She'll never bash a politician with the mark of the angel (R) aside their name.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Printable View
She'll never bash a politician with the mark of the angel (R) aside their name.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
It's up to the local school district and its parents - pretty sure just about everywhere offers an online option. Those parents who don't feel comfortable sending their kids - don't. That'll leave more space for social distancing with the kids whose parents CHOOSE to send them.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightpulp
Eyup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monostradamus
I do think they need to get back into school ASAP. The problem with that though is that in the middle of a hotzone outbreak, it is simply too risky. If you can get your case count under control, and everybody being halfway responsible outside of school, then yeah, send them back.
Seems to be a lot safer for little kids, not so much adolescents. WIth some solid risk mitigation it can probably be done for both groups, but you will have to be a lot more careful with the older kids, and their teachers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFeewU0HhNEQuote:
Originally Posted by rmt
NYPD ACCUSED OF DELIBERATELY TARGETING LEGAL OBSERVERS
https://popularresistance.org/nypd-a...gal-observers/
Denigrated and discredited': how American journalists became targets during protests
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...s-donald-trump
etc.
This goes both ways, and for every cop injured, there is at least one protestor that is injured or worse, often losing eyes to "less lethal" ammunition deployed indescriminately.
Yes, pelting police is bad.
If you can't say police abusing their force is bad too... well you are the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmt
Not sure how much sympathy I have in this case.Quote:
The Chicago Police Department’s History of Torture
Laurence Ralph’s The Torture Letters recounts an extensive history of police abuse and violence in the CPD.
The Chicago Police Department has been synonymous with all of the very worst excesses of law enforcement culture in the United States for decades, its actions exacerbated by a culture of winking, backslapping, and encouragement from elected officials and parts of the community. This is, after all, a culture of policing that considers the murder of Fred Hampton and the clubbing of protesters at the 1968 Democratic National Convention as its high-water marks.
I am a white Chicagoan, one who grew up around cops telling hilarious stories to preteens at block parties about how to beat a suspect without leaving any bruises. Needless to say, there is nothing funny about those stories for those on the receiving end. Laurence Ralph, a Princeton anthropology professor, looks back at some of the Chicago Police Department’s most egregious abuses, including the Jon Burge scandal, which revealed the CPD’s history of using torture techniques against more than 100 suspects—a monumental miscarriage of justice that was an open secret among police, prosecutors, and elected officials in Chicago for decades. The abuse of suspects in CPD custody was widespread and vile, and as Ralph documents, a direct influence on the more widely publicized abuses that happened during the so-called War on Terror.
Hey some rational thinking:
"AUSTIN (KXAN) — On Tuesday, Austin-Travis County’s top doctor recommended that education leaders prioritize getting younger kids back to school first.
In his weekly briefing with Travis County Commissioners Tuesday, Dr. Mark Escott was clear that there is danger in sending anyone back to school.
He says while data is changing weekly and even daily on the rate at which children contract and spread the virus, the risks to faculty and staff is much, much higher.
“The risk of death in our population in March and April was about 2% for those ages 50 to 59, which is much higher than for students. The risk of hospitalizations is much higher, and we can’t exclude the teachers and the staff, the custodians, the other support staff, administrators when we’re making our decisions about schools. They’re the ones at risk. The parents of those students are at risk. We’ve got to weigh all those things in making a decision.”
Escott says recommendations from the National Academy of Sciencing, Engineering and Medicine suggest first bringing back students in kindergarten through third grade, who most need teacher interaction to develop reading skills, and students in special education classes, who require extra help.
“If we’re going to take risks, those risks have to be very small,” Escott said of returning children to schools. “I think it’s important that we consider a staged rollout of in person schooling, that we take the advice from the National Academies and focus on those students who really must be in a classroom in September and then dial it up from there as the situation allows.”
But Austin ISD’s Union President, Ken Zarifis says even that isn’t a risk most educators are willing to take.
“We understand that the challenges are mighty with families, with the district, and everybody else,” Zarifis said. “But we will not sacrifice our kids, our kindergartners, our six-year-olds, our seven-year-olds, just to see if it’s going to work.”
Zarifis doesn’t deny that at-home learning will create some gaps in education, saying, “This is an extraordinary time. Let’s admit the shortcomings that this COVID-19 presents to education and how we will not meet the typical year’s demands for education.”
However, he says educators can do a better job filling in those gaps and catching students up in the long run if they hone in on executing online learning for now and shift their focus to making sure parents of young and special education students have all the resources they need by the fall.
