What am I missing about the difficulty of distance learning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP DL can work ok for HS and middle school, but it doesn't work for ES at all. The younger the kid, the more quickly they tune out, need redirection and engagement, socialization and physical help. What you are describing sounds ok for 16 year olds - and even then it will still not work well.

Similarly, younger kids can't be expected to safely social distance at school either. So the lesser of the two evils is the one that doesn't risk their lives.

NP, and great news! Younger kids aren't as susceptible to COVID, nor do they transmit it as easily between each other and to adults.

The other factor, of course, is that younger kids need a ton of assistance from adults; when that's DL, it becomes their parent(s), who may or may not be home or able to supervise them. Not every household has a capable adult with nothing else to do but facilitate DL all day long.

Please stop parrotting this nonsense. It's dangerous and has not been proven true - in fact, the evidence has been conflicting. Have you not heard these cases of rampant covid spread in daycare centers?

Rampant COVID spread in daycare centers? Now you're the one parroting nonsense. Yes, I've seen reports of some outbreaks *in states where cases are increasing daily*. I've also seen this data, which, while not perfect, is better than nonsense: https://explaincovid.org/kids/covid-19-and-children-our-crowd-sourced-data

Yes, there's a couple dozen articles a day about outbreaks at summer camps and daycares. The notion that kids are less susceptible is a right-wing talking point that isn't widely accepted or supported by the evidence.

No, the is scientific data to suggest that kids are in fact less likely to contract and spread the virus than adults, with teens looking a bit more like adults in terms of the likelihood of getting and spreading COVID. Most of the articles I've seen suggest that a mix of staff and teens are getting it at camps, usually overnight camps. In several articles, there was partying, counselors moving between bunks, etc., which likely led to its spread.

PP again. Kids are only 2% of US cases of COVID-19. For example:

"A study published on June 16 in the Nature Medicine journal estimated that people under the age of 20 were approximately half as susceptible to the coronavirus compared to those older than 20."

Also:

"Redfield also noted that, unlike influenza, "we really don't have evidence that children are driving the transmission cycle" of the coronavirus."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/politics/do-kids-spread-coronavirus-fact-check/index.html

So we don't know for sure, there is at least some data to suggest that this COVID is not very likely to spread through kids (teens may be another story, and many news articles don't differentiate between younger kids and teens).

I'll have to find the links but Redfield was criticized by health experts for saying that. A couple of issues - not enough data is out there, which is a big reason why it's been inconclusive. There is a lack of testing of kids <10. And of course, there's this...

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/cdc-documents-warned-full-reopening-of-schools-colleges-would-be-highest-risk-for-spreading-coronavirus-nyt/

I'm the PP who posted the link to Emily Oster's website, and it's not clear from the CDC documents whether the driver of schools being high risk is the students themselves or the other adults in the (overcrowded, poorly ventilated, etc.) buildings.

I don't think that schools are no or even low risk, necessarily. But the available data, *if you look at it and understand it*, absolutely suggest that kids under the age of ~10 years are less likely to get and transmit COVID between each other and to adults. Is it iron-clad? No. But using outbreaks at camps and daycares without looking at other relevant variables (were staff wearing masks? were these teenagers at an overnight camp? etc.) to argue young children transmit COVID as easily as adults lacks credibility.

In other words, it's not black and white.

[Anonymous]

DL challenges kids’ executive functioning skills and ability to work independently. The MS and HS kids with those skills do fine with DL. Those lacking these skills struggle.
For ES kids, it is very hard for them to maintain focus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You can say that again.

To anyone else reading this who is actually sane and rational -- kids love being online together. DL needs to be fun for them -- just like classroom learning has to be fun. Some teachers suck at it, some make it fun and have the ability to keep kids engaged. IMO, kids need time to bond online. Most classes seemed to start right off with instruction. I think kids should have the chance to chat, make farting noises, tell jokes, whatever, for five or ten minutes, and also have breaks in the zoom instruction where they can chat with each other. There is no reason they can't enjoy and look forward to going online with their classmates and teacher all day.

