The very next paragraph in that article from Iowa is:
One solution might be lowering the minimum age of staff members, said Bill Robinson, president of the Garnavillo Day Care in Clayton County. He asked DHS to consider it.
“Currently, you can’t have children younger than 16...
...[working] unless they’re with an adult supervisor. But you currently have kids driving cars at 14, and babysitting much younger,” he said.
Similarly, though I don't know local context, we just saw NE providers revolt against a plan to lower ratios.
Quality is enormously important to child development. Running a group care classroom requires enormous skill. Trading quality for spaces should be an absolute non-starter.
I know it's easier than raising wages. But it's building a house with straw amid a hurricane.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
QUICK THREAD: I'm seeing this chart go semi-viral among people saying "look! schools and child cares are actually really risky!" So I think we should talk about what we're talking about -- which is that, yet again, definitions & denominators really matter.
First, let's talk definitions.
As @ByMoriah points out "in this data=2+ coronavirus cases in two weeks in the same setting"
And the data page also notes "The school building category includes all staff and students involved in any activities in the building in and out of...
...the classroom, such as community services and sports."
So, to recap: It's a weird definition to begin with, most states use 2+ reasonably epidemiologically-linked cases (e.g. a teacher & student in the same class)-- AND "school building" is broad.
THREAD: The way we talk about cases in child care programs & schools is continuing to inflate COVID fears and making it much harder than necessary to get our youngest students back in the classroom. Here's a really good example:
That sounds bad! 13 child cares & schools (out of how many, we of course aren't told). But in this case the ignored denominator isn't even the sin, the scatter plot is. The Chronicle article tells us that 30(!) cases are linked to 1 preschool. Obviously, that's not good! But...
That only leaves 32 cases for the other 12 sites. As we learn from this KTLA article, there was a family child care home with 9 cases. Now we're down to 23 cases for the other 11 sites. You see where this is going?
KIDS & COVID: Media mistranslation in action. So, you may have seen the below article going around - it’s an AP story that has gotten picked up by a ton of outlets.
Scary headline!
Will it surprise you to learn there’s more to the story? Let’s dig in.
The subhead is really alarming: “At least 41 schools in Berlin have reported that students or teacher have become infected with the coronavirus not even two weeks after schools reopened in the German capital.” Whoa! But I was curious...
Does that mean OUTBREAKS (within-school spread) or someone infected showing up in school, which would just reflect the fact that some % of the general population is infected (& German cases are rising)?
CHILD CARE & COVID ROUNDUP, 8/21: In my opinion, there is a massively under-reported story going on, which is just how *few* outbreaks (multiple related cases) are happening in child care settings, despite being open through our long hot pandemic summer. Let's go around the horn.
First stop, Oregon. You may recall the below story went semi-viral at the end of June.
Well, you should also know that since June, this represents one of only THREE outbreaks in child care settings in the entire state.
Let's head to the desert and check out Arizona. AZ -- with an awful COVID surge earlier this summer -- is reporting SIX outbreaks in child care settings. (*CAVEAT*: Reporting positive COVID is voluntary in AZ, so assume the real # is moderately higher.)
First, let's get this out of the way: there's no question, as @DanWuori points out, that this is another manifestation of the risk shift to undervalued care workers. By definition, a child care/after-school staffer is more at risk than a teacher at home.
HOWEVER, set that aside for a moment. We're only talking here about what facilities should be in play. And from that standpoint, school buildings can actually keep children & staff *safer*, plus there are some other major benefits I'll get into.
One reason this is such an important read is how it illuminates philosophical underpinnings of child care policy we don't often talk about. Michel charts how U.S. child care policy rests on a welfare foundation, and not a feminist one. This matters. (1/4)
As she points out, to get to 'universal' child care (child care as a public good), "Congress will probably need to replace the child care block grant, which, though very helpful in the past and given a second life in pandemic relief, is still framed as... (2/4)
... support for low-income families rather than as a universal program." This is a bigger lift than just supercharging subsidy; but in its DNA, subsidy was designed as a means-tested welfare program. Other nations talk abt child care entitlements or rights - very different. (3/4)