July 24th, 2020 Why My Kids Are Not Returning To Class

d to improve outcomes in public schools right in their backyard.

There is a lot of discussion about whether schools should reopen as the pandemic rages. Over the past few weeks, I’ve offered some of my thoughts on the subject as well as talked to several teachers to get their opinions. Our school district in Georgia, which is slated to begin classes on August 10, offered parents the option of in-person classes, virtual classes, or withdrawing their children for homeschooling. My wife and I considered all the options with an open mind and finally reached the same conclusion.

Let me begin by saying that we are generally happy with our school district. Our children’s teachers have been good for the most part. Not a single one has ever taught our children to hate America. My wife is a substitute teacher so she has insider knowledge of how the local educational sausage is made. That hasn’t been a good thing in some districts where we have lived, but she has been happy with the teachers and administrators in our current location.

Our kids like their schools as well. Both of my children, who are middle and high school age, said that they preferred to return to in-person classes ceteris paribus (economist speak for “all other conditions remaining the same”), a phrase that neither of them knows but a concept that they understand. My wife and I also preferred that they go back to class… ceteris paribus.

The problem is that all other conditions are not remaining the same from previous years. We live in a rural county where 14 people have died of Coronavirus. That doesn’t seem like a lot, but Georgia’s Coronavirus statistics page shows that our sparsely populated county is averaging about 10 new cases of COVID-19 daily. More than 10 percent of county COVID patients have required hospitalization, a fact not considered by the reopen crowd which trumpets a 99 percent survival rate for the disease. (The case mortality rate for my county is actually 2.6 percent.)

Although our county is rural, our next-door neighbor is a large urban area where the numbers are much worse. This neighboring county is reporting about 100 new cases every day. There is a lot of traffic between the two counties as people go to work and shop in the city. The virus level in both counties is much higher now than it was back in March when schools closed for the last term.

The back-to-school push comes at a time when the pandemic in both Georgia and the United States is raging out of control. In Georgia, the number of new cases is averaging more than 3,000 per day while nationally we are seeing more than 70,000 new cases daily. Deaths are trending up in both Georgia and the US as a whole.

Many of the cases are serious and not asymptomatic. Upwards of 400 Georgians have been hospitalized for Coronavirus every day this week, leading to shortages of hospital beds. Yahoo News reported on Thursday that 88 percent of the state’s ICU beds were filled.

The good news is that COVID patients are spending less time in the hospital, which helps to relieve some pressure. Doctors attribute this improvement to having gained experience in how to treat the disease more efficiently. The bad news is that COVID-19 has been found to be a whole-body disease and survivors can experience long-term health damage, another factor seldom mentioned by those who push for a return to normal.

The situation both in Georgia and the nation as a whole is so dire that many health experts have recommended another shelter-in-place. Earlier this week, 125 public health experts signed an open letter asking leaders to “Tell the American people the truth about the virus, even when it’s hard” and to “take bold action to save lives — even when it means shutting down again.”

The dangers of reopening schools should be obvious. Although children are more resistant to Coronavirus than adults, they do die from the disease or from an associated multi-system inflammatory syndrome.

What’s more, children may not be dying from COVID-19 in large numbers but they do spread it to people who are more high-risk. Children who go to in-person classes may end up carrying the disease home to vulnerable parents or grandparents. Of course, teachers who spend all day with possibly infectious children can also be at high risk.

Additionally, there is strong evidence that central HVAC systems can spread Coronavirus over much farther distances than the traditional six-foot distance mandated for social distancing. Schools and office air conditioners cranking out cold air in the Southern summer may be to blame for some of the recent spike in Coronavirus cases.

Finally, there is the anti-mask zealotry to contend with. I haven’t seen polling on the subject but my sense from talking with other parents in community chat groups is that many, if not most, of the parents who are sending their children into the classroom are the same people who view masks as tyranny.

Our school district has said that masks will be “strongly encouraged” but not required. In practice, this means that many children and teachers won’t be wearing them. This means that the virus is more likely to spread.

On Thursday, Georgia’s State Board of Education failed to act on a proposal to delay the start of the school year until September. This is despite the danger signs and the news that the school that President Trump’s son attends will remain closed. President Trump also recently canceled a large part of the Republican convention, yet schools are expected to reopen as usual. Some districts are acting on their own to delay the first day of school, just as most businesses here are now acting unilaterally to require masks without a state mandate, but others are forging ahead.

So we made the decision that we thought was best for our family. We decided to enroll our children in virtual school rather than sending them to in-person classes. We view it as the safe thing to do, not only for our extended family with elderly and immune-compromised relatives but for the teachers and our community as well.

We did not succumb to irrational fear. We assessed the risks and rewards of returning to traditional classes and decided that it was not appropriate to take one for the team by sending our kids into a viral hot zone.

It’s also likely that virtual students will have an advantage for the coming year. I fully expect that some in-person teachers will become exposed and have to take self-isolate at home or be absent for long periods of illness. Brick-and-mortar classroom students may spend weeks with substitutes and make-work while virtual students keep up with the curriculum.

And that’s assuming that the schools can find substitutes. My wife reports that few of her sub friends are willing to sign on for the coming year. The $55 daily rate in a job that does not provide health insurance is apparently not very enticing at this point.

Our children were initially disappointed to learn that they would be doing online classes for at least the next semester. Their disappointment was quickly tempered, however, when they talked to their friends and realized that most of them were not going back to in-person classes either. It seems that many parents are voting with their feet for virtual classes.

Parents considering the possibility of needlessly exposing their children and families are turning out to be more conservative about the risks to public health than our political leaders. To a certain extent, that’s good, but with obvious danger threatening their citizens, our elected officials should be taking the lead in protecting public health.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Here’s What Teachers Are Saying About Going Back To School In A Pandemic

There is a lot of discussion about whether it is safe to reopen schools with Coronavirus surging around much of the country. I discussed many of the aspects of returning to school in the midst of a pandemic last weekend but thought it would be interesting to get the opinion of teachers since they are the people who will be in the hot zone. Since many teachers are older and have pre-existing conditions, they face a significantly greater risk in returning to school than their students.

I recently spoke with two teachers about their school district’s plans to reopen in early August. To protect their identities and jobs, we’ll call them Mr. Wetherby and Miss Grandy. Several other teachers that I talked to declined to go on the record, even anonymously, out of concern for their jobs.

Both teachers say that the school district sent a survey to faculty members prior to announcing the decision to reopen, but their opinions on the weight given to teacher opinions differs. Mr. Wetherby says that school leaders “encouraged each teacher to express their feelings in writing” and gave them “an open invitation to contact school leadership with issues.” However, Miss Grandy notes that the survey only asked “whether we were planning to return or not” and why.

“They did not ask for our suggestions or help in the decision-making process as a whole,” she says.

When asked whether returning to school is safe, Mr. Wetherby says, “I believe it is safe-ish. I believe students need to return to the classroom. I have seen students since school was released in March hanging out with friends and going on multiple vacations. I am not criticizing these students, but if they feel comfortable enough to engage in those activities then they should trust the precautions that are in place. The number one goal for students is their safety, health and well-being.”

“Not as normal,” Miss Grandy says, adding, “If we are to make in person as safe as possible, we need to greatly reduce class sizes. Having 30 teenagers or 20 children behaving normally in close quarters is not safe.”

Children can and do die and suffer complications from COVID-19 but are at a much lower risk than adults. Asymptomatic children can spread the disease to adults but the extent of transmission by children is still subject to debate.

Class size is a big variable at this point. This district, like many others around the country, will be offering parents the option of enrolling their children in state-sponsored virtual classrooms or withdrawing from the school system completely and enrolling in homeschool. At this point, it is uncertain how many parents will forgo in-person classes and choose distance-learning or homeschools. In normal times, classes are crowded and space is at a premium in this large school district in a growing county.

Mr. Wetherby adds, “My school will be providing some supplies to the faculty and staff. I am not sure if they will provide student-specific PPE (masks, gloves, etc.) I do know each student will be issued a partition to help distance themselves from each other.” He continues, “This partition does have a clear window so that students can see through them.”

“Each teacher will be receiving a thermometer as well as disinfectant for their classroom,” Wetherby adds. “The school has trained the custodial staff to ensure proper cleaning will be utilized especially in high traffic areas. Students will also be allotted fresh air breaks and social distancing will be followed in all common areas.”

“If a student expresses a need for PPE, that students needs will be met,” says Mr. Wetherby.

But Miss Grandy argues that social distancing cannot be maintained in crowded schools, saying, “According to the procedure we will not even be trying. Social distancing is recommended only where feasible and it was specified that is not possible in hallways or classrooms.”

If schools reopen, it is inevitable that some teachers and students will contract COVID-19. An obvious question is what will happen when someone in the school tests positive for the virus. Communications from the school district say that people in direct contact with the infected person, defined in the district as within six feet for more than 15 minutes, will be asked to self-quarantine for 10 days. They must be fever-free without medication for three days before returning to school.

