Individual School Plans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This principal just 100% prioritized teachers over parents. If s/he has capital to burn with parents (long track record of happy parents at the school), it’s the easier approach since s/he has to see the teachers every day. If s/he doesn’t have that capital, this will get her/him run out of the school. Frankly, parents at my school would revolt.

THIS

The principal is protecting the people that really matter: the teachers. Good on them. The teachers make the school. The last time I checked, my kid has 20 classmates, but only one teacher. The teacher makes the class and does the teaching. If the teacher gets COVID-19, sick, and heaven forbid dies, then that will be a tragedy that could have been prevented. Be glad you have at least a virtual teacher. Under the DCPS plan, eventually a teacher will get infected. I hope not, but with this DCPS plan, it will be inevitable.

I think part of the problem is setting the bar at ‘one teacher will get infected.’ The teachers going back don’t qualify for ADA and therefore I assume they are healthy enough to be going back to work. Getting infected is not the end of the world. Many DCPS teachers may have been infected going about their daily business. Of course everyone wants to be safe but this level of fear is unhealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This principal just 100% prioritized teachers over parents. If s/he has capital to burn with parents (long track record of happy parents at the school), it’s the easier approach since s/he has to see the teachers every day. If s/he doesn’t have that capital, this will get her/him run out of the school. Frankly, parents at my school would revolt.

THIS

The principal is protecting the people that really matter: the teachers. Good on them. The teachers make the school. The last time I checked, my kid has 20 classmates, but only one teacher. The teacher makes the class and does the teaching. If the teacher gets COVID-19, sick, and heaven forbid dies, then that will be a tragedy that could have been prevented. Be glad you have at least a virtual teacher. Under the DCPS plan, eventually a teacher will get infected. I hope not, but with this DCPS plan, it will be inevitable.

I think part of the problem is setting the bar at ‘one teacher will get infected.’ The teachers going back don’t qualify for ADA and therefore I assume they are healthy enough to be going back to work. Getting infected is not the end of the world. Many DCPS teachers may have been infected going about their daily business. Of course everyone wants to be safe but this level of fear is unhealthy.

Unless you pass it along to a vulnerable family member, of course. I’m living this right now - husband’s uncle for infected by his son who is a high school teacher where the schools have been open since September. The son got a mild case; the dad is on a ventilator and not expected to survive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am still confused as to what exactly is opening in Feb for third term. Are indivudal schools making their own plans and selection of which students will come bacK? Has anyone heard from their individual schools on plans?

Deal is offering 110 spots per grade to come to school on Wednesdays for extra support from 9-12 in groups of 11. Would be shocked if the school re-opens more than this before fall. Strangely, however they have also announced that sports practice will resume in February.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am still confused as to what exactly is opening in Feb for third term. Are indivudal schools making their own plans and selection of which students will come bacK? Has anyone heard from their individual schools on plans?

Deal is offering 110 spots per grade to come to school on Wednesdays for extra support from 9-12 in groups of 11. Would be shocked if the school re-opens more than this before fall. Strangely, however they have also announced that sports practice will resume in February.

Look for the sports ban to continue. It will be released next week.

[Anonymous]

To any Hearst teachers who are reading this thread: my family appreciates you and supports you. I know how many additional hours you’ve put in this year. Thank you for doing your best to teach my child. I am sorry for this lack of support and lack of appreciation. I hope and believe that the comments in this thread do not represent all of us parents.

Thank you for this. It means more than you know. Teachers have been made aware of what is being said on here. It is incredibly hurtful to read many of the comments, but we will continue to tirelessly work night and day for your kids. The kids are our priority and why we do what we do.

[Anonymous]

You can appreciate the teachers' hard work this year and in past years and disagree strongly with them on the reopen plans, particularly the fear mongering. We love our Hearst teachers, that is the only reason we stay. But a year+ of distance learning is deteriorating my child's willingness to learn. Perhaps your child is doing okay. Not all kids are okay. And I respect someone's MEDICAL need to stay home and teach virtually. The rest of the teachers, particularly the young and healthy ones should be going back to teach in person. The teachers' needs have been the #1 priority in this plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This principal just 100% prioritized teachers over parents. If s/he has capital to burn with parents (long track record of happy parents at the school), it’s the easier approach since s/he has to see the teachers every day. If s/he doesn’t have that capital, this will get her/him run out of the school. Frankly, parents at my school would revolt.

THIS

The principal is protecting the people that really matter: the teachers. Good on them. The teachers make the school. The last time I checked, my kid has 20 classmates, but only one teacher. The teacher makes the class and does the teaching. If the teacher gets COVID-19, sick, and heaven forbid dies, then that will be a tragedy that could have been prevented. Be glad you have at least a virtual teacher. Under the DCPS plan, eventually a teacher will get infected. I hope not, but with this DCPS plan, it will be inevitable.

