EduIssues

Continue reading “Comments Following the 6/25 SMUHSD Board Meeting”

6/24/2020, 6:30 AM – This article is also excerpted from our local Nextdoor discussion on school reopening. The full Nextdoor discussion is accessible at https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=151832244, but requires both a Nextdoor account to access and is also only geographically accessible from some, not all, neighborhoods in the SMUHSD.

Nextdoor’s discussions are free-form, comments are quickly lost in nested sub-threads, and include a lot of repetition of issues covered previously in the convoluted discussion thread.  Consequently, I have been highlighting on this blog aspects of the conversation that strike me as being of particular importance.

The following comments were written by Joelle Kaufman and reproduced here with her permission.  Some of my remarks during the conversation are also included below.  There were a couple of other participants as well but, as the Board Meeting is coming up soon, and because I promised that Joelle’s remarks would go up this morning, I did not have time to seek out permission from the other participants.  Technically, any post on Nextdoor is in a public forum and could be quoted elsewhere, but I prefer not to operate in that manner on this blog.

Joelle Kaufman introduced herself early in the conversation as follows: “I am a business person – and a parent of a BHS graduate, BHS Senior and an 8th grader who will attend BHS.”  The “survey” which she mentions at the beginning below was conducted by SMUHSD to gauge parent and student sentiment about returning to school this Fall.

Joelle’s comment is followed by my reply, and then her response to my request for available data.  As I received this late last night, I have not had time to review any of the citations that she quotes and leave the evaluation of these links to each reader.

Joelle Kaufman: Without a doubt, the survey was flawed and a less biased, transparent survey should be deployed to get broad parent, student and teacher input.

I think that your blogpost, David Kristofferson, may have missed what I think is the underlying problem with the call, from 75% or 2/3 of the teachers, for 100% distance learning. When we moved dramatically to distance, we know teachers really couldn’t prepare. Teachers begged, pleaded publicly for credit/no-credit to protect the most vulnerable students – and acknowledged that students who were striving (vulnerable or not) would be potentially demoralized and demotivated – but that it was better for everyone’s mental health and more equitable to go credit/no-credit.

Turns out – it was neither. The lack of structure and the lack of expectations disproportionately impacted more vulnerable students who may not have parents who can act as teacher’s aides or tutors (or hire them). The psychological damage of isolation, lack of structure and no purpose is now well documented for the dramatic increases in anxiety and depression. While there are other factors obviously contributing to those problems, the recommendation of the teachers removed key defenses against those mental health consequences. And I don’t think anyone thinks the District is not also culpable – but the recommendation came from teachers and it was not good for the kids. The pleading for 100% distance learning also came from the teachers at the last Board meeting – not from the Board, Administrators. Teachers, who are educators, are not psychologists (although they may feel like them sometimes!).

Psychologists I know were very alarmed by the credit/no-credit and are very alarmed by the 100% distance recommendation. For example – you have NO IDEA who is actually vulnerable – it’s not just socio-economic or IEP/504 or students struggling in school. The largest population of anxious and depressed students are high performing, relatively affluent teens. It’s very sad. The only way to know who is struggling is to SEE them and OBSERVE changes in demeanor and behavior to refer them to a counselor for help.

Now we have another recommendation from teachers – driven by fear for their own safety. And only one teacher in the district has training and experience in distance learning – so we have teachers recommending something that they did not do well in the spring, are not trained to do and have no experience in doing, because they are scared. And it is scary. And when you look at the rate of infection and of complex cases, the adjusted risk is very low (not zero) for people under 65. I’m happy to share with you a model of that risk so you can adjust the assumptions . I do not know how many teachers are over 50 or have a medical condition that significantly increases their risk (my model guessed 45% to be conservative). But all living is risk – driving to school, exposure to influenza, eating unhealthy (but tasty) food, having children on screens fo 3-6 hours per day. My model calculated 2 cases (not deaths – none of those) in the entire SMUHSD given the infection rate and mortality rate by age. Our county is declining in cases – in spite of more interaction – as people exercise personal responsibility.

