Until we have the virus under control, all our options on reopening — schools, businesses, sports — will be bad ones
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
COVID-19 - schools K-12 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter The Gator
- Start date
pack100
Footballguy
Yes they are. We have them in groups of 10 with 2 counselors. When in their pods of ten the mask rule is relaxed. When transitioning masks are up. When is close proximity masks are up. Staff has masks on at all times. well Staff has masks on when the bosses come around (16-23 year old counselors0
pack100
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
They just announced a tentative plan today. Kids are in school two days a week, distance learning the other three days. In person school year starts at different times. My 9th grader would start August 31 but my 12th grader won’t physically go to school until some time in October. Everything subject to change.
Max Power
Footballguy
The Gator
Footballguy
Miami-Dade hasn’t announced a plan yet, but with the prevalence of positive cases in Florida right now and today’s announcement from California, it’s getting hard to imagine there being any in-person classes this semester (which officially starts six weeks from today).
I’m definitely bummed, especially since my job will likely force me to come back in as soon as I get back from vacation, but I also recognize that we’re fortunate and will be able to weather this better than many others
I’m definitely bummed, especially since my job will likely force me to come back in as soon as I get back from vacation, but I also recognize that we’re fortunate and will be able to weather this better than many others
The Gator
Footballguy
How much pressure is still being applied by the state to open?
I saw that DeSantis backed down from publicly requiring schools to open, but how much private pressure is still being exerted?
One
Not Allowed In Mexico
My wife is an administrator for a large school district in California. She said they came out a few weeks ago announcing two half-days of in-person learning per student. Then under pressure from the parents, it went up to four days, 3 hours each. Now there is a petition going around from the teachers to go 100% distance learning.
Their thought is that if Newsom is closing down all indoor interaction around town, wouldn't that make it not OK to have indoor classes?
Their thought is that if Newsom is closing down all indoor interaction around town, wouldn't that make it not OK to have indoor classes?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Gator
Footballguy
3 hours of in-person per day seems like one of the worst outcomes - because you will have to rush through everything in-person, and for students you are probably tacking on another hour-90 minutes of transportation to and from school - that could have been spent doing off-line work if they were already home.
One
Not Allowed In Mexico
Totally. The parents urged to have more days in class and this is what the district came up with. Once it was announced, parents were even more upset. The idea behind it was to have 2 cohorts. One AM and one PM cohort. 3 hours each with a cleaning period in-between.
What's wild is that while teachers want more resources and trainings to improve their ability to teach from afar, most meetings my wife sits through are to address how low income kids will get their breakfast/lunches and how to provide emotional support to children having a hard time with the quarantine. These districts are spread thin.
My kids are headed to private school this year. Since it's small, their plan is to go 10 kids spread out per class. Sounds like this school has the faculty and facilities to pull it off, but most of the public schools are too crowded with very different needs.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
LA and San Diego: no classes in fall.
I don’t know, but I will say that, for all his faults, and unlike some other governors, DeSantis hasn’t been too heavy handed with local governments. I think realistically, he also knows that Miami-Dade is always going to be a special case, because it’s always going to be the hottest of hot spots.
I noticed that when the state’s education commissioner announced that all schools had to open full time, Miami Superintendent Alberto Carvalho didn’t seem all that worried, even though Miami-Dade’s current plan makes it highly unlikely that most kids will be in school every time (and even that plan isn’t looking very realistic right now).
moleculo
Footballguy
SC has always had a virtual school option - basically state regulated homeschooling, but curriculum developed and administered by teachers remotely. This is what we are leaning towards in my household.
Honestly, does anyone seriously think that face-to-face won't end up becoming virtual regardless? Especially here in the South?
Here's the rub: all money that our local school would get for my kids will go to the virtual school instead. Suppose 50% of parents make the same choice. That means our underfunded schools have to operate on 50% less money. Now, of course they can lay off teachers but (1) that doesn't reduce class size and increase social distancing (2) fixed costs (i.e heating/cooling costs, janitors, overhead) won't be reduced by 50%. Budgets will take a major hit. I assume no sports/extra cirriculars will help, but its still gonna be rough.
As far as my kids go, its gonna be rough on my 8th grader as she is very much a social kid. She still has her neighborhood friends but that's a lot of social interaction she would be missing out on. My 6th grader will be fine with it because it would mean more time for her to do her gymnastics. She has actually been pushing to be homeschooled for a while so she can do 6 hours a day in the gym.
