The Appleton Area School District Board of Education met on 03/22/2021. After spending almost 2 hours in closed session, they returned to open session. They had a special presentation by Student Board Representative Ellie Behnke from East High School. After that, they moved into public comment.
They received two written public comments, one from Board of Education candidate Sheri Hartzheim asking what the plan is to return kids to school full time and deal with the many failing grades and one from Jaime Rosendick expressing concerns that AASD is reporting Covid numbers is a way that hides the true number of cases within the schools. You can read both letters here:
The meeting was also opened to live public comment via Zoom. 5 people registered including Board of Education candidate Amber McGinley, and all 5 spoke against the issues caused by not being in school full time and advocated for a return to full in-person instruction.
After that, they moved to the Safe and Resilient Return report.
Per Greg Hartjes, there has not been much change over the last 2 weeks in terms of numbers/burden. The 2 week burden for Appleton stood at 227 [that includes both confirmed and probable cases and would have only been 116 if it had been calculated using only confirmed cases], and the tri-county burden stood at 132 [that included only confirmed cases]. The 5 mitigation strategies continue to be implemented correctly and consistently within the schools.
AASD had 22 new cases over the previous week (14 students and 8 staff). They are hoping for only 14 which would be the equivalent of a burden of 200 based on the number of AASD in-person students and staff. The previous two weeks saw 19 cases and 23 cases so there was little change there. New quarantines were at 73 (53 students and 20 staff). That was an increase of more than 10% compared to the previous week. He said that the numbers he reports are all distinct individuals–not active cases and not cumulative.
The number of student cases and staff cases have been relatively stable over the weeks since they’ve been back in school. There is more fluctuation in student quarantines.
After that report, they opened things up for questions.
Jim Bowman speculated that if they estimated what they’d see over the next month, they would expect it to continue similarly to what they were seeing right then.
Greg agreed.
[The next bit of conversation was actually covered by Fox 11 News, and you can read their article here.]
Deb Truyman wanted to know what would change when they got below 14 cases in one week–if that’s the magic number.
Greg Hartjes responded that their conversations had gone more toward what to do if cases spiked. He said he couldn’t answer the question of what they would do if they got below 14, nor what would happen if Appleton’s burden rate got blow the CDC number of 200.
Deb asked shouldn’t that have been a plan?
There was a very long pause before Greg responded by saying he would open that up to the leadership team if anyone wanted to answer.
Superintendent Judy Baseman asked if Deb could say more about what she was asking.
Deb answered that it sounds like there’s a plan if numbers get higher, but shouldn’t they all along have been planning for what happens when they get to this magic number? They’re planning for something to go wrong. Are they planning for things to go right because now things are going right and kids still aren’t in school full time.
Judy said they’re making progress with their targets and we are ready for the April 5 return. As far as the next phases go, their goal all along has been to return to fully in-person 5 day a week instruction. However, the issue is that 20-25% of families want to maintain the fully virtual option, and the district committed to make that occur. Having no in-person instruction on Wednesdays provides an essential time for teachers to connect asynchronously and to maintain both in-person and fully virtual instruction at the 7-12 grade level.
She went on to say that Ben Vogel, James Huggins, and the rest of the team continue to look at their options and reiterated that they did promise the fully virtual families that they would continue to provide fully virtual instruction to them.
Deb responded that there are some districts that have said the numbers are such that they were just going to return to full time instruction. Having 80% of the students not in school full time because 20% of the students were promised that they could remain fully virtual was an equity issue to her. She wondered if anybody was expecting the numbers to get good enough that they could go back. She said it was a little bit disappointing that they didn’t have a plan to say, “We’re good to go.” At some point they just have to say “sorry 20%; we have the 80% who need these services”. The 20% has had their way all year, and as much as she tries to understand the reasoning, she still wonders about the 80% who want to be full time but are being told no.
Board Member Gary Jahnke said the pandemic is dynamic and is changing all the time. He thought what Deb was saying is that, if statistics or things change such as vaccines kicking in to the point that herd immunity is achieved and circumstances are resoundingly safe to return, the Board like to hear that they would relook at that.
Judy responded that they’d have to bring the framework for the instructional models back to the board to review, because that would change what the Board had approved previously.
Gary clarified that that could happen.
Judy answered “absolutely”.
Board Member Jim Clemons wanted to know what specifically the timeframe would look like. After spring break they’re going to be 4 days a week. Is there any scenario where they get to 5 days a week? Are there any scenarios where the 6 foot to 3 foot change may have an impact? What circumstances would it take to go back to 5 days a week right now? What numbers did they have to hit? What comfort level did they need? And what could they as a board do to make 5 day a week in-person instruction available to those who want it?
