Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This line from Bulworth:

"Ain't no education happenin up in that muthafuqqa"

Bawhahahahah!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issue is that you are graciously providing free childcare and in return they decided it is appropriate to crap on your life choices. What a-holes!

Saying they want their kids to participate in their online schooling is not crapping on OP’s life choices. OP may not have the bandwidth to do it, in which case the sister can remove her kids from OP’s care, which it seems like she’s doing.

From the OP: "her husband wrote me a strongly worded email about how homeschooling is good enough for my kids but not theirs"

Huh? OP homeschools by choice, I assume. Her SIL and BIL don't want that. I really doubt he said "good enough for your kids but not mine." He probably said "we want them to do the online curriculum from their school." OP is projecting.

Anonymous wrote:That is 100 percent the wrong tack to take. I really, really, really, really hate the "school is not childcare" line. No, it's not, but compulsory public education has been a thing for a long time, and much of our society (and certainly the lives of working parents) is set up on the assumption that kids over the age of 5 or 6 will be in school much of the day.

And if two parents work, then they need childcare. Period. And there aren't enough competent, trustworthy adults who want to be full-time babysitters/distance-learning managers to all the kids who might end up needing it. It doesn't matter if you could technically afford it if you can't find someone to hire. Many parents want schools to be able to open so that they can send their kids to school, both for the childcare aspect (so they can work) and because they think it's a better education.

You are unwilling to provide full-time care for your nieces and nephews. Your parents are willing. It's not about whether "school is childcare," it's about you being upset that your sister doesn't want her kids educated using your homeschooling curriculum, and perhaps about you thinking she's taking advantage of your parents. But that's between your parents and your sister.

Anonymous wrote:People have designed their lives around the idea that full time school days are guaranteed so therefore they have childcare if they want to (or have to) work full time during the day.

That's why so many people freak out when there's a snow day or early release or the power goes out at school or the clinic aide calls and says your kid has a fever, or whatever. Obviously this situation is the height of panic inducing reactions but interestingly we have now gone two months with no school so I guess most people figured it out.

It has clearly been much more difficult for some people than others, just like life is more difficult when you are a single parent or work evenings or have to travel a lot or just work long hours or two jobs to make ends meet.

I think people might now start to accept that you can't just pretend like schools exist to provide you with childcare while you work. That's a hard reality. Affluent people will deal with it better than low income people. But I think this pandemic has driven home the point that this is the new truth you must accept.

Those who already realized this are already better off because they don't have to be freaking out, they have a backup plan. Luckily many employers now realize that their workers actually can and maybe should work from home a lot more than they were.

Anonymous wrote:School is childcare. The teaching and care of children; however, it's not daycare. Of course parents rightfully work with the expectation that their kids' will be in school...especially since the government mandates that. As it relates to the general discussion, and not necessarily OP's post, I think any issue would be that people expect the schools to reopen fully during a pandemic or wouldn't do staggered schedules due to working parents' schedules. That's ridiculous. If this is the case for the fall (digital learning, staggered schedules) it's entirely the responsibility of the parents to assist their kids with school and/or find childcare for this. This whole situation is hard for everyone in one way or another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers aren't nannies and schools aren't daycares, but millions of working parents structured their work and family planning and lots of other aspects of their lives around the fact that we have mandatory education and that children go to school during the day. And they aren't calling for the schools to reopen because they hate their kids, or because they see teachers as nannies, but because they work to pay their bills and they are worried about being able to keep the jobs that feed and house and clothe their children.

And none of this has anything to do with OP's situation anyway.

Thank you. The whole discussion is madness.

Here’s the crux of it for me: do you think teachers should have to bear the health risks of being around large groups of children if it means getting the rest of society back to work?

I mean... sort of? Society going back to work will mean a lot of things. People in recirculated air, people on public transportation, kids going back to school then coming home to families, etc. There's no evidence that school buildings are any more risky than any other public space - in fact, they may be less so since kids rarely have symptoms and often have a lower viral load, as well. If you are a teacher and immunocompromised, by all means, take leave. But I'm not sure what response you're looking for here.

