For the rare occasions when I want to add variety to my wardrobe, I will accessorize with a scarf or a headband. Ever since fourth grade, headbands have integrated themselves into my daily life, leading me to show up in one almost every day. Over time, I have learned that metal headbands hold my hair up better, but silk ones are more comfortable for my ears. Furthermore, plaid scarves are my favorite.

Finally, my backpack is still the generic Jansport one I’ve had since eighth grade, and my emotional attachment to it makes me turn a blind eye to its slowly fraying straps.

Superintendent Don Austin’s reopening plan was first introduced at the Feb. 9 PAUSD board meeting, but is contingent on Santa Clara County being in the red tier of California’s COVID-19 tracking system for at least five days. If carried out, the plan would allow students to choose whether they would like to return on campus two days a week.

According to Assistant Principal Michalis Gordon, the opt-in and opt-out system will offer students with last names beginning with A through K the option of attending school in-person on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, while the remainder of students will be able to choose to attend school in-person on Thursdays and Fridays. During the day, students will move between classrooms; however, classes will still be held on Zoom. 

Principal Wendy Stratton emphasized that in-person attendance is voluntary, but whether a student’s decision must be made for the entire week or just the day is still undecided. Ladomirak, too, highlighted the voluntary aspect of the plan. “I cannot stress enough that this is a personal choice for every student,” Ladomirak said. “Every student has different needs.” 

While the master schedule will not change, students are required to stay on campus during the school day. Stratton confirmed that students leaving campus for the day would not be able to return except for sports practices and other after-school activities. 

Students that have a prep during the day (periods 2, 3 or 6) are required to remain in a designated space on campus during their prep; students with preps at the beginning or end of the day (periods 1, 4, 5 and 7) are allowed to arrive at the start of their first class or leave early. Gunn Together and SELF will alternate between Wednesdays and Fridays each week so that students will have an opportunity to attend SELF in-person if they choose to. In between classes, students will be asked to walk in designated directions and maintain all social distancing protocols. 

According to Assistant Principal Leonel Argumedo, PAUSD has implemented a variety of safety precautions for both students and staff during this reopening. “There’s been a lot done to ensure everyone’s safety on campus,” Argumedo said. 

Each morning, students, teachers and staff will be required to fill out a health screening questionnaire to ensure that they have not been experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 or been in contact with people that have been. In addition, desks with plexiglass dividers will be assigned and be spaced six feet apart. Each class will also have upgraded HVAC systems or air purifiers, hand sanitizer and a variety of masks. Furthermore, starting on Feb. 28, teachers who live or work in Santa Clara County can make an appointment to get vaccinated for COVID-19. 

In the event that a student or staff member contracts COVID-19, PAUSD has a 3-scenario plan. If a student or staff member presents symptoms of COVID-19 or answers “yes” to any of the questions in the daily health screener, they will be sent home and asked to be tested. Classroom instruction will continue for the remainder of students. If someone (like a family member) in close contact with a student or staff member tests positive for COVID-19, the student or staff member will be sent home and asked to be tested. Even if they test negative, they will still be required to quarantine at home for 14 days or until the infected person completes their quarantine to prevent any future infection. If a student or staff member tests positive for COVID-19, they will be sent home and asked to quarantine for 14 days or seven days after symptoms have disappeared. Any school-based close contacts will be notified, instructed to get tested and asked to quarantine. Both the school administration and the public health department will be notified.

To enforce these protocols, there will be at least three supervisors and teachers on campus during breaks to monitor student behavior; however, Gordon stressed the ultimate responsibility fell to the students to adhere to guidelines. “We are going to rely on you, the student body, to enforce these protocols you know and for you to set the example for those who might forget to wear [their] mask when we quickly step out of the classroom,” Gordon said.

Yet, at the same time, physical safety has come at the cost of mental wellbeing, as child psychologist Dr. Wendy Froehlich recognizes. “I’d love to say that safety is the top priority, but you can break safety down to include physical safety and mental health safety,” Froehlich said. “And we have competing interests right now within those two areas.”

