Allegedly there are several options for the fall none of which include being back full time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Each one of us contributes to making this a civilized discussion. Let’s take care not to put words into other people’s mouths or tell them they are everything wrong with America. We need to find solutions, not bicker.

You mean we shouldn't tell others that they are "crazy" and "ridiculous" for thinking that schools should be a higher priority than commercial businesses such as hair salons and bars?

Yes, I think we should all quit calling one another crazy and ridiculous, period. Right here, you are putting words in people’s mouths. No one is saying they think bars and hair salons are a higher priority than education. What they and state officials are saying is that it is possible to limit the number of people in a bar or a salon in a way it is completely not possible to do in a school under normal conditions. Please don’t assume other people’s priorities or thoughts are so deficient.

I did not put words in her mouth. The PP I was referring to said: "You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that."

While she has a point that people's livelihoods are also valid concerns (and getting kids back to school would seem to be a prerequisite for allowing parents to resume their jobs), she literally said that schools should not be a higher priority for the government/society than commercial businesses. There was nothing in her statement about the practicability of occupancy limits in hair salons vs. schools. Other posters have made that argument, she didn't in this post. Her post clearly implied that kids are not to the benefit of everyone in a society and that their interests can therefore legitimately be ignored by the childless, and that childcare should be the sole responsibility of their individual parents. This is a uniquely American mindset, which is also evident in the fact that we don't have subsidized childcare or maternity leave like other developed countries. I struggle to imagine as many people making this argument in Germany (where I grew up).

That said, I disagree with the poster who argued that we should keep everything closed to maximize the chances that schools can open. That seems impractical. But schools should certainly not be the only thing that stays closed, AND we should be willing to take increased risks in order to operate them fully, i.e. drop social distancing requirements sooner than in the commercial context because they are not compatible with school operations.

Nope, people would rather live than do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

AAP also has different recommendations for MS and HS. In that case, physical distancing amongst students AND teachers. Based on their guidelines, ES should go back full time and MS and HS on a staggered or block schedule that would mean part time because of the number of students MCPS.

Evidently you didn't read the recommendations, because that is not at all what they say. Here is what they say:

Secondary Schools

There is likely a greater impact of physical distancing on risk reduction of COVID in secondary schools than early childhood or elementary education. There are also different barriers to successful implementation of many of these measures in older age groups, as the structure of school is usually based on students changing classrooms. Suggestions for physical distancing risk mitigation strategies when feasible:

Universal face coverings in middle and high schools when not able to maintain a 6-foot distance (students and adults).

Particular avoidance of close physical proximity in cases of increased exhalation (singing, exercise); these activities are likely safest outdoors and spread out.

Desks should be placed 3 to 6 feet apart when feasible.

Cohort classes if possible, limit cross-over of students and teachers to the extent possible.
Ideas that may assist with cohorting:
Block schedule (much like colleges, intensive 1-month blocks).
Eliminate use of lockers or assign them by cohort to reduce need for hallway use across multiple areas of the building. (This strategy would need to be done in conjunction with planning to ensure students are not carrying home an unreasonable number of books on a daily basis and may vary depending on other cohorting and instructional decisions schools are making.)

Have teachers rotate instead of students when feasible.

Utilize outdoor spaces when possible.

Teachers should maintain 6 feet from students when possible and if not disruptive to educational process.

Restructure elective offerings to allow small groups within one classroom. This may not be possible in a small classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ok, in a perfect world that would work but PA and WVA are still rising and last I checked, right next door to us. Second Larla can't wear a mask because she doesn't want to. Third most of us don't wear masks so........ Gotta dance with the girl you brung, not the one you wish you had.

If you want to look for reasons why doing X is impossible, you'll always find plenty.

Now go read what the American Academy of Pediatrics says about it.

They discuss Maryland and how PA and WV will affect Covid transmission?

https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/clinical-guidance/covid-19-planning-considerations-return-to-in-person-education-in-schools/

COVID-19 Planning Considerations: Guidance for School Re-entry
Critical Updates on COVID-19 / Clinical Guidance / COVID-19 Planning Considerations: Guidance for School Re-entry



the AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school

I think we can all agree both that this is the goal and that it's extremely unlikely it will be achieved (even in part).

Why? What's so difficult about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Each one of us contributes to making this a civilized discussion. Let’s take care not to put words into other people’s mouths or tell them they are everything wrong with America. We need to find solutions, not bicker.

You mean we shouldn't tell others that they are "crazy" and "ridiculous" for thinking that schools should be a higher priority than commercial businesses such as hair salons and bars?

Yes, I think we should all quit calling one another crazy and ridiculous, period. Right here, you are putting words in people’s mouths. No one is saying they think bars and hair salons are a higher priority than education. What they and state officials are saying is that it is possible to limit the number of people in a bar or a salon in a way it is completely not possible to do in a school under normal conditions. Please don’t assume other people’s priorities or thoughts are so deficient.

I did not put words in her mouth. The PP I was referring to said: "You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that."

