This is what they are doing with public schools in the county next to us...

[Roadrunner]

When your employer orders you to show up to work and you don’t, you are fired. I don’t care who you are - policeman, nurse, a grocery store worker, or a teacher. Nobody can make people go to work because yes, our families are our priorities. But if they are told to show up and they don’t, they should be fired. Now is it reasonable to ask elementary school teachers to show up? It looks like many cities along with parents think so. I am not the employer, cities are. So they need to do as they are told. Or walk out. Nobody is special. 

[Sneezyone]

10 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

When your employer orders you to show up to work and you don’t, you are fired. I don’t care who you are - policeman, nurse, a grocery store worker, or a teacher. Nobody can make people go to work because yes, our families are our priorities. But if they are told to show up and they don’t, they should be fired. Now is it reasonable to ask elementary school teachers to show up? It looks like many cities along with parents think so. I am not the employer, cities are. So they need to do as they are told. Or walk out. Nobody is special. 

What is with the zero sum game? NO ONE should be REQUIRED to show up to work in an unsafe situation. Why cede that ground when it’s unnecessary. Following your advice, we’d be up shit creek this fall with massive holes in district teaching staffs.

[mathnerd]

3 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

When your employer orders you to show up to work and you don’t, you are fired. I don’t care who you are - policeman, nurse, a grocery store worker, or a teacher. Nobody can make people go to work because yes, our families are our priorities. But if they are told to show up and they don’t, they should be fired. Now is it reasonable to ask elementary school teachers to show up? It looks like many cities along with parents think so. I am not the employer, cities are. So they need to do as they are told. Or walk out. Nobody is special. 

Teacher's Unions are very powerful and negotiating with them to get teachers into classrooms is not an easy task. Even politicians with a lot of public backing are afraid to take a stand against the Teachers Unions.

[Roadrunner]

9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

What is with the zero sum game? NO ONE should be REQUIRED to show up to work in an unsafe situation. Why cede that ground when it’s unnecessary. Following your advice, we’d be up shit creek this fall with massive holes in district teaching staffs.

It’s a matter of equality to me. Nobody is special. 
My DH is required to show up to his job. If he doesn’t, he won’t have a job. We weighted the situation, put two masks on, and sent him to work. 
My nephew shows up to his job working at a supermarket because he needs a paycheck. His dad at home has leukemia. 
I mean teachers aren’t the only ones in this situation. All I am saying is if an employer requires them to show up, they need to show up. Obviously some cities strongly believe they need elementary school kids in the classroom. 
If enough quit, negotiations will ensure. Watching teachers unions right now makes me sick. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Sneezyone]

30 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

It’s a matter of equality to me. Nobody is special. 
My DH is required to show up to his job. If he doesn’t, he won’t have a job. We weighted the situation, put two masks on, and sent him to work. 
My nephew shows up to his job working at a supermarket because he needs a paycheck. His dad at home has leukemia. 
I mean teachers aren’t the only ones in this situation. All I am saying is if an employer requires them to show up, they need to show up. Obviously some cities strongly believe they need elementary school kids in the classroom. 
If enough quit, negotiations will ensure. Watching teachers unions right now makes me sick. 

The difference is trying to make everyone conform to the lowest possible standard vs raising the darned bar so that EVERYONE can be safe and still put food on the table. It’s a false and unnecessary choice. No, no one is special. Also, no one is expendable.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Roadrunner]

11 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The difference is trying to make everyone to conform to the lowest possible standard vs raising the darned bar so that EVERYONE can be safe and still put food on the table. It’s a false and unnecessary choice. No, no one is special. Also, no one is expendable.

It’s not the lowest standard. It’s the standard. If somebody is paying you for a job, then you need to do the job, unless they are willing to change the contract. Or find another job. 
No one is special. I agree. But some work can’t be don’t at home. If employer decides your job can’t be done at home (as some cities have decided), then you need to show up just like the others. This has nothing to do with the lowest standards. That’s how employment works, until of course money starts raining from the skies. 

[Drama Llama]

27 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

It’s a matter of equality to me. Nobody is special. 
My DH is required to show up to his job. If he doesn’t, he won’t have a job. We weighted the situation, put two masks on, and sent him to work. 
My nephew shows up to his job working at a supermarket because he needs a paycheck. His dad at home has leukemia. 
I mean teachers aren’t the only ones in this situation. All I am saying is if an employer requires them to show up, they need to show up. Obviously some cities strongly believe they need elementary school kids in the classroom. 
If enough quit, negotiations will ensure. Watching teachers unions right now makes me sick. 

Enough did quit and then they and we negotiated this solution where less than 6% of classes, are taught remotely.

FCPS is in a right to work state with no union with collective bargaining power.  

[Terabith]

26 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

It’s a matter of equality to me. Nobody is special. 
My DH is required to show up to his job. If he doesn’t, he won’t have a job. We weighted the situation, put two masks on, and sent him to work. 
My nephew shows up to his job working at a supermarket because he needs a paycheck. His dad at home has leukemia. 
I mean teachers aren’t the only ones in this situation. All I am saying is if an employer requires them to show up, they need to show up. Obviously some cities strongly believe they need elementary school kids in the classroom. 
If enough quit, negotiations will ensure. Watching teachers unions right now makes me sick. 

