Cont: The all-new "US Politics and coronavirus" thread pt. 2

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

The students and their parents have a high cost in staying home. Not everything is just about Covid-19. It is only a piece of the risk in looking at the situation in total. We will be living with it for a while.

I keep hearing about this high cost of staying home. It's usually in the context of 'I want the schools to open.'

But when people push the schools to open it isn't going to turn out the way those people imagine it opening.

Not enough funding, no consistent guidelines, and most of all, less than adequately low levels of circulating virus, and adequate testing and contact tracing.

Orange County doesn't meet those criteria does it?

Then you need to accommodate teachers and students alike that have risk factors or live with someone with risk factors.


The devil is in the details.

 

[rdwight]

Again, and it's been stated multiple times, we're not only talking about protecting teachers. We're talking about protecting a) every person who might step foot in a school and b) every person who will be exposed to every person who does step foot in a school.

It's unfortunate that teachers are having to step up and say that the situation is incredibly unsafe, bbut the cowardice and callous disregard for human life of our state governments are forcing the issue.

I disagree. You might be talking about protecting everyone, but most of the conversation is about the risks to teachers. And the effects of reopening on them. Would teachers be as hesitant if virtual learning for this school year required layoffs involving a large percentage of them? Do they feel like the school system would be less likely to protect students than the day cares many kids will inevitably end up in instead?

This is in no way a bash on teachers, just an attempt to put the situation in perspective. I as a parent am opting for all digital learning this year, and am fortunate enough to have the ability to do so without any added cost besides my wife's sanity.

The answer to "what's so special about teachers" is just the difficulty of avoiding contact with potentially infected people in a typical school setting compared to many other places of employment.

I'm not seeing it but perhaps it would depend on the plan that is specifically being implemented at each school. How would you compare the risks to, say, grocery store workers, or any customer facing store front? They interact with far more individuals, in an equally closed setting with less stringent protection protocols. And universally earn less for the risk.

As for the plan, I know that our local school district is doing their offline learning a lot differently this fall than they did in the spring. Of course in the spring they were caught off guard with no opportunity to prepare. This time they have an actual plan.

I am hoping the planning is going well but it is still not even functionally finalized at this point. They are more or less pointing to full time, 7-8 hour days in front of a computer. What level of teacher interaction, how much parent side help will be required, and what learning foundation they are using is still not ready for parents to review.

 

[newyorkguy]

Curous, I looked to see the California teacher's union's side of this. The most recent statement I found was a letter the California Teachers Association (CTA represents some 300,000 public school employees) sent to the governor and the legislature about a month ago regarding plans to safely reopen schools in the state. Here's some excerpts:

We write on behalf of the 310,000 members of the California Teachers Association and the more than nine million students we serve regarding the pending reopening of schools and colleges throughout the state. We appreciate your leadership and efforts in meeting this extraordinary challenge. We understand the dramatic impact of the pandemic on the state budget and appreciate all efforts to protect public education, while recognizing that the budget relies on $13 billion in deferrals and additional federal funding. It is why, looking forward, we believe the state must have additional revenues to address the growing needs.

Unfortunately, many local districts and communities don’t have the necessary resources or capacity to maintain even the most basic prevention measures of six-feet physical distancing and limiting contacts, much less the other important preventative actions such as personal protective equipment(PPE), testing and tracing, or adequate ventilation and cleaning supplies...We should be clear-eyed about this reality. How can we physically reopen schools with lower thresholds of safety than we currently have for restaurants or hair salons?...How can we reasonably expect hundreds of students, and in some cases more than 1,000 students,to come together on one campus for an entire day without putting their health and the lives of every adult on that campus at risk? Link to union letter

This isn't the Longshoreman's Union we're talking about. This is a union of and for professionals. Their comments and concerns sound very reasonable to me. California still has a big problem.

 

[Babbylonian]

I disagree. You might be talking about protecting everyone, but most of the conversation is about the risks to teachers.

You're lying, plain and simple. Every story I've seen about this issue has included the risks to students and their families.

And we're not even talking potential risks here. The communicability of this virus is such that if schools reopen, the virus absolutely will spread to pretty much everyone in the school and absolutely will spread within the homes of those who get it at school. I can make this statement with some assurance because the states most likely to force schools to reopen ASAP (e.g., Georgia) are the states least likely to take precautions to minimize risk (e.g., requiring masks for everyone in schools).

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 0 and rule 12

 

[Giordano]

I think forcing kids back into school is dumb in many situations, based simply on the actual plans involved. Half a day, half the week, really doesn't make any sense to me. There does seem to be a lot more worry about teachers than most other professions. It is not like we can reduce risk to zero in any job that isn't home based, so why should teachers be special?

If they want all remote learning, let the lay offs begin.. Not really sure why it should cost my town 22k per student for them to use the free Khan Academy/Google Classroom at home and get checked in by their teacher once/twice a week for half an hour in a group.

Maybe their plan will be much better since they've had time to think on it since the school year ended this year, but if it's any variation close to that again it will be hard to justify the costs and employment of a lot of people in the school districts.

I am not familiar with the Khan Academy/Google Classroom apps - do they really require so little interaction/input from the teachers? Are they completely canned and completely autonomous curricula that play out for days without teacher inputs and interactions?

I am only aware of college level distance-learning apps that are really primarily communication/link up tools. They don’t provide lessons, just provide an environment in which the instructors can do so. Our experience is that these tools require twice the effort and planning, from the instructor and from the student, compared to in person classes.

But even if Khan Academy does somehow significantly reduce teacher work load, and I can only imagine the quality of the education without the human interaction, then I still have a reason to not lay-off the teachers. Most teachers dedicate their lives to educating your children and many have already made sacrifices in their own lives to do so. They are crucial role models and motivators. They are real people who are at the essence core of your community. And, if that appeal to your heart is not enough: you will need them latter when the epidemic ends. It is important to allow them to eat and have a place to live until then.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm not seeing it but perhaps it would depend on the plan that is specifically being implemented at each school. How would you compare the risks to, say, grocery store workers, or any customer facing store front?

I can't speak from authority, of course. I'll just have to go with "it seems". It seems to me that the addition of the plexiglass makes a huge difference. While a cashier sees an awful lot of people in a day, there's a barrier during most interactions. A teacher normally comes quite close to students when looking at papers, or computer screens, when answer questions. The hallways are usually crowded. The students can't be trusted to follow proper mask protocol. Although the number of people encountered during a day is smaller, the duration of contact is longer.

I would hope there are people studying this sort of thing who could provide a lot better answers beyond the "it seems" variety. For me, that's the best I can do.

The other difference, when it comes to the focus on the decision making, is that the decision is a collective one rather than an individual one. The store will stay open or not, and then each individual gets to decide a lot about how they interact with the store (e.g. in store activity, curbside pickup, if available, and depending on cost). Schools are more of a straight up or down decision affecting everyone in lots of different ways, so there's a lot more focus on it.

Of course, exactly how much risk there is to teachers does depend a lot on what protocols are followed.

It's the kind of thing that you would think a government would be on top of, studying the problem, collecting data, presenting it in manageable ways. That doesn't seem to be the priority of our national leadership, and state governments have less ability to draw on resources, so like everything else, decision makers are left to scour reports from wherever they can. Even the CDC is somewhat suspect due to political pressure that we know has been placed on them.

I am hoping the planning is going well but it is still not even functionally finalized at this point. They are more or less pointing to full time, 7-8 hour days in front of a computer. What level of teacher interaction, how much parent side help will be required, and what learning foundation they are using is still not ready for parents to review.

Yikes. 7-8 hours in front of a screen doesn't seem possible, and I suppose there's a huge difference between high school and first grade. If a first grader has to spend more than a couple of hours in front of a screen, that means the parent does, too. You would be better off homeschooling.