“Let’s spend our time doing that instead of figuring out how to get kids back into a classroom,” Zarifis said.
https://www.kxan.com/news/education/...-school-first/
LOL this local control horseshit from Republicans. You all love one size fits all as long as it's at the state level (in only a red state, not California) or the federal level (only from a Republican president).Quote:
Originally Posted by rmt
rational thinking = ignoring the recommendations from the National Academy of Sciencing, Engineering and Medicine :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Blake
You're an illiterate retard, not worth wasting discussion time on, tbh. Just gonna treat you like derp and tholderp, fwiw. :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by TSA
NM. figured out what you meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by TSA
Then state who you think had the rational thinking, Dr. Mark Escott or Union President Ken Zarifis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Both, dumbass.Quote:
Originally Posted by TSA
The Union President ignoring the recommendations from the National Academy of Sciencing, Engineering and Medicine is rational?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Oh right, you don't fully understand the NASEM recommendations. Figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by TSA
if those academies have been polluted with Trash/Repug political hacks, then they have, like Trash and his mafiya, NO credibilityQuote:
Originally Posted by TSA
lol you didn't know ny opened schoolsQuote:
Originally Posted by Blake
th:lolldren lost track about what he's supposed to be lying about.Quote:
Originally Posted by tholdren
KansasQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
th:lolldren realizes he's in trouble so he changes the subject immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by tholdren
He is not interested in science.
He will never show his math.
He only wants to get back at the people who saw him clown himself in March.
He will now begin a spectacular meltdown.
bwahahahahahahahahQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Bwahahahaahahahaha
Bwhahahaahahah
WrongQuote:
Originally Posted by tholdren
at least el nono knowsQuote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Your meltdown has begun.Quote:
Originally Posted by tholdren
Lol you just said there is science that differs in differet countries. LololooIolQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
That's blake level. TimDunkem level. RandomGuy level.
Lol
Wow you're really looking up at a lot of postersQuote:
Originally Posted by tholdren
:lol you don't even know what "literally" means.Quote:
Originally Posted by tholdren
Your meltdown continues....
"With Texas AG’s blessing, San Antonio religious schools prepare for students’ return to campus
AG Ken Paxton says local orders prohibiting in-person instruction don’t apply to religious schools...."
https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2020...urn-to-campus/
Thanks a lot Ken. This blows.
Lolooooololool you said science is different for different countriesQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
lol you lied and lied againQuote:
Originally Posted by tholdren
You blow whatQuote:
Originally Posted by Blake
You pee in front girlsQuote:
Originally Posted by ducks
Chumpdump saysQuote:
Originally Posted by tholdren
Science in America is different that scince in other parts of the world. So every time usa reports data, they are and will be an outlier.
Lolookokokokkkkokkl
You don't like the 1st amendment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Are you serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
L.A. Latino, Black students suffered deep disparities in online learning, records show
More than 50,000 Black and Latino middle and high school students in Los Angeles did not regularly participate in the school system’s main platform for virtual classrooms after campuses closed in March, a reflection of the deep disparities faced by students of color amid the COVID-19 pandemic and of the difficulties ahead as L.A. Unified prepares for continued online learning.
The numbers, reflected in a first-of-its-kind report by Los Angeles Unified School District analysts examining student engagement during campus closures, paint a stark picture of students in the nation’s second largest school district struggling under the new pressures of online learning.
Nearly every category of students — sorted by race, income and learning needs — included large numbers who did not regularly participate in distance learning. But low-income students and Black and Latino students showed participation rates between 10 and 20 percentage points lower than white and Asian peers.
https://www.latimes.com/california/s...nline-learning
Are you? Why would he have to exclude RELIGIOUS schools?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
dumbass
what a surprise :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by TSA
sounds like it mirrors the normal dropout rate.
So you don't think the government should have the right to shut down churches in person either?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Just so we're clear before I call you a retard.
Speaking of Retards:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
It's called the first amendment of the constitution, dumbass.
SmhQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Don't get me wrong, I think the churches SHOULD close and go remote, but the government can't legally FORCE them to do it.
so Blake disagrees with the first amendmentQuote:
Originally Posted by Blake
SMH
Here you go, retard.
See if you can follow this and understand
".....Normally the notion of government agents shutting churches down would trigger immediate strong concerns about breaches of religious liberty. And, of course, if churches are singled out for such hostile treatment, this would be a textbook violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.
This does not mean, however, that churches are entitled to a special exemption to public safety measures that are applied evenhandedly....."
https://aclj.org/religious-liberty/c...to-an-epidemic
See if you can follow THIS dumbass. They can't shut down churches and keep Walmart open. There is state and Supreme court precedent.
Across the nation, State Governors have issued Executive Orders restricting the operation of businesses and the daily activities of individuals. They are doing so in response to the COVID-19 pandemic which has swept America and the world. These Orders often include prohibitions on the gathering of 10 or more people in any enclosed space.
Churches have not been exempt from these Executive Orders, and religious activities are usually expressly included. The effect has been to close churches for Sunday worship and other ministries, and to likewise restrict services in synagogues and mosques.
