Sunday School 2/14/21: Extra Credit

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the new CDC Director, was in several classrooms Sunday, including the one down the hall on the right, Fox News Sunday, where she chatted with Chris Wallace, and on the left, CNN's SOTU, where Jake Tapper was asking the questions.  I'll look at those interviews and our chances of reopening schools, starting with her conversation with Tapper.

In red zones, CDC advocates for a hybrid model for elementary school, because K-5 kids transmit the virus less, and it's "really essential" to have them in the classroom. For older kids, virtual learning - or if social distancing is possible, a hybrid model - is preferred.

When specifically asked for the science on why kids can't return to in-person learning "tomorrow," if schools are following the guidelines, she offered none. Instead, she talked about how we "really need to do the hard work," including universal masking, strict distancing, restricting disease transmission (e.g., "cohorting or podding"), etc.

Tapper reminded her of the impacts on kids when they're not in school, and that all the experts have been saying we have to get schools open, and yet, "we're taking the safety steps, and we're not opening schools." Her response? In the studies that have shown masking, distancing, and de-densification work, 92% of students wore masks - and we're at around 60% who do so reliably. 

But the real point is to make sure that the science is consistent with our guidance, which is consistent to say, until we can ensure that we have all those measures happening, that there was -- schools wouldn't be safe.

I would have asked how kids are supposed to learn to reliably mask when they never leave their homes. Tapper, though, was more professional.

...I'm just really confused. It seems to me like you're saying, the schools are safe to open as long as everybody takes these steps, but not everybody is taking these steps; therefore, we're not going to open the schools? Do I have that right?

It took 181 words to not say the one word that would have answered the question: yes. 

Regarding vaccinating teachers, she noted they're in priority group 1B, and said for the 1.5 million who are high-risk, as well as for high-risk students, CDC recommends virtual activities. She's a "strong advocate" for them being vaccinated but it's not a reopening prerequisite.

I had to agree with Tapper when he said he felt "a little dispirited" by the conversation.

... I had high hopes that schools would be able to resume in person learning, because so many scientists and health officials, including you and Dr. Fauci and others, had been talking about the science supports opening the schools as much as possible.

He mentioned teachers being concerned, and their unions "pushing back on this," but asking for 100% compliance seems unachievable.

And that makes me feel like, boy, I don't know if the schools are ever going to open until everybody's vaccinated.

Walensky repeated that when over 90% of people mask, you can open schools safely, adding that "this is directly related to how much disease is in the community," and that it was up to all of us to get the rates down so schools can reopen.

I'll treat her conversation with Chris Wallace as a 'speed round,' hitting on three questions answered and three not answered. 

• The new CDC guidance allow even schools in areas of high community spread to open, under certain circumstances.
• Some mitigation measures "are hard to do," such as diagnostic testing and contact tracing being done within 48 hours of a contact, leading to schools not opening.
• Maybe not having the science, data, and guidance to open schools safely contributed to schools being closed to in-person instruction for extended periods of time.

Walensky didn't answer a few key questions, in my opinion.

• Whether she's ever speaking in "her personal capacity" when she's speaking as CDC director, something that press secretary Jen Psaki suggested after Walensky said that schools could reopen without vaccinating all teachers; 
• the implication that the administration's trying to lessen their burden on getting schools opened for in-person instruction within the first 100 days, by saying "at least one day a week" was considered 'open.' Wallace said nearly 65% of kids are in schools meeting that very low threshold now; and
• whether we really need another $130B for schools, given that only $4B of the previously allocated $68B has been spent.

I looked at her chats on MTP and Face the Nation, and I didn't end up feeling any better. I go back to how Tapper set the stage for his interview, quoting Walensky's statement that "schools should be the last thing to close and the first thing to open." I can't imagine being a parent watching any of her interviews and coming away with a sense of confidence that things will be back to normal any time soon.

See you around campus.

Just Say No to Cuomo's Education Plan

Have you seen the commercials urging support for Governor Cuomo's new education plan? You know, the plan to give people tax credits for sending their kids to parochial, private, charter or 'some other' pubic school?

The commercials tout the $500 tax credit for parents, and the $200 tax break for teachers who purchase their own school supplies, and a tax credit for people who donate money to a school, even a public school, to support programs that end up on the chopping block because schools can't afford to pay for them any more. Lt Governor Kathy Hochul explained it this way in an op-ed piece published recently:

The truth is that all schools - pubic, charter, parochial, private - deserve our support. That's why the governor has proposed the Parental Choice in Education Act, to ensure that every student and their family are supported in some way by the state, no matter where they go to school.

This Act will offer tax credits to individuals who donate to programs like after-school programs at public schools, often cut first; to the selfless public school teachers who go above and beyond in purchasing supplies for their classrooms out of their own pockets; and to low-income families who send their children to nonpublic schools so they can get the best education possible.

And to hep ensure that no child is condemned to a failing school, it will provide scholarships to low- and middle-income students who attend nonpublic schools or public schools that are outside of the district in which their family lives.  

That tax credit for people who donate to schools? Well, that's set as 75% of the total donated, with a cap of $1,000,000. And it applies to corporations as well as people, of course. You know, law firms, real estate brokers, and development companies, frequently set up as limited liability companies, or LLCs. (You may recall, of course, that LLCs and other corporations are huge donors to the Sonofa Gov's campaign, and the 'LLC loophole' is one of the big issues that won't get touched under any campaign finance reform package as long as the people in office accept money from them.)