He also mentioned that there’s a fairly large gap between Board of Education meetings, so what would the time frame be if the Board decided to make some changes based on contingencies moving in the right direction? It seemed like they had worst case scenarios contingencies but not best case scenario contingencies. So are there any circumstances where they could get back 5 days a week full time and what would be the timeframe in order to do that? He thought this needed to be discussed publicly. It seemed to be the question everyone had on their mind.
Judy answered that in regards to the new CDC guidelines of 3 feet distancing in school instead of 6 feet, they first had to hear from DHS because they determine what the contact tracing guidelines are. Currently a person is considered a close contact if they’re within 6 feet of a positive person for 15 minutes or more. The distancing guidelines and the contact tracing guidelines need to match. AASD would be on a conference call with DHS later that week to learn more. They didn’t want to have to quarantine a whole group of students because they’re still having to operate under the 6 foot 15 minute rule for contact tracing purposes.
Beyond that, they need to look at what they told AASD families they would be providing this year for them. The Board approved a particular framework with specific features built into it. They have to see what would need to change that would still allow the district to offer a fully virtual option because there are families that are counting on that, and it’s a lot of families.
Jim Clemons said, hypothetically, let’s say coronavirus disappeared tomorrow; how much time would it take to get all the obstacles out of the way to go back to school full time? What would be the minimal time? Best case scenario, what was the time frame for getting back to full time or is it not going to happen this year?
Judy said she’d have to work through things with the leadership team. They had said it would be a three week turnaround time, but things seem to be going in a good direction. Check lists need to be in place? She threw out two weeks as a possibility, but said it was hard to say. Getting transportation for students was an issue.
Board Member Barry O’Connor was glad that the schools are doing more in person, but he pointed out that technically they haven’t met the CDC’s requirement for doing that 100%. The science still says a rate over 200 is not full time. The 3 foot thing per the CDC report requires cohorting and podding so that when there’s an infection spread it’s a smaller number quarantined, and that’s harder to do at the High School level. He disagreed with the idea that the people who are choosing to keep their students at home were dragging down the rest of the district and said they may be making a very intelligent decision for their children and families. He said that it is not common science yet that it is totally safe in schools.
Deb said she wanted to get some kind of consensus from the board on if they needed to review the framework, and said that the government recommendations are recommendations or guidelines [I took her to mean they are guidelines that may be followed as opposed to actual rules that must be followed]. She pointed out that AASD is already doing cohorting and podding.
She asked that the next time they meet, the Board review the framework with the aim of having a scenario for if numbers continue to go down. She was disappointed that they don’t have a plan for that to happen. All year long they’ve been looking at what can go wrong. But what can go right? Can they look at that? What could they expect if things go right; she wanted to pin down the timeframe a little bit.
Gary asked if the Board needed a majority vote to reconsider the framework? Or could it be put on a discussion item. What needed to happen as a board?
Board President Kay Eggert didn’t know that they’d actually vote on something. It wasn’t on the current meeting’s agenda. She thought it would be okay to hear board members’ thoughts on it. She thought 20-25% of AASD families wanting to stay virtual was a large amonth and she wouldn’t want to force them to go in person. That meant things would have to go back to how that would be manageable for the teachers. Teachers have said they’re not as efficient having to teach in person and virtual. For her it’s not as simple as saying “let’s just do that” because families have expectations and they’ve made decisions based on those and if you’re going to change it you have to consider how it will impact the students and families that really need to stay virtual. [It’s a little odd to hear them express all these concerns for how fully virtual families would be impacted by having to return to school when they didn’t seem to give this much thought when they cancelled in-person school 2 weeks before the first day of the fall semester, and they don’t seem to be considering how providing truncated in-person instruction is impacting the people who are forced to not be fully in-person like they want to be.]
Gary wondered how they arrived at the number of 2-25% wanting to remain virtual and if they were sure they got that right. Did these families want to stay virtual to the end of the year regardless of circumstances? Maybe circumstances will change and tehy will desire to come in person. Maybe the number will drop to 12% or 9%.
Kay asked Judy when that 20-25% number was arrived at.
Judy said that as they approach the target date of April 5 for 4 day a week instruction, parents were given the chance to indicate if they wanted to come back or stay in virtual mode. Less than two weeks ago, 20-25% was the number who indicated they wanted to stay virtual.
They created Elementary Virtual School at the elementary level and that has remained fairly stable [One wonders why they didn’t do that at the middle and high school level also]. She said they’ve really worked hard to give a lot of options to families. Her team will look to see if there’s anything more they’re missing.
Kay asked if she could address the complaint that it won’t really be 4 days a week but only 4 hours a day of instruction.
Ben Vogel, Assistant Superintendent at the High School level answered, and seemed to essentially acknowledge that instructional time was indeed more limited than in previous years. (You can read his full answer here: https://allthingsappleton.com/2021/03/24/ben-vogel-responds-to-concerns-that-aasd-in-person-days-are-shorter-than-normal/)
Jim Bowman said he was fine with what the leadership team has done until April 5. He thought the speed at which they were returning to in-person instruction was based on science and fits the current level of infection. Beyond April 5 do they stay at 4 days in the high school and permit the 20-25% who want to be virtual stay virtual, or do they push to go back to 5 days sooner? He thought they should have Board consensus on that and would endorse talking about that at a future meeting.
Barry O’Connor wondered if conducting more synchronous instruction for both students at home and in the classroom at the same time would be a way to eliminate the Wednesday. They have fairly sophisticated instructional equipment which the teachers can simultaneously present to the students at home and in the classroom. Is there a way to use synchronous instruction to limit the teachers’ stress and work in terms of having to prepare for these different groups.
Ben Vogel said that Canvas has been helpful. That’s where students go to get assignments. They have Wednesdays open so teachers can meet the needs of those fully virtual students. There’s time available in the afternoon to do that as well as at the beginning and ending of days. It’s a heavy lift for the teachers to meet the needs of all groups. He also said he didn’t understand what Barry was trying to say about synchronously learning.
Barry tried to restate his question. He understood staff burning out by doing preps for 3 different groups. If they have the ability to have virtual students be connected electronically to the classroom, listening to instruction and participating, would that cut down on some of that?
Ben said absolutely. He said the other piece is that they want to provide opportunities for virtual students to meet with teachers as well. That was the purpose of the flexibility of those student support times–not only for virtual students but also other students who need additional support outside of the class time.
Deb echoed that question about using classroom cameras to provide synchronous learning. She also wondered how many students are using the student support time. Is it too many that virtual students couldn’t use it as well?
Ben told her that the morning student support time is specific to virtual students. Afternoon student support time is more in person. Those are being used more and more because they have students who have struggled and need that support. An increasing number of students have been hard scheduled during that time so that they can make up incompletes and Fs as well as keep on top of their current course load.
Deb said it sounded like it would be fair to say that if virtual students already have academic support time they would not necessarily need that additional time on Wednesdays.
She liked the idea of the board discussing the framework but pointed out the next meeting is April 12. If they had to wait until the next meeting after that to vote then forget it. She thought they should look at the data on April 12 and vote then so they’d have a good 6 weeks or so for the kids to have that extra instruction.
Jim Bowman said he would endorse a conversation at the next board meeting. If people wanted to bring motions once it was on the agenda that would be fine.
Deb said if they put it on the April 12 agenda and ask for the matrix to be revisited, then by the time they have the next meeting it would be the end of April.
Jim Bowman told her that if it’s on the agenda she could make a motion and look for a second. That’s the option for all the Board members and the tool they have to make a change.
Deb said she’s proposed several times to call a special board meeting. Maybe they could have a special board meeting to address the framework. They have special board meetings for other reasons. To her this is about the kids.
Board Member Kris Sauter had a couple questions. Her understanding of new CDC guidelines is that with the switch from 6 to 3 feet there’s still planning that needs to happen for eating, music lessons, and lobby access. If she understood correctly there’s still a suggestion that adults should be 6 feet away from students. She anticipated that it would take a bit to get that info from DHS, and thought that info would be helpful for planning for the next steps.
Ben Vogel said he couldn’t speak too much to the specifics but they had a meeting scheduled on Wednesday to review those guidelines. They always have the school nurses there to take them through new info.
Polly Vanden Boogaard Assistant Superintendent of Student Services said they were waiting to hear back from public health in terms of contact tracing. She agreed that they are guidelines and said that at middle and high school level they recognize they can’t keep kids 6 feet apart which is why we started to pod. They have already gone down that road of less feet. The CDC does recognize there’s a difference in term of age and of large group gatherings like the lunch room and commons area. The district would have to work through that in terms of large areas. We need to hear back about contact tracing guidelines. Are they going to change? If they aren’t, is AASD still okay going three feet?
Kris said that at the next meeting they’d have a week’s worth of back to school info and it would seem that would be a good time to discuss what school officials, parents, families, have learned from that one week and determine how well the return with that 75-80% of students went.
Deb said she could live with that and wanted to have that on the agenda for April 12–both some impressions on how things went the first week and a look at possibly changing the framework.
Judy said that would be a good timeframe for reporting back on how their current mitigation strategies worked.
Jim Bowman wanted to make sure that it would be listed on the agenda in such a way that members could bring motions and vote on something.
Kay said they would have to think about how that would be posted so that it gave enough clarification and notice to the public eventhough the Board didn’t know exactly what they would be doing.
View full video of meeting here: https://youtu.be/BrDF0koYUg8
View full Board meeting documents here: http://go.boarddocs.com/wi/aasd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BYQJWP4F17DF
Be the first to reply