Churches have generally complied and cooperated with the Executive Orders, and taken their services on line. But there have also been vocal protests, defiance, and court challenges. At the heart of the controversy is the question of constitutional rights. How can a State Government have the power to effectively shutter churches in a nation that guarantees freedom of religion? The first legal test arose in the United States District Court in Kansas.
Kansas Governor Laura Kelly issued a series of Executive Orders in response to the declared state of emergency. On April 7, 2020 she issued Executive Order 20-18, effective the next day, that prohibited gatherings of more than 10 people. The Order was expressly made applicable to “churches and other religious facilities.” It prohibited “gatherings of more than ten congregants or parishioners in the same building or confined or enclosed space.” The pastor, choir, and those participating in the service were exempt from the ten-person limit.
Two churches filed suit: The First Baptist Church of Dodge City, and Calvary Baptist Church of Junction City. The Court held an emergency hearing, by telephone, on April 17, and issued a Memorandum and Order the next day.
The question before the Court was whether the Executive Order violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. The State governments have broad powers, especially in times of emergency. The Federal government has limited powers and only those the Constitution so provides. State governments have broad powers and can act except where the Constitution says it cannot.
No one doubts that State governments can make general laws that impact churches and church buildings. It can require that churches conform to building and fire codes. It can assign occupancy limits to church buildings, just as it does to movie theaters and restaurants.
The question is when do those restrictions become a violation of the constitutional protection of freedom of religion. The answer is framed in a three part test: All governmental restrictions on churches must be (i) laws of general applicability (that is applicable to all businesses and institutions and not just religious activities); (ii) they must concern a compelling governmental interest; and (iii) they must be narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
In First Baptist Church v. Governor Laura Kelly, the “compelling government interest” is clearly the COVID-19 pandemic. The United State Supreme Court ruled in 1905 in a case concerning smallpox vaccinations that “under the pressure of great dangers constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted as the safety of the general public may demand.” Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Likewise, the Executive Order was designed to meet the crisis. Court cannot second-guess the executive on the 10 person limit on gathering. To do so would be to “usurp the functions of another branch of government” so long as the restrictions had some “real or substantial relation to the public health crisis.”
And so, the question came down to the first prong of the test, was Executive Order 20-18 of general applicability? The Court found that it was not, and that it disfavored churches as opposed to businesses and other institutions.
The Court noted that the Order started with general language concerning “all public or private mass gatherings.” But then it went on to list 26 exceptions, including airports, childcare facilities, hotels, shelters, shopping malls, libraries, senior centers, restaurants, bars, office spaces, and manufacturing sites.
The Court, quoting from a 1993 Supreme Court religious freedom case (Church of Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah), found that “when individualized exemptions from a general requirement are available, the government may not refuse to extend that system to cases of religious hardship without compelling reasons.” The Court went on to hold that “a law is under inclusive, and thus not generally applicable, when it fails to prohibit secular activity that endangers the same interests to a similar or greater degree than the prohibited religious conduct.”
The Court ruled that the Governor’s Order appeared to have singled out religious activities among essential functions for stricter treatment. It thus entered a Restraining Order against the Governor and the State of Kansas from enforcing the penalties in the Executive Order against the churches, its staff, or its members.
This should not be read as a blanket rejection of a State’s authority to act in situations of emergency. In its Order, the Court listed 17 specific restrictions the church would have to accept when holding services, including having the facility deep cleaned before and after each service, restrictions on any church members exposed to the COVID-19 virus from attending, attendees advised to perform temperature checks, attendees being advised to bring their own PPE to church, a single point of entry and egress at the building, there being no church bulletins distributed and no collection plate passed.
The Governor of Kansas subsequently modified her Executive Order, so that religious services were treated the same with other essential activities. A check of the website of the two churches shows that both are still having services on Sunday mornings.
These rulings are consistent with statement released by Attorney General William Barr on April 14, 2020. He stated the same principles of law applied by the Federal Court in Kansas:
In exigent circumstances, when the community as a whole faces an impending harm of this magnitude, and where the measures are tailored to meeting the imminent danger, the constitution does allow some temporary restriction on our liberties that would not be tolerated in normal circumstances.
But even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers. Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity. For example, if a government allows movie theaters, restaurants, concert halls, and other comparable places of assembly to remain open and unrestricted, it may not order houses of worship to close, limit their congregation size, or otherwise impede religious gatherings. Religious institutions must not be singled out for special burdens.
The legal landscape of COVID-19 continues to develop and change at a rapid pace. However, Despite this time of uncertainty, the Federal Court in Kansas, along with the statement of Attorney General William Barr, indicate that the freedom of religion is invariable, even in times of emergency and crisis.
