Allegedly there are several options for the fall none of which include being back full time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There sure are a lot of people on here who think they know better than county leaders, doctors, public health experts, school administrators, and teachers. I don’t know what the right answer is, but neither do you.

I know that kids need to go to school.

And I know that a child's right to an education does not supersede the rights of teachers, custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and instructional aides to a safe working environment. We want school back in session too. But meaningful protocols to mitigate the spread of the virus need to be in place. Unfortunately, if a school is overcrowded they will have to reduce density by establishing different cohorts of students who physically attend school on different days. There is no other way around it-we can't build and staff new schools to accommodate all the students.

Why not?

[Anonymous]

I have been patiently reading this debate on multiple treads by now. I have a question that I hope someone can give a meaningful answer. It seems some teachers would like to go back to school in the new academic year, but some teachers would first like to see some protocols in place because they say otherwise it is not safe for them. On the other hand, the vast majority of parents (even when one of the parents stay at home) want schools to open for all students. Now these parents are willing to send their kids to schools that some teachers argue not safe. Every night, the kids come back home from school. So if they pose a risk to teachers, shouldn't they pose a risk to their parents as well? Why do the parents think the risk is manageable, but some teachers think otherwise? Also since being a teacher is not a virtue people are born with, instead people become teachers after they are born, would those teachers change their mind on this issue if they were not teachers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been patiently reading this debate on multiple treads by now. I have a question that I hope someone can give a meaningful answer. It seems some teachers would like to go back to school in the new academic year, but some teachers would first like to see some protocols in place because they say otherwise it is not safe for them. On the other hand, the vast majority of parents (even when one of the parents stay at home) want schools to open for all students. Now these parents are willing to send their kids to schools that some teachers argue not safe. Every night, the kids come back home from school. So if they pose a risk to teachers, shouldn't they pose a risk to their parents as well? Why do the parents think the risk is manageable, but some teachers think otherwise? Also since being a teacher is not a virtue people are born with, instead people become teachers after they are born, would those teachers change their mind on this issue if they were not teachers?

If you talk to lower income parents of color and I do since they are my neighbors and the parents of many of my students, they are worried about their kids bring coronavirus home. They just aren’t on DCUM to chime in on these posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There sure are a lot of people on here who think they know better than county leaders, doctors, public health experts, school administrators, and teachers. I don’t know what the right answer is, but neither do you.

I know that kids need to go to school.

And I know that a child's right to an education does not supersede the rights of teachers, custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and instructional aides to a safe working environment. We want school back in session too. But meaningful protocols to mitigate the spread of the virus need to be in place. Unfortunately, if a school is overcrowded they will have to reduce density by establishing different cohorts of students who physically attend school on different days. There is no other way around it-we can't build and staff new schools to accommodate all the students.

Why not?

I’m hoping that you bolder the wrong area of that post and really don’t mean that you think children have more right to be in a building than adults have a right to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been patiently reading this debate on multiple treads by now. I have a question that I hope someone can give a meaningful answer. It seems some teachers would like to go back to school in the new academic year, but some teachers would first like to see some protocols in place because they say otherwise it is not safe for them. On the other hand, the vast majority of parents (even when one of the parents stay at home) want schools to open for all students. Now these parents are willing to send their kids to schools that some teachers argue not safe. Every night, the kids come back home from school. So if they pose a risk to teachers, shouldn't they pose a risk to their parents as well? Why do the parents think the risk is manageable, but some teachers think otherwise? Also since being a teacher is not a virtue people are born with, instead people become teachers after they are born, would those teachers change their mind on this issue if they were not teachers?

If you talk to lower income parents of color and I do since they are my neighbors and the parents of many of my students, they are worried about their kids bring coronavirus home. They just aren’t on DCUM to chime in on these posts.

I'd think for lower income families it's even more critical that kids go to school. Otherwise parents would have difficulty going to work. Also those kids would have very little out of school enrichment opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There sure are a lot of people on here who think they know better than county leaders, doctors, public health experts, school administrators, and teachers. I don’t know what the right answer is, but neither do you.

I know that kids need to go to school.

And I know that a child's right to an education does not supersede the rights of teachers, custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and instructional aides to a safe working environment. We want school back in session too. But meaningful protocols to mitigate the spread of the virus need to be in place. Unfortunately, if a school is overcrowded they will have to reduce density by establishing different cohorts of students who physically attend school on different days. There is no other way around it-we can't build and staff new schools to accommodate all the students.

Why not?

I’m hoping that you bolder the wrong area of that post and really don’t mean that you think children have more right to be in a building than adults have a right to live.