Honestly, does anyone seriously think that face-to-face won't end up becoming virtual regardless? Especially here in the South?
Here's the rub: all money that our local school would get for my kids will go to the virtual school instead. Suppose 50% of parents make the same choice. That means our underfunded schools have to operate on 50% less money. Now, of course they can lay off teachers but (1) that doesn't reduce class size and increase social distancing (2) fixed costs (i.e heating/cooling costs, janitors, overhead) won't be reduced by 50%. Budgets will take a major hit. I assume no sports/extra cirriculars will help, but its still gonna be rough.
As far as my kids go, its gonna be rough on my 8th grader as she is very much a social kid. She still has her neighborhood friends but that's a lot of social interaction she would be missing out on. My 6th grader will be fine with it because it would mean more time for her to do her gymnastics. She has actually been pushing to be homeschooled for a while so she can do 6 hours a day in the gym.
O.C. Board of Education tells schools social distancing isn’t necessary for students and masks could be ‘harmful’
How far from LA is Orange County?
>> At a 6 p.m. meeting, the board voted 4-1 to approve recommendations for reopening schools, saying that social distancing among students is “not necessary” and wearing masks is difficult to implement and “may even be harmful.”
The final decision rests with each one of the 28 school districts in Orange County.
“Because of the established link between social-distancing and child harm, we cannot support extraordinary efforts aimed at social-distancing at school,” the board said.
Masks are mandated statewide by California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
While the guidelines did not recommend reducing classroom capacity, officials did call for regular temperature checks and good hygiene practices. <<
AAABatteries
Footballguy
My fear is politicians and admins will dig their heels in - somehow* all of this has turned political so I’m worried they won’t make the correct decisions out of partisanship.
*somehow is mostly attributable to Trump who actively works to divide us for his own benefit
That’s exactly how I feel in Miami. As long as Florida is getting 10K+ cares a day, there’s no way we’re opening in-person schools. The whole debate feels detached from what’s actually happening on the ground
Every time I hear about temperature checks as a solution I’m reminded of the joke about the drunk looking for his car keys under the street lamp “because the light is better here.” They may offer a marginal benefit in terms of catching people who are already symptomatic, but mostly, we’re using them because, unlike maas rapid testing and contact tracing, this is something we actually have the capacity to do
The Gator
Footballguy
It is political, but I think the reason behind the divide is that we simply don't have enough information/data/evidence to be confident in the effects of covid on children and teachers/staff in school.
That leads to one side saying the benefits of in-person teaching outweigh the unknown risks of in-person teaching, and the other side saying the unknown risks of covid outweigh the benefits of in-person teaching.
It could be that one side is right but, unfortunately, there is no real objective way to have a high comfort level with either side.
I would tend to err on the side of health, even more so in those districts where they are not taking precautions such as mandatory masks, and social distancing. But, I can understand if a district says, "We are mitigating the risks with proper protocols and we think that will lower the risk to an acceptable level to help achieve our goal of in-person learning."
That leads to one side saying the benefits of in-person teaching outweigh the unknown risks of in-person teaching, and the other side saying the unknown risks of covid outweigh the benefits of in-person teaching.
It could be that one side is right but, unfortunately, there is no real objective way to have a high comfort level with either side.
I would tend to err on the side of health, even more so in those districts where they are not taking precautions such as mandatory masks, and social distancing. But, I can understand if a district says, "We are mitigating the risks with proper protocols and we think that will lower the risk to an acceptable level to help achieve our goal of in-person learning."
The Gator
Footballguy
Just to highlight the difficult positions schools are in - right now Florida is a covid hotspot - and schools could look at that as think we should be remote, and make that call.
Then, in 6 weeks, the wave has died down, and people will be wondering why kids are not in school in September.
Of course, as a country, we are setting ourselves up for this accordion effect by getting ahead of ourselves and opening things up before it is prudent to do so - but if cases die down, there will be public clamor to do just that, including with schools.
whoknew
Footballguy
I posted this in the thread in the FFA - but this is an incredibly difficult decision for governors. School is so incredibly important - especially for families that have working parents who can't stay home and can't afford childcare. And school provides structure and sometimes meals for kids.
But, of course, that has to be balanced against the health risks. And governors are making this decision with highly imperfect information - as you wrote.
Such an incredibly difficult call with zero help from the White House.
