Allegedly there are several options for the fall none of which include being back full time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. To be clear, a lot of what the AAP recommends makes sense, and aligns with what I laid out in the long post above. What I object to is their tone of, well try this, but don't worry about it if you can't live up to this regimen.

"If it isn't feasible to put these mitigation tactics in place, just open schools and so be it." As a teacher, that is not good enough for me.

Great. Find a new job. Nothing will ever be "safe" enough for teachers. You all have made that quite clear. You seem to be the one group incapable of accepting any risk at all, yet still think you should be paid your full salary.

All this strident back and forth is meaningless. Schools won't have in-person learning in Sept. because the virus isn't under control. People should be making other arrangements.

Firehouses won't have in-person firefighting because the virus isn't under control. PUBLIC SERVANTS AND IN FACT TIME IN WITH PEOPLE IS LIMITED

Grocery stores won't have in-person grocery sales because the virus isn't under control. STILL GOING BUT NON-WORKER TIME IS LIMTED

Meatpacking plants won't have in-person meatpacking because the virus isn't under control. STILL GOING

Tomato farms won't have in-person tomato-picking because the virus isn't under control. OUTSIDE AND CAN BE SOCIAL DISTANCED

Construction sites won't have in-person construction because the virus isn't under control. NOT TRUE< OUTSIDE AND CAN BE SOCIAL DISTANCED

The Navy won't have in-person Navying because the virus isn't under control. NOT AT ALL IN PLAY

Etc.

Right?

Kids in enclosed places with bad HVAC systems, few chances to wash hands, elementary aged students touching masks/not keeping masks on/wanting to share masks is a totally different beast. Have you seen a classroom in HS in MCPS recently. I went to back to school night and the idea that we can social distance in many of our schools is laughable. The county wants MCPS to cut the budget, social distance in-person teaching means more teachers. This is not going to happen

[Anonymous]

With numbers being so good and getting better every day, I don't see how students would not be allowed for in-person education. Some people say other parts of US not so good, people may travel to other states etc. Closing schools because some people might travel to other states is laughable. Just a lame excuse. If students are not allowed to schools, I will riot very hard. I'm paying taxes. If you want absolutely zero risk, you are welcome to stay at home. But you can't collect salary from my taxes. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. To be clear, a lot of what the AAP recommends makes sense, and aligns with what I laid out in the long post above. What I object to is their tone of, well try this, but don't worry about it if you can't live up to this regimen.

"If it isn't feasible to put these mitigation tactics in place, just open schools and so be it." As a teacher, that is not good enough for me.

Great. Find a new job. Nothing will ever be "safe" enough for teachers. You all have made that quite clear. You seem to be the one group incapable of accepting any risk at all, yet still think you should be paid your full salary.

All this strident back and forth is meaningless. Schools won't have in-person learning in Sept. because the virus isn't under control. People should be making other arrangements.

Firehouses won't have in-person firefighting because the virus isn't under control.

Grocery stores won't have in-person grocery sales because the virus isn't under control.

Meatpacking plants won't have in-person meatpacking because the virus isn't under control.

Tomato farms won't have in-person tomato-picking because the virus isn't under control.

Construction sites won't have in-person construction because the virus isn't under control.

The Navy won't have in-person Navying because the virus isn't under control.

Etc.

Right?

Compare schools to all of the other places that ARE doing virtual only. Nearly all Corporate desk jobs. I notarized documents over the Internet! The SSA is handling appointments over the phone.

Yep. School is not a corporate desk job.

Yes it's funny that pp thinks her job is the blueprint for US recovery plan 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. To be clear, a lot of what the AAP recommends makes sense, and aligns with what I laid out in the long post above. What I object to is their tone of, well try this, but don't worry about it if you can't live up to this regimen.

"If it isn't feasible to put these mitigation tactics in place, just open schools and so be it." As a teacher, that is not good enough for me.

Great. Find a new job. Nothing will ever be "safe" enough for teachers. You all have made that quite clear. You seem to be the one group incapable of accepting any risk at all, yet still think you should be paid your full salary.

All this strident back and forth is meaningless. Schools won't have in-person learning in Sept. because the virus isn't under control. People should be making other arrangements.

See but it is under control in Montgomery county and has been for over a month now. Have you even looked at the numbers?

It is not a closed system. PA and WVA are rising and they are right next door. All your friends and neighbors are flying south for beach vacations. I less we restrict travel it doesn’t really matt what OUR number are.

