President's Message to the School Committee
August 10, 2020
Local districts and school committees have been charged with the enormous task of creating return to school plans that are both educationally sound and safe. Our district tackled this challenging issue by engaging in a thoughtful, inclusive, and transparent process. They collaborated with educators, parents, and other stakeholders and were open to honest feedback. For this we are deeply grateful.
I am here tonight, however, to share the FREA’s position that a return to school should start remotely with a transition to the hybrid model when infection rates improve.
We did not arrive at this position hastily or easily. Throughout the summer we engaged our members in a series of meetings and conversations, and we gave three different surveys to determine which plan they are most comfortable with. The two surveys given in July showed that most of our members supported a hybrid plan as part of a phased in re-opening.
The third survey though, given this past week, shows a clear shift in what our members feel is best. 70% support a remote start to the year, while 30% support starting with a hybrid model.
The reasons for this shift have nothing to do with a lack of confidence in the administration’s plan or in this school committee, and I’d like to share with you what our members are saying:
The biggest concern by far is that the infection rates in Massachusetts and Bristol County are trending upward. Even with safety precautions in place, members are fearful of contracting the virus or infecting loved ones who may be vulnerable. They also worry about the serious responsibility of trying to protect their students and their families.
Second, as other states have started to re-open schools, we learned that 100,000 children tested positive just in the last two weeks of July.
Next, the DESE’s statement that they are not tracking the number of positive cases in schools undermined educator confidence. The state has not provided districts with scientifically based public health benchmarks, and as of now, there is no state plan for rapid testing in schools.
Finally, as surrounding districts begin to announce their plans, many of our educators who are also parents are struggling with childcare issues and scheduling conflicts, especially if their towns have decided to start school remotely.
It is difficult for me to stand before you making a pitch for remote learning. As an educator and a parent, I have stood in opposition to remote learning and online education programs because they cannot and should not replace face to face instruction.
But I do not oppose remote learning if it means we all start school safely, if it is overseen by our district and our educators, and if we have proper training and resources. And I do not oppose remote learning as a temporary solution until we can transition to a hybrid model.
If- and when- we return to in person instruction, we will need time for training on safety protocols and expectations for instruction. The State’s 10-day waiver of 180 instructional days to 170 gives us that cushion. We will also need time built into the schedule for planning since a hybrid model requires both in person teaching and remote check-ins with cohorts.
There are strong emotions around the question of when and how to open schools. Anxiety levels are high, and the public debate has been polarizing. We will never reach 100% agreement on the best way forward, but it’s up to all of us, as leaders, to remain calm and rational in our decisions and to consider all options.
There is no “bad guy” here to rail against, and no ideal answer. Please know that while we support a remote start, our educators share the goal of getting back into the classroom and in front of our students as soon as we can do so safely. Thank you.
Rebecca Cusick
I am here tonight, however, to share the FREA’s position that a return to school should start remotely with a transition to the hybrid model when infection rates improve.
We did not arrive at this position hastily or easily. Throughout the summer we engaged our members in a series of meetings and conversations, and we gave three different surveys to determine which plan they are most comfortable with. The two surveys given in July showed that most of our members supported a hybrid plan as part of a phased in re-opening.
The third survey though, given this past week, shows a clear shift in what our members feel is best. 70% support a remote start to the year, while 30% support starting with a hybrid model.
The reasons for this shift have nothing to do with a lack of confidence in the administration’s plan or in this school committee, and I’d like to share with you what our members are saying:
The biggest concern by far is that the infection rates in Massachusetts and Bristol County are trending upward. Even with safety precautions in place, members are fearful of contracting the virus or infecting loved ones who may be vulnerable. They also worry about the serious responsibility of trying to protect their students and their families.
Second, as other states have started to re-open schools, we learned that 100,000 children tested positive just in the last two weeks of July.
Next, the DESE’s statement that they are not tracking the number of positive cases in schools undermined educator confidence. The state has not provided districts with scientifically based public health benchmarks, and as of now, there is no state plan for rapid testing in schools.
Finally, as surrounding districts begin to announce their plans, many of our educators who are also parents are struggling with childcare issues and scheduling conflicts, especially if their towns have decided to start school remotely.
It is difficult for me to stand before you making a pitch for remote learning. As an educator and a parent, I have stood in opposition to remote learning and online education programs because they cannot and should not replace face to face instruction.
But I do not oppose remote learning if it means we all start school safely, if it is overseen by our district and our educators, and if we have proper training and resources. And I do not oppose remote learning as a temporary solution until we can transition to a hybrid model.
If- and when- we return to in person instruction, we will need time for training on safety protocols and expectations for instruction. The State’s 10-day waiver of 180 instructional days to 170 gives us that cushion. We will also need time built into the schedule for planning since a hybrid model requires both in person teaching and remote check-ins with cohorts.
There are strong emotions around the question of when and how to open schools. Anxiety levels are high, and the public debate has been polarizing. We will never reach 100% agreement on the best way forward, but it’s up to all of us, as leaders, to remain calm and rational in our decisions and to consider all options.
There is no “bad guy” here to rail against, and no ideal answer. Please know that while we support a remote start, our educators share the goal of getting back into the classroom and in front of our students as soon as we can do so safely. Thank you.
Rebecca Cusick