If Trump wants to reopen schools, here’s what his administration needs to do

[SLAG-91 1,483]

TEA (Texas Education Agency) has given guidelines that gives parents up to two weeks before the beginning of school to decide on in-person or online. That makes staffing decisions very difficult (who teaches the online vs. who teaches in-person...what % of your faculty does what).  I am the only teacher of my course at my school (AP Statistics), so I assume I'll be at school, which I am OK with, as I mentioned earlier. It is my preference. 

What I am hoping to see happen is that students who choose on-line learning have teachers specifically teaching on-line classes, and that teacher may or may not be from your campus. They handle the grading, etc. 

There is also a question of going back and forth between the two modes, and it looks like the minimum commitment is for 6 weeks/9 weeks (one grading period...some districts use 6 weeks, others use 9). I'd prefer to see a semester's worth of commitment to whichever option is picked, but that's not a hill I'm going to die on.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

7 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

keep watching the news as this is changing. lots of young folks getting sick now.

I think when they say young they are talking about more like twenties. They are saying it was that age range that filled the bars up and caused a spike. Regardless, kids are usually the carrier of viruses that get all the parents sick with everything they pass around to each other. 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

4 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

This is why we are offering in school and online schooling to our students.  Each family gets to decide for themselves....as it should be.  What I listed isn't incomplete as I also mentioned we are taking special care of our at risk staff. 

Florida is mandated to reopen by the education commissioner. Depending on the location seems a lot of parents are for it. Offering the virtual option also. 

https://www.mypanhandle.com/news/schools/bay-district-schools-discusses-details-for-returning-in-the-fall/

“And all those parents will have the option to send their kid to brick and mortar, or they can choose to go be virtual,” said Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Denise Kelley.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

Who is trying to get rid of covering pre-existing conditions?  Also, there is absolutely no evidence so far that children who do get Covid-19 will suffer long-term effects.  Our school system has asked for this evidence and none exists. 

Trump administration is backing an active case that would dismantle pre-existing conditions.  Literally just asked the Supreme Court a few weeks ago to take away the entire ACA.  This would include pre-existing conditions.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-strike-down-obamacare-amid-pandemic-n1232203

[SocialCircle 570]

11 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Trump administration is backing an active case that would dismantle pre-existing conditions.  Literally just asked the Supreme Court a few weeks ago to take away the entire ACA.  This would include pre-existing conditions.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-strike-down-obamacare-amid-pandemic-n1232203

But what would replace it? Trump has always and consistently been for covering pre-existing conditions and has been absolutely clear about this from day one.

[SocialCircle 570]

4 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

TEA (Texas Education Agency) has given guidelines that gives parents up to two weeks before the beginning of school to decide on in-person or online. That makes staffing decisions very difficult (who teaches the online vs. who teaches in-person...what % of your faculty does what).  I am the only teacher of my course at my school (AP Statistics), so I assume I'll be at school, which I am OK with, as I mentioned earlier. It is my preference. 

What I am hoping to see happen is that students who choose on-line learning have teachers specifically teaching on-line classes, and that teacher may or may not be from your campus. They handle the grading, etc. 

There is also a question of going back and forth between the two modes, and it looks like the minimum commitment is for 6 weeks/9 weeks (one grading period...some districts use 6 weeks, others use 9). I'd prefer to see a semester's worth of commitment to whichever option is picked, but that's not a hill I'm going to die on.

Our parents/students must commit to a semester in middle/high and for 9 weeks in lower grade levels. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, SocialCircle said:

But what would replace it? Trump has always and consistently been for covering pre-existing conditions and has been absolutely clear about this from day one.

Nothing would replace it.

Trump doesn't pass laws.  Congress does.  The Republican led Senate, which campaigned on repeal and replace in 2016, has never publicly offered a replacement alternative to the ACA.  This is where it helps to pay attention to what is actually going on instead of taking Trump and his cronies at their word.

[SocialCircle 570]

9 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Nothing would replace it.

Trump doesn't pass laws.  Congress does.  The Republican led Senate, which campaigned on repeal and replace in 2016, has never publicly offered a replacement alternative to the ACA.  This is where it helps to pay attention to what is actually going on instead of taking Trump and his cronies at their word.

I do pay attention. You made my point. You have no idea what would replace it. I never said Trump would pass any law. I am telling you it would be political suicide to not put something in place that would indeed cover pre-existing conditions. You are assuming nothing would replace it that covers this when all evidence indicates otherwise. Just another scare tactic. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

40 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

I do pay attention. You made my point. You have no idea what would replace it. I never said Trump would pass any law. I am telling you it would be political suicide to not put something in place that would indeed cover pre-existing conditions. You are assuming nothing would replace it that covers this when all evidence indicates otherwise. Just another scare tactic. 