At a school an extended family member attends, not only were children not required to mask, but teachers were not allowed to mask, because it might "scare the children."  

Should those teachers be required to show up?  Not allowed to negotiate as teachers' unions?

 

[Sneezyone]

10 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

It’s not the lowest standard. It’s the standard. If somebody is paying you for a job, then you need to do the job, unless they are willing to change the contract. Or find another job. 
No one is special. I agree. But some work can’t be don’t at home. If employer decides your job can’t be done at home (as some cities have decided), then you need to show up just like the others. This has nothing to do with the lowest standards. That’s how employment works, until of course money starts raining from the skies. 

Actually, that’s NOT the standard. Reasonable accommodations are required for all employees (and students!) who need them. It is both possible and, IMO, desirable to reject the choice of people vs. money. Our government can provide a backstop that makes this devil’s bargain unnecessary.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Sneezyone

[prairiewindmomma]

19 minutes ago, Terabith said:

At a school an extended family member attends, not only were children not required to mask, but teachers were not allowed to mask, because it might "scare the children.”

 

WTH.

🤯

[Roadrunner]

17 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Actually, that’s NOT the standard. Reasonable accommodations are required for all employees (and students!) who need them. It is both possible and, IMO, desirable to reject the choice of people vs. money. Our government can provide a backstop that makes this devil’s bargain unnecessary.

Employment is not the devil’s bargain. It’s the reality. 
Require masks, provide PPE, be reasonable, show up to work.

yes, the stubborn who won’t out the mask, I have no patience for them either. We all just need to do our best right now.

[Drama Llama]

27 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

It’s not the lowest standard. It’s the standard. If somebody is paying you for a job, then you need to do the job, unless they are willing to change the contract. Or find another job. 
No one is special. I agree. But some work can’t be don’t at home. If employer decides your job can’t be done at home (as some cities have decided), then you need to show up just like the others. This has nothing to do with the lowest standards. That’s how employment works, until of course money starts raining from the skies. 

Most teachers, like me, with ADA  signed our contracts after the ADA was agreed upon.  

Teaching from home is the job I am contracted for.  

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Roadrunner said:

Employment is not the devil’s bargain. It’s the reality. 
Require masks, provide PPE, be reasonable, show up to work.

yes, the stubborn who won’t out the mask, I have no patience for them either. We all just need to do our best right now.

Employment vs lives is the false dichotomy. Teachers are teaching, right now, everyday. Both of my children are receiving instruction. We agree that the bare minimum precautions aren’t in place everywhere. We do not agree that the bare minimum is sufficient and that’s ok.

[Roadrunner]

8 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Most teachers, like me, with ADA  signed our contracts after the ADA was agreed upon.  

Teaching from home is the job I am contracted for.  

Then they should honor the contract. If you were hired to teach from home, then that’s your job.

Our school didn’t have any online classes until the pandemic. Nobody I know was hired to teach from home.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Drama Llama]

1 minute ago, Roadrunner said:

Then they should honor the contract. If you were hired to teach from home, then that’s your job.

Our school didn’t have any online classes until the pandemic. Nobody I know was hired to teach from home.

Teachers who are teaching in 2020-2021 signed their contracts AFTER the pandemic.  

The 15 percent of FCPS teachers that this is about, signed those contracts AFTER the pandemic.

[Roadrunner]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Employment vs lives is the false dichotomy. Teachers are teaching, right now, everyday. Both of my children are receiving instruction. We agree that the bare minimum precautions aren’t in place everywhere. We do not agree that the bare minimum is sufficient and that’s ok.

It’s not my job to determine if teachers need to be in the classroom. I don’t know what went into the decisions that cities are now asking some to return, but I am going to guess San Francisco didn’t pull that decision out of the hat. If the employers decided that the benefits (as measures in children’s’ wellbeing, health, education ...) were sufficient to determine some jobs couldn’t be done from hone, then it’s their prerogative. The same way the reason we still eat chicken at o it dinner table is because people went to work in their factories. 

[Roadrunner]

4 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Teachers who are teaching in 2020-2021 signed their contracts AFTER the pandemic.  

The 15 percent of FCPS teachers that this is about, signed those contracts AFTER the pandemic.

So you sign it every year? Then those who gave all teachers those contract are at fault. They shot themselves in the foot. Contracts are legally enforceable, aren’t they? 
I am outraged that those contracts were signed not knowing what was coming. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Sneezyone]

17 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

So you sign it every year? Then those who gave all teachers those contract are at fault. They shot themselves in the foot. Contracts are legally enforceable, aren’t they? 
I am outraged that those contracts were signed not knowing what was coming. 

Teaching/staff contracts are annual, yes, so violating them means no job next year and/or no employees next year. The contracts for 2020-21 were signed last spring/summer when COVID was a known risk. The contractual work is TEACHING not babysitting. TEACHING is still happening as required.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Roadrunner]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Teaching/staff contracts are annual, yes, so violating them means no job next year and/or no employees next year. The contracts for 2020-21 were signed last spring/summer when COVID was a known risk.