I went through the exact same thought process. On the one hand, we’re inevitably going to be behind the curve on this virus, because there’s a lag between our actions and the results. On the other, there’s a huge cost every time we re-open and re-shutdown. That’s one reason why, even though I recognize another shutdown may be necessary in hot spots like Florida, I also think it makes sense to proceed very carefully. DeSantis and Co basically have one more shot to get this right. And by “getting it right” I mean crushing the curve, not just flattening it.
Hopefully your employer will give you some flexibility in working hours. The same thing happened at the onsite daycare/pre-school where I work in healthcare. I know an outpatient doc was able to do some telemedicine from home, and work onsite half a day, while her babysitter took care of the 2 and 5 year old. I'm not sure what the inpatient staff are doing with their kids that were in the preschool.Skoo said:
The Gator
Footballguy
Arlington County in Virginia - pushed start date to September 8, and will start 100% virtual, and phase in a hybrid approach by mid-October.
https://mobile.twitter.com/LPDonovan/status/1283104187509768192
https://mobile.twitter.com/LPDonovan/status/1283104187509768192
Max Power
Footballguy
North Carolina announced we will go to a 1 week on, two weeks off rotation to start the year.
Mandatory masks and screenings daily.
Districts are allowed to go 100% virtual if they choose. Durham county has chosen that option and it's going to be a mess. They have some of the poorest sections in the triangle area.
We still haven't cancelled fall sports which is pretty mind blowing to me.
Mandatory masks and screenings daily.
Districts are allowed to go 100% virtual if they choose. Durham county has chosen that option and it's going to be a mess. They have some of the poorest sections in the triangle area.
We still haven't cancelled fall sports which is pretty mind blowing to me.
moleculo
Footballguy
I hope my little corner of SC follows suit. Its either a rotation like this or we enroll our kids in virtual school.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
So the Orange County School Board voted 4-1 that school will start on time and hey, masks aren’t necessary, social distancing isn’t a big deal either.
Parents around here are freaking the #### out...
Parents around here are freaking the #### out...
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Again - my apologies for my mistake saying that we didn't have answers to some protocols. I think I do have most of my questions answered even if I have follow-ups or clarifications. Some guidelines of note from our county - thought it may be of interest in this thread:
Will my child be required to wear a mask? Will masks be provided?
We encourage and recommend that students wear masks whenever social distancing is not possible in our schools and on our school buses, but, at this time, masks will not be required for our students. We will provide each student with up to two reusable masks upon request and at no charge on the first day of school. If the Federal or State government mandates masks be worn, then we must follow that mandate and require all students wear masks.
If a decision is made after July 17 that masks are mandated for all students and I don’t want my child to wear a mask, can I enroll my child in Digital Learning?
No – July 17 is the deadline to enroll in Digital Learning. If a decision is made to mandate masks at any point after July 17 and you don’t want your child to wear a mask, you will have the option to withdraw your child to home school your child on your own. While we cannot speak to what a mask mandate would look like, as we have not implemented one nor has the state or federal government, based on the mandates issued elsewhere, we anticipate there would be exemptions for students with medical diagnoses
I am concerned about some teacher’s comments that I have seen on social media. Some seem afraid to return to work. I am worried they will not treat my child fairly or that they will try to make my child wear a mask. What can I do? (AAA edit - wth??)
We apologize, as a school district, if a teacher has argued with you on social media or made you otherwise not have confidence in their ability to effectively teach your child. All teachers are expected to follow our social media guidelines for employees, which make clear this should not occur online. We have not mandated masks for students at this time; as a result, teachers will not make your child wear one. We have confidence that our teachers who return to work in the classroom will follow their professional code of ethics and our school district policies and protocols and serve our students to the best of their abilities.
Will you take temperatures upon arrival of students or teachers and staff? Or before they get on the bus?
We will not — we are requesting all families and employees do a temperature check daily prior to arriving at school. We will distribute information to all teachers and other staff who work directly with students to assist in identifying students who should be sent to the nurse’s clinic for evaluation. The nurse then will take a student’s temperature; as is our standard practice: if a student has a fever of 100.4 degrees or higher, his or her parents will be contacted to immediately pick them up. Students must not come to school if they have a fever of 100.4 degrees or higher.
What other symptoms should we be checking before we send our children to school?