In "english for dummies" this means you can't shut down churches without shutting down Walmart too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
you lose again, cuckster.
You beat that strawman down real good. He's not getting up after det one
blake using name-calling to emphasize his lack of evidenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Blake
CC provided plenty of evidence to shit on his own postQuote:
Originally Posted by tholdren
Quoting the supreme court case that applies is hardly a strawman, cuckster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Quote:
The Court, quoting from a 1993 Supreme Court religious freedom case (Church of Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah), found that “when individualized exemptions from a general requirement are available, the government may not refuse to extend that system to cases of religious hardship without compelling reasons.” The Court went on to hold that “a law is under inclusive, and thus not generally applicable, when it fails to prohibit secular activity that endangers the same interests to a similar or greater degree than the prohibited religious conduct.”
And you are still a dumbshit that can't read and understand simple english.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
He'll pretend he doesn't care, but will incessantly ankle bite. Dude can't even Google arguments in his favor properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Lol it was my article. Please let go of my ankle k thxQuote:
Originally Posted by Chucho
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Do you understand what you did here? Did you understand what's going on in the article I linked or did you just read the headline I pasted?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Lol cc
Damn you are stupid. I even posted the supreme court case for you and highlighted the applicable part. I even highlighted the part in YOUR post that said the same thing. You can't shut down churches without shutting down EVERYTHING that poses a similar risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
I know. What do you think the article I posted is about, genius?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Do you not get how you backpedaled or are you going to stick with being disingenuous on top of retarded?
More ankle biting. Per par.
The guy is a fucking idiot with zero reading comprehension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucho
I give up. He is too fucking dumb to realize what an ass he is making of himself.
You're free to ask questions about what I'm talking about but I guess my ankle is really that tasty huhQuote:
Originally Posted by Chucho
You didn't even read the article, did you. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
You just thought you saw an easy opportunity for an internet win
Yes. I actually read it and understood it, unlike you. They can only legally shut down churches if the shut down everything else of equivalent "danger" which includes Walmart, HEB, etc. That's not happening. If a governor tries to shut down churches based on "danger" without shutting down EVERYTHING of equivalent danger then it is a clear attack on religion and violates the first amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
This is the last time I will try to explain it to your dumb ass.
No you didn't. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
you ended up posting info that validated why I'm pissed off at Paxton
it's always and easy opportunity for an internet win arguing with you. Like taking candy from a baby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
I mean, you just shit on yourself here.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
He's old hat and a worn punching bag. Poor bastard.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
And fucking painfully stupid!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucho
They can absolutely tell churches one entrance/exit, face coverings, social distancing etc. as long as everyone of equivalent danger has to do the same.
But you can force distancing requirements and capacity requirements. Start threatening preachers bottom lines.. they will fight back against that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
That is all I see happening here. I do not think for a second that any of the anti-shutdown preachers are doing so out of concern for anything other than how full the collection plate is at the end of the brainwashing session.... er sermon.
Sorry. You can shut down a church even with the first amendment, if that church actively threatens the health and safety of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
If a tenet of a church was the sexual abuse of children, would the first amendment protect that? Simple yes or no.
(sits back and sips wine, awaiting the inevitable evasion/deflection)
Better. Can't shut down arbitrarily churches and not stores. Hooray nuance.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
So the government can shut down schools, but can't shut down...schools....
Or private religious schools but not pubic schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
But what's happening is that Paxton is saying that even though a city/county may declare it too dangerous to open school buildings and shut them down, they won't be able to shut down private religious schools.
It's too dangerous for Republicans to have an in-person convention, but safe enough to send everybody's kids back to school in a few weeks.
Surely DeSantis can set them up in a panhandle primary school cafetorium.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I totally agree with you on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Just give up loser. You made an ass of yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
The petulant child had the convention moved out of Charlotte NC because the NC Governor wouldn't commit to no social distancing requirement. :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
You said you read the article tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
".......While the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District has forbidden any private or public schools from resuming in-person instruction this fall until at least after Labor Day over COVID-19 concerns, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has said such local orders don’t apply to religious schools. With Paxton’s blessing, some San Antonio schools have already announced plans to bring students back...."
Then you asked me "you don't like the 1st Amendment?".
I asked you to clarify to which you then went into rant mode, made a strawman, pretended it was me and really went to work on it. Pretty funny, tbh.
Pretty sad though that they we have private religious schools refusing to listen to the local Health Dept. I really don't want my kids going back.
That's your choice - just as every parent should have a choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Way I heard it, the Sheriff couldn't guarantee security for the convention, as in could not find enough willing and able bodies in a pandemic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ecurity-373089
det antifa threatQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Why not bring his Portland Schutzstaffel for security?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
At this rate they're going to end up having the convention in a potato field in eastern Idaho.
