New York City public schools will reopen with "blended learning" model in the fall

New York City students will return to school in the fall with a “blended learning” model, the mayor and schools chancellor announced Wednesday.

Mayor Bill de Blasio said most students will attend in-person classes two or three days a week.

“Blended learning simply means at some points in the week you’re leaning in person in the classroom, at other points in the week you’re learning remotely,” he said Wednesday. “For the vast majority of kids in the vast majority of schools, you’ll be going to school to the classroom either two days a week or three days a week, depending on the week.”

Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza outlined two models — one for schools at 50% capacity, and one for schools at 33%.

“For the 2020-21 school year, it will look different,” he said. “Let me be clear: New York City students will be learning five days a week whether it’s in person or at home.”

Families who aren’t comfortable sending their children back to school may continue with remote learning. They will have the chance to opt back in on a quarterly basis.

Last week, the mayor said a Department of Education survey found 75% of families wanted their kids to return.

JT Yost told CBS2’s Hazel Sanchez his second-grade son, Rocky, and sixth-grade daughter, Lulu, can’t wait to get back into the classroom.

“I’m missing seeing all my friends and teachers every day,” Lulu Yost said.

“If they are coming in with temperature checks and washing their hands often and it’s not as crowded because of the alternating days, all those things makes me feel safer,” JT Yost added.

Students will receive their schedules in August, and they can opt out of blended learning at any time.

As Sanchez reported, for working families with multiple children in different schools, there is no solid plan to help them with child care. “We’re going to have to figure out more in terms of child care.

This is something we’re going to be building as we go along,” the mayor said. “Some parents are going to be able to make it work under current conditions. Some are going to need extra help. We’re going to work over the coming weeks to find other ways to help them.”

Gov. Andrew Cuomo still needs to approve the school plan, and the United Federation of Teachers isn’t totally on board.

“We are not going to be careless with our students, their families, and our educators,” UFT President Michael Mulgrew said.

The principals union admits it will be difficult to enforce all the rules.

“We’re gonna do the best we can, but anyone thinks that we’ll be able to magically make sure everyone will stay away from each other, six feet at all times, that’s not realistic and that’s not going to happen,” said Mark Cannizzaro of the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators.

“My number one concern is about being back in the building, and is it going to be safe, even with the measures that they are proposing?” Moulton told CBS2’s Alice Gainer. “My concern is the kids keeping their masks on … I can’t tie your shoe. That’s a new one today that came to me, how am I going to tie a shoe?”

Carranza said teachers can apply for a special accommodation to only teach remotely if they don’t feel safe.

Face coverings and social distancing will be required, along with hand-washing stations and nightly cleaning protocols.

Schools are being asked to utilize large spaces, like gyms and cafeterias, and update their layouts to help people spread out.

Carranza said the DOE will provide personal protective equipment and cleaning supplies, including hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes.

He says health and safety is their priority. “We can make up learning for students. We cannot bring a student back who is infected and passes away,” Carranza said.

He also said he remains committed to “equity and excellence” for students during these difficult times.

“Our approach remains the same: We set a high bar for every student no matter who they are — that’s excellence — and we give every student the support they need to meet that bar. That’s equity,” he said. “We recognize and honor the significant trauma that our students, staff and city have experienced over the past several months.”

SOURCE 





School closures threaten kids more than COVID-19, pediatricians say

Kids are less likely to contract the virus, are less likely to spread it to others, and are less likely to have severe symptoms if they do contract the virus.

It’s not even a close call. The consequences of extended school closures far outweigh the health risks of COVID-19.

Access to education is foundational to American society and fundamental to the American ideal of providing equal opportunities. Yet amid COVID-19 shutdowns, many children have very limited or even no access to formal education.

That has caused numerous problems for some children, including a loss in learning, an exacerbation of race- and income-based educational gaps, and, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, increased child abuse and neglect.

There are also added stresses and uncertainties for families.

Taking a holistic view of the situation, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a new report that advocates for opening schools while providing age-based safety guidance.

