Anonymous wrote:FCPS's decision flow chart makes clear that we should base our decisions on our family's health risks. So in-person should be the default.

On an unrelated note, can anyone point me to articles about high schoolers and their risk of contracting/spreading the virus? Everything talks about how low risk kids are but I doubt your average 16yo's body reacts like a kid's. Thank you in advance.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why we’re pretending that there is no data about school reopening to go in. Other countries have reopened schools. Some successfully, some not. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/school-openings-across-globe-suggest-ways-keep-coronavirus-bay-despite-outbreaks

My takeaways from it are as follows:

1. Elementary and younger kids are at the least risk of spreading the virus or getting sick themselves, and with mitigation measures in place, it should be safe for them to go back.

2. “ So far, with some changes to schools’ daily routines, he says, the benefits of attending school seem to outweigh the risks—at least where community infection rates are low and officials are standing by to identify and isolate cases and close contacts.”

The keys there being that community infection rates have to be low, and that we must contact trace (places like Florida should not consider reopening, while places like Maine can).

For me, a better approach to reopening would be to do it in a phased manner. Elementary first, middle next, then high schools. We should have data from each set of students, before adding in the next. If for instance, elementary students don’t cause a spike in cases, but middle schoolers do, then MS students can go back to DL, but ES can stay open. Under the scenario, in person school would only be available to those that can demonstrate need, in middle/high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you’re in this camp, and I acknowledge that many, many people are, I’m asking you to consider that number from a slightly different angle.

FCPS has 189,000 children. .0016 of that is 302. 302 dead children are the Calvary Hill you’re erecting your argument on. So, let’s agree to do this: stop presenting this as a data point. If this is your argument, I challenge you to have courage equal to your conviction. Go ahead, plant a flag on the internet and say, “Only 302 children will die.” No one will. That’s the kind action on social media that gets you fired from your job. And I trust our social media enclave isn’t so careless and irresponsible with life that it would even, for even a millisecond, enter any of your minds to make such an argument.

Considered another way: You’re presented with a bag with 189,000 $1 bills. You’re told that in the bag are 302 random bills, they look and feel just like all the others, but each one of those bills will kill you. Do you take the money out of the bag?

This doesn’t make sense to me. The death rate of 0.0016 is for those children who contract the virus, not of the total population. The author is saying that if all 189K students in FCPS contract COVID, 302 of them will die.

That’s not going to happen.

There have been 1,237 cases of COVID in children ages 0-17 in Fairfax County in the last 4 months. Zero of them have died.

Okay, fine.

If 50% contract the virus, 151 will die.
If 25% contract the virus, 75 will die.
If 10% contract the virus, 30 will die.

Are those numbers okay? I hope not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I have to read this idiot’s diatribe one more time from a teacher on FB .......

By the way, I checked out his profile and his softball team is already meeting and practicing and has a banquet scheduled for later in the summer.

Because “that’s different!!”

These people crack me up ...

He probably also “has to go” on vacation too

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a region-wide, if not national, teachers strike is coming.

Yeah, that’s not happening, at least in Virginia. It’s a right to work state.

Anonymous wrote:

If you’re in this camp, and I acknowledge that many, many people are, I’m asking you to consider that number from a slightly different angle.

FCPS has 189,000 children. .0016 of that is 302. 302 dead children are the Calvary Hill you’re erecting your argument on. So, let’s agree to do this: stop presenting this as a data point. If this is your argument, I challenge you to have courage equal to your conviction. Go ahead, plant a flag on the internet and say, “Only 302 children will die.” No one will. That’s the kind action on social media that gets you fired from your job. And I trust our social media enclave isn’t so careless and irresponsible with life that it would even, for even a millisecond, enter any of your minds to make such an argument.

Considered another way: You’re presented with a bag with 189,000 $1 bills. You’re told that in the bag are 302 random bills, they look and feel just like all the others, but each one of those bills will kill you. Do you take the money out of the bag?

This doesn’t make sense to me. The death rate of 0.0016 is for those children who contract the virus, not of the total population. The author is saying that if all 189K students in FCPS contract COVID, 302 of them will die.

That’s not going to happen.

There have been 1,237 cases of COVID in children ages 0-17 in Fairfax County in the last 4 months. Zero of them have died.

Anonymous wrote:If I have to read this idiot’s diatribe one more time from a teacher on FB .......

By the way, I checked out his profile and his softball team is already meeting and practicing and has a banquet scheduled for later in the summer.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why we’re pretending that there is no data about school reopening to go in. Other countries have reopened schools. Some successfully, some not. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/school-openings-across-globe-suggest-ways-keep-coronavirus-bay-despite-outbreaks

My takeaways from it are as follows:

1. Elementary and younger kids are at the least risk of spreading the virus or getting sick themselves, and with mitigation measures in place, it should be safe for them to go back.

2. “ So far, with some changes to schools’ daily routines, he says, the benefits of attending school seem to outweigh the risks—at least where community infection rates are low and officials are standing by to identify and isolate cases and close contacts.”

The keys there being that community infection rates have to be low, and that we must contact trace (places like Florida should not consider reopening, while places like Maine can).

For me, a better approach to reopening would be to do it in a phased manner. Elementary first, middle next, then high schools. We should have data from each set of students, before adding in the next. If for instance, elementary students don’t cause a spike in cases, but middle schoolers do, then MS students can go back to DL, but ES can stay open. Under the scenario, in person school would only be available to those that can demonstrate need, in middle/high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DL option was meant to be for kids and families with medical need.
Teachers made a stink and DL was opened up to all.

Schools want families to prioritize making their choice based on health concerns. That’s why when they are asked how parents and kids should make the choice without knowing which classes are offered in which format, they say the decisions we make are based on what’s medically important for the family. The courses are not. They will make sure basics first graduation are there but that’s all.

If DL was the priority of FCPS they would have made sure all courses were available in that format, it’s not the priority. The priority is to get kids back in school because that’s the most effective teaching and educating system they have.

So all these multiple posts upon posts (by teachers) pushing for parents to choose DL goes completely against the actual goals of FCPS.

Do you have any idea how many families have people in them that are at increased risk for complications from covid-19? It’s most. So FCPS was trying to accommodate that and knew it wasn’t a small number of families.

Which is why they are offering DL and not guaranteeing that course selections will be honored. When medical needs come first, then it should not matter as much if your kid doesn’t get the course they want. (If you have an elementary kid you will not understand why this matters.)

Course selections aren't guaranteed under either option.

If they wanted a robust DL option, they would not have made it under those terms.