School will be different as we mitigate risk – for the teachers. The teens are already interacting with each other, as they do and as they need. Let’s educate them as they need as well – in person, in community and teach personal responsibility for community.

David Kristofferson: Hi Joelle, your clear concern is the psychological impact on kids of distance learning, and I think this is what you are saying that I did not address on my blog about school reopening. Yes, that is correct and you make very good points above.

I have been writing for several years, though, about the negative impacts of the AP course load on kids and have noted the irony of the frequent mention of mental health resources by the school district, e.g., even to the point of declaring September to be Suicide Prevention Month a year or two back. See for example my articles “Critical Warnings re AP Classes” at https://eduissues.com/2016/10/20/critical-warnings-re-ap-classes/ and “Mutual Assured Destruction” at https://eduissues.com/2018/03/16/mutual-assured-destruction/.

In the limited time to try to make sense of all of the complicated, competing plans and interests, I unfortunately omitted this important issue, so I apologize.

In order to make a rational decision on the competing concerns of teachers versus students, we need data though.

In the case of mental health issues, privacy concerns may hinder data collection. When dealing with economically disadvantaged children a similar issue arises given the fears of undocumented immigrants.

When one sees pictures of corpses being loaded into refrigeration trucks in New York as a result of COVID-19 and holds this up against non-quantitative claims of increased anxiety and depression, it is hard not to be more moved by the former rather than the latter in the current crisis.

Call numbers to suicide prevention lines are a possible statistic, but can be due to many causes. One would expect the biggest problem right now might be due to adults who are out of work and unable to pay their bills or put food on the table and for people with serious illness and no health insurance.

Have you seen any *real data* pertaining to kids, either nationwide at the very least, or better yet for our decision purposes, in our area?

Without data, I think that most people will have no choice but to conclude that death is a more serious outcome than anxiety and depression. *** I am saying this not to minimize the students’ problems, but only to point out how hard it is to balance all of the competing concerns fairly. ***

Joelle Kaufman: Thank you – I’d love to be a guest blogger on your site – please feel free to repost my comment with the following added data. The studies on mental health impact are too early to be published – but I found a number of potential proxies to emphasize how serious mental health is for our students – and that our schools are their first line of detection.

https://www.crisistextline.org/mental-health/coronavirus-how-is-america-feeling-part-9-grief/ – you can read that Anxiety is 10 points higher since the start of the pandemic. People text CrisisTextLine – Text HOME to 741741 to text with a Crisis Counselor – when they need help.

Their top suggestions for students is to “stay on track” and “stay on a schedule” – both of which were totally undermined in the spring. I recognize that the intention is to do something different in the fall – but without a curriculum designed, by curriculum development professionals, for virtual learning. https://www.crisistextline.org/topics/get-help-coronavirus/#for-students-3

Psychologists and psychiatrists are writing about the amount of abuse (domestic and familial) that is occurring. https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/27/adolescents-young-adults-paying-high-price-covid-19-prevention/

https://www.checkupnewsroom.com/depression-and-anxiety-in-children-and-teens-on-the-rise-amid-covid-19/

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/the-implications-of-covid-19-for-mental-health-and-substance-use/

And finally, California is 10th in the nation for CrisisTextLine activity. Suicidal ideation is down (thankfully as suicide is the leading killer of teens – and Covid-19 represents 0.1 of the suicide deaths). But anxiety, depression, eating disorders and abuse are way up. https://www.crisistextline.org/mental-health/coronavirus-how-is-america-feeling-self-care-part-10/.

The mental health issues can be damaging lifelong and impact a much higher percentage of students than Covid-19. We have to balance the risk – the students need school to learn and for their safety.

Thank you again for the continued civil and informed dialogue and for sharing my thoughts with your audience. Respect.

Please post your comments following this article below.  You must scroll all the way down to the “Leave a Reply” box to reply to the article directly or click the “Reply” link following a particular comment to respond to that comment.  This forum is moderated, so comments will not appear until approved.

