Rating the NYC Dept of Ed’s Reopening Plan (scheduling)

Yesterday Carranza released the plan. Let’s start by comparing it to my “What to Look for” guide.

Variety of levels –  Look not just for multiple models, but for multiple models at each level. They have separate D75 models, but not models tailored to HS, MS, ES (they really are all ES models) 2/5

Details –  lack of details would be a tell that these will not work. Rotation details, but no actual scheduling details (what might a day look like). 1/5

Useable “out of the box” – we should see an option at each level that can be used with virtually no modification. If there is not, we may have a recipe for chaos in September. Absolutely not. 0/5

Physical Education – If the models fail to address PE, that’s a very bad sign. Nope. 0/5

Lunch –  If the models fail to address lunch, it probably cannot work. The words “cafeteria” and “lunch” are absent from the document. 0/5

Some students fully remote –  If the DoE models leave groups of kids (not just volunteers) remote, that’s a sign that they are thinking seriously about this. The DoE models leave remote as a family choice. 1/5

Some classes fully remote –  if the DoE models suggest leaving whole classes/subjects remote, that’s a sign that they have done some actual thinking. Nope. 0/5

Social-Emotional Learning –  if they attempt to roll SEL into the schedule models, in a specific way, that would be a good sign. Nope. SEL is not mentioned. 0/5

Worked out examples – If there is a fully worked out example for ANY model, that would be a good sign that they are starting to engage in the necessary work. If there is a fully worked out example for ALL models, that would mean that they are doing what they are supposed to do. No. 0/5

No simple division –  If their model tells us how to calculate the number of cohorts, and stops there – that won’t work. Their entire proposal is based on this. 0/5

Coordination between schools – If Central includes models in which it takes on responsibility for coordination between schools, that would be a good sign that they are attempting to engage in actual planning. No. But see Central Staff, below. I’m claiming that some coordination is implicitly included. 2/5

Who does what remote teaching –  If they do not address this centrally, remote teaching in a hybrid environment will be impossible to schedule in most schools. Completely missing. 0/5

Is a remote component necessary? –  If the DoE considered this, it would be a sign that they are taking the complexity of the problem seriously. Can’t find it in the document, but in the press conference Carranza guaranteed instruction five days each week. 0/5

Staffing –  If they pretend that we can do any of this without addressing staffing, that is a very, very bad sign for September. In fact, budgets (I saw ours this AM) do not allow expansion of staffing. 0/5

Central staff with teaching licenses –  If the models do not invoke the licenses of those in the system who do not currently teach, they are just not serious. Yes, but without even a hat tip to the complexities of the logistics. 4/5

Delays – If there are further delays, that would probably indicate the process is in shambles. They issued this without further delay, though already one day late, and the power point was not immediately available. Maybe this should be four and a half?  5/5

Total. 15/80. Numerically, this would be a failure – but it’ll be necessary to dig further to see if anything here might work. Probably not. Obviously I need to keep writing, and those of you reading this need to keep the conversation as open as possible. I’m not shocked that they are attempting to lead us into disaster. But the response is crucial.

I think this is meaningless silliness:

Did you read this?  How does this help anyone?

This is a sketch, not a plan: