Letter To The Editor: School Re-Opening Less Than Ideal But Pandemic Limits What Can Be Done

By 5 Comments

Photo: Return to learning has been less than ideal

Dear Belmont Parents and Community:

As a member of the School Committee, I’m fully aware that many parents are deeply unhappy with the fall reopening plans for our schools. Based on the volume of emails and phone calls, it’s also clear that many people do not think the School Committee is listening. I can assure you that we are.

Many parents want a return to in-person learning as quickly as possible. Rightly, they point to good health metrics and the probability that we could begin using many classrooms in hybrid with safety. Yes, the metrics are good and we probably can begin using many classrooms but it will be a few more weeks before we do that.

I have been a proponent of a quicker move to hybrid reopening for Belmont’s schools. Not everyone agrees on the timetable, and I understand that. It’s not an easy thing to gamble with people’s health, but that’s essentially what we do when we proceed to reopen schools without due caution during a pandemic. Between myself, other members of the School Committee, the Superintendent, and our educators, there are some differences of opinion about what “due caution” means. In every negotiation, there are differences of opinion. When decision making depends on satisfying many different and very reasonable concerns about health and safety, some flexibility is needed. At the end of the day, no one wants to be responsible for opening in a way that leads to anyone getting sick, being hospitalized, or even dying.

We’ve just gotten summary feedback from our consulting engineers who have been evaluating our air handling systems in the school buildings. We’ll get the full reports in days. So far things look pretty good, as long as we plan to open windows in our classrooms or use air purification equipment that we’ve bought. But we’ll be proceeding to in-person learning in our school buildings in a deliberate and orderly manner only after the consultant reports have been received, fully digested, and responded to in a way that mitigates any problems with space that needs to be used. It would be unwise to do otherwise. Because the school buildings are not ready, there has been no other option – to be clear, absolutely no other way to proceed – but to begin the school year in remote mode. We’ll get the schools opened for in-person learning, but it just will take a little more time. 

Apart from getting back to in-person learning, we are getting lots of feedback about the remote school plan, which has been adopted by the School Committee, as well as the hybrid plan, which is still under discussion. Not everyone is happy with the remote schedules, including school start times, lunch breaks, and time between classes. It is a complicated negotiation to build out these schedules, and not all needs can be satisfied. Similarly, to try to undertake school in a hybrid fashion AND provide remote-only for those parents needing that option for their children necessarily means that there will be more asynchronous learning (e.g., taped lessons, students working on their own, etc.). The school district does not have enough resources to do much better than this. 

It is deeply unfortunate that our children will continue to experience school in a less than ideal way this school year. I know that our school administrators and educators – and every member of the School Committee – is deeply regretful for this. We all recognize that this isn’t the way school should be done. But we also know that there are limits to what can be done during a pandemic with the kinds of resources that we have. Everyone, too, is committed to making this the best experience possible for your children.

I know that parents will continue to be concerned about our schools and I hope that you’ll continue to share your concerns with me and other members of the School Committee. At the same time, I hope that we’ll have your patience as we work to change what we can AND your understanding in realizing that there will be limits to what can be done for your children with the resource constraints that our schools operate under.

Best,

Mike Crowley

Member, Belmont School Committee

17 Students From Belmont High And Belmont Hill Named National Merit Semifinalists

By Leave a Comment

Photo: 17 National Merit semifinalists in Belmont

Fourteen Belmont High School students and three who attend The Belmont Hill school were named semifinalists by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation during a presentation on Sept. 9.

At the beginning of each school year, the Evanston, Ill-based NMSC reveals the students who will go on to compete for scholarships in the spring. Approximately 7,600 of the 16,000 semifinalists will win scholarships for 2021.

According to NMSC, semifinalists are determined by the results of pre-SAT tests taken by about 1.5 million high school juniors nationwide during the previous school year. Semifinalists are the highest scorers in each of the 50 states and represent fewer than one percent of each state’s high school seniors. 

Those students named finalists will then apply to obtain scholarships up to $2,500.

