My kids are more comfortable at home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been saying this for months. It's one thing to focus on the positives of this temporary period of DL, from sleeping later, to being with your dogs, to bein comfortable in your room. But that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to expect DL for all to continue forever. Somehow, the "my kids are thriving" camp has shifted the dialog to focus on why we should not reopen because some kids and families feel their experience in DL is superior to in person learning. In person school is the default, not DL. Anything other than in person requires intense scrutiny and assessment of risk.

Literally no one is saying that DL should "continue forever." No one.

That does not mean that there cannot be a discussion for the subset who are happy with DL to have the public school education in a non-traditional manner, either through existing structures like VV, or some other way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree, OP.

I hope schools discontinue remote learning options next year. It is a drain on school resources and limits their ability to serve the well being of everyone else. This semester should be the last of it.

Lucky for us, you are not making the decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And that's fine. You don't have to send your kids back. But everyone else who wants to should be able to go.

No one said they shouldn't. Although in my child's case, 90% of her friends say they also aren't returning to in person this school year. So those who do return should face safer classrooms due to less density, but not as much social interaction.

How many children is your child around?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, OP.

I hope schools discontinue remote learning options next year. It is a drain on school resources and limits their ability to serve the well being of everyone else. This semester should be the last of it.

Lucky for us, you are not making the decisions.

If you want to remain on DL, why take a resources from a local public school? That seems selfish. You could do homeschooling or some program that is meant for DL.

[Anonymous]

Some kids learning from home is what allows other students to come in person, since otherwise no social distancing at schools would be possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, OP.

I hope schools discontinue remote learning options next year. It is a drain on school resources and limits their ability to serve the well being of everyone else. This semester should be the last of it.

Lucky for us, you are not making the decisions.

If you want to remain on DL, why take a resources from a local public school? That seems selfish. You could do homeschooling or some program that is meant for DL.

Yeah, if you want to do DL indefinitely, you should do homeschool or some all-virtual school (if your district has one). Teachers shouldn't have to do concurrent just so a small percentage of kids can stay virtual. It really harms the in-person learners, who are (at least right now) largely the most at-risk kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some kids learning from home is what allows other students to come in person, since otherwise no social distancing at schools would be possible.

There should be room for a hybrid schedule with alternating in person days, even if all students choose to attend in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids learning from home is what allows other students to come in person, since otherwise no social distancing at schools would be possible.

There should be room for a hybrid schedule with alternating in person days, even if all students choose to attend in person.

That may be true for elementary schools, but many middle schools and high schools are incredibly overcrowded...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been saying this for months. It's one thing to focus on the positives of this temporary period of DL, from sleeping later, to being with your dogs, to bein comfortable in your room. But that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to expect DL for all to continue forever. Somehow, the "my kids are thriving" camp has shifted the dialog to focus on why we should not reopen because some kids and families feel their experience in DL is superior to in person learning. In person school is the default, not DL. Anything other than in person requires intense scrutiny and assessment of risk.

Literally no one is saying that DL should "continue forever." No one.

That does not mean that there cannot be a discussion for the subset who are happy with DL to have the public school education in a non-traditional manner, either through existing structures like VV, or some other way.

We are going to have to disagree on this one, or perhaps we are saying the same thing. There is no reason to chime in on a school reopening debate at this point about whether to reopen schools by saying, "You are selfish and aren't thinking about the kids who were bullied in person." No, school buildings should not remain closed because DL has allowed some kids to escape their bullies or because their kids learn better with the troublemakers absent or muted. The discussion is not DL is great until you prove that it is better for kids to be in person. In person is the preferred means of delivering public education. The discussion is can the risk be mitigated sufficiently to allow in person learning to resume as safely as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In person is the preferred means of delivering public education. The discussion is can the risk be mitigated sufficiently to allow in person learning to resume as safely as possible.

Absolutely not necessarily. Not for upper grades, for example. It might be that moving forward, students can have a choice of virtual or in person schooling and can change their choices every semester.

