Posts by Susan James

nimbleranger17 said:It honestly feels completely nonsensical to suddenly extend school breaks after kids have already been out for ten days. If we’re operating under the logic that children are the primary "vectors" for spreading this stuff, then wouldn't it make more sense to schedule these breaks earlier on, just to keep them away from everyone else as soon as possible? It's like trying to fix a leaky faucet by waiting until the floor is soaked.

I mean, there's really no rhyme or reason to keeping them home for a week and then abruptly deciding they can't go back to class. Why the sudden shift? There are plenty of other ways to manage social distancing and reduce movement in public spaces without targeting students specifically.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself: are we prioritizing the state budget, or are we actually looking out for the mental well-being of our kids?

Well, if things were truly that bad, they should have acted much sooner.

Actually, schools are still one of the few places in the US where they don't hide contact tracing. Instead, they go straight to large-scale self-isolation. With just one positive case in a classroom, you effectively sideline about 20 healthy students through restricted movement, plus there are usually another 20 parents staying home—sometimes up to 40 people total including siblings—and everyone else naturally starts being a bit more cautious...

The only issue is that people who don't understand the difference between quarantine and isolation think half the school is infected, when really half the school is just in self-isolation because of 10 positive cases spread out—like one per classroom. Unfortunately, we don't know how many develop symptoms during their isolation period or how many others are actually contagious. Not many people go to get tested while isolating, mostly because doctors won't send them unless they show at least two symptoms, and nobody is crazy enough to pay for a test that won't even let them leave isolation if the result comes back negative. It might be worth having it on record that you were positive (so you can complete a slightly longer isolation period starting from the positive test) and getting a clearance certificate to skip the next round of isolation... though those rules change constantly every 3-6 months, and of course, if you test positive without any symptoms, you're stuck.

Robert Hernandez11 said:Look, I know the difference, and I'm well aware of the pros and cons of both formats.
It’s never just black and white.

Personally, I’ve sat through some incredible online lectures—and plenty of absolutely soul-crushing in-person ones. Too many times, actually.
☕

I'm right there with you.
Personally, I’ll always pick an in-person seminar over a webinar. Even if it means driving halfway across the state or shelling out extra cash for a hotel room nearby, it's worth it to me.

To me, the big difference is that human connection. There's just no substitute for eye contact versus staring at a computer screen.
Even when things are pretty passive—like when a professor is just reading off slides—it still feels more present.

Raymond Perez9 said:Does the virus somehow just skip high school seniors? It’s not like they aren't packed into classrooms where twenty-five kids are squeezed into a forty-square-meter room. Do they think these students are just flying into school or taking the subway through an empty city?

Like I’ve already pointed out, if fourth-year students spent their time with teachers reviewing everything from the last four years of English, math, and American literature, then maybe we could say schools are actually preparing them for the SATs. But as it stands, I can't wrap my head around it, because they are being fed brand-new material right up until the final bell—something they could easily do via Zoom just like any other kid. And for those under the impression that vocational students will be left behind in terms of hands-on training because of remote learning, let's be real: they’re already being sidelined because businesses don't want them on-site due to the risk of spreading the virus anyway.

High school seniors are adults. Most of them are already 18 by the start of the school year, and by the end, you probably have some who are 19.
Adults don't spread viruses; it's the kids. 🧐

Though, technically, you can hold adults legally accountable without needing parental permission if they refuse to wear masks or act out, so maybe it's easier for the teachers to actually enforce the rules that way.

I'm a little confused about this idea of learning new stuff until the very end of the year. Is senior year meant to be a prep course for exams, or is it just a standard academic year with a regular curriculum?
By your logic, it sounds like high schools are three-year programs followed by a one-year prep course.

boldotter2 said:The fallout from letting kids just "deal with it naturally" includes about thirty cases of severe long COVID in children who were perfectly healthy before, plus one child who died. Are those really acceptable casualties for "natural immunity," just because it didn't happen at YOUR school or right in front of YOUR eyes?

What I really want to point out is that these serious cases definitely happen in kids, even if they don't spread the virus as easily. Actually, since so many kids get infected, statistically there are way more of these cases than any potential deaths or side effects from vaccines!