The school district is also encouraging parents to not send children to school if they are sick. Administrators plan to be very lenient on absenteeism for the coming semester.

“If it is the teacher” who tests positive, Miss Grandy says, “Then I guarantee it will be accompanied by an immense amount of guilt for exposing everyone.”

Both teachers acknowledge that there are risks associated with going back to school.

“I believe there is a calculated risk for reopening,” Mr. Wetherby says, adding that “Complacency has entered the mind of some individuals and that will cause issues.”

“The cons are everywhere I look,” notes Miss Grandy. “The atmosphere is charged with anxiety, fear, disbelief. I’m sure this will translate into the classrooms. When people start to get sick, I believe it is inevitable that the schools will close down again, then we will be in the same boat as March with teachers struggling to instantaneously produce material for students to learn at home. Only this year, we will be expected to continue instruction instead of just review. Where does this leave students with no internet?”

“I believe it will remain open as long as possible,” Mr. Wetherby disagrees. “I trust the leadership that are currently in place to reevaluate and take the appropriate measures to ensure the safety to all involved.”

When asked if he is concerned about safety, Mr. Wetherby answers in the negative, saying, “I am not concerned for safety. I will take the proper precautions and continue to deliver the best education I can to my students.”

On this, Miss Grandy disagrees, saying, she is “mostly concerned for others.”

“I have family that I would be potentially exposing,” she continues, “But I’m also thinking of the mental health of my coworkers. I personally know teachers who are having panic attacks at the thought of going back; waking up from nightmares; considering looking for other work because they feel the district is not protecting us. I think about the loss the high school felt when they lost a dear administrator a couple years ago. The school is still mourning that loss. What will the mental health of the staff and students be if people start dying because we went back too soon and ill prepared?”

When asked what procedures they would implement if they ran the school system, Mr. Wetherby says, “I would reopen, and the guidelines I would establish would be close to the plans that are currently in place. I would highly encourage parents who feel uncomfortable with their students attending school to take the appropriate measures to keep their children safe. I would let each parent know and understand that the leadership in the schools support whatever decision that they make for their child.”

Miss Grandy is more critical of the district’s plans. Her first recommendation is to delay the first day of school until September as some other nearby school districts are doing. This would allow “the school and community to see what happens in other places first.”

“Instead, we are the guinea pigs,” she says. “The other schools are watching us.”

“I think the district would have benefited by having a split schedule in which students came to school two days a week and the other three were online,” Miss Grandy continues. “This would have reduced class sizes by half allowing for the possibility of social distancing. It would also allow for students who don’t have internet to be able to get work directly from teachers for the three days of at home learning. They could still get one-on-one instruction, as well. When the schools end up shutting down again, these students will be left with packets and little instruction just like in March.”

“I know that a split schedule can be hard on parents, but this is a time where everyone needs to adapt,” she adds. “And having a set schedule of two days at school and three at home, at least the working parent could rely on a set schedule every week as opposed to some school districts I’ve seen implementing one week at school then one to two weeks at home.”

“With smaller class sizes, proper PPE, masks required, not recommended, and additional cleaning, I think it would be setting the schools up to actually make it through this mess,” Grandy says, “But as it is, I believe we will shortly all be at home again. And then parents will be left in the same position as last spring.” 

“I am glad I am not the one who has to make these decisions,” Mr. Wetherby says.

Most of us can probably agree on that sentiment.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Florida Mandates School Reopenings

There is a nationwide debate on whether students should return to school this fall in the midst of the pandemic. The question is all the more difficult to answer because the curve of virus cases had seemed to be flattened a few weeks ago, but now is surging higher once again. In Florida, however, the decision has already been made. Schools will reopen in August for all students.

Tallahassee’s WTXL reports that Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran has issued an Executive Order that mandates that all of Florida’s public K-12 schools will reopen in August. The order requires that schools open for all students for five days per week and provide all required services.

“Upon reopening in August, all school boards and charter school governing boards must open brick and mortar schools at least five days per week for all students, subject to advice and orders of the Florida Department of Health, local departments of health, Executive Order 20-149 and subsequent executive orders,” Corcoran said in the order, which also mandates that schools provide “the full array of services that are required by law so that families who wish to educate their children in a brick and mortar school have the opportunity to do so.”

The full text of the order is available on the Florida DOE website here.

The Executive Order came almost simultaneously with a tweet from President Trump that succinctly exclaimed, “Schools must reopen in the fall!” The move also came on a day in which Florida reported 7,361 new cases and three deaths. The state not only has an increasing number of cases but an increasing rate of positive tests.

