Tired of people with older kids dominating the conversation around schools and COVID

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Spots at daycares for 4yos are really not hard to find. Neither are nanny shares or mother's helpers. A lot easier than finding an alternative for AP Physics or Chinese 5 for a HS junior.

I think this is exactly the kind of thing the OP is bothered by. Just tossing off that it's easy for her to solve her childcare problem and then positing that the challenges for HS students are harder or more important.

The truth is that both problems are hard, but DL might actually help the HS junior. It won't do squat for a kindergartner. I see where the OP is coming from.

Yup. Additionally, online programs have existed for DL for high-school students for a while, so there is a lot more proof of concept and guidance available to teachers and students. Full time DL for kindergartners, especially with no involved parent, is not the same. The best that is out there is homeschooling curricula, which isn't exactly conducive to parents with full time jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am on your side on this but I also don't think that it's helpful to pit "parents with older kids" against "parents with younger kids." The whole situation sucks for everyone but in different ways.

I have young kids (2YO and 5YO, rising kindergartner) and there is an approximately 0% chance that "distance learning" for my kindergartner will teach him squat. He is a smart kid, but doesn't interact with his teachers through fuzzy zoom connections with crosstalk in the same way he does in the classroom. It gives me heart palpitations to consider teaching him at home full time, because now he actually is supposed to learn things like reading and I don't think I can fathom just plunking him in front of a tv all day since although I will be working full time at home (as will my husband) I actually have a job to do.

Fact of the matter, regardless of how much people will disagree, is that distance learning is just not tenable for kindergarten, 4-7yoish education without an involved and present adult. Teachers have been expected by parents and communities to be those adults which has allowed women to go into the workforce, but now that many are working full time, we cannot just sub back in to that role without major adjustments and costs. The options for parents of young kids are to find an adult to care for and educate your kid, be that adult, or sacrifice education.

And to all the parents of rising juniors, etc = a neurotypical 16 year old can 100% learn online. There are whole curricula designed for that and students in rural locations (think: parts of Alaska, rural Montana, etc) have been doing this for decades. It's far from ideal, but older kids can get more from dl and also can do so without needing full-time attention from their parents.

Additionally, and this will start a firestorm I'm sure, younger kids do.not.transmit.covid.to.the.same.degree.that.older.kids.do (ote: I'm not saying they don't transmit! Or that they don't get sick! Just that they don't transmit *as much* and don't get sick *as much*, or *as sick*). And, despite what people assume, IME, younger kids are totally fine with masks. My kids are both at daycare and although it isn't required all the kids I have seen at pickup have been masked. So, the need is higher for those kids (and for those parents) for in-person ed, AND the risks are lower. And yet, many districts and states seem to be going with something closer to one-size-fits-all. It's frustrating.

You sound annoying. Most of K is to prep them for school for future years. With involved parents, DL can be fine for K. It is on the parents to teach them to read, write and math and most parents aren't willing to teach their kids. You don't have to sacrifice education. You have to teach them yourself which you should be doing as its part of parenting.

Gosh, thanks hon. I guess I'll just pull my tax dollars from public education (I mean, it's my job, right?) and tell my friends who teach K that I can probably do their jobs just as well as they can despite never having taken an education class in my entire life.

And, like I said, you *can* can teach your kids yourself. Many people do this. But you *can not* teach your kids yourself well AND work a full time job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope sorry. If your kid is 4 years old, put them in some sort of daycare. This isn’t an education issue, but a childcare issue and something that should have been planned for that didn’t include taxpayers money for babysitting.

Actually, DC's universal pre-K, and Kindergarten in general, are programs that were explicitly designed to provide parents with childcare so that they can work. These are taxpayer-funded initiatives that were always intended to address the lack of adequate, affordable childcare for young children. And lots of families make decisions on where to live and where to work based on the availability of these programs. If you don't know that, maybe you shouldn't be weighing on on policy discussions about the education system.

Well, that's super cool, but they can't provide free childcare during a pandemic, so you'll just need to adjust both your expectations and your choices accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird how parents who desperately need childcare are being told to suck it up and deal but private companies who employ those parents are not being told the same when their employees' productivity declines. Interesting.

Also interesting that somehow it's impossible to have any form of in-person school this year and yet.... people are dining in restaurants. Indoors! Some museums haver reopened. In-person fitness classes have resumed, also indoors. You can get your hair cut in a salon with a dozen people in it. People are drinking at bars.

