APS School Board meeting last night - who watched?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Did you watch the board meeting? Priddy and Kanninen literally asked that question almost verbatim

The board questions definitely feel staged/planted at this point. They come off as recited/rehearsed and inauthentic. It would also explain why they are all generally on the same page and not meaningfully questioning anything that is going on.

Duran hasn't show that he's meaningfully looked into what is possible for K-2. He says it's too hard to bring back all students for 4 days so he's not going to even try.

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now.

Ok. So then why aren't more people pushing back on all of this? There is APE and they are doing what they are doing, but, it sounds like some percentage of people on here are not part of or in favor of APE, but, still want more days. Where are you all? How can we further elevate/heighten this issue and force action? This is not at all impossible. Duran is just unwilling. If someone lights a fire under him, he will make it happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Did you watch the board meeting? Priddy and Kanninen literally asked that question almost verbatim

The board questions definitely feel staged/planted at this point. They come off as recited/rehearsed and inauthentic. It would also explain why they are all generally on the same page and not meaningfully questioning anything that is going on.

Duran hasn't show that he's meaningfully looked into what is possible for K-2. He says it's too hard to bring back all students for 4 days so he's not going to even try.

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now.

Ok. So then why aren't more people pushing back on all of this? There is APE and they are doing what they are doing, but, it sounds like some percentage of people on here are not part of or in favor of APE, but, still want more days. Where are you all? How can we further elevate/heighten this issue and force action? This is not at all impossible. Duran is just unwilling. If someone lights a fire under him, he will make it happen.

Who says people aren't pushing vacl? It's clear the SB is getting tons of angry emails. They said as much last night. It just seems the SB is choosing not to do anything about it.

[Anonymous]

*vacl = back

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They shouted over a Latina mom who said her community had not been heard, does not want to go back in person because they're trying to survive, and is being used by others to justify opening.

To be clear, the shouting wasn’t because she was Latina or anything like that, it was because the school board was letting her run over the two minute limit when they held everyone expressing a different view strictly to the two minute limit. I’m not part of APE and I think they are extreme in their views, but it very much came across as the school board selectively enforcing the rules based on the content of the speech, which is extremely problematic.

Why wouldn’t people be upset when the rules are unevenly applied? I think shouting someone down is reprehensible, but I certainly understand the frustration. Using accusations of racism as a cudgel to shut down the opposition may be effective, but the people who fall for it are weak minded.

How many other people did they scream over the very second their time ended?

None. Just the Latina. It's not like she went way over. She was finishing her sentence and the Board chair was about to cut her off and did.

APE was not happy that they got called out for using brown kids as pawns.

The SB never waits until someone finishes their sentences tell them their time is up. The moment your two minutes are up, they interrupt you mid-sentence to thank you for you comments.

If you watch the meeting, you will hear Monique O’Grady cut off a child who was speaking in the middle of a sentence right at the two-minute mark. For he speaker in question here, the crowd did not make noise until she had run ten seconds beyond her time (and they did let her finish the sentence before they called out). It was only once the audience spoke up the Monique OGrady did anything to end the comments.

Maybe MO was listening to the speaker and processing what she was saying on behalf of her community. It was a different voice than the 100s of white privileged parents that have said the same thing over and over. As CDT said, "I hear you! We ALL hear you..... my job is to listen to every voice"

Can we all just calling all parents who want their kids to finally receive a real education "white privileged parents"?? Seriously - are you going to say that black/brown/latino families across the country don't want their kids in school? We moved to Arlington for the schools and are baffled at how poorly all of this is being handled.

No, because that’s what this is. That speaker was telling you that no, her community doesn’t want their kids back in school this year, so stop talking about them like you even know them. And also, this is the definition of privilege: we moved to Arlington for the schools. So, you are angry that you paid so much and aren’t getting your way. Listen to your own words. APS is not going to make decisions about how to operate because you paid a premium to live here “for the schools.”

I found it insulting that the speaker on behalf of latinos thinks we are such a monolith. I want my kids back 5 days. You don't speak for me.