But it looks to me teachers aren’t the ones violating the contracts? Or did I misread this? It looks to me contracts guaranteed them at home employment? 
I am no expert at any of this. I also don’t know what data cities are looking at when making decisions. I only know anecdotal evidence that shows disparities have grown larger. Wealthier families who could afford to have a parent home and supervise did OK. In my agricultural county plenty of kids are left home alone all day because parents are working in the fields. Kids are often not accounted for at all. I would love to say that babysitting isn’t the job of the teacher, but the reality is different. I think the concerns are serious, especially for kids of disadvantaged backgrounds. Nobody speaks for them. They don’t have a union to negotiate for their interests. It’s a bad situation. I would like to see elementary school return in person with reasonable precautions in areas where infection rates are manageable if possible. 

[Sneezyone]

16 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

But it looks to me teachers aren’t the ones violating the contracts? Or did I misread this? It looks to me contracts guaranteed them at home employment? 
I am no expert at any of this. I also don’t know what data cities are looking at when making decisions. I only know anecdotal evidence that shows disparities have grown larger. Wealthier families who could afford to have a parent home and supervise did OK. In my agricultural county plenty of kids are left home alone all day because parents are working in the fields. Kids are often not accounted for at all. I would love to say that babysitting isn’t the job of the teacher, but the reality is different. I think the concerns are serious, especially for kids of disadvantaged backgrounds. Nobody speaks for them. They don’t have a union to negotiate for their interests. It’s a bad situation. I would like to see elementary school return in person with reasonable precautions in areas where infection rates are manageable if possible. 

It’s not/should not be the responsibility of teachers/schools to plug every gap in our social compact. This is yet another problem the pandemic has exposed. Child poverty/hunger has grown in the absence of daily school meals. This is an issue the COVID relief bill may ultimately address. Still, disparities have grown because, as mentioned in the other thread, while women's income and participation in the labor force has plummeted (at the upper income levels) kids in low-income, female-headed households cannot afford to have supervised home/virtual education. That’s not the schools’ or teachers’ fault. It’s ALL of our fault. This isn’t about teachers. It’s about a wholly inadequate social safety, broadband infrastructure, and health care safety net that pits the least of these against each other and not against the actual power brokers/money changers.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Roadrunner]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

It’s not/should not be the responsibility of teachers/schools to plug every gap in our social compact. This is yet another problem the pandemic has exposed. Child poverty/hunger has grown in the absence of daily school meals. This is an issue the COVID relief bill may ultimately address but disparities have grown because, as mentioned in the other thread, women’s income and participation in the labor force has plummeted and kids in female-headed households cannot afford to have supervised home/virtual education. That’s not the schools’ or teachers’ fault. It’s ALL of our fault. This isn’t about teachers. It’s about a wholly inadequate social safety, broadband infrastructure and, and health care safety net that pits the least of these against each other and not the actual power brokers/money changers.

Well, when the schools aren’t open, it sort of is their fault. 
 

I have seen some very ingenious things school districts did. One ran the buses and instead of students, buses delivered hot meals. I thought that was clever. 
At least here all districts (rich or poor) have provided internet and computers. 
 

I think at the end of the day it always comes down to what is happening at home. It isn’t always about money. If you have an adult at home to make sure you did your homework, showed up to classes, ate a meal, things turn up better. In many communities there are no such adults in the home because they are all working. My concern is elementary school is  key to give kids foundation and get them interested in learning and dreaming about  things. It gets harder once they get older. Here gangs run schools. Once you lose a kid, it’s hard to get them back. I do worry about what is happening to all those left home unsupervised. That’s not to say this is the situation everywhere. That brings me back to my earlier point - it’s hard to generalize. 
 

 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Roadrunner said:

Well, when the schools aren’t open, it sort of is their fault. 
 

I have seen some very ingenious things school districts did. One ran the buses and instead of students, buses delivered hot meals. I thought that was clever. 
At least here all districts (rich or poor) have provided internet and computers. 
 

I think at the end of the day it always comes down to what is happening at home. It isn’t always about money. If you have an adult at home to make sure you did your homework, showed up to classes, ate a meal, things turn up better. In many communities there are no such adults in the home because they are all working. My concern is elementary school is  key to give kids foundation and get them interested in learning and dreaming about  things. It gets harder once they get older. Here gangs run schools. Once you lose a kid, it’s hard to get them back. I do worry about what is happening to all those left home unsupervised. That’s not to say this is the situation everywhere. That brings me back to my earlier point - it’s hard to generalize. 
 

 

Right. Whatever you say. There are no patterns at play, no systemic economic issues. Every state is an island.

[Shoeless]

 

9 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Well, when the schools aren’t open, it sort of is their fault. 

Schools never should have been responsible for all of this.  That's entirely the problem. "The system" was always precarious and only kinda-sorta worked as long as everything else in the country was stable. Now there's a nation wide crisis and the blame for why life is terrible is cycling around to...elementary school teachers? They're supposed to be saving us all from the societal impact of the pandemic?   

Edited February 9, 2021 by MissLemon

[Drama Llama]

Just now, Roadrunner said:

Well, when the schools aren’t open, it sort of is their fault. 
 

I have seen some very ingenious things school districts did. One ran the buses and instead of students, buses delivered hot meals. I thought that was clever. 
At least here all districts (rich or poor) have provided internet and computers. 
 

