Lack of a Plan Says It All
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I'm not even a Lafayette parent, and I could see it : https://www.lafayettehsa.org/mid-summer-updates/ "As a note, there is no virtual instruction available for students who are quarantining due to travel." |
Anonymous
Yes, they did. They opened - fully masked all day long. You can look it up. |
Anonymous
Right. The point is, "we're not going to make our teachers do backflips and do both online and in class teaching because you went to OBX." This is not applicable to positive cases - still waiting on that.... |
Anonymous
But what if your kid was just exposed, even though you didn't travel? Teachers apparently aren't going to "do backflips" for those kids either, and they are just SOL. |
Anonymous
We don't know yet, do we. The guidance above was just about travel. |
Anonymous
Why make a distinction between the two? |
Anonymous
Punishment. |
Anonymous
Good grief, PP, you are struggling. 1) Because DCPS hasn't issued its instructions yet to schools about virtual learning for positive tests. 2) Because people can control their travel. For a school like Lafayette which is huge and has a demographic where people take nice vacations out of the area, they are saying they are not going to give your kid special schooling because you travelled the last week before school. The take away is: Follow the travel restrictions or expect your kid to miss school. |
Anonymous
That's why in areas and times of high virus circulation, school-based virtual access is necessary. |
Anonymous
Or rather an intelligent testing strategy that allows kids to be in school. |
Anonymous
Yes, AND, not or. Virtual is a one-layer solution for those kids. But for in-school learning, you need each of the 4 or 5 necessary layers fully implemented without ridiculous exceptions/opt-outs/'when feasible'. |
Anonymous
No, I am not. I do not know what the guidance will be, but I can't see why there would be a difference in the offering of virtual or other instruction between a child who was potentially exposed locally and a child who was potentially exposed during travel except for punitive reasons. Let's assume there is some framework for providing instruction at all to a child that was exposed locally, when a whole class does not need to be quarantined. Two children are exposed on the same day. Child A is exposed locally. This child is under 12 and unvaccinated. Presumably the child is not personally at fault for the exposure. The parents do the right thing and quarantine the child at home. Child receives some sort of instruction (virtual? packets? I do not know), because there is a framework to do so. Child B is exposed during travel. This child is also under 12 and unvaccinated. As children this young typically do not make decisions to travel, the child is presumably not at fault for the exposure. The parents do the right thing and quarantine the child at home. Child does not receive any sort of instruction, despite the fact that there is a framework to do so. Child B will be quarantined in any case; the parents will "have to" do child care whether or not the child receives instruction. In this scenario, not providing instruction hurts only the child and not the apparently bad and wrong parents who traveled. Such a policy would not punish bad-behaving parents. It would punish children. |
Anonymous
| Of course, all of this assumes there will be some structure for providing instruction in cases of local exposure. |
Anonymous
| Probably someone will argue that children should indeed be punished for their parents' choices. It's not an uncommon argument here. |
Anonymous
It's like people here forget that instruction is for the benefit of the child, not the parents. |