COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

[Balta1701]

3 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

If they are at home why do they need hazard pay?

So in person you agree they should get a large hazard pay bonus?

[StrangeSox]

3 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

And if that is the plan CTU wants to present, Im fine with it. But right now they have shown 0 initiative to pitch how they are going to improve. 

This was what happened last year.

Website is uploaded with links to material from outside sources. 1 20 minute google meeting.

Repeat every week.

That sucks, but even if the CTU fell flat on its face, that doesn't make in-person learning during an uncontrolled pandemic safe. Being indoors with people for long periods of time while talking is looking like the worst possible scenario for the spread of this thing.

There are already long-running sub shortages in IL. Subs are typically retired teachers i.e. high risk for COVID. What are districts gonna do when multiple teachers are in 14-day quarantines, or worse?

Edited July 17, 2020 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Speaking of safely reopening schools:

 

[Soxbadger]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

So in person you agree they should get a large hazard pay bonus?

If there is a real risk of transmission from children, then yes I think there should be consideration for this. But I think it also needs to be offset by the fact that they were paid fully last year and did not work the entire year. 

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, StrangeSox said:

That sucks, but even if the CTU fell flat on its face, that doesn't make in-person learning during an uncontrolled pandemic safe. Being indoors with people for long periods of time while talking is looking like the worst possible scenario for the spread of this thing.

I never said it was safe. I said that at some point you have to make bad decisions.

You are acting like its okay to just let teachers take a year long vacation and not take any responsibility for trying to do what is best for kids. How is that okay at any level? 

The kids are suffering the worst. They have to choose between 1) going to an unsafe school or 2) 0 education. In that situation shouldnt we be leaning on the teachers to do better? 

[StrangeSox]

I'm not sure intentionally deepening the ongoing economic crisis and punishing people for not quickly adapting to an entirely different job overnight thanks to a global situation out of their control is the smartest policy right now.

[StrangeSox]

1 minute ago, Soxbadger said:

I never said it was safe. I said that at some point you have to make bad decisions.

You are acting like its okay to just let teachers take a year long vacation and not take any responsibility for trying to do what is best for kids. How is that okay at any level? 

The kids are suffering the worst. They have to choose between 1) going to an unsafe school or 2) 0 education. In that situation shouldnt we be leaning on the teachers to do better? 

Ultimately, curriculum and school functional decisions are determined by administration. That is why they are paid large sums for a lot of typically useless positions.

Teachers should be supported to do better in online education, which will still be sub-optimal. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

 

Teachers didn't cause this. Teachers didn't leave us with only bad and worse options.

But hey, bars in Chicago are still open!

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, StrangeSox said:

I'm not sure intentionally deepening the ongoing economic crisis and punishing people for not quickly adapting to an entirely different job overnight thanks to a global situation out of their control is the smartest policy right now.

You keep acting like its super difficult to set up online meetings. Its the exact same job, just not being in a classroom.

 

Just now, StrangeSox said:

Ultimately, curriculum and school functional decisions are determined by administration. That is why they are paid large sums for a lot of typically useless positions.

Then how did different teachers do different things? 1 teacher was having daily group meetings, another teacher was having 1 meeting per week. Was that the teachers or the administrators decision? Because it seems like the teachers. 

[southsider2k5]

14 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

If they are at home why do they need hazard pay?

 

Im talking about grade school, k-3, where you can have 1 class of 15 students. Older students obviously can stay home and learn much easier. 

 

Why hazard pay if they stay at home every day?

That's not what the President is talking about.  He is literally threatening to withhold funding for schools which don't open in person, and his Press Secretary is blaming them for a rise in child abuse.  If they are going to be for in-person education, they should get paid for every single job the President is saying that they are responsible for.

[Soxbadger]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

That's not what the President is talking about.  He is literally threatening to withhold funding for schools which don't open in person, and his Press Secretary is blaming them for a rise in child abuse.  If they are going to be for in-person education, they should get paid for every single job the President is saying that they are responsible for.

I disagree with the Trump. Im pretty sure youve been on this board long enough to know that I have spent innumerable hours arguing against Trump.

I am commenting on the specific plan presented by CPS and I am providing examples of what CPS teachers did last year. I know there are plenty of districts where teachers did really well last year.

[southsider2k5]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

I disagree with the Trump. Im pretty sure youve been on this board long enough to know that I have spent innumerable hours arguing against Trump.

I am commenting on the specific plan presented by CPS and I am providing examples of what CPS teachers did last year. I know there are plenty of districts where teachers did really well last year.

