"I support the teachers" people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the constant pretending that school's only role is to provide a method for a teacher to broadcast information to students as though teaching and not learning was the more important activity. That it's childrens' and parents' fault if the kids aren't effectively learning in this situation. That schools have no other social roles, including community health, civic education, socialized daycare, socialization, community building and integration, etc.

No. Schools are simply a method for teachers to teach. And if kids aren't learning, well, it doesn't matter if the teachers say they're working hard enough.

This is well-put. If we all start this discussion in agreement that in-person learning works best for all students, then we should end the discussion in agreement that long-term DL does not work for all students. we agree. If we want to decide that the safety of adults in school buildings is more important than educating children due to the circumstances of the pandemic, then we should be honest about it. We are sorry that we are providing a sub-par educational experience for your children, but we think the risk of getting sick outweighs any and all concerns about education. That way, there is nothing to argue about. It is what it is.

Well, I would say we can still argue about the ethical merits of prioritizing the interests of adults over those of children, and more broadly, the interests of the elderly over the young. It is an important issue that should be at the core of our larger discussion about how to live with this virus.

Absolutely, there is room for disagreement in how we prioritize interests, without being dismissive of the any concerns about risks, whether they are health risks or risk to the education or development of children. You and I can have a meaningful discussion about the ethics of how these interests are prioritized Absolutely. I just wish more people would use undisputed facts to frame the analysis.

PS - I realize that the childcare person is a troll.

The problem is that the question how significant the risk to the non-elderly teacher without comorbidities actually is isn't a matter of undisputed facts. To the contrary, there is a lot of dispute about that. I think we can all agree that the risk to teachers is not zero, but evidently people cannot agree how big it actually is. So it's not quite as easy to boil it down to the questions of interests and ethics outlined above.

I guess that's true. However, not every teacher will get COVID and even those who get COVID may not get sick. Every student is impacted in some way by not going to school. At least that's one way of looking at it.

Some charters have been open in-person since the beginning of the school year - almost two and a half months. Are there any lessons learned or evidence on the risk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the constant pretending that school's only role is to provide a method for a teacher to broadcast information to students as though teaching and not learning was the more important activity. That it's childrens' and parents' fault if the kids aren't effectively learning in this situation. That schools have no other social roles, including community health, civic education, socialized daycare, socialization, community building and integration, etc.

No. Schools are simply a method for teachers to teach. And if kids aren't learning, well, it doesn't matter if the teachers say they're working hard enough.

This is well-put. If we all start this discussion in agreement that in-person learning works best for all students, then we should end the discussion in agreement that long-term DL does not work for all students. we agree. If we want to decide that the safety of adults in school buildings is more important than educating children due to the circumstances of the pandemic, then we should be honest about it. We are sorry that we are providing a sub-par educational experience for your children, but we think the risk of getting sick outweighs any and all concerns about education. That way, there is nothing to argue about. It is what it is.

Well, I would say we can still argue about the ethical merits of prioritizing the interests of adults over those of children, and more broadly, the interests of the elderly over the young. It is an important issue that should be at the core of our larger discussion about how to live with this virus.

Absolutely, there is room for disagreement in how we prioritize interests, without being dismissive of the any concerns about risks, whether they are health risks or risk to the education or development of children. You and I can have a meaningful discussion about the ethics of how these interests are prioritized Absolutely. I just wish more people would use undisputed facts to frame the analysis.

PS - I realize that the childcare person is a troll.

The problem is that the question how significant the risk to the non-elderly teacher without comorbidities actually is isn't a matter of undisputed facts. To the contrary, there is a lot of dispute about that. I think we can all agree that the risk to teachers is not zero, but evidently people cannot agree how big it actually is. So it's not quite as easy to boil it down to the questions of interests and ethics outlined above.

I guess that's true. However, not every teacher will get COVID and even those who get COVID may not get sick. Every student is impacted in some way by not going to school. At least that's one way of looking at it.

Some charters have been open in-person since the beginning of the school year - almost two and a half months. Are there any lessons learned or evidence on the risk?

And, are they doing regular testing to know who is positive or not? You can open schools but you cannot say they are fully safe. In DC, its a bigger risk with more low income and many may not have health insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the constant pretending that school's only role is to provide a method for a teacher to broadcast information to students as though teaching and not learning was the more important activity. That it's childrens' and parents' fault if the kids aren't effectively learning in this situation. That schools have no other social roles, including community health, civic education, socialized daycare, socialization, community building and integration, etc.

