Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Might be best to leave this decision up to public health experts.

And experts in education and child development.

Guess what? They all agree that in-person learning should be prioritized. So... yeah. No need to petition, unless you want to show your support. I'd rather email leadership directly to thank them for putting kids first, for a change.

We will petition, call and write however we please. We don’t need your permission, Internet Nobody, but thanks for your input.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Might be best to leave this decision up to public health experts.

And experts in education and child development.

Guess what? They all agree that in-person learning should be prioritized. So... yeah. No need to petition, unless you want to show your support. I'd rather email leadership directly to thank them for putting kids first, for a change.

And of course the leading experts in education have gone remote themselves during the surge:

“ the University determined the best course of action was for us all to be remote for the first three weeks of January. The hope is to reduce the risk of on-campus transmission following holiday travel and gatherings and lessen the stress on local healthcare systems. In other words, this is planned as a temporary measure designed to protect us at what is anticipated to be the height of the Omicron surge.”


https://www.gse.harvard.edu/spring-semester-2022-covid-updates-dean-bridget-long

Do you even read the things you post? They went virtual during the winter session (first three weeks of January) to promote reduced campus density. That was not a decision on a regular semester. They are starting classes January 24 in person. Also, during the three week pause, some learning did occur in person, such as those with labs and clinical requirements.

A 3 week pause sounds like a great idea!

Just three weeks. Then another three weeks because it is not safe yet. Then we have to wait for boosters for 5 to 11 year olds. Then we have to wait for the fourth shot for adults. Then we have to wait for a vaccine for 0 to 5. Then the new variant is here and we can't go back.

Yawn.

Well, let me also re-repost my question that no pro-in-person has been able to answer yet..

Where is your poll to keep kids in-person?

Anonymous wrote:I think that this anonymous blog is just the same few people reposting over and over again. The comments are way to similar.

no different to the other thread topics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read in the POst that the United States is poised to surpass its record for covid-19 hospitalizations as soon as Tuesday, with no end in sight to skyrocketing case loads, falling staff levels and the struggles of a medical system trying to provide care amid an unprecedented surge of the coronavirus. This stay open at all costs doesn't seem to be working. :/

What kind of a country shuts down schools before bars?!

a country that is all about individual freedoms over the collective good. Think about the proliferation of guns in this country.

I think that this anonymous blog is just the same few people reposting over and over again. The comments are way to similar.

Anonymous wrote:I just read in the POst that the United States is poised to surpass its record for covid-19 hospitalizations as soon as Tuesday, with no end in sight to skyrocketing case loads, falling staff levels and the struggles of a medical system trying to provide care amid an unprecedented surge of the coronavirus. This stay open at all costs doesn't seem to be working. :/

I just read an article that stated that we are headed for a rapid drop in omicron in most places in the country. I don't know if we have hit the peak, but the UK is now seeing declines, and we are a week or so behind them.

The UK has schools open. The way they handled it was to just "rip the bandaid off" in one go, whereas other European countries are taking the bandaid off slowly which means omicron will linger longer.

In the early phase of covid, when we didn't know much about it, did not have a good idea how to deal with it, didn't have vaxx, it made perfect sense to shutdown. But, now we have vaxx; know how to deal with it. I don't think we need to shutdown the schools. For most people, omicron is like a cold. My family members have had it. All vaxxed. There is a 0.0004% chance your child may need hospitalization due to covid. That is very very low.

Hang in there, folks.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-health-washington-pandemics-160ded1ce8d82075057630e11b610358

European countries that impose lockdowns won’t necessarily come through the omicron wave with fewer infections; the cases may just be spread out over a longer period of time.

And where is your petition to keep schools in-person?

Anonymous wrote:I just read in the POst that the United States is poised to surpass its record for covid-19 hospitalizations as soon as Tuesday, with no end in sight to skyrocketing case loads, falling staff levels and the struggles of a medical system trying to provide care amid an unprecedented surge of the coronavirus. This stay open at all costs doesn't seem to be working. :/

What kind of a country shuts down schools before bars?!

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a Covid denier, I’m fully vaxed and boosted, my kid is vaxed. I don’t live in Bethesda. I want my kid in school. Shut everything else down, but keep the kids in school.

+1. Shut down the sources of spread - schools are not spreaders; they mirror what’s happening in the community. Bars, restaurants, large gatherings. These need to temporarily pause before we shut the doors on in-person school.