Students must not come to school if they have a fever of 100.4 degrees or higher. If a student has a positive or pending test for COVID-19, they must not come to school. If a student is living with and/or in regular close contact with someone diagnosed with COVID-19, they must not come to school until that person is well and the quarantine period ends. If a student has traveled to a COVID-19 advisory area (as designated by the CDC and posted on its website: https://www.cdc.gov) within the past 14 days, they must not come to school until that quarantine period ends. If a student has a cough, shortness of breath or recent changes in taste and/or smell, we recommend you contact your doctor’s office for guidance before sending your child to school.
If my child starts running a fever at school, what will happen? And what about my child’s siblings?
Your child will be sent to the nurse’s clinic; you will be contacted so you can immediately pick your child up from school. The nurse will notify the school nurses for your child’s siblings who are in CCSD schools; those nurses will evaluate the siblings. If the siblings are not running a fever, they will be allowed to stay at school.
What happens if a student or employee at my child’s school tests positive for COVID-19? Will I be notified if/when this happens?
Any CCSD student or employee who tests positive for COVID-19 must stay home from school under quarantine. The Department of Public Health (DPH) will instruct the student’s parents and the employee on proper next steps. CCSD will be notified by DPH as to when the student or employee may return to school. DPH will conduct contact tracing and notify anyone whose contact with the student or employee requires them to stay home and quarantine. If a student or employee at your child’s school tests positive, as soon as CCSD is notified by DPH, CCSD will send a notification by email to all employees at that school and the parents of all students at that school; this notification will not include information that would specifically identify the student or employee, per federal privacy laws.
If there is a case in my child’s classroom, will we all have to quarantine for two weeks? for each case?
The Department of Public Health (DPH) determines when quarantine is necessary on a case-by-case basis. Instructions from DPH on whether quarantine is needed and for how long will be included in the CCSD notification by email to all employees at that school and the parents of all students at that school.
How many cases will be the “tipping point” for school closure?
CCSD will follow the Department of Public Health’s guidance on when to close a school. When considering quarantines and possible closures, we will look at closing individual classrooms and/or schools before we consider closing all CCSD schools.
Will my child be required to wear a mask? Will masks be provided?
We encourage and recommend that students wear masks whenever social distancing is not possible in our schools and on our school buses, but, at this time, masks will not be required for our students. We will provide each student with up to two reusable masks upon request and at no charge on the first day of school. If the Federal or State government mandates masks be worn, then we must follow that mandate and require all students wear masks.
If a decision is made after July 17 that masks are mandated for all students and I don’t want my child to wear a mask, can I enroll my child in Digital Learning?
No – July 17 is the deadline to enroll in Digital Learning. If a decision is made to mandate masks at any point after July 17 and you don’t want your child to wear a mask, you will have the option to withdraw your child to home school your child on your own. While we cannot speak to what a mask mandate would look like, as we have not implemented one nor has the state or federal government, based on the mandates issued elsewhere, we anticipate there would be exemptions for students with medical diagnoses
I am concerned about some teacher’s comments that I have seen on social media. Some seem afraid to return to work. I am worried they will not treat my child fairly or that they will try to make my child wear a mask. What can I do? (AAA edit - wth??)
We apologize, as a school district, if a teacher has argued with you on social media or made you otherwise not have confidence in their ability to effectively teach your child. All teachers are expected to follow our social media guidelines for employees, which make clear this should not occur online. We have not mandated masks for students at this time; as a result, teachers will not make your child wear one. We have confidence that our teachers who return to work in the classroom will follow their professional code of ethics and our school district policies and protocols and serve our students to the best of their abilities.
Will you take temperatures upon arrival of students or teachers and staff? Or before they get on the bus?
We will not — we are requesting all families and employees do a temperature check daily prior to arriving at school. We will distribute information to all teachers and other staff who work directly with students to assist in identifying students who should be sent to the nurse’s clinic for evaluation. The nurse then will take a student’s temperature; as is our standard practice: if a student has a fever of 100.4 degrees or higher, his or her parents will be contacted to immediately pick them up. Students must not come to school if they have a fever of 100.4 degrees or higher.
What other symptoms should we be checking before we send our children to school?
