Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the idea that public school is some kind of nom-essential luxury that parents wrongly think of as an entitlement is...something. It's one of THE major universal institutions in all modern first world countries. And it IS an entitlement! It's not a luxury, everyone pays taxes because children, NOT their parents, are ENTITLED to an education. It is a right of residence and a key institution of social reproduction.

Now, whether and how much schooling happens in person during a pandemic is more of a logistical question, I'm not saying therefore we have to go back 5 days a week. But the whole framing that school is NOT essential and that it's selfish of PARENTS to want it is one I strongly reject. With lots of caps.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the idea that public school is some kind of nom-essential luxury that parents wrongly think of as an entitlement is...something. It's one of THE major universal institutions in all modern first world countries. And it IS an entitlement! It's not a luxury, everyone pays taxes because children, NOT their parents, are ENTITLED to an education. It is a right of residence and a key institution of social reproduction.

Now, whether and how much schooling happens in person during a pandemic is more of a logistical question, I'm not saying therefore we have to go back 5 days a week. But the whole framing that school is NOT essential and that it's selfish of PARENTS to want it is one I strongly reject. With lots of caps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that.

Remember that the kids in school now will be your doctor one day.

Yep. Your employer, your employee, your medical care provider, your caregiver, your home services provider...

So you expect the entirety of society to cater to your children? Because one day they will grow up? That’s now how society works, but nice try.

I am baffled that somebody would describe school as "catering to [my individual] children." I am especially baffled that somebody would do so on the Maryland Public Schools forum.

What next? If I said that hospitals should be open, you'd say, "So you expect the entirety of society to cater to your health problem"? If I said that grocery stores should be open, you'd say, "So you expect the entirety of society to cater to your desire for food"? If I said that Metro should be open, you'd say, "So you expect the entirety of society to cater to your trips?

Not the same thing. You need medical treatment and food to survive. Children do not need to sit in school buildings five days a week to live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that.

Remember that the kids in school now will be your doctor one day.

Yep. Your employer, your employee, your medical care provider, your caregiver, your home services provider...

So you expect the entirety of society to cater to your children? Because one day they will grow up? That’s now how society works, but nice try.

I am baffled that somebody would describe school as "catering to [my individual] children." I am especially baffled that somebody would do so on the Maryland Public Schools forum.

What next? If I said that hospitals should be open, you'd say, "So you expect the entirety of society to cater to your health problem"? If I said that grocery stores should be open, you'd say, "So you expect the entirety of society to cater to your desire for food"? If I said that Metro should be open, you'd say, "So you expect the entirety of society to cater to your trips?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that.

Remember that the kids in school now will be your doctor one day.

Yep. Your employer, your employee, your medical care provider, your caregiver, your home services provider...

So you expect the entirety of society to cater to your children? Because one day they will grow up? That’s now how society works, but nice try.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that.

Remember that the kids in school now will be your doctor one day.

Yep. Your employer, your employee, your medical care provider, your caregiver, your home services provider...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that.

Remember that the kids in school now will be your doctor one day.

Yep. Your employer, your employee, your medical care provider, your caregiver, your home services provider...

My undertaker after I die of COVID-19.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, then let's think of it this way: How many people would you be willing to have die in your extended family to ensure that kids could go back to school? One? Two? Would it be worth it? If your answer is "zero" then you have no moral leg to stand on in making your argument. Because that means you'd be willing to sacrifice other people's family members but not your own.

No, let's think of it this way. What non-essential activities can be avoided/reduced/closed, in order to reduce community spread, so that kids can go to school (an essential activity)?

People in MoCo will not be willing to give up trips to Home Depot, the hair salon, and bars in exchange for FT F2F school.

Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, that's what leadership is for - to lead.

You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that.

Remember that the kids in school now will be your doctor one day.

Yep. Your employer, your employee, your medical care provider, your caregiver, your home services provider...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that.

Remember that the kids in school now will be your doctor one day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, then let's think of it this way: How many people would you be willing to have die in your extended family to ensure that kids could go back to school? One? Two? Would it be worth it? If your answer is "zero" then you have no moral leg to stand on in making your argument. Because that means you'd be willing to sacrifice other people's family members but not your own.

No, let's think of it this way. What non-essential activities can be avoided/reduced/closed, in order to reduce community spread, so that kids can go to school (an essential activity)?

People in MoCo will not be willing to give up trips to Home Depot, the hair salon, and bars in exchange for FT F2F school.

Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, that's what leadership is for - to lead.

You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wait until DL becomes a success....and cheaper. And no need for a teacher to be nearby, when they can teach remotely. Like from India. .

Kids aren't ultrasounds or tech support questions.

Yeah, the people who think that DL is going to be the "new normal" for schools of the future are nuts. But everybody, especially teachers who are advocating against reopening, should be careful, because the Betsy De Vos types are just waiting to gut public education as we know it...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wait until DL becomes a success....and cheaper. And no need for a teacher to be nearby, when they can teach remotely. Like from India. .

Kids aren't ultrasounds or tech support questions.

Yeah, the people who think that DL is going to be the "new normal" for schools of the future are nuts. But everybody, especially teachers who are advocating against reopening, should be careful, because the Betsy De Vos types are just waiting to gut public education as we know it...

It won’t be people teaching remotely in India. It will be AI and a national curriculum.

That is dystopian insanity as well. Maybe it will happen, but we should do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening.

Anonymous wrote:
Once again, if you want to prioritize your own children above all else, great. Society will never and has never decided that children are more vital than any other members as a group. I know that for you, three months of remote learning was a catastrophe! For society at large? No. The fall will be what it will be. You need to unclench. If the people in Florida, Texas, Arizona, California, etc. are any indication, none of us will be doing much in August or September.