How long can we wait while flattening the curve?

[habanero]

Is it possible that remote islands have an easier logistical task of controlling a viral outbreak? A whole bunch of the examples of nations that people champion for a strong COVID policy/response are islands or essentially islands (Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Korea, etc). They have fewer entry points and less international travel. It's much faster, cheaper and easier to shut down a couple of international airports and isolate than it is to shut down hundreds of airports, and thousands of miles of land borders.

On another side of the spectrum it worked pretty well on Iceland, then it didn't. They eventually got the 2nd wave as well, but it looks to be fading now. Iceland is a bit special case (apart from being tiny and pretty much everyone in the country live in one city) as they had, right from the onset massive testing capacity due to a small population but a pretty big genetic research company located there which did a lot of the testing. They did everything by the book as they reopened - mandatory testing on arrival and all. Which of course is easier when pretty much everyone arrives via one single airport,  but despite all this they eventually got the 2nd wave as well.

As for where I live we are not an island but and we kept infections at very, very low numbers for months but now they have climbed quite a lot again. Over here cases were kept low despite society being pretty open relative to mest of the world in terms of restrictions in place since late May and the general population caring less and less about the regulations still in place. But now the 2nd wave has hit us again and there is real worry it will escalate further so measures are being taken. It has been pretty much the same story all over Europe, really.

Iceland has a case fatality ratio of 0.45 so far. So they are one of very few places where it's reasonable to assume they have actually captured a pretty decent proportion of the actual cases. It's on small numbers, however (23 dead / 5100 cases so far).

[middo]

I would suggest that Australia also has a set of state governments that were prepared to close their borders to each other, and also cut their own state into smaller regions to restrict travel.  That allowed for the outbreak in Victoria to be contained to only two states, and now possibly eliminated.

We also have a compliant educated civil community that mostly get that the difficult lockdowns were for the greater good.  As a teacher, I have worked from home more than from the classroom this year.  I returned to the "office" but many are still working from home.

Hospitality has literally just reopened in Victoria.  A beer at the pub requires me to leave my name and phone number, in case of a future outbreak.  I am happy to do that so I can enjoy these freedoms.

I have two (young) adult children in another state.  I have not seen them since Christmas, even though we had tickets booked for April.  We accept that as a consequence of what is necessary to keep everyone safe.

I saw my 83 year old father last weekend for the first time since February, but no hugs.  We shared a meal and just enjoyed actually seeing each other.

It has been a long haul to get Australia back to no local transmission.  It has also been worthwhile.

[bigblock440]

How does linking that article months ago (which you obviously still don't understand) have anything to do with me not lying about the tax code?

Australia pulled off exactly what was proposed in that article and got to have some time with lowered restrictions. Including in-person attendance of sports, which I'd hope would resonate with you. Yes they had to lock down again, but they wind up with far fewer dead people on a population adjusted basis and have now beaten the disease into submission twice. And a relative party in between the two lockdowns. And with never having had an outbreak anywhere near as bad as even the initial one here in the US.

Have you traveled farther than 3 miles from your home or visited more than 1 person at a time?  Congratulations, you're part of the problem.

[mizzourah2006]

Here it comes for parents again. I have a few friends with young kids ~4-7 across the country that are going back to remote learning after Thanksgiving. I guess I'm somewhat lucky that if that happens to us I still have about 2 weeks of vacation I haven't used this year, but man is it tough to have 2 working parents and young kids right now. Hopefully everyone else in a similar situation finds a way to get through these next few months.

[Longwaytogo]

Here it comes for parents again. I have a few friends with young kids ~4-7 across the country that are going back to remote learning after Thanksgiving. I guess I'm somewhat lucky that if that happens to us I still have about 2 weeks of vacation I haven't used this year, but man is it tough to have 2 working parents and young kids right now. Hopefully everyone else in a similar situation finds a way to get through these next few months.

Ugggh, I'm jealous. My kids never even went back! I wish they would have had the opportunity for 3 months of distance learning Sept-Nov :(

-------------

Good news on the new Pfizer vaccine though!!  Hopefully that'll be some improvements by this time next year. Still in for a long Winter/Spring I'm sure though.

[mizzourah2006]

Here it comes for parents again. I have a few friends with young kids ~4-7 across the country that are going back to remote learning after Thanksgiving. I guess I'm somewhat lucky that if that happens to us I still have about 2 weeks of vacation I haven't used this year, but man is it tough to have 2 working parents and young kids right now. Hopefully everyone else in a similar situation finds a way to get through these next few months.

Ugggh, I'm jealous. My kids never even went back! I wish they would have had the opportunity for 3 months of distance learning Sept-Nov :(

-------------

Good news on the new Pfizer vaccine though!!  Hopefully that'll be some improvements by this time next year. Still in for a long Winter/Spring I'm sure though.

I'm sorry. I don't know what we'd have done if daycare/pre-K didn't open back up. My wife has had to go into the office this entire time and my work isn't exactly conducive to watching a 2 and a 4 year old all day :) We had about 6 weeks where it was shut down and she was using a ton of sick time and I was using vacation time and working until after 10 many nights during those 6 weeks.

I honestly don't know how working parents with young kids that didn't have school or daycare are doing it.

[Kyle Schuant]

I honestly don't know how working parents with young kids that didn't have school or daycare are doing it.

Here, they didn't do it. Many parents were fired from their jobs anyway as their businesses closed down. Other parents took unpaid leave. Some had to quit their jobs entirely. And some battled on, sticking their children in someone else's care for the day, and their children suffered educationally.

One of the questions asked of our government by a parliamentary committee was: We know that covid causes harm, obviously. But children missing school causes harm, and has lifelong effects on educational outcomes, and therefore other outcomes of relationship, mental and financial health. "Has this been modelled so we can balance one against the other?"

The answer was that it had not been modelled, but they had plans to spend and - well, that's the thing. Their idea was that if you chuck enough money at a problem it'll go away. One thing they're doing is hiring 4,000 tutors across the state to help the children who fell behind. The state has 2,263 schools. That's 1.77 tutors per school. Realistically, each can see 10-20 students a week. That's 17-35 students per school, with an average school size of 446 students per school. So they're helping 1-2 kids in each class of 20-30.

Now, that is good and important work. However, I would suggest that after 6 months' absence from school, considerably more than 1-2 kids in each class of 20-30 will be struggling. I would also suggest that if you're hiring 4,000 people overnight, probably not all of them will be highly-skilled.

The issue in discussing lockdowns is that the benefit (reducing cases, and thus, we hope, deaths) are immediate, but the costs come in the months and years afterwards. So there is a focus on the benefits, and the costs are not modelled or even considered.

[mathlete]

Deaths vs. three week lagged cases looks similar to what we saw in July and August. With cases up as much as we are, I think it's likely that November/December will be the worst we've yet seen, and that we pass 300K deaths by the end of the year.

We need a hospitality bailout. Best time for that was months ago. Second best time is right now.

[OtherJen]

Yeah, it isn't looking great, and this is before the big indoor church/family holidays.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I honestly don't know how working parents with young kids that didn't have school or daycare are doing it.

Here, they didn't do it. Many parents were fired from their jobs anyway as their businesses closed down. Other parents took unpaid leave. Some had to quit their jobs entirely. And some battled on, sticking their children in someone else's care for the day, and their children suffered educationally.

