Allegedly there are several options for the fall none of which include being back full time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No inside info, but until there’s a vaccine, 100% back in the classroom will not happen. There’s just not enough space, teachers or busses. No school system was designed to support the constraints that will be in place until a vaccine is widely available.

Sorry to be a down, I just don’t think it’s going to happen.

+1. I recently read the updated MD state superintendent report which analyzed how buses would work w/respect to the CDC guidelines. The conclusion was, that complying with CDC guidelines meant each bus holding 77 students would now only be able to carry 8.

The options for school presented are 1 day/week, 2/day a week or A/B weeks. There is no discussion at all of a full time normal return to school. All of society needs to realize this and adjust accordingly -- it's not just about what parents will do. All businesses and activities that interact with kids or parents of kids (which is basically every place) need to reconfigure to support that.

That means things like -- flexible work policies that include working form home at a vastly extended range of hours.

Mmhmm. Call my medical job and tell them this. Im sure they'll oblige.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No inside info, but until there’s a vaccine, 100% back in the classroom will not happen. There’s just not enough space, teachers or busses. No school system was designed to support the constraints that will be in place until a vaccine is widely available.

Sorry to be a down, I just don’t think it’s going to happen.

+1. I recently read the updated MD state superintendent report which analyzed how buses would work w/respect to the CDC guidelines. The conclusion was, that complying with CDC guidelines meant each bus holding 77 students would now only be able to carry 8.

The options for school presented are 1 day/week, 2/day a week or A/B weeks. There is no discussion at all of a full time normal return to school. All of society needs to realize this and adjust accordingly -- it's not just about what parents will do. All businesses and activities that interact with kids or parents of kids (which is basically every place) need to reconfigure to support that.

That means things like -- flexible work policies that include working form home at a vastly extended range of hours.

Mmhmm. Call my medical job and tell them this. Im sure they'll oblige.

Our pediatrician’s office still has 3/4 of the staff working from home. My gastroenterologist is working from home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just about whether you will have teachers - it is about large numbers of people together in enclosed spaces for hours at a time day after day and their potential impact on the community at large.

How about the potential impact on the community at large of kids missing months or even years of schooling?

First of all we are talking about the fall not years. Don't get ahead of yourself. I think that the deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of people is a pretty big deal but let's say you are cool with old people and at vulnerable people dying. Covid doesn't have just two outcomes, fine or death. There is a large percentage of people who get this who are hospitalized for significant periods of time with this illness and then require additional time to recover. This is a significant expense and it takes a toll on the health care workers and puts them at risk of serious illness and death. Second there is a significant contingent who are not sick enough to go to the hospital but are unable to work for weeks and weeks. Who will care for the children of the parents who are sick? Who will care for the people who are in the hospital? Who will deliver the food? Also since this is a novel virus there is still so much we don't know about it and the potential long term effects of it so I think an abundance of caution is wise. As an adult you have to have lived long enough to know that while this is suboptimal most DCUM kids aren't going to be sign spinners on Rockville Pike because they had online school for multiple semesters. I'd be in favor of something that brings back the most vulnerable kids. The FARMS kids and the IEP kids who truly cannot get by without the in person instruction while the rest stay at home. I'm not saying it isn't hard but what part of a pandemic did you think would be easy?

We are potentially talking about years. And kids already missed half of the third quarter and all of the fourth quarter. Almost half a year of school, gone.

Everything you say about hospitalization and expense and health care workers and food delivery and clinical unknowns applies to EVERYTHING that is opening. It's completely unconscionable to open everything else but keep schools closed.

And yes, maybe it's hard to figure out how to open the schools, but what part of a pandemic did you think would be easy?

This. We MUST be willing to take greater risks to open schools than to open anything else. They must be a priority.

That’s satire, right?

Because who would put pressure on schools to do something more risky rather than putting pressure on parents’ employers to do the thing that is safer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That’s satire, right?

Because who would put pressure on schools to do something more risky rather than putting pressure on parents’ employers to do the thing that is safer?

Whatever employers do, won't solve the problem of kids not being in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s satire, right?

Because who would put pressure on schools to do something more risky rather than putting pressure on parents’ employers to do the thing that is safer?

