Why can't teachers teach from their classrooms to the online learners and a few in class students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher currently teaching concurrently (clearly not in DCPS), it is HARD. I took a mental health day today (something i have never done in 10 years of teaching) because I'm so wiped. I feel like I'm failing all kids because i only have half my attention toward anyone at any time.

Is it possible? Yes, clearly. Is it good? I don't think so. My kids had a more focused, relaxed teacher when we were all in person or all virtual. We got through more content, we had less classroom management to wade through, and we were focused just on school. I have high schoolers, so i get that it wasn't this way for the little guys but man...This split is really challenging.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm pretty sure it's not concurrent teaching. I am crossing my fingers we move sharply in either direction so all my kids are in one place again soon.

Thank you for writing this. I am a teacher and think concurrent sounds stressful and ineffective. I just imagine all of the moving around the classroom I do, activities, etc. that are so different in person vs online. I would probably just lecture and give worksheets because that’s all I can think of that would work okay for both groups. I’d be fine going back in person but wouldn’t want to teach concurrently.

right. so teachers want no solution.

+1. Why do teachers feel entitled to an easy job? I'm so sick of this teacher entitlement. They want zero risk for COVID even though DCPS agreed that teachers with medical conditions (and even those who lived with someone with a medical condition!) could remain virtual, they've failed to offer enough extra supports to reach SPED and ELL students, and now they don't want to do a job that isn't easy. Parents who aren't wealthy enough to afford pods or tutors have been struggling to keep our jobs and also do a large part of the teacher's job for her.

Now this lazy teacher needs a mental health day - abandoning her students to deny them access to education that day - because she can't work harder and she also can't come in during a pandemic??? So teachers give nothing but keep taking their full salary and benefits??????[/

I was the PP teacher and I did not take a mental health day because I don’t agree with the WTU’s demand for teachers having a choice as to whether they return without documentation. I also would happily go back to teaching in person but I teach HS so that wasn’t an option.

I’ve never been considered lazy in my professional career but I get this is an online forum so you don’t know me. I don’t mind hard work, but I don’t think concurrent is actually an effective way to teach. This is from many years of experience in the classroom. I’d rather do hybrid or just go back full time. But I get I am in the minority so my wants are not going to be considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher currently teaching concurrently (clearly not in DCPS), it is HARD. I took a mental health day today (something i have never done in 10 years of teaching) because I'm so wiped. I feel like I'm failing all kids because i only have half my attention toward anyone at any time.

Is it possible? Yes, clearly. Is it good? I don't think so. My kids had a more focused, relaxed teacher when we were all in person or all virtual. We got through more content, we had less classroom management to wade through, and we were focused just on school. I have high schoolers, so i get that it wasn't this way for the little guys but man...This split is really challenging.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm pretty sure it's not concurrent teaching. I am crossing my fingers we move sharply in either direction so all my kids are in one place again soon.

Thank you for writing this. I am a teacher and think concurrent sounds stressful and ineffective. I just imagine all of the moving around the classroom I do, activities, etc. that are so different in person vs online. I would probably just lecture and give worksheets because that’s all I can think of that would work okay for both groups. I’d be fine going back in person but wouldn’t want to teach concurrently.

right. so teachers want no solution.

+1. Why do teachers feel entitled to an easy job? I'm so sick of this teacher entitlement. They want zero risk for COVID even though DCPS agreed that teachers with medical conditions (and even those who lived with someone with a medical condition!) could remain virtual, they've failed to offer enough extra supports to reach SPED and ELL students, and now they don't want to do a job that isn't easy. Parents who aren't wealthy enough to afford pods or tutors have been struggling to keep our jobs and also do a large part of the teacher's job for her.

Now this lazy teacher needs a mental health day - abandoning her students to deny them access to education that day - because she can't work harder and she also can't come in during a pandemic??? So teachers give nothing but keep taking their full salary and benefits??????[/

I was the PP teacher and I did not take a mental health day because I don’t agree with the WTU’s demand for teachers having a choice as to whether they return without documentation. I also would happily go back to teaching in person but I teach HS so that wasn’t an option.

I’ve never been considered lazy in my professional career but I get this is an online forum so you don’t know me. I don’t mind hard work, but I don’t think concurrent is actually an effective way to teach. This is from many years of experience in the classroom. I’d rather do hybrid or just go back full time. But I get I am in the minority so my wants are not going to be considered.[/


I was the PP teacher and I did not take a mental health day because I don’t agree with the WTU’s demand for teachers having a choice as to whether they return without documentation. I also would happily go back to teaching in person but I teach HS so that wasn’t an option.

I’ve never been considered lazy in my professional career but I get this is an online forum so you don’t know me. I don’t mind hard work, but I don’t think concurrent is actually an effective way to teach. This is from many years of experience in the classroom. I’d rather do hybrid or just go back full time. But I get I am in the minority so my wants are not going to be considered.

[Anonymous]

Our district in FL has ~180k students, about 50% who are back in the classroom with teachers teaching both the in person and DL students simultaneously. It's referred to as synchronous here and has been working pretty well for my kids (4th and 7th) and our acquaintances since kids went back in September. Nothing is perfect, but the district had the technology in place because they had been planning to go to all remote before that was nixed by the governor. Students are all working on computers (chromebooks for those in the classrooms, a mix of district chromebooks or their own PCs for those at home). Teachers are using smartboards to show work to students in the classroom and at home simultaneously.

This year isn't great, but they are covering the material and it is definitely working for us for most classes. The classes that aren't working as well are PE and Band, but that's not surprising and we'll survive

Not surprisingly, when given the choice more elementary kids ended up back in person for school while middle and high schoolers remained at home. Most of the high schools in our district only have 20% of students back in the building and the rest are still doing DL. The elementary schools with the highest percentages back in person are around 65% while my kids' elementary is at 50%. Middle schools are generally closer to 40% in person - some higher or lower depending on demographics of the families attending.

[Anonymous]

I'll say it again..
It's not that science doesn't matter, Covid-19 is also an ethical issue.

Is it ok to send teachers to school knowing it will slightly increase the likelihood of them getting covid and increasing community spread?

You may say yes, it's worth it. But just like abortion people have varying opinions.

When it comes to the choice, if people can they will choose telework. Just like if people live in a state that provides free abortion and they want one, they'll get it.

It's no that teachers are 'special,' it's that they're being given a choice like many other professions are being given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our district in FL has ~180k students, about 50% who are back in the classroom with teachers teaching both the in person and DL students simultaneously. It's referred to as synchronous here and has been working pretty well for my kids (4th and 7th) and our acquaintances since kids went back in September. Nothing is perfect, but the district had the technology in place because they had been planning to go to all remote before that was nixed by the governor. Students are all working on computers (chromebooks for those in the classrooms, a mix of district chromebooks or their own PCs for those at home). Teachers are using smartboards to show work to students in the classroom and at home simultaneously.

This year isn't great, but they are covering the material and it is definitely working for us for most classes. The classes that aren't working as well are PE and Band, but that's not surprising and we'll survive

Not surprisingly, when given the choice more elementary kids ended up back in person for school while middle and high schoolers remained at home. Most of the high schools in our district only have 20% of students back in the building and the rest are still doing DL. The elementary schools with the highest percentages back in person are around 65% while my kids' elementary is at 50%. Middle schools are generally closer to 40% in person - some higher or lower depending on demographics of the families attending.

FL is half red.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll say it again..
It's not that science doesn't matter, Covid-19 is also an ethical issue.

Is it ok to send teachers to school knowing it will slightly increase the likelihood of them getting covid and increasing community spread?

You may say yes, it's worth it. But just like abortion people have varying opinions.

When it comes to the choice, if people can they will choose telework. Just like if people live in a state that provides free abortion and they want one, they'll get it.

