The science on remote schooling is now clear. Here’s who it hurt most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You knew closures weren’t about the greater good because when people proposed options that might have protected teachers, they were always shot down as not feasible. And the options that were proposed to solve the problems posed by virtual school often put others in harms way and no one cared. Cases in point:

Many people proposed solutions like outdoor school, shortened school days with windows open, etc. These were angrily dismissed as impractical even though this was exactly the approach in other countries that kept schools open (including countries with a variety of climates). But it was consistently viewed as impossible in the US even though it would have allowed kids to maintain social ties to each other and teachers, been hugely beneficial to young learners who don’t learn well via screens, and helped address the childcare problem posed by remote school for families without SAHPs and without the means for paid in home care (most families).

However, the solution that was ultimately adopted to address the social and childcare piece? To have lower paid childcare workers oversee remote schooling in group care environments. Teachers taught from home, kids went to group care environments with non-unionized workers (mostly WOC) and few of the protections that had previously been proposed to protect teachers beyond masks.

Kids health and safety were not a priority. The health and safety of low paid childcare workers was not a priority. The wellness of working families was not a priority. Even after teachers had been given vaccine priority, these other groups were left to fend for themselves while teachers stayed home.

This was NEVER about the greater good. This was about people with power flexing to protect themselves at the expense of others. Full stop.

Well said and absolutely true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You knew closures weren’t about the greater good because when people proposed options that might have protected teachers, they were always shot down as not feasible. And the options that were proposed to solve the problems posed by virtual school often put others in harms way and no one cared. Cases in point:

Many people proposed solutions like outdoor school, shortened school days with windows open, etc. These were angrily dismissed as impractical even though this was exactly the approach in other countries that kept schools open (including countries with a variety of climates). But it was consistently viewed as impossible in the US even though it would have allowed kids to maintain social ties to each other and teachers, been hugely beneficial to young learners who don’t learn well via screens, and helped address the childcare problem posed by remote school for families without SAHPs and without the means for paid in home care (most families).

However, the solution that was ultimately adopted to address the social and childcare piece? To have lower paid childcare workers oversee remote schooling in group care environments. Teachers taught from home, kids went to group care environments with non-unionized workers (mostly WOC) and few of the protections that had previously been proposed to protect teachers beyond masks.

Kids health and safety were not a priority. The health and safety of low paid childcare workers was not a priority. The wellness of working families was not a priority. Even after teachers had been given vaccine priority, these other groups were left to fend for themselves while teachers stayed home.

This was NEVER about the greater good. This was about people with power flexing to protect themselves at the expense of others. Full stop.

Well said and absolutely true.

Except no one did outdoor school on a broad scale in their public schools.

The other equally ridiculous “proposal” was nebulous demands for ventilation from people that effectively wanted the US to demolish and rebuild nearly all public school buildings.

[Anonymous]

Did the group care settings have lower student numbers than they would have in school though?

For instance low income Hispanic and Black kids have the highest probability of being in classrooms of over 40. Let’s say one of those schools was shut and 20 kids of that class opted to go to the group care. That’s a 50% reduction of possible contacts and a higher likelihood of achieving 6 feet social distancing, further reducing infection risk.