I think part of the problem is setting the bar at ‘one teacher will get infected.’ The teachers going back don’t qualify for ADA and therefore I assume they are healthy enough to be going back to work. Getting infected is not the end of the world. Many DCPS teachers may have been infected going about their daily business. Of course everyone wants to be safe but this level of fear is unhealthy.

Unless you pass it along to a vulnerable family member, of course. I’m living this right now - husband’s uncle for infected by his son who is a high school teacher where the schools have been open since September. The son got a mild case; the dad is on a ventilator and not expected to survive.

I am sorry and hope he is able to recover. This is why the CARES act allows people who live with vulnerable family members to take time. Again though most people who get COVID are fine. Young, healthy teachers should be able to return in person.

[Anonymous]

If you take CARES act, does the teacher keep teaching virtually or do they take leave and the school needs to find a sub?

[Anonymous]

Did any of you Hearst complainers actually attend the grade-level meetings that solicited feedback from parents about reopening? Most parents said they did not want class size to dramatically increase or to change teachers or to get rid of departmentalization at the upper grades -- all of which would be necessary to open in-person classes in all grades. K is different because there are 3 teachers, so the other two classes can absorb the extra kids without making class sizes huge. Until all teachers and all kids are required to go back, I think this is where we're stuck because we have only 2 teachers per grade in most grade levels. The only other option is hybrid, where teachers teach live and online at the same time, and most parents said they thought that would not work well for anyone. Hearst has no good options, and this plan seems like it was the least disruptive to most people, while still allowing the neediest kids to get some in-person instruction in ELL and SPED. Most people I know are fairly happy with the virtual learning at Hearst because the cohorts are small and our teachers have been awesome. Obviously some kids are not doing well, but the school has to do what works for the majority of kids, and making virtual classes huge does not work for the majority of kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This principal just 100% prioritized teachers over parents. If s/he has capital to burn with parents (long track record of happy parents at the school), it’s the easier approach since s/he has to see the teachers every day. If s/he doesn’t have that capital, this will get her/him run out of the school. Frankly, parents at my school would revolt.

THIS

The principal is protecting the people that really matter: the teachers. Good on them. The teachers make the school. The last time I checked, my kid has 20 classmates, but only one teacher. The teacher makes the class and does the teaching. If the teacher gets COVID-19, sick, and heaven forbid dies, then that will be a tragedy that could have been prevented. Be glad you have at least a virtual teacher. Under the DCPS plan, eventually a teacher will get infected. I hope not, but with this DCPS plan, it will be inevitable.

I think part of the problem is setting the bar at ‘one teacher will get infected.’ The teachers going back don’t qualify for ADA and therefore I assume they are healthy enough to be going back to work. Getting infected is not the end of the world. Many DCPS teachers may have been infected going about their daily business. Of course everyone wants to be safe but this level of fear is unhealthy.

This. And the longer the teachers are allowed to not return to work, the more entitled they become that they shouldn't have to. The Mayor and Chancellor have let this go on far too long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This principal just 100% prioritized teachers over parents. If s/he has capital to burn with parents (long track record of happy parents at the school), it’s the easier approach since s/he has to see the teachers every day. If s/he doesn’t have that capital, this will get her/him run out of the school. Frankly, parents at my school would revolt.

THIS

The principal is protecting the people that really matter: the teachers. Good on them. The teachers make the school. The last time I checked, my kid has 20 classmates, but only one teacher. The teacher makes the class and does the teaching. If the teacher gets COVID-19, sick, and heaven forbid dies, then that will be a tragedy that could have been prevented. Be glad you have at least a virtual teacher. Under the DCPS plan, eventually a teacher will get infected. I hope not, but with this DCPS plan, it will be inevitable.

I think part of the problem is setting the bar at ‘one teacher will get infected.’ The teachers going back don’t qualify for ADA and therefore I assume they are healthy enough to be going back to work. Getting infected is not the end of the world. Many DCPS teachers may have been infected going about their daily business. Of course everyone wants to be safe but this level of fear is unhealthy.

Unless you pass it along to a vulnerable family member, of course. I’m living this right now - husband’s uncle for infected by his son who is a high school teacher where the schools have been open since September. The son got a mild case; the dad is on a ventilator and not expected to survive.

Your cousin had no business socializing with his vulnerable father! Families are giving up socializing with family members to protect them too. Your desire to socialize with your family is NOT a reason to continue to refuse to do your job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did any of you Hearst complainers actually attend the grade-level meetings that solicited feedback from parents about reopening? Most parents said they did not want class size to dramatically increase or to change teachers or to get rid of departmentalization at the upper grades -- all of which would be necessary to open in-person classes in all grades. K is different because there are 3 teachers, so the other two classes can absorb the extra kids without making class sizes huge. Until all teachers and all kids are required to go back, I think this is where we're stuck because we have only 2 teachers per grade in most grade levels. The only other option is hybrid, where teachers teach live and online at the same time, and most parents said they thought that would not work well for anyone. Hearst has no good options, and this plan seems like it was the least disruptive to most people, while still allowing the neediest kids to get some in-person instruction in ELL and SPED. Most people I know are fairly happy with the virtual learning at Hearst because the cohorts are small and our teachers have been awesome. Obviously some kids are not doing well, but the school has to do what works for the majority of kids, and making virtual classes huge does not work for the majority of kids.