PIttsburgh isn’t letting restaurants serve alcohol on premises temporarily to reduce crowds. You can purchase, but not consume. You have to carry out.

Very helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Specifically? Let's start with compliance of the schools themselves. DCPS doesn't even have the funds to cover the changes that will need to be implemented going back to school.

Nationwide, it is estimated that we will need between 900 and 2400 per student to provide services and supplies to keep kids safe in school. DCPS only has $400 extra dollars to spend per student on this.

That's just to start. Let's add in all the public transportation students will take to get to school. Let's add in the mixing of teachers, admin and students as kids elope from the classroom and play in the bathroom stalls, fight.

Let's add in the parents that are gonna send their kids in to school sick because they have to go to work....and so much more...

So this "parents will send kids to school sick" argument has made in several threads now. Normally I would agree with this but I really don't think working parents would take this chance given the current situation knowing that quite likely the school will find out their kid is sick and was given medicine before school. And if they do this they should have a consequence-maybe a hefty fine that goes directly to the school to help pay for safety measures.

Until there’s a harsh consequence, parents will continue to do this. Even with a harsh consequence people will continue to do it. Look at drunk driving.

This.

Parents are arguing they should be able to send their kids back in-person MID-PANDEMIC. Of course they'll send their kids sick.

And trying to get fraudulent mask waivers by coercing pediatricians.

This is a thing? Thats sad. Im a proponent of returning to school but studies show if both people wear a mask and practice distancing, risk is very low/ negligible. I would not feel comfortable without at least attempting mask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. To be clear, a lot of what the AAP recommends makes sense, and aligns with what I laid out in the long post above. What I object to is their tone of, well try this, but don't worry about it if you can't live up to this regimen.

"If it isn't feasible to put these mitigation tactics in place, just open schools and so be it." As a teacher, that is not good enough for me.

Great. Find a new job. Nothing will ever be "safe" enough for teachers. You all have made that quite clear. You seem to be the one group incapable of accepting any risk at all, yet still think you should be paid your full salary.

All this strident back and forth is meaningless. Schools won't have in-person learning in Sept. because the virus isn't under control. People should be making other arrangements.

Firehouses won't have in-person firefighting because the virus isn't under control.

Grocery stores won't have in-person grocery sales because the virus isn't under control.

Meatpacking plants won't have in-person meatpacking because the virus isn't under control.

Tomato farms won't have in-person tomato-picking because the virus isn't under control.

Construction sites won't have in-person construction because the virus isn't under control.

The Navy won't have in-person Navying because the virus isn't under control.

Etc.

Right?

Oh, grow up. You can't fight fires remotely. You can't build houses remotely. You can't pack meat remotely. You CAN teach school remotely. You really can. Even if parents scream and shout, in 2020, in the time of the Internet, you can teach school remotely, and they will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. To be clear, a lot of what the AAP recommends makes sense, and aligns with what I laid out in the long post above. What I object to is their tone of, well try this, but don't worry about it if you can't live up to this regimen.

"If it isn't feasible to put these mitigation tactics in place, just open schools and so be it." As a teacher, that is not good enough for me.

Great. Find a new job. Nothing will ever be "safe" enough for teachers. You all have made that quite clear. You seem to be the one group incapable of accepting any risk at all, yet still think you should be paid your full salary.

All this strident back and forth is meaningless. Schools won't have in-person learning in Sept. because the virus isn't under control. People should be making other arrangements.

Firehouses won't have in-person firefighting because the virus isn't under control.

Grocery stores won't have in-person grocery sales because the virus isn't under control.

Meatpacking plants won't have in-person meatpacking because the virus isn't under control.

Tomato farms won't have in-person tomato-picking because the virus isn't under control.

Construction sites won't have in-person construction because the virus isn't under control.

The Navy won't have in-person Navying because the virus isn't under control.

Etc.

Right?

Oh, grow up. You can't fight fires remotely. You can't build houses remotely. You can't pack meat remotely. You CAN teach school remotely. You really can. Even if parents scream and shout, in 2020, in the time of the Internet, you can teach school remotely, and they will.

DP, but the bolded is only true for a subset of students. It also completely ignores the problems of (1) parents who need to work full-time and (2) peer socialization for children. There are others, of course, but those are the two of the biggest.

Defaulting to teaching remotely while refusing to even try any other options is a failure on many levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. To be clear, a lot of what the AAP recommends makes sense, and aligns with what I laid out in the long post above. What I object to is their tone of, well try this, but don't worry about it if you can't live up to this regimen.