One of the questions asked of our government by a parliamentary committee was: We know that covid causes harm, obviously. But children missing school causes harm, and has lifelong effects on educational outcomes, and therefore other outcomes of relationship, mental and financial health. "Has this been modelled so we can balance one against the other?"

The answer was that it had not been modelled, but they had plans to spend and - well, that's the thing. Their idea was that if you chuck enough money at a problem it'll go away. One thing they're doing is hiring 4,000 tutors across the state to help the children who fell behind. The state has 2,263 schools. That's 1.77 tutors per school. Realistically, each can see 10-20 students a week. That's 17-35 students per school, with an average school size of 446 students per school. So they're helping 1-2 kids in each class of 20-30.

Now, that is good and important work. However, I would suggest that after 6 months' absence from school, considerably more than 1-2 kids in each class of 20-30 will be struggling. I would also suggest that if you're hiring 4,000 people overnight, probably not all of them will be highly-skilled.

The issue in discussing lockdowns is that the benefit (reducing cases, and thus, we hope, deaths) are immediate, but the costs come in the months and years afterwards. So there is a focus on the benefits, and the costs are not modelled or even considered.

What worries me is that all the rectification steps like tutors and special consideration only help children who are visibly falling behind and objectively behind the 8 ball. What happens to a child who previously was, say, in the 99th percentile of her class but due to the lockdown, remote learning and poor familial circumstances has now fallen to 90th percentile? Her deficit will never even be detected, let alone compensated, and she may have lost a lot of academic momentum for any future endeavour.

That's the problem we have here in Australia. We try to make sure no one falls behind, lagging terribly, but we forget that even people who are not objectively "behind" may still have fallen behind in relative terms - relative either to the rest of the cohort or to their former selves - and we forget that that is a terrible price to pay, too.

All students, bright and dumb, will have been hurt by the school closures. You can't learn remotely as efficiently as you can in a classroom with other students of the same level. You can't expand your mind if you don't have access to a library (unless you have a kindle and the money to buy books). The effects on our children will never be quantified but they are grave.

[Kris]

I honestly don't know how working parents with young kids that didn't have school or daycare are doing it.

Here, they didn't do it. Many parents were fired from their jobs anyway as their businesses closed down. Other parents took unpaid leave. Some had to quit their jobs entirely. And some battled on, sticking their children in someone else's care for the day, and their children suffered educationally.

One of the questions asked of our government by a parliamentary committee was: We know that covid causes harm, obviously. But children missing school causes harm, and has lifelong effects on educational outcomes, and therefore other outcomes of relationship, mental and financial health. "Has this been modelled so we can balance one against the other?"

The answer was that it had not been modelled, but they had plans to spend and - well, that's the thing. Their idea was that if you chuck enough money at a problem it'll go away. One thing they're doing is hiring 4,000 tutors across the state to help the children who fell behind. The state has 2,263 schools. That's 1.77 tutors per school. Realistically, each can see 10-20 students a week. That's 17-35 students per school, with an average school size of 446 students per school. So they're helping 1-2 kids in each class of 20-30.

Now, that is good and important work. However, I would suggest that after 6 months' absence from school, considerably more than 1-2 kids in each class of 20-30 will be struggling. I would also suggest that if you're hiring 4,000 people overnight, probably not all of them will be highly-skilled.

The issue in discussing lockdowns is that the benefit (reducing cases, and thus, we hope, deaths) are immediate, but the costs come in the months and years afterwards. So there is a focus on the benefits, and the costs are not modelled or even considered.

What worries me is that all the rectification steps like tutors and special consideration only help children who are visibly falling behind and objectively behind the 8 ball. What happens to a child who previously was, say, in the 99th percentile of her class but due to the lockdown, remote learning and poor familial circumstances has now fallen to 90th percentile? Her deficit will never even be detected, let alone compensated, and she may have lost a lot of academic momentum for any future endeavour.

That's the problem we have here in Australia. We try to make sure no one falls behind, lagging terribly, but we forget that even people who are not objectively "behind" may still have fallen behind in relative terms - relative either to the rest of the cohort or to their former selves - and we forget that that is a terrible price to pay, too.

All students, bright and dumb, will have been hurt by the school closures. You can't learn remotely as efficiently as you can in a classroom with other students of the same level. You can't expand your mind if you don't have access to a library (unless you have a kindle and the money to buy books). The effects on our children will never be quantified but they are grave.

Did you get shitcanned, Bloop? Is that why you’re reloaded, or did you decide to create another account for some reason?

[middo]

I honestly don't know how working parents with young kids that didn't have school or daycare are doing it.

Here, they didn't do it. Many parents were fired from their jobs anyway as their businesses closed down. Other parents took unpaid leave. Some had to quit their jobs entirely. And some battled on, sticking their children in someone else's care for the day, and their children suffered educationally.

One of the questions asked of our government by a parliamentary committee was: We know that covid causes harm, obviously. But children missing school causes harm, and has lifelong effects on educational outcomes, and therefore other outcomes of relationship, mental and financial health. "Has this been modelled so we can balance one against the other?"

The answer was that it had not been modelled, but they had plans to spend and - well, that's the thing. Their idea was that if you chuck enough money at a problem it'll go away. One thing they're doing is hiring 4,000 tutors across the state to help the children who fell behind. The state has 2,263 schools. That's 1.77 tutors per school. Realistically, each can see 10-20 students a week. That's 17-35 students per school, with an average school size of 446 students per school. So they're helping 1-2 kids in each class of 20-30.

Now, that is good and important work. However, I would suggest that after 6 months' absence from school, considerably more than 1-2 kids in each class of 20-30 will be struggling. I would also suggest that if you're hiring 4,000 people overnight, probably not all of them will be highly-skilled.

The issue in discussing lockdowns is that the benefit (reducing cases, and thus, we hope, deaths) are immediate, but the costs come in the months and years afterwards. So there is a focus on the benefits, and the costs are not modelled or even considered.

What worries me is that all the rectification steps like tutors and special consideration only help children who are visibly falling behind and objectively behind the 8 ball. What happens to a child who previously was, say, in the 99th percentile of her class but due to the lockdown, remote learning and poor familial circumstances has now fallen to 90th percentile? Her deficit will never even be detected, let alone compensated, and she may have lost a lot of academic momentum for any future endeavour.

That's the problem we have here in Australia. We try to make sure no one falls behind, lagging terribly, but we forget that even people who are not objectively "behind" may still have fallen behind in relative terms - relative either to the rest of the cohort or to their former selves - and we forget that that is a terrible price to pay, too.

All students, bright and dumb, will have been hurt by the school closures. You can't learn remotely as efficiently as you can in a classroom with other students of the same level. You can't expand your mind if you don't have access to a library (unless you have a kindle and the money to buy books). The effects on our children will never be quantified but they are grave.

Obviously Bloop it is long time since you were in a classroom.  Some of my students have blossomed when working from home.  Some have progressed smoothly, and some fell behind.  But to assume a classroom is the best learning environment for all students is to suffer from a real fallacy.  The classroom, like the school yard, can be a place of terrors for some students.  It can also be a place of unbridled joy.  It depends on the kid, the cohort and the teacher. 