I think at the end of the day it always comes down to what is happening at home. It isn’t always about money. If you have an adult at home to make sure you did your homework, showed up to classes, ate a meal, things turn up better. In many communities there are no such adults in the home because they are all working. My concern is elementary school is  key to give kids foundation and get them interested in learning and dreaming about  things. It gets harder once they get older. Here gangs run schools. Once you lose a kid, it’s hard to get them back. I do worry about what is happening to all those left home unsupervised. That’s not to say this is the situation everywhere. That brings me back to my earlier point - it’s hard to generalize. 
 

 

You know, in my LEA, and the district where I live, there is a huge discrepancy between the more affluent kids, who want to come back, and the low income kids who have seen their communities devastated by covid and want to stay safe at home.  It's not 100% either way, but the most affluent elementary schools in the district where I live have around 70% of the kids coming back, whereas the lowest income schools have under 30% of kids electing to return.  That isn't really surprising, because the low income communities are the ones who have see far and away the most deaths, and are much more likely to have people living in congregate settings, or multigenerational households.  In addition, low income families, in my experience as a teacher, are more likely to have support networks that pick up the slack.  These are already kids who go to grandma's or the neighbors over the summer, or whose single mom staggers hours at Target so she can trade childcare with another single mom working at the grocery store. 

The model that FCPS is using, the district in the article, has 85% of teachers teaching in person, with a large portion of their class watching from home.  There's no doubt in my mind that a teacher who is overseeing a class of kids, even if it's 8 kids, will be less successful with his/her virtual kids.  So, in many instances, the choice to have teachers in person will mean that low income kids are sacrificing so more affluent kids can be in person.  

I'm not saying that FCPS schools shouldn't open. I am just saying it's complicated.  I've made peace with my choice, and I think I can do right by my students and my kids that way, or as right as is possible during a pandemic.  

 

[Roadrunner]

11 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Right. Whatever you say. There are no patterns at play, no systemic economic issues. Every state is an island.

I think that discussion can take us really far. I am up for it maybe in another thread. Will brew some coffee. That’s the way I geek out. 

[Roadrunner]

85% of teachers teaching in person? 
Here only private elementary schools are open. Wealthy families have increasingly migrated to privates because of this. Every public school has been shut since last March. 

[Drama Llama]

Just now, Roadrunner said:

85% of teachers teaching in person? 
Here only private elementary schools are open. Wealthy families have increasingly migrated to privates because of this. Every public school has been shut since last March. 

This is a thread is about a specific article, about a specific school system in suburban Northern Virginia, that is coming back with a hybrid/concurrent model where teachers are teaching in the classroom, with some students attending 2 days a week and virtual 3 days a week, and some students virtual 5 days a week.

About 15% of the teachers in that district have ADA accommodations which guarantee them the right to teach from their homes for the duration of this school year.  Because of this, the district is hiring monitors (substitute teachers) to be in those classrooms, with the students. The number of monitors they are hiring is 850, which will mean that about 6% of classrooms are covered by monitors.  Some of those monitors will be covering specials to avoid situations where teachers move between groups of kids.  Some of those monitors will be covering for teachers who are quarantined due to exposure, and many will be covering middle school and high school classes.  But some may be covering elementary school.  

You seem determined to attack this district, which is odd when you consider that they seem to be doing a far better job of delivering what you want than your district.  

[Roadrunner]

3 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

This is a thread is about a specific article, about a specific school system in suburban Northern Virginia, that is coming back with a hybrid/concurrent model where teachers are teaching in the classroom, with some students attending 2 days a week and virtual 3 days a week, and some students virtual 5 days a week.

About 15% of the teachers in that district have ADA accommodations which guarantee them the right to teach from their homes for the duration of this school year.  Because of this, the district is hiring monitors (substitute teachers) to be in those classrooms, with the students. The number of monitors they are hiring is 850, which will mean that about 6% of classrooms are covered by monitors.  Some of those monitors will be covering specials to avoid situations where teachers move between groups of kids.  Some of those monitors will be covering for teachers who are quarantined due to exposure, and many will be covering middle school and high school classes.  But some may be covering elementary school.  

You seem determined to attack this district, which is odd when you consider that they seem to be doing a far better job of delivering what you want than your district.  

Sorry. I understood we could discuss beyond this district since the article also mentioned outside as well. I bow out. 
Quoting from the article:

“School unions across the country have balked at returning to in-person classes, arguing that it is still not safe for them to return to work due to the pandemic.

However, some data suggests that fears of contracting the virus in a school setting have been overblown.” 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Amy in NH]

3 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

Sorry. I understood we could discuss beyond this district since the article also mentioned outside as well. I bow out. 
Quoting from the article:

“School unions across the country have balked at returning to in-person classes, arguing that it is still not safe for them to return to work due to the pandemic.

However, some data suggests that fears of contracting the virus in a school setting have been overblown.” 

If they're talking about the data that is being reported by state departments of education, I can tell you that what NH is reporting for our local school districts is just WRONG.  I have had parents send me copies of notices they have received from the schools their children attend, where my own kids could attend if we wanted to enroll them - there have been multiple cases in multiple schools of students and teachers coming up COVID positive.  Nothing is being reported in our local newspapers, online, and it's not listed in the state records of school COVID cases.  It's infuriating, really, that kids on sports teams and in vocational centers who are playing/learning with other students in multiple towns are positive but no-one is hearing about it so that we can make more informed community health decisions.  The schools aren't closing or going hybrid - it's all status quo.  