But yes, the real problem is in-person schooling, which has not occurred since the middle of march.

Just kicking an idea around. What if we got rid of these non-essential in-person activities, especially the ones that take place indoors, so that kids that need to go to school could go to school? Why is that such a crazy idea?

Please point out all these restaurants, museums, gyms and salons where children, who are germ factories at the best of times, are crammed into stagnant rooms for 6-7 hours per day, multiple days per week.

P-R-O-L-O-N-G-E-D I-N-D-O-O-R E-X-P-O-S-U-R-E I-S T-H-E H-I-G-H-E-S-T R-I-S-K.

Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird how parents who desperately need childcare are being told to suck it up and deal but private companies who employ those parents are not being told the same when their employees' productivity declines. Interesting.

Also interesting that somehow it's impossible to have any form of in-person school this year and yet.... people are dining in restaurants. Indoors! Some museums haver reopened. In-person fitness classes have resumed, also indoors. You can get your hair cut in a salon with a dozen people in it. People are drinking at bars.

But yes, the real problem is in-person schooling, which has not occurred since the middle of march.

Just kicking an idea around. What if we got rid of these non-essential in-person activities, especially the ones that take place indoors, so that kids that need to go to school could go to school? Why is that such a crazy idea?

Please point out all these restaurants, museums, gyms and salons where children, who are germ factories at the best of times, are crammed into stagnant rooms for 6-7 hours per day, multiple days per week.

P-R-O-L-O-N-G-E-D I-N-D-O-O-R E-X-P-O-S-U-R-E I-S T-H-E H-I-G-H-E-S-T R-I-S-K.

Please.

What about outdoor classes or half days? School is much, much more important than getting your hair done or going to a restaurant. Plus, while the people going to salons and restaurants might only be there for an hour or two, the people working at those places are absolutely getting prolonged exposure. Sorry, but there is no reasonable way to explain the fact that we have opened these businesses but are keeping schools closed. If school isn't safe, none of this is safe.

We are currently seeing cases rise as a result of reopening the economy, and the people in charge appear to believe this is an acceptable trade-off. But accepting higher risk so that kids can go to school isn't? We're really showing our collective ass as a society right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird how parents who desperately need childcare are being told to suck it up and deal but private companies who employ those parents are not being told the same when their employees' productivity declines. Interesting.

Also interesting that somehow it's impossible to have any form of in-person school this year and yet.... people are dining in restaurants. Indoors! Some museums haver reopened. In-person fitness classes have resumed, also indoors. You can get your hair cut in a salon with a dozen people in it. People are drinking at bars.

But yes, the real problem is in-person schooling, which has not occurred since the middle of march.

Just kicking an idea around. What if we got rid of these non-essential in-person activities, especially the ones that take place indoors, so that kids that need to go to school could go to school? Why is that such a crazy idea?

Please point out all these restaurants, museums, gyms and salons where children, who are germ factories at the best of times, are crammed into stagnant rooms for 6-7 hours per day, multiple days per week.

P-R-O-L-O-N-G-E-D I-N-D-O-O-R E-X-P-O-S-U-R-E I-S T-H-E H-I-G-H-E-S-T R-I-S-K.

Please.

What about outdoor classes or half days? School is much, much more important than getting your hair done or going to a restaurant. Plus, while the people going to salons and restaurants might only be there for an hour or two, the people working at those places are absolutely getting prolonged exposure. Sorry, but there is no reasonable way to explain the fact that we have opened these businesses but are keeping schools closed. If school isn't safe, none of this is safe.

We are currently seeing cases rise as a result of reopening the economy, and the people in charge appear to believe this is an acceptable trade-off. But accepting higher risk so that kids can go to school isn't? We're really showing our collective ass as a society right now.

My 6 year old got a Covid test this week after outdoor morning camp. Awaiting results and feeling like a jacka$$ Please don’t believe a word about outdoor transmission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: My 6 year old got a Covid test this week after outdoor morning camp. Awaiting results and feeling like a jacka$$ Please don’t believe a word about outdoor transmission.

Shouldn't you wait until the test results come back before asserting this? While I understand being concerned, of the 20 or so people I know who have had a Covid test after either experiencing symptoms or coming into contact with someone who had it, and exactly 1 actually tested positive. I'm not trying to downplay the risks, but before you say something like "don't believe a word about outdoor transmission," shouldn't you find out if outdoor transmission actually occurred?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am on your side on this but I also don't think that it's helpful to pit "parents with older kids" against "parents with younger kids." The whole situation sucks for everyone but in different ways.