No. Schools are simply a method for teachers to teach. And if kids aren't learning, well, it doesn't matter if the teachers say they're working hard enough.

This is well-put. If we all start this discussion in agreement that in-person learning works best for all students, then we should end the discussion in agreement that long-term DL does not work for all students. we agree. If we want to decide that the safety of adults in school buildings is more important than educating children due to the circumstances of the pandemic, then we should be honest about it. We are sorry that we are providing a sub-par educational experience for your children, but we think the risk of getting sick outweighs any and all concerns about education. That way, there is nothing to argue about. It is what it is.

Well, I would say we can still argue about the ethical merits of prioritizing the interests of adults over those of children, and more broadly, the interests of the elderly over the young. It is an important issue that should be at the core of our larger discussion about how to live with this virus.

Absolutely, there is room for disagreement in how we prioritize interests, without being dismissive of the any concerns about risks, whether they are health risks or risk to the education or development of children. You and I can have a meaningful discussion about the ethics of how these interests are prioritized Absolutely. I just wish more people would use undisputed facts to frame the analysis.

PS - I realize that the childcare person is a troll.

The problem is that the question how significant the risk to the non-elderly teacher without comorbidities actually is isn't a matter of undisputed facts. To the contrary, there is a lot of dispute about that. I think we can all agree that the risk to teachers is not zero, but evidently people cannot agree how big it actually is. So it's not quite as easy to boil it down to the questions of interests and ethics outlined above.

I guess that's true. However, not every teacher will get COVID and even those who get COVID may not get sick. Every student is impacted in some way by not going to school. At least that's one way of looking at it.

Some charters have been open in-person since the beginning of the school year - almost two and a half months. Are there any lessons learned or evidence on the risk?

And, are they doing regular testing to know who is positive or not? You can open schools but you cannot say they are fully safe. In DC, its a bigger risk with more low income and many may not have health insurance.

Again, actual experience won't be enough to demonstrate the the risk is not as great as many believe (assuming that the metrics reflecting community spread are appropriate for in person learning). The potential risk to teachers outweighs any actual harm to students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the constant pretending that school's only role is to provide a method for a teacher to broadcast information to students as though teaching and not learning was the more important activity. That it's childrens' and parents' fault if the kids aren't effectively learning in this situation. That schools have no other social roles, including community health, civic education, socialized daycare, socialization, community building and integration, etc.

No. Schools are simply a method for teachers to teach. And if kids aren't learning, well, it doesn't matter if the teachers say they're working hard enough.

This is well-put. If we all start this discussion in agreement that in-person learning works best for all students, then we should end the discussion in agreement that long-term DL does not work for all students. we agree. If we want to decide that the safety of adults in school buildings is more important than educating children due to the circumstances of the pandemic, then we should be honest about it. We are sorry that we are providing a sub-par educational experience for your children, but we think the risk of getting sick outweighs any and all concerns about education. That way, there is nothing to argue about. It is what it is.

Well, I would say we can still argue about the ethical merits of prioritizing the interests of adults over those of children, and more broadly, the interests of the elderly over the young. It is an important issue that should be at the core of our larger discussion about how to live with this virus.

Absolutely, there is room for disagreement in how we prioritize interests, without being dismissive of the any concerns about risks, whether they are health risks or risk to the education or development of children. You and I can have a meaningful discussion about the ethics of how these interests are prioritized Absolutely. I just wish more people would use undisputed facts to frame the analysis.

PS - I realize that the childcare person is a troll.

The problem is that the question how significant the risk to the non-elderly teacher without comorbidities actually is isn't a matter of undisputed facts. To the contrary, there is a lot of dispute about that. I think we can all agree that the risk to teachers is not zero, but evidently people cannot agree how big it actually is. So it's not quite as easy to boil it down to the questions of interests and ethics outlined above.

I guess that's true. However, not every teacher will get COVID and even those who get COVID may not get sick. Every student is impacted in some way by not going to school. At least that's one way of looking at it.