So, wouldn't it be better to just vaccinate the adults to protect the kids? Instead of using children as cannon fodder just so adults can grab a Starbucks and act like anti-vaxxers at a local pub?

No one is denying that kids get hit hard sometimes, but those cases are rarer than other childhood illnesses and fatal outcomes. Plus, the overall damage from those cases seems smaller than the collective harm done to all the kids and teens who feel like they're under house arrest or stuck staring at screens because they're being shielded from COVID, which many pass without any symptoms or with very mild ones.

There aren't enough vaccines for everyone. That’s why we started by vaccinating high-risk groups—to minimize fatalities and ensure people survive with milder symptoms.
(And within that specific group, vaccine side effects represent much less harm than death or serious complications from the virus itself.)

To me, it makes sense to prioritize the workforce first, especially those in constant contact with people—healthcare workers, daycare staff, teachers... but if supplies are limited, then you focus on the most vulnerable groups and let everyone else make their own choice so the economy can keep moving forward.

I'm not quite sure why it sounds like kids are being used as cannon fodder just by sending them to school.

Just a few years ago, the pneumococcal vaccine wasn't mandatory; instead, parents vaccinated their kids if they were well-informed by their pediatrician or online forums (which I wasn't) and/or if they could afford it (not everyone can). Some kids suffered nasty consequences, like pneumonia or chronic ear infections, and some even died from bacteremia... And some grandparents got sick while babysitting. Others didn't, because they had already fought off those same illnesses as kids and were immune.

By "protecting" our little ones—those we keep isolated from the community or force to stay home—we aren't giving them the chance to build immunity through natural exposure. It's not just about COVID; lately, there have been fewer cases of chickenpox and measles. These are illnesses kids usually breeze through, but encountering them for the first time as an adult can be fatal...

wanderingbadger44 said:It’s not everyone, really—just a handful of people. And because the media loves to spotlight those specific professors on Teacher Appreciation Day, they start spinning these stories about how educators are basically working for free, trading their salaries for nothing more than a kid's smile or a hug.

As for the rest of us, we're just trying to make a living.

Honestly, I couldn't care less if some kids find the safety measures ridiculous. In my classroom, they'll follow the rules and wear their masks, period.

I haven't caught so much as a sniffle or the flu all year. Long live the masks!

🎉🎉

Are you actually saying that masks work?
And that there are teachers out there who can actually get students to put them on correctly and keep them over their noses for two hours straight? 🙏

Paul Kern12 said:Exactly. Test results can be inaccurate, and frankly, requiring a test before every single day of the SATs is just not feasible. The testing window runs from early June through the end of the month—and since there are multiple exam dates—you have to multiply that by the number of students... we are talking about hundreds of thousands of individual tests.
Here is the updated SAT schedule:
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/vie...AN-B.pdf&hl=en

But honestly, we don't need to test everyone anyway.
If the reports about schools being hotspots back in September 2020 were accurate, most people have already moved past it by now. This is especially true for the seniors who had the most consistent, full-time classroom experience.

We really ought to push the local health department to release data on those who have already recovered; it shouldn't be an impossible task to get that info.
On top of that, we need to rethink this bureaucratic nonsense regarding the three-month isolation rule. Most other countries recognize a six-month window for entry, and plenty of studies suggest that immunity lasts much longer than what our current policies allow.

Drew Johnson2 said:I honestly cannot fathom how anyone could possibly guard themselves against the flu, unless they were to spend a fortnight entirely sequestered in some remote cabin alone... If there is a high school senior at home and he has a younger brother who is still attending school, and that brother happens to come through the door looking even slightly symptomatic, then that senior simply must go into quarantine.
The only way out would be to fabricate a story, perhaps claiming he hadn't been in contact with his brother at all, suggesting instead that he had been staying over at his grandmother’s house out in the suburbs during those days.

Like I mentioned before, we're probably going to see more high school grads living on their own in their own apartments 😬
plus, once they turn 18, it's really time for them to start being independent 🤣
this actually seems like a perfect opportunity 🙂

Sean Stewart said:The fix is quite simple, much like what I mentioned before: let any teacher who wants to get vaccinated go through the standard channels—if they don't want to, fine, no one is forcing them—but that shouldn't be an excuse to dodge proctoring duties altogether. As for the high school seniors, just run a quick test before they sit for their exams; if they're healthy, let them take the test.

