What time is Duran's announcement today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re in the upper elementary group, so lessons will be concurrent. We chose distance learning rather than hybrid and I’m secretly hoping my kid’s teacher will remain virtual (medical exemption?) and the classrooms will have monitors. Is that possible, or will it only be in extraordinary circumstances where some sort of waiver is granted? Would they notify parents in advance?

It’s possible, but highly unlikely. APS supposedly is taking a very strict approach to ADA accommodations now.

APS should follow the law, period. As long as it’s doing that, no one should complain.

I don’t know the laws around ADA but it APS seems to be denying most people that apply. The classroom monitor thing that fcps is doing seems to be less common in APS because fcps approved way more ADA requests.

A bit backwards in reality. APS tried to hire monitors to provide those accommodations, but didn't get enough..thus they started denying requests. They actually claim they gave them, but said: "you are provided the short-term telework accommodation until students return to school" and.."extending your accommodation will harm the organization when students return"

Teachers who have had transplants, or are currently receiving chemo, have been denied. Vaccinations might mean some people with legit CDC high-risk from Covid health issues, might be okay returning, but others either won't be despite vaccine, or can't get vaccine due to their health issues.

Honest question—do you know this firsthand? The person/people currently receiving chemo should be maybe on medical leave anyway...But it would surprise me if they denied someone post-transplant (and also, would be surprised if there are a large number of APS teachers who are transplant recipients). For the “CDC high-risk” folks, I understand the concern but, to be fair, having hypertension or a high BMI are not disabilities and if they were, we really should be picketing outside of every grocery store in the land bc I promise you people are working there every day who are also in CDC high-risk categories. But I am concerned if APS is denying WFH to employees going through cancer treatment.

Yes, I know first hand. Transplant recipients were denied. Despite being on immunosuppressant drugs etc.

So, not to be obtuse, but by firsthand, you mean this is happening to you? Are you vaccinated? I just can’t see them denying transplant recipients (nor can I see this being more than a couple of APS employees).

I am vaccinated, and will be returning. I am an organ donor, not the recipient, but I do know this has happened to recipients. I have another CDC medical issue, that was initially approved (see other post). I have heard 16% of claims were approved, but am not sure if that includes those that were approved "until students return" like mine switched to. There hasn't been much transparency, and obviously I am not asking people what their issues were. I just happen to know some people and their issues, because I knew prior to the pandemic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re in the upper elementary group, so lessons will be concurrent. We chose distance learning rather than hybrid and I’m secretly hoping my kid’s teacher will remain virtual (medical exemption?) and the classrooms will have monitors. Is that possible, or will it only be in extraordinary circumstances where some sort of waiver is granted? Would they notify parents in advance?

It’s possible, but highly unlikely. APS supposedly is taking a very strict approach to ADA accommodations now.

APS should follow the law, period. As long as it’s doing that, no one should complain.

I don’t know the laws around ADA but it APS seems to be denying most people that apply. The classroom monitor thing that fcps is doing seems to be less common in APS because fcps approved way more ADA requests.

A bit backwards in reality. APS tried to hire monitors to provide those accommodations, but didn't get enough..thus they started denying requests. They actually claim they gave them, but said: "you are provided the short-term telework accommodation until students return to school" and.."extending your accommodation will harm the organization when students return"

Teachers who have had transplants, or are currently receiving chemo, have been denied. Vaccinations might mean some people with legit CDC high-risk from Covid health issues, might be okay returning, but others either won't be despite vaccine, or can't get vaccine due to their health issues.

Honest question—do you know this firsthand? The person/people currently receiving chemo should be maybe on medical leave anyway...But it would surprise me if they denied someone post-transplant (and also, would be surprised if there are a large number of APS teachers who are transplant recipients). For the “CDC high-risk” folks, I understand the concern but, to be fair, having hypertension or a high BMI are not disabilities and if they were, we really should be picketing outside of every grocery store in the land bc I promise you people are working there every day who are also in CDC high-risk categories. But I am concerned if APS is denying WFH to employees going through cancer treatment.

Yes, I know first hand. Transplant recipients were denied. Despite being on immunosuppressant drugs etc.