Once again, we have the Governor and his minions working hard to develop a set of gimmicks and special benefits, which then get slickly packaged and 'messaged' in an almost comically ironic way. For example, those "selfless teachers" purchasing supplies with their own money. Aren't they the same teachers this the administration has vilified for the past year or more, and blamed for the failures of the schools in which they teach?  Nice way to try and win back the unions, Gov. Or are we to believe that only those teachers who you consider 'effective' would be seeking this credit?

Similarly, lamenting cuts in school programs while championing a property tax cap that limits how much money schools get to fund these programs? And, ignoring court orders dating back a decade or more, the state refuses to fund public schools appropriately (particularly urban ones) so that students can receive a sound basic education?

This is what the New York State Constitution has to say about the government's role in education:

Article XI. Education

Section 1. The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools wherein all children of this state may be educated. 

 Section 3.  Neither the state nor any subdivision thereof, shall us its property or credit or any public money, or authorize or permit either to be used, directly or indirectly, in aid or maintenance, other than for the examination or inspection of any school or institution of learning wholly or in part under the control or direction of any religious denomination or in which any denominational tenet or doctrine is taught, but the legislature may provide for the transportation of children to and from any school or institution of learning.

(Section 2 established the SUNY system, therefore not included above).

I freely admit to occasional bouts of over-simplification or over-complication; perhaps one of those is happening here. But if the Constitution says that the government must maintain and support free common schools, which means public schools, I'm confused as to why Governor Cuomo is proposing using tax money to support private and religious schools?

And if the Constitution states that no jurisdiction can use any public money directly or indirectly, for any aid or maintenance of a religious school, other than transporting students to and from, how does Governor Cuomo justify doing exactly that, through his scholarships for kids to leave public school and attend private school?

There are lots of issues with education in New York, particularly in urban and rural schools, that need to be addressed, including what gets taught, how to rate teacher (and administrator) effectiveness, how we fund education, and a whole host of other factors.

Paying people to leave the public school system, or funding education via some sort of school-by-school ice bucket challenge, are not viable ways to address these issues.

A Time for Re-Education

If you've been paying even a little attention to the news over the past year or so, whether you're a parent of a school-aged child or not, you're likely familiar with at least some of the topics below :

• Common Core and Race to the Top (and before that, No Child Left Behind)
• Teacher evaluations, teacher effectiveness, teacher tenure
• Discipline, school violence, restorative justice
• Standardized testing, teaching to the test, treating all kids the same
• Property taxes, state aid, and education funding 
• Charter schools
• Drop out and graduation rates 
• Parent/guardian involvement

There are defenders and detractors for each of these, all of whom would tell you that they have the best interests of the students in their hearts and minds -- and most of them probably honestly think that they do. The problem is that, while the adults go back and forth on these issues, sometimes changing their minds with each shift in political winds (and money), millions of students are being impacted.

As I noted last fall, the students are the canvas on which all of the rest of us paint. 

Some of them really want to learn, really want to get an education, really want to have a career or go to college (or both), really want to be successful. At the same time, there's another portion of the student population that cares much less about those things, and may be only going through the motions, passively waiting to age out, or actively seeking to get thrown out. 

If you plot the students that thrive and the ones who truly don't want to be in school on a bell curve, they're likely going to be the top and bottom five-to-fifteen percent.  And in between them are the 70-90% for whom our educational process can be a deal maker or a deal breaker. The ones who could go either way.

The ones for whom caring, engaged parents/guardians, good teachers, a strong curriculum focused on concepts and practical applications of them, options for different learners instead of cookie-cutter programs, safe and well-designed classrooms and facilities, and fair educational funding, can truly change their lives for the better. The same students, when faced with the opposite of those things, can just as easily go the other way.

Most teachers, administrators, Boards of Education, and yes, even bureaucrats and politicians, know that not all students learn the same way, have the same aspirations, take tests equally well, come from equal socioeconomic backgrounds, or attend schools that offer equal opportunities.  And yet, it seems that what we hear about is exactly that, the cookie cutter approach that does treat all kids the same, setting many of them up for failure.

Locally, we face the challenges listed at the top of this post, as well as others. Many are common to other large urban districts, such as poverty, crime, school violence, higher than acceptable dropout rates and lower than acceptable graduation rates.  But there's more:

• The local teachers union has zero confidence in the superintendent, and demonstrated this very publicly by walking out of a school board meeting last year. City officials, on the other hand, tend to support the superintendent. And there's been some flux on the Board of Education as well. 
• The Syracuse City School District (SCSD) has been accused of institutional racism, with African American students suspended at rates much higher than their overall representation in the district. 
• About half of all properties in the city are tax exempt, and we've got a huge inventory of abandoned properties, seriously limiting property tax collection.
• Programs have been introduced to encourage teachers and other 'role model' professions to live in the city, but those programs, not surprisingly, face an uphill battle in the current environment.

Frustration is running high on all sides. And for those of us not in the official stakeholder buckets outlined a couple of paragraphs above, but who are interested in the future of our city and our schools, it's hard to discern if there is a 'right side' to these issues.

I'm not affiliated with the SCSD, not a teacher, not a politician, and don't have kids. I'm just a long-time city resident working with some others to get a better understanding of community sentiment around the SCSD, and perceptions around the key challenges the district faces and where to look for solutions.

A confidential survey has been created, and we are looking for feedback from parents, community members, district employees, students and former students -- all local residents are encouraged to participate, including those who live in any of the suburban school districts.

You can access the survey here.

For readers outside the immediate Syracuse/Onondaga County area, I'm very interested in the state of education where you are. What challenges are your schools facing? What successes can you share?  What are your opinions on the issues outlined at the beginning of this post? Has your district solved any of them?What scares you or encourages you?

Educate us. Re-educate us.