Rumors of a delay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teachers: For the love of God, can you please let our children go back to school?

Tell Dcps to use their management rights and order people back. Stop the excuses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers: For the love of God, can you please let our children go back to school?

Tell Dcps to use their management rights and order people back. Stop the excuses

I'm going to start reporting these comments. The finger pointing rhetoric from both sides is immature and off topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SN kid needs it too and didn’t get an in person spot. Get over yourself. There are many more kids that NEED in person spots and are regressing other than yours. This plan ignores them.

100%.

My SN is in SELF CONTAINED and didn't get a spot. People need to look at the bigger picture, it's not just about your child. This plan SUCKS.

That’s awful. Those are the kids that need in person the most.

Yes, and it's not even because the teacher isn't available! They capped the classes at 50 percent!

She's an amazing teacher but how us she going to teach in person AND online??

They haven't even explained this, some general education teacher will have to do this too.

What is the plan....I feel like crying. This year keeps getting worse.

I know we're not really on topic but how do you know your self-contained DC didn't get a spot? Do you know anyone who DID get it? I'm asking because at my children's schools nobody has heard a word on self-contained and who's going back, not even their teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the only issues going on here are that: (i) there are teachers (not all, for sure, but a sizeable group) who don’t want to take any risk despite it being part of their job, the risk being super small, and the cost-benefit highly weighing in favor of going back and (ii) there are parents bitter that their kid didn’t get an inperson spot. As a result, both groups are taking active measures to sabotage any opening for the child who absolutely need it the most, thereby continuing the increasing exponential risk that these kids are in. In short, selfish people are screwing over disadvantaged children, yet again.

The risk is going up every day due to the resurgence of the virus across the US. As a nation we should pay teachers more as we expect them to deal with all this crap. Turns out that teachers are not easy to replace very easily since there is a national teacher shortage. That is the reality we live in

The risk of exposure is going up but the risk of consequences from contracting it is stable for people not in high risk groups and lower for high risk groups. Teachers who don’t have health issues or live with people with health issues and are under let’s just say 50 or so, are at a lower risk of any issues from getting Covid than they are of getting the flu (no, i don’t think this is the same or better than the flu— it’s far worse for at risk people). They shouldn’t be able to stay home. They should have to go in to work, the same way that they do during flu season. Older teachers, those with health vulnerabilities and those who live with either should be able to stay home doing virtual. It’s actually quite simple

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My SN kid needs it too and didn’t get an in person spot. Get over yourself. There are many more kids that NEED in person spots and are regressing other than yours. This plan ignores them.

So you think the solution is to deprive other in need kids just because your’s didn’t get a spot? That’s called selfish. They have limited abilities to restart school. Yes, all at risk kids should get a spot but that’s not feasible. The answer here isn’t to deprive help to some because there aren’t resources for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not add more in-person classes for vulnerable students in late Nov instead of adding CARES classes?

Lack of teacher willingness to go in. Remember, CARES isn’t staffed by teachers. So again, selfishness

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SN kid needs it too and didn’t get an in person spot. Get over yourself. There are many more kids that NEED in person spots and are regressing other than yours. This plan ignores them.

Maybe. But don't forget that the WTU doesn't want to go back at all. So the only people trying to get kids back are DCPS. Hopefully the piloting of small classes will pave the way for your child to go back too. My SN did get a spot, and I'm hoping that this will lead to more in-person classes. Or, I would be happy to wait another term for everyone to go back next term. But again - that is not what WTU is fighting for.

+1 to the bolded. This is the best DCPS could do given that WTU has obstructed sending teachers back. WTU's refusal to send teachers back precluded DCPS from offering in-person spots to all SN kids or even hybrid for all who want it. So DCPS is trying to at least serve some students as opposed to none.

