California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

«‹›957 »

Henrik Zetterberg: Dec 7, 2007

Anonymous Zebra posted:

So I wanted to just pop back in here to thank the various other parents who posted after me to share their feelings. I honestly went to bed that night thinking I had made a stupid post and expected some light ribbing in the morning. Your support and good posts helped me out a lot, and helped me get my priorities in order.

I ultimately chose to enroll my two younger girls in a summer school/program that is still open and my older one is going on these weekly field trips now with people her own age where they spend most of their time outside. After a few days of this I can honestly say that it was the right decision for everyone's emotional and psychological well being. The kids are upbeat and happy for the first time in months and my wife and I feel rested and able to focus on getting tasks done now that we're not trying to act as playmates AND parents.

Schools need to re-open. Especially elementary schools where the children need some type of supervision (so parents can't just leave them at home to work). The harm these shutdowns are doing to children is going to last a generation. I was listening to NPR about two weeks ago, and one of the whispering news-readers casually mentioned that LA Unified School District had lost track of some ungodly number of children. These were kids that were not showing up to or turning in online classwork and who were no longer even coming in for free meals. These are obviously mostly poorer, POC, or other marginalized groups that do not have the resources to keep their kids on track AND also go to work to stay fed, clothed, and housed. For these groups, schools are more than just a place for education, but lifeboats that keep children afloat. A chunk of these kids might never come back once the schools reopen (WHEN?). My own experience talking to students at UCR is that the shutdown literally made some of them homeless. They didn't have houses or families to go back to, and were living on campus or nearby housing because that was the lifeboat they had managed to grab onto. Others came from abusive homes and have been unable to keep up with online classwork in the hostile environments they now find themselves in.

But lets leave emotions aside here. Let's look at this from a purely pragmatic point of view. From reading lots of articles and talking to many people, I think these two assumptions are held by almost everybody:

1) Online learning is impractical, pointless, or even harmful as a means of teaching most K-12 students in the United States.
2) Sending children back to school during the COVID-19 pandemic would require massive changes to the class sizes and structures to prevent them from becoming hotbeds for infection.

Most people take assumption (2) and decide that sending children back to school is impractical, but in doing so they are saying that assumption (1) apparently does not matter, or that we have to choose between two poo poo sandwiches and keeping schools closed is the less lovely sandwich. I disagree. If we start by saying "Children NEED to return to schools.", then the problems brought up in assumption (2) are not telling us to stop, but rather to ask, "HOW can we structure schools to accomplish this?"

"How many new buildings must we quickly get built?"
"How many new teachers do we need to hire?"
"What sacrifices are we willing to make to fund this endeavor?"

This is what I mean when I say that our leaders have been feckless and incompetent. This is why I reject the notion that simply "preventing deaths" was any kind of success within this shutdown. We closed things down in March. We accepted that we might lose the rest of the Spring 2020 school year, but that gave 5 months before the new school year starts in August. We had 5 months to start mass hiring teachers. We had 5 months to start building new schools, or start turning building into schools. Five loving months to make a plan besides "Maybe this disease will go away by August."

Instead local, state, and the Federal government have discussed cutting funding to education to make up for budget shortfalls. Newsom is just as guilty of this as every other governor. I listened to his speeches in March. The idea that schools needed to be restructured was there as early as the first week of the shutdown, but nothing was done.

Ultimately money to change our school systems would have to come from somewhere. Ideally a competent Federal government, led by a strong President and a willingness to print money to make it happen. In the absence of that, Gavin should have started by saying "Education NEEDS [this much money] to achieve a re-opening by August, now what can we cut to get there?" and then worked from there.

We just got an email from our district yesterday letting us choose what of 3 options we want for our kids. This is a choice, not a vote, so they plan to implement all 3 of these.
1) Go back full-time, 5 days a week to your regular school.
2) Hybrid, 2 days a week in 1 of 3 designated schools in the district, 3 days of home learning. My kids would not be going to their own school if we choose this, as our school is not a designated hybrid destination.
3) Full online.

My wife and I discussed it between ourselves, and also with the kids later. We all said "absolutely gently caress the full-time online classes" option. We've did that for 3 months and well, my experience was documented in my previous post. Absolute disaster for learning, and also for mental health.