True, I could put them in public school so they can distance learn. It would be a huge inconvenience and suck for so many reasons for me and then, but the real issue is sending kids back after just setting another death record here in Texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by rmt
It's an open defiance of local Health directives and Paxton is just playing partisan politics.
Wait. We haven't even started school, right?
You have kids? Damn. More tadpoles in the shallow end of the gene pool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
The Importance of Reopening America’s Schools this Fall
As families and policymakers make decisions about their children returning to school, it is important to consider the full spectrum of benefits and risks of both in-person and virtual learning options. Parents are understandably concerned about the safety of their children at school in the wake of COVID-19. The best available evidence indicates if children become infected, they are far less likely to suffer severe symptoms.[1],[2],[3] Death rates among school-aged children are much lower than among adults. At the same time, the harms attributed to closed schools on the social, emotional, and behavioral health, economic well-being, and academic achievement of children, in both the short- and long-term, are well-known and significant. Further, the lack of in-person educational options disproportionately harms low-income and minority children and those living with disabilities. These students are far less likely to have access to private instruction and care and far more likely to rely on key school-supported resources like food programs, special education services, counseling, and after-school programs to meet basic developmental needs.[4]
Aside from a child’s home, no other setting has more influence on a child’s health and well-being than their school. The in-person school environment does the following:
provides educational instruction;
supports the development of social and emotional skills;
creates a safe environment for learning;
addresses nutritional needs; and
facilitates physical activity.
This paper discusses each of these critical functions, following a brief summary of current studies regarding COVID-19 and children.
COVID-19 and Children
The best available evidence indicates that COVID-19 poses relatively low risks to school-aged children. Children appear to be at lower risk for contracting COVID-19 compared to adults. To put this in perspective, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of July 17, 2020, the United States reported that children and adolescents under 18 years old account for under 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths.[5] Although relatively rare, flu-related deaths in children occur every year. From 2004-2005 to 2018-2019, flu-related deaths in children reported to CDC during regular flu seasons ranged from 37 to 187 deaths. During the H1N1pandemic (April 15, 2009 to October 2, 2010), 358 pediatric deaths were reported to CDC. So far in this pandemic, deaths of children are less than in each of the last five flu seasons, with only 64.† Additionally, some children with certain underlying medical conditions, however, are at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19.*
Scientific studies suggest that COVID-19 transmission among children in schools may be low. International studies that have assessed how readily COVID-19 spreads in schools also reveal low rates of transmission when community transmission is low. Based on current data, the rate of infection among younger school children, and from students to teachers, has been low, especially if proper precautions are followed. There have also been few reports of children being the primary source of COVID-19 transmission among family members.[6],[7],[8] This is consistent with data from both virus and antibody testing, suggesting that children are not the primary drivers of COVID-19 spread in schools or in the community.[9],[10],[11] No studies are conclusive, but the available evidence provides reason to believe that in-person schooling is in the best interest of students, particularly in the context of appropriate mitigation measures similar to those implemented at essential workplaces.
Educational Instruction
Extended school closure is harmful to children. It can lead to severe learning loss, and the need for in-person instruction is particularly important for students with heightened behavioral needs.[12],[13] Following the wave of school closures in March 2020 due to COVID-19, academic learning slowed for most children and stopped for some. A survey of 477 school districts by the University of Washington’s Center on Reinventing Public Education found that, “far too many schools are leaving learning to chance.”[13] Just one in three school districts expected teachers to provide instruction, track student engagement, or monitor academic progress for all students, and wealthy school districts were twice as likely to have such expectations compared to low-income districts.[13]
We also know that, for many students, long breaks from in-person education are harmful to student learning. For example, the effects of summer breaks from in-person schooling on academic progress, known as “summer slide,” are also well-documented in the literature. According to the Northwest Evaluation Association, in the summer following third grade, students lose nearly 20 percent of their school-year gains in reading and 27 percent of their school-year gains in math.[14] By the summer after seventh grade, students lose on average 39 percent of their school-year gains in reading and 50 percent of their school-year gains in math.[14] This indicates that learning losses are large and become even more severe as a student progresses through school. The prospect of losing several months of schooling, compared to the few weeks of summer vacation, due to school closure likely only makes the learning loss even more severe.
