When do you think school will be back to normal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The average student could begin the next school year having lost as much as a third of the expected progress from the previous year in reading and half of the expected progress in math...

the average student could fall seven months behind academically, while black and Hispanic students could experience even greater learning losses, equivalent to 10 months for black children and nine months for Latinos, according to an analysis from McKinsey & Company, the consulting group."


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/us/coronavirus-education-lost-learning.html

Fall behind who? The imaginary children who stayed in school all year?

I love how blase everyone suddenly is about the importance of school.

But they are falling behind where they should be (maybe we should just flunk everyone). The effect is especially pronounced with poor kids. If a child's parents both went to Harvard, no, closing schools probably isn't going to matter so much to them. It's lower SES kids that everyone should be worrying about. From the article:

"A separate analysis of 800,000 students from researchers at Brown and Harvard looked at how Zearn, an online math program, was used both before and after schools closed in March. It found that through late April, student progress in math decreased by about half in classrooms located in low-income ZIP codes, by a third in classrooms in middle-income ZIP codes and not at all in classrooms in high-income ZIP codes."

Falling behind whom?!?!? The imaginary children who have been in schools this whole time? Wtf

Perhaps if you read the article, instead of repeating the same thing over and over...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect schools will be open this fall as normal. Rightly or wrongly, the world is moving on. By August, I bet coronavirus will not get nearly the same attention is does now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/us/politics/coronavirus-washington-trump.html

This is because it is summer. People are outside a lot more which helps limit the spread. If we look at Fauci’s statements, and the history of the Spanish flu, once the weather gets cooler things will change. Being in a school, let alone a tiny classroom with almost 30 kids, is a recipe for disaster. We don’t all teach young children. My students are 17-18 years old, nothing says they can’t spread the virus like a typical adult.

Summer weather doesn’t last forever. We have to think about the full year, not just right now. Health always always always needs to come first!

But Covid doesn't kill like the Spanish flu. It kills mostly people over 65. For the vast majority of younger people, the risk is minuscule. That is a scientific fact. When you weigh the education of millions against the health concerns of a small minority, it is not obvious that health must come first. We need to make accommodations for those at risk while recognizing the essential importance of education for millions of kids.

Please stop spreading false facts. You do not have to be old, you can be 30 and die. If you are overweight (which many Americans are), have Diabetes, etc. you have a much higher risk. That is a scientific fact.

For people under 30, the risk is lower than from the regular flu. BY A LOT. For kids under 18, they have a higher risk of being hospitalized as a result of NOROVIRUS (i.e., the regular old stomach bug) than COVID. This is not dangerous for kids. To the extent we're locking down, it is for vulnerable populations, but let's not pretend we aren't making kids and young workers bear the brunt of the costs while AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POPULATION is the most at risk (and, in the case of retired folks, BY FAR THE LEAST AFFECTED economically).

Not true, especially not for babies under 1. 11% of babies under 1 will become critical if contracted. 7% of 1-4 year olds will be critical and 4% of 5+ children. Think about the huge number of kids in schools. That translates into a lot of hospitalized critical kids. Even if the death rate is super low, i don’t want what I consider a pretty significant chance of my two young kids and infant being hospitalized and in critical condition.

DP. It would be nice if you provided a source for your numbers, but in any event, it is important to point out that these numbers certainly represent the percentage of those kids who showed enough symptoms to seek testing. That is a small fraction of those who get infected, since the majority of infected kids are asymptomatic. It is therefore very misleading to suggest that even if all schoolchildren were to get infected (unlikely), these would be the percentages hospitalized. Please stop the fearmongering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The average student could begin the next school year having lost as much as a third of the expected progress from the previous year in reading and half of the expected progress in math...

the average student could fall seven months behind academically, while black and Hispanic students could experience even greater learning losses, equivalent to 10 months for black children and nine months for Latinos, according to an analysis from McKinsey & Company, the consulting group."


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/us/coronavirus-education-lost-learning.html

It's like when people graduate from college during a recession. On average, their lifetime earnings will be lower than other people's, because they are starting out from a lower base.

[Anonymous]

My biggest problem is most of the people posting here never cared about lower ses kids and their achievement. You only care now because you want to use them to justify sending kids back to school. It’s telling and it continues the narrative of only using people when it’s convenient for you.

[Anonymous]

Give us break and please don't be so judgmental. Come on, it's a parent's responsibility to care about his or her own children's welfare first and foremost.

