2 days a week school in the fall?

[Anonymous]

What an unbelievably stupid idea

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What an unbelievably stupid idea

I kind of appreciate comments like this, even though they don't add much to the conversation, just because they so clearly say what many of us are feeling.

[Anonymous]

I get no one likes these plans, but what is your solution? They are trying to get kids back in school the best way they can. They can’t just open up schools with 500 kids and act like nothing happened. I don’t know what the right answer is but most people here won’t be happy with any solution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get no one likes these plans, but what is your solution? They are trying to get kids back in school the best way they can. They can’t just open up schools with 500 kids and act like nothing happened. I don’t know what the right answer is but most people here won’t be happy with any solution

I think the problem with 2 days a week or whatever is they seem out of touch with what really goes on in schools- some parents will just send their kid every day so they can go to work or just not have to watch the child. What will schools do when parents won't pick the child up? Or some kids just won't go to school at all and not opt into virtual learning. There will be a lot of kids who fall through the cracks with these hybrid plans because it's so hard to keep track of who should be where when.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get no one likes these plans, but what is your solution? They are trying to get kids back in school the best way they can. They can’t just open up schools with 500 kids and act like nothing happened. I don’t know what the right answer is but most people here won’t be happy with any solution

I have no decision making power here. But if I did, I would propose distance learning for everyone, because I think that a consistent schedule would be better educationally than some kind of frequently changing hybrid. I would also propose that essential worker childcare increases, and that social workers and teachers who are able increase their in-person outreach to families who are struggling. I'm not saying this plan would be perfect, but given the (many) constraints, I think it would be best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get no one likes these plans, but what is your solution? They are trying to get kids back in school the best way they can. They can’t just open up schools with 500 kids and act like nothing happened. I don’t know what the right answer is but most people here won’t be happy with any solution

It's really not that hard to come up with ideas. If you're trying to minimize the number of kids present in school, we should be investing heavily in some full year virtual education options--like guided home schooling. In the other thread, I suggested reallocating principals and teachers with health concerns to a new 'virtual school'. Maybe stand up and Elementary, Middle, and High. If 10-20% of families opt into this, it opens up more possibilities for bringing kids back closer to full time at in-person schools.

Additionally, I'd like to see the city planning in lockdown periods to coincide for both school and elsewhere. We know the virus is likely to come back strong in the fall. Why not plan for a citywide cycle of something like 6 weeks on and 3 weeks off to contain the spread before it gets out of control. Right now, we're assuming there will be some unspecified trigger condition. But that's still going to come up on us more quickly than we would like. If we're proactive and go ahead and have occasional strict social distancing periods, we can keep everything from getting bad and hopefully better deal with the lockdown periods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get no one likes these plans, but what is your solution? They are trying to get kids back in school the best way they can. They can’t just open up schools with 500 kids and act like nothing happened. I don’t know what the right answer is but most people here won’t be happy with any solution

It's really not that hard to come up with ideas. If you're trying to minimize the number of kids present in school, we should be investing heavily in some full year virtual education options--like guided home schooling. In the other thread, I suggested reallocating principals and teachers with health concerns to a new 'virtual school'. Maybe stand up and Elementary, Middle, and High. If 10-20% of families opt into this, it opens up more possibilities for bringing kids back closer to full time at in-person schools.

Additionally, I'd like to see the city planning in lockdown periods to coincide for both school and elsewhere. We know the virus is likely to come back strong in the fall. Why not plan for a citywide cycle of something like 6 weeks on and 3 weeks off to contain the spread before it gets out of control. Right now, we're assuming there will be some unspecified trigger condition. But that's still going to come up on us more quickly than we would like. If we're proactive and go ahead and have occasional strict social distancing periods, we can keep everything from getting bad and hopefully better deal with the lockdown periods.

3 weeks off won’t be enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get no one likes these plans, but what is your solution? They are trying to get kids back in school the best way they can. They can’t just open up schools with 500 kids and act like nothing happened. I don’t know what the right answer is but most people here won’t be happy with any solution

I think the problem with 2 days a week or whatever is they seem out of touch with what really goes on in schools- some parents will just send their kid every day so they can go to work or just not have to watch the child. What will schools do when parents won't pick the child up? Or some kids just won't go to school at all and not opt into virtual learning. There will be a lot of kids who fall through the cracks with these hybrid plans because it's so hard to keep track of who should be where when.

