Reopen K-12

[lex24]

Interesting discussion.  But one question- how long.  The simple point I’ll make is we can’t keep schools closed indefinitely.  So when?  Even when there is a vaccine, there will be some people getting Covid.  

Scandinavian countries are generally small, cradle to grave quasi socialist governments and culturally, ethnically and racially relatively homogeneous.  To use them as a comparison for anything, including Covid, is to me a non-starter.

Schools reopening is, at some point, going to be a social justice issue.  To me it already is. London Breed made that point the other day, blasting the SF school board for wasting its time on that major issue- renaming  schools - pushing the board to ready plans for reopening (indicating that many private schools already have) and talking about the devastating impact this is having educationally on the economically disadvantaged.

There was a poll I heard recently of parents and virtual school. Around 75% said it’s not going well. 80% talked about how difficult it is to keep their kids focused. Are you surprised. As we continue down this road the educational gap will widen. The impact will be devastating.

People are going to continue to get this and some will die. The overwhelming majority will be over 65 - and most of those over 75. With comorbidities. Awful. No question. But we simply cannot ignore what this is doing to our kids. Nor can we indefinitely place burdens upon them.

[JustAnotherFan]

Interesting discussion.  But one question- how long.  The simple point I’ll make is we can’t keep schools closed indefinitely.  So when?  Even when there is a vaccine, there will be some people getting Covid.  

Scandinavian countries are generally small, cradle to grave quasi socialist governments and culturally, ethnically and racially relatively homogeneous.  To use them as a comparison for anything, including Covid, is to me a non-starter.

Schools reopening is, at some point, going to be a social justice issue.  To me it already is.  London Breed made that point the other day, blasting the SF school board for wasting its time on that major issue- renaming  schools - pushing the board to ready plans for reopening (indicating that many private schools already have) and talking about the devastating impact this is having educationally on the economically disadvantaged.

There was a poll I heard recently of parents and virtual school.  Around 75% said it’s not going well.  80% talked about how difficult it is to keep their kids focused.  Are you surprised.  As we continue down this road the educational gap will widen. The impact will be devastating.

People are going to continue to get this and some will die.  The overwhelming majority will be over 65 - and most of those over 75.  With comorbidities.  Awful.  No question.  But we simply cannot ignore what this is doing to our kids.  Nor can we indefinitely place burdens upon them.

People tend to grossly overvalue the benefit of schooling to children. Especially poor, Black, and brown children. 

The primary impetus for fully reopening the schools is to give working families back their state sponsored childcare.

[OutsiderFan]

The problem I see is what is always the case.  You have a large population of people who are being extra cautious and a large population who are being careless.  The extra cautious ones -  let's say they include people like Dr. Cody - might be willing to back off some restrictions if the careless crowd meets them half-way, but they won't move off their petulance even a little bit. 

She might say, OK, if y'all who want to drop restrictions agree to these guidelines, we'll drop most of them and open schools, as long as you agree to mandatory mask wearing and keeping bars closed. The petulant class will say no and not even meet her half-way. This is what stands in the way of progress, the inability of some people to compromise on anything with others who hold different views.

[lex24]

The problem I see is what is always the case.  You have a large population of people who are being extra cautious and a large population who are being careless.  The extra cautious ones -  let's say they include people like Dr. Cody - might be willing to back off some restrictions if the careless crowd meets them half-way, but they won't move off their petulance even a little bit. 

She might say, OK, if y'all who want to drop restrictions agree to these guidelines, we'll drop most of them and open schools, as long as you agree to mandatory mask wearing and keeping bars closed. The petulant class will say no and not even meet her half-way. This is what stands in the way of progress, the inability of some people to compromise on anything with others who hold different views.

Blaming all this on the “careless crowd” is convienent.  But simplistic.  How big, for example, is the “careless crowd” in the Bay Area counties? And why is the Hispanic infection rate in Ca so high. Careless? Please....
You make decisions based upon the realities -  not based upon how you want things to be. Playing the blame game and wishing things were different is not a policy. (Masks are mandatory in Ca - and bars have for months been and in many counties still are, closed)

[lex24]

Interesting discussion.  But one question- how long.  The simple point I’ll make is we can’t keep schools closed indefinitely.  So when?  Even when there is a vaccine, there will be some people getting Covid.  

Scandinavian countries are generally small, cradle to grave quasi socialist governments and culturally, ethnically and racially relatively homogeneous.  To use them as a comparison for anything, including Covid, is to me a non-starter.

Schools reopening is, at some point, going to be a social justice issue.  To me it already is.  London Breed made that point the other day, blasting the SF school board for wasting its time on that major issue- renaming  schools - pushing the board to ready plans for reopening (indicating that many private schools already have) and talking about the devastating impact this is having educationally on the economically disadvantaged.

There was a poll I heard recently of parents and virtual school.  Around 75% said it’s not going well.  80% talked about how difficult it is to keep their kids focused.  Are you surprised.  As we continue down this road the educational gap will widen. The impact will be devastating.

People are going to continue to get this and some will die.  The overwhelming majority will be over 65 - and most of those over 75.  With comorbidities.  Awful.  No question.  But we simply cannot ignore what this is doing to our kids.  Nor can we indefinitely place burdens upon them.

People tend to grossly overvalue the benefit of schooling to children. Especially poor, Black, and brown children. 

The primary impetus for fully reopening the schools is to give working families back their state sponsored childcare.

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic.  If not, I’m speechless.

[JustAnotherFan]

Interesting discussion.  But one question- how long.  The simple point I’ll make is we can’t keep schools closed indefinitely.  So when?  Even when there is a vaccine, there will be some people getting Covid.  

Scandinavian countries are generally small, cradle to grave quasi socialist governments and culturally, ethnically and racially relatively homogeneous.  To use them as a comparison for anything, including Covid, is to me a non-starter.

Schools reopening is, at some point, going to be a social justice issue.  To me it already is.  London Breed made that point the other day, blasting the SF school board for wasting its time on that major issue- renaming  schools - pushing the board to ready plans for reopening (indicating that many private schools already have) and talking about the devastating impact this is having educationally on the economically disadvantaged.

There was a poll I heard recently of parents and virtual school.  Around 75% said it’s not going well.  80% talked about how difficult it is to keep their kids focused.  Are you surprised.  As we continue down this road the educational gap will widen. The impact will be devastating.

People are going to continue to get this and some will die.  The overwhelming majority will be over 65 - and most of those over 75.  With comorbidities.  Awful.  No question.  But we simply cannot ignore what this is doing to our kids.  Nor can we indefinitely place burdens upon them.

People tend to grossly overvalue the benefit of schooling to children. Especially poor, Black, and brown children. 

The primary impetus for fully reopening the schools is to give working families back their state sponsored childcare.

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic.  If not, I’m speechless.

I'm so serious that I refuse to overlook the scores of millions of Black and brown children who have been harmed by conventional schooling in America.

[lex24]

Interesting discussion.  But one question- how long.  The simple point I’ll make is we can’t keep schools closed indefinitely.  So when?  Even when there is a vaccine, there will be some people getting Covid.  

Scandinavian countries are generally small, cradle to grave quasi socialist governments and culturally, ethnically and racially relatively homogeneous.  To use them as a comparison for anything, including Covid, is to me a non-starter.

Schools reopening is, at some point, going to be a social justice issue.  To me it already is.  London Breed made that point the other day, blasting the SF school board for wasting its time on that major issue- renaming  schools - pushing the board to ready plans for reopening (indicating that many private schools already have) and talking about the devastating impact this is having educationally on the economically disadvantaged.

There was a poll I heard recently of parents and virtual school.  Around 75% said it’s not going well.  80% talked about how difficult it is to keep their kids focused.  Are you surprised.  As we continue down this road the educational gap will widen. The impact will be devastating.

People are going to continue to get this and some will die.  The overwhelming majority will be over 65 - and most of those over 75.  With comorbidities.  Awful.  No question.  But we simply cannot ignore what this is doing to our kids.  Nor can we indefinitely place burdens upon them.

People tend to grossly overvalue the benefit of schooling to children. Especially poor, Black, and brown children. 

The primary impetus for fully reopening the schools is to give working families back their state sponsored childcare.

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic.  If not, I’m speechless.

I'm so serious that I refuse to overlook the scores of millions of Black and brown children who have been harmed by conventional schooling in America.

 I’d be interested in hearing your ideas for fixing the problem with”conventional” schools and black and brown kids. We actually may find some common ground - improving schools (and scholastic options) in economically depressed areas is needed.  On that I think we may actually agree.  But I truly don’t think staying home is the better of the two current options.

[JustAnotherFan]

Interesting discussion.  But one question- how long.  The simple point I’ll make is we can’t keep schools closed indefinitely.  So when?  Even when there is a vaccine, there will be some people getting Covid.  

Scandinavian countries are generally small, cradle to grave quasi socialist governments and culturally, ethnically and racially relatively homogeneous.  To use them as a comparison for anything, including Covid, is to me a non-starter.

Schools reopening is, at some point, going to be a social justice issue.  To me it already is.  London Breed made that point the other day, blasting the SF school board for wasting its time on that major issue- renaming  schools - pushing the board to ready plans for reopening (indicating that many private schools already have) and talking about the devastating impact this is having educationally on the economically disadvantaged.

There was a poll I heard recently of parents and virtual school.  Around 75% said it’s not going well.  80% talked about how difficult it is to keep their kids focused.  Are you surprised.  As we continue down this road the educational gap will widen. The impact will be devastating.

People are going to continue to get this and some will die.  The overwhelming majority will be over 65 - and most of those over 75.  With comorbidities.  Awful.  No question.  But we simply cannot ignore what this is doing to our kids.  Nor can we indefinitely place burdens upon them.

People tend to grossly overvalue the benefit of schooling to children. Especially poor, Black, and brown children. 

The primary impetus for fully reopening the schools is to give working families back their state sponsored childcare.

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic.  If not, I’m speechless.

I'm so serious that I refuse to overlook the scores of millions of Black and brown children who have been harmed by conventional schooling in America.

 I’d be interested in hearing your ideas for fixing the problem with”conventional” schools and black and brown kids. We actually may find some common ground - improving schools (and scholastic options) in economically depressed areas is needed.  On that I think we may actually agree.  But I truly don’t think staying home is the better of the two current options.

I'm not so sure we would agree on much regarding improving school. Some problems cannot be fixed within a system that was created to perpetuate inequities.

I don't think that we should conflate the question of what is better (remote or in-person) from the perspective of people who think conventional schooling helps kids, with what is better for public health in a pandemic, and with what is best for businesses that need workers. If we are talking exclusively about the health and welfare of the children, we should not discount all of the children who are benefiting from not being subjected to the harm of schooling right now.

[BostonCard]

Interesting discussion.  But one question- how long.  The simple point I’ll make is we can’t keep schools closed indefinitely.  So when?  Even when there is a vaccine, there will be some people getting Covid.  

At the latest, once a vaccine with adequate protection is available for teachers.

I’d be interested in hearing your ideas for fixing the problem with”conventional” schools and black and brown kids. We actually may find some common ground - improving schools (and scholastic options) in economically depressed areas is needed.  On that I think we may actually agree.  But I truly don’t think staying home is the better of the two current options.

Me too.  Schools routinely fail disadvantaged populations and especially racial/ethnic minorities.  However, I have seen no data to suggest that no school is worse for them than the flawed schools we have.  Again, it is a bit hard to disentangle the difference between suggesting that schools should stay distance learning because of COVID and saying that schools are stacked against black and brown kids, but the leap to "no school would be better" is surprising, so I'd like to hear the entirety of brevin's thoughts before jumping in.

BC

[akiddoc]

People tend to grossly overvalue the benefit of schooling to children. Especially poor, Black, and brown children. 

The primary impetus for fully reopening the schools is to give working families back their state sponsored childcare.

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic.  If not, I’m speechless.

I'm so serious that I refuse to overlook the scores of millions of Black and brown children who have been harmed by conventional schooling in America.

 I’d be interested in hearing your ideas for fixing the problem with”conventional” schools and black and brown kids. We actually may find some common ground - improving schools (and scholastic options) in economically depressed areas is needed.  On that I think we may actually agree.  But I truly don’t think staying home is the better of the two current options.

I'm not so sure we would agree on much regarding improving school. Some problems cannot be fixed within a system that was created to perpetuate inequities.

I don't think that we should conflate the question of what is better (remote or in-person) from the perspective of people who think conventional schooling helps kids, with what is better for public health in a pandemic, and with what is best for businesses that need workers. If we are talking exclusively about the health and welfare of the children, we should not discount all of the children who are benefiting from not being subjected to the harm of schooling right now.

I'm working in the poorest neighborhood in the Bay Area. All of the kids are now in online school. Most of the parents are close to illiterate. They cannot help their kids learn in these circumstances, and many do not bother having their kids attend class. For the poorest families, having their children go to school is the only hope for a future decent life. Your ideas about school are naive and ill informed. The problems these kids have in getting a good education are so complex that any issues with public schools probably account for 10% of the problem. They are malnourished, their parents are grossly under educated, the families are destitute, they don't always have housing, and they have medical problems that are the result of abject poverty. The public schools are the only place where they eat fruits or vegetables, the only place where an adult is in their life who understands what they will need to do to survive in our culture, and the only place they go where they feel safe. 

That being said, kids are resilient, and missing one year of school won't doom most of them. Missing more than that would be a disaster.

[JustAnotherFan]

I’d be interested in hearing your ideas for fixing the problem with”conventional” schools and black and brown kids. We actually may find some common ground - improving schools (and scholastic options) in economically depressed areas is needed.  On that I think we may actually agree.  But I truly don’t think staying home is the better of the two current options.

Me too.  Schools routinely fail disadvantaged populations and especially racial/ethnic minorities.  However, I have seen no data to suggest that no school is worse for them than the flawed schools we have.  Again, it is a bit hard to disentangle the difference between suggesting that schools should stay distance learning because of COVID and saying that schools are stacked against black and brown kids, but the leap to "no school would be better" is surprising, so I'd like to hear the entirety of brevin's thoughts before jumping in.

BC

Who should the burden of proof be placed on? A system that systematically increases disparities between BIPOC and white kids, or poor and rich kids over 13 years, or those who point out the harm of the system? A system that dumps resources on affluent neighborhoods and puts cops in poor schools, or those who point out the harm of the system? 

But I stand by my "no school" is better than conventional, white supremacist, hierarchical schools that force kids to compete against each other in mostly meaningless academic games so that they can rise to the top, only to find out at the end of the race that rising to the top of a dropout factory means nothing compared to being middle of the pack at an affluent public or private school. 

The schools and their focus on competition and performance in ways that are not relevant to the lives or the futures of BIPOC and poor children reward those who can play a meaningless game and win. Who has time to play a meaningless, all consuming game for 13 years, a game that is already tilted toward affluent white (and Asian) kids? And Frank Smith highlights in The Book of Learning and Forgetting, the field of education (which I work in) was in part built around testing kids on meaningless tasks in order to determine intelligence and merit, because only meaningless tasks can be devoid of prior or cultural knowledge. It was also in part built by eugenicists and those advocating genocide, but that's a different story. 

Why do we waste 13 years of young people's lives to play stupid little games that do not benefit them in terms of actually development? Many reasons. One is that many many adults profit from the system. And those adults vote, and donate to political candidates. Two is that we tend to assume that the status quo is necessary. Three is that families fear opting out of a system, even a harmful system, because they often believe that the system is the only path for their child to advance in a hierarchical system that can only anoint winners by anointing many more losers. 

Children could, alternatively be allowed to unschool, or join Self-Directed Education communities where they are not forced to compete against each other. Where the default curriculum isn't centered on white supremacy. Where children do not have their time wasted, forcing them to lose sleep to perfect beating out others for grades, in subjects that are mostly meaningless and on lessons they will mostly forget. 

My argument against conventional schooling is not an argument against education, nor is it an argument against publicly funded education. It is an argument that when we stop convincing kids that they are failures, or deficient, or stupid; that they can then learn skills and ways of thinking that are actually adaptive for an uncertain future; and they can develop a sense of self efficacy that can inoculate them against a system that was always intended to give the greatest advantages to those who need them the least.

---

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic.  If not, I’m speechless.

I'm so serious that I refuse to overlook the scores of millions of Black and brown children who have been harmed by conventional schooling in America.

 I’d be interested in hearing your ideas for fixing the problem with”conventional” schools and black and brown kids. We actually may find some common ground - improving schools (and scholastic options) in economically depressed areas is needed.  On that I think we may actually agree.  But I truly don’t think staying home is the better of the two current options.

I'm not so sure we would agree on much regarding improving school. Some problems cannot be fixed within a system that was created to perpetuate inequities.

I don't think that we should conflate the question of what is better (remote or in-person) from the perspective of people who think conventional schooling helps kids, with what is better for public health in a pandemic, and with what is best for businesses that need workers. If we are talking exclusively about the health and welfare of the children, we should not discount all of the children who are benefiting from not being subjected to the harm of schooling right now.

