Are you sending your kids to school next month?

[Colleen27]

I finally have some details of our back-to-school plan. It seems like the whole hybrid idea has been scrapped. Parents have a choice between in-person on a normal schedule or fully remote, and will be committed to the choice they've made for the duration of the quarter. Preliminary surveys suggest about 15% of our students will take the virtual option. The in person learning is going to be mostly normal - totes will replace lockers, for more ability to spread the students out at start/end times, and we're still working out lunch because the state plan mandates mid-day classroom cleaning so the original plan to just have the kids eat in their rooms won't work. But to a larger extent than I expected, school's going to look more normal than I expected in the fall.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

I just saw a TikTok video from Utah where someone posted their districts guidelines where it says parents are allowed to send kids to school if they are awaiting test results but not if they have symptoms. Crazy!

It sounds crazy, but then you consider there are probably going to be situations that kids have to get tested even when there’s no reason to suspect they have Covid (camp requirements and the like) and it wouldn’t make sense to keep them out of school over it. And if getting tested means kids can’t go to school while they await results, some parents may avoid getting their kids tested even if they think there might have been an exposure. So really, it probably doesn’t make sense to enact a policy where kids are barred from school once they get tested and instead leave it to parents to use good sense in determining whether it’s safe for their child to be in school. Unfortunately, we already know good sense is lacking in a lot of people and this whole thing is going to be a giant mess.

 

[MrsPete]

It is nowhere near a full salary no matter how long you work.

No, by "full pension" I don't mean "full salary when you were working".

Full pension is a pension that is not reduced because you retired early /not reduced because you took a Social Security leveling option /not reduced because you took a cover-your-spouse option. It's a term that's used in our retirement materials.

At some point legislation was passed and teachers now have to choose their social security or TRS, they cannot take both. For people like me this is devastating.

Yes, I know what you're talking about, and it is a huge mess -- especially for people like you who've had two careers.

Do new teachers in your state still get a pension?

Yes. They talked about doing away with it, but it hasn't happened yet. The new teachers do have lesser benefits than people like me who are nearing retirement, but I don't really know details.

We will live on my pension, his small pension and cash savings (not touching retirement money). Our house is paid off, and kids are gone. It's important for us to retire at a reasonably young age.

Our house is also paid off, and our youngest just graduated from college. Since I'll "max out my years", I can start drawing my pension at any age without reduction. I'll be a decade away from Social Security, and we don't want to touch our retirement money too soon /would like it to continue to grow -- so we're going to work part-time (or seasonally) for a couple years. 2 part-time salaries + my pension will be more than adequate.

It sounds crazy, but then you consider there are probably going to be situations that kids have to get tested even when there’s no reason to suspect they have Covid (camp requirements and the like) and it wouldn’t make sense to keep them out of school over it. And if getting tested means kids can’t go to school while they await results, some parents may avoid getting their kids tested even if they think there might have been an exposure. So really, it probably doesn’t make sense to enact a policy where kids are barred from school once they get tested and instead leave it to parents to use good sense in determining whether it’s safe for their child to be in school. Unfortunately, we already know good sense is lacking in a lot of people and this whole thing is going to be a giant mess.

This all sounds very unrealistic. By the time a kid is tested, he could've already infected a dozen or more classmates. And you can't really trust the results: perhaps a kid tests "negative" on Monday, then he's infected on Tuesday -- false sense of security. Good answers don't exist.

 

[Colleen27]

It sounds crazy, but then you consider there are probably going to be situations that kids have to get tested even when there’s no reason to suspect they have Covid (camp requirements and the like) and it wouldn’t make sense to keep them out of school over it. And if getting tested means kids can’t go to school while they await results, some parents may avoid getting their kids tested even if they think there might have been an exposure. So really, it probably doesn’t make sense to enact a policy where kids are barred from school once they get tested and instead leave it to parents to use good sense in determining whether it’s safe for their child to be in school. Unfortunately, we already know good sense is lacking in a lot of people and this whole thing is going to be a giant mess.

Yeah, it seems like there needs to be a line drawn between "for cause" or post-exposure testing and preventative testing, when it comes to what kind of isolation measures are reasonable while awaiting results. Particularly if the long lab delays persist, as they probably will with schools and athletic programs restarting and likely further increasing the demand for tests.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It sounds crazy, but then you consider there are probably going to be situations that kids have to get tested even when there’s no reason to suspect they have Covid (camp requirements and the like) and it wouldn’t make sense to keep them out of school over it. And if getting tested means kids can’t go to school while they await results, some parents may avoid getting their kids tested even if they think there might have been an exposure. So really, it probably doesn’t make sense to enact a policy where kids are barred from school once they get tested and instead leave it to parents to use good sense in determining whether it’s safe for their child to be in school. Unfortunately, we already know good sense is lacking in a lot of people and this whole thing is going to be a giant mess.