In person schooling has actually failed a lot of students, whom the school is unable to keep safe and unable to provide disruption free classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In person is the preferred means of delivering public education. The discussion is can the risk be mitigated sufficiently to allow in person learning to resume as safely as possible.

Absolutely not necessarily. Not for upper grades, for example. It might be that moving forward, students can have a choice of virtual or in person schooling and can change their choices every semester.

In person schooling has actually failed a lot of students, whom the school is unable to keep safe and unable to provide disruption free classes.

No you are wrong. It has been the preferred means for delivering education and lives have been structured around that. If you want to change that, that's fine. But until you do, and people have the ability to restructure their lives around DL, schools need to be open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids' virtual learning experience is better than what hybrid/concurrent instruction will be.

The default is in person? OK. When they go back to fully in person, my student will return if it is safe (I'm mostly concerned about spread on the buses and at lunch).

I see no point to sending them back for 2 days/week of concurrent instruction. It doesn't solve any problem I have.

AH, and therein lies the rub. (bolded)

You see, PP, some of us are desperate to get our kids back to school to solve problems THEY have. It is not about us, the parents.

If you don't see any point to having your kids in a classroom, even a modified situation, so that they can interact with peers and adults outside the home, plus enjoy some of the million nuances a day we all benefit from in human interaction, I don't know what to tell you. Except that I feel very, very sorry for your kids.

I don't see enough of a point to a return to in person for two days, for my child, when in-person will be concurrent instruction. I don't. Virtual instruction is working OK for my child, and I do not believe that in person concurrent instruction will improve her ability to interact with peers or other adults. She gets plenty of human interaction right now in other ways (outdoors, with friends, with her family.)

I want school to go back to normal, yes. But normal means in person instruction -- NOT hybrid/concurrent Zoom school. I don't feel it is worth the long bus ride and dealing with all the rules and all day mask wearing she will have to go through. Just for a few weeks of Zoom school in the classroom... and most of that time with be state testing.

Once again, you speak only and primarily for yourself. If you would ever consider the science, including reams of studies on emotional needs of children, you might have a different conclusion. But I realize that all of this is very convenient for you, which is your primary concern.

[Anonymous]

Parents who want to keep their kids home aren’t seeing the forest through the trees.

Guess what? Your kid will become socially awkward if he/she continues to stay home. Kids need to learn and socialize. If you’re an ADULT WHO CHOOSES to work from home, that’s fine. But a child (including teens) needs to be around other children to learn not just their abcs and math, but also how to interact and continue to interact with others. Knowing how to interact is a huge part of work success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been saying this for months. It's one thing to focus on the positives of this temporary period of DL, from sleeping later, to being with your dogs, to bein comfortable in your room. But that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to expect DL for all to continue forever. Somehow, the "my kids are thriving" camp has shifted the dialog to focus on why we should not reopen because some kids and families feel their experience in DL is superior to in person learning. In person school is the default, not DL. Anything other than in person requires intense scrutiny and assessment of risk.

This.
If your kids are so comfortable in their rooms, drop out of public school and homeschool.
The cookie-baking DL forever crowd is utterly ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In person is the preferred means of delivering public education. The discussion is can the risk be mitigated sufficiently to allow in person learning to resume as safely as possible.

Absolutely not necessarily. Not for upper grades, for example. It might be that moving forward, students can have a choice of virtual or in person schooling and can change their choices every semester.

In person schooling has actually failed a lot of students, whom the school is unable to keep safe and unable to provide disruption free classes.

No you are wrong. It has been the preferred means for delivering education and lives have been structured around that. If you want to change that, that's fine. But until you do, and people have the ability to restructure their lives around DL, schools need to be open.

Distance learning hasn't been widely available for students before this year. There are many middle and high school aged children who may for various reasons welcome the ability to participate in free, online instruction instead of self paced home schooling. They can do so to avoid bullies, to avoid chaotic classrooms, to avoid having to use disgusting bathrooms, or many other reasons students want to avoid crappy schools.