Anonymous wrote:Teachers aren't nannies and schools aren't daycares, but millions of working parents structured their work and family planning and lots of other aspects of their lives around the fact that we have mandatory education and that children go to school during the day. And they aren't calling for the schools to reopen because they hate their kids, or because they see teachers as nannies, but because they work to pay their bills and they are worried about being able to keep the jobs that feed and house and clothe their children.

And none of this has anything to do with OP's situation anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School is, of course, childcare, and our entire economy is built around that assumption. I have no idea why DCUM is obsessed with this fiction.

Then something in the last 20 years or so went very, very wrong. And it explains a lot why schools have watered down curriculum in this country. I hear people from other countries describing what happens abroad and it sounds a lot more like school when I was a kid. The AAP program in FCPS is basically what school expectations (except possibly for math) were for EVERYONE in school. Now it is considered advanced. I guess people just want it to be daycare so that’s what it’s become.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers aren't nannies and schools aren't daycares, but millions of working parents structured their work and family planning and lots of other aspects of their lives around the fact that we have mandatory education and that children go to school during the day. And they aren't calling for the schools to reopen because they hate their kids, or because they see teachers as nannies, but because they work to pay their bills and they are worried about being able to keep the jobs that feed and house and clothe their children.

And none of this has anything to do with OP's situation anyway.

Thank you. The whole discussion is madness.

Here’s the crux of it for me: do you think teachers should have to bear the health risks of being around large groups of children if it means getting the rest of society back to work?

I mean... sort of? Society going back to work will mean a lot of things. People in recirculated air, people on public transportation, kids going back to school then coming home to families, etc. There's no evidence that school buildings are any more risky than any other public space - in fact, they may be less so since kids rarely have symptoms and often have a lower viral load, as well. If you are a teacher and immunocompromised, by all means, take leave. But I'm not sure what response you're looking for here.

I wasn’t looking for any particular answer, but it was bothering me that no one was considering teachers’ health. Going back to work is a big plus for people now at home and a big minus in some ways for teachers. We will need to come to some sort of compromise that gets the country started, educates kids, and protects teachers.

Do you care equally about the health of grocery store workers? Daycare workers? Healthcare workers? Why only teachers?

Well this discussion is about teachers so that’s why I’m talking about teachers. Sure, I get it, but if grocery stores had been closed for 6 months and we were considering reopening them, we would take into account the health of grocery store workers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers aren't nannies and schools aren't daycares, but millions of working parents structured their work and family planning and lots of other aspects of their lives around the fact that we have mandatory education and that children go to school during the day. And they aren't calling for the schools to reopen because they hate their kids, or because they see teachers as nannies, but because they work to pay their bills and they are worried about being able to keep the jobs that feed and house and clothe their children.

And none of this has anything to do with OP's situation anyway.

Thank you. The whole discussion is madness.

Here’s the crux of it for me: do you think teachers should have to bear the health risks of being around large groups of children if it means getting the rest of society back to work?

I mean... sort of? Society going back to work will mean a lot of things. People in recirculated air, people on public transportation, kids going back to school then coming home to families, etc. There's no evidence that school buildings are any more risky than any other public space - in fact, they may be less so since kids rarely have symptoms and often have a lower viral load, as well. If you are a teacher and immunocompromised, by all means, take leave. But I'm not sure what response you're looking for here.

I wasn’t looking for any particular answer, but it was bothering me that no one was considering teachers’ health. Going back to work is a big plus for people now at home and a big minus in some ways for teachers. We will need to come to some sort of compromise that gets the country started, educates kids, and protects teachers.

Do you care equally about the health of grocery store workers? Daycare workers? Healthcare workers? Why only teachers?

Well this discussion is about teachers so that’s why I’m talking about teachers. Sure, I get it, but if grocery stores had been closed for 6 months and we were considering reopening them, we would take into account the health of grocery store workers.