Yeah, sorry. Although your kids are the center of YOUR universe they are no more important than anyone else. That is a fact, not an opinion. I’m not willing to die or potentially kill my own family for your child. I’m a teacher, not a soldier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There sure are a lot of people on here who think they know better than county leaders, doctors, public health experts, school administrators, and teachers. I don’t know what the right answer is, but neither do you.

I know that kids need to go to school.

And I know that a child's right to an education does not supersede the rights of teachers, custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and instructional aides to a safe working environment. We want school back in session too. But meaningful protocols to mitigate the spread of the virus need to be in place. Unfortunately, if a school is overcrowded they will have to reduce density by establishing different cohorts of students who physically attend school on different days. There is no other way around it-we can't build and staff new schools to accommodate all the students.

Why not?

I’m hoping that you bolder the wrong area of that post and really don’t mean that you think children have more right to be in a building than adults have a right to live.

DP. You say "being in a building" as if that is the only thing kids are losing when they do not go to school. Clearly, you do not appreciate the importance of school. It is absolutely our duty as a society to find a way to educate the 55 million kids in this country AT SCHOOL and together and full-time, and not by way of the some parent-facilitated "distance learning" charade. This virus poses a lethal threat only to a small minority of those who get exposed - to imply that the adults working at schools would run a high risk of death in case of exposure is hyperbole that is not helpful to the discussion. Adults in the building can protect themselves with masks, handwashing, and keeping their distance. There is no reason anyone in the building but teachers should ever have to get closer than within 3 feet of a kid, which is now thought to be a reasonably safe distance. Those at truly at high risk, or those simply concerned about infection, need to retire or find another career.

Kids are our most vulnerable citizens, with the least political clout. Their futures are at stake, and yes, they are more important than any adult's right to absolute safety from infection with a virus that is a serious danger to only a tiny fraction of those exposed. What will you suggest if a vaccine doesn't materialize very quickly? This virus isn't going to disappear like magic. We need to find a way to keep educating kids, both academically and socially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been patiently reading this debate on multiple treads by now. I have a question that I hope someone can give a meaningful answer. It seems some teachers would like to go back to school in the new academic year, but some teachers would first like to see some protocols in place because they say otherwise it is not safe for them. On the other hand, the vast majority of parents (even when one of the parents stay at home) want schools to open for all students. Now these parents are willing to send their kids to schools that some teachers argue not safe. Every night, the kids come back home from school. So if they pose a risk to teachers, shouldn't they pose a risk to their parents as well? Why do the parents think the risk is manageable, but some teachers think otherwise? Also since being a teacher is not a virtue people are born with, instead people become teachers after they are born, would those teachers change their mind on this issue if they were not teachers?

If you talk to lower income parents of color and I do since they are my neighbors and the parents of many of my students, they are worried about their kids bring coronavirus home. They just aren’t on DCUM to chime in on these posts.

I'd think for lower income families it's even more critical that kids go to school. Otherwise parents would have difficulty going to work. Also those kids would have very little out of school enrichment opportunities.

I get that you THINK that, but I’m telling you what people are saying to me. They are scared. Scared their kids will get “mildly” ill and they will miss work. Scared that they themselves will get ill and miss work. They are worried about doctors’ bills and hospital fees that they can’t afford. Scared that household member already in bad health will die. Some sublease housing illegally and are afraid that they might be kicked out if they or their kids get ill with COVID. It’s important to actually ask lower income people what they think rather than assuming you know what is best for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There sure are a lot of people on here who think they know better than county leaders, doctors, public health experts, school administrators, and teachers. I don’t know what the right answer is, but neither do you.

I know that kids need to go to school.

And I know that a child's right to an education does not supersede the rights of teachers, custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and instructional aides to a safe working environment. We want school back in session too. But meaningful protocols to mitigate the spread of the virus need to be in place. Unfortunately, if a school is overcrowded they will have to reduce density by establishing different cohorts of students who physically attend school on different days. There is no other way around it-we can't build and staff new schools to accommodate all the students.

Why not?

I’m hoping that you bolder the wrong area of that post and really don’t mean that you think children have more right to be in a building than adults have a right to live.

Yeah, sorry. Although your kids are the center of YOUR universe they are no more important than anyone else. That is a fact, not an opinion. I’m not willing to die or potentially kill my own family for your child. I’m a teacher, not a soldier.

This isn't only about PP's child. It's about ALL kids in this country. And as a group, their education is more important than protecting the minority of vulnerable people among the school staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There sure are a lot of people on here who think they know better than county leaders, doctors, public health experts, school administrators, and teachers. I don’t know what the right answer is, but neither do you.

I know that kids need to go to school.