I completely agree with you and believe that a) the data out of Europe shows that teachers are not at a particularly high risk to get infected, and b) if they do get infected and fall into the non-elderly, non-comorbid category, their risk of severe disease is very low. I was just pointing out that people cannot agree on this. Even though I personally think those are facts, they are not undisputed, and that is at the core of our calamity. The level of Covid hysteria is very high and has been stoked for months in response to Trump's irresponsible downplaying of it, and in an effort to get the general population to comply with measures that are important to protect the vulnerable. So while to me, the ethical calculation is clear - the risk of damage to millions of kids should outweigh the risk to teachers, many teachers believe that they are all truly risking their lives by stepping into a classroom, even if there is no evidence that this is the case (unless you are unable to put risks in perspective, since the risk is non-zero as it is in most of life).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the constant pretending that school's only role is to provide a method for a teacher to broadcast information to students as though teaching and not learning was the more important activity. That it's childrens' and parents' fault if the kids aren't effectively learning in this situation. That schools have no other social roles, including community health, civic education, socialized daycare, socialization, community building and integration, etc.

No. Schools are simply a method for teachers to teach. And if kids aren't learning, well, it doesn't matter if the teachers say they're working hard enough.

This is well-put. If we all start this discussion in agreement that in-person learning works best for all students, then we should end the discussion in agreement that long-term DL does not work for all students. we agree. If we want to decide that the safety of adults in school buildings is more important than educating children due to the circumstances of the pandemic, then we should be honest about it. We are sorry that we are providing a sub-par educational experience for your children, but we think the risk of getting sick outweighs any and all concerns about education. That way, there is nothing to argue about. It is what it is.

Well, I would say we can still argue about the ethical merits of prioritizing the interests of adults over those of children, and more broadly, the interests of the elderly over the young. It is an important issue that should be at the core of our larger discussion about how to live with this virus.

Absolutely, there is room for disagreement in how we prioritize interests, without being dismissive of the any concerns about risks, whether they are health risks or risk to the education or development of children. You and I can have a meaningful discussion about the ethics of how these interests are prioritized Absolutely. I just wish more people would use undisputed facts to frame the analysis.

PS - I realize that the childcare person is a troll.

The problem is that the question how significant the risk to the non-elderly teacher without comorbidities actually is isn't a matter of undisputed facts. To the contrary, there is a lot of dispute about that. I think we can all agree that the risk to teachers is not zero, but evidently people cannot agree how big it actually is. So it's not quite as easy to boil it down to the questions of interests and ethics outlined above.

I guess that's true. However, not every teacher will get COVID and even those who get COVID may not get sick. Every student is impacted in some way by not going to school. At least that's one way of looking at it.

I completely agree with you and believe that a) the data out of Europe shows that teachers are not at a particularly high risk to get infected, and b) if they do get infected and fall into the non-elderly, non-comorbid category, their risk of severe disease is very low. I was just pointing out that people cannot agree on this. Even though I personally think those are facts, they are not undisputed, and that is at the core of our calamity. The level of Covid hysteria is very high and has been stoked for months in response to Trump's irresponsible downplaying of it, and in an effort to get the general population to comply with measures that are important to protect the vulnerable. So while to me, the ethical calculation is clear - the risk of damage to millions of kids should outweigh the risk to teachers, many teachers believe that they are all truly risking their lives by stepping into a classroom, even if there is no evidence that this is the case (unless you are unable to put risks in perspective, since the risk is non-zero as it is in most of life).

Emotion gets in the way of reasonable discussion. In addition, when we are talking about continuing with DL versus in person return, one side is expressing their actual experience while the other is speculating about potential risks. I have heard from so many parents that their formerly strong students are failing their DL classes, or have fallen into a state of depression, or fight with them every day about staying engaged online. And the other side is worried about what happens if a student sneezes while eating lunch and then touches touches something that the teacher touches who then touches his or her face (even though that shouldn't happen with masks and handwashing) who then gets COVID and then maybe gets sick and then dies. There are so many "what ifs" that teachers want addressed and it is impossible to do so. That's why decision makers should either say that no risk is acceptable or start actively refusing to acknowledge concerns that are not reasonable.

I originally wanted to err on the side of safety, but the longer this drags on, the harm to students continues with little concession by teachers. At some point, I think the actual harm to children should outweigh fear and hypothetical risk. However, this is a pandemic. It is ok to be wrong. There are no perfect choices, because everyone is hurt in some way. More than anything, I wish we could all be more honest about how we are assessing risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the constant pretending that school's only role is to provide a method for a teacher to broadcast information to students as though teaching and not learning was the more important activity. That it's childrens' and parents' fault if the kids aren't effectively learning in this situation. That schools have no other social roles, including community health, civic education, socialized daycare, socialization, community building and integration, etc.