And contact tracing is nonexistent.  My husband was exposed at work to full-contagion COVID by his two employers.  They tested positive on a Friday - but we found out from my SON'S employer three towns away early on Monday morning.  No one contacted us to either tell us or ask us who we had been in contact with. 

I think the teachers are right that it's not safe for any of them to be teaching in person right now.

[Amy in NH]

14 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

85% of teachers teaching in person? 
Here only private elementary schools are open. Wealthy families have increasingly migrated to privates because of this. Every public school has been shut since last March. 

That's funny, because it's the other way around here.  The private schools have been Zooming day students, with residential students attending in person, but all of the public schools have been open.

[kokotg]

Data is infuriatingly hard to come by, but most of the stuff I've seen reassuring everyone that transmission isn't happening in schools pretty much ignores the fact that teachers and staff exist. Everywhere I've been able to run the numbers, the incidence rate in teachers and staff doing in person school is significantly higher than in the community as a whole--much better in places taking basic precautions, but still higher. Here's a Bloomberg article about CDC research that says schools can open with precautions (I should note that schools have been open in my area since fall, with varying degrees of precautions, and NONE of the schools that are open are following all the CDC guidelines): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-13/covid-19-outbreaks-aren-t-driven-by-in-person-classes-cdc-says And here's a quote tacked on at the end: "The report offered no insight on the risks to school teachers and staff members, as there is no information gathering nationwide on their infection rates."

oh, btw, this isn't about teachers and staff, because actually we have no clue.

I don't know. My husband has been teaching in person since the fall and feels fairly safe in his classroom (where masks are required and he strictly enforces that, wearing 2 masks himself, distancing (his students can't distance, but he can), and sitting next to an air purifier). I'm not as confident in his safety as he is. I think people in areas where schools have never reopened have a totally different perspective on this from those of us in areas where schools have been open all year. The county north of me has been open since August with no mask requirement, very few students wearing masks--last I checked the incidence rate for teachers there was something like 8-9 times as high as the county overall. When the CDC clarified a couple of weeks ago that the new mask mandate on transportation DOES apply to school buses, they insisted that it doesn't really apply to them. This isn't some tiny school district; it's an exurban county with more than 40,000 students. That county AND counties that were taking more precautions pretty much all had to delay opening after winter break by 1-2 weeks because they literally didn't have enough teachers to staff the schools. My husband's school has shut back down 3-4 times since October because of outbreaks. When kids are in school, they're mostly sitting in a classroom with a handful of other students watching my husband do math on a computer, because he's teaching virtually at the same time. I think, "probably elementary schools at least are fine" and then 3 elementary teachers die in one week in the county next door to mine. 

The governor in my state moved everyone over 65 and first responders into 1a, so no telling when teachers and other essential workers can be vaccinated. 

And, as others have pointed out, we're NOT having this discussion primarily on behalf of disadvantaged kids, and we can't pretend that we are. It is overwhelmingly white, privileged families who are choosing to return to F2F school when there's an choice between that and virtual. The communities that need school most for economic reasons are also the communities that are most affected by COVID, and by and large they're choosing to keep their kids home despite the costs. My county is 50% in person, and those 50% are largely in the more wealthy and whiter northern half of the county. 

Here's a cheerful piece from my local paper this morning on a long hauler teacher who couldn't get an ADA accommodation: https://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett-teacher-struggles-with-covid-19-symptoms-almost-a-year-later/LFTYY7T7MRDQZMWDQGQEKRFFIU/

Like I said, I don't know what the answer is, but I do think we need to be honest about the risks we're asking/demanding teachers and all essential workers to take on. 

 

[SKL]

While I am very pro kids back to school, I don't have a problem with teachers who have higher risks teaching remotely.  In this case, it's a small fraction of the overall teaching staff.

[kokotg]

33 minutes ago, kand said:

I don’t know if you saw or followed the link to the epidemiologist’s Twitter thread I posted above, but it has a lot of study links compiled in one place. What I see epidemiologists saying over and over again is that the studies that say that kids aren’t transmitting are almost all flawed because they are waiting for a symptomatic case and then testing them and assuming the symptomatic case is the index case. In actuality, it’s frequently that  the kid is asymptomatic and brings the infection home and then their parent becomes sick with symptoms and is the one who gets tested first and then called the index case when they turn up positive. Same for teachers. If they are the only symptomatic patient in their classroom, it’s being assumed that they caught it elsewhere, rather than from asymptomatic kids within their classroom. I can re-link the Twitter thread if you can’t find it and are interested. Sorry it’s in the format of a Twitter thread, but it’s from a good source and contains good information.

thanks--I did see it, and I've seen her stuff before on twitter. Yeah, it's hugely problematic that we're focusing on student cases for a lot of reasons: kids are likely to be mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic, parents have no obligation to test or to report test results to the schools, a lot of places won't test asymptomatic kids and/or discourage testing mildly symptomatic kids, there's a big incentive for parents not to report because they know that's what drives quarantines, etc. etc. Without better contact tracing and widespread asymptomatic testing, we have no idea what the real story is. Even in the district I mentioned with no mask mandate parrots the "transmission isn't happening in schools" line...as if there's some OTHER reason why their schools have an incidence rate 2 or 3 times higher than neighboring counties where everyone's wearing a mask; it has nothing whatsoever to do with putting 30 unmasked people together in a room for hours at a time. Like...how do they THINK viruses spread?!

[SKL]

In my area, afaik all the private schools and many public schools have been open all year, mostly 5 days for all children (with virtual options in some places).  From having friends and relatives in these systems, I know there have been some kids who had to quarantine and some who caught the bug (not sure where they caught it though).  But their schools did not shut down.

It stinks that most of my kids' friends have had 100 days of in-person 9th grade to my kids' 8 days (so far).  Hard to see how this is all going to even out in the end.

[Kanin]

21 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

The difference is trying to make everyone conform to the lowest possible standard vs raising the darned bar so that EVERYONE can be safe and still put food on the table. It’s a false and unnecessary choice. No, no one is special. Also, no one is expendable.

I agree 100%. 

 

19 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

It’s not/should not be the responsibility of teachers/schools to plug every gap in our social compact. This is yet another problem the pandemic has exposed. Child poverty/hunger has grown in the absence of daily school meals. This is an issue the COVID relief bill may ultimately address. Still, disparities have grown because, as mentioned in the other thread, while women's income and participation in the labor force has plummeted (at the upper income levels) kids in low-income, female-headed households cannot afford to have supervised home/virtual education. That’s not the schools’ or teachers’ fault. It’s ALL of our fault. This isn’t about teachers. It’s about a wholly inadequate social safety, broadband infrastructure, and health care safety net that pits the least of these against each other and not against the actual power brokers/money changers.

Yes, yes, yes! Thank you. Teachers go to school to learn how to teach, not how to fix EVERY problem a kid or family has. Society's priorities need to change. 

[ieta_cassiopeia]

17 hours ago, kand said:

I don’t know if you saw or followed the link to the epidemiologist’s Twitter thread I posted above, but it has a lot of study links compiled in one place. What I see epidemiologists saying over and over again is that the studies that say that kids aren’t transmitting are almost all flawed because they are waiting for a symptomatic case and then testing them and assuming the symptomatic case is the index case. In actuality, it’s frequently that  the kid is asymptomatic and brings the infection home and then their parent becomes sick with symptoms and is the one who gets tested first and then called the index case when they turn up positive. Same for teachers. If they are the only symptomatic patient in their classroom, it’s being assumed that they caught it elsewhere, rather than from asymptomatic kids within their classroom. I can re-link the Twitter thread if you can’t find it and are interested. Sorry it’s in the format of a Twitter thread, but it’s from a good source and contains good information.

Which makes sense. The University of Manchester found that, in households where 2 or more people got COVID, a teenager was 7 times more likely to have tracked in the virus in the first place than any other member of the family (this was shortly before schools shut for the 2nd time in the UK, in early December). Note that most children younger than teens who were in schools where they did not switch classrooms and were otherwise in a good position to have class-sized bubbles, with the same teacher and the same classroom for most subjects, whereas teenagers tended to have more complicated education patterns where either they moved classroom each subject - or their teachers did. It's a lot easier to stop someone spreading an illness if they're showing symptoms of it!

[kokotg]

Timely: https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/if-opening-schools-is-about-equity-why-arent-we-listening-to-those-most-impacted-a1ca6fab8506

Quote

Polling consistently shows that low-income parents and parents of color are more likely to think it’s unsafe to open and to plan to keep their children home if they do — by significant margins.

It turns out that families who have been put at risk by our system’s inequalities don’t want to choose between economic and educational security and their lives.

 

And all for the hand wringing about disadvantaged kids falling farther behind with online schooling, it seems that the rush to reopen schools often actually does MORE to increase the learning gap, because it's typically the wealthier and whiter families sending their kids back in person, dividing the attention of teachers and making the virtual experience worse for kids who stay home. 

Edited February 10, 2021 by kokotg

[mommyoffive]

1 hour ago, kokotg said:

Timely: https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/if-opening-schools-is-about-equity-why-arent-we-listening-to-those-most-impacted-a1ca6fab8506

And all for the hand wringing about disadvantaged kids falling farther behind with online schooling, it seems that the rush to reopen schools often actually does MORE to increase the learning gap, because it's typically the wealthier and whiter families sending their kids back in person, dividing the attention of teachers and making the virtual experience worse for kids who stay home. 

Very interesting read.  That is not what you would think would be happening.  

[KungFuPanda]

I absolutely support teachers.  This is a job and their priority SHOULD be to keep themselves and their families alive.  If everyone lives through the pandemic, you can figure out the debt later.  As far as community spread is concerned, everyone who CAN do their jobs from home SHOULD do their jobs from home. This helps everyone. People aren't mad that teachers aren't teaching.  They ARE doing all of their lessons and working harder than ever.  They're not sitting home in their pjs binging Netflix.  People are really mad that educators are no longer providing free childcare.  It's good for them that they're one of the few industries that has a union that can offer some worker protection.  

 

[KungFuPanda]

On 2/10/2021 at 8:17 AM, kokotg said:

Timely: https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/if-opening-schools-is-about-equity-why-arent-we-listening-to-those-most-impacted-a1ca6fab8506

And all for the hand wringing about disadvantaged kids falling farther behind with online schooling, it seems that the rush to reopen schools often actually does MORE to increase the learning gap, because it's typically the wealthier and whiter families sending their kids back in person, dividing the attention of teachers and making the virtual experience worse for kids who stay home. 

Exactly THIS.  It's playing out in my neighborhood now.  Affluent people who want their kids back in school are arguing that staying home is sooo bad for these poor, disadvantaged, minority children.  If they bothered to have a conversation with ANYONE in these communities/demographics this is not at all surprising.  Some people will use ANYONE to get what they want and it's very upsetting.  

[Sneezyone]

44 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

Exactly THIS.  It's playing out in my neighborhood now.  Affluent people who want their kids back in school are arguing that staying home is sooo bad for these poor, disadvantaged, minority children.  If they bothered to have a conversation with ANYONE in these communities/demographics this is not at all surprising.  Some people will use ANYONE to get what they want and it's very upsetting.  

You know who keeps showing up to my house with my evening Instacart and Amazon Fresh deliveries? Minorities and immigrants. It's a way to have income, maintain social distance, and still keep their kids home. I think when people clamor for 'open schools' tho they typically mean the kind of normal activities and teacher/student interaction that we had in the before times. THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN. The kids here who returned to school quickly learned that COVID precautions meant masking, social distancing, staying in one classroom most of the time and doing the same Web-based work as the virtual students. We have no sports, no clubs, no eating with friends, etc. Just because the schools are 'open' doesn't mean the experience is better.

[MotherGoose]

On 2/7/2021 at 2:32 AM, Roadrunner said:

If only our nurses, farmers, grocery workers, doctors have acted the same way.

I get those teachers with health conditions want to be accommodated, but many of us have been out there taking greater risks and doing our jobs. If we had data indicating schools were a dangerous place for transmission, I would be more sympathetic. 

So true. Covid went through my husband’s office.  People were hospitalized. The elderly father of one person died. But people still go to work. They did work from

home for a bit after that. But staying home is not an option. 
 

My oldest goes to private high school and they have been open face to face five days since August and it’s been just fine. They follow the CDC rules to the letter, even when it has meant she can’t wear a coat because she can’t have a locker because of congregating by the lockers and they have to stand outside for carpool even when it’s 39 and raining. (had some discussion with the principal on that one!) 

It’s her first year in “school” after homeschooling and I did call the school and state that if I was going to need to homeschool I would, but I wasn’t paying tuition for Zoom classes. This may be why private schools have figured out how to open in person. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by MotherGoose

[kokotg]

I've never really understood the argument that teachers need to shut up and get back to the (non-virtual) classroom because other people have been working in person the whole time. The fact that my husband has to go to school in person doesn't make me want all the people working at home to have to go to work in person, too--just the opposite--the more people who can stay home (and who actually DO stay home), the safer my husband is. There are some jobs that absolutely cannot be done remotely--not they can't be done as well, they just flat out can't be done. I don't think it's hypocritical to say that we should hesitate before sending thousands of people into a building together all day for school even though I don't believe that we should all literally starve to death so that no one has to go to work in person. We should do everything we can to make every job that has to be done in person as safe as it can possibly be. One of the ways we can make those jobs safer is by having as many people as possible work remotely. Whether schools opening F2F is worth the risks and what those risks are is a separate discussion. But certainly "teachers should have to go to work in person because other people have to" isn't a good argument. 

[Kanin]

3 hours ago, kokotg said:

I've never really understood the argument that teachers need to shut up and get back to the (non-virtual) classroom because other people have been working in person the whole time. The fact that my husband has to go to school in person doesn't make me want all the people working at home to have to go to work in person, too--just the opposite--the more people who can stay home (and who actually DO stay home), the safer my husband is. There are some jobs that absolutely cannot be done remotely--not they can't be done as well, they just flat out can't be done. I don't think it's hypocritical to say that we should hesitate before sending thousands of people into a building together all day for school even though I don't believe that we should all literally starve to death so that no one has to go to work in person. We should do everything we can to make every job that has to be done in person as safe as it can possibly be. One of the ways we can make those jobs safer is by having as many people as possible work remotely. Whether schools opening F2F is worth the risks and what those risks are is a separate discussion. But certainly "teachers should have to go to work in person because other people have to" isn't a good argument. 

I agree. I teach reading to students 1:1 or 1:2. Zoom has been amazing for teaching reading. I can put everything on the screen that I need to, and kids can write on the screen. They also use a whiteboard and marker at their desk or table. They can use letter tiles and move them around, and I can see what they're doing. There are fewer distractions and the kids are more focused. 

Maybe I've just got a great group of kids this year, or something, but my efficiency as a teacher - in my particular niche - has actually improved by going online. 

My former district said that I couldn't work from home while others worked in person, because it wouldn't be equitable. Which, I totally understand from a contractual standpoint BUT is equitable what we're striving for above all, in a pandemic? Like @kokotgsaid, the fewer adults in the building, the safer for everyone that IS in the building. 

