In an op-ed I wrote at the end of May (“Now is the time to think about the future of education,” May 31), I offered some ideas on how schools could reopen in a phased fashion that would provide face-to-face instruction for the youngest children, hybrid instruction for middle school aged children, and a completely flexible set of options for older high school students.
Over the past several weeks, however, news stories and conversations and email exchanges with my two daughters have led me to change my mind.
I now believe that schools should offer only remote instruction, and schools should open only to those children who need a safe haven, whose parents must work outside the home, and who have no access to remote learning.
Over the past few days I have read countless stories about aborted school re-openings in other parts of the country, stories about sleepover camps and family gatherings that led to increased spread of COVID-19, and new evidence that children get COVID -19 and pass it along.
In addition, there are countless stories describing spikes in COVID-19 cases across the country despite the efforts of state governors to impose quarantines and a general effort on the part of the populous to wear masks and maintain social distancing.
More troubling are recent reports indicating that those who survive the disease are often left with heart conditions that may be chronic.
On a personal level, I’ve compared notes with my daughters, who live in the New York City area, where, based on news accounts and data collected by epidemiologists, the disease is “under control.” They are both struggling with the decision of whether to send their children to school, a decision their respective school districts are allowing them to make.
My older grandson, in high school in New York City, will continue remote learning. He adapted to it and, by staying home, he can avoid an hour commute on public transportation.
But my younger grandson, who will begin third grade, did not find remote instruction effective when he lived in Brooklyn. He and his family have since moved to Montclair N.J., and he may go to school part-time — that is, if the schools in that community still have that option available.
The Montclair schools, like many schools in our region, will be offering a hybrid program contingent on the COVID-19 outbreak remaining “under control.” Both of my daughters wish their respective school districts and states had made a firm decision instead of leaving it to parents to decide. They are troubled by the fact that their sons might lose ground if they stay home, but are concerned about their sons’ exposure to the disease if they send them to school.
After hearing my daughters’ concerns and reading accounts of the impact of failed school reopenings, it seems foolish to contemplate most in-person instruction, save for the exceptions I noted earlier.
The trend lines for the disease are moving in the wrong direction nationally and all the medical advice suggests that at least 14 consecutive days of flat or diminishing cases are needed to consider reopening. According to the charts published regularly in the Valley News, even New Hampshire and Vermont, two states that seemingly accomplished the flat-line status needed to reopen, are witnessing a modest but clear uptick in cases — and the impact of opening Vermont and New Hampshire to tourists, and the pending reopening of colleges, are unknown as the school year begins.
The president’s executive orders last weekend hardened my perspective on this issue.
His plan for states to partially foot the bill for unemployment benefits will put an unbearable strain on their budgets. That strain that will inevitably lead to deep cuts in school funding and, consequently, a greater strain on local property taxes.
Resources for schools are already scarce and are about to be made even more so.
It seems foolish to me spend the limited available dollars on cleaning schools, sterilizing buses and purchasing personal protective equipment in order to offer partial face-to-face instruction to the entire student population. It seems even more foolish to spend time — the most precious resource teachers and administrators have — on the development of hybrid plans and contingency plans that incorporate remote learning. If remote learning were to be the default, that time could be spent working to make the remote learning experience more effective.
For 29 years as a school superintendent in New England, Maryland and New York, one of my tasks was to decide whether to open schools when it was snowing or snow was forecast. Whenever it was a close call, I would ask myself this question: “Why put thousands of children and hundreds of employees at risk in order to avoid an additional day in June?”
School districts across New England have a close call to make, and from everything I’ve read, anything other than universal remote learning can only make things worse. To paraphrase the snow day question: “Why put thousands of children and hundreds of employees at risk in order to provide some kind of compromised face-to-face learning?”
I believe that the public is beginning to understand that COVID-19 is not the flu and that children can get it and do spread it. If the public grasps those facts and learns from the successes in other countries, we might accept the sacrifice of remote learning for a few months, along with the inconvenience of wearing masks and maintaining social distancing.
When that happens, America will bend the curve.
And when that happens, schools can begin planning for a phased reopening. Until then, we need to accept remote learning and make it work better.
Wayne Gersen, of Etna, is the former superintendent of the Dresden School District.