We both felt that going back full time (#1 option) is the best for both learning and maintaining mental health. The kids get to see their friends. Classrooms will most likely be reduced by at least some marginal amount due to other parents picking hybrid (and going to another school)/full online. I figure that if some kid is infected, they're going to spread it to classmates regardless of whether you go back 5 days a week, or only 2 days a week. You're still coming in contact with an infected student either today or tomorrow, it doesn't matter. Sure, there's a chance they may catch it during a home school day, but basically no one is going to test their asymptomatic kid. Once they start showing symptoms, they've probably been spreading it for a week or whatever. The only way to avoid this is to do full time online classes.

Originally, the kids wanted to do hybrid, but after thinking about having to go to a different school and probably never seeing their friends again, they came to their own conclusion that #1 is probably the best. Not to mention, at the hybrid school, they will also have all the full-time kids there as well, thus increasing numbers at the schools designated for hybrid destinations. They also didn't like the idea of getting stuck with some random district teacher rather than having class with someone they already have a relationship with, and their older siblings already had experience with.

For my oldest, the ADHD kid, anything online would never work, even if it's only a couple days a week, as has been proven already. It's hard enough when the wife and I are working full-time from home, but when we go back, he's going to sleep in until 4pm and never get anything done.

# ? Jul 2, 2020 20:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 23:53

Wicked Them Beats: Apr 1, 2007; Moralists don't really *have* beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded.

Leperflesh posted:

Is that "how the law actually works," e.g. there's clear protections to prevent the occasional disenfranchisement of someone for being (for example) temporarily committed because they checked themselves into a hospital when they were feeling suicidal? Or, is this simply " how the system is functioning today," e.g., for the most part reasonable people don't want or try to disenfranchise such folks, but there's no actual legal mechanism preventing it, so occasionally abuse could happen?

I'm not sure if I wouldn't switch my vote decision regardless, but this is a detail I want to feel sure about.

"Mental incompetence" is defined under Section 2208 of the Elections Code. It is very specifically targeted at people who are under conservatorship and/or have pled not guilty to a crime by reason of insanity. Placement under conservatorship requires a ruling from a judge or jury, and is subject to periodic (annual, I think) review. And even then, if the person under conservatorship is able to communicate to a court investigator reviewing the case that they would like to vote, then a presumption of competence to vote is legally obligated and their conservatorship status is supposed to be ignored.

I can't say for certain that there isn't anyone out there who has wrongfully lost their right to vote under these standards, but I do know people who have 5150'd themselves, and their continued ability to vote was never in question.

# ? Jul 2, 2020 20:54

Hawkperson: Jun 20, 2003

Henrik Zetterberg posted:

We just got an email from our district yesterday letting us choose what of 3 options we want for our kids. This is a choice, not a vote, so they plan to implement all 3 of these.
1) Go back full-time, 5 days a week to your regular school.
2) Hybrid, 2 days a week in 1 of 3 designated schools in the district, 3 days of home learning. My kids would not be going to their own school if we choose this, as our school is not a designated hybrid destination.
3) Full online.

It seems like more and more districts are trending towards this option, at least for elementary school. I'm a little wary, I see a lot of districts posting these things but not a lot of teachers being consulted or informed on how they're actually going to implement it. My instinct is that being able to successfully implement all three options is a pipe dream, but I guess we'll see.

# ? Jul 2, 2020 21:20

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

Wicked Them Beats posted:

"Mental incompetence" is defined under Section 2208 of the Elections Code. It is very specifically targeted at people who are under conservatorship and/or have pled not guilty to a crime by reason of insanity. Placement under conservatorship requires a ruling from a judge or jury, and is subject to periodic (annual, I think) review. And even then, if the person under conservatorship is able to communicate to a court investigator reviewing the case that they would like to vote, then a presumption of competence to vote is legally obligated and their conservatorship status is supposed to be ignored.

I can't say for certain that there isn't anyone out there who has wrongfully lost their right to vote under these standards, but I do know people who have 5150'd themselves, and their continued ability to vote was never in question.

OK, thanks! I'm going to adjust my effortpost. Much appreciated.

