Any chance DCPS reopens in person for Term 2 or Term 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those recommending 1 or 2 lower grades are back in school need a reality check. How do you think those kids get to school? For Title 1 schools - it is not uncommon for an older sibling (4th or 5th grader) to take them with them.

This is not an easy problem for a diverse urban area to solve.

This is not an inconvenience of dropping off 1 child as you supervise an older student and coordinating a car pool

You are confused because you are reading the posts purporting to care about the poor underserved families as genuine concern for those families. But that's all a smoke screen for these posters to get their kids out of the house and back into their own schools. The actual complications of "diverse urban area(s)" or Title I populations don't actually concern them.

I don't know what you're talking about. I want K and 1st prioritized specifically because it will help the kids who need it most. Objecting to that on the grounds that "they might have an older sibling who walks them to school!" is just frankly bizarre. My kid is in 3rd, so this has nothing to do with getting him back to school. I'm also a little tired of all the patronizing towards Title I schools and families, as if you don't think there's any way they could get it together to get their kids to school? Why would you think that? And if you don't think they can figure out how to get their kids to school, why would you think DL is better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those recommending 1 or 2 lower grades are back in school need a reality check. How do you think those kids get to school? For Title 1 schools - it is not uncommon for an older sibling (4th or 5th grader) to take them with them.

This is not an easy problem for a diverse urban area to solve.

This is not an inconvenience of dropping off 1 child as you supervise an older student and coordinating a car pool

You are confused because you are reading the posts purporting to care about the poor underserved families as genuine concern for those families. But that's all a smoke screen for these posters to get their kids out of the house and back into their own schools. The actual complications of "diverse urban area(s)" or Title I populations don't actually concern them.

I don't know what you're talking about. I want K and 1st prioritized specifically because it will help the kids who need it most. Objecting to that on the grounds that "they might have an older sibling who walks them to school!" is just frankly bizarre. My kid is in 3rd, so this has nothing to do with getting him back to school. I'm also a little tired of all the patronizing towards Title I schools and families, as if you don't think there's any way they could get it together to get their kids to school? Why would you think that? And if you don't think they can figure out how to get their kids to school, why would you think DL is better?

There's a lot to unpack there. Mostly because of how tightly wound the misdirection and BS is packed. No one is "objecting". I think what PPP was saying was that it isn't as simple as "let's get the PK3 kids back into school because that's all that matters." There are other considerations here. There are SOOOOOO many posts in DCUM where people actually type the words "this is easy", "this isn't complicated", "all we need is willpower", etc. What's most amusing about your reply is that you cannot even grasp that the concern articulated by PPP is a real one. Which also makes your objection to being patronized so funny. Two sentences after illustrating that you simply cannot grasp why some else's concerns might be relevant for at least consideration (you called it "bizarre"), and one sentence after you clarify that you don't actually have to solve for the operational challenges cited (your kid is in 3rd grade only), you then object to being accused of not even seeing a possible issue. But what comes next is my favorite part. After showing indifference and ignorance to the plight of differently situated families you then go on to speak on behalf of the Title I schools and families. This is rhetorical genius! And it is complete with multiple references to "they"; trust me, you didn't need to emphasize that word in order for us to understand you are talking about "them" and not "you". Finally, you insert the frequently deployed on DCUM red herring that anyone has argued that DL is preferable to in-person from an educational perspective. No one has said, and I sure don't believe it. Unfortunately that's not the question we're solving for. We're solving for a public health crisis and then within that rubric we need to figure out how to operate schools.

[Anonymous]

DC’s positivity rate continues to nosedive. It’s now at 1.3 percent (back in March it was 40 percent). We have the sixth lowest positivity rate — the share of coronavirus tests that come back positive — in the country. Really just fantastic numbers in DC.

We should be among the first to reopen schools (though of course we aren’t).

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/testing-positivity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those recommending 1 or 2 lower grades are back in school need a reality check. How do you think those kids get to school? For Title 1 schools - it is not uncommon for an older sibling (4th or 5th grader) to take them with them.

This is not an easy problem for a diverse urban area to solve.

This is not an inconvenience of dropping off 1 child as you supervise an older student and coordinating a car pool

You are confused because you are reading the posts purporting to care about the poor underserved families as genuine concern for those families. But that's all a smoke screen for these posters to get their kids out of the house and back into their own schools. The actual complications of "diverse urban area(s)" or Title I populations don't actually concern them.

