I think there are good points in here that needs to be considered carefully. But I wish if there was some balance in also discussing the serious harms that result for children and poor single mothers. It seems like for them, schools are essential for their lives. Also, the data seems to show (though it's not completely settled) that children get less sick from COVID19 than the flu and don't seem to be spreading the virus at a high rate. I know what I say here were will be looked upon with suspicion or ignored (it's called confirmation bias) but we should at least have a more accurate and honest assessment. We have to be open-minded and be willing, at the minimum, to see how complicated this situation is and that Mayor Lightfoot has good reason too want schools to open up. She isn't winging it. By considering both sides we can at least demonize each other a bit less and see that we may not (including myself) have a monopoly on truth.
Thank you for reading and commenting Telos! I agree with you that there is a great cost to children who are not in school. I have a high school senior and it is a huge bummer that my kid has missed/will miss all the special senior year things. I also agree we have to take into consideration the needs of single working parents. But I think if you read almost any media source at this time, you will find compelling arguments, or just arguments, to reopen the schools. These are not in short supply: look at the Chicago Tribune any day of the week and you will likely see at least one ranting screed that demonizes teachers as selfish and lazy and wanting to harm children--all the "reasons" why "they" don't want to open the schools. So I wanted to write something that subjected all that to some questioning.
My worry is that this plan is not being made transparently, it has not been made in the best interest of children (nor was the remote learning plan), and it is being made with no regard at all for teachers or staff. When asked how teachers would manage teaching children in person and online simultaneously, Janice Jackson said, oh I trust my teachers to be very creative. Which is nice and all, but it's not really an answer. Designating random staff as COVID room attendants, failing to provide air filters, and bringing back special needs students without proper clear masks for teachers are all things which show this lack of regard. Failing to grant any waivers for high risk staff, and threatening them with firing, is like the ugly unnecessary cherry on top.
You raise the very important concern about poor families not getting access to what they need. I think this pandemic has highlighted a lot of problems in our city's current structure that need to be addressed; sending kids back to some skeletal form of school (and keep in mind, *prior to the pandemic* schools lacked adequate nursing and mostly are without libraries) will do nothing to address these problems. I'm talking about lack of access to internet connectivity, lack of access to fresh food, lack of access to work, lack of access to health care, and the ease with which people are evicted from where they live. Now as always the schools are called upon to solve these problems which have much more to do with city management and investment than public schooling. Things are going to be hard for low income single parents--and they will have a much higher death rate from COVID--until we are able to address these inequities. Interestingly, many parents from schools in lower income areas do not want their children to return to school. They have seen far too many family members die of COVID to mess with more public interaction than is absolutely necessary.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment, particularly in a place you didn't think you'd receive a sympathetic hearing. I too would love for the schools to reopen. But until we have a reopening plan that is rational and includes vaccinating teachers, I'd rather have a remote plan that is safe.
I think there are good points in here that needs to be considered carefully. But I wish if there was some balance in also discussing the serious harms that result for children and poor single mothers. It seems like for them, schools are essential for their lives. Also, the data seems to show (though it's not completely settled) that children get less sick from COVID19 than the flu and don't seem to be spreading the virus at a high rate. I know what I say here were will be looked upon with suspicion or ignored (it's called confirmation bias) but we should at least have a more accurate and honest assessment. We have to be open-minded and be willing, at the minimum, to see how complicated this situation is and that Mayor Lightfoot has good reason too want schools to open up. She isn't winging it. By considering both sides we can at least demonize each other a bit less and see that we may not (including myself) have a monopoly on truth.
Thank you for reading and commenting Telos! I agree with you that there is a great cost to children who are not in school. I have a high school senior and it is a huge bummer that my kid has missed/will miss all the special senior year things. I also agree we have to take into consideration the needs of single working parents. But I think if you read almost any media source at this time, you will find compelling arguments, or just arguments, to reopen the schools. These are not in short supply: look at the Chicago Tribune any day of the week and you will likely see at least one ranting screed that demonizes teachers as selfish and lazy and wanting to harm children--all the "reasons" why "they" don't want to open the schools. So I wanted to write something that subjected all that to some questioning.
My worry is that this plan is not being made transparently, it has not been made in the best interest of children (nor was the remote learning plan), and it is being made with no regard at all for teachers or staff. When asked how teachers would manage teaching children in person and online simultaneously, Janice Jackson said, oh I trust my teachers to be very creative. Which is nice and all, but it's not really an answer. Designating random staff as COVID room attendants, failing to provide air filters, and bringing back special needs students without proper clear masks for teachers are all things which show this lack of regard. Failing to grant any waivers for high risk staff, and threatening them with firing, is like the ugly unnecessary cherry on top.
You raise the very important concern about poor families not getting access to what they need. I think this pandemic has highlighted a lot of problems in our city's current structure that need to be addressed; sending kids back to some skeletal form of school (and keep in mind, *prior to the pandemic* schools lacked adequate nursing and mostly are without libraries) will do nothing to address these problems. I'm talking about lack of access to internet connectivity, lack of access to fresh food, lack of access to work, lack of access to health care, and the ease with which people are evicted from where they live. Now as always the schools are called upon to solve these problems which have much more to do with city management and investment than public schooling. Things are going to be hard for low income single parents--and they will have a much higher death rate from COVID--until we are able to address these inequities. Interestingly, many parents from schools in lower income areas do not want their children to return to school. They have seen far too many family members die of COVID to mess with more public interaction than is absolutely necessary.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment, particularly in a place you didn't think you'd receive a sympathetic hearing. I too would love for the schools to reopen. But until we have a reopening plan that is rational and includes vaccinating teachers, I'd rather have a remote plan that is safe.