The Belmont semifinalists are:

Belmont High School

  • Isabel T. Burger
  • Katarina L. Chen
  • Charlotte E. Conroy
  • Alexander W. Fick
  • Sarah A. Firth
  • David A. Jen
  • Edward P. Lee
  • Alicia A. Lugovskoy
  • William J. Mann
  • Timothy J. Minicozzi
  • Jessica D. Peng
  • Jason Tang
  • Howell Xia
  • Yao Xiao

The Belmont Hill School

  • Aaron W. Belluck
  • Sreetej Digumarthi
  • Max D. Hall

Opinion: An Open Letter To School Committee On Delaying A Vote On Proposed Hybrid Learning Option

By 1 Comment

Photo: Wait on voting for a hybrid model

To Andrea Prestwich, Chair, Belmont School Committee

I understand the Belmont School Committee needs to ratify the Belmont Public School’s remote learning plan in some form or fashion before school starts. Prior to voting, I would urge you and the other members of the committee to address the following aspects of the proposed Remote Learning plan in a clear and concise manner:

1) There has been no clear and precise estimate given by the BPS for the amount and types of family support that will be required for students at different levels to be successful in remote learning, nor has there been any assessment that I am aware of that gauges the degree to which the required and expected levels of support are feasible for families at the outset of this Phase or sustainable for any duration of time.

2)  There has been no clear and compelling rationale that has been offered to explain why start times can’t be later in remote learning. Belmont Schools Superintendent John Phelan has spoken a few times to the complexities of transportation, but as far as I’m aware there are no transportation issues during Phase 1 and very few parents and caregivers representing less than 500 out of 4,000 students indicated an interest in or reliance on bus transportation when asked. One of your core campaign issues when you originally ran for BSC was for a later start time. If we are ever going to explore and experiment with later start times, which the vast majority of families and students support, this would appear to be the moment. If we are not going to start later, especially at Chenery Middle School, I would expect that the particulars of why we cannot do so would need to be presented to the committee and the public before a vote on the remote schedule.

3) There has been no clear and compelling reason for why lunch schedules can’t be adjusted to accommodate family lunch at the same time both within Chenery and across school levels. Doing so would be the most convenient thing for families and would be best for the social-emotional wellbeing of students and families during Phase 1.

All of these issues relate in some form or fashion to the degree of responsiveness of the BPS and BSC to core concerns of and feedback from Belmont families, especially given the shift in the degree of responsibility for students’ education that families will bear in Phase 1 and all of the proposed phases until full in-person learning resumes.

Regarding the proposed hybrid plan, I strongly oppose and do not understand the idea that we need to rush to a vote next week given that the proposed hybrid plan, which is radically different from all previous models of hybrid learning that have been presented to the BSC and the public, has not been properly vetted by the public nor the BSC and given that hybrid learning is not likely to start in whatever form it takes until October at the earliest. 

To understand this issue more deeply from the perspective of Belmont parents and caregivers, it is useful to review the timeline of the process of exploring hybrid models so far:

  • June 29: of the 900 survey respondents, only 42 percent of respondents indicated support for a hybrid when the idea of the hybrid model was fairly abstract and when families might have conceived of the question as being in distinction to the possibility of a full in-person return to school.
  • July 16: though the total number of survey respondents is not clear from the slide deck from the BSC meeting, only 9 percent of families preferred full remote learning; 91 percent of respondents preferred full in-person learning or hybrid.
  • Aug. 4:  Superintendent Phelan presented 7 hybrid models to the public, all of which have significantly more in-person learning opportunities for students than the current proposed hybrid plan, which offers far fewer in-person options for many fewer students.
  • Aug. 6: the current “Return to Learning” phased plan is reviewed for the first time, marking a sudden and significant reversal in the direction of the public discussion about options for returning to school without a very clear rationale for why we are moving in this direction.
  • Aug. 11: at a BSC presentation representing the perspectives of approximately 3,000 of the 4,000 Belmont Public School students and the last time families were invited to express a point of view about hybrid learning, there was overwhelming support (2,138 of 3,152) for more and more frequent in-person learning opportunities (hybrid + full in-person) than is currently proposed.
  • Sept. 2: the current proposed hybrid models are presented to the public for the first time along with information about the “remote-only” option; the proposed models for students allow for significantly less in-person learning (2-3 mornings a week for most students) than had been previously discussed, not in keeping with expectations of families. In addition, the concept of a “Bridge” phase (“Phase 1.5”) is introduced for the first time to BSC but not voted upon.
  • Sept. 3: a survey is distributed to BPS families to choose between the current proposed hybrid model and the proposed remote model with the expectation that families will choose by Sept. 17 between these two models, neither of which approximates families’ expectations or resembles previous hybrid models under consideration. The survey does not contain a “none of the above” option or an option to indicate support for a different hybrid model if one would be available.  In the meantime, families are asked to articulate questions they have about the proposed models vs. feedback and there is a precipitous drop in family engagement as represented by the steep decline in the number of families who respond to surveys.