# ? Jul 2, 2020 21:30

Doc Hawkins: Jun 15, 2010; Dashing? But I'm not even moving!

https://twitter.com/dizz_h/status/1278779091286548480

https://twitter.com/dizz_h/status/1278782155171041280

# ? Jul 2, 2020 22:02

Sydin: Oct 29, 2011; Another spring commute

Hawkperson posted:

It seems like more and more districts are trending towards this option, at least for elementary school. I'm a little wary, I see a lot of districts posting these things but not a lot of teachers being consulted or informed on how they're actually going to implement it. My instinct is that being able to successfully implement all three options is a pipe dream, but I guess we'll see.

https://twitter.com/Ettin64/status/1278555720699441154

# ? Jul 2, 2020 22:10

SuperKlaus: Oct 20, 2005; Fun Shoe

Leperflesh posted:

Prop 22: Changes employment laws for gig delivery drivers. Revokes the controversial attempt to force Uber, Lyft, Grubhub, et. al. to treat their driver employees as employees rather than independent contractors. Provides a health care subsidy consistent with the ACA, a new minimum earnings guarantee, compensation for vehicle expenses, accident insurance, and discrimination protections. Prohibits companies from stealing drivers' tips. Requires the actual paid amount to drivers be at least 120% of the minimum wage in the location the passenger was picked up, plus 30 cents per mile, adjusted annually by consumer price index. Drivers who manage at least 25 hours per week over a calendar quarter also get 100% of the average Covered California premium; 15-25 hours averaged get 50% of ACA premiums. Hours are counted for being engaged on the app, which I think means not necessarily driving.
Vote: Maybe. I really want to see the courts decide to uphold, or not, the requirement that gig companies treat their employees as employees. I think there's a good chance the courts won't uphold it, in which case, Prop 22 would be a big improvement over the status quo; on the other hand, prop 22 disposes of that attempt to enforce proper employment law, so if it's enacted before a final court decision (almost certainly will, since cases will certainly drag out beyond this November) we'll never find out if the better option could have been provided. I think I might wind up voting for this, but I'd totally understand anyone choosing to vote against it in hopes that the previous law sticks.

The courts may surprise you. Not really my field of law, so now I might be guilty of skimming w/o really understanding, but have a look at Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903. Recent decision from our state Supreme Court stating that for purposes of wage orders an employer bears the burden of showing a worker is not an employee by proving all three of the following: the worker is not under the employer's control when working, does not perform work of a type within the usual course of the employer's business, and is customarily engaged in an independent trade doing the sort of work he's doing for the employer.

Feels like a big pro-worker, pro-employee classification sign to me - says if you're hiring a driver for your driving business that's an employee.

# ? Jul 2, 2020 23:23

SuperKlaus: Oct 20, 2005; Fun Shoe

OK so I am a big idiot who really doesn't know labor law because Dynamex is actually what led to AB5! I still think my point that the courts might be trusted on this stands, knowing it was a court ruling that AB5 codified.

I am like 99% sure the prop to kill AB5 is evil. My union's hard against the prop.

# ? Jul 2, 2020 23:39

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

SuperKlaus posted:

The courts may surprise you. Not really my field of law, so now I might be guilty of skimming w/o really understanding, but have a look at Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903. Recent decision from our state Supreme Court stating that for purposes of wage orders an employer bears the burden of showing a worker is not an employee by proving all three of the following: the worker is not under the employer's control when working, does not perform work of a type within the usual course of the employer's business, and is customarily engaged in an independent trade doing the sort of work he's doing for the employer.

Feels like a big pro-worker, pro-employee classification sign to me - says if you're hiring a driver for your driving business that's an employee.

Yeah the problem I think is that the driving companies are going to argue, strenuously, that they're not in the business of driving; they're in the business of making an app that lets people who need a ride (or food or whatever) find a contractor willing to give them a ride (or deliver food etc.). They're going to point to the fact that they have a bunch of full-time employees workign in their offices doing app-writing and app-running stuff. And they're going to point to the fact that it's very common for gig drivers to drive for multiple companies at the same time (lots of drivers do both uber and lyft, for example). They're going to point to other companies that make apps that help people find other people for stuff. Of course, I disagree... they impose all kinds of rules on how the drivers have to behave, they set the pricing, etc., which is not what a true "help me find a contractor" service would do. But the arguments are there, and a court might buy them.

Given that employment law is a morass, I have little confidence that the courts will do what I want them to do, and less confidence that they'll make a final, all-appeals-exhausted decision any time soon (like, 2-4 years would be unsurprising to me, and 6-10 years would be within the realm of past long drawn-out legal battles).

