Considering School Restart: A Letter Between My Head, My Heart and My Conscience

For this blog I fashioned it after Thomas Jefferson's famous "Head & Heart Letter". Written in 1786, Jefferson depicted an internal debate between his head and heart after Maria Cosway, a young woman with whom Jefferson had a brief but intense affair with while he was the US Ambassador to France, went home to England with her husband. Jefferson was not above having "questionable" romantic relationships (see Sally Hemmings). Immediately after having seen Mrs. Cosway for the last time, Jefferson sat down and wrote a letter to Maria depicting a debate between his head and heart as they discussed the pros and cons of love and friendship. My blog depicts a debate between not only my head and my heart, but my conscience as well as I wrestle with restarting school in August.

This past week I sat in my hot classroom for 55 1/2 hours grading AP US History exams. I had to learn how to read the essays and grade them according to the standards the College Board wanted completely alone and in isolation. I came to the realization that I dislike learning and reading online as much as I dislike teaching and meeting online. As I sat alone in my classroom looking at my desks which have not been occupied since the middle of March I thought about the restart of school. For every compelling argument for one proposal, there are at least two to three equally compelling arguments against that proposal. I do not know what the right answer is for this problem.

HEART: You seem to be deep in thought.

HEAD: I am thinking about the best way to restart school come August.

HEART: We hated online teaching so it's obvious, we need to go back to in person teaching as soon as possible.

HEAD: I don't disagree.

CONSCIENCE: But, it's not that simple is it? COVID is still out there and it's still a threat isn't it?

HEAD: Yes, it is. I know it doesn't seem to affect younger people as much however many teachers, para's, office staff and custodians do happen to fall into a high risk category. Many of them have their own health issues, many of them have family members who have health issues. On top of all that, these kids will be going home to parents or other relatives who may have their own health issues. What then?

HEART: Well, I'm sure everyone will be required to wear masks, there will be social distancing and the school will be disinfected regularly.

HEAD: Many adults, myself included, hate wearing the masks and often forget to put them on when in public places, how are kids supposed to remember this? Students in the primary grades won't be able to keep the masks on all day, at least not without playing and touching them. Social Distancing? Have you ever seen 8th and 9th grade boys? They can't help but touch each other all day long! They always have to have their hands on each other pushing, shoving, bouncing off of each other. And on recess in elementary school, how do you socially distance recess? As for disinfecting regularly; as you know we are in a budget crunch. Before the budget crunch there weren't enough custodians to regularly and thoroughly clean the school then. They were scrambling just to do the bare minimum, now with even less money they are going to be able to disinfect classrooms as well as the whole school on a regular basis?

CONSCIENCE: Parents have to work. Many can't work from home so their child can learn remotely. We may not be babysitters, but we also know that many parents work their schedules around the times their children are in school. If we are not open students to come back, parents may begin to withdraw their student to enroll them into a school or a school district that is open. That means even less money coming into the district. Both of you know those are not possibilities, but realities.

HEAD: This is also true.

HEART: (sigh) I know. But if we don't go back full time, think about the amount of education lost  to these students. We know there is an education regression that takes place during the summer, think about how much will happen if we don't go back until January of 2021 or later.

HEAD: In the late 1940's, during polio outbreaks, there were entire school systems that were shuttered for a year and the kids would simply resume their education where they left off at. Those kids seemed to do fairly well. Kids are pretty resilient.

HEART: What about performance, arts and occupational skills classes? Those really cannot be taught or learned virtually.

HEAD: Fair question for which I don't have an answer. What if  we do temperature checks daily and regular on-going testing? Besides the question of how will these be paid for during a budget crisis, what if a teacher shows up to work but is found to have a temperature or tests positive? Who will cover those teachers classes? We have enough trouble finding enough substitutes as it is, do you really think it will get any easier during a pandemic?

HEART: No, it won't.

CONSCIENCE: Would some sort of hybrid model work? With some of the students in school for one or a few days while other students are at home learning remotely. Then a rotation takes place with some of the students at home come into school to learn and the students who were previously in class learn at home? You could break the class up into thirds. Might that be better? It would allow all of the students some in-person learning and teachers in-person contact?

