The Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School (MVRHS) is looking to welcome back students to a hybrid learning model on Jan. 11, although that date is subject to change by Superintendent Matt D’Andrea.
MVRHS was originally scheduled to return to a hybrid model on Nov. 30, but a drastic jump in confirmed COVID-19 cases and subsequent recommendations by the Martha’s Vineyard Public Schools health and safety committee to delay the reopening forced the administration to consider another date. Island elementary schools also made the decision to postpone their reopening.
At a school committee meeting Monday, Principal Sara Dingledy suggested the date of Jan. 11 as the date when students who opt for in-person learning would return.
The hybrid model will see one cohort of students present in the building on Monday and Tuesday, and another cohort in the school Wednesday and Thursday. Friday will be an entirely remote and asynchronous learning day, where students can get additional support.
According to the most recent survey circulated by the high school to students and families, 40 percent of students are planning on staying remote for the remainder of the school year, based on the current COVID numbers. Assistant Principal Jeremy Light noted that there are still about 300 students yet to be surveyed.
Committee chair Kimberly Kirk wondered what impact such a significant number of students opting for remote learning would have inside the classroom. “That is a really large group selecting cohort D. I would imagine that makes the Zoom portion of it that much more challenging,” Kirk said.
Dingledy said that education and access are key components for students and families to make the right choice for their individual situation or preference.
After extensive discussion surrounding the return date, the committee approved a motion to authorize D’Andrea to determine the date of implementation for the reopening plan, with support and advice from Dingledy and health professionals. Committee member Robert Lionette was the only dissenting vote.
Understanding remote learning
MVRHS English teacher of four years Rachel Schubert gave a presentation to the committee on what it has been like for her to teach remotely during the pandemic, and how the virtual education process differs from in-person.
She prefaced her presentation by saying that these experiences are purely her own. “This year has challenged a lot of people in so many ways. This is by no means meant to represent what other teachers are doing or feeling,” she said.
Schubert gave an example of one remote class she is teaching in AP language composition. Students arrive punctually on Zoom at 8 am, then Schubert conducts check-ins and warmup questions for about 10 minutes that get kids comfortable in class and also remind them of coursework from the prior week.
“Zoom can be very isolating and alienating, so making students accountable to unmute themselves and share something early on in a class period is very helpful,” Schubert said.
Some assignments are reviewed with the whole class in a gallery view via Zoom — poems or stories may be read aloud, and then kids enter into breakout groups where they work through a guided reading activity and have natural conversations. After collaborating in a small group, students bring what they’ve learned to the whole group.
As far as challenges Schubert has experienced related to remote education, she said, “the list is long.”
She noted screen time as being a major challenge for both teachers and students. Schubert said she went into teaching because she values the face-to-face connection with young people and her colleagues. But all that has changed now, and her average screen time has gone from three or four hours per day to a minimum of eight to 10 hours per day.
Another challenge Schubert identified is making curricula for three courses online-compatible while considering student learning objectives, her desire for collaboration between students, and how to make the learning experience engaging.
She added that it’s hard to assess nonverbal signs of understanding or confusion from students, as well as socioemotional queues, over Zoom. “In a normal year, it is pretty easy for me to check in with a kid who just seems down, but assessing those nonverbal signals this year has been a major challenge,” Schubert said.
She described the tension between wanting to honor the socioemotional needs of students who are overwhelmed with the executive-functioning components of organizing their remote learning, and her desire to honor a traditional curriculum and not let students fall behind.
There is, according to Schubert, also a looming concern that she could or should be doing more for her students.
“I’ve just realized that not all the content I create for students online is going to be perfect,” she said. And finding moments of opportunity for genuine connections between students and colleagues, according to Schubert, is a major goal for her.
But, despite a number of challenging obstacles to overcome, Schubert said she has felt supported and trusted as an educator, and has benefited from clear and steady communication from administrators. She also said she appreciates the opportunities for professional development surrounding remote instruction.
