transplantbillsfan

Bolded ends up telling me a lot. And no, opening schools fully as the test subjects for a complete reopening without thought of student, teacher or family health is flat out stupid. Kids that are in school are going to suffer educationally. I view that as inevitable this year. Good distance learning isn't even a close substitute for good in-class learning. Period. However, measuring education or social skills lost by students as somehow more more important than the lives that might be lost--of students, teachers, and/or family members--is just plain cold-hearted. This is not an easy answer, but forcing all schools to go back fully at this moment is the wrong one.

This shouldn't even be a political issue but Trump made it one, unfortunately. He's obviously desperate. And you're obviously one of his blind followers. The reality is that most schools across the country will follow the fluid path of starting the year partially in person and partial distance learning to see how it goes and adjust from there. Frankly, that's almost inevitably the right call.

"Not too many kids per classroom" That's the problem. My school has classes that have had 40 students in a single classroom. I haven't seen that in my room, but 30+ multiple times. So how exactly does a public High School campus with 2,000+ students on campus limit students in classrooms AND not split the student body into staggered learning with a certain % on campus at a time and the rest doing distance learning?

We do?

I never hid being a teacher. In fact I mention it all the time and many have already been critical of me and my profession. And the last statement is silly. We're in the middle of a worldwide pandemic that in the US alone has infected nearly 1.5 million and killed over 135,000 people despite efforts to quarantine, wear masks, and not have large gatherings for months now. Schools would be the canary in a coal mine. And having all schools across the country go fully back into the classroom with 20-30 (and often more) students per classroom would likely wind up having pretty serious consequences. And as I said in the OP and to be very clear: I want and am willing to go back into the classroom. I love and miss my job. I just think the best anyone can clearly hope for is a mixture of in-class teaching and at home distance learning, often depending on school size.

I really can't remotely see that working. First of all, it requires more money. You need money for each position you have "supervising" the class. And who are the supervisors? Substitute teachers? EAs? Security Guards? That adds more money to those positions being taken away from their other jobs. And we haven't even talked about the classroom management nightmare that would be having 20-30 students sitting in a room with their teacher not physically present. It could actually be a safety and liability issue, honestly

What the hell is going on? First Trump claims at his July 3rd Mount Rushmore speech that kids are being "indoctrinated" these days by those damn evil liberals. Now he's pushing about as hard as possible for schools to reopen fully. Not partially. Not 2 days or 3 days a week as his press secretary today questioned. But fully. It's about as transparent as he can possibly be. And yet some will view "opening fully" as the only answer. It's obviously not. I'm a teacher and I actually very much prefer to be in the classroom. I am one of the lucky ones who knew what he wanted to do as a career at a pretty young age--9th grade--and never wavered, which was what helped me earn my undergraduate degree in Secondary English Education and Master's degree in English literature in 5 years. (That's a statement about my dedication to both my Profession and my subject rather than whatever tomfoolery someone will dish out that I just said I was better than you... though I very likely am in Secondary English education and English Literature... can't wait for the grenades on that very true statement. ) Regardless of the fact that I prefer and am very willing to be fully back in the classroom in 3 1/2 weeks (because Hawai'i students are scheduled to go back August 4th), I also very much understand teacher, student and parent concerns otherwise. I have coworkers who are elderly, or obese with heart disease, or with diabetes who have already said they won't go back into the classroom. These are, for the most part, very good teachers who care about their students. But should they be expected to put their lives at risk in a 400 square foot box with 30 other kids who might look healthy but might be asymptomatic carriers of what would be a deadly disease for them? It's understandable why Trump is pushing for a full go at schools. Hell, it's transparent. Our economy can't fully start without teachers being the glorified babysitters we're viewed as. You can't watch your kids while you work, so we better do it, along with giving them a damn good education and making sure they're learning social skills and keeping them safe and making sure they continue to learn things like discipline and time management and... etc. That's fine. I love my job. Believe it or not I really want to get back into the classroom. Distance learning is going to be harder than in-class learning because I, like most teachers, care about my students and really want them to excel, despite the fact that distance learning is ultimately no substitute for the classroom. But it's a choice at this point between safety and education at this point, honestly. Trump wants to throw the economy in as the 3rd choice, but how many kids' lives are actually worth the economy to you? And once students start to get sick, doesn't the inevitable become school closures? No easy answer. And I'll repeat, I want to and am willing to get back into the classroom fully. I just think it's becoming less and less likely. It makes me sad. I also think it's an indication of the direction of our NFL season, unfortunately.