I don't agree - I think most UMC parents in DC public schools care about how low SES kids do in school. They just aren't in a great position to turn things around socially, financially or academically for poor local families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My biggest problem is most of the people posting here never cared about lower ses kids and their achievement. You only care now because you want to use them to justify sending kids back to school. It’s telling and it continues the narrative of only using people when it’s convenient for you.

It's also hilarious how people pretend that kids missing absurd amounts of school makes no difference at all, as if there's no cost to any of this to anyone.

[Anonymous]

I thought schools were closed because we were trying to "flatten the curve" so that the hospital system wasn't overwhelmed by coronavirus cases. When did the goal posts move? When did we decide schools would be closed until a vaccine was available for everyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My biggest problem is most of the people posting here never cared about lower ses kids and their achievement. You only care now because you want to use them to justify sending kids back to school. It’s telling and it continues the narrative of only using people when it’s convenient for you.

It's also hilarious how people pretend that kids missing absurd amounts of school makes no difference at all, as if there's no cost to any of this to anyone.

It’s not hilarious and there is plenty of cost to go around. But people see through the lower ses argument. Especially DCPS. You run from low ses schools. There is a huge amount of white flight. Then to use these children as your basis for your argument is really hard to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My biggest problem is most of the people posting here never cared about lower ses kids and their achievement. You only care now because you want to use them to justify sending kids back to school. It’s telling and it continues the narrative of only using people when it’s convenient for you.

It's also hilarious how people pretend that kids missing absurd amounts of school makes no difference at all, as if there's no cost to any of this to anyone.

It’s not hilarious and there is plenty of cost to go around. But people see through the lower ses argument. Especially DCPS. You run from low ses schools. There is a huge amount of white flight. Then to use these children as your basis for your argument is really hard to read.

It’s really gross. So are the people who think that if people can exercise their constitutional rights to protest modern day lynchings that school should open as usual, for their convenience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My biggest problem is most of the people posting here never cared about lower ses kids and their achievement. You only care now because you want to use them to justify sending kids back to school. It’s telling and it continues the narrative of only using people when it’s convenient for you.

It's also hilarious how people pretend that kids missing absurd amounts of school makes no difference at all, as if there's no cost to any of this to anyone.

It’s not hilarious and there is plenty of cost to go around. But people see through the lower ses argument. Especially DCPS. You run from low ses schools. There is a huge amount of white flight. Then to use these children as your basis for your argument is really hard to read.

It’s really gross. So are the people who think that if people can exercise their constitutional rights to protest modern day lynchings that school should open as usual, for their convenience.

That's the problem with slippery slopes. Once everyone decided its ok to ignore social distancing so long as you're protesting the police, that created a precedent that other people will use to justify doing what they think is important. Of course, coronavirus does not care why you happen to be gathering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My biggest problem is most of the people posting here never cared about lower ses kids and their achievement. You only care now because you want to use them to justify sending kids back to school. It’s telling and it continues the narrative of only using people when it’s convenient for you.

It's also hilarious how people pretend that kids missing absurd amounts of school makes no difference at all, as if there's no cost to any of this to anyone.

It’s not hilarious and there is plenty of cost to go around. But people see through the lower ses argument. Especially DCPS. You run from low ses schools. There is a huge amount of white flight. Then to use these children as your basis for your argument is really hard to read.

On the other hand, many people's concern about the achievement gap appears to be superseded by their fear of the virus. It works both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect schools will be open this fall as normal. Rightly or wrongly, the world is moving on. By August, I bet coronavirus will not get nearly the same attention is does now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/us/politics/coronavirus-washington-trump.html

This is because it is summer. People are outside a lot more which helps limit the spread. If we look at Fauci’s statements, and the history of the Spanish flu, once the weather gets cooler things will change. Being in a school, let alone a tiny classroom with almost 30 kids, is a recipe for disaster. We don’t all teach young children. My students are 17-18 years old, nothing says they can’t spread the virus like a typical adult.

Summer weather doesn’t last forever. We have to think about the full year, not just right now. Health always always always needs to come first!

But Covid doesn't kill like the Spanish flu. It kills mostly people over 65. For the vast majority of younger people, the risk is minuscule. That is a scientific fact. When you weigh the education of millions against the health concerns of a small minority, it is not obvious that health must come first. We need to make accommodations for those at risk while recognizing the essential importance of education for millions of kids.

