Anonymous wrote:
Yes exactly. Private and parochial schools have flexibility a city wide school district don’t have. Would love to see examples of other districts with 50k + students completing overhauling their schedules, their school buildings and infrastructure mid year. 18 months and You still don’t know what you’re talking about
I'm the PP who said I was lobbying for things like outdoor school and shortened days last fall and was told it was not possible. You are incorrect, and the fact that you view this as "completely overhauling" schedules, buildings, and infrastructure is a huge part of the problem.
A shortened school day is not a complete overhaul. It's called early release, and it's really straightforward for elementary school students. It does not even require much adjustment to schedule. You do morning schedule as planned, and then release before lunch time. You drop specials if necessary, or turn them into a virtual program or home study (send kids home with art supplies, provide a Spanish lesson virtually, assign them a PE activity, etc.).
For kids who live far from the school or whose parents cannot pick them up midday (which will be a much smaller subset of the total school population) you provide a CARES classroom type setting that is focused on outdoor play. Fewer kids, mostly outdoors, and you are addressing most of the concerns. To address food insecurity, school lunch is a bag lunch (which is what we are doing this year anyway) and kids can take it home or eat it in the CARES environment, but you avoid the lunchroom unmasked issues.
Outdoor school is harder but making outdoor time a priority is not. If possible set up tents, and then tell teachers to do class outdoors whenever possible. The end. If it's not possible, you're indoors and you rely on masks. With a shortened day, this isn't that big of a deal.
It is cheaper to provide children with outdoor gear (coats, hats, mittens, etc.) than to provide everyone with a device and ensure they all have access to the internet and a place to do virtual school. Ask me how I know this!
Everyone who told me last year that my suggestions were unrealistic? I am not interested in your input anymore. Most of what I suggested last summer and fall in order to get kids into school, other than the shortened day, has either already been implemented in the spring or is being implemented this year. Thing how ahead of the game we'd be if we'd done it last year instead of spending most of last year trying to make DL work for kids. Including tons of kids who it was NEVER GOING TO WORK FOR -- very young students, housing insecure kids, kids with IEPs that cannot be accommodated virtually, kids whose parents work full time and cannot afford childcare, etc.
Everyone telling me that what I asked for was unrealistic: what we actually did was unrealistic. Which is why we are now in a situation where if these kids don't get into a classroom now, during a surge and a variant that seems to be impacting kids more, we're in a dire situation.
It's time to be quiet. Figure out what works for your family. If that's homeschooling, great. If it's just keeping them home after school starts in protest agains not getting a virtual option, go for it. I will support you. I'm fine with a centralized virtual option open to some percentage of the district's kids (I think it should be capped and I do think you should have to have a reason, though I don't think it should be restricted to kids with a proven health condition). But let schools pivot and make this work. It's possible -- schools have been doing this all over the world for 18 months! Let's learn from them and figure it out.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}