Why all of the hatred for Teachers during Covid?

[mizzourah2006]

Many posters seem to be conflating teachers' working with babysitting.

Teachers are and will be doing plenty of work, both online and -off, to educate kids, whether they are in the classroom or not. They are not, however, wanting to be forced to babysit kids in person, because this is an ideal way for the virus to spread and kill more people. Quite simple, really.

So you want to ignore the fact that a significant portion of a teachers job up until at least middle school is "babysitting"? A 1st grade teacher is only responsible for teaching? So I guess if Tommy leaves the classroom  the teacher shouldn't care because the only responsiblity for the teacher is the lesson plan.

[expatartist]

Third generation person involved in education here. I'm not a teacher but work closely with them and with students in education settings. The perception gap between what teachers actually do and what the public thinks they do is massive.
Teachers are trained to design activities and programs that provide stimulation and learning opportunities to kids. They do this while sandwiched between restrictive budgets and testing systems that do their best to stifle creativity.

The fact that many people see teachers' jobs as babysitting is no excuse to spread disease that kills people.

The world looks on at America in amazement at your incompetence, infighting, and inability to get basic infrastructure sorted. It's below the standards of much of the third world. To say nothing of the disbelief in science and resistance to wearing masks. The US remains a giant biohazard site, and this is why most of the world won't let you - just your money - in.

[Shane]

Our daughter's brick and mortar school is planning to reopen, with social distancing measures in place, in late August. One of the reasons we've decided to opt for online schooling, instead, is because it seems pretty likely, given that we're in a swing state, that schools statewide are going to end up closing, again, probably sometime before November 3.

[NumberJohnny5]

Let me get this straight. The health care system where your wife works is an absolute shit-show and has been criminally negligent in forcing front-line health workers (nurses like your wife) to work in unsafe conditions, failing to provide PPE for FIVE MONTHS during a pandemic; obviously this is not your wife's fault and I genuinely feel for her and everyone else who is in her position.

And somehow this leads you to the "logical" conclusion that teachers should also be forced to work in unsafe conditions where the system (administrators and/or the funding bureaucracy) are criminally negligent in not providing even minimal safety measures... and if the teachers raise concerns about it, they are being crybabies; they are getting "above themselves" and have no right to expect anything different; it is definitely their fault and they deserve any hatred that is heaped upon them; of course, why wouldn't everyone be pissed off at them?

???

Um, no, I didn't say that teachers should be forced to work in unsafe conditions. What I'm trying (and I guess, failing) to do is explain why a lot of people seem to be angry at teachers directly. Personally, I'm angry at Covid, and I'm angry at the lack of preparedness, and just upset that our kids are caught up in the middle of all this. Also, I'm trying to point out that what sometimes seems the obvious answer isn't.

Just an example. Let's say the teachers push back enough to have classes all online. That's about 20-25 students (we're assuming they weren't going to have overcrowded classes of over 30 students) per teacher that can't be at school during school hours. How many now have to stay at an elderly grandparent's because their parents have to work (and they're working with the public, getting exposed themselves)? Half? A quarter? Let's say it's a quarter, a somewhat unreasonably low number (at least I think so, could be wrong, I'm sure it varies by location). Anyway, that's 4-5 elderly caretakers at risk of exposure, vs one teacher. Yes, it feels good to say "we're doing the right thing and protecting teachers' lives" but unless EVERYTHING is closed...you're saying that those 4-5 grandparents' lives are less important than one teacher's. What I'm saying is, it's just not that simple. I wish it were. On the flip side, if we just open all the schools with no regard for the teacher's safety...it'll be a shit show. So, what's the right answer? No idea!

"Dictate" working conditions? They want a reasonably safe and fair plan for going back to work, not zero risk.

Have the medical personnel at your wife's hospital meekly accepted their working conditions as normal, or have they (justifiably) voiced concerns? If they have decried the poor/unsafe working conditions .... should we hate them too?

They want everything to be perfect, else they want to continue online-only while continuing to be paid. As I alluded to earlier, I'd do the same. It's not really possible for (most) schools to properly social distance, and we have to realize that, but they can certainly put in some reasonable safeguards. Also, as with any negotiation, you often start off with somewhat unreasonable requests so you can "compromise" down to what you actually wanted. But generally the negotiations aren't quite so public.

What the average person is seeing is that they have to accept additional risks due to Covid if they want to continue being paid, but teachers aren't willing to make the same sacrifice. That's the perception. Why do "I" have to continue risking my life to get paid, but "they" can choose not to? And "their" choice can put my loved ones at risk (the case where someone has to watch the kids during the day, so either it's grandma or leave little Timmy at home alone and hope for the best)?

Of course there's also people who are just upset that they're still paying taxes for a crappy system, I didn't really take them into account before. But yeah, I guess I'd be a bit upset if I were paying big bucks in property taxes and all I got was a crappy website that didn't work 1/4 of the time and when it did, my kids didn't actually learn anything from it. I'd direct the resentment at the school system in general, but it's easy for the teachers to get the blame there too (and to be fair, some did just phone it in; others tried their best but again, the system was never meant to be a replacement, just a supplement).

[mizzourah2006]

I keep seeing people talk about how no one in the US is wearing masks, but I just havent seen that. I live in Arkansas and I haven't seen more than a handful of people out in the past month not wearing a mask. My brother lives in Fort Lauderdale and I asked him what's going on there, why South Florida is such a hot bed and asked how many people wear masks and he said they've all been wearing masks since March. I visited my mom in Saint Louis in early June and everybody was wearing masks. So what part of the US aren't people wearing masks in?

[johndoe]

Teaching is the only profession out there where everyone outside of teaching thinks they are an expert because they were once in a school. 

Not that it's the main point of the discussion, but it might make you feel better to know that plenty of professions have this problem.