But if the unions are against Prop 22, that pushes me more into the No camp anyway.

# ? Jul 2, 2020 23:47

Wicked Them Beats: Apr 1, 2007; Moralists don't really *have* beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded.

I am voting no on Prop 22 because the absolute only reason the app companies are giving up as much as they are in it is because they're pretty sure they're about to have to pay a lot more whenever a court decision comes down. What are the savings here? No overtime pay. No worker compensation. No unemployment benefits. Legally establishing, in the state constitution, that these positions can't ever have more than slightly above minimum wage. Ensuring that no legal employee union can be formed.

Whenever you see something that you can spin as positive coming out of a corporation your first thought should always be "what are they getting out of this?" They want Prop 22 because it'll save them money. Vote no.

# ? Jul 2, 2020 23:48

Foxfire_: Nov 8, 2010

Driving for Uber and Lyft simultaneously is the thing that's most likely to mess up employee claims. That does legitimately not look like a normal employer-employee relationship.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 00:13

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

Henrik Zetterberg posted:

We both felt that going back full time (#1 option) is the best for both learning and maintaining mental health. The kids get to see their friends. Classrooms will most likely be reduced by at least some marginal amount due to other parents picking hybrid (and going to another school)/full online. I figure that if some kid is infected, they're going to spread it to classmates regardless of whether you go back 5 days a week, or only 2 days a week. You're still coming in contact with an infected student either today or tomorrow, it doesn't matter. Sure, there's a chance they may catch it during a home school day, but basically no one is going to test their asymptomatic kid. Once they start showing symptoms, they've probably been spreading it for a week or whatever.

With all due respect, shut da fuq up.
You honestly think frequency of contact is the same whether Jimmy is in class one day vs 5 days?
Just as a point of consideration: the LA supe was given information that estimated up to 50 communities could be impacted by a school site coming up as positive for Covid. Not just the teachers, students and staff, but the parents, employers, stores they shop at, etc.

Anonymous Zebra posted:

Especially elementary schools where the children need some type of supervision (so parents can't just leave them at home to work). The harm these shutdowns are doing to children is going to last a generation. I was listening to NPR about two weeks ago, and one of the whispering news-readers casually mentioned that LA Unified School District had lost track of some ungodly number of children. These were kids that were not showing up to or turning in online classwork and who were no longer even coming in for free meals. These are obviously mostly poorer, POC, or other marginalized groups that do not have the resources to keep their kids on track AND also go to work to stay fed, clothed, and housed.
Most people take assumption (2) and decide that sending children back to school is impractical, but in doing so they are saying that assumption (1) apparently does not matter, or that we have to choose between two poo poo sandwiches and keeping schools closed is the less lovely sandwich. I disagree. If we start by saying "Children NEED to return to schools.", then the problems brought up in assumption (2) are not telling us to stop, but rather to ask, "HOW can we structure schools to accomplish this?"

"How many new buildings must we quickly get built?"
"How many new teachers do we need to hire?"
"What sacrifices are we willing to make to fund this endeavor?"

True. There's been a large number of students that haven't been found. Some (honestly) had their family up and go out of state/country when the shutdown happened. Some became homeless. Some just know we aren't able to mark them down below whatever grade they had on March 12th and went "lol done".
How that's dealt with, the kind of supports and enrichment that will need to be implemented to counter those losses, are going to be complex discussions after we're relatively sure it's safe to return. I'm reasonably sure the initial discussions are already taking shape, but a full plan requires a lot of funding questions to be answered.

LA responded with an aggressive device-loaning program and coordination with broadband providers to give students hardline OR cellular hotspots, because there was next to no way their populations would be able to access resources otherwise. I agree there are cultural and financial hurdles and that online school is just not an adequate replacement.

But you are loving :catdrugs:

if you think it's a matter of build some buildings (lol really? Like *maybe* portable bungalows would work but additional construction? Lol) and hire some teachers.

Logistically, some school sites just can't handle distancing well. Things like narrow hallways, gym facilities, etc can't be worked around. The way to lessen that impact is to reduce the amount of students on site.

K.