One thing is certain. It will be a mess, and some school districts will do it better than others. I'm glad my kid is past high school.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I have no skin in their game actually so they can do what they like. I have never attended public school or sent my kid to one. I still pay my share into it.

You do have skin in the game and it isn't "their" game, they make **** for what they do and wield no real power.

You benefit from living among an educated populace.

But when they try to affect my own private choices, which I pay for to great sacrifice, I cry foul.

Come down off the cross, you look ridiculous.

California’s elementary-school reopening rules may favor private schools, charters



Then they try to assert that the smaller campus reopenings are a risk to the community but that other schools need more time to meet the guidelines too. (they dont say which communities those are) So which is it? Are Newsom's state guidelines bad? or the schools that meet them earlier bad for reopening?

The argument makes no sense. If a school CAN open, then those kids should be allowed to go to school. Public or private.
What is their point in complaining that smaller schools are able to open first? The schools that adapt first in places with low transmissions, open first. Of course they do.

Their point is state policy mandates goals to reach, but ignores resource availability, thus pushing responsibility for the most vulnerable groups on those with the least capability to do so. In the context of the long-running "ZIP code lottery" issue that is well-trod in the discussion of academic inequality, it is entirely unremarkable.

So I conclude that through all of your verbiage, you did not provide an example of what I asked for.

All I see is you moaning about the fact someone has pointed out that you and some others are getting what amounts to VIP treatment in terms of getting life back to normal.

Someone lamenting that your good fortune is not shared by many isn't diminishing or damaging to you whatsoever, but reveals they are diminished in an ongoing way...yeah...poor you.

 

[Giordano]

At this point it is simply stupid to make an argument that 1. we need to restart in-person schools and therefore 2. we must take the risks that involves. The “risk,” indeed the certainty in many locations, is that we undo all the months of sacrifice and effort that we have expended to contain this disease. Children are efficiently infected by covid-19 and transmit the disease to others. Most classroom settings that can be achieved in practice will allow, even drive transmission from student to student. Imagine the classrooms, the hallways, etc! In most schools even if you leave open every other desk the students will still be within 3 feet of one another, inside breathing one another’s air for hours. The younger the children the worse it will be because it is more likely that they will not follow the rules as to masks or social distancing. They will then bring the disease home to spread still further. This has been proven over and over in when schools have been opened, even where overall disease rates were modest (eg Israel).. Doing it when overall disease rates are high, as in much of the USA, is insane.

It’s simple. In the middle of an active epidemic one does not grab people from different families, mix them together in a petri plate environment every day, send them back home, and repeat. This is exactly how one would seek to ignite an epidemic. The desire to return our children to school is understandable, but it can only be done if the disease is already well under control in the overall environment. Sending thousands and thousands of students back to school when many hundreds are surely infected is not a potential risk- it will definitely be pouring gasoline on the flames.

 

[newyorkguy]

This is a report from KABC-TV in San Francisco, which aired Sunday.

As Gov. Gavin Newsom released details for California elementary schools seeking to return with in-person instruction amid the coronavirus pandemic, one of the state's two powerful teachers unions warned that reopening campuses would be "reckless." It was not immediately clear how many public and private schools might apply for waivers to reopen elementary schools, but the idea of using classrooms in counties with increasing case numbers is misguided, said Jeff Freitas, president of the California Federation of Teachers, which represents 120,000 education employees.

"We think that's dangerous and compounds the effects of spreading the virus," said Freitas. He noted that last Friday, California reported 215 deaths, its highest daily toll. "We broke the record for the most number of deaths just a few days ago. And now we're talking about waivers for reopening schools?" Rules announced earlier this month by Newsom all but ensure the vast majority of the state's K-12 schools serving 6.7 million students won't reopen classrooms when the academic year starts. Newsom stipulated that public and private schools in counties on a state monitoring list for rising coronavirus infections and hospitalizations can't hold classroom instruction until their county is off the list for 14 days. Link to KABC report

 

[Meadmaker]

My wife teaches in college and has taught many in person and online classes. The biggest difference she finds is that online classes demand more involvement from the student, they have to do more than passively show up and pay half attention to the class, but actually log in and participate in discussion groups and so forth. They are not easier or less demanding on the teachers and certainly do not take less work.