The WordPress software that runs this site requires that you enter an email address in order to comment, but your address is not checked for validity nor displayed, and I do not collect or use this information.  Also, you will not receive emailed comments on the article from other people unless you check a box in the form to request this.

Thanks as always for your participation!

6/23/2020, 3;30 PM – The 6/25 Board Meeting Agenda is now online at

https://agendaonline.net/public/Meeting.aspx?AgencyID=126&MeetingID=78890&AgencyTypeID=1&IsArchived=False

The School Reopening issue is item L.1. and English and Spanish versions of the presentations are linked to from the Agenda.

The periods are now 75 minutes instead of 90 in an earlier version. See slides 4-6.

Slide 17 mentions that school year could begin in phase 2 for “at risk” students.

I have also been made aware of another letter from SMHS teachers to parents which can be found here:

https://mailchi.mp/4320abd035fa/letter-to-parents-from-smhs-teachers

6/22/2020 4:10 PM – Superintendent Kevin Skelly has released the following statement at https://www.smuhsd.org/Domain/2984:

• June 25 Board Meeting

  Spanish | Chinese

  Dear Families and Students:

  At their June 11 meeting, the Board of Trustees reviewed staff safety protocols and heard a report from the Return to School Committee. The Board directed staff to return with a plan for instruction in the fall. The presentation posted on our website includes a basic class schedule (with at least three hours of synchronous learning per class per week). On Thursday, June 25 the Board will review the proposal, give further direction and consider approval of a plan for how the District will deliver instruction in the Fall.

  I’m sharing some frequently asked questions which help illustrate the proposal for parents and students more thoroughly.

  Those wishing to share their thoughts with the Board may do so by sending an email to returntoschool@smuhsd.org.  Please copy me at kskelly@smuhsd.org if you’d like. Those wishing to make a public comment on the topic may email comments@smuhsd.org with your name, email address, and your zoom name (if different) and the item under which you would like to comment.

  Zoom Meeting login information is available on our website.

  I realize that there are concerns and some anxiety about school opening and the process we are following to come up with a plan. It is a messy time, but we are making progress and I’m increasingly confident that, despite the challenges, we can do right by our students and families this fall. Thanks for your interest and support.

  Sincerely,

  Kevin Skelly, Ph.D.
  Superintendent

6/22/2020 1:15 PM – The following important response on Nextdoor from a local teacher and parent was written to dispel parental concerns about what SMUHSD parents should expect from distance learning in the Fall.

It was written in response to misinformation in a petition entitled “100% Against 100% Distance Learning for SMUHSD Students in the Fall.”  The text below is quoted with permission of the author.  The full Nextdoor discussion is accessible at https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=151832244, but requires both a Nextdoor account to access and is also only geographically accessible from some neighborhoods in the SMUHSD.

I find it especially important to highlight this information because I have already seen private school advertising in my U.S. mail bragging about their superior preparedness after shelter-in-place was announced in mid-March.  This is yet another unfortunate consequence of a decision that was supposedly taken to mitigate the pressures on many students and teachers due to the pandemic.

The data and language in the Change.Org petition is inflammatory and drawn from anecdotal evidence that has been debunked.  Parents have been led to believe that the “issues” involved in Distance Learning offered was the fault of the teachers.  This is 100% untrue. 

The Board should mandate that the Administration disclose the truth about the prior Distance Learning experience (see position #2 below)  and the realities of what is being presented as the “on-site” experience.  

The teachers have been “thrown under the bus” by the Administration and have the Parents to believe that the teachers are at fault. This is 100% false.  (see position #2)

Contrary to the statement in the petition, the teachers have taken a position that 2/3rds of the members desire to return to a distance learning environment. This is not a “political power” position as stated in the petition.  The poll reflects 75% of the districts teachers and was taken prior to the parents leaking of the failed Quarter Plan.  As stated by a parent on the committee during the June 11 meeting, The Quarter Plan did not allow sufficient parent input or review, items essential to producing public policy. The teachers are now being blamed for the failures of the committee leadership.

