CDC planning to release new guidance on how K-12 students can physically return to classroom. 7/6/20

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you can really trust any guidance put out by this administration. They'll just write whatever they think will help the orange's re-election chances in spite of what any public health expert believes.

Do you think the AAP is in cahoots with Trump's campaign as well?

The AAP simply recognized that it is in the best interest of children to return to F2F school. Everyone agrees with that.

The AAP believes that risks associated with COVID are less that the negative consequences of having no in person school at all. So they urge policy makers to try to make in person learning work. Even so, they recommend recommend putting safety measures in place. These include social distancing and masking. For instance, the report states that: "“Evidence suggests that spacing as close as 3 feet may approach the benefits of 6 feet of space, particularly if students are wearing face coverings and are asymptomatic.” Having read other studies, I disagree with the first part of the statement, but concur that studies show reduced risk with 3 feet of social distancing and masks. At this point, though, we have people saying that their kids can't or won't wear mask. Studies show that reducing social distancing to 3 feet is far less effective in mitigating the spread of the virus than 6 feet. And by the way, for all of you "we aren't supposed to eliminate risk" people, even 6 feet of social distancing does not eliminate risk.

The guidance also recommends use of outdoor spaces, which may or not work, depending on the weather, and assigning students to particular cohorts for lunch and busing. In addition, the guidance recommends having teachers change classes, rather than students. That works well with younger kids, but not as well with high school aged students. The AAP recommendations are a great start and would work especially well for younger students that can be more easily kept in the same group throughout the day. The more we are able to minimize the number of different people any one individual comes into close contact with, the greater the likelihood that schools can remain open and that contact tracing can be effective if there are any positives.

Also, AAP acknowledges that we do not fully understand the risk of transmission in and by children. Some of the evidence being cited to show there is little risk (like Norway) does not recognize the extent of mitigation measures put in place, including not offering transportation.

By the way, the WHO does not recommend only 3 feet of social distancing, but has recognized a benefit that much distance when greater distancing is not possible. As a parent, if you are not ok with only 3 feet of distancing and required masking, then it is unlikely you will be satisfied with any plan.

Sadly, at our over crowded public high school, I think that even with relaxed standards, some sort of A/B day will have to be implemented. There is only so much room in the hallways, and I have no idea how you could create a schedule (even with only half of the kids at school each day) to keep the hallways uncrowded. Our school uses many portables to accommodate its student population, but the doorways and number of bathrooms is the same as if the school weren't overcrowded.

PS - I have a HS senior whose year is likely to be ruined. I also have two varsity athletes who live for their fall sports. They will be disappointed by their lives will not be ruined.
I were in charge, I would prioritize getting younger kids in school as much as possible with as many mitigation measures as we can afford. Then figure out some regionally based system to group high school students and get them to school 1 or 2 days per week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you can really trust any guidance put out by this administration. They'll just write whatever they think will help the orange's re-election chances in spite of what any public health expert believes.

Do you think the AAP is in cahoots with Trump's campaign as well?

The AAP simply recognized that it is in the best interest of children to return to F2F school. Everyone agrees with that.

The AAP believes that risks associated with COVID are less that the negative consequences of having no in person school at all. So they urge policy makers to try to make in person learning work. Even so, they recommend recommend putting safety measures in place. These include social distancing and masking. For instance, the report states that: "“Evidence suggests that spacing as close as 3 feet may approach the benefits of 6 feet of space, particularly if students are wearing face coverings and are asymptomatic.” Having read other studies, I disagree with the first part of the statement, but concur that studies show reduced risk with 3 feet of social distancing and masks. At this point, though, we have people saying that their kids can't or won't wear mask. Studies show that reducing social distancing to 3 feet is far less effective in mitigating the spread of the virus than 6 feet. And by the way, for all of you "we aren't supposed to eliminate risk" people, even 6 feet of social distancing does not eliminate risk.

The guidance also recommends use of outdoor spaces, which may or not work, depending on the weather, and assigning students to particular cohorts for lunch and busing. In addition, the guidance recommends having teachers change classes, rather than students. That works well with younger kids, but not as well with high school aged students. The AAP recommendations are a great start and would work especially well for younger students that can be more easily kept in the same group throughout the day. The more we are able to minimize the number of different people any one individual comes into close contact with, the greater the likelihood that schools can remain open and that contact tracing can be effective if there are any positives.

