I don't like one-size-fits-all education in any form under any circumstances. The point of my observations was simply to present what will happen if we send kids back to school under COVID guidelines, and nothing more. I'm not dictating policy; I'm offering opinions backed by my personal (and almost entirely unique, given the circumstances) experience.

That said, you bring up an excellent point, one that others have dealt with far better than I'm about to.

Here's the trap: if the kids go to school, they will absolutely bring back diseases, so this will have a disproportionate negative impact on those families; however, if they DON'T go back to school, the kids will struggle and their parents will be less able to work, which will--again--have a disproportionate negative impact on those families. So pick your poison--either way, there are going to be hardships for lower-income families.

I'd support two different things to deal with the above: one, allow families to CHOOSE. Some families have support structures that allow kids to stay home, minimize risk, and still do well in school (online). Others need their kids to go back to school, either for the kids' mental health or for their parents employment. Those families should be able to send their kids back.

Two, schools need to deploy resources to minimize the negative impact on the kids, no matter what they choose to do. I know schools are starving for resources in the first place, and this isn't an easy thing. Still, when we're tossing trillions in relief funds around, this is a serious and simple way to provide real relief--enhanced computer systems, better PPE, tutors, what have you--to our most vulnerable families.

It won't happen, of course. We'll mostly just ignore the lower-income families as we always seem to, structurally. But I can hope.