Opening schools

Do you mind citing what he said in March? And what Trump said? And what Pelosi and Schumer said? I don’t trust my memory on these, let alone yours.

Maybe you should read through this thread. Our understanding of the disease and schools has changed since March. Closing schools was a generic pandemic safety protocol. We shouldn’t be so generic at this point.

Do we really need to do that? Why drag out the politics when the answer is “this isn’t March anymore”.

This is my point. The understanding and or misunderstanding of the virus has changed. I was saying even Fauci has changed his position as has Cuomo. Like I said my Belgian cousins are all back in school and have been.

Fair point. eenerm’s post looked like a gotcha/apologia for Trump. If we’re all in agreement that that’s a ridiculous distraction, I’ll definitely withdraw the request for cites.

Oh, ok. Your statement was just kinda outta the blue I thought you were wondering why he did a 180.

The thread is about opening schools. Saying that even Fauci doing a 180 is a good thing. These kids are suffering, especially minorities and lower income.

Ok, but so we’re on the same page here that wasn’t quite a 180 this weekend. He’s been moving to that position for some time. The longer quote, past the buzz phrase, from that interview

Everyone keeps saying that, but by and large it’s not the working class and poor kids fighting to come back, it’s the suburban and affluent parents who want schools open. In my large urban district, kids can opt for remote or in person, and it’s the affluent parents who are sending their kids to school (and demanding sports be kept). Working class parents by and large are not.

Do you think we should start mandating parents send kids to in person schools? Get rid of the remote option? Because that’s the only way it’s happening for the “minority and lower income” kids in my district. Their parents want their kids home and safe, and the near-universal perception is that school is not safe.

Here is a podcast featuring Emily Oster. She discusses opening schools and the criticism she gets for her work.

For those of you that favor aggressive school re-openings, how do you feel about “Remote optional” models? Should those be offered, currently?

Many of the lower income families do not have access to the internet and /or the parental support to assist. Kids also get fed at the schools at subsidized cost.

Right. But at least here in DFW, those parents are keeping their kids home, regardless: the district provided hot spots and chrome books.

I’m telling you, everyone says “poor people need these schools!” but the working class are opting out of sending their kids to school even when it is an option. It’s the affluent class that is pushing to keep schools open.

They have the option to send their kids to school. They don’t want to. Do you think we should get rid of the “remote” option so that they are legally compelled to come?

No. It’s tough to be a parent. Local conditions differ, as does faith in, and competence of, local government. Most schools should be open, and most students might be better off going. But some schools might be in areas with too many cases - and there is no point opening just to close. Parents should be educated and make the best choice for their children, even if I might choose otherwise. As long as a reasonable remote strategy is in place, I have no problem with this at all. I do worry about those who fall through the cracks - poor Internet and uninformed parents - and hope schools and local government are addressing this as best they can.

Perhaps if she would do better work she’d get less criticism, but then she’d also have fewer people linking her in various places simply because her false analysis backs up their preferred outcome on this issue.

Ok. I really don’t know what the national situation is; everything is patchwork. But in Texas, the kids who are remote are remote because that’s what parents chose. I think that’s the case a lot of places. If people want kids in schools, they need to address that. Parents, especially working class and minority parents, don’t want students in schools. They are too scared.

What I’m curious about is how are those lower income families dealing with that decision. Are they just going one income with one parent quitting their job to stay home? Were they generally families with a stay at home mom already? Grandparents babysitting?

Eta: I know that in a fair few 1st gen families, the dad works 15 hrs a day, mom keeps house when there’s kids. I could see that making school from home the easier choice.

I suspect it’s a combination of having stronger extended family networks, and having access to low-cost or free childcare elsewhere (e.g., through church, the Y, etc.) That’s what I’m seeing in my community, although I’m far from a statistical analysis or even a large sample.

But some of that isn’t better, istm. Free childcare at the Y or church isn’t likely to be safer, is it? And they still have to do remote school.

Probably not, and I may be a little unclear on what you mean by “that decision.” If “that decision” is the family’s decision to keep a kid out of school for epidemiological reasons, then yeah, probably not safer. If “that decision” is a district’s decision to keep schools closed despite the harm done to low-income children, then safety might not be the reason for sending the kids to the Y or church.