Complete Idiot said:

---

88planoAg said:

---

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/511212-9-people-test-positive-for-coronavirus-at-georgia-school-where-viral?fbclid=IwAR1R7KSoGhqw833lf7dUiBPUe3NuSBHc9_Y3SS0tkYVYhJ_TfO5Y1xPbuBY



This should be good news, right? After this crowd with few in facemasks, only 9 positive tests are the result?

---

I don't think most would find 9 positives in one school, after only one week (I believe) of class, to be a positive. If in two weeks they can show it didn't spread much more and that these 9 all have mild illnesses and are recovering, I think that should be taken as a positive.

---

I guess it depends if there are 100 or 5000 kids in the school wouldn't it? You know, if we're being scientific about it.

How many of the kids from that school do you think had it any given week since February?

If your district doesn't have enough subs, then they should probably plan on doing online because teachers are going to get it.

3rd Generation Ag said:

---

Austin what do mean plan? Write a will like several of my friends have done?

---

Are teachers essential workers? Yes or no.

....regardless of a global pandemic, everybody with property should have a will.

Even if kids don't transmit the virus to each other, faculty and staff will. Like others said, there's not enough subs to go around. IF we get to go back this fall we're going to move to online-only again. Districts, teachers, and parents should plan on that.

Will this go on forever? No. But we're going to deal with it this year.

gvine07 said:

---

IF we get to go back this fall we're going to move to online-only again. Districts, teachers, and parents should plan on that.

---

This seems overly pessimistic. Also, how is it even possible that schools would not have a sufficient number of subs considering the current unemployment rate?

3rd Generation Ag said:

---

I wish TEA had left it up to schools to be more innovative so that we could have something like safe spacing. I think especially early grades should have the in school option, PK to 3 are so important.

---

I have to plead ignorance here, but would it be against any existing TEA requirements for a district, or individual school, to function in this manner?

CowtownEng said:

---

3rd Generation Ag said:

---

I wish TEA had left it up to schools to be more innovative so that we could have something like safe spacing. I think especially early grades should have the in school option, PK to 3 are so important.

---

I have to plead ignorance here, but would it be against any existing TEA requirements for a district, or individual school, to function in this manner?

---

Nothing. Matter of fact they're TEA guidelines, not requirements.

CowtownEng said:

---

gvine07 said:

---

IF we get to go back this fall we're going to move to online-only again. Districts, teachers, and parents should plan on that.

---

This seems overly pessimistic. Also, how is it even possible that schools would not have a sufficient number of subs considering the current unemployment rate?

---

In regards to the subs, here's a few without much thought:
1) there's a perception COVID 19 will be in schools, so subs won't want to risk coming in.

2) some of the unemployed don't currently have childcare. Even if they can get it, subs make $90-110/day, childcare alone can take $50+ of that. It won't be worth it.

3) if teachers have to quarantine for 2 weeks, that's 10 business days compared to 1 or 2 (5 max) typical days missed for the typical illness.

4) Magically districts never seem to have enough competent subs (likely related to pay).

Unless they're dying, shouldn't be any reason they couldn't switch to remote.

Right. I'm saying everybody should plan on that.

I don't think people will be dying. I think they're going to test positive and be told to stay home for 2 weeks when that happens. Or have direct contact with someone that has it and quarantine.

Wow. What district? I didn't think about the bus drivers. Vital position with a lot of older folks.

Most workers like that are just getting unemployment and no incentive to go back

Wait, are school workers (non-teachers) getting unemployment currently over the summer? Positions like cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and office staff??

I would have thought they wouldn't qualify for unemployment. Yikes!

AgLA06 said:

---

Unless they're dying, shouldn't be any reason they couldn't switch to remote.

---

How many schools have really executed a model where out of school teachers teach to in school students? I'm not saying that hasn't happened, it just seems really unrealistic to implement this without a lot of extra overhead even beyond finding a sub to do nothing else but keep classroom control for the remote teacher.

gvine07 said:

---

Wow. What district? I didn't think about the bus drivers. Vital position with a lot of older folks.

---

Springfield, Mo suburb.

FDXAg said:

---

Wait, are school workers (non-teachers) getting unemployment currently over the summer? Positions like cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and office staff??

I would have thought they wouldn't qualify for unemployment. Yikes!

