A Look at DESE's Cited Sources: Footnote #2 and #58 - No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID-19 from children attending school in Ireland, 2020

DESE Claim 1 (footnote #2): “Furthermore, based on available data and effective implementation of critical health and safety practices, the rate of in-school transmissions has been low” (same claim as #1, 3-4)

DESE Claim 2 (footnote #58): "In a case study from Ireland, after six school cases involving three students ages 10-15 and three adults, there were no confirmed transmissions despite there being over 1,000 school contacts of these individuals (students and staff)."

Cited Source: Heavey, L., Casey, G., Kelly, C., Kelly, D., & McDarby, G. (2020). No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID-19 from children attending school in Ireland, 2020. Eurosurveillance, 25(21), 2000903. Available at https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.21.2000903

Peer reviewed?: Yes, double-blinded peer reviewed

Study methodology: case study (6 cases) with contact tracing and follow up

Notes: For the six cases of COVID-19 in the study, school was not the source of infection. In the child contacts of these cases (over 1000) there were no cases of COVID-19. In this small case study, schools were not a location of transmission of COVID-19.

There are major limitations to this study. "This study is limited by small numbers of cases. Not all age ranges are represented since all children are older than 10 years." Additionally, asymptomatic contacts were not tested, so it is possible that some asymptomatic transmission occurred, but went undetected. Schools closing when a case was discovered also limit the application of study conclusions. "Prior to the nationwide closure of schools on 12 March, when a case was identified within a school, either all children and staff within the school or all children and staff involved with an individual case were excluded. This limited the potential for further transmission within the school setting once a case was identified." In other words, it's possible transmission didn't happen because schools closed when there were cases, rather than because cases don't tend to be transmitted within schools.

In the conclusion, the authors acknowledge that the small number in this case study provide limited information. "While this study, based on small numbers, provides limited evidence in relation to COVID-19 transmission in the school setting, it includes all known cases with school attendance in the Republic of Ireland. The results moreover echo the experience of other countries, where children are not emerging as considerable drivers of transmission of COVID-19." This speaks only to children transmitting in schools, not adult to adult transmission. 

DESE Claim 1 Supported?: limited support with caveats 

DESE Claim 2 Supported?: Yes - in this case study there were no confirmed transmissions.

A Look at DESE's Cited Sources: Footnotes #1, #5, and #57 - What settings have been linked to SARS-CoV-2 transmission clusters?

DESE Claim 1 (footnote #1): “Furthermore, based on available data and effective implementation of critical health and safety practices, the rate of in-school transmissions has been low”

DESE Claim 2 (footnote #5): "Schools do not appear to have played a major role in COVID-19 transmission. In a review of COVID clusters, only 4% (8 of 210) involved school transmission."

DESE Claim 3 (footnote #57): "In a review of COVID-19 clusters, only 4% (8 of 210) involved school transmission."

Cited Source: Leclerc, Q. J., Fuller, N. M., Knight, L. E., Funk, S., Knight, G. M., & CMMID COVID-19 Working Group. (2020). What settings have been linked to SARS-CoV-2 transmission clusters?. Wellcome Open Research, 5(83), 83. Available at https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-83/v2

Peer reviewed: one “invited peer reviewer” of updated article (no blind peer review as is standard in most journals)

Study methodology: “We performed a systematic review of available literature and media reports to find settings reported in peer reviewed articles and media with these characteristics. These sources are curated and made available in an editable online database.”. The study only looked at abstracts and articles published in English, which means omission of some clusters has likely occurred.

Notes: Virus is most likely (not exclusively) to be transmitted in hospital and elder care settings. It is important to note that many schools were closed during the period of the study, and three clusters linked to schools were found. “The vast majority of these clusters were associated with indoor or indoor/outdoor settings (21/22).” Schools, as largely indoor settings, could have outbreaks. The authors do not address the fact that schools were largely closed during the study period.

The school clusters, according to the linked data table in the article, had a wide range in the number of cases. “We found only a small number of clusters linked to schools (8/201), and there the SARS-CoV-2 cases reported were most often in teachers or other staff.“ The article notes that in two of the smaller clusters, 7/8 and 16/26 cases were staff. The article also references a French school cluster that included more children than staff.

The study does note that asymptomatic cases are likely underreported. “In many settings, only symptomatic cases of disease severe enough to require hospitalization are tested and ultimately reported. This misses those infections that result in mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic symptoms, although there is mounting evidence for a significant proportion of infections to remain asymptomatic .“ The authors do acknowledge that school data especially may not be complete. “Nor do we have universal screening for detection of all infections, many of which will be asymptomatic. The importance of such universal testing for infection in interpreting whether transmission has occurred in a setting is highlighted by the difference between the low number of clusters linked to schools and the high level of infection reported in one French high school study.”