And I know that a child's right to an education does not supersede the rights of teachers, custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and instructional aides to a safe working environment. We want school back in session too. But meaningful protocols to mitigate the spread of the virus need to be in place. Unfortunately, if a school is overcrowded they will have to reduce density by establishing different cohorts of students who physically attend school on different days. There is no other way around it-we can't build and staff new schools to accommodate all the students.

Why not?

I’m hoping that you bolder the wrong area of that post and really don’t mean that you think children have more right to be in a building than adults have a right to live.

DP. You say "being in a building" as if that is the only thing kids are losing when they do not go to school. Clearly, you do not appreciate the importance of school. It is absolutely our duty as a society to find a way to educate the 55 million kids in this country AT SCHOOL and together and full-time, and not by way of the some parent-facilitated "distance learning" charade. This virus poses a lethal threat only to a small minority of those who get exposed - to imply that the adults working at schools would run a high risk of death in case of exposure is hyperbole that is not helpful to the discussion. Adults in the building can protect themselves with masks, handwashing, and keeping their distance. There is no reason anyone in the building but teachers should ever have to get closer than within 3 feet of a kid, which is now thought to be a reasonably safe distance. Those at truly at high risk, or those simply concerned about infection, need to retire or find another career.

Kids are our most vulnerable citizens, with the least political clout. Their futures are at stake, and yes, they are more important than any adult's right to absolute safety from infection with a virus that is a serious danger to only a tiny fraction of those exposed. What will you suggest if a vaccine doesn't materialize very quickly? This virus isn't going to disappear like magic. We need to find a way to keep educating kids, both academically and socially.

Tell a para educator or OT that they never have to get within 3 feet of a student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been patiently reading this debate on multiple treads by now. I have a question that I hope someone can give a meaningful answer. It seems some teachers would like to go back to school in the new academic year, but some teachers would first like to see some protocols in place because they say otherwise it is not safe for them. On the other hand, the vast majority of parents (even when one of the parents stay at home) want schools to open for all students. Now these parents are willing to send their kids to schools that some teachers argue not safe. Every night, the kids come back home from school. So if they pose a risk to teachers, shouldn't they pose a risk to their parents as well? Why do the parents think the risk is manageable, but some teachers think otherwise? Also since being a teacher is not a virtue people are born with, instead people become teachers after they are born, would those teachers change their mind on this issue if they were not teachers?

If you talk to lower income parents of color and I do since they are my neighbors and the parents of many of my students, they are worried about their kids bring coronavirus home. They just aren’t on DCUM to chime in on these posts.

I'd think for lower income families it's even more critical that kids go to school. Otherwise parents would have difficulty going to work. Also those kids would have very little out of school enrichment opportunities.

I get that you THINK that, but I’m telling you what people are saying to me. They are scared. Scared their kids will get “mildly” ill and they will miss work. Scared that they themselves will get ill and miss work. They are worried about doctors’ bills and hospital fees that they can’t afford. Scared that household member already in bad health will die. Some sublease housing illegally and are afraid that they might be kicked out if they or their kids get ill with COVID. It’s important to actually ask lower income people what they think rather than assuming you know what is best for them.

Since missing work is at the top of their list of worries, how are they going to manage kids not being in school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There sure are a lot of people on here who think they know better than county leaders, doctors, public health experts, school administrators, and teachers. I don’t know what the right answer is, but neither do you.

I know that kids need to go to school.

And I know that a child's right to an education does not supersede the rights of teachers, custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and instructional aides to a safe working environment. We want school back in session too. But meaningful protocols to mitigate the spread of the virus need to be in place. Unfortunately, if a school is overcrowded they will have to reduce density by establishing different cohorts of students who physically attend school on different days. There is no other way around it-we can't build and staff new schools to accommodate all the students.

Why not?

I’m hoping that you bolder the wrong area of that post and really don’t mean that you think children have more right to be in a building than adults have a right to live.

Yeah, sorry. Although your kids are the center of YOUR universe they are no more important than anyone else. That is a fact, not an opinion. I’m not willing to die or potentially kill my own family for your child. I’m a teacher, not a soldier.

This isn't only about PP's child. It's about ALL kids in this country. And as a group, their education is more important than protecting the minority of vulnerable people among the school staff.

She has a point. When has DCUM ever cared about minorities in the school system. Whether it’s a racial minority, a religious one, or learners with unique needs, the message from DCUM is I need to get mine and screw you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been patiently reading this debate on multiple treads by now. I have a question that I hope someone can give a meaningful answer. It seems some teachers would like to go back to school in the new academic year, but some teachers would first like to see some protocols in place because they say otherwise it is not safe for them. On the other hand, the vast majority of parents (even when one of the parents stay at home) want schools to open for all students. Now these parents are willing to send their kids to schools that some teachers argue not safe. Every night, the kids come back home from school. So if they pose a risk to teachers, shouldn't they pose a risk to their parents as well? Why do the parents think the risk is manageable, but some teachers think otherwise? Also since being a teacher is not a virtue people are born with, instead people become teachers after they are born, would those teachers change their mind on this issue if they were not teachers?