[johndoe]

Teaching is the only profession out there where everyone outside of teaching thinks they are an expert because they were once in a school. 

Not that it's the main point of the discussion, but it might make you feel better to know that plenty of professions have this problem.

P.S. as someone who pays property tax (with majority going to school district) and has never had a kid, it's pretty funny to see the complaints from parents about them "not getting their money's worth".

[jean]

I realize a lot of teachers are not as digitally inclined as I am and the level of Rigor from inperson to online was not there.  It was for me and my students.  Do workers in the private section have to take a pay cut to work from home?  My students test scores from end of year final had the same scores as previous years for the most part.  On one hand people argue we need teachers because they watch our kids and enable us to work.  Then there is we pay too much in property taxes to not have teachers watching our kids.

So, people in the private sector who cannot do all the major components of their job from home did get hours reduced and eventually (or immediately) were laid off. So the question is whether the childcare portion of teaching is a major component in the job of schools, in addition to the eduction.  I think it is.  There is a major portion of a teacher's job that they can't do from home, and parents have to fill in or hire someone else to do it.

This is not the fault of teachers.  Parents are just upset because their lives during distance learning with young kids is hell, no one seems to offer any solutions, and some (not all) teachers seem intentionally oblivious to why distance learning isn't an acceptable end game solution.  I'm not suggesting schools should throw open their doors unsafely, but no one (leadership) has made any reasonable progress on articulating what opening safely might look like (and cost), much less laid out any plans (and money) to get there on any believable timeline.

[charis]

Many posters seem to be conflating teachers' working with babysitting.

Teachers are and will be doing plenty of work, both online and -off, to educate kids, whether they are in the classroom or not. They are not, however, wanting to be forced to babysit kids in person, because this is an ideal way for the virus to spread and kill more people. Quite simple, really.

Remote teaching simply doesn't work for many, many students (special ed, students who are homeless or in poverty, etc) and almost all under a certain grade.

 Sure, not wanting to become sick and die is a simple concept shared by teachers and parents, who are often both. But the system is the problem and it's currently built around the very premise that children will be in school while parents work. Teachers need "child care" too when they are doing all that work that you referred to. If they can remote teach and homeschool their kids simultaneously, that's where the disconnect lies because most other employees cannot.

[TomTX]

1 It has been reported frequently that children don’t get covid19 in nearly the same numbers as adults do. This appears to begin to change in the top two classes of secondary school (after kids are about 16), and these kids can wear masks. So it could easily be perceived that teachers actually have less exposure than other workplaces, as they have much less adult contact than happens in the average workplace. Where I live they are beginning to bring in masks, but not for children under 10.

It's been posted before, but bears repeating: That early information was wrong, and older kids (10 and up) definitely catch and spread COVID-19 like adults.  There simply isn't enough data for younger kids, though the whole "young kids don't die" has also been disproven repeatedly.

[TomTX]

I mean, Kris and Laura already addressed this.  Why do we have to reinvent the wheel?  What on EARTH did other countries do to be able to open their schools?

They got rid of the virus, or reduced it to low levels.

They paid people to stay home.  They paid people.  So that they could be furloughed or whatever and still eat and pay rent.

What do we get?  A fucking wall...

A wall that's about to fall down during the first flood - the ground already has serious erosion. The problem? Ignoring all those pesky environmental requirements like not building in the flood plain, erosion mitigation measures, etc.

Oh, and don't forget the secret $500B slush fund for Trump - it wasn't supposed to be secret, but Trump fired the person who was supposed to do oversight and refuses to release information....

That $500B would have gone a long way toward helping out regular people - instead I'm sure it's been siphoned into the pockets of big corporations and the 1%.

[wenchsenior]

I keep seeing people talk about how no one in the US is wearing masks, but I just havent seen that. I live in Arkansas and I haven't seen more than a handful of people out in the past month not wearing a mask. My brother lives in Fort Lauderdale and I asked him what's going on there, why South Florida is such a hot bed and asked how many people wear masks and he said they've all been wearing masks since March. I visited my mom in Saint Louis in early June and everybody was wearing masks. So what part of the US aren't people wearing masks in?

My part of Texas.  I'd say a good third of the people aren't wearing them, or aren't wearing them properly, despite the statewide mask mandate. And cases have been skyrocketing during the past month.

[skp]

I have mixed feelings. If a state won't allow in house restaurant dining, or has closed churches  it seems hypocritical to want to reopen the schools.  However, at the same time,  I think the teachers wanting hazard pay are being hypocritical.  You can't be that fearful of covid to be willing to expose yourself for more cash.  That's just being opportunist.  OR if like someone said upthread you're sending your own kid to ballet class and you/yourself are going to wedding showers and church. 

[NaN]

1) Don't get upset about your taxes not being spent well if teachers are being paid and doing less work. There are so many other government services (city, state, and federal) that are probably way less productive (including U.S. Congress ;) ). Don't unnecessarily pick on teachers/schools just because you "pay taxes" and feel you are not getting any value out of that payment.
2) This whole thread brings up the importance of day-care in our society. I am not saying teachers have the job of being a baby-sitter, but schools do give many productive hours to our society for parents. That's a huge function of schools. To ignore that is a huge mistake.
3) I absolutely agree with the point earlier that just because other workers are being put in high risk positions (flight attendants, grocery store clerks) that doesn't mean we need more people back at their job putting themselves in high risk positions of spreading the virus. Other countries are doing better than the US because they really did shut down everything early on.

The question is not about teachers. It is, "what is an acceptable amount of workers working in high risk positions"? Schools are a huge delta on what we currently have had this summer, and it still has gotten worse. IMHO, the delta of adding teachers and students back into an environment to further the spread of the virus is not acceptable at the moment.

[MrThatsDifferent]

How about: all the schools open when everyone in the state agrees to wear a mask?

[Megs193]

I keep seeing people talk about how no one in the US is wearing masks, but I just havent seen that. I live in Arkansas and I haven't seen more than a handful of people out in the past month not wearing a mask. My brother lives in Fort Lauderdale and I asked him what's going on there, why South Florida is such a hot bed and asked how many people wear masks and he said they've all been wearing masks since March. I visited my mom in Saint Louis in early June and everybody was wearing masks. So what part of the US aren't people wearing masks in?

My aunt is in south Florida and she is always talking about how many people she sees not wearing a mask.  I live in NY where they are required and everyone wears them thankfully.

[StarBright]

I keep seeing people talk about how no one in the US is wearing masks, but I just havent seen that. I live in Arkansas and I haven't seen more than a handful of people out in the past month not wearing a mask. My brother lives in Fort Lauderdale and I asked him what's going on there, why South Florida is such a hot bed and asked how many people wear masks and he said they've all been wearing masks since March. I visited my mom in Saint Louis in early June and everybody was wearing masks. So what part of the US aren't people wearing masks in?

My part of Texas.  I'd say a good third of the people aren't wearing them, or aren't wearing them properly, despite the statewide mask mandate. And cases have been skyrocketing during the past month.

We counted today because we went to a city park (Ohio). Less than 25% of the people we saw were wearing masks and it was crowded (and we have a mask mandate). We packed a picnic lunch but left after we were done because the trails were so crowded and not enough people were wearing masks.

Also, an absurd amount of people were playing pokemon go or something similar and kept walking REALLY close to us. My older kid was calling them phone zombies because they just seemed to walk wherever their phones directed them instead of looking at where they were going.

[skp]

I'm from Ohio too- semi rural area. I saw that Ohio is the fourth worse state for mask wearing in the country. In  my area,  I think mask wearing is improving, but I'd say that 25% of the people still aren't wearing them.  I'm in an Amish area and they don't wear masks at all.  Walmart just started requiring masks (just before Dewine made masks mandatory)    and yet the Amish customers still weren't wearing them.   I don't understand that.  Not sure if they get a religious exemption or if Walmart is afraid of loosing a large customer base.

[wenchsenior]

Depressing additional anecdote re: masking.

I ran into my mom while at the pet supply store today.  She was wearing the N95 mask that I went to some trouble to get her back in March along with the printed instructions for how to size and wear it.  And yet, she was wearing it with one elastic loose, the remaining elastic around her neck instead of her head, and a great big gap all around her chin. 

She's an ex nursing student and smart person.  And someone who bitches about Trump supporters who refuse to wear masks.

Also, there was another woman at the store with no mask at all, but a clear vertical face-shield head piece that hung in front of her eyes only, and stopped level with her nose.  WTF?

So...yeah.  At this point, combined with the lack of mask compliance at my dentist's office yesterday, I don't even know.

[Caroline PF]

I have mixed feelings. If a state won't allow in house restaurant dining, or has closed churches  it seems hypocritical to want to reopen the schools.

I have the opposite view. I think schools are an essential service for the community, and should be the last place to shut down, and the first place to reopen.

Schools are important for learning for children, and in-person is much better than on-line for many children. Distance learning will only widen gaps between those struggling, and those with well-off families that have the time and money to supplement their children's learning.

But that's not the only thing that schools do. They also provide daycare, which allows parents to go to work and contribute to the economy as well as provide for their family.

They also reduce child neglect and child abuse.

They provide a significant percent of some children's nutrition.

And then there is the unknown amount of mental distress for children separated from their friends and isolated at home.

So close the bars and restaurants, but keep the schools open. Until such time as a full shut-down order is needed. And then re-open schools in the the first stage of the re-opening plan.


But, in order to do that, we have to protect the teachers and the kids.

Which means supplying all teachers with n95s. They should have as much access to n95s as local hospital workers do, and government officials need to make this a priority.

Which means teaching all kids (maybe excepting K-2) to wear masks at school, and not giving up, even though the young ones probably won't wear them appropriately all the time.

Which means allowing higher-risk teachers to switch to on-line teaching only, and allowing families that have the appropriate resources to also switch to on-line only, and pairing those two groups together.

Which also means educating the general public about the essential services schools provide and how their efforts on social distancing and masking in public will keep the schools open and safe for their children.

[Shane]

I have mixed feelings. If a state won't allow in house restaurant dining, or has closed churches  it seems hypocritical to want to reopen the schools.

I have the opposite view. I think schools are an essential service for the community, and should be the last place to shut down, and the first place to reopen.

Schools are important for learning for children, and in-person is much better than on-line for many children. Distance learning will only widen gaps between those struggling, and those with well-off families that have the time and money to supplement their children's learning.

But that's not the only thing that schools do. They also provide daycare, which allows parents to go to work and contribute to the economy as well as provide for their family.

They also reduce child neglect and child abuse.

They provide a significant percent of some children's nutrition.

And then there is the unknown amount of mental distress for children separated from their friends and isolated at home.

So close the bars and restaurants, but keep the schools open. Until such time as a full shut-down order is needed. And then re-open schools in the the first stage of the re-opening plan.


But, in order to do that, we have to protect the teachers and the kids.

Which means supplying all teachers with n95s. They should have as much access to n95s as local hospital workers do, and government officials need to make this a priority.

Which means teaching all kids (maybe excepting K-2) to wear masks at school, and not giving up, even though the young ones probably won't wear them appropriately all the time.

Which means allowing higher-risk teachers to switch to on-line teaching only, and allowing families that have the appropriate resources to also switch to on-line only, and pairing those two groups together.

Which also means educating the general public about the essential services schools provide and how their efforts on social distancing and masking in public will keep the schools open and safe for their children.

@Caroline PF All good points. Seems reasonable to me.

[GuitarStv]

I have mixed feelings. If a state won't allow in house restaurant dining, or has closed churches  it seems hypocritical to want to reopen the schools.

