I've had a number of discussions with my colleagues about this. The pandemic has really made it clear that schools aren't just about education but are also a form of nationalized child care....
I've had a number of discussions with my colleagues about this.
The pandemic has really made it clear that schools aren't just about education but are also a form of nationalized child care. Reopening them takes a significant burden off of working parents (which, in this day and age, is nearly all parents).
On the other hand, all of the proposed measures I've seen don't ensure anyone's safety so much as they mitigate spread. The idea being proposed in my district would have me and a group of kids in the same room all day, breathing the same air for hours with no filtration system or PPE beyond masks we provide ourselves (because of course we have to provide them ourselves). That doesn't adequately prevent infection for us -- that just means that if one of us is infected, it's theoretically limited to our cluster.
Furthermore, something that I haven't really seen accounted for from my own position as a teacher or in articles like this is that kids are very unlikely to abide by the restrictions imposed. Kids won't have the stamina to sit in a single seat for hours, wear a mask for hours, not interact with people they're seated near, etc. That's just a natural consequence of their development -- to say nothing of those that will deliberately misbehave (and believe me, some will). Furthermore, the likelihood of high levels of compliance drops for any independent tasks: eating, going to the bathroom or nurse, or even just everyday tasks like sharpening a pencil (if they're even using them).
Even if kids are in classrooms, quality instruction will be a very far reach. For one, absences are going to be worse than we've ever seen (by design), so there will already be constant interruptions for student attendance even in a best case scenario. But really, not being able to have proximity with students limits my ability to do most of my job. I can't circulate the room, check students' work, give individual feedback, sit alongside someone and walk them through a task or concept, or pull a small group of kids together for an extension or remediation lesson. All I'll really be able to do is stand at the front of the class and lecture from behind a mask. Plus, if we're limited from rotating between settings, that means I'd need to teach all subjects. I cannot envision very much success or learning happening in such an environment.
If I had to call the shot now, we'll reopen, but I think remote learning will still be the paradigm. First and foremost, there will be parents who refuse to send their kids to school and to whom we are still legally required to provide an education, so as teachers we're going to have to have remote work ready anyway. Furthermore, actually instructing in an in-person environment with such severe restrictions is pretty much a non-starter. I think schools that open will essentially be a way of housing kids during the day while they work on remote learning, primarily as a way of freeing up parents to return to work. Even in an in-person setting, kids will be on computers getting assignments, lessons, and communication from their various teachers digitally, and my role in the room will be more akin to a proctor or babysitter tasked with monitoring, albeit a babysitter who's fighting off daily panic attacks from constantly breathing potentially infected recycled air.
I wish I could be more optimistic about this, but as anyone who's read my other posts about teaching here knows, all the horses with any sort of a positive outlook left my barn long ago. I don't feel that my health and safety are a priority in these considerations when they, as previously mentioned, can't/won't even provide masks for us. I understand that quality masks are still in short supply and that even many essential workers aren't given what they need, but that's kind of my point. We, months into this, still can't even ensure safety for those on the front lines, so I trust that my safety is given a comparable level of consideration (which is to say, not enough). What follows is entirely an argument from self-interest, but if our front lines aren't even secure and sustainable at present, maybe the best course of action is not to create any more front lines than we have to?
The epidemiologist's arguments feel surprisingly weak. This feels like a person taking in all available information and coming up with the same mixed feelings we all have on the subject. We want...
The epidemiologist's arguments feel surprisingly weak. This feels like a person taking in all available information and coming up with the same mixed feelings we all have on the subject. We want our kids to learn, but we want to keep teachers safe, and both are not really possible on a national/global scale.
Note that the headline is more one-sided than the article:
Note that the headline is more one-sided than the article:
Unfortunately for all of us, we are making a decision with significant uncertainty about all the risks involved. Fortunately, this is not the first time that people have been forced to make decisions with uncertainty. There are approaches to making uncertain decisions in a way that maximizes the chances of a good outcome and minimizes the harm if the outcome is poor.
You’ve likely heard of one of them: hedging your bets. When multibillion-dollar investment funds make a choice to invest, they recognize that they could be wrong. They do not make all-in versus out decisions. Instead, they hedge their bets. They may think that the newest beach toy is destined for greatness, but just in case of a rainy summer, they also invest in umbrellas.
When I look across all the data, I see an uncertain decision. First, I propose that the balance of data that we have now suggests that we need to try to open schools in the fall. The risks of reopening are uncertain; the harm of staying home is clear.