No. Schools are simply a method for teachers to teach. And if kids aren't learning, well, it doesn't matter if the teachers say they're working hard enough.

This is well-put. If we all start this discussion in agreement that in-person learning works best for all students, then we should end the discussion in agreement that long-term DL does not work for all students. we agree. If we want to decide that the safety of adults in school buildings is more important than educating children due to the circumstances of the pandemic, then we should be honest about it. We are sorry that we are providing a sub-par educational experience for your children, but we think the risk of getting sick outweighs any and all concerns about education. That way, there is nothing to argue about. It is what it is.

Except it doesn't work best for all kids and we are in a pandemic. Which part of pandemic do you not understand? In person works best for most parents. It provides free child care. We had a really bad teacher last year. Covid was a relief, sadly.

That's sad for your individual situation. Saying that virtual teaching does not work does not preclude the existence of any outliers. Please understand that your experience is far from the norm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the constant pretending that school's only role is to provide a method for a teacher to broadcast information to students as though teaching and not learning was the more important activity. That it's childrens' and parents' fault if the kids aren't effectively learning in this situation. That schools have no other social roles, including community health, civic education, socialized daycare, socialization, community building and integration, etc.

No. Schools are simply a method for teachers to teach. And if kids aren't learning, well, it doesn't matter if the teachers say they're working hard enough.

This is well-put. If we all start this discussion in agreement that in-person learning works best for all students, then we should end the discussion in agreement that long-term DL does not work for all students. we agree. If we want to decide that the safety of adults in school buildings is more important than educating children due to the circumstances of the pandemic, then we should be honest about it. We are sorry that we are providing a sub-par educational experience for your children, but we think the risk of getting sick outweighs any and all concerns about education. That way, there is nothing to argue about. It is what it is.

Well, I would say we can still argue about the ethical merits of prioritizing the interests of adults over those of children, and more broadly, the interests of the elderly over the young. It is an important issue that should be at the core of our larger discussion about how to live with this virus.

Absolutely, there is room for disagreement in how we prioritize interests, without being dismissive of the any concerns about risks, whether they are health risks or risk to the education or development of children. You and I can have a meaningful discussion about the ethics of how these interests are prioritized Absolutely. I just wish more people would use undisputed facts to frame the analysis.

PS - I realize that the childcare person is a troll.

The problem is that the question how significant the risk to the non-elderly teacher without comorbidities actually is isn't a matter of undisputed facts. To the contrary, there is a lot of dispute about that. I think we can all agree that the risk to teachers is not zero, but evidently people cannot agree how big it actually is. So it's not quite as easy to boil it down to the questions of interests and ethics outlined above.

I guess that's true. However, not every teacher will get COVID and even those who get COVID may not get sick. Every student is impacted in some way by not going to school. At least that's one way of looking at it.

I completely agree with you and believe that a) the data out of Europe shows that teachers are not at a particularly high risk to get infected, and b) if they do get infected and fall into the non-elderly, non-comorbid category, their risk of severe disease is very low. I was just pointing out that people cannot agree on this. Even though I personally think those are facts, they are not undisputed, and that is at the core of our calamity. The level of Covid hysteria is very high and has been stoked for months in response to Trump's irresponsible downplaying of it, and in an effort to get the general population to comply with measures that are important to protect the vulnerable. So while to me, the ethical calculation is clear - the risk of damage to millions of kids should outweigh the risk to teachers, many teachers believe that they are all truly risking their lives by stepping into a classroom, even if there is no evidence that this is the case (unless you are unable to put risks in perspective, since the risk is non-zero as it is in most of life).

Emotion gets in the way of reasonable discussion. In addition, when we are talking about continuing with DL versus in person return, one side is expressing their actual experience while the other is speculating about potential risks. I have heard from so many parents that their formerly strong students are failing their DL classes, or have fallen into a state of depression, or fight with them every day about staying engaged online. And the other side is worried about what happens if a student sneezes while eating lunch and then touches touches something that the teacher touches who then touches his or her face (even though that shouldn't happen with masks and handwashing) who then gets COVID and then maybe gets sick and then dies. There are so many "what ifs" that teachers want addressed and it is impossible to do so. That's why decision makers should either say that no risk is acceptable or start actively refusing to acknowledge concerns that are not reasonable.