It's no that teachers are 'special,' it's that they're being given a choice like many other professions are being given.

The ethics of the calculation need to also include the lifelong impact of likely two years of educational loss for many (probably most) children going through DL. There are many DL kids who will never recover from the loss. There are children who will be permanently illiterate because they have lost a critical early learning period. Kids with certain SNs will never recover.

I have a child with severe dyslexia who will (hopefully) come out okay because we are spending thousands of dollars and a lot of time on dyslexia remediation, private school, and educational therapy. That is simply not a feasible or ethical societal model -- it is unethical that the "answer" to covid-19 is that only children with wealthy parents are educated. For the most part the other kids we know with severe dyslexia are suffering terribly. Their parents are frantic with worry, while at the same time the parents are struggling to work two jobs because of covid-19 economic impact. Your ethics post didn't even consider those families who can't immediately spend thousands of dollars and time on educational remediation to make up for profound education loss.

Most other professionals who are working remotely can do their jobs effectively remotely. That isn't true of teaching, and any discussion of ethics needs to take educational loss into account. Is it ethical to accept the educational loss of these kids? To permanently hamstring them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll say it again..
It's not that science doesn't matter, Covid-19 is also an ethical issue.

Is it ok to send teachers to school knowing it will slightly increase the likelihood of them getting covid and increasing community spread?

You may say yes, it's worth it. But just like abortion people have varying opinions.

When it comes to the choice, if people can they will choose telework. Just like if people live in a state that provides free abortion and they want one, they'll get it.

It's no that teachers are 'special,' it's that they're being given a choice like many other professions are being given.

The ethics of the calculation need to also include the lifelong impact of likely two years of educational loss for many (probably most) children going through DL. There are many DL kids who will never recover from the loss. There are children who will be permanently illiterate because they have lost a critical early learning period. Kids with certain SNs will never recover.

I have a child with severe dyslexia who will (hopefully) come out okay because we are spending thousands of dollars and a lot of time on dyslexia remediation, private school, and educational therapy. That is simply not a feasible or ethical societal model -- it is unethical that the "answer" to covid-19 is that only children with wealthy parents are educated. For the most part the other kids we know with severe dyslexia are suffering terribly. Their parents are frantic with worry, while at the same time the parents are struggling to work two jobs because of covid-19 economic impact. Your ethics post didn't even consider those families who can't immediately spend thousands of dollars and time on educational remediation to make up for profound education loss.

Most other professionals who are working remotely can do their jobs effectively remotely. That isn't true of teaching, and any discussion of ethics needs to take educational loss into account. Is it ethical to accept the educational loss of these kids? To permanently hamstring them?

I agree to an extent. But again it's a matter of ethics educational loss vs. possible death. I think many people would consider prevention of deaths for the greater 'good.'

And I don't consider money as a part of an ethics conversation, this is a national crisis and any family let alone one with children should have an emergency fund.

That's likely why the WTU wants to let teachers choose, if your teacher comes back it was their choice and ceases being an ethical issue.

The issue of lower quality of education through DL is a multi-tier ethical issue and the answer may seem simple (send teachers back) to some parents, however the fact is unlike other cities DC has been able to give all students devices. I think for sped kids the issue is they are protected by law to have FAPE but at the same time FAPE isn't clear on exactly what 'appropriate' means. Kids who aren't protected by FAPE are only entitled to public education, not an appropriate one. But neither is automatically entitled to an excellent one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher currently teaching concurrently (clearly not in DCPS), it is HARD. I took a mental health day today (something i have never done in 10 years of teaching) because I'm so wiped. I feel like I'm failing all kids because i only have half my attention toward anyone at any time.

Is it possible? Yes, clearly. Is it good? I don't think so. My kids had a more focused, relaxed teacher when we were all in person or all virtual. We got through more content, we had less classroom management to wade through, and we were focused just on school. I have high schoolers, so i get that it wasn't this way for the little guys but man...This split is really challenging.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm pretty sure it's not concurrent teaching. I am crossing my fingers we move sharply in either direction so all my kids are in one place again soon.