So, not to be obtuse, but by firsthand, you mean this is happening to you? Are you vaccinated? I just can’t see them denying transplant recipients (nor can I see this being more than a couple of APS employees).

I am vaccinated, and will be returning. I am an organ donor, not the recipient, but I do know this has happened to recipients. I have another CDC medical issue, that was initially approved (see other post). I have heard 16% of claims were approved, but am not sure if that includes those that were approved "until students return" like mine switched to. There hasn't been much transparency, and obviously I am not asking people what their issues were. I just happen to know some people and their issues, because I knew prior to the pandemic

Here's the thing, and I say this with great compassion, and as a person whose family has a genetic issue that requires lung transplant or death- so we have many lung transplant recipients in our family (and deaths)- if you are on the level of immuno suppressant drugs as a transplant recipient, a school is probably not a good workplace for you, having nothing to do with the pandemic. If anything, the pandemic is actually kind of helpful b/c everyone is wearing masks, hyper vigilant about illness, etc. For my transplanted family members (and those waiting transplant) things like the flu are deadly. The covid vaccines appear to have a much higher efficacy rate than the flu vaccine. My transplanted family members don't work in schools- (They largely are on disability and don't work at all.) If you can't come in with a covid vaccine, you probably shouldn't be working in a school at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can there be small group work when the teacher can’t leave the desk?

Please understand this does not mean they are moving to a small table like in normal times. This is not normal times! They stay at their desks and meet in a “private” room on teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re in the upper elementary group, so lessons will be concurrent. We chose distance learning rather than hybrid and I’m secretly hoping my kid’s teacher will remain virtual (medical exemption?) and the classrooms will have monitors. Is that possible, or will it only be in extraordinary circumstances where some sort of waiver is granted? Would they notify parents in advance?

It’s possible, but highly unlikely. APS supposedly is taking a very strict approach to ADA accommodations now.

APS should follow the law, period. As long as it’s doing that, no one should complain.

I don’t know the laws around ADA but it APS seems to be denying most people that apply. The classroom monitor thing that fcps is doing seems to be less common in APS because fcps approved way more ADA requests.

A lot of people are applying for accommodations because they have babies at home or an elderly parent, which aren’t grounds for accommodations under the ADA.

Yes. The husband who has called in to the board meetings and opened with, “Please don’t kill my wife”, because she is a teacher who is breastfeeding makes me NUTS. Girl, get an extra breast bump and get in your classroom.

[Anonymous]

Part of the problem here is that so many teachers are submitting total bs accommodation requests that it puts APS in a position of having to take a hard line on all requests. If the people submitting requests based on close relatives with risk factors were limited only to people who actually live with people with critical health needs, it would be a lot easier for APS to be lenient in granting those requests even though they don’t strictly have to. When you have people making requests to teach virtually because their dad has a heart condition but dad lives an hour away and the teacher isn’t responsible for any direct care, that’s a garbage pretense to try to get an accommodation that has no grounds other than the teacher would rather keep working from home. APS can’t feasibly drill down into all of these requests and figure out what valid and what’s a pretense, so instead they deny all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem here is that so many teachers are submitting total bs accommodation requests that it puts APS in a position of having to take a hard line on all requests. If the people submitting requests based on close relatives with risk factors were limited only to people who actually live with people with critical health needs, it would be a lot easier for APS to be lenient in granting those requests even though they don’t strictly have to. When you have people making requests to teach virtually because their dad has a heart condition but dad lives an hour away and the teacher isn’t responsible for any direct care, that’s a garbage pretense to try to get an accommodation that has no grounds other than the teacher would rather keep working from home. APS can’t feasibly drill down into all of these requests and figure out what valid and what’s a pretense, so instead they deny all of them.

But people aren't applying for accommodations because of dad living miles away. The categories for both rounds was clear. A family member with a high risk condition was defined as one in the same household and you needed to provide documentation from a physician of the condition of that family member and how they are in your household. The specific list of conditions also required documentation from a physician.

The confusion in APS is primarily arising because they sent out form for the 2nd round with the SAME categories as the first round to apply for extending the leave. But then multiple of those categories no longer qualified since they were now going by ADA and not CDC.