I would submit to you and other members of the committee that neither you nor Belmont families have had the opportunity to vet properly the details of the proposed hybrid model such that families would have a basis for making a choice on the one hand and that you would be informed enough about the perspectives of families on the other to vote next week.  Indeed, I would go further and say that, notwithstanding the very real need that the BPS has to engage in staffing projections, families should not have been asked to indicate a “choice” between two models they mostly do not want without further examination by BSC and BPS of whether adjustments can be made to the proposed hybrid model that would be in keeping our recently agreed-upon metrics for each Phase and more aligned with what families want and expect for their children.

Under those circumstances, I urge you to delay a vote of the hybrid model, to encourage BPS leadership to add more in-person learning opportunities whenever we move to Phase 3 and to extend the deadline for families to submit their preference sheets until modifications to the hybrid model can be more fully explored and articulated.  

Jeff Liberty

Worcester Street

Fall Sports: Modified Rules, Modified Fees As Seasons To Start By Month’s End

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont High Field Hockey will be playing this fall

There will be a fall sports season for Belmont High School student athletes as the Belmont School Committee voted unanimously on Tuesday night, Sept. 8, to approve an agreement by the Middlesex League which Belmont is a member on rules and safety.

With each sport – field hockey, golf, boys and girls soccer, boys and girls cross country – having to undergo a number of modifications to limit contact and potentially unhealthy actions on the field, the School Committee modified the participation fee each players pays.

“We are entering into a very unique school year, not only academically Burt for our student athletes,” said Jim Davis, Belmont’s athletic director, who told the committee the fee will be cut by $150 to $300 due in not small part to the major changes each sport will undo.

For example, heading the ball in soccer is disallowed, penalty corners will be discontinued in field hockey and cross country will likely be a timed race rather than the traditional group event. In addition, sport teams will be playing a third of the usually number of games in recent season and there will be no post-season tournament.

Davis said he, Belmont Superintendent John Phelan and the high school coaches reviewed the modifications and the potential impact on each sport “and that’s why we are moving forward with the ask this evening to bring those sports … back into our school and allowing our student athletes the opportunity to compare in those activities.”

While the cut in the fees will reduce revenue from athletic activities to an estimated $86,000, expenses due to less games and personnel will fall to $98,000 for the fall sports season. Phelan said that an $11,000 deficit would have been seen as reasonable when the district was initially forecasting the impact on the bottom line.

The Middlesex agreement – which is following guidance from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the high school’s governing body the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association – is providing guidelines on pre-workout and pre-contest screening, social distancing in practices, and protocols for equipment use, hydration and the cleaning of gym bags.

There are also measures to increase physical distancing – keeping players six feet apart for the majority of games and practices – and incorporating protective equipment to reduce the spread of respiratory particles.

Under the agreement approved, fall sports in the Middlesex League will start Monday Sept. 21. Golf will kick off the season during the week of Sept. 28.

Sports will have three teams – varsity, junior varsity and freshmen – limited to 25 participants. Due to restrictions on the number of students on buses, away games will be restricted to 22 players. There will be three varsity and two sub-varsity practices each week.

Field hockey and boys and girls soccer will play 10 games on Saturdays through October and November including Columbus Day and Veteran Day. Belmont teams will play the five opponents in the Middlesex Liberty division on back to back Saturdays, home and away. The season for these sports will start Oct. 3. Games postponed will not be rescheduled.