Also, AAP acknowledges that we do not fully understand the risk of transmission in and by children. Some of the evidence being cited to show there is little risk (like Norway) does not recognize the extent of mitigation measures put in place, including not offering transportation.

By the way, the WHO does not recommend only 3 feet of social distancing, but has recognized a benefit that much distance when greater distancing is not possible. As a parent, if you are not ok with only 3 feet of distancing and required masking, then it is unlikely you will be satisfied with any plan.

Sadly, at our over crowded public high school, I think that even with relaxed standards, some sort of A/B day will have to be implemented. There is only so much room in the hallways, and I have no idea how you could create a schedule (even with only half of the kids at school each day) to keep the hallways uncrowded. Our school uses many portables to accommodate its student population, but the doorways and number of bathrooms is the same as if the school weren't overcrowded.

PS - I have a HS senior whose year is likely to be ruined. I also have two varsity athletes who live for their fall sports. They will be disappointed by their lives will not be ruined.
I were in charge, I would prioritize getting younger kids in school as much as possible with as many mitigation measures as we can afford. Then figure out some regionally based system to group high school students and get them to school 1 or 2 days per week.

Except this assumption that it is in the kid's best interest is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you can really trust any guidance put out by this administration. They'll just write whatever they think will help the orange's re-election chances in spite of what any public health expert believes.

Do you think the AAP is in cahoots with Trump's campaign as well?

The AAP simply recognized that it is in the best interest of children to return to F2F school. Everyone agrees with that.

The AAP believes that risks associated with COVID are less that the negative consequences of having no in person school at all. So they urge policy makers to try to make in person learning work. Even so, they recommend recommend putting safety measures in place. These include social distancing and masking. For instance, the report states that: "“Evidence suggests that spacing as close as 3 feet may approach the benefits of 6 feet of space, particularly if students are wearing face coverings and are asymptomatic.” Having read other studies, I disagree with the first part of the statement, but concur that studies show reduced risk with 3 feet of social distancing and masks. At this point, though, we have people saying that their kids can't or won't wear mask. Studies show that reducing social distancing to 3 feet is far less effective in mitigating the spread of the virus than 6 feet. And by the way, for all of you "we aren't supposed to eliminate risk" people, even 6 feet of social distancing does not eliminate risk.

The guidance also recommends use of outdoor spaces, which may or not work, depending on the weather, and assigning students to particular cohorts for lunch and busing. In addition, the guidance recommends having teachers change classes, rather than students. That works well with younger kids, but not as well with high school aged students. The AAP recommendations are a great start and would work especially well for younger students that can be more easily kept in the same group throughout the day. The more we are able to minimize the number of different people any one individual comes into close contact with, the greater the likelihood that schools can remain open and that contact tracing can be effective if there are any positives.

Also, AAP acknowledges that we do not fully understand the risk of transmission in and by children. Some of the evidence being cited to show there is little risk (like Norway) does not recognize the extent of mitigation measures put in place, including not offering transportation.

By the way, the WHO does not recommend only 3 feet of social distancing, but has recognized a benefit that much distance when greater distancing is not possible. As a parent, if you are not ok with only 3 feet of distancing and required masking, then it is unlikely you will be satisfied with any plan.

Sadly, at our over crowded public high school, I think that even with relaxed standards, some sort of A/B day will have to be implemented. There is only so much room in the hallways, and I have no idea how you could create a schedule (even with only half of the kids at school each day) to keep the hallways uncrowded. Our school uses many portables to accommodate its student population, but the doorways and number of bathrooms is the same as if the school weren't overcrowded.

PS - I have a HS senior whose year is likely to be ruined. I also have two varsity athletes who live for their fall sports. They will be disappointed by their lives will not be ruined.
I were in charge, I would prioritize getting younger kids in school as much as possible with as many mitigation measures as we can afford. Then figure out some regionally based system to group high school students and get them to school 1 or 2 days per week.

If you have kids that are trying to play varsity athletics this year, move down South before there school year starts first week of August because there's no way sports are taking place in MD this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you can really trust any guidance put out by this administration. They'll just write whatever they think will help the orange's re-election chances in spite of what any public health expert believes.