Disparities in educational outcomes caused by school closures are a particular concern for low-income and minority students and students with disabilities. Many low-income families do not have the capacity to facilitate distance learning (e.g. limited or no computer access, limited or no internet access), and may have to rely on school-based services that support their child’s academic success. A study by researchers at Brown and Harvard Universities assessed how 800,000 students used Zearn, an online math program, both before and after schools closed in March 2020.[15] Data showed that through late April, student progress in math decreased by about half, with the negative impact more pronounced in low-income zip codes.[15] Persistent achievement gaps that already existed before COVID-19, such as disparities across income levels and races, can worsen and cause serious, hard-to-repair damage to children’s education outcomes.[15],[16] Finally, remote learning makes absorbing information more difficult for students with disabilities, developmental delays, or other cognitive disabilities. In particular, students who are deaf, hard of hearing, have low vision, are blind, or have other learning disorders (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)) and other physical and mental disabilities have had significant difficulties with remote learning.[17]
Social and Emotional Skill Development
Schools play a critical role in supporting the whole child, not just their academic achievement. In addition to a structure for learning, schools provide a stable and secure environment for developing social skills and peer relationships. Social interaction at school among children in grades PK-12 is particularly important for the development of language, communication, social, emotional, and interpersonal skills.[18]
Extended school closures are harmful to children’s development of social and emotional skills. Important social interactions that facilitate the development of critical social and emotional skills are greatly curtailed or limited when students are not physically in school. In an in-person school environment, children more easily learn how to develop and maintain friendships, how to behave in groups, and how to interact and form relationships with people outside of their family. In school, students are also able to access support systems needed to recognize and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, appreciate others’ perspectives, and make responsible decisions. This helps reinforce children’s feelings of school connectedness, or their belief that teachers and other adults at school care about them and their well-being. Such routine in-person contacts provide opportunities to facilitate social-emotional development that are difficult, if not impossible, to replicate through distance learning.[18],[19],[20]
Additionally, extended closures can be harmful to children’s mental health and can increase the likelihood that children engage in unhealthy behaviors. An environment where students feel safe and connected, such as a school, is associated with lower levels of depression, thoughts about suicide, social anxiety, and sexual activity, as well as higher levels of self-esteem and more adaptive use of free time [19],[20] A longitudinal study of 476 adolescents over 3 years starting in the 6th grade found school connectedness to be especially protective for those who had lower connectedness in other areas of their lives, such as home, and to reduce their likelihood of substance use.[20]
Further, a review of studies conducted on pandemics found a strong association between length of quarantine and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms, avoidance behavior, and anger. Another review published this year found that post-traumatic stress scores of children and parents in quarantine were four times higher than those not quarantined.[21],[22]
In-person schooling provides children with access to a variety of mental health and social services, including speech language therapy, and physical or occupational therapy to help the physical, psychological, and academic well-being of the child.[23], [24],[25],[26] Further, school counselors are trained in the mental health needs of children and youth and can recognize signs of trauma that primary caregivers are less able to see because they themselves are experiencing the same family stresses. School counselors can then coordinate with teachers to implement interventions to offer children a reassuring environment for regaining the sense of order, security, and normalcy.
Without in-person schooling, many children can lose access to these important services. For example, we know that, even outside the context of school closures, children often do not receive the mental health treatment they need. Among children ages 9-17, it is estimated that 21 percent, or more than 14 million children, experience some type of mental health condition.[27] Yet only 16 percent of those with a condition receive any treatment.[23] Of those, 70-80 percent received such care in a school setting.[23] School closures can be particularly damaging for the 7.4 million American children suffering from a serious emotional disturbance. For those individuals who have a diagnosable mental, behavioral or emotional condition that substantially interferes with or limits their social functioning, schools play an integral role in linking them to care and necessary support services.
For children with intellectual or physical disabilities, nearly all therapies and services are received through schools. These vital services are difficult to provide through distance learning models. As a result, more children with disabilities have received few to no services while schools have been closed.
Safety
Extended school closures deprive children who live in unsafe homes and neighborhoods of an important layer of protection from neglect as well as physical, sexual, and emotional maltreatment and abuse. A 2018 Department of Health and Human Services report found that teachers and other educational staff were responsible for more than one-fifth of all reported child abuse cases—more than any other category of reporter.[28] During the COVID-19 school closures, however, there has been a sharp decline in reports of suspected maltreatment, but tragically a notable increase in evidence of abuse when children are seen for services. For example, the Washington, D.C. Child and Family Services Agency recorded a 62 percent decrease in child abuse reporting calls between mid-March and April 2020 compared to the same time period in 2019, but saw more severe presentation of child abuse cases in emergency rooms.[29] Children who live in a home or neighborhood where neglect, violence, or abuse occur, but who are not physically in school, are deprived of access to trained school professionals who can readily identify the signs of trauma and provide needed support and guidance.[30],[31],[32],[33],[34]
Nutrition
Extended school closures can be harmful to the nutritional health of children. Schools are essential to meeting the nutritional needs of children with many consuming up to half their daily calories at school. Nationwide more than 30 million children participate in the National School Lunch Program and nearly 15 million participate in the School Breakfast Program.[35],[36] For children from low-income families, school meals are an especially critical source of affordable, healthy foods. While schools have implemented strategies to continue meal services throughout periods of school closures, it is difficult to maintain this type of school nutrition program over the long-term. This is a particularly severe problem for the estimated 11 million food-insecure children, living in the United States.