Students must not come to school if they have a fever of 100.4 degrees or higher. If a student has a positive or pending test for COVID-19, they must not come to school. If a student is living with and/or in regular close contact with someone diagnosed with COVID-19, they must not come to school until that person is well and the quarantine period ends. If a student has traveled to a COVID-19 advisory area (as designated by the CDC and posted on its website: https://www.cdc.gov) within the past 14 days, they must not come to school until that quarantine period ends. If a student has a cough, shortness of breath or recent changes in taste and/or smell, we recommend you contact your doctor’s office for guidance before sending your child to school.
If my child starts running a fever at school, what will happen? And what about my child’s siblings?
Your child will be sent to the nurse’s clinic; you will be contacted so you can immediately pick your child up from school. The nurse will notify the school nurses for your child’s siblings who are in CCSD schools; those nurses will evaluate the siblings. If the siblings are not running a fever, they will be allowed to stay at school.
What happens if a student or employee at my child’s school tests positive for COVID-19? Will I be notified if/when this happens?
Any CCSD student or employee who tests positive for COVID-19 must stay home from school under quarantine. The Department of Public Health (DPH) will instruct the student’s parents and the employee on proper next steps. CCSD will be notified by DPH as to when the student or employee may return to school. DPH will conduct contact tracing and notify anyone whose contact with the student or employee requires them to stay home and quarantine. If a student or employee at your child’s school tests positive, as soon as CCSD is notified by DPH, CCSD will send a notification by email to all employees at that school and the parents of all students at that school; this notification will not include information that would specifically identify the student or employee, per federal privacy laws.
If there is a case in my child’s classroom, will we all have to quarantine for two weeks? for each case?
The Department of Public Health (DPH) determines when quarantine is necessary on a case-by-case basis. Instructions from DPH on whether quarantine is needed and for how long will be included in the CCSD notification by email to all employees at that school and the parents of all students at that school.
How many cases will be the “tipping point” for school closure?
CCSD will follow the Department of Public Health’s guidance on when to close a school. When considering quarantines and possible closures, we will look at closing individual classrooms and/or schools before we consider closing all CCSD schools.
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
I would be too... the fact that it's in Cali is shocking. NY sounds like we're going to do masks at least, not sure on the rest yettimschochet said:
Jackstraw
Footballguy
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Wow. Even the Kern High and Bakersfield City districts are going with distance learning.timschochet said:
-jb-
Footballguy
https://edsource.org/2020/as-pandemic-spreads-gov-newsom-expected-to-impose-stricter-regulations-for-school-opening-and-closing/636475
Gov. Gavin Newsom is expected to announce Friday that all public and private schools in California counties on the state’s monitoring list for rising coronavirus infections would be required to close for in-class instruction and meet strict criteria in order to reopen.
Under the expected guidance, children in kindergarten through 2d grade who are being taught in classrooms would be encouraged, but not required, to wear masks. That’s according to several participants in discussions with administration officials and others familiar with the guidance. However, students in grades 3 to 12, along with staff, would be required to wear them. Those who refuse could be sent home to be taught exclusively via distance learning.
Students would be encouraged to stay as far apart as possible, but would not be required to maintain the 6 -foot distance expected of staff.
The guidance would represent a marked shift from leaving decisions over closing and reopening schools largely in the hands of local school district officials in consultation with county departments of health. The California Department of Public Health would now play a stronger role in setting the criteria for reopening school facilities.
As of July 16, 31 of the 58 counties are on the monitoring list. They include all the state’s most populous counties, with the exception of San Francisco, San Mateo and Kern counties. If those counties were still on the monitoring list by the time schools open during the next several weeks, it would mean that the majority of California’s nearly 10,000 schools would be closed for in-person instruction.
In fact, many school districts, with enrollments totaling at least 1.5 million students, have already decided on their own to open with distance learning this fall. They include several in counties not on the monitoring list, such as San Francisco Unified.
The guidance reflects the crisis facing the state as health officials and elected officials try to control a virus that is increasing in scope and intensity. This week alone, the state set a record for new coronavirus cases, along with rising infection rates and more hospitalizations.
In order for schools to reopen, the counties where they are located would have to have 14 days of a declining number of Covid-19 cases, as well as meet other criteria that the California Department of Public Health are currently using to regulate businesses and other activities, including shopping malls, bars and nail salons.
At the same time, getting off the state’s county monitoring list would not mean that a district would automatically resume in-classroom instruction. That decision would still be left up to local officials, typically in consultation with their teachers’ unions.