Not a Hearst parent, but there's an issue with the way parents understood the survey options. There are lots of parents at our school who are chomping at the bit for schools to reopen, but they said they didn't want their child to lose their teacher. It's clear they didn't understand that their preference would be interpreted as "I would rather my child remain virtual than change teachers." They seem to think they were voting to keep their teacher and reopen, and they're not ok with remaining virtual. Somewhere there's a disconnect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This principal just 100% prioritized teachers over parents. If s/he has capital to burn with parents (long track record of happy parents at the school), it’s the easier approach since s/he has to see the teachers every day. If s/he doesn’t have that capital, this will get her/him run out of the school. Frankly, parents at my school would revolt.

THIS

The principal is protecting the people that really matter: the teachers. Good on them. The teachers make the school. The last time I checked, my kid has 20 classmates, but only one teacher. The teacher makes the class and does the teaching. If the teacher gets COVID-19, sick, and heaven forbid dies, then that will be a tragedy that could have been prevented. Be glad you have at least a virtual teacher. Under the DCPS plan, eventually a teacher will get infected. I hope not, but with this DCPS plan, it will be inevitable.

I think part of the problem is setting the bar at ‘one teacher will get infected.’ The teachers going back don’t qualify for ADA and therefore I assume they are healthy enough to be going back to work. Getting infected is not the end of the world. Many DCPS teachers may have been infected going about their daily business. Of course everyone wants to be safe but this level of fear is unhealthy.

Unless you pass it along to a vulnerable family member, of course. I’m living this right now - husband’s uncle for infected by his son who is a high school teacher where the schools have been open since September. The son got a mild case; the dad is on a ventilator and not expected to survive.

Your cousin had no business socializing with his vulnerable father! Families are giving up socializing with family members to protect them too. Your desire to socialize with your family is NOT a reason to continue to refuse to do your job.

Exactly, how is this any different from any essential worker avoiding their family members during this time? Nurses, grocery store workers, everyone is doing the same thing, or facing consequences if they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did any of you Hearst complainers actually attend the grade-level meetings that solicited feedback from parents about reopening? Most parents said they did not want class size to dramatically increase or to change teachers or to get rid of departmentalization at the upper grades -- all of which would be necessary to open in-person classes in all grades. K is different because there are 3 teachers, so the other two classes can absorb the extra kids without making class sizes huge. Until all teachers and all kids are required to go back, I think this is where we're stuck because we have only 2 teachers per grade in most grade levels. The only other option is hybrid, where teachers teach live and online at the same time, and most parents said they thought that would not work well for anyone. Hearst has no good options, and this plan seems like it was the least disruptive to most people, while still allowing the neediest kids to get some in-person instruction in ELL and SPED. Most people I know are fairly happy with the virtual learning at Hearst because the cohorts are small and our teachers have been awesome. Obviously some kids are not doing well, but the school has to do what works for the majority of kids, and making virtual classes huge does not work for the majority of kids.

+1

There are no easy solutions at a small school like Hearst; bringing back more teachers on site would have caused enormous disruption for all of the kids (changes in classroom assignments, schedules, teachers) and a big theme that came through in the parent reopening meetings was "don't rock the boat." With only 2 teachers/grade it's just hard to do much more than what is proposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did any of you Hearst complainers actually attend the grade-level meetings that solicited feedback from parents about reopening? Most parents said they did not want class size to dramatically increase or to change teachers or to get rid of departmentalization at the upper grades -- all of which would be necessary to open in-person classes in all grades. K is different because there are 3 teachers, so the other two classes can absorb the extra kids without making class sizes huge. Until all teachers and all kids are required to go back, I think this is where we're stuck because we have only 2 teachers per grade in most grade levels. The only other option is hybrid, where teachers teach live and online at the same time, and most parents said they thought that would not work well for anyone. Hearst has no good options, and this plan seems like it was the least disruptive to most people, while still allowing the neediest kids to get some in-person instruction in ELL and SPED. Most people I know are fairly happy with the virtual learning at Hearst because the cohorts are small and our teachers have been awesome. Obviously some kids are not doing well, but the school has to do what works for the majority of kids, and making virtual classes huge does not work for the majority of kids.

+1

There are no easy solutions at a small school like Hearst; bringing back more teachers on site would have caused enormous disruption for all of the kids (changes in classroom assignments, schedules, teachers) and a big theme that came through in the parent reopening meetings was "don't rock the boat." With only 2 teachers/grade it's just hard to do much more than what is proposed.

Then let's start working towards commitments and goals for the fall. If there are teachers who still refuse to come in and teach after getting vaccinated, then let's figure out who those people are now so that we can hire someone to replace them who is willing to the job in person. We don't want the same "it's so hard to pivot plan" in the fall.