"I support the teachers" people

[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.

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.

This has nothing to do with teachers but many of us are risk adverse. I don't want to die nor do I want my family members to. Its easy to say its ok when its someone else's family. You really don't care about anyone but yourself. If your child isn't thriving, what are you willing to do in your home to make it better for them? If you want us to return to school, what are you willing to sacrifice to get us back to school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. The WTU rep is back! WTU rep, you are misrepresenting the facts. This isn't a matter of DL not being "the education parents want". This is a matter of DL not being effective as education. Sure, kids can still learn if parents step up and make sure your virtual teaching results in learning, but for most kids, "virtual learning" isn't happening to an acceptable degree. How come nobody in Europe thinks it's selfish of parents to want kids in school? It's because there is a broad consensus of experts who argue that kids NEED to be in school in order to learn effectively. In Germany, for instance, it was initially the national association of public school parents that was most skeptical about kids returning full-time, (irrationally) fearing for their health. It was the education professionals who said they must return to ensure public schools' mission of effectively educating everybody.

[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.

This is precisely why I am struggling with this. I feel frustrated by the varying levels of "safe" and "risky" that I see in my community, and I have come to the point where I don't think it's about safety, but about self-interest.

I agree with many of WTU's demands for safety -- PPE, proper plumbing, signage, new air filters, etc. And I, too, distrust DCPS to accomplish these things if not forced to, as they have not proven themselves trustworthy. I think the schools most likely to get screwed over are those with lower income kids at them, because schools with well-funded PTOs will make up the difference themselves.

But where I get lost is when the argument is made that in-person school isn't worth the risk of even one teacher getting sick. My problem is not that I want teachers to get sick -- I want just to take every precaution to prevent that from happening. The issue is that right now, almost everything carries some risk of someone getting sick. When I go to the grocery store (in a mask, where everyone else wears a mask), someone might get sick. If I take my child to the playground, someone might get sick. Just living in a multi-family building, which we do, means we have more proximity and interaction with non-family members, and likely boosts our risk a little. I can't guarantee that people in my family won't get sick. I can take every precaution, but it's a pandemic. We still might get sick.

So when WTU posits that any risk at all is unacceptable, it makes me angry because this analysis ONLY seems to apply to schools. it doesn't apply to anything else people are doing, including a lot of stuff that my family personally finds too risky (like vacationing, interacting with extended family, eating at restaurants, or participating in team sports). And WTU members are participating in those things. Not every member, but certainly some.

It's an untenable argument. You can't say that ANY risk to teachers is unacceptable unless you can argue that teaches and their families are not participating in any other risky behavior, including stuff as simple as going to the grocery store. This is where WTU and some of the teachers' advocates lose me because it makes no sense. My child's education isn't worth less than other people's vacation, or dinner out, or socializing. But that's basically what WTU is saying.

[Anonymous]

DP. The WTU rep is back! WTU rep, you are misrepresenting the facts. This isn't a matter of DL not being "the education parents want". This is a matter of DL not being effective as education. Sure, kids can still learn if parents step up and make sure your virtual teaching results in learning, but for most kids, "virtual learning" isn't happening to an acceptable degree. How come nobody in Europe thinks it's selfish of parents to want kids in school? It's because there is a broad consensus of experts who argue that kids NEED to be in school in order to learn effectively. In Germany, for instance, it was initially the national association of public school parents that was most skeptical about kids returning full-time, (irrationally) fearing for their health. It was the education professionals who said they must return to ensure public schools' mission of effectively educating everybody.

I keep trying to report the poster you responded to. Here we are having a productive discussion, as has been the case in many threads, and this person chimes in with "what are you willing to do?" This discussion started out with compelling point, which is that educators and parents agree that in person learning is preferred over DL. No educator will tell you otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet at this moment, schools are not providing an education to a significant majority of students. What they are providing is teaching. And teaching and learning (or "receiving an education") are not the same things.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

This is precisely why I am struggling with this. I feel frustrated by the varying levels of "safe" and "risky" that I see in my community, and I have come to the point where I don't think it's about safety, but about self-interest.

