Data from K-12 schools that reopened for in-person instruction in the fall show little evidence that schools contributed meaningfully to the spread of COVID-19, according to a new article published Tuesday in JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association.
The overview from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, authored by three of its scientists, represents the clearest view yet of the facts behind what has become a heated debate over when and how schools should reopen.
Meanwhile, evidence mounts of the social, emotional and academic toll remote learning has taken on children, especially in already vulnerable, low-income communities.
So...follow the fucking science or keep kowtowing to powerful teacher's unions who don't give a shit about the children?
The Biden admin is sticking with the latter, it would seem:
President Biden has pledged to help the majority of schools reopen within his first 100 days. His administration has proposed sending $130 billion in relief to K-12 schools to help pay for the kinds of costly mitigation efforts the CDC recommends, including socially distanced classrooms and ventilation updates for aging buildings.
Newsflash: in one hundred days, the school year will be practically over, most of the damage (to the kids) has already been done, and any chance to mitigate even some of it is disappearing rapidly.
Also, the schools don't need $130 billion to reopen safely. We know this because of the schools that have already reopened safely without help from the federal government.
Lol. Because no one else has been required to go back to work, certainly not postal workers, sanitation workers, and police officers, not to mention private sectors workers at grocery stores, drugstores, and so on.
It's about whether or not kids return to school AND the renaming project of the San Fran school board that I brought up here.
One day after that seven-hour discussion and vote to defrock Lincoln and 43 other namesakes — including George Washington, Paul Revere, and even “El Dorado” and “The Mission” — parents of public school children received an email from the district with the anodyne and innocuous subject line “Considerations & Preparing for In-Person Learning.”
Tucked away into the third paragraph of the email’s third section was this casual declaration: “it is unlikely that we’ll be able to offer most middle and high school students the opportunity for in-person learning this school year.”
But hey: How are you doing?
No, what’s more frustrating is that the renaming process, which could have been inclusive and illuminating and fostered a discussion about community values and representation — and led to a lot of growth and understanding and consensus — instead became an insular process, beset by ignorance and incompetence.
And yet, our Board of Education chose to ratify each and every finding from the renaming committee — even when historical errors and methodological recklessness was known.
This remarkably flawed process, combined with the relative expediency the district has demonstrated in moving to change some one-third of its school names, stands in stark contrast to the sclerotic nature of nearly every other SFUSD-related matter.
He goes on to rip the board for the renaming process, where it got its facts wrong and didn't even bother consulting an historian.
But I really like how he compares this flawed process that sucked up so much of the board's timer to the lack of consideration for students and the consequences of remote learning.
Every day when I take my daughter to school, I feel awful for all of the children in the country stuck in districts run by teachers' unions who don't give a shit about the damage being done to the kids.
The city attorney for San Francisco, with support from Mayor London Breed, is suing San Francisco Unified and its school board over prolonged campus closures, saying school leaders "have no meaningful plan" to reopen classrooms.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in San Francisco Superior Court against the school district, Superintendent Vincent Matthews and the San Francisco Board of Education, City Attorney Dennis Herrera alleges that school officials have wrongly resisted campus reopening despite public health advice that says it's safe.
The district had plans of reopening to younger students and to students with disabilities in January, but that plan was canceled because it could not reach an agreement with the United Educators of San Francisco.
Matthews pushed back on criticism from Breed and Herrera that the district does not have a serious reopening plan. The district does have a plan, he said, but the union sign-off is not there.
"To say that we do not have a plan is absolutely incorrect," Matthews said. "We have to agree with our labor partners around what a safe return looks like."
Wake up. Your "labor partners" don't give a shit about the kids or about helping you run the district. Fire them all and start over.
On Tuesday night, San Francisco's Board of Education voted to end the merit-based admission at Lowell, a top academic high school.
The issue has been an emotional lightning rod within the district, Lowell's alumni community, residents of San Francisco, the Bay Area, and beyond. Because of the controversy and Lowell's status as a top ranked public school, it has made national news.
According to California's School Dashboard, about 50% of the students at Lowell are Asian, 18% are white, 12% are Latino, and 2% are African American.
They'll either have to dumb down their curriculum and make it less rigorous, or a lot of the new kids who aren't at the same level as the kids who actually had to pass the merit tests will fail out quickly. Either way, their status as an elite school will tank.
Biden used school closures as cudgel in the campaign, argued that the Trump admin was failing in this regard and had no plan, said he had one (for the record, I don't think the Feds should have much say here), and this is what we get??!?
President Joe Biden is being accused of backpedaling on his pledge to reopen the nation’s schools after the White House added fine print to his promise and made clear that a full reopening is still far from sight.
Biden’s initial pledge in December was to reopen “the majority of our schools” in his first 100 days in office. In January he specified that the goal applied only to schools that teach through eighth grade. And this week the White House said that schools will be considered opened as long as they teach in-person at least one day a week.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki defended the goal Wednesday, calling it part of a “bold ambitious agenda.” But she also said it’s a bar the administration hopes to exceed.
Having schools "open" one day a week would be essentially pointless. If it's too risky to open schools, opening them for just one day doesn't really limit risk significantly, so what's the point? And I can't believe that the teahers' unions fighting reopenings would go along with such a stupid plan, though maybe they will, since they don't give a shit about anything other than politics...
This is actually a simple survey, it would seem and here are its three key points:
KEY FINDING 1: Students, especially females and students of color, continue to experience high levels of stress and pressure. KEY FINDING 2: Students’ engagement with learning, which is always a challenge, is especially low now. KEY FINDING 3: Students’ relationships with adults and peers are strong, yet appear strained in recent times.
Also, this is a survey of high school kids. I'd put money down that at secondary and elementary levels, all of this is much, much worse.