What would be a reasonable approach to classroom teaching in the fall?

[Caracal]

I'm not trying to make light of this. I understand that it's scary, and very scary for many people. As I said upthread, the dealbreaker for me would be any appreciable risk that I'd bring something back into my home, and/or be forced to self-quarantine. I won't, and I'll do any kind of workaround in order for that not to happen.

That's where I'm at too. I opted for hybrid classes in the fall when I could have have just chosen to go online. I really want to teach in person, but I can't see myself doing it if I think it is going to put me at particularly high risk of getting sick. I don't really have a good way of thinking about how to evaluate and manage those risks right now. I'm going to have to consider it within the broader context of how I handle risk as this moves forward.

I suspect it is unlikely that classes are going to go ahead partly in person and I'm going to decide the risk is too great. Look at the kind of places that have had the worst outbreaks outside of nursing homes: Prisons, Meat Plants, Dorms for migrant workers. (in Singapore) Crowded places, yes, but also places where people's options are limited or non-existent. You can't make most faculty or students come to class and if they start thinking the risk is too great, they won't.

[polly_mer]

Look at the kind of places that have had the worst outbreaks outside of nursing homes: Prisons, Meat Plants, Dorms for migrant workers. (in Singapore) Crowded places, yes, but also places where people's options are limited or non-existent. You can't make most faculty or students come to class and if they start thinking the risk is too great, they won't.

Worse in my view are the people who are sure the risk isn't very large to them personally (e.g., 18-22 year old students) so they skip everything that is inconvenient or not fun in favor of being the disease vector.  That asymptomatic spread (possibly as many as 40% of infected) is just a hard nut to crack.

If anything, I'd be much more worried that students really, really want to come to class and faculty/staff/others are strong armed into providing an experience that just spreads the disease in the community that would already be safe enough (e.g., somewhere like Super Dinky where the biggest risk factor would be all those far-flung students showing up in the rural area where cases are few for a college experience that is only worth the tens of thousands per year for the social aspects of mingling with all the other students in close proximity).

Students already were terrible at staying away when they had cold/flu/other symptoms and felt sick.  There's no keeping people down when they don't feel sick and are sure they are at very low risk for significant consequences.  If education on the risks worked, then students would not engage in underage drinking at large parties.

[Caracal]

How can wipe and distance possibly work for an open community of people who don't already have a background of obeying all lab safety or similar rules every time so that the extra work is really part of their jobs?

I don't know. Every time I leave the house I see the vast majority of people doing these things in ways that would have seemed pretty bizarre three months ago. Back when people went to gyms, the vast majority wiped off their machines after they used them. Just give every student a bunch of wipes and some hand sanitizer at the beginning of the semester, put up a dispenser or two in the classroom and remind everyone to wipe off their desk and chair before and after class. Tell teachers to remind everyone to do it when class ends. I'm not really that worried about people not being able to follow guidelines. I worry more about whether groups of people talking in an indoor setting for long periods of time is just too inherently risky and can't be justified as a matter of public health.

[polly_mer]

How can wipe and distance possibly work for an open community of people who don't already have a background of obeying all lab safety or similar rules every time so that the extra work is really part of their jobs?

I don't know. Every time I leave the house I see the vast majority of people doing these things in ways that would have seemed pretty bizarre three months ago. Back when people went to gyms, the vast majority wiped off their machines after they used them. Just give every student a bunch of wipes and some hand sanitizer at the beginning of the semester, put up a dispenser or two in the classroom and remind everyone to wipe off their desk and chair before and after class. Tell teachers to remind everyone to do it when class ends. I'm not really that worried about people not being able to follow guidelines. I worry more about whether groups of people talking in an indoor setting for long periods of time is just too inherently risky and can't be justified as a matter of public health.

Again, I've thrown too many students out of lab sessions to believe that "everyone" will do what they are supposed to do every single time, especially when doing so is personally inconvenient and the person being inconvenienced is not the person on whom the natural consequences will fall.

We have very different numbers in mind for "the vast majority" complying in the gym and again the people who don't comply are generally different from the people who experience the consequences.

I've watched people's hand washing (or not) in restrooms for decades as a personal habit.  Even with me standing right there, a fair number of people (including members of my family) don't wash adequately even just for duration, let alone scrubbing all the surfaces to be soapy.  When I've remarked to my family, the response from everyone (except my child who has to obey) is some version of "eh, good enough.  You're too picky."

So, no, I don't expect  the general public to follow all the rules at a high enough level to make a real difference.  Instead, I expect that many well-meaning individuals will do a half-assed job but feel good that they are "mostly" complying with the net result being spreading disease everywhere.

