Caldwell West-Caldwell Parents Have More Questions Than Answers Regarding Hybrid Model – TAPinto.net
WEST CALDWELL, NJ — When the Caldwell West-Caldwell Board of Education met for its monthly conference meeting Monday via a Zoom platform, what normally would have been a quick meeting with regular business items addressed instead developed into an outpouring of concerns and criticisms from the district parents regarding the revised hybrid model that took effect Oct. 7.
The main focal point of the parents concern is the amount of live instruction the cohorts will be offered on the secondary level.
As previously reported, parents were questioning the rationale for the change of plan that was presented the day after the previous meeting on Sept. 21.
Subsequent to the meeting on Monday, a number of parents have reached out to their legislative representative from the 27th Legislative District which covers Caldwell, Assemblywoman Mila Jasey. Jasey who in addition to chairing the assembly’s Higher Education committee, is vice-chair of the Education Committee and serves on the Joint Committee of Public Education is a former board of education member in Maplewood-South Orange. District parent, Dr. Janet Sotomayor also contacted Acting County Superintendent of Schools Joseph Zarra who confirmed that the district was “compliant but at the bare minimum.”
During public comment, many parents questioned the board and Superintendent Dr. James Heinegg on the rationale to change the plan that was previously presented. Parent Chris Elko asked when the district would have the capability to livestream lesson “similar to what the other districts are doing all day, every day all the classes in the middle and high school?”
Heinegg responded that although the bandwidth increase process is still underway it was “not necessarily an obstacle to doing livestreaming.” He continued, stating, “we have had some Wi-Fi issues at the middle school, and we are hoping they are resolved over the next few weeks.”
Susana Parathath, Ph.D., a district parent commented on the middle school plan by stating: “My concerns for the middle school are complex. I have a sixth-grader and an eighth-grader. I have seen what the virus has taken away from them. I have seen their behavior change and the isolation take its toll. This is not a hypothetical situation that may or may not occur, this is a real time problem that many parents are facing. These children are in the middle of what is arguably the most difficult time of their lives regardless of a pandemic and our district is now making it even worse. Not only is the virus robbing them of social and mental support they desperately need at this age, the district is robbing them of an education.”
Parathath continued, “The last thing these children need is more time on screens and isolated completing homework assignments because the district refuses to look for alternatives. The district is claiming that time spent doing assignments on their own is teaching. What reasonable person could possibly agree with that? I recognize that the emotional toll needs to be balanced with the risks of the virus. No one wants to get sick but other districts are making this work. It can be done.”
Dr. Janet Sotomayor, who was afforded an opportunity to speak during the meeting, had asked questions specifically about the district’s pilot of live streaming. Prefacing her questions Sotomayor confirmed an earlier conversation she had with Heinegg wherein he confirmed “that there was no reason from a health and safety standpoint the middle and high school students cannot go in more often than they are currently scheduled for.”
She noted that they are scheduled to go in for live instruction for two half days in October and two half days in November and wanted to know why that has not been considered to mirror what other districts are doing. Heinegg confirmed it was not about “health and safety but concern about the effectiveness of the hybrid schedule as opposed to the remote schedule.” She continued that Heinegg stated from a technology standpoint the district “was capable of live streaming.”
Sotomayor asked Heinegg why the district was piloting when all the surrounding districts were already implementing live streaming, why the district did not pilot earlier, which classes were chosen to conduct the pilots, and when is an assessment of the pilot expected. Those questions went unanswered.
However, Heinegg did respond that the “technical issues about live streaming were not the same as the curriculum and instruction issues. The concern was about the situation where a teacher basically in a live instruction model is focusing on the students in the class and when there it is strictly livestreaming or having the kids there and also on a Zoom, the teacher’s attention is divided and it is not a simple matter to say that the teacher is going to teach both the students in person and who are at home.” Heinegg stated that “some” piloting has already taken place at the elementary level and with the assistance of an aide. He confirmed that the concerns about the dual instruction model were not “so much about technology but more about concern of that model from a curriculum and instruction standpoint.” Heinegg did not comment on any professional development that was provided to the teaching staff in order to assist with the transition of the dual model of in-person and livestreaming instruction.
In addition to the concerns regarding the change of scheduling and opportunities for presentation of curriculum, many parents were equally as frustrated by the responsiveness of the board and administration to questions directed towards them both during the meeting and emails that went unanswered. Many parents who attempted to ask questions during the Zoom meeting were frustrated that they were not called on to speak live or that their questions were not read verbatim but summarized and not fully answered.
One parent who did speak, Lucy Adler remarked afterwards: “I am concerned that our district, Superintendent and BOE members, do not look for parent input and make decisions in a vacuum. When their decisions are questioned, parents are met with adversarial tones, dismissive answers or simply no response. This level of arrogance can no longer be tolerated.”