I have the opposite view. I think schools are an essential service for the community, and should be the last place to shut down, and the first place to reopen.

Schools are important for learning for children, and in-person is much better than on-line for many children. Distance learning will only widen gaps between those struggling, and those with well-off families that have the time and money to supplement their children's learning.

But that's not the only thing that schools do. They also provide daycare, which allows parents to go to work and contribute to the economy as well as provide for their family.

They also reduce child neglect and child abuse.

They provide a significant percent of some children's nutrition.

And then there is the unknown amount of mental distress for children separated from their friends and isolated at home.

So close the bars and restaurants, but keep the schools open. Until such time as a full shut-down order is needed. And then re-open schools in the the first stage of the re-opening plan.


But, in order to do that, we have to protect the teachers and the kids.

Which means supplying all teachers with n95s. They should have as much access to n95s as local hospital workers do, and government officials need to make this a priority.

Which means teaching all kids (maybe excepting K-2) to wear masks at school, and not giving up, even though the young ones probably won't wear them appropriately all the time.

Which means allowing higher-risk teachers to switch to on-line teaching only, and allowing families that have the appropriate resources to also switch to on-line only, and pairing those two groups together.

Which also means educating the general public about the essential services schools provide and how their efforts on social distancing and masking in public will keep the schools open and safe for their children.

@Caroline PF All good points. Seems reasonable to me.

In what way do you propose teaching kids to wear masks when their parents refuse to do so, and are adamantly against wearing masks - telling them not to do so every night when the kids go home?  There are a not insignificant number of people in the US like this.  Do these kids just get suspended when they refuse to wear masks for the fourth month in a row, or what?

[Shane]

I have mixed feelings. If a state won't allow in house restaurant dining, or has closed churches  it seems hypocritical to want to reopen the schools.

I have the opposite view. I think schools are an essential service for the community, and should be the last place to shut down, and the first place to reopen.

Schools are important for learning for children, and in-person is much better than on-line for many children. Distance learning will only widen gaps between those struggling, and those with well-off families that have the time and money to supplement their children's learning.

But that's not the only thing that schools do. They also provide daycare, which allows parents to go to work and contribute to the economy as well as provide for their family.

They also reduce child neglect and child abuse.

They provide a significant percent of some children's nutrition.

And then there is the unknown amount of mental distress for children separated from their friends and isolated at home.

So close the bars and restaurants, but keep the schools open. Until such time as a full shut-down order is needed. And then re-open schools in the the first stage of the re-opening plan.


But, in order to do that, we have to protect the teachers and the kids.

Which means supplying all teachers with n95s. They should have as much access to n95s as local hospital workers do, and government officials need to make this a priority.

Which means teaching all kids (maybe excepting K-2) to wear masks at school, and not giving up, even though the young ones probably won't wear them appropriately all the time.

Which means allowing higher-risk teachers to switch to on-line teaching only, and allowing families that have the appropriate resources to also switch to on-line only, and pairing those two groups together.

Which also means educating the general public about the essential services schools provide and how their efforts on social distancing and masking in public will keep the schools open and safe for their children.

@Caroline PF All good points. Seems reasonable to me.

In what way do you propose teaching kids to wear masks when their parents refuse to do so, and are adamantly against wearing masks - telling them not to do so every night when the kids go home?  There are a not insignificant number of people in the US like this.  Do these kids just get suspended when they refuse to wear masks for the fourth month in a row, or what?

Seems like schools would have some leverage in that they could send kids home if they refused to comply.

[GuitarStv]

I have mixed feelings. If a state won't allow in house restaurant dining, or has closed churches  it seems hypocritical to want to reopen the schools.

I have the opposite view. I think schools are an essential service for the community, and should be the last place to shut down, and the first place to reopen.

Schools are important for learning for children, and in-person is much better than on-line for many children. Distance learning will only widen gaps between those struggling, and those with well-off families that have the time and money to supplement their children's learning.

But that's not the only thing that schools do. They also provide daycare, which allows parents to go to work and contribute to the economy as well as provide for their family.

They also reduce child neglect and child abuse.

They provide a significant percent of some children's nutrition.

And then there is the unknown amount of mental distress for children separated from their friends and isolated at home.

So close the bars and restaurants, but keep the schools open. Until such time as a full shut-down order is needed. And then re-open schools in the the first stage of the re-opening plan.


But, in order to do that, we have to protect the teachers and the kids.

Which means supplying all teachers with n95s. They should have as much access to n95s as local hospital workers do, and government officials need to make this a priority.

Which means teaching all kids (maybe excepting K-2) to wear masks at school, and not giving up, even though the young ones probably won't wear them appropriately all the time.

Which means allowing higher-risk teachers to switch to on-line teaching only, and allowing families that have the appropriate resources to also switch to on-line only, and pairing those two groups together.

Which also means educating the general public about the essential services schools provide and how their efforts on social distancing and masking in public will keep the schools open and safe for their children.

@Caroline PF All good points. Seems reasonable to me.

In what way do you propose teaching kids to wear masks when their parents refuse to do so, and are adamantly against wearing masks - telling them not to do so every night when the kids go home?  There are a not insignificant number of people in the US like this.  Do these kids just get suspended when they refuse to wear masks for the fourth month in a row, or what?

Seems like schools would have some leverage in that they could send kids home if they refused to comply.

I feel that this may be more fraught with problems than it seems at first glance.  SK/JK/Grade 1/Grade 2 could be very empty depending on how the administration makes this call.  :P

[TheFrenchCat]

I have mixed feelings. If a state won't allow in house restaurant dining, or has closed churches  it seems hypocritical to want to reopen the schools.

I have the opposite view. I think schools are an essential service for the community, and should be the last place to shut down, and the first place to reopen.