Honestly, it would be really helpful if we could see some actual data on how many students have already recovered from COVID.
It would give the school nurse a bit more to work with. 🥳

Similarly, I think it’s high time the teacher's union (assuming they actually look out for educators) released statistics on how many staff members have been through it. For those who spent several semesters in remote learning without getting sick, they should provide free serology testing and set up a vaccination plan. When local health departments and social service agencies were being prioritized, I never quite understood why schools weren't included in that group. They don't have to participate, but they should at least have the option.

On a side note, I don't see any issue with staff members getting their spouses vaccinated too, since it's so easy to bring the virus home. I feel the same way about the education sector. It’s a massive group of people, but they are also the ones interacting with the most people every single day.

Amanda Hughes37 said:I agree with the sentiment, but the core issue remains. If a kid who actually has the talent to get into pre-med or speech pathology on their first try loses that shot because of this virus—and because the government is too incompetent to step up—that's a tragedy in itself.

Katarina, it really comes down to bureaucracy. Just pure red tape.
Mandatory isolation is such an unfair, discriminatory call. You see politicians who didn't have to worry about staying home, even though they were out shaking hands and posing for photos with pro tennis players, only to catch it later through close contact at home. It just doesn't add up.
The whole idea of putting entire classrooms under quarantine feels totally pointless as long as the professors aren't being held to those same standards.

Sean Stewart said:I find all this dramatic fuss over missing the state exams a bit ridiculous, honestly. We’re essentially conditioning kids—or rather, students—to believe the world will bend over backwards for them, constantly accommodating their every whim. Then, once they actually step out into the real world, they hit the pavement hard.

Look, regardless of COVID-19, there are plenty of other ailments that might sideline you, and frankly, nobody cares. If you end up with a stomach bug right before a massive exam at a university like NYU, do you really think the professor gives a damn? They’ll just tell you, "Better luck next year, buddy." They aren't going to reschedule an entire midterm just because one student is feeling under the weather. If you're late to a job interview that could have been a career-defining moment—well, sorry, but they’re just going to hire whoever actually showed up. If you miss your flight for any reason at all? Too bad. Catch the next one.

Adult life isn't filled with sympathetic homeroom teachers or principal figures who collect excuse notes and hand out tenth chances to someone like Mark, who has spent nine consecutive history exams dealing with sudden nausea.

Don't get me wrong—it’s unfortunate when a student gets hit by COVID-19 right during finals, or during any major life milestone—be it a sister’s wedding or a driving test. But who exactly is going to organize a secondary testing window for everyone? It’s unmanageable. My mother’s friend spent weeks quarantined in her house, barely leaving to go to work, just to ensure no one in the family caught it—all so her daughter could test negative before traveling abroad to find a better life. If that girl had tested positive, do you really think anyone would have offered her a second chance? Or take my acquaintance who couldn't even attend her grandmother's funeral because she was stuck in isolation.

Personally, I've had quite enough of the panic surrounding the virus—this whole idea of locking people down while, on the flip side, everything seems fair game if you happen to be a celebrity or a loyal voter for Bloomberg's crowd.

In my view, the solution would be simple: allow students in isolation to take a test before their exams. If they're negative, let them sit for the test alongside everyone else. And it shouldn't just be for students; if you're stuck in quarantine, pay for your own test and get back to your life.

The whole issue is about the outcry from those stuck in self-isolation, not necessarily those who are actually sick. I think that's where the tension started.
Self-isolation hasn't been effective at controlling the pandemic for months now, especially when you have entire classrooms being put into self-isolation repeatedly. How many students (or their families) actually get sick? Maybe one or two, yet they are constantly forced into isolation, whereas teachers don't seem to face the same rules.
It's losing its purpose because a huge portion of the population (according to some studies, about 25% of Americans) has already been exposed to the virus over the last year. If they were in contact with someone infected, they have to isolate, unless they've been sick in the last three months.
For the seniors, this means that even if they recovered anytime between early March and late March, they could still end up in self-isolation on the day of their final exams. There's a very slim chance they'll catch it again or pass it to their caregivers.

