Do you think there will be any in-person learning this spring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it makes you feel any better, that is what MCPS seems to be leaning towards if you believe the leaks and vague comments made at board meetings.

Then why did they set thresholds for hybrid school?

Same reason people close for "deep cleanings" - to appease certain people.

Ok, but we are going to hit those thresholds this spring. I think at that point they will have to reopen for those who indicated they wanted hybrid.

I also think we are going to hit the required metrics in the spring so that the people who opted for in person will be able to send their kids in person for the last quarter. At the last BOE meeting they implied that because less than 50% opted for in person it may not be just a 2 day a week schedule.

Ooh that would be so great!! Though I imagine it would vary by school.

I didn’t pay too much attention to what they said about HS (my kids are in ES) but they also indicated that in order to balance the numbers in the schools they may seek to move ES kids around. To me, that seemed to say that if every school was operating at less than 50% capacity there is no reason that they can’t operate on more than a 2 day a week in person schedule. One of the BOE members also made the comment that they hope they can do more than 2 days a week. I would not be surprised when they get down to the nuts and bolts of the return that it will be more than 2 days a week because only half of the student body will be in person.

There wouldn't be space in other ES so they'd have to take space at MS or HS to do that. So, if they do 4 days a week in the ES schools, what happens to all the kids for the 3 other days who are currently going to the equity hubs and child care at the MCPS ES already? Parents gain two days in person but lose 3 days?

My understanding is that there are some ES where 70% of people wanted in person and there are some schools where only 30% opted for in person. It was not a 50/50 split for every school. So that is why they may shift some ES kids around to balance the numbers. It is possible that for the people who opted for in person that their kids could end up attending another ES temporarily in order to balance the numbers. We haven’t heard what will happen to the learning hubs operating in the schools once kids come back in person, but it stands to reason that if you were comfortable enough to have been sending your kid to a learning hub all along you probably opted for in person learning, so the need for the learning hubs will be minimal if the kids whose parents opted for in person will be attending full time as opposed to 2 days a week. The whole point of hybrid was to reduce the number of people in the building, and for this school year there will only be a max of 50% of the kids in person if/when they do go back.

Why should our kids be kicked out of their school for wanting DL so yours can go back in person? And, that would be extremely disruptive on many levels. Funny how people who were against redistricting and bussing now are ok with it so their kids can go in person. They aren't shifting kids to other schools. And, kids in equity hubs would get kicked out and left with no child care on the 3 days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my middle school at least, it would be two days in person and two at home. But everyone on a screen anyway. No group work around a single table.

Same at high school. No hands on projects, no group work. Basically just a chrome book or a worksheet at your desk.

Lectures and independent work may look much the same but whatever else may happen, group discussions are more effective in person than via zoom.

Not when the group is spaced 3-6 feet apart. Some members in groups will likely need to be in DL.

This is clearly written by someone that doesn't have a job that includes videoconferences.

Being spread out is fine for discussions. And yes, the discussion go much, much better in-person. People are generally much more engaged.

If kids had camera's on and participated it would work fine.

Safety means kids spaced out 6-10 feet, not 3.

There's nothing special about 3 vs. 6 vs. 10.

The 6 foot rule-of-thumb was derived from how far droplets travel without masks. We've been applying them more broadly because we didn't really know what else to to. But it would be wrong to assume 6-10ft is ok but 3ft is not OK. The reality is much more nuanced than that.

The recommendation has varied depending on the time. The latest study said 6 feet wasn't enough. All masks vary in quality. If its just a thin cotton or gator, its pretty useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my middle school at least, it would be two days in person and two at home. But everyone on a screen anyway. No group work around a single table.

Same at high school. No hands on projects, no group work. Basically just a chrome book or a worksheet at your desk.

Lectures and independent work may look much the same but whatever else may happen, group discussions are more effective in person than via zoom.

Not when the group is spaced 3-6 feet apart. Some members in groups will likely need to be in DL.

This is clearly written by someone that doesn't have a job that includes videoconferences.