Schools are important for learning for children, and in-person is much better than on-line for many children. Distance learning will only widen gaps between those struggling, and those with well-off families that have the time and money to supplement their children's learning.

But that's not the only thing that schools do. They also provide daycare, which allows parents to go to work and contribute to the economy as well as provide for their family.

They also reduce child neglect and child abuse.

They provide a significant percent of some children's nutrition.

And then there is the unknown amount of mental distress for children separated from their friends and isolated at home.

So close the bars and restaurants, but keep the schools open. Until such time as a full shut-down order is needed. And then re-open schools in the the first stage of the re-opening plan.


But, in order to do that, we have to protect the teachers and the kids.

Which means supplying all teachers with n95s. They should have as much access to n95s as local hospital workers do, and government officials need to make this a priority.

Which means teaching all kids (maybe excepting K-2) to wear masks at school, and not giving up, even though the young ones probably won't wear them appropriately all the time.

Which means allowing higher-risk teachers to switch to on-line teaching only, and allowing families that have the appropriate resources to also switch to on-line only, and pairing those two groups together.

Which also means educating the general public about the essential services schools provide and how their efforts on social distancing and masking in public will keep the schools open and safe for their children.

@Caroline PF All good points. Seems reasonable to me.

In what way do you propose teaching kids to wear masks when their parents refuse to do so, and are adamantly against wearing masks - telling them not to do so every night when the kids go home?  There are a not insignificant number of people in the US like this.  Do these kids just get suspended when they refuse to wear masks for the fourth month in a row, or what?

Schools already police what children wear and suspend them for it (skirts, tank tops,etc.).  I don't see how this is any different, especially given that it's a matter of public safety.   The parents' beliefs don't play into whether they're allowed in the classroom.  I feel bad for the kids if they don't feel the same as their parents, but it doesn't change things. 

[Shane]

I have mixed feelings. If a state won't allow in house restaurant dining, or has closed churches  it seems hypocritical to want to reopen the schools.

I have the opposite view. I think schools are an essential service for the community, and should be the last place to shut down, and the first place to reopen.

Schools are important for learning for children, and in-person is much better than on-line for many children. Distance learning will only widen gaps between those struggling, and those with well-off families that have the time and money to supplement their children's learning.

But that's not the only thing that schools do. They also provide daycare, which allows parents to go to work and contribute to the economy as well as provide for their family.

They also reduce child neglect and child abuse.

They provide a significant percent of some children's nutrition.

And then there is the unknown amount of mental distress for children separated from their friends and isolated at home.

So close the bars and restaurants, but keep the schools open. Until such time as a full shut-down order is needed. And then re-open schools in the the first stage of the re-opening plan.


But, in order to do that, we have to protect the teachers and the kids.

Which means supplying all teachers with n95s. They should have as much access to n95s as local hospital workers do, and government officials need to make this a priority.

Which means teaching all kids (maybe excepting K-2) to wear masks at school, and not giving up, even though the young ones probably won't wear them appropriately all the time.

Which means allowing higher-risk teachers to switch to on-line teaching only, and allowing families that have the appropriate resources to also switch to on-line only, and pairing those two groups together.

Which also means educating the general public about the essential services schools provide and how their efforts on social distancing and masking in public will keep the schools open and safe for their children.

@Caroline PF All good points. Seems reasonable to me.

In what way do you propose teaching kids to wear masks when their parents refuse to do so, and are adamantly against wearing masks - telling them not to do so every night when the kids go home?  There are a not insignificant number of people in the US like this.  Do these kids just get suspended when they refuse to wear masks for the fourth month in a row, or what?

Seems like schools would have some leverage in that they could send kids home if they refused to comply.

I feel that this may be more fraught with problems than it seems at first glance.  SK/JK/Grade 1/Grade 2 could be very empty depending on how the administration makes this call.  :P

It would make sense to me to have less strict mask-wearing rules for younger kids in the grades you mentioned.

[GuitarStv]

I have mixed feelings. If a state won't allow in house restaurant dining, or has closed churches  it seems hypocritical to want to reopen the schools.

I have the opposite view. I think schools are an essential service for the community, and should be the last place to shut down, and the first place to reopen.

Schools are important for learning for children, and in-person is much better than on-line for many children. Distance learning will only widen gaps between those struggling, and those with well-off families that have the time and money to supplement their children's learning.

But that's not the only thing that schools do. They also provide daycare, which allows parents to go to work and contribute to the economy as well as provide for their family.

They also reduce child neglect and child abuse.

They provide a significant percent of some children's nutrition.

And then there is the unknown amount of mental distress for children separated from their friends and isolated at home.

So close the bars and restaurants, but keep the schools open. Until such time as a full shut-down order is needed. And then re-open schools in the the first stage of the re-opening plan.


But, in order to do that, we have to protect the teachers and the kids.

Which means supplying all teachers with n95s. They should have as much access to n95s as local hospital workers do, and government officials need to make this a priority.

Which means teaching all kids (maybe excepting K-2) to wear masks at school, and not giving up, even though the young ones probably won't wear them appropriately all the time.

Which means allowing higher-risk teachers to switch to on-line teaching only, and allowing families that have the appropriate resources to also switch to on-line only, and pairing those two groups together.

Which also means educating the general public about the essential services schools provide and how their efforts on social distancing and masking in public will keep the schools open and safe for their children.

@Caroline PF All good points. Seems reasonable to me.

In what way do you propose teaching kids to wear masks when their parents refuse to do so, and are adamantly against wearing masks - telling them not to do so every night when the kids go home?  There are a not insignificant number of people in the US like this.  Do these kids just get suspended when they refuse to wear masks for the fourth month in a row, or what?

Seems like schools would have some leverage in that they could send kids home if they refused to comply.