I originally wanted to err on the side of safety, but the longer this drags on, the harm to students continues with little concession by teachers. At some point, I think the actual harm to children should outweigh fear and hypothetical risk. However, this is a pandemic. It is ok to be wrong. There are no perfect choices, because everyone is hurt in some way. More than anything, I wish we could all be more honest about how we are assessing risk.

Teachers don't make the decisions but their health and safety is important as it is ours. You can find people on both sides but if things aren't working in your home, you need to support your kids and figure it out. Many parents are very laid back and let the kids handle things and many of those kids aren't as independent as parents believe they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the constant pretending that school's only role is to provide a method for a teacher to broadcast information to students as though teaching and not learning was the more important activity. That it's childrens' and parents' fault if the kids aren't effectively learning in this situation. That schools have no other social roles, including community health, civic education, socialized daycare, socialization, community building and integration, etc.

No. Schools are simply a method for teachers to teach. And if kids aren't learning, well, it doesn't matter if the teachers say they're working hard enough.

This is well-put. If we all start this discussion in agreement that in-person learning works best for all students, then we should end the discussion in agreement that long-term DL does not work for all students. we agree. If we want to decide that the safety of adults in school buildings is more important than educating children due to the circumstances of the pandemic, then we should be honest about it. We are sorry that we are providing a sub-par educational experience for your children, but we think the risk of getting sick outweighs any and all concerns about education. That way, there is nothing to argue about. It is what it is.

Well, I would say we can still argue about the ethical merits of prioritizing the interests of adults over those of children, and more broadly, the interests of the elderly over the young. It is an important issue that should be at the core of our larger discussion about how to live with this virus.

Absolutely, there is room for disagreement in how we prioritize interests, without being dismissive of the any concerns about risks, whether they are health risks or risk to the education or development of children. You and I can have a meaningful discussion about the ethics of how these interests are prioritized Absolutely. I just wish more people would use undisputed facts to frame the analysis.

PS - I realize that the childcare person is a troll.

The problem is that the question how significant the risk to the non-elderly teacher without comorbidities actually is isn't a matter of undisputed facts. To the contrary, there is a lot of dispute about that. I think we can all agree that the risk to teachers is not zero, but evidently people cannot agree how big it actually is. So it's not quite as easy to boil it down to the questions of interests and ethics outlined above.

I guess that's true. However, not every teacher will get COVID and even those who get COVID may not get sick. Every student is impacted in some way by not going to school. At least that's one way of looking at it.

I completely agree with you and believe that a) the data out of Europe shows that teachers are not at a particularly high risk to get infected, and b) if they do get infected and fall into the non-elderly, non-comorbid category, their risk of severe disease is very low. I was just pointing out that people cannot agree on this. Even though I personally think those are facts, they are not undisputed, and that is at the core of our calamity. The level of Covid hysteria is very high and has been stoked for months in response to Trump's irresponsible downplaying of it, and in an effort to get the general population to comply with measures that are important to protect the vulnerable. So while to me, the ethical calculation is clear - the risk of damage to millions of kids should outweigh the risk to teachers, many teachers believe that they are all truly risking their lives by stepping into a classroom, even if there is no evidence that this is the case (unless you are unable to put risks in perspective, since the risk is non-zero as it is in most of life).

Emotion gets in the way of reasonable discussion. In addition, when we are talking about continuing with DL versus in person return, one side is expressing their actual experience while the other is speculating about potential risks. I have heard from so many parents that their formerly strong students are failing their DL classes, or have fallen into a state of depression, or fight with them every day about staying engaged online. And the other side is worried about what happens if a student sneezes while eating lunch and then touches touches something that the teacher touches who then touches his or her face (even though that shouldn't happen with masks and handwashing) who then gets COVID and then maybe gets sick and then dies. There are so many "what ifs" that teachers want addressed and it is impossible to do so. That's why decision makers should either say that no risk is acceptable or start actively refusing to acknowledge concerns that are not reasonable.

I originally wanted to err on the side of safety, but the longer this drags on, the harm to students continues with little concession by teachers. At some point, I think the actual harm to children should outweigh fear and hypothetical risk. However, this is a pandemic. It is ok to be wrong. There are no perfect choices, because everyone is hurt in some way. More than anything, I wish we could all be more honest about how we are assessing risk.