I have young kids (2YO and 5YO, rising kindergartner) and there is an approximately 0% chance that "distance learning" for my kindergartner will teach him squat. He is a smart kid, but doesn't interact with his teachers through fuzzy zoom connections with crosstalk in the same way he does in the classroom. It gives me heart palpitations to consider teaching him at home full time, because now he actually is supposed to learn things like reading and I don't think I can fathom just plunking him in front of a tv all day since although I will be working full time at home (as will my husband) I actually have a job to do.

Fact of the matter, regardless of how much people will disagree, is that distance learning is just not tenable for kindergarten, 4-7yoish education without an involved and present adult. Teachers have been expected by parents and communities to be those adults which has allowed women to go into the workforce, but now that many are working full time, we cannot just sub back in to that role without major adjustments and costs. The options for parents of young kids are to find an adult to care for and educate your kid, be that adult, or sacrifice education.

And to all the parents of rising juniors, etc = a neurotypical 16 year old can 100% learn online. There are whole curricula designed for that and students in rural locations (think: parts of Alaska, rural Montana, etc) have been doing this for decades. It's far from ideal, but older kids can get more from dl and also can do so without needing full-time attention from their parents.

Additionally, and this will start a firestorm I'm sure, younger kids do.not.transmit.covid.to.the.same.degree.that.older.kids.do (ote: I'm not saying they don't transmit! Or that they don't get sick! Just that they don't transmit *as much* and don't get sick *as much*, or *as sick*). And, despite what people assume, IME, younger kids are totally fine with masks. My kids are both at daycare and although it isn't required all the kids I have seen at pickup have been masked. So, the need is higher for those kids (and for those parents) for in-person ed, AND the risks are lower. And yet, many districts and states seem to be going with something closer to one-size-fits-all. It's frustrating.

You sound annoying. Most of K is to prep them for school for future years. With involved parents, DL can be fine for K. It is on the parents to teach them to read, write and math and most parents aren't willing to teach their kids. You don't have to sacrifice education. You have to teach them yourself which you should be doing as its part of parenting.

Gosh, thanks hon. I guess I'll just pull my tax dollars from public education (I mean, it's my job, right?) and tell my friends who teach K that I can probably do their jobs just as well as they can despite never having taken an education class in my entire life.

And, like I said, you *can* can teach your kids yourself. Many people do this. But you *can not* teach your kids yourself well AND work a full time job.

Regardless of school you should be working with your kids either way. You can spare 30-60 minutes a day with a few workbooks. They can do workbooks while they sit next to you if you are working at home. Its not that hard. Its about priorities and you figuring out how to balance them. Or, hire a tutor. We worked with our kids so they were reading, did basic math and writing before K. We started teaching reading at 3. They also went to a more academic preschool which helped. You can either find excuses or figure it out. I don't get why people like you have kids, especially multiple kids and then give up your parenting role to the school and expect them to do everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Spots at daycares for 4yos are really not hard to find. Neither are nanny shares or mother's helpers. A lot easier than finding an alternative for AP Physics or Chinese 5 for a HS junior.

I think this is exactly the kind of thing the OP is bothered by. Just tossing off that it's easy for her to solve her childcare problem and then positing that the challenges for HS students are harder or more important.

The truth is that both problems are hard, but DL might actually help the HS junior. It won't do squat for a kindergartner. I see where the OP is coming from.

Yup. Additionally, online programs have existed for DL for high-school students for a while, so there is a lot more proof of concept and guidance available to teachers and students. Full time DL for kindergartners, especially with no involved parent, is not the same. The best that is out there is homeschooling curricula, which isn't exactly conducive to parents with full time jobs.

If a parent cannot find an hour a day to work with their kids, then they should pay someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, OP. It’s amazing to me that the same crowd can talk about the vital importance of early intervention and totally abandon children that very age for distance learning. The premise of Head Start rests on the very real science showing young children who fall behind academically are permanently handicapped by their early lack of education. At the very least, we ought to stop pretending distance learning in any way isn’t a major sacrifice made by our youngest students. And the children most affected by it will also be of the most economically vulnerable demographic. But hey! 5 year olds don’t matter! They can watch their 5 Minute Scholastic video and maybe the school will pity them enough to print a few worksheets.

They're not falling behind if everyone is doing it.

