Temecula Preparatory School Initial Recommendations for Returning

for the Fall of 2020

Created by the TPS Reopening School Task Force For the TPS Board of Directors

June 25, 2020

Table of Contents Purpose 2

Task Force Members 2

Approach of the Task Force 3

Health and Safety Resources 4

Summary of Parent and Staff Survey Results 5

Potential Upper School Instructional Models 7 Full-Day Instructional Model 7 Hybrid Instructional Model 9 Virtual Instructional Model 10

Potential Lower School Instructional Models 12 Full Day Instructional Model 12 Hybrid Instructional Model 13 Virtual Instructional Model 15

Ratings of the Instructional Models 17

Task Force Recommendations 18 For Upper School 18 For Lower School 18 Recommendation to Adjust the School Start Date 19 Recommendation on Offering Varsity Sports 19

Summary of Key Arguments & Considerations 20

1

Purpose The Reopening School Task Force was formed to help plan the reopening of Temecula Preparatory School and provide the TPS Board of Directors with practical recommendations on how to do so. This particular document is not meant to provide detailed policies and procedures, but to provide general guidance, primarily on the instructional options to be offered. While specific policies and procedures are being developed, they are not a part of this document, and will be, to some extent, reliant on the instructional model(s) ultimately selected and on the latest government guidelines that become available.

Task Force Members The Reopening School Task Force is comprised of members of the school’s administration, upper and lower school faculty, student support services professionals, and health professionals. In addition, six of the Task Force Members are current parents of TPS students.

● Dr. Michael Agostini, Head of School ● Ms. Julie Fuller, Upper School Dean ● Mr. Chris Ramos, Lower School Dean ● Ms. Cindy Woodruff, Administrator ● Dr. Rachel Ehlers, Director of Student Support Services ● Ms. Renee Huskey, Director of Enrollment and Communications ● Ms. Trish Hainey, Business Manager ● Ms. Amanda Kirkendall, Lower School Teacher ● Ms. Andrea Jimenez, Lower School Teacher ● Dr. Eric Rasmussen, Upper School Teacher ● Ms. Julia Harrison, Upper School Teacher ● Ms. Cathleen Coltrain, Campus Safety and Security Manager ● Ms. Yvonne Crace, Lead Counselor ● Ms. Rachael Lemkau, Upper School Counselor ● Ms. Audrey Mara, School Nurse ● Ms. Natalie Taylor, Nurse at CalFire

2

Approach of the Task Force Below are a few guiding principles that help explain the approach of the Task Force: Be Flexible

The situation keeps evolving so we must be as flexible as possible. Health and safety guidelines are changing frequently as conditions change and more information is learned about how to best mitigate the spread of Covid-19. For this reason, the recommendations in this document may not be appropriate when school is scheduled to begin in the fall. In such a case, the instructional model(s) and the health and safety measures would need to be modified accordingly.

Use Reputable Sources for Informing Decisions

Use the CDC, CDE, County Health Department, and other reputable school reopening guidelines as important sources of guidance since these were well thought out and were created by health and safety experts. Use these guidelines, to the extent practical, considering the particular situation of our own campus and community.

Balance Competing Priorities

Develop instructional options that highly consider, among other things: 1) the health and safety of students, families, and staff members, 2)the instructional effectiveness, and 3) families’ work and economic needs.

Realize There is No Perfect Solution

The existence of Covid-19 in our community comes with health risks that cannot be completely eliminated. There is no perfect solution and each of the options presented by the Task Force has its pros and cons.

3

Health and Safety Resources The following are some of the resources used by the Task Force:

● CDC Guidelines on Reopening Schools (released 5/19/20) ● CDE Covid-19 online resources

○ Stronger Together: A Guidebook for the Safe Reopening of California’s Public Schools (released 6/8/20)

● CA Dept of Public Health resources page ○ Covid-19 Industry Guidance: Schools and School Based Programs (released

6/5/20) ● Riverside County Public Health Dept resources page ● Current statistics on the number of local Covid-19 cases

4

Summary of Parent and Staff Survey Results Parent Survey #1 (662 responses) Parent preferences: 57% full-day in school, 31% hybrid/part-day, 12% virtual Reasons provided for their preferences: 37% student preference, 33% parent preference, 19% health reasons, 4% childcare, 7% other Parent Survey #2 (598 responses) Would you send your child to TPS in the Fall if the option available is that students return to Full-time school WITHOUT the most restrictive safety precautions (example: face masks)?