“Districts wanted decisive action, after language in the state budget put an emphasis on in-person instruction while the rate of infection was going in entirely different direction,” said Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, an education consulting company based in Sacramento. “And so the governor has stepped in to address the disconnect, and insulated local leaders from tough decisions that had to be made. Now parents cannot blame local boards for the decision.”
According to people familiar with the guidance, it is expected to lay out in detail at what point classrooms and schools would have to be closed. If 5 percent of students and teachers in a classroom tested positive for the virus, the classroom would be closed, followed by 14 days of quarantine. Effectively, that would mean a classroom would be closed anyone in the class tested positive. If a school experienced a 5 percent positive testing rate of both students teachers, the entire school would have to close, with everyone subject to 14 days of quarantine. And if 1 in 4 schools in a district had a 5% positive rate, the district would shut down.
The guidance is expected to recommend that all staff be tested at least every two months, and at least half of all staff would be tested each month. They could be tested at state-designated testing centers, where practicable.
The guidance, at least as described so far, is silent on whether or how often students should be tested.
At a town hall meeting Thursday with state Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda on Thursday evening, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond acknowledged that districts needed more clarity from state health officials about when to close or open, and had asked state health authorities “to create a metric for schools” that would include “when you might be in a danger zone” or when they could begin to reopen slowly.
He said he would be arranging a call for all school districts and the California Department of Public Health after Newsom releases his guidance. Schools, he said, must “be prepared to pivot” as health conditions change.
Gov. Gavin Newsom is expected to announce Friday that all public and private schools in California counties on the state’s monitoring list for rising coronavirus infections would be required to close for in-class instruction and meet strict criteria in order to reopen.
Under the expected guidance, children in kindergarten through 2d grade who are being taught in classrooms would be encouraged, but not required, to wear masks. That’s according to several participants in discussions with administration officials and others familiar with the guidance. However, students in grades 3 to 12, along with staff, would be required to wear them. Those who refuse could be sent home to be taught exclusively via distance learning.
Students would be encouraged to stay as far apart as possible, but would not be required to maintain the 6 -foot distance expected of staff.
The guidance would represent a marked shift from leaving decisions over closing and reopening schools largely in the hands of local school district officials in consultation with county departments of health. The California Department of Public Health would now play a stronger role in setting the criteria for reopening school facilities.
As of July 16, 31 of the 58 counties are on the monitoring list. They include all the state’s most populous counties, with the exception of San Francisco, San Mateo and Kern counties. If those counties were still on the monitoring list by the time schools open during the next several weeks, it would mean that the majority of California’s nearly 10,000 schools would be closed for in-person instruction.
In fact, many school districts, with enrollments totaling at least 1.5 million students, have already decided on their own to open with distance learning this fall. They include several in counties not on the monitoring list, such as San Francisco Unified.
The guidance reflects the crisis facing the state as health officials and elected officials try to control a virus that is increasing in scope and intensity. This week alone, the state set a record for new coronavirus cases, along with rising infection rates and more hospitalizations.
In order for schools to reopen, the counties where they are located would have to have 14 days of a declining number of Covid-19 cases, as well as meet other criteria that the California Department of Public Health are currently using to regulate businesses and other activities, including shopping malls, bars and nail salons.
At the same time, getting off the state’s county monitoring list would not mean that a district would automatically resume in-classroom instruction. That decision would still be left up to local officials, typically in consultation with their teachers’ unions.
“Districts wanted decisive action, after language in the state budget put an emphasis on in-person instruction while the rate of infection was going in entirely different direction,” said Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, an education consulting company based in Sacramento. “And so the governor has stepped in to address the disconnect, and insulated local leaders from tough decisions that had to be made. Now parents cannot blame local boards for the decision.”
According to people familiar with the guidance, it is expected to lay out in detail at what point classrooms and schools would have to be closed. If 5 percent of students and teachers in a classroom tested positive for the virus, the classroom would be closed, followed by 14 days of quarantine. Effectively, that would mean a classroom would be closed anyone in the class tested positive. If a school experienced a 5 percent positive testing rate of both students teachers, the entire school would have to close, with everyone subject to 14 days of quarantine. And if 1 in 4 schools in a district had a 5% positive rate, the district would shut down.
The guidance is expected to recommend that all staff be tested at least every two months, and at least half of all staff would be tested each month. They could be tested at state-designated testing centers, where practicable.
The guidance, at least as described so far, is silent on whether or how often students should be tested.
