Schools as babysitters - please take a moment to think about who you are bashing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nearly all of my students in an all lower income school have a parent or relative at home with them. A few of them who don’t go to neighbors.

I’m sure this is true. Adults are at home in rich households and poor households. As always, it’s the middle class getting squeezed. And criticized on this board.

That’s what it comes down to as always. In poor communities, an adult is always around. It might not be the most reliable adult, but someone is there. Grandma or aunt in a multi-generational or multi-family household, or even a teen or college age older child. If not in the household, auntie whoever from down the street or down the hall is home all day, so is cousin whatever who lives 2 streets away and doesn’t work, so the kids can go there while mom/dad work. In high income households, there could be a SAHP or - more likely in this area - two high earning parents who have always had extra child care, like a nanny for school age kids to handle the drop-offs and pick-ups and sick kid duty and those random days off school. Plus enough money to supplement DL with private tutoring, sports for socialization, etc.

The extremes on either end are completely unbothered by the endless DL. It’s the middle class who gets squeezed out, again. I live in a middle class area. My neighbors have two school age kids, dad is a mid-level fed government employee who can’t telework, and mom was a dental hygenist. I say “was” because DL essentially forced her out of her job. She left the workforce to take care of her school age kids, because full time care and decent distance learning support for 2 kids was far more expensive and also harder to find than infant and toddler day care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t racist to point out that schools have no responsibility to provide childcare during an emergency. Schools routinely close for hurricanes, fires, and blizzards. The pandemic is an ongoing emergency. More low income families and families of color have opted out of in person learning when given the choice. It IS racist to assume that your priorities are the same as everyone else’s and that poor people are eager to warehouse their children in school buildings during the pandemic when they have explicitly said that they do not feel comfortable with that risk. You do realize that contracting the virus and the resulting loss of work (for possibly all income earning members of a household, not just one) and paying for the medical expenses (many people are uninsured or have catastrophic plans that cover very little) could be devestating for these families, right? They may also place more value on keeping their children and relatives safe, over the cold calculation many are making that their own are unlikely to become seriously ill. You don’t get to decide what’s best for another group of people and use that to push your own agenda.

Super weird that you're treating low income families and families of color as monolithic, and you seem to be advocating that they should not have the option to choose in person. Nobody has proposed forcing kids into in person against parental wishes.

Like are you really this dumb as to think that was a coherent argument?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t racist to point out that schools have no responsibility to provide childcare during an emergency. Schools routinely close for hurricanes, fires, and blizzards. The pandemic is an ongoing emergency. More low income families and families of color have opted out of in person learning when given the choice. It IS racist to assume that your priorities are the same as everyone else’s and that poor people are eager to warehouse their children in school buildings during the pandemic when they have explicitly said that they do not feel comfortable with that risk. You do realize that contracting the virus and the resulting loss of work (for possibly all income earning members of a household, not just one) and paying for the medical expenses (many people are uninsured or have catastrophic plans that cover very little) could be devestating for these families, right? They may also place more value on keeping their children and relatives safe, over the cold calculation many are making that their own are unlikely to become seriously ill. You don’t get to decide what’s best for another group of people and use that to push your own agenda.

Super weird that you're treating low income families and families of color as monolithic, and you seem to be advocating that they should not have the option to choose in person. Nobody has proposed forcing kids into in person against parental wishes.

Like are you really this dumb as to think that was a coherent argument?

Exactly, if not interested in hybrid, then you can go 100% DL. Just because some families want DL, it shouldn’t be all DL force other families who don’t want that option especially since it’s not supported by the science at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t racist to point out that schools have no responsibility to provide childcare during an emergency. Schools routinely close for hurricanes, fires, and blizzards. The pandemic is an ongoing emergency. More low income families and families of color have opted out of in person learning when given the choice. It IS racist to assume that your priorities are the same as everyone else’s and that poor people are eager to warehouse their children in school buildings during the pandemic when they have explicitly said that they do not feel comfortable with that risk. You do realize that contracting the virus and the resulting loss of work (for possibly all income earning members of a household, not just one) and paying for the medical expenses (many people are uninsured or have catastrophic plans that cover very little) could be devestating for these families, right? They may also place more value on keeping their children and relatives safe, over the cold calculation many are making that their own are unlikely to become seriously ill. You don’t get to decide what’s best for another group of people and use that to push your own agenda.

Super weird that you're treating low income families and families of color as monolithic, and you seem to be advocating that they should not have the option to choose in person. Nobody has proposed forcing kids into in person against parental wishes.

Like are you really this dumb as to think that was a coherent argument?

Exactly, if not interested in hybrid, then you can go 100% DL. Just because some families want DL, it shouldn’t be all DL force other families who don’t want that option especially since it’s not supported by the science at all.