So we take a high school and say "on Monday 9th grade. Tues is 10th. Weds is 11th. Thurs 12. Friday is all-day virtual free period/virtual office hours"
Cool, now instead of having 600 students we have maybe 150 at a time. But you can only have some 15 kids per class? So you hire part time teachers to cover the 3 or 4 extra classrooms you need? Hope the budget works out on that. Hope also the union is ok with hiring positions to cut later once we return. Oh, and you need probably 3-4 gym teachers now and that might not work at because of the locker rooms. We can do staggered or in-class lunches to reduce contact. Maybe we can do a staggered class release to lessen hallway traffic but that means the teachers will travel to unused classrooms to prevent bottlenecks. Let's also make sure we have 2 full time nurses to help with the regular school needs (medication) and possible covid symptoms. Oh, and we'll have to do socially distant pickups and drop-off times.

So now most of the logisti-- poo poo, a kid in 10th and his girlfriend tested positive, and his sister (in 12th) may have symptoms. So now the class he was in needs to do a 2 week voluntary quarantine and get tested, right? In case they're Asym's? And that probably means the teacher is out too so they don't potentially infect their other classes? So now we have to, what, hire a sub for the other class? Or do we just tell the kids the teacher had that day to quarantine as well? Hey it's 9 days into the quarantine and two other kids tested positive sooooo.... we restart the clock and wait another 2 weeks right?

Like seriously. We have one positive case on a school and it'll shut down. Are we just going to Rollercoaster the school population and hope no one dies? I'm going to be honest here: the public does not have what it takes to commit to the massive cultural, financial and social undertaking to make schooling during a pandemic work.

quote:

For these groups, schools are more than just a place for education, but lifeboats that keep children afloat.

Yeah. Educators have *been saying that* and the response is cuts cuts cuts. Boo loving hoo that now everyone realized this.

Sorry for the long post, but talking about throwing a bunch of kids into a plague ship makes me heated as all gently caress.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 00:29

SuperKlaus: Oct 20, 2005; Fun Shoe

Foxfire_ posted:

Driving for Uber and Lyft simultaneously is the thing that's most likely to mess up employee claims. That does legitimately not look like a normal employer-employee relationship.

Don't see how that's a big issue. It's just a person with two jobs. You can be an employee of two entities.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 00:32

Incelshok Na: Jul 2, 2020; by Hand Knit

SuperKlaus posted:

Don't see how that's a big issue. It's just a person with two jobs. You can be an employee of two entities.

A person employed by Burger King and McDonald's can't be thought of as having two jobs for tax purposes. That's crazy talk.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 00:36

Foxfire_: Nov 8, 2010

It's weird for figuring out hours. If I'm sitting waiting for a fare with both Uber and Lyft apps open:

- who pays me minimum wage for that time?
- does it count against both for overtime?
- when do I become a full-time employee?

# ? Jul 3, 2020 01:06

Incelshok Na: Jul 2, 2020; by Hand Knit

If anything it helps them. Both Uber and Lyft were offering incentives that would make it much harder to drive for both. This will make it even harder to switch fairs like that.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 01:07

Cup Runneth Over: Aug 8, 2009; She said life's
Too short to worry
Life's too long to wait
It's too short
Not to love everybody
Life's too long to hate

SuperKlaus posted:

Don't see how that's a big issue. It's just a person with two jobs. You can be an employee of two entities.

In fact, many people who aren't Uber and Lyft employees work multiple temp jobs.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 01:25

Hawkperson: Jun 20, 2003

FilthyImp posted:

Sorry for the long post, but talking about throwing a bunch of kids into a plague ship makes me heated as all gently caress.

Yep. Don't forget, we have a teacher shortage, too! It's most clear in sped/science/math, but if we even did try to hire enough teachers to handle all this, there would be shortages across the board.

California ended emergency credentials several years ago but I have a feeling they're going to come back pretty quick.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 01:30

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

Hawkperson posted:

California ended emergency credentials several years ago but I have a feeling they're going to come back pretty quick.

Iirc that was in response to No Child Left Behind's section on "highly qualified" teachers. Too many teachers with the wrong credentials in the subject they teach, or with no credential, meant bad financial ju-ju.

And yeah, our SpEd/iD/Special Day/neurodiverse population is getting hosed sideways by online distance learning. No doubt about that. That's the pop we should be prioritizing to get back into a class setting.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 01:49

Kenning: Jan 11, 2009; I really want to post goatse. Instead I only have these🍄.