Honestly, this whole debate feels pointless. People keep claiming schools are breeding grounds for the virus, even though teachers have been working remotely for months instead of fighting on the front lines. Most grandparents likely caught it from their school-aged grandkids—"bio-terrorists," as some might say—so any reasonable person would realize that most students, especially seniors who have been in school since January, have already been exposed and their ability to take their exams should be considered secure regarding COVID-19.

BrokenEmpire said:During the fall testing period, students in quarantine were allowed out with extra precautions. This happened at a time when very few people had actually been exposed to the virus, especially now that more people have immunity—which will definitely increase by summer due to recovery or vaccinations. Preventing healthy students from taking their SATs just because they are in isolation is nothing short of negligence.

I’d say it feels more like a deep desire to punish those who happen to be in quarantine.
It starts with the assumption that they got sick partying, or perhaps they caught it from parents who—instead of making sure their kids are studying for finals—are out grabbing lattes on a patio.

Quarantine is becoming a preventative measure that’s losing its purpose, mainly because people are starting to hide their contacts. They're hiding everything from pay cuts to missing out on activities, like working on a thesis or prepping for a big competition.
Lately, people have even been hiding contacts from three months ago because nobody wants to deal with another round of isolation once they've recovered and the risk of getting sick again is slim.

Think about it this way: if Student X comes to school for two days while having an infected family member at home, and then eventually develops symptoms herself, forcing her entire class into quarantine—despite everyone wearing masks and keeping windows open—just seems wrong. If that's the case, then Mary, the history teacher, and Barbara, the math teacher, should have been the ones in isolation if they were in that classroom that day. If they weren't sent home, then clearly the masks and social distancing are doing their job.

Even if the teachers didn't get sick, they might have passed it to their families (leading to those posts on Reddit about how kids bring the virus into school where it spreads invisibly everywhere).
If they kept working and grabbed coffee in the lounge or shared a pizza, they might have passed it to the geography, English, art, or PE teachers. Even if those teachers stayed healthy, they could pass it to their students, who then take it home. And suddenly, you see more posts on Reddit blaming the school for spreading the virus through the kids. But of course, in these arguments, it’s never blamed on Mary, Barbara, or a cup of coffee—it's always blamed on Student X.

At this point, mandatory isolation is losing its logic, and preventing someone from taking a standardized test on schedule is frankly inhumane. People are hiding their exposure. A student could end up stuck in isolation because of a parent or a sibling, where they actually have a higher chance of catching the virus and truly getting sick, rather than being forced into it just because of a classmate. With these kinds of rigid attitudes, people will simply stop reporting their exposure to protect a healthy student from unnecessary isolation.

I'm not talking about someone who is genuinely ill and can't sit for an exam due to a 104 fever, a broken arm, or stomach issues. No one would have shown up for an exam in 2014 under those conditions either. So, if someone happens to wake up sick on the day of the test, well, that's just life.

Drew Johnson2 said:Honestly, skipping your hair appointment is essentially the same level of catastrophe as failing your SATs...

And you can clearly see how 🤣

I find it pretty interesting how they handle things. When a student tests positive in a classroom, the teacher doesn't even step foot inside—at least not for 48 hours, which is what the CDC guidelines suggest should happen. They cite masks, open windows, and social distancing as reasons. But then, if it’s a student who was just told to self-isolate because they tested negative, that same teacher wouldn't be allowed to stand near them either, even at a much greater distance.
Looking back at some posts from October 2020, teachers were constantly working in rooms where at least one person was infected, all while walking through hallways filled with crowds of people. I honestly don't see the difference between that and protecting a healthy student who has been ordered to stay home. 🤔
All this is just going to make people overthink every single interaction. By May 25th, we're probably going to have a massive group of graduates who have moved out into their own apartments just to avoid contact. 🤣

crimsoncyclist8 said:Hey everyone, does anyone actually know if these quick loan providers run checks through HROK, or do they just look at how you handle your business with your bank? See, if they’re digging into HROK / DOR—whatever they’re calling it these days—I’m almost certainly getting a rejection. I had a bit of a situation a while back, and right now I’m working out a settlement with a lawyer over at Wells Fargo, but on paper, it looks like I just defaulted on a credit card or had some messy account activity. Now, if they aren't looking at the DOR and are just checking my internal bank history, then I should be golden; I moved my direct deposit over about three months ago, I’m staying current on my existing loans, and I don't have any overdrafts or extra credit cards hanging around. It also feels like they shouldn't even be allowed to peek at the DOR without me giving them the green light, which makes me think these companies might just be offering loans based on their own internal vibes and how you treat your specific bank. Has anyone actually verified how this works? I just want to know if there's even a point in trying

