What Does It Take to Open Schools?

The Sunday Seattle Times “Back to School” article goes into considerable detail about the pandemic’s effect on education.   The lesson from the spring closure was:

“U.S public school students learned less than half of the math and just under 70 percent of the language arts skills they would have learned if schools had remained open last spring”

The articles proposal “Avoiding a repeat of spring” details some attempts to improve education this fall with little assurance of success.  It identified the “decision-makers”, Gov. Inslee, Local health departments, and School Districts, but didn’t provide any information as to what was required before schools can be open for “in-person” learning. 

Health officials had earlier concluded they needed to keep schools closed in counties classified as “high risk” if they exceed 75 cases per 100,000 residents. That “high-risk” status is likely to continue for as long as they continue testing 15-20,000 daily. 

Heath officials are no longer willing to tell how many are even being tested so it’s unclear what percentage are testing positive. However, it’s “unlikely” the state will ever achieve the “Washington state goal 2% positive over 2 weeks” for those willing to go through the hassle of testing. 

Those making the decision should consider the Aug 15, 14 day average positives, 663, only resulted in forty 14-day average hospitalizations or 6%.   Those over 80 had 5% of the cases but 51% of the fatalities with 27% mortality.  Those 60-79 had 14% of cases and 38% of fatalities and 7% mortality.  Those 20-59 had 10% of cases and 0.43% mortality.  Those under 20 had 13% of cases with no fatalities.  The "real" mortality rates were significantly lower since many with the virus were asymptomatic or didn't get tested.  Also, some of those older who died, and the 11%, 20-59, fatalities presumably had other contributing factors.  

Keeping schools closed deprives the children in 29.7% of Washington households all the benefits of a classroom education and their parent’s ability to work.  Health officials need to provide realistic guidelines that balance the safety concerns against the benefits.  It should go beyond counties to informing individual school districts how many in their district tested positive to how many were hospitalized, what the ages were for those who died and if they had any contributing factors.  Again do it by district, not by county.

Inform the school district, parents, and teachers. Let districts decide to have in-person classes for parents and teachers for those who want it and remote for those who don't.  Unless they do schools could be closed for a long time. . 

Seattle Times Self-inflicted Wound

The Seattle Time Aug 13^th edition continues their recent attempts to justify a Free Press Subsidy.  Action is needed because:

“This system is in peril of imminent collapse, which would exacerbate the current civil discord across the country and jeopardize democracy and freedom as we know them.”

It’s unclear why the Free Press Subsidy is needed to prevent an imminent collapse of the system.   One could reasonably argue it’s the media and the Times that have spent the last three years “exacerbating the current civil discord”.   Whatever actions took place prior to Trump’s election would have never been an issue if Hillary had won. 

Since Trump’s election the divisiveness has been the result of Times and most of the media acting like an active wing of the DNC, denying his legitimacy, denigrating his successes, and exaggerating any failures.

The article claims:

“Because of your support and the Blethen family’s five generations of unwavering commitment to public service, The Seattle Times has become a role model and a beacon of light for the survival of our nation’s local free press system.”

While the Times may be a “role model” they apparently haven’t attracted much support from the other 50 regional metro newspapers.  It’s also not clear “the other 84% controlled by absentee financial opportunists damage local communities and civic engagement and deepen social fault lines by disinvesting in the quality and volume of local journalism”.

The justify the need for support claiming

Today’s free press and economic crises are the result of a serious erosion of checks and balances at least three decades in the making. 

Only the Times would claim the current “economic crises” was “at least three decades in the making”.  Much of the Times problem is self inflicted. The Times “filtered” approach to local and national problems turns off much of the more conservative older generation.  Younger voters are more attracted to the Internet.  Losing readers devalues advertising.

The Times approach to “Capitalism” exemplifies the paper’s approach to national issues.  The article claims “Capitalism is the most productive economic system the world has ever seen”. Yet concludes:

 

“Our capitalistic economic system has been co-opted by Wall Street at the expense of Main Street and healthy local economies. Wealth has been dangerously concentrated and left many Americans with little hope of working hard and building a secure life and family.”

Prior to the pandemic, the country’s economy was an historic success with record low levels of unemployment, wage growth, and economic prosperity.  It’s not clear how the paper proposes to “Address the dysfunctional control of our capitalism and wealth by far too few individuals and avaricious corporations.

The paper is rightly concerned about the need  “to regulate the Internet for public good rather than allow Facebook and Google to evolve into secretive, monopolistic and dangerous fiefdoms”.   However the papers real concern is not with how Facebook and Google “filter” their information it’s because they “prevent local media from profiting and competing in the digital advertising space”.

The Times solution a “Free Press Super Fund, funded by a fee on the major internet platforms” would have more credibility if supported by other regional papers whether or not they were locally owned.  

Again the Times could add to the value of its advertising by attracting more readers.  Instead they’ve spent a decade alienating much of their audience with their response to both national and local problems.