NP - your experience just isn't the norm, PP. I have one kid, a rising 4th grader, who can handle being online for hours, but she hates it. She doesn't like the way that group interactions are stifled because Zoom only lets you hear one person at a time, she hates the inability to read nonverbal communications and body language (she didn't use those words, but translated, that's what frustrating), the interactions feel stilted and all the kids get bored easily. My other kid, a rising 1st grader, just doesn't have the focus to stare at a screen for hours. It was a struggle to get him to focus for 45 mins.

And while we're assuming our personal anecdotes are the same as data, conversations with other parents have shown me that my experience is much more common than yours. So, *shrug*

Well, you're proving my point. I said that DL needs to be made fun and social for the kids, not just all about instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just have the teachers in the classrooms with a camera live streaming the classes? It would just be like a regular class except students would be at home.
The kids could then cycle through each of their 8 periods each day.

How would you do this and be interactive or Socratic?

I was taking courses for my masters that moved online and we definitely used the Socratic method on Zoom. We had student presentations, and the presenter would say "Johnny what do think?" We had guest speakers (one with 5 people on a team) and did breakout rooms to have small discussions. You can also raise your hand on Zoom to get put in a queue for comments. We absolutely had to ask/answer questions by voice and and chat function, which counted toward our grade. We also had to have a camera on. While not live, we also had to do online discussions and respond to a certain number of posts.

It can be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can say that again.

To anyone else reading this who is actually sane and rational -- kids love being online together. DL needs to be fun for them -- just like classroom learning has to be fun. Some teachers suck at it, some make it fun and have the ability to keep kids engaged. IMO, kids need time to bond online. Most classes seemed to start right off with instruction. I think kids should have the chance to chat, make farting noises, tell jokes, whatever, for five or ten minutes, and also have breaks in the zoom instruction where they can chat with each other. There is no reason they can't enjoy and look forward to going online with their classmates and teacher all day.

NP - your experience just isn't the norm, PP. I have one kid, a rising 4th grader, who can handle being online for hours, but she hates it. She doesn't like the way that group interactions are stifled because Zoom only lets you hear one person at a time, she hates the inability to read nonverbal communications and body language (she didn't use those words, but translated, that's what frustrating), the interactions feel stilted and all the kids get bored easily. My other kid, a rising 1st grader, just doesn't have the focus to stare at a screen for hours. It was a struggle to get him to focus for 45 mins.

And while we're assuming our personal anecdotes are the same as data, conversations with other parents have shown me that my experience is much more common than yours. So, *shrug*

Well, you're proving my point. I said that DL needs to be made fun and social for the kids, not just all about instruction.

PP - I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that lots of kids, especially elementary school aged kids, aren't able to engage socially online for hours. My rising fourth grader has the same problem with FaceTime calls with her friends. It just doesn't do it for her. Same with my rising 1st grader. Yes, poor instruction models make it worse, but I don't think its helpful to assume that there's a way to make DL workable for all kids, or even many kids, especially younger kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP DL can work ok for HS and middle school, but it doesn't work for ES at all. The younger the kid, the more quickly they tune out, need redirection and engagement, socialization and physical help. What you are describing sounds ok for 16 year olds - and even then it will still not work well.

Similarly, younger kids can't be expected to safely social distance at school either. So the lesser of the two evils is the one that doesn't risk their lives.

NP, and great news! Younger kids aren't as susceptible to COVID, nor do they transmit it as easily between each other and to adults.

The other factor, of course, is that younger kids need a ton of assistance from adults; when that's DL, it becomes their parent(s), who may or may not be home or able to supervise them. Not every household has a capable adult with nothing else to do but facilitate DL all day long.

Please stop parrotting this nonsense. It's dangerous and has not been proven true - in fact, the evidence has been conflicting. Have you not heard these cases of rampant covid spread in daycare centers?

Rampant COVID spread in daycare centers? Now you're the one parroting nonsense. Yes, I've seen reports of some outbreaks *in states where cases are increasing daily*. I've also seen this data, which, while not perfect, is better than nonsense: https://explaincovid.org/kids/covid-19-and-children-our-crowd-sourced-data

Yes, there's a couple dozen articles a day about outbreaks at summer camps and daycares. The notion that kids are less susceptible is a right-wing talking point that isn't widely accepted or supported by the evidence.