The SMUHSD Re-Opening Task Force failed in its mission to effectively collect information from its stakeholders, take essential input from stakeholder groups and present a plan for Board approval.   

The Change.Org petition cultivates a position contrary to Dr. Morrow’s statements where he warns against following  “those who believe this pandemic is a hoax and no precautions should be put into place.”

This debate should never have made it to the social media platform.  There is a significant amount of false and misleading information that is being presented as fact rather than opinion.  This has led to a poorly crafted decision and dissension among the groups.

The following are responses to the petition.  This is not to pick a fight, but to move more of the facts into the discussion.

Petition Statement:

“It’s clear that District parents and students are comfortable with the risks of returning to school and the steps needed to mitigate these risks. In a recent survey taken by the SMUHSD 80% of parents and students want to return to campus in the Fall and 86.2% of those parents and students prefer a blended in-person and distance learning model versus a 100% distance learning model.”

Facts:

1. The SMUHSD Board stated at it June 11, 2020 meeting that the survey and data were bias and individual Board members admonished the Administration for its “continued failures to produce data that can actually be used.”  This faulty data drove the production of the Administrations Quarter Plan, wasting weeks of valuable time only to be trashed one hour prior to its presentation.  

Petition Statement:

“The California Teachers Association, has adopted a political power position that it does not want to work in classrooms this Fall under any circumstances. It’s unclear short of a vaccine, which may never appear, when the CTA would be willing to teach our children in classrooms again.”

Facts:

2. It was actually the Parents on the committee who revolted against the Administration Plan, not the teachers.  A group of parents on the committee leaked the plan to social media because THEY were opposed to its implementation.  The Teachers have not adopted a “political power position.”  The teachers (prior to the leak) presented the Administration with a bevy of scientific data outlining their concerns in the work environment for students and teachers.  The association also presented data representing 75% of the membership indicated a preference to return to school in a  distance learning environment. The CTA polled is members specifically on individual work place preference.  Delivering fact based data and bona fide results of the desires of the membership are hardly a “political power position.” The teachers have been open to implementing standards that provide a safe learning environment for both student and teachers.  The teacher have also stood for a transparent environment where the risks, costs, and challenges are properly disclosed to the public.    The real behind the scenes story was that  the independent work of a small group of teachers  from San Mateo High School who produced the current and viable plan for re-opening, upon hearing of the rejection of the Quarter Plan after it was leaked by the parents. 

Petition Statement:

“Everyone agrees that distance learning was a huge failure in our public high schools last Spring. Teachers were not required to do any “Zoom’ classes and it was 100% self study. Students at all levels and backgrounds were abandoned.  Most failed to learn.  If we begin the Fall Semester and the students again are forced to 100% distance learn, the damage to their education will most likely be irreversable.”(sic)

Facts:

3. The “Distance Learning” during the Shelter in Place was the design and mandate of the District Administration, not the teachers.  Teachers were directed by the Administration to “prioritize the health of the students and staff as the primary mission.”  The Administrative mandate continued to halt assignments during the “Hold Harmless Period”  (some 3-5 weeks) and then a continued mandate on a reduction of assignments and grading.  (Why haven’t the parents been properly informed of these events?) The petition’s criticisms regarding Distance Learning are actually complaints about the mandates of the administration and not the teachers.  

The online learning that is being planned for the Fall (with proper training and professional development) will not resemble anything like the Shelter in Place experience.

Petition Statement:

“The “lifetime” of a high school student is four years. We could lose most or all of the next few classes of high school students by keeping them away from their teachers, peers and a positive learning environment.”

Facts:

What is being proposed by the District for re-opening the schools does NOT included contact among students, teachers, and peers in a positive learning environment.  The health mandates alone along with the social distance protocols resembles more of a prison environment than a school.  Student engagement and movement will be severely limited and will not resemble anything a student may remember about the school experience.  The gathering of students into a confined space for a period of time on a daily basis is more aligned with retirement homes and the penal system than a school.  A focused question to the Administration would reveal these facts.

