Posts by Susan James

Carl Bishop2 said:What's the deal with preschool, though? I always assumed it was mandatory, but now I'm starting to second-guess myself.

True, though it isn't available everywhere.
In many areas, working moms and daycare providers send their kids to preschool during that final year, maybe just two or three times a week for a few hours at a time.
In some rural towns, they hold classes at the local elementary school for a few hours, but then parents run into major transportation issues.

Personally, I feel like everyone should be in preschool during that last year before kindergarten—not just for a couple of hours. It shouldn't just be about finger painting; it's about building a whole foundation of social skills and more.

urbanowl81 said:There is a massive gap between an "A" grade and failing first grade. And if she’s right, that’s exactly where her kid is headed. "Look, nobody is going to tell you this because they want the enrollment numbers, but for the sake of your child, repeating first grade is actually the better move. Long-term, it's less damaging than forcing them through a curriculum they aren't ready for, which just leads to burnout for both of you. Regardless, if they had listened to you, the kid would have started first grade in the 21/22 school year anyway—this way, they still start in 21/22, but they'll actually be prepared instead of wasting another year in preschool.". Well, here we go: her kid is repeating first grade. This isn't some hypothetical case about a kid from a movie or some crazy character; it's her actual child. And predictably, people like Frupi and Mad Hatter will ignore the core issue, burying one relevant comment about schooling under ten different remarks about hairstyles, all while picking fights just to make the thread more entertaining.

First grade isn't just "coloring and drawing"; it’s genuinely demanding for any kid who lacks emotional maturity or is performing below grade level. Whether her kid fits that description is something the school district's specialists should decide. I wasn't planning on getting sucked into this debate, but I couldn't let those blatant falsehoods and generalizations slide. It seems like the OP has already checked out of the conversation, so there's really no point in debating whether delaying enrollment was the right call anymore.

A child who is academically behind will likely stay behind. If they truly can't keep up with the curriculum, they'll probably end up in a specialized program later on. In my opinion, it’s a real shame to delay school just to drill first-grade material into them beforehand, only for them to breeze through first grade with straight A's and then hit a massive wall in second or third grade when the workload gets heavier. I've noticed that school specialists are often hesitant to approve individualized plans in these cases because they worry it's more about a parent's desire to collect perfect grades rather than an actual necessity for the child.

On the other hand, a child who is emotionally immature will very likely catch up within that extra year. But if that's the case, they might not even need a speech therapist (in this specific scenario). More importantly, if that child stands out for other reasons during first grade—since they'll be celebrating an 8th birthday while most kids are still 6—they could quickly run into situations that crush their self-esteem. They might become depressed, and suddenly that "emotional immaturity" at age seven seems minor compared to the struggle of being the oldest, biggest kid in class who can't do something that everyone else finds easy.

There are so many skills children need to master before starting school. Parents really need clear guidance here. Most kids, if they aren't quite ready for testing, will catch up in a month or two if given the chance. Instead of fighting through the bureaucracy and chasing experts for paperwork to delay enrollment, it would be much more productive to spend that time working on the specific skills the specialists identified as missing (and no, I don't mean drilling reading and writing).

Most kids don't fail first grade. When they do, it's usually due to unrecognized issues—cases where the kids were technically old enough for second grade and had to start, but weren't actually ready.
Mogue is an option, too: you can always defer or adjust things after they've started school if the challenges become impossible to ignore.

Jacob Lopez2 said:It honestly feels like they’re just dragging a child to a speech therapist now solely to justify delaying school enrollment. What on earth have they been waiting for? If there were red flags, that kid should have been in therapy a year or two ago.

The whole point of this forum is to share diverse perspectives. I highly doubt anyone is making definitive decisions based solely on whether Jacob Lopez2 or someone else claims a delay isn't necessary.

You have to look at the full picture instead of blindly trusting some specialist who barely spends five minutes looking at a child. They aren't nearly as infallible as they think they are.
In my opinion, the most weight should be given to the preschool staff, as they actually observe these children over a significant period of time.

Best regards,
And if those teachers haven't noticed any issues needing a speech therapist yet—even though we're told the staff is great—then it seems like the parent is just taking the child to therapy to get that specific paperwork that everyone says is easy to obtain.
The reality is that it's pretty easy to get school deferrals for kids born in February or March, or maybe January. For almost everyone else, it's a NO. There are a few exceptions, usually kids under the care of Child Protective Services, who finally get a chance during that pre-K year to catch up on everything they missed while being separated from their families.

