About the state's remote learning guidance

Yes, I'm way behind on things like this...sigh
I finally had a chance to review the state's new guidance on remote learning which came out on April 24. While the guidance is directed at school leadership, it isn't (I think) particularly removed, so it's worth a read if this is of interest.

From our home chalkboard after Governor Baker's announcement

As noted at the Board of Ed meeting last week, the Commissioner has been conceiving of this in four phases: Phase I was responding to the crisis of closing the buildings and getting students fed, Phase II was the response to being closed til May 4, and this guidance is for Phase III, being closed to the end of the school year. Phase IV will be work around reopening. The intent was for districts to be moving to Phase III in "early May," which would be...now?
The Commissioner's opening letter says that this third phase focuses on two areas:

• further defining the recommended elements of a quality remote learning program, including focus on teaching the content standards most critical for student success in the next grade level
• encouraging districts to move all students towards successful engagement in remote learning, with a focus on addressing fundamental needs

Okay, maybe some of this is a little lingo-y...the first is basically "what do you need to know and be able do to go on to the next grade?" and the second is "are kids actually being met and are their needs being met?" The "what do you need to know" lists are here for elementary and for secondary, if you're interested.

DESE plans to conduct surveys and interviews to "listen and learn" in the coming weeks, plus share best practices and professional development, issue updated family guidance, and build out their website with resources (That's a completely revamped front page).
They also (in a section puzzlingly called "continuing to address students' and families' technology needs" which I don't think has been done at all) will be working "to identify the most efficient and effective plan to make technology available" to families across the Commonwealth. This--and yes, as a member of the Worcester School Committee, I am well aware of my glass house on this one--isn't, as far as I know, something DESE has been particularly involved in, beyond, perhaps, having had something to do with the additional hot spots that went out to towns two weeks ago.

DESE notes that their initial guidance called for "meaningful and productive learning" for about half a school day, repeating that such time isn't going to be all direct instruction. They also further note that what it looks like will vary by age, individual and family need, access, and "critical wellness and readiness factors."
In terms of grading, the department continues to advocate to promote students, and says "[s]pecific high school guidance on grading and graduation will be forthcoming." Two things on this:

1. Not actually under DESE's purview (like AT ALL)
2. It's May. It's a little late. 

And so on to the guidance.
The state notes that this experience involves families to an unprecedented degree; I do wish that we were spending more of our attention on this. When the state issues guidance for education right now, and when a district sends out its plan, it has an impact on families far beyond what any K-12 decision usually does. My sense is that some districts are doing well on establishing a feedback loop on what's working and what's not, but thinking of families as to whatever degree possible co-workers in this would be, I think, valuable.

It's right there in bold:

Equity needs to be a top consideration in local planning efforts, especially as districts and schools make plans to manage an extended closure.

Something that I think is crucial to recognize in all of this is that the students who left our classrooms in mid-March are not the same students that are being reached now: we don't know who has lost relatives, whose parents have lost jobs, who is living with family tensions of new levels, and so on. What might have looked like equity--whether or not it was--in mid-March may not be equity now.

Someone, at some point, needs to write the piece that points out that our K-12 public education system right now is running largely on the ability of families to have spend a few hundred dollars on a Chromebook per child and to keep up with their internet bills.
No Chromebook? No wifi? No education.
Yes, there are exceptions (either through school provided devices and wifi or through paper packets), but they are very much exceptions.
I have yet to see this be written about, let alone managed around, in any real way. Access to public education depends now more than it has in some time on individual (not even local community) resources.
And that's just wrong.

Maintaining connections is what is most important "particularly for the most vulnerable members of our school communities." That brings me back to this post I shared earlier this week, because we must be incredibly mindful in our planning of check-ins that this is done in a way that communicates real concern, not in a way that is another checkbox, let alone one that puts people in further turmoil. Teachers who fear to express how difficult a time they are having, lest there be professional repercussions; parents who are concerned they'll be reported if they speak of their difficulties; students who are worried they'll get in trouble if they note how hard it is...all of these are things I've had shared with me these past weeks. As organizations, we are, to some degree, depending here on relationships already forged in past times. If those relationships lacked trust, these times of remoteness may well make them worse, and expressions of concern and inquiries about well-being can have the opposite effect.

In strengthening--which itself is interesting framing?--remote learning, DESE recommends districts:

1. prioritize meaningful connections with educators and peers
   These should be "woven throughout core instruction and enrichment opportunities." In other words: BE IN TOUCH WITH YOUR KIDS. I note that all of the examples given involve online access.
2. providing engaging (important word!) core instruction focused on the prerequisite standards that are most critical of student success for the next grade.
   This is the "are they going to be ready for next year?" bit. Engagement per the guidance is "more important than ever." Also, districts are to offer a "manageable number of lessons and assignments."
3. offer opportunities for enrichment, exercise, and play.
   I have yet--and I may just not have seen it--seen "play" put forward anywhere as a priority. Can we embrace this chance?
4. ensure programming is accessible and secure and communication streamlined for students and their families.Give weekly doses of assignments, send ONE email of the assignments and meeting times, provide a weekly checklist, be clear on what is required and what is optional, and align communication, and STREAMLINE. To which I would add "make it accessible and user-friendly."
   Also, it is recommended districts NOT have synchronous lessons, speaking of equity.

For students not engaged, DESE recommends that information be collected, and then that the district provide supports for meeting the student's needs to become engaged. Further along, they note that this isn't necessarily going to be easy, and that it may also be outside the ability of the district: students may lack devices, they may lack wifi, they may be watching younger siblings, they may lack a home...some of this is bigger than us.

There is also a LOT here about not replicating effort: evaluating who has relationships with students, and thinking of outreach beyond the classroom teacher, but NOT having every single (for example) secondary teacher tracking every single student: "split up responsibility" is how the guidance puts it.
And then: 

Collecting data is essential; however, the most important thing is how districts and schools respond to this information.

Considering, for example, WHY students are not engaging and then HOW the district meets that challenge is essential (rather than something to be dismissed). Later on, the guidance discusses this in terms of  tiered instructional support: tier 1, 2, and 3 needs. If a fifth of your students lack online access, that's a tier 1 need, and your district needs to be planning around that, and likewise with whatever the need is.

Note that there are appendices giving some back-up resources.
And so the baton is passed again to the districts, who should, we hope, be taking this chance to consider again what is working and what is not and who is not being reached and why.