Please stop spreading false facts. You do not have to be old, you can be 30 and die. If you are overweight (which many Americans are), have Diabetes, etc. you have a much higher risk. That is a scientific fact.

For people under 30, the risk is lower than from the regular flu. BY A LOT. For kids under 18, they have a higher risk of being hospitalized as a result of NOROVIRUS (i.e., the regular old stomach bug) than COVID. This is not dangerous for kids. To the extent we're locking down, it is for vulnerable populations, but let's not pretend we aren't making kids and young workers bear the brunt of the costs while AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POPULATION is the most at risk (and, in the case of retired folks, BY FAR THE LEAST AFFECTED economically).

Not true, especially not for babies under 1. 11% of babies under 1 will become critical if contracted. 7% of 1-4 year olds will be critical and 4% of 5+ children. Think about the huge number of kids in schools. That translates into a lot of hospitalized critical kids. Even if the death rate is super low, i don’t want what I consider a pretty significant chance of my two young kids and infant being hospitalized and in critical condition.

What study are you looking at for these figures? They seem high. But, additionally, the evidence is that the vast majority of the kids that get super ill from COVID had serious pre-existing conditions (conditions that would, in many cases, keep them out of regular classrooms): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/health/coronavirus-children-icu.html. Also, you are correct that I was ignoring the stats on kids under 2, since it's not directly relevant to the school discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect schools will be open this fall as normal. Rightly or wrongly, the world is moving on. By August, I bet coronavirus will not get nearly the same attention is does now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/us/politics/coronavirus-washington-trump.html

This is because it is summer. People are outside a lot more which helps limit the spread. If we look at Fauci’s statements, and the history of the Spanish flu, once the weather gets cooler things will change. Being in a school, let alone a tiny classroom with almost 30 kids, is a recipe for disaster. We don’t all teach young children. My students are 17-18 years old, nothing says they can’t spread the virus like a typical adult.

Summer weather doesn’t last forever. We have to think about the full year, not just right now. Health always always always needs to come first!

But Covid doesn't kill like the Spanish flu. It kills mostly people over 65. For the vast majority of younger people, the risk is minuscule. That is a scientific fact. When you weigh the education of millions against the health concerns of a small minority, it is not obvious that health must come first. We need to make accommodations for those at risk while recognizing the essential importance of education for millions of kids.

Please stop spreading false facts. You do not have to be old, you can be 30 and die. If you are overweight (which many Americans are), have Diabetes, etc. you have a much higher risk. That is a scientific fact.

For people under 30, the risk is lower than from the regular flu. BY A LOT. For kids under 18, they have a higher risk of being hospitalized as a result of NOROVIRUS (i.e., the regular old stomach bug) than COVID. This is not dangerous for kids. To the extent we're locking down, it is for vulnerable populations, but let's not pretend we aren't making kids and young workers bear the brunt of the costs while AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POPULATION is the most at risk (and, in the case of retired folks, BY FAR THE LEAST AFFECTED economically).

Not true, especially not for babies under 1. 11% of babies under 1 will become critical if contracted. 7% of 1-4 year olds will be critical and 4% of 5+ children. Think about the huge number of kids in schools. That translates into a lot of hospitalized critical kids. Even if the death rate is super low, i don’t want what I consider a pretty significant chance of my two young kids and infant being hospitalized and in critical condition.

What study are you looking at for these figures? They seem high. But, additionally, the evidence is that the vast majority of the kids that get super ill from COVID had serious pre-existing conditions (conditions that would, in many cases, keep them out of regular classrooms): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/health/coronavirus-children-icu.html. Also, you are correct that I was ignoring the stats on kids under 2, since it's not directly relevant to the school discussion.

Here's another study indicating the kids who get sick from COVID had serious pre-existing conditions: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2766037. This study put the critical care figure for all children at .4%: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/17/coronavirus-looks-different-kids-than-adults/

Basically, your figures are either entirely made up or your misinterpreting something... Also, given that the evidence from random population-wide sampling indicates that 50%+ of kids have no symptoms at all, all of the figures from studies of sick kids are going to be too high.

[Anonymous]

NYC schools just announced hybrid learning for 2020-2021 school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NYC schools just announced hybrid learning for 2020-2021 school year.

Not really. Incredibly vague framework a la DC. Could end up just being people voluntarily opting out of in person. Totally remains to be seen. Mayor says he doesn't know yet.