Why editorials & op-eds that end "close the bars/open the schools" never seem to spend much time on the "closing the bars" part washingtonpost.com/opinions/stude…
If we're going to capture that a) mental health issues are beyond children and much bigger than schools; b) pre-date the pandemic; c) have been massively increased by all the pandemic itself and all the ancillary issues of it apnews.com/article/anxiet…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
You will note the second item on the agenda is "Proposed Amendments to Student Learning Time Regulations, 603 CMR 27.00 (Standards for Remote Learning and Hybrid Learning) — Discussion and Vote to Adopt Emergency Regulations"
You will also note there is no backup as yet:
In other words, the actual proposed emergency regulations that the Commissioner will be asking the Board to adopt on the spot next Tuesday are not actually publicly available as yet.
Note that the deadline to file to comment next Tuesday is today at 5 pm.
so here is a thing that I am thinking a lot about and I wish we were engaging in actual discussion and research on:
What are the trade-offs we're making to put students in classroom right now, and are they worth it?
There's been *just* the beginning, from what I've seen, of a discussion of what hybrid does for fully remote learners (unless they're split, quality seems to go down)
but largely the discussion has been so fixed on "you must go back into buildings" and "don't go back into buildings" that what going back into buildings and more importantly classrooms doesn't seem to have a lot of inquiry attached, from what I've seen
The first is this is flat out alarming: "It’s unclear precisely how many people have been infected in schools, but state officials believe they know the maximum number possible, and they see no cause for alarm."
Knowing what we do of the frequent asymptomatic nature of COVID in children, of the lack of access to testing (!), of the lags in contact tracing, confident statements about the "maximum number possible" is just downright frightening coming from state officials.
"One of the reasons the school decided to switch to remote is that they are lacking staff as COVID cases rise. Four teachers were required to quarantine on Monday, the school said. Other teachers are staying home due to signs of 'flu-like illnesses.'”
“We have reached a point where it is difficult in all cases and impossible in many cases to cover classrooms in a way that doesn’t compromise safety or instructional services. Operational and administrative services have also been affected,” the letter said.
A few notes:
•It is a PLANNING document. That means that everything isn’t fleshed out yet. That is why it was shared with staff, as the planning will be continuing.
•The main two changes you will note if you have been following closely are:
A thing that I think we need to recognize (that I've been putting off saying because it falls under "but they finally got you testing and you still don't like it"):
The rapid tests that are rolling out to schools?
They have to be confirmed with a second test.
(Worcester schools were offered the tests and said no, because having everyone who tests positive retested didn't seem functional; this is not to make any remark on districts that decided otherwise.)
Two of us in my family have had the "go get tested" experiences in the past week (for symptoms, not exposure); my husband was told to wait two days; I waited in line for 2 1/2 hours (and from what I'm seeing, that was short).