If your school district cites the data above to you that “schools are safe,” ask your school board: What is the plan beyond reopening? What if we are wrong? How will your district know that things are going well (or not well)? Don’t let the conversation stop at “data suggests that schools are safe.” Don’t let the plan stop with “symptomatic people should call their doctor.”
If we are going to open safely in the fall, we must have the capacity to know — quickly — when an outbreak occurs. Israel is an important cautionary tale. When Israel closed down its schools again, it had only identified two school-based cases, yet in the end it discovered that more than 100 students had been infected.
To do this well, and to do it safely, we must have school-based Covid-19 symptom screening, testing, contact tracing, and isolation. “School-based testing” does not mean that the test themselves must occur in school buildings. “School-based testing” means that students and teachers can easily access a test by contacting the school, and that the results of those tests are sent directly to the school district in real time.
That seems straightforward, but it is not. The community does not yet have adequate testing, contact tracing, or isolation. Schools currently have nothing.
I've had a number of discussions with my colleagues about this.
The pandemic has really made it clear that schools aren't just about education but are also a form of nationalized child care. Reopening them takes a significant burden off of working parents (which, in this day and age, is nearly all parents).
On the other hand, all of the proposed measures I've seen don't ensure anyone's safety so much as they mitigate spread. The idea being proposed in my district would have me and a group of kids in the same room all day, breathing the same air for hours with no filtration system or PPE beyond masks we provide ourselves (because of course we have to provide them ourselves). That doesn't adequately prevent infection for us -- that just means that if one of us is infected, it's theoretically limited to our cluster.
Furthermore, something that I haven't really seen accounted for from my own position as a teacher or in articles like this is that kids are very unlikely to abide by the restrictions imposed. Kids won't have the stamina to sit in a single seat for hours, wear a mask for hours, not interact with people they're seated near, etc. That's just a natural consequence of their development -- to say nothing of those that will deliberately misbehave (and believe me, some will). Furthermore, the likelihood of high levels of compliance drops for any independent tasks: eating, going to the bathroom or nurse, or even just everyday tasks like sharpening a pencil (if they're even using them).
Even if kids are in classrooms, quality instruction will be a very far reach. For one, absences are going to be worse than we've ever seen (by design), so there will already be constant interruptions for student attendance even in a best case scenario. But really, not being able to have proximity with students limits my ability to do most of my job. I can't circulate the room, check students' work, give individual feedback, sit alongside someone and walk them through a task or concept, or pull a small group of kids together for an extension or remediation lesson. All I'll really be able to do is stand at the front of the class and lecture from behind a mask. Plus, if we're limited from rotating between settings, that means I'd need to teach all subjects. I cannot envision very much success or learning happening in such an environment.
If I had to call the shot now, we'll reopen, but I think remote learning will still be the paradigm. First and foremost, there will be parents who refuse to send their kids to school and to whom we are still legally required to provide an education, so as teachers we're going to have to have remote work ready anyway. Furthermore, actually instructing in an in-person environment with such severe restrictions is pretty much a non-starter. I think schools that open will essentially be a way of housing kids during the day while they work on remote learning, primarily as a way of freeing up parents to return to work. Even in an in-person setting, kids will be on computers getting assignments, lessons, and communication from their various teachers digitally, and my role in the room will be more akin to a proctor or babysitter tasked with monitoring, albeit a babysitter who's fighting off daily panic attacks from constantly breathing potentially infected recycled air.
I wish I could be more optimistic about this, but as anyone who's read my other posts about teaching here knows, all the horses with any sort of a positive outlook left my barn long ago. I don't feel that my health and safety are a priority in these considerations when they, as previously mentioned, can't/won't even provide masks for us. I understand that quality masks are still in short supply and that even many essential workers aren't given what they need, but that's kind of my point. We, months into this, still can't even ensure safety for those on the front lines, so I trust that my safety is given a comparable level of consideration (which is to say, not enough). What follows is entirely an argument from self-interest, but if our front lines aren't even secure and sustainable at present, maybe the best course of action is not to create any more front lines than we have to?
The epidemiologist's arguments feel surprisingly weak. This feels like a person taking in all available information and coming up with the same mixed feelings we all have on the subject. We want our kids to learn, but we want to keep teachers safe, and both are not really possible on a national/global scale.
Note that the headline is more one-sided than the article: