When do you think school will be back to normal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If schools open, then everything needs to open. Parents need to be back on metro & offices ect.
Also- great question was asked in our PD yesterday. Is central office going to send us (teachers) back before they go back? The response was ‘lots of things are fluid’.

I’m in favor of opening it all up. Everything.
However- we’ve gotta dump things like school based before & aftercare. Having extra kids loosely supervised in classrooms/buildings is just going to prevent us from having a clean/safe environment. I’m also biased because having these kinds of things @ school has really blurred the lines between what school is and is not.

Open it ALL up. Provide PPE. Give teachers the right to refuse to teach kids who won’t wear it. Train & support teachers who don’t want to assume the new risks at 1 year salary to find a new job.

This makes literally no sense. Why do you care if some parents are at home teleworking v in the office? How does it affect you at all? Oh, it doesn't? You're just bitter you might have to work in person and not everyone else will? Obviously lots and lots of people will and many are currently (while you've been at home). In fact, in terms of risk, you'd much rather parents be at home and *not* taking the metro unless they have to... right? You'd rather metro ridership was *way* down so as to make it safer for kids/adults to have to ride, right?

Additionally, if you're going to dump before and after care, then parents (or someone) will still have to be at home in the morning and afternoon, so if that's what you want... don't be so quick to bite off your nose to spite your face.

[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.

You're numbers are way off:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covid-net/purpose-methods.html

Look at the hospitalization rates for kids. It's minuscule. We can't keep making policy decisions impacting 99.9% of folks to potentially/maybe reduce impact on the .1%

There are many adults in schools, and kids go home to adults. It may not kill kids often, but creates a disease vector. It’s not just about Johnny & Susie Student, but the community they interact with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If schools open, then everything needs to open. Parents need to be back on metro & offices ect.
Also- great question was asked in our PD yesterday. Is central office going to send us (teachers) back before they go back? The response was ‘lots of things are fluid’.

I’m in favor of opening it all up. Everything.
However- we’ve gotta dump things like school based before & aftercare. Having extra kids loosely supervised in classrooms/buildings is just going to prevent us from having a clean/safe environment. I’m also biased because having these kinds of things @ school has really blurred the lines between what school is and is not.

Open it ALL up. Provide PPE. Give teachers the right to refuse to teach kids who won’t wear it. Train & support teachers who don’t want to assume the new risks at 1 year salary to find a new job.

I completely agree. Students ride the metro to school. Parents don’t get to decide to send teachers back and then sit around and home “working”.

Are you angry at parents with work-from-home options? I can understand being envious if that arrangement doesn't work for you. However, the "if I have to go back, then everyone has to go back" argument is short-sighted. If everyone goes back to work at once, the chances of kids being exposed and bringing vius to school is much higher.

The virus is going to be much higher even if schools open. People will be going to the salon and getting their nails done. That means everyone should just go back to work. You can’t have it both ways. Calling teachers lazy and saying they aren’t actually working from home and then using the excuse well I have to work from home because the virus will spread faster if I go to work. It makes no sense. Either it’s safe or it isn’t. Teachers and students ride metro. If it’s safe for them....it’s safe for you.

You can't be this dumb? Are you really a teacher? Do you not understand the concept of a phased reopening? Are you really under the impression that there is no difference between reopening schools w/ whatever precautions can be maintained and having 50,000 people pack into Fed Ex every Sunday? That 20% ridership on the metro has the same public health risk as 50% and as 100%? As a teacher, if schools open, it is actually in your interest health-wise for as much of the rest of the city to remain shutdown as possible. If you are so bitter about actually having to provide the service you are contracted to provide that you'd rather increase your own risk of COVID many times over... then I probably can't help you.

[Anonymous]

Calling people dumb isn’t very nice. But in order to open schools lots of things to happen:

1. PPE for staff and students
2. Hand sanitizer for schools
3. Social distancing for staff and students
4. Metro must ramp up service (including busses)
5. Temperature checks for all
6. What happens if someone has a fever and no parent comes and picks them up?
7. How do you schedule the day so teachers get a lunch break?
8. How do you stagger pick up and drop off?
9. Who is giving temp checks? How often?
10. What is the responsibility of the parent for keeping their child home? Reporting quarantine requirement. (At my school we had kids come to school whose parents were under quarantine).
11. What do to if teachers are required to quarantine? What if there are no subs?


There are tons of issues and problems. It is not as simple as open the schools. But back to you, yes I do believe that it is safe enough for schools to reopen fully it is safe enough for everyone. I’m not talking about 50,000 people at fedex. I’m talking about people going into their offices and working.

[Anonymous]

I’m a parent, and I’m really laughing.

I can’t believe other parents think they should be allowed to work from home, to avoid exposure to Corona. While schools should be open, welcoming adults and children from all across the District - the latter, no way will they wear PPE — to infect one another.

Is this grandmaster-level trolling, or what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If schools open, then everything needs to open. Parents need to be back on metro & offices ect.
Also- great question was asked in our PD yesterday. Is central office going to send us (teachers) back before they go back? The response was ‘lots of things are fluid’.

I’m in favor of opening it all up. Everything.
However- we’ve gotta dump things like school based before & aftercare. Having extra kids loosely supervised in classrooms/buildings is just going to prevent us from having a clean/safe environment. I’m also biased because having these kinds of things @ school has really blurred the lines between what school is and is not.

Open it ALL up. Provide PPE. Give teachers the right to refuse to teach kids who won’t wear it. Train & support teachers who don’t want to assume the new risks at 1 year salary to find a new job.

I completely agree. Students ride the metro to school. Parents don’t get to decide to send teachers back and then sit around and home “working”.