Teachers don't make the decisions but their health and safety is important as it is ours. You can find people on both sides but if things aren't working in your home, you need to support your kids and figure it out. Many parents are very laid back and let the kids handle things and many of those kids aren't as independent as parents believe they are.

I control what goes on in my home, that's true. However, those in charge of educating children are responsible for assessing the approach that promotes the greater good. Those people have as much, if not more, responsibility to the students they serve than they do to adult staff members. They decide how to prioritize, but it is there decisions that are being discuss here, not what goes on in any individual home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If status quo continues I want in person schooling from April through October. Going back in winter as cases spike doesn’t make sense

Thank you for this honest and sensible answer. I will be so angry if April comes and the aren’t in school. They should have cut the summer short and brought them back to plan for a long extended winter at home. I disagree with PPs that want an option for teachers. That’s okay in theory but so many kids cannot learn via DL and I am more concerned about them not having a choice. Public schools are taxpayer funded. It is not a private charity or company where the employer can decide to be magnanimous. Taxpayers pay for kids to be education and many can’t with DL. I think the SB has a fiduciary duty to cut loose any teacher that does not report back. Public school is not a jobs program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And the constant pretending that school's only role is to provide a method for a teacher to broadcast information to students as though teaching and not learning was the more important activity. That it's childrens' and parents' fault if the kids aren't effectively learning in this situation. That schools have no other social roles, including community health, civic education, socialized daycare, socialization, community building and integration, etc.

No. Schools are simply a method for teachers to teach. And if kids aren't learning, well, it doesn't matter if the teachers say they're working hard enough.

This is well-put. If we all start this discussion in agreement that in-person learning works best for all students, then we should end the discussion in agreement that long-term DL does not work for all students. we agree. If we want to decide that the safety of adults in school buildings is more important than educating children due to the circumstances of the pandemic, then we should be honest about it. We are sorry that we are providing a sub-par educational experience for your children, but we think the risk of getting sick outweighs any and all concerns about education. That way, there is nothing to argue about. It is what it is.

And everything comes with tradeoffs. If we wanted to guarantee 100% constant teacher safety, there would not be a classroom ever. Now, everyone accept a very small amount of risk for essentially any action they ever take. The consequences or risk of language loss at this point well outweigh the risk of teacher death. I understand that your life is of unlimited value to you, but I can guarantee that you are accepting other, more significant risks elsewhere in your life. The point is that the research says that schools are not particularly dangerous locations. A rational observer will note the vast disparity in social magnitude of the consequences on either side here and come down on the side of children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the constant pretending that school's only role is to provide a method for a teacher to broadcast information to students as though teaching and not learning was the more important activity. That it's childrens' and parents' fault if the kids aren't effectively learning in this situation. That schools have no other social roles, including community health, civic education, socialized daycare, socialization, community building and integration, etc.

No. Schools are simply a method for teachers to teach. And if kids aren't learning, well, it doesn't matter if the teachers say they're working hard enough.

This is well-put. If we all start this discussion in agreement that in-person learning works best for all students, then we should end the discussion in agreement that long-term DL does not work for all students. we agree. If we want to decide that the safety of adults in school buildings is more important than educating children due to the circumstances of the pandemic, then we should be honest about it. We are sorry that we are providing a sub-par educational experience for your children, but we think the risk of getting sick outweighs any and all concerns about education. That way, there is nothing to argue about. It is what it is.

And everything comes with tradeoffs. If we wanted to guarantee 100% constant teacher safety, there would not be a classroom ever. Now, everyone accept a very small amount of risk for essentially any action they ever take. The consequences or risk of language loss at this point well outweigh the risk of teacher death. I understand that your life is of unlimited value to you, but I can guarantee that you are accepting other, more significant risks elsewhere in your life. The point is that the research says that schools are not particularly dangerous locations. A rational observer will note the vast disparity in social magnitude of the consequences on either side here and come down on the side of children.

Learning loss, not language loss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the constant pretending that school's only role is to provide a method for a teacher to broadcast information to students as though teaching and not learning was the more important activity. That it's childrens' and parents' fault if the kids aren't effectively learning in this situation. That schools have no other social roles, including community health, civic education, socialized daycare, socialization, community building and integration, etc.

No. Schools are simply a method for teachers to teach. And if kids aren't learning, well, it doesn't matter if the teachers say they're working hard enough.