Members of the public repeatedly requested that they hear directly from their elected officials instead of the administration. Board member Julianne Grosso did speak and prefaced her statement noting that she is speaking on her own behalf as an individual board member and not on behalf of the board.
Grosso stated: “I am the mother of five children from a first grader who has had a very extremely difficult time with the remote learning to a junior in high school and three in between. I have a middle schooler, three at the elementary level and my high schooler. I am going to say that I appreciate all of the efforts of the central administration they have worked tirelessly, and they are still working tirelessly.
You have asked specifically if I am a fan of the plan and I am not a fan of the plan. I was not a fan of the plan at the beginning and I am not a fan of it now. I have always felt from the beginning that the K-2 students should have been in (school) from day one. It is essential in early education not only for social reasons but for their emotional and mental reasons to be in the building. I have seen my first grader really suffer being at home and I look forward to him getting into the building on Wednesday, it is very much needed.”
Grosso continued: “As far as the secondary level I do not think it is enough time. I am one of the board members who has been very vocal with the central administration about the livestreaming seeing other districts have it in their plans and starting to implement it. I do think it is essential that these children get into the building, there is nothing better for a child to be in the presence of a live teacher. If everyone can teach, I know me as a mother I would teach, I can’t that is why there are trained professional educators we have some of the best right here in the district and I want to see these kids back into the buildings. I will not stop speaking until I feel that the plan is where it needs to be for our kids. I am sorry that as a parent community that the board has not been echoing your thoughts, I hope that speaking tonight might quell that a little bit. I am not going to stop until I feel that the plan has been revised to meet the needs of the children and the parents and the families.”
Board member John King’s remarks focused primarily on potential liability and the district’s obligations to provide services and programs as required by Individual Education Plans (IEP). IEPs are contracts between the district and the parents as to what specific services and programs will be provided to individually meet the needs of classified students, in addition to stating clear goals and objectives. In the event an IEP needs to be amended, parents are required to be included in that decision-making process. If services are not provided as stipulated, districts are mandated to provide compensatory services.
“We discussed this earlier, I think someone had a question about the IEPS,” King said. “Our plan here is to go ahead with the full IEP, but it may have to be reduced just as the general education piece has been reduced. So, no one wants either one. As a board member I don’t want people liable for not giving enough special ed (education), but you have to look at the other side. On the other hand, if you start bringing in too many people into a building and god forbid, we get an epidemic, we will be liable in that way.
“This as a tightrope, as a board we are very cohesive, that we move forward as much as possible. Going back to the streaming we discussed that earlier. We discussed some of the pricing for cameras in the room and there are a two ways to doing it and we discussed upgrading some of the laptop equipment. I think the board’s consensus is that we want to move forward in that direction more. We did talk about it a month ago and I thought that we would have moved forward with that then and I still think so, but I think we are definitely are going to do that. Correct me if I’m wrong so do the other board members.”
Elko who is seeking a seat on the board of education remarked, “Parts of this reopening plan, especially in the secondary schools, are seriously flawed. But our biggest issue remains communication and transparency. We learned a lot in this meeting that could have been shared when the schedule was released. Many of the issues being raised right now could have been addressed and possibly avoided if parents were involved in the planning from the start, which is what we have seen in other districts. Hopefully, this opens the door to more communication between the district and the community.”
In a joint statement provided to TAP parents Carla Brown, Erica Lista and Dr. Sotomayor said: “The parents of the Caldwell/West Caldwell School District are extremely upset and disappointed with our new ‘hybrid’ schedule. Students at the high school level are ultimately losing instructional time with this reopening plan. Surrounding districts are delivering 22 hours per week of instruction through a mixture of in person and live virtual classes. Caldwell, however, is offering half that – 11 hours per week. Superintendent Dr. Heinegg, states that we have the technology to provide live streaming of our classes to the students at home; however, does not provide a clear answer as to why we are not implementing it. He has also stated that from a health and safety standpoint, high schoolers can go into the building for more in person instruction, but still has not provided a clear reason why we are delaying this as well.
The high school schedule, as it stands right now, offers too much down time. This coupled with the fact that teachers are not using the fully allocated block of time (one hour) is resulting in loss of curriculum, loss of education, and a loss of motivation from the students. High schoolers are out and about in town when they should be in school receiving an education. Some students are reporting that they have five-ten minutes of core subject areas being taught. There are major concerns about falling behind even further when the three cohorts return to school. Two thirds of the student population (or more) will be receiving no live instruction (from home) on the days when their cohort is not in the building. In essence this is leaving the students at home with no new instruction or presentation of material. At this rate it will take three times as long to cover the curriculum. This is a total failure and parents feel defeated when left with no reasonable answers to our questions and concerns. There is no accountability, and the community deserves better.”