Yes: 73% No: 27% Would you send your child to TPS in the Fall if the option available is students return to Full-time school WITH safety precautions such as face masks, no sports or extracurriculars, and other restrictive safety precautions?

Yes: 60% No: 40% Would you send your child to TPS in the Fall if the option available is that we return using a Hybrid Model (combination of online learning and in-school instruction), WITHOUT the most restrictive safety precautions (example: face masks) while at school?

Yes: 56% No: 44% Would you send your child to TPS in the Fall if the option available is that we return using a Hybrid Model (combination of online learning and in-school instruction), WITH safety precautions such as face masks, no sports or extracurriculars, and other restrictive safety precautions?

Yes: 54% No: 46% Would you send your child to TPS in the Fall if Lower School and Upper School have different daily schedules, meaning they go to school at different times of the day?

Yes: 73% No: 27% Would you send your child to TPS in the Fall if we do not offer distance learning?

Yes: 84% No: 16% Please select the scenario that you prefer for reopening in the Fall:

Full-time school WITHOUT the most restrictive safety precautions: 55% Full-time school WITH safety precautions such as face masks: 10% Hybrid Model WITHOUT the most restrictive safety precautions: 12%

5

Hybrid Model WITH safety precautions: 16% Full-time Distance Learning: 7%

I would likely stay at TPS regardless of what option is chosen for the Fall Yes: 69% No: 31%

Employee Survey #1 (78 responses) Employee preferences: 54% full-time in school, 37% hybrid, 9% virtual Reasons provided for their preferences: 49% personal preference, 28% health and safety reasons, 13% family needs, 10% other Employee Survey #2 (69 responses) Which hybrid model do you prefer?

Students Spend 2 Full Days on Campus Each Week: 49.2%, AM/PM model (half the students in the morning, half in the early afternoon): 50.8%

Upper school faculty only: do you prefer reducing to 3 classes per semester:

Yes: 57.1% No: 42.9% Employee Survey #3 (76 responses) From a health and safety perspective, how comfortable are you teaching/working in the following environments (on a scale from 1-10, with 1 = very uncomfortable, 10 = very comfortable): Upper school faculty, average scores:

Full-day model: 7.3 Hybrid model: 6.0 Virtual model: 5.5

Lower school faculty, average scores:

Full-day model: 7.6 Hybrid model: 6.7 Virtual model: 8.0

All other staff, average scores:

Full-day model: 6.4 Hybrid model: 7.1 Virtual model: 6.5

6

Potential Upper School Instructional Models

Full-Day Instructional Model Description The Task Force proposes that for the 2020-21 school year, the full-day instructional model would use a “3x3 plus” schedule, which is more like a college schedule than a typical high school schedule. Students would take three, 95-minute core courses each semester covering a year of content in one semester, rather than taking seven courses each semester with content covered over two semesters. Some students may qualify to add a 45 minute class at the beginning or end of the day, which would allow for more academic support, acceleration, or electives by adding a class period. From a safety perspective, this schedule reduces an Upper School student’s and teacher’s classroom exposure from up to approximately 180 students a day to 90 or fewer and offers fewer passing periods, which helps limit the mixing of students. Schedule The schedule below is an example of what the schedule could look like, but would depend on the state providing flexibility on required instructional minutes.

Health and Safety Measures As with all of the recommendations, these would need to be flexible and based on the risks present when school is back in session. At the current time, the Task Force recommends the following:

7

● Masks: required in common areas (during pick up/drop off, corridors, office, bathrooms, etc.) and during transitions, masks would be allowed to be removed in classrooms

● Desks: facing in the same direction, separated as much as possible ● Lunches: would be staggered to limit the mixing of students and allow for added social

distancing ● Sanitizing Facilities: desks and frequently touched items sanitized between classes and

more deeply at the end of each day ● Student Mixing: limited by 3x3 schedule, and grouping the students into cohorts when

possible ● Hand Washing and/or Sanitizing Stations: would be provided throughout campus ● Student and Parent Education: would be a critical part of the plan and would be about

safe hygienic practices, staying home when ill, benefits of mask wearing, etc. In addition, the Task Force does not currently have a recommendation on the screening of students upon arrival (i.e. checking temperatures and/or asking health questions) and is seeking more information. There are a variety of factors under consideration, including: equipment (thermometers vs. thermal cameras), reliability (anticipate a lot of false positives), process (where do students wait if initially show high temperature), student privacy concerns, and practicality (time and personnel required). Wonder if parent education would be more effective.

