MCPS seeking waiver yet again!!!

[Anonymous]

Well I hope we’re all glad that our kids didn’t have virtual learning now.

Because I’m sure those days of school will be well-attended days of substantive study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a discussion or a vote? My teacher friend made it sound like it was a vote. A lot of pressure to make March 20 a non-instruction day. It just sucks that Juneteenth and Primary election day fall during the makeup window pushing the last day later than ever.

Both discussion and vote.

Well don’t they need to know if we get a waiver or not? Wouldn’t that render some of this moot?

I bet they got denied for the waiver. Several other counties' waivers are up for a vote of approval at next week's state board of Ed meeting, but none for MCPS. My guess is that means MSDE staff denied it, and the ones that are on the agenda are the ones MSDE recommends approving.

The background memo from Taylor says the waiver was denied. They did not meet the requirements of applying for a waiver, so it did not have to go for a vote.

From that memo: "The remaining option is to extend the school year beyond the approved last day of school; in fact Code of Maryland Annotated Regulations (COMAR) requires that school systems extend the school year by three days and modify the calendar within the school year in order to be eligible for a waiver of the instructional minimum requirements. This was the basis on which the Maryland State Department of Education denied our request for a waiver of up to four days due to the extreme weather closures."

It's a real failure to apply for a waiver without even meeting the requirements of the law.

So true. Does anyone in Central have a clue what is going on?

Their solution is not to use the contingency days they have--or to just build more days into the original calendar--it is to apply for a waiver they know fully well they can't get, and on failure, to hope that the state changes the law. Yes, this is the superintendent and the Board that we have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a discussion or a vote? My teacher friend made it sound like it was a vote. A lot of pressure to make March 20 a non-instruction day. It just sucks that Juneteenth and Primary election day fall during the makeup window pushing the last day later than ever.

Both discussion and vote.

Well don’t they need to know if we get a waiver or not? Wouldn’t that render some of this moot?

I bet they got denied for the waiver. Several other counties' waivers are up for a vote of approval at next week's state board of Ed meeting, but none for MCPS. My guess is that means MSDE staff denied it, and the ones that are on the agenda are the ones MSDE recommends approving.

The background memo from Taylor says the waiver was denied. They did not meet the requirements of applying for a waiver, so it did not have to go for a vote.

From that memo: "The remaining option is to extend the school year beyond the approved last day of school; in fact Code of Maryland Annotated Regulations (COMAR) requires that school systems extend the school year by three days and modify the calendar within the school year in order to be eligible for a waiver of the instructional minimum requirements. This was the basis on which the Maryland State Department of Education denied our request for a waiver of up to four days due to the extreme weather closures."

It's a real failure to apply for a waiver without even meeting the requirements of the law.

So true. Does anyone in Central have a clue what is going on?

Their solution is not to use the contingency days they have--or to just build more days into the original calendar--it is to apply for a waiver they know fully well they can't get, and on failure, to hope that the state changes the law. Yes, this is the superintendent and the Board that we have.

What was the discussion of this at the Board meeting? Did anyone seem like they thought that approach was wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a discussion or a vote? My teacher friend made it sound like it was a vote. A lot of pressure to make March 20 a non-instruction day. It just sucks that Juneteenth and Primary election day fall during the makeup window pushing the last day later than ever.

Both discussion and vote.

Well don’t they need to know if we get a waiver or not? Wouldn’t that render some of this moot?

I bet they got denied for the waiver. Several other counties' waivers are up for a vote of approval at next week's state board of Ed meeting, but none for MCPS. My guess is that means MSDE staff denied it, and the ones that are on the agenda are the ones MSDE recommends approving.

The background memo from Taylor says the waiver was denied. They did not meet the requirements of applying for a waiver, so it did not have to go for a vote.

From that memo: "The remaining option is to extend the school year beyond the approved last day of school; in fact Code of Maryland Annotated Regulations (COMAR) requires that school systems extend the school year by three days and modify the calendar within the school year in order to be eligible for a waiver of the instructional minimum requirements. This was the basis on which the Maryland State Department of Education denied our request for a waiver of up to four days due to the extreme weather closures."

It's a real failure to apply for a waiver without even meeting the requirements of the law.

So true. Does anyone in Central have a clue what is going on?

Their solution is not to use the contingency days they have--or to just build more days into the original calendar--it is to apply for a waiver they know fully well they can't get, and on failure, to hope that the state changes the law. Yes, this is the superintendent and the Board that we have.

What was the discussion of this at the Board meeting? Did anyone seem like they thought that approach was wrong?

They all voted for it, so I don't think anyone thought it was wrong.

[Anonymous]

They clearly don’t realize how many of their employees have second jobs that start that week. This is going to be interesting…

[Anonymous]

And many of those teachers should’ve thought about that before they let their union advocate against having a virtual learning plan in place just in case.

But yes, camps are going to be scrambling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And many of those teachers should’ve thought about that before they let their union advocate against having a virtual learning plan in place just in case.

But yes, camps are going to be scrambling.

Camps will have plenty of kids. Parents have already paid for camp and will be sending them, rather than to these ridiculous half-days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And many of those teachers should’ve thought about that before they let their union advocate against having a virtual learning plan in place just in case.

But yes, camps are going to be scrambling.

Camps will have plenty of kids. Parents have already paid for camp and will be sending them, rather than to these ridiculous half-days.

+1. Unless they change the camp schedule, that's where my kid will be.

[Anonymous]

I'm a teacher and my kid will be boarding a flight on June 18th to go to California to do her 5 week visit to her mom's house.

[Anonymous]

Call/email your state legislature/general assembly. They have the power to allow the hours to count vs. the 180 day requirement. They need to hear from their constituents who think this is nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Call/email your state legislature/general assembly. They have the power to allow the hours to count vs. the 180 day requirement. They need to hear from their constituents who think this is nonsense.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Call/email your state legislature/general assembly. They have the power to allow the hours to count vs. the 180 day requirement. They need to hear from their constituents who think this is nonsense.

This.

No thanks. The problem is that MCPS isn't scheduling its calendar properly. That's what needs to be fixed. Kids in this district in particular need time in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well I hope we’re all glad that our kids didn’t have virtual learning now.

Because I’m sure those days of school will be well-attended days of substantive study.

Oh, sorry you prefer a different and more expensive charade

[Anonymous]

This family won't be there on the last 2 half-days after the election day off. This planning is ridiculous. I hope none of the advanced courses will try and give tests on these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And many of those teachers should’ve thought about that before they let their union advocate against having a virtual learning plan in place just in case.

But yes, camps are going to be scrambling.

Did the union advocate against virtual learning for snow days? do you have a link for that? I would like to review it.