HEART: This might be the best of both worlds. There are somethings that really must be taught and learned in-person while there are other things that can be done at home as well as they can be done in a classroom. Plus if a student contracts or come into contact with the virus, they can stay at home for 2-3 weeks as they recuperate, continue learning without infecting others in school.

HEAD: Let's seriously think this one through. Let's say the class is divided into thirds, so that at any given time the teacher is seeing one third of their students in class while the other two thirds are learning at home. First, teachers and other school staff are pretty much still at the same risk of exposure as they would be if we went fully back.

Two, let's assume that we are going to divide the class into thirds. It seems to me that you are going to be needing to create three different lesson plans for the same class. One set for the students who you currently have in class, one set for the students who just rotated out of your class and another set of lesson plans for those who are to rotate next into your class. This seems to be very confusing and unwieldy for even the most organized and seasoned teacher. How will a newbie teacher keep up with this? In the elementary grades, teachers teach multiple contents therefore you are asking them to create at least three lesson plans for each content. If they teach reading, writing, math, and are the science teacher for their team they are being asked to create three different lesson plans for four different subjects. All of us know we are not very good at math, but I'm pretty sure that's twelve different lesson plans. Secondary teachers are not in much better shape as most of them teach at least two different subjects.

All of you know that we go into school everyday at 4:30 in the morning to start working on lesson plans, grading papers and post assignments. We do that so we can go home and be with our family and not bring work home with us. Sometimes, even going in at 4:30 am is not enough time to do everything we need to do. Can you imagine what it will be like if we do a hybrid model? I'm pretty sure it goes well outside of our contract.

HEART: You make a lot of valid points. Another concern is equity. Even if we supply students will a Chromebook or some other laptop, many students don't have internet at home or unreliable internet.

Many of our students are homeless and rely on coming to school to eat, to be warm and dry at least for a while. If we do adopt a hybrid model how are we addressing their needs?

CONSCIENCE: Another thing to consider in any virtual learning situation is the reality of the home. Many families may have a computer, but only one but may have two or more students at home. Who gets to use the computer first? For how long? What if the internet bandwidth won't allow for multiple computers to access the internet at the same time? What if there is nowhere in the home for the student to go that will allow them the solitude and quiet to learn and work?

HEART: Maybe we should just stay with all remote learning until a vaccine is found or the virus is at a very low level. We did it for ten weeks at the end of the last school year, we can just resume teaching and learning the same way. That way, everyone stays safe and there is not any risk of infection and it would probably be cheaper in the long run since we are in a budget crunch.

HEAD: You cannot be serious. First off, what we did at the end of last semester was not really teaching and learning, it was triage. It was emergency education. We were figuring out what was the most important and immediate information from the curriculum that students needed and then we were trimming it down into something that could be easily consumed online by students. Depth of knowledge and complexity went by the wayside. Of course it did. None of us had been trained how to teach online. We didn't know what we were doing. We just did it because there wasn't an option. But real teaching and learning? That didn't happen. We are not online teachers, we are not trained in that and our students were not really online students, they too were lacking many of the skills needed.

Secondly, all of you saw what happened in our classes as online learning progressed last school year. Engagement steadily dropped. At the end we were lucky if half of our classes checked in for attendance. By the beginning of May if a quarter of our class turned in their assignment we considered it a victory. And our story is not unique, almost every other teacher we spoke with had the same issues. And these were students with whom we already had a relationship with, they knew who we were, they knew what to expect. What will it be like if we start the next school year with students who don't have any relationship with us? How likely are they to engage with the class or us online?

CONSCIENCE: The whole issue of parents having to work and the equity piece must be a heavy consideration with this proposal.

HEART: But if we want to keep ourselves, our families, our students and our students families safe, this may be the only alternative for now. You don't want yourself or anyone else to get sick or die from this do you?

HEAD: No, of course not. That's the only reason this option would even be considered. Safety is paramount, that's the first and last consideration.

But what if there is not a vaccine in the near future and the virus doesn't begin to fade? What then? Do we conduct school virtually until then? For how long? A year? Two years? Indefinitely until there is a vaccine or the virus dissipates? Is that a viable option?

HEART: Probably not....

CONSCIENCE: So, we know school will restart in August at some point, what's the best way to do it?

HEART: I don't know.

HEAD: There isn't a good answer.

CONSCIENCE: Every answer is better than any other answer and every proposal is worse that every other proposal.