I just read in the POst that the United States is poised to surpass its record for covid-19 hospitalizations as soon as Tuesday, with no end in sight to skyrocketing case loads, falling staff levels and the struggles of a medical system trying to provide care amid an unprecedented surge of the coronavirus. This stay open at all costs doesn't seem to be working. :/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to bring this back up, but I am still very confused about how the fact I want my child to be in person at our public school is born from some sort of privilege? I am not trying to be snarky, I just truly do not understand it. So many people throwing out angry stereotypes here. Agreed there are people of all stripes on both sides of this. Personally, in person school is just crucial for my kids mental health (they were so miserable during virtual) and I don't think there is yet enough evidence of community spread. The teacher shortages, I understand.

Aside from trolls who say parents who want in person school just want babysitting, I don't understand the class arguments at all.

Working class POC in Montgomery County are more likely (emphasis so no one pops up with their opposing anecdote, if that's all they have) than wealthier white families to:

-Suffer poorer outcomes from COVID
-Have already lost loved ones to COVID
-Live with older, more vulnerable relatives
-Have at least a few close community members they can rely on to swap virtual supervision duties with
-Per above, have jobs where they can actually be completely off of work at least 1-2 days (during daytime) during the week
-Have those same hourly/shift jobs that don't allow them to take any or many sick days-- which means both a greater likelihood of sending kids in sick or exposed (if in person) and a stronger preference that the kids not get sick in the first place
-Even if they don't want to send their kids in-person, be unable to keep kids home truant d/t less supervision (without virtual-- but with virtual, they would be more able to swap childcare)
-Be harassed if they keep their kids home truant (without virtual)
-Etc.

There are several reasons that WC POC were far more likely to keep their kids in virtual last spring than UMC white families, including language barriers I won't discount, but the above accounted for a lot of them.

It's also the case that though they are underserved by virtual, many have reported facing less racism/classism in discipline with virtual than in-person.

It's definitely true that WC POC are more likely than the opposite to have their kids not sign in for virtual or be really unsupported if they are struggling, d/t lack of resources, having only an older sibling to supervise, etc. However, those cases are in the minority.

People are inferring-- and there is some truth to it-- that working class families need the "free childcare" more than wealthier families. But they're making a few errors. Among them is the assumption that the only way for kids to do passably in virtual is for each child's parent to be at home and providing heavy supervision and assistance (on average). Clearly parents are less able (again, on average) to provide this if they WOH than WFH. But there's no proof that it makes such an incredible difference for the average kid that it's strictly necessary.

Another error, of course, is assuming that if schools are not in session, WC POC have no options for childcare other than paid childcare, which they have less money for. In fact, they're more likely to have trusted, unpaid, flexible childcare than UMC white parents.

And of course, risk assessment is different when you're at higher risk of devastation from COVID.

So... I hope that helps. That's not even comprehensive, on any side, and I don't claim it is. It's just off the top of my head because I have a work break.

I think statements about privilege are (or should be) more about not considering other people in different, more challenging circumstances. It is a privilege to be ignorant of... well, all the things you are apparently ignorant of. People who are less privileged, on average, actually must have some understanding of the perspectives and circumstances of the more-privileged in order to survive. It's related to what WEB DuBois calls Double Consciousness, but anyhow. What I'm talking about is the idea that if you're the ant, you have to know where the boot is going to step, but if you're the boot, the comings and goings of the ant aren't all that salient to you.

DP, and thank you. That all makes sense; even though I'm not the PP who asked, I appreciate your taking the time to spell it out.

I do think the bolded is problematic, vis a vis evidence showing accelerated learning loss among WC POC vs. white students. Something's happening that those kids aren't doing as well at virtual (if doing well at virtual is even a thing). And the risk-benefit analysis of COVID vs. school matters hugely, of course, but then there's also data suggesting that, somewhat counterintuitively, kids are safer from COVID in school than at home.

And this doesn't even get into the mental health considerations, which are compounded by stigma around mental illness related to race, ethnicity, and class. It's very messy and very complicated. And, of course, no one has a crystal ball to predict exactly how these different combinations of circumstances will play out.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to bring this back up, but I am still very confused about how the fact I want my child to be in person at our public school is born from some sort of privilege? I am not trying to be snarky, I just truly do not understand it. So many people throwing out angry stereotypes here. Agreed there are people of all stripes on both sides of this. Personally, in person school is just crucial for my kids mental health (they were so miserable during virtual) and I don't think there is yet enough evidence of community spread. The teacher shortages, I understand.

Aside from trolls who say parents who want in person school just want babysitting, I don't understand the class arguments at all.

