The Swellesley Report received an email from Kyle Gekopi, president of the Wellesley Educators Association, regarding the upcoming school year.
Gekopi says that the Association is in agreement with Dr. Lussier and the administration’s recommendation to develop a workable hybrid model for the fall (see Wellesley School Committee meeting: schools will likely take on a hybrid model for fall 2020) However, the Association maintains that the best approach is to start school in a remote setting and transition to a hybrid model after appropriate staff training, safety, and needs assessments.
The following letter is to the members of the Wellesley Public Schools Community, on behalf of the Wellesley Educators Association:
Our job is inherently interpersonal, and we want to return to our buildings as soon as possible. Every conversation we explored started with in-person learning, either full-in or a hybrid model.
Our work analyzed every aspect of our practice under the various safety guidelines, faced with two persistent guiding principles: keep our practice developmentally appropriate, and balance the educational benefits of a specific in-person practice against the risk aversion of a remote alternative.
In most, but not all cases, we found ourselves to lack the data or experience to successfully answer the final question that students and educators are asking: is it safe to return to school?
In an effort to gather that data, the Association believes a phased-in approach best positions the community and educators to construct the safest school environment for the following reasons:
1) A remote start is sensitive to the broad, systemic health and safety concerns and emerging research of how the virus is spread and who is at-risk. Combined with educator testing and any necessary modifications to our facilities, we are confident the Wellesley Public Schools will be able to develop a safe environment that engages in mindful risk-management.
2) A remote start keeps our work and learning schedules consistent, and addresses the reality that fluid movement between hybrid and remote models is necessary to maintain the health of students and staff. The current (July 20) DESE guidance is to recommend that students and staff stay home at the first sign of any symptoms related to COVID-19. However, many of these symptoms are combined with seasonal change or other health conditions. Adding this broad symptomatic anxiety will make our school community more susceptible to illness, and it is our hope that further research will result in a responsible revision of self-monitoring practices, allowing the WPS Community to gradually return students to in-person instruction in a phased-in approach, starting with our most vulnerable and youngest learners.
3) A remote start allows educators to get to build initial relationships with students without wearing a mask. We know that facial feedback and learning new faces and voices is important for all levels and all students. Our first impressions must be our authentic selves as educators.
4) A remote start removes the immediate anxiety of policing students’ behaviors and hygiene in a live setting. In consultation with public health experts, a remote start provides educators time to learn behavior management strategies to support healthy hygienic practice in the school setting, especially for our youngest learners.
5) A remote start teaches both educators and the community best practices for the seasonal likelihood of an all-remote setting. A growing chorus of experts is predicting a difficult autumn and flu season, and starting remotely would develop firm behaviors and practices to serve as a foundation in the event of another full shutdown.
6) A remote start fully allows educators to personalize online learning needs, working with students and families by responding to the needs of diverse learners. As we identify learners and practices best served by in-person school supports, educators can work with their colleagues to implement necessary interventions for students who need it most, and at regular intervals.
7) A remote start allows educators to identify equity gaps early in the year and develop systems to respond to the safety and technology needs of parents and students in the Wellesley Public Schools Community. Our educators stand ready to conduct outreach to ensure that every student is responding and learning what they can given our context.
8) A remote start provides teachers, students, and families time and space to learn technology tools together with their students, allowing for effort affirmation and growth.
Ours is a district with privilege and a wealth of scientific and financial resources. We must be mindful of how we can use these systems to support all learners and communities, serving as a model and collaborator for a safe and effective return for all students in the Commonwealth. A remote start to any hybrid model will help us identify the most effective means for starting in-person school gradually by supporting our learners who need it most, while simultaneously remaining socially responsible in curbing community spread. It is important for us to remember that the only acceptable death count for our school community is zero. The stakes have never been higher.
The educators in the Wellesley Public Schools are in love with teaching and care deeply for students, and it is therefore our position that starting remotely will allow us to get back into the classroom quickly, responsibly, and safely.
Respectfully,
Kyle Gekopi, President
wellesleyeducators@gmail.com
I read those comments as to say “We need to start remote in September because there is a lot of work to do before we can be 100% safe with 0% risk for our staff and students.” There are two issues I have with that line of thinking:
1.) There is no suggestion that ANY of the training or work should start early. Laws and requirements for children’s best interests are being waived left and right & we are being asked to compromise our children’s educational experiences for health and safety of the adults – that is inarguably a fair and reasonable request. However, on your end, please revisit your contract start dates so the much needed prep work you’ve indicated is essential can begin. I hope you see how this looks from the parent perspective(?)
