APS reopening plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone who wants to go hybrid eventually is like the public commuters at school board meetings. Many “read the science” and think the idea of returning now or January is insane. Most of the rabid APE types are NOT reading Greg science, or not absorbing it. They are not the brightest bulbs. They come with pre packaged talking points. If you engage them on studies and science they resort to headlines and anecdotes.

I'm not an APE member. I'm not even firmly on either side of the reopening debate, as I have concerns with all options available right now. But I'll say that the bolded is true of people on both sides of this issue. AEM is full of pro-DL and pro-reopening people that all love to regurgitate the same talking points, post op-eds that support their position, and point to headlines helpful to their arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me, the denial lies in treating all age groups and all types of schools the same. Good reasons and strong evidence to support safety for a K-5 return. Not so much with 6-12. Both in terms of ability to spread, impact of virus on that age group, and cohort mixing. All without regular surveillance testing recommended by national
Public health experts. So, it’s not denial to question return for middle and high. That’s science.

1000% Science also states that elementary is the most critical stage for children, socially and academically. Let's please get the younger grades back to school!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me, the denial lies in treating all age groups and all types of schools the same. Good reasons and strong evidence to support safety for a K-5 return. Not so much with 6-12. Both in terms of ability to spread, impact of virus on that age group, and cohort mixing. All without regular surveillance testing recommended by national
Public health experts. So, it’s not denial to question return for middle and high. That’s science.

Totally agree. We need to focus on elementary and consider middle-hs in spring. Everyone could have been back from the start with an extended break for the middle/HS kids. It is a shame we didn't open at the beginning of the year. What was everyone thinking!!!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, the denial lies in treating all age groups and all types of schools the same. Good reasons and strong evidence to support safety for a K-5 return. Not so much with 6-12. Both in terms of ability to spread, impact of virus on that age group, and cohort mixing. All without regular surveillance testing recommended by national
Public health experts. So, it’s not denial to question return for middle and high. That’s science.

Totally agree. We need to focus on elementary and consider middle-hs in spring. Everyone could have been back from the start with an extended break for the middle/HS kids. It is a shame we didn't open at the beginning of the year. What was everyone thinking!!!?

They were coddling people like PP who called schools “slaughterhouses”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What they need most of all to open is regular testing of the school populations. That’s how New York arrived at plan to reopen. If you monitor prevalence of COVID, particularly asymptomatic spread, you can open more safely. Especially crucial to ages 11 and up, who are not safe from serious health impacts.

+1 million

IMO we need to figure out these key components so we can open safely:
- entry testing (everyone gets tested before in-person)
- surveillance testing (weekly testing)
- air cleaners in classrooms (in addition to open windows)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they need most of all to open is regular testing of the school populations. That’s how New York arrived at plan to reopen. If you monitor prevalence of COVID, particularly asymptomatic spread, you can open more safely. Especially crucial to ages 11 and up, who are not safe from serious health impacts.

+1 million

IMO we need to figure out these key components so we can open safely:
- entry testing (everyone gets tested before in-person)
- surveillance testing (weekly testing)
- air cleaners in classrooms (in addition to open windows)

I agree w. surveillance testing and I understand APS has contracted a company for random testing. I also support air cleaners in classrooms (who doesn't) and I understand that is underway too and jsut waiting for the public announcement. Entry testing only gives you a moment in time comfort and is a waste of resources. Testing really should be prioritized for symptomatic/exposure to minimize disruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they need most of all to open is regular testing of the school populations. That’s how New York arrived at plan to reopen. If you monitor prevalence of COVID, particularly asymptomatic spread, you can open more safely. Especially crucial to ages 11 and up, who are not safe from serious health impacts.

+1 million

IMO we need to figure out these key components so we can open safely:
- entry testing (everyone gets tested before in-person)
- surveillance testing (weekly testing)
- air cleaners in classrooms (in addition to open windows)

I agree w. surveillance testing and I understand APS has contracted a company for random testing. I also support air cleaners in classrooms (who doesn't) and I understand that is underway too and jsut waiting for the public announcement. Entry testing only gives you a moment in time comfort and is a waste of resources. Testing really should be prioritized for symptomatic/exposure to minimize disruption.

Really?? That’s news and would have changed my choice from DL to hybrid. That’s completely obnoxious that they are going to institute this now and lock students out of hybrid when they were forced to make these decisions without this information. Level 3 chose just 3 weeks ago. And NOW they are going to announce this plan? They are going to have to allow for re-selection. They can’t freeze people out of DL when they’ve changed the plan to suddenly do testing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they need most of all to open is regular testing of the school populations. That’s how New York arrived at plan to reopen. If you monitor prevalence of COVID, particularly asymptomatic spread, you can open more safely. Especially crucial to ages 11 and up, who are not safe from serious health impacts.

+1 million

IMO we need to figure out these key components so we can open safely:
- entry testing (everyone gets tested before in-person)
- surveillance testing (weekly testing)
- air cleaners in classrooms (in addition to open windows)

I agree w. surveillance testing and I understand APS has contracted a company for random testing. I also support air cleaners in classrooms (who doesn't) and I understand that is underway too and jsut waiting for the public announcement. Entry testing only gives you a moment in time comfort and is a waste of resources. Testing really should be prioritized for symptomatic/exposure to minimize disruption.