Susan Martin4 said:My kid absolutely hates coloring. It’s just not his thing. Give him some letters, basic math, or random facts instead. I can already tell school is going to be an interesting ride for us.

So, you can eventually write up a post about whether delaying things was actually the right call or not...

The curriculum my daughter had back in 2015/2016 for first grade was way simpler and less intense than what I went through back in '85, and honestly, looking at what kids have been doing in first grade over the last two years, it looks even easier than what she had.

I've seen scans of the old "Good Morning" series—it includes 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade stuff, plus reading materials from 4th grade. It’s all so much more comprehensive than what kids are dealing with today, regardless of how many pages there are.

Back then, they wrote way more essays and different types of texts. They really pushed kids to practice their writing skills.
Coloring was treated like a reward for when you finished your work.
Nowadays, they just call it "early English immersion."😬

Michelle Nelson4 said:I honestly can't say for certain if things were actually harder back in the day. I recently stumbled upon a digital scan of a first-grade reading primer from my own childhood. It was only about 50 pages long, and there was hardly any actual text in it—just little poems consisting of a few lines, like a cow reading the newspaper or something along those lines.

My kids, on the other hand, had a primer that was easily 200 pages! And that was just for the first semester. They’d spend four whole pages on a single letter, forcing them to practice print just so they could completely ignore it the next semester and switch to cursive. Even the poems come with glossaries of unfamiliar words. All of this in the very first grade! It's not like they're using basic everyday words like "mouse," "fish," or "dog"; instead, it's all this overly complicated vocabulary (which is such a massive leap from "my" old primer that stuck to short, simple words). How we managed to master print with only 50 pages while today requires 200... well, leaving it up to the school administrators to figure out, is still a total mystery to me.

In my day, we didn't even touch different scripts until third grade.

The new curriculum apparently teaches letters more slowly, though I highly doubt they've actually cut down on the amount of unnecessary filler text.

All that extra filler text just got replaced by pictures, which is why you end up with 200 pages.
I actually had three different primers in first grade (I can't remember how many pages each was, just Good Morning 1, 2, and 3).

The texts in textbooks from third grade onward seem harder now because there isn't much bolding or color, and the sentence structures are so scattered that you really have to strain your brain to figure out what the author was trying to say or why they chose to bold a specific word.
But in terms of actual content, it's way less than before, and they expect much less from the students.
We used to study American history as a whole, but now they just focus on local state history. 🤷

Yeah, cursive didn't come until third grade, and starting in fourth, we’d read both styles depending on whether the teacher was in a good mood that day or whatever text happened to be in the textbook.

mistyjackal842 said:Why would anyone want to delay starting school? To me, it’s such a milestone—something every kid should actually look forward to. I suppose the academic pressure on children today is much higher than when I started first grade back in 1984, but back then, the cutoff was just before September 1st once you turned six. There weren't many little ones in my class; most of us were a bit older. And honestly, elementary school isn't that hard. At least, it wasn't for me. Maybe first grade was a bit of a whirlwind since we were all still so restless, but I think I just got incredibly lucky with my teacher. I used to go to the after-school program, too. Personally, I actually preferred being in school over being in preschool. If nothing else, I didn't have to deal with those mandatory afternoon naps.

I've worked with kids for long enough now that I remember my own first year and all my other grades from the eighties quite clearly, and I can say with total confidence that there aren't any "higher demands" placed on students today.
In my opinion, today's curriculum is actually much more simplified.

The foreign language component they've added in the first three grades is mostly just coloring and singing songs; the content is pretty much similar to what you'd see in a preschool program, just with more exposure to the language. Back in '84, some of us were learning languages in international programs, and we were always singing and coloring pictures representing all sorts of different cultures. We definitely dealt with a lot more linguistic variety back then.
We also shouldn't forget that we had to learn multiple writing styles, and our language studies were very integrated from fourth grade onward—you had to be ready to read or write in different scripts at any given moment during class.
Nowadays, they just use the standard alphabet, and for the last couple of years, they haven't even started teaching cursive until second grade.

Oh, and they've added religious studies, which isn't mandatory, but can be demanding since it requires being able to read and write well.
And starting this year, computer lab is part of the mix, which I hear the kids find really fun.