Being spread out is fine for discussions. And yes, the discussion go much, much better in-person. People are generally much more engaged.

If kids had camera's on and participated it would work fine.

Safety means kids spaced out 6-10 feet, not 3.

There's nothing special about 3 vs. 6 vs. 10.

The 6 foot rule-of-thumb was derived from how far droplets travel without masks. We've been applying them more broadly because we didn't really know what else to to. But it would be wrong to assume 6-10ft is ok but 3ft is not OK. The reality is much more nuanced than that.

Yep. Especially if people are wearing masks.

6 feet if no masks. But with masks, you can be in closer.

How do you think dentists have been safely practicing since the summer??

Dentists have full PPE's, double masks and face shields. Many doctors who do all that still catch covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my middle school at least, it would be two days in person and two at home. But everyone on a screen anyway. No group work around a single table.

Same at high school. No hands on projects, no group work. Basically just a chrome book or a worksheet at your desk.

You’ve heard this directly from your schools? I haven’t heard about any in person plans from our middle school.

I’m the MS teacher above. I asked directly because early MP 3 includes a unit project that we have always done in groups. I have to arrange some parts of it about a month in advance to make sure it runs smoothly from the start. I figured that I should pad the prep time a bit because everything moves slower these days. I asked and the response was what I posted.

This is what we are hearing too. It will basically be babysitting with DL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my middle school at least, it would be two days in person and two at home. But everyone on a screen anyway. No group work around a single table.

Same at high school. No hands on projects, no group work. Basically just a chrome book or a worksheet at your desk.

Lectures and independent work may look much the same but whatever else may happen, group discussions are more effective in person than via zoom.

Not when the group is spaced 3-6 feet apart. Some members in groups will likely need to be in DL.

This is clearly written by someone that doesn't have a job that includes videoconferences.

Being spread out is fine for discussions. And yes, the discussion go much, much better in-person. People are generally much more engaged.

If kids had camera's on and participated it would work fine.

Safety means kids spaced out 6-10 feet, not 3.

There's nothing special about 3 vs. 6 vs. 10.

The 6 foot rule-of-thumb was derived from how far droplets travel without masks. We've been applying them more broadly because we didn't really know what else to to. But it would be wrong to assume 6-10ft is ok but 3ft is not OK. The reality is much more nuanced than that.

The recommendation has varied depending on the time. The latest study said 6 feet wasn't enough. All masks vary in quality. If its just a thin cotton or gator, its pretty useless.

Citation?

There's not going to be a clear cut-off between safe and not-safe. Droplets usually only travel so far, unless you get unlucky with the right breeze. Some particles will aerosolize. But you're trying to manage risk, not get to zero-risk. If you're trying to be realistic, at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my middle school at least, it would be two days in person and two at home. But everyone on a screen anyway. No group work around a single table.

Same at high school. No hands on projects, no group work. Basically just a chrome book or a worksheet at your desk.

Lectures and independent work may look much the same but whatever else may happen, group discussions are more effective in person than via zoom.

Not when the group is spaced 3-6 feet apart. Some members in groups will likely need to be in DL.

This is clearly written by someone that doesn't have a job that includes videoconferences.

Being spread out is fine for discussions. And yes, the discussion go much, much better in-person. People are generally much more engaged.

If kids had camera's on and participated it would work fine.

Safety means kids spaced out 6-10 feet, not 3.

There's nothing special about 3 vs. 6 vs. 10.

The 6 foot rule-of-thumb was derived from how far droplets travel without masks. We've been applying them more broadly because we didn't really know what else to to. But it would be wrong to assume 6-10ft is ok but 3ft is not OK. The reality is much more nuanced than that.

The recommendation has varied depending on the time. The latest study said 6 feet wasn't enough. All masks vary in quality. If its just a thin cotton or gator, its pretty useless.

Citation?

There's not going to be a clear cut-off between safe and not-safe. Droplets usually only travel so far, unless you get unlucky with the right breeze. Some particles will aerosolize. But you're trying to manage risk, not get to zero-risk. If you're trying to be realistic, at least.

