February, 2021 begins next week. A year ago, the nation was watching Donald Trump on trial in the Senate, and Democratic Presidential candidates scramble to get recognition. And quietly, almost below the radar \u2013 we began to hear about a virus in Wuhan, China. Little did we know a year ago, that in 2020 over two million would die from that virus worldwide, and over 430,000 here in America. That\u2019s more than in died in any war the United States ever fought except for the Civil War \u2013 and that \u201cbutcher\u2019s bill\u201d of 600,000 will be surpassed in the next couple months. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We are all now \u201cexperts\u201d on COVID-19: on \u201csocial distancing\u201d and quarantining. We all know folks who had COVID and recovered, and also those that didn\u2019t make it. On the key hook by the door hang multiple face masks ready for use. Everyone has them. Some are fashionable, some make political or social statements, and some wear ones that look like the belong in an operating room. Ours are basic black \u2013 they go with everything and don\u2019t look dirty (kind of strange \u2013 that\u2019s the same reason I wear black running socks). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Jenn and I are retired, and spend a lot of time at home. There\u2019s usually a TV on, and I\u2019ve binged a few televisions shows (not programs, as I\u2019m told by the advertisement). The new Star Trek Discovery<\/em> series is the latest. But mostly MSNBC<\/em>\u2019s on, often in the background. Stephanie Ruhle, a morning news anchor, has made it a point to demand that children go back to \u201cregular\u201d school. And she points out two very valid reasons. <\/p>\n\n\n\n First, she says, in-school education is much, much better than \u201cremote\u201d education. Of course it is. As a teacher, I know that the personal relationships between teacher and students are vastly important both to student achievement and personal growth. And, through my limited experience in online education, two months at the beginning of the pandemic, I know it\u2019s so much more difficult to have those relationships \u201cremotely\u201d. So, everything else being equal, going back to school is a \u201cgreat\u201d thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And the second point Stephanie Ruhle makes is also valid. If kids can\u2019t go to school, many folks can\u2019t go to work. For those who don\u2019t have the \u201cluxury\u201d of working remotely, remote school means don\u2019t work (and not get paid), find someone to stay with kids (and pay them) or leave kids alone and unsupervised in remote school. From a national economy standpoint, schools being open is critical to getting the economy going particularly for lower income areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s a lot like the reason compulsory schooling began in the first place. Here in the United States, that took hold in the 1920\u2019s. Of course it was about getting kids \u201ceducated\u201d, but there was another reason just as significant. If kids were in school, they were out of the labor market. Child labor was a big deal in the late 1800\u2019s and early 1900\u2019s. Kids were agile, they could do the mass production work of that time. And they were cheap. They kept adults out of the job market. So sending them all to school kept them from working \u201cin the mills\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And another reason for getting kids out of \u201cthe mills\u201d was the danger of doing hazardous work. One job was that of \u201cbreaker boy\u201d, the children who straddled the elevated conveyor belts leading into coal processing plants. Their job was to pick rocks out of the passing coal and toss them to the ground. The dangers were great \u2013 the conveyors were high, and the \u201cbelts\u201d were often slatted metal. If the kid reached in too deep, they could lose a finger, or a hand, to the \u201cbelt\u201d. If they lost their balance, they could fall to injury or death on the piled-up rocks below. Child welfare meant getting them out of those jobs, and keeping them safe until they were old enough to \u201cassume the risks\u201d themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We now know enough about COVID-19 that we understand that the risks to children are low. While they can catch the virus, and they can spread the virus, they are less likely to get sick from the virus. Those particularly vulnerable kids, or those with vulnerable adults at home, need to be removed from the school setting, but for most kids, school is fine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So it\u2019s not the kids at risk from open schools, it\u2019s the adults. It\u2019s the teachers and the custodians, the cooks, and yes, even the administrators. Like the \u201cbreaker boys\u201d of the 1880\u2019s, it\u2019s the adults who are being asked to assume the risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And it\u2019s a special kind of risk that we want those adults to assume. There are few jobs today that place large groups of people together in a single room. And since we know that children can have COVID without necessarily having the symptoms of COVID, we are asking those adults to go into a setting where transmission to them is more likely. It\u2019s not the same as the other \u201cessential\u201d worker jobs we discuss. The grocery store clerks have more room, the postal workers are outside, and the meat processing plants test their workers. Even the hospital workers have the proper protection, and work in buildings designed to ventilate the virus away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Chicago Public Schools ordered their buildings open, and their teachers to report for in-person instruction this week. The Chicago Federation of Teachers voted by seventy percent to stay out of school and continue online instruction. Their concern has two parts. Sources told the Chicago Tribune<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThey will not go back to schools until they think it is safe and urge CPS to come up with health metrics for when a school should be closed, and to take the idea of synchronous teaching \u2014 instructing in-person and remote students simultaneously \u2014 off the table\u201d <\/em>(<\/em>Tribune<\/em><\/a>). <\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The United States wants kids in school, but we haven\u2019t spent the resources to make it safe for the adults working there. Schools aren\u2019t improving ventilation systems (already a problem in our aging school structures). Schools aren\u2019t \u201cbigger\u201d, so classroom sizes really haven\u2019t changed much. In our local area, the \u201crules\u201d were re-written so that kids could be three feet from each other in class instead of six, because there wasn\u2019t the room for six-foot separation. And there is little or no COVID testing in schools. The schools depend on the county health departments, first overwhelmed by contact-tracing, and now by vaccine distribution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Schools aren\u2019t closing because the kids are getting sick. To be brutally honest, we have no idea how many kids really have COVID, because we don\u2019t test. Only the ones who get sick enough to go to a doctor and get reported to the County Health Department are known. What we do know is that schools are being closed because of staff absences. Teachers are getting sick, and substitute teachers, many, like me retired from a teaching career, aren\u2019t working. We are among the more vulnerable to COVID infection. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Teachers want to work directly with kids. They want to be back in school. I\u2019d like to substitute. But many know that they are putting themselves and their families at risk by being in the classroom. So what\u2019s the solution? Vaccination of adult school workers and testing of kids is the answer, as well as spending the funds to make schools physically a safer place. And all of that takes time, money \u2013 and a national commitment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Just wanting kids back in school shouldn\u2019t make it so. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Back to School<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Compulsory Education<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s the Adults<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Chicago<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Commitment<\/h3>\n\n\n\n