Froehlich’s words point at the deeper issue of maintaining a careful balancing act between mental health and physical health amidst the pandemic. According to a recent Harvard study, strict lockdowns and curfews have led to widespread feelings of isolation, causing children to experience symptoms of depression, anxiety and misbehavior. Similarly, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported significantly higher levels of depression and anxiety in students who had been quarantined for 30 days due to COVID-19.

In short, the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a far more invisible mental health pandemic, especially amongst adolescents and teens. “Without a doubt, the pandemic has been hard for a large majority of individuals I work with,” Froehlich said. “From a general social perspective, [since] high school teenagers are at such a transitional period in life, it’s been really, really difficult to live through this pandemic.”

New Challenges

At Gunn, things are no different. According to counselor David Leftwich, since Gunn shifted to virtual learning, there have been an increased number of meetings arranged for students requiring interventions to support them academically. Leftwich noted that student anxiety has been an underlying theme in all of these meetings. “I think that those meetings have anxiety underneath them, where [students are] saying, ‘I don’t know if I can do this, I need some help. I’m worried about getting through all this. It feels so different. It feels so scary,’” Leftwich said.

Mental Health and Wellness Coordinator Genavae Dixon noted a similar trend, citing the fact that there have been more students reaching out for support. “We definitely have more students reporting about depressive-like symptoms than we have had before,” Dixon said. “Especially for students having these situations happen for the first time, [I hear them saying] ‘wow, it’s really hard for me to get out of bed, it’s really hard for me to have some level of motivation and to finish my schoolwork, or to even interact with my family or text my friends back.’”

Teacher-student relationships have also felt more distanced. According to Leftwich, it’s considerably more challenging for adults to detect when a student is struggling in a virtual schooling format. “[Counselors] get a lot of our referrals through teachers,” he said. “In the classroom, they can look out over the class and they can see when a student has their head down. But online, students just have their camera off, so it wouldn’t be a red flag for that teacher.”

Even when students meet with counselors, it has become harder for counselors to fully understand a student’s mental state. “On campus, it’s easier to get a feel for a student,” Leftwich said. “When I talk to a student, I’m reading their body language in a different way than I do when I do a Zoom meeting with them. I can hear their voice differently, or they speak differently to me in my office than they do when they’re in their living room. Understanding the mental health challenges of students on campus is easier when you’re on campus and meeting with students face to face.”

For its part, Gunn has recognized the need to take steps in supporting the mental wellbeing of students inside and outside the classroom. Since on-campus support is no longer available, new virtual support systems are being developed and offered to students.

The Wellness Center staff, for instance, has been coming up with different online initiatives to provide support for students in a variety of different ways. There is now a Bitmoji classroom where students can drop in 24 hours a day to get different types of resources. Students can also receive direct assistance during school hours from wellness professionals (These resources can be accessed at tinyurl.com/gwellness). These new resources have helped some students adjust to online learning; according to Reach Out, Care, Know (ROCK) President Kate Williams, who is a senior, school-led activities have helped her feel more comfortable in the online environment. “I think Gunn has really helped us by using the Gunn Together times and the SELF times to really talk about mental health,” she said. “I feel so supported, especially by [Wellness Outreach Worker Rossana Castil], who is really helping by posting things on Schoology—ways that you can continue to work on your mental health.”

A Reason To Reopen

Given the challenges distance learning poses to maintaining wellness, it’s no surprise students’ mental health has been cited as a reason for reopening schools to resume in-person instruction. The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) school board has strongly encouraged reopening and unanimously approved reopening plans for both elementary and secondary schools. Chief among the reasons for reopening, according to PAUSD Superintendent Dr. Don Austin, is mental health. “Students have been isolated for nine months, and are starting to have issues,” he said. “When you get to be around people that you know care about you, your mental health improves naturally, and that’s my belief system. I think the board is, as a whole, pretty aligned with that.”