---

I'm having a hard time understanding why they would - I think this is how rumors get started. All the hourly staff is back at my school.

I think the poster was referring to people who were furloughed in other industries have no incentive to sub.

ETA: The cafeteria workers didn't stop working in March at most schools. You'd be amazed at the population that qualifies AND NEEDS free and reduced lunch.

AgLA06 said:

---

CowtownEng said:

---

3rd Generation Ag said:

---

I wish TEA had left it up to schools to be more innovative so that we could have something like safe spacing. I think especially early grades should have the in school option, PK to 3 are so important.

---

I have to plead ignorance here, but would it be against any existing TEA requirements for a district, or individual school, to function in this manner?

---

Nothing. Matter of fact they're TEA guidelines, not requirements.

---

There are TEA requirements that impact the ability for elementary schools to spread across the district. Many districts were making plans to spread elementary students into secondary schools and provide remote learning for secondary students. Then TEA said that schools were required to provide on-campus learning at all levels, so now that can't happen. "Safe" spacing won't happen in elementary schools with the current requirements because there just isn't room in the classrooms.
TEA doesn't have a problem with that as their guidelines often include words like "when possible."

"Where feasible without disrupting the educational experience, encourage students to practice social distancing.
1. In classroom spaces that allow it, consider placing student desks a minimum of six feet apart when possible.
2. In classrooms where students are regularly within six feet of one another, schools should plan for more frequent hand washing and/or hand sanitizing and should consider whether increased airflow from the outdoors is possible."

This suggestion makes me laugh. I don't know of a school that has windows that open. We certainly can't leave doors open because of security considerations.

Parents in one of our local districts who chose on-campus learning are very upset now that they realize their children won't be able to distance in their classrooms. It's been interesting to watch on social media

cc_ag92 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

CowtownEng said:

---

3rd Generation Ag said:

---

I wish TEA had left it up to schools to be more innovative so that we could have something like safe spacing. I think especially early grades should have the in school option, PK to 3 are so important.

---

I have to plead ignorance here, but would it be against any existing TEA requirements for a district, or individual school, to function in this manner?

---

Nothing. Matter of fact they're TEA guidelines, not requirements.

---

There are TEA requirements that impact the ability for elementary schools to spread across the district. Many districts were making plans to spread elementary students into secondary schools and provide remote learning for secondary students. Then TEA said that schools were required to provide on-campus learning at all levels, so now that can't happen. "Safe" spacing won't happen in elementary schools with the current requirements because there just isn't room in the classrooms.
TEA doesn't have a problem with that as their guidelines often include words like "when possible."

"Where feasible without disrupting the educational experience, encourage students to practice social distancing.
1. In classroom spaces that allow it, consider placing student desks a minimum of six feet apart when possible.
2. In classrooms where students are regularly within six feet of one another, schools should plan for more frequent hand washing and/or hand sanitizing and should consider whether increased airflow from the outdoors is possible."

This suggestion makes me laugh. I don't know of a school that has windows that open. We certainly can't leave doors open because of security considerations.

Parents in one of our local districts who chose on-campus learning are very upset now that they realize their children won't be able to distance in their classrooms. It's been interesting to watch on social media

---

None of those are requirements. It literally says where feasible. Some schools do have windows that open. Many schools have installed operable windows because of mass shooting situations. You can also increase outside airflow through your hvac system and other options. All the above are things our school has done.

At the end of the day schools can either make it work or they're creating excuses. Mismanagement in districts has consequences.

culdeus said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Unless they're dying, shouldn't be any reason they couldn't switch to remote.

---

How many schools have really executed a model where out of school teachers teach to in school students? I'm not saying that hasn't happened, it just seems really unrealistic to implement this without a lot of extra overhead even beyond finding a sub to do nothing else but keep classroom control for the remote teacher.

---

Many private schools. It's very possible and relatively low cost.

cc_ag92 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

cc_ag92 said:

---

There are TEA requirements that impact the ability for elementary schools to spread across the district. Many districts were making plans to spread elementary students into secondary schools and provide remote learning for secondary students. Then TEA said that schools were required to provide on-campus learning at all levels, so now that can't happen. "Safe" spacing won't happen in elementary schools with the current requirements because there just isn't room in the classrooms.
TEA doesn't have a problem with that as their guidelines often include words like "when possible."