Pros of Full-Time Model

● Less cross contamination when able to group students into cohorts (which we would try to do when feasible, this could work well for 7th and 8th grade students especially, who don’t have nearly as many course options as the 11th and 12th graders)

● Fewer passing periods helps to limit student mixing ● Fewer periods also means less time spent having to clean classrooms between groups. ● Slightly staggered start and end times ● The 3x3 schedule requires fewer classes for teachers to prep (though longer periods

require additional prepping) ● Offering both the full-day in a 3x3 format and a virtual option would allow for an easy

transition to hybrid or fully virtual model if needed ● Best for students’ mental health and a greater feeling of normalcy for students with a full

day, on campus schedule ● Best supports low-income families, at risk students, and students with exceptional needs ● Students can access the school’s lunch program ● This model most closely aligns with our Classical Education traditions ● Best options for working parents ● Most preferred option by parents and teachers

Cons of Full-Time Model

● Not possible to social distance in most classrooms, thus increasing the potential of students contracting Covid-19

8

● Increased risk for outbreak and school closure ● Greatest exposure and health risk for staff; potential for staff being absent for prolonged

periods due to illness and associated costs (subs, workers comp, etc.) ● Greater costs/challenges for school operations, including ability to secure extra amounts

of cleaning/sanitizing supplies, PPE, etc. ● Difficult for teachers to plan for a full day of content and also keep track of and serve the

virtual learners ● Big change for teachers to move to a 3x3 model ● Not a good fit with the AP Exam schedule (though some high schools use this model

already and make it work) ● More difficult when students transfer into our school

Hybrid Instructional Model Description The students would receive part of their instruction in-person and part of their instruction virtually from home. With only half of the students on campus at a given time, the school would be able to keep desks separated by 6 ft, meeting social distancing recommendations. Schedule For the upper school, the daily schedule would be the same as the full-time daily schedule, but students would be attending just two days per week, with half the students coming to campus on Tuesday/Thursday and the other half on Wednesday/Friday, with teachers preparing virtual lessons on Mondays. The ability to do this would depend on the state providing flexibility on required instructional minutes. Health and Safety Measures

● Social Distancing: with half the students in each class, desks could be separated to be 6 feet apart, which allows for social distancing during class time

● Masks: would be required in common areas (during pick up/drop off, corridors, office, bathrooms, etc.) and during transitions, masks would be allowed to be removed in classrooms.

● Desks: facing in the same direction, separated as much as possible ● Lunches: would be staggered to limit the mixing of students and allow for added social

distancing ● Sanitizing Facilities: desks and frequently touched items sanitized between classes and

more deeply at the end of each day ● Student Mixing: limited by 3x3 schedule ● Hand Washing and/or Sanitizing Stations: would be provided throughout campus ● Student and Parent Education: would be a critical part of the plan and would be about

safe hygienic practices, staying home when ill, benefits of mask wearing, etc.

9

Pros of Hybrid Model ● Allows for social distancing and with only half the students on campus at a time, this

reduces the exposure of students by 50% ● Good balance between safety measures and academic support ● Smaller class sizes (15 or fewer students per class) would have instructional benefits

and make classroom management easier ● Students in high risk groups could potentially receive support during their non-school

days ● Better for students’ mental health than all virtual

Cons of Hybrid Model

● Less face-to-face instructional time ● Students expected to work from home on days not in school, which has proven to be

less effective than in-person instruction ● Less convenient for parents, especially when both parents work and they need need

supervision of their children; because the hybrid schedules for upper and lower school differ significantly this would be especially inconvenient

● More health risks for students and staff than going all virtual ● Risk of outbreak and school closure (less than full time, but more than virtual)

Virtual Instructional Model Description The virtual instructional model would allow students to stay home and take their classes online.

● some teachers would record or live-stream lessons being provided to students on campus, while other teachers would film separate lessons for the virtual students

● students would be required to complete the same work and on the same timeline as the students taking the class on campus

● teachers would be given extra time before the start of school in order to receive specialized training for teaching online classes

Daily Schedule Determined by teacher

Health and Safety Measures Determined by the child’s parent/guardian. Pros of Virtual Instruction

● Safest option health wise: allows students to stay home, minimizes risk to both staff and students

10

● Staff can focus on one mode of instruction and therefore be more effective in its delivery ● Students can work at their own pace ● Decreased costs and liability for school ● Don’t have to worry about campus closing and having to readjust mid-year

Cons of Virtual Instruction

● Less effective instructionally - difficult to check for understanding and provide individualized support

● Difficult to administer assessments in a secure manner, which creates more opportunities for students to cheat and harder for teachers to accurately assess student learning

● Difficult conduct many of the activities that are important to classes (e.g. science labs) ● Some students have particular difficulty staying engaged and keeping up with the

learning and assignments ● Least effective for students who are at risk or have exceptional needs ● Relying on parents, who may have limited time/skills for providing instructional support ● Least satisfactory for students’ mental health ● May impair the social skills of students ● Least popular option for parents and teachers ● Least compatible with Classical Education

11

Potential Lower School Instructional Models

Full Day Instructional Model Description Students would attend school five days a week, would have normal class sizes (slightly smaller b/c of some virtual students), and with a slightly modified daily schedule. The reduced schedule would focus on core subject areas for the most safe and efficient use of students’ time on campus and provide teachers the extra time they’ll need to prepare lessons for students learning virtually. Students would eat lunch in the classroom and have a designated outside play area for their class to play after lunch. Schedule The schedule below is an example of what the schedule could look like, but would depend on the state providing flexibility on required instructional minutes.

Health and Safety Measures

● Masks: required in common areas (during pick up/drop off, corridors, office, bathrooms, etc.) and during transitions, masks would be allowed to be removed in classrooms

● Desks: facing in the same direction, separated as much as possible ● Lunches: would be eaten in the classrooms to limit mixing between students ● Sanitizing Facilities: we would limit the number of items that previously were touched by

multiple people by assigning each student their own scissors, crayons, etc. Those things

12

that would remain commonly touched (e.g. door knobs) would be sanitized periodically throughout the day and rooms would be sanitized at the end of each day

● Student Mixing: limited by keeping students grouped with their assigned classmates during lunch, recess, etc.

● Hand Washing and/or Sanitizing Stations: would be provided throughout campus ● Student and Parent Education: would be a critical part of the plan and would be about

safe hygienic practices, staying home when ill, benefits of mask wearing, etc. Pros of Full-Day

● Full-day is the best option instructionally ● Best for students’ mental health and a greater feeling of normalcy for students with a full

day, on campus schedule ● Best supports low-income families, at risk students, and students with exceptional needs ● Students can access the school’s lunch program ● This model most closely aligns with our Classical Education traditions ● Limited intermingling of grade levels during breaks and lunch as an added precaution ● Best option for working parents ● Most preferred option by parents and teachers

Cons of Full-Day

● Not possible to social distance in the classroom, thus increasing the potential of students and staff contracting Covid-19

● Increased risk for outbreak and school closure ● Greatest exposure and health risk for staff; potential for staff being absent for prolonged

periods due to illness and associated costs (subs, workers comp, etc.) ● Greater costs/challenges for school operations, including ability to secure extra amounts

of cleaning/sanitizing supplies, PPE, etc. ● Limited enrichment in order to limit exposure to staff and students ● Teachers would have the additional responsibility of watching students while they eat

lunch

Hybrid Instructional Model Description Students would attend school 4 days a week for 3 hours per day, with instruction focused on English Language Arts and math. There would be a maximum of 15 students per class at one time, allowing for social distancing. Half of the students attend school in the morning and the other half would attend in the early afternoon. Students would take an activity/nutrition break in the middle of their time at school. Students would not be on campus one day per week in order to allow teachers to plan for virtual instruction. Students would work virtually on the day they

13

are not on campus. Lunch would not be part of the regular schedule but would be offered for those who wanted it. Schedule The schedule below is an example of what the schedule could look like, but would depend on the state providing flexibility on required instructional minutes. AM Session PM session

Grade Arrival Break Dismiss Grade Arrival Lunch Break Dismiss

TK 7:30 AM 8:45 AM 10:30 AM TK 11:30 AM 12:45 PM 2:30 PM

K 7:30 AM 8:45 AM 10:30 AM K 11:30 AM 12:45 PM 2:30 PM

1 7:30 AM 8:45 AM 10:30 AM 1 11:30 AM 12:45 PM 2:30 PM

2 7:30 AM 8:45 AM 10:30 AM 2 11:30 AM 12:45 PM 2:30 PM

3 7:30 AM 8:45 AM 10:30 AM 3 11:30 AM 12:45 PM 2:30 PM

4 7:30 AM 8:45 AM 10:30 AM 4 11:30 AM 12:45 PM 2:30 PM

5 7:30 AM 8:45 AM 10:30 AM 5 11:30 AM 12:45 PM 2:30 PM

6 7:30 AM 8:45 AM 10:30 AM 6 11:30 AM 12:45 PM 2:30 PM

Health and Safety Measures

● Social Distancing: would be possible during classroom time ● Masks: required in common areas (during pick up/drop off, corridors, office, bathrooms,

etc.) and during transitions, masks would be allowed to be removed in classrooms ● Desks: facing in the same direction and separated 6 ft apart ● Sanitizing Facilities: we would limit the number of items that previously were touched by

multiple students by assigning each student their own scissors, crayons, etc. Rooms would be sanitized between the morning and afternoon groups and at the end of each day

● Student Mixing: limited by keeping students grouped with the 10-15 student morning or afternoon group

● Hand Washing and/or Sanitizing Stations: would be provided throughout campus ● Student and Parent Education: would be a critical part of the plan and would be about

safe hygienic practices, staying home when ill, benefits of mask wearing, etc. Pros of Hybrid Model

● Allows for social distancing and with only half the students on campus at a time, this reduces the exposure of students by 50%

● Good balance between safety measures and academic support

14

● Smaller class sizes (15 or fewer students per class) would have instructional benefits and make classroom management easier

● Students in high risk groups could potentially receive support during their non-school time

● The priority on math and reading instruction would help limit any academic loss ● Better than all virtual for students’ mental health

Cons of Hybrid Model

● Less face-to-face instructional time ● The time spent by students expected to work from home has proven to be less effective

than in-person instruction ● Less convenient for parents, especially when both parents work and they need need

supervision of their children ● More health risks for students and staff than going all virtual ● Risk of outbreak and school closure (less than full time, but more than virtual)

Virtual Instructional Model Description The virtual instructional model would allow students to stay home and take their classes online.

● Part of the instruction would be the recording of lessons by teachers for students to watch virtually from home

● students would be required to complete the same work and on the same timeline as the students taking the class on campus

● teachers would be given extra time before the start of school in order to receive specialized training for teaching online classes

● Because the lower school has 3 teachers per grade level, teachers would divide the work of creating lessons for the virtual students to make the workload more manageable

Daily Schedule Determined by each teacher.

Health and Safety Measures Determined by the child’s parent/guardian. Pros of Virtual Model

● Safest option health wise: allows students to stay home, minimizes risk to both staff and students

● Staff can focus on one mode of instruction and therefore be more effective in its delivery ● Students can work at their own pace ● Decreased costs and liability for school

15

● Don’t have to worry about campus closing and have to readjust mid-year Cons of Virtual Model

● Less effective instructionally - difficult to check for understanding and provide individualized support

● Difficult to administer assessments in a secure manner, which creates more opportunities for students to cheat and harder for teachers to accurately assess student learning

● Some students have particular difficulty staying engaged and keeping up with the learning and assignments

● Least effective for students who are at risk or have exceptional needs ● Relying on parents, who may have limited time/skills for providing instructional support ● Least satisfactory for students’ mental health ● May impair the social skills of students ● Least popular option for parents and teachers ● Least compatible with Classical Education

16

Ratings of the Instructional Models The following table summarizes some of the key strengths and weaknesses of each instructional model, as determined by the Task Force. Each model was rated on how well it meets a list of “needs” criteria.

“High” - Most effective for meeting the need “Medium” - Somewhat effective for meeting the need

“Low” - Least effective for meeting the need

NEEDS FULL-TIME HYBRID VIRTUAL

Student/Staff Physical Health

Low Medium High

Student Mental Health High Medium Low

Instructional Effectiveness

High Medium Low

Parent Convenience High Low Medium

Child Supervision During Parent Work Day

High Medium Low

Alignment with Classical Education

High Medium Low

Parent Preference (per survey)

High Medium Low

Staff Preference (per survey)

High Medium Low

Supports Students with Special Needs

High Medium Low

Supports Low Income Families

High Medium Low

Allows for Extracurricular Activities

High Medium Low

17

Task Force Recommendations

For Upper School The Task Force believes that it is important to offer an in-person teaching option for students (either full-time or hybrid) along with a virtual option. The in-person option seems critical for meeting students’ learning and mental health needs. Offering a virtual option also appears critical for two primary reasons: 1) to accommodate students who have existing health conditions that put them at higher risk, and 2) to make the full transition to virtual teaching easier in the case the campus has to close again. Because of the size of our school and the staffing limitations (most upper school classes only have one teacher, not multiple), the Task Force does not think it is feasible to offer all three of the previously described options for the upper school, rather the school would need to offer either 1) Full-time and Virtual, or 2) Hybrid and Virtual options. Given the current situation and all of the pros and cons, the Task Force recommends offering the Full-time and Virtual options to the upper school students and families. The Task Force believes providing both full-time and virtual options gives families the ability to choose a program that best suits their own comfort level with the health risks present at this time. Overall, the Task Force believes that offering a full-time, in-person option is the most advantageous for learning, mental health, social development, and family support and currently outweighs the additional health risks at this time. That being said, the task force recognizes that the environment and health risks change from day-to-day so the school will need to adjust and respond to these ever changing circumstances. Just in the last few days, as this report is being written, the number of cases in California appears to be rising significantly and the Governor just issued an order mandating masks in public - both worrisome signs about the direction of this pandemic.

For Lower School Given the current situation and all of the associated pros and cons, the Task Force recommends offering the Full-time, Hybrid, and Virtual options to the lower school students and families. Because of the size of the school and the staffing limitations, the hybrid version may only be an option, however, if the right number of students in a particular grade level choose it. Generally speaking, offering the hybrid option would work in situations where two of the three grade level teachers taught the full-time students and one teacher taught the hybrid and virtual students. This would require an equally proportionate amount of families choosing these options. If the numbers did not work out, the options would need to be reduced to either Full-time or Virtual. While we anticipate that this may be the case more often than not, it would be nice to offer the Hybrid option when the numbers do make it possible. Overall, the Task Force believes that offering a full-time, in-person option is the most advantageous for learning,

18

mental health, social development, and family support and currently those benefits outweigh the additional health risks at this time. By also offering hybrid (when possible) and virtual options, families can choose which option best meets their particular needs and best suits their own comfort level given the current health risks associated with Covid-19. That being said, the environment and health risks change from day-to-day so the school will need to adjust and respond to these ever changing circumstances.

Recommendation to Adjust the School Start Date The Task Force sees several advantages of starting the school year a week later than previously planned. While faculty would return on August 3rd as previously planned, the Task Force recommends that students return to school on August 17th rather than August 10th and finish on June 1st for lower school and June 4th for upper school. This would provide the school with one additional week for teachers to learn the school’s new health and safety procedures, receive additional training on the delivery of online instruction, and plan lessons around a new instructional day. In addition, the extra week would provide additional time to prepare the campus from a facilities perspective (for example, installing plexiglass barriers in certain locations), and extra time for completing the installation of the school’s new weight room and TK portables.

Recommendation on Offering Varsity Sports On June 10th, our state’s governing body of high school varsity sports, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), issued guidelines for the return of physical activity and training. These guidelines (found at: https://cifstate.org/covid-19/Resources/RTP_Combined.pdf) provide specific guidance for each sport on how training could begin, including guidance on social distancing, mask wearing, and sanitizing equipment and facilities, and screening athletes. The guidance is quite restrictive and for football, for example, would only allow for conditioning and individual drills (no player contact, no passing/sharing of a football, no use of tackling dummies, etc.). CIF is currently not allowing contact with other teams and has not issued any guidance on how, or if, competitions will take place but has stated that they will be making a final determination on July 20th. The Task Force recommends that the TPS high school fall sports teams be allowed to begin pre-season practices this summer, under the condition that the teams follow the CIF guidelines to the greatest extent feasible, with each coach meeting with the athletic director to ensure clarity about these new expectations and the athletic director periodically dropping in on practices to ensure adherence to the CIF guidelines. Although it is unclear if competitions will occur in the fall, getting in conditioning work in the preseason is considered important for student safety and injury prevention. The start of and continuation of practices would remain dependent on state and county requirements and local conditions and would be called off if warranted by increased health risks.

19

Summary of Key Arguments & Considerations The Task Force did not come to the recommendation of offering full-time instruction easily and it was not a consensus (5 of the 16 task force members prefer offering only the hybrid and virtual options). There are valid arguments on each side of the debate and all members of the Task Force agree that there is no perfect solution. Below are some of the arguments made during the meetings.

Arguments FOR the Full-time Model (with Masks not Required in Classrooms)

Arguments AGAINST the Full-time Model (with Masks not Required in Classrooms)

The instruction model summary table presented previously in this report overwhelmingly shows the instructional and other benefits of the full-time model, including the mental health of students, which should not be underestimated.

The additional health risks of offering the full-time model outweigh the benefits. In contrast, the hybrid model still allows for in-person instruction but with the added benefit of social distancing, which seems considerably safer. Remember that this would only be a temporary measure.

The threat posed by this virus could go on for a very long time; an effective vaccine could take years to develop, perhaps longer, if ever. How long are we going to sacrifice our children’s learning and development?

There are no guarantees, but additional time would allow us to see if testing/contact tracing systems, effective medical treatments, or a vaccine could be developed to more effectively reduce the risks.

Because we’re also offering the virtual model, families can make their own risk assessments and they have a choice of which model they feel most comfortable with.

This is a valid point, though parents are trusting us to make the best choice that carefully considers all of the risks and benefits so we must be very thoughtful and informed in our decision making. Without more widespread testing, it may be difficult for both parents and health professionals to accurately understand what the risk may be in our local community at any given time.

So far, there have been zero deaths reported in Temecula and it appears that no children have died to date in California due to Covid-19. Children’s immune systems are quite effective against this virus.

While it’s true that the death rate is extremely low for children, they can die from the disease and a small percentage appear to experience serious and perhaps permanent neurological, heart, and lung problems. The other concern is that children can transmit this disease to others, who may be quite vulnerable.

There are risks with everything we do, and the risks appear relatively small right now,

We’re currently in a pandemic and this disease poses a significant health risk right

20

and this risk arguably might be less than that we take each day when driving to school. If we tried to eliminate all risks, we wouldn’t be able to do anything.

now. Temecula currently has a relatively low rate of infection, but this virus is quite contagious and can quickly become the leading cause of death in an area, as witnessed in New York City and other hotspots areas.

Schools have opened up in numerous countries in Europe and though the time period is short and the data limited, schools do not appear to be significant locations of transmission.

Information on this topic is extremely limited so it’s hard to say. If accurate data demonstrates that this is true, then it should be an important point to consider.

Parents have to go back to work and it would be extremely difficult for many to try and accommodate a hybrid model for transportation and childcare reasons.

This is a valid point and it’s hard to argue this, though parents do seem to find a way when they need to, for example, when their children are in kindergarten and need to be picked up at 1 o’clock or during school breaks and summer months. Hybrid is admittedly not ideal for this reason.

While the full-time model doesn’t require masks and can’t accommodate social distancing in the classrooms, there are many other health measures being planned to put in place, including hand washing, sanitation, coving mouths when sneezing, etc. In addition, one of the most effective measures we can do is to educate parents about not sending their children to school if they are sick, showing symptoms, or have been exposed to someone with Covid-19.

The student and parent education strategies and other health measures being planned are clearly important strategies we must employ. If we’re not requiring masks and not having social distancing in the classrooms, however, this is a concern because these appear to be two of the best ways to mitigate the transmission of the virus.

Wearing masks all day is not practical for very young students (as noted by the CDC) and would be difficult for the older students as well. Enforcement seems like a difficult prospect, especially because many parents oppose their use. Besides, students may touch their faces more with their masks on, which could create other transmission risks. Further, masks are inconvenient, can be uncomfortable, and are often not worn properly.

It’s impossible to social distance in the classrooms with the full time model, so all the students and staff should wear masks. The research shows that mask wearing is very effective at decreasing the transmission of Covid-19. If we educate students and parents on the importance of mask wearing and how to use them properly, we could get it to work (perhaps with the exception of the very youngest students). While wearing masks would take some getting used to, health professionals wear masks all day long, as do students in many Asian countries.

21