This bodes well with ACPS and return

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know the exact questions that were asked to teachers in the surveys regarding return to work? Is it just a stated preference or can they only opt-out in certain circumstances, such as health risk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they presented was not a plan for reopening but a rationale for not letting any general students back until a vaccine, even if that is 2022.

This may be the most radical position in the world.

Unreal. There are no studies that support this. Everything coming out confirms schools, with proper mitigation strategies, are not superspreaders. Dr. Fauci has said schools can safely reopen depending on location so long as they are not in hotspots. Alexandria City numbers, including positive test rates and hospitalizations, are all very low and have remained stable. Why is there no discussion or consideration of public health data and metrics?

Is ACPS essentially abandoning any possibility of in-person education for all but a tiny group of kids for the remainder of the academic year? Are they trying to get more families to flee ACPS?

Isn’t St Mary’s now closed for 2 weeks because of COVID cases. If they got it then so will the public schools.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t St Mary’s now closed for 2 weeks because of COVID cases. If they got it then so will the public schools.

Um, no, St. Mary's is not closed for 2 weeks because of COVID cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard that ACPS doesn't have the staff to do run a hybrid. That's from teachers on my block. They also said that other school systems have the same problem but they're faking it to get parents off their backs and then when there is a second shutdown the school system will be able to use that as the excuse.

That is clearly what is being said tonight. That is not what was in the PowerPoint distributed on Monday that was covered by the press. Is Hutchings trying to pass the buck to the school board for being responsible for not bringing students back? I think he is.

I agree. The current motion would put it back on ACPS to figure it the f out.

Same

Although I think Reif is right that the motion should not endorse what ACPS has recommended to date apart from bringing back the citywide special needs students k-5 (or 8).

[Anonymous]

There is no plan. They aren't even going to give most students return dates at this point. The entire year will be spent surveying, evaluating, presenting, and discussing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no plan. They aren't even going to give most students return dates at this point. The entire year will be spent surveying, evaluating, presenting, and discussing.

Sadly, I think this true.

[Anonymous]

What was the end result of the meeting? One of my dogs bit the other one, so I had to bow out of watching for a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was the end result of the meeting? One of my dogs bit the other one, so I had to bow out of watching for a while.

The Board essentially voted to allow ACPS to implement what it proposed to date (returning the citywide younger special needs students to In person school) and consider bringing some others back in person, subject to additional board approval. Really, the ball is back in Hutchings’ court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was the end result of the meeting? One of my dogs bit the other one, so I had to bow out of watching for a while.

See above. There is no plan. They are only bringing back small numbers of kids with disabilities in certain programs and ELL students later. The board approved a motion to basically reconsider (at some unspecified later date) a possible plan for phasing in other students, dependent on staffing availability and building capacity. There aren't even target dates for other groups of kids. I suspect ACPS will not have any other students return to classrooms this school year. The lack of planning after all these months, and given our area's strong public health metrics, is beyond discouraging.

[Anonymous]

What was the end result of the meeting? One of my dogs bit the other one, so I had to bow out of watching for a while.


The Board essentially voted to allow ACPS to implement what it proposed to date (returning the citywide younger special needs students to In person school) and consider bringing some others back in person, subject to additional board approval. Really, the ball is back in Hutchings’ court.

Ok, I agree that special education students should get priority, but how is it ok that they are having Alexandria Soccer a paid childcare program for younger kids at GW (my understanding is that they will use the gym when it gets cold) while older students who are ordinarily in self-contained classrooms are not in school? Nothing against Alexandria Soccer, they're fine, but this seem so wrong.

[Anonymous]

It is all wrong. Agree that certain groups of students absolutely should be given priority, and that it should be expanded to include all kids with IEP/504 Plans k-12. Additionally, it's inconceivable that they couldn't even come up with a way to bring back kindergartners and that these 5 and 6 year olds are likely going to be stuck online for an entire school year. There is no data to support this weak non-decision.

[Anonymous]

+1

[Anonymous]

You all are completely missing the new CDC guidance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/10/21/coronavirus-close-contact-cdc/

Regardless of the "geometry" and staffing, now the CDC is changing its guidance. Whatever FCPS, APS and LCPS are planning, this new guidance is going to impact it dramatically because it doesn't support reopening inperson schooling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ACPS' math is wrong in terms of the number of desks they can fit into a classroom. They are not calculating the six feet correctly. It runs from where the student is sitting. The way they are doing it leaves nine feet of space in most cases.

My interpretation was that they were leaving walking space for someone to walk between desks - like a kid in the back needs to walk to the front to go out the door for the bathroom or early pickup or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all are completely missing the new CDC guidance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/10/21/coronavirus-close-contact-cdc/

Regardless of the "geometry" and staffing, now the CDC is changing its guidance. Whatever FCPS, APS and LCPS are planning, this new guidance is going to impact it dramatically because it doesn't support reopening inperson schooling.

It still supports wearing a mask and opening. It is saying don't remove your mask to talk. Schools across the world have opened without school outbreaks. Privates in our area have been open and in person five days a week without outbreaks. Not a single one. Yes one offs here and there but because of the safety procedures - guess what?!? NO SPREAD.

People point to Boston and say -- oh, look they shut down!!!! Well, they did because the community spread was dangerous but once again no school outbreak.

Parents and teachers screwed this up. And now we are stuck with boards and admin who really don't know how to project manage.

We should have just had schools open. If you had a child with a condition that would be dangerous with covid (and there are a few) then they home-school or go private, get a tutor, etc. Now we are not really offering education to anyone and probably won't.

ACPS can't get its head out of its ass. APS is doing the same thing, they will not open. FCPS and LCPS will end up with some in person (starting next week) for younger grades. If community spread gets high, then they should pivot to virtual (like Boston). When the numbers get under control you go back to in person.