Reply to Study shows "Reopening schools associated with a 24% increase in R (spread)"; 2nd-largest effect

Forum Index » Schools and Education General Discussion

Reply to "Study shows "Reopening schools associated with a 24% increase in R (spread)"; 2nd-largest effect"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I have some sympathy for people who need childcare.  Working parents need childcare!

The problem is that there are no good options.

Because Trump, and the Republican Party, screwed up the COVID response.  At best.  (At worst they sabotaged it intentionally for political advantage.)[/quote]

School is for education, not child care.  Child care is a bonus.  Need child care, pay for it.  [/quote]

What I don’t get about this trolling — “school not for child care” — is that it is so ridiculous, so nonsensical, that I do not understand the point.

I get why trolls want to be anti-teacher, because they hate unions and also want to damage public schools to cut taxes on the rich.

But “schools aren’t childcare” is so vapid that it hurts.  What’s the real point of saying it?  Maybe just to push people towards private schools (that you “pay for”?)

I guess a major thrust in conservatism is to encourage their own people to have lots of babies and stay at home, producing more little conservatives.  But this argument makes little sense when applied to the whole public.

So in summary: ???.  I don’t get this troll line.[/quote]

When the whole "school isn't childcare" line started popping up all the time, or when I started seeing people say "let's decouple education and childcare", my first instinct was to listen because I thought people were making a policy argument that I just needed to understand. And I respect what teachers do a lot (half of the people in my family are teachers) so I was ready to support an idea that validated teaching as an important profession on its own (which it is).

But the sticking point for me was always grounded in the reality of the way we live and how our entire economy and society is set up. Are teachers providing daycare? No, of course not. But as we've all see, if kids don't physically go to school, families are suddenly on the hook for providing something they have never anticipated having to provide.

Now, if the "school isn't childcare" people were advocating for a society-based way to get childcare to working families, like subsidized playgroups run by adults qualified to take care of kids, then I would get it. But they aren't. They are saying that if families need childcare (and literally all families need childcare), they must pay for it on the open market, despite the fact that there isn't a market for full-time childcare for school age children. And if they can't find or can't afford care this way, they (and they=moms because it always does) must quit or scale back their jobs to car for their own kids. And if the loss of have their HHI means they have to sell their homes to go live somewhere cheaper, I guess that's what it means.

And that's not a policy argument. It's a total abdication of the role of society, and its telling families to go f**k themselves.

So:

School is childcare, and it will continue to be childcare until society finds another way to provide childcare. The end.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics