Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m just happy the kids will be going back- and I’m a MCPS teacher and parent of MCPS kids. They need to be in school. Yes physical distancing isn’t happening, yes mask compliance is low, yes to all the problems. But Covid is something we have to figure out how to live with at this point- bring the focus to vaccination and testing- and take virtual/hybrid school off the table entirely.

I'm also a MCPS teacher and parent of MCPS kids. Totally agree!! As do most of my peers.

Another thank you!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m just happy the kids will be going back- and I’m a MCPS teacher and parent of MCPS kids. They need to be in school. Yes physical distancing isn’t happening, yes mask compliance is low, yes to all the problems. But Covid is something we have to figure out how to live with at this point- bring the focus to vaccination and testing- and take virtual/hybrid school off the table entirely.

"Learning to live with COVID" SHOULD include plans to deal with surges. Which should not be to ignore them and act exactly the same as when community transmission is low.

I'm so sick of the idea that "learning to live with COVID" means little more than just throwing up hands and doing whatever. Learned helplessness I guess.

But it shouldn't mean go back to virtual, as the ^ teacher stated.

I'd like to see "test to stay" implemented in MCPS, but I don't think they will do it because too many people from certain groups won't do it. I'd like to see MCPS publish the numbers of how many students have been signed up for testing, by school.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody wants hybrid. Absolutely nobody. But most who want in-person would prefer hybrid over fully virtual. And most who want fully virtual would prefer hybrid over fully in-person. It's pareto optimal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m just happy the kids will be going back- and I’m a MCPS teacher and parent of MCPS kids. They need to be in school. Yes physical distancing isn’t happening, yes mask compliance is low, yes to all the problems. But Covid is something we have to figure out how to live with at this point- bring the focus to vaccination and testing- and take virtual/hybrid school off the table entirely.

"Learning to live with COVID" SHOULD include plans to deal with surges. Which should not be to ignore them and act exactly the same as when community transmission is low.

I'm so sick of the idea that "learning to live with COVID" means little more than just throwing up hands and doing whatever. Learned helplessness I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m just happy the kids will be going back- and I’m a MCPS teacher and parent of MCPS kids. They need to be in school. Yes physical distancing isn’t happening, yes mask compliance is low, yes to all the problems. But Covid is something we have to figure out how to live with at this point- bring the focus to vaccination and testing- and take virtual/hybrid school off the table entirely.

I'm also a MCPS teacher and parent of MCPS kids. Totally agree!! As do most of my peers.

Another thank you!!

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m just happy the kids will be going back- and I’m a MCPS teacher and parent of MCPS kids. They need to be in school. Yes physical distancing isn’t happening, yes mask compliance is low, yes to all the problems. But Covid is something we have to figure out how to live with at this point- bring the focus to vaccination and testing- and take virtual/hybrid school off the table entirely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m just happy the kids will be going back- and I’m a MCPS teacher and parent of MCPS kids. They need to be in school. Yes physical distancing isn’t happening, yes mask compliance is low, yes to all the problems. But Covid is something we have to figure out how to live with at this point- bring the focus to vaccination and testing- and take virtual/hybrid school off the table entirely.

I'm also a MCPS teacher and parent of MCPS kids. Totally agree!! As do most of my peers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m just happy the kids will be going back- and I’m a MCPS teacher and parent of MCPS kids. They need to be in school. Yes physical distancing isn’t happening, yes mask compliance is low, yes to all the problems. But Covid is something we have to figure out how to live with at this point- bring the focus to vaccination and testing- and take virtual/hybrid school off the table entirely.

I'm also a MCPS teacher and parent of MCPS kids. Totally agree!! As do most of my peers.

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m just happy the kids will be going back- and I’m a MCPS teacher and parent of MCPS kids. They need to be in school. Yes physical distancing isn’t happening, yes mask compliance is low, yes to all the problems. But Covid is something we have to figure out how to live with at this point- bring the focus to vaccination and testing- and take virtual/hybrid school off the table entirely.

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m just happy the kids will be going back- and I’m a MCPS teacher and parent of MCPS kids. They need to be in school. Yes physical distancing isn’t happening, yes mask compliance is low, yes to all the problems. But Covid is something we have to figure out how to live with at this point- bring the focus to vaccination and testing- and take virtual/hybrid school off the table entirely.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody wants hybrid. Absolutely nobody. But most who want in-person would prefer hybrid over fully virtual. And most who want fully virtual would prefer hybrid over fully in-person. It's pareto optimal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what they should do for this week, and perhaps most of January til cases head down.

1. On Monday-Tuesday, test every kid who is at school (none of this sending tests home). If there are tests available, repeat this every Monday-Tuesday til cases head down.

2. Have kids on an alternating schedule A-M; N-Z. Last year when they did this, they allowed special needs kids to come every day and I've no idea how this affects numbers but in principle I'd be fine with it. Could make the same accommodation for at-risk kids (based on MAP scores or something) though I suspect this wouldn't work, but in principle, a good idea. The goal would be that each classroom would be at about 60% capacity. The other half of the class would be online the other day (the way they did last year).
3. There would be some threshold (maybe school-level threshold) for going back to 100%... probably feasible by late January.
What this achieves:
-Kids are back in school 5 out of 10 days every two weeks, so the mental health and other issues cited last year would be less prominent.
-Teachers could continue to give real tests (not open-note/at home tests), though they'd need to make two versions of any tests since kids would be taking on different days. They could more easily pull out kids who need extra attention or have questions when those kids are in person.
-Social distancing (which frankly didn't exist in fall semester despite what MCPS said) would be feasible. Teachers could arrange the classroom to stay farther away from kids while teaching.
-Any infected kid would expose fewer others.
-Kids who are out of school either in quarantine or with less symptomatic covid or because of parents' fear would have a real educational option-- they'd just log in virtually every day. (Something would need to be worked out for those in-person tests, but that's doable.)

Viola.

Lots of bad ideas in here. Teachers don't want concurrent (and they're right) so it's a non-starter. Social distancing is a relic of 2020 (droplet vs. aerosol) so is wholly irrelevant. There aren't 150,000 tests laying around (which only capture a moment in time and rapid tests not very effective at capturing Omicron).

^ the latest FOX News Talking points for covid deniers...