There won’t be sufficient staff for both options. Instead, schools will try to run both options with one teacher. The DL students and in person will both suffer as a result. To compare to childcare, it would be like trying to watch both your own toddler in a public place and someone else’s toddler over FaceTime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t racist to point out that schools have no responsibility to provide childcare during an emergency. Schools routinely close for hurricanes, fires, and blizzards. The pandemic is an ongoing emergency. More low income families and families of color have opted out of in person learning when given the choice. It IS racist to assume that your priorities are the same as everyone else’s and that poor people are eager to warehouse their children in school buildings during the pandemic when they have explicitly said that they do not feel comfortable with that risk. You do realize that contracting the virus and the resulting loss of work (for possibly all income earning members of a household, not just one) and paying for the medical expenses (many people are uninsured or have catastrophic plans that cover very little) could be devestating for these families, right? They may also place more value on keeping their children and relatives safe, over the cold calculation many are making that their own are unlikely to become seriously ill. You don’t get to decide what’s best for another group of people and use that to push your own agenda.

Super weird that you're treating low income families and families of color as monolithic, and you seem to be advocating that they should not have the option to choose in person. Nobody has proposed forcing kids into in person against parental wishes.

Like are you really this dumb as to think that was a coherent argument?

Exactly, if not interested in hybrid, then you can go 100% DL. Just because some families want DL, it shouldn’t be all DL force other families who don’t want that option especially since it’s not supported by the science at all.

There won’t be sufficient staff for both options. Instead, schools will try to run both options with one teacher. The DL students and in person will both suffer as a result. To compare to childcare, it would be like trying to watch both your own toddler in a public place and someone else’s toddler over FaceTime.

1. They're not toddlers
2. The synchronous hybrid model has already been used successfully in many places. While it is not as good as all in-person, it is a significant improvement over all DL.
3. Your weird metaphor points out the absurdity of distance learning for small children, so I don't think it's doing what you want it to do.

[Anonymous]

The effects of DL long term (as we are at this point) on kids will not be known until this is over and the studies will begin. I have no doubt the damage done to kids will be astronomical. And no, I do t need or want a babysitter. Nor do I want to pay any person who thinks they are doing me a favor by doing the job they are paid to do. Or not, as the case stands.

When the world has time to reflect, teachers In the DMV are not going to look good. Other parts of this country and the world - yes. DMV - no.

[Anonymous]

It's disturbing how much people who use this phrase obviously despise childcare workers. I wonder if they realize just how awful they sound?

[Anonymous]

Consider this argument.

https://medium.com/@bsteele595/school-is-not-daycare-308ae73b2135

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t racist to point out that schools have no responsibility to provide childcare during an emergency. Schools routinely close for hurricanes, fires, and blizzards. The pandemic is an ongoing emergency. More low income families and families of color have opted out of in person learning when given the choice. It IS racist to assume that your priorities are the same as everyone else’s and that poor people are eager to warehouse their children in school buildings during the pandemic when they have explicitly said that they do not feel comfortable with that risk. You do realize that contracting the virus and the resulting loss of work (for possibly all income earning members of a household, not just one) and paying for the medical expenses (many people are uninsured or have catastrophic plans that cover very little) could be devestating for these families, right? They may also place more value on keeping their children and relatives safe, over the cold calculation many are making that their own are unlikely to become seriously ill. You don’t get to decide what’s best for another group of people and use that to push your own agenda.

Super weird that you're treating low income families and families of color as monolithic, and you seem to be advocating that they should not have the option to choose in person. Nobody has proposed forcing kids into in person against parental wishes.

Like are you really this dumb as to think that was a coherent argument?

You’re argument is “this is dumb” and you think that’s a coherent argument? You haven’t responded to any of my points, just dismissed the entire post. That’s not a hallmark of an intelligent person or a cogent response. I never treated anyone as “monolithic” but rather pointed out that this whole thread, which pretends to advocate for lower income people as a group, is not actually representative of the views they have expressed on this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t racist to point out that schools have no responsibility to provide childcare during an emergency. Schools routinely close for hurricanes, fires, and blizzards. The pandemic is an ongoing emergency. More low income families and families of color have opted out of in person learning when given the choice. It IS racist to assume that your priorities are the same as everyone else’s and that poor people are eager to warehouse their children in school buildings during the pandemic when they have explicitly said that they do not feel comfortable with that risk. You do realize that contracting the virus and the resulting loss of work (for possibly all income earning members of a household, not just one) and paying for the medical expenses (many people are uninsured or have catastrophic plans that cover very little) could be devestating for these families, right? They may also place more value on keeping their children and relatives safe, over the cold calculation many are making that their own are unlikely to become seriously ill. You don’t get to decide what’s best for another group of people and use that to push your own agenda.

Super weird that you're treating low income families and families of color as monolithic, and you seem to be advocating that they should not have the option to choose in person. Nobody has proposed forcing kids into in person against parental wishes.

Like are you really this dumb as to think that was a coherent argument?

You’re argument is “this is dumb” and you think that’s a coherent argument? You haven’t responded to any of my points, just dismissed the entire post. That’s not a hallmark of an intelligent person or a cogent response. I never treated anyone as “monolithic” but rather pointed out that this whole thread, which pretends to advocate for lower income people as a group, is not actually representative of the views they have expressed on this issue.

I called you stupid because your argument is completely lacking in any coherent thought. Tons of people have explained the problems with your argument. I am dismissing your entire post because the entire post is dumb as hell.