Disagree 100%. The schools who have managed to slow the spread have done both entry & weekly surveillance. Some even test ALL kids every week.

Without the baseline testing, you could have an outbreak just in your first weeks of school. Only testing those with symptoms/exposure is what we have now in Arlington and clearly that's not sufficient to slow community spread.

Guess it depends on how much you want to open schools. More testing controls the spread and helps keep schools open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone who wants to go hybrid eventually is like the public commuters at school board meetings. Many “read the science” and think the idea of returning now or January is insane. Most of the rabid APE types are NOT reading Greg science, or not absorbing it. They are not the brightest bulbs. They come with pre packaged talking points. If you engage them on studies and science they resort to headlines and anecdotes.

I'm not an APE member. I'm not even firmly on either side of the reopening debate, as I have concerns with all options available right now. But I'll say that the bolded is true of people on both sides of this issue. AEM is full of pro-DL and pro-reopening people that all love to regurgitate the same talking points, post op-eds that support their position, and point to headlines helpful to their arguments.

x10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to rip off the band-aid and figure out how to make a plan. Kids are suffering, socially, and academically. Yes, the numbers aren't great. but hybrid model with safety measures should happen ASAP.

It's not going to happen. Not with rates increasing as they are right now. I totally agree with you, but there is no local will to do this. At the very least, APS would have to let parents re-select DL or hybrid if they don't follow their previously announced metrics. This will take 6 weeks minimum, putting kids back in classrooms in March at the earliest.

For this spring, APS should be planning for outdoor lunch and classes to the greatest extent possible. Has APS ordered any tents? APS should be planning to open as many windows as possible for ventilation. Has APS mapped which classrooms have windows that open? For classrooms without windows we need to be purchasing HEPA air purifiers. This also hasnt been done. The essential work to reopen this spring still isn't happening. It's a total leadership fail.

In addition to the work for this spring, APS needs to start planning for an expanded summer school to catch kids up.

good points.. Agreed, the lack of effort put forth from APS to push for a safe return is pathetic.

Have you volunteered to go inside the slaughterhouses and look after the covid bearing kids? No? then why aren’t you S’ingTFU?

What does this even mean????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they need most of all to open is regular testing of the school populations. That’s how New York arrived at plan to reopen. If you monitor prevalence of COVID, particularly asymptomatic spread, you can open more safely. Especially crucial to ages 11 and up, who are not safe from serious health impacts.

+1 million

IMO we need to figure out these key components so we can open safely:
- entry testing (everyone gets tested before in-person)
- surveillance testing (weekly testing)
- air cleaners in classrooms (in addition to open windows)

I agree w. surveillance testing and I understand APS has contracted a company for random testing. I also support air cleaners in classrooms (who doesn't) and I understand that is underway too and jsut waiting for the public announcement. Entry testing only gives you a moment in time comfort and is a waste of resources. Testing really should be prioritized for symptomatic/exposure to minimize disruption.

Really?? That’s news and would have changed my choice from DL to hybrid. That’s completely obnoxious that they are going to institute this now and lock students out of hybrid when they were forced to make these decisions without this information. Level 3 chose just 3 weeks ago. And NOW they are going to announce this plan? They are going to have to allow for re-selection. They can’t freeze people out of DL when they’ve changed the plan to suddenly do testing.

Yeah, if they open and don’t allow for re-election because they changed how they will mitigate, I am sending my kids for hybrid anyway, despite our previous selection. Eff that. I wouldn’t send them when the idea was they’d have to be in a classroom all day without ventilation and eat lunch without masks inside, and regular testing wouldn’t be happening. If that’s all changing, I should be allowed to change my mind, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they need most of all to open is regular testing of the school populations. That’s how New York arrived at plan to reopen. If you monitor prevalence of COVID, particularly asymptomatic spread, you can open more safely. Especially crucial to ages 11 and up, who are not safe from serious health impacts.

+1 million

IMO we need to figure out these key components so we can open safely:
- entry testing (everyone gets tested before in-person)
- surveillance testing (weekly testing)
- air cleaners in classrooms (in addition to open windows)

I agree w. surveillance testing and I understand APS has contracted a company for random testing. I also support air cleaners in classrooms (who doesn't) and I understand that is underway too and jsut waiting for the public announcement. Entry testing only gives you a moment in time comfort and is a waste of resources. Testing really should be prioritized for symptomatic/exposure to minimize disruption.

Where are you getting the info about random testing in APS? If this is true, why didn't Duran mention it in his last update? I hope it's true so if it is please cite a source.

[Anonymous]

Also the info about air cleaners is false.

they are not putting air cleaners in every classroom, just the ones that are below code.

[Anonymous]

If testing is being implemented they HAVE to let parents choose again. That is a crucial detail that was NEVER discussed or communicated to parents as part of health/safety precautions.

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand the posters who chose all virtual that are getting FOMO now over the idea of classes possibly opening (and not any time soon if we’re being honest) with air filters or testing. You knew what you were choosing, stick by your choice.