Stop Making Teachers Feel Guilty for Having Reasonable Questions!

I agree with you. I feel like it wouldn't be super risky to teach remotely from your classroom if proper precautions were taken. You'd be no more at risk than going to the grocery store. I definitely think it would be easier to work with the necessary materials also.

 

Your post definitely made me think. I can see how for some of the teachers working at school could be beneficial. Others like myself work fine from home, and I believe should be allowed to do so. To me the distractions at school would be worse. There are some teachers that love to socialize and I know they'd be popping in a lot. Yes, I might be able to stop this for myself, but then they will socialize with each other. Our school office where the bathrooms are located can feel like a very crowded teacher's lounge.

I think if those who wanted to be at school went and the others were at home, it might work. Having all teachers on campus could be problematic. I am guessing probably 1/4 or a 1/3 of the teachers might want to work in their classrooms. With that amount it could probably be done safely and effectively.

 

That's what we're about to do!

 

I agree. It might be no more risky than going to the grocery store, but some of us (me!) are not even doing that. I don't have kids, so worrying about who will watch my own children if I'm forced to go into school is not my problem. I just don't feel safe having to go into school and share work spaces and bathrooms with people from outside my home. I think it's fine to allow some people into the building (on a limited basis, with specific protocols and sign ups), but I don't think it's appropriate to force teachers into the school building if it has been deemed too unsafe to have children in the school.

 

I think it also depends on where you live.

 

That’s probably true. The numbers are all trending upwards in my region. It’s still unsafe here.

 

It’s official. 100% virtual start here. I’m breathing a sigh of relief.

 

My hometown district just announced their plan. In-person 4 days, virtual 1 day a week. Students are not required to wear masks. Teachers are to wear masks. Same class sizes (which by my math makes socially distancing guidelines impossible). No changes to recess, and they didn't mention what lunch will look like. Meanwhile community spread is much higher than when they shut down and has been on the increase for several weeks.

 

Under those conditions, what exactly do they think will be accomplished by the teacher wearing a mask?

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just being a curmudgeon, but I am not going to be teaching a child this year in person without a mask. I'm just not going to do it. That's my line in the sand. If I get brought back into the building at some point, I'll go and work my tail off, but every kid is wearing a mask properly or they aren't coming in my room.

 

It's official that we're starting the year remotely, and I'm very relieved.

 

I am not weighing in on my opinion here, just stating what I have read - a possible reasoning for this.

Several "experts" have said that kids don't contract or spread this virus easily. Also, mask removal, if not done correctly can spread germs. I can see some using this information to determine that between the fight to keep masks on the kids and the chance that they will end up spreading germs easier if they are taking it off and on throughout the day (drinking, eating, just not wanting to keep it on), it just isn't worth having kids wear the masks.

Again, not weighing in on the validity of this information, just noting it is out there and it may influence decisions.

 

This is my hometown district, so I'm not sure the exact details of everything. I read the plan on their Facebook page. I should state I'm not sure what the changes to recess are, just that there will be recess, and a statement they're going to reopen as close to normal as possible.

I think it must be what a2z mentioned about the research suggesting less spread between children, and they're less likely to get severe illness. But, I have seen some parents' comments coming in on Facebook, and all but one out of about 20 comments so far are all very happy their child(ren) will not have to wear a mask. I live in a rural area where more people than not don't wear masks when they go to the local grocery store. People stand in line and complain about it.

There were several parents with children with asthma that said their child could not wear a mask due to asthma. Maybe I'm just different or lucky that a mask doesn't trigger asthma attacks in me. I have asthma and have used a mask for years when I clean or do yard work to prevent asthma attacks. If I had a child with asthma, personally, I would feel it would be important for them to wear one due to this virus causing lung function problems. My son, who is in college and is home right now, and doesn't have asthma, knows I expect him to wear a mask when going to stores. He will be wearing a mask on campus this Fall when he leaves his efficiency apartment.

They did say children on buses will have to wear a mask, and one parent was up in arms about it, asking the school what they're going to do about it if he sends his children without masks, and they don't wear one on the bus. So, I would say there's probably also a parent component involved in their decision. And, probably all the other nuances surrounding having children wear masks.

 

Health officials are actually now reporting that kids ages 10 and up are able to transmit the virus just as easily as adults. It's the younger kids that are less likely to spread it around. I'm surprised to hear that masks are optional at school for anyone over 9 years old.