You do realize the camps are OVERNIGHT where they slept in bunkhouses?
Daycares are different in that you have 18 month olds who put everything in their mouth, and then it gets graded by another toddler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just have the teachers in the classrooms with a camera live streaming the classes? It would just be like a regular class except students would be at home.
The kids could then cycle through each of their 8 periods each day.

They can’t afford soap in my school district. How do you think think they can afford cameras in every classroom. Here is a partial list of things we need before cameras: air conditioning that actually works, clean bathroom, paper towels, soap, sufficient bottled water (lead in the pipes), a functional dehumidifier in our building (the walls and floors are slick with moisture when the a/c runs), no mold, no dripping water causing mold, a classroom for every teacher (we are close to 200% capacity), one-to-one devices, a FT nurse, more paras, substitutes so we don’t have to combine classes or pull other teachers in to sub), security at school, more money for supplies (we run out of copy paper by April), a good curriculum, effective rodent and pest control (who needs a class pet when you have lots of them), money to renovate our school because we are crammed in like sardines, technology in the classroom (most Smartboards don’t work because when the bulb blows out, they are too expensive to replace).....................

Don't you just need an iPad or a laptop with zoom?

Think about it--how would a teacher instruct a class in person and stream the class using just an iPad or laptop with zoom? Who will hold the iPad and follow the teacher around as they teach the students in the class? Even if the teacher stayed in front of the class, he or she would be limited to the area covered by the laptop camera and microphone, which is limited to the device screen.

Yeah, you'd definitely need a separate camera, or else the teacher would be stuck sitting down behind the computer screen the whole time.

And even if you just set up a separate camera, they'd still need to monitor both the kids in the classroom and the ones in the "Hollywood Squares" on the screen, to be sure everyone was engaged and actively participating. They'd need to be constantly ducking back behind the screen to use the zoom interface to mute/unmute kids, share documents, monitor who's using the "raise hand" feature, let latecomers into the Zoom room, etc.

It could work if you had a separate camera, and someone else to run the zoom portion and troubleshoot any tech issues. But even if you could project the zoom kids onto the promethean board, the online kids still wouldn't see the kids in the classroom, just the backs of their heads in the Zoom view of the teacher. They'd hear their classmates (but probably on a lag, given wifi limitation), but not be able to see them face to face. So it wouldn't be like having one big class, but two separate ones with an open door in between.

Honestly, having one teacher do simultaneous zoom and in-person teaching would be an exercise in futility. It would be impossible to manage the tech, control what is essentially two separate classrooms, and still do any kind of effective teaching.

I sometimes provide research assistance for professors who regularly teach distance-learning classes at a university, and they have someone else to manage the hardware and monitor the software during the class. They're not trying to run the tech and teach the class at the same time, never mind trying to monitor two classes full of first graders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just have the teachers in the classrooms with a camera live streaming the classes? It would just be like a regular class except students would be at home.
The kids could then cycle through each of their 8 periods each day.

They can’t afford soap in my school district. How do you think think they can afford cameras in every classroom. Here is a partial list of things we need before cameras: air conditioning that actually works, clean bathroom, paper towels, soap, sufficient bottled water (lead in the pipes), a functional dehumidifier in our building (the walls and floors are slick with moisture when the a/c runs), no mold, no dripping water causing mold, a classroom for every teacher (we are close to 200% capacity), one-to-one devices, a FT nurse, more paras, substitutes so we don’t have to combine classes or pull other teachers in to sub), security at school, more money for supplies (we run out of copy paper by April), a good curriculum, effective rodent and pest control (who needs a class pet when you have lots of them), money to renovate our school because we are crammed in like sardines, technology in the classroom (most Smartboards don’t work because when the bulb blows out, they are too expensive to replace).....................

Don't you just need an iPad or a laptop with zoom?