2.) “…the only acceptable death count for our school community is zero.” If one death is too many the only way to be certain that metric is met is if you propose remote only instruction until a vaccine is developed and distributed to every person in community. Then, we must wait until full herd immunity is developed / the vaccine is proven fully-effective with a 0-case waiting period. Epidemiology is not my speciality but I believe the polio vaccine was developed / distributed in the early 50s and the last case in the US was in 1979. I don’t know if results of the covid vaccine are expected to be more efficient but with anti-vaxers going strong, I don’t see how we possibly have a risk-free environment in this coming decade. As mentioned in the letter, Wellesley is blessed with a wealth of scientific and medical knowledge so please someone more qualified step in to correct any inaccuracies I’ve presented.
It may sound like I am asking teachers to risk their safety and go full on-premise now. I actually am not suggesting that path. I am saying if you want what you say you want which is hybrid until the risk increases, you need to start work on that now. The risk is going to increase soon. If you want remote only until it is risk free, please say that and parents can start planning for years of no physical schooling or seek alternatives.
Also, a note to elementary school parents – let’s say I’m wrong and somehow the vaccine is given to everyone in Wellesley in January and we don’t have any positive cases for 6 months and go back in fall of 2021 feeling safe. (That would be a wonderful miracle we all hope for.) Guess what’s around the corner? The proposed redistricting & closing of Hunnewell & other schools where students will be scattered to other schools for a year or two. Is that plan still on the table if we’re remote this entire school year or more, which seems like the trajectory we are headed?
Maybe the best course of action is to approve funding for Hunnewell this fall and begin demolishing it now – if the building is sitting vacant, why not?
Kyle –
I think your concern is well founded and a remote option to start the year is one open for consideration, especially given ever changing situation of the pandemic. However, as a parent of two children in the middle school, the remote nature of education certainly cannot replace the excellent learning derived in a classroom setting.
While options should exist for individual circumstances who have health concerns to continue to participate in a remote/hybrid model, I believe your view represents a small minority, and your recommendation is an extreme and likely not shared by all.
These concerns, and similar concerns, have been well heard by Dr. Lussier and are carefully considered by the board of education. Their current plans on “safe” reopening tied to the hybrid model is one that would benefit the students and educators the most. I have been most appreciative of the current flexibility of the administration to evaluate all options and not commit or overreact. As with other critical infrastructure in the state safely reopening, our schools should continue to move in the same direction.
The safe reopening is paramount, as is the education and mental health of our children, which has been disrupted and sacrificed during this pandemic.
Child care was reopened by the state safely in phase 2- in June. Should the state have found that children and adults could not interact over a day, certainly gov. Baker would have rolled back that part of reopening. In fact- npr recently highlighted the low risks of transmission at daycare.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/24/882316641/what-parents-can-learn-from-child-care-centers-that-stayed-open-during-lockdowns
These instances show that it has been demonstrated that a safe reopening is possible
Kyle – Remote start for how long? Days, weeks, months? Given your obtuse arguments, I read it as you want to teach remotely for the entire semester/year. When could your idealistic expectations possibly be achieved?
I understand you want to be “comfortable,” but unfortunately, the schools did such a horrible job with remote learning at the end of last academic year, I can’t support more procrastination. The risk to the social and academic futures of our children is not worth any of the benefits you propose. It’s a new world. None of us are comfortable. Jump in and adjust…like the rest of us have had to do. You just might demonstrate a vital life skill to your students while doing so!
Hello! I’m a former student of Mr. Gekopi, and participated in his online classes at the end of my senior year. I can assure you that he’s not only an incredibly kind and good teach in person, he is online as well. When I took my classes online, obviously some teachers were able to make the shift better than others, and I believe that Gekopi is pushing for more time in order to provide consistency for students and make sure that everyone is able to have a productive online experience. This has been hard on all of us; I lost my senior year. But if we aren’t smart about preparing properly for this year, such as my sister who is on an iep, will fall through the cracks. We need to make sure our teachers are properly prepared or we will experience the consequences of our lack of empathy.