I'd agree largely with that except only issue is asymptomatic aspect and the incubation period aspect.

Because you could actually get tested, not have symptoms when you are (even for a camp/work, etc) and then end up positive later on triggering all of this mess. You could be symptom-free when the test done, go to school, then get symptoms, then get test result back also triggering all this mess. Schools aren't any different than other places in that they don't want you out and about in the public while awaiting results; of course that happens but from a public health standpoint they don't really want that.

This is actually one of the reasons I posted on another thread regarding a local company. They got FDA approval for a saliva test with 100% accuracy (from their testing), pain-free, can be done at home and results within 24-48 hours after received from the lab and detection for up to 3 weeks after sample is collected. As far as I know their primary customer is more workplaces as in getting people back to work as quick as possible but the application could be very helpful for time sensitive things.

I'm not saying I don't know that it's really hard to imagine keeping everyone back while awaiting test results it's not like it's an ideal situation more like lesser of the two evils because when everyone is up in arms about spread in schools and how quickly it can happen the last thing I think you'd want is someone who could potentially spread the virus while they are awaiting test results but attends school during that time period.

 

[Kestryl]

It sounds crazy, but then you consider there are probably going to be situations that kids have to get tested even when there’s no reason to suspect they have Covid (camp requirements and the like) and it wouldn’t make sense to keep them out of school over it. And if getting tested means kids can’t go to school while they await results, some parents may avoid getting their kids tested even if they think there might have been an exposure. So really, it probably doesn’t make sense to enact a policy where kids are barred from school once they get tested and instead leave it to parents to use good sense in determining whether it’s safe for their child to be in school. Unfortunately, we already know good sense is lacking in a lot of people and this whole thing is going to be a giant mess.

It’s not quite the same, but my husband’s school was debating a policy where if a household member of a student or staff member was waiting on a test result, the student or staff would need to quarantine.

While I understood the premise, it was going to really screw over my husband and any partner or kid of my employer. My employer is requiring COVID tests for anyone who works on site and has a household member in school, because my employer is concerned about people bringing it on site from schools. Depending on job, people are getting testing up to twice a week. I’m getting tested once every two weeks. We get results the next day, but still- with the proposed policy, my husband would have to use two sick days every two weeks for a routine test designed to catch asymptomatic spread. For the employees testing twice a week, their kid would have effectively been on permanent quarantine.

 

[CarolAnn856]

It’s not quite the same, but my husband’s school was debating a policy where if a household member of a student or staff member was waiting on a test result, the student or staff would need to quarantine.

While I understood the premise, it was going to really screw over my husband and any partner or kid of my employer. My employer is requiring COVID tests for anyone who works on site and has a household member in school, because my employer is concerned about people bringing it on site from schools. Depending on job, people are getting testing up to twice a week. I’m getting tested once every two weeks. We get results the next day, but still- with the proposed policy, my husband would have to use two sick days every two weeks for a routine test designed to catch asymptomatic spread. For the employees testing twice a week, their kid would have effectively been on permanent quarantine.

Did they end up adopting that policy? I can see where they would require it if someone in their family is symptomatic and waiting for results, but to require it also for routine testing? That's nuts.

 

[Kestryl]

Did they end up adopting that policy? I can see where they would require it if someone in their family is symptomatic and waiting for results, but to require it also for routine testing? That's nuts.

They didn’t. My husband and many of the other teachers worked out the math and said if the school adopted it, they would lose around 10% of class coverage on average every week just from routine testing of spouses. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but when the district is still looking to hire over 100 permanent positions and are severely lacking in subs, it’s not great either.

The school had originally tried to play off that they didn’t know if those who tested were symptomatic or not, so a blanket policy was best. Ridiculous.

 

[CarolAnn856]

They didn’t. My husband and many of the other teachers worked out the math and said if the school adopted it, they would lose around 10% of class coverage on average every week just from routine testing of spouses. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but when the district is still looking to hire over 100 permanent positions and are severely lacking in subs, it’s not great either.

The school had originally tried to play off that they didn’t know if those who tested were symptomatic or not, so a blanket policy was best. Ridiculous.

Glad that logical minds prevailed! 10% is a huge number when it comes to class coverage.