Another issue is that kids today struggle more with motor skills and hand-eye coordination. They don't play ball as much, they aren't jumping rope, and many deal with weight issues and a lack of stamina. Plus, there are speech and writing difficulties caused by "screenitis"—that early, heavy exposure to tablets and phones.
It makes school hard for them.
For these kids, the academic demands feel difficult, sometimes even impossible.
But it's not because the school is too hard; it's because of how they developed leading up to age six.
For children like that, we really need to consider special education services or delaying school entry. That extra year in preschool could give them the chance to develop those foundational skills that parents might have neglected during those first six years.

hiddendriver34 said:My son was also born in late January, so I never gave a second thought to holding him back. Like I mentioned in another thread, if a kid needs a break, let them take it! Instead of forcing them into a grade they aren't ready for, let them take a gap year after high school to wash dishes at a fancy restaurant in Paris. Or better yet, let them go meditate in Tibet. 😁

There’s a huge difference between a young adult wandering the globe or meditating after twelve years of schooling and a child playing in preschool until they're eight.

The whole point of delaying school shouldn't be about giving a kid more playtime or letting them dodge the system. It should be about using that extra year to actually master or sharpen the skills they need from their early education.
That's when a delay actually makes sense—for both the child and the educational system.

If a kid is ready for school by almost all metrics, keeping them in preschool for another year can actually backfire. It might be boring and unstimulating for them now, but it can cause issues later on. They might breeze through first grade because everything is so easy, but once things get tougher in second grade or later, they often lack the study habits or the drive to tackle more complex material independently. Since they're used to everything being effortless, they struggle when the workload naturally increases as they grow.

Gary Martin12 said:We started at the Hospitals, where they noted he’s a bit clumsy. I already knew that—I'm certainly not expecting any gold medals in PE! But even after I pleaded with them to reconsider, they wouldn't budge on the delay.
He did the testing solo at school. After about ninety minutes, I was met by a panel consisting of the school counselor, a psychologist, and a special education specialist. All three agreed he’ll need extra support once he starts elementary school. They mentioned he’s a little slow to process things; while his vocabulary is great, his sentences are pretty immature. Honestly, his storytelling makes zero sense! He’s social, handles separation just fine, and is quite independent. However, they had to repeat questions once or twice because he didn't catch them the first time. Beyond recommending that I read to him constantly over the summer, I didn't get much else. Even after I fought tooth and nail for him to start school a year later, they told me it simply wasn't an option.
Physically, he’s right on track with kids his age; he doesn't stand out at all in his preschool group. From what I can gather, the main hurdle for delaying his enrollment is his November birthday. If he were to delay, he'd start in September and be turning eight by November!

Based on everything you've shared, I don't think there's a real reason to hold him back.🤷

With the way the modern curriculum is set up, first grade is actually very simplified. They don't even dive deep into handwriting right away; during the first semester, they barely even touch letter formation....

One thing to keep in mind: if he starts first grade totally prepared and breezes through everything, second grade might feel like a much bigger jump for him.
A little bit of a challenge can actually be a good thing.

If I were you, I might check in with a speech therapist regarding foreign language classes later on. That could be an area where he struggles if his sentence structure is still catching up in English. Though, usually, early language lessons are mostly just songs and coloring activities.

Gary Martin12 said:Experienced moms, I need some advice! Who should I contact if we disagree with the school district's decision regarding first-grade enrollment? During our evaluations at both the school and the Mayo Clinic, we requested a one-year delay, but we were turned down. They claimed my child isn't right on the cutoff date and is physically large enough. Honestly, the school staff didn't seem thrilled with the testing results either; they could see themselves that delaying would be the best move, yet we still got a "no." How do I appeal this? Should I draft a formal written request to send over? Is it too late since we've already completed all the medical exams?

The final call on whether a kid is ready for school or needs a deferral is usually made by a team consisting of the pediatrician and the school's specialists. If there's a disagreement in opinion, they typically ask the parents what they feel is best and often request extra documentation, like reports from preschool or other specialists.

What specifically wasn't great about the testing results at the school? Also, did the school evaluation happen before or after the visit to the pediatric specialist?