While many will applaud Florida’s move to mandate that kids get back to school, in a pandemic whose effects vary greatly by region, a one-size-fits-all solution from state governments makes as little sense as a one-size-fits-all solution from the federal government. COVID-19 has so far hit urban areas much harder than rural areas. Different approaches to localities that are subject to different levels of risk and different rates of infection would seem an appropriate solution.

For example, Miami has been hard-hit by the pandemic. Dade County was responsible for 28 percent of Florida’s new cases yesterday. The situation is deemed to be so serious there that Miami Mayor Carlos Gimenez issued a new order this week closing dining rooms and bars beginning on Wednesday. The Sun-Sentinel reports that Broward and Palm Beach Counties may soon make similar moves.

On the other hand, rural Okeechobee County in central Florida reported only 12 new cases on July 6, 0.001 percent of the state total. The two counties obviously are having different experiences of the pandemic. It stands to reason that their responses could be different.

Dr. Fauci acknowledged this as well. Speaking to CNBC last week, Fauci said, “When you’re talking about getting back to a degree of normality and school openings and things like that, it’s always related to the level of activity of the virus.” 

Fauci noted that the question of whether schools should reopen had “a bit of a complicated answer, because the United States is a large country.”

One size does not fit all.

The seriousness of whether to reopen is underscored by the story of Carsyn Leigh Davis, a 17-year-old girl from Fort Myers, Florida who died after attending a church party with about 100 other youths. Masks were not worn at the party and social distancing was not enforced. To make matters worse, Carsyn, who was immunocompromised due to childhood cancer and other health issues, was not taken to the hospital for almost a week after showing symptoms of Coronavirus. Instead, her parents treated her at home with hydroxychloroquine. She died 13 days after the party.

There are loopholes in the Florida mandate. The Order contains an exception that makes it “subject to advice and orders of the Florida Department of Health [and] local departments of health” as well as gubernatorial orders. While local school boards cannot unilaterally decide to keep their schools closed or turn to online classes, they can do so if the local health department or government decides that in-person classes are dangerous.

The Order also does not prohibit online classes or mandate attendance. The Order stipulates that schools may provide “live synchronous or synchronous instruction with the same curriculum as in-person instruction and the ability to interact with a student’s teacher and peers as approved by the Commissioner of Education.” The Order does not address how schools should handle immunocompromised students (or teachers) or parents who are concerned about the health risks of sending their children back to school in the midst of a pandemic.

One of the keys to public health and safety in the midst of a pandemic is flexibility. Corcoran’s Executive Order clearly communicates a preference from the state government that schools reopen for in-person classes next month, but it does leave loopholes for local governments and concerned parents to opt out. Given Florida’s state of rising Coronavirus cases, those exemptions should be more explicit and local school boards should be given more autonomy to decide what is best for their students and faculty.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Administration Throws Out School Lunch Rules Left Over From Obama Era

Complaining about school lunches is a time-honored tradition. From Adam Sandler’s ode to the lunch lady to ponderings about the odd rectangular slices of cafeteria pizza from my youth, lunchroom food has been a source of both grumbling and laughter. During the Obama Administration, the problem got worse, however.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 codified into law standards that were championed by First Lady Michelle Obama. The law set new standards for school lunches as well as vending machines that mandated higher nutrition as well as smaller portion sizes. The resulting bland, half-empty trays led my son to complain, “The food at school is bad and there isn’t enough of it.”

One area where the Trump Administration has been reliable is in rolling back onerous Obama era bureaucratic rulemaking. Easing federal oversight of local school lunches is no exception. Last year, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced an interim rule that relaxed the Obama guidelines. Now Perdue has unveiled the new permanent rules.

The Obama rules are a good example of well-intentioned federal rulemaking run amok. No one is against healthy food for students, but the federal one-size-fits-all approach can cause as many problems as it resolves. In a case of the Law of Unintended Consequences, school lunches became more nutritious, but they also wasted food because kids weren’t eating them. The federal guidelines didn’t recognize regional and cultural differences across the country. The law’s requirement for whole grains was difficult to meet while cooking foods such as pasta, tortillas, biscuits, and grits in a way that was palatable to children. Likewise, the Obama law permitted only nonfat flavored milk or 1 percent white milk and required every student to buy at least one serving of a fruit or vegetable “even if they toss the produce into the garbage” noted the New Haven Register at the time.

When I ate lunch at school with my children, I would see many parents bringing outside pizzas, sub sandwiches or chicken nuggets to their children. My kids and many other packed lunches from home that were not subject to the requirements of the federal nanny state. When I purchased school food and ate it with my kids, I found it very bland and unexciting. The staff told me that their cooking options were very limited because the federal mandate which also required reductions in sodium and other ingredients.

Now some sanity and local control are being restored to school lunches. Secretary Perdue said in a statement, “If kids are not eating what is being served, they are not benefiting, and food is being wasted.”

Under the new rules, only half of the grains served must be whole grain, allowing schools to use more appetizing flours when necessary. Students will also be able to drink low-fat chocolate milk instead of the fat-free milk that the government had required.

The fundamental problem with the situation is the fallacy that only the federal government can ensure that schoolchildren get healthy lunches. Contrary to the belief of some Americans, it isn’t necessary for the feds to micromanage what every child in America eats for lunch. State and local education and nutrition officials also have working brains and the best interests of the children at heart. School cafeterias were not dishing out poison to schoolchildren before Michelle Obama intervened.

The world won’t end with the Trump Administration’s new school lunch guidelines. Schoolchildren won’t starve and they won’t suddenly become morbidly obese. There is the chance that they might enjoy their lunch more, get a full belly and go back to class satiated and ready to learn, rather than still hungry because most of their lunch went straight from the tray to the trash can. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Betsy DeVos opposed ending Obama bathroom mandate

The Trump Administration issued an order earlier this week ending the Obama era policy of federal micromanagement of public school bathrooms. As he issued the order, President Trump reportedly received opposition from a surprising source: newly confirmed Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

Both CNN and the New York Times cite sources within the Administration who say that Mrs. DeVos and Attorney General Jeff Sessions were in conflict over the initial draft of bathroom order. Both the Justice and Education Departments were initially in agreement that the Obama policy was an improper federal overreach into state and local matters. In a joint letter, the two departments said that Obama’s policy was enacted “without due regard for the primary role of the states and local school districts in establishing educational policy.”

Mr. Sessions and the Justice Department favored a swift reversal of the policy to head off two pending Supreme Court cases that cover transgender bathroom usage. The possibility of a ruling by the high Court that would lock the Obama policy into place made it necessary to act before the cases came to the Supreme Court. The Court was scheduled to hear one of the bathroom cases in March.

The Times cited three Republicans who said that Mrs. DeVos initially resisted signing onto the Trump Administration order on the grounds that it might cause harm to transgender students. DeVos and Sessions clashed over the order and eventually took their disagreement to President Trump. Trump sided with Sessions and reportedly gave Mrs. DeVos the option of supporting the order or resigning.

DeVos eventually gave her assent to the order, but released a separate statement that said, “We have a responsibility to protect every student in America and ensure that they have the freedom to learn and thrive in a safe and trusted environment. This is not merely a federal mandate, but a moral obligation no individual, school, district or state can abdicate. At my direction, the department's Office for Civil Rights remains committed to investigating all claims of discrimination, bullying and harassment against those who are most vulnerable in our schools.”

The incident has caused some on the right to suspect that DeVos is soft on resistance to the gay rights movement. Red State pointed out that her political advisor, Greg McNeilly, is in a same-sex marriage and is a LGBT activist. In the Advocate, McNeilly said that DeVos and her husband went “out of their way to show affirmation” for his marriage and views.

“She would say it’s a part of her faith,” said McNeilly in the New York Times. “Her faith teaches her to be tolerant. And like most of America, she’s evolved.”

The New York Times also reported that DeVos’s support for gay rights goes back to the 1990s when she intervened to allow a transgender woman (a biological male) to use the women’s restroom at a Republican call center in Michigan.

John Truscott, a Republican political consultant who worked with DeVos’s husband, Dick, told Buzzfeed in January, “Betsy is supportive of gay marriage.” The Times reported that Betsy DeVos urged other Michigan Republicans to sign a Supreme Court brief in favor of same-sex marriage in 2015, but did not sign herself.

Ironically, LGBT activists opposed the confirmation of DeVos because they considered her a threat to gay rights and accused her of supporting groups that promoted therapy for people with a homosexual orientation. Politifact rated those charges as “mostly false.”

DeVos is apparently one of a growing number of Republicans, particularly from outside the Bible Belt, that support gay rights. President Trump seems to be a member of this group as well, even proudly waving an LGBT flag at a campaign rally last fall. Trump told the publisher of the gay newspaper, Bay Windows, earlier this month that there would be “more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians.”

The establishment of pro-gay curriculums in many schools, including the entire state of California, has caused conflict with many parents who believe that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are immoral. The new revelations about Mrs. DeVos’s views on gay rights may cause many conservatives to wonder whether her sympathy for gay rights will outweigh her desire to return control of schools back to local school boards and parents.