Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:At least in my neck of the woods, we said for 1.5 years that going to school (as in physically going to a building) wasn't necessary, so it's unsurprising that people took that to heart.
I agree that this is part of it, plus sickness, whether kids are sick more often or there is more awareness about keeping sick kids home. Regardless, the messaging addressing both issues simultaneously minimized the importance of in-person education and emphasized the need to keep sick kids home. Is it any wonder that people internalized those messages?
The thing about keeping sick kids home for longer is an issue. People are now keeping a kid with a cold home for two weeks until every last sniffle is gone. You can't do that and have anything resembling a normal school year. And it's especially damaging because it's younger kids who tend to circulate these cold viruses more often -- there are kids in K and 1st who have cold symptoms for most of the year because they are still in the phase of just catching everything and building immunity. As they get older, they won't get so many colds.
But K and 1st are critical years for literacy. Missing two weeks of K to an illness might be the difference between finishing the year with basic reading skills or not. It's a big deal.
But I don't know if this is even counting toward the chronic absentee numbers, since the absences for illness are excused in our district (I do think you need a doctors note after three consecutive days out, but it's not hard to get a doctors note saying a kid has still has a cold or an ear infection or something). So this might actually be a problem on top of chronic absenteeism with unexcused absences, where parents are just keeping kids home for no reason. Which is frightening.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:At least in my neck of the woods, we said for 1.5 years that going to school (as in physically going to a building) wasn't necessary, so it's unsurprising that people took that to heart.
I agree that this is part of it, plus sickness, whether kids are sick more often or there is more awareness about keeping sick kids home. Regardless, the messaging addressing both issues simultaneously minimized the importance of in-person education and emphasized the need to keep sick kids home. Is it any wonder that people internalized those messages?
Anonymous wrote:At least in my neck of the woods, we said for 1.5 years that going to school (as in physically going to a building) wasn't necessary, so it's unsurprising that people took that to heart.
Anonymous wrote:At least in my neck of the woods, we said for 1.5 years that going to school (as in physically going to a building) wasn't necessary, so it's unsurprising that people took that to heart.