The birth date is actually a pretty significant factor, and things like height or weight can vary wildly from the average, which might lead to different challenges for the child later on.
What's the real benefit of delaying if he isn't emotionally ready? There's a risk he won't fit in next year because he might end up being head and shoulders taller than everyone else, making it hard to make friends. Usually, if kids are the biggest ones in the group, they struggle even in preschool.
How is his motor skills development, and how does he do when playing with other kids his age?

It’s really important to weigh the pros and cons of waiting and look at the long-term picture. The most vital question is: if we do hold him back, how will he spend that extra year? What specific milestones can he work on during that time so he's truly prepared when he finally starts?

Is there even space for him in a local preschool program? (Sometimes schools want kids to start early to fill seats, while preschools might push them toward school because they're reaching capacity).

Are you planning on enrolling him in any specific developmental programs or therapies?

rowdypanther12 said:What about those other options? Like sports or tourism...
I’m completely out of the loop when it comes to high schools, so I'm pretty clueless on both counts. 😂

There is a sports track, but the enrollment requirements are completely different from what we're talking about.
As for the tourism program, they’re actually phasing out the current cohort they have; they aren't taking in any new students right now (I'm not entirely sure if there's just a lack of interest or something else going on...)

rowdypanther12 said:Well, our students get to choose their own subjects in high school 😁

If you look at prep schools, though, that isn't really the case.
(I think hiddendriver34 was actually referring to prep schools)
Most of them mainly differ based on their math, computer science, and foreign language schedules.
There were some interesting attempts to create specialized tracks—like combining languages and math with tourism or business studies🤣, but they eventually moved away from those experiments.

hiddendriver34 said:I’m starting a new thread here after catching a few of the recent posts about COVID and the school system (didn't want to derail that specific discussion!), so I'm hoping a few more of you will jump in on this one.

Basically, I really feel like remedial classes and extra support shouldn't be lumped into the same bucket as electives.

In a truly reformed American school system, we should be stripping mandatory subjects down to the bare essentials and maxing out the number of elective options available.

An elective can be anything that actually sparks a student's interest and gives them a leg up—we're talking everything from "financial literacy" and "film art" to "creative writing" or even "meteorology and climatology." (Those are all actual elective titles you'll find in some schools today.)

The way I see it, high schoolers should choose their schools based on the sheer variety and depth of the electives offered that match their passions. To me, the future of education lies entirely in that kind of specialized, elective-driven learning.

We actually started working on those extra credit and supplemental assignments back in middle school.
I’m of the same mind here—I really believe kids should first get a solid, equal footing with their core education. To me, that means if someone is falling behind because they have gaps in their fundamental knowledge, they should be getting extra tutoring or supplemental help much more frequently than just once a month. Once we ensure everyone has that baseline, then we can start focusing on elective subjects.
Even with elective courses, I feel like student interest varies wildly. It often feels like a total roll of the dice—you just hope you land in a class with a great professor or a cohort that actually clicks with you. During the pandemic, things got even weirder. A lot of those electives were suddenly restricted to just one specific major or section, so students ended up sticking strictly to what they were already interested in. Or, they had to take everything online, which was a whole different conversation entirely! In the end, all that "optional" learning usually ends up being a burden on the parents and our wallets. 🤷

I'm on board with that idea for high school.
I honestly don't think the main issue is just having too many different subjects on the schedule. To me, it feels more like we should rethink how we allocate our time. I’d love to see us scale back the hours for things like History, Geography, or Biology, and instead weave those core skills—like reading comprehension, summarizing, or just general communication—directly into our language classes. Whether it's English or a second language, integrating that kind of content would make much more sense than treating them as totally separate silos.

I honestly think those high schools that offer subjects taught entirely in English are such a fantastic option. I was looking into it recently, and it seems like some of the local prep schools still haven't let go of their German or French programs either—though, of course, that usually depends on whether they have a physics or chemistry teacher who happens to be fluent in those languages! 😂)
I think it’s a much more painless way to drill in some general culture.

I really feel like financial literacy should be a mandatory subject in schools. Honestly, I’d even go a step further and add ten specific questions about it to the SATs.
No kidding.

mellownomad7 said:They should just scrap this whole thing and start fresh next year. 😁

Best,

I mean, what’s the point of school if they can all just work in tourism anyway?🕺

The local county office in a place like Charleston has had kids out of school for a month now, and you don't really see a huge spike in cases.