Do you think the AAP is in cahoots with Trump's campaign as well?

The AAP simply recognized that it is in the best interest of children to return to F2F school. Everyone agrees with that.

The AAP believes that risks associated with COVID are less that the negative consequences of having no in person school at all. So they urge policy makers to try to make in person learning work. Even so, they recommend recommend putting safety measures in place. These include social distancing and masking. For instance, the report states that: "“Evidence suggests that spacing as close as 3 feet may approach the benefits of 6 feet of space, particularly if students are wearing face coverings and are asymptomatic.” Having read other studies, I disagree with the first part of the statement, but concur that studies show reduced risk with 3 feet of social distancing and masks. At this point, though, we have people saying that their kids can't or won't wear mask. Studies show that reducing social distancing to 3 feet is far less effective in mitigating the spread of the virus than 6 feet. And by the way, for all of you "we aren't supposed to eliminate risk" people, even 6 feet of social distancing does not eliminate risk.

The guidance also recommends use of outdoor spaces, which may or not work, depending on the weather, and assigning students to particular cohorts for lunch and busing. In addition, the guidance recommends having teachers change classes, rather than students. That works well with younger kids, but not as well with high school aged students. The AAP recommendations are a great start and would work especially well for younger students that can be more easily kept in the same group throughout the day. The more we are able to minimize the number of different people any one individual comes into close contact with, the greater the likelihood that schools can remain open and that contact tracing can be effective if there are any positives.

Also, AAP acknowledges that we do not fully understand the risk of transmission in and by children. Some of the evidence being cited to show there is little risk (like Norway) does not recognize the extent of mitigation measures put in place, including not offering transportation.

By the way, the WHO does not recommend only 3 feet of social distancing, but has recognized a benefit that much distance when greater distancing is not possible. As a parent, if you are not ok with only 3 feet of distancing and required masking, then it is unlikely you will be satisfied with any plan.

Sadly, at our over crowded public high school, I think that even with relaxed standards, some sort of A/B day will have to be implemented. There is only so much room in the hallways, and I have no idea how you could create a schedule (even with only half of the kids at school each day) to keep the hallways uncrowded. Our school uses many portables to accommodate its student population, but the doorways and number of bathrooms is the same as if the school weren't overcrowded.

PS - I have a HS senior whose year is likely to be ruined. I also have two varsity athletes who live for their fall sports. They will be disappointed by their lives will not be ruined.
I were in charge, I would prioritize getting younger kids in school as much as possible with as many mitigation measures as we can afford. Then figure out some regionally based system to group high school students and get them to school 1 or 2 days per week.

Except this assumption that it is in the kid's best interest is false.

You don't think that the ideal should be offering in person learning? Or you disagree with that assumption during the pandemic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The positivity rate in MD and MoCo is now under 5% and still decreasing (It used to be more than 30%.) There used to be 1700 Covid patients in the hospitals (even then the hospitals in MD were not overwhelmed), now there are about 400 patients, and constantly decreasing every day.
At some point, you have to do risk/benefit analysis and allow the kids to schools. There are huge educational, mental, social, economical costs of keeping schools shut.

If the schools turn out to be virus central, what’s the back up plan? “Oh well”, the current administrations national plan, won’t work cause parents won’t send their kids if schools become epicenter .

"Something bad might happen if there's school" is not a good reason to keep schools closed.

It's more accurate to say that something bad WILL happen when they open schools amidst a pandemic.

Exactly! Opening up schools amidst this crisis is simply accepting the notion that some people need to die so others can be less inconvenienced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you can really trust any guidance put out by this administration. They'll just write whatever they think will help the orange's re-election chances in spite of what any public health expert believes.

Do you think the AAP is in cahoots with Trump's campaign as well?

The AAP simply recognized that it is in the best interest of children to return to F2F school. Everyone agrees with that.

