fuggled

One other thing I didn't mention before, but I'm really not stressing too much about my 1st grader from a purely educational perspective. I think a lot of people worry about kids getting a solid head start on learning when they're 4 or 5 years old, but I don't think it matters that much in the long run. If you're reading to your kid, talking to them and helping them explore the world around them, they'll be ok. A number of countries (Sweden, Singapore, Finland) don't even have compulsory education until kids are 7, and they do just fine. Obviously the calculus is different for parents who can't afford to to spend that time with their 4/5/6 year olds, so I don't want to paint with too broad a brush. Point is, it's easy to worry as a parent, but the chances of screwing up your kid's education in the first year or two of school seem pretty low.

Believe me, I've been checking and can't find any local textile factories that will hire my kids.

Ha, yeah, meant to do that...that's what it is. This is why I obviously can't rely on myself to figure this out.

Maybe this belongs in with the AISD thread, if so, feel free to merge. But I wanted to keep this less focused on what policies the districts are about and more focused on what individual options/choice parents are finding. My kids will be going into 1st and 4th grades. Our district (Richardson) is offering the option of in-person or remote. We've already decided we're not sending them in-person this fall, but we haven't figured out what the best at home experience will be. Here's what we're thinking about so far. Supplement the district's remote learning: This could be with online tutors or maybe even an in-person private tutor, but I think that would be harder to source. Initial research online found a couple possibilities. Care.com - They mostly focus on nanny type roles, but you can find tutors. Presumably you could find a remote or in-person tutor. Looks like there are a lot of people in my area. Wyzant.com - Exclusively focused on online tutoring. Seems to be really easy to see tutors and their rates and contact them directly. etutorworld.com - Much cheaper options with pre-paid bundles of lessons ($20 or less per hour). Looks like most of their tutors are in India, which explains the low cost. That could present lots of challenges. It also seems going this route would make it hard to keep one consistent tutor. Switch to an online public school: I didn't realize this was a thing but there are apparently at least 2 online public elementary schools for Texas. Both seem open to all Texas residents. What's not clear to me is how much teaching these schools do, as opposed to just providing content and relying on the parents to really be the teachers. But, even if they require a lot of parent involvement, is that really so different from what will happen with our district anyway? I am wondering if going with one of these would at least offer a) some better content and b) an established process they've used before. Texas Virtual Academy - tvah.k12.com (According to their site, parents need to be involved 70-80% of the school day) Texas Online Preparatory School - tops.k12.com Switch to an online private school: Similar questions to the online public options. How much will they be teaching vs relying on parents. Tuition on these options look to be around $3-5K, so much lower than in person private school (which I don't think would be an option for us). www.k12privateacademy.com www.keystoneschoolonline.com I'd love to hear if anyone has experience with any of these services or if anyone is coming up with other options I haven't thought of.

I'm in Richardson and the superintendent shared the results of surveys they did back in June. Basically, 2/3rds of parents want in-person school. Richardson covers a broad range of socio-economic groups and I'm sure the percentage of lower income or single parents families in the district is much higher than places like Frisco, McKinney, etc. I have to think that lack of childcare options is driving a lot of this. The district will be offering the option of in-person or remote learning. For our part, our 2 elementary ages kids will stay remote and/or home school for the fall. Even if they open schools, it seems inevitable that they will have to close them again at some point. I can't even imagine how they're going to deal with this when cold & flu season rolls around and half of the kids are sneezing, coughing, etc. I'd rather just plan for remote learning from the jump as opposed to getting forced into it in November.

Not a ton in the comments so far, but did see one reaction from a student group that is encouraging.

For those who may not have seen the email from Hartzell today: https://president.utexas.edu/messages-speeches-2020/a-more-diverse-and-welcoming-campus?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=UTAustinSocial I wish he would have offered some more specifics on this. How exactly are they planning to do this? Who from the student body have they engaged with and are they supportive of this path forward? I agree with Hartzell's sentiment and I hope this if the right approach, but it's hard to tell without more detail.