Today, California decided to extend their break because they found 21 new cases (though 16 were already in isolation, so they shouldn't be spreading it much further).🙏
And apparently, that's going to be the thing that "saves" us from the pandemic.🤔

mellowskipper said:Regarding high schools—I mean, I'm almost certain they aren't catching anything inside the building itself since everyone is masking up there—but it's more likely happening right outside. I pass by one local high school nearly every day, and honestly, the scene out front is a mess. They just hang out in huge groups without any masks at all, standing way too close to each other... some are even hugging and stuff.

Sent from my old Sony Xperia using Reddit

Exactly. If they actually follow the rules once they're inside the school, they barely get infected at all. Just look at hospital staff or people working in nursing homes; they deal with people face-to-face every single day, including those who are sick, and they manage to stay healthy. Every single day.

Plus, let me tell you, the excuses kids make—especially the high schoolers—are something else. "Oh, I have a slight fever, I shouldn't go to school." Or, "My nose feels a bit stuffed up, better stay home." Everything becomes a reason to skip, even when it's just a regular physics or history class.

A colleague of mine mentioned her eighth grader has been a total nightmare with absences, but she isn't too worried because they've never had to deal with an official truancy officer visit.

urbantinker8 said:🤦🤦
And I suppose we should just completely ignore massive crowds of 500 or even 1,000 people gathering together?

🙂😵

If they're wearing masks, then usually no.

Robert Hernandez11 said:The real issue is ANY kind of gathering—basically any spot where people crowd together and nobody gives a damn about social distancing or wearing masks.
Factories, schools, churches... political rallies, communion, graduations, funerals...

Hasn't it been clear enough after an entire year? 🤔

And before anyone starts coming at me: No, I’m not saying we all need to hide in bunkers, shut down the schools, or lock everything down.
I'm just stating a plain, simple fact.
That's how the virus spreads.

The virus really finds its footing at family get-togethers.
Especially those once-in-a-lifetime events or annual traditions....
So, if someone feels they absolutely must attend a funeral—whether to pay their respects or just to be seen—they’ll show up even if they have a cough.
It’s the exact same thing with weddings.

Sometimes kids actually prefer staying home from school; nowadays, with temperature checks and breathing issues being monitored, some are even finding excuses to skip testing.
Everything is justified under the guise of "protecting the community" and following protocol.
If they want to be truly consistent, they shouldn't go to soccer practice or language classes either. Whether it's COVID or not, who knows?
In my experience, most of them stay home if they show any symptoms at all.
I've stopped putting much stock in the "asymptomatic spread" theory.

I'm not sure how it would play out for high school graduation (since that’s also a once-in-a-lifetime event) or when the semester gets intense and grades need boosting. A kid might feel genuinely sick but take some Advil or Tylenol so they don't run a fever, then sit there with everyone else while hiding a runny nose under a mask.
And honestly, that’s almost fine because people usually have masks and the environment is somewhat controlled.
But family gatherings for those big life milestones—especially at someone's house—are a different story.
There's zero oversight there, and who knows if people are even wearing masks inside someone's home?

Kenneth Brown5 said:You're being so extra and just trolling with all these takes about COVID, religion, and church services.
Some people are worried about coffee shops, some about malls, some about school, and others about sports—can we please stop obsessing over the same thing constantly?
It’s not like anyone cares what your hopes are, and it's not like we're all going to be forced online just because you want that.🤦

Why is it so hard to grasp that everyone has different priorities, even in a situation like this?
For one parent, it might be an English language school for their kid, for someone else it’s religious ed and Mass, and for another, it's grabbing a latte or hitting a practice.
Just chill out already!!!

I'm sorry, but what exactly made you so upset?
Is it because I'm calling out the hypocrisy of the local government officials and their mandates—specifically how keeping churches open puts the whole community at risk?
Or is it because I'm pointing out that these measures are discriminatory, and when I share an article proving it, you call it trolling?
Here, I'll link it again:
It's a Prica posted by parents whose children attend religious education classes.
I didn't make this up.
And honestly, the priest hasn't even denied it. If anything, he's confirming everything is accurate and saying he's just waiting on the decision from the higher authorities to ban him, which will probably go their way anyway, so they likely won't ban it.

It bothers me that kids' sports teams and dance studios are being restricted. It bothers me that children are being sent online for English classes, art workshops, and so many other activities—including regular school—except for religious studies. Standard school religious ed isn't enough; after eight years of schooling, they still have to do extra prep before their First Communion or Confirmation, not to mention attending Mass.
Mass is supposed to be limited to 25 people, yet here we are, seeing 41 children publicly invited to attend? Does that not seem strange to you? Are you okay with that?
Am I "trolling" just because I'm questioning this?

Baptisms, First Communions, Confirmations, and weddings are once-in-a-lifetime events (okay, maybe weddings are debatable).
Do you really think a parent is going to leave their child home on the day of their First Communion?
They won't.
The kid will show up, take a little piece of bread and wine, and then head back to school the next day just like everyone else. Of course, after the service, there's a family lunch in the backyard, at home, or maybe even at a restaurant. They might even invite a small circle of relatives and friends. Because it only happens once.
And maybe someone will show up even if they aren't feeling great, just so nobody gets offended.
Or maybe the godmother for a Confirmation, who was in contact with someone potentially infectious just the other day, will show up anyway because how is she supposed to cancel now? Who would be the backup godmother? How would they even hold the ceremony? If she just wears a mask and stays for a short time in the church, no one will notice. She'll just take it off for the photos and the communion itself. Then she'll stay to celebrate with the family; she wouldn't want to ruin their day... since it's all just some made-up cold anyway, it doesn't matter how many people get sick...

It's the same story with weddings and baptisms...
People show up because it's a once-in-a-lifetime moment, and you can't just cancel.
Who are you going to offend?

And you can keep thinking that I'm just trolling and that this doesn't happen in real life. Of course, these people show up on Monday at school or at work. And then schools become these "hotspots" that need to be shut down.

So, go ahead and keep being angry, but if schools are moving online, it's going to be because of the increased family gatherings during Easter and religious holidays (they're already announcing them, so you can imagine Mass might be held outside the church or online), followed by the season of Confirmations and Communions, which no one is going to miss.

Since kids who are raised Catholic aren't really out spreading things around, and there isn't much of an outbreak among them yet, religious education stays pretty steady 🥳

"First Communion classes at our local Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary parish take place on Saturdays at 4:00 PM. We hold these sessions on Saturday afternoons because we have students coming from Borovje Elementary School as well as Lovro Matačić Elementary School and several other nearby schools. A typical class lasts 45 minutes, though in the weeks leading up to First Communion, they'll extend to 90 minutes. Classes are held inside the church, where students will need to wear masks to maintain distance. Attending Sunday Mass is also required."

I think I finally get why they're banning sports practices now. If religious education is ramping up and Sunday Mass becomes a mandatory thing again, it’s just too risky for the kids to be out at practice elsewhere. They could easily pick up a virus and bring it right into the classroom or to a crowd of seniors during Mass.
I'm really hoping that with all these increased religious activities, schools might switch to online learning for everyone from 1st through 8th grade after the holidays.

Susan Martin4 said:And you really think parents are just going to sit home isolated with their kids? Please. The kid stays home, while the rest of the family goes out and does what they need to do. Especially if it's an older kid—they just get left in front of the TV or the computer, or maybe they're away on vacation.

I really hope they aren't all that inconsiderate, but hey, you never know; there's always a few of them.
I know quite a few parents who end up staying home more often too once their kid gets sick; since someone has to watch the little ones, they usually have to take a sick day themselves.

If nothing else, they probably won't be inviting the grandparents over for Easter lunch while the kid is stuck in isolation.
And honestly, that’s already a lot to deal with. 🤷

Susan Martin4 said:Just looking over some stats regarding Washington, D.C.

Yesterday alone, because 24 elementary students and four teachers tested positive, along with nine high schoolers and three teachers, we’ve got 477 elementary kids and 164 high schoolers forced into isolation.

Man, 641 kids stuck in quarantine in just one day. Happy Easter to those families, I guess. 😁

Actually, I don't see it as such a bad thing. It definitely thins out the crowds at churches and shopping malls, which are usually where everyone gathers for the holiday.

In fact, this is a perfect example of why we needed to keep schools open until the very end in all other counties too. It’s really the best way to limit movement within the community. Schools are the only place where you can actually track contacts for isolation orders, allowing you to effectively restrict movement for about 20 different families all at once (not counting the ones already in isolation, since they aren't out spreading it anyway—they're just riding it out at home).