The AAP believes that risks associated with COVID are less that the negative consequences of having no in person school at all. So they urge policy makers to try to make in person learning work. Even so, they recommend recommend putting safety measures in place. These include social distancing and masking. For instance, the report states that: "“Evidence suggests that spacing as close as 3 feet may approach the benefits of 6 feet of space, particularly if students are wearing face coverings and are asymptomatic.” Having read other studies, I disagree with the first part of the statement, but concur that studies show reduced risk with 3 feet of social distancing and masks. At this point, though, we have people saying that their kids can't or won't wear mask. Studies show that reducing social distancing to 3 feet is far less effective in mitigating the spread of the virus than 6 feet. And by the way, for all of you "we aren't supposed to eliminate risk" people, even 6 feet of social distancing does not eliminate risk.

The guidance also recommends use of outdoor spaces, which may or not work, depending on the weather, and assigning students to particular cohorts for lunch and busing. In addition, the guidance recommends having teachers change classes, rather than students. That works well with younger kids, but not as well with high school aged students. The AAP recommendations are a great start and would work especially well for younger students that can be more easily kept in the same group throughout the day. The more we are able to minimize the number of different people any one individual comes into close contact with, the greater the likelihood that schools can remain open and that contact tracing can be effective if there are any positives.

Also, AAP acknowledges that we do not fully understand the risk of transmission in and by children. Some of the evidence being cited to show there is little risk (like Norway) does not recognize the extent of mitigation measures put in place, including not offering transportation.

By the way, the WHO does not recommend only 3 feet of social distancing, but has recognized a benefit that much distance when greater distancing is not possible. As a parent, if you are not ok with only 3 feet of distancing and required masking, then it is unlikely you will be satisfied with any plan.

Sadly, at our over crowded public high school, I think that even with relaxed standards, some sort of A/B day will have to be implemented. There is only so much room in the hallways, and I have no idea how you could create a schedule (even with only half of the kids at school each day) to keep the hallways uncrowded. Our school uses many portables to accommodate its student population, but the doorways and number of bathrooms is the same as if the school weren't overcrowded.

PS - I have a HS senior whose year is likely to be ruined. I also have two varsity athletes who live for their fall sports. They will be disappointed by their lives will not be ruined.
I were in charge, I would prioritize getting younger kids in school as much as possible with as many mitigation measures as we can afford. Then figure out some regionally based system to group high school students and get them to school 1 or 2 days per week.

If you have kids that are trying to play varsity athletics this year, move down South before there school year starts first week of August because there's no way sports are taking place in MD this year.

I understand and accept that. This is a pandemic. All of this is new. My kids love their sports, but they aren't going to be pro athletes. I can accept the new normal, which hopefully won't last forever. I encourage them to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you can really trust any guidance put out by this administration. They'll just write whatever they think will help the orange's re-election chances in spite of what any public health expert believes.

Do you think the AAP is in cahoots with Trump's campaign as well?

The AAP simply recognized that it is in the best interest of children to return to F2F school. Everyone agrees with that.

The AAP believes that risks associated with COVID are less that the negative consequences of having no in person school at all. So they urge policy makers to try to make in person learning work. Even so, they recommend recommend putting safety measures in place. These include social distancing and masking. For instance, the report states that: "“Evidence suggests that spacing as close as 3 feet may approach the benefits of 6 feet of space, particularly if students are wearing face coverings and are asymptomatic.” Having read other studies, I disagree with the first part of the statement, but concur that studies show reduced risk with 3 feet of social distancing and masks. At this point, though, we have people saying that their kids can't or won't wear mask. Studies show that reducing social distancing to 3 feet is far less effective in mitigating the spread of the virus than 6 feet. And by the way, for all of you "we aren't supposed to eliminate risk" people, even 6 feet of social distancing does not eliminate risk.

The guidance also recommends use of outdoor spaces, which may or not work, depending on the weather, and assigning students to particular cohorts for lunch and busing. In addition, the guidance recommends having teachers change classes, rather than students. That works well with younger kids, but not as well with high school aged students. The AAP recommendations are a great start and would work especially well for younger students that can be more easily kept in the same group throughout the day. The more we are able to minimize the number of different people any one individual comes into close contact with, the greater the likelihood that schools can remain open and that contact tracing can be effective if there are any positives.

Also, AAP acknowledges that we do not fully understand the risk of transmission in and by children. Some of the evidence being cited to show there is little risk (like Norway) does not recognize the extent of mitigation measures put in place, including not offering transportation.

