4 ms·

'Since March 2020, the federal government has provided $190 billion in pandemic aid to schools …'[0] 'There are 130,930 public and private K-12 schools in the

'Since March 2020, the federal government has provided $190 billion in pandemic aid to schools …'[0] 'There are 130,930 public and private K-12 schools in the U.S.'[1] $190 billion divided by 130,930 is $1.45 million dollars per school. Now, I will readily grant that a million dollars just ain't what it used to be, but it is, even in 2021, still a heck of a lot of money, and it sure sounds from the raw numbers that public school teachers shouldn't need to spend their own money on basic COVID-19 supplies. 0: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/look-up-how-much-covid-relief-aid-your-district-is-getting/2021/09 https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/look-up-how-much-covi... 1: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/education-statistics-facts-about-american-schools/2019/01 https://www.edweek.org/leadership/education-statistics-facts...

LodeOfCode 5y ago
>shouldn't need to spend their own money on basic COVID-19 supplies Not covid supplies, school supplies pre-covid (which they also shouldn't have needed to, but did need to nevertheless). And hiring enough surrogates would eat up a huge chunk of that $1.45 million, given that you'd need, what, ~10 per school for nearly 2 years now? Actually, that's more doable than I expected.
cipheredStones 5y ago
There's around 50M K-12 students in public schools. That's roughly $4k per student over the course of about 18 months, at the time the article was written. Subtract six months for summers, if you like; that's still ~360 days, for about $11/student/day. It's not nothing, but a single rapid test costs more than that.
- bushbaba 5y ago
  Rapid testing every student wouldn’t be necessary to open the schools.
  - dude187 5y ago
    The continual testing and quarantining of healthy students and staff is what keeps schools from being able to reliably stay open.
    - bushbaba 5y ago
      Rapid test will test negative when someone is already contagious. It won’t be an effective means of stopping spread. Instead give out surgical masks or n95 to all kids. Cloth masks allow 90%+ of the virus to enter/leave. Add hepa filters. Add space heaters and leave the windows open. Maybe teach outside in parklet if possible. That’ll be more effective at preventing spread.
- rayiner 5y ago
  You don’t need to rapid test every student every day for a year! $4,000 per kid is a ton of money for PPE, remote learning supplies, test kits, ventilation, etc. The money has mostly been set on fire.
  - rdtwo 5y ago
    Yep and now it’s gone. Schools are notoriously wasteful when it comes to large sums of money. Almost none of the allocations go to high ROI Items like hiring teachers or buying basic school supplies. Schools love buying tech though because it’s always a black hole for capital spending
    - pempem 5y ago
      At least in LA, its not the schools. Its, as an earlier poster said, administration. The mental association of "school" is usually a group of teachers and maybe a principal. In multiple cities, political leadership at the mayoral level has been shown to be getting kickbacks and other favorable terms from our dear beloved employers to adopt that technology. In LAUSD it was Villaragosa and Apple. When we say the money is "wasted", it's because there is corruption at levels higher than any individual school. Usually.
      - rdtwo 5y ago
        Yeah I think that’s true the corruption is either dictated down as in you must buy apple products or you get nothing. Happens at a district level where for example they they hire a consulting firm and pay millions of dollars
- sharikous 5y ago
  I am probably being a smartass but if the purpose is to check whether there is at least one positive student (no matter who) you can do so with one single collective test a day.
- detaro 5y ago
  > but a single rapid test costs more than that. Still find the difference in that so weird. rapid tests are a 2-3 € supermarket item here, if you'd be buying in bulk for a school system they'd be cheaper. And at least some schools/day cares have been doing pool testing.
  - cipheredStones 5y ago
    Yes, I believe the main difference comes down to the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) being slow and hidebound about approving rapid tests, with the result that the few manufacturers who got through the whole arduous approval process have been able to reap near-monopoly profits.

LodeOfCode 5y ago

>shouldn't need to spend their own money on basic COVID-19 supplies Not covid supplies, school supplies pre-covid (which they also shouldn't have needed to, but did need to nevertheless). And hiring enough surrogates would eat up a huge chunk of that $1.45 million, given that you'd need, what, ~10 per school for nearly 2 years now? Actually, that's more doable than I expected.

cipheredStones 5y ago

There's around 50M K-12 students in public schools. That's roughly $4k per student over the course of about 18 months, at the time the article was written. Subtract six months for summers, if you like; that's still ~360 days, for about $11/student/day. It's not nothing, but a single rapid test costs more than that.

bushbaba 5y ago
Rapid testing every student wouldn’t be necessary to open the schools.
- dude187 5y ago
  The continual testing and quarantining of healthy students and staff is what keeps schools from being able to reliably stay open.
  - bushbaba 5y ago
    Rapid test will test negative when someone is already contagious. It won’t be an effective means of stopping spread. Instead give out surgical masks or n95 to all kids. Cloth masks allow 90%+ of the virus to enter/leave. Add hepa filters. Add space heaters and leave the windows open. Maybe teach outside in parklet if possible. That’ll be more effective at preventing spread.
rayiner 5y ago
You don’t need to rapid test every student every day for a year! $4,000 per kid is a ton of money for PPE, remote learning supplies, test kits, ventilation, etc. The money has mostly been set on fire.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  Yep and now it’s gone. Schools are notoriously wasteful when it comes to large sums of money. Almost none of the allocations go to high ROI Items like hiring teachers or buying basic school supplies. Schools love buying tech though because it’s always a black hole for capital spending
  - pempem 5y ago
    At least in LA, its not the schools. Its, as an earlier poster said, administration. The mental association of "school" is usually a group of teachers and maybe a principal. In multiple cities, political leadership at the mayoral level has been shown to be getting kickbacks and other favorable terms from our dear beloved employers to adopt that technology. In LAUSD it was Villaragosa and Apple. When we say the money is "wasted", it's because there is corruption at levels higher than any individual school. Usually.
    - rdtwo 5y ago
      Yeah I think that’s true the corruption is either dictated down as in you must buy apple products or you get nothing. Happens at a district level where for example they they hire a consulting firm and pay millions of dollars
sharikous 5y ago
I am probably being a smartass but if the purpose is to check whether there is at least one positive student (no matter who) you can do so with one single collective test a day.
detaro 5y ago
> but a single rapid test costs more than that. Still find the difference in that so weird. rapid tests are a 2-3 € supermarket item here, if you'd be buying in bulk for a school system they'd be cheaper. And at least some schools/day cares have been doing pool testing.
- cipheredStones 5y ago
  Yes, I believe the main difference comes down to the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) being slow and hidebound about approving rapid tests, with the result that the few manufacturers who got through the whole arduous approval process have been able to reap near-monopoly profits.