Nothing on the news I've been watching, reading, or otherwise encountering provides evidence for your assertions, Caracal.  The only place I'm seeing real compliance every time is my work that can fire people under normal circumstances for leaving their computer screen unlocked, leaving the wrong paper just sitting on the desk, or crossing the street outside the crosswalk (that was a "fun" one that continues to make the rounds of following every safety rule every time, even when you think no one is watching).

[marshwiggle]

How can wipe and distance possibly work for an open community of people who don't already have a background of obeying all lab safety or similar rules every time so that the extra work is really part of their jobs?

I don't know. Every time I leave the house I see the vast majority of people doing these things in ways that would have seemed pretty bizarre three months ago. Back when people went to gyms, the vast majority wiped off their machines after they used them. Just give every student a bunch of wipes and some hand sanitizer at the beginning of the semester, put up a dispenser or two in the classroom and remind everyone to wipe off their desk and chair before and after class. Tell teachers to remind everyone to do it when class ends. I'm not really that worried about people not being able to follow guidelines. I worry more about whether groups of people talking in an indoor setting for long periods of time is just too inherently risky and can't be justified as a matter of public health.

If the disease in question were Ebola, (i.e. one that's much more deadly), I think most people would view sending students back on campus as insane. Why? Because that would make it very clear how strongly people believe that student behaviour will (or won't) lead to spread of the virus.

Arguing that students being on campus will have few serious consequences because young, healthy people are not at great risk is one thing; arguing that students being on campus will have few serious consequences because there will be little transmission is another.

[Caracal]

If anything, I'd be much more worried that students really, really want to come to class and faculty/staff/others are strong armed into providing an experience that just spreads the disease in the community that would already be safe enough (e.g., somewhere like Super Dinky where the biggest risk factor would be all those far-flung students showing up in the rural area where cases are few for a college experience that is only worth the tens of thousands per year for the social aspects of mingling with all the other students in close proximity).

You can only strong arm groups of upper middle class people with options, institutional power and megaphones so far. If faculty think the risks of getting sick are unacceptably high, they won't teach their classes in person.

I share your worries about the larger public health picture. I think in person teaching is important, but the larger social costs of no in person classes for college students would be far lower than having no in person classes for k-12 students in the Fall.

[theblackbox]

The only place I'm seeing real compliance every time is my work that can fire people under normal circumstances for leaving their computer screen unlocked, leaving the wrong paper just sitting on the desk, or crossing the street outside the crosswalk (that was a "fun" one that continues to make the rounds of following every safety rule every time, even when you think no one is watching).

I concur that accountability and consequences on a student population is going to be hugely problematic. Many schools are concerned about enrollment right now, and they may be reluctant to crackdown hard on offending students. Are you going to suspend a student for not quarantining? Maybe. But for not sanitizing their desk area or maintaining 6 feet social distance? I'm encouraged to hear one poster's admins have said students without masks can be refused entry to the classroom, but I do worry about how this will ultimately play out on campuses across the nation. I'm not confident that schools who have capitulated to student pressures in the past (over policies not applying to them or wanting special considerations/chances, etc) will suddenly find their backbone on this unless it's a fully united front by faculty, admin, and enough other students providing peer pressure to follow the rules.

[Ruralguy]

My school will fold like a newspaper (these are compilations of news stories that were once printed on paper, a product made from trees. People purchased these by offering up round chunks of zinc and copper).

Seriously, we're tuition driven.  We try to implement rules while also being flexible.
That doesn't mean we just give up on rules. But if students protest, we have to listen.
Since this is a health matter, and somewhat backed by state government, we might stick to things a bit more than usual. Also, we will almost certainly stick to rules for a faculty member who is health compromised. In other cases, though I doubt we'll reflexively back a student 100%, we will probably encourage flexibility and compromised where possible.

[Caracal]

Nothing on the news I've been watching, reading, or otherwise encountering provides evidence for your assertions, Caracal.  The only place I'm seeing real compliance every time is my work that can fire people under normal circumstances for leaving their computer screen unlocked, leaving the wrong paper just sitting on the desk, or crossing the street outside the crosswalk (that was a "fun" one that continues to make the rounds of following every safety rule every time, even when you think no one is watching).

That's because there's a big market right now for foreshortened pictures that make public spaces look more crowded than they actually are. This is just a classic kind of cognitive bias where we notice when people aren't doing the right thing and don't when they are.

You're also thinking of things in this very binary way. Public health doesn't rely on getting everybody to always do the most responsible thing all of the time. In fact, messaging based on that approach is usually very ineffective. One of the big lessons from the AIDS pandemic was that if you present risk in binary terms, it backfires. If you only tell people "the only safe thing to do is not have sex" you actually end up making people think that if they do have sex, there's no way to reduce their risk. Same thing with condom use.

This has come up in the context of some of the "quarantine shaming." If you emphasize perfect adherence or avoiding risk as much as possible and shame people who fail to measure up, you end up failing to give people information that would help them substantially reduce risks for themselves and others.