Employees applying were not told until they received the denial that the criteria were now different. APS did not communicate that the guidelines for qualifying for round 2 was a completely different set of criteria, and they used a form with options/reasons that still had all the categories from the first round/CDC guidelines.

Why allow an employee to apply based upon childcare issues, pregnancy, or living with a high risk family member if those categories don't qualify? These options were on the application form for round 2. It is just making more work for the HR department to go through all these requests that already don't qualify and document responses, etc. APS should have very clearly communicated the new criteria.

[Anonymous]

I feel like people don't understand what an accommodation is under the ADA. It doesn't mean you get to work remotely forever. One accommodation is to put plexiglass up. The one used in schools is masks and distance. Just because you are high risk doesn't guarantee work from home. People should really read the regs and guidance that has come out before they make these assumptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can there be small group work when the teacher can’t leave the desk?

Kids not in the active small group put on their headphones and do independent work while the teacher and small group engage from their desks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people don't understand what an accommodation is under the ADA. It doesn't mean you get to work remotely forever. One accommodation is to put plexiglass up. The one used in schools is masks and distance. Just because you are high risk doesn't guarantee work from home. People should really read the regs and guidance that has come out before they make these assumptions.

You are correct. However APS did not tell anyone applying that they were using ADA. They still listed the CARES/CDC guidelines but then used ADA to assess the applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people don't understand what an accommodation is under the ADA. It doesn't mean you get to work remotely forever. One accommodation is to put plexiglass up. The one used in schools is masks and distance. Just because you are high risk doesn't guarantee work from home. People should really read the regs and guidance that has come out before they make these assumptions.

You are correct. However APS did not tell anyone applying that they were using ADA. They still listed the CARES/CDC guidelines but then used ADA to assess the applications.

I understand your frustration. The HR guy (I'm blanking on his name) explained this to the SB a few meetings ago- basically they were initially planning to use CARES/CDC guidelines, but then realized they would also have to consider it under the ADA since that was the legal rqmt, so rather than making it a 3 step process (apply under CARES, get denied, apply under ADA, get denied, appeal) they streamlined it to just apply under the ADA.

I suspect the real reason, however is something along these lines.
Teaching and Learning is in way over its head- and cannot figure out how to manage this. They are constantly changing the model, which correspondingly changes the staffing needs. So initially it was going to be hybrid classes and virtual classes. Virtual classes would have a virtual teacher, hybrid classes would have an in person teacher. Under that model- there is a significant need for virtual teachers, and so it made sense to be liberal with granting virtual teaching requests. Then they start pushing out 'concurrent'. Initially it is just going to be concurrent for a few specialized high school classes, then it becomes all of high school, then all of middle school, and now going down to third grade. This of course takes place over many many months. Well no sane person really thinks that having a remote teacher, with a largely in person class, is in any sense an appropriate teaching model. So now APS really doesn't want to grant any requests to teach virtually b/c (other than k-2) it has largely done away with its 'virtual' positions. Theoretically, there could be a teacher who currently teaches 4th grade for example, but is fully qualified to teach 1st grade- so they should at least consider the request and see if they should move to teaching 1st grade virtually. There is also a fair amount of doublespeak happening at syphax, which makes it hard to trust anything that is said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem here is that so many teachers are submitting total bs accommodation requests that it puts APS in a position of having to take a hard line on all requests. If the people submitting requests based on close relatives with risk factors were limited only to people who actually live with people with critical health needs, it would be a lot easier for APS to be lenient in granting those requests even though they don’t strictly have to. When you have people making requests to teach virtually because their dad has a heart condition but dad lives an hour away and the teacher isn’t responsible for any direct care, that’s a garbage pretense to try to get an accommodation that has no grounds other than the teacher would rather keep working from home. APS can’t feasibly drill down into all of these requests and figure out what valid and what’s a pretense, so instead they deny all of them.

