Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: How a bizarre defense notion got its start in Cook County
Next Post: It’s just a bill
Posted in:
* BND…
Illinois schools could be required to offer fully in-person learning this fall, as youth vaccinations are underway and federal health officials roll back mask mandates.
Illinois State Superintendent of Education Carmen Ayala is recommending the State Board of Education vote to approve her declaration: “Beginning with the 2021-22 school year, all schools must resume fully in-person learning for all student attendance days, provided that … remote instruction be made available for students who are not eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine and are under a quarantine order by a local public health department or the Illinois Department of Public Health.”
The state board will vote on the resolution supporting Ayala’s declaration on Wednesday. The resolution as made available Friday night as part of the board agenda.
The resolution is here.
* The Question: Do you support this resolution? Make sure to explain your answer in comments. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 17, 21 @ 2:16 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: How a bizarre defense notion got its start in Cook County
Next Post: It’s just a bill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Yes - Schools should already be back in person and in person should be required unless their is a medical reason why they cannot attend.
Comment by Chicagonk Monday, May 17, 21 @ 2:20 pm
Has any person in this state been put under a specific quarantine order by the public health department? Sort of lots of executive orders or local rules but no orders quarantining anyone
Comment by DuPage Saint Monday, May 17, 21 @ 2:23 pm
Yes. Schools should be full time in fall but have a remote option for qualified medical conditions and to cover for snow days.
Comment by Amurica Monday, May 17, 21 @ 2:24 pm
No. Too early for such a broad brush since kids under 12 are not eligible yet, and eligibility for remote learning is restricted to those under quarantine only.
Plus, we’ve yet to fight about mandating vaccinations and PPE. That’ll be interesting.
Comment by Jibba Monday, May 17, 21 @ 2:25 pm
Absolutely. If not enough kids are vaccinated or something like that come this fall, we can talk about keeping masks or some other social distancing in place, but kids need to be with their peers, and need to be learning, both of which suffered the past 1.5 years. I’ve argued schools should be open for a while. I get it’s a balancing act between keeping teachers, staff, and students families Covid free (kids are pretty safe from Covid), but isolating kids for a year and stunting their education has huge harms as well.
Comment by Perrid Monday, May 17, 21 @ 2:27 pm
No. Not until all children in school, including Early Start, are vaccinated.
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, May 17, 21 @ 2:28 pm
Of course
Get the darlin’s back in the classrooms..year round…7 days a week…learn ti; you drop
Comment by Annonin' Monday, May 17, 21 @ 2:30 pm
Do not support.
1) I do not support the wording of the statement being ‘and’, and bolded, in regard for the conditions allowing remote learning for those unable to get the vaccine. The statement appears to be that a vulnerable student unable to get the vaccine will still be forced to attend in-person learning with no action taken until an outbreak is happening at the school. It’s very likely the outbreak will start with or already involve such a vulnerable unvaccinated student before that student would be eligible for remote learning.
This seems to be a very reactive policy position and not a proactive one.
2) Paired with item 1, remote learning should be an option for anyone who wants it. Once the basic infrastructure is in place for remote learning, it scales very easily. There is no reason to eliminate remote learning in the absence of a pandemic as an option for those who have seen a benefit from it.
I can understand the institutional resistance to change on this, but completely eliminating the option of remote learning at the decision of the parent(or student) seems to be more of a protective move for the institution than a purely educational position.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, May 17, 21 @ 2:33 pm
Yes. 13 and 11 in my house. One with a shot in the arm, one has to wait.
I was all for in person all this last year - with masks and other precautions - and it should be the same for this coming year.
I’m supportive of an online option if requested. But I think most schools are going to farm that out to a service. It’s too much to ask for teachers to be ready for in class and online for students.
So open up, be just a little bit cautious and get back to teaching our kids. They have missed a bunch, it’s time to catch up.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Monday, May 17, 21 @ 2:35 pm
Yes. Anything but only builds support for anti-vaxxers.
Comment by Ed Equity Monday, May 17, 21 @ 2:36 pm
As a HS teacher, one thing that’s bothered me throughout the school debate is the lack of distinction between elementary, middle and high school, and their varying needs.
This past year, it’s likely elementary schools could have been opened safely with the ability to create pods and minimize contact outside of that pod. That structure would be impossible in most high schools.
That said, it seems that this advice is good and safe, which I welcome, and I look forward to getting back in the classroom.
Comment by Guy Probably Monday, May 17, 21 @ 2:41 pm
Yes,
If it is medically prudent and the exceptions specified seem to meet that, I think a permanent hybrid option is going to be problematic.
Comment by OneMan Monday, May 17, 21 @ 2:53 pm
I’m generally a yes. Our schools were open all school year with what I consider excellent results.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, May 17, 21 @ 3:01 pm
Yes. It’s ridiculous that children haven’t been in school all this time. Plenty have been set back a year. That isn’t okay.
Comment by Now I’m down in it. Monday, May 17, 21 @ 3:20 pm
Yes. The resolution seems to fall squarely within the new CDC guidelines. Any still reluctant in the Teacher’s Unions who have fought re-opening will have a difficult time arguing against the logic of this.
Comment by Responsa Monday, May 17, 21 @ 3:29 pm
There has to be some kind of provision set up for those families that want remote for non-health reasons.
Basically my take is we forced all the kids to go to remote and if some students and students’ families adjusted to that I see no reason to make them change. Maybe it could be done through a cyber-charter but it should be allowed somehow.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, May 17, 21 @ 3:31 pm
==Plus, we’ve yet to fight about mandating vaccinations==
Mayor Lightfoot made a subtle but I thought important point in her MSNBC interview. She recognized that “mandating” shots or a vaccine passport while the vaccines are still being jabbed under “emergency approval” could be problematic. At such time as the vaccines are granted full approval with all the requisite broader studies and longer term clinical trials that could lkely change.
