Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[theJ]

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

@LETSGOBROWNIES

Clark County is doing online school the first quarter! Just announced it. Domino effect says this happens almost everywhere...even without DeWine.

🤞 for my county

I just had a conversation with my dad that if the policies didn't change, we likely wouldn't be able to see my folks for a while once school starts.  It's just too risky.  Both my parents have a myriad of health concerns that could result in COVID complications.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

28 minutes ago, theJ said:

🤞 for my county

I just had a conversation with my dad that if the policies didn't change, we likely wouldn't be able to see my folks for a while once school starts.  It's just too risky.  Both my parents have a myriad of health concerns that could result in COVID complications.

It's crazy to me that the people pushing hard for schools to re-open have completely neglected to think that there are a ton of adults that work in these schools, so even if 99% of the kids won't die from the disease, the adults who work there might AND the adults who live with the kids might.

It's just....I don't get it.

[MWil23]

58 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

It's crazy to me that the people pushing hard for schools to re-open have completely neglected to think that there are a ton of adults that work in these schools, so even if 99% of the kids won't die from the disease, the adults who work there might AND the adults who live with the kids might.

It's just....I don't get it.

Food for thought, teacher speaking.

The assumption that staying at home for a good many of these kids is safer than potentially being exposed to this is problematic and an implicit logical fallacy. Child abuse and pedophilia are both WAY up, and the law of unintended consequences is as well, such as kids going without meals. We’ve had 3 kids die at their own hands since March.

 I’m not saying that the decision shouldn’t be made based upon this, but I’m trying to show that this isn’t as much of a “no brain” decision as some. I’m sure @LETSGOBROWNIES or @ET80 kids would be great and safe at home, albeit 504 and IEP are tricky, but they’re unfortunately not the norm in many cases.

Edited July 24, 2020 by MWil23

[squire12]

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

Food for thought, teacher speaking.

The assumption that staying at home for a good many of these kids is safer than potentially being exposed to this is problematic and an implicit logical fallacy. Child abuse and pedophilia are both WAY up, and the law of unintended consequences is as well, such as kids going without meals. We’ve had 3 kids die at their own hands since March.

 I’m not saying that the decision shouldn’t be made based upon this, but I’m trying to show that this isn’t as much of a “no brain” decision as some. I’m sure @LETSGOBROWNIES or @ET80 kids would be great and safe at home, albeit 504 and IEP are tricky, but they’re unfortunately not the norm in many cases.

This feels like the lesser of 2 evils type of decision that has + and - consequences regardless of the path chosen

Re-open schools:   Expose kids, teachers, staff to COVID and increase potential spread, potential increase in spread to other older family members.  Logistical problems of bus transportation, class size, lunch room, hallways, cleaning.   In school learning is better overall for the vast majority of schools, social dynamics, less likely incidence of child abuse, other abuse, meals, etc.   lessens drain on families and allows parents to work while children are at school.

Keep schools closed and continue virtual:   likely widens the gap in education, more kids fall behind. Increase stress on families with parents navigating work and supervising younger children doing virtual school.  limits social interactions that are important for elementary, middle and high school development.  Lessens risk of COVID spread among greater part of society/community overall.

********************

There is no easy answer and both have pros and cons.  Comes down to weighing each and making the best informed decision with the information that is present at the current time.   Hindsight will always reveal that there was likely a better solution/decision to be made.

I don't really envy school boards and decision makers charged with this.  

[SwAg]

Wait, ET has kids?

[SwAg]

Little Gandalfs running around

[SwAg]

2 hours ago, MWil23 said:

Food for thought, teacher speaking.

The assumption that staying at home for a good many of these kids is safer than potentially being exposed to this is problematic and an implicit logical fallacy. Child abuse and pedophilia are both WAY up, and the law of unintended consequences is as well, such as kids going without meals. We’ve had 3 kids die at their own hands since March.

 I’m not saying that the decision shouldn’t be made based upon this, but I’m trying to show that this isn’t as much of a “no brain” decision as some. I’m sure @LETSGOBROWNIES or @ET80 kids would be great and safe at home, albeit 504 and IEP are tricky, but they’re unfortunately not the norm in many cases.

It’s also a logical fallacy that school somehow diminishes the risk of unsavory manifestations at home.  Maybe reduces the longevity of exposure, but not basal risk.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

4 hours ago, MWil23 said:

Food for thought, teacher speaking.

The assumption that staying at home for a good many of these kids is safer than potentially being exposed to this is problematic and an implicit logical fallacy. Child abuse and pedophilia are both WAY up, and the law of unintended consequences is as well, such as kids going without meals. We’ve had 3 kids die at their own hands since March.
 

what data are you looking at?  From what I’ve seen it’s not actually an issue.

https://fox6now.com/2020/06/28/experts-see-no-proof-of-child-abuse-surge-amid-covid-19-pandemic/

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/15/is-child-abuse-really-rising-during-the-pandemic

I’m definitely open to seeing the other side of the argument, but I’m not sure what’s different from being at home in May or September as opposed to June, July and August like they are every single year.