I want no risk. We aren't taking any risks so why should we catch it from those behaving poorly. Google is your friend. Lots of information on masks and distance. You clearly pick and choose. Masks help. Distance helps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my middle school at least, it would be two days in person and two at home. But everyone on a screen anyway. No group work around a single table.

Same at high school. No hands on projects, no group work. Basically just a chrome book or a worksheet at your desk.

Lectures and independent work may look much the same but whatever else may happen, group discussions are more effective in person than via zoom.

Not when the group is spaced 3-6 feet apart. Some members in groups will likely need to be in DL.

This is clearly written by someone that doesn't have a job that includes videoconferences.

Being spread out is fine for discussions. And yes, the discussion go much, much better in-person. People are generally much more engaged.

If kids had camera's on and participated it would work fine.

Safety means kids spaced out 6-10 feet, not 3.

There's nothing special about 3 vs. 6 vs. 10.

The 6 foot rule-of-thumb was derived from how far droplets travel without masks. We've been applying them more broadly because we didn't really know what else to to. But it would be wrong to assume 6-10ft is ok but 3ft is not OK. The reality is much more nuanced than that.

The recommendation has varied depending on the time. The latest study said 6 feet wasn't enough. All masks vary in quality. If its just a thin cotton or gator, its pretty useless.

Citation?

There's not going to be a clear cut-off between safe and not-safe. Droplets usually only travel so far, unless you get unlucky with the right breeze. Some particles will aerosolize. But you're trying to manage risk, not get to zero-risk. If you're trying to be realistic, at least.

I want no risk. We aren't taking any risks so why should we catch it from those behaving poorly. Google is your friend. Lots of information on masks and distance. You clearly pick and choose. Masks help. Distance helps.

There is no such thing as “no risk” once you open your front door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my middle school at least, it would be two days in person and two at home. But everyone on a screen anyway. No group work around a single table.

Same at high school. No hands on projects, no group work. Basically just a chrome book or a worksheet at your desk.

Lectures and independent work may look much the same but whatever else may happen, group discussions are more effective in person than via zoom.

Not when the group is spaced 3-6 feet apart. Some members in groups will likely need to be in DL.

This is clearly written by someone that doesn't have a job that includes videoconferences.

Being spread out is fine for discussions. And yes, the discussion go much, much better in-person. People are generally much more engaged.

If kids had camera's on and participated it would work fine.

Safety means kids spaced out 6-10 feet, not 3.

There's nothing special about 3 vs. 6 vs. 10.

The 6 foot rule-of-thumb was derived from how far droplets travel without masks. We've been applying them more broadly because we didn't really know what else to to. But it would be wrong to assume 6-10ft is ok but 3ft is not OK. The reality is much more nuanced than that.

The recommendation has varied depending on the time. The latest study said 6 feet wasn't enough. All masks vary in quality. If its just a thin cotton or gator, its pretty useless.

Citation?

There's not going to be a clear cut-off between safe and not-safe. Droplets usually only travel so far, unless you get unlucky with the right breeze. Some particles will aerosolize. But you're trying to manage risk, not get to zero-risk. If you're trying to be realistic, at least.

I want no risk. We aren't taking any risks so why should we catch it from those behaving poorly. Google is your friend. Lots of information on masks and distance. You clearly pick and choose. Masks help. Distance helps.

I don't think you understand what "no risk" means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my middle school at least, it would be two days in person and two at home. But everyone on a screen anyway. No group work around a single table.

Same at high school. No hands on projects, no group work. Basically just a chrome book or a worksheet at your desk.

Lectures and independent work may look much the same but whatever else may happen, group discussions are more effective in person than via zoom.

Not when the group is spaced 3-6 feet apart. Some members in groups will likely need to be in DL.

This is clearly written by someone that doesn't have a job that includes videoconferences.

Being spread out is fine for discussions. And yes, the discussion go much, much better in-person. People are generally much more engaged.

If kids had camera's on and participated it would work fine.

Safety means kids spaced out 6-10 feet, not 3.

