K-12 Schools & COVID

[GB Warrior]

What about the schools that don’t have high community spread?  The communities that have recently decided to open up in door dining etc because community spread is no longer a concern, what are your thoughts with regarding those communities?

Ahhh now it’s science based public policy, not just follow the science.  In this case the stakeholders of parents have no say?  So just the stakeholders with deep pockets and political influence (ie teacher unions) can help determine what the CDC guidelines should be.

Does the science not say teachers, kids, etc are at higher risk of infection when out in the community and not in school?

I'd like you to find a place in the country where community spread is no longer a concern. Quite literally one city in which the spread is so tightly controlled that every case is immediate traced and attributed. Any location opening restaurants is either A) ignoring the science or B) making science-informed cases about how best to do so. This is otherwise referred to as a cost/benefit analysis, a risk/reward analysis or (Gasp) science-based public policy.

This will be shocking to you, but we live in a society. In that society, what is best policy may not be practical due to other constraints. Conversely, "follow the science" would mean you lock your doors and never ever leave. There is a balance between them, and unlike the previous administration, the approach is not to simply throw all of the doors of schools and businesses wide open and hope for the best. There are trade-offs everywhere, and informed policy makers try like hell to thread that needle.

I will say that in our school district, we have been too strict and really not made any concerted effort to get back to any inperson classes. I have a three-year-old that we badly wanted in 3K this year, and we even tried to do it remote (hahahaha). It IS frustrating to see the school still closed. Meanwhile, our daycare has proven through only 3 cases since re-opening over the summer that it is possible for toddlers (and adults with the same emotional maturity) and kids to mask all day and control the spread and keep teachers and communities safe.

Bottom line is that reasonable people will fall on both sides of this.

[Warrior2008]

Hate feeding the board troll. But.

The science says that opening schools, particularly with high community spread places teachers and staff at significantly elevated risk for acquiring COVID and possibly death. That is what the science says.

Now, the secondary aspect of the CDC is the public policy side. That is required to take into consideration the effect of science-based decisions on stake holders. That is precisely what they did, and came to compromise decisions.

The Trump administration said F the teachers, let them get sick and die, parents want their kids in school...period. That's not how science-based public policy is decided. Science-based public policy takes into consideration all stakeholders.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004e3.htm

Is that your opinion or is there science behind it? I ask because the CDC’s own study precisely says that teachers and students are at a lower risk than the general community, even at times of high community spread. Is there still risk? Of course, but opening schools with the proper precautions(mandatory masking, cohorting, etc) can work if done correctly.

Everyone should want teachers vaccinated ASAP and to feel safe in their work environments, I certainly do. But it’s not correct to say that they are at any greater risk than the general community if the proper precautions are taken.

[forgetful]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004e3.htm

Is that your opinion or is there science behind it? I ask because the CDC’s own study precisely says that teachers and students are at a lower risk than the general community, even at times of high community spread. Is there still risk? Of course, but opening schools with the proper precautions(mandatory masking, cohorting, etc) can work if done correctly.

Everyone should want teachers vaccinated ASAP and to feel safe in their work environments, I certainly do. But it’s not correct to say that they are at any greater risk than the general community if the proper precautions are taken.

The CDC report was wrong. They were guilty of cherry-picking data. This article goes into both the reasons they came to that conclusion, and how a proper examination of all available data shows significantly enhanced risk.

https://medium.com/swlh/examining-the-data-on-in-person-schooling-and-covid-19-rates-for-teachers-and-school-staff-b8303726ca04

[pacearrow02]

I'd like you to find a place in the country where community spread is no longer a concern. Quite literally one city in which the spread is so tightly controlled that every case is immediate traced and attributed. Any location opening restaurants is either A) ignoring the science or B) making science-informed cases about how best to do so. This is otherwise referred to as a cost/benefit analysis, a risk/reward analysis or (Gasp) science-based public policy.

This will be shocking to you, but we live in a society. In that society, what is best policy may not be practical due to other constraints. Conversely, "follow the science" would mean you lock your doors and never ever leave. There is a balance between them, and unlike the previous administration, the approach is not to simply throw all of the doors of schools and businesses wide open and hope for the best. There are trade-offs everywhere, and informed policy makers try like hell to thread that needle.