If you talk to lower income parents of color and I do since they are my neighbors and the parents of many of my students, they are worried about their kids bring coronavirus home. They just aren’t on DCUM to chime in on these posts.

I'd think for lower income families it's even more critical that kids go to school. Otherwise parents would have difficulty going to work. Also those kids would have very little out of school enrichment opportunities.

I get that you THINK that, but I’m telling you what people are saying to me. They are scared. Scared their kids will get “mildly” ill and they will miss work. Scared that they themselves will get ill and miss work. They are worried about doctors’ bills and hospital fees that they can’t afford. Scared that household member already in bad health will die. Some sublease housing illegally and are afraid that they might be kicked out if they or their kids get ill with COVID. It’s important to actually ask lower income people what they think rather than assuming you know what is best for them.

Since missing work is at the top of their list of worries, how are they going to manage kids not being in school?

Many are leaving the kids at home alone or with older siblings. It’s safer to do that when you have a healthy child. Once you have a kid who is sick, the risk goes up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There sure are a lot of people on here who think they know better than county leaders, doctors, public health experts, school administrators, and teachers. I don’t know what the right answer is, but neither do you.

I know that kids need to go to school.

And I know that a child's right to an education does not supersede the rights of teachers, custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and instructional aides to a safe working environment. We want school back in session too. But meaningful protocols to mitigate the spread of the virus need to be in place. Unfortunately, if a school is overcrowded they will have to reduce density by establishing different cohorts of students who physically attend school on different days. There is no other way around it-we can't build and staff new schools to accommodate all the students.

Why not?

I’m hoping that you bolder the wrong area of that post and really don’t mean that you think children have more right to be in a building than adults have a right to live.

DP. You say "being in a building" as if that is the only thing kids are losing when they do not go to school. Clearly, you do not appreciate the importance of school. It is absolutely our duty as a society to find a way to educate the 55 million kids in this country AT SCHOOL and together and full-time, and not by way of the some parent-facilitated "distance learning" charade. This virus poses a lethal threat only to a small minority of those who get exposed - to imply that the adults working at schools would run a high risk of death in case of exposure is hyperbole that is not helpful to the discussion. Adults in the building can protect themselves with masks, handwashing, and keeping their distance. There is no reason anyone in the building but teachers should ever have to get closer than within 3 feet of a kid, which is now thought to be a reasonably safe distance. Those at truly at high risk, or those simply concerned about infection, need to retire or find another career.

Kids are our most vulnerable citizens, with the least political clout. Their futures are at stake, and yes, they are more important than any adult's right to absolute safety from infection with a virus that is a serious danger to only a tiny fraction of those exposed. What will you suggest if a vaccine doesn't materialize very quickly? This virus isn't going to disappear like magic. We need to find a way to keep educating kids, both academically and socially.

Tell a para educator or OT that they never have to get within 3 feet of a student.

I was thinking of those as belonging to the category of teachers. But custodians, administrators, and cafeteria workers can absolutely keep a distance. Maybe you guys need to give up on school buses. Other countries are managing just fine without them, and so does DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There sure are a lot of people on here who think they know better than county leaders, doctors, public health experts, school administrators, and teachers. I don’t know what the right answer is, but neither do you.

I know that kids need to go to school.

And I know that a child's right to an education does not supersede the rights of teachers, custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and instructional aides to a safe working environment. We want school back in session too. But meaningful protocols to mitigate the spread of the virus need to be in place. Unfortunately, if a school is overcrowded they will have to reduce density by establishing different cohorts of students who physically attend school on different days. There is no other way around it-we can't build and staff new schools to accommodate all the students.

Why not?

I’m hoping that you bolder the wrong area of that post and really don’t mean that you think children have more right to be in a building than adults have a right to live.

Yeah, sorry. Although your kids are the center of YOUR universe they are no more important than anyone else. That is a fact, not an opinion. I’m not willing to die or potentially kill my own family for your child. I’m a teacher, not a soldier.

This isn't only about PP's child. It's about ALL kids in this country. And as a group, their education is more important than protecting the minority of vulnerable people among the school staff.

She has a point. When has DCUM ever cared about minorities in the school system. Whether it’s a racial minority, a religious one, or learners with unique needs, the message from DCUM is I need to get mine and screw you.

You surely understand the different meanings of the word "minority", so don't twist my argument to fit your prejudice.