I'm working in the poorest neighborhood in the Bay Area. All of the kids are now in online school. Most of the parents are close to illiterate. They cannot help their kids learn in these circumstances, and many do not bother having their kids attend class. For the poorest families, having their children go to school is the only hope for a future decent life. Your ideas about school are naive and ill informed. The problems these kids have in getting a good education are so complex that any issues with public schools probably account for 10% of the problem. They are malnourished, their parents are grossly under educated, the families are destitute, they don't always have housing, and they have medical problems that are the result of abject poverty. The public schools are the only place where they eat fruits or vegetables, the only place where an adult is in their life who understands what they will need to do to survive in our culture, and the only place they go where they feel safe. 

That being said, kids are resilient, and missing one year of school won't doom most of them. Missing more than that would be a disaster.

I'm glad you work in the poorest neighborhoods, but your experience in medicine does not mean you are an expert on how schooling harms children. The notion that children need to go to school as the only hope for a future decent life is naive and ill informed. You seem to suffer from survivor bias, ignoring the overwhelming majority of children from the poorest neighborhoods who are worse off because of schooling. While material conditions and social conditions are certainly harmful to these children, to waive off the impact of schooling, which takes up 15,000 hours of their lives, is kinda ... remarkable. Perhaps we could imagine a society where we can feed young people in need without subjecting them to the game of schooling?? And if you think school is the one place where poor Black and brown kids feel safe then I would argue you have not spent much time in the schools of the families you work with.

Kids are resilient. But chronic stress tears almost everyone down.

[teejers1]

I’d be interested in hearing your ideas for fixing the problem with”conventional” schools and black and brown kids. We actually may find some common ground - improving schools (and scholastic options) in economically depressed areas is needed.  On that I think we may actually agree.  But I truly don’t think staying home is the better of the two current options.

Me too.  Schools routinely fail disadvantaged populations and especially racial/ethnic minorities.  However, I have seen no data to suggest that no school is worse for them than the flawed schools we have.  Again, it is a bit hard to disentangle the difference between suggesting that schools should stay distance learning because of COVID and saying that schools are stacked against black and brown kids, but the leap to "no school would be better" is surprising, so I'd like to hear the entirety of brevin's thoughts before jumping in.

BC

Who should the burden of proof be placed on? A system that systematically increases disparities between BIPOC and white kids, or poor and rich kids over 13 years, or those who point out the harm of the system? A system that dumps resources on affluent neighborhoods and puts cops in poor schools, or those who point out the harm of the system? 

But I stand by my "no school" is better than conventional, white supremacist, hierarchical schools that force kids to compete against each other in mostly meaningless academic games so that they can rise to the top, only to find out at the end of the race that rising to the top of a dropout factory means nothing compared to being middle of the pack at an affluent public or private school. 

The schools and their focus on competition and performance in ways that are not relevant to the lives or the futures of BIPOC and poor children reward those who can play a meaningless game and win. Who has time to play a meaningless, all consuming game for 13 years, a game that is already tilted toward affluent white (and Asian) kids? And Frank Smith highlights in The Book of Learning and Forgetting, the field of education (which I work in) was in part built around testing kids on meaningless tasks in order to determine intelligence and merit, because only meaningless tasks can be devoid of prior or cultural knowledge. It was also in part built by eugenicists and those advocating genocide, but that's a different story. 

Why do we waste 13 years of young people's lives to play stupid little games that do not benefit them in terms of actually development? Many reasons. One is that many many adults profit from the system. And those adults vote, and donate to political candidates. Two is that we tend to assume that the status quo is necessary. Three is that families fear opting out of a system, even a harmful system, because they often believe that the system is the only path for their child to advance in a hierarchical system that can only anoint winners by anointing many more losers. 

Children could, alternatively be allowed to unschool, or join Self-Directed Education communities where they are not forced to compete against each other. Where the default curriculum isn't centered on white supremacy. Where children do not have their time wasted, forcing them to lose sleep to perfect beating out others for grades, in subjects that are mostly meaningless and on lessons they will mostly forget. 

My argument against conventional schooling is not an argument against education, nor is it an argument against publicly funded education. It is an argument that when we stop convincing kids that they are failures, or deficient, or stupid; that they can then learn skills and ways of thinking that are actually adaptive for an uncertain future; and they can develop a sense of self efficacy that can inoculate them against a system that was always intended to give the greatest advantages to those who need them the least.

---

I'm so serious that I refuse to overlook the scores of millions of Black and brown children who have been harmed by conventional schooling in America.

 I’d be interested in hearing your ideas for fixing the problem with”conventional” schools and black and brown kids. We actually may find some common ground - improving schools (and scholastic options) in economically depressed areas is needed.  On that I think we may actually agree.  But I truly don’t think staying home is the better of the two current options.

I'm not so sure we would agree on much regarding improving school. Some problems cannot be fixed within a system that was created to perpetuate inequities.

I don't think that we should conflate the question of what is better (remote or in-person) from the perspective of people who think conventional schooling helps kids, with what is better for public health in a pandemic, and with what is best for businesses that need workers. If we are talking exclusively about the health and welfare of the children, we should not discount all of the children who are benefiting from not being subjected to the harm of schooling right now.

I'm working in the poorest neighborhood in the Bay Area. All of the kids are now in online school. Most of the parents are close to illiterate. They cannot help their kids learn in these circumstances, and many do not bother having their kids attend class. For the poorest families, having their children go to school is the only hope for a future decent life. Your ideas about school are naive and ill informed. The problems these kids have in getting a good education are so complex that any issues with public schools probably account for 10% of the problem. They are malnourished, their parents are grossly under educated, the families are destitute, they don't always have housing, and they have medical problems that are the result of abject poverty. The public schools are the only place where they eat fruits or vegetables, the only place where an adult is in their life who understands what they will need to do to survive in our culture, and the only place they go where they feel safe. 

That being said, kids are resilient, and missing one year of school won't doom most of them. Missing more than that would be a disaster.