School Board Member Jennifer DiBrienza echoed Austin. “I know a lot of students that are doing absolutely fine academically, but some are depressed or are just disengaged,” DiBrienza said. “There are some kids that we know of who are struggling with isolation. I think that there’s a disappointment of not being able to open in January [given the] real academic concerns and mental health concerns.”

Under the PAUSD reopening plan, students would only return in-person for their English and social studies classes, leading Dixon to voice uncertainty on whether the plan would effectively support students. “I think that for our students that truly need the structure of school to be able to get their work done, that it would be helpful,” she said. “But, overall, it would still be that most of your classes would still be in distance, so there still would be some discrepancies and some issues around that.”

While PAUSD’s secondary school plan has been shelved due to the county’s spiking COVID-19 case count, if students do go back to school in the near-future, Dixon worries about potentially new forms of student anxiety. “I think it does add or it brings in a level of health anxiety,” she said. “‘Now I’m coming to school, is everybody taking their precautions? Is everyone wearing their masks? How do I interact?’ My colleagues that I work within other [reopened] schools say that has been a big point of stress for students.”

At the end of the day, there’s no right answer in what to prioritize when reopening schools, according to Froehlich. “I don’t know that there’s a way to say that there’s just one most important variable to be looked at [in reopening],” she said. “I think there are a multitude of variables that have to be weighed, and the challenging part is they’re probably different for each individual and each family. That’s where this creates such a challenging situation because there is no great one-size-fits-all.”

In looking toward the future, regardless of how reopenings will look, Dixon emphasized reaching out for support. “Reach out to Wellness [staff]—we are here to support you,” she said. “We want to be here to support you with those things and talk through strategies and be really individualized with our support for our students.”

The history of California affirmative action laws dates back to 1996, when Proposition 209 was passed in the California Assembly by a 54.6% vote. Since then, there have been three major suits that reached the California Supreme Court. In the Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson (1996), the initiative was challenged as written. The federal courts upheld Proposition 209. In Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. City of San Jose (2000), the California Supreme Court decided that outreach to help minority and women-owned businesses obtain subcontracts on city construction projects in San Jose violated Proposition 209. Specifically, the California Supreme Court decided that the type of “participation goal” and “targeted outreach” violated Proposition 209. In the third case, Connerly v. State Personnel Board (2001), the courts found that provisions in five state programs related to affirmative action violated Proposition 209 and the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection. While all the cases were appealed multiple times, the proposition has always been upheld.

For years, there have been many attempts—such as affirmative action or housing stability programs on the federal, state and local levels—to help the underprivileged gain access to educational and social opportunities. Proposition 209 eliminated state and local government affirmative action programs on the basis that these programs were involved in preferential treatment towards groups solely based on ethnicity, color, sex or race, which was unconstitutional. This move limited accessibility for underprivileged demographics, subsequently decreasing the enrollment of minorities in both the University of California (UC) and California State University college systems. According to the UC Office of the President, passing Proposition 209 resulted in a 31% drop from 1996 to 2001 for underrepresented groups and minorities in the UC system.

Now, Proposition 16 aims to remove Proposition 209. Proponents of Proposition 16 argue that systemic discrimination has led to inequality in educational opportunities. According to The Center for American Progress, an independent policy institute, students of color face many barriers in the education system, including exclusion and segregation from extracurriculars, underfunding and limited resources. The institute states that students who are white and financially privileged have an advantage because they can access extracurricular activities, sports programs and college prep resources that others—due to a lack of finances—cannot.

Proponents also argue that affirmative action improves diversity. The Center for American Progress supports Proposition 16 in hopes that it will expand educational opportunities for women and people of color by prioritizing diversity in California public colleges. Similarly, the California League of Women Voters states that affirmative action is the only way to ensure that diversity is maintained in schools that translates to inclusivity in the workplace, since education is a critical factor in job recruitment. They believe that reinstating affirmative action promotes social mobility and gives those born with financial barriers an opportunity to get a better education and eventually better work opportunities.