That's really tough though, since that population is also way more likely to have co-morbidities that make them much more more susceptible to really bad COVID cases.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 01:57

Hawkperson: Jun 20, 2003

Yeah the long and short of it is as long as we can�t loving handle any other part of a pandemic well, we definitely can�t loving handle schooling.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 03:13

SeaborneClink: Aug 27, 2010; MAWP... MAWP!

Would year round schooling (kids assigned to a cohort that rotates through school and on-break) providing less students per classroom and smaller more stable social circles, be a better option than shoving everyone back into 40 kid per room classrooms?

# ? Jul 3, 2020 03:51

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

It'll reduce the number of students on campus but, again, the place Will Shut Down the minute one case is confirmed.

Now, if we were at a less than 1:1 with great contact tracing and a daily positive new cases of, like, 50? Yeah, maybe.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 04:09

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

SeaborneClink posted:

Would year round schooling (kids assigned to a cohort that rotates through school and on-break) providing less students per classroom and smaller more stable social circles, be a better option than shoving everyone back into 40 kid per room classrooms?

Yes and it would be a great policy option. I'm not convinced that in-person school is actually possible in the midst of a pandemic, but it would certainly make it more viable.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 04:41

Hawkperson: Jun 20, 2003

NY Times article related to what we're discussing: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/02/business/covid-economy-parents-kids-career-homeschooling.html

We're all stuck between a rock and a hard place and it seems clear to me you can lay that at the feet of our federal government doing absolutely nothing to help us weather this thing

# ? Jul 3, 2020 04:43

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

I'm certainly sympathetic to parents and students trying to survive without schools. So much of our social safety net has been placed onto teacher's shoulders - their absence has been a palpable blow to many communities.

At the same time, I don't really foresee a way to open schools and not guarantee every student, staff, and family member will be exposed to Covid. How do you operate a school with a casualty rate that high? It seems like there will be incredible turnover in both staff and student attendance. How does the rest of society combat a pandemic when 60 million people are meeting in groups every weekday? How do teachers and students juggle all of these various needs and also engage in meaningful education? Perhaps I simply lack imagination for how to resolve these fundamental issues. Certainly Americans will attempt it, and so we'll see what works.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Jul 3, 2020

# ? Jul 3, 2020 05:02

fermun: Nov 4, 2009

SeaborneClink posted:

Would year round schooling (kids assigned to a cohort that rotates through school and on-break) providing less students per classroom and smaller more stable social circles, be a better option than shoving everyone back into 40 kid per room classrooms?

Yes, but even then it'd need some work. A normal teacher schedule is a 190 day schedule, 180 teaching days, 10 planning days. There are also year-round teaching schedules which are normally for special situations, and those are 210 day schedules, with 200 teaching days and 10 planning days. In a normal year, there are 260 weekdays, and with a bunch of different cohorts, it's going to increase the planning days required, so it'd probably be something like 240 teaching days, 20 planning days. To separate cohorts, you're probably gonna need to still have additional teachers or have teachers teach longer days, so instead of asking teachers to work at minimum 40 hour weeks during teaching time and have more vacation time as compensation, then you're starting to ask teachers to be in permanent crunch which, without considering overtime, would roughly be doubling the working hours per teacher to accomplish. so you either need to double the number of teachers or more than double their pay.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 08:47

Incelshok Na: Jul 2, 2020; by Hand Knit

New solutions to problems other places have already solved is a very American approach, especially a very Californian approach. But why do something weird like rotating teachers and poo poo when we can just make it work? Granted, that would disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline and might serve to more broadly empower the latinx community but those are prices I'm willing to pay. Rotating teachers but keeping the system broken would side-step those "problems" nicely.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 08:57

Class Warcraft: Apr 27, 2006

fermun posted:

Yes, but even then it'd need some work. A normal teacher schedule is a 190 day schedule, 180 teaching days, 10 planning days. There are also year-round teaching schedules which are normally for special situations, and those are 210 day schedules, with 200 teaching days and 10 planning days. In a normal year, there are 260 weekdays, and with a bunch of different cohorts, it's going to increase the planning days required, so it'd probably be something like 240 teaching days, 20 planning days. To separate cohorts, you're probably gonna need to still have additional teachers or have teachers teach longer days, so instead of asking teachers to work at minimum 40 hour weeks during teaching time and have more vacation time as compensation, then you're starting to ask teachers to be in permanent crunch which, without considering overtime, would roughly be doubling the working hours per teacher to accomplish. so you either need to double the number of teachers or more than double their pay.