Thank you for writing this. I am a teacher and think concurrent sounds stressful and ineffective. I just imagine all of the moving around the classroom I do, activities, etc. that are so different in person vs online. I would probably just lecture and give worksheets because that’s all I can think of that would work okay for both groups. I’d be fine going back in person but wouldn’t want to teach concurrently.

Did you even read the teacher’s post? He or she IS back in person! Who’s the lazy one?
right. so teachers want no solution.

+1. Why do teachers feel entitled to an easy job? I'm so sick of this teacher entitlement. They want zero risk for COVID even though DCPS agreed that teachers with medical conditions (and even those who lived with someone with a medical condition!) could remain virtual, they've failed to offer enough extra supports to reach SPED and ELL students, and now they don't want to do a job that isn't easy. Parents who aren't wealthy enough to afford pods or tutors have been struggling to keep our jobs and also do a large part of the teacher's job for her.

Now this lazy teacher needs a mental health day - abandoning her students to deny them access to education that day - because she can't work harder and she also can't come in during a pandemic??? So teachers give nothing but keep taking their full salary and benefits??????

[Anonymous]

Did you even read the teacher’s post? He or she IS back in person! Who’s the lazy one?
right. so teachers want no solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll say it again..
It's not that science doesn't matter, Covid-19 is also an ethical issue.

Is it ok to send teachers to school knowing it will slightly increase the likelihood of them getting covid and increasing community spread?

You may say yes, it's worth it. But just like abortion people have varying opinions.

When it comes to the choice, if people can they will choose telework. Just like if people live in a state that provides free abortion and they want one, they'll get it.

It's no that teachers are 'special,' it's that they're being given a choice like many other professions are being given.

The ethics of the calculation need to also include the lifelong impact of likely two years of educational loss for many (probably most) children going through DL. There are many DL kids who will never recover from the loss. There are children who will be permanently illiterate because they have lost a critical early learning period. Kids with certain SNs will never recover.

I have a child with severe dyslexia who will (hopefully) come out okay because we are spending thousands of dollars and a lot of time on dyslexia remediation, private school, and educational therapy. That is simply not a feasible or ethical societal model -- it is unethical that the "answer" to covid-19 is that only children with wealthy parents are educated. For the most part the other kids we know with severe dyslexia are suffering terribly. Their parents are frantic with worry, while at the same time the parents are struggling to work two jobs because of covid-19 economic impact. Your ethics post didn't even consider those families who can't immediately spend thousands of dollars and time on educational remediation to make up for profound education loss.

Most other professionals who are working remotely can do their jobs effectively remotely. That isn't true of teaching, and any discussion of ethics needs to take educational loss into account. Is it ethical to accept the educational loss of these kids? To permanently hamstring them?

I agree to an extent. But again it's a matter of ethics educational loss vs. possible death. I think many people would consider prevention of deaths for the greater 'good.'

And I don't consider money as a part of an ethics conversation, this is a national crisis and any family let alone one with children should have an emergency fund.

That's likely why the WTU wants to let teachers choose, if your teacher comes back it was their choice and ceases being an ethical issue.

The issue of lower quality of education through DL is a multi-tier ethical issue and the answer may seem simple (send teachers back) to some parents, however the fact is unlike other cities DC has been able to give all students devices. I think for sped kids the issue is they are protected by law to have FAPE but at the same time FAPE isn't clear on exactly what 'appropriate' means. Kids who aren't protected by FAPE are only entitled to public education, not an appropriate one. But neither is automatically entitled to an excellent one.

Oh ffs. The prospect of a single death means we can’t have open schools? Come ON. If you’re going to make that argument then you have to weigh all the risks and benefits. Depriving kids of school may mean more deaths as child abuse increases. Or increased illiteracy will no doubt be tied to poorer job outcomes and health choices down the line. “No school until nobody gets an infectious disease at school” is an untenable position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll say it again..
It's not that science doesn't matter, Covid-19 is also an ethical issue.

Is it ok to send teachers to school knowing it will slightly increase the likelihood of them getting covid and increasing community spread?

You may say yes, it's worth it. But just like abortion people have varying opinions.

When it comes to the choice, if people can they will choose telework. Just like if people live in a state that provides free abortion and they want one, they'll get it.

It's no that teachers are 'special,' it's that they're being given a choice like many other professions are being given.

The ethics of the calculation need to also include the lifelong impact of likely two years of educational loss for many (probably most) children going through DL. There are many DL kids who will never recover from the loss. There are children who will be permanently illiterate because they have lost a critical early learning period. Kids with certain SNs will never recover.

I have a child with severe dyslexia who will (hopefully) come out okay because we are spending thousands of dollars and a lot of time on dyslexia remediation, private school, and educational therapy. That is simply not a feasible or ethical societal model -- it is unethical that the "answer" to covid-19 is that only children with wealthy parents are educated. For the most part the other kids we know with severe dyslexia are suffering terribly. Their parents are frantic with worry, while at the same time the parents are struggling to work two jobs because of covid-19 economic impact. Your ethics post didn't even consider those families who can't immediately spend thousands of dollars and time on educational remediation to make up for profound education loss.

Most other professionals who are working remotely can do their jobs effectively remotely. That isn't true of teaching, and any discussion of ethics needs to take educational loss into account. Is it ethical to accept the educational loss of these kids? To permanently hamstring them?

I agree to an extent. But again it's a matter of ethics educational loss vs. possible death. I think many people would consider prevention of deaths for the greater 'good.'

And I don't consider money as a part of an ethics conversation, this is a national crisis and any family let alone one with children should have an emergency fund.

That's likely why the WTU wants to let teachers choose, if your teacher comes back it was their choice and ceases being an ethical issue.

The issue of lower quality of education through DL is a multi-tier ethical issue and the answer may seem simple (send teachers back) to some parents, however the fact is unlike other cities DC has been able to give all students devices. I think for sped kids the issue is they are protected by law to have FAPE but at the same time FAPE isn't clear on exactly what 'appropriate' means. Kids who aren't protected by FAPE are only entitled to public education, not an appropriate one. But neither is automatically entitled to an excellent one.

If you are going to go down this route, then in possible deaths you also need to account for the deaths caused by the permanent educational loss. Loss of education is heavily correlated with violence and crime, poor physical condition (lifelong), abuse, etc.. Are you accounting for those deaths? You are flat-out wrong that there are no deaths associated with the loss of education. I think it's even possible that extended DL could be implicated in more lifetime deaths than covid-19, taken over a lifetime period. I suspect that if DL continues for a period.of years, there will be a statistically significant higher death and violence rate for children who had DL as opposed to in-person.

It is profoundly unethical to ignore the impact of loss of education on a generation. I think there are real conversations to be had about ethics, but only if done honestly. As written i consider PPs post above to be shockingly unethical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll say it again..
It's not that science doesn't matter, Covid-19 is also an ethical issue.

Is it ok to send teachers to school knowing it will slightly increase the likelihood of them getting covid and increasing community spread?

You may say yes, it's worth it. But just like abortion people have varying opinions.

When it comes to the choice, if people can they will choose telework. Just like if people live in a state that provides free abortion and they want one, they'll get it.

It's no that teachers are 'special,' it's that they're being given a choice like many other professions are being given.

Not professions where F2F is a significant component of the job. And if F2F doesn't matter for teaching, why are we paying salaries which enable teachers to live in the metro area? Just get cheaper remote teachers from further away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll say it again..
It's not that science doesn't matter, Covid-19 is also an ethical issue.

Is it ok to send teachers to school knowing it will slightly increase the likelihood of them getting covid and increasing community spread?

You may say yes, it's worth it. But just like abortion people have varying opinions.