...

HEART: You seem to be deep in thought.

HEAD: I am thinking about the best way to restart school come August....

Racism, Responsibility and The Social Contract

Social Contract: An implicit agreement among members of a a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. If the state fails in upholding this contract, the members of society have a duty and a right to demand the state adhere to the Social Contract. If the state fails to comply, the members of the society have a right and an obligation to change the state.

Over the last few days I have been fairly silent. I have been trying to make sense of the world, events, and people. There have been so many things happening in our nation over the past week, accompanied by the dissonance of competing views and actions, often leveled at those who are allies in the debate. When I am trying to make sense of situations and problems I don't react, I listen. I have found that being reactionary serves no real purpose other than to further fan the flames of unfocused passion and often only exacerbates the existing problem. So I listen. I listen to both sides, intently and actively. While I listen, I think and begin to ferret out my own thoughts and opinions. This past week has been particularly vexing as there are so many angles and issues, all with their own independent problems, tied into one single idea: The Social Contract.

Racism and Race Relations
Racism or bigotry in any form is wrong. If you believe that any group of people or any individual is inferior to you because of the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, who they are attracted to, their political beliefs, their economic situation, their nationality, or their ethnicity it is not these people who are inferior, it is you. If you hold these beliefs, you are inferior because you are so insecure in who you are and what you believe that you are scared and threatened by those who are different than you. You would rather be wrapped in the weighted blanket of insularity and remain sequestered as a monk in your gloomy cell of uniformity. Simply because someone does not look the same as you, live the same as you, or see the world the same as you does not make them bad or wrong, it just makes them different. If you are scared of people who are different, I really do pity you. If you just hate or dislike people who are different, I truly believe there is a special place in hell for you.

I have written a past blog on racism as well as a blog post on what I believe to the be the origins of bigotry in the United States so I do not intend to spend much time on those issues here. However, I will say this; While race issues may seem to be unique to the United States, they are unique only by circumstance. We are a nation that really has no defined nationality or ethnicity. We all say we are "Americans", but what does that really mean? There is not any real nationality or ethnicity that is "American". American is a made up term to encompass a broad swath of people who came here, and still come here, from all over because they believed that here was better than where they came from. This is truly special. It is also a curse, because with such diversity in looks, beliefs and lifestyles comes suspicion and ignorance. These are the prime ingredients of bigotry and racism. We have overcome many of these problems but for every one we overcome, there are five more to confront. We can do better and, I believe, we will continue to work towards fulfilling the promise of America. One step at a time.

Responsibility
I, like most of the world, was shocked and horrified when I saw the video of the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police officers. What happened was inexcusable, inexplicable, and disgusting. Those police officers should go to prison and never again see the light of day as free men. Since that incident, I have spent time thinking about "law and order" in the United States and I have come to this conclusion: It is time to have real, honest conversations about how to apply and preserve "law and order" in this nation.

I think it is inescapable to come to the conclusion that minorities in this nation, particularly young black males, have entirely different experiences with law enforcement than do whites, particularly white males. I have never been fearful of law enforcement in my life and when I have had interactions with the police never have I been worried about how that interaction would turn out. I have had several students of color tell me that they when they have interacted with the police they are very worried about how the situation will resolve. All we need to do is look at two events that took place just days apart. In Michigan many angry people, most of whom were white men, entered the Michigan state capitol wearing combat fatigues and tactical gear with weapons- many of which were semi-automatic weapons. These protesters stood toe to toe with a phalanx of police officers who were preventing them access to the state legislature chambers, yelling and spitting in the faces of these officers. The officers stood their ground, calmly took the abuse and allowed these "freedom protesters" to make their voice heard. At no point did it become violent or chaotic save for the wanna-be soldiers who felt it necessary to parade around a state capitol building with high powered weapons. Now juxtapose this to George Floyd who was an unarmed black male being arrested for attempting to pass a counterfeit $20 bill. The result of this fairly low level crime was Mr. Floyd laying face down on the pavement handcuffed while a police officer knelt on his neck applying his body weight and slowly choking to death Mr. Floyd while several other officers stood and watched. The response to both of these situations was remarkable. The amount of restraint shown in one and the lack of restraint shown in the other. Unfortunately, these juxtapositions are not exclusive and isolated to these incidents. There are several, well documented instances where minorities- young male minorities specifically, and young black males in particular- are treated, or mistreated far differently than are whites, specifically white males. This inequity has got to change. The creed of our nation, and our bond of humanity demands that this be changed.