Physical Activity
When schools are closed, children lose access to important opportunities for physical activity. Many children may not be sufficiently physically active outside of the context of in-school physical education (PE) and other school-based activities. Beyond PE, with schools closed, children may not have sufficient opportunities to participate in organized and safe physical activity. They also lose access to other school-based physical activities, including recess, classroom engagements, and after school programs.
The loss of opportunities for physical activity from school closures, especially when coupled with potentially diminished nutrition, can be particularly harmful to children. Physical inactivity and poor nutrition among children are major risk factors for childhood obesity and other chronic health conditions. Over 75 percent of children and adolescents in the United States do not meet the daily physical activity level recommendations (60 minutes or more), and nearly half exceed 2 hours per day in sedentary behavior. Current models estimate that childhood obesity rate may increase by 2.4 percent if school closures continue to December 2020.[37],[38],[39]
Conclusion
Schools are an important part of the infrastructure of our communities, as they provide safe, supportive learning environments for students, employ teachers and other staff, and enable parents, guardians, and caregivers to work. Schools also provide critical services that help meet the needs of children and families, especially those who are disadvantaged, through supporting the development of social and emotional skills, creating a safe environment for learning, identifying and addressing neglect and abuse, fulfilling nutritional needs, and facilitating physical activity. School closure disrupts the delivery of in-person instruction and critical services to children and families, which has negative individual and societal ramifications. The best available evidence from countries that have opened schools indicates that COVID-19 poses low risks to school-aged children, at least in areas with low community transmission, and suggests that children are unlikely to be major drivers of the spread of the virus. Reopening schools creates opportunity to invest in the education, well-being, and future of one of America’s greatest assets—our children—while taking every precaution to protect students, teachers, staff and all their families.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...g-schools.html
The economist makes some decent arguments as well, you may find it a good read.Quote:
Originally Posted by TSA
https://www.economist.com/leaders/20...h-the-benefits
Not yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
School in just about every district in Texas is going to be distance learning.
I came across that article earlier and couldn't read it without a subscription. Do you mind posting the entire thing? thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
sometimes these sites are sloppy and have a 1-2 second delay before the paywall pops up. when i encounter sites like that, i reload the URL and quickly snipe Cntrl+A, and Cntrl+C to copy all the content, then dump it into a word doc or pastebin or some shit, and you can read it that wayQuote:
Originally Posted by TSA
https://pastebin.com/SXBUvfZ4
wapo paywall is bypassed when incognito. NYT, not so much
:boboQuote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Let them learnQuote:
Originally Posted by TSA
The risks of keeping schools closed far outweigh the benefits
Millions of young minds are going to waste
All around the world, children’s minds are going to waste. As covid-19 surged in early April, more than 90% of pupils were shut out of school. Since then the number has fallen by one-third, as many classrooms in Europe and East Asia have reopened. But elsewhere progress is slow. Some American school districts, including Los Angeles and San Diego, plan to offer only remote learning when their new school year begins. Kenya’s government has scrapped the whole year, leaving its children idle until January. In the Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte says he may not let any children return to the classroom until a vaccine is found. South Africa has reopened casinos, but only a fraction of classrooms.
Many parents are understandably scared. Covid-19 is new, and poorly understood. Schools are big and crowded. Small children will not observe social distancing. Caution is appropriate, especially when cases are rising. But as we have argued before, the benefits of reopening schools usually outweigh the costs.
The new coronavirus poses a low risk to children. Studies suggest that under-18s are a third to a half less likely to catch the disease. Those under ten, according to British figures, are a thousand times less likely to die than someone aged between 70 and 79. The evidence suggests they are not especially likely to infect others. In Sweden staff at nurseries and primary schools, which never closed, were no more likely to catch the virus than those in other jobs. A new study of 1,500 teenage pupils and 500 teachers who had gone back to school in Germany in May found that only 0.6% had antibodies to the virus, less than half the national rate found in other studies. Granted, an outbreak at a secondary school in Israel infected over 150 pupils and staff. But with precautions, the risk can be minimised.
However, the costs of missing school are huge. Children learn less, and lose the habit of learning. Zoom is a lousy substitute for classrooms. Poor children, who are less likely to have good Wi-Fi and educated parents, fall further behind their better-off peers. Parents who have nowhere to drop their children struggle to return to work. Mothers bear the heavier burden, and so suffer a bigger career setback. Children out of school are more likely to suffer abuse, malnutrition and poor mental health.
School closures are bad enough in rich countries. The harm they do in poor ones is much worse (see article). Perhaps 465m children being offered online classes cannot easily make use of them because they lack an internet connection. In parts of Africa and South Asia, families are in such dire straits that many parents are urging their children to give up their studies and start work or get married. The longer school is shut, the more will make this woeful choice. Save the Children, a charity, guesses that nearly 10m could drop out. Most will be girls.