Besides, if the issue is "only when it's safe" then WTU is opposed to sending any teachers back. If you're a parent who wants a spot for your SN kid but didn't get it, then why would you align yourself with WTU's opposition to sending any teachers back? WTU is the reason DCPS couldn't offer your kid a spot. It looks to me like if you don't get your spot then you don't want anyone to have one.

I think parents who just don't want schools to open at all this school year are morons, but at least they're not hypocrites.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SN kid needs it too and didn’t get an in person spot. Get over yourself. There are many more kids that NEED in person spots and are regressing other than yours. This plan ignores them.

So you think the solution is to deprive other in need kids just because your’s didn’t get a spot? That’s called selfish. They have limited abilities to restart school. Yes, all at risk kids should get a spot but that’s not feasible. The answer here isn’t to deprive help to some because there aren’t resources for all.

The solution is to come up with a better plan. DCPS came up with a pathetic loser plan that is horrible for 90% of the kids. I’m sorry but DCPS is a complete failure of a school district when it champions this terrible plan that will actually make things worse off for most kids. How is this equity? What about all the HS and MS kids they are screwing over by taking all their support staff? What about all the ES kids who will lose their teacher and end up in bigger classrooms. DL sucks for almost all kids and there is a large contingent of HS kids who are at risk of dropping out. Do they not count?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SN kid needs it too and didn’t get an in person spot. Get over yourself. There are many more kids that NEED in person spots and are regressing other than yours. This plan ignores them.

So you think the solution is to deprive other in need kids just because your’s didn’t get a spot? That’s called selfish. They have limited abilities to restart school. Yes, all at risk kids should get a spot but that’s not feasible. The answer here isn’t to deprive help to some because there aren’t resources for all.

The solution is to come up with a better plan. DCPS came up with a pathetic loser plan that is horrible for 90% of the kids. I’m sorry but DCPS is a complete failure of a school district when it champions this terrible plan that will actually make things worse off for most kids. How is this equity? What about all the HS and MS kids they are screwing over by taking all their support staff? What about all the ES kids who will lose their teacher and end up in bigger classrooms. DL sucks for almost all kids and there is a large contingent of HS kids who are at risk of dropping out. Do they not count?

This. Regardless of your feelings about teachers and admin, its undeniable that there were other options aside from this. I am not interested in speculating why this was selected, because it does no good, but there are and were other, better options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the only issues going on here are that: (i) there are teachers (not all, for sure, but a sizeable group) who don’t want to take any risk despite it being part of their job, the risk being super small, and the cost-benefit highly weighing in favor of going back and (ii) there are parents bitter that their kid didn’t get an inperson spot. As a result, both groups are taking active measures to sabotage any opening for the child who absolutely need it the most, thereby continuing the increasing exponential risk that these kids are in. In short, selfish people are screwing over disadvantaged children, yet again.

The risk is going up every day due to the resurgence of the virus across the US. As a nation we should pay teachers more as we expect them to deal with all this crap. Turns out that teachers are not easy to replace very easily since there is a national teacher shortage. That is the reality we live in

The risk of exposure is going up but the risk of consequences from contracting it is stable for people not in high risk groups and lower for high risk groups. Teachers who don’t have health issues or live with people with health issues and are under let’s just say 50 or so, are at a lower risk of any issues from getting Covid than they are of getting the flu (no, i don’t think this is the same or better than the flu— it’s far worse for at risk people). They shouldn’t be able to stay home. They should have to go in to work, the same way that they do during flu season. Older teachers, those with health vulnerabilities and those who live with either should be able to stay home doing virtual. It’s actually quite simple

Since you’re an expert on COVID can you tell me the long term effects the virus can have on the body? I’ve heard damaged lungs, brain fog, permanent loss of taste and smell, chronic fatigue...all mentioned by legitimate news sources like CNN and WaPo.

And don’t ask for peer reviewed evidence because we don’t have any, this is a NEW virus.
Just because someone recovers doesn’t mean there aren’t long term issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SN kid needs it too and didn’t get an in person spot. Get over yourself. There are many more kids that NEED in person spots and are regressing other than yours. This plan ignores them.