This is well-put. If we all start this discussion in agreement that in-person learning works best for all students, then we should end the discussion in agreement that long-term DL does not work for all students. we agree. If we want to decide that the safety of adults in school buildings is more important than educating children due to the circumstances of the pandemic, then we should be honest about it. We are sorry that we are providing a sub-par educational experience for your children, but we think the risk of getting sick outweighs any and all concerns about education. That way, there is nothing to argue about. It is what it is.

And everything comes with tradeoffs. If we wanted to guarantee 100% constant teacher safety, there would not be a classroom ever. Now, everyone accept a very small amount of risk for essentially any action they ever take. The consequences or risk of language loss at this point well outweigh the risk of teacher death. I understand that your life is of unlimited value to you, but I can guarantee that you are accepting other, more significant risks elsewhere in your life. The point is that the research says that schools are not particularly dangerous locations. A rational observer will note the vast disparity in social magnitude of the consequences on either side here and come down on the side of children.

Very well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the constant pretending that school's only role is to provide a method for a teacher to broadcast information to students as though teaching and not learning was the more important activity. That it's childrens' and parents' fault if the kids aren't effectively learning in this situation. That schools have no other social roles, including community health, civic education, socialized daycare, socialization, community building and integration, etc.

No. Schools are simply a method for teachers to teach. And if kids aren't learning, well, it doesn't matter if the teachers say they're working hard enough.

This is well-put. If we all start this discussion in agreement that in-person learning works best for all students, then we should end the discussion in agreement that long-term DL does not work for all students. we agree. If we want to decide that the safety of adults in school buildings is more important than educating children due to the circumstances of the pandemic, then we should be honest about it. We are sorry that we are providing a sub-par educational experience for your children, but we think the risk of getting sick outweighs any and all concerns about education. That way, there is nothing to argue about. It is what it is.

Well, I would say we can still argue about the ethical merits of prioritizing the interests of adults over those of children, and more broadly, the interests of the elderly over the young. It is an important issue that should be at the core of our larger discussion about how to live with this virus.

Absolutely, there is room for disagreement in how we prioritize interests, without being dismissive of the any concerns about risks, whether they are health risks or risk to the education or development of children. You and I can have a meaningful discussion about the ethics of how these interests are prioritized Absolutely. I just wish more people would use undisputed facts to frame the analysis.

PS - I realize that the childcare person is a troll.

The problem is that the question how significant the risk to the non-elderly teacher without comorbidities actually is isn't a matter of undisputed facts. To the contrary, there is a lot of dispute about that. I think we can all agree that the risk to teachers is not zero, but evidently people cannot agree how big it actually is. So it's not quite as easy to boil it down to the questions of interests and ethics outlined above.

I guess that's true. However, not every teacher will get COVID and even those who get COVID may not get sick. Every student is impacted in some way by not going to school. At least that's one way of looking at it.

Some charters have been open in-person since the beginning of the school year - almost two and a half months. Are there any lessons learned or evidence on the risk?

And, are they doing regular testing to know who is positive or not? You can open schools but you cannot say they are fully safe. In DC, its a bigger risk with more low income and many may not have health insurance.

Again, actual experience won't be enough to demonstrate the the risk is not as great as many believe (assuming that the metrics reflecting community spread are appropriate for in person learning). The potential risk to teachers outweighs any actual harm to students.

Teachers are more at risk driving than teaching at schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If status quo continues I want in person schooling from April through October. Going back in winter as cases spike doesn’t make sense

Thank you for this honest and sensible answer. I will be so angry if April comes and the aren’t in school. They should have cut the summer short and brought them back to plan for a long extended winter at home. I disagree with PPs that want an option for teachers. That’s okay in theory but so many kids cannot learn via DL and I am more concerned about them not having a choice. Public schools are taxpayer funded. It is not a private charity or company where the employer can decide to be magnanimous. Taxpayers pay for kids to be education and many can’t with DL. I think the SB has a fiduciary duty to cut loose any teacher that does not report back. Public school is not a jobs program.

DCPS has always seen this as part of its mission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the constant pretending that school's only role is to provide a method for a teacher to broadcast information to students as though teaching and not learning was the more important activity. That it's childrens' and parents' fault if the kids aren't effectively learning in this situation. That schools have no other social roles, including community health, civic education, socialized daycare, socialization, community building and integration, etc.

No. Schools are simply a method for teachers to teach. And if kids aren't learning, well, it doesn't matter if the teachers say they're working hard enough.

This is well-put. If we all start this discussion in agreement that in-person learning works best for all students, then we should end the discussion in agreement that long-term DL does not work for all students. we agree. If we want to decide that the safety of adults in school buildings is more important than educating children due to the circumstances of the pandemic, then we should be honest about it. We are sorry that we are providing a sub-par educational experience for your children, but we think the risk of getting sick outweighs any and all concerns about education. That way, there is nothing to argue about. It is what it is.

Well, I would say we can still argue about the ethical merits of prioritizing the interests of adults over those of children, and more broadly, the interests of the elderly over the young. It is an important issue that should be at the core of our larger discussion about how to live with this virus.

Absolutely, there is room for disagreement in how we prioritize interests, without being dismissive of the any concerns about risks, whether they are health risks or risk to the education or development of children. You and I can have a meaningful discussion about the ethics of how these interests are prioritized Absolutely. I just wish more people would use undisputed facts to frame the analysis.

PS - I realize that the childcare person is a troll.

The problem is that the question how significant the risk to the non-elderly teacher without comorbidities actually is isn't a matter of undisputed facts. To the contrary, there is a lot of dispute about that. I think we can all agree that the risk to teachers is not zero, but evidently people cannot agree how big it actually is. So it's not quite as easy to boil it down to the questions of interests and ethics outlined above.

I guess that's true. However, not every teacher will get COVID and even those who get COVID may not get sick. Every student is impacted in some way by not going to school. At least that's one way of looking at it.

I completely agree with you and believe that a) the data out of Europe shows that teachers are not at a particularly high risk to get infected, and b) if they do get infected and fall into the non-elderly, non-comorbid category, their risk of severe disease is very low. I was just pointing out that people cannot agree on this. Even though I personally think those are facts, they are not undisputed, and that is at the core of our calamity. The level of Covid hysteria is very high and has been stoked for months in response to Trump's irresponsible downplaying of it, and in an effort to get the general population to comply with measures that are important to protect the vulnerable. So while to me, the ethical calculation is clear - the risk of damage to millions of kids should outweigh the risk to teachers, many teachers believe that they are all truly risking their lives by stepping into a classroom, even if there is no evidence that this is the case (unless you are unable to put risks in perspective, since the risk is non-zero as it is in most of life).

Emotion gets in the way of reasonable discussion. In addition, when we are talking about continuing with DL versus in person return, one side is expressing their actual experience while the other is speculating about potential risks. I have heard from so many parents that their formerly strong students are failing their DL classes, or have fallen into a state of depression, or fight with them every day about staying engaged online. And the other side is worried about what happens if a student sneezes while eating lunch and then touches touches something that the teacher touches who then touches his or her face (even though that shouldn't happen with masks and handwashing) who then gets COVID and then maybe gets sick and then dies. There are so many "what ifs" that teachers want addressed and it is impossible to do so. That's why decision makers should either say that no risk is acceptable or start actively refusing to acknowledge concerns that are not reasonable.

I originally wanted to err on the side of safety, but the longer this drags on, the harm to students continues with little concession by teachers. At some point, I think the actual harm to children should outweigh fear and hypothetical risk. However, this is a pandemic. It is ok to be wrong. There are no perfect choices, because everyone is hurt in some way. More than anything, I wish we could all be more honest about how we are assessing risk.

Teachers don't make the decisions but their health and safety is important as it is ours. You can find people on both sides but if things aren't working in your home, you need to support your kids and figure it out. Many parents are very laid back and let the kids handle things and many of those kids aren't as independent as parents believe they are.

I control what goes on in my home, that's true. However, those in charge of educating children are responsible for assessing the approach that promotes the greater good. Those people have as much, if not more, responsibility to the students they serve than they do to adult staff members. They decide how to prioritize, but it is there decisions that are being discuss here, not what goes on in any individual home.

They are providing an education. The issue is its not the education you want. You are willing to risk others safety without any concern for anyone else but yourself. That is really selfish and you clearly need someone to prioritize priorities and help you parent as you aren't able to make and teach your kids responsible choices at this point.

Schools are required to provide an education. That is what they are tasked with. Preforming your duties as a parent - child care, socialization, exercise, extra stuff, mental health, etc are your responsibilities as a parent. And, your responsibility is to make sure your kids attend their classes, participate and do the school work regardless of DL or in person.