"If it isn't feasible to put these mitigation tactics in place, just open schools and so be it." As a teacher, that is not good enough for me.

Great. Find a new job. Nothing will ever be "safe" enough for teachers. You all have made that quite clear. You seem to be the one group incapable of accepting any risk at all, yet still think you should be paid your full salary.

All this strident back and forth is meaningless. Schools won't have in-person learning in Sept. because the virus isn't under control. People should be making other arrangements.

Firehouses won't have in-person firefighting because the virus isn't under control.

Grocery stores won't have in-person grocery sales because the virus isn't under control.

Meatpacking plants won't have in-person meatpacking because the virus isn't under control.

Tomato farms won't have in-person tomato-picking because the virus isn't under control.

Construction sites won't have in-person construction because the virus isn't under control.

The Navy won't have in-person Navying because the virus isn't under control.

Etc.

Right?

Oh, grow up. You can't fight fires remotely. You can't build houses remotely. You can't pack meat remotely. You CAN teach school remotely. You really can. Even if parents scream and shout, in 2020, in the time of the Internet, you can teach school remotely, and they will.

DP, but the bolded is only true for a subset of students. It also completely ignores the problems of (1) parents who need to work full-time and (2) peer socialization for children. There are others, of course, but those are the two of the biggest.

Defaulting to teaching remotely while refusing to even try any other options is a failure on many levels.

Exactly. This is the problem. We should be "defaulting" to DL out of the gate for the fall. I just don't understand how that's the first choice. Everything should be done to ensure a safe return to school. If we do it and proves to be causing too much harm then we re-evaluate but DL should not be the default.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. To be clear, a lot of what the AAP recommends makes sense, and aligns with what I laid out in the long post above. What I object to is their tone of, well try this, but don't worry about it if you can't live up to this regimen.

"If it isn't feasible to put these mitigation tactics in place, just open schools and so be it." As a teacher, that is not good enough for me.

Great. Find a new job. Nothing will ever be "safe" enough for teachers. You all have made that quite clear. You seem to be the one group incapable of accepting any risk at all, yet still think you should be paid your full salary.

All this strident back and forth is meaningless. Schools won't have in-person learning in Sept. because the virus isn't under control. People should be making other arrangements.

Firehouses won't have in-person firefighting because the virus isn't under control.

Grocery stores won't have in-person grocery sales because the virus isn't under control.

Meatpacking plants won't have in-person meatpacking because the virus isn't under control.

Tomato farms won't have in-person tomato-picking because the virus isn't under control.

Construction sites won't have in-person construction because the virus isn't under control.

The Navy won't have in-person Navying because the virus isn't under control.

Etc.

Right?

Oh, grow up. You can't fight fires remotely. You can't build houses remotely. You can't pack meat remotely. You CAN teach school remotely. You really can. Even if parents scream and shout, in 2020, in the time of the Internet, you can teach school remotely, and they will.

DP, but the bolded is only true for a subset of students. It also completely ignores the problems of (1) parents who need to work full-time and (2) peer socialization for children. There are others, of course, but those are the two of the biggest.

Defaulting to teaching remotely while refusing to even try any other options is a failure on many levels.

Exactly. This is the problem. We should be "defaulting" to DL out of the gate for the fall. I just don't understand how that's the first choice. Everything should be done to ensure a safe return to school. If we do it and proves to be causing too much harm then we re-evaluate but DL should not be the default.

Let’s just be clear that by “causing too much harm”, you mean dead people. How many people in a MCPS school should die before we consider it enough harm? One? Two?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With numbers being so good and getting better every day, I don't see how students would not be allowed for in-person education. Some people say other parts of US not so good, people may travel to other states etc. Closing schools because some people might travel to other states is laughable. Just a lame excuse. If students are not allowed to schools, I will riot very hard. I'm paying taxes. If you want absolutely zero risk, you are welcome to stay at home. But you can't collect salary from my taxes. Sorry.

LOL at you rioting. You're not a rioter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Specifically? Let's start with compliance of the schools themselves. DCPS doesn't even have the funds to cover the changes that will need to be implemented going back to school.

Nationwide, it is estimated that we will need between 900 and 2400 per student to provide services and supplies to keep kids safe in school. DCPS only has $400 extra dollars to spend per student on this.

That's just to start. Let's add in all the public transportation students will take to get to school. Let's add in the mixing of teachers, admin and students as kids elope from the classroom and play in the bathroom stalls, fight.