It depends on the student and the subject, and to some extent on the learning objectives.

I've been through several MOOC classes. None of them required a lot of effort per student from the teaching staff. Some were excellent, and just as good as a college class. A few were a complete waste of time. Some were a good superficial introduction to a subject, but not anywhere near the quality that you would get from an actual university course.

Ironically, a lot of more "difficult" or "intense" classes are the ones that work best online. I would say the best class I ever took was one on a specific type of optimal control theory. It shadowed a course taught in MIT grad school. I would say that my 100 bucks got me almost as much education as the students sitting in the classroom.

On the other hand, my "Intriduction to Hinduism" class was basically a lot like reading some selected chapters of books and watching selected videos.

And, for MOOCs there is another huge difference. They almost all end up having a large element of, "You get out what you put in". That's ok for college and above, or adult learning in general, but in high school and below, your community is counting on you pushing that knowledge onto kids, not just for their benefit, but for society's. That changes a lot.

ETA: I'm going to get a small taste of what it's like to teach online myself this year. I'll be teaching Java programming via canned lectures and Zoom interaction to robotics students who want to learn programming. We'll see how it goes.

 

[rdwight]

You're lying, plain and simple. Every story I've seen about this issue has included the risks to students and their families.

"Included the risks to students" really doesn't sound like the main point, does it? If you can't have a reasonable conversation, not sure why you respond. Multiple school districts in my state are having issues trying to open for in person learning at all because teachers are refusing to because of THEIR health fears. That doesn't mean they don't care about students, or about their families. It just means their main focus is on the health of themselves, their families and their colleagues when it comes to the issue. The fact you don't want to accept that as if it is evil to frame it that way or for them to have such an opinion doesn't make sense.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove reference to moderated content

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Visceral incredulity in response to callous disregard for anothers' valid concern over their own (and others') lives and livelihoods.

Yeah, what is the world coming to?

 

[Sherkeu]

I keep hearing about this high cost of staying home. It's usually in the context of 'I want the schools to open.'

But when people push the schools to open it isn't going to turn out the way those people imagine it opening.

Not enough funding, no consistent guidelines, and most of all, less than adequately low levels of circulating virus, and adequate testing and contact tracing.

Orange County doesn't meet those criteria does it?

Then you need to accommodate teachers and students alike that have risk factors or live with someone with risk factors.


The devil is in the details.

OC meets guidelines but they are being held hostage for a decision by testing backlogs.

LA County next door is another story.

I don't think people are pushing for schools to open that are not ready. They are pushing for readiness and the right to open if they determine they are ready. It's a big gov't/small gov't argument for the most part. With 40mil people in the state it's gonna be hard to dictate a one-size-fits-all and not get someone mad.
We have several counties in CA that have had no deaths at all. Even some of the larger ones have had less than 5 and then none for many weeks.

The teachers board here in OC was calling for no masks or distancing rules and for schools to repoen. That sounds a bit crazy to me but I understand they just do not want it to be a 'rule'. They are suing the State. Like I said before, every County is different!

Orange County has been at the forefront of the national conversation on reopening schools after the county board of education released a set of controversial guidelines calling for a return without masks or social distancing.

That decision set off a widespread debate among parents, teachers and administrators over what a fall return should look like.

The board also announced plans to file a lawsuit against Gov. Newsom at their meeting on July 28 over the school closures, with the law firm of Tyler & Bursch taking the case pro bono.

Our school is abiding by the guidelines- and beyond them. I'm sure those other schools in the county would too. They just want decisions to be local and not dictated from Sacramento*.

