The right way to reopen schools

Throughout the spring, New York was too slow to act — in closing schools, in opening test sites, in imposing a pause order. Those delays helped make New York the worst-hit area in the nation, in the world, and their impact continues as tens of thousands of New Yorkers have lost their lives because we were too slow. The horrors we’ve faced have helped prevent other states from similar loss.

Now, it is not a question of acting too slowly but with rash speed. The mayor and governor seem determined to reopen schools on a hybrid model in September, with little evidence to suggest it will be safe and mounting anecdotes to indicate it will not be. Rising voices — public health experts, parents, unions like the New York State Nurses Association, Council of School Supervisors and Administrators and United Federation of Teachers — oppose or have major issues with the city’s reopening plan.

Again, we find ourselves in the position of making a bad decision that could exacerbate this crisis, increase risk and lead to further loss.

Why is New York determined to lead by bad example?

No one denies that reopening schools is of vital importance — not only for the direct impact on the education and development of our young people, but for the reopening of the economy as parents can more fully return to work. We all want to be able to safely bring students of all grade levels back into the building with low risk.

The city’s plan may work. But with the probability too low, the risk too high and other viable options available, is it necessary or worth it? Absolutely not.

Through a structured plan that brings back in-person learning in phases as it becomes safer for students, staff and parents and has been built by listening to those same groups, a plan guided by science and framed in equity, we can minimize reopening risk.

Evidence suggests children under 10 have a far lower risk of contracting and spreading the virus than middleand high-school-aged students. Those same children are most likely to need a guardian and guide if they’re kept home through remote learning. With social distancing as a priority and space at a premium, the logical solution is to allow elementary school students to return, utilizing empty middle and high school facilities to spread them out.

We do not currently have the infrastructure, systems or resources in place to effectively launch this plan, so remote learning should continue throughout September for all students while those structures are put in place — structures many parents reasonably assumed the city would have already prepared.

In the interim, students with the highest need would be able to go to expanded Regional Enrichment Centers. These centers would help meet what seems to be the greatest concern for many parents — out-of-home supervision for young children. We can re-evaluate bringing back middle- and high-school students this winter. As the public health crisis evolves, so too can our response.

These potential strategies are not predicated on a “re-open at all costs” mentality, but based on listening to and working with affected families, advocates and educators. It centers on their needs and fears, prioritizing safety and stability.

The de Blasio administration has seemed willing to listen to some of these ideas, but it’s not yet willing to reconsider its basic premise.

What’s holding us back from adopting this kind of plan? Pride. Hubris. Leadership that refuses to acknowledge failure, a governor who is sending out posters celebrating his time presiding over the worldwide epicenter of the global pandemic, and the 30,000 New Yorkers killed in that time.

Our executives seem driven by a desire to show that we’re the ones who could do it right. I understand the desire for New York to be a beacon to the nation — but when the science and the logic are telling us it can’t be done, we should listen.

New York can be a model of appropriate caution, or a cautionary tale.

Williams is New York City’s public advocate.