She was speaking on behalf of the Latino parents who don’t go to SB meetings and don’t post on DCUM, but you knew that.

[Anonymous]

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now.

I don't get this view. Half of ELL and disadvantaged elementary students are in hybrid. Presumably those are the kids who were struggling the most with DL. Why not offer them more days? The kids who are happy to keep DL can do so. What more privileged students choose shouldn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just watched. I totally disagree with the guy saying that the movement of teens from hybrid to virtual is because of the instructional model. It’s because their parents are allowing them to do so, plain and simple. Some of these people need to take responsibility for what’s happening with their children’s learning. If you let your kid get away with whatever, you can’t expect APS to fix that. Some people need to say no to their kids.

I think they mainly switch back to virtual because their friends aren't in-person and because there are so few classmates in the classroom with them, and because there are still teachers teaching remotely so the students are going to school to learn online.

I don't really understand the "my friends aren't there" excuse. Are their friends with them when they're logged in from home? What's the difference? Nevertheless, I really feel fewer would have reverted to virtual if there were a substantial # of students actually attending in-person. Individual school stats could shed some light on the real "why's" at each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched. I totally disagree with the guy saying that the movement of teens from hybrid to virtual is because of the instructional model. It’s because their parents are allowing them to do so, plain and simple. Some of these people need to take responsibility for what’s happening with their children’s learning. If you let your kid get away with whatever, you can’t expect APS to fix that. Some people need to say no to their kids.

He is upset because some parents opted to let their kids return to virtual b/c their teens didn’t like hybrid?

Hybrid sounded super annoying and wearing a mask all day and not hanging with friends, it doesn’t offer many advantages to teens.

Maybe not advantages or benefits that the teens can see for themselves. But, IMO, for the most part, being in person with other classmates and teachers is a benefit socially and academically whether they see it or not. Also, getting back to some routines outside of the house is benefit enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still not clear on how offering 4-5 days in person per week to anyone who chooses to attend is racist.

Because you are determined not to understand it.

Or prove me wrong: Why are some families not returning for hybrid? Why might they not return for 4-day in person for the rest of the quarter? How does insisting the APS provide it make things worse for them?

Some families are not returning for hybrid because they have either made a decision that it is not safe for their families or the logistical hurdles (no aftercare, need to work, older children providing childcare for younger children) are too much right now. Right now they would rather stay with the status quo and limp through to the end of the year (understandable). I'm don't have an answer for your third question, which is kind of my point. How does APS providing more days to those who want them make it worse for those who are full time virtual? It does not.

If those families are already getting the services they want, then why are they even speaking out? What more are they hoping to get? Why are they obstructing other families from doing what is right for them? If you don’t want your kid to return to in-person school, then continue to elect virtual or hybrid. I’m glad their selection is working out for them, but don’t try to speak out preventing other families from getting what would work for their kids. No one regardless of race should get to obstruct other people’s children from getting the best education model that works for them.

Do you even hear yourself?

DP - I hear PP. Sounds quite reasonable and logical to me.

[Anonymous]

My daughter is HS in hybrid APS and she doesn't know anyone who switched to virtual after starting hybrid. She does have many friends who switched to virtual just before hybrid started. Their parents stayed on the hybrid selection to make sure they had the choice but when push came to shove they decided virtual was working well enough and not to rock the boat so close to the end of the year. So those kids switched to virtual without trying hybrid. I don't think the majority who switched even tried it at the high school level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched. I totally disagree with the guy saying that the movement of teens from hybrid to virtual is because of the instructional model. It’s because their parents are allowing them to do so, plain and simple. Some of these people need to take responsibility for what’s happening with their children’s learning. If you let your kid get away with whatever, you can’t expect APS to fix that. Some people need to say no to their kids.

I think they mainly switch back to virtual because their friends aren't in-person and because there are so few classmates in the classroom with them, and because there are still teachers teaching remotely so the students are going to school to learn online.