While she has a point that people's livelihoods are also valid concerns (and getting kids back to school would seem to be a prerequisite for allowing parents to resume their jobs), she literally said that schools should not be a higher priority for the government/society than commercial businesses. There was nothing in her statement about the practicability of occupancy limits in hair salons vs. schools. Other posters have made that argument, she didn't in this post. Her post clearly implied that kids are not to the benefit of everyone in a society and that their interests can therefore legitimately be ignored by the childless, and that childcare should be the sole responsibility of their individual parents. This is a uniquely American mindset, which is also evident in the fact that we don't have subsidized childcare or maternity leave like other developed countries. I struggle to imagine as many people making this argument in Germany (where I grew up).

That said, I disagree with the poster who argued that we should keep everything closed to maximize the chances that schools can open. That seems impractical. But schools should certainly not be the only thing that stays closed, AND we should be willing to take increased risks in order to operate them fully, i.e. drop social distancing requirements sooner than in the commercial context because they are not compatible with school operations.

Nope, people would rather live than do this.

"People," who?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ok, in a perfect world that would work but PA and WVA are still rising and last I checked, right next door to us. Second Larla can't wear a mask because she doesn't want to. Third most of us don't wear masks so........ Gotta dance with the girl you brung, not the one you wish you had.

If you want to look for reasons why doing X is impossible, you'll always find plenty.

Now go read what the American Academy of Pediatrics says about it.

They discuss Maryland and how PA and WV will affect Covid transmission?

https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/clinical-guidance/covid-19-planning-considerations-return-to-in-person-education-in-schools/

COVID-19 Planning Considerations: Guidance for School Re-entry
Critical Updates on COVID-19 / Clinical Guidance / COVID-19 Planning Considerations: Guidance for School Re-entry



the AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school

I think we can all agree both that this is the goal and that it's extremely unlikely it will be achieved (even in part).

Why? What's so difficult about it?

It is not going to be safe by any metric, and so it won't be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

AAP also has different recommendations for MS and HS. In that case, physical distancing amongst students AND teachers. Based on their guidelines, ES should go back full time and MS and HS on a staggered or block schedule that would mean part time because of the number of students MCPS.

Evidently you didn't read the recommendations, because that is not at all what they say. Here is what they say:

Secondary Schools

There is likely a greater impact of physical distancing on risk reduction of COVID in secondary schools than early childhood or elementary education. There are also different barriers to successful implementation of many of these measures in older age groups, as the structure of school is usually based on students changing classrooms. Suggestions for physical distancing risk mitigation strategies when feasible:

Universal face coverings in middle and high schools when not able to maintain a 6-foot distance (students and adults).

Particular avoidance of close physical proximity in cases of increased exhalation (singing, exercise); these activities are likely safest outdoors and spread out.

Desks should be placed 3 to 6 feet apart when feasible.

Cohort classes if possible, limit cross-over of students and teachers to the extent possible.
Ideas that may assist with cohorting:
Block schedule (much like colleges, intensive 1-month blocks).
Eliminate use of lockers or assign them by cohort to reduce need for hallway use across multiple areas of the building. (This strategy would need to be done in conjunction with planning to ensure students are not carrying home an unreasonable number of books on a daily basis and may vary depending on other cohorting and instructional decisions schools are making.)

Have teachers rotate instead of students when feasible.

Utilize outdoor spaces when possible.

Teachers should maintain 6 feet from students when possible and if not disruptive to educational process.

Restructure elective offerings to allow small groups within one classroom. This may not be possible in a small classroom.

Re-read the 1st paragraph. That is what is implied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Re-read the 1st paragraph. That is what is implied.

No, that's what you inferred. But it's not what it says. In fact, it specifically says the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think we can all agree both that this is the goal and that it's extremely unlikely it will be achieved (even in part).

Why? What's so difficult about it?

It is not going to be safe by any metric, and so it won't be done.

The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with your assessment. What do you know that they don't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Re-read the 1st paragraph. That is what is implied.

No, that's what you inferred. But it's not what it says. In fact, it specifically says the opposite.

Where does it say the opposite?

[Anonymous]

I love the people salivating over the AAP like their statement is bible. It is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Re-read the 1st paragraph. That is what is implied.

No, that's what you inferred. But it's not what it says. In fact, it specifically says the opposite.

Where does it say the opposite?

In all of the recommendations for secondary schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the people salivating over the AAP like their statement is bible. It is not.

Which parts do you disagree with, based on what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think we can all agree both that this is the goal and that it's extremely unlikely it will be achieved (even in part).

Why? What's so difficult about it?

It is not going to be safe by any metric, and so it won't be done.

The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with your assessment. What do you know that they don't?

Methinks we have a troll who is posting the same crap on every thread. Schools will reopen for in-person learning in January 2021, at the earliest. Got that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think we can all agree both that this is the goal and that it's extremely unlikely it will be achieved (even in part).

Why? What's so difficult about it?

It is not going to be safe by any metric, and so it won't be done.

The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with your assessment. What do you know that they don't?

Methinks we have a troll who is posting the same crap on every thread. Schools will reopen for in-person learning in January 2021, at the earliest. Got that?

It’s the same person posting AAP info on every thread. But it’s hard to call her a troll. What the AAP says on the topic is clearly relevant, although they clearly don’t have the last word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Re-read the 1st paragraph. That is what is implied.

No, that's what you inferred. But it's not what it says. In fact, it specifically says the opposite.

Where does it say the opposite?

In all of the recommendations for secondary schools.

The first sentence clearly states that social distancing has a greater impact on secondary school age students compared to young kids. The recommendations take this premise into account.