I feel that this may be more fraught with problems than it seems at first glance.  SK/JK/Grade 1/Grade 2 could be very empty depending on how the administration makes this call.  :P

It would make sense to me to have less strict mask-wearing rules for younger kids in the grades you mentioned.

Covid isn't less infectious with a kid in kindergarten than a kid in grade three.  If we follow that proposal you've put forth, isn't it effectively saying that babysitting kids is more important than stopping spread of the disease through schools?

[NumberJohnny5]

Which means supplying all teachers with n95s. They should have as much access to n95s as local hospital workers do, and government officials need to make this a priority.

Why don't you want the teachers to have N95s?

[Shane]

I have mixed feelings. If a state won't allow in house restaurant dining, or has closed churches  it seems hypocritical to want to reopen the schools.

I have the opposite view. I think schools are an essential service for the community, and should be the last place to shut down, and the first place to reopen.

Schools are important for learning for children, and in-person is much better than on-line for many children. Distance learning will only widen gaps between those struggling, and those with well-off families that have the time and money to supplement their children's learning.

But that's not the only thing that schools do. They also provide daycare, which allows parents to go to work and contribute to the economy as well as provide for their family.

They also reduce child neglect and child abuse.

They provide a significant percent of some children's nutrition.

And then there is the unknown amount of mental distress for children separated from their friends and isolated at home.

So close the bars and restaurants, but keep the schools open. Until such time as a full shut-down order is needed. And then re-open schools in the the first stage of the re-opening plan.


But, in order to do that, we have to protect the teachers and the kids.

Which means supplying all teachers with n95s. They should have as much access to n95s as local hospital workers do, and government officials need to make this a priority.

Which means teaching all kids (maybe excepting K-2) to wear masks at school, and not giving up, even though the young ones probably won't wear them appropriately all the time.

Which means allowing higher-risk teachers to switch to on-line teaching only, and allowing families that have the appropriate resources to also switch to on-line only, and pairing those two groups together.

Which also means educating the general public about the essential services schools provide and how their efforts on social distancing and masking in public will keep the schools open and safe for their children.

@Caroline PF All good points. Seems reasonable to me.

In what way do you propose teaching kids to wear masks when their parents refuse to do so, and are adamantly against wearing masks - telling them not to do so every night when the kids go home?  There are a not insignificant number of people in the US like this.  Do these kids just get suspended when they refuse to wear masks for the fourth month in a row, or what?

Seems like schools would have some leverage in that they could send kids home if they refused to comply.

I feel that this may be more fraught with problems than it seems at first glance.  SK/JK/Grade 1/Grade 2 could be very empty depending on how the administration makes this call.  :P

It would make sense to me to have less strict mask-wearing rules for younger kids in the grades you mentioned.

Covid isn't less infectious with a kid in kindergarten than a kid in grade three.  If we follow that proposal you've put forth, isn't it effectively saying that babysitting kids is more important than stopping spread of the disease through schools?

The CDC has repeatedly issued advice that children are at relatively low risk from covid. From a bulletin released by the CDC just a couple of days ago:

"The best available evidence indicates that COVID-19 poses relatively low risks to school-aged children.  Children appear to be at lower risk for contracting COVID-19 compared to adults.  To put this in perspective, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of July 17, 2020, the United States reported that children and adolescents under 18 years old account for under 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths.[5]  Although relatively rare, flu-related deaths in children occur every year. From 2004-2005 to 2018-2019, flu-related deaths in children reported to CDC during regular flu seasons ranged from 37 to 187 deaths.  During the H1N1pandemic (April 15, 2009 to October 2, 2010), 358 pediatric deaths were reported to CDC. So far in this pandemic, deaths of children are less than in each of the last five flu seasons, with only 64.† Additionally, some children with certain underlying medical conditions, however, are at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19.*"

[Cyanne]

This virus is new and research is ongoing. A recent study out of Korea shows that children aged 10 and older spread the disease as much as adults.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

[scottish]

Yeah, of course.   Anyone who has had kids knows that they become little germ factories once they start going to daycare or public school.    Some of these studies are a little disingenuous in their wording, or in the way they are reported.

Maybe covid19 doesn't make them terribly sick, but they still bring it home to the rest of the family.

[RetiredAt63]

Yeah, of course.   Anyone who has had kids knows that they become little germ factories once they start going to daycare or public school.    Some of these studies are a little disingenuous in their wording, or in the way they are reported.

Maybe covid19 doesn't make them terribly sick, but they still bring it home to the rest of the family.

The big kids are germ factories too.  When I taught CEGEP I brought home almost as many colds as DD did.

What I am wondering is how teachers are going to be able to talk to their classes while wearing masks.  I know I am having to be more careful about enunciation and voice projection just chatting with people.  Classrooms? For long periods of time?

[skp]

Has anyone wore an N 95 mask?  At least for me, I can only stand it for a short time.  Maybe you get use to it but it is a miserable experience.  I am a nurse and fortunately our covid numbers are low enough that I only have to put one on when going into a covid patients room.  I don't have to wear one the entire shift.  I get hot and I feel like I am suffocating.
In Ohio, schools are opening and in our area whether or not it is online or in person is depending on the threat level.  Right now in our area the level is low so it will start in person. Nothing is set in stone and it will be adjusted accordingly.  Everyone I talk to thinks thats a good idea.

[GuitarStv]

The paper n95 masks are extremely uncomfortable to wear if worn correctly.  The 3m canister type masks are good for extended periods but more difficult to talk through.

[wenchsenior]

Has anyone wore an N 95 mask?  At least for me, I can only stand it for a short time.  Maybe you get use to it but it is a miserable experience.  I am a nurse and fortunately our covid numbers are low enough that I only have to put one on when going into a covid patients room.  I don't have to wear one the entire shift.  I get hot and I feel like I am suffocating.
In Ohio, schools are opening and in our area whether or not it is online or in person is depending on the threat level.  Right now in our area the level is low so it will start in person. Nothing is set in stone and it will be adjusted accordingly.  Everyone I talk to thinks thats a good idea.