I'm not sure about specific debts, but they definitely look at your savings. They also consider how many of their own "innovative" products you're using. A colleague of mine doesn't have any debt and has never overdrawn her account, but she doesn't have any savings either. She only started using mobile and online banking at the start of the pandemic, and even now, she hasn't received a single loan offer.

mellowskipper said:A lockdown only stops the spread of the virus while it's actually in effect. Once you lift the restrictions—if we haven't reached sufficient immunity levels through infection or vaccination—the whole cycle just starts all over again.
In an epidemiological sense, I suppose a lockdown is only truly necessary when the healthcare system is being overwhelmed and there's a real risk of total collapse. That simply wasn't the case here.

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Reddit

Exactly. That's why it feels so counterintuitive to close down schools right when hospitalizations are finally starting to trend downward.

Jason Ortiz5 said:See, I totally missed that part. But hey, it is religious education. They probably have some kind of special oversight from the higher-ups for stuff like that... 😉

Right, viruses don't spread through Sunday school. And they certainly don't spread through church services or holiday celebrations either.

In this specific situation with the scheduling overlap, I’m actually feeling pretty frustrated with the parents and students in those religious classes. It feels like they should be speaking up about how some other kids basically popped their bubble.🤔

By the way, why isn't the idea of teaching ethics at the exact same time as religious ed? Otherwise, what's really the point of having an extra subject at all?

Nathan Diaz54 said:For my little guy, religion class is split up—one hour right in the middle of the school day and another one at the very end.
It used to be held in the school chapel, but now there’s this idea that they should just stay in their regular classroom since nobody is allowed to head out into the halls anymore.
I’m honestly seriously considering just picking him up early so he can hang out at home, because, let's be real, I really don't want him sitting through those lessons.
The catch? The principal is also the religion teacher and is a total hardline Catholic, so I have a feeling that might cause some friction if I try to pull this move.

Another issue is that parents aren't even allowed inside the school buildings anymore.
Personally, I wouldn't agree to having the kids sit in a cramped classroom for this; I think we should be flooding the Department of Education's inbox with emails about this.
If they're making everything digital for elections, then why isn't this offered online?
If you don't want to deal with an elective subject, then don't force them to sit through it—just move it to the start of the day, the end, or make it a zero period... or just have it as second period with nothing first, or even a block schedule.
They could even push it to third period if the first two are free. These are all simple ways to reduce crowding in hallways and common areas.

Don't just settle for letting them sit through that hour!

Chloe Moore5 said:We didn't sign up for after-school care since we don't really need it. My teacher just mentioned it would be held in the library but didn't really go into any specifics. Maybe I'll get more details tomorrow 🙂

Also, there's a specific schedule for entering and leaving the school based on certain times and designated points. Since entire grade levels enter and exit together, I'm guessing that's why they're using the library...

That's interesting.
I don't quite get why they wouldn't just let the kids go home, especially since there's nothing scheduled after class and the recommendation is to keep them out of other classrooms as much as possible.
Which basically means less time spent in the library too.
The more people in the library—different kids, staff, etc.—the higher the risk. Plus, the school nurses shouldn't have to wear masks if they can help it; what's the point of extra mingling?

They should just send the kids home. This feels like unnecessary hassle.

By the way, it's totally possible that COVID could cause the nurse's visit to be blocked out or moved to the very beginning or end of the day. From what I know, everyone else managed to make sure the nurse isn't scheduled right in the middle of things. 🥳
Anything can happen whenever someone decides it's time or when a supervisor gives an order.

Jason Ortiz5 said:Look, my daughter used to take French back in the day, until their teacher left. She didn't find it stressful at all; she actually treated it like a fun hobby. She loved the small group setting because the teacher actually had time to explain things properly and answer questions...