I was a winner from the school system.  I am assuming you were too, as you are earning reasonably well and seem to have enjoyed your schooling on the whole.  That is not everyone's experience of school for many reasons.  But it does cloud our view of how kids should learn.  As a teacher, I tend to replicate the best of what I had at school, but that is the best of what worked for me.  I often have parents tell me how much little "Jilly" loves my teaching, but again, that does not mean it works for everyone.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Did you get shitcanned, Bloop? Is that why you’re reloaded, or did you decide to create another account for some reason?

Nah, I forgot my log-in! And I have no way of retrieving it, cause I don't know what email I used to create the account either.

Obviously Bloop it is long time since you were in a classroom.  Some of my students have blossomed when working from home.  Some have progressed smoothly, and some fell behind.  But to assume a classroom is the best learning environment for all students is to suffer from a real fallacy.  The classroom, like the school yard, can be a place of terrors for some students.  It can also be a place of unbridled joy.  It depends on the kid, the cohort and the teacher. 

I was a winner from the school system.  I am assuming you were too, as you are earning reasonably well and seem to have enjoyed your schooling on the whole.  That is not everyone's experience of school for many reasons.  But it does cloud our view of how kids should learn.  As a teacher, I tend to replicate the best of what I had at school, but that is the best of what worked for me.  I often have parents tell me how much little "Jilly" loves my teaching, but again, that does not mean it works for everyone.

I take the point that not everyone likes the classroom. And not everyone likes remote learning either. But I suspect on the whole, children will have done better in the classroom than they would have done in (often unsupervised) remote learning.

The thing with remote learning is that it's not like the children are being supervised as closely by the teacher as they would be in real class. And I think supervision (not necessarily in the form of behavioural monitoring, but more so one-on-one interaction) is really important. For example, how would a remote teacher know if a child is falling behind or outpacing his peers? And what about the natural development from studying and having recess with ability peers in school? If you're just at home by yourself, you lose all that.

Some children may prefer to learn and play completely alone but I think that would be a significant minority. And I don't think Zoom recreates all the benefits of in-person socialisation, contact with teachers, etc. And that's without considering the distraction element posed by iPads and computers, or the difficulty of doing a few hours' homework each night and then having the teacher collect/mark it/explain it remotely.

[mathlete]

In person schooling can be a jungle so I don't doubt that some kids do better remote.

On balance though, I think remote learning hasn't worked for many students though. I had some data on this but I can't find it now because I'm delirious from a week of following elections returns.

I'm pretty pro-stay at home for most things. But if we have to give a little in any area, I'm cool with it being schooling.

[deborah]

I received a newsletter from my old school a couple of days ago. The current principal said:

Some assumed notions on remote learning are clearly proven not to be correct. Progress may be a little slower (I am still not convinced of this), but depth of knowledge and understanding is clearly greater, as are student agency and ownership around personal progress. In terms of preparation for later life, these are invaluable attributes to fuel later success and engagement in life after school and into adulthood. There have been challenges around maintaining a strong sense of community, but here our senior students and student leaders in all areas of the school have done great things in social connection, community projects and effective leadership. They have been truly remarkable and give us enormous confidence in the future that is in their hands.

I also believe strongly that our students at school in 2020 have experienced a year that has prepared them for the world after school better than any previous group of school students.

This is a school that has spent most of the year in lockdown and remote learning.

[middo]

Obviously Bloop it is long time since you were in a classroom.  Some of my students have blossomed when working from home.  Some have progressed smoothly, and some fell behind.  But to assume a classroom is the best learning environment for all students is to suffer from a real fallacy.  The classroom, like the school yard, can be a place of terrors for some students.  It can also be a place of unbridled joy.  It depends on the kid, the cohort and the teacher. 

I was a winner from the school system.  I am assuming you were too, as you are earning reasonably well and seem to have enjoyed your schooling on the whole.  That is not everyone's experience of school for many reasons.  But it does cloud our view of how kids should learn.  As a teacher, I tend to replicate the best of what I had at school, but that is the best of what worked for me.  I often have parents tell me how much little "Jilly" loves my teaching, but again, that does not mean it works for everyone.

I take the point that not everyone likes the classroom. And not everyone likes remote learning either. But I suspect on the whole, children will have done better in the classroom than they would have done in (often unsupervised) remote learning.

The thing with remote learning is that it's not like the children are being supervised as closely by the teacher as they would be in real class. And I think supervision (not necessarily in the form of behavioural monitoring, but more so one-on-one interaction) is really important. For example, how would a remote teacher know if a child is falling behind or outpacing his peers? And what about the natural development from studying and having recess with ability peers in school? If you're just at home by yourself, you lose all that.

Some children may prefer to learn and play completely alone but I think that would be a significant minority. And I don't think Zoom recreates all the benefits of in-person socialisation, contact with teachers, etc. And that's without considering the distraction element posed by iPads and computers, or the difficulty of doing a few hours' homework each night and then having the teacher collect/mark it/explain it remotely.

Obviously I can't talk for all schools, but I do know what happened at mine (yes, a high fee private school) and my wife's (a government school with some issues). 

My school first.  The students did turn up on time and work during class time.  I could watch them (through microsoft teams) if I wanted to, but I was also concerned about privacy issues etc.  (I work in a girls school, and a number of the girls were in their bedrooms.)  Work was required to be submitted, and marked.  Online quizzes kept them honest.  Parent communication went up, not down.  I gained nearly two hours a day by not commuting, but used most of that time in extra work.  They were checked on and most rose to the occasion.  As an aside, all of my lessons were recorded, and I have a number of students asking if we could start recording the classroom lessons so they can look back on them if they need to review items from them.

My wife's school mostly used webex, but her year 12 class used teams as it is a better platform for this type of work.  Her year 12's were motivated and turned up, did their work and will almost to a student gain a passing grade on their exams.  Her lower school (years 7-10) classes were a bit more hit-and-miss with some students choosing to not turn up to class.  Numbers were usually about 5 missing out of 25.  Parents of these kids were often at home themselves, but ultimately didn't care.  This is a fundamental point, because these kids are the same ones who are disruptive in the classroom.  They do not value education, as their parents do not value education.  With them "not in the class", the other students had more teacher time, more availability for help, and a more peaceful learning environment.

Disruption from other students is currently one of the worst factors for kids education in Australia.  As a teacher, attempting to discipline students usually results in management push back and difficulty with parents.  While I am currently in a place where parents and management are supportive, and discipline is fantastic, most government schools are not like this.  Online learning provided a reprieve for many students from the interruptions of their peers.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I received a newsletter from my old school a couple of days ago. The current principal said:

Some assumed notions on remote learning are clearly proven not to be correct. Progress may be a little slower (I am still not convinced of this), but depth of knowledge and understanding is clearly greater, as are student agency and ownership around personal progress. In terms of preparation for later life, these are invaluable attributes to fuel later success and engagement in life after school and into adulthood. There have been challenges around maintaining a strong sense of community, but here our senior students and student leaders in all areas of the school have done great things in social connection, community projects and effective leadership. They have been truly remarkable and give us enormous confidence in the future that is in their hands.

I also believe strongly that our students at school in 2020 have experienced a year that has prepared them for the world after school better than any previous group of school students.

This is a school that has spent most of the year in lockdown and remote learning.

Well, the principal would say that, wouldn't he/she? I've yet to read a missive from a principal that wasn't self-serving.

But if 2020 prepared students for the world better than any previous group of students, why return to school at all? Next year should be remote too.