Seniority? Considering the situation, might it not be wise to go in the opposite direction? I wish the NFL would make the decision to play the games with no fans in the stands for all teams at this point. If they'd already done that, I'd feel pretty confident we're having a season. They haven't and I'm now seriously worried this season isn't going to really happen. The latest Athletic article about the NFL proposal with 35% of player salaries going into escrow claims 70-80% of NFL revenue is actually generated from advertising and sponsorships. I was surprised it was that high. If it is, cut ties with the push for fans in the stands. I don't care how "weird" it is. You guys want football? I sure as heck do. Let the NFL get creative about generating more revenue, though I bet DirecTV subscribers go up the NFL will be just fine. As for the players. If you can't get behind playing a competitive game you've likely been playing since a kid (when you played just for fun and often without fans) while making money doing it, even without fans in the stadium, that sounds like a psychological problem. Does the NFL really have that many exhibitionists? Can't they console themselves that millions of fans are watching this on TV? Seriously NFL. Don't screw this up!

Hello. Life must be really weird for you right now. You've been sleeping for the last 7 months, right? Can I just say perfect post from the perfect poster.

This is my problem with this argument: You argue his impact on the passing game is based purely on his size and speed. That’s wonderful and all, but that doesn’t say much at all about how he is as a football player, like can he tackle?

I just remember how the OP of this thread got kicked off this board. That was a real low point for this forum. And that's really saying something for PPP.

There's a difference between publicly lying about the degree you have actually earned (which is also distasteful) and cheating in order to actually get into an Institution you might have no business being in. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Trump is giving Biden his decades long wish to become President just because it's pretty damn easy to look like a choir boy when juxtaposed next to Donald Trump, no matter what skeletons are in your closet.

Yet he's ironically pushing SUPER hard for kids to go back to school in the Fall no matter what https://apnews.com/93fb781c01777eaf5ce86ddc86ce7a11 Trump pushes state, local leaders to reopen schools in fall "We’re very much going to put pressure on governors and everybody else to open the schools.” ... “We want to reopen the schools... Everybody wants it. The moms want it, the dads want it, the kids want it. It's time to do it.” Yeah... sounds like a guy who had to cheat his way into college to me... What's the statute of limitations? This isn't about cheating. It's just one more indicator that Trump really is as dumb as he looks.

I don't get this. I have hopes for him and think he made progress last year, but I don't even think he qualifies as "great" or maybe even "very good" yet. Elite? Really? That's some real prognosticating. I sure hope so.

It's the boat everyone is in. I'm a teacher. I actually REALLY want to get back in the classroom because I think this "distance learning" sucks and students aren't actually learning. Then again, I'm in good health and keep a very small social circle. I have good friends who are coworkers who are basically refusing to go back into the classroom because they have underlying health conditions like diabetes and heart issues. And I don't blame them at all. I'll be honest: a month ago I was like 99.9% sure we'd have an NFL season. Not there anymore, though I still think it's much more likely than not that we have a season... Although that might also just be wishful thinking... ?

Yeah I'm just thinking about what I'd do if my bar didn't open up--it's still closed--and there were games.

About the out-of-home data? I'm fairly comfortable. I think it might even undercall it a little. You should see the number of people packed in the sports bars in Hawai'i on opening day for a 7 AM kickoff. I could see bar numbers being pretty accurate because you can track patrons in a bar. Friends going to friends houses to watch is a different story. Hence the reason I think it under calls it.

Not specified from what I see. But I'm sure there's some kind of formula. And I'm sure it's close, but not precise.

Yes but it also cites a 12% bump in out-of-home viewership for the regular season. They're keeping track of it all.

Just in case anyone was wondering if watching Bills games at the bar actually contributes to the NFL. That's how I am forced to watch most games considering where I live, anyway. More than 100 million people watched the Super Bowl on Fox, a small increase over last year’s ratings. But tens of millions more watched at bars or at a friend’s house, boosting the total viewership by 13%. That share of out-of-home viewership was slightly better than what the network got for its regular-season NFL Sunday broadcasts, which saw a roughly 12% bump, according to Fox, which cited research by Nielsen. Measuring the audience that watches on someone else’s screen is increasingly important to networks as they vie for advertising dollars. A 30-second Super Bowl commercial cost as much as $5.6 million this year, and Fox wants to assure advertisers that they’re getting their money’s worth. ... The out-of-home increase for Thanksgiving games is about 20%, said Mike Mulvihill, head of strategy and analytics at Fox Sports. It currently takes a while for networks to get the out-of-home data. But by next season, Fox expects to have the information just a day or two after the event is broadcast. “We’re always looking for more complete, more accurate measurement,” Mulvihill said. “It’s going to benefit advertisers, who are getting a better representation of what they’re paying for.”

U2's Joshua Tree begins with: 1) Where the Strrets Have No Name 2) Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For 3) With or Without You

Who's deflecting now?