The academy’s report emphatically states: The APP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.
It goes on to note:

The importance of in-person learning is well-documented, and there is already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures in the spring of 2020.  Lengthy time away from school and associated interruption of supportive services often results in social isolation, making it difficult for schools to identify and address important learning deficits, as well as child and adolescent physical or sexual abuse, substance use, depression, and suicidal ideation. This, in turn, places children and adolescents at considerable risk of morbidity and, in some cases, mortality.

As detailed below, the consequences of school closures are significant. Yet, while still not entirely known, the benefits of school closures appear far less impactful because kids simply are not as affected by COVID-19.

Kids are less likely to contract the virus (in the U.S., children represent about 22% of the population, but only 1.7% of COVID-19 cases), are less likely to spread it to others (a study of 54 Dutch families found no indication of children under 12 transmitting the disease), and are less likely to have severe symptoms if they do contract the virus.

A study from the Netherlands’ National Institute for Public Health and the Environment found that after reopening schools between May 11 and June 8, there have been few reports of infections among employees at schools and no reports of employees who were infected by children.

That’s important information as school districts weigh the health and well-being concerns of children and teachers.

For kids, COVID-19 is far less dangerous than the seasonal flu. That’s not true for older individuals or those with comorbidities.

But while at-risk adults can take measures to mitigate their risks of COVID-19, children are largely helpless against the harms caused by school closures.

Those harms are at least threefold.

First, there’s the education loss.

At best, it appears students are spending about half as much time engaged in learning, with many engaged for an hour or less per day.

According to a McKinsey report, about half of students live in 28 states that have not mandated distance learning. And even at its best, full-time remote learning will not be the right fit for every child. Some families may prefer virtual learning for the time being, but that should not be the only option.

As Doug Lemov, an expert on effective teaching practices, said, “There’s a limit to how good a lesson can be when you’re trying to interact with your students through a keyhole in the door.”

McKinsey modeled the impacts of three different scenarios and found that the difference between fully reopening schools in the fall versus only partially reopening them through January 2021 would result in three to four months of lost learning for students with average remote-learning instruction; seven to 11 months of lost learning for students with lower-quality remote instruction; and 12 to 14 months for students who receive no remote learning.

Second, there’s the disparate impact.

As the McKinsey report noted:

Even more troubling is the context: the persistent achievement disparities across income levels and between white students and students of black and Hispanic heritage. School shutdowns could not only cause disproportionate learning losses for these students—compounding existing gaps—but also lead more of them to drop out. This could have long-term effects on these children’s long-term economic well-being and on the [U.S.] economy as a whole.
Surveys of parents confirm stark differences in experiences with a strong correlation to race and income level.

According to a survey from advocacy group ParentsTogether, low-income families were five times more likely to report receiving no distance learning from their schools compared with the highest-income families (11% vs. 2%), were twice as likely to report that distance learning is going poorly or very poorly (36% vs. 17%), and were 10 times as likely to report that their children are doing little or no remote learning (38% vs. 3.7%). And 4 out of 10 of the poorest students are participating in remote learning only once a week or less.

Some 76% of African American and 82% of Hispanic families say they are concerned they don’t have the resources necessary to keep their children on track.

Third, and most heartbreaking, is increased child abuse and neglect.

School shutdowns mean vulnerable children who are in abusive home environments are spending more time where most neglect and abuse occurs, at a time when economic and health stresses have contributed to more abuse and neglect.

Those children aren’t coming into contact with the teachers and professionals who are the primary reporters of abuse and neglect.

In 2018, there were 3.5 million children who came into contact with Child Protective Services. About 678,000 were determined to be victims of maltreatment, and 1,770 children died of abuse and neglect.

Parents are the perpetrators among 92% of child maltreatment victims; 29% of victims are two years of age or younger; and professionals—most significantly educational professionals—are responsible for 67% of all reports of maltreatment. (Friends, neighbors, and family account for only 17% of reports.)

That makes school, child care, and other child-wellbeing service closures a recipe for disaster for vulnerable children.