Whatever employers do, won't solve the problem of kids not being in school.

The big problem DCUM is complaining about is childcare. Wasn’t that supposed to be what was going to destroy middle class and working class families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s satire, right?

Because who would put pressure on schools to do something more risky rather than putting pressure on parents’ employers to do the thing that is safer?

Whatever employers do, won't solve the problem of kids not being in school.

The big problem DCUM is complaining about is childcare. Wasn’t that supposed to be what was going to destroy middle class and working class families?

If the problem really was education, you’d push for better DL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s satire, right?

Because who would put pressure on schools to do something more risky rather than putting pressure on parents’ employers to do the thing that is safer?

Whatever employers do, won't solve the problem of kids not being in school.

The big problem DCUM is complaining about is childcare. Wasn’t that supposed to be what was going to destroy middle class and working class families?

The big problem DCUM is complaining about is NO SCHOOL.

Childcare is ALSO a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just about whether you will have teachers - it is about large numbers of people together in enclosed spaces for hours at a time day after day and their potential impact on the community at large.

How about the potential impact on the community at large of kids missing months or even years of schooling?

First of all we are talking about the fall not years. Don't get ahead of yourself. I think that the deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of people is a pretty big deal but let's say you are cool with old people and at vulnerable people dying. Covid doesn't have just two outcomes, fine or death. There is a large percentage of people who get this who are hospitalized for significant periods of time with this illness and then require additional time to recover. This is a significant expense and it takes a toll on the health care workers and puts them at risk of serious illness and death. Second there is a significant contingent who are not sick enough to go to the hospital but are unable to work for weeks and weeks. Who will care for the children of the parents who are sick? Who will care for the people who are in the hospital? Who will deliver the food? Also since this is a novel virus there is still so much we don't know about it and the potential long term effects of it so I think an abundance of caution is wise. As an adult you have to have lived long enough to know that while this is suboptimal most DCUM kids aren't going to be sign spinners on Rockville Pike because they had online school for multiple semesters. I'd be in favor of something that brings back the most vulnerable kids. The FARMS kids and the IEP kids who truly cannot get by without the in person instruction while the rest stay at home. I'm not saying it isn't hard but what part of a pandemic did you think would be easy?

We are potentially talking about years. And kids already missed half of the third quarter and all of the fourth quarter. Almost half a year of school, gone.

Everything you say about hospitalization and expense and health care workers and food delivery and clinical unknowns applies to EVERYTHING that is opening. It's completely unconscionable to open everything else but keep schools closed.

And yes, maybe it's hard to figure out how to open the schools, but what part of a pandemic did you think would be easy?

This. We MUST be willing to take greater risks to open schools than to open anything else. They must be a priority.

That’s satire, right?

Because who would put pressure on schools to do something more risky rather than putting pressure on parents’ employers to do the thing that is safer?

No, not satire. School is vastly more important that opening businesses, so we should be willing to take greater risks to do it than, for instance, to open hair salons or restaurants. School is essential, just like hospitals and grocery stores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s satire, right?

Because who would put pressure on schools to do something more risky rather than putting pressure on parents’ employers to do the thing that is safer?

Whatever employers do, won't solve the problem of kids not being in school.

The big problem DCUM is complaining about is childcare. Wasn’t that supposed to be what was going to destroy middle class and working class families?

If the problem really was education, you’d push for better DL.

Only if you believe that DL can ever accomplish all the educational functions in-person school accomplishes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just about whether you will have teachers - it is about large numbers of people together in enclosed spaces for hours at a time day after day and their potential impact on the community at large.

How about the potential impact on the community at large of kids missing months or even years of schooling?

First of all we are talking about the fall not years. Don't get ahead of yourself. I think that the deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of people is a pretty big deal but let's say you are cool with old people and at vulnerable people dying. Covid doesn't have just two outcomes, fine or death. There is a large percentage of people who get this who are hospitalized for significant periods of time with this illness and then require additional time to recover. This is a significant expense and it takes a toll on the health care workers and puts them at risk of serious illness and death. Second there is a significant contingent who are not sick enough to go to the hospital but are unable to work for weeks and weeks. Who will care for the children of the parents who are sick? Who will care for the people who are in the hospital? Who will deliver the food? Also since this is a novel virus there is still so much we don't know about it and the potential long term effects of it so I think an abundance of caution is wise. As an adult you have to have lived long enough to know that while this is suboptimal most DCUM kids aren't going to be sign spinners on Rockville Pike because they had online school for multiple semesters. I'd be in favor of something that brings back the most vulnerable kids. The FARMS kids and the IEP kids who truly cannot get by without the in person instruction while the rest stay at home. I'm not saying it isn't hard but what part of a pandemic did you think would be easy?