Think about it--how would a teacher instruct a class in person and stream the class using just an iPad or laptop with zoom? Who will hold the iPad and follow the teacher around as they teach the students in the class? Even if the teacher stayed in front of the class, he or she would be limited to the area covered by the laptop camera and microphone, which is limited to the device screen.

Yeah, you'd definitely need a separate camera, or else the teacher would be stuck sitting down behind the computer screen the whole time.

And even if you just set up a separate camera, they'd still need to monitor both the kids in the classroom and the ones in the "Hollywood Squares" on the screen, to be sure everyone was engaged and actively participating. They'd need to be constantly ducking back behind the screen to use the zoom interface to mute/unmute kids, share documents, monitor who's using the "raise hand" feature, let latecomers into the Zoom room, etc.

It could work if you had a separate camera, and someone else to run the zoom portion and troubleshoot any tech issues. But even if you could project the zoom kids onto the promethean board, the online kids still wouldn't see the kids in the classroom, just the backs of their heads in the Zoom view of the teacher. They'd hear their classmates (but probably on a lag, given wifi limitation), but not be able to see them face to face. So it wouldn't be like having one big class, but two separate ones with an open door in between.

Honestly, having one teacher do simultaneous zoom and in-person teaching would be an exercise in futility. It would be impossible to manage the tech, control what is essentially two separate classrooms, and still do any kind of effective teaching.

I sometimes provide research assistance for professors who regularly teach distance-learning classes at a university, and they have someone else to manage the hardware and monitor the software during the class. They're not trying to run the tech and teach the class at the same time, never mind trying to monitor two classes full of first graders.

You better believe I'm not buying a single eraser for my classroom this year if the district decides they can afford to spend millions of dollars on classroom cameras.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School is boring enough for most MS and HS students as it is. In-person there are more stimuli and fewer choices. Plus there is peer pressure and teacher-pressure to tune in. So much harder at home, so much harder alone.

Why are they alone? Don't most parents make their kids go to school? How is this any different?

They are alone because their parents are...wait for it...working. The entire point is that parents cannot be home schooling, they have jobs.

I mean, they are alone because they are distance learning individually in their homes. Is that difficult to understand? Teens are pack animals. Just being in a group setting makes things easier for many of them.

We are choosing DL for our teens, but I don't think it's easy at all. And sadly I think that the attempts to basically replicate IP learning at home via the internet does a lot to expose the flaws in the system without leveraging the opportunities posed by DL. That will come, in due time. But in the meantime, it's going to be very challenging for all of us.

And, hey, if DL is easy for you and your family, then great! That is a good thing and I'm genuinely glad that a good option is open to you.

My kids are participating in pack activities online for hours a day. They're playing on line games with groups of other kids. How is this different?

Sigh. I can never quite understand questions like this. Or -- then maybe I do.

Because you're not really asking, are you? You're not dumb, you're just playing the part online as part of a self-reinforcing game you play with yourself in which you make yourself feel superior.

It's a rhetorical question for you, designed to prove a point. You've already arrived at your conclusion and you're arguing backwards.

Otherwise, why would you be deliberately obtuse about this?

See, I can ask rhetorical questions, too.

Here are my questions:

Do you really think DL and IP learning pose identical challenges and opportunities?
Is email the same as an in-person conversation? Is texting?
Why travel when you can see everything online?
Why go to restaurants when you can order out?
Why see family when you can zoom?

I'll tell you what. You go back to congratulating yourself on your perceived superiority -- I mean, your childrens' capacity to play online video games for hours a day is really quite an achievement -- and the rest of us will have a constructive discussion about the challenges posed to other, less video-game-successful students and how to meet them.

You are insane. My comment was about kids being isolated during DL. No, they are not. My kids[u] are online for hours, having lots of fun with other kids. That is not the same as being isolated.

Again, you are nuts.

Well it's great that all kids are exactly like your kids!
And that physical isolation has zero bearing on social isolation!

Really, congratulations on being willfully ignorant that this poses challenges to other students. After all, if your children are thriving, then it must be other folks' problem if this setup poses any difficultly!

I think that if you stay on this thread long enough, you will probably be able to convince people that what they perceive as challenges are just a result of their own poor choices.