No, everyone is not doing it. I live in a UMC neighborhood and most of these children did not miss a beat. Between tutors and private school, some children are advancing even beyond grade-level and will be well-prepared to return to school even a year from now. My child never missed a day of school and continued with an academic summer program. The parents who work full-time and cannot afford a nanny-tutor or a SAHP are really in tough shape and I think it is deeply disturbing to witness the utter lack of consideration for them or their children.

+1. Be real. I have a nanny and my daughter has learned to read this summer. My 3rd grader is devising new cryptography schemes after I taught him to code. and is in a private reading group. We have private SN treatments multiple times weekly for him too.

The reality is that my kids, in an affluent home with well educated parents will be fine. Maybe even better. But abused kids, first gen kids, poor kids will all often be in terrible places this fall. The pre K to grade 2 especially who need the help and the peer example and often, the food.

It will increase inequity for families as those with family money will “pod” and get tutors while single moms will quit their jobs and go on welfare.
But our society is now about me first only now so why bother to even care about this I guess?

So we should all have the same lives? We should all get to live like rich people then? I don't think that's going to happen. I think all of us adults understand that kids from wealthy families get more and kids from poor families get less. This is life. I'm the PP who experienced my older DC eating exclusively organic food and getting all kinds of enriching activities, and my younger kids eating cheap crap and watching tv while i worked. Not ideal, not what I wanted for them -- but it's reality. We all need to be big girls right now and deal with this difficult situation the best we can. Complaining and whining and stomping your feet isn't helping.

You should have saved the money early on and not lived as well as you choose to so you would have had savings when disaster struck like others of us do. We are not wealthy. We have a small sh#t-shack that most in DCUM land would be horrified to live in. We drive our cars till they die (but pay cash for the next one). And, do many of our own house repairs. We heavily supplemented at home through elementary school. If you are going to be a parent you have a duty to prepare your kids for life. Part of that is being active and involved in their education. Sounds like you should have had fewer kids if you cannot handle the 3-4 and need to hire someone instead of worrying about activities and organic food as you sound pretty neglectful.

[Anonymous]

I'm guessing that OP's child was in daycare last year and she is only coming to grips with the realities of DL, months after the rest of us have been. I suspect her outrage and frustration at the child care situation was the same thing we all felt in March/April/May that we have already digested.

So to that end, OP, know we've all been there, gone through the various stages of grief and come out with resignation and acceptance. Welcome to the club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what or where you are reading but I am a parent of three high school aged kids who has been arguing in many threads that we should focus on returning the populations you mention to in person learning. I have seen other parents of older kids who agree. Don’t lump us all together.

Agreed- my kids are younger, but I was talking to a neighbor who has kids in middle and high school who didn't find DL very effective this spring either. I think part of it was that the subject matter was harder and they felt less like they could help their kids. They've already hired a tutor for the subject their son struggled the most with (math) but can't hire tutors for everything. And many families can't afford to do that at all.

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that most of the DL versus hybrid debate has been with ES families. Most high schoolers want to be in school as much as they can before finishing their high school years, and are capable of doing the independent work without much intervention. So there hasn’t been much debate on their front. Not sure where you’re getting that the older-kid families are dominating the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the discussion around whether or not to open schools, as well as the sub-topics of what is best for kids, has been dominated by folks with kids of 8+. I see so many parents saying things like "Just accept we're doing DL and get over it" or "We need to focus on making DL as good as it can be and forget about in-person school." And if your kid is old enough to sit through virtual school sessions on their own, and has already developed peer relationships that you can facilitate via zooms and some social distancing meet ups with those families, I can see why you would feel that way.

But there are a ton of families out here that will really suffer if we are really DL-only all year. These include:

- Families with children in PK-1st or 2nd grade. These kids can't do DL on their own, and for PK and K, many of those kids will get nothing out of DL at all. That means these parents will be on the hook, full-time, for parenting very young kids. In households where both parents work (and especially where one or both parents must work out of the home), this is a huge burden. In many cases, it will result in parents leaving jobs, cutting back hours, or taking LOAs in order to take care of kids they expected to be in school this year. And I shouldn't have to point this out but I will: the parent who scales back or leaves work in order to care for the kids is most likely to be a woman, and it impact her career, earnings, and her family's financial stability for years. And that's only if a family thinks they can get by on one income, which they might not be able to.

