Tired of people with older kids dominating the conversation around schools and COVID

[Anonymous]

The participate in the appropriate threads for your DC's ages. BTW, young kids are experts at watching TV. They can learn a lot from educational TV shows. They can even learn to read that way. There is no reason they can't benefit from DL if done right.

[Anonymous]

The vast majority of kids in school are 8-18, so not sure why you wouldn’t expect to see most of the discussion from parents to be geared towards those ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP I agree with you. I don’t know why people are being so nasty. Offering virtual learning to K-2 is useless and school systems should be held responsible for that.

Not true. I already posted this, but kids can learn a lot from watching educational TV shows. They can learn to read, learn math, science, all kinds of things. This could work for them, too. They are experts at learning from watching TV.

[Anonymous]

OP, I think there are need for separate threads for kids of different ages, because the learning needs—and parenting support required—are so different across ages. I mean, I have rising first and third graders and neither of them are capable of fully independent learning. The third grader more so, but it’s not like she’s in high school.

I strongly support kids K-5 and SPED being prioritized for in-person learning, for myriad reasons.

(I completely realize how important in-person instruction is for older kids, I do. But kids that age are generally more capable of learning remotely AND they’re more at risk for transmitting COVID than younger kids.)

[Anonymous]

I have three teens. My teens don't like DL (even though they actively participated in it in the spring) but I still frequently note that K-3 are the kids who really need to be in school. I think we could use MS or HS to spread out the population so they can meet more frequently. Alas, we don't have enough teachers to make that work.

If you're hearing more from parents of bigger kids, that it likely the function of the fact that most kids in the school system are bigger kids!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think there are need for separate threads for kids of different ages, because the learning needs—and parenting support required—are so different across ages. I mean, I have rising first and third graders and neither of them are capable of fully independent learning. The third grader more so, but it’s not like she’s in high school.

I strongly support kids K-5 and SPED being prioritized for in-person learning, for myriad reasons.

(I completely realize how important in-person instruction is for older kids, I do. But kids that age are generally more capable of learning remotely AND they’re more at risk for transmitting COVID than younger kids.)

The trouble is that if the reason for DL is to keep teachers safe, then its tough to argue that elementary school teachers should be put at more risk than MS or HS teachers. SPED is a bit easier since the SPED population in any school is small, but it's in general hard to argue that ES staff should take more health risks than others.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you, OP. It’s amazing to me that the same crowd can talk about the vital importance of early intervention and totally abandon children that very age for distance learning. The premise of Head Start rests on the very real science showing young children who fall behind academically are permanently handicapped by their early lack of education. At the very least, we ought to stop pretending distance learning in any way isn’t a major sacrifice made by our youngest students. And the children most affected by it will also be of the most economically vulnerable demographic. But hey! 5 year olds don’t matter! They can watch their 5 Minute Scholastic video and maybe the school will pity them enough to print a few worksheets.

[Anonymous]

OP here. A lot to respond to. I'll just say this:

1) A lot of the responses have focused on academics, and pointed out that older kids have greater academic needs than young children. That's 100% true. I agree that the importance of the junior year of high school for a child's academic future is way more important than whether a 4 year old is academically stimulated. But basing an entire school district's decision on the academic needs of 17-year-olds ignores the many incredibly important needs of the 4-year-old. Small kids are not taking calculus, of course. But they are learning incredibly important life skills that they will need throughout their lives, like how to pay attention, how to transition between activities, how to handle conflict, disappointment, etc. SAH parents can provide that, if they have the means to do so. But many families need two incomes, and ECE professionals are amazing at doing that work. But you can't do it via DL. Either young kids are going to get it in school or their parents are going to need to forgo work to get it.

2) To the poster who said parents of young kids have "more options" because they can send kids to daycare or hire nannies, that assumes an income level that will support that. You can't assume that. My family's finances, for instance, was premised on DC's universal PK program. We can't just magic up the money for childcare. Families that can afford those options will take them, and I don't judge them for it at all. But we can't just ignore the fact that many families rely on school for childcare. They do. We can't ignore their needs altogether because they are different than your needs. Our needs are interdependent right now because the economy depends on people being able to work, which for many, many parents is premised on sending their kids to public schools.

3) To the many people who told me I should just focus on the DCUM forum for my kid's age group -- I'm not talking about DCUM. I'm talking about the policy-making conversation around whether or not to open schools. I'm talking about the attitude of coworkers with older kids who assume that, like them, I can get multiple hours a day of work time while my kids do DL or entertain themselves. I'm talking about the choice to either provide in-person instruction to all grades or none at all, ignoring the obvious fact that some grades need in-person instruction more than others. And I'm especially talking about the shaming attitudes towards parents who want in-person school for their very young kids, as though those parents want everyone to die of COVID.

I don't think we are talking enough about the dire consequences of school closures on the parents of very young children.
Signed,
A parent who has already put in 20 hours of work this weekend while barely sleeping so that I can be up with my toddler at 5am on Monday again, with no end in sight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This post reminds me of the mothers at the playground who get angry at all the "big kids" running around and making it hard for her 9 month old to crawl up the slide.

1) PK is a voluntary year - you don't get to hog resources for a non-required grade level
2) School actually becomes more critical for a kids education the older they get. So while you are focused on your own need for child care, we're also focused on the need to actually educate our kids.

I don't agree with your second point at all. I would argue that not learning biology as a ninth grader is much less critical to long term success than not learning phonics in lower elementary. Those lower grades are crucial to supporting kids learning throughout middle and high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, OP. It’s amazing to me that the same crowd can talk about the vital importance of early intervention and totally abandon children that very age for distance learning. The premise of Head Start rests on the very real science showing young children who fall behind academically are permanently handicapped by their early lack of education. At the very least, we ought to stop pretending distance learning in any way isn’t a major sacrifice made by our youngest students. And the children most affected by it will also be of the most economically vulnerable demographic. But hey! 5 year olds don’t matter! They can watch their 5 Minute Scholastic video and maybe the school will pity them enough to print a few worksheets.