Keep posting!

xoxo

Insane Nuts Esq.

You can say that again.

To anyone else reading this who is actually sane and rational -- kids love being online together. DL needs to be fun for them -- just like classroom learning has to be fun. Some teachers suck at it, some make it fun and have the ability to keep kids engaged. IMO, kids need time to bond online. Most classes seemed to start right off with instruction. I think kids should have the chance to chat, make farting noises, tell jokes, whatever, for five or ten minutes, and also have breaks in the zoom instruction where they can chat with each other. There is no reason they can't enjoy and look forward to going online with their classmates and teacher all day.

And then there are those two months ago that would come online here and complain about how their zoom session wasn't all learning. Many complaints about other children’s online behavior. The shark that an eight-year-old would eat goldfish during a zoom session! Or that a seven-year-old wanted to show off their dog during zoom. It was such a distraction!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just have the teachers in the classrooms with a camera live streaming the classes? It would just be like a regular class except students would be at home.
The kids could then cycle through each of their 8 periods each day.

They can’t afford soap in my school district. How do you think think they can afford cameras in every classroom. Here is a partial list of things we need before cameras: air conditioning that actually works, clean bathroom, paper towels, soap, sufficient bottled water (lead in the pipes), a functional dehumidifier in our building (the walls and floors are slick with moisture when the a/c runs), no mold, no dripping water causing mold, a classroom for every teacher (we are close to 200% capacity), one-to-one devices, a FT nurse, more paras, substitutes so we don’t have to combine classes or pull other teachers in to sub), security at school, more money for supplies (we run out of copy paper by April), a good curriculum, effective rodent and pest control (who needs a class pet when you have lots of them), money to renovate our school because we are crammed in like sardines, technology in the classroom (most Smartboards don’t work because when the bulb blows out, they are too expensive to replace).....................

Don't you just need an iPad or a laptop with zoom?

Think about it--how would a teacher instruct a class in person and stream the class using just an iPad or laptop with zoom? Who will hold the iPad and follow the teacher around as they teach the students in the class? Even if the teacher stayed in front of the class, he or she would be limited to the area covered by the laptop camera and microphone, which is limited to the device screen.

And yet it happens every day! Go figure!

How does it happen everyday?

No idea what the poster meant but my kids are in multiple educational summer camps including the MCPS one and the teachers manages DL fine without a camera crew.

But they're not managing an in-person class at the same time. That's what the PP was suggesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP DL can work ok for HS and middle school, but it doesn't work for ES at all. The younger the kid, the more quickly they tune out, need redirection and engagement, socialization and physical help. What you are describing sounds ok for 16 year olds - and even then it will still not work well.

I can tell you are a parent of young kids. How do you propose to teach AP Physics via DL? Or any serious science class with a lot of lab time? Same for lots of other HS classes. The world does not revolve around your 5yo; all kids need in-person classes if possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just have the teachers in the classrooms with a camera live streaming the classes? It would just be like a regular class except students would be at home.
The kids could then cycle through each of their 8 periods each day.

They can’t afford soap in my school district. How do you think think they can afford cameras in every classroom. Here is a partial list of things we need before cameras: air conditioning that actually works, clean bathroom, paper towels, soap, sufficient bottled water (lead in the pipes), a functional dehumidifier in our building (the walls and floors are slick with moisture when the a/c runs), no mold, no dripping water causing mold, a classroom for every teacher (we are close to 200% capacity), one-to-one devices, a FT nurse, more paras, substitutes so we don’t have to combine classes or pull other teachers in to sub), security at school, more money for supplies (we run out of copy paper by April), a good curriculum, effective rodent and pest control (who needs a class pet when you have lots of them), money to renovate our school because we are crammed in like sardines, technology in the classroom (most Smartboards don’t work because when the bulb blows out, they are too expensive to replace).....................

Don't you just need an iPad or a laptop with zoom?

Think about it--how would a teacher instruct a class in person and stream the class using just an iPad or laptop with zoom? Who will hold the iPad and follow the teacher around as they teach the students in the class? Even if the teacher stayed in front of the class, he or she would be limited to the area covered by the laptop camera and microphone, which is limited to the device screen.