I don't really understand the "my friends aren't there" excuse. Are their friends with them when they're logged in from home? What's the difference? Nevertheless, I really feel fewer would have reverted to virtual if there were a substantial # of students actually attending in-person. Individual school stats could shed some light on the real "why's" at each school.

I think it’s more about the weighing of the pros and cons. If your teacher is virtual so there’s no in-person engagement and you don’t get to see your friends, what incentive is there to get up earlier to travel to school each morning, as opposed to sleeping in and then rolling from your bed to your desk (or even just to the other side of the bed) for school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now.

I don't get this view. Half of ELL and disadvantaged elementary students are in hybrid. Presumably those are the kids who were struggling the most with DL. Why not offer them more days? The kids who are happy to keep DL can do so. What more privileged students choose shouldn't matter.

I think TT addressed this. A lot of the families have made childcare and transportation arrangements around the current Hybrid set-up. It would be very difficult for them to change at this point in the year. That was how I understood what she was saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Did you watch the board meeting? Priddy and Kanninen literally asked that question almost verbatim

The board questions definitely feel staged/planted at this point. They come off as recited/rehearsed and inauthentic. It would also explain why they are all generally on the same page and not meaningfully questioning anything that is going on.

Duran hasn't show that he's meaningfully looked into what is possible for K-2. He says it's too hard to bring back all students for 4 days so he's not going to even try.

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged

Ok. So then why aren't more people pushing back on all of this? There is APE and they are doing what they are doing, but, it sounds like some percentage of people on here are not part of or in favor of APE, but, still want more days. Where are you all? How can we further elevate/heighten this issue and force action? This is not at all impossible. Duran is just unwilling. If someone lights a fire under him, he will make it happen.

Because admitting or saying "kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now" would be called racist.
It's really hard to say anything without it being racist or at least offensive these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Did you watch the board meeting? Priddy and Kanninen literally asked that question almost verbatim

The board questions definitely feel staged/planted at this point. They come off as recited/rehearsed and inauthentic. It would also explain why they are all generally on the same page and not meaningfully questioning anything that is going on.

Duran hasn't show that he's meaningfully looked into what is possible for K-2. He says it's too hard to bring back all students for 4 days so he's not going to even try.

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now.

Ok. So then why aren't more people pushing back on all of this? There is APE and they are doing what they are doing, but, it sounds like some percentage of people on here are not part of or in favor of APE, but, still want more days. Where are you all? How can we further elevate/heighten this issue and force action? This is not at all impossible. Duran is just unwilling. If someone lights a fire under him, he will make it happen.

Couldn't agree more. Duran is the problem here - he's the roadblock and is clearly incredibly stubborn and one-sided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now.

I don't get this view. Half of ELL and disadvantaged elementary students are in hybrid. Presumably those are the kids who were struggling the most with DL. Why not offer them more days? The kids who are happy to keep DL can do so. What more privileged students choose shouldn't matter.

I think TT addressed this. A lot of the families have made childcare and transportation arrangements around the current Hybrid set-up. It would be very difficult for them to change at this point in the year. That was how I understood what she was saying.

So why can't we just make it optional??

Multiple choice here:
1) 100% virtual learning
2) Hybrid/2 days/week with concurrent learning for kids remote.
3) 4 days in-person learning concurrent with kids at home

Why is this so damn hard??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now.

I don't get this view. Half of ELL and disadvantaged elementary students are in hybrid. Presumably those are the kids who were struggling the most with DL. Why not offer them more days? The kids who are happy to keep DL can do so. What more privileged students choose shouldn't matter.

I think TT addressed this. A lot of the families have made childcare and transportation arrangements around the current Hybrid set-up. It would be very difficult for them to change at this point in the year. That was how I understood what she was saying.

So why can't we just make it optional??

Multiple choice here:
1) 100% virtual learning
2) Hybrid/2 days/week with concurrent learning for kids remote.
3) 4 days in-person learning concurrent with kids at home

Why is this so damn hard??

Can you imagine the chaos is teachers have some students there four days a week, some two days a week, and some fully virtual? It would be a mess.