Are you angry at parents with work-from-home options? I can understand being envious if that arrangement doesn't work for you. However, the "if I have to go back, then everyone has to go back" argument is short-sighted. If everyone goes back to work at once, the chances of kids being exposed and bringing vius to school is much higher.

Oh hell no. I’m not angry. Your jobs suck. That’s why you are always bitter.
My point is that it’s safe for everyone or safe for no one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a parent, and I’m really laughing.

I can’t believe other parents think they should be allowed to work from home, to avoid exposure to Corona. While schools should be open, welcoming adults and children from all across the District - the latter, no way will they wear PPE — to infect one another.

Is this grandmaster-level trolling, or what?

You do realize lots of people worked from home before COVID, right? It doesn't mean they didn't have real jobs; it means that different jobs have varying level of effectiveness when performed remotely. It's not complicated. I think people who can work from home all or part-time effectively should be encouraged to continue doing so in order to decrease everyone's risk. This does not include most teachers, who cannot do their jobs from home effectively. It's that simple. I don't think there should be legal restrictions on people returning to work at the point all schools are open, if that's your issue.

Why is it hard to understand that 50% capacity metros are better for everyone than full metros if you understand the difference between folks back at work and fans in stadiums? Both are matters of degree of risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're numbers are way off:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covid-net/purpose-methods.html

Look at the hospitalization rates for kids. It's minuscule. We can't keep making policy decisions impacting 99.9% of folks to potentially/maybe reduce impact on the .1%

There are many adults in schools, and kids go home to adults. It may not kill kids often, but creates a disease vector. It’s not just about Johnny & Susie Student, but the community they interact with.

If the children aren't getting sick, then they also aren't passing germs along to each other or any other adult. School is one of the safest and first things that should be open, now that we have research and more information.

[Anonymous]

You do realize most kids don’t attend their neighborhood schools, right? How are these children getting places if metro is running at full capacity? Schools opening at full capacity increases your chance of getting sick. Kids live with all diets of people and travel throughout the city. Just because your family is being careful doesn’t mean everyone is. At that point if we are interacting on that level , everything should just be open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You do realize most kids don’t attend their neighborhood schools, right? How are these children getting places if metro is running at full capacity? Schools opening at full capacity increases your chance of getting sick. Kids live with all diets of people and travel throughout the city. Just because your family is being careful doesn’t mean everyone is. At that point if we are interacting on that level , everything should just be open.

Another person who doesn't understand different levels of risk and how a phased approach works.... Do you think we should go back to packed Fed Ex field? If not, why not?

[Anonymous]

NY Times has an article out today called, “How 133 Epidemiologists Are Deciding When To Send Their Children to School”....
Most don’t feel it’s safe anytime soon. A quote that really stands out, and that echoes the concerns of a lot of posters:

“Children are relatively safe. I would worry about teachers”. Just food for thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NY Times has an article out today called, “How 133 Epidemiologists Are Deciding When To Send Their Children to School”....
Most don’t feel it’s safe anytime soon. A quote that really stands out, and that echoes the concerns of a lot of posters:

“Children are relatively safe. I would worry about teachers”. Just food for thought.

^ most actually said they would. But all say that the risk of the virus is almost exclusively to the teachers and staff. So I’m not sure how a district balances the in person education that kids need, and the health risks in person education poses to staff. Which is more important?

[Anonymous]

nobody knows, in june, what the world is going to look like in august. this is a massive waste of time.

[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.

You're numbers are way off:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covid-net/purpose-methods.html

Look at the hospitalization rates for kids. It's minuscule. We can't keep making policy decisions impacting 99.9% of folks to potentially/maybe reduce impact on the .1%

https://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/03/16/coronavirus031620

“ The study also found infants had higher rates of serious illness than older children. Just under 11% of infants had severe or critical cases compared to 7% of children ages 1-5, 4% of those 6-10, 4% of those 11-15 and 3% of those 16 and older.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If schools open, then everything needs to open. Parents need to be back on metro & offices ect.
Also- great question was asked in our PD yesterday. Is central office going to send us (teachers) back before they go back? The response was ‘lots of things are fluid’.

I’m in favor of opening it all up. Everything.
However- we’ve gotta dump things like school based before & aftercare. Having extra kids loosely supervised in classrooms/buildings is just going to prevent us from having a clean/safe environment. I’m also biased because having these kinds of things @ school has really blurred the lines between what school is and is not.

Open it ALL up. Provide PPE. Give teachers the right to refuse to teach kids who won’t wear it. Train & support teachers who don’t want to assume the new risks at 1 year salary to find a new job.

I completely agree. Students ride the metro to school. Parents don’t get to decide to send teachers back and then sit around and home “working”.

Are you angry at parents with work-from-home options? I can understand being envious if that arrangement doesn't work for you. However, the "if I have to go back, then everyone has to go back" argument is short-sighted. If everyone goes back to work at once, the chances of kids being exposed and bringing vius to school is much higher.

The virus is going to be much higher even if schools open. People will be going to the salon and getting their nails done. That means everyone should just go back to work. You can’t have it both ways. Calling teachers lazy and saying they aren’t actually working from home and then using the excuse well I have to work from home because the virus will spread faster if I go to work. It makes no sense. Either it’s safe or it isn’t. Teachers and students ride metro. If it’s safe for them....it’s safe for you.

This is a dumb way to look at it. People should be doing what can best be done to mitigate spread without the risks outweighing the benefits. If society determines that the risks of kids doing DL outweighs the benefit of avoiding the COVID exposure then they should go back to school. But then those who can successfully work from home should be working from home. It should not be an all or nothing approach. It should be a spectrum of mitigation. Just because you are sour that you need to go back to work to make the right balance work, doesn’t mean that the rest of society should suffer from increased exposure and deaths by forcing people back into offices where it isn’t necessary