Just spitballing here, the local suburban districts have a bunch of elementary schools that feed into a couple of middle schools and one or two high schools (with buildings sized accordingly). Seems you might be able to develop a hybrid solution where the youngest kids (say I dunno, K-2) spread out in the elementary schools, the next group moves to the middle schools and another group takes over the high school. 8/9-12 move to remote learning. Any of the schools that have wings or other obvious segmentation can use that to mitigate further.
It’s not ideal, some of the facilities might not be perfect (specifically thinking desks and lockers built with bigger kids in mind) but… it gives some structure and normalcy to those who probably need it most.
Related, Ohio just announced a mandatory mask policy for all student K-12 which… good luck enforcing that, especially at the low end. They’re also providing 2 million masks which will help but probably isn’t enough.
This is what happens when Trumpsters are in charge:
Wonders for the umpteenth time why anyone listens to this nonsense.
We seem to have had some pretty big differences of opinions in other threads, but I’m going to take this opportunity to heavily endorse this viewpoint. Its not that schools couldn’t provide useful or enriching experiences, and its not like providing abstract thinking skills and broadened horizons can’t be worthwhile regardless of practical skills… its just by and large US schools accomplish very little of the practical or abstract. I have worked in them and if this crisis provides the impetus for a large scale rethinking of the way the whole process works that can only be a net positive.
Relative to what? To not going to school, at all? You’re going to have to cite some support.
And of course anything in America relating to income disparity will also relate to race, because the demographics have never corrected (or been allowed to correct). So racial disparities will get worse too.
Many of those low income families are probably at high risk from exposure anyway, as if they’re lucky enough to still have jobs, they’re unlikely to be the work-from-home type.
It’s the perfect scenario for exaggerating existing social inequalities. The costs are really high. I don’t think picking between two awful policy options is at all obvious.
Our public schools already do this on a good day; theyOnly thing they teach is how to pass standardized tests. The biggest reasons closing schools are problematic is for kids not getting meals and parents who need to work that have kids to young to care for themselves.
A lot of the tech giants have already committed to keeping their employees at home until 2021. Those folks will be able to deal with schools closed a lot easier than most. Which basically means Seattle and the Bay Area.
Let me be very clear, this is an awful outcome, online education is shit. It’s just the less bad of two options, one horrible, the other literally life-destroying. Of those, the horrible one is clearly better, but “better” is an extremely relative thing here.
I mean, I’m not the parent of a school-age child (thank god) but if I were I’d see no other option than to keep them home, no matter what the school district was doing. Any harm from them not being in school is clearly more minor than permanent damage to their brain, lungs, and/or cardiovascular system, and certainly better than their death, to say nothing of the obvious threat of the same to myself and my wife.
People keep acting like this is a choice. I don’t see it. One option is really shitty, the other is completely unthinkable.
The solution to schools is testing. If you could provide tests at a dollar a test, and test students every day, then none of this would be an issue. I think I’ve posted the Mina paper and TWiV episodes, but I’ll dig up more direct references if people want/need them. The podcast discussion in particular was enlightening.
Imagine spitting on a special strip of paper every morning and being told two minutes later whether you were positive for COVID-19. If everyone in the United States did this daily, we would dramatically drop our transmission rates and bring the pandemic under control. Schools and businesses could reopen with the peace of mind that infectious individuals had been identified and were staying home. Michael Mina of the Harvard School of Public Health has been a major proponent of this idea, and has pushed the idea of a $1 test that the government could mass-produce and provide freely to everyone. In fact these technologies exist today. Antigen tests are significantly cheaper and faster than qPCR tests, and Quidel has already received FDA approval for their antigen-based test on a strip of paper. Another $1 antigen test has been put to use in Senegal. Many other U.S.-based companies are developing antigen tests. Why, then, have these cheap and rapid tests not become the foundation of our national testing strategy?
Another easy to read NYT article:
The podcast, which is easily understandable without a science background:
If you like medcram instead, he’s doing a talk tomorrow:
The source paper:
Based on what? Especially with the videoconferencing programs available these days, I see little reason why that should be the case. The bigger issue is that they aren’t prepared for it than it is inherently bad, imo.
Here’s the thing: More and more school curriculum is online even in the in-person classroom. It’s a whole lot of take this online math quiz, watch these American history videos, log into the social studies portal.
Quality wise on the pure curriculum standpoint there’s little difference.
Experience.
Depends on the topic, but the loss of in-classroom interaction is broadly debilitating. In the sciences (I teach physics) the lack of hands-on lab work is a serious problem. We’re getting through with simulations but it’s not at all the same thing. The lack of ability to really do group problem solving is also a substantial problem.
More to Craig’s point, losing all the social aspects of school is also a huge problem, especially with younger kids.
Also that.
See above, but to reiterate: HELL no. If there’s no difference between online and in-classroom teaching, you’re dealing with people that aren’t teaching in-classroom well.
There are subjects that it’s probably possible to teach really well online. As Midsguided says, the issue there is that even if you’ve got one of those subjects you need the time and knowledge to be able to assemble a course that uses the format well. Even then, the entire social aspect is lost.
I’m very confused that anyone thinks that the significant majority of K-12 can be disciplined enough to make online learning at home successful. Especially with working parents who have jobs to pay attention to at the same time as the learning. Sure, some students will do fine but it’s clear the majority will not.
I’m very confused that anyone thinks that the significant majority of K-12 can be disciplined enough to wear a mask and socially distance well enough to avoid mass outbreaks.
The alternatives are bad education or dead/permanently disabled children, employees, and parents. I’m not thrilled about either option but, again, how is this even a choice?
Not being facetious: is there anywhere in this country actually capable of doing that?
I can certainly appreciate the loss of lab work. Perhaps the biggest roadblock. You could still do demonstrations, but not the same as hands on.
You can make them sit in chairs, but that doesn’t mean they are paying attention, even in-person. Perfect is the enemy of good here.
Maybe we should move to a new thread?
In my case, personal experience with a grade schooler.
When I went back to college while working, it was all online. It worked great for me.
Its a god damn worlds difference from doing that for a kindergartener or pre schooler.
That sucks, period.
Which part of the antigen testing strategy didn’t make sense? I’m guessing you’re thinking “can we even make a test”, which the paragraph responds with:
and Quidel has already received FDA approval for their antigen-based test on a strip of paper. Another $1 antigen test has been put to use in Senegal.
There are actually a fair number of antigen tests, but we’re mostly being held up by the one time test sensitivity argument, which is the wrong argument to make at this point. Mina’s paper provides the math to back up the argument.
[edited to be less snarky. sorry.]