[Roadrunner]

3 hours ago, kokotg said:

I've never really understood the argument that teachers need to shut up and get back to the (non-virtual) classroom because other people have been working in person the whole time. The fact that my husband has to go to school in person doesn't make me want all the people working at home to have to go to work in person, too--just the opposite--the more people who can stay home (and who actually DO stay home), the safer my husband is. There are some jobs that absolutely cannot be done remotely--not they can't be done as well, they just flat out can't be done. I don't think it's hypocritical to say that we should hesitate before sending thousands of people into a building together all day for school even though I don't believe that we should all literally starve to death so that no one has to go to work in person. We should do everything we can to make every job that has to be done in person as safe as it can possibly be. One of the ways we can make those jobs safer is by having as many people as possible work remotely. Whether schools opening F2F is worth the risks and what those risks are is a separate discussion. But certainly "teachers should have to go to work in person because other people have to" isn't a good argument. 

It’s my understanding that this is the conclusion some cities have come to when it comes to elementary education. This is the reason many cities are pushing to send teachers back to the elementary school classrooms. If employers believe that those jobs can’t be done remotely, then they could reasonably ask them to come back in person. That’s all. It isn’t my job to determine or evaluate what has happened in elementary classrooms over the past year. It’s the job of the employer. 

I don’t think anybody would argue that we should haul everybody back to offices if they are working from home. That’s not a sane argument. 

I believe some states are going to give an extra year now for high schoolers allowing them to finish in 5 instead of 4 because of how badly online school functioned. And that’s high school where frankly kids should have been much more mature to handle what life threw at them. 

[mommyoffive]

3 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

It’s my understanding that this is the conclusion some cities have come to when it comes to elementary education. This is the reason many cities are pushing to send teachers back to the elementary school classrooms. If employers believe that those jobs can’t be done remotely, then they could reasonably ask them to come back in person. That’s all. It isn’t my job to determine or evaluate what has happened in elementary classrooms over the past year. It’s the job of the employer. 

I don’t think anybody would argue that we should haul everybody back to offices if they are working from home. That’s not a sane argument. 

I believe some states are going to give an extra year now for high schoolers allowing them to finish in 5 instead of 4 because of how badly online school functioned. And that’s high school where frankly kids should have been much more mature to handle what life threw at them. 

Wow, I hadn't heard that.  Do you have an article about that or know where? 

I wonder why online school does so badly for some districts?  My kids have been in an online school for years and the classes function wonderfully.  They have grades 4k-12th.  So I am just not understanding what isn't working?  Obviously special ed is something that needs to be in-person for some students.  And even support classes are better in person.  I know at first it was a huge shift and shock to the teachers.  But almost a year later you would think they would have thought of things, reached out, researched other ways.  I know our online school that my kids go to had a huge influx of students this year.  Also they had districts contacting them to learn how to teach online and how they did things.  

[katilac]

5 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

It’s my understanding that this is the conclusion some cities have come to when it comes to elementary education.  

It cannot be said that it is impossible to teach elementary students remotely in the same way that it is impossible to stock grocery shelves remotely or fix power lines remotely. It can be done. They can reasonably conclude that they in-person would be preferable, or that their district has not done a great job so far, or that they need to improve, but they can't reasonably conclude that it's impossible. Clearly, it is not. 

[katilac]

11 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

I believe some states are going to give an extra year now for high schoolers allowing them to finish in 5 instead of 4 because of how badly online school functioned. And that’s high school where frankly kids should have been much more mature to handle what life threw at them. 

I don't think that states need to 'give' and extra year for high schoolers to finish, as in change the rules or anything, because a fair number of students already take 5 years to graduate. I'm sure there will be a greater number of students who did not get the required credits, but staying an extra year doesn't require any new procedures. 

1 minute ago, mommyoffive said:

Wow, I hadn't heard that.  Do you have an article about that or know where? 

I wonder why online school does so badly for some districts?  My kids have been in an online school for years and the classes function wonderfully.  They have grades 4k-12th.  So I am just not understanding what isn't working?  Obviously special ed is something that needs to be in-person for some students.  And even support classes are better in person.  I know at first it was a huge shift and shock to the teachers.  But almost a year later you would think they would have thought of things, reached out, researched other ways.  I know our online school that my kids go to had a huge influx of students this year.  Also they had districts contacting them to learn how to teach online and how they did things.  

K12 (the online education company that many districts and private families use) started in 2000. My state has had virtual schools for a decade, and I'd be surprised if any other state can't say the same. Calvert, which used to be a favorite of homeschooling missionaries, started their correspondence courses for primary students in 1906!   Agreed that it was a huge shock and shift in mid-March of 2020, but also that, yes, districts and their usually well-paid superintendents should have been reaching out and researching and planning multiple contingencies since then. 

[Roadrunner]

21 minutes ago, katilac said:

It cannot be said that it is impossible to teach elementary students remotely in the same way that it is impossible to stock grocery shelves remotely or fix power lines remotely. It can be done. They can reasonably conclude that they in-person would be preferable, or that their district has not done a great job so far, or that they need to improve, but they can't reasonably conclude that it's impossible. Clearly, it is not. 

Well, others will disagree with you. If majority of kids aren’t learning, then it can’t in be done from home. 

 

[Kassia]

22 minutes ago, katilac said:

 

K12 (the online education company that many districts and private families use) started in 2000

We used K12 for dd when she was in K-1st grade (2007/2008) and it required an enormous amount of parent involvement, which was fine for us since I didn't work and it was our choice to use the state virtual school during that time.  I don't know how much it's changed since then - that was a long time ago.  I'm sure students become much more independent as they get into the higher grade levels.