Teachers Not Wanting to Go Back in Person
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You heard so? What do you envision beyond a teacher lecturing to a class? I hope this is not how you picture an elementary school classroom. I have been teaching from school since September. I wanted to go back face to face in September. Simply watching live classroom instruction from home doesn’t cut it. Teaching elementary students is not done in a lecture format and even that would not make watching from home effective long term. The students don’t interact. They leave their computer. The teacher’s attention is split between those in school and home. Have you tried to do what you envision with a class of 6, 7 or 8 year olds? |
Anonymous
I have a child who had significant needs when they were little. We got outside services and spent a lot of time tutoring/supplementing. My child would thrive not because of in person or DL but because of our involvement. We are at a low income school. The majority of low income schools choose to continue DL so your fake concern isn't valid. The low income have always had to figure out child care vs. pay and are the hardest hit with covid due to their jobs. DL can work but as a parent you need to put some effort into it. And, for all the women saying its all on them. Well, get a divorce because you married a crappy husband and father. Many of our husbands/Dads are supervising DL and yours needs to step up and help. Most kids I know who aren't thriving aren't logging in, going to the extra help sessions (often my child is the only one there) and participating in class. These kids would struggle in person to except people like you can just ignore it and not care as its easier when you cannot see it and the schools don't give numbers. |
Anonymous
Wow. "A child's education is NOT worth an adult's life". It's not exactly a dichotomy, if you even know what it means. It is possible to have in-person school and not kill a grandma next block. It's possible to contract covid and not die from it. It's possible to move on with life, not only in a pandemic, but even in a war. But you won't know anything about it because you're a provincial, small-minded person how likes to paint herself as a savior for sitting in your basement and baking cookies with your socially stunted Larla. Own it, you just like it this way. I only have one question for you: are you rich? Do you have a trust fund? |
Anonymous
It is interesting that your rebuttal is to attack me personally by doubting my intelligence and making wildly bigoted projections about who you think I might be. It seems that we are operating at fundamentally diametrical opposite viewpoints. The goal should not be that someone contract Covid and not die from it, the goal should be that no one contracts Covid. I can see why teachers don't want to teach your child. I wouldn't either. |
Anonymous
DP, and no. The bolded outs you as, if not a moron, profoundly ignorant. SARS-CoV-2 is here to stay. We need to *minimize* those who develop COVID-19 AND we need to balance appropriately the risks, mitigation efforts, and impacts of said mitigation efforts. “No one contracts COVID” isn’t going to happen, so we can throw that out the window. We want to prevent serious illness and death (and long-COVID) as much as possible while also minimizing the consequences of COVID mitigation efforts. Thankfully, the vaccines and mitigation tactics such as masks, improved ventilation indoors, more time outdoors, and physical distancing where appropriate are highly effective in reducing serious morbidity and mortality. And that’s great, because the consequences of more severe mitigations to outcomes including but not limited to mental health problems, obesity, social isolation, increased alcohol and drug consumption, economic loss, educational loss, etc., are profound. Tl;dr - if you want to stay home indefinitely, go for it. But you have no claim to the moral high ground you think you do. |
Anonymous
| ^^formatting fail! Ha. I meant to bold “the goal should be that no one contracts Covid,” which is not a goal that any public health expert would suggest is reasonable and necessary. The trade-offs aren’t worth it. |
Anonymous
“The goal should be that no one contracts Covid” You have now lost all credibility. That has never been the goal. |
Anonymous
How did working class women of all races handle parenting and working outside the home without “Mother’s Little Helper” or breakdowns? Get some grit, PP. |
Anonymous
This is not a realistic goal. The virus isn't going to go away, but we can manage with it. ES Teacher |
Anonymous
Well, I am a parent, so it is not for me to organize this. Schools/teachers should. But I know it's doable. Our goal here should be to come up with viable options and move ahead, not to try proving why it is NOT doable. |
Anonymous
You know it’s doable how? You are dictating something in which you have no experience. Some things just aren’t doable. I can’t effectively teach elementary students by having them “watch live instruction in class”. If you want to go with your second plan where students at home ar taught by a virtual-only teacher then that might work, but not the former. Ultimately and ideally they need to be in the classroom. |
Anonymous
I am fine with either options as long as my kids can back to school. But it should not be my job to resolve this. |
Anonymous
Nobody is saying it’s your job. Actually, that’s the point. It’s not your job and you don’t have any experience to say how things should be done. |
Anonymous
Just as it is not the school’s job to solve your childcare problems, your child’s issues with socialization, your child’s issues with lack of physical activity, etc. Amazing how this goes both ways. |
Anonymous
| Can this thread die a quick death please? It's so futile and redundant. |