No, the cheese is there because my roll was a bit stale so I zapped it for 15 seconds and figured I might as well throw shredded cheese on while I did that.

Fried bologna on a roll with Boscoli olive salad and Sriracha mayo (and cheese underneath)

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/07/10/889848834/nations-pediatricians-walk-back-support-for-in-person-school?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprblogscoronavirusliveupdates

Just curious, how did the tracing work? Did you get a call from a hospital? From the county? And was it because a confirmed patient had provided your name and info? Or was it some less direct method of identifying you. e.g. "You shopped at this store where a confirmed case was identified."

There's a lot to unpack in here, so apologies for what might be a lengthy post. I do appreciate the passion you bring to your position but I don't get the sense you're making a good faith effort to listen to what others are saying. First, yes, I am generalizing the issue. I'm doing so because that's the best way to achieve effective long-term change. You are falling into the trap of taking this specific issue and trying to remove it from any broader context. You see it as a problem that can be solved, fixed and removed. But it's not. It's one of many competing concerns and priorities that need to be considered and balanced. If you're not already familiar, I'd suggest taking a look at the Cynefin framework (https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making) which describes different domains of problems and offers guidance on how to respond. In Cynefin, Complicated problems are those that have one or more correct solutions that can be proven to be true, but which require a high degree of expertise to diagnose and fix. Think of a fine Swiss watch. It takes tremendous expertise to figure out a repair, but we can tell if it's fixed or not. Complex problems, on the other hand, don't have a correct solution and can't be controlled/fixed the way a Complicated problem can be. Think of a garden. Nobody fixes a garden. You tend your garden, balancing it's needs in perpetuity and trying to grow it towards your purpose/goal. There's no right answer, so you experiment, look for patterns and continuously evolve what works. You, BT, have fallen into the trap of approaching this issue as a Complicated problem. You believe you have the expertise to prescribe a solution which everyone else is too ignorant or racist to see. By removing this issue from the Complex context in which it exists, you are ignoring the decisions, values and structures that brought us to this situation. Only by considering these can anyone hope to achieve systemic change. Yes, it takes more time to reflect on the broader context and history. It can be difficult to sustain a dialog that considers competing views. It is much easier to look for tactical, moment-in-time "solutions", but as you said: To offer another angle, within systems thinking there is a distinction between Helping and Meddling. Here's an illustration: https://thesystemsthinker.com/leading-ethically-through-foresight/ In this (clearly simplified) experiment, trying to compensate for every miss results in getting farther and farther away from the target. The same occurs in human systems, where repeatedly shifting our aim leads to more problems. Instead, we should stop focusing on individual actions and instead look at the broader system. What goals are we trying to achieve? Why are these our goals, what are the value underlying them? How do we measure success or failure? Who is involved in pursuing these goals and why? Shifting gears, you've used a interesting choice of words (more than once) when describing "singing The Eyes at players." Why "at"? I don't know that I've ever heard someone use the phrase "sing at." I've sung to someone. I've sung with someone. I've performed a song for someone. But I don't think I could say I've ever sung "at" someone. I don't know if this phrasing comes from the athletes or if it's your creation. Personally, I've always thought of singing The Eyes as if I'm singing with my classmates, family, friends and community. We stay to the end of the game to "sing with the team." Or even singing/performing for the team to show gratitude and respect. If you're starting from the point of reference that The Eyes is something inflicted upon players, I think you should examine what led you to that framing of the situation. It seems counter to how the world generally views singing and it's very likely your own biases have crafted a non-standard interpretation. Regarding governance, you may not realize that you're talking about a model of governance, but that doesn't change the fact that you are . Governance is how a group reaches a decision. It's the roles, rules and practices we put in place to help ourselves make good decisions. Lack of formalized roles and practices is still a governance model, it's just one that's based on something else. Popularity? Who screams loudest? First opinion wins? So, we're in a situation where you can't or won't articulate the governance model behind the decision you'd like enforced, but you still believe it's the right decision. You also seem to imply that whatever governance model is underlying the decision may not be relevant, important or repeatable beyond the question of The Eyes. If you've reached a decision via a model that you don't believe is reliable beyond this specific instance, you should really question whether you have any reason to be confident that you've reached a good decision. Lastly, regarding your question, "Would you seriously stand and sing The Eyes at a player you knew thought it was racist?" I'll answer by saying that I'm not so arrogant to presume I can predict how the best solution will present itself. So I won't comment on the outcome, and instead focus on the approach. Before making any decision for myself (or for others), I would start by seeking to understand, ideally by talking directly with that player. Why does that player think it's racist? What intent, if any, does he assume when I sing the song? Is he open to hearing what the song means to me? What does he want from a school song? What's his goal in protesting the song (is it just the song, or is there a broader objective)? What other ways can I be an ally? I know you think that because I'm a) white and b) not an athlete that this isn't my issue and I'm just inserting my "personal feelings" where they don't belong. But, this is how adults solve problems. We seek to understand. We listen with empathy and compassion. We approach problems with good intentions and hope others will do the same. We challenge our underlying assumptions and ask difficult questions or ourselves and others. I may be naive, but I truly believe when people come together in this spirit of growth and partnership, we can overcome seemingly insurmountable differences. #intellectualcoward

