Among Friends

[Shanus]

My concerns are with students trying to keep up when parents are either not educated to a level to be helpful or English is not their first language and they're finding it difficult to help younger ones follow up on lessons online.

Are computers provided to households who cannot afford one? 

I'm hoping the level of education hasn't been set back for our kids if some homeschooling situations are not the best teachers. My DIL is a teacher, so feeling confident there, but many parents are not educated to a level to keep the kids on track.

This certainly does not sway my vote to send them back to school until we have more information about it's spread among children. Reports last night said the 9 to 18 yr. olds react to the virus as adults as far as being carriers or possibly infected. There's no way to keep them distanced, in a completely sanitized and safe environment now with case numbers at an all time high. 

[vsm]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

There is no conclusive study that children under ten cannot be spreaders. I would not rely on that. And those over ten are just as likely to spread the virus as are adults.

I would maybe have a different opinion about schools opening if it occurred ONLY after a district was seeing a sharp reduction of positivity rates and hospitalizations for at least two weeks -- and a blueprint for what the schools will be doing to prevent infection. Even then, I think some kind of hybrid would be a good start rather than a full reopening.

---

You're setting up a strawman.  No one said there were "conclusive" studies that children under ten "cannot" be spreaders.  But the evidence is mounting that the susceptibility and spreader risks associated with young kids are not what they were thought to be early on.  It's time to balance those risks of harm against the already undeniable damage to physical and emotional health that parents and kids are suffering from prolonged isolation.

[suzyQ3]

---

@vsm wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

There is no conclusive study that children under ten cannot be spreaders. I would not rely on that. And those over ten are just as likely to spread the virus as are adults.

I would maybe have a different opinion about schools opening if it occurred ONLY after a district was seeing a sharp reduction of positivity rates and hospitalizations for at least two weeks -- and a blueprint for what the schools will be doing to prevent infection. Even then, I think some kind of hybrid would be a good start rather than a full reopening.

---

You're setting up a strawman.  No one said there were "conclusive" studies that children under ten "cannot" be spreaders.  But the evidence is mounting that the susceptibility and spreader risks associated with young kids are not what they were thought to be early on.  It's time to balance those risks of harm against the already undeniable damage to physical and emotional health that parents and kids are suffering from prolonged isolation.

---

Sorry, @vsm, but I have looked very carefully at the studies and listened to a variety of experts in the field. The studies are very, very limited. And the fact that most young children have not had nearly as much avenues of exposure as have adults, the stats are not very reliable.

It's up to parents, but if I had children during this pandemic, I would do anything to avoid the risk -- to them, to teachers and staff, to their families, and to the surrounding community.

[Isobel Archer]

---

@Shanus wrote:

My concerns are with students trying to keep up when parents are either not educated to a level to be helpful or English is not their first language and they're finding it difficult to help younger ones follow up on lessons online.

Are computers provided to households who cannot afford one? 

I'm hoping the level of education hasn't been set back for our kids if some homeschooling situations are not the best teachers. My DIL is a teacher, so feeling confident there, but many parents are not educated to a level to keep the kids on track.

This certainly does not sway my vote to send them back to school until we have more information about it's spread among children. Reports last night said the 9 to 18 yr. olds react to the virus as adults as far as being carriers or possibly infected. There's no way to keep them distanced, in a completely sanitized and safe environment now with case numbers at an all time high. 

---

As I have noted numerous times, this was a problem even when school was in full session.

As I was informed during the latest school board election here, it is NOT the job of the schools to intervene with kids (not in ESL classes or on IDPs) who are struggling with reading.  It is the job of PARENTS to work with them and/or obtain tutoring services.

Seems like mission confusion to me - we don't require parents to feed their kids -noooo we have programs for that - breakfast/lunch/food to take home - but reading - now THAT is the parent's job if the kid doesn't learn fast enough to keep up.

So - as you clearly understand - when parents can't do that - well the kid is just written off until he eventually gives up and quits.

[ALRATIBA]

I don't hear or see any issues around here ... our apartment development has organized lots of "socially distant" activities for the kids, and playgrounds have been reopened. 

Apparently there's quite a bit of "actng out" in Chicago.

Headline from Chicago  Sun Times: 

Armed kids as young as 10 carjack more than a dozen people, police say, including CPS teacher left "traumatized" in Calumet Heights

[debfau]

---

@vsm wrote:

---

@Shanus wrote:

---

@vsm wrote:

The harm -- social, emotional, and intellectual -- being done to kids by keeping them out of school is unconscionable.  The younger the children, the less likely they are to get the virus, or to spread it.  That's what the science tells us -- according to the CDC, the NIH, hospital intake/recovery records across the country, and the experience of schools throughout Europe and Scandinavia. Private schools of every kind in the U.S. increasingly acknowledge this, putting hard data over lockdown ideology and making needed social-distancing and health-protective adjustments for older kids and for teachers younger than 60, so that kids of all ages can learn safely and steadily.  Flexibility and accommodation are what's called for, not the one-size-fits-all mentality of the science-deniers, which cripples children even more than it does their parents.

---

@vsm   I get your frustrations and points made. The big concern is asymptomatic kids bringing it home and spreading it to others at home or other kids at school. 

---

That's what I thought, too, @Shanus . But the evidence is growing that -- asymptomatic or not -- children are not the "spreaders" they were thought to be early on. That's the critical point, and the reason why there's less and less justification to keep kids isolated at home, especially when weighed against the social, emotional, and intellectual costs of doing so.

---

Except last week there was an article in the Sun Sentinel that said that of the kids being tested in FL, 54% were coming up positive with the virus and only 11% of all of the adults were postive; so I don't believe that kids aren't spreading this or won't spread it around in a school.

[Isobel Archer]

Interesting.  There's an article in the Washington Post today about parents banding together and hiring tutors to essentially create school for their kids - now that it's been announced that there will be no in school, but only online education.

The columnist talks about how this is "so unfair" to poor kids and promotes "inequality."

Yep it's all the fault of those parents who have money.

This would be hysterical if it weren't so sad and hypocritical.  The same people who insist that if Johnny falls benhind and can't read (and isn't eligible for the extra help of ESL classes or IDPs) it is the PARENTS' responsibility NOT the school's to assure he gets the extra help he needs (And I was told this by a school board member as well as by various teachers) - these same people now say that when parents do exactly that - it is unfair to those parents who can't.

So they are well aware then that there are poor parents who can't do what they claim parents "should" do - and they DON'T CARE - until they can make some sort of

political issue out of it - as in this case when schools fail and parents step in -  now suddenly - it's an outrage.

And of course, the article doesn't even discuss the poor kids without reliable internet access who won't be able to participate in the online "learning".  I guess they don't care about that "inequality" either.

[RetRN]

I am also concerned about the mental health of our children, that is why not reopening the schools in fall is child abuse. 

School is the safest place for many children.