4 hours ago, MWil23 said:

. I’m sure @LETSGOBROWNIES or @ET80 kids would be great and safe at home,

Eh, let these smartarses keep flapping their gums while I’m tryna work...

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

To add to the previous post, IF kids are being harmed at an increased rate, that’s not a “lack of school to attend” issue, it’s a parenting issue.

If sending kids to school to avoid molestation and arse kickings is such a concern, why are we waiting until age 6 to provide such necessary services?  Seems like a rather arbitrary age of kids are being raped and beaten at home...

[-Hope-]

7 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

To add to the previous post, IF kids are being harmed at an increased rate, that’s not a “lack of school to attend” issue, it’s a parenting issue.

If sending kids to school to avoid molestation and arse kickings is such a concern, why are we waiting until age 6 to provide such necessary services?  Seems like a rather arbitrary age of kids are being raped and beaten at home...

yeah but why would we want to actually address social issues when we could just rely on completely overtaxed and underresourced places of learning to paper over them? god forbid we just give kids food. we need to send them to school to get it, damn it!

[MacReady]

The answer isn’t sending kids back to school, and it isn’t keeping them at home, either.

With most things, it’s somewhere in the middle.

There are 10,000 solutions that could help find a common ground on the debate.

But as always, it’s either this way or that way and there’s no in between.

One day a week per student.  Different times for different students.  Obviously larger areas will be more difficult to implement, but I don’t see why it’s so black and white open or don’t open.

Check temperature when possible.  Remove truancy restrictions altogether.  Have options for homework pick up/drop off.  
 

Have an opt out option with that FaceTime or whatever app.that is.  That would cut down the number of kids by, what, at least 20%?
 

Some kids/parents desperately need school and the daycare (for want of a better option) that provides.

Some kids desperately need resources to get out of homes for reasons that have already been brought up.

It’s not black and white back to school or not back to school.  There is a middle ground.

[MWil23]

4 hours ago, SwAg said:

It’s also a logical fallacy that school somehow diminishes the risk of unsavory manifestations at home.  Maybe reduces the longevity of exposure, but not basal risk.

Absolutely true and fair. I’m simply saying the law of unintended consequences and fallout is a factor here and why many districts are in a bind. Pacifying voting parents on levies also comes into play...I’ll just say it.

[squire12]

5 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

The answer isn’t sending kids back to school, and it isn’t keeping them at home, either.

With most things, it’s somewhere in the middle.

There are 10,000 solutions that could help find a common ground on the debate.

But as always, it’s either this way or that way and there’s no in between.

One day a week per student.  Different times for different students.  Obviously larger areas will be more difficult to implement, but I don’t see why it’s so black and white open or don’t open.

Check temperature when possible.  Remove truancy restrictions altogether.  Have options for homework pick up/drop off.  
 

Have an opt out option with that FaceTime or whatever app.that is.  That would cut down the number of kids by, what, at least 20%?
 

Some kids/parents desperately need school and the daycare (for want of a better option) that provides.

Some kids desperately need resources to get out of homes for reasons that have already been brought up.

It’s not black and white back to school or not back to school.  There is a middle ground.

in a HS of 2300 students, I am not sure how 1 day per week really amounts to much for in person learning.   They do block schedule with A and B days.  4 class periods/classes each day, so 1x per week gets them limited in person exposure to their teacher.   Teacher is now doing in person and virtual on the same day?  

I am not sure how you are checking temperature for 500 students that are all arriving around he same time and trying to keep them distanced.  

[MacReady]

17 minutes ago, squire12 said:

in a HS of 2300 students, I am not sure how 1 day per week really amounts to much for in person learning.   They do block schedule with A and B days.  4 class periods/classes each day, so 1x per week gets them limited in person exposure to their teacher.   Teacher is now doing in person and virtual on the same day?  

I am not sure how you are checking temperature for 500 students that are all arriving around he same time and trying to keep them distanced.  

Granted, and yeah I’m not used to the bigger schools, but... Still.  The point remains.  If that means some schools open and others don’t... Well, there you go.  Not black and white.

All the schools I went to from first to senior with the possible exception of my senior year could realistically have social distanced.  
 

I think shortening periods, lengthening school day, and having different days could work in a LOT of schools.

Also having a virtual opt out option, too.

Edited July 25, 2020 by Outpost31

[SwAg]

25 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Absolutely true and fair. I’m simply saying the law of unintended consequences and fallout is a factor here and why many districts are in a bind. Pacifying voting parents on levies also comes into play...I’ll just say it.

I’ve seen about 10 people independently make your original point now.  Do you all get these rhetorical points in newsletters or something?

To me, it’s just speculative (albeit probable) vs. definitive (and absolute).  Child abuse is bad, but the failure of other resources does not relegate that burden to educators.  Nor is it the responsibility of parents who do not abuse their children to “take one for the team” and send their child out in a pandemic that a substantial portion of the country does not take seriously.

If you want to address child abuse, maybe elect people who care about it, instead of those who think hitting your children is a constitutional right.