Petition Statement:

“Social emotional development is critical in these formative years. Without in-person interactions with teachers and classmates, these developmental milestones will be missed.”

Facts:

Dr. Morrow has authorized a “Social Bubble” of 12 people or less.  Families may now form these cohorts at home for student interaction.  Even inside the school, student will not be able to freely interact with other students.  Teachers will be “locked” in a Teacher Zone and will not be able to interact with the students.

Students who participate in the return to school model will be trapped at school in PPE all day and will NOT be able to form a Social Bubble as they are engaged with students from school.  Students who participate in the online program will be free to engage with their Social Bubble peer anytime during or after school.

More of what Dr. Morrow stated in his letter.

A more complete read of Dr. Morrow’s June 15, 2020 Statement gives deeper insight into his intent, 

“ I want to see kids back in school.  I also feel that it is very important that kids be allowed to be kids.”  

He is not giving orders as much as he  is giving advice.  He is expressing his wishes and his statement adds cautions.  

He knows that the decisions to open the schools does not belong to him, but  to local school boards.  He does have the power to close the schools as needed.

The following  statmentsare drawn from the same June 15 letter offering insight into Dr. Morrow’s desire to see schools open.

Dr. Morrow June 15 statement:

 “Most folks are familiar with the effects of sneezing, especially if someone sneezes on you.  You feel this wetness on you.  The feeling of wetness is produced mainly by tens of thousands of expelled droplets.  I hope most folks have the basic understanding that avoiding having someone sneeze on you is a good idea.  Surprisingly, talking for one minute produces the same amount of droplets as one sneeze.  Think about that.  Being close to someone talking for one minute is like having them sneeze on you.  Shouting produces 10 times the amount of droplets as talking.  Shouting near others for 6 seconds is equivalent to sneezing on them.  This is the main reason why the extensive use of facial coverings is so important.”

Facts:

Dr.  Morrow’s letter states that the transfers of the virus are from droplets. Individual in close proximity to one another talking, sneezing, blowing their nose, touching their face and then touching another person.  increases the transfer of the virus.  After working with teens for 30 years I can tell you that most teens lack a sense of personal space and proper hygiene practices (it goes with the territory).  Social Distancing practices in the classrooms, hallways, courtyards, cars, busses, bathrooms at passing period. 

We could not stop the kids from vaping during schools  in the bathrooms, at passing periods,  and in class this is going to be easy?

Dr. Morrow June 15 statement:

“(keeping schools closed), the most vulnerable among us are the most likely to be damaged by continuing to not offer a more typical school experience and they are also the most vulnerable to disease spreading out of control. These are the types of difficult issues that need to be balanced”

Facts:

The most vulnerable students in our population will carry the most damage from school closures, but they are also the most vulnerable to contracting and spreading the disease. Therefore, the needs of THESE students are premier and should be elevated to a higher standard.  Students whose families enjoy income security and associated benefits do not need an in class space as they are far less likely to suffer from a lack of in class instruction or and are less likely to contract and spread the virus. Dr. Morrow’s examples (intent) differentiated between elementary and secondary education.  The appropriation of the needs of the most vulnerable and applying them to those more well off is not a sound application of Dr. Morrows analysis.

Dr. Morrow June 15 statement:

“But that level of risk tolerance should not drive the entire decision making process or the structure in which schools operate any more than parents who believe this pandemic is a hoax and no precautions should be put into place.”

Facts:

“level of risk tolerance should not drive the entire decision making process or the structure in which schools operate.”   Dr. Morrow does not support returning to school without precautions.  The manner in which schools operate should balance on MORE than just risk tolerance.  

What is the quality of the delivery  (structure) of education mitigated by the risk factor? 

Does the in-school delivery of education model, when adjusted for risk, offer a better option than online education adjusted for risk?

