Smart Restart APS- ventilation studies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart Restart APS published a study which allegedly demonstrates that 60% of APS classrooms have woefully deficient air.
The 'T" in SMART is about transparency. 'integrity in data sharing.'
The Smart restart study was based on APS records that were FOIA'd.
APS spokesperson challenges the study stating that the it is being egregiously misinterpreted.
Smart restart is asked to share their underlying data, how they came up with the study.
The response is -" I suggest that you just put in a FOIA to APS for their data."
eg= we won't share.
WTF. Why on earth are you hiding the data SMART RESTART unless you know that your STUDY is FULL OF CRAP and DESIGNED TO SCARE PEOPLE.

oh and PS- new CDC guidance that came out today? Literally not one word about air changes etc- it says improve ventilation by opening windows when possible.

You are making it sound that Smart Restart is some official group. After reading the posts I realized that they are just a bunch of parents who are amateurs in interpreting data. This is hardly what I would call a study lol.

Yes, and this group has zero-tolerance for risk. It's a surprise they ever sent their kids to public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart Restart APS published a study which allegedly demonstrates that 60% of APS classrooms have woefully deficient air.
The 'T" in SMART is about transparency. 'integrity in data sharing.'
The Smart restart study was based on APS records that were FOIA'd.
APS spokesperson challenges the study stating that the it is being egregiously misinterpreted.
Smart restart is asked to share their underlying data, how they came up with the study.
The response is -" I suggest that you just put in a FOIA to APS for their data."
eg= we won't share.
WTF. Why on earth are you hiding the data SMART RESTART unless you know that your STUDY is FULL OF CRAP and DESIGNED TO SCARE PEOPLE.

oh and PS- new CDC guidance that came out today? Literally not one word about air changes etc- it says improve ventilation by opening windows when possible.

You are making it sound that Smart Restart is some official group. After reading the posts I realized that they are just a bunch of parents who are amateurs in interpreting data. This is hardly what I would call a study lol.

Yes, and this group has zero-tolerance for risk. It's a surprise they ever sent their kids to public school.

Guessing it’s because te schools were in a bubble neighborhood, maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s about 70 percent overall. Or was back in December. You can do the math. Adds up to roughly 100 each lunch for grades 7 and 8. Keeping mine home. Too many parents too blasé about the virus in this part of N Arl. Do not want kid maskless in a room with 90+ of their kids! I’ll wait til cases are lower or they figure out lunch. Or both.

Based on the numbers given at the PTA meeting, about 60% of 6th graders are doing hybrid. What’s the source for 70%?

The principal reported 70% at the Dec PTA meeting. More families should really tune in....

The beginning of that meeting didn’t get recorded, and it looks like that discussion was in the part that was cut off so anyone who listened to the recording later wouldn’t have heard it. In the Q&A asking whether the info was public, he said again it was “roughly” 70/30, which means it could be something less than 70% who selected hybrid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s about 70 percent overall. Or was back in December. You can do the math. Adds up to roughly 100 each lunch for grades 7 and 8. Keeping mine home. Too many parents too blasé about the virus in this part of N Arl. Do not want kid maskless in a room with 90+ of their kids! I’ll wait til cases are lower or they figure out lunch. Or both.

Based on the numbers given at the PTA meeting, about 60% of 6th graders are doing hybrid. What’s the source for 70%?

The principal reported 70% at the Dec PTA meeting. More families should really tune in....

The beginning of that meeting didn’t get recorded, and it looks like that discussion was in the part that was cut off so anyone who listened to the recording later wouldn’t have heard it. In the Q&A asking whether the info was public, he said again it was “roughly” 70/30, which means it could be something less than 70% who selected hybrid.

Really? Well it was part of the beginning of the meeting, but later there was continued back-and-forth with an open schools now parent who kept quoting it but saying begrudgingly that she wouldn’t report it outside the meeting. (she asked to use the percentages in the public comments part of the school board meeting to prove how many families really want to go back, principal said he preferred not to since it would not have been reported officially at the school board meeting yet). It was very odd and awkward. Anyhow, true it could be 68 or 69 but regardless he didn’t say 60 or 50. He said 70/30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s about 70 percent overall. Or was back in December. You can do the math. Adds up to roughly 100 each lunch for grades 7 and 8. Keeping mine home. Too many parents too blasé about the virus in this part of N Arl. Do not want kid maskless in a room with 90+ of their kids! I’ll wait til cases are lower or they figure out lunch. Or both.

Based on the numbers given at the PTA meeting, about 60% of 6th graders are doing hybrid. What’s the source for 70%?