I'm glad you work in the poorest neighborhoods, but your experience in medicine does not mean you are an expert on how schooling harms children. The notion that children need to go to school as the only hope for a future decent life is naive and ill informed. You seem to suffer from survivor bias, ignoring the overwhelming majority of children from the poorest neighborhoods who are worse off because of schooling. While material conditions and social conditions are certainly harmful to these children, to waive off the impact of schooling, which takes up 15,000 hours of their lives, is kinda ... remarkable. Perhaps we could imagine a society where we can feed young people in need without subjecting them to the game of schooling?? And if you think school is the one place where poor Black and brown kids feel safe then I would argue you have not spent much time in the schools of the families you work with.

Kids are resilient. But chronic stress tears almost everyone down.

Back in the real world, Menlo is evidently re-opening (for 3 weeks) before the holidays.  Will be interesting to see how they fare.

[Mick]

black and brown kids. We actually may find some common ground - improving schools (and scholastic options) in economically depressed areas is needed.  On that I think we may actually agree.  But I truly don’t think staying home is the better of the two current options.

black and brown kids, but the leap to "no school would be better" is surprising, so I'd like to hear the entirety of brevin's thoughts before jumping in.

 increases disparities between BIPOC and white kids, or poor and rich kids

"no school" is better than conventional, white supremacist, hierarchical schools  of BIPOC and poor children reward those who can play a meaningless game and win.I refuse to overlook the scores of millions of Black and brown children who have been harmed by conventional schooling in America.

fixing the problem with”conventional” schools and black and brown kids. 

I'm working in the poorest neighborhood in the Bay Area. All of the kids are now in online school. Most of the parents are close to illiterate. They cannot help their kids learn in these circumstances, and many do not bother having their kids attend class. For the poorest families, having their children go to school is the only hope for a future decent life. Your ideas about school are naive and ill informed. The problems these kids have in getting a good education are so complex that any issues with public schools probably account for 10% of the problem. They are malnourished, their parents are grossly under educated, the families are destitute, they don't always have housing, and they have medical problems that are the result of abject poverty. The public schools are the only place where they eat fruits or vegetables, the only place where an adult is in their life who understands what they will need to do to survive in our culture, and the only place they go where they feel safe. 

That being said, kids are resilient, and missing one year of school won't doom most of them. Missing more than that would be a disaster.

And if you think school is the one place where poor Black and brown kids feel safe ...

Kids are resilient. But chronic stress tears almost everyone down.

JAF...just one minor question.  You've referred to poor black and brown kids a lot.  Do you also include poor white or Asian kids in your description, in which schools don't help them either?  Or are you saying that poor Asian or white kids don't exist?  Or are you omitting them because you haven't seen poor white or Asian kids?  Or that the "white supremacist" system works for poor white and Asian kids?  Or are you omitting them for some other reason?

[JustAnotherFan]

black and brown kids. We actually may find some common ground - improving schools (and scholastic options) in economically depressed areas is needed.  On that I think we may actually agree.  But I truly don’t think staying home is the better of the two current options.

black and brown kids, but the leap to "no school would be better" is surprising, so I'd like to hear the entirety of brevin's thoughts before jumping in.

 increases disparities between BIPOC and white kids, or poor and rich kids

"no school" is better than conventional, white supremacist, hierarchical schools  of BIPOC and poor children reward those who can play a meaningless game and win.I refuse to overlook the scores of millions of Black and brown children who have been harmed by conventional schooling in America.

fixing the problem with”conventional” schools and black and brown kids. 

I'm working in the poorest neighborhood in the Bay Area. All of the kids are now in online school. Most of the parents are close to illiterate. They cannot help their kids learn in these circumstances, and many do not bother having their kids attend class. For the poorest families, having their children go to school is the only hope for a future decent life. Your ideas about school are naive and ill informed. The problems these kids have in getting a good education are so complex that any issues with public schools probably account for 10% of the problem. They are malnourished, their parents are grossly under educated, the families are destitute, they don't always have housing, and they have medical problems that are the result of abject poverty. The public schools are the only place where they eat fruits or vegetables, the only place where an adult is in their life who understands what they will need to do to survive in our culture, and the only place they go where they feel safe. 

That being said, kids are resilient, and missing one year of school won't doom most of them. Missing more than that would be a disaster.

And if you think school is the one place where poor Black and brown kids feel safe ...

Kids are resilient. But chronic stress tears almost everyone down.

JAF...just one minor question.  You've referred to poor black and brown kids a lot.  Do you also include poor white or Asian kids in your description, in which schools don't help them either?  Or are you saying that poor Asian or white kids don't exist?  Or are you omitting them because you haven't seen poor white or Asian kids?  Or that the "white supremacist" system works for poor white and Asian kids?  Or are you omitting them for some other reason?

I see what you're doing and I do not appreciate it.

Who should the burden of proof be placed on? A system that systematically increases disparities between BIPOC and white kids, or poor and rich kids over 13 years, or those who point out the harm of the system? A system that dumps resources on affluent neighborhoods and puts cops in poor schools, or those who point out the harm of the system? 

The schools and their focus on competition and performance in ways that are not relevant to the lives or the futures of BIPOC and poor children reward those who can play a meaningless game and win. Who has time to play a meaningless, all consuming game for 13 years, a game that is already tilted toward affluent white (and Asian) kids? 

The notion that children need to go to school as the only hope for a future decent life is naive and ill informed. You seem to suffer from survivor bias, ignoring the overwhelming majority of children from the poorest neighborhoods who are worse off because of schooling. While material conditions and social conditions are certainly harmful to these children, to waive off the impact of schooling, which takes up 15,000 hours of their lives, is kinda ... remarkable. Perhaps we could imagine a society where we can feed young people in need without subjecting them to the game of schooling?? 

I have referred to BIPOC kids and poor kids. Race and class are separate yet intertwined in our society. I clearly include poor kids in my analysis (see above) as those who schools do not help. In fact, I include rich white kids, as well. Rich white kids tend to be hurt by schools as well, just less so. I grew up a poor Asian kid in a poor white town, by the way. And yes, the United States of America and all of her institutions are built on white supremacy. It is for that reason that white and Asian (the model minorities) kids can better navigate a system that has been used to deny opportunity to Black people while helping to destroy their communities, and to literally eradicate indigenous culture in the United States.