 

The superintendent/mayor of the town that I teach in said we are NOT going to do a full time return of students. The ed. department of my state is pushing for a full time return so I am glad we are not doing this. This is one of the few towns in MA that came out to say that it's not possible. They said we will either do remote or a hybrid model. They said that plans can change depending on the state of the virus .

They said masks are required for ALL--prek-12 except kids with sensory impairments. I think this is NOT fair and that if you cannot wear a mask properly...you need to choose the remote option.
They also said PPE is provided to teachers, they are checking our ventilation systems, developing sanitization/bathroom procedures etc.
6ft of social distancing will be required

Many districts are considering a hybrid model now. I would feel more comfortable having less kids but I don't see how I can teach online and in-person AND manage behaviors.

I am hopeful that my district will choose an all remote option to start like many other places are doing. We are starting in late August/September so I am hopeful!

 

I agree. All of the students in my building are under the age of 9, and they are not being required to wear masks for in-person instruction. Even though they are less likely to transmit the virus than teens and adults, they are still able to transmit it. It makes me very uncomfortable being around them without them wearing a mask. I'm with you. If you can't keep a mask on, then don't come to school. Fortunately, my district has opted to start all virtually, with no in person options. But that could change at any time.

 

Exactly...I understand that students with special needs need the in person instruction.
Unfortunately, many students with special needs won't be able to keep a mask on.
I believe that health and safety > sped. services.

I also imagine parents being upset if they are in a class with an unmasked child.
I know I have one student with CP on my caseload who won't be able to wear a mask.
If he has COVID-19, he will easily infect my whole class during a 6hr day.

 

My district announced that elementary will likely be 100% in person and the middle and high school will be hybrid, with 50% at school and the rest at home. Friday will be a deep cleaning day at the middle and high school. ESL and SPED students need to be in person as much as possible. Students must wear masks most of the time (except at lunch).

I teach in all buildings in the district and I am the only ESL teacher in the district. I am also high-risk for coronavirus. We have the option of petitioning to account for our needs and stay safe, but anything I do changes what happens to my program. I am unhappy teachers are being asked to choose between health or in-person learning for students.

 

I'm surprised too! For me, safety is top priority. Personally, I'm glad I will not be in schools this Fall. I feel for all you guys in that difficult position. I hope our leaders have it in their hearts to make decisions, that may not be popular with everyone, but will protect people's health.

We're still on the fence about our son going back to his college campus. I was hoping they'd shut down. We're now considering other options.

I think with the rising spread in my area that the best thing would be to do virtual until it's better under control. I get all the issues with virtual and understand how important school is for children, but under the circumstances, I'd rather my child and family remain healthy than take the risk. Because honestly, the data and recommendations keep changing, and I don't feel comfortable with the lack of consistency and the problem of decisions being biased by political agendas.

 

It's twice now where I've had about half the class with sensory issues of one kind or another. If so many kids in a class are excused from wearing a mask, does the protection of the rest work?

 

Is that for everyone?

 

Well, they have said masks don't help the wearer only the others. There is an increased chance of COVID when people aren't wearing masks, but if you believe masks offer significant protection, then each person wearing a mask is offering protection. Better for some to wear than none. That way if the mask wearer happens to contract COVID they aren't spreading it as easily. If the non mask were gets COVID they will spread.

If you believe in masks, then some is better than none, right?

 

"If you believe in masks"

The cool thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in it or not.

Putting that aside though, the question becomes at what point it's an acceptable risk. We know that wearing masks makes the people around you safer. That isn't up for debate. From my perspective, the right to accommodation ends at the point where other people's safety is negatively impacted. If somebody wants to argue that the difference is negligible to the point that it doesn't matter, that's fine. For me, I'm spending the summer working with my own child with sensory needs to get her used to wearing a mask because I will not allow her to enter a school building next year without one.

 

Sure, but at what point is the low mask count safe enough?

 

The really cool thing about science is that you never believe it is an absolute! Remember, at one point the scientists of the time thought the world was flat. Scientists thought there was a huge genetic variation between races.

Some people believe in them working and others don't. Depending on the "research" you read you will get different "answers". Yes, there are a lot of quotes because there is a lot of garbage floating around as research or research being misconstrued to mean something it does not.