 

[mjkacmom]

NYC, testing is 2-3 days now. I don't think that's the case in many other states though.

Four weeks ago we got test results in 2 days here, I’m on day 15 waiting on results from the same testing center.

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

Four weeks ago we got test results in 2 days here, I’m on day 15 waiting on results from the same testing center.

I was tested last Thursday night and got my results Monday morning.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I was tested last Thursday night and got my results Monday morning.

For our area hospitals have priority. Depending on where you get tested in my area can be really different. A relative was tested at the hospital about 2 weeks ago when he went in and results were technically less than 48 hours later....that is not the average response time for other testing areas not even the drive thru testing the county is doing (timing increased due to increased community spread)

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

For our area hospitals have priority. Depending on where you get tested in my area can be really different. A relative was tested at the hospital about 2 weeks ago when he went in and results were technically less than 48 hours later....that is not the average response time for other testing areas not even the drive thru testing the county is doing (timing increased due to increased community spread)

I was tested at my doctor's office. My brother was tested at a pop up tent last week and had his results 48 hours. Most of NYC is very fast.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I was tested at my doctor's office. My brother was tested at a pop up tent last week and had his results 48 hours. Most of NYC is very fast.

I'm not debating that You responded to a poster who lives somewhat close to you (I believe they live in NJ) when they gave their experience. Many places the response time varies depending on where you got the test at, how much testing the lab where your results are being sent to are doing and if your test would fall under a priority over someone else, if there's too many which creates a backlog, etc. And it's a fluid situation wherein the timing can change over time.

There's variance in testing results even in your situation between you and your brother.

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

I'm not debating that You responded to a poster who lives somewhat close to you (I believe they live in NJ) when they gave their experience. Many places the response time varies depending on where you got the test at, how much testing the lab where your results are being sent to are doing and if your test would fall under a priority over someone else, if there's too many which creates a backlog, etc. And it's a fluid situation wherein the timing can change over time.

Your results were in approximately 4 days (Thursday-Monday) which is double what your brother's test results took (roughly)..I'd say that's not exactly very fast..unless you're just comparing 2-3 days vs 15 days yes that is very fast but even then there's variance as your test results took longer than your brother's.

I don't think my test was submitted until Friday if I took it Thursday night, and I had the results Monday morning, which is the next business day, and the next day my doctor's office was open. That's pretty fast.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

Our District is only offering in-person or virtual academy.

The virtual option offers the full course catalog and is taught live by District teachers (not 3rd party), which allows for seamless exit/re-entry during quarters or semesters.

We are going virtual for the 1st Semester for our kids. If in-person works out fine, then that's great, and we'll re-enter in the Spring. If in-person goes all sorts of sideways and the schools get closed, then we know our kids are safe and are already ahead of the game for the virtual learning.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I don't think my test was submitted until Friday if I took it Thursday night, and I had the results Monday morning, which is the next business day, and the next day my doctor's office was open. That's pretty fast.

..you're obviously not getting the point of my comment Carry on

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Our District is only offering in-person or virtual academy.

The virtual option offers the full course catalog and is taught live by District teachers (not 3rd party), which allows for seamless exit/re-entry during quarters or semesters.

We are going virtual for the 1st Semester for our kids. If in-person works out fine, then that's great, and we'll re-enter in the Spring. If in-person goes all sorts of sideways and the schools get closed, then we know our kids are safe and are already ahead of the game for the virtual learning.

Is your district allowing people to switch from in-person to virtual or vice versa at any time? Or is it only after a quarter has passed or a semester has passed?

 

[siren0119]

Our District is only offering in-person or virtual academy.

The virtual option offers the full course catalog and is taught live by District teachers (not 3rd party), which allows for seamless exit/re-entry during quarters or semesters.

We are going virtual for the 1st Semester for our kids. If in-person works out fine, then that's great, and we'll re-enter in the Spring. If in-person goes all sorts of sideways and the schools get closed, then we know our kids are safe and are already ahead of the game for the virtual learning.

Can i give my superintendent your superintendent's number? LOL! I would much rather that be the plan than what we have been offered. Full remote taught by district teachers was not on the table when our school committee voted.

 

[wvjules]

My county in MD is having a dispute with the Governor. The county has mandated virtual schooling for public schools for the first semester (until January 21). The county public health official also restricted private schools from starting in person before October 1. The governor overruled that by amending his previous executive order saying school systems and private schools should have sole authority to determine when and how to safely reopen.

So what say you DIS? Should counties be able to keep private schools closed as well as public schools?