I will say that in our school district, we have been too strict and really not made any concerted effort to get back to any inperson classes. I have a three-year-old that we badly wanted in 3K this year, and we even tried to do it remote (hahahaha). It IS frustrating to see the school still closed. Meanwhile, our daycare has proven through only 3 cases since re-opening over the summer that it is possible for toddlers (and adults with the same emotional maturity) and kids to mask all day and control the spread and keep teachers and communities safe.

Bottom line is that reasonable people will fall on both sides of this.

Agree 100% with this response, thanks for the candor.  This risk/benefit analysis should be afforded to everyone.  For over a year businesses across the country have not been allowed to make that decision.  Parents for over a year in many communities have not been able to make that decision.  The hypocrisy and inconsistency in policy is what gets me frustrated.

[pacearrow02]

The CDC report was wrong. They were guilty of cherry-picking data. This article goes into both the reasons they came to that conclusion, and how a proper examination of all available data shows significantly enhanced risk.

https://medium.com/swlh/examining-the-data-on-in-person-schooling-and-covid-19-rates-for-teachers-and-school-staff-b8303726ca04

Haha, classic.

[Warrior2008]

The CDC report was wrong. They were guilty of cherry-picking data. This article goes into both the reasons they came to that conclusion, and how a proper examination of all available data shows significantly enhanced risk.

https://medium.com/swlh/examining-the-data-on-in-person-schooling-and-covid-19-rates-for-teachers-and-school-staff-b8303726ca04

With respect, the author of that article admits a bias within the first two paragraphs of the article, not exactly very scientific.  That said, this article does not address the CDC study I listed above which was done in Wisconsin by the CDC and not in New York or Texas by some group called the Rockefeller Foundation.

[forgetful]

With respect, the author of that article admits a bias within the first two paragraphs of the article, not exactly very scientific.  That said, this article does not address the CDC study I listed above which was done in Wisconsin by the CDC and not in New York or Texas by some group called the Rockefeller Foundation.

Actually, admitting he has connections to a school teacher, is scientific. That is a disclosure consistent with good science.

The data, though, is the key. The data doesn't lie, he presents both the original CDC/Rockefeller data, and the complete data sets it was taken from. His data is very clear, and as far as one can rely on statistics, scientific.

It also does an important thing, that the one you linked (sorry I thought it was the widespread CDC/Rockefeller one; that's 100% on me for assuming) does not (a fatal flaw in their study). They compare COVID incidence rate between educators/staff and the general public, which clearly shows enhanced risk in teachers that coincides with the expected increase in asymptomatic cases in young children.

The study you linked, claims 0 cases in staff that was **confirmed to be due to spread in schools.

They automatically assume that if everyone is masked, and are not in close contact for over 15 minutes, then there was no spread. Further, it relies on known and confirmed cases of kids in school, meaning there is zero possibility of asymptomatic spread, which is the predominant route of spread from kids. It is an extremely unscientific study, as their are known and obvious flaws that they neither address or acknowledge.

I'll add one additional caveat for why the risk to teachers may be even higher. The study I linked assumed external risk factors are the same. My hypothesis is that assumption is invalid, and that teachers are generally more risk averse (meaning no social gathering, eating out, etc) than the general public. That hypothesis would need to be tested by examining behavior outside of school across the teacher/staff population.

[Warrior2008]

Actually, admitting he has connections to a school teacher, is scientific. That is a disclosure consistent with good science.

The data, though, is the key. The data doesn't lie, he presents both the original CDC/Rockefeller data, and the complete data sets it was taken from. His data is very clear, and as far as one can rely on statistics, scientific.

It also does an important thing, that the one you linked (sorry I thought it was the widespread CDC/Rockefeller one; that's 100% on me for assuming) does not (a fatal flaw in their study). They compare COVID incidence rate between educators/staff and the general public, which clearly shows enhanced risk in teachers that coincides with the expected increase in asymptomatic cases in young children.

The study you linked, claims 0 cases in staff that was **confirmed to be due to spread in schools.

They automatically assume that if everyone is masked, and are not in close contact for over 15 minutes, then there was no spread. Further, it relies on known and confirmed cases of kids in school, meaning there is zero possibility of asymptomatic spread, which is the predominant route of spread from kids. It is an extremely unscientific study, as their are known and obvious flaws that they neither address or acknowledge.

I'll add one additional caveat for why the risk to teachers may be even higher. The study I linked assumed external risk factors are the same. My hypothesis is that assumption is invalid, and that teachers are generally more risk averse (meaning no social gathering, eating out, etc) than the general public. That hypothesis would need to be tested by examining behavior outside of school across the teacher/staff population.

The article you posted is a secondary statistical analysis of data that assumes that every case of covid had to be acquired at school.  And since you believe that teachers are naturally risk averse, you believe that teachers must have acquired it at school.  That is fine and good, but without contact tracing its nothing more than opinion and should not be used to drive public policy.

As for the study I posted, it followed and contact traced known positive cases for a prolonged period of time during heavy community transmission. Is it possible that there was some asymptomatic spread from
Children? Yes of course, but as the study points to, asymptotic spread has a lower attack rate with shared households than previously thought and people in those settings are highly unlikely to be masked whereas kids in school are. Also some seroprevalence testing of school aged children in Europe shows kids with covid ABs are at the same or lower levels than the general population.  So with that said, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of teacher and staff cases came from outside sources. Can you anyone say for sure though, not really.

Again this isn’t to say there isn’t some risk to in person learning, there absolutely is but it’s not any riskier than what is considered responsible behavior during covid.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Children need to be in school.  Even if it is part time.  The 100% remote option isn't good for most children or parents.

[forgetful]

The article you posted is a secondary statistical analysis of data that assumes that every case of covid had to be acquired at school.  And since you believe that teachers are naturally risk averse, you believe that teachers must have acquired it at school.  That is fine and good, but without contact tracing its nothing more than opinion and should not be used to drive public policy.

As for the study I posted, it followed and contact traced known positive cases for a prolonged period of time during heavy community transmission. Is it possible that there was some asymptomatic spread from
Children? Yes of course, but as the study points to, asymptotic spread has a lower attack rate with shared households than previously thought and people in those settings are highly unlikely to be masked whereas kids in school are. Also some seroprevalence testing of school aged children in Europe shows kids with covid ABs are at the same or lower levels than the general population.  So with that said, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of teacher and staff cases came from outside sources. Can you anyone say for sure though, not really.

Again this isn’t to say there isn’t some risk to in person learning, there absolutely is but it’s not any riskier than what is considered responsible behavior during covid.

The article I posted does not do as you suggest. Rather, it assumes that teachers/staff are roughly equivalent in behavior as the rest of the population in their communities. So, any difference in COVID-19 cases is most likely attributed to differences in exposure at work.

Doing so clearly shows that teachers experience elevated rates of COVID-19 than the rest of the community. That elevated risk is enhanced with high-community spread.

That is how all risk analyses are done, and how they establish relative COVID-19 risk for different subgroups, and different professions, because it is the most accurate way to establish relative risk factors.

The CDC report you cite, abandoned the traditional analysis, and traditional approach. The question one should ask is why? The answer is fairly simple...it didn't yield the outcome that they desired.

[pacearrow02]

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2021/2/15/22280763/kids-covid-vaccine-teachers-unions-schools-reopening-cdc?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true

When Vox is publishing pieces supporting the reopening of schools you know you’re losing the battle.

[MU82]

NC legislature just passed a bill mandating in-person school.

It is not known if the governor will veto it, although it passed with bipartisan support and they could override the veto if he does.

What enabled it to pass was the resolution of a detail worked out over the weekend, adding that local school districts will create plans to address alternative work assignments for teachers at high risk for COVID-19, and give the same options for those who are caretakers of children at higher risk.

It seems pretty fair, given everything.