I heard from a nurse friend that works at Parkland that one of their nurses died from Covid. Has anyone seen that reported?

So your rule is that if even one individual takes offense to an act, the rest of society should agree to abolish that act? If the athletics department undertakes the historical audit that CDC suggested and the outcome is that 99% of athletes say, "after understanding the full, accurate historical context and what this song means to so many and seeing the lengths the university is willing to go to in order to promote a culture and atmosphere of diversity and respect, I support keeping The Eyes," that wouldn't be sufficient for you? If there's even 1 hold out who takes offense the song is a non-starter, according to you. That just seems like a model of governance that is both unrealistic and unreasonable.

What about students in the Butler School of Music? All the students in Longhorn Band and Basketball Band? Members of the other vocal and instrumental ensembles that perform The Eyes? Are their interests sufficiently compelling? Do you have a rubric you are using to evaluate the compelling nature of the interests of these various parties? Could you share the rules with the rest of us?

Dup

Do not think us can escape them? You write bad and should feel bad.

Overall, I agree with @Brisketexan on this. There should be discussion, we should listen and I hope we can keep the song. I also had the realization that the song isn't a tradition because the University admin decided it should be. It's a tradition because it resonated with students and they adopted it and carried it forward. If what resonates with students changes and evolves, maybe I shouldn't have so much of a say as an alum. Anyway, reposting this from the football board: Some people have said The Eyes was written for a minstrel show. I don't know if that's accurate and I agree with the "historical audit" I heard CDC suggest. According to at least one narrative, Johnson (the minstrel director) had been trying to have a school song created for more than a year. In addition to the minstrel shows, Johnson organized "Promenade Concerts" where the band would wander campus, playing songs from other colleges but not having anything to perform specific to Texas. He contacted alumni to get involved but didn't make progress. He then reached out to John Sinclair for help with the song. He composed his first attempt in 1902, but didn't love it. A year later he wrote The Eyes. https://jimnicar.com/ut-traditions/the-eyes-of-texas/ So, it's equally likely that the song was originally written for the purpose of giving the University a song it could call its own with a distinct Texas identity. This could be true even though the song was regrettably premiered at a minstrel show. Do I know this with 100% certainty? No, of course not. I can't interpret the intentions of college kids from over 100 years ago and neither can anyone else. That's why you should be very careful about attributing purpose and intent to individuals who aren't here to speak for themselves. Additionally, there's another tradition dating back to these minstrel shows that I haven't seen discussed. The Varsity Band performed a lot of songs at these shows. The Varsity Band would go on to become what is today known as Longhorn Band. Would you argue Longhorn Band is a racist organization that doesn't have a place at the University today? Should it be defunded and dissolved? I would be very surprised if you said "yes." So, why is it different? At least in my mind, we can't condemn today's Longhorn Band for the inappropriate behavior of these early members. Because when there's an illness, you treat the cause, you don't execute the patient. The cancer was racist individuals, blackface and minstrel shows. Not The Eyes itself. John Fleming, the first black drum major of Longhorn Band, said it even best: https://abcnews.go.com/OnCampus/story?id=7160813&page=1