[M T]

I just saw some recent data via talk that says: (1) viral load can be quite high in asymptomatic, even compared to symptomatic, and (2) viral load doesn't change much across age demographics, even at 1-10 yo category.  While #1 makes sense, #2 seems really odd to me given lack of transmission in schools as much as we'd expect.

Where's the data behind your claim of "lack of transmission in schools"?

You removed the "as much as we'd expect" part, which changes what I said.  There's definitely transmission, but you'd expect more super spreader events.  Totally possible there are plenty of those cases that are undocumented or I simply haven't seen because I'm not focused on this aspect of the pandemic.  I see you have posted data to counter BC, but given the conditions of these schools (indoor, somewhat packed, long duration, questionable ventilation) is transmission pattern same as we see in college populations or Rose Garden events?

[Getting back to COVID-19.  The Terry rule isn't limited to political debates.]

To clarify, my post quoted your entire content, without any part removed.  In my content, I referred to a specific part of it to make it clear what data I was asking about.

You stated something about the level of transmission, and you made what I will call a vague reference to "data via talk".  I was asking for data to clarify & support what you're saying about transmission in schools.  I don't know what is "lack of transmission in schools as much as we'd expect."    The use of "we" is problematic to me as I don't know who that is, or where I'd find that expectation.  Hence a request for data to support this  "lack".

I think we all would agree that BC is the most informed & respected person on the CARDboard regarding COVID.  BC referenced & quoted some material that claimed "low" infection rates ("similarly low rates") among students & staff.  I showed that the source's numbers correspond to "widespread" infection by California's definition. 

I believe there is widespread (not necessarily intentional, but perhaps wishful) misinformation that is claiming (often without data) low infections happening among children in schools, perhaps related to the earlier thoughts that children might not get infected, or, if infected, did not infect others.   I believe that part of the issue is that the shelter-in-place orders and school closure in the spring (thankfully) resulted in children being less exposed and so less often infected.  I also believe that some areas had fewer infections than other areas, making it very difficult to tease out the risks of 20-person gatherings, especially in cases where some of those may involve people that may not remember their hygiene rules.

I'm trying to pin the numbers about children & schools & COVID down so that someone who is a firm believer in following the data will have accurate & current data.


And, by the way, classroom size matters.  With 20 students, there are 190 pairs of possible infector - infectee pairs.  With 30 students, there are 435 pairs, more than twice the number.  If the chance of infection passing from an infected person is uniform, then you'd expect to get more than twice as many (2.25x) infections in a classroom that is 50% larger.  (4x pairs for 2x classroom size)  At least in the school district where I live, which allows parents to choose between remote or in-class teaching, the in-school classes are much smaller than normal.     I don't know if that's true elsewhere but it is something to remember when looking at today's stats.

[Mick]

black and brown kids. We actually may find some common ground - improving schools (and scholastic options) in economically depressed areas is needed.  On that I think we may actually agree.  But I truly don’t think staying home is the better of the two current options.

black and brown kids, but the leap to "no school would be better" is surprising, so I'd like to hear the entirety of brevin's thoughts before jumping in.

 increases disparities between BIPOC and white kids, or poor and rich kids

"no school" is better than conventional, white supremacist, hierarchical schools  of BIPOC and poor children reward those who can play a meaningless game and win.I refuse to overlook the scores of millions of Black and brown children who have been harmed by conventional schooling in America.

fixing the problem with”conventional” schools and black and brown kids. 

I'm working in the poorest neighborhood in the Bay Area. All of the kids are now in online school. Most of the parents are close to illiterate. They cannot help their kids learn in these circumstances, and many do not bother having their kids attend class. For the poorest families, having their children go to school is the only hope for a future decent life. Your ideas about school are naive and ill informed. The problems these kids have in getting a good education are so complex that any issues with public schools probably account for 10% of the problem. They are malnourished, their parents are grossly under educated, the families are destitute, they don't always have housing, and they have medical problems that are the result of abject poverty. The public schools are the only place where they eat fruits or vegetables, the only place where an adult is in their life who understands what they will need to do to survive in our culture, and the only place they go where they feel safe. 

That being said, kids are resilient, and missing one year of school won't doom most of them. Missing more than that would be a disaster.

And if you think school is the one place where poor Black and brown kids feel safe ...

Kids are resilient. But chronic stress tears almost everyone down.

JAF...just one minor question.  You've referred to poor black and brown kids a lot.  Do you also include poor white or Asian kids in your description, in which schools don't help them either?  Or are you saying that poor Asian or white kids don't exist?  Or are you omitting them because you haven't seen poor white or Asian kids?  Or that the "white supremacist" system works for poor white and Asian kids?  Or are you omitting them for some other reason?

I see what you're doing and I do not appreciate it.

I don't think you see what I'm doing. You're framing poverty and bad schools as exclusively, or at least largely a black and brown problem.  I would submit to you that there are far, far more whites who live in poverty, so the problem of poverty and bad schools cuts across ethnic lines.

To that end, here's some statistics for you.  Current census estimates that there are 328,239,523 people in the U.S.  Here's the breakdown by population:

60.1% are non-Hispanic whites or 197,271,953.  10.1% of those live in poverty, or 19,924,467
5.9% are Asian, or 19,366,123.  10.1% of those live in poverty, or 1,955, 979.
18.5% are Latinx, or 60,724,312. 17.6% of those live in poverty, or 10,687,479.
13.4% are African American, or 43,984,096.  20.8% of those live in poverty, or 9,148,692.
1.3% are indigenous, or 4,267,114.  25.4% of those live in poverty, or 1,083,847.