Cross country will have five dual meets over this time.

Spectators will be limited to one per player who will be provided a season badge. Face masks will be mandatory at each contest.

The School Committee is continuing to discuss if athletes will be reimbursed their participation fee if a sports season is cancelled due to health concerns including a spike in COVID-19 infection rates. That debate will be voted before the season begins next week.

Schools Could Enter Hybrid A Month Earlier After District Hears From Parents

By Leave a Comment

Photo: An update for the hybrid phase.

Saying they heard the concerns of parents, the Belmont School District has moved up by nearly a month the earliest date district schools can begin the hybrid phase.

In an update to the district’s “Return-to-Learning Fall 2020” blueprint during the Belmont School Committee meeting on Sept. 3., the district has added an additional 5th phase – dubbed 1.5 – as “a bridge to hybid” to allow “our youngest learners to meet with the peer … and to get time with their teachers,” explained John Phelan, superintendent of Belmont schools.

Phelan told the committee the most asked questions from parents was “Can we get to the hybrid phase sooner?” The guardians of elementary students also spoke urgently on the need for younger pupils “to be with their teachers.” Phelan said that the inclusion of the new phase will accomplish both goals.

In the new phase (squeezed in-between remote phases 1 and 2), approximately 1,900 Kindergarten to fourth-grade students will be divided into two groups – or cohorts – and each will meet their teachers and fellow students for two hours on a Tuesday and Thursday.

With Phase 1.5, “we could get students in quicker” into the hybrid phase, said Phelan, as the K-4 students will have had modified in-person learning and will allow all students to move into Phase 3.

Under this new guideline, the transition time between the phases will be shortened from three weeks to two and cutting two weeks from the previous “earliest” hybrid starting date of Nov. 9 to now Oct. 26.

But as Phelan has stated previous, any change between phases will depend on a pair of metrics that the School Committee agreed to last week.

Phelan said of the pair of metrics the district will use to determine when to move between phases, “we can check off” the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s recorded two-week community infection rate that is currently registering below 1 percent in Belmont which places the community in the “green” zone which allows for a move between phases.

The second benchmark, the air exchange study, is currently underway and the results will be released at the end of the coming week on Sept. 11. and go before the school committee for review the next week.

Also during the meeting, the principals from the elementary, middle school and high schools introduced the hybrid learning plans for their schools.

Belmont Boosters Holding Pats Q&A,Trivia Thursday

By Leave a Comment

Photo:

COVID-19 can’t stop the Belmont High Boosters from holding its annual New England Patriots event. This year, the Boosters will be holding a Q&A/Trivia Zoom Webinar event on Thursday, Sept. 10 at 7 p.m.

The night will feature “Big Game” winners and their memorable stories.

Check the Belmont High Boosters or Belmont Boosters Facebook page for Zoom link, information and updates.

School Committee Drops Kindergarten Fee ‘Forever’

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Kindergarteners heading to class

With the avalanche of changes and challenges foisted upon the Belmont public schools since March, Belmont School Superintendent John Phelan told the Belmont School Committee on Wednesday, Sept. 2, he finally had some good news to announce, akin to “chocolate chip ice cream [with a] nice hot sauce.”

The $3,500 tuition fee for kindergarten is being dropped.

“This is a great news story,” said Phelan as the committee voted unanimously to approve the district’s recommendation. In fact, the committee approved the motion where the fee is eliminated “for this year and forever.”

Belmont had offered a full-day, fee-based kindergarten program or a cost-free morning program of three hours and fifteen minutes which the state reimbursed parents costs.

For the past four years, the district has been charging its youngest students tuition to attend full-time after the state took away the Kindergarten Expand Grant that supported the all-day program since 1999.

But by making a one-time “investment” of $400,000 this year, the state will reimburse Belmont in subsequent years up to $1.3 million in added Chapter 70 funds, more than the $900,000 the district spends to operate the full time program.

“It’s basically the dollars the state was willing to pay us being used for kindergarten, that we didn’t collect from them because we were charging parents,” said Phelan.

“In the long run … it’s a good story for our families who don’t have to have money be the obstacle and from an equity standpoint, it actually increases the number of families that we think will go into kindergarten this year,” said Phelan.

It wasn’t a surprise that the school committee approved the measure unanimously.

“I mean, who can possibly vote against chocolate chips and nuts and whipped cream?” asked Committee Chair Andrea Prestwich.

Opinion: It’s Time to Reopen Belmont Schools

By 3 Comments

Photo: One hundred years ago, New York City schools opened school building windows to effectively fight the “Spanish flu” pandemic. (Library of Congress)

In a recent survey of Belmont parents, 67 percent were in favor of opening the school in hybrid or in-person. Questions remain: Is the time now to reopen Belmont school in the hybrid? Is there a right way for opening Belmont schools?  

The case for reopening schools is simple. Kids learn better in schools; remote learning is less effective and is disproportionately felt by lower-income students and students with fewer resources. The CDC and mental health experts agree that schools should open this fall. The psychological toll on children is mounting, and school closing, quarantining and isolation are contributing to long-lasting effects on children. The data from Europe and Asia are encouraging. They reopened schools and, while they’ve seen cases of COVID, they haven’t seen schools as major vectors of infection.    These offer real-world evidence to inform our strategies for school opening.   In a recent analysis of the risk associated with school opening, the authors concluded that reopening schools will not significantly increase community-wide transmission, provided sufficient school-based interventions are implemented. Moreover, when the incidence rate in the community is at or below 20 per 100,000, Belmont is significantly lower than this threshold, the risk of infection in schools is less than one percent.

How we reopen schools matters. Florida is a great example of how NOT to reopen schools given its rising levels of infections. We support the risk assessment metrics set by Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker for school opening. The rate of infection in Massachusetts is low despite the fact that more people are socializing outdoors, going to restaurants and nail salons, driving to work, shopping, or leisure. While there will never be enough testing, we can’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. There has been an uptick in testing in Belmont and the State, and, importantly, the rate of infection remains low and stable since June (Figure 1). At the local level, Belmont and all the neighboring towns remain in “green” or “white” (see Table 1) further reducing the risk of infection at schools. These are all encouraging signs and if Belmont were to follow the DESE recommendation, schools would reopen now.  So why is Belmont not opening in hybrid?

It’s Time to Reopen Belmont Schools

Figure 1. (WCVB)
TownRisk based on average daily cases per 100,000Positive cases last 14 days% positive last 14 days% Trend
BelmontGreen90.66No change
WatertownGreen150.8Lower
CambridgeGreen340.88No change
WalthamGreen340.88No change
ArlingtonWhite50.21No change
LexingtonWhite30.24No change
Table 1: Average daily COVID-19 case rate per 100K over the past two weeks.(WCVB on Sept. 1)

It is not lost on us that assessing the risk-benefit of opening schools in the middle of a pandemic is as much a scientific and policy question, as it is personal. At the heart of it, advocates of opening the schools are looking at the data and are saying we are making the uncomfortable judgment that taking a risk with someone’s health is OK in order for us to have these benefits. In the middle of an acute crisis, history has taught us that there is a tendency to be overly conservative and want to institute extreme safety measures. On balance and with the benefit of retrospective analysis, extreme measures have rarely been effective at keeping us safe. The question is therefore how much risk are you willing to tolerate? Zero risks are not only unachievable, but it rarely makes for a good strategy or informed public policy.

As Belmontians, we make these calculations all the time. We allow our teenagers to drive cars, our pre-teens to walk to Belmont’s Underwood pool, ride their bikes to the town center, and partake in a variety of other activities that have some inherent risk. So in trying to answer how large are the potential health risks, we need to anchor the discussion in what the evidence above says, how large are the potential benefits, and the long-term impact on kids, in addition to the immediate impact on their parents, their teachers and the economy.  

We take the risk to teachers and staff seriously. To that effect, we want to end with a positive example that showcases the power of engagement with the Belmont parent community.  