If 2020 prepared them for the world better than any previous cohort, why have 30,000 Victorian students applied for special consideration due to suffering disadvantage this year? They're actually better off, silly students, they just don't realise it.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Middo, thanks for the insights. Would you say that the students' performance (in terms of how much they learned) was the same or different from other years?

And as for the behaviourally challenged students being absent from class, I would take that as a sign that students with special needs (whether slower or faster than their peers) benefit more from in-person tuition than students around the average, who will be catered to by the standard curriculum.

[deborah]

I thought it was pretty unselfserving. This is a private school, and my immediate thought was that the government could save an awful lot of money if this is true! I bet a number of parents may have thought so too.

[middo]

I think you miss the point.  Just because you feel that remote learning is worse does not make it so.  It also does not make it better.  It is different.  Whether it is better or worse is still open for debate.

There are other aspects of schooling, such as socialisation, which I believe is necessary and cannot be recreated online the same way.  I feel schooling in general is better in person, but I do not have any evidence that it is.  I do have evidence that some kids do better in the classroom, and some do better out of the classroom.

And the 30,000 year 12 students have special consideration because the government felt it was appropriate to do so.  The criteria is not just limited to covid, but also to the bushfires.  This is just a quick "how would they have done in a normal year compared to this year" judgement by the teacher.  Their exams and their GATT will ultimately still determine their final ATAR.

[middo]

Middo, thanks for the insights. Would you say that the students' performance (in terms of how much they learned) was the same or different from other years?

We ran the same courses in years 7 to 10 for all students.  Year 12 has been slightly shortened in all subjects as I understand it.  Maths has had small sections removed in all three courses.  Our year 11's actually did an extra unit of work compared to last year as we are trialing a new "module" which we will probably do in year 12.

The upshot - my 11's are doing their exams now.  Same exam difficulty as last year and similar averages of results.

The year 7's are doing their exams in a couple of weeks, so I cannot be absolutely certain of how they will fare, but from testing we have done, the means and medians are basically better than last year's were at the same time.  Year 8's are the same, but our year 9's are down.  That may be an artifact of the different groupings, or something to do with the concepts taught.  We just don't know.  I don't teach year 10's this year.

So TL;DR - about the same taught and so far about the same achievement.

And as for the behaviourally challenged students being absent from class, I would take that as a sign that students with special needs (whether slower or faster than their peers) benefit more from in-person tuition than students around the average, who will be catered to by the standard curriculum.

Yes and no.  Behaviour is not always linked to ability.  Some students are quite capable but choose to derail a class for the fun of it.  They are not finding it too hard or too easy.  They are just wanting to be the centre of attention and cause a fuss. 

My wife's classes cater for three different ability levels in the one class.  I dislike this model, but it is the government standard system.  My school streams the mathematics classes.  It allows for teaching different problem solving skills, development of the faster students flexibility of thinking, and gives me the ability to cater to the "average" student without having many miss out.  I prefer this model, but I also acknowledge that it has huge problems.  The bottom kid in the top class see themselves as failures compared to their class, even though they are doing much better than the whole cohort, and the top kid of the bottom class thinks they are a genius, even though they patently are not compared to the whole cohort.

[OtherJen]

The leaders of hospital systems across Michigan are holding a press conference in an hour to discuss the facts that hospitals in several counties have already maxed out their ICU capacities, and that hospitals in/around Grand Rapids (second largest city) are projected to hit max total capacity soon.

Gee, it feels like we’ve been here before. Oh wait, that was 6-7 months ago, on my side of the state. Unlike last spring, we have huge family/church holidays in the next 6 weeks. We’re fucked.

[dandarc]

Can't wait to hear my dad tell me how all the hospital administrators in his corner of Michigan are wrong about the pandemic being bad. Fucked seems like an accurate assessment.

[frugalnacho]

We've rounded the corner.  Can't you see how nice and round it is before it goes vertical?

[OtherJen]

Bridge Magazine: With COVID rising, Detroit closes classrooms; other districts may follow

Detroit Public Schools Community District will switch to fully remote learning on Monday, in the wake of quickly rising COVID-19 cases and positivity rates in the city.

The announcement early Thursday is significant statewide because Detroit’s school system, with 51,000 students, is the largest in Michigan, and because DPSCD Superintendent Nickolais Vitti has been an outspoken proponent of keeping classrooms open during the pandemic.

In-person classes are suspended until at least Jan. 11.

More school districts may be following suit in the coming days, with test positivity rates higher in suburban counties than they are currently in Michigan’s largest city.

The Troy School District in Oakland County closed its buildings Monday, and nearby Bloomfield Hills Schools and West Bloomfield School District also went fully remote recently.

“I suspect many more (districts will close) by the end of next week,” Troy Superintendent Richard Machesky told Bridge Michigan Thursday following the Detroit announcement.

Dearborn Public Schools, the 3rd largest district, never opened in-person and aren't likely to at this point. The high school in my SIL's district in West MI had to switch to all-virtual a couple of weeks ago because too many teachers were sick or quarantined to have the minimum required on-site staff. Plus, their regional hospital system is almost to max capacity.

What happened to COVID-19 going away on Nov. 4th? The president said so.

[ixtap]

Bridge Magazine: With COVID rising, Detroit closes classrooms; other districts may follow

Detroit Public Schools Community District will switch to fully remote learning on Monday, in the wake of quickly rising COVID-19 cases and positivity rates in the city.

The announcement early Thursday is significant statewide because Detroit’s school system, with 51,000 students, is the largest in Michigan, and because DPSCD Superintendent Nickolais Vitti has been an outspoken proponent of keeping classrooms open during the pandemic.

In-person classes are suspended until at least Jan. 11.

More school districts may be following suit in the coming days, with test positivity rates higher in suburban counties than they are currently in Michigan’s largest city.

The Troy School District in Oakland County closed its buildings Monday, and nearby Bloomfield Hills Schools and West Bloomfield School District also went fully remote recently.

“I suspect many more (districts will close) by the end of next week,” Troy Superintendent Richard Machesky told Bridge Michigan Thursday following the Detroit announcement.

Dearborn Public Schools, the 3rd largest district, never opened in-person and aren't likely to at this point. The high school in my SIL's district in West MI had to switch to all-virtual a couple of weeks ago because too many teachers were sick or quarantined to have the minimum required on-site staff. Plus, their regional hospital system is almost to max capacity.

What happened to COVID-19 going away on Nov. 4th? The president said so.

That was only if he won. Then he would make a decree. But he did win, so it is really Biden's fault. Or maybe Clinton and Obama are to blame? Certainly nothing to do with Trump.

[Arapiles]

Obviously Bloop it is long time since you were in a classroom.  Some of my students have blossomed when working from home.  Some have progressed smoothly, and some fell behind.  But to assume a classroom is the best learning environment for all students is to suffer from a real fallacy.  The classroom, like the school yard, can be a place of terrors for some students.  It can also be a place of unbridled joy.  It depends on the kid, the cohort and the teacher. 

I was a winner from the school system.  I am assuming you were too, as you are earning reasonably well and seem to have enjoyed your schooling on the whole.  That is not everyone's experience of school for many reasons.  But it does cloud our view of how kids should learn.  As a teacher, I tend to replicate the best of what I had at school, but that is the best of what worked for me.  I often have parents tell me how much little "Jilly" loves my teaching, but again, that does not mean it works for everyone.