One step in this direction is identifying and eradicating the "bad cops" from the police force. There are "bad apples" who are not police for the right reasons and are there to satisfy some unmet need in their lives. These "bad cops" sully the reputation of all police officers. It is for this reason that all police officers must "out" the bad cops. If a cop is abusing their position, and is an officer for any reason other than protecting and serving their community they need to outed as well as be dismissed. All of this "protect our own" nonsense has got to stop. If protecting your own interferes with protecting the community, then the police have failed in their mission. If the mission of police is to protect and serve the community, then it is the duty of the 98% who are good cops to help rid themselves of the 2% who are not upholding that mission. One bad cop destroys the standing of one thousand good cops.

I am not painting in a broad stroke that all police are bad. Because I know they are not. I personally know and have known many police officers. I count among my friends several police officers. They do, day in and day out, a very tough but important job. I know that the overwhelming majority of police do their job for the right reasons. I admire their tenacity and dedication. I too work in a profession that has some image problems. There are people out there who believe that lots of teachers go into education so that they can have access to young children, groom them and then subsequently abuse them. These same people also believe that if teachers are not abusing students, they know teachers who are. Both of these notions are wildly inaccurate. The vast majority of teachers go into education for the right reasons. If I knew of a teacher who was abusing students I would feel a moral and a professional obligation to report that teacher immediately. Not doing so makes me complicit and would represent a colossal failure on my part. Any time a teacher does abuse a student it damages the reputation of my profession, I have a duty to protect myself and my profession by turning in any teacher I know perpetrating such acts. I do not want that teacher to be the face or representative for my profession. Police need to have the same mentality. It is our shared responsibility for those that we serve as well as our professions.

The Social Contract
Over the past several days I have heard and read in various forms these two statements: Why are they rioting and looting? and America has a historical record of enacting change through riots. Both are valid points to a degree, but both, I believe, are limited as well.

I understand the rage and anger of the protests this past week. The frustration is palatable. Peaceful protest is a protected and cherished right in this nation. Violent protest is not protected. The protests that were at times loud and disruptive and at other times solemn and powerful were immensely effective. However, when the riots became destructive that's when the impact of the protest was lost. Indiscriminately shattering windows, destroying or defacing property, or looting only erodes the message and only serves to limit any public support for the movement. However, it is also a manifestation of the fury and sense of helplessness felt by segments of society. Is it unhelpful? Without a doubt. Is it to a degree understandable? Perhaps.

As for the argument that riots have helped bring about change in America, this notion is true as well, with this caveat; the overwhelming majority of riots that helped bring about change were very targeted and focused riots. If we look at the most famous riot in American history, the Boston Tea Party, it was very focused on one specific thing, English tea. There was not indiscriminate destruction or rioting that took place. The same is true with Bacon's Rebellion in which western Massachusetts farmers attacked and burnt courthouses that were foreclosing on farms due to unfair taxes. Again in Nat Turner's Rebellion, the violence was focused on their oppressors and not on everyone. When the Minneapolis Police Precinct building was burned this past week, shocking as it was, that was a powerful and focused statement. The shattering of windows and destruction of private vehicles in the street? Not so much.

In all of the instances mentioned above, including the burning of the Minneapolis Police Precinct, were the result of people realizing that the Social Contract between them and the state had been broken. Under this theory, when the state is unable or unwilling to adhere to the Social Contract, the people have the right to demand changes to the Social Contract. In focused attacks those demands are being forced upon the state.

Epilogue
I firmly believe that these events of the past week will serve some good. It will force long needed conversations to take place about American society. We need to further discuss the role of race and racism in America. We need to re-examine police culture and policing tactics in this nation. We need to reflect upon and rededicate ourselves to the American Promise and the ideals upon which this nation was found.

Moving forward, I think we will make progress in race relations and systemic problems in this country. It still won't be perfect, and there will still be work to be done but we will be closer to the end than we were before. Ultimately that is the story of America, we are not perfect, we will never be perfect, but we will always strive to achieve a more perfect union.