We are potentially talking about years. And kids already missed half of the third quarter and all of the fourth quarter. Almost half a year of school, gone.

Everything you say about hospitalization and expense and health care workers and food delivery and clinical unknowns applies to EVERYTHING that is opening. It's completely unconscionable to open everything else but keep schools closed.

And yes, maybe it's hard to figure out how to open the schools, but what part of a pandemic did you think would be easy?

This. We MUST be willing to take greater risks to open schools than to open anything else. They must be a priority.

That’s satire, right?

Because who would put pressure on schools to do something more risky rather than putting pressure on parents’ employers to do the thing that is safer?

No, not satire. School is vastly more important that opening businesses, so we should be willing to take greater risks to do it than, for instance, to open hair salons or restaurants. School is essential, just like hospitals and grocery stores.

100% agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s satire, right?

Because who would put pressure on schools to do something more risky rather than putting pressure on parents’ employers to do the thing that is safer?

Whatever employers do, won't solve the problem of kids not being in school.

The big problem DCUM is complaining about is childcare. Wasn’t that supposed to be what was going to destroy middle class and working class families?

If the problem really was education, you’d push for better DL.

It’s the DL evangelist, back again. Are you going to tell us to CALM DOWN since covid’s about to PETER OUT any year now?

Basically no one wants DL bc it isn’t an effective medium for kids — and yeah, whether you choose to accept the truth or not, the economy here and most everywhere else is built around dual income families. No amount of repetitive posts will change that reality (or anyone’s minds).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s satire, right?

Because who would put pressure on schools to do something more risky rather than putting pressure on parents’ employers to do the thing that is safer?

Whatever employers do, won't solve the problem of kids not being in school.

The big problem DCUM is complaining about is childcare. Wasn’t that supposed to be what was going to destroy middle class and working class families?

If the problem really was education, you’d push for better DL.

The problem really is education, which is why I'm pushing for school. My kids are in high school. I don't need child care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s satire, right?

Because who would put pressure on schools to do something more risky rather than putting pressure on parents’ employers to do the thing that is safer?

Whatever employers do, won't solve the problem of kids not being in school.

The big problem DCUM is complaining about is childcare. Wasn’t that supposed to be what was going to destroy middle class and working class families?

If the problem really was education, you’d push for better DL.

It’s the DL evangelist, back again. Are you going to tell us to CALM DOWN since covid’s about to PETER OUT any year now?

Basically no one wants DL bc it isn’t an effective medium for kids — and yeah, whether you choose to accept the truth or not, the economy here and most everywhere else is built around dual income families. No amount of repetitive posts will change that reality (or anyone’s minds).

Wrong person. I think we’ll deal with coronavirus well into 2021.

[Anonymous]

Do the people pushing for DL — be they teachers, staffers, parents, or whoever — honestly feel that DL is an adequate substitute for children? Self/driven adults seeking pro dev? Sure! But kids? Can you honestly say that? And at what age and for how many hours a day do you think this is true? Straight answers, please — no “it’s better th an nothing” or “we all have to sacrifice.” Really answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s satire, right?

Because who would put pressure on schools to do something more risky rather than putting pressure on parents’ employers to do the thing that is safer?

Whatever employers do, won't solve the problem of kids not being in school.

The big problem DCUM is complaining about is childcare. Wasn’t that supposed to be what was going to destroy middle class and working class families?

The big problem DCUM is complaining about is NO SCHOOL.

Childcare is ALSO a problem.

Yes, these are distinct issues. Schools are not daycare providers, and they aren’t going to be back to full-time in-person instruction just because people need childcare. That’s every family’s separate problem and not MCPS’s responsibility. It will be business as usual only when it’s safe for everyone involved.