Comment by Responsa Monday, May 17, 21 @ 3:37 pm
cermak_rd - there were remote schools before the pandemic, private ones. If someone wants remote due a non-health reason, they should explore that option in the private sector.
Comment by Grimlock Monday, May 17, 21 @ 3:57 pm
My kid has been in school since August with no shutdowns. Limited positivity rates and contact tracing quarantines have occurred, but were contained to small groups based on school organizational procedures to mitigate spread and encourage social distancing. We’ve had a great year especially since extra curricular activities have been up and running. And we started all of this successfully before vaccines were in place — to emphasize — August through now. Isolating students from their peers does nothing to help them and I am so thankful our school board and administration had the common sense to understand that we could be safe, open, and have healthy, mentally and emotionally supported students through in person learning all year.
Comment by Momager Monday, May 17, 21 @ 3:57 pm
Yes–provided the COVID-19 vaccine is one of the required vaccines for school attendance.
It’s true many kids are too young for a vaccine at the moment, but the goal of mass vaccinations for herd immunity is to protect vulnerable people like them. With some reasonable precautions (masks, air filters, etc.) this seems reasonable and doable.
Comment by Benjamin Monday, May 17, 21 @ 4:01 pm
== “mandating” shots or a vaccine passport while the vaccines are still being jabbed under “emergency approval” could be problematic==
Probably fair to say that no one really knows until it gets tried. But regular approval is underway for Pfizer, so it may get sorted sometime this year.
Either way, this proposal above tries to force my kids back into school before they get vaccinated, so I consider it just as extreme (and far more dastardly) as any attempt to force kids to get vaccinated in order to attend school. And no antivax parent is going stand still for that without a fight, so why should I have to accept this?
Comment by Jibba Monday, May 17, 21 @ 4:06 pm
May 10 2021
Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to include adolescents 12 through 15 years of age. The FDA amended the EUA originally issued on Dec. 11, 2020 for administration in individuals 16 years of age and older.
“The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15 years of age is a significant step in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic,”
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Food%20and,through%2015%20years%20of%20age.
Comment by Responsa Monday, May 17, 21 @ 4:20 pm
No. I fully support kids being in school, but Illinois is a big country and decisions about whether or not a school is open should be local. Kind of why they elect 860 school boards.
Also, it’s a State Board Resolution, which carries about as much weight as if you printed out the paper it would be written on. It’s a waste of time and energy trying to make someone in Springfield feel like they are doing something to help.
Resolve to do something that actually helps.
Comment by snakepliskin69 Monday, May 17, 21 @ 4:21 pm
Illinois is a big state, not country.
Comment by snakepliskin69 Monday, May 17, 21 @ 4:21 pm
=As a HS teacher, one thing that’s bothered me throughout the school debate is the lack of distinction between elementary, middle and high school, and their varying needs.=
Thank you for your comment recognizing the difference in levels. I would also like to add that remote learning for kids who are in special education, especially those with a significant disability have not had their needs met for over a year. These kids needs have not been met and the regression is considerable.
Comment by Observer Monday, May 17, 21 @ 4:24 pm
== I would also like to add that remote learning for kids who are in special education, especially those with a significant disability have not had their needs met for over a year. These kids needs have not been met and the regression is considerable.==
Because it’s a keen observation that is worth reading twice.
Comment by A Guy Monday, May 17, 21 @ 4:29 pm
I’ll agree if all students and staff are vaccinated, at least middle and high school ages. It’s important to protect vulnerable students and they shouldn’t have to stay remote because of health or immune compromised conditions.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, May 17, 21 @ 4:54 pm
Support it. There are other vaccinations that are required for children to attend school. Just adding another to the list.
Comment by Huh? Monday, May 17, 21 @ 5:33 pm
First protect our teachers and children by providing vaccinations for all school staff and school age children and their parents. Then make a plan for in person learning this fall.
Comment by Enviro Monday, May 17, 21 @ 5:55 pm
We have had students in person all year. We started with a hybrid, but by the end of the first quarter we had all K-8 everyday, all day. 2nd semester we added high school every day all day.
With our size and staffing, educating remote students with any quality has been the big challenge. It has really taxed our teachers. It appears that we will have to offer remote learning next year. I think that is a serious mistake. We will not offer the same approach to remote students that we did this year simply because of the strain on our staff. Our focus will be on the in person students (98% of our students right now) and trying to make up for the deficits caused by the pandemic.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, May 17, 21 @ 6:34 pm
=== Do you support this resolution? Make sure to explain your answer in comments. Thanks.===
Voted “Yes”
Why?
Can’t be any more straightforward and honest to the situation and the challenges of this pandemic.
It’s that plain.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 17, 21 @ 7:21 pm
“I would also like to add that remote learning for kids who are in special education, especially those with a significant disability have not had their needs met for over a year. These kids needs have not been met and the regression is considerable.”
YES! While I feel that school has generally been successful this year, there have been far too many groups, especially special ed students, who just have not been accommodated.
Comment by Guy Probably Monday, May 17, 21 @ 10:24 pm
Fully Support. The loss of a year of instruction (at aminimum) is having a big enough impact on so many students. Along with the lack of social interaction and what that’s doing. Get em back in.
Comment by NorthsideNoMore Tuesday, May 18, 21 @ 2:09 pm