I don't know what you're talking about. I want K and 1st prioritized specifically because it will help the kids who need it most. Objecting to that on the grounds that "they might have an older sibling who walks them to school!" is just frankly bizarre. My kid is in 3rd, so this has nothing to do with getting him back to school. I'm also a little tired of all the patronizing towards Title I schools and families, as if you don't think there's any way they could get it together to get their kids to school? Why would you think that? And if you don't think they can figure out how to get their kids to school, why would you think DL is better?

There's a lot to unpack there. Mostly because of how tightly wound the misdirection and BS is packed. No one is "objecting". I think what PPP was saying was that it isn't as simple as "let's get the PK3 kids back into school because that's all that matters." There are other considerations here. There are SOOOOOO many posts in DCUM where people actually type the words "this is easy", "this isn't complicated", "all we need is willpower", etc. What's most amusing about your reply is that you cannot even grasp that the concern articulated by PPP is a real one. Which also makes your objection to being patronized so funny. Two sentences after illustrating that you simply cannot grasp why some else's concerns might be relevant for at least consideration (you called it "bizarre"), and one sentence after you clarify that you don't actually have to solve for the operational challenges cited (your kid is in 3rd grade only), you then object to being accused of not even seeing a possible issue. But what comes next is my favorite part. After showing indifference and ignorance to the plight of differently situated families you then go on to speak on behalf of the Title I schools and families. This is rhetorical genius! And it is complete with multiple references to "they"; trust me, you didn't need to emphasize that word in order for us to understand you are talking about "them" and not "you". Finally, you insert the frequently deployed on DCUM red herring that anyone has argued that DL is preferable to in-person from an educational perspective. No one has said, and I sure don't believe it. Unfortunately that's not the question we're solving for. We're solving for a public health crisis and then within that rubric we need to figure out how to operate schools.

wow, that's sure a wall of text. I'm trying to figure out what your angle is. I'm guessing teacher or admin who doesn't want to go back to school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC’s positivity rate continues to nosedive. It’s now at 1.3 percent (back in March it was 40 percent). We have the sixth lowest positivity rate — the share of coronavirus tests that come back positive — in the country. Really just fantastic numbers in DC.

We should be among the first to reopen schools (though of course we aren’t).

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/testing-positivity

I have faith. I think that the DCPS teachers are going to see en masse how stinkin' hard online teaching is, and they're going to see other places going back to school safely. There will be support and I am guessing that DCPS will have kids back into the classroom faster than surrounding school districts. This is one case where our charter system is helpful because DCPS can learn from the charters sticking their toes into the water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those recommending 1 or 2 lower grades are back in school need a reality check. How do you think those kids get to school? For Title 1 schools - it is not uncommon for an older sibling (4th or 5th grader) to take them with them.

This is not an easy problem for a diverse urban area to solve.

This is not an inconvenience of dropping off 1 child as you supervise an older student and coordinating a car pool

You are confused because you are reading the posts purporting to care about the poor underserved families as genuine concern for those families. But that's all a smoke screen for these posters to get their kids out of the house and back into their own schools. The actual complications of "diverse urban area(s)" or Title I populations don't actually concern them.

I don't know what you're talking about. I want K and 1st prioritized specifically because it will help the kids who need it most. Objecting to that on the grounds that "they might have an older sibling who walks them to school!" is just frankly bizarre. My kid is in 3rd, so this has nothing to do with getting him back to school. I'm also a little tired of all the patronizing towards Title I schools and families, as if you don't think there's any way they could get it together to get their kids to school? Why would you think that? And if you don't think they can figure out how to get their kids to school, why would you think DL is better?