[pacearrow02]

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/thousands-students-reported-missing-school-systems-nationwide-amid/story?id=76063922&__twitter_impression=true

An absolute travesty, how we continue to largely turn a blind eye to this is beyond me.  Title says thousands but in the article it says up to 3 million kids are now “unaccounted” for in the school system, what a mess.

[mu_hilltopper]

Tangentially .. I'm WFH so see what my kids do w/virtual school.  I audited their schedules a while ago and asked them to honestly describe the amount of time they spend on each class, the zoom call, the video, the work to be done, etc.

Totaling it up got me to 21 hours per week, versus 32 in a regular year.  That's just a gigantic loss of educational time over ~7 months.

When we had a snow day and the school did *not* just flip to virtual that day, I was ticked off, but on the other hand, the loss of time was already the equivalent of 65 snow days that year .. what's a 66th?

[lostpassword]

Tangentially .. I'm WFH so see what my kids do w/virtual school.  I audited their schedules a while ago and asked them to honestly describe the amount of time they spend on each class, the zoom call, the video, the work to be done, etc.

Totaling it up got me to 21 hours per week, versus 32 in a regular year.  That's just a gigantic loss of educational time over ~7 months.

When we had a snow day and the school did *not* just flip to virtual that day, I was ticked off, but on the other hand, the loss of time was already the equivalent of 65 snow days that year .. what's a 66th?

i don't have kids myself nor do I understand the dynamics of what it would take to implement, but I've been semi-joking/semi-serious with my siblings (who all do have kids) that there needs to be a "COVID catchup year" option for parents who think their children need to repeat a grade.  No questions asked.  Open it up for this year... or next year if they aren't able to succeed at the next level.  Throw some stimulous at the school system to absorb the extra class sizes and give teachers more leniency in making the call as well.  I don't see how we can pretend that the past 12 months as anywhere near normal in terms of educational gains.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

My younger daughter goes back to high school full time in person on March 29.  No more hybrid.
Masks required and social distancing still in effect.

[forgetful]

My younger daughter goes back to high school full time in person on March 29.  No more hybrid.
Masks required and social distancing still in effect.

At the high school level, and in Connecticut (where I think they are now vaccinating teachers), this is a good thing, if they can require masks and have low enough class totals to maintain social distancing.

The latter two are key. The majority of schools in this country cannot maintain social distancing requirements, and refuse to hire more staff to do so. So they cannot meet the requirements that demonstrate safe-reopening.

Then you have the TX announcement, where they can neither maintain proper social distancing due to class loads, and also now will not require masks.

A total clash of situations. Opening schools can be achieved safely, Connecticut is following sound logic and guidance and getting the kids back in school. TX is saying essentially, that teachers need to "shut up and teach...(and die)".

[Marquette Fan]

Thankfully our District has said they will require masks whether there is a state mask mandate or not (and I never know how long the Wisconsin one will remain in place).  There's not enough social distancing that can happen so they really need to be wearing masks in the schools right now.

Teacher vaccinations are supposed to be starting up this week but teachers have had appointments canceled even though they're technically eligible and are scrambling to find an appointment elsewhere.  I wish our District did what New Berlin did - they secured the vaccine for all their teachers and are having a virtual day on Tuesday for the kids so all their staff can get their first shot.  Our District left it up to the teachers to do on their own and it's been a big mess.

[pacearrow02]

At the high school level, and in Connecticut (where I think they are now vaccinating teachers), this is a good thing, if they can require masks and have low enough class totals to maintain social distancing.

The latter two are key. The majority of schools in this country cannot maintain social distancing requirements, and refuse to hire more staff to do so. So they cannot meet the requirements that demonstrate safe-reopening.

Then you have the TX announcement, where they can neither maintain proper social distancing due to class loads, and also now will not require masks.

A total clash of situations. Opening schools can be achieved safely, Connecticut is following sound logic and guidance and getting the kids back in school. TX is saying essentially, that teachers need to "shut up and teach...(and die)".

Wow you’re real mad at Texas.  Why not that same anger at MS?  He also encouraged people to wear masks if they’d like, stay at home if you’d like blah blah. 