Let's add in the parents that are gonna send their kids in to school sick because they have to go to work....and so much more...

So this "parents will send kids to school sick" argument has made in several threads now. Normally I would agree with this but I really don't think working parents would take this chance given the current situation knowing that quite likely the school will find out their kid is sick and was given medicine before school. And if they do this they should have a consequence-maybe a hefty fine that goes directly to the school to help pay for safety measures.

Until there’s a harsh consequence, parents will continue to do this. Even with a harsh consequence people will continue to do it. Look at drunk driving.

This.

Parents are arguing they should be able to send their kids back in-person MID-PANDEMIC. Of course they'll send their kids sick.

No, those are not the same thing. I think kids need to go back to school in person this fall, because experts estimate the benefit of school closures for the overall spread to be minimal while the costs are extremely high, since kids are not significant spreaders and DL cannot replicate school for the vast majority of kids. Yet I have never sent my kids to school sick, and have always strongly resented the parents who do. It boggles my mind that someone would drug their kid with Tylenol to mask a fever. I wish there was a way for school to enforce sick policies.

If kids stay home this fall or go only very part time, it will be because of fear among teachers and parents, not because science actually supports it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. To be clear, a lot of what the AAP recommends makes sense, and aligns with what I laid out in the long post above. What I object to is their tone of, well try this, but don't worry about it if you can't live up to this regimen.

"If it isn't feasible to put these mitigation tactics in place, just open schools and so be it." As a teacher, that is not good enough for me.

Great. Find a new job. Nothing will ever be "safe" enough for teachers. You all have made that quite clear. You seem to be the one group incapable of accepting any risk at all, yet still think you should be paid your full salary.

All this strident back and forth is meaningless. Schools won't have in-person learning in Sept. because the virus isn't under control. People should be making other arrangements.

Firehouses won't have in-person firefighting because the virus isn't under control.

Grocery stores won't have in-person grocery sales because the virus isn't under control.

Meatpacking plants won't have in-person meatpacking because the virus isn't under control.

Tomato farms won't have in-person tomato-picking because the virus isn't under control.

Construction sites won't have in-person construction because the virus isn't under control.

The Navy won't have in-person Navying because the virus isn't under control.

Etc.

Right?

Oh, grow up. You can't fight fires remotely. You can't build houses remotely. You can't pack meat remotely. You CAN teach school remotely. You really can. Even if parents scream and shout, in 2020, in the time of the Internet, you can teach school remotely, and they will.

DP, but the bolded is only true for a subset of students. It also completely ignores the problems of (1) parents who need to work full-time and (2) peer socialization for children. There are others, of course, but those are the two of the biggest.

Defaulting to teaching remotely while refusing to even try any other options is a failure on many levels.

Exactly. This is the problem. We should be "defaulting" to DL out of the gate for the fall. I just don't understand how that's the first choice. Everything should be done to ensure a safe return to school. If we do it and proves to be causing too much harm then we re-evaluate but DL should not be the default.

Let’s just be clear that by “causing too much harm”, you mean dead people. How many people in a MCPS school should die before we consider it enough harm? One? Two?

NP. You should read this discussion:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/magazine/coronavirus-economy-debate.html

It might help you see the complexity of the moral questions in this debate.

[Anonymous]

ya'll realize even if we go back to school in august, it will probably shut down again by Thanksgiving at the latest? Right?

Make plans! We are stuck with this for at least two years until a vaccine or heard immunity. This virus will have reservoirs here and overseas. It will completely restructure our economy and globalization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ya'll realize even if we go back to school in august, it will probably shut down again by Thanksgiving at the latest? Right?

Make plans! We are stuck with this for at least two years until a vaccine or heard immunity. This virus will have reservoirs here and overseas. It will completely restructure our economy and globalization.

True! We’re looking at anti-globalization. But I would like to go teach time at school. Online teaching via Zoom, in my subject, is hard and has lots of limitations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With numbers being so good and getting better every day, I don't see how students would not be allowed for in-person education. Some people say other parts of US not so good, people may travel to other states etc. Closing schools because some people might travel to other states is laughable. Just a lame excuse. If students are not allowed to schools, I will riot very hard. I'm paying taxes. If you want absolutely zero risk, you are welcome to stay at home. But you can't collect salary from my taxes. Sorry.

LOL at you rioting. You're not a rioter.

You are pathetic. How do you know me? I hope I don't have to, but rest assured, you'll see me there if it comes to that.