Much of the discussion, especially in Belmont social media circles, has been productive, but understandably visceral when it comes to how much risk people are willing to take and how it affects teachers and staff. The school district, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and the Belmont School Committee have identified air quality as an area of major concern for opening the school. This is not an unexpected request given that the District has already run similar analyses in the past. A solution that requires the building of new schools or upgrading all HVAC systems is costly and unrealistic options as preconditions for opening schools. Two Belmont parents authored a well researched white paper that suggested a simple, cost-effective solution to mitigate the air quality concern. To his credit, Belmont School Superintendent John Phelan met with the parents and ordered 150 portable commercial filters that can be deployed as early as next week. Further, the group highlighted the results of a study done by a group from Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health that showed that opening a window as little as six inches can provide superior air exchange and be used as an effective strategy to augment mechanical-based solutions to air quality control. In listening to issues like air quality that are central to the School Committee, the superintendent, and the MTA decision to reopening schools, the community has demonstrated how it can act as an effective resource to solve critical problems and support the need for a resource-constrained school district.     

The community is actively listening and wants to be part of the solution. The time is now to go to hybrid. We urge the school committee to accelerate the timetable for opening the school in hybrid. Let’s give our kids an opportunity to work together with their peers and their teachers, even if it were for a short time while Belmont is in the “green” zone. The benefits to their psychological well being and educational equity will be immeasurable. Let’s avoid creating obstacles that are red herrings, and keep the decision for opening the schools science-driven and anchored in the state guidelines and local data.

Jamal Saeh, Larry Schmidt, Martin Zwierlein, Kerry O’Grady, Maysoun Shomali, Patrick Whittemore, Christine McLaughlin, David Thesmar, Mikhail Zaslavsky, Ron Creamer, Carrie Bryan, Christine Regan, Liane Brecknock, Pamela Schmidt, Valerie Krempus, Robi Krempus, Danielle Lemack, Karl Ivester, Sonya Santos, Maíra Rejane Marques Samary, Alex Danahy, Olga Shyshko, Kelley Moriarty, and Alicia Dimitruk

State Requiring Flu Shots For All Students Attending Massachusetts Schools

By 1 Comment

Photo: Now it’s required

Last week State public health officials announced that influenza immunization will be required for all children 6 months of age or older who are attending Massachusetts child care, pre-school, kindergarten, K-12, and colleges and universities.

The new vaccine requirement is an important step to reduce flu-related illness and ​the overall impact of respiratory illness during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Students will be expected to have received a flu vaccine by Dec. 31, for the 2020-2021 influenza season. Elementary and secondary students in districts and schools that are using a remote education model such as Belmont are not exempt.

Exempted from the new mandate are K-12 students who are homeschooled or have either a medical or religious exemption.

This new flu immunization requirement to enter school in January is in addition to existing vaccine requirements for all those attending child care, preschool, K-12, and colleges and universities in Massachusetts. The following immunizations must be documented by a health care practitioner, with dates including at least month and year; full dates are preferable and sometimes necessary. 

Attendees older than two years should be immunized for their age according to the ACIP Recommended Immunization Schedule.

Immunization Requirements For School Entry In 2017/18 School Year*
 Child Care/PreschoolGrade K-6Grade 7-12College
Hepatitis B3 doses (laboratory evidence of immunity acceptable)3 doses (laboratory evidence of immunity acceptable)3 doses (laboratory evidence of immunity acceptable)3 doses (laboratory evidence of immunity acceptable)
DTaP/DTP DT/Td4 doses 5 doses1 dose Tdap1 dose Tdap
Polio3 doses4 doses4 dosesNA
Hib1- 4 dosesNANANA
MMR1 dose2 doses2 doses2 doses
Varicella1 dose2 doses2 doses2 doses
MeningococcalNANA1 dose1 dose

*These requirements also apply to all new “enterers.”

NA = no vaccine requirement for the grades indicated.

Requirements apply to all students including individuals from another country attending or visiting classes or educational programs as part of an academic visitation or exchange program. In ungraded classrooms, Kindergarten requirements apply to all students greater or equal than five years. In ungraded classrooms, grade 7 requirements apply to all students greater or equal than 12 years. Requirements apply to all students, even if over 18 years of age.