I agree with many of WTU's demands for safety -- PPE, proper plumbing, signage, new air filters, etc. And I, too, distrust DCPS to accomplish these things if not forced to, as they have not proven themselves trustworthy. I think the schools most likely to get screwed over are those with lower income kids at them, because schools with well-funded PTOs will make up the difference themselves.

But where I get lost is when the argument is made that in-person school isn't worth the risk of even one teacher getting sick. My problem is not that I want teachers to get sick -- I want just to take every precaution to prevent that from happening. The issue is that right now, almost everything carries some risk of someone getting sick. When I go to the grocery store (in a mask, where everyone else wears a mask), someone might get sick. If I take my child to the playground, someone might get sick. Just living in a multi-family building, which we do, means we have more proximity and interaction with non-family members, and likely boosts our risk a little. I can't guarantee that people in my family won't get sick. I can take every precaution, but it's a pandemic. We still might get sick.

So when WTU posits that any risk at all is unacceptable, it makes me angry because this analysis ONLY seems to apply to schools. it doesn't apply to anything else people are doing, including a lot of stuff that my family personally finds too risky (like vacationing, interacting with extended family, eating at restaurants, or participating in team sports). And WTU members are participating in those things. Not every member, but certainly some.

It's an untenable argument. You can't say that ANY risk to teachers is unacceptable unless you can argue that teaches and their families are not participating in any other risky behavior, including stuff as simple as going to the grocery store. This is where WTU and some of the teachers' advocates lose me because it makes no sense. My child's education isn't worth less than other people's vacation, or dinner out, or socializing. But that's basically what WTU is saying.

Or, as I suggested above, we all just accept that no level of risk to teachers and staff is acceptable and stop trying to make plans that are safe enough. I don't see us ever getting there, at least not before a widely available vaccine. Maybe we give up on this year and try for next? At least we won't be wasting energy fighting amongst ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This has nothing to do with teachers but many of us are risk adverse. I don't want to die nor do I want my family members to. Its easy to say its ok when its someone else's family. You really don't care about anyone but yourself. If your child isn't thriving, what are you willing to do in your home to make it better for them? If you want us to return to school, what are you willing to sacrifice to get us back to school?

I actually just am more clear-eyed about risk. I try to make decisions for myself and family based on actual risk and not perceived risk. I too do not want to die, but I acknowledge that it is impossible to eliminate all risk from my life. So, I wear a seatbelt, but I do not stop driving. I have to get my medicine from the pharmacy, so I wear a mask and use hand sanitizer. If teachers are waiting until there is zero risk of dying from an infectious disease, then they will never return to the classroom.

And frankly regarding your question, I hope you realize that it is ridiculous framing that parents should sacrifice more than they already have. But, for the sake of argument, sure, tell me what it is that you think parents should sacrifice. This is at least an entry point into negotiations.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

This is precisely why I am struggling with this. I feel frustrated by the varying levels of "safe" and "risky" that I see in my community, and I have come to the point where I don't think it's about safety, but about self-interest.

I agree with many of WTU's demands for safety -- PPE, proper plumbing, signage, new air filters, etc. And I, too, distrust DCPS to accomplish these things if not forced to, as they have not proven themselves trustworthy. I think the schools most likely to get screwed over are those with lower income kids at them, because schools with well-funded PTOs will make up the difference themselves.

But where I get lost is when the argument is made that in-person school isn't worth the risk of even one teacher getting sick. My problem is not that I want teachers to get sick -- I want just to take every precaution to prevent that from happening. The issue is that right now, almost everything carries some risk of someone getting sick. When I go to the grocery store (in a mask, where everyone else wears a mask), someone might get sick. If I take my child to the playground, someone might get sick. Just living in a multi-family building, which we do, means we have more proximity and interaction with non-family members, and likely boosts our risk a little. I can't guarantee that people in my family won't get sick. I can take every precaution, but it's a pandemic. We still might get sick.

So when WTU posits that any risk at all is unacceptable, it makes me angry because this analysis ONLY seems to apply to schools. it doesn't apply to anything else people are doing, including a lot of stuff that my family personally finds too risky (like vacationing, interacting with extended family, eating at restaurants, or participating in team sports). And WTU members are participating in those things. Not every member, but certainly some.

