Fall 2020 Reopening Plans Are a Sophie’s Choice

If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, it would be business as usual this fall. We would see all students returning to campus this fall for classroom learning.

Educators have long held the belief that in-person learning offers the best educational experiences. Because of this ideology, schools seem to perceive any fall 2020–21 plan that does not include students back on campus as a serious threat to their value proposition.

In a recent ISM survey of over 16,400 parents from 135 schools, when given the free choice, more parents valued learning in-person over a hybrid model (where time is divided between distance learning and time on-campus) or 100% distance learning. With all that needs to be considered, on-campus learning will not come free this year.

How school will look in the coming weeks is largely based on the ever-shifting path of a virus that does not bend to the will of efforts to preserve a school’s value proposition.

In this article, we'll explore the potential impact of both distance learning and returning to campus amid a global pandemic on student well-being. As an organization, we predict the potential high frequency of the stops and starts of in-person learning may ultimately have a greater negative impact on educational continuity and student health and safety than a full distance learning program.

While every school is ultimately responsible for its individual choices, consider the following as you evaluate your options for education delivery this fall.

Vague and Conflicting Guidance for the 2020–21 School Year

This school year will begin with less clarity and direction than ever. CDC guidelines, the federal government, state governments, local mayors, and medical professional groups have suggested “rules,” but they are often vague and conflicting. This has put schools in the hot seat to figure out the details.

While there is flexibility for each school to determine its path, the lack of definitive direction has been unsettling to many administrators. Therefore, administrators are spending countless hours planning for this school year and weighing available options.

However, it is an error to believe that school administrators will be the ones who ultimately choose how their schools will look in the fall. Sure, they are responsible for developing the complex models to preserve value, identity, and excellence while accounting for personnel, space, access, equity, curriculum, cocurricular programs, and changes to pedagogy. But, except in states where governors have already ordered school campuses to remain closed, the path forward will ultimately be driven by the beliefs of parents and teachers—and the course of the virus that will not “go away” because kids need to go to school.

We have already seen this play out in public schools that have opened in Southern states. Some schools are operating with little or no safety precautions, driven by parent opinion polls, teachers’ unions, and politics. Others are 100% online to provide maximum safety—all within the same geographic area.

We have also seen both public and private schools shut down again or send many teachers and students home to self-quarantine—a containment strategy likely to continue until a vaccination or effective treatment is developed and available.

As parents, teachers, and students make personal decisions for the fall, they must weigh how safe it is to return to school, how effective they believe the educational model will be, and the total impact on student well-being.

The problem is that many people strongly believe that these factors are inversely related–that is to say that while in-person instruction is a better learning model, it poses the greatest safety risk to students. Conversely, while closing schools is helpful to reduce transmission risk, it may be less effective as an educational model.

The Impact of the 2020–21 School Year on Student Well-being

For this school year, we still don’t know if it’s better for students to be at school in masks or at home completing distance learning. While the American Academy of Pediatrics has noted that a return to campus is imperative for student well-being, we still don’t know the full impact a return to the surreal reality of the 2020–21 school year might have on the mental health and well-being of children.

• Does the isolation of distance learning negatively impact student well-being more or less than the strange reality of attending schools while wearing masks and social distancing?
• Will students tease each other over masks or bully others because a child coughs or sneezes?
• What is the emotional impact on a child if a family member falls ill and that child perceives they were the cause because they “brought it home”?
• What happens if a student, classmate, or faculty member dies or has serious complications?

The “Sophie’s Choice” we are facing places all of us in a bind. To untie from this bind, we must either: 

• convince ourselves that we feel physically and emotionally safe enough to attend school in-person; or
• conclude that any education model that is not what we are familiar with is robust enough to be effective.

Can we afford the risk of either decision?

Survey Results: Returning to Campus This Fall

In late July, ISM polled 789 teachers around the world to help understand their perceptions and intentions when returning to in-person learning this fall.

We found that that well over half expect to return to campus this fall in some way and are significantly afraid to do so: 68% of teachers reported they were afraid or extremely afraid to return to campus.

While requiring a vaccine (when available), mandating mask usage, frequent hand washing, enhanced cleaning, increased screening, physical distancing, and improved ventilation all make them feel significantly safer, 9% of teachers (already under contract and just days and weeks away from starting school) report they were unlikely to return to work in the fall. Another 11% are still unsure.

Physical distancing requirements often result in teachers being stretched thin as student-teacher ratios must become smaller. If any school sees 10-20% of its teaching force decide not to return, and then some other percentage of teachers quarantining due to exposure or illness, any well-crafted return-to-school plans will not survive the impact with reality.

Finally, the childcare element of schools that allows parents to work during the day cannot be ignored. Distance learning and hybrid models require non-weekend supervision for younger learners. Parents may fear the virus, but rely on their child’s school, and sometimes before- and after-care programs, to facilitate employment that pays for their tuition. Other parents may not feel equipped to facilitate their children’s education at home.

ISM's parent survey results signaled a slight decline in the sense of overall education value parents say they receive. This was largely due to declines in the reported value proposition among parents with early childhood and lower school children for whom the custodial element of school was clearly curtailed when campuses were forced to close.

Parents who work out of the home need childcare; others struggle to work from home while trying to supervise their children. In fact, 4 of 10 early childhood and lower school parents reported they were relied upon "too much" or "far too much" to provide instruction or assistance while their children learned at home. Value was not impacted in the middle and upper schools, where only 1 of 10 parents felt the same way as their lower school counterparts.

Another reality of this school year is that as community members contract the virus, they will be required to self-quarantine, at a minimum. Contact tracing may require others to be prohibited from attending school or the school to be shut down completely.

That means that even if a school chooses a 100% in-person or hybrid model, the child’s world will be highly unpredictable. They may wake up expecting to go to school, only to be told school is canceled or they cannot attend because they have been exposed to the virus. ISM has long shown that predictability is a crucial and critical factor in a child’s education experience and performance. It is certainly also related to their well-being and emotional state.

Areas for Concern for the Coming School Year

Where does ISM stand on these issues? We have the following concerns.

• We are concerned that schools have concluded that fears are overblown because initial reports state that COVID-19 does not spread or isn’t as severe among children. Therefore, many think it is safe to go back to school. However, it is also true that children have been largely isolated since mid-March as parents and a summer full of canceled events have protected them from indoor places and gatherings where there is a risk. Reports of transmission during summer camps and initial weeks in southern schools, as well as reports from other countries where schools have opened, suggest that children do spread the virus and may carry a heavy viral load. In addition, stories emerging about the virus’s long-term impact on children who have “recovered” are also concerning. In other words, schools may be making a risky decision on incomplete information.
• We worry about the common narrative that only in-person learning is good for children. We believe that well-being will be a huge issue this year, regardless of the student’s learning location. In fact, a bizarre school environment may result in interpersonal dynamics that can cause a significantly higher social-emotional risk than people initially perceive.
• We are concerned about the number of teachers reporting they may not return in the fall, undermining planning efforts.
• We are worried that rumors of cases within the community will spread faster than the school can officially provide information if in-person learning resumes. This may force mass absences as teachers protect themselves and parents try to protect their children.
• We are worried that schools have underestimated the impact the fits and starts of closing campuses and self-quarantining will have on students' and teachers' well-being, curricular integrity, and continuity of the educational experience.
• We are concerned that interruptions of in-person instruction, in part designed to help working families, will end up being harder on those families. They may need to scramble for childcare or days off when their children are prohibited from attending school unpredictably or on short notice.

Consider the Following

It is because of these issues that we believe schools should immediately consider the following.

• First, reconsider if you truly can make school safe enough with the space and financial resources you have, while simultaneously factoring in fewer adults on campus (as you must factor in absences and attrition). If you cannot, rethink the importance of 100% distance learning until such time that the risk declines to a point that is “safe enough” for your community.
• If your school decides that in-person instruction is a manageable risk, prioritize students who cannot be home alone or manage online work without supervision.
• Keep students and teachers in the smallest self-contained cohorts as possible to keep risk-reduction quarantines, due to contact tracing, to a minimum.
• If older students are on campus, consider self-contained classrooms as well. Divide the school year terms equal to the number of classes a student has (typically 6-8) to have each student complete that one and only one course within that term. This allows for one teacher with one group of students, potentially limiting the number of people who will need prophylactic quarantines. It also has the advantage of more easily transitioning to a full 100% distance learning experience if that is necessary.

ISM’s Recommendation for Fall 2020

How your school thinks about these four issues—safety from the virus, academic quality, well-being, and child supervision—will largely determine the direction you take now. The problem is that people are finding it difficult to come to any conclusions as information and misinformation is disseminated.

Similarly, as with any critical dilemma, emotions can swing wildly over time and decisions can change frequently. Despite a school’s desire to make plans that are as close to “normal” as possible, the course of the virus and fears of parents and teachers will likely have real control over your school’s day-to-day operations.

Ultimately, we predict the potential high frequency of the stops and starts may ultimately have a greater negative impact on educational continuity and student well-being than a full distance learning program. While schools will and should make their own choices, schools that wish to maximize continuity should strongly consider a 100% distance learning program or use self-contained classroom models for all learners, including those in the upper school.