One of my daughters' classmates has a mother that works with her elderly grandparents. She is still doing school by computer but will participate in the outdoor community service days. Each person takes responsibility for their own situation.


* CA state capital, Newsom is Governor

 

[Babbylonian]

"Included the risks to students" really doesn't sound like the main point, does it?

It's been "the main point" many times. It honestly sounds like you've become hyperfocused on teachers because you've got an axe to grind against them, or the unions to which they belong.

If you haven't figured out that if one person in a classroom is contagious then they absolutely will infect someone else - and that this will repeat over and over again - I don't know how to help you understand that opening schools at the height of a pandemic is a recipe for disaster.

 

[newyorkguy]

This is an interesting op-ed piece in the New York Times, published July 28th, by Dr. Emily Oster who is the author of “Cribsheet: A Data-Driven Guide to Better, More Relaxed Parenting, From Birth to Preschool.” It concerns the lack of planning on 'what to do' when teachers contract Covid-19. Dr. Oster says there has been very little planning and it is a major reason why many teachers are reluctant to go back to the classroom.

"When we look at data from places with open schools — Sweden, for example — they are encouraging in showing that teaching is not a high-risk job. But that means that teachers are infected at the same rate as the rest of the community. Put bluntly: If 5 percent of adults in a community have Covid-19, we expect 5 percent of school employees to have it even if they are at no greater risk. This problem is largest in places that currently have high community spread, but it is a concern virtually anywhere....Bottom line: When schools open, there will be cases. It is necessary to have a concrete plan for what will happen when this occurs. It is worth pausing for a moment on why there is a reluctance to discuss this. In my view, it is because those who want to open are afraid that if they acknowledge there will be cases in schools, those who oppose opening will use that to argue schools are unsafe." Link to Times op-ed

 

[Meadmaker]

Dr. Oster says there has been very little planning and it is a major reason why many teachers are reluctant to go back to the classroom.

Our school district cited this problem, and the related difficulty of finding substitute teachers, as a major reason for going to online schools this fall. It wasn't that they didn't plan for it, it's that they tried to plan and couldn't come to a workable solution.

 

[Sherkeu]

It's been "the main point" many times. It honestly sounds like you've become hyperfocused on teachers because you've got an axe to grind against them, or the unions to which they belong.

If you haven't figured out that if one person in a classroom is contagious then they absolutely will infect someone else - and that this will repeat over and over again - I don't know how to help you understand that opening schools at the height of a pandemic is a recipe for disaster.

From the latest studies I have seen out of places with open schools, young kids can get it from adults in a school, teen kids can spread it around.

The young kids (under 10 or under 12) that do get it do not give it to their non-infected household or outside groups, but the adults and teens can, and do.

 

[newyorkguy]

From the latest studies I have seen out of places with open schools...

Do you have a link and a quote to the latest studies you've seen? Are they from the United States?

 

[Bob001]

From the latest studies I have seen out of places with open schools, young kids can get it from adults in a school, teen kids can spread it around.

The young kids (under 10 or under 12) that do get it do not give it to their non-infected household or outside groups, but the adults and teens can, and do.

Why would you imagine that?

Two new studies, though from different parts of the world, have arrived at the same conclusion: that young children not only transmit SARS-CoV-2 efficiently, but may be major drivers of the pandemic as well.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willia...19-more-efficiently-than-adults/#50a451ba19fd

Can children carry the coronavirus and spread it?
“I think the answer is conclusively, without a doubt – yes,” said Dr. Lara Shekerdemian, chief of critical care at Texas Children’s Hospital.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...covid-19-spreadquestions-answered/5450062002/

Children routinely spread colds and flu. Why would anyone think they couldn't spread another respiratory virus?

 

[Sherkeu]

Do you have a link and a quote to the latest studies you've seen? Are they from the United States?

You can google but I will try to find the one that summarized different stats from several countries.
Here are two:

American Academy of Pediatrics
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/146/2/e2020004879

Science Daily
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200710100934.htm