When it comes to the choice, if people can they will choose telework. Just like if people live in a state that provides free abortion and they want one, they'll get it.

It's no that teachers are 'special,' it's that they're being given a choice like many other professions are being given.

The ethics of the calculation need to also include the lifelong impact of likely two years of educational loss for many (probably most) children going through DL. There are many DL kids who will never recover from the loss. There are children who will be permanently illiterate because they have lost a critical early learning period. Kids with certain SNs will never recover.

I have a child with severe dyslexia who will (hopefully) come out okay because we are spending thousands of dollars and a lot of time on dyslexia remediation, private school, and educational therapy. That is simply not a feasible or ethical societal model -- it is unethical that the "answer" to covid-19 is that only children with wealthy parents are educated. For the most part the other kids we know with severe dyslexia are suffering terribly. Their parents are frantic with worry, while at the same time the parents are struggling to work two jobs because of covid-19 economic impact. Your ethics post didn't even consider those families who can't immediately spend thousands of dollars and time on educational remediation to make up for profound education loss.

Most other professionals who are working remotely can do their jobs effectively remotely. That isn't true of teaching, and any discussion of ethics needs to take educational loss into account. Is it ethical to accept the educational loss of these kids? To permanently hamstring them?

I agree to an extent. But again it's a matter of ethics educational loss vs. possible death. I think many people would consider prevention of deaths for the greater 'good.'

And I don't consider money as a part of an ethics conversation, this is a national crisis and any family let alone one with children should have an emergency fund.

That's likely why the WTU wants to let teachers choose, if your teacher comes back it was their choice and ceases being an ethical issue.

The issue of lower quality of education through DL is a multi-tier ethical issue and the answer may seem simple (send teachers back) to some parents, however the fact is unlike other cities DC has been able to give all students devices. I think for sped kids the issue is they are protected by law to have FAPE but at the same time FAPE isn't clear on exactly what 'appropriate' means. Kids who aren't protected by FAPE are only entitled to public education, not an appropriate one. But neither is automatically entitled to an excellent one.

lol this is the worst legal take. FAPE applies to everyone. my god, this has been litigated to death. hahahahaha "only SPED kids get appropriate education!" no. FAPE ALSO applies to SPED. I am literally laughing out loud. go read the wikipedia article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll say it again..
It's not that science doesn't matter, Covid-19 is also an ethical issue.

Is it ok to send teachers to school knowing it will slightly increase the likelihood of them getting covid and increasing community spread?

You may say yes, it's worth it. But just like abortion people have varying opinions.

When it comes to the choice, if people can they will choose telework. Just like if people live in a state that provides free abortion and they want one, they'll get it.

It's no that teachers are 'special,' it's that they're being given a choice like many other professions are being given.

The ethics of the calculation need to also include the lifelong impact of likely two years of educational loss for many (probably most) children going through DL. There are many DL kids who will never recover from the loss. There are children who will be permanently illiterate because they have lost a critical early learning period. Kids with certain SNs will never recover.

I have a child with severe dyslexia who will (hopefully) come out okay because we are spending thousands of dollars and a lot of time on dyslexia remediation, private school, and educational therapy. That is simply not a feasible or ethical societal model -- it is unethical that the "answer" to covid-19 is that only children with wealthy parents are educated. For the most part the other kids we know with severe dyslexia are suffering terribly. Their parents are frantic with worry, while at the same time the parents are struggling to work two jobs because of covid-19 economic impact. Your ethics post didn't even consider those families who can't immediately spend thousands of dollars and time on educational remediation to make up for profound education loss.

Most other professionals who are working remotely can do their jobs effectively remotely. That isn't true of teaching, and any discussion of ethics needs to take educational loss into account. Is it ethical to accept the educational loss of these kids? To permanently hamstring them?

I agree to an extent. But again it's a matter of ethics educational loss vs. possible death. I think many people would consider prevention of deaths for the greater 'good.'

And I don't consider money as a part of an ethics conversation, this is a national crisis and any family let alone one with children should have an emergency fund.