We’ve been doing this remote learning thing since March, any argument that people need more time to figure out the tools is crazy. The last six months have served as more than enough time for phase one of a “phase in” approach. The district’s remote learning approach marginalizes the role of most teachers and the only way around that is through in person classes. I can still remember my daughter’s second grade teacher on the verge of crying during the end of year parent teacher conference because she couldn’t be in the class room. The fear is real but we need to take the next step and move forward in our lives.
Here is a follow-up letter I would suggest the Wellesley Educators Association write to the community:
“Dear Wellesley Public Schools Community,
We understand your frustration with our original letter and the lack of clear information provided. In an effort to be more transparent about our push to start school in a remote setting, we’d like to provide some additional details from the Massachusetts Teachers Association’s (MTA) reopening proposal to DESE that you might find helpful:
1. In Phase 1 of our reopening proposal, there will be no instruction provided to students. We are demanding 10 school days during Phase 1 to prepare for the return of students and are also demanding the school year be reduced to 170 days from 180 days. All those points we listed in 1-8 in our original letter are trumped by the fact that we simply won’t be providing instruction. With no instruction, no need for in-person or hybrid models right away.
2. In Phase 2 of our reopening proposal, there will again be no instruction provided to students. With no instruction, a continuation of the remote setting makes perfect sense. What’s the rush? In Phase 2, we want to chat with students and families about safety protocols, do social/emotional checks, and review technology. So, parents, relax. We got this. We don’t want to be too clear about how long Phase 2 might take because that may frighten you. However, it was recently suggested Phases 1 and 2 together might take over 1 month.
3. We know after reading points 1 and 2 above you are probably going to be even more worried about curriculum and curriculum gaps (or, as the case may be, curriculum craters which are virtually guaranteed for our most vulnerable students). Well, our MTA leaders have summed things up by saying “business as usual instructional approaches – organized around ‘covering the curriculum,’ test prep and test administration – must be avoided, as these will distract from real learning, cause unneeded stress, and produce meaningless results in the case of standardized tests.”
4. Finally, since we don’t feel the need to cover a standard curriculum anymore, it’s a no-brainer for us to now also demand the elimination of MCAS. And not just for this year. Forever. Who needs the very accountability that helped make the MA public schools so strong?
Hope the above helps give you some much needed clarity on things! Enjoy the rest of your summer.
Respectfully,
Wellesley Educators Association”
The kids should be back in school full time with recommended precautions such as face masks and physical distancing guidelines as outlined by the department of education. The emotional and educational harm from remote and hybrid learning are severe. As per the state dept. of health, Mass has 108k confirmed cases of covid, by best estimates there are probably 10 undiagnosed cases for every confirmed case. Over 1,000,000 likely infected in Mass and not one fatality of a person under age 20 in the state. For the young specifically, it seems more dangerous to take ride in a car or catch the regular flu. I appreciate that some still might be fearful or have particular risk factors and keeping your child home is always an option. As with any risk to our health and safety, we have to try to manage the risks and learn to live with the virus under less than ideal circumstances. It appears the virus is going to be with us for a long time. Covid is a dangerous virus, but we now have more knowledge of who is at grave risk. Accommodations should and need to be made for teachers and staff in the CDC defined high risk categories.
I would like an accounting of all teachers’ activities and locations over the summer. They have left Massachusetts for vacations, to see friends and family, exercised at their local gyms and health clubs, shopped at their favorite stores, gone to crowded beaches, and eaten out at restaurants all over. But school? No thank you, too dangerous.
Ha, yes exactly. They’ve all been quarantined and only been doing food delivery period. I’d also like to know if they ALL plan on getting the vaccine when it comes out. I certainly am not and not giving it to my children. If you’re under 70 you have a .05% of dying from covid19 on average. The risk to children is almost non existent. More children died from the flu every year the past several years. Why would I give them a vaccine for something that was pushed through so fast we have no idea long term effects. Oh, and they are working on a brand new vaccine that alters your DNA so your immune and IF it works out will be a new way to do a vaccine. Nope, we are not going to be guinea pigs. Elderly should get the vaccine as the benefit outweighs the risk but not a healthy person.
To furious parent above:
I do not know a single educator in either Wellesley (where I used to teach) or Newton (where I currently teach) who has done any of the activities that you describe, with the exception of grocery shopping (in case that is what you meant by “shopping.”) You are making a bunch of irrational assumptions.
I am so glad to hear some rational adults voice their opinions in the comments section. For some reason Teachers are special and should be exempt from workplace risks. Oddly enough cashiers at grocery stores and other essential stores, nurses, housekeepers in hospitals, doctors, EMTs, etc are not exempt from risks and are expected to show up for work despite the pandemic. The environment of a teacher is much safer than all of the above because children are a very low risk category for both getting sick and transmitting the virus. You are educators that should understand and embrace rather than ignore the science that exists. If you are reading and understanding the science, then your requests for hybrid education can only be interpreted as purely selfish.
The risks both from a mental health standpoint and an educational standpoint are grave for our children. By choosing anything other than a full reopening (for those seeking it) we are telling our children that they are not important and we are going to protect the elderly and adults before we give our children a chance at a full life.
Worst of all, in our town of plenty, we should be role models for the rest of the state. Perpetuating the fallacy of online learning (or lack thereof) is significantly expanding the educational gap between the wealthy and the poor. Parents who have resources will continue to ensure their children get an education whether or not the town provides it, but those who do not have the resources will be once again left much further behind.
Children
As a parent and teacher, I can well appreciate the well-intentioned parents who yearn for those perfect days of yore when teachers and students were able to fully interact in-person. However, the realities of returning mask-to-mask will not approximate those halycon days, both in terms of effective pedagogy and more importantly, human safety.
From an educational view, many of the benefits in-person teaching will be mitigated by the distance and protocols required under the present Covid guidelines. thankfully, we are far advanced from the days of frontal lecture learning. Group work, close 1-1, movement breaks, change of pace, using facial cues to model social pragmatic behaviors are only a few of the teaching methods which will be sacrificed by going in-person. Ironically, many of these methods can be successfully used remotely.
From a safety perspective, the trend of the science is developing to reveal that aerosol dispersion is a potent cause of many of the super-spreading exercises, and that while mask wearing and 6 foot distancing may be helpful prophylactic measures, true ventilation may be key. The fact that a building or room has ventilation does not make it truly safe, as studies in restaurants and other ventilated spaces has shown. Further, the science indicates that students, particularly those 10 and over, are capable of transmission and reception of the virus. Finally, as my 16 year old wisely points out, “Anyone who thinks teenagers are going to be safe and act safely does not know teenagers!”
Educators know that the remote learning experience of the spring may inform, but will not predict, the remote learning experience of this fall. With education, time, and practice, we are confident that we can, and will, make remote learning effective, engaging, and empowering.
As a teacher, your paycheck depends on your duty to educate.
As a parent, you should appreciate the quality of education that your child receives.
While, yes, we all wish the circumstances were different and that we did not have to debate the situation that we currently find ourselves, the quality of the education is not commensurate with the pay that was received.
If the union would like to reduce the quantity and quality of education, then the quantum of pay to teachers should be reduced to allow the school board to evaluate other outsourced methods of remote learning. There are many alternative models that has historically not measured up to the quality of education a child would receive in a classroom setting. However, based on the observation of the quality of education that was delivered in the spring of 2020- then perhaps if the teachers union would like to go remote- then perhaps we drop the requirement for children per classroom and find cost savings by reducing teachers positions.
This certainly is not the recommended course of action. However teachers should recognize the frustration that the parents have with the teachers and the teachers union for suggesting MORE DAYS of training and LESS DAYS of teaching because the only people that harms is our children.
The suggestion of 10 days by your union for training is ridiculous. Heath care professionals who are on the front line of this crisis certainly does not have anywhere near that level of gall to ask for paid time away from their responsibilities to receive “training” (and all the parents would love to see the accountability of what is being taught in these sessions).
As a parent- we are being forced to fight for our children. Historically communities would come together in times of crisis- it would be nice for our teachers to recognize their responsibility and deliver the education that we are paying for.
I don’t disagree that perhaps at the High School level, remote learning has a chance at being successful, and teenagers have the option to remain in the comfort of their homes without requiring a family to completely change their work/home structure. The known science behind coronavirus does also support being more conservative as students get older/larger/have more ACE2 nasal receptors or whatever the final answer(s) may be on why younger children are mostly spared from catching and transmitting this illness.
