Published August 21, 2020
MELROSE — The School Committee has taken a lot of heat over its vote last week to delay sending most students back to the city’s school buildings as the 2020-21 academic year rapidly approaches.
Many caregivers want to know why a majority of School Committee members temporarily turned their backs on the one-week-in-school, one-week-remote learning hybrid model created by Supt. Dr. Julie R. Kukenberger and her team. Others question why, if Melrose is averaging less than 4 cases daily per 100,000 over the most recent last two weeks, kids are not returning to the classroom like Gov. Charlie Baker says they can.
As they debated Kukenberger’s reworked return to instruction plan during an Aug. 11 meeting, five school board members ultimately felt it better to delay returning students to the classroom for at least the first four weeks of school. The year begins Sept. 16. This delay, the majority believed, would create a good-faith negotiating base with teachers, who are adamant about not returning to the individual school buildings as the COVID-19 pandemic continues.
In addition, most committee members were not comfortable for the moment implementing the administration’s proposed hybrid model, where kids learn from home one week and go to school the next.
There are exceptions, however. The district has a number of children who are considered “at risk,” youngsters who “absolutely need to be in school,” said School Committee Chairman Ed O’Connell. They will be taught in school, and there was discussion about expanding the so-called Group C to include even more kids. They will be get safe, in-person instruction beginning Sept. 21.
Kukenberger and her team, with the help of hundreds of residents, tweaked the initial draft of the return to instruction plan and presented it last week. The so-called Best Fit Model allows for caregivers/parents to choose between hybrid learning and a remote-only option, the Melrose Distance Learning Academy (MDLA). There will be limited, in-person preschool options available as well.
The School Committee approved the reworked plan so it can be submitted to the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. However, led by member Jen McAndrew, the discussion turned towards delaying the return of all kids to their schools. The delay passed 5-2, with Margaret Driscoll and Jennifer Razi-Thomas opposed; they wanted to implement Kukenberger’s proposal.
In the aftermath of that vote, McAndrew — being careful to say “Views, biases, imperfections are my own. I don’t speak for the district or anyone else.” — further explained her position.
“At (the August 11) meeting,” she wrote, “I offered an amended motion for a four-week remote start for most students because it offers our best (and indeed our ‘last best’) chance to get kids in the buildings this fall, which remains my goal. I do believe it was the right (and only) remaining course of action. The amended motion approved the Superintendent’s plan for submission to DESE and instructed the district to prepare for four-weeks of robust, synchronous distanced learning with these parameters:
• High-needs students (referred to as “Group C”) receive safe, in-person instruction and services beginning September 21. On discussion, this was clarified to mean that Group C/high-needs would be defined by the Superintendent and her team.
• School buildings open for educators to teach remotely from their classrooms or otherwise designated safe, individual spaces.
• Negotiations with the Melrose Education Association (the teachers’ union) continue during the period of fully distanced learning to reach agreement on a safe, phased-in approach to hybrid, in-person learning.
“I believe that this course of action gives us the best shot to collaboratively move, as a district with our educators, to hybrid and in-person learning. I want that too. I know many of you do. And yet, I also acknowledge it may not happen. I also strongly believe that the decision had to be made in the public session and that we could not and should not wait any longer to have that discussion. It’s like ignoring the elephant in the room.
“I understand that the meeting ran long and very late. I understand that there were audio issues with the technology. None of that is ideal. Just as nothing about this situation is ideal. Parents may feel blindsided, as some have expressed since the meeting. While I understand that, I consider it to be a clear indication of why we absolutely had to have that very difficult conversation and vote in public right when we did. It was time for all parents and stakeholders to have a true decision. Clearly not everyone agrees with me. But waiting two more weeks — or worse, waiting until the last days before school started — to (potentially) throw all the models into chaos was not a responsible course of action, in my view.
“I realize you may see this differently. I acknowledge that, and I respect that. This is not easy and I recognize that in many ways we are all choosing from, to quote our Congresswoman, a ‘buffet of bad options.’ Such is life in a global pandemic.