But hey, my kid is a total overachiever. A straight-A student through and through. She isn't exactly the "chill" type.

If we're talking about grades 1 through 4, there is honestly zero point in cramming the schedule. For instance, some parents send their kids to religious studies classes, while other kids are still struggling just to master the alphabet or feeling pressured to catch up on reading during after-school programs. It doesn't make sense to force extra languages or advanced math onto students who don't have those specific interests, especially when they might have real academic struggles they could be working on while others are in religious studies. (I remember us discussing this a few years ago—how hard it is to find a speech therapist anywhere, yet some schools have therapists seeing kids during free periods or religious study hours). Not to mention, for some kids, learning French can be incredibly overwhelming if they are already struggling with English.
We also shouldn't forget that time was taken away from math, English, art, and music just to make room for religious studies and "early" foreign language tracks.

As for the older grades, I think by that age the gap in learning speeds is already quite wide. Interests vary so much that forcing robotics or a third language on a tiny group of 3 to 9 students just seems pointless to me.
What makes more sense is keeping an elective similar to religious studies just to ensure there's enough work to keep more teachers employed.

By the way, another big reason why people pick religious studies over ethics in high school is social pressure. If you want to be a godparent for a ceremony (which often happens when you're in high school and being asked by family), people tend to ask what classes you're taking. It doesn't always happen, but I know a guy who couldn't serve as a godparent simply because he chose the ethics track instead, regardless of his actual faith.
So, even if they finish their religious requirements in 8th grade, if they want to be available for those social roles later, they basically need religious studies listed on their transcript.😬

There’s way too much coercion involved in something that should be a deeply personal choice, like faith.
But hey, that's how it goes when they're trying to protect jobs.

Jason Ortiz5 said:Ethics isn't really a subject; it’s just a necessary evil.

If they actually tried offering something useful and high-quality—like advanced math, chemistry, physics, or French—then we'd see some real interest.

Let's not get carried away.
Why should we cram kids' schedules full when other students are praying or learning about mythology? Plus, why pay for extra classes just to keep kids entertained while others genuinely need space for religious expression?
Just let them sleep or go play outside! Honestly, I don't think everyone would be interested in extra lessons anyway.

By the way, I almost forgot—during something like a pandemic situation, religion class could easily be moved to a zero period for certain grades. Having two or maybe three religion teachers at a school could cover about 10 to 15 different classrooms.
If they can schedule extra math for 7:00 AM, why not religion? Especially since some important services (for true believers) start at 7:00 AM too.

Sarah Hall53 said:Wait, what exactly is "by the book" about this? The reality is that the religion teacher is basically the only staff member who doesn't even go through a standard job application process—instead, the local diocese just assigns someone to the school, and the administration can't say no, can't ask for someone else... plus, if they actually find a great teacher they love working with, there's absolutely nothing they can do to keep them if the diocese decides to shuffle them off to a different school next year.
Is that really how things should work? 😵 😵 😵

They should also add a streamlined way to move up the pay scale based on much simpler criteria.

And they shouldn't lose their teaching hours if the number of kids in a class drops below 14; they don't need to be merged by section (so in this situation, they won't have to switch to online learning, unlike the German teachers).

@summer, my little one definitely wasn't sitting around waiting for religion class. Unlike her language or music instructors, since this was basically a virtual/correspondence school setup, the teacher didn't message her directly. Instead, everything went through her teacher, so we all received the updates together (English, Math, History, Religion).
Of course, while I was working, I wasn't hovering over her; I was mostly just forwarding messages. Most of the time she didn't even realize I was watching, so she just handled her reading and assignments on her own, sometimes even checking out some videos. It didn't really hurt her progress, except around Easter when she was being grilled more about death and where people go, and during the lockdown via Skype, she got pretty anxious about sickness and mortality—plus, the earthquake certainly left its mark... later on, she actually loved having one less subject to deal with, especially when deadlines were looming, particularly since it usually meant one less essay to write, which isn't insignificant time 🤣 (when you have plenty of extra time to spare).
They might as well let them play with math or find ways for kids to stay home if they aren't allowed to hang out in the library or the hallway anyway.