You’re acting like he’s individually going around ripping masks off and spitting in their faces with your over the top response to these decisions.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

At the high school level, and in Connecticut (where I think they are now vaccinating teachers), this is a good thing, if they can require masks and have low enough class totals to maintain social distancing.

The latter two are key. The majority of schools in this country cannot maintain social distancing requirements, and refuse to hire more staff to do so. So they cannot meet the requirements that demonstrate safe-reopening.

Then you have the TX announcement, where they can neither maintain proper social distancing due to class loads, and also now will not require masks.

A total clash of situations. Opening schools can be achieved safely, Connecticut is following sound logic and guidance and getting the kids back in school. TX is saying essentially, that teachers need to "shut up and teach...(and die)".

My wife, a teacher in Connecticut, gets her first vaccine shot today.

[pacearrow02]

My wife, a teacher in Connecticut, gets her first vaccine shot today.

👏👏 CT is doing a helluva a job in their vaccination rollout from what I’ve read.  Your gov needs to get on the horn and call Cuomo to share some helpful tips.

[forgetful]

Wow you’re real mad at Texas.  Why not that same anger at MS?  He also encouraged people to wear masks if they’d like, stay at home if you’d like blah blah. 

You’re acting like he’s individually going around ripping masks off and spitting in their faces with your over the top response to these decisions.

I hadn't seen the MS news, Texas because of it's size, and because people posted about it on here,  has dominated story lines. The same applies for the Governor of MS.

The anger is because from a health, scientific, and economic point of view, the decisions are moronic. The decisions will kill people. I tend to have a problem with politicians that make decisions, that will kill people. There was no reason from a legal standpoint that this was done, so it was completely for political gain. I'm sorry that you are ok with that, it says a lot about your character.

Further, now people with health issues that can't get vaccinated, have no choice but to stay home, and completely leave the economy. They can't have even a modicum of security, by others having to wear a mask to protect them, at no cost to anyone, and a benefit to all.

[pacearrow02]

I hadn't seen the MS news, Texas because of it's size, and because people posted about it on here,  has dominated story lines. The same applies for the Governor of MS.

The anger is because from a health, scientific, and economic point of view, the decisions are moronic. The decisions will kill people. I tend to have a problem with politicians that make decisions, that will kill people. There was no reason from a legal standpoint that this was done, so it was completely for political gain. I'm sorry that you are ok with that, it says a lot about your character.

Further, now people with health issues that can't get vaccinated, have no choice but to stay home, and completely leave the economy. They can't have even a modicum of security, by others having to wear a mask to protect them, at no cost to anyone, and a benefit to all.

That’s a fair point to make and I’d take your argument a lot more serious if it was consistent.  I’m old enough to remember when you were defending cuomos nursing home policy and shifting blame to cdc policy. 

Texas death rate per capital remains one of the best in the country.  Abbot should be applauded for the job he’s done down there in protecting life.  If in 8-10 weeks there is a drastic change in their trend line then he should be held accountable. 

[mu_hilltopper]

.. there needs to be a "COVID catchup year" option for parents who think their children need to repeat a grade.

On the other hand .. Interestingly, my middle school .. at the beginning of the year, they realized they needed to condense the year's learning, there's less instructional time, they need to chop out some material, right?

Turns out, their math classes had a "Compressed" level already for kids who could handle a faster pace.  (Basically, math for smart kids.)

This year, they threw everyone into the compressed class.  Guess what?  They all survived and did well enough that going forward, they realized they should put ALL kids in the compressed class and got rid of the basic level class.

What does this mean?  It means in the past, their students could handle more at a faster pace, and it was a matter of routine to have wasted potential.

So .. a make-up COVID year?  Nah.  Keep 'em moving.  They'll adjust. 

The finer-tipped comment is .. the upper half of students will be roughly fine.  The next quarter will take a step back.  The bottom quarter will still be the bottom quarter.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

👏👏 CT is doing a helluva a job in their vaccination rollout from what I’ve read.  Your gov needs to get on the horn and call Cuomo to share some helpful tips.

He's actually known Cuomo a long time and speaks with him regularly.