I take the point that not everyone likes the classroom. And not everyone likes remote learning either. But I suspect on the whole, children will have done better in the classroom than they would have done in (often unsupervised) remote learning.

The thing with remote learning is that it's not like the children are being supervised as closely by the teacher as they would be in real class. And I think supervision (not necessarily in the form of behavioural monitoring, but more so one-on-one interaction) is really important. For example, how would a remote teacher know if a child is falling behind or outpacing his peers? And what about the natural development from studying and having recess with ability peers in school? If you're just at home by yourself, you lose all that.

Some children may prefer to learn and play completely alone but I think that would be a significant minority. And I don't think Zoom recreates all the benefits of in-person socialisation, contact with teachers, etc. And that's without considering the distraction element posed by iPads and computers, or the difficulty of doing a few hours' homework each night and then having the teacher collect/mark it/explain it remotely.

Obviously I can't talk for all schools, but I do know what happened at mine (yes, a high fee private school) and my wife's (a government school with some issues). 

My school first.  The students did turn up on time and work during class time.  I could watch them (through microsoft teams) if I wanted to, but I was also concerned about privacy issues etc.  (I work in a girls school, and a number of the girls were in their bedrooms.)  Work was required to be submitted, and marked.  Online quizzes kept them honest.  Parent communication went up, not down.  I gained nearly two hours a day by not commuting, but used most of that time in extra work.  They were checked on and most rose to the occasion.  As an aside, all of my lessons were recorded, and I have a number of students asking if we could start recording the classroom lessons so they can look back on them if they need to review items from them.

My wife's school mostly used webex, but her year 12 class used teams as it is a better platform for this type of work.  Her year 12's were motivated and turned up, did their work and will almost to a student gain a passing grade on their exams.  Her lower school (years 7-10) classes were a bit more hit-and-miss with some students choosing to not turn up to class.  Numbers were usually about 5 missing out of 25.  Parents of these kids were often at home themselves, but ultimately didn't care.  This is a fundamental point, because these kids are the same ones who are disruptive in the classroom.  They do not value education, as their parents do not value education.  With them "not in the class", the other students had more teacher time, more availability for help, and a more peaceful learning environment.

Disruption from other students is currently one of the worst factors for kids education in Australia.  As a teacher, attempting to discipline students usually results in management push back and difficulty with parents.  While I am currently in a place where parents and management are supportive, and discipline is fantastic, most government schools are not like this.  Online learning provided a reprieve for many students from the interruptions of their peers.

I just wanted to say thank you, Middo, for this thoughtful post.  It is really refreshing to hear of the actual experience of a teacher.  There is a small piece of comfort for me as someone who has just made the difficult decision to send my child to a private school.  I went to a government school and at least at my school, disruption was a constant problem.  Sorry to derail things slightly.  Thanks again for the post.

[mm1970]

What worries me is that all the rectification steps like tutors and special consideration only help children who are visibly falling behind and objectively behind the 8 ball. What happens to a child who previously was, say, in the 99th percentile of her class but due to the lockdown, remote learning and poor familial circumstances has now fallen to 90th percentile? Her deficit will never even be detected, let alone compensated, and she may have lost a lot of academic momentum for any future endeavour.

That's the problem we have here in Australia. We try to make sure no one falls behind, lagging terribly, but we forget that even people who are not objectively "behind" may still have fallen behind in relative terms - relative either to the rest of the cohort or to their former selves - and we forget that that is a terrible price to pay, too.

All students, bright and dumb, will have been hurt by the school closures. You can't learn remotely as efficiently as you can in a classroom with other students of the same level. You can't expand your mind if you don't have access to a library (unless you have a kindle and the money to buy books). The effects on our children will never be quantified but they are grave.

Yeah, so...here are my random thoughts on that.

Who really cares?  I mean, someone in the 99th percentile dropping to the 90th...is still most likely going to be JUST FINE at the end of all this.  They are NOT the students we REALLY have to worry about.

I don't mean to be  mean - because of course I care.  This pandemic is a literal pandemic, and most students and families are going to be affected negatively by this. 

My own new high school student is a straight A, 99th percentile student.  Starting HS remote has been almost a literal shit show for us.  He went from straight-As to A, A+, A, C- on his first set of grades. WTAF? 

It turns out, he relies HEAVILY on being able to ask questions during class when he has questions.  This is MUCH harder to do remote.  He's not used to the idea of "office hours" once a week yet, because he's new to HS.  He doesn't email the teachers because one of them complains about getting emails (that's the C-).  He only gets 60 minutes a day of class time per class, instead of what would be 80 minutes.  That means an extra 20 minutes of "independent learning" on top of homework.  He's also heavily influenced by competition, and being in person with other classmates.  He's way more social than his parents.

So now he's managed to pull it to 2 A's and 2 B's (the B's are both of the AP classes).  He's learning to be better organized, and he's learning to study more, and he's learning (slowly, very slowly, to take notes - but his handwriting is horrendous).  In the end, he's learning good life skills, all the while being 100% isolated from his in person friends since March, going through crazy puberty hormones, and being stuck 24/7 in a 1100 sf house with the same 3 people and a dog.

I think we need to give our kids (and teachers, and ourselves) a bit of grace here.  We cannot expect all kids to advance like it's a normal year.  It's just not a normal year.

One of my son's friends is on the spectrum.  He is doing AMAZINGLY well per his mom.  He LOVES distance learning.  He's got straight A's, and this method is really making him SHINE.  Distance learning works super well for him.

TBH, trying to keep the kids who are behind to keep up while teaching all the other kids...at this point, I almost feel like I should just go all distance with the 3rd grader to let the other kids get full time in person learning (assuming we ever go back this year).  Sure, with mom and dad working FT at home, he won't get as much direct or correct teaching as he would at school.  OTOH, he'll be fine either way.  Some of this kids in his class REALLY need to be at school.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I thought it was pretty unselfserving. This is a private school, and my immediate thought was that the government could save an awful lot of money if this is true! I bet a number of parents may have thought so too.

Well, more to the point, the school could save a lot of money too if it just relied on remote learning. You could pare down those expensive on-site facilities, for example. So why have students attend school at all, if that was the insight learned from this year?

It turns out, he relies HEAVILY on being able to ask questions during class when he has questions.  This is MUCH harder to do remote.  He's not used to the idea of "office hours" once a week yet, because he's new to HS.  He doesn't email the teachers because one of them complains about getting emails (that's the C-).  He only gets 60 minutes a day of class time per class, instead of what would be 80 minutes.  That means an extra 20 minutes of "independent learning" on top of homework.  He's also heavily influenced by competition, and being in person with other classmates.  He's way more social than his parents.

That's an awful outcome for the student, and I don't think it can be brushed off or dismissed as an opportunity to learn life skills. Even if we accept that the child eventually learns beneficial life skills and re-adjusts and gets back to being a straight A student, the child has still wasted, or at least half-wasted, his development during this school year. And like an athlete who misses a season of training in his or her junior years, that can have real effects on future achievement.

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

The bottom kid in the top class see themselves as failures compared to their class, even though they are doing much better than the whole cohort, and the top kid of the bottom class thinks they are a genius, even though they patently are not compared to the whole cohort.