Dr. Morrow June 15 statement:

 “Preferably they (the decisions) will be made with substantial input from the young people who are directly affected by them. There are many guidelines to review to assist in these decisions.”

Facts:

If the students are presented with ALL of the facts and limitations of returning to school, what would they choose?  The 80% of student approval presented above did not include an explicit explanation of the daily limitations, nor did it include the number of respondents with data that could be disaggregated.  (We really don’t know what that 80% represents) The Teachers and Staff ARE the other people directly affected by the decision making process. In Dr. Morrow’s words, “These are the types of difficult issues that need to be balanced.”

Dr. Morrow June 15 statement:

 “Our case rate remains high and hospitalizations, until recently, were worsening, our Re is around 1.3, (Re is the number of people in a population who can be infected by an individual at any specific time) most models predict a second wave in August.”

Facts:

Dr. Morrow’s model is predicting a second spike of the virus in August 2020, at the exact same time as the SMUHSD is scheduled to open.  More cases, more infections, more…. well you know. 

I’ve used the following in another post but it is appropriate here as well.

NASA and the Challenger Explosion

Bob Ebeling was the engineer who warned NASA that the Challenger was going to blow up because of weather conditions.  Despite agreement among the engineers, the politicians “overrode” the engineers and ordered the launch.

The Challenger blew up on launch and killed everyone on board.

What is Dr. Morrow telling us? 

Are we “A-OK” for Launch, or is he cautioning us about how to proceed?

Dr. Morrow expressed his wishes to return to school, but he also insisted on informing the public to use caution and evaluate the facts.

Please post your comments following this article below (or on Nextdoor at https://nextdoor.com/post/151832244 if you can access that post – note that the Nextdoor post is not accessible in all parts of the SMUHSD while this blog is).  You must scroll all the way down to the “Leave a Reply” box to reply to the article directly or click the “Reply” link following a particular comment to respond to that comment.  This forum is moderated, so comments will not appear until approved.

The WordPress software that runs this site requires that you enter an email address in order to comment, but your address is not checked for validity nor displayed, and I do not collect or use this information.  Also, you will not receive emailed comments on the article from other people unless you check a box in the form to request this.

Thanks as always for your participation!

UPDATE on 6/19/2020 at 11:15 AM: Here is the slide deck preview for the next Board Meeting: Fall 2020 Learning Plan – Public Version

It was accompanied by the following note:

Attached is a preview of the schedule that will be on the board agenda for next week. The schedule was a collaboration between the teachers’ union, district administration, and site administration. All groups took into account the feedback from our committee, previous surveys, and schedules presented at the last board meeting. In addition, we took into account school board comments and recommendations.  The presentation will have far more detail, but this gives you a glimpse of the suggested schedule for the school board’s consideration. I believe the board agenda will be posted this evening or Monday.

UPDATE on 6/15/2020: An Addendum has been appended to this post which was made the morning before the Board meeting.  The Addendum briefly describes the outcome of the Board meeting and provides links to a recording of the meeting as well as the slide deck presented to the attendees.

6/11/2020 – This last week has been overwhelming in terms of the number of proposals, counter-proposals, and extensive discussions about how to reopen schools in the fall.  Please see SMUHSD Debating a Change to a Quarter System? and, for those with local Nextdoor access, https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=150484676 for the gory details.

I would like to make a short, relatively uncomplicated proposal and then will step aside.  I do not have children attending school, and my personal work is done completely via Skype since the pandemic, so I will not consume valuable comment time during the Board meeting tonight.

This idea will not need 66 slides!  In fact it will not need any slides at all – just the very short text section that follows!

At the end of last school year, most AP teachers were holding classes via Zoom.  Many non-AP classes were held much less regularly though, due to the rapid school closure and some teachers suddenly having outside care responsibilities during the COVID-19 outbreak.

In the fall, school will resume full time.  I believe, but am not certain, that part of the rationale for the quarter system was to complete certain classes by the end of the first quarter in case there was a “second wave” of COVID-19 in the late October/November time frame.  This might allow a “cleaner” shutdown of school if necessary.