[polly_mer]

You can only strong arm groups of upper middle class people with options, institutional power and megaphones so far.

What percentage of faculty and staff fall into that category in the US at large?  Not all that many, or we wouldn't keep having the discussions we do.

We also wouldn't be inundated with the current "how could this be happening?!" articles from contingent faculty at the elite institutions who have been non-renewed for fall if most faculty and staff really had institutional power as upper middle class folks.

The institutions with the faculty who can't be easily strong armed are also the places least likely to cave to students because the institution can just go deeper into the student wait list.

The places where faculty might take a stand and can be replaced with a few phone calls have different options.  Refusing to do the job is grounds for termination, even for tenured folks.  Tenure just means the institution follows a process while firing you.  The institution can put you on leave for the term and make the phone calls to get your teaching covered at any time. 

With so many faculty out of work and not being members of upper middle class, covering many courses on short notice will be relatively easy.

We're already seeing people asking about high risk activities in the hopes of an academic job on these fora.

[polly_mer]

Nothing on the news I've been watching, reading, or otherwise encountering provides evidence for your assertions, Caracal.  The only place I'm seeing real compliance every time is my work that can fire people under normal circumstances for leaving their computer screen unlocked, leaving the wrong paper just sitting on the desk, or crossing the street outside the crosswalk (that was a "fun" one that continues to make the rounds of following every safety rule every time, even when you think no one is watching).

That's because there's a big market right now for foreshortened pictures that make public spaces look more crowded than they actually are. This is just a classic kind of cognitive bias where we notice when people aren't doing the right thing and don't when they are.

You're also thinking of things in this very binary way. Public health doesn't rely on getting everybody to always do the most responsible thing all of the time. In fact, messaging based on that approach is usually very ineffective. One of the big lessons from the AIDS pandemic was that if you present risk in binary terms, it backfires. If you only tell people "the only safe thing to do is not have sex" you actually end up making people think that if they do have sex, there's no way to reduce their risk. Same thing with condom use.

This has come up in the context of some of the "quarantine shaming." If you emphasize perfect adherence or avoiding risk as much as possible and shame people who fail to measure up, you end up failing to give people information that would help them substantially reduce risks for themselves and others.

AIDS was different because of the transmission vectors.

I strongly disagree with the conclusion regarding quarantine shaming.  The problem is exactly that people know what they should do, but they don't do it because it's inconvenient or annoying or whatever.  More education doesn't help the same mindset that leads to lack of exercise, poor nutrition, speeding, drinking, texting while driving, etc.

I don't know how to fix that basic human failing where individuals choose immediate convenience over the known correct actions, even when death is a known possible consequence.

[polly_mer]

Oh, and the reason I came back just now

https://insidehighered.com/digital-learning/views/2020/05/27/envisioning-day-life-physically-distanced-classroom-opinion

[Caracal]

I concur that accountability and consequences on a student population is going to be hugely problematic. Many schools are concerned about enrollment right now, and they may be reluctant to crackdown hard on offending students. Are you going to suspend a student for not quarantining? Maybe. But for not sanitizing their desk area or maintaining 6 feet social distance?
[/quote]

Of course not. It would be totally ineffective and counterproductive. Students who deliberately violated quarantine, or organized parties in violation of rules could face sanctions. But, there is obviously no way to monitor who wipes off their desk or comes too close to someone else. If a student was sitting too close to someone, or came too close to you, you just ask them politely to move away. If they refused, or kept doing it, then you would handle it the same way you would anything else that is disruptive or unsafe in the classroom.

[marshwiggle]

If a student was sitting too close to someone, or came too close to you, you just ask them politely to move away. If they refused, or kept doing it, then you would handle it the same way you would anything else that is disruptive or unsafe in the classroom.

But this it at a MASSIVELY greater scale!!!!! And the consequences are far greater. The possibility of a student infecting another by not following guidelines where the infected student could die is astronomically more problematic than some student watching porn which distracts other students sitting nearby.

In a class with dozens of students, most of the class time could be taken up with just attempting to police behaviour. (Think of policing people entering and leaving the class two metres apart; how long will that take???)

[Caracal]

I strongly disagree with the conclusion regarding quarantine shaming.  The problem is exactly that people know what they should do, but they don't do it because it's inconvenient or annoying or whatever. 

This is a pretty good illustration of the problem with this mindset. It is easy and emotionally satisfying to assume that people who do something that seems reckless to you are just lazy jerks. But, there's a failure of empathy and imagination here. Many of the people in the park that seems too crowded have probably been shut up in tiny apartments for months. They might be dealing with anxiety and depression and need to do something that feels a little normal. They may not live anywhere near a less crowded park. It isn't ideal, but at least they are outside and not at somebody's house party. If you shame them, you actually end up telling people that if you can't follow the rules perfectly, you might as well not try to reduce risk.