At a town hall meeting Thursday with state Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda on Thursday evening, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond acknowledged that districts needed more clarity from state health officials about when to close or open, and had asked state health authorities “to create a metric for schools” that would include “when you might be in a danger zone” or when they could begin to reopen slowly.
He said he would be arranging a call for all school districts and the California Department of Public Health after Newsom releases his guidance. Schools, he said, must “be prepared to pivot” as health conditions change.
It doesn't - that OCBE vote was meaningless - that group has zero control over how the local boards planned, etc. - quite frankly, it was all for show.
Many of the larger school districts in Orange County (such as Santa Ana Unified) already have said they are opening up with 100% distance learning.
Article on the fall out from the meeting - many that were tied to the report already trying to distance themselves from it
The Gator
Footballguy
While Trump continues to push schools to open 100% this fall, apparently no decision has been made on whether to send Barron back to school:
Kelly-Ann Conway: "That's a personal decision. I don't know what Barron's school has decided and I certainly don't know what the first couple has decided with respect to their teenage son, who I believe is entering high school this year."
Kelly-Ann Conway: "That's a personal decision. I don't know what Barron's school has decided and I certainly don't know what the first couple has decided with respect to their teenage son, who I believe is entering high school this year."
shadyridr
Footballguy
Yeah and Gov Cuomo said "I certainly wouldn't send MY kids to summer camp this year" and opened camps. Not really sure that's a big deal.
Here is a letter sent from the Superintendent of our school district in response to the announcement - just FYI my kids are all in Orange Unified, which is one of the districts within Orange County
The decision on what to do with schools is a tough one (see my post at the top of this page), but as a parent, the least convincing argument you could make to me (and I suspect a lot of other parents) is this Trump/WSJ line about how Covid isn’t that dangerous for kids. First of all, there‘a a lot we still don’t know about this disease. But more importantly, don’t you dare reduce my children to a statistic.
Imagine you were debating going sky diving. You go to one diving school and the guy is telling you the small number of people who die jumping out of planes every year, and how therefore you have nothing to worry about. Then you go to another school and the guy emphasizes all of the safety precautions they follow to ensure you won’t get hurt. Which one is more likely to get your business?
If you want to reopen my kids’ school, tell me all the safety plans you have in place. Tell me the money that’s been allocated to retrofit the school. Tell me your contingency plans for what happens when someone tests positive. But for the love of God, don’t tell me not to worry. I’m a parent. It’s my job to worry.
Imagine you were debating going sky diving. You go to one diving school and the guy is telling you the small number of people who die jumping out of planes every year, and how therefore you have nothing to worry about. Then you go to another school and the guy emphasizes all of the safety precautions they follow to ensure you won’t get hurt. Which one is more likely to get your business?
If you want to reopen my kids’ school, tell me all the safety plans you have in place. Tell me the money that’s been allocated to retrofit the school. Tell me your contingency plans for what happens when someone tests positive. But for the love of God, don’t tell me not to worry. I’m a parent. It’s my job to worry.
In Florida as of Wednesday night, 28,087 children have contracted the virus, 282 have been hospitalized and five have died, according to state data
The risk is real, especially for children with underlying conditions.
The risk is real, especially for children with underlying conditions.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
In a real-life discussion with someone recently, I wrote the following regarding CT's current consideration to reopen schools, in response to being provided a link purporting to show that "CT has it under control, let's reopen schools". Are any parts of this incorrect?
So what I'm seeing here is CT is just barely below the important Rt threshold of 1.0, at 0.96, even without schools being in session. That seems like a really solid argument for not reopening schools, given that it is indisputable fact that the Rt value will rise if schools reopen.
It is also incontrovertible fact that if schools reopen, some people will die that would not otherwise have died. Other people will get sick that would not otherwise have gotten sick. That by itself is not reason enough to keep schools closed, of course. As a society, we have always decreed that some level of death is acceptable. For example, the very existence of cars creates some level of death that would not otherwise occur. As a society we choose to accept that, while doing what we can to minimize those deaths (e.g. speed limits, airbags, seat belts, etc.). However, in the case of cars, airplanes, alcohol, etc., it is true that people can generally opt out. For example, I can choose not to travel by car or airplane, and I can choose not to drink alcohol.