Pardon me, but I still don’t understand, after listening to all of the back and forth, why school can’t resume using the normal pre-pandemic seven period semester schedule with 1/3rd of students in class each day and the other two thirds participating in the exact same lesson via Zoom (or some other more secure platform) from home.  Or we could have only one fifth of students come in on a particular day of the week if the desire is to further minimize group size.

If a “second wave” develops, then we simply go back to 100% of students using Zoom or Zoom alternative from home until it passes, but we do not stop school.

The 1/3rd rotation could have the same group coming in every 3rd day as in the current district slide deck, or, more preferable in terms of reducing teacher exposure, every third week as several of my Aragon students told me was the proposal originally mentioned to them.

A week at school followed by two weeks off would also be an effective “quarantine” to minimize COVID-19 spread in the event that any student was infected.  The week at school allows students to ask teachers questions in person and also gives them at least some “socially distant” contact with their peers.

The rotation schedule on a normal semester plan seems to me to be the most important topic for discussion, NOT the quarter system idea which appears to be a non-starter for very many people (parents AND teachers)!

The other alternative, of course, is 100% online learning that the teachers currently favor due to their health concerns.

Why do we need to develop all of these other complicated proposals with so many downsides and probably other as yet unforeseen consequences???  The Board meeting tonight could be the longest one in SMUHSD history or we could cut through all of this clutter in advance.

If I am missing something, please let me know in the Comment section below or on Nextdoor where I will also be posting a link to this article.  Thank you!

Addendum posted AFTER the Board Meeting:

A recording of the 5 hour long Board meeting is available at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCW_KpbKc1KYRPUzLZHSxf0A

The quarter system proposal was dropped from the agenda a few hours prior to the meeting and replaced with two other possible models (“Fully Blended” and “80/20 Blended”) developed with substantial teacher input.  The Fully Blended model is discussed by Assistant Superintendent Kirk Black starting at 1 hour 36 minutes (1:36) into the Youtube video above, and the 80/20 Blended model is presented by teacher Jinna Hwang at 1:43 into the video.

Here is a copy of the revised Return to School slide presentation given at the meeting that includes these two new models: L_1_RevisedReturnToSchoolPresentation_0

The decision was made to flesh these plans out further and bring them back to the next Board meeting on 6/25.

What do people think about these proposals?

I remain concerned by the reduction in class time and the use of “asynchronous learning.”  As I said on Nextdoor:

… sorry, but the idea of a student watching a lecture at home without the ability to ask an immediate question of the lecturer just rubs me the wrong way. One can call it by the fancy term “asynchronous learning” but I would prefer a simpler term – “bad teaching!”

This denigration of lecturing in current education philosophy has gone to an extreme. No one enjoys simply being talked AT, of course, but then why assign Khan Academy and prerecorded lectures where there is no possibility of interaction? There always seems to be a curious parallel reduction in teaching effort along with many of these “progressive education” methods like, for example, CPM math.

In fact I wrote an article about this problem earlier: Why a “Sage on the Stage” in a Classroom is not always a Bad Thing .

This asynchronous learning problem can be fixed if the teacher is accessible with a reasonable turn-around time via some kind of instant messaging system such as the one in Canvas mentioned by Kevin in the comments below or via other forms of IMs or cellular texts.

Please post your comments following this article below (or on Nextdoor at https://nextdoor.com/post/151832244 if you can access that post – note that the Nextdoor post is not accessible in all parts of the SMUHSD while this blog is).  You must scroll all the way down to the “Leave a Reply” box to reply to the article directly or click the “Reply” link following a particular comment to respond to that comment.  This forum is moderated, so comments will not appear until approved.

The WordPress software that runs this site requires that you enter an email address in order to comment, but your address is not checked for validity nor displayed, and I do not collect or use this information.  Also, you will not receive emailed comments on the article from other people unless you check a box in the form to request this.

Thanks as always for your participation!