6 ms·

> they just don’t care about teachers I think you mean, they don’t care about students? Because that’s truly who is hurt here.

briefcomment 6y ago
It seems like they're focused on politics, since that's what gets them paid. If school choice comes around, they'll probably change their priorities.
dchuk 6y ago
I mean, for every 20-30 kids, there’s also an adult trying to educate them. Everyone’s fucked in the situation, and all you need to do is follow the money to understand the motivations. For example, my wife has to take real time attendance on a zoom call every morning in a 30 minute window, when everything else can be asynchronous. Why? Because schools are funded by attendance of the students, and they couldn’t be bothered to think of an alternative way to handle things.
- steverb 6y ago
  Not that your wife can do anything about it, but... My daughter has been doing online school for two years now with a school system that has been online only for about 10 years. Their hack was to give the kids one assignment per day. A missed assignment = 1 absence. An assignment turned in a day late = 1 tardy. The teachers post the weeks assignments on weekend (before Monday morning) and it's up to the kids to determine when/how they will get them done (which is why she attends this school, as it gives her a lot of flexibility to do the other things she is interested in).
- ev1 6y ago
  > my wife has to take real time attendance on a zoom call every morning in a 30 minute window Holy crap this is an incredibly stupid thing to be forced to do.
JadeNB 6y ago
> > they just don’t care about teachers > I think you mean, they don’t care about students? Because that’s truly who is hurt here. It is true in some transitive sense that the people making these decisions don't care about students, but insisting on that phrasing seems either hostile to, or at least minimising of the importance of and impact on, teachers. The school or district administration's role is to care for the students, yes, but (at least in the classroom) they do that indirectly, by choosing, training, and equipping skilled and qualified teachers. An administration who is showing contempt for its teachers is thus, indirectly, showing contempt for its students; but it's directly showing contempt for its teachers, and cutting them out of the story says that the harm they experience is not important. Teachers already are, like so many essential workers, expected to do their job endlessly without any commensurate reward; what is the point of denying the harm (for example, by saying or implying that they aren't truly hurt) that is done to them when they are not given even the basic tools to translate their passion for teaching and care for their students into commensurate results? (I would also be opposed to someone responding to claims of harm to the students by saying "why not focus on the teachers?—they're the ones who are truly hurt." There's no monopoly on suffering; we can acknowledge one group's suffering without pretending that they're the only ones.)
- xigency 6y ago
  I don’t think you have to go that deep. We can simply say they don’t care at all. If we’re hair picking students vs. teachers then it is likely political distinction.
taneq 6y ago
Can't it be both? I think it's both.
peterwwillis 6y ago
The teachers will work themselves into an early grave just to help the kids. Nobody's doing that for teachers. Teachers are more at risk of actually dying when in-person learning is forced on them as some school districts have done. And they have their livelihood to think about (many live a little more than paycheck to paycheck). Comparatively, the kids aren't dying, they don't have bills to pay, they don't work overtime. Their parents may even be able to pull them from school, or homeschool. Worst case they might be held back a year. The students will survive this, but the teachers literally might not.
- iso1631 6y ago
  hundereds of people a weel in the US die driving, many of them going to and from work.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    Hundreds of working people also die from floods, too. I'm not sure why that's relevant here, though. Are you against traffic laws and flood control? Will not protecting teachers from covid somehow keep them from getting in traffic accidents? I suspect the opposite is true.
    - iso1631 6y ago
      The point is we accept a certain level of risk in going to work.
      - peterwwillis 6y ago
        The point you've just tried to make is that it's fine to force teachers to risk death in a classroom, because they might also get hit by a car driving into work? You need to work on your rhetoric.
        iso1631 6y ago
        We force people to risk death driving to work, why is covid different?

briefcomment 6y ago

It seems like they're focused on politics, since that's what gets them paid. If school choice comes around, they'll probably change their priorities.

dchuk 6y ago

I mean, for every 20-30 kids, there’s also an adult trying to educate them. Everyone’s fucked in the situation, and all you need to do is follow the money to understand the motivations. For example, my wife has to take real time attendance on a zoom call every morning in a 30 minute window, when everything else can be asynchronous. Why? Because schools are funded by attendance of the students, and they couldn’t be bothered to think of an alternative way to handle things.

steverb 6y ago
Not that your wife can do anything about it, but... My daughter has been doing online school for two years now with a school system that has been online only for about 10 years. Their hack was to give the kids one assignment per day. A missed assignment = 1 absence. An assignment turned in a day late = 1 tardy. The teachers post the weeks assignments on weekend (before Monday morning) and it's up to the kids to determine when/how they will get them done (which is why she attends this school, as it gives her a lot of flexibility to do the other things she is interested in).
ev1 6y ago
> my wife has to take real time attendance on a zoom call every morning in a 30 minute window Holy crap this is an incredibly stupid thing to be forced to do.

JadeNB 6y ago

> > they just don’t care about teachers > I think you mean, they don’t care about students? Because that’s truly who is hurt here. It is true in some transitive sense that the people making these decisions don't care about students, but insisting on that phrasing seems either hostile to, or at least minimising of the importance of and impact on, teachers. The school or district administration's role is to care for the students, yes, but (at least in the classroom) they do that indirectly, by choosing, training, and equipping skilled and qualified teachers. An administration who is showing contempt for its teachers is thus, indirectly, showing contempt for its students; but it's directly showing contempt for its teachers, and cutting them out of the story says that the harm they experience is not important. Teachers already are, like so many essential workers, expected to do their job endlessly without any commensurate reward; what is the point of denying the harm (for example, by saying or implying that they aren't truly hurt) that is done to them when they are not given even the basic tools to translate their passion for teaching and care for their students into commensurate results? (I would also be opposed to someone responding to claims of harm to the students by saying "why not focus on the teachers?—they're the ones who are truly hurt." There's no monopoly on suffering; we can acknowledge one group's suffering without pretending that they're the only ones.)

xigency 6y ago
I don’t think you have to go that deep. We can simply say they don’t care at all. If we’re hair picking students vs. teachers then it is likely political distinction.

taneq 6y ago

Can't it be both? I think it's both.

peterwwillis 6y ago

The teachers will work themselves into an early grave just to help the kids. Nobody's doing that for teachers. Teachers are more at risk of actually dying when in-person learning is forced on them as some school districts have done. And they have their livelihood to think about (many live a little more than paycheck to paycheck). Comparatively, the kids aren't dying, they don't have bills to pay, they don't work overtime. Their parents may even be able to pull them from school, or homeschool. Worst case they might be held back a year. The students will survive this, but the teachers literally might not.

iso1631 6y ago
hundereds of people a weel in the US die driving, many of them going to and from work.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  Hundreds of working people also die from floods, too. I'm not sure why that's relevant here, though. Are you against traffic laws and flood control? Will not protecting teachers from covid somehow keep them from getting in traffic accidents? I suspect the opposite is true.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    The point is we accept a certain level of risk in going to work.
    - peterwwillis 6y ago
      The point you've just tried to make is that it's fine to force teachers to risk death in a classroom, because they might also get hit by a car driving into work? You need to work on your rhetoric.
      - iso1631 6y ago
        We force people to risk death driving to work, why is covid different?