The principal reported 70% at the Dec PTA meeting. More families should really tune in....

The beginning of that meeting didn’t get recorded, and it looks like that discussion was in the part that was cut off so anyone who listened to the recording later wouldn’t have heard it. In the Q&A asking whether the info was public, he said again it was “roughly” 70/30, which means it could be something less than 70% who selected hybrid.

Really? Well it was part of the beginning of the meeting, but later there was continued back-and-forth with an open schools now parent who kept quoting it but saying begrudgingly that she wouldn’t report it outside the meeting. (she asked to use the percentages in the public comments part of the school board meeting to prove how many families really want to go back, principal said he preferred not to since it would not have been reported officially at the school board meeting yet). It was very odd and awkward. Anyhow, true it could be 68 or 69 but regardless he didn’t say 60 or 50. He said 70/30.

Yes, and we all know he’s an excellent communicator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s about 70 percent overall. Or was back in December. You can do the math. Adds up to roughly 100 each lunch for grades 7 and 8. Keeping mine home. Too many parents too blasé about the virus in this part of N Arl. Do not want kid maskless in a room with 90+ of their kids! I’ll wait til cases are lower or they figure out lunch. Or both.

Based on the numbers given at the PTA meeting, about 60% of 6th graders are doing hybrid. What’s the source for 70%?

The principal reported 70% at the Dec PTA meeting. More families should really tune in....

The beginning of that meeting didn’t get recorded, and it looks like that discussion was in the part that was cut off so anyone who listened to the recording later wouldn’t have heard it. In the Q&A asking whether the info was public, he said again it was “roughly” 70/30, which means it could be something less than 70% who selected hybrid.

Really? Well it was part of the beginning of the meeting, but later there was continued back-and-forth with an open schools now parent who kept quoting it but saying begrudgingly that she wouldn’t report it outside the meeting. (she asked to use the percentages in the public comments part of the school board meeting to prove how many families really want to go back, principal said he preferred not to since it would not have been reported officially at the school board meeting yet). It was very odd and awkward. Anyhow, true it could be 68 or 69 but regardless he didn’t say 60 or 50. He said 70/30.

And in the February meeting he kept referring to return to school dates being in February rather than March. He misspeaks sometimes (as we all do), so I’d want something more concrete than a rough approximation spoken in a meeting (especially one he didn’t want anyone repeating, which suggests to me he may not have been confident in its accuracy).

When Mr. K gave the numbers for 6th grade discussed by the poster above, he was talking in specific and consistent terms about the auditorium with designated spaces seating having a capacity of 72, that they could add some extra chairs in the back to bring that number up to 80 if necessary, and that they didn’t the anticipate needing more than that. That estimate feels a bit more credible to me because it was consistent throughout the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Even if we are talking about 100 kids in the cafeteria at a time plus staff, we are talking about the cafeteria being at about 20% capacity at any given time, which is very low capacity utilization for safety purposes. I can understand why some aren’t comfortable going back and I won’t argue with your choice to stay virtual, but it’s not a reason not to reopen for those who are comfortable with those mitigation measures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if we are talking about 100 kids in the cafeteria at a time plus staff, we are talking about the cafeteria being at about 20% capacity at any given time, which is very low capacity utilization for safety purposes. I can understand why some aren’t comfortable going back and I won’t argue with your choice to stay virtual, but it’s not a reason not to reopen for those who are comfortable with those mitigation measures.

You keep saying “it’s not a reason not to reopen” but no one is arguing it is. They are arguing that there should be an outdoor option so families not comfortable with the all-grade level indoor group lunches can have the same opportunity to send their kids to hybrid as those who don’t care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s about 70 percent overall. Or was back in December. You can do the math. Adds up to roughly 100 each lunch for grades 7 and 8. Keeping mine home. Too many parents too blasé about the virus in this part of N Arl. Do not want kid maskless in a room with 90+ of their kids! I’ll wait til cases are lower or they figure out lunch. Or both.

Based on the numbers given at the PTA meeting, about 60% of 6th graders are doing hybrid. What’s the source for 70%?

The principal reported 70% at the Dec PTA meeting. More families should really tune in....

The beginning of that meeting didn’t get recorded, and it looks like that discussion was in the part that was cut off so anyone who listened to the recording later wouldn’t have heard it. In the Q&A asking whether the info was public, he said again it was “roughly” 70/30, which means it could be something less than 70% who selected hybrid.