They're not falling behind if everyone is doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP if your kid is in PK, you should find a daycare or sitter. you actually have MORE options than the rest of us.

+1. Get a sitter or find a daycare.

+2 What does a pre K kid need besides playtime and some peer interaction. You can’t provide your kid with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. A lot to respond to. I'll just say this:

1) A lot of the responses have focused on academics, and pointed out that older kids have greater academic needs than young children. That's 100% true. I agree that the importance of the junior year of high school for a child's academic future is way more important than whether a 4 year old is academically stimulated. But basing an entire school district's decision on the academic needs of 17-year-olds ignores the many incredibly important needs of the 4-year-old. Small kids are not taking calculus, of course. But they are learning incredibly important life skills that they will need throughout their lives, like how to pay attention, how to transition between activities, how to handle conflict, disappointment, etc. SAH parents can provide that, if they have the means to do so. But many families need two incomes, and ECE professionals are amazing at doing that work. But you can't do it via DL. Either young kids are going to get it in school or their parents are going to need to forgo work to get it.

2) To the poster who said parents of young kids have "more options" because they can send kids to daycare or hire nannies, that assumes an income level that will support that. You can't assume that. My family's finances, for instance, was premised on DC's universal PK program. We can't just magic up the money for childcare. Families that can afford those options will take them, and I don't judge them for it at all. But we can't just ignore the fact that many families rely on school for childcare. They do. We can't ignore their needs altogether because they are different than your needs. Our needs are interdependent right now because the economy depends on people being able to work, which for many, many parents is premised on sending their kids to public schools.

3) To the many people who told me I should just focus on the DCUM forum for my kid's age group -- I'm not talking about DCUM. I'm talking about the policy-making conversation around whether or not to open schools. I'm talking about the attitude of coworkers with older kids who assume that, like them, I can get multiple hours a day of work time while my kids do DL or entertain themselves. I'm talking about the choice to either provide in-person instruction to all grades or none at all, ignoring the obvious fact that some grades need in-person instruction more than others. And I'm especially talking about the shaming attitudes towards parents who want in-person school for their very young kids, as though those parents want everyone to die of COVID.

I don't think we are talking enough about the dire consequences of school closures on the parents of very young children.
Signed,
A parent who has already put in 20 hours of work this weekend while barely sleeping so that I can be up with my toddler at 5am on Monday again, with no end in sight.

I don't see the pandemic mentioned anywhere in this long post. Of course it's best for small kids to be in school. It's best for all kids to be in school. We just can't do that right now. That really sucks, doesn't it.

[Anonymous]

The families I know with young children do not want to risk in-person school. They are very aware of the high viral transmission risk with that group specifically, who have difficulty distancing and following hygiene rules.



Sorry, but you sound a little self-centered and whiny. Not everyone with young kids think like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. A lot to respond to. I'll just say this:

1) A lot of the responses have focused on academics, and pointed out that older kids have greater academic needs than young children. That's 100% true. I agree that the importance of the junior year of high school for a child's academic future is way more important than whether a 4 year old is academically stimulated. But basing an entire school district's decision on the academic needs of 17-year-olds ignores the many incredibly important needs of the 4-year-old. Small kids are not taking calculus, of course. But they are learning incredibly important life skills that they will need throughout their lives, like how to pay attention, how to transition between activities, how to handle conflict, disappointment, etc. SAH parents can provide that, if they have the means to do so. But many families need two incomes, and ECE professionals are amazing at doing that work. But you can't do it via DL. Either young kids are going to get it in school or their parents are going to need to forgo work to get it.

2) To the poster who said parents of young kids have "more options" because they can send kids to daycare or hire nannies, that assumes an income level that will support that. You can't assume that. My family's finances, for instance, was premised on DC's universal PK program. We can't just magic up the money for childcare. Families that can afford those options will take them, and I don't judge them for it at all. But we can't just ignore the fact that many families rely on school for childcare. They do. We can't ignore their needs altogether because they are different than your needs. Our needs are interdependent right now because the economy depends on people being able to work, which for many, many parents is premised on sending their kids to public schools.

3) To the many people who told me I should just focus on the DCUM forum for my kid's age group -- I'm not talking about DCUM. I'm talking about the policy-making conversation around whether or not to open schools. I'm talking about the attitude of coworkers with older kids who assume that, like them, I can get multiple hours a day of work time while my kids do DL or entertain themselves. I'm talking about the choice to either provide in-person instruction to all grades or none at all, ignoring the obvious fact that some grades need in-person instruction more than others. And I'm especially talking about the shaming attitudes towards parents who want in-person school for their very young kids, as though those parents want everyone to die of COVID.

I don't think we are talking enough about the dire consequences of school closures on the parents of very young children.
Signed,
A parent who has already put in 20 hours of work this weekend while barely sleeping so that I can be up with my toddler at 5am on Monday again, with no end in sight.

Nope sorry. If your kid is 4 years old, put them in some sort of daycare. This isn’t an education issue, but a childcare issue and something that should have been planned for that didn’t include taxpayers money for babysitting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


The families I know with young children do not want to risk in-person school. They are very aware of the high viral transmission risk with that group specifically, who have difficulty distancing and following hygiene rules.



Sorry, but you sound a little self-centered and whiny. Not everyone with young kids think like you.

Oh, ok, since the people you know personally with young kids agree with you, I guess my situation doesn't matter. But yeah, I'm the one being self-centered.