There's nothing special about 3 vs. 6 vs. 10.

The 6 foot rule-of-thumb was derived from how far droplets travel without masks. We've been applying them more broadly because we didn't really know what else to to. But it would be wrong to assume 6-10ft is ok but 3ft is not OK. The reality is much more nuanced than that.

The recommendation has varied depending on the time. The latest study said 6 feet wasn't enough. All masks vary in quality. If its just a thin cotton or gator, its pretty useless.

Citation?

There's not going to be a clear cut-off between safe and not-safe. Droplets usually only travel so far, unless you get unlucky with the right breeze. Some particles will aerosolize. But you're trying to manage risk, not get to zero-risk. If you're trying to be realistic, at least.

I want no risk. We aren't taking any risks so why should we catch it from those behaving poorly. Google is your friend. Lots of information on masks and distance. You clearly pick and choose. Masks help. Distance helps.

I don't think you understand what "no risk" means.

I understand what no risk means. I also understand what having long term health issues and death means to me and my family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not if MCEA has any say in it. You can already tell from some of the posts here and on PAGES that they're planning to fight a return in the fall.

What is PAGES?

A private Facebook group by radical leftists that are now devoting their attention to keeping schools indefinitely.

TogetherAgainMCPS much? 🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not if MCEA has any say in it. You can already tell from some of the posts here and on PAGES that they're planning to fight a return in the fall.

What is PAGES?

A private Facebook group by radical leftists that are now devoting their attention to keeping schools indefinitely.

TogetherAgainMCPS much? 🤣

I can't but notice you didn't say I was wrong about any of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my middle school at least, it would be two days in person and two at home. But everyone on a screen anyway. No group work around a single table.

Same at high school. No hands on projects, no group work. Basically just a chrome book or a worksheet at your desk.

Lectures and independent work may look much the same but whatever else may happen, group discussions are more effective in person than via zoom.

Not when the group is spaced 3-6 feet apart. Some members in groups will likely need to be in DL.

This is clearly written by someone that doesn't have a job that includes videoconferences.

Being spread out is fine for discussions. And yes, the discussion go much, much better in-person. People are generally much more engaged.

If kids had camera's on and participated it would work fine.

Safety means kids spaced out 6-10 feet, not 3.

There's nothing special about 3 vs. 6 vs. 10.

The 6 foot rule-of-thumb was derived from how far droplets travel without masks. We've been applying them more broadly because we didn't really know what else to to. But it would be wrong to assume 6-10ft is ok but 3ft is not OK. The reality is much more nuanced than that.

The recommendation has varied depending on the time. The latest study said 6 feet wasn't enough. All masks vary in quality. If its just a thin cotton or gator, its pretty useless.

Citation?

There's not going to be a clear cut-off between safe and not-safe. Droplets usually only travel so far, unless you get unlucky with the right breeze. Some particles will aerosolize. But you're trying to manage risk, not get to zero-risk. If you're trying to be realistic, at least.

I want no risk. We aren't taking any risks so why should we catch it from those behaving poorly. Google is your friend. Lots of information on masks and distance. You clearly pick and choose. Masks help. Distance helps.

I don't think you understand what "no risk" means.

I understand what no risk means. I also understand what having long term health issues and death means to me and my family.

If you have long-term health issues then you should already be well aware there's no such thing as no risk. Unless you were holed up in your house 24/7 even before the pandemic (and even that isn't without risk).

I really wonder how many of these people claiming they're super high-risk actually have serious conditions- particularly serious conditions with the risk of death. My family does, and had to face much harder questions like "are we really going to have kids?" So, by the time COVID came around we were already welll-accustomed to the concept of managing health risks.

I suspect a lot of most extreme posters on DCUM just have things like IBD. They're pretty much the whiniest patients of all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it makes you feel any better, that is what MCPS seems to be leaning towards if you believe the leaks and vague comments made at board meetings.

Then why did they set thresholds for hybrid school?

Same reason people close for "deep cleanings" - to appease certain people.

