WP Article on LAMB's failure to re-open
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Henny-penny, much? When DC, NoVa, and MoCo/PG rates are not surging + a vaccine is available is not 2023. |
Anonymous
This X 1000. LAMB leaders make this argument a lot, and it makes no sense. The school is in DC, where rates are very low. All of the students live in DC, where rates are very low. Why do we care if some teachers happen to live in areas where the rates are higher? Are things that have nothing to do with the actual school now fair game? What if some teachers live in areas that have very low coronavirus rates? Are we going to average out the rates of the areas in which teachers live? Why stop at where teachers happen to live? How about where teachers (or students) happen to visit? What if a student visits a grandmother in Pennsylvania, where rates are much higher? Is that going to be part of LAMB's calculations? |
Anonymous
You'd be surprised how long it takes to develop a vaccine for children. Parents aren't much on making their kids guinea pigs for pharmaceutical companies. |
Anonymous
Ok, 2022. Per fauci widespread vaccine will not be available until late 2021. So that means (according to you) we could start phasing in around January 2022, over a year from now? |
Anonymous
If the school waits for a vaccine before reopening, i suspect a substantial share of its student body will leave. |
Anonymous
Hey wow it's funny you said all of these things, because although it all sounds like common sense to you, the science basically says the opposite. But hey, that's why we listen to experts and not whatever might seem plausible to us at the moment. I realize that the distinction here might mean nothing to you but here goes: 1. Social gatherings are the current drivers of community spread. Not schools. They're very different in terms of how people interact and what precautions they are taking. 2. If the teachers aren't going to social gatherings in their communities, then they're at much lower risk of contracting the virus. 3. Young children seem to be at less risk of contracting or spreading the virus. 4. Transmission in schools has been very low 5. Schools are not sites of superspreading events 6. Therefore children are not likely to infect their teachers. The major risk of transmission comes from teachers doing risky things and then maybe transferring that to a child or two. So either teachers are the source of risk, and that's because they're doing irresponsible things, or teachers are being quite responsible, and the overall risk of coronavirus transmission as it relates to school is very low. |
Anonymous
Not at LAMB. There are hardly any, in fact. |
Anonymous
I'll humor you. And go where? Private? (Where are these magic spaces coming from? Where is the money coming from to pay for tuition?) Move from DC? (To where? With what job? How does that help if adjacent jurisdictions are all still DL (as they are now)? You moving to Alabama or Florida as part of a "cut off your nose to spite your face" protest?) The same people who casually cite scientific data and infectious disease experts as the reason we should be open might want to explore many of the open areas before paying that moving truck; you'd be surprised to learn those jurisdictions are open not because of experts, but because they long ago decided to ignore and devalue experts. Serious question: would you rather live in a place where they ignore science and your kid MUST go to school even with super high infection and transmission rates or a pace where schools remain closed even if some data would agitate for a voluntary in-person return. Unless you home-school or own/run your own town you don't get to choose. |
Anonymous
Fascinating. You seem to be disparaging the people who are citing data and experts as though this is a bad thing. You also construct a false binary choice between all DL and opening schools with no regard to the scientific evidence. |
Anonymous
So I and many others I know discuss these options: 1. private (generally the parochial schools because they are just as expensive as the current pod/nanny/tutoring/daycare going on) 2. dropping out of charters and going IB if DCPS opens and the charters don't 3. moving to the nearest suburb with public schools that open (and retaining current job but having a shitty commute) 4. moving closer to or in with family (NYC, for ex) (also some discuss moving in with family in other countries) (this one relies on the ability to continue teleworking) I'll note that many of these choices (aside from #1) would be forced through financial hardship; no one really WANTS to do these things. But, for example, a friend is a single mother being forced by her public sector job to go to work in-person soon; she's got to send her young kids somewhere and doesn't make enough money for a nanny, etc., nor does she have family in the area. What does she do? |
Anonymous
Enter for a CARES room? Take federal CARES Act leave until 12/31? Apply to be a CARES babysitter? She’s got some options. |
Anonymous
Yes, she's trying for a CARES room for the kids, but the kids are presently at a charter so it's a bit of a mess. |
Anonymous
| This was just in answer to the question posed about where the charter kids would go if the schools don't open. |
Anonymous
Almost certainly this person is expecting to go back in 2021, so the leave doesn't matter. And how is someone who already has a job but no time and not enough money going to replace their salaried job with working in a CARES classroom? That makes no sense. None of these three options are available for someone with a kid in a charter. |
Anonymous
Then leave the charter and enroll in your inbound Dcps. I mean come on. The beauty of charters is that you can leave when it no longer works for you! |