Children severely limited by online learning at home

With the next academic year only weeks away, it’s depressing to read “Distance teaching out of schools’ grasp” (Bay Area, July 12). Both educators and parents realize the limitations of online learning.

Not only are there issues concerning the ability of young children to keep focused with all of the distractions of a home environment, but they also can’t be properly supervised while their parents are trying to work remotely or must return to jobs in offices. And what about the ability of students to access online instruction if they’re in families that don’t have reliable internet connectivity? Or the ability of school districts to protect older or immunodeficient teachers from contracting the COVID19 virus if inclass instruction resumes without sufficient safety protocols in place?

A better title for this Heather Knight article would be: The 202021 school year: Mission Impossible.

Phyllis Ramirez, San Francisco

Flexible school plan

Regarding “Distance teaching out of schools’ grasp” (Bay Area, July 12): Heather Knight poses important questions. What if schools had been treated as essential places with just as much money and effort making them as safe as Safeway? What if the state of California added more money to schools because of the COVID19 pandemic rather than less?

As a teacher, I was heartened and hopeful when people’s reactions to the shutdown in March showed appreciation for the work teachers do, once their children were trying to learn from home all day. Yet, those sentiments have not led to a call for action for appropriate funding to ensure that schools can safely reopen.

For our education system to be able to pivot during these times, we need all stakeholders, including parents, to demand more from our leaders. We have zero federal leadership on this issue. Why can’t our state leaders do better? We need a flexible plan to keep students and teachers safe, but there doesn’t seem to be the political will to make the financial commitment needed for this happen.

Mary Tunnell, San Francisco

Time to rethink city

Regarding “Welcome to the microhood: a new vision for downtown San Francisco” (Throughline, July 12): I read with interest Gregory Thomas’ article about the proposal by Kuth Ranieri Architects for a “microhood” in downtown. I certainly agree that we have an unique opportunity to rethink parts of our city. However, I found some of Thomas’ comments curious and frustrating.

First, what is meant by San Francisco’s perpetually beleaguered downtown corridor, ripe for redevelopment? By almost any measure, COVID19 impacts notwithstanding, San Francisco has one of the most successful downtowns in the country. Considering economic output, percentage of workers using transit and walking, percentage of units that are occupied by low and moderate income residents and the quality of the environment, there are few city cores that compare.

Secondly, his comment that the proposal would be rejected by planners and require zoning changes is confounding. Based on the cursory description, I see almost nothing that would require zoning changes. In fact, during my tenure, such a proposal would be heartily embraced and that would likely still occur today.

I applaud The Chronicle for realizing that we have an opportunity during this unusual time, to rethink our city. Let’s use your platform for creating a thoughtful and factbased dialogue.

John Rahaim, San Francisco

Selfdriving trains

If BART is to be bailed out financially, the public is entitled to labor concessions. To start with, how about (finally) the adoption of selfdriving trains? How about an end to the conflict of interest wherein management is barred per the labor agreement from being qualified to operate trains during a strike?

These reforms might induce the public to spend more billions on the system. Absent this, nothing will keep it above water for long. In reference to Niccolo Machiavelli, we should not waste the opportunity offered by this crisis.

Mark Freschi, San Jose

Take a break on anthem

Regarding “Let’s give anthem a rest” (Sports, July 15): I heartily agree with Bruce Jenkins’ assessment that the national anthem should be played only for special events. Way before Colin Kaepernick took a knee, I questioned the reasoning behind this practice. Sports teams are big businesses; most are corporations. These games are basically corporate events. The cost of attending games is prohibitive for many and most are televised only on cable so fans must pay for those, too. As a result, I primarily enjoy sports vicariously but was thrilled when our beloved San Francisco Giants were on a roll. And those amazing Golden State Warriors!

I greatly admire the spirit and extraordinary skill of these athletes but, when it comes to the anthem, I believe firmly in the separation of sports and state.

Barbara Wyeth, San Francisco