There's a lot to unpack there. Mostly because of how tightly wound the misdirection and BS is packed. No one is "objecting". I think what PPP was saying was that it isn't as simple as "let's get the PK3 kids back into school because that's all that matters." There are other considerations here. There are SOOOOOO many posts in DCUM where people actually type the words "this is easy", "this isn't complicated", "all we need is willpower", etc. What's most amusing about your reply is that you cannot even grasp that the concern articulated by PPP is a real one. Which also makes your objection to being patronized so funny. Two sentences after illustrating that you simply cannot grasp why some else's concerns might be relevant for at least consideration (you called it "bizarre"), and one sentence after you clarify that you don't actually have to solve for the operational challenges cited (your kid is in 3rd grade only), you then object to being accused of not even seeing a possible issue. But what comes next is my favorite part. After showing indifference and ignorance to the plight of differently situated families you then go on to speak on behalf of the Title I schools and families. This is rhetorical genius! And it is complete with multiple references to "they"; trust me, you didn't need to emphasize that word in order for us to understand you are talking about "them" and not "you". Finally, you insert the frequently deployed on DCUM red herring that anyone has argued that DL is preferable to in-person from an educational perspective. No one has said, and I sure don't believe it. Unfortunately that's not the question we're solving for. We're solving for a public health crisis and then within that rubric we need to figure out how to operate schools.

TLR

The short version: I’m a teacher and I hate statistics and data and facts and I’m never going to go to work again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC’s positivity rate continues to nosedive. It’s now at 1.3 percent (back in March it was 40 percent). We have the sixth lowest positivity rate — the share of coronavirus tests that come back positive — in the country. Really just fantastic numbers in DC.

We should be among the first to reopen schools (though of course we aren’t).

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/testing-positivity

I have faith. I think that the DCPS teachers are going to see en masse how stinkin' hard online teaching is, and they're going to see other places going back to school safely. There will be support and I am guessing that DCPS will have kids back into the classroom faster than surrounding school districts. This is one case where our charter system is helpful because DCPS can learn from the charters sticking their toes into the water.

Somebody has to show some leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those recommending 1 or 2 lower grades are back in school need a reality check. How do you think those kids get to school? For Title 1 schools - it is not uncommon for an older sibling (4th or 5th grader) to take them with them.

This is not an easy problem for a diverse urban area to solve.

This is not an inconvenience of dropping off 1 child as you supervise an older student and coordinating a car pool

You are confused because you are reading the posts purporting to care about the poor underserved families as genuine concern for those families. But that's all a smoke screen for these posters to get their kids out of the house and back into their own schools. The actual complications of "diverse urban area(s)" or Title I populations don't actually concern them.

I don't know what you're talking about. I want K and 1st prioritized specifically because it will help the kids who need it most. Objecting to that on the grounds that "they might have an older sibling who walks them to school!" is just frankly bizarre. My kid is in 3rd, so this has nothing to do with getting him back to school. I'm also a little tired of all the patronizing towards Title I schools and families, as if you don't think there's any way they could get it together to get their kids to school? Why would you think that? And if you don't think they can figure out how to get their kids to school, why would you think DL is better?

There's a lot to unpack there. Mostly because of how tightly wound the misdirection and BS is packed. No one is "objecting". I think what PPP was saying was that it isn't as simple as "let's get the PK3 kids back into school because that's all that matters." There are other considerations here. There are SOOOOOO many posts in DCUM where people actually type the words "this is easy", "this isn't complicated", "all we need is willpower", etc. What's most amusing about your reply is that you cannot even grasp that the concern articulated by PPP is a real one. Which also makes your objection to being patronized so funny. Two sentences after illustrating that you simply cannot grasp why some else's concerns might be relevant for at least consideration (you called it "bizarre"), and one sentence after you clarify that you don't actually have to solve for the operational challenges cited (your kid is in 3rd grade only), you then object to being accused of not even seeing a possible issue. But what comes next is my favorite part. After showing indifference and ignorance to the plight of differently situated families you then go on to speak on behalf of the Title I schools and families. This is rhetorical genius! And it is complete with multiple references to "they"; trust me, you didn't need to emphasize that word in order for us to understand you are talking about "them" and not "you". Finally, you insert the frequently deployed on DCUM red herring that anyone has argued that DL is preferable to in-person from an educational perspective. No one has said, and I sure don't believe it. Unfortunately that's not the question we're solving for. We're solving for a public health crisis and then within that rubric we need to figure out how to operate schools.

TLR

The short version: I’m a teacher and I hate statistics and data and facts and I’m never going to go to work again.

‘I’m a parent and I hate being with my kid’

[Anonymous]

When DCPS returns, if I see a single post complaining about the hybrid schedule or how the class is cancelled due to some outbreak I’m going to report it. I’m NOT a teacher, but this thread has gotten ridiculous. People are taking about forcing vaccines on adults and pretty much calling teachers monsters. Look at yourselves. This is insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those recommending 1 or 2 lower grades are back in school need a reality check. How do you think those kids get to school? For Title 1 schools - it is not uncommon for an older sibling (4th or 5th grader) to take them with them.

This is not an easy problem for a diverse urban area to solve.

This is not an inconvenience of dropping off 1 child as you supervise an older student and coordinating a car pool

You are confused because you are reading the posts purporting to care about the poor underserved families as genuine concern for those families. But that's all a smoke screen for these posters to get their kids out of the house and back into their own schools. The actual complications of "diverse urban area(s)" or Title I populations don't actually concern them.

I don't know what you're talking about. I want K and 1st prioritized specifically because it will help the kids who need it most. Objecting to that on the grounds that "they might have an older sibling who walks them to school!" is just frankly bizarre. My kid is in 3rd, so this has nothing to do with getting him back to school. I'm also a little tired of all the patronizing towards Title I schools and families, as if you don't think there's any way they could get it together to get their kids to school? Why would you think that? And if you don't think they can figure out how to get their kids to school, why would you think DL is better?

There's a lot to unpack there. Mostly because of how tightly wound the misdirection and BS is packed. No one is "objecting". I think what PPP was saying was that it isn't as simple as "let's get the PK3 kids back into school because that's all that matters." There are other considerations here. There are SOOOOOO many posts in DCUM where people actually type the words "this is easy", "this isn't complicated", "all we need is willpower", etc. What's most amusing about your reply is that you cannot even grasp that the concern articulated by PPP is a real one. Which also makes your objection to being patronized so funny. Two sentences after illustrating that you simply cannot grasp why some else's concerns might be relevant for at least consideration (you called it "bizarre"), and one sentence after you clarify that you don't actually have to solve for the operational challenges cited (your kid is in 3rd grade only), you then object to being accused of not even seeing a possible issue. But what comes next is my favorite part. After showing indifference and ignorance to the plight of differently situated families you then go on to speak on behalf of the Title I schools and families. This is rhetorical genius! And it is complete with multiple references to "they"; trust me, you didn't need to emphasize that word in order for us to understand you are talking about "them" and not "you". Finally, you insert the frequently deployed on DCUM red herring that anyone has argued that DL is preferable to in-person from an educational perspective. No one has said, and I sure don't believe it. Unfortunately that's not the question we're solving for. We're solving for a public health crisis and then within that rubric we need to figure out how to operate schools.

wow, that's sure a wall of text. I'm trying to figure out what your angle is. I'm guessing teacher or admin who doesn't want to go back to school?

Mr. "I am a junior statistician" can't read some words? Not a teacher. Not an admin. Just a parent with kids in the DC schools. Instead of trying to figure out what someone's angle is, why not just try and understand where someone else is coming from and that maybe, just maybe, people with different perspectives aren't evil or plotting against you or to be dismissed with ad hominem attacks. But there seem to be a whole lot of you who reply to every thoughtful post about your misinterpretation of data, failure to grasp nuance or complete lack of empathy with "Teachers bad."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those recommending 1 or 2 lower grades are back in school need a reality check. How do you think those kids get to school? For Title 1 schools - it is not uncommon for an older sibling (4th or 5th grader) to take them with them.

This is not an easy problem for a diverse urban area to solve.

This is not an inconvenience of dropping off 1 child as you supervise an older student and coordinating a car pool

You are confused because you are reading the posts purporting to care about the poor underserved families as genuine concern for those families. But that's all a smoke screen for these posters to get their kids out of the house and back into their own schools. The actual complications of "diverse urban area(s)" or Title I populations don't actually concern them.

I don't know what you're talking about. I want K and 1st prioritized specifically because it will help the kids who need it most. Objecting to that on the grounds that "they might have an older sibling who walks them to school!" is just frankly bizarre. My kid is in 3rd, so this has nothing to do with getting him back to school. I'm also a little tired of all the patronizing towards Title I schools and families, as if you don't think there's any way they could get it together to get their kids to school? Why would you think that? And if you don't think they can figure out how to get their kids to school, why would you think DL is better?

