DESE’s ‘guidance’ leaves heavy lifting to districts

July 8, 2020 | Chris Maza
chrism@thereminder.com

No doubt, if you read Reminder Publishing papers last week, you are well-acquainted with the Commissioner of Education Jeffrey Riley’s guidance on returning to school in the fall.

As I have reviewed the responses from local school districts, the striking similarities in statements to respective school communities left me underwhelmed. As I continued to read, I became increasingly disheartened and truly concerned for our children’s future.

There was careful language, skillfully crafted.

Boilerplate language.

If you’ll indulge me for a moment, some examples...

Southwick-Tolland-Granville Regional School District: “We applaud the level of thought and care that went into the development of this guidance, and share its goal of the safe return of as many students as possible to in-person school settings in order to best meet students’ academic, social, and emotional needs.”

Westfield Public Schools: “We applaud the level of thought and care that went into the development of this guidance, and share its goal of the safe return of as many students as possible to in-person school settings to best meet the academic, social, and emotional needs of our students.”

Chicopee Public Schools: “We applaud/ appreciate [sic] the level of thoughtfulness and care that went into this plan, which is informed by the latest medical expertise.”

Holyoke Public Schools: “Our goal for the 2020-21 School Year remains to continue to provide engaging, high-quality education for all and we share DESE’s goal of the safe return of as many students as possible to in-person school settings in order to best meet students’ academic, social, and emotional needs.”

Hampden-Wilbraham Regional School District (HWRSD): “Please know that as we are working on developing three structures of learning: in person, hybrid, and remote, and we will be reaching out to all of you throughout the summer for your input on the plans for your family, insights for teaching and learning, as well as the social emotional [sic] wellness of our students and staff.”

And also...

Springfield Public Schools: “We acknowledge that there are likely to be more questions than answers at this time, and we will continue to communicate with you in the coming weeks and months.”

Westfield Public Schools: “I know that there are more questions than answers at this time. We are working through these issues in unprecedented times requiring a great deal of time and planning. It will require patience and understanding among all of us. Know that we will continue to communicate with you in the coming weeks and months.”

Chicopee Public Schools: “We will continue to update you as we proceed with our planning process. We recognize that there are still unanswered questions.”

HWRSD: “While there are still many unknowns, I will continue to provide regular updates as more information becomes available. Thank you for your continued patience and understanding.”

Curious to see if this was a collaborated local response, I looked around the state. Does any of this sound familiar?

Worcester: “We applaud the level of thought and care that went into the development of this guidance” and “We acknowledge that there are likely to be more questions. We will continue to communicate with you in the coming weeks and months. Thank you for your patience and understanding.” 

Lee: “We applaud the level of thought and care that went into the development of this guidance, and share its goal of the safe return of as many students as possible to in-person school settings in order to best meet students’ academic, social, and emotional needs.” And later, “We acknowledge that there are likely to be more questions than answers at this time, and we will continue to communicate with you in the coming weeks and months.”

Framingham: “We applaud the level of thought and care that went into the development of this guidance, and share its goal of the safe return of as many students as possible to in-person school settings in order to best meet students’ academic, social, and emotional needs.” Also, “I know that there are many more questions than answers at this time, and we will continue to communicate with you in the coming weeks.”

There are more examples of repetitive language, but the point has been well established. I should also note that there were several districts that didn’t follow this path and that is to be commended. I also don’t want to imply that districts that followed the standard response pattern are not doing what they can to navigate extremely turbulent waters.

What worries me about the use of this kind of template is it illustrates to me that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is trying to control the narrative to hide the fact that they truly never came any closer to real solutions than they were months ago when schools were closed.

Based on the statements made by various districts, some highlighted in this column, there is an awful lot of applause and adulation for “guidance” that does little beyond stating the obvious and offers little in terms of specifics.

It says the preferred plan is to go back to school in the fall … if it’s safe. Groundbreaking stuff. You don’t have to be the spouse of an educator (I am - a proud one) to know that in-person learning has irreplaceable and invaluable benefits to students educationally, socially and emotionally. Teachers miss their kids. They want to be with them. But no one wants to put children, or educators for that matter, in harm’s way. That’s a no brainer. For the state’s part, most of the underlying guidance in the document was already existing or common sense health protocols most would expect anyway.

To be sure, as many of the letters state, this does raise many questions and there are some important ones for me: DESE states that while going back to the classroom is the goal, the districts are still tasked creating three separate plans because of the fluidity of the pandemic and its impacts on the state and country. So what prevented this kind of guidance from being established weeks ago? If all three are required, why not have districts begin preparing the three contingencies in the first place? What part of this guidance required this level of delay?

The immense burden of creating educational and physical frameworks that will best keep children safe is now being thrust onto habitually understaffed and underfunded local school districts with often chronically outdated and at times literally crumbling infrastructures. Many districts have already adjusted budgets and made cuts in anticipation of lower state aid due to revenue declines.

Now they must do this while hamstrung by a truncated timetable that requires submission to and approval by the state and implementation by the end of August.

I understand a one-size-fits-all mandate from DESE is not in the best interest of the diverse range of school districts across the state, but the level of leadership, or lack thereof, from its highest educational authority is a joke.

It’s worse than that; it’s criminal.

The fallout of this is going to fall directly on our children and disproportionately upon urban and rural districts, those living in poverty, students with special needs and communities of color.

The achievement gaps that the state has so often spoken of wishing to close have the potential to become oceans.

These are unprecedented times for sure, but in these times, we need unprecedented leadership. Our commissioner does not appear up to the task.

Share this: