Parents Will Protest Fair Lawn's School Reopening Decision

FAIR LAWN, NJ — For a group of Fair Lawn Public Schools parents, the decision by the district to start the school year remotely is not a welcome one.

In response, a "Parents of Fair Lawn" protest has been scheduled for Friday in opposition of the decision. Next to Thomas Edison School, the group will voice their displeasure and concern beginning at 6 p.m.

Alina Shumilenko, a Fair Lawn parent who worked to quickly organize the protest this week, told Patch that she's disappointed the district couldn't find a way to begin in-person learning, as some area districts have.

"The district had several months to prepare and ensure the successful execution of their plan. We all are wondering why the private schools are open and the public schools in our town are not," she said.

On the event description posted to Facebook, where Shumilenko did much of her organizing, she listed a few reasons why she believes the school's decision is the wrong one.

"There IS a better learning plan that could be suggested," she wrote, adding that she believes parents are being "ignored" in the process.

In Superintendent Nicholas Norcia's letter to parents, he explained that a partial reason for the decision was actually driven by them.

According to Norcia, 25 percent of district parents informed the administration through an "Opt Out Preference" form that they would be enrolling their children in remote learning. At the time the survey went out, remote learning was an option for individual students, but district's couldn't submit remote plans until after Gov. Phil Murphy signed Executive Order 175 on Aug. 12.

From Norcia's perspective, the switch to remote learning isn't for a lack of trying.

"Ideally, we would like to provide an in-person learning environment beginning this September; however, we are facing a situation that is far from ideal," said Norcia. "We prefer to err on the side of caution and begin the year virtually, albeit with significant improvements to our distance learning model."

How effective that distance learning model could be is another point of contention for the parent-protesters.

Norcia said the model will include more "live instruction, student-teacher engagement and closely resemble a traditional, full school day," but Shumilenko is far from convinced.

She says the district's plan doesn't represent the best educational needs of students, stating to potential protesters on the event description that "your kid deserves a proper in-person interaction instead of 5 virtual days."

Shumilenko expanded on that idea in an email conversation with Patch.

"School is so much more than just education. It provides a safe place, warm nutritional meals for families that can't afford, ensures that kids are well socialised, teaches them interaction with the peers, respect for authority," she said.

"For all those reasons and many more (e.g. unacceptable amount of screen time) I feel the suggested plan of 5 days remote learning (namely, keeping kids out of school) is not only wrong but it's dangerous."

At the heart of the issue is Shumilenko's point that schools are a "safe place" for students. In the best of times, that's perhaps the case for some students in some districts, and these certainly aren't the best of times.

Additionally, recent reporting has damaged the facade that schools are in fact a safe space for all students.

At Caldwell Prep, black students have faced racism and biased punishment. At Westwood Regional High School, and in Wayne Township, students have created social media pages to share instances of alleged racism, and even sexual harassment and assault.

Wayne and Paramus Public Schools have also had to address racist remarks made by students this summer, even amid a mass movement for social justice reform.

And that's just in New Jersey.

In Georgia, a North Paulding teenager was suspended from her high school after posting photos of crowded hallways to social media. Her suspension was only rescinded after multiple national media appearances, and a week of bad press for the district.

The example from Georgia is a representation of what could go wrong in school buildings if administrators rush into a plan. In New Jersey, near constant uncertainty, and whiplash recommendations from Gov. Phil Murphy have made it difficult for districts to nail down plans with much certainty at all.

As Ridgewood Public Schools Superintendent Daniel Fishbein recently put it, "none of us has ever been through a pandemic, and I certainly have never led a district through a reopening of schools under such fluctuating and uncertain conditions."

"These constant changes in guidance and mandates from the State of New Jersey, in addition to the news reports of unsuccessful school openings in other areas of the country, have caused increased anxiety concerning opening schools in our own state," he added.

These dueling points almost perfectly illustrate the two sides to the school reopening debate.

On one side, parents of students who are concerned about child care, access to internet and, frankly, getting the most out of their tax dollars — "you are paying taxes for the service you are not getting" — have seen restaurants and shopping malls find ways to reopen, and are asking themselves why schools can't do the same.

School districts, on the other hand, have listened to safety concerns from teachers and employees, and even fielded full throated demands from unions and education associations across the state to start the year remotely.

In Fair Lawn, staff members were opting out, as Norcia added that medical leave submissions and accommodation request had been received by the district, citing health concerns.

On Aug. 11 a group of influential state education leaders released a joint statement calling on Murphy to institute a statewide remote school opening directive, which he later did.

"For months, New Jersey educators and administrators have been working tirelessly to find a way to safely bring students back into school buildings in September. Now, with less than a month remaining before schools are scheduled to reopen, it is time to reluctantly acknowledge that goal is simply not achievable," they said.

"We remain committed to getting back to in-person instruction as soon as it is safe. It is not safe yet."

So when will it be safe?

Fair Lawn Schools officials have set a goal date of Oct. 19 for students to return to school. The parent protesters aren't convinced.

"Do you truly believe that Oct-19 your kid goes to school with the backpack and a happy smile under the mask? .... lots of us don’t," read the Facebook post.

For now, then, parents and officials will continue the debate online and in spaces adjacent to public school buildings. Students will sit idly by, likely prepping both their in-home learning spaces and first-day-of-school outfits as they wait for others to determine their future.