On the other hand, opponents of Proposition 16 believe that repealing Proposition 209 and legalizing affirmative action would discriminate against other groups instead of compensating for systemic oppression. Tom Campbell of the Orange County Register writes that the pressure to repeal Proposition 209 stems from a desire to help Black individuals in today’s circumstances. He argues, however, that we must not do that at the expense of another racial group. Former California Senator Quentin Kopp believes that even if Proposition 209 would benefit Black individuals, it would discriminate against groups such as Asian Americans, thereby perpetuating racial injustice.

Many also argue that affirmative action reinforces stereotypes. An article from the Columbia Spectator argued that when organizations paint affirmative action as necessary, they imply that minority students can’t get in based on their merit alone; instead, they are admitted for representing a token racial minority or underprivileged demographic. This perpetuates racial stereotypes that certain groups cannot succeed because they are less intelligent than others. Opponents of Proposition 16 also believe that students admitted without racial preferences in place and students admitted due to affirmative action will be at vastly different academic levels. In turn, this disparity would decrease the overall quality of education. Many are afraid that the precedent set by affirmative action will also allow for the implementation of racial quotas, redirecting college admission focus from students’ personal merits to checking boxes for their “diversity requirement.”

This November, whether voters believe in the potential for affirmative action to increase diversity and address systemic racism or voters believe race and gender should not be included in admission decisions, it is clear that Proposition 16 could change the college admissions landscape for millions of Californians.

However, California’s long battle with COVID-19 is far from over. Students should minimize unnecessary outings such as social gatherings, parties and events to protect themselves and their families; following social distancing guidelines and minimizing contact is the only way we can slow down infection rates. 

Even while infection rates are steadily decreasing, individual and community safety should be prioritized. As of Monday, the average COVID-19 caseload has decreased by 27.6% from the previous week, according to the California Department of Public Health. Despite this feat, which has taken time, effort and commitment, the risks of going out persist; according to the Santa Clara Public Health Center, there have been over 19,000 cumulative cases in our county alone, as of Monday. The threat of contracting the virus from an unsuspecting person or unknowingly infecting others should still encourage students to stay at home. Any unavoidable outings should be executed with extreme caution.

Furthermore, restaurants reopened for limited outdoor seating in early June, according to the Santa Clara County Public Health Center. While the risks of outdoor seating, especially with socially-distanced tables, is significantly less than that of indoor seating, the possibility of contracting the virus is still present and should not be taken lightly. One can never be sure whether the restaurant or those around you is taking proper precautions, so try to minimize dining at restaurants, especially with those you don’t live with.

To justify their group gatherings, teens often turn to the low mortality rate of their age range. According to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the death rate for youth ages 5-17 is 16 times lower than that of adults aged 18-29. Furthermore, many read that most of the teens infected with COVID-19 are asymptomatic and can live normally. This low mortality rate leads some to falsely believe that they can disregard protective safety measures without consequences, and has given adolescents a justification to continue partying or participating in large social events despite warnings from the CDC.

Yet at this point, teens may still serve as carriers of the virus, transferring it to more vulnerable populations. Ultimately, teens can still face serious health complications from infection, and even if they are asymptomatic, they can still be a danger to the people around them.

In addition, social media and the actions of public figures have also contributed to less cautious social gatherings. Currently, on applications such as Instagram and Tiktok, large numbers of influential creators are producing content with other creators. At times, these creators are not properly social distanced nor following guidelines. According to the New York Times, 60 to 70 guests flocked to a popular Los Angeles creator house, the Hype House, for a party in late July. Few creators sported masks in the numerous videos and pictures posted during the event. When these public figures disregard safety measures, they serve as poor role models, leading students to believe that ignoring these measures while hanging out with friends is acceptable. Consequently, they are putting themselves, their friends and their families in danger.