Yeah, you'd definitely need a separate camera, or else the teacher would be stuck sitting down behind the computer screen the whole time.

And even if you just set up a separate camera, they'd still need to monitor both the kids in the classroom and the ones in the "Hollywood Squares" on the screen, to be sure everyone was engaged and actively participating. They'd need to be constantly ducking back behind the screen to use the zoom interface to mute/unmute kids, share documents, monitor who's using the "raise hand" feature, let latecomers into the Zoom room, etc.

It could work if you had a separate camera, and someone else to run the zoom portion and troubleshoot any tech issues. But even if you could project the zoom kids onto the promethean board, the online kids still wouldn't see the kids in the classroom, just the backs of their heads in the Zoom view of the teacher. They'd hear their classmates (but probably on a lag, given wifi limitation), but not be able to see them face to face. So it wouldn't be like having one big class, but two separate ones with an open door in between.

Honestly, having one teacher do simultaneous zoom and in-person teaching would be an exercise in futility. It would be impossible to manage the tech, control what is essentially two separate classrooms, and still do any kind of effective teaching.

I sometimes provide research assistance for professors who regularly teach distance-learning classes at a university, and they have someone else to manage the hardware and monitor the software during the class. They're not trying to run the tech and teach the class at the same time, never mind trying to monitor two classes full of first graders.

You better believe I'm not buying a single eraser for my classroom this year if the district decides they can afford to spend millions of dollars on classroom cameras.

As far as I know, there's been no suggestion of simultaneous in-person and distance teaching in MCPS, so no worries about that happening.

I just keep seeing posters throwing this out as the perfect solution, clearly without having any concept of what it takes to run either an in-person or a zoom classroom. It would be a nightmare for teacher and kids alike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP DL can work ok for HS and middle school, but it doesn't work for ES at all. The younger the kid, the more quickly they tune out, need redirection and engagement, socialization and physical help. What you are describing sounds ok for 16 year olds - and even then it will still not work well.

I can tell you are a parent of young kids. How do you propose to teach AP Physics via DL? Or any serious science class with a lot of lab time? Same for lots of other HS classes. The world does not revolve around your 5yo; all kids need in-person classes if possible.

One of my kids finished up 3 AP classes this spring when classes turned to DL just fine. He also was already in the process of teaching himself AP chemistry and took the AP test for it. He took a total of 5 AP tests this spring. I can see why lab time would matter, but why else could they not do DL learning for AP classes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP DL can work ok for HS and middle school, but it doesn't work for ES at all. The younger the kid, the more quickly they tune out, need redirection and engagement, socialization and physical help. What you are describing sounds ok for 16 year olds - and even then it will still not work well.

I can tell you are a parent of young kids. How do you propose to teach AP Physics via DL? Or any serious science class with a lot of lab time? Same for lots of other HS classes. The world does not revolve around your 5yo; all kids need in-person classes if possible.

Seriously, these SAHMs and helicopter Moms are giddy that they can have their kids home 24/7 controlling every aspect of their lives. They have no idea nor do they care about upper school learning and how this will affect HS learners. Little Jimmy is thriving in his 2nd grade Zooms!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP DL can work ok for HS and middle school, but it doesn't work for ES at all. The younger the kid, the more quickly they tune out, need redirection and engagement, socialization and physical help. What you are describing sounds ok for 16 year olds - and even then it will still not work well.

I can tell you are a parent of young kids. How do you propose to teach AP Physics via DL? Or any serious science class with a lot of lab time? Same for lots of other HS classes. The world does not revolve around your 5yo; all kids need in-person classes if possible.

Seriously, these SAHMs and helicopter Moms are giddy that they can have their kids home 24/7 controlling every aspect of their lives. They have no idea nor do they care about upper school learning and how this will affect HS learners. Little Jimmy is thriving in his 2nd grade Zooms!

Oh absolutely. I'm loving this - working two full time jobs simultaneously is a total gas.

I'd rather not write off a full year of Little Jimmy's education, thanks.