By the way, the WHO does not recommend only 3 feet of social distancing, but has recognized a benefit that much distance when greater distancing is not possible. As a parent, if you are not ok with only 3 feet of distancing and required masking, then it is unlikely you will be satisfied with any plan.

Sadly, at our over crowded public high school, I think that even with relaxed standards, some sort of A/B day will have to be implemented. There is only so much room in the hallways, and I have no idea how you could create a schedule (even with only half of the kids at school each day) to keep the hallways uncrowded. Our school uses many portables to accommodate its student population, but the doorways and number of bathrooms is the same as if the school weren't overcrowded.

PS - I have a HS senior whose year is likely to be ruined. I also have two varsity athletes who live for their fall sports. They will be disappointed by their lives will not be ruined.
I were in charge, I would prioritize getting younger kids in school as much as possible with as many mitigation measures as we can afford. Then figure out some regionally based system to group high school students and get them to school 1 or 2 days per week.

Except this assumption that it is in the kid's best interest is false.

Agree - going back to school to face certain infection isn't anyone's interests.

[Anonymous]

I just filled out that survey (and now understand why everyone was complaining—what horribly worded questions). I said that if they go with 100% DL as the only option then any family should be able to opt out of school for 2020-2021 without having to homeschool. Their children should then enter the 2021-2022 in whatever grade they should have been in during the 2020-2021 year.

I don’t need my kid to be babysat. But I do need her to learn. I am incapable of homeschooling her, and MCPS is incapable of providing her with an education via 100% DL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just filled out that survey (and now understand why everyone was complaining—what horribly worded questions). I said that if they go with 100% DL as the only option then any family should be able to opt out of school for 2020-2021 without having to homeschool. Their children should then enter the 2021-2022 in whatever grade they should have been in during the 2020-2021 year.

I don’t need my kid to be babysat. But I do need her to learn. I am incapable of homeschooling her, and MCPS is incapable of providing her with an education via 100% DL.

That's interesting. We found the DL to be a lot better use of time than their regular in-person program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just filled out that survey (and now understand why everyone was complaining—what horribly worded questions). I said that if they go with 100% DL as the only option then any family should be able to opt out of school for 2020-2021 without having to homeschool. Their children should then enter the 2021-2022 in whatever grade they should have been in during the 2020-2021 year.

I don’t need my kid to be babysat. But I do need her to learn. I am incapable of homeschooling her, and MCPS is incapable of providing her with an education via 100% DL.

That's interesting. We found the DL to be a lot better use of time than their regular in-person program.

That’s great! You should certainly have the option to enroll next year for 100% DL, and I think you will on the off-chance that there is any in-person instruction.

My daughter was in 2nd grade last year, and it was awful for her. Essentially it was a half hour to say a quick hello to her class with no academic instruction, and then a half hour video later in the day from either Benchmark and Eureka. She was really disengaged and I ended up having to opt her out of DL before the end of the year. If public health officials say that schools need to be closed next year for in-person instruction, then for her it basically means a lost year. If that’s the case then parents like me who don’t want the DL should have the option of deferring the grade for the year. That is not without challenges—she is already among the oldest in her class with a fall bday, so she might be close to 2 years older than some kids when she does start back up. But given these extraordinary times, it should be an option for parents of distance learning is the only way to keep kids, teachers, and staff safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Except this assumption that it is in the kid's best interest is false.

Nope. It's neither false nor true, because it's an opinion question, not a fact question. Your opinion is that it is in children's best interest to not have school. Others, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and other public-health experts, have the opinion that it is in children's best interest to have school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly! Opening up schools amidst this crisis is simply accepting the notion that some people need to die so others can be less inconvenienced.

No, having school during the pandemic is simply accepting the notion that the benefits of having school outweigh the costs of having school. Covid is not the only public-health outcome.

Also describing closed schools as an inconvenience reminds me of the people who describe unwanted pregnancy as an inconvenience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just filled out that survey (and now understand why everyone was complaining—what horribly worded questions). I said that if they go with 100% DL as the only option then any family should be able to opt out of school for 2020-2021 without having to homeschool. Their children should then enter the 2021-2022 in whatever grade they should have been in during the 2020-2021 year.

I don’t need my kid to be babysat. But I do need her to learn. I am incapable of homeschooling her, and MCPS is incapable of providing her with an education via 100% DL.

