We, the undersigned, insist that the Hastings on Hudson Union Free School District implement Scenario 3 from the District's Reopening Plan: Full-Time In-Person Learning.

1.   We believe there is absolutely no substitute for in-person instruction. Scenario 3 of the Reopening Plan is the only option that meets the educational and socio-emotional needs of our children.

2.   The state benchmark of 5% or lower positivity rate that indicates it is safe to open schools has been met.

3.   Safety guidelines from the New York State Department of Health allow our schools to educate all children on campus full time.

4.   The State has already mandated an opt out for those individuals who do not feel safe returning. Where possible, the District should offer a robust virtual alternative for these individuals that allows for student and teacher engagement and does not mandate live streaming in-person classes. 

Addendum Letter Stating Rationale Behind the Petition

Dear Dr. Henning-Piedmonte and the BOE,

Earlier this month, since safety thresholds had been met, Governor Cuomo decreed that schools may reopen this fall. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC, as a governing body, explicitly have directed schools to prioritize in-person learning. Other districts are planning to operate full time, including nearby Bronxville, which is doing so for K-8. We are fortunate that our district, too, has the means to operate full time and comply with all state guidelines. Therefore, we believe it is the district’s obligation to enact Scenario 3 of the Reopening Plan. 

Supporting Details:

COMPLIANCE

The New York Department of Health Guidelines of 7/13 state: “appropriate social distancing means six feet of space in all directions between individuals or use of appropriate physical barriers between individuals.” There is no ambiguity with this language; the use of “or” here clearly means if barriers are used that six feet of distance is not required. (As an aside, it is worth noting that the AAP and WHO both suggest that 3 feet is sufficient distance to achieve benefits.)

Over the summer, the District undertook considerable plans to reopen our campuses, spending  $167,000 on building upgrades, including PPE and an HVAC audit. The district has purchased 1700 barriers, one for every student. (The barriers extend around three sides of each student, meaning each student’s back will be blocked by the front facing portion of the barrier of the student behind them.) Additionally, students will be in masks. As such, the district’s schools can operate at full student capacity while complying with distancing guidelines.

HYBRID AND REMOTE LEARNING ARE NOT SCHOOL

Hybrid should only be used as a tool for schools who can’t comply with the guidelines to get students in the door. Many experts believe that a hybrid model does not offer any safety advantage for students or teachers over full in-person learning, as it increases the number of contacts each child is exposed to. To that point, as soon as the hybrid model was announced a flurry of texts was exchanged between hundreds of parents seeking to join their children together on the “flex” day, and, to whatever extent possible, on their primary “remote” days. Understandably, very few parents think it is appropriate or healthy for their children to remain isolated at home three days per week. Joining children from both the gold and green cohorts, and from different classes, of course undercuts any theoretical benefit of the hybrid model as a limiting factor for viral spread.  

In addition to not being safer than full-time in-person learning, a hybrid model, let alone fully remote learning, has no pedagogical justification. It is inarguably inferior to in-person learning. In fact, we object to the very notion that “remote learning” is school. Furthering this injury is the the obligation for students to “attend” the live-stream throughout the day, which renders taking part in more enriching activities impossible.

HARMS TO CHILDREN 

Like all children in the country, our children suffered greatly during the school closures this spring. The list of of harms to children for being out of school, even in a hybrid model, is long and well documented. During school closures this spring rates of depression and other mental health problems increased dramatically among children. Children need to be with their peers and teachers in person to develop social skills and thrive. Physical harms in the form of inactivity, and, most worrisome, potential abuse from household members also result from being kept out of school. It is also well known that prolonged periods of unsupervised time on the internet, and screens in general, can lead to a host of bad outcomes.

Children’s education, as noted above, also suffers​ greatly from being out of school. 

The inconsistent in-person schooling of any hybrid model, and the gross amount of time spent out of school each week – sixty percent – in our district’s proposed model renders even a hybrid schedule an insufficient remedy to the above harms. 

HARMS TO FAMILIES

School not only fulfills an educational obligation for our children, but it also functions as a form of “care” for children in our society, enabling parents to work. Many families will incur massive costs in the form of paying for childcare, tutors, private schools, “pods,” or through lost income from unpaid leave or exiting the workforce entirely to fill the gaps in the educational, childcare, and socio-emotional needs of their children that remote and hybrid models foist upon us. As a result, some families may no longer be able to afford to live in the community. The potential long-term effects of hybrid and remote models on careers, savings, and emotional well-being cannot be overstated. 

BENCHMARKS FOR SAFETY

Governor Cuomo has said that if a region's positivity rate is 5% or lower for an average of 14 days schools may open. New York state has been averaging 1% positivity for the past two months, and was as low as 0.71% this past week. We are not even close to the threshold for schools to remain closed.

The likelihood of serious harm from the coronavirus to children has repeatedly been shown to be extremely rare. Other illnesses and injuries that are far more prevalent, and with worse outcomes, confront our children year in and year out, and yet they still attend school. In contrast, the harms of not attending school full time to children are known, varied, and immense. We recognize others disagree, and they have the ability and the right to keep their children home. Their choice, however, should not prevent our children from receiving a proper education, in school, as the district is required to provide.

Lastly, multiple studies and governmental reports from around the world have shown that teachers are at no greater risk than other professionals. Staff who are in a vulnerable population should have the option to work from home.

Ultimately, it is not up to us, as parents, nor you, as administrators, to base school opening decisions on feelings. Whether someone feels unsafe is not the same thing as being unsafe in the eyes of the state laws and guidelines. Hastings on Hudson does not employ a team of epidemiologists and health experts. We must rely on the state and federal government, which has already provided guidance in the form of benchmarks that have already been met. 

If school is not opened full time now, we are kidding ourselves to think that it will do so anytime soon. The district has provided no roadmap toward doing so, as it does not have the expertise to make that decision. The state, which does have the expertise, has already stated schools may reopen in full. Since we are able to be in compliance with guidelines, there is no legal, pedagogical, or safety justification for schools not to be open full time.