I think it depends on how children's progress is framed. Keeping the emphasis on individual improvement helps a lot, as does an emphasis on learning and growing (as opposed to simply getting marks). I grew up in a different school system, which streamed aggressively, and I was often the bottom kid in the top class. I saw it as a challenge and enjoyed it. I didn't mind not being as talented as the top kids in the top class, because I knew they were freakishly gifted. And my teachers were very supportive.

[mm1970]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way. 

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

In other news, the Australian government has announced a free vaccine program (yay) but has said it won't be mandatory even for high risk groups. I don't really understand this. Mask wearing is mandatory, even when walking alone in the great outdoors (subject to medical exemptions) even though there's no evidence it makes a significant difference in such a case. Even though my state has had 14 days of no cases, office workers are still not permitted to work from their office, unless they fall into an exemption category. Yet despite that, a vaccine won't be mandatory for high risk individuals?

I feel our risk matrix is all over the shop. At the least, the vaccine should be mandatory for high risk individuals who don't have a medical exemption or who don't have some other good reason to decline it (same as our mask-wearing rules).

[former player]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

You think going to a "good state school" is equivalent to being "stunted"? 

Do you have any idea how obnoxious that sounds?

[middo]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

In other news, the Australian government has announced a free vaccine program (yay) but has said it won't be mandatory even for high risk groups. I don't really understand this. Mask wearing is mandatory, even when walking alone in the great outdoors (subject to medical exemptions) even though there's no evidence it makes a significant difference in such a case. Even though my state has had 14 days of no cases, office workers are still not permitted to work from their office, unless they fall into an exemption category. Yet despite that, a vaccine won't be mandatory for high risk individuals?

I feel our risk matrix is all over the shop. At the least, the vaccine should be mandatory for high risk individuals who don't have a medical exemption or who don't have some other good reason to decline it (same as our mask-wearing rules).

A mandatory vaccine means you have no choice.  What you will see is that it is necessary for workers in certain areas such as aged care.  Not compulsory unless you want to go to work.

And Melbourne has just gone 14 days.  Be patient.  At 28 days we can be certain.  Hold your horses and enjoy the benefits out the other side.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

You think going to a "good state school" is equivalent to being "stunted"? 

Do you have any idea how obnoxious that sounds?

I think you have, deliberately or otherwise, taken my quote entirely out of context. I said you might have a 99 percentile child (Ivy league standard) falling to 90th percentile (good state school standard).

No doubt, if I had not inserted the descriptors, and just said "It would be a shame if a 99th percentile child fell to 90th percentile" you would have interjected "You think achieving "90th percentile" is equivalent to being stunted? Do you have any idea how obnoxious that sounds?"

In other words, I think the only person being obnoxious is you, in taking my remarks completely out of context. Because, even though in a neutral context being in the 90th percentile/going to a good state school is an excellent achievement, in the context of someone who was formerly in the 99th percentile it represents a stunting of development.

[OtherJen]

Everyone is "stunted" by something. The world isn't fair. I see a lot of parents and educators trying to make the best of a truly shitty, once-in-a-century crisis.

[frugalnacho]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

In other news, the Australian government has announced a free vaccine program (yay) but has said it won't be mandatory even for high risk groups. I don't really understand this. Mask wearing is mandatory, even when walking alone in the great outdoors (subject to medical exemptions) even though there's no evidence it makes a significant difference in such a case. Even though my state has had 14 days of no cases, office workers are still not permitted to work from their office, unless they fall into an exemption category. Yet despite that, a vaccine won't be mandatory for high risk individuals?

I feel our risk matrix is all over the shop. At the least, the vaccine should be mandatory for high risk individuals who don't have a medical exemption or who don't have some other good reason to decline it (same as our mask-wearing rules).

Cool.  In approximately a 4 hour span yesterday the USA added as many new cases as australia has had in total.  It did take us about 18 hours yesterday to add as many deaths as australia has had in total though, but that death toll should continue to go up as it lags the new cases by several weeks.

The county I live in which is just 30 miles x 30 miles (48 km x 48 km) has had more cases and more deaths than all of australia.

It's too bad your country is being cautious and forcing mask mandates and not allowing people to work in the office.  We are absolutely swimming in freedom in the USA.  I can go get infected anywhere I want, and can go infect other people anywhere I want, it's great. 

[jrhampt]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

In other news, the Australian government has announced a free vaccine program (yay) but has said it won't be mandatory even for high risk groups. I don't really understand this. Mask wearing is mandatory, even when walking alone in the great outdoors (subject to medical exemptions) even though there's no evidence it makes a significant difference in such a case. Even though my state has had 14 days of no cases, office workers are still not permitted to work from their office, unless they fall into an exemption category. Yet despite that, a vaccine won't be mandatory for high risk individuals?

I feel our risk matrix is all over the shop. At the least, the vaccine should be mandatory for high risk individuals who don't have a medical exemption or who don't have some other good reason to decline it (same as our mask-wearing rules).

Cool.  In approximately a 4 hour span yesterday the USA added as many new cases as australia has had in total.  It did take us about 18 hours yesterday to add as many deaths as australia has had in total though, but that death toll should continue to go up as it lags the new cases by several weeks.

The county I live in which is just 30 miles x 30 miles (48 km x 48 km) has had more cases and more deaths than all of australia.

It's too bad your country is being cautious and forcing mask mandates and not allowing people to work in the office.  We are absolutely swimming in freedom in the USA.  I can go get infected anywhere I want, and can go infect other people anywhere I want, it's great.

OMG, yes.  As someone living in the US, Bloop's attitude is maddening.  Get some perspective, man.  We are swimming in COVID; you (Bloop) are lucky.

[GuitarStv]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

In other news, the Australian government has announced a free vaccine program (yay) but has said it won't be mandatory even for high risk groups. I don't really understand this. Mask wearing is mandatory, even when walking alone in the great outdoors (subject to medical exemptions) even though there's no evidence it makes a significant difference in such a case. Even though my state has had 14 days of no cases, office workers are still not permitted to work from their office, unless they fall into an exemption category. Yet despite that, a vaccine won't be mandatory for high risk individuals?

I feel our risk matrix is all over the shop. At the least, the vaccine should be mandatory for high risk individuals who don't have a medical exemption or who don't have some other good reason to decline it (same as our mask-wearing rules).

Cool.  In approximately a 4 hour span yesterday the USA added as many new cases as australia has had in total.  It did take us about 18 hours yesterday to add as many deaths as australia has had in total though, but that death toll should continue to go up as it lags the new cases by several weeks.

The county I live in which is just 30 miles x 30 miles (48 km x 48 km) has had more cases and more deaths than all of australia.

It's too bad your country is being cautious and forcing mask mandates and not allowing people to work in the office.  We are absolutely swimming in freedom in the USA.  I can go get infected anywhere I want, and can go infect other people anywhere I want, it's great.

OMG, yes.  As someone living in the US, Bloop's attitude is maddening.  Get some perspective, man.  We are swimming in COVID; you (Bloop) are lucky.

No.  It's not luck.  It's the very policies that Bloop has been railing against that resulted in his current safe situation.

[OtherJen]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

In other news, the Australian government has announced a free vaccine program (yay) but has said it won't be mandatory even for high risk groups. I don't really understand this. Mask wearing is mandatory, even when walking alone in the great outdoors (subject to medical exemptions) even though there's no evidence it makes a significant difference in such a case. Even though my state has had 14 days of no cases, office workers are still not permitted to work from their office, unless they fall into an exemption category. Yet despite that, a vaccine won't be mandatory for high risk individuals?