There has been nothing put forward to replace it.  No plan has ever been shown to the American public.  You're assuming it will be replaced if it ever got repealed or struck down in the courts.  I'm telling you, based on all evidence out there, the Republican party has zero interest in actually implementing a replacement plan.  It's exactly why McCain voted no against repealing the ACA.

[SocialCircle 570]

30 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

There has been nothing put forward to replace it.  No plan has ever been shown to the American public.  You're assuming it will be replaced if it ever got repealed or struck down in the courts.  I'm telling you, based on all evidence out there, the Republican party has zero interest in actually implementing a replacement plan.  It's exactly why McCain voted no against repealing the ACA.

You started by assuming pre-existing conditions would not be part of any replacement. McCain voted no because of his personal dislike of Trump. I’ll willing to bet any amount you desire that covering pre-existing conditions will be part of any law Trump signs into law. 
 

[Mikey 16,640]

20 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

And here is what the American Academy of Pediatrics is saying:

 "The AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school. The importance of in-person learning is well-documented, and there is already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures in the spring of 2020. Lengthy time away from school and associated interruption of supportive services often results in social isolation, making it difficult for schools to identify and address important learning deficits as well as child and adolescent physical or sexual abuse, substance use, depression, and suicidal ideation. This, in turn, places children and adolescents at considerable risk of morbidity and, in some cases, mortality. Beyond the educational impact and social impact of school closures, there has been substantial impact on food security and physical activity for children and families." 

This is the most important, and most willfully ignored aspect of school opening. The lives of many children are ruined by not getting to physically attend school. Those ignoring this fact are heartlessly playing politics with the lives of the nation's children. The kids need to be going to school. The risk/reward ratio is all in favor of them going back to school. The deniers are only against opening the schools because Trump wants them opened, they don't care about the adverse effects not opening will have on the kids.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

You started by assuming pre-existing conditions would not be part of any replacement. McCain voted no because of his personal dislike of Trump. I’ll willing to bet any amount you desire that covering pre-existing conditions will be part of any law Trump signs into law. 
 

I'm not assuming they wouldn't be covered in any new law.  But absence of proof of concept, there is no replacement law to be had.  You don't seem to want to acknowledge that the Republican party talked about repeal and replace, yet never gave us an idea of what the replacement looked like.

As for McCain's vote, it had nothing to do with Trump.  He's on record as to why he voted against it.  Use google and find out yourself.

And yes, I absolutely want pre-existing conditions covered.  It's the top reason I'm voting against Trump because it's a very personal decision for me.  My wife has a chronic illness and we spend tons of money on her healthcare.  Remove the pre-existing conditions clause and you might as well pronounce her dead right now because many of her procedures wouldn't be covered.  I'm not going to vote for a man who's administration is actively trying to take that away nor will I vote for a party that has yet to put forth a plan if it were to be stripped from law.

[aubiefifty 16,823]

15 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I think when they say young they are talking about more like twenties. They are saying it was that age range that filled the bars up and caused a spike. Regardless, kids are usually the carrier of viruses that get all the parents sick with everything they pass around to each other. 

i am right at sixtyfive so yes that is young.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

42 minutes ago, Mikey said:

This is the most important, and most willfully ignored aspect of school opening. The lives of many children are ruined by not getting to physically attend school. Those ignoring this fact are heartlessly playing politics with the lives of the nation's children. The kids need to be going to school. The risk/reward ratio is all in favor of them going back to school. The deniers are only against opening the schools because Trump wants them opened, they don't care about the adverse effects not opening will have on the kids.

This is a BS stance.  Of course in a normal world everyone wants kids in school.  No one is arguing that it's better socially and from a learning perspective for them to stay home.

It's a health issue.  While the kids may be less likely to become aversely ill if they contract COVID, what do you do about the teachers, cooks, administrators, janitors, etc?  My grandmother worked in schools well into her 60s and would have been considered high risk.  Should she have been asked to put her health in danger?  It's not like kids are bastions of practicing good hygiene or social distancing and all of those folks who make schools functional are being asked to put their health and subsequently their family's health at risk.

[aubiefifty 16,823]

51 minutes ago, Mikey said:

This is the most important, and most willfully ignored aspect of school opening. The lives of many children are ruined by not getting to physically attend school. Those ignoring this fact are heartlessly playing politics with the lives of the nation's children. The kids need to be going to school. The risk/reward ratio is all in favor of them going back to school. The deniers are only against opening the schools because Trump wants them opened, they don't care about the adverse effects not opening will have on the kids.

i have yet to meet anyone home schooled stupid or lacking for the record. if you want to play with lives play with your own. the bottom line is trump is trying to start early opening of schools against the advice of the cdc. but hell you guys do npot believe in climate change either. trump smart, scientists dumb.