My contention all along is if the standard was going to be in person education mandated by the federal government, then they should provide the funds and resources to make it safe.  To this time they haven't done so.  There aren't many good options without a massive injection of funds to make other forms of education possible at a higher level.  School funding has already been robbed for charter and religious schools, and public schools are having problems with just normal day to day stuff.  They have no room for more unfunded mandates from the President.  Just because the President doesn't care how many kids or teachers die, doesn't mean that the school systems shouldn't be able to make other choices than death.  Hell, they want to talk about how traumatized kids are right now, how do you think a kid will feel when they give Covid to teacher who ends up dying?  What about kids who are scared to death about being in public during a pandemic, why isn't their mental health important?  Why?  Because this is what the President wants.  He wants to sabotage public education so it can be sold off to the private sector, so people like him can profit from it.  The outrage shouldn't be aimed at CPS trying to make choices with no good ones on the table, it should be aimed at the federal government calculating that 0.02% of kids dying is OK, and no science will stand in their way of doing it.

[StrangeSox]

14 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

You keep acting like its super difficult to set up online meetings. Its the exact same job, just not being in a classroom.

 

Then how did different teachers do different things? 1 teacher was having daily group meetings, another teacher was having 1 meeting per week. Was that the teachers or the administrators decision? Because it seems like the teachers. 

An "online meeting" isn't the same thing as normal in-person teaching, especially for young kids. You know how many online conference calls my wife did in her teaching career until last spring? Zero. It's not a common tool for teachers or students. Besides, group work and interaction are key. Unfortunately not the easiest to accomplish in an online setting, but it'll be impossible to accomplish in any even remotely safe in-person setting this fall.

Sounds like both teachers and administrators were left to deal with an unprecedented situation in very short order and limp to the end of the school year. Administration should be setting the appropriate policies as far as what online instruction will look like. Teachers should be given flexibility in how they teach, how they accomplish things, etc. It's not like teachers set their own bell schedule in-person or show up whenever they feel like.

I know that online learning wasn't great in many places last year. My wife struggled to provide it to her students while we were both juggling caring for our infant and 2-1/2 year old. She did the best she could. Maybe half of her students showed up. Her district focused on absolutely nothing to enable her to teach online in the coming school year and instead are having shortened days with full in-person attendance 5 days a week. That was a complete failure by the administration. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

My contention all along is if the standard was going to be in person education mandated by the federal government, then they should provide the funds and resources to make it safe.  To this time they haven't done so.  There aren't many good options without a massive injection of funds to make other forms of education possible at a higher level.  School funding has already been robbed for charter and religious schools, and public schools are having problems with just normal day to day stuff.  They have no room for more unfunded mandates from the President.  Just because the President doesn't care how many kids or teachers die, doesn't mean that the school systems shouldn't be able to make other choices than death.  Hell, they want to talk about how traumatized kids are right now, how do you think a kid will feel when they give Covid to teacher who ends up dying?  What about kids who are scared to death about being in public during a pandemic, why isn't their mental health important?  Why?  Because this is what the President wants.  He wants to sabotage public education so it can be sold off to the private sector, so people like him can profit from it.  The outrage shouldn't be aimed at CPS trying to make choices with no good ones on the table, it should be aimed at the federal government calculating that 0.02% of kids dying is OK, and no science will stand in their way of doing it.

 

I already disagree with Trump. I already do as much in my power to try and figure out a way to change that. But at a federal level my influence is none.

At a local level, my influence is a little bit more. I have no problem with virtual learning. I know some districts who after spring break were having virtual classes almost immediately. The problem is CPS teachers didnt seem to take any initiative. And you can blame the administration, or whoever, but that is the reality. And at some point there has to be some accountability. Id love nothing more than to be arguing for kids not going back to school. I dont need school for daycare, someone can be with my child 100% of the time, I can teach my child and do my job.

But what about less fortunate kids. What about kids who dont have that type of access. Is it okay that they just completely get left behind because its too much to ask teachers to have 1 hour of virtual instruction a day? Is that really too much?

[southsider2k5]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

 

I already disagree with Trump. I already do as much in my power to try and figure out a way to change that. But at a federal level my influence is none.

At a local level, my influence is a little bit more. I have no problem with virtual learning. I know some districts who after spring break were having virtual classes almost immediately. The problem is CPS teachers didnt seem to take any initiative. And you can blame the administration, or whoever, but that is the reality. And at some point there has to be some accountability. Id love nothing more than to be arguing for kids not going back to school. I dont need school for daycare, someone can be with my child 100% of the time, I can teach my child and do my job.

But what about less fortunate kids. What about kids who dont have that type of access. Is it okay that they just completely get left behind because its too much to ask teachers to have 1 hour of virtual instruction a day? Is that really too much?