I'm not sure actually. Here's the list of drum majors, I just haven't looked them all up. https://longhornband.org/drum-majors/

You've presented this as fact several times over the past week, but you don't actually know this. You should stop presenting it as fact. According to at least one narrative, Johnson (the minstrel director) had been trying to have a school song created for more than a year. In addition to the minstrel shows, Johnson organized "Promenade Concerts" where the band would wander campus, playing songs from other colleges but not having anything to perform specific to Texas. He contacted alumni to get involved but didn't make progress. He then reached out to John Sinclair for help with the song. He composed his first attempt in 1902, but didn't love it. A year later he wrote The Eyes. https://jimnicar.com/ut-traditions/the-eyes-of-texas/ So, it's equally likely that the song was originally written FOR the purpose of giving the University a song it could call its own with a distinct Texas identity. This could be true even though the song was regrettably premiered at a minstrel show. Do I know this with 100% certainty? No, of course not. I can't interpret the intentions of college kids from over 100 years ago. And neither can you. That's why you should be very careful about attributing purpose and intent to individuals who aren't here to speak for themselves. Additionally, there's another tradition dating back to these minstrel shows that I haven't seen discussed. The Varsity Band performed a lot of songs at these shows. The Varsity Band would go on to become what is today known as Longhorn Band. Would you argue Longhorn Band is a racist organization that doesn't have a place at the University today? Should it be defunded and dissolved? I would be very surprised if you said "yes." So, why is it different? At least in my mind, we can't condemn today's Longhorn Band for the inappropriate behavior of these early members. Because when there's an illness, you treat the cause, you don't execute the patient. The cancer was racist individuals, blackface and minstrel shows. Not The Eyes itself. John Fleming, the first black drum major of Longhorn Band, said it even best: https://abcnews.go.com/OnCampus/story?id=7160813&page=1

So, I'm in Dallas and insurance approved replacing my roof thanks to some recent hail damage. The contractor I'm talking with said two things that gave me pause. First, the insurance estimate calls for the drip edge to be replaced. The contractor suggested they can leave the existing drip edge (to avoid taking down the gutters) and just install underlayment over the drip edge. I'm not a roofer, but that doesn't sound like best practice to me. Is he trying to take a shortcut to save time? Second, the contractor suggested that the money saved by skipping the drip edge could be used on something else (like upgraded shingles) or be used to reduce my deductible. I asked how that would work and his answer was basically, "we'll just charge you for less, it's all really a numbers game." That sounded shady (and maybe illegal based on a quick Google check). Am I way off base here? Is this sketchy or is it standard procedure? @ROFL BOX I know you usually have all the answers here.

I thought this was interesting because of the rationale behind the lawsuit. The land the Lee statue is on was donated to the state with the promise it would be protected. Should the state return the land? https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/09/872707016/virginia-judge-blocks-plan-to-remove-statue-of-robert-e-lee

Not even in kindergarten was "his paper touched me" a legitimate excuse. Adults need to act like adults. Especially those to whom we give badges.

What the hell are you talking about with "laid his hands on police"? The guy is clearly holding a helmet in his left hand and a piece of paper in his right hand. He doesn't lay his hands on anyone. He walked up to the cops and spoke to them. That's it

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2020/04/28/parkland-sees-rapid-increase-in-covid-19-cases-with-most-intubations-yet/