Your post is arguing that in-person shouldn't be an option given that some low income families or families of color would not want to use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t racist to point out that schools have no responsibility to provide childcare during an emergency. Schools routinely close for hurricanes, fires, and blizzards. The pandemic is an ongoing emergency. More low income families and families of color have opted out of in person learning when given the choice. It IS racist to assume that your priorities are the same as everyone else’s and that poor people are eager to warehouse their children in school buildings during the pandemic when they have explicitly said that they do not feel comfortable with that risk. You do realize that contracting the virus and the resulting loss of work (for possibly all income earning members of a household, not just one) and paying for the medical expenses (many people are uninsured or have catastrophic plans that cover very little) could be devestating for these families, right? They may also place more value on keeping their children and relatives safe, over the cold calculation many are making that their own are unlikely to become seriously ill. You don’t get to decide what’s best for another group of people and use that to push your own agenda.

Super weird that you're treating low income families and families of color as monolithic, and you seem to be advocating that they should not have the option to choose in person. Nobody has proposed forcing kids into in person against parental wishes.

Like are you really this dumb as to think that was a coherent argument?

You’re argument is “this is dumb” and you think that’s a coherent argument? You haven’t responded to any of my points, just dismissed the entire post. That’s not a hallmark of an intelligent person or a cogent response. I never treated anyone as “monolithic” but rather pointed out that this whole thread, which pretends to advocate for lower income people as a group, is not actually representative of the views they have expressed on this issue.

I called you stupid because your argument is completely lacking in any coherent thought. Tons of people have explained the problems with your argument. I am dismissing your entire post because the entire post is dumb as hell.

Your post is arguing that in-person shouldn't be an option given that some low income families or families of color would not want to use it.

No, they have not. You clearly can’t refute any of the points here. You’re also ignoring that the entire purpose of this thread was to shame people for not considering that poor people can’t afford childcare and need school for this reason. My post is a response to that, not a random one off. If you can’t be bothered to read the conversation, then don’t contribute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Consider this argument.

https://medium.com/@bsteele595/school-is-not-daycare-308ae73b2135

Counterpoint: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-child-care-centers.html

Of course school, particularly elementary school, is a form of childcare. Teachers' feelings don't really matter on that front. It's not an emotional argument, it's a practical one. Whether they like it or not, teachers do provide care for children while educating them.

And teachers really, really need to move away from insulting childcare providers. It's not a good look, at best. I won't get into what it says, at worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consider this argument.

https://medium.com/@bsteele595/school-is-not-daycare-308ae73b2135

Counterpoint: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-child-care-centers.html

Of course school, particularly elementary school, is a form of childcare. Teachers' feelings don't really matter on that front. It's not an emotional argument, it's a practical one. Whether they like it or not, teachers do provide care for children while educating them.

And teachers really, really need to move away from insulting childcare providers. It's not a good look, at best. I won't get into what it says, at worst.

If school is childcare, then I expect to be refunded for my degrees (both undergrad and the required masters degree), as childcare providers are not required to hold degrees. I also won’t waste any more of my off time doing work for the classroom, and you can settle for knowing that your children will come home alive at the end of the day. We can have snacks, play outside, read a story, do a craft. What a tremendous relief from the pressures of preparing students for tests or meeting standards! No more differentiation for students with special needs, fine motor delays, or ENL kids. I sure won’t be writing legal documents, attending meetings, doing paperwork, grading, or designing curriculum. Thank you for unburdening the nation’s teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The effects of DL long term (as we are at this point) on kids will not be known until this is over and the studies will begin. I have no doubt the damage done to kids will be astronomical. And no, I do t need or want a babysitter. Nor do I want to pay any person who thinks they are doing me a favor by doing the job they are paid to do. Or not, as the case stands.

When the world has time to reflect, teachers In the DMV are not going to look good. Other parts of this country and the world - yes. DMV - no.

In person our academic standards compared to other countries is pretty low. They have dimmed down DL for all the complaining parents. Stop complaining your kid isn't ok online, cannot do the work, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consider this argument.

https://medium.com/@bsteele595/school-is-not-daycare-308ae73b2135

Counterpoint: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-child-care-centers.html

Of course school, particularly elementary school, is a form of childcare. Teachers' feelings don't really matter on that front. It's not an emotional argument, it's a practical one. Whether they like it or not, teachers do provide care for children while educating them.

And teachers really, really need to move away from insulting childcare providers. It's not a good look, at best. I won't get into what it says, at worst.

If school is childcare, then I expect to be refunded for my degrees (both undergrad and the required masters degree), as childcare providers are not required to hold degrees. I also won’t waste any more of my off time doing work for the classroom, and you can settle for knowing that your children will come home alive at the end of the day. We can have snacks, play outside, read a story, do a craft. What a tremendous relief from the pressures of preparing students for tests or meeting standards! No more differentiation for students with special needs, fine motor delays, or ENL kids. I sure won’t be writing legal documents, attending meetings, doing paperwork, grading, or designing curriculum. Thank you for unburdening the nation’s teachers.

Actually some child care providers do hold degrees. In some counties, a masters is required.