DISCLAIMER: In no way am I suggesting that online, remote learning should ever subsitute in-person learning under normal societal conditions. Further, I am aware of what I am suggesting here for safety reasons, may leave parents who must return to work in a bind, and no small one at that. As a socialist, my view is that the Government should be provide for everyone’s basic needs including food, water, housing, healthcare, and free education. In my view the despiration folks may be experiencing in this moment connected to finances, is due to nearly half a century of pro-corporate, pro-wealthy policies and a deliberate turning away from meeting the basic needs of America’s citizenry. Thus the feeling of needing schools to reopen in-person so that parents can return to work, has everything to do with Government refusing to meet the needs of its public. This is indicative of a government-priorities problem more than anything else. Are there some parents willing to simply “risk it” by sending their kids to school in the midst of a pandemic becuase they have to work and hope everyone stays safe? Absolutely. Does that mean they don’t care about their child’s safety? Certainly not. But parents willing to roll the dice on their child’s health so that they can go to work, should never be veiwed as normal or acceptable in the wealthiest nation in the world. Such parents are being forced to simply do what they have to do, to provide for what their government refused to.
This week, I was not my best self at work. Given the present reality of a COVID19 pandemic with no signs of slowing down, times are becoming particularly stress-inducing for those working in education and parents alike as school start dates across the country near. While there are horrific examples of failed presidential and gubernatorial leadership on how to responsibly resume educating children this fall, some governors are clearly handling this crisis more irresponsibly than others, see Arizona. Others’ lack of leadership, however, is not the subject of this piece but my own exhibited shortcomings as President of the Camden Education Association this week is. I am a staunch believer in the efficacy and value of self-critique and reflection – and coming clean when I make mistakes. Not doing so all but guarantees I’d stay stagnant in my growth and aspirations to be better, and assures I’d make the same mistake again. As such, here is my mea culpa, which in a very roundabout way connects to how New Jersey districts could procees in reopening schools this fall while accomodating our Governor’s demand to reopen in some form and addressing widespread safety concerns…
This week, when I should have been listening to our educators’ concerns voiced through our union’s Executive Committee pertaining to returning to school for a variety of valid reasons including fears for their safety given some Members’ already compromised health, fear of contract the virus at work though possibly being asymptomatic possibly infecting a vulnerable loved one, and finally fears that the virus may be exchanged among students unable to maintain social distancing or that they may even unknowingly infect a child. All valid concerns but I was only hearing them, I wasn’t listening. I heard some Executive Members suggest a course of action they believed we should take to amplify the concerns of the majority of our Members, and of many educators and parents across the state. I heard, but I wasn’t listening. I heard as our Executive Committee increasingly became incensed at what was assuredly communicated by me, which was indifference. To be sure, that was not my intent, but when people are offended, the offender’s intent matters little. What the Committee felt as a result of me only hearing them, and not listening, was that I was not taking them, or their legitimate concerns with the level of seriousness that was warranted. That workday ended with our Executive Committee furious with me (probably not the first time), and me pissed off at them. Not a good day.
Two days later, with my feelings still raw from the events from the Executive Committee Meeting just days ago, and thinking of all the ways I was wronged by others, I found myself arguing with some members of our CEA Leadership Team. In reflection, I believe the bulk of what initiated the arguments stemmed from me not sufficiently listening to what our Members are saying to me when they are voicing their opinions and feelings. Another-not-so great illustration of leadership from me during the week. Yeah, it was a rough week at work.
The most common critiques CEA Officers, on in particular, brings to my attention is that many of our Members believe that I am not “empathetic enough”, “don’t care about their feelings”, and “come across as standoff-ish.” Only hearing her when she says, I didn’t fully recognize what she meant, despite her continuous reminders, until days after that Executive Meeting and subsequent arguments with a some of our officers. While riding my bike days later, it finally came to me what she was referring to. In my pursuit to find answers, or solutions to help Members with their issues, I have trained myself to disregard their feelings so that I can understand the facts embedded inside their narrative, and then look for codified language to confront the problem with a solution. My showing that I care, my exhibition of empathy is trying to find a solution to their problems – not listening. Afterall, my personal feelings or displays of understanding is does not help produce a solution or strategy to address any of our Member’s grievances. Yet, while I’ve been hyper-focused on trying to find answers, I was actually communicating dismissiveness with Members sharing with me their thoughts and feelings that are very real to them. And insofar as I was disregarding perspectives that were genuine to our Members in my listening only for black-and-white breaches of the contract or Board policy, I was indicating that I did not care about both; them as people, and their feelings. For that, I recognize that I have to improve in my leadership skills by being a better listener and taking time to show more empathy and not simply shun feelings-based information in my pursuit of a solution. Lesson learned. I was wrong and I apologize.
Good leaders listen, and I haven’t been. I’ve been hearing, but not listening – those aren’t synonymous. My hope is that as school year approach, more of our governmental leaders will listen to the fact-based alarms voiced by the medical community and healthcare providers screaming from the mountaintops that a physical return to school will assuredly lead to a further spread of the coronavirus and subsequent COVID-related deaths. I hope more of governmental leaders listen to the majority of parents of who are expressing their concerns for the safety of their children when school starts with some openly stating they refuse to send their child back to school this year. And lastly, I hope our governmental leaders listen to the concerns of educators, who like most of the country, are paying attention to the rising numbers of US infections and deaths thanks to a “president” that refuses to listen to anyone holding a view that isn’t accompanied by effusive praise for him – even if it means people will die because of it. A leader who does not listen to the advice of the knowledgeable, and the concerns of those impacted, can yield disaster for many.
There was a time earlier this summer, that as my home state of New Jersey began opening up in phases, it seemed we were heading in the right direction in our handling of the coronavirus. With that, I wrote that schools opening in September under a hybrid plan represents the best decision among all bad choices. Given the downward trajectory New Jersey was on pertaining to COVID19 cases, a surge in testing capacity, the developmental and academic benefits of students being physically in school, and the reality that some parents MUST go to work to simply maintain a living, the hybrid option did seem like the best choice among all bad options. But that was then. With a resurgence of the virus across the country and even within our state, the safest option for everyone from students to staff to parents, is to institute full remote learning in the Fall until safety for all can be assured. This sentiment was captured in surveys issued to both our CEA Members and city residents where both constituencies prioritized “safety” above “instruction” and “student learning” – by far.
Still, in New Jersey today, the possibility to begin the school year in a fully remote capacity is not the reality at this point. Our Governor stated repeatedly that he wants to see our schools open in person in some form, yet schools have “flexibility” in how they continue the school year. (Why our Governor is forcing schools to return in person in any capacity remains curious, but could be attributed to NJ being $10B short compared to last year’s revenue collection or 45 threatening to withhold needed aid to states if schools don’t reopen in person.) To Governor Murphy’s credit, he’s recently mandated that all school districts bridge the technology gap by assuring that all students have access to technology and internet access in the event a district transitions back to remote learning.
As a result, districts all over the state are scrambling to come up with a Return to School plan that prioritizes safety and adhering to all the Department of Health and Department of Education guidelines. Not an easy task at all. To my District’s, credit, the effort to create the safest Back to School plan is earnest, thoughtful and cooperative. While some superintendents around the state rushed to produce a plan that seemed more dictatorial in their creation and nature, our District formed a Task Force in late June and smaller subcommittees with seventy-one people across job descriptions and levels of formal authority, thirty-four of whom are union members. And though the work is painstaking with seventy-one different people sharing their thoughts and follow-up questions over the course of forty planning meetings and counting, in the end, if the Governor insists that the State begin the year in person, our District’s parents and staff can be assured maintaining safety for everyone was the paramount is the safest Return plan possible.
In listening to the Governor’s numerous press conferences over the summer (and reading numerous news articles) however, I noticed he may be giving superintendents and districts a way out. While meeting the verbal demand that schools reopen in “some” form, and the safety concerns expressed by educators and parents, it certainly is possible that school leaders, i.e. superintendents, are listening to only what is being expressed explicitly, and not what Governor Murphy may be communicating tacitly. Since June the Governor’s been repeating that school districts have “flexibility”, “that the State should not employ a one size fits all model”, that schools need to reopen in person in “some form”, that parents “must be” given the option to “opt out” of in-person learning, and “that districts must bridge the technological divide for all students” (and has even provided over $110M to achieve that statewide). With all of that combined, it seems Murphy may be giving school districts the freedom to determine when to transition to full remote learning in the interest of safety, so long as districts open the year with some form of in-person instruction. What stops a school district from opening within a hybrid format for a few days, and then immediately transitioning to full remote instruction after say, the 3rd of 4th day of school? By every indication of everything Murphy has said, left unsaid, and mandated on this issue, it seems the idea to start in-person and immediately transition to remote instruction is possible and worth pursuing. But when we don’t really listen, or listen only to words that are deemed worthwhile to us, it’s very likely even “leaders” miss things.