As a report on child welfare and COVID-19 from the Brookings Institute aptly stated:

COVID-19 has created a perfect storm of factors that will almost certainly lead to a sharp increase in unreported cases of child abuse and neglect, as children are cut off from interactions with professionals and teachers, confined at home with caregivers and relatives, and families are feeling the stress of job loss and economic uncertainty. The nation’s system of detecting abuse and neglect, which is heavily dependent on reports by teachers, doctors, and other professionals, is rendered almost completely powerless in this new situation as in-person and face-to-face interactions between children and professionals are being minimized by the stay-at-home orders issued by most states.

At the same time, other vital parts of the child welfare system—home investigations, child-parent visits, mandatory court appearances, home-based parenting programs—are now at a near standstill, making it harder and harder for the system to ensure the safety and well-being of the nearly 3.5 million children they come into contact with each year.
COVID-19 is temporary, but many of its impacts will be long-lasting. For children, school closures could have lifelong consequences.

It’s not even a close call. The consequences of extended school closures far outweigh the health risks of COVID-19.

It’s time to reopen schools in person. The current and future health and well-being of America’s 57 million schoolchildren depend on it.

SOURCE 






Back to school? "No thanks," say millions of new homeschooling parents

Next month marks the beginning of the 2020/2021 academic year in several US states, and pressure is mounting to reopen schools even as the COVID-19 pandemic persists. Florida, for example, is now considered the nation’s No. 1 hot spot for the virus; yet on Monday, the state’s education commissioner issued an executive order mandating that all Florida schools open in August with in-person learning and their full suite of student services.

Many parents are balking at back-to-school, choosing instead to homeschool their children this fall.

Gratefully, this virus seems to be sparing most children, and prominent medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics have urged schools to reopen this fall with in-person learning. For some parents, fear of the virus itself is a primary consideration in delaying a child’s return to school, especially if the child has direct contact with individuals who are most vulnerable to COVID-19’s worst effects.

But for many parents, it’s not the virus they are avoiding by keeping their children home—it’s the response to the virus.

In May, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued school reopening guidelines that called for:

School districts across the country quickly adopted the CDC’s guidelines, devising their reopening plans accordingly. Once parents got wind of what the upcoming school-year would look like, including the real possibility that at any time schools could be shut down again due to virus spikes, they started exploring other options.

For Florida mother, Rachael Cohen, these social distancing expectations and pandemic response measures prompted her to commit to homeschooling her three children, ages 13, 8, and 5, this fall.

“Mandated masks, as well as rigid and arbitrary rules and requirements regarding the use and location of their bodies, will serve to dehumanize, disconnect, and intimidate students,” Cohen told me in a recent interview.

She is endeavoring to expand schooling alternatives in her area and is currently working to create a self-directed learning community for local homeschoolers that emphasizes nature-based, experiential education. “There is quite a lot of interest,” she says.

According to a recent USA Today/Ipsos poll, 60 percent of parents surveyed said they will likely choose at-home learning this fall rather than send their children to school even if the schools reopen for in-person learning. Thirty percent of parents surveyed said they were “very likely” to keep their children home.

While some of these parents may opt for an online version of school-at-home tied to their district, many states are seeing a surge in the number of parents withdrawing their children from school in favor of independent homeschooling. From coast to coast, and everywhere in between, more parents are opting out of conventional schooling this year, citing onerous social distancing requirements as a primary reason.

Indeed, so many parents submitted notices of intent to homeschool in North Carolina last week that it crashed the state’s nonpublic education website.

Other parents are choosing to delay their children’s school enrollment, with school districts across the country reporting lower than average kindergarten registration numbers this summer.

School officials are cracking down in response.

Concerned about declining enrollments and parents reassuming control over their children’s education, some school districts are reportedly trying to block parents from removing their children from school for homeschooling.

In England, it’s even worse. Government officials there are so worried about parents refusing to send their children back to school this fall that the education secretary just announced fines for all families who keep their children home in violation of compulsory schooling laws. “We do have to get back into compulsory education and obviously fines sit alongside as part of that," English secretary Gavin Williamson announced.