In other words, 20,920,018 African American, Latinx and Indigenous people fit the definition of poverty.  About 1 million more, or 21,880,447 white and Asian people fit the definition of poverty.  I'm just suggesting two things: 

- first, that poverty and poor schools are not exclusively limited to black, brown and indigenous people, which is what I inferred from your comments.
- second, white non-Hispanic voters preferred Trump by a 21% margin in 2016.  Maybe if the Democrats hadn't both completely ignored impoverished whites and also equated all whites with white supremacy, then perhaps Trump wouldn't have been elected and the COVID problem wouldn't have been so bad under the benign overlordship of Hilary Clinton.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/t.../PST045219

[JustAnotherFan]

black and brown kids. We actually may find some common ground - improving schools (and scholastic options) in economically depressed areas is needed.  On that I think we may actually agree.  But I truly don’t think staying home is the better of the two current options.

black and brown kids, but the leap to "no school would be better" is surprising, so I'd like to hear the entirety of brevin's thoughts before jumping in.

 increases disparities between BIPOC and white kids, or poor and rich kids

"no school" is better than conventional, white supremacist, hierarchical schools  of BIPOC and poor children reward those who can play a meaningless game and win.I refuse to overlook the scores of millions of Black and brown children who have been harmed by conventional schooling in America.

fixing the problem with”conventional” schools and black and brown kids. 

I'm working in the poorest neighborhood in the Bay Area. All of the kids are now in online school. Most of the parents are close to illiterate. They cannot help their kids learn in these circumstances, and many do not bother having their kids attend class. For the poorest families, having their children go to school is the only hope for a future decent life. Your ideas about school are naive and ill informed. The problems these kids have in getting a good education are so complex that any issues with public schools probably account for 10% of the problem. They are malnourished, their parents are grossly under educated, the families are destitute, they don't always have housing, and they have medical problems that are the result of abject poverty. The public schools are the only place where they eat fruits or vegetables, the only place where an adult is in their life who understands what they will need to do to survive in our culture, and the only place they go where they feel safe. 

That being said, kids are resilient, and missing one year of school won't doom most of them. Missing more than that would be a disaster.

And if you think school is the one place where poor Black and brown kids feel safe ...

Kids are resilient. But chronic stress tears almost everyone down.

JAF...just one minor question.  You've referred to poor black and brown kids a lot.  Do you also include poor white or Asian kids in your description, in which schools don't help them either?  Or are you saying that poor Asian or white kids don't exist?  Or are you omitting them because you haven't seen poor white or Asian kids?  Or that the "white supremacist" system works for poor white and Asian kids?  Or are you omitting them for some other reason?

I see what you're doing and I do not appreciate it.

I don't think you see what I'm doing. You're framing poverty and bad schools as exclusively, or at least largely a black and brown problem.  I would submit to you that there are far, far more whites who live in poverty, so the problem of poverty and bad schools cuts across ethnic lines.

To that end, here's some statistics for you.  Current census estimates that there are 328,239,523 people in the U.S.  Here's the breakdown by population:

60.1% are non-Hispanic whites or 197,271,953.  10.1% of those live in poverty, or 19,924,467
5.9% are Asian, or 19,366,123.  10.1% of those live in poverty, or 1,955, 979.
18.5% are Latinx, or 60,724,312. 17.6% of those live in poverty, or 10,687,479.
13.4% are African American, or 43,984,096.  20.8% of those live in poverty, or 9,148,692.
1.3% are indigenous, or 4,267,114.  25.4% of those live in poverty, or 1,083,847.

In other words, 20,920,018 African American, Latinx and Indigenous people fit the definition of poverty.  About 1 million more, or 21,880,447 white and Asian people fit the definition of poverty.  I'm just suggesting two things: 

- first, that poverty and poor schools are not exclusively limited to black, brown and indigenous people, which is what I inferred from your comments.
- second, white non-Hispanic voters preferred Trump by a 21% margin in 2016.  Maybe if the Democrats hadn't both completely ignored impoverished whites and also equated all whites with white supremacy, then perhaps Trump wouldn't have been elected and the COVID problem wouldn't have been so bad under the benign overlordship of Hilary Clinton.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/t.../PST045219

- first, I think it is now clear that I never suggested that only BIPOC folks live in poverty. I am assuming that is why you cut off my prior quotes which clearly show that I was accounting for race and class. As an Asian boy who grew up in the public housing and ate government cheese and dried milk growing up I am quite familiar with the fact that poverty is not solely the domain of Black and brown communities.
- second, Trump is a political genius. Perhaps the only measure by which he could be considered a genius. That poor whites think that the Republican party supports them just highlights what a pathetic job schooling in Amerika is doing. And the Democrats most certainly don't equate all white with white supremacy. The Democratic Party is also steeped in white supremacy. My God, we have Joe Biden as their nominee. And the Black running mate they chose to tokenize built her career on destroying the lives of Black people. If you think my critiques of the schooling system is in any way an endorsement of the Democratic Party you are dead wrong. I fully acknowledge that both parties have dropped the ball an BIPOC AND poor communities (on purpose). But let's not ignore that white supremacy was a pretty critical piece of Trump's campaign and the course of his first administration. From attacking immigrants, Muslims, and Black communities; to celebrating police abuse; to blaming Covid-19 on the Chinese; to taking a both sides approach to Charlottesville --- there is a reason why white supremacists, neofascists, klansmen, and the alt-right overwhelmingly supported Trump. And American history is filled with poor whites latching onto white supremacy so that they could at least maintain some power over non-whites if they couldn't have any economic power. 

Also, Hillary mailed it in.

[akiddoc]

"I'm glad you work in the poorest neighborhoods, but your experience in medicine does not mean you are an expert on how schooling harms children. The notion that children need to go to school as the only hope for a future decent life is naive and ill informed. You seem to suffer from survivor bias, ignoring the overwhelming majority of children from the poorest neighborhoods who are worse off because of schooling. While material conditions and social conditions are certainly harmful to these children, to waive off the impact of schooling, which takes up 15,000 hours of their lives, is kinda ... remarkable. Perhaps we could imagine a society where we can feed young people in need without subjecting them to the game of schooling?? And if you think school is the one place where poor Black and brown kids feel safe then I would argue you have not spent much time in the schools of the families you work with.

Kids are resilient. But chronic stress tears almost everyone down."


Not really worth arguing with you. For the record, I have been a consultant for the head start program in Alameda County for 30 years. We have upgraded the program to eliminate race and ethnic group differences in disciplinary matters, upgraded the food program and instituted parent control of the system over the last three decades. I also have involvement with several school districts working on similar issues. I spend plenty of time in schools. I'm guessing your involvement is reading academic papers or opinion pieces which do not actually provide solutions. If you're actually doing something in the field, I'd love to hear what it is. Actual change occurs when people are willing to persevere over many years.

[JustAnotherFan]

"I'm glad you work in the poorest neighborhoods, but your experience in medicine does not mean you are an expert on how schooling harms children. The notion that children need to go to school as the only hope for a future decent life is naive and ill informed. You seem to suffer from survivor bias, ignoring the overwhelming majority of children from the poorest neighborhoods who are worse off because of schooling. While material conditions and social conditions are certainly harmful to these children, to waive off the impact of schooling, which takes up 15,000 hours of their lives, is kinda ... remarkable. Perhaps we could imagine a society where we can feed young people in need without subjecting them to the game of schooling?? And if you think school is the one place where poor Black and brown kids feel safe then I would argue you have not spent much time in the schools of the families you work with.

Kids are resilient. But chronic stress tears almost everyone down."


Not really worth arguing with you. For the record, I have been a consultant for the head start program in Alameda County for 30 years. We have upgraded the program to eliminate race and ethnic group differences in disciplinary matters, upgraded the food program and instituted parent control of the system over the last three decades. I also have involvement with several school districts working on similar issues. I spend plenty of time in schools. I'm guessing your involvement is reading academic papers or opinion pieces which do not actually provide solutions. If you're actually doing something in the field, I'd love to hear what it is. Actual change occurs when people are willing to persevere over many years.

You got me all figured out. I spend every day working directly with children but congrats on your ill-informed and naive assumptions from the start to the finish, consultant.

[Genuine Realist]

black and brown kids. We actually may find some common ground - improving schools (and scholastic options) in economically depressed areas is needed.  On that I think we may actually agree.  But I truly don’t think staying home is the better of the two current options.

black and brown kids, but the leap to "no school would be better" is surprising, so I'd like to hear the entirety of brevin's thoughts before jumping in.

 increases disparities between BIPOC and white kids, or poor and rich kids

"no school" is better than conventional, white supremacist, hierarchical schools  of BIPOC and poor children reward those who can play a meaningless game and win.I refuse to overlook the scores of millions of Black and brown children who have been harmed by conventional schooling in America.

fixing the problem with”conventional” schools and black and brown kids. 

I'm working in the poorest neighborhood in the Bay Area. All of the kids are now in online school. Most of the parents are close to illiterate. They cannot help their kids learn in these circumstances, and many do not bother having their kids attend class. For the poorest families, having their children go to school is the only hope for a future decent life. Your ideas about school are naive and ill informed. The problems these kids have in getting a good education are so complex that any issues with public schools probably account for 10% of the problem. They are malnourished, their parents are grossly under educated, the families are destitute, they don't always have housing, and they have medical problems that are the result of abject poverty. The public schools are the only place where they eat fruits or vegetables, the only place where an adult is in their life who understands what they will need to do to survive in our culture, and the only place they go where they feel safe. 

That being said, kids are resilient, and missing one year of school won't doom most of them. Missing more than that would be a disaster.

And if you think school is the one place where poor Black and brown kids feel safe ...

Kids are resilient. But chronic stress tears almost everyone down.

JAF...just one minor question.  You've referred to poor black and brown kids a lot.  Do you also include poor white or Asian kids in your description, in which schools don't help them either?  Or are you saying that poor Asian or white kids don't exist?  Or are you omitting them because you haven't seen poor white or Asian kids?  Or that the "white supremacist" system works for poor white and Asian kids?  Or are you omitting them for some other reason?

I see what you're doing and I do not appreciate it.

I don't think you see what I'm doing. You're framing poverty and bad schools as exclusively, or at least largely a black and brown problem.  I would submit to you that there are far, far more whites who live in poverty, so the problem of poverty and bad schools cuts across ethnic lines.

To that end, here's some statistics for you.  Current census estimates that there are 328,239,523 people in the U.S.  Here's the breakdown by population:

60.1% are non-Hispanic whites or 197,271,953.  10.1% of those live in poverty, or 19,924,467
5.9% are Asian, or 19,366,123.  10.1% of those live in poverty, or 1,955, 979.
18.5% are Latinx, or 60,724,312. 17.6% of those live in poverty, or 10,687,479.
13.4% are African American, or 43,984,096.  20.8% of those live in poverty, or 9,148,692.
1.3% are indigenous, or 4,267,114.  25.4% of those live in poverty, or 1,083,847.

In other words, 20,920,018 African American, Latinx and Indigenous people fit the definition of poverty.  About 1 million more, or 21,880,447 white and Asian people fit the definition of poverty.  I'm just suggesting two things: 

- first, that poverty and poor schools are not exclusively limited to black, brown and indigenous people, which is what I inferred from your comments.
- second, white non-Hispanic voters preferred Trump by a 21% margin in 2016.  Maybe if the Democrats hadn't both completely ignored impoverished whites and also equated all whites with white supremacy, then perhaps Trump wouldn't have been elected and the COVID problem wouldn't have been so bad under the benign overlordship of Hilary Clinton.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/t.../PST045219

Mick,

I admire your stamina, and - as always - the diligence in providing actual facts and links.

FWIW, I regard posts by JAF more as anthropological curiosities than meaningful comments. I wouldn't bother answering if I were you.