There's a lot to unpack there. Mostly because of how tightly wound the misdirection and BS is packed. No one is "objecting". I think what PPP was saying was that it isn't as simple as "let's get the PK3 kids back into school because that's all that matters." There are other considerations here. There are SOOOOOO many posts in DCUM where people actually type the words "this is easy", "this isn't complicated", "all we need is willpower", etc. What's most amusing about your reply is that you cannot even grasp that the concern articulated by PPP is a real one. Which also makes your objection to being patronized so funny. Two sentences after illustrating that you simply cannot grasp why some else's concerns might be relevant for at least consideration (you called it "bizarre"), and one sentence after you clarify that you don't actually have to solve for the operational challenges cited (your kid is in 3rd grade only), you then object to being accused of not even seeing a possible issue. But what comes next is my favorite part. After showing indifference and ignorance to the plight of differently situated families you then go on to speak on behalf of the Title I schools and families. This is rhetorical genius! And it is complete with multiple references to "they"; trust me, you didn't need to emphasize that word in order for us to understand you are talking about "them" and not "you". Finally, you insert the frequently deployed on DCUM red herring that anyone has argued that DL is preferable to in-person from an educational perspective. No one has said, and I sure don't believe it. Unfortunately that's not the question we're solving for. We're solving for a public health crisis and then within that rubric we need to figure out how to operate schools.

TLR

The short version: I’m a teacher and I hate statistics and data and facts and I’m never going to go to work again.

‘I’m a parent and I hate being with my kid’

Actually my kids are at camp. Was sad not to get to hang out with them as much but they need to be around other children and they need to get back to learning things (since it wasn’t happening with distance learning). It’s been so far so good. They love it and we can actually do our jobs now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those recommending 1 or 2 lower grades are back in school need a reality check. How do you think those kids get to school? For Title 1 schools - it is not uncommon for an older sibling (4th or 5th grader) to take them with them.

This is not an easy problem for a diverse urban area to solve.

This is not an inconvenience of dropping off 1 child as you supervise an older student and coordinating a car pool

You are confused because you are reading the posts purporting to care about the poor underserved families as genuine concern for those families. But that's all a smoke screen for these posters to get their kids out of the house and back into their own schools. The actual complications of "diverse urban area(s)" or Title I populations don't actually concern them.

I don't know what you're talking about. I want K and 1st prioritized specifically because it will help the kids who need it most. Objecting to that on the grounds that "they might have an older sibling who walks them to school!" is just frankly bizarre. My kid is in 3rd, so this has nothing to do with getting him back to school. I'm also a little tired of all the patronizing towards Title I schools and families, as if you don't think there's any way they could get it together to get their kids to school? Why would you think that? And if you don't think they can figure out how to get their kids to school, why would you think DL is better?

There's a lot to unpack there. Mostly because of how tightly wound the misdirection and BS is packed. No one is "objecting". I think what PPP was saying was that it isn't as simple as "let's get the PK3 kids back into school because that's all that matters." There are other considerations here. There are SOOOOOO many posts in DCUM where people actually type the words "this is easy", "this isn't complicated", "all we need is willpower", etc. What's most amusing about your reply is that you cannot even grasp that the concern articulated by PPP is a real one. Which also makes your objection to being patronized so funny. Two sentences after illustrating that you simply cannot grasp why some else's concerns might be relevant for at least consideration (you called it "bizarre"), and one sentence after you clarify that you don't actually have to solve for the operational challenges cited (your kid is in 3rd grade only), you then object to being accused of not even seeing a possible issue. But what comes next is my favorite part. After showing indifference and ignorance to the plight of differently situated families you then go on to speak on behalf of the Title I schools and families. This is rhetorical genius! And it is complete with multiple references to "they"; trust me, you didn't need to emphasize that word in order for us to understand you are talking about "them" and not "you". Finally, you insert the frequently deployed on DCUM red herring that anyone has argued that DL is preferable to in-person from an educational perspective. No one has said, and I sure don't believe it. Unfortunately that's not the question we're solving for. We're solving for a public health crisis and then within that rubric we need to figure out how to operate schools.

TLR

The short version: I’m a teacher and I hate statistics and data and facts and I’m never going to go to work again.

There it is in a nutshell. A once in a generation pandemic upends the world and you want to solve it with one sentence silliness. Because reading is too hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those recommending 1 or 2 lower grades are back in school need a reality check. How do you think those kids get to school? For Title 1 schools - it is not uncommon for an older sibling (4th or 5th grader) to take them with them.

This is not an easy problem for a diverse urban area to solve.