In the case of schools and COVID-19, however, the people who get sick and die may not have the choice to opt out, as the people who will get sick and die and not the same as the group of people making the decision to reopen schools or even attend schools. With asymptomatic spread, it is entirely possible that a child or teacher gets infected and passes the virus to an unrelated party, such as a family member or at the grocery store. Still, even this by itself is not a reason to keep schools closed. For example, if we knew for certain that reopening schools would cause exactly 27 additional people to require hospitalization and exactly 6 additional people to die, we as a society could decide that is an acceptable price to pay for the emotional well being and increased learning capacity for our children.
IMO, it is precisely the unknown extent of the additional sickness and death that makes this an extremely perilous decision. Based on a number of things we do know, or think we know, however, we can reasonably expect that reopening schools will cause significant increases in case counts, which will subsequently lead to significant increases in hospitalizations and deaths. Those things include:
Based on everything I wrote above, I think it's reasonable to conclude that reopening schools, even in CT, will cause that Rt value to rise well above 1.0, an outcome that simply cannot be allowed to happen.
So what I'm seeing here is CT is just barely below the important Rt threshold of 1.0, at 0.96, even without schools being in session. That seems like a really solid argument for not reopening schools, given that it is indisputable fact that the Rt value will rise if schools reopen.
It is also incontrovertible fact that if schools reopen, some people will die that would not otherwise have died. Other people will get sick that would not otherwise have gotten sick. That by itself is not reason enough to keep schools closed, of course. As a society, we have always decreed that some level of death is acceptable. For example, the very existence of cars creates some level of death that would not otherwise occur. As a society we choose to accept that, while doing what we can to minimize those deaths (e.g. speed limits, airbags, seat belts, etc.). However, in the case of cars, airplanes, alcohol, etc., it is true that people can generally opt out. For example, I can choose not to travel by car or airplane, and I can choose not to drink alcohol.
In the case of schools and COVID-19, however, the people who get sick and die may not have the choice to opt out, as the people who will get sick and die and not the same as the group of people making the decision to reopen schools or even attend schools. With asymptomatic spread, it is entirely possible that a child or teacher gets infected and passes the virus to an unrelated party, such as a family member or at the grocery store. Still, even this by itself is not a reason to keep schools closed. For example, if we knew for certain that reopening schools would cause exactly 27 additional people to require hospitalization and exactly 6 additional people to die, we as a society could decide that is an acceptable price to pay for the emotional well being and increased learning capacity for our children.
IMO, it is precisely the unknown extent of the additional sickness and death that makes this an extremely perilous decision. Based on a number of things we do know, or think we know, however, we can reasonably expect that reopening schools will cause significant increases in case counts, which will subsequently lead to significant increases in hospitalizations and deaths. Those things include:
- We know, or think we know, that the virus spreads much more easily indoors than out.
- We know, or think we know, that the viral load, and thus both the capability to infect AND the seriousness of the infection, is significantly greater based on time spent with or around an infected person. That is, simply passing by an infected person for a few seconds is unlikely to spread the infection. Remaining in close contact with an infected person for long periods of time significantly increases the likelihood of infection and the seriousness of the infection.
- We know, or think we know, that children 10+ can spread the virus just as easily as adults.
- We know, or think we know, that the virus can spread asymptomatically. We are even more certain, that the virus can spread presymptomatically, which is effectively the same thing, for everything other than contact tracing after the fact.
- We know, or think we know, that while masks help prevent the spread of infection, they do not stop it completely.
- I personally believe (although the science on this seems to be scarce or even non-existent, both confirming or denying) that facemasks are more effective over short periods of exposure and become less effective over long periods of exposure. I suspect the reasons for this are multiple, including, 1) over long periods of time, it is likely that the facemasks will slip or the wearer will intentionally (or even unintentionally) remove the mask in order to take a deep breath, eat or drink something, or just because they are hot or have fogged the wearer's glasses, and 2) infection can occur both due to large droplets, for which masks likely provide good source control, and via aerosol, for which non-surgical grade masks likely provide little to no protection.
- I personally believe (and again, the science at this time neither confirms nor denies) the combination of very long periods of exposure and the possibility of aerosol-based infection will render facemasks significantly less effective in a school setting than most people expect.
- We know, or think we know, that Rt values above 1.0 will cause the virus to spread. Obviously, the higher the value above 1.0, the quicker the spread.
Based on everything I wrote above, I think it's reasonable to conclude that reopening schools, even in CT, will cause that Rt value to rise well above 1.0, an outcome that simply cannot be allowed to happen.
Similar threads