That's interesting. We found the DL to be a lot better use of time than their regular in-person program.

That’s great! You should certainly have the option to enroll next year for 100% DL, and I think you will on the off-chance that there is any in-person instruction.

My daughter was in 2nd grade last year, and it was awful for her. Essentially it was a half hour to say a quick hello to her class with no academic instruction, and then a half hour video later in the day from either Benchmark and Eureka. She was really disengaged and I ended up having to opt her out of DL before the end of the year. If public health officials say that schools need to be closed next year for in-person instruction, then for her it basically means a lost year. If that’s the case then parents like me who don’t want the DL should have the option of deferring the grade for the year. That is not without challenges—she is already among the oldest in her class with a fall bday, so she might be close to 2 years older than some kids when she does start back up. But given these extraordinary times, it should be an option for parents of distance learning is the only way to keep kids, teachers, and staff safe.

How can you complain about lost time when you pulled your child out early?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just filled out that survey (and now understand why everyone was complaining—what horribly worded questions). I said that if they go with 100% DL as the only option then any family should be able to opt out of school for 2020-2021 without having to homeschool. Their children should then enter the 2021-2022 in whatever grade they should have been in during the 2020-2021 year.

I don’t need my kid to be babysat. But I do need her to learn. I am incapable of homeschooling her, and MCPS is incapable of providing her with an education via 100% DL.

That's interesting. We found the DL to be a lot better use of time than their regular in-person program.

That’s great! You should certainly have the option to enroll next year for 100% DL, and I think you will on the off-chance that there is any in-person instruction.

My daughter was in 2nd grade last year, and it was awful for her. Essentially it was a half hour to say a quick hello to her class with no academic instruction, and then a half hour video later in the day from either Benchmark and Eureka. She was really disengaged and I ended up having to opt her out of DL before the end of the year. If public health officials say that schools need to be closed next year for in-person instruction, then for her it basically means a lost year. If that’s the case then parents like me who don’t want the DL should have the option of deferring the grade for the year. That is not without challenges—she is already among the oldest in her class with a fall bday, so she might be close to 2 years older than some kids when she does start back up. But given these extraordinary times, it should be an option for parents of distance learning is the only way to keep kids, teachers, and staff safe.

How can you complain about lost time when you pulled your child out early?

DP. The PP said that remote instruction was not working for their daughter. That's how.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just filled out that survey (and now understand why everyone was complaining—what horribly worded questions). I said that if they go with 100% DL as the only option then any family should be able to opt out of school for 2020-2021 without having to homeschool. Their children should then enter the 2021-2022 in whatever grade they should have been in during the 2020-2021 year.

I don’t need my kid to be babysat. But I do need her to learn. I am incapable of homeschooling her, and MCPS is incapable of providing her with an education via 100% DL.

That's interesting. We found the DL to be a lot better use of time than their regular in-person program.

That’s great! You should certainly have the option to enroll next year for 100% DL, and I think you will on the off-chance that there is any in-person instruction.

My daughter was in 2nd grade last year, and it was awful for her. Essentially it was a half hour to say a quick hello to her class with no academic instruction, and then a half hour video later in the day from either Benchmark and Eureka. She was really disengaged and I ended up having to opt her out of DL before the end of the year. If public health officials say that schools need to be closed next year for in-person instruction, then for her it basically means a lost year. If that’s the case then parents like me who don’t want the DL should have the option of deferring the grade for the year. That is not without challenges—she is already among the oldest in her class with a fall bday, so she might be close to 2 years older than some kids when she does start back up. But given these extraordinary times, it should be an option for parents of distance learning is the only way to keep kids, teachers, and staff safe.

How can you complain about lost time when you pulled your child out early?

Because she got nothing out of it. We did it for 2 months. She was miserable and got nothing academically out of it.

I don’t have a problem with their going to 100% DL next year as long as three are fine with letting families opt out and completely, letting them pick back up the following year at the grade level they should have been in for 2020-2021. But I’m not going to send my kid into a situation in which she is miserable and learning nothing again. That is not providing an education to her. Families that found DL effective (and some in HS seem to be saying that it was) can you forward with it. But it was a failure for my ES kid, and I’m not going to repeat that.