I wear them all the time when I'm out.  I can see where they would suck to wear for more than couple hours, but I've only found them mildly inconvenient for a couple hours at a time (and it's regularly over 100 F here, though they are hotter and slightly more annoying if you are outside in that kind of heat).  I wouldn't exercise in one; that would be unpleasant.   And they do make it harder for people to hear and understand me.

The main inconvenience with mine is that I often have a layer of sunscreen on my face, which makes the rim of the mask a tad slippery and might interfere with a full seal, though I still feel pressure and vacuum when I inhale. 

And you can't really clean the sunscreen off the mask edges. But still, I've managed to get 4 months' wear out of mine, decontaminating it by leaving it in full sun every couple days.  It's finally getting to the point where I need to switch to a new one.

[facepalm]

Many posters seem to be conflating teachers' working with babysitting.

Teachers are and will be doing plenty of work, both online and -off, to educate kids, whether they are in the classroom or not. They are not, however, wanting to be forced to babysit kids in person, because this is an ideal way for the virus to spread and kill more people. Quite simple, really.

So you want to ignore the fact that a significant portion of a teachers job up until at least middle school is "babysitting"? A 1st grade teacher is only responsible for teaching? So I guess if Tommy leaves the classroom  the teacher shouldn't care because the only responsiblity for the teacher is the lesson plan.

Fifth grade teacher here.

A significant portion of a teacher's job up until middle school is "babysitting?"  That's just ignorant. The content we are responsible for teaching is overwhelming--and we never get through all of it. And in addition to the content, we are also responsible for social--emotional learning, conflict resolution. feeding those who live in poverty, and a list of other things that America is too lazy to do properly.

We may be a lot of things--but teachers are not babysitters.

[facepalm]

1 It has been reported frequently that children don’t get covid19 in nearly the same numbers as adults do. This appears to begin to change in the top two classes of secondary school (after kids are about 16), and these kids can wear masks. So it could easily be perceived that teachers actually have less exposure than other workplaces, as they have much less adult contact than happens in the average workplace. Where I live they are beginning to bring in masks, but not for children under 10.

It's been posted before, but bears repeating: That early information was wrong, and older kids (10 and up) definitely catch and spread COVID-19 like adults.  There simply isn't enough data for younger kids, though the whole "young kids don't die" has also been disproven repeatedly.

And this is what many of my colleagues and I are worried about. I teach fifth grade (ages 11-12) and am absolutely concerned that it appears kids in this age range transmit COVID just as effectively as adults.

Now put 25-30 potential transmitters in a small classroom--where it is impossible to distance properly--and imagine the potential outcomes. Yet this is exactly what my district was proposing.

General question: Would people feel comfortable attending a six hour meeting at work if it were held in a small room, with 25 people in attendance? This is what we are asking teachers to do.

[facepalm]

My perspective? I want to be back in the classroom. While my students and I had a successful distance learning experience, distance learning does not work for every student and every teacher. The majority of kids learn better in the classroom,  and most teachers do a better job teaching in a classroom environment (if parent complaints can be taken as evidence).

Most teachers just want to feel safe. We already jump through multiple hoops for our kids everyday, and will continue to do so. I have spent the last two weeks reading up and planning curriculum for next year, and am not happy with being told I have to start remotely. I'll have to rework almost every unit  to adapt it to online presentation.

And I totally get parent's perspectives. Parents have to work. They need their kids in school.

My gripe with the whole return to school in the fall is that almost no one has figured out a way to get all kids back. I have suggested to the powers that be that we start outside, that we use the school gym, hallways, and every available space to bring back as many kids as possible. Kids wear masks (this is enforceable where live) and distance six feet. No one is listening.

[Cranky]

I keep seeing people talk about how no one in the US is wearing masks, but I just havent seen that. I live in Arkansas and I haven't seen more than a handful of people out in the past month not wearing a mask. My brother lives in Fort Lauderdale and I asked him what's going on there, why South Florida is such a hot bed and asked how many people wear masks and he said they've all been wearing masks since March. I visited my mom in Saint Louis in early June and everybody was wearing masks. So what part of the US aren't people wearing masks in?

Lots of people in Ohio, and a surprising number last weekend going through the Chicago area.

[msbutterbean]

I live in a community that supports its teachers. I have six close teacher friends/neighbors within my immediate area (few blocks). All make well over six figures, more than my salary as a full-time, white collar professional. I happily pay $15K+ in property tax on an 1800 square foot home and show up to vote for the school budget every year, because I value the work of our teachers and the way our district performs.

But when I've seen some pushback in my district, it's been around this kind of comment:

Like I said in the original post I just need to know what will happen so I can plan.

That's all any of us wants right now.

Teachers can detail the unique challenges related to their workplaces, but every other industry that's still open can do the same: grocery, social work, food service, manufacturing, day care, banking, agriculture, healthcare. None of us is really working right now with a full understanding of how a diagnosis could play out in terms of our PTO, salary, job security, and nearly all of us are being asked to work in ways that are wildly different than we were in January,.

[iris lily]

I am not hating on teachers, because I think it’s complicated for them to have 1 foot in the digital teaching world and another one in the virtual teaching world, and being expected to switch back-and-forth since they don’t know what the plan is.

I think all of our government bureaucrats and politicians, meaning  school administrators, city and county administrators, elected and appointed managers,are earning their salary these days.

But that said, as a former government government worker, I want to emphasize that now is a sweet time to be one of those government workers who stays home and receives full pay. That is not teachers, necessarily, Depends entirely on what school district you are in.

I cannot tell you how incredibly happy and relieved I am  I’m not working during this time.