When school officials resort to force in order to ensure compliance, it should prompt parents to look more closely at their child’s overall learning environment. Parents have the utmost interest in ensuring their children’s well-being, both physically and emotionally, and their concerns and choices should be respected and honored.

After several months of learning at home with their children, parents may not be so willing to comply with district directives and may prefer other, more individualized education options. Pushed into homeschooling this spring by the pandemic, many parents are now going willingly, and eagerly, down this increasingly popular educational path.

SOURCE 






Harvard, Yale and Princeton Embarrass, but Cornell Shines

In the last week or so, I have read about happenings at several Ivy League schools, most predictably wretched, but at least one, at Cornell, showing much intelligence and concern for students. Let’s talk about four schools, in order of founding.

Harvard, America’s first university, finally relented and dropped its controversial policy restricting student rights to free association outside of their studies, namely the policy banning single-gender organizations, rather ironic for a university that banned female students for the first one-third of a millennium (more than 85%) of its history. While Harvard’s policy change is good, President Lawrence Bacow made it clear that he acted only because he had to: federal courts were going to force Harvard to do so.

As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Executive Director Robert Shibley put it “While this “Crimson Scare’ is finally over, lasting damage has been done to many cherished men’s and women’s groups that either shut down or were muscled into changing their policies against their wishes.” Meanwhile, Harvard’s administration and faculty maintains its freedom of association from students: it plans to use almost fully remote instruction this fall, even though students likely will gather in Cambridge to party and Zoom.

Moving on to Yale, President Peter Salovey appropriately rejected protesters who said the name “Yale” should be removed from the institution—the ultimate expression of the Cancel Culture. Elihu Yale was a slave trader holding views considered reprehensible by most civilized American adults today, but helped fund an institution that has educated young people for more than three centuries. Salovey does not always show such common sense: In 2015, he and his aides refused to defend Erika Christakis for daring to suggest it was not Yale’s job to tell students what kind of Halloween costumes to wear, ultimately hounding her and husband Dr. Nicholas Christakis off campus. Yale was quick to take John Calhoun’s name off of a college, for he, too, owned slaves and defended the Southern way of life 180 years ago. Implicitly Yale is saying, “our current generation of Yalies is morally superior to the scum who founded, funded and nurtured us,” so we must erase recognition of their accomplishment. It shows a contempt for our history, heritage and ancestors that I find morally dubious.

Going to Princeton, more of the same. Woodrow Wilson’s name must go, even though he was good enough for Princeton to make him its president for eight years. It is true that Wilson was a racist and more: he said contemptuous things about immigrants from southern Europe, for example. Personally, I think he was one of the most overrated presidents in American history. Yet I think it was wrong for Princeton to show its ingratitude for a man important in the shaping of both that school and the nation. Again, the current anti-historical mood: “We are morally upright and our predecessors were scum” is, in my judgment, despicable, even though I equally believe that the evolution of moral standards over time to rejecting racial discrimination has been a wonderful thing.

Enough negativism. Let us turn to the last created Ivy League school, one more democratic and less elitist than the other Ivies (it is, horror of horrors, partly a public university): Cornell. Provost Michael Kotlikoff and President Martha Pollack have declared Cornell will reopen this fall for classes (see their superb July 1 Wall Street Journal op-ed). The school will track and isolate Covid-19 cases and take other measures to insure safety. They make a great point: if students did not return to traditional classes, Covid cases would probably not fall, maybe even rise—students would simply be living at least part of the day in a different environment. And large portions of the student body would return to campus anyway and, outside of class-time, party and socialize in a distinctly non-social distancing manner. Public health would be imperiled, not improved. Moreover, students need socialization, direct interaction with other students, etc. (See the recent superb statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics supporting in-class instruction of younger students). That is why I, celebrating my 80th birthday this fall, plan to return to teach in person unless apparatchiks at Ohio University successfully stop me.

SOURCE