My district had year-round teaching before I joined. From what I gather students and teachers were divided into four cohorts, one of which was on break during any given three-month stretch. The teachers loved it because it reduced class sizes, but it got the ax for budget reasons.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 09:02

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

Incelshok Na posted:

New solutions to problems other places have already solved is a very American approach, especially a very Californian approach.

Pls see a doctor, you are having a stroke.

Class Warcraft posted:

My district had year-round teaching before I joined. From what I gather students and teachers were divided into four cohorts, one of which was on break during any given three-month stretch. The teachers loved it because it reduced class sizes, but it got the ax for budget reasons.

I had a 3'track public school education. It was neat because I got 2 months on, 2 months off, a week or 2 for Christmas, and was in an AC'd building during Summer.

Teachers hated that they didn't have a stable classroom though, and it was only a thing because the schools were overstuffed to gently caress and back (high school built for like 1500 kids? Stuff 4300 total in there but make sure we're limiting on campus bodies to like 2800 as a time we're not heartless guys).

# ? Jul 3, 2020 10:57

FCKGW: May 21, 2006

My kids are on a year round schedule, 3 months on, one month off. There's 4 tracks of kids. It's nice, we can go do vacations and poo poo in the off season.
Year round school are they way they are because they're overcrowded and it's the only way to keep classroom size down until new schools get built.

Our district sent out a pamphlet with return to site plans. Our kids are supposed to return Aug 1st. There's two options:

1) Full return to site with hybrid online if poo poo gets shut down again. Masks required, teachers with face shields. Attempts at social distancing, playgrounds still open. If the schools get ordered shut down then they move back to the teacher-led online classes they've been doing the past 3 months. Same school schedule, Teacher and class room zoom meetings, online learning but with the teacher there answering questions. As close to classroom experience you can get.

2) Fully online learning. 3rd party company supplied curriculum, not really any direct teacher involvement. "Go at your own pace" learning, just pick it up whenever. Similar to all those online colleges out there. I don't really like this options for kids. Would work fine for self-starting adults but seems like it would be a mess for kids.

The good thing is that because it's year round we can "switch" every break, so if we want to do the fully online at first and then things get under control, we can go back to campus in 3 months. My kid has asthma and he's high risk but I know he really misses the social aspect of school. Gonna have to keep an eye on what happens in the next few weeks.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 18:07

The Wiggly Wizard: Aug 21, 2008

I would really like to know if anywhere is directly appropriating the police budget for smaller public school class sizes.

Speaking of which
https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/campbell-police-chief-defends-planned-bearcat-purchase/

quote:

While Campbell Police Chief Gary Berg argues that a BearCat is critical for SWAT operations, residents have concerns about its hefty cost and the militarization of a police department for a city with a population barely north of 40,000 people.

The police department originally planned on making the purchase in the upcoming fiscal year, but due to the city�s nearly $3 million deficit, Berg said they�ve decided to hold off until 2021-22. The city expects the BearCat to cost $250,200 and has budgeted $62,550 a year for a four-year period starting in 2021.

�This is a crucial piece of safety equipment,� Berg told the City Council at a recent meeting. �The willingness to push it off a year should not be interpreted as this not being needed in our police department.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 18:41

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Class Warcraft posted:

My district had year-round teaching before I joined. From what I gather students and teachers were divided into four cohorts, one of which was on break during any given three-month stretch. The teachers loved it because it reduced class sizes, but it got the ax for budget reasons.

I had this in elementary school, and it was fantastic. Getting vacations throughout the year was great, though you could argue that it made making friends between the cohorts was impacted, since you wouldn't be on the same schedule. At the same time, you'd typically be closest to people in your class, so it wasn't a big deal.

# ? Jul 3, 2020 18:48

Hawkperson: Jun 20, 2003

The Wiggly Wizard posted:

I would really like to know if anywhere is directly appropriating the police budget for smaller public school class sizes.

Speaking of which
https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/campbell-police-chief-defends-planned-bearcat-purchase/

Police are city funded and education is state funded so it's not quite as easy as pulling out of one fund and putting into the other. It might be possible to do it at the county level and cut sherriff budgets?

# ? Jul 3, 2020 18:55