Honestly, I don't know what the true facts are because I read papers for and against masks.

 

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop -- the world may never know.

Not to make fun, just a funny.

The truth is "safe enough" is a subjective term. What is safe enough to me may not be the same to you. It also depends on the threshold you are trying to achieve and is that realistic (another subjective term).

I guess that is why I posted about the unintended consequences of the cure in the past. We can't really determine "safe enough" without looking at the entire problem. Focusing on a myopic issue ignores whole and this issue is beyond just catching the virus.

 

Could I see some of these papers from either peer-reviewed sources or national/international medical associations casting doubt on the efficacy of masks?

 

Were I to see such a class again in a mask situation where those with sensory issues were not wearing masks, I'm not at all sure what the class would look like.

I could see parents upset about the low mask count. I could see kids withdrawn. Such class could become the maskless class and become a case study. Indeed, who knows what the results would be?

Part of a greater picture, yes, but on the smaller scale, how would people react to a low-mask-count class?

 

I didn't bookmark them but I will search for them later today if I get a chance. I too ask for sources.

 

I could see parents upset about low mask count. I could see parents upset that their kids can't have class because of low mask count. I could see a million different scenarios. People have different opinions. I would also think that many parents who have kids in self-contained classes know that those with sensory issues probably won't be wearing masks.

I know someone going through this situation right now. Self-contained, sensory issues, school expecting the child to wear a mask, etc. School says if the child doesn't wear the mask he can't go to school. Mom says they need to provide services so if he can't go to school they better send someone to the house in full ppe to teach. School knows this child won't wear a mask. OT knows it too. One option was full PPE for teachers in self contained classes where kids can't wear masks. Face shields and masks, gloves, etc.

That would be one difficult study to draw any conclusions from unless you knowing put COVID positive students in the classroom or a COVID positive teacher in the classroom. Without COVID exposure, there is nothing to study. You can't control the environment the students and teachers are in outside of the classroom. And then can you control what each teacher will be doing in each classroom? Do you have spitters? Are the ventilation systems the same in each school?

 

To all my teacher friends, remember, take care of you first, just like you put the oxygen mask on yourself first and then on the child. If you don't save yourself, you can't be there for the kids. Don't let them ignore you when you have reasonable concerns for your safety. I'm praying for you all...

 

I laughed inappropriately too hard at this. Way too much truth.

 

Of course the past research about masks is not about this strain of COVID because this strain of covid is novel.
Here is a link that links peer-reviewed research. It is primarily about flu but
https://www.rcreader.com/commentary...f-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy

Here is another:
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435/
This one is interesting because they show the research doesn't support wearing them but continues to explain why they are necessary.
"This raises an ethical question: should policy makers apply the precautionary principle now and encourage people to wear face masks on the grounds that we have little to lose and potentially something to gain from this measure?3 We believe they should." - Summarized: Research didn't support my view so I will put together a paper of people who express my view and rely on them rather than research.

I will leave it up to you to find well created peer-reviewed research that show cloth mask wearing or surgical mask wearing works to stop the spread of COVID.

But as I said, I'm not sure what the truth is. I do wear masks when out in public when I cannot socially distance. So, I am doing what the second article says (better be safe than sorry) even though most of the research out there doesn't support it at this time.

As I said, science is great because nothing is ever set in stone. That is why there is continual research. There are few things that are facts even if we think they are right now.

 

The BMJ article more or less concludes that it couldn't hurt and states that, from a policy standpoint, "it is time to act without waiting for randomised controlled trial evidence. A recently posted preprint of a systematic review came to the same conclusion. Masks are simple, cheap, and potentially effective. We believe that, worn both in the home (particularly by the person showing symptoms) and also outside the home in situations where meeting others is likely (for example, shopping, public transport), they could have a substantial impact on transmission with a relatively small impact on social and economic life."

The RCR article is written by a physicist who, at the risk of sounding insulting, flat-out lied about what his quoted articles stated, and still missed the point since the argument is that masks help protect other people from an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic carrier, not the wearer.

 

That is how I summed it up. The research doesn't support it but it won't hurt. Some will look at that and say if the "science" doesn't back it up, why should I do it. Just because isn't an acceptable answer for some.

That is called an opinion.

So, above is an article that even admits the research casts doubts on the efficacy of masks, but decides better safe than sorry.