While social media figures play a crucial role entertaining teens, it’s important to recognize the downfalls of their visibility, especially in a global pandemic. At the peer-to-peer level, seeing friends’ posts on social media serves as an equally attractive or motivating factor to go out. Thus, mindfulness in this sensitive situation is crucial to keeping everyone safe. 

It’s no doubt that we each want to hang out, party and reopen as soon as possible. However, without following guidelines and keeping yourself safe, cases will inevitably begin to rise. Protect yourself and those around you by abiding by the CDC-suggested safety measures and by simply waiting a little longer before things return to “normal.” Go out only when absolutely essential, but be sure to follow guidelines and stay masked. Try to keep outdoors, where air circulation is better and the risk of spread is smaller, and minimize the frequency of these outings if possible. Instead of heading to that restaurant for dinner, consider getting takeout or making an elaborate home-cooked meal.

The longer we social distance and abide by CDC and county regulations, the faster we can continue to reopen without major setbacks. 

“If (and it’s an if) Santa Clara moves from [“purple” status to “red” status] on Sept. 8, schools COULD reopen for in-person as soon as Sept. 22,” superintendent Don Austin said in a Sept. 1 tweet. “[Palo Alto Unified School District] would NOT return for large-scale in-person until a minimum of Oct. 12 as previously stated.”

The school board meeting on September 22nd will discuss a reopening plan; however, it is unlikely that Gunn will open up immediately on Oct. 12. The district has made it clear that priority will be given to reopening elementary schools before secondary schools, according to Gunn School Board Representative Thomas Li. 

Li, for his part, stressed viewing the situation realistically. “I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions,” he said. “There are still many difficult decisions and details the district needs to make before schools may reopen.”

This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.

The personal connections with staff and students shaped his time
on campus. When he switched careers to teaching, these relationships
shaped his purpose–to help the students. “I don’t teach because I like
physics, I teach because I love my students,” MacLean said. Foremost, MacLean emphasizes his respect for the Gunn community. “I’ve had a lot of different careers, but I have never worked with such a uniformly high caliber, high-quality group, whether it be the teachers, students, custodial staff, special ed staff or others,” he said. According to MacLean, working with a community full of highly-motivated staff contributed to his memorable time teaching.

MacLean has worked with both engineers who have all been very gung-ho about science and students who don’t choose the advanced science lanes. He hopes his students can depart with an understanding of science. “I hope my students can walk away saying, ‘I can do science and I don’t completely hate it,’” he said. Once his students achieve this, MacLean believes he can walk away feeling accomplished. MacLean also stresses that the ability to learn the essence of patience will help students beyond his class and school, and in their futures.

MacLean plans to spend lots of his time with his family after the shelter-in-place order is over. Additionally, MacLean hopes to spend more time playing his musical instruments and building on his hobbies, such as wood sculpting. “I’d love to have more time to [play instruments and build], and I really want to move someplace where I can have more dogs,” he said.

Across the wide spectrum of incentives for students to learn, a significant portion is driven by the letter grade. With the fundamental change in the grading system, disincentivization of hard work among students remains one of the primary concerns. One trait of the credit/no-credit system is that it does not differentiate between students that have a high level of understanding of the material and students that only obtain a surface-level understanding. With classes transitioning to credit/no-credit, many students may be less motivated to do their best, and more students will fall back to doing minimal work. As a result, the quality of education received will take a substantial hit. Beyond that, many courses are prerequisites to others; when students don’t understand the material very well this year, they will likely have more difficulties understanding more intricate and complex material the following year. In particular, the math lanes are designed to build off of one another, and the quality of understanding that a student will be motivated to obtain during this time will be significantly lower, making it difficult for them in the more advanced math classes in future years. Additionally, parents have raised concerns about the superintendent’s lack of transparency regarding the transition. As the transition to credit/no-credit was a unilateral decision that was never voted on by the school board, there were many criticisms centered around the process and decision, citing a lack of student and parent input on the real-world implications of the policy.

While all these concerns are well-warranted, one must also recognize the extraordinary character of the current situation. While online learning and credit/no-credit are not perfect, students are also less strained and less worried about taking tests and understanding complex material virtually, given that direct instruction from teachers is much harder now. Teachers are doing their best for their students during this time, but it’s important to acknowledge that learning will just not be the same. Transitioning to credit/no-credit will alleviate parts of the stress many students get while studying immensely for difficult courses during a normal school year. Furthermore, many Gunn students will still be working hard to study for the modified Advanced Placement (AP) tests, ensuring that they still learn from home. Beyond that, the credit/no-credit system has been implemented throughout the country, which demonstrates that the vast majority of schools have already seen past the potential flaws of the system. While the transition could have been smoother, Gunn has already handled this situation well by prioritizing the mental health of its students, allowing them to focus on their family, friends and other pressing issues rather than achieving a high letter grade.

In the end, there are still many students that will continue to work hard despite only being able to receive a “credit-proficient mark,” and, with AP tests still happening virtually, there are additional incentives to study and prepare for the following years. Overall, while there are many deficits associated with the credit/no-credit system such as the disincentivization of hard work and the lower quality of education students will receive, the extremity of the situation that we are experiencing makes it so that the transition will likely decrease stress for students and staff during this difficult time.

Historically, COVID-19 is not the only virus that has stirred racial discrimination. According to the Science Museum, Jews were widely blamed for the Black Death and 46% more likely to be avoided during this time. Immigrant Irish workers carried the burden for the cholera epidemics in the 1830s, and even during the 1853 yellow-fever epidemic, many believed that European-Americans were more vulnerable to the disease, just because of the disease’s origin. More recently, during the SARS outbreak, East Asians became the target of stigma, as The Atlantic reports that Asians who wore masks were shunned or even violently attacked on public transportation.

Back in October of 2014, when there were just eight confirmed cases of Ebola in the United States, hysteria broke out. The Intercept reports that during the Ebola outbreak, immigrants who lived in Dallas, Texas—where the first US case was confirmed—faced discrimination and major disrespect as they were turned away from local jobs and stores while local parents prevented them from approaching their children. During this time, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported multiple times that race was not related to Ebola, and yet, The Verge reported that during this time, the dehumanizing of African immigrants continued for months. Spectrum News further notes that the xenophobia caused by Ebola in Staten Island, New York made people isolate African Americans, refusing to talk to them or even shake their hand fearing the transmission of the virus. Therefore, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyeus of the World Health Organization stated that “Stimaga is more dangerous than the virus itself.”

Today, people calling COVID-19 the “Wuhan virus”sparked a multitude of racist actions against those of Chinese heritage. Despite the CDC spreading multiple messages on how “People of Asian descent, including Chinese Americans, are not more likely to get COVID-19,” in a study published in the Social Psychological and Personal Science Journal, it was shown that any person living in a region with more infectious diseases will have a strong feeling in favor of their in-group, and a stronger opposition towards the out-group. Catastrophically, during times of mass-panic, xenophobic views rise and target groups of people. CNN quantifies that Chinese businesses have dropped 70-80% during the past month, as people believe that Chinese food is associated with COVID-19. Burton of Vox further notes that in major cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle and Toronto, East Asians are targeted in many ways, from racist comments made by TSA agents to verbal street harassment. 

The impact of these racist and xenophobic actions has presented itself in history before. In Proposition 187, the legislation denied public services to undocumented immigrants for the reason that they would spread communicable diseases. Even after the proposition failed, citizens that were documented still refused to use public health clinics, as they feared discrimination. At the end of the day, the CDC and the World Health Organization (WHO) collectively announce that major viruses or diseases, such as the COVID-19 are not spread by a particular race. As a country, the U.S. should be invested in making sure that a racial interpretive framework for understanding disease and outbreaks is implemented to prevent xenophobia and overall discrimination toward specific groups, now and in the future.