All children entering kindergarten must show evidence of:

  • Lead screening
  • Vision screening

This law also indicates that a student without such proof of immunizations may be excluded from attending school.

District Reveals How StudentsWill Move Through The Four Learning Phases

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The title page of the Belmont School District’s presentation on the coming school year

After questions from parents and students on how and when Belmont schools would transition between the four learning phases established last week, the Belmont School District released a detailed blueprint on the health and safety criteria the community and each school building will need to meet to move from remote to hybrid and finally in-class learning.

In addition, the district produced the “earliest” date these changeovers can take place, which could occur as quickly as three weeks after entering each initial phase.

“The hope is that we have some clear understanding of what this presentation means for families and students so they can plan their lives and in their work as well,” said John Phelan, superintendent of Belmont schools last week before the School Committee. The district will start learning remotely on Sept. 16

The creation of the multi-stage approach was necessitated by the continued COVID-19 pandemic that is likely to stay active for the entire 2020-21 school year.

According to Phelan, the earliest possible dates that each transition could occur are:

  • Beginning of the school year in Phase 1: Sept. 16
  • The transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2 (Remote 2): Oct. 19
  • The transition from Phase 2 to Phase 3 (Hybrid): Nov. 9
  • The transition from Phase 3 to Phase 4 (In-person): TBD by state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Phelan noted the dates provided are “best case” estimates involving a “three-week decision-making cycle.”

The district and the town’s Health Department will work closely in determining when the transitions can occur using a dual system of health measures, one issued by the state and the second a comprehensive test of air circulation in Belmont school buildings.

The first is one devised by DESE which uses a color-coded system – red, yellow, green and unshaded – that measures weekly the 14-day rolling average of daily cases of COVID-19 in each community.

If the average daily cases are less than eight or fewer (green and yellow), Belmont schools will be allowed to move to the next phase. Greater than eight will require the town to move to a remote system.

The latest data from the state puts Belmont in the green sector with 1.7 cases.

But before Belmont students prepare to move onward to “Remote 2” the town’s schools are undergoing a thorough examination of their facilities air exchange systems to determine if the machinery is working up to the manufactures standards and if they move the air at a sufficient rate to create a flow that will disrupt the concentration of coronavirus droplets in the air.

Phelan said that work, known as the Facilities Air Flow Assessment, will be completed around the time school begins and a report will be produced two weeks later in late September.

“That is why we will pause right now and not jump right into hybrid because we just don’t know that information yet and moving into a scenario without all the information,” said Phelan.

In anticipation that some areas and rooms will need to have an alternative , the district has purchased 100 filtration systems to add to the circulation of air in each room.

Only if the two safety measures are met will the district come before the school committee for discussion and a vote to move to the next phase.

The district has also committed to working towards the next phase as they prepare for the expected transition.

While the schools are in Phase 1, district officials will be reviewing data and decide on a timeline for entering Phase 2 and the air exchange assessment will be reviewed as well as the DESE metrics.

It will be during this time that parents and guardians will receive a notice of whether their children will wish to enter the hybrid phase and those who will stay in a remote-only cohort. Finally, schedules will be created for those kindergarteners and first graders which will enter the hybrid in-person learning under Phase 2.

For more information on the transition of phases and the work being that the district will conduct during each phase to prepare to move between stages, a link to the district’s charts can be found here.

Discussion among the School Committee members ranged from concerns on understanding on the extent of the interior assessments – some schools (the nearly decade-old Wellington) are in better shape than others. So far, the district has paid $25,000 in labor and parts to prepare the schools, $15,000 will go to repairing all screens and window repairs, $42,000 on HVAC updated and $100,000 to purchase 100 air purifying units.

The School Committee’s Tara Donner, who is also a teacher in Winchester, voice an issue with the focus on “plowing ahead as fast as possible” into the hybrid phase when there hasn’t been much discussion on effectively staffing that step. Speaking from her own experience, Donner said “these models are frankly fairly incompatible to good teaching” until the district has a quality educational model in mind.

“I want to make sure we’re not putting the cart before the horse,” he added.