Really? Well it was part of the beginning of the meeting, but later there was continued back-and-forth with an open schools now parent who kept quoting it but saying begrudgingly that she wouldn’t report it outside the meeting. (she asked to use the percentages in the public comments part of the school board meeting to prove how many families really want to go back, principal said he preferred not to since it would not have been reported officially at the school board meeting yet). It was very odd and awkward. Anyhow, true it could be 68 or 69 but regardless he didn’t say 60 or 50. He said 70/30.

That exchange and the PTA thanking Open Now mom her for her efforts was unpleasant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if we are talking about 100 kids in the cafeteria at a time plus staff, we are talking about the cafeteria being at about 20% capacity at any given time, which is very low capacity utilization for safety purposes. I can understand why some aren’t comfortable going back and I won’t argue with your choice to stay virtual, but it’s not a reason not to reopen for those who are comfortable with those mitigation measures.

You keep saying “it’s not a reason not to reopen” but no one is arguing it is. They are arguing that there should be an outdoor option so families not comfortable with the all-grade level indoor group lunches can have the same opportunity to send their kids to hybrid as those who don’t care.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if we are talking about 100 kids in the cafeteria at a time plus staff, we are talking about the cafeteria being at about 20% capacity at any given time, which is very low capacity utilization for safety purposes. I can understand why some aren’t comfortable going back and I won’t argue with your choice to stay virtual, but it’s not a reason not to reopen for those who are comfortable with those mitigation measures.

The WMS cafeteria capacity is 500? Not questioning, genuinely interested in knowing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if we are talking about 100 kids in the cafeteria at a time plus staff, we are talking about the cafeteria being at about 20% capacity at any given time, which is very low capacity utilization for safety purposes. I can understand why some aren’t comfortable going back and I won’t argue with your choice to stay virtual, but it’s not a reason not to reopen for those who are comfortable with those mitigation measures.

You keep saying “it’s not a reason not to reopen” but no one is arguing it is. They are arguing that there should be an outdoor option so families not comfortable with the all-grade level indoor group lunches can have the same opportunity to send their kids to hybrid as those who don’t care.

I'm comfortable with the current situation. There needs to be some level of risk taken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if we are talking about 100 kids in the cafeteria at a time plus staff, we are talking about the cafeteria being at about 20% capacity at any given time, which is very low capacity utilization for safety purposes. I can understand why some aren’t comfortable going back and I won’t argue with your choice to stay virtual, but it’s not a reason not to reopen for those who are comfortable with those mitigation measures.

You keep saying “it’s not a reason not to reopen” but no one is arguing it is. They are arguing that there should be an outdoor option so families not comfortable with the all-grade level indoor group lunches can have the same opportunity to send their kids to hybrid as those who don’t care.

I'm comfortable with the current situation. There needs to be some level of risk taken.

So, we’re judging this by your personal comfort level and the fact that you think everyone needs to take this risk if they want to go to school? This sums up the vocal open schools parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if we are talking about 100 kids in the cafeteria at a time plus staff, we are talking about the cafeteria being at about 20% capacity at any given time, which is very low capacity utilization for safety purposes. I can understand why some aren’t comfortable going back and I won’t argue with your choice to stay virtual, but it’s not a reason not to reopen for those who are comfortable with those mitigation measures.

You keep saying “it’s not a reason not to reopen” but no one is arguing it is. They are arguing that there should be an outdoor option so families not comfortable with the all-grade level indoor group lunches can have the same opportunity to send their kids to hybrid as those who don’t care.

I'm comfortable with the current situation. There needs to be some level of risk taken.

It’s becoming really suspect that certain posters push back anytime outdoor lunch is mentioned. Even when PP state they’re not asking for schools to be closed, just for lunch to be outside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if we are talking about 100 kids in the cafeteria at a time plus staff, we are talking about the cafeteria being at about 20% capacity at any given time, which is very low capacity utilization for safety purposes. I can understand why some aren’t comfortable going back and I won’t argue with your choice to stay virtual, but it’s not a reason not to reopen for those who are comfortable with those mitigation measures.

You keep saying “it’s not a reason not to reopen” but no one is arguing it is. They are arguing that there should be an outdoor option so families not comfortable with the all-grade level indoor group lunches can have the same opportunity to send their kids to hybrid as those who don’t care.

I'm comfortable with the current situation. There needs to be some level of risk taken.

It’s becoming really suspect that certain posters push back anytime outdoor lunch is mentioned. Even when PP state they’re not asking for schools to be closed, just for lunch to be outside.

Some miserable people just like to complain about anything. Even “issues” they’ve manufactured in their head.