So you think the solution is to deprive other in need kids just because your’s didn’t get a spot? That’s called selfish. They have limited abilities to restart school. Yes, all at risk kids should get a spot but that’s not feasible. The answer here isn’t to deprive help to some because there aren’t resources for all.

The solution is to come up with a better plan. DCPS came up with a pathetic loser plan that is horrible for 90% of the kids. I’m sorry but DCPS is a complete failure of a school district when it champions this terrible plan that will actually make things worse off for most kids. How is this equity? What about all the HS and MS kids they are screwing over by taking all their support staff? What about all the ES kids who will lose their teacher and end up in bigger classrooms. DL sucks for almost all kids and there is a large contingent of HS kids who are at risk of dropping out. Do they not count?

They can’t come up with a better plan without teachers. I think DCPS is doing what they can. I don’t like the plan. My kids won’t get a spot in person, but I am glad at least some kids will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SN kid needs it too and didn’t get an in person spot. Get over yourself. There are many more kids that NEED in person spots and are regressing other than yours. This plan ignores them.

So you think the solution is to deprive other in need kids just because your’s didn’t get a spot? That’s called selfish. They have limited abilities to restart school. Yes, all at risk kids should get a spot but that’s not feasible. The answer here isn’t to deprive help to some because there aren’t resources for all.

No. My solution is to actually look at kids’ IEPs and see who requires the most in person services. A kid with an hour a week of speech should not get the same priority as a kid who requires 10 hours a week of special
Ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SN kid needs it too and didn’t get an in person spot. Get over yourself. There are many more kids that NEED in person spots and are regressing other than yours. This plan ignores them.

So you think the solution is to deprive other in need kids just because your’s didn’t get a spot? That’s called selfish. They have limited abilities to restart school. Yes, all at risk kids should get a spot but that’s not feasible. The answer here isn’t to deprive help to some because there aren’t resources for all.

The solution is to come up with a better plan. DCPS came up with a pathetic loser plan that is horrible for 90% of the kids. I’m sorry but DCPS is a complete failure of a school district when it champions this terrible plan that will actually make things worse off for most kids. How is this equity? What about all the HS and MS kids they are screwing over by taking all their support staff? What about all the ES kids who will lose their teacher and end up in bigger classrooms. DL sucks for almost all kids and there is a large contingent of HS kids who are at risk of dropping out. Do they not count?

They can’t come up with a better plan without teachers. I think DCPS is doing what they can. I don’t like the plan. My kids won’t get a spot in person, but I am glad at least some kids will.

No they aren't. They could have used the same number of teachers - or maybe more- if they had chosen a different route.
1) Pilot program -- why aren't they rolling out a pilot program to start, which could have found flaws and increased trust
2) Principals plan -- they articulated a good idea in their letter that could have been explored
3) Start with the youngest learners -- they could have started with just PK-1 and again, seen how it went before throwing it at every elementary school.


All around us are districts and schools doing all of these things and more as they find ways back to in person with and without teacher support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SN kid needs it too and didn’t get an in person spot. Get over yourself. There are many more kids that NEED in person spots and are regressing other than yours. This plan ignores them.

So you think the solution is to deprive other in need kids just because your’s didn’t get a spot? That’s called selfish. They have limited abilities to restart school. Yes, all at risk kids should get a spot but that’s not feasible. The answer here isn’t to deprive help to some because there aren’t resources for all.

No. My solution is to actually look at kids’ IEPs and see who requires the most in person services. A kid with an hour a week of speech should not get the same priority as a kid who requires 10 hours a week of special
Ed.

But there's no way one teacher can teach 11 super high needs kids.
I'm sure they purposefully did it so the 11 would reflect kids with a variety of needs.

[Anonymous]

You know at lots of schools WOTP A ton of parents of ELLs and Sped said no to the seats. They are going to regular gen ed kids.