However, remote and/or hybrid models do a great disservice to the elementary school population and are far more disruptive to families, and the known science definitely supports a safe plan at returning to school in full for them, if the superintendent and school committee would allow themselves to consider it.
If anyone has 4-5 hrs to kill (ha), I highly recommend watching the publicly available videos of the BOH meetings from July (wellesleymedia.org) as well as recent school committee meetings. It is eye opening to watch how David Lussier essentially asks for rubber stamp approval of his ideas from both groups. Multiple BOH members tried to bring up the idea of outdoor classrooms, separate plans for elementary students, the need to be flexible on 3 vs 6 feet (and the science to back it up), and he dismisses them completely. FInally they politely ask ‘so what do you need from us, David? do you need a vote?’. He then takes this vote to the school committee with the statement that the BOH unanimously supports him, and they all unanimously vote in support of his plan also. It is fascinating (and a bit nausea-inducing) to watch it unfold after having heard the very cleaned up version presented to us as parents.
The bottom line is that this virus is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Even with a vaccine being approved in the next year, we are talking years if not decades before we have enough community immunity to be considered ‘risk free’. The rest of society has adapted, and we are all trying to find our new normal. Those of us in healthcare work day in and day out with the sickest coronavirus patients and we know that with PPE we will be safe. A global pandemic is not what any of us signed up for when we chose our careers. It’s time for the teachers to join the rest of us as we’ve had to adapt to our new job descriptions and lifestyle over the last 6 months.
Incredibly glad my kids are out of the Wellesley schools because nothing I have seen from my fellow swellesleyans – whether the adults wandering the town path or the groups of teenagers (5-7 together) out biking around town, no masks, no social distancing, or the disrespect shown to teachers putting their lives on the line for our children, makes me think they are taking this even remotely seriously.
Dear Wellesley School Committee:
I support the Wellesley Educators Association’s position of a remote start, transitioning to a hybrid model as soon as specific safety benchmarks are met.
We all want to want to help our children get the best education possible, and that can only be done in a safe environment. If Einstein were alive today, one can imagine that his response to this would be the same today as is Princeton’s, the university where he did some of his most impactful work in the 1930’s:
Princeton announces plan for fall 2020: The undergraduate program will be fully remote in the fall semester.
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/07/06/princeton-announces-plan-fall-2020-guidelines-undergraduates-returning-campus
This is too great a risk to our children!
Older Children Spread the Coronavirus Just as Much as Adults, Large Study of nearly 65,000 people in South Korea suggests that school reopenings will trigger more outbreaks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/health/coronavirus-children-schools.html
Some kids still have symptoms, months after falling ill
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/10/health/children-long-covid-symptoms-intl-gbr/index.html
I support the Wellesley Educators Association’s position of a remote start, transitioning to a hybrid model as soon as specific safety benchmarks are met.
This translates into online only for the first half of the school year.
Thank you!
Again, if you have HS students, you are welcome to keep them home all year. Kindergarteners cannot learn to read via Zoom. Parents of HS students should be advocating for a remote start for their kids, so the elementary kids can use that space to attend school in person.
It baffles me how someone can point to the decisions of an undergraduate institution (or other communities making poor decisions) to drive what Wellesley does for its children. If we follow public health benchmarks, we should actually be opening fully, not hybrid.
At least 30 Massachusetts school districts have already decided against having kids return to class at all. Wellesley must join this list for the safety of everyone in our community.
Auburn, Barnstable, Belmont, Bourne, Brockton, Chelsea, Dedham, Everett, Framingham, Gardner, Lawrence, Leominster, Lynn, Marblehead, Manchester-Essex, Masconomet, Mendon-Upton, Methuen, Northbridge, Revere, Salem, Somerset, Somerville, Taunton, Topsfield, Wachusett, Watertown, Wayland, Webster and West Boylston have announced plans for remote-only learning, according to NBC10 Boston’s Massachusetts school reopening tracker.
I support the Wellesley Educators Association’s position of a remote start, transitioning to a hybrid model as soon as specific safety benchmarks are met.
Those ‘specific benchmarks’ have been met by Wellesley for quite some time (months). Actually, if we follow CDC, AAP, DESE guidelines then we should have a full in person return to school in Wellesley according to any public health measure and not just people’s anxiety.
If you are a WHS parent, you are more than welcome to keep your children home. Not sure why everyone feels the need to dictate what other people have the option to do.