Health metrics, survey responses provide mixed messages for Henrico School Board to weigh

When the Henrico School Board voted July 23 to begin the year in full virtual mode for most students during the first nine weeks, it did so in part because of health concerns about the possible spread of COVID-19 – even though case-rates in the county itself at the time were relatively stable.

On that day, the county was averaging 25 new daily cases of COVID-19 and 7.6 cases per 100,000 residents.

Now, two days from the board’s decision about what the second nine weeks of school could look like, both of those numbers are slightly higher – 29 new cases per day and 8.9 cases per 100,000 people, according to the Virginia Department of Health – but the county’s 7-day positivity percentage has declined significantly (from 7.1% July 23 day to 3.9% as of Oct. 16).

The VDH’s “burden” metric for COVID cases – which breaks the state into a handful of regions and provides snapshot views of how each one is performing in eight different virus-related metrics – was in the “moderate” range at 8.9 July 23 but now sits in the “high” range at 12.2 as of Oct. 20, since cases in the region have been increasing for 20 days.

The mixed messages provided by those metrics and others promise to make the board’s vote Thursday even more challenging, as it weighs not only the potential health risks posed by COVID itself but also the mental health issues faced by some students and others that have resulted from COVID isolation.

Another set of data that board members must interpret: the results of the school system’s survey of families and full-time employees, which it released Oct. 19.

The results of the employees’ portion of the survey could prove particularly challenging to parse effectively.

That’s because employees were provided with six possible options that they’d consider if school returned in person and allowed to select as many as they wanted. One option that wasn’t available to them: continuing to work virtually without an excuse. Their options, essentially, were to indicate that they’d return to school, resign, retire, or seek leave or accommodation (including the right to continue teaching virtually) because of a medical condition.

The results showed that three-quarters of employees who responded said they’d return to school if instructed to do so – but 55% also selected one or more options indicating that they wouldn’t return.

And in comments submitted by roughly 3,000 of the 4,547 employee respondents, most indicated that they’d selected the option to return to school grudgingly. The vast majority of employee comments favored a plan to remain in primarily virtual mode for the second nine weeks.

“I am extremely disappointed that my only options as a 15 year employee is that I have to be in person, take leave, or resign,” one wrote.

Wrote another, in comments whose tone and message were echoed hundreds of times by others: “Although I am extremely hesitant to return in person in the current health climate, I chose the return in person option because there was not another adequate choice for me. I do not qualify for FFCRA or for a medical exemption, but discretionary leave, retirement, and resignation are not viable options. Therefore I feel like I do not have a choice in returning to an in class setting regardless of my apprehensions regarding my students', coworkers, and my own safety.”

Some wrote they believed in-person instruction would be critical for certain groups of students and would be ready to go back themselves, but that other challenges still remained.

“I am fine going back into the building to teach,” one respondent wrote. “However, the work load required to teach both in person and virtual is unsustainable. One or both groups of student learning will be hindered.”
The survey also produced nearly 13,000 comments from the family surveys – which had a response rate of 64% – but those comments have not yet been made public by the school system.

Another set of health metrics the board and its health committee likely will use when determining a course of action is the VDH’s set of K-12 core and secondary indicators, which is established several weeks ago to assist school systems as they weigh in-person returns. Those metrics, too, paint a mixed picture about the risks COVID presents in Henrico now when compared with three months ago.

The core indicators include:

• the 14-day positivity percentage (currently in the “lower risk” category at 3.9% in Henrico, down from 6.3% July 23);
• the total number of new cases per 100,000 within the past 14 days (currently in the “higher risk” category at 120.9 in Henrico, down from 125.7 July 23);
• the ability of a school system to implement five key mitigation strategies (self-measured by individual school systems; Henrico Schools officials have indicated that they have sufficient PPE and plans to address social distancing in schools).

Secondary indicators include:

• the change in new cases per 100,000 residents during the most recent 7 days compared with the previous 7 days (currently in the “higher risk” range, up from the “lowest risk” range July 23);
• the percentage of occupied hospital inpatient beds in the region (currently in the “moderate risk” range, where it also was July 23);
• the percentage of such beds occupied by COVID patients (currently in the “lowest risk” range, the same as July 23);
• and the existence of public-setting outbreaks (currently in the “high” range at 0.17 per 100,000 people after increasing in the region for 28 days; it was in the “low” range at 0.02 July 23).

* * *

Our journalism is free to read, but it’s not free for us to produce. It requires time, research and analysis to provide fair, comprehensive, meaningful coverage of issues that matter to Henrico County. If you value education reporting like this, please consider a tax-deductible contribution to our Education Fund, made possible through a partnership with Facebook and the Local Media Foundation.