DESE seems to have missed part of the article towards the end. “More generally, the role of children in widespread transmission of the virus is unclear, and whether reopening schools could trigger increased introductions of the virus into households and further within-household spread will have to be carefully monitored.” In other words, there needs to be more research.

DESE Claim 1 Supported?: No. The authors of the study make no claim about the risk of transmission in schools, only note that so far there have not been a ton of school clusters.

DESE Claim 2 Supported?: No. Limited open schools during the time of the study make the data unable to support or refute the initial claim. The second quoted sentence is true, for the limited dataset which the source works from. However, that doesn't prove that schools won't spread COVID-19 at full capacity when they're open.

DESE Claim 3 Supported?: Yes. However, schools were closed during many of the studies, so this data i not predictive. 

New Series: A Look at DESE's Cited Sources

I'm still livid about that DESE document. Here's my plan to systematically dismantle its claims through science and fact:
1. Read each of the sources they cite
2. Write a brief summary of what they say
3. See if they support the conclusion they're cited for.

So you'll see a bunch of blog posts coming... I'll publish as I finish. I'm still planning to do a deep dive into the COVID-19 research they ignored, but I'm going to go through what they've put out first.

Thoughts on DESE 6/25 reopening guidance

Note: I've been doing a lot more work around education safety lately, but moved it away from this blog. I founded Massachusetts Education Safety Advocacy Group (MESAG) and you can find up-to-date research on the website, Twitter, and Facebook. Please follow, like, and share!

Today (6/25/2020), DESE released initial guidance on school reopening. Here is the link to the full report. Yes, most of this is guidance rather than mandates, but the document is still incredibly problematic.

First, I want to address the obvious: yes, remote learning was challenging for kids, parents, and teachers. Remote learning this year happened with no real transition time, planning time, or coordination between districts. It was chaos. But that's not a reason to send people back into schools when we can't do so safely. There's planning time now. Things can be improved. Remote learning does not have to be a last choice, a disaster, or a problem.

I'll cite multiple studies that DESE left out in a separate post, but for now I'll just say that the DESE report ignored multiple high quality peer-reviewed research studies about COVID-19 transmission. Most of the studies they cite as "proof" are small case studies. Generally, case studies are not generalizable. The report left out many studies in adults. Schools need adults in them. Those adults need to interact (in a physically distanced manner) in order for schools to function. Adult to adult transmission should be a major concern and element of the plan, and it isn't.

This plan has one goal: justify a return to school in the fall. Not use science to determine if a return to school is safe, but justify a conclusion already made. The fact that the medical professionals supposedly consulted for this report have largely not been named speaks volumes.

I did a Twitter thread breaking down issues with the guidance line-by-line with screenshots. The guidance is a mess. So many issues. The largest issue, in my opinion, is the total lack of acknowledgement of the risk staff would face if schools reopen. Teachers did not get into teaching to be exposed to dangerous diseases. It isn't a part of our job. There are no answers in the report about what will be done to protect staff, especially staff who are more vulnerable to COVID-19. The rhetoric is student- and family-centered not because science says it should be, but to appeal to the voting public. This DESE document is political. The press conference today selling the guidance was even more political pandering (Twitter thread on the press conference is here).

Additionally, the guidance is full of unfunded mandates. Yes, it's encouraging to hear that districts can plan on "level services plus" funding, but the reality is that depends on legislature budgets and it may still not be adequate to truly maintain level services and provide all necessary PPE and equipment. Additional training time (which may require adding days to teacher contracts) also add up quickly, and cash-strapped districts are unlikely to be able to shoulder this expense)

The timing of the guidance is also problematic. Most schools are done for the year, meaning that school-year staff (teachers, principals, paraprofessionals, and others) are by contract not currently working. Putting together some semblance of a functional district plan requires input from these groups. They'll now be asked to work unpaid on reopening plans, or districts will have to somehow find the money to pay them for their work. Money that could go towards effective remote learning software, PPE, school staffing, or other things that impact student learning.

Massachusetts can do better. Massachusetts should do better. How can we make them do better? Contact the people in charge! Here's a short list:

Contact Governor Baker's Office (linked form)
Massachusetts Secretary of Education James Peyser: eoe@massmail.state.ma.us
Massachusetts Board of Education: boe@doe.mass.edu
Massachusetts Return to School Working Group: RTSWG@mass.gov

If you're a member of a teacher's union, contact them and demand that they push for staff safety to be a primary concern as more reopening plans are made at the state and local level.