This is not an inconvenience of dropping off 1 child as you supervise an older student and coordinating a car pool

You are confused because you are reading the posts purporting to care about the poor underserved families as genuine concern for those families. But that's all a smoke screen for these posters to get their kids out of the house and back into their own schools. The actual complications of "diverse urban area(s)" or Title I populations don't actually concern them.

I don't know what you're talking about. I want K and 1st prioritized specifically because it will help the kids who need it most. Objecting to that on the grounds that "they might have an older sibling who walks them to school!" is just frankly bizarre. My kid is in 3rd, so this has nothing to do with getting him back to school. I'm also a little tired of all the patronizing towards Title I schools and families, as if you don't think there's any way they could get it together to get their kids to school? Why would you think that? And if you don't think they can figure out how to get their kids to school, why would you think DL is better?

There's a lot to unpack there. Mostly because of how tightly wound the misdirection and BS is packed. No one is "objecting". I think what PPP was saying was that it isn't as simple as "let's get the PK3 kids back into school because that's all that matters." There are other considerations here. There are SOOOOOO many posts in DCUM where people actually type the words "this is easy", "this isn't complicated", "all we need is willpower", etc. What's most amusing about your reply is that you cannot even grasp that the concern articulated by PPP is a real one. Which also makes your objection to being patronized so funny. Two sentences after illustrating that you simply cannot grasp why some else's concerns might be relevant for at least consideration (you called it "bizarre"), and one sentence after you clarify that you don't actually have to solve for the operational challenges cited (your kid is in 3rd grade only), you then object to being accused of not even seeing a possible issue. But what comes next is my favorite part. After showing indifference and ignorance to the plight of differently situated families you then go on to speak on behalf of the Title I schools and families. This is rhetorical genius! And it is complete with multiple references to "they"; trust me, you didn't need to emphasize that word in order for us to understand you are talking about "them" and not "you". Finally, you insert the frequently deployed on DCUM red herring that anyone has argued that DL is preferable to in-person from an educational perspective. No one has said, and I sure don't believe it. Unfortunately that's not the question we're solving for. We're solving for a public health crisis and then within that rubric we need to figure out how to operate schools.

TLR

The short version: I’m a teacher and I hate statistics and data and facts and I’m never going to go to work again.

‘I’m a parent and I hate being with my kid’

Actually my kids are at camp. Was sad not to get to hang out with them as much but they need to be around other children and they need to get back to learning things (since it wasn’t happening with distance learning). It’s been so far so good. They love it and we can actually do our jobs now.

If your kids are at camp instead of in DL school then your kids are 3 and 4. I love the idea that parents of 3 and 4 year olds think the entire education system should be built around their needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those recommending 1 or 2 lower grades are back in school need a reality check. How do you think those kids get to school? For Title 1 schools - it is not uncommon for an older sibling (4th or 5th grader) to take them with them.

This is not an easy problem for a diverse urban area to solve.

This is not an inconvenience of dropping off 1 child as you supervise an older student and coordinating a car pool

You are confused because you are reading the posts purporting to care about the poor underserved families as genuine concern for those families. But that's all a smoke screen for these posters to get their kids out of the house and back into their own schools. The actual complications of "diverse urban area(s)" or Title I populations don't actually concern them.

I don't know what you're talking about. I want K and 1st prioritized specifically because it will help the kids who need it most. Objecting to that on the grounds that "they might have an older sibling who walks them to school!" is just frankly bizarre. My kid is in 3rd, so this has nothing to do with getting him back to school. I'm also a little tired of all the patronizing towards Title I schools and families, as if you don't think there's any way they could get it together to get their kids to school? Why would you think that? And if you don't think they can figure out how to get their kids to school, why would you think DL is better?

There's a lot to unpack there. Mostly because of how tightly wound the misdirection and BS is packed. No one is "objecting". I think what PPP was saying was that it isn't as simple as "let's get the PK3 kids back into school because that's all that matters." There are other considerations here. There are SOOOOOO many posts in DCUM where people actually type the words "this is easy", "this isn't complicated", "all we need is willpower", etc. What's most amusing about your reply is that you cannot even grasp that the concern articulated by PPP is a real one. Which also makes your objection to being patronized so funny. Two sentences after illustrating that you simply cannot grasp why some else's concerns might be relevant for at least consideration (you called it "bizarre"), and one sentence after you clarify that you don't actually have to solve for the operational challenges cited (your kid is in 3rd grade only), you then object to being accused of not even seeing a possible issue. But what comes next is my favorite part. After showing indifference and ignorance to the plight of differently situated families you then go on to speak on behalf of the Title I schools and families. This is rhetorical genius! And it is complete with multiple references to "they"; trust me, you didn't need to emphasize that word in order for us to understand you are talking about "them" and not "you". Finally, you insert the frequently deployed on DCUM red herring that anyone has argued that DL is preferable to in-person from an educational perspective. No one has said, and I sure don't believe it. Unfortunately that's not the question we're solving for. We're solving for a public health crisis and then within that rubric we need to figure out how to operate schools.

