Open at all, or open in person?
The locals highschool is open in a hybrid model, with kids in the building twice a week, and home the rest of the week.
The local private school, which is smaller, with much smaller class size, is open for full time in person.
My guess is they don’t.
Especially for elementary ages, I think they are going with the “younger kids don’t spread the virus as much” theory.
I believe your claim that class sizes are much smaller at your local private school, but my small private, expensive school had 23-25 kids per classroom, the max allowable. They still do, even in covid, and are open full time. So small private does not always mean smaller class sizes or safer.
No, and the Catholic schools often have larger classes than the local public school. But this particular private school has an average of 12 kids per class. And the classrooms aren’t much smaller than the rooms in the local public school.
I’m familiar with it because I interview kids there for college admission. And both this school and one of the nearby public schools has lent us space in their classrooms to do weekend interviews.
It varies by school district, but most schools here are in person. My district allows a virtual option where their in person teacher also teaches through Zoom. I think about 80% of the kids attend in person. The grade schools divide up the class into pods of 3-4 kids that spend the day together without social distancing and only rarely change the pods, so in most cases of a kid showing up with COVID, only those 3-4 kids are required to quarantine/go virtual for the two week period.
In the classroom they just make them wear masks. In the cafeteria they spread out. They only distance when masks are off. There has been little to no spread from the school except for athletes playing sports together.
That’s what we have here and it is about the same 80% went in person.
I am questioning the reasoning of places that continue to not hold school in person given the vast amount of information that it is by and large pretty safe. It seems like the social costs of e-learning are much higher than the risk of Covid especially at this point when elderly have almost entirely been vaccinated if they want to be. It seems it’s more a mental block than an actual risk right now.
We have had several teachers test positive and one of our kids has been in quarantine…no COVID yet that we are aware of.
An entire class or two has pretty much had to go all virtual a few times. I think it was 3 or 4 kids out of the entire class had it at the same time but at that point pretty much everyone was considered exposed.
I’d say the set-up prevents entire classes from actually becoming infected, but it also seems as though it will eventually work its way through all the kids. I am surprised it has not made it into my house through the kids. Maybe it had back in late Feb/March. That wave here based on deaths was comparable to the November wave, but I realize that is somewhat faulty based on improved treatment and handling of cases at LTC facilities.
Huh, everyone i know with kids attending in person has had covid scares, and some have been infected.
And i don’t know where you live, but where I live there are still tons of elderly people scrambling for limited appointments. We are getting there, but we are not close to “all the vulnerable have been vaccinated”.
Speaking of this, our state has mandated that masks must be worn for all indoor sports with the exception of swimming, wrestling, and gymnastics. While I get what they are trying to do, it is disingenuous that it only applies to youth/adult leagues but does not apply to colleges or pro sports.
On my boys basketball team we had 1 family pull their kid off the team because of the “mask while playing mandate”. They are a super religious family and according greenwoman make facebook posts about the virus being “God’s will” and how it will only be gone when He determines it is time.
Yes we have had close contacts, but the spread from a student to another student has been minimal. So “scares” are all that is happening. Meanwhile parents are giving up their jobs, kids are battling depression, poor students have disappeared, etc, etc,etc. The social costs at this point far outweigh the gain from keeping kids at home IMO. The research now says schools with precautions in place are not a significant risk of spread. I think all schools should be in person everywhere.
What precautions? Lots of schools are in ancient buildings with shitty ventilation. And kids are there all day – at some point they need to eat. Can’t eat with a mask on. There’s no way to pack 30 kids in a little classroom (like the ones I had in high school) and be anything like safe.
I agree that the cost has been very high, though. Especially to the students who aren’t going to those crappy old ill-ventilated schools.
Sometimes there aren’t any good choices.
I’ve spent some time on different campuses in the last few months (same charter company with multiple campuses). Nominally, masks are required. I seldom see more than about 10% of the students wearing them though. And there is no meaningful distancing.
Oh, you claim there is research? Please share or didn’t happen.
Here is US News and World Report:
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-12-02/shut-them-down-why-schools-might-not-be-safe-during-covid-19
I mean, I get it the idea that: Children are more important than the elderly or those who cannot fight the disease due to genetics or lifestyle. Would be nice if those advocating opening schools admitted it.
There are lots, but this one is from your source.
“cautiously”?
FIRST paragraph seems very different from “open all schools” line that you are supporting:
SCHOOL DISTRICTS offering in-person instruction do not contribute to community spread of COVID-19 as long as there are relatively low levels of preexisting coronavirus infections in the surrounding areas, according to one of the most comprehensive studies to date that’s set to play a major role in the fraught debate over reopening schools.
So, if number of infections in the area is low, then open schools. Well, duh.
And lower down, in case you didn’t get that far:
Their conclusion: As long as infection rates are under control, in-person school, whether it’s through a hybrid model or fully in-person, does not contribute to community spread.
Again, more, well, duh.
So, if your area has low infection rates, then go ahead and open your school doors.
REAL question is, “what rate of infection is acceptable in the community in order to open schools?”
IMO, opening schools (and restaurants etc) in areas where the infection rate is low only serves to increase the infection rate in those areas. So, evens everything out.
I thought that plus all the precautions the CDC says should be in place is why so many schools remain remote. People say “hey the CDC says schools can open” but don’t look at the actual guidelines. Or that is my understanding from what I’ve overheard.
The problem with opening schools fully if the rates are currently low is that your run into logistical nightmares and huge disruption for students (and teachers!) if rate start to go back up.
Very disruptive with a be-in-school-today-but-set-up-at-home-with-12-hours-notice philosophy.
I think this is part of why our school district offered the option (remain 100% remote or do hybrid) for the upper grades.
For the lower grades, contact tracing is far, far easier to isolate just one class (if needed).
Masks, kids in pods, handwashing, etc. Anecdotally, what has not happened is a kid shows up one day to school, leaves that day with a fever, tests positive for COVID, and the entire class catches it. A few classes had a few chain cases before Christmas and the entire class was sent home until after the break. Pre-COVID, there was always that bug that would come around and half a class was home sick with it, with the precautions it seems more whack a mole.