This.

and also just hearing a story that someone was denied that sounds bad isn't really enough to know what happened. Did the person submit the request properly? Did they have actual medical evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people don't understand what an accommodation is under the ADA. It doesn't mean you get to work remotely forever. One accommodation is to put plexiglass up. The one used in schools is masks and distance. Just because you are high risk doesn't guarantee work from home. People should really read the regs and guidance that has come out before they make these assumptions.

You are correct. However APS did not tell anyone applying that they were using ADA. They still listed the CARES/CDC guidelines but then used ADA to assess the applications.

I understand your frustration. The HR guy (I'm blanking on his name) explained this to the SB a few meetings ago- basically they were initially planning to use CARES/CDC guidelines, but then realized they would also have to consider it under the ADA since that was the legal rqmt, so rather than making it a 3 step process (apply under CARES, get denied, apply under ADA, get denied, appeal) they streamlined it to just apply under the ADA.

I suspect the real reason, however is something along these lines.
Teaching and Learning is in way over its head- and cannot figure out how to manage this. They are constantly changing the model, which correspondingly changes the staffing needs. So initially it was going to be hybrid classes and virtual classes. Virtual classes would have a virtual teacher, hybrid classes would have an in person teacher. Under that model- there is a significant need for virtual teachers, and so it made sense to be liberal with granting virtual teaching requests. Then they start pushing out 'concurrent'. Initially it is just going to be concurrent for a few specialized high school classes, then it becomes all of high school, then all of middle school, and now going down to third grade. This of course takes place over many many months. Well no sane person really thinks that having a remote teacher, with a largely in person class, is in any sense an appropriate teaching model. So now APS really doesn't want to grant any requests to teach virtually b/c (other than k-2) it has largely done away with its 'virtual' positions. Theoretically, there could be a teacher who currently teaches 4th grade for example, but is fully qualified to teach 1st grade- so they should at least consider the request and see if they should move to teaching 1st grade virtually. There is also a fair amount of doublespeak happening at syphax, which makes it hard to trust anything that is said.

This is a great explanation that really explains everything coming out of teaching and learning this year. They really screwed themselves and everyone with the lack of planning and constant model shifting. Also, this is a product of APS taking a “survey” approach to deciding who gets in person instruction. Should have started with who needs it and staffed that way. This is what DC did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people don't understand what an accommodation is under the ADA. It doesn't mean you get to work remotely forever. One accommodation is to put plexiglass up. The one used in schools is masks and distance. Just because you are high risk doesn't guarantee work from home. People should really read the regs and guidance that has come out before they make these assumptions.

You are correct. However APS did not tell anyone applying that they were using ADA. They still listed the CARES/CDC guidelines but then used ADA to assess the applications.

I understand your frustration. The HR guy (I'm blanking on his name) explained this to the SB a few meetings ago- basically they were initially planning to use CARES/CDC guidelines, but then realized they would also have to consider it under the ADA since that was the legal rqmt, so rather than making it a 3 step process (apply under CARES, get denied, apply under ADA, get denied, appeal) they streamlined it to just apply under the ADA.

I suspect the real reason, however is something along these lines.
Teaching and Learning is in way over its head- and cannot figure out how to manage this. They are constantly changing the model, which correspondingly changes the staffing needs. So initially it was going to be hybrid classes and virtual classes. Virtual classes would have a virtual teacher, hybrid classes would have an in person teacher. Under that model- there is a significant need for virtual teachers, and so it made sense to be liberal with granting virtual teaching requests. Then they start pushing out 'concurrent'. Initially it is just going to be concurrent for a few specialized high school classes, then it becomes all of high school, then all of middle school, and now going down to third grade. This of course takes place over many many months. Well no sane person really thinks that having a remote teacher, with a largely in person class, is in any sense an appropriate teaching model. So now APS really doesn't want to grant any requests to teach virtually b/c (other than k-2) it has largely done away with its 'virtual' positions. Theoretically, there could be a teacher who currently teaches 4th grade for example, but is fully qualified to teach 1st grade- so they should at least consider the request and see if they should move to teaching 1st grade virtually. There is also a fair amount of doublespeak happening at syphax, which makes it hard to trust anything that is said.

This is a great explanation that really explains everything coming out of teaching and learning this year. They really screwed themselves and everyone with the lack of planning and constant model shifting. Also, this is a product of APS taking a “survey” approach to deciding who gets in person instruction. Should have started with who needs it and staffed that way. This is what DC did.

Thank you, PPs for the excellent explanations. I feel for teachers but my son with an IEP that is short of a full one on one aide isn’t getting the accommodations he is supposed to get BY LAW either. Enough is enough.

[Anonymous]

Why did they switch 3-5 to concurrent? That still doesn't make sense to me. Was it solely to appease parents complaining about switching teachers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people don't understand what an accommodation is under the ADA. It doesn't mean you get to work remotely forever. One accommodation is to put plexiglass up. The one used in schools is masks and distance. Just because you are high risk doesn't guarantee work from home. People should really read the regs and guidance that has come out before they make these assumptions.

You are correct. However APS did not tell anyone applying that they were using ADA. They still listed the CARES/CDC guidelines but then used ADA to assess the applications.

I understand your frustration. The HR guy (I'm blanking on his name) explained this to the SB a few meetings ago- basically they were initially planning to use CARES/CDC guidelines, but then realized they would also have to consider it under the ADA since that was the legal rqmt, so rather than making it a 3 step process (apply under CARES, get denied, apply under ADA, get denied, appeal) they streamlined it to just apply under the ADA.

I suspect the real reason, however is something along these lines.
Teaching and Learning is in way over its head- and cannot figure out how to manage this. They are constantly changing the model, which correspondingly changes the staffing needs. So initially it was going to be hybrid classes and virtual classes. Virtual classes would have a virtual teacher, hybrid classes would have an in person teacher. Under that model- there is a significant need for virtual teachers, and so it made sense to be liberal with granting virtual teaching requests. Then they start pushing out 'concurrent'. Initially it is just going to be concurrent for a few specialized high school classes, then it becomes all of high school, then all of middle school, and now going down to third grade. This of course takes place over many many months. Well no sane person really thinks that having a remote teacher, with a largely in person class, is in any sense an appropriate teaching model. So now APS really doesn't want to grant any requests to teach virtually b/c (other than k-2) it has largely done away with its 'virtual' positions. Theoretically, there could be a teacher who currently teaches 4th grade for example, but is fully qualified to teach 1st grade- so they should at least consider the request and see if they should move to teaching 1st grade virtually. There is also a fair amount of doublespeak happening at syphax, which makes it hard to trust anything that is said.

This is a great explanation that really explains everything coming out of teaching and learning this year. They really screwed themselves and everyone with the lack of planning and constant model shifting. Also, this is a product of APS taking a “survey” approach to deciding who gets in person instruction. Should have started with who needs it and staffed that way. This is what DC did.

yeah- I don't think either Duran or Loft have any elementary school experience. By all accounts Loft was an outstanding principal at Swanson, I'm honestly befuddled at what Duran brings to the table, he appears to have very little teaching experience, and is rather a bouncing administrator. Compounding this difficulty, Loft (who I actually like on a personal level) has a really bad tendency to speak in absolutes, that she then has to back track from ('it would be unconsciounable to teach new material in a distance learning format; the concurrent model would be developmentally inappropriate for middle school.) They appear to listen to the voice of the moment, which causes this wild pendulum swing-this is focused on elementary school- 1. spring time, unconsciounable to do DL, teachers are having such a rough time caring for their families, we need to let them do that; Then it appears they announced this crazy hybrid plan where students would be in the classroom 2 days, and in asynch activities 3 days a week. No explanation for how 3 days of asynch activities are appropriate for elementary, and appears to fly in the face of research showing that elementary homework is irrelevant. Then they swing to an equally crazy plan where a teacher will somehow monitor two classrooms, and jump back and forth between the two classrooms while trading with an aide. They apparently announced this plan without checking if they had staffing to support it- then concluded they didn't. So then they go to concurrent.

It appears that the 'teaching' model is being entirely centrally driven, and then it shifts. It does not appear that they are willing to look either at districts that have already reopened nor are they willing to consult their own elementary principals or staff. I would trust Ms. Graves at Drew to come up with an appropriate model for elementary school. She has the knowledge and skills to do so.