Anonymous wrote:Probably cause a lot of kids rely on school lunch.

A lot of kids rely on school lunches everywhere. In my state (Virginia) breakfasts and lunches are still being delivered to the schools. There’s no reason NYC couldn’t do the same.

Anonymous wrote:child care.

This. Most public schools are more about babysitting, and less about education.

How tragic.

child care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article recently how the closing of schools in Japan backfired as working parents had to drop off thier kids somewhere. So they took them to other public places. They even had to open up the schools and have the teachers come in as babysitters in some areas. The teachers were not allowed to teach because it would be unfair to the other kids. So there are reasons not to close schools. Especially if the kids rely on it for food.

It actually didn't backfire - look at how Japan has succeeded in flattening its outbreak curve.

What is the source of this graphic?

Anonymous wrote:PP here. After 9/11 many schools actually stayed open all night and kids slept on mats in the gym because they couldn't get home.

NYC public schools are really focused on keeping the schools open as a place of normalcy and safety for kids, many of whom would be basically fending for themselves if there was a shutdown for any reason.

My heart is so heavy right now

PP here. After 9/11 many schools actually stayed open all night and kids slept on mats in the gym because they couldn't get home.

NYC public schools are really focused on keeping the schools open as a place of normalcy and safety for kids, many of whom would be basically fending for themselves if there was a shutdown for any reason.

PP here. Because of the care issue, little kids didn't have to do "shifts." They typically try to move them to another location on the same schedule.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because they have 100,000 homeless students who depend on school to do their laundry and other essential services.

It's a very different calculation than other cities.

At least make it optional for those who do not need those services. That exposes teachers to fewer people.

Even if they made it optional, almost all kids would go. It isn't just homeless kids, it's that most working and middle kids would be dangerously unsupervised at home because both parents work and there's no way they can afford a sitter at NYC rates.

NYC schools stay open when other schools wouldn't. After 9-11, kids whose schools were close to the collapsed towers were back in school by the next monday. They actually had some high school kids go to classes at other schools (remember NYC has no bus system and the kids just take public transit and a student subway pass lets you take any train or bus), putting them on "shifts" meaning the kids from the affected schools would attend classes at a school at another area from lunchtime until the early evening and use their classrooms.

This wasn't new for 9-11 either. My dad grew up in the NYC public schools and he remembers having to do shifts if there was something that shut down a school.

Anonymous wrote:Because they have 100,000 homeless students who depend on school to do their laundry and other essential services.

It's a very different calculation than other cities.

At least make it optional for those who do not need those services. That exposes teachers to fewer people.

Anonymous wrote:There was an article recently how the closing of schools in Japan backfired as working parents had to drop off thier kids somewhere. So they took them to other public places. They even had to open up the schools and have the teachers come in as babysitters in some areas. The teachers were not allowed to teach because it would be unfair to the other kids. So there are reasons not to close schools. Especially if the kids rely on it for food.

It actually didn't backfire - look at how Japan has succeeded in flattening its outbreak curve.

Anonymous wrote:There was an article recently how the closing of schools in Japan backfired as working parents had to drop off thier kids somewhere. So they took them to other public places. They even had to open up the schools and have the teachers come in as babysitters in some areas. The teachers were not allowed to teach because it would be unfair to the other kids. So there are reasons not to close schools. Especially if the kids rely on it for food.

Interestingly, one of the big reasons why school closures work is that it forces parents to stay home, so the disease isn’t being spread among adults. If parents are going to go to work anyway, it kind of defeats the purpose.

Also, for school closure to work well, they need to be shut down as soon as one person in the entire city/community tests positive. Shutting them down after the disease is already spreading helps a little, but not much.

Because they have 100,000 homeless students who depend on school to do their laundry and other essential services.

It's a very different calculation than other cities.

There was an article recently how the closing of schools in Japan backfired as working parents had to drop off thier kids somewhere. So they took them to other public places. They even had to open up the schools and have the teachers come in as babysitters in some areas. The teachers were not allowed to teach because it would be unfair to the other kids. So there are reasons not to close schools. Especially if the kids rely on it for food.

Probably cause a lot of kids rely on school lunch.

ATL schools are closing Monday with 12 confirmed cases and yet NYC is in a state of emergency and still refuse to close the schools. I don't get it