"Where feasible without disrupting the educational experience, encourage students to practice social distancing.
1. In classroom spaces that allow it, consider placing student desks a minimum of six feet apart when possible.
2. In classrooms where students are regularly within six feet of one another, schools should plan for more frequent hand washing and/or hand sanitizing and should consider whether increased airflow from the outdoors is possible."

This suggestion makes me laugh. I don't know of a school that has windows that open. We certainly can't leave doors open because of security considerations.

Parents in one of our local districts who chose on-campus learning are very upset now that they realize their children won't be able to distance in their classrooms. It's been interesting to watch on social media

---

None of those are requirements. It literally says where feasible. Some schools do have windows that open. Many schools have installed operable windows because of mass shooting situations. You can also increase outside airflow through your hvac system and other options. All the above are things out school has done.

At the end of the day schools can either make it work or they're creating excuses. Mismanagement in districts has consequences.

---

Mmkay.... Thanks for telling me something I had already typed above.

I don't know of a single school in my area that has windows that open. Not an excuse. Just a fact.

I'm not even saying schools shouldn't open. I was just pointing out that TEA did make it impossible for schools to spread younger children across the district.

---

Not accurate. Just asked my TEA employed spouse. TEA has no issue spreading students to other campuses if they wanted to allow say high school kids to be virtual. Only caveat is they have to provide transportation. So in fact TEA did not make that impossible and some districts are planning for that as a possibility.

Daily on-campus learning will be available to all parents who would like their students to learn in school each day.

• In addition, all parents will have the option to choose remote learning for their children, initially, or at any point as the year progresses. Parents who choose remote instruction for their students may be asked to commit to remote instruction for a full grading period (e.g. 6 or 9 weeks), but will not have to make that commitment more than two weeks in advance, so they can make a decision based on the latest public health information.

https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/news-and-multimedia/news-releases/news-2020/tea-issues-comprehensive-guidelines-for-a-safe-return-to-on-campus-instruction-for-the-2020-21-school-year

It is possible that this requirement has changed since they have issued updates and changes multiple times per week for the last month (which is another reason districts have had difficulty planning). But, my interpretation of the bold statement is that districts cannot require all secondary students to learn using remote learning, which is what would need to happen to have elementary students spread out across the district.
Now, if an update has been made since then that allows it, then I guess I'm wrong on that point.

The goalposts change intraday across a multitude of fronts. My spouse is taking her fist day off in 3 months including weekends today, it's been intense watching this develop. Policies are changing/reversing as nuance on a decision comes to bear. This isn't meant as a woah is me statement, it's a reminder that a ton of people are working to try to solve these problems. Don't like the outcomes? Spouse's advice is 1) be a sub 2) get on a school board 3) run for elected office and change statute

Notice I didn't say require, as statute says schools have to offer in person learning for every resident of the state. Federal AND State funding is tied to this stipulation. Believe me I've asked more questions in my house and have had this broken down 3700 different ways but it all ties back to this: how can funding be assured while allowing maximum flexibility for districts to make informed decisions based on local requirements. Funding is the mechanism that enables education.

Some districts have looked at consolidating secondary students into one location and spreading primary students among various campuses, though transportation coordination is a challenge. Districts big and small are looking at multiple scenarios.

This thread has had lots of great discussion but we need to remember that this is the definition of one size doesn't fit all.
There are too many districts covering too much area in too many different ways to allow for that.

The sub issue is massive
The transportation issue is massive
The lack of a hardened national or state public health standards is massive
The liability issue is massive
The lack of funding is massive day to day
The 2021-22 budget shortfall due to a big drop in revenues is massive
The issue of access to internet and computers is massive
The detection/prevention of abuse provided by in person learning is massive
The fact that schools provide the only good meal to students is a much larger issue than folks want to admit
School as the base of child care for families

Many of these issues were serious before COVID it is just that nobody noticed or cared at any real scale until now.

I agree with all of those items, but don't believe liability is as massive as being made out. I think its a red hearing scare tactic being way overblown.

I have yet to hear of anyone being sued due to COVID, and question how that would be proven. Never heard of lawsuits related to others viruses, and haven't seen anything in the news about companies losing lawsuits or settling. I would assume if this were happening the media would be all over it saying "i told you so"