Please cite which statement and paper.

 

Well, from what I have seen of kids out and about in stores, the parents don't seem to be too concerned with their kids wearing masks. The kids are usually walking right near them and are either playing with their masks or wearing them incorrectly. So how is being in a store different from school? Obviously, they don't feel like correcting their child so how are the teachers going to be able to enforce this?

 

It is for my entire district.

 

I'm actually wondering how classroom management will look in this regard. My sister predicts it'll be one of those things teachers and staff will eventually turn a blind eye to (Our state is mandating masks in schools). Or will it be expected and little teaching will be done because we're having a mask battle?

 

As you know, our governor ordered all schools to open in August with 5-day a week, in-person option available to all students -- even though we are in the middle of a terrible spike of the virus.

My local school district is, of course, complying. Today, the school district put out a video of what a typical school day will look like in our school district for in-person instruction.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...ll-it-apocalyptic-y/ar-BB17q5A0?ocid=msedgntp (the video is at the bottom of the news article.)

It is a stark reality, and I'm glad they did this. The general public thinks in-person instruction means going back to "normal" and they need to see the reality of what in-person instruction is going to look like during a pandemic.

Teachers in our district are required to wear cloth face covering, plastic face shield, lab coat and gloves at all time (provided for them) and all students must wear masks (also provided by the school district.) You will notice in the video the "water fountain" attachments at the sinks are covered. You need to realize those are the only water fountains available -- we don't have traditional water fountains in our schools -- they are located inside each classroom sink. They can't be used because of potential oversplash from the classroom sink during mandatory handwashing.

Our classrooms are very large in the lower grades, so it will not be as difficult in lower grades to socially distance the desks. Our bathrooms (two single stalls, one boys and one girls, shared between two classrooms) are located inside our classrooms. Students then leave the restroom, return to the classroom section, walk to the opposite side of the room to the classroom sink to wash their hands. This has always been a bit concerning to me as a teacher, because students have to touch two door handles after using the restroom before they get to the classroom sink. There are no other student restroom facilities or water fountains available in our schools. Students from two classes share one bathroom pod located in a shared walk-through between the two classes, and so you do lose control and the ability to observe students once they go into that area. (You can limit to one student at a time, but you don't know if a student from the other class is already in there, and you can't see the students once they get back there.) There is often unsupervised shenanigans in this area because of poor design.

We also have very few indoor hallways -- most are outdoor walkways with overhangs, so that will make "walking in line" a little more safe, as long as classes stagger. However the "eating outdoors" that is shown in the video is not an option at all schools, and violates our "safe school" plan (we teach with all doors locked at all times as part of the active shooter plan, so leaving kids outside the safety of a locked room to eat is going to be a huge change.) Also, I know at the nearest school to me, there is no outside seating. You also have to remember that here, it is unbelievably hot and humid during August, September, and October, and mosquitos are a huge issue. (Because it doesn't get cold here, they don't die off during the winter months, and by October, they are intense!)

We also have no indoor gymnasiums in elementary school here, just a small outside canopy for when it rains. Cafeterias are very small and usually packed to the brim, non-stop from 10am-1:30pm, so I'm not sure how they are going to socially distance there -- probably at least half the students are going to have to eat in classrooms. We are state mandated to offer PE three times per week to all students, but do so by cramming three classrooms of 28 students into each PE period, and when it rains or the heat is above 95 degrees (which is often, here) they can't go out into field areas. To social distance, they are going to have to reduce the number of times per week PE is offered, regardless of the state mandate. During high heat or rain, the kids are packed like sardines under the small canopy area or indoor PE in classrooms has to be used (which is the time when the classrooms are supposed to be sanitized.) I'm not sure what the plan is for that.

Anyway, I thought the video was very eye-opening. Parents and the general public need to realize this is not going to be "business as usual." Things are not going back to "normal."

 

My district just announced a fully remote start!

 

I don't think a lot of districts realize how hard it will be to maintain social distancing with k-5 students. The new "normal" will be different and possibly traumatic for students. I have heard of schools limiting what you can do at recess on the playground because recess isn't safe like it used to be. Imagine how a little kid will feel having one of the few times they can play and socialize micromanaged? Things will be very different and I think we should take the time to think about the ramifications of sending students back before we have a vaccine in place.