Smart Restart APS- ventilation studies

[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.

There “needs” to be risk taken? No, we don’t need to add risk unnecessarily. If there is an outdoor option, take it. Or find another solution that works. Maybe all kids eat in period 5 to reduce the exposure to larger groups.

We don’t “need” to autonomically just go with the riskiest option.

[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.

How do you envision that working on a rainy day? If lunch can only be eaten outside, many, most, or all kids are going to skip it when it’s wet. Schools can’t be in the position of forcing kids to choose between eating lunch and staying dry. If outdoor lunch is optional, all of those kids are going to be in the cafeteria when it’s wet and/or cold outside, running afoul of the wishes of the parents who don’t want large numbers of kids eating indoors together. It’s great to have an outdoor option; I want that too, but indoors will be the default and admin can’t honestly present it any other way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How do you envision that working on a rainy day? If lunch can only be eaten outside, many, most, or all kids are going to skip it when it’s wet. Schools can’t be in the position of forcing kids to choose between eating lunch and staying dry. If outdoor lunch is optional, all of those kids are going to be in the cafeteria when it’s wet and/or cold outside, running afoul of the wishes of the parents who don’t want large numbers of kids eating indoors together. It’s great to have an outdoor option; I want that too, but indoors will be the default and admin can’t honestly present it any other way.

Its not a forced outdoor lunch, its an option. Good grief!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How do you envision that working on a rainy day? If lunch can only be eaten outside, many, most, or all kids are going to skip it when it’s wet. Schools can’t be in the position of forcing kids to choose between eating lunch and staying dry. If outdoor lunch is optional, all of those kids are going to be in the cafeteria when it’s wet and/or cold outside, running afoul of the wishes of the parents who don’t want large numbers of kids eating indoors together. It’s great to have an outdoor option; I want that too, but indoors will be the default and admin can’t honestly present it any other way.

Its not a forced outdoor lunch, its an option. Good grief!

“If outdoor lunch is optional, all of those kids are going to be in the cafeteria when it’s wet and/or cold outside, running afoul of the wishes of the parents who don’t want large numbers of kids eating indoors together.”

[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.

There is more than one person in this discussion.

[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.

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

It’s seating capacity is 541.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Facilities-Optimization-Study.pdf

[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.

WMS hasn’t ruled out outdoor lunches, but it’s subject to weather conditions and adequate available staffing.

[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.

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

It’s seating capacity is 541.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Facilities-Optimization-Study.pdf

Thank you! (although I still would not go to a restaurant with 100 other people - this is good to know)

[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.

Lunch can’t always be outside, so schools have to plan for fully indoor scenarios as well. Good planning requires planning for the higher risk scenarios.

[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.

WMS hasn’t ruled out outdoor lunches, but it’s subject to weather conditions and adequate available staffing.

That's not exactly how it was portrayed in the PTA meeting but I'm hoping this is developing news. When asked about outdoor lunches, the first response was there are no tents. He did not say they would do it when possible. But again, hoping this is changing.

[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.

WMS hasn’t ruled out outdoor lunches, but it’s subject to weather conditions and adequate available staffing.

That's not exactly how it was portrayed in the PTA meeting but I'm hoping this is developing news. When asked about outdoor lunches, the first response was there are no tents. He did not say they would do it when possible. But again, hoping this is changing.

Boykin specifically said they’re not planning on it to start because of typical weather conditions in March when students will be returning, but that hey hadn’t ruled it out when weather conditions improve and as long as they have enough staffing. Go back and listen again.

[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.

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

It’s seating capacity is 541.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Facilities-Optimization-Study.pdf

Thank you! (although I still would not go to a restaurant with 100 other people - this is good to know)

Yep. I wouldn’t send my kid to one either. Even if it were operating at 25% capacity. Capacity has a lot more to do with fire code than filtration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lunch can’t always be outside, so schools have to plan for fully indoor scenarios as well. Good planning requires planning for the higher risk scenarios.

Ha. Indoor lunch IS the higher risk scenario. It’s not planning for one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

It’s seating capacity is 541.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Facilities-Optimization-Study.pdf

Thank you! (although I still would not go to a restaurant with 100 other people - this is good to know)

Yep. I wouldn’t send my kid to one either. Even if it were operating at 25% capacity. Capacity has a lot more to do with fire code than filtration.

Then keep your kids in virtual. This is exactly why there are multiple options.

[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.

There “needs” to be risk taken? No, we don’t need to add risk unnecessarily. If there is an outdoor option, take it. Or find another solution that works. Maybe all kids eat in period 5 to reduce the exposure to larger groups.

We don’t “need” to autonomically just go with the riskiest option.

Yes, it sounds like a very smart idea to plan for hybrid kids to have to eat their meals during a class session, thereby distracting them from the teaching going on. Clearly education is a priority for you.