Who is giving these kids laptops and internet access?

[Soxbadger]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

Who is giving these kids laptops and internet access?

Isnt that the argument for in person learning?

The school my child attends has an ipad for every student, but its a magnate school with much larger funding than a normal CPS school.

 

3 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

An "online meeting" isn't the same thing as normal in-person teaching, especially for young kids. You know how many online conference calls my wife did in her teaching career until last spring? Zero. It's not a common tool for teachers or students. Besides, group work and interaction are key. Unfortunately not the easiest to accomplish in an online setting, but it'll be impossible to accomplish in any even remotely safe in-person setting this fall.

Sounds like both teachers and administrators were left to deal with an unprecedented situation in very short order and limp to the end of the school year. Administration should be setting the appropriate policies as far as what online instruction will look like. Teachers should be given flexibility in how they teach, how they accomplish things, etc. It's not like teachers set their own bell schedule in-person or show up whenever they feel like.

I know that online learning wasn't great in many places last year. My wife struggled to provide it to her students while we were both juggling caring for our infant and 2-1/2 year old. She did the best she could. Maybe half of her students showed up. Her district focused on absolutely nothing to enable her to teach online in the coming school year and instead are having shortened days with full in-person attendance 5 days a week. That was a complete failure by the administration. 

All Im saying is that teachers need to try. Im not asking for the same level. But youd expect 1 hour of interaction per week isnt too hard to ask.

Does that seem fair? I mean 1 20 minute session per week, and no other real responsibility besides for putting up links on a website weekly, that seems like a vacation. 

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Isnt that the argument for in person learning?

The school my child attends has an ipad for every student, but its a magnate school with much larger funding than a normal CPS school.

 

All Im saying is that teachers need to try. Im not asking for the same level. But youd expect 1 hour of interaction per week isnt too hard to ask.

Does that seem fair? I mean 1 20 minute session per week, and no other real responsibility besides for putting up links on a website weekly, that seems like a vacation. 

Teachers are trying, but they also haven't gotten anything in the way of resources or training, which is the whole problem here.  Somehow this has turned into teachers need to die to prop up the entire economy, or they need to figure out every single issue with remote learning to earn the right to not die at work.

[Soxbadger]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

Teachers are trying, but they also haven't gotten anything in the way of resources or training, which is the whole problem here.  Somehow this has turned into teachers need to die to prop up the entire economy, or they need to figure out every single issue with remote learning to earn the right to not die at work.

Id prefer virtual learning for everyone. I just dont have a good way to make that workable. So I am trying to find some sort of workable balance. Unfortunately that will involve everyone taking unnecessary risks. 

[StrangeSox]

22 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

All Im saying is that teachers need to try. Im not asking for the same level. But youd expect 1 hour of interaction per week isnt too hard to ask.

Does that seem fair? I mean 1 20 minute session per week, and no other real responsibility besides for putting up links on a website weekly, that seems like a vacation. 

That does seem inadequate! For last spring, when this all hit everyone without warning, you gotta give some leeway. For this fall, things need to be better.

There has been plenty of time for districts and school boards to plan. My wife's district solicited zero input from her until after they published their plan.* If her district cannot feasibly support e-learning for both teachers and students when an outbreak inevitably closes one of their schools, that is on them, not the teachers.

Now, if given a reasonable plan and proper resources, the teachers will need to put in effort on their end to adapt and make the best of a bad situation.

 

*actually, the district still hasn't directly solicited teacher feedback. Her principal, who is clearly unhappy with it, sent out a questionnaire to staff, as did her union. The union says they made it clear early on that the proposed plan was unacceptable.

Edited July 17, 2020 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

27 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

That does seem inadequate! For last spring, when this all hit everyone without warning, you gotta give some leeway. For this fall, things need to be better.

There has been plenty of time for districts and school boards to plan. My wife's district solicited zero input from her until after they published their plan.* If her district cannot feasibly support e-learning for both teachers and students when an outbreak inevitably closes one of their schools, that is on them, not the teachers.

Now, if given a reasonable plan and proper resources, the teachers will need to put in effort on their end to adapt and make the best of a bad situation.

 

*actually, the district still hasn't directly solicited teacher feedback. Her principal, who is clearly unhappy with it, sent out a questionnaire to staff, as did her union. The union says they made it clear early on that the proposed plan was unacceptable.

The biggest problem is when teachers/ administrators / school boards / govt fight children lose out. Not every kid is fortunate enough to have a parent who can stay home, have a computer/internet etc. And usually those children are the ones who have the least voice in society. So who fights for them?