[aubiefifty 16,823]

6 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

This is a BS stance.  Of course in a normal world everyone wants kids in school.  No one is arguing that it's better socially and from a learning perspective for them to stay home.

It's a health issue.  While the kids may be less likely to become aversely ill if they contract COVID, what do you do about the teachers, cooks, administrators, janitors, etc?  My grandmother worked in schools well into her 60s and would have been considered high risk.  Should she have been asked to put her health in danger?  It's not like kids are bastions of practicing good hygiene or social distancing and all of those folks who make schools functional are being asked to put their health and subsequently their family's health at risk.

lets not forget those that want to open everything up so everyone gets exposed and will then build up an immunity to eat and we all have a happy ending. i say let them sacrifice their own family first.........

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

This is a BS stance.  Of course in a normal world everyone wants kids in school.  No one is arguing that it's better socially and from a learning perspective for them to stay home.

It's a health issue.  While the kids may be less likely to become aversely ill if they contract COVID, what do you do about the teachers, cooks, administrators, janitors, etc?  My grandmother worked in schools well into her 60s and would have been considered high risk.  Should she have been asked to put her health in danger?  It's not like kids are bastions of practicing good hygiene or social distancing and all of those folks who make schools functional are being asked to put their health and subsequently their family's health at risk.

I have numerous friends who are teachers. Many of them are terrified. Especially the one with an immunocompromised daughter. 

You folks citing anti-Trump sentiment as the rationale behind positions you don't like are telling on yourselves. How simple-minded and childish.

 

 

 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

lets not forget those that want to open everything up so everyone gets exposed and will then build up an immunity to eat and we all have a happy ending. i say let them sacrifice their own family first.........

Especially since early research suggests that the antibodies aren't sticking with this one.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

I have numerous friends who are teachers. Many of them are terrified. Especially the one with an immunocompromised daughter. 

You folks citing anti-Trump sentiment as the rationale behind positions you don't like are telling on yourselves. How simple-minded and childish.

 

It boils down to this in many ways:

It is not the job of an educator to put their lives and/or health at risk for your child.

[aubiefifty 16,823]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

Especially since early research suggests that the antibodies aren't sticking with this one.

i will never ever understand what draws seemingly good people to trump and they buy all his bullcrap. it amazes me. can you imagine if obama was doing all this? i just do not get it and never will.

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i will never ever understand what draws seemingly good people to trump and they buy all his bullcrap. it amazes me. can you imagine if obama was doing all this? i just do not get it and never will.

They *still* call Obama divisive. Interesting how a black man was divisive the day he was inaugurated. Especially with GOP leadership literally saying their most important job was to make him a one term president. (It remains amazing how Republicans campaign like Tarzan and govern like... what was his chimpanzee friend's name again?) 

[aubiefifty 16,823]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

They *still* call Obama divisive. Interesting how a black man was divisive the day he was inaugurated. Especially with GOP leadership literally saying their most important job was to make him a one term president. (It remains amazing how Republicans campaign like Tarzan and govern like... what was his chimpanzee friend's name again?) 

i am not sure but that is great.......lol. the repubs are just like a monkey at the zoo sling feces at people. and that is pretty close to the truth.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, aubiefifty said:

i am not sure but that is great.......lol. the repubs are just like a monkey at the zoo sling feces at people. and that is pretty close to the truth.

Poop flinging monkey is exactly what I've called trump many times. 

[aubiefifty 16,823]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

Poop flinging monkey is exactly what I've called trump many times. 

my nic for you is the prophet,,,,,,,,,lol. some folks do not want to know my nic for them and i would be banned if i posted it lol

[SocialCircle 570]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm not assuming they wouldn't be covered in any new law.  But absence of proof of concept, there is no replacement law to be had.  You don't seem to want to acknowledge that the Republican party talked about repeal and replace, yet never gave us an idea of what the replacement looked like.

As for McCain's vote, it had nothing to do with Trump.  He's on record as to why he voted against it.  Use google and find out yourself.

And yes, I absolutely want pre-existing conditions covered.  It's the top reason I'm voting against Trump because it's a very personal decision for me.  My wife has a chronic illness and we spend tons of money on her healthcare.  Remove the pre-existing conditions clause and you might as well pronounce her dead right now because many of her procedures wouldn't be covered.  I'm not going to vote for a man who's administration is actively trying to take that away nor will I vote for a party that has yet to put forth a plan if it were to be stripped from law.

Both parties agree with having pre-existing conditions covered. It would be political suicide not to. 
 

I also think you are voting for the Democrat candidate and I don’t think you would vote for Trump even if tomorrow he signed a law that guaranteed pre-existing conditions were covered.