LUSD gets approval to apply for reopening grant

While the Lodi Unified School District’s Board of Education was skeptical about the motives behind Gov. Newsom’s plan to have students return to campus in the coming weeks, it unanimously approved applying for the Safe Schools For All grant at a special meeting Tuesday night.

With approval, the board gave district staff the green light to apply for the grant by Feb. 1, which would have students on campus by Feb. 16.

Applying by the Feb. 1 deadline would give the district the opportunity to receive $450 per student based on average daily attendance, or about $15.5 million when students return to school.

Students with special needs, foster and homeless youth, students without digital access, and all students in kindergarten through second grade would be allowed on campus.

Dr. Cathy Nichols-Washer, the district’s superintendent, said the grants offered by Gov. Gavin Newsom would only permit elementary schools to open once San Joaquin County’s seven-day average of daily COVID-19 cases falls below 28 per 100,000 residents. The county’s current adjusted rate was 58.6 per 100,000 residents as of Tuesday.

Board member Ron Heberle said because the state legislature has not approved Newsom’s plan, there were a lot of unknown answers as to how school districts will be able to safely return to campus. He added there was a lot of work to do to make the Feb. 1 deadline, and that the plan seems to place a lot of responsibility on districts.

“There are a lot of unknowns,” he said. “But with all the hurdles placed in the way of children going back to in-person instruction ... we as a district still need to try to do what we can do to put our children back in the classroom.”

As part of the Safe Schools For All plan, the district will be required to prove to the San Joaquin County Office of Education that it is regularly testing staff and students for COVID-19 symptoms, has approved a COVID-19 prevention program and school guidance checklist, has ratified an agreement with certified and classified employees, and must offer a distance learning option for students choosing not to return to campus.

If the district is unable to make the Feb. 1 deadline, it can apply by March 1 and have students return by March 15 for instruction. That option, however, would generate only $11.6 million in average daily attendance funding. With this option, all students in kindergarten through sixth grade could return to campus.

Regardless of which deadline would be met, Washer said all K6 students would be allowed to return to campus by March 15 under the governor’s plan.

The board’s vote comes as the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that K-12 schools that reopened for in-person instruction across the country did not significantly contribute to the spread of COVID-19.

The CDC report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, said data from reopened classrooms shows “the type of rapid spread that was frequently observed in congregate living facilities or high-density worksites has not been reported in education settings in schools.”

During a nine-week period of the 2020 fall semester, the CDC studied 11 North Carolina districts serving more than 90,000 students and staff.

Researchers found just 32 infections transmitted at school, compared to 773 cases of infection off-campus through both students and staff. None of those 32 transmissions at school involved students infecting teachers or staff, according to the study.

In another study, the CDC found that of 17 schools in rural Wisconsin, wearing masks helped reduce the spread of COVID19 on campuses more than in the general community.

Michelle Orgon, president of the Lodi Education Association, said the organization received a proposal for a memorandum of understanding regarding the grant from the district last Friday, without a prior meeting to discuss the agreement.

In a media statement released Tuesday, Orgon said the LEA has decided not to accept the proposal at this time, stating the MOU contains vague details concerning legislation that has not yet been approved by the state legislature, and that the district has failed to meet and discuss this proposal with the association.

“We are asking LUSD to include LEA in all decisions that impact the safety of our students,” Orgon said. “A conversation like this must have all parties involved. This proposal is another unfortunate example of LUSD's total disregard of collaboration with educators to serve the best interests of students and staff.”

Orgon said the LEA had several concerns that were not addressed in the MOU, including regular testing of both students and staff, as well as the lack of personal protective equipment available for both students and staff.

The LEA said the district has not addressed a process for providing testing, who will administer testing, how it will be funded, or how results will be tracked and communicated to school sites and parents in a timely manner.

A previously negotiated MOU that addressed a plan for safely returning to live instruction would be negated by the latest proposal, the LEA said, adding the grant requires a safety plan to address these issues, but one has yet to be written.

In November, the LEA and district approved an MOU that stated students would return to campus when San Joaquin County is promoted to the red tier of the state's Blueprint for a Safer Economy, and remain there for three weeks.

The previous MOU stated a hybrid learning model would be implemented where half the students on each campus go to class on select days of the week, and that full-week distance learning will be provided to families who do not feel comfortable sending their children back to school.

If the county were to be demoted back to the purple tier, full distance learning would be implemented again, the November MOU stated.

The LEA said the district has not identified how it would use the additional funds received under the proposed grant to meet the needs of students and families, alleging the agency misused previous CARES Act funds for an “ineffective, expensive tech support call center, uncredentialed tutoring services,” and “unnecessary and inappropriate school supplies that have yet to be delivered to a majority of our students.”

“LEA has detected a pattern of the district's refusal to meet and work together to address the needs of students,” LEA Bargaining Chair Aimee Ramsower said in Monday's media statement.

“LEA hopes that the district will put these concerns first as we move forward,” she said.

During Tuesday's public comment, teacher Karen Jackson said the name of the governor's plan was misleading, as she and other instructors have not seen proof of safety plans being created to ensure both students and staff are safe from COVID-19.

“We need to know we will be safe when we return to campus, and receiving grant money does not ensure a safe return,” she said. “We want to be back in school with our students when it is safe to do so. It takes a team effort to make sure things work.”

Board member Courtney Porter said he understands the LEA's concern and the lack of trust they have with district staff. But he echoed fellow board members, stating the proposed plan from the governor still needs to be approved by the state legislature, and language could change by Feb. 1.

“It's an opportunity for us to — given the right logistics and looking at the scientific numbers — it's an opportunity to move forward,” he said. “Is this going to happen? Who knows. Should we be ready? Yes.”

Board president Ron Freitas said he wanted to ensure nothing stood in the way of getting students back in the classroom.

“I know these are extreme circumstances,” he said. “But I have faith in everyone that we can make this happen and do what's best for our kids.”