I agree with above statement that the “shared sacrifice” Phrase rings hollow when it emanates from government bureaucrats who are pulling down their full salary, working fewer hours, and/or working successfully from home. Someone isn’t sacrificing much in this scenario and I think we can all figure out who it is. Repeat: Now is a sweet time to be on the government payroll.

[Abe]

Many posters seem to be conflating teachers' working with babysitting.

Teachers are and will be doing plenty of work, both online and -off, to educate kids, whether they are in the classroom or not. They are not, however, wanting to be forced to babysit kids in person, because this is an ideal way for the virus to spread and kill more people. Quite simple, really.

So you want to ignore the fact that a significant portion of a teachers job up until at least middle school is "babysitting"? A 1st grade teacher is only responsible for teaching? So I guess if Tommy leaves the classroom  the teacher shouldn't care because the only responsiblity for the teacher is the lesson plan.

Fifth grade teacher here.

A significant portion of a teacher's job up until middle school is "babysitting?"  That's just ignorant. The content we are responsible for teaching is overwhelming--and we never get through all of it. And in addition to the content, we are also responsible for social--emotional learning, conflict resolution. feeding those who live in poverty, and a list of other things that America is too lazy to do properly.

We may be a lot of things--but teachers are not babysitters.

Agree, but would add to say that growing up it was clear which teachers were "babysitting" and which ones really wanted to teach. The latter I remember 20 years later. I grew up in a particularly poorly performing school district (few children went to college after high school) and before standardized exams were used much (we had one in at the end of 3rd grade, then one in 8th grade).

[T-Money$]

Odd how teachers in Europe and Canada go back to work but American teachers seem to be having such a hard time. 

As an essential worker I’ve done quite a bit of traveling, and the politically driven hysteria in the US is certainly something unique globally.

Ideally if teachers are not OK with going back to work they should be placed on long term unpaid leave till they feel “safe”.  There are plenty of unemployed, less vulnerable people that could make adequate/reliable replacements. 

Why people continue to pay their school taxes through all this I have no idea.

[RetiredAt63]

Odd how teachers in Europe and Canada go back to work but American teachers seem to be having such a hard time. 

As an essential worker I’ve done quite a bit of traveling, and the politically driven hysteria in the US is certainly something unique globally.

Canada's numbers aren't as bad and education is provincial (so is health care) so things will be different province to province.  Who knows what we will be doing a month from now?

[Hula Hoop]

Odd how teachers in Europe and Canada go back to work but American teachers seem to be having such a hard time. 

As an essential worker I’ve done quite a bit of traveling, and the politically driven hysteria in the US is certainly something unique globally.

Ideally if teachers are not OK with going back to work they should be placed on long term unpaid leave till they feel “safe”.  There are plenty of unemployed, less vulnerable people that could make adequate/reliable replacements. 

Why people continue to pay their school taxes through all this I have no idea.

Europe is a huge place made up of multiple countries with their own languages, cultures and education systems.  In my little corner of Europe (Italy) they still haven't decided whether and how school will reopen in September. My kids did online schooling from March-June and now they have summer vacation.  One thing I'll say is that our numbers are WAY lower that those in the US.  There is no way the Italian government would have even considered sending kids back to school if our numbers were anywhere near those in the US right now.

[Caroline PF]

Many posters seem to be conflating teachers' working with babysitting.

Teachers are and will be doing plenty of work, both online and -off, to educate kids, whether they are in the classroom or not. They are not, however, wanting to be forced to babysit kids in person, because this is an ideal way for the virus to spread and kill more people. Quite simple, really.

So you want to ignore the fact that a significant portion of a teachers job up until at least middle school is "babysitting"? A 1st grade teacher is only responsible for teaching? So I guess if Tommy leaves the classroom  the teacher shouldn't care because the only responsiblity for the teacher is the lesson plan.

Fifth grade teacher here.

A significant portion of a teacher's job up until middle school is "babysitting?"  That's just ignorant. The content we are responsible for teaching is overwhelming--and we never get through all of it. And in addition to the content, we are also responsible for social--emotional learning, conflict resolution. feeding those who live in poverty, and a list of other things that America is too lazy to do properly.

We may be a lot of things--but teachers are not babysitters.

I can only speak for myself, but when I refer to teachers also providing daycare services, or babysitting, I don't mean that teachers aren't teaching, or that their job is no better than babysitting. But instead that day care is a side benefit of the kids being in school. In addition to all of the teaching you are doing, you are also making sure that the kids are safe, and not getting into trouble.

If the teaching is replaced with on-line learning, the daycare aspect must also be replaced by some adult being in the house with the child.

[Caroline PF]

Which means supplying all teachers with n95s. They should have as much access to n95s as local hospital workers do, and government officials need to make this a priority.

Why don't you want the teachers to have N95s?

What? Is this sarcasm?

[MudPuppy]

The joke is that many healthcare workers can’t get them to wear in a “preventative” situation and those that can are rewearing the same masks since like March and April

[GuitarStv]

Ideally if teachers are not OK with going back to work they should be placed on long term unpaid leave till they feel “safe”.  There are plenty of unemployed, less vulnerable people that could make adequate/reliable replacements.

Are there?  Currently, 1/3rd of America's teachers are at high risk from covi because of their age.  Are there enough qualified people with a teaching certificate and the required degrees to fill that gap?  Honest question, I don't know those numbers.  My suspicion is that the answer is no though.

[Kris]

Ideally if teachers are not OK with going back to work they should be placed on long term unpaid leave till they feel “safe”.  There are plenty of unemployed, less vulnerable people that could make adequate/reliable replacements.

Are there?  Currently, 1/3rd of America's teachers are at high risk from covi because of their age.  Are there enough qualified people with a teaching certificate and the required degrees to fill that gap?  Honest question, I don't know those numbers.  My suspicion is that the answer is no though.

Considering there is a teacher shortage in much of the country, my guess is.... no.