Working class POC in Montgomery County are more likely (emphasis so no one pops up with their opposing anecdote, if that's all they have) than wealthier white families to:

-Suffer poorer outcomes from COVID
-Have already lost loved ones to COVID
-Live with older, more vulnerable relatives
-Have at least a few close community members they can rely on to swap virtual supervision duties with
-Per above, have jobs where they can actually be completely off of work at least 1-2 days (during daytime) during the week
-Have those same hourly/shift jobs that don't allow them to take any or many sick days-- which means both a greater likelihood of sending kids in sick or exposed (if in person) and a stronger preference that the kids not get sick in the first place
-Even if they don't want to send their kids in-person, be unable to keep kids home truant d/t less supervision (without virtual-- but with virtual, they would be more able to swap childcare)
-Be harassed if they keep their kids home truant (without virtual)
-Etc.

There are several reasons that WC POC were far more likely to keep their kids in virtual last spring than UMC white families, including language barriers I won't discount, but the above accounted for a lot of them.

It's also the case that though they are underserved by virtual, many have reported facing less racism/classism in discipline with virtual than in-person.

It's definitely true that WC POC are more likely than the opposite to have their kids not sign in for virtual or be really unsupported if they are struggling, d/t lack of resources, having only an older sibling to supervise, etc. However, those cases are in the minority.

People are inferring-- and there is some truth to it-- that working class families need the "free childcare" more than wealthier families. But they're making a few errors. Among them is the assumption that the only way for kids to do passably in virtual is for each child's parent to be at home and providing heavy supervision and assistance (on average). Clearly parents are less able (again, on average) to provide this if they WOH than WFH. But there's no proof that it makes such an incredible difference for the average kid that it's strictly necessary.

Another error, of course, is assuming that if schools are not in session, WC POC have no options for childcare other than paid childcare, which they have less money for. In fact, they're more likely to have trusted, unpaid, flexible childcare than UMC white parents.

And of course, risk assessment is different when you're at higher risk of devastation from COVID.

So... I hope that helps. That's not even comprehensive, on any side, and I don't claim it is. It's just off the top of my head because I have a work break.

I think statements about privilege are (or should be) more about not considering other people in different, more challenging circumstances. It is a privilege to be ignorant of... well, all the things you are apparently ignorant of. People who are less privileged, on average, actually must have some understanding of the perspectives and circumstances of the more-privileged in order to survive. It's related to what WEB DuBois calls Double Consciousness, but anyhow. What I'm talking about is the idea that if you're the ant, you have to know where the boot is going to step, but if you're the boot, the comings and goings of the ant aren't all that salient to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A couple of issues with this CHOP paper:

- 2.) emphasizes staying home with respiratory illness, which not all families will do
- 6.) encourages boosters and vaccinations, which is great, but not all kids are currently protected by these, either because they are late/didn't get them or are 12-15 and got them early; this warrants flexibility while they get things in order
- many of the recommendations are sensible but not being followed by school systems (though most are in DC) - masks being required, for example

Is this the only guidance like this? Are others joining CHOP?

Also, remember, this is population guidance, and for that it is sound. Individuals do have different needs and may need or want to make different choices.

This essay from a Harvard professor of medicine and epidemiology really captures a lot of my feelings on this issue. I echo her sentiment that voices of color are not represented as they should be in this discussion.

https://prospect.org/education/folly-of-school-openings-as-zero-sum-game-coronavirus/

I don't disagree with what she says. Unfortunately, it seems to follow the same either/or structure she decries: White vs. minority families. Minority families are not a monolith, but that essay implies that they are. I know plenty of "white influencers" who demand virtual education in the name of minority children. That's not okay, either.

What's missing all around is a discussion of ALL the issues and trade-offs. Are there potential benefits to virtual instruction? Absolutely! But those benefits come with drawbacks, and frankly, too many proponents of virtual instruction seem unwilling to consider those. And at this point, we're so far gone into stress and chaos that it's hard to maintain an open mind. It's hard for me to listen honestly to people who yelled things like "school isn't childcare!" and "you just want teachers to die!"

I get that we still need to consider adults in this equation. Frankly, though, they've had their needs tended to far more than children have thus far in the pandemic and knowing as much as we do, scientifically, about the impact of chronic stress on kids, it's unconscionable to keep moving forward as we have been in the past.

+ 1000

Sorry to bring this back up, but I am still very confused about how the fact I want my child to be in person at our public school is born from some sort of privilege? I am not trying to be snarky, I just truly do not understand it. So many people throwing out angry stereotypes here. Agreed there are people of all stripes on both sides of this. Personally, in person school is just crucial for my kids mental health (they were so miserable during virtual) and I don't think there is yet enough evidence of community spread. The teacher shortages, I understand.

Aside from trolls who say parents who want in person school just want babysitting, I don't understand the class arguments at all.