It's an untenable argument. You can't say that ANY risk to teachers is unacceptable unless you can argue that teaches and their families are not participating in any other risky behavior, including stuff as simple as going to the grocery store. This is where WTU and some of the teachers' advocates lose me because it makes no sense. My child's education isn't worth less than other people's vacation, or dinner out, or socializing. But that's basically what WTU is saying.

Or, as I suggested above, we all just accept that no level of risk to teachers and staff is acceptable and stop trying to make plans that are safe enough. I don't see us ever getting there, at least not before a widely available vaccine. Maybe we give up on this year and try for next? At least we won't be wasting energy fighting amongst ourselves.

I don't believe that is a reasonable proposition because schools have never been risk free, and the likelihood that the majority of teachers are engaging in at least one activity that increases their own risk is very high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This has nothing to do with teachers but many of us are risk adverse. I don't want to die nor do I want my family members to. Its easy to say its ok when its someone else's family. You really don't care about anyone but yourself. If your child isn't thriving, what are you willing to do in your home to make it better for them? If you want us to return to school, what are you willing to sacrifice to get us back to school?

Different poster here.

1. Parents and students have made all the major sacrifices thus far, not teachers.
2. Teachers have been reaping all the benefits with telework, fewer instructional hours, and a much more flexible schedule.
3. Parents would take on a similar risk as teachers going back. If COVID spreads through schools, then parents and everyone that student lives with would be taking on the risks too, not just the teacher.
4. It's offensive to equate a teacher giving up visiting relatives or vacations with a child giving up access to education. I refuse to consider any of these types of "sacrifices" as meriting consideration for reasons to not reopen schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This has nothing to do with teachers but many of us are risk adverse. I don't want to die nor do I want my family members to. Its easy to say its ok when its someone else's family. You really don't care about anyone but yourself. If your child isn't thriving, what are you willing to do in your home to make it better for them? If you want us to return to school, what are you willing to sacrifice to get us back to school?

I actually just am more clear-eyed about risk. I try to make decisions for myself and family based on actual risk and not perceived risk. I too do not want to die, but I acknowledge that it is impossible to eliminate all risk from my life. So, I wear a seatbelt, but I do not stop driving. I have to get my medicine from the pharmacy, so I wear a mask and use hand sanitizer. If teachers are waiting until there is zero risk of dying from an infectious disease, then they will never return to the classroom.

And frankly regarding your question, I hope you realize that it is ridiculous framing that parents should sacrifice more than they already have. But, for the sake of argument, sure, tell me what it is that you think parents should sacrifice. This is at least an entry point into negotiations.

+1

[Anonymous]

Let's organize a protest - with our kids - of the WTU office. This is absolute bullshit. We all know its bullshit and I'm sick of getting messages from teachers saying "thank you parents for your support" when I have done no such thing. If we don't stand up to this bullshit, WTU will be telling us that even a vaccine with 90% effectiveness is not "safe" enough for kids to return.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. I don’t support teachers sitting it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's organize a protest - with our kids - of the WTU office. This is absolute bullshit. We all know its bullshit and I'm sick of getting messages from teachers saying "thank you parents for your support" when I have done no such thing. If we don't stand up to this bullshit, WTU will be telling us that even a vaccine with 90% effectiveness is not "safe" enough for kids to return.

This is a good idea. Maybe we could stop supporting our kids with their distance learning for one day and go protest. Let's see how the teachers fail to educate our kids without mom taking time away from work to do a big part of the teacher's job for her.

One of the biggest problems that we have is that the parents and kids have been bearing the brunt of this, not the teachers. Let's stop being the ones to make all the sacrifices while our kids are denied access to education, all the while teachers enjoy this cushy new telework position with full pay and benefits while children suffer horrible outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Formal Homeschooling is gaining a lot of popularity these days. There are several local groups. Just throwing it out there

[Anonymous]

I bet Jill Biden is very pro teacher because she actually knows what they do unlike you useless fools.