Local level decisions will matter a lot based on this guidance. Pay attention to what school committees and superintendents do in the next two months. Their actions - not their words - are literally a matter of life or death.

My Summer Break at Home Is Still My Summer Break

If you read any education-related social media right now, you're probably as flooded with the "shoulds" as I am. Here are just a few of the things teachers are being pressured to do:

• Make a bitmoji virtual classroom 
• Create virtual bands/choirs/orchestras for all their ensembles, the reality of the time it takes or difficulty getting a good result be damned
• Use their own personal devices for work purposes while still not getting paid nearly enough
• Spend their summer break learning to do distance learning "better" in case we're still online in the fall. 

It's that last one I really take issue with. I get paid for 183 days. I always work about 5 more than that getting my classroom ready for the year and prepping curriculum. Which is fine. I choose to do that. But other teachers are telling me that I need to "sacrifice" and "be flexible" and learn tons of new stuff this summer in case I have to do a job I didn't sign up for in the fall. My answer is simple: NOPE. I'm going to take some summer courses (gotta get that pay bump!), but not on how to be a good distance learning teacher. I'm going to pick classes related to what I teach that I think I'll enjoy and will help me be a better teacher in general. 

I'm not going to learn to do a virtual ensemble. I won't be making one. It's not my job, and it's not realistic in my teaching context. I'm not going to learn to do flashy video editing tricks to make my lessons "more engaging". I'm not going to spend my personal time learning things I don't want to learn. 

"But you can't go anywhere anyways! Be a team player". My answer again: NOPE. I might not go anywhere (and will adhere to guidelines regarding travel as long as they are in place). But I can sit outside and do absolutely nothing. I can read a novel that has nothing to do with my job. I can watch hours of mindless reruns. I can be a person, not just a teacher. Global pandemics shouldn't be another excuse to perpetuate the teacher-martyr narrative.

Impossible question of quarantine

"Are we gonna have a concert, or is it cancelled?"

A band kid typed the question that broke my heart. Two weeks before, we had still been operating with hope - continuing to practice concert pieces from a distance, hoping that we'd be together with instruments in hand.

No, fifth grade band won't have a concert this year. They won't have a last lesson in person. They won't get their promotion ceremony, their last day of elementary school, or a day to sign yearbooks with their friends. Coronavirus took all those things from them. 

This was a special group for me, I had most of them for 4 full years. Many of them have been "music kids" since the beginning, playing in Orff ensemble or strings or singing for special events. And yet I can't make a concert happen. I can't give them the satisfaction of taking a piece that they worked so hard on to the stage. 

This was the first year in awhile we decided beginning band would take on a full piece. It's tough since we don't see the full band together (homogenous or semi-homogenous before-school classes only, across 3 different schools) and we only get about 35 minutes per week of instructional time with them. We picked a piece called Dark Towers. The kids LOVED it. They rose to the challenge, we were 2/3 of the way through before school closed and still had almost 2 months until concert day. 

The good news: the piece will go with them to middle school next year, where they'll have a phenomenal director who's not only excited to work on the piece with them, but who wants to have me and my elementary band colleague back to perform the piece with the kids who had their end of year concert stolen. 

The not good news: we don't know what band will look like in the fall. If band will be. If making music in the same room will even happen. The concert is cancelled. I don't have a silver lining of certainty to answer that student question with.

I still vividly remember my own fifth grade band concert at the end of the year. We got to use a local outdoor amphitheater, to stand on the same stage where so many amazing musicians had performed. We played "Hot Hot Hot" and my Grandma brought me flowers. My students this year won't have those memories. But I hope they'll take with them memories of working hard, laughing a lot, and making music together. And hopefully, we'll take Dark Towers to the stage in a few months. 

Managing Contact Info and Roster Changes with ClassTag

I use ClassTag to manage parent communication with my before and after school ensemble families. Because these groups meet outside of the school day, sometimes students decide to drop out of the ensemble, and their family no longer needs to receive messages. It's really easy with ClassTag to remove students from class rosters, or to change a parent's contact information if they get a new email.

To make any changes, go to the directory tab in ClassTag.

Then, click "edit directory"

From there, click the trash icon next to a student's name to remove them from the class, the pencil icon next to a parent's contact information to update it, or the plus sign to add any additional parent. ClassTag even lets more than 2 parents per student be added, which can be very useful! 

Want to get started with ClassTag? It's a super easy and useful tool! Follow this link to get signed up!