Education is the surest path out of poverty. Depriving children of it will doom them to poorer, shorter, less fulfilling lives. The World Bank estimates that five months of school closures would cut lifetime earnings for the children who are affected by $10trn in today’s money, equivalent to 7% of current annual gdp.
With such catastrophic potential losses, governments should be working out how to reopen schools as soon as it is safe. This should not be a partisan issue, as it has sadly become in America, where some people assume it is a bad idea simply because President Donald Trump proposes it. In some countries teachers’ unions have been obstructive, partly out of justified concern for public health as cases climb, but also because teachers’ interests are not the same as children’s—especially if they are being paid whether they work or not. The main union in Los Angeles urges that schools remain closed until a long wishlist of demands has been met, including the elusive dream of universal health care in America. Children cannot wait that long.
Places that have restarted schooling, such as France, Denmark, China and New Zealand, offer tips for minimising the risks. They let the most vulnerable teachers stay at home. They commonly reduced class sizes, even though that meant many children could spend only part of the week with their teachers. They staggered timetables to prevent crowding in corridors, at school gates and in dinner halls. They required or encouraged masks. They boosted school-based testing and tracing. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention has used these to draw up sober guidelines, which include measures such as separating desks by six feet (though the vice-president this week said that schools should feel free to ignore them).
European countries waited on average about 30 days after infections had peaked before they resumed some presence at school. Having started this way, many have since relaxed the rules to let most pupils return to school at the same time. There is no known experience of schools reopening in places where the virus was as prevalent as it is now in Arizona, Florida or Texas. Such places will have to bring the virus under control before the new term begins. This probably means that not all children will be able to go back full-time even then. But a few days a week with a teacher are better than none. And, as in Europe, schools can open up more as covid-19 recedes.
The trade-offs in the global South are even harder. Only a quarter of schools in the poorest countries have soap and running water for handwashing. However, schools in such places are also where pupils are often fed and vaccinated. Closing them makes children more vulnerable to hunger and measles, and this risk almost certainly outweighs that of covid-19. The prudent course for poor-country governments is therefore to act boldly. Face down unions and reopen schools. Conduct loud re-enrolment campaigns, aimed especially at girls. Offer small cash transfers or gifts (such as masks or pens) to ease parents’ worries about the costs of getting their offspring back to class.
Reopening the world’s schools safely will not be cheap. Besides billions of bottles of hand sanitiser, it will require careful organisation, flexible schedules and assistance for those who have fallen behind to catch up. It will cost taxpayers money, but taxpayers are often parents, too. Rich countries should help poor ones with some of the costs. Steep as these will be, they are nothing like the costs of letting the largest generation in human history grow up in ignorance.
EUROPE
The EU’s leaders have agreed on a €750bn covid-19 recovery package
LEADERS
With oil cheap, Arab states cannot balance their books
This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "Let them learn"
--------------------------------------------
As I have noted before, I am not against schools opening per se. There are very good arguments for getting them back in.Quote:
Originally Posted by -the big takeaway
BUT
You need some solid risk mitigation strategies. I am somewhat doubtful teenagers will have enough mask discipline to make that work, but the longer they stay closed the greater the harm.
Get control of the virus, and open the schools, especially for younger kids. Have a plan to protect the adults that work there.
Few Republican governors have acted in a responsible fashion though, to get the virus under control, and many are actively fighting measures that localities have implemented that would do something.
(shrugs) They will have to answer to voters as this drags on, and they keep ignoring the science for the sake of fucktarded identity politics.
This entire episode simply demonstrates in a very concrete way why Republicans can't really be trusted with governments. Its like handing car keys to drunks.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...s-us-by-state/Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
"...School officials should make decisions about school reopening based on available data including levels of community transmission and their capacity to implement appropriate mitigation measures in schools. ..."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...fe-return.html
Private contractors are cheaper and provide a degree of plausible deniability for fuck ups.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
"....If there is substantial, uncontrolled transmission, schools should work closely with local health officials to make decisions on whether to maintain school operations. The health, safety, and wellbeing of students, teachers, staff and their families is the most important consideration in determining whether school closure is a necessary step. Communities can support schools staying open by implementing strategies that decrease a community’s level of transmission. However, if community transmission levels cannot be decreased, school closure is an important consideration. Plans for virtual learning should be in place in the event of a school closure..."
Thanks for sharing this. Basically the same arguments I've been making but since they are now coming from the economist you think they are decent :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
A panegyric on reopening instead of real guidelines, I'm sure the schools appreciate the gentle encouragement.Quote:
Originally Posted by TSA
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...fe-return.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...e/schools.html