TLR

The short version: I’m a teacher and I hate statistics and data and facts and I’m never going to go to work again.

‘I’m a parent and I hate being with my kid’

No ... although I would love for my kid to go back, he's in 3rd grade. What I'm actually saying is that I would be happy for DCPS to prioritize K and 1st going back in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those recommending 1 or 2 lower grades are back in school need a reality check. How do you think those kids get to school? For Title 1 schools - it is not uncommon for an older sibling (4th or 5th grader) to take them with them.

This is not an easy problem for a diverse urban area to solve.

This is not an inconvenience of dropping off 1 child as you supervise an older student and coordinating a car pool

You are confused because you are reading the posts purporting to care about the poor underserved families as genuine concern for those families. But that's all a smoke screen for these posters to get their kids out of the house and back into their own schools. The actual complications of "diverse urban area(s)" or Title I populations don't actually concern them.

I don't know what you're talking about. I want K and 1st prioritized specifically because it will help the kids who need it most. Objecting to that on the grounds that "they might have an older sibling who walks them to school!" is just frankly bizarre. My kid is in 3rd, so this has nothing to do with getting him back to school. I'm also a little tired of all the patronizing towards Title I schools and families, as if you don't think there's any way they could get it together to get their kids to school? Why would you think that? And if you don't think they can figure out how to get their kids to school, why would you think DL is better?

There's a lot to unpack there. Mostly because of how tightly wound the misdirection and BS is packed. No one is "objecting". I think what PPP was saying was that it isn't as simple as "let's get the PK3 kids back into school because that's all that matters." There are other considerations here. There are SOOOOOO many posts in DCUM where people actually type the words "this is easy", "this isn't complicated", "all we need is willpower", etc. What's most amusing about your reply is that you cannot even grasp that the concern articulated by PPP is a real one. Which also makes your objection to being patronized so funny. Two sentences after illustrating that you simply cannot grasp why some else's concerns might be relevant for at least consideration (you called it "bizarre"), and one sentence after you clarify that you don't actually have to solve for the operational challenges cited (your kid is in 3rd grade only), you then object to being accused of not even seeing a possible issue. But what comes next is my favorite part. After showing indifference and ignorance to the plight of differently situated families you then go on to speak on behalf of the Title I schools and families. This is rhetorical genius! And it is complete with multiple references to "they"; trust me, you didn't need to emphasize that word in order for us to understand you are talking about "them" and not "you". Finally, you insert the frequently deployed on DCUM red herring that anyone has argued that DL is preferable to in-person from an educational perspective. No one has said, and I sure don't believe it. Unfortunately that's not the question we're solving for. We're solving for a public health crisis and then within that rubric we need to figure out how to operate schools.

wow, that's sure a wall of text. I'm trying to figure out what your angle is. I'm guessing teacher or admin who doesn't want to go back to school?

Mr. "I am a junior statistician" can't read some words? Not a teacher. Not an admin. Just a parent with kids in the DC schools. Instead of trying to figure out what someone's angle is, why not just try and understand where someone else is coming from and that maybe, just maybe, people with different perspectives aren't evil or plotting against you or to be dismissed with ad hominem attacks. But there seem to be a whole lot of you who reply to every thoughtful post about your misinterpretation of data, failure to grasp nuance or complete lack of empathy with "Teachers bad."

Okayy let's go over this for a minute. I posted that I think K and 1st should be prioritized to return in person. Someone else replied that that's unrealistic because some families rely on their older kids taking the younger ones to school. I replied that that seemed like a bizarre nitpick, and that I have faith that Title I families can get their kids to school. And then wall of text about how I am redirecting, don't care about the "realities of an urban school district," just want to get my kid out of the house, and something somthing about solving for rubrics?