That's likely why the WTU wants to let teachers choose, if your teacher comes back it was their choice and ceases being an ethical issue.

The issue of lower quality of education through DL is a multi-tier ethical issue and the answer may seem simple (send teachers back) to some parents, however the fact is unlike other cities DC has been able to give all students devices. I think for sped kids the issue is they are protected by law to have FAPE but at the same time FAPE isn't clear on exactly what 'appropriate' means. Kids who aren't protected by FAPE are only entitled to public education, not an appropriate one. But neither is automatically entitled to an excellent one.

Oh ffs. The prospect of a single death means we can’t have open schools? Come ON. If you’re going to make that argument then you have to weigh all the risks and benefits. Depriving kids of school may mean more deaths as child abuse increases. Or increased illiteracy will no doubt be tied to poorer job outcomes and health choices down the line. “No school until nobody gets an infectious disease at school” is an untenable position.

This, exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll say it again..
It's not that science doesn't matter, Covid-19 is also an ethical issue.

Is it ok to send teachers to school knowing it will slightly increase the likelihood of them getting covid and increasing community spread?

You may say yes, it's worth it. But just like abortion people have varying opinions.

When it comes to the choice, if people can they will choose telework. Just like if people live in a state that provides free abortion and they want one, they'll get it.

It's no that teachers are 'special,' it's that they're being given a choice like many other professions are being given.

The ethics of the calculation need to also include the lifelong impact of likely two years of educational loss for many (probably most) children going through DL. There are many DL kids who will never recover from the loss. There are children who will be permanently illiterate because they have lost a critical early learning period. Kids with certain SNs will never recover.

I have a child with severe dyslexia who will (hopefully) come out okay because we are spending thousands of dollars and a lot of time on dyslexia remediation, private school, and educational therapy. That is simply not a feasible or ethical societal model -- it is unethical that the "answer" to covid-19 is that only children with wealthy parents are educated. For the most part the other kids we know with severe dyslexia are suffering terribly. Their parents are frantic with worry, while at the same time the parents are struggling to work two jobs because of covid-19 economic impact. Your ethics post didn't even consider those families who can't immediately spend thousands of dollars and time on educational remediation to make up for profound education loss.

Most other professionals who are working remotely can do their jobs effectively remotely. That isn't true of teaching, and any discussion of ethics needs to take educational loss into account. Is it ethical to accept the educational loss of these kids? To permanently hamstring them?

I agree to an extent. But again it's a matter of ethics educational loss vs. possible death. I think many people would consider prevention of deaths for the greater 'good.'

And I don't consider money as a part of an ethics conversation, this is a national crisis and any family let alone one with children should have an emergency fund.

That's likely why the WTU wants to let teachers choose, if your teacher comes back it was their choice and ceases being an ethical issue.

The issue of lower quality of education through DL is a multi-tier ethical issue and the answer may seem simple (send teachers back) to some parents, however the fact is unlike other cities DC has been able to give all students devices. I think for sped kids the issue is they are protected by law to have FAPE but at the same time FAPE isn't clear on exactly what 'appropriate' means. Kids who aren't protected by FAPE are only entitled to public education, not an appropriate one. But neither is automatically entitled to an excellent one.

If you are going to go down this route, then in possible deaths you also need to account for the deaths caused by the permanent educational loss. Loss of education is heavily correlated with violence and crime, poor physical condition (lifelong), abuse, etc.. Are you accounting for those deaths? You are flat-out wrong that there are no deaths associated with the loss of education. I think it's even possible that extended DL could be implicated in more lifetime deaths than covid-19, taken over a lifetime period. I suspect that if DL continues for a period.of years, there will be a statistically significant higher death and violence rate for children who had DL as opposed to in-person.

It is profoundly unethical to ignore the impact of loss of education on a generation. I think there are real conversations to be had about ethics, but only if done honestly. As written i consider PPs post above to be shockingly unethical.

+1