I am writing in response to the letter sent out by Michael Volpe, on behalf of Princeton Public Schools Human Resources, to teachers and staff who have asked for accommodations to work remotely. The letter tells teachers and staff who are requesting to work from home due to COVID concerns that they must take a leave of absence without pay and health insurance. I am alarmed and deeply concerned that our school district is asking our teachers and staff to “choose” between their lives and their livelihood. This is not a choice, it is a threat.
I have been hopeful about Dr. Barry Galasso’s stewardship of Princeton Public Schools
during these difficult days. In the short time that he has been superintendent, I
found his approach – seemingly grounded, knowledgeable and compassionate – to
be refreshing.
I sincerely applaud and appreciate the district’s tremendous efforts and hard work in preparing for this unprecedented, challenging school year. I believed the team has been trying to act in the best interest of everyone in the PPS community.
This latest decision, however, completely defies that notion.
In the interest of full disclosure, a little about me and my family: my husband teaches
at Princeton High School; our two children are in Princeton Unified Middle School this year; I teach at Fordham University in New York, fully remotely this semester; we live with my 81-year old mother-in-law. Due to health concerns – my own, my daughter’s and my elderly mother-inlaw’s – and the fact that both my husband and I typically work in a high-risk environment that involves interaction with many people for long periods of time, we
decided that it would be in our family’s best interest to work from home.
I can go into all of the many reasons why I believe reopening schools now – just as remote
learning is falling into a rhythm and flu season begins – is still a bad idea, for us
personally and PPS as a whole, but that is not the point of this letter. The point is
that our decision was not taken lightly.
Each family in the Princeton community has had to weigh their priorities and sift
through myriad possibilities to calibrate what risks they are willing and able to take.
What choice is best for them – Send kids to school or keep them at home? Work in person or remotely? This is the very choice that is being taken away from our teachers
and school staff. For my family, as an example, all the careful consideration and
planning and preventative behavior is all for naught if my husband is forced to teach
in person. For some PPS employees, the situation could be even more dire – the
distress in the voice of the PHS science teacher who spoke during the Sept. 29
board meeting was chillingly palpable. Is this truly what we want to tell our educators
and staff – that if they feel compelled to work from home in order to protect the
health of their families and themselves, the only option is to take leave without pay
and without health insurance? That they are in effect expendable? Is this an option
that most teachers and staff can even consider if they want to continue to provide
for their families? This “choice” is cruel and unconscionable.
Our dedicated PPS teachers and staff go the distance to educate and care for our
children under ordinary circumstances, and that instinct has not changed. Teachers
generally agree that in-person teaching is not only better for their students, but also
for themselves – remote instruction requires more time, effort, preparation and
creativity to do effectively than traditional teaching, and our educators have been
rising courageously to the challenge. Remote instruction may not be ideal, but it can
be done and it can be done well – particularly if we (at home and at school) find ways
to ensure that our children have some social interaction and screen-free time for
some much-needed balance. Teachers and staff have put a great deal of work into
delivering good remote education this fall. Why not allow those who feel the need to
work from home continue to do so? In fact, given the limitations imposed by COVID compliance in the classroom, they may even be able do their jobs more effectively –
certainly they would be able to work with greater peace of mind. At the end of the
day, teachers and staff know better than anyone the realities of what their jobs entail;
if they are expressing concerns about returning to work in person, we should pay
attention.
On the other hand, given that we are still operating in a pandemic, hybrid learning
could in fact be far from ideal. Yes, the numbers are currently very low in
Princeton, and the mortality rate from COVID among children is minimal. To
respond: The numbers are low because we have been doing fairly well staying
away from one another – reopening schools will create the very conditions where this
virus thrives. And children for the most part may be spared from the ill effects of
the disease, but they tend to be asymptomatic super-spreaders, unknowingly
bringing the disease home to vulnerable family members, or taking it to school to
their teachers and peers. Every possible preventative measure has to be in place,
every single protocol perfectly adhered to for it to work with any success – an
extremely tall order, especially in the absence reliable testing and tracing.
In addition, what happens if a teacher does take the leave of absence because she feels that is the only way to preserve her health, or a teacher falls ill while on the job, or a teacher is simply exposed to the virus and must quarantine? Can the district easily replace
the teacher on leave or the teacher who is sick with someone with the same
experience and expertise? Will the teacher who is in quarantine resume remote
instruction? This will wreak tremendous havoc on the continuity and quality of
education that PPS will be able to deliver.
My personal opinions notwithstanding, I do understand and respect that there are
two distinct camps in our community – those who want schools to reopen and those
who do not. I support families that prefer to send their children to hybrid school – but
not if that means putting our teachers and school staff in any kind of jeopardy that
they are unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to take on their own. Is this what
we want to model to our students – that it is somehow okay to throw our “valued”
teachers and staff under the bus? If our children do not already know, this is the
perfect opportunity to teach them that the best way to overcome crises and adversity
is to look out for one another and work together – not pit ourselves against each
other or be willing to sacrifice others for our own betterment.
I, as a Princeton resident, do not agree to bear the moral burden of this decision.
A friend recently remarked that this adverse outcome is the result of using “a
conventional approach to an unconventional problem”. Certainly, the requirements
of special needs students and children whose parents are essential workers/cannot
work remotely must be met first. After that, surely there are resourceful and
innovative ideas that will meet the needs of the remainder of our (remote and hybrid)
community without putting anyone in harm’s way? We in Princeton are especially
fortunate – we have the means and tools to effectively face this challenge: students
have new computers, families will be provided WiFi and hotspots if needed, we as a
district have a surplus.
It is up to you, as superintendent and Board of Princeton Public Schools, to find solutions that will serve our community without exacting such a high cost from your own “valued” employees. This is bad policy, on both ethical and practical grounds. In the interest of myself, my family, and the teachers and staff who are facing an impossible choice, I strongly urge you to re-evaluate the wisdom and humanity of your position.
Jhilam Z. Iqbal
Princeton