Ok, but we are going to hit those thresholds this spring. I think at that point they will have to reopen for those who indicated they wanted hybrid.

I also think we are going to hit the required metrics in the spring so that the people who opted for in person will be able to send their kids in person for the last quarter. At the last BOE meeting they implied that because less than 50% opted for in person it may not be just a 2 day a week schedule.

Ooh that would be so great!! Though I imagine it would vary by school.

I didn’t pay too much attention to what they said about HS (my kids are in ES) but they also indicated that in order to balance the numbers in the schools they may seek to move ES kids around. To me, that seemed to say that if every school was operating at less than 50% capacity there is no reason that they can’t operate on more than a 2 day a week in person schedule. One of the BOE members also made the comment that they hope they can do more than 2 days a week. I would not be surprised when they get down to the nuts and bolts of the return that it will be more than 2 days a week because only half of the student body will be in person.

There wouldn't be space in other ES so they'd have to take space at MS or HS to do that. So, if they do 4 days a week in the ES schools, what happens to all the kids for the 3 other days who are currently going to the equity hubs and child care at the MCPS ES already? Parents gain two days in person but lose 3 days?

My understanding is that there are some ES where 70% of people wanted in person and there are some schools where only 30% opted for in person. It was not a 50/50 split for every school. So that is why they may shift some ES kids around to balance the numbers. It is possible that for the people who opted for in person that their kids could end up attending another ES temporarily in order to balance the numbers. We haven’t heard what will happen to the learning hubs operating in the schools once kids come back in person, but it stands to reason that if you were comfortable enough to have been sending your kid to a learning hub all along you probably opted for in person learning, so the need for the learning hubs will be minimal if the kids whose parents opted for in person will be attending full time as opposed to 2 days a week. The whole point of hybrid was to reduce the number of people in the building, and for this school year there will only be a max of 50% of the kids in person if/when they do go back.

Why should our kids be kicked out of their school for wanting DL so yours can go back in person? And, that would be extremely disruptive on many levels. Funny how people who were against redistricting and bussing now are ok with it so their kids can go in person. They aren't shifting kids to other schools. And, kids in equity hubs would get kicked out and left with no child care on the 3 days.

If your kid is doing DL how could they be kicked out of their school? I’m only giving information I got from listening to the last BOE meeting. It was the BOE members who stated that because of the vast differences between schools in the percentages of students whose parents opted for in person they may have to temporarily move some of the in person students to different schools. There will be no impact on the DL kids. They made clear that this would not be a permanent thing, and that once the COVID era was over kids would return to the ES they are districted for. I am assuming they suggested this so that all kids in the county attending in person would have the same amount of in person time rather than some kids going 2 days a week and some going 4 depending on what school you are in. Again, I find it hard to believe that there are people who sent their kids to a learning or equity hub but opted for DL, so there will be no issue of displacing the kids in the hubs. Also, it seems absurd to suggest that when we have met our stringent metrics for reopening that MCPS will say we can’t open schools so that we don’t disrupt the privately run learning or equity hubs that we have allowed to use our buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not if MCEA has any say in it. You can already tell from some of the posts here and on PAGES that they're planning to fight a return in the fall.

What is PAGES?

A private Facebook group by radical leftists that are now devoting their attention to keeping schools indefinitely.

TogetherAgainMCPS much? 🤣

I can't but notice you didn't say I was wrong about any of that.

Suuure... let me try and banter with your hyperbole. As a working parent, shutting down schools is totally something I’d love to see happen and my schedule could totally absorb. #sarcasm

I look forward to a responsible return to school for my kids, but have no interest in taking that guidance from folks unwilling to implement even the most basic of restrictions. Want to get kids back to school? Manage the spread in the community: mask mandates (not a polite ‘please’), continued restrictions on indoor dining/bars/religious services, aggressive vaccination program (pay people to get over themselves),...

There are no safe people... only safe behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A private Facebook group by radical leftists that are now devoting their attention to keeping schools indefinitely.

That sounds scary! I think I read about them in a Joseph Conrad novel.