- Families with children with special needs. Many, many special needs kids cannot do DL. Of those who can, they may very well be in the same boat as the parents of very young kids, where one parent needs to be facilitating DL on essentially a full-time basis. So for families with a special needs kid, they are in the same boat as I just described for parents of young children.

I am tired of these families being left out of the discussion. I'm tired of parents of older kids acting like their situation is universal. I'm tired of being told that because I have very young children who I expected to be in full-time school this year, I am selfish for hoping the schools can find a way to provide at least some in-person instruction to make that burden more manageable. I'm tired of people assuming that I can just scale back my work to homeschool without it impacting me in a myriad of ways.

The conversation around schools HAS to include these families. If your kids are older, you might view DL as imperfect but far preferable to the risks of in-person school. That equation is really different if your kid is 4 or 5, or has physical or learning issues that make DL impractical or impossible. No one wants teachers to get sick. No one wants to put people in danger (hi, if my kid goes to in-person school, that means I'm taking a risk too). But it's not as simple as just closing the schools. People who assume it is have not thought very hard about how that decision will impact people in other situations.

No one suggested try that your life/career won't be impacted- do you think everyone else HASN'T been impacted by the current GLOBAL pandemic??? That's life right now, I'm baffled that you think you'd be exempt!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the discussion around whether or not to open schools, as well as the sub-topics of what is best for kids, has been dominated by folks with kids of 8+. I see so many parents saying things like "Just accept we're doing DL and get over it" or "We need to focus on making DL as good as it can be and forget about in-person school." And if your kid is old enough to sit through virtual school sessions on their own, and has already developed peer relationships that you can facilitate via zooms and some social distancing meet ups with those families, I can see why you would feel that way.

But there are a ton of families out here that will really suffer if we are really DL-only all year. These include:

- Families with children in PK-1st or 2nd grade. These kids can't do DL on their own, and for PK and K, many of those kids will get nothing out of DL at all. That means these parents will be on the hook, full-time, for parenting very young kids. In households where both parents work (and especially where one or both parents must work out of the home), this is a huge burden. In many cases, it will result in parents leaving jobs, cutting back hours, or taking LOAs in order to take care of kids they expected to be in school this year. And I shouldn't have to point this out but I will: the parent who scales back or leaves work in order to care for the kids is most likely to be a woman, and it impact her career, earnings, and her family's financial stability for years. And that's only if a family thinks they can get by on one income, which they might not be able to.

- Families with children with special needs. Many, many special needs kids cannot do DL. Of those who can, they may very well be in the same boat as the parents of very young kids, where one parent needs to be facilitating DL on essentially a full-time basis. So for families with a special needs kid, they are in the same boat as I just described for parents of young children.

I am tired of these families being left out of the discussion. I'm tired of parents of older kids acting like their situation is universal. I'm tired of being told that because I have very young children who I expected to be in full-time school this year, I am selfish for hoping the schools can find a way to provide at least some in-person instruction to make that burden more manageable. I'm tired of people assuming that I can just scale back my work to homeschool without it impacting me in a myriad of ways.

The conversation around schools HAS to include these families. If your kids are older, you might view DL as imperfect but far preferable to the risks of in-person school. That equation is really different if your kid is 4 or 5, or has physical or learning issues that make DL impractical or impossible. No one wants teachers to get sick. No one wants to put people in danger (hi, if my kid goes to in-person school, that means I'm taking a risk too). But it's not as simple as just closing the schools. People who assume it is have not thought very hard about how that decision will impact people in other situations.

No one suggested try that your life/career won't be impacted- do you think everyone else HASN'T been impacted by the current GLOBAL pandemic??? That's life right now, I'm baffled that you think you'd be exempt!

I mean, by this logic, no one impacted negatively by COVID should complain or try to get help. I don't 100% agree with the OP (I think there's a good chance that there just isn't a way to do in-person schooling without spiking contagion rates because we've been so, so stupid about both testing and re-opening other stuff). But I totally understand what an awful bind this is putting her and other parents in and why they would be begging the powers that be for help. I also support extending unemployment benefits as long as we need to, providing no-interest loans to small businesses, and anything else that will ease the economic burden of the pandemic. I'm pretty well off, and I would absolutely pay higher taxes in order to help make this pandemic easier for others. I've been remarkably lucky (though obviously impacted -- we all are) and I don't blame anyone who hasn't been as lucky for being upset.

Going on DCUM and pleading your case is a pretty decent coping mechanism as we all cycle through these stages of grief. I don't think she's asking to be exempt from hardship.