and have been disappointed by our city’s ability to solve the problems faced by “every municipality” and solved by most of them. Newton is the last and slowest school district to respond to the pandemic with a meaningful education program.
If you too are disappointed by the Mayor and Superintendent’s performance in solving school issues please consider signing a letter that demands leadership and swift action plan to make Newton match peer districts according to Governor Baker’s recommendations – https://sites.google.com/view/newton-education-excellence/home