“And that brings me to the larger context.
“Local government can be a powerful force. But we need reliable partners to succeed. I am profoundly sorry that our federal government has failed us. I am sorry that all your sacrifices as families and everything your kids missed (in-person learning, sports, jobs, family visits, trips, proms, an in-person start to college, all of it) was for nothing. I’m sorry that you have lost jobs and incomes and, in some cases, have been sick and suffered the loss of loved ones. And for nothing. Yes, we ‘flattened the curve’ for a period here in Massachusetts, but from a national perspective, we did basically nothing with that time. I wish that our federal leaders had not squandered your goodwill and your sacrifice. But they very clearly did, most especially the president. It is not my opinion. It is a fact that we have no national response to the worst public health and economic crisis in a century.
“I am likewise sorry that your state government prioritized certain portions of our economy over schoolchildren. Governor Baker says that young students can’t learn to read at home. Maybe some educators and parents want to argue that specific point, but the bigger question is: what precisely is he willing to do to get students back in those classrooms? Because cracking down on backyard parties isn’t going to cut it. Because opening casinos and gyms and movie theatres and restaurants before we successfully opened schools was the wrong approach. Because untimely, unrealistic and under-funded reopening ‘guidelines’ are not sufficient. Because an 11th-hour, incomplete metric tossed at districts that have already made or are making decisions is laughable.
“These aren’t excuses. They are our shared reality. We can’t do this well because the circumstances are untenable.
“But many of you know me. You know I’m a believer. So what can a believer say? For the short term, I believe we are on the least bad course. Not exactly encouraging. For the longer term, I believe we can do better together,” McAndrew concluded.
While many kids will learn from home to begin the school year, families still will be asked to select one option from an alternating in-person/learning from home schedule (Group A) or a remote-only option, the Melrose Distance Learning Academy (Group B). In the first option (Group A), students can participate in in-person instruction and connect virtually on an every other week schedule. Alternatively, students may opt to participate in a remote-only option (Group B). Families must choose one of the two options and commit to this choice as follows:
• Preschool – Students must make a full-year commitment to in-person instruction.
• Kindergarten Students and Students in Grades 1-8 – Students must commit to hybrid or remote instruction for the first trimester (57 days). Families may reassess after 57 days of school. Requests to transfer from one learning model to another will be accepted and considered; final decisions will be made based on staffing and space availability. If students change their model of instruction, they may be placed with a different teacher and set of classmates.
• Students in Grades 9-12 – Students must commit to hybrid or remote instruction for the first semester (85 days). Requests to transfer from one learning model to another will be accepted and considered; final decisions will be made based on staffing and space availability. If students change their model of instruction, they may be placed with a different teacher and set of classmates. The Melrose Public Schools will make every effort to keep siblings on the same schedule. Additionally, we aim to support families by keeping students who share caregivers or have siblings in the same cohort.
Students who qualify for an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or 504 plan will receive their required services within their selected learning model. All students who are English Language Learners (ELL) will receive their services within their learning model chosen. These services may be delivered remotely or in-person, depending on individual student needs and circumstances.
Families will be asked to identify which learning model they plan to choose for each child enrolled in the Melrose Public Schools. Once a student in grades K-12 is assigned to a learning model/group, they will remain in this learning model for the beginning for a full trimester in grades 1-8. Kindergarten and high school students (grade 9-12) will stay in the selected learning model for an entire semester.
The alternating week model was chosen to allow the teacher and students to get into a rhythm and routine during in-person weeks and families and students to do the same during learning at home weeks. This five (5) day in and five (5) day out rotation also allows nine (9) days (including two weekends) for families to monitor students for symptoms before students re-enter the school community for another in-person week. Additionally, this rotation allows for deep cleaning of the buildings (in addition to daily cleaning) at the end of each week before a new cohort of students enters the building. We believe that the week in/week out rotation allows for the highest risk mitigation and added protection for staff and students.
The reworked plan to return to instruction in 2020-21 includes longer education days than originally proposed, lunches served in-building and weekly rotating “specials” like art, music and physical education.