Id be glad to let everyone stay home for the next year, but I also have to be realistic. 

[StrangeSox]

A graph of Rt (transmission rates) over time for every state

 

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, Soxbadger said:

The biggest problem is when teachers/ administrators / school boards / govt fight children lose out. Not every kid is fortunate enough to have a parent who can stay home, have a computer/internet etc. And usually those children are the ones who have the least voice in society. So who fights for them?

Id be glad to let everyone stay home for the next year, but I also have to be realistic. 

There's 2 versions of "fighting for the kids". One of them is "making sure they get the best education we can offer". The other one is "keeping them alive with limited long-term damage from a dangerous virus". If kids are getting long-term damage, even in asymptomatic cases, then they are losing out if the virus is passed around.

Quote

Dr. Alina Alonso, Palm Beach County’s health department director, warned county commissioners Tuesday that much is unknown about the long-term health consequences for children who catch COVID-19.

X-rays have revealed the virus can cause lung damage even in people without severe symptoms, she said.

“They are seeing there is damage to the lungs in these asymptomatic children. ... We don’t know how that is going to manifest a year from now or two years from now,” Alonso said. “Is that child going to have chronic pulmonary problems or not?”

....

State statistics also show the percentage of children testing positive is much higher than the population as a whole. Statewide, about 31% of 54,022 children tested have been positive. The state’s positivity rate for the entire population is about 11%.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-pbc-health-director-covid-children-20200714-xcdall2tsrd4riim2nwokvmsxm-story.html

[StrangeSox]

Increasing total testing and positivity rate is, uh, not a good sign

 

[caulfield12]

3 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

Are you okay with teachers forfeiting a salary that is reciprocal to the reduced work load.

I feel that is a fair compromise. 

We taught fewer actual hours, but do I then have the right to ask for more teaching 70-100 students at one time online?

I had 332 students, previously about 1/3rd of that when in school.

Same amount of grading and homework expected for three times as many students, but 50% of the actual teaching time.   Previously, 16 hours per week, cut down to 8 (on a US teaching schedule, it would be considered 20 and 10 hours.).  Every single student had at least 3-4 full 90 minute classes per day, with ten minute breaks in the middle.

No office hours, obviously.

But we also went an extra month into summer with no extra compensation.  Is that fair?  We have to jump into regular instruction full time August 17th, with one non-paid day to prepare (Fri, Aug.14th.).  This happened because pay period is 16th of every month until 15th of the following one.
 

If you want IB (PYP/MYP/IBDP), AP, A Levels (British system), your son or daughter can now take classes anywhere in the world.  Of course, the 12-13 hour time difference is the biggest obstacle.   We had teachers stuck in North Carolina, UK, France, Thailand, Panama and Australia all adhering to online schedules in China in order to keep getting paid.  If you couldn’t do that, your salary was cut to 1/3rd then you were let go in June/July.

Edited July 17, 2020 by caulfield12

[Soxbadger]

7 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

We taught fewer actual hours, but do I then have the right to ask for more teaching 70-100 students at one time online?

I had 332 students, previously about 1/3rd of that when in school.

Same amount of grading and homework expected for three times as many students, but 50% of the actual teaching time.   Previously, 16 hours per week, cut down to 8 (on a US teaching schedule, it would be considered 20 and 10 hours.).  Every single student had at least 3-4 full 90 minute classes per day, with ten minute breaks in the middle.

No office hours, obviously.

But we also went an extra month into summer with no extra compensation.  Is that fair?  We have to jump into regular instruction full time August 17th, with one non-paid day to prepare (Fri, Aug.14th.).  This happened because pay period is 16th of every month until 15th of the following one.
 

If you want IB (PYP/MYP/IBDP), AP, A Levels (British system), your son or daughter can now take classes anywhere in the world.  Of course, the 12-13 hour time difference is the biggest obstacle.   We had teachers stuck in North Carolina, UK, France, Thailand, Panama and Australia all adhering to online schedules in China in order to keep getting paid.  If you couldn’t do that, your salary was cut to 1/3rd then you were let go in June/July.

If youre doing more work sure you should be able to ask for better pay.

But the example I was using is where the teacher is providing 1 20 minute group reading session per week. Other than that they are providing links to websites and asking children to do assignments on ESpark and IXL. They are not grading any work as they explicitly asked that none of the work be turned. They are not responding to emails for days/weeks. 

Every situation is different, but the only one Im talking about is CPS. I posted the CPS plan and compared it to what CPS was providing last year. As I mentioned, my child goes to a magnate school which has much more funding than a regular CPS school. They have an ipad for every student and the students were able to take them home.