I feel our risk matrix is all over the shop. At the least, the vaccine should be mandatory for high risk individuals who don't have a medical exemption or who don't have some other good reason to decline it (same as our mask-wearing rules).

Cool.  In approximately a 4 hour span yesterday the USA added as many new cases as australia has had in total.  It did take us about 18 hours yesterday to add as many deaths as australia has had in total though, but that death toll should continue to go up as it lags the new cases by several weeks.

The county I live in which is just 30 miles x 30 miles (48 km x 48 km) has had more cases and more deaths than all of australia.

It's too bad your country is being cautious and forcing mask mandates and not allowing people to work in the office.  We are absolutely swimming in freedom in the USA.  I can go get infected anywhere I want, and can go infect other people anywhere I want, it's great.

God, right?!

It had to be an absolutely heart-wrenching decision to close Detroit Public Schools through mid-January. A lot of those kids will not have the resources for remote learning. But those are the same kids who often live with multigenerational families in close quarters. We’re already looking at having mobile morgues and field hospitals again this winter unless a miracle happens, and having 51,000 kids, plus faculty and staff, exposed in school and bringing the virus home to elderly and/or less healthy relatives probably seemed like the worst of two shitty options. We have kids in the area who were literally orphaned during the first wave last spring, and hospital systems in state are facing both resource and staffing shortages.

It’s shitty. It is unfair. It is what it is.

[OtherJen]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

In other news, the Australian government has announced a free vaccine program (yay) but has said it won't be mandatory even for high risk groups. I don't really understand this. Mask wearing is mandatory, even when walking alone in the great outdoors (subject to medical exemptions) even though there's no evidence it makes a significant difference in such a case. Even though my state has had 14 days of no cases, office workers are still not permitted to work from their office, unless they fall into an exemption category. Yet despite that, a vaccine won't be mandatory for high risk individuals?

I feel our risk matrix is all over the shop. At the least, the vaccine should be mandatory for high risk individuals who don't have a medical exemption or who don't have some other good reason to decline it (same as our mask-wearing rules).

Cool.  In approximately a 4 hour span yesterday the USA added as many new cases as australia has had in total.  It did take us about 18 hours yesterday to add as many deaths as australia has had in total though, but that death toll should continue to go up as it lags the new cases by several weeks.

The county I live in which is just 30 miles x 30 miles (48 km x 48 km) has had more cases and more deaths than all of australia.

It's too bad your country is being cautious and forcing mask mandates and not allowing people to work in the office.  We are absolutely swimming in freedom in the USA.  I can go get infected anywhere I want, and can go infect other people anywhere I want, it's great.

OMG, yes.  As someone living in the US, Bloop's attitude is maddening.  Get some perspective, man.  We are swimming in COVID; you (Bloop) are lucky.

No.  It's not luck.  It's the very policies that Bloop has been railing against that resulted in his current safe situation.

Yep. Doesn’t seem like that message will ever get through.

[jrhampt]

To clarify, it's lucky for Bloop that he is living in Australia, not lucky that covid is under control in Australia.

[mm1970]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

You think going to a "good state school" is equivalent to being "stunted"? 

Do you have any idea how obnoxious that sounds?

He's not being "stunted".  This is life, not a race.  OMG if my kid goes to UCSD or Cal Poly and not Cal Tech, his life will be over FOREVER.  He'll NEVER live up to his potential! 

I think learning to be flexible, persevere through adversity, learn hard things...that will serve him pretty damn well in the long run.

[frugalnacho]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

You think going to a "good state school" is equivalent to being "stunted"? 

Do you have any idea how obnoxious that sounds?

He's not being "stunted".  This is life, not a race.  OMG if my kid goes to UCSD or Cal Poly and not Cal Tech, his life will be over FOREVER.  He'll NEVER live up to his potential! 

I think learning to be flexible, persevere through adversity, learn hard things...that will serve him pretty damn well in the long run.

Ugh.  That's worse than half a million people dying terrible covid deaths.

[charis]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

You think going to a "good state school" is equivalent to being "stunted"? 

Do you have any idea how obnoxious that sounds?

He's not being "stunted".  This is life, not a race.  OMG if my kid goes to UCSD or Cal Poly and not Cal Tech, his life will be over FOREVER.  He'll NEVER live up to his potential! 

I think learning to be flexible, persevere through adversity, learn hard things...that will serve him pretty damn well in the long run.

People have a very rigid view of how education should look.  This year could very well be the most important and educational of our children's lives.  My eldest is doing well, and apart from losing some social opportunities, it appears that she is more harmed by the traditional model than virtual learning.  For my younger son, it is likely the opposite.  They will both get through this and come out with some new and different skills.

A side note, I don't know why any parent would want their kid to go to an ivy undergrad, other than name recognition, I guess.

[Plina]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

You think going to a "good state school" is equivalent to being "stunted"? 

Do you have any idea how obnoxious that sounds?

He's not being "stunted".  This is life, not a race.  OMG if my kid goes to UCSD or Cal Poly and not Cal Tech, his life will be over FOREVER.  He'll NEVER live up to his potential! 

I think learning to be flexible, persevere through adversity, learn hard things...that will serve him pretty damn well in the long run.

I think many people underestimate those lifeskills. I was in the top of my class in high school but law school was a wake up for me, because there you had 200 top students and I had to actually study. How often don’t you see straight A-students not be able to handle life difficulties or other set backs. I saw people obsess over their grades. I got average grades because there was so many other interesting things to study as well. Grades matter when you are trying to get in to university, get your first job and maybe academia but thereafter nobody cares. If you compare me today to most of my course mates I am doing pretty well because I have learned those life skills and learned when to deliver an A-performance and when a B is enough.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

In other news, the Australian government has announced a free vaccine program (yay) but has said it won't be mandatory even for high risk groups. I don't really understand this. Mask wearing is mandatory, even when walking alone in the great outdoors (subject to medical exemptions) even though there's no evidence it makes a significant difference in such a case. Even though my state has had 14 days of no cases, office workers are still not permitted to work from their office, unless they fall into an exemption category. Yet despite that, a vaccine won't be mandatory for high risk individuals?

I feel our risk matrix is all over the shop. At the least, the vaccine should be mandatory for high risk individuals who don't have a medical exemption or who don't have some other good reason to decline it (same as our mask-wearing rules).

Cool.  In approximately a 4 hour span yesterday the USA added as many new cases as australia has had in total.  It did take us about 18 hours yesterday to add as many deaths as australia has had in total though, but that death toll should continue to go up as it lags the new cases by several weeks.

The county I live in which is just 30 miles x 30 miles (48 km x 48 km) has had more cases and more deaths than all of australia.

It's too bad your country is being cautious and forcing mask mandates and not allowing people to work in the office.  We are absolutely swimming in freedom in the USA.  I can go get infected anywhere I want, and can go infect other people anywhere I want, it's great.

OMG, yes.  As someone living in the US, Bloop's attitude is maddening.  Get some perspective, man.  We are swimming in COVID; you (Bloop) are lucky.

No.  It's not luck.  It's the very policies that Bloop has been railing against that resulted in his current safe situation.

No. I have made the case for more discrimination in the application of rules. (That is a case unique to our situation in Australia by the way.) I have said that some rules - such as the rules on family gatherings and religious services [i.e., not being allowed] have been enforced too laxly/ have not been well targeted. I have said that some mechanisms - such as physical barriers to cordon off high-risk hotspots - have been tried and unfairly discarded without consideration of whether they could work. I have said that some rules have been too lax altogether (e.g. the fact that liquor retailing in-person continued even though almost all other retail was shut). I have said that some rules make no sense (e.g. the curfew once case numbers plummeted - I suspect I was right on this, because as soon as a legal challenge was instituted, the curfew was immediately dropped.) I have said that other rules are poorly aligned (e.g. the ability of construction workers, who work onsite, to work at multiple sites concurrently with physical contact with other workers but a prohibition on sole trader office workers from entering their sole places of work).

Generally, my argument has been that a lot of rules have simply been in place for "optics" (e.g. the requirement to wear a mask, still, when solo bushwalking) and a lot of rules have an application that is too narrow or too wide. A lot of the rules tend to treat people as if we all have the same objective risk of catching covid, when we actually know that it is certain locales and certain occupations that carry a much higher risk.

So I'm not asking for "no restrictions" at all - I'm asking for tailored enforcement. We already have a lot of exemptions and sub-rules, so it can't be said that my proposals would make things "too complicated". Rather, my exemptions and sub-rules would, I think, better address objective risk factors.

(As an aside, New South Wales is a state with a larger population than Victoria, but with significantly fewer cases and deaths, and yet less stringent (but, in my view, more commonsense) restrictions. They've had a sensible balance all along, and they've focused on prevention rather than punishment - thus, they were much better than us at using aggressive contact tracing measures which we only belatedly adopted. Here in Victoria, we focussed too much on punishing "rule breakers" who didn't have the virus, and not enough on coercing people who did have the virus to cooperate with authorities.)

[marty998]

Bloop you are neither a parent nor a teacher... how can you talk with any sense of expertise about the poor students going from 99 to 90th percentile???

How about the students who have gone the other way from 90 to 99? Are their achievements to be discounted because it's unfair to the cohort of 1%'s who couldn't cope as well with change? You think these kids should be denied access to the Ivy League college because the previous students on top have been unfairly impacted?

Perhaps there's the real lesson for all of us to take away. Consistent with the message from some of the other educators and parents above earlier, the changes this year have unearthed some talents that have otherwise been suppressed all these years under traditional schooling methods.

[mizzourah2006]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

You think going to a "good state school" is equivalent to being "stunted"? 

Do you have any idea how obnoxious that sounds?

He's not being "stunted".  This is life, not a race.  OMG if my kid goes to UCSD or Cal Poly and not Cal Tech, his life will be over FOREVER.  He'll NEVER live up to his potential! 

I think learning to be flexible, persevere through adversity, learn hard things...that will serve him pretty damn well in the long run.

People have a very rigid view of how education should look.  This year could very well be the most important and educational of our children's lives.  My eldest is doing well, and apart from losing some social opportunities, it appears that she is more harmed by the traditional model than virtual learning.  For my younger son, it is likely the opposite.  They will both get through this and come out with some new and different skills.

A side note, I don't know why any parent would want their kid to go to an ivy undergrad, other than name recognition, I guess.

Depends on the kids major, if they want to go to grad school and where they want to live. If no grad school and they want a good career in a big city in the northeast then an Ivy education is the easiest route. If they want to go to grad school and/or they have no desire to live in a NYC/Boston/DC then it's likely a waste of money IMO.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

You say that someone who falls from 99th to 90th percentile is still doing okay...which is true...but the gap is the difference between getting into an Ivy vs going to a good state school.

I'm totally okay with that (being the parent who isn't too excited about paying for an Ivy).  To be honest, my husband went to an Ivy and I went to a private school that was (and still is) a top 10 engineering school...and I still feel that way.

You may be totally okay with your child's educational development being stunted but I would hope this sentiment is not universal.

In other news, the Australian government has announced a free vaccine program (yay) but has said it won't be mandatory even for high risk groups. I don't really understand this. Mask wearing is mandatory, even when walking alone in the great outdoors (subject to medical exemptions) even though there's no evidence it makes a significant difference in such a case. Even though my state has had 14 days of no cases, office workers are still not permitted to work from their office, unless they fall into an exemption category. Yet despite that, a vaccine won't be mandatory for high risk individuals?

I feel our risk matrix is all over the shop. At the least, the vaccine should be mandatory for high risk individuals who don't have a medical exemption or who don't have some other good reason to decline it (same as our mask-wearing rules).

Cool.  In approximately a 4 hour span yesterday the USA added as many new cases as australia has had in total.  It did take us about 18 hours yesterday to add as many deaths as australia has had in total though, but that death toll should continue to go up as it lags the new cases by several weeks.

The county I live in which is just 30 miles x 30 miles (48 km x 48 km) has had more cases and more deaths than all of australia.

It's too bad your country is being cautious and forcing mask mandates and not allowing people to work in the office.  We are absolutely swimming in freedom in the USA.  I can go get infected anywhere I want, and can go infect other people anywhere I want, it's great.

OMG, yes.  As someone living in the US, Bloop's attitude is maddening.  Get some perspective, man.  We are swimming in COVID; you (Bloop) are lucky.

No.  It's not luck.  It's the very policies that Bloop has been railing against that resulted in his current safe situation.

No. I have made the case for more discrimination in the application of rules. (That is a case unique to our situation in Australia by the way.) I have said that some rules - such as the rules on family gatherings and religious services [i.e., not being allowed] have been enforced too laxly/ have not been well targeted. I have said that some mechanisms - such as physical barriers to cordon off high-risk hotspots - have been tried and unfairly discarded without consideration of whether they could work. I have said that some rules have been too lax altogether (e.g. the fact that liquor retailing in-person continued even though almost all other retail was shut). I have said that some rules make no sense (e.g. the curfew once case numbers plummeted - I suspect I was right on this, because as soon as a legal challenge was instituted, the curfew was immediately dropped.) I have said that other rules are poorly aligned (e.g. the ability of construction workers, who work onsite, to work at multiple sites concurrently with physical contact with other workers but a prohibition on sole trader office workers from entering their sole places of work).

Generally, my argument has been that a lot of rules have simply been in place for "optics" (e.g. the requirement to wear a mask, still, when solo bushwalking) and a lot of rules have an application that is too narrow or too wide. A lot of the rules tend to treat people as if we all have the same objective risk of catching covid, when we actually know that it is certain locales and certain occupations that carry a much higher risk.

So I'm not asking for "no restrictions" at all - I'm asking for tailored enforcement. We already have a lot of exemptions and sub-rules, so it can't be said that my proposals would make things "too complicated". Rather, my exemptions and sub-rules would, I think, better address objective risk factors.

(As an aside, New South Wales is a state with a larger population than Victoria, but with significantly fewer cases and deaths, and yet less stringent (but, in my view, more commonsense) restrictions. They've had a sensible balance all along, and they've focused on prevention rather than punishment - thus, they were much better than us at using aggressive contact tracing measures which we only belatedly adopted. Here in Victoria, we focussed too much on punishing "rule breakers" who didn't have the virus, and not enough on coercing people who did have the virus to cooperate with authorities.)

Awww, bloop, did you have to reload because too many people had you on ignore? Ignore.