How different than with all virtual learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another example of school is not childcare so you can work.

School actually is childcare so parents can work.

No school started to prevent them from participating in the workforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another example of school is not childcare so you can work.

School actually is childcare so parents can work.

No school started to prevent them from participating in the workforce.

*prevent children from working in case I was too vague.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get no one likes these plans, but what is your solution? They are trying to get kids back in school the best way they can. They can’t just open up schools with 500 kids and act like nothing happened. I don’t know what the right answer is but most people here won’t be happy with any solution

It's really not that hard to come up with ideas. If you're trying to minimize the number of kids present in school, we should be investing heavily in some full year virtual education options--like guided home schooling. In the other thread, I suggested reallocating principals and teachers with health concerns to a new 'virtual school'. Maybe stand up and Elementary, Middle, and High. If 10-20% of families opt into this, it opens up more possibilities for bringing kids back closer to full time at in-person schools.

Additionally, I'd like to see the city planning in lockdown periods to coincide for both school and elsewhere. We know the virus is likely to come back strong in the fall. Why not plan for a citywide cycle of something like 6 weeks on and 3 weeks off to contain the spread before it gets out of control. Right now, we're assuming there will be some unspecified trigger condition. But that's still going to come up on us more quickly than we would like. If we're proactive and go ahead and have occasional strict social distancing periods, we can keep everything from getting bad and hopefully better deal with the lockdown periods.

I like this. The problem is it can't just be the schools - everything woudl have to shut down for 3 weeks. What gets me is that it is JUST our children that are paying the price. THEY will be DL or in a school 2 days a week but the bars and coffee shops and resturants and spas and dog groomers and acupuncturists and churches will be oopen 7 days a week.

[Anonymous]

I would prefer full time distance learning instead of this nonsense. This is all of the risk of sending children back to school with none of the benefits of having children in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get no one likes these plans, but what is your solution? They are trying to get kids back in school the best way they can. They can’t just open up schools with 500 kids and act like nothing happened. I don’t know what the right answer is but most people here won’t be happy with any solution

It's really not that hard to come up with ideas. If you're trying to minimize the number of kids present in school, we should be investing heavily in some full year virtual education options--like guided home schooling. In the other thread, I suggested reallocating principals and teachers with health concerns to a new 'virtual school'. Maybe stand up and Elementary, Middle, and High. If 10-20% of families opt into this, it opens up more possibilities for bringing kids back closer to full time at in-person schools.

Additionally, I'd like to see the city planning in lockdown periods to coincide for both school and elsewhere. We know the virus is likely to come back strong in the fall. Why not plan for a citywide cycle of something like 6 weeks on and 3 weeks off to contain the spread before it gets out of control. Right now, we're assuming there will be some unspecified trigger condition. But that's still going to come up on us more quickly than we would like. If we're proactive and go ahead and have occasional strict social distancing periods, we can keep everything from getting bad and hopefully better deal with the lockdown periods.

I like this. The problem is it can't just be the schools - everything woudl have to shut down for 3 weeks. What gets me is that it is JUST our children that are paying the price. THEY will be DL or in a school 2 days a week but the bars and coffee shops and resturants and spas and dog groomers and acupuncturists and churches will be oopen 7 days a week.

This really bothers me too. The kids will pay the price while beaches are open, people are eating at restaurants, etc. I feel like fixing the school issues should be TOP priority, not "we'll think of something two weeks before we start." For what it's worth, my SN kid is struggling with all aspects of this, but distance learning has not been especially bad for him. I hope whatever solution they come up includes SN kids, kids without internet, kids who may be watching siblings. I have no idea how this will work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I would prefer full time distance learning instead of this nonsense. This is all of the risk of sending children back to school with none of the benefits of having children in school.

I agree. I would like full time back in person or full time virtual.

[Anonymous]

it doesn't make any sense. the point is to have fewer